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: Y.Porat on 17 Jan 2010 06:00 On Jan 17, 2:39 am, glird <gl...(a)aol.com> wrote: > 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. -------------- the conrovery is not weighing MASS AT REST ! it is measuring it in movement and ESPECIALLY IN VERY HIGH VELOCITIES !!! 2 i never said that we cant meaure anything i said that as presented by some parrots it is impossible for example a i said just above mass at reast can be meaured as weight divided by g (actually that is how it is DEFINED !! and it is sound because you can measure separately* and** independently** !!! -g and separately wight !!!) because it does not change it i s constant for aslong as you wish at the same spot !! it is not like meauring at your the silly** momentum--- relativistic mass** **at that case** YOU CANT MEASURE* SEPARATELY* MASS AND VELOCITY !! SO while youmeasured growth of momentum you cant relate it only to the **growth of mass"" ------------------ > Unfortunately, physics changed that to, the mas of a body is EQUAL to > its weight usc. wrong ---------- > > > > 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. > -------------- andeven at that case you cant say that at high velocity it wa grwing mass ----------- > > > As I stated earlier, light is a force and a nonphysical > > > quality. How can you weigh something that is not > > > physical? > ------------------ not physical ?? anything that you can sense by your senses IS PHYSICAL !!! ---------------- > A force is a net pressure. PRESSURE IS NOT FEFINED AS A FORCE ( or vice versa ) presure is FORCE PER UNIT OF ARIA !! ----------------- As a measure, it is a dmension. ????!!! > Pressure physically exists whether measured or not. A dimension, ------------- only you said that itis a dimension ------------ > however, is an abstract invention of the human mind. it is not abstract it i s very tangible and can be measured by the right tools !! (except Time .. that is motion comparison ..) ---------------- 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". -------------- parrot !!! learn how a physical formula is created and used !! E = hf h CONTAINES MASS ( not just as a garmament and i am tired to explainit to parrots ------------ ---- > > > 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. >--------------------- (:-) you ddint read me there are many physical entites THAT YOU DO CAN MEASURE !!! in too many cases the problem is with WRONG **INTERPRETATIONS** OF MEASUREMENTS if you dont understand my physics go discuss with your people not with me ATB Y.Porat -------------------- > glird
From: Y.Porat on 17 Jan 2010 06:21 On Jan 17, 2:39 am, glird < et 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 -------------------- if you think say as Inertial that energy is NOT MASS IN MOTION even in microcosm !!!?? and that the mass in E=mc^2 is INERTIAL ENERGY (:-) just go help Inertial to explain waht is 'inertial energy' ..... take a piece of Iron put it on you table stand still and tell us is there no in it some mass on motion??!! ( just because you dont see any motion ?? (:-) are the electrons there not MASS ON MOTION is the nucleus and its inside components not MASS IN MOTION?! (is the nuc inside 'mass in *deep freeze* OF MOTION'?? TIA Y.Porat ----------------------
From: cjcountess on 17 Jan 2010 12:46 Porat here is something to collaborate your circlo idea http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3gox8PpNOPY&NR=1 Conrad J Countess
From: Y.Porat on 17 Jan 2010 13:46 On Jan 17, 7:46 pm, cjcountess <cjcount...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > Porat > > here is something to collaborate your circlo idea > > http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3gox8PpNOPY&NR=1 > > Conrad J Countess ---------------------- Thank you Countess!!!! a few remarks: 1 of course while i was coining my assertion that Energy is = mass in motion even in microcosm you bet that my 'Circlon' was well in my mind (BTW it is Circlon' not Circlo' as you wrote anyway may be i will chngeits name afer your suggestion because i erealozed that there are other 'circlons' in use of completely different issues) i intentionally didnt mension it here in this issue *beause i was usre i cam prove that energy isd mass in motion even in microcosm **without mentioning my Circlon idea **!! even an inertial mass hes iinside it a lot of 'mass ion motion' only an idiot will not remember it !!! the electrons th e nuke and itsd inner activity etc etc!! 3 my circlon is not as hawking one in your video ie it is not positive and negative ones IT I S MUCH SIMPLER it is nt charged at all !! ITS SPECIAL; MOVEMENT AND BEHAVIOUR "" THAT IS CHARGE!! A OR ANY FORCE MaKER gravitation eelctric magnetic stroong forces it is just a matter of waht is its RADIUS OF MOVEMENT!! if it is ahuge radius it makes the gravity if it is a tiny radius it makes the stron force inside the nuke !! now the circlonis not only a force naker IT IS A MATTER MAKER AS WELL! if circlons move in closed circles and a huge numerof them at he same orbit and is such link is connected to anoter link like that to a 'cain of orbitals'youget a more complexed particle in the hierarchy of particles !! that nonstop circular moveemnt explaines why simple particles are so ilusive!! thje real mass - circlonparticle is not existing all the time at any point of the circle!! (i hope you see what i mean .. and i could goon and on with it but not in a singe net post !! anyway my intention is todo it step by step my first intention at this satge is toprove and getthe recognition that ENERGY IS MASSIN MOTION EVEN IN MICROCOSM A THANK YOU AGAIN COUNTESS!! Y.Porat --------------------
From: Inertial on 18 Jan 2010 03:16
"Y.Porat" <y.y.porat(a)gmail.com> wrote in message news:b7995a46-12ca-4bc8-b6d0-9ef5658b0242(a)a32g2000yqm.googlegroups.com... > On Jan 17, 2:39 am, glird <gl...(a)aol.com> wrote: >> 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. > > -------------- > the conrovery is not weighing MASS AT REST ! > it is measuring it in movement and > ESPECIALLY IN VERY HIGH VELOCITIES !!! > > 2 > i never said that we cant meaure anything > i said that as presented by some parrots > it is impossible > for example a i said just above > mass at reast can be meaured as weight divided by g > (actually that is how it is DEFINED !! There are a few ways to define mass measurement .. what you're talking about is gravitational mass. Inertial mass requires a mass in motion (eg see how much momentum a moving object has, or how much energy is required to move it etc etc) > and it is sound because you can measure separately* > and** independently** !!! -g and separately wight !!!) > because it does not change it i s constant for aslong as you wish > at the same spot !! > > it is not like meauring at your the silly** momentum--- relativistic > mass** > **at that case** > YOU CANT MEASURE* SEPARATELY* MASS > AND VELOCITY !! > SO > while youmeasured growth of momentum > you cant relate it only to the **growth of mass"" Yes .. you can. As there are only two factors .. mass and velocity. We know velocity, so the inertial mass MUST be what is increasing to get higher momentum that you would have gotten if it had the same inertial mass as rest mass [snip] > parrot !!! > learn how a physical formula is created and used !! > E = hf > h CONTAINES MASS ( not just as a garmament > and i am tired to explainit to parrots 'h' is not a property of a photon. It is a universal constant. SO that really doesn't say anything about whether a photon has mass. Even if it DOES has some relativistic mass, that does not mean it has any (rest) mass. Your argument really doesn't make any logical sense. |