In reply to your first question about relation of Energy to Matter:
Yes, it does. It is the basics of E=MC^2 or Matter into Energy as in
the bomb or reverse engineering of Energy into Matter. Note: The
important factor in this equation is not the amount of Energy but more
the ACTION of that Energy. I know this does not add up in your minds
but hear me out first. The key to this relationship is in C^2. obviously
C^2 is greater than C alone. Again, it is not the amount to look at
but what C^2 is telling us about the action. To leave out a bunch of
information and simplify things, the action or motion of Light (photons
918 paired) is such that the E or Energy vector action is like a small
gyro. A photon set get captured by each other making a pair (two)
photons
in rotation about each other. A photon is considered 1 quanta in this
theory. And yes a photon can be broken down even more into waveletts.
Now photons are considered Energy due to the fact they do not have rest
mass or at least not yet. When they do develop into the quanta amount
918 paired photons they will now show evidence of rest mass and become
known as 1 electron. I am saying our basic particle is made up of Light
(photons-918 paired) and not what is known as Quarks. Quarks are
sections
of the photon action or motion within the electron and do relate
directly
to the intrinsic spin factors. That was not part of the question so I
will
leave it at that for now. In conclusion, the motion of the photons
produces
inertia (resistance to change) and felt as rest mass. Rest mass being
that
resistance of Energy to change from its gyroscopic action. It now
becomes
locked into Space/Time. At this point TIME develops out of Energy (the
photon) into a format we understand as rotational equilibrium. In short,
Energy is transformed into Matter. (918 paired photons into 1 electron)
The gyroscopic action is known as rigidity in Space. This is also where
TIME separates out of Space and Gravity is formed at the same time.
See: http://personal.bellsouth.net/lig/i/n/infonet/YGEM.htm
The York, Geier Electron Model (YGEM)
Gravity field: See the YGEM and photos at:
http://personal.bellsouth.net/lig/i/n/infonet/index.html
and
Scientific American: August 1996, page 50, Quadrupole-Gravity field
and Dipole-electromagnetic field.
=======================================================================
> Now I am definitely not a Physicist and I may be totally out to
> lunch here but shouldn't that apply to other things like the speed of
> sound? Maybe I'm comparing apples to oranges but isn't the speed of
> sound, light, or for that matter anything moving through a medium,
> dependant on the medium it is traveling through?
======================================================================
Warren writes:
No, you are comparing mediums to mediums but with a big difference.
One medium is not being considered here and that is the first one
connected with Light. That is the Continuum. I use the word Continuum
in place of Aether for J.J. See considered the Aether to be made up of
very small matter and this is not the truth. It is a state of Energy
(non-matter) but with properties. The sounds medium is in the matter
world made up of air molecules. The matter state is made up of Energy
as we see from E=MC^2. Energy or photons are made up of source Energy
or the fabric of Space/Time itself. Not the same worlds. One set is
apples or oranges and the other is apple juice or orange juice. They
are different states of existence and so is the TIME factor for both.
======================================================================
>
> So lets take the old man on the train example again but in this case
> we have a train moving faster than the speed of sound. He yells to the
> front end of the train. From the old mans point of reference everything
> is normal, and his voice was heard at the other end of the train
> normally. If an outside observer could see the sound waves would he see
> them and measure them as going faster than the speed of sound?
======================================================================
Warren writes:
Yes, but the air inside the train is relative to the train and not the
outside air with the train in motion. The propagation rate is still what
it would be in the medium of static air. (Static air is air with its
normal fluctuations for we know air is not still. Again it is a base
line
or reference point for our speed frame).
=====================================================================
>
> So if the 'constant' speed of light is 'variable' then does that
> mean all calculations based on Einstein's formula are incorrect? Are
> they just 'ballpark' results?
=====================================================================
Warren writes:
No, Einstein was correct. He just did not expand upon E=MC^2. That
expansion is what our Unification Equation is all about.
E=MC^2::E=MC^*<-2-> TIME and Gravity have been extracted in it. It is
written in a 4D Math format of which I will not go into at this time.
=====================================================================
>
> I just can't fathom why the speed of light in a vacuum squared times
> the 'mass' has anything to do with the 'energy' of that matter. Or does
> it just result in such an unbelievably large number that there is no
> real way to measure the accuracy of the calculation?
=====================================================================
Warren writes:
Well we know E=MC^2 works. This is why we have the atomic age and it
has been proven in the most dynamic way. I feel Einstein knew about
Time and Gravity or he could not have written C^2 as he did. Does
anybody
understand the full implications of what a Unification Equation would
tell us? Again, without going into details, Dr. Merkl's work touches
upon this. I have seen things with my own eyes that are just not
acceptable
in the world as we know it today. Dr. Merkl developed the genetics. He
is not connected directly with the Unification Equation. This is the
work
of myself and another party not connected with Dr. Merkl.
=====================================================================
>
> The other paradox in my mind is that the speed of light is obviously
> NOT constant so how could any calculations using that formula work out
> even remotely correct?
=====================================================================
Warren writes:
The speed of light is not constant all the TIME. It is a constant
reference point however. We discussed this above. Let me know if I
need to make it clear again. There is something that will answer your
question but it has to do with the TIME element hidden within the
photon.
There is the speed of Light and there is the DISTANCE of the speed of
Light. They are not the same thing. One is the constant and the other
is a variable or engineerable factor of TIME.
=====================================================================
>
> If I'm totally out in left field that's fine but I would like some
> input on this.
>
> Jim Springer
>
> "Education is what is left when
> you have forgotten everything
> you learned in school."
>
> -Albert Einstein, 1936
====================================================================
Warren writes:
The distinction between past, present, and future is only an illusion,
however persistent." - Albert Einstein, 1955
I hope this is of some help to you and others in your search. Warren