A simple Q. but not a simple A,,
in [Relativity]
|
Prev: float..my farts
Next: LHC Math gives a Doomsday.
From: cjcountess on 13 Jan 2010 17:04 Thank you glird, I am very interested I like the way you reason and have reasons for what you say. That is how any subject should be taught and conclusions explained. Physics is indeed a story, a story of how we become conscious of the natural laws of the universe. We talk to it, it talks to us, we talk to each other. Porat I am still reading your post and following you logic, as to how you arrive at your conclusions. Don't let people rattle you to much. Sound reason is stronger than heated emotion in physics. D.Y.K. Still waiting for an explanation of why you say that photons are not wave or even anything physica.l Uncle Al, I read your paper on, PURSUING THE LIMITS OF FAILED SYMMETRY. Very good, see I am not mad at you. I agree with you that there is a preferred direction in the universe and we want to know it which way is up so to speak. But I still think that quantum theory and general relativity, come together as quantum gravity, in my theory. I also think that my theory shows that there is a preferred direction which is why -1 charged electrons, are the basic particle and that their counter directory spin is preferred over positrons and therefore anti-matter. I do not think that this will violate general relativities principle, that they fall at same rate through quantum space though. But of course you did not consider electrons as you preferred compound complex particles. I would like to know the outcome of your experiment because you are right, someone should look. Conrad J Countess
From: Inertial on 13 Jan 2010 18:03 "Y.Porat" <y.y.porat(a)gmail.com> wrote in message news:2f65eb91-bb3a-4a64-8595-1001757a1e72(a)f5g2000yqh.googlegroups.com...[snip] > my ansewr to myself is > may be it is becuse > if you MEASURE ***velocity** > IN ANOTHER FRAME THAN YOURS -- > IT IS THAT **MEASURED LENGTH** > IS DECREASING !!! (measured !!) > it is only a problem of** measurements** in differnt frames and > confused interpretations > of** attaching unjustified and prejudiced **- So you are happy with relativistic mass, in the same way as you are with length contraction. ie where in another frame than yours, it is the *measured inertial mass* that is increasing !!! (measured !!)
From: Y.Porat on 14 Jan 2010 03:36 On Jan 14, 12:04 am, cjcountess <cjcount...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > Thank you glird, > I am very interested > > I like the way you reason and have reasons for what you say. That is > how any subject should be taught and conclusions explained. > > Physics is indeed a story, a story of how we become conscious of the > natural laws of the universe. We talk to it, it talks to us, we talk > to each other. > > Porat > I am still reading your post and following you logic, as to how you > arrive at your conclusions. Don't let people rattle you to much. Sound > reason is stronger than heated emotion in physics. > > D.Y.K. > Still waiting for an explanation of why you say that photons are not > wave or even anything physica.l > ---------------------------------------- i never in my life said that the photon is not a wave!! i dont know from were you took it to relate it to me anyway i start to understand why you ask it: probably you think that a wave cannot have mass?? rigth? is that what you think ?? (do you think that the waves of the sea dont have mass (:-)) if so you are wrong there is no contradication between being a wave and having mass !!! youforgot my golden new rule of physics : NO MASS - NO REAL PHYSICS-- EVEN IN MICROCOSM !! btw i think that even newtonj saw th e photrons ans both 1 as a wave 2 as little particles even Planck and Einstein beleived in that **duality ' **!!! (the planck constant among the others --has mass in it it is if i remember correct with my old (:-)memory**by hearth: 6.6 10 -exp''''' times kilogram meter^2/second note those 'Kilograms' !! ATB Y.Porat -----------------------
From: Y.Porat on 14 Jan 2010 03:58 On Jan 14, 1:03 am, "Inertial" <relativ...(a)rest.com> wrote: > "Y.Porat" <y.y.po...(a)gmail.com> wrote in message > > news:2f65eb91-bb3a-4a64-8595-1001757a1e72(a)f5g2000yqh.googlegroups.com...