**Aristotle's muddle**

As unpalatable as it might originally seem to lovers and worshipers of the century old Einstein story, Albert's theories carry the B.C. misconceptions of Aristotle...........

Scalar quantities have magnitude. Vector quantities have magnitude and direction. At junior school we are taught that mass is a scalar quantity. A quantity of mass has magnitude but not direction.

Mathematical physics is based upon scalar mass existing as two vector quantities simultaneously. One vector quantity within mass being called inertial mass. The other vector quantity within mass being known as gravitational mass.

What mathematical physics lacks is proof of scalar mass existing with these two vector forms within. Mass existing in twin vector forms is a now age old unproven science and obviously does not make sense at the junior school level.

Mathematical physics is based upon scalar mass existing as two vector quantities simultaneously. One vector quantity within mass being called inertial mass. The other vector quantity within mass being known as gravitational mass.

What mathematical physics lacks is proof of scalar mass existing with these two vector forms within. Mass existing in twin vector forms is a now age old unproven science and obviously does not make sense at the junior school level.

Over two thousand years ago and in simplistic form Aristotle's ideas were force has to be applied for motion to continue. And more massive objects descend to earth at a greater rate. Galileo Galilei and Sir Isaac Newton's laws are supplied to modern classrooms as having taken earth scholarship past these Aristotelian misconceptions. With the unchecked academic refrain about mass existing in two vector forms that are of the same scalar measure being considered to be the high science of the universe, Aristotle's now ancient confusions need fresh junior school address........

Galileo, or Galileo's era, deduced that a quality inherent of matter called 'inertia' was the reason a motion continued. This quality of matter both resisted a change of a state of motion and was the reason a motion perseveres. The deduction has been considered to consign Aristotle's lack of reasoning about the continuation of motion back to the B.C. era.

Before Galileo the centuries already had the contrary explanation to Aristotle's various ideas of how an applied force continued to be applied beyond actual contact. This pre Galilean answer was called impetus (link) by proclaimers. A motion supplied to an object by a force continues beyond the application of the force was what Frenchman Jean Buridan stated two centuries before the life of Galileo and fifteen centuries after the life of Aristotle.

Defined as the product of mass and velocity, by Sir Isaac Newton's time Buridan's impetus had become known as 'momentum'.

Sir Isaac analytically proved that momentum is conserved when objects collide. He did this with a cradle of suspended balls (link).

Courtesy of Galileo, what Sir Isaac failed to understand about the collisions within his cradle was the arithmetical precursor of the conservation of the momentum of collided objects.....

**Arithmetically the product of mass and velocity is uniform.**

When one number represents a mass quantity and another number represents the magnitude of the velocity vector of that mass, there is only one answer when those two numbers are multiplied together.

Newton's cradle was dependent upon this arithmetical/vector fact. Sir Isaac Newton's mind left the velocity component of momentum out of momentum and then mistakenly went along with Galileo and called this simple fact of arithmetic "inertial mass".

Beyond Galileo's life and without inclusion of the two words, 'inertial mass' was or is considered to be contained within Sir Isaac Newton's first law of motion. That first law.........

*"Every body perseveres in its state of being at rest or of moving uniformly straight forward except insofar as it is compelled to change its state by forces impressed."*

Alternatively Sir Isaac Newton's first law is referred to as the 'law of inertia'. Beyond that occasional other naming, it would be good if modern physics teachers could dramatically smarten up to the fact that neither 'inertia' or 'inertial mass' are written within Sir Isaac's first law of motion. And that neither 'inertia' or 'inertial mass' are needed to explain any facet of motion.

What's needed is an understanding that arithmetically momentum is uniform/conserved. And Sir Isaac Newton's second and third laws.

Reading Sir Isaac Newton's first law of motion as stated = the product of mass and velocity with his second law tacked on. Or reworded with Sir Isaac's second law left off the end and designating 'the perseverance of a state of rest' to be a zero rate of change of momentum, Sir Isaac Newton's first law of motion reads.......

*"In its direction of travel, the momentum of a body is uniformly conserved."*

Mass x velocity replaces the mechanically undefined 'perseveres' and Sir Isaac Newton's second law is left to be that law.

Importantly, the inclusion of 'momentum' and the exclusion of the unmentioned 'inertial mass' are both critical to current physics teachers when they stand in front of a class. If you are currently studying junior school physics, in clear and concise terms, that's Sir Isaac Newton's first law of motion. The product of velocity and quantity = uniform motion. Not inertial mass = uniform motion as the teacher implies when he or she teaches you Sir Isaac's first law of motion. And the resistance to a change of state of free momentum

**only**comes to be when an external force is applied. The resistance is explained simply by Sir Isaac Newton's third law.

Below the larger mass is stationary relative to the earth. It's lack of motion relative to the earth is due to the absence of an applied force. Not the fact of its 5 kilograms as is currently implied through academic interpretation of Newton's first law of motion.

When the Einstein sector of civilization comes to understand that resistance to change of motion only comes to be when a force of change is applied, there is only one type of mass. Calling that one kind of mass 'gravitational mass' is

**not**an explainer of a relationship between mass and an inverse square law surrounding mass.

Why the quantity magnitude of a descending body is irrelevant to its rate of descent is something Aristotle was not in a position to understand......

**1/ Weight magnitude on earth is a direct factor of the magnitude of the earth's inverse square law.**

If Sir Isaac's second law is a legitimate weight measuring tool, that is inarguable. What directly follows is.....

**2/ Free fall rate towards the earth is a direct factor of the magnitude of the earth's inverse square law.**

As Sir Isaac's second law stands, justifying its use as a weight measuring tool is currently absent from junior school curricula. Weight is mass with zero change of velocity. Sir Isaac's second law specifies a force causes mass to accelerate. If the second law is a legitimate weight measuring tool, weight needs definition that reflects velocity change.

If that definition of weight is correct, it says a potential rate of acceleration causes force (weight). And that an invented force (called gravity) does

The reason all mass magnitude is irrelevant to descent rate is simply the fact that mass is weightless. There is no vector reason that a greater mass should accelerate at a faster rate than a smaller mass.

If that definition of weight is correct, it says a potential rate of acceleration causes force (weight). And that an invented force (called gravity) does

**not**cause weight.The reason all mass magnitude is irrelevant to descent rate is simply the fact that mass is weightless. There is no vector reason that a greater mass should accelerate at a faster rate than a smaller mass.

Unless two types of vector mass within scalar mass becomes scientifically apparent, basing other theories on mass = mass = Aristotle's pseudo wisdom about descents and motions need fresh and true junior school address.

Successful predictions made from theories based on a meaningless foundation are not going to mean much to the future of the world.

Mathematical physics by and large = educationalists not lost in black holes and the like have the entrails of Aristotle's confusions to sort out for junior classrooms. The first step forward being understanding planetary motion through the motion of the sun's inverse square law. To date the Copernican revolution is based upon the fixed star falsehood of ancient civilizations.

Mathematical physics by and large = educationalists not lost in black holes and the like have the entrails of Aristotle's confusions to sort out for junior classrooms. The first step forward being understanding planetary motion through the motion of the sun's inverse square law. To date the Copernican revolution is based upon the fixed star falsehood of ancient civilizations.