There is just *one* kind of mass!!
in [Physics]
|
From: PD on 4 Jan 2010 17:10 On Jan 4, 2:38 pm, "Y.Porat" <y.y.po...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > On Jan 4, 9:45 pm, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > On Jan 4, 12:55 pm, "Y.Porat" <y.y.po...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > P1 = mv! > > > > > No, Porat. It has momentum P1=gamma*m*v. > > > > Ok there is the gamma > > > > thank you ! > > > yet is it (the Gamma )attached to the mass > > > or to the momentum ??!! > > > It's not attached to either one. > > In English, the equation means, "(For a massive object) momentum is > > the product of the object's gamma and the object's mass and the > > object's velocity." > > ------------------------- > > i asked you and i wil ask again: > > did the growth of momentum was because of the growth of the > mass ???!!! I've already answered this! The mass does not change. The momentum is the product of gamma and mass and velocity. As the velocity increases, gamma gets bigger, mass stays the same, the velocity gets bigger. And that's why the momentum gets bigger. This is OLD HAT. > ------------ > > > If you change the equation to read P1/gamma = m*v, then neither the > > left hand side nor the right hand side is momentum any longer. The > > left hand side is the ratio of momentum and gamma, and the right hand > > side is the product of mass and velocity, but neither side is > > momentum. > > i doubt it !! > since gamma is just a scalar So is mass. > it does not matetr PHYSICALLY > it has a **quantitative** meaning but not a **qualitative** physical > meaning !! Whaaaaaat???? > > if it on the rigth or left side !! > but anyway > that is not our main issue right now !! > i could make some insigth about the fact that > P = df'dt as well What???? > because > if a particles moved faster in case 2 > it means that delat F is bigger > iow > if our proton moved faster > th e force that it will exert > on another stationary proton willbe > bigger that if it was moving slower!! > so again > the grweth of momentum is again ***not > because the growth mas mass in the other side *** > BUT BECAUSE THE GROTH OF MOMENTUM as awhle entity > 2 > **you dont have a little gage sticked to the mass > that CAN TELL YOUI (EXPERIMENTALLY!) > THAT IT IS RATHER THE MASS THAT GREW !!! ) > ------------------ > > > ------------------------- > > i dont mind how it is called if you swich > the gamma > wHat i mind is that > MOMENTUM GREW > AND I ASK > IS THAT GROTH HAPPENED BECAUSE > OF THE GROUTH OF MASS IN IT ?? > WHILE TH E FORMULA DEFINED MOMENTUM ACCORDING TO YOU??! > ------------ > > ----------------- > > > > > > ------------- > > > > > It has that momentum whether it is moving fast or slow. > > > > very nice > > > but my main point was > > > TO COMPARE TH E MOMENTUM > > > OF THE *SAME* PROTON > > > IN SLOW MOTION AND IN FAST MOTION > > > The momentum of the proton in slow motion is gamma*m*v. > > The momentum of the proton in fast motion is gamma*m*v. > > > There is no difference. > > > > AND SEE THE DIFFERENCE > > > PLUS > > > TO FIND OUT WHAT MADE THE GROWTH > > > OF MOMENTUM!! > > > WAS IT because GROWTH OF MASS ??!! > > > as it is accustom to parrot ??!! > > > > (my idea of taking the same Proton > > > or even an** identical *proton colliding the first one --- > > > after being in a stationary position-- > > > was to minimize the number of unknowns )) > > > > and concentrate on the net effect of movement > > > on momentum!! > > > ------------------ > > > > > It so happens that at low speed, gamma is *very close* to 1, but that > > > > doesn't mean that the correct expression for momentum is mv. > > > > ok i knew (just took it as knwon > > > you dont suspect that i didnt know it .