What is the disagreement to aether?
in [Relativity]
|
Prev: 4-vector dot A = invariant => A is a 4-vector?
Next: Capacitance theory of gravity - interesting theory
From: BURT on 27 Feb 2010 20:55 On Feb 27, 5:45 pm, mpc755 <mpc...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > On Feb 27, 8:23 pm, Sam Wormley <sworml...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > > On 2/27/10 7:10 PM, mpc755 wrote: > > > > Mass-less energy does not convert back to mass. > > > Photon momentum > > p = hí/c = h/ë > > > Photon Energy > > E = hí > > >http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pair_production > > > "Pair production refers to the creation of an elementary particle and > > its antiparticle, usually from a photon (or another neutral boson). This > > is allowed, provided there is enough energy available to create the pair > > - at least the total rest mass energy of the two particles - and that > > the situation allows both energy and momentum to be conserved (though > > not necessarily on shell). All other conserved quantum numbers (angular > > momentum, electric charge) of the produced particles must sum to zero -- > > thus the created particles shall have opposite values of each (for > > instance, if one particle has strangeness +1 then another one must have > > strangeness -1)". > > Did you notice there is a photon being fired at a nucleus? The nucleus > has mass. > > Show me where mass-less energy and only mass-less energy 'converts to' > mass. > > Post the link where mass-less energy and only mass-less energy creates > the nucleus. > > What your link represents is the mather associated with the photon is > physically absorbed by the nucleus causing the electron/positron pair > to be emitted. > > "Since the momentum of the initial photon must be absorbed by > something, pair production cannot occur in empty space out of a single > photon; the nucleus (or another photon) is needed to conserve both > momentum and energy (consider the time reversal of Electron-positron > annihilation)." > > When the initial photon is absorbed it is the addition of the quantum > of mather to the nucleus which causes pair production. > > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Matter_creation > > "Because of momentum conservation laws, the creation of a pair of > fermions (matter particles) out of a single photon cannot occur. > However, matter creation is allowed by these laws when in the presence > of another particle (another photon or other boson, or even a fermion) > which can share the primary photon's momentum. Thus, matter can be > created out of two photons." > > When a photon is detected it collapses and is detected as a quantum of > mather. This is the compression of pointed/directed photon wave in the > aether and is the conversion of mather from aether to matter. That is > why two photons are required. Two photons are required in order for > the photon to collapse (i.e. compress) and transition from a wave in > the aether to matter.- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text - Unbound electric and strong particles weigh more outside the atom. Their bonding energy goes completely back into them when the bond is completely broken. Thus their mass makes them heavier. This finite energy density goes back into mass of infinitely dense energy that weighs under gravity or magnetism. Mitch Raemsch
From: mpc755 on 27 Feb 2010 20:56 On Feb 27, 8:23 pm, Sam Wormley <sworml...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > On 2/27/10 7:10 PM, mpc755 wrote: > > > Mass-less energy does not convert back to mass. > >   Photon momentum >    p = hν/c = h/λ > >   Photon Energy >    E = hν > > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pair_production > > "Pair production refers to the creation of an elementary particle and > its antiparticle, usually from a photon (or another neutral boson). This > is allowed, provided there is enough energy available to create the pair > â at least the total rest mass energy of the two particles â and that > the situation allows both energy and momentum to be conserved (though > not necessarily on shell). All other conserved quantum numbers (angular > momentum, electric charge) of the produced particles must sum to zero â > thus the created particles shall have opposite values of each (for > instance, if one particle has strangeness +1 then another one must have > strangeness â1)". Did you notice there is a photon being fired at a nucleus? The nucleus has mass. Show me where mass-less energy and only mass-less energy 'converts to' mass. Post the link where mass-less energy and only mass-less energy creates the nucleus. What your link represents is the mather associated with the photon is physically absorbed by the nucleus causing the electron/positron pair to be emitted. "Since the momentum of the initial photon must be absorbed by something, pair production cannot occur in empty space out of a single photon; the nucleus (or another photon) is needed to conserve both momentum and energy (consider the time reversal of Electron-positron annihilation)." When the initial photon is absorbed it is the addition of the quantum of mather to the nucleus which causes pair production. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Matter_creation "Because of momentum conservation laws, the creation of a pair of fermions (matter particles) out of a single photon cannot occur. However, matter creation is allowed by these laws when in the presence of another particle (another photon or other boson, or even a fermion) which can share the primary photon's momentum. Thus, matter can be created out of two photons." When a photon is detected it collapses and is detected as a quantum of mather. This is the compression of pointed/directed photon wave in the aether and is the conversion of mather from aether to matter. That is why two photons are required. Two photons are required in order for the photon to collapse (i.e. compress) and transition from a wave in the aether to quantum of mather.
