A simple Q. but not a simple A,,
in [Relativity]
|
Prev: float..my farts
Next: LHC Math gives a Doomsday.
From: Inertial on 11 Jan 2010 20:41 "Y.Porat" <y.y.porat(a)gmail.com> wrote in message news:e83a8363-aa31-4c1e-b497-82516f48259a(a)35g2000yqa.googlegroups.com... > 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 !!! Why? He has nothing to do with me > theere is no limit to your impertinant lies !! LIAR. I have NEVER lied here. You, however, do so with great frequency. > iow > shameless lier Nope. I have never lied in these forums. *YOU* have. And made many unfounded allegations. > anyone who woll go back to your previous posts > will see that it was YOU and otrher parrots that > explained the 'relativistic mass' Not that you understood it > BASED ON THE GAMA FACTOR ASIGHNED > TOITHE MASS The formula for relativistic mass is M_r = gamma.m That does NOT mean that in P = gamma.mv that the gamma is attached to the m and somehow makes the rest mass (m) increase as you have claimed it does. > 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 isn't ASSIGNED to ANYTHING in that formula For a given moving object P = gamma.mv m is constant, v is constant, and momentum is constant. The formula shows how those values are related. m does not get changed because there is a gamma there .. the gamma does not belong to the mass or the velocity nor to anything else. Your continued discussions about what gamma is 'assigned to' or 'belongs to' just show your complete ignorance of how a physics formula is constructed and what they mean. > IT IS DOCUMEMTED IN MY THREAD > from just a few days ago !! > 'there is jusr one kind of mass!! What does that mean? .. you REFUSE to answer questions about what you mean by 'kind' of mass. Until you do, your statement is meaningless. > so > little Goebells there is a limit to your lies I did not EVER lie here. You, however, lie and make false accusations over and over .. and this is well documented. > 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 ?? The only psycho here is you, old man.
From: Inertial on 11 Jan 2010 20:47 "Y.Porat" <y.y.porat(a)gmail.com> wrote in message news:c5e998b6-0878-4ca7-ab07-ae7b3e222650(a)l30g2000yqb.googlegroups.com... > On Jan 11, 4:56 pm, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: >> 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 >> > ------------------- > > no PD > YOU are telling ME that ??? No > dont youthink that anything is documented > to the last word ??? Of course .. everything PD and I have been explaining to yiou is documented ... you simply don't understand it > i said it in my hread > 'THEERE IS JUST ONE KIND OF MASS' Yet you refuse to answer questions about what that means. > anyone can see it there it is from a few weeks before only so no one > can cj > heat about it !! Mass has been mass from well before Einstein, and that gravitational mass and inertial mass are (for reasons not really understood at the time) the same thing is an idea from Newtonian physics. > (you count too much on my short memory or on your short memory !!!) > i explaned it before you !!! You've never explained it. You repeat it, but don't explain it > and explined it unprecedented !! Nope > that the gamma factor belongs to the > mv!! **as one physical entity** > to the mass only !!! No .. it doesn't BELONG to anything > 2 > if so there is no relativistic mass ! That does not follow at all > no prove that the gamma belongs to mass only That statement makes no sense .. gamma does not BELONG to ANYTHING > there is no precedence to that explanation of mine !!! What explanation? > UNLESS you bring former evidence > (anyway i ddint hear it from nobody before me > it was cooked in my mind during the above thread !!) You mean you've finally learnt that gamma in P = gamma.mv is not attached to the mass ... just as we've been telling you for a LONG time. But now you get it just as wrong by saying it is attached to mv instead. > and still > you dont understand its very revolutionary meaning > that i will bring later > that will shake all your past claimes like Nope > ""the photon has no mass etc etc ""!! It doesn't have any rest mass. We've shown you the physics for that before. > you refused to answer my last question to you > whther there is jsut one kind of mass YOU refused to answer MY questions about what that means > and tomorow you willtell every body that > you toght me that > 'there is jsut one kind of mass' !! That's a very old idea > and the conclusion of it is that > ** THE PHOTON HAS MASS !!!** That does not follow > AND THAT > ENERGY IS MASS IN MOTION EVEN IN MICROCOSM !!! KINETIC energy usually comes from mass in motion. > SO TO MOROW YOU WILL SAY THAT > EVEN THAT - it was claimed 50 years ago ) That kinetic energy is from mass in motion is much older that 50 years > there is a limit to impertinence !! > (AT THE AGE OF GOOGLE !!) Yet you go over those limits time and time again > and then you wil tell every body that it was done > 80 years before me !!! > **or even better** It was > that you explained it to me first !!! We've been explaining physics to you for years. It just doesn't seem to sink in with you.
