Mass-Energy Equivalence
in [Relativity]
|
From: glird on 23 Apr 2010 18:06 On Apr 6, 3:22 pm, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > One must be a little bit careful about the > meaning of mass here. Yes! Here and everywhere. Although physicists seem unable to understand it, a "mass" is "a quantity of matter". (They think that when the weight of a given mass changes, some of its MATTER has converted into energy. They are wrong.) glird
From: PD on 23 Apr 2010 18:18 On Apr 23, 5:06 pm, glird <gl...(a)aol.com> wrote: > On Apr 6, 3:22 pm, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > One must be a little bit careful about the > > meaning of mass here. > > Yes! Here and everywhere. > Although physicists seem unable to understand it, a "mass" is "a > quantity of matter". This is a 19th century understanding of mass. Two photons back to back have a very clear-cut mass, but there is no matter in that system. > (They think that when the weight of a given mass > changes, some of its MATTER has converted into energy. They are > wrong.) > > glird
From: spudnik on 23 Apr 2010 18:20 so, what, do you say, is correct? > quantity of matter". (They think that when the weight of a given mass > changes, some of its MATTER has converted into energy. They are thus: if you don't know any spherical trig, a la color plate one in _S_, you might as well forget "it." http://www.rwgrayprojects.com/synergetics/synergetics.html > > with ships & materiel) -- what the Revolution was about -- not just, > > Taxation without representation, a la the Tea Party effetes and > > the Encyclopedia Brittaninca! > > as they say, the bears make money, the bulls make money, and > > the hogs always get slaughtered. > > none of the (two) experts, I have read or asked, > > thought that a Carbon Tax wouldn't work as well, just that > > it was somehow politically impossible. thus: if some one gave a *reason* to redefine twins, that'd be "mathematical" (proviso: math is four subjects, at minimum). as for the idea of calling AP, an ultrafinitist, I only have two things to say: a) it wouldn't make any difference to him, being a user of "E-prime," the joke-language of Korbizynski (sp.?); b) the Monster group's symmetry has a factoring that is awfully similar to Bucky's here-to-fore silly finite base for computation. > "prime," "twin prime," etc., to be as interesting as one in > which sets can have nonzero infinitesimal measure. --Light: A History! http://wlym.com
From: BURT on 23 Apr 2010 18:29 On Apr 23, 3:18 pm, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > On Apr 23, 5:06 pm, glird <gl...(a)aol.com> wrote: > > > On Apr 6, 3:22 pm, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > One must be a little bit careful about the > > > meaning of mass here. > > > Yes! Here and everywhere. > > Although physicists seem unable to understand it, a "mass" is "a > > quantity of matter". > > This is a 19th century understanding of mass. > > Two photons back to back have a very clear-cut mass, but there is no > matter in that system. > > > > > (They think that when the weight of a given mass > > changes, some of its MATTER has converted into energy. They are > > wrong.) > > > glird- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text - Spread out energy has no mass. Mitch Raemsch
From: BURT on 21 Apr 2010 17:10
On Apr 19, 10:37 am, "G. L. Bradford" <glbra...(a)insightbb.com> wrote: > =================== > > Regarding the sheer entity of mass itself, can anything get more > fundamental or more dimensionless (non-zero inclusively: more infinite and > more infinitesimal; relatively speaking...singularly more titanic and more > pipsqueak, singularly bigger and more macro-cosmic as 'universe' / 'field' / > 'well' (... / 'hole') and yet singularly smaller and more micro-cosmic as > same) than gravity's 'singularity'? > > Can anything get closer to the fundamental territory than gravity's > 'singularity'? > > GLB > > =================== Mass is infinitely dense energy. Light is spread out energy oscillating. Mitch Raemsch |