1.0 A mathematician wants you to believe that mass is the quantity of matter an object has
When most people hear the word mass, they think of quantity of matter or amount of substance. Indeed,
this is how most dictionaries and websites define mass.
- “ The quantity of ‘matter’ contained in an object.” [1]
“ An object’s mass is its amount of matter.” [2]
“ Mass is a property of a physical object that quantifies the amount of matter it
contains.” [3]
These notions convey the idea that we’re talking about the number of particles or units comprising an
object. Of course, this is what mathematicians insinuate and want you to believe, and that’s why so
many of the definitions of mass say ‘quantity of matter’. The most prominent example is the fact that
your weight at the North Pole is not the same as your weight at the equator:
- “ Although gravity at the earth’s surface is nearly constant, it does vary slightly
with location, which means that objects do in fact have slightly different weights in
different places.” [4]
The mathematicians explain that, despite a difference in weight, the amount of substance in your body
remains the same:
- “ whereas mass is an inherent property of a body, weight (w = mg) is the product of
mass m by the gravitational acceleration g (this formula is a special case of Newton’s
second law), and therefore depends on the strength of gravitational acceleration to
which a body is subjected. The weight of a body would therefore be less at the top of
a mountain than at the mountain’s foot.” [5]
“ The only simple way to alter your gravitational mass is to eat more or less.”
(p. 24.) [6]
Therefore, the mathematicians believe, openly state, and want you to believe that mass means quantity
of matter.
2.0 Quantity of matter, we count; mass, we measure!
Unfortunately, the experts have already debunked the quantity of matter version of mass.
- “ Nature does not offer us any concept as ‘the amount of matter.’ History has struck
down every proposal to define such a term. Even if we could count number of atoms
or by any other counting method try to evaluate amount of matter, that number would
not equal mass.” [7]
Taylor and Wheeler argue that temperature, packing density, radioactive decay, and motion affect the
masses of objects and have thus rendered the term 'quantity of matter' illusory and useless.
The mechanics at the popular Physics FAQ at Riverside act as if they didn't listen when they hear this.
They don’t want to listen to news that spoils their theories. They act as if ‘rest mass’, which they tacitly
equate with ‘quantity of matter,’ is alive and well. [8] [9] [10] Spill is one who urges the mathematicians
to use relativistic mass because it is a conserved quantity:
“ in a given inertial frame that relativistic mass is the measure of total amount
of matter” (p. 41) [11]
- [NO! It's not!]
The total amount of matter is not a magnitude we determine through measurement. The total amount of
matter is a number we count to. From a conceptual point of view, we need to establish a unit of matter
and count these units. If we cannot do this, we must abandon forever the notion of quantity of matter
and talk strictly about inertia. The idiots of Mathematics have opted to be pragmatic. They want
something they can use. Thus, they propose that we determine quantity of matter an object has by
weighing the thing. I have no problem with this horse shit. I have a problem with them trying to convince
the public and each other at all costs that this magnitude is the quantity of matter of the object!
3.0 The hydrogen atom cannot serve as the unit of mass
You may propose that, perhaps, we could use hydrogen as the unit of matter and calculate mass in
terms of this tiniest of atoms. Thus, we could say that a table has 1 gazillion atomic units, meaning that
its mass is equivalent to 1 gazillion hydrogen atoms. We could also say that a uranium atom has a mass
of 92, meaning that it is comprised of 92 hydrogen units.
Unfortunately, this proposal wouldn’t work because relativists and mechanics are tailors and not
accountants. Relativists are in the measurement business and not into keeping books. They have no
use for kindergarten blocks. They don’t count units. They determine the magnitudes of parameters such
as mass, energy, speed, and momentum by measuring. The mathematicians are also not in the business
of explaining. They do all this mathematical footwork just to describe. The mathematicians use the word
mass to do calculations, not to tell you the underlying reason an elephant weighs more than an ant.
They would rather spend two hours telling you that the ant has more mass than the elephant if you just
accelerate the ant fast enough. That’s the type of idiotic topics the mathematicians spend their ‘valuable’
time on. That’s the ‘research’ your tax dollars end up funding.
The reason relativists reach such appalling conclusions regarding mass increase is that they take
measurements instead of counting units. The religion of Mathematical Physics deals exclusively with
magnitudes and not at all with counting:
The main reason for choosing measurement over counting is that it is impossible to count units of matter
even in the favorable case where we could determine the unit of matter precisely. For instance, imagine
counting the number of subcomponents of an object. Should we count a hydrogen atom, which has a
mass of 1, the same as a uranium atom, which has a ‘mass’ of 92? A substance made of 100 atoms of
uranium would be almost 100 times more massive than a substance made of 100 atoms of hydrogen.
So what's wrong with measurement? The mathematicians seem to have done okay with this activity.
