Henry Haapalainen wrote:
"Igor" kirjoitti
glegroups.com...

Henry Haapalainen wrote:
kirjoitti
legroups.com...

Igor wrote:
wrote:

"Energy" is mass in motion.

Oh, I'm sorry! That's not the true definition of energy. Give this
guy the consolation prize and get him off stage. He's had his fifteen
minutes of ignominious fame and we're not going to allow him back until
he can learn some actual physics.
========================================

That "energy is a mass in motion" happens to be the correct explanation.
Someone might say that it does not explain the energy of a particle, but
that is because he does not understand the real essence of mass. There is
no
"solid" mass.

http://www.wakkanet.fi/~fields/

Henry Haapalainen

I'll give you one more chance to define energy. What is energy?

Are you talking to me? At a particle level it is an acceleration of space,
wider it is a motion of a particle.

I'm sorry. That is incorrect. Wow, you people are terrible! You
wallow in your own ignorance and don't even have enough gumption to
look up the proper definition.

PD wrote:
Igor wrote:
PD wrote:
wrote:

What if these fields have mass. There have been experiments ( Nieto and
Goldhaber ) that determine the mass upper limit of electric and
magnetic fields. So these fields have mass and are pliable. Then we can
think of them as waves -- waves that have mass.


OK, so you don't know what "mass upper limit" means. Hint: It does NOT
mean the fields have mass.

So you're saying Vergon doesn't understand the concept of a
mathematical inequality? Who would have guessed.

He shares a lot conceptually with Porat, though Porat apparently has
lost the ability to type coherently in the effort.

Vergon and Porat both confuse an upper limit with a nonzero measured
value.
Vergon and Porat both think that *definition* of momentum and kinetic
energy is based on a function of mass and speed.
Vergon and Porat both think that Planck's constant carries with it some
fundamental mass.
Vergon and Porat both think that the smallest photon frequency unit is
1 Hz.
Vergon and Porat both think that SI base units somehow represent
physically fundamental absolute dimensions.
Vergon and Porat both think that E=mc^2 means that anything with energy
has mass.
Vergon and Porat both think that every time they do an algebraic
manipulation, they own copyright on the result.

It seems that with extremely limited resources, the spoils of the
effort are extremely predictable results.

PD

This is actual meaning of E=mc2, its , its application and future.
All the debate is based based upon Einstein's Original papers.
What ever is quoted is published in international conferences, journals
etc.
The references of work are again quoted for prpoer undersatding.

References of Einstein’s work
..
A.Einstein, Annalen der Physik 18 (1905) 639-641. .
Weblink is
Einstein’s 27 Sep 1905 paper available at
http://www.fourmilab.ch/etexts/einstein/E_mc2/www/
PartII
References of Ajay Sharma’s work

My work is available at
http://www.burningbrain.org/pdf/ajaysharma_einstein.pdf
For details
https://www.novapublishers.com/catal...oducts_id=4554


International Conferences
It has been accepted for presentation over 55 conferences all over the
world
--------------------------------------few of them
1. Sharma, A. presented in 19th International Conference on the
Applications of Accelerators in Research and Industry , 20-25
August , 2006 Fort Worth Texas, USA

2. A. Sharma, Abstract Book 38th European Group of Atomic Systems
(
Euro physics Conference) Isachia (Naples) Italy (2006) 53.

3. A. Sharma , Abstract Book , A Century After Einstein Physics 2005 ,

10-14 April 2005 ( Organizer Institute of Physics , Bristol )
University of Warwick , ENGLAND

4. A. Sharma presented in 5th British gravity Conference , OXFORD
ENGLAND

5. A. Sharma,. Proc. Int. Conf. on Computational Methods in
Sciences and Engineering 2003 World Scientific Co. USA ,
(2003) 585.

6. A. Sharma, Proc. Int. Conf. on Number, Time, Relativity United
Physical Society of Russian Federation, Moscow , (2004) 81
plus more
--------------------------------------
Journals
This paper
�The Origin of Generalized Mass-Energy Equation �E = Ac2 �M; and
its applications in General physics and Cosmology�.
is published in journal
A. Sharma, Physics Essays, 17 (2004) 195-222.
Physics Essays, CANADA
www.physicsessays.com
The paper
The past, present and future of E=mc2
will be published in 2007 Galilean Electrodynamics, Massachusetts,
USA.
In parts it is published in various others journals.
----------------------
Book 100 Years of E=mc2
For details
https://www.novapublishers.com/catal...oducts_id=4554

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

Igor wrote:
wrote:

"Energy" is mass in motion.

