In June of 1905, Einstein published his famous paper entitled "On the
Electrodynamics of Moving Bodies". Inter alia, the theory established a
unique connection between space and time, leading to what is now known as
space-time, two entities that are as inseparable as kraut-und-wieners. This
theory, in time, has come to be known as the special theory of relativity.
During the summer months of 1905, while smoking his pipe and lolling around,
letting his hair grow, wearing an old sweat shirt, no socks, and sometimes
shoes, he thought about it further, and he realized that there was much more
in this theory than he had originally thought. He thought about the
implications of energetic emanations from masses and how this would be
treated using his new theory. His thoughts were mainly associated with the
"inertial" qualities (and quantities) of masses. And he hit upon an idea
that was detailed in a paper that he published later that year in the German
journal Annalen der Physic: 18:639, 1905. Translated into English, the title
of the paper is: "Does the Inertia of a Body Depend Upon its Energy
Content?" Briefly, without my going into the details, he established in
this paper that the relationship between inertial mass and energy is given
by the, now famous, equation



E=m(c^2) (1)



where E is energy

m is mass

c is speed of light in vacuum



But, he only went one-third of the way in those thoughts. Not only mass, but
also space and time are involved. Had he considered more carefully the mass
in his second paper that was emitting the radiation, he would have also
taken into account the gravitational energy associated with the mass. But he
didn't. This, of course would bring Newton's gravitational constant, G, into
the analysis.



Without going into the details here, an argument along the lines that he
used in deriving the relationship between energy and mass and introducing
gravitation will derive an analogous relationship between energy and space,
s, and energy and time, t. Or, we could say between energy and space-time.



Analogous to equation (1) above there is derived:



E=(c^4/G)s the equivalence between energy and
space.



and

E=(c^5/G)t the equivalence between energy and
time.



If it is assumed that mass, space, and time are universally uniquely
related, these relationships imply a correspondence between mass and time of
m=(c^3/G)t and between mass and space of m=(c^2/G)s.



One must keep in mind that the concept of mass is no more "physical" than
are the concepts of space and time. So, the above relationships for s and t
are no more metaphysical than the one for m, i.e., if mass is equivalent to
energy, then so also are space and time; and all three are equivalent as
shown.



In his September 1905 paper, Einstein suggested putting his relationship
between mass and energy to a test using the energy released by radium.



I would suggest putting the relationship between space-time and mass-energy
to a test by comparing the relationships with the observed extent, age, and
mass of the universe using the equations given above. The quantities should
hold on a universal scale, whatever the epoch during the evolution of the
universe.



Cheers, and have one on me,

Sid Lanier

"Sid Lanier" wrote in message
...






In June of 1905, Einstein published his famous paper entitled "On the
Electrodynamics of Moving Bodies". Inter alia, the theory established a
unique connection between space and time, leading to what is now known as
space-time, two entities that are as inseparable as kraut-und-wieners.
This
theory, in time, has come to be known as the special theory of relativity.
During the summer months of 1905, while smoking his pipe and lolling
around,
letting his hair grow, wearing an old sweat shirt, no socks, and sometimes
shoes, he thought about it further, and he realized that there was much
more
in this theory than he had originally thought. He thought about the
implications of energetic emanations from masses and how this would be
treated using his new theory. His thoughts were mainly associated with the
"inertial" qualities (and quantities) of masses.



And he hit upon an idea
that was detailed in a paper that he published later that year in the
German
journal Annalen der Physic: 18:639, 1905. Translated into English, the
title
of the paper is: "Does the Inertia of a Body Depend Upon its Energy
Content?" Briefly, without my going into the details, he established in
this paper that the relationship between inertial mass and energy is given
by the, now famous, equation


E=m(c^2) (1)


where E is energy

m is mass

c is speed of light in vacuum


But, he only went one-third of the way in those thoughts. Not only mass,
but
also space and time are involved. Had he considered more carefully the
mass
in his second paper that was emitting the radiation, he would have also
taken into account the gravitational energy associated with the mass.

Wrong. Upto here your inaccuracies didn't matter for the subject at hand,
but here they do.
Contrary to your claim, in that paper he didn't come up with your equation
1. Instead it was more like:

delta_E= delta_m*c^2 (1)

Thus there was no need to consider a (constant) gravitational energy.

But he
didn't. This, of course would bring Newton's gravitational constant, G,
into
the analysis.


Without going into the details here, an argument along the lines that he
used in deriving the relationship between energy and mass and introducing
gravitation will derive an analogous relationship between energy and
space,
s, and energy and time, t. Or, we could say between energy and space-time.



Analogous to equation (1) above there is derived:



E=(c^4/G)s the equivalence between energy and
space.

