Re: Sci Am proposes SR wrong and Aether exists

Joe Fischer wrote:
> >This is another problem with modern physics, which I addressed in my
> >paper. There are multiple definitions for the same word, allowing
> >physicists to jump mindlessly between the different meanings and come
> >up with the nonsensical theories we see today.
>
> Mass is the ONE thing that is measurable, the one thing
> that can have physical attributes, the one thing that is real,
> that exists, that actually is.
> It is the -- QUANTITY -- of matter, a material thing,
> in a universe of material things made up of mass and energy,
> energy essentially being matter in motion.

You still don't get it? You are using two different definitions of
mass in the same sentence and not recognizing your error. When mass
has a quantity, i.e. it is a measurement, then it is called a kilogram,
gram, or some similar unit. It is the kilogram that is measureable,
not the dimension of mass. The dimension of mass is merely the quality
of the kilogram, not the kilogram itself. It is the *kilogram* that is
the QUANTITY, not the *dimension* of mass.

> >****http://www.thefreedictionary.com/dimension
> >di·men·sion n.
> >1. A measure of spatial extent, especially width, height, or length.
>
> Does not apply to mass.
>
> >2. Extent or magnitude; scope. Often used in the plural: a problem of
> >alarming dimensions.
>
> Does not apply to mass.
>
> >3. Aspect; element: "He's a good newsman, and he has that extra
> >dimension" William S. Paley.
>
> Does not apply to mass.
>
> >4. Mathematics
> >a. The least number of independent coordinates required to specify
> >uniquely the points in a space.
> >b. The range of such a coordinate.
>
> Does not apply to mass.
>
> >5. Physics A physical property, such as mass, length, time, or a
> >combination thereof, regarded as a fundamental measure or as one of a
> >set of fundamental measures of a physical quantity: Velocity has the
> >dimensions of length divided by time.
> >****
>
> Does not apply to mass, ---- Try using a physics
> text instead of web baloney, the internet will be the
> downfall of civilization if everybody takes this approach.

For your information, the so-called "web baloney" is the American
Heritage Dictionary. It is wikipedia that will be the downfall of
civilization, not the peer reviewed reference books.

As for using physics texts, it depends on which one you choose to read.
Physicists are the greatest abusers of language when it comes to
describing reality. For example, in a section of dimensional analysis
we are taught "Dimensional analysis expresses a particular physical
quantity in terms of its fundamental dimensions." We are then shown an
example where energy is dimensionally equal to mass times length
squared divided by time squared. Thus mass is clearly shown to be one
of the dimensions in dimensional analysis, but when we look at the
definition given for mass, it is said to be the quantity of matter.
This is clearly a confusion of the two different definitions of mass;
the definitions of mass as dimension and mass as measurement.

> Promote your book, talk about the weather, anything,
> but quit bothering practicing physicists with such confusion
> as mass being anything other than the quantity of matter
> as measured in it's own rest frame.

No thanks, I would rather stick with the precision of science. I don't
agree that practicing physicists should be allowed to intentionally
confuse physics by naming two different concepts with the same name and
then arbitrarily interchanging the two different meanings without
alerting the reader.

I am interested in truth, not artificially propping up Einstein's
Special Relativity theory with smoke and mirrors.

Dave

.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: can someone explain the candela a little?
    ... >> dimensions of physical quantity. ... > There is no such thing as the 'fundamental dimension' ... commonly time, length, and mass. ... authority in physics but there *does* remain some need for us mortal ...
    (sci.physics.research)
  • Re: Sci Am proposes SR wrong and Aether exists
    ... > Mass is not, length and time are. ... This is another problem with modern physics, ... reviewed literature that mass *is* a dimension in physics. ... The same goes for charge as dimension and charge as measurement. ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)
  • Re: Experimental Evidence for Special Relativity
    ... that when photons fall under gravity they gain energy. ... There are two methods of measuring mass you either measure the ... without the aether - which you agree does not exist - ... Even sillier physics then decided it ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)
  • Re: Photon, Momentum, Mass
    ... say the same laws of physics apply in all inertial frames of referenec (ie ... "Waldron developed a ballistic theory of light on his own before learning that Walter Ritz had already done it at about the time that Einstein developed his 'Special Relativity'. ... The idea of light separating from the source at different speeds in different FoR is what causes Doppler shift in SR. ... He writes "If a body takes up an amount of energy E then its inertial mass ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)
  • Re: Nobel Prize for David Thomson?!
    ... >> energy in a given mass. ... There is no energy in a given mass! ... mass is merely a dimension. ... mass in physics is not a dimension. ...
    (sci.physics.particle)