Mass and Temperature

Bob de Hilster writes to NPA members:

I have long thought that mass did not change with velocity. Until I find a physical cause that explains how velocity changes mass, I am not convinced. Yet there are many people who are convinced that velocity does change mass.

About a year ago I was reading Glenn Borchardt’s book, “The Scientific World View”. On Page 139 he states: This increase in motion is measured as an increase in mass. For example, a hot teakettle has more motion and weighs more than a cold teakettle.” Well I’m not buying it!

So I sent Glenn an email and we exchanged more emails. I saw him at the NPA 18 conference in College Park MD, and I opened a discussion about this idea. Can heat or motion increase the value of mass? I was still of the opinion that mass does not increase. We ended cordially, agreeing on some vague concept of force.

Well it is one year later, and I have been having some dialog on the internet about mass increase with velocity. This got me back to Glenn’s statement. Then I had the idea that mass could increase because of thermal expansion rather than velocity.

Motion causes mass increase

Glenn’s book was saying that motion was the cause of mass increase. I could not make this work with the concept of gravity that I was using. My concept of inertia is that the instantaneous forces of gravity constantly cause the water molecule to accelerate and then decelerate in all directions. Inertia will keep the water molecules moving. The fact that they are moving faster will not increase the mass unless there is drag. That’s why I could not agree with his explanation.

Thermal Expansion

So I went to my physics book and found that objects expand when they are heated. What if the molecule of water expanded and gave a larger target for the force of gravity. Most text books indicate that it is the spacing between atoms that expand. Maybe it is the atom itself that is expanding. OK, now I am in deep trouble because I cannot prove this.

However the expansion occurs, if the percent of interaction increases, the mass will increase. I have an equation for the force of gravity. It includes mass and an interaction factor that calculates the percent of force that is applied as the gravity forces pass through an object. But which is it? Does the mass change or does the probability of the interaction increase?

We can test this idea here on earth and show that mass increases with temperature. But the answer still eludes us. In cosmological terms, we assign mass to the sun and the planets because of the relative motion. Whether there is a sun that is very hot or a moon that is very cold, doesn’t matter. We attribute a value of mass so that we can describe the motion of the planets around the sun.

Regardless, I am of the opinion that mass increases with temperature because of thermal expansion rather than motion (velocity).

Mass versus matter

Now I am in more trouble. I am going to say that mass is related to the interaction of the force of gravity with the object. If matter is the sum of all the atoms, then matter may not change when the tea kettle is heated, while the mass could change.

Bob:

Thanks for your perceptive thoughts on the reasons for the increase of mass with velocity.

Remember that the Fourth Assumption of Science is inseparability, “there can be no motion without matter and no matter without motion.” Contrary to Einstein, we assume that all matter has mass. Obviously, if we had zero mass, we would have zero motion and vice versa. The reason I put “connection” in quotes above is to reiterate that there is no “physical” connection between matter and motion or mass and temperature. This is because temperature, like motion in general, is not a microcosm. A microcosm has xyz dimensions and location with respect to other things. Temperature, like other types of motion, does not exist, it occurs. Temperature is not “part” of the universe, it is what the various parts do.

You mentioned force as if it was a thing. Force actually is a calculation, a matter-motion term. Force neither exists nor occurs. When we write: F=ma, we are writing a statement about the microcosm (m) and its motion (a). Despite the confusion engendered by regressive physics, there are no forces. There is only matter in motion. The “force” of gravity is a description of the collision of one type of microcosm with another. Indeterminists objectivise force (see: http://www.worldsci.org/pdf/abstracts/abstracts_5991.pdf) because, like Einstein and other positivists and operationalists, they do not know what is doing the colliding. In UCT, Steve and I dispense with “force,” hypothesizing, instead, that aether_-1 particles are responsible for the gravitation most obvious to us. Giving up “force” makes us look for that which is doing the “forcing.”

