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: 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