A simple Q. but not a simple A,,
in [Relativity]
|
Prev: float..my farts
Next: LHC Math gives a Doomsday.
From: glird on 8 Jan 2010 11:46 On Jan 8, 5:43 am, "Inertial" <relativ...(a)rest.com> wrote: > <k...(a)nventure.com> wrote in message [snip] > k wrote: The true interpretation of Newton's Second Law of Momentum is: The change of momentum is proportional to the motive force impressed; and is made in the direction of the straight line in which that force is impressed. Inertial: F = dp/dt .. also equivalently written as F = ma k: It's getting late, and I'm quite tired. I am well aware of the mistakes that I may make when I am tired and sleepy, and the consequences there of, especially when posting on this newsgroup. So I will address the errors within Classical Newtonian Mechanics about the Third Law and what Newton really addressed in Principia tomorrow. > It' still this morning, tofay. Why wait til tomorrow? :-( While you're at it, how bout discussing what Newton actually said versus what physics did with his Second Law! Here's why I am interested ___________ On Jan 5, 7:55 am, "Inertial" <relativ...(a)rest.com> wrote: > "Y.Porat" <y.y.po...(a)gmail.com> wrote [snip] >> >> > > If you change the equation to read P1/gamma = m*v, then neither the left hand side nor the right hand side is momentum any longer. The left hand side is the ratio of momentum and gamma, and the right hand side is the product of mass and velocity, but neither side is momentum. > > > >> > i doubt it !! since gamma is just a scalar > > >> So is mass. PD: The momentum of the proton in slow motion is gamma*m*v. The momentum of the proton in fast motion is gamma*m*v. There is no difference. > Wrong!! There is a huge difference between the value of gamma = 1/ (c^2 - v^2)^.5 when v of the proton is slow, compared to the value of gamma when v is very fast. y.y: now comes the main point question for you, PD: Did the above growth of momentum 'inflate' the original mass of the Proton? > > No, the mass is the same.> >< BINGO !! THERE IS JUST ONE KIND OF MASS NO MATTER WHAT DO YOU CALL IT> > PD: < That does not alter the fact that for as long as there has been SR, 'm' has usually meant the invariant mass (sometimes m0 is used instead, and m for relativistic mass). Before SR, there was just mass for quite a while. So if anything the 'one kind of mass' is a very old concept. Note that there are at least two equivalent 'kinds' of mass .. there is inertial mass and gravitational mass. They both end up being equal (which is in itself interesting, as they are very different concepts). > 1. They are NOT equal. Look again at Aetvos's measured values. (The inertial mass is slightly less than the g-mass.) 2. How about the "mass" of "dark matter"? PD: < Have a read of ... http://www.math.ucr.edu/home/baez/physics/Relativity/SR/mass.html to find out what 'relativistic mass' and 'rest mass' and just 'mass' means in physics.> I looked and found this: "If we define mass in such a way that the object's mass does not increase as it heats up, then we will have to give up the idea that mass is proportional to weight." There, in a nutshell, is one of the main reasons for the ignorance of physicists as to the nature of reality. In his Principles of Natural Philosophy the philosopher Newton said: ____________ i couldn't find his exact words. I woke several times last night thinking, There is a HUGE difference between "proportional" and " = "! and Whereas Newton said the force (of gravity?) is PROPORTIONATE to the mass per object, physics changed that to F = ma. Nwewton was right. Regardless of which g-field the object(s) are in, their weight will be proportionate to their (newtonian) mass. (To him, and to me, "mass" denotes a quantity of matter, independently of its weight in various g-fields. In physics, mass is measured by weighing an object in EARTH'S g-field.) Physics is wrong! In the equations f = ma and m_v = beta(m), etc etc etc, the m denotes the WEIGHT of an object, NOT a quantity of matter!! When an atomic reaction occurs, some energy AND some matter is released. Non-particulate matter ("dark matter") has no weight in a g-field, although it does affect the local density which IS a g-field. Because they replaced Newton's "proportionate" with their " = ", though, our ignoranuses think that MATTER is a form of ENERGY; which is nonsense. glird
