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 14 Jan 2010 11:07 "Y.Porat" <y.y.porat(a)gmail.com> wrote in message news:42aa5735-a17c-4fe5-9aa0-2f4b3c68e326(a)m3g2000yqf.googlegroups.com... > On Jan 14, 3:42 pm, "Inertial" <relativ...(a)rest.com> wrote: >> "Y.Porat" <y.y.po...(a)gmail.com> wrote in message >> >> news:880de597-5317-4d3e-a957-f490b2cd3272(a)z41g2000yqz.googlegroups.com... >> >> >> >> > On Jan 14, 11:13 am, "Inertial" <relativ...(a)rest.com> wrote: >> >> "Y.Porat" <y.y.po...(a)gmail.com> wrote in message >> >> >>news:6df8eb84-9052-4326-b1f7-a3ecccc26531(a)j24g2000yqa.googlegroups.com... >> >> >> prejudiced **- >> > >> >> >> > wrong again you are a saw r learner >> >> >> A what? >> >> >> > IT I SNOT THE MASS ALONE >> >> > IT IS THE* MAAS PLUS VELOCITY* AS A SPECIAL >> >> > PHYSICAL ENTITY THAT GOES TOGETHER >> >> >> The momentum increases to be more that what Newtonian physics says it >> >> should >> >> be. >> >> >> > and you have no way to tell if the measurments results are >> >> > just becuse of th emass increase or velocity increase >> >> >> No .. you can most definitely tell, because you can measure things. >> > >> >> >> > iwould say quite the opposite >> >> > IT IS ONLY BECAUSE OF THE VELOCITY INCREASE >> >> >> Yes.. there is a velocity increase, and that gives you an increase in >> >> the >> >> measured inertial mass >> >> >> > and not mass increaxce >> >> >> It is an increase in the measurement called inertial mass. There is >> >> no >> >> denying that fact >> >> >> > but i see no way you can prove it >> >> > except that velocity increasse is more problematic than >> >> > mass in diffrent frames >> >> >> There is nothing problematic about velocities. They are very simple >> >> to >> >> calculate and measure. >> >> >> > we know that even if you meaure in two moving frames side by side >> >> > if you measure *in each frame separately** >> >> > nothing is changing or contraction there >> >> >> Yes .. we know. Rest mass is unchanged, and rest length is unchanged. >> >> Something moving past and measuring things doesn't change them. >> >> That's >> >> old >> >> hat. >> >> >> > *even ther move close to each other !! >> >> > iow >> >> > in order to know wHat is REALLY happening with our physical >> >> > entities >> >> > WE HAVE TO MEASURE IT IN THE **ORIGINAL INERTIC FRAME !! >> >> >> Depends on what you mean by 'really'. The length contraction is >> >> 'real'. >> >> The increase in inertial mass is 'real'. Like many other measurement >> >> we >> >> make, they are frame dependent. That's old hat. >> >> >> > interaction between different frames >> >> > is apparently more complicated and still enigmatic - than our >> >> > over simplified guessing s >> >> >> We know how frames are related .. Lorentz transforms. Nothing >> >> complicated >> >> about it. That's old hat >> >> >> > my guess is that it is connected to the fact that >> >> > **force messengers** themselves have the upper limit >> >> > velocity c !!! >> >> >> >> > at the first glance ! (:-) >> >> > ( old copyright by --- Y.Porat (:-) >> >> >> I'm not sure what you're copyrighting there. >> >> > ------------------- >> > if you dont believe me >> > may be believe PD >> > he wrote: >> > 'Porat you are rigth - there is just one kind of mass !!"" >> >> Mass is mass .. has been for a long long time .. that's why there is only >> one 'M' in dimensional analysis. BUT there can be a number of measures >> for >> a mass value that may not always be the same .. just like contracted >> length >> is not the same as rest length. > ------------------- > you are just playing with words Nope > if you say that the mass inertial one > icreased quantitatively It does. > you say actually it became the 'relativistic maa' Its the same thing .. inertial mass is another word for relativistic mass. > but PD tols you that there is no relativistic mass There IS relativistic mass, as has been told to you time and time again, the question is only as to whether or not it is a useful concept. > and not only him > manyothers told you the same thing!! No .. we've all really been telling YOU the same thing. But you just don't get it. Please read up again (if you even bothered reading it) http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/physics/Relativity/SR/mass.html and http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mass_in_special_relativity Where relativistic mass, what it means, and whether or not it is useful, is discussed > as long youhave no lettel guage sticked say to thje accelerated Proton What? > and > NOLITTLE MICROSCOPE ATTACHED TO IT > YOU CANT SAY THAT THE ORRIGINAL MASS > BECAME QUANTITATIVELY BIGGE I don't claim the 'original mass' became bigger .. if by 'original mass' you mean its rest mass. That does not change. However, the inertial (relativistic) mass DOES get bigger. Every observer sees a different inertial mass (just like they see a different contracted length) [snip more of the same waffle] Just as there is more than one length measurement for an object (rest/invariant and contracted), there is more than one mass measurement (rest/invariant and relativistic). Its quite a simple and basic concept that you can have frame dependant values, and frame invariant values. The only issue with the relativistic (or inertial) mass value is whether it is a useful concept for learning, and whether it is useful for 'doing physics'. The more recent view is generally against using relativistic mass ... not because there is no such thing (as we can clearly define it), but for other reasons (see the articles above).
