A simple Q. but not a simple A,,
in [Relativity]
|
Prev: float..my farts
Next: LHC Math gives a Doomsday.
From: Y.Porat on 19 Jan 2010 01:34 On Jan 18, 11:43 pm, "Inertial" <relativ...(a)rest.com> wrote: > "Y.Porat" <y.y.po...(a)gmail.com> wrote in message > > news:5b3d2cad-9ac0-41f8-b96f-36f1445413bd(a)a32g2000yqm.googlegroups.com... > > > > > On Jan 18, 3:00 pm, "Inertial" <relativ...(a)rest.com> wrote: > >> "Y.Porat" <y.y.po...(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. > > > -------------- > > you must be quantitqative > > because quantitative > > IS THE NAME OF THE GAME HERE!! > > Nope > > > SO WAHT PORTION IS LOST BY THE NUC > > AND AGAINT IT > > WAHT IS THE ENERY THAT WAS RADIATED > > AND WHAT IS TRHE RELATIVISTIC MASS'' > > THAT WAS GAINED BY YOUR ELECTERONS > > Not possible as i do not have figures for the how fast electrons 'move' (as > I said, I don't think they do 'move' anyway, no for the speed of any > movement of sub-atomic particles in the nucleus. > > > if you dont do it quantitatively > > youar3just mumbling!! > > now > > take an Atom of say 80 electrons > > yell us waht is their orbits > > their velocity > > disatnce from nuke > > and show ud a calculation of that mess > > add on it the lost mass by radiation > > and equtteit to th emass before creatin and after creation of that > > Atom with 80 electrons > > No need . .there is quantitative evidence that heating an object .. which > produces more movement of the atoms within it .. increases its mass. > > Read the article I have linked you to before. ------------ i red it but not relavant to our QUANTITATRIVE ISSE and as i saied whithout quantitative analysys you have** no possibility** to say that thE electrons around the nuc -- have relativistic mass!! OR ** REST ENERGY** (because relativistic mass is only for moving masses and if no movement than -no increase of mass!) AS IT IS DOCUMENTED (from you )JUST ABOVE and you cant deny what you said just above so you have to decide are electrons moving and creating relativistic mass or not ??!! now we know from E=mc^2 that the Atom has energy *AND* HAVE MASS! and you dont know as you just now admitted - how much movement (do you know that other peole know how much movement it has and not the least- * can calculate it quantitatively ??**) SO HOW is THAT MASS HAVING ENERGY ? AND HOW SPECIFICALLY *RELATIVIASTIC MASS* as you said above IE BIGGER MASS THAN ITS REST MASS ?? 2 are you a university man?? 3 do you consult the university people of yourse about this issue?? do they think that the electrons around the nuc have relativistic mass ie know all about the *elctron and nuc** movements ** and not least -- KNOW HOW TO CALCULATE IT ---*QUANTITATIVELY* ?? TIA Y.Porat ---------------------------
From: cjcountess on 19 Jan 2010 04:07 On Jan 18, 7:38 pm, "Inertial" <relativ...(a)rest.com> wrote: > "cjcountess" <cjcount...(a)yahoo.com> wrote in message > > news:883d7b35-324c-42b9-8667-ac39b7299bd5(a)k35g2000yqb.googlegroups.com... > > > Something moving at constant speed, in straight line, is equal to > > being at rest, but both are relative, not an absolute, > > Yeup > > > for just as > > nothing is trully at rest, nothing moves in absolute straight line, at > > constant speed either. > > No .. straight lines are straight lines in all inertial frames (if we are > talking SR) > > if we're talking about GR, then a straight path for one frame may be curved > to another Yes but in reality i think the general relativity idea is more corect > > But the > > speed of light in a "vacuum," is constant in the linear direction, > > reguardless of motion of souce and observer, but not in angular, > > frequency direction. > > What is an "angular frequency direction" ?? The ansswer to that is in the next line, "cycles per time unit" > > Frequency speed of "cycles per time unit", changes with motion of > > source and observer. > > Of course.. that is just Doppler shift > > > That is how radar is able to tell speed and > > direction of source, due to "Doppler effect", change in frequency. > > I am agreeing somewhat with you, although maybe for different reasons. > > > But "c" does = "h", in natural units at the Planck level. > > Well, derrr .. Seeing 'natural' units are chose so such constants have the > value '1', they would be the same. That has no significance though as to > any relationship betwenn them. > > > Ever heard of the unity of the constants? > > The units are chosen explicitly to give some constants a value of 1. But > that doesn't mean the constants are somehow unified. > > > More and more things are > > unified as we get to the constants, > > Nope > > > just as E or "energy" = m or "mass/ > > matter", at c^2. (c = h), is also a sort of energy/mass equivalence > > E = mc^2 shows a simple relationship between energy and mass. It doesn't > really mean energy is actually identical to mass. Just because you can > change the units to where c has a value 1, and so does not need to appear in > the equation) does not change that. This is all the more reason that my geometrical interpretation of (E=mc^2) is important. It shows