Re: MST rest mass definition.
Koobee Wublee
> However counter-intuitive it may be, "rest mass" is certainly not an
> invariant by definition...
You don’t have to search for your quest elsewhere while the answer is
right in your backyard. Consider the Schwarzschild metric below.
** ds^2 = c^2 (1 – 2 U) dt^2 – dr^2 / (1 – 2 U) – r^2 dO^2
Where
** U = G M / c^2 / r
** dO^2 = cos^2(Latitude) dLongitude^2 + dLatitude^2
The geodesic equation associated with the temporal variable can easily
be derived as follows. It helps if you understand what a Langrangian
is after staring at Wienberg’s textbook for over four decades.
<shrug>
** E = m c^2 (1 – 2 U) / sqrt(1 – B^2)
Where
** E, m = constants
** B^2 c^2 = (dr/dt)^2 / (1 – 2 U)^2 + r^2 (dO/dt)^2 / (1 – 2 U)
When the curvature of space is weak, and the speed is low, the above
equation simplifies into the ever so familiar Newtonian result below.
** E = m B^2 c^2 / 2 - m U c^2
Or
** E = m v^2 / 2 – m G / r
Where
** v^2 ~ (dr/dt)^2 + r^2 (dO/dt)^2
Back to the geodesic equation mentioned above, the rest mass is
dependent on the curvature of spacetime as described below
** m (1 – 2 U) = Rest mass
Where
** m = invariant mass
So far so good, right? Well, GR is only a few more steps away from
total disaster after that. <shrug>
Ken S. Tucker
I'll get fired, do have a real name I can put on
my time card?
Ken
Koobee Wublee
evaluation. After staring at Weinberg’s textbook for over four
decades, he has totally failed to understand what a Lagangian is.
Now, due to his personal incompetence, he thinks he is now talking to
stuffed animals. The man is getting worse. <shrug>
> > total disaster after that. <shrug>- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
rasterspace
of atoms, of which there is none for a newtonian corpuscle,
even though it was never a theory per se. ("hypothesis non fingo,"
in deed; let Newton be, the mintmaster)
Orville Wright at 34 (left)
Wilbur Wright at 38 (right)
The difficulties which obstruct the pathway to success in flying
machine construction are of three general classes: (1)
Those which relate to the construction of the sustaining wings; (2)
Those which relate to the generation and application of the power
required
to drive the machine through the air; and (3)
Those relating to the balance and steering of the machine after it is
actually in flight.
Although the breakthrough achieved by the brothers would be in the
solution to the third problem addressed by Wilbur—the problem of
stability and control in powered flight—they would also considerably
advance the knowledge in the other two areas, as well, in the march to
their great achievement.
BURT
How can their be rest mass beyond theory if there is No Abolute Rest?
Albert Einstein
rasterspace
don't measure it zipping by at sublight velocity (I mean,
light has a speed, not a directed movement, probably because
it is not a newtonian God-am corpuscle.
if you're referring to the Eocene to (I forgot) transition,
which supposedly eventually resulted in glaciation --
CO2 removed from teh 1000ppm level by carbonic acid weathering
of the Himalayas unto the Quaternary Period --
it was explained simply by Hansen that the present rise
is a lot faster. so,
insofar as one abdures the srange paradigm of "global" warming,
when insolation is essentially zero at the poles (other
than the atmospheric part of it, twilight etc.)
most notable study on this is Shackleton et al, but
as I recall, they used oxygen isotopes in sediment corings, and
the CO2 part may have been interpolated, perhaps by others.
if erosion can cause a)
lowering of land, and b)
displacement of water,
how are these tabulated in this datum?...
I won't mention the old tide-gauge guy
on http://21stcenturysciencetech.com, ol'what's-his-name.
Y.Porat
-------------------------
No MASS - THE ONLY MASS -
(repeat **the only mass**) -
NO REAL PHYSICS !!
no matter how you will call that mass !!
ie
no relativistic and no fucken mass
just mass
an old copyright
Y.Porat
--------------------------
mass is a constant and invariable
IT IS CONSERVED!
