Administrator2
New Member
BARRY SETTERFIELD
First, let me thank Radiochemist and Paul for persisting with me on this
matter of mass for so long. In particular I would like to thank Radiochemist
for his insistence that I calculate the difference in mass between the time
of Adam and the present. Initially, I thought that it was not possible to
get a definitive answer. However, when I went back to the paper undergoing
review, I found that it not only is possible, but the result actually
resolves the dilemma that Radiochemist and Paul have been talking about. In
so doing, it also turns out that my resort to differentiating between mass
on an atomic scale and mass macroscopically in a gravitational field becomes
totally unnecessary. I therefore apologise for any misleading information
given in the last posting and publicly retract that.
Having said that, I return to my comment a few postings ago that the graph
of mass behaves like a slowly rising saw-tooth function. During the quantum
interval, the mass rises in response to the drop in c. However, at the
quantum change, the mass drops again, only to resume a rise during the next
interval between quantum changes. It is the extent of the drop that I
considered indefinite, and that was causing the hassle and my talking around
the topic. As it turns out, a comparison between two equations in my paper
reveals that the ratio of masses when compared at neighbouring quantum jumps
is such that, with time increasing, the mass after the second quantum jump
has increased by 0.0000089114 times the mass at the first quantum jump.
Since there are about 190,770 quantum jumps from the time of Adam to now,
this means that the mass has increased such that it is now (190770 x
0.0000089114 = 1.7) that is 1.7 times greater that what it was in the days
of Adam. I trust that this now resolves the issue.
One final matter needs to be cleared up. Helen mentioned that the volume of
the electron was related to its mass. She stated that an increase in mass
meant an increase in volume. Although some have questioned the validity of
this statement, it follows directly from the formula for the classical
electron radius, and is borne out by SED theory, which indicates an
increasing ZPE tends to expand the radii of charged particles like
electrons.
Thank you again for your patience with me,
Barry.
First, let me thank Radiochemist and Paul for persisting with me on this
matter of mass for so long. In particular I would like to thank Radiochemist
for his insistence that I calculate the difference in mass between the time
of Adam and the present. Initially, I thought that it was not possible to
get a definitive answer. However, when I went back to the paper undergoing
review, I found that it not only is possible, but the result actually
resolves the dilemma that Radiochemist and Paul have been talking about. In
so doing, it also turns out that my resort to differentiating between mass
on an atomic scale and mass macroscopically in a gravitational field becomes
totally unnecessary. I therefore apologise for any misleading information
given in the last posting and publicly retract that.
Having said that, I return to my comment a few postings ago that the graph
of mass behaves like a slowly rising saw-tooth function. During the quantum
interval, the mass rises in response to the drop in c. However, at the
quantum change, the mass drops again, only to resume a rise during the next
interval between quantum changes. It is the extent of the drop that I
considered indefinite, and that was causing the hassle and my talking around
the topic. As it turns out, a comparison between two equations in my paper
reveals that the ratio of masses when compared at neighbouring quantum jumps
is such that, with time increasing, the mass after the second quantum jump
has increased by 0.0000089114 times the mass at the first quantum jump.
Since there are about 190,770 quantum jumps from the time of Adam to now,
this means that the mass has increased such that it is now (190770 x
0.0000089114 = 1.7) that is 1.7 times greater that what it was in the days
of Adam. I trust that this now resolves the issue.
One final matter needs to be cleared up. Helen mentioned that the volume of
the electron was related to its mass. She stated that an increase in mass
meant an increase in volume. Although some have questioned the validity of
this statement, it follows directly from the formula for the classical
electron radius, and is borne out by SED theory, which indicates an
increasing ZPE tends to expand the radii of charged particles like
electrons.
Thank you again for your patience with me,
Barry.