[General] What holds mass and charge together

[Andrew Meulenberg]

I agree with Grahame. Separating charge and mass is like separating
electricity and magnetism.

Andrew

On Wed, Sep 13, 2017 at 9:32 AM, Dr Grahame Blackwell <grahame at starweave.com
> wrote:

> Wolf (et al.),
>
> (diagrams dropped, with chain of other previous emails.)
>
> In my view there is absolutely no issue as to what holds mass and charge
> together - neither is an object, to be 'held' to anything else, they are
> both effects.  There seems little doubt that both of those effects are
> artefacts of the fundamental content of a massive charged particle - namely
> its formative energy.
>
> It's very simply shown that if a particle is moving then its energy
> content must increase in exactly the way described (without explanation) in
> SR - this is fully apparent from the Relativistic Energy-Momentum Relation;
> this is inertial mass, the requirement for that additional energy to
> maintain the structural integrity of the particle.  Likewise it's totally
> apparent from interference effects demonstrated in respect of massive
> particles that charge also must be an artefact of that formative energy.
> So the very concept that they could possibly be separated, and so need
> holding together, makes absolutely no sense to me.  I Kant see the point of
> even discussing it! (Sorry, that pun may not translate very well!)
>
> [As a point of detail, that energy is also its gravitational mass, for
> other reasons arising directly from that energy.]
>
> Regards,
> Grahame
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> *From:* Wolfgang Baer <wolf at nascentinc.com>
> *To:* Albrecht Giese <phys at a-giese.de> ; Nature of Light and Particles -
> General Discussion <general at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org>
> *Sent:* Wednesday, September 13, 2017 8:35 AM
> *Subject:* [General] What holds mass and charge together
>
> Chandra and Albrecht:
>
> I fully agree with the Plato's shadow analogy and the realization that we
> have been building a physics that explains the shadows  not the reality is
> very clear. But that involves  giving up the notion of a fixed objective
> reality and moving toward a n acknowledgement of a Kantian unknowable about
> which we make models that express our best guess and judge them based on
> success.
>
> It involves returning to simple examples and testing the logic of our
> assumptions. Toward this end I have returned to the old simple experimants
> the utilize the concept of mass and charge as the most understandable
> properties of matter. One of the central assumptions in physics is that of
> a point particle which places all properties of the particle and
> specifically the source and sink of mass and charge centers at a co-located
> point.
>
> So I ask what holds charge and mass together? what kind of physics would
> we have if there were a force Fcm and Fmc between charge and mass and mass
> and charge.
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> If you no longer wish to receive communication from the Nature of Light
> and Particles General Discussion List at mules333 at gmail.com
> <a href="http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/options.cgi/general-
> natureoflightandparticles.org/mules333%40gmail.com?unsub=1&unsubconfirm=1
> ">
> Click here to unsubscribe
> </a>
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/pipermail/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/attachments/20170913/085c6e11/attachment.htm>