Re: Do I understand this correctly?
Y.Porat
> Am I correct in my understanding that, although it was discovered in
> 1998 that the neutrino does indeed have mass, people still don't know
> what that mass is? TIA.
--------------------
mass is as Newton defined it!!
no other pompous definition does it better
2
not only the neutrino mas mass
the photon as well
ie
not relativistic mass but just mass
the only ordinary mass!!
ATB
Y.Porat
----------------------
xxein
xxein: When you can measure an effect you can describe it as a mass-
momentun.
Is it or not?
Y.Porat
-----------------
OK
ie
not too much ball boggling
Y.P
-------------------------
PD
> On Nov 24, 4:25 pm, Joe Snodgrass <joe.s...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > Am I correct in my understanding that, although it was discovered in
> > 1998 that the neutrino does indeed have mass, people still don't know
> > what that mass is? TIA.
>
> --------------------
> mass is as Newton defined it!!
Nope. Not any more. No amount of wishing will make it so.
Tom Roberts
>>> Am I correct in my understanding that, although it was discovered in
>>> 1998 that the neutrino does indeed have mass, people still don't know
>>> what that mass is? TIA.
Yes, that is correct. There are both lower and upper experimental bounds on
delta(m^2), the difference in the masses-squared of the different neutrino mass
eigenstates, but these are dependent on the values of the various mixing angles,
some of which are highly uncertain.
From tritium decay an upper bound of a few eV/c^2 on nu_e_bar has been known
for a long time. The neutrino oscillation experiments put limits on delta(m^2)
in the range of a few eV^2/c^4 for some pairs, and ~1,000 times smaller for others.
These limits are very much smaller than the mass of the lowest-mass particle for
which the mass is known, the electron at 510,999 eV/c^2.
Look up "neutrino oscillations" for more information.
Tom Roberts
mpc755
http://www.ps.uci.edu/~superk/nuosc.html
"Neutrino Oscillations and Neutrino Mass
In five distinct measurements, Super-Kamiokande finds neutrinos
apparently "disappearing". Since it is unlikely that momentum and
energy are actually vanishing from the universe, a more plausible
explanation is that the types of neutrinos we can detect are changing
into types we cannot detect. This phenomenon is known as neutrino
oscillation. Neutrino oscillation is not black magic - there are very
specific predictions for the behavior of our data if neutrinos
oscillate, and we have uniformly found the data in good agreement with
these predictions. Unfortunately, a non-mathematical explanation of
why neutrino oscillation and neutrino mass are inseparable is
difficult."
A non-mathematical explanation is not difficult at all. Albert
Michelson figured it out over 100 years ago.
http://home.netcom.com/~sbyers11/
Quote from Albert A Michelson's lecture circa 1899.
"Suppose that an aether strain corresponds to an electric charge, an
aether displacement to the electric current, aether vortices to the
atoms; if we continue these suppositions, we arrive at what may be one
of the grandest generalizations of modern science, namely that all the
phenomena of the physical universe are only different manifestations
of the various modes of motion of one all-pervading (substance), the
aether. The day seems not to distant when the converging lines from
many apparently remote regions of thought will meet on some common
ground. Then the nature of the atom and the forces called into play in
their chemical union, the interactions between these atoms and the non-
differentiated aether as manifested in the phenomena of light and
electricity , the structure of the molecule, the explanation of
cohesion, elasticity and gravitation, all of these will be marshaled
into a single compact and consistent body of scientific knowledge."
Ether and the Theory of Relativity by Albert Einstein'
http://www-groups.dcs.st-and.ac.uk/~history/Extras/Einstein_ether.html
"Since according to our present conceptions the elementary particles
of matter are also, in their essence, nothing else than condensations
of the electromagnetic field"
The electromagnetic field is a state of aether.
Matter is the condensation of aether.
When a neutrino 'disappears' it has simply 'evaporated' into aether.
Y.Porat
> On Nov 26, 11:24 am, "hanson" <han...@quick.net> wrote:
>
>
>
> > Paul "PD" <thedraperfam...@gmail.com> was his usual self,
> > him loud-mouthing big time but he was not capable to explain
> > a fundamental concept of physics. Paul, you were and still
> > are a very bad teacher .... But thanks for the laughs...
> > ahahaha... ahahahahanson
>
> > Earlier "hanson" <han...@quick.net> wrote:
>
> > PD, kindly clarify, delineate, describe, IOW, do teach,
> > IYOW, what mass is, fundamentally, so that neutrino
> > oscillations can be explained without you resorting to
> > abstract terms, such as "flavor" like you did below.
> > TIA, hanson
>
> > Weasel Paul loud-mouthed and wrote
> > I can explain what mass is,
>
> > hanson wrote:
>
> > ... Then do so, Paul. It would be a good start and not
> > exposed yourself as being the weasel, that you are.
>
> OK.
> Mass has had its meaning refined, especially over the last 100 years
> or so.
> What it means now is the frame-independent quantity of a physical
> system (where a physical system is a collection of physical things,
> possibly interacting with each other) that can be calculated from
> measured energy and measured momentum:
> (mass) = sqrt ((Sum (energies))^2 - (Sum (momentum))^2).
> The fact that it is invariant regardless of inertial reference frame
> is what makes it interesting.
> For a closed physical system -- one where no net interaction crosses
> the boundary -- the fact that the mass is also conserved is also what
> makes it interesting. This conservation means that it will have the
> same value in a closed system, no matter what happens INSIDE the
> system. Conserved quantities always point to some fundamental law of
> symmetry in nature.
>
> There is the tendency to ask, "But what IS it, other than a quantity?"
> This is a misplaced question, because some quantities are interesting
> in their own right in physics, because they exhibit frame-independence
> and conservation. They don't have to have another "explanation" other
> than these circumstances.
>
> What we also know is that mass is not what we once thought it was,
> though it is close. For example, we once thought mass was a measure of
> "the amount of stuff". This rule doesn't work, though, because mass
> isn't additive -- you can't get the mass of a system by adding the
> masses of the parts of the system. We once thought that mass was a
> measure of the *inertia* of an object, where that is the ratio of the
> force applied to the acceleration observed. That rule doesn't work
> either though, because there is a velocity-dependent factor missing in
> that relationship (which just happened to be close to 1 for most of
> the everyday examples we looked at). Since these previous qualitative
> descriptions have fallen short, we now just talk about it as a
> quantity with the observed frame-independence and conservation
> behaviors -- which is about the same as what we do with a number of
> other properties like electric charge.
>
>
>
> > Weasel Paul loud-mouthed and wrote
> > ..... but this will not allow you to understand
> > neutrino oscillations without learning what "flavor" means.
> > I'm sorry, hanson, but you will not be able to understand all
> > phenomena observed just by getting a clear handle on a small number of
> > basic concepts.
> > If "flavor" were not a new and essential concept, then it would not
> > have been introduced in the first place.
>
> > How much are you willing to invest in learning a whole slew of
> > concepts and terms in order to understand the variety of phenomena we
> > observe?
>
> > > -----------------------------------------
> > > Was --- Re: Do I understand this correctly?
>
> > > "PD" <thedraperfam...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > "hanson" <han...@quick.net> wrote:
> > > > Joe Snodgrass <joe.s...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > > Joe wrote:
> > > > Am I correct in my understanding that, although it was discovered in
> > > > 1998 that the neutrino does indeed have mass, people still don't
> > > > know what that mass is? TIA.
>
> > > > What we know is that neutrinos oscillate between "flavors" -- muon
> > > > neutrinos to electron neutrinos and vice versa, tau neutrinos to muon
> > > > neutrinos and vice versa, etc. We have seen such behavior in hadrons,
> > > > including K mesons containing strange quarks, and mesons containing
> > > > charm and bottom quarks. You can google "K-long K-short" if you like.
>
> > > > Quantum mechanically, the oscillation is expected from a mixture of
> > > > states being produced, and the oscillation rate is proportional to the
> > > > difference between the squares of the neutrino masses, and so this is
> > > > the quantity that's been measured. If all the neutrinos were massless,
> > > > then the difference would be zero, and the oscillation rate would be
> > > > zero. This, however, doesn't tell you what the masses are, only that
> > > > they are different.
>
> > > > Technically, the situation is a bit more muddled, because the neutrino
> > > > *mass* states are not identical to neutrino *flavor* states. One is a
> > > > mixture of the other. Thus, if you form a specific *mass* state, then
> > > > you are producing a mix of flavor states, and an oscillation will
> > > > occur between mass states; and vice versa.
>
> > > > hanson wrote:
> > > > ... ahahaha...Paul, you write "This, however, doesn't tell you
> > > > what the masses are, only that they are different."... ahahaha..
> > > > and then you go and write a lengthy tripe around it, instead
> > > > of explaining what "mass" FUNDAMENTALLY means. Bad
> > > > pedagogic, Paul...Now, explain to Joe what "mass" here is.
> > > > TFTLIA... ahahahaha... ahahahahanson
>
> > > Paul wrote:
>
> > > I don't think that was his question, hanson.
> > > If you want to know what mass fundamentally means,
> > > why don't you make a new post with that question?
-------------------------
imbecile parrot!!
mass is conserved as well as energy is conserved
do you know why hopeless idiot crook ??
because ENERGY **HAS MASS**
**THE ONLY MASS!!**
NO MASS - THE ONLY MASS --
NO REAL PHYSICS !!
Y.Porat
---------------------------------------
--------------------------
mpc755
"Energy has mass" is incorrect.
Aether and matter are different states of maether.
A change in state of maether is energy.
http://www.ps.uci.edu/~superk/nuosc.html
http://home.netcom.com/~sbyers11/
DOES THE INERTIA OF A BODY DEPEND UPON ITS ENERGY-CONTENT?' A.EINSTEIN
http://www.fourmilab.ch/etexts/einstein/E_mc2/e_mc2.pdf
"If a body gives off the energy L in the form of radiation, its mass
diminishes by L/c2."
The matter which no longer exists as part of the body has not
vanished. It still exists, as aether. As matter converts to aether it
expands in three dimensional space. The physical effects this
transition has on the neighboring maether is energy. Mass is
conserved. Energy is conserved.
Tom Roberts
> When a neutrino 'disappears' it has simply 'evaporated' into aether.
How about the ones that appear? At a rate consistent with the disappearance
measured in other detectors, with momenta pointing back to the source, and with
timing consistent with that of the source. Remember that the different neutrino
detectors are sensitive to different types (flavors) of neutrinos, and the
different sources generate different types of neutrinos.
For instance, the LSND source cannot generate tau neutrinos,
but the MINOS source can and does. The MINOS detector cannot
cleanly distinguish electron from tau neutrinos but can determine
the sign of muons (i.e. nu_mu vs anti-nu_mu in quasi-elastic
scattering). Other detectors have difficulty identifying muon
neutrino events. Early radiochemical detectors were sensitive only
anti-nu_e. Etc.
The whole collection of experiments is MUCH better modeled as oscillations among
neutrino flavors than as "evaporating into aether".
Indeed, if "evaporating into aether" was common, then given that
NOBODY has ever observed aether, then 4-momentum conservation
would NOT be experimentally observed (because the energy and
momentum carried by the aether is unobservable). Instead, 4-momentum
conservation is solidly established in elementary particle
interactions. Historically, of course, neutrinos were postulated in
order to preserve energy-momentum conservation in certain decays, and
they were triumphantly observed with the appropriate properties.
