A simple Q. but not a simple A,,
in [Relativity]
|
Prev: float..my farts
Next: LHC Math gives a Doomsday.
From: Y.Porat on 11 Jan 2010 03:38 On Jan 11, 9:36 am, k...(a)nventure.com wrote: > On Jan 10, 2:56 pm, "Inertial" <relativ...(a)rest.com> wrote: > > > "Y.Porat" <y.y.po...(a)gmail.com> wrote in message > > > My relevant questions from your other thread on kinds of mass remains > > unanswered .. lets see if you'll answer here > > > Define what you mean by a "kind" of mass. > > Maybe I can shed a little a bit of light on the subject > of mass. Then I will let you guys decide who is right > and who is not. I'm not going to get into this tussel, > because I seem to be having enough problems with > what should be the simpler Ideas of Newton's Laws. > > Einstein had 3 different concepts of mass within > Special Relativity. > > There is the mass at the state of being stationary that > he called rest mass. > There is the mass moving well below the speed of light > that he called gravitational mass. > Both these did not differ greatly from the mass > defined in Classical Newtonian Mechanics. > > Then there was the relativistic mass (also called at > times the inertial mass) that increases as a > function of gamma, and wherein its length in the > direction of motion (but not height or width, i.e. > wherein tensor mechanics apply) and also time > contracts as the inverse of gamma when the > speeds increase and approach that of light. > > On the other hand, the empirical 'modern' Eotvos > experiment by Dr. Robert H. Dicke at Princeton > University confirmed the independently conceived > notion V.W. Hughes and R.P. Drever that the mass > of a body remains isotropic, and that the inertial > mass remains the equivalent of the rest mass. > Dickes experiment demonstrated that the mass > remains constant to better than 99,999,999,997 > and 1/2 parts in 100 billion! > > So most modern post Einsteinian Relativists > abandoned Einstein's relativistic mass and instilled > the idea of invariant mass (i.e., the concept that > mass remains constant), but wherein the relativistic > momentum and/or energy increases as the speeds > increase and approaches that of light. Furthermore, > these relativists retain all of Einstein's tensor and > field mechanics intact and without modification. > > What these relativists do not seem to realize or > accept is that there is no fundamental difference > in principle between the invariant mass of post > Einsteinian Relativity and the mass defined by > Isaac Newton in Principia. > > Now the matter of tensor mechanics, relativistic > momentum and energy, and the notion that time > is relativistic requires the true understanding of time. > > Please note that I stated mainline science does not > yet truly understand mass, force or time in an > earlier post. > > Nevertheless, I did do a pretty good job as to how > Einstein and mainline science reached these > conundrums in my book. A lot of the solutions > has to do with the fact that both Einstein and > mainline scientists adhere to the Philosophy of > Idealism. Logical and rational thinking, and the > rejection of a lot of dogmas also helps a lot. > > D.Y.K. ----------------------- nice anyway i explaned just above that the relativistic mass is unsuported mistake of interpreation: take just he momentum case: can you prove that in the formula P= Gamma mv the gamma BELONGS ONLY THE MASS ??! it is a rhetoric question !! (:-) 2 there is some imbecile idiot here that tell you that amoving mass has relativistic mass so my above explanatin is an answer to that as well (can you prove that the gamma factor of momentum belongs only to the mass or that momentum grew just because mass inflated?? and waht about the velocity that became bigger and who on earth tolod youi that velocity shoud grow linearily in higher ranges?? may be there is some mechanical phenomenon that is responsible for that ie the mechanism of inserting force ?? amyway as for now the gamma belongs to mv as one unit and no fucken relativistic mass that disappear immediately as movement stops !! now the idiot goes on and tells you thatthere are many kinds of length .... he does not understand that had it been many kinds of length than no imbecile on earth WOULD BE ABLE TO MEASURE** ANY KIND OF LENGTH** we can meaure it becuse there is just one defined length whichis the statinaly length !! that is the base of measurements of length that serves as a comparison base !! and i heared a roomour that all the sense of physics is measurements !! he rodd that moves does not change its real length it is only a **measurement phenomenon** **while meaureing in different frams !!** but we (even in that case do not forget that it is only a problem of measurment FROM different frames if we hade to0 make reasonable physics ***based on endless kinds of lengths ** no one **could find his hand and lengs in such a mess** iow it is by definition A NONSTARTER ** practical **PHYSICS !!! we have the practical MKS physics (in other dimension system it is the same principle !!) in which there is as a base --just one kind of M one kind of K ( Kilograms ) (there is no K of tomatoes no K of potatoes no K of onions ....) one kind of S if otherwise we have one big chaotic mess !! ATB Y.Porat -------------------------
