05RestMass

According to relativity, the difference between relativistic (or kinetic) mass and rest (or invariant) mass is

velocity. If you travel at near-c, your mass increases as a result of an increase in velocity. Had you stayed

on Earth, your mass would have remained more or less the same: what relativists call ‘rest’ mass.

Fortunately, Baez’s Physics FAQ clarifies the differences between these qualifiers ‘once and for all’:

“

The invariant mass of a particle is independent of its velocity v, whereas relativistic

mass

increases with

velocity… At zero speed, the relativistic mass is equal to the

invariant mass…

For example, when

physicists quote a value for ‘the mass of the

electron’ they mean its

invariant mass… The invariant mass

is therefore often called

the ‘rest mass’ ”

[

]

Relativists are in effect saying that, since the Earth moves at a certain velocity with respect to Jupiter,

your body can be regarded as part of the mass of the Earth. Hence, your dynamic mass with respect to

Jupiter is variable (relativistic mass) whereas your stationary, velocity-free mass with respect to Earth is

not (rest or invariant mass).

But this is not altogether true. Relativists are insinuating that your weight on Earth is a measure of your

‘rest’

or 'invariant'

mass, meaning the mass that doesn’t change, because it purportedly doesn’t move,

meaning

‘

quantity of matter

’ (wink, wink, nudge, nudge). What else can the concept ‘rest’ mass refer to if

not

‘quantity of matter?’ What does

the word

‘rest’ refer to from a conceptual point of view if not to a still

image? What

do relativists really mean, if not quantity of matter, when they say:

“ The rest mass or invariant mass is an observer-independent quantity.”

[

]

When an object is standing absolutely still, for instance in a photograph, in a single frame of the

Universal

Movie

, the quantity of matter (i.e.,

the

number of indivisible particles that comp

se it) at that

nstant has to

fixed (invariant). We are not weighing it or applying any force to measure its inertia. We

are just staring

an object frozen in time. From a conceptual point of view, it has to be co

nstituted by

certain number of

fundamental particles (if as quantum argues particles underlie matter and there is an

indivisible unit of

matter).

However, not a single

in any equation of Mathematics, whether relativistic,

quantic, or classical,

represents the unfathomable notion of quantity of matter. The mass that every

mathematician from

Newton onwards used has always been a dynamic quantity known as inertia, a

concept that embodies

motion. The way in which we determine inertia is by applying a force to the test

object. Do relativists

measure the invariant mass of the electron by counting the number of its

subcomponents? No. They

calculate the mass of the electron after taking measurements of parameters

such as force and

energy

, all

of which embody motion.

[

]

Then

they compare this measurement against

the variable known as

Grand

So, which parameter is it that changes when your weight varies between two static locations (e.g., resting

on a mountain versus resting in the valley)? Is it velocity or the quantity of matter? We know that inertia

has changed because so says the scale and because it now takes a different amount of force to dislodge

you from your position. But which of the constituents of inertia changed?

The change in inertia would seem to be a result of neither velocity nor quantity of matter. What has

changed is the separation between you and the center of Earth or other objects in your vicinity. It isn’t

(dynamic)

distance

traveled

that has changed. It is just (static)

distance

. The change in inertia has to do

with gravitational force, and force has two components, one of which is mass (f = m a). This takes us back

to square one. Relativists invoke the word

mass

to explain why mass changed.

(

Actually, gravitation is

not

a result of force, but o

tension

)

Therefore, the problem with relativistic mass is that the explanation is circular. Relativistic mass has a

velocity and a quantity of matter component. Relativists ask you to believe that if you travel at just below

your mass increases as a result of velocity. We have no trouble understanding and accepting this

argument. The Vikings already knew that they would have to rush the castle door if they wanted to break

down. Relativists have not discovered anything new under the Sun. They are just rephrasing the

centuries-old wisdom. It is the other predicament that is unclear, the notion that relativistic mass without

velocity is equal to rest or invariant mass. What is ‘rest’ mass without velocity if we need velocity to

determine rest mass? We need to apply a dynamic force to measure the mass (i.e., inertia) of an object ‘at

rest.’ Force requires acceleration and acceleration embodies velocity.

Relativists insinuate and would like you to think that velocity-free mass is equivalent to quantity of matter.

They attempt to convince you that rest mass is mass without motion (i.e.,

only

quantity of matter):

“ [Rest mass] is just that part of the energy of a body which is not kinetic energy. Mass

independent of

velocity whereas energy is not.”

[

]

However, Taylor and Wheeler just finished knocking down such a

preposterous idea

. This leaves only

one

other possibility. Relativistic mass is simply faster moving mass than rest mass. A couch potato

staring at

a TV already has

velocity

embodied in the gravitational acceleration of Earth.

Does this mean that there is no difference between rest and relativistic mass?