Contrast that with your GUESSES about aether....
Tom Roberts
mpc755
> mpc755 wrote:
> > When a neutrino 'disappears' it has simply 'evaporated' into aether.
>
> How about the ones that appear?
'Ether and the Theory of Relativity by Albert Einstein'
http://www-groups.dcs.st-and.ac.uk/~history/Extras/Einstein_ether.html
"Since according to our present conceptions the elementary particles
of matter are also, in their essence, nothing else than condensations
of the electromagnetic field"
The electromagnetic field is a state of aether.
Matter is the condensation of aether.
> At a rate consistent with the disappearance
> measured in other detectors, with momenta pointing back to the source, and with
> timing consistent with that of the source. Remember that the different neutrino
> detectors are sensitive to different types (flavors) of neutrinos, and the
> different sources generate different types of neutrinos.
>
> For instance, the LSND source cannot generate tau neutrinos,
> but the MINOS source can and does. The MINOS detector cannot
> cleanly distinguish electron from tau neutrinos but can determine
> the sign of muons (i.e. nu_mu vs anti-nu_mu in quasi-elastic
> scattering). Other detectors have difficulty identifying muon
> neutrino events. Early radiochemical detectors were sensitive only
> anti-nu_e. Etc.
>
> The whole collection of experiments is MUCH better modeled as oscillations among
> neutrino flavors than as "evaporating into aether".
>
DOES THE INERTIA OF A BODY DEPEND UPON ITS ENERGY-CONTENT?' A.EINSTEIN
http://www.fourmilab.ch/etexts/einstein/E_mc2/e_mc2.pdf
"If a body gives off the energy L in the form of radiation, its mass
diminishes by L/c2."
The matter which no longer exists as part of the body has not
vanished. It still exists, as aether. As matter converts to aether it
expands in three dimensional space. The physical effects this
transition has on the neighboring matter and aether is energy. Mass is
conserved. Energy is conserved.
> Indeed, if "evaporating into aether" was common, then given that
> NOBODY has ever observed aether, then 4-momentum conservation
> would NOT be experimentally observed (because the energy and
> momentum carried by the aether is unobservable). Instead, 4-momentum
> conservation is solidly established in elementary particle
> interactions. Historically, of course, neutrinos were postulated in
> order to preserve energy-momentum conservation in certain decays, and
> they were triumphantly observed with the appropriate properties.
> Contrast that with your GUESSES about aether....
>
> Tom Roberts
What is presently described as dark matter is displaced aether.
The galaxy clusters in the following articles are not traveling with
dark matter. The galaxy clusters are moving through the aether. The
galaxy clusters displace aether. The moving galaxy clusters have
associated aether displacement waves.
'Hubble Finds Ghostly Ring of Dark Matter'
http://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/hubble/news/dark_matter_ring_feature.html
"Astronomers using NASA’s Hubble Space Telescope got a first-hand view
of how dark matter behaves during a titanic collision between two
galaxy clusters. The wreck created a ripple of dark mater, which is
somewhat similar to a ripple formed in a pond when a rock hits the
water."
The 'pond' consists of aether. The 'ripple' is an aether displacement
wave. The 'ripple' is a gravitational wave.
'Dark Halo Around Our Galaxy Looks Like Squished Beach Ball'
http://www.space.com/scienceastronomy/100106-dark-matter-halo-milky-way.html
"Dark matter seems to shroud the remaining visible matter in giant
spheres called haloes."
The Milky Way's halo is displaced aether.
"But the new study found that the Milky Way's halo isn't exactly
spherical, but squished. In fact, its beach-ball form is flattened in
a surprising direction — perpendicular to the galaxy's visible,
pancake-shaped spiral disk."
All of the aether displaced by the matter exerts force towards the
matter. The force exerted towards the matter by the aether displaced
perpendicular to the galaxy's pancake-shaped spiral disk offsets. It
is the aether which is displaced outward relative to the plane of the
spiral disk which exerts force towards the center of the galaxy. This
forces the matter in the pancake-shaped spiral disk towards the center
of the galaxy which results in the displaced aether looking like a
squished beach ball.
In the following image, what is being shown is the state of the aether
which is the aether's state of displacement.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/nol/shared/spl/hi/pop_ups/07/sci_nat_enl_1168021092/img/1.jpg
A moving particle has an associated aether displacement wave. In a
double slit experiment the particle travels a single path and enters
and exits a single slit. It is the associated aether displacement wave
which enters and exits multiple slits. The aether displacement wave
creates interference upon exiting the slits. It is this interference
which alters the direction the particle travels. Detecting the
particle causes a loss of coherence between the particle and its
associated aether displacement wave and there is no interference.
Mass is a measurement of force. All objects displace aether. Displaced
aether exerts force towards the objects. The faster an object's
momentum with respect to the state of the aether the more aether the
object displaces the more force exerted by the displaced aether
towards the object. The same for the measuring apparatus.
When the object is on the scale, the force exerted towards the object
(and the measuring apparatus) by the aether displaced by the object
(and the measuring apparatus) is a measurement of the object's
relativistic mass.
'Gravitational mass' and 'inertial mass' are both aspects of Aether
Displacement. Aether is displaced by matter. The displaced aether
exerts force towards the matter. The force exerted towards the Earth
by the aether displaced by the Earth determines gravitational mass.
The aether's resistance to change determines inertial mass.
Aether has mass.
Aether is displaced by matter.
Aether displaced by matter exerts force towards the matter.
Force exerted towards matter by aether displaced by matter is gravity.
PD
Nope. Observationally incorrect.
Y.Porat
---------------------
the fact that our observations are
badly interpreted it is not natures fault
IT IS YOUR and your parrots
FAULT !
no mass is growing or shrinking
by movement
had you understand
WAT IS MOVEMENT
AND RELATIVE MOVEMENT
at high speed
YOU might UNDERSTAND
WHY THAT
observation ILLUSION
OCCURS !1
at higth velocities mass is not swelling
it is the energy needed to invest
for more acceleration
is becoming bigger !!
NO MASS -*** THE ONLY MASS***--
NO REAL PHYSICS !
ATB
Y.Porat
----------------------------
PD
When you choose to distrust observation as being "badly interpreted"
and favor "logic" over observation to determine truth is the same day
you walk away from science.
hanson
> PD <thedraperfam...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > "Y.Porat" <y.y.po...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> PD <thedraperfam...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>> "hanson" <han...@quick.net> wrote:
<snip>
>
hanson wrote:
ahahaha...Paul, you write "This, however, doesn't tell you
what the masses are, only that they are different."... ahahaha..
and then you go and write a lengthy tripe around it, instead
of explaining what "mass" FUNDAMENTALLY means. Bad
>
Paul wrote:
I don't think that was his question, hanson.
If you want to know what mass fundamentally means,
why don't you make a new post with that question?
>
Paul, you imbecile parrot!!
mass is conserved as well as energy is conserved
>
Nope. Observationally incorrect.
>
Addressing Paul, Yehiel wrote:
do you know why, Paul, you hopeless idiot crook ??
because ENERGY **HAS MASS**
**THE ONLY MASS!!**
NO MASS - THE ONLY MASS --
NO REAL PHYSICS !!
badly interpreted it is not natures fault
IT IS YOUR and your parrots FAULT !
no mass is growing or shrinking by movement
had you understand WAT IS MOVEMENT
YOU might UNDERSTAND WHY
THAT observation ILLUSION OCCURS !1
at higth velocities mass is not swelling
it is the energy needed to invest for more
acceleration is becoming bigger !!
NO MASS -*** THE ONLY MASS***-- NO REAL PHYSICS !
>
... ahahahaha... AHAHAHAHA... AHAHAHA...
Yehi, Yehi, don't get so excited over this or you will choke
on some barbs that were left in the gefilte fish.. AHAHA..
Listen, my dear khaver, Paul Draper's post
----- <http://tinyurl.com/Paul-Drapers-Mass> --------
is actually very enlightening... especially in regards to that
you and him have agreed, in part, that
........ mass has to do with acceleration........
>
Of course, there is a difference in the Weltbild that you
2 have. Draper is a Ph_ilosophical D_octor, a PhD, who
philosophizes & whose job is to pontificate about Nature.
OTOH, Yehi, you are a doer, a builder, an engineer.
So, your way of looking at things is perfectly good &
valuable too.
Don't waste your time to cram your views down the throat
of Draper. He has no use for that. His inner world is very
different from yours... But don't let me cramp your style,
Yehi. Carry on and thanks for the laughs... ahahahanson
>
PS:
I may post on this issue directly to Draper. He said some
very interesting things in his tripe. The consequences of his,
the establishment's, notions are quite intriguing.
Y.Porat
-----------------------
shameless crook demagogue!!!
what is your obseravtions and interpretations ??
lest take
PHOTON MOMENTUM
is
E photon =hf
the rigth formula presenting observations??
now tell me shameless fucker
is that formula
GOT ANYTHING WITH RELATIVITY ??!
it was found completely independent of relativity
nothing in it is relativistic
h has mass
so what the fuck is the relativistic coeficient
to multiply that mass
BY ANYTHING RELATIVISTIC ??
2
hf/c is photon momentum right??!
h has mass
what the fuck is anything there relativistic
is c relativistic ?? idiot ??
c is relativistic to ??? to c !!
IS IT RELATIVISTIC TO ITSELF ??
CAN ANYTHING IN PHYSICS BE RELATIVISTIC TO ITSELF??
dont you idiot crook understand what is the meaning of to be
relative to ??!!
can something be relative to itself ??!!
c is c and relative to c
so why add here the word relativistic ??
hf/c
hasnothing relativistic
INCLUDING THE MASS IN IT
indeed it is not written yet in your text books
but soon it will be
and crooks like you wilnot
on the long run - stop advance in physics !!
in short
before making me an idiot
make fist yourself an idiot
and crook as well
i say crook because you know well
( at least as a medium intelligent )
that i am right !!
NO MASS - THE ONLY MASS - NO REAL PHYSICS !!!
Y.Porat
-------------------------------------
hanson
you came across very well on several fronts, and you
certainly are not alone when dealing with this issue of
"what is mass, fundamentally" as a brief survey indicates:
== 27,700 results for <http://tinyurl.com/was-ist-Masse>
== 1,090 hits for -[What is mass ]- <http://tinyurl.com/2cczqk9>
== 46,900,000 hits for <http://tinyurl.com/Definition-of-Mass>
and I indicated my notion on the issue of "what is mass" in
== <<http://tinyurl.com/Aether-Properties-Equations>>
wherein it says:... "that it is like asking the question
"What is the electric charge, or gravity, mass, matter,
length or time." etc... But there are no answers to that.
The best that can be hoped for is to dig up some
characteristics for it that may be associated with EM
&/or G in interactions that occur in the familiar M, L, T
dimensions & combinations thereof"
>
So, that then is where you and me see the world as a
similar painting. Where/why we diverge on this is due
to the different ways we traveled, after our education,
as = Ph_ilosphical D_octors = aka PhDs. You stayed
in the hen house. --- I went with the foxes... ahaha...
Your job's prime directive was/is to convey ken to the
next generation which is a noble necessity & endeavor.
>
In biz, I create and produce things with/by hiring the
folks that "you" educated. I found though that the best
educated folks for industry do come from the
"Engineering Schools". Univ-drilled PhDs do not
know a smidgen more of useful things then do these
Dipl.Eng.'s. OTOH, PhDs have the social advantage
when being used as "Herr Doktor" as expert witnesses
in legal proceedings.. or for Product advertisements.
