Explain Mass.

[Qfwfq]

Lorentz co-variant mechanics.

 

If you get that straight, everything matches up.

[jack buck]

The shape of the mass is determined by the conflict between the surface angular momentum and the internal momentum.

 

Every orbiting mass has its own arrangement of dimensions based upon the direction of mass’s rotation and the direction its magnetic core is being pulled. For instance, the Earth’s magnetic core is spinning in contrast to its surface’s rotation.

 

Moving sideways but in a realtive motion, we must look at Einstein's discovery of dual natures in order to understand the existence of mass.

 

Why does light appear to have a dual nature? What is that dual nature?

 

The answer lies in the transmittance of frequencies. Frequencies consist of mass orbiting about a point.

 

The higher the pitch and the greater the frequency, the more energy the mass is absorbing AND transmitting; a crucial point, which speaks about the dual nature of existence.

 

Does the mass have its own energy or is it merely a conduit?

 

The answer is both. Mass consists of internal resonating frequencies arranged in patterns that bring the mass into existence.

 

The pattern of any given mass determines how it will interact with external frequencies.

 

This pattern of interaction determines the mass’s conductivity.

 

When two or more frequencies collide, energy is transferred.

 

Some frequencies can travel fairly easily past one another without exchanging too much energy, while other frequencies constantly clash, knocking each other out of orbit.

 

The most important thing to recognize is that all frequencies want to remain stable and struggle to regain stability when knocked out of balance.

 

Isotopes are evidence of stability.

 

Chemical bonds are evidence of stability.

 

The movement of high pressure to low pressure is evidence of stability.

 

The existence of frequencies determined by their boundaries is evidence of stability.

 

The subjects of mass and boundaries are both individually complex and yet inseparable. However, as similar as the two seem, boundaries has one logical advantage. Just like free roaming thoughts in your head are of little use until you logically take action and form them into words, sentences, and communicate them; mass without boundaries is much less logical than mass with boundaries. Boundaries provide logic to mass and are thus more logical because they have the ability to both exist as boundaries and yet logically communicate its boundaries to mass. Boundaries imply being set, which requires both knowledge of existence AND knowledge of creation. Mass does not know how to logically arrange itself without boundaries because Mass only knows how to exist.

 

The pattern of any given mass determines how it will interact with external frequencies.

 

This pattern of interaction determines the mass’s conductivity.....this obviously moves us beyond your original question.

 

Unlike other answers, you cannot separate your understanding of mass from your logical faculties and thus must delve into why your perception delivers specific logical outcomes. Nothing is separate.

 

 

best regards,

 

jack buck

[Little Bang]

Arkain, I take it back, there is one absolute point and that happens to be the position of the observer. Everything that one sees is always relative to the observer.

[arkain101]

If we consider mass as 1 dimension through time(point), C as the limit or 'box' (sides), at the front of time, and Energy as the area of that box. (e=mc^2)

We can represent it on a cube, and find that we can unfold that cube to reveals 6 squares that can be arranged in 11 different connected forms. That is, 6 dimensions for energy, in 11 arranged forms.

(not that I am suggesting anything in particular, this is just theoretical notions think about)

Edited August 14, 2020 by arkain101

[Lightfuzz]

Mass is the measure of inertia but why does object contain mass? I call these questions 'postulates', just like the ones in geometry. It's like asking why the universe exists (I don't think that can be answered).

[Benish]

The difference between mass and light can be thought of as the difference between that which is a clock and that which is not. Massive objects "tick"; but light is timeless. This is consistent with relativity theory, where we sometimes find the statement that "time stops for the photon."

 

As for what gives mass its inertia, nobody has yet explained this. One possibility that is vaguely related to Mach's principle, but otherwise new, relates mass to the mechanism for gravity. The dimensions of Newton's constant, L^3/T^2/M, may be thought of as the acceleration of volume per mass. If we think of gravity as the process whereby mass generates space, an intuitive conception of inertial mass follows.

 

Inertia is that property of mass whereby a body resists changes to linear motion, i.e., to motion in one direction. By the above reasoning, this is proportional to the quantity of space that the body is generating in every direction.

 

This possibility can be tested by performing a relatively simple experiment. It's one that has often been discussed as an elementary exercise in Newtonian gravity: Drop an object into a large mass with a hole through its center. Newtonian theory says the object will harmonically oscillate in the hole. Nobody has ever checked to see if this really happens. If the above hypothesis is correct, it will not happen. The test object would not pass the center.

 

For its implications as to the nature of mass and and gravity, doing this experiment should thus be put on a physicist's list of things to do.

[CraigD]

Welcome to hypography, Benish! :D

Inertia is that property of mass whereby a body resists changes to linear motion, i.e., to motion in one direction. By the above reasoning, this is proportional to the quantity of space that the body is generating in every direction.

