Who is really the 'personality' that calls himself 'Inertial' ??!!
in [Physics]
|
Prev: Defining the "War On Some Drugs"
Next: All laws in science are based upon explanations of observations. All explanations are theoretical. Therefore laws are theories.
From: Inertial on 13 Jun 2010 00:17 "Y.Porat" <y.y.porat(a)gmail.com> wrote in message news:329b9ff0-7505-41b5-890c-6bff89a5b8ef(a)x21g2000yqa.googlegroups.com... > On Jun 13, 2:48 am, "Inertial" <relativ...(a)rest.com> wrote: >> "Y.Porat" <y.y.po...(a)gmail.com> wrote in message >> >> news:4262fd54-8649-4d94-a377-71933fe60c9b(a)x27g2000yqb.googlegroups.com... >> >> > On Jun 12, 5:39 pm, "Inertial" <relativ...(a)rest.com> wrote: >> >> "Y.Porat" <y.y.po...(a)gmail.com> wrote in message >> >> >> >> Hopefully its because you realize that attacking,. insulting, and lying >> about the people who are kinf enough to discuss your post with you is not >> productive. You're just lucky that there are a couple of people that >> give >> you the time of day. > -------------------- > speak physics !!! ( )! I always do .. when physics is spoken to me .. as I did in the remainder of my reply and in the remainder of this post. I was addressing YOUR non-physics statements (which you dishonestly snipped above) > or else i am going to tell you my hand waving Oh .. are you taunting me. > the name of the game is PHYSICS ARGUMENTS Which you do not understand, > NOT DEMAGOGIC HAND WAVINGS > THAT I CAM DO EVEN BETTER THAN YOU BESIDE PHYSICS ARGUMENTS > AS YOU WILL SEE LATER Nope. > you are jucky yhat i spend time with you BAHAHA .. you have that backwards. Noone else bothers to respond to you for any length of tiem. I'm just HOPING that you might learn. So far it appears you have at least learnt to control your temper and your foul language (for a while) .. so that's a start. > ------------------ > - >> > >> >> >> >> I never said it got multiplied by zero. Photon momentum is >> >> >> non-zero. >> >> >> I've >> >> >> never said otherwise. And when you divide that momentum by c you >> >> >> get >> >> >> its >> >> >> relativstic / apparent / inertial (pick your favorite >> >> > ----------------------- >> >> > is it an as you like it program ???!! >> >> > or is it physics ?? >> >> >> Physics .. I'm always discussing physics and presenting valid physics >> >> arguments. > > hand waving !! Nope .. physics. Maybe you can't tell the difference? > do you say that > relativistic and inertial mass is the same ?? They are both mass measurements, but different values. I've answered you already about that on a number of occasions. Again you dishonestly removed my detailed answers to that along with analogies from your reply. That's cheating, Porat. > so why call them differnt names ?? Because they are different > -------------- > > >> >> >> > you ay >> >> > it is relativistic mass if you divide it by c >> >> >> It is all relativistic (ie what SR predicts) already. But yes .. if >> >> you >> >> take the energy of the photon and divide by c you get its momentum. >> >> If >> >> you >> >> divide that by c you get its relativistic or apparent or inertial >> >> mass. >> >> >> The concept is that in the Newtonian world (approximated when v <<c) >> >> we >> >> have >> >> p = mv .. so if you know p and v, you can calculate m = p/v.. When v >> >> for >> >> an >> >> object gets closer to c, one notices that the mass that is apparent >> >> when >> >> we >> >> calculate it that way increases above the rest mass. > > ---------------- > SO WHILE YOU TALK ABOUT V/C I wasn't > YOU ARE ACTUALLY **USE* > THE GAMMA FACTOR !! No. There is no gamma factor in v/c > AND ACTUALLY YOU CANT HAVE THE DIFFERENCE UNLESS BETWEEN REST MAS > AND RELATIVISTIC MASS > **UNLESS *** > YOU USE THE GAMMA FACTOR > RIGHT ?? No. I just told you that in the post you are replying to that you dishonestly