Define mass
BURT
Mitch Raemsch
curious george
"BURT" <macro...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:f7e1c3c7-2ff7-4cef...@z8g2000prd.googlegroups.com...
>I challenge anyone to define mass.
>
> Mitch Raemsch
>
and anyone challenges you back to define it yourself. after all you are the
one who want to discuss the issue. So what is mass?
BURT
> "BURT" <macromi...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
It is infinitely dense energy or point energy. Einstein said
concentrated.
Spread out energy like light doesn't weigh.
rossum
wrote:
>I challenge anyone to define mass.
>
>Mitch Raemsch
Mass is the Eucharistic celebration in the Latin liturgical rites of
the Roman Catholic Church. :)
rossum
PD
> I challenge anyone to define mass.
>
> Mitch Raemsch
It's that benign growth right behind your eyes.
rossum
wrote:
>infinitely dense energy
Not infinitely dense.
E = mc**2, not E = m oo**2
c**2 < oo**2
rossum
Uncle Al
>
> I challenge anyone to define mass.
>
> Mitch Raemsch
idiot
F=ma
http://www.apa.org/journals/features/psp7761121.pdf
Dunning-Kruger effect (2000 Ig Nobel Prize)
--
Uncle Al
http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/
(Toxic URL! Unsafe for children and most mammals)
http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/lajos.htm#a2
Eric Gisse
> I challenge anyone to define mass.
>
> Mitch Raemsch
F = ma
Ray Vickson
> I challenge anyone to define mass.
>
> Mitch Raemsch
Define red. Define love. Define life.
R.G. Vickson
UncleEnglish
> I challenge anyone to define mass.
>
> Mitch Raemsch
The reason you can not define mass is that you would need everythin'
to be in the same place and have the same eternal weight when some
bird was suspiciously talkin' down the phone at u and u are saying,
'Yes, dear, I am on the way home!'
Anyway, I hope the science and maths people will stay or visit here:
they obiously need a more general place.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PEA6gzAAPfc
Keith Richards being bad-tempered, then ... .
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SxxPLW1LuQE&feature=related
--
foolsrushin.
PS:
Shelf sufficent prats!
Gad-Noe
> I challenge anyone to define mass.
>
> Mitch Raemsch
mass is the first genuine prove for newton's detachment from ancient
established leverian reality and the seed-generator of all the
sci.errors ever-after.
UncleEnglish
EXACTLY- AND YOU DISOVER IT AFTER A BIT OF TIME WHEN YOU FALL OFF
ENOUGH THINGS.
--
foolsrushin.
PS: Ideas do not suffer from mass: they are the cause of it!
UncleEnglish
|-|erc
> I challenge anyone to define mass.
>
> Mitch Raemsch
mass = a group of particles that curve space time
Herc
UncleEnglish
> "BURT" <macromi...@yahoo.com> wrote
That is a theory for which there is some evidence.
Try http://kevinsmithshow.com/mplayer/latest.htm
Grock it fast, though: soon it will be gone, possibly 2.00am GMT.
--
Kind rgds,
John.
BURT
Then what about weightless mass?
Jacko
A curved space-time which creates a group of particles?
=> mass is a twist of spacetime.
m=ka/(v^3) for HUP compliance. So mass is defined as a calculus rate
ratio due to a force
F=ka^2/(v^3) so the question is 'What sort of force constraint leads
to this type of force, i.e. what spacetime shape/elasticity/
structure?'
cheers jacko
BURT
> "BURT" <macromi...@yahoo.com> wrote
It starts at the center.
Mitch Raemsch
Androcles
"|-|erc" <h@r.c> wrote in message
news:taezl.1030$Bm1...@news-server.bigpond.net.au...
Do not reply to this generic message, it was automatically generated;
you have been kill-filed, either for being boringly stupid, repetitive,
unfunny, ineducable, repeatedly posting politics, religion or off-topic
subjects to a sci. newsgroup, attempting free advertising or because
you are a troll; any reply will go unread.
Boringly stupid is the most common cause of kill-filing, but because
this message is generic the other reasons have been included. You are
left to decide which is most applicable to you.
There is no appeal, I have despotic power over whom I will electronically
admit into my home and you do not qualify as a reasonable person I would
wish to converse with or even poke fun at.
This should not trouble you, many of those plonked find it a blessing
that they are not required to think and can persist in their bigotry
or crackpot theories without challenge.
You have the right to free speech, I have the right not to listen. The
kill-file will be cleared annually with spring cleaning or whenever I
purchase a new computer or hard drive.
I hope you find this explanation is satisfactory but even if you don't,
damnly my frank, I don't give a dear. Have a nice day.
Eric Gisse
What about your stupid jibberjabber?
Graduate high school please.
Paul Hovnanian P.E.
Mass in the absence of gravity.
--
Paul Hovnanian mailto:Pa...@Hovnanian.com
------------------------------------------------------------------
Windows Freedom Day: a holiday that moves each year, the date of which
is calculated by adding up the total amount of time a typical person
must spend restarting windows and then determining how many work weeks
that would correspond to. -- Trygve Lode
zzbu...@netscape.net
> I challenge anyone to define mass.
Well, that's impossible. Since Physicists are the people who prefer
to turn the whole subject into continuos ranting gibberish, by
recursively
disombobulating the undefined quanity in two completely different
contexts:
Gravitational mass, and Inertial nass.
