What is Mass?

[mague]

Mass is the void force's reaction to the strength of a spirit.

Newtons apple has a spirit. The spirit would expand endless and use up all resources in the universe. But the void force forces it into a fist sized fruit.

As soon as we zoom into a sub atomic resolution the space has no boundaries anymore and the boundary of the apple is just a spiritual one. It has a soul, is individual and a lifeform. Just as you.

[StevenO]

You guys all hide in complexities, just like mainstreamers

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

That this statement is true can be proven in a simple way. E.g., calculate the gravitational deflection of light from the sun.

1. We all know that photons travel straight lines since the speed of light is a universal constant, so even the idea of
curved space is a little absurd since a curve always describes an acceleration...

2. Putting the transit time of a photon grazing the sun to the earth at 500s, we get that the surface of the earth during this time expands an unexpected distance of:

s= at2/2 = (9.8m/s2)(500s)2/2 = 1,225,000m


3. The angle of deflection can then be calculated from:

tan(θ) = s/1 AU = 1,225,000m/1.5x1011m

θ = 1.68 arcseconds

4. Voila. The famous result from General Relativity that made Einstein a celebrity. Only this way you get the result in three lines of algebra instead of 40 pages of Tensor math...

[Influx]

Mass is drag on subatomic particles caused by the casimir effect, so is inertia and momentum. Problem solved.

[junglelord]

You guys all hide in complexities, just like mainstreamers

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

That this statement is true can be proven in a simple way. E.g., calculate the gravitational deflection of light from the sun.

1. We all know that photons travel straight lines since the speed of light is a universal constant, so even the idea of
curved space is a little absurd since a curve always describes an acceleration...

2. Putting the transit time of a photon grazing the sun to the earth at 500s, we get that the surface of the earth during this time expands an unexpected distance of:

s= at2/2 = (9.8m/s2)(500s)2/2 = 1,225,000m


3. The angle of deflection can then be calculated from:

tan(θ) = s/1 AU = 1,225,000m/1.5x1011m

θ = 1.68 arcseconds

4. Voila. The famous result from General Relativity that made Einstein a celebrity. Only this way you get the result in three lines of algebra instead of 40 pages of Tensor math...

I like it, your a smart man. But I still think that the Subquantum Kinetic theory is the best gravity theory I have seen.
I think APM is the best field theory and helped me understand Mass, I believe, fundamentally.
Your not wrong however, and that is the beauty of this universe.

[moses]

You guys all hide in complexities, just like mainstreamers

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

That this statement is true can be proven in a simple way. E.g., calculate the gravitational deflection of light from the sun.

1. We all know that photons travel straight lines since the speed of light is a universal constant, so even the idea of
curved space is a little absurd since a curve always describes an acceleration...

2. Putting the transit time of a photon grazing the sun to the earth at 500s, we get that the surface of the earth during this time expands an unexpected distance of:

s= at2/2 = (9.8m/s2)(500s)2/2 = 1,225,000m


3. The angle of deflection can then be calculated from:

tan(θ) = s/1 AU = 1,225,000m/1.5x1011m

θ = 1.68 arcseconds

4. Voila. The famous result from General Relativity that made Einstein a celebrity. Only this way you get the result in three lines of algebra instead of 40 pages of Tensor math...

a # 9.8 m/s as this is only true at the Earth's surface.
Mo

[StevenO]

You guys all hide in complexities, just like mainstreamers

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

That this statement is true can be proven in a simple way. E.g., calculate the gravitational deflection of light from the sun.

1. We all know that photons travel straight lines since the speed of light is a universal constant, so even the idea of
curved space is a little absurd since a curve always describes an acceleration...

2. Putting the transit time of a photon grazing the sun to the earth at 500s, we get that the surface of the earth during this time expands an unexpected distance of:

s= at2/2 = (9.8m/s2)(500s)2/2 = 1,225,000m


3. The angle of deflection can then be calculated from:

tan(θ) = s/1 AU = 1,225,000m/1.5x1011m

θ = 1.68 arcseconds

4. Voila. The famous result from General Relativity that made Einstein a celebrity. Only this way you get the result in three lines of algebra instead of 40 pages of Tensor math...

I like it, your a smart man. But I still think that the Subquantum Kinetic theory is the best gravity theory I have seen.
I think APM is the best field theory and helped me understand Mass, I believe, fundamentally.
Your not wrong however, and that is the beauty of this universe.