Oh, I'm sorry! That's not the true definition of energy. Give this
guy the consolation prize and get him off stage. He's had his fifteen
minutes of ignominious fame and we're not going to allow him back until
he can learn some actual physics.

This is actual meaning of E=mc2, its , its application and future.
All the debate is based based upon Einstein's Original papers.
What ever is quoted is published in international conferences, journals
etc.
The references of work are again quoted for prpoer undersatding.

References of Einstein’s work
..
A.Einstein, Annalen der Physik 18 (1905) 639-641. .
Weblink is
Einstein’s 27 Sep 1905 paper available at
http://www.fourmilab.ch/etexts/einstein/E_mc2/www/
PartII
References of Ajay Sharma’s work

My work is available at
http://www.burningbrain.org/pdf/ajaysharma_einstein.pdf
For details
https://www.novapublishers.com/catal...oducts_id=4554


International Conferences
It has been accepted for presentation over 55 conferences all over the
world
--------------------------------------few of them
1. Sharma, A. presented in 19th International Conference on the
Applications of Accelerators in Research and Industry , 20-25
August , 2006 Fort Worth Texas, USA

2. A. Sharma, Abstract Book 38th European Group of Atomic Systems
(
Euro physics Conference) Isachia (Naples) Italy (2006) 53.

3. A. Sharma , Abstract Book , A Century After Einstein Physics 2005 ,

10-14 April 2005 ( Organizer Institute of Physics , Bristol )
University of Warwick , ENGLAND

4. A. Sharma presented in 5th British gravity Conference , OXFORD
ENGLAND

5. A. Sharma,. Proc. Int. Conf. on Computational Methods in
Sciences and Engineering 2003 World Scientific Co. USA ,
(2003) 585.

6. A. Sharma, Proc. Int. Conf. on Number, Time, Relativity United
Physical Society of Russian Federation, Moscow , (2004) 81
plus more
--------------------------------------
Journals
This paper
�The Origin of Generalized Mass-Energy Equation �E = Ac2 �M; and
its applications in General physics and Cosmology�.
is published in journal
A. Sharma, Physics Essays, 17 (2004) 195-222.
Physics Essays, CANADA
www.physicsessays.com
The paper
The past, present and future of E=mc2
will be published in 2007 Galilean Electrodynamics, Massachusetts,
USA.
In parts it is published in various others journals.
----------------------
Book 100 Years of E=mc2
For details
https://www.novapublishers.com/catal...oducts_id=4554

Henry Haapalainen wrote:
kirjoitti
glegroups.com...

Igor wrote:
wrote:

"Energy" is mass in motion.

Oh, I'm sorry! That's not the true definition of energy. Give this
guy the consolation prize and get him off stage. He's had his fifteen
minutes of ignominious fame and we're not going to allow him back until
he can learn some actual physics.
========================================

That "energy is a mass in motion" happens to be the correct explanation.
Someone might say that it does not explain the energy of a particle, but
that is because he does not understand the real essence of mass. There is no
"solid" mass.

http://www.wakkanet.fi/~fields/

Henry Haapalainen

This is actual meaning of E=mc2, its , its application and future.
All the debate is based based upon Einstein's Original papers.
What ever is quoted is published in international conferences, journals
etc.
The references of work are again quoted for prpoer undersatding.

References of Einstein’s work
..
A.Einstein, Annalen der Physik 18 (1905) 639-641. .
Weblink is
Einstein’s 27 Sep 1905 paper available at
http://www.fourmilab.ch/etexts/einstein/E_mc2/www/
PartII
References of Ajay Sharma’s work

My work is available at
http://www.burningbrain.org/pdf/ajaysharma_einstein.pdf
For details
https://www.novapublishers.com/catal...oducts_id=4554


International Conferences
It has been accepted for presentation over 55 conferences all over the
world
--------------------------------------few of them
1. Sharma, A. presented in 19th International Conference on the
Applications of Accelerators in Research and Industry , 20-25
August , 2006 Fort Worth Texas, USA

2. A. Sharma, Abstract Book 38th European Group of Atomic Systems
(
Euro physics Conference) Isachia (Naples) Italy (2006) 53.

