Mass-Energy Equivalence
in [Physics]
|
Prev: Physics_For_Entertaiment
Next: PING: Steve Willner
From: PD on 19 Apr 2010 10:02 On Apr 19, 6:34 am, "Y.Porat" <y.y.po...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > On Apr 18, 2:39 pm, PD > > > > > > > > > one of the great disasters > > > > > that was inflicted on physics > > > > > since more than the last half century > > > > > is > > > > > that dumb mathematicians > > > > > took over physics !! > > > > > > Y.Porat > > > > > -------------------------------- Hide quoted text - > > > > > > - Show quoted text - > > > > --------------------- > > > (:-) > > > > what is gamma wile v=c ???!!! > > > You're quite right. The second half of that equation I wrote above > > doesn't apply in all cases. The first half does. > > > > 2 > > > the formula > > > E^2 = mc^2^2 +mc)^2 > > > is not for net energy > > > it is for a mixture of particles and energy > > > No. It is the total energy of a system. > > --------------------- > > so ???? > the total energy of the system includes > > ENERGY **AND** PARTICLES !! Yes. So? The energy expression above is and always has been the energy of a system. I don't know why you would have thought it would have been anything else. > > ARE YOU AGIN IN THE OBFUSCATION BUSINESS ??! > ------------------- > > > > > > BESIDES > > > > if you take only the momentum of energy > > > you have here > > > p=mc > > > SO > > > WHERE DO YOU SEE A GAMMA FACTOR THERE ??!!! > > > There isn't a gamma factor in the momentum. Why would you expect there > > to be? > > if no gamma factor in p=m c > what makes that m to be relativistic ???!! > RELATIVISTIC WITHOUT A GAMMA FACTOR ??!! There is no relativistic mass in E^2 = (mc^2)^2 + (pc)^2. I already told you that relativistic mass is an antiquated notion, rarely used anymore because it tends to confuse amateurs like you. > > besides > why because you or others said so > because you said that the photon has no mass > while > i proved in 4 different ways > THAT THE PHOTON HAS MASS !! > AND YOUR INVENTION OF NO MASS IS > WHY ?? > BECASUE OF YOUR PARADIGM THAT > NO MASS CAN REACH c ?? It's not a paradigm. It's an experimental fact. For example, no proton has ever, nor will it ever, be accelerated to c. > while the experiment shows quite the opposite !! No, it doesn't. If you have experimental evidence otherwise, please cite. > ie > as the mass becomes smaller and smaller > its velocity comes > CLOSER AND CLOSER TO c !!! Close is not the same as equal to. 1/x never reaches zero no matter how big x is, either. > > > > what will be gamma while the velocity of enegy > > > is V=c ???!!! > > > There isn't any. > > if there isnt any > whare from you got that idea of > relativistic mass ?? I've already told you, that's an antiquated notion. I explained where it comes from and why it is no longer used. > JUST btw > DID YOU KNOW THAT EINSTEIN HIMSELF > DIDNT LIKE THE IDEA OF 'RELATIVISTIC MAS' > (IT IS RECORDED ) > > > > > > 3 > > > i dont mind you additional **verbal interpretations** > > > that you alone are responsible for them > > > I'm not. I'm telling you what PHYSICISTS say. > > the dumb mathematicians say > not only a parrot like you !! No. Physicists. Not retired structural engineers, mind you. > relativistic mass to what is it relativistic > to the rest mass to be the same > by no relativistic factor ?? (:-)?? ??? > > > > I MIND ONLY WHAT THE NET FORMULA > > > GIVES US !!! > > > (including the*** momentum formula** ) > > > (with no additional 'creative ' imaginary tentative > > > interpretations ) > > > And that's what I gave you. > > you gave nothing but parroting Nonsense. Did you not understand it? Is that the problem? > > > > > > 4 > > > did you still didnt understand all my > > > multI proves that > > > THE PHOTON HAS MASS !!!??? > > > though al the long spoon feedings > > > based on the E=hf formula ???!!! > > > (that is time dependent !!!??? > > did you understand at last that > E=hf is time dependent ?? > or not still ??? > doyou need again thew spoon feeding ?? > that itis time dependent because of > ***THE SCALAR PART OF f *** > that still remains in the > E=hf formula !! > 2 > the energy of hf is linearly related to the f factor > THATIS AN EXPERIMENTAL;FACT!! > AGAIN IT IS AN EXPERIMENTAL FACT !! > SO > if energy is directly related to the scalr part of f > what should that scalar factor multiply ??!! > SHOULD IT MULTIPLY THE mETER ^2 > > SHOULD IT MULTIPLY THE 1/T ^2 > inorder to be linearily related to the hf ?? > OR MAY BE THE ONMLY DIMENSION THJAT > REMAINED LINEAR IS THE ??? > WHAT ??? > surprise > it is the KILOGRAMS THERE !!! > right ?? > can you afford admitting anything to the Plebeian Porat ?? > so > ***is the only part of hf that can be multiplied by the f scalar > is the kilograms ??? or not ??!!!!* > > please answer !! (and dont evade it !!) > > (and stil keep the formula hf > linearly related to energy (BUY EXPERIMENT !!) > and now that did we get?? > > NOW THE KILOGRAMS THERE > ARE NOT ANYMORE JUST A 'MASS DIMENSION' > BUT A MASS DIMENSION** MULTIPLIED BY A > *SCALAR*!!! > SO FROM NOW ON THE MASS THERE > IS NOT ONLY A DIMENSION BUT > A MASS VARIABLE !! > AND THE scalar FACTOR THAT MULTIPLIES THOSE KILOGRAMS > IS **NOT ZERO ***!!! > GOT IT ONCE AND FOR ALL ??? > > IS THAT WRITTEN IN ANY OF YOUR BOOKS ?? > I WONDER !!! > (but what can you do while i am a creative man > that refuses to be a parrot ??) > > TIA > Y.Porat > --------------------------------- > > > > > > and that he scalars there that are linearly > > > related to mass AND energy !! > > > can be related only to the mass ?? > > > because the mas there is the only dimension that is in the first > > > degree and not ^2 degree !! > > > it is not even physics > > > it is your mathematics !!! > > > ( i know it is very revolutionary and original > > > it is not written yet in any of your books (:-) > > > it is not your fault that you have difficulties to digest it- > > > but still !!.....) > > > TIA > > > Y.Porat > > > --------------------- > >
From: Y.Porat on 19 Apr 2010 10:35 On Apr 19, 4:02 pm, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > On Apr 19, 6:34 am, "Y.Porat" <y.y.po...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > On Apr 18, 2:39 pm, PD > > > > > > > > one of the great disasters > > > > > > that was inflicted on physics > > > > > > since more than the last half century > > > > > > is > > > > > > that dumb mathematicians > > > > > > took over physics !! > > > > > > > Y.Porat > > > > > > -------------------------------- Hide quoted text - > > > > > > > - Show quoted text - > > > > > --------------------- > > > > (:-) > > > > > what is gamma wile v=c ???!!! > > > > You're quite right. The second half of that equation I wrote above > > > doesn't apply in all cases. The first half does. > > > > > 2 > > > > the formula > > > > E^2 = mc^2^2 +mc)^2 > > > > is not for net energy > > > > it is for a mixture of particles and energy > > > > No. It is the total energy of a system. > > > --------------------- > > > so ???? > > the total energy of the system includes > > > ENERGY **AND** PARTICLES !! > > Yes. So? The energy expression above is and always has been the energy > of a system. I don't know why you would have thought it would have > been anything else. > > > > > > > ARE YOU AGIN IN THE OBFUSCATION BUSINESS ??! > > ------------------- > > > > > BESIDES > > > > > if you take only the momentum of energy > > > > you have here > > > > p=mc > > > > SO > > > > WHERE DO YOU SEE A GAMMA FACTOR THERE ??!!! > > > > There isn't a gamma factor in the momentum. Why would you expect there > > > to be? > > > if no gamma factor in p=m c > > what makes that m to be relativistic ???!! > > RELATIVISTIC WITHOUT A GAMMA FACTOR ??!! > > There is no relativistic mass in E^2 = (mc^2)^2 + (pc)^2. > I already told you that relativistic mass is an antiquated notion, > rarely used anymore because it tends to confuse amateurs like you. > > > > > besides > > why because you or others said so > > because you said that the photon has no mass > > while > > i proved in 4 different ways > > THAT THE PHOTON HAS MASS !! > > AND YOUR INVENTION OF NO MASS IS > > WHY ?? > > BECASUE OF YOUR PARADIGM THAT > > NO MASS CAN REACH c ?? > > It's not a paradigm. It's an experimental fact. For