Neomechanics of Mass/Energy Transformations

Blog 20140114

Bob de Hilster writes: 

I have attached a document that includes the reason mass increases with an increase of energy.

[GB: See the Wikipedia document below.]

Mainstream believes that E = mc2 is true even if it has no basis in nature.

[GB: Sorry, Bob but that equation is true and has plenty of confirmatory evidence to back it up. I understand your frustration with it. You can only understand its “basis in nature” by analyzing the situation in terms of matter and the motion of matter as I did in:

Borchardt, Glenn, 2009, The physical meaning of E=mc2 ( http://www.scientificphilosophy.com/Downloads/The%20Physical%20Meaning%20of%20E%20=%20mc2.pdf ): Proceedings of the Natural Philosophy Alliance, v. 6, no. 1, p. 27-31.]

If you add energy to an object, the mass must increase.

[GB: You cannot “add energy” to an object (microcosm). The best you can do is to allow the transfer of external motion to become internal motion within the microcosm. The internal motion accelerates the submicrocosms within the microcosm, producing an increase in momentum for the submicrocosms. The submicrocosms then impact the microcosmic boundary, counteracting the force of whatever supermicrocosm is being used to measure mass. Remember that mass is the resistance of an object to acceleration. You may be mistaking mass for matter. While the total matter and motion in the universe is constant (The Fifth Assumption of Science, conservation (Matter and the motion of matter can be neither created nor destroyed)), the mass of each microcosm is constantly changing. This is because all submicrocosms within microcosms are amenable to impacts from supermicrocosms and are, in turn, amenable to contributing some of their submicrocosmic motion across the microcosmic boundary to supermicrocosms in the macrocosm. That sentence will not seem contorted once you understand neomechanics. It is the essence of neomechanics that makes mass/energy transformations simple once you break them down to interactions involving matter in motion. What makes the lesson difficult is the required change in philosophy in which one needs to relinquish the energy concept and adopt the aether concept.]
Or maybe if you add energy, mass stays the same and energy is still there.

[GB: You have learned your regressive physics well. It is common to treat energy as though it were an object. That was Einstein’s most important mistake. Please reread:

Borchardt, Glenn, 2011, Einstein's most important philosophical error, in Proceedings of the Natural Philosophy Alliance, 18th Conference of the NPA, 6-9 July, 2011 ( http://www.worldsci.org/pdf/abstracts/abstracts_5991.pdf ), College Park, MD, Natural Philosophy Alliance, Mt. Airy, MD, p. 64-68.]

From Wiki[1]:

1. Add compression or expansion to a spring, its mass increases.
2. Add heat to an object its mass increases.
3. Add spin to a ball and its mass increases.

So, if I take a spring and use one Newton of force to accelerate the spring, it will have a given velocity.

[GB: True.]

If I take that spring and compress it, and accelerate it using one Newton of force, it will have a lower velocity.

 [GB: False. Acceleration always increases the velocity of a microcosm.]

Hence more mass.

[GB: True. In neomechanics, acceleration always increases mass. This is because the collision required for acceleration transfers some external motion of the collider to the insides of the collidee. Ideally, mass would remain constant when velocity remains constant during inertial travel through perfectly empty space.]

I don't think that is true. But who has done the experiment?
Who has heated an object and checked its velocity?

[GB: Bob, I think you mean mass instead of velocity. The Wikipedia quote[2] only mentions mass. They give an excellent example involving the effect of temperature on the mass of the kilogram used as the metric standard.]

Who has measured the mass of a ball that is spinning?

Just because energy is added, (energy being a human invention), does not mean that mass has increased.

