A simple Q. but not a simple A,,
in [Relativity]
|
Prev: float..my farts
Next: LHC Math gives a Doomsday.
From: Y.Porat on 12 Jan 2010 09:05 On Jan 12, 2:22 pm, "Inertial" <relativ...(a)rest.com> wrote: > "Y.Porat" <y.y.po...(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. --------------------- psychopath Feuerbacher i was talking to PD im ready topay you a monthly rent in order that YOU WILL NOT READ MY POSTS (:-) Y.P ------------------ ------------------
From: Y.Porat on 12 Jan 2010 09:27 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 ------------------ Mr PD just allow me to copy our conversation from this point to my thread: 'there is just one kind of mass" will you allow me to do it TIA Y.Porat -----------------------
From: cjcountess on 12 Jan 2010 13:13 D. Y. K. You said that light is a force, which I understand and agree with, but you also said that light is not wave, nor particle, nor energy, nor physical. I am curious, why? I also found your mass post interesting, I never really believed that rest mass increases as an object moves and that this is only noticeable at speeds close to c but I do know that relative (mass = kinetic energy), increases by the square of the velocity same as photons. In other words just as a photons relative mass = kinetic energy increases at (E=hf/c^2 = E=m/c^2), so too rest mass increases at (F=mv^2), in other words, as evident by the foot pound energy of bullets, and other projectiles, energy increases 4x each time velocity doubles, and this is noticeable way below light speeds just ask a gun shot victim.. But first things first, why the above statements? Conrad J Countess
From: cjcountess on 12 Jan 2010 13:41 On Jan 10, 5:29Â pm, glird <gl...(a)aol.com> wrote: > > Â From page 6 of The Anpheon: > << "Energy" is the ability to do work. The following equations prove > this: F = ma, so m = F/a. Therefore, by substituting equals for equals > we see that > Â Â e = mc2 = (F/a)c2 > Â Â Â = F(cm2/sec2)/(cm/sec2) > Â Â Â = Fd = gm cm = ergs = work. > That which possesses this ability is matter. That which provides > matter with the ability to do work is the difference in degree of > organization of different portions of matter. > Â That difference is the result of the interplay of the motions, > pressures, densities, and ontropy, of matter. Being a complex product, > energy is not a basic item. >> > > Â From page 93 of that book: > << Using the following data values and the equation e=hf we will now > derive the numerical data value of h by simple arithmetic. > Â The empirical numerical values of the mass m of an electron, the > radius r of its orbit, the velocity c of light in a vacuum, the Fine > structure constant Fs, and the speed câ of an electron in its orbital > path (taken herein as the speed of light in an outer ponitron) are: > m = 9.1094^-28 gm, the radius of an average atom is r = 5.29177^-9 > cm, > c = 2.997934^10 cm/sec, > Fs = 137.03604, and > câ = c/Fs = 2.1876975^8. > Â An electron will take 2pir/câ seconds per orbit, so the frequency is > f = 1/(2pir/câ) = 6.5797053^15 beats per second. Since e = mc2 and the > local speed of light in a pon is câ, we thus have e = hf = mcâ2, from > which we get h = mcâ2/fï Solving the latter equation we get, > Â h = (9.1093603^-28 gm)(2.1876975^8 cm/sec)^2/(6.5797053^15/sec) > Â Â = 6.6260693^-27 gm cm2/sec. > That is precisely âthe empirical measured valueâ of h reported on the > Internet in 2006. >> > > Â On page 18 that book says, > << Putting all the above bits and pieces together we reach > Â Â *The Equation of Everything* > Â e = Fd = ma x d = mv2 > Â Â = (mc2 â>m(c/Fs)2 = mcâ2 > Â Â = (2pirmcâ)f = hf = eo. >> > This is very interesting, although I would say that (h=c) instead of (h=c^2/f) to simplify things.but there is something interesting about the way you stated it. As far as quantum linear length of a particle is concerned (h=c^2/f) may =(h/2pi/2) and = reduced Compton wavelength = radius of electron = Schwarzschild radius, and (h/2pi) the full Compton wavelength. Have to look at this more.
From: cjcountess on 12 Jan 2010 14:27
Just thought of something inspired form this: ..>From page 6 of The Anpheon: ..<< "Energy" is the ability to do work. The following equations prove >this: F = ma, so m = F/a. Therefore, by substituting equals for equals >we see that  > e = mc2 = (F/a)c2   > = F(cm2/sec2)/(cm/sec2)   > = Fd = gm cm = ergs = work. >That which possesses this ability is matter. That which provides >matter with the ability to do work is the difference in degree of >organization of different portions of matter.  >That difference is the result of the interplay of the motions, >pressures, densities, and ontropy, of matter. Being a complex product, >energy is not a basic item. >> As it pertains to systems unwinding and winding in its simplest form such system would be: As energy moves from (E=hf/c^2) to (E=mc^2), it is as if it is being winded up into a particle. In other words a rest mass particle store the potential energy of mc^2 which if released by unwinding the rest mass which is (relative mass, kinetic energy), confined to a small sphere rotating about an axis with acceleration of a=c^2/c to photons of energy equal to c^2 but as radiation. And thus energy to mass conversion, is as a winding up and unwinding of energy. But of course I am not the first to say that, just thought it goes with what you have said. As for  >An electron will take 2pir/câ seconds per orbit, so the frequency is >f = 1/(2pir/câ) = 6.5797053^15 beats per second. Since e = mc2 and the >.local speed of light in a pon is câ, we thus have e = hf = mcâ2, from >which we get h = mcâ2/fï Solving the latter equation we get,  >h = (9.1093603^-28 gm)(2.1876975^8 cm/sec)^2/(6.5797053^15/sec)  > = 6.6260693^-27 gm cm2/sec. >That is precisely âthe empirical measured valueâ of h reported on the >Internet in 2006. >> I do agree that the frequency would be c in circular motion = to reduced Planck's constant (h/2pi = hx2pi = c/2pi = cx2pi ) if I interpreted (2pir/c'), correctly >On page 18 that book says, ><< Putting all the above bits and pieces together we reach > *The Equation of Everything* > e = Fd = ma x d = mv2 > >= (mc2 â>m(c/Fs)2 = mcâ2 > = (2pirmcâ)f = hf = eo. >> I really have to study this one. Again I say, âvery interestingâ Conrad J Countess |