There is just *one* kind of mass!!
in [Physics]
|
From: Y.Porat on 10 Jan 2010 11:34 On Jan 10, 1:25 pm, "whoever" <whoe...(a)whereever.com> wrote: > "Y.Porat" <y.y.po...(a)gmail.com> wrote in message > > news:6d32404f-0e55-47ad-9851-84f9ddd13399(a)a6g2000yqm.googlegroups.com... > > > > > On Jan 8, 9:00 pm, "Y.Porat" <y.y.po...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > >> On Jan 8, 8:13 pm, "Autymn D. C." <lysde...(a)sbcglobal.net> wrote:> On Jan > >> 5, 1:24 am, eric gisse <jowr.pi.nos...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > >> > > Relativistic mass isn't real. This was explained to you in 2003. > > >> > m > > >> > for inertia > >> > for gravity > > >> > Screw you. > > >> > True, the ghamma can be shareed between mass and velocity, or mass and > >> > arm, > > >> ------------ > >> ?? > >> waht is 'Arn' ??? > > >> but they're linearly-independent factors which may be in a set of> terms > >> for their own boundary conditions. > >> >---------------------- > > >> you are notclear enough > >> my question to you is > >> 1 > >> is there one mass > > You refuse to answer questions about what you mean by that. So why should > anyone be bothered answering you ? ------------------------ Mr Feuerbacher with his new mask just read the post just above you in an intelligent way if you are not intelligent enough or NOT HONEST ENOUGH ask someone more worthy than you to explain it to you i said that there is just **one mass** if there is just one mass we dont need to explain what mass it is it is if you like -the inertial mass as newton defined it!! *you and other wise guys like you have no better explanation for it 2 if you say that there is another mass say 'gravitational mass' THE BURDEN OF PROVE ABOUT IT IS ON YOU !!! 3 see what PD wrote above about 'relativistic mass' he said rightly that it was recognized 50 years ago that here is no' relativistic mass' !! that was my civilized answer if you go on with your harassing (as an obvious **personal enemy**! ) i have other ways to answer you !! ATB Y.Porat ----------------
From: Inertial on 10 Jan 2010 17:54 "Y.Porat" <y.y.porat(a)gmail.com> wrote in message news:77f29e25-0c19-452e-b818-3e75ab0e06f9(a)26g2000yqo.googlegroups.com... > On Jan 10, 1:25 pm, "whoever" <whoe...(a)whereever.com> wrote: >> "Y.Porat" <y.y.po...(a)gmail.com> wrote in message >> >> news:6d32404f-0e55-47ad-9851-84f9ddd13399(a)a6g2000yqm.googlegroups.com... >> >> >> >> > On Jan 8, 9:00 pm, "Y.Porat" <y.y.po...(a)gmail.com> wrote: >> >> On Jan 8, 8:13 pm, "Autymn D. C." <lysde...(a)sbcglobal.net> wrote:> On >> >> Jan >> >> 5, 1:24 am, eric gisse <jowr.pi.nos...(a)gmail.com> wrote: >> >> >> > > Relativistic mass isn't real. This was explained to you in 2003. >> >> >> > m >> >> >> > for inertia >> >> > for gravity >> >> >> > Screw you. >> >> >> > True, the ghamma can be shareed between mass and velocity, or mass >> >> > and >> >> > arm, >> >> >> ------------ >> >> ?? >> >> waht is 'Arn' ??? >> >> >> but they're linearly-independent factors which may be in a set of> >> >> terms >> >> for their own boundary conditions. >> >> >---------------------- >> >> >> you are notclear enough >> >> my question to you is >> >> 1 >> >> is there one mass >> >> You refuse to answer questions about what you mean by that. So why >> should >> anyone be bothered answering you ? > > > ------------------------ > Mr Feuerbacher with his new mask > > just read the post just above you > in an intelligent way > if you are not intelligent enough > or > NOT HONEST ENOUGH > ask someone more worthy than you > to explain it to you You are the one avoiding the questions. . not me > i said that there is just **one mass** > > if there is just one mass we dont need to explain > what mass it is it is if you like -the inertial mass > as newton defined it!! > *you and other wise guys like you > have no better explanation for it > 2 > if you say that there is another mass > say 'gravitational mass' > THE BURDEN OF PROVE ABOUT IT > IS ON YOU !!! It is a very clear concept, just as inertial mass is. > 3 > see what PD wrote above about 'relativistic mass' > he said rightly that it was recognized 50 years ago > that here is no' relativistic mass' !! No .. just that it is not a terribly useful or fashionable thing to use > that was my civilized answer > if you go on with your harassing > (as an obvious **personal enemy**! ) You are the one who has made yourself a personal enemy .. by your continued tirade of insults. I am just trying to discuss physics .. something you just cannot seem to do for more than one r two posts at a time before having another fit of uncontrolled anger > i have other ways to answer you !! I'm well aware of them. That is why you need help Now .. back to my questions of you .. see if you can actually answer them without you usual hatred and anger. If you can't then your statements about 'kind of mass' have no meaning. Define what you mean by a "kind" of mass. Is there more than one 'kind' of length? Is height a different 'kind' of length to width? Is the measured contracted length (in SR) of a rod by a moving observer a different 'kind' of length to the rest length of the rod? Or is it a different value for the same thing, due to differences in frame of reference? Is the proper interval length of a rod a different 'kind' of length? That length is invariant (ie the same in all frames of reference).
