Mass-Energy Equivalence
in [Physics]
|
Prev: Physics_For_Entertaiment
Next: PING: Steve Willner
From: PD on 24 Apr 2010 14:21 On Apr 24, 1:05 pm, Paul Stowe <theaether...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > 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, An energy response and momentum response are measurable. For example, the latter is directly related to the curvature of a trajectory in a magnetic field. This is certainly no less complicated that deriving an acceleration from a trajectory, and then using the acceleration to derive a mass. > we certainly have very > different definitions of indirect... As for your argument, by your > definition, photons have mass... The definition I was using earlier was m^2 = E^2 - p^2 (in natural units). In this definition, the photons have zero 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. Let us know when you get there. You're competing against QCD, which has a number of successes already. > 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. Then you should be able to derive the electric field of the solar system, since the gravitational effects are so well mapped. This seems like a straightforward exercise. > > > > 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: BURT on 24 Apr 2010 15:23 On Apr 24, 11:21 am, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > On Apr 24, 1:05 pm, Paul Stowe <theaether...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > > 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, > > An energy response and momentum response are measurable. For example, > the latter is directly related to the curvature of a trajectory in a > magnetic field. This is certainly no less complicated that deriving an > acceleration from a trajectory, and then using the acceleration to > derive a mass. > > > we certainly have very > > different definitions of indirect... As for your argument, by your > > definition, photons have mass... > > The definition I was using earlier was m^2 = E^2 - p^2 (in natural > units). In this definition, the photons have zero 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. > > Let us know when you get there. You're competing against QCD, which > has a number of successes already. > > > 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. > > Then you should be able to derive the electric field of the solar > system, since the gravitational effects are so well mapped. This seems > like a straightforward exercise. > > > > > > > > > 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- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text - Mass is infinitely concentrated energy. Mitch Raemsch
From: glird on 24 Apr 2010 20:40 On Apr 23, 10:22 pm, mpc755 <mpc...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > In E=mc^2, mass is conserved. Yes, the mass(amount of matter) IS conserved; even if some of it may have no weight (in grams) after it is released. glird
From: BURT on 24 Apr 2010 20:47 On Apr 24, 5:40 pm, glird <gl...(a)aol.com> wrote: > On Apr 23, 10:22 pm, mpc755 <mpc...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > In E=mc^2, mass is conserved. > > Yes, the mass(amount of matter) IS conserved; even if some of it may > have no weight (in grams) after it is released. > > glird Spread out energy is electric in light wave and atomic bonds or proton and electron bonds to shell. There is also strong energy but it expresses itself soley in the strong force bond. Mitch Raemsch
From: glird on 24 Apr 2010 20:59
On Apr 24, 2:21 pm, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > On Apr 24, 1:05 pm, Paul Stowe <theaether...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > 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. > > Even if grad E = 0 the force called "gravity" exists unchanged in any locally stationary body; and weakens (rather than increasing) as that body's downward acceleration increases its velocity. glird glird |