What is Mass?

[lizzie]

Mass As An Electromagnetic Effect - Tom Bearden
http://www.geocities.com/Area51/Shadowl ... ffect.html

[webolife]

Mass is the result of centropic vectors in a gravitational potential field (oops, sorry, electrical, oops, unified?).
It's compliment, energy, is the result of extropic vectors, or more to the point kinetic effects outwardly displaced through Newtonian inertial type principles. Net centropic effects, universe-wide, and scaleless, are seen as entropy.
So rather than E = mc2, I see ...
(periphery) <-- E = M --> (centroid) the "=" sign there is not exactly what I want, but can't think of a better expression right now.

[bboyer]

Mass is the result of centropic vectors in a gravitational potential field (oops, sorry, electrical, oops, unified?).
It's compliment, energy, is the result of extropic vectors, or more to the point kinetic effects outwardly displaced through Newtonian inertial type principles. Net centropic effects, universe-wide, and scaleless, are seen as entropy.
So rather than E = mc2, I see ...
(periphery) <-- E = M --> (centroid) the "=" sign there is not exactly what I want, but can't think of a better expression right now.

Don't know if this is any closer?

(periphery) &lArr; E &hArr; M &rArr; (centroid) or

(periphery) <-- E <--> M --> (centroid)

but not sure what you're "seeing" exactly between that E and M.

So, do you see an overall net extropic (expanding) universe, net centropic (collapsing/contracting/condensing) universe, or "neutral" steady-state universe? (Or none-of-the-above? ) Of course, the terms you are using are from classical thermodynamics are they not? Seems this is part of the semantics problem in trying to apply thermodynamic concepts to electrodynamic concepts or vice versa? I'm not sure what stance thermodynamics takes with regard to an &aelig;ther since I know little about the subject, but I have the impression it's modeled after the mechanical action of particle physics?

Interestingly, the suffix "-tropic" means:

Main Entry:-tropy
Pronunciation:.tr*p*, -pi
Function:noun combining form
Inflected Form:-es
Etymology:French -tropie, from Greek -tropia turn, from -tropos , 2-trope + -ia -y

1 : condition of turning or curving in (such) a way or of exhibiting (such) a tropism *hemitropy*
2 : change in a (specified) way or in response to a (specified) stimulus

____________________________________________

Main Entry:2-trope
Pronunciation:*
Function:adjective combining form
Etymology:French, from Greek -tropos, from trepein to turn

: turning : being reverted *anisotrope* *hemitrope*

____________________________________________

Sounds awfully akin to "spin," or at least a tendency towards.

[webolife]

The vectors involved in explaining orbital mechanics serve well.
JL's vortices, I'm beginning to see a relation there also.
I'm not sure what symbol belongs between E and M, just that there is a more natural non-relativistic relationship between the two.

[kevin]

The question is, WHAT IS MASS,
The problem may be that MASS doesn't exist.
What if mass is a mere consequence of the local condition of a constantly exchanging universe.
Therefore we and what we consider as mass don't exist in a never ending on/off system that is continuously changing as the relevant input and outputs across a constant exchange sytem occurs, hence if you had a camera observing thousands of years, it would show aging as nothing more than the alteration in charge exchanges.
The mass we think of as solid is merely a more resilient structure of coalesced charges able to better resist the exchanges.
hope that makes sense, I don't have the fancy words that need to be in that.
kevin

[junglelord]

Mass is a Dimension in APM

Five Dimensions of APM.
1. Length
2. Frequency
3. Mass
4. Charge
5. Spherical Geometry

Mass is a Dimension and does not Equal Energy which is a Unit, and they are therefore not convertable, especially as taught in the Standard Model and in Relativity, because the construct is different. Units come from Dimensions, but are not Dimensions. An important point to observe.

Dave Thomson takes two critical approaches by Wilbert Smith.
Reality is built up of Dimensions.
Each Dimension supports the one above it.
There models may differ but the rules are the same. Basic Relationships that are good building blocks to compare what is similar and why these Ideas are as imporant as the models they produce. Therefore we can construct different Dimension models to greater and lesser degrees of accuracy. It depends how much you mix and match Dimensions vs Units as to how clear one model becomes as opposed to another when trying to model the Universe accurately.

I am not sure the Standard Model is based on Dimensions, but rather on Forces that inhabit the Dimensions. That is the opposite approach. It is the reflection we are studying in the Standard Model.

