Reflections have no mass

[soundoflight]

The only "particles" that are massless are those that are reflected. Thus any "thing" that is massless represents that which is an .."image.

 

If i stand in front of a mirror my "real" self would be "considered" by physics theory to be a .."mass." My image would represent that which is "massless" Or the image in the reflection is NOT real ( "virtual"). If a relative observer was looking toward the mirror with no awareness of me relative to the plane of reflection( did not see me rather only the medium of glass reflecting my image.) he would conclude that at that location there was a geometric form that appears to have "mass." ( This is to say if this relative observer was also not aware of the medium that was communicating my form to a reflected image.) This relative observer while correct as to a physical form ( "mass") would be incorrect in inferring that the reflected image possessed REAL... mass.

 

If this were true in a universal sense:

 

All things we conclude as having "mass" would in reality represent "massless" reflections of the quality and attribute of light photon.

 

If this were true:

 

Grey matter would represent a medium relative to light that communicates invisible light photon to "massless" images. This would mean that all "mass" we view in the universe is really representative of massless reflections of light.

 

If this were true it would "be".. light photon ( and necessarily NOT reflected light photon) that would possess the true "weight", "mass" .."heaviness"..or force of acceleration ( light photon force/energy...resulting in the percieved mass as well as motion of the reflected light photon images.

[swansont]

!

Moderator Note

soundoflight, this is the physics section. Please stay within the area of accepted physics and keep speculative answers confined to the speculations forum.

[mississippichem]

The only "particles" that are massless are those that are reflected.

 

Very wrong. see Neutron Reflector

Edited March 15, 2011 by mississippichem

[soundoflight]

Very wrong. see Neutron Reflector

 

 

 

I suppose it would be appropriate to respond to the moderator(s) first.

 

I respect your reminder.

 

I must add:

 

The forum that I posted in was demonstratively a sub-forum of ..physics.. called "Modern and Theoretical Physics." As it seems for now; whatever is considered kosher or orthodox physics seems to trump any other scientific or observational postulates or statements.

 

However that aside may I remind the moderator of the definition of the word "speculation" (speculative). Dictionary.com

 

"pertaining to, of the nature of, or characterized by speculation, contemplation, conjecture, or abstract reasoning:… theoretical, rather than practical:

involving, based on, or constituting intellectual speculation; also : theoretical rather than demonstrable ."

 

It is interesting that the word "speculative" has within its definition the word "theoretical." Why would this be appropriate?

 

Word "Theory"…defined: Dictionary.com

 

"a proposed explanation whose status is still conjectural, in contrast to well-established propositions that are regarded as reporting matters of actual fact. …the branch of a science or art that deals with its principles or methods, as distinguished from its practice…contemplation or speculation.7. guess or conjecture. …Theory, hypothesis are used in non-technical contexts to mean an untested idea or opinion. A theory in technical use is a more or less verified( grain of salt) or established explanation accounting for known facts or phenomena: the theory of relativity. A hypothesis is a conjecture put forth as a possible explanation of phenomena or relations, which serves as a basis of argument or experimentation to reach the truth…:"

 

 

I believe this indicates strongly the relationship between the word "speculation" and the word "theory" ( as in the forum name "…Theoretical Physics.")

 

Thus my statements relative to the affinity shared between the two terms would seem to be apropos to this room. ( Note: Much of "physics" ( though we wish it weren't the case) is theoretical. Verifiably .) But I will not argue this with anyone. However with regard to the obvious affinity between the definitions of the two words in question….correct me if I am wrong.

 

With regard to Mississippichems' no doubt respectful retort:

 

I appreciate your allusion to a "Neutron reflector."

 

However you failed to understand my meaning.

 

I did NOT refer to "reflectors" as "massless." Rather I said :…" that are reflected." Thus I do not refer to those things that "can reflect" ( material objects that can be reflected or do reflect) rather THE reflection itself ( as separate from the thing being reflected) as "produced/reproduced" when those reflectors are reflected. That is to say:

 

If I place the following material objects : .."graphite, beryllium, lead, steel, tungsten carbide,.."(reflectORS) in front of a mirror their "image reflections" in the mirror have no "mass". While they do reflect light photon, if after so reflecting light they themselves are reflected onto a reflective plane their "reflection"( verses their real entity reflector-self) into the plane would be "massless". Thus an "image" verses a real massless object. An "image or : "representation of a thing" as being ...massless.