Which is why the engineers who actually understand the issue
of evolution of mass are the people who invent the Laser-Guided
Phasors.
Self-Assembling Robots, GPS, On-Line Banking, On-Line Publishing,
On-Line Shopping,
Compact Flourescent, FSK, RISC-a-Go-Go, Holographic Borders,
Digital-Terrain Mapping, Drones, AUVs, Cruise Missiles, Phalanx,
Microwave Ovens, Optical Menu Drivers, C++, Parallel Processors,
CD-rw, DVD-rom,
XML, Anti-Spam, HDTV-debuggers, USB, All-In-One Printers, Fiber
Optics,
Broadband, and Cell Phones.
Rather than fields of pendulemium, like Physicists recursively do.
>
> Mitch Raemsch
Y.y.Porat
> I challenge anyone to define mass.
>
> Mitch Raemsch
mass is as Newton defined it
The (amount of ) resistance of matter to change its position
of rest or movement.
(yet dont forget what Y.Porat said
may hundreds years later :
**no mass - no real physics ** )
Y.Porat
-------------------------------
Aage Andersen
"BURT"
>I challenge anyone to define mass.
The ratio of force to acceleration. m = F/a
Aage
zzbu...@netscape.net
Well, but even was Newton better at math than that, since that
only works for action-at-infinity.
>
> Aage
Y.y.Porat
wrote:
--------------------
what is your 'action in infinity ' ??
Y.P
------------------
VisualXScanXTronXAXThon
I accept!
Uncle Ben
> I challenge anyone to define mass.
>
> Mitch Raemsch
Mitch, I am going to take you seriously and hopw that I don't regret
it later.
The best definitions of physical quantities include how you measure
them. So take a large book in one hand and a small piece of paper in
the other. Now shake them both back and forth. You will feel that it
is harder for you to shake the book than to shake the paper. That, by
definition, is because the book has greater mass than the paper.
(That works even when you are in zero gravity. If you are near a
large body like the earth, you find another effect of mass. It weighs
something. But that is another whole story.)
That is the root idea. Quantify it and develop a way to put it into
numbers and there you have your definition. It gets tricky when you
want to measure the mass of light or the mass of the earth, but those
are just engineering details.
Uncloe Ben
Androcles
"Uncle Ben" <b...@greenba.com> wrote in message
news:0a53ccea-d274-4f08...@33g2000yqm.googlegroups.com...
Uncloe Ben
==============================================
You spelt your name wrong, it is "Unclue Bonehead".
Read this, you've been named:
http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/1st/Postulates.htm
dlzc
> I challenge anyone to define mass.
I can define it in terms of length and time (via a pendulum in a
rotating environment, without gravity). The three units (mass,
length, and time) form a complete set.
David A. Smith
Androcles
"dlzc" <dl...@cox.net> wrote in message
news:141cdb7c-702e-49a7...@p20g2000yqi.googlegroups.com...
David A. Smith
Go on then.
pmb
See
http://arxiv.org/abs/0709.0687
http://www.geocities.com/physics_world/sr/inertial_mass.htm
Any questions?
pmb
> On Mar 27, 12:28 pm, "curious george" <bu...@bunch.net> wrote:
>
> > "BURT" <macromi...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>
> >news:f7e1c3c7-2ff7-4cef...@z8g2000prd.googlegroups.com...
>
> > >I challenge anyone to define mass.
>
> > > Mitch Raemsch
>
> > one who want to discuss the issue. So what is mass?
>
> It is infinitely dense energy or point energy. Einstein said
> concentrated.
That is incorrect. Only in certain special cases are mass and energy
directly proportional. Even then they are merely proportional. That
doesn't mean that they are the same thing.
This is explained in the article
"On the inertial mass concept in special and general relativity," by
Mendal Sachs, Foundations of Physics Letters, Vol. 1, No. 2, 1988.
------------------------
Since these are two entirely different concepts, energy cannot be said
to be "equivalent to" mass. It was pointed out further in the earlier
paper that in relativity theory, energy and mass also cannot be
considered equivalent, because there are domains where energy is not
even defined, as in the global extension to general relativity, where
there are no conservation laws, yet where the concept of inertial mass
remains. Thus, rather than saying that mass is equivalent to energy,
one should say that once one has iin hand the (expectation value of
the) inertial mass of matter in the local domain, then one way to
determine its potential to do work, i.e. its internal energy, by using
the formula from special relativity.
------------------------
Energy itself is an undefined quantity anyway. See
http://www.geocities.com/physics_world/mech/what_is_energy.htm
Pete
pmb
> On Fri, 27 Mar 2009 13:20:55 -0700 (PDT), BURT <macromi...@yahoo.com>
> wrote:
>
> >I challenge anyone to define mass.
>
> >Mitch Raemsch
>
> the Roman Catholic Church. :)
>
> rossum
What nonsense. Stop trying to confuse things with such a poor atttempt
at humor/sarcasm. That's a different sense of the term mass. In fact
the term "mass" from physics derives from the term "mass" from the
Catholic church.
inverse 19
We have managed to square the value of mass proportion[mass unit multiplied by mass unit value} , i.e define its maximum "compaction value", specfic density at which mass will as a rule involute into energy. That is the cause of Black holes, that mass will involute with extreme speeds into energy.
