At the following link you will find the paragraph below. An image accompanies this page which show E=mc2 with a '/' through a three bared sign. I do not know what this means but i get the impression, from the paragraph, that matter cannot be interchanged with the 'm' in the equation.
The primary emphasis in my question is electromagnetism and electrostatics and their influence on the behavior and mass of matter.
I'd like to delve into this subject to understand it further but all i can do now is ponder the subject from my imagination with little more than questions which will follow this paragraph.
Relativity Theory Einstein's Special Theory was designed to define simultaneity in a universe where the fastest force or signal was restricted to the measured speed of detection of light from a distant source. With an electrostatic force of near-infinite speed acting between the sub-particles of all matter, relativity theory reduces to classical physics. This leaves open the question of what we are measuring when we determine the speed of light. The speed of light in galactic terms is exceedingly slow, requiring about 150,000 years to cross our galaxy. However, the astronomer Halton Arp has shown that the redshifts of entire galaxies are quantized which requires some form of near instantaneous, galaxy-wide communication at the sub-atomic level. There are now several reported experiments that demonstrate faster than light effects. With the Special Theory gone, and the universe in communication with its parts effectively in real-time, there can be no time travel and space and time are independent. Common sense has always suggested that this was so. Einstein's General Theory was devised to explain gravity. It attempts to discard the observed action-at-a-distance of gravity by proposing a counter-intuitive warping of space in the presence of massive objects. This unnecessary complication of space is then added to the current metaphysical concepts of what constitutes the mass of an object. But space must also "warp" at near infinite speed to produce the observed planetary orbits. Common sense, observation, and parsimony of hypotheses all suggest that the electrostatic model of gravity (see below) is superior. There is now experimental evidence from gravity measurements at the time of a total solar eclipse that supports the Electric Universe model and discounts the General Relativity model.
E = mc2
Einstein's famous mathematical expression E=mc2, equating energy and mass is known by almost everyone. However, most textbooks go on to use the word �matter� in place of �mass.� But nowhere has it been shown that mass and matter are interchangeable. In fact, we are entirely ignorant of what constitutes the mass of an object. So it is inadmissible to imply that energy and matter are interchangeable. The ultimate expression of this idea led to the nonsense of the big bang. It seems simpler and more sensible to suggest that both nuclear and chemical energy is released or absorbed by the rearrangement of the resonant orbits of charged particles. It is then common sense to suggest that mass is the measured response of a system of charged particles to an external electrostatic force. The more massive an object, the more the electrostatic force contributes to the elastic deformation of its protons, neutrons and electrons, rather than their acceleration. This is the phenomenon seen in particle accelerators and conventionally attributed to relativistic effects. But relativity reduces to classical physics in a universe where the electrostatic force has near-infinite speed. The first question to be asked is - if it is that simple, why hasn't it been thought of long ago? The answer seems to lie in the propensity for mathematical theory to supersede common sense and observation. There is also a problem of language when mathematicians attempt to provide real meaning for their symbols.
In one way i can almost understand the substitution since matter almost always has mass but that is the extent of my understanding. So I will just write down some questions in the hope that someone comes along with the answers.
1. Is plasma actually considered a state of matter or is it not yet officially arrived at that status?
2. Since electro-magnetism and electrostatics have the capability of defying gravity, does the practice of substituting matter into the formula E=mc2 only apply to material that has mass, known substances.
3. Does light have mass?
4. Do objects in space have mass because of their composition or because of how their material interacts with the environment of space, which is a plasma?
4. When a spacecraft is sling-shotted into orbit by rounding a large body in space would its orbit be different if it were not being bombarded with charged particles from the sun?
5. When an objects mass is measured in space, would its measurments be different if the body was not in an environment of charged particles?