You're completely right my friend. You know as well as I do that we can model it any way we want, but it is actually the fourth dimension hiding in plain sight

[kevin]

No maths, no complicated theory, just a simple mans opinion of what mass is,
All is one.
That one is a liquid clear solid, a sea like substance of immense density, where every point has orientation.
within this dense sea is a force that constantly chases itself, in this process it re-orintates individual points that create mass and a resistane to the free flow of the force.
Zones form of re-orientated ponts and create all we think of as mass, when in truth all is one.
Space will have the most aligned points, and thus cause less resistance, the bubbles of re-orientated areas will cause resistance, the more resistance the more heat and light are released.
Each bubble aquires a circulation of the force that chases itself around and within the bubble, this enables the bubble to move about within the sea , this all takes place in scalar fashion where systems exist within systems, but they all are one.
kevin

[junglelord]

Kaluza combined electromagnetics and gravitation as a unified theory in 1921. Kaluza added a fifth (spatial) dimension to Minkowski's 4-space, and applied Einstein's relativity theory to 5 dimensions.

To Kaluza's delight, a common 5-d potential is responsible for both electromagnetic field and gravitational field. The "bleed-off' of this 5-potential in the 5th dimension (which is wrapped around each point in our 3-space) is what we know as the electromagnetic force field. The bleed-off of this 5-potential in and through our 3-space is what we know as the gravitational force field.

Since the EM field is very much stronger (by a factor of 1042 for electrons) than the gravitational field, it is obvious that most of the bleed-off of the 5-potential is in the 5th dimension, as EM force field. Only a tiny bit is left to bleed-off in 3-space, producing a very weak gravitational field.

Electromagnetics is 5d-gravity sliding around our 3d-space. 3d-gravity is 5d-gravity oozing through our 3d-space.

We state this fact: as a mass moves in space, it generates increased "activity" with the virtual particle flux of vacuum itself. The increased virtual particle flux activity exchange between vacuum and mass is analogous to a strange kind of "virtual resistance." Since the resistance is virtual, it does not observably slow down an observable object moving in an (unobservable, virtual-particle flux) vacuum.

The increased flux activity represents an increased "virtual energy density" of space time, and an increased "trapped potential" (mass; resistance to an accelerating force) of the moving object. It represents a rotation of the spacetime frame, vis a vis the laboratory observer).

In the virtual vacuum (which contains both positive and negative time), one sees two antiparallel virtual forces: one in positive time, along the velocity vector of the object, and one in negative time (time reversed, or phase conjugated). The reason one sees virtual forces is that each virtual (subquantal) change in the virtual flux activity represents an individual (unintegrated), separate change, hence a virtual acceleration. The observer ( where things are integrated), sees the integral of all these accelerations, hence observable velocity.

The vector sum of these two virtual forces in the vacuum is a zero vector; however, the two taken together represent a stress in the local energy density of vacuum.

Since we may regard an EM wave as a stream of virtual electrons/positrons, each engaging in tremendous virtual particle flux exchange with the vacuum, then the same basic picture applies.

Now for our physical interpretation : If we refer to an EM wave moving in the vacuum, the rotation of the frame is maximum (90 degrees). But this same rotation is just the same as additional vacuum stress, so the vacuum stress is maximum.

This leads to these conclusions: An electrical force field vector represents a local maximum linear stress in spacetime, along the line of the vector. Note we specifically deny that the electrical force field vector, of an EM wave in vacuum, is transverse. Instead, it is longitudinal. That has been addressed elsewhere by the author and will not be covered further here.
Tom Bearden

[GaryN]

Threshold events.

So, to answer the question posed by Leibniz, “Why is there something instead of nothing?” we say there is something and nothing. Taking the measure of time moment by moment something exists; but in the all-encompassing eternity nothing exists. But again moment-to-moment existence is something entirely separate from eternity; the eternity of zero is something separate from a progression of moments.

Ignoring the black hole reference, this site seems well reasoned.

http://biocracy.info/blog/blog5.php/200 ... old-events

At some level of confinement of the subcomponents, the proton comes into existence, and once formed is almost impossible to undo. It is the final twist and squeeze of the 12 around 1 becoming the 12 around none that overcomes the repulsive forces, and the attractive forces take over, the threshold is crossed. The geometry of the proton is such that the pressure at the center, created by tension, produces shrunken space, or a 'dent' in the space-time fabric. It is this 'dent' that is mass, space time curvature .

