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 10:45 On Apr 21, 3:19 pm, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > 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" 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 neutro > > > 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. ----------------- wrong!! iot is not enough that you 'told me' because i have something to 'tell you 'as well that above formula is not needed to the case that i brought to you and it seems tat you preference to ignore it i brought to you NOT ACCIDENTALLY BECAUSE I KNEW YOUR 'SYTEM' OF DEBATE TO -OBFUSCATE THINGS THAT ARE CRYSTAL CLEAR !! i gave you the fusion example : protns and neutrons in that process are 100 % turn some of its mass to energy in that case the fornula E=mc^2 is 100 percent presenting the case no need with your complicated it with the momentum addition !! E =mc^2 describes 100 percent of the case!! in which 27 MEV /c^2 mass rest mass of the nucleons THURNS TO 100 % ENERGY OF GAMMA RADIATION WHILE THE ENERGY THAT IS DELIVERED AS EXSOTERMIC ENERGY IS ** EXACTLY** 27 MEV/C^2 so the other part of youe above formula is zero !! iow not relevant to that case !! and you are not going to stuf me with ieleavnt formula because in that case i am a much more professional that you and that is why i quoted my abstract ! i did all of it based on only** if you dont understand my abstract go learn it !! E =mc^2 NO NEED FOR THE MORE GENERAL CASE to obfuscate the issue !!! 2 if you take your formula " E^2 = (mc^2)^2 + (pc)^2. lets take that p c part of it you cant run away from the content of the P P is mc or waht ever other expressionof it you will always find that 'm' in it because momestum is mc or Fdt !! do you see m in F or still not ?? do yu need for some help to see it ???!! (just remeber waht the old Catto told you NO MASS - NO REAL PHYSICS !!! anyway m is there and you cant run away from it so afain you have that m all along no matter how you will twinst or obfuscate it !! so my question is what is that m there ?!! is it invariant mass as Artful claim ?? and if it is 'variant mass' WHAT IS THE EXPERIMENTALLY VERIFIED DIFFERENCE BETWEEN THAT 'INVARIANT MASS AND THE ORDINARY 'REST MASS '???!! i already showd you that it is quantitatively exactly the same by 27 mev/c^2 exact;y the same magnitude that can be proved experimentally by measurements even for the EM gamma radiation of the100 % energy release !! so id the magnitude of both is the same what else a difference you have (keeping in mind that even your above formula contains mass thatif you eplace it by zero you will get a stupid zero energy socan you still say that m there is zero or nonexistent !! (btw the smarties of physics realzed that the cant ignore the existence of m there so they called it (the verbal washing ) invariant or 'relativistic mass' but still ****if you insert zero for it you become a registered stupid !! **** so i guess you understand now your contradiction dilemma ! and have to decide which way you go further !! between rest mass and your 'invariant mass' ??!! 3 i am not going to hide formyou my bottom line intention it is 1 there is JUST ONE KIND OF MASS !! 2 to prove that "" no mass no rea lphysics" AND IT IS HISTORICALLY IMPORTANT TO INTERNALIZE IT !! AND WHILE UNDERSTAND IT ALL DILEMMAS ARE SOLVED* AT ONCE* NICE AND CLEAN !!! TIA Y.Porat ----------------------------- ; > 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: PD on 21 Apr 2010 11:03 On Apr 21, 9:45 am, "Y.Porat" <y.y.po...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > On Apr 21, 3:19 pm, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > On Apr 20, 9:53 pm, "Y.Porat" <y.y.po...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > 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. > > ----------------- > wrong!! No, Porat, it is not wrong. What I told you is correct, and that is the physics that matches reality, according to experiment. > iot is not enough that you 'told me' > because i have something to 'tell you 'as well > that above formula > is not needed to the case that i brought to you > and it seems tat you preference to ignore it > i brought to you NOT ACCIDENTALLY > BECAUSE I KNEW YOUR 'SYTEM' OF DEBATE TO -OBFUSCATE THINGS THAT ARE > CRYSTAL CLEAR !! And the above expressions work in that case as well. > i gave you the fusion example : > > protns and neutrons in that process > are 100 % turn some of its mass to energy > in that case the fornula > E=mc^2 > > is 100 percent presenting the case > no need > with your complicated it with the momentum > addition !! > E =mc^2 > describes 100 percent of the case!! > in which > > 27 MEV /c^2 mass rest mass of the nucleons > THURNS TO 100 % ENERGY OF GAMMA > RADIATION > WHILE THE ENERGY THAT IS DELIVERED > AS EXSOTERMIC ENERGY IS ** EXACTLY** The energy of the photons that are radiated is given by that same expression E^2 = (mc^2)^2 + (pc)^2 and the radiation DOES carry momentum. > > 27 MEV/C^2 > so the other part of youe above formula is zero !! No, that is not true, Porat. You apparently don't know how to use the formulas. > iow not relevant to that case !! > and you are not going to stuf me with > ieleavnt formula > because in that case > i am a much more professional that you > and that is why i quoted my abstract ! > i did all of it based on only** > if you dont understand my abstract > go learn it !! > > E =mc^2 > NO NEED FOR THE MORE GENERAL CASE > to obfuscate the issue !!! It's not obfuscation, Porat. It's simply giving you the CORRECT expression and the meaning of the terms used in it. It is my refusing to allow you to oversimplify things to the point of mangling. If you are having trouble understanding it, then this is YOUR problem, not mine. What I've told you is correct. > 2 > if you take your formula " > > E^2 = (mc^2)^2 + (pc)^2. > lets take that p c part of it > you cant run away from the content of the > P > > P is mc or waht ever other expressionof it > you will always find that 'm' in it No, that is not true. P=mv is NOT the correct expression for momentum and you *certainly* don't ever want to use c for v in that expression. > because > momestum is mc or Fdt !! No, momentum is NEVER mc. Never. And Fdt also only applies in classical situations and does NOT describe how a photon acquires its momentum. You consistently use expressions you learned from freshman physics and try to use them as though they apply in all cases, when in fact they ONLY work in classical situations. Extending them to use beyond that is a mistake. > do you see m in F or still not ?? > do yu need for some help to see it ???!! > (just remeber waht the old Catto told you > NO MASS - NO REAL PHYSICS !!! > anyway > m is there and you cant run away from it > so afain you have that m all along > no matter how you will twinst or obfuscate it !! > so my question is > what is that m there ?!! > is it invariant mass as Artful claim ?? > > and if it is 'variant mass' > WHAT IS THE EXPERIMENTALLY VERIFIED DIFFERENCE > BETWEEN THAT 'INVARIANT MASS > AND THE ORDINARY 'REST MASS '???!! > i already showd you that > it is quantitatively exactly the same > by > 27 mev/c^2 exact;y the same magnitude > that can be proved experimentally by measurements even for the EM > gamma radiation of the100 % energy release !! > so > id the magnitude of both is the same > what else a difference you have > (keeping in mind that > even your above formula contains mass > thatif you eplace it by zero > you will get a stupid zero energy > socan you still say that > m there is zero or nonexistent !! > > (btw > the smarties of physics > realzed that the cant ignore the existence > of m there > so they called it (the verbal washing ) > invariant or 'relativistic mass' > but still > ****if you insert zero for it > you become a registered stupid !! **** > so > i guess you understand now > your contradiction dilemma ! > and have to decide > which way you go further !! > > between > rest mass and your 'invariant mass' ??!! > 3 > i am not going to hide formyou my bottom line > intention > it is > 1 > there is JUST ONE KIND OF MASS !! That is simply not true, Porat. > 2 > to prove that > "" no mass no rea lphysics" > > AND IT IS HISTORICALLY IMPORTANT TO INTERNALIZE IT !! > > AND WHILE UNDERSTAND IT > ALL DILEMMAS ARE SOLVED* AT ONCE* > NICE AND CLEAN !!! > > TIA > Y.Porat > ----------------------------- >
From: Y.Porat on 21 Apr 2010 12:00 On Apr 21, 5:03 pm, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > On Apr 21, 9:45 am, "Y.Porat" <y.y.po...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > On Apr 21, 3:19 pm, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > On Apr 20, 9:53 pm, "Y.Porat" <y.y.po...