mass is light.

Wayne Throop wrote:
: "tomcat"
: Einstein clearly -- and unquestionably -- stated that E = M C^2. This
: means that Pure Energy is equal to Mass times the Speed of Light
: Squared. It seems to me that anything less than C^2 should, therefore,
: have Mass.

What does "anything less than C^2" mean?


Wayne Throop http://sheol.org/throopw




We think of Mass in motion as becoming different as it goes faster,
according to the Theory of Relativity. Indeed, in one sense it does --
relative to our position apart from it. But, in fact, the object going
at relativistic speeds doesn't change at all -- except from our
perspective -- and relative to the object our different position, our
object, is going extremely fast.

So, can things go faster than light?

Of course they can! Relative to us, however, they would not be
visible. And, there may be other relativistic effects as well.
Relative to us, in fact, they would appear to be in a warp bubble, if
we are able to detect them at all. Relative to the object it is our
position, us, that would appear to be in a warp bubble, not themselves.


tomcat

Alan Anderson wrote:
: "tomcat"
: Einstein clearly -- and unquestionably -- stated that E = M C^2. This
: means that Pure Energy is equal to Mass times the Speed of Light
: Squared.

No, that's not what it means. It's not talking about "pure energy" or a
moving mass. It's talking about the energy inherent in a given quantity
of matter, without regard for velocity (or temperature, or altitude, or
compression, etc.).




An equation, any equation, is icy cold logic. They mean whatever a
'proper logical' interpretation says they mean. So, yes, E = M C^2
means "energy inherent in a given quantityof matter, without regard for
velocity," but it also can -- properly -- be interpreted as meaning the
E standing for Pure Energy at the relativistic velocity of Mass at C^2.

This 'Pure Energy' however, should act as a limit to any possible
observable (with instruments) anomaly caused by it's proximity.
Whether or not it is a true limit on the an objects possible speed -- I
don't know. It might be.



tomcat

tomcat wrote:
Alan Anderson wrote:
: "tomcat"
: Einstein clearly -- and unquestionably -- stated that E = M C^2. This
: means that Pure Energy is equal to Mass times the Speed of Light
: Squared.

No, that's not what it means. It's not talking about "pure energy" or a
moving mass. It's talking about the energy inherent in a given quantity
of matter, without regard for velocity (or temperature, or altitude, or
compression, etc.).




An equation, any equation, is icy cold logic. They mean whatever a
'proper logical' interpretation says they mean. So, yes, E = M C^2
means "energy inherent in a given quantityof matter, without regard for
velocity," but it also can -- properly -- be interpreted as meaning the
E standing for Pure Energy at the relativistic velocity of Mass at C^2.

This 'Pure Energy' however, should act as a limit to any possible
observable (with instruments) anomaly caused by it's proximity.
Whether or not it is a true limit on the an objects possible speed -- I
don't know. It might be.



tomcat

My understanding is that matter "condensates" from the electro-
magnetic field, so that its source is not the "ether" but light.
Ergo, Einstein's formula: E = mc**2. Fundamentally, though,
there is a problem with equating mass, or more exactly mass-
energy, with electromagnetic energy, because rather than having
ALL mass the result of things like gamma rays producing electron-
positron pairs, there is a secondary phase-superposition of Dark
Energy, or virtual "Dirac Sea" of latent energy. Therefore, the
word "electromagnetic" should not be used so much as "electric".
A more appropriate definition of Einstein's Energy law would be:

E = m_e(c**2) = lambda_e(W_k)(W_x) = e(W_x),

where lambda_e represents the wavelength of the electron, W_k
represents the wave intrinsic to the particle (or to the linear
momentum carried by the massfree particle, equal (usu.) to de
Broglie's pilot or GROUP WAVE, with W_x representing the particle
or "extrinsic" to momentum that is analogous to de Broglie's PHASE
WAVE, and "e" representing the charge of the electron.