3. A. Sharma , Abstract Book , A Century After Einstein Physics 2005 ,

10-14 April 2005 ( Organizer Institute of Physics , Bristol )
University of Warwick , ENGLAND

4. A. Sharma presented in 5th British gravity Conference , OXFORD
ENGLAND

5. A. Sharma,. Proc. Int. Conf. on Computational Methods in
Sciences and Engineering 2003 World Scientific Co. USA ,
(2003) 585.

6. A. Sharma, Proc. Int. Conf. on Number, Time, Relativity United
Physical Society of Russian Federation, Moscow , (2004) 81
plus more
--------------------------------------
Journals
This paper
�The Origin of Generalized Mass-Energy Equation �E = Ac2 �M; and
its applications in General physics and Cosmology�.
is published in journal
A. Sharma, Physics Essays, 17 (2004) 195-222.
Physics Essays, CANADA
www.physicsessays.com
The paper
The past, present and future of E=mc2
will be published in 2007 Galilean Electrodynamics, Massachusetts,
USA.
In parts it is published in various others journals.
----------------------
Book 100 Years of E=mc2
For details
https://www.novapublishers.com/catal...oducts_id=4554

wrote:
physicsajay wrote:
Einstein speculated E =mc2 from L =mc2 in Sep. 1905 : Ajay Sharma



VERGON


THE WAY I SEE IT:


ON THE MEANING OF E = MC^2
Vertner Vergon
Email:


We have electrostatic fields -- and static magnetic fields.
What if the two pair up in a symbiotic relationship -- like people, the
farmer takes a wife. We could call this pair an electromagnetic field.
My, my, how unusual.


Now what if you shake electrons and they send these EM fields out to
travel on their own through space. We could call that "electromagnetic
radiation" (Oh, this is so novel, I can't believe it.)


What if these fields have mass. There have been experiments ( Nieto and
Goldhaber ) that determine the mass upper limit of electric and
magnetic fields. So these fields have mass and are pliable. Then we can
think of them as waves -- waves that have mass.



You don't know what upper limit means do you?

VERGON

I can tell you this, I have never liked the term.But here is one
definition (of many):
The limsup can be defined in a dual fashion.
The supremum of a sequence of sets is the smallest set containing all
the
sets, i.e., the countable union of the sets.

My translation for the mass of the photon is, the upper limit
(supremum) is the
smallest number of a set.

To my way of thinking that means the smallest mass detected. So the
upperlimit
is the smallest mass determined.

In my mind. the smallest mass should be the lower limit. But I don't
have a weird
mathematical mind.

I notice, however, that as Nieto & Goldhaber kept refining their
results over the years
that the mass they obtained became smaller and smaller until it became
extremely close
to the figure I had obtained theoretically.

- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -

Now if you will look up "superposition" you will see how waves group
together to reinforce and cancel each other.


And if you will look up Gaussian waves you will see how these waves
form standing waves and group waves (that have mass).


Is it surprising that a group wave, having mass, would act as a
particle -- and wave at the same time? Note that when a photon is of
high enough energy, it becomes so massive it can actually become an
electron.


So where's the mystery?


"Energy" is mass in motion. Every formula for energy contains two --
and only two -- elements, mass and motion.



No it isn't, no it doesn't.

VERGON

You know any biased ignorant prejudiced diehard can say "No it isn't"
and
"No it doesn't" without giving a reason. That means he has none except
his
dogmatism and bias. That makes his response absolutely worthless.


This is true for E = h nu because one of the absolute dimensions of h
is mass. The others are distance and time. The unit is one of action.



No it isn't.

VERGON

You just displayed a comlete ignorance. Go look it up in any text on
black body
radiation.

Momentum, of course, is mass in motion also. No mass, no momentum.
Conversely, if momentum, then mass.



No it isn't.

VERGON

Another ignorant worthless statement.

What kind of physics do you entertain?

Now we can regard the frequency, nu, of a photon as containing n
electromagnetic fields (Each EM field being 1 HZ). "n" is the
frequency NUMBER of nu.



Which would be incorrect.

VERGON

Your ignorance is showing again. "n" is the frequency number because I
and many others use it as such.

The larger n is, the more fields there are and the more massive the
photon. The more massive the photon, the more energy and momentum it
has. And the more particle-like it becomes



Photons are massless.

VERGON

Says you --- but you don't what you are talking about. You are
parroting an outmoded concept.