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > 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. > > > ----------------- > > wrong!! > > No, Porat, it is not wrong. What I told you is correct, and that is > the physics that matches reality, according to experiment. > > > iot is not enough that you 'told me' > > because i have something to 'tell you 'as well > > that above formula > > is not needed to the case that i brought to you > > and it seems tat you preference to ignore it > > i brought to you NOT ACCIDENTALLY > > BECAUSE I KNEW YOUR 'SYTEM' OF DEBATE TO -OBFUSCATE THINGS THAT ARE > > CRYSTAL CLEAR !! > > And the above expressions work in that case as well. > > > > > i gave you the fusion example : > > > protns and neutrons in that process > > are 100 % turn some of its mass to energy > > in that case the fornula > > E=mc^2 > > > is 100 percent presenting the case > > no need > > with your complicated it with the momentum > > addition !! > > E =mc^2 > > describes 100 percent of the case!! > > in which > > > 27 MEV /c^2 mass rest mass of the nucleons > > THURNS TO 100 % ENERGY OF GAMMA > > RADIATION > > WHILE THE ENERGY THAT IS DELIVERED > > AS EXSOTERMIC ENERGY IS ** EXACTLY** > > The energy of the photons that are radiated is given by that same > expression > E^2 = (mc^2)^2 + (pc)^2 ------------------ lets stop handwavings and stick even to your above formula if you atke pc it must be exactly as mc^2 because p is mc !!and while multiply i by another c it becomes mc^2 !!! **or else your formula becomes crippled** at least dimensionally by combining *by tht plus there) apples with tomato !! --------------------------- > and the radiation DOES carry momentum. exactly yet just see above ! > ------------------ yes indeed because pc CANNOT BE SOMETHING ELSE BUT mc^2 see the m there !!! ------------- > > > > 27 MEV/C^2 > > so the other part of youe above formula is zero !! > > No, that is not true, Porat. You apparently don't know how to use the > formulas. --------------------- (:-) al my cross verigfied model thjatis in your hands is absed on BINGING ENERGIES (DETERMINED IN ADVANCE ) TURNING COMPLETELY TONET ENERGY JUST ACORDING E=mc^2 and nothing else the binding energies mass lost is turned tonet energy byjust E=mc^2 and even if you use it for shoting out of sub particle see abobe about mc^2 + pc !!! it is still all of them mc^2 got from mass lost !! that can be measured !! so pleae dont speek in behalf of experiments just by hand waving !! ---------------- it is proven all along nuclear processes !! 9in chemistry itis the same but much more diffucult to meaure mass losses in chemical parocesses !!) > > > iow not relevant to that case !! > > and you are not going to stuf me with > > ieleavnt formula > > because in that case > > i am a much more professional that you > > and that is why i quoted my abstract ! > > i did all of it based on only** > > if you dont understand my abstract > > go learn it !! > > > E =mc^2 > > NO NEED FOR THE MORE GENERAL CASE > > to obfuscate the issue !!! > > It's not obfuscation, Porat. It's simply giving you the CORRECT > expression and the meaning of the terms used in it. It is my refusing > to allow you to oversimplify things to the point of mangling. If you > are having trouble understanding it, then this is YOUR problem, not > mine. What I've told you is correct. ---------------- again empty hand wavings see above -------------- > > > 2 > > if you take your formula " > > > E^2 = (mc^2)^2 + (pc)^2. > > lets take that p c part of it > > you cant run away from the content of the > > P > > > P is mc or waht ever other expressionof it > > you will always find that 'm' in it > > No, that is not true. P=mv is NOT the correct expression for momentum ------------- see above i ddint say mv I SAID ** mc **fror momentum !!! and while multiply it by another c you get mc^2 !! it cant be otherwise!! ----------------- please dont obfuscate and i explained that had pc not mc^2 your above formula becoms nonsense !! ------------------------- > and you *certainly* don't ever want to use c for v in that expression. no if i ddi it that i am not sure it is a typo mistake but the main idea is stil right ------------------ > > > because > > momestum is mc or Fdt !! > > No, momentum is NEVER mc. Never. (:-) so your combined formula with mc times c is not mc^2 than . pc must be dimensionally and physically equal to mc^2 !! or else you cant combine them with a plus sign --- on the same line !! ...... needi have to go on with it ?? ------------------ > > And Fdt also only applies in classical situations and does NOT > describe how a photon acquires its momentum. ok take i t as mc snd see above ----------------- > > You consistently use expressions you learned from freshman physics - if you go on with your ''freah man'' about me you aregoing to ' have it' from me (:-) PD why not dsicuss appositely ?? we are doing quite will withit no need for demagogy !! ------------- and > try to use them as though they apply in all cases, when in fact they > ONLY work in classical