[snip] > > > my ansewr to myself is > > may be it is becuse > > if you MEASURE ***velocity** > > IN ANOTHER FRAME THAN YOURS -- > > IT IS THAT **MEASURED LENGTH** > > IS DECREASING !!! (measured !!) > > it is only a problem of** measurements** in differnt frames and > > confused interpretations > > of** attaching unjustified and prejudiced **- > > So you are happy with relativistic mass, in the same way as you are with > length contraction. ie where in another frame than yours, it is the > *measured inertial mass* that is increasing !!! (measured !!) wrong again you are a saw r learner IT I SNOT THE MASS ALONE IT IS THE* MAAS PLUS VELOCITY* AS A SPECIAL PHYSICAL ENTITY THAT GOES TOGETHER and you have no way to tell if the measurments results are just becuse of th emass increase or velocity increase iwould say quite the opposite IT IS ONLY BECAUSE OF THE VELOCITY INCREASE and not mass increaxce but i see no way you can prove it except that velocity increasse is more problematic than mass in diffrent frames we know that even if you meaure in two moving frames side by side if you measure *in each frame separately** nothing is changing or contraction there *even ther move close to each other !! iow in order to know wHat is REALLY happening with our physical entities WE HAVE TO MEASURE IT IN THE **ORIGINAL INERTIC FRAME !! interaction between different frames is apparently more complicated and still enigmatic - than our over simplified guessing s my guess is that it is connected to the fact that **force messengers** themselves have the upper limit velocity c !!! what i said just above(with all modesty )-- has in it much more than it seems at the first glance ! (:-) ( old copyright by --- Y.Porat (:-) -----------------
From: Inertial on 14 Jan 2010 04:13
"Y.Porat" <y.y.porat(a)gmail.com> wrote in message news:6df8eb84-9052-4326-b1f7-a3ecccc26531(a)j24g2000yqa.googlegroups.com... > On Jan 14, 1:03 am, "Inertial" <relativ...(a)rest.com> wrote: >> "Y.Porat" <y.y.po...(a)gmail.com> wrote in message >> >> news:2f65eb91-bb3a-4a64-8595-1001757a1e72(a)f5g2000yqh.googlegroups.com...[snip] >> >> > my ansewr to myself is >> > may be it is becuse >> > if you MEASURE ***velocity** >> > IN ANOTHER FRAME THAN YOURS -- >> > IT IS THAT **MEASURED LENGTH** >> > IS DECREASING !!! (measured !!) >> > it is only a problem of** measurements** in differnt frames and >> > confused interpretations >> > of** attaching unjustified and prejudiced **- >> >> So you are happy with relativistic mass, in the same way as you are with >> length contraction. ie where in another frame than yours, it is the >> *measured inertial mass* that is increasing !!! (measured !!) > > wrong again you are a saw r learner A what? > IT I SNOT THE MASS ALONE > IT IS THE* MAAS PLUS VELOCITY* AS A SPECIAL > PHYSICAL ENTITY THAT GOES TOGETHER The momentum increases to be more that what Newtonian physics says it should be. > and you have no way to tell if the measurments results are > just becuse of th emass increase or velocity increase No .. you can most definitely tell, because you can measure things. You can measure the velocity, you can measure the momentum. You calculate the inertial mass by P = Mv (where M is the measurement we call inertial mass). For a given rest mass, that value M increases with speed. > iwould say quite the opposite > IT IS ONLY BECAUSE OF THE VELOCITY INCREASE Yes.. there is a velocity increase, and that gives you an increase in the measured inertial mass > and not mass increaxce It is an increase in the measurement called inertial mass. There is no denying that fact > but i see no way you can prove it > except that velocity increasse is more problematic than > mass in diffrent frames There is nothing problematic about velocities. They are very simple to calculate and measure. > we know that even if you meaure in two moving frames side by side > if you measure *in each frame separately** > nothing is changing or contraction there Yes .. we know. Rest mass is unchanged, and rest length is unchanged. Something moving past and measuring things doesn't change them. That's old hat. > *even ther move close to each other !! > iow > in order to know wHat is REALLY happening with our physical entities > WE HAVE TO MEASURE IT IN THE **ORIGINAL INERTIC FRAME !! Depends on what you mean by 'really'. The length contraction is 'real'. The increase in inertial mass is 'real'. Like many other measurement we make, they are frame dependent. That's old hat. > interaction between different frames > is apparently more complicated and still enigmatic - than our > over simplified guessing s We know how frames are related .. Lorentz transforms. Nothing complicated about it. That's old hat > my guess is that it is connected to the fact that > **force messengers** themselves have the upper limit > velocity c !!! What force messengers ?? .. we have an object moving with a velocity v and has a momentum p. We calcualte the inertial mass from that as M = p/v. That value is larger than the rest mass. No force messengers involved. > what i said just above(with all modesty )-- > has in it much more than it seems > at the first glance ! (:-) > ( old copyright by --- Y.Porat (:-) I'm not sure what you're copyrighting there. |