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: glird on 16 Jan 2010 18:53 On Jan 14, 8:03 pm, k...(a)nventure.com wrote: > I'm maintaining that there are many dogmas within > mainline science, and that science does not yet > truly understand mass, force, and time. That's mainly because they don't define them, they only measure quantities. Here are my definitions: A "mass" is "a quantity of matter'. A "force" is a net pressure independent of its area of application. As to time, there are two meanings for that one word: Physical time is "duration". "Metrical time" is a dimension we invented to measure portions of physical time. In today's physics (metrical) time is the indications of the hands of a specified clock, as hand set by the co-moving infinitesimally small person who is next to it. gl
From: cjcountess on 16 Jan 2010 19:01 Planck' s constant or "h" is constant, "relative mass/kinetic energy", due to constant velocity of c. And sense any mass, traveling in straight line, at constant speed, is equivalent to being at rest, the speed of light at "c", with constant mass of "h", can be considered the "rest frame" of the universe. According to relativity' motion is relative and as a poton moves away from us at c in one diretcttion, we move away from it at c in the opposite direction' and there is no way to tell which is really moving and which is still, except that the speed of light is constant in linear direction, "In straight line", regeardless of motion of observer. Everything in the universe is in motion, and the speed of light in straight line, with constant mass/ energy of "h", represents what is still, within that motion. Rest mass is just relative mass in circular and or spherical rotation at "c^2", and could from the above perspective, be considered faster than "c". Rest mass at "c^2", which appears to be the slowest speed, may actualy be the fastest, and "c", which appears to be the fastest, may actualy be the slowest. Conrad J Countess
From: glird on 16 Jan 2010 19:39 On Jan 15, 5:00 am, "Y.Porat" <y.y.po...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > On Jan 15, 12:25 am, k...(a)nventure.com wrote: > > On Jan 14, 4:47 am, "Y.Porat" wrote: > > > In physics it is direct measurements that count!! > > 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. To measure the mass of a body at rest on Earth you weigh it. As Newton said, the mass of a body is proportional to its weight. Unfortunately, physics changed that to, the mas of a body is EQUAL to its weight usc. > > 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. ??? Perhaps you got that from F = ma--> m = f/a. If so, it is m = WEIGHT (yes, our textbooks agree that "weight is a force") that is obtained by dividing the force=pressure by a=acceleration. > > As I stated earlier, light is a force and a nonphysical > > quality. How can you weigh something that is not > > physical? A force is a net pressure. As a measure, it is a dimension. Pressure physically exists whether measured or not. A dimension, however, is an abstract invention of the human mind. Other than that, it is nonphysical=non-existant. You CAN and do measure weight=force=pressure. > > 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" doesn't understand anything at all about physical reality. It only kows quantities. > you didn't take in account that > a photon has mass !! "except when it doesn't". > if you cant measure anything > there is no physics at all ....(:-) > Y.Porat RIGHT!! And if you can't define the words symbolized in your resulting equations you don't know what your quantities have measured; so there is no understanding at all in your physics. glird
From: glird on 16 Jan 2010 20:05 On Jan 16, 4:18 pm, cjcountess <cjcount...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > > Is it not more legitimate for me to ask you to > > empirically demonstrate that a photon is a wave? > > 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 agree that there are many dogmas and miscoceptions about mass, force, and time, within mainline science. I have taken that into account, and very few people understand this the way I do. Did you know that mass, force, and time, as well as charge, temp, energy, gravity, are all quantified and equal at c^2. Since we are focusing on force mass and time, (F = mv^2 = E=mc^2) = (m = Ec^2) = (T or time = mc^2). on quantum level In other words (energy = mass = force) at (c^2 = c^circled = cx2pi), and is the smallest quantum of time as a cyclical motion, just as the orbit and rotation of the earth and moon represent larger cycles of time. And it is the smallest quantum of energy that equals rest mass. Aside from the latter sentence, that smells like bullsh t. As to your final sentence, that one is bs^2. If you disagree, Dear Countess, please explain how a photon, which is a quantum of energy, can have a "rest mass" when it is never at rest at all "except when it is". (And even then, inside an atom it travels at c' = c x the Fine Structure constant, and has a "mass" of about 9.1095 x 10^-28 grams. glird
From: cjcountess on 17 Jan 2010 00:01
On Jan 16, 8:05 pm, glird <gl...(a)aol.com> wrote: > On Jan 16, 4:18 pm,cjcountess<cjcount...(a)yahoo.com> wrote:> > Is it not more legitimate for me to ask you to > > > empirically demonstrate that a photon is a wave? > > > 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 agree that there are many dogmas and miscoceptions about mass, force, and time, within mainline science. > > I have taken that into account, and very few people > understand this the way I do. > Did you know that mass, force, and time, as well as charge, temp, > energy, gravity, are all quantified and equal at c^2. > Since we are focusing on force mass and time, > (F = mv^2 = E=mc^2) = (m = Ec^2) = (T or time = mc^2). on > quantum level > In other words (energy = mass = force) at > (c^2 = c^circled = cx2pi), and is the smallest quantum of time as a > cyclical motion, just as the orbit and rotation of the earth and moon > represent larger cycles of time. And it is the smallest quantum of > energy that equals rest mass. > > Aside from the latter sentence, that smells like bullsh t. As to > your final sentence, that one is bs^2. > If you disagree, Dear Countess, please explain how a photon, which > is a quantum of energy, can have a "rest mass" when it is never at > rest at all "except when it is". (And even then, inside an atom it > travels at c' = c x the Fine Structure constant, and has a "mass" of > about 9.1095 x 10^-28 grams. > > glird My name is Conrad J Countess What is the smallest quantum of energy that equals rest mass in your opinion? In my view it is the quantum of energy equal to c^2 as in E=mc^2 in the electron. It's frequency would cycle in the smallest time cycle which is also c^2 and also be that point on EM spectrum where energy = rest mass or E=mc^2 and also = F=mv^2. As for the rest mass of a photon, everything in the universe is in motion' even so called rest mass. Rest mass is energy at c^2 = c^circled = cx2pi, which is c in circular motion and is not really at rest. And photons, which have a constant mass/energy of "h" from the constant velocity of "c", from one perspecive, is moving slower than rest mass that moves at "c^2". Just as any mass; moving in straight line, at constant speed, is equal to being at rest, a photon, traveling at constant speed of c, in straight line, can be also, from this pespective, considerd at rest, and we moving at c relative to it, sense also, all motion is relative. Conrad J Countess |