Thus the Einstein equation offers only the electromagnetic por-
tion of mass-energy, and must be taken into consideration with the
fine structure of the mass-energy, as the fine structure relates
to a condensate of the ether, and not of the electromagnetic field.

The field of study which relates to the idea of an *ultimately*
massless ether is scalar electromagnetics. The electron represents
a spherical standing wave with an "IN" portion and an "OUT"
portion. Each of their amplitudes are INFINITE at the center
of the spherical wave, but when BOTH OPPOSITES COMBINE, form a
STANDING WAVE OF FINITE AMPLITUDE. The amplitude of this
continuous wave is a SCALAR, and not an ELECTROMAGNETIC VECTOR.
Thus the speed of light is not so much a barrier as it is a speed
of energy exchange.

American wrote:
tomcat wrote:
Alan Anderson wrote:
: "tomcat"
: Einstein clearly -- and unquestionably -- stated that E = M C^2. This
: means that Pure Energy is equal to Mass times the Speed of Light
: Squared.

No, that's not what it means. It's not talking about "pure energy" or a
moving mass. It's talking about the energy inherent in a given quantity
of matter, without regard for velocity (or temperature, or altitude, or
compression, etc.).




An equation, any equation, is icy cold logic. They mean whatever a
'proper logical' interpretation says they mean. So, yes, E = M C^2
means "energy inherent in a given quantityof matter, without regard for
velocity," but it also can -- properly -- be interpreted as meaning the
E standing for Pure Energy at the relativistic velocity of Mass at C^2.

This 'Pure Energy' however, should act as a limit to any possible
observable (with instruments) anomaly caused by it's proximity.
Whether or not it is a true limit on the an objects possible speed -- I
don't know. It might be.



tomcat






My understanding is that matter "condensates" from the electro-
magnetic field, so that its source is not the "ether" but light.


This is a very speculative field at present. Some theories say it
spontaneously appears out of nothing -- quantum foam and all that. The
only thing I feel certain of in this regard is that everything is
connected and ties together somehow.


Ergo, Einstein's formula: E = mc**2. Fundamentally, though,
there is a problem with equating mass, or more exactly mass-
energy, with electromagnetic energy, because rather than having
ALL mass the result of things like gamma rays producing electron-
positron pairs, there is a secondary phase-superposition of Dark
Energy, or virtual "Dirac Sea" of latent energy. Therefore, the
word "electromagnetic" should not be used so much as "electric".
A more appropriate definition of Einstein's Energy law would be:

E = m_e(c**2) = lambda_e(W_k)(W_x) = e(W_x),

where lambda_e represents the wavelength of the electron, W_k
represents the wave intrinsic to the particle (or to the linear
momentum carried by the massfree particle, equal (usu.) to de
Broglie's pilot or GROUP WAVE, with W_x representing the particle
or "extrinsic" to momentum that is analogous to de Broglie's PHASE
WAVE, and "e" representing the charge of the electron.

Thus the Einstein equation offers only the electromagnetic por-
tion of mass-energy, and must be taken into consideration with the
fine structure of the mass-energy, as the fine structure relates
to a condensate of the ether, and not of the electromagnetic field.


Quote: " mass-energy, as the fine structure relates to a condensate of
the ether . . ."

You seem to be saying something different here, however, than you did
above. Here is a quote from what you said above:

Quote: " My understanding is that matter "condensates" from the
electro-magnetic field, so that its source is not the "ether" but
light."

Are you strictly referencing the Einstein position in the first quote?



The field of study which relates to the idea of an *ultimately*
massless ether is scalar electromagnetics. The electron represents
a spherical standing wave with an "IN" portion and an "OUT"
portion. Each of their amplitudes are INFINITE at the center
of the spherical wave, but when BOTH OPPOSITES COMBINE, form a
STANDING WAVE OF FINITE AMPLITUDE. The amplitude of this
continuous wave is a SCALAR, and not an ELECTROMAGNETIC VECTOR.
Thus the speed of light is not so much a barrier as it is a speed
of energy exchange.