That seems to imply that total energy goes to zero at a certain point in
space(?!)


and

E=(c^5/G)t the equivalence between energy and
time.

That seems to imply that total energy is zero at t=0...


If it is assumed that mass, space, and time are universally uniquely
related, these relationships imply a correspondence between mass and time
of
m=(c^3/G)t and between mass and space of m=(c^2/G)s.



One must keep in mind that the concept of mass is no more "physical" than
are the concepts of space and time. So, the above relationships for s and
t
are no more metaphysical than the one for m, i.e., if mass is equivalent
to
energy, then so also are space and time; and all three are equivalent as
shown.



In his September 1905 paper, Einstein suggested putting his relationship
between mass and energy to a test using the energy released by radium.



I would suggest putting the relationship between space-time and
mass-energy
to a test by comparing the relationships with the observed extent, age,
and
mass of the universe using the equations given above. The quantities
should
hold on a universal scale, whatever the epoch during the evolution of the
universe.

Cheers, and have one on me,

Sid Lanier

I don't buy into it, but maybe we can talk about it over a beer one day. ;-)

Cheers,
Harald

"Harry" wrote in message
...

"Sid Lanier" wrote in message
...






In June of 1905, Einstein published his famous paper entitled "On the
Electrodynamics of Moving Bodies". Inter alia, the theory established a
unique connection between space and time, leading to what is now known as
space-time, two entities that are as inseparable as kraut-und-wieners.
This
theory, in time, has come to be known as the special theory of
relativity.
During the summer months of 1905, while smoking his pipe and lolling
around,
letting his hair grow, wearing an old sweat shirt, no socks, and
sometimes
shoes, he thought about it further, and he realized that there was much
more
in this theory than he had originally thought. He thought about the
implications of energetic emanations from masses and how this would be
treated using his new theory. His thoughts were mainly associated with
the
"inertial" qualities (and quantities) of masses.



And he hit upon an idea
that was detailed in a paper that he published later that year in the
German
journal Annalen der Physic: 18:639, 1905. Translated into English, the
title
of the paper is: "Does the Inertia of a Body Depend Upon its Energy
Content?" Briefly, without my going into the details, he established in
this paper that the relationship between inertial mass and energy is
given
by the, now famous, equation


E=m(c^2) (1)


where E is energy

m is mass

c is speed of light in vacuum


But, he only went one-third of the way in those thoughts. Not only mass,
but
also space and time are involved. Had he considered more carefully the
mass
in his second paper that was emitting the radiation, he would have also
taken into account the gravitational energy associated with the mass.

Wrong. Upto here your inaccuracies didn't matter for the subject at hand,
but here they do.
Contrary to your claim, in that paper he didn't come up with your equation
1. Instead it was more like:

delta_E= delta_m*c^2 (1)

Right, but I had in mind his more general conclusion expressed at the end.


Thus there was no need to consider a (constant) gravitational energy.

Thanks, but I'll have to think about this. I'm not sure how we can ever
ignore gravity.

But he
didn't. This, of course would bring Newton's gravitational constant, G,
into
the analysis.


Without going into the details here, an argument along the lines that he
used in deriving the relationship between energy and mass and introducing
gravitation will derive an analogous relationship between energy and
space,
s, and energy and time, t. Or, we could say between energy and
space-time.



Analogous to equation (1) above there is derived:



E=(c^4/G)s the equivalence between energy and
space.

That seems to imply that total energy goes to zero at a certain point in
space(?!)

Right, if there is no place for energy to exist, then it is unlikely that it
can exist.


and

E=(c^5/G)t the equivalence between energy and
time.

That seems to imply that total energy is zero at t=0...

Right, if there is no time in which energy can exist, it can't exist (well,
at least hard to imagine it.) Or, to think about it in another sense, use
Heisenberg's uncertainty princlple: deltaT x deltaE = hbar. If deltaT is
zero (i.e., we absolutely know the uncertainty in time is zero), then we
have absolutely no information on E, whether it even exists or not.


If it is assumed that mass, space, and time are universally uniquely
related, these relationships imply a correspondence between mass and time
of
m=(c^3/G)t and between mass and space of m=(c^2/G)s.



One must keep in mind that the concept of mass is no more "physical" than
are the concepts of space and time. So, the above relationships for s and
t
are no more metaphysical than the one for m, i.e., if mass is equivalent
to
energy, then so also are space and time; and all three are equivalent as
shown.



In his September 1905 paper, Einstein suggested putting his relationship
between mass and energy to a test using the energy released by radium.



I would suggest putting the relationship between space-time and
mass-energy
to a test by comparing the relationships with the observed extent, age,
and
mass of the universe using the equations given above. The quantities
should
hold on a universal scale, whatever the epoch during the evolution of the
universe.