UNFORTUNATELY I was ridiculed by mathematicians and physicists alike for daring to square mass[conal square] . Called a "crack pot" by Physics forum, banned etc So we have taken our mathematics private, and it will be marked by a Rock monument in our town in two months, and we will inscribe this equation into a rock. We have redefined the continuum hypothesis, modified the set theory, and we intend to challenge most of the mathematical theory, except that which is proportionate. "Proportione is superior to symmetry" we say. "WHAT WE DO NOT UNDERSTAND WE CALL CRAZY" We will reveal the equation in this forum, in two months, define mass completly as compacted energy [ Maximum compaction is static]
Denis Feldmann
> According to this new mathematics that we discovered , inverse mathematics art inverse 19, Maximum mass by proportion is the "inverse of energy", Mass squared would be equal to energy.
>
> We have managed to square the value of mass proportion[mass unit multiplied by mass unit value} , i.e define its maximum "compaction value", specfic density at which mass will as a rule involute into energy. That is the cause of Black holes, that mass will involute with extreme speeds into energy.
>
> UNFORTUNATELY I was ridiculed by mathematicians and physicists alike for daring to square mass[conal square] . Called a "crack pot" by Physics forum, banned etc So we have taken our mathematics private, and it will be marked by a Rock monument in our town in two months, and we will inscribe this equation into a rock. We have redefined the continuum hypothesis, modified the set theory, and we intend to challenge most of the mathematical theory, except that which is proportionate. "Proportione is superior to symmetry" we say. "WHAT WE DO NOT UNDERSTAND WE CALL CRAZY" We will reveal the equation in this forum, in two months, define mass completly as compacted energy [ Maximum compaction is static]
though.
NoEinstein
> I challenge anyone to define mass.
>
> Mitch Raemsch
Dear Mitch: Mass is: "Any relatively stable concentration of energy
which impedes, but does not stop, the free flow of gravitational
ether." — NoEinstein —
Y.y.Porat
-------------------
yes there is a question:: (:-)
if the mass of the photon is m
what will its mass if it moves at the speed of light
according formula no 17
in your above learned mathematical analysis quote ??
TIA
Y.Porat
---------------------------
inverse 19
We have the equation for the "square of mass" but we are reluctant to say it lest we are ridiculed and called names, unless you understand this new inverse 19 mathematics . Respectfully understand this that "Maximum absolute speed is power" and is the absolute compaction of dimension" that is maximal energy and we define that as "Static Aether". You "Mitch"[or who quoted Einstein] want to join us in developing this new math , give an "indication that you are open minded" and willing to give up some of the present mathematical dogma to join us. You seem to have a keen understanding and very clear focus.
" Speed seeks the least dimension" !Understand that brother , then you understand me, inverse 19. And what is the least dimension?, we have defined that.
V.C
Jacko
As mass is units of time over length squared, then the complete set is
length and time. The thermal energy argument is the best 'definition'
yet, but is not complete, as it says what constitutes mass but does
not define it.
cheers jacko
http://sites.google.com/site/jackokring
Uncertain Geometry
Androcles
"Jacko" <jacko...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:ab059594-c3a8-406c...@p11g2000yqe.googlegroups.com...
===============================================
I'm waiting to see Smiffy back up his big loud mouth and define mass.
Uncle Ben
Just for fun, here is how you measure the mass of a photon and of the
earth, since I brought it up.
A photon is always moving; it doesn't have rest mass. But it does
have momentum. You can measure its momentum (in principle) by
bouncing it off a mirror and measuring the reaction momentum given to
the mirror. Divide the momentum of the mirror by 2c (the 2 because of
the bounce) and you have the relativistic mass of the photon, although
some say that relativistic mass is an outdated term.
The answer for a photon of frequency f is that the energy is E = h*f,
where h is Planck's constant; its momentum is E/c; and its (rel.)
mass is E/c^2.
The only practical way to measure the mass of the earth is through its
gravitational mass, which equals the inertial mass to very high
accuracy. So (1) measure how much two 1-kg steel spheres attract each
other gravitationally. (Mr. Cavendish did it first.) Then (2)measure
how much the earth attracts one of the spheres. The ratio of the
forces times the square of the ratio of the distances between centers
in each case is how many kilograms is the mass of the earth.
Uncle Ben
(probably talking to myself, but that's fun too.)
pmb
> On Mar 28, 5:10 pm,pmb<pm...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> > On Mar 27, 4:20 pm, BURT <macromi...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > > I challenge anyone to define mass.
>
> > > Mitch Raemsch
>
>
> > Any questions?
>
> -------------------
> yes there is a question:: (:-)
>
> if the mass of the photon is m
> what will its mass if it moves at the speed of light
> according formula no 17
Equation 17 only applies to tardyons, i.e. particles for which v < c.
I explained that in the first link, i.e. in
http://arxiv.org/ftp/arxiv/papers/0709/0709.0687.pdf
Pete
Uncle Ben
>
> > On Mar 27, 4:20 pm, BURT <macromi...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > > I challenge anyone to define mass.
>
> > > Mitch Raemsch
>
>
> > Any questions?