As said, your pov on this is different of course...
>
Now, let's get back to the fine tripe you produced in
<http://tinyurl.com/Paul-Drapers-Mass> and look for
common ground. 1st of all I can understand now when
and why you posted that "What Einstein said about
relativity is irrelevant." and asked me "What do YOU
mean by objective physics", as detailed in
<<http://tinyurl.com/Einstein-irrelevant-No-obj-phy>>
Furthermore you said along these lines that "Mass has
crap then has retarded the development of fundamental
physics for the last 100 years... ahaha..
>
All this is due to the soft PHILOSOPHICAL underpinning,
of hard core physics by "Gedanken experiments" which
is exampled in what you suggested in your, well, the
establishment's, definition of mass-variability as ... ||[1]||
>
dimensions since in traditional dim-analysis it should be
m = sqrt ((E/c^2)^2 - (P/c)^2))
>
Now the sqrt in that notion ||[1]|| also implies that mass can
be negative. How is that dealt with? Can one read into this
that positive & negative mass properties do fundamentally
attract and annihilate each other.. aka .. Gravitation...??
>
If so,
then there is a corollary here with EM in e = sqrt (hbar*a*c)
or also with Planck's expression that m_Pl = e* sqrt (a/G)
which then too must be very fundamental equations, both
of which indicate that mass & charge can be + or -.
>
Furthermore, if so, one can read into Planck's mass, that
m_pl has a spatial expanse of 1 Planck length and decays
within 1 unit of Planck time... into 1/2 mole of electrons
and positrons each as
m_pl / m_e = a * (N_A*pi*sqrt3), or =
m_pl / m_e = a * (R/k*pi*sqrt3) saying that
1 mole of e-/e+ masses = 1 Planck mass .... which so far
are all existing only due to PhD-philosophy, n'est pas!?...
>
Now, following your notion ||[1]|| some more, the question
arises, why not expand the definition of mass into an even
more generalized form by using the entire sequence from
Action *1/t --> Energy *1/c --> Momentum *1/c --> Mass
and say that **mass is the operative property of all time
derivatives of Action (if c=1). Is such a notion viable at all too?...
>
Now, it seems to me that there are other implications
in the trend of your ||[1]||, because it bring into question
whether there are any truly fixed constants at all..
>
Only one constant, "c" is deemed to be fixed, and only
so cuz the establishment has agreed to ** define "c" **
as fixed, because without that philosophical "Fixation of
"c", all the other fundamental constants like "G", h, e & a,
would be no longer "constant"... But, if that new floating
physics of "variable mass", in ||[1]||, is universal, are they?
>
Oddly enough there is physics' stepchild, a notable exception,
namely N_A, Avogadro's constant, that defines the "amount
of substance" which seems to be fixed and is not subject to
the variability of mass, or is it... ... why, so?
----------------
<http://tinyurl.com/Paul-Drapers-Mass>
----------------
>
Thanks for the fun, Paul. Take care.
hanson
PD
> Paul, in your <http://tinyurl.com/Paul-Drapers-Mass>
> you came across very well on several fronts, and you
> certainly are not alone when dealing with this issue of
> "what is mass, fundamentally" as a brief survey indicates:
> == 27,700 results for <http://tinyurl.com/was-ist-Masse>
> == 1,090 hits for -[What is mass ]- <http://tinyurl.com/2cczqk9>
> == 46,900,000 hits for <http://tinyurl.com/Definition-of-Mass>
> and I indicated my notion on the issue of "what is mass" in
> == <<http://tinyurl.com/Aether-Properties-Equations>>
> wherein it says:... "that it is like asking the question
> "What is the electric charge, or gravity, mass, matter,
> length or time." etc... But there are no answers to that.
> The best that can be hoped for is to dig up some
> characteristics for it that may be associated with EM
> &/or G in interactions that occur in the familiar M, L, T
> dimensions & combinations thereof"
>
> So, that then is where you and me see the world as a
> similar painting. Where/why we diverge on this is due
> to the different ways we traveled, after our education,
> as = Ph_ilosphical D_octors = aka PhDs. You stayed
> in the hen house. --- I went with the foxes... ahaha...
> Your job's prime directive was/is to convey ken to the
> next generation which is a noble necessity & endeavor.
Well, let me clarify this a little, because your perception is just a
touch off.
The purpose of teaching advanced physics students is not to get them
to see things your way. If that were true, then there would be no
Nobel Prizes awarded for upsetting the applecart, which is what most
of the award-winning work in fact did. The main objective is teaching
young physicists *how to find out* if a certain statement is true.
That is, we teach them how to investigate questions like a physicist.
>
> In biz, I create and produce things with/by hiring the
> folks that "you" educated. I found though that the best
> educated folks for industry do come from the
> "Engineering Schools". Univ-drilled PhDs do not
> know a smidgen more of useful things then do these
> Dipl.Eng.'s. OTOH, PhDs have the social advantage
> when being used as "Herr Doktor" as expert witnesses
> in legal proceedings.. or for Product advertisements.
> As said, your pov on this is different of course...
Not so very different.
>
> Now, let's get back to the fine tripe you produced in
> <http://tinyurl.com/Paul-Drapers-Mass> and look for
> common ground. 1st of all I can understand now when
> and why you posted that "What Einstein said about
> relativity is irrelevant." and asked me "What do YOU
> mean by objective physics", as detailed in
> <<http://tinyurl.com/Einstein-irrelevant-No-obj-phy>>
> Furthermore you said along these lines that "Mass has
> had its meaning refined, especially over the last 100
> years or so".., to which one could add that Einstein's
> crap then has retarded the development of fundamental
> physics for the last 100 years... ahaha..
No, I wouldn't put it that way at all. If someone takes four steps
forward and one back, or four steps forward and one to the side, would
it have been better if that person had never taken the four steps
forward at all?
New theories usually get some things right and some things wrong or
not quite right. The wrong things get corrected and the right things
represent advances. I would not say that something that is partially
right holds anything back.
>
> All this is due to the soft PHILOSOPHICAL underpinning,
> of hard core physics by "Gedanken experiments" which
> is exampled in what you suggested in your, well, the
> establishment's, definition of mass-variability as ... ||[1]||
> (mass) = sqrt ((Sum (energies))^2 - (Sum (momentum))^2).
This isn't the result of a gedanken. It's what is experimentally
observed to be the invariant and conserved quantity.
>
> In ||[1]|| it appears that you are setting "c" as 1 with varying
> dimensions since in traditional dim-analysis it should be
> m = sqrt ((E/c^2)^2 - (P/c)^2))
Yes, I was using natural units, which also confused Androcles.
>
> Now the sqrt in that notion ||[1]|| also implies that mass can
> be negative. How is that dealt with? Can one read into this
> that positive & negative mass properties do fundamentally
> attract and annihilate each other.. aka .. Gravitation...??
I'm not sure why you think mass could be negative? Because the sqrt of
4 is +2 and -2?.
If that's the case, then allow me to clarify further that the positive
root is what is intended.
>
> If so,
> then there is a corollary here with EM in e = sqrt (hbar*a*c)
> or also with Planck's expression that m_Pl = e* sqrt (a/G)
> which then too must be very fundamental equations, both
> of which indicate that mass & charge can be + or -.
Again, the positive root is what is intended in both cases.
>
> Furthermore, if so, one can read into Planck's mass, that
> m_pl has a spatial expanse of 1 Planck length and decays
> within 1 unit of Planck time.
No, this is certainly not suggested. A Planck mass is a number, not a
particle. It is not a physical object.
>.. into 1/2 mole of electrons
> and positrons each as
> m_pl / m_e = a * (N_A*pi*sqrt3), or =
> m_pl / m_e = a * (R/k*pi*sqrt3) saying that
> 1 mole of e-/e+ masses = 1 Planck mass .... which so far
> are all existing only due to PhD-philosophy, n'est pas!?...
>
> Now, following your notion ||[1]|| some more, the question
> arises, why not expand the definition of mass into an even
> more generalized form by using the entire sequence from
> Action *1/t --> Energy *1/c --> Momentum *1/c --> Mass
> and say that **mass is the operative property of all time
> derivatives of Action (if c=1). Is such a notion viable at all too?...
I'm sorry, but you'll have to elaborate on that. I couldn't make sense
of it.
>
> Now, it seems to me that there are other implications
> in the trend of your ||[1]||, because it bring into question
> whether there are any truly fixed constants at all..
>
> Only one constant, "c" is deemed to be fixed, and only
> so cuz the establishment has agreed to ** define "c" **
> as fixed, because without that philosophical "Fixation of
> "c", all the other fundamental constants like "G", h, e & a,
> would be no longer "constant"... But, if that new floating
> physics of "variable mass", in ||[1]||, is universal, are they?
The establishment only agreed to DEFINE c to be constant after
measuring it extensively prior to 1987 and finding it to be constant
before it was so defined.
But this convention in no way *fixed* constants like G, h, e, and
alpha to be constants. Just because you can write one in terms of the
other does not mean that *all* of them are free. It only means that a
pair of them could be free. For example, if c is not constant, then h
and e would still be constant but alpha would not.
>
> Oddly enough there is physics' stepchild, a notable exception,
> namely N_A, Avogadro's constant, that defines the "amount
> of substance" which seems to be fixed and is not subject to
> the variability of mass, or is it... ... why, so?
N_A is a *number*, like "dozen" or "gross" or "billion". It is
literally a count of things.
If mass were to change, a mole of things would still be that many
things, though the mass would be different.
hanson
>
(1) Paul wrote <http://tinyurl.com/Paul-Drapers-Mass>
(2) hanson wrote <http://tinyurl.com/Questions-on-Mass-definition>
wherein the following points, made by Paul, are
worthwhile to pursue:
>
Paul wrote:
Well, let me clarify this a little, because your perception
is just a touch off.
>
ahahahaha... Good one!.. You sound now like Reverend
Koster who caught me washing my balls in the chalice of
holy water after his beautiful wife Laura Lee gave me a
phenomenal & memorable ride on the altar... ahahahaha....
"your perception is just a touch off" cuz "this isn't what it
looks like, Reverend Koster"... ahahaha... AHAHAHAHA.....
>
Earlier, hanson wrote:
As said, your pov on this is different of course...
>
Not so very different.
>
Earlier, hanson wrote:
the establishment's definition of mass-variability as ... ||[1]||
(mass) = sqrt ((Sum (energies))^2 - (Sum (momentum))^2).
be negative. How is that dealt with? Can one read into this
that positive & negative mass properties do fundamentally
attract and annihilate each other.. aka .. Gravitation...??
>
I'm not sure why you think mass could be negative?
Because the sqrt of 4 is +2 and -2?.
If that's the case, then allow me to clarify further that the positive
root is what is intended.
>
If so,
then there is a corollary here with EM in e = sqrt (hbar*a*c)
or also with Planck's expression that m_Pl = e* sqrt (a/G)
which then too must be very fundamental equations, both
of which indicate that mass & charge can be + or -.
>
Again, the positive root is what is intended in both cases.
>
Yes, Paul, it would interest me, why only "the positive root
is what is intended". If mass is not a lump of stuff but more
of an Energy-Momentum-acceleration thing ||[1]|| then why
can't it be negative? The force implied in the momentum
would merely change the direction from pos to neg. Right?