snipped. You can use M = P/v for calculating the relativistic mass for any object (even a photon) .. no gamma factor involved. For speeds v < c, you can use the formulas that DO have a gamma involved to get a finite results. At v = c, the formulas that have a gamma in them result in indeterminate, infinite or zero values. I've told you all of these many times before > --------------------------------------- > This is the >> >> relativistic or inertial or apparent mass. >> >> >> BTW: note that even in Newtonian phsyics, m =p/v is indeterminate when >> >> v=0 > SO ?? > > IT MEANS THAT ANY PHYSICS FORMULA HAS ITS > LIMITS OF VALIDATION THAT YOU CANT > EXTRAPOLATE !! > RIGHT ?? The formulas are valid where they are valid. However YOU do not get to choose where that is. The theory BEHIND the formulas determines that > so > while v=c > it is a limit case in which there is no gamma No .. there is gamma = 1/0 = infinity ... 1/gamma = 0 ... 0/gamma = indeterminate That is why we know that at v=c, an object with (rest) mass would have infinite relativistic mass, and infinite energy, and infinite momentum. And that it would take an infinite amount of energy to put an object with (rest) mass at speed c. So THAT is why we know that no object with (rest) mass can have speed v=c The only things that can achieve a speed of c are ones with zero rest mass, and the formulas of relativity tell us that an object with v =c must have a (rest) mass m = 0. > BECAUSE YOU CANT USE IT ANY MORE !! It depends on the formula .. you may get a zero value or an infinite value or an indeterminate value (ie the formula does not tell you anything). > SO > HOW DO YOU PROVE THAT > NO REST MASS CAN REACH c Because if it did, the relativistic mass becomes infinite etc > !!!WHILE YOU HAVE NO > MATHEMATICAL TOOL > TO PROVE IT ??!! But we do .. sorry, you are simply wrong on this > (iow > you cant use it by the gamma factor > that by definition does not work at that point But it doesn't "not work" by definition at that point.
From: Y.Porat on 13 Jun 2010 04:31
On Jun 13, 6:17 am, "Inertial" finite etc > > > !!!WHILE YOU HAVE NO > > MATHEMATICAL TOOL > > TO PROVE IT ??!! > > But we do .. sorry, you are simply wrong on this > > > (iow > > you cant use it by the gamma factor > > that by definition does not work at that point > > But it doesn't "not work" by definition at that point. ------------------ Letys do it again: take 1/ (1- V/C (YOU CANCALLIT AS YOU LIKE IT THE NAME DOES NOT MATTER if v=c you get 1/ 0 infinity -so undefined !!! you cant multiply in a physics formula anything by infinity !! because it is out of your control !!! IT IS UNDEFINED SITUATION PHYSICALLY physics is not just mathematics in physics there are limits of validation so you cant say that while v=c the mass becomes infinity because YOU CANT PROVE THAT SITUATION not theoretically (what is infinite mass??) nor experimentally !!! because you can only say that with** current tools ERROR MARGINS we can prove it is found or not you have to say THE WHOLE TRUTH NOT A PARTIAL TRUTH 'themass of the photon' WHAT IS THE MASS OF A PHOTON WHAT SIZE OF A PHOTON?? ddi you ever cheked experimentally the smallest one?? ddi you ever checked experimentally the biggest one?? while actually you never chen its mass you check its energy !! 2 you aid above that actually we have not only M K S but M m K S while M is relativistic mass and m is the ordinary mass ??? can you show us were else it is presented that way ?? -------------- i snip parts but wil l come to them later because your system of obfuscation is piling a lot of issues and i prefer to deal with them one by one dont worry- (:-) later we will come to the other issues are you against it ?? btw what business do you have in Australia while you presented yourself as Artful ?? TIA Y.Porat --------------------------- |