# Re: Re: [4DWorldx] Is mass mental or physical ?

```Mathematical proof is all that is lacking.
That is that particles like electrons and quarks are strings.
That electrons and quarks have mass is established experimentally```
```

On Sat, Nov 9, 2013 at 6:50 AM, Roger Clough <rclo...@verizon.net> wrote:

> Hi Anna
>
> Of course.
>
>
> Dr. Roger B Clough NIST (ret.) [1/1/2000]
> See my Leibniz site at
>
>
> ----- Receiving the following content -----
> From:  Anna
> Receiver:  everything-list,- mindbr...@yahoogroups.com
> ,4dworldx,theoretical_physics_board
> Time: 2013-11-08, 23:52:10
> Subject: Re: [4DWorldx] Is mass mental or physical ?
>
>
>
>
> >First of all, there is no evidence that any strings exist. So, the
> question of mass is irrelevant, unless for the string theoretician. The
> theory requires that strings have mass, but where is the proof?
>  Mathematical proof is not enough.
> >Anna
> >
> >From: Roger Clough
> >Sent: Friday, November 08, 2013 5:36 AM
> >To: everything-list ; mailto:mindbr...@yahoogroups.com ; 4dworldx ;
> theoretical_physics_board
> >Subject: [4DWorldx] Is mass mental or physical ?
> >
> >
> >
> >I need some help.
> >
> >Yesterday I  made the claim that strings
> >are massless and so are nonphysical (mental, by my definition).
> >But you can show theoretically that strings have mass, based on
> >line tension and other variables. So is mass physical ?
> >
> >Unless I am mistaken, mass is always defined in terms of other variables,
> >much like in a dictionary words are defined in terms of other words..
> >For example, m = E/c^2, where E is energy and c is the speed of light.
> >But energy is the ability to do work, which in turn is defined as
> >W = F*d, where F is a force moved through distance d. But
> >Force is mass*acceleration. So we are back wihere we started,
> >since m =E/c*2.
> >
> >To me this means that we must empirically define some force
> >like the weight of a selected and saved lump of lead as say a Newton of
> force,
> >and a length given by some metal rule to be saved, and proceed from
> >there.
> >
> >To me this means that all physical variables are actually nonphysical
> >(theoretical or mental).  Which is the basic foundation of idealism or
> platonism.
> >Everything, even mass, is mental in the sense of being theoretical
> >or mathematical. Is this correct ?
> >
> >Dr. Roger B Clough NIST (ret.) [1/1/2000]
> >See my Leibniz site at
> >
>
> --
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
> "Everything List" group.
> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an
> email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
> To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
> Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
>

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email