What is the experimentally measurable difference between rest mass and the 'relativistic mass' of the photon ??!!
in [Relativity]
|
From: PD on 20 Apr 2010 17:30 On Apr 20, 1:32 pm, "Y.Porat" <y.y.po...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > On Apr 20, 7:30 pm, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > > On Apr 20, 12:25 pm, "Y.Porat" <y.y.po...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > On Apr 20, 5:57 pm, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > On Apr 20, 10:42 am, "Y.Porat" <y.y.po...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > On Apr 20, 4:52 pm, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > > On Apr 20, 9:43 am, "Y.Porat" <y.y.po...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > > > On Apr 20, 4:03 pm, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > > > > On Apr 20, 12:05 am, "Y.Porat" <y.y.po...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > On Apr 19, 8:28 pm, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > On Apr 19, 9:21 am, "Y.Porat" <y.y.po...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > hat is the experimentally - measurable difference > > > > > > > > > > > between rest mass and the 'relativistic mass' of the photon ??!! > > > > > > > > > > > (at least for me-- the answer is obvious .....) > > > > > > > > > > > > Another copyright question > > > > > > > > > > > > TIA > > > > > > > > > > > Yehiel Porat > > > > > > > > > > > 18-04-2010 > > > > > > > > > > > --------------------------------------------------------------- > > > > > > > > > > > Photons don't have a rest mass, and they don't have a relativistic > > > > > > > > > > mass. And relativistic mass is an antiquated notion that has been > > > > > > > > > > largely abandoned because it confuses amateurs and some structural > > > > > > > > > > engineers. > > > > > > > > > > -------------------------- > > > > > > > > > no mass > > > > > > > > > no relativistic mass so ??? > > > > > > > > > > what is that m in the E=mc^2??!! > > > > > > > > > I already told you this, Porat. In the original context, m was rest > > > > > > > > mass and E was rest energy. > > > > > > > > ----------------------------------------- > > > > > > > so we are talking about a formula of > > > > > > > Energy right ?? > > > > > > > > so waht are you talking about rest energy > > > > > > > is there a differnce between rest energy and > > > > > > > other energy > > > > > > > Yes, of course. Energy comes in many different flavors: potential > > > > > > energy, configuration energy, rest energy, ordered kinetic energy, > > > > > > stochastic kinetic energy, and so on. > > > > > > ------------------------------------------- > > > > > PD PD PD (:-) > > > > > > i dont what to be insultive or blunt so soon... (:-) > > > > > > now lets please concentrate on the case of > > > > > mass is turned 100 % to enrgy > > > > > > so please dont pul my leg about > > > > > potential energy or 'configuration' energy !! > > > > > > i did it intentionally the simplest case > > > > > in order of preventing OBFUSCATION !! > > > > > > lets concentrate on the simpest case > > > > > 100 % of the proton neutron mass > > > > > turned to gamma radication > > > > > while > > > > > > E=mc^2 > > > > > Define S IT SIMPLY AND CLEARLY AND EXACTLY !!! > > > > > > 27 Mev /c^2 mass was lost by particles > > > > > and 27 Mev /c^2 > > > > > was gained by gamma radiation > > > > > so just have a the Energy formula of that Em > > > > > radiation > > > > > it is exacly E=m c^2 =27Mev > > > > > and the mas there is exactly 27 Mev /c^2!! > > > > > i hope you are not Artful to say that here is > > > > > no * m**at all in THAT CASE of the specific Em radiation > > > > > th e most you can do is to 'CALL IT'' > > > > > RELATIVISTIC MASS !! (or whatever ok ?? > > > > > so now comes my above question > > > > > > please give me (us) a** list of > > > > > experimentally *and measured * proven differences** > > > > > > between the > > > > > 'rest mass *loss *of the protons neutrons -- > > > > > and your 'relativistic mass' of the Em radiation > > > > > in that specific fusion case > > > > > I gave you one. The mass of the carbon 12 nucleus is *measured*. The > > > > mass of the proton is *measured*. The