From: jbriggs444 on 8 Jan 2010 14:56 On Jan 7, 4:51 pm, cjcountess <cjcount...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > In light of what Al just said, we can extend the ideas that obstruct > progress in physics, to people who obstruct progress. The idea that progress in physics is engendered to any significant degree on sci.physics is somewhere to the left of absurd. The idea that Uncle Al is a key stumbling block preventing that from happening is even more absurd. Uncle Al is intelligent. And does not suffer fools gladly. It is no service to "progress in physics" or to an idiot to pretend to that idiot that his or her ideas are sensible. What's the saying -- "it's pointless to try to teach a cat how to do physics. It only frustrates you and annoys the cat"? The idea that c^2 has an interpretation in terms of rotating the speed of light by 90 degrees and taking a vector cross product that is somehow more fundamental than its interpretation in terms of a unit conversion factor required when using an un-natural system of units where c != 1 is, to me, ludicrous on its face. I don't feel any need to read mystical signifance to into 32 feet per second when working with an "incoherent" system like the English system of units. Why would someone feel a need to supply mystical significance for 9.0*10^16 meter^2/second^2 when working in an "unnatural" system such as MKS? Now people who favor civil discourse tend to be the same people who favor universal peace, love and brotherhood of man. Al apparently has a point of view on that. If I may try to express that point of view in my own words... Peace, love and the brotherhood of man only work as long as the other guy is looking out for your best interests. More often than not, the other guy is looking out for _his_ best interests. I rather enjoy the scene in "War of the Worlds" where the clergyman walks out to a Martian war machine holding a bible and mouthing something about how little fear he has when walking into the valley of the shadow of death. Go Martians, Go! Increase the average intelligence of the human race! Or to quote Clint: "deserve's got nothing to do with it".
From: Y.Porat on 10 Jan 2010 01:41 On Jan 3, 10:01 pm, cjcountess <cjcount...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > Look h, is the constant kinetic or relativistic, call it what you > prefer, mass/energy, of the photon due to constant velocity of c. > It is still mass, and it is mass due to motion. And as I demonstrated, > even rest mass, is relative mass, in circular and or spherical > rotation. They are two aspects of the same thing. The whole universe > is in constant motion, and one might say that motion is more of a > constant than anything at rest. All mass come from energy in motion, > even rest mass, which is energy in rotation. > Like I said earlier, in equation (E=hf/c^2), h is constant mass/ > energy due to constant velocity of, c and, f is variable mass/ > energy, due to variable frequency. And higher mass/energy is due to > higher kinetic energy of motion, because higher frequency come from > higher motion of higher cycles per time unit, and translates to more > speed,.and correspondingly higher kinetic energy. In the old days the > equation (E=hf), was written as (E=hv), showing its direct > correspondence to (F=mv), as indeed they are equal on the quantum > level and directly proportional on macro level. And they updated > equation E=hf/c^2 is equal to F=mv/r^2. > Earlier I stated that E=hf/c^2 did not pertain to rest mass but it > does at the high end of the EM spectrum because when E=hf=c^2 or as > deBrolie stated E=hf=mc^2 as 1/1 = 1x1 = 1 /c^2 = x c^2. > > On Dec 30 2009, 6:57 pm, "Inertial" <relativ...(a)rest.com> wrote: > > > > > "cjcountess" <cjcount...(a)yahoo.com> wrote in message > > >news:bdd1649a-aa33-4ac9-b17c-38428f2ede65(a)37g2000vbn.googlegroups.com... > > > > 1) Planck discovered E=hf for photons > > > 2) Einstein discovered E=mc^2 for electron's/matter > > > 3) deBroglie discovered (E=hf) = (E=mc^2) for electron of -1 charge, > > > and that electron was also a wave. > > > 4) Bohr discovered that the wavelength of electron is equal to > > > circumference of circle with angular momentum of a multiple integer of > > > h/2pi > > > 5) Therefore it follows from this and other evidence, that (E=mc^2) = > > > (E= mc^circled) and c=(square root of -1) > > > You were going well up until you started with that last line of nonsense. > > > If c=(square root of -1), then c is no longer a real number, and cannot be > > the speed of anything measured. Further, if c=(square root of -1), then c^2 > > = -2, so E = mc^2 becomes E = -m, and that is absolute nonsense. > > c = the natural unit, sqrt of the natural unit -1, and is no longer > just an imaginary number, but a real natural unit just as the electron > is the real natural unit -1. > And yes E= -m in this special case. > Ever heard of the unity of the constants? As everything in the > universe come from a unified source as we get to the constants in > nature we find that they too extend from a unity. > (c^2 = G = h/2pi) and (h = c= i = 2pi) so far Ive found that all > constants can be traced to a unity with c > In equation E=hf/c^2 and F=mv/r^2, c = r > > Conrad J Countess ----------------------- good for you Countless !! anyway i forgot whop said it first that 'ENERGY IS MASS IN MOTION!! EVEN IN MICROCOSM' !! can you remember who said it first (:-) ATB Y.Porat ------------------------------
From: Y.Porat on 10 Jan 2010 01:47 On Jan 9, 9:37 pm, cjcountess <cjcount...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > On Jan 8, 2:56 pm, jbriggs444 <jbriggs...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > On Jan 7, 4:51 pm, cjcountess <cjcount...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > > > > In light of what Al just said, we can extend the ideas that obstruct > > > progress in physics, to people who obstruct progress. > > > The idea that progress in physics is engendered to any significant > > degree on sci.physics is somewhere to the left of absurd. The idea > > that Uncle Al is a key stumbling block preventing that from happening > > is even more absurd. > > > Uncle Al is intelligent. And does not suffer fools gladly. > > > It is no service to "progress in physics" or to an idiot to pretend to > > that idiot that his or her ideas are sensible. > > > What's the saying -- "it's pointless to try to teach a cat how to do > > physics. It only frustrates you and annoys the cat"? > > > The idea that c^2 has an interpretation in terms of rotating the speed > > of light by 90 degrees and taking a vector cross product that is > > somehow more fundamental than its interpretation in terms of a unit > > conversion factor required when using an un-natural system of units > > where c != 1 is, to me, ludicrous on its face. > > I dont care about your personal feelings toward me, just state your > case for what you have claimed. The same goes for Al. I already made > him look foolish and so now you want to join him. > When I first encountered Al here:http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics/msg/c3d2094579aeee47?hl=en > > He stated: > > > Tell us how affine/teleparallel gravitation makes exactly the same > > predictions - qualitative and quantitative to the lst decimal place - > > as metric gravitation but without spacetime curvature. You can't have > > it both ways, buddy boy. Either the equations are parity-even scalars > > and tensors with spacetime curvature or parity-odd pseudoscalars and > > pseudotensors with spacetime torsion. > > > Go ahead, tell us how a curvature looks like a Lorentz force. > > Since than I have shown how a wave is compressed by Lorentz force, > which is = to Doppler effect measured as E=hf/c^2 or E=m/c^2 into > spacetime curvature measured as E=hf=mc^2 as deBroglie stated. > Just because you cannot see that c^2, is not just a mathematical > conversion factor, with not physical structure, at quantum level, > where E=hf=mc^2, and energy equals, and turns into matter, because it > takes on a circular and or spherical form, shows your lack of sense. > I have analogical, logical, mathematical, geometrical, and > statistical, evidence to back it, and there is no way around it, > except to deliberately close your eyes, because you refuse to swallow > your foolish pride. > Just keep on believing what you do and make your case for it. > I will do same and enjoy it. When you know you are right it is easy to > be confident. > I dont blame anyone if they dont see this right away because it is a > new discovery, but to deny evidence that is so clear it speaks for > itself, and is right in your face, is itself ludicrous on its face. > > And oh yea, as for advancing physics on sci physics, even Al is > trying to advance physics on sci physics, and thinks that mainstream > physicist are obstructing its path, did you see his link:http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/qz4.htm > > And if you think that the so called big boys like Stephen Hawkings, > dont have teams data mining, sites like these for ideas, than your > a fool. And furthermore, if they truly dont than they are fools. > Truth is, some of the greatest ideas come from the out of the box > thinking of non professionals and my idea- discovery is one of the > greatest, (E=mc^2 = E=mc^circled) and (c=sqrt-1), and I am going to > enjoy proving it. > > You both think your so smart. > > I am also going to thoroughly enjoy proving you otherwise. > > Conrad J Countess > > Remember my name ------------------- Good for you Countless !!!! dont let all the imbecile parrot gangsters hold you back we are going to win not them!! (that is why they are in panic !!) ATB Y.Porat