AS ENERGY IS CONSERVED
2
MASS IS THE Only MOTHER OF ALL
FORCES !!
for mass in movement you need of course
length and Time
time is relative movement
yet mass is a constant even in that movement
for more velocity it need more energy investment
not mass inflation !
no fucken curvature of space is doing it !!
mass is doing al of it
so
from now on you need much more respect t
to the entity- that is called mass
ATB
Y.Porat
----------------
BURT
>
> - Show quoted text -
Energy as a universal substance has no relativity of quantity.
Its quantity can change by Gamma for motion. But that new
energy for a rocket comes from its fuel and is in the rocket
as new mass.
Mitch Raemsch
Y.Porat
--------------------
(:-) (:-)
ans while the rocket stops moving
what hep-pence to the ''mass that was gained '' by the
rocket ??
Y.P
--------------------------
>
> Mitch Raemsch
Ken S. Tucker
done well below.
(Had to figure B as in Beta).
Yes, perfect. If you want (using your formula) have a look at
m = Rest mass / (1 - 2 U)
A derivative, dm/dr yeilds the variation of Mercury's
orbit, that is to say, a rotation of the semi-major
axis (43"/century), also called the "relativitic force
supplement" by celestrial mechanics.
> Well, GR is only a few more steps away from
> total disaster after that. <shrug>
Well GR math is still evolving, AE and team did a great
job, it's using the math in applications that gets trippy.
I find one needs to be very careful using tensors analysis,
especially if CS conditions are imposed and tensor processes
are used. That's oxymoronic as the processes apply to all
CS's, so even the introduction of a metric form (1,1,1,-1)
to begin with blows the process and generates artifacts.
Regards
Ken S. Tucker
Eric Gisse
[...]
> A derivative, dm/dr yeilds the variation of Mercury's
> orbit, that is to say, a rotation of the semi-major
> axis (43"/century), also called the "relativitic force
> supplement" by celestrial mechanics.
No, it does not. Don't make shit up.
>
> > Well, GR is only a few more steps away from
> > total disaster after that. <shrug>
>
> Well GR math is still evolving, AE and team did a great
> job, it's using the math in applications that gets trippy.
> I find one needs to be very careful using tensors analysis,
> especially if CS conditions are imposed and tensor processes
> are used. That's oxymoronic as the processes apply to all
> CS's, so even the introduction of a metric form (1,1,1,-1)
> to begin with blows the process and generates artifacts.
> Regards
> Ken S. Tucker
You do not know what you are talking about. In the slightest.
Koobee Wublee
Koobee Wublee wrote:
> > You don’t have to search for your quest elsewhere while the answer is
> > right in your backyard. Consider the Schwarzschild metric below.
>
> > ** ds^2 = c^2 (1 – 2 U) dt^2 – dr^2 / (1 – 2 U) – r^2 dO^2
>
> > Where
>
> > ** U = G M / c^2 / r
> > ** dO^2 = cos^2(Latitude) dLongitude^2 + dLatitude^2
>
> > The geodesic equation associated with the temporal variable can easily
> > be derived as follows. It helps if you understand what a Langrangian
> > is after staring at Wienberg’s textbook for over four decades.
> > <shrug>
>
> > ** E = m c^2 (1 – 2 U) / sqrt(1 – B^2)
Sorry, my mistake. The above should read
** E = m c^2 sqrt(1 – 2 U) / sqrt(1 – B^2)
> > Where
>
> > ** E, m = constants
> > ** B^2 c^2 = (dr/dt)^2 / (1 – 2 U)^2 + r^2 (dO/dt)^2 / (1 – 2 U)
>
> > When the curvature of space is weak, and the speed is low, the above
> > equation simplifies into the ever so familiar Newtonian result below.