(:-) > > > ..it and it does not make a difference > > > to my concussions.... > > > > > > later it is accelerated to a much hifger velocity > > > > > P2 = mv2 > > > > > And again, the correct expression is p=gamma*m*v. > > > > yes > > > > > > 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 ) > > > > > The external force that accelerated it! That's Newton's second law: F > > > > = dp/dt. > > > > ----------- > > > > ok > > > we will concentrate on it later > > > > > > 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 > > > > > No. > > > > The correct expression is > > > > delta(momentum) = F * delta(T) > > > > ok > > > > > And momentum = gamma*m*v. > > > > ok > > > > > > (F force > > > > > T Time ) > > > > ---------------------- > > > but now comes the main point question for you > > > PD > > > > did the above growth of momentum- 'inflated 'the > > > original mass of the Proton ?? > > > No, the mass is the same. As I told you before, "relativistic mass" is > > an outmoded and discarded notion and has been for decades. Do catch > > up. > >---------------------------- > > BINGO !! > Q E D !!!!! > THERE IS JUST ONE KIND OF MASS > NO MATTER HOW DO YOU CALL IT But this is old hat. Not new. Fifty year old news. > > that is exactly what i wanted to say > SEE THE OP POST !!! > but you still didnt notice that i proved above another issue > that > > ENERGY (or even momentum) IS MASS IN MOTION !!! > which is not the current common paradigm !!! > and i am not sure that you AND OTHERS understand it > EVEN NOW !!!........... > > ATB > Y.Porat > --------------------------- > > but now youhave to tell it to all the parrots > that talk about relativistic mass > > > > > > TIA > > > Y.Porat > > > ------------------------- > >
From: Inertial on 4 Jan 2010 17:54 "Y.Porat" <y.y.porat(a)gmail.com> wrote in message news:7aa0bfad-dfe3-4270-8050-442f15be5a7e(a)35g2000yqa.googlegroups.com... > On Jan 4, 6:53 pm, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: >> On Jan 4, 1:45 am, "Y.Porat" <y.y.po...(a)gmail.com> wrote: >> >> > 9 sent a rspond >> > and for some reason i cant see it >> > so let me try again: >> ------------------------------ > On Jan 4, 6:53 pm, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: >> On Jan 4, 1:45 am, "Y.Porat" <y.y.po...(a)gmail.com> wrote: >> >> >> >> > a mass (say electron or Proton) >> > is starting to move at a low velocity v1 >> > and therefore has momentum >> > P1 = mv! >> >> No, Porat. It has momentum P1=gamma*m*v. > > Ok there is the gamma Just like I told you > thank you ! > yet is it (the Gamma )attached to the mass No > or to the momentum ??!! No Its not "attached" to anything m is the constant rest mass of the object v is its velocity P1 is its momentum the gamma isn't 'attached' to any of those, but is part of how they are related to each other > ------------- > > >> It has that momentum whether it is moving fast or slow. > very nice > but my main point was > TO COMPARE TH E MOMENTUM > OF THE *SAME* PROTON > IN SLOW MOTION AND IN FAST MOTION > AND SEE THE DIFFERENCE Of course they are different !! > PLUS > TO FIND OUT WHAT MADE THE GROWTH > OF MOMENTUM!! > WAS IT because GROWTH OF MASS ??!! No .. its rest (or invariant) mass .. what 'm' signifies .. never changes. Gees. how long have we been telling you this? > as it is accustom to parrot ??!! > > (my idea of taking the same Proton > or even an** identical *proton colliding the first one --- > after being in a stationary position-- > was to minimize the number of unknowns )) > > and concentrate on the net effect of movement > on momentum!! That's what the formulas show you > ------------------ > >> It so happens that at low speed, gamma is *very close* to 1, but that >> doesn't mean that the correct expression for momentum is mv. > > ok i knew (just took it as knwon > you dont suspect that i didnt know it .(:-) > ..it and it does not make a difference > to my concussions.... Your discussion seems to have no point yet. >> > later it is accelerated to a much hifger velocity >> > P2 = mv2 >> >> And again, the correct expression is p=gamma*m*v. > > yes >> >> > 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 ) >> >> The external force that accelerated it! That's Newton's second law: F >> = dp/dt. >> ----------- > ok > we will concentrate on it later >> >> >> > 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 >> >> No. >> The correct expression is >> delta(momentum) = F * delta(T) > > ok >> >> And momentum = gamma*m*v. > > ok >> >> > (F force >> > T Time ) > ---------------------- > but now comes the main point question for you > PD > > did the above growth of momentum- 'inflated 'the > original mass of the Proton ?? NO .. of course it didn't .. No-one has claimed it did. Just as no-one (other than you) has claimed gamma is 'attached' to m and somehow changes m. Claiming that that is what the formula says shows a gross misunderstanding of algebra and physics.