I have determined theoretically the mass of 1 Hz : 7.3720385 x 10^-48
gr. The number of Hz times this figure gives the mass of the photon --
call it m_p.



No you havn't. You have divided h by c (which appears all over the
place in fundamental equations) then multiplied by a frequency of 1 Hz.


VERGON

Again you show your stupidity. h/c does NOT give that figure. I have
posted
a good many times on this NG how I obtained it but apparently it went
right over your head.



m_p X c = momentum of the photon = h nu/c -- and m_p X c^2 = mc^2 = h
nu.
Thus we deduce that the kinetic energy of the photon may be expressed
by E = mc^2 .



No it isn't, it is expressed as E=h.f.

VERGON

nu = f , idiot, Reread the above: E = m_p*c^2 = mc^2 = hnu

There are those who believe E = mc^2 applies to ponderous matter also.



i.e, the whole scientific community.


This can be shown as not true. Kinetic energy of material particles
does NOT convert to mass.


E = m.c^2 is not kinetic energy. If m is the rest mass, then E=m.c^2 is

the rest energy which considered as potential energy,

VERGON

Yes,true. But E is rest energy, a special case where total energy is
used.
It should be labeld E_r. And it is for a ponderous particle only. The
photon has no rest mass but it does have kinetic energy.


.... or if m is
relativistic mass,

VERGON

Don't you know, your "whole scientific community" has rejected
relativistic
mass.

then E=m.c^2 is the total energy which is the rest
energy and the kinetic energy added together.

VERGON

Wrong again. Look up Einstein. Total energy is mv^2/sqrt(1 - v^2/c^2)

In this equation, E is kinetic energy and should be written Ke. It is
for radiation only.



No it isn't.

VERGON

Another worthless statement.
As I showed you above, E = m_p c^2 = h nu.

In case you don't know, h nu is the accepted expression for
the kinetic energy of radiation.



For massive particles, the two correct equations for Ke are (where R
is the Lorentz transform.)


(1/R - 1)mc^2 and


mv^2/(R + R^2)


That, alone, should be convincing --- but let's go further.



Why?
(1/R - 1)mc^2 = (1/R)mc^2 - m.c^2

which gives, kinetic energy = total energy - rest energy


This proves that m.c^2 is NOT kinetic energy

VERGON

You just cannot keep track of anything, can you?

I said that for RADIATION, E = mc^2 is kinetic energy.
For ponderous particles, mc^2 is REST energy. The E's
should be so labeled.


The equation m = L/c^2 (where L is RADIANT energy) was given by
Einstein in his second paper of 1905.


My supposition is he used L instead of E to avoid confusion --- The
reason: L is radiant energy, i.e., radiant kinetic energy. That means
he was differentiating between the kinetic energy of a photon and the
kinetic energy of a ponderous particle.



Yes, you like to guess about a lot of stuff don't you.

VERGON

A stupid statement. I'm so far ahead of you that all you can do
is smell my ass. :-)

- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -

The Ke of a photon can be converted to mass as shown by m = L/c^2.


Let us examine the process more closely.


Perhaps the misconception of E = mc^2 being a conversion of energy to
mass got started when a photon was observed to collide with an electron
as in Compton scattering.


If you analyze it CORRECTLY you will find that when a high energy
photon collides with an electron it undergoes an elastic/inelastic
collision. Part of the mass of the photon is transferred to the
electron as in
an inelastic collision -- and the kinetic energy of the photon is also
transferred. So when the experimenter sees the energy disappear and
the mass of the electron gain, he assumes the energy was converted to
mass.
This because he thinks the photon is mass-less.



Utter nonsense.

VERGON

To a moron, yes.

The fact is, mass from the photon is transferred to the electron -
and that mass carries the kinetic energy that accelerates the electron.



Nonsense.

VERGON

To a moron, yes.

This is the same process as in a typical soft clay inelastic collision.
The moving clay ball unites with the target and transfers its kinetic
energy to it. If we viewed the moving ball as having no mass, we would
assume its kinetic energy converted to mass.



Complete nonsense.

VERGON

You can show a moron something as plain as the nose on face -- and you
know what he will say? "Complete nonsense".

Your whole post here shows you don't have a clue.

I've strained your poor little brain to where it is not functioning.

The elastic portion of the collision is where only PART of the photon
is absorbed by the electron --- and the rest rebounds (scatters) with


less energy than the original.



