Mathematical proof is all that is lacking. That is that particles like electrons and quarks are strings. That electrons and quarks have mass is established experimentally
On Sat, Nov 9, 2013 at 6:50 AM, Roger Clough <rclo...@verizon.net> wrote: > Hi Anna > > Of course. > > > Dr. Roger B Clough NIST (ret.) [1/1/2000] > See my Leibniz site at > http://independent.academia.edu/RogerClough > > > ----- Receiving the following content ----- > From: Anna > Receiver: everything-list,- mindbr...@yahoogroups.com > ,4dworldx,theoretical_physics_board > Time: 2013-11-08, 23:52:10 > Subject: Re: [4DWorldx] Is mass mental or physical ? > > > > > >First of all, there is no evidence that any strings exist. So, the > question of mass is irrelevant, unless for the string theoretician. The > theory requires that strings have mass, but where is the proof? > Mathematical proof is not enough. > >Anna > > > >From: Roger Clough > >Sent: Friday, November 08, 2013 5:36 AM > >To: everything-list ; mailto:mindbr...@yahoogroups.com ; 4dworldx ; > theoretical_physics_board > >Subject: [4DWorldx] Is mass mental or physical ? > > > > > > > >I need some help. > > > >Yesterday I made the claim that strings > >are massless and so are nonphysical (mental, by my definition). > >But you can show theoretically that strings have mass, based on > >line tension and other variables. So is mass physical ? > > > >Unless I am mistaken, mass is always defined in terms of other variables, > >much like in a dictionary words are defined in terms of other words.. > >For example, m = E/c^2, where E is energy and c is the speed of light. > >But energy is the ability to do work, which in turn is defined as > >W = F*d, where F is a force moved through distance d. But > >Force is mass*acceleration. So we are back wihere we started, > >since m =E/c*2. > > > >To me this means that we must empirically define some force > >like the weight of a selected and saved lump of lead as say a Newton of > force, > >and a length given by some metal rule to be saved, and proceed from > >there. > > > >To me this means that all physical variables are actually nonphysical > >(theoretical or mental). Which is the basic foundation of idealism or > platonism. > >Everything, even mass, is mental in the sense of being theoretical > >or mathematical. Is this correct ? > > > >Dr. Roger B Clough NIST (ret.) [1/1/2000] > >See my Leibniz site at > >http://independent.academia.edu/RogerClough > > > > -- > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups > "Everything List" group. > To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an > email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. > To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. > Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. > For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out. > -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