I don’t understand what you mean by “the quantity of space that the body is generating in every direction”. Can you give an example with actual values – that is, assign position, mass, and velocity to a specific body (say (0 m,0 m, 0m), 1 kg, (1 m/s, 0 m/s, 0 m/s) ) to “the body”, then calculate “the quantity of space” (does this mean volume?) it generates in a specific duration of time (let’s call it t, in units of seconds)?

This possibility can be tested by performing a relatively simple experiment. It's one that has often been discussed as an elementary exercise in Newtonian gravity: Drop an object into a large mass with a hole through its center. Newtonian theory says the object will harmonically oscillate in the hole. Nobody has ever checked to see if this really happens. If the above hypothesis is correct, it will not happen. The test object would not pass the center.

 

For its implications as to the nature of mass and and gravity, doing this experiment should thus be put on a physicist's list of things to do.

Given that a “large body” is actually an collection of smaller bodies, can’t this test be designed in a way that can be measured by observing existing collection of bodies, such as the major and minor planets?

 

Although it’s practically feasible to perform the test you describe using small-scale objects in low-gravity environments – completed spacecraft missions such as Gravity probe B, planned ones such as LISA, and proposed ones such as SEE have done and plan to do similar experiments – they’re very expensive, and would never have been undertaken had not the theories they are designed to further validate had not been validated by cheaper, observational experiments.

[Benish]

Thanks for the welcome CraigD!

 

I don’t understand what you mean by “the quantity of space that the body is generating in every direction”. Can you give an example with actual values – that is, assign position, mass, and velocity to a specific body (say (0 m,0 m, 0m), 1 kg, (1 m/s, 0 m/s, 0 m/s) ) to “the body”, then calculate “the quantity of space” (does this mean volume?) it generates in a specific duration of time (let’s call it t, in units of seconds)?

 

Gravity is usually thought of as a linear force between masses. The clearest way to see its volumetric implications is in the context of cosmology. Gravity is supposed to be "trying" to eliminate the space between bodies, space that was produced by the big bang. It is well known in this context that, if the rate of expansion does not exceed a critical minimum, then gravity will halt the expansion and suck all space out of the universe (aka the Big Crunch). Thus, the standard view of gravity may be described in terms of the elimination of space between bodies.

 

This occurs according to the inverse square law, GM/r^2. Now consider the fact that accelerometer readings all over the globe indicate a positive acceleration, 9.8 m/sec^2. The 1/r^2 makes this quantity a linear acceleration. But the quantity GM by itself has the dimensions of a volumetric acceleration, L^3/T^2. For a sphere it should actually be 4piGM. If gravity is a force of attraction, then this is the contribution each body of matter (M) makes to slowing down the expansion of the universe.

 

What I'm suggesting is that maybe gravity isn't a force of attraction. Instead of eliminating space, maybe matter, via gravity is a source of space. Maybe gravity is the process whereby mass generates space. (This may explain why mass has inertia, as per the original question is this thread.)

 

Concerning the thoughts in your last two paragraphs, I would respond as follows: Most everything we know about gravity is based on observations and experiments conducted outside the surface of large gravitating bodies. This is true of the experiments you have mentioned. The circumstance of falling through the center of a massive body by gravity is significantly different from any experiment so far proposed.

 

What happens when a radially falling object is allowed to fall as long as it will, without colliding? The theoretical prediction is very well known. But in the absence of direct physical evidence, it must be admitted that nobody really knows if the prediction is correct or not.

 

Even if the above speculations as to the nature of mass and gravity are incorrect, simple scientific curiosity (and a desire for completeness) should suffice to warrant doing this basic experiment. This is especially true given that, as you have implied, most other experiments that get funded cost a whole lot more money.

[CraigD]

I don’t understand what you mean by “the quantity of space that the body is generating in every direction”. Can you give an example with actual values – that is, assign position, mass, and velocity to a specific body (say (0 m,0 m, 0m), 1 kg, (1 m/s, 0 m/s, 0 m/s) ) to “the body”, then calculate “the quantity of space” (does this mean volume?) it generates in a specific duration of time (let’s call it t, in units of seconds)?

Gravity is usually thought of as a linear force between masses. The clearest way to see its volumetric implications is in the context of cosmology. Gravity is supposed to be "trying" to eliminate the space between bodies, space that was produced by the big bang. It is well known in this context that, if the rate of expansion does not exceed a critical minimum, then gravity will halt the expansion and suck all space out of the universe (aka the Big Crunch). Thus, the standard view of gravity may be described in terms of the elimination of space between bodies.

I guess from this that you’ve not developed your idea into something for which you can produce formulae and theoretical predictions – that it’s more of a vague hunch at this time.