situations. Extending them to use beyond that > is a mistake. ----------------- i dint present just clasical all ido here is far form jsut parroting the existing paradigms !! ---------- > > > > > do you see m in F or still not ?? > > do you need for some help to see it ???!! > > (just remeber waht the old Catto told you > > NO MASS - NO REAL PHYSICS !!! > > anyway > > m is there and you cant run away from it > > so afain you have that m all along > > no matter how you will twinst or obfuscate it !! > > so my question is > > what is that m there ?!! > > is it invariant mass as Artful claim ?? > > > and if it is 'variant mass' > > WHAT IS THE EXPERIMENTALLY VERIFIED DIFFERENCE > > BETWEEN THAT 'INVARIANT MASS > > AND THE ORDINARY 'REST MASS '???!! > > i already showd you that > > it is quantitatively exactly the same > > by > > 27 mev/c^2 exact;y the same magnitude > > that can be proved experimentally by measurements even for the EM > > gamma radiation of the100 % energy release !! > > so > > id the magnitude of both is the same > > what else a difference you have > > (keeping in mind that > > even your above formula contains mass > > thatif you eplace it by zero > > you will get a stupid zero energy > > socan you still say that > > m there is zero or nonexistent !! > > > (btw > > the smarties of physics > > realzed that the cant ignore the existence > > of m there > > so they called it (the verbal washing ) > > invariant or 'relativistic mass' > > but still > > ****if you insert zero for it > > you become a registered stupid !! **** > > so > > i guess you understand now > > your contradiction dilemma ! > > and have to decide > > which way you go further !! > > > between > > rest mass and your 'invariant mass' ??!! > > 3 > > i am not going to hide formyou my bottom line > > intention > > it is > > 1 > > there is JUST ONE KIND OF MASS !! > > That is simply not true, Porat. > > > 2 > > to prove that > > "" no mass no rea lphysics" > > > AND IT IS HISTORICALLY IMPORTANT TO INTERNALIZE IT !! > > > AND WHILE UNDERSTAND IT > > ALL DILEMMAS ARE SOLVED* AT ONCE* > > NICE AND CLEAN !!! > TIA Y.Porat > > -----------------------------
From: PD on 21 Apr 2010 12:25 On Apr 21, 11:00 am, "Y.Porat" <y.y.po...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > On Apr 21, 5:03 pm, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > On Apr 21, 9:45 am, "Y.Porat" <y.y.po...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > On Apr 21, 3:19 pm, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > On Apr 20, 9:53 pm, "Y.Porat" <y.y.po...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > 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. > > > > ----------------- > > > wrong!! > > > No, Porat, it is not wrong. What I told you is correct, and that is > > the physics that matches reality, according to experiment. > > > > iot is not enough that you 'told me' > > > because i have something to 'tell you 'as well > > > that above formula > > > is not needed to the case that i brought to you > > > and it seems tat you preference to ignore it > > > i brought to you NOT ACCIDENTALLY > > > BECAUSE I KNEW YOUR 'SYTEM' OF DEBATE TO -OBFUSCATE THINGS THAT ARE > > > CRYSTAL CLEAR !! > > > And the above expressions work in that case as well. > > > > i gave you the fusion example : > > > > protns and neutrons in that process > > > are 100 % turn some of its mass to energy > > > in that case the fornula > > > E=mc^2 > > > > is 100 percent presenting the case > > > no need > > > with your complicated it with the momentum > > > addition !! > > > E =mc^2 > > > describes 100 percent of the case!! > > > in which > > > > 27 MEV /c^2 mass rest mass of the nucleons > > > THURNS TO 100 % ENERGY OF GAMMA > > > RADIATION > > > WHILE THE ENERGY THAT IS DELIVERED > > > AS EXSOTERMIC ENERGY IS ** EXACTLY** > > > The energy of the photons that are radiated is given by that same > > expression > > E^2 = (mc^2)^2 + (pc)^2 > > ------------------ > lets stop handwavings and stick even to > your above formula > > if you atke pc > it must be exactly as mc^2 > because > p is mc !! No. P is never mc. Never. That formula NEVER gives the momentum of any object. This is simply wrong, Porat. > and while multiply i > by another c > it becomes mc^2 !!! > **or else your formula becomes crippled** > at least dimensionally > by combining *by tht plus there) > apples with tomato !! > ---------------------------> and the radiation DOES carry momentum. > > exactly yet just see above !