A simple Q. but not a simple A,,
in [Physics]
|
Prev: ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ FLIGHT RESERVATIONS ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Next: superlatives of Volcano-Electricity #47 Volcano-Electricity: Earth's Energy Future
From: Inertial on 11 Jan 2010 03:18 "Y.Porat" <y.y.porat(a)gmail.com> wrote in message news:06873936-aa3e-4392-ae7e-659cd448876b(a)z41g2000yqz.googlegroups.com... > On Jan 10, 9:11 pm, glird <gl...(a)aol.com> wrote: >> On Jan 10, 1:06 pm, "Y.Porat" <y.y.po...(a)gmail.com> wrote: >> >> > do you think that there are more than one mass >> > physical entity ??? >> > For instance 'gravitational mass' or 'relativistic mass' >> > **in addition** to the inertial mass that Newton first defined >> >> To Newton and me a mass as a quantity of matter. >> The difference is this: >> He thought the mass of a body is the sum of the >> mass of an atom times the number of atoms in that >> body; where -- if you study his words carefully, >> ALL atoms were identical thus had the same weight. >> To me, mass is a quantity of matter whether or not >> it is formed into atoms and whether or not it has any >> weight. >> >> glird > > ---------------- > nice !! > now about relativistic mass: > 1 > as some of us said > it was abandoned long ago > for cleaver people not for dunb mathematiocians > and we saw it ion my thread: > 'there is jsut one kind of mass' > one of my main clames was at th3e > momentum case > i showed that > **no one has any way to show that in > > Gamma m v > > the gamma does not belongs to the mass > IT BELONGS TO MV AS > *** ONE*** PHYSICAL ENTITY!!!** > and no one has a prove that it belongs > *only to the mass*!!! As explained to you MANY times before .. it doesn't 'belong to', nor is it 'attached to' mass or velocity or mv or anything else. Noone (other than you) has made any claims about gamma being attached to anything.
From: Y.Porat on 11 Jan 2010 03:38 On Jan 11, 9:36 am, k...(a)nventure.com wrote: > On Jan 10, 2:56 pm, "Inertial" <relativ...(a)rest.com> wrote: > > > "Y.Porat" <y.y.po...(a)gmail.com> wrote in message > > > My relevant questions from your other thread on kinds of mass remains > > unanswered .. lets see if you'll answer here > > > Define what you mean by a "kind" of mass. > > Maybe I can shed a little a bit of light on the subject > of mass. Then I will let you guys decide who is right > and who is not. I'm not going to get into this tussel, > because I seem to be having enough problems with > what should be the simpler Ideas of Newton's Laws. > > Einstein had 3 different concepts of mass within > Special Relativity. > > There is the mass at the state of being stationary that > he called rest mass. > There is the mass moving well below the speed of light > that he called gravitational mass. > Both these did not differ greatly from the mass > defined in Classical Newtonian Mechanics. > > Then there was the relativistic mass (also called at > times the inertial mass) that increases as a > function of gamma, and wherein its length in the > direction of motion (but not height or width, i.e. > wherein tensor mechanics apply) and also time > contracts as the inverse of gamma when the > speeds increase and approach that of light. > > On the other hand, the empirical 'modern' Eotvos > experiment by Dr. Robert H. Dicke at Princeton > University confirmed the independently conceived > notion V.W. Hughes and R.P. Drever that the mass > of a body remains isotropic, and that the inertial > mass remains the equivalent of the rest mass. > Dickes experiment demonstrated that the mass > remains constant to better than 99,999,999,997 > and 1/2 parts in 100 billion! > > So most modern post Einsteinian Relativists > abandoned Einstein's relativistic mass and instilled > the idea of invariant mass (i.e., the concept that > mass remains constant), but wherein the relativistic > momentum and/or energy increases as the speeds > increase and approaches that of light. Furthermore, > these relativists retain all of Einstein's tensor and > field mechanics intact and without modification. > > What these relativists do not seem to realize or > accept is that there is no fundamental difference > in principle between the invariant mass of post > Einsteinian Relativity and the mass defined by > Isaac Newton in Principia. > > Now the matter of tensor mechanics, relativistic > momentum and energy, and the notion that time > is relativistic requires the true understanding of time. > > Please note that I stated mainline science does not > yet truly understand mass, force or time in an > earlier post. > > Nevertheless, I did do a pretty good job as to how > Einstein and mainline science reached these > conundrums in my book. A lot of the solutions > has to do with the fact that both Einstein and > mainline scientists adhere to the Philosophy of > Idealism. Logical and rational thinking, and the > rejection of a lot of dogmas also helps a lot. > > D.Y.K. ----------------------- nice anyway i explaned just above that the relativistic mass is unsuported mistake of interpreation: take just he momentum case: can you prove that in the formula P= Gamma mv the gamma BELONGS ONLY THE MASS ??! it is a rhetoric question !! (:-) 2 there is some imbecile idiot here that tell you that amoving mass has relativistic mass so my above explanatin is an answer to that as well (can you prove that the gamma factor of momentum belongs only to the mass or that momentum grew just because mass inflated?? and waht about the velocity that became bigger and who on earth tolod youi that velocity shoud grow linearily in higher ranges?? may be there is some mechanical phenomenon that is responsible for that ie the mechanism of inserting force ?? amyway as for now the gamma belongs to mv as one unit and no fucken relativistic mass that disappear immediately as movement stops !! now the idiot goes on and tells you thatthere are many kinds of length .... he does not understand that had it been many kinds of length than no imbecile on earth WOULD BE ABLE TO MEASURE** ANY KIND OF LENGTH** we can meaure it becuse there is just one defined length whichis the statinaly length !! that is the base of measurements of length that serves as a comparison base !! and i heared a roomour that all the sense of physics is measurements !! he rodd that moves does not change its real length it is only a **measurement phenomenon** **while meaureing in different frams !!** but we (even in that case do not forget that it is only a problem of measurment FROM different frames if we hade to0 make reasonable physics ***based on endless kinds of lengths ** no one **could find his hand and lengs in such a mess** iow it is by definition A NONSTARTER ** practical **PHYSICS !!! we have the practical MKS physics (in other dimension system it is the same principle !!) in which there is as a base --just one kind of M one kind of K ( Kilograms ) (there is no K of tomatoes no K of potatoes no K of onions ....) one kind of S if otherwise we have one big chaotic mess !! ATB Y.Porat -------------------------
From: PD on 11 Jan 2010 09:56 On Jan 11, 2:01 am, "Y.Porat" <y.y.po...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > On Jan 10, 9:11 pm, glird <gl...(a)aol.com> wrote: > > > > > On Jan 10, 1:06 pm, "Y.Porat" <y.y.po...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > do you think that there are more than one mass > > > physical entity ??? > > > For instance 'gravitational mass' or 'relativistic mass' > > > **in addition** to the inertial mass that Newton first defined > > > To Newton and me a mass as a quantity of matter. > > The difference is this: > > He thought the mass of a body is the sum of the > > mass of an atom times the number of atoms in that > > body; where -- if you study his words carefully, > > ALL atoms were identical thus had the same weight. > > To me, mass is a quantity of matter whether or not > > it is formed into atoms and whether or not it has any > > weight. > > > glird > > ---------------- > nice !! > now about relativistic mass: > 1 > as some of us said > it was abandoned long ago > for cleaver people not for dunb mathematiocians > and we saw it ion my thread: > 'there is jsut one kind of mass' > one of my main clames was at th3e > momentum case > i showed that > **no one has any way to show that in > > Gamma m v > > the gamma does not belongs to the mass > IT BELONGS TO MV AS > *** ONE*** PHYSICAL ENTITY!!!** The gamma doesn't belong to anything. I don't know where you got the idea that factors in a product can be assigned to belong to each other. > and no one has a prove that it belongs > *only to the mass*!!! > > ATB > Y.Porat > -------------------
From: Y.Porat on 11 Jan 2010 12:13 On Jan 11, 10:18 am, "Inertial" <relativ...(a)rest.com> wrote: > "Y.Porat" <y.y.po...(a)gmail.com> wrote in message > > news:06873936-aa3e-4392-ae7e-659cd448876b(a)z41g2000yqz.googlegroups.com... > > > > > On Jan 10, 9:11 pm, glird <gl...(a)aol.com> wrote: > >> On Jan 10, 1:06 pm, "Y.Porat" <y.y.po...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > >> > do you think that there are more than one mass > >> > physical entity ??? > >> > For instance 'gravitational mass' or 'relativistic mass' > >> > **in addition** to the inertial mass that Newton first defined > > >> To Newton and me a mass as a quantity of matter. > >> The difference is this: > >> He thought the mass of a body is the sum of the > >> mass of an atom times the number of atoms in that > >> body; where -- if you study his words carefully, > >> ALL atoms were identical thus had the same weight. > >> To me, mass is a quantity of matter whether or not > >> it is formed into atoms and whether or not it has any > >> weight. > > >> glird > > > ---------------- > > nice !! > > now about relativistic mass: > > 1 > > as some of us said > > it was abandoned long ago > > for cleaver people not for dunb mathematiocians > > and we saw it ion my thread: > > 'there is jsut one kind of mass' > > one of my main clames was at th3e > > momentum case > > i showed that > > **no one has any way to show that in > > > Gamma m v > > > the gamma does not belongs to the mass > > IT BELONGS TO MV AS > > *** ONE*** PHYSICAL ENTITY!!!