>
> > ** E = m B^2 c^2 / 2 - m U c^2
>
> > Or
>
> > ** E = m v^2 / 2 – m G / r
>
> > Where
>
> > ** v^2 ~ (dr/dt)^2 + r^2 (dO/dt)^2
>
> > Back to the geodesic equation mentioned above, the rest mass is
> > dependent on the curvature of spacetime as described below
>
> > ** m (1 – 2 U) = Rest mass
Correction:
** m sqrt(1 – 2 U) = Rest mass
> > Where
>
> > ** m = invariant mass
>
> > So far so good, right?
>
> Yes, perfect. If you want (using your formula) have a look at
>
> m = Rest mass / (1 - 2 U)
Correction:
Rest mass = (Intrinsic mass) * sqrt(1 – 2 U)
> A derivative, dm/dr yeilds the variation of Mercury's
> orbit, that is to say, a rotation of the semi-major
> axis (43"/century), also called the "relativitic force
> supplement" by celestrial mechanics.
That is not correct. The tale of Mercury’s orbital anomaly cannot be
derived that way. <shrug>
> > Well, GR is only a few more steps away from
> > total disaster after that. <shrug>
>
> Well GR math is still evolving, AE and team did a great
> job, it's using the math in applications that gets trippy.
This is just not true. GR math was already done 100 years ago.
<shrug>
Forget about Einstein the nitwit, the plagiarist, and the liar. The
nitwit knew nothing and was very clueless. The derivation of the
field equations was not justified with any known physical insight. It
was the brainchild of Hilbert, Nordstrom, Levi-Civita, Ricci, and a
few others. <shrug>
> I find one needs to be very careful using tensors analysis,
> especially if CS conditions are imposed and tensor processes
> are used.
There is nothing magical or mysterious about the tensor math. After
all, the basics ware already developed by Leibniz about 350 years
ago. <shrug>
> That's oxymoronic as the processes apply to all
> CS's, so even the introduction of a metric form (1,1,1,-1)
> to begin with blows the process and generates artifacts.
What is that again? <shrug>
cjcountess
Just some thoughts on the subject I prepared for another occasion but
will post here for feedback and to add to convrsation and hopefully
understanding.
To ask, ‘what makes particles out of radiation?” and say “another
particle, the Higgs”, is only kicking the ball down the road, for one
would then have to ask well, “what makes the Higgs itself, a
particle?
The origin of mass is the origin of the universe itself sense all is
interrelated but one could localize it and say that the more local
origin of that aspect of the interrelationship that we call mass is
the speed of light barrier itself and that the origin of rest mass is
that same barrier all around or the speed of light squared which is
the speed of light in circular and or spherical rotation which is what
gives energy rest mass.
In equations E=hf/c^2 E or energy = h which is a constant = to c
around which f the variable frequency oscillates as if orbiting, /c^2
which is analogous to and = to r^2 on quantum level. So E=hf/c^2 = and
is analogous to F=mm/r^2
And so c=h are the constants or ground states around which all waves
and particles oscillate or orbit and c^2 = h/2pi is constant around
which rest mass oscillates. Both these sets of constants are necessary
for each others existence as no motion could exist without both
expansion and contraction or both matter measured as c^2 = h/2pi and
space measured as c=h.
Contrary to popular belief you are correct, “rest mass” is not
invariable, both because nothing in the universe is absolutely at
rest, and because rest mass, according to geometrical interpretation
of E=mc^2, is just kinetic energy/relative mass, of photonic energy,
or electromagnetic energy, in circular and or spherical motion.
But to extend that even further, just as “rest mass” emerges from
electromagnetic energy, which before had a constant velocity of “c” in
linear direction, to the speed of light in circular and or spherical
rotation, the speed of light in the linear direction likewise is not
constant, as it does transform to this circular and or spherical
rotation which is “rest mass”.
And so, if there is an invariant mass, it is “h” in equation E=hf/c^2
and h/2pi/2, which is also equal to “c”, and as such the invariance is
in its existence in both relative motion and relative stillness as a
stability in motion.
