A Question of Mass

Written by Herb Rose on July 26, 2018. Posted in Current News

Man has been to the moon and discovered that it is not made of green cheese. Samples have been taken and the tests done on the structure of the moon which shows that it is very similar to the Earth.

It has a smaller core than the Earth and very little water but the rocks and minerals are similar to those found on the Earth. Why, then, is the density of the moon only sixty one percent that of the Earth?  One would expect that the Earth, with its large molten interior and water, would be less dense than the cooler moon since they are both made from similar materials.

A similar question arises from the observations made on Mars, which with its large iron content and little water should make it denser than the Earth rather than seventy one percent the density of the Earth.

The impact of the fragments of the Shumaker-Levy 9 comet with Jupiter (see above) threw debris high into the atmosphere which would not be the result if the fragments plunged into a gas giant that is only twelve and a half percent the density of the Earth. The red coloration on Jupiter and its large magnetic field indicate that Jupiter contains a lot of iron and is not composed of gases.

It seems apparent from the actual data gathered from the planets and the moon that the calculated mass of these objects does not agree with the reality. When observation and data disagree with theory then the theory needs to be changed to fit the data not preserved to maintain an aura of infallibility.

The accepted method of determining the unknown mass of a object is by data from its satellites. (The mass of the moon, Mercury, and Venus could only be determined in the late twentieth century when artificial satellites were launched around these objects yet the accepted mass of these objects is the same as the mass before these satellites were launched.)

The equating of momentum of a satellite, MsVs, to the force of gravity GMsMp/d^2 has the mass of the satellite on both sides of the equation so it can be condensed into Mp = (Vsd^2)/G. Is the claim that you are using the known mass of the Earth to determine the mass of the sun just a ploy to add credibility to the results, because the mass of the Earth is irrelevant? All objects at the same distance from a planet will travel at the same velocity regardless of their mass.

The only way to determine the mass of an object is to know the velocity of a satellite and how far it is from the object it orbits. Knowing the mass of the sun is of no use in determining the mass of the rest of the planets. In order to determine the mass of a planet all you need to know the velocity of one of its satellites and the distance it is from the planet.

It may seem strange that a mass can be determined by a velocity and an area but that is how it’s done. The universal gravitational constant, G, provides a way to convert the units of a volume divided by a time squared-mass into a force but when you equate that force with momentum the unit you get for the mass of a planet is kilograms-seconds. What is a kilogram-second?

This constant appears to be a contrived factor (What exactly is a volume over mass-time^2?) but I would not call it a fudge factor since fudge factor are usually minor adjustments made to results to conform with expectations and G is anything but minor. It is very small (6 X 10^-11) but when multiplying the further a number varies from the value of one, the greater the impact it has on the resulting product.

The value of G is determined here on Earth using the mass of the Earth and assumed to be universal but how accurate is our value for the mass of the Earth? The mass of the Earth was calculated within one percent of its current value in 1796, which is remarkable since at that time they didn’t have an accurate idea of the size of the Earth and didn’t know about its internal structure.

Today science has refined the value of G using the same method used in 1796 and using the same formula for gravity and we still have very little real evidence of the nature of the interior of the Earth to confirm its mass. Is the entire mantle composed of the same basalt comes from volcanoes? If the core is composed of molten iron wouldn’t the iron expand and be less dense than the value cited and used for the estimate of the mass of the Earth?

Considering the speculative and tenuous nature of the data that is the basis for determining G and the mass of the Earth (that is the foundation of all the calculations used to determine the mass of solar objects despite it being irrelevant), discrepancies with observations should be given more credence and the basic assumptions should be re-examined.

Recent discoveries have shown that the theory of gravity is incorrect and needs to be revised. There is no force of gravity, or force emitted by mass, and the current formula used to describe gravity is not correct.  When binary asteroids were discovered, where asteroids orbit other asteroids, it should have become apparent orbiting is not a function of mass. Both Newton’s and Einstein’s theories of gravity are wrong.

Physics need to stop being about trying to create things to make it so what they believe is right and start being about reality and observed data, changing theory to fit reality. A smart person uses their intelligence to figure out what the right answer to a question is. A fool uses their intelligence to figure out why their answer is right. Imagination may be a necessity for science fiction but reason is the basis of real science.