From: guskz on 20 Jan 2010 07:25 On Jan 5, 6:35 am, "Y.Porat" <y.y.po...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > On Jan 5, 12:36 pm, "gu...(a)hotmail.com" <gu...(a)hotmail.com> wrote: > > > > > On Jan 4, 2:45 am, "Y.Porat" <y.y.po...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > 9 sent a new thread > > > and for some reason i cant see it > > > so let me try again: > > > > Let us take an example case: > > > > a mass (say electron or Proton) > > > is starting to move at a low velocity v1 > > > and therefore has momentum > > > P1 = mv! > > > > later it is accelerated to a much hifger velocity > > > P2 = mv2 > > > say v2 very close to c !!! > > > > so now > > > P2 >> P1 > > > > my question is > > > what made P2 to be bigger than P1 ?? > > > (what made the momentum to be bigger ) > > > A difference in linear energy level, each one's perspective frame > > thinks the other has higher energy than his. > > > The above is kinetic energy, stored energy is mass, it cannot be > > static (static = no energy) but must continue in momentum, thus as > > soon as energy curls (whirlwind vacuum) known as eddy currents (dust > > devil) it's displacement per hertz behaves as mass. > > > > do you think it is a trivial question?? > > > > we are going to see if all people think so > > > and really understand what they are parroting > > > 2 > > > we keep in mind that > > > momentum = mv =F detat T > > > (F force > > > T Time ) > > > > TIA > > > Y.Porat > > > ------------------------- > > yet all after your phylosophy > just tell us the bottom line > > IS THERE JUST ONE KIND OF MASS OR NOT ??? > > TIA > Y.Porat > ------------------------ Momenta: Imagine a giant and a stream of tiny balls (mass) moving straight near gamma = kinetic energy. When it hits the giant it knocks him along it's direction of motion. Inertia Same giant but stream is super big ball (mass) moving at very slow speed. REVERSE same thing occurs above, it knocks the giant towards the mass (and also streams him along what ever direction the mass is taking). (low speed or low mass nothing is really observed/felt by the giant).