From: Inertial on 4 Jan 2010 17:58 "Y.Porat" <y.y.porat(a)gmail.com> wrote in message news:80331022-e70e-4c58-8251-2984a9b5d008(a)d20g2000yqh.googlegroups.com... > On Jan 4, 9:45 pm, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: >> On Jan 4, 12:55 pm, "Y.Porat" <y.y.po...(a)gmail.com> wrote: >> >> >> >> >> >> >> > > > P1 = mv! >> >> > > No, Porat. It has momentum P1=gamma*m*v. >> >> > Ok there is the gamma >> >> > thank you ! >> > yet is it (the Gamma )attached to the mass >> > or to the momentum ??!! >> >> It's not attached to either one. >> In English, the equation means, "(For a massive object) momentum is >> the product of the object's gamma and the object's mass and the >> object's velocity." >> ------------------------- > i asked you and i wil ask again: > > did the growth of momentum was because of the growth of the > mass ???!!! Gees .. can't you READ !!!!!!!!!!! > ------------ > > >> If you change the equation to read P1/gamma = m*v, then neither the >> left hand side nor the right hand side is momentum any longer. The >> left hand side is the ratio of momentum and gamma, and the right hand >> side is the product of mass and velocity, but neither side is >> momentum. > > i doubt it !! Then you are wrong to do so > since gamma is just a scalar > it does not matetr PHYSICALLY > it has a **quantitative** meaning but not a **qualitative** physical > meaning !! Just like 'h' in E = hf [snip more waffle] >> No, the mass is the same. As I told you before, "relativistic mass" is >> an outmoded and discarded notion and has been for decades. Do catch >> up. >>---------------------------- > > BINGO !! Yay .. you've finally listened to us !! > Q E D !!!!! > THERE IS JUST ONE KIND OF MASS > NO MATTER HOW DO YOU CALL IT That is what 'm' signifies . .the rest (or invariant) mass which (as its name implies) DOES NOT VARY !!! > that is exactly what i wanted to say > SEE THE OP POST !!! Why go to all that trouble to say that the invariant mass is invariant. Bit of a waste of time. > but you still didnt notice that i proved above another issue > that > > ENERGY (or even momentum) IS MASS IN MOTION !!! It can be .. but you didn't prove that is always is. you have a strange notion of 'proof' > which is not the current common paradigm !!! > and i am not sure that you AND OTHERS understand it > EVEN NOW !!!........... We understand it better than you think.