mass of the neutron is > > > > *measured*. There are a variety of techniques available. Magnetic mass > > > > spectrometry would be the easiest for you to understand. > > > > > There are literally hundreds of such examples. > > > > > > TIA > > > > > Y.Porat > > > > > -------------------------------- > > > > you still said nothing about my question: > > > > whaht is the proven difference > > > (say just for instance -as a start ) ----**quantitatively*** ) > > > between the magnitude of rest mass in those carbon constituents**-- > > > loss** > > > I JUST TOLD YOU THAT. Can you not take the numbers I gave you and > > multiply them by six and add them up? Who cuts your meat at dinner > > time? > > > C-12 mass: 12.00000 amu > > 6 protons + 6 neutrons mass: 12.09564 amu > > These are all *measured*. > > > > and the* relativistic mass* of the > > > Em waves that came out of it ?? > > > "Relativistic mass" is an antiquated notion, no longer used much. > > It does not correspond to any measured mass. > > > > TIA > > > Y.Porat > > > ---------------------- > > so what is the amount of energy > that poped out of the protons neutrons ie > > 27 Mev/c^2 ncreation of the alpha particle > and the mass (wahtever you call it) > that is in the 27 mev/c^2 > that is the Em gamma radiation has?? > > WHY ARE YOU AFRAID TO SAY THAT > IT IS **EXACTLY****** > THE SAME AMOUNT OF MASS > 27 Mev/c^2 that is in the gamma radiation > that came out of that process ??? It's not mass. It's energy. Mass got converted to energy. Rest mass is not conserved. I gave you the example of the C-12 nucleus and 6 protons and 6 neutrons. The masses of those two are different. Rest mass is not conserved. The difference is converted to *energy*. Photons do not have rest mass. > > shel i help you and tell every body that > is is exactly the same *quantity* of mass??? > so > until now you failed to indicate any difference > between the two above mentioned masses !! > > TIA > Y.Porat > ------------------------------ Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text -
From: BURT on 20 Apr 2010 17:34 On Apr 20, 2:30 pm, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > On Apr 20, 1:32 pm, "Y.Porat" <y.y.po...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > > On Apr 20, 7:30 pm, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > On Apr 20, 12:25 pm, "Y.Porat" <y.y.po...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > On Apr 20, 5:57 pm, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > On Apr 20, 10:42 am, "Y.Porat" <y.y.po...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > > On Apr 20, 4:52 pm, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > > > On Apr 20, 9:43 am, "Y.Porat" <y.y.po...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > > > > On Apr 20, 4:03 pm, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > On Apr 20, 12:05 am, "Y.Porat" <y.y.po...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > On Apr 19, 8:28 pm, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > On Apr 19, 9:21 am, "Y.Porat" <y.y.po...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > hat is the experimentally - measurable difference > > > > > > > > > > > > between rest mass and the 'relativistic mass' of the photon ??!! > > > > > > > > > > > > (at least for me-- the answer is obvious .....) > > > > > > > > > > > > > Another copyright question > > > > > > > > > > > > > TIA > > > > > > > > > > > > Yehiel Porat > > > > > > > > > > > > 18-04-2010 > > > > > > > > > > > > --------------------------------------------------------------- > > > > > > > > > > > > Photons don't have a rest mass, and they don't have a relativistic > > > > > > > > > > > mass. And relativistic mass is an antiquated notion that has been > > > > > > > > > > > largely abandoned because it confuses amateurs and some structural > > > > > > > > > > > engineers. > > > > > > > > > > > -------------------------- > > > > > > > > > > no mass > > > > > > > > > > no relativistic mass so ??? > > > > > > > > > > > what is that m in the E=mc^2??!! > > > > > > > > > > I already told you this, Porat. In the original context, m was rest > > > > > > > > > mass and E was rest energy. > > > > > > > > > ----------------------------------------- > > > > > > > > so