Force vs. Mass: Investigating Fundamentality

[Chrisc]

Space (Length) is fundamental.
Time is a process of space.
Mass is the limit of that process, were at c (a relative, extreme measure) Space/Time = Mass
Space can only be definitively quantified as a measure of Time via the constancy of the speed of light.
Time can only be definitively quantified as a measure of Motion (Length/Time) via the constancy of the speed of light.
Mass can only be definitively quantified as a measure of Acceleration (Length/Time/Time) via the constancy of the speed of light.
EM is a propagating cessation (ripple) in the process that is Time.
Charge is the direction (toward or away from mass ) of EM.
All of the above are relative measures.

 

[HallsofIvy]

Space (Length) is fundamental.
Time is a process of space.
Mass is the limit of that process, were at c (a relative, extreme measure) Space/Time = Mass
Space can only be definitively quantified as a measure of Time via the constancy of the speed of light.
Time can only be definitively quantified as a measure of Motion (Length/Time) via the constancy of the speed of light.
Mass can only be definitively quantified as a measure of Acceleration (Length/Time/Time) via the constancy of the speed of light.
EM is a propagating cessation (ripple) in the process that is Time.
Charge is the direction (toward or away from mass ) of EM.
All of the above are relative measures.

And this is all true because you say it is?

 

[nuby]

well, if you include mass, shouldn't you include charge?

I probably should have said "matter" instead of mass. Then charge and mass (and all forces) might just be properties of "matter", that exist at the same fundamental level.

 

[Chrisc]

And this is all true because you say it is?

It's not truth, it's a model that does not contradict existing evidence and solves a number of long standing problems in physics.
This is not the place to post the details. I posted as much as pertains to the question of the OP regarding fundamental ontologies.

 

[sganesh88]

ok.. I think this makes more sense. You can't measure mass without applying a known force (or even if you use a third law pair and side step the force measurement, you still have to apply the concept of force) but force can be measured without even the existence of a quantity called mass. In that sense force is older than mass. But that doesn't make mass less fundamental. Mass is something inherent to a particular body. Just because you get the help of force to measure it doesn't deprive off its divine status.

 

[D H]

It's not truth, it's a model that does not contradict existing evidence and solves a number of long standing problems in physics.

No, what you wrote is word salad.

This is not the place to post the details.

This forum is not the place to post speculative, personal theories, let alone word salad that poses as a speculative, personal theory.

 

[baywax]

Does a mass or relative mass create space? I only ask this because of the theory that space was created by the big bang.

during the Big Bang space was first created and then stretched.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/science/space/origins/bigbang/index.shtml

 

[Dale]

You can't measure mass without applying a known force

That is not true. Hootenanny told you in post 14 how the mass of an electron can be measured without applying a force at all.

force can be measured without even the existence of a quantity called mass. In that sense force is older than mass.

I don't think this is correct either, forces can only be applied to massive particles, AFAIK you cannot exert a force on a massless particle. In that sense, a force describes a relationship between two particles, at least one of which must be massive.

Your spring idea as a standard force is fine, but a spring is massive, so that is not force without a mass. If you want a quantity that is independent of mass then I would go with momentum since even massless particles can have momentum.

 

[Pythagorean]

I probably should have said "matter" instead of mass. Then charge and mass (and all forces) might just be properties of "matter", that exist at the same fundamental level.

yeah, that's more what I was thinking; that what we have is matter and it has properties (like mass, density, charge, position, velocity).

I don't necessarily agree that they exist at the same fundamental level though; I'm not sure what that means.

 

[nuby]

properties (like mass, density, charge, position, velocity).

Density is a weird property. How is it a property of matter?

 

[Pythagorean]

Density is a weird property. How is it a property of matter?

The way I was thinking about it, you can say mass and volume, or mass and density, or density and volume. All three (mass, density, and volume) are part of the same description, but only two are necessary to describe all three.

The point is that mass alone doesn't tell you the size of a particle, you need mass and volume or mass and density. Volume alone doesn't tell you the mass of the particle. I'm not sure which would be more fundamental though. I think it's a matter of personal taste.

 

[sganesh88]

That is not true. Hootenanny told you in post 14 how the mass of an electron can be measured without applying a force at all.

I don't think this is correct either, forces can only be applied to massive particles, AFAIK you cannot exert a force on a massless particle. In that sense, a force describes a relationship between two particles, at least one of which must be massive.

Your spring idea as a standard force is fine, but a spring is massive, so that is not force without a mass. If you want a quantity that is independent of mass then I would go with momentum since even massless particles can have momentum.

ok. thanks for the clarification. :-)