Adapted for the Internet from:

Why God Doesn't Exist

    1.0   Mass increase is the result of energy increase

    So? What should we conclude with respect to the claim of mass increase? What does the Special
    Relativistic equation say or ‘predict’? Is it the velocity or the quantity of matter that increases when an
    object travels at near-c?

    We discover that in the perfectly exact science of Mathematics everyone reaches different physical
    interpretations and they are all correct. Relativists dismiss challenges to their mathematical theory as
    ‘philosophy’, but they are the ones who attempt to give physical (qualitative) interpretations to
    (quantitative) equations in the first place.

    It seems that there are three possible interpretations for the phenomenon known as mass increase:  

    a.       If what Special Relativity predicts is that the traveler experiences no change in inertia, then
    relativistic mass is merely a cosmetic effect and my arguments against it are the same I raised with
    length contraction. Relativists don’t need to know Mathematics to reach such self-evident
    conclusions. They can drink a keg of beer or experience a nightmare and everything can just as
    well look bloated to some and thinner to others. We don’t need velocity to arrive at the erroneous
    impression that objects just seem to be heavier. Personal opinions, mirages, appearances, and
    the like have no place in Physics. This topic is best raised at the insane asylum or at the local AA.

    b.       If SR’s equation predicts, instead, that the object has greater inertia as a result of velocity or
    location, then relativists have discovered nothing new under the Sun. Newton already showed
    this almost 400 years ago with his 2nd Law. The force equation (F = m * a) implies that if we
    increase the speed of the object (i.e., accelerate it), the object will exert greater pressure on things
    it comes in contact with.

    c.       However, if the SR equation predicts that the traveler acquired more substance, then yes, this
              does concern Physics. The first task required of relativists would be to explain the mechanism
              by which this supernatural phenomenon comes about. What is it about speed that makes a boy
              fatter? Next, they should immediately notify dietitians and nutritionists to advise their clients to
              avoid fast cars and balloon rides.

    It turns out that the argument of relativity is yet a fourth one. They claim that the increase in mass with
    velocity is a consequence of an increase in energy:

    “ [Einstein] did not introduce the notion that the mass of a body increases with velocity
        — just that it increases with energy content.” [1]

    Here is the testimony of someone who personally verified this statement at the accelerator:

    “ Another interesting consequence is that as you continue to add energy to a particle
       travelling near light speed, the particle stores this energy as an increase of mass
       rather than an increase in velocity. Protons entering Fermilab’s Tevatron with 150
       billion electron volts (GeV) of energy are already travelling at 0.99998 times the speed
       of light and have a mass of about 150 times their rest mass. When they leave, the
       energy and mass have increased by a factor of more than 6, while their speed has
       barely changed.” [2]

    Hence, according to relativists, it is not the object’s quantity of matter, its distance, or its velocity which
    changed. It is its energy content, whatever that is.


    2.0   Energy increase is the result of an increase in momentum

    The energy argument opens up a whole new can of worms because it brings in two inconsistent and
    undefined words to explain relativistic mass increase: momentum and energy. Think of momentum as
    motion of an object at a particular moment in time:

    “ how much something moves (how much momentum is transferred)” [3]

    The scary part is when the mathematicians conceive of motion without an object. In their words, an
    object may have motion (momentum) and yet no substance or body (mass):

    “ while photons have no mass, they do possess momentum.” [4]

    “ photons have momentum without having mass! This is how they can push things
       around, they transfer momentum… This is how a solar sail works. Photons transfer
       some of their momentum to the sail” [5]

    “ Light is composed of photons, so we could ask if the photon has mass.  The
       answer is then definitely 'no': the photon is a massless particle.  According to
       theory it has energy and momentum but no mass... light carries momentum
       and will exert pressure on a surface. This is not evidence that it has mass
       since momentum can exist without mass.” [6]

    “ If the photon had a small rest mass, the SI definition of the metre would become
       meaningless because the speed of light would change as a function of its
       wavelength.” [7]

    “ If the rest mass of the photon was non-zero, the theory of quantum electrodynamics
       would be ‘in trouble’ ” [8]

    Relativists had to concoct such absurdity to bring the photon in line with their equations. They had to
    postulate that light has zero mass for else the Lorentz-Fitzgerald equations would run into trouble. But
    then, the mathematicians also need the particle of light to have some kind of mass to knock electrons
    from polished metal during the photoelectric effect [9] or when it causes pressure on a surface. [10]
    Ergo, for this segment of the presentation, the mathematicians invented relativistic mass. They did not
    justify the added pressure with the 'quantity of matter' of the photon. They justified it with its momentum.

    By introducing the undefined word momentum and pegging the vague concept energy to momentum,
    the mathematicians get ever deeper into the labyrinth of circular definitions. The presentation begins
    with an equation that represents the energy of a particle in its frame of reference:

                                                          rest mass         +   relativistic mass

             E ²     =         (mrest * c ²) ²        +          (p * c) ²

    [Do not panic if you are weak in Math. Bear with me for a moment because this is not
      as bad as it looks. We just need to grasp it conceptually.]

