There is just *one* kind of mass!!
in [Physics]
|
From: eric gisse on 5 Jan 2010 04:24 Y.Porat wrote: > 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!! Relativistic mass isn't real. This was explained to you in 2003. [...]
From: Inertial on 5 Jan 2010 04:40 "eric gisse" <jowr.pi.nospam(a)gmail.com> wrote in message news:hhv0g3$n0m$2(a)news.eternal-september.org... > Y.Porat wrote: > >> 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!! > > Relativistic mass isn't real. This was explained to you in 2003. Its more of a 'what if' value. If an object has momentum P and velocity v, then WHAT would its mass have to be IF you used the non-relativistic Newtonian formula for momentum. You'd do a calculation and find out that its mass would have to be bigger than what it really is to have that momentum, if you were using classical Newtonian physics. That's basically what the 'relativistic mass' idea is, and its sometimes called 'apparent mass'. So, for example, an elementary particle behaves or appears like it is much heavier (if you use Newtonian physics) than it really is when you accelerate it to high speeds, because it requires more energy than Newtonian physics predicts it would need to achieve that speed. Of course, the particle still has the same old invariant (or rest, or proper) mass all the time.
From: guskz on 5 Jan 2010 05:36 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 > -------------------------
From: Y.Porat on 5 Jan 2010 06:35 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 ------------------------
From: Y.Porat on 5 Jan 2010 06:41
On Jan 5, 11:24 am, eric gisse <jowr.pi.nos...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > Y.Porat wrote: > > 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!! > > Relativistic mass isn't real. This was explained to you in 2003. > > [...] ------------------ so just tell us loud and clear: IS THERE JUST ONE KIND - OR NOT ?? and nasty pig dont **cut** NGs of the op post (sometimes i **add** ngs it is not like cutting them !!!) Y.P --------------------------- |