example, no proton > has ever, nor will it ever, be accelerated to c. > > > while the experiment shows quite the opposite !! > > No, it doesn't. If you have experimental evidence otherwise, please > cite. > > > ie > > as the mass becomes smaller and smaller > > its velocity comes > > CLOSER AND CLOSER TO c !!! > > Close is not the same as equal to. 1/x never reaches zero no matter > how big x is, either. > > > > > > > what will be gamma while the velocity of enegy > > > > is V=c ???!!! > > > > There isn't any. > > > if there isnt any > > whare from you got that idea of > > relativistic mass ?? > > I've already told you, that's an antiquated notion. I explained where > it comes from and why it is no longer used. > > > JUST btw > > DID YOU KNOW THAT EINSTEIN HIMSELF > > DIDNT LIKE THE IDEA OF 'RELATIVISTIC MAS' > > (IT IS RECORDED ) > > > > > 3 > > > > i dont mind you additional **verbal interpretations** > > > > that you alone are responsible for them > > > > I'm not. I'm telling you what PHYSICISTS say. > > > the dumb mathematicians say > > not only a parrot like you !! > > No. Physicists. Not retired structural engineers, mind you. > > > relativistic mass to what is it relativistic > > to the rest mass to be the same > > by no relativistic factor ?? (:-)?? ??? > > > > > I MIND ONLY WHAT THE NET FORMULA > > > > GIVES US !!! > > > > (including the*** momentum formula** ) > > > > (with no additional 'creative ' imaginary tentative > > > > interpretations ) > > > > And that's what I gave you. > > > you gave nothing but parroting > > Nonsense. Did you not understand it? Is that the problem? > > > > > > > 4 > > > > did you still didnt understand all my > > > > multI proves that > > > > THE PHOTON HAS MASS !!!??? > > > > though al the long spoon feedings > > > > based on the E=hf formula ???!!! > > > > (that is time dependent !!!??? > > > did you understand at last that > > E=hf is time dependent ?? > > or not still ??? > > doyou need again thew spoon feeding ?? > > that itis time dependent because of > > ***THE SCALAR PART OF f *** > > that still remains in the > > E=hf formula !! > > 2 > > the energy of hf is linearly related to the f factor > > THATIS AN EXPERIMENTAL;FACT!! > > AGAIN IT IS AN EXPERIMENTAL FACT !! > > SO > > if energy is directly related to the scalr part of f > > what should that scalar factor multiply ??!! > > SHOULD IT MULTIPLY THE mETER ^2 > > > SHOULD IT MULTIPLY THE 1/T ^2 > > inorder to be linearily related to the hf ?? > > OR MAY BE THE ONMLY DIMENSION THJAT > > REMAINED LINEAR IS THE ??? > > WHAT ??? > > surprise > > it is the KILOGRAMS THERE !!! > > right ?? > > can you afford admitting anything to the Plebeian Porat ?? > > so > > ***is the only part of hf that can be multiplied by the f scalar > > is the kilograms ??? or not ??!!!!* > > > please answer !! (and dont evade it !!) > > > (and stil keep the formula hf > > linearly related to energy (BUY EXPERIMENT !!) > > and now that did we get?? > > > NOW THE KILOGRAMS THERE > > ARE NOT ANYMORE JUST A 'MASS DIMENSION' > > BUT A MASS DIMENSION** MULTIPLIED BY A > > *SCALAR*!!! > > SO FROM NOW ON THE MASS THERE > > IS NOT ONLY A DIMENSION BUT > > A MASS VARIABLE !! > > AND THE scalar FACTOR THAT MULTIPLIES THOSE KILOGRAMS > > IS **NOT ZERO ***!!! > > GOT IT ONCE AND FOR ALL ??? > > > IS THAT WRITTEN IN ANY OF YOUR BOOKS ?? > > I WONDER !!! > > (but what can you do while i am a creative man > > that refuses to be a parrot ??) > > > TIA > > Y.Porat > > --------------------------------- > > > > > and that he scalars there that are linearly > > > > related to mass AND energy !! > > > > can be related only to the mass ?? > > > > because the mas there is the only dimension that is in the first > ---------------- soyou say that the photon has no mass if you put zero instead m in the E=mc^2 or in the p (momentum) you get P=m c E = zero times c^2 or P=zero times c^2 ..... ie we have a new discovery THERE IS NO ENERGY IN OUR WORLD !!! (God forbid) so does the photon energy has mass or not ?? if it has is it relativistic mass ?? 2 have a look at my new copyright question in a new thread called 'what is the experimentally measurable difference between rest mass and the 'relativistic mas' of photon energy (:-) that is a plebeian question of an old senile plebeian that didn't get enough physics lessons from he great physicist PD .... TIA Y.Porat ------------------------
