mass vs. matter (definition of terms)

[KickLaBuka]

There was a question regarding what I have referred to as mass. I'll answer two ways:

1. The classical approach to defining mass is by calling it matter. Matter would be defined as the stuff that has mass. Mass by itself is defined as an amount of weight which is called weight because of a gravitational field acting upon said mass.

2. In my opinion, the word matter is extraneous. Mass is the stuff that hass weight in a gravitational field. Mass has inertia when it is moved (Newton's 1st). Mass undergoes projectile motion when it is thrown (Newton's 2nd), or orbital motion when it is thrown at just the right speed (Kepler). Mass will react when it is hit (Newton's 3rd).

Addressing some of the z-pinch ideas with regard to the electrical nature of mass, I maintain that Protons Neutrons, and Electrons each have their important parts for electrical phenomenon to be observed, but that both mass and charge must be considered in each of the three.

[junglelord]

The best thing I ever learned was a new approach to dimensional analysis via quantum constants.
Based on that simple re-arrangement, the approach offers surprisingly simple answers to these perplexing questions.

Mass is best understood as a fundamental dimension that is constant for e- p+ n
The Mass of a e- never changes. Nothing ever happens to Mass. Mass is one way to examine EM Charge in a linear aspect. EM Charge is a way to view Mass in a distributed aspect. Mass and EM charge are directly proportional. The charge of the e- never changes. These fundamental properties are dimensions in and of themself.

In that regard we can view Mass, Frequency, Length, Area, Volume, Charge, as all fundamental.
Length would be a quantum product of Comptons Wavelength for example.

I suggest you take a look at the Aether Physics Model for more information.
Cheers

[Orlando]

I am experimenting with simplifying states of Awarenes.
One of the mental exersices I did was to take the concept of electric surface charge density and apply it to an old joke,
what weighs more a ton of steel or a ton of feathers?
Once grasping the mental picture of a ton of feathers, I envisioned a pile the size of a building.

So my question to the World wide Universal Conscience Webmaster was
What has more surface area? the feathers, what is the pile of feathers surface charge potential compared to the small block of Iron?

Well if there exists in any given medium an Equi-potential, what does mass have to do with weight, to me it would appear that the feathers have more mass than the iron, but only if mass is not a weight phenomenon but a combination of the material and how it electrically interacts within its given environment?

So I then imagined an Acid so pure that all or anything that Mattered was completely broken down into a state where our powers of awareness could not distinguish the particles from their neughbours.

Well if the Universe is Electricity then it never changes, what changes are the dynamics of the Interactions of the matter and the "Matterites", the potentials change due to their frequency or wave or their association with the wave.
To which I ask the Universe, if I dissolved a planet at what point will the "matterites" in a mist like state now shelling the once planet , equal the original mass( occupied space), I see it much larger( occupying more space, to which we are decieved due to the limitations of our eyes)and due to its larger area of Influence it will interact electrically with more of the Universe than the planet did.

Now I am learning to mentally see how capacitance, resistence and current might flow in the "All that matters".
And in each given state.

Just having some fun,learning that is.

Peace
Or

[KickLaBuka]

This topic was introduced deep in a thread, which I can't find anymore. But I wanted to speak on it and draw some mental pictures. The thought was regarding the potential energy of a ton of feathers vs. a ton of rock. It focused on the question of surface area and electrical capacitance of the feathers.

This is paramount to the idea of mass density and volume. Charge density must be implicitly buried in here along with the concepts of mass density. The classical approach is that the ton of feathers would fall at the same rate as the ton of rock; however, this was introduced before drag was discovered (a differential equation). Dealing with mass density and charge density together with radius (drawing volume), the idea is covered by conceptual and expected mathematics.

Topic merged with this one, which looks like it might be the original spoken of--mod.

[earls]

"Mass and EM charge are directly proportional."

What's the golden ratio?

Very low masses can have very high charge, and very high masses can have a very low or no charge. How do we avoid stepping on toes?

[KickLaBuka]

Use the exact wording and mathematical notation as I have used. Then kindly cite me. The concept, the dictation, and the notation of the mathematics are all protected by copyright laws. No amount of name dropping or partially referring to the concept will work, because you need the math to go with it.

[junglelord]

"Mass and EM charge are directly proportional."

What's the golden ratio?

Very low masses can have very high charge, and very high masses can have a very low or no charge. How do we avoid stepping on toes?