From: PD on 27 Feb 2010 20:56 On Feb 27, 7:10 pm, mpc755 <mpc...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > On Feb 26, 2:28 pm, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > On Feb 26, 1:25 pm, mpc755 <mpc...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > On Feb 26, 2:23 pm, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > On Feb 26, 1:11 pm, mpc755 <mpc...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > On Feb 26, 1:34 pm, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > > On Feb 26, 9:34 am, mpc755 <mpc...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > > > > The total contents is the total > > > > > > > > system energy that gravity acts upon, and in many ways the total contents > > > > > > > > acts just like matter. > > > > > > > > Because the total amount of mass in existence does not change.. > > > > > > > And where did this statement become obviously correct? How do you > > > > > > KNOW? > > > > > > If mass 'converts' to energy then you need to account for the lack of > > > > > there being less mass in existence, not the other way around. > > > > > Why? You don't have to account for there being fewer dinosaurs in > > > > existence. You don't have to account for there being less neutrons in > > > > beta decay. Why do you think the amount of mass in the universe does > > > > not change? Other than the fact that you think it SHOULD be, I mean.. > > > > If mass converted to energy then there would be no mass. > > > Why would you say that? Energy also converts back into mass. > > Mass-less energy does not convert back to mass. Why would you say that? Of course it does. When you make statements like the above, how do you KNOW that it's true? Other than the fact that you think it SHOULD be, I mean. > > The universe consists of mather. Mather has mass. The two basic forms > of mather we are familiar with are as matter and aether. Matter is > compressed mather and aether is uncompressed mather. > > When mather converts from matter to aether the physical effect the > increase in volume of the mather has as it transitions from matter to > aether on the neighboring mather is energy. > > > Neither > > one of them is expected to remain the same. They fluctuate back and > > forth into each other all the time, but not always at equal rates. > > Mass does not fluctuate back to mass-less energy and mass-less energy > does not fluctuate back to mass. This is just more of the absurd > nonsense you choose to believe in. And when you say it does not, how do you KNOW? > > > You really have to get out of the habit of just making statements you > > THINK are true and demanding that they MUST be true. First you should > > ask yourself WHY you think those statements are true. > > The physical effect mather has on the neighboring mather as it > transitions from matter to aether is more correct than mass 'converts > to' energy and energy 'converts to' aether. > > A moving C-60 molecule having an associated aether displacement wave > and the C-60 molecule entering and exiting a single slit while the > aether displacement wave enters and exits the available slits is more > correct than the future determines the past. > > > > > > > > The fact that AD accounts for the mass and energy means it is more > > > > > correct. > > > > > No, it is only more correct if mass is expected to stay the same. But > > > > you haven't said why you expect that. > >
From: BURT on 27 Feb 2010 20:59 On Feb 27, 5:56 pm, mpc755 <mpc...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > On Feb 27, 8:23 pm, Sam Wormley <sworml...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > > On 2/27/10 7:10 PM, mpc755 wrote: > > > > Mass-less energy does not convert back to mass. > > >   Photon momentum > >    p = hν/c = h/λ > > >   Photon Energy > >    E = hν > > >http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pair_production > > > "Pair production refers to the creation of an elementary particle and > > its antiparticle, usually from a photon (or another neutral boson). This > > is allowed, provided there is enough energy available to create the pair > > â at least the total rest mass energy of the two particles â and that > > the situation allows both energy and momentum to be conserved (though > > not necessarily on shell). All other conserved quantum numbers (angular > > momentum, electric charge) of the produced particles must sum to zero â > > thus the created particles shall have opposite values of each (for > > instance, if one particle has strangeness +1 then another one must have > > strangeness â1)". > > Did you notice there is a photon being fired at a nucleus? The nucleus > has mass. > > Show me where mass-less energy and only mass-less energy 'converts to' > mass. > > Post the link where mass-less energy and only mass-less energy creates > the nucleus. > > What your link represents is the mather associated with the photon is > physically absorbed by the nucleus causing the electron/positron pair > to be emitted. > > "Since the momentum of the initial photon must be absorbed by > something, pair production cannot occur in empty space out of a single > photon; the nucleus (or another photon) is needed to conserve both > momentum and energy (consider the time reversal of Electron-positron > annihilation)." > > When the initial photon