🚀 go-pugleaf

On Jun 23, 4:30 pm, cjcountess <cjcount...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> Hi GSS
> I commend you for what you are doing with your work. I had the same
> idea as I too participated in enough discussions to  generate a lot of
> thought and enough material to write a book. I've already written one
> book which includes a non mathematical scientific theory of everything
> and have since compiled enough to write another based around the
> controversial idea that c^2 is not just a mathematical conversion
> factor of energy to matter but is an actual conversion frequency at
> high end of EM spectrum where energy turns to matter.

Hi cjcountess
Dale  Another poster was arguing that light was actually mass never
found time to reply but it certainly has no rest mass. Then again it
really can add the properties of mass to any container that holds it
and do this in some interesting ways. resulting in some  interesting
hypothesis. I posted this question a long time ago and a Usenet
friend, somewhere in my files, suggested calling it the canary theory
for the old joke about canaries on a truck having no weight when the
truck was banged on putting the canaries into flight.Think about what
would happen if you turned 1 gram of pure energy into light then held
it in a super reflective box we know that the box would still weigh
the extra gram but how.Light gains energy when a mirror moves towards
it and loses energy as a mirror moves away from its source and this is
how light sails work.A light box has the same properties as light will
have more energy reflecting off of the bottom of the box than on its
top as well as giving the same effect when the box is moved imitating
inertia.
When the theory got interesting is when it was pointed out that if
quantum particles were in fact little boxes of light they would still
display inertia just like ordinary matter and we would never know the
difference.Later another poster pointed out than at the sub quantum
level their really is no such thing as rest mass.
Worth some more thought probably.
Dale




I reason and
> visualize this to happen because the wave takes on a circular or
> spherical geometry such as a standing satirical wave. Like you I
> believe that we can visualize this because I have done it and nobody
> can tell me otherwise. Maybe their vision and /or my description is
> not as clear as my vision but I am having fun arguing the case.. If
> you take a wave traveling at c in the horizontal direction and  give
> it a equal and 90 degree angular speed of c in vertical direction,
> this is c^2. This is analogous to a horizontal line of an inch, times
> a vertical line of equal measure to equal a square inch..  If we draw
> an arc from the beginning  of the horizontal line to  end of the
> vertical line this creates a 90 degree arc which if constant creates a
> circle. This can represent the trajectory a wave under the influence
> of a centrifugal and a centripetal force at a 90 degree angle to each
> other resulting in circular motion might take. In 3d this would be
> spherical motion .
> see:http://docs.google.com/Doc?id=dsn5q6f_11vv737cck
> and
>  http://www.physlink.com/Education/AskExperts/ae694.cfm,
> If we start with a circular polarized wave like the one they ended up
> with on the website and continue the same logic and geometry  to all
> dimensions of the wave, x-y and z,  we should get a standing spherical
> wave.
>
> One question, did you think to include any of the Google dialogs to
> show the dynamism of the arguments or do they include too much google-
> gaga childish chatter that you'd rather exclude? And furthermore, is
> it copyrite infringement to publish other peoples input into the
> dialog or is it o.k. to include at least their responses to you. Would
> appreciate your thoughts on this.
> I read some of your book and think it is very inciteful.
> Conrad Countess