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 18 Jan 2010 06:48 On Jan 18, 1:26 pm, "Inertial" <relativ...(a)rest.com> wrote: > 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 ----------------- i am expert No 1 about nuclear mass and i dont have time for your idiotic particles i can refute you and other idiot croks muchsimpler eevn by simple more abstarct reasons: i hope you understood tha the assembles Atom has less rest mass than its consituents right?? now you say that the electrons gained because of that assombly more mass because of that assembly so waht is bigger the mass that the nuc lost or the mass that electrons 'gained ?? Y.P ----------------------- you say that the assempled
From: Y.Porat on 18 Jan 2010 07:39 On Jan 18, 2:22 pm, "Inertia > assombly more mass because of that assembly > > Some gain, some loss. I'm not sure you can say that electrons 'move' in > their orbitals though. Also note my earlier comments were about movements > of atoms and molecules within a larger object .. things that more clearly > 'move'. > > > so > > waht is bigger > > the mass that the nuc lost > > or the mass that electrons 'gained ?? > > Obvious answer -------------------- just say it loud and clear !! Y.P --------------------------
From: Inertial on 18 Jan 2010 08:00 "Y.Porat" <y.y.porat(a)gmail.com> wrote in message news:f3814381-d66e-4267-ab00-ebaf3ed5357b(a)k19g2000yqc.googlegroups.com... > On Jan 18, 2:22 pm, "Inertia > assombly more mass because of that > assembly >> >> Some gain, some loss. I'm not sure you can say that electrons 'move' in >> their orbitals though. Also note my earlier comments were about >> movements >> of atoms and molecules within a larger object .. things that more clearly >> 'move'. >> >> > so >> > waht is bigger >> > the mass that the nuc lost >> > or the mass that electrons 'gained ?? >> >> Obvious answer > > -------------------- > just say it loud and clear !! If there is less mass than the total, there is obviously more mass loss due to some mass being converted to energy than there is gain from any motion of the particles. Of course, the particles within the nucleus of an atom don't really move wrt the atom itself, so the rest mass is the inertial mass. But the atoms themselves move relative to the object as a whole, so there will be more contribution.
From: Y.Porat on 18 Jan 2010 08:55 On Jan 18, 3:00 pm, "Inertial" <relativ...(a)rest.com> wrote: > "Y.Porat" <y.y.po...(a)gmail.com> wrote in message > > news:f3814381-d66e-4267-ab00-ebaf3ed5357b(a)k19g2000yqc.googlegroups.com... > > > > > On Jan 18, 2:22 pm, "Inertia > assombly more mass because of that > > assembly > > >> Some gain, some loss. I'm not sure you can say that electrons 'move' in > >> their orbitals though. Also note my earlier comments were about > >> movements > >> of atoms and molecules within a larger object .. things that more clearly > >> 'move'. > > >> > so > >> > waht is bigger > >> > the mass that the nuc lost > >> > or the mass that electrons 'gained ?? > > >> Obvious answer > > > -------------------- > > just say it loud and clear !! > > If there is less mass than the total, there is obviously more mass loss due > to some mass being converted to energy than there is gain from any motion of > the particles. -------------- you must be quantitqative because quantitative IS THE NAME OF THE GAME HERE!! SO WAHT PORTION IS LOST BY THE NUC AND AGAINT IT WAHT IS THE ENERY THAT WAS RADIATED AND WHAT IS TRHE RELATIVISTIC MASS'' THAT WAS GAINED BY YOUR ELECTERONS if you dont do it quantitatively youar3just mumbling!! now take an Atom of say 80 electrons yell us waht is their orbits their velocity disatnce from nuke and show ud a calculation of that mess add on it the lost mass by radiation and equtteit to th emass before creatin and after creation of that Atom with 80 electrons TIA Y.Porat ------------------------- Of course, the particles within the nucleus of an atom don't > really move wrt the atom itself, so the rest mass is the inertial mass. But > the atoms themselves move relative to the object as a whole, so there will > be more contribution.
From: cjcountess on 18 Jan 2010 09:17
Everything in the universe is in constant motion, even so called rest mass is energy in circular and or spherical rotation on quantum level, as expresed in equations (h/2pi), representing momentum of energy in circular motion or (h/2pi/2) for energy making two rotations at right angles, creating spherical paticle of, (spin 1/2), such as electron. Even on macro leve,l as the moons orbit the planets, the planets orbit the stars, the stars orbit the galaxies, and so on, as all is in motion, and rest mass, is relative. Just as any object moving in straight line at constant speed is, equivalent to being at rest, and if an object moves away from you at certain speed, you also move relative to it also at that speed, concerning the speed of light in straight line at constant speed of "c", with constant (ernergy/mass) of "h", whose to say that it is not us who move away from light at c? Furthermore, if the speed of light is constant at "c", (in linear direction), regardless of motion of observer, with corresponding constant (mass/energy) of "h", than the constants which are equal to (c=h), in nature, are the stibility in motion, that keeps the universe in a certain order. Therefor these constants might be considered the rest frame of the universe. Conrad J Countess |