From: cjcountess on 14 Jan 2010 12:09 Porat I did not say that "YOU" said a photon is not a wave and not physical, I addressed that to "glird" That is the second time I addressed something to glird and you though I was addressing you. That is ok though, perhaps I was not clear and it is my fault. As a matter of fact, I addressed at least 4 people in that post, you, glird, D.Y.K. and Uncle Al, each with something different. Sorry that it was not clear, but that "comment/question", was addressed to glird. I know very well that a photon is a wave, that it becomes more particle like as it attains more mass, momentum, and energy, and that it attains rest mass as a standing spherical wave at c^2. I am very clear on that. As a matter of fact, my whole theory hangs on that fact, and I do not want anyone to think otherwise. Let be be very clear about this A photon has relativistic mass/kinetic energy, of E=m/c^2 = E=hf/c^2 It becomes more particle like, as it becomes shorter, and more massive, energetic, and momentive, as demonstrated by photo electric effect. And as the wave reaches an energy of E=hf=mc^2 it attains rest mass. "REST MASS", is just, (relative mass/kinetic energy), in circular and or spherical rotation. And so I agree with you also on the point that there is just one kind of mass in different configurations, which is energy, which takes on the form of waves and or particles depending on energy level. And if we look even deeper, we can even say that "h" is the "rest mass" of a photon, that (c = h), is not the fastest speed in the universe, but actualy the slowest. Contemplate that. I will explain latter, although one could look up my earlier post to see the logic behind it. I am still waiting on "D.Y.K." not "Porat", to explain why poton is not a wave or physical entity. Conrad J Countess
From: Y.Porat on 14 Jan 2010 15:36 On Jan 14, 6:07 pm, "Inertial" <relativ...(a)rest.com> wrote: > "Y.Porat" <y.y.po...(a)gmail.com> wrote in message > > news:42aa5735-a17c-4fe5-9aa0-2f4b3c68e326(a)m3g2000yqf.googlegroups.com... > > > > > On Jan 14, 3:42 pm, "Inertial" <relativ...(a)rest.com> wrote: > >> "Y.Porat" <y.y.po...(a)gmail.com> wrote in message > > >>news:880de597-5317-4d3e-a957-f490b2cd3272(a)z41g2000yqz.googlegroups.com.... > > >> > On Jan 14, 11:13 am, "Inertial" <relativ...(a)rest.com> wrote: > >> >> "Y.Porat" <y.y.po...(a)gmail.com> wrote in message > > >> >>news:6df8eb84-9052-4326-b1f7-a3ecccc26531(a)j24g2000yqa.googlegroups.com... > > >> prejudiced **- > > >> >> > wrong again you are a saw r learner > > >> >> A what? > > >> >> > IT I SNOT THE MASS ALONE > >> >> > IT IS THE* MAAS PLUS VELOCITY* AS A SPECIAL > >> >> > PHYSICAL ENTITY THAT GOES TOGETHER > > >> >> The momentum increases to be more that what Newtonian physics says it > >> >> should > >> >> be. > > >> >> > and you have no way to tell if the measurments results are > >> >> > just becuse of th emass increase or velocity increase > > >> >> No .. you can most definitely tell, because you can measure things. > > >> >> > iwould say quite the opposite > >> >> > IT IS ONLY BECAUSE OF THE VELOCITY INCREASE > > >> >> Yes.. there is a velocity increase, and that gives you an increase in > >> >> the > >> >> measured inertial mass > > >> >> > and not mass increaxce > > >> >> It is an increase in the measurement called inertial mass. There is > >> >> no > >> >> denying that fact > > >> >> > but i see no way you can prove it > >> >> > except that velocity increasse is more problematic than > >> >> > mass in diffrent frames > > >> >> There is nothing problematic about velocities. They are very simple > >> >> to > >> >> calculate and measure. > > >> >> > we know that even if you meaure in two moving frames side by side > >> >> > if you measure *in each frame separately** > >> >> > nothing is changing or contraction there > > >> >> Yes .. we know. Rest mass is unchanged, and rest length is unchanged. > >> >> Something moving past and measuring things doesn't change them. > >> >> That's > >> >> old > >> >> hat. > > >> >> > *even ther move close to each other !! > >> >> > iow > >> >> > in order to know wHat is REALLY happening with our physical > >> >> > entities > >> >> > WE HAVE TO MEASURE IT IN THE **ORIGINAL INERTIC FRAME !! > > >> >> Depends on what you mean by 'really'. The length contraction is > >> >> 'real'. > >> >> The increase in inertial mass is 'real'. Like many other measurement > >> >> we > >> >> make, they are frame dependent. That's old hat. > > >> >> > interaction between different frames > >> >> > is apparently more complicated and still enigmatic - than our > >> >> > over simplified guessing s > > >> >> We know how frames are related .. Lorentz transforms. Nothing > >> >> complicated > >> >> about it. That's old hat > > >> >> > my guess is that it is connected to the fact that > >> >> > **force messengers** themselves have the upper limit > >> >> > velocity c !!! > > >> >> > at the first glance ! (:-) > >> >> > ( old copyright by --- Y.Porat (:-) > > >> >> I'm not sure what you're copyrighting there. > > >> > ------------------- > >> > if you dont believe me > >> > may be believe PD > >> > he wrote: > >> > 'Porat you are rigth - there is just one kind of mass !!"" > > >> Mass is mass .. has been for a long long time .. that's why there is only > >> one 'M' in dimensional analysis. BUT there can be a number of measures > >> for > >> a mass value that may not always be the same .. just like contracted > >> length > >> is not the same as rest length. > > ------------------- > > you are just playing with words > > Nope > > > if you say that the mass inertial one > > icreased quantitatively > > It does. > > > you say actually it became the 'relativistic maa' > > Its the same thing .. inertial mass is another word for relativistic mass.. > > > but PD tols you that there is no relativistic mass > > There IS relativistic mass, as has been told to you time and time again, the > question is only as to whether or not it is a useful concept. > > > and not only him > > manyothers told you the same thing!! > > No .. we've all really been telling YOU the same thing. But you just don't > get it. > > Please read up again (if you even bothered reading it) > > http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/physics/Relativity/SR/mass.html > andhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mass_in_special_relativity > > Where relativistic mass, what it means, and whether or not it is useful, is > discussed > > > as long youhave no lettel guage sticked say to thje accelerated Proton > > What? > > > and > > NOLITTLE MICROSCOPE ATTACHED TO IT > > YOU CANT SAY THAT THE ORRIGINAL MASS > > BECAME QUANTITATIVELY BIGGE > > I don't claim the 'original mass' became bigger .. if by 'original mass' you > mean its rest mass. That does not change. > > However, the inertial (relativistic) mass DOES get bigger. Every observer > sees a different inertial mass (just like they see a different contracted > length) > > [snip more of the same waffle] > > Just as there is more than one length measurement for an object > (rest/invariant and contracted), there is more than one mass measurement > (rest/invariant and relativistic). Its quite a simple and basic concept > that you can have frame dependant values, and frame invariant values. > > The only issue with the relativistic (or inertial) mass value is whether it > is a useful concept for learning, and whether it is useful for 'doing > physics'. The more recent view is generally against using relativistic mass > .. not because there is no such thing (as we can clearly define it), but for > other reasons (see the articles above). ------------------- you remain he same parrot your idiotic inflation of mass is not useful??!! such a dramatic change in mass is something to be neglected' and 'not useful' ?? if you beleive in conservation of energy you must belive as well in conservation of mass!! because energy is mass iin motion exctly in **macrocosm* as in microcosm !! if you deny it the burden of prove is on you !!! and by direct measurement of your inflated mass not by crippled calculations got it idiot ?? and you keep on saying me i told you that again and again' now if a idiot parrot like you say it again and again 1 who are you to tell me something about physics ?? 2 and if an idiot parrot tellls you something again and again does it make it more right ?? BYE ----------------