    Here, E is energy, mrest the rest mass of the particle, p is momentum, and c is the velocity of light. What
    the relativists did is modify Einstein’s famous (E = m c²) equation. They separated mass into two types:
    rest mass (mrest) on the left and relativistic mass (mrel) [embodied in momentum (p = mrel v * c)] on the
    right. So here are our two scenarios.


    a.   Mass without mass: Setting the first term of the expression to zero

    This first scenario depicts what happens to a particle with no mass (zero rest mass), but which
    nevertheless has motion (relativistic mass), in other words, the photon. The mathematicians
    invented the idiotic term 'rest' mass, to confuse themselves and the lay public.  The term 'rest'
    mass is just another unnecessary concept that means what the word mass alone has always
    meant since the days of Newton. The mathematicians invented rest mass to contrast it with
    relativistic mass, which is supposed to be energy:

    " Relativistic mass is a measure of the energy E of a particle, which changes
       with velocity... Relativistic mass is equivalent to energy" [11]

    By 'energy,' the mathematicians insinuate and want you to believe that there is no physical body;
    just motion!!! That's what the euphemism 'energy' stands for today: something that exists, but
    which does not have shape. The focus is on motion and not on architecture. Energy is all verb
    and no noun. That's why the mathematicians absolutely love the word. Mathematics is exclusively
    a language designed to describe dynamic phenomena.

    So now  If you set the rest mass (mrest) to 0, the entire first term on the right of the equal sign          
    (mrest * c²)² goes to zero, and you end up with the remaining second term ( p * c )²:

              E ²      =          (mrest c ²) ²        +    ( p  c )²

        =               0                 +   ( p  c )²


          or          E       =               (p)  c    

        =    (mrel * velocity of object)    *    c

    In other words, you end up with momentum (p) times velocity of light c. Momentum is mass (mrel)
    times velocity. So we took all this trouble to argue that we got rid of mass only to wind up again
    with mass! This is the point in the presentation where the mathematician casually points you to
    the fine print: relativistic mass is really energy.

    Therefore, the official view is that there is such a thing as velocity or acceleration without quantity
    of matter, or motion without a physical object! The mathematicians are saying that there is jump
    without the boy. They call this magical entity a photon. Since the photon is alleged to have no rest
    mass, the photon can never be at rest. If it did, the photon would be a total non-entity: no rest or
    relativistic mass.

    " the relativistic mass is just equal to the rest mass if the particle is not
       moving" [12]

    " When the particle is at rest, its relativistic mass has a minimum value
       called the 'rest mass' mrest... " [13]

    So the photon was declared to have no rest mass, but infinite relativistic mass. A photon is pure
    energy (whatever that is). Rest and relativistic mass are simply the two ends of a scale of mass
    that goes from zero motion to the velocity of light. Again, the qualifier 'relativistic' addresses no
    fundamental issue of Physics. In fact, it doesn't concern Physics at all.


    b.   Velocity without velocity: Setting the second term to zero

    In the alternative, we can set the second term in the expression to zero. The physical meaning
    that the mathematicians insinuate is that the velocity of the object is zero. The object is not
    moving. Therefore, the momentum expression ( p c ) on the right goes to null and again we end
    up with mass, but this time around, with ‘rest’ mass:

             E²       =          (mrest c ²) ²        +    (p c)²

    =           (mrest c² )²         +      0

         or          E        =            mrest c²          [Einstein’s famous formula: e = mc²]

    But as I just said, there is no such thing as rest mass. Motionless mass is an oxymoron, a self-
    contradiction. We measure mass (or calculate it after taking a measurement)! Mass is inherently
    a dynamic parameter.

    Thus, irrespective of whether we set rest mass (mrest) or momentum (p) to zero, we always end
    up with mass in the remaining term. Relativists have not gotten rid of mass! Their explanation of
    why mass increases due to an increase in momentum is essentially a roundabout way the
    mathematicians found of saying that  relativistic 'mass increase' is caused by an increase in
    mass!

    All of this mathematical and word wizardry comes in very handy to a mathematician because he
    can now get away with telling you that if we set mass to zero, the energy is still greater than zero.
    When you ask how this is possible since energy and mass are identical, he tells you that what
    increased is the momentum (Wink, wink! Nudge, nudge!). And when you insist and tell him that
    momentum requires mass, he outflanks you once again and replies that a photon doesn’t really
    have mass. It has energy, you know... relativistic mass (Wink, wink! Nudge, nudge!). If you didn’t
    give up by then, I have to wonder which of the two of you is the real moron: the idiot you have in
    front of you or you who are still paying attention to this idiot.