>
> -------------------
> yes there is a question:: (:-)
>
> if the mass of the photon is m
> what will its mass if it moves at the speed of light
> according formula no 17
> in your above learned mathematical analysis quote ??
>
> TIA
> Y.Porat
> ---------------------------
How to define the mass of a photon? See my post above.
Uncle Ben
BURT
No. Mass is infinitely dense energy.
pmb
>
> - Show quoted text -
He wasn't asking about how the mass of a photon is defined. He was
asking what the mass forumlat m = gamma*m_0 is when v = c.
The mass of a photon is *defined( as the magnitude of the momentum of
the photon divided by the speed of light, i.e. m = p/v = p/c.
Pete
pmb
No. It is not.
BURT
>
> - Show quoted text -
The less dense energy does not weigh.
Mitch Raemsch
jer0en
massa (ae) = lump, slug (from greek)
missa (ae) = congregation (from latin mittere)
jer0en
jer0en
jer0en
still, at least those of you who do not indulge in the scientifically
received rehearsel of the universal facts decreed by the physical
establishment are doing better than E. did.
he didn't have the slightest understanding of the metaphysical
subject/object related limitations to human perception and understanding,
and still he made it central to his relativity theory.
completely flawed alass, relativity is a subject/object mash, resulting in a
completely circular argument as to the constellation of the universe, a
genius mathematical dreamworld that is for ever impossible to either refute
or prove.
my guess is he actually meant Einstein = mc^2
jer0en
"gravity" would be defined as Einstein.
sanforized
1 photon mass.
sanforized
Mass is mass independent of weight, fool.
sanforized
> I would say "mass" would be defined as Newton, rather than kilogram, while
> "gravity" would be defined as Einstein.
>
>
Snipping away everything you're responding to
makes your posts worthless.
BURT
>
> - Show quoted text -
Only infinitely dense energy weighs.
sanforized
Why are you talking about weight in a discussion
about mass, fool?
NoEinstein
>
Dear Mitch: 'Light' (photons) have a higher energy density that
'random' ether. But light does not impede the flow of gravitational
ether. If it did, light from a very massive star would never be able
to travel at 'c'. The following link explains the principles. —
NoEinstein —
The Gravity of Masses Doesn’t Bend Light.
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics/browse_thread/thread/efb99ab95e498420/cd29d832240f404d?hl=en#cd29d832240f404d
> Mitch Raemsch- Hide quoted text -
BURT
>
> - Show quoted text -
Do you lift a mass or do you lift a weight?
Mitch Raemsch
NoEinstein
>
Dear jerOen: Einstein's contrived and counterintuitive space-time
variance near massive objects is a requirement in order for a
'singularity' of matter and energy to have caused the Big Bang. If
the Big Bang happened... (But it didn't!), then gravity must be
capable of continuing to attract stars into Black Holes to eventually
cause another singularity such as caused the Big Bang.
The 'concept' of an expanding Universe resulting for 'a' Big Bang
violates the Law of the Conservation of Energy. That is because the
'outward kick' of the BB would be manifesting more energy than gravity
"might" have imparted IF gravity just keeps right on working in spite
of how compressed the matter and energy are. *** But the star
distribution data at the center of Andromeda shows a "gap" in the
stars right where the visible star density should be the greatest.
The latter gap was predicted by yours truly just a week or so before I
chanced to see the proof. I realized that gravity (downward ether
flow) can't continue unless such is replenished by outward flowing
radiant energy or high energy particles. When BHs go 'black' the
replenishing stops and gravity simply shuts off! Andromeda is
concrete proof that the Big Bang never happened! And it proves that
my varying ether density and flow correctly explain every observation
in nature from QM to the edges of the finite Universe! — NoEinstein —
Where Angels Fear to Fall
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics/browse_frm/thread/8152ef3e...
Last Nails in Einstein's Coffin
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics.relativity/browse_frm/thre...
Pop Quiz for Science Buffs!
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics/browse_frm/thread/43f6f316...
An Einstein Disproof for Dummies
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics/browse_thread/thread/f7a63...
Another look at Einstein
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics/browse_frm/thread/41670721...
Three Problems for Math and Science
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics/browse_thread/thread/bb07f30aab43c49c?hl=en
Matter from Thin Air
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics/browse_thread/thread/ee4fe3946dfc0c31/1f1872476bc6ca90?hl=en#1f1872476bc6ca90
Curing Einstein’s Disease
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics/browse_thread/thread/4ff9e866e0d87562/f5f848ad8aba67da?hl=en#f5f848ad8aba67da
Replicating NoEinstein’s Invalidation of M-M (at sci.math)
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.math/browse_thread/thread/d9f9852639d5d9e1/dcb2a1511b7b2603?hl=en&lnk=st&q=#dcb2a1511b7b2603
Cleaning Away Einstein’s Mishmash
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics/browse_thread/thread/5d847a9cb50de7f0/739aef0aee462d26?hl=en&lnk=st&q=#739aef0aee462d26
Dropping Einstein Like a Stone
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics/browse_thread/thread/989e16c59967db2b?hl=en#
Plotting the Curves of Coriolis, Einstein, and NoEinstein (is
Copyrighted.)
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics/browse_thread/thread/713f8a62f17f8274?hl=en#
Are Jews Destroying Objectivity in Science?
