There is just *one* kind of mass!!
in [Physics]
|
From: Y.Porat on 5 Jan 2010 06:49 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. > > > ------------ > > > > 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 > > > > ------------------------- in addition to the others MR PD just bring us a quote FROM PAST THAT ANYONE EVER SAID THOSE 7 WORDS: 'THERE IS JUST ONE KIND OF MASS!!' (said and showed and explained it ) TIA Y.Porat ------------------------- --------------------
From: Inertial on 5 Jan 2010 07:34 "Y.Porat" <y.y.porat(a)gmail.com> wrote in message news:035b2784-1a58-4452-9bf9-77f642c38796(a)b2g2000yqi.googlegroups.com... > 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 ?? The 'm' used in equations is always (or should be) the rest (or invariant or proper) mass .. if that is what you mean. Of course, that doesn't mean photons have mass .. but they do have momentum and energy. If you wanted to you could convert some/all of the energy of a photon into mass .. but the photon itself has none > and > nasty pig > dont **cut** NGs of the op post > (sometimes i **add** ngs > it is not like cutting them !!!) So .. you're a cross posting spammer. That is nothing to be proud about. Cutting back the number of NG's in replies is a GOOD THING to do. I know in my case I HAVE to cut them back or replies won't post if there are too many, or the group is not hosted on my isp server.
From: Inertial on 5 Jan 2010 07:55 "Y.Porat" <y.y.porat(a)gmail.com> wrote in message news:71bf8bea-735a-45b0-bf32-8035cccb6949(a)m16g2000yqc.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. >> >> > ------------ >> >> > > 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 >> > > > ------------------------- > > in addition to the others > MR PD > just bring us a quote FROM PAST > THAT ANYONE EVER SAID THOSE > 7 WORDS: > > 'THERE IS JUST ONE KIND OF MASS!!' Why do you think anyone would have said those particular seven words ?? That does not alter the fact that for as long as there has been SR, 'm' has usually meant the invariant mass (sometimes m0 is used instead, and m for relativistic mass). Before SR, there was just mass for quite a while. So if anything the 'one kind of mass' is a very old concept. Note that there are at least two equivalent 'kinds' of mass .. there is inertial mass and gravitational mass. They both end up being equal (which is in itself interesting, as they are very different concepts) Have a read of the wikipedia article on mass http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mass also read http://www.math.ucr.edu/home/baez/physics/Relativity/SR/mass.html to find out more about what 'relativistic mass' and 'rest mass' and just 'mass' means in physics, and the arguments for and against the 'relativistic mass' concept. that's if you actually have the integrity to find out about these things, rather than just ranging on. > (said and showed and explained it ) You have not ever showed or explained it at all .. just said it over and over. And if anyone disagrees you fly off the handle and insult them and make false accusations against them and their character. Not a very civilized way to behave .. but it that's how you like to play, then don't be surprised if you get the same treatment in return, and no respect (as you clearly deserve none). > TIA > Y.Porat > ------------------------- > --------------------
From: Y.Porat on 5 Jan 2010 09:40 On Jan 5, 2:55 pm, "Inertial" <relativ...(a)rest.com> wrote: > "Y.Porat" <y.y.po...(a)gmail.com> wrote in message > > news:71bf8bea-735a-45b0-bf32-8035cccb6949(a)m16g2000yqc.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. > > >> > ------------ > > >> > > 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 > >> > > > ------------------------- > > > in addition to the others > > MR PD > > just bring us a quote FROM PAST > > THAT ANYONE EVER SAID THOSE > > 7 WORDS: > > > 'THERE IS JUST ONE KIND OF MASS!!' > > Why do you think anyone would have said those particular seven words ?? > > That does not alter the fact that for as long as there has been SR, 'm' has > usually meant the invariant mass (sometimes m0 is used instead, and m for > relativistic mass). Before SR, there was just mass for quite a while. So > if anything the 'one kind of mass' is a very old concept. > > Note that there are at least two equivalent 'kinds' of mass .. there is > inertial mass and gravitational mass. They both end up being equal (which > is in itself interesting, as they are very different concepts) > > Have a read of the wikipedia article on mass > > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mass > > also read > > http://www.math.ucr.edu/home/baez/physics/Relativity/SR/mass.html > > to find out more about what 'relativistic mass' and 'rest mass' and just > 'mass' means in physics, and the arguments for and against the 'relativistic > mass' concept. > > that's if you actually have the integrity to find out about these things, > rather than just ranging on. > > > (said and showed and explained it ) > > You have not ever showed or explained it at all .. just said it over and > over. And if anyone disagrees you fly off the handle and insult them and > make false accusations against them and their character. Not a very > civilized way to behave .. but it that's how you like to play, then don't be > surprised if you get the same treatment in return, and no respect (as you > clearly deserve none). > > > TIA > > Y.Porat > > ------------------------- > > -------------------- --------------------- you have to make up your mind whether there is just one kind of mass or not ie if you agree with op post or not 'you cant dance on two or more weddings ' just say it crystal clear if you are a honest person you should say 1 'i dont know' 2 there are more than one kind of mass and the are mass 1 mass 2 mass 3 etc !! if you are a crook you would try to keep all options in your hand and later say: you see i told you A or i told you B or you will join later to anything that will be approved *that will be a behavior of a nasty opportunist politician - not a serous honest scientist Y.P ------------------------
From: Y.Porat on 5 Jan 2010 09:50
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. > > > ------------ > > > > 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 > > > > ------------------------- in adition to th e above answers of mine just see for instance Wikipedia IT IS FULL OF 'RELATIVISTIC MASS' so dont you tell me that 'just one kind of mass' is the old common consensus (old hat !!) 2 bring 'old* quotes with the claim there is just **one* kind of mass !! Y.Porat ------------------------- |