There is just *one* kind of mass!!
in [Physics]
|
From: Inertial on 6 Jan 2010 05:01 "Y.Porat" <y.y.porat(a)gmail.com> wrote in message news:2756e12b-8e6a-4361-90d3-fe9ccce484ca(a)35g2000yqa.googlegroups.com... > 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 !! There are a number of mass-related concepts, that mysteriously are all equivalent and we call whatever-it-is that causes/is these "mass". > 2 > bring quotes that anyone before me said that > > ENERGY IS MASS IN MOVEMENT- That's pretty much the definition of kinetic energy. > EVEN IN MICROCOSM! Things at rest can have energy .. as mass and energy are equivalent. > 3 > NO MASS - NO REAL PHYSICS !! That's just a slogan .. not any sort of law > therefore no nonsense like Higgs bosons will be found Higgs bosons are all about mass. > and a suggestion to the LHC to betetr look for > unexplained curved motion !! Why .. there is no theory that quantitatively predicts it . .If something unexplained is found, though, it woudl be thoroughly analyzed > 4 > evidece that anyone suggested and used the idea of > THE CHAIN OF ORBITALS !! Its nonsense > 5 > anyone before me clained that > attraction force of the EM what attraction force? > cannot be by photons > since photons move in straight lines!! moving in a straight line does not mean there is no force > 6 > THE CIRCLON IDEA > A BASIOC PARTICLE THAT MOVES 8NATURALLY > IN A CURVED PATH > AND BY THAT CAN COMPOSE MATTER **AND * > ATTRACTION FORCE Its nonsense > 7 > anything like my NUCLEAR AND ATOMIC MODEL- Its nonsense, from what I've seen of the abstract > 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 You're desperately trying to do something innovative without having the basic understandings of physics to know if what you say has been known for years, or that what you says in nonsense.
From: Inertial on 6 Jan 2010 21:40 "Y.Porat" <y.y.porat(a)gmail.com> wrote in message news:5d80182c-92a5-4ce6-8ec2-25f3f0c9c17c(a)j4g2000yqe.googlegroups.com... Define what you mean by a "kind" of mass. Is there more than one 'kind' of length? Is height a different 'kind' of length to width? Is the measured contracted length (in SR) of a rod by a moving observer a different 'kind' of length to the rest length of the rod? Or is it a different value for the same thing, due to differences in frame of reference? Is the proper interval length of a rod a different 'kind' of length? That length is invariant (ie the same in all frames of reference).
From: Y.Porat on 7 Jan 2010 02:48 On Jan 7, 4:40 am, "Inertial" <relativ...(a)rest.com> wrote: > "Y.Porat" <y.y.po...(a)gmail.com> wrote in message > > news:5d80182c-92a5-4ce6-8ec2-25f3f0c9c17c(a)j4g2000yqe.googlegroups.com... > > Define what you mean by a "kind" of mass. > > Is there more than one 'kind' of length? Is height a different 'kind' of > length to width? > > Is the measured contracted length (in SR) of a rod by a moving observer a > different 'kind' of length to the rest length of the rod? Or is it a > different value for the same thing, due to differences in frame of > reference? > > Is the proper interval length of a rod a different 'kind' of length? That > length is invariant (ie the same in all frames of reference). -------------------- imbecile parrot leech psychopath wait until PD will answer!! the question was specifically to him so a civilized emotionally balanced human being would wait patiently until the person who was asked will answer PD does not need your idiotic help (if he will *not* answer it will be an answer as well !! and i will go further with it without him and without you !!!) and believe it or not (idiot blockhead )- there is a lot to go on with it !!! Y.Porat ---------------------
From: Inertial on 7 Jan 2010 03:06 "Y.Porat" <y.y.porat(a)gmail.com> wrote in message news:07afe89f-a0f8-4589-9923-edb28b21c4f1(a)b2g2000yqi.googlegroups.com... > On Jan 7, 4:40 am, "Inertial" <relativ...(a)rest.com> wrote: >> "Y.Porat" <y.y.po...(a)gmail.com> wrote in message >> >> news:5d80182c-92a5-4ce6-8ec2-25f3f0c9c17c(a)j4g2000yqe.googlegroups.com... >> >> Define what you mean by a "kind" of mass. >> >> Is there more than one 'kind' of length? Is height a different 'kind' of >> length to width? >> >> Is the measured contracted length (in SR) of a rod by a moving observer a >> different 'kind' of length to the rest length of the rod? Or is it a >> different value for the same thing, due to differences in frame of >> reference? >> >> Is the proper interval length of a rod a different 'kind' of length? >> That >> length is invariant (ie the same in all frames of reference). > > -------------------- > imbecile parrot leech psychopath Here we go .. Porat flying off the