Mass

199. We need to orient our context so that we have a point from which to continue connecting Three-dimensional-SpaceTime assumptions with the assertions that will follow. To that end I acknowledge in advance the following quotes and any related or implied conceptual assumptions.

Hypothesis
1 a : an assumption or concession made for the sake of argument
b : an interpretation of a practical situation or condition taken as the ground for action

2 : a tentative assumption made in order to draw out and test its logical or empirical consequences

3 : the antecedent clause of a conditional statement
synonyms hypothesis, theory, law mean a formula derived by inference from scientific data that explains a principle operating in nature. hypothesis implies insufficient evidence to provide more than a tentative explanation <a hypothesis explaining the extinction of the dinosaurs>. theory implies a greater range of evidence and greater likelihood of truth <the theory of evolution>. law implies a statement of order and relation in nature that has been found to be invariable under the same conditions <the law of gravitation>.

Scientific Theory

systematic ideational structure of broad scope, conceived by the human imagination, that encompasses a family of empirical (experiential) laws regarding regularities existing in objects and events, both observed and posited. A scientific theory is a structure suggested by these laws and is devised to explain them in a scientifically rational manner.

In attempting to explain things and events, the scientist employs (1) careful observation or experiments, (2) reports of regularities, and (3) systematic explanatory schemes (theories). The statements of regularities, if accurate, may be taken as empirical laws expressing continuing relationships among the things or characteristics observed. Thus, when empirical laws are able to satisfy curiosity by uncovering an orderliness in the behaviour of things or events, the scientist may advance a systematic scheme, or scientific theory, to provide an accepted explanation of why these laws obtain.

Empirical laws and scientific theories differ in several ways. In a law, reasonably clear observational rules are available for determining the meaning of each of its terms; thus, a law can be tested by carefully observing the things and properties referred to by these terms. Indeed, they are initially formulated by generalizing or schematizing from observed relationships. In the case of scientific theories, however, some of the terms commonly refer to things that are not observed. Thus, it is evident that theories are imaginative constructions of the human mind - the results of philosophical and aesthetic judgments as well as of observation - for they are only suggested by observational information rather than inductively generalized from it. Moreover, theories cannot ordinarily be tested and accepted on the same grounds as laws. Thus, whereas an empirical law expresses a unifying relationship among a small selection of observables, scientific theories have much greater scope, explaining a variety of such laws and predicting others as yet undiscovered.

A theory may be characterized as a postulational system (a set of premises) from which empirical laws are deducible as theorems. Thus, it can have an abstract logical form, with axioms, formation rules, and rules for drawing deductions from the axioms, as well as definitions for empirically interpreting its symbols. In practice, however, theories are seldom structured so carefully.

200. Given or granted the above, let us look at the some assumptions about mass.

Mass

in physics, quantitative measure of inertia, a fundamental property of all matter. It is, in effect, the resistance that a body of matter offers to a change in its speed or position upon the application of a force. The greater the mass of a body, the smaller the change produced by an applied force. Although mass is defined in terms of inertia, it is conventionally expressed as weight. By international agreement the standard unit of mass, with which the masses of all other objects are compared, is a platinum-iridium cylinder of one kilogram.

Weight, though related to mass, nonetheless differs from the latter. Weight essentially constitutes the force exerted on matter by the gravitational attraction of the Earth, and so it varies from place to place. In contrast, mass remains constant regardless of its location under ordinary circumstances. A satellite launched into space, for example, weighs increasingly less the further it travels away from the Earth. Its mass, however, stays the same.

For years it was assumed that the mass of a body always remained invariable. This notion, expressed as the theory of conservation of mass, held that the mass of an object or collection of objects never changes, no matter how the constituent parts rearrange themselves. If a body split into pieces, it was thought that the mass divided with the pieces, so that the sum of the masses of the individual pieces would be equal to the original mass. Or, if particles were joined together, it was thought that the mass of the composite would be equal to the sum of the masses of the constituent particles. But this is not true.

With the advent of the special theory of relativity by Einstein in 1905, the notion of mass underwent a radical revision. Mass lost its absoluteness. The mass of an object was seen to be equivalent to energy, to be interconvertible with energy, and to increase significantly at exceedingly high speeds near that of light (about 3 times; 108 metres per second, or 186,000 miles per second). The total energy of an object was understood to comprise its rest mass as well as its increase of mass caused by high speed. The mass of an atomic nucleus was discovered to be measurably smaller than the sum of the masses of its constituent neutrons and protons. Mass was no longer considered constant, or unchangeable. In both chemical and nuclear reactions, some conversion between mass and energy occurs, so that the products generally have smaller or greater mass than the reactants. The difference in mass is so slight for ordinary chemical reactions that mass conservation may be invoked as a practical principle for predicting the mass of products. Mass conservation is invalid, however, for the behaviour of masses actively involved in nuclear reactors, in particle accelerators, and in the thermonuclear reactions in the Sun and stars. The new conservation principle is the conservation of mass-energy.