From: whoever on 10 Jan 2010 06:21
"Y.Porat" <y.y.porat(a)gmail.com> wrote in message news:fb1eee45-5265-4336-81db-d1715d2367a7(a)a6g2000yqm.googlegroups.com... > On Jan 3, 10:01 pm, cjcountess <cjcount...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: >> Look �h�, is the constant kinetic or relativistic, call it what you >> prefer, �mass/energy�, of the photon due to constant velocity of �c�. >> It is still mass, and it is mass due to motion. And as I demonstrated, >> even rest mass, is relative mass, in circular and or spherical >> rotation. They are two aspects of the same thing. The whole universe >> is in constant motion, and one might say that motion is more of a >> constant than anything at rest. All mass come from energy in motion, >> even rest mass, which is energy in rotation. >> Like I said earlier, in equation (E=hf/c^2), �h� is constant mass/ >> energy due to constant velocity of, �c� and, �f� is variable mass/ >> energy, due to variable frequency. And higher mass/energy is due to >> higher kinetic energy of motion, because higher frequency come from >> higher motion of higher cycles per time unit, and translates to more >> speed,.and correspondingly higher kinetic energy. In the old days the >> equation (E=hf), was written as (E=hv), showing its direct >> correspondence to (F=mv), as indeed they are equal on the quantum >> level and directly proportional on macro level. And they updated >> equation E=hf/c^2 is equal to F=mv/r^2. >> Earlier I stated that E=hf/c^2 did not pertain to rest mass but it >> does at the high end of the EM spectrum because when E=hf=c^2 or as >> deBrolie stated E=hf=mc^2 as 1/1 = 1x1 = 1 /c^2 = x c^2. >> >> On Dec 30 2009, 6:57 pm, "Inertial" <relativ...(a)rest.com> wrote: >> >> >> >> > "cjcountess" <cjcount...(a)yahoo.com> wrote in message >> >> >news:bdd1649a-aa33-4ac9-b17c-38428f2ede65(a)37g2000vbn.googlegroups.com... >> >> > > 1) Planck discovered E=hf for photons >> > > 2) Einstein discovered E=mc^2 for electron's/matter >> > > 3) deBroglie discovered (E=hf) = (E=mc^2) for electron of -1 charge, >> > > and that electron was also a wave. >> > > 4) Bohr discovered that the wavelength of electron is equal to >> > > circumference of circle with angular momentum of a multiple integer >> > > of >> > > h/2pi >> > > 5) Therefore it follows from this and other evidence, that (E=mc^2) >> > > = >> > > (E= mc^circled) and c=(square root of -1) >> >> > You were going well up until you started with that last line of >> > nonsense. >> >> > If c=(square root of -1), then c is no longer a real number, and cannot >> > be >> > the speed of anything measured. Further, if c=(square root of -1), >> > then c^2 >> > = -2, so E = mc^2 becomes E = -m, and that is absolute nonsense. >> >> c = the natural unit, sqrt of the natural unit -1, and is no longer >> just an imaginary number, but a real natural unit just as the electron >> is the real natural unit -1. >> And yes E= -m in this special case. >> Ever heard of the unity of the constants? As everything in the >> universe come from a unified source as we get to the constants in >> nature we find that they too extend from a unity. >> (c^2 = G = h/2pi) and (h = c= i = 2pi) so far I�ve found that all >> constants can be traced to a unity with c >> In equation E=hf/c^2 and F=mv/r^2, c = r >> >> Conrad J Countess > > ----------------------- > good for you Countless !! > anyway i forgot whop said it first that > > 'ENERGY IS MASS IN MOTION!! > EVEN IN MICROCOSM' !! > > can you remember who said it first (:-) Probably whoever first came up with the notion of kinetic energy .. which is due to mass in motion. Whether or no he used those exact particular words is irrelevant, of course.. I think that idea has been around for a looong time. --- news://freenews.netfront.net/ - complaints: news(a)netfront.net --- |