Role of gravitational force F=GMm/d^2 b/t two objects?

It is the gravitational ability of any point mass to accelerate all other point masses at [g=GM/(R+H)^2] towards its center either in free fall or on its surface, therefore what is role of gravitational force (F=GMm/d^2) b/t two point masses then when each object has an innate power to accelerate other object towards its center w/o any force F.

When there is a force there is a mass but the gravitational acceleration (g=GM/(R+H)^2) of each object is independent of falling mass though we can’t ignore the center of gravity of the falling mass and after all it is the mass which is falling or accelerated.

If the said object is earth then = g = 9.8 m/s/s, R=radius of earth, H = height above the surface of the earth, M=mass of the earth and G=gravitationlal constant

I don't understand the question. In fact, I'm not even sure if there is a question.

Let M1 and M2 are masses of two objects with c/c distance of d=(R1+H1)=(R2+H2) as shown in figure. H1 and H2 are heights above ground of M1 and M2 respectively. It is the ability of M1 to accelerate all objects towards its center @ rate of g1=GM1(R1+H1)^2

It is also the ability of M2 to accelerate all objects towards its center @ rate of g2=GM2(R2+H2)^2

Consider M1 and M2 only

M2 falls on M1 @ rate of g1=GM1(R1+H1)^2
where g1=GM1(R1+H1)^2 is the acceleration due to the gravity of M1


M1 falls on M2 @ rate of g2=GM2(R2+H2)^2
where g2=GM2(R2+H2)^2 is the acceleration due to the gravity of M2

Do M1 and M2 really need gravitational force F=GM1M2/d^2 in b/t them if both M1 and M2 can fall towards each other w/o any force?

Gravitating mass doesn't depend upon the mass of the falling object.

Do M1 and M2 really need gravitational force F=GM1M2/d^2 in b/t them if both M1 and M2 can fall towards each other w/o any force?

Gravitating mass doesn't depend upon the mass of the falling object.

Who says objects are pulled without any force?

There is a force, and we measure that force in Newtons.

In Relativity mass bends space-time and causes objects to follow this new bent path.

In both theories, the end result is a force pulls mass together.

Quote from: E E K on August 25, 2020, 10:39:13 AM

Do M1 and M2 really need gravitational force F=GM1M2/d^2 in b/t them if both M1 and M2 can fall towards each other w/o any force?

Gravitating mass doesn't depend upon the mass of the falling object.

Who says objects are pulled without any force?

There is a force, and we measure that force in Newtons.

In Relativity mass bends space-time and causes objects to follow this new bent path.

In both theories, the end result is a force pulls mass together.

Yes, it’s Newton who came up with idea first after the statement of Galileo that all objects fall at the rate.

The magnitude of the acceleration at which the falling mass is accelerated can be found if we know the mass and radius of the gravitating mass in equation of g=GM/R^2 formulated by Newton. It doesn’t depend upon

1-   The magnitude of gravitational force, which exists in between falling mass and gravitating mass
2-   The mass of the object, which is accelerated by the gravitating mass towards its center.

Did you see any role of the gravitational force in finding the magnitude of acceleration? Even newton didn’t know about it. Isn’t it weird? So if

M2 falls on M1 @ rate of g1=GM1(R1+H1)^2
M1 falls on M2 @ rate of g2=GM2(R2+H2)^2

Where is role gravitational force b/w M1 and M2 when both can fall w/o force and its magnitude?

In Relativity mass bends space-time

It doesn't.

Dr. Erik Verlinde (2019):

General Relativity remains just a description of the force we call gravity. It leaves unanswered the key question of exactly how matter affects space and time.

The magnitude of gravitational force, which exists in between falling mass and gravitating mass

It cannot be attractive.

Please explain how a water molecule from lake Ontario which emits gravitons is attracted by the iron/nickel core which releases gravitons.

In Relativity mass bends space-time

It doesn't.

Dr. Erik Verlinde (2019):

General Relativity remains just a description of the force we call gravity. It leaves unanswered the key question of exactly how matter affects space and time.