From: guskz on 20 Jan 2010 07:29 On Jan 8, 10:31 am, "Y.Porat" <y.y.po...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > On Jan 8, 12:21 pm, "Inertial" <relativ...(a)rest.com> wrote: > > > > > "Y.Porat" <y.y.po...(a)gmail.com> wrote in message > > >news:b87d5fc4-379f-436d-9699-6b50b146b5f2(a)j4g2000yqe.googlegroups.com... > > > > On Jan 8, 12:32 am, "Inertial" <relativ...(a)rest.com> wrote: > > >> "Y.Porat" <y.y.po...(a)gmail.com> wrote in message > > > >>news:cc517da8-4049-405b-8069-97264e36a77e(a)j4g2000yqe.googlegroups.com.... > > > >> > On Jan 7, 1:39 pm, "Inertial" <relativ...(a)rest.com> wrote: > > >> >> "Y.Porat" <y.y.po...(a)gmail.com> wrote in message > > > >> >>news:e0faad1c-4e86-4d79-8dd2-352b0d930419(a)k17g2000yqh.googlegroups..com... > > > >> >> > On Jan 7, 12:08 pm, "Inertial" <relativ...(a)rest.com> wrote: > > >> >> >> "Y.Porat" <y.y.po...(a)gmail.com> wrote in message > > > >> >> >>news:17215745-325c-4342-9499-ae5144e0077a(a)e27g2000yqd.googlegroups.com... > > > >> >> >> > On Jan 7, 10:06 am, "Inertial" <relativ...(a)rest.com> wrote: > > >> >> >> >> "Y.Porat" <y.y.po...(a)gmail.com> wrote in message > > > >> >> >> >>news:07afe89f-a0f8-4589-9923-edb28b21c4f1(a)b2g2000yqi.googlegroups.com... > > > >> >> >> >> > On Jan 7, 4:40 am, "Inertial" <relativ...(a)rest.com> wrote: > > >> >> >> >> >> "Y.Porat" <y.y.po...(a)gmail.com> wrote in message > > > >> >> >> >> >>news:5d80182c-92a5-4ce6-8ec2-25f3f0c9c17c(a)j4g2000yqe.googlegroups.com... > > > >> >> >> >> >> Define what you mean by a "kind" of mass. > > > >> >> >> >> >> Is there more than one 'kind' of length? Is height a > > >> >> >> >> >> different > > >> >> >> >> >> 'kind' > > >> >> >> >> >> of > > >> >> >> >> >> length to width? > > > >> >> >> >> >> Is the measured contracted length (in SR) of a rod by a > > >> >> >> >> >> moving > > >> >> >> >> >> observer a > > >> >> >> >> >> different 'kind' of length to the rest length of the rod? Or > > >> >> >> >> >> is > > >> >> >> >> >> it > > >> >> >> >> >> a > > >> >> >> >> >> different value for the same thing, due to differences in > > >> >> >> >> >> frame > > >> >> >> >> >> of > > >> >> >> >> >> reference? > > > >> >> >> >> >> Is the proper interval length of a rod a different 'kind' of > > >> >> >> >> >> length? > > >> >> >> >> >> That > > >> >> >> >> >> length is invariant (ie the same in all frames of reference). > > > >> >> >> >> > -------------------- > > >> >> >> >> > imbecile parrot leech psychopath > > > >> >> >> >> Here we go .. Porat flying off the handle for no reason yet > > >> >> >> >> again > > > >> >> >> >> > wait until PD will answer!! > > > >> >> >> >> Why .. I asked YOU the question. > > > >> >> >> >> > the question was specifically to him > > > >> >> >> >> What question? You posed a general question here, and > > >> >> >> >> specifically > > >> >> >> >> to > > >> >> >> >> both > > >> >> >> >> him and me about whether there is one kind of mass .. you thread > > >> >> >> >> title > > >> >> >> >> is > > >> >> >> >> about one kind of mass. By posting it in a public newsgroup you > > >> >> >> >> are > > >> >> >> >> asking > > >> >> >> >> everyone who reads it to answer and comment. > > > >> >> >> >> > so a civilized emotionally balanced human being > > > >> >> >> >> That's certainly not you > > > >> >> >> >> > would wait patiently until the person who was asked > > >> >> >> >> > will answer > > > >> >> >> >> I don't need to wait .. this is not a private conversation. > > > >> >> >> >> > PD does not need your idiotic help > > > >> >> >> >> I wasn't 'helping' him ,I was asking YOU a question > > > >> >> >> >> If you want a private conversation with him .. email him > > > >> >> >> >> > (if he will *not* answer it will be an answer as well !! > > > >> >> >> >> > and i will go further with it without him > > >> >> >> >> > and without you !!!) > > > >> >> >> >> I'm sure you would .. you don't need inconvenient things like > > >> >> >> >> rational > > >> >> >> >> thought, consistent arguments, experimental evidence and facts > > >> >> >> >> about > > >> >> >> >> physics > > >> >> >> >> ( the things that we point out to you) to get in your way. > > > >> >> >> >> > and believe it or not (idiot blockhead )- > > >> >> >> >> > there is a lot to go on with it !!! > > > >> >> >> >> So .. to get on with it .. can