> ------------------ > > yes indeed > because pc > CANNOT BE SOMETHING ELSE BUT > mc^2 > see the m there !!! > ------------- > > > > 27 MEV/C^2 > > > so the other part of youe above formula is zero !! > > > No, that is not true, Porat. You apparently don't know how to use the > > formulas. > > --------------------- > (:-) > > al my cross verigfied model thjatis in your hands > is absed on > BINGING ENERGIES (DETERMINED IN ADVANCE ) > TURNING COMPLETELY TONET ENERGY > JUST ACORDING > E=mc^2 and nothing else > the binding energies mass lost > is turned tonet energy > byjust E=mc^2 > and even if you use it for shoting out of sub particle > see abobe about > mc^2 + pc !!! > it is still all of them mc^2 > got from mass lost !! > that can be measured !! > so pleae dont speek in behalf of experiments > just by hand waving !! > ---------------- > > it is proven all along nuclear processes !! > 9in chemistry itis the same > but much more diffucult to meaure > mass losses in chemical parocesses !!) > > > > > > iow not relevant to that case !! > > > and you are not going to stuf me with > > > ieleavnt formula > > > because in that case > > > i am a much more professional that you > > > and that is why i quoted my abstract ! > > > i did all of it based on only** > > > if you dont understand my abstract > > > go learn it !! > > > > E =mc^2 > > > NO NEED FOR THE MORE GENERAL CASE > > > to obfuscate the issue !!! > > > It's not obfuscation, Porat. It's simply giving you the CORRECT > > expression and the meaning of the terms used in it. It is my refusing > > to allow you to oversimplify things to the point of mangling. If you > > are having trouble understanding it, then this is YOUR problem, not > > mine. What I've told you is correct. > > ---------------- > again empty hand wavings No, it's not, Porat. What I've told you is correct and has been tested in literally thousands of applications. If you don't understand it, that doesn't make it handwaving. > see above > -------------- > > > > 2 > > > if you take your formula " > > > > E^2 = (mc^2)^2 + (pc)^2. > > > lets take that p c part of it > > > you cant run away from the content of the > > > P > > > > P is mc or waht ever other expressionof it > > > you will always find that 'm' in it > > > No, that is not true. P=mv is NOT the correct expression for momentum > > ------------- > see above i ddint say mv > > I SAID ** mc **fror momentum !!! And that is also NEVER correct. mc is not the momentum of ANY object in nature. > and while multiply it by another c you get > mc^2 !! > it cant be otherwise!! > ----------------- > > please dont obfuscate > and i explained that had pc not mc^2 > your above formula becoms nonsense !! > ------------------------- > > > and you *certainly* don't ever want to use c for v in that expression. > > no > if i ddi it that i am not sure > it is a typo mistake > but the main idea is stil right > ------------------ > > > > > > because > > > momestum is mc or Fdt !! > > > No, momentum is NEVER mc. Never. > > (:-) > so your combined formula with mc times c > is not mc^2 than . > pc must be dimensionally and physically > equal to mc^2 !! > or else you cant combine them with a plus sign --- on the same > line !! > > ..... needi have to go on with it ?? > ------------------ > > > And Fdt also only applies in classical situations and does NOT > > describe how a photon acquires its momentum. > > ok take i t as mc > snd see above > ----------------- > > > You consistently use expressions you learned from freshman physics > > - > if you go on with your ''freah man'' > about me > you aregoing to ' have it' from me (:-) > > PD why not dsicuss appositely > ?? > we are doing quite will withit > no need for demagogy !! > > ------------- > > and> try to use them as though they apply in all cases, when in fact they > > ONLY work in classical situations. Extending them to use beyond that > > is a mistake. > > ----------------- > i dint present just clasical > all ido here is far form jsut > parroting the existing paradigms !! > ---------- > > > > > > do you see m in F or still not ?? > > > do you need for some help to see it ???!! > > > (just remeber waht the old Catto told you > > > NO MASS - NO REAL PHYSICS !!! > > > anyway > > > m is there and you cant run away from it > > > so afain you have that m all along > > > no matter how you will twinst or obfuscate it !! > > > so my question is > > > what is that m there ?!! > > > is it invariant mass as Artful claim ?? > > > > and if it is 'variant mass' > > > WHAT IS THE EXPERIMENTALLY VERIFIED DIFFERENCE > > > BETWEEN THAT 'INVARIANT MASS > > > AND THE ORDINARY 'REST MASS '???!! > > > i already showd you that > > > it is