A simple Q. but not a simple A,,
in [Relativity]
|
Prev: float..my farts
Next: LHC Math gives a Doomsday.
From: Inertial on 19 Jan 2010 05:26 "cjcountess" <cjcountess(a)yahoo.com> wrote in message news:83148f85-ac7a-4dbc-bc02-bb050adc02d5(a)m26g2000yqb.googlegroups.com... > 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 Newton�s writings, learn the >> definitions he used. When reading Einstein�s >> 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. Its called delusion
From: Y.Porat on 19 Jan 2010 05:49 On Jan 19, 8:34 am, "Y.Porat" <y.y.po...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > 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 > --------------------------- and the answers are ???? Y.P ---------------------
From: Inertial on 19 Jan 2010 07:21 "Inertial" <relatively(a)rest.com> wrote in message news:... It wouldn't post before .. you keep adding too many groups, so I've trimmed some > "Y.Porat" <y.y.porat(a)gmail.com> wrote in message > news:c0f5a739-262b-44db-a09a-5392b6282006(a)e16g2000yqc.googlegroups.com... >> 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 > > Good. Did you understand it, and the arguments for and against the > usefulness of the relativistic mass concept? > >> 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!! > > Everything has relativistic mass > >> OR ** REST ENERGY** > > Everything has rest energy .. if it has rest mass > >> (because relativistic mass is only for moving >> masses and if no movement than -no increase of mass!) > > No .. relativistic mass is for objects moving OR at rest. But its value > is only different to the rest mass for something not at rest. > >> AS IT IS DOCUMENTED (from you )JUST ABOVE and you cant deny what >> you said just above > > Said what? > >> so you have to decide >> are electrons moving and creating relativistic mass >> or not ??!! > > As I have said several times now, I don't think one can say electrons in a > nucleus 'move'. > > I never claimed that the increase in mass due to heat was due to electrons > moving faster etc, > >> now >> we know from E=mc^2 >> that the Atom has energy >> *AND* HAVE MASS! > > Yes .. rest energy and rest mass. And every particle within it has rest > energy and rest mass. > > Some of the mass is converted to binding energy (as I understand) > >> 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 ??**) > > Fine .. tell me how fast an electron moves in an atom > >> SO HOW is THAT MASS HAVING ENERGY ? >> AND HOW SPECIFICALLY >> *RELATIVIASTIC MASS* as you said above >> IE BIGGER MASS THAN ITS REST MASS ?? > > What? Can you ask that question in coherent english? > >> 2 >> are you a university man?? > > I went to university, long ago now. > >> 3 >> do you consult the university people of yourse >> about this issue?? > > Nope .. don't know any to talk to. > >> do they think that the electrons around the >> nuc have relativistic mass > > Everything that has mass has relativistic mass. > >> ie know all about the *elctron and nuc** movements ** >> and not least -- >> KNOW HOW TO CALCULATE IT ---*QUANTITATIVELY* ?? > > AFAIK the nucleus doesn't move significantly inside the atom. The atom > itself may move though. There may be some movement of particles within > the nucleus, I don't know. > > Apparently from my reading, there are relativistic effects due to electron > movement in an atom. But then .electrons ni orbital may not be thought of > as actually 'moving' (not like a planet around the sun). I don't know > enough about it to give you a quantitative answer. > > But I've not made any claims about things going on in atoms (other than me > not knowing enough about it). You are the one that brought that up. > > My claim was that heating an object, makes its atoms and molecules move > more rapidly, which increases their relativistic mass, and so contributes > to a larger rest mass of the object as a whole. > >
From: Inertial on 19 Jan 2010 07:25 (hopefully this will post now I've trimmed some excess cross-posting from the replies Porat does like to spam all over the place) "Y.Porat" <y.y.porat(a)gmail.com> wrote in message news:c0f5a739-262b-44db-a09a-5392b6282006(a)e16g2000yqc.googlegroups.com... > 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 Good. Did you understand it, and the arguments for and against the usefulness of the relativistic mass concept? > 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!! Everything has relativistic mass > OR ** REST ENERGY** Everything has rest energy .. if it has rest mass (because relativistic mass is only for moving masses and if no movement than -no increase of mass!) No .. relativistic mass is for objects moving OR at rest. But its value is only different to the rest mass for something not at rest. > AS IT IS DOCUMENTED (from you )JUST ABOVE and you cant deny what > you said just above Said what? > so you have to decide > are electrons moving and creating relativistic mass > or not ??!! As I have said several times now, I don't think one can say electrons in a nucleus 'move'. I never claimed that the increase in mass due to heat was due to electrons moving faster etc, > now > we know from E=mc^2 > that the Atom has energy > *AND* HAVE MASS! Yes .. rest energy and rest mass. And every particle within it has rest energy and rest mass. Some of the mass is converted to binding energy (as I understand) > 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 ??**) Fine .. tell me how fast an electron moves in an atom > SO HOW is THAT MASS HAVING ENERGY ? > AND HOW SPECIFICALLY > *RELATIVIASTIC MASS* as you said above > IE BIGGER MASS THAN ITS REST MASS ?? What? Can you ask that question in coherent english? > 2 > are you a university man?? I went to university, long ago now. > 3 > do you consult the university people of yourse > about this issue?? Nope .. don't know any to talk to. > do they think that the electrons around the > nuc have relativistic mass Everything that has mass has relativistic mass. > ie know all about the *elctron and nuc** movements ** > and not least -- > KNOW HOW TO CALCULATE IT ---*QUANTITATIVELY* ?? AFAIK the nucleus doesn't move significantly inside the atom. The atom itself may move though. There may be some movement of particles within the nucleus, I don't know. Apparently from my reading, there are relativistic effects due to electron movement in an atom. But then .electrons ni orbital may not be thought of as actually 'moving' (not like a planet around the sun). I don't know enough about it to give you a quantitative answer. But I've not made any claims about things going on in atoms (other than me not knowing enough about it). You are the one that brought that up. My claim was that heating an object, makes its atoms and molecules move more rapidly, which increases their relativistic mass, and so contributes to a larger rest mass of the object as a whole.