Standing waves are fascinating. Energy canceled out by form. Where
does the energy go when the form cancels out? Tesla liked to
experiment with standing waves. A practical example would be two hi-fi
speakers, each out of phase such that the one cancels the other's wave.

If we assume that the music being played was 'vibrating' loud then
where does all that energy go when we hear nothing?

I suspect that Einstein making the speed of light his theoretical
maximum meant that nothing faster than light could be observed. In
short, space-time starts to warp with relativistic velocities, because
space-time is our observational field, it is what affects us. Thus the
speed of light is not so much a barrier as it is a 'warping' of our
matter-energy sensible position relative to the 'relativistic' object.


tomcat

tomcat wrote:
American wrote:
tomcat wrote:
Alan Anderson wrote:
: "tomcat"
: Einstein clearly -- and unquestionably -- stated that E = M C^2. This
: means that Pure Energy is equal to Mass times the Speed of Light
: Squared.

No, that's not what it means. It's not talking about "pure energy" or a
moving mass. It's talking about the energy inherent in a given quantity
of matter, without regard for velocity (or temperature, or altitude, or
compression, etc.).




An equation, any equation, is icy cold logic. They mean whatever a
'proper logical' interpretation says they mean. So, yes, E = M C^2
means "energy inherent in a given quantityof matter, without regard for
velocity," but it also can -- properly -- be interpreted as meaning the
E standing for Pure Energy at the relativistic velocity of Mass at C^2.

This 'Pure Energy' however, should act as a limit to any possible
observable (with instruments) anomaly caused by it's proximity.
Whether or not it is a true limit on the an objects possible speed -- I
don't know. It might be.



tomcat






My understanding is that matter "condensates" from the electro-
magnetic field, so that its source is not the "ether" but light.


This is a very speculative field at present. Some theories say it
spontaneously appears out of nothing -- quantum foam and all that. The
only thing I feel certain of in this regard is that everything is
connected and ties together somehow.


Ergo, Einstein's formula: E = mc**2. Fundamentally, though,
there is a problem with equating mass, or more exactly mass-
energy, with electromagnetic energy, because rather than having
ALL mass the result of things like gamma rays producing electron-
positron pairs, there is a secondary phase-superposition of Dark
Energy, or virtual "Dirac Sea" of latent energy. Therefore, the
word "electromagnetic" should not be used so much as "electric".
A more appropriate definition of Einstein's Energy law would be:

E = m_e(c**2) = lambda_e(W_k)(W_x) = e(W_x),

where lambda_e represents the wavelength of the electron, W_k
represents the wave intrinsic to the particle (or to the linear
momentum carried by the massfree particle, equal (usu.) to de
Broglie's pilot or GROUP WAVE, with W_x representing the particle
or "extrinsic" to momentum that is analogous to de Broglie's PHASE
WAVE, and "e" representing the charge of the electron.

Thus the Einstein equation offers only the electromagnetic por-
tion of mass-energy, and must be taken into consideration with the
fine structure of the mass-energy, as the fine structure relates
to a condensate of the ether, and not of the electromagnetic field.


Quote: " mass-energy, as the fine structure relates to a condensate of
the ether . . ."

You seem to be saying something different here, however, than you did
above. Here is a quote from what you said above:

Quote: " My understanding is that matter "condensates" from the
electro-magnetic field, so that its source is not the "ether" but
light."

Are you strictly referencing the Einstein position in the first quote?



The field of study which relates to the idea of an *ultimately*
massless ether is scalar electromagnetics. The electron represents
a spherical standing wave with an "IN" portion and an "OUT"
portion. Each of their amplitudes are INFINITE at the center
of the spherical wave, but when BOTH OPPOSITES COMBINE, form a
STANDING WAVE OF FINITE AMPLITUDE. The amplitude of this
continuous wave is a SCALAR, and not an ELECTROMAGNETIC VECTOR.
Thus the speed of light is not so much a barrier as it is a speed
of energy exchange.

