My model shows that all mass is EM mass and in fact gravitation is the
weakest EM force.
EM mass behaves exactly as Einstein and others before Einstein already
found. A spring under tension has more mass than a relaxed spring etc.,
chemical reactions produce heat --> reduces mass.
The only cosmetic "error" in the Einstein formula E=mc^2 is, that in
fact you should write it as dE =dmc^2 as you never can convert all mass
to "free" photon energy.
But in terms of EM mass, E=mc^2 shows how gravitating mass at rest is
converted into non gravitating photon like mass.
Unluckily we yet don't exactly know which parts of dense EM mass do
really gravitate (not all parts do!). Thus the formula E=mc^2 is nice to
have and mostly works for the first 6 digits what is the precision of
the classic gravitation constant. But tabulated particle weight data is
mostly gained by EM measurements and the mass relation between known
particles is more exact than the gravitation constant (that, as defined
most likely is not a global constant) !
Hence also E=mc^2 is more reliable if you interpret E as EM equivalent mass.
The only people that must worry are the cosmologists as things will get
slightly more complicated.
Jürg
Am 16.07.19 um 17:56 schrieb [email protected]:
I consider it likely possible to measure mass loss or gain in small
systems—nano or micro scale in size—where temperatures change and
entropy increases or decreases. However, Jurg”s theory regarding the
parameter of mass may indicate a different ratio between mass and
energy, depending upon their precise definitions.
Originally energy was defined as the ability to do work—pretty vague
from a physical model point of view. It evolved with the
thermodynamic laws and further evolved with atomic and nuclear theory
and cosmic observations involving gravitational attractions between
many “massive” items within a finite small space, expanding space,
zero point energy, etc.
Heisenberg added more vagueness with kinetic energy of mass and its
momentum in very small spaces related to h, Planck’s constant, raising
the question about the physical THEORY that entails a model described
by a continuum of space and time parameters to ZERO—NOT IN QUANTUM STEPS.
And so it goes.
Bob Cook
_______________________
------------------------------------------------------------------------
*From:* Jed Rothwell <[email protected]>
*Sent:* Tuesday, July 16, 2019 5:50:54 AM
*To:* Vortex
*Subject:* Re: [Vo]:If Mizuno is correct, this design is likely to
betheprecursor to all future devices
H LV <[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>> wrote:
How much of the energy in a nuclear reaction is actually due to
mass change? A chemical reaction is accompanied by mass change
but the change is so small that it can be ignored so that
essentially all the energy is due to EM forces performing work.
All forms of energy convert mass to energy in the same amount.
Mechanical, chemical or nuclear, it is always exactly according to
Einstein. It is impossible to measure the loss of mass with a chemical
system because the total energy is so small, but the mass loss per
joule is exactly the same as with a nuclear reaction.
--
Jürg Wyttenbach
Bifangstr.22
8910 Affoltern a.A.
044 760 14 18
079 246 36 06