No toes to step on here Earl. Its a simple statement. The ratio of charge to mass never changes. Find me a e- with a varible charge. Find me a e- that has variable mass. Electrons have constant mass and constant charge. Infact the fine electron constant is a good way to understand how the geometry of mass and charge relate.

Until proven otherwise all electrons are equal in ES Charge, all protons are equal in ES Charge, all the charge they carry are equal and opposite. ES charge is not EM charge. EM charge for the electron is not the same as EM charge for the proton, and their masses are different.....from this statement I claim that Mass and EM charge are directly proportional. EM Charge holds the nucleus together. There is no strong force and no weak force. There is only charge and mass and gravity.

Mass and charge are directly proportional in EM charge only.

[junglelord]

The Mass to Strong Charge ratio (mchg) is constant for all sub atomic units and for aether.

mchg = 6.508 X 10^6 X (kg/coul^2)

[junglelord]

Use the exact wording and mathematical notation as I have used. Then kindly cite me. The concept, the dictation, and the notation of the mathematics are all protected by copyright laws. No amount of name dropping or partially referring to the concept will work, because you need the math to go with it.

Hi, you never commented on the APM mass to strong charge ratio....
The Mass to Strong Charge ratio (mchg) is constant for all sub atomic units and for aether.

mchg = 6.508 X 10^6 X (kg/coul^2)
Here is a quote and a link, but the equations do not cut and paste. However it is clearly spelled out that proper dimensional analysis of charge means it must be distributed. I suggest you take a look at the actual algebra.

Two Manifestations of Charge
The two types of charge recognized in the Aether Physics Model are the electrostatic charge and the electromagnetic charge. In modern physics only one type of charge is quantified. As a result of the two types of charges, we have successfully developed the electron binding energy equation, which accurately predicts the 1s orbital electron binding energies for all the atomic elements. Our white paper, "A New Foundation for Physics," explains the two types of charge in greater detail. A synopsis is given on this page.

Also, in modern physics charge has only one dimension. In the Aether Physics Model charge is distributed (charge squared).

The electrostatic charge is the same as elementary charge, except that it is represented as e2 instead of just e. The value of electrostatic charge in the APM is:

(1.1)

Strong nuclear charge is the product of angular momentum of a subatomic particle and the conductance of the Aether.

(1.2)

(1.3)

Strong charge, (or electromagnetic charge) is written as eemax2 for the electron, epmax2 for the proton and enmax2 for the neutron. Unlike the electrostatic charge, which is the same for both the electron and proton, the strong charge is different for each onn (subatomic particle) and is directly proportional to the onn's mass.

The angular momentum of an electron is represented as Planck's constant:

(1.4)

The conductance of the Aether is:

(1.5)

The proportion of electrostatic charge to strong charge is equal to 8p times the fine structure of the onn.

(1.6)

The significance of this proportion is that it represents the "weak nuclear force" of the particle. Each particle has its own "weak nuclear force".

(1.7)

(1.8)

Equations 1.6 through 1.8 represent the unified charge equations for each onn. Taken together these equations are the basis for a mathematically correct Unified Force Theory. Electrostatic charge has one spin and is spherical, while electromagnetic charge has half spin and has steradian geometry (toroidal).

The unified charge equations dictate a general geometry for the subatomic particles.

http://www.16pi2.com/charge.htm

Structure and Function cannot be seperated. Due to his proper knowledge of the geometry of charge, Tesla had a flat pancake spiral coil and a upside down tornado coil as the two distinct dual coil geometry in his greatest device, Tesla's Wardenclyffe. The flat pancake spiral coil makes maximum current, the up-side down tornado coil, creates maximum potential. That is because they replicate the actual geometry of the electron. Rodins coil is another example of how the geometry of charge must be replicated by the geometry of the coil to attain maxium function (control). Tesla used equal amounts of copper MASS to achieve harmonic resonance in all his coil designs. It was the equal mass of the two coils along with the geometry that made the Tesla coil harmonicly resonate. The use of equal masses of copper, has been also pointed out by Brown. I therefore deduce that indeed mass to charge ratio's exist, and will be rediscovered, until it is taught as proper physics and proper dimensional analysis of charge is maintained. Mass is the linear aspect of strong charge AKA EM charge. Thats why Tesla utilized equal mass to wind coils. That was critical to his work. He was very careful to weigh out the copper. Mass and Charge cannot be seperated. If you have equal mass, you will have harmonic resonance, which is propagation of charge~ how simple is that?

[Orlando]

JL thanks for that info, nice!Will dig further
Peace
Or