Defenition of Matter, Mass, Field

In any science a definition of the category, which we refer to any natural phenomenon, is determined by the properties of this phenomenon. The more we study this phenomenon, the more we discover its properties. And in this sense a definition of the category is kept deepening.

In physics, the concept of matter, a substance, a body - they are the same. In philosophy as a category, a matter is more used.
Definition of Matter - The main qualities of matter (i.e., a substance, a body) are determined by Mass and Field.
Definition of the mass - the more you'll determine the mass (what physical properties it has), the closer you move to the need to determine the field and vice versa. Mass of the Body can be in different physical states: solid, liquid, gas, plasma, etc. . But in any state it has Field.
Defining Field - The deeper you will determine the field (what physical properties it has), the closer you move to the need to determine the mass.

                                             Mass and field as the form and content

The fact that the definitions of the body include two opposing properties, mass and physical field is not the exception but the general situation in the real world. For example, the magnet in its definition includes two opposites, positive and a negative pole, the electric charge in its definition includes the two extremes, + and -, a man in his definition includes two opposites, male and female and etc.

But to fully understand the phenomenon it is not enough only to point to its opposites and be proud that you understand the dialectical logic. We must also determine in what form this contradiction phenomenon exists. Whether its opposites are posited as independent forms, such as the poles of a magnet or a woman and man of human being, or it exists as a form and content.

At first glance it seems that the mass and field are related as posited forms, but upon further consideration, this conclusion is false. To solve this problem, let us speculate. In the above examples, we cannot say the same about the behavior of the magnet or human behavior, considered in terms of their opposites. For example, the magnet cannot, under certain conditions, act as only a "+", and under other circumstances, act as only a "-". The same can be said about the one and the same man who, in some circumstances cannot exist as a man, but under other conditions - as a woman, i.e., this is impossible, and we do not observe such phenomena in our real life. Hence we can conclude that the opposite definitions of the body "mass and the field" are not posited as opposite forms.

But here in terms of dialectical logic the problem arises. In relation to the "mass and the field" of the body, we assert that the body under certain conditions acts as a mass with all its inherent properties, and under other conditions the body acts as a field with all its inherent properties. Moreover, under this condition, body weight plays no role, and for this reason, the body becomes weightless in a strong field.

From the dialectical point of view it is possible when the mass and field related as form and content. If the body takes the form of the mass then the field is its content, and if the body takes the form of the field, then the mass is its content. At this point there is a logical contradiction of dialectical logic at first glance. We know that in all developing phenomena, first it has existed in one form, which we study and then its content comes to the surface and becomes a form, denying its previous form of existence. For example, human development, at first it exists as a child, but its content is a young man. Let's say after 10 years the child becomes a young man with the old form of human existence as a child has disappeared, there was a denial of it. In its new form, as a young man, a man displays the qualities that were not characteristic for the child: physically, he became strong, his interests changed completely - his attention started to attract women, books etc., who he will be in his life, and so on. This process is understandable. But how can a young man to return to his previous form as a child with all its inherent qualities. Of course not. But this is what we assume from the body, when we assert that, depending not on the time but the medium the body can act either in the form as the mass, then its content will be a field, or in form as a field, then its contents will be mass.

The fact is that the concepts of form and content - is a relative concept. This is a relative concept is the result of many reasons: the development of the body, or different position of the observer relative to the body, or the same body in different conditions, or as result in strong activation and deactivation of the field.
We have seen in an example of child and youth, the content is transformed into a form, but now let us analyze an example where the form becomes content. Take for example our planet, Earth. While we're on it, we say for us the earth exists in the form of mass, and we feel all its properties as mass, Any body has a weight on it, thanks to its gravitational effects. Therefore, all bodies on it exist in the form of mass. On the other hand, everyone knows that any star or planet has a gravitational field. Let us figure out approximately the size of the field. We know that the Moon orbits the Earth, thanks to its gravitational field and is located at a distance of 360000 km from Earth. Therefore, we can roughly admit that the radius of the gravitational field of the earth is 360000 km, while the radius of the Earth is 6400 km. If we look at the moon from the earth, we will see that the Earth is in the form of the gravitational field with a radius of 360,000 km. In the center of which there is the small body with a radius of 6400 km, in other words, we say that the body, the Earth, exists in the form of the gravitational field but its content is the mass, but if we go back from the moon to the earth, the latter will act for us in the form of the mass, the content of which will be a field.