Having gotten that out of the way, let’s return to temperature. The temperature of a microcosm describes the motion of its internal submicrocosms. When you touch a hot tea kettle, some of those submicrocosms collide with your skin, transferring some of their motion to your skin. If those submicrocosms were not in motion, you would never get burned. And, as mentioned, if those submicrocosms were not in motion, they would have no mass (because you cannot have matter without motion). Similarly, the microcosm itself would have no mass if its submicrocosms had no mass. This is why matter is defined in neomechanics as that which contains other matter, ad infinitum.

In elementary school, we have been taught (usually by indeterminists) that mass is unchangeable, but with matter in motion that is never the case. Einstein’s take on it was that mass could be converted to “pure energy,” when the E=mc² equation merely describes the transformation of one kind of the motion of matter into another kind of the motion of matter. The pure energy part of it came about because, in denying the aether, there was nothing to transfer the “lost” motion to. See: http://scientificphilosophy.com/Downloads/The%20Physical%20Meaning%20of%20E%20=%20mc2.pdf

The mysterious “energy” just flipped into space as a wave in empty space or as a “massless” photon.

When we measure mass, we must weigh a microcosm in a gravitational field. Here, we depend on the collisions of aether_-1 particles with baryonic matter to produce the measurement that we call mass. There is no possibility for the object being measured to be isolated. The very act of measurement requires that the object be a microcosm, which by UD definition, always must have a macrocosm. In this case, the macrocosm includes the supermicrocosms (aether_-1 particles) necessary for the measurement to take place. The dynamic univironmental interaction between the microcosm and its macrocosm is anything but constant. That is why no two measurements of the mass of a particular microcosm are ever identical—mass is never constant. The collisions between aether particles and submicrocosms within microcosms produce accelerations and decelerations. For particularly “tight” microcosms this can result in an increase in internal temperature despite the usual leakage of some of the imparted motion to the macrocosm. In effect, this increased motion of the submicrocosms causes them to impact aether_-1 particles with increased velocity, which amounts to an increase in resistance. And that is exactly what mass is, the collidee’s resistance to a change in acceleration produced by a collider. The increased velocity of submicrocosms also can be observed as an increase in expansion, as the walls of the microcosm and the macrocosm yield to the impacts. Nevertheless, I don’t think that an expanded microcosm has more mass than a non-expanded one. If that were the case, a helium balloon would gain mass with altitude. The submicrocosmic cross section (the exposed area of the submicrocosms) would not change, so I doubt that there is any scientific evidence for that.

What many of us object to is Einstein’s assertion that an object at a high velocity would magically have more mass than the same object at low velocity. He gives no physical explanation, just some imaginative mathematics. Of course, he can’t give the physics because his assumed macrocosm is empty space. However, when space is filled with aether particles, a high-velocity microcosm must encounter more aether particles per unit of time than does a low-velocity microcosm. There are two effects experienced by the high velocity microcosm: 1) it tends to slow down due to the interaction with the macrocosm, just as the space shuttle slows down when it encounters the atmosphere on re-entry; 2) it heats up, expands, and gains mass as its submicrocosms are accelerated by the impacts, as explained above.

So, Bob, it looks like we are on the same page with regard to changes of mass with temperature. The number of atoms in a microcosm need not change to get an increase in mass—only their velocities.

Censorship in Regressive Physics

PSI Blog 20120118 Censorship in Regressive Physics

As expected, we have had some recent negative critiques by various modern physicists on the Amazon website where UCT (see below for acronyms) is sold. So far, none has been substantial—mostly just complaints about TTAOS. These exchanges remind me of the one that was related by John Chappell as #3 in the founding principles of the NPA:

"#3    DO NOT ASSUME THAT IF SPECIAL RELATIVITY WERE INVALID, THIS FACT WOULD LONG AGO HAVE BEEN DISCOVERED WITHIN ESTABLISHMENT PHYSICS.