>
An/your answer that this is so because it is observed, then
raises the question of why this is advocated in a mathematical
form that presents/gives two choices?
>
>
>
PS:
ahahaaha...Such dual possibilities invite gimmickry galore:
<http://tinyurl.com/The-50-vs-41-Einstein-hoses>
Matt
>On Nov 29, 1:13 pm, "hanson" <han...@quick.net> wrote:
>> In ||[1]|| it appears that you are setting "c" as 1 with varying
>> dimensions since in traditional dim-analysis it should be
>> m = sqrt ((E/c^2)^2 - (P/c)^2))
>
>Yes, I was using natural units, which also confused Androcles.
Androcles?!
Mistaken for Androcles.
Ouch.
Androcles
"Matt" <30d...@net.net> wrote in message
news:rtv8f6d2tbgt1licl...@4ax.com...
Quacks are quackless in natural ducks, but Phuckwit Duck is a plat-billed
duckypus.
<http://www.scisite.info/pd.jpg>
PD
It's no so much a matter of what the implications of negative mass
would be. The ultimate arbiter is whether negative mass is ever
actually observed -- and there are plenty of places where if it
existed, we would be able to look. For example, we've created
antimatter, and you would expect that if antimatter has negative mass,
it would fall up in Earth's gravitational field. As far as we can
tell, it doesn't.
>
> An/your answer that this is so because it is observed, then
> raises the question of why this is advocated in a mathematical
> form that presents/gives two choices?
The math is fit to nature, not the other way around.
A positive square root is still a square root. The only thing needed
is to be clear about which root you mean when you write down the math.
There are LOTS of places where square roots are used in physics and
where only the positive square root is implied. For example, the
period of a simple pendulum is T = (1/2pi)sqrt(L/g), where L is the
length of the pendulum. This doesn't and shouldn't imply to you that
there are both positive and negative periods to a pendulum.
Androcles
"PD" <thedrap...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:b30970d0-fd47-4504...@o14g2000prn.googlegroups.com...
======================================
Bwahahahahahahahahahahahaha!
If we only looked we'd find leprechaun gold at the end of
the rainbow, in a cooking pot... no, the OTHER end, you fool!
hanson
But below you reverted to your old style of
obfuscation and weaseling over the question
I posed, which I only raised because you said
"allow me to clarify further", which you promptly
did not. Thanks for the laughs though...ahahaha
I'll talk to you later & elsewhere.... hahahahanson
>
----------------
It's no so much a matter of what the implications of negative mass
would be. The ultimate arbiter is whether negative mass is ever
actually observed -- and there are plenty of places where if it
existed, we would be able to look. For example, we've created
antimatter, and you would expect that if antimatter has negative mass,
it would fall up in Earth's gravitational field. As far as we can
tell, it doesn't.
>
> An/your answer that this is so because it is observed, then
> raises the question of why this is advocated in a mathematical
> form that presents/gives two choices?
Weaseling Paul wrote:
The math is fit to nature, not the other way around.
A positive square root is still a square root. The only thing needed
is to be clear about which root you mean when you write down the math.
There are LOTS of places where square roots are used in physics and
where only the positive square root is implied. For example, the
period of a simple pendulum is T = (1/2pi)sqrt(L/g), where L is the
length of the pendulum. This doesn't and shouldn't imply to you that
there are both positive and negative periods to a pendulum.
>
Edward Green
> On Nov 29, 1:13 pm, "hanson" <han...@quick.net> wrote:
<...>
> > Now, let's get back to the fine tripe you produced in
> > <http://tinyurl.com/Paul-Drapers-Mass> and look for
> > common ground. 1st of all I can understand now when
> > and why you posted that "What Einstein said about
> > relativity is irrelevant." and asked me "What do YOU
> > mean by objective physics", as detailed in
> > <<http://tinyurl.com/Einstein-irrelevant-No-obj-phy>>
> > Furthermore you said along these lines that "Mass has
> > had its meaning refined, especially over the last 100
> > years or so".., to which one could add that Einstein's
> > crap then has retarded the development of fundamental
> > physics for the last 100 years... ahaha..
>
> No, I wouldn't put it that way at all. If someone takes four steps
> forward and one back, or four steps forward and one to the side, would
> it have been better if that person had never taken the four steps
> forward at all?
>
> New theories usually get some things right and some things wrong or
> not quite right. The wrong things get corrected and the right things
> represent advances. I would not say that something that is partially
> right holds anything back.
Please elaborate. What was the one step taken backwards or to the side
in SR?
PD
I think "relativistic mass" can be considered a move to the side at
best. It was done to bridge classical physics with the more correct
relativistic treatment, in the manner of "this can be thought of
playing the role of what you knew before...."
Y.Porat
-------------------
indeed
mathematics is mathematics
and physics is physics
not always overlapping
pompous fucken mathematicians that call themselves
physicists
do not always realize it
ATB
Y.Porat
-------------------------
Y.Porat
---------------------
why dont you say something loud and clear:
IS THERE RELATIVISTIC MASS
OR NOT ??!!
do you want the benefit to live
in two paradises ??!!
is just one paradise is not good enough for you??!!
that is not a honest behavior
it is a behavior of a diplomat
not of an honest scientist
that wants some advance in science !!
Y.Porat
--------------------------------
PD
Porat, you can always *define* any quantity you want in physics.
(1/9)mv^4 is a perfectly legitimate quantity with perfectly acceptable
dimensions.
The question is whether it has any interesting value. Is it frame
invariant? Is there any important dynamical law that involves this
quantity? Does the quantity appear to be conserved?
In the case of (1/9)mv^4, the answer is no.
In the case of momentum, the answer appears to be yes.
In the case of relativistic mass -- m/sqrt(1-(v/c)^2) -- the answer
about its interest is marginal. It was useful to describe some
transitional way of thinking about how classical physics maps to a
more complete treatment. However, it turns out to be more
straightforward to rewrite the dynamical laws in a way that is more
clearly Poincaree-invariant.
Androcles
=============================================
Bwahahahahahahahaha!
Is that anything like
"(x1-x2)^2 + (y1-y2)^2 + (z1-z2)^2 - (t1-t2)^2 is invariant",
where 1 square hour is subtracted from three orthogonal
square miles to make the answer invariant, Duck?
Don't you know that "(x1-x2)^2" is actually (x1-x2)*(y2-y1), moron?
You are as "perfectly legitimate" as the offspring of William the Bastard
and his unknown chimpanzee.
<http://geoffboxell.tripod.com/willie.htm>
PD
> "PD" <thedraperfam...@gmail.com> wrote in message
Note that this quantity is invariant, as determined by observations,
and that's what distinguishes this variable from the (1/9)mv^4
Androcles
> square miles to make the answer invariant, Duck?
>
> Don't you know that "(x1-x2)^2" is actually (x1-x2)*(y2-y1), moron?
> You are as "perfectly legitimate" as the offspring of William the Bastard
> and his unknown chimpanzee.
> <http://geoffboxell.tripod.com/willie.htm>
Note that this quantity is invariant, as determined by observations,
and that's what distinguishes this variable from the (1/9)mv^4
=============================================
Note that
"1 + 1 + 1 - 1" = 2 and "2+2+2-1" = 7 and
<http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/invariant>
Definition of INVARIANT
: constant, unchanging; specifically : unchanged by specified mathematical
or physical operations or transformations <invariant factor>
"You can't even keep track of the lies you say." -- Phuckwit Duck
[sitting in the duck blind, waiting with a shotgun for a blind duck to
appear]
Bwahahahahahahahahahahaha!!!!!
Y.y.Porat
>
> > ---------------------
> > why dont you say something loud and clear:
>
> > IS THERE RELATIVISTIC MASS
> > OR NOT ??!!
>
> Porat, you can always *define* any quantity you want in physics.
BTW PD
honestly and not cynically
i admire your polite behavior with me
in spight my bland attacks on you ...
--------------------
> (1/9)mv^4 is a perfectly legitimate quantity with perfectly acceptable
> dimensions.
>
> The question is whether it has any interesting value. Is it frame
> invariant? Is there any important dynamical law that involves this
> quantity? Does the quantity appear to be conserved?
>
> In the case of (1/9)mv^4, the answer is no.
>
> In the case of momentum, the answer appears to be yes.
>-------------------
BRASVO !!
WE SEE SOME ADVANCE!!
yet PD
you ddint notice that by just your above answer
you admied without noticing that
THE PHOTON HAS MASS
THE ONLY MASS !!
because momentum of photon
that moves at c (constant)
**in all frames**
and c can be relative to itself only ) --
hf/c
has mass
and nothing in hf/c to make it relativistic
so
even if you will mix it
and boggle it
wi tht emore complicated caase of
energy plus momentum
t emomentun section will ahve still
just the only mass
while mc^2
as well has nothing in it
to make it relativistic
that is BTW
i separated the complicated
fomula of energy plus momentum
and dealt only with the momentum part!
( good analysis is done by
separating and insulating as much as possible the analyzed issue
that is the meaning of analysis !!
BTW
i wonder why
your text is shown in somewhat poor and "skinny" appearance
ATB
Y.Porat
--------------------------
PD
No sir. I said momentum is a quantity of interest. You take that to
mean that mv is the quantity, and that therefore mc applies for
photons. That's not correct.
Y.Porat
ok just tell us
why it is a quantity of interest
if it is clear to you that
momentum of photon
'does not have mass' !!!
you see PD
you cant hold the long stretched rope
at both of its edges
i asked you a simple question:
is there relativistic mass:
you can answer only one of 3 answers
1
'there is relativistic mass'
2
'there is no relativistic mass'
3
i dont know''
so where are you now
as an honest scientist
TIA
Y.Porat
-----------------------------------
PD
Because it is experimentally observed to be conserved in closed
systems.
That's what makes it useful.
> if it is clear to you that
> momentum of photon
> 'does not have mass' !!!
>
> you see PD
> you cant hold the long stretched rope
> at both of its edges
>
> i asked you a simple question:
>
> is there relativistic mass:
> you can answer only one of 3 answers
> 1
> 'there is relativistic mass'
> 2
> 'there is no relativistic mass'
> 3
> i dont know''
I already answered this.
As soon as you define it, there it is.
There is also joombajuice = (1/9)mv^4.
This quantity, though it exists by virtue of having just been defined,
doesn't have any usefulness.
Relativistic mass, though it exists by virtue of having been defined a
long time ago, has limited usefulness.
Invariant mass, also having been defined quite a while ago, has more
usefulness.
Y.Porat
please just answer my simple questions
without smart guying maneuvers
1
is there IN NATURE
***and/or according to your understanding***
-relativistic mass ?
2
is there IN NATURE
and/or according to your understandind
** no** relativistic mass ?
3
you dont have yet a fixed idea about it ??
we dont need
sophisticated mumblings
just bottom lines !!
(in nature there can t be hesitations about it !!)
just
1
or 2
or
3
TIA
Y.Porat
----------------------------
PD
I don't think you understand. Physics quantities do not have some kind
of independent existence apart from our definitions and models.
Objects do, and they have certain regularities in their behavior. We
model those regularities by *defining* properties and how we measure
them. No property exists on its own apart from our definition of how
we measure it. Once that definition is done, then we can make models
that try to mimic the behavior of real objects, so that when so-and-so
circumstances prevail, we can say that those defined properties will
be measurable to have this-or-that value.