you and will you answer my > > >> >> >> >> questions: > > > >> >> >> >> Define what you mean by a "kind" of mass. > > > >> >> >> >> Is there more than one 'kind' of length? Is height a different > > >> >> >> >> 'kind' > > >> >> >> >> of > > >> >> >> >> length to width? > > > >> >> >> >> Is the measured contracted length (in SR) of a rod by a moving > > >> >> >> >> observer a > > >> >> >> >> different 'kind' of length to the rest length of the rod? Or is > > >> >> >> >> it > > >> >> >> >> a > > >> >> >> >> different value for the same thing, due to differences in frame > > >> >> >> >> of > > >> >> >> >> reference? > > > >> >> >> >> Is the proper interval length of a rod a different 'kind' of > > >> >> >> >> length? > > >> >> >> >> That > > >> >> >> >> length is invariant (ie the same in all frames of reference). > > > >> >> >> > ----------------- > > >> >> >> > next ..... > > > >> >> >> So .. you can't answer those questions. I thought not. Clearly > > >> >> >> you > > >> >> >> do > > >> >> >> not > > >> >> >> want to be taken seriously. > > > >> >> > ----------------------- > > >> >> > next > > > >> >> What .. you want someone else to answer for you? Or are you just > > >> >> incapable > > >> >> of defining what 'one kind of mass' actually means? > > > >> > --------------------- > > >> > next > > > >> How do you expect anyone to discuss whether there is one kind of mass, > > >> when > > >> you cannot even say what you mean by that? > > > >> Stop runnning away and act like an honest man with integrity instead.. > > > >> Define what you mean by a "kind" of mass. > > > >> Is there more than one 'kind' of length? Is height a different 'kind' > > >> of length to width? > > > >> Is the measured contracted length (in SR) of a rod by a moving > > >> observer a different 'kind' of length to the rest length of the > > >> rod? Or is it a different value for the same thing, due to > > >> differences in frame of reference? > > > >> Is the proper interval length of a rod a different 'kind' of length? > > >> That length is invariant (ie the same in all frames of reference). > > > > ----------------- > > > Google is going to take care about you > > > psychopathic harassing s > > > you are going to bebanned > > > Nonsense .. your empty threats are nothing but that. Google can't do > > anything to me. if it does then the y will ban you for the allegations you > > have made about me .. accusing me of criminal activities. > > > So .. how about you simply answer the question > > > Define what you mean by a "kind" of mass. > > > Is there more than one 'kind' of length? Is height a different 'kind' > > of length to width? > > > Is the measured contracted length (in SR) of a rod by a moving > > observer a different 'kind' of length to the rest length of the > > rod? Or is it a different value for the same thing, due to > > differences in frame of reference? > > > Is the proper interval length of a rod a different 'kind' of length? > > That length is invariant (ie the same in all frames of reference). > > --------------------- > we will see about it > next > Y.P > ------------- Inertial comments seems to be vexing & "knocking" you over. It seems that "both" Inertial (Inertia/Mass) and velocity if "high/ larger" can knock a giant in the direction they are streaming.
From: guskz on 20 Jan 2010 07:58
On Jan 20, 7:29 am, guskz <gu...(a)hotmail.com> wrote: > On Jan 8, 10:31 am, "Y.Porat" <y.y.po...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > On Jan 8, 12:21 pm, "Inertial" <relativ...(a)rest.com> wrote: > > > > "Y.Porat" <y.y.po...(a)gmail.com> wrote in message > > > >news:b87d5fc4-379f-436d-9699-6b50b146b5f2(a)j4g2000yqe.googlegroups.com.... > > > > > On Jan 8, 12:32 am, "Inertial" <relativ...(a)rest.com> wrote: > > > >> "Y.Porat" <y.y.po...(a)gmail.com> wrote in message > > > > >>news:cc517da8-4049-405b-8069-97264e36a77e(a)j4g2000yqe.googlegroups.com... > > > > >> > On Jan 7, 1:39 pm, "Inertial" <relativ...(a)rest.com> wrote: > > > >> >> "Y.Porat" <y.y.po...(a)gmail.com> wrote in message > > > > >> >>news:e0faad1c-4e86-4d79-8dd2-352b0d930419(a)k17g2000yqh.googlegroups.com... > > > > >> >> > On Jan 7, 12:08 pm, "Inertial" <relativ...(a)rest.com> wrote: > > > >> >> >> "Y.Porat" <y.y.po...