An example with magnetic body. If a magnet is in a nonmagnetic medium, and not surrounded by objects, the atoms of which are not polarized in a magnetic field, then this magnetic body takes the form of mass, and it’s a hidden magnetic field is its content. But if you change the environment to the opposite, the magnetic body with great force shows its magnetic field and therefore the body begins to act in the form of a magnetic field, the content of which is the mass.

Most physicists would object  such a ratio of mass and field of the body as an opposite grounds on which we base all our knowledge about nature, but the most compelling evidence for them is the fact that many textbooks on theoretical physics, edited by clever physicists build their sections and chapters on these grounds.

For example, Short Course of Theoretical Physics, edited by L.D. Landau and E.M. Lifshitz called "Mechanics and Electrodynamics. And what is the subject of studying in Mechanics, the behavior of bodies as mass. And what is the subject of studying in Electrodynamics, the behavior of bodies as field.

                                                      The behavior of the body as Field

If we compare the volume of the Earth with the volume of its gravitational field, then they will be in relation around  one to 1,000,000, based on the previous example. If we assume roughly that such a relationship is fair for all the other planets and stars, then we see that only 0.0001% of the universe has mass, and all the rest of the space is occupied by a gravitational field. (I talk about universe that has galaxies).  Of course, the same space is occupied by electromagnetic, magnetic and static fields, etc., which have the above bodies. Therefore, from this point of view,  the studying of the interaction of the fields produced by bodies, represents a great scientific interest.

Let us ask ourselves a simple question: whether the field of one body interacts with the mass of another body or with its field?  In mechanics, which studies the interaction of bodies, based on their quality as a mass there is no single formula that describes a particular interaction between bodies, which would contain the characteristics of the field. In other words, body as a mass interacts only with the mass of another body. Hence the conclusion that the field of the body interacts only with the field of another body.

                                                                   Body in a magnetic field

A simple experiment with a magnet can drive us to the same conclusion. Let us put a magnet in a nonmagnetic medium and bring any body whose atoms are not polarized in a magnetic field of the magnet. Our magnet will not show any magnetic properties. Explanation is very simple: these bodies do not possess a magnetic field, which would come in the interaction with the magnetic field of our magnet. But if we bring a body A whose atoms are polarized in a magnetic field, then our magnet immediately reacts to the appearance of the magnetic field of the body A, and attracts it.

                                The transition of a quality of body from Mass to Field in a magnetic field.

Let us complicate the experiment. Let us attach the magnet on a tripod. Then we take a nut, tie a string to it and to the bottom of the tripod, and place the nut so that it is attracted to a magnet. In this case the string, fixed on the basis of the tripod and the nut, stretched itself vertically and held the nut with a few millimeters below the magnet. What properties will the magnet and the Nut show?

First, if we fixed the magnet on the tripod, there is an interaction of bodies, magnet and a tripod, the magnet displays its properties as mass, but at the same time it creates a magnetic field, roughly speaking, around itself in which the nut is located.
In order for Magnet to show its dominant property as the magnetic field in full, it must play the role of the nut, another words the magnet itself must be placed in a strong magnetic field of another magnet.

Second, the magnetic field of the magnet interacts with the magnetic field of the nut, which was formed due to the polarization of the atoms in the nut under the action of the magnetic field of the magnet. If the interaction of these fields is very weak, the body-nut manifests its property as a mass, although, at the same time, it is surrounded by its weak magnetic field. In this case we consider the mass of the nut as a form in which the nut acts, and its weak magnetic field as its content.
Now let us start to increase the interaction of magnetic fields by slowly lowering the magnet on the tripod. When the interaction of fields reaches a certain strength, then the nut bounce up, attracted to a magnet. At some point from the magnet the thread will stop the nut in the hanging position.
At the time of the jump of the nut to the magnet, the nut appeares in the form of the magnetic field whose content will be its mass, so in the process of jumping the mass of the nut did not show any of its properties, they were reduced to zero. But at a time when the thread is stretched vertically, two bodies (mass of nut and thread) interacted and the mass still being content started to detect its properties as a mass.