Standing waves are fascinating. Energy canceled out by form. Where
does the energy go when the form cancels out? Tesla liked to
experiment with standing waves. A practical example would be two hi-fi
speakers, each out of phase such that the one cancels the other's wave.

If we assume that the music being played was 'vibrating' loud then
where does all that energy go when we hear nothing?

I suspect that Einstein making the speed of light his theoretical
maximum meant that nothing faster than light could be observed. In
short, space-time starts to warp with relativistic velocities, because
space-time is our observational field, it is what affects us. Thus the
speed of light is not so much a barrier as it is a 'warping' of our
matter-energy sensible position relative to the 'relativistic' object.


tomcat

tomcat said:

My understanding is that matter "condensates" from the electro-
magnetic field, so that its source is not the "ether" but light.

Are you strictly referencing the Einstein position in the first quote?

No. Einstein did not include the relationships for a "Lorentz
invariant" four-space Heisenberg equation of motion into his
pro-Machian, i.e., Einstein/Minkowski worldspace. So I guess
I really meant to say that matter condensates from the
*electric* field rather than *electromagnetic*. This implies
that in the unified field theory, space can exist by itself
(tachyonic four-space) and time can also exist by itself (Dark
Energy being the canonical conjugate of TIME), so relativistic
theory should ONLY predict the Lorentz invariant results, while
ALL VECTOR BOSONS deliver the full amount of angular momentum
to different electrons, but to and from different *translatable*
Riemannian metric.

A clarification is needed here. Einstein's formula, E = mc**2,
mentioned in the earlier post (#276) represents the "mirrorverse"
of negative mass and negative energy, -E = -mc**2, and the
"condensate" represents the "phase conjugated" waveforms of
re-absorbed "light energy".

Any simple idea will be worded in the most complicated way.

Art Deco wrote:
tomcat wrote:

American wrote:
tomcat wrote:
Alan Anderson wrote:
: "tomcat"
: Einstein clearly -- and unquestionably -- stated that E = M C^2.
: This
: means that Pure Energy is equal to Mass times the Speed of Light
: Squared.

No, that's not what it means. It's not talking about "pure energy" or a
moving mass. It's talking about the energy inherent in a given quantity
of matter, without regard for velocity (or temperature, or altitude, or
compression, etc.).




An equation, any equation, is icy cold logic. They mean whatever a
'proper logical' interpretation says they mean. So, yes, E = M C^2
means "energy inherent in a given quantityof matter, without regard for
velocity," but it also can -- properly -- be interpreted as meaning the
E standing for Pure Energy at the relativistic velocity of Mass at C^2.

This 'Pure Energy' however, should act as a limit to any possible
observable (with instruments) anomaly caused by it's proximity.
Whether or not it is a true limit on the an objects possible speed -- I
don't know. It might be.



tomcat






My understanding is that matter "condensates" from the electro-
magnetic field, so that its source is not the "ether" but light.


This is a very speculative field at present. Some theories say it
spontaneously appears out of nothing -- quantum foam and all that. The
only thing I feel certain of in this regard is that everything is
connected and ties together somehow.

All your squishy feelings have accomplished is to demonstrate that you
have no clue what quantum foam is.





And neither does anyone else. It hasn't been 'discovered' yet, only
theorized. You knew that, didn't you Art?

In theory, quantum foam are spontaneously appearing bits of strings.
And, sometimes, they disappear too.


tomcat

American wrote:
tomcat wrote:
American wrote:
tomcat wrote:
Alan Anderson wrote:
: "tomcat"
: Einstein clearly -- and unquestionably -- stated that E = M C^2. This
: means that Pure Energy is equal to Mass times the Speed of Light
: Squared.