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics/browse_thread/thread/d4cbe8182fae7008/b93ba4268d0f33e0?hl=en&lnk=st&q=#b93ba4268d0f33e0
The Gravity of Masses Doesn’t Bend Light.
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics/browse_thread/thread/efb99ab95e498420/cd29d832240f404d?hl=en#cd29d832240f404d
KE = 1/2mv^2 is disproved in new falling object impact test.
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics/browse_thread/thread/51a85ff75de414c2?hl=en&q=
Light rays don’t travel on ballistic curves.
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics/browse_thread/thread/c3d7a4e9937ab73e/c7d941d2b2e80002?hl=en#c7d941d2b2e80002
doug
NoEinstein wrote:
> On Mar 28, 6:42 pm, BURT <macromi...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> Dear Mitch: 'Light' (photons) have a higher energy density that
> 'random' ether. But light does not impede the flow of gravitational
> ether. If it did, light from a very massive star would never be able
> to travel at 'c'. The following link explains the principles. —
> NoEinstein —
At least you finally bought a random phrase generator. A random
number has a better chance of being right than john does.
doug
NoEinstein wrote:
> On Mar 28, 8:20 pm, "jer0en" <jer...@freemail.nl> wrote:
>
> Dear jerOen: Einstein's contrived and counterintuitive space-time
> variance near massive objects is a requirement in order for a
> 'singularity' of matter and energy to have caused the Big Bang. If
> the Big Bang happened... (But it didn't!),
Was that an order on your part?
then gravity must be
> capable of continuing to attract stars into Black Holes to eventually
> cause another singularity such as caused the Big Bang.
>
> The 'concept' of an expanding Universe resulting for 'a' Big Bang
> violates the Law of the Conservation of Energy.
John has no clue about this either. This is his standard argument
when he does not understand something. He was claiming this for
the KE formula as well.
That is because the
> 'outward kick' of the BB would be manifesting more energy than gravity
> "might" have imparted IF gravity just keeps right on working in spite
> of how compressed the matter and energy are. *** But the star
> distribution data at the center of Andromeda shows a "gap" in the
> stars right where the visible star density should be the greatest.
>
> The latter gap was predicted by yours truly just a week or so before I
> chanced to see the proof. I realized that gravity (downward ether
> flow) can't continue unless such is replenished by outward flowing
> radiant energy or high energy particles. When BHs go 'black' the
> replenishing stops and gravity simply shuts off! Andromeda is
> concrete proof that the Big Bang never happened! And it proves that
> my varying ether density and flow correctly explain every observation
> in nature from QM to the edges of the finite Universe! — NoEinstein —
>
Read the following threads to see what little john knows about physics:
Y.y.Porat
--------------------
and what will happen
(tentatively) if it will be found
without doubt experimentally that the photon has
a nonzero mass ???)
how would you digest it
with the above formula ???!!!
TIA
Y.Porat
-------------------------
Y.y.Porat
----------------------
1
please dfine it quantitatively
ie
rest mass of 'relativistic mass
2
will it have a quantitative value
TIA
Y.Porat
----------------------
zzbu...@netscape.net
> On Mar 28, 12:25 pm, "zzbun...@netscape.net" <zzbun...@netscape.net>
> wrote:
>
> > On Mar 28, 5:46 am, "Aage Andersen" <aaa(REMOVE)@email.dk> wrote:
>
> > > "BURT"
>
> > > >I challenge anyone to define mass.
>
>
> > Well, but even was Newton better at math than that, since that
> > only works for action-at-infinity.
>
> > > Aage
>
> --------------------
> what is your 'action in infinity ' ??
It's Action AT infinity. Since Newton actually actually seemed
to know what Black Holes are, unlike the Stringers.
>
> Y.P
> ------------------
Y.y.Porat
> On Mar 28, 8:20 pm, "jer0en" <jer...@freemail.nl> wrote:
>
> Dear jerOen: Einstein's contrived and counterintuitive space-time
> variance near massive objects is a requirement in order for a
> 'singularity' of matter and energy to have caused the Big Bang. If
> the Big Bang happened... (But it didn't!), then gravity must be
> capable of continuing to attract stars into Black Holes to eventually
> cause another singularity such as caused the Big Bang.
>
> The 'concept' of an expanding Universe resulting for 'a' Big Bang
> violates the Law of the Conservation of Energy. That is because the
> 'outward kick' of the BB would be manifesting more energy than gravity
> "might" have imparted IF gravity just keeps right on working in spite
> of how compressed the matter and energy are. *** But the star
> distribution data at the center of Andromeda shows a "gap" in the
> stars right where the visible star density should be the greatest.
>
> The latter gap was predicted by yours truly just a week or so before I
> chanced to see the proof. I realized that gravity (downward ether
> flow) can't continue unless such is replenished by outward flowing
> radiant energy or high energy particles. When BHs go 'black' the
> replenishing stops and gravity simply shuts off! Andromeda is
> concrete proof that the Big Bang never happened! And it proves that
> my varying ether density and flow correctly explain every observation
> in nature from QM to the edges of the finite Universe! — NoEinstein —
>
> Last Nails in Einstein's Coffinhttp://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics.relativity/browse_frm/thre...
> Pop Quiz for Science Buffs!http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics/browse_frm/thread/43f6f316...