 

Thus I do not refer to that which reflects light as massless rather the principle ( phenomenon) of REFLECTION as representing "massless representations" of either mass or energy.

 

I stated that an "image" ( picture , copy, representation of a thing as reflected) ..is "massless." Thus my "real self" would be a "material" object ( a reflector of light). However my "image" in a mirror( image= reflection verses "a" reflector) would be merely an illusionary geometric form of a material object and thus would quite literally be .."massless." Thus we could go so far as to refer to my reflected image as a "virtual mass" though not a mass at all.

 

Reiteration: To a relative observer who was looking at my reflection ( verses me as a "mass") and NOT aware that he was actually looking onto a reflective plane( or aether) ..that relative observer would conclude that he was seeing a "mass object." Such evaluation would be verifiably ( experimentally/observationally) in error.

 

I then postulated: "if this were true" ( Theoretical/speculative physics) .."all things we conclude as having "mass" would in reality represent "massless" reflections of the quality( energy) and attribute ( refracted geometry?) ..of light photon.

 

 

 

 

Thus : clear distinction between the word "reflector" and the word "reflection" as follows:

 

Reflector: "a person or thing that reflect. 2. a body, surface, or device that reflects light, heat, sound, or the like.

 

Reflection: "the act of reflecting or the state of being reflected. 2. an image; representation; counterpart. ..the return of light, heat, sound, etc., after striking a surface.

the return of light, heat, sound, etc., after striking a surface. b. something so reflected, as heat or especially light.8. Mathematics . a. (in a plane) the replacement of each point on one side of a line by the point symmetrically placed on the other side of the line." Dictionary.com.

 

Thus what I refer to is

the phenomenon! or: "the act of" reflecting verses that which reflects( reflector). Thus I define the PRINCIPLE ! of: reflection and NOT that which reflects.

Thus the principle of reflection would reveal to us that an "image" that is produced is not "the" production of a "mass object" rather the reflection of a mass object. In this relationship the mass object would be that which IS reflected. The "image" reflected would be that which is …"massless."

 

All things stated and explained as to meaning perhaps we will have to admit that my statements were not…"..Very wrong."

 

Perhaps the "holographic Scenario" presented by the ' Modern ..…theoretical physicist' Erik Verlinde hints at the principles of reflection as defining both mass and energy.

Edited March 15, 2011 by soundoflight

[swansont]

However that aside may I remind the moderator of the definition of the word "speculation" (speculative).

 

!

Moderator Note

It's too late now, but for the record: no, moderator posts are not invitations to further derail a thread by pleading your case.

 

And as to mississippichem's point, neutrons are reflected, and yet are not massless. But as this is off-topic, please discuss it in another thread.

[ajb]

At the risk of being off topic:

 

soundoflight: Theory in this context means a mathematical model . That is some mathematical construct in which one can preform calculations and in principle make predictions that can be tested against nature.

 

It is not the dictionary definition you propose.

[soundoflight]

I do not ‘plead a case.’ Rather the moderator is being…. typically…. condescending.

 

Perhaps the moderator has the answer to your inquiry. His answer no doubt would be proportional to his acceptance of his answer.

 

I suppose we should not be discussing any neutron reflector, rather:

 

Neutron “moderator.”

 

It seems apparent that there is a “medium” that insists on “reducing the speed” of “faster” and perhaps more refined “neurons.”( theoretical physicists.) So long as those more refined in their observational insights are relative to ( relativity- is that appropriate to this forum..?) so called moderation(s) it will always be a scenario of …“thereby turning” the ideas and postulates of others as to relegate them.

 

Derail? Sigh! In order for something to be derailed it must be on track. Is physics “on track?” If so then may I reiterate( as to my attempt at answering the original question)…”correct me if I am wrong.” Namely:

 

A reflected “image” has no ….”mass.”