not just that "simple relationship between energy and mass" as you stated, but exactly how energy equals and turns to matter at (c^2), which is a frequency wavelength, at high end of EM spectrum, which can clearly be seen to be not only electromagnetic spectrum, but the energy/matter spectrum, as well. Likewise, it makes it more plain and clear that (c = h), also not just because people attempted to make both equal 1 , but because they are both properties of the same thing, "the energy of light when it equals one", The speed of light is "constant", at "c", in a vacuum, reguardless of frequency, in the linear direction, neglecting angular speed, due to frquency cycles per time unit, which contributes to overall speed, energy, mass, energy, momentum. The energy of light contains a constant "h", reguardless of frequency, which when factored in increases energy to hf/c^2. Conrad J Countess
From: Y.Porat on 19 Jan 2010 04:40 On Jan 19, 11:07 am, cjcountess <cjcount...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > On Jan 18, 7:38 pm, "Inertial" <relativ...(a)rest.com> wrote: > > > > > "cjcountess" <cjcount...(a)yahoo.com> wrote in message > > >news:883d7b35-324c-42b9-8667-ac39b7299bd5(a)k35g2000yqb.googlegroups.com.... > > > > Something moving at constant speed, in straight line, is equal to > > > being at rest, but both are relative, not an absolute, > > > Yeup > > > > for just as > > > nothing is trully at rest, nothing moves in absolute straight line, at > > > constant speed either. > > > No .. straight lines are straight lines in all inertial frames (if we are > > talking SR) > > > if we're talking about GR, then a straight path for one frame may be curved > > to another > > Yes but in reality i think the general relativity idea is more corect > > > > But the > > > speed of light in a "vacuum," is constant in the linear direction, > > > reguardless of motion of souce and observer, but not in angular, > > > frequency direction. > > > What is an "angular frequency direction" ?? > > The ansswer to that is in the next line, "cycles per time unit" > > > > > > Frequency speed of "cycles per time unit", changes with motion of > > > source and observer. > > > Of course.. that is just Doppler shift > > > > That is how radar is able to tell speed and > > > direction of source, due to "Doppler effect", change in frequency. > > > I am agreeing somewhat with you, although maybe for different reasons.. > > > > But "c" does = "h", in natural units at the Planck level. > > > Well, derrr .. Seeing 'natural' units are chose so such constants have the > > value '1', they would be the same. That has no significance though as to > > any relationship betwenn them. > > > > Ever heard of the unity of the constants? > > > The units are chosen explicitly to give some constants a value of 1. But > > that doesn't mean the constants are somehow unified. > > > > More and more things are > > > unified as we get to the constants, > > > Nope > > > > just as E or "energy" = m or "mass/ > > > matter", at c^2. (c = h), is also a sort of energy/mass equivalence > > > E = mc^2 shows a simple relationship between energy and mass. It doesn't > > really mean energy is actually identical to mass. Just because you can > > change the units to where c has a value 1, and so does not need to appear in > > the equation) does not change that. > > This is all the more reason that my geometrical interpretation of > (E=mc^2) is important. > It shows not just that "simple relationship between energy and mass" > as you stated, > but exactly how energy equals and turns to matter at (c^2), which is a > frequency wavelength, > at high end of EM spectrum, which can clearly be seen to be not only > electromagnetic spectrum, but the energy/matter spectrum, as well. > Likewise, it makes it more plain and clear that (c = h), also not just > because people attempted to make both equal 1 , but because they are > both properties of the same thing, "the energy of light when it equals > one", > > The speed of light is "constant", at "c", in a vacuum, reguardless of > frequency, in the linear direction, neglecting angular speed, due to > frquency cycles per time unit, which contributes to overall speed, > energy, mass, energy, momentum. > > The energy of light contains a constant "h", reguardless of > frequency, which when factored in increases energy to hf/c^2. > > Conrad J Countess -------------------- and the Circlon' fits in nicely !!! BTW Countess according to me curved space time is nonsense physics curved moevment isnot a property of space it is a net property of MASS : it is the Circlon that moves **naturally*in closed circles if not disturbed on its way !!! as you started to agree with me not long ago ... (a postulate of mine many years ago ...) ATB Y.Porat ----------------------