This is crucial because amateurs get confused about this, especially
regarding relativity. For example, length of an object is not
something that is handed to us by nature. It is something that WE
define, according to a general but firm procedure, and that DEFINITION
is what is essential to the remarkable statement that length -- so
defined -- depends on reference frame.
If you thought that force or electric charge or mass or energy were
things that are intrinsic to *nature* and we stumbled upon them,
you're wrong. We *defined* every single one of them in our attempt to
understand the regularities of natural behavior. This may come as a
shock to your sensibilities, but I do urge you to take it seriously.
Y.Porat
shameless crookl
does a crook like you what to teach me physics
or may be decent human behavior ??
before teaching me physics]
teach yourself not to be a crook !!
i was asking you simple questios
1
is there relativistic mass
according to your current understandings
2
is there NOT relativistic mass
according to your bestunderstanding
3
you have not a definit conclusion about the above question
CANT YOU ANSWER A SIMPLE QUESTION
THAT ANY ONE OF THE HONEST READERS COULD ANSWER BY JUST
YES
OR NO ??
i gave you even the third question as well
that closes any other possibility
and leaves you no escape
provided you are a honest man
we dont need your fucken demagogic preaching about physics
that i know physics not least than you
and may be even more than you
you never innovated anything in physics
so
please dont teach me about how physics is done
because i know and other sciences it much better than you !!
just answer the most simple unequivocal questions
including cases in which there is no
clear answer for your current understandings
to the first two cases
or else it becomes crystal clear to most other readers
that you are maneuvering shamelessly
to evade VERY simple questions
and another thing that you can rather learn from ME:
YOU CAN CHEAT OR DELUDE SOMEONE FOREVER
YOU CAN CHEAT OR DELUDE EVERY BODY
JUST ONCE
BUT YOU CANT CHEAT OR DELUDE
ALL PEOPLE FOREVER !!!
so ???
TIA
Y.Porat
-------------------
Androcles
I don't think
====================================
As you have told us on many occasions.
PD
I already answered that.
I already told you that there IS relativistic mass by virtue of its
definition.
You then asked if there is relativistic mass IN NATURE, and I told you
that no physical properties exist in nature outside or independent of
our definitions.
Nature doesn't have concepts. Nature just does what it does. WE have
concepts to describe what nature does.
You don't like that answer, I gather. I asked you to consider it
carefully anyway, because it is the truth.
NoEinstein
>
> - Show quoted text -
Dear Edward: The "backwards step" in SR is that such violates the Law
of the Conservation of Energy. Also, the space-time CRAP of SR
resulted from Lorentz's rubber-ruler explanation for the nil results
of Michelson-Morley. The real reason for the nil results (my own
contribution) is because M-M didn't have a CONTROL, or unchanging,
light course. Read some of my many '+new posts' to understand more.
— 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
A BLACK HOLE MYTH GETS BUSTED:
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics/browse_thread/thread/a170212ca4c36218?hl=en#
SR Ignored the Significance of the = Sign
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics/browse_thread/thread/562477d4848ea45a/92bccf5550412817?hl=en#92bccf5550412817
Eleaticus confirms that SR has been destroyed!
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.math/browse_thread/thread/c3cdedf38e749bfd/0451e93207ee475a?hl=en#0451e93207ee475a
NoEinstein Finds Yet Another Reason Why SR Bites-the-Dust!
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics/browse_thread/thread/a3a12d4d732435f2/737ef57bf0ed3849?hl=en#737ef57bf0ed3849
NoEinstein Gives the History & Rationale for Disproving Einstein
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics/browse_thread/thread/81046d3d070cffe4/f1d7fbe994f569f7?hl=en#f1d7fbe994f569f7
There is no "pull" of gravity, only the PUSH of flowing ether!
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics/browse_thread/thread/a8c26d2eb535ab8/efdbea7b0272072f?hl=en&
PD has questions about science. Can any of you help?
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics/browse_thread/thread/4a2edad1c5c0a4c1/2d0e50d773ced1ad?hl=en&
Taking a Fresh Look at the Physics of Radiometers.
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics/browse_thread/thread/3ebe85495d1929b0/ba1163422440ffd9?hl=en#ba1163422440ffd9
A Proposed Gravity-Propelled Swing Experiment.
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics/browse_thread/thread/3052e7f7b228a800/aef3ee7dc59b6e2f?hl=en&q=gravity+swing
Shedding New Light on Comet Tails
http://groups.google.com/g/d8e7fef4/t/fbb6a213b8c465b3/.../187797453b40de4f?...
What is sci.research seeking if not the truth?
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics/browse_thread/thread/d3082ccdb7b1bf67/0eb5a96f57493f20?lnk=raot
Busting MythBusters.
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics/browse_thread/thread/2e95660ecf69048d/ae6c137610ee3437?hl=en#ae6c137610ee3437
Gravity Effects Across Etherless Regions of Space.
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics/browse_thread/thread/f7f59b900f24e881/38262930c6655db1?hl=en#38262930c6655db1
Where is the matter Einstein says velocity creates?
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics/browse_thread/thread/85646434c6d7cd3b/fa38761134ee8408?hl=en#fa38761134ee8408
Dropping Coriolis like a feather.
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics/browse_thread/thread/182d6fbe7e70b75f/21c92e2427fd7e98?hl=en#21c92e2427fd7e98
Y.Porat
as usual with you
your answer is ambiguous !
no one is interested in your virtual
or not virtual defintions
just the common understanding of it
normal people are interested in **practical *knowlwdge
for further advance
unlike you
most scientists
that are unlike you not fucken lawyers
iow
they are interested
on what to invest their time and money
and efforts
and on what not
they are not interested you your virtual
or not virtual definitions
they want to know
if mass is inflating with more velocity or not
they what to know
is the photon has rest mass and no relativistic mass
or not
etc etc
so
just a simple answer
take your virtual or not virtual definitions of
mass
and definitions of mass and tell them
IS THERE RELATIVISTIC MASS
(as *you* like and prefer** to define it)
yes or not ??
JUST ONE WORD
and nothing else
TIA
Y.Porat
--------------------------------------
Y.Porat
and in addition of the above
here is a quote from your post from 3 decmber
quote
'''I already answered that.
I already
told you that there IS relativistic mass by virtue of its
definition.' '''
end of quote
my additional to the above questions
1
what is the definition of mass
BY VIRTUE OF ITS DEFINITION ??!!
dont you see that anyone ca see
th edefinition of relativistic mass
fopr instance in Vikipedia
do we need your additional definitions?
andif it is defined
why dont you say clear and loud
that according to your understanding --
**there is relativistic mass**
2
and how do you veritfy it by experiments ??
3
if i will define by virtue of definition that
a witch on a broom
is a witch that between its legs there is a broom
that is 4 meter long
will it be ok to say by virtue of definition
there are witches on brooms !!!
4
do you think that all readers here are idiots and suckers
to get impressed by you pompous devious private ad hock
rules of physics??
4
what comes first
'physical definitions'
or experimental data and findings ??
TIA
Y.Porat
------------------------------
waht is the virt
PD
Mine is the same as in Wikipedia. Look at what I wrote.
> andif it is defined
> why dont you say clear and loud
> that according to your understanding --
>
> **there is relativistic mass**
I did.
You then asked if, independent of our definitions, is there
relativistic mass IN NATURE. I told you no.
Y.Porat
what did you say??
is there relativistic mass
not in books
BUT PROVED BY EXPERIMENT!!
or not ???
TIA
Y.Porat
--------------------------------
Peter Webb
> > **there is relativistic mass**
>
> I did.
>-------------------------------
what did you say??
is there relativistic mass
not in books
BUT PROVED BY EXPERIMENT!!
or not ???
***************************
Yes. The momentum and energy of particles travelling at close to light speed
is measured every day in countless particle accelerators world wide. These
adhere to SR's predictions, which at these speeds are very, very different
to Newton's.
holog
wrote:
which apple has more mass the one that falls from a tree and hits you
on your head or the one that you pick up off the ground?
holog
Y.Porat
-------------------
(:-:)
just tell the above parrots
2
had an apple fallen on their heads
it could may be open those blockheads
i could not
3
thy PROBABLY dont understand the difference between
experimental data
AND idiotic ''INTERPRETATIONS'' OF THAT DATA
ATB
Y.Porat
------------
just tell the [arros
PD
What you do in experiment is *measure*. The quantity measured is a
*defined* one, not one that is handed over by nature.
Length, for example, is a quantity whose value is determined by the
*definition* of how it is measured.
Same goes for mass.
You can tell ME what you think mass is, obtained by measurement? Tell
me what mass is, without specifying how it is measured.
Y.Porat
>
> > > I did.
> > >-------------------------------
>
> > what did you say??
>
> > is there relativistic mass
> > not in books
> > BUT PROVED BY EXPERIMENT!!
>
> What you do in experiment is *measure*. The quantity measured is a
> *defined* one, not one that is handed over by nature.
>
> Length, for example, is a quantity whose value is determined by the
> *definition* of how it is measured.
> Same goes for mass.
>
>
------------------
fine
so please just tell us
what is the experiment you do
to measure
'relativistic mass'
TIA
Y.Porat
---------------------------
PD
Sure. For example, relativistic mass can be defined and measured in a
classic D-type cyclotron, where the ejection momentum should be
determined by the outer radius of the magnets.
PD
Y.Porat
------------------
so ??
there is more momentum say of the electron
so were is the mass 'inflation' ??
TIA
Y.Porat
-----------------
PD
No, you don't understand. If you use mv as the momentum, where m is
the rest value, then you expect a certain value of ejection momentum
by knowing the radius of the cyclotron magnets. I leave it to you to
look this relationship up, because it is perfectly reasonable to ask
you to do *some* of the searching yourself. But when the cyclotrons
were actually built, they found that the ejected momentum was not what
they thought it would be. The difference can be attributed to the
relativistic mass, which you will see as soon as you look that
relationship up.
>
> TIA
> Y.Porat
> -----------------
Androcles
======================
No, you don't understand, you moron.
--
r_AB/(c+v) = r_AB/(c-v). References given:
<http://www.fourmilab.ch/etexts/einstein/specrel/www/figures/img6.gif>
<http://www.fourmilab.ch/etexts/einstein/specrel/www/figures/img11.gif>
Let r_AB = 480 million metres,
let c = 300 million metres/sec,
let v = 180 million metres/sec.
480/(300-180) = 480/(300 +180)
480/(120) = 480/(480)
4 = 1
"In agreement with experience we further assume the quantity
2AB/(t'A-tA) = c to be a universal constant, the velocity of
light in empty space." --§ 1. Definition of Simultaneity --
ON THE ELECTRODYNAMICS OF MOVING BODIES By A. Einstein
"the velocity of light in our theory plays the part, physically, of an
infinitely great velocity"--§ 4. Physical Meaning of the Equations
Obtained in Respect to Moving Rigid Bodies and Moving Clocks
--ON THE ELECTRODYNAMICS OF MOVING BODIES By A. Einstein
In agreement with experience we further assume four seconds plays the
part, physically, of one second, the idiocy of raving lunatics in
Relativityland.
