Following on from my previous post, it can now be seen that
mass is just a property of matter, a property like length or
weight or viscosity. You cannot have a cup of length and you
cannot have a cup of weight. Properties are what philosophers
call accidents as distinct from substance. And accidents are
optional not essential. A substance might have colour or it
might not. A totally transparent substance like the kind of
high quality glass they use in optical cables does not have
colour but it is obviously substantial.
The fact that mass is a property is clearly shown by projecting
1000 protons and neutrons at high speed in an accelerator.
Unlike the loaves and fishes, the protons and neutrons do not
multiply. Protons and neutrons do not breed like bunny rabbits.
It is a dimensional property that increases, not a number.
Essentially, this is no different from the temperature of
Columbia increasing on re-entry - albeit an increase on a
very different scale.
To ease the pain your head, Richard <grin>, I should point
out that you can think in terms of Inertia rather than Mass
if you like. I've googled the following definitions for you. 8-)
========================================================
The unit of measure for Inertia is the same as for mass.
Typically it is expressed in grams or kilograms.
The equivalence of mass and inertia seems to hold true
according to all empirical evidence. In theory at least
they are sometimes regarded as being separate qualities.
--------------------------------------------------------
PHYSICS. The tendency of a body to resist acceleration;
the tendency of a body at rest to remain at rest or of
a body in straight line motion to stay in motion in a
straight line unless acted on by an outside force.
========================================================
Now I feel it is easy to regard a "tendency" as a property even
it is paradoxically "expressed in grams or kilograms."
So we can see that
Mass x Velocity = a constant
really is a Boyle's type of law and essentially
no different in system terms from:
Pressure x Volume = a constant
Pressure and Volume are three dimensional properties,
Pressure internal, Volume external.
Mass and velocity are one dimensional properties,
Mass internal, Velocity external.
It might help to write the mass term in the conservation
of momentum equation as an inverse velocity.
Mass x Velocity = a constant
1 x v
--- --- = a constant
v 1
One can now visualize the first v, which is the mass v,
as below the surface, as hidden within the body, the v that
only Superman with his X-ray vision can discern.
In contrast, the second v, the velocity v, is in plain view
above the surface and can be seen by every Lois Lane.
But how is this all going to fit together numerically?
Ah!!! That is were things really become interesting.
What one has to realise is that we measure time globally but
we measure length locally.
Time is merely change. If we measured time locally then we
could move time backwards. A room which is untidy can be
tidied up - restored to its original state. As far as those
changes are concerned, that "Local" time, that domometric
time variable, time, local time that is, has gone backwards.
One can widen the scope of these time reversals, these UNDO
key presses as wide as the reach of our control. However,
unless we control the whole Universe, what we can't do is
to press the Universal UNDO key. We cannot go back in Global
or Universal time. And even if we could it would be a futile
exercise unless we were careful to make sure that our
personal UNDO key was disabled.
To sum up then. We can go back in lower case time but we
cannot go back in UPPER CASE TIME.
Now we normally regard time as UPPER CASE TIME. We only
think about lower case time when we have a German prisoner
of war, put him into a deep sleep, arrange things like
papers, broadcasts, etc. to make him think that he has been
a coma for 6 months, and then wake him up, tell him the
war is over and inveigle him into revealing vital information.
I suppose the reverse technique would be to arrange for
someone who really has been in a ten year coma to think that
he has only been asleep for 48 hours, say.
So much for time. Now in the case of Length precisely the
opposite condition holds. If I tell Dr. Macauley to walk a
distance of 10 yards down the road then I am referring to
local space, to local length. In global terms he has gone a
distance of 10 yards plus or minus whatever distance the
ground under his feet has gone in the same time. In solar
system terms.....In galactic terms.....In groups of Galaxy
terms ....In Universe terms.
I'm sure you get the idea and can see that Mac can no more move
backwards in UNIVERSAL SPACE than he can in UNIVERSAL TIME.
Now the question arises:
What space does the property of Mass relate to?
Consider a simple example where two spaces are conveniently
separated namely the sea below and the air above. A wind is
blowing and a there is a strong offshore current in opposite
directions.
A yacht straddles the two spaces with its underwater sail
(its keel)in the water and its above surface keel (its sail)
in the air. If it lowers its sail the keel dominates and it
moves with the current. If it raises its sail the wind
dominates and it moves with the wind.
Which mediums, which aethers (for they are legion) is the
property of mass moving with - or rather, like the sailing
boat, which set of aethers is a body with the property of
mass,in equilibrium with.
If I give body a velocity of 10 ft/sec I am merely giving it
an offset velocity of 10. I don't know what the absolute
velocity of that body is any more than someone raising the
temperature of a gas from 0 to 100 degrees Celsius knew what
the absolute temperature was in times of yore.
Now, I believe that mass is a manifestation of some arbitrary
movement through one of the many aethers. And because it is as
arbitrary as the number of days in the year, say, that is why
no one has yet understood what mass is - why the mass of the
various bodies that make up tangible matter have the values
they do.
Furthermore, since momentum is a vector, a body can have
energy (momentum squared) without having inertia (the algebraic
sum of momentums)
I think I've said quite enough. I'll now power up VISIO and
prepare a simple illustration of momentum exchange between
two bodies for the next post to Vortex.
Cheers
Grimer
======================================================
The reason, of course, is that scientists do not
recognize the vacuum as a source of energy. They
tell us that the vacuum is, in simple words, a mere
�nothing�, but yet they teach by reference to
textbooks which declare that the vacuum has a
magnetic permeability expressed as �o of value 4p
10 -7 henries per metre and a permittivity 1/�oc 2
of 8.854187817x10 -12 farads per metre. How can the
vacuum, as a medium devoid of matter, be said to
have such curious properties if it is a mere nothing?
- Aspden -
======================================================
