Re: "The Nature of Mass"

On Jan 19, 12:56 pm, RustyJames wrote:*

We have all been taught in our physics classes that mass is one of
the fundamental entities of our reality and that all of the effects
occurring in our Universe are dependent on interactions between
masses. It behooves us then to examine what we know of mass. >>

In present Physics there is no definition of "mass".
A mass is a quantity of matter.  In present Physics, there is NO unit
of measure for a quantity of matter.  A gram (which is a unit of
weight and pressure) is the wrong unit of measure of mass. Indeed,
because non-particulate matter (called "dark matter") has no weight,
there is no way to measure a quantity of it other than by the fact
that a quantity of it in a given zone changes the local density
gradient (called a "gravitational field") enough to change the weight
(reaction of particulate matter embedded therein) by a measurable
amount.

dependent upon the other two. >>

 For a given mass, which is invariable regardless of a change in its
weight, and a given energy, which is a function of its speed relative
to a given target with a given mass but a variable weight, all three
are independent variables. (The quantity of each is variable until it
is put into the equation. Once stipulated there, neither that quantity
of matter or of pressure or of the speed of light is variable, so they
are invariable once an amount is stipulated.

<< If we look at the velocity of light, C, it is obvious that it must
be one of the independent variables. Since velocity involves only
length and time, we can measure the velocity of light under conditions
that are independent of either mass or energy. >>

"Energy" (the ability to do work. i.e to change the state of motion
of a given mass) is a pressure; measured in grams. If no particulate
mass is present in a given space, thus no locatable referent is
present, the speed of light cannot be measured.  Accordingly, the
velocity of light doesn't exist in the absence of a massive object.

<<Similarly, it is obvious that energy, E, is an independent variable
since energy involves only force and length, we can also measure it
under conditions that are independent of the velocity of light and of
mass. >>

 Since energy (a net pressure) is a function of v, and v (dx/dt)
requires a referent for x = 0 (as does c) there is no way to measure
the value of E (a "force" is a net pressure, measured - in grams -
independently of the area of its application); there is no way to
measure it independently of the mass of its target object.

<<There remains only mass to be examined. >>

 Good idea. Why not start by defining "mass" (a quantity of matter,
whether or not it has any weight)
independently of "force".  And then define "force" (a quantity of net
pressure) independently of mass.

<< ... Seen in this light, what we consider to be mass [IN GRAMS!!} is
actually a property which is an indication of the energy required to
change the velocity of the quantity of energy defined by E=M*C^2.>>

 You got that inside out and backward, Hoax! The weight is a property
of particulate matter and the quantity of energy is the amount of
force (the textbooks all agree that "weight is a force") required to
change the velocity of a given mass (in "densa", not grams).
 Once that is understood - which may take awhile - the meaning of e =
mc^2 (which says that the quantity of energy - a net pressure - is
equal to the weight of a quantity of particulate matter times the
speed of light squared) will be too.
 It will then be obvious that matter and energy are NOT
interconvertable, as now thought; and that- as stipulated by the first
Law of Physics - neither of them can be created or destroyed.  Once
THAT is understood it will be obvious that the Bif Bang (which says
that all the matter and energy in the entire universe originated at a
point in nowhere, at a time that didn't yet exist, is as stupid as
most of the present theories of Modern Physics.

glird

"The Nature of Mass"

    (See also our sister website reticsessays.com)

    We have all been taught in our physics classes that mass is one of the
fundamental entities of our reality and that all of the effects occurring in
our Universe are dependent on interactions between masses. It behooves us
then to examine what we know of mass.

    About 40 years ago the writer came across the observation in a
Scientific American article that, in the equation E=M*C^2 there can only be
two independent variables. One of those variables, E, M, or C must be
dependent upon the other two. If we look at the velocity of light, C, it is
obvious that it must be one of the independent variables. Since velocity
involves only length and time, we can measure the velocity of light under
conditions that are independent of either mass or energy. Similarly, it is
obvious that energy, E, is an independent variable since energy involves
only force and length, we can also measure it under conditions that are
independent of the velocity of light and of mass. There remains only mass to
be examined.

    If one wished to determine the mass of an object, one could weigh it
(gravitational mass), shake it (inertial mass) or observe the amount of
energy released if it where annihilated. Weighing a mass provides a
measurement of its mass but the observation is made in terms of a reference
mass (e.g.- the mass of the Earth) and, in effect, we would then be defining
the mass in terms of another mass. This is hardly an acceptable solution
since it leads to a dead end. Annihilating the mass is a legitimate solution
providing one can measure the energy content of the end products without
relying on a measurement of their mass (such a reliance would be a form of
circular reasoning). The remaining possibility is to measure the inertial
properties of the mass by, for example, shaking it and measuring the force
required to produce an a given acceleration. This type of measurement
involves force, length, and time, all of which are
directly observable and does not suffer form the limitations of the other
methods. What we would then be doing is measuring mass as the incremental
impulse required to produce an incremental change in velocity. (In the case
of photons and neutrinos it might be desirable to remove the word
"incremental" from the measurement since these particles exist only at the
velocity of light). Seen in this light, what we consider to be mass is
actually a property which is an indication of the energy required to change
the velocity of the quantity of energy defined by E=M*C^2. With this
definition, the Lorentz Transformation for Mass becomes equal to the cube of
the accepted value and allows problems involving STR to be solved without
resorting to momentum. This conclusion is consistent with STR because the
conventional Lorentz Transformation results when one integrates this
transformation between the velocity limits of 0 and V.

