Energy = Matter = Fields

[wellwisher]

Just an idea that crossed my mind the other day:

We know at the moment that everything in the universe consists of either matter (electrons, planets, anti-matter) and fields (electromagnetic/gravitational/...).
Einstein noticed in his theory of Special Relativity that matter is equivalent to energy.
All fields are "distributions" of energy (the only interaction between a field and matter is energy exchange).

The Einstein equation E=MC2 defines the burn equivalency of mass and energy when matter converts to energy and vice versa. It does not say mass and energy are the same thing in all ways. The equation was needed to calculate the expected energy of nuclear bombs. It is like saying if we burn methane we can calculate how much energy we can get. This does not mean methane is the same as fire and heat. Beyond the energy/mass calculation there are some key differences between mass and energy.

Mass is invariant with frame of reference. Energy is the opposite and is variant with frame of reference. That is a huge difference. If we could change space-time around a block of mass and field of energy, the mass is not impacted, but the energy is. Mass is not dependent on space-time.

The physical geometry of mass can alter the local space-time. In a cloud of hydrogen space gas, space-time is not very contracted. As the mass collapses into a forming star, space-time will become more contracted around the mass, but the amount of mass does not change as space-time changes. It is not a two-way street like E=MC2. Mass is above space-time in hierarchy since mass is an absolute and space-time as much as space-time is dependent on mass.

If an object fell into a star, it is not the space-time well that will squish the matter. The squishing is connected to the pressure generated by the mass. Space-time does not generate pressure. The mass of the star is not only squishing the mass of the object, but it is also squishes space-time. The time of space-time will slow, while the object will undergo phase changes into faster time frequencies.

If we look at E=MC2 notice mass and speed of light C on one side. Both of these absolutes/invariants not dependent on reference. Energy, which change with space-time reference, and is variant, is all by itself on the other side. I would think that using two absolutes as the basis for physics would allow us to define the relative, but the other way around will not work since you cannot define absolutes like mass and speed of light using variables like space-time that has little impact on the absolutes.

 

[origin]

So mass is invariant. The speed of light is invariant.

Yet, when the inviant mass is multiplied by the invariant speed of light squared, the result is a quanitity that is NOT invariant.

Neat trick, how exactly does that work?

 

[Aqueous Id]

Doesn't matter. I don't care what Crisp is doing now, or even on what plane of existence he might reside these days. He has a responsibility to get his ass back here and attend to the thread he started.

:roflmao:

I beg to differ with regard to "electrons"..."something" is supposedly moving with regard to electricity thru a wire.

I am stating that a "potential" exists at ANY frame-of-reference, and this applies to the wire as well...the "charged particles" are being excited "in-place" (within the wire)


The amplitude of "excitement" is in direct proportion to stimulus from a source. (this complies with Relativity, as well as Lorentz "expansion" factors)


(Thanks for reading!)

You have some very weird ideas. Aren't you interested in understanding the actual way nature behaves? For example, the Lorentz transformation is a kind of rotation of a dimension in a projection. It's not really an "expansion" (dilation). But wherever there is dilation projected, there is also contraction. (space contracts and time dilates or vice-versa, depending on whether the relative velocity is positive or negative). And you have it wrong how electrons move in a wire (I actually have no idea what you mean). But check this out:

The actual progression of the individual electrons in a given direction through the wire is quite slow. The electrons have to work their way through the billions of atoms in the wire and this takes considerable time. In the case of a 12 gauge copper wire carrying 10 amperes of current (typical of home wiring), the individual electrons only move about 0.02 cm per sec or 1.2 inches per minute (in science this is called the drift velocity of the electrons.)​

http://www.uu.edu/dept/physics/scienceguys/2001Nov.cfm

 

[Gerry Nightingale]

In reply origin, re: your #20 post.

No, origin...I am not to play this "so you're saying" game with you. Einstein said it...as well as Lorentz. End of story.

I never claimed I have an "alternate theory"...I WROTE IT OUT.

"Explain deeper?" Why? To what end?

If you didn't like or approve or, far more likely did not understand my writings regarding energy and matter, what could I possibly tell you further?

.....

