Matter, Mass, Inertia, Energy,

Q: What is the difference between mass and matter?A:Mass doesn't matter.There are 3 ireconcilable terms that confuses even a learned mathematical physicist; matter, mass and inertia. And if even the very 'smart' physicists as Einstein, Poincare, Lorentz etc gets hoplessly confused, what hope is it there to demystify 'lay person?'. It is very thin, especially if people like to shout waaaah than to rumble ooooh. Whenever a physicist invorks these terms, he hoplessly swing back and forth. This behaviour is behind the mystification around the formula E=mc2. It impresses much to many and imparts nothing to most. Many love to quote it but a few love to understand it.Lets begine demystifying 'matter'. Matter is a nobrainer! Every time you find it difficult to guide someone to know what you might be meaning by the word matter, then know at once that you are totally mistaken! You are probably struggling to define the word 'mass'. It is a pretty kindagarten stuff. Just drop a stone, water, soil, wood etc and utter 'matter' and every sane person completely understand what you mean by 'matter'. And this is what it matter mostly.Mass on the other hand is an interlectual concoction belonging to the Archimedes, Galileos, Newtons, Einsteins etc. It is what we try to learn in high schools and universities. Unfortunately, when we learn the EFGHs of universities, we forget the ABCDs of kindagarten. The guru does not present a stone, a nail, a cup etc and utter 'mass'. He asks you to think. At one moment, you are being taken on a tour to north pole or to the moon with your beam balances and rulers. At some other moment you are asked to push trains and bulldozers around. At some other time, you are dared to keep dividing the stone incesantly into gazzillions of parts and try to count them! So what the hell is 'mASS'? Does it 'matter'?Sir Isaach Newton was more sane. When he wrote the equation f=ma, m strictly must be quantity of matter. 'Quantity of matter' on the other hand makes no sense unless we assume that every matter is formed by some identical, tiny copurscles. Water and say a stone is made of the same stuff only that one is more compressed. Only then do 'quantity of matter' has a meaning; the number of copurscels contained in a given volume of matter. Such is how Newton understood matter. Indead such is the only way his second law of motion and his gravitantional law is falsifyable and hence truely scientific statement. If we go holus- bolus and redefine mass as the measure of resistance to change, then we are guilty of Scortsman fallacy. Newton tested his theory of gravity by measuring the volumes of planets and the sun.Inertia on the other hand is just a mathematical nice tie. You just rewrite Newton's equation; f=ma this way, m=f/a. Its just that; the force per given acceleration is INERTIA not MASS and absolutely not MATTER. Calling it 'mass', then claiming that Newton's second law of motion is a falsifyable scientific statement is utterly foolish! So every time you hear of some team of physicists pushing something and saying phew, it is heavy, it must be having a lot of mass, then know at once that you must be dealing with a gang of idiots! It doesn't MATTER if they are doing so in CERN!! If you find that all over sudden, you begine to find that you need a bulldozer to push a feather, then there are two things that might be said. Either the feather has surreptitiously aquired mass by some unfathomable ways, eg eating energy or higgs field or by evil spirits. Or perharps Newton is simply wrong in claiming that f=ma. Being roped of the second alternative is not the true spirit of science; it is the spirit of priesthood.I will mostly go on the alternative that equation f=ma is wrong! Acceleration is what matter DOES and not what it IS. Therfore it just make sense to espect that the resistance to acceleration, i.e resisting what matter DOES is acheived by the matter DOING something and not BEING something. Therefore inertia is what matter DOES and not what matter IS. This is to say an object can in principle begine to feel heavier without necesarily adding more matter to it. We can for instance add energy to it. And so we understand where E=mc2 comes from. 'm' is never mass even when you watch Einstein carefully deriving it. It is INERTIA!!! Einstein misses the phyc! Energy, as a FORCE, is absolutely espected to affect inertia because inertia is just the backwards of the force!After the works of James Clerk Maxwell on electromagnetism, mathematicians as Poincare, Lorentz etc were soon 'pushing' electrons mathematically. But Maxwell's theory has a rather pretty straight foward explanation of how an electrically charged particle should behave under acceleration. It should form a curling magnetism around itself. This magnetism in turn resists farther motion of the electron making the electron look heavier ( a similar mechanism as this is the so called higgs mechanism). Ultimately, Maxwell's theory doesn't allow the electron to be accelerated to the speed of light.At the dawn of 20th centuary, physicists noticed that one could form a theory of inertia having its origins entirely in electromagnetism. So such a theory would mean that in equation f=ma, 'm' should be completely roped of the idea of 'quantity of matter'. It might as well be identified with energy and it was calculated to be given by E=mc2. All these were done by Maxwell, Lorentz, Poincare, JJ thomsone etc. It requires a powerfull microscope to see what Einstein added to this soup!There is however a minor catch that spoils this trip to a fantasy land! Mass in not the same thing as inertia and we absolutely need matter to do physics! Something must accelerate and that thing cannot be the concept inertia. All these guys were just mathematicians misbehaving in the field of physics. They were just good in massaging equations but not in thinking PHYSICALLY.

"Yikes, it seems contradictory.. If you ask AI, if anyone other than Sen. Luna reported the Wilcock "death," you get:

"As of April 22, 2026, there has been no official confirmation from law enforcement, the coroner, or David Wilcock's family…"

"Well, my AI question suggests that he died..."20 April 2026 (age 53 years)" Didn't the Senator Luna, suggest this also...??

"Rep. Anna Paulina Luna tweeted about the author’s death on X: “We just learned of the tragic passing of David Wilcock. We…"

"I saw that address -my AI says he lived or lives near there -he most important part (this is where people get misled)
Authorities have NOT officially confirmed the identity of the deceased
Wilcock’s family has NOT publicly confirmed his death
The…"

Spiritual Blogs

Matter, Mass, Inertia, Energy,

Comments

Latest Blog Posts

Hoax? David Wilcock’s ‘Suicide’ Is The Latest In A Pattern: They’re Silencing The Truth-Tellers

THE LEVINGTON TIMESLIP INCIDENT

Benjamin Fulford Report: East West reach peace agreement following defeat of Khazarian Mafia; By Benjamin Fulford | Source.

Note: this page contains paid content.

Most Popular Blog Posts

FINALLY THE NEW PAPA SAID IT ! Killing Easter lamb has no basis in the Christian tradition

How Many of These 51 Spiritual Awakening Symptoms Do You Have?

find out if you are a star seed and where you really come from tests.

Note: this page contains paid content.

Blog Topics by Tags

Monthly Archives

2026

2025

2024

2023

2022

2021

2020

2019

2018

2017

2016

2015

2014

2013

2012

2011

2010

2009

Latest Activity

New Forum Posts

Way of the Heart | 1Hour Handpan Music | Johann Immanuel

Align With Your Highest Timeline With Melanie Beckler

Divine Time & Your Reality By Steven Hutchinson

Loving Yourself - A Radical Transformation ?

Note: this page contains paid content.