                                           The body in a gravitational field
All are familiar with the law of Galileo of free fall, that all bodies, regardless of their size, of their masses with the same acceleration are attracted to the earth. But a few people wondered why. Although this law is in complete contradiction with the 2-nd law of Newton F = ma, the more mass the more force must be applied to the body to get the same acceleration, although in the first and second cases we are talking about the same mass.

Of course, one could argue that the free-falling bodies with different masses have different gravitational force acting on them, and to bring the law into conformity with the laws of Newton. But then, this explanation does not apply to the behavior of bodies in electric or magnetic field, where the force with which the field acts on charge, does not depend on the mass of a charged body, although in all cases we are dealing with the behavior of the body in the field rather than with the interaction of two bodies.

The fact is that when free-falling body, we are dealing with the movement of the body in a gravitational field, and the latter, as we showed earlier, does not interact with mass of the body but with its gravitational field. Any body has a gravitational field, whose dimensions are determined by its mass. But since these different dimensions of the fields receive the same acceleration in the Earth's gravitational field, the latter simply means that the huge gravitational field interacts with the gravitational field of bodies equally (equal acceleration) regardless of their size. But this implies that the gravitational fields of bodies have something common in themselves, in terms of properties of the field, once the gravitational field of the earth treats them as equals. This common thing is density of energy of the gravitational field of each body.

With such interpretation of the law of Galileo, it will not be at a variance with the 2nd law of Newton. Because we speak, in the first case, about the behavior of the body as a field and, in the second - about the behavior of the body as Mass.

                                                            The body in an electric field.

On the particle with charge q, placed in an electric field with intensity E, the force, acting on it, is F = Eq. In this formula, the charge q creates a static field, so based on the examples of magnetic and gravitational field, I would be more inclined to write this formula as the interaction of the electric field with a static field of the charge because the charge itself is on the entire surface of the mass and therefore can be regarded as the charged mass in contrast to the uncharged mass, but in any case it will behave as a field in a strong external field, the behavior of which we described earlier.
Misunderstanding of physicists to this day that the body may behave as a mass and as a field leads to the creation of unnecessary physical categories, which help to explain the phenomenon in a specific case, contribute the complexity to the understanding of other processes. For example, there are concepts, along with the mass - gravitational mass, rest mass, inertial mass, etc. .

                                                                  Weightlessness of body

When the body moves in any strong field under the action of its forces, it becomes weightless for the simple reason that the body under these conditions exists in the form of a field but not - of a mass. We are so accustomed to our daily life to the conduct of the body as a mass, i.e., that every body has a weight that we do not even admit that the normal state of the body may be its weightlessness. But when the physicists face with of weightlessness, they try to explain this phenomenon of the body from the old positions - consider the body as a mass - for each specific case. In our life we are often faced with short-term temporary weightlessness of the body when the latter moves in the field and at the moment, showing its opposite property - to be a field and, therefore, be weightless. For example, a body falls from a height. At the time of flight, it becomes weightless. When the body is attracted by a strong magnet,  it becomes weightless.

Moreover, when the body is in a strong field for a long time and during this time the body shows its weightlessness, its opposite quality as the "field", we still do not believe our eyes and try to explain it from the standpoint of the body as a "mass". For example, weightlessness of an astronaut, physicists explain by the fact that the astronaut does not produce pressure on the body of a satellite, because both of them are attracted to the earth with the same acceleration. This assertion is in agreement with the gravitational interaction of bodies, but it is not applicable to the fact that the frog is in a state of weightlessness, when it is placed in a strong magnetic field, or when the elementary particles along with their particle properties show their electromagnetic wave quality, i.e., behave as field and therefore are in a state of weightlessness. To overcome the weight of body physicists try by introduction of an anti-gravitational field, but it is in contradiction with the experiments mentioned above, in which the body is in a weightlessness without the existence of anti-gravitational fields.

In another example, a magnet attracting the iron plate, the later in the process of attraction becomes weightless. Physicists explain this fact that the strength of the magnetic field is several times more the weight of the plate and therefore the plate is attracted to a magnet. This explanation is logically justified, but again it is based on the mass of the body and applies only to the magnetic field.

