Is not Motion the Dominant Paradigm?

[RascalPuff]

Hey Mr. Nobody:

Based on your immediately preceding post on this thread (also quoted by Dip - above), have you any thoughts on the possible return and reinstatement of the presently abandoned Steady State theory?

Best regards,
- RP

[N0B0DY]

RP,

I have a very high level of respect for your work, obviously, but my interpretations are often denigrating because of my overly-repetitive view of scalar measurements and I have concluded that the SST and QSST are static-state theories. I lean more toward furthering Hoyle than I do Hubble, and with respect to the debate on deuterium I think if there were such a phenomenon as asymmetry, the deuterium would be too unstable to be as stable as observed, and therefore focus more on the spin-1 state of photons rather than fractional spins of fermions. If the graviton is spin-1, as per your repulsive gravity, then the universe is rendered perfectly symmetrical and static at all scales.

In a sense it supports the continual creation of SST, through the interactions of photons/gravitons, but the creation and annihilation events are so short-lived that only the fermion momemta are detectable, as well as their cumulative expansion.

I would really like to incorporate single spin-0 state as the sole producer of all states. I'll keep you posted.

[RascalPuff]

Thank you Mr. Raven - Nobody - Knight.

It is my qualified opinion that the Steady State theory will return to the forefront.

Soon...

For reasons of which we - and no small amount of others - are 'familiar'.

Best regards,
- RP

[dipayankar]

The theory of relativity equates mass and energy..

I think it depends upon our interpretation, Dip. The following taken from Baez' site is one, but like the example he gives - "the box of light" - I claim that all invariant masses are omni-directionally boxed in. In other words, all measurements of mass are dependent upon gravitational/radiational velocities.

"In the modern view "mass" is not equivalent to energy; mass is just that part of the energy of a body which is not kinetic energy. Mass is independent of velocity whereas energy is not."

http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/physic...ight_mass.html

[MJA]

The theory of relativity equates mass and energy..

Equates Everything!!!

=
MJA

[RascalPuff]

The theory of relativity equates mass and energy..

Excerpt from Philip Gibbs' (Copyright 1997), 'Does Light Have Mass?'

http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/physic...ight_mass.html


Relativistic mass is equivalent to energy, which is why relativistic mass is not a commonly used term nowadays. In the modern view "mass" is not equivalent to energy; mass is just that part of the energy of a body which is not kinetic energy. Mass is independent of velocity whereas energy is not.
Let's try to phrase this another way. What is the meaning of the equation E=mc2? You can interpret it to mean that energy is the same thing as mass except for a conversion factor equal to the square of the speed of light. Then wherever there is mass there is energy and wherever there is energy there is mass. In that case photons have mass, but we call it relativistic mass. Another way to use Einstein's equation would be to keep mass and energy as separate and use it as an equation which applies when mass is converted to energy or energy is converted to mass--usually in nuclear reactions. The mass is then independent of velocity and is closer to the old Newtonian concept. In that case, only the total of energy and mass would be conserved, but it seems better to try to keep the conservation of energy. The interpretation most widely used is a compromise in which mass is invariant and always has energy so that total energy is conserved but kinetic energy and radiation does not have mass. The distinction is purely a matter of semantic convention.


Gibb's distinguishes 'the old interpretation' of E=MC2, from the 'contemporary' one.


"The interpretation is purely a matter of semantic convention."

This interpretation is apparently excluding the over-all kinetic expansion of 4-D physical matter itlself - this is apparent in the answer provided by Gibbs, in dividing the original interpretation from the 'contemporary' one, as he begins his dissertation:

"The short answer is "no", but it is a qualified "no" because there are odd ways of interpreting the question which could justify the answer "yes"."

The 'odd' way of interpretation is the recognition that matter is 4-dimensionally expanding.

Light is an extrapolated extension of the expanding matter from which it originates. The 'old' interpretation qualifies that light is qualitatively identical to matter,and, therefore, has mass. That is, in accordance with the concept of matter as a 4-D expanding field, there is no such thing as a 'massless particle', such as photons are presently construed to be. The exclusion of mass value from any form of energy may be inversely comparable to string theory's attribution of physicality to 'contemporary' one dimensional 'strings'.

This ('odd', 'semantic', 'yes' & 'no') discussion, returns to the question of why C is squared from matter, in the algebraic expression, E=MCsquared, which algebraically establishes that matter (also) is expanding (moving perpendicular to its three recognized dimensions; constituting the 4th dimension of motion and time).

http://www.toequest.com/forum/relati...mcsquared.html

Summary: Light is a physical extension of the matter that generates and projects it. An affirmative answer to the subjected question, "Does light have mass?".

Re: http://forums.delphiforums.com/EinsteinGroupie

[N0B0DY]

Great assessment, RP. I agree with it entirely, except of course regarding the physicality of light. Just like optical illusions, I infer all sensorially-observed phenomena are illusory.

