Frank Grimer wrote: >> >> The same criticism could apply to your notions of >> negative and positive mass. > > Absolutely 8-). You are so right. 8-) > > I am using a conventional datum cos there is only so much > cognitive dissonance that people can cope with at one sitting. > > As I have pointed out in a previous post, both Ing.Saviour and > I have independently realised that mass has the dimensions of > an inverse velocity so when mass goes to infinity the mass > "temperature" drops to zero. The velocity of light it the correct > datum for measuring the inverse of mass (which is an internal > velocity just like temperature but on a finer scale). > > I am in the process of copying the internal BRS note which deals > with this aspect from Saviour's blazelabs Yahoo site to the > Beta-atmosphere Yahoo site where you will soon be able to > read it.
So far Yahoo has only allowed me to download a few pages from your paper. This is just a suggestion, but it seems to me the focus of your theory should be the nature of charge instead of mass. In other words charge is an inverse velocity and not mass. I say this for two reasons. First you are concerned with the strength of materials which is an electromagnetic phenomena and secondly by choosing the velocity of light as a datum you have chosen another electromagnetic phenomena. Harry