From: Inertial on 11 Jan 2010 20:51 "eric gisse" <jowr.pi.nospam(a)gmail.com> wrote in message news:hifogf$puj$3(a)news.eternal-september.org... > Inertial wrote: > > [...] > >> 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. > > Many == As about as frequently as he has said it since 2003 onwards. > Frankly > I'm just waiting for him to die, at this point. It would be a blessed relief for everyone .. not the least for Porat, who must be a very tortured soul, with all that hatred and anger .. one is lucky to get two posts in a row where he will discuss anything rationally before flying off the handle with his lies, false allegations, and insults. Maybe its psychological damage from his parents being killed in nazi gas chambers ... whatever it is, he has deep psychological problems.
From: Y.Porat on 12 Jan 2010 06:32 On Jan 11, 9:38 pm, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > On Jan 11, 12:48 pm, "Y.Porat" <y.y.po...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > On Jan 11, 7:32 pm, "Y.Porat" <y.y.po...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > On Jan 11, 4:56 pm, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > 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 > > > > > ------------------- > > > > no PD > > > YOU are telling ME that ??? > > > dont youthink that anything is documented > > > to the last word ??? > > > i said it in my hread > > > 'THEERE IS JUST ONE KIND OF MASS' > > > anyone can see it there it is from a few weeks before only so no one > > > can cj > > > heat about it !! > > > (you count too much on my short memory or on your short memory !!!) > > > i explaned it before you !!! > > > and explined it unprecedented !! > > > that the gamma factor belongs to the > > > mv!! **as one physical entity** > > > to the mass only !!! > > > 2 > > > if so there is no relativistic mass ! > > > no prove that the gamma belongs to mass only > > > there is no precedence to that explanation of mine !!! > > > UNLESS you bring former evidence > > > (anyway i ddint hear it from nobody before me > > > it was cooked in my mind during the above thread !!) > > > and still > > > you dont understand its very revolutionary meaning > > > that i will bring later > > > that will shake all your past claimes like > > > > ""the photon has no mass etc etc ""!! > > > you refused to answer my last question to you > > > whther there is jsut one kind of mass > > > and tomorow you willtell every body that > > > you toght me that > > > 'there is jsut one kind of mass' !! > > > and the conclusion of it is that > > > ** THE PHOTON HAS MASS !!!** > > > AND THAT > > > ENERGY IS MASS IN MOTION EVEN IN MICROCOSM !!! > > > SO TO MOROW YOU WILL SAY THAT > > > EVEN THAT - it was claimed 50 years ago ) > > > > there is a limit to impertinence !! > > > (AT THE AGE OF GOOGLE !!) > > > and then you wil tell every body that it was done > > > 80 years before me !!! > > > **or even better** > > > > that you explained it to me first !!! > > > Y.Porat > > > -------------------- > > > -------------------- > > IN ADDITION TO THE ABOVE > > > just see post NO 15 of the thread > > 'there is jsut one kind of mass' > > quote from it > > ''why is it that your first entrance to this thread > > you ddint say LOUD AND CLEAR > > PORAT YOU ARE RIGTHT -- > > THERE IS JUST ONE KIND OF MASS ??!! > > Porat you are right, there is just one kind of mass. > Congratulations for stumbling on something that has already been known > for 50 years. > > Please also tell me that you'd like to be told that, yes, indeed, you > are right when you say that 3+3=6. > > > and youcame with it > > only after some new explaantions of mine?? > > can you quote another place > > in whichthose explanations are given??!! > > > that we can only measure momentum > > and we cant measure th e mass *in that growing momentum!!