we are talking about a formula of > > > > > > > > Energy right ?? > > > > > > > > > so waht are you talking about rest energy > > > > > > > > is there a differnce between rest energy and > > > > > > > > other energy > > > > > > > > Yes, of course. Energy comes in many different flavors: potential > > > > > > > energy, configuration energy, rest energy, ordered kinetic energy, > > > > > > > stochastic kinetic energy, and so on. > > > > > > > ------------------------------------------- > > > > > > PD PD PD (:-) > > > > > > > i dont what to be insultive or blunt so soon... (:-) > > > > > > > now lets please concentrate on the case of > > > > > > mass is turned 100 % to enrgy > > > > > > > so please dont pul my leg about > > > > > > potential energy or 'configuration' energy !! > > > > > > > i did it intentionally the simplest case > > > > > > in order of preventing OBFUSCATION !! > > > > > > > lets concentrate on the simpest case > > > > > > 100 % of the proton neutron mass > > > > > > turned to gamma radication > > > > > > while > > > > > > > E=mc^2 > > > > > > Define S IT SIMPLY AND CLEARLY AND EXACTLY !!! > > > > > > > 27 Mev /c^2 mass was lost by particles > > > > > > and 27 Mev /c^2 > > > > > > was gained by gamma radiation > > > > > > so just have a the Energy formula of that Em > > > > > > radiation > > > > > > it is exacly E=m c^2 =27Mev > > > > > > and the mas there is exactly 27 Mev /c^2!! > > > > > > i hope you are not Artful to say that here is > > > > > > no * m**at all in THAT CASE of the specific Em radiation > > > > > > th e most you can do is to 'CALL IT'' > > > > > > RELATIVISTIC MASS !! (or whatever ok ?? > > > > > > so now comes my above question > > > > > > > please give me (us) a** list of > > > > > > experimentally *and measured * proven differences** > > > > > > > between the > > > > > > 'rest mass *loss *of the protons neutrons -- > > > > > > and your 'relativistic mass' of the Em radiation > > > > > > in that specific fusion case > > > > > > I gave you one. The mass of the carbon 12 nucleus is *measured*. The > > > > > mass of the proton is *measured*. The mass of the neutron is > > > > > *measured*. There are a variety of techniques available. Magnetic mass > > > > > spectrometry would be the easiest for you to understand. > > > > > > There are literally hundreds of such examples. > > > > > > > TIA > > > > > > Y.Porat > > > > > > -------------------------------- > > > > > you still said nothing about my question: > > > > > whaht is the proven difference > > > > (say just for instance -as a start ) ----**quantitatively*** ) > > > > between the magnitude of rest mass in those carbon constituents**-- > > > > loss** > > > > I JUST TOLD YOU THAT. Can you not take the numbers I gave you and > > > multiply them by six and add them up? Who cuts your meat at dinner > > > time? > > > > C-12 mass: 12.00000 amu > > > 6 protons + 6 neutrons mass: 12.09564 amu > > > These are all *measured*. > > > > > and the* relativistic mass* of the > > > > Em waves that came out of it ?? > > > > "Relativistic mass" is an antiquated notion, no longer used much. > > > It does not correspond to any measured mass. > > > > > TIA > > > > Y.Porat > > > > ---------------------- > > > so what is the amount of energy > > that poped out of the protons neutrons ie > > > 27 Mev/c^2 ncreation of the alpha particle > > and the mass (wahtever you call it) > > that is in the 27 mev/c^2 > > that is the Em gamma radiation has?? > > > WHY ARE YOU AFRAID TO SAY THAT > > IT IS **EXACTLY****** > > THE SAME AMOUNT OF MASS > > 27 Mev/c^2 that is in the gamma radiation > > that came out of that process ??? > > It's not mass. It's energy. Mass got converted to energy. Rest mass is > not conserved. > > I gave you the example of the C-12 nucleus and 6 protons and 6 > neutrons. The masses of those two are different. Rest mass is not > conserved. The difference is converted to *energy*. Photons do not > have rest mass. > > > > > > > shel i help you and tell every body that > > is is exactly the same *quantity* of mass??? > > so > > until now you failed to indicate any difference > > between the two above mentioned masses !! > > > TIA > > Y.Porat > > ------------------------------ Hide quoted text - > > > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text - The slowdown of light in the atom is not from another effect like absorption and emision. Light interacting with the atomic electric energy of bond slows down from in speed. Mitch Raemsch