The “speed of light barrier”, is the rest frame of the universe,
creating the drag which gives rise to waves, when the constant speed
of light in straight line, is compressed against like a spring,
displacing energy into angular direction, creating waves.
Anything moving at constant speed of light in straight line, is
equivalent to being still, according to Newton’s first law of motion.
Anything that deviates from this is accelerated motion subject to
F=ma=mv^2 and therefore generates inertial/gravity mass, even as waves
of E=hf/c^2 and of course at E=hf=mc^2 which is circular and or
spherical rotation of electromagnetic energy giving it rest mass.
Conrad J Countess
The future of science
Nothing; light and matter do not have an absolute rest.
Mitch Raemsch
cjcountess
2) The speed of light as wave = E=hf/c^2 or E=m/c^2 having mass
because of this deviation from constant speed in straight line, which
is acceleration = inertia/gravity mass, and this is analogous to and
equal to F=m/v^2 for photons.
3) When the energy reaches E=hf=mc^2, this equals F=mv^2 or F=mv/r^2,
as rest mass and energy in circular and or spherical rotation. My
equation for this is the Geometrical Interpretation of (E=mc^2 =
E=mc^circled and/or sphered)
Equation E=hf/c^2 is analogous and equal to F=Mm/r^2 on quantum level.
E=F, h=M, as constant mass around which “m” and “f”, the secondary
masses, oscillates, analogous or equal to orbiting, divided by “c^2”
for photons and “r^2” for planets, and are both equal and analogous on
quantum level.
This can be seen in equation “h/2pi” where “h” is momentum of “c” in
circular motion and equal to “rx2pi” or “r/2pi” as measure of circular
orbit
And so (E = F) = the product of the two mass “h” and “f”, divided by
the radius squared, which is “c^2” on this quantum level.
And so “h” is the constant mass around which all waves and rest mass
oscillates analogous and equal to orbiting exhibited in equations for
waves “E=hf/c^2” and particles rest mass as “h/2pi” and “h/2pi/2”
And of course E=mc^2 = F=mv^2 on quantum level.
Conrad J countess
The future of science
> 1) The constant speed of light in straight line = “c”.
worn. In curvilear speed through gravity.
>
> 2) The speed of light as wave = E=hf/c^2 or E=m/c^2 having mass
> because of this deviation from constant speed in straight line, which
> is acceleration = inertia/gravity mass, and this is analogous to and
> equal to F=m/v^2 for photons.
Einstein doubted his photon in the end.
>
> 3) When the energy reaches E=hf=mc^2, this equals F=mv^2 or F=mv/r^2,
> as rest mass and energy in circular and or spherical rotation. My
> equation for this is the Geometrical Interpretation of (E=mc^2 =
> E=mc^circled and/or sphered)
Matter energy cannot reach the speed of light. Light reaches its speed
without inbetween acceleration.
>
> Equation E=hf/c^2 is analogous and equal to F=Mm/r^2 on quantum level.
> E=F, h=M, as constant mass around which “m” and “f”, the secondary
> masses, oscillates, analogous or equal to orbiting, divided by “c^2”
> for photons and “r^2” for planets, and are both equal and analogous on
> quantum level.
>
> This can be seen in equation “h/2pi” where “h” is momentum of “c” in
> circular motion and equal to “rx2pi” or “r/2pi” as measure of circular
> orbit
A circular orbit has speed not inward acceleration as it does not move
inward.
>
> And so (E = F) = the product of the two mass “h” and “f”, divided by
> the radius squared, which is “c^2” on this quantum level.
>
> And so “h” is the constant mass around which all waves and rest mass
> oscillates analogous and equal to orbiting exhibited in equations for
> waves “E=hf/c^2” and particles rest mass as “h/2pi” and “h/2pi/2”
Plnacks constant is being changed and monkeyed with by giving it
another name "H-Bar" set to 1.
