#1
|
|||
|
|||
mass is light.
$$ mass is light.
$$ EVERYthing seen or made manifest is mass. $$ -- Paul (Saul). $$ hbar $$ SI mass = --------- = MiNiMUM photon ..in kilograms. $$ 2*c^2*sec $$ h $$ SI mass = ------------ = MiNiMUM photon m1 ..in SI kilograms. $$ 4*pi*c^2*sec $$ So, photons doN'T go anywhere ..they simply pass on the frequency. $$ For example, Planck *discovered* Helmholtz resonator frequency fL. $$ For example, Planck *believed* that the photons are ALREADY there. $$ [The LiNEAR wavelength wL is what travels on ..at light velocity]. |
#2
|
|||
|
|||
mass is light.
brian a m stuckless wrote: $$ mass is light. $$ EVERYthing seen or made manifest is mass. $$ -- Paul (Saul). $$ hbar $$ SI mass = --------- = MiNiMUM photon ..in kilograms. $$ 2*c^2*sec $$ h $$ SI mass = ------------ = MiNiMUM photon m1 ..in SI kilograms. $$ 4*pi*c^2*sec $$ So, photons doN'T go anywhere ..they simply pass on the frequency. $$ For example, Planck *discovered* Helmholtz resonator frequency fL. $$ For example, Planck *believed* that the photons are ALREADY there. $$ [The LiNEAR wavelength wL is what travels on ..at light velocity]. Everything beyond simple sensation, color, sound, taste, smell, and touch, is simply hypothetical construct. Verification consists of mathematical consistency and experimental efficacy. It has been said that everything is vibration. That theory is probably as good as any. Optics gives us the impression of light moving in space/time like objects do. Optics works for making a pair of glasses. But does it describe the reality of space/time? And, what are objects anyway? Just more sensation. You touch them, hear them, taste and smell them, and see them. But just what are they? Hard fast masses existing separately from you? If they existed separately from you how could you see them? How could you even know of them? This causal nexus of our existence is a bit more complex than either relativity or quantum mechanics would have us believe. tomcat |
#3
|
|||
|
|||
mass is light.
"tomcat" wrote in message oups.com... brian a m stuckless wrote: $$ mass is light. $$ EVERYthing seen or made manifest is mass. $$ -- Paul (Saul). $$ hbar $$ SI mass = --------- = MiNiMUM photon ..in kilograms. $$ 2*c^2*sec $$ h $$ SI mass = ------------ = MiNiMUM photon m1 ..in SI kilograms. $$ 4*pi*c^2*sec $$ So, photons doN'T go anywhere ..they simply pass on the frequency. $$ For example, Planck *discovered* Helmholtz resonator frequency fL. $$ For example, Planck *believed* that the photons are ALREADY there. $$ [The LiNEAR wavelength wL is what travels on ..at light velocity]. Everything beyond simple sensation, color, sound, taste, smell, and touch, is simply hypothetical construct. Verification consists of mathematical consistency and experimental efficacy. It has been said that everything is vibration. That theory is probably as good as any. Optics gives us the impression of light moving in space/time like objects do. Optics works for making a pair of glasses. But does it describe the reality of space/time? And, what are objects anyway? Just more sensation. You touch them, hear them, taste and smell them, and see them. But just what are they? Hard fast masses existing separately from you? If they existed separately from you how could you see them? How could you even know of them? This causal nexus of our existence is a bit more complex than either relativity or quantum mechanics would have us believe. "The aim of science is not things themselves, as the dogmatists in their simplicity imagine, but the relations among things; outside these relations there is no reality knowable." Henri Poincaré, Science and Hypothesis, 1905 Only our subjective abilities can properly perceive reality. The dual nature of light is no more mysterious than the dual nature of a simple cloud. If you were to take a snapsnot measurement of a cloud, it'd be pure chance whether you measured a drop of water or air. Since the two are at a persistent phase transition between each other. Like that temperature where water just turns to air, but not quite. Chaotically jumping between the two possible states. This is where any deterministic or precise mapping is impossible due to the non linear and chaotic motion. And guess what? The chaos and complexity sciences have made a rather large discovery concerning this universal dynamic state. IT IS THE SOURCE OF ALL VISIBLE ORDER IN THE UNIVERSE!!! The one and only place where objective mathematics, physics etc are completely helpless. Is also the one and only place where the underlying source of evolution of the physical /and/ living worlds can be seen. Where math has always simply skipped passed. Calling that state a 'discontinuity' and such or thermodynamics. "We'll leave that for later". It's just noise they say. "There's no repeatability there, no precision" they say. More art than science they say, like the weather. "We just need a bigger computer" , then we'll number crunch our way through the chaos ". No you wont. The dynamic state responsible for all order would be the most complicated motion possible in your objective sciences. But complexity science has inversed .....rigorously...all the frames of references of classical methods. Inverse the frame and inverse the results. This chaotic state is now the simplest motion