Skrow wrote:
The Nature of Mass
SNIP
About 40 years ago the writer came across the observation in a
Scientific American article that, in the equation E=3DM*C^2 there can
only be
two independent variables. One of those variables, E, M, or C must be
dependent upon the other two.
Not necessarily. Why could not one of those variables be dependent
only upon one of the other two and not just on both of them?
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.
But velocity is a vector involving the rate of change in position of an
object with respect to time, involving speed and direction. However,
we can accept c as an independent constant, but I don't see how it can
be considered a variable in this case. Which means, of course, that
your initial claim of 3 ind. variables is now reduced to 2. But since
your issue refers to independence, we agree that the speed of c is
measured independently of mass and 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.
Energy: 4. physics power supply or source: a supply or source of
electrical, mechanical, or other form of power
5=2E physics capacity to do work: the capacity of a body or system to do
work.
Microsoft=AE Encarta=AE Reference Library 2005. =A9 1993-2004 Microsoft
Corporation. All rights reserved.
As potential energy, which is what a mass is in view of E=3Dmc^2, mass is
a potential supply or source of energy, so it cannot be a variable
independent from energy, also in view of the unified Principle of Mass
and Energy, even though it is a variable in the formula.
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.
Yes. No disagreement with that.
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).
Yes. Again, agreed.
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=3DM*C^2.
No! No! No! The formula does not have energy or mass buzzing around at
c! That is a common misinterpretation of the formula: that mass or
energy are moving in the formula. That is ridiculous, of course, since
c^2 is clearly shown to be solely a multiplier in the formula so as to
determine the amount of energy within a given mass.
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.
More math magic, eh?
An intellectual difficulty occurs when one considers the
so-called
"massless" particles. They have this name because they have no "rest
mass".
No, not so. If they have no rest mass, they are relativistic mass
which includes their energy of motion. We can observe nothing that has
a rest mass other than in comparison to another object. I think that
the term "massless" was appended to particles to get around E=3Dmc^2
which clearly includes mass in energy. There is no way to explain how
a mass can move at c, so the photon had to be shown to be massless.
Physicists are quite agile of mind in that way, apparently, going by
the bs they consistently try to shove on the public. I have asked even
just recently again, what happens to the mass in momentum when they
make a massless particle and claim that the energy therein is due to
the momentum of the energy?? Some of these explanations would be so
funny if they weren't so stupid.
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.isp.com/einsteinhoax@isp.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.
See? What did I just say?
The sender denied vehemently that the expression E=3DM*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.
Yes, of course, and some will argue that all the way down from the
cliff face.
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)
Once again, agreed!
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.
I have posted that same idea just recently in these ngs, which seems
obvious with the acceptance of the existence of Dark Matter. However,
photons are light particles and if they existed in the numbers which DM
particles may exist, the universe would be mostly lit up instead of
being mostly dark.
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".
Yes, I agree.
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://members.isp.com/einsteinhoax@isp.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://members.isp.com/einsteinhoax@isp.com/einsteinhoax/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.
Too bad, we could have a really good discussion about all that you
write.
.