From: Inertial on 11 Jan 2010 04:17 > "Y.Porat" <y.y.porat(a)gmail.com> wrote in message > news:06873936-aa3e-4392-ae7e-659cd448876b(a)z41g2000yqz.googlegroups.com... >> On Jan 10, 9:11 pm, glird <gl...(a)aol.com> wrote: >>> On Jan 10, 1:06 pm, "Y.Porat" <y.y.po...(a)gmail.com> wrote: >>> >>> > do you think that there are more than one mass >>> > physical entity ??? >>> > For instance 'gravitational mass' or 'relativistic mass' >>> > **in addition** to the inertial mass that Newton first defined >>> >>> To Newton and me a mass as a quantity of matter. >>> The difference is this: >>> He thought the mass of a body is the sum of the >>> mass of an atom times the number of atoms in that >>> body; where -- if you study his words carefully, >>> ALL atoms were identical thus had the same weight. >>> To me, mass is a quantity of matter whether or not >>> it is formed into atoms and whether or not it has any >>> weight. >>> >>> glird >> >> ---------------- >> nice !! >> now about relativistic mass: >> 1 >> as some of us said >> it was abandoned long ago >> for cleaver people not for dunb mathematiocians >> and we saw it ion my thread: >> 'there is jsut one kind of mass' >> one of my main clames was at th3e >> momentum case >> i showed that >> **no one has any way to show that in >> >> Gamma m v >> >> the gamma does not belongs to the mass >> IT BELONGS TO MV AS >> *** ONE*** PHYSICAL ENTITY!!!** >> and no one has a prove that it belongs >> *only to the mass*!!! As explained to you MANY times before .. it doesn't 'belong to', nor is it 'attached to' mass or velocity or mv or anything else. Noone (other than you) has made any claims about gamma being attached to anything.
From: Inertial on 11 Jan 2010 04:20 > "Y.Porat" <y.y.porat(a)gmail.com> wrote in message > news:d62d794d-eff8-4f41-b570-9de2df203f98(a)j5g2000yqm.googlegroups.com... >> On Jan 11, 9:36 am, k...(a)nventure.com wrote: >>> On Jan 10, 2:56 pm, "Inertial" <relativ...(a)rest.com> wrote: >>> >>> > "Y.Porat" <y.y.po...(a)gmail.com> wrote in message >>> >>> > My relevant questions from your other thread on kinds of mass remains >>> > unanswered .. lets see if you'll answer here >>> >>> > Define what you mean by a "kind" of mass. >>> >>> Maybe I can shed a little a bit of light on the subject >>> of mass. Then I will let you guys decide who is right >>> and who is not. I'm not going to get into this tussel, >>> because I seem to be having enough problems with >>> what should be the simpler Ideas of Newton's Laws. >>> >>> Einstein had 3 different concepts of mass within >>> Special Relativity. >>> >>> There is the mass at the state of being stationary that >>> he called rest mass. >>> There is the mass moving well below the speed of light >>> that he called gravitational mass. >>> Both these did not differ greatly from the mass >>> defined in Classical Newtonian Mechanics. >>> >>> Then there was the relativistic mass (also called at >>> times the inertial mass) that increases as a >>> function of gamma, and wherein its length in the >>> direction of motion (but not height or width, i.e. >>> wherein tensor mechanics apply) and also time >>> contracts as the inverse of gamma when the >>> speeds increase and approach that of light. >>> >>> On the other hand, the empirical 'modern' Eotvos >>> experiment by Dr. Robert H. Dicke at Princeton >>> University confirmed the independently conceived >>> notion V.W. Hughes and R.P. Drever that the mass >>> of a body remains isotropic, and that the inertial >>> mass remains the equivalent of the rest mass. >>> Dickes experiment demonstrated that the mass >>> remains constant to better than 99,999,999,997 >>> and 1/2 parts in 100 billion! >>> >>> So most modern post Einsteinian Relativists >>> abandoned Einstein's relativistic mass and instilled >>> the idea of invariant mass (i.e., the concept that >>> mass remains constant), but wherein the relativistic >>> momentum and/or energy increases as the speeds >>> increase and approaches that of light. Furthermore, >>> these relativists retain all of Einstein's tensor and >>> field mechanics intact and without modification. >>> >>> What these relativists do not seem to realize or >>> accept is that there is no fundamental difference >>> in principle between the invariant mass of post >>> Einsteinian Relativity and the mass defined by >>> Isaac Newton in Principia. >>> >>> Now the matter of tensor mechanics, relativistic >>> momentum and energy, and the notion that time >>> is relativistic requires the true understanding of time. >>> >>> Please note that I stated mainline science does not >>> yet truly understand mass, force or time in an >>> earlier post. >>> >>> Nevertheless, I did do a pretty good job as to how >>> Einstein and mainline science reached these >>> conundrums in my book. A lot of the solutions >>> has to do with the fact that both