| Topic: |
Science > Physics |
| User: |
"Semanq" |
| Date: |
06 Nov 2004 08:21:29 AM |
| Object: |
The Nature of Mass |
The Nature of Mass
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
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://members.aol.com/einsteinhoax/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 "Gravity" (1987),
"The Einstein Hoax" (1997), and "Corrections to Residual Errors in Special
Relativity (1999) located at http://www.members.aol.com/einsteinhoax/site.htm.
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 Newsposts by this Website are available at
http://www.members.aol.com/postinglog/newspostings.com
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:-
The material at the Website has been posted continuously for over 5 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.
.
|
|
| User: "Uncle Al" |
|
| Title: Re: The Nature of Mass |
06 Nov 2004 09:12:24 AM |
|
|
Semanq wrote:
The Nature of Mass
[snip 120 lines of ignorant crap]
http://www.freefarts.com/farts.html
Move cursor over blinkers to hear Retic's lecture.
Psychotic ineducable boring spammer retic (Ernest Wittke),
You see yourself this way,
http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/effete6.jpg
The entire remainder of the planet sees you this way,
http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/effete3.png
http://www.edu-observatory.org/cranks.html
http://www.pagetutor.com/idiot/idiot.html
http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/sunshine.jpg
<http://www.albinoblacksheep.com/flash/youare.swf>
http://www.meninhats.com/d/20040430.html
http://www.you-moron.com/
http://groups.google.com/groups?q=group%3Asci.physics+author%3Awittke
http://b5.sdvc.uwyo.edu/bab5/snds/argcstpd.wav
http://www.apa.org/journals/psp/psp7761121.html
http://insti.physics.sunysb.edu/~siegel/quack.html
<http://www.firehead.org/~jessh/film/kubrick/Kubrick-Psycho.html>
<http://www.naturalchild.com/elliott_barker/prisons.html>
The source material for this posting may be found in "Gravity" (1987),
"The Einstein Hoax" (1997), and "Corrections to Residual Errors in Special
Relativity (1999)
[snip]
Hey, stooopid spammer Ernest Wittke - Do you want EVIDENCE? Each of
the 24 GPS satellites carries either four cesium atomic clocks or
three rubidum atomic clocks in orbit, with full relativistic
corrections being applied. NAVSTAR Block II GPS satellites (currently
being launched as replacements) have two rubidium and two cesium
atomic clocks.
Internal inconsistencies in SR (meaning inconsistencies of a purely
mathematical logical nature) automatically lead to contradictions in
number theory, itself, and arithmetic, since the mathematics of
Minkowski geometry is equiconsistent with the theory of real numbers
and with arithmetic.
<http://optoelectronics.perkinelmer.com/content/Datasheets/rfs2f.pdf>
<http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/RelWWW/tests.html>
Mathematics of gravitation
<http://wugrav.wustl.edu/people/CMW/update98.pdf>
<http://www.astro.northwestern.edu/AspenW04/Papers/lorimer1.pdf>
Equivalence Principle testing
http://arXiv.org/abs/hep-th/0111236
Geometric structure of reality
http://arxiv.org/abs/gr-qc/0103044
http://arXiv.org/abs/hep-th/0307140
GR structure, especially Part 4/p. 7
<http://relativity.livingreviews.org/Articles/lrr-2003-1/>
http://arXiv.org/abs/gr-qc/0311039
<http://www.weburbia.demon.co.uk/physics/experiments.html>
Experimental constraints on General Relativity
<http://tycho.usno.navy.mil/ptti/ptti2002/paper20.pdf>
Nature 425 374 (2003)
<http://relativity.livingreviews.org/Articles/lrr-2003-1/>
http://www.eftaylor.com/pub/projecta.pdf
<http://www.public.asu.edu/~rjjacob/Lecture16.pdf>
Relativity in the GPS system
http://arXiv.org/abs/gr-qc/9909014
Phys. Rev. Lett. 92 (2004) 121101
falling light
<http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/relativ/airtim.html>
Hafele-Keating Experiment
http://www.hawaii.edu/suremath/SRtwinParadox.html
<http://physics.syr.edu/courses/modules/LIGHTCONE/twins.html>
Twin Paradox
Science 303(5661) 1143;1153 (2004)
http://arXiv.org/abs/astro-ph/0401086
http://arxiv.org/abs/astro-ph/0312071
Deeply relativistic neutron star binaries
http://arxiv.org/abs/hep-th/0405160
Black hole evaporation
Physics Today 57(7) 40 (2004)
No aether
http://fsweb.berry.edu/academic/mans/clane/
http://physicsweb.org/articles/world/17/3/7
No Lorentz violation
http://arXiv.org/abs/gr-qc/0409089
Spin-2 gravitons have problems (so does the proposal)
<http://www.npl.washington.edu/eotwash/pdf/prl83-3585.pdf>
http://arXiv.org/abs/gr-qc/0301024
Nordtvedt Effect
http://arxiv.org/abs/astro-ph/0403292
http://arXiv.org/abs/astro-ph/0310723
WMAP + Sloane Digital Sky Survey
http://arxiv.org/abs/hep-ph/0404175
Dark matter candidates
<http://nedwww.ipac.caltech.edu/level5/March01/Carroll/frames.html>
Carroll on what it all means.
