# Re: Re: [4DWorldx] Is mass mental or physical ?

```Hi Anna

Of course.

Dr. Roger B Clough NIST (ret.) [1/1/2000]
See my Leibniz site at
```

----- Receiving the following content -----
From:  Anna
mindbr...@yahoogroups.com,4dworldx,theoretical_physics_board
Time: 2013-11-08, 23:52:10
Subject: Re: [4DWorldx] Is mass mental or physical ?

>First of all, there is no evidence that any strings exist. So, the question of
>mass is irrelevant, unless for the string theoretician. The theory requires
>that strings have mass, but where is the proof?  Mathematical proof is not
>enough.
>Anna
>
>From: Roger Clough
>Sent: Friday, November 08, 2013 5:36 AM
>To: everything-list ; mailto:mindbr...@yahoogroups.com ; 4dworldx ;
>theoretical_physics_board
>Subject: [4DWorldx] Is mass mental or physical ?
>
>
>
>I need some help.
>
>Yesterday I  made the claim that strings
>are massless and so are nonphysical (mental, by my definition).
>But you can show theoretically that strings have mass, based on
>line tension and other variables. So is mass physical ?
>
>Unless I am mistaken, mass is always defined in terms of other variables,
>much like in a dictionary words are defined in terms of other words..
>For example, m = E/c^2, where E is energy and c is the speed of light.
>But energy is the ability to do work, which in turn is defined as
>W = F*d, where F is a force moved through distance d. But
>Force is mass*acceleration. So we are back wihere we started,
>since m =E/c*2.
>
>To me this means that we must empirically define some force
>like the weight of a selected and saved lump of lead as say a Newton of force,
>and a length given by some metal rule to be saved, and proceed from
>there.
>
>To me this means that all physical variables are actually nonphysical
>(theoretical or mental).  Which is the basic foundation of idealism or
>platonism.
>Everything, even mass, is mental in the sense of being theoretical
>or mathematical. Is this correct ?
>
>Dr. Roger B Clough NIST (ret.) [1/1/2000]
>See my Leibniz site at