Masses Hot and Cool; Do They Weigh The Same?

-.Einstein held that a hot iron would weigh more than a cool iron. This is because of his theory of the Equivalence of mass and energy. All the ins and outs of mass energy equivalence I explain by one simple motif; quantity of motion is always the same. All is motion, motion like energy can never be created or destroyed, that is motion is all there is so I think motion is the key to unlock the underlying unified field Einstein hoped for in his old and wise life. If all is motion and mass and energy are motion, mass like energy must move in some definite way to be mass. This would by why no particles with mass without spin have been found in subatomic physics (except two opposite masses that locally cancel out. I hold at reduced enough distance all elementary particles would have spin because all particles move through time at all times, even when at rest, and time is periodic and always measured by periodic motion like the spin of the small building blocks of the cosmos whatever they turn out to be). If mass is spin this is an obvious form of motion. If all has to be of motion for energy to be conserved since all is made of motion, and with mass just as rest but still having to be in motion a way to store up power and move even at rest would be by spin. All in the cosmos is made of lines or accelerations, linear and angular motion. This would also explain why a mass like Morris or his TV may be at rest and still move through time, aging. By the experiments time is always found to be an acceleration and not linear, with periodic motion.

Energy is not the exact equivalent of mass (in the way it acts) I think because what's light like energy rises like an airship and what's heavy like a semi tends to fall and weigh more, up is the opposite of down. If energy is the opposite of lacally mass and mass is what accelerates stuff, the opposite of an acceleration is linear motion.

You may say, in atomic reactions and relativity, it's well known that mass and energy are the same! E=mc2! Arriba!

Let me say this much, My Aunt Effie goes nonstop on the train of Relativity where she lives in Ohio round trip!

The two equations E=mc2 and F=ma are two forms of the same general formula, both have energy and force on the left side and mass and acceleration or the speed of light on the other. But many speeds are going on all around us not just the speed of light. Maxwell used the equation on the right to predict the speed of light based on the density of the field. These are equations of pressure. Mass attracts so it has pressure and the field has resilience, the greater the mass the more the resilience and the speed is changed. Maxwell predicted the constant speed of light based on the constant known electric charges, so the speed of light was constant, but all around us there are many speeds. If the speed of light were the only speed the world would be noncontinuous. The speed Maxwell predicted was based on a continuous range of values, the resilience could have been any value like the usual fields around us fit into the quanta that make the speed of light. If quanta were more necessary and E=mc2 were more fundamental than F=ma, quanta being more unchanged wouldn't be able to power up from one orbital to another in subatomic physics and life wouldn't have evolved because life likes molecules unlike metals that have too much jump in the valences of the electrons, life likes moderation. A connection must exist between the orbits and connection means connectiity, i.e. not quanta. After all in relativity while "the speed of light is constant" the wavelength can be of any size, and continuous. Same world, Same Station ID.

In subatomic physics the mesons, baryons, and leptons all have many non quantum masses from low power to high, if they were all of quanta alone and the speed of light were the only quanta it seems they would all have the same mass or units of electric charge alone (the same if relativity with the electromagnetic speed of light was all powerful) as the foundation of the universe.

So relativity and quanta may be derived from the continuous field more than the field from quanta, while you can have the compression of gravity making more dense particles, to make attraction or waves out of particles is not so easy or the same. They already have adhesion so would expand outward without the more long range field connection to conserve mass energy, and the cosmos would lose mass and energy conservation would not be upheld. If you wear your coat with a shout, must be a heat wave, and will be in months!

This may seem unimportant physics if in E=mc2 you just increase the mass and multiply by the speed of light and you always have your answer. Is F=ma a reliable connection if a mass like Venus has angular mo that tends to be and isn't actually just spinning faster if it has more mass? (Venus has lost lots of her spin in impact with some other body.) If we go back to a continuous world where quanta are created out of continuous smooth waves, the physics are more general, and though (special) relativity is not disproven my more general derivation of higher energy physics from lower energy fields since all there is is connected up by gravity and energy conservation, may allow some new physics of great worth, e.g. the possibility of faster than light motion of gravity and the strong force, the heights and foundation where other than being derived from the more basic physics, relativity may not be involved. For F=ma if the mass density, m is real small like gravity, the speed o the gravity waves would be much faster than light. Because a line that is linear is the opposite of an angular motion, the strong force being more angular and dense both would also spin at faster than light.

If by the equation F=ma you have a continuous non quantised general field for the given force, F when you increase the mass (angular momentum because mass attracts and spins like the earth with more mass) you decrease the linear energy and vice versa. So mass and energy, while they seem to be the same in relativity, are actually the opposite in general. Like particles and waves, they are both made of the same field, but because they're opposite like waves and particles you can't have both at the same time and place. Special Relativity would be derived from the more general low energy physics, and this opposition of mass and energy is more important since special relativity is about the speed of light and all mass is fluent in gravity, not thermodynamics. If the Earth is thus more at rest than the moon, and the earth has a more privileged rest frame, special relativity would hold just for the local physics of the speed of light. And if we allow more optimal rest frames and the more general idea of the nonrelativity of gravity, with a non quantum field of the low energy physics, faster than light wave motion of gravity and other forces is allowed. Emc2 has the speed of light constant but F=ma allows other perhaps much higher speeds. By allowing non quantum lower power physics to be the more general, both slower and faster speeds than light are allowed.

If you have two like masses and add heat to one mass Einstein believed the hot mass having more energy and more mass would weigh more. While this would be true for the E=mc2 and quanta (high power field) for the more general low power field like the two masses, I think the hot mass will be lighter. When you add more heat and radiance, radiance is lighter and if it's light it has reduced weight.