 

 

 

In response to ajb:

 

Yes it is always risky and off topic to make any proposals that do not conform to or parrot the complacent “models” that orthodox physicists ascribe to.

 

 

However:

 

Please feel free to determine the “mass“ of an image that has been reflected. As well to come up with a mathematical construct that calculates the “mass” of reflected light. If you do so then you will discover that the “principle” that IS reflection precludes any supposed “mass.” As well these principles ( there are many to be derived) demonstrates that the motion of of all things perceived as having mass is dictated by the motion and speed of light after that speed and motion is reflected to “virtual mass“ representations. These things can be tested and are demonstratively occurant as well as recurrent alll throughout nature ( physics). .

 

 

 

I will not post in this forum from this point forward. To risky. That being promised the moderator can consistently say and feel the following:

 

Moooooooowahahahahahah!.

 

 

 

 

[elas]

I do not ‘plead a case.’ Rather the moderator is being…. typically…. condescending.

 

Perhaps the moderator has the answer to your inquiry. His answer no doubt would be proportional to his acceptance of his answer.

 

I suppose we should not be discussing any neutron reflector, rather:

 

Neutron “moderator.”

 

It seems apparent that there is a “medium” that insists on “reducing the speed” of “faster” and perhaps more refined “neurons.”( theoretical physicists.) So long as those more refined in their observational insights are relative to ( relativity- is that appropriate to this forum..?) so called moderation(s) it will always be a scenario of …“thereby turning” the ideas and postulates of others as to relegate them.

 

Derail? Sigh! In order for something to be derailed it must be on track. Is physics “on track?” If so then may I reiterate( as to my attempt at answering the original question)…”correct me if I am wrong.” Namely:

 

A reflected “image” has no ….”mass.”

 

 

 

In response to ajb:

 

Yes it is always risky and off topic to make any proposals that do not conform to or parrot the complacent “models” that orthodox physicists ascribe to.

 

 

However:

 

Please feel free to determine the “mass“ of an image that has been reflected. As well to come up with a mathematical construct that calculates the “mass” of reflected light. If you do so then you will discover that the “principle” that IS reflection precludes any supposed “mass.” As well these principles ( there are many to be derived) demonstrates that the motion of of all things perceived as having mass is dictated by the motion and speed of light after that speed and motion is reflected to “virtual mass“ representations. These things can be tested and are demonstratively occurant as well as recurrent alll throughout nature ( physics). .

 

 

 

I will not post in this forum from this point forward. To risky. That being promised the moderator can consistently say and feel the following:

 

Moooooooowahahahahahah!.

 

Welcome to the speculations club our motto is causal with prediction not the current predict without cause.

 

Without mass what is being reflected? There is no proof that any particle has zero mass; there are claimed proofs that the mass of zero charged particles does not exceed a given value, but so far I have found three different values for the 'does not exceed value'. My own predicted equation (with cause) for the mass of zero charged particles is on our forum.

[swansont]

Welcome to the speculations club our motto is causal with prediction not the current predict without cause.

 

!

Moderator Note

The problems were that this remarkably physics-free idea wasn't in speculations at the time, and this has nothing to do with the original question.

 

The real motto is "Follow the frikkin' rules"

[ajb]

Please feel free to determine the “mass“ of an image that has been reflected. As well to come up with a mathematical construct that calculates the “mass” of reflected light. If you do so then you will discover that the “principle” that IS reflection precludes any supposed “mass.” As well these principles ( there are many to be derived) demonstrates that the motion of of all things perceived as having mass is dictated by the motion and speed of light after that speed and motion is reflected to “virtual mass“ representations. These things can be tested and are demonstratively occurant as well as recurrent alll throughout nature ( physics). .

 

I have not claimed that any image is massive. (But I do claim you misunderstand the word theoretical in the context of physics)

 

In optics an image is a 2D representation of some object made up of rays of light. For instance the picture on the projector screen at the cinema. I don't think you should think of it as an object in it's own right. Meaning that if I stand in front of a mirror I see an image of myself. This image in not independent of me and is just a "representation" or "picture" of me. In particular if I move away from the mirror the image is no longer there. Every image needs a source.