Cheers, and have one on me,

Sid Lanier

I don't buy into it, but maybe we can talk about it over a beer one day.
;-)

Very good idea. I'll buy at least the first and last round.

Cheers,
Harald

SL

Sid Lanier wrote:
"Harry" wrote in message
...

"Sid Lanier" wrote in message
...






In June of 1905, Einstein published his famous paper entitled "On the
Electrodynamics of Moving Bodies". Inter alia, the theory established a
unique connection between space and time, leading to what is now known as
space-time, two entities that are as inseparable as kraut-und-wieners.
This
theory, in time, has come to be known as the special theory of
relativity.
During the summer months of 1905, while smoking his pipe and lolling
around,
letting his hair grow, wearing an old sweat shirt, no socks, and
sometimes
shoes, he thought about it further, and he realized that there was much
more
in this theory than he had originally thought. He thought about the
implications of energetic emanations from masses and how this would be
treated using his new theory. His thoughts were mainly associated with
the
"inertial" qualities (and quantities) of masses.



And he hit upon an idea
that was detailed in a paper that he published later that year in the
German
journal Annalen der Physic: 18:639, 1905. Translated into English, the
title
of the paper is: "Does the Inertia of a Body Depend Upon its Energy
Content?" Briefly, without my going into the details, he established in
this paper that the relationship between inertial mass and energy is
given
by the, now famous, equation


E=m(c^2) (1)


where E is energy

m is mass

c is speed of light in vacuum


But, he only went one-third of the way in those thoughts. Not only mass,
but
also space and time are involved. Had he considered more carefully the
mass
in his second paper that was emitting the radiation, he would have also
taken into account the gravitational energy associated with the mass.

Wrong. Upto here your inaccuracies didn't matter for the subject at hand,
but here they do.
Contrary to your claim, in that paper he didn't come up with your equation
1. Instead it was more like:

delta_E= delta_m*c^2 (1)

Right, but I had in mind his more general conclusion expressed at the end.


Thus there was no need to consider a (constant) gravitational energy.

Thanks, but I'll have to think about this. I'm not sure how we can ever
ignore gravity.

But he
didn't. This, of course would bring Newton's gravitational constant, G,
into
the analysis.


Without going into the details here, an argument along the lines that he
used in deriving the relationship between energy and mass and introducing
gravitation will derive an analogous relationship between energy and
space,
s, and energy and time, t. Or, we could say between energy and
space-time.



Analogous to equation (1) above there is derived:



E=(c^4/G)s the equivalence between energy and
space.

That seems to imply that total energy goes to zero at a certain point in
space(?!)

Right, if there is no place for energy to exist, then it is unlikely that it
can exist.


and

E=(c^5/G)t the equivalence between energy and
time.

That seems to imply that total energy is zero at t=0...

Right, if there is no time in which energy can exist, it can't exist (well,
at least hard to imagine it.) Or, to think about it in another sense, use
Heisenberg's uncertainty princlple: deltaT x deltaE = hbar. If deltaT is
zero (i.e., we absolutely know the uncertainty in time is zero), then we
have absolutely no information on E, whether it even exists or not.


If it is assumed that mass, space, and time are universally uniquely
related, these relationships imply a correspondence between mass and time
of
m=(c^3/G)t and between mass and space of m=(c^2/G)s.



One must keep in mind that the concept of mass is no more "physical" than
are the concepts of space and time. So, the above relationships for s and
t
are no more metaphysical than the one for m, i.e., if mass is equivalent
to
energy, then so also are space and time; and all three are equivalent as
shown.



In his September 1905 paper, Einstein suggested putting his relationship
between mass and energy to a test using the energy released by radium.



I would suggest putting the relationship between space-time and
mass-energy
to a test by comparing the relationships with the observed extent, age,
and
mass of the universe using the equations given above. The quantities
should
hold on a universal scale, whatever the epoch during the evolution of the
universe.

Cheers, and have one on me,

Sid Lanier

I don't buy into it, but maybe we can talk about it over a beer one day.
;-)

Very good idea. I'll buy at least the first and last round.

If Sid's buying I'm agreein' (hick-up)...

Anyway, I do agree with Sid's analysis, and I wanted
to ask Sid if he's considered how the conversion of
space (and time) to mass, affects how light is
deflected. For example the mass of the Sun is typically
set to m = 1.47 km in GR units.

I find that to be literally true, by following a light
path it's sucked in about 1.47 km at the Sun's rim.
Ken

"Ken S. Tucker" wrote in message
ups.com...

Sid Lanier wrote:
"Harry" wrote in message
...

"Sid Lanier" wrote in message
...






