- It was a clever choice in Physics to start with the 3 basic indefinables, namely the length, the time, and the mass. With their help, we can deduce and measure the followings: volume, surface, velocity, acceleration, momentum, force, torque, pressure, work (or energy).
- It is not difficult to understand what length or time is. Much more difficult is to precisely determine what mass is. This study is intended to deal with all those difficulties.
- An arbitrary standard unit was chosen which is called 1 kilogramme of mass. The prototype, a Platinum-Iridium cylinder is kept in Sevres near Paris at the International Bureau of Weight and Measures. We can compare the mass value of any object with the standard unit by using an equal-arm balance. However, this measure still does not explain what mass is.
- There are 2 basic equations which are used in Physics trying to define the concept of mass.
- The first is the mathematical form of Newton's second law of motion. The acceleration () is proportional to the force () which causes it.
= .
where is the value of mass. This is a natural law recognised by Isaac Newton. With the help of this equation, the unit of force is defined. 1 Newton is such a force which causes 1 metre/second2 acceleration on 1 kilogramme mass. Then, some physics books try to define the concept of mass with the quotient
= /
This definition is ambiguous. It is bizarre to define the mass with the help of the force which was previously defined with the mass.
- In the second basic equation
= .
it is the weight () which accelerates a body of mass (), and is the acceleration of gravity. The weight is a force, too, and it is mainly caused by the gravity. Gravity is still a mysterious problem in Physics. We only know its effects. By defining the mass with the quotient
= /
we introduce the same kind of ambiguities.
- The difference between
= . and = .
is obvious. In
= .
the value of acceleration is not restricted. It can be from - to +. However, with too high positive or negative acceleration, the equation is irrelevant because the structure of the accelerated body can be destroyed. The
= .
is valid only if each elementary unit of the accelerating body is strictly tied together.
- In the equation
= .
the value of is restricted. It varies only slightly in different points of the earth. Furthermore, by measuring the weight (or the mass), we can introduce a slight error. The weight depends on the temperature! More precisely, the weight depends on the volume of the molecules. We know that in the case of a rigid body this error is quasi negligible, but dealing with a gaseous molecule, the
= .
equation is irrelevant.
- The difference between
= . and = .
inspired some physicists to consider 2 kinds of masses. The
= /
was called inertial mass, and the
= /
was called gravity mass. In some books, several pages are sacrificed to deal with this ambiguous problem. It is an unnecessary complication which charges the brain of physicists and students. Finally, they are obliged to admit that there is no difference between inertial and gravity masses, and they still have not explained what mass is!
- In Newton's time, it was assumed that the mass of an object is concentrated in one point, and the force acts on this point. This is an idealised situation. Later, the French mathematician d'Alambert (1717-1783) introduced the idea that the product . should be considered as a different force which acts in the opposite direction of the force . He called it "inertia force". In the history of Physics, d'Alambert's idea was neglected. (He probably did not have enough media support!!) However, each passenger in a train or a car feels the effect of the inertia force when the vehicle accelerates.
- In modern Physics, there is a tendency to deal with this inertia force in the framework of an accelerated coordinate system. So, it becomes a kind of mysterious force called "apparent force". The concept of apparent force caused several errors in Physics.
- For me, it is important to prove that the inertia force is a real force. I need this proof in order to precisely determine what mass is. It can be done with a simple experiment which everybody can easily realise. We just have to use a shopping cart from a department store.
- The sketch in Figure 12-01 shows an empty shopping cart. If we apply a strong horizontal force on the handle as shown, the cart starts to accelerate. With a sufficiently strong acceleration, we can observe that the front wheels of the cart are lifted up. This phenomenon is only possible if a REAL inertia force creates a couple with the force , and the value of this couple is ( . ) x or x . This couple changes the load on the wheels because another couple - is created. If the cart is empty, the upward force prevails, and the front wheels are lifted up. So, the existence of a REAL . inertia force is proven. The vector of this force passes through the centre of gravity () of the cart, as it will soon be explained.
- Another typical example also proves the existence of a real inertia force. When a vehicle runs on a curved trajectory, an inertia force is created which is generally called "centrifugal force". It passes through the centre of gravity of the vehicle, and it obviously changes the load on the wheels.
- The most important problem is to analyse in detail this force which is created by the acceleration.
- Let us note that an acceleration always creates a force. On the other hand, equilibrated forces do not cause accelerations.
- This . is not a single force. IT IS THE RESULTANT OF BILLIONS OF ELEMENTARY INERTIA FORCES.
