Prev: Conjecture or theorem?
Next: Scientific software goes parallel
From: johnlawrencereedjr on 20 Jul 2010 11:03
On Jul 20, 6:02 am, "Dono." <sa...(a)comcast.net> wrote:
> On Jul 20, 2:28 am, thejohnlreed <thejohnlr...(a)gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > In modern physics mass is not additive, only energy and momentum are.
> > So, for a system of particles:
>
> > jr writes>
> > Who has introduced particles here? A system of particles?  Show me the
> > system of particles.
>
> Standard crackpot imbecile.
>
> > E_total=Sum(E_i)
> > P_total=Sum(p_i)
> > The total mass of the system is :
> > M=1/c^2*sqrt(E_total^2-c^2*P_total^2)
> > Now, the mass of each particle in the system is :
> > m_i=1/c^2*sqrt(E_i^2-c^2*P_i^2)
> > Obviously , M is not equal to Sum(m_i).
> > Find a different hobby.
>
> > jr writes>
> > The above is your total argument?
>
> Of course it is, it is beginner physics textbook stuff. Since you are
> unable to learn it, I suggest again that you find a different hobby.
jr writes>
I will state it one more time. Your "amount of matter" definition for
mass when applied to the celestial universe and to the atomic universe
is like talking about apples and oranges. And even in the classical
planet surface case where it is at least proportional with respect to
surface planet atoms and our mathematics, mass is not an "amount of
matter". Mass is the quantification of the resistance of an amount of
matter. An atom is an amount of matter. Mass is the measure of an
atom's resistance, or group of atoms resistance. The only
justification we have for generalizing planet surface object mass to
the celestial universe rests on Newton's written statement that "Since
it is true for all the matter that we can measure it is true for all
matter whatsoever." paraphrased. This is the 21st century, not the
17th.
Have a good time
jr..
From: Dono. on 20 Jul 2010 11:06
On Jul 20, 8:03 am, johnlawrencereedjr <thejohnlr...(a)gmail.com> wrote:
> On Jul 20, 6:02 am, "Dono." <sa...(a)comcast.net> wrote:
>
> > On Jul 20, 2:28 am, thejohnlreed <thejohnlr...(a)gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > In modern physics mass is not additive, only energy and momentum are.
> > > So, for a system of particles:
>
> > > jr writes>
> > > Who has introduced particles here? A system of particles? Show me the
> > > system of particles.
>
> > Standard crackpot imbecile.
>
> > > E_total=Sum(E_i)
> > > P_total=Sum(p_i)
> > > The total mass of the system is :
> > > M=1/c^2*sqrt(E_total^2-c^2*P_total^2)
> > > Now, the mass of each particle in the system is :
> > > m_i=1/c^2*sqrt(E_i^2-c^2*P_i^2)
> > > Obviously , M is not equal to Sum(m_i).
> > > Find a different hobby.
>
> > > jr writes>
> > > The above is your total argument?
>
> > Of course it is, it is beginner physics textbook stuff. Since you are
> > unable to learn it, I suggest again that you find a different hobby.
>
> jr writes>
> I will state it one more time. Your "amount of matter" definition for
> mass when applied to the celestial universe and to the atomic universe
> is like talking about apples and oranges.


You are an idiot. Everybody is convinced. No need to keep reasserting
it.
From: johnlawrencereedjr on 20 Jul 2010 16:29
On Jul 20, 8:06 am, "Dono." <sa...(a)comcast.net> wrote:
> On Jul 20, 8:03 am, johnlawrencereedjr <thejohnlr...(a)gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Jul 20, 6:02 am, "Dono." <sa...(a)comcast.net> wrote:
>
> > > On Jul 20, 2:28 am, thejohnlreed <thejohnlr...(a)gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > In modern physics mass is not additive, only energy and momentum are.
> > > > So, for a system of particles:
>
> > > > jr writes>
> > > > Who has introduced particles here? A system of particles?  Show me the
> > > > system of particles.
>
> > > Standard crackpot imbecile.
>
> > > > E_total=Sum(E_i)
> > > > P_total=Sum(p_i)
> > > > The total mass of the system is :
> > > > M=1/c^2*sqrt(E_total^2-c^2*P_total^2)
> > > > Now, the mass of each particle in the system is :
> > > > m_i=1/c^2*sqrt(E_i^2-c^2*P_i^2)
> > > > Obviously , M is not equal to Sum(m_i).
> > > > Find a different hobby.
>
> > > > jr writes>
> > > > The above is your total argument?
>
> > > Of course it is, it is beginner physics textbook stuff. Since you are
> > > unable to learn it, I suggest again that you find a different hobby.
>
> > jr writes>
> > I will state it one more time. Your "amount of matter" definition for
> > mass when applied to the celestial universe and to the atomic universe
> > is like talking about apples and oranges.
>
> You are an idiot. Everybody is convinced. No need to keep reasserting
> it.