A "charged wire" may not "heat up" to any measureable amount that can be easily detected...such as a "thousandth" of a degree (in isolated conditions)

The "expansion" result will also be of a comparable value to the temp.rise...I'm certain this could verified with a laser array. (in fact, this same type of measurement has been done perhaps

thousands of times with regard to reflectors set-up on the Moon)

......

You "don't see" how Lorentz or Einstein "apply?" Just WTH do you think they DO apply to? Only "thought experiments of relativistic speeds?"

Do you seriously mean to imply to me that "these principles" DO NOT apply to a "charged wire" frame-of-conditions? OF course they do!

.....

You are not "issuing a challenge" to me, origin...you're issuing a challenge to EINSTEIN! Or do you think I'm "inventing things as I go along?". Okay, if that's what you think.

Go ahead and argue with A.E. and let me know how it comes out.

Or, is that a problem?



(Thanks for reading!)

 

[AlexG]

There's a heavy duty disconnect with reality. Just like RC.

 

[Gerry Nightingale]

In reply to aqueous id, re: your #23 post.

That is ONE way to look at Lorentz equations...you make it seem as though they have "no relevance" to empirical reality!

(I think this is the 2nd. time you posted the same link...so I will address that issue regarding "science guys know all about this stuff")

.......

Think about the transit values of electrons "moving" in the charged wire, and then compare it to "real world" lengths of measure (by this I mean something you could actually see)

"0.02" cm per sec. just "SEEMS" slow. It is NOT! If you compared the value of velocity of an electron to a 177cal. bb, the bb would be moving at a 80% or so of lightspeed!!!!

The distance transited in the charged wire by the electron would be tremendously fast...you realize how "fast" the figure of "1.2 inches per min." is??? For an electron that is, by definition,

formerly an orbital of an atom?

Extrapolate the figures for the "size" of an electron...and then tell me "how fast did it move in relation to the 1.2 inches in the copper-wire?" This is a relativistic speed...!!!

(in ?science? this how to "compare the size and velocity values of a "bowling-ball moving down an alley vs. an electron moving thru copper wire" and then comparing the values

to achieve a completely FALSE RESULT)

"Drift velocity" my a$$!!! The results of observation are so skewed the "science guys" don't EVEN SEE anything wrong with their test results!!!

.....


Is this what is taught in physics classes now as being "TRUE?" In this event, I'm glad I'm OLD...so I won't have read many more completely FALSE "observations and conclusions".

(I never spent a single minute in a dedicated physics class...I see now I didn't miss anything)



(Thanks for reading!)

 

[Gerry Nightingale]

In reply to AlexG., re: me

As far as I am concerned, and have been told, I AM NOT ALLOWED to respond to your goading.

Now, "run tel dat" to anyone you want to, like a "mod".

I have many things I would like to say...but as everyone knows (or, at least it has been made clear to ME) that I'm not "allowed" to "hurt your precious feelings")

 

[paddoboy]

If we could change space-time around a block of mass and field of energy, the mass is not impacted, but the energy is. Mass is not dependent on space-time.

Everything in fact is dependant on spacetime.....

The physical geometry of mass can alter the local space-time. In a cloud of hydrogen space gas, space-time is not very contracted. As the mass collapses into a forming star, space-time will become more contracted around the mass, but the amount of mass does not change as space-time changes. It is not a two-way street like E=MC2. Mass is above space-time in hierarchy since mass is an absolute and space-time as much as space-time is dependent on mass.

Wow...weird...Spacetime is not contracted around mass. mass warps, curves spacetime.
Simply and famously put...Mass/energy tells spacetime how to curve: spacetime tells mass/energy how to move:
John Archibald Wheeler:
Why can't you just say that instead of the gobblydook mish mash of words.

If an object fell into a star, it is not the space-time well that will squish the matter. The squishing is connected to the pressure generated by the mass. Space-time does not generate pressure. The mass of the star is not only squishing the mass of the object, but it is also squishes space-time. The time of space-time will slow, while the object will undergo phase changes into faster time frequencies.

Or spacetime is warped/curved in the presence of mass.
From an outside FoR, we see time dilation.

If we look at E=MC2 notice mass and speed of light C on one side. Both of these absolutes/invariants not dependent on reference. Energy, which change with space-time reference, and is variant, is all by itself on the other side. I would think that using two absolutes as the basis for physics would allow us to define the relative, but the other way around will not work since you cannot define absolutes like mass and speed of light using variables like space-time that has little impact on the absolutes.

