A simple Q. but not a simple A,,
in [Relativity]
|
Prev: float..my farts
Next: LHC Math gives a Doomsday.
From: kado on 14 Jan 2010 21:10 On Jan 14, 5:03 pm, k...(a)nventure.com wrote: > snip > So light (i.e., the colloquial photon) need not > have mass. A mass by definition is matter (i.e., > 'stuff') so must be a physical entity, body, etc. > So if it (the subject of this discussion) does not > have mass, it cannot be a physical quality, so it > must be nonphysical in nature. In other words; a > nonphysical phenomenon. Somehow I goofed in transferring the text from the notepad to this thread. The last sentence should be: In other words; all forces are nonphysical qualities, so the force of light is a nonphysical phenomenon. D.Y.K.
From: Y.Porat on 15 Jan 2010 05:00 On Jan 15, 12:25 am, k...(a)nventure.com wrote: > On Jan 14, 4:47 am, "Y.Porat" <y.y.po...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > > 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 > > Correct! > > Furthermore, there is no way to directly empirically > measure mass, period. It is not even possible to > directly empirically measure the mass of a body that > is stationary in your frame of reference, let alone > that within another frame of reference. > > All the values of the mass of any entity, body, thing, > etc., are calculated by dividing the weight of the > entity, body, etc., by the acceleration due to > gravitation. > > As I stated earlier, light is a force and a nonphysical > quality. How can you weigh something that is not > physical? > > Moreover, all the dynamic qualities (i.e., momentum, > energy, impulse, etc.,) are also not empirically > measured, but calculated values. The true calculations > for the dynamic qualities necessitates the true > understanding of time, which science has yet to do. > > Science does not yet truly understand mass, force, or > time > > D.Y.K. ---------------- you are right partially: you ddin t take in account that photons has mass !! 2 if you cant measure anything there is no physics at all ....(:-) you must measure something common ATB Y.Porat --------------------------
From: Y.Porat on 15 Jan 2010 05:18 On Jan 15, 2:10 am, "Inertial" <relativ...(a)rest.com> wrote: > "Y.Porat" <y.y.po...(a)gmail.com> wrote in message > > news:82f5cb11-013e-4d5a-bd8a-f0417b3e0900(a)u6g2000yqf.googlegroups.com... > > > > > On Jan 14, 6:07 pm, "Inertial" <relativ...(a)rest.com> wrote: > >> "Y.Porat" <y.y.po...(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 > >> andhttp://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). > > > ------------------- > > you remain he same parrot > > If you mean do I not keep changing my mind, but instead put forward the > valid physics perspective .. yes. > > > your idiotic inflation of mass is not useful??!! > > Its not mine .. its physics. Did you read the article? > > > such a dramatic change in mass > > is something to be neglected' and 'not useful' ?? > > That's the issue .. whether its a useful concept to use. The effect happens > regardless .. its just whether or not you talk about it. > > > if you beleive in conservation of energy > > you must belive as well in conservation of mass!! > > There is no conservation of mass, except in the simplisitic cases, only of > total energy. > > > because > > energy is mass iin motion exctly in **macrocosm* > > Kinetic energy is, pretty much by definition. > > > as in microcosm !! > > if you deny it > > the burden of prove is on you !!! > > What .. to prove that mass is not conserved .. of source it is not. We know > that. You can put energy into a system and get more mass .. you can take > energy out of a system and get less mass. > > > and by direct measurement of your inflated mass > > not by crippled calculations > > There's nothing crippled about it. You know the nergy or momentum .. you > know the velocity .. Its a very cimple calculation to get inertial mass from > that (by its definition). > > > got it idiot ?? > > I'm