by Michael J. Deas
First posted December 26,
Abstract: I will show that charge is dimensionally the
same as mass. Then I will show that charge is the mass of the
charge photons. I will also show that the permittivity of free
space is a misdefined constant that has nothing to do with free
space. The value of that constant is actually the value of the
gravitational field of the proton.
Let us look freshly at the
electrical field, as if we are encountering it for the first
time—as if we are aliens just arriving upon earth, uploading
books from the Library of Congress and studying them for signs of
intelligence. One of the first books1
we open tells us this,
conceptual difficulties [of action at a distance] can be overcome
with the idea of the field, developed by the British scientist
Michael Faraday…. It must be emphasized, however, that a field
a kind of matter. It is, rather, a concept*—and a very useful
us also look at the footnote referred to here:
the electric field is "real" and really exists, is a
philosophical, even metaphysical, question. In physics it is a
very useful idea, in fact a great invention of the human mind.
honest aliens, we must see that this footnote is absolutely false.
The question of how the electrical field works is not a
metaphysical one, it is a mechanical one. What Mr. Faraday has
done is create a heuristic device that also works as a mental
misdirection. Look at what the book says,
electric field at the location of the second charge is considered
to interact directly with this charge to produce the force.
the field was created in order to allow them to say that. Mr.
Faraday, desiring to clear up action at a distance, drew a line
with a pencil from one charge to the other, called that a field
line, gave it no physical reality and no mechanical definition,
and claimed that the pencil line interacted directly with the
second charge. That is supposed to be a great invention of the
human mind. As aliens, we must wonder what would be considered a
dishonest creation of a human mind.
The book buries this bit of dishonesty with its own, calling
mechanics "metaphysics." This is to warn off anyone from
asking the questions we are asking here. Humans do not like to be
called names, and these physicists are warning readers that if
they ask any questions about the reality of the field, they will
be called mean and scary names. Physicists do not like to be
called philosophers or metaphysicians, and just the threat of it
is enough to move them on. This despite the fact that the question
involved is clearly and unambiguously one of mechanics. If
transmitting a force from one object to another is not mechanics,
Next we notice that the basic unit of
electrical charge is either the Coulomb or, less often, the
statcoulomb. The Coulomb is defined as an Ampere-second, and an
Ampere is defined as “that current flowing in each of two long
parallel conductors 1m apart, which results in a force of exactly
2 x 10-7
N/m of length of conductor.” We also are told that two point
charges of 1C will feel a force of 9 x 109
N at a separation of 1m. A statcoulomb is “that charge on each
of two objects that gives rise to a force of 1 dyne at the
separation of 1cm.”
1 statC = 0.1 Am/c ≈ 3.33564× 10-10
As aliens, our first question would
be to ask what physical parameters the Ampere has, in terms of
length and time. The books do not seem to want to tell us that. We
are only told that the Ampere is used as a defining unit in order
to obtain an "operational definition." This means that
it is much easier to measure current than to measure charge, so
the earthlings have decided to base their units on current. But if
we are persistent, we can discover electrical charge in terms of
length and time. We have to go to the pages on the statcoulomb,
and look at its historical derivation.
There we find Coulomb’s law and the calculation of the constant
F = kq1q2/r2
= 1/4π ε0
Wow, these earthlings really don’t want to tell us what they are
doing. Here we have three different constants stacked on
eachother, each with a more obscure name than the last
(electrostatic constant, permittivity of free space, permeability
of vacuum) and the final constant circles back and is defined in
terms of the Newton and the Ampere. We are being led on some sort
of wild goose chase.
But we can still
squeeze it out of them. Using Coulomb’s law and working back
from the last constant, we discover that q actually has no
dimensions. All the necessary dimensions are given to the
constants, and q is just a floater. If a Coulomb is an
Ampere-second, then an Ampere must be a Coulomb per second. Go
into the last constant equation, concerning the permeability, and
substitute “nothing/second” for an Ampere. If you do that, you
get the perfect dimensions for the force in Coulomb’s equation.
