Mass-Energy Equivalence
in [Relativity]
|
From: glird on 23 Apr 2010 21:30 On Apr 23, 6:18 pm, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > On Apr 23, 5:06 pm, glird <gl...(a)aol.com> wrote: > > > On Apr 6, 3:22 pm, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > One must be a little bit careful about > > > the meaning of mass here. > > > Yes! Here and everywhere. > > Although physicists seem unable to > > understand it, a "mass" is "a > > quantity of matter". > > This is a 19th century understanding of mass. So says a 20th century person. In this 21st century, though, a mass IS a quantity of matterm, whether or not it has any weight. > Two photons back to back have a very > clear-cut mass, but there is no > matter in that system. A photon is a quantity of energy with a material vehicle as agent. Of itself, it has zero weight, whether alone or flying "back to back" with another such quantity. > > (They think that when the weight of a > > given mass changes, some of its MATTER has > > converted into energy. They are wrong.) glird
From: BURT on 23 Apr 2010 22:16 On Apr 23, 6:30 pm, glird <gl...(a)aol.com> wrote: > On Apr 23, 6:18 pm, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > On Apr 23, 5:06 pm, glird <gl...(a)aol.com> wrote: > > > > On Apr 6, 3:22 pm, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > One must be a little bit careful about > > > > the meaning of mass here. > > > > Yes! Here and everywhere. > > > Although physicists seem unable to > > > understand it, a "mass" is "a > > > quantity of matter". > > > This is a 19th century understanding of mass. > > So says a 20th century person. In this 21st century, though, a mass > IS a quantity of matterm, whether or not it has any weight. > > > Two photons back to back have a very > > clear-cut mass, but there is no > > matter in that system. > > A photon is a quantity of energy with a material vehicle as agent. > Of itself, it has zero weight, whether alone or flying "back to back" > with another such quantity. > > > > (They think that when the weight of a > > > given mass changes, some of its MATTER has > > > converted into energy. They are wrong.) > > glird Light's flow is weightless. In this sense it always falls under gravity but it doesn't go below light speed unless its in a matterial medium. Mitch Raemsch
From: mpc755 on 23 Apr 2010 22:22 On Apr 23, 6:06 pm, glird <gl...(a)aol.com> wrote: > On Apr 6, 3:22 pm, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > One must be a little bit careful about the > > meaning of mass here. > > Yes! Here and everywhere. > Although physicists seem unable to understand it, a "mass" is "a > quantity of matter". (They think that when the weight of a given mass > changes, some of its MATTER has converted into energy. They are > wrong.) > > glird Exactly. Aether and matter are different states of the same material. 'DOES THE INERTIA OF A BODY DEPEND UPON ITS ENERGY-CONTENT? By A. EINSTEIN' http://www.fourmilab.ch/etexts/einstein/E_mc2/e_mc2.pdf "If a body gives off the energy L in the form of radiation, its mass diminishes by L/c2." The mass of the body does diminish, but the matter which no longer exists as part of the body has not vanished. It still exists, as aether. As the matter transitions to aether it expands in three dimensions. The effect this transition has on the surrounding aether and matter is energy. In E=mc^2, mass is conserved.
From: BURT on 23 Apr 2010 22:30 On Apr 23, 7:22 pm, mpc755 <mpc...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > On Apr 23, 6:06 pm, glird <gl...(a)aol.com> wrote: > > > On Apr 6, 3:22 pm, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > One must be a little bit careful about the > > > meaning of mass here. > > > Yes! Here and everywhere. > > Although physicists seem unable to understand it, a "mass" is "a > > quantity of matter". (They think that when the weight of a given mass > > changes, some of its MATTER has converted into energy. They are > > wrong.) > > > glird > > Exactly. > > Aether and matter are different states of the same material. > > 'DOES THE INERTIA OF A BODY DEPEND UPON ITS ENERGY-CONTENT? By A. > EINSTEIN'http://www.fourmilab.ch/etexts/einstein/E_mc2/e_mc2.pdf > > "If a body gives off the energy L in the form of radiation, its mass > diminishes by L/c2." > > The mass of the body does diminish, but the matter which no longer > exists as part of the body has not vanished. It still exists, as > aether. As the matter transitions to aether it expands in three > dimensions. The effect this transition has on the surrounding aether > and matter is energy. > > In E=mc^2, mass is conserved. There are two kinds of energy. One is point the other is spread out. This is matter's mass and light's spread out waving or frequency. Mitch Raemsch
From: Paul Stowe on 24 Apr 2010 00:38
On Apr 23, 6:30 pm, glird <gl...(a)aol.com> wrote: > On Apr 23, 6:18 pm, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > On Apr 23, 5:06 pm, glird <gl...(a)aol.com> wrote: > > > > On Apr 6, 3:22 pm, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > One must be a little bit careful about > > > > the meaning of mass here. > > > > Yes! Here and everywhere. > > > Although physicists seem unable to > > > understand it, a "mass" is "a > > > quantity of matter". > > > This is a 19th century understanding of mass. > > So says a 20th century person. In this 21st century, though, a mass > IS a quantity of matterm, whether or not it has any weight. > > > Two photons back to back have a very > > clear-cut mass, but there is no > > matter in that system. > > A photon is a quantity of energy with a material vehicle as agent. > Of itself, it has zero weight, whether alone or flying "back to back" > with another such quantity. > > glird Mass is not a primal property. Mass is inertia, period! By the so- called 'strong equivalence principle', weight... THAT! is the only actual physical observable of what is called mass. This is where the idea of 'rest mass' comes from. If you can't weigh it, or accelerate it, mass has no meaning. But, energy appears to be 'massive' in so far as it the equation 'kmv^2' seems to hold and... Einstein elevated it to an equivalence 'principle'. I have come to the realization that mass is an electromagnetic phenomena. That is to say, the fields that constitutes 'matter' will create counter EMF effects when perturbed from equilibrium. That EMF is the source of inertia, thus, by definition, 'mass'. Regards, Paul Stowe |