Sorry, I'm not able to interpret that mish mash jumble of nice sounding scientific words.

 

[Aqueous Id]

In reply to aqueous id, re: your #23 post.

That is ONE way to look at Lorentz equations...you make it seem as though they have "no relevance" to empirical reality!

Do you know anything about this? I think not, but I've only read a few of your posts, so maybe I missed the part where you passed the requisite courses in physics and linear algebra to assert what is and is not correct. "Empirical reality" makes no sense in terms of relativity. There are "many realities" each with different "empirical results" when reference frames diverge into two or more frames, which is the necessary condition the Lorentz transformation covers.

(I think this is the 2nd. time you posted the same link...so I will address that issue regarding "science guys know all about this stuff")

I have no idea what you're talking about. I doubt I've ever posted that link before.

Think about the transit values of electrons "moving" in the charged wire, and then compare it to "real world" lengths of measure (by this I mean something you could actually see)

I have no idea what you're talking about. My point was to correct you, that the electrons in a wire move (on average) at the "drift velocity".

"0.02" cm per sec. just "SEEMS" slow. It is NOT! If you compared the value of velocity of an electron to a 177cal. bb, the bb would be moving at a 80% or so of lightspeed!!!!

Uh... no. No BB moves at 571 million mph. (Check your facts before posting, to reduce the errors in your posts.) And yes, the drift velocity in electron in a wire is very slow, relative to the propagation speed of a signal. But I gave you that link so you could better understand why.

The distance transited in the charged wire by the electron would be tremendously fast...you realize how "fast" the figure of "1.2 inches per min." is??? For an electron that is, by definition,

formerly an orbital of an atom?

Extrapolate the figures for the "size" of an electron...and then tell me "how fast did it move in relation to the 1.2 inches in the copper-wire?" This is a relativistic speed...!!!

Oh geez. I think you really are lost. Try reading the link.

(in ?science? this how to "compare the size and velocity values of a "bowling-ball moving down an alley vs. an electron moving thru copper wire" and then comparing the values

to achieve a completely FALSE RESULT)

Before you can say what is true or false you need to be working from about a college freshman level of science or engineering. That's why your posts are messed up.

"Drift velocity" my a$$!!! The results of observation are so skewed the "science guys" don't EVEN SEE anything wrong with their test results!!!

Your ass just flunked freshman year. Of course the folks who made the grade built the telecom & internet infrastructure, they keep the power and water flowing at your house, they made your car (you sound like a truck driver) get down the road, they remotely controlled the rovers on Mars, they mend cracked skulls (not all, obviously) and do all kinds of stuff that should prove to you they're right. But of course you could just read the link and try to understand the physics of electron transport.

Is this what is taught in physics classes now as being "TRUE?" In this event, I'm glad I'm OLD...so I won't have read many more completely FALSE "observations and conclusions".

You can't be THAT old. I think this was deduced by, say, at least 1920 or so.

(I never spent a single minute in a dedicated physics class...I see now I didn't miss anything)

Then why are you posting your assertions about physics in a science forum? Do you tell your plumber how to sweat a pipe? Do you tell your dentist how to excavate a bad tooth? What's really going? Wussup dude?

(Thanks for reading!)

That comes across as "Fuck you but have a nice day". :bugeye:

I encourage you to read the link. I can help you understand what it's telling you, as can a couple of dozen other contributors here. Just ask if there are parts you don't understand.

 

[Aqueous Id]

There's a heavy duty disconnect with reality. Just like RC.

If you hit me with a rebuttal, or to correct my errors, the last thing I'd do is to attack you. I would immediately wonder what I did wrong. I would probably ask you for a clarification if I didn't know where you were headed. On the other hand, if Gerry N did the same, I'd immediately recognize that he's just lost and wandering around on autopilot.

BTW glad to see you're still posting here.

 

[Gerry Nightingale]

In reply to aqueous id, re: #29 post.

No...whassup wit u, dude! You do nice job of character assassination, but not much else. (I know I have had that "link" shown to me before recently. If it wasn't you, okay then)

I put the "tagline" on virtually EVERYTHING I post...how it comes across to you is your problem, not mine!