> An Einstein Disproof for Dummieshttp://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics/browse_thread/thread/f7a63...
> Three Problems for Math and Sciencehttp://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics/browse_thread/thread/bb07f...
> Matter from Thin Airhttp://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics/browse_thread/thread/ee4fe...
> Curing Einstein’s Diseasehttp://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics/browse_thread/thread/4ff9e...
> Replicating NoEinstein’s Invalidation of M-M (at sci.math)http://groups.google.com/group/sci.math/browse_thread/thread/d9f98526...
> Cleaning Away Einstein’s Mishmashhttp://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics/browse_thread/thread/5d847...
> Dropping Einstein Like a Stonehttp://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics/browse_thread/thread/989e1...
> Plotting the Curves of Coriolis, Einstein, and NoEinstein (is
> Are Jews Destroying Objectivity in Science?http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics/browse_thread/thread/d4cbe...
> The Gravity of Masses Doesn’t Bend Light.http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics/browse_thread/thread/efb99...
> KE = 1/2mv^2 is disproved in new falling object impact test.http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics/browse_thread/thread/51a85...
> Light rays don’t travel on ballistic curves.http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics/browse_thread/thread/c3d7a...
>
>
>
> > at least I got to level 2. I challenge anyone here to do that.
>
> > still, at least those of you who do not indulge in the scientifically
> > received rehearsel of the universal facts decreed by the physical
> > establishment are doing better than E. did.
>
> > he didn't have the slightest understanding of the metaphysical
> > subject/object related limitations to human perception and understanding,
> > and still he made it central to his relativity theory.
>
> > completely flawed alass, relativity is a subject/object mash, resulting in a
> > completely circular argument as to the constellation of the universe, a
> > genius mathematical dreamworld that is for ever impossible to either refute
> > or prove.
>
> > my guess is he actually meant Einstein = mc^2
-----------------
if you claime that the BB is contradicting conservation of mass
you assune that it was the beginning
of Universe
but you have no prove for that
there is another possibility
that before BB the univesre
was not a satrt point
but rather
it was big and then contarcted
and then again blowing outwards
in that case there is no problem of conservation of energy
because the fall inwards contained
previous kinetic energy
and the BB was a collision
bwtween inward movement
and then immediately outward movement (momentum conservation
collision !!! )
(it might be bad news for 'me and you'
for the comming billlion years'
(:-)
Y.Porat
-------------------------
Eric Gisse
> On Mar 28, 4:36 pm, Uncle Ben <b...@greenba.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> > On Mar 28, 12:02 pm, "Y.y.Porat" <y.y.po...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > On Mar 28, 5:10 pm,pmb<pm...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > On Mar 27, 4:20 pm, BURT <macromi...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> > > > Seehttp://arxiv.org/abs/0709.0687http://www.geocities.com/physics_world/...
>
> > > > Any questions?
>
> > > -------------------
> > > yes there is a question:: (:-)
>
> > > if the mass of the photon is m
> > > what will its mass if it moves at the speed of light
> > > according formula no 17
> > > in your above learned mathematical analysis quote ??
>
> > > TIA
> > > Y.Porat
> > > ---------------------------
>
> > How to define the mass of a photon? See my post above.
>
>
> > - Show quoted text -
>
> He wasn't asking about how the mass of a photon is defined. He was
> asking what the mass forumlat m = gamma*m_0 is when v = c.
>
> The mass of a photon is *defined( as the magnitude of the momentum of
> the photon divided by the speed of light, i.e. m = p/v = p/c.
>
> Pete
Photons are massless, Pete.
Eric Gisse
Proca's equations are the Maxwell equation analog for massive photons.
Were photons shown to be massive with several repeated experiments
with a several standard deviation strong claim, a Nobel in physics
would be quickly awarded and theory wouldn't skip too much of a beat.
We'd move over the Proca and the associated covariant and quantized
modifications thereof, and call it a day. And nobody would even
remember your years of ignorant and incoherent shrieking.
Y.y.Porat
-------------------
noone will remember that i was the first one
to prove that the
the formula
E=hf
has mass in it ??
and i did it
many years ago !!!!!!
AND WAS THE FIRST ONE TO DO IT !!!
idiot
and i even went much further and deeper
to claim
NO MASS - NO REAL PHYSICS !!
it is well recorded
and tears your hearth that your enemy
did it
and i was **the first one to claim** that
any physics formula
has its limits of validations
and there fore
THE PHOTON MASS IS A LIMIT exception CASE
AND THEREFORE IS AN EXCEPTION TO THE RULE
THAT
'NO MASS CAM REACH c'
got it little nasty psychopathic crook ??
------------
too bad for you
to prove yourself as one
who will be thrown to the garbage
of history of science
Y.Porat
----------------------
sanforized
Weight requires a specific sort of environment. Mass
does not.
The discussion was about mass. Change the "subject"
if you want to talk about weight instead.