Einstein and >>> mainline scientists adhere to the Philosophy of >>> Idealism. Logical and rational thinking, and the >>> rejection of a lot of dogmas also helps a lot. >>> >>> D.Y.K. >> >> ----------------------- >> nice >> anyway >> i explaned just above that the >> relativistic mass is unsuported mistake of interpreation: Yes .. misinterpretation by you >> take just he momentum case: >> can you prove that in the formula >> P= Gamma mv >> the gamma >> BELONGS ONLY THE MASS ??! >> it is a rhetoric question !! (:-) Gamma doesn't 'belong to' nor is it 'attached to' ANYTHING in that formula. This has been explained to you countless times >> 2 >> there is some imbecile idiot here >> that tell you that amoving mass has relativistic mass >> so my above explanatin is an answer to that as well You didn't explain anything >> (can you prove that the gamma factor of momentum belongs only to the >> mass It doesn't belong to anything >> or that momentum grew just because mass inflated?? The formula shows a constant mass >> and waht about the >> velocity that >> became bigger >> and who on earth tolod youi that velocity shoud grow >> linearily in higher ranges?? Noone. It doesn't. Relativity tells us that. >> may be there is some mechanical phenomenon >> that is responsible for that >> ie the mechanism of inserting force ?? >> amyway >> as for now >> the gamma belongs to mv as one unit No .. it doesn't 'belong to' anything. >> and no fucken relativistic mass >> that disappear immediately as movement >> stops !! >> now the idiot goes on and tells you thatthere are many kinds of >> length .... I asked you about what you considered a 'kind' of mess .. which you refused to answer .. and as an analogy asked if there was more than one 'kind' of length (eg are width and height different 'kinds' of length? is the measured contracted length in SR a different 'kind' of length) You did not (or could not) answer. >> he does not understand that I understand just fine .. but I don't understand what is going on in your mind. Hence asking questions about what you actually mean. >> had it been many kinds of length >> than no imbecile on earth >> WOULD BE ABLE TO MEASURE** ANY KIND OF LENGTH** I am trying to understand what YOU think is meant by a 'kind of mass' >> we can meaure it becuse there is just one defined length >> whichis the statinaly length !! the what? 'statinaly' ??? What the hell is that? >> that is the base >> of measurements of length that serves as a comparison base !! >> and i heared a roomour that >> all the sense of physics is measurements !! Mostly .. yes >> he rodd that moves >> does not change its real length Depending on what you mean by 'real'. That's not really a physics term. If you mean its intrinsic (or rest) length, then that is not changed by some moving observer measuring it. But the length they DO measure is not the same as the length an observer at-rest wrt the rod would measure. How do you account for that .. are they different 'kinds' of length? If not, how can they have different values? >> it is only >> a **measurement phenomenon** Yes .. so are they different 'kinds' of length? If not, how can they have different values? >> **while meaureing in different frams !!** Yes .. so are they different 'kinds' of length? If not, how can they have different values? You do realise that the 'relativistic mass' is just like length .. to use your words, it is just a **measurement phenomenon** **while meaureing in different frams !!**. Why is it acceptable to have that for a length, but so abhorent to you when it comes to a mass ? Why is it ok for different observers to measure different lengths for a rod depending on their frame of reference (and still only be one kind of length), but NOT to measure different mass for a rod depending on their frame of reference >> but we (even in that case >> do not forget that it is only a problem Its not a problem. >> of measurment FROM different frames Just like the notion of relativistic (or inertial) mass. >> if we hade to0 make reasonable physics >> ***based on endless kinds of lengths ** Who said anything about endless kinds of length? >> no one **could find his hand and lengs in such a mess** >> iow >> it is by definition >> A NONSTARTER ** practical **PHYSICS !!! So .. do you think now you can answer the questions: are width and height different kinds of length? is the measured contracted length in SR a different kind of length? >> we have the practical MKS physics >> (in other dimension system it is the same principle !!) >> in which there is as a base --just >> one kind of >> M >> one kind of >> K ( Kilograms ) Yes .. we know that >> (there is no K of tomatoes >> no K of potatoes >> no K of onions ....) >> >> one kind of >> S >> if otherwise we have one big chaotic mess !! You do realize that no-one has proposed that anything other than M being the dimensions of mass. The only one even making a noise about some different kind of mass is you (and those who try to discuss you position with you, poor sods). No-one else says there is a mass other than mass.
