GORDON HERMA

thats what i was trying to say Some people mistake time as a progression that we make up to portion it for our understanding. Time itself is dependent upon space and motion, we make it linear and non linear, we decide what a second is by creating progression, but we can not create the properties of physics associated with motion through space. Gordon...

I see what you mean and i understand the equations relationship, has this been used for mass in this way before? They did mention phase on and http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Closed_systembut still no mass relationship is mentioned on there. Can this be used as a resistance/mass relationship equation because of the ratio properties and the different states that phase that can give systems more or less permeability? I think alien mentioned there was not an equation used ,in an earlier post, regarding a mass/resistance relationship. The percentages definetly show a ratio between phase and mass. Gordon..

Thanks for the reply I will look up the definitions of those systems, so i understand what you mean a bit better. What could acount for the slideing percentage based on the mass in the equation. Just seem like there is some other factor that keeps a portion of mass from converting into energy(annihilation). I dont know what it is though. Gordon..

Thank you again alien, have a good journey. Gordon...

In my last post i posted I didnt do a very good explanation of why so ill give it a shot. First both clocks are not conscious, they dont perceive anything, nor does an atom,thunderstorm,popcicle,ect. If you want to put your mind around time imagine you are standing next to a clock the size of a planet. With every tick you hear a thunderous boom. Each tick takes like 5 mins because of its "SIZE IN SPACE". Between ticks you look down at your feet and there is a clock ticking 60 times per minute that has the "SIZE IN SPACE" of the tip of you thumb. Now both these clocks are identical and equal in every way except the fact that they are different sizes. If we put the thumbtack clock into a spaceship and get it moveing faster and faster towards the speed of light then the ticks of that clock become larger with each increase of speed. Eventuall, if you have A fast enough "MOTION IN SPACE" the ticks will match that of the planet size clock, ticking every 5 minutes with a thuderous boom. These 2 properties are the relationship between TIME and SPACE. They are unseperable. The more space(SIZE) that is used in a clock the slower the relative ticks become. The faster the "MOTION" of a clock in space, the slower the relative ticks become. This has nothing to do with precpetion because if you could set up the experiment and walk away it would still happen. However in our perception, we do portion these properties into scales so that we can reference "WHERE" and "HOW BIG" all our differnt clocks were previously, are currently, and where they are going in "SPACE/TIME". In conclusion, both clocks being equal with size not withstanding, the only 2 varients are "SIZE AND MOTION". These are properties of "SPACE" and "TIME" and can only exist together as one. Hope this helps some... Gordon Herman....

Well i got my presentation all worded, im sure it still lacks some more preceptive explanations. This is all i can come up with at the moment though. Ill put it in Quotes... Let me know what you think Gordon Herman....

Sorry about that i was correcting myself in mid-type..hehe. What i meant by that is the strong force is the same, but a larger amount is being used with larger amounts of mass. If the theory and the numbers are correct each ("particle"?) has only a certian amount of strong force it can draw from at any given time. Which leads me to think that if a particle only uses half the possible energy, then that half should be left out of the conversion equation because its allready energy. Hence the discrepency i was trying to nail down of that "Used" amount "R" that should not be calculated. I understand that the total amount is all interchangeable in the equation e=mc^2 between the mass and energy, but if the numbers are right the truley converted is a smidgen less. Yes, but i think the very reason that number is used is because of its particle motion "properties"(I'm not sure what word is supposed to be used there but properties was the closest i could come in my vocabulary). I can't do the percentage comparison of the actual mass of another, but i can use the one mass you listed in your previous post. I did the equation adding .1 to the mass amount and the numbers worked out for a comparison, but i did not list them only the mass for the on you posted. These are the ones you posted. M = 1.682199260997612e-26 C = 299,792,458 m/s 89875517873681764 E = 1.5118852974888513201329405194757e-9 O = 5.04310651300257633610296e-18 R = 1.511885292445744807130364183372e-9 A = 135881473.62416411826056096476634 True Energy = 135881473.6241641167486756723206 mc^2=e mc=o e-o=r rc^2=a a-r = True Energy True * 100(/a)= Percentage - 99.999999999999998887349943946415% 100% - 99.999999999999998887349943946415% = 0.00000000000000111265005605359% is the percetage of force that should not be calculated within e=mc^2 at this amount of mass. The larger the mass the smaller the amount of strong force left, but i think this number can never reach annihilation because of the nature of the speed of light. (mc^2 -mc)c^2 - (mc^2-mc)=True The reason i subtracted mc from both is to equalize the oscillations because they are both at the same (level)state of rest. Gordon .. P.S. I edited my last post a bit becuase of errors, but this one is as clear as i can present it. I'll work on another reformed write up tonight. Thanks for taking time away from your studies to help me work through my presentation on this, I would never have got to this point without your help. Hopefully i can finish my method explanation before tomorrow.