From: Y.Porat on 14 Jan 2010 15:42 On Jan 14, 7:09 pm, cjcountess <cjcount...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > Porat > > I did not say that "YOU" said a photon is not a wave and not physical, > I addressed that to "glird" > That is the second time I addressed something to glird and you though > I was addressing you. > That is ok though, perhaps I was not clear and it is my fault. > > As a matter of fact, I addressed at least 4 people in that post, you, > glird, D.Y.K. and Uncle Al, each with something different. > > Sorry that it was not clear, but that "comment/question", was > addressed to glird. > > I know very well that a photon is a wave, that it becomes more > particle like as it attains more mass, momentum, and energy, and that > it attains rest mass as a standing spherical wave at c^2. > > I am very clear on that. > > As a matter of fact, my whole theory hangs on that fact, and I do not > want anyone to think otherwise. > > Let be be very clear about this > > A photon has relativistic mass/kinetic energy, of E=m/c^2 = E=hf/c^2 > It becomes more particle like, as it becomes shorter, and more > massive, energetic, and momentive, as demonstrated by photo electric > effect. > And as the wave reaches an energy of E=hf=mc^2 it attains rest mass. > > "REST MASS", is just, (relative mass/kinetic energy), in circular and > or spherical rotation. > And so I agree with you also on the point that there is just one kind > of mass in different configurations, which is energy, which takes on > the form of waves and or particles depending on energy level. > > And if we look even deeper, we can even say that "h" is the "rest > mass" of a photon, that (c = h), is not the fastest speed in the > universe, but actualy the slowest. > > Contemplate that. I will explain latter, although one could look up my > earlier post to see the logic behind it. > > I am still waiting on "D.Y.K." not "Porat", to explain why poton is > not a wave or physical entity. > > Conrad J Countess ------------------- if you say that there is just one kind of mass you cant say tha the photon relativistic mass becuse at that moment you say that -- there is no inertial mass while every body agree that inertic mass is common agreement ATB Y.Porat -----------------------
From: kado on 14 Jan 2010 17:25
On Jan 14, 4:47 am, "Y.Porat" <y.y.po...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > if you claim that he mass inflated > YOU HAVE TO ** MEASURE IT** DIRECTLY (THE MASS!!) > ****NOT TO CALCULATE IT *** > A BECUSE YOUR CALCULATIONS MIGHT BE WRONG!!!! > and you have no way whatsoever to measure > DIRECTLY th e mass of a moving mass > in very high velocities !! > it is only by **indirect **calculations** !! > > --------------------- > in physics it i s direct measurements that count !! > if it by **calculation** THEY ARE SPECULATIVE > AND PROBABLY SOMETHING WRONG IN THEM !! > fo r instance the problem of measuring > in a *non-inertial* frame from *an inertial *frame !!! > > Y.P Correct! Furthermore, there is no way to directly empirically measure mass, period. It is not even possible to directly empirically measure the mass of a body that is stationary in your frame of reference, let alone that within another frame of reference. All the values of the mass of any entity, body, thing, etc., are calculated by dividing the weight of the entity, body, etc., by the acceleration due to gravitation. As I stated earlier, light is a force and a nonphysical quality. How can you weigh something that is not physical? Moreover, all the dynamic qualities (i.e., momentum, energy, impulse, etc.,) are also not empirically measured, but calculated values. The true calculations for the dynamic qualities necessitates the true understanding of time, which science has yet to do. Science does not yet truly understand mass, force, or time D.Y.K. |