From: cjcountess on 19 Jan 2010 05:13 On Jan 18, 9:56 pm, k...(a)nventure.com wrote: > Although this is placed as a response to > cjcountess, it also applies to Inertia, > Y. Porat , all who read this thread, and > in fact, all of mainline science. > > For the sake of true science: heed the words > of the wise old sage, i.e.,: > > Learn the meanings of the words, and use > these correctly. This does not mean just > the dictionary definitions. This means when > reading Newtons writings, learn the > definitions he used. When reading Einsteins > writings, learn the definitions he used, and > so on. > Wow D.K.Y., that was interesting. You think Uncle Al and yourself are right and I am wrong I am tempted to say that I can take you both at the same time, but I'd rather let the evidence speak for itself. I do post my main idea on this site because it is a form of publishing, although not the best, and I want to establish myself as the first to discover the "Geometrical Interpretation of (E=mc^2), which includes so many other ideas such as (E=mc^2) = (E=mc^circled), (c = natural unit, sqrt of natural unit, -1) taking (sqrt-1), out of imaginary realm into real world of natural units, (h/ 2pi/2), as measure of certainty of measurement of particle, "both position and momentum simutainiously", as opposed to "uncertainty" resolving that mystery also. I have so much evidence that fits together so seamlessly, supporting eachother, to form suuch a clear picture, that it is highly unlikely that the theory is not correct. This is going to be interesting, physical theory is being chalenged on so many different competing fronts. Many interesting developments ahead. Conrad J Countess
From: Inertial on 19 Jan 2010 05:25
"cjcountess" <cjcountess(a)yahoo.com> wrote in message news:dbb2729c-9cbe-4aac-92a9-e8e15adbe4c2(a)34g2000yqp.googlegroups.com... > On Jan 18, 7:38 pm, "Inertial" <relativ...(a)rest.com> wrote: >> "cjcountess" <cjcount...(a)yahoo.com> wrote in message >> >> news:883d7b35-324c-42b9-8667-ac39b7299bd5(a)k35g2000yqb.googlegroups.com... >> >> > Something moving at constant speed, in straight line, is equal to >> > being at rest, but both are relative, not an absolute, >> >> Yeup >> >> > for just as >> > nothing is trully at rest, nothing moves in absolute straight line, at >> > constant speed either. >> >> No .. straight lines are straight lines in all inertial frames (if we are >> talking SR) >> >> if we're talking about GR, then a straight path for one frame may be >> curved >> to another > > Yes but in reality i think the general relativity idea is more corect > >> > But the >> > speed of light in a "vacuum," is constant in the linear direction, >> > reguardless of motion of souce and observer, but not in angular, >> > frequency direction. >> >> What is an "angular frequency direction" ?? > The ansswer to that is in the next line, "cycles per time unit" > >> > Frequency speed of "cycles per time unit", changes with motion of >> > source and observer. >> >> Of course.. that is just Doppler shift >> >> > That is how radar is able to tell speed and >> > direction of source, due to "Doppler effect", change in frequency. >> > I am agreeing somewhat with you, although maybe for different reasons. >> >> > But "c" does = "h", in natural units at the Planck level. >> >> Well, derrr .. Seeing 'natural' units are chose so such constants have >> the >> value '1', they would be the same. That has no significance though as to >> any relationship betwenn them. >> >> > Ever heard of the unity of the constants? >> >> The units are chosen explicitly to give some constants a value of 1. But >> that doesn't mean the constants are somehow unified. >> >> > More and more things are >> > unified as we get to the constants, >> >> Nope >> >> > just as E or "energy" = m or "mass/ >> > matter", at c^2. (c = h), is also a sort of energy/mass equivalence >> >> E = mc^2 shows a simple relationship between energy and mass. It doesn't >> really mean energy is actually identical to mass. Just because you can >> change the units to where c has a value 1, and so does not need to appear >> in >> the equation) does not change that. > > This is all the more reason that my geometrical interpretation of > (E=mc^2) is important. > It shows not just that "simple relationship between energy and mass" > as you stated, > but exactly how energy equals and turns to matter at (c^2), Nonsense > which is a > frequency wavelength, A meaningless phrase > at high end of EM spectrum, which can clearly be seen to be not only > electromagnetic spectrum, but the energy/matter spectrum, BAHAHA > as well. > Likewise, it makes it more plain and clear that (c = h), That's just an artificial convenience in some human invented systems of units. > also not just > because people attempted to make both equal 1 , That is EXACTLY all it is > but because they are > both properties of the same thing, Nope > "the energy of light when it equals > one", Total nonsense again > The speed of light is "constant", at "c", in a vacuum, reguardless of > frequency, in the linear direction, neglecting angular speed, due to > frquency cycles per time unit, which contributes to overall speed, > energy, mass, energy, momentum. A lot of words to not say anything new > The energy of light contains a constant "h", reguardless of > frequency, which when factored in increases energy to hf/c^2. No .. E = hf .. there is no c^2 in it |