clearly not an idiot. > > > and you keep on saying me > > i told you that again and again' > > Yes .. I (and others) have been telling you these same things, and giving > you the links to the same articles many times. > > > now if a idiot parrot like you say it again and again > > > 1 who are you to tell me something about physics ?? > > Someone who understands it better than you. > > > 2 > > and if an idiot parrot tellls you something again and again > > does it make it more right ?? > > Nor does it make it more wrong. What I'm telling you is correct .. with > source that confirm it. You are simply in denial in your own little fantasy > world where you think you are a great physicist, but really know next to > nothing about it. That's sad. Maybe its senility. -------------- i wil aswer in a compact way: just to show every body that a kind of a lost case parrot is Feuerbacher: 1 i did botgher to read you article i dont need it because it is another aprroting youcant say about such a 'basic phenonenon ' in physics that it is not practical (ie inflationof mass) forinstance take the LHC experiments of colliding PROTONS in a super hight velocity -close to c AND LOOKING FOR THE HIGS BOSONS!! AND WASTING BILLIONS ON IT !!! do you whant totell us that your inflation of mass of such accelerated proton is not meaninful for looking after the fantastic spooky Higgs boson that has this or another mass at that or that fraction of time ??? considering or not considering mass inflation is fatally important for that spooky nonsense 2 th e orriginal famous formula of Einstein is .... E = mc^2 !! so where the hell do you (crooky) see there THE GAMMA FACTOR ???!! so even if you are a sore learner one day you will have to stick it to your stiff skull and the hard way :: ENERGY IS MASS IN MOTION even in microcosm (it is no doubt in macrocosm ) and if you deny it in microcosm == the burden of prove is on you !! AND and if it i s mass in motion **conserved** mass is conserved as well !!!!! if you dont understand it go discuss with your friends not with me IT IS RIGHT ABOVE IN THAT FORMULA!! no need for further prove !!! BYE Y.Porat
From: Inertial on 15 Jan 2010 05:41 "Y.Porat" <y.y.porat(a)gmail.com> wrote in message news:aeffcb14-4e2a-49c1-b25b-d5c930e4ecc6(a)o28g2000yqh.googlegroups.com... > On Jan 15, 12:25 am, k...(a)nventure.com wrote: >> On Jan 14, 4:47 am, "Y.Porat" <y.y.po...(a)gmail.com> wrote: >> >> >> >> >> >> > 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 >> >> Correct! >> >> Furthermore, there is no way to directly empirically >> measure mass, period. It is not even possible to >> directly empirically measure the mass of a body that >> is stationary in your frame of reference, let alone >> that within another frame of reference. >> >> All the values of the mass of any entity, body, thing, >> etc., are calculated by dividing the weight of the >> entity, body, etc., by the acceleration due to >> gravitation. >> >> As I stated earlier, light is a force and a nonphysical >> quality. How can you weigh something that is not >> physical? >> >> Moreover, all the dynamic qualities (i.e., momentum, >> energy, impulse, etc.,) are also not empirically >> measured, but calculated values. The true calculations >> for the dynamic qualities necessitates the true >> understanding of time, which science has yet to do. >> >> Science does not yet truly understand mass, force, or >> time >> >> D.Y.K. > > ---------------- > you are right partially: > > you ddin t take in account that > photons has mass !! They don't .. theory predicts there mass to be zero, experimental evidence is in agreement. The figure you have said should be expected for photon mass has been looked for an not found > 2 > if you cant measure anything > there is no physics at all ....(:-) > you must measure something common Measuring doesn't mean or require understanding the deeper questions of what mass actually is etc. It is simply a defined procedure and calculation.
