Algebra, check. At some point even got up through a bit off calculus, but switched majors and haven't really actively used it in a while. C'est la vie. Neither here nor there.

However, you touched on a point that initially prompted my inquiry, so I guess I'll renew it slightly...

You said:
"Mass is defined as the amount of resistance to accelleration exhibited by a piece of matter. In order to accellerate a mass you must exert a force, etc."

Hmm, how to rephrase this to accurately get my point across? Okay, so we've got mass as how much something resists acceleration? That's kind of what I thought or had heard at some point as the definition of mass. That's why I was wondering about the intensity formula in relation to the E=M(C^2). Or rather the M=E/(C^2) formula.

Gut instinct tells me we're talking about the same thing here, relatively. 'Cause we're saying that Mass and Energy are interchangeable via this formula.

Now, "mass," as you've just defined might be stated as how intensely something resists acceleration. This was my intention behind the initial inquiry.

So, if we're saying that Mass and Energy are interchangeable via this relationship... Mass being equivalent to Energy over C^2 or energy being equivalent to Mass times C^2... It just seems like the intensity equation should play a role somehow? Maybe it's just a faux ami of English definitions of measurement and general verbiage, etc.

It just sounds like "Mass" is equivalent to how strongly or "intensely" the "Energy" resists outside forces. OR likewise, as more energy is imparted to the mass, it is thus more "intensely" able to resist outside acceleration than before energy was imparted.

So, again, I ask the question, is Mass' relationship to Energy appx the same as Intensity's relationship to Power? If so, how?

Though I think I do understand the notion that intensity is basically a measure of power over a specific region at a specific distance from a central point.

I guess I'm just wondering if we can think of "mass" in geometric terms. As I've thought about it slightly, I guess I'm wondering what it would mean.

So, okay, if we knew the mass, and the energyoutput at a given portion of the "sphere" (or its entirety), we could tell how large the sphere was by solving for the radius.

If we knew how large something was and its mass, we could potentially tell how much energy was being expended at a region of the surface.

Or, if we knew the energy output at the surface (to reach equilibrium with its surrounding environment), and the radius, we could tell its mass?

I'm just kind of thinking out loud. Well, on paper. Okay, with a keyboard and electrons... Haven't really worked out any of the maths.

I dunno, I guess it's just nagging at me that Energy is the motivating force that's "resisting acceleration" and mass is simply an intensity measurement of that energy.

Now I'm wondering if it's kind of like a gradient. IE, the closer you get to a point or sphere of mass (say an electron getting closer to an electron), the more resistance you get to pushing them any closer together. IE, the push gets stronger the closer you move charged bodies together. Thus the change in push with distance. And the more energetic something is, the stronger the push at a distance? The closer you shove two electrons together, the more they want to stop, or to fly apart in opposite directions...

I think that's kind of the long and short of--, well, okay, not short. The long and longer of it. That was kind of my initial idea with some extra thought behind it, now that I've mulled it a bit and tried to figure out how to utter what I actually meant.

Points to ponder.

So, I guess to sum it up, would it be fair to say that the more energetic something is, the more "mass"ive it becomes? IE, energy literally translates into mass. The more energy somethign has, the more mass it has via the E=M(C^2) relationship. IE, the energy simply gets divided over the surface of the sphere, thus giving something "mass." IE, you'd have to hit it with something with more energy in order for the sphere of the more energetic "mass" or particle or whatever to move the energy or "mass" of the now less energetic particle? I suppose one could even somewhat imagine the "energy"/"mass" as compressible/elastic, kind of like a rubber ball, where the two masses intersect, they deform slightly and add, I guess an energy "pressure" that has to equalize, thus un-deforming the energy spheres and causing the ol' equal and opposite reactions... Of course the object with more mass would wield a larger sphere of influence, so the smaller object might be deflected kind of like a pebble thrown at a beach ball, which deforms slightly then un-deforms and sends the pebble on its merry way...

Beautiful. Love it. May not be right, but sounds good on paper. Don't know if that's the way the math works or not... But still. It sound plausible, as one objects invades another objects "repulsion" space, it encounters higher and higher resistance from that object (more and more "intense") resistance the closer to the center of the mass the interloper gets. And the Intensity equation would seem to support that. Since the energy would be spread over smaller and smaller spheres (growing more intense)...

Basically, mass seems to me like an increasing energy or "resistance to acceleration" gradient, where intensity of resistance increases with proximity.

Okay, I've beaten a dead horse now. You get the idea. I think the last bits articulated it best. Like I said, I tend to talk things out on paper. Sorry it got so long. Hope it made more sense toward the end. Sort of?

Interesting? Yes/no?