From: Y.Porat on 5 Jan 2010 03:47 On Jan 5, 12:10 am, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > On Jan 4, 2:38 pm, "Y.Porat" <y.y.po...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > On Jan 4, 9:45 pm, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > On Jan 4, 12:55 pm, "Y.Porat" <y.y.po...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > > P1 = mv! > > > > > > No, Porat. It has momentum P1=gamma*m*v. > > > > > Ok there is the gamma > > > > > thank you ! > > > > yet is it (the Gamma )attached to the mass > > > > or to the momentum ??!! > > > > It's not attached to either one. > > > In English, the equation means, "(For a massive object) momentum is > > > the product of the object's gamma and the object's mass and the > > > object's velocity." > > > ------------------------- > > > i asked you and i wil ask again: > > > did the growth of momentum was because of the growth of the > > mass ???!!! > > I've already answered this! The mass does not change. > The momentum is the product of gamma and mass and velocity. > As the velocity increases, gamma gets bigger, mass stays the same, the > velocity gets bigger. And that's why the momentum gets bigger. > > This is OLD HAT. ------------------ you behave like a little crook!! is that old hat??? now you will tell me that it was understood 80 years ago but look crooky how many peole were talking and** still are talking** about 'relativistic mass' ie that mass is inflationg!! WAS IT ACCEPTED 80 YEARS AGO THAT **THERE IS JUST ONE KIND OF MASS !!! just have a look above and you will see that Uncle Al the greate physicist is talking about at least 5 kinds of mass the imecile crook feuerbacher is talking about momentum and therefore mass that is Viewer dependent !! (he poped up with it IN ORDER TO REFUTE MY OP POST THAT THERE IS JUST ONE KIND OF MASS DDI YOU GOT IT ??) ie different in different moving frames!! and a lot of other peole here still talk about MANY KINDS OF MASS !! and BTW why is it that your first entrance to this thread you ddint say LOUD AND CLEAR PORAT YOU ARE RIGTHT -- THERE IS JUST ONE KIND OF MASS ??!! and youcame with it only after some new explaantions of mine?? can you quote another place in whichthose explanations are given??!! that we can only measure momentum and we cant measure th e mass *in that growing momentum!!* (because we have no gauge connected to that mass or whatever another way -- to get in that growing momentum to tell us that the mass was growing !!! and another argument that i brought that th e 'relativistic mass is **disappearing** imediately while the movement STOPES etc etc were are explanations preceding it just bring them all or at lease some of them ) IF YOU HAVE A PRECEEDING EXPLANATIONS LIKE THAT PLEASE BRING IT OR ELSE YOU ARE A SHAMELESS LIER !!! ----------------- now your nest step wilbe to say that THE PHOTON HAS (that only ) MASS !! IS old hat!!! and that NO MASS- NO REAL PHYSICS !! "" IS OLD HAT ??!!"" and next time you will say that ENERGY IS MASS IN MOTION is as well old hat and latter you will come and declare that it is innovations of yourself **or** your friends !!! and the book that you and your friend Feuerbacher stole from me is as well old hat !!! you cant cheat every body a FOREVER !!! Y.P --------------------------------
From: Inertial on 5 Jan 2010 03:58
"Y.Porat" <y.y.porat(a)gmail.com> wrote in message news:5e406636-981c-485b-80d3-bd62786f6251(a)a15g2000yqm.googlegroups.com... > On Jan 5, 12:10 am, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: >> On Jan 4, 2:38 pm, "Y.Porat" <y.y.po...(a)gmail.com> wrote: >> >> >> >> > On Jan 4, 9:45 pm, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: >> >> > > On Jan 4, 12:55 pm, "Y.Porat" <y.y.po...(a)gmail.com> wrote: >> >> > > > > > P1 = mv! >> >> > > > > No, Porat. It has momentum P1=gamma*m*v. >> >> > > > Ok there is the gamma >> >> > > > thank you ! >> > > > yet is it (the Gamma )attached to the mass >> > > > or to the momentum ??!! >> >> > > It's not attached to either one. >> > > In English, the equation means, "(For a massive object) momentum is >> > > the product of the object's gamma and the object's mass and the >> > > object's velocity." >> > > ------------------------- >> >> > i asked you and i wil ask again: >> >> > did the growth of momentum was because of the growth of the >> > mass ???!!! >> >> I've already answered this! The mass does