 

The image is not a "full representation" of me. It does not have all the properties I do. In particular I have (too much!) mass.

 

 

The light we see is massless, we all agree on that. But that is no different from observing the light reflected off you if i were standing right next to you. But I cannot infer that you are massless from the fact that the photons scattering off you are massless.

 

We can probe matter by looking at beams of particles other than photons. Electron microscopes are an example, so are neutron beam diffraction techniques and so on. So, for example in neutron bean diffraction you study how neutrons scatter off a sample. You use a neutron detector that then produces an optical image for you. Note neutrons have mass, but the final image is optical.

Edited March 17, 2011 by ajb

[elas]

 

The light we see is massless, we all agree on that.

 

 

http://www.phys.ncku.edu.tw/mirrors/physicsfaq/ParticleAndNuclear/photon_mass.html

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Photon

Section titled; Experimental checks on photon mass.

 

http://www.aip.org/pnu/2003/split/625-2.html

 

The problem with saying that the speed of light in vacuum is as claimed is of course that no one has proven that it is possible to create a volume of absolute nothing. We are using a mathematical extrapolation that is not provable.

[ajb]

http://www.phys.ncku.edu.tw/mirrors/physicsfaq/ParticleAndNuclear/photon_mass.html

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Photon

Section titled; Experimental checks on photon mass.

 

http://www.aip.org/pnu/2003/split/625-2.html

 

Sure, the experimental evidence gives an upper bound on the mass, which is clearly very small. The theoretical evidence for a massless (free) photon comes from Maxwell's equations which have a gauge invariance. Only if the photon is massless can we have such a symmetry.

 

So, elas you want to say that "an optical image may have mass and that is determined by our limits on the mass of a photon"?

[lemur]

Would it help the OP's case to note that objects reflected in a mirror have mass according to a scale reflected in the same mirror even though the scale itself would also be a massless reflection? Maybe this will lead to the conclusion that (C^2)M = E

[soundoflight]

Save this:

 

Wicipedia: Mass (save the attempts at relegating this as an appropriate reference)

 

“mass (from Ancient Greek: μᾶζα) commonly refers to any of three properties of matter, which have been shown experimentally to be equivalent:

inertial mass,

active gravitational mass, and

passive gravitational mass.

 

Are we to say that ‘inertia, gravity(active/passive) …have mass?

 

“mass" is often used interchangeably with weight,…”

 

Are we equally as bold in asserting that “weight” ( verses the object being ‘weighed’) has mass? Or does “pull” have mass? ( ‘pull of gravity’)?

 

Does ‘acceleration’ ( verses the weight of something when accelerated) ..have mass?

 

Does ‘energy’ have …’mass’( E=mc2?)

 

?…………….Does light have mass?

 

 

Answers.com: The short answer is "no",…”

 

 

“but”

 

“it is (always) qualified "no" because there are odd ways of interpreting the question which could justify the answer "yes"..”

 

Thus light has no mass ( photon has no mass) . If this reality is qualified (rhetoric) it is a result of ‘interpretations and justifications’…of theory verses what is established.

 

If /when therefore light photon( massless) has been reflected onto a surface( plane, aether) the reflected light image( ‘ virtual mass/of energy’); representations of light photon ..is/are equally ‘qualitatively and justifiably’ ..massless.

 

Zero mass= ‘mass’ (reflected geometric representations of light photon)

Zero energy= no mass ( light photon UNreflected)

 

Thus E= mc so long as light photon is reflected

mc=E so long as light photon is reflected

 

 

E=E (Light)

mc= (light reflected)

 

 

Light exists everywhere and is not contingent upon the existence or not of “mass”

‘mass’ exists only relative to light….Reflected.

 

 

 

 

 

 

[ajb]

soundoflight, it is good to see that you are well read in physics and as such we should listen to your words.

