A simple Q. but not a simple A,,
in [Relativity]
|
Prev: float..my farts
Next: LHC Math gives a Doomsday.
From: Y.Porat on 17 Jan 2010 13:46 On Jan 17, 7:46 pm, cjcountess <cjcount...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > Porat > > here is something to collaborate your circlo idea > > http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3gox8PpNOPY&NR=1 > > Conrad J Countess ---------------------- Thank you Countess!!!! a few remarks: 1 of course while i was coining my assertion that Energy is = mass in motion even in microcosm you bet that my 'Circlon' was well in my mind (BTW it is Circlon' not Circlo' as you wrote anyway may be i will chngeits name afer your suggestion because i erealozed that there are other 'circlons' in use of completely different issues) i intentionally didnt mension it here in this issue *beause i was usre i cam prove that energy isd mass in motion even in microcosm **without mentioning my Circlon idea **!! even an inertial mass hes iinside it a lot of 'mass ion motion' only an idiot will not remember it !!! the electrons th e nuke and itsd inner activity etc etc!! 3 my circlon is not as hawking one in your video ie it is not positive and negative ones IT I S MUCH SIMPLER it is nt charged at all !! ITS SPECIAL; MOVEMENT AND BEHAVIOUR "" THAT IS CHARGE!! A OR ANY FORCE MaKER gravitation eelctric magnetic stroong forces it is just a matter of waht is its RADIUS OF MOVEMENT!! if it is ahuge radius it makes the gravity if it is a tiny radius it makes the stron force inside the nuke !! now the circlonis not only a force naker IT IS A MATTER MAKER AS WELL! if circlons move in closed circles and a huge numerof them at he same orbit and is such link is connected to anoter link like that to a 'cain of orbitals'youget a more complexed particle in the hierarchy of particles !! that nonstop circular moveemnt explaines why simple particles are so ilusive!! thje real mass - circlonparticle is not existing all the time at any point of the circle!! (i hope you see what i mean .. and i could goon and on with it but not in a singe net post !! anyway my intention is todo it step by step my first intention at this satge is toprove and getthe recognition that ENERGY IS MASSIN MOTION EVEN IN MICROCOSM A THANK YOU AGAIN COUNTESS!! Y.Porat --------------------
From: Inertial on 18 Jan 2010 03:16 "Y.Porat" <y.y.porat(a)gmail.com> wrote in message news:b7995a46-12ca-4bc8-b6d0-9ef5658b0242(a)a32g2000yqm.googlegroups.com... > On Jan 17, 2:39 am, glird <gl...(a)aol.com> wrote: >> On Jan 15, 5:00 am, "Y.Porat" <y.y.po...(a)gmail.com> wrote: >> >> > On Jan 15, 12:25 am, k...(a)nventure.com wrote: >> > > On Jan 14, 4:47 am, "Y.Porat" wrote: >> > > > In physics it is direct measurements that count!! >> > > 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. >> >> To measure the mass of a body at rest on Earth you weigh it. As >> Newton said, the mass of a body is proportional to its weight. > > -------------- > the conrovery is not weighing MASS AT REST ! > it is measuring it in movement and > ESPECIALLY IN VERY HIGH VELOCITIES !!! > > 2 > i never said that we cant meaure anything > i said that as presented by some parrots > it is impossible > for example a i said just above > mass at reast can be meaured as weight divided by g > (actually that is how it is DEFINED !! There are a few ways to define mass measurement .. what you're talking about is gravitational mass. Inertial mass requires a mass in motion (eg see how much momentum a moving object has, or how much energy is required to move it etc etc) > and it is sound because you can measure separately* > and** independently** !!! -g and separately wight !!!) > because it does not change it i s constant for aslong as you wish > at the same spot !! > > it is not like meauring at your the silly** momentum--- relativistic > mass** > **at that case** > YOU CANT MEASURE* SEPARATELY* MASS > AND VELOCITY !! > SO > while youmeasured growth of momentum > you cant relate it only to the **growth of mass"" Yes .. you can. As there are only two factors .. mass and velocity. We know velocity, so the inertial mass MUST be what is increasing to get higher momentum that you would have gotten if it had the same inertial mass as rest mass [snip] > parrot !!! > learn how a physical formula is created and used !! > E = hf > h CONTAINES MASS ( not just as a garmament > and i am tired to explainit to parrots 'h' is not a property of a photon. It is a universal constant. SO that really doesn't say anything about whether a photon has mass. Even if it DOES has some relativistic mass, that does not mean it has any (rest) mass. Your argument really doesn't make any logical sense.