The invalidity of the explanations in relation to the astronaut or the magnet is found in the fact that they explain only privately every phenomenon of weightlessness in a gravitational or magnetic field, which even at first glance, confirmed by experiments, despite the general fact that any body in any strong field becomes weightless. In other words, their explanations are not common to all fields, and therefore they are in logical contradiction to the whole concept of field theory. Some theories are constructed on such explanations in modern physics, which do not reflect the essence of the real laws of nature, and therefore they are not scientific. Hence the failure of the normal person with common sense to understand these "new theory" against the background of the general concept in a science.

There is only one conclusion: any body becomes weightless in any strong field, because in such an environment, this body begins to act in its opposite capacity as "field". The normal state of the body may be weighty or weightless, depending on the environment in which the body manifests its opposite qualities.

                                                        The total energy of the body

From our discussion it follows that if the main opposite qualities of the body are its mass and its field, then the energy of the body is the common characteristic that expresses their unity and therefore the possible mutual transitions of energy. If the body takes the form of the mass (weight status) then the energy of the body can be expressed in the form of mass, and if the body takes the form of field (weightlessness), then the energy of the body can be expressed in the form of the field.

                                        Similarity and difference of the fields

Similarity is as follows:
1. body as a field can exist in all these fields.
2. Under these conditions the property of the body as the mass is reduced to zero
3. The movement of the body, as the field in these fields shows that these fields have an energy
4. These fields may have common characteristics of their behavior
5. The speed of the fields of the body can exceed the speed of light in the dozens or more times
Detailed detection of similarity of different fields is the subject of physics

The difference is as follows:

1. Causes of formation of each field are different
2. Some fields can interact with each other
Detailed detection of the differences in the fields is the subject of physics

                                      Laws governing the behavior of the body as a mass
Newton's First Law: In the absence of a net external force, a body either is at rest or moves with constant velocity.
Newton's Second Law: The net external force on a body is equal to the mass of that body times its acceleration; F = ma.
Newton's third law: Whenever a first body exerts a force F on a second body, the second body exerts a force −F on the first body. F and −F are equal in magnitude and opposite in direction

                                    Laws governing the behavior of the body as a field
If Newton's three laws are the basis of conduct of the body as mass, then the laws of the field, discovered by me, are the basis of conduct of the body as a field.

Such interpretation of the law of the field explains why free falling bodies with different masses are attracted to the earth with the same acceleration, if they are at the same height from the Earth.
Explanation of the energy density in my formula.
In my case I'm talking about the local energy density of the field (e.g., sun), let us denote its P1 in which the body (e.g., Earth) is in the form of the field. The value of the local densities of field energy of the sun varies according to their distance from the center of the sun.

In the case of the Earth we are talking about its average energy density of its field because the whole energy density of the earth is located in the volume that is comparable to or less than the volume of the local density of field energy of the sun, in which it is located.
(In my opinion this is the essence of the laws of the field , to which I have come to observe the behavior of the spacecraft of aliens in our earth's atmosphere,. Physicists can clarify them or add)

These laws of the field open Pandora's box. Critics be ready for the big surprises, such as:
1. Why Newton's law of gravitation, discovered in 17 century - every two particles of matter attract each other with a force F, directly proportional to their masses m1 and m2 and is inversely proportional to the square of the distance r between them - is correct only by form but not by its content, that two masses are attracted by a gravitational force - is not correct? Because the interaction of gravitational fields creates such impression.
2. Why on the basis of Newton's law of gravitation, celestial mechanics is not able to calculate the interaction of more than two bodies?
3. Why the planets do not fall on the sun or electrons - on the nucleus of an atom.
4. Modern quantum mechanics states that, "Firstly, the processes occurring in nature, are controlled by pure chance. Secondly, contrary to classical mechanics, one can never make simultaneous predictions of position and momentum, with arbitrary accuracy. For instance, electrons may be considered to be located somewhere within a region of space, but with their exact positions being unknown". The point is that the motion of particles in the field becomes more complicated as a result of their interaction.

On the basis of discovered new laws of field, it is not difficult to understand the process of interaction, field of a particle with an external field, and to calculate the exact trajectory of any electron - based on the fact that the electrons flying from the atom, have different energetic density field. Hence, they have different force of interaction with the external field, which changes their trajectory. With such approach, this problem disappears. Thus the processes in quantum mechanics are governed not by chance, but all the same causal relationships, only they need to be discovered.
5. etc.
From the standpoint of laws of field, which I presented, all this and much more can be easily explained.