Complete and utter total nonsense.

VERGON

Why don't you drop dead. I will not waste any time on you in the
future.



You are completely ignoring the last 100 years of scientific research,
theory and experimental results.

VERGON

And you don't know your ass from a hole in the ground.

There is a complete analysis, with the conservation of mass and energy
displayed, in my paper On the Quantum as a Physical Entity
.
You can find it he http://www.wbabin.net Go to LIST OF AUTHORS
and click on Vertner Vergon.



After what you have just posted, why would anyone bother to look at the

rest of your nonsense.

VERGON

Certainly a closed minded moron wouldn't for fear he might learn
something.

wrote:
Y.Porat wrote:
energy to it. If we viewed the moving ball as having no mass, we
would

photon is relativistc mass?

is it right that i was the first one here that claimed
:
energy is mass in motion

in spight fearce objections of other members here ??
TIA
Y.Porat
---------------------

VERGON

Sorry but I won't lower myself to discuss this bull **** with you.

Take a hint and get off my back. I will simply ignore you from here on
out.

I'm interestd in physics, not "Oh look at me, how smart I am". From now
on, I don't even see your name.
------------------
one of the basic of scince is DECENCY
ie not to be a thief
if you borroed an idea from someone
just tell it and dont cheat
i can prove you by quotes that you are undecent - not honest
now
you r are working just for pure scince ?
no ego is involed it it ??
so it seems tha tyou are not only a hyporcit and a litle thiefe
you are unintelligent as well
may be age is speaking??
anyway if you think that anyone will beielve you that you are working
just for scince and not a bit of Ego
than you are either an idiot or a lier
and from now on
wile you claim that
Enrgy is mass in motion- dont forget me

if you claim that that there is only just one kind of mass - dont
forget me

if you caim tha the mass of the photon i sonly reat mass (or invariant
mass)
and not realtivistc mass - dont forget me
and if you for get i will prove it to you because

IT IS ALL DOCUMANTED!!
it seesm that you was not cleaver enough or decent enough to
understand that
IT IS ALL DOCUMENTED !!
keep well
and dont get excited troo much
it is not good for your health
and even cheasting is not good for health !!!

another stupiditty of yours is that you started to fight with the**
only** repeat (onlly**
person
whoes ideas are closest to yours
a very bad tactical mistake !!! and another sighn of lack of
inteligence
AYB
Y.Porat
------------------

wrote in message
oups.com...
|
| wrote:
| physicsajay wrote:
| "Energy" is mass in motion. Every formula for energy contains two --
| and only two -- elements, mass and motion.
|
|
|
| No it isn't, no it doesn't.
|
| VERGON
|
| You know any biased ignorant prejudiced diehard can say "No it isn't"
| and
| "No it doesn't" without giving a reason. That means he has none except
| his
| dogmatism and bias. That makes his response absolutely worthless


Ok, that's fair comment. Let's see if the statement can be justified.

This is a simple experiment you can do at home, energy transference:
http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/spin.gif

Now, we know the bar magnet is "mass in motion" and
so is the compass needle, but there is a transference of
energy from the magnet to the compass needle.
Stopping the needle alternately slows then speeds up the bar
magnet slightly because the needle itself is a magnet.

How do you explain the **transfer** of energy from the bar
magnet to the compass needle, given that energy is mass in motion?

Androcles

wrote:
wrote:
BS snipped
For details
https://www.novapublishers.com/catal...oducts_id=4554

AJAY SHARMA

Another shameless self promotion by the well known crackpot, Ajay
Sharma
This work is published in journals and conferences after PEER REVIEW.
Your comments don’t not show any understanding of the topic.
This is the forum for scientific discussions based on logic.
I again paste the references so that you may read and understand.
References of Einstein’s work


References of Einstein’s work
..
A.Einstein, Annalen der Physik 18 (1905) 639-641.
.. DOES THE INERTIA OF A BODY DEPEND
UPON ITS ENERGY-CONTENT?
Weblink is
Einstein’s 27 Sep 1905 paper available at
http://www.fourmilab.ch/etexts/einstein/E_mc2/www/

PartII
References of Ajay Sharma’s work

My work is available at
A. Sharma, Physics Essays, 17 (2004) 195-222.
�The Origin of Generalized Mass-Energy Equation �E = Ac2 �M; and
its applications in General physics and Cosmology�.
http://www.burningbrain.org/pdf/ajaysharma_einstein.pdf
For details
https://www.novapublishers.com/catal...oducts_id=4554


International Conferences
It has been accepted for presentation over 55 conferences all over the
world
--------------------------------------few of them
1. Sharma, A. presented in 19th International Conference on the
Applications of Accelerators in Research and Industry , 20-25
August , 2006 Fort Worth Texas, USA

2. A. Sharma, Abstract Book 38th European Group of Atomic Systems
(
Euro physics Conference) Isachia (Naples) Italy (2006) 53.

