If one looks at energy moving radially from high gravity it will red shift. This implies that the energy will lose potential or cool into longer wavelength. Matter does just the opposite, if a given mass is moving radially away from high gravity, it will gain potential energy. If one lets the mass go, its potential energy would become kinetic energy as it accelerates back toward the gravity source. What this simple analysis implies is that mass cannot be composed of energy as its fundamental building blocks. If this was true, all the energy builiding blocks would red shift when moving radially away from high gravity causing the mass,via e=mc2, to decrease. This does not happen to stable matter, implying mass cannot be composed of energy based building blocks. In fact, any theories of matter that even uses partial energy to define the building blocks cannot be valid since the composite should lower mass when moving radially away from high gravity. The mass of protons, electrons and neutrons do not show this behavior.

I'm not going to try arguing I cba. I shall ask one question though.

 

If mass cannot be considered as mass-energy, then how do you explain bonding energy resulting in atoms haveing less mass than their constituant parts added together?

Mass is equated to energy via E=MC2. Although mass and energy can convert back and forth the E=MC2 equivilency does not make them the same thing but equates how they related during conversion. They are two interchangeable phases. For example energy can move at the speed of light but mass cannot. Energy can move a C because it has no mass. Because it has no mass, it cannot be mass, although it can convert into mass. If it does convert to mass it would not be energy because it can no longer travel at C. If one has a composite of mass and energy one has a two-phase composite, one phase of the composite will have mass and the other phase will energy.

 

To answer your question mass was converted to energy thereby lowering the mass. The energy released is equivlent to the mass loss. If we had a closed system, the total mass/energy would stay the same but it would exist as two phases.

Saying that mass is not energy but mass can be changed into energy is surely breaking the golden rule?

 

Conservation of Energy.

 

Which is one reason why mass is now considered an energy form.

In fact one theory goes as far as to say that mass doesn't really exist... it's just a form of energy.

Exactly my point, if mass was energy or composed of energy it should red shift when leaving a gravitational field. Using e=mc2, the mass should drop due to the red shift of all the energy. This does not happen, impying it can not be composed of energy. Or energy does not red shift when leaving a strong gravity field. On can not have it both ways, since these are mutally exclusive.

Why should it redshift? it's not a wave (well classically it's not).

Then why can matter be produced from kinetic or electromagnetic energy?