Edited March 21, 2011 by ajb

[Klaynos]

Save this:

 

Wicipedia: Mass (save the attempts at relegating this as an appropriate reference)

 

“mass (from Ancient Greek: μᾶζα) commonly refers to any of three properties of matter, which have been shown experimentally to be equivalent:

inertial mass,

active gravitational mass, and

passive gravitational mass.

 

Are we to say that ‘inertia, gravity(active/passive) …have mass?

 

“mass" is often used interchangeably with weight,…”

 

Are we equally as bold in asserting that “weight” ( verses the object being ‘weighed’) has mass? Or does “pull” have mass? ( ‘pull of gravity’)?

 

Does ‘acceleration’ ( verses the weight of something when accelerated) ..have mass?

 

Does ‘energy’ have …’mass’( E=mc2?)

 

?…………….Does light have mass?

 

 

Answers.com: The short answer is "no",…”

 

 

“but”

 

“it is (always) qualified "no" because there are odd ways of interpreting the question which could justify the answer "yes"..”

 

Thus light has no mass ( photon has no mass) . If this reality is qualified (rhetoric) it is a result of ‘interpretations and justifications’…of theory verses what is established.

 

If /when therefore light photon( massless) has been reflected onto a surface( plane, aether) the reflected light image( ‘ virtual mass/of energy’); representations of light photon ..is/are equally ‘qualitatively and justifiably’ ..massless.

 

Zero mass= ‘mass’ (reflected geometric representations of light photon)

Zero energy= no mass ( light photon UNreflected)

 

Thus E= mc so long as light photon is reflected

mc=E so long as light photon is reflected

 

 

E=E (Light)

mc= (light reflected)

 

 

Light exists everywhere and is not contingent upon the existence or not of “mass”

‘mass’ exists only relative to light….Reflected.

 

A meaningless and pretty much incomprehensible word-salad, pretty impressive.

 

I'd suggest you read some physics text books. There are a few free basic ones online I can link you too if you so wish.

[soundoflight]

Point:

 

“In most physics textbooks, weight is the name given to the force on an object due to gravity.” ( Wicipedia: Weight)

 

Definition of force: ( Wicipedia: Force)

 

“In physics, a force is any influence that causes a free body to undergo a change in speed, a change in direction, or a change in shape. “

 

Sigh! In the realm of orthodox physics “we” have clumsily equated mass to a ‘force” and an “influence.” “We” have equally equated a change in direction as resulting in mass. “We” have ascribed to an object as being a mass relative to the “operation” of weighing it. “We” then compound the “mass imputations” to objects by saying that “mass” is “an intrinsic property of matter.”

 

Thus “we” theorize that an invisible force( light and energy) is not a mass but it becomes a mass when “we” weigh it. Thus we should say if we weigh something it is a mass if “we” don’t weigh it is a…….?? A “property” is now labeled a mass when in reality a property is merely:

 

“ an essential or distinctive attribute or quality of a thing.” ( verses the “weight of a thing”)

 

And yet “we” acknowledge in our determinations as to what a mass is that what is essential or distinctive with regards to weight is merely the fact that “we” are weighing it.

 

Too philosophical for some!

 

However we KNOW that the only real association to “mass object” as having a theoretical “weight” is a force relative to it. This would seem to be a mental flipping of the reality. This seems to suggest that it is the force that has real weight and not the object being acted upon. Or weighed.

 

.

“ whereas weight is a force. “

 

Weight is NOT a mass( nor is mass epitomized as weight) it is an invisible, non- tangible force that acts relative to “visible” …things. Weight is an invisible “ influence “ on visible things. Weight is an “operation” relative to visible things. Thus if “weight” is all of these things then “weight” is that which is separate from the objects it is relative to and acting upon.

 

When did “we” go so far as to compare qualities and attributes of invisible force(s) to “mass? Can anyone clearly define how “theory” of “weight” somehow resulted in equating massless energy( properties, operations, forces) to objects “with mass?“

 

I agree that invisible forces have properties, as well that these forces operate relative to visible objects( objects visible to the eye). However how do these forces acting upon things ….somehow impute mass to the things they operate on? ( or are “we” being typically and it would seem hopelessly…. Inferential…as to what we see relative to what we do not see?)