- Each elementary unit of an accelerated rigid body is individually affected by an inertia force.
- As a first step, let us suppose that the elementary unit has a mass value of e. Then, we can write that the resultant force
. = e .
All those e . forces are in parallel. The action line of the resultant force passes through a point which I would prefer to call "centre of inertia".
- The centre of inertia is the same point as the centre of gravity. This similarity does not give us the right to unify inertia with gravitation as Einstein did.
- The most crucial question is: How far should we go in the direction of infinite little to determine this elementary unit? Considering the molecule or the atom as elementary unit is not sufficient. Scientists are presently trying to discover even smaller subatomic particles, and it seems that even those particles are divisible. Sooner or later, we must admit that we can not limit Nature in the directions of infinite little and infinite big.
- It is interesting that, in the science of mathematics, we precisely defined the concept of infinity. The scientific opinion is that we sometimes need mathematics to understand Nature's mysteries. Then, I find it ridiculous that physicists still have the tendency to limit the universe in the directions of microcosm and macrocosm.
- The idea that Nature works with infinity is not new. In the year 1600, the Italian physicist Giordano Bruno was burned at the stake because he argued that the universe is infinite. It contains an infinite number of worlds which are inhabited by intelligent beings.
- The existence and the character of the inertia force OBLIGES us to accept the infinite little elementary units. This also gives us the possibility to precisely determine what mass is.
- I offer a new hypothesis, a new theory called the Living Atom Theory, which explains the method of how to reach this infinite little elementary unit.
- In this short article, I just mention that we should introduce an atom which has exactly the same structure as our solar system. Only the dimensions are different. I gave the character 0 to signal this atom. The 0 is an elementary unit of the solar system. A logical deduction indicates that the 0 similarly has its elementary unit which I characterised with the sign -1.
- The -1 has the same structure as the 0. So, we must have a whole series of atoms
0,
-1, ...,
-n
approaching always more the infinite little.
- With this perspective, each object in the solar system is the sum of a huge number of -n-s. Let us denote the mass value of -n by |-n|. Then, the mass of each object can be written
= |-n|
If the object is accelerating at the rate of , there is a quasi infinite number of elementary inertia forces |-n| . .
- The 0 atoms are different, and they have different weights or mass values. For example, let us compare an 0 atom of the element Aluminum with an 0 atom of the element Iron. The Iron atom is more than twice as heavy (approximately). Considering the elementary -1 atoms, there is probably some slight difference between the mass values |-1|, but it is much more probable that the NUMBER of -1 atoms is approximately twice as much in the Iron 0 atom as it is in the Aluminum 0 atom.
- Note: Inside the 0 atom, we can no longer consider the weight only as the value of mass. The concept of weight is defined only in the gravitational field of the solar system. Inside the atom 0, there is a different kind of gravitational field, as it is explained in Chapter 02.
- As we go in the direction of infinite little, the mass value of the -n gets insignificant, and it is the number of -n-s which determines the mass value of an object.
- So, we can conclude that, in Physics, the mass of a body is expressed by a relative NUMBER indicating the importance of an atomic agglomeration. In a mass of 2 kilogramme, there are 2 times more elementary units as in a mass of 1 kilogramme.
- It is completely illogical to suppose that such a NUMBER varies with the velocity of the moving object. Einstein's transformation equation, which relates the mass to the velocity, is a nice mathematical exhibition indeed, but it is easy to demonstrate that the starting point of his mathematical deduction is wrong. For more complete argument to demonstrate this, read Chapter 06.
- Physicists who still believe in the validity of Einstein's relativity theories still do not understand what mass or inertia really is.
- It is reasonable to say that Newton's
= .
formula is the basic equation of dynamics. It was originally intended to give a relation between force, mass and acceleration. It would be more precise to say that only the absolute values of and . are equal. I would prefer to use a vectorial equation
= - .
which better explains that the force acts in opposite direction of the force . . Then, this equation explains a marvellous natural law. Nature always assures a perfect dynamic equilibrium for all moving objects.
- In the universe, all movements are accelerating. The velocity characterises the movement only INSTANTANEOUSLY. Nature does not tolerate a perfect constant velocity.
- Even the accelerations are not constant, but a practically constant acceleration can be achieved in the case of rotation.
- To conclude, one must seriously question any theory that attempts to limit Nature's wonderful ability to manifest itself in an infinite number of ways. This is exactly what some scientists are trying to do, by introducing various universal constants.