Y.Porat
as usual you are a master confiscator
and manipulator
your crookedness tactics tricks is to complicated as nuch as possible
simple things :
and let me to explain the porridge that
you cooked while you explain nothing
we dont mind much how bigger momentum is achieved
since momentum is mv
who told you that m is becoming bigger
it is just the v
THAT BECAME BIGGER
it is right before your eyes
more momentum was invested to the electron
by the machine
and as a result v became bigger
not m
that s all
what you tangibly detect is bigger velocity
you dont detect bigger mass
detection of bigger mass
is just only your fertile devious parroting imagination
Y.Porat
----------------------
PD
Momentum is NOT mv. That is a convenient approximation for low speeds
but it is NOT the definition of momentum. You were taught wrong.
> who told you that m is becoming bigger
> it is just the v
> THAT BECAME BIGGER
The v is measured separately by the circumference of the cyclotron
magnets and the switching speed of the electric field between the
D's.
You really should look this up. I do not intend to explain it all to
you to the finest detail where you will be convinced by what I write
on a newsgroup. I am *deliberately* requiring you to look something up
so that you will see for yourself that this is documented elsewhere
other than a discussion forum on freeweb.
palsing
wrote:
> r_AB/(c+v) = r_AB/(c-v). References given:
> <http://www.fourmilab.ch/etexts/einstein/specrel/www/figures/img6.gif>
> <http://www.fourmilab.ch/etexts/einstein/specrel/www/figures/img11.gif>
Read your own references, this is only true when 2 clocks are
stationary wrt one another, when v = zero. Einstein clearly wrote (in
YOUR OWN stated reference paper);
"It is essential to have time defined by means of stationary clocks in
the
stationary system, and the time now defined being appropriate to the
stationary
system we call it “the time of the stationary system.” ".
This has been pointed out to you already, so why do you still attempt
to mislead people by only telling half the story.
Androcles
"palsing" <pnal...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:c81b67d5-63ce-4c5d...@l32g2000yqc.googlegroups.com...
On Dec 6, 10:09 am, "Androcles" <Headmas...@Hogwarts.physics_ac>
wrote:
> r_AB/(c+v) = r_AB/(c-v). References given:
> <http://www.fourmilab.ch/etexts/einstein/specrel/www/figures/img6.gif>
> <http://www.fourmilab.ch/etexts/einstein/specrel/www/figures/img11.gif>
Read your own references, this is only true when 2 clocks are
stationary wrt one another, when v = zero.
=================================================
Wrong, Einstein makes the two RODS move wrt one another, he did not say
r_AB/(c+0) = r_AB/(c-0), dumbfuck. Quit lying and learn to read, snipping
shithead.
r_AB/(c+v) = r_AB/(c-v). References given:
<http://www.fourmilab.ch/etexts/einstein/specrel/www/figures/img6.gif>
<http://www.fourmilab.ch/etexts/einstein/specrel/www/figures/img11.gif>
Let r_AB = 480 million metres,
PD
Because that's his objective -- to mislead, to heckle, to make useless
noise.
It is very much like someone who hates jazz and prefers classical
music, and who goes to open jazz concerts and then tries to disrupt
the shows to the point where other people no longer find the concert
enjoyable and leave.
He takes pride in this behavior. That, or he has no pride left
whatsoever.
Androcles
===================================================
tau = t* sqrt(1-v^2/c^2), but v = 0 according to palsing.
tau = t * sqrt(1-0^2/c^2)
tau = t * sqrt(1-0)
tau = t * sqrt(1)
tau = t * 1
tau = t, big fucking deal, you deranged cretin!
quote/
I have to admit that I am demoralized at the moment.
I had hoped that we could fight ignorance with a proactive rather
than a reactive approach, but this is clearly the improper forum for
that. A quick survey of the length of threads initiated by or drifting
to nonsense compared to the length of threads based on sound
thinking reveals the true interest in the proposal.
While it would be a useful project to contribute to the FAQ, the
intent was to educate in the context of discussion, a virtual
"classroom" if you will. There's no point in contributing to a
reference that none of the "students" will read or attempt to learn
from. The intention was to focus on *exactly* what is wrong in
someone's thinking (which varies from person to person), set it
straight, and then make progress from there.
I had high hopes -- really -- that perhaps one misguided soul would
read something sensible and say, "Oh... Really?...Oh. I see I was
confused. OK, I get it now. Now what about...?" My head knew better,
my heart does not.
[sitting in the duck blind, waiting with a shotgun for a duck to
appear]
PD
/unquote
"I've lost interest. Foam and blather and waste all the time you want.
You're not getting anywhere." -- Phuckwit Mal-lard.
(Meaning "I lost that argument, those grapes are sour".)
Ref: d23006a4-4a88-4efb...@c34g2000yqn.googlegroups.com
"You are not entitled to be educated. Someone who insists on
being willfully ignorant does not deserve to be dissuaded.
Nobody owes you anything. Nobody *should* do anything for
you. It's your choice to learn or not to learn."-- Phuckwit Mal-lard.
Ref: 571b8ace-cca8-4392...@o28g2000yqh.googlegroups.com
Duck, exactly what do you get out of this? Everyone has a motive for
what they do, and you do this a lot so it must do something for you.
What do you get from making stuff up on the fly, without regard for
how idiotic it is? What do you get out of persistent digging of a
trench, jumping in, and digging some more?
I'm just curious, you see. It seems really sick to me, but maybe you
can explain your motives to me more plainly than what I'm seeing.
Ref: b58269e0-7227-4757...@x42g2000yqx.googlegroups.com
palsing
> tau = t* sqrt(1-v^2/c^2), but v = 0 according to palsing.
>
> tau = t * sqrt(1-0^2/c^2)
> tau = t * sqrt(1-0)
> tau = t * sqrt(1)
> tau = t * 1
> tau = t, big fucking deal, you deranged cretin!
>
> quote/
> I have to admit that I am demoralized at the moment.
That is NOT the formula to which I referred, and you know it.
However, when you set v = 0 in this formula, the result is trivial, as
you have shown, but that does not make it incorrect, it only shows
that there is no translation when v = 0, as expected.
\Paul A
Androcles
On Dec 6, 2:58 pm, "Androcles" <Headmas...@Hogwarts.physics_ac> wrote:
> tau = t* sqrt(1-v^2/c^2), but v = 0 according to palsing.
>
> tau = t * sqrt(1-0^2/c^2)
> tau = t * sqrt(1-0)
> tau = t * sqrt(1)
> tau = t * 1
> tau = t, big fucking deal, you deranged cretin!
>
> quote/
> I have to admit that I am demoralized at the moment.
That is NOT the formula to which I referred, and you know it.
================================================
You can snip all you want to, you stupid fuck, you are more deranged than
Kelleher. The Earth turns 360 degrees wrt the SUN in 24 hours (and 359
degrees wrt the stars in 24 hours).
IN FACT, to you, relativity is a matter of faith, which happens to work
the same as how your religious belief works. You are more deranged than
Kelleher, he at least is able to make observations even if he's lazy. You
wouldn't know how.
QED.
Einstein remains a lying idiot and *you* ARE a hypocritical lying deranged
bastard.
You may apologise to Oriel36, he's smarter than you, moron.
palsing
> "palsing" <pnals...@gmail.com> wrote in message
I didn't snip anything that would make you look poor, but you snipped
everything that supported my position.
What does that say about you?
I'm right, you are wrong, and you are not man enough to admit it,
that's all I need to see to know exactly what kind of person I am
dealing with, basically a little boy who pouts when caught with his
hand in the cookie jar.
You have every reason to feel demoralized. Nothing sucks more than
that moment during an argument when you realize you're wrong, does
it?.
\Paul A
Y.Porat
> > > relativistic mass, which you will see as soon as you look that
> > > relationship up.
>
> > ------------------
> > as usual you are a master confiscator
> > and manipulator
> > your crookedness tactics tricks is to complicated as nuch as possible
> > simple things :
> > and let me to explain the porridge that
> > you cooked while you explain nothing
>
> > we dont mind much how bigger momentum is achieved
> > since momentum is mv
>
> Momentum is NOT mv. That is a convenient approximation for low speeds
> but it is NOT the definition of momentum. You were taught wrong.
shamelss crook
do you think that All peopel here are idiots
without memory?
how many times and how many years
you saw my arguments
including the GAMMA FACTOR!!
you even tried to steal from me my original new
interpretation that
it is not
P = gamma m v
but rather
P/gamma =m v
AND m remains CONSTANT !!
remember that shameless crook ??!!
if not i will look tofind it in records
just keep in mind crook
that any thing here is recorded
AND EVEN IF YOU SAY NOW
THAT THERE IS **RELATIVISTIC MASS**
THAT blockhead STUPIDITY OF YOURS
IS RECORDED AS WELL
it costs us waists of billions of $ !!
it is not childrens games
and will be one day
thrown to your parrot crooks face
people (unlike you delude youself)
are sometimes to take responsibility for their deeds !!
NO MASS - THE ONLY MASS -NO REAL PHYSICS !!!
Y.Porat
----------------------------------------
Androcles
==================================================
You failed to respond to the point, which is the reason poor shits like you
snip in the first place.
What does that say about you?
=========================
It says I can piss higher than illiterate lying tords like you at any time I
want to.
You have every reason to feel demoralized.
===================================
Shithead, it is Phuckwit Duck that is demoralised, I was shoving
his own words back down his throat. You are so stupid you don't
even know who I was responding to.
Learn to read instead of snip, you fuckin' moron, you are not
the only arsehole I write too or about.
Nothing sucks more than
that moment during an argument when you realize you're wrong, does
it?.
===============================================
I wouldn't know... have you realised you are wrong yet?
***** QUOTE ******/
I have to admit that I am demoralized at the moment.
I had hoped that we could fight ignorance with a proactive rather
than a reactive approach, but this is clearly the improper forum for
that. A quick survey of the length of threads initiated by or drifting
to nonsense compared to the length of threads based on sound
thinking reveals the true interest in the proposal.
While it would be a useful project to contribute to the FAQ, the
intent was to educate in the context of discussion, a virtual
"classroom" if you will. There's no point in contributing to a
reference that none of the "students" will read or attempt to learn
from. The intention was to focus on *exactly* what is wrong in
someone's thinking (which varies from person to person), set it
straight, and then make progress from there.
I had high hopes -- really -- that perhaps one misguided soul would
read something sensible and say, "Oh... Really?...Oh. I see I was
confused. OK, I get it now. Now what about...?" My head knew better,
my heart does not.
[sitting in the duck blind, waiting with a shotgun for a duck to
appear]
PD
/****** UNQUOTE *******
"I've lost interest. Foam and blather and waste all the time you want.
You're not getting anywhere." -- Phuckwit Mal-lard.
(Meaning "I lost that argument, those grapes are sour".)
Ref: d23006a4-4a88-4efb...@c34g2000yqn.googlegroups.com
"You are not entitled to be educated. Someone who insists on
being willfully ignorant does not deserve to be dissuaded.
Nobody owes you anything. Nobody *should* do anything for
you. It's your choice to learn or not to learn."-- Phuckwit Mal-lard.
Ref: 571b8ace-cca8-4392...@o28g2000yqh.googlegroups.com
Duck, exactly what do you get out of this? Everyone has a motive for
what they do, and you do this a lot so it must do something for you.
What do you get from making stuff up on the fly, without regard for
how idiotic it is? What do you get out of persistent digging of a
trench, jumping in, and digging some more?
I'm just curious, you see. It seems really sick to me, but maybe you
can explain your motives to me more plainly than what I'm seeing.
