Mass-Energy Equivalence [Math]

Prev: Fundamentals of Heat and Mass Transfer 6th Edition Incropera, DeWitt Solutions Manual
Next: From the book: "How to Succeed in College Mathematics - A Guide for the College Mathematics Student", Richard M. Dahlke, Ph.D., 2008.

From: mpc755 on 24 Apr 2010 09:09

On Apr 24, 12:38 am, 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! 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.

Just because you can't weigh it, or accelerate it, does not mean it
does not exist.

Aether and matter are different states of the same material.

The material has mass.

> 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'.
>
> 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. That EMF
> is the source of inertia, thus, by definition, 'mass'.
>
> Regards,
>
> Paul Stowe

From: PD on 24 Apr 2010 09:39

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?

> That EMF
> is the source of inertia, thus, by definition, 'mass'.
>
> Regards,
>
> Paul Stowe

From: mpc755 on 24 Apr 2010 10:08

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.

From: PD on 24 Apr 2010 10:19

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.

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