mass is light.

Mass is concentrated energy. The energy of light is in its wave. Light
has a density of mass over its wave.


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].

Nick wrote:
Mass is concentrated energy. The energy of light is in its wave. Light
has a density of mass over its wave.



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.

tomcat









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].

: "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

: "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.).

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.