In June of 1905, Einstein published his famous paper entitled "On the
Electrodynamics of Moving Bodies". Inter alia, the theory established
a
unique connection between space and time, leading to what is now known
as
space-time, two entities that are as inseparable as kraut-und-wieners.
This
theory, in time, has come to be known as the special theory of
relativity.
During the summer months of 1905, while smoking his pipe and lolling
around,
letting his hair grow, wearing an old sweat shirt, no socks, and
sometimes
shoes, he thought about it further, and he realized that there was
much
more
in this theory than he had originally thought. He thought about the
implications of energetic emanations from masses and how this would be
treated using his new theory. His thoughts were mainly associated with
the
"inertial" qualities (and quantities) of masses.



And he hit upon an idea
that was detailed in a paper that he published later that year in the
German
journal Annalen der Physic: 18:639, 1905. Translated into English, the
title
of the paper is: "Does the Inertia of a Body Depend Upon its Energy
Content?" Briefly, without my going into the details, he established
in
this paper that the relationship between inertial mass and energy is
given
by the, now famous, equation


E=m(c^2) (1)


where E is energy

m is mass

c is speed of light in vacuum


But, he only went one-third of the way in those thoughts. Not only
mass,
but
also space and time are involved. Had he considered more carefully the
mass
in his second paper that was emitting the radiation, he would have
also
taken into account the gravitational energy associated with the mass.

Wrong. Upto here your inaccuracies didn't matter for the subject at
hand,
but here they do.
Contrary to your claim, in that paper he didn't come up with your
equation
1. Instead it was more like:

delta_E= delta_m*c^2 (1)

Right, but I had in mind his more general conclusion expressed at the
end.


Thus there was no need to consider a (constant) gravitational energy.

Thanks, but I'll have to think about this. I'm not sure how we can ever
ignore gravity.

But he
didn't. This, of course would bring Newton's gravitational constant,
G,
into
the analysis.


Without going into the details here, an argument along the lines that
he
used in deriving the relationship between energy and mass and
introducing
gravitation will derive an analogous relationship between energy and
space,
s, and energy and time, t. Or, we could say between energy and
space-time.



Analogous to equation (1) above there is derived:



E=(c^4/G)s the equivalence between energy
and
space.

That seems to imply that total energy goes to zero at a certain point
in
space(?!)

Right, if there is no place for energy to exist, then it is unlikely that
it
can exist.


and

E=(c^5/G)t the equivalence between energy
and
time.

That seems to imply that total energy is zero at t=0...

Right, if there is no time in which energy can exist, it can't exist
(well,
at least hard to imagine it.) Or, to think about it in another sense, use
Heisenberg's uncertainty princlple: deltaT x deltaE = hbar. If deltaT is
zero (i.e., we absolutely know the uncertainty in time is zero), then we
have absolutely no information on E, whether it even exists or not.


If it is assumed that mass, space, and time are universally uniquely
related, these relationships imply a correspondence between mass and
time
of
m=(c^3/G)t and between mass and space of m=(c^2/G)s.



One must keep in mind that the concept of mass is no more "physical"
than
are the concepts of space and time. So, the above relationships for s
and
t
are no more metaphysical than the one for m, i.e., if mass is
equivalent
to
energy, then so also are space and time; and all three are equivalent
as
shown.



In his September 1905 paper, Einstein suggested putting his
relationship
between mass and energy to a test using the energy released by radium.



I would suggest putting the relationship between space-time and
mass-energy
to a test by comparing the relationships with the observed extent,
age,
and
mass of the universe using the equations given above. The quantities
should
hold on a universal scale, whatever the epoch during the evolution of
the
universe.

Cheers, and have one on me,

Sid Lanier

I don't buy into it, but maybe we can talk about it over a beer one
day.
;-)

Very good idea. I'll buy at least the first and last round.

If Sid's buying I'm agreein' (hick-up)...

Anyway, I do agree with Sid's analysis, and I wanted
to ask Sid if he's considered how the conversion of
space (and time) to mass, affects how light is
deflected. For example the mass of the Sun is typically
set to m = 1.47 km in GR units.

I find that to be literally true, by following a light
path it's sucked in about 1.47 km at the Sun's rim.
Ken

Actually, I have not calculated it. But, of course the equation m=(c^2/G)s
gives 1.47 km for s, using m=mass of the Sun.
I think I would approach it from the idea that there is a concentration of
this "extra space" in the location of the Sun, and spreading outwards.
Having made the m-to-s conversion we can then ignore its mass. That would
stretch space originating at the center of the Sun, spreading outwards so
that it is no longer flat. Much like space-time curvature in GR. As the
plane wavefront comes in from the star, it would have to bend to allow for
the distortion caused by this extra space in that region. I know, the
question is: why not just do it the usual way using GR? But it' fun to try
to get it another way based wholly on SR.

After the week end, I'll think about it.
Sid