 

Are we saying that if energy operates on something it endows the “something” with weight? If so then if energy does NOT operate on something does this mean that the “something” has no mass? If that which is NOT acted upon has no mass then this would seem to state that if force is not relative to the “something” it does not exist in a form that we can see. Or: No mass would exist unless a force is relative to it. If mass does not exist without the presence of force( or the operation thereof) does this mean that force does not exist without the presence of ..”mass?” What came first the mass or the force? The mass cannot exist without the force. On the other hand: It seems that “force” exists even though no mass is evidenced. In other words mass is precluded without force. To the contrary..the presence of force is found even where no mass exists.

 

However:

 

If light and energy ( massless) as a ‘force or operation’ were to operate or exert force on a reflective plane then its light and energy relative to the reflective plane would exert a force on its reflection proportional to its distance from the reflective plane. If light photon is massless force or operation and if its light and energy were communicated to a reflective plane then the force that would bind its point in space to the reflective plane ( point in space) would be contingent both on the “volume” of energy being communicated to the plane ( reflected off of the plane) as well the distance it is from its reflection. Thus if the object being reflected were referred to as ..”m”…and if “m” were a reflection of “E” then at any time the distance between E( force reflected) to “m” would determine the force of “E” upon “m”. If E were a photon and if E was 1 light year from a reflective plane its diameter REFLECTION on the surface of the plane would be such and such. If E were 10 light years from the reflective plane then the “m-diameter REFLECTION of E” would be larger than if E was closer to the reflective plane.

 

Illustration:

 

If E light were the diameter of a flashlight( 3 inches) and if the light ray of E were parallel to a plane of reflection; then its light would be communicated to the reflective plane. If E light were 1 ft from the reflective plane its “image representation upon the surface of the mirror”( m reflection of E)( m-diameter circle of E) would be lets say 4 ½ inches in diameter. If E moved away from the mirror to 10 ft then the “m-reflection of E” would expand to now be represented as a light circle with a diameter of lets say 40+ inches. If a relative observer could not see the light of the flashlight( light photon) but could see the representation ( reflected image ) of E upon the reflective screen, then “they” would conclude that there is:

 

….. a “mass” with the diameter of 4 ½ inches that expanded to the diameter of 40+ inches in diameter. ( expansion of the universe would = reflection of light and energy).

 

Thus it is the distance E is from a reflective plane( plane relative to light photon) that determines the diametric ( circumferential expansion or contraction) measurement of the “mass” reflection of E. If the light of E closes the distance from where it is in space relative to the reflective plane then one would observe a “mass” contraction. This distance narrowed of E distance from RP( reflective plane) would represent a heightened potentiality of conversion of “m” to E. If E direction relative to the reflective plane moved away from or outside of the plane of reflection this would appear to a an observer to be a “mass” disappearing. If then the light moved back into the plane of reflection this would seem to a relative observer that a “mass” object has suddenly appeared out of nowhere.

 

Furthermore:

 

If a reflective plane were 2 light years away from the forward motion of light photon( light rays) then after the light reached the plane it would be represented upon the plane. If a relative observer were able to see the E light ( origin of light) as well as the reflected image of light ( M of E) at the same time and….. mathematically measure the direction, speed, spin and motion of the two …they would conclude that light speed is traveling times light spedd( C2) and “seeming to be” ….simultaneously existing at two places at the same time. Thus C2 would in reality mean that light is separated from a reflective plane by any amount of light years but once its light is communicated to the reflective surface its light regardless of the constant speed of light( 186,000 constant!) will be maintained at two places simultaneously. This despite E being perhaps many millions of light years away from its reflected image.

 

One thing this would seem to suggest is:

 

The farther the “real light “ is from the “virtual reflected light “ the larger the “mass” will appear to the human eye. Or illustratively:

 

The light photon that is reflected to the area of space occupied by the sun would be farther away than the area of space occupied by the earth reflection of light photon. A black hole would be an area of space that will not or does not reflect light photon! So on and so forth.

 

Lunacy?

 

Unified “theory”…?

 

Holographic scenario?

Light reflected scenario?