No, that's not what it means. It's not talking about "pure energy" or a
moving mass. It's talking about the energy inherent in a given quantity
of matter, without regard for velocity (or temperature, or altitude, or
compression, etc.).




An equation, any equation, is icy cold logic. They mean whatever a
'proper logical' interpretation says they mean. So, yes, E = M C^2
means "energy inherent in a given quantityof matter, without regard for
velocity," but it also can -- properly -- be interpreted as meaning the
E standing for Pure Energy at the relativistic velocity of Mass at C^2.

This 'Pure Energy' however, should act as a limit to any possible
observable (with instruments) anomaly caused by it's proximity.
Whether or not it is a true limit on the an objects possible speed -- I
don't know. It might be.



tomcat






My understanding is that matter "condensates" from the electro-
magnetic field, so that its source is not the "ether" but light.


This is a very speculative field at present. Some theories say it
spontaneously appears out of nothing -- quantum foam and all that. The
only thing I feel certain of in this regard is that everything is
connected and ties together somehow.


Ergo, Einstein's formula: E = mc**2. Fundamentally, though,
there is a problem with equating mass, or more exactly mass-
energy, with electromagnetic energy, because rather than having
ALL mass the result of things like gamma rays producing electron-
positron pairs, there is a secondary phase-superposition of Dark
Energy, or virtual "Dirac Sea" of latent energy. Therefore, the
word "electromagnetic" should not be used so much as "electric".
A more appropriate definition of Einstein's Energy law would be:

E = m_e(c**2) = lambda_e(W_k)(W_x) = e(W_x),

where lambda_e represents the wavelength of the electron, W_k
represents the wave intrinsic to the particle (or to the linear
momentum carried by the massfree particle, equal (usu.) to de
Broglie's pilot or GROUP WAVE, with W_x representing the particle
or "extrinsic" to momentum that is analogous to de Broglie's PHASE
WAVE, and "e" representing the charge of the electron.

Thus the Einstein equation offers only the electromagnetic por-
tion of mass-energy, and must be taken into consideration with the
fine structure of the mass-energy, as the fine structure relates
to a condensate of the ether, and not of the electromagnetic field.


Quote: " mass-energy, as the fine structure relates to a condensate of
the ether . . ."

You seem to be saying something different here, however, than you did
above. Here is a quote from what you said above:

Quote: " My understanding is that matter "condensates" from the
electro-magnetic field, so that its source is not the "ether" but
light."

Are you strictly referencing the Einstein position in the first quote?



The field of study which relates to the idea of an *ultimately*
massless ether is scalar electromagnetics. The electron represents
a spherical standing wave with an "IN" portion and an "OUT"
portion. Each of their amplitudes are INFINITE at the center
of the spherical wave, but when BOTH OPPOSITES COMBINE, form a
STANDING WAVE OF FINITE AMPLITUDE. The amplitude of this
continuous wave is a SCALAR, and not an ELECTROMAGNETIC VECTOR.
Thus the speed of light is not so much a barrier as it is a speed
of energy exchange.

Standing waves are fascinating. Energy canceled out by form. Where
does the energy go when the form cancels out? Tesla liked to
experiment with standing waves. A practical example would be two hi-fi
speakers, each out of phase such that the one cancels the other's wave.

If we assume that the music being played was 'vibrating' loud then
where does all that energy go when we hear nothing?

I suspect that Einstein making the speed of light his theoretical
maximum meant that nothing faster than light could be observed. In
short, space-time starts to warp with relativistic velocities, because
space-time is our observational field, it is what affects us. Thus the
speed of light is not so much a barrier as it is a 'warping' of our
matter-energy sensible position relative to the 'relativistic' object.


tomcat

tomcat said:

My understanding is that matter "condensates" from the electro-
magnetic field, so that its source is not the "ether" but light.

Are you strictly referencing the Einstein position in the first quote?

