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 18 Jan 2010 03:20 "Y.Porat" <y.y.porat(a)gmail.com> wrote in message news:cbc14798-14d8-431c-8e4a-6a8b60586eff(a)14g2000yqp.googlegroups.com... > 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 !!!?? As I have said .. mass in motion is KINETIC energy. Not all energy has to come from mass in motion. > and that the mass in E=mc^2 > is INERTIAL ENERGY (:-) I never said anything about 'inertial' energy. I said 'rest energy'. The energy of a system when it is at rest (ie no net velocity) > just go help Inertial to explain > waht is 'inertial energy' ..... I never said anything about '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??!! The iron as a system has no net motion. There is motion inside it .. the INERTIAL MASS (ie relativistic mass) of the particles inside it contribute to its rest mass > ( just because you dont see any motion ?? (:-) > > are the electrons there > not MASS ON MOTION Of course, they are in motion, and so they have relativistic mass, which contributes to the rest mass of the system. If you'd read the link I gave you about relativistic mass, you'd know all that > is the nucleus and its inside components > not MASS IN MOTION?! Of course, they are in motion, and so they have relativistic mass, which contributes to the rest mass of the system. If you'd read the link I gave you about relativistic mass, you'd know all that > (is the nuc inside 'mass in *deep freeze* > OF MOTION'?? Of course, they are in motion, and so they have relativistic mass, which contributes to the rest mass of the system. If you'd read the link I gave you about relativistic mass, you'd know all that
From: Inertial on 18 Jan 2010 03:22 "Y.Porat" <y.y.porat(a)gmail.com> wrote in message news:95d495b4-1697-4672-933f-937d088aed53(a)c34g2000yqn.googlegroups.com... > 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 **!! Can you? > even an inertial mass hes iinside it > a lot of 'mass ion motion' Of course .. that's exactly what inertial mass IS.
From: Y.Porat on 18 Jan 2010 04:24 On Jan 18, 10:22 am, "Inertial" <relativ...(a)rest.com> wrote: > "Y.Porat" <y.y.po...(a)gmail.com> wrote in message > > news:95d495b4-1697-4672-933f-937d088aed53(a)c34g2000yqn.googlegroups.com... > > > > > 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 **!! > > Can you? > > > even an inertial mass hes iinside it > > a lot of 'mass ion motion' > > Of course .. that's exactly what inertial mass IS. ------------------- i was reffering actually (intended to say) to your idiotic 'rest energy' '''that is in the inertial mass''' will you admit now that there is NO '' rest energy' in inertial mass or anywhere ?? and THEREFORE E=mc^2 is mass inn motion???!! and energy there is no 'rest energy' BECUAE IN ANY MATTER AT ANY SITUATION THERE IS ALWAYS MASS IN MOTION and since there is **just one kind of mass** therefore ENERGY IS MASS IN MOTION EVEN IN MICROCOSM (FULL STOP) next year the shameless crook and thief Feuerbacher (not inertial ......(:-) will tell us that 'energy is mass in motion even in microcosm' ---- was known and accepted -50 years ago !!! Y.Porat ---------------------- ?? 'i
From: Inertial on 18 Jan 2010 05:00 "Y.Porat" <y.y.porat(a)gmail.com> wrote in message news:77795bc0-c584-4cbb-959b-2d9db5d2634b(a)30g2000yqu.googlegroups.com... > On Jan 18, 10:22 am, "Inertial" <relativ...(a)rest.com> wrote: >> "Y.Porat" <y.y.po...(a)gmail.com> wrote in message >> >> news:95d495b4-1697-4672-933f-937d088aed53(a)c34g2000yqn.googlegroups.com... >> >> >> >> > 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 **!! >> >> Can you? >> >> > even an inertial mass hes iinside it >> > a lot of 'mass ion motion' >> >> Of course .. that's exactly what inertial mass IS. > > ------------------- > i was reffering actually (intended to say) to your > idiotic 'rest energy' Nothing idiotic about it .. it is what you call the 'one kind of mass' > '''that is in the inertial mass''' It *is* the mass you are claiming is the one kind of mass > will you admit now that there is NO > '' rest energy' in inertial mass or anywhere ?? No.. that would be a lie > and THEREFORE > E=mc^2 is > mass inn motion???!! NO .. it is the energy of a system at rest .. that means NO NET MOTION. if you had any idea at all of what E = mc^2 was about, you would know this > and energy there is no 'rest energy' Of course there is .. the enrgy a system has when there is no net motion is its rest energy. > BECUAE IN ANY MATTER AT ANY SITUATION THERE IS ALWAYS > MASS IN MOTION Of course there is .. within the system there are parts that are in motion. Their inertial mass contributes to the overall mass of the system > and since there is **just one kind of mass** But you are deniing the existence of the 'one kind of mass' you are talking about .. rest mass > therefore > > ENERGY IS MASS IN MOTION KINETIC energy is mass in motion > EVEN IN MICROCOSM (FULL STOP) > > next year the shameless crook and thief Feuerbacher > (not inertial ......(:-) Finally .. you acknowledge that I am not this Feuerbacher. > will tell us that > 'energy is mass in motion even in microcosm' ---- > was known and accepted -50 years ago !!! Of course kinetic energy is (by definition) from mass in motion .. that's basic physics that has been around since Newton. If you actually studied physics, instead of waffling on about that which you have no understanding, you would know that.
From: Inertial on 18 Jan 2010 06:26
Porat, how about you show some integrity and backbone and read the following article on pros and cons of relativistic mass concept (and mass in general). http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/physics/Relativity/SR/mass.html |