[GB: Bob, I completely understand your reluctance to believe the claim that “energy” can increase mass. As happens so often in regressive physics, this is an example of what I call an “Einsteinism.” An Einsteinism is a statement or prediction that is true, but for the wrong reason. You are correct that energy is a human invention. In fact, “energy” is a mere calculation. Being neither matter nor the motion of matter, energy can do nothing at all. We can only understand the claims and the supporting data by evaluating them in terms of matter and the motion of matter. Each of the Wikipedia examples involves an acceleration, which requires a collision that not only changes the velocity of the outsides of things, but also changes the velocity of the insides of things (see the Neomechanics chapter in TSW for further details). In light of this, it is sometimes helpful to substitute the word “motion” for the word “energy” in trying to understand mass/energy discussions. Beware, however, that “energy” tends to be an errant mistress just like the other matter-motion terms, force, momentum, and space-time.[3] Each of these tends to be objectified as you did when you wrote that “energy is added.” Not being an object, energy cannot be added to anything. The correct visualization is the transfer of motion from one thing to another.

Note that Wikipedia finally mentions its typically reworded belief in the Fifth Assumption of Science, conservation (Matter and the motion of matter can be neither created nor destroyed). That’s right. An accelerated microcosm may gain mass (via absorption of internal motion), but it will lose the same amount of mass upon deceleration (via emission of internal motion). All we are doing here is transferring motion from place-to-place. No matter or motion is being harmed in the process.

Also note that it is often claimed that an object gains mass simply by traveling at high velocity in perfectly empty space. This is false. In perfectly empty space, it is not the velocity that causes an increase in mass, but the process, acceleration, by which that velocity is attained. Acceleration always requires a collision from a faster microcosm. The presence of aether changes the situation. At "constant" velocity, collisions with aether particles would tend to cause deceleration and a temporary temperature and mass increase similar to what occurs when a space capsule enters the atmosphere.]

Rev. 20140403

[1] Whenever energy is added to a system, the system gains mass:
·         A spring's mass increases whenever it is put into compression or tension. Its added mass arises from the added potential energy stored within it, which is bound in the stretched chemical (electron) bonds linking the atoms within the spring.
·         Raising the temperature of an object (increasing its heat energy) increases its mass. For example, consider the world's primary mass standard for the kilogram, made of platinum/iridium. If its temperature is allowed to change by 1°C, its mass will change by 1.5 picograms (1 pg = 1 × 10−12 g).[36]
·         A spinning ball will weigh more than a ball that is not spinning. Its increase of mass is exactly the equivalent of the mass of energy of rotation, which is itself the sum of the kinetic energies of all the moving parts of the ball. For example, the Earth itself is more massive due to its daily rotation, than it would be with no rotation. This rotational energy (2.14 x 1029 J) represents 2.38 billion metric tons of added mass.[37]
Note that no net mass or energy is really created or lost in any of these examples and scenarios. Mass/energy simply moves from one place to another. These are some examples of the transfer of energy and mass in accordance with the principle of mass–energy conservation.

[2] Ibid.

[3] Borchardt, Glenn, 2011, Einstein's most important philosophical error, in Proceedings of the Natural Philosophy Alliance, 18th Conference of the NPA, 6-9 July, 2011 ( http://www.worldsci.org/pdf/abstracts/abstracts_5991.pdf
 ), College Park, MD, Natural Philosophy Alliance, Mt. Airy, MD, p. 64-68.


Post a Comment

Thanks so much for your comment. Be sure to hit "Preview" to see if it will publish correctly. Then hit "Publish". Include your email address if you wish to receive copies of your comment as well as all other published comments to this Blog.

For those having trouble getting this comment section to work:

Nitecruzr writes:

[FAQ] Why can't people post comments on my blog?

The Blogger / Google login status, and the ability to post comments, is sensitive to both cookie and script filters. Your readers may need to enable (stop filtering) "third party cookies", in their browser and on their computer. The effects of the newly unavoidable CAPTCHA, and the Google "One account" login, requires third party cookies, even more than before.




Third party cookies filtering, in a browser setting, is the most common solution, overall - but your readers may have to search for other filter(s) that affect their use of Blogger / Google.

Any filters are subject to update, by the creator. If the problem started a few days ago, your readers may have to look on their computers, and find out what product or accessory was updated, a few days ago.