No. Einstein did not include the relationships for a "Lorentz
invariant" four-space Heisenberg equation of motion into his
pro-Machian, i.e., Einstein/Minkowski worldspace. So I guess
I really meant to say that matter condensates from the
*electric* field rather than *electromagnetic*. This implies
that in the unified field theory, space can exist by itself
(tachyonic four-space) and time can also exist by itself (Dark
Energy being the canonical conjugate of TIME), so relativistic
theory should ONLY predict the Lorentz invariant results, while
ALL VECTOR BOSONS deliver the full amount of angular momentum
to different electrons, but to and from different *translatable*
Riemannian metric.




Some say mass just appears in the form of Higgs Bosons. This is a
highly theoretical area.

You state: "So I guess I really meant to say that matter condensates
from the
*electric* field rather than *electromagnetic*."

Are you maintaining that matter comes from electrons. There is a
theory that electrons represent the ultimate particle. This is closely
allied to the theory that photons are the ultimate particle, because
electrons and photons seem to follow each other around.


tomcat

tomcat wrote:

Art Deco wrote:
tomcat wrote:

American wrote:
tomcat wrote:
Alan Anderson wrote:
: "tomcat"
: Einstein clearly -- and unquestionably -- stated that E = M C^2.
: This
: means that Pure Energy is equal to Mass times the Speed of Light
: Squared.

No, that's not what it means. It's not talking about "pure energy"
or a
moving mass. It's talking about the energy inherent in a given
quantity
of matter, without regard for velocity (or temperature, or altitude,
or
compression, etc.).




An equation, any equation, is icy cold logic. They mean whatever a
'proper logical' interpretation says they mean. So, yes, E = M C^2
means "energy inherent in a given quantityof matter, without regard for
velocity," but it also can -- properly -- be interpreted as meaning the
E standing for Pure Energy at the relativistic velocity of Mass at C^2.

This 'Pure Energy' however, should act as a limit to any possible
observable (with instruments) anomaly caused by it's proximity.
Whether or not it is a true limit on the an objects possible speed -- I
don't know. It might be.



tomcat






My understanding is that matter "condensates" from the electro-
magnetic field, so that its source is not the "ether" but light.


This is a very speculative field at present. Some theories say it
spontaneously appears out of nothing -- quantum foam and all that. The
only thing I feel certain of in this regard is that everything is
connected and ties together somehow.

All your squishy feelings have accomplished is to demonstrate that you
have no clue what quantum foam is.





And neither does anyone else. It hasn't been 'discovered' yet, only
theorized. You knew that, didn't you Art?

In theory, quantum foam are spontaneously appearing bits of strings.
And, sometimes, they disappear too.

Once again, you demonstrate your abject ignorance of subjects you
pretend to know something about. Please continue, don't let me stop
you.



tomcat


--
COOSN-266-06-39716
Official Associate AFA-B Vote Rustler
Official Overseer of Kooks and Saucerheads in alt.astronomy
Co-Winner, alt.(f)lame Worst Flame War, December 2005
Official "Usenet psychopath and born-again LLPOF minion",
as designated by Brad Guth

"And without accurate measuring techniques, how can they even
*call* quantum theory a "scientific" one? How can it possibly
be referred to as a "fundamental branch of physics"?"
-- Painsnuh the Lamer

"Well, orientals moved to the U.S. and did amazingly well on
their own, and the races are related (brown)."
-- "Honest" John pontificates on racial purity

"Significant new ideas have rarely come from the ranks of
the establishment."
-- Double-A on technology development

Art Deco wrote:
tomcat wrote:

Art Deco wrote:
tomcat wrote:

American wrote:
tomcat wrote:
Alan Anderson wrote:
: "tomcat"
: Einstein clearly -- and unquestionably -- stated that E = M C^2.
: This
: means that Pure Energy is equal to Mass times the Speed of Light
: Squared.