The magnitude of gravitational force, which exists in between falling mass and gravitating mass

It cannot be attractive.

Please explain how a water molecule from lake Ontario which emits gravitons is attracted by the iron/nickel core which releases gravitons.

Einstein comes after Newton and Galileo. Einstein used the same gravitational constant “G” which was derived from the concept of newton’s law of gravitation. So his theories (though wrong) are also in question too.

I had long war of cancelling gravities but I always answered that gravity is always attractive.

Even if gravity is attractive then still two objects come closer with higher types of motion not just with acceleration.

Similarly, it is said all objects fall all at the same rate either in free fall or resting on ground as masses of the falling objects and their respective gravitational forces do not matter. If this is true then settlement in ground due to the said masses if placed them gently on ground (still falling toward the center of earth) should be equal which contradicts reality.

The magnitude of the acceleration at which the falling mass is accelerated can be found if we know the mass and radius of the gravitating mass in equation of g=GM/R^2 formulated by Newton. It doesn’t depend upon

Why are you talking about the radius? That's not part of the equation and we don't need to know it to calculate the attraction between two masses using that formula.

G = Gravitational constant.
M = The two masses, usually represented as M₁ and M₂.
R = Distance between the two masses.

There is nothing about radius in there.

Do you not think it's more likely you are misunderstanding these equations, rather than hundreds of years worth of scientists, engineers and theorists have been wrong, and every bridge, skyscraper and technology that relies on them just somehow worked even though everyone is wrong?

Do you think you discovered a flaw that thousands of scientists and mathematicians have missed?

In Relativity mass bends space-time

It doesn't.

Dr. Erik Verlinde (2019):

General Relativity remains just a description of the force we call gravity. It leaves unanswered the key question of exactly how matter affects space and time.

The magnitude of gravitational force, which exists in between falling mass and gravitating mass

It cannot be attractive.

Please explain how a water molecule from lake Ontario which emits gravitons is attracted by the iron/nickel core which releases gravitons.

Referring to his notions regarding the existence of gravity, fundamental forces, and thermodynamics, “This is not the basis of a theory,” Dr. Verlinde explained. “I don’t pretend this to be a theory. People should read the words I am saying opposed to the details of equations.”

In Relativity mass bends space-time
...
Please explain how a water molecule from lake Ontario which emits gravitons is attracted by the iron/nickel core which releases gravitons.

No graviton.

The water molecule is in a gravitational field. It’s that simple.

Quote from: E E K on August 25, 2020, 11:08:57 PM

The magnitude of the acceleration at which the falling mass is accelerated can be found if we know the mass and radius of the gravitating mass in equation of g=GM/R^2 formulated by Newton. It doesn’t depend upon

Why are you talking about the radius? That's not part of the equation and we don't need to know it to calculate the attraction between two masses using that formula.

G = Gravitational constant.
M = The two masses, usually represented as M₁ and M₂.
R = Distance between the two masses.

There is nothing about radius in there.

Do you not think it's more likely you are misunderstanding these equations, rather than hundreds of years worth of scientists, engineers and theorists have been wrong, and every bridge, skyscraper and technology that relies on them just somehow worked even though everyone is wrong?

Do you think you discovered a flaw that thousands of scientists and mathematicians have missed?

The general formula of acceleration due to gravity “g” of any object of mass M and radius R is = g = GM/R^2, where  R is just a distance from the center of gravity of the object to its outer surface if the object is a sphere.

If the above object is earth then the value of “g” of earth on its SURFACE = GM/R^2 = 9.8 m/s/s.
Where M= mass of earth, R= Radius of earth.

The value of “g” of earth at any height “H” above the surface of earth = GM/(R+H)^2

If the above object is sun then the value of “g” of sun on its SURFACE = GM/R^2 =   274.13 m/s/s.
Where M= mass of sun, R= Radius of sun.