    An intellectual difficulty occurs when one considers the so-called
"massless" particles. They have this name because they have no "rest mass".
A reasonable man would consider such a terminology to be frivolous because
these particles exist only when traveling at the velocity of light. They
have no "rest mass" because they don't exist at rest. These so called
"massless" particles do however, possess inertial mass as evidenced by the
radiation pressure they exert when their velocity vectors are altered,
either by reflection or absorption. They provide the same reaction force as
would a material particle of the same relativistic mass that was traveling
infinitesimally close to the velocity of light. They also experience
gravitational forces that are twice the force that would be experienced by a
material particle of the same energy. A simple "thought experiment" as
outlined in Part 4 of http://einsteinhoax.com/gravity.htm easily shows this.
(The writer has received a rather cryptic E-mail from someone who apparently
is associated with the physics establishment to the effect that the photon
imparts momentum because its energy is equal to the product of its frequency
and Plank's Constant and it is traveling at the velocity of light. The
sender denied vehemently that the expression E=M*C^2 and the idea that even
though the photon contains energy and imparts a momentum equivalent to a
mass of that energy traveling at the velocity of light, means that the
photon has mass. Bertrand Russell is reported to have said that the sign of
a great mind is the ability to hold two mutually exclusive beliefs at the
same time. The writer disagrees with him. That ability is the sign of a mind
which is too lazy to resolve the contradiction and/or is too damn lazy or
too damn stupid to resolve it)

    The inertial and gravitational masses of the so-called "massless"
particles have a significant effect on our understanding of cosmology. A
back of the envelope calculation suggests that the inertial mass of these
particles, as evidenced by the 3 degree Kelvin radiation temperature of
space, exceeds the inertial mass of the matter in our Universe by a factor
of 10. When we consider that neutrinos are formed in nucleons that have 1800
times the energy content of the source of photons (electrons), it may be
possible that the mass of neutrinos outweighs the mass of photons by a
factor of 1800! Looked at it in this light, our Universe may actually be a
gasbag of photons and neutrinos filled with a miniscule amount of the dust
we call matter. Rather than being the King of the Universe, what we call as
matter may actually be only a miniscule contaminant.

    If we examine the radiation pressure produced by the observed level of
photons in space, it is easy to see why space appears to be expanding.
Radiation pressure is counteracting the gravitational pressure. It is also
easy to understand why the dynamics of galaxies appears to be skewed by what
is termed "dark matter". There would seem to be no need to postulate the
existence of "dark matter" until the gravitational and inertial effects of
the photons and neutrinos that populate the Universe have been amply
explored. This has not been done, primarily because these particles have
been foolishly defined as "massless".

    The source material for this posting may be found in
http://einsteinhoax.com/hoax.htm (1997); http://einsteinhoax.com/gravity.htm 
(1987); and http://einsteinhoax.com/relcor.htm (1997). EVERYTHING WHICH WE
ACCEPT AS TRUE MUST BE CONSISTENT WITH EVERYTHING ELSE WE HAVE ACCEPTED AS
TRUE, IT MUST BE CONSISTENT WITH ALL OBSERVATIONS, AND IT MUST BE
MATHEMATICALLY VIABLE. PRESENT TEACHINGS DO NOT ALWAYS MEET THIS
REQUIREMENT. THE WORLD IS ENTITLED TO A HIGHER STANDARD OF WORKMANSHIP FROM
THOSE IT HAS GRANTED WORLD CLASS STATUS.

    All of the Newsposts made by this site may be viewed at the
http://einsteinhoax.com/postinglog.htm.

    Please make any response via E-mail as Newsgroups are not monitored on
a regular basis. Objective responses will be treated with the same courtesy
as they are presented. To prevent the wastage of time on both of our parts,
please do not raise objections that are not related to material that you
have read at the Website. This posting is merely a summary.

    E-mail:- einsteinhoax@isp.com. If you wish a reply, be sure that your
mail reception is not blocked.

    The material at the Website has been posted continuously for over 8
years. In that time THERE HAVE BEEN NO OBJECTIVE REBUTTALS OF ANY OF THE
MATERIAL PRESENTED. There have only been hand waving arguments by
individuals who have mindlessly accepted the prevailing wisdom without
questioning it. If anyone provides a significant rebuttal that cannot be
objectively answered, the material at the Website will be withdrawn.
Challenges to date have revealed only the responder's inadequacy with one
exception for which a correction was provided.