Mass-Energy Equivalence [Math]

Prev: Fundamentals of Heat and Mass Transfer 6th Edition Incropera, DeWitt Solutions Manual
Next: From the book: "How to Succeed in College Mathematics - A Guide for the College Mathematics Student", Richard M. Dahlke, Ph.D., 2008.

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

From: Don Stockbauer on 21 Apr 2010 09:00

On Apr 21, 5:09 am, "G. L. Bradford" <glbra...(a)insightbb.com> wrote:
> "spudnik" <Space...(a)hotmail.com> wrote in message
>
> news:762b50bf-3f32-4fc7-ae1f-6ce40c14b09c(a)11g2000yqr.googlegroups.com...
>
>
>
> > Broglie's

Mass-Energy Equivalence

***************************

It go BOOOOOOOOOOOMMMM!!!!!!

"Ralphie - don't play with matches!!!!!!!"

***************************

"You're an interesting species; an interesting mix. Capable of such
exquisite dreams; such horrifying nightmares. Technologically you've
advanced very quickly -- some think too quickly.

Ted from "Contact" - after the wormhole trip.