 

I’ve trouble trying to get further than a hunch with this “mass/gravity creates space” idea. Every way I can think to define volumes in terms of bodies (ie: a regular tetrahedron defined by 4 point-like bodies) depends only on their locations, not their masses. I’m also troubled that gravity seems to work the same for bodies within volumes already “created” by other bodies. Without some key help, I can’t see any way to make your idea into a workable theory.

 

Experimental test of classical gravity, however, seems untroubling.

Even if the above speculations as to the nature of mass and gravity are incorrect, simple scientific curiosity (and a desire for completeness) should suffice to warrant doing this basic experiment. This is especially true given that, as you have implied, most other experiments that get funded cost a whole lot more money.

After I’d written this

Although it’s practically feasible to perform the test you describe using small-scale objects in low-gravity environments – completed spacecraft missions such as Gravity probe B, planned ones such as LISA, and proposed ones such as SEE have done and plan to do similar experiments – they’re very expensive, and would never have been undertaken had not the theories they are designed to further validate had not been validated by cheaper, observational experiments.

It occurred to me I was being overly pessimistic about the cost of the experiment you’re suggesting, Benish.

 

All that’s really needed, I think, is an unusually constructed Cavendish balance.

 

Though the torsion balances used to reproduce the Cavendish experiment usually involve a pair of small metal spheres passing near the a pair of large ones, one could, without too much added complication, make the small spheres pass through a small hole drilled through the large spheres.

 

So, if your hunch is that classical gravity’s description of a small body falling through a hole through the center of a large one is dramatically wrong, it shouldn’t be beyond the financial or technical means of a hobbyist or student – especially a student, as most high schools and colleges have conventional Cavendish balances, and the resources to build unconventional ones – to experimentally test.

[Benish]

I'm glad to hear your thoughts on actually doing the experiment. Though it would be cheap and easy compared to the high-budget enterprises that get so much attention, it would not be so simple as just modifying an off-the-shelf torsion balance. The reason is that a torsion fiber would not be suitable as a support for the arm because the resistance increases with angle. Unlike prior applications of a torsion balance, in the present case we need the resistance to be not only extremely small, but also constant throughout the range of motion. This indicates the use of a magnetic or fluid suspension system of considerable delicacy.

 

George Herold, a physicist at the company, TeachSpin in Buffalo, New York has contemplated building one.

 

I guess from this that you’ve not developed your idea into something for which you can produce formulae and theoretical predictions – that it’s more of a vague hunch at this time.

 

I understand that my descriptions so far would seem vague and off-the-wall. If you are interested in a more formal defense of the space generation idea, please check out this link:

 

Maximum Force Derived from Basic Physical Principles

 

It's a paper that I submitted to the International Journal of Theoretical Physics a few months ago. The first reviewer wrote that the "manuscript is well written and well illustrated…I would recommend publication." But this was contingent upon correcting a "mistake," which was, however, not clearly specified.

 

After re-submission the paper was rejected. So I sent it to the author of a paper that mine was ostensibly based on. The author's name is Christoph Schiller, whose paper was published in IJTP. In response to my paper, he wrote:

 

"You are courageous in questioning the validity of general relativity…I like the clarity with which you expose all issues involved. I like this kind of clear thinking a lot."

 

The paper presents a derivation (based on special relativity, the equivalence principle and the inverse-square law) of a maximum force with exactly the same magnitude as the maximum force that Schiller derived based on general relativity. Though it is not pointed out till later in the paper, the basis of the derivation is the idea that gravity is a process of the generation of space. It is duly emphasized that the idea is testable with the interior solution experiment.

[Rade]

The difference between mass and light can be thought of as the difference between that which is a clock and that which is not. Massive objects "tick"; but light is timeless. This is consistent with relativity theory, where we sometimes find the statement that "time stops for the photon."

Hi Benish. I was wondering if you realize that your comment above is in 100% agreement with the thinking of Aristotle. Thus, for Aristotle, time and space are what are intermediate between "moments", and within the "moment" there is no time or space. For Aristotle, all things that are infinite or forever (such as modern day concept of photon) are outside of time and space and within the "moment". Objects with "mass" are within time, thus as you say they 'tick", because time for Aristotle is nothing more than a type of number related to "motion" that is bounded by any two "moments", and each "tick" would be the number that is measured that is intermediate between any two moments (with each moment being user defined related to a past and future). Then, it is imo, a short step in thinking to suggest that Aristotle would then place all of current measurements of quantum mechanics within the "moment" and Newtonian measurements within time and space.