quantitatively exactly the same > > > by > > > 27 mev/c^2 exact;y the same magnitude > > > that can be proved experimentally by measurements even for the EM > > > gamma radiation of the100 % energy release !! > > > so > > > id the magnitude of both is the same > > > what else a difference you have > > > (keeping in mind that > > > even your above formula contains mass > > > thatif you eplace it by zero > > > you will get a stupid zero energy > > > socan you still say that > > > m there is zero or nonexistent !! > > > > (btw > > > the smarties of physics > > > realzed that the cant ignore the existence > > > of m there > > > so they called it (the verbal washing ) > > > invariant or 'relativistic mass' > > > but still > > > ****if you insert zero for it > > > you become a registered stupid !! **** > > > so > > > i guess you understand now > > > your contradiction dilemma ! > > > and have to decide > > > which way you go further !! > > > > between > > > rest mass and your 'invariant mass' ??!! > > > 3 > > > i am not going to hide formyou my bottom line > > > intention > > > it is > > > 1 > > > there is JUST ONE KIND OF MASS !! > > > That is simply not true, Porat. > > > > 2 > > > to prove that > > > "" no mass no rea lphysics" > > > > AND IT IS HISTORICALLY IMPORTANT TO INTERNALIZE IT !! > > > > AND WHILE UNDERSTAND IT > > > ALL DILEMMAS ARE SOLVED* AT ONCE* > > > NICE AND CLEAN !!! > > TIA > Y.Porat > > > > ----------------------------- > >
From: Y.Porat on 21 Apr 2010 13:39
On Apr 21, 4:00 pm, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > 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!! > ------------------------ inpost No 39 PD gave me a reply as in Philosophy ng so On Apr 21, 4:00 pm, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > 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 ------------ there was some trick topreventme from answering so i bring it back here On Apr 21, 4:00 pm, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > 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. ------------------ nothing is hobbling me ------------------ just a moment i am going to see inthe dictionary what is hobbling -(:-) --no i ddint find anyway lets talk physics argument specific arguments and not abstract hand wavings ------------- > 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", -------------- not energy or mass?? !! so what else for instance (:-) -------------- 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, -------- that exactly waht i want to prove that tereis jsut one kind of mass BECAUSE unlike literature if you are going to invent another kind of mass the burden of prof is **on you** and that is exactly our discussion about !! -------------- 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 ---------------- why obfuscate we are dealing now about energy of EM radiation do you have something else in your mind ?? ------- > > This is simply not true. You cannot oversimplify physical laws to make > them conform to your understanding. -------------- one of he greatest tasks of mine is to simplify physics it seemst aht one of your intentions is to complicate it btw i hope that you got already that one of the secretes of good analysis is to ry and dis-mental a complicated probel to its sub smaller problems !!! ------------- > > When you see an equation like E=mc^2, each of those terms means > something that may be dependent on the context, ----------- wrong !! that formula s power is in its being universal !! ---------------- 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, so pleae tell us what is specifically our context about mass of the EM rqdiation !! ---------------- > 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 --------------- why do you speak riddles why not talk specifically after all we are not just philosophers but try to be practical physicists !! that bring some concrete use to our places ------------ ------ > that the variables can mean one and only one thing only makes the > mistake a deeper one. ok take the lead tomake it pinted to specific direstions like does energy of EM has mass or not does the phootnhas mass or not but still dont dsiperse it to a hundred directions because i tild you oneof the secretes of good analysis ie to concentrate -to be targeted to some specific problem forinsatnce as i did it in my op post how about it ??? (:-) if you like to take some break for breading lets take some break !! and may be others (not including Artful (:-) can get in meanwhile and say what they think and examine all about it ATB Y.Porat -------------- |