The value of “g” sun at any height “H” above the surface of sun = GM/(R+H)^2

IMPORTANT NOTE:

The general formula of the gravitational force between two objects is  F = GMm/d^2. There must be two objects (M and m) present for gravitational force "F" to exist in between them. It means F = 0 in the absence of either M or m. Gravitational force (F=GMm/d^2) doesn’t exist when there is only one mass. Therefore

Is it possible to calculate the value of gravitational acceleration in the absence of second mass and gravitational force? NO but the equation of acceleration due to gravity (g = GM/R^2) formulated by Newton shows that the acceleration due to gravity of any lone mass can be calculated as explained above.

Yes, it’s Newton who came up with idea first after the statement of Galileo that all objects fall at the rate.

The magnitude of the acceleration at which the falling mass is accelerated can be found if we know the mass and radius of the gravitating mass in equation of g=GM/R^2 formulated by Newton. It doesn’t depend upon

1-   The magnitude of gravitational force, which exists in between falling mass and gravitating mass
2-   The mass of the object, which is accelerated by the gravitating mass towards its center.

Did you see any role of the gravitational force in finding the magnitude of acceleration? Even newton didn’t know about it. Isn’t it weird? So if

M2 falls on M1 @ rate of g1=GM1(R1+H1)^2
M1 falls on M2 @ rate of g2=GM2(R2+H2)^2

Where is role gravitational force b/w M1 and M2 when both can fall w/o force and its magnitude?

I tried to explain this in your other thread.

The equation you quoted is derived from F=ma and F=GMm/r².  In doing so the terms F and m are removed from the resulting equation. 

All that means is that whatever value for m (and therefore F) we input into the equation, the result is the same.

It doesn’t mean that there is no force F or mass m in reality, and each equation must still work separately.

Quote from: E E K on August 25, 2020, 11:08:57 PM

Yes, it’s Newton who came up with idea first after the statement of Galileo that all objects fall at the rate.

The magnitude of the acceleration at which the falling mass is accelerated can be found if we know the mass and radius of the gravitating mass in equation of g=GM/R^2 formulated by Newton. It doesn’t depend upon

1-   The magnitude of gravitational force, which exists in between falling mass and gravitating mass
2-   The mass of the object, which is accelerated by the gravitating mass towards its center.

Did you see any role of the gravitational force in finding the magnitude of acceleration? Even newton didn’t know about it. Isn’t it weird? So if

M2 falls on M1 @ rate of g1=GM1(R1+H1)^2
M1 falls on M2 @ rate of g2=GM2(R2+H2)^2

Where is role gravitational force b/w M1 and M2 when both can fall w/o force and its magnitude?

I tried to explain this in your other thread.

The equation you quoted is derived from F=ma and F=GMm/r².  In doing so the terms F and m are removed from the resulting equation. 

All that means is that whatever value for m (and therefore F) we input into the equation, the result is the same.

It doesn’t mean that there is no force F or mass m in reality, and each equation must still work separately.

Removing is called something ELIMINATION in math – F and m are eliminated so that we can solve for more simplified form. No idea what your discipline is but ELIMINATION is taught at school level.

So once you eliminate F and m then it means then the resulting equation of g =GM/R^2 doesn't depend upon F and m. This equation of Newton which is independent of falling mass "m" satisfies Gallelio's statement of falling of all objects at the same rate which people still believe (including you) for many 100 years.

Removing is called something ELIMINATION in math – F and m are eliminated so that we can solve for more simplified form. No idea what your discipline is but ELIMINATION is taught at school level.

So once you eliminate F and m then it means then the resulting equation of g =GM/R^2 doesn't depend upon F and m. This equation of Newton which is independent of falling mass "m" satisfies Gallelio's statement of falling of all objects at the same rate which people still believe (including you) for many 100 years.

Knowing the name of something doesn't mean you're using it right.

If you really think that tens of thousands of scientists for hundreds of years are wrong about objects falling at the same rate, prove it. If you think you know better than millions of engineers who use those equations to design, build and fly things all around the world then lets see your experiments.

Build or buy a vacuum chamber, film some objects dropping and prove that heavier ones always fall faster. 

Quote from: E E K on August 26, 2020, 10:09:09 PM

Removing is called something ELIMINATION in math – F and m are eliminated so that we can solve for more simplified form. No idea what your discipline is but ELIMINATION is taught at school level.