Special Relativity is physics on a topologically trivial Lorentzian
manifold with a metric whose curvature tensor is zero. This is a
perfectly diffeomorphism-invariant condition and does not require
any particular coordinate choice. It is invariant under
the full group of diffeomorphisms. The Poincare group is
the group of *isometries* of the metric in special relativity.
The Special Relativity metric is *non-dynamical* (unlike GR). It
defines the coupling *constants* of your theory. If you change the
metric in any nontrivial way you are changing your theory. An
operation can only be called a "symmetry" of a special-relativistic
(non-gravitational) theory if it preserves the metric, and therefore
the symmetry of special-relativistic theories is the Poincare group
only. General Relativity (gravitation) has a dynamic metric.
NIM A 355 537 (1995)
Physics Letters B 328 103 (1994)
Physical Review Letters 64 1697 (1990)
Physical Review Letters 39 1051 (1977)
Physical Review 135 B1071 (1964)
Physics Letters 12 260 (1964)
Europhysics Letters 56(2) 170-174 (2001)
General Relativity and Gravitation 34(9) 1371 (2002)
http://fourmilab.to/etexts/einstein/specrel/specrel.pdf
<http://www.geocities.com/physics_world/sr/ae_1905_error.htm>
<http://www.physics.gatech.edu/people/faculty/finkelstein/relativity.pdf>
Longitudinal and transverse mass
http://arxiv.org/abs/gr-qc/0306076.pdf
<http://www.metaresearch.org/solar%20system/gps/absolute-gps-1meter-3.ASP>
http://www.navcen.uscg.gov/pubs/gps/gpsuser/gpsuser.pdf
http://www.navcen.uscg.gov/pubs/gps/sigspec/default.htm
http://www.navcen.uscg.gov/pubs/gps/icd200/default.htm
http://www.trimble.com/gps/index.html
http://sirius.chinalake.navy.mil/satpred/
http://www.phys.lsu.edu/mog/mog9/node9.html
http://egtphysics.net/GPS/RelGPS.htm
http://www.schriever.af.mil/gps/Current/current.oa1
http://edu-observatory.org/gps/gps_books.html
<http://www-astronomy.mps.ohio-state.edu/~pogge/Ast162/Unit5/gps.html>
If anyone
provides a significant rebuttal that cannot be objectively answered, the
material at the Website will be withdrawn.
Right, like your head has ever been withdrawn from your ***** - even
when you *****.
--
Uncle Al
http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/
(Toxic URL! Unsafe for children and most mammals)
http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/qz.pdf
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Sam Wormley" |
|
| Title: Re: The Nature of Mass |
06 Nov 2004 12:10:14 PM |
|
|
Semanq wrote:
The Nature of Mass
The energy of any photon is E = hf, where h is Planck's constant and f is its
frequency. The speed of light is constant and a fundamental constant of nature.
Photon momentum = p = h/lambda where h is Planck's constant and lambda is the
photon wavelength. See:
http://www.tau.ac.il/~lab3/MOSSBAUER/Recoil.html
Usenet Physics FAQs
http://hermes.physics.adelaide.edu.au/~dkoks/Faq/
What is the mass of a photon
http://hermes.physics.adelaide.edu.au/~dkoks/Faq/ParticleAndNuclear/photon_mass.html
Speed of Light [is now a defined constant]
http://scienceworld.wolfram.com/physics/SpeedofLight.html
Particle Chart
http://particleadventure.org/particleadventure/frameless/chart.html
Did you ever wonder "What the heck is a photon, anyway?"
http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/photon/schmoton.htm
Special Relativity
http://scienceworld.wolfram.com/physics/SpecialRelativity.html
http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/physics/Relativity/SR/experiments.html
Crank Information
http://groups.google.com/groups?q=group%3Asci.physics+author%3AGRAVITYMECHANIC
http://groups.google.com/groups?q=group%3Asci.physics+author%3AGRAVITYMECHANIC2
http://www.google.com/search?q=einstein+hoax+site%3Awww.crank.net
http://groups.google.com/groups?q=group%3Asci.physics+author%3Aretic
http://groups.google.com/groups?q=group%3Asci.physics+author%3Aretiche
http://groups.google.com/groups?q=group%3Asci.physics+author%3Areticher
http://groups.google.com/groups?q=group%3Asci.physics+author%3Areticher1
http://groups.google.com/groups?q=group%3Asci.physics+author%3Awittke
.
|
|
|
|
|
Related Articles |
|
|