From: Y.Porat on 20 Apr 2010 22:53 On Apr 20, 11:30 pm, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > On Apr 20, 1:32 pm, "Y.Porat" <y.y.po...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > On Apr 20, 7:30 pm, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > On Apr 20, 12:25 pm, "Y.Porat" <y.y.po...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > On Apr 20, 5:57 pm, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > On Apr 20, 10:42 am, "Y.Porat" <y.y.po...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > > On Apr 20, 4:52 pm, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > > > On Apr 20, 9:43 am, "Y.Porat" <y.y.po...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > > > > On Apr 20, 4:03 pm, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > On Apr 20, 12:05 am, "Y.Porat" <y.y.po...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > On Apr 19, 8:28 pm, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > On Apr 19, 9:21 am, "Y.Porat" <y.y.po...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > hat is the experimentally - measurable difference > > > > > > > > > > > > between rest mass and the 'relativistic mass' of the photon ??!! > > > > > > > > > > > > (at least for me-- the answer is obvious .....) > > > > > > > > > > > > > Another copyright question > > > > > > > > > > > > > TIA > > > > > > > > > > > > Yehiel Porat > > > > > > > > > > > > 18-04-2010 > > > > > > > > > > > > --------------------------------------------------------------- > > > > > > > > > > > > Photons don't have a rest mass, and they don't have a relativistic > > > > > > > > > > > mass. And relativistic mass is an antiquated notion that has been > > > > > > > > > > > largely abandoned because it confuses amateurs and some structural > > > > > > > > > > > engineers. > > > > > > > > > > > -------------------------- > > > > > > > > > > no mass > > > > > > > > > > no relativistic mass so ??? > > > > > > > > > > > what is that m in the E=mc^2??!! > > > > > > > > > > I already told you this, Porat. In the original context, m was rest > > > > > > > > > mass and E was rest energy. > > > > > > > > > ----------------------------------------- > > > > > > > > so we are talking about a formula of > > > > > > > > Energy right ?? > > > > > > > > > so waht are you talking about rest energy > > > > > > > > is there a differnce between rest energy and > > > > > > > > other energy > > > > > > > > Yes, of course. Energy comes in many different flavors: potential > > > > > > > energy, configuration energy, rest energy, ordered kinetic energy, > > > > > > > stochastic kinetic energy, and so on. > > > > > > > ------------------------------------------- > > > > > > PD PD PD (:-) > > > > > > > i dont what to be insultive or blunt so soon... (:-) > > > > > > > now lets please concentrate on the case of > > > > > > mass is turned 100 % to enrgy > > > > > > > so please dont pul my leg about > > > > > > potential energy or 'configuration' energy !! > > > > > > > i did it intentionally the simplest case > > > > > > in order of preventing OBFUSCATION !! > > > > > > > lets concentrate on the simpest case > > > > > > 100 % of the proton neutron mass > > > > > > turned to gamma radication > > > > > > while > > > > > > > E=mc^2 > > > > > > Define S IT SIMPLY AND CLEARLY AND EXACTLY !!! > > > > > > > 27 Mev /c^2 mass was lost by particles > > > > > > and 27 Mev /c^2 > > > > > > was gained by gamma radiation > > > > > > so just have a the Energy formula of that Em > > > > > > radiation > > > > > > it is exacly E=m c^2 =27Mev > > > > > > and the mas there is exactly 27 Mev /c^2!! > > > > > > i hope you are not Artful to say that here is > > > > > > no * m**at all in THAT CASE of the specific Em radiation > > > > > > th e most you can do is to 'CALL IT'' > > > > > > RELATIVISTIC MASS !! (or whatever ok ?? > > > > > > so now comes my above question > > > > > > > please give me (us) a** list of > > > > > > experimentally *and measured * proven