3. A. Sharma , Abstract Book , A Century After Einstein Physics 2005 ,

10-14 April 2005 ( Organizer Institute of Physics , Bristol )
University of Warwick , ENGLAND

4. A. Sharma presented in 5th British gravity Conference , OXFORD
ENGLAND

5. A. Sharma,. Proc. Int. Conf. on Computational Methods in
Sciences and Engineering 2003 World Scientific Co. USA ,
(2003) 585.

6. A. Sharma, Proc. Int. Conf. on Number, Time, Relativity United
Physical Society of Russian Federation, Moscow , (2004) 81
plus more
--------------------------------------
Journals
This paper
�The Origin of Generalized Mass-Energy Equation �E = Ac2 �M; and
its applications in General physics and Cosmology�.
is published in journal
Physics Essays , CANADA
www.physicsessays.com
The paper
The past ,present and future of E=mc2
will be published in 2007 Galilean Electrodynamics, Massachusetts,
USA.
In parts it is published in various others journals.
----------------------
Book 100 Years of E=mc2
For details
https://www.novapublishers.com/catal...oducts_id=4554

..

wrote:
wrote:
physicsajay wrote:
Einstein speculated E =mc2 from L =mc2 in Sep. 1905 : Ajay Sharma



VERGON


THE WAY I SEE IT:


ON THE MEANING OF E = MC^2
Vertner Vergon
Email:


We have electrostatic fields -- and static magnetic fields.
What if the two pair up in a symbiotic relationship -- like people, the
farmer takes a wife. We could call this pair an electromagnetic field.
My, my, how unusual.


Now what if you shake electrons and they send these EM fields out to
travel on their own through space. We could call that "electromagnetic
radiation" (Oh, this is so novel, I can't believe it.)


What if these fields have mass. There have been experiments ( Nieto and
Goldhaber ) that determine the mass upper limit of electric and
magnetic fields. So these fields have mass and are pliable. Then we can
think of them as waves -- waves that have mass.



You don't know what upper limit means do you?

VERGON

I can tell you this, I have never liked the term.But here is one
definition (of many):

Thanks for confirming that you don't know what an upper limit means.
The definition below has nothing whatsoever to do with the experimental
upper limit. Nothing. Zero. Nada. Zilch.

The limsup can be defined in a dual fashion.
The supremum of a sequence of sets is the smallest set containing all
the
sets, i.e., the countable union of the sets.

My translation for the mass of the photon is, the upper limit
(supremum) is the
smallest number of a set.

No.


To my way of thinking that means the smallest mass detected. So the
upperlimit
is the smallest mass determined.

No. Not at all.

I might suggest a book that would clarify things for you.
Statistics for Particle and Nuclear Physicists, by Louis Lyons.


In my mind. the smallest mass should be the lower limit. But I don't
have a weird
mathematical mind.

I notice, however, that as Nieto & Goldhaber kept refining their
results over the years
that the mass they obtained became smaller and smaller until it became
extremely close
to the figure I had obtained theoretically.

PD wrote:
wrote:
You don't know what upper limit means do you?

VERGON

I can tell you this, I have never liked the term.But here is one
definition (of many):

Thanks for confirming that you don't know what an upper limit means.
The definition below has nothing whatsoever to do with the experimental
upper limit. Nothing. Zero. Nada. Zilch.

The limsup can be defined in a dual fashion.
The supremum of a sequence of sets is the smallest set containing all
the
sets, i.e., the countable union of the sets.

My translation for the mass of the photon is, the upper limit
(supremum) is the
smallest number of a set.

No.

Vergon's "translation" is not even correct for the mathematical
concept of limsup which he has garbled.

First of all, he should have looked at supremum for A SET,
not a SEQUENCE OF SETS. Second of all, there is no
way that the supremum of a set is the smallest number of
a set. By definition, it is = every member of the set.

- Randy