Mass-Energy Equivalence
in [Physics]
|
Prev: Physics_For_Entertaiment
Next: PING: Steve Willner
From: mpc755 on 25 Apr 2010 18:04 On Apr 25, 6:00 pm, spudnik <Space...(a)hotmail.com> wrote: > yeah, but you're are trying to aver that > "space is not a void *because* of aether," > whereas a vacuum has never been demonstrated, > since Paacal (thought that he) discovered it. > > that is to say, > there is only *relative* vacuum, > through which waves of light may propogate, > just as they do through the (relative vacuum of) air. > > > Space is not a void. Space is not an 'empty' vacuum. > > Light waves propagate through the aether. > > thus: > second-powering has nothing per se to do > with the regular tetragon; in "E=mcc," > it has more to do with an expanding spherical wavefront > (saith Bucky .-)... not a circle, though. > Mass does not convert to energy. Matter transitions to aether. Matter expands in three dimensional space as it transitions to aether. Matter increases in volume as it transitions to aether. The physical effect this transition has on the neighboring aether and matter is energy. There is no 'missing mass'. The mass which no longer exists as part of the matter has converted to aether. When you watch an atomic bomb explode you are watching the physical effect matter expanding in volume as it transitions to aether has on the neighboring matter and aether: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=16heorrfsgY '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. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mass%E2%80%93energy_equivalence "The equation E = mc2 indicates that energy always exhibits mass in whatever form the energy takes.[3] It does not imply that mass may be converted to energy, for modern theory holds that neither mass nor energy may be destroyed, but only moved from one location to another. In physics, mass must be differentiated from matter. In cases where matter particles are created or destroyed, the precursors and products retain both the original mass and energy, which is unchanged. Mass energy equivalence also means that mass conservation becomes a restatement of the law of energy conservation, which is the first law of thermodynamics." The products retain the original mass because the product is aether. In E=mc^2, mass is conserved. Light waves propagate through the aether.
From: PD on 26 Apr 2010 09:06 On Apr 24, 7:59 pm, glird <gl...(a)aol.com> wrote: > 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. > As I said, you should then be able to calculate E for the solar system, since you know the gravitational effects so thoroughly.
From: PD on 26 Apr 2010 09:15 On Apr 25, 1:25 pm, Paul Stowe <theaether...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > On Apr 24, 11:21 am, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > On Apr 24, 1:05 pm, PaulStowe<theaether...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > 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. > > You misunderstood my answer (it wasn't clear). I meant like using an > old fashion balance scale... Which assumes that the gravitational force acting on equal inertial masses is the same, which means assuming that gravitational mass is equal to inertial mass, or at least proportional, regardless of substance. The pan balance also is equilibrating *torques*, and so you have this extra removal in the steps between relating mass to torque. I see no more directness to this method compared with measuring energy and momentum and reconstructing a mass from that. > 'Assuming' that force is always equal > to > mass times acceleration and 'calculating it IS NEVER! a direct > observation. It is AN ASSUMPTION, not a direct measurement. As > Majorana's test showed, this may in fact NOT be true in all cases. > How does one 'know' FOR SURE the mass of any astronomical body? > Answer, THEY DON'T! The 'assume' that the equations we've developed > are correct 'in all cases' even when they have never been 'directly' > tested in the domains utilized. Yes, indeed. This is precisely the claim made by Newton, when he said that the law of gravitation was universal. And in fact, part of the stipulation here is that there is nothing special about the sample that is represented by the Earth. Moreover, if one presumes that the law is different in the domain of distant applications, then this necessarily implies that there would be a transition region some place, and where there is a transition then one expects to be able to detect the effects of either mixed laws acting or a transitional law. Thus, any supposition that there two laws in effect, for close and distant applications, would also demand treatment of such a transition region. What do you have to offer for that? > Thus my question that nobody has > ever > been able to answer, how do you know the difference between, > > F = kA^2/r^2 > > and > > F = GM^2/r^2 > > from long distance observation alone? I say, you can't! If you > can't > the is no uniqueness and the answer is uncertain. > > > > 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. > > Now this is rather the point, don't'cha think, you've defined it the > way you want... IF E = kmv^2 it is alway true, or it is simply not a > fundamental expression. It cannot be