Mass-Energy Equivalence
in [Physics]
|
Prev: Physics_For_Entertaiment
Next: PING: Steve Willner
From: BURT on 21 Apr 2010 17:10 On Apr 19, 10:37 am, "G. L. Bradford" <glbra...(a)insightbb.com> wrote: > =================== > > Regarding the sheer entity of mass itself, can anything get more > fundamental or more dimensionless (non-zero inclusively: more infinite and > more infinitesimal; relatively speaking...singularly more titanic and more > pipsqueak, singularly bigger and more macro-cosmic as 'universe' / 'field' / > 'well' (... / 'hole') and yet singularly smaller and more micro-cosmic as > same) than gravity's 'singularity'? > > Can anything get closer to the fundamental territory than gravity's > 'singularity'? > > GLB > > =================== Mass is infinitely dense energy. Light is spread out energy oscillating. Mitch Raemsch
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 |