Mass and Gravity

Helen Setterfield, March 15, 2016

Barry, like most physicists, thinks in math.  I, like most normal people, don’t.  I can deal with a lot of his equations in the sense that I can see they work out, but that doesn’t help me understand what is actually happening.  So I ask questions and keep asking questions until I have a pretty good intuitive grip on what is going on.

Recently we received a really interesting question regarding gravity – had it changed through time as well, and if it was lighter in the past as one interpretation of Barry’s work might indicate, then wouldn’t it have been easier for dinosaurs to move? 
It was a good question.  When Barry answered it and read the answer to me before he sent it off, I went “Huh?”   Barry had answered in terms that made sense to him, but I didn’t know if they would make sense to the person asking the question in the first place.  So I started asking questions.  As it turned out, the answer centered around what mass is.  And that’s really important.  So, for us normal people, here’s what can be explained in English rather than scientese.

When we think of mass, we think of terms like “body mass” – or how dense your muscle is compared to your fat.  If something is said to have a lot of mass, we think of it as weighing more than something without so much mass.  That’s the mass we can see and touch.  Interestingly, mass has nothing to do with how fast an object falls, in response to gravity.  A marble will fall as fast as a boulder.  The reason a feather won’t is because of the air holding it up, not because of its mass, or lack of it.

When a physicist talks about mass, however, he (or she) is usually referring to subatomic mass, and that is a very different story.  We cannot weigh an electron or a proton.  There are no scales for such things and, besides, the term ‘mass’ means something different with them.  When mass is discussed in terms of a subatomic particle, it refers to how much that particle is deflected by a strong magnetic field.  Please read this page.  It is short and will give you a pretty good idea of a couple of things:  first that it is possible to figure mass with relatively simple math and a controlled experiment.  Second, however, is that (read to the bottom of the page) subatomic masses are actually measurements of electrical charges.  Dr. Olynyk explains this in his paragraph.  And, as he concludes, “there are no … convenient units of mass for atomic/subatomic physics.”

In addition, there are two components to subatomic masses.  The first is the intrinsic mass, or the charge of the particle.  The second is how much ‘jiggle’ there is.  The intrinsic mass is often ignored by physicists.  When they talk about subatomic mass, they usually are referring only to the mass produced by the jiggling of the particle.  This has actually been measured as changing with time.  That jiggling produces what is called the ‘uncertainty’ of the particle.  The vibration, or jiggling, is so rapid that it is impossible tell where the charged particle is at any one instant  We only know it is within the area taken up by the jiggle.  While standard quantum physics simply states that the jiggle is part of what the electron or other subatomic particle is, SED physics explains the jiggle as the reaction to the battering waves of the Zero Point Energy (ZPE).  Thus, as the ZPE became stronger in the early years of the universe, the measureable mass of subatomic particles would also have appeared to gain, as the particles were jiggling more and more. 

This has to do with gravity.  The standard gravitational model says there are ‘warps’ in the fabric of space-time which cause things to fall into them.  Why there are warps and why anything should fall into one are not explained, except as being a result of General Relativity.  (“gravity” in physics folder)

There is a very different explanation of gravity, however, which has emerged from SED physics (classical physics with the Zero Point Energy included) , and it has to do with the interactions of something called “virtual particles” which are a result of the Zero Point Energy.  And this is why our correspondent asked his question:  if the ZPE were lower in the past, wouldn’t that result in fewer virtual particle interactions and therefore less gravity?

It’s a good question.  The answer lies in the subatomic masses and their interactions with the Zero Point Energy.  The answer also lies in the fact that it is necessary to NOT ignore the intrinsic mass, or charge, of the subatomic particle, but to consider it in conjunction with the jiggle mass.

Subatomic particles are often referred to as “point charges.”  They are “points” which contain a charge, negative or positive.  The point itself is not the charge, but contains the charge – even though it is all so tiny it seems to be one.  The charge exerts pressure on the point itself, pushing it out.  The Zero Point Energy holds that force back in.  As the Zero Point Energy increased, it did two things:  it produced more of a charge in the point and at the same time produced more pressure outside the point to keep the charge contained.  At all times, then, a balanced had to be achieved.

The gravitational force is the mass of that point charge, the intrinsic mass, multiplied by the ‘jiggle mass’ or the standard ‘subatomic mass.’  The increase in charge of the intrinsic mass, balanced by the increase jiggle of the subatomic mass meant that the same balance was always kept. 

During the instant of their existence, virtual particles ARE subatomic particles and therefore exhibit the same qualities as all subatomic particles.  This means they also have maintained the same balance as all subatomic particles. But, if there were fewer virtual particles then wouldn't there be fewer interactions and thus less gravitational force? There is one other factor involved, that that is the waves of the ZPE itself. The waves moderate, or 'interfere' with, the interactions of the virtual particles. So the fewer the waves, the less the moderation, or interference. Mathematically, the gravitational force is the number of virtual particles divided by the number of ZPE waves. Think of it as 12/6 or 6/3 or 24/12 -- they all have the same answer, because as one goes higher, so does the other. It is for this reason that their interactions have not changed through time.  Thus gravity has not changed through time.

God knew about this.  That is why, in Genesis 1, we are told to figure time gravitationally.  In other words, we are to figure time via the movements of the sun, moon and stars.  The movement of the moon around the earth and the earth around the sun are gravitational, and have been steady through time.