A simple Q. but not a simple A,,
in [Relativity]
|
Prev: float..my farts
Next: LHC Math gives a Doomsday.
From: kado on 25 Jan 2010 05:47 On Jan 23, 6:01 pm, "Inertial" <relativ...(a)rest.com> wrote: > <k...(a)nventure.com> wrote in message > > > I answer this for the benefit of Spencer Spindrift and > > all the others that may be reading this, not the poster > > Why .. what are you afraid of that you won't reply to me? > > Because you're so damned stupid that you don't understand the words that are posted. > > > On Jan 23, 4:19 pm, "Inertial" <relativ...(a)rest.com> wrote: > > >> It is something we find experimentally. > I responded: > > This is true. True scientists must use the Natural > > Phenomena demonstrated by Nature to advance > > knowledge. > > Yeup .. as it should This why I don't respond to your posts. When I agreed with your statement, you cannot seem to realize that I QUALIFIED IT! When does 'using the Natural Phenomenon demonstrated by Nature' limit this to just experiments? The CMBR was not discovered experimentally. Neither was the fact that the planets and comets orbit about the sun. Or that things fall 'down'. > > > Nevertheless, are the conclusions about the effects > > of these empirical experiments reached by these > > people correct and true? > Your post > The effects are what we empirically measure > Your sentence is just a rewording of what I wrote before in several previous posts. Now by directing this to me, you imply that this is your idea and something I don't know. > > Or are these tainted by > > dogmas. > > If you mean by the models we construct of reality .. if they are found to be > at odds with the experimental evidence, it is the models that are changed. > > Unless any tainting is consistent with the evidence, then it won't last. I think (but can't say for sure) that I read something like this posted by another on this thread. These exact words are very familiar, and if not in this thread, in some other reference. Moreover, these words sure don't sound like your use of words to covey an idea. You state these words as if these are yours. Furthermore the last 3 lines are certainly contrary to the gist and essence of all your other posts that Uncle Al blasts and I choose to ignore. D.Y.K.
From: Inertial on 25 Jan 2010 08:59 "glird" <glird(a)aol.com> wrote in message news:f77c9769-1cb5-4eb7-8c08-c3c5a523fa2a(a)e11g2000yqe.googlegroups.com... > On Jan 19, 7:25 am, "Inertial" wrote: >> >>< 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, > >> > Porat: >>< Now we know from E=mc^2 that > the Atom has energy *AND* HAS 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) > >> >>>< (Do you know that other people 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. > > > It moves at v = 2.1876923 x 10^8 cm/second. It would, of course, depend on the orbital. If an electron can be said to be moving within an orbital anyway. >> > SO HOW is THAT MASS HAVING ENERGY? >> > AND HOW SPECIFICALLY is its >> > *RELATIVISTIC MASS* - as you said above - >> > BIGGER THAN ITS REST MASS? >> >>< 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. > > > Neither do you know that there are NO particles within the nucleus. > >> Apparently from my reading, there are relativistic effects due to >> electron movement in an atom. But then, electrons in 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. > > That's partly because you don't know what an electron physically IS > nor that it isn't a "particle" when in or out of an atom; nor that > atoms are made of the same compressible matter that fills the space > inside AND between them. If you did, you might have understood - via > *Planck's* quantum theory - that when inside an atom an electron DOES > move in an orbital path just like a planet does around a star. Not according to current physics thinking. >>< 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. > > > Change the word "mass" to "weight" and I'd agree with the resulting > statement. Why? Because the mass [i.e. the quantity of matter in an > object] is independent of the state of rest or motion as viewed by > differently moving people. "Relativistic mass" is. And the relativistic mass of the components of a given object contribute to its rest mass > It is its WEIGHT that changes, not its > mass. How can its weight change by the parts inside it moving faster? Note that Porat is diverting from the point by discussing relativistic mass of electrons in atoms. which is NOT what I was talking about.