In science there needs to be a constant re-examination of current beliefs as new information is discovered and as discrepancies between theory and reality are discovered. Modifications of theory and old assumptions need to be made to explain these new discoveries. When an object falling off a cliff has an increase in kinetic energy you do not invent some magical invisible potential energy to explain it. When the mass observed in the universe is inadequate to explain the behavior of the universe you do not create invisible dark matter and dark energy to maintain a failing theory. Patching holes in failing patches is a futile effort that just postpones an ultimate collapse.

The concept of mass is out dated. Why doesn’t it seem odd that a proton and an electron have equal opposite charges and yet the mass of a proton is two thousand times that of an electron?

Matter does not have mass. What it does have are electrical charges and fields and what we call mass is how strongly these fields bind to other electric fields and energy fields. A proton binds strongly to an energy field because energy is attracted to positive matter causing it to be strongly bound to the energy field.

An electron is repelled by an energy field making for a weak electrical bond to another object. It is easy for an electron to become dislodged from an object and create a current while a proton is tightly bound to an object by the energy field and does not flow. Units are created when the energy fields of objects combine to form larger units. These units have there own electrical and energy fields which can combine with other objects to form larger units.

The size of an object is determined by its fields not its matter. Energy fields will expand until they meet an energy field of equal strength which they then combine with, forming a bond. In the asteroid belt the energy field radiating from the sun is weak enough for the energy field of an asteroid to expand, increasing its size. This allows some asteroids to equalize with the fields of other asteroids causing them to orbit the asteroid. A force of mass, or gravity, would be far too small to have this happen.

This theory would explain why comets have such long lives. When a comet is close the sun it loses matter into the inner solar system. If gravity existed the gravitational pull exerted by the comet would continually decrease as it lost matter reducing its ability to attract more matter and it would soon disappear. If energy is the force that binds objects together and the size of an object is determined by the energy field in which it exists, then as a comet approached the sun it would gain energy from the sun’s energy field but its size would shrink. This would result in the matter associated with the comet being shed in the inner solar system.

As the comet moved away from the sun it would lose energy to the sun’s energy field but its size would increase. In the outer solar system the large field of the comet would gather matter into its energy field. A comet is taking matter from the outer solar system and transferring it to the inner solar system and taking energy from the inner solar system and transferring it to the outer solar system.

What we refer to as mass is the binding of energy to the positive field of matter produced by the protons in the atom’s nucleus (including the protons that make up neutron molecules). Positive and negative electrical fields do not erase each other, they just mask each other.

The negative field of electrons in the nucleus of an atom, that form neutron molecules, is hidden from energy fields by the positive field of the protons, protecting them from attack by the energy field but the negative field helps bind the protons together forming a nucleus.  When a neutron molecule is outside the nucleus and the negative field of the electron is exposed to energy it quickly converts the molecule into a hydrogen atom where the proton is surrounded by energy displacing the electron away from the proton.

What we call inertial mass is the strength of the bond between an object’s energy field and the larger unit of which it is a part. What we call momentum is where an object in motion is trying to establish equilibrium with the energy field surrounding it. An object in orbit has no momentum trying to move it out of orbit because its energy is in equilibrium with the energy field surrounding it. Its momentum is angular momentum like the momentum that keeps the Earth spinning.

If an object’s energy is less than that of the energy field it moves into a denser energy field gaining energy from the field. If a falling object cannot gain enough energy to establish equilibrium with the surrounding field it collides with the source of the energy field combining its electrical and energy fields with it.

People believe that the formula for gravity, F=GM1M2/d ^2, gives the right answer for the orbits of the moon and planets but since the same formula (equated to a satellite’s momentum) is used to determine the mass  of the satellites and its momentum (the data used in the equation) getting any other answer would be difficult.

The reason the observed mass of the moon and the planets differs from the calculated mass is because there is no force of gravity and there is no mass. What there is are energy and electrical fields that combine to form units where the energy fields bind the objects into a larger unit where there is equilibrium between the component’s fields and that is why asteroids can orbit asteroids and comets do not disappear.

Trackback from your site.