When I want to learn something, I read books...I don't ask people on the internet, unless it is a specific question relating to what they wrote.

......

"Why do YOU post your assertions (if any) on a physics forum, aqueous? (I post so others can read my stuff)

.....

The assertions made in the "link" are seriously flawed, just from the standpoint of logic alone...never mind theoretical physics!

MY "facts?" NO...these are not MY FACTS. They are real factors provided in the link...and the conclusions are wrong.

As for what I "sound like", it's irrelevant to my critique of the "link" you provided.

.....

Try to stick to the issue, instead of attacking me on a personal level...or, maybe you could explain "where I went wrong" with regard to the "link".



(Thanks for reading!)

 

[origin]

@Gerry Nightengale just for full disclosure, I reported, well basically all of your post as containing meaningless nonscience content in the science section. It is clear that it is useless to try to converse with you. Your attitude is that any stray thought that pops into your head is a profound truth of physics and no one can tell you otherwise. You have very confused notions about basic physics and you have absolutely now idea about more in depth topics like relativity. All you bring to the table is completely unfounded arrogance.

 

[Gerry Nightingale]

in reply to origin, re: #32.

Thou hast wounded me with thine arsenal of truths! (at least to limit of your ability to "understand?")

You can "report" on me all you like! Any "stray thought" I have is predicated on years of thinking. If it's wrong, then it's wrong...so what?

I never said you "must respond" to me, and as far as I know, neither has anyone else!

.....

You feel that somehow YOU are fit to render judgment on every single word I write? Okay, go ahead then. I'm certain you can bring up some of your earlier adjectives to me

to use in further posts.

You insinuate that only YOU know anything about physics...because EVERY SINGLE ONE of your responses consist of known published work of other people, NONE of whom are

involved with this site! Good deal for you, yes?

I wrote my concepts/theories on an "Alternate Theories" thread...and you immediately began a relentless vitriolic attack on ME personally...because you think you know everything

that is correct in theoretical physics, as well as ANY other material published for the last 500 years!

I'm too "arrogant" for you? So what if I am? So, far ALL you have done is act as "judge-jury-executioner" because I refuse to write out 20-responses to every "post" from you?

How do you think you are entitled to such a massive amount of explanation from me?

.....

Explain this! Explain that! Explain it all...every time you ask!! Over and over! If you did not understand what I wrote, how is telling the same thing 400x times more going

to cause a different reaction from you?

......

What does "metric" mean? What does "continuum mean?" What does "energy" mean?" Because you looked-up standards and terms of usages in science, you think any other "usage"

is strictly "verboten!" I NEVER said I am a "scientist", or even implied it!

YOU are the one who always writes as if you yourself are A SCIENTIST! Okay...so where are your credentials? Where do you work? Which physics dept. of which University?

.....

What exactly is it you hate about me? You know nothing about me personally or my life, except my true name and some personal history of long ago.

Do you seriously think I'm unaware of how radical my "stuff" is? Of course I know! My concepts (if correct) would damn near eliminate most of physics' "bedrock" assumptions

of at least the last sixty years! Most of QM would be "knocked into a cocked hat!"

I have tried to explain to you the "how" of what I wrote...and ALL you want is for me to admit I'm wrong...because YOU THINK SO!

I do not think "matter is being converted into energy" and you think this is heresy! "BURN HIM, HE"S AN APOSTATE!!!" Or at the very least, "BAN HIM!".

.....

How many people do you think would left on this site by your "judgments", origin? Maybe the "mods" & five or six others you "approve" of?

For instance, paddoboy could not disagree more with me than he has already...yet there are some areas we agree on! "Evolution", for one. The Solar System came from our Sun,

for another.

I don't disagree with everything...just photons and electrons as "moving" independently from a source, and I wrote what I think is a viable "alternate" to the recognized standards

of emission theory. If it's wrong, then it's wrong. No harm, no foul.

.....

"All I bring to the table" IS A NEW CONCEPT...and you can't stand it!!! Why?



(Thanks for reading!)

 

[paddoboy]

What does "metric" mean? What does "continuum mean?" What does "energy" mean?" Because you looked-up standards and terms of usages in science, you think any other "usage" is strictly "verboten!" I NEVER said I am a "scientist", or even implied it!