From: Inertial on 25 Jan 2010 09:00 "Y.Porat" <y.y.porat(a)gmail.com> wrote in message news:c8bab8bc-09f3-49d3-8a91-b88cf8f14dbb(a)b9g2000yqd.googlegroups.com... > On Jan 25, 1:47 am, cjcountess <cjcount...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: >> On Jan 24, 5:10 pm, "Inertial" <relativ...(a)rest.com> wrote:> "cjcountess" >> <cjcount...(a)yahoo.com> wrote in message >> >> >news:34c43ced-bc47-4bcc-a59e-5b88f9259435(a)e11g2000yqe.googlegroups.com... >> >> > > There you have it folks >> >> > No .. we do not >> >> > > Even John Archibald Wheeler, agress with me, (E=hf/c^2), is valid >> > > equation. >> >> > No .. he does not. Stop your lies. >> >> This is beyond your comprehension >> >> (c is natural unit sqrt of natural unit -1) and I have taken it out of >> the imaginary realm, into the real realm of natural units. >> This is so beyond you as your name is inertia and your mind is in a >> state of inertia >> >> But you can snap out of it though. Just admit that you are wrong. >> You even deny that John Archinald Wheeler, uses the equation (E=hf/ >> c^2), in book, when it is right befor your eyes and the eyes of >> whitnesses to these post, or do you just think that even he is >> wrong? >> >> >> >> > > Inertia, is an obstructionist, true to his name: Web definitions for >> > > inertia >> > > inactiveness: a disposition to remain inactive or inert; "he had to >> > > overcome his inertia and get back to work" >> > > wordnetweb.princeton.edu/perl/webwn - Definition in context >> > > From search page Web definitions for inertia >> >> > >http://www.google.com/search?rlz=1R2TSHB_enUS361&hl=en&source=hp&q=in... >> >> > > You cannot stand in the way of an idea whose time has come >> >> > > 1) Planck discovered E=hf for photons >> > > 2) Einstein discovered E=mc^2 for electron's/matter >> > > 3) deBroglie discovered (E=hf) = (E=mc^2) for electron of -1 charge, >> > > and that electron was also a wave. >> > > 4) Bohr discovered that the wavelength of electron is equal to >> > > circumference of circle with angular momentum of a multiple integer >> > > of >> > > h/2pi >> > > 5) Therefore it follows from this and my geometrical evidence, that >> > > is >> > > independant >> > > of but supports above evidence, making it twice reinforced that >> > > (E=mc^2) = >> > > (E= mc^circled) and c=(square root of -1) >> >> > c does NOT equal the square root of -1. c is a real number >> >> > you keep making stupid statements >> >> > > If we draw progressively shorter waves, with progressively higher >> > > energy, we will evidentially arrive at a wave whose 90 degree angular >> > > energy/momentum equals its linear energy/momentum, which create a >> > > balance of centripetal and centrifugal forces, and 90 degree arc, >> > > which if constant creates a circle in 2d, or a spherical wave in 3d. >> > > This 3d wave makes two rotations in order to complete one wave cycle, >> > > (spin1/2) and also spins backward counter to it trajectory in half >> > > the >> > > cases which is how electron gets its -1 charge. In the other half of >> > > cases a forward spinning positron emerged. >> > > A smooth transition from photon to electron, energy to matter, along >> > > the same EM spectrum, which might from now on be called the (energy/ >> > > matter), spectrum as well as (electromagnetic), is geometrically >> > > demonstrated. >> > > Photons do have constant mass/energy = to h, that come from kinetic >> > > energy of constant speed of c. >> > > Mass / energy increases with frequency increase at (E=hf/c^2) >> >> > WRONG >> >> > E = hf >> >> > E does NOT = hf/c^2 >> >> > Get it right >> >> > > until >> > > it >> > > reaches (E=hf=c^2) or (E=hf=mc^2) as deBroglie stated, at which it >> > > attains rest mass. >> > > Rest mass is just relative mass in circular and or spherical >> > > rotation, >> > > such as a standing spherical waves, (electron). >> > > Therefore (E=hf /c2), the equation for quantum energy/ mass = (F=mm/ >> > > r2), Newtons equation for gravity, minus the big G, sense h is its >> > > own >> > > constant, and (F=mv2), the equation of force or energy of mass in >> > > motion = (E=mc2), the equation for energy/mass equivalence, on the >> > > quantum level and (a=v2/r) = (a=c2/c). And so the same force that >> > > compresses energy into rest mass particles at (E=hf/c2) = (E=mc2) >> > > pushes rest mass particles together at (F=mv/r2) = (F=Gmm/r2). They >> > > are equivalent at quantum level and directly proportional at macro >> > > level. >> > >http://docs.google.com/View?docID=dsn5q6f_101hgtjv9fb&revision=_latest >> >> > > Conrad J Countess >> >> > > As you can see, I use equation (E=hf/c^2) in last parragraph, >> >> > Which is TOTALLY WRONG >> >> > > to show >> > > equality and direct correspondence to (F=mm/r^2), which I can and >> > > have >> > > extended elsware to (F=mv/r^2) and even (F=Gmm/r^2) and (F=mv^2) = >> > > (E=mc^2), on quantum level, and the same force that compresses energy >> > > into rest mas particles, causes rest mass particles to gravitate >> > > togather. >> >> It is all true inertia you need to get in step with it >> Are you still in denial that E=hf/c^2 is valid equation that even John >> Archibald Wheeler uses? >> >> Conrad J Countess > > ------------------------- > you are right about circular movement > because there cant be such a highvelocity > in such a small volume > anyway it can be as well > vibrational movement!! > ATB > Y.Porat > --------------------------- Countess is not the sort of horse you should attach your wagon to. He's a far bigger crackpot than you. At least you have some understanding of dimensions of values and dimensional analysis of formulas.
