**mass = mass**

The academic discipline of mathematical physics carries the B.C. misconceptions of Aristotle...........

Scalar quantities have magnitude. Vector quantities have magnitude and direction. At junior school we teach mass as a scalar quantity. A quantity of mass has magnitude but not direction.

Mathematical physics is based upon mass existing as two types of mass simultaneously. One type of mass within mass is called inertial mass. The other type of mass within mass being known as gravitational mass.

These two forms of mass within mass that measure the same are ultimately only distinguishable from each other in the minds of mathematical geniuses. There is no test or experiment to conclusively demonstrate that one is not the other. The original conflicting oversight of simple physics is both inertial mass and gravitational mass move mass into the realm of being a vector quantity.

Sir Isaac Newton explicitly stated he didn't know how a vector could emanate from mass to cause gravity. The modern or Einstein idea is the vector is the result of a relationship between mass, length, width, breadth and time. All of these are

**scalar quantities**. Not vector quantities. As way of explanation of this basic oversight of mathematical physics scholars, the actual origin of a space time continuum was the work of various science fiction writers. A space time continuum has never been observed by a scientist.

In the case of an inertial resistance vector born out of scalar mass, this traces back to the B.C. period. 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.........

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 is the simple arithmetical base to the conservation of the momentum of collided objects. Which is.....

**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'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' has been 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'. Dramatic progress will occur when modern physics teachers smarten up to the fact that neither 'inertia' or 'inertial mass' are worded into the readout of 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 an absence of momentum change, Sir Isaac Newton's first law of motion reads.......

*"In its direction of travel, the product of a body's mass and velocity 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 your 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 the appearance of the word 'perseveres' in Newton's first law of motion.

When the mathematical physics 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' falls short of being an explainer of a vector relationship between mass and an acceleration towards 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......

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

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.

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

Newton's second law aside or put in simpler terms, the reason mass magnitude is irrelevant to descent rate is simply

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.Newton's second law aside or put in simpler terms, the reason mass magnitude is irrelevant to descent rate is simply

**the fact that mass is weightless**. There is no vector reason of why a greater mass should accelerate to earth at a faster rate than a smaller mass.Unless two types of vector mass within scalar mass becomes scientifically apparent, other theories or equations based on mass = mass are an unlikely science.

Successful predictions made from theories based on unsound foundations means there is something wrong somewhere. In the Mercury perihelion advance scenario, clearly the intent has been to get numbers to fit observations. With the original observation of other star light deviating as it passes the sun, neither the motion of the sun or observed stars was taken into account over a six month period.

It would be rational, though, if the course of star light was altered as it passes by another star. That does not mean there is such a thing as space time continuum. Also does not mean observational data cannot be interpreted in a prejudicial manner to fit with the theories of this or that decided cult mathematical personality.

Albert Einstein's statement on the equivalence of inertial mass and gravitational mass.......

Albert's statement on the equivalence between gravitational mass and inertial mass vaguely says nothing more than the intensity of a gravitational field is an acceleration. The fact that inertial mass and gravitational mass are only distinguishable from each other in the mind of a mathematical genius is also highlighted.

What would come next for mathematical physics professors of repute is proving Einstein's theories are worth more than the paper they are written on. Even if they are not what they are made out to be, there should be some useful internal method or other at play.

Mathematical physics itself 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.

It would be rational, though, if the course of star light was altered as it passes by another star. That does not mean there is such a thing as space time continuum. Also does not mean observational data cannot be interpreted in a prejudicial manner to fit with the theories of this or that decided cult mathematical personality.

Albert Einstein's statement on the equivalence of inertial mass and gravitational mass.......

*A little reflection will show that the law of the equality of the inertial and gravitational mass is equivalent to the assertion that the acceleration imparted to a body by a gravitational field is independent of the nature of the body. For Newton's equation of motion in a gravitational field, written out in full, it is:**(Inertial mass) . (Acceleration) = (Intensity of the gravitational field) . (Gravitational mass).**It is only when there is numerical equality between the inertial and gravitational mass that the acceleration is independent of the nature of the body. Albert Einstein*Albert's statement on the equivalence between gravitational mass and inertial mass vaguely says nothing more than the intensity of a gravitational field is an acceleration. The fact that inertial mass and gravitational mass are only distinguishable from each other in the mind of a mathematical genius is also highlighted.

What would come next for mathematical physics professors of repute is proving Einstein's theories are worth more than the paper they are written on. Even if they are not what they are made out to be, there should be some useful internal method or other at play.

Mathematical physics itself 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.