This means that electrical charge is mechanically undefined in the
SI system. It cannot even be a wave, since a wave must be defined
in cycles per second. We don’t have any cycles here or seconds.
An Ampere is a nothing per second, but a Coulomb is just a
The cgs system ditches the
constant and gives the statcoulomb the dimensions M1/2
This gives the total charge of two particles the cgs dimension
This begins to tell us something, since, being aliens, we have a
very long memory. We remember that Maxwell gave mass the
(see my paper on the Universal Gravitational
Constant) which would make the total charge M2.
This would give the total charge of two particles the cgs
And this means that charge is mechanically and mathematically
equivalent to mass. Coulomb’s equation is then not just similar
to Newton’s equation, it is exactly
the same. We could actually write the charges as masses and
nothing would change.
If we express
one charge in terms of mass and one charge in terms of length and
time, then Coulomb’s equation gives us the force in gm/s2.
But we could also express both
charges is terms of mass (g)(g)/m2
F = g2/m2
Or in terms of length and time
F = m4/s4
that this last equation tells us that a force is a velocity
squared squared. That is perfectly logical, although it is not
something we ever find in these physics textbooks.
under the heading "statcoulomb", will not tell us that
charge is the same as mass. Not only will it not admit that charge
is dimensionally the same as mass, it goes out of its way to hide
it. In this, Wiki is like all other standard textbooks, online and
off. It says, "Performing dimensional analysis on Coulomb's
law, the dimension of electrical charge in cgs must be [mass]1/2
But, as I just showed, that dimensional analysis stops short of
completion, by one very important step. Wikipedia asks the
question, tells you the answer, but tells you the wrong answer, on
we must move ahead and ask why the Standard Model spends so much
time larking about with permittivity constants and so forth. This
is also misdirection. Many people will see those constants and
think that free space or the vacuum actually have permeability or
permittivity. But the truth is these constants are just folderol.
Space and the vacuum only take on characteristics when you fail to
give characteristics to your primary qualities. Charge, like mass
or length, is a primary quality. It is a quality you assign
directly to matter to explain the interactions you see or measure.
If you create a quality and then fail to assign it any dimensions,
then its dimensions will revert to the vacuum; but not otherwise.
But it is just stupid to create a
quality like charge and then refuse to let it have dimensions. Why
would any scientist create a fundamental quality, refuse to define
it mechanically, and then allow its parameters to be soaked up by
the vacuum? A vacuum is supposed to have no parameters and no
qualities, by definition. If we are going to give the vacuum
qualities, we might as well flip our terminology and start calling
the vacuum matter and matter the vacuum. Matter is supposed to be
something and the vacuum is supposed to be nothing. But it is now
the fashion for both the Standard Model and new theories to assign
characteristics to the vacuum instead of to matter. This is
nothing short of perverse.
As you can
see, it is the old statcoulomb that has a degree of transparency.
The Coulomb is defined in the most roundabout way, and then a
bunch of meaningless constants are piled on top of it, to obscure
it. Why? Why are physics textbooks such a mess? And why are they
so much worse now than they were a hundred years ago? Why has the
statcoulomb been replaced by the Coulomb? Why have the
explanations become more obscure rather than less? Why would
physics choose to replace the statcoulomb with the Coulomb, and
hide the definition of charge beneath such embarrassing piles of
Let me show you some more misdirection.
Wouldn’t it have been more logical to explain the electrical
field in the same general terms as the gravitational field? In
both cases we have a basic force between two particles. In both
cases we create a field to help explain it. Why then vary the
logic when expressing these two fields in scientific language? Why
choose to express the gravitational field in terms of mass and
acceleration, and the electrical field in terms of charge?