** > > and no one has a prove that it belongs > > *only to the mass*!!! > > As explained to you MANY times before .. it doesn't 'belong to', nor is it > 'attached to' mass or velocity or mv or anything else. Noone (other than > you) has made any claims about gamma being attached to anything. ------------------ Josef Goebeels could be proud of you !!! theere is no limit to your impertinant lies !! iow shameless lier anyone who woll go back to your previous posts will see that it was YOU and otrher parrots that explained the 'relativistic mass' BASED ON THE GAMA FACTOR ASIGHNED TOITHE MASS and it was me the first one who said that gamma in komentum cannot be assigned to justthe mass but onlt tothe both mass and velocity IT IS DOCUMEMTED IN MY THREAD from just a few days ago !! 'there is jusr one kind of mass!! so little Goebells there is a limit to your lies Goebbels could do it because in his time there was no Google documentation !!!!! inout time there is documentation of any word you write !!including its date !!! got it nasty psychopath crooky ?? Y.P --------------------------------- Y.Porat ------------------
From: Y.Porat on 11 Jan 2010 12:32
On Jan 11, 4:56 pm, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > On Jan 11, 2:01 am, "Y.Porat" <y.y.po...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > On Jan 10, 9:11 pm, glird <gl...(a)aol.com> wrote: > > > > On Jan 10, 1:06 pm, "Y.Porat" <y.y.po...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > do you think that there are more than one mass > > > > physical entity ??? > > > > For instance 'gravitational mass' or 'relativistic mass' > > > > **in addition** to the inertial mass that Newton first defined > > > > To Newton and me a mass as a quantity of matter. > > > The difference is this: > > > He thought the mass of a body is the sum of the > > > mass of an atom times the number of atoms in that > > > body; where -- if you study his words carefully, > > > ALL atoms were identical thus had the same weight. > > > To me, mass is a quantity of matter whether or not > > > it is formed into atoms and whether or not it has any > > > weight. > > > > glird > > > ---------------- > > nice !! > > now about relativistic mass: > > 1 > > as some of us said > > it was abandoned long ago > > for cleaver people not for dunb mathematiocians > > and we saw it ion my thread: > > 'there is jsut one kind of mass' > > one of my main clames was at th3e > > momentum case > > i showed that > > **no one has any way to show that in > > > Gamma m v > > > the gamma does not belongs to the mass > > IT BELONGS TO MV AS > > *** ONE*** PHYSICAL ENTITY!!!** > > The gamma doesn't belong to anything. I don't know where you got the > idea that factors in a product can be assigned to belong to each > other. > > > and no one has a prove that it belongs > > *only to the mass*!!! > > > ATB > > Y.Porat > > ------------------- no PD YOU are telling ME that ??? dont youthink that anything is documented to the last word ??? i said it in my hread 'THEERE IS JUST ONE KIND OF MASS' anyone can see it there it is from a few weeks before only so no one can cj heat about it !! (you count too much on my short memory or on your short memory !!!) i explaned it before you !!! and explined it unprecedented !! that the gamma factor belongs to the mv!! **as one physical entity** to the mass only !!! 2 if so there is no relativistic mass ! no prove that the gamma belongs to mass only there is no precedence to that explanation of mine !!! UNLESS you bring former evidence (anyway i ddint hear it from nobody before me it was cooked in my mind during the above thread !!) and still you dont understand its very revolutionary meaning that i will bring later that will shake all your past claimes like ""the photon has no mass etc etc ""!! you refused to answer my last question to you whther there is jsut one kind of mass and tomorow you willtell every body that you toght me that 'there is jsut one kind of mass' !! and the conclusion of it is that ** THE PHOTON HAS MASS !!!** AND THAT ENERGY IS MASS IN MOTION EVEN IN MICROCOSM !!! SO TO MOROW YOU WILL SAY THAT EVEN THAT - it was claimed 50 years ago ) there is a limit to impertinence !! (AT THE AGE OF GOOGLE !!) and then you wil tell every body that it was done 80 years before me !!! **or even better** that you explained it to me first !!! Y.Porat -------------------- |