hello alien.. thanks for the reply. Most do travel right through things, but on occasion there is a reaction. I cant remember off hand where i read that, but it does happen. In my head i cant see how there can be annihilation if nothing can surpass the speed of light. Now because we are using the squared speed of light for the conversion, i dont see how we can use them for annihilation. This just makes it seem like there is always a representation of mass that should not convert. I mean the bigger "M" is, the bigger "E" is in E=MC^2. Basicly the same thing. I think this is where i went wrong in trying to convey my theory, in the math -- However it seems like there is mass on some level being misrepresented in the conversion becuase of permeability/phase. I guess im viewing it like light from the sun in an analogy, If you take a portion of light you have xrays,visible light,ect all in that portion. Just at different wavelenghts. I guess im viewing mass(light) the same ways because of permeability/phase(wavelenght). The equation MC=O is just to start a "baseline" type of point to begin a scale based on the permeaility/phase factors within light. A= Actual Conversion Energy E= Energy C= The constant of the speed of light O= “Phase/Oscillation” (I guess im viewing it like light from the sun in an analogy, If you take a portion of light you have xrays,visible light,ect all in that portion. Just at different wavelenghts. I guess im viewing mass(light) the same ways because of permeability/phase(wavelenght) R= Resisted Binding Force/Mass (The amount that could not be converted because of phase/oscillation vs. strong force/energy being used in a state of rest.) I misplaced the math and did division between the mass and oscillation/phase try this one. seems alot simpler if i dont add my own characters, the first one is without them..hehe mc^2=e mc=o e-o=r rc^2=a a-r = True? (mc^2 -mc)c^2 - (mc^2-mc) = True? <----Is this equation allready used ? or (e-o)c^2 -(e-o) = True? or a-(e-o) = True? or a-r = True? True*100(/E)= the % If you compare 2 different amounts of mass with this equation using a percentage of “A” with, “True” as the base 100% of the same mass, you will see the scaling pattern for this hidden counterpart. Assuming all numbers are correct. Does more mass mean there is more stong force inherent...or strong force being used. The numbers above are based on strong force being used. I.E.- no matter how much mass there is, only a certain amount of strong force is alowed because of the matter. Your numbers are good alien. It was my equation that was off. I hope it makes more sense now. I look forward to your replies. Gordon Herman...