jr writes>
Well my use of words to explain concepts is infinitely more difficult
than your thinking process. With your particle mentality you define
matter in terms of matter. Like the universe is based on fundmental
bricks, more fiundamental than the atom itself. Atoms repesent stable
and near stable forms of matter. Building stable forms of matter from
unstable particles of matter is a pandora's box limited only by our
capacity to create smaller and smaller atomic shards with our
colliders. Destroying a stable electro-magnetic element into unstable
pieces of garbage and reconstructing the atom using the shattered
pieces of rubble is pitiful cowboy. But you stay on it.
jr
From: Dono. on 21 Jul 2010 09:43
On Jul 20, 1:29 pm, johnlawrencereedjr <thejohnlr...(a)gmail.com> wrote:
> On Jul 20, 8:06 am, "Dono." <sa...(a)comcast.net> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Jul 20, 8:03 am, johnlawrencereedjr <thejohnlr...(a)gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > On Jul 20, 6:02 am, "Dono." <sa...(a)comcast.net> wrote:
>
> > > > On Jul 20, 2:28 am, thejohnlreed <thejohnlr...(a)gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > > In modern physics mass is not additive, only energy and momentum are.
> > > > > So, for a system of particles:
>
> > > > > jr writes>
> > > > > Who has introduced particles here? A system of particles?  Show me the
> > > > > system of particles.
>
> > > > Standard crackpot imbecile.
>
> > > > > E_total=Sum(E_i)
> > > > > P_total=Sum(p_i)
> > > > > The total mass of the system is :
> > > > > M=1/c^2*sqrt(E_total^2-c^2*P_total^2)
> > > > > Now, the mass of each particle in the system is :
> > > > > m_i=1/c^2*sqrt(E_i^2-c^2*P_i^2)
> > > > > Obviously , M is not equal to Sum(m_i).
> > > > > Find a different hobby.
>
> > > > > jr writes>
> > > > > The above is your total argument?
>
> > > > Of course it is, it is beginner physics textbook stuff. Since you are
> > > > unable to learn it, I suggest again that you find a different hobby..
>
> > > jr writes>
> > > I will state it one more time. Your "amount of matter" definition for
> > > mass when applied to the celestial universe and to the atomic universe
> > > is like talking about apples and oranges.
>
> > You are an idiot. Everybody is convinced. No need to keep reasserting
> > it.
>
> jr writes>
> Well my use of words to explain concepts is infinitely more difficult
> than your thinking process.  

No, imbcile. The language of physics is math, a language that you
clearly don't understand.
From: thejohnlreed on 21 Jul 2010 13:53
OK I can accept your word on the spring constant horizontal measure
for mass. I have no quarrel with the fact that mass can be measured in
a variety of ways. The ways to measure mass are as numerous as their
are ways to measure resistance. Include a suitable conversion scheme
for resistance and you have mass. Or even a suitable conversion scheme
for any quantity the regularity of which can be paralleled to mass. I
would guess that the mass spectrograph takes a given amount of mass,
ignites it and measures the light spectra. But if I am incorrect there
it has nothing to do with my primary focus.

Its not the measure of mass in various ways that concerns me. It is
the definition of mass that is most important especially because we
require no greater accuracy in that definition than "amount of
matter". The mathematical convenience of mass, its pragmatic
mathematical and physical functionality, stops us from seeking any
greater precision than "an amount of matter". The focus of physics
then becomes the application of the working mathematics with respect
to mass, and the development of physics is eventually left into the
hands of the theoretical physicist mathematician, where mass is the
primary initial physical tool, but the mathematics is an open ended
field enabling any internally consistent fantasy. The scientist seeks
physical truth. The mathematician seeks truth in numbers.

This reflects our presumption that matter is fundamental and that we
know what matter is. And mass even becomes synonymous with matter,
which further supports our assumption that we know what matter is.
Eventually the thinking process in physics becomes the exclusive
domain of the mathematician many of whom perpetuate our ignorance and
are pompous about it.

Mass is consistent with the resistance we work against and it is
convertible into a number of atoms for quantitative chemical
reactions. And it is conserved in classical mechanics in general.
These are crucial clues that can be easily missed simply because of
our definition for mass. Mass is not an amount of matter. Mass is a
resistance of matter that we can quantify and measure. What kind of
matter? Stable and near stable atomic matter.
First  |  Prev  |  Next  |  Last
Pages: 1 2 3 4 5
Prev: Conjecture or theorem?
Next: Scientific software goes parallel