There is just *one* kind of mass!!
in [Physics]
|
From: PD on 5 Jan 2010 10:49 On Jan 5, 2:47 am, "Y.Porat" <y.y.po...(a)gmail.com> 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!! These are people, generally old and retired, that have not kept up with physics. > > WAS IT ACCEPTED 80 YEARS AGO THAT > **THERE IS JUST ONE KIND OF MASS !!! Fifty years ago, yes. > just have a look above > and you will see that Uncle Al the greate physicist By what standard do you think Uncle Al is a great physicist? How are you judging ANYONE on the newsgroup whether they are current in physics? > 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??!! Yes. Read any book on particle physics. > > 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 !!! Porat, you labor under a great disadvantage of not availing yourself of the literature in the field. Thus you think that everything that pops into your head is new, invented by you, and not thought of by anyone else before you. And when it is pointed out that this is not the case, you fume and demand that the evidence be BROUGHT to YOU, rather than YOU going to the EVIDENCE to find it yourself. This is not our problem. It's yours. > ----------------- > > 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 18:21 "Y.Porat" <y.y.porat(a)gmail.com> wrote in message news:0692d63c-7582-439f-b408-c3ea89ad22e0(a)j5g2000yqm.googlegroups.com... > 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 Why .. because you say I have to? > 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' We don't know what mass actually is. > 2 > there are more than one kind of mass > and the are > mass 1 mass 2 mass 3 etc !! There a a number of mass concepts that are somehow equivalent, and its not immediately obvious why. For example, there's the concept of inertial mass .. the resistance to change in motion that means one needs to require a certain amount of force to change that motion. There's the concept of gravitational mass .. the quantity that determines how strongly two objects are attracted to each other. Etc. That these appear to be equivalent implies there is some connection between them, and some underlying property or process that we just call "mass". The concept of 'relativistic mass' can also be valid, just not used much in recent years. Its a value that can be measured, and you can 'do physics' with it. It has a different value depending on the observer .. but then, so does length and ticking rates of clocks. That one can talk about the rest length of a moving rod, and the measure length (from a relatively moving observer) .. does not mean there are two types of length .. just two measurements of it that are different. It seems reasonable that that can also be the case with mass. So ... there are multiple mass concepts that seem to be equivalent .. and they are manifestations of something that we just call "mass" (but we don't yet fully understand why). You can make have different kinds of mass measurement (just like you can have different kinds of length measurement or time measurement). There is certainly an invariant mass (just like there is an invariant proper interval). > 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 I'm not a crook. But you think all answers to simply phrased questions are just simple black or white, yes or no. That's not always the case. > 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 I will agree with whatever is shown to be the best model. That is the honest thing to do. Stubbornly clinging to some notion despite evidence that it is wrong is not an honest or sensible or scientific thing to do.
From: Y.Porat on 6 Jan 2010 04:36 On Jan 5, 5:49 pm, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > On Jan 5, 2:47 am, "Y.Porat" <y.y.po...(a)gmail.com> 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!! > > These are people, generally old and retired, that have not kept up > with physics. > > > > > WAS IT ACCEPTED 80 YEARS AGO THAT > > **THERE IS JUST ONE KIND OF MASS !!! > > Fifty years ago, yes. > > > just have a look above > > and you will see that Uncle Al the greate physicist > > By what standard do you think Uncle Al is a great physicist? How are > you judging ANYONE on the newsgroup whether they are current in > physics? > > > > > 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??!! > > Yes. Read any book on particle physics. > > > > > > > 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 !!! > > Porat, you labor under a great disadvantage of not availing yourself > of the literature in the field. Thus you think that everything that > pops into your head is new, invented by you, and not thought of by > anyone else before you. And when it is pointed out that this is not > the case, you fume and demand that the evidence be BROUGHT to YOU, > rather than YOU going to the EVIDENCE to find it yourself. This is not > our problem. It's yours. > > > ----------------- > > > 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 > > -------------------------------- OK jst bring quotes that anyone before me claimed that THERE IS JUST ONE KIND OF MASS! just one means NO OTHER ONE !! 2 bring quotes that anyone before me said that ENERGY IS MASS IN MOVEMENT- EVEN IN MICROCOSM! 3 NO MASS - NO REAL PHYSICS !! therefore no nonsense like Higgs bosons will be found and a suggestion to the LHC to betetr look for unexplained curved motion !! 4 evidece that anyone suggested and used the idea of THE CHAIN OF ORBITALS !! 5 anyone before me clained that attraction force of the EM cannot be by photons since photons move in straight lines!! 6 THE CIRCLON IDEA A BASIOC PARTICLE THAT MOVES 8NATURALLY IN A CURVED PATH AND BY THAT CAN COMPOSE MATTER **AND * ATTRACTION FORCE 7 anything like my NUCLEAR AND ATOMIC MODEL- that you have in your hands !! including all the prediction associated with it like that Gold cannot be created directed from say Hg or that all halogens have Tritons on their edges or that Ca Ar and Ca MAKE THE GEOLOGIC CLOCK iow are a closed family though in different raw of the periodic table BECAUSE THEY ARE A NUCLEAR FAMILY IE HAVE A COMMON SPECIAL NUCLEAR SKELETON !! etc etc etc TIA Y.Porat ----------------------