                                                        What unites and distinguishes these laws.
Three laws of Newton represent interest for us, because physicists, including Newton, overlooked in them one important position, that they (laws) show the borders of their application, i.e. they act only in such reference systems, inertial systems and accelerated, in which the body behaves as mass. Evidence of this assertion follows from the comparison between Newton's laws that determine the behavior of the body as Mass, and my laws determining the behavior of the body as a field. In fact, my laws state that the behavior of the body, acting in the form of field do not depend on its mass, because the body becomes weightless. They tell us that the body as a field is valid only for the accelerated reference systems, as a field. It follows that in these accelerated systems, the body can not act as a mass. None of the modern physicists did not know this position, including Einstein, so they could not notice that the General Theory of Relativity is in contradiction with the three laws of Newton.
The difference between these laws for the mass and field of the body lies in the fact, that the laws of behavior of the body as a field do not include Mass, and that the laws of behavior of the body as a mass do not include a Field.

                                                    Criticism of the General Theory of Relativity

                                                                          The relation between Sciences

Before turning to criticism of general relativity, I would like to say a few words about the relation between Sciences. There is a recognized official or unofficial view that physics is more complex science compared to other sciences. This view is profoundly mistaken. All sciences, including classical political economy, classical philosophy, chemistry, biology, mathematics, physics, and etc., are equal in their complexity both the research and understanding of various processes that are the subject of research in every science. And after the discovery of the laws, which explains the behavior of these events and others like them, understanding of these processes is simplified to such an extent that even the average person who has common sense, can understand them without difficulties.

All Sciences are consolidated by the fact that they are based on certain qualitative basis, which is the specific subject of study in each science. And since the object of study is the result of nature, it possesses a dialectical contradiction, ie, its definition is divided into opposites, which are the foundation upon which every science is built.

For example, in algebra the subject of study is the numbers that quantitatively describe any phenomenon in nature. But since the phenomenon may be relatively constant or developing itself, then the numbers fall into permanent and variable. Elementary algebra is based on permanent numbers, and higher algebra is based on a variable number.

In geometry, a subject of study is a description of bodies in different spaces. Space may be relatively constant or developing. Permanent space is the foundation upon which Euclidean geometry, the geometry of Lobachevsky and Riemann are built. While developing space is the basis for the geometry of Minkovski. (Details are in my article "Formal and dialectical logic as a unity of opposites, or the development of the classic philosophy").

An object of study of physics is the behavior of the physical body. But the later is broken up, as we showed earlier, into two the opposite qualities, Mass and Field, which are the grounds on which the main branches of physics, mechanics and electrodynamics are built.

Subject of study of philosophy is the quality in general, which can be constant or variable (developing). On the study of the permanent quality, the formal logic is based, on the study of developing quality the dialectical logic is built. Splitting the quality onto fixed (permanent) and variable was first discovered by me, and it made the understanding of the relationship of formal and dialectical logic easy to understand for everybody. In addition to this, I would like to note, that I developed the laws of formal logic discovered by Aristotle and Leibniz.

The classical political economy is based on labor, which includes concrete and abstract labor.
From understanding the relationship of opposite qualities that make up the foundation (the dialectical contradiction) in any science, depends on our correct understanding of the real world, because the apt remark of Hegel the source of all development is a dialectical contradiction.

                                                                    False base for STR and GTR.

After such a short introduction on the relation between Sciences, let us switch to the critique of the Theory of Relativity of Einstein which in essence is an excellent example of how science can derail from the scientific rails and go in the wrong direction. For this reason Ttheory of Relativity represents difficult subject to be understood by people with common sense.