201. Mass exists. What is it? We are organic sensory intelligences. We use our senses exclusively. Our biology physics and chemistry are all explained and taught using our senses. Even now with the implementation of computers and new technologies we still use these exclusively as extensions of our senses. We have yet to implement "technological reflection mechanisms" (thought). Our dependence on our senses has shaped our encapsulation of E=MC² . We have come to think of our existence in terms of the "E" in E=MC² , as if the other side of the equation "M" and C² are simply a constraint on "E" limited by the C. Energy "seems" to apply only to things equal to or slower than the speed of light.

202. Anything beyond light speed is just not of our interest. When energy ceases to apply to existence, then there is no way to measure that part of existence. We can not measure that which might reside quite comfortably beyond the speed of light. The explanation of plastic time as the essence of E=MC² is plausible yet probably more of an attribute of evidentiary assumptions than an attribute of truth.

203. This makes sense. Time is how we encapsulate nearly everything. Space Time, daytime, nighttime, lifetime, time of our life, time is money, a stitch in time, the time of miracles, and the most well known use of time "In the beginning". Time use may not disappear anytime soon. Our contemporary encapsulation of something called "matter" as the container of mass demands time. Evolution - minute genetic changes over long periods of time - demands time as does almost everything else we do with the exception of dreams and reflection (thought).

204. If dreams and reflection defy time, then maybe we should pay attention to this difference. Could there be more than one way of looking at the structure and origin of the universe? The Model asserts a simpler way to understand E=MC². Rather than trying to map this equation to something we call matter, we can encapsulate this formula as a statement of volume - the volume of some flow. Theologies refer to flow as Transcendence, and science encapsulates flow as motion, liquid, energy, and the most famous, time. Transcendence, motion, liquid, energy, and time, all describe some flow. The Model asserts: that the only thing that flows in the universe is mass, and mass flows iteratively at C² - the speed of light squared.

205. Mass and gravity are related. They are events. Both are a product of GodSong, flow iterating at C². We already have an encapsulation for this relationship, and we know it as Cause and Effect. We can think of the origin of the universe as a question about the source of this flow. That question, can be explored by complexity. The Model is an attempt to encapsulate complexity as an organization of events of flow.

Energy
in physics, the capacity for doing work. It may exist in potential, kinetic, thermal, electrical, chemical, nuclear, or other various forms. There are, moreover, heat and work - i.e., energy in the process of transfer from one body to another. After it has been transferred, energy is always designated according to its nature. Hence, heat transferred may become thermal energy, while work done may manifest itself in the form of mechanical energy.

All forms of energy are associated with motion. For example, any given body has kinetic energy if it is in motion. A tensioned device such as a bow or spring, though at rest, has the potential for creating motion; it contains potential energy because of its configuration. Similarly, nuclear energy is potential energy because it results from the configuration of subatomic particles in the nucleus of an atom.

206. In the model, Motion and Movement are distinct. While the above definition ties energy to motion, E=MC² ties motion to movement and movement to Mass. In C² lies the source of both Mass and it's behavior, energy. Moving Mass requires Levers, as much as does changing the motion of energy. Time is the illusion; C² , GodSong, is the source of existence.

208. In this context, the only outstanding Three-dimensional-SpaceTime concept is Force. Force is always along a line segment, and it falls outside of The Model. The Model asserts: Because all motion and movement is iterative it must be helical or spiral. Even perceived recursive behaviors can be deemed so only through cross context violation. These may appear recursive in the Abstract, while they are actually iterative and within the Intrinsic. These surreal encapsulations are deemed invalid Attributes of Complexity by The RMCM because they violate flow's Conditional constraints (cross context violation.). Complexity is invariably iterative and invariably Hierarchical .

209. The nexus of the problem lies within the idea that the universe is a closed system filled to some extent with emptiness. The universe may be closed, yet also it may be open. While it can be deemed closed spatially, it is open to continuous iterative flows from within its antecedent Simplicities (see Delta Axis). So, while Three-Dimensional-SpaceTime sees the universe as an "amorphous blob", Complexity sees the universe as an aggregate of distinct flows working in concert. In a sense, iterative flows migrating from the endlessly inward toward the endlessly outward giving rise to the universe in passing. While this "amorphous blob" is seen to be expanding, the rise of the universe as a complexity is seen instead to be Growing.

210. Encapsulating points as pure Abstractions is the other thread at the nexus of the problem. Complexity is wholly dependent on fulcrums, existential points. Points rather than mathematical abstractions are quite real and tangible, as it were. The Model acquires authenticity from the iteration we know of as Cause and Effect. If Cause and Effect are iterative rather than recursive, then there must be an infrastructure that provides for this. iteration is the exclusive domain of Levers. Even in modern microprocessor driven systems, gates open and close, which is Movement, which is the domain of Levers. We do encapsulate this opening and closing as recursion and given no need of further explanation this encapsulation is basically a benign way of saying repetition. Electricians refer to this as opening and closing circuits. We know them as light switches. Switches only have meaning when considered in the context of the given Complexity that makes use of them. While Intrinsically a switch, this is innately iteration because each time the switch is closed a distinct (fresh or new) flow of electrons is opened.

211. Even if an entire system is closed off by transformers, no two electrons pair up in the same way twice, because they maintain their physical Attributes as an aggregate of new flows passing through them on their journey from the endlessly inwardly to the endlessly outward as GodSong, C² .