No, that's not what it means. It's not talking about "pure energy"
or a
moving mass. It's talking about the energy inherent in a given
quantity
of matter, without regard for velocity (or temperature, or altitude,
or
compression, etc.).




An equation, any equation, is icy cold logic. They mean whatever a
'proper logical' interpretation says they mean. So, yes, E = M C^2
means "energy inherent in a given quantityof matter, without regard for
velocity," but it also can -- properly -- be interpreted as meaning the
E standing for Pure Energy at the relativistic velocity of Mass at C^2.

This 'Pure Energy' however, should act as a limit to any possible
observable (with instruments) anomaly caused by it's proximity.
Whether or not it is a true limit on the an objects possible speed -- I
don't know. It might be.



tomcat






My understanding is that matter "condensates" from the electro-
magnetic field, so that its source is not the "ether" but light.


This is a very speculative field at present. Some theories say it
spontaneously appears out of nothing -- quantum foam and all that. The
only thing I feel certain of in this regard is that everything is
connected and ties together somehow.

All your squishy feelings have accomplished is to demonstrate that you
have no clue what quantum foam is.





And neither does anyone else. It hasn't been 'discovered' yet, only
theorized. You knew that, didn't you Art?

In theory, quantum foam are spontaneously appearing bits of strings.
And, sometimes, they disappear too.

Once again, you demonstrate your abject ignorance of subjects you
pretend to know something about. Please continue, don't let me stop
you.



tomcat


--
COOSN-266-06-39716
Official Associate AFA-B Vote Rustler
Official Overseer of Kooks and Saucerheads in alt.astronomy
Co-Winner, alt.(f)lame Worst Flame War, December 2005
Official "Usenet psychopath and born-again LLPOF minion",
as designated by Brad Guth

"And without accurate measuring techniques, how can they even
*call* quantum theory a "scientific" one? How can it possibly
be referred to as a "fundamental branch of physics"?"
-- Painsnuh the Lamer

"Well, orientals moved to the U.S. and did amazingly well on
their own, and the races are related (brown)."
-- "Honest" John pontificates on racial purity

"Significant new ideas have rarely come from the ranks of
the establishment."
-- Double-A on technology development

Tomcat said:

Some say mass just appears in the form of Higgs Bosons.
This is a highly theoretical area.

For the physics to work for bosons, I'd rather choose
a closed string network, or torus, because the "closed
string tachyon" includes a 26 dimensional model for
bosonic string theory.

Are you maintaining that matter comes from electrons.
There is a theory that electrons represent the ultimate
particle. This is closely allied to the theory that
photons are the ultimate particle, because electrons
and photons seem to follow each other around.

Actually, I was inadvertantly choosing electrons and
positrons as one of *two* types of massbound particles
(that also include protons and antiprotons). The reason
I prefer the electron, is that the rotational structure
for the inertial mass that includes gravitons acting on a
toroidal energy flux - a favorite representation in the
"torus of time" scenario. The torus is a genus 2 "mappable
surface" that uses "holomorphic functions" such as the
SU(1) Kahler metric (invariant). The ether therefore can
act as a crystal, assimilating the near-field lattice, in
which gravitons propogate along "edges" of the lattice at
over 400 times the speed of light.

Back to the topic of "mass is light"; it convenes upon
an energy exchange that is electronic/positronic/photonic.
Additional transient photonic "standing waves" are gen-
erated when the phase conjugate pumping of "reflection
waves" increase photonic emission, as well as reabsorp-
tion, with a resulting increase in the mass of the elec-
tron auger "fringefield".

I would like to patent a device that uses this concept.
There are probably a few other people interested in the
same thing. You mentioned a group of people at the Univ.
of Rochester in New York (post #161) who are exploring
"backward pulsed" lightwaves. These would be similar to
phase-conjugate pumped "reflection waves", except that
they are confined in the fiber optic. I don't know how
they would be useful from a propulsion standpoint, but
at least the "idea" is there.