So once you eliminate F and m then it means then the resulting equation of g =GM/R^2 doesn't depend upon F and m. This equation of Newton which is independent of falling mass "m" satisfies Gallelio's statement of falling of all objects at the same rate which people still believe (including you) for many 100 years.

Knowing the name of something doesn't mean you're using it right.

If you really think that tens of thousands of scientists for hundreds of years are wrong about objects falling at the same rate, prove it. If you think you know better than millions of engineers who use those equations to design, build and fly things all around the world then lets see your experiments.

Build or buy a vacuum chamber, film some objects dropping and prove that heavier ones always fall faster.

Cut the crap.

Engineering calculations for arches:



W=mg, which is a flat earth equation

This thread makes very clear the following facts: F=GMm/r^2 is an artificial equation which cannot be used until and unless one proves first that the shape of the Earth is spherical and that gravity is attractive; g=Gm/r^2 is the correct equation, which can only take place on a flat surface of the Earth.

W=mg, which is a flat earth equation

LOL! 

You know that's a formula describing weight as defined by gravity, don't you?  It's also taking into account the rotation of the Earth.

Lets look at the official definition...

In the ISO International standard ISO 80000-4:2006 describing the basic physical quantities and units in mechanics as a part of the International standard ISO/IEC 80000, the definition of weight is given as:

Definition: F=mg, where m is mass and g is local acceleration of free fall.

Remarks: When the reference frame is Earth, this quantity comprises not only the local gravitational force, but also the local centrifugal force due to the rotation of the Earth, a force which varies with latitude.


Yeah, not really something I'd say supports a flat Earth.

Cut the crap you troll.

g-force measured at quantum level:

https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1992ApPhB..54..321K/abstract

https://www.nature.com/articles/23655

https://arxiv.org/pdf/1902.01318.pdf

https://hal.archives-ouvertes.fr/hal-02087886/document




Ether vortex model, published in the Journal of Mathematical Physics.

Dr. Ellis' groundbreaking paper takes GTR from a singularity to a drainhole aether model, the paper was published in the JOURNAL OF MATHEMATICAL PHYSICS.

Now, the mathematical theory for the absorption/emission of aether through a Planck length level particle.

http://euclid.colorado.edu/~ellis/RelativityPapers/EtFlThDrPaMoGeRe.pdf

Ether flow through a drainhole: a particle model in general relativity

Journal of Mathematical Physics, vol. 14, no. 1, 1973



Dr. Ellis:

This ether is in general "more than a mere inert medium for the propagation of electromagnetic waves; it is a restless, flowing continuum whose internal, relative motions manifest themselves to us as gravity. Mass particles appear as sources or sinks of this flowing ether."

Here is the W = -mg formula at the SUBQUARK/GRAVITON level:

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/13386630_Gravity_as_a_zero-point-fluctuation_force [equation (62)]



(where, of course, g = Gm/r2)

Thus, WEIGHT is the fundamental force which manifests itself at the quantum level.

Then, we have the weight of a subquark/parton/graviton formula derived by three of the top physicists in the world:



(m = W/g)

https://web.archive.org/web/20190228190940/https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/9069/0be66e03f535dd3b47aeb76ea36bfc3d1909.pdf

It was published in the Physical Review A:

https://journals.aps.org/pra/abstract/10.1103/PhysRevA.49.678

So now electrons exist?

In Relativity mass bends space-time

It doesn't.

Dr. Erik Verlinde (2019):

General Relativity remains just a description of the force we call gravity. It leaves unanswered the key question of exactly how matter affects space and time.

The magnitude of gravitational force, which exists in between falling mass and gravitating mass

It cannot be attractive.

Please explain how a water molecule from lake Ontario which emits gravitons is attracted by the iron/nickel core which releases gravitons.

First of all no one even knows if gravitons are really a thing yet. You shouldn't take them for granted.

Second, while you are right that GR leaves unanswered the question of exactly how matter affects spacetime, it does tell us that it is mass which results in curved spacetime. The particular mechanism is unknown but it doesn't mean mass doesn't curve spacetime.