From: PD on 19 Apr 2010 12:01 On Apr 19, 9:35 am, "Y.Porat" <y.y.po...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > On Apr 19, 4:02 pm, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > On Apr 19, 6:34 am, "Y.Porat" <y.y.po...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > On Apr 18, 2:39 pm, PD > > > > > > > > > one of the great disasters > > > > > > > that was inflicted on physics > > > > > > > since more than the last half century > > > > > > > is > > > > > > > that dumb mathematicians > > > > > > > took over physics !! > > > > > > > > Y.Porat > > > > > > > -------------------------------- Hide quoted text - > > > > > > > > - Show quoted text - > > > > > > --------------------- > > > > > (:-) > > > > > > what is gamma wile v=c ???!!! > > > > > You're quite right. The second half of that equation I wrote above > > > > doesn't apply in all cases. The first half does. > > > > > > 2 > > > > > the formula > > > > > E^2 = mc^2^2 +mc)^2 > > > > > is not for net energy > > > > > it is for a mixture of particles and energy > > > > > No. It is the total energy of a system. > > > > --------------------- > > > > so ???? > > > the total energy of the system includes > > > > ENERGY **AND** PARTICLES !! > > > Yes. So? The energy expression above is and always has been the energy > > of a system. I don't know why you would have thought it would have > > been anything else. > > > > ARE YOU AGIN IN THE OBFUSCATION BUSINESS ??! > > > ------------------- > > > > > > BESIDES > > > > > > if you take only the momentum of energy > > > > > you have here > > > > > p=mc > > > > > SO > > > > > WHERE DO YOU SEE A GAMMA FACTOR THERE ??!!! > > > > > There isn't a gamma factor in the momentum. Why would you expect there > > > > to be? > > > > if no gamma factor in p=m c > > > what makes that m to be relativistic ???!! > > > RELATIVISTIC WITHOUT A GAMMA FACTOR ??!! > > > There is no relativistic mass in E^2 = (mc^2)^2 + (pc)^2. > > I already told you that relativistic mass is an antiquated notion, > > rarely used anymore because it tends to confuse amateurs like you. > > > > besides > > > why because you or others said so > > > because you said that the photon has no mass > > > while > > > i proved in 4 different ways > > > THAT THE PHOTON HAS MASS !! > > > AND YOUR INVENTION OF NO MASS IS > > > WHY ?? > > > BECASUE OF YOUR PARADIGM THAT > > > NO MASS CAN REACH c ?? > > > It's not a paradigm. It's an experimental fact. For example, no proton > > has ever, nor will it ever, be accelerated to c. > > > > while the experiment shows quite the opposite !! > > > No, it doesn't. If you have experimental evidence otherwise, please > > cite. > > > > ie > > > as the mass becomes smaller and smaller > > > its velocity comes > > > CLOSER AND CLOSER TO c !!! > > > Close is not the same as equal to. 1/x never reaches zero no matter > > how big x is, either. > > > > > > what will be gamma while the velocity of enegy > > > > > is V=c ???!!! > > > > > There isn't any. > > > > if there isnt any > > > whare from you got that idea of > > > relativistic mass ?? > > > I've already told you, that's an antiquated notion. I explained where > > it comes from and why it is no longer used. > > > > JUST btw > > > DID YOU KNOW THAT EINSTEIN HIMSELF > > > DIDNT LIKE THE IDEA OF 'RELATIVISTIC MAS' > > > (IT IS RECORDED ) > > > > > > 3 > > > > > i dont mind you additional **verbal interpretations** > > > > > that you alone are responsible for them > > > > > I'm not. I'm telling you what PHYSICISTS say. > > > > the dumb mathematicians say > > > not only a parrot like you !! > > > No. Physicists. Not retired structural engineers, mind you. > > > > relativistic mass to what is it relativistic > > > to the rest mass to be the same > > > by no relativistic factor ?? (:-)?? ??? > > > > > > I MIND ONLY WHAT THE NET FORMULA > > > > > GIVES US !!! > > > > > (including the*** momentum