both. > > > > > > > > > > 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. > > I don't see it as a competition, nor conflict, but we'll see where it > leads, if anywhere. Science looks for places where two models make distinct predictions, and then tests to see which model makes the correct prediction. This is what I mean by competition. > > > > 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. > > Ah, if it were only that simple. It's NOT the resultant E, it's each > individual charge's E field that responds. These are only of the > 10^-21 Nt/dv per charge but given the number of said charges per cc > of > matter it adds up to a significant response (inertia). I don't understand this statement. You're either saying the problem is intractably complicated, or you cannot map one bulk property into another bulk property. Consider pressure and temperature of a gas... > > > > > > 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: spudnik on 26 Apr 2010 13:02 so, if aether has mass, then it must be detectable. but, why on Earth do you insist that energy cannot flow through matter, as light waves through air? in your alleged model, how does light travel through air vis-a-vu the aether (that is, supposedly, created whem "mass is converted-or-not to energy") ?? it seems that you are arguing in increasingly smaller circles. > The products retain the original mass > because the product is aether. > Light waves propagate through the aether. thus: you are assuming that "gravitons" "go faster" than "photons," which is three things that have never been seen. Young proved that all properties of light is wave-ish, save for the yet-to-fbe-ound photo- electrical effect, the instrumental artifact that save Newton's balls o'light for British academe. well, even if any large thing could be accelerated to so close to teh speed of light-propagation (which used to be known as "retarded," since being found not instantaneous) is "space" -- which is no-where "a" vacuum -- it'd create a shockwave of any light that it was emmitting, per Gauss's hydrodynamic shockwaves (and, after all, this is all in the field of "magnetohydrodynamics," not "vacuum energy dynamics"). > Even if Andromeda were to be closing at 99.9999% c, thus: what ever it says, Shapiro's last book is just a polemic; his real "proof" is _1599_; the fans of de Vere are hopelessly stuck-up -- especially if they went to Harry Potter PS#1. http://www.google.com/url?sa=D&q=http://entertainment.timesonline.co.... --Light: A History! http://wlym.com
From: mpc755 on 26 Apr 2010 13:57
On Apr 26, 1:02 pm, spudnik <Space...(a)hotmail.com> wrote: > so, if aether has mass, then it must > be detectable. but, why on Earth do you insist > that energy cannot flow through matter, > as light waves through air? > The aether is detectable. Every time a double slit experiment is performed the wave in the aether enters and exits the available slits and creates interference which alters the direction the 'particle' travels. Gravity is a detection of the aether. Matter and aether are different states of the same material. Aether is displaced by matter. Displacement creates pressure. Gravity is pressure exerted by displaced aether towards matter. I have never insisted energy does not flow through matter. In terms of E=mc^2, energy is the physical effect a change in the state of the aether's displacement has on the neighboring matter and aether. Since matter consists of nuclei separated by aether, this effect occurs through the matter. > in your alleged model, > how does light travel through air > vis-a-vu the aether (that is, supposedly, > created whem "mass is converted-or-not > to energy") ?? > Light propagates through the aether as a wave. Aether exists where nuclei do not. > it seems that you are arguing > in increasingly smaller circles. > It is only your limited abilities at comprehension which lead you to such an incorrect conclusion. > > The products retain the original mass > > because the product is aether. > > Light waves propagate through the aether. > > thus: > you are assuming that "gravitons" "go faster" > than "photons," which is three things that have > never been seen. There is no such thing as 'gravitons'. Gravitons are more made up nonsense of QM. Aether, as a one something, causes gravity. > Young proved that all properties > of light is wave-ish, save for the yet-to-fbe-ound photo- > electrical effect, the instrumental artifact that save Newton's balls > o'light for British academe. well, even if > any large thing could be accelerated to so close > to teh speed of light-propagation (which used to be known > as "retarded," since being found not instantaneous) is "space" > -- which is no-where "a" vacuum -- > it'd create a shockwave of any light that it was emmitting, > per Gauss's hydrodynamic shockwaves (and, after all, > this is all in the field of "magnetohydrodynamics," > not "vacuum energy dynamics"). > > > Even if Andromeda were to be closing at 99.9999% c, > > thus: > what ever it says, Shapiro's last book is just a polemic; > his real "proof" is _1599_; > the fans of de Vere are hopelessly stuck-up -- > especially if they went to Harry Potter PS#1.http://www.google.com/url?sa=D&q=http://entertainment.timesonline.co.... > > --Light: A History!http://wlym.com |