What is the experimentally measurable difference between rest mass and the 'relativistic mass' of the photon ??!!
in [Relativity]
|
From: Y.Porat on 21 Apr 2010 03:23 On Apr 21, 5:00 am, artful <artful...(a)hotmail.com> wrote: > 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 ---------------------- Psychopath gangster imbecile let PD answer it neither him not i need your fucken idiotic help !! and he does not need your idiotic help to hide behind your stupid fucken back !!! UNLESS PD HAS ANOTHER NAME-- IE ARTFUL (:-) !!! if he has another name let us know about it !!!...... (:-) Y.P -----------------------
From: Y.Porat on 22 Apr 2010 21:20 On Apr 23, 12:07 am, ben6993 <ben6...(a)hotmail.com> wrote: > On Apr 22, 9:24 pm, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > On Apr 22, 2:58 pm, "Y.Porat" <y.y.po...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > On Apr 22, 8:48 pm, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > On Apr 22, 1:10 pm, "Y.Porat" <y.y.po...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > On Apr 22, 6:26 pm, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > > On Apr 22, 11:16 am, "Y.Porat" <y.y.po...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > daring, or taunting. Suck it up and do it. > > > > > > TIA > > > > > Y.Porat > > > > > --------------- Hide quoted text - > > > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text - > > > - Show quoted text - > > I think we can all guess that one other prolific poster is using an AI > program to generate post content. But there would be room, in my > opinion, for another AI program on the lines of Porat, if he were not > contributing. The sheer stubbornness of him never deviating from his > ideas is useful in making one explain things very clearly and > repeatedly (though frustrating for you, the explainer). ------------------ than you Ben!! more clear explanations (that seems not being written in any current book-) of mine are on the way ?? (:-) so if you dont mind we are doing history here - on this 'amateurs ' ng ATB Y.Porat ---------------------
From: artful on 22 Apr 2010 21:25 On Apr 23, 11:20 am, "Y.Porat" <y.y.po...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > On Apr 23, 12:07 am, ben6993 <ben6...(a)hotmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > > On Apr 22, 9:24 pm, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > On Apr 22, 2:58 pm, "Y.Porat" <y.y.po...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > On Apr 22, 8:48 pm, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > On Apr 22, 1:10 pm, "Y.Porat" <y.y.po...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > > On Apr 22, 6:26 pm, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > > > On Apr 22, 11:16 am, "Y.Porat" <y.y.po...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > daring, or taunting. Suck it up and do it. > > > > > > > TIA > > > > > > Y.Porat > > > > > > --------------- Hide quoted text - > > > > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text - > > > > - Show quoted text - > > > I think we can all guess that one other prolific poster is using an AI > > program to generate post content. But there would be room, in my > > opinion, for another AI program on the lines of Porat, if he were not > > contributing. The sheer stubbornness of him never deviating from his > > ideas is useful in making one explain things very clearly and > > repeatedly (though frustrating for you, the explainer). > > ------------------ > than you Ben!! > more clear explanations > (that seems not being written in any current book-) > of mine are on the way ?? (:-) You have never made any sort of clear explanation .. you pull formulas out of the air and refuse to answer questions and deny experimental evidence and valid physics. > so if you dont mind > we are doing history here - on this 'amateurs ' ng No .. just rehashing the same misconceptions that you've always had and showing where you are going wrong. The problem is, you don't seem capable of learning. Perhaps if you stopped your silly 'copyrighting' nonsense and trying to be a great innovator by being the 'first' to post nonsense, and instead first started with an open mind that is willing to learn and to ask questions, you MIGHT get somewhere. Then you wouldn't be 'diverted' to alt.morons.