 

As for what gives mass its inertia, nobody has yet explained this. One possibility that is vaguely related to Mach's principle, but otherwise new, relates mass to the mechanism for gravity. The dimensions of Newton's constant, L^3/T^2/M, may be thought of as the acceleration of volume per mass. If we think of gravity as the process whereby mass generates space, an intuitive conception of inertial mass follows. Inertia is that property of mass whereby a body resists changes to linear motion, i.e., to motion in one direction. By the above reasoning, this is proportional to the quantity of space that the body is generating in every direction.

I have a question about your comment that what gives mass its "momentum" may be related to gravity. Here I also bring into my thinking the comment of forum physicist DoctorDick, who relates mass to momentum in what he terms the "tau dimension". As I understand the DD concept of the "tau dimension", it is an abstract concept, and as such, the source of the the "momentum" may well be abstract. And, here is my abstract hypothesis--I suggest that the source of the momentum along the tau dimension may be a type of [matter+antimatter]+[gravity+antigravity]+[positive energy+negative energy] interaction between one bag of quarks acting as a fermion with a second bag of quarks acting as a boson.

 

Not sure if you would agree with any of the above comments.

[Little Bang]

Arkain, I still like mine. http://hypography.com/forums/physics-and-mathematics/18828-god-does-not-have-any-dice.html

[Benish]

Rade, Without having looked into DoclorDick's or Aristotle's work myself, by your description it seems they are similar in speculating and philosophizing about physical reality without much actual concern for observable, testable reality itself. In other words, they dwell in the world of abstraction; not in the world of experience. This is true of a large percentage of what passes for gravitational physics these days (as one can deduce by looking at the titles of papers published in many journals).

 

This may well have some beneficial purpose; it should not be discouraged. But the sad thing to me is how the physical world is being neglected. The nature of mass, space, time and gravity are all still very mysterious, as any humble physicist would admit. Given this state of confusion, one should hope that all manner of experiments would be encouraged; that we would be eager to look where we have not yet looked. But this spirit of inquiry has turned largely to navel contemplation, to weaving intricate mathematical meanderings based on untested assumptions that leave physical reality way behind.

 

Michael Faraday lived by his words:

 

It is absolutely necessary that we should learn to doubt the

conditions we assume, and acknowledge we are uncertain…In

the pursuit of physical science, the imagination should be taught

to present the subject investigated in all possible and even in

impossible views; to search for analogies of likeness and (if I

may say so) of opposition — inverse or contrasted analogies; to

present the fundamental idea in every form, proportion, and

condition; to clothe it with suppositions and probabilities — that

all cases may pass in review, and be touched, if needful by the

Ithuriel spear of experiment.

 

Unfortunately, the spirit of Michael Faraday is rare to find anymore, except in children and others whose curiosity has not been squelched by the rigors of academic training.

[Don Blazys]

Clearly, the concept of "mass" is extraordinarily fundamental.

Seemingly, too fundamental to even think about !

 

So what do all these answers have in common?

 

What "general principle" is being implied

by all this data, information and speculation?

 

Perhaps "mass" can be defined as a general "resistance to change"...

a sort of cosmic or universal "friction" that operates in all facets of existence

and at all levels of consciousness, as a mechanism by which change is controlled.

 

Once you have the principle of control, it is then possible to create.

 

We are experiencing a creation, are we not?

 

And the Higgs field is sometimes referred to as the "God particle", is it not?.

 

http://www.jupiterscientific.org/sciinfo/higgs.html

 

We may not be able to prove the existence of a "Creator",

but we can rest assured that there is a creation!

 

Don.

[Ben]

Clearly, the concept of "mass" is extraordinarily fundamental.

Seemingly, too fundamental to even think about !

 

{snip}

 

We may not be able to prove the existence of a "Creator",

but we can rest assured that there is a creation!

 

Don.

See what I mean? Nothing in this thread is either physics or mathematics. What went wrong here? How was it that the crazies were allowed free reign?

 

Yeah, yeah, I know; ban the bad-tempered bastard with a superiority complex: that's me folks...........

[Don Blazys]

To: Ben,

 

Arkain has hit upon a wonderful topic... one that provokes

both philosophical and scientific thought and promotes discussion

among everyone, including "cranks" such as myself.

 

So, what is it that "got your goat" ?

 

Hmmm... perhaps it is the word "creation"?

 

Well... Websters dictionary defines the word "creation" as:

"The universe or all things in it"

 

Are you saying that there is no universe?

 

Don.

[Rade]

Michael Faraday lived by his words:It is absolutely necessary that we should learn to doubt the conditions we assume, and acknowledge we are uncertain…Unfortunately, the spirit of Michael Faraday is rare to find anymore, except in children and others whose curiosity has not been squelched by the rigors of academic training.

Yes, I agree. Feynman, in his lecture on the nature of science, provided his understanding of the topic with this definition ..."science is the belief in the ignorance of experts".

 

Here is the Feynman Lecture on "science":

What Is Science?