First I want to say thanks to all that replied to me when I posted the other day on this topic, I did not fully understand the terms and methods behind what I was trying to convey. In regards of that I did some homework and posting on learning the way to present myself. I came up with a better description and method to help me better convey what I meant. Below is a new description of what I originally meant, along with the method I used to arrive at this theory. Mass, and the force that bind it together are bound at the hip. You can not have one without the other. Einstein does not account for the force binding the mass together in a state of rest in his equation E=MC^2. If mass can not pass the speed of light, then there is always a portion that does not get “converted“. I think the reason for this is because there is a binding force already causing some energy within it at a state of rest. The more mass in the equation, the more energy that is “converted”. The more mass you have, the smaller the amount of force being left behind because more is being used to sustian/bind the mass. In conclusion there is a binding force that is causing energy within the mass in a state of rest. This is being mistaken as converted mass in the original equation E=MC^2. Since that Energy cannot be converted because its already Energy , there is an amount of mass that should not be calculated (is resisted) in the totality. It would seem to me that you cant effect one without effecting the other or leave one out without leaving the other. The energy is there in the totality, not because it was converted, but because it was allready energy. This is like the word with a silent “E” that I was trying to describe in a metaphor about Einstein’s equation Here is the method… A= Actual Converted Energy E= Total Energy C= The constant of the speed of light O= “Phase/Oscillation” (A Very Loose Meaning) R= Resisted Binding Force/Mass First to find the baseline Phase/Oscillation “O” of the mass we need to do the equation MC=O Second we need to evenly distribute “O” among the original mass at rest, so we need to do the equation. M/O=R Third we must subtract "R" from the original mass because it was allready energy Then last we must multiply it by the “C^2” for the conversion of the rest. This should give us the Actual Converted Energy or “A” The equation looks like this A=M-(M/O)C^2 or A=M-R(C^2) If you compare 2 different amounts of mass with this equation using a percentage of “A” with E=MC^2, “E” as the base 100% of the same mass, you will see the scaling pattern for this hidden counterpart. Thank you and I look forward to reading the replies, if this is off please post. I love these boards! Gordon Herman…

This site is great..one of my new favorites. Very detailed information and its free! Gordon..

Thank you again alien this has been most benificial for me. In the process now of learning most of the terms associated with physics. I got a book to help me with some of the meanings. I'll see you around the boards i think i like it here, some very good reading.

After reading the article it seems we are cut down in our grandchildrens lifetime to the possibility of wormholes to travel to another star system. We just have to build one. Anything is possible in my book, you just have to look at it with the right set of glasses and give it some time.

As you started falling you would start to be pulled by gravity from all sides and behind you the further you fall.The gravity pulling you down initially would still have the greatest amount of force. The deeper you get into the earth the more angled the lines of force being exerted on you become untill they are pulling from every direction inside the core with equal force. Since the angles of these lines of force that caused velocity will equilize themsleves around you in a shpere at the core........ I say you would fall slightly past the core, then get pulled back to it and be stuck in a stand still. Suspended just like a metal pen in a magnetic pen holder.(no strings attached) Now since certain areas of the surface of the earth have different amounts of gravity force associated with them. This would not be a very staight line that you would travel in, it would seem to be a bit of a twisty line as you passed though the different representations of gravity. Not to mention the equalization between the lines of force is probably not the actual core itself, but more off center. How did i do? Gordon..

Quote: If a particle exists it retains potential resistance whithin itself when interacting with other particles. Its a deduction on my part didnt find it anywhere. The way i think about it is if there were particles that had no resistance and no interaction with other particles of any kind, we would not know about them from observations. The resistance i mean is between the force used to sustain the mass(strong) and the force that is used to convert mass into energy. The second force is introduced and i understand why its not in the equation at a state of rest, but the first is tied at the hip with mass itself. You cannot have one without the other. Gordon

Where did the firewood go? Nothing can disappear completely, i did not mean it that way, some one stated Dalton's Laws earlier in the thread. It just changes form. The firewood is now heat and light beacause of the interaction. How can we define the reference of the system at a state of rest, if mass is using force to keep shape? \Just a loose meaning from my end meaning it only reacts with certain forms of mass. I. E. It can go through a translucent film and my hand can not. 1kg of what thought, if you put a live wire into 1kg of anything there is resistance. This is the basis for my questions. I hope you dont think im harping on you alien, it just seems so clear to me and i am not totally sure how to explain my thoughts. You guys have helped me a ton with this thread, the more i read the better i understand the aspects involved. I know that my idea seems a bit off to people that know their stuff and i expected difficulty with my ability to understand all of this. Thanks for haveing patients with me though. Gordon..