From: Inertial on 15 Jan 2010 05:47
"Y.Porat" <y.y.porat(a)gmail.com> wrote in message news:8dac4269-c7e5-4ddf-ade8-724d8aa33cfb(a)o28g2000yqh.googlegroups.com... > On Jan 15, 2:10 am, "Inertial" <relativ...(a)rest.com> wrote: >> "Y.Porat" <y.y.po...(a)gmail.com> wrote in message >> >> news:82f5cb11-013e-4d5a-bd8a-f0417b3e0900(a)u6g2000yqf.googlegroups.com... >> >> >> >> > On Jan 14, 6:07 pm, "Inertial" <relativ...(a)rest.com> wrote: >> >> "Y.Porat" <y.y.po...(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 >> >> andhttp://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). >> >> > ------------------- >> > you remain he same parrot >> >> If you mean do I not keep changing my mind, but instead put forward the >> valid physics perspective .. yes. >> >> > your idiotic inflation of mass is not useful??!! >> >> Its not mine .. its physics. Did you read the article? >> >> > such a dramatic change in mass >> > is something to be neglected' and 'not useful' ?? >> >> That's the issue .. whether its a useful concept to use. The effect >> happens >> regardless .. its just whether or not you talk about it. >> >> > if you beleive in conservation of energy >> > you must belive as well in conservation of mass!! >> >> There is no conservation of mass, except in the simplisitic cases, only >> of >> total energy. >> >> > because >> > energy is mass iin motion exctly in **macrocosm* >> >> Kinetic energy is, pretty much by definition. >> >> > as in microcosm !! >> > if you deny it >> > the burden of prove is on you !!! >> >> What .. to prove that mass is not conserved .. of source it is not. We >> know >> that. You can put energy into a system and get more mass .. you can take >> energy out of a system and get less mass. >> >> > and by direct measurement of your inflated mass >> > not by crippled calculations >> >> There's nothing crippled about it. You know the nergy or momentum .. you >> know the velocity .. Its a very cimple calculation to get inertial mass >> from >> that (by its definition). >> >> > got it idiot ?? >> >> I'm clearly not an idiot. >> >> > and you keep on saying me >> > i told you that again and again' >> >> Yes .. I (and others) have been telling you these same things, and giving >> you the links to the same articles many times. >> >> > now if a idiot parrot like you say it again and again >> >> > 1 who are you to tell me something about physics ?? >> >> Someone who understands it better than you. >> >> > 2 >> > and if an idiot parrot tellls you something again and again >> > does it make it more right ?? >> >> Nor does it make it more wrong. What I'm telling you is correct .. with >> source that confirm it. You are simply in denial in your own little >> fantasy >> world where you think you are a great physicist, but really know next to >> nothing about it. That's sad. Maybe its senility. > > -------------- > i wil aswer in a compact way: OK > just to show every body that a kind of a lost case parrot > is Feuerbacher: He isn't posting here > 1 > i did botgher to read you article > i dont need it because it is another aprroting So you ignore everything written about physics because it is parotting what is written about physics. That explains why you are so ignorant. That also explain your lack of integrity. Read the article !!!!! > youcant say about such a 'basic phenonenon ' in physics > that it is not practical (ie inflationof mass) > forinstance > take the LHC experiments of colliding PROTONS > in a super hight velocity -close to c > AND LOOKING FOR THE HIGS BOSONS!! > AND WASTING BILLIONS ON IT !!! Nope .. its furthering our knowledge > do you whant totell us that your inflation of mass ... of the inertial mass. not of mass (which means rest or invariant mass) > of such accelerated proton is not meaninful for looking after the > fantastic spooky Higgs boson The energy and momentum certainly is. > that has this or another mass at that or that fraction of time ??? What are you on about? > considering or not considering mass inflation is fatally important for > that spooky nonsense It doesn't matter whether you talk about inertial mass or not > 2 > th e orriginal famous formula of Einstein > is .... > > E = mc^2 !! > > so where the hell do you (crooky) see there > THE GAMMA FACTOR ???!! That is the formula for rest energy from rest mass. Gamma is 1 because v = 0 .. so it is ommitted. Gees. you should read more > so even if you are a sore learner > one day you will have to stick it to your stiff skull > and the hard way :: I already have learnt. I'm not afraid of reading like you are. Maybe you should be like the nazi's and start burning books? > ENERGY IS MASS IN MOTION even in microcosm That is kinetic energy > (it is no doubt in macrocosm ) and > if you deny it in microcosm == the burden of prove is on you !! Photons have energy and no rest mass. > AND > and if it i s mass in motion **conserved** > mass is conserved as well !!!!! No .. it is not > if you dont understand it > go discuss with your friends > not with me My 'friend's understand science and are not afraid to read physics texts and to learn. > IT IS RIGHT ABOVE IN THAT FORMULA!! > no need for further prove !!! You have (as usual) proved nothing. |