Given two large bodies, we see an apparent attraction and we
assign the cause to mass. Given two very small bodies, we see a
repulsion and we assign the cause to charge. Why not assign it to
mass? Or, to put it another way, with large objects we immediately
assign the cause of the attraction to the matter involved. The
matter either acts directly or creates the field, therefore we
call the causation “mass.” Why not do the same thing with
small particles? Why avoid mass and matter so persistently? Why
create this nebulous thing called charge and never allow it,
decade after decade, to be explained mechanically?
With gravity, we assign the term directly to the force. Gravity
creates the force or is the force. Mathematically, gravity is an
acceleration caused by the force.
g = F/m = N/kg
But the electrical field is expressed without mentioning either
mass or acceleration. Instead we have a characteristic called
charge, which is either equivalent in dimension to mass (in the
case of the statcoulomb) or which has no dimensions (in the case
of the Coulomb). Let us skip the Coulomb as a mechanical
non-entity and focus again on the statcoulomb. Remember that the
statcoulomb is defined as a force at a distance. Well, gravity is
also a force at a distance. Or, a statcoulomb is that thing that
causes a force at a distance. The charge is not the force or the
distance. It is the cause of the force, and the distance just
gives us the magnitude.
same can be said for gravity. With gravity, mass is not the force
or the distance, it is the cause of the force, and the distance
just gives us the magnitude of the acceleration.
m = F/g = N/a
You may ask, why did I go
on to express mass like that? Well, watch this. The Ampere is also
defined as 2 x 10-7
N/m. A Coulomb is an Ampere-second. Therefore a Coulomb is
2 x 10-7
So mass may be thought of a
The problem with all this is that using
current definitions, a Coulomb has no dimensions or the dimensions
of mass/second. But a statcoulomb has the dimensions of mass.
statC = L3/T2
Can both be right? It is clear that
we need to forget about current and finally define the charge
mechanically. We must know what physical interactions are causing
the forces, in order to clean up this mess.
To do this, the first thing we may notice is that when speaking of
the gravitational field, a force does not have to include the
distance at which it is felt. A Newton at a distance of 1 meter is
the same as a Newton at a distance of 10m. A Newton is a Newton.
Admitting this, why do we have as part of the definition of a
Coulomb that it is a force at a certain distance?
The reason, of course, is that the electrical force is caused by a
large number of subparticles and (according to my theory) the
gravitational force is not. If we assume that a static repulsion
is caused by the bombardment by a huge number of tiny particles,
then the total force is a summation of the individual forces of
those particles. To obtain this summation, we must know a particle
is why we need to know a distance and a speed, in order to
calculate a charge using the present theory. The distance gives us
an x-separation between the two objects in repulsion, and since we
assume the density is constant or near constant, the y and z
density must be the same as the x-density. This gives us the size
of the “field” that is creating the force. The speed gives us
the density of the field at a given dt. In this way, the
electrical field acts as a third particle moving from one object
to the other, imparting the force by direct contact. But this
third particle is much less dense than the two main objects. It
acts like a discrete gaseous object, moving from one place to
another at a given speed. This speed is of course c.
If we define the field this way, instead of as lines, we can
obtain a mechanical explanation of the E/M field. Mechanically and
operationally, what we are interested in is the force imparted.
Mass and charge are just characteristics invented to explain the
force we measure. The force is the experimental fact; mass and
charge are just abstractions, or ideas.
What we need to do to clean up the historical mess is a way to
explain charge as mass. We need to jettison the whole ideas of
charge, since it is not mechanical. It is needlessly fuzzy.
Quantum physicists will say that charge is not the equivalent of
mass, since mass is caused by the ponderability of matter, or by
its inertia, or by other equivalent ideas. Charge is thought to be
caused by spin. I actually agree with this distinction, but I
don’t think it matters here, mechanically or operationally, and
this is why. If the electrical force is caused by a gas of ejected
sub-particles, as I proposed, then the term “charge” applies
to the summed mass or momentum of those sub-particles. It does not
apply to the spin. We don’t need to know the mechanics of the
spin in order to sum the momenta of the sub-particles. It doesn’t
matter what caused the momentum. In measuring and explaining the
force, we only need to be concerned with the sum of the momentum.
