PSI 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.