A simple Q. but not a simple A,,
in [Relativity]
|
Prev: float..my farts
Next: LHC Math gives a Doomsday.
From: Y.Porat on 14 Jan 2010 07:47 On Jan 14, 11:13 am, "Inertial" <relativ...(a)rest.com> wrote: > "Y.Porat" <y.y.po...(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. ------------------- if you dont believe me may be believe PD he wrote: 'Porat you are rigth - there is just one kind of mass !!"" oe kind means *no other kind and if allof us beleive and accelt theinertialmass it meanstha there is no 'relativistic mass' (not BTW to mention the fact that the moment movement stopped -- th e mass 'miraculusly' lost its relativistic mass and you remain with the old solid inertial mass !! if you claim that he mass inflated YOU HAVE TO ** MEASURE IT** DIRECTLY (THE MASS!!) ****NOT TO CALCULATE IT *** A BECUSE YOUR CALCULATIONS MIGHT BE WRONG!!!! and you have no way whatsoever to measure DIRECTLY th e mass of a moving mass in very high velocities !! it is only by **indirect **calculations** !! in physics it i s direct measurements that count !! if it by **calculation** THEY ARE SPECULATIVE AND PROBABLY SOMETHING WRONG IN THEM !! fo r instance the problem of measuring in a *non-inertial* frame from *an inertial *frame !!! Y.P ---------------------
From: Inertial on 14 Jan 2010 08:42 "Y.Porat" <y.y.porat(a)gmail.com> wrote in message news:880de597-5317-4d3e-a957-f490b2cd3272(a)z41g2000yqz.googlegroups.com... > On Jan 14, 11:13 am, "Inertial" <relativ...(a)rest.com> wrote: >> "Y.Porat" <y.y.po...(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. > > ------------------- > if you dont believe me > may be believe PD > he wrote: > 'Porat you are rigth - there is just one kind of mass !!"" Mass is mass .. has been for a long long time .. that's why there is only one 'M' in dimensional analysis. BUT there can be a number of measures for a mass value that may not always be the same .. just like contracted length is not the same as rest length. > oe kind means *no other kind > and if allof us beleive and accelt theinertialmass > it meanstha there is no 'relativistic mass' There most certainly is inertial mass .. one can calculate it quite easily. The only question is whether it is a useful concept for 'doing physics'. Did you even read the article I cited for you a number of times about that exact subject? > (not BTW to mention the fact that > the moment movement stopped -- > th e mass 'miraculusly' lost its relativistic mass > and you remain with the old solid inertial mass !! Yes .. just like when an object stops moving its contracted length becomes the rest length. Really, there is no difference between (inertial mass vs rest mass) and (contracted length vs rest length) > if you claim that he mass inflated Inertial mass has. As we know momentum got bigger than expected for a given velocity. The inertial mass MUST be bigger by definition. > YOU HAVE TO ** MEASURE IT** DIRECTLY (THE MASS!!) How do think one can directly measure mass? How many ways can you think of? How can you directly measure speed? > ****NOT TO CALCULATE IT *** Just about everything we do with measurement is a calculation .. sometimes the calculation is hidden in the mechanics of the measuring device (eg a speedometer on a car) > A BECUSE YOUR CALCULATIONS MIGHT BE WRONG!!!! So might your measurements. And its far more likely that the measurements are wrong, as calculations can be performed very accurately. > and you have no way whatsoever to measure > DIRECTLY th e mass of a moving mass > in very high velocities !! You can work it out from its momentum or energy. How do you measure the very high velocity without calculations? > it is only by **indirect **calculations** !! Just like most 'measurement' > in physics it i s direct measurements that count !! Nope. Sometimes indirect measurements are far more accurate and reliable > if it by **calculation** THEY ARE SPECULATIVE No .. they are quite often by definition. > AND PROBABLY SOMETHING WRONG IN THEM !! Nope. Speed is distance travelled divided by time taken .. That's a calculation, and by definition it is correct. Just like momentum is inertial mass times velocity, by definition. If you can measure/calculate the momentum and velocity .. you have the inertial mass. > fo r instance the problem of measuring > in a *non-inertial* frame from *an inertial *frame !!! There are ways and means.
