Hi PB,
The following are (mostly) just my opinions:
As a convenience, I use a hypothetical particle of mass I call the FMU or fundamental mass unit.
I guess I am glad you didn't choose to name it "MFU". /ttiforum/images/graemlins/smile.gif
the reasoning is based on the observation that if you divide mass into smaller and smaller parts you must come to a final part with mass, the division of which part does not yield smaller parts with mass. In other words, the "atom" of mass.
IMO, this is the largest fallacy of reductionist physics: that there exists some "smallest realizeable unit". More below...
My point is that physics treats mass as a quantity, or as we would say, a quantity of fmu's. The point is that nature does not distinguish quantity, as such, but only individual fmu.
IMO, I do not even think nature distinguishes mass in this way... hence my theory of Massive SpaceTime. All three are "sticky" (coupled) to each other. IMO, I think that perhaps the best explanation for what constitutes mass is Milo Wolff's Wave Structure of Matter:
http://quantummatter.com/articles_html/body_point.html
It is, basically, an "interferometric" explanation for the electron: What we perceive as the electron "particle" is really a standing wave interference between inwaves and outwaves from all points in space. I like it because it avoids the problems of the reductionist model and embraces the notion of systems theory.
Let's examine Newton's Law of Universal Gravitation from this approach (F=G m1m2/d^2). While it appears that m1 is multiplied by m2 what one really has is a sum. Each fmu of m1 [n1] relates to each and every fmu of m2, of which there are [n2].So the sum of all these relations is m1m2.
What do you think of this?
I think that is another interesting way to look at Newton's approximation, and certainly one could write what you are talking about as an integral relation (which is a summation). While Newton's approximation has been extremely useful in our macroscopic engineering of our world, we need to go beyond it. IMO one way that we go beyond it is by transcending the notion of the "m1" and "m2" as point-mass-particles. That is not only a large error because it ignores the mutual (and non-linear) interactions of n1xn2, as you say, but the larger error comes from the fact that mass is not temporally static, as implied by Newton's universal law of graviation. In reality, at very small timescales (approaching Planck timescales) the electrons, protons, and neutrons are all vibrating and transforming themselves. This is precisely why I make a distinction between Mass (the assumed temporally static measurement of inertia) and Matter (a dualistic mixture of Mass and Time in much the same vein as the dualistic fabric we call SpaceTime). Matter is comprised of MassTime just like Motion is comprised of SpaceTime. The mathematical, dimensional analysis behind this then shows us that what we call "proper Time" is dictated by Matter in Motion, which reduces to the density of Mass over some control volume in Space. This jives with Relativity, since we know that as you accelerate faster your relativistic mass increases and your clocks run slower. Hence, as mass density in your "local bubble" increases, your relative time slows down (with respect to a relatively stationary observer).
Enough babble. As for your question, bogz, I have no freaking clue! I just ignore things that I think are BS, and I think CFD is along those lines! /ttiforum/images/graemlins/smile.gif
RMT