From: PD on 11 Jan 2010 09:56 On Jan 11, 2:01 am, "Y.Porat" <y.y.po...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > On Jan 10, 9:11 pm, glird <gl...(a)aol.com> wrote: > > > > > On Jan 10, 1:06 pm, "Y.Porat" <y.y.po...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > do you think that there are more than one mass > > > physical entity ??? > > > For instance 'gravitational mass' or 'relativistic mass' > > > **in addition** to the inertial mass that Newton first defined > > > To Newton and me a mass as a quantity of matter. > > The difference is this: > > He thought the mass of a body is the sum of the > > mass of an atom times the number of atoms in that > > body; where -- if you study his words carefully, > > ALL atoms were identical thus had the same weight. > > To me, mass is a quantity of matter whether or not > > it is formed into atoms and whether or not it has any > > weight. > > > glird > > ---------------- > nice !! > now about relativistic mass: > 1 > as some of us said > it was abandoned long ago > for cleaver people not for dunb mathematiocians > and we saw it ion my thread: > 'there is jsut one kind of mass' > one of my main clames was at th3e > momentum case > i showed that > **no one has any way to show that in > > Gamma m v > > the gamma does not belongs to the mass > IT BELONGS TO MV AS > *** ONE*** PHYSICAL ENTITY!!!** The gamma doesn't belong to anything. I don't know where you got the idea that factors in a product can be assigned to belong to each other. > and no one has a prove that it belongs > *only to the mass*!!! > > ATB > Y.Porat > -------------------
From: Y.Porat on 11 Jan 2010 12:13
On Jan 11, 10:18 am, "Inertial" <relativ...(a)rest.com> wrote: > "Y.Porat" <y.y.po...(a)gmail.com> wrote in message > > news:06873936-aa3e-4392-ae7e-659cd448876b(a)z41g2000yqz.googlegroups.com... > > > > > On Jan 10, 9:11 pm, glird <gl...(a)aol.com> wrote: > >> On Jan 10, 1:06 pm, "Y.Porat" <y.y.po...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > >> > do you think that there are more than one mass > >> > physical entity ??? > >> > For instance 'gravitational mass' or 'relativistic mass' > >> > **in addition** to the inertial mass that Newton first defined > > >> To Newton and me a mass as a quantity of matter. > >> The difference is this: > >> He thought the mass of a body is the sum of the > >> mass of an atom times the number of atoms in that > >> body; where -- if you study his words carefully, > >> ALL atoms were identical thus had the same weight. > >> To me, mass is a quantity of matter whether or not > >> it is formed into atoms and whether or not it has any > >> weight. > > >> glird > > > ---------------- > > nice !! > > now about relativistic mass: > > 1 > > as some of us said > > it was abandoned long ago > > for cleaver people not for dunb mathematiocians > > and we saw it ion my thread: > > 'there is jsut one kind of mass' > > one of my main clames was at th3e > > momentum case > > i showed that > > **no one has any way to show that in > > > Gamma m v > > > the gamma does not belongs to the mass > > IT BELONGS TO MV AS > > *** ONE*** PHYSICAL ENTITY!!!** > > and no one has a prove that it belongs > > *only to the mass*!!! > > As explained to you MANY times before .. it doesn't 'belong to', nor is it > 'attached to' mass or velocity or mv or anything else. Noone (other than > you) has made any claims about gamma being attached to anything. ------------------ Josef Goebeels could be proud of you !!! theere is no limit to your impertinant lies !! iow shameless lier anyone who woll go back to your previous posts will see that it was YOU and otrher parrots that explained the 'relativistic mass' BASED ON THE GAMA FACTOR ASIGHNED TOITHE MASS and it was me the first one who said that gamma in komentum cannot be assigned to justthe mass but onlt tothe both mass and velocity IT IS DOCUMEMTED IN MY THREAD from just a few days ago !! 'there is jusr one kind of mass!! so little Goebells there is a limit to your lies Goebbels could do it because in his time there was no Google documentation !!!!! inout time there is documentation of any word you write !!including its date !!! got it nasty psychopath crooky ?? Y.P --------------------------------- Y.Porat ------------------ |