from this subjective, holistic, evolutionary frame of reference. What was hard is now simple. And the simple truth is that from this dynamic or edge state, complexity/chaos in the components creates simplicity in the whole. From your part driven perspective the universe is almost infinitely complicated, messy, random and destructive. So from my perspective the output, or the whole, will be proportionally simple, elegant, beautiful and creative. Which it is. In real world systems the only place simplicity and predictability are truly found are when systems display this edge of chaos criticality. The near term future behavior becomes simple. As it has only two possible future states when at the edge. Either water or air, either matter or energy, either a particle or a wave. Either static or chaotic. And the extreme sensitivity at the edge, like that almost boiling water, means the slightest change or input will cause a sudden transition to ....either...a particle or a wave. Fight or flee! Any equation that has time as a variable does not refer to reality. Nothing that 'matters' in the universe ever repeats, nothing that matters maps directly. It's the higher forms of order that matters. The edge state is best displayed where 'complexity' is at the highest. The secrets of the universe are not found in it's smallest parts. It's found in life, the highest expression of life. Intelligence. An emotion or idea represents the most complex or highest level of order in the known universe. Reality is best seen not by looking around us, at things around us. But they are seen from within each of us. The grand theory cannot be proved, it cannot be made into an equation. It cannot be derived. It can only be known and seen with our eyes. Look! It's floating past your window. Each of us has to figure it out by ourselves. By developing our /subjective/ abilities to the level of becoming science. DYNAMICS OF COMPLEX SYSTEMS http://necsi.org/publications/dcs/index.html s tomcat |
#4
|
|||
|
|||
mass is light.
jonathan wrote: "The aim of science is not things themselves, as the dogmatists in their simplicity imagine, but the relations among things; outside these relations there is no reality knowable." Henri Poincaré, Science and Hypothesis, 1905 Only our subjective abilities can properly perceive reality. The dual nature of light is no more mysterious than the dual nature of a simple cloud. If you were to take a snapsnot measurement of a cloud, it'd be pure chance whether you measured a drop of water or air. Since the two are at a persistent phase transition between each other. Like that temperature where water just turns to air, but not quite. Chaotically jumping between the two possible states. This is where any deterministic or precise mapping is impossible due to the non linear and chaotic motion. And guess what? The chaos and complexity sciences have made a rather large discovery concerning this universal dynamic state. IT IS THE SOURCE OF ALL VISIBLE ORDER IN THE UNIVERSE!!! The one and only place where objective mathematics, physics etc are completely helpless. Is also the one and only place where the underlying source of evolution of the physical /and/ living worlds can be seen. Where math has always simply skipped passed. Calling that state a 'discontinuity' and such or thermodynamics. "We'll leave that for later". It's just noise they say. "There's no repeatability there, no precision" they say. More art than science they say, like the weather. "We just need a bigger computer" , then we'll number crunch our way through the chaos ". No you wont. The dynamic state responsible for all order would be the most complicated motion possible in your objective sciences. But complexity science has inversed ....rigorously...all the frames of references of classical methods. Inverse the frame and inverse the results. This chaotic state is now the simplest motion from this subjective, holistic, evolutionary frame of reference. What was hard is now simple. And the simple truth is that from this dynamic or edge state, complexity/chaos in the components creates simplicity in the whole. From your part driven perspective the universe is almost infinitely complicated, messy, random and destructive. So from my perspective the output, or the whole, will be proportionally simple, elegant, beautiful and creative. Which it is. In real world systems the only place simplicity and predictability are truly found are when systems display this edge of chaos criticality. The near term future behavior becomes simple. As it has only two possible future states when at the edge. Either water or air, either matter or energy, either a particle or a wave. Either static or chaotic. And the extreme sensitivity at the edge, like that almost boiling water, means the slightest change or input will cause a sudden transition to ....either...a particle or a wave. Fight or flee! Any equation that has time as a variable does not refer to reality. Nothing that 'matters' in the universe ever repeats, nothing that matters maps directly. It's the higher forms of order that matters. The edge state is best displayed where 'complexity' is at the highest. The secrets of the universe are not found in it's smallest parts. It's found in life, the highest expression of life. Intelligence. An emotion