I'm not a scientist either Gerry, but I find it logical that If I want to discuss, debate scientific issues, I MUST stick with standard scientific terminology.

What exactly is it you hate about me? You know nothing about me personally or my life, except my true name and some personal history of long ago

Origin does not hate you Gerry. origin like many other science adherents here, are really just had a gut full of the nonsense some people want to pass off as science.
You have only recently joined that club and as such, if you see the need to project your own thoughts with some certainty over incumbent models...You will cop flak!!!!
This is first and foremost a mainstream science forum.
And if you are going to bring up "hate", then its generally the case that hate is driven by a grudge.
I don't think origin has a grudge against you, rather the general plethora of anti science nonsense of late.
Now if we want to talk about hate and grudges, then you've come to the right person.
On the other hand it could just be a case of excessive love directed in my direction.

Do you seriously think I'm unaware of how radical my "stuff" is? Of course I know! My concepts (if correct) would damn near eliminate most of physics' "bedrock" assumptions of at least the last sixty years! Most of QM would be "knocked into a cocked hat!"

Radical? Sure they are radical, but the chances of them even getting close to eliminating incumbent models, is non existent.
It just doesn't happen Gerry.

If someone is undoubtably wrong, they should be shown that they are wrong.

For instance, paddoboy could not disagree more with me than he has already...yet there are some areas we agree on! "Evolution", for one. The Solar System came from our Sun,

And so does origin. Just because he doesn't say so, is no reason to believe he disagrees with you.


If you are wrong, you are wrong. Admit it.
I mostly align with mainstream, not because I'm a mainstream cheer leader, but because it's the mainstream incumbent models re cosmology that make most sense, according to the data available.

I have been shown to be wrong on this forum a few times...brucep and Grumpy have needed to pull me in line a few times....Not so much on any particular incumbent model, but rather on a couple of reasonably "minor" details, that did not take away from the model as a whole. Both were in relation to BH's/

 

[origin]

in reply to origin, re: #32.
I wrote my concepts/theories on an "Alternate Theories" thread...and you immediately began a relentless vitriolic attack on ME personally...because you think you know everything
that is correct in theoretical physics, as well as ANY other material published for the last 500 years!

That is not true. It is simply not true that "immediately began a relentless vitriolic attack on ME personally". When in the course of time it became evident that you were being willfully ignorant and arrogant I certainly became more vehement in my objecttions to your ideas and attitude.

YOU are the one who always writes as if you yourself are A SCIENTIST! Okay...so where are your credentials? Where do you work? Which physics dept. of which University?

I have already told you I am not a scientist, I am a chemical engineer. Remember?

What exactly is it you hate about me? You know nothing about me personally or my life, except my true name and some personal history of long ago.

Why in the world would I hate your? That's crazy, I don't even know you. Your ideas I certainly do not like. I also do not like it when people misrepresent real scientist work like Einstein.

For instance, paddoboy could not disagree more with me than he has already...yet there are some areas we agree on! "Evolution", for one. The Solar System came from our Sun, for another.

I of course agree with evolution, I am reluctant to agree with you on evolution until I see what your interpretation is! Your comment on the solar system is typical. What do you mean the solar system "came from the sun"? We have one poster who believe that the planets emerged from the sun and are moving away from the sun. I (and I believe that paddoboy would agree) understand that when the molecular cloud that created the sun collapsed that the left over material formed an accretion disk around the sun that formed into the planets. So I would not say "the solar system came from the sun".

 

[OnlyMe]

@Gerry Nightengale just for full disclosure, I reported, well basically all of your post as containing meaningless nonscience content in the science section.

Don't know where it was but it is in On The Fringe and Pseudoscience now. Just walk away and let him ramble on....

 

[Gerry Nightingale]

In reply to origin, re: your #35 post.

What do I mean "the Solar System came from the Sun?"

Just as (for the most part) you wrote it, origin. Surprise! Yes, that is "what I think".

(I think some of the "denser" bodies, such as Earth, may well have been ejecta from the equatorial regions of the Sun)

I do not think the planets are "moving away" from the Sun...if they were, it would already be a "done deal" and I would not be here to write drivel and you would not be around to read it.

.....

My "interpretation" of evolution? I don't have a "personal" model...I believe the current models that are accepted are true and correct.

......