differences** > > > > > > > between the > > > > > > 'rest mass *loss *of the protons neutrons -- > > > > > > and your 'relativistic mass' of the Em radiation > > > > > > in that specific fusion case > > > > > > I gave you one. The mass of the carbon 12 nucleus is *measured*. The > > > > > mass of the proton is *measured*. The mass of the neutron is > > > > > *measured*. There are a variety of techniques available. Magnetic mass > > > > > spectrometry would be the easiest for you to understand. > > > > > > There are literally hundreds of such examples. > > > > > > > TIA > > > > > > Y.Porat > > > > > > -------------------------------- > > > > > you still said nothing about my question: > > > > > whaht is the proven difference > > > > (say just for instance -as a start ) ----**quantitatively*** ) > > > > between the magnitude of rest mass in those carbon constituents**-- > > > > loss** > > > > I JUST TOLD YOU THAT. Can you not take the numbers I gave you and > > > multiply them by six and add them up? Who cuts your meat at dinner > > > time? > > > > C-12 mass: 12.00000 amu > > > 6 protons + 6 neutrons mass: 12.09564 amu > > > These are all *measured*. > > > > > and the* relativistic mass* of the > > > > Em waves that came out of it ?? > > > > "Relativistic mass" is an antiquated notion, no longer used much. > > > It does not correspond to any measured mass. > > > > > TIA > > > > Y.Porat > > > > ---------------------- > > > so what is the amount of energy > > that poped out of the protons neutrons ie > > > 27 Mev/c^2 ncreation of the alpha particle > > and the mass (wahtever you call it) > > that is in the 27 mev/c^2 > > that is the Em gamma radiation has?? > > > WHY ARE YOU AFRAID TO SAY THAT > > IT IS **EXACTLY****** > > THE SAME AMOUNT OF MASS > > 27 Mev/c^2 that is in the gamma radiation > > that came out of that process ??? > > It's not mass. It's energy. Mass got converted to energy. Rest mass is > not conserved. > --------------------------- PD indeed you talka lot THERE IS NO NEED TO TALK SO MUCH!! YOU KEEP ON TELLING US WHAT IT** IS NOT* SO FOR A CHANGE PLEASE TELL US: what* is * that m in the formula E - m c^2 AGAIN WHAT **IS** IT (that 'm') (AND **NOT** WHAT IS IT NOT !!! 2 you gave me theCarbon exacple and you bet that i know it and much firther about it I SHOWED YOU THAT THE * MASS LOST* OF PARTICLES--- TURNED TO *ENERGY IS QUANTITATIVELY (AGAIN *QUANTITATIVELY* THE SAME AS REST MASS (AGAIN IT IS QUANTITATIVELY-- ***THE SAME* so now it is your turn to tell us (**in addition to my above question**- IN ADDITIO0N ie not evading my above question (:-) (because not all our 2000 readers are fools or can be fooled around the bush ....) can you *note* AN EXPERIMENTAL DIFFERENCE DIFFERENCE (or a few of them) BETWEEN REST MASS AND THE MASS THAT * YOU WILL DEFINE IN ANSWER TO MY JUST ABOVE QUESTION !! (**quantitatively** you failed to find a difference !!and you will never find .....!! so what *else* a difference ...) see my abstract http://sites.google.com/site/theyporatmodel/an-abstract and you bet that i dont need form you explanations about what are MASS LOSSES in nuclear process what are their qunatities etc etc not only about the carbon Atom but all along the periodic table !! (in return i can give *you* at least a semester of explanations about it !!!) TIA Y.Porat ------------------------ TIA Y.Porat > I gave you the example of the C-12 nucleus and 6 protons and 6 > neutrons. The masses of those two are different. Rest mass is not > conserved. The difference is converted to *energy*. Photons do not > have rest mass. > > > > > shel i help you and tell every body that > > is is exactly the same *quantity* of mass??? > > so > > until now you failed to indicate any difference > > between the two above mentioned masses !! > > > TIA > > Y.Porat > > ------------------------------ Hide quoted text - > > > - Show quoted text -