The reason it has not been is that almost everyone with a sufficiently bold and critical view of the subject to develop sound arguments against SR has not been allowed to flourish within the establishment. Great numbers of reliable accounts of such intolerance have been told.

One of the most recent comes from a new NPA member who, when doing graduate work in physics around 1960, heard the following story from his advisor: While working for his Ph.D. in physics at the University of California in Berkeley in the late 1920s, this advisor had learned that all physics departments in the U.C. system were being purged of all critics of Einsteinian relativity. Those who refused to change their minds were ordered to resign, and those who would not were fired, on slanderous charges of anti-Semitism. The main cited motivation for this unspeakably unethical procedure was to present a united front before grant-giving agencies, the better to obtain maximal funds. This story does not surprise me. There has been a particularly vicious attitude towards critics of Einsteinian relativity at U.C. Berkeley ever since. I ran into it in 1985, when I read a paper arguing for absolute simultaneity at that year’s International Congress on the History of Science. After I finished, the Danish chairman made some courteous remarks about dissidents he had learned about in Scandinavia, and then turned to the audience for questions. The first speaker was one of a group of about 4 young physics students in the back. He launched immediately into a horrible tirade of verbal abuse, accusing me of being entirely wrong in my analysis, a simplification of the Melbourne Evans analysis–”Evans is wrong; you are wrong,” he shouted. He accused me of being way out of line to present my “faulty” arguments on his prestigious campus. When I started to ask him “Then how would you explain…”, he loudly interrupted me with “I don’t have to explain anything.” The rest of the audience felt so disturbed by all this, that the question session was essentially destroyed."

As far as I can tell, the story above still is an accurate reflection on the deplorable state of physics at UC Berkeley, "the world's greatest public university." This hits me pretty hard since I was a visiting prof there in 1990, founded PSI in Berkeley, used UC libraries for researching TSW, and announced its publication there on March 13, 2007. That was the day Hawking gave his talk on his book, "A Briefer History of Time". All 3,800 freshmen were given free copies of the book by some kindly benefactor. They were supposed to read it during the holidays and get ready for the great man himself. A splendid gang of suits from the university guided him into Dwinelle Hall. Unfortunately, due to the deplorable state of his health, the entire presentation was just a recording--I didn't see him move more than a centimeter. To his credit, the recording did spend some time stumbling over what came before the Big Bang. About the only thing I got out of the whole thing was his quote from Woody Allen: "Infinity is a very long time, especially near the end." The questions and answers were also canned, so I never got a chance to ask him about the contradiction between the BBT and the First Law of Thermodynamics. He was quickly hustled out of the auditorium, surrounded by guards, so I never got the chance to give him my signed copy of TSW either.

I think the key to all this is John's implication that, like Woodward and Bernstein, all we need to do is "follow the money." One does not simply go to a Congress of indeterminists with hat in hand along with opposing assumptions that eventually will destroy their cherished, mutually agreed upon cosmogony. We should not kid ourselves. The monetary corruption in the electoral system also extends to our great universities. It is all bought and paid for.

What is to be done? We must realize that the revolution proposed by TSW and UCT requires great macrocosmic changes in society, which will come about very slowly. My prediction is that the BBT will be viable for at least another 30 years (TSW, p. 290). Our logic and their logic are founded on opposing assumptions. To the indeterminist, our assumptions make no sense; they are "delusional," "unbelievable," "crazy," "pseudoscience," and still to come: "crackpot." Regressive physicists have already conquered the intellectual (and financial) territory; now they only have to defend it. That's why they commonly say such things as "I don't have to explain it!" and "I don't have to read your unbelievable book!" Most are just repeating what Berkeley stuffed in their heads. What we must do is to continually point out the contradictions: 

1. How could the universe explode out of nothing?

2. How could there be more than 3 dimensions?

3. How can a thing or a motion be both a particle and a wave?

4. How can a photon be massless?

5. If time is not an object, how can it be said to dilate?

6. Add more here.

There will always be a few extremely curious, especially young physicists who are working on these contradictions. Like the graduate students who switched majors to something more believable, they will be the ones most likely to seek solutions outside the Ivory Tower.