(a)gmail.com> wrote in message > > > > >> >> >>news:17215745-325c-4342-9499-ae5144e0077a(a)e27g2000yqd.googlegroups.com... > > > > >> >> >> > On Jan 7, 10:06 am, "Inertial" <relativ...(a)rest.com> wrote: > > > >> >> >> >> "Y.Porat" <y.y.po...(a)gmail.com> wrote in message > > > > >> >> >> >>news:07afe89f-a0f8-4589-9923-edb28b21c4f1(a)b2g2000yqi.googlegroups.com... > > > > >> >> >> >> > On Jan 7, 4:40 am, "Inertial" <relativ...(a)rest.com> wrote: > > > >> >> >> >> >> "Y.Porat" <y.y.po...(a)gmail.com> wrote in message > > > > >> >> >> >> >>news:5d80182c-92a5-4ce6-8ec2-25f3f0c9c17c(a)j4g2000yqe.googlegroups.com... > > > > >> >> >> >> >> Define what you mean by a "kind" of mass. > > > > >> >> >> >> >> Is there more than one 'kind' of length? Is height a > > > >> >> >> >> >> different > > > >> >> >> >> >> 'kind' > > > >> >> >> >> >> of > > > >> >> >> >> >> length to width? > > > > >> >> >> >> >> Is the measured contracted length (in SR) of a rod by a > > > >> >> >> >> >> moving > > > >> >> >> >> >> observer a > > > >> >> >> >> >> different 'kind' of length to the rest length of the rod? Or > > > >> >> >> >> >> is > > > >> >> >> >> >> it > > > >> >> >> >> >> a > > > >> >> >> >> >> different value for the same thing, due to differences in > > > >> >> >> >> >> frame > > > >> >> >> >> >> of > > > >> >> >> >> >> reference? > > > > >> >> >> >> >> Is the proper interval length of a rod a different 'kind' of > > > >> >> >> >> >> length? > > > >> >> >> >> >> That > > > >> >> >> >> >> length is invariant (ie the same in all frames of reference). > > > > >> >> >> >> > -------------------- > > > >> >> >> >> > imbecile parrot leech psychopath > > > > >> >> >> >> Here we go .. Porat flying off the handle for no reason yet > > > >> >> >> >> again > > > > >> >> >> >> > wait until PD will answer!! > > > > >> >> >> >> Why .. I asked YOU the question. > > > > >> >> >> >> > the question was specifically to him > > > > >> >> >> >> What question? You posed a general question here, and > > > >> >> >> >> specifically > > > >> >> >> >> to > > > >> >> >> >> both > > > >> >> >> >> him and me about whether there is one kind of mass .. you thread > > > >> >> >> >> title > > > >> >> >> >> is > > > >> >> >> >> about one kind of mass. By posting it in a public newsgroup you > > > >> >> >> >> are > > > >> >> >> >> asking > > > >> >> >> >> everyone who reads it to answer and comment. > > > > >> >> >> >> > so a civilized emotionally balanced human being > > > > >> >> >> >> That's certainly not you > > > > >> >> >> >> > would wait patiently until the person who was asked > > > >> >> >> >> > will answer > > > > >> >> >> >> I don't need to wait .. this is not a private conversation. > > > > >> >> >> >> > PD does not need your idiotic help > > > > >> >> >> >> I wasn't 'helping' him ,I was asking YOU a question > > > > >> >> >> >> If you want a private conversation with him .. email him > > > > >> >> >> >> > (if he will *not* answer it will be an answer as well !! > > > > >> >> >> >> > and i will go further with it without him > > > >> >> >> >> > and without you !!!) > > > > >> >> >> >> I'm sure you would .. you don't need inconvenient things like > > > >> >> >> >> rational > > > >> >> >> >> thought, consistent arguments, experimental evidence and facts > > > >> >> >> >> about > > > >> >> >> >> physics > > > >> >> >> >> ( the things that we point out to you) to get in your way.. > > > > >> >> >> >> > and believe it or not (idiot blockhead )- > > > >> >> >> >> > there is a lot to go on with it !!! > > > > >> >> >> >> So .. to get on with it .. can you and will you answer my > > > >> >> >> >> questions: > > > > >> >> >> >> Define what you mean by a "kind" of mass. > > > > >> >> >> >> Is there more than one 'kind' of length? Is height a different > > > >> >> >> >> 'kind' > > > >> >> >> >> of > > > >> >> >> >> length to width? > > > > >> >> >> >> Is the measured contracted length (in SR) of a rod by a moving > > > >> >> >> >> observer a > > > >> >> >> >> different 'kind' of length to the rest length of the rod? Or is > > > >> >> >> >> it > > > >> >> >> >> a > > > >> >> >> >> different value for the same thing, due to differences in frame > > > >> >> >> >> of > > > >> >> >> >> reference? > > > > >> >> >> >> Is the proper interval length of a rod a different 'kind' of > > > >> >> >> >> length? > > > >> >> >> >> That > > > >> >> >> >> length