If nothing can acctually be in a state of rest how do we determine the values of a state of rest when dealing with all of the accountable forces, without taking into account the resistances that are tied to any kind of movement from any kind of force? If we have mass we have resistance and force inherent. Even in a state of rest we have resistance from force interaction, but we still exclued it from the equation, why? Mind you im dealing with this haveing no educational background except my own reading habbits. Gordon

The strong force does give the football its characteristics of mass in the form of a conglomerate of atoms. The collective is held together by the electomagnetic but the resistance comes from the collective mass. So a combination of both i would say. I would consider a photon a particle,just a particle out of phase with certain matter. I read a book where they quoted einstien saying something to the effect of "What would light be like if i could match its speed? Could i hold it?" I think this one is still open for debate. It is possible to catch a single photon on a photographic film. Just my take on it, but i dont know the accepted view. I agree it is not a nuclear reaction, but the conversion at this primal level still shows one of the reasons i think that there is some matter that resists conversion. I'm sure measurement is possible and that small discrepancy is exactly what I am trying to get a lock on. Conversion is a loose term here. It was an atom containing energy and then it was left over particles void of that energy. That is a conversion. This process did require resistance in order for matter to change its form. It was applied force vs the atoms mass. With every split atom there are left over particles. Just like the firewood. Then we get to build Nevada Mountains. If a particle exists there is some kind of resistance.. Photon vs photovoltaic cell ...the photon looses and breaks down leaving behind an imprint on it firewood vs heated oxygen.....the firewood looses and breaks down leaving ashes atom vs applied force.....the atom looses and breaks down leaving radioactive materials All of these are being resisted and are converting a paticle into energy. When all is said and done in each instance there is something left behind. If a particle exists it retains potential resistance whithin itself when interacting with other particles. If mass is converted in whatever way there always seems to be some left over particles. Where does E=MC^2 represent that loss. Granted the loss can vary given different states that the matter interacting in. More or less temperature = more or less resistance when dealing with firewood. More or less wavelenght = more or less resistance when dealing with photons. More or less mass = more or less resistance when dealing with atoms. About the metaphore, if no one ever did the equation with the mass taken out for resistance, and always got the same amounts how would anyone know that the number was off by the amount held within the resistance. Gordon

Could you please eleborate it for me swansont. The gibberish is because i dont know the correct terminology. I am sorry i cant present this as clearly as i would like. I guess my final question is where did einstien put the missing mass that does not get converted in his equation. If this is represented in the equation E=MC^2 could u please eleborate. If we can not surpass the speed of light then, there is always a portion that does not convert to energy. There are always ashes left behind when i convert firewood to energy. Radioactive materials are always left over when they convert atoms in Nuclear Power Plants (I know the majority of the materials were seperate but they did become radioactive). All this excess comes from the original mass in all these situations but i see no representation for it in the equation E=MC^2. Which is supposed to be mass converted into energy. If they use the mass numbers that they do to calculate their equations then the final results are off by an ashes "R" amount because the equation figures the conversion of the mass in its entirety. If there are ashes left over then there has to be some mass that resists the conversion and should not be calculated as converted. From a purely mathmatical standpoint "Could this account for the left over or "missing" mass "R" that resisted the conversion and was left as ashes or radioactive materials? I know that this stuff was originally part of the matter before the conversion. Does this make any sense? E=M-(M/R*C^2)C^2 As a metaphore it seems to me like the equation is a word that has a silent e that is not sounded out. Final Question.... Gordon Herman

We dont according to daltons laws we just change form. So dont worry be happy Well thats heavy Oger