Therefore to make a good model one must model the Dimensions accurately and successivley. I think we can all agree on that basic logical priniciple to construct Reality. The Dimensions themself will cause the Forces, instead of the Forces inhabiting empty space.

These Five Dimensions are the construct from which the Aether, The Quantum Aether Unit, and Angular Momentum spring forth in the APM Theory.

[BlueCrab]

Mass is... Appearance Emptiness. A real illusion. It does not exist, and yet as we can all atest it very much does.

[webolife]

Thanks for the short and understandable APM synopsis, JL. I try to be careful speaking of mass, not to attribute to it the same sense as "matter", albeit many folks use the terms interchangeably. In the "punctual field" model, mass and charge are both dimensions of matter at different scales, both consequences of centropic force. Energy, in it's simplest sense as kinetic energy, balances the centropic force field vectors manifesting as momentum (Newton ruled this as rectilinear, but Galileo's view of it as "circular" is more correspondent in several ways to its most frequent natural manifestation, which is angular momentum.) Momentum is not the same as energy, but the result of it. Interacting/intersecting/imbedded fields exhibit both the properties of centropic force (gravity/voltage/nuclear resulting in localized matter, measurable by mass and charge) and energy in dynamic equilibrium, with a net centropic consequence we call entropy. Many EU contributers here would view this centropy/entropy phenomenon as gravity, but I'm not quite willing to demote gravitation to this level... yet.
Regardless, this view clearly contradicts any possiblity of the big bang or universe acceleration, and mocks dark energy or dark matter considerations. A traditional simplistic definition of "matter" is that it's the stuff that has mass and takes up space, but in a dynamic universe that pretty much sums up the matter/energy continuum held together by the unified field. Unified field vectors are of course denser near the centroid of a/the system, this density manifesting as the concentration of matter; at the scale of atoms, the vector density is extreme, near infinite, accompanied by extremely low, infinitesmal, concentrations of matter, whereas just the opposite occurs at astronomical scales (low vector density accompanying high (galactic, etc.) concentrations of matter, allowing the geometry of the field to be unified throughout the universe at every scale. Matter is constantly being modified by variation in temperature, itself the simplest manifestation of energy, in my view. This view is daily being clarified and augmented by all the daily EU dialogue.
Summatively: Mass is a measure of vector density at whatever scale, but taking into account the relative field size. For me, it is not necessary (let alone reasonable) for there to be a "black hole" of near-infinite mass at the center of a galaxy. The centroid of a galaxy is the vector center of a galactic amount of matter. The mass of a basketball is geometrically measurable at the center of the ball, but just how much actual matter is found at the ball's center? A black hole, if it needs description, may be just a centroid that is "empty."

[junglelord]

In APM Theory this is Momentum, it is a result of three Dimensions interactions.
Momentum = Mass X Length X Frequency

[lizzie]

This model?

Paper: A New Foundation for Physics, by Quantum Aether Dynamics Institute
http://peswiki.com/index.php/Paper:A_Ne ... _Institute

The Aether Physics Model quantifies quantum structure within an Aether/angular momentum paradigm (as opposed to the mass/energy paradigm of Einstein). It is destined to merge with Quantum Mechanics and provides the means for tapping Zero Point Energy.

[lizzie]

I’ve been looking at it backwards.

http://www.16pi2.com/

The Aether Physics Model describes the quantum structure of the Universe as opposed the Standard Model, which describes its quantum mechanics

I have been looking at it from the quantum mechanics perspective.

The ontology of the APM begins with the proper understanding of dimensions and measurements and the understanding that Aether (a quantum rotating magnetic field) is equally as important as the matter that resides within it

Aether creates the forces. The forces reside within the Aether.

Once you have dimensions clear and how to apply Angular Momentum to them and how to drop down in dimensions and to jump up in dimensions, then you can see how Embedded Information is in Structure and is often hidden but it is there when you drop down or jump up dimensions

Right Angles, Scalar Fields, Vortex Spiral Opposites, Sacred Geometry, Consciousness

So Angular Momentum would be how to “jumps up” or “jump down” from one dimension to the next? All the sacred geometrical forms are embedded in the Structure of Space and remain hidden until they can be observed in the appropriate dimension.

Five Dimensions of APM.

1. Length
2. Frequency
3. Mass
4. Charge
5. Spherical Geometry

The ontology of the APM begins with the proper understanding of dimensions and measurements and the understanding that Aether (a quantum rotating magnetic field) is equally as important as the matter that resides within it. From here, we can derive the force that gives birth to the Aether and maintains the existence of subatomic particles.