Ref: b58269e0-7227-4757...@x42g2000yqx.googlegroups.com
--
r_AB/(c+v) = r_AB/(c-v). References given:
<http://www.fourmilab.ch/etexts/einstein/specrel/www/figures/img6.gif>
<http://www.fourmilab.ch/etexts/einstein/specrel/www/figures/img11.gif>
Let r_AB = 480 million metres,
PD
And what is this quantity you've defined as P/gamma?
Does it have a name?
Is it physically interesting? Is it conserved? Is it invariant?
If not, then why create it?
Y.Porat
----------------------
it is not yet written in your books
it will be written in new books (:-)
mow seriously
dont you see it yourself
since gamma is just a scalr
P/Gamma is
Momentum
VARIABLE MOMENTUM !!!
iow canginging as more momentum is **invested* to the system
and by that
we climbed on the main idea:
while your cyclotron is working
it adds more and more momentum
to our poor electron !!
simialr to adding more and more
energy !
momentum and velocity is added
yest
TH E MASS REMAINS CONSTANT!
now we have a mysterious miracle:
while the electron comes to rest ???
an unbelievable and 'unreasonable miracle
hap pence
'hokus focus'
and ALL YOUR RELATIVISTIC MASS-
at once and without too much effort --DISAPPEAR !
would you belive such an impoassible miracle ??!!
-----------------------------
> Does it have a name?
> Is it physically interesting?
-------------
it is interest ing as
FEW BILLIONS OF BUCKS ARE INTERESTING
---------------------
Is it conserved? Is it invariant?
-------------------
YOU ARE A SORE LEARNER
the main point is that
it is conserved in a close system
not for our poor electron
as i said
the moment velocity becomes zero
all the excessive momentum has gone to
SOMEWHERE ELSE
it is gone to somewhere else
not for the our above electron
complicated ??
simle things are not impressive
for magician
yet
i am jsut a boring freshman
as you defined me ....
> If not, then why create it?
you and others will explain why !!
as i started above
you are a sore learner
and a cheap demagogue
Y.Porat
--------------------------------------
Autymn D. C.
Autymn D. C.
> No, you don't understand. If you use mv as the momentum, where m is
> the rest value, then you expect a certain value of ejection momentum
> by knowing the radius of the cyclotron magnets. I leave it to you to
> look this relationship up, because it is perfectly reasonable to ask
> you to do *some* of the searching yourself. But when the cyclotrons
> were actually built, they found that the ejected momentum was not what
> they thought it would be. The difference can be attributed to the
> relativistic mass, which you will see as soon as you look that
> relationship up.
Can relativistic mass be metet in linear accelerators?
PD
P/gamma is not conserved in a closed system -- no sir.
If you have experimental evidence that you think supports your claim
that P/gamma is conserved in a closed system, then by all means cite
it.
This means taking a system that is closed but which has internal
interactions, measuring the system's P/gamma before and after a set of
interactions and demonstrating that they same number has been yielded.
If you cannot do this, then you do not have any evidence that P/gamma
is a conserved quantity.
Y.Porat
please note that
P/GAMMA = m v
IS EXACTLY mathematically YOUR
P =Gama m v !
exactly the same numerical results
IT IS ONLY ANOTHER UNDERSTANDING OF THE FORMULA !!
that waht changes the momentum
is the velocity v
now i will remind you the two
limit situation of that formula
1
while v =0
there is no relativistic mass
2
th e other extreme limit of that formula
wile v=c !!
and i wil remind you why
if
v=c
there i s no relativistic mass as well !!
the momentum of photon is
P =hf/c
and no one is denying that it has mass right ??
if you dent it
please sow me what is there to multiply the mass dimension in h - by
zero
hf has mass but no relativistic mass
it was found experimentally
without anything that reminds SR
so
hf has mass but nothing in that formula
to multiply mass by zero
ans as above
was found experimentally
without using a bit of relativity
now
c is relative only to itself
PD is relative to PD
it is not relativistic to PD !!
(in order to be relative to something
the concept relative is while there is a change
between the object and the other object
to relate to
to be exactly like yourself has nothjing to do with
the concept relative
so
c isnot relativistic
EVEN THOUGH IS USED BY RELATIVITY
just may be a poor example that i try
to demonstrate the idea
if i uase a violine to paly in an orchestra
it doesnot mean that a violine is
an orchestra
or whatever exapole that one may think
or if
i use steel to to bulid a car
doe snot mean that
steelis a car
etc etc etc
so
c is relativistic only to diot parrots and crooks
so
hf/c
[hoton momentum is not relativistic
AND NOTHING IN IT IS
CAND MULTIPLY THE MASS DIMENSION IN IT
BY GAMMA OR BY INFINITY
or zero
or wahtsoever
except the scalars that are there
so i showed you the two
extream velocity
v - zero
and v=c
Q E D
Y.Porat
----------------
PD
You did not do any of the above in what you describe below.
You don't have any idea what *measurement* means.
You have confused "measurement" with "argument involving dimensional
analysis".
Y.Porat
i dont ahve toprove that
P/Gamma is conserved !!
i have to prove a this stage that
momentum is growing with
velocity
not with mass
AND IT IS YOU WHO DDINT
PROVE THAT
MOMENTUM IS GROWING
BECAUSE OF MASS GROWTH
GOT IS CROOKY ??
i showed you idit crook that
momentum of photon
has mass as any sobre scientist
has to admit
AND TEY THERE IS NOTHING IN
hf /c
TO MAKE IT RELATIVISTIC
so while v=zero
no relativistic mass
while v=c
no relativistic mass
go tit crook
AND IT IS ALL BY MEASUREMENTS
got it crooky
2
in your current post
you just HAND WAVED
you didnt bring a single word
of physics arguments
crooky
as usual you find a way
to run away from this discussion
while you are pushed to the corner
YOU CAN CHEAT ONE PERSON FOREVER
YOU CAN CHEAT EVERY ONE
JUST ONCE!
BUT YOU CANT CHEAT
EVERY ONE -FOREVER !!!
iow
you are not a partner for decent
HONEST discussion
you are a master crook
and with a crook
no one can discuss physics
with a shameless crook
it is for the other readers
to judge 1
3
you are a walking damge fore
some advance in physics
and as above
you will not cheat every body forever!
keep well little cheap crook y
Y.Porat
-----------------------
PD
Yes, you do, because you rearranged things this way and said this has
a distinct physical meaning:
P/gamma = m v
So then I'm asking you what physical meaning does P/gamma have?
If it doesn't, then there's no distinct meaning to what you've done by
doing the mathematical rearrangement.
>
> i have to prove a this stage that
>
> momentum is growing with
> velocity
> not with mass
> AND IT IS YOU WHO DDINT
> PROVE THAT
> MOMENTUM IS GROWING
> BECAUSE OF MASS GROWTH
> GOT IS CROOKY ??
It grows with BOTH, you idiot, because relativistic mass grows with
velocity too!
holog
what is the gamma of antimatter?
holog
Y.Porat
PD
you are not only an idiot but a shameless
RETARDED PIGSHIT ....crook
just listen pigg:
in relativity
v = gamma V0
right ??
so
P= gamma m v
can be written exactly as
P = m (gamma V0)
AND m REMAINS CONSTANT !!
got it retard mathematician that calls himself
a physics teacher
all that simple algebraic trick
is just for retards parrots that do not understand physics
even if it is hammered to their retard blockheads
they should understand it
just by physics understandings that is proven
all along
2
my prove that photon momentum P
is not relativistic should be enough
for semi intelligent honest people
hf (photon energy
has nothing to do with relativity
it was found independent of SR
using nothing of SR
so
photon momentum as well is not relativistic
AND NOTHING IN IT IS RELATIVISTIC
because
P photon is = hf/c
hf is not relativistic
and c is not relativistic as well
old copyright (among the others )
of Y.Porat -
that PD even if had lived 200 years
would not do
unless he would steal it from someone else !
honesty honesty Piggy
Q E D
NO MASS = THE ONLY MASS - NO REAL PHYSICS !!
that will be the new golden rule
of modern - old physics
that will save
billions of human resources
Y.Porat
---------------------------------
PD
No. Good grief, Porat, where do you pick up crap like this?
Rest ignored, since it doubtless was of no better quality than the
nonsense you just wrote.
PD
Y.Porat
----------------------
nasty pigshit blockhead
crook human being!!
and a sore looser !
speak physics arguments
or else go fusk youself witH the other parrots pigs
to the rest of your poor life
a shameless walking damage
to the adbbvance of physics
but it want help you
you can cheat one person all his life
you can cheat every body just once
BUT YOU CANT CHEAT EVERY BODY
FOREVER !!
WE DONT NEED HERE
NASTY SHAMELESS HAND WAIVERS
DEMAGOGUES
your plaice at the garbage of history of science
IS ALREADY ENSURED !!
P = m (gamma Vo )
and not
P = gamma( m Vo)
it is just an algebraic difference
yet
the difference between
pighshit parrot PD
and the innovator physicist Y.Porat
AND THEREFORE WE GET THE NEW
GOLDEN RULE OF PHYSICS
(much more than Golden )
NO MAS - **THE ONLY MAS **- NO REAL PHYSICS
--
another copyright BY Y.Porat
BYE
Y.Porat
-----------------------------
soeak ophysicsd
PD
I don't see any point raising "physics arguments" with you when you
say things like
"in relativity, v = gamma V0, right?"
There are 100,000 ways to be wrong, and I have no interest in leveling
100,000 "physics arguments" while you map all 100,000 ways to be wrong
just to avoid having to get your sorry butt out of your chair and read
something that is right.
Y.Porat
----------------------------
1
indeed i dint bother to check it in a book
anyway
relativistic momentum is as far as i remember
P = Gamma m v
do you know about something else ??
2
do you deny that
photon momentum is
p = hf/c
while nothing in that formula is relativistic
we dealt with that second issues not so long ago
and no honest reasonable physicist
could deny
that noting in
hf/c
is relativistic
including the mass in it
ie
the best symbol of 'relativistic momentum'
was used to be
th e 'relativistic mass' of photon momentum
while i was the first one to show
that hf/c
and nothing relativistic in it !!
so
if the photon momentum has nothing of relativistic mass
certainly
a big mass of momentum
has nothing to do with relativistic mass
IT IS NOT MASS THAT GROWS WITH
VELOCITY
EXCEPT VELOCITY GROWTH !!
which is tangibly measured
you never measured growth of mass
you just imagined it wrongly !
and i demonstarated it in another way:
while velocity is zsro - no relativistic mass
while velocity is c
no relativistic mass as well
so
what else do you need to
take the vail from your parrots eyes ?
so
NO MASS - THE ONLY MASS-
NO REAL PHYSICS
Y.Porat
-----------------------------
-----------------------
while i proved tha
---------------------------
in a book
Y.Porat
again
IN ADDITION
IE BESIDE MYABOVE ARGUMANTS
just to show every body
that PD is a shameless crook:
here is a quote from Vikipedia
about RELATIVISTIC MOMENTUM
thjat anyone can see readily:
QUOTE
In relativistic mechanics, in order to be conserved, the momentum of
an object must be defined as
\mathbf{p} = \gamma m_0\mathbf{v}\,,
where m0 is the invariant mass of the object and γ is the Lorentz
factor, given by
\gamma = \frac{1}{\sqrt{1 - (v/c)^2}}\,,
i dont know why it is in quote as
\mathbf etc
at the original place i Viki
it is
P = gamma m v
end of quote
--------------------------------------
2
if not enough
PD lier pig parrot
(at the upper limit - of
photon momentum )
WHAT IS RELATIVISTIC IN THE
PHOTON MOMENTUM
hf/c
TIA
Y.Porat
-----------------
quote
waht is relativistic momentum
NoEinstein
> factor, given by
>
> \gamma = \frac{1}{\sqrt{1 - (v/c)^2}}\,,
>
> i dont know why it is in quote as
> \mathbf etc
>
> at the original place i Viki
> it is
> P = gamma m v
>
> end of quote
> --------------------------------------
> 2
> if not enough
> PD lier pig parrot
>
> (at the upper limit - of
> photon momentum )
>
> WHAT IS RELATIVISTIC IN THE
> PHOTON MOMENTUM
>
> hf/c
>
> TIA
> Y.Porat
> -----------------
>
> quote
>
> - Show quoted text -
Reply: Relativistic ANYTHING is what the dunces of this world use to
compensate for being brainless. Those who accept anything...