From: Inertial on 18 Jan 2010 03:20 "Y.Porat" <y.y.porat(a)gmail.com> wrote in message news:cbc14798-14d8-431c-8e4a-6a8b60586eff(a)14g2000yqp.googlegroups.com... > On Jan 17, 2:39 am, glird < et to do. >> >> "Science" doesn't understand anything at all about physical reality. >> It only kows quantities. >> >> > you didn't take in account that >> > a photon has mass !! >> >> "except when it doesn't". >> >> > if you cant measure anything >> > there is no physics at all ....(:-) >> > Y.Porat >> >> RIGHT!! And if you can't define the words symbolized in your >> resulting equations you don't know what your quantities have measured; >> so there is no understanding at all in your physics. >> >> glird > -------------------- > if you think say as Inertial that > energy is NOT MASS IN MOTION > even in microcosm !!!?? As I have said .. mass in motion is KINETIC energy. Not all energy has to come from mass in motion. > and that the mass in E=mc^2 > is INERTIAL ENERGY (:-) I never said anything about 'inertial' energy. I said 'rest energy'. The energy of a system when it is at rest (ie no net velocity) > just go help Inertial to explain > waht is 'inertial energy' ..... I never said anything about 'inertial' energy. > take a piece of Iron > put it on you table stand still > and tell us > is there no in it some > mass on motion??!! The iron as a system has no net motion. There is motion inside it .. the INERTIAL MASS (ie relativistic mass) of the particles inside it contribute to its rest mass > ( just because you dont see any motion ?? (:-) > > are the electrons there > not MASS ON MOTION Of course, they are in motion, and so they have relativistic mass, which contributes to the rest mass of the system. If you'd read the link I gave you about relativistic mass, you'd know all that > is the nucleus and its inside components > not MASS IN MOTION?! Of course, they are in motion, and so they have relativistic mass, which contributes to the rest mass of the system. If you'd read the link I gave you about relativistic mass, you'd know all that > (is the nuc inside 'mass in *deep freeze* > OF MOTION'?? Of course, they are in motion, and so they have relativistic mass, which contributes to the rest mass of the system. If you'd read the link I gave you about relativistic mass, you'd know all that
From: Inertial on 18 Jan 2010 03:22 "Y.Porat" <y.y.porat(a)gmail.com> wrote in message news:95d495b4-1697-4672-933f-937d088aed53(a)c34g2000yqn.googlegroups.com... > On Jan 17, 7:46 pm, cjcountess <cjcount...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: >> Porat >> >> here is something to collaborate your circlo idea >> >> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3gox8PpNOPY&NR=1 >> >> Conrad J Countess > > ---------------------- > Thank you Countess!!!! > > a few remarks: > > 1 > of course > while i was coining my assertion that > Energy is = mass in motion even in microcosm > > you bet that my 'Circlon' was well in my mind > (BTW it is Circlon' not Circlo' as you wrote > anyway > may be i will chngeits name afer your suggestion > because i erealozed that there are other 'circlons' in use of > completely different > issues) > > i intentionally didnt mension it here in this > issue > *beause i was usre i cam prove that > energy isd mass in motion even in microcosm > **without mentioning my Circlon idea **!! Can you? > even an inertial mass hes iinside it > a lot of 'mass ion motion' Of course .. that's exactly what inertial mass IS.
From: Y.Porat on 18 Jan 2010 04:24
On Jan 18, 10:22 am, "Inertial" <relativ...(a)rest.com> wrote: > "Y.Porat" <y.y.po...(a)gmail.com> wrote in message > > news:95d495b4-1697-4672-933f-937d088aed53(a)c34g2000yqn.googlegroups.com... > > > > > On Jan 17, 7:46 pm, cjcountess <cjcount...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > >> Porat > > >> here is something to collaborate your circlo idea > > >>http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3gox8PpNOPY&NR=1 > > >> Conrad J Countess > > > ---------------------- > > Thank you Countess!!!! > > > a few remarks: > > > 1 > > of course > > while i was coining my assertion that > > Energy is = mass in motion even in microcosm > > > you bet that my 'Circlon' was well in my mind > > (BTW it is Circlon' not Circlo' as you wrote > > anyway > > may be i will chngeits name afer your suggestion > > because i erealozed that there are other 'circlons' in use of > > completely different > > issues) > > > i intentionally didnt mension it here in this > > issue > > *beause i was usre i cam prove that > > energy isd mass in motion even in microcosm > > **without mentioning my Circlon idea **!! > > Can you? > > > even an inertial mass hes iinside it > > a lot of 'mass ion motion' > > Of course .. that's exactly what inertial mass IS. ------------------- i was reffering actually (intended to say) to your idiotic 'rest energy' '''that is in the inertial mass''' will you admit now that there is NO '' rest energy' in inertial mass or anywhere ?? and THEREFORE E=mc^2 is mass inn motion???!! and energy there is no 'rest energy' BECUAE IN ANY MATTER AT ANY SITUATION THERE IS ALWAYS MASS IN MOTION and since there is **just one kind of mass** therefore ENERGY IS MASS IN MOTION EVEN IN MICROCOSM (FULL STOP) next year the shameless crook and thief Feuerbacher (not inertial ......(:-) will tell us that 'energy is mass in motion even in microcosm' ---- was known and accepted -50 years ago !!! Y.Porat ---------------------- ?? 'i |