Quote from: JJA on August 27, 2020, 04:41:06 AM

Quote from: E E K on August 26, 2020, 10:09:09 PM

Removing is called something ELIMINATION in math – F and m are eliminated so that we can solve for more simplified form. No idea what your discipline is but ELIMINATION is taught at school level.

So once you eliminate F and m then it means then the resulting equation of g =GM/R^2 doesn't depend upon F and m. This equation of Newton which is independent of falling mass "m" satisfies Gallelio's statement of falling of all objects at the same rate which people still believe (including you) for many 100 years.

Knowing the name of something doesn't mean you're using it right.

If you really think that tens of thousands of scientists for hundreds of years are wrong about objects falling at the same rate, prove it. If you think you know better than millions of engineers who use those equations to design, build and fly things all around the world then lets see your experiments.

Build or buy a vacuum chamber, film some objects dropping and prove that heavier ones always fall faster.

Cut the crap.

Engineering calculations for arches:



W=mg, which is a flat earth equation

This thread makes very clear the following facts: F=GMm/r^2 is an artificial equation which cannot be used until and unless one proves first that the shape of the Earth is spherical and that gravity is attractive; g=Gm/r^2 is the correct equation, which can only take place on a flat surface of the Earth.

Sandokhan, do you know what a Taylor expansion is?

First of all no one even knows if gravitons are really a thing yet. You shouldn't take them for granted.

Please update your data on this subject.

One cannot have quantum gravity without particles, unless a non perturbative observable can be defined in their place

"Absence of particles means absence of Poincare invariance, no standard Fock space.

Particle physics is defined by local perturbative quantum field theory (Poincare groups).

However, Planck level physics is governed by general covariance.

That is why quantum gravity must be defined in terms of loops/knots.

Knot theory is the physical theory that classifies the independent physical states of the quantum field.

Genuine quantum gravitational physics is non perturbative.

General relativity forced in the quantum perturbative framework doesn't work."

Dr. Carlo Rovelli
Are knots quantum states of spacetime?
Knots, Topology And Quantum Field Theory (pg. 51-69)

A graviton is a string with closed loops.



https://cds.cern.ch/record/223258/files/9202054.pdf

Gravitons and Loops

Abhay Ashtekar, Carlo Rovelli and Lee Smolin

The “reality conditions” are realized by an inner product that is chiral asymmetric, resulting in a chiral asymmetric ordering for the Hamiltonian, and, in an asymmetric description of the left and right handed gravitons.

The first step towards this goal is to recast the Fock description of graviton also in terms of closed loops.


https://arxiv.org/pdf/1010.3552.pdf

Chiral vacuum fluctuations in quantum gravity

Is made up of the right handed positive frequency of the graviton and the left handed negative frequency of the anti-graviton.


The particular mechanism is unknown

The quantum physicists at MIT, Princeton, say otherwise: it is known and has been proven.

The deepest connection between gravity and quantum entanglement:

“The universality of the gravitational interaction comes directly from the universality of entanglement- it is not possible to have stress-energy that doesn’t source the gravitational field because it is not possible to have degrees of freedom that don’t contribute to entanglement entropy.”

https://arxiv.org/pdf/1405.2933.pdf

Universality of Gravity from Entanglement



https://newatlas.com/physics/15-trillion-atoms-quantum-entanglement/

The team mixed rubidium metal with nitrogen gas, and heated it up to 176.9 °C (350.3 °F). At that temperature, the metal vaporizes, causing free rubidium atoms to float around the chamber. There they become entangled with each other, and the team can measure that entanglement by shining a laser through the gas.

The researchers observed as many as 15 trillion entangled atoms in the gas, which they say is about 100 times more than any other experiment.

