Mass-Energy Equivalence
in [Physics]
|
Prev: Physics_For_Entertaiment
Next: PING: Steve Willner
From: Paul Stowe on 26 Apr 2010 20:58 On Apr 26, 6:15 am, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > On Apr 25, 1:25 pm, Paul Stowe <theaether...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > '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? I gave an example below, and if there were a 'transition' it certainly would be smooth and you'd likely get such things as... a discrepency in the expected rotation profile of galaxies ... etc. > > 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. This and the fact that Majorana's findings has never been refuted, explained (or, AFAIA never EVEN replicated) which showed that, given two masses (a hollow sphere and one that fits inside) that when weighed individually their combined weight was x, when fitted together and combined weighed x - y. IOW, less than they weighed individually. This suggests that Newton's theory may not be as universal as believed. BUT! even IF some mass 'disappeared' the equation still works and 'a mass' can be 'calculated'. Even in my example above you can say, GM^2 = kA^2 Thus, M = Sqrt(kA^2/G) So, one can alway 'pretend', or, conversely, assume, Newton's form, and that there are masses involved even if it isn't true. > > > > 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... I'm saying that the 'bulk' effect is cummulative result of the imposed gradients of the individual E fields of each charge in a substance. > > > > > > 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 26 Apr 2010 21:11 On Apr 26, 5:58 pm, Paul Stowe <theaether...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > On Apr 26, 6:15 am, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > > On Apr 25, 1:25 pm, Paul Stowe <theaether...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > '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? > > I gave an example below, and if there were a 'transition' it certainly > would be smooth and you'd likely get such things as... a discrepency > in the expected rotation profile of galaxies ... etc. > > > > 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. > > This and the fact that Majorana's findings has never been refuted, > explained (or, AFAIA never EVEN replicated) which showed that, given > two masses (a hollow sphere and one that fits inside) that when > weighed individually their combined weight was x, when fitted together > and combined weighed x - y. IOW, less than they weighed > individually. This suggests that Newton's theory may not be as > universal as believed. BUT! even IF some mass 'disappeared' the > equation still works and 'a mass' can be 'calculated'. Even in my > example above you can say, > > GM^2 = kA^2 > > Thus, > > M = Sqrt(kA^2/G) > > So, one can alway 'pretend', or, conversely, assume, Newton's form, > and that there are masses involved even if it isn't true. > > > > > > > > > > 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... > > I'm saying that the 'bulk' effect is cummulative result of the imposed > gradients of the individual E fields of each charge in a substance. > > > > > > > > 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 - Galaxies don't rotate. The stars orbit the center. Mitch Raemsch
From: spudnik on 27 Apr 2010 01:17 what you should ... what "one" should say, because one cannot assume that one is wholly correct, is, "aether dysplacement might be a Unified Theory, and here is a more-refined argument." but, since you didn't bother to read most of what I wrote, specifically in reply to you (as opposed to the after-quoted stuff, from myself on that day), I don't see the "point" of carrying on with your say-so ToE. so, again, have a nice day/life. > > Correct. thus: see in Articles on 21stcenturysciencetech.com, "The Cosmic Humbuggery of ABC," re (I think) neutron capture. anyway, the Big Bang interpretation of the redshift, that it is simply & strictly dopplerian, is the great exemplar of The Department of Einsteinmania, The Musical Dept. > The majority of scientists have absolutely no answer for this. > http://www.amperefitz.com/dark.m.e.htm thus Skeptics were just another Greek cult under the Roman Empire. Peripatetics, Gnostics, Stoics, Epicureans etc. ad vomitorium. I recall also recently reading that Kennedy had come out for WS in some moot court, but that he later came to Oxford ... most likely, because it serves his oligarchical worldview I know of at least three "proofs" that WS was WS, but I recently found a text that really '"makes the case," once and for all (but the Oxfordians, Rhodesian Scholars, and others brainwashed by British Liberal Free Trade, capNtrade e.g.). > To hear Shermer tell it, one would think that Justice Stevens > is the first and only authorship doubter to serve on the Supreme > Court. On the contrary, others include Justices Scalia, OConnor, > Blackmun and Powell, as the WSJ article noted. Only two current > Justices (Breyer and Kennedy) openly support the Stratford man. 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 27 Apr 2010 07:59 On Apr 27, 1:17 am, spudnik <Space...(a)hotmail.com> wrote: > what you should ... what "one" should say, because > one cannot assume that one is wholly correct, is, > "aether dysplacement might be a Unified Theory, > and here is a more-refined argument." > That is why I say Aether Displacement is 'a' unified theory. That is why I also add in 'to date'. Stating the following: Aether Displacement is a unified theory. and: Aether Displacement is the most correct unified theory to date. Leaves the door open for the next more correct unified theory. If I knew I was wholly correct, I would say: Aether Displacement is the unified theory.
From: hanson on 27 Apr 2010 12:54
Aether John "mpc755" <mpc755(a)gmail.com> wrote: > spudnik <Space...(a)hotmail.com> wrote: what you should ... what "one" should say, because one cannot assume that one is wholly correct, is, "aether dysplacement might be a Unified Theory, and here is a more-refined argument." > Aether John "mpc755" That is why I say Aether Displacement is 'a' unified theory. That is why I also add in 'to date'. Stating the following: Aether Displacement is a unified theory and: Aether Displacement is the most correct unified theory to date. Leaves the door open for the next more correct unified theory. If I knew I was wholly correct, I would say: Aether Displacement is the unified theory. > hanson wrote: .... Aether John, you may be quite right, as long as you define what "is" is... It worked for Bill Clinton. Thanks for the laughs, guys... ahahahanson |