Of course, once we have found a way to mathematically sum
the momentum of the gas, we may ask how the gas is created. Then
we are taken back to the spin of the elementary particles in the
repulsing objects. It would appear that the spin causes the
ejection or radiation. This would mean that charge is caused
by spin; but charge is not spin. Charge is the mass or momentum of
the ejected gas or radiation.
only truly important distinction here is that mass is a quality
that is normally applied to the main two repulsing particles
(protons or electrons, say), whereas charge must apply to the mass
of the field—the summed mass of the sub-particles. By this way
of looking at it, protons and electrons do not “have charge.”
Protons and electrons radiate sub-particles, and the summed mass
or momentum of these sub-particles is the “charge.”
Definitionally and logically and mechanically, charge
is the summed mass of the sub-particles.
In short, charge is mass.
And this is
why charge acts mathematically just like mass. It is
mass. To calculate the charge, you need to know the mass and the
distance. You are given the speed, c. This allows you to calculate
the momentum. Notice that the distance is actually used to
calculate the mass, since distance is telling you how large your
gaseous object is. The distance is not telling you that you have a
force working through a distance, as with the definition of the
Joule. No, the distance is in the denominator in this case. You
are dividing the force by the distance, and this is because you
are seeking the mass of your gaseous object.
The speed, c, is also used to calculate the mass of your gaseous
object. Once again, this is because it is possible to calculate a
mass if you are given a size (the distance) and a speed. The speed
tells you the density at each dt. It is like a wave density. You
have a certain number of sub-particles impacting your main
particle at each interval. If you are given a length and a speed,
then you have a time. This gives you a density.
You will say, yes, if you already know the force, then you can
work back to find a mass for your gaseous object. You can find the
mass of the electrical field that way. But if we don’t know the
force, then we can’t know the mass, since we have no way of
knowing the mass of each sub-particle. We must have something to
sum, in order to find a density. If we don’t know what each
sub-particles weighs, we have nothing to sum. The speed and
distance don’t help us.
true as far as it goes, but the fact is that we can measure the
force. That is why modern physicists have chosen to define
everything in terms of the current. We can measure the force and
the time and the distance. We know the speed also. Therefore it is
quite easy to calculate the mass of the electrical field.
You will say, OK, but we still cannot know the mass of each
sub-particle, since we don’t know how many there are.
Once again true, but not really to the point. My point with this
paper is not to assign a definite mass to the force-carrying
sub-particle of the electrical field. It is to show that by giving
mass to the electrical field we can totally dispense with charge,
both the name and the idea. Charge is not a separate
characteristic of matter. Charge is in fact the summed mass of
This allows us to clean up the great
mess of the electrical field. Rather than define a fundamental
characteristic like charge by later interactions, we can resolve
that characteristic into even more fundamental characteristics. It
is topsy-turvy to define charge in terms of current, since charge
is supposed to be the cause and current the effect. You do not
define causes in terms of effects. My housecleaning defines charge
in terms of mass, which not only puts a floor under something that
was hanging—it also allows us to throw the hanging thing out as
garbage. It allows for a great simplification of theory.
Not only that, but it allows us to throw out a lot of meaningless
constants at the same time. By assigning mass to matter in the
field, we avoid having to assign characteristics to the vacuum or
to free space. Free space does not have permeability or
permittivity or anything else. Free space is free space. It is
space, and it is free. It it were permeable or permittive, it
would be neither. Only when you refuse to assign parameters to
charge does free space begin to take on characteristics. Only when
you refuse to make sense about matter, does your space also refuse
to make sense.
Now we are in a position to resolve the
Coulomb and the statcoulomb. Above I found that using only the
dimensions of length and time
statC = L3/T2
C = L3/T3
Since I have shown how the mass
of the radiation is calculated from the length and the speed, we
can see where the difference comes from in these two equations.