formula** ) > > > > > (with no additional 'creative ' imaginary tentative > > > > > interpretations ) > > > > > And that's what I gave you. > > > > you gave nothing but parroting > > > Nonsense. Did you not understand it? Is that the problem? > > > > > > 4 > > > > > did you still didnt understand all my > > > > > multI proves that > > > > > THE PHOTON HAS MASS !!!??? > > > > > though al the long spoon feedings > > > > > based on the E=hf formula ???!!! > > > > > (that is time dependent !!!??? > > > > did you understand at last that > > > E=hf is time dependent ?? > > > or not still ??? > > > doyou need again thew spoon feeding ?? > > > that itis time dependent because of > > > ***THE SCALAR PART OF f *** > > > that still remains in the > > > E=hf formula !! > > > 2 > > > the energy of hf is linearly related to the f factor > > > THATIS AN EXPERIMENTAL;FACT!! > > > AGAIN IT IS AN EXPERIMENTAL FACT !! > > > SO > > > if energy is directly related to the scalr part of f > > > what should that scalar factor multiply ??!! > > > SHOULD IT MULTIPLY THE mETER ^2 > > > > SHOULD IT MULTIPLY THE 1/T ^2 > > > inorder to be linearily related to the hf ?? > > > OR MAY BE THE ONMLY DIMENSION THJAT > > > REMAINED LINEAR IS THE ??? > > > WHAT ??? > > > surprise > > > it is the KILOGRAMS THERE !!! > > > right ?? > > > can you afford admitting anything to the Plebeian Porat ?? > > > so > > > ***is the only part of hf that can be multiplied by the f scalar > > > is the kilograms ??? or not ??!!!!* > > > > please answer !! (and dont evade it !!) > > > > (and stil keep the formula hf > > > linearly related to energy (BUY EXPERIMENT !!) > > > and now that did we get?? > > > > NOW THE KILOGRAMS THERE > > > ARE NOT ANYMORE JUST A 'MASS DIMENSION' > > > BUT A MASS DIMENSION** MULTIPLIED BY A > > > *SCALAR*!!! > > > SO FROM NOW ON THE MASS THERE > > > IS NOT ONLY A DIMENSION BUT > > > A MASS VARIABLE !! > > > AND THE scalar FACTOR THAT MULTIPLIES THOSE KILOGRAMS > > > IS **NOT ZERO ***!!! > > > GOT IT ONCE AND FOR ALL ??? > > > > IS THAT WRITTEN IN ANY OF YOUR BOOKS ?? > > > I WONDER !!! > > > (but what can you do while i am a creative man > > > that refuses to be a parrot ??) > > > > TIA > > > Y.Porat > > > --------------------------------- > > > > > > and that he scalars there that are linearly > > > > > related to mass AND energy !! > > > > > can be related only to the mass ?? > > > > > because the mas there is the only dimension that is in the first > > ---------------- > > soyou say that the photon has no mass > > if you put zero instead m in the > E=mc^2 > or in the > p (momentum) you get P=m c > E = zero times c^2 That's right. Read what I said earlier. E=mc^2 is *rest energy* not total energy. There is no rest energy for a photon, so the answer zero is correct for rest energy. Recall the correct expression for total energy is E^2 = (mc^2) + (pc)^2. You'll see that this number is not zero for a photon, because p is not zero for a photon, even though m is. Momentum is not defined as mv in general. So putting v=c for photons would be a mistake. P=mv is a formula that ONLY works for massive objects at low speed. It is not the right formula for a photon. > or > P=zero times c^2 ..... > ie > we have a new discovery > THERE IS NO ENERGY IN OUR WORLD !!! > (God forbid) > so > does the photon energy has mass or not ?? > if it has > is it relativistic mass ?? > 2 > have a look at my new copyright question > in a new thread called > > 'what is the experimentally measurable > difference between > rest mass and the 'relativistic mas' of > photon energy (:-) There is no rest mass for a photon. As I've already told you, relativistic mass is an antiquated concept that is no longer used much. > > that is a plebeian question of an old senile plebeian > that didn't get enough physics lessons from he great physicist > PD .... > > TIA > Y.Porat > ------------------------
From: G. L. Bradford on 19 Apr 2010 13:37 =================== 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 ===================
From: BURT on 20 Apr 2010 17:46
Why is energy comming from the square of the universal speed limit? Mitch Raemsch |