 

Perhaps we need to experiment with these postulates. It is the purpose of this thread to demonstrate not that this is “possible” rather to provide experimental realities existing all around us to show that this is occurring.

 

The discussion will be a broad one. As “unification” should afford one the ability to see and realize things that when applied could explain….everything.

 

( Theory of everything= energy(E) relative to THAT energy reflected(m..of E)

 

E=m(RP…C2)……………..?

 

 

 

can "word - salad" trump....."equation salad"..?

 

Perhaps the two-"slit" ("salad") experiment if understood could answer this question.

 

[Ringer]

Point:

 

"In most physics textbooks, weight is the name given to the force on an object due to gravity." ( Wicipedia: Weight)

 

Definition of force: ( Wicipedia: Force)

 

"In physics, a force is any influence that causes a free body to undergo a change in speed, a change in direction, or a change in shape. "

 

Sigh! In the realm of orthodox physics "we" have clumsily equated mass to a 'force" and an "influence." "We" have equally equated a change in direction as resulting in mass. "We" have ascribed to an object as being a mass relative to the "operation" of weighing it. "We" then compound the "mass imputations" to objects by saying that "mass" is "an intrinsic property of matter."

 

This was all I needed to read to know you have no idea what you are saying. Even elementary school teaches that mass =/= weight.

[soundoflight]

Mass= weight?

 

Wicipedia: Mass verses weight:

 

“In everyday usage, the mass of an object is often referred to as its weight though these are in fact different concepts and quantities.”

 

 

I suppose we should say : “mass= weight”…though these are in fact different concepts and quantities. (=…?)

 

Mass has to be clearly defined before we can say it is no longer a… “concept. “ Has mass been clearly defined? Other than ..theory? If mass = weight and so long as a ‘concept’ is a ‘ general notion’ and a “a theoretical construct within some theory’ then this will mean that weight also ’equals’..a notion or idea…theoretical.

 

‘Mass corresponds to the general, everyday notion of how "heavy" something is. However, mass is actually an inertial property;…”

 

Thus the heaviness of an object ( or the perception of weight relative to human notion) is a loose terminology that equates a “force” to something(“m”) relative to that force… as having mass. Thus it would seem once again that : FORCE = weight..rather than “mass”= weight.

 

Side point ..naturally: What does “force”…”weigh?”

 

If mass or weight is contingent upon force then that which weighs something ( has substantial weight or heaviness) is not the “notion of mass” rather the reality of a force relative to an “object”

Again. What resulted in physics ascribing to that which is seen as having mass while relegating what I feel is the true reality that the “weight” of things actually dwells in the forces we cannot see?

 

Thus there is an unseen “mass” that is so heavy it weighs everything down. ( fluid aether? Solid reflective plane?) . This “mass” is so ‘heavy’ that its heaviness( its force) causes visible energy ( energies….E=mc2 ) to be acted upon in such a way that it APPEARS to be weighed down. ( Appears to have weight=mass) Thus that which is massless( mass… of energy) is …being so…. weighed down due to its relativity to that which is weighty( E).

 

We have so distorted these demonstratives and so obscured them with misconstrued notions of what “MASS IS” …that we fail to realize that the true mass of the universe exists in the invisible forces relative to the visible representations of energy( “mass reflections of E).These forces do not equal weight or mass( Light is weightless and mass less). These forces however DO necessarily ACT relative to there reflections. Or:

 

The “pull of gravity ( weight …”mass”) = the attraction between light and THAT light reflected. Thus if vector A( light and energy) is communicated to vector B ( reflective plane relative to light and energy) then its light is attached to the reflective plane. Thus if vector A moves away from the reflective plane the force acting upon IT’S reflection will be proportional to the distance IT is from ITS reflection. If Vector A moves closer to ITS reflection ( its reflection= ( vector B) = geometric representation of vector A) the force of attraction between it( light) and its reflection( mass geometric representation..image) will be increased. If Vector A is NOT relative to the reflective plane then ITS force is NOT acting upon the plane( nor the mass images of itself that is NOT produced/reproduced on the plane) . If its force is NOT relative to a reflective plane then “mass” ( reflected image verses any real weight or heaviness) does not exist. Or:

 

If light and energy is NOT reflected there can be no mass representation of itself on the plane. No “mass”. Or:

 

E=mc2 only if E is relative to RP.