not change. >> The momentum is the product of gamma and mass and velocity. >> As the velocity increases, gamma gets bigger, mass stays the same, the >> velocity gets bigger. And that's why the momentum gets bigger. >> >> This is OLD HAT. > ------------------ > you behave like a little crook!! > is that old hat??? Yes > now you will tell me that it was understood 80 years ago Longer than that .. its part of relativity. > but look crooky > how many peole were talking and** still are talking** about > 'relativistic mass' > ie that mass is inflationg!! But rest mass (invariant mass) the things the 'm' stands for DOES NOT INFLATE. We've been telling you that for ages > WAS IT ACCEPTED 80 YEARS AGO THAT > **THERE IS JUST ONE KIND OF MASS !!! We've not said that there is one kind of mass > just have a look above > and you will see that Uncle Al the greate physicist > is talking about at least > 5 kinds of mass > the imecile crook feuerbacher I guess you mean me, even though that is not who I am > is talking about > momentum and therefore mass that is Viewer dependent !! No .. I didn't say mass was viewer dependent .. i said momentum was. You are the one who was asking questions about momentum > (he poped up with it > IN ORDER TO REFUTE MY OP POST > THAT THERE IS JUST ONE KIND OF MASS > DDI YOU GOT IT ??) You asked a question about momentum, and i answered it. PD gave pretty much the same answer > ie different in different moving frames!! I didn't say that .. i said it was invariant. Try to read > and a lot of other peole here still talk about > MANY KINDS OF MASS !! Well. there is the notion of inertial mass and gravitational mass .. very different concepts. If/when we understand mass better, we may find what causes both (or that one causes the other). > and BTW > why is it that your first entrance to this thread > you ddint say LOUD AND CLEAR > PORAT YOU ARE RIGTHT -- > THERE IS JUST ONE KIND OF MASS ??!! Because you aren't? Relativistic mass is still a valid concept, just not one that is used much any more (except sometime in introductory courses and coffee tables books) > and youcame with it > only after some new explaantions of mine?? > can you quote another place > in whichthose explanations are given??!! What explantion .. all you said was there is one kind of mass .. you didn't provide any explanation for it. You asked a question about momentum though, but that wasn't really related. 'm' is, by definition, the invariant (or rest) mass. In variant means it doesn't change. > that we can only measure momentum > and we cant measure th e mass *in that growing momentum!!* We can calculate it. ANd we can measure the mass of something before it moves .. its mass (ie m) does not change when it moves > (because we have no gauge connected to that mass > or whatever another way -- > to get in that growing momentum to tell us that the mass was > growing !!! > and another argument that i brought > that th e 'relativistic mass is **disappearing** > imediately while the movement STOPES etc etc > were are explanations preceding it Yes .. releativistic mass is velocity, and so observer, dependent. Just like momentum and force and energ. > just bring them all or at lease some of them ) > > IF YOU HAVE A PRECEEDING EXPLANATIONS LIKE THAT PLEASE BRING IT > OR ELSE YOU ARE A SHAMELESS LIER !!! Preceding explanation of what .. the 'm' doesn't change? It doesn't change by definition of what it is. INVARIANT > ----------------- > > now your nest step wilbe to say that > > THE PHOTON HAS (that only ) MASS !! Nope .. it doesnt > IS old hat!!! You saying it does, is old hat. But there is no current theory or experimental evidence supporting that claim > and that > NO MASS- NO REAL PHYSICS !! That's just a slogan > "" IS OLD HAT ??!!"" Yeup .. as old as you've been posting it :) > and next time you will say that > > ENERGY IS MASS IN MOTION No .. probably more correct to say that momentum is mass in motion (then you get some nice alliteration). Kinetic energy comes from mass in motion. Other forms of energy are not necessarily. > is as well old hat > and latter you will come and declare that it is > innovations of yourself **or** your friends !!! Why would we do that .. unlike you we are honest. > and the book that you and your friend Feuerbacher stole from me > is as well old hat !!! > you cant cheat every body a FOREVER !!! But you do keep trying, Porat. |