My comment on the "Solar System" is "typical?" WTH does that mean? You are, in effect, "pre-judging" my response BEFORE I even write a word!

I have no chance with you, origin...do as OnlyMe says and let me "ramble on"< (very clever "dig" at me, very "smarmy" and typical from someone who knows only what they read)



(Thanks for reading!)

 

[origin]

In reply to origin, re: your #35 post.
What do I mean "the Solar System came from the Sun?" Just as (for the most part) you wrote it, origin. Surprise! Yes, that is "what I think".

Well that is good no need to interject any woo-woo. Very good indeed.

(I think some of the "denser" bodies, such as Earth, may well have been ejecta from the equatorial regions of the Sun)

Just had to do it didn't ya? Yep lets throw in some woo-woo made up stuff.

I do not think the planets are "moving away" from the Sun...if they were, it would already be a "done deal" and I would not be here to write drivel and you would not be around to read it.

Guess what, the earth and the sun on average are moving apart. You can't win fer losin', can you?

My "interpretation" of evolution? I don't have a "personal" model...I believe the current models that are accepted are true and correct.

Hmmm, really? Just like the formation of the solar system??

My comment on the "Solar System" is "typical?" WTH does that mean? You are, in effect, "pre-judging" my response BEFORE I even write a word!

The 'typical part' is that your comment of the "solar system came from the sun" is so ambiguous as to be useless. Of course then you say you actually believe that planets or part of the planets were vomited out of the sun - sheesh.

 

[Gerry Nightingale]

In reply to paddoboy, re: your #34 post.

"if I'm wrong, then admit I'm wrong?" No...paddo. I can be wrong, but matter/energy/gravity are NOT "wrong". I have a different interpretation of 'energy & gravity" as to "what they are

and how they work" and you want me to throw my "wrong" thinking into the dust-bin.

.....

If I thought for an instant my concepts had some flaw or incorrect thinking, I would let it go instantly and start again from scratch!

Contrary to what you may think, as well as others, I always use "A.E." to "light the path" for me...if I chose the wrong "path", then at some point I will see it.

I constantly re-examine my stuff...and if there is something I find "questionable", I let it go.

......

I like Grumpy's posts! They are cogent and to the point, minus name-calling.

As far as "bru" is concerned...he was the very first to answer my "Topic" post at another "phys." site, and his first words were to ATTACK ME on a personal level.

(This the very first time I had written anything anywhere on the internet)

It was "toned down" here...but still he was the first to post something "snarky")

......

You could read my stuff there, and my defenses of what I wrote...but it has been DELETED!

(nice way to run the playground, yes?)

No, paddo, I'm not "new" to being thrown acidic comments at...this seems a "hallmark" on any site.

No, paddoboy...I will not play "teacher's pet" and ki$$-ass just so admin. won't give me the "boot"...that's not me, and never has been. To me, that "game is not worth the candle" and I

already have a hard time looking at myself in the mirror. I don't need to add more "coward and toady" to what I see.

.....

Bye the bye...are you in Australia? I ask because I keep reading how bad the drought is there...is it really that bad? To the point of where some communities may be need to be

abandoned for lack of water?



(Thanks for reading!)

 

[paddoboy]

I of course agree with evolution, I am reluctant to agree with you on evolution until I see what your interpretation is! Your comment on the solar system is typical. What do you mean the solar system "came from the sun"? We have one poster who believe that the planets emerged from the sun and are moving away from the sun. I (and I believe that paddoboy would agree) understand that when the molecular cloud that created the sun collapsed that the left over material formed an accretion disk around the sun that formed into the planets. So I would not say "the solar system came from the sun".

I did make a comment re one of Gerry's posts re the planets and the Sun.
If he was inferring ejection hypothesis, that I 100% disagree.
The solar system [planets and Sun] most likely formed from the same accretion disk, with a protoSun igniting first at some instant in time, under pressure, then the formation of the planets from left over debris.
Over the 4.6 billion or so years, there has been planetary migration, both inwards and outwards, probably associated with the early crowded unruly state of the early solar system.

And of course the accretion disk theory method of the formation of the solar system, has been well supported over the last decade or so, from observations of other stellar system formations via the accretion disk theory.
Alternatively, no observational evidence has ever been seen to support planets being ejected from the host star.