The statcoulomb comes directly out of Coulomb’s equation. In
that equation we are finding a single force. It has been called an
instantaneous force, but since I don’t believe in instantaneous
forces, I will call it a force over one defined interval. Since it
is force over one interval, we are dealing with a velocity, not an
acceleration. You cannot have an acceleration over one interval.
That is why the first equation has one less time dimension in the
But remember that we
took the Coulomb equation from an experiment that measured current
in a length of wire. Since we have an extended length, we must
also have an extended time. Although we may have a constant
velocity and therefore an acceleration of zero, we still must
represent that series of intervals in our math. That is why the
Coulomb equation has the extra time variable in the denominator.
Before I move on, let me clear up one other mess. The
permittivity of free space is
= 8.8541878176 × 10-12
is the ratio D/E in vacuum.
is the permeability of vacuum, and has the value 4π×10-7
turns out to be m2/N,
= 8.85 × 10-12kg/m3
if we express mass in terms of length and time, then
= 8.85 × 10-12
did I express the constant that way? One, to reduce it to its
simplest dimensions. Two, to show that it can be assigned to
something else entirely. Since free space cannot have
permittivity, by definition of "space" and of "free,"
that constant must be owned by something else in the field. That
number is not coming from nowhere, so some real particle or field
of particles must own it. To discover what it is, we notice that
it looks like an acceleration that lacks a distance in the
numerator. We want to transform that number into an acceleration,
so we need meters in the numerator. So we start by multiplying by
1 meter. That gives us a sort of acceleration, but we aren't
allowed to just multiply by 1 meter without a transform. We must
insert the meter into the equation in a legal manner, you see. To
do that, we must ask how the time we already had in the equation
and the meter we just inserted are related to eachother. How many
meters are in a second? Seems pretty difficult until we remember
that light knows the answer. Light goes 300 million meters in a
second, and that is the answer. In one meter, there are 1/300
million seconds, so we multiply by 1/300 million. That will allow
us to insert the meter into the equation legally.
If we do
that, we end up with ε0
expressed as an acceleration instead of as kilograms per cubic
= 8.85 × 10-12
m/(3 x 108)s2
= 2.95 × 10-20m/s2.
That is lovely, because I
have shown that is about the value of gravity for the proton.
is not the permittivity of free space, it is the gravity field
created by protons (and electrons).
You will say that
before I found that number for gravity at the quantum level, I
found a number for the "gravitational" acceleration of
the proton (in my first
paper on G) of 4.44 x 10-12m/s2.
Which is correct? Well, it took me a while to notice myself, but
that earlier figure is actually ε0/2.
Just look above, where I write ε0
as 8.85 × 10-12/s2.
In my paper on G, I was finding ε0
by a variant method, and I wasn't even aware of it. Have you ever
seen anyone else find ε0
straight from G, in a few equations of high school algebra? My
only problem in that earlier paper is that I didn't see how c fit
into the solution, both as a correction of the dimensions and as a
mechanism for measuring gravitational acceleration. I am still
sorting through it, honestly, but it appears that as light is a
time setter in Relativity, it is also a length setter here. All
lengths are measured against c, and so we have to divide by c even
when finding the gravity of the proton.
That clears up a
lot of things, but let us look even more closely at the dimensions
of the field in QED. The displacement field D is measured in units
while the electric field E is measured in Volts/m. As Wikipedia
says, “D and E represent the same phenomenon, namely, the
interaction between charged objects. D is related to the charge
densities associated with this interaction, while E is related to
the forces and potential differences.”