Y.y.Porat
my prove that the phoron has mass
by
E=hf
while h containes the mass dimention
if much simpler
and obvious than you
Poroca proves !!
and in addition to all the above:
i was the first one to claim and prve
that
THERE IS JUST ONE KIND OF MASS !!
no relativistic and no schmelativistic mass!
by
formulating it as
E/gamma = mc^2
so m remains constant
and it is just the energy needed that
is infalting
instead of
E= gamma m c^2 !!!
and i was thefirst one to claim
that
no mass no real physics
therefore predicted on that base
that
no Higgs will be found!!
and the first one toclaim
and explain and prove that
the CIRLON particle
is inevitable
or else you get into an enless loop
of unable to expalin why this world
is not exploding at once
and based on that
no attraction force can be done by a moving in a straight line
physical entity
even not on the photon
that moves in straight lines
(based on conservation of momentum !!!)
and all that even
by forgetting my
Atomic and nuclear unprecedented Model
with the chain of orbitals system etc etc
all that is recorded
and nothing will help my enemies
to take it away from me
Y.Porat
--------------------------
Eric Gisse
[snip incoherent blathering idiocy]
Spewing idiot. Observation excludes photons with mass hf / c^2 by many
orders of magnitude.
Your inability to read is inconsequential.
Y.y.Porat
---------------------
(:-)
make better observations
2
the formula
E=hf
is based on **observations**
got it imbecile parrot ??
it is not my fault that you are an imbecile parrot
Y.P
-------------------------
Uncle Ben
>
> - Show quoted text -
This last comment is of interest more to a psychiatrist than a
physicist.
Uncle Ben
pmb
> BURT wrote:
> > On Mar 28, 4:35 pm, sanforized <bill.v...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> >>BURT wrote:
>
>
> >>>>On Mar 28, 4:44 pm, BURT <macromi...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> >>>>>On Mar 27, 7:02 pm, Eric Gisse <jowr...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> >>>>>>On Mar 27, 5:47 pm, BURT <macromi...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> >>>>>>>On Mar 27, 1:54 pm, Eric Gisse <jowr...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> >>>>>>>>On Mar 27, 12:20 pm, BURT <macromi...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> >>>>>>>>>I challenge anyone to define mass.
>
> >>>>>>>>>Mitch Raemsch
>
> >>>>>>>>F = ma
>
> >>>>>>>Then what about weightless mass?
>
> >>>>>>What about your stupid jibberjabber?
>
> >>>>>>Graduate high school please.
>
> >>>>>No. Mass is infinitely dense energy.
>
> >>>>No. It is not.- Hide quoted text -
>
> >>>>- Show quoted text -
>
> >>>The less dense energy does not weigh.
>
> >>>Mitch Raemsch
>
> >>Mass is mass independent of weight, fool.- Hide quoted text -
>
> >>- Show quoted text -
>
> > Only infinitely dense energy weighs.
>
> Why are you talking about weight in a discussion
> about mass, fool?
Careful what reasons you use to call someone a fool. Ever hear of the
following very famous physics articles?
"Apparent Weight of Photons," R.V. Pound and G.A. Rebka, Jr., Phys.
Rev. Letters, 4(7) April 1, 1960
"On the Weight of Photons," R.V. Pound, Soviet Physics Uspekhi, 3(6),
May-June 1961
pmb
If you mean non-zero **rest** mass, then Eq. (17) will hold since if
that was true then photons would be tardyons.
pmb
Comments like this is why I normally don't read or respond to your
posts.
Photons have zero ***proper*** mass (aka rest mass). They have non-
zero ***relativistic*** mass. That was all explained in the references
I created. I.e. in
http://www.geocities.com/physics_world/sr/inertial_mass.htm
I wrote
----------------------
Note: Mass defined in this way is sometimes referred to as
relativistic mass.
----------------------
If you didn't understand that then learn it. If you did understand it
then stop trying to cause problems where none exists.
pmb
> On Mar 29, 12:45 pm, Eric Gisse <jowr...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Mar 29, 12:26 am, "Y.y.Porat" <y.y.po...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
Tha relation m = hf/c^2 is nearly as old as relativity itself. You
sure didn't discover it. Its in several modern relativity texts. One
merely has to look to find it.
Y.y.Porat
----------------------1
they cal lit
'relativistic mas'!!
i caim:
there is jsut ONE kind ofmass
isthat as well written in your books??
and hereis just a little explanation"
if you have
F = gamma m V^2
yourelate the gamma to themass right??!!
now jasut notice betweenme and you and your books
i put it
F/Gamma = mc^2
have i the right to write it that way::????
now please note the big physical difference
a huge difference
in my presentation
MASS REMAINS CONSTANT !!
it is a completely a physical difference
and a completely different understanding of the physical
phenomenon !! :
while adding velocity to the mass
itis not mass that inflates--
it is the GROWING NEED TO ADD
MORE FORCE !!
is that written in your text books anywhere ???
therefore i say
no relativistic mass and no schmelativistic mass
JUST ONE KIND OF MASS!!
noone hastheright to invent
any Sunday and Friday
a new **ad hock** mass
in order to explain his crippled understanding of physics
and in addition to the above
i suggested
the smallest photon mass
to be
E photon Min =h/c^2 times 1/Time unit
that is as well unprecedented
and
th e experimental measurments
are not very far from that
anyway
that is a suggestion
and i claim that
there is a top and bottom limit
to photon mass
is it an old claim ???