From: Inertial on 25 Jan 2010 09:08 <kado(a)nventure.com> wrote in message news:4d9ca84b-3904-44ba-893a-0d642655c7cb(a)v25g2000yqk.googlegroups.com... > On Jan 23, 6:01 pm, "Inertial" <relativ...(a)rest.com> wrote: >> <k...(a)nventure.com> wrote in message >> >> > I answer this for the benefit of Spencer Spindrift and >> > all the others that may be reading this, not the poster >> >> Why .. what are you afraid of that you won't reply to me? >> >> > Because you're so damned stupid that you don't understand > the words that are posted. I understand very well, thanks. What makes you think I do not? >> > On Jan 23, 4:19 pm, "Inertial" <relativ...(a)rest.com> wrote: >> >> >> It is something we find experimentally. >> > I responded: >> > This is true. True scientists must use the Natural >> > Phenomena demonstrated by Nature to advance >> > knowledge. >> >> Yeup .. as it should > > This why I don't respond to your posts. Why? > When I agreed with > your statement, you cannot seem to realize that I QUALIFIED > IT! I realize just fine, thanks > When does 'using the Natural Phenomenon demonstrated > by Nature' limit this to just experiments? Who said it does? > The CMBR > was not discovered experimentally. Neither was the fact > that the planets and comets orbit about the sun. Or that > things fall 'down'. Who said it was? >> > Nevertheless, are the conclusions about the effects >> > of these empirical experiments reached by these >> > people correct and true? >> > Your post > >> The effects are what we empirically measure >> > > Your sentence is just a rewording of what I wrote before > in several previous posts. So you disagree with yourself? > Now by directing this to me, > you imply that this is your idea and something I don't > know. Why would you think that? >> > Or are these tainted by >> > dogmas. >> >> If you mean by the models we construct of reality .. if they are found to >> be >> at odds with the experimental evidence, it is the models that are >> changed. >> >> Unless any tainting is consistent with the evidence, then it won't last. > > I think (but can't say for sure) that I read something like this > posted by another on this thread. Irrelevant > These exact words are very > familiar, and if not in this thread, in some other reference. Well .. it's nice to know others agree. That's what happens when one posts sensible ideas. > Moreover, these words sure don't sound like your use of words > to covey an idea. They are. I thought them, and I typed them > You state these words as if these are yours. They are. I thought them, and I typed them > Furthermore the last 3 lines are certainly contrary to the gist > and essence of all your other posts Not at all. I am perfectly consistent, thanks. Perhaps the problem is that you don't read my posts? Or you think I am someone else. > that Uncle Al blasts He doesn't blast any of my posts. > and I > choose to ignore. Ahh.. so you don't read them. Your ignorance is your problem.