From: BURT on 22 Apr 2010 22:07 On Apr 22, 9:26 am, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > On Apr 22, 11:16 am, "Y.Porat" <y.y.po...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > > On Apr 22, 4:26 pm, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > On Apr 22, 8:56 am, Tony M <marc...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > Artful, PD, > > > > > If you dont mind, lets elaborate on the invariant mass of a closed > > > > system of particles (which includes both massive and massless > > > > particles <photons>). These particles would have arbitrary velocities > > > > (not applicable to photons of course) and directions within the > > > > system. How do we define the invariant mass of such a system? > > > > First, what it clearly is not is the sum of the rest masses of the > > > constituents of the system, which in this case would be zero, since > > > the rest masses of the photons are zero. What may not be obvious, but > > > is also true, is that the invariant mass is not necessarily the sum of > > > the relativistic masses of the photons either! > > > > The way to find the invariant mass is very simple: > > > m^2 = (sum[E])^2 - (sum[p])^2 > > > ------------------ > > very simple (:-)indeed > > but i showed you that p=mc > > No, Porat, if you'll look, I've told you that p=mc describes nothing > in our universe. This formula for momentum is flat wrong. It does not > work for *anything*. > > > > > > > AND NOTHING THERE TO MULTIPLY IT BY ZERO !! > > NORE GAMMA FACTOR TO MAKE IT > > DIFFERENT *QUANTITATIVELY* FROM REST MASS > > > ??!! > > so now you **invented **different masses > > in different circumstances > > but we see that **quantitatively* you have no base for your new > > invention ... > > yet > > bingo i stated to understand you !!: > > while one sort of mass is going to a wedding > > it has a happy face > > and while i t is going to a funeral > > it gets a sad face > > so we got here > > a new kind of chameleon mass ---- > > > --- A** CHAMELEON MASS **!! > > from the *chameleon* school directed by PD !! > > what are those CIRCUMSTANCES ?? > > it is ONLY for the genius (Shakespear )PD to decide !! > > Nonsense, Porat. It's all pretty basic stuff, and it's all in pretty > low level textbooks. I've not made it up, and it's not a new invention > of any kind, and it isn't really up for a vote or an argument on a > newsgroup. You either learn it or you don't. > > > > > i just wonder what else and how many new > > circumstances and the related kinds of mass !! (:-) > > > Y.Porat > > --------------------------------- > > > SO > > WHAT IS THE DIFFERENC EBETWEEN THE TWO ??!! > > > > where the sum[E] is the scalar sum of the energies of the > > > constituents, and > > > sum[p] is the vector sum of the momenta of the constituents. > > > > > Furthermore, how would one determine the center of mass for this > > > > system? Which individual masses of the particles should one consider > > > > when doing this? Are photons taken into account for the center of > > > > mass? > > > > It's not necessary to choose the center of mass frame for this system, > > > as the invariant mass is invariant, independent of frame. > > > ----------------------- > > > > > Assuming now there are nuclear reactions taking place in this system > > > > (which we defined as closed => all products of these reactions are > > > > considered part of the system), how would these reactions affect the > > > > invariant mass, center of mass, momentum and total energy of this > > > > system? > > > ---------------------------- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text - There is no absolute rest for a light wave. If its energy was from its motion all light would be of the same energy from a kinetic energy of the C constant. Mitch Raemsch
From: artful on 21 Apr 2010 04:27
On Apr 21, 5:23 pm, "Y.Porat" <y.y.po...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > On Apr 21, 5:00 am, artful <artful...(a)hotmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > > 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 > > ---------------------- > Psychopath gangster imbecile That's you again. Why do you keep tellign everyone that's what you are ?? We all know it. > let PD answer it I'm not stopping him > neither him > not i need your fucken idiotic help !! You most certainly need ALL the help you can get . thing is .. you are proud of your ignorance .. guess you have a lot to be proud of. > and he does not need your idiotic help I never said he did .. but you do > to hide behind your stupid fucken back !!! What makes you think he is hiding anywhere? > UNLESS PD HAS ANOTHER NAME-- > IE > ARTFUL (:-) !!! > if he has another name > let us know about it !!!...... (:-) You really are paranoid. And .. as usual, not a single word of physics in your replies. |