is invariant (ie the same in all frames of reference). > > > > >> >> >> > ----------------- > > > >> >> >> > next ..... > > > > >> >> >> So .. you can't answer those questions. I thought not. Clearly > > > >> >> >> you > > > >> >> >> do > > > >> >> >> not > > > >> >> >> want to be taken seriously. > > > > >> >> > ----------------------- > > > >> >> > next > > > > >> >> What .. you want someone else to answer for you? Or are you just > > > >> >> incapable > > > >> >> of defining what 'one kind of mass' actually means? > > > > >> > --------------------- > > > >> > next > > > > >> How do you expect anyone to discuss whether there is one kind of mass, > > > >> when > > > >> you cannot even say what you mean by that? > > > > >> Stop runnning away and act like an honest man with integrity instead. > > > > >> Define what you mean by a "kind" of mass. > > > > >> Is there more than one 'kind' of length? Is height a different 'kind' > > > >> of length to width? > > > > >> Is the measured contracted length (in SR) of a rod by a moving > > > >> observer a different 'kind' of length to the rest length of the > > > >> rod? Or is it a different value for the same thing, due to > > > >> differences in frame of reference? > > > > >> Is the proper interval length of a rod a different 'kind' of length? > > > >> That length is invariant (ie the same in all frames of reference). > > > > > ----------------- > > > > Google is going to take care about you > > > > psychopathic harassing s > > > > you are going to bebanned > > > > Nonsense .. your empty threats are nothing but that. Google can't do > > > anything to me. if it does then the y will ban you for the allegations you > > > have made about me .. accusing me of criminal activities. > > > > So .. how about you simply answer the question > > > > Define what you mean by a "kind" of mass. > > > > Is there more than one 'kind' of length? Is height a different 'kind' > > > of length to width? > > > > Is the measured contracted length (in SR) of a rod by a moving > > > observer a different 'kind' of length to the rest length of the > > > rod? Or is it a different value for the same thing, due to > > > differences in frame of reference? > > > > Is the proper interval length of a rod a different 'kind' of length? > > > That length is invariant (ie the same in all frames of reference). > > > --------------------- > > we will see about it > > next > > Y.P > > ------------- > > Inertial comments seems to be vexing & "knocking" you over. > > It seems that "both" Inertial (Inertia/Mass) and velocity if "high/ > larger" can knock a giant in the direction they are streaming. Energy is energy to a lamp that is. And that is a thee important comment. The lamp sucks(uses/drains) "EVERYTHING" out of the former "element" (atomic element thus mass) and entity till it is no more. The lamps converts it (usually into kinetic energy). E= mc^2 or E = mv^2 (divided by 2) is irrelevant to the lamp. "Whatz dat hafta do with da topic." "Likewise" in momentum mass (static energy) and velocity can be interchanged during the course of travel. So that the "relative" (relativity) perspective can ponder is it mass or is it motion.... #1. mass from any direction (any dimension) causes a resistance or acceleration to another entity's force. #2. velocity exact same definition as #1 "except" at the two other perpendicular dimension has no effect. #1 is a mass effect in all directions, #2 is a mass effect in only one directions. Yet the lamp can permanently convert #1 (force in all directions) into a #2 (force in one direction). --------------- Applying quantum &/or Einstein physics to Newton physics, it is therefore possible to convert a ball traveling at "x" velocity" into a larger ball ball traveling at a lower velocity. Hence momentum's mass versus velocity or p1 versus p2 (1st momentum vs 2nd momentum "accelerated" by a gamma factor). ---------------------------- Riff Raff .... details miss the point. 1. nearby mass causes acceleration. 2. An acceleration is an increase in momentum and energy, 3. Since energy (lamp) can be converted into mass, by #1 definition above: nearby mass creates more mass.....(Very important observation by focusing on the very definition of mass). hence how virtual photons can turn into mass. |