Actually, yes, there is no difference. If you stand absolutely still on the surface of the Moon, your ‘rest’

mass

will be lower than if you stood absolutely still on the surface of Earth. The reason for this is that the

Earth is

a larger celestial object than the Moon. Irrespective of where you stand

'still,'

you are necessarily

farther

away from the center of Earth than from the center of the Moon. The issue of rest versus relativistic

mass is

just a matter of degrees

(

Fig.

)

. It doesn’t address any fundamental question of Physics. The

differences

simply come down to weight at different gravitational potentials.

Adapted for the Internet from:

Why God Doesn't Exist

Rest mass is another way
relativists have of saying
relativistic mass

Fig. 1 Rest versus relativistic mass

order to have true,

genuine,

unadulterated rest mass (i.e., velocity-free mass) we have to deal with

units of

matter. If invariant mass is that which doesn’t change irrespective of location, then this term can

refer only

to the quantity of matter of an object.

However, u

nder this ‘amount of substance’

proposal

, we

would not

say that 1

gram of mass moved. We

would say that 100 units of matter moved. Now there is no

ambiguity in

the

relativistic versus rest mass

debate. If an object travels at near-c and a relativist alleges

that mass

increases,

from a conceptual point of

view, either the number of units comprising it or the speed

of the

entire object

increases. It can be no other.

So which is it going to be?

Taylor and Wheeler answer that the number of units don't increase:

" The concept of `relativistic mass' is subject to misunderstanding... it makes

increase of energy of an object with velocity or momentum appear to be

connected with some change in internal structure of the object."

[

]

Relativists may insist that mass and weight are two different concepts. Weight is affected by its location

with respect to the center of Earth. Mass is not. For example, if

Le Grand Kilo

is taken to the top of Mount

Everest, its weight changes, but not its internal physical structure. What we did was affect its velocity

component (or potential energy). Or perhaps we changed its relativistic or kinetic mass. Who knows?

This argument has no merit whatsoever. The concept mass embodies

both

quantity of matter AND velocity

taken as a whole. Inertia is a parameter that is specified without regard to its individual components. The

stupid mathematicians have never devised a method to separate these factors and never will. It is not in

their interest to do so.

Quantity of matter

is a concept that would irrevocably destroy all contemporary

religions of Mathematical Physics. Hence, whenever the weight of an object is measured

anywhere on

Earth, we have measured its mass and still have no clue regarding how much matter it

contains or what

its

composition is. When the object changes locations, its weight changes but so does its

mass because

determine its mass by measuring its weight. The mathematicians

assume

that the

quantity of matter of

the

object remained constant and that what changed was its velocity or distance or

energy or whatever,

but

they have never figured out a way to isolate quantity of matter! Using the

mathematical methods and

definitions in effect today

we cannot say that the mass of

the

object did not

change because, in fact, it did.

Relativists may argue for another two hours that what changed is the distance or the velocity and not the

structure or composition of the test object.

However, we never established the internal structure of the object to begin with! Relativists cannot tell us

how many units of matter an object has before we start the experiment. So, what are relativists referring to

when they say that the internal structure or composition of the object didn’t change? Do they, perchance,

count the number of atoms in Le Grand to come up with the kilo

before they take it up the mountain

? Do

they determine the mass of the top

quark by counting its subcomponents or analyzing its internal

architecture? No. They determined the mass

of the top quark by accelerating a particle, smashing it to

pieces, and comparing the weight of the debris

(actually the ‘energy’ needed to accelerate the quark) to a

pre-established standard. What is this pre-

established standard? Why non other than

Old Unfaithful

: Le

Grand Kilo! Any way we look at it, we cannot

remove velocity from mass if we are going to determine

mass

through measurement.

There is no such monster as rest mass except in the minds of the stupid

morons of

Mathematical Physics!

If, instead, we were privy to the unit of matter, it would be a

piece of cake

just to aggregate these particles

express the mass of any object. We could just say that Object A is made of one trillion units of matter

and

thus put the relativistic debate on

sound footing. Even a baby understands that a bigger

beach

castle

requires more sand. It would now be easy to explain whether the SR equation ‘predicts’ that inertia

increases as a result of

speed

or of more matter. The question before us would be simple. Were more

particles created from the void or does the object just exert more pressure because it is moving faster?

This

is what people really want to know. The mathematicians can save themselves the trouble of

explaining what

the observer measured because this argument implicitly assumes motion and brushes

aside the crucial

‘quantity of matter’ component. By introducing ad hoc qualifiers

such as

relativistic

and

invariant

, the

idiots

of relativity

have not resolved anything.

They have simply divided the old concept of

inertia into two

more

unnecessary categories just to accommodate their theories and to confuse

themselves and their

audience.

No madam! Yours is not
relativistic mass. It is
definitely inertial mass! Now
please be so kind as to
reimburse me for the scale
you flattened in my shop!

Relativistic mass is simply faster
moving mass than rest mass.
Rest mass embodies the velocity
implied by gravitational
acceleration (9.8 m/sec2).
Relativists cannot sift quantity of
matter from rest mass because
they determine mass through
measurement and not by
counting particles. Measurement
is a dynamic activity!