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 10:19 On Jan 18, 4:17 pm, cjcountess <cjcount...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > 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 -------------- wellsaid Coutess i was keeping in my arguments some surprise fo r the parrots just wait and see anyway tell that insight above to the parrots here !! the bottom line of course is that in inertial mass there is movement and still NO RELATIVISTIC MASS !!! and no idiotic 'rest energy !!' 2 i am waiting for Inertial to answer my questions ATB Y.Porat -----------------------------
From: Y.Porat on 18 Jan 2010 13:10 On Jan 18, 3:55 pm, "Y.Porat" <y.y.po...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > 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. ------------------------- Mr Inertial until now you have responded to my posts within minutes so where have you got lost now ??? TIA Y.Porat -----------------------------
From: glird on 18 Jan 2010 13:12 On Jan 18, 9:17 am, cjcountess wrote: >< Everything in the universe is in constant motion> All of us long ago agreed about that. >< even so called rest mass is energy in circular and or spherical rotation on quantum level, as expressed 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.> "wadevrDATmeenz" >< Even on the macro level, 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.> Therefore, as I finally realized a year or so ago, there is no such thing as an "inertially moving system" so the Restricted Theory of relativity is a useless aberration. That's a very fortunate thing! Why? Because it is so filled with mathematical and conceptual errors that it is a lot of nonsense. Why is that "fortunate:? Because once everyone understands its many simple errors the Theory can be discarded without affecting the far better physics beneath the General theory. >< Just as any object moving in a 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 a straight line at constant speed of "c", with constant (energy/mass) of "h", whose to say that it is not us who move away from light at c?> 1. Since "all is in motion" and "rest mass is energy in circular and or spherical rotation on quantum level" then there is no such thing as "the speed of light in a straight line at constant speed of 'c'". 2. Regardless of its speed, the quantity of energy per photon is equal to hf, in which f denotes the number of waves that pass a stipulated point per second. 3. If we divide e by m we don't get h, we get e/m = hf/m = f(2pirmc')/m = (#/sec)(2prft/sec) = 2 pi ft^2/sec^2. 4. Whatever that means, it has nothing to do with our speed wr light nor versa vice. >< 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.> 1. The speed of light is a function of the density of its conducting material. Since the latter is variable everywhere, so is the speed of light. 2. There is no such thing as c=h. In physics, c = 2.99,793 x 10^10 cm/sec and h = 6,46 x 10^27 ft lb/sec. >< Therefor these constants might be considered the rest frame of the universe.> I agree. (Since the given constants don't exist, THERE IS NO rest frame in the universe. :-) glird
From: Inertial on 18 Jan 2010 16:43 "Y.Porat" <y.y.porat(a)gmail.com> wrote in message news:5b3d2cad-9ac0-41f8-b96f-36f1445413bd(a)a32g2000yqm.googlegroups.com... > 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!! Nope > 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 Not possible as i do not have figures for the how fast electrons 'move' (as I said, I don't think they do 'move' anyway, no for the speed of any movement of sub-atomic particles in the nucleus. > 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 No need . .there is quantitative evidence that heating an object .. which produces more movement of the atoms within it .. increases its mass. Read the article I have linked you to before.
From: cjcountess on 18 Jan 2010 19:10
On Jan 18, 1:12 pm, glird <gl...(a)aol.com> wrote: > On Jan 18, 9:17 am,cjcountesswrote: > > >< Everything in the universe is in constant motion> > > All of us long ago agreed about that. > > >< even so called rest mass is energy in circular and or spherical rotation on quantum level, as expressed 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.> > > "wadevrDATmeenz" > > >< Even on the macro level, 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.> > > Therefore, as I finally realized a year or so ago, there is no such > thing as an "inertially moving system" so the Restricted Theory of > relativity is a useless aberration. That's a very fortunate > thing! > Why? Because it is so filled with mathematical and conceptual > errors that it is a lot of nonsense. Why is that "fortunate:? > Because once everyone understands its many simple errors the Theory > can be discarded without affecting the far better physics beneath the > General theory. > > >< Just as any object moving in a 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 a straight line at constant speed of > "c", with constant (energy/mass) of "h", whose to say that it is not > us who move away from light at c?> > > 1. Since "all is in motion" and "rest mass is energy in circular and > or spherical rotation on quantum level" then there is no such thing as > "the speed of light in a straight line at constant speed of 'c'". > 2. Regardless of its speed, the quantity of energy per photon is equal > to hf, in which f denotes the number of waves that pass a stipulated > point per second. > 3. If we divide e by m we don't get h, we get > e/m = hf/m = f(2pirmc')/m = (#/sec)(2prft/sec) > = 2 pi ft^2/sec^2. > 4. Whatever that means, it has nothing to do with our speed wr light > nor versa vice. > > >< 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.> > > 1. The speed of light is a function of the density of its conducting > material. Since the latter is variable everywhere, so is the speed of > light. > 2. There is no such thing as c=h. > In physics, c = 2.99,793 x 10^10 cm/sec and > h = 6,46 x 10^27 ft lb/sec. > > >< Therefor these constants might be considered the rest frame of the universe.> > > I agree. > (Since the given constants don't exist, THERE IS NO rest frame in the > universe. :-) > > glird glird Something moving at constant speed, in straight line, is equal to being at rest, but both are relative, not an absolute, for just as nothing is trully at rest, nothing moves in absolute straight line, at constant speed either. Furthermore, the speed of light is not constant, as it has different speeds in different mediums. But the speed of light in a "vacuum," is constant in the linear direction, reguardless of motion of souce and observer, but not in angular, frequency direction. Frequency speed of "cycles per time unit", changes with motion of source and observer. That is how radar is able to tell speed and direction of source, due to "Doppler effect", change in frequency. I am agreeing somewhat with you, although maybe for different reasons. But "c" does = "h", in natural units at the Planck level. Ever heard of the unity of the constants? More and more things are unified as we get to the constants, just as E or "energy" = m or "mass/ matter", at c^2. (c = h), is also a sort of energy/mass equivalence Conrad J Countess |