What is the experimentally measurable difference between rest mass and the 'relativistic mass' of the photon ??!!
in [Relativity]
|
From: Y.Porat on 27 Apr 2010 05:07 On Apr 27, 3:50 am, glird <gl...(a)aol.com> wrote: > On Apr 22, 1:48 am, "Y.Porat" <y.y.po...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > THERE IS JUST ONE KIND OF MASS!! > > Although "mass" is "a quantity of matter"; there are two different > forms of this on kind of matter: > partculate and non-particulate. > The non-particulate form is continuous and has no weight, though its > density (quantity of matter per unit volume) does change. Because it > has no surface it conducts rather than reflects light, thus is > invisible. (It is called "dark matter".) Even so, since gravity is an > effect caused by a density gradient permeating embedded particles, as > the local density of this dark matter increases so will the steepness > of the gradient (g-field) and so will the strength of the reaction (g- > force) in those particles. > Though that's WHY partles have weight and why the g-force is > proportional (NOT "equal") to the mass of reacting particles, since > present theory denies the existence of this luminiferous matter, there > is no way that those who believe everything they are taught can > understand these things. > > glird ------------ where do you see it in the formula E^2 = mc^2 Plus (again Plus !!!) pc)^2 if you dont mind p c is m c^2 as well !! or else the above formula is invalid (or else you are invalid ...) sothe m there IS ONE m !! if you say itis two kinds of mass THE BURDEN OF PROVE IS ON YOU !! so my advice to you STOP BEING A PARROT !!! ****there is just one kind of mass*** the physics is based on the M K S system there is no M K! K2 K3 S system !!!2 NO MASS - NO REAL PHYSICS !!! just remember why said it the first one !! ATB Y.Porat -----------------------------
From: Inertial on 27 Apr 2010 07:14 "Y.Porat" <y.y.porat(a)gmail.com> wrote in message news:88f7fbe3-ab12-43b3-8109-d0530a7cdf07(a)g30g2000yqc.googlegroups.com... > On Apr 27, 3:50 am, glird <gl...(a)aol.com> wrote: >> On Apr 22, 1:48 am, "Y.Porat" <y.y.po...(a)gmail.com> wrote: >> >> >> >> > THERE IS JUST ONE KIND OF MASS!! >> >> Although "mass" is "a quantity of matter"; there are two different >> forms of this on kind of matter: >> partculate and non-particulate. >> The non-particulate form is continuous and has no weight, though its >> density (quantity of matter per unit volume) does change. Because it >> has no surface it conducts rather than reflects light, thus is >> invisible. (It is called "dark matter".) Even so, since gravity is an >> effect caused by a density gradient permeating embedded particles, as >> the local density of this dark matter increases so will the steepness >> of the gradient (g-field) and so will the strength of the reaction (g- >> force) in those particles. >> Though that's WHY partles have weight and why the g-force is >> proportional (NOT "equal") to the mass of reacting particles, since >> present theory denies the existence of this luminiferous matter, there >> is no way that those who believe everything they are taught can >> understand these things. >> >> glird > > ------------ > where do you see it in > the formula > > > E^2 = mc^2 Plus (again Plus !!!) pc)^2 > if you dont mind Yes .. plus > p c is m c^2 as well !! No ... but they have the same dimensions > or else the above formula is invalid Yes .. if they had different dimensions you could not add them in a valid formula. But noone is saying anything that would mean they are different units > (or else you are invalid ...) > sothe m there > IS ONE m !! Noone has said there are different mass dimensions > if you say itis two kinds of mass > THE BURDEN OF PROVE IS ON YOU !! Who do you think is claiming there are different kinds of mass dimension? > so my advice to you > STOP BEING A PARROT !!! My advice to you is to stop making up nonsense and then pretending others are agreeing with it, just so you can argue against it. > ****there is just one kind of mass*** > the physics is based on the M K S system Noone claims otherwise > there is no > > M K! K2 K3 S > system !!!2 Noone claims there is > NO MASS - NO REAL PHYSICS !!! > just remember why said it the first one !! Its just a slogan
From: Darwin123 on 27 Apr 2010 11:08 <Porat> > do you agree withme that if you use the formula > > E ^2 == mc^2^2 PLUS !!! (pc) ^2 If "m" is the rest mass, "E" the total energy, "p" the momentum and "c" the speed of light. In the equation written here, "m" is not the "relativistic mass." It is the "rest mass." You may disagree as to the validity of the equation. However, you clearly agree that the units of this equation are correct. > > THEN THE PC ^2 MUST AHBE EXACTLY THE SAME DIMENSION AS mc^2 > (even if they have different scalr multipliers !!?? No. Clearly false. You are mathemetaically illiterate. If the above equation is true, then THEN THE PC ^2 MUST AHBE EXACTLY THE SAME DIMENSION AS mc^2^2 You wrote the equation correctly. However, when presenting the units, you dropped the extra 2 in the exponent. The equation you first wrote expressed a quantity in energy squared, not just energy. Therefore, all the separate terms have to have units of energy squared, not units of energy. "mc^2" is in units of energy. "mc^2^2" is units of energy squared. Capitalizing your sentences does not make your statements mathematically correct. You made a rather obvious error in unit analysis. Further, you screamed like a maniac how stupid everyone else was for not seeing your mistake right away. Okay, you are a math aphasiac. However, this does not make you an idiot. Screaming about how true you error was, without double checking the statement, makes you an idiot.
From: Darwin123 on 27 Apr 2010 16:59 On Apr 27, 11:08 am, Darwin123 <drosen0...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > <Porat>> do you agree withme that if you use the formula > > > E ^2 == mc^2^2 PLUS !!! (pc) ^2 > > If "m" is the rest mass, "E" the total energy, "p" the momentum and > "c" the speed of light. In the equation written here, "m" is not the > "relativistic mass." It is the "rest mass." > You may disagree as to the validity of the equation. However, you > clearly agree that the units of this equation are correct. > > > THEN THE PC ^2 MUST AHBE EXACTLY THE SAME DIMENSION AS mc^2 > > (even if they have different scalr multipliers !!?? > > No. Clearly false. You are mathemetaically illiterate. Sorry. You are mathematically illiterate. I misspell things sometimes, too. However, I do know that the units of "mc^2" are not the same as those of "mc^2^2". If you don't address this point, then you are a liar in addition to being an idiot.
From: Y.Porat on 28 Apr 2010 01:11
On Apr 27, 10:59 pm, Darwin123 <drosen0...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > On Apr 27, 11:08 am, Darwin123 <drosen0...(a)yahoo.com> wrote:> <Porat>> do you agree withme that if you use the formula > > > > E ^2 == mc^2^2 PLUS !!! (pc) ^2 > > > If "m" is the rest mass, "E" the total energy, "p" the momentum and > > "c" the speed of light. In the equation written here, "m" is not the > > "relativistic mass." It is the "rest mass." > > You may disagree as to the validity of the equation. However, you > > clearly agree that the units of this equation are correct. > > > > THEN THE PC ^2 MUST AHBE EXACTLY THE SAME DIMENSION AS mc^2 > > > (even if they have different scalr multipliers !!?? > > > No. Clearly false. You are mathemetaically illiterate. > > Sorry. You are mathematically illiterate. I misspell things sometimes, > too. > However, I do know that the units of "mc^2" are not the same as > those of "mc^2^2". If you don't address this point, then you are a > liar in addition to being an idiot. ------------------- if mc^2 has the same units as pc then their second degree ^2 is as well the same you are not even a fucken mathematician Y.P -------------------------- |