Mass Relations

Discussion concerning the first major re-evaluation of Dewey B. Larson's Reciprocal System of theory, updated to include counterspace (Etheric spaces), projective geometry, and the non-local aspects of time/space.
Post Reply
User avatar
bperet
Posts: 1501
Joined: Thu Jul 22, 2004 1:43 am
Location: 7.5.3.84.70.24.606
Contact:

Mass Relations

Post by bperet »

I've been reading Gustave Le Bon's book, The Evolution of Matter, and in it, he argues the point that mass is invariant, stating that mass changes all the time, depending on heat, pressure, altitude, etc. and it is not mass, but weight that is invariant. I find this an interesting point, because in the RS, "weight" has units of t2/s2, which are units of momentum or as Larson puts it, magnetic charge--the magnetic rotation of the atoms. Le Bon also points out that mass is weight/speed. Looking at that relation, mass (t3/s3) = weight (t2/s2) / speed (s/t) -- correct units, but now including the precise units for magnetic rotating systems that define the atomic number, as an invariant of weight.

With a speed component identified as part of the structure of mass, let's look at the Lorentz factor:

\sqrt{1-\frac{v^2}{c^2}}

Like Larson, Le Bon uses unity as the speed of light, so there is no need for the c2 factor, which is a constant of normalization--not a speed! What I mean by that is when you normalize a value, you are converting it to a unit datum. v2/c2 is a way to make the speed of light = 1.0, like Larson uses. The denominator is a unitless constant. For example, if I have 1 apple and divide it into two, I have 1/2 apple: 1 apple / 2 = 1/2 apple. The Lorentz approach is to take 1 apple / 2 apple = 1/2 of nothing. This Relativistic fudge factor is not unitless--it has units of s/t, because "c" is unnecessary, and nothing but a normalization constant because of the use of arbitrary units, rather than natural ones.

This changes things a bit.. if you leave the proper units in place for your basic force equation, F = ma, you get Force = t/s2, the correct units of force. But if you use the relativistic form with proper units:

F (\frac{t^2}{s^3})= \frac{m (\frac{t^3}{s^3})}{\sqrt{1-\frac{v^2}{c^2}} (\frac{s}{t})}a (\frac{s}{t^2})

The resulting units for Force are actually those of Resistance!

Taking Le Bon's approach, where the speed of light is already unity:

F (\frac{t}{s^2})= \frac{W (\frac{t^2}{s^2})}{\sqrt{1-v^2} (\frac{s}{t})} a (\frac{s}{t^2})

Force still has units of force and the weight of the atom remains constant at all velocities, but the velocity component of mass diminishes with increased speed, giving the illusion of the mass approaching infinity, as the velocity approaches the speed of light.

Larson's view is that the acceleration that diminishes, not the mass increasing. But in Le Bon's approach, you don't deal with mass, you deal with a constant, atomic rotation (weight), acceleration and velocity to get effective force. Conceptually, it seems a better approach.
Every dogma has its day...
Post Reply