    The energy and momentum arguments don’t tell us what increased during the alleged ‘mass
    increase’ phenomenon of Special Relativity because it all comes down to a game of synonyms.
    Mass is another form of energy, but energy can increase without an increase in mass. We just
    need to increase momentum. Isn’t momentum just mass times velocity? Not really. A photon has
    no mass, yet it has energy. By increasing its energy we increase its momentum. This explains
    why mass increases. Got it?

    To summarize, when invoking energy and momentum, the mathematicians are attempting to get away
    with, on the one hand, mass without mass and, on the other, with velocity (c) without velocity. They
    insinuate and want you to believe that energy can be without mass in the all-motion scenario (E = p c)
    and without motion in the rest mass scenario (E = m c ²):

    •        mass without mass:

    “ Question: Wait a minute...photons don’t have any mass, do they? How can
         they have momentum?

        Answer: Photons don’t have mass, but they do have energy – and as Einstein
         famously proved, mass and energy are really the same thing. So photons have
         momentum”  [14]

    [Oh, I get it! Photons don’t have mass but they have energy which is the same thing
     as mass. No Bill! You got it wrong! Photons have momentum…But doesn’t
     momentum have mass? No. Momentum has energy which is the same thing
     as mass… Uh duh!]

    •        motion without motion

    “ Considering an object at rest, the momentum p, in the first equation above, is
       zero, and we obtain E²  =  (mc²)², which reduces to E = mc² suggesting that
       this last well-known relation is only valid when the object is at rest, giving what
       is known as the rest energy.”  [15]

    Rest energy? That sounds like standing still while walking. Energy is a dynamic concept. It embodies
    velocity of light. It better be dynamic.

    But what is ‘rest mass’ if not a euphemism for ‘quantity of matter’? First, there is no such thing as rest
    mass. Mass is a dynamic concept. We can easily deduce this from the equation:

    mass = energy/(velocity of light)²      (or, if you prefer, from       mass = force/acceleration)

    There are no concepts in Mathematics that are static. Math has no use for them. Math is a discipline
    that exclusively studies dynamic concepts. But assuming we accept the rest mass proposal, we are
    back to the number of units that comprise the object. What else is rest mass if not an insinuation of
    quantity of matter which Taylor and Wheeler have debunked? The mathematicians get tangled in their
     own semantics.

    Thus, it seems that, until we figure out what this mysterious word energy means, we can make no
    further progress in our understanding of relativistic mass or momentum. Specifically, we have to
    decide once and for all whether it makes sense to say that a particle can have 'energy' yet no mass.


    3.0   The punchline

    Before we do, let’s finish this section with a punch line. Mathematical physicists hold that the photon
    is a particle without structure or mass, yet somehow this non-entity moves. What is yet more difficult
    to imagine is the process by which the photon suddenly acquires three dimensions:

    “ in quantum theory, particles can be created out of energy in the form of
       particle/antiparticle pairs.” (p. 129)  [16]

    “ quantum theory predicts that the opposite process is also possible: photons
       hitting photons can produce matter!” (p. 859)  [17]

    So! How does the photon do it? How does a ‘particle’ lacking shape and which carries no ‘weight’
    spontaneously acquire length, width, and height and morph into a physical object having weight?
    Certainly, you will never read the details of this process in any specialized journal of Physics.
    Science and Nature are too busy publishing important stuff like time travel, teleportation, black
    holes, P-branes, and virtual particles.

    But if the mathematical photon's mass and structure are amusing, the mathematical momentum is
    absolutely hilarious. The mathematical physicists have played around so much with their ridiculous
    concepts that they ended up converting the verb momentum into a noun. They postulated that the
    concept momentum itself (i.e., the motion of an object) comes in discrete packages:

    “ all quantum systems unaffected by a 360º rotation must have angular momentum
       only in integer units of h/2pi. This is called the quantization of angular momentum,
       and it is one of the most fundamental results of quantum mechanics.” [18]

    “ ħ may be said to be the ‘quantum of angular momentum’.” [19]

    The mathematicians are saying that momentum has shape! They perceive momentum to be
    ‘something’ that may stand alone. Quantum momentum comes in units like candies or beads. The
    people at the Math Asylum believe that they can chop the verb jump into discrete little hops! Now it
    is momentum itself which moves, and we can get rid of mass altogether.
SR says that mass
increases due to an
increase in mass
Rapunzel, Rapunzel,
I offer you all the energy in my
quantum heart,
the rest mass of the photons that
reach my eyes when I see you.
Our life will be filled with
relativistic momentum.
Those are just empty words of
Mathematical Physics, Bill!
All you have to offer me are a bunch of
abstract concepts. I'm through with you!
I'm taking back my hair!
Charming Bill
realizing that in order to conquer Physics he
cannot continue proposing concepts
You see, Bill? In
Mathematical Physics,
we divide our jumps
into little hops.
1 jump = 8 hops?



    ________________________________________________________________________________________


                                  Home                    Books                    Glossary            




        Copyright © by Nila Gaede 2008