Again i must say i appreciate the discussion very much, and thanks for taking the time to reply to someone that is learning. You are right about the rest mass. I guess the way i was thinking about it was, the faster in relativistic motion the ball is, the more the phase (kind of like expanded matter) of the mass has changed along with it the permeability from my state of rest. I guess I meant less permeability of the same matter = less mass in the matter. Just in a different sense. Can the strong nuclear force binding the form of the ball account for the ball converting back as it returns to a state of rest? If so, there has to be a threshold past a certain speed where the speed force is greater then the strong nuclear force. This would cause a breakdown in the mass, and leave behind "ashes" of some sort(Proof of "R"). Below the speed of breakdown the ball could be converted back to its state of rest and mass because the strong nuclear force is greater. Just like a tug of war...but once one team is in the mud its over. Team Strong Nuclear Force and Team Motion..hehe Just like the everyday air resistance in #2 that is caused by the opposing strong nuclear force that keeps the air in form (aside from motion i.e. wind), the ball also has this resistance in the form of strong nuclear force keeping its form. If a breakdown of the ball in a field of air occurs, can a breakdown of the ball occur within a field of itself being expanded around the smidgen in #1 that resisted conversion when it reaches that threshold?. The breakdown starting from the smidgen that resisted the conversion (expansion/permeability of mass) in the relativistic point of view in #1. All conversions absorb some kind of applied force not of itself, into itself to get them rolling. After this happens are the ball and force still considered seperate? Even in a state of rest Strong Nuclear Force is being used to keep the form. Could this be possible? All of this is what i based my equation on. Just trying to figure out if i got it right? E=M-(M/R*C^2)C^2 Gordon...

First i would like to say thanks for the replies and nice to meet you all. Like insane alien said the ball has the same mass when it slows back down. I meant lost more along the lines of one perspective from a state of rest. To explain what i meant in my original post i wrote 2 explanations. #1 If we were to measure the ball from a state of rest, the ball in motion would be a smidgen less in mass. That smidgen has been converted to kiknetic energy. However the force keeping the form of the ball is greater then the force causing the conversion. So as the ball slows back down the kinetic energy is converted back bit by bit untill the ball reaches its previous state of rest. Now if the force were increased to the point where it approached the speed of light, eventually the mass losses most of its form that is measureable from the state of rest, and is only represented to us as a smidgen of matter that is not converted as it wizzes by. This smidgen is what "R" is supposed to represent. This is how i got to my conclusion Gagsrcool. The way i see it is; if the speed of light can not be surpassed, then there will always be a portion of mass that resists the conversion. So the equation is either missing "R" or i dont fully understand the conversion. Which brings me to the reason i posted. I need to know..hehe Here is the other way to look at it... #2 If the ball were pushed within a field of everyday air, the force keeping the form of the air will cause resistance. If the ball is pushed fast enough that resistance will cause a conversioun of mass into heat energy. (Just like orbital re-entry). If pushed fast enough though a burn up occurs. This burning breakdown of the mass is converted into energy. After all the mass that can be converted at this point from force, is convered, there still exists a portion of mass that did resist the conversion and was left behind in the form of ashes. These ashes also represent "R" along with the smidgen of matter that is left measureable from a state of rest. Hope this makes more sense of what i was asking in my first post. Is that portion of the mass that represents "R" missing from or not part of the equation. If so i would love to understand it. Thanks in advace for any help. Gordon...

get 2 clocks one the size of a thumbtack and another the size of a planet both ticking at the same speed in relation to themselves. One on a spaceship moveing close to the speed of light and one on a skateboard...easiest way i can see it..hope it helps

I have a question for those of you that are versed in physics. I am kind of a hobbiest and really enjoy reading theories without the equations. As i read about Einstiens equation (e=mc2) I wondered where the mass that is lost due to resistance during the conversion into energy is represented. (according to realitivity if i kick a ball it looses mass when it is in motion) If this is located in this equation could u please reply to this with a bit of explanation for a lost person. I have an equation i tried to work out but i dont know if its correct. ------- --- 2 2 -----------------------------------------------------------------------------E = M-(M/R*C)C energy equals mass minus (mass divided by resistance multiplied by the constant squared), multiplied by the constant squared. Does this make any sence to anyone ? Any info is greatly appreciated 8) Thanks Gordon....