Mass-Energy Equivalence
in [Relativity]
|
From: mpc755 on 24 Apr 2010 09:09 On Apr 24, 12:38 am, Paul Stowe <theaether...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > 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. Just because you can't weigh it, or accelerate it, does not mean it does not exist. Aether and matter are different states of the same material. The material has mass. > 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
From: PD on 24 Apr 2010 09:39 On Apr 23, 11:38 pm, Paul Stowe <theaether...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > 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! This is arguable. It is a working definition for a number of cases, but it's a bit of a stretch to say that this is THE definition that characterizes mass. > 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'. But 'kmv^2' does not convey an acceleration or a weight, so this seems to fly in the face of your own definition, no? > > 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. I'm sorry, I'm afraid I don't understand this claim. So if something is proceeding at constant momentum in the absence of an electromagnetic field present, and there is a change in a gravitational field that affects this thing, the inertia that governs the acceleration response to this gravitational field is somehow electromagnetic in origin? > That EMF > is the source of inertia, thus, by definition, 'mass'. > > Regards, > > Paul Stowe
From: mpc755 on 24 Apr 2010 10:08 On Apr 24, 9:39 am, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > On Apr 23, 11:38 pm, Paul Stowe <theaether...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > 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! > > This is arguable. It is a working definition for a number of cases, > but it's a bit of a stretch to say that this is THE definition that > characterizes mass. > > > 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'. > > But 'kmv^2' does not convey an acceleration or a weight, so this seems > to fly in the face of your own definition, no? > > > > > 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. > > I'm sorry, I'm afraid I don't understand this claim. So if something > is proceeding at constant momentum in the absence of an > electromagnetic field present, and there is a change in a > gravitational field that affects this thing, the inertia that governs > the acceleration response to this gravitational field is somehow > electromagnetic in origin? > Electromagnetism and gravity are both states of the aether. Matter displaces the aether and the aether 'displaces back'. The 'displacing back' is the pressure the aether exerts towards the matter. The pressure the aether exerts towards the matter is gravity. Maxwell's displacement current and Michelson's "aether displacement to the electric current" are also both states of the aether.
From: PD on 24 Apr 2010 10:19 On Apr 24, 9:08 am, mpc755 <mpc...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > On Apr 24, 9:39 am, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > On Apr 23, 11:38 pm, Paul Stowe <theaether...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > 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! > > > This is arguable. It is a working definition for a number of cases, > > but it's a bit of a stretch to say that this is THE definition that > > characterizes mass. > > > > 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'. > > > But 'kmv^2' does not convey an acceleration or a weight, so this seems > > to fly in the face of your own definition, no? > > > > 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. > > > I'm sorry, I'm afraid I don't understand this claim. So if something > > is proceeding at constant momentum in the absence of an > > electromagnetic field present, and there is a change in a > > gravitational field that affects this thing, the inertia that governs > > the acceleration response to this gravitational field is somehow > > electromagnetic in origin? > > Electromagnetism and gravity are both states of the aether. Matter > displaces the aether and the aether 'displaces back'. The 'displacing > back' is the pressure the aether exerts towards the matter. The > pressure the aether exerts towards the matter is gravity. Maxwell's > displacement current and Michelson's "aether displacement to the > electric current" are also both states of the aether. Blah, blah, blah, blah-blah-blah, blah. More the same vacuous tripe.
From: Paul Stowe on 24 Apr 2010 10:31
On Apr 24, 6:39 am, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > On Apr 23, 11:38 pm, Paul Stowe <theaether...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > > 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! > > This is arguable. It is a working definition for a number of cases, > but it's a bit of a stretch to say that this is THE definition that > characterizes mass. Arguable? Then argue. Provide some other means of observation that does not depend on indirect inference. > > 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'. > > But 'kmv^2' does not convey an acceleration or a weight, so this seems > to fly in the face of your own definition, no? It's not 'my definition' and while the equation is consistent with systems exhibiting inertia its a derived, not fundamental expression. IOW, it works because of our definitions. > > 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. > > I'm sorry, I'm afraid I don't understand this claim. So if something > is proceeding at constant momentum in the absence of an > electromagnetic field present, and there is a change in a > gravitational field that affects this thing, the inertia that governs > the acceleration response to this gravitational field is somehow > electromagnetic in origin? As you 'should' know all so-called material systems actually consist of charged entities, Quarks. Last I check charges manifest electric 'fields' that are believed to be infinite in extent. In an equilibrium state (what you called constant momentum) these fields configuration are consistent. Perturb the equilibrium, and the fields are 'forced' to change, when electric fields are accelerated they create a reactive counter EMF. Hal Puthoff and others have realized this also. > > That EMF is the source of inertia, thus, by definition, 'mass'. > > > Regards, Paul Stowe |