or idea represents the most complex or highest level of order in the known universe. Reality is best seen not by looking around us, at things around us. But they are seen from within each of us. The grand theory cannot be proved, it cannot be made into an equation. It cannot be derived. It can only be known and seen with our eyes. Look! It's floating past your window. Each of us has to figure it out by ourselves. By developing our /subjective/ abilities to the level of becoming science. DYNAMICS OF COMPLEX SYSTEMS http://necsi.org/publications/dcs/index.html The simplest dichotomy explains quite a bit. To see means to see something. That which sees is the 'observer'. That which is seen is the 'object'. And, the relationship between the two is 'seeing', for without 'seeing' there would be no observer/object. Thus, the dichotomy becomes a trichotomy. The relations of our world are now part of our world and can be analyzed so that they, too, turn into 'objects' with yet another level of 'seeing' required. This is the gensis of 'scientific observation' or experimentation/theory. Soon we have special logics and theories of theories as the process continues. But it all boils down to sensation and 'our' observation of it. For knowledge look outward. For truth look inward. But most people don't look at all and are destined to be . . . conscious automatons. tomcat |
#5
|
|||
|
|||
mass is light.
In article ,
"jonathan" wrote: "tomcat" wrote in message oups.com... brian a m stuckless wrote: This thread is a trifecta of fringe. |
#6
|
|||
|
|||
mass is light.
Bryian, I think that I agree.
How many photons is your best swag telling us there are per atom? How much does your typical photon weigh? What's the maximum mass of a very large/long photon? Are there extremely long gravity photons? - Brad Guth |
#7
|
|||
|
|||
mass is light.
"tomcat" wrote in message oups.com... The simplest dichotomy explains quite a bit. To see means to see something. That which sees is the 'observer'. That which is seen is the 'object'. And, the relationship between the two is 'seeing', for without 'seeing' there would be no observer/object. Thus, the dichotomy becomes a trichotomy. The relations of our world are now part of our world and can be analyzed so that they, too, turn into 'objects' with yet another level of 'seeing' required. This is the gensis of 'scientific observation' or experimentation/theory. Soon we have special logics and theories of theories as the process continues. But it all boils down to sensation and 'our' observation of it. For knowledge look outward. For truth look inward. But most people don't look at all and are destined to be . . . conscious automatons. tomcat ..................... The relationship between observer and observed is the first and most important frame of reference of all. Classical methods have a problem here. They attempt to remove the observer so that one observation can be compared to another. It is the notion or desire to compare ...one thing...to another that is the basic frame of reference mistake. By instead comparing a thing against itself restores the observer to the relationship. We ask first NOT what a thing is, but what range of possibility exists for such things in general. For each system we first define the opposite extremes in possibility space. The practical, not theoretical, opposite extremes. For a simple cloud the static and chaotic extremes in possibility is merely water and air. For a society is would be law vs freedom. For genius it would be knowledge and imagination. So we now would compare an observation to those system specific extremes. The highest expression of such things exists when both static and chaotic realms are at simultaneous maximums ...and..interacting with each other critically, at the edge. The simplicity or complexity of a system is now judged relative to its own possible extremes. Near one extreme or the other is where simplicity lies in behavior. At the phase transition between the two extremes is the most complex. Two simple miminums, and one complex maximum. Instead of a linear scale of order from ultimate simplicity to infinite complexity, as things are seen now. These opposite extremes are entirely subjective, which restores the observer by forcing him to define the extremes or system boundaries before the observed can be analyzed. Any thing in the universe has opposite extremes in possibility. So by comparing things against themselves allows ....all things.. to be analyzed with a ...single...science. Every discipline dealing with the real world is open to this kind of analysis. All of them. And then, and only then, can the commonalities that exist in reality be /seen/ with a single idea. And what you see when doing this is nothing short of stunning. At the edge, where opposite extremes stand poised at a persistent phase transtion, the system spontaneously organizes. It becomes adaptive, resilient and begins hill climbing. Doesn't matter if it's a physical system or a living one. The properties of Darwinian evolution we all know and love apply universally. Which implies that the universe is NOT on a random path of creation and destrucion. But a directed walk towards ever higher forms of order. This changes our view of everything. Jonathan s |
#8
|
|||
|
|||
mass is light.
