Electrodynamic wrote:Crawler

Re evidence for the annihilation of mass in a BH. Here on Earth we hav been able to convert confined photons to free photons uzing atomic fission. Here we might possibly hav converted some mass to energy (but praps knot). In a BH i would say that we are talking about converting free photons to nothing, ie annihilating mass plus annihilating the energy. Its a big ask.

A more reasonable explanation may be that because everything seems to be buzzing around at the speed of light Energy is not a problem. I don't think most people can rationalize what the speed of light means with respect to kinetic energy. Annihilating mass isn't necessary to liberate horrific amounts of energy, transformation and translation is however.

Take Earth's little asteroid problem and the fact that we have had more than a few close calls in the last year with more to come. Most people think it's just a rock as big as a few city blocks which isn't a big deal. However what they cannot rationalize is the concept of Energy relating to motion which in our asteroid problem is around 40 to 60,000 miles per hour. Look at what happened when a puny little jet travelling at a lethargic 500 mph hit the world trade center. Now imagine a jet as big as a few city blocks travelling at not 500 mph but 60,000 mph and that's a very big problem. Most people cannot even begin to wrap there mind around what this amount of Energy represents or what it could do. It makes most of our other problems seem trivial by comparison in my opinion.

In a sense there are 2 kinds of energy. There is the simple kinetic energy ~potential energy kind, which is merely a bit of math based on action equals reaction & force by distance etc (ie math-energy). Then there is the more complex intrinsic kind of energy which needs a special kind of math (which we karnt yet do koz we dont know what kind of physics is involved)(we dont know the forces & the distances)(intrinsic-energy).

But then in about 1900 scientists decided to apply math-energy protocols to calculate intrinsic-energy. And Einstein joined in in 1905 or 7 or something. Ives correctly pointed out that Einstein's method was false koz it consisted of a circular reasoning. U karnt uze skoolkid math-energy to calculate intrinsic-energy, u at least need empirical evidence & empirical numbers to make a proper model, not just some stupid naive Einsteinian thortX involving a silly pair of emitted photons.

Hencely E=mcc is allmost certainly false. When a confined photon (eg electron) bekums free the mass reduces by a large factor, lets say one billion (Williamson)(Jeans). But nuclear fission karnt annihilate a photon, it merely changes it from being confined to being free (plus it might split a photon into being two)(plus it might change a photon's wavelength).

Here i need to point out that there are at least 3 kinds of mass. There is ordinary static mass (eg as in an electron). And there is photonic mass (where the photon is propagating at c kmps). And there is photaenoic mass (where the photaeno is propagating at c or at times much more than c). All mass is due to the annihilation of aether, more specifically it is due to the acceleration of aether flowing into matter where the aether is annihilated. This manifests in thems 3 different way.

In the static case the aether inflow streamlines converge to a point in three dimensions which givs a 1/RR gravity. In the non-static cases the inflow streamlines converge to a line in two dimensions giving a 1/R kind of gravity mass inertia etc.

The roll of the speed c kmps or much more than c is a problem for me, koz we know that gravity travels at more than 20 billion c kmps (Van Flandern). Hencely the roll of that there c kmps shouldnt be a giant factor. Still thinking. That there 20 billion c is the speed of a shockwave in the aether, ie the speed of a gravity wave. Aktually its more of a pulse than a wave. Aktually its a back&forth reverberation. The aether being massless karnt make a quantum force in our world, but what it duz is it transfers force tween masses. Thusly a say isolated electron has mass (it annihilates aether) but has zero inertia koz inertia kan only exist if there is nearby mass.

So in a sense there might be some truth that the mass (inertia aktually) of a thing depends on the presence of all of the other things in the universe (but in praktice limited by the finite speed of gravity).

However we karnt measure mass, what we allways measure is inertia or inertial mass if u like. Just some thorts. This stuff affects allmost all discussion of allmost everything on this board.