<div dir="ltr"><div>I agree with Grahame. Separating charge and mass is like separating electricity and magnetism.<br><br></div>Andrew<br><div><div><div class="gmail_extra"><br><div class="gmail_quote">On Wed, Sep 13, 2017 at 9:32 AM, Dr Grahame Blackwell <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:grahame@starweave.com" target="_blank">grahame@starweave.com</a>></span> wrote:<br><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex"><u></u>
<div bgcolor="#ffffff" text="#000000">
<div><font size="2" face="Arial" color="#000080">Wolf (et al.),</font></div>
<div><font size="2" face="Arial" color="#000080"></font> </div>
<div><font size="2" face="Arial" color="#000080">(diagrams dropped, with chain of
other previous emails.)</font></div>
<div><font size="2" face="Arial" color="#000080"></font> </div>
<div><font size="2" face="Arial" color="#000080">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.</font></div>
<div><font size="2" face="Arial" color="#000080"></font> </div>
<div><font size="2" face="Arial" color="#000080">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!)</font></div>
<div><font size="2" face="Arial" color="#000080"></font> </div>
<div><font size="2" face="Arial" color="#000080">[As a point of detail, that energy is
also its gravitational mass, for other reasons arising directly from that
energy.]</font></div>
<div><font size="2" face="Arial" color="#000080"></font> </div>
<div><font size="2" face="Arial" color="#000080">Regards,</font></div>
<div><font size="2" face="Arial" color="#000080">Grahame</font></div><span class="">
<blockquote style="BORDER-LEFT:#000080 2px solid;PADDING-LEFT:5px;PADDING-RIGHT:0px;MARGIN-LEFT:5px;MARGIN-RIGHT:0px">
<div style="FONT:10pt arial">----- Original Message ----- </div>
<div style="FONT:10pt arial;BACKGROUND:#e4e4e4"><b>From:</b>
<a title="wolf@nascentinc.com" href="mailto:wolf@nascentinc.com" target="_blank">Wolfgang
Baer</a> </div>
<div style="FONT:10pt arial"><b>To:</b> <a title="phys@a-giese.de" href="mailto:phys@a-giese.de" target="_blank">Albrecht Giese</a> ; <a title="general@lists.natureoflightandparticles.org" href="mailto:general@lists.natureoflightandparticles.org" target="_blank">Nature of Light and
Particles - General Discussion</a> </div>
<div style="FONT:10pt arial"><b>Sent:</b> Wednesday, September 13, 2017 8:35
AM</div>
<div style="FONT:10pt arial"><b>Subject:</b> [General] What holds mass and
charge together</div>
<div><br></div>
<p>Chandra and Albrecht:</p>
<p>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.</p>
<p>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.</p>
<p>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.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>
<span>
</span></p><table cellspacing="0" cellpadding="0" align="left">
<tbody>
<tr>
<td height="258" width="152"><br></td></tr>
<tr>
<td><br></td>
<td><font size="2" face="Arial" color="#000080"></font></td></tr></tbody></table><p></p></blockquote></span></div>
<br>______________________________<wbr>_________________<br>
If you no longer wish to receive communication from the Nature of Light and Particles General Discussion List at <a href="mailto:mules333@gmail.com">mules333@gmail.com</a><br>
<a href="<a href="http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/options.cgi/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/mules333%40gmail.com?unsub=1&unsubconfirm=1" rel="noreferrer" target="_blank">http://lists.<wbr>natureoflightandparticles.org/<wbr>options.cgi/general-<wbr>natureoflightandparticles.org/<wbr>mules333%40gmail.com?unsub=1&<wbr>unsubconfirm=1</a>"><br>
Click here to unsubscribe<br>
</a><br>
<br></blockquote></div><br></div></div></div></div>