> And of course E=mc^2 = F=mv^2 on quantum level.
>
> Conrad J countess
Mitch Raemsch
rasterspace
try uusing quaternions a la Lanczos in _Variational Mechanics_,
and tell me how it works.
rasterspace
of the spherical wavefront, unfortunately often done
in terms of the regular tetragon ... Bucky Shrugged,
more than two times in his mangum opus,
_Synergetics_.
Ken S. Tucker
Ah yes, correction noted,
P_0 = P * sqrt(g_00), when v=0.
P= invariant, P_0=rest mass , g_00 = 1 - 2 U.
> > A derivative, dm/dr yeilds the variation of Mercury's
> > orbit, that is to say, a rotation of the semi-major
> > axis (43"/century), also called the "relativitic force
> > supplement" by celestrial mechanics.
>
> That is not correct. The tale of Mercury’s orbital anomaly cannot be
> derived that way. <shrug>
Sure it can, try it,
dP / dr = d ( P_0 / sqrt(g_00) ) /dr
= ?
...
> > That's oxymoronic as the processes apply to all
> > CS's, so even the introduction of a metric form (1,1,1,-1)
> > to begin with blows the process and generates artifacts.
>
> What is that again? <shrug>
Well Miss, I even hesitate to lock in dimensionality while
running the tensor analysis process. The process applies to
CS's unencumbered by specializations.
Regards
Ken
cjcountess
Those familiar with my concepts have heard this before.
If the speed of light is constant at “c” in the linear direction, and
all motion and speed is relative, than as a photon moves away from us
at “c”, we likewise move away from it at “c” in opposite direction.
According to relativity, either we or the photon is moving at “c”,
depending on frame of reference, and according to conservation laws
applied to momentum, these should cancel out leaving zero motion.
But although the speed of light is constant in linear direction, the
frequency is not constant, and thus we can tell speed and direction
from it, which is how Doppler radar works.
It is my hypothesis that, the higher the frequency, shorter the
wavelength, and the higher the relative mass, kinetic energy,
momentum, the more particle like the photon becomes, and at E=hf=mc^2,
an EM wave attains "Rest Mass".
Thus, I have concluded that “c”, or the speed of light, is not the
highest speed in the Universe, but is actually the slowest. and “Rest
Mass”, which is generally considered the slowest, is actually the
fastest.
Conrad J Countess
How's that for turning the world of Physics upside down
cjcountess
In other words, "c^2" is faster than "c"
Furthermore;
According to conservation laws that cancel momentum of an object
emitting two photons from equal and opposite directions, the speed of
light and our own speed should cancel each other also, with a zero sum
speed. So clearly, those conservation laws are wrong.
If momentum is cancelled to zero for object that ejects two
projectiles, including photons, in equal and opposite directions, how
do we get 1/2KE=mv^2 for the two equal and opposite forces involved.
Would not the center be squeezed instead of feeling zero force?
Of course it would.
Instead of 1/2KE=mc^2<—>0<—>1/2KE=mc^2 we should have 1/4KEmc2<—
>1/2KEmc^2<--->1/4KE=mc^2
Conrad J Countess
cjcountess
The momentum of a particle at rest is never zero, as it is still
moving energy in spherical rotation as a standing spherical wave with
an angular momentum of h/2pi/2, just as the relative mass/kinetic
energy is never zero because “rest mass” is “relative mass/kinetic
energy”, in rotation, and instead of its weight being expressed
linearly, it is expressed rotationally and might be felt with
sensitive scale in a gravity field.
Conrad J Countess
Koobee Wublee
> On Feb 24, 12:09 pm, Koobee Wublee wrote:
> > That is not correct. The tale of Mercury’s orbital anomaly cannot be
> > derived that way. <shrug>
>
> Sure it can, try it,
>
> dP / dr = d ( P_0 / sqrt(g_00) ) /dr
You are indeed hallucinating, old lady. Go back to stare at
Weinberg’s textbook. After four decades of staring at a book, the
odds are overwhelming against you to ever understand what a Lagrangian
is.
