This is Essay XCI of Mr. Stolyarov’s series, “A Rational Cosmology,” which seeks to present objective, absolute, rationally grounded views of terms such as universe, matter, volume, space, time, motion, sound, light, forces, fields, and even the higher-order concepts of life, consciousness, and volition. See the index of all the essays in “A Rational Cosmology” here.
Some time ago, I applied my rational cosmology to an extensive discussion of The Autonomist Forum, in response to questions asked about my theory. I adapt these responses here, in a systematic presentation of some of contemporary science’s flaws. My hope is that every rational scientist, philosopher, and layman reading this will come to understand the need to conform scientific investigation to the rigors of logical thinking.
Alexander, an intelligent and thorough poster, contrasted my definition of matter in A Rational Cosmology to the prevailing definition used by modern scientists. My definition, from “The Ubiquitous Quality of Matter,” is as follows:
“Matter is …. the constituent quality of entities. Matter is, simply, that, which entities are made of, and without which they cannot have any other qualities.“
I further elaborate on this:
“It is not the province of ontology or cosmology to describe what the fundamental ‘building blocks of matter’ (i.e., the entities that would represent Democritus’s concept of ‘atomos’) are. The specific-observational sciences must discover whether such fundamental building blocks exist, how many types of them there are, and how they look like and behave. Cosmology has only to point out that matter exists, and exists as a quality of every entity.“
My definition of matter has implications for the concept, “mass.” Mass is simply the measurement of matter; any entity which has any of the constituent quality, “matter,” will have some measurable mass that it will exhibit at all times. The mass can change magnitudes, if it is gained from or lost to other entities, but it must always have some positive magnitude. If an entity ever has “zero mass,” like a “photon” at rest, it ceases to exist. This is why a “photon,” under the very premises from which modern scientists derive the idea, cannot exist.
In contrast to my definition, Alexander presented the mainstream “scientific” definition of matter: “Something that has mass and exists as a solid, liquid, gas, or plasma” (Dictionary.com). Furthermore, he provided the post-Classical definition for “mass:”
“A property of matter equal to the measure of an object’s resistance to changes in either the speed or direction of its motion. The mass of an object is not dependent on gravity and therefore is different from but proportional to its weight.” (Dictionary.com)
He then concisely illustrated the essential differences between my definitions of “matter” and “mass” and the post-Classical definitions:
“It looks like one reason you’re having so much of a problem with post-Classical physics is because you and scientists are working from different definitions of matter and mass. To them, matter is atoms and above. To you, it’s whatever has mass. To them, mass is indicative of how much resistance to change a thing exhibits. To you, it’s how much ‘stuff’ there is, however you would measure that.”
This is a fair contrast to make. It is also a proper beginning to my illustration of how the post-Classical definitions are riddled with logical fallacies.
Read other parts of “A Rational Cosmology” by clicking here.