In a system, in physics where no work is done, the quantity of the motion is conserved, and it would seem that mass and energy are equivalent. While they are, after all, both made of motion as this my basic explanation shows, they are not convertible without work being done. This is what Einstein's theory doesn't prove, acceleration. He may have said, "Wihle mahss unt..." (Excuse me, my Speech SoftWare is out! If I marry a softwear in a cyber church she'll be always up.) Einstein actually said, "While mass and energy are equivalent, and all observers are equally valid, not all are equally convenient." I think this is like saying all values are the same, but not all prices, but what's important about price? If mass and energy were the same thing like in Einstein's theory, they would be not just equally valid but equally convenient too. Einstein's theory has no offer of proof of why mom visits the StopN Ship when she's at rest! If mass and energy were exactly the same, light would be the same as heavy and a massive body like the earth would spin at the same speed around the moon as the moon around the earth.

.
If mass and energy were equally valid and equally convenient, it would take no work to convert mass to energy and vice versa, or not much. So the sun would convert it's mass to energy at a much faster speed than 8 billion years.

.
Einstein might say, hey! Ach! All the interactions of subatomic physics are in neat units of E=mc2. The units are of the speed of light. Light is of course the foundation of relativity. While relativity holds that no observer is more valid than any other, I think while some are more convenient than others, acceleration is of value, and special relativity is without acceleration.

.
Einstein's constant speed of light has no work being done in special relativity because all are in their rest frames and in linear motion when the speed of light is constant, please see this link for more about how the field is balanced on all sides in uniform motion. In a system where with the conversion of mass to power the field is accelerating, not of constant power so unlike the inertial frames of special relativity that are transformed away just by picking the most optimum rest frame of motion, something important goes on when mass is converted to power that is unsolved by special relativity. Shakespeare said it well, when he word processed "If dreams are all life is about, A poor man's shack would be a rich mans moat."

Einstein's theory seems to say all observers are always in the same democracy of validity, and the seemingly trivial name of convenience is actually a euphemism (good word) for actual labor based on price, obviously of import. If all observers were the same all employees would have a life of ease, and bosses would be selling RV laundry machines! When it takes me an hour to swim the ocean, I am wet. When the boss swims in the giant machine, she is clean!

.
So I think a field filled with mass like gravity is the opposite of a field with power and not much density (like in special relativity). The force and gravity are without proof by Einstein and the hot and cool iron proof of Einstein's theory has not been proven. While it's above the resolution of our experiments in the lab in 2008, as science improves with our machines, my theory may be eventually be contrasted with Einstein's.

In Einstein's formulation of General Relativity, the motion of different weights dropped to the earth are the same since they fall at the same rate and so whether the gravity of the earth or the inertia of the rocks was more important was the same as special relativity. Either the mass of the earth or the inertia of the rocks was of the same worth because of the same rate of fall, and so Einstein reached his conclusion that either the rocks or the earth were equally at rest. But the earth would fall around the moon at the same rate as the moon around the earth. Einstein then used this incomplete evidence (more complete if you look up to the stars) to make his predictions of opposite experiments, that are thus disproof of General Relativity. All the experiments of Einstein's General Theory, the bending of starlight the Shift of the Perihelion of Mercury, and so on are proofs of changes of acceleration not unchanging like the two masses near the earth. These are not proofs of uniform acceleration! There are no uniform fields of gravity. The more mass a body has, the more attraction if has and so the more mass you add on the more nonuniform the mass becomes. It takes more effort to lift a heavy mass than a light mass so only when you drop them from higher up for the light mass are they actually equivalent, like the moon falling around the earth.

So if the heavier mass has another sort of heat than the light mass if you heat the light mass more, the lighter mass would actually be easier to lift to its height, or you may lift it to more height than the Einstein's Equivalence Principle would allow. This would not be if masses fall at the same rate, and while it would be more proof of unlike accelerations it would also be disproof of the relativity of gravity. When you lift a mass you are doing work and heat is revised a bit.


WAYS TO IMPROVE OUR RESOLUTION OF PROOF OR DISPROOF Of EINSTEIN'S IDEA THAT A HOT MASS WEIGHS MORE

To prove a hot mass weighs not as much as a cool mass perhaps the masses would be put on a beam with a laser attached to make the motion much more findable at great distances with sensors where the ray from the scale would reach, the detector would see the laser or other beam with such as a microscope to make it more of higher resolution. Another aid to resolution of the change in the laser with the weight of the mass as heat was added is via interferometry. When the laser or other beam reaches its goal, a mirror at 90 degrees this would reflect to another mirror that would reflect the beam head on back to the 90 degree mirror, and so on converting the sideways motion of the laser from the weights via the laser to measurable changes in the interference of the light. The masses would be more massive to multiply up the force. And instead of electric cooling of the weights, cooling the nucleus of each atom of the heavy mass by such as MRI (strong fields) may be much of much use for this proof because the strong force stores more of it's heat. And if the heating took place over much time by combination of all these methods the beam's travel would be more measurable by the way of astronomers who used the photographic plates where they slowly pick up the light from distant realms by way of slow but reliable sensors hour by hour.
.

If lifting is to change the electromagnetic field's ratio to gravity in general since these are the only two long range forces, heating or cooling would change mass. A light mass rises higher than with the same force applied to the heavy mass when you lift it. If it rises higher it wishes to be more like inertia, or linear motion as much as possible (resistance to change in motion). Inertia is centrifugal force, centrifugal force is the same in my theory as expansion of heat, i.e. entropy. If a hot iron has lower weigh like a hot air airship it would rise more with the same force. Or equivalently, to lift a mass is to change it's heat. Even if Einstein believed a hot iron weighs more than a cool iron, by the above arguement (if your fiancee always wins when asked! I can't answer this because I remember VHS!) if heat sensors were on a mass you lift not only will it lift higher, it has a bit more heat.