handle for no reason yet again > wait until PD will answer!! Why .. I asked YOU the question. > the question was specifically to him What question? You posed a general question here, and specifically to both him and me about whether there is one kind of mass .. you thread title is about one kind of mass. By posting it in a public newsgroup you are asking everyone who reads it to answer and comment. > so a civilized emotionally balanced human being That's certainly not you > would wait patiently until the person who was asked > will answer I don't need to wait .. this is not a private conversation. > PD does not need your idiotic help I wasn't 'helping' him ,I was asking YOU a question If you want a private conversation with him .. email him > (if he will *not* answer it will be an answer as well !! > > and i will go further with it without him > and without you !!!) I'm sure you would .. you don't need inconvenient things like rational thought, consistent arguments, experimental evidence and facts about physics ( the things that we point out to you) to get in your way. > and believe it or not (idiot blockhead )- > there is a lot to go on with it !!! So .. to get on with it .. can you and will you answer my questions: Define what you mean by a "kind" of mass. Is there more than one 'kind' of length? Is height a different 'kind' of length to width? Is the measured contracted length (in SR) of a rod by a moving observer a different 'kind' of length to the rest length of the rod? Or is it a different value for the same thing, due to differences in frame of reference? Is the proper interval length of a rod a different 'kind' of length? That length is invariant (ie the same in all frames of reference).
From: Y.Porat on 7 Jan 2010 04:46
On Jan 7, 10:06 am, "Inertial" <relativ...(a)rest.com> wrote: > "Y.Porat" <y.y.po...(a)gmail.com> wrote in message > > news:07afe89f-a0f8-4589-9923-edb28b21c4f1(a)b2g2000yqi.googlegroups.com... > > > > > On Jan 7, 4:40 am, "Inertial" <relativ...(a)rest.com> wrote: > >> "Y.Porat" <y.y.po...(a)gmail.com> wrote in message > > >>news:5d80182c-92a5-4ce6-8ec2-25f3f0c9c17c(a)j4g2000yqe.googlegroups.com.... > > >> Define what you mean by a "kind" of mass. > > >> Is there more than one 'kind' of length? Is height a different 'kind' of > >> length to width? > > >> Is the measured contracted length (in SR) of a rod by a moving observer a > >> different 'kind' of length to the rest length of the rod? Or is it a > >> different value for the same thing, due to differences in frame of > >> reference? > > >> Is the proper interval length of a rod a different 'kind' of length? > >> That > >> length is invariant (ie the same in all frames of reference). > > > -------------------- > > imbecile parrot leech psychopath > > Here we go .. Porat flying off the handle for no reason yet again > > > wait until PD will answer!! > > Why .. I asked YOU the question. > > > the question was specifically to him > > What question? You posed a general question here, and specifically to both > him and me about whether there is one kind of mass .. you thread title is > about one kind of mass. By posting it in a public newsgroup you are asking > everyone who reads it to answer and comment. > > > so a civilized emotionally balanced human being > > That's certainly not you > > > would wait patiently until the person who was asked > > will answer > > I don't need to wait .. this is not a private conversation. > > > PD does not need your idiotic help > > I wasn't 'helping' him ,I was asking YOU a question > > If you want a private conversation with him .. email him > > > (if he will *not* answer it will be an answer as well !! > > > and i will go further with it without him > > and without you !!!) > > I'm sure you would .. you don't need inconvenient things like rational > thought, consistent arguments, experimental evidence and facts about physics > ( the things that we point out to you) to get in your way. > > > and believe it or not (idiot blockhead )- > > there is a lot to go on with it !!! > > So .. to get on with it .. can you and will you answer my questions: > > Define what you mean by a "kind" of mass. > > Is there more than one 'kind' of length? Is height a different 'kind' of > length to width? > > Is the measured contracted length (in SR) of a rod by a moving observer a > different 'kind' of length to the rest length of the rod? Or is it a > different value for the same thing, due to differences in frame of > reference? > > Is the proper interval length of a rod a different 'kind' of length? That > length is invariant (ie the same in all frames of reference). ----------------- next ..... ---------------------- |