*
i claim:
NO MASS NO REAL PHYSICS !
di dyou saw that in one of your books
or papers ?!
and i go on with a prediction:
since the above new physics rule:
the is no Virtual photons
there is no Higgs photons
withand without mass shell
and therefore
Higgs bosons and alike
**will never be found*!!
(based on the above climes)
do you have it in your books or laboratories that waist billions
on that physics nonsense ????)
and last but not least
do you have something like my
Circlon'
in your books ??
now i have a prediction that i alredt mentioned inthis ng
in those experiments
they will find
a very basic aprticle that moves in a circular path
in a way that is untill now
is unexplained .
i called it
the Circlon
(those circular trails might be
**a package of a great number of those
Circlons !!**
is that as well in your books ??
ATB
Y.Porat
-------------------
got he big difference ??
Paul Hovnanian P.E.
> I challenge anyone to define mass.
>
> Mitch Raemsch
The property of matter that gives it momentum when moving at some velocity.
--
Paul Hovnanian pa...@hovnanian.com
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Have gnu, will travel.
Puppet_Sock
> I challenge anyone to define mass.
Mass is the location of a pole in a propagator.
Socks
BURT
>
> - Show quoted text -
Their mass can't come from their motion. They would all have a mass
proportional to C.
MItch Raemsch
sanforized
I chose carefully.
pmb
Just because there are things called "rest mass" and "relativistic
mass" it doesn't mean that these are two different masses. They are
the same thing. The only difference is that rest mass is the value of
relativistic mass when v = 0. Claiming otherwise is like saying "car
in motion" and "car at rest" are two different cars.
You can claim it all you want to but you haven't logically justified
it.
pmb
> Their mass can't come from their motion.
Don't just claim it. Nobody is interested in what you believe. Prove
it.
pmb
> pmbwrote:
>
> - Show quoted text -
Not in this case. Weight and mass can be used synonymously when there
is a one-to-one correspondence between the two. Weight W usually
refers to the force exerted on a scale on earth by the body of mass M
on the scale. In that case W = Mg. Therefore when one knows one the
other is determined. If I say that I weigh 195 lbs then my mass can be
determined from that fact since it has a very specific meaning.
BURT
Light's speed is a constant. Therefore all light would have the same
kinetic energy. Its kinetic energy would always be a constant.
Please prove otherwise.
Mitch Raemsch
Androcles
"pmb" <pm...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:7b6d6b55-b3b3-4f35...@e38g2000yqa.googlegroups.com...
=============================================
BWHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!
You are right on the money there, Piggy Brown.
Lofty Goat
> If I say that I weigh 195 lbs then my mass can be determined from that
> fact since it has a very specific meaning.
Or a shade over six slugs.
-- RLW
BURT
C is a constant. It would be the same kinetic energy for all light
then.
Lofty Goat
>> I challenge anyone to define mass.
On Sun, 29 Mar 2009 11:38:39 -0700, Puppet_Sock wrote:
> Mass is the location of a pole in a propagator. Socks
E.g. http://www.flong.com/projects/gpp/
-- RLW
sanforized
No wonder you've been so hated for so long.
Burt stated no case. You do below.
The subject is "define mass"
Wake up soon, OK?
sanforized
What color light was that?
pmb
Yes. Psychopaths, crackpots and internet assholes hate me. Big friggin
deal.
> Burt stated no case. You do below.
>
> The subject is "define mass"
Sheeesh! A typical crackpot response from yet another newsgroup
flamer. I already **did* define it. Had you taken the time to ask I
would have pointed you to the first post I made in this thread. I
defined mass in this article --- http://arxiv.org/abs/0709.0687
Go away flamer
pmb
> C is a constant. It would be the same kinetic energy for all light
> then.
If you're going to post a comment please clarify the context. This
statement means nothing since it has no context.
m = p/c. While c is invariant, p is not.
BURT
Light has a kinetic energy constant if it gets its energy from motion.
Mitch Raemsch
pmb
> you use to call someone a fool.
>
> >>I chose carefully.- Hide quoted text -
>
> >>- Show quoted text -
>
> > Not in this case.
>
<snip ignorant comment>
>
> Burt stated no case. You do below.
Sheesh!! That is a very ignorant comment. The context in which I said
"not in this case" means "not in this instance", flamer.
And in this instance (look up "instance" in the dictionary if you
don't know what it means) Burt said in response to F = ma
> Then what about weightless mass?
While it has little place in this discussion he's not a fool for
asking the question, just misinformed (hence the ***question***).
If one defines mass by F = ma then mass has no meaning unless there is
a force. Hence Burt's question. Pay attention please. Otherwise you'll
make more ignorant comments like you did here.
Burt - mass is *not* defined as m = F/a. That was shown to be a
serious problem. In fact that expressions is not how force is defined
in general. Force is defined as F = dp/dt where p = mv.
*inertial* mass is defined as p = mv. Hence inertial mass has little
meaning unless something can be moving.
pmb
Actually you didn't provide a proof. All you did was to post comments
based on false impressions. It resulted in it being totally incorrect.
You're confusing the classical definition of kinetic energy for a
tardyon with the correct modern definition of kinetic energy in
relativity
The kinetic energy K of a particle is related to its total inertial
energy E and rest energy E_0 by defined as
E = K + E_0
For a photon
E = hf
E_0 = 0
Therefore
K = hf
Since frequency is frame dependant then so too is kinetic energy.
BURT
Light has an energyless motion and an energy wave.
Mitch Raemsch