1.0 Let's clean up this mass
The mathematicians may not appreciate my frankness, but it is not my criticism that is misguided. It is that
my arguments ridicule and embarrass the scholars. Yet they had it coming. It is not me, but the scholars who
propose fantasy and then boast that their physical interpretations are founded on faultless Mathematics. It is
they who claim that their theories are correct and cannot be challenged. This does require that someone
wake them out of their idiocy with a pail of icy water.
The issue before us (mass increase) has nothing to do with measurement or with Mathematics. It has to do
solely with definitions and logic. So why do relativists bring equations into the discussion? What does
adding more clay to a statue have to do with the speed at which it travels? The mathematicians are again
comparing apples and oranges. But assuming a statue magically gains more matter by moving faster what
does this have to do with Math? We simply need to explain the physical process by which the statue
acquired more clay through speed. Conversely, if the amount of clay of a speeding statue remains the same,
the phenomenon known as mass increase is just an issue of measurement and perceptions. So what
importance does the special relativistic claim have in Science? The Vikings already knew that they would
have to storm the castle door if they wanted to break it down. They didn’t go to college to learn that.
The mathematicians have never defined the word energy and not one relativist can tell you what energy is.
Indeed, they can't for the simple reason that energy is not a physical object. We cannot see energy because
it never stands still. You can at best watch a movie of energy. Nevertheless, until the prosecutors of relativity
define this enigmatic word unambiguously, they should not be allowed to use it during a scientific
presentation. The scientific method absolutely requires rigorous definitions of the crucial words that make
or break your physical interpretation. Otherwise, what has the juror understood?
Energy can be either a concept or an object, but not both within the same presentation. If energy is a
concept (ability, capacity, field, motion) or a synonym of nothing (vacuum, space), the Special Relativistic
explanation for mass increase is irrational. We cannot and do not physically increase the amount of a
concept like we increase the amount of clay added to a statue. The mathematicians in fact do define energy
as a concept, or make it a synonym of nothing. Thus, mass increase due to an increase in energy amounts
to an increase in nothing or of an abstract concept. What meaning can such nonsense have? Relativists
haven’t explained anything. All that they have done is describe another of their observations in terms of a
language practiced by the tiny, global, mathematical claque. A description alone does not constitute
Science, but, more to the point. The mathematicians have simply used another explain-it-all,
supercalifragilistic word and learned absolutely nothing.
2.0 The Neutrino
In fact, one of the predicaments of the contemporary Standard Model serves as our punch-line. In 1930,
Wolfgang Pauli proposed a hypothetical particle called the neutrino as a way of explaining the missing
energy in a phenomenon known as beta decay. Unfortunately for Pauli, the Standard Model predicts that
neutrinos have zero mass.
- “ the Standard Model predicts that neutrinos have no mass! Ettore Majorana,
showed that neutrinos with mass are possible, providing that the neutrino is
its own antiparticle. But the current Standard Model forbids such ‘Majorana
masses.’ ” [1]
- As always in the mathematically exact religions of quantum and relativity, one idiot says one thing and
another one says the opposite and no one seems to tell the difference or care:
- “ the Standard Model itself does not ‘predict’ one way or another whether
neutrinos have mass - this one of the many parameters of the model which
must be input by hand…A truly complete theory would predict the masses
of the elementary particles rather than requiring them as inputs.” [2]
“ The basic Standard Model of particle physics assumes that the neutrino is
massless” [3]
Like photons, neutrinos would be pure energy: all motion (relativistic mass?) and no substance. You
cannot detect a zero mass object because by definition it would never register a bleep on your
impactometer! The mechanics concede so much when they admit that the neutrino interacts ‘poorly’
with matter. [4] In spite of these predictions, the mathematicians are busily trying to show that the neutrino
acquires mass by interacting with the Higgs field, an ocean of particles of mass!
- “ Particles acquire their masses through an interaction with a hypothesised
particle known as the Higgs boson” [5]
“ Oscillation is the changing back and forth of a neutrino’s type as it travels
through space or matter. This can occur only if the neutrino possesses mass.” [6]
Therefore, the particle called a neutrino was invented to explain beta decay, and the possibility that it has
mass is just speculation. No one has ever seen or photographed a single neutrino. No one has ever
‘weighed’ one of these elusive critters. Somehow (perhaps through friction with the mass-less momentum?)
the Higgs transfers the concept mass to the neutrino.
So what do we really have in Mathematical Physics? We have particles of mass, discrete packets of concepts
known as energy, and bits and pieces of sliced up momentum. What’s next? Particles of love and justice?
| Adapted for the Internet from: Why God Doesn't Exist |
| Mass conclusions |
| You see my dear. In the old days people thought that the Holy Spirit caused these things. Fortunately, we’ve moved beyond superstition. We now know that the increase in mass you are experiencing is caused by indulging in a very fast life. |
| Massive Bill |
| counseled by the priests of relativity |
- Module main page: Mass confusion
Pages in this module:
- 2. SR's massive definitions of mass
3. Mass is NOT quantity of matter
4. Quantum ‘predicts’ the existence of a unit of matter!
5. Rest mass is another way relativists have of saying relativistic mass
6. SR says that mass increases due to an increase in mass
7. Mathematical physicists have no idea what energy is
8. This page: Mass conclusions
- ________________________________________________________________________________________
- Copyright © by Nila Gaede 2008