"Alan Anderson" wrote in message ... In article , "jonathan" wrote: "tomcat" wrote in message oups.com... brian a m stuckless wrote: This thread is a trifecta of fringe. Well, conventional has the following properties. Can you ever hope to comprehend the sum total of all scientific knowledge, data and disciplines??? Can anyone? And as time goes on, and the disciplines become ever more refined, specialized and numerous. As the data builds at almost a exponential rate, is any one person less or more likely to have this ability??? Of course not, over time the current 'equation' of science takes us ever farther from the possibility of complete understanding. But what if we could reverse this situation. Where over time the opposite occurs. Less and less disciplines, more and more common axioms. Less and less data as one system ends up describes them all. What if? Where everyone could understand it all with the minimum of detailed knowledge. The 'equation' of the conventional scientific method goes like this. As the reduction to the part details approaches zero, the complexity of the accumulated science approaches infinity. And into the confusing darkness of complexity we descend. Into meaningless and anxiety ridden views. Simply inverse the initial frame of reference concerning the relationship between observer and observed. From reducing to part details, to expanding to system properties. From honing objective abilities to subjective. From using the physical world to understanding the living, to the reverse. And so on. I'm not making this stuff up, only putting it in my own words with some dramatic license. It's taught at MIT for crying out loud, just to name one. DYNAMICS OF COMPLEX SYSTEMS http://necsi.org/publications/dcs/index.html |
#9
|
|||
|
|||
mass is light.
Brad Guth wrote: Bryian, I think that I agree. How many photons is your best swag telling us there are per atom? How much does your typical photon weigh? What's the maximum mass of a very large/long photon? Are there extremely long gravity photons? - Brad Guth It is interesting to note that some theorists believe that electrons are 'the' fundamental building block of matter/mass. Electrons have mass. Photons don't. But, when electrons shift orbits they generate photons and when photons hit metal plate they generate electrons. It may, therefore, be the case that photons are the fundamental building block of matter/mass, with photons simply being the flip side of an electron -- whatever 'flip' means. Our world is certainly mostly electrons. Everything you touch, in fact, the only things you can touch are electrons. The neutrons and protons are deep inside the electron shells. If there is an equivalence operating here between electrons and photons then, indeed, the things you touch are light (photons) itself, with the light given off simply more of the same coming from 'other' sources. It is not so farfetched then to think of the world as massless light quanta despite the existence of mass electrons. The two appear to be interchangeable. What about protons, neutrons, and various particles? Perhaps they are just more transpositions of massless photons. Annihilate them, plowing one into the other, and you will see . . . light. Lots of light. tomcat |
#10
|
|||
|
|||
mass is light.
Brad Guth wrote:
Bryian, I think that I agree. How many photons is your best swag telling us there are per atom? How much does your typical photon weigh? If the frequency of the photon is f, then the mass is h*f/c^2 Bob Kolker |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
[sci.astro] Galaxies (Astronomy Frequently Asked Questions) (8/9) | [email protected] | Astronomy Misc | 0 | May 3rd 06 12:35 PM |
[sci.astro] Stars (Astronomy Frequently Asked Questions) (7/9) | [email protected] | Astronomy Misc | 0 | May 3rd 06 12:35 PM |
UFO Activities from Biblical Times | Kazmer Ujvarosy | Astronomy Misc | 0 | December 25th 03 05:21 AM |
Electric Gravity&Instantaneous Light | ralph sansbury | Astronomy Misc | 8 | August 31st 03 02:53 AM |