Matter-motion Terms in Physics

Blog 20160420 Matter-motion Terms in Physics

Matter-motion terms represent essential calculations describing the motion of matter. Without the calculation of “momentum,” “force,” and “energy” much of physics would be impossible. Nonetheless, these terms containing a symbol for matter and a symbol for motion are often misused. Momentum (P=mv), force (F=ma), and energy (E=1/2 mv2 or E=mc2) neither exist nor occur—they are only calculations. The misuse is due to many factors. It involves general sloppiness induced by shorthand use over time. It involves the necessary contradiction between reality and ideality, an affliction especially common to those who use mathematics. Above all, it involves the great philosophical struggle between materialism and immaterialism.

Remember that the First Assumption of Science, materialism (The external world exists after the observer does not) implies that the world consists only of matter, an abstraction for “all things” having xyz dimensions. Immaterialists, of course, do not agree. They have a tendency to hypothesize “things” that do not have xyz dimensions. In their minds, momentum, force, and energy have a kind of objective existence. That is why regressive physicists speak of the “four fundamental forces” and of “dark energy” as if those were actual things. In popular culture, General Dodonna of Star Wars hopes that the “Force” may be with us as if the “Force” could protect us by looking over our shoulder or we could carry it with us for self-defense.

All in good fun, but this gets to be serious in the usual misinterpretation of the E=mc2 equation.[1] In this, “mass” supposedly turns into “energy,” which flits off into empty space. The idea behind the equation was first mentioned by Newton[2]:

 Note that Newton hereby uses “corpuscles of light” in much the same way that “energy” is used in the modern misinterpretation. The correct interpretation is rather simple: What actually happens is that internal, submicrocosmic motion of the atom transfers to supermicrocosms in the macrocosm.[3] What are those supermicrocosms? Aether particles, of course, which provide the medium for the transmission of the motion in the form of waves.

In reviewing the history of the equation, Auffray[4] frankly states: The discovery of the mass-energy relation E=mc2 cannot properly be attributed to Albert Einstein.” Although many others had suggested the relationship from classical principles, the formal discovery was made by Henri PoincarĂ©, a famous physicist, who presented the equation as m=E/c2 in 1900. This was five years before Einstein used it without attribution in his (failed) attempt to derive it by using Special Relativity Theory.

Although the interpretation is usually messed up, the E=mc2 equation proves to be correct whenever atomic fusion or fission occurs. The equation has nothing whatsoever to do with relativity. Its association with Einstein is just an unfortunate product of regressive propaganda. This is especially important since Steve Bryant showed relativity to be both invalid and unnecessary.[5]

That goes for General Relativity Theory as well. If any matter-motion term is to be associated with Einstein, it is the concept of “spacetime.” Without spacetime, there would be no Big Bang Theory—the hypothesis that the universe is expanding away from us in all directions would be obviously absurd. In neomechanics, we assume that space is matter and that time is motion. This means that, like the other matter-motion terms, spacetime neither exists nor occurs. The demise of relativity will be followed by the destruction of the Big Bang Theory and its replacement by Infinite Universe Theory.

[1] Rothman, Tony, 2015, Was Einstein the First to Invent E = mc2?:  [http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/was-einstein-the-first-to-invent-e-mc2/]. (After much pandering, Rothman concludes that the answer is: NO!)

Bodanis, David, 2000, E=mc2: A biography of the world's most famous equation: New York, Walker & Company, 337 p.

[2] Newton, Isaac, 1718, Opticks or, a treatise of the reflections, refractions, inflections and colours of light. The second edition, with additions. By Sir Isaac Newton (Second ed.): London, Printed for W. and J. Innys, printers to the Royal Society, 382 p. [http://books.google.com/books?continue=http%3A%2F%2Fbooks.google.com%2Fbooks%2Fdownload%2FOpticks_or_A_treatise_of_the_reflections.pdf%3Fid%3DTwhbAAAAQAAJ%26output%3Dpdf%26hl%3Den&id=TwhbAAAAQAAJ&q=queries#v=snippet&q=query%2021&f=false].

[3] Borchardt, Glenn, 2009, The physical meaning of  E=mc2, in Proceedings of the Natural Philosophy Alliance, Storrs, CN, p. 27-31 [10.13140/RG.2.1.2387.4643].

[4] Auffray, J. P., 2006, Dual origin of E=mc2:  [arxiv.org/pdf/physics/0608289].

[5] Bryant, Steven B., 2016, Disruptive: Rewriting the rules of physics: El Cerrito, CA, Infinite Circle Publishing, 312 p. [http://www.amazon.com/Disruptive-Rewriting-physics-Steven-Bryant/dp/099624090X].


Bligh said...

Mostly agree. But IF SRT is thought of as limited to 2, e.g. frames of reference, isn't it internally correct?
Assuming the SOL is constant and there is no simultaneity in the universe?

Bligh said...

Don't you agree that matter and motion require a substrate. I call it the universal field, you can it the ether.
In this case, isn't motion as real as matter?

Bligh said...

And Einstein probably heard E=mc^2 in Italy at his in law cousins house.

Glenn Borchardt said...

Matter and motion are two real phenomena. They have different characteristics. Matter exists, that is, it has xyz dimensions. Motion occurs, that is, motion is what matter does. Some indeterminists have considered matter to be real and motion to be unreal. That is where the matter-spirit dichotomy arose in dualistic philosophy.

All this follows from the Fourth Assumption of Science, inseparability (Just as there is no motion without matter, so there is no matter without motion), which I explained in detail in “The Ten Assumptions of Science” and the 3rd chapter of "The Scientific Worldview."

Thus, the “substrate” for motion is matter. That is why, in neomechanics, we assume that the field you speak of consists of aether particles that form the medium for light transmission. Above all, the field is not “immaterial” as Einstein erroneously assumed.

It is somewhat ironic that to understand inseparability, one needs to think of matter and motion as separate concepts, which, in reality, they are not. Inseparability seems to be almost impossible for many people to understand due to long exposure to regressive propaganda.

Here are some simple questions to ask yourself when learning inseparability: Where is the matter? How is it moving with respect to other matter? Where is the motion occurring? What is it that is moving?

Glenn Borchardt said...

Mathematical derivations may be internally consistent, but they do not necessarily have anything to do with the real world. Good examples of this are string theory and relativity.

henk korbee said...

If time is motion what is then the meaning of Time times Velocity equals distance? How can one recognize matter without motion?