"Einstein" are proving that they have the lowest IQ. — NoEinstein —
Y.Porat
--------------------
BTW NO- Einstein
unlike you i accept SR
and reject completely GR
because as well
No mas -the only mass - no real physics
BUT A BIG BUT
SR is right
**ONLY IN PALACES THAT IT IS RIGHT**
AND WRONG IN PLACES IT **DOES NOT BELONG !!**
SR DOES NOT BELONG TO
E = hf
nor in
E=mc^2
nor in
P-hf/c
etc etc
there are some places that it *does* belong
like measuring high speed velocities
the physical phenomenon that is behind it--
is the experimental fact that
it becomes more and more difficult
to add more velocity to a high velocity
not because its mass is inflating
but because it needs more and more
Energy investment
or if you like
more and more Momentum investment
ATB
Y.Porat
------------------------
NoEinstein
>
Dear Y.Porat: The "extra energy" that must be invested to cause
electrons or small masses to "try to" approach velocity 'c' is indeed
infinite. That experimentally-observed fact is due to the near-Earth
polar ether (energy) that clumps in front of a moving particle or
mass. The harder (faster) the latter are pushed, the greater the
amount of clumping of the ether (IOTAs). If you've read my many
explanations of these mechanisms, I call this the rubber-peg-in-a-hole
effect: The harder you PUSH, the wider the rubber peg becomes, and the
more impossible it is to get the rubber peg to go into the hole!
The above drag caused by the ether would have been closely satisfied
by SR... IF(!), Einstein had said (matching the above observation):
"The FORCE required to cause any object to travel to velocity ‘c’
becomes infinite, because the drag caused by the ether—unless such is
somehow moved out of the way—keeps increasing the faster the object is
made to travel." His "SR" equation might, then, have been: The
resisting force, or F sub R = mc^2 / beta. Since that equation ISN’T
an energy equation, but a resisting FORCE equation, such wouldn’t
violate the Law of the Conservation of Energy.
The BASTARDIZATION of science resulted from Einstein "supposing" that
space and time vary so that no "physical" energy nor "physical" mass
is required to be created. It was the laughable "relativistic" things
that screwed up science, not the original experiments by Lorentz that
showed a "waterfall-like curve” of increasing RESISTANCE with
increasing velocity. Y.Porat, you are right about Einstein being
wrong about the "cause" of GR. Your understanding his error with SR—
that violates the L.C.E.—is all that separates us form being on the
same side against the brainless Einsteiniacs out there. So, think,
man! — NoEinstein —
> ------------------------- Hide quoted text -
Y.Porat
>
> ----------------------------
gear NoEinstein
BTW
why nottellus your real name??
ot os difficuly like a poor typer like me to
type Noeinstein instread of say jack Smith (:-)
--
now to our business
it is veryimporatnt for a reqal scientist
too always look for more possibi;ities
i amglad that you got and remember that
the gamma is actually
tp presentthe fact the it becomes exponentially
difficult to add more velocity while approaching
c
now your explanation is soemthing about
haveing mass (right?) phisical entity that exist every where
ie sort of a huge sea all around
now
i wil give youanother possibily thatyou didnt think about:
haveyou thought waht makes forces
have youi considered that it is always hidden in those big masive
particles
andnot anything around
ddi you ever see mylogic prove that
if there was not some volume of complete
empty Vacuum
THWERE COULD NOT BE ANY MOVEMENT??
iow
the very fact that there is movement
is a prove against aether at any point in space ?
is it was as you immagine
movenet of anythinkincluding eather
is possible only if
Aether at one point is replacing the location of another point in
which another aeter exaist
but
how can one aether unit push another poptaled point
IF THAT LAST POPULATED POINT HAS NO
COMPLETE EMPTY LOCATION
ie empty of Aether !!!!
soyou must come tothe conclusion that
even your Aether
does not populate all point in s[ace
and there must besome
COMPLETELY EMPTY POINTS !!
got it :
----------------
2
and how about my revolutinary explanation??
forces are done by some force messengers
sent from mass itself
THEIR MAXIMUM VELOCITY IS c !!
now thing dor instance thathey are sort of tiny bullets that are shot
from tyhe big mass
that way or another to another mass
and pushing that haunter mass bycolliding with it
now
if that haunted mass will move and run away
from the hunting mass
withth e velocity c
will that haunted mass will be hitted by thise bullets
that were sent from the humting mass??
for intelligent people i think i dont have to go on
with my explaantion about what is that
relevant to Gamma factor
do you at least get my last explanation ??
TIA
Y.Porat
----------------------------
NoEinstein
>
Dear Y.Porat: If writing "NoEinstein” is a problem for you, just
write: NE. Most readers will know that shortened form. Or, if you
are really pushy, you can call me John A. Armistead. I'm the man who
has disproved Einstein's SR and given the correct mechanism of
gravity: The varying ether flow and density imparting a mass
proportional FORCE to all objects, and being replenished (so the flow
can continue) by the hobo ether carried back into space by the photons
being exchanged between the attracting bodies. — NoEinstein —
Y.Porat
> On Dec 19, 1:34 am, "Y.Porat" <y.y.po...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> Dear Y.Porat: If writing "NoEinstein” is a problem for you, just
> write: NE. Most readers will know that shortened form. Or, if you
> are really pushy, you can call me John A. Armistead. I'm the man who
> has disproved Einstein's SR and given the correct mechanism of
> gravity:
--------------------
you didnt disprove ALL SR
you could disprove only part of it
thjere are parts of it that are right
and parts of it that are wrong
your sweeping handwaving is wrong
i did it much better than you
and much more precise that you
i proved that
NO MASS - TH EONLY MASS - NO REAL PHYSICS ??
iow
there is no relativistic mass !!!
OK ??
and by that you surely agree with me right??
see above how i did it in very short
analysis
(to come to that 'very short'
you need tilearb many yeras
and some creative mind )
do you agree with that until this point ??
TIA
Y.Porat
---------------------------
NoEinstein
Dear Y.Porat: When I determined that the 1887 M-M experiment simply
lacked a CONTROL, or unchanging, light course, that shot-down
Lorentz's rubber ruler explanation for the nil results. That whole
length-is-not-constant thing gave us... time is not constant. Those
two, combined, formed the unjustified basis for everything Einstein
said regarding relativity. Of course, I also shot down SR by
invalidating Coriolis's KE = 1/2 mv^2, from which Einstein
"derived" (HA!) his SR. If you know of any part of SR which I have
not either disproved or invalidated, please explain. — NoEinstein —
Y.Porat
---------------------
Dear (complicated name for me to type (:-)
but you still didnt answer my basic simple question
do you believe in the Inertia law of movement
ie
a mass or any physical entity
will keep its constant velocity
unless someting *else* is disturbing
or changing it
2
do you think that there is an
upper limit to velocity?
and if not
what is your experimental evidence for no upper limit ??
TIA
Y.Porat
-------------------------
NoEinstein
Dear Y.Porat: If you would "proof" what you write, I might agree. I
definitely agree that there is no such thing as relativity mass. In
fact, there is no "relativity" anything, since I have totally and
completely disproved SR and invalidated "space-time" as the mechanism
of anything in Nature. — NoEinstein —
NoEinstein
Dear Y. Porat: The "word" versions of Newton's Laws of Motion are
correct. The botched equation for his Second Law of Motion, F = ma,
should have been written: F = v / 32.174 (m). The latter equation
doesn't include an "acceleration" value, per se, because the
convention for expressing all accelerations is to state the velocity
during the first second of travel. By inserting that velocity value,
the FORCE causing the "first second" velocity (acceleration
convention) can be determined. F = ma doesn't yield any usable values
for the force causing the acceleration. So, Sir Isaac goofed, big
time!
Inertia is a more tricky concept, because 100 percent realization of
an object's inertia requires an acceleration of at least 'g'. That’s
why a ‘table cloth’ must be yanked-out, quickly, in order to leave the
dishes sitting in their place. Pull too slowly, and there won't be an
inertia component high enough to overcome the friction between the
dishes and the table cloth. Thanks for asking some sensible
questions! — NoEinstein —
h1705
Break Line < >
Break Line < >
Break Line < >
Break Line < >
Break Line < >
Break Line < >
Break Line < >
Break Line < >
Break Line < >
Break Line < >
Break Line < >
Break Line < >
Break Line < >
Break Line < >
Break Line < >
Break Line < >
Break Line < >
Break Line < >
Y.Porat
-------------------------
you wrote a lot
but still didnt answer simply
a single question of my above simple questions
BYE
Y.Porat
------------------------
h1705
> you wrote a lot Break Line
> but still didnt answer simply Break Line
> a single question of my above simple questions Break Line
a porat brain is an astronomical agglomeration of brek lines !
Y.Porat
---------------------
and another anonymous
psychopath gangster
what is you real pig shit name
may be Gisse or schaise ?
(:-)
Y.P
------------------
NoEinstein
Dear Y.Porat: When I said that I agreed with the "word versions" of
Newton's three Laws of Motion, I was agreeing with his (and your?)
inertia concepts.
> > > 2
> > > do you think that there is an
> > > upper limit to velocity?
The "upper limit" on light velocity will be the upper limit of the
source of the light, plus 'c'. The accelerations to get to very high
velocity will take a long time to achieve without overly "flattening"
the occupants of the spacecraft.
> > > and if not
> > > what is your experimental evidence for no upper limit ??
The evidence is: The 1887 Michelson-Morley experiment. By
mathematically "testing" the logical concept that light velocity is
source-velocity dependent, one can easily confirm—using high school
algebra—that portions of the light in both light courses is always
exceeding velocity 'c', while an equal amount of the light courses are
below velocity 'c'. The LOGICAL extrapolation of that is: *** There
is no theoretical upper limit on light velocity. *** But there is a
practical upper limit due to time and pressure-on-the-occupants-of-
spacecraft constraints. — NoEinstein —
NoEinstein
Introduce yourself, h1705. spudnik does let his thoughts wander,
sometimes. But he manages to ask good questions. Instead of talking
"break lines", why not talk some science? — NoEinstein —
NoEinstein
Correction! Y.Porat manages to defend some of science's truths!
"spudnik" shows an increasingly open mind to do the same thing. — NE —
NoEinstein
Y.Porat: Don't be overly defensive. h1705 hasn't revealed his (or
her) true colors, yet. — NE —
Y.Porat
----------------------
so you see yourself that this h1
is a hired gangster !!
anyone here who comes as anonymous
is a crook !!
so why should i be polite with him ??!!
ATB
Y.Porat
-------------------------------------