A simple Q. but not a simple A,,
in [Relativity]
|
Prev: float..my farts
Next: LHC Math gives a Doomsday.
From: Inertial on 18 Jan 2010 05:00 "Y.Porat" <y.y.porat(a)gmail.com> wrote in message news:77795bc0-c584-4cbb-959b-2d9db5d2634b(a)30g2000yqu.googlegroups.com... > 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' Nothing idiotic about it .. it is what you call the 'one kind of mass' > '''that is in the inertial mass''' It *is* the mass you are claiming is the one kind of mass > will you admit now that there is NO > '' rest energy' in inertial mass or anywhere ?? No.. that would be a lie > and THEREFORE > E=mc^2 is > mass inn motion???!! NO .. it is the energy of a system at rest .. that means NO NET MOTION. if you had any idea at all of what E = mc^2 was about, you would know this > and energy there is no 'rest energy' Of course there is .. the enrgy a system has when there is no net motion is its rest energy. > BECUAE IN ANY MATTER AT ANY SITUATION THERE IS ALWAYS > MASS IN MOTION Of course there is .. within the system there are parts that are in motion. Their inertial mass contributes to the overall mass of the system > and since there is **just one kind of mass** But you are deniing the existence of the 'one kind of mass' you are talking about .. rest mass > therefore > > ENERGY IS MASS IN MOTION KINETIC energy is mass in motion > EVEN IN MICROCOSM (FULL STOP) > > next year the shameless crook and thief Feuerbacher > (not inertial ......(:-) Finally .. you acknowledge that I am not this Feuerbacher. > will tell us that > 'energy is mass in motion even in microcosm' ---- > was known and accepted -50 years ago !!! Of course kinetic energy is (by definition) from mass in motion .. that's basic physics that has been around since Newton. If you actually studied physics, instead of waffling on about that which you have no understanding, you would know that.
From: Inertial on 18 Jan 2010 06:26 Porat, how about you show some integrity and backbone and read the following article on pros and cons of relativistic mass concept (and mass in general). http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/physics/Relativity/SR/mass.html
From: Y.Porat on 18 Jan 2010 06:48 On Jan 18, 1:26 pm, "Inertial" <relativ...(a)rest.com> wrote: > Porat, how about you show some integrity and backbone and read the following > article on pros and cons of relativistic mass concept (and mass in general). > > http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/physics/Relativity/SR/mass.html ----------------- i am expert No 1 about nuclear mass and i dont have time for your idiotic particles i can refute you and other idiot croks muchsimpler eevn by simple more abstarct reasons: i hope you understood tha the assembles Atom has less rest mass than its consituents right?? now you say that the electrons gained because of that assombly more mass because of that assembly so waht is bigger the mass that the nuc lost or the mass that electrons 'gained ?? Y.P ----------------------- you say that the assempled
From: Y.Porat on 18 Jan 2010 07:39 On Jan 18, 2:22 pm, "Inertia > assombly more mass because of that assembly > > Some gain, some loss. I'm not sure you can say that electrons 'move' in > their orbitals though. Also note my earlier comments were about movements > of atoms and molecules within a larger object .. things that more clearly > 'move'. > > > so > > waht is bigger > > the mass that the nuc lost > > or the mass that electrons 'gained ?? > > Obvious answer -------------------- just say it loud and clear !! Y.P --------------------------
From: Inertial on 18 Jan 2010 08:00
"Y.Porat" <y.y.porat(a)gmail.com> wrote in message news:f3814381-d66e-4267-ab00-ebaf3ed5357b(a)k19g2000yqc.googlegroups.com... > On Jan 18, 2:22 pm, "Inertia > assombly more mass because of that > assembly >> >> Some gain, some loss. I'm not sure you can say that electrons 'move' in >> their orbitals though. Also note my earlier comments were about >> movements >> of atoms and molecules within a larger object .. things that more clearly >> 'move'. >> >> > so >> > waht is bigger >> > the mass that the nuc lost >> > or the mass that electrons 'gained ?? >> >> Obvious answer > > -------------------- > just say it loud and clear !! If there is less mass than the total, there is obviously more mass loss due to some mass being converted to energy than there is gain from any motion of the particles. Of course, the particles within the nucleus of an atom don't really move wrt the atom itself, so the rest mass is the inertial mass. But the atoms themselves move relative to the object as a whole, so there will be more contribution. |