The base for TR is the fact that the speed of light is constant 300,000 km / sec relative to all inertial reference systems. Einstein said: "This can be expressed as follows: for the physical description of the natural processes, neither of the reference-bodies K, K" is unique (lit, "specially marked out") as compared with others is not allocated among the others." ("Relativity" by Albert Einstein, p 68,Three River Press, 1961)

The essence of general theory of relativity is that the phenomenon of light is true not only for the Galileo system, but also for systems of reference moving with acceleration. Here is what A. Einstein said: "In contrast, to this we wish to understand by the "general principle of relativity" the following statement: All bodies of reference K, K", etc., are equivalent for the description of natural phenomena (formulation of the general laws of nature), whatever may be their state of motion." (p. 69)

First, let us analyze what is a logic error of Einstein in the argument about the relation between the laws of nature in a variety of Galileo reference systems. Indeed, if the law is valid for one frame of reference it should be valid for other similar frame of reference. But he misrepresents this position in his reasoning. The speed of light is constant relative to the Earth, which is a Galilean system of reference, system K. But if this is true for the Earth, the law of the constancy of the speed of light must be valid for any planet (the other Galilean system of reference K") with respect to which this velocity is measured. And this condition is satisfied if we fly on one of the planets in the solar system and hold the experiments of Michelson or Fizeau, we find that the speed of light is constant over there and is approximately equal 300,000 km / sec. i.e. the situation remains that the laws of nature are the same for the same frames of references. Moreover, in this case, it is very easy to make the transition from one coordinate system K to K', where the constant speed of light remains.

But Einstein in his reasoning distorts the last position. He interprets this provision, for example, that if we assume that in a short period of time the Earth and Mars move in straight lines with uniform velocity relative to each other (ie, represent Galileo system of reference), and that if in the space between them we will create flash of light and measure the speed of light relative to those in uniform motion planets, then the velocity of light will be the same 300000km/sec for each of them. The same interpretation Einstein applied to the accelerated frame. The concept of speed is always defined relative to a certain frame of reference. But he makes the speed of light as the absolute, i.e the reference system does not exist for the light. In his discussion of the TR all are relative except the speed of light. Because if he recognizes its relativity, his whole theory of relativity would collapse. For a sensible man it is already enough to say that STR and GTR are based on a false basis, which is masked by the correct form of expression, but interpretation of which is incorrect. Since the foundation on which the Theory of Relativity is built is false, the theories themselves are not worthy of scientific attention.

                                                                      Einstein on the ratio of Field and Matter.

When we deal with fields, any theoretical physicist confronts with question about the relation of Field and Matter, because it is a fundamental problem in physics, which to this day has not been resolved. Einstein investigated this problem as well. I quote his argument in this regard: "We have two realities: matter and field. Undoubtedly, At the present time we cannot imagine the physics built on the notion of Matter, as did nineteenth-century physics. At the present time, we accepted both concepts. Can we take a Matter and a field in two different dissimilar realities? Let us given a small particle of matter, we would be naive to imagine that there is a certain surface of the particle, beyond which it no longer exists, but it appears as a gravitational field. In our picture the area in which the laws of the field are valid, sharply separated from the area in which the matter is. But what is a natural criterion for distinguishing the Matter and the field? Before, when we did not know the theory of relativity, we have tried to answer that question as follows: The Matter has a mass, while the field does not have it. The Field has an energy. The matter has mass. But we already know that such a response in the light of new knowledge is insufficient. From the theory of relativity, we know that the substance is an enormous reserve of energy and that energy is a substance. We cannot in this way to make a qualitative difference between matter and field, since the difference between mass and energy are not qualitative. Far greater part of the energy is concentrated in the matter, but the field surrounding the particle, also represents the energy, although in much smaller quantities. Therefore, we might say: the substance - where the concentration of energy is great, the field - where the concentration of energy is small. But if so, the distinction between substance and field is rather quantitative than qualitative. There is no sense to consider the substance and the field as two qualities completely different from each other. We cannot imagine a surface, clearly separating the field and matter... " and beyond "We cannot build physics on the basis of only one concept - a matter. But the distinction between matter and field, after the recognition of equivalence of mass and energy, there is something artificial and vaguely defined. Could not we abandon the concept of matter and build a pure physics of field? ( "Physics and Reality" pages 315-316) A. Einstein)

From these considerations of Einstein it's easy to see that he admitted "two realities: matter and field", that he was trying to find qualitative oppositions in this ratio, but all his attempts to explain this relationship ended in failure: "We cannot in this way to make a qualitative difference between matter and field". Moreover, his arguments led him to a logical contradiction: "Could not we abandon the concept of matter and build a pure physics field?". To refuse the notion of real matter, which he admitted at the beginning of his thoughts.