With regards to relativity, Dip, Einstein based his theories of relativity from the foundational concepts of all universal phenomena being relative to his obsession...light. So that "relativity equates mass and energy" or "everything" is semi-accurate, providing we see that there is always a velocity factor involved.

Simulataneity - the constant absolute speed of the absolute universe - renders both mass and energy as zero. It is so fast, that there is no time for mass, energy or space to exist.

[dipayankar]

If this is the case, then what happens inside a thermonuclear reaction?? Doesn't mass get equated with energy...

Excerpt from Philip Gibbs' (Copyright 1997), 'Does Light Have Mass?'

http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/physic...ight_mass.html


Relativistic mass is equivalent to energy, which is why relativistic mass is not a commonly used term nowadays. In the modern view "mass" is not equivalent to energy; mass is just that part of the energy of a body which is not kinetic energy. Mass is independent of velocity whereas energy is not.
Let's try to phrase this another way. What is the meaning of the equation E=mc2? You can interpret it to mean that energy is the same thing as mass except for a conversion factor equal to the square of the speed of light. Then wherever there is mass there is energy and wherever there is energy there is mass. In that case photons have mass, but we call it relativistic mass. Another way to use Einstein's equation would be to keep mass and energy as separate and use it as an equation which applies when mass is converted to energy or energy is converted to mass--usually in nuclear reactions. The mass is then independent of velocity and is closer to the old Newtonian concept. In that case, only the total of energy and mass would be conserved, but it seems better to try to keep the conservation of energy. The interpretation most widely used is a compromise in which mass is invariant and always has energy so that total energy is conserved but kinetic energy and radiation does not have mass. The distinction is purely a matter of semantic convention.


Gibb's distinguishes 'the old interpretation' of E=MC2, from the 'contemporary' one.


"The interpretation is purely a matter of semantic convention."

This interpretation is apparently excluding the over-all kinetic expansion of 4-D physical matter itlself - this is apparent in the answer provided by Gibbs, in dividing the original interpretation from the 'contemporary' one, as he begins his dissertation:

"The short answer is "no", but it is a qualified "no" because there are odd ways of interpreting the question which could justify the answer "yes"."

The 'odd' way of interpretation is the recognition that matter is 4-dimensionally expanding.

Light is an extrapolated extension of the expanding matter from which it originates. The 'old' interpretation qualifies that light is qualitatively identical to matter,and, therefore, has mass. That is, in accordance with the concept of matter as a 4-D expanding field, there is no such thing as a 'massless particle', such as photons are presently construed to be. The exclusion of mass value from any form of energy may be inversely comparable to string theory's attribution of physicality to 'contemporary' one dimensional 'strings'.

This ('odd', 'semantic', 'yes' & 'no') discussion, returns to the question of why C is squared from matter, in the algebraic expression, E=MCsquared, which algebraically establishes that matter (also) is expanding (moving perpendicular to its three recognized dimensions; constituting the 4th dimension of motion and time).

http://www.toequest.com/forum/relati...mcsquared.html

Summary: Light is a physical extension of the matter that generates and projects it. An affirmative answer to the subjected question, "Does light have mass?".

Re: http://forums.delphiforums.com/EinsteinGroupie

[N0B0DY]

It was Einstein's idea that all velocities are relative to the velocity of light in a "vacuum" that led to his developing theories based on the relativity of motion.

If we concede that all rest masses are the result of reductions in light's vacuum velocity, we can see that light is all mass. It is only because light has zero rest-frame possibility that it is said to have zero rest mass, unless you're referring to the vacuum reducing light's velocity due to virtual absorption and emission of short-lived particles whereby light would have a rest mass relative to the greater velocity of space.

I think Baez also mentions the squaring of "c" implies that the energy required to stabilize particles is the square of the rest mass of those particles. I think it's generalized as the squaring of force as velocity doubles, whereby in order to have a full conversion, rest mass would have to be accelerated to double its velocity.

[RascalPuff]

It was Einstein's idea that all velocities are relative to the velocity of light in a "vacuum" that led to his developing theories based on the relativity of motion.

If we concede that all rest masses are the result of reductions in light's vacuum velocity, we can see that light is all mass. It is only because light has zero rest-frame possibility that it is said to have zero rest mass, unless you're referring to the vacuum reducing light's velocity due to virtual absorption and emission of short-lived particles whereby light would have a rest mass relative to the greater velocity of space.

I think Baez also mentions the squaring of "c" implies that the energy required to stabilize particles is the square of the rest mass of those particles. I think it's generalized as the squaring of force as velocity doubles, whereby in order to have a full conversion, rest mass would have to be accelerated to double its velocity.

Dear Nobody:
Does this imply that matter is in a continuous state of expansion?