A Space & astronomy forum. SpaceBanter.com

Go Back   Home » SpaceBanter.com forum » Astronomy and Astrophysics » Astronomy Misc
Site Map Home Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

mass is light.



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old May 30th 06, 12:27 PM posted to sci.space.policy,sci.philosophy.tech,sci.astro,rec.org.mensa
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default 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  
Old May 30th 06, 04:24 PM posted to sci.space.policy,sci.philosophy.tech,sci.astro,rec.org.mensa
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default 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  
Old May 30th 06, 05:54 PM posted to sci.space.policy,sci.philosophy.tech,sci.astro,rec.org.mensa
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default 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  
Old May 30th 06, 11:28 PM posted to sci.space.policy,sci.philosophy.tech,sci.astro,rec.org.mensa
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default 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  
Old May 30th 06, 11:55 PM posted to sci.space.policy,sci.philosophy.tech,sci.astro,rec.org.mensa
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default 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  
Old May 31st 06, 01:47 AM posted to sci.space.policy,sci.philosophy.tech,sci.astro,rec.org.mensa
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default 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  
Old May 31st 06, 02:27 AM posted to sci.space.policy,sci.philosophy.tech,sci.astro,rec.org.mensa
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default 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  
Old May 31st 06, 02:50 AM posted to sci.space.policy,sci.philosophy.tech,sci.astro,rec.org.mensa
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default 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  
Old May 31st 06, 04:28 AM posted to sci.space.policy,sci.philosophy.tech,sci.astro,rec.org.mensa
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default 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  
Old May 31st 06, 05:00 AM posted to sci.space.policy,sci.philosophy.tech,sci.astro,rec.org.mensa
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default 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

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump

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 06:21 AM
Electric Gravity&Instantaneous Light ralph sansbury Astronomy Misc 8 August 31st 03 02:53 AM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 10:28 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2024 SpaceBanter.com.
The comments are property of their posters.