From: PD on 6 Jan 2010 10:35 On Jan 6, 3:36 am, "Y.Porat" <y.y.po...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > On Jan 5, 5:49 pm, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > On Jan 5, 2:47 am, "Y.Porat" <y.y.po...(a)gmail.com> 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!! > > > These are people, generally old and retired, that have not kept up > > with physics. > > > > WAS IT ACCEPTED 80 YEARS AGO THAT > > > **THERE IS JUST ONE KIND OF MASS !!! > > > Fifty years ago, yes. > > > > just have a look above > > > and you will see that Uncle Al the greate physicist > > > By what standard do you think Uncle Al is a great physicist? How are > > you judging ANYONE on the newsgroup whether they are current in > > physics? > > > > 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??!! > > > Yes. Read any book on particle physics. > > > > 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 !!! > > > Porat, you labor under a great disadvantage of not availing yourself > > of the literature in the field. Thus you think that everything that > > pops into your head is new, invented by you, and not thought of by > > anyone else before you. And when it is pointed out that this is not > > the case, you fume and demand that the evidence be BROUGHT to YOU, > > rather than YOU going to the EVIDENCE to find it yourself. This is not > > our problem. It's yours. > > > > ----------------- > > > > 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 > > > -------------------------------- > > OK > jst bring quotes that anyone before me claimed > that > THERE IS JUST ONE KIND OF MASS! > just one means NO OTHER ONE !! Do your own homework, Porat. This has been mentioned to you dozens of times before and you consistently whine that you shouldn't have to. > 2 > bring quotes that anyone before me said that > > ENERGY IS MASS IN MOVEMENT- > EVEN IN MICROCOSM! > > 3 > NO MASS - NO REAL PHYSICS !! > therefore no nonsense like Higgs bosons will be found > and a suggestion to the LHC to betetr look for > unexplained curved motion !! > > 4 > evidece that anyone suggested and used the idea of > THE CHAIN OF ORBITALS !! > 5 > anyone before me clained that > attraction force of the EM cannot be by photons > since photons move in straight lines!! > 6 > THE CIRCLON IDEA > A BASIOC PARTICLE THAT MOVES 8NATURALLY > IN A CURVED PATH > AND BY THAT CAN COMPOSE MATTER **AND * > ATTRACTION FORCE > 7 > anything like my NUCLEAR AND ATOMIC MODEL- > that you have in your hands !! > including all the prediction associated with it > like that > Gold cannot be created directed from say Hg > or that > all halogens have Tritons on their edges > > or that > Ca Ar and Ca > MAKE THE GEOLOGIC CLOCK > iow are a closed family though in different raw > of the periodic table > BECAUSE THEY ARE A NUCLEAR FAMILY > IE HAVE A COMMON SPECIAL NUCLEAR SKELETON !! > etc etc etc > > TIA > Y.Porat > ----------------------
From: Y.Porat on 6 Jan 2010 11:36
On Jan 6, 5:35 pm, PD > > > 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??!! > > > > Yes. Read any book on particle physics. > > > > > 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 !!! > > > > Porat, you labor under a great disadvantage of not availing yourself > > > of the literature in the field. Thus you think that everything that > > > pops into your head is new, invented by you, and not thought of by > > > anyone else before you. And when it is pointed out that this is not > > > the case, you fume and demand that the evidence be BROUGHT to YOU, > > > rather than YOU going to the EVIDENCE to find it yourself. This is not > > > our problem. It's yours. > > > > > ----------------- > > > > > 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 > > > > -------------------------------- > > > OK > > jst bring quotes that anyone before me claimed > > that > > THERE IS JUST ONE KIND OF MASS! > > just one means NO OTHER ONE !! > > Do your own homework, Porat. This has been mentioned to you dozens of > times before and you consistently whine that you shouldn't have to. > ------------------------- as usual you are a MASTER OF SAING NOTHING IN A FEW SENTENCES OF EMPTY HAND WAVING you answered on nothing of my many questions even not elegantly !! 2 al the above liar of my achievements that you say now (or insinuate )are nonsense physics are recorded !! IT I S RECORDED THAT YOU DISMISSED THEM AS UNSUPPORTED AND USELESS ! very nice now since it is recorded in a few years while it will be probven ]a fucker crook like you WILL NOT BE ABLE TO SAY THAT IT WAS DONE 50 YEARS BEFORE ME !! git it crooky ?? now i ask youjust one question again: do you agree with my op Title or you rather think that THERE ARE **MORE** THAN ONE MASS?? let us see of you can answer a simple question without smart guying !!! it is (very ) important to clarify it for other readers as well !!) TIA Y.Porat -------------------- > > 2 > > bring quotes that anyone before me said that > > > ENERGY IS MASS IN MOVEMENT- > > EVEN IN MICROCOSM! > > > 3 > > NO MASS - NO REAL PHYSICS !! > > therefore no nonsense like Higgs bosons will be found > > and a suggestion to the LHC to betetr look for > > unexplained curved motion !! > > > 4 > > evidece that anyone suggested and used the idea of > > THE CHAIN OF ORBITALS !! > > 5 > > anyone before me clained that > > attraction force of the EM cannot be by photons > > since photons move in straight lines!! > > 6 > > THE CIRCLON IDEA > > A BASIOC PARTICLE THAT MOVES 8NATURALLY > > IN A CURVED PATH > > AND BY THAT CAN COMPOSE MATTER **AND * > > ATTRACTION FORCE > > 7 > > anything like my NUCLEAR AND ATOMIC MODEL- > > that you have in your hands !! > > including all the prediction associated with it > > like that > > Gold cannot be created directed from say Hg > > or that > > all halogens have Tritons on their edges > > > or that > > Ca Ar and Ca > > MAKE THE GEOLOGIC CLOCK > > iow are a closed family though in different raw > > of the periodic table > > BECAUSE THEY ARE A NUCLEAR FAMILY > > IE HAVE A COMMON SPECIAL NUCLEAR SKELETON !! > > etc etc etc > > > TIA > > Y.Porat > > ---------------------- |