is absorbed it is the addition of the quantum > of mather to the nucleus which causes pair production. > > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Matter_creation > > "Because of momentum conservation laws, the creation of a pair of > fermions (matter particles) out of a single photon cannot occur. > However, matter creation is allowed by these laws when in the presence > of another particle (another photon or other boson, or even a fermion) > which can share the primary photon's momentum. Thus, matter can be > created out of two photons." > > When a photon is detected it collapses and is detected as a quantum of > mather. This is the compression of pointed/directed photon wave in the > aether and is the conversion of mather from aether to matter. That is > why two photons are required. Two photons are required in order for > the photon to collapse (i.e. compress) and transition from a wave in > the aether to quantum of mather.- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text - When an atom radiates it can go in 360 degrees of freedom. An electron can emit light inward of the atom. Half the time emision is outward the other half inward. Mitch Raemsch
From: mpc755 on 27 Feb 2010 21:05
On Feb 27, 8:56 pm, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > On Feb 27, 7:10 pm, mpc755 <mpc...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > On Feb 26, 2:28 pm, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > On Feb 26, 1:25 pm, mpc755 <mpc...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > On Feb 26, 2:23 pm, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > On Feb 26, 1:11 pm, mpc755 <mpc...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > > On Feb 26, 1:34 pm, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > > > On Feb 26, 9:34 am, mpc755 <mpc...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > The total contents is the total > > > > > > > > > system energy that gravity acts upon, and in many ways the total contents > > > > > > > > > acts just like matter. > > > > > > > > > Because the total amount of mass in existence does not change. > > > > > > > > And where did this statement become obviously correct? How do you > > > > > > > KNOW? > > > > > > > If mass 'converts' to energy then you need to account for the lack of > > > > > > there being less mass in existence, not the other way around. > > > > > > Why? You don't have to account for there being fewer dinosaurs in > > > > > existence. You don't have to account for there being less neutrons in > > > > > beta decay. Why do you think the amount of mass in the universe does > > > > > not change? Other than the fact that you think it SHOULD be, I mean. > > > > > If mass converted to energy then there would be no mass. > > > > Why would you say that? Energy also converts back into mass. > > > Mass-less energy does not convert back to mass. > > Why would you say that? Of course it does. > When you make statements like the above, how do you KNOW that it's > true? A photon as a directed/pointed wave which when detected collapses into a quantum of mather is more correct than saying 'mass-less energy converts to mass'. > Other than the fact that you think it SHOULD be, I mean. > Stating 'mass-less energy converts to mass' is meaningless. It does not describe what occurs physically in nature. > > > > > > The universe consists of mather. Mather has mass. The two basic forms > > of mather we are familiar with are as matter and aether. Matter is > > compressed mather and aether is uncompressed mather. > > > When mather converts from matter to aether the physical effect the > > increase in volume of the mather has as it transitions from matter to > > aether on the neighboring mather is energy. > > > > Neither > > > one of them is expected to remain the same. They fluctuate back and > > > forth into each other all the time, but not always at equal rates. > > > Mass does not fluctuate back to mass-less energy and mass-less energy > > does not fluctuate back to mass. This is just more of the absurd > > nonsense you choose to believe in. > > And when you say it does not, how do you KNOW? > Matter and aether being different states of mather and mather transitioning from matter to aether and the expansion in volume which occurs during this transitioning and the physical effects of this transition is energy is more correct than saying 'mass converts to energy'. > > > > > You really have to get out of the habit of just making statements you > > > THINK are true and demanding that they MUST be true. First you should > > > ask yourself WHY you think those statements are true. > > > The physical effect mather has on the neighboring mather as it > > transitions from matter to aether is more correct than mass 'converts > > to' energy and energy 'converts to' aether. > > > A moving C-60 molecule having an associated aether displacement wave > > and the C-60 molecule entering and exiting a single slit while the > > aether displacement wave enters and exits the available slits is more > > correct than the future determines the past. > > > > > > > The fact that AD accounts for the mass and energy means it is more > > > > > > correct. > > > > > > No, it is only more correct if mass is expected to stay the same. But > > > > > you haven't said why you expect that. > > |