Sound has no mass, it is ripples in the air (perhaps photon = no mass
ripples in the ether)

Supersonic can anhilate(destroy) particles = magic

Case1: ....IF ANY OBJECT (COMPOSITE OR FUNDAMENTAL PARTICLE) WAS TO
BOUNCE OFF A FIELD INSTEAD OF A WALL, THIS FIELD CAN BE WATER FOR
EXAMPLE, A NEGATIVE IMAGE OF THE OBJECT WILL BE PRODUCED IN THE WATER
(IN THE FIELD)??


NOW FOR THIS NEGATIVE IMAGE TO ALSO ANHILATE THE OBJECT THAT CREATED IT
IS NOT IMAGINABLE BUT A SONIC BOOM (FORCE) CAN CAUSE THE OBJECT TO
ANHILATE(DISINTEGRATE)


Case 2:....AND A SONIC BOOM ITSELF IS NOT AN OBJECT (Not a MASS) BUT AN
IMAGE(RIPPLE) INSIDE A FIELD WE CALL AIR (OR WATER).


In Case 2 you have an image anhilating an object (a particle).

BUT in Case 1: this very same image (sonic boom) can be a negative
image(re-read it)...therefore now Case2 could have a negative image
(negative virtual particle) anhilating an object (a particle)??


(note in case 1 a composite particle would more likely
decompose(breakdown) into sub-particles upon impact = accelerated
decay)

------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The above is perhaps a simulation of how a photon creates particles and
causes decay when interacting with other elements (gas) and a nucleus.

Now I didn't say ANHILATES, this would be a negative EM FIELD (negative
virtual particle) and anyhow an EM Field or wave is a photon (field of
photons).


-------------------------------------------------

And is Bilge Bald?

wrote:
Sound has no mass, it is ripples in the air (perhaps photon = no mass
ripples in the ether)

Supersonic can anhilate(destroy) particles = magic

Case1: ....IF ANY OBJECT (COMPOSITE OR FUNDAMENTAL PARTICLE) WAS TO
BOUNCE OFF A FIELD INSTEAD OF A WALL, THIS FIELD CAN BE WATER FOR
EXAMPLE, A NEGATIVE IMAGE OF THE OBJECT WILL BE PRODUCED IN THE WATER
(IN THE FIELD)??


NOW FOR THIS NEGATIVE IMAGE TO ALSO ANHILATE THE OBJECT THAT CREATED IT
IS NOT IMAGINABLE BUT A SONIC BOOM (FORCE) CAN CAUSE THE OBJECT TO
ANHILATE(DISINTEGRATE)


Case 2:....AND A SONIC BOOM ITSELF IS NOT AN OBJECT (Not a MASS) BUT AN
IMAGE(RIPPLE) INSIDE A FIELD WE CALL AIR (OR WATER).


In Case 2 you have an image anhilating an object (a particle).

BUT in Case 1: this very same image (sonic boom) can be a negative
image(re-read it)...therefore now Case2 could have a negative image
(negative virtual particle) anhilating an object (a particle)??


(note in case 1 a composite particle would more likely
decompose(breakdown) into sub-particles upon impact = accelerated
decay)

------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The above is perhaps a simulation of how a photon creates particles and
causes decay when interacting with other elements (gas) and a nucleus.

Now I didn't say ANHILATES, this would be a negative EM FIELD (negative
virtual particle) and anyhow an EM Field or wave is a photon (field of
photons).


-------------------------------------------------

And is Bilge Bald?


I honestly lost you about halfway through, but there's one important
thing you have to realize--

A sonic boom is a shockwave, the atoms making up air have significant
mass and momentum, and physical objects "disintegrating"--that is, the
crystalline structure of a solid being broken such that the atoms are no
longer tightly bound to one another--is an entirely different animal
from annihilation--that is, the atoms NO LONGER EXIST.

And what, exactly, is your hypothetical sonic boom disintegrating?

And, a more fundamental question... ... what exactly are you trying to
suggest? Are you defending the ether theory of light? Criticizing
relativity? Make it clear what you're actually TRYING to say.

k

Kyle Woodlock wrote:
wrote:
Sound has no mass, it is ripples in the air (perhaps photon = no mass
ripples in the ether)

Supersonic can anhilate(destroy) particles = magic

Case1: ....IF ANY OBJECT (COMPOSITE OR FUNDAMENTAL PARTICLE) WAS TO
BOUNCE OFF A FIELD INSTEAD OF A WALL, THIS FIELD CAN BE WATER FOR
EXAMPLE, A NEGATIVE IMAGE OF THE OBJECT WILL BE PRODUCED IN THE WATER
(IN THE FIELD)??


NOW FOR THIS NEGATIVE IMAGE TO ALSO ANHILATE THE OBJECT THAT CREATED IT
IS NOT IMAGINABLE BUT A SONIC BOOM (FORCE) CAN CAUSE THE OBJECT TO
ANHILATE(DISINTEGRATE)


Case 2:....AND A SONIC BOOM ITSELF IS NOT AN OBJECT (Not a MASS) BUT AN
IMAGE(RIPPLE) INSIDE A FIELD WE CALL AIR (OR WATER).


In Case 2 you have an image anhilating an object (a particle).

BUT in Case 1: this very same image (sonic boom) can be a negative
image(re-read it)...therefore now Case2 could have a negative image
(negative virtual particle) anhilating an object (a particle)??


(note in case 1 a composite particle would more likely
decompose(breakdown) into sub-particles upon impact = accelerated
decay)

------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The above is perhaps a simulation of how a photon creates particles and
causes decay when interacting with other elements (gas) and a nucleus.

Now I didn't say ANHILATES, this would be a negative EM FIELD (negative
virtual particle) and anyhow an EM Field or wave is a photon (field of
photons).


-------------------------------------------------

And is Bilge Bald?


I honestly lost you about halfway through, but there's one important
thing you have to realize--

A sonic boom is a shockwave, the atoms making up air have significant
mass and momentum, and physical objects "disintegrating"--that is, the
crystalline structure of a solid being broken such that the atoms are no

The present limititation is that shockwaves cand destroy(split) the
atoms and not fundamental particles.
This limitation is maybe because of the large frequency of sound as
oppposed to the tinyness of the fundamental particles, or we've the
Energy demand for such would need to quintuple or.....?

longer tightly bound to one another--is an entirely different animal
from annihilation--that is, the atoms NO LONGER EXIST.

And what, exactly, is your hypothetical sonic boom disintegrating?

And, a more fundamental question... ... what exactly are you trying to
suggest? Are you defending the ether theory of light? Criticizing
relativity? Make it clear what you're actually TRYING to say.

k