From: Y.Porat on 14 Jan 2010 10:54 On Jan 14, 3:42 pm, "Inertial" <relativ...(a)rest.com> wrote: > "Y.Porat" <y.y.po...(a)gmail.com> wrote in message > > news:880de597-5317-4d3e-a957-f490b2cd3272(a)z41g2000yqz.googlegroups.com... > > > > > On Jan 14, 11:13 am, "Inertial" <relativ...(a)rest.com> wrote: > >> "Y.Porat" <y.y.po...(a)gmail.com> wrote in message > > >>news:6df8eb84-9052-4326-b1f7-a3ecccc26531(a)j24g2000yqa.googlegroups.com.... > > > prejudiced **- > > > >> > 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. > > > >> > 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 !!! > > > >> > at the first glance ! (:-) > >> > ( old copyright by --- Y.Porat (:-) > > >> I'm not sure what you're copyrighting there. > > > ------------------- > > if you dont believe me > > may be believe PD > > he wrote: > > 'Porat you are rigth - there is just one kind of mass !!"" > > Mass is mass .. has been for a long long time .. that's why there is only > one 'M' in dimensional analysis. BUT there can be a number of measures for > a mass value that may not always be the same .. just like contracted length > is not the same as rest length. ------------------- you are just playing with words if you say that the mass inertial one icreased quantitatively you say actually it became the 'relativistic maa' but PD tols you that there is no relativistic mass and not only him manyothers told you the same thing!! as long youhave no lettel guage sticked say to thje accelerated Proton and NOLITTLE MICROSCOPE ATTACHED TO IT YOU CANT SAY THAT THE ORRIGINAL MASS BECAME QUANTITATIVELY BIGGE andno i willtell you why i said a litle guage **and a little microscope*!!!! since you cant measure the mass directly AND IN EXACT TIME* yiou are in speculation land !! and if we are in speculation land i can tell you that i have my speculations as well !! since you **dont really knoe how is that process of accelerating our Proton is done i have my speculation: suppose that in that process of accelerating it it is not done by the holy ghost it i sdone by **force mesengers* that has tiny units of mass and those tiny units **stick' t the original mass of the Proton therefore the total mass of proton and 'additinal s 'on its back " are really bigger(inertial) mass than the orrivinal mass and you call it 'relativistic mass' and while that fatten (inflated) nass is colliding witha nother proton the other tiny 'parasites ' on its back stick now to the new accelerated Proton?? (and leaving the orriginal proton that came to rest and lost all the 'parasites on its back?? why not while we are in speculation land ??? does that little microscope that you atatched to the accelerated Proton told you that **it is not right **-- *becaus your littl e microscope *did see* any parasites on the back of that Proton ?? Y.Porat ---------------------------------
From: Inertial on 14 Jan 2010 11:07 "Y.Porat" <y.y.porat(a)gmail.com> wrote in message news:42aa5735-a17c-4fe5-9aa0-2f4b3c68e326(a)m3g2000yqf.googlegroups.com... > On Jan 14, 3:42 pm, "Inertial" <relativ...(a)rest.com> wrote: >> "Y.Porat" <y.y.po...(a)gmail.com> wrote in message >> >> news:880de597-5317-4d3e-a957-f490b2cd3272(a)z41g2000yqz.googlegroups.com... >> >> >> >> > On Jan 14, 11:13 am, "Inertial" <relativ...(a)rest.com> wrote: >> >> "Y.Porat" <y.y.po...(a)gmail.com> wrote in message >> >> >>news:6df8eb84-9052-4326-b1f7-a3ecccc26531(a)j24g2000yqa.googlegroups.com... >> >> >> prejudiced **- >> > >> >> >> > 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. >> > >> >> >> > 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 !!! >> >> >> >> > at the first glance ! (:-) >> >> > ( old copyright by --- Y.Porat (:-) >> >> >> I'm not sure what you're copyrighting there. >> >> > ------------------- >> > if you dont believe me >> > may be believe PD >> > he wrote: >> > 'Porat you are rigth - there is just one kind of mass !!"" >> >> Mass is mass .. has been for a long long time .. that's why there is only >> one 'M' in dimensional analysis. BUT