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 19:10 "Y.Porat" <y.y.porat(a)gmail.com> wrote in message news:82f5cb11-013e-4d5a-bd8a-f0417b3e0900(a)u6g2000yqf.googlegroups.com... > 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 If you mean do I not keep changing my mind, but instead put forward the valid physics perspective .. yes. > your idiotic inflation of mass is not useful??!! Its not mine .. its physics. Did you read the article? > such a dramatic change in mass > is something to be neglected' and 'not useful' ?? That's the issue .. whether its a useful concept to use. The effect happens regardless .. its just whether or not you talk about it. > if you beleive in conservation of energy > you must belive as well in conservation of mass!! There is no conservation of mass, except in the simplisitic cases, only of total energy. > because > energy is mass iin motion exctly in **macrocosm* Kinetic energy is, pretty much by definition. > as in microcosm !! > if you deny it > the burden of prove is on you !!! What .. to prove that mass is not conserved .. of source it is not. We know that. You can put energy into a system and get more mass .. you can take energy out of a system and get less mass. > and by direct measurement of your inflated mass > not by crippled calculations There's nothing crippled about it. You know the nergy or momentum .. you know the velocity .. Its a very cimple calculation to get inertial mass from that (by its definition). > got it idiot ?? I'm clearly not an idiot. > and you keep on saying me > i told you that again and again' Yes .. I (and others) have been telling you these same things, and giving you the links to the same articles many times. > now if a idiot parrot like you say it again and again > > 1 who are you to tell me something about physics ?? Someone who understands it better than you. > 2 > and if an idiot parrot tellls you something again and again > does it make it more right ?? Nor does it make it more wrong. What I'm telling you is correct .. with source that confirm it. You are simply in denial in your own little fantasy world where you think you are a great physicist, but really know next to nothing about it. That's sad. Maybe its senility.
From: Darwin123 on 14 Jan 2010 19:19 On Dec 26 2009, 6:42 pm, Spencer Spindrift <spencerspindr...(a)btinternet.com> wrote: > Q.: How is it that a photon has momentum but no mass? > Or in other words how does light carry energy? > As far as I know momentum is a property of moving or spinning > mass. > A photon cannot have mass or it would be infinite at C.. > > A.; ??? Once again: 1) The photon has both inertial and gravitational mass, which are equal. 2) The photon does not have rest mass. 3) Momentum is equal to the inertial mass time the velocity of the particle. When scientists say the photon is massless, they are referring only to the rest mass. The rest mass of a photon is 0.0 g. Since the photon can never be at rest in any inertial frame, the rest mass is not physically relevant anyway. Having a rest mass of zero means the photon in a vacuum is always moving at a speed c to every inertial observer. Rest mass has little to do with total energy or total momentum.
From: kado on 14 Jan 2010 20:03 On Jan 14, 9:09 am, cjcountess <cjcount...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > I am still waiting on "D.Y.K." not "Porat", to explain why poton is > not a wave or physical entity. > > Conrad J Countess You got it backwards. Is it not more legitimate for me to ask you to empirically demonstrate that a photon is a wave? Furthermore, is it not up to you to empirically prove that a photon is a physical entity? You're the one making these assertions. I'm maintaining that there are many dogmas within mainline science, and that science does not yet truly understand mass, force, and time. So all I have to do logically and rationally point out some (and not necessarily all) of the significant and/or meaningful dogmas and misconceptions about mass, force, and time within mainline science to prove my point. I thought I did a fair job in explaining that a photon cannot have mass, but I guess I was wrong. So I will give another example. Photons are claimed to move at the speed of light. So if a light is turned on, did it (i.e., the photon of this light) start from rest, or just innately move at c. If the photon stated from rest,and had even the most infinitely miniscule mass, the energy requirement to instantly (i.e., in zero passage of time) accelerate this tiny mass would be infinite, a zillon times more than that in the flame of a small candle. If not, and the photon innately starts at c, then we have a micro-mini-Big Bang. So whenever you turn on a flashlight, are you creating a Big Bang? Everyone explaining the wave properties of light uses the analogy of a stone thrown into a pond, and the waves on the water are analogous with the waves of light. This tale misses the point, for it mistakes the effect with the cause. The dynamics of the rock are analogous to the force of light (i.e., that segment of the Fundamental Electromagnetic Force of Nature that we call visible light) on the pond that is analogous to your eye, or photo-detector, or what ever. In other words; The ripples on the water of the pond are the results (the effects) of the action of the rock (the cause). The ripples (what we see, or connote as the energy of light) are the effects of the force of the visible potion of the Electromagnetic segment of the Fundamental Forces of Nature instilled upon an interacting recipient entity, body, etc. It is here, in the recipient entity of this force that the enigmatic 'mass' requirement for the energy, power, etc., and the colloquial 'waves' of light resides. So light (i.e., the colloquial photon) need not have mass. A mass by definition is matter (i.e., 'stuff') so must be a physical entity, body, etc. So if it (the subject of this discussion) does not have mass, it cannot be a physical quality, so it must be nonphysical in nature. In other words; a nonphysical phenomenon. All this is explained in much finer detail and in a plain and clear way in my copyrighted treatise titled 'The Search for Reality and the Truths' (that is not yet in print). D. Y. Kadoshima
From: kado on 14 Jan 2010 21:10 On Jan 14, 5:03 pm, k...(a)nventure.com wrote: > snip > So light (i.e., the colloquial photon) need not > have mass. A mass by definition is matter (i.e., > 'stuff') so must be a physical entity, body, etc. > So if it (the subject of this discussion) does not > have mass, it cannot be a physical quality, so it > must be nonphysical in nature. In other words; a > nonphysical phenomenon. Somehow I goofed in transferring the text from the notepad to this thread. The last sentence should be: In other words; all forces are nonphysical qualities, so the force of light is a nonphysical phenomenon. D.Y.K.
From: Y.Porat on 15 Jan 2010 05:00
On Jan 15, 12:25 am, k...(a)nventure.com wrote: > 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. ---------------- you are right partially: you ddin t take in account that photons has mass !! 2 if you cant measure anything there is no physics at all ....(:-) you must measure something common ATB Y.Porat -------------------------- |