|
#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.
"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 |
#6
|
|||
|
|||
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. |
#7
|
|||
|
|||
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 |
#8
|
|||
|
|||
mass is light.
Since I'm clearly the one that's not being allowed to read and worse yet
post directly to the intended target (in this case it had been a reply offered by 'tomcat'), is why I'll have to keep asking of others; Is your web based Usenet not functioning as it should? I can't even get down to the index your last reply. (sorry about that) My Usenet reader and upload capability for contributing is once again down for the count, as in not even showing whatever I can manage to contribute into one of my own topics. It's that bad, and only getting worse by the day, which by the way has absolutely nothing to do with my poor old PC. (Usenet text is text, the very same to/from basic text if it's via my PC or that of a CRAY supercomputer) Topic: mass is light http://groups.google.com/group/sci.s...9c9c0d16cce560 From: tomcat / Date: Fri, Dec 8 2006 1:34 pm Groups: sci.space.policy, sci.astro, rec.org.mensa Well, at least John isn't swearing as much as he used to. He is now into ridicule and denial. He ridicules those that are attempting to seriously post on the photon mass and denies that those posts are substantial in merit. Obviously our resident MI/NSA/KGB rusemaster spook/mole 'Art Deco' as a brown nosed and otherwise Old Testament insider isn't having any problems. However, is it otherwise taking others next to forever in order to post and verify as to whatever is getting or not into a given topic? Usenet WYSINWYG (What You See Is Not What You Get) to honestly know about. So, perhaps there's more free-speech to being had within China than existing right here in America. Dear 'tomcat' and to most other lost souls and fellow village idiots that are being mainstream infomercial snookered to death via their very own ISPs, and of whatever Usenet providers of this not so free-speech nor much less honest internet news sharing media. It seems that even a perfectly worthy topic by 'brian a m stuckless' of "mass is light" is apparently taboo/nondisclosure worthy, as in having become X-rated as yet another somewhat need-to-know or otherwise fully banishment worthy topic. Since it has recently gotten so bad off that I can't hardly tell for certain if whatever I'm posting is even getting through, much less sticking, is why I've been reposting this little Usenet friendly reminder. It seems of what little I've managed to post as of lately only shows up (if at all) in GOOGLE/Usenet and perhaps via a few other Usenet providers, and not as such within Mailgate/Usenet. In fact, the entire function of this badly corrupted Usenet is down to sharing nearly zilch of anything, especially once I attempt to read or share another thought or two. Usenet robo-moderation via 'catch words' or 'catch phrases' are clearly being utilized in order to stealth moderate specific individuals from honestly contributing their thoughts into a given topic. At the very least our Usenet access is brought down to nearly a dead stop by way of not properly if at all updating a given page, or even as to the index of available topics. Since most of Usenet is comprised of basic text, and thus it is not loaded down by silly graphics or smut animation, there's only one other good reason for the traffic slow-down. Therefore, if you wanted to know of or merely wanted to share the truth, such as for adding to whatever's having been contributed by others, for that effort you'll most likely have to review a given topic via some other Usenet provider because, the one you're using isn't necessarily sharing all that there is to honestly share. At least that's the absolute proof-positive and matter of fact that I have share, and it's no lie. There's even been a significant imposed ISP delay or blockage as to most everything that I have to research into and subsequently share, as though the MI/NSA/KGB spooks and moles are into accomplishing all the cloak and dagger damage control they can muster in order to impose Usenet limitations and/or banishment when and wherever possible, plus having shared as much of their PC spermware/****ware as possible. This insider tactic even affects GOOGLE/Usenet, thus your Usenet provider is most likely just as capable of accomplishing the very same stealth moderation of whatever we get to read, and thereby effectively in control of moderating upon whatever you can reply to. Of course most of the interesting and thereby mainstream Old Testament boat-rocking topics are those getting the most summarily stalked and bashed to death by way of those infomercial spewing borg/MIB like individuals, as for their having no honest intentions of constructively contributing squat, and thereby making most any given topic and of it's index of contributors at least ten fold larger and thereby as badly corrupted as possible, to such an extent that the original notion or intent of the topic gets lost in the crowd. - Brad Guth -- Posted via Mailgate.ORG Server - http://www.Mailgate.ORG |
#9
|
|||
|
|||
mass is light.
Brad Guth wrote:
Since I'm clearly the one that's not being allowed to read and worse yet post directly to the intended target (in this case it had been a reply offered by 'tomcat'), is why I'll have to keep asking of others; Is your web based Usenet not functioning as it should? Only because you refuse to acquire clues, Brad. I can't even get down to the index your last reply. (sorry about that) My Usenet reader and upload capability for contributing is once again down for the count, as in not even showing whatever I can manage to contribute into one of my own topics. It's that bad, and only getting worse by the day, which by the way has absolutely nothing to do with my poor old PC. (Usenet text is text, the very same to/from basic text if it's via my PC or that of a CRAY supercomputer) Topic: mass is light http://groups.google.com/group/sci.s.../d988a3124f6e1 685/bf9c9c0d16cce560?hl=en#bf9c9c0d16cce560 From: tomcat / Date: Fri, Dec 8 2006 1:34 pm Groups: sci.space.policy, sci.astro, rec.org.mensa Well, at least John isn't swearing as much as he used to. He is now into ridicule and denial. He ridicules those that are attempting to seriously post on the photon mass and denies that those posts are substantial in merit. Obviously our resident MI/NSA/KGB rusemaster spook/mole 'Art Deco' as a *ding* brown nosed and otherwise Old Testament insider isn't having any problems. However, is it otherwise taking others next to forever in order to post and verify as to whatever is getting or not into a given topic? Hi, Brad! |
#10
|
|||
|
|||
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 |
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 |