V = J/C = Nm//Ns/m =
length and time are mathematically equivalent, as Minkowski
taught, then we may reduce even further:
V = J/C = Nm//Ns/m =
So a potential difference is just a distance, like any
= D/E = N/m2///m2//s/m
you can see that, no matter how we juggle these equation and
dimensions, we find that the constants are misleading. They tell
us meaningless or contradictory things. But if we change two words
in the sentences above from Wiki, we can get a clearer picture of
the two fields D and E. Let us change the word “charge” to
“D and E represent the same phenomenon,
namely, the interaction between massive objects. D is related to
the mass densities associated with this interaction, while E is
related to the forces and potential differences.”
we were talking about a gravitational field or any other field,
and you said that you divided a mass density (or just a density)
by a force or potential difference, you wouldn’t thereby create
a permittivity or permeability in your vacuum or your free space.
The simple act of creating or theorizing densities and forces does
not create a resistance in the vacuum. The gravitational field has
densities and forces and potential differences, and yet the
gravitational field requires no resistance. Why? Simply because
Newton was kind enough to assign dimensions to his characteristic
“mass.” He did not create a characteristic and then refuse to
give it a dimension. Mechanically, his definition of mass is
almost as empty as the definition of charge, but not quite. Newton
tried to hide the fact that his mass was reducible to length and
time by giving his constant a very strange dimension, but in the
end these dimensions of G reduced to 1. This kept his constant
just a fancy number, with no dimensions.
G = L3/MT2
M = L3/T2
G = 1
Since his constant has dimensions that are reducible
to one, his field has no resistance or any other qualities. All
the qualities are assignable directly to matter in the field.
The same is ultimately true of the
electrical field, but physicists will not just come out and say
so. In fact, they have preferred to imply, in the constants and
fields they have created, that the vacuum does have
characteristics. It has permittivity and permeability, which, if
they really existed, would be types of resistance. But the
electrical field has no resistance that it does not create itself,
with the same matter that is creating the field in the first
place. The only thing that resists the sub-particles are other
sub-particles. The only thing that resists the gaseous object is
other parts of the same object. The gas is material and it
therefore resists itself. The radiation interferes with itself in
a purely physical way, with no help from the vacuum.
When a Standard Model gas, made up of normal molecules, resists
itself, we do not try to assign this resistance to the vacuum. We
do not make up absurd abstractions like the permeability or the
permittivity of the free space. We simply assign the resistance to
molecule collisions. We could do the same thing with the
electrical field, but we have so far preferred not to. Why?
Everyone knows that it is because once you admit that the E/M
field is composed of radiation, you have to explain why the proton
and electron aren’t diminished by this radiation. We can create
the sub-particle called the quark with no guilt or sin, since it
doesn’t immediately threaten to undermine the conservation of
energy. But if the electrical field is composed of radiation, and
if this radiation has mass, why doesn’t the proton lose mass in
radiating it? It is simply to avoid this question that the great
mess of the electrical field has been left to sit. Physicists
prefer a big mess and a big cover-up to an honest question.
read more about Maxwell's displacement field D and the constant
you may now go to my
newest papers on the Charge Field. There I show that D
actually IS the charge field, and that Maxwell's equations are
My cosmology and mechanics
answers this question in a very direct manner, without a lot of
esoteric new theory. But despite the simplicity of the obvious
answer, physicists are not interested in it since it requires they
give up a lot of Standard Model gobbledygook that they have gotten
very attached to. Piles of research money depend on sticking with
the old assumptions, and money speaks louder than elegance or
simplicity or logic.
Now let us show the first major
outcome of my change in theory. I have shown that charge must have
a mass equivalent. Charge is the summed mass of sub-particles that
are impacting the objects being repulsed or attracted. The
electrical force cannot be imparted by an abstract field or a
mechanically undefined charge; it must be imparted by something
capable of imparting force, and the only thing that is
mechanically capable of this is mass or mass equivalence.
If we give the radiation that causes the electric force the mass
required to achieve this force, then we have a form of mass that
must be opposed to the mass that creates the gravitational field.