The theory implies the Aether has the qualities of reciprocal mass and charge in addition to the dimensions of length and time. Aether is also the source of curved geometry as expressed by Albert Einstein in his General Relativity Theory. Albert Einstein wrote a paper, which describes the Aether as a magnetic field.

Aether has qualities of:

Reciprocal mass and change
Dimensions of length and time
Curved geometry

The Aether Physics Model provides a new system of quantum measurements units, and is thoroughly explained and quantified in the text: The quantum measurements base upon quantum length (Compton wavelength), quantum frequency (speed of light divided by Compton wavelength), quantum masses (electron and proton masses), quantum charges (both electrostatic and electromagnetic charges), and the spherical constant (4p).
In the Aether Physics Model, quantum constants offer a new analysis tool for examining quantum processes. Each equation thus has real meaning for the real world. One important new constant from the Aether Physics Model is the derived conductance constant of the Aether, which is essential for calculating and understanding the nature of strong charge (electromagnetic charge).

SECRETS OF THE AETHER
ISBN: 0972425128
by David W. Thomson III and Jim D. Bourassa
Illustrated by Jon Lomberg
http://www.16pi2.com/book.htm

Two Types of Charge

The question of how the charges were formed was not as interesting as the question of why there were two distinctly different manifestations of charges at all. According to established physics theories, there is supposed to be only one type of charge, the electrostatic charge. The magnetic force is believed to be the relativistic effect of electrostatic charge. If there is just one type of charge, why does it have two distinct manifestations? Also, what exactly is charge?

Einstein’s Aether Model

The "elastic state" of the Aether refers to the Aether's fluid behavior and its ability to
return to a previous state without deformation. The insights into the "mysterious" nature of the electric current refer to the two different types of charges identified in the Aether Physics Model. Not only does electricity have a bipolar electrostatic charge, but it also has a bipolar electromagnetic charge. These two types of charges interact with each other in seemingly peculiar ways. Einstein could not have known it during his time; however, the two types of charges are the actual carriers of the forces quantified in his later developed, General Relativity theory

Eddy Current Experiment

In the Aether Physics Model, eddy current is a unit of measurement equal to the unit of magnetic flux squared1. According to the Aether Physics Model, this is equivalent to angular momentum times resistance.

According to Dr. James B. Calvert2 in an online web page about Eddy Currents, it has been reasoned that eddy currents are complete path electrical currents that flow through a conductor.

"A magnet produces a pure magnetic field in its rest frame. Anything moving with respect to the magnet sees an electric field in addition to the magnetic field that is roughly proportional to the relative velocity. An electron free to move, as in copper, will be set into motion by the electric field it sees. ... This current is called the eddy current, since it flows in closed loops in a conducting plate like eddying water."

The interpretation of this experiment is that the eddy current is a result of the angular momentum of the atoms within the magnetic field times the resistance of the atoms within the magnetic field. Along the slit, there are no atoms and thus no eddy currents, and so the magnet tends to fall faster along this area. But the angular momentum in the atoms along the path of the magnetic field still contribute to eddy currents and thus the other parts of the magnet tend to fall slower. This results in the tilt of the magnet as it falls.

Is it the “spatial domain” (the scalar) that I have been missing? Bearden says that classical electromagnetics is missing an infolded scalar (?) or curved space-time domain.

[Lho]

Hi,
For an approach of the answer, I suggest:
http://www.wbabin.net/science/hollo.pdf

Comments and questions are welcome ...

[Total Science]

Mass is an imaginary concept of the human mind.

Different people define it differently because it is imaginary.

"What we call mass would seem to be nothing but an appearance, and all inertia to be of electromagnetic origin." -- Henri Poincaré, physicist, 1908

"Since we have already proved through geometrical considerations the equivalence of all hypotheses with respect to the motions of any bodies whatsoever, however numerous, moved only by the collision with other bodies, it follows that not even an angel could determine with mathematical rigor which of the many bodies of that sort is at rest, and which is the center of motion for the others." -- Gottfried W. Leibniz, polymath, 1689

[StevenO]

You all hide in complexities, just like mainstreamers

Mass, gravity and inertia is simply a three dimensional outward acceleration of matter.

[junglelord]

"What we call mass would seem to be nothing but an appearance, and all inertia to be of electromagnetic origin." -- Henri Poincaré, physicist, 1908

APM says exactly that....Mass is the linear aspect of distributed EM.