 

Where E= energy( light)

Where m= energy( light)….. Reflected.

Where C2= C1( real light quality and speed) x C2 ( C1..reflected)

Where RP= Reflective plane ( relative to the motion, spin, revolution, quality, attribute and YES! Speed of light)

 

 

[Ringer]

Everyday usage means absolutely nothing in science discussions. Weight is the force in relation with mass and gravity. Say I have a mass of 70 kg (yes I am small), if someone were to say my weight is 70 kg they don't mean mass they mean the I have a force of 70kg/9.82 km/s^2. It's just easier to say that I weigh 70 kg. This isn't just a theoretical notion, this is the relationship between mass and weight.

[soundoflight]

Everyday usage means absolutely nothing in science discussions. Weight is the force in relation with mass and gravity. Say I have a mass of 70 kg (yes I am small), if someone were to say my weight is 70 kg they don't mean mass they mean the I have a force of 70kg/9.82 km/s^2. It's just easier to say that I weigh 70 kg. This isn't just a theoretical notion, this is the relationship between mass and weight.

 

 

 

Correct! That which defines "weight" is a "relationship" ( relativity) verses any true "mass." That is : Weight represents the pulling of light to its reflection resulting in a "force of attraction" between one side of a string( light cone) and the other. The force between light and THAT light reflected. A tug of war ( entropic) between light (E) and light reflected (m.. of E).

 

Thus: 'Weight or mass' is not a real phenomenon it is merely representative of a relationship or relativity between two energy forms.

 

Form A= True light energy.

Form B(of A)= true light energy reflected to lower geometric form-light energy.

 

That which defines or results in the relativity of E to m= RP

 

RP= reflective plane( or aether) relative to Light.(E)

 

 

What scientific discussions definitively prove that mass has weight?

 

"Weight is the force in relation with mass and gravity"……..rather:

 

Force is the weight…………..in RELATION WITH mass and gravity.

 

E… is demonstrative. Gravity as a "force" is equally evidenced. ( Though the definitions of gravity are indecisive and unclear) However ….mass… is a "theoretical construct" ( ideas , notions) devised by human thinkers to try to differentiate the invisible energies ( E-perspective) relative to visible energies( "geometries " perceived by the eye.) Both mass ( as having weight independent of being acted upon by a force) and gravity ( "… is a force pulling together all matter..") ….are theories. That is that gravity has been concluded to be a force that is distinguishable from light or that which functions relative to light and "mass." However gravity is NOT a force that exists if light is NOT relative to RP. Gravity is the product of the attraction of light to a reflective plane ( or aether).

 

In other words and relative to the picture in the preceding post ..gravity represents: Light ray as attached to a reflective plane therefore resulting in its light-energy and quality being 'dualized" on the reflective surface of the plane. Thus the two red lines( rays) coming from the yellow circle to the left represent the' diameter' of light ray from origin ( vector A). That light ray travels through space and so long as it is NOT relative to a reflective medium its light is free flowing ( open) and not gravitized. When the light ray from vector A reaches the reflective medium its light is implanted on the surface of the plane causing the force of attraction to "emerge" between vector A( light) and vector B( light reflected onto a plane.). This connects one point in space to another and results in the force of attraction existing between the two points. String? Rather light cone! Or: Once the "one end"( "vector A") "connects" to the "other end" ( " vector B") ( the reflective plane or aether) ..Then this becomes a closed system of light. Or: Vector A is communicated to the medium(RP) and relative to such attraction to its reflection a "light string/cone" forms. This light string/cone is that which distinguishes one "mass representation of light" from other mass "objects." Or one light string( vector A to vector B) as geometrically and spatially separate from another light string ( two vectors attracted due to reflection…that exists relative to another object equally represented as two light ( E) vectors attached due to the principles of reflection relative to light photon.

Edited March 24, 2011 by soundoflight