By that I mean that the two fields are in opposition to eachother
mechanically. One must be negative to the other. By this I do not
mean anything esoteric. I am not creating some sort of mystical
negative mass. I only mean to point out that every particle’s
radiation must have mass, and that this radiated mass creates a
vector field that points out, whereas the gravitational mass
points in. We already know that, in a sense. However, we have not
included the idea in the math.
another paper I have theorized that the E/M field is always
repulsive, at the level of quanta. All forces are ultimately
caused by bombardment. Electrical or magnetic attractions are
always only apparent, caused not by real attraction but by
relative attractions. This means that the proton does not actually
attract the electron. It only repels it much less than it repels
other protons. This leads to an apparent attraction, since the
(“gravitational”) expansion of the proton allows it to capture
the electron, but does not allow it to capture other protons. This
leads to the appearance of attraction, in the dual field that is
the gravity-E/M field.
When we measure the mass of a
particle—either by using a scale or by looking at
deflection—what we must be measuring is the sum of the two
fields. We are measuring the gravitational force minus the force
of the E/M radiation. This is simply because (to take the example
of the scale) the radiation is bombarding our equipment,
offsetting the “weight” of the particle itself. It is as if
the particle is a little rocket, and our scale is the launchpad.
The particle has it engines on all the time, and therefore we are
not measuring the full weight of the particle. We are measuring
the gravitational force minus the radiation force.
Notice that the rocket analogy is not quite right, since a scale
on the launchpad would actually measure the force of the exhaust.
But when we are calculating the mass of a particle, we are not
putting it on a scale in that way. At the quantum level, we are
measuring its deflections from other particles, and calculating
its mass from the summed forces. But these forces must be compound
forces. The expansion of the quantum particle makes it appear to
attract all other particles; its radiation makes it repel all
other particles. The total force is a vector addition of this
attraction and repulsion.
means is that the true mass of the particle must be greater than
the mass we measure or calculate with our instruments, whatever
they are. If you take the mass of the particle to mean only
its ponderable, gravitational characteristics, or only
its force due to expansion, then that mass must be greater than
the one we always measure. We are measuring the mass of the
particle minus the mass of its radiation. Therefore its true mass
is the measured mass plus the mass of the radiation.
In the end, this is not because the radiation mass still belongs
to the central mass even after it has been radiated—not in any
sense at all. No, it is simply an outcome of the math. It is due
to vector addition and only to the vector addition. It is a
straight outcome of the fact that the expansion creates an
apparent gravitational field with vectors that point in, and
radiation creates a real bombarding field with vectors that point
out. This makes the true mass of the central object the addition
of the absolute value of both fields.
Once you absorb
that, it is time to consider the fact that calculating the true
mass in this way must vastly increase the total mass of the
universe. Over any dt, the mass of a given object is given by the
expansion of the object in that time. But we can only measure the
force due to expansion (gravity) minus the force due to the mass
or momentum of all the radiation in that same time. Therefore the
true mass must be the measured mass plus
the mass of the radiation.
notice that this change in mechanics gives us a double
addition of mass to the universe, since we gain both the mass of
the radiation itself as well as the higher true mass of the
statements are true:
1) The mass of the radiating particle must
be greater than the mass measured by our instruments, since our
instruments measure a compound mass.
2) The radiation itself
has mass or mass equivalence due to energy, which is a second
addition to the total mass of the universe. A radiating particle
does not lose mass, which means that the “holes” left by
radiation are filled. They are filled by recycling the charge
Of course this immediately and simply explains
the "mass deficit" in the universe and in current
theory. We don't need massive amounts of dark matter or any other
fixes, since I have just shown the missing matter and energy. All
we had to do is define our electrical field as a mechanical field
instead of as pencil lines and we could have avoided this mess
from the beginning.
For more on this, go to Coulomb's
Douglas C. Giancoli, p. 435
If this paper
was useful to you in any way, please consider donating a dollar
(or more) to the SAVE THE ARTISTS FOUNDATION. See the WebKitty on
my front page or updates page.