At 01:21 pm 27/07/2005 -0700, Magickal Engineer wrote:
> What I meant was that if momentum is to be conserved,
> and the neutral mass particle has by definition zero
> momentum, then the collision cannot change the
> momentum of a normal positive mass particle.
>
> A particle with negative mass would, when impacted
> immediately proceed towards the impetus pushing on it
> rather than away as a positive mass particle would.
Mass in not a measure of the amount of stuff but a measure
of how the internal strain energy of a particle differs
from the strain energy of the surrounding environment.
If the mass is non-zero then the particle has more specific
strain energy (SSE), i.e. compressive strain energy per
unit volume, or less SSE (tensile strain energy per unit
volume) compared to the space around it. If it has zero
mass, i.e. neutral mass, then it has the same SSE as the
space around it.
The situation is exactly the same as the situation with
temperature, only temperature deals strain energy on a
different scale.
If a body such as a lump of iron has a temperature which
differs from ambient, i.e. from the iron around it, then
it contains more heat or less heat than the iron around
it. If it has the same temperature and ambient, i.e. in
lay parlance it is neither hot or cold, then it has
neutral temperature.
In the formula Force = mass times acceleration, mass is
simply a measure of the number of thingees. A group of
ten cannon balls has ten time the number of thingees,
as one cannon ball and so ten times the momentum. One
might say it is a measure of the macro strain of a body,
not the micro strain.
When 10 electrons are speeded up to 0.999 times the
velocity of light it is a property of the electrons
that changes, not their number. It is the denominator
that changes, not the numerator
Newton couldn't have been expected to know that mass
wasn't a measure of stuff but a property of stuff.
You should really read what Ing.Saviour says on his
web site if you want to understand what mass is, and
the implication of that understanding on the Universal
Gravitational Constant, etc. 8-)
A particle doesn't have to have mass to receive or
give momentum.
=============================================
"The fact that the electrons produced from
the neutron decay had continuous distributions
of energy and momentum was a clear indication
that there was another particle emitted along
with the electron and proton. It had to be
a neutral particle and in certain decays
carried almost all the energy and momentum
of the decay. This would not have been so
extraordinary except for the fact that when
the electron had its maximum kinetic energy,
it accounted for all the energy Q available
for the decay. So there was no energy left
over to account for the mass energy of the
other emitted particle. The early experi-
menters were faced with the dilemma of a
particle which could carry nearly all the
energy and momentum of the decay but which
had no charge and apparently no mass!
The mysterious particle was called a neutrino
=============================================
Perhaps you should also read Jones's recent post where he writes,
=================================
Not at all. I finally found it.
Mills actually has a separate
section in my edition (Jan 2000)
of GUT-CQM starting on page 416
devoted to the possibility of
negative electron mass...
Hey, it may be irresponsible of
Mills to go that far out on a
limb and give his critics more
ammo than they need; and the
possibility of negative mass
for the electron certainly
cannot be backed up at this
point in time, but it is there
in black and white. He is not
saying that it is fact, but he
is certainly positioning himself
to get full credit IF proof of
negative or zero mass arrives;
so yes - it is fair to say that
it is part of his CQM theory.
I think he may be correct, even...
The guy is undoubtedly a genius...
=================================
And if Jones thinks he's a genius, then he probably is <g>.
Cheers,
Frank Grimer