From: cjcountess on 25 Jan 2010 10:10
On Jan 25, 2:07 am, "Y.Porat" <y.y.po...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > On Jan 25, 1:47 am, cjcountess <cjcount...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > > > > > > > On Jan 24, 5:10 pm, "Inertial" <relativ...(a)rest.com> wrote:> "cjcountess" <cjcount...(a)yahoo.com> wrote in message > > > >news:34c43ced-bc47-4bcc-a59e-5b88f9259435(a)e11g2000yqe.googlegroups.com.... > > > > > There you have it folks > > > > No .. we do not > > > > > Even John Archibald Wheeler, agress with me, (E=hf/c^2), is valid > > > > equation. > > > > No .. he does not. Stop your lies. > > > This is beyond your comprehension > > > (c is natural unit sqrt of natural unit -1) and I have taken it out of > > the imaginary realm, into the real realm of natural units. > > This is so beyond you as your name is inertia and your mind is in a > > state of inertia > > > But you can snap out of it though. Just admit that you are wrong. > > You even deny that John Archinald Wheeler, uses the equation (E=hf/ > > c^2), in book, when it is right befor your eyes and the eyes of > > whitnesses to these post, or do you just think that even he is > > wrong? > > > > > Inertia, is an obstructionist, true to his name: Web definitions for > > > > inertia > > > > inactiveness: a disposition to remain inactive or inert; "he had to > > > > overcome his inertia and get back to work" > > > > wordnetweb.princeton.edu/perl/webwn - Definition in context > > > > From search page Web definitions for inertia > > > > >http://www.google.com/search?rlz=1R2TSHB_enUS361&hl=en&source=hp&q=in... > > > > > You cannot stand in the way of an idea whose time has come > > > > > 1) Planck discovered E=hf for photons > > > > 2) Einstein discovered E=mc^2 for electron's/matter > > > > 3) deBroglie discovered (E=hf) = (E=mc^2) for electron of -1 charge, > > > > and that electron was also a wave. > > > > 4) Bohr discovered that the wavelength of electron is equal to > > > > circumference of circle with angular momentum of a multiple integer > > > > of > > > > h/2pi > > > > 5) Therefore it follows from this and my geometrical evidence, that is > > > > independant > > > > of but supports above evidence, making it twice reinforced that > > > > (E=mc^2) = > > > > (E= mc^circled) and c=(square root of -1) > > > > c does NOT equal the square root of -1. c is a real number > > > > you keep making stupid statements > > > > > If we draw progressively shorter waves, with progressively higher > > > > energy, we will evidentially arrive at a wave whose 90 degree angular > > > > energy/momentum equals its linear energy/momentum, which create a > > > > balance of centripetal and centrifugal forces, and 90 degree arc, > > > > which if constant creates a circle in 2d, or a spherical wave in 3d.. > > > > This 3d wave makes two rotations in order to complete one wave cycle, > > > > (spin1/2) and also spins backward counter to it trajectory in half > > > > the > > > > cases which is how electron gets its -1 charge. In the other half of > > > > cases a forward spinning positron emerged. > > > > A smooth transition from photon to electron, energy to matter, along > > > > the same EM spectrum, which might from now on be called the (energy/ > > > > matter), spectrum as well as (electromagnetic), is geometrically > > > > demonstrated. > > > > Photons do have constant mass/energy = to h, that come from kinetic > > > > energy of constant speed of c. > > > > Mass / energy increases with frequency increase at (E=hf/c^2) > > > > WRONG > > > > E = hf > > > > E does NOT = hf/c^2 > > > > Get it right > > > > > until > > > > it > > > > reaches (E=hf=c^2) or (E=hf=mc^2) as deBroglie stated, at which it > > > > attains rest mass. > > > > Rest mass is just relative mass in circular and or spherical > > > > rotation, > > > > such as a standing spherical waves, (electron). > > > > Therefore (E=hf /c2), the equation for quantum energy/ mass = (F=mm/ > > > > r2), Newtons equation for gravity, minus the big G, sense h is its > > > > own > > > > constant, and (F=mv2), the equation of force or energy of mass in > > > > motion = (E=mc2), the equation for energy/mass equivalence, on the > > > > quantum level and (a=v2/r) = (a=c2/c). And so the same force that > > > > compresses energy into rest mass particles at (E=hf/c2) = (E=mc2) > > > > pushes rest mass particles together at (F=mv/r2) = (F=Gmm/r2).. They > > > > are equivalent at quantum level and directly proportional at macro > > > > level. > > > >http://docs.google.com/View?docID=dsn5q6f_101hgtjv9fb&revision=_latest > > > > > Conrad J Countess > > > > > As you can see, I use equation (E=hf/c^2) in last parragraph, > > > > Which is TOTALLY WRONG > > > > > to show > > > > equality and direct correspondence to (F=mm/r^2), which I can and have > > > > extended elsware to (F=mv/r^2) and even (F=Gmm/r^2) and (F=mv^2) = > > > > (E=mc^2), on quantum level, and the same force that compresses energy > > > > into rest mas particles, causes rest mass particles to gravitate > > > > togather. > > > It is all true inertia you need to get in step with it > > Are you still in denial that E=hf/c^2 is valid equation that even John > > Archibald Wheeler uses? > > > Conrad J Countess > > ------------------------- > you are right about circular movement > because there cant be such a highvelocity > in such a small volume > anyway it can be as well > vibrational movement!! > ATB > Y.Porat > ---------------------------- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text - I can see how such fast motion in small volume can be called vibration As I see it "c^2', as c in circular and/or spherical rotationis as fast as this motion can go, but I could be wrong. Conrad J Countess |