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 07:35 On Apr 21, 10:27 am, artful <artful...(a)hotmail.com> wrote: > 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. ------------------ psychopath!! who at all invited a psycho like you to my thread ?? if you dont like me go discuss with your parrots your obsession with me is obvious !! every one can see that irrational obsession dont you have other prople to dsicuss with ?? go discuss with Josef Goebbels now jet PD answer my question he as well intered my thread by his free will so let him answer !! we heared you dumb parrot - more than enough while i have still more to innovate (beyond all the wratting it seeme that i am one of the interesting writers here and may be there is some reason in it (:-)!! so if you dont appreciate it than find someone better to fight with ...may be with your wife ?? (:-) and at last i find that the psycho Nazi pig tried to divert me to his Nazi pig morons where he belongs while that psychopth still didnt learn that he cant do it to me anymore another sign of mental psycho retard (:-) Y.P -----------
From: Y.Porat on 21 Apr 2010 08:58 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. > > 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 - ----------------------- Mr PD (only ) yet it is still not consistent with some facts you cant ignore the fact that in E=mc^2 there is m mass!! so what is the m doing in that E=m c^2:: 2 did the reverent 'Artful'' understood you rightly that your interpretation of m (in m c^2) is that m -- is 'invariant mass' ?? TIA Y.Porat ------------------------------
From: PD on 21 Apr 2010 09:19 On Apr 20, 9:53 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 > > 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 !!! I *did* tell you. It is the *rest mass*. It is the same mass that appears in the correct expression for the total energy: E^2 = (mc^2)^2 + (pc)^2. The first term in the expression for the total energy is the rest energy, and that term involves the rest mass. I don't know why this is so difficult for you. > 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* No, it is not, because what carries that energy away is a photon and photons do not have rest mass. It does not matter that the amount of energy is the same as the amount of rest mass lost (times c^2). It is nevertheless no longer rest mass. It is converted to energy. > 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 21 Apr 2010 09:47 On Apr 21, 10:58 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. > > > 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 - > > ----------------------- > Mr PD (only ) > yet it is still not consistent with some facts PD's comments (and mine) are valid physics and consistent with facts > you cant ignore the fact that > in > E=mc^2 > there is m mass!! Yes .. and for a photon that mass is ZERO .. and so the E is ZERO. A photon doesn't rest and so its rest energy and invariant (or rest) mass are zero. If you are meaning the E = Mc^2 (where E is total energy of a moving system, and M is relativistic the mass) then that is a different matter (sic). > so what is the m doing in that E=m c^2:: What do you mean "what is it doing" ? it is just sitting there being shown to be proportional to the energy. The more rest mass, the more rest energy there is. > 2 > did the reverent 'Artful'' understood you rightly that > your interpretation of m (in m c^2) > is > that m -- is 'invariant mass' ?? Of course I did. 'rest mass', 'invariant mass', 'proper mass', or just 'mass' are all synonyms for the same thing .. m (sometimes expressed as m_0)
From: PD on 21 Apr 2010 10:00
On Apr 21, 7:58 am, "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. > > > 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 - > > ----------------------- > Mr PD (only ) > yet it is still not consistent with some facts > > you cant ignore the fact that > in > E=mc^2 > there is m mass!! > so what is the m doing in that E=m c^2:: > 2 > did the reverent 'Artful'' understood you rightly that > your interpretation of m (in m c^2) > is > that m -- is 'invariant mass' ?? > TIA > Y.Porat > ------------------------------ Porat, I think you are suffering from an idea that is hobbling you. You apparently think that when you see an equation like E=mc^2, that each of those variables can be attributed to a word like "energy" or "mass", and furthermore each of those words can mean one and only one thing. So you see "m" and think "mass" and you furthermore believe that "mass" can have one and only one meaning, and that it is the meaning you have in mind. Likewise, you see "E" and think "energy" and that "energy" can mean one and only one thing and it is what you have in mind. This is simply not true. You cannot oversimplify physical laws to make them conform to your understanding. When you see an equation like E=mc^2, each of those terms means something that may be dependent on the context, and the E in one equation might mean something completely different than the same E in a different equation. It is therefore extremely important to not look at equations in stand-alone fashion, but to use them only in context, where the meaning of those variables is carefully explained along with the presentation of the equation. This means work, but if you don't do it, you end up being mistaken about what you're looking at. Insisting that the variables can mean one and only one thing only makes the mistake a deeper one. PD |