“If we stop the measurement, the entanglement remains for about one millisecond, which means that 1,000 times per second a new batch of 15 trillion atoms is being entangled,” says Jia Kong, first author of the study. “And you must think that 1 ms is a very long time for the atoms, long enough for about 50 random collisions to occur. This clearly shows that the entanglement is not destroyed by these random events. This is maybe the most surprising result of the work.”



https://arxiv.org/pdf/1307.6850v2.pdf

Holographic Schwinger effect and the geometry of entanglement

http://news.mit.edu/2013/you-cant-get-entangled-without-a-wormhole-1205

Julian Sonner, a senior postdoc in MIT’s Laboratory for Nuclear Science and Center for Theoretical Physics, has published his results in the journal Physical Review Letters, where it appears together with a related paper by Kristan Jensen of the University of Victoria and Andreas Karch of the University of Washington.

The tangled web that is gravity

He found that what emerged was a wormhole connecting the two entangled quarks, implying that the creation of quarks simultaneously creates a wormhole. More fundamentally, he says, gravity itself may be a result of entanglement. What’s more, the universe’s geometry as described by classical gravity may be a consequence of entanglement—pairs of particles strung together by tunneling wormholes.

https://www.technologyreview.com/2014/02/18/174139/quarks-linked-by-wormholes/

https://www.sciencemag.org/news/2013/12/link-between-wormholes-and-quantum-entanglement

https://www.universetoday.com/106968/could-particle-spooky-action-define-the-nature-of-gravity/






Dr. Ellis' groundbreaking paper takes GTR from a singularity to a drainhole aether model, the paper was published in the JOURNAL OF MATHEMATICAL PHYSICS.

Now, the mathematical theory for the absorption/emission of aether through a Planck length level particle.

http://euclid.colorado.edu/~ellis/RelativityPapers/EtFlThDrPaMoGeRe.pdf

Ether flow through a drainhole: a particle model in general relativity

Journal of Mathematical Physics, vol. 14, no. 1, 1973



https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=30499.msg2275717#msg2275717 (ENTANGLED GRAVITONS ARE CONNECTED BY ELLIS AETHER WORMHOLES)

No one knows yet if quantum gravity can really work dude. The subject of gravitons is irrelevant anyways, I don't know what you think it has to do with gravity being attractive or repulsive or whatever.

The quotes and links you posted either don't say what you think they do, are speculative, or they are irrelevant. Please try to make normal posts for once that are concise and on topic.

Quote from: Unconvinced on August 26, 2020, 01:23:44 PM

Quote from: E E K on August 25, 2020, 11:08:57 PM

Yes, it’s Newton who came up with idea first after the statement of Galileo that all objects fall at the rate.

The magnitude of the acceleration at which the falling mass is accelerated can be found if we know the mass and radius of the gravitating mass in equation of g=GM/R^2 formulated by Newton. It doesn’t depend upon

1-   The magnitude of gravitational force, which exists in between falling mass and gravitating mass
2-   The mass of the object, which is accelerated by the gravitating mass towards its center.

Did you see any role of the gravitational force in finding the magnitude of acceleration? Even newton didn’t know about it. Isn’t it weird? So if

M2 falls on M1 @ rate of g1=GM1(R1+H1)^2
M1 falls on M2 @ rate of g2=GM2(R2+H2)^2

Where is role gravitational force b/w M1 and M2 when both can fall w/o force and its magnitude?

I tried to explain this in your other thread.

The equation you quoted is derived from F=ma and F=GMm/r².  In doing so the terms F and m are removed from the resulting equation. 

All that means is that whatever value for m (and therefore F) we input into the equation, the result is the same.

It doesn’t mean that there is no force F or mass m in reality, and each equation must still work separately.

Removing is called something ELIMINATION in math – F and m are eliminated so that we can solve for more simplified form. No idea what your discipline is but ELIMINATION is taught at school level.

So once you eliminate F and m then it means then the resulting equation of g =GM/R^2 doesn't depend upon F and m. This equation of Newton which is independent of falling mass "m" satisfies Gallelio's statement of falling of all objects at the same rate which people still believe (including you) for many 100 years.

Gee, thanks.  I know.

You’re the one asking for clarification, and I’m trying to explain as simply as I can.

You appear to be saying that there is no force between the objects.  The terms F and m are ELIMINATED from the equation (rather, one is substituted, the other eliminated).  They aren’t eliminated from reality.

The smaller body still has mass m, and there is still a force F between them. 