* > > (because we have no gauge connected to that mass > > or whatever another way -- > > to get in that growing momentum to tell us that the mass was > > growing !!! > > and another argument that i brought > > that th e 'relativistic mass is **disappearing** > > imediately while the movement STOPES etc etc > > were are explanations preceding it > > ------------------------ > > end of quote > > i explain why the gamma cannot be related to mass in the momentum!! > > > not only say that it belongs to the momentum > > BUT EXPLAIN WHY NOT !! > > > becuse we have no experimental way > > to meaure the mass separately !! > > > and that explanatin is unprecedented !! > > we have no little guage attached to the mass > > to tell us that the mass was inflatiing !! > > that is in addition that i claimed that > > WE CAN ATTACHE THE GAMMA FACTOR TO THE LEFT SIDE OF THE FORMULA > > > P =gamma m v > > we can do itas > > > P/Gamma = mv!! > > ie > > belongs to the mv > > AND NOT ONLY TO THE m !!!! > > i ddi it many years ago by > > writing > > > F/Gamma = mv > > instead > > F= gamma m a > > iow > > and that is an old claime and explanation of mine to > > attaching the gamma to the force !!! > > ie to m a as one unit !!! > > > AND IN ADDITION I EXPLAINED THAT > > GAMMA IS A SCALAR > > so it makes no no physical > > QUALITATIVE change TO THE mv > > if we put it on the right or left side of the > > eqauation > > it makes only a **quantitative** chane !! > > it is as well documented in my above thread !! > > in all those examples > > mv or ma are > > ONE UN SEPARATED UNIT !!! > > > i call anyone here to bring evidence > > that such explanations are ever precedented !!! > > > TIA > > Y.Porat > > ------------------------- > > > to attache -------------------- very nice!! now just tell it toall the blockhead parrote (you ar wrong if you think that the aboveis common knowlwdge now still you have no idea how *revolutionary* it is fo r thinking people !! lets see if you can read my thoughts (as often you do !!) TIA Y.Porat ---------------------------
From: Inertial on 12 Jan 2010 07:22
"Y.Porat" <y.y.porat(a)gmail.com> wrote in message news:a079b72c-0891-4f32-a744-ad1b6b364c75(a)s31g2000yqs.googlegroups.com... > On Jan 11, 9:38 pm, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: >> On Jan 11, 12:48 pm, "Y.Porat" <y.y.po...(a)gmail.com> wrote: >> >> >> >> > On Jan 11, 7:32 pm, "Y.Porat" <y.y.po...(a)gmail.com> wrote: >> >> > > On Jan 11, 4:56 pm, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: >> >> > > > 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 >> > > > > ------------------- >> >> > > no PD >> > > YOU are telling ME that ??? >> > > dont youthink that anything is documented >> > > to the last word ??? >> > > i said it in my hread >> > > 'THEERE IS JUST ONE KIND OF MASS' >> > > anyone can see it there it is from a few weeks before only so no one >> > > can cj >> > > heat about it !! >> > > (you count too much on my short memory or on your short memory !!!) >> > > i explaned it before you !!! >> > > and explined it unprecedented !! >> > > that the gamma factor belongs to the >> > > mv!! **as one physical entity** >> > > to the mass only !!! >> > > 2 >> > > if so there is no relativistic mass ! >> > > no prove that the gamma belongs to mass only >> > > there is no precedence to that explanation of mine !!! >> > > UNLESS you bring former evidence >> > > (anyway i ddint hear it from nobody before me >> > > it was cooked in my mind during the above thread !!) >> > > and still >> > > you dont understand its very revolutionary meaning >> > > that i will bring later >> > > that will shake all your past claimes like >> >> > > ""the photon has no mass etc etc ""!! >> > > you refused to answer my last question to you >> > > whther there is jsut one kind of mass >> > > and tomorow you willtell every body that >> > > you toght me that >> > > 'there is jsut one kind of mass' !! >> > > and the conclusion of it is that >> > > ** THE PHOTON HAS MASS !!!