[Lho]

One answer could be:

Universal principle:

effect = cause / opposition

Then, from the electromagnetic theory, we know that:

[M] = [Q2 / L]

But this not only true dimensionnally. If one takes the Planck mass, length and electric charge, we see that:

Mp = Qp2 / (Lp * 1e7)

Note: The 1e7 is dimensionless and comming from the arbitrary choice in the definition of mu

This is also true with the electron mass, radius and charge, where:

Me = Qe2 / (Le * 1e7)

Note: Le is usually called Re and is the classical radius of the electron

So we can say that :

The mass is the result (effect) of a squarred electric charge (cause) over a distance (opposition)

The charge is supposed to be a point at the center of a sphere and the distance is the radius of this sphere.

Hope this helps.

For more information, see
http://www.losangeinformatique.com/phys ... tities.htm

regards,
Lho

[Nevyn]

You guys all hide in complexities, just like mainstreamers

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

That this statement is true can be proven in a simple way. E.g., calculate the gravitational deflection of light from the sun.

1. We all know that photons travel straight lines since the speed of light is a universal constant, so even the idea of
curved space is a little absurd since a curve always describes an acceleration...

2. Putting the transit time of a photon grazing the sun to the earth at 500s, we get that the surface of the earth during this time expands an unexpected distance of:

s= at2/2 = (9.8m/s2)(500s)2/2 = 1,225,000m


3. The angle of deflection can then be calculated from:

tan(θ) = s/1 AU = 1,225,000m/1.5x1011m

θ = 1.68 arcseconds

4. Voila. The famous result from General Relativity that made Einstein a celebrity. Only this way you get the result in three lines of algebra instead of 40 pages of Tensor math...

a # 9.8 m/s as this is only true at the Earth's surface.
Mo

A better question is what does 9.8m/s^2 mean. What does it actually tell us?

If you accept Einsteins equivalence principle then there is no measurable difference between a gravitational field pointing down and an acceleration pointing up. So we can say that the earth creates a gravitational field which attracts other bodies or we can say that the earth is expanding such that the surface moves with an acceleration of 9.8m/s^2 relative to its center.

Since we do not see different objects expanding at different rates then they all must expand at the same rate. Therefore all bodies will measure the acceleration of their surface relative to their center as 9.8m/s^2.

[StevenO]

A better question is what does 9.8m/s^2 mean. What does it actually tell us?

If you accept Einsteins equivalence principle then there is no measurable difference between a gravitational field pointing down and an acceleration pointing up. So we can say that the earth creates a gravitational field which attracts other bodies or we can say that the earth is expanding such that the surface moves with an acceleration of 9.8m/s^2 relative to its center.

Since we do not see different objects expanding at different rates then they all must expand at the same rate. Therefore all bodies will measure the acceleration of their surface relative to their center as 9.8m/s^2.

You are completely right. All matter measures an acceleration of 9.8m/s^2 at their surface. Even photons, electrons and protons. You will find then that there are only two basic forces instead of four: the gravitational expansion leading to virtual attraction and a photon emission field leading to repulsion and E/M forces.

All physics laws using radius dependencies (Newton's gravitation, GR, Coulombs force law, QED, radiation laws,...) are basically Unified Field theories expressing those two forces using different scaling factors. In Newton's law at the size and density of the earth gravity is about 9.8m/s^2 down and the photon emission field is about 0.0095m/s^2 up. At the size and density of the moon it is quite different: 2.67 m/s^2 gravity down and 1.045 m/s^2 photon emission field up.

[altonhare]

What is mass?

What is God? It's just a sound or symbol(s). A person that invokes some symbol/sound is responible for making clear what it stands for/refers to. So, one does not ask another "what is X?". You say "When I say X, I mean this." Then what they do depends on how complex X is, if it's an object like a rock, a simple concept like hard, or a complex concept like consciousness.

So, if you wish to invoke the word "mass", it is not our responsibility to "tell you what it is". All the responders will just tell you what they mean when they use this word.

[altonhare]

That this statement is true can be proven in a simple way. E.g., calculate the gravitational deflection of light from the sun.

1. We all know that photons travel straight lines since the speed of light is a universal constant, so even the idea of
curved space is a little absurd since a curve always describes an acceleration...

Absurd? Apparently you are not familiar with having one's cake and eating it too. It turns out that if you talk in riddles and use math that only those with a college degree in a hard science can typically understand, you can have uniform nonuniform motion . If space is curved, then all trajectories are curved, and light just travels in the "least curved" trajectory.

