Mass-Energy Equivalence
in [Physics]
|
Prev: Physics_For_Entertaiment
Next: PING: Steve Willner
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
From: mpc755 on 24 Apr 2010 10:31 On Apr 24, 10:19 am, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > 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. Explain how what you choose to believe occurs physically in nature: - The future determining the past - Virtual particles which exist out of nothing - Conservation of momentum does not apply to a downgraded photon pair - A C-60 molecule can enter, travel through, and exit multiple slits simultaneously without requiring energy, releasing energy, or having a change in momentum. - Matter causes physical space to be 'unflat' but not move - Michelson's "aether displacement to the electric current" is different than Maxwell's displacement current - Mass is not conserved. The following are the most correct physical explanations to date: - A C-60 molecule enters and exits a single slit while the associate aether displacement wave enters and exits available slits - The aether displaced by the matter which are the plates extends past the other plate. The pressure exerted by the aether displaced by the plates forces the plates together - Conservation of momentum does apply to a downgraded photon pair. When a photon is detected its wave collapses which determines its spin. In order for the original photons momentum to be conserved, the downgraded photon pair have opposite angular momentums. - A C-60 molecule enters and exits a single slit while the associate aether displacement wave enters and exits available slits - Physical space is displaced by matter. Aether is displaced by matter. - Michelson's "aether displacement to the electric current" is the same conceptually as Maxwell's displacement current. - Matter and aether are different states of the same material. In E=mc^2, Energy is matter transitioning to aether. Mass is conserved.
From: mpc755 on 24 Apr 2010 10:33 On Apr 24, 10:31 am, Paul Stowe <theaether...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > 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. A 'reactive counter EMF' is the state of the aether.
From: PD on 24 Apr 2010 10:41 On Apr 24, 9:31 am, Paul Stowe <theaether...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > 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. Weighing relies on indirect inference. Reconstruction of a mass from measurement of energy and momentum is no less direct. > > > > 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. Electrons are not quarks and they are a key constituent in matter. They are electrically charged, though. But to your point, quarks are distinct from electrons not just by the value of their charge, but by the fact that they have a charge that electrons do not exhibit at all: strong charge, or "color". And in fact, one is hard pressed to understand how it is that nucleons inhabit a nucleus that is 10^-15 times smaller in volume than the atom, if one only considers the interaction of the electric charge. The behavior of the interaction due to strong charge is much, much different than the interaction due to the electric charge, something we know from extensive studies. > 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
From: Paul Stowe on 24 Apr 2010 14:05
On Apr 24, 7:41 am, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > On Apr 24, 9:31 am, Paul Stowe <theaether...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > 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. > > Weighing relies on indirect inference. > Reconstruction of a mass from measurement of energy and momentum is no > less direct. If observing a force response (inertia) is an indirect inference rather than relying on a calculation well, we certainly have very different definitions of indirect... As for your argument, by your definition, photons have 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? > > > It's not 'my definition' and while the equation is consistent with > > systems exhibiting inertia its a derived, not a 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. > > Electrons are not quarks and they are a key constituent in matter. > They are electrically charged, though. > > But to your point, quarks are distinct from electrons not just by the > value of their charge, but by the fact that they have a charge that > electrons do not exhibit at all: strong charge, or "color". And in > fact, one is hard pressed to understand how it is that nucleons > inhabit a nucleus that is 10^-15 times smaller in volume than the > atom, if one only considers the interaction of the electric charge. > The behavior of the interaction due to strong charge is much, much > different than the interaction due to the electric charge, something > we know from extensive studies. Yes, and because of this fact the apparent inertia of hadrons is different than leptons. I am currently investigating this aspect and 'think' it has to do with the QM base harmonic of the entity. I've made some progress but am not there yet. As for gravity being an offshoot of EM, that would yield unification, now wouldn't it? As it looks to me now, gravity is a second order effect of changes in velocity, as such, the sign force (+/-) disappears, leaving only one opposing vector. It looks now that it is directly related to Grad E, where E is the electric potential. > > 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 |