So now electrons exist?

May be  or may be not because I don't understand why was the mass of every electron created exactly the same when there were chances of more than one type by the natural selection in random during the early stages of the universe in chaos/ big bang?

Mass of one electron = 9.10938356 × 10^-31 kg
Other type could have = 8.10938356 × 10^-30 kg – this is just an example
it could have zillion types of masses (Ranges in Kg)

The same is applied to all atomic particles, not just electron.

Quote from: sokarul on August 27, 2020, 06:31:08 AM

So now electrons exist?

May be  or may be not because I don't understand why was the mass of every electron created exactly the same when there were chances of more than one type by the natural selection in random during the early stages of the universe in chaos/ big bang?

Mass of one electron = 9.10938356 × 10^-31 kg
Other type could have = 8.10938356 × 10^-30 kg – this is just an example
it could have zillion types of masses (Ranges in Kg)

The same is applied to all atomic particles, not just electron.

This one is easy. The standard model doesn't predict electrons with differing masses.

But more importantly, in all the experiments and atom smashing and evidence and data that has been collected... we never found an electron with a different mass.

We do not know WHY that is so, but there is no evidence or data to suggest otherwise.

If the LHC starts spitting out electrons with twice their weight, well that will be exiting and interesting and then you can be right. But until the, there is no proof, nor any hints that they exist.

See how you are trolling the thread?

Issue raised by E E K:

Why was the mass of every electron created exactly the same when there were chances of more than one type by the natural selection in random during the early stages of the universe in chaos/ big bang? The same is applied to all atomic particles, not just electron.

Your rant should be replaced by this:

We do not know WHY that is so.

Do you understand the implications of the point raised by E E K? I think not.

Quote from: sokarul on August 27, 2020, 06:31:08 AM

So now electrons exist?

May be  or may be not because I don't understand why was the mass of every electron created exactly the same when there were chances of more than one type by the natural selection in random during the early stages of the universe in chaos/ big bang?

Mass of one electron = 9.10938356 × 10^-31 kg
Other type could have = 8.10938356 × 10^-30 kg – this is just an example
it could have zillion types of masses (Ranges in Kg)

The same is applied to all atomic particles, not just electron.

Sandokhan doesn’t believe in electrons yet he used them as evidence.

Quote from: sokarul on August 27, 2020, 06:31:08 AM

So now electrons exist?

May be  or may be not because I don't understand why was the mass of every electron created exactly the same when there were chances of more than one type by the natural selection in random during the early stages of the universe in chaos/ big bang?

Mass of one electron = 9.10938356 × 10^-31 kg
Other type could have = 8.10938356 × 10^-30 kg – this is just an example
it could have zillion types of masses (Ranges in Kg)

The same is applied to all atomic particles, not just electron.

An electron is an elementary particle. It came about due to physics, which would be due to the properties of energy. You are making it out to be more complex than it is.

The properties of energy will answer your problems.

Quote from: E E K on August 25, 2020, 10:39:13 AM

Do M1 and M2 really need gravitational force F=GM1M2/d^2 in b/t them if both M1 and M2 can fall towards each other w/o any force?

Gravitating mass doesn't depend upon the mass of the falling object.

Who says objects are pulled without any force?

There is a force, and we measure that force in Newtons.

In Relativity mass bends space-time and causes objects to follow this new bent path.

In both theories, the end result is a force pulls mass together.

No; in relativity there is no 'force' 'pulling' anything.

Quote from: JJA on August 25, 2020, 11:34:29 AM

Quote from: E E K on August 25, 2020, 10:39:13 AM

Do M1 and M2 really need gravitational force F=GM1M2/d^2 in b/t them if both M1 and M2 can fall towards each other w/o any force?

Gravitating mass doesn't depend upon the mass of the falling object.

Who says objects are pulled without any force?

There is a force, and we measure that force in Newtons.

In Relativity mass bends space-time and causes objects to follow this new bent path.

In both theories, the end result is a force pulls mass together.

No; in relativity there is no 'force' 'pulling' anything.

Right.  I should have said...

In both theories, the end result is masses move toward each other.