2. Putting the transit time of a photon grazing the sun to the earth at 500s, we get that the surface of the earth during this time expands an unexpected distance of:

s= at2/2 = (9.8m/s2)(500s)2/2 = 1,225,000m


3. The angle of deflection can then be calculated from:

tan(θ) = s/1 AU = 1,225,000m/1.5x1011m

θ = 1.68 arcseconds

4. Voila. The famous result from General Relativity that made Einstein a celebrity. Only this way you get the result in three lines of algebra instead of 40 pages of Tensor math...

Talking about the "angle of deflection" at all is fallacious. The photon takes the path it takes, period. The only path it deflects from is the one in the relativist's imagination. They calculate how far the photon traveled one way, then another way, take the difference and say the photon was deflected. What idiocy. Or they calculate how far they think the photon "should have traveled" according to some other measurements and compare this to what they measure, subtract the two, and again announce that the photon was deflected. Deflected from what? The distance a photon must travel to get from A to B may depend on neighboring bodies like the sun, and it may even depend on measurable parameters related to those neighboring bodies. That's not suprising...

[Nevyn]

That this statement is true can be proven in a simple way. E.g., calculate the gravitational deflection of light from the sun.

1. We all know that photons travel straight lines since the speed of light is a universal constant, so even the idea of
curved space is a little absurd since a curve always describes an acceleration...

Absurd? Apparently you are not familiar with having one's cake and eating it too. It turns out that if you talk in riddles and use math that only those with a college degree in a hard science can typically understand, you can have uniform nonuniform motion . If space is curved, then all trajectories are curved, and light just travels in the "least curved" trajectory.

2. Putting the transit time of a photon grazing the sun to the earth at 500s, we get that the surface of the earth during this time expands an unexpected distance of:

s= at2/2 = (9.8m/s2)(500s)2/2 = 1,225,000m


3. The angle of deflection can then be calculated from:

tan(θ) = s/1 AU = 1,225,000m/1.5x1011m

θ = 1.68 arcseconds

4. Voila. The famous result from General Relativity that made Einstein a celebrity. Only this way you get the result in three lines of algebra instead of 40 pages of Tensor math...

Talking about the "angle of deflection" at all is fallacious. The photon takes the path it takes, period. The only path it deflects from is the one in the relativist's imagination. They calculate how far the photon traveled one way, then another way, take the difference and say the photon was deflected. What idiocy. Or they calculate how far they think the photon "should have traveled" according to some other measurements and compare this to what they measure, subtract the two, and again announce that the photon was deflected. Deflected from what? The distance a photon must travel to get from A to B may depend on neighboring bodies like the sun, and it may even depend on measurable parameters related to those neighboring bodies. That's not suprising...

The "angle of deflection" is a standard model term for what StevenO was describing. When you take gravity to be expansion of all bodies then the bending of light becomes something else. The photons travel in straight lines but since it takes time to get to the receiver, the receiver (and all bodies in between the source and receiver) has expanded. This places the receiver in a different position and it will appear like the light has been bent because it sees things it shouldn't be able to (compared to a Newtonian viewpoint).

This explains why so many experiments to confirm relativity fail on light bending, they keep getting different values. They don't realise that the position of the receiver, on earth, makes a big difference in the measured bending. To get the most affect you need to have the receiver on the edge of the earth (equator) as that point moves the most compared to what you are looking at (assuming you are looking at a star behind the same position on the sun, ie the same edge).

This is hard to write in words. Imagine you are behind the earth looking towards the sun. The earth is moving from left to right on its orbit relative to the sun. In order to get the most apparent bending of star light you need to take a picture when the receiver, placed on the equator, is exactly 90 degrees to the sun. ie at its rightmost position to us, the observer behind the earth. The picture should be of the same right side of the sun. We only need to think about the sun and earth to see the apparent bending of light. Let's just look at the photon that only just makes it past the sun by about 1 photon width. Since it takes another 8m 20s to reach the earth, both the earth and the sun will expand in that time. As the sun expands, that single photon is now in front of the sun rather than on its right edge like it was when it passed the sun. when it hits our receiver on earth, the sun will have grown and we will see the star that is actually behind the sun at that moment of reception. It wasn't behind it as the photon was emitted by the star and it wasn't behind it as the photon passed the sun but it is behind after it passes the sun.

There is also the expansion of the earth to consider as this will move the receiver to the right but since the sun is much larger than the earth it will expand into a larger area than the earth. But it is the expansion of the earth that makes the position important and must be considered in the calculations.