"The Nature of Mass"
Rediug
(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:- einste...@verizon.net. 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.
KONCHOK.PENDAY
Rediug [red...@verizon.net] wrote:
> "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.
SINCE ALL MATTER IS
COMPOSED OF AETHRONS,
THE BASIC MEASURE OF
MASS IS THE NUMBER
OF AETHRONS INVOLVED:
WHETHER THEY ARE
ORGANIZED INTO
ELECTRONS, PROTONS,
NEUTRONS OR WHATEVER.
WE USUALLY USE BIGGER
UNITS OF MEASURE LIKE
POUNDS OR KILOS, BECAUSE
AETHRONS ARE SO SMALL THE
NUMBERS ARE "ASTRONOMICAL",
[MAYBE A MILLION/ELECTRON?]
BUT IT'S ALL JUST AETHRONS!
=========
THIS IS A
ONE-PART
UNIVERSE!
=========
ONLY ONE MOVING PART
BUT *LOTS* OF THEM!
> 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.
???? I DIDN'T FOLLOW THAT.
SINCE LIGHT HAS BOTH
MASS AND ENERGY, HOW
IS IT INDEPENDENT THEREOF?
OR ARE YOU SAYING THAT
IT IS "INDEPENDENT" SINCE
THEY ARE ALL THE SAME?
> 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 WITHOUT
REFERENCE TO 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.
OR JUST COUNT THE AETHRONS?
> Weighing a mass provides a measurement of its mass
> but the observation is made in terms of a reference mass
= THE AETHRON STANDARD WITH IT'S
PROGRESSIVE PACKAGES OF ELECTRON,
PROTON, NEUTRON, WHATEVER.
> (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).
????
HOW IS IT CIRCULAR REASONING
TO MEASURE MASS WITH A
STANDARD REFERENCE MASS?
ARE YOU SAYING THAT
EVERYTHING MUST BE
SOMETHING *ELSE*
TO MAKE SENSE?
> 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.
SOUNDS COMPLEX.
MUCH EASIER TO
COUNT AETHRONS!
> (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).
SO THAT APPROACH SEEMS
RATHER LIMITED AT BEST,
> 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.
*WHO* WOULD *WANT*
to solve STR problems?
ONLY *SPECIAL* WANKERS!
I would hope Einstein Hoax
is beyond that noxious wank!
> This conclusion is consistent with STR
THEN IT MUST BE WRONG?
> because the conventional Lorentz Transformation results when one
> integrates this transformation between the velocity limits of 0 and V.
???? OK.
> An intellectual difficulty occurs when one considers
> the so-called "massless" particles.
YES.
IF YOU CONSIDER
HALLUCINATIONS TO
BE "DIFFICUTIES"!
MOST "PHYSICISTS"
COULD NOT LIVE
WITHOUT THEM!
IT'S THEIR STANDARD
TOOL OF THE TRADE!
SO THEY ARE REALLY
AN *OPPORTUNITY*!
> They have this name because they have no "rest mass".
SIMPLY BECAUSE THEY DO NOT EXIST?
THAT'S UNLAWFUL DISCRIMATION!
IT'S FINE THAT PRISONERS ARE NOT PEOPLE,
AS THAT SAVES LOTS OF LEGAL RIGHTS BULLSHIT,
BUT COULDN'T WE GRANT MASSLESS PARTICLES
LEGAL STATUS AS NON-RESIDENT ALIEN *PERSONS*?
THEY CAN'T APPLY FOR ASYLUM
BECAUSE THEY DON'T EVEN EXIST!
BUT JUST BECAUSE YOU DON'T EXIST
IS NO REASON NOT TO HAVE RIGHTS!
LAWYERS COULD STILL REPRESENT THEM!
WE'LL GET THE GOVERNMEAT TO PAY THE
LITIGATION COSTS AS AN ENVIRONMENTAL
BENEFIT ... LIKE GLOBAL WARMIING!
MAYBE WE COULD EVEN TAX THEM!
> A reasonable man would consider such a terminology to be frivolous
> because these particles exist only when traveling at the velocity of
> light.
OR WARP SPEED EIGHT,
WHICH IS ANOTHER
COMMON SPEED FOR
HALLUCINATORY
PARTICLES THAT
DON'T EVEN EXIST!
BUT WHO CARES WHAT
"A REASONABLE MAN"
WOULD THINK? THAT'S
COMPLETELY IRRELEVANT!
WE'RE TALKING ABOUT COMPULSIVE WANKERS LIKE
MATHEMATICIANS PRETENDING TO BE PHYSICISTS!
WHO CAN'T EVEN TELL THE
DIFFERENCE BETWEEN THEM!
FUCK REASONABLE!
THAT'S A BIG DRAG!
> They have no "rest mass" because they don't exist at rest.
OR ANY OTHER SPEED!
> 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.
SO THEY DEFINITELY HAVE MOMENTUM!
WHICH IS A GOOD TRICK WITHOUT MASS!
ONLY A MASSLESS VIRTUAL
PHYSICIST COULD DO *THAT*!
> 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.
????
WOULD YOU LIKE
TO BUY A BRIDGE
IN BOOKLYN?
OR DO YOU ALREADY OWN SOME?
> They also experience gravitational forces that are twice
> the force that would be experienced by a material particle
> of the same energy.
A HALLUCINATORY PARTICLE
CAN EXPERIENCE ANY FORCE
YOU WANT IT TO! AFTER ALL:
IT'S YOUR HALLUCINATION!
> A simple "thought experiment" as outlined in Part 4 of
> http://einsteinhoax.com/gravity.htm easily shows this.