From: artful on 20 Apr 2010 23:00 On Apr 21, 12:53 pm, "Y.Porat" <y.y.po...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > On Apr 20, 11:30 pm, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > On Apr 20, 1:32 pm, "Y.Porat" <y.y.po...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > On Apr 20, 7:30 pm, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > On Apr 20, 12:25 pm, "Y.Porat" <y.y.po...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > On Apr 20, 5:57 pm, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > > On Apr 20, 10:42 am, "Y.Porat" <y.y.po...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > > > On Apr 20, 4:52 pm, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > > > > On Apr 20, 9:43 am, "Y.Porat" <y.y.po...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > On Apr 20, 4:03 pm, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > On Apr 20, 12:05 am, "Y.Porat" <y.y.po...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > On Apr 19, 8:28 pm, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Apr 19, 9:21 am, "Y.Porat" <y.y.po...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > hat is the experimentally - measurable difference > > > > > > > > > > > > > between rest mass and the 'relativistic mass' of the photon ??!! > > > > > > > > > > > > > (at least for me-- the answer is obvious .....) > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Another copyright question > > > > > > > > > > > > > > TIA > > > > > > > > > > > > > Yehiel Porat > > > > > > > > > > > > > 18-04-2010 > > > > > > > > > > > > > --------------------------------------------------------------- > > > > > > > > > > > > > Photons don't have a rest mass, and they don't have a relativistic > > > > > > > > > > > > mass. And relativistic mass is an antiquated notion that has been > > > > > > > > > > > > largely abandoned because it confuses amateurs and some structural > > > > > > > > > > > > engineers. > > > > > > > > > > > > -------------------------- > > > > > > > > > > > no mass > > > > > > > > > > > no relativistic mass so ??? > > > > > > > > > > > > what is that m in the E=mc^2??!! > > > > > > > > > > > I already told you this, Porat. In the original context, m was rest > > > > > > > > > > mass and E was rest energy. > > > > > > > > > > ----------------------------------------- > > > > > > > > > so we are talking about a formula of > > > > > > > > > Energy right ?? > > > > > > > > > > so waht are you talking about rest energy > > > > > > > > > is there a differnce between rest energy and > > > > > > > > > other energy > > > > > > > > > Yes, of course. Energy comes in many different flavors: potential > > > > > > > > energy, configuration energy, rest energy, ordered kinetic energy, > > > > > > > > stochastic kinetic energy, and so on. > > > > > > > > ------------------------------------------- > > > > > > > PD PD PD (:-) > > > > > > > > i dont what to be insultive or blunt so soon... (:-) > > > > > > > > now lets please concentrate on the case of > > > > > > > mass is turned 100 % to enrgy > > > > > > > > so please dont pul my leg about > > > > > > > potential energy or 'configuration' energy !! > > > > > > > > i did it intentionally the simplest case > > > > > > > in order of preventing OBFUSCATION !! > > > > > > > > lets concentrate on the simpest case > > > > > > > 100 % of the proton neutron mass > > > > > > > turned to gamma radication > > > > > > > while > > > > > > > > E=mc^2 > > > > > > > Define S IT SIMPLY AND CLEARLY AND EXACTLY !!! > > > > > > > > 27 Mev /c^2 mass was lost by particles > > > > > > > and 27 Mev /c^2 > > > > > > > was gained by gamma radiation > > > > > > > so just have a the Energy formula of that Em > > > > > > > radiation > > > > > > > it is exacly E=m c^2 =27Mev > > > > > > > and the mas there is exactly 27 Mev /c^2!! > > > > > > > i hope you are not Artful to say that here is > > > > > > > no * m**at all in THAT CASE of the specific Em radiation > > > > > > > th e most you can do is to 'CALL IT'' > > > > > > > RELATIVISTIC MASS !! (or whatever ok ?? > > > > > > > so now comes my above question > > > > > > > > please give me (us) a** list of > > > > > > > experimentally *and measured * proven differences** > > > > > > > > between the > > > > > > > 'rest mass *loss *of the protons neutrons -- > > > > > > > and your 'relativistic mass' of the Em radiation > > > > > > > in that specific fusion case > > > > > > > I gave you one. The mass of the carbon 12 nucleus is *measured*.. The > > > > > > mass of the proton is *measured*. The mass of the neutron is > > > > > > *measured*. There are a