Re: [Vo]: Mass versus Energy

2007-03-09 Thread Paul Lowrance
David Thomson wrote: I think I'm getting tired of trying to show people the Aether Physics Model. I'm ready to just turn within and work on my own development and let people discover the answers to physics for themselves. Sorry to jump in, as my time only permits me to follow my own threads

RE: [Vo]: Mass versus Energy

2007-03-09 Thread David Thomson
Hi Paul, Let me see, Einstein explained the photoelectric effect, but none of the others items in your list rings a bell when I look over his papers. I have written a 27 page basic introduction to the theory, which I had to keep as short as possible but still present the theory. In that paper,

Re: [Vo]: Mass versus Energy

2007-03-09 Thread Paul Lowrance
David Thomson wrote: Hi Paul, Let me see, Einstein explained the photoelectric effect, but none of the others items in your list rings a bell when I look over his papers. Hi, I'll point out the difference. Einstein's paper was aimed at one thing, The Photoelectric Effect. I provided you

RE: [Vo]: Mass versus Energy

2007-03-08 Thread David Thomson
Hi Steven, When these smaller atomic nuclei are created wouldn't that also mean that the individual protons and neutrons within these lighter elements have to suddenly regain lost mass if their atomic number is less that Fe? This is exactly what I have been saying. I'm glad somebody is

RE: [Vo]: Mass versus Energy

2007-03-08 Thread Steven Vincent Johnson
Hello David, When these smaller atomic nuclei are created wouldn't that also mean that the individual protons and neutrons within these lighter elements have to suddenly regain lost mass if their atomic number is less that Fe? This is exactly what I have been saying. I'm glad somebody is

Re: [Vo]: Mass versus Energy

2007-03-08 Thread Stephen A. Lawrence
Steven Vincent Johnson wrote: There has been lively debate in regards to whether E=mc^2 is an accurate mathematical equation to describe whether energy is actually being converted back and forth between mass and energy. No doubt many are likely to consider it outrageous to challenge

RE: [Vo]: Mass versus Energy

2007-03-08 Thread David Thomson
Hi Stephen, Finally, uranium itself may seem to be a puzzle: Where did it come from? What reaction formed it? The universe started with hydrogen; how did atoms like uranium climb the energy hill? The answer, as I understand it, is supernova explosions: The supernova explosion theory is

RE: [Vo]: Mass versus Energy

2007-03-08 Thread OrionWorks
Hello Dave, Hi Stephen, [Lawrence] Finally, uranium itself may seem to be a puzzle: Where did it come from? What reaction formed it? The universe started with hydrogen; how did atoms like uranium climb the energy hill? The answer, as I understand it, is supernova explosions: The

Re: [Vo]: Mass versus Energy

2007-03-08 Thread Robin van Spaandonk
In reply to Stephen A. Lawrence's message of Thu, 08 Mar 2007 15:55:17 -0500: Hi, [snip] Finally, uranium itself may seem to be a puzzle: Where did it come from? What reaction formed it? The universe started with hydrogen; how did atoms like uranium climb the energy hill? The answer, as I