I PROPOSE A RADICAL NEW
THOUGHT EXPERIMENT DESIGNED
ESPECIALLY FOR MATHEMATICIANS
DO HAVE DELUDED THEMSELVES
THAT THAY ARE PHYSICISTS:
=============
TRY THINKING!
=============
IT MIGHT BE A SHOCK, BUT
NEW ACTIVITIES CAN EVEN
WARD OFF ALSHEIMERS ONSET!
> (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.
WANKERS WANK!
WHAT ELSE
COULD HE SAY?
ARE YOU SUPRISED?
> 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.
WITHOUT EVER NOTICING
*ANY* PROBLEM AT ALL!
WHILE LECTURING ON THE
STUPIDITY OF OTHERS!
> 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)
OR BELONGS TO A
HIGHLY TRAINED
MATHEMATICIAN!
> 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.
ALL WHILE BEING
FORMLESS, TIMELESS
AND MASSLESS!
REMEMBER THE
PRIME DIRECTIVES
FOR WAN'KING:
WANK HAS ANY TIME, ANY MASS,
ANY SPEED, AND ANYTHING ELSE!
WANK IS NOT LIMITED BY PHYSICS!
WAN'KING HAS HIS OWN RULES!
> 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.
KIND OF YES,
BUT YOU KEEP
FORGETTING THAT, THO
WANKERS HAVE ASSES,
WANK HAS NO MASS!
> Rather than being the King of the Universe, what we call
> as matter may actually be only a miniscule contaminant.
YES!
MOST OF THE MASS
OF THE UNIVERSE IS
JUST RAW AETHER!
"MATTER" IS JUST THE
CLOTTED CREAM FLOATING
ON TOP OF THE BUCKET!
SUNS AND PLANETS ARE RARE!
> 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.
???? IT DOES?
TELL ME ABOUT THAT.
> 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".
MOST OF THE MASS OF THE UNIVERSE
IS RAW AETHER, NOT *CONDENSED*
AETHER, WHICH IS KNOWN AS "MATTER".
> There would seem to be no need to postulate the existence
> of "dark matter"
WHEN WE ALREADY HAVE AETHER!
WHICH IS ALREADY SO DARK YOU
CAN'T EVEN SEE IT, BECAUSE
IT'S TRANSPARENT OR INVISIBLE!
> until the gravitational and inertial effects of the photons
> and neutrinos that populate the Universe have been amply explored.
UNFORTUNATELY, WE CANNOT WAIT FOR THAT
BECAUSE IT WOULD TAKE PIE TIMES FOREVER!
OF COURSE WE COULD
USE HYPER-TIME ...
BUT THAT'S ALL HYPE!
> This has not been done, primarily because these particles
> have been foolishly defined as "massless".
WHEN THEY SHOULD BE LABELLED:
NON-EXISTENT, HALLUCINATORY, PRETEND,
DELUSIONAL, OR "FOR PHYSICISTS ONLY"!
> 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).
[ ... SNIP ....]
WHEN YOU WANT
TO UNDERSTAND
THE UNIVERSE:
READ RADO!
BY FAR the BEST book on physics EVER written:
=============================================
AETHRO-KINEMATICS IS THE MAIN RADO TEXT
It�s 527 pages of tightly-reasoned analysis
by the greatest physicist of all time!
http://net-prophet.net/rado-ak/aethro_3.pdf
=============================================
NO BULLSHIT!
I GUARANTEE IT!
JUST HARD-NOSED
SCIENTIFIC INQUIRY!
It�s also the best
history of physics
ever written!
Even better than
Richard McKeon!
But Rado perfectly
illustrates both
McKeon�s analysis
AND PREDICTIONS!
HIS �LEAST PARTICLES�
ANALYSIS IS ONE OF MCKEON�S
FOUR PRIMARY MODES OF THOUGHT!
THE ONE THAT PERFECTLY
HEXPLAINS AND CONSTRUCTS
THE PHYSICAL UNIVERSE.
THAT�S A BIG
DOUBLE WOW-WOW!
CAUTION: *NOT* FOR
the faint of heart!
May be dangerous to
preconceived prejudices!
Steve�s site is:
http://www.aethro-kinematics.com/
My intro to Steve�s work is:
http://net-prophet.net/nobul/rado/rado.htm
See �05* AETHER PHYSICS� in the
right-hand column of my blog at:
http://net-prophet.net/blog/
AND the �PHYSICS� CATEGORY
in the left-hand column!
Also see the �AETHER PHYSICS� TOPIC
under the �2-FORUMS� in the blog PAGES.
That�s the reading list for now,
but �Aethro-dynamics� will be
released ANY DAY NOW!
O
--- )
\
NEWSGROUPS:
alt.ucp,alt.conspiracy,alt.sci.physics,alt.sci.physics.new-theories
PERMALINK: http://net-prophet.net/blog/?p=1688
Cork Soaker
> On Sun, 20 Dec 2009 14:44:58 -0500,
> Rediug [red...@verizon.net] wrote:
>
> > "The Nature of Mass"
> SINCE ALL MATTER IS
> COMPOSED OF AETHRONS,
Hahahahahahahaha!!!!!!
KONCHOK.PENDAY
On Mon, 21 Dec 2009 03:04:51 +0000,
Cork Soaker wrote:
> KONCHOK.PENDAY wrote:
>> On Sun, 20 Dec 2009 14:44:58 -0500,
>> Rediug [red...@verizon.net] wrote:
>>
>> > "The Nature of Mass"
>
>> SINCE ALL MATTER IS
>> COMPOSED OF AETHRONS,
Cork Soaker:
> Hahahahahahahaha!!!!!!
I'm glad that you are easily amused,
but it looks better if you wait for
the punch line!
Maybe you better
let your cork dry?
Cork Soaker
You are to stupid to hit the reply button properly? Aren't you
embarrassed that you are stupid?