variety of techniques available. Magnetic mass > > > > > > spectrometry would be the easiest for you to understand. > > > > > > > There are literally hundreds of such examples. > > > > > > > > TIA > > > > > > > Y.Porat > > > > > > > -------------------------------- > > > > > > you still said nothing about my question: > > > > > > whaht is the proven difference > > > > > (say just for instance -as a start ) ----**quantitatively*** ) > > > > > between the magnitude of rest mass in those carbon constituents**-- > > > > > loss** > > > > > I JUST TOLD YOU THAT. Can you not take the numbers I gave you and > > > > multiply them by six and add them up? Who cuts your meat at dinner > > > > time? > > > > > C-12 mass: 12.00000 amu > > > > 6 protons + 6 neutrons mass: 12.09564 amu > > > > These are all *measured*. > > > > > > and the* relativistic mass* of the > > > > > Em waves that came out of it ?? > > > > > "Relativistic mass" is an antiquated notion, no longer used much. > > > > It does not correspond to any measured mass. > > > > > > TIA > > > > > Y.Porat > > > > > ---------------------- > > > > so what is the amount of energy > > > that poped out of the protons neutrons ie > > > > 27 Mev/c^2 ncreation of the alpha particle > > > and the mass (wahtever you call it) > > > that is in the 27 mev/c^2 > > > that is the Em gamma radiation has?? > > > > WHY ARE YOU AFRAID TO SAY THAT > > > IT IS **EXACTLY****** > > > THE SAME AMOUNT OF MASS > > > 27 Mev/c^2 that is in the gamma radiation > > > that came out of that process ??? > > > It's not mass. It's energy. Mass got converted to energy. Rest mass is > > not conserved. > > --------------------------- > > PD indeed you talka lot Shame you don't read a lot .. and learn > THERE IS NO NEED TO TALK SO MUCH!! He wrote two lines .. that's not a lot > YOU KEEP ON TELLING US WHAT IT** IS NOT* He said what it is not AND what it is. Didn't you even both reading past the first three words? > SO FOR A CHANGE PLEASE TELL US: > > what* is * that m in the formula > > E - m c^2 invariant (or rest) mass. He (and I and others) have told you OVER and OVER and OVER > AGAIN > WHAT **IS** IT (that 'm') > (AND **NOT** WHAT IS IT NOT !!! invariant (or rest) mass. He (and I and others) have told you OVER and OVER and OVER > 2 > you gave me theCarbon exacple > and you bet that i know it and much firther about it Unlikely > I SHOWED YOU THAT THE * MASS LOST* OF PARTICLES--- TURNED TO *ENERGY > IS QUANTITATIVELY (AGAIN *QUANTITATIVELY* > > THE SAME AS REST MASS No .. PD showed YOU that the rest mass lost is 'converted' to energy. > (AGAIN IT IS QUANTITATIVELY-- ***THE SAME* > so now it is your turn to tell us > (**in addition to my above question**- IN ADDITIO0N ie not evading > my above question (:-) Noone is evading your questions .. you are evading the answers. > (because not all our 2000 readers are fools > or can be fooled around the bush ....) No .. just you > can you *note* AN EXPERIMENTAL DIFFERENCE DIFFERENCE (or a few > of them) > > BETWEEN REST MASS AND THE MASS THAT * YOU WILL DEFINE IN ANSWER TO MY > JUST ABOVE QUESTION !! > (**quantitatively** you failed to find a difference !!and you will > never find .....!! so what *else* a difference ...) > > see my abstract > > http://sites.google.com/site/theyporatmodel/an-abstract BAHAHA > and you bet that i dont need form you > explanations about what are MASS LOSSES Of course you need it .. you are ignorant and need all the knowledge you can get > in nuclear process > what are their qunatities etc etc > not only about the carbon Atom but all along the periodic table !! > (in return i can give *you* at least a semester of explanations > about it !!!) Bullshit
From: Y.Porat on 20 Apr 2010 23:09
