There is just *one* kind of mass!!
in [Physics]
|
From: Y.Porat on 8 Jan 2010 14:00 On Jan 8, 8:13 pm, "Autymn D. C." <lysde...(a)sbcglobal.net> wrote: > On Jan 5, 1:24 am, eric gisse <jowr.pi.nos...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > Relativistic mass isn't real. This was explained to you in 2003. > > ãm > > for inertia > for gravity > > Screw you. > > True, the ghamma can be shareed between mass and velocity, or mass and > arm, ------------ ?? waht is 'Arn' ??? but they're linearly-independent factors which may be in a set of > terms for their own boundary conditions. >---------------------- you are notclear enough my question to you is 1 is there one mass 2 or are there 2 masses or 3 masses that are **qualitatively* different etc etc for instance if there is as some people say 'gravitational mass and 'inertial mass' are those two different or alternatively i can take the inertial mass (say of a proton) and use it fully and successfully in what some people call - a 'gravitation case' of Proton mass ?? iow do you agree with my op title TIA Y.Porat --------------------- Y.Porat -------------------- > -Aut
From: Inertial on 8 Jan 2010 18:53 "Y.Porat" <y.y.porat(a)gmail.com> wrote in message news:306e1362-5796-4d60-a9eb-22d3ff28cb44(a)j24g2000yqa.googlegroups.com... > On Jan 8, 12:21 pm, "Inertial" <relativ...(a)rest.com> wrote: >> "Y.Porat" <y.y.po...(a)gmail.com> wrote in message >> >> news:b87d5fc4-379f-436d-9699-6b50b146b5f2(a)j4g2000yqe.googlegroups.com... >> >> >> >> > On Jan 8, 12:32 am, "Inertial" <relativ...(a)rest.com> wrote: >> >> "Y.Porat" <y.y.po...(a)gmail.com> wrote in message >> >> >>news:cc517da8-4049-405b-8069-97264e36a77e(a)j4g2000yqe.googlegroups.com... >> >> >> > On Jan 7, 1:39 pm, "Inertial" <relativ...(a)rest.com> wrote: >> >> >> "Y.Porat" <y.y.po...(a)gmail.com> wrote in message >> >> >> >>news:e0faad1c-4e86-4d79-8dd2-352b0d930419(a)k17g2000yqh.googlegroups.com... >> >> >> >> > On Jan 7, 12:08 pm, "Inertial" <relativ...(a)rest.com> wrote: >> >> >> >> "Y.Porat" <y.y.po...(a)gmail.com> wrote in message >> >> >> >> >>news:17215745-325c-4342-9499-ae5144e0077a(a)e27g2000yqd.googlegroups.com... >> >> >> >> >> > 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 ..... >> >> >> >> >> So .. you can't answer those questions. I thought not. Clearly >> >> >> >> you >> >> >> >> do >> >> >> >> not >> >> >> >> want to be taken seriously. >> >> >> >> > ----------------------- >> >> >> > next >> >> >> >> What .. you want someone else to answer for you? Or are you just >> >> >> incapable >> >> >> of defining what 'one kind of mass' actually means? >> >> >> > --------------------- >> >> > next >> >> >> How do you expect anyone to discuss whether there is one kind of mass, >> >> when >> >> you cannot even say what you mean by that? >> >> >> Stop runnning away and act like an honest man with integrity instead. >> >> >> 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). >> >> > ----------------- >> > Google is going to take care about you >> > psychopathic harassing s >> > you are going to bebanned >> >> Nonsense .. your empty threats are nothing but that. Google can't do >> anything to me. if it does then the y will ban you for the allegations >> you >> have made about me .. accusing me of criminal activities. >> >> So .. how about you simply answer the question >> >> 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). > > --------------------- > we will see about it So .. come on .. answer the question so that your statement about 'one kind of mass' can be properly interpretted in the way that you mean.
From: Inertial on 8 Jan 2010 18:55 "Autymn D. C." <lysdexia(a)sbcglobal.net> wrote in message news:b493904e-0882-4876-b84a-198109e9232c(a)j14g2000yqm.googlegroups.com... > There is no fast and slow. There is fast and free, or swift and slow. You apparently do not understand that English words can have multiple meanings. Perhaps you need to take a course in English language and grammar? I'm guessing English is not you native language, as you seem to have a great deal of difficulty in spelling words correctly.
From: Y.Porat on 9 Jan 2010 02:26 On Jan 8, 9:00 pm, "Y.Porat" <y.y.po...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > On Jan 8, 8:13 pm, "Autymn D. C." <lysde...(a)sbcglobal.net> wrote:> On Jan 5, 1:24 am, eric gisse <jowr.pi.nos...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > Relativistic mass isn't real. This was explained to you in 2003. > > > ãm > > > for inertia > > for gravity > > > Screw you. > > > True, the ghamma can be shareed between mass and velocity, or mass and > > arm, > > ------------ > ?? > waht is 'Arn' ??? > > but they're linearly-independent factors which may be in a set of> terms for their own boundary conditions. > >---------------------- > > you are notclear enough > my question to you is > 1 > is there one mass > 2 > or are there 2 masses > or 3 masses that are **qualitatively* different > etc etc > for instance > if there is as some people say 'gravitational mass > and 'inertial mass' > are those two different > or alternatively > i can take the inertial mass (say of a proton) > and use it fully and successfully in > what some people call - a 'gravitation case' of Proton mass ?? > iow > do you agree with my op title > > TIA > Y.Porat > --------------------- and in addition to the above: if you say for instance that 'gravitational mass' is not identical to inertial mass THE BURDEN OF OR POOF IS **ON YOU **!! ATB Y.Porat ---------------------
From: whoever on 10 Jan 2010 06:25
"Y.Porat" <y.y.porat(a)gmail.com> wrote in message news:6d32404f-0e55-47ad-9851-84f9ddd13399(a)a6g2000yqm.googlegroups.com... > On Jan 8, 9:00 pm, "Y.Porat" <y.y.po...(a)gmail.com> wrote: >> On Jan 8, 8:13 pm, "Autymn D. C." <lysde...(a)sbcglobal.net> wrote:> On Jan >> 5, 1:24 am, eric gisse <jowr.pi.nos...(a)gmail.com> wrote: >> >> > > Relativistic mass isn't real. This was explained to you in 2003. >> >> > �m >> >> > for inertia >> > for gravity >> >> > Screw you. >> >> > True, the ghamma can be shareed between mass and velocity, or mass and >> > arm, >> >> ------------ >> ?? >> waht is 'Arn' ??? >> >> but they're linearly-independent factors which may be in a set of> terms >> for their own boundary conditions. >> >---------------------- >> >> you are notclear enough >> my question to you is >> 1 >> is there one mass You refuse to answer questions about what you mean by that. So why should anyone be bothered answering you ? --- news://freenews.netfront.net/ - complaints: news(a)netfront.net --- |