From the point of view of my theory, this contradiction can easily be removed. From our discussion it follows that if the body has two opposite qualities, mass and its field, then the energy of the body is the common characteristic that expresses their unity (mass and field) and therefore the mutual transition of energy is possible. If the body takes the form of the mass (weight status) then the energy of the body takes the form of masses, and if the body takes the form of field (weightlessness), the energy of the body takes the form of field and thus the energy body can be expressed in the form of field without rejection of the notion of matter as a reality, i.e., "build a pure physicsof  field."

What is interesting to note in these arguments is that Einstein tried to bring into relation the following physical categories: matter and field, the matter and mass, field and energy, matter and energy, mass and energy. But he never related the ratio of the mass and field, except for one place where it was not pronounced clearly: "The matter has a mass, while the field does not have it." From my article it is clear that we have to consider not the relation of the "matter and field" but the mass and the field. They are the opposite qualities of matter. Ignorance of this ratio that the matter may act in opposite qualities as a mass and as a field, (depending on the environment, in which, it is) led Einstein to another error: an introduction to the physics of unrealistic concepts such as gravitational mass and inertial mass.

And that's what he wrote about the relationship between the charge and the field: "The same difficulties arise to charge and its field. It seems impossible to give a clear qualitative criterion for distinguishing between the matter and the field or the charge and the field"

If for Einstein the solution of this problem was not possible, then from a new angle on the ratio of mass and field, the solution is easy. We say that the mass may exist in different states: in the normal state it only creates a gravitational field, in a polarized state, it creates an additional magnetic field, and when it has the charge, it creates an additional electric field. Thus, these explanations are in full agreement with the new general theory of the relation between the mass and the field.

                                  How Einstein resolved the contradiction between the Law of Galileo,

                                                 the free fall of bodies, and Newton's second law

Einstein is one of the physicists who drew attention to the existing contradiction between the free fall of bodies in a gravitational field, discovered by Galileo and the 2nd law of Newton. This contradiction lies in the fact that under the free fall of bodies, the latter receive the same acceleration regardless of their mass, while the 2nd Newton's law states that acceleration of the body inversely proportional to its mass. And since Einstein's Theory of Relativity deals directly with the gravitational field and mass, which, according to Galileo did not play any role in a free fall of bodies in a gravitational field, Einstein decided to fix the laws of nature and resolve this contradiction by introducing the concept: gravitational mass and inertial mass, although the original concept of mass did not need that. But Einstein had different reasons, if one does not introduce these new concepts, then his GTR will die, but he needed to see it alive, in order to open for people the nature of the gravitational field, to give them new ideas about space and time, etc. . Einstein's "Genius" consisted not in the fact that he drove his answer to explanations, but that he made changes to the laws of nature, if they do not comply with his Theory of Relativity. On the other hand, we should pay tribute to him that he was able to grasp the problem at the junction of qualitative conversions, mass and field, and only a few people have this rare quality.
Why is Galileo's law of free fall, the opposite of the 2nd law of Newton I examined in this article earlier?

The majority of physicists, against my conclusions about the unscientific nature of STR and GTR, bring in as evidence the experiments that supposedly support these scientific theories, ie correctness of their predictions about certain phenomena in practice. In this case, I can remind them the old times when astronomers tried to define the position of the planets in the sky coming from the fact that all the planets and the sun revolve around the earth (Ptolemaic system). Eventually they succeeded, but how many unnecessary assumptions were introduced in their calculations to dock their calculations with reality. But when the sun became the base or the frame of reference and all planets revolve around it, then the calculations were simplified in tens times and a mountain of unnecessary assumptions has been abandoned in the garbage of history. I think the same will happen in physics when they seriously admit that the body exists in the opposite qualities of both the mass and as a field and that each of them in a certain environment is dominant.

Of course, at the present stage, when the physicists give preference to the experiment and to its trivial explanation than to the power of logic of the system of concepts (categories), and its laws, it is almost impossible to expect from them to renounce TR and other theories that are contrary to the system logic. But when physicists realize that the velocity of field of the body can be ten times and greater than the speed of light, then these theories will go quietly from the historical arena of science.

There were a few famous physicists, who lived at the time of creation of TR, who did not accept it seriously, but in the absence of strong arguments against it they could not criticize it. And if you cannot beat the enemies, then you join them. This principle of practical life unfortunately operates in science as well. Therefore, the majority of physicists adopted the STR officially as a scientific theory.