On Apr 20, 10:25 pm, Tony M <marc...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > On Apr 20, 1:43 am, "Y.Porat" <y.y.po...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > On Apr 20, 1:13 am, artful <artful...(a)hotmail.com> wrote: > > > > On Apr 20, 12:21 am, "Y.Porat" <y.y.po...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > hat is the experimentally - measurable difference > > > > between rest mass and the 'relativistic mass' of the photon ??!! > > > > There have been experiments to measure the (invariant) mass of a > > > photon .. they are able to measure extremely small masses and so far > > > no photon mass has been found. > > > > There is a mass-equivalent-to-energy for photon energy .. the energy > > > of a single photon of EMR of frequency f is experimentally observed to > > > be given by E = hf. You can then divide that energy by c^2 to get an > > > equivalent mass for that energy. Of course, that mass is frequency > > > dependent, so you cannot talk about it being equivalent to the energy > > > of 'the photon' ... there is no 'the photon' when it comes to energy. > > > > Please refer tohttp://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/physics/ParticleAndNuclear/photon_mass.... > > > > > (at least for me-- the answer is obvious .....) > > > > You don't know enough physics to answer, let alone for it to be > > > obvious. > > > > > Another copyright question > > > > Don't be ridiculous .. copyrighting a question .. bahahaha !!! > > > ---------------- > > since you said something > > only HALF RELEVANT > > i will anwer > > EMR is a huge bunch of single photons!! > > ans we have been init > > more than enough !!! > > 2 > > single phoptons are measured to be active > > and detecable > > DURING MUCH LESS THAN A SECOND! > > SO WHILE E=hf IS **TIME DEPENDENT** > > (BY THE SCALAR PART OF f ) > > AND WE HAVE BEEN IN THAT MORE THAN ENOUGH) > > SO > > hf is notthe right definition of a single smalest photon > > energy > > if E=hf is not the definition of the smallest photon energy while > > EMR is defined by hf > > so > > even so it has mass and a lot of mass > > photon has as well Momentum!! > > P photon =m c > > if you put ther m = 0 > > you got another 'discovery'' > > > THAT THE MOMENTUM OF THE PHOTON IS ZERO !! > > etc etc etc > > 3 > > i am sick and tired to discuss with Artful > > and other anonymous that are committed by their > > gangsters Bosses to disturb me wherever i go !! > > > I WOULD LIKE TO SEE MORE OF THE SILENT > > (2000 ) > > READERS !!! > > TIA > > Y.Porat > > > Y.Porat > > ------------------------ Hide quoted text - > > > - Show quoted text - > > YP, > > One could say the rest mass of a photon is zero. In my opinion > rest mass simply does not apply to a photon since a photon cannot be > at rest. > > A photon has energy equivalent mass M=E/c^2. I would call this mass > relativistic because it is observer dependent. The energy of one > photon is E=hf; f is observer dependent therefore E and therefore M > are observer dependent. In the end it doesn't matter what we call this > mass as long as we are all talking about the same thing. > > When talking about the momentum of a photon one should not specify it > as a function of its mass, as mass can mean different things to > different readers, as you have noticed. Instead just use either P=E/c > or P=h/lambda. > > The energy of one photon is not time dependent; whether you measure > one photon for one second or one hour you get the same amount of > energy. After all, its still just one photon carrying a fixed amount > (quanta) of energy. I would assume the emission/absorption of a photon > is not instantaneous and, therefore, there must be a minimum time > requirement for measuring it, if thats what you mean. ------------- thanks anyway you cant ignore my question AND YOU CANT IGNORE THAT THERE IS m in that E=mc^2 that formula has only two components and you seem to igmore at least one half of that formula about photon energy time dependent or not it seems that you ddint folow by long discussions about it the f of that hf is composed of two sub components a the time unit 2 a scalar figure --- attached to it the time unit is indeed calceled by the time unit of the h BUTR THE SCALAR PART OF IT IS STILL ALIVE AND KICKING !! so you are flat wrong while you dont understnd that E=hf ** is ** time dependent by that scalar part of f THAT **IS* VARIABLE!! it is not your fault that you ddint notice it it is my 'fault" that i did notice it do you know why because i am first of all - a physicist (may be a physicist with some uncommon abilities .. or some long experience and persistence not to be a parrot as most people intend to do because it is easy to be a parrot ... ..) anyway Thanks Y.Porat ---------------------- |