Regards,
Koobee Wublee
Ps. Don’t forget to say hello to that teddy bear, that you have been
carrying great conversations with, for yours truly, OK?
Ken S. Tucker
> On Feb 25, 5:29 am, "Ken S. Tucker" wrote:
>
> > On Feb 24, 12:09 pm, Koobee Wublee wrote:
> > > That is not correct. The tale of Mercury’s orbital anomaly cannot be
> > > derived that way. <shrug>
>
> > Sure it can, try it,
>
> > dP / dr = d ( P_0 / sqrt(g_00) ) /dr
>
> You are indeed hallucinating, old lady.
Ok, you can't differentiate.
You need to learn calculus.
Ken
The future of science
GR is incomplete as it stands. As are all theories now anf for a long
time into the future.
Hawking likes to think he can achieve the unreasonable by copying
Einstein but as a fake!
MItch Raemsch
rasterspace
as a zero-D masslessness, and
look at realativity of vacuum;
does not "electromagnetism" need the use
of "electrons?"
Schroedinger's cat began as a pithy joke,
folks.
Y.Porat
> dump the silly conception of "photon"
> as a zero-D masslessness, and
> look at realativity of vacuum;
what is realativity of vacuum ''
or even if you meant relativity'
then still what is 'relativity of Vacuum '
TIA
Y.Porat
-----------------------------
rasterspace
in a specified "box o'space," although Pascal thought
that he had discovered this, essentially in a really big barometer.
now,
if you want to apply Heisenberg's uncertainty to that,
don't overdo it & sprain anything.
:ScrollinG:
the lightcone (and Minkowski, though a great geometer,
put his pants on, one lightcone at a time) is an artifact
of the silly sloganeering about "spacetime," merely a phasespace,
typically done-up in a "1+1d" quarterplane diagram ...
which is useful, because functions are defined to have no loops -- a-
hem.
useful, because special rel. can be done in quaternions,
where the scalar & vector parts are clearly dystinguished.
Y.Porat
--------------------------
why dont you say
flat simple
there is no relativity
not any physical property of vacuum
except hosting mass
and no need for more ball boggling !!
ATB
Y.Porat
----------------------------
rasterspace
"partial pressures,' "relative humidity" etc. etc.
the unit is named after he, who discovered it.
John Gogo
There is no relativity.
rasterspace
one has to have "relatively" empty space,
in order for **** to happen.
Y.Porat
------------------
(:-)
Y.P
-------------------------
Y.Porat
----------------
1
how old are you ??
2
if you are cleaver enough
you should understand that
there is no relativity
IF YOU HAVE NO SOMETHING
NOT RELATIVE
TO COMPARE YOUR
RELATIVE(SOMETHING ) WITH YOUR CONSTANT (NOT RELATIVE) UNCHANGEABLE
SOMETHING
like in SR
the constant speed of light is the base for relativity
so
where is your constant
3
without some constants
THERE IS NO PHYSICS !!!
got it physics genius and inventor ??
sonow
fold up your sleeves
and amend your idiotic invention
ATB
Y.Porat
-------------------------------
ATB
Y.Porat
----------------------
Ken S. Tucker
I find your attitude about the vaccum to be correct,
even some of the pros wouldn't understand it though,
as I have found in discussions related to the meaning
of G_uv=T_uv, where the T_uv is density (departure
from vaccum) and G_uv the g-field.
Regards
Ken S. Tucker
PS: Why did you change your handle?
rasterspace
capitalized) thought that he had discoverd,
by means of glass tubing & mercury,
a perfect vacuum, taht he called "the Plenum;"
but, he didn't know about partial pressures,
that is the "absolute uncertainty" that
there would be molecules of mercury
in the "empty" column in the tube, as well
as air dissolved in the mercury liquid.
maybe my English is to heavy for you?