From: Y.Porat on 19 Jan 2010 08:43
On Jan 19, 2:21 pm, "Inertial" > >> you have** no possibility** to say that thE electrons around the nuc > >> -- > >> have relativistic mass!! > > > Everything has relativistic mass > > >> OR ** REST ENERGY** > > > Everything has rest energy .. if it has rest mass >--------------------- here i could add a juict insult but i will refrain from in order of not devating the discussion sideways but waht you saied just now is on our analysis now you cant trow just slogans !! let us see ahead: ---------------- > >> (because relativistic mass is only for moving > >> masses and if no movement than -no increase of mass!) > > > No .. relativistic mass is for objects moving OR at rest. MOVING OR AT REST ?? A MASS IN REST MAKES RELATIVISTIC MASS!! (you undeestimate the intelligence of other --members here !!) -------------- But its value > > is only different to the rest mass for something not at rest. > ----------------------- but our diccussion is whether electrons in the Atom accelerate in a way that is making relativistic mass 2 can you prove and CALCULATE IT?? A I SHOWED YOU ABOVE THAT THE MASS OF THE ATOM IS NOT ONLY MORE THAN THE SUM OF ITS CONSTITUENTS BUT RATHER THE OPPOSITE ***IT IS LESS** SO WERE IS THE ADDITION OF MASS BY YOUR RELATIVISTIC MASS ???!! not to mention that you admitted that you cant calculate without calculations your claim is not only theoretically nonsens it is quantitatively refuted !!! so untill now you remained with VANE HAND WAVING !! that is not serious physics ?? ----------- > >> AS IT IS DOCUMENTED (from you )JUST ABOVE and you cant deny what > >> you said just above > > > Said what? that you cant calculate the relativistic mass of electrons why do you ask do you intent by that todivert the discussion and scramble it ??(or to gain some time for breathing ?? -------------- > > >> so you have to decide > >> are electrons moving and creating relativistic mass > >> or not ??!! > > > As I have said several times now, I don't think one can say electrons in a > > nucleus 'move'. > ------------------ so WHERE FROM IS YOUR CLAIM ABOUT ELCTRONS MAKING RELATIVISTIC MASS ?? ------------- > > I never claimed that the increase in mass due to heat was due to electrons > > moving faster etc, > ----------------- WE ARE NOT DISCUSSING HEATED ELECTONS OR MASS WE ARE DISCUSSING AN ATOM THAT IS IN REST !!and isothermic ! it was you that scrambles the issue by adding heated atoms why because you wanted to obfuscate the discussion ? anmd evn if i jion yuou to dsicuss heated atoms that according to you become heavier THAN IT IS ANOTHER EXAMLE TOMY CLAIM THAT ENERY IS MASS IN MOTION:! A YOU PUMPED IN THE METAL WITH HEAT now heat is energy ie mass in motion!! so why wonder that you added mass to your block of metal ???!!! anyway dont divert and confuse the issue we are now with ISOTERMIC MASS!! ----------------------- now actually trhis dispute should be ended withmy above prove and ability to calculate it that an Atom mass is less than the mass of its constituents !! so no relativistic mass and no schlelativistic mass was add by any movement and in order of not dragging that discussion enlessly i can solve that riddle about waht is happening in the Atpm: MR INERTIAL I ASSUME THAT YOU HEARED THE STRAGE RUMOUR THAT **EELCTRONS OF THE ATOM **DO NOT MOVE LINEARILY AND NOT ORBITING AROUND ANYTHING **THEY ***** VIBRATE *** and if you still didnt got it a vibration mass can never make relativistic mass because it at the bottom line situation RE,AINS ON THE SAME SPOT IT GOES BACK AND FORTH ENDLESSLY AND EVEN ACCORDING TO YOUR CONCEPTS STAY on the same spot !!! iow its overall translation is ZERO !!! GOT IT AT LAST (a pendulum fo r instance doe snot gain does not loose energy or mass!! ) Yet A PENDULUM (ONLY )AS AN EXAMPLE DOES TRANSLATE ITS POSITION!! AND ***STILL IT IS MASS IN MOTION***!! AND STILL NO GAIN AND NO LOSS OF MASS OR ENEGRY though its *inner* movenet it keeps the orriginal energy as without that pendulum movenet !! iow vibration of mass is not relevant to* energy change or mass change !! ****but still it is mass in motion!!!** BOTTOM LINE ENERGY IS MASS IN MOTION EVEN IN MICROCOSM!! so far it was me who probed it again and again and not you or anyone lese could prove the opposite !! if you claim otherwise THE BURDEN OF PROVE -- IS ON YOU !!! cleaver and **honest** people will agree with me !! ATB Y.Porat ----------------------- ----------- ------------ > |