Mass-Energy Equivalence
in [Relativity]
|
From: PD on 6 May 2010 11:53 On May 6, 10:46 am, mpc755 <mpc...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > A more correct term would be opposite-matter or opposite-mæther, since > a particle and its opposite both consist of mæther. > Progress! The creation of two new terms! The fact that they are new means that they are more correct! Yay!
From: mpc755 on 6 May 2010 12:01 On May 6, 1:15 am, spudnik <Space...(a)hotmail.com> wrote: > in other words, > just substitute the word "aether" > for the word "energy" in any dyscussiom > of "physics" -- thanks, Nuevo Einstein! > thus, was maether born (and, > presumably, antimaether). Aether and matter are different states of the same material. I named this material mæther. Aether is decompressed mæther and matter is compressed mæther. Anti-matter or anti-mæther are inadequate concepts. Think of an electron and positron as both consisting of mæther but being exact opposites (i.e. mirror images) of one another. When the electron and positron 'annihilate' one another the mæther which is both the electron and the positron converts to aether. The physical effects caused by the conversion is energy. The mass associated with both the electron and positron still exists, as aether. A more correct term would be opposite-matter or opposite-mæther, since a particle and its opposite both consist of mæther. Aether and energy are not the same. Aether is a state of mæther. Aether has mass. In terms of E=mc^2, the physical effects of mæther decompressing (i.e. matter converting to aether) is energy. Mæther decompressing is the cause. Energy is the effect. In terms of substitutions, the following is conceptually correct: A=Mc^2, where A is aether and M is matter. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fusion_power "The basic concept behind any fusion reaction is to bring two or more atoms close enough together so that the residual strong force (nuclear force) in their nuclei will pull them together into one larger atom. If two light nuclei fuse, they will generally form a single nucleus with a slightly smaller mass than the sum of their original masses. The difference in mass is released as energy according to Albert Einstein's mass-energy equivalence formula E = mc^2." The released mass is decompressed mæther. The released mass is aether. Mass is conserved.
From: mpc755 on 6 May 2010 12:04 On May 6, 1:15 am, spudnik <Space...(a)hotmail.com> wrote: > in other words, > just substitute the word "aether" > for the word "energy" in any dyscussiom > of "physics" -- thanks, Nuevo Einstein! > thus, was maether born (and, > presumably, antimaether). Aether and matter are different states of the same material. I named this material mæther. Aether is decompressed mæther and matter is compressed mæther. Anti-matter or anti-mæther are inadequate concepts. Think of an electron and positron as both consisting of mæther but being exact opposites (i.e. mirror images) of one another. When the electron and positron 'annihilate' one another the mæther which is both the electron and the positron converts to aether. The physical effects caused by the conversion is energy. The mass associated with both the electron and positron still exists, as aether. A more correct term would be opposite-matter or opposite-mæther, since a particle and its opposite both consist of mæther. Aether and energy are not the same. Aether is a state of mæther. Aether has mass. In terms of E=mc^2, the physical effects of mæther decompressing (i.e. matter converting to aether) is energy. Mæther decompressing is the cause. Energy is the effect. In terms of substitutions, the following is conceptually correct: A=Mc^2, where A is aether and M is matter. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fusion_power "The basic concept behind any fusion reaction is to bring two or more atoms close enough together so that the residual strong force (nuclear force) in their nuclei will pull them together into one larger atom. If two light nuclei fuse, they will generally form a single nucleus with a slightly smaller mass than the sum of their original masses. The difference in mass is released as energy according to Albert Einstein's mass-energy equivalence formula E = mc^2." The released mass is decompressed mæther. The released mass is aether. Mass is conserved.
From: spudnik on 6 May 2010 14:52 hey, you used Einstein's original formulation, A=mcc; cool, and that really explains every thing. thank you for your gold-plated theory, aether is maether times teh second power of the speed of light! thus: um, why do some folks seem to assume that oil companies do not support capNtrade, the Kyoto Protocol (capNtrade) or Waxman's '91 bill on NOx and SO2 (capNtrade) -- why would that be? thus: anyway, the real problem is yours, of "reifying the math," just because you can write some formulary that happens to include a "mass" in it (does YP think, MKS stands for "mass-kosher-system?"), and therefore the funky Newtonic corpuscle can be said a) to exist and b) to "have momentum," the *sine qua non* of has-to- be-not-no-mass, because "then, the momentum'd be nothing viz the God- am formula." that is to say, the Nobel-winning, Newton-saving photoelectrical effect is nothing, but an instrumental datum (not a particle, as proven by Young et al in the interim between "classical" and "Copenhagenskool yardcat" -- sheesh). "there are no photons" and "death to the lightcone -- long-live the lightcone-heads!" --Light: A History! http://wlym.TAKEtheGOOGOLout.com --Stop Waxman's #2 capNtrade rip-off (unless, you like gasoline at a dime per drop)
From: mpc755 on 6 May 2010 18:07
On May 6, 2:52 pm, spudnik <Space...(a)hotmail.com> wrote: > hey, you used Einstein's original formulation, > A=mcc; cool, and that really explains every thing. > > thank you for your gold-plated theory, > aether is maether times teh second power of the speed of light! > Aether is equivalent to matter. Both aether and matter are different states of mæther. > thus: > um, why do some folks seem to assume that > oil companies do not support capNtrade, > the Kyoto Protocol (capNtrade) or > Waxman's '91 bill on NOx and SO2 (capNtrade) -- > why would that be? > > thus: > anyway, the real problem is yours, of "reifying the math," > just because you can write some formulary that happens > to include a "mass" in it (does YP think, > MKS stands for "mass-kosher-system?"), and therefore > the funky Newtonic corpuscle can be said a) > to exist and b) > to "have momentum," the *sine qua non* of has-to- > be-not-no-mass, because "then, the momentum'd be nothing viz the God- > am formula." > > that is to say, the Nobel-winning, Newton-saving photoelectrical > effect > is nothing, but an instrumental datum (not a particle, as proven > by Young et al in the interim between "classical" and "Copenhagenskool > yardcat" > -- sheesh). > > "there are no photons" and > "death to the lightcone -- long-live the lightcone-heads!" > > --Light: A History!http://wlym.TAKEtheGOOGOLout.com > > --Stop Waxman's #2 capNtrade rip-off (unless, > you like gasoline at a dime per drop) |