Let's just continue measuring!
Well, not so! Here's an example. If our particle guys are correct, the hydrogen atom and its only proton
have masses of 1.673 x 10-27 kilograms and 1.672 x 10-27 kilograms respectively. This means that a
proton accounts for almost 100% of the weight of a hydrogen atom. A proton is said to be made of three
quarks, one of which is the top quark. So far, so good!
But then, the accelerator guys tell us that a top quark has been unequivocally measured to be as heavy
as a gold atom (3.3 x 10-25 kilograms) which, as the exponent indicates, is 200 times heavier than the
hydrogen atom! [13] [14] [15]
- “ Quarks are one of the basic building blocks of everything in the universe – including
protons, neutrons and other subatomic particles that make up the nuclei of atoms…
The top quark has the mass of an entire gold atom…credit for the discovery will go to
440 physicists who are members of the Collider Detector Facility (CDF) experiment at
Fermilab.” [16]
- [What is really shocking is that it took a team of over 400 ‘experts’ to come up with such
an idiotic conclusion!]
So what meaning can the word mass have after such a stunning conclusion?
Let me run all that by again in slow-mo in case you missed it. The Standard Model of Particle Physics
states that a proton is comprised of three quarks, each of which is several times more massive than the
proton! This is like saying that an apple has three seeds each of which weighs more than the apple. This
is the lunacy that the mathematicians have come up with after spending millions of tax dollars smashing
particles in their stupid accelerators. This is not the belief of one deranged individual. It took a total of
440 morons from all over the world to discover this breathtaking ‘fact’ of nature. Such are the theories
that circulate in the forbidden corridors of venerable places like CERN and SLAC. Nobody questions
such hogwash anymore because quantum is a beautiful theory and it is mathematically correct and has
been experimentally verified countless times and was devised by the brightest minds on Earth. The
Standard Model has so much authority behind it that it would be sacrilege to even question this holy
body of knowledge. What would the slightest doubt say about this decades-old particle model in terms
of the lost man-hours otherwise?
Again, the source of such ridiculous notions is language. The mathematicians did not determine that a
quark is 200 times heavier than an atom by counting the number of units that comprise a quark. They
determined this by measuring the ‘energy’ they needed to accelerate this particle. The people at SLAC
synthesize the heart of the ‘matter’ for us:
- “ Instead of using kilograms to measure mass, physicists use a unit of energy – the
electron volt.” [17]
- In other words, the particle mathematicians want you to believe that mass is a synonym of energy. This
is what they tell you informally, but not what they publish officially. The mathematicians talk about mass,
meaning kilograms, but in scientific journals they display their results in electron volts (energy). So, if
energy is a synonym of mass, the facetious way in which I present their findings should not offend them.
It is consistent with their claim that each quark is more massive than the gold atom that contains it! What
meaning can such idiotic statement have? This has meaning only at the Funny Farm of Mathematics!
- So we cannot use the hydrogen atom as a unit of mass, but perhaps we can suggest a hypothetical
indivisible particle and use it to talk about quantity of matter. For example, let’s propose the electron as
the unit of matter. The mechanics should not voice too many objections because the electron is deemed
to be an elementary particle (i.e., indivisible). [18] Under this proposal, a muon would be comprised of
207 units of matter, [19] a proton would consist of 1836 units of matter, [20] and so on.
This proposal creates a serious problem for the mechanics. It would now be ridiculous for them to claim
that a quark has 200 times more units of matter than the hydrogen atom it forms a part of. All that work
of 440 morons for who knows how long for nothing! If a hydrogen atom is comprised of one proton
(1836 units) and one electron (1 unit), the quark that constitutes the proton cannot itself be comprised
of (200 x 1837 =) 367,400 units of matter! Now you see why the idiotic particle mathematicians prefer to
talk in nonsensical ‘energy/mass’ terms rather than in rational units of matter. The notion of ‘unit of
matter’ would absolutely destroy the irrational claims of Quantum Mechanics. And this alone explains
why at the dawn of the 21st Century the mechanics are still struggling with the formidable word mass.
| Adapted for the Internet from: Why God Doesn't Exist |
| Mass is NOT quantity of matter |
| Innocent Bill |
| taking a bite from the wrong fruit |
| No wonder the apple was so heavy when it fell on my head! |
| You see, Bill. The seed weighs more than the apple. |
- Module main page: Mass confusion
Pages in this module:
- 2. SR's massive definitions of mass
3. This page: Mass is NOT quantity of matter
4. Quantum ‘predicts’ the existence of a unit of matter!
5. Rest mass is another way relativists have of saying relativistic mass
6. SR says that mass increases due to an increase in mass
7. Mathematical physicists have no idea what energy is
- ________________________________________________________________________________________
- Copyright © by Nila Gaede 2008