** >> > > AND THAT >> > > ENERGY IS MASS IN MOTION EVEN IN MICROCOSM !!! >> > > SO TO MOROW YOU WILL SAY THAT >> > > EVEN THAT - it was claimed 50 years ago ) >> >> > > there is a limit to impertinence !! >> > > (AT THE AGE OF GOOGLE !!) >> > > and then you wil tell every body that it was done >> > > 80 years before me !!! >> > > **or even better** >> >> > > that you explained it to me first !!! >> > > Y.Porat >> > > -------------------- >> >> > -------------------- >> > IN ADDITION TO THE ABOVE >> >> > just see post NO 15 of the thread >> > 'there is jsut one kind of mass' >> > quote from it >> > ''why is it that your first entrance to this thread >> > you ddint say LOUD AND CLEAR >> > PORAT YOU ARE RIGTHT -- >> > THERE IS JUST ONE KIND OF MASS ??!! >> >> Porat you are right, there is just one kind of mass. >> Congratulations for stumbling on something that has already been known >> for 50 years. >> >> Please also tell me that you'd like to be told that, yes, indeed, you >> are right when you say that 3+3=6. >> >> > and youcame with it >> > only after some new explaantions of mine?? >> > can you quote another place >> > in whichthose explanations are given??!! >> >> > that we can only measure momentum >> > and we cant measure th e mass *in that growing momentum!!* >> > (because we have no gauge connected to that mass >> > or whatever another way -- >> > to get in that growing momentum to tell us that the mass was >> > growing !!! >> > and another argument that i brought >> > that th e 'relativistic mass is **disappearing** >> > imediately while the movement STOPES etc etc >> > were are explanations preceding it >> > ------------------------ >> > end of quote >> > i explain why the gamma cannot be related to mass in the momentum!! >> >> > not only say that it belongs to the momentum >> > BUT EXPLAIN WHY NOT !! >> >> > becuse we have no experimental way >> > to meaure the mass separately !! >> >> > and that explanatin is unprecedented !! >> > we have no little guage attached to the mass >> > to tell us that the mass was inflatiing !! >> > that is in addition that i claimed that >> > WE CAN ATTACHE THE GAMMA FACTOR TO THE LEFT SIDE OF THE FORMULA >> >> > P =gamma m v >> > we can do itas >> >> > P/Gamma = mv!! >> > ie >> > belongs to the mv >> > AND NOT ONLY TO THE m !!!! >> > i ddi it many years ago by >> > writing >> >> > F/Gamma = mv >> > instead >> > F= gamma m a >> > iow >> > and that is an old claime and explanation of mine to >> > attaching the gamma to the force !!! >> > ie to m a as one unit !!! >> >> > AND IN ADDITION I EXPLAINED THAT >> > GAMMA IS A SCALAR >> > so it makes no no physical >> > QUALITATIVE change TO THE mv >> > if we put it on the right or left side of the >> > eqauation >> > it makes only a **quantitative** chane !! >> > it is as well documented in my above thread !! >> > in all those examples >> > mv or ma are >> > ONE UN SEPARATED UNIT !!! >> >> > i call anyone here to bring evidence >> > that such explanations are ever precedented !!! >> >> > TIA >> > Y.Porat >> > ------------------------- >> >> > to attache > > -------------------- > very nice!! > now just tell it toall the blockhead parrote Who? > (you ar wrong if you think that the aboveis common knowlwdge Yes .. it is. The 'm' used in physics formula is the rest (or invariant) mass. It does not change with speed. I've been telling you that for ages. > now still you have no idea how *revolutionary* it is > fo r thinking people !! There is nothing revolutionary at all about what you say. mass has been mass for a looong time > lets see if you can read my thoughts > (as often you do !!) I've better things to read. |