References and Acronyms

TTAOS is:

Borchardt, Glenn, 2004, The ten assumptions of science: Toward a new scientific worldview, Lincoln, NE, iUniverse, 125 p.

TSW is:

Borchardt, Glenn, 2007, The Scientific Worldview: Beyond Newton and Einstein, Lincoln, NE, iUniverse, 411 p.

Hawking, S. W., and Mlodinow, L., 2005, A briefer history of time, New York, Bantam Books.

UCT is:

Puetz, S. J., and Borchardt, Glenn, 2011, Universal cycle theory: Neomechanics of the hierarchically infinite universe, Denver, Outskirts Press (www.universalcycletheory.com), 626 p.

Perpetual Motion Machines

Thanks to Marty Samson for the link to the perpetual perpetual motion machine debate at: ( http://www.scienceforums.net/topic/54128-continuous-frictioned-motion-machine/ ).

This is just the same old, same old. You see only subtle hints about what is going on behind the scenes here. It is the old battle between the deterministic Fifth Assumption of Science, conservation (Matter and the motion of matter can be neither created nor destroyed) and its indeterministic opposite, creation. Energy, once again, is being used here as the great obfuscator. As I explained in my E=mc² paper, energy is a calculation, a matter-motion term that is neither matter nor motion. Indeterminists, ever hoping for evidence of the creation of something out of nothing, readily jump on the PMM (perpetual motion machines) idea.

Lately, it has been the quest for “free energy.” However, all reactions, as assumed above, involve the transformation of one kind of matter in motion to another kind of matter in motion. Any “energy” discovered under that assumption will be no freer than the solar “energy” that our plants absorb each day. As you will discover in reading "Universal Cycle Theory: Neomechanics of the Hierarchically Infinite Universe," the macrocosm contains all manner of supermicrocosms (e.g., aether-1, etc.). These unseen particles have the potential to be involved in what many of our modern-day aether-deniers would consider “free energy” or contraventions of PMM. Of course, if it were not so obvious gravitational motion could be considered “free energy” too. What could be freer than the motion of a meteorite as it smashes any supposedly “isolated system” we could devise? Nonetheless, that possibly unexpected result would not be a falsification of conservation, the law that states that PMM cannot exist.

Scientism: Swear Words in the Philosophical Struggle

Scientism, defined as the belief that science is the only way to true knowledge, is in the Internet news again ( http://whyevolutionistrue.wordpress.com/2011/12/26/a-new-definition-of-scientism/ and http://machineslikeus.com/news/scientism-scientistic-belief  and http://scienceblogs.com/evolutionblog/2011/12/a_follow-up_post_about_scienti.php?utm_source=sbhomepage&utm_medium=link&utm_content=channellink for the standard deterministic opposition). From time to time indeterminists have used this epithet as a borderline ad hominem in the philosophical struggle between determinism and indeterminism. Determinists assume that all effects have material causes; indeterminists assume that some effects may not have material causes.

The anti-science argument encapsulated by the derisive appellation had some validity in the days of classical mechanics and classical determinism. Their underlying assumption of finite universal causality engendered hubris that failed whenever the promised complete answers were not furnished. Laplace’s Demon was not able to predict a single effect with the absolute precision demanded.

I predict that the 21^st Century form of determinism will be harder to slander in this way. This is because it is based on infinite universal causality (All effects have an infinite number of material causes), which is consupponible with the assumption of infinity (The universe is infinite, both in the microcosmic and macrocosmic directions). The hubris is removed with the equally consupponible assumption of uncertainty (It is impossible to know everything about anything, but it is possible to know more about anything). Univironmental determinism (What happens to a portion of the universe is determined by the infinite matter within and without) is at once the universal mechanism of evolution as well as the new scientific worldview.