there can be a number of measures >> for >> a mass value that may not always be the same .. just like contracted >> length >> is not the same as rest length. > ------------------- > you are just playing with words Nope > if you say that the mass inertial one > icreased quantitatively It does. > you say actually it became the 'relativistic maa' Its the same thing .. inertial mass is another word for relativistic mass. > but PD tols you that there is no relativistic mass There IS relativistic mass, as has been told to you time and time again, the question is only as to whether or not it is a useful concept. > and not only him > manyothers told you the same thing!! No .. we've all really been telling YOU the same thing. But you just don't get it. Please read up again (if you even bothered reading it) http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/physics/Relativity/SR/mass.html and http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mass_in_special_relativity Where relativistic mass, what it means, and whether or not it is useful, is discussed > as long youhave no lettel guage sticked say to thje accelerated Proton What? > and > NOLITTLE MICROSCOPE ATTACHED TO IT > YOU CANT SAY THAT THE ORRIGINAL MASS > BECAME QUANTITATIVELY BIGGE I don't claim the 'original mass' became bigger .. if by 'original mass' you mean its rest mass. That does not change. However, the inertial (relativistic) mass DOES get bigger. Every observer sees a different inertial mass (just like they see a different contracted length) [snip more of the same waffle] Just as there is more than one length measurement for an object (rest/invariant and contracted), there is more than one mass measurement (rest/invariant and relativistic). Its quite a simple and basic concept that you can have frame dependant values, and frame invariant values. The only issue with the relativistic (or inertial) mass value is whether it is a useful concept for learning, and whether it is useful for 'doing physics'. The more recent view is generally against using relativistic mass ... not because there is no such thing (as we can clearly define it), but for other reasons (see the articles above).
From: cjcountess on 14 Jan 2010 12:09
Porat I did not say that "YOU" said a photon is not a wave and not physical, I addressed that to "glird" That is the second time I addressed something to glird and you though I was addressing you. That is ok though, perhaps I was not clear and it is my fault. As a matter of fact, I addressed at least 4 people in that post, you, glird, D.Y.K. and Uncle Al, each with something different. Sorry that it was not clear, but that "comment/question", was addressed to glird. I know very well that a photon is a wave, that it becomes more particle like as it attains more mass, momentum, and energy, and that it attains rest mass as a standing spherical wave at c^2. I am very clear on that. As a matter of fact, my whole theory hangs on that fact, and I do not want anyone to think otherwise. Let be be very clear about this A photon has relativistic mass/kinetic energy, of E=m/c^2 = E=hf/c^2 It becomes more particle like, as it becomes shorter, and more massive, energetic, and momentive, as demonstrated by photo electric effect. And as the wave reaches an energy of E=hf=mc^2 it attains rest mass. "REST MASS", is just, (relative mass/kinetic energy), in circular and or spherical rotation. And so I agree with you also on the point that there is just one kind of mass in different configurations, which is energy, which takes on the form of waves and or particles depending on energy level. And if we look even deeper, we can even say that "h" is the "rest mass" of a photon, that (c = h), is not the fastest speed in the universe, but actualy the slowest. Contemplate that. I will explain latter, although one could look up my earlier post to see the logic behind it. I am still waiting on "D.Y.K." not "Porat", to explain why poton is not a wave or physical entity. Conrad J Countess |