Dark Mass and the Quest for the Æther

By Charles Douglas Wehner

Einstein’s famous equation did not speak of matter, but of mass. The original was:

E=MaC²

Where Ma is "die Masse". The German for matter is "der Stoff".

So you take the mass and multiply it by the speed of light, and again, to get the energy equivalent of mass.

Now let me tell a white lie:

The mass of an object is far lower on the moon - where the force of gravity is far lower than on Earth.

There is nothing strange in that - we expect low mass in low gravity. A spring balance would show just that.

But science abhors variability - so we invent a standard gravity - the Universal Gravitational Constant, "Big G" - and confiscate from the lay public the word "Mass". When speaking science, they must never again confuse it with Weight. Otherwise, we will tell the lay public that they are not speaking science.

By this narrowing of the meaning of the word Mass, I am obliged to correct my previous statement:

The weight of an object is far lower on the moon - where the force of gravity is far lower than on Earth.

We see here that the language of science puts layers of hidden meaning behind most of its words. Weight implies the measurement on an instrument like a spring balance under the local gravity "Little g" - whilst Mass implies similar theoretical measurement taken as if that local gravity matches the Universal Gravitation Constant.

We might create, for example, a 1G centrifuge, creating a fake "gravity" outwards from its centre. Sure enough, the perceived MASS on the moon would be the same as that perceived on earth, although the weight under local gravity would differ.

And there again, we might not. Mass is just a theoretical construct designed to eliminate local forces from our equations. The fact that we can conceive some real-world method of measuring it - such as by centrifuge - is enough to render the construct mathematically valid. In the world of scientific units, the units are true whether we create the artifacts, such as the centrifuge, or not.

Consider an indivisible particle - such as a meson. Indivisible here means that if you divide it (say, into quarks) it will no longer be a meson. This defines an atomikos of meson. Its weight will vary between the earth and moon, but its mass will not.

Consider a million mesons. They will weigh a million times as much on earth as one did on earth, and a million times as much on the moon as one did on the moon. Their mass will be a million times as much anywhere as one meson anywhere has mass. So you divide that mass by one million and get back to what mass you found for one.

The number of atomiki (the plural of atomikos - of indivisible elements) is the measure of the MATTER. The MASS we have already described as the response under standard gravity G.

The MASS-TO-MATTER ratio, we can see, is FIXED.

Or WAS.

Now, after Einstein, we know better.

Einstein states that as the speed (Relative to WHAT?.... Later.....) of a particle such as a meson approaches that of light its mass increases. It becomes "heavier" relative to "Big G".

Particle-accelerator experiments have proven his prediction to be true.

You can indeed put a single meson into an accelerator and speed it up until it has ten times its former mass. This has been done - but it remained a SINGLE meson.

You can accelerate a million mesons to that same speed, yet they remain a million. The MATTER is unchanging whilst the MASS increases.

So it is the MASS-TO-MATTER ratio that is influenced by speed.

Why speak of MASS-TO-MATTER ratio? Because we can eliminate the variable known as MATTER, and create a single variable that reflects Einsteinian speed-influence. It would be valid for small or large quantities of matter and independant of local forces.

It is my belief that those who speak of "Dark Matter" refer mainly to "Dark Mass".

Mass can go missing - it is invisible. Matter is more difficult to hide.

The mathematicians got the mass-to-matter ratio wrong by a factor of about ten to one.

They say the universe is ten times "heavier" than everything they see. But that "heaviness" is due mainly to wrongly-computed MASSES - not to missing MATTER.

You look through a telescope. What do you see? You see MATTER.

Look again. What else do you see? Light at all its wavelengths. That's ENERGY.

One thing you DO NOT SEE is MASS.

Using Newtonian Mechanics, you compute a speed for a platform of observation at ROOT TEN times the speed of light. But using Einstein's Relativity, this is impossible. You recompute the speed of that platform to fit in with Einstein.

From that platform you observe the MASS - not the MATTER - of the universe. It is ten times too big.

SOLUTION - get off that platform.

That`s not so easy. Where do you find a better platform? Do the maths.

When you have found a platform where the observed mass is not too big - except for some reasonable amounts of "Dark Matter" such as undiscovered asteroids - you will have found a platform that hovers statically in the void, with no motion that confuses your arithmetic.

Remember I said of Relativistic speeds "(Relative to WHAT?.... Later.....)"? Well, that`s it. Relative to that platform.

That`s the Æther (Aether or Ether) - a happy place where sums add up.

8 June 2003

BACK