What is mass?
SDRodrian
"NØB0D¥" <a...@telefragged.com> wrote something
which had nothing to do with the question on
the subject line above in response to:
>
> <mkuer...@my-deja.com> schreef in berichtnieuws
> 92j259$2p1$1...@nnrp1.deja.com... who wrote something
> barely having anything to do with the subject question.
And so I will ask it again AND answer it myself
so I can have the greatest confidence that it is
being properly answered:
What is mass? (And I will confine the elucidation to
its meaning as it relates to gravity.)
Simple: You and anybody else can create mass [Phys.]
just by getting a gyroscope going. Viola! What
you have just done, at a rather humble level, all
gravitational systems do to greater/lesser degrees
(as they are, all of them, pretty much nothing but
"motion" not unlike that "in" your average gyroscope).
Have you tried to move the planet Earth from
its "place in space" lately? It's completely
weightless, you know.
S D Rodrian
web.sdrodrian.com
sdrodrian.com
music.sdrodrian.com
re:
> > You know, one thing that has not been clearly differentiated is the
> > differance between science and engineering. Science has a lot of
laws
> > and rules that reflect what is known to be true of nature.
Engineering
> > doesn't have any rules except those which by experience lead down a
path
> > toward the finished product. One thing that couldn't be more obvious
to
> > me is that nature is not two-dimentional. If science has any hope of
> > staying a step ahead of engineering, science has to be cognizant of
what
> > is neglected by any two-dimentional simplification of nature. Take
> > hydrogen's photon emitions, for instance. We could say that Bohr and
> > Rydberg proved that an electron is a particle of mass. Right? So
now,
> > the planets in the solar system and an electron have something in
> > common. Question: Why doesn't the solar system with nine planets
have a
> > shell structure reminiscent of elements which are periodic? Answer:
An
> > electron is not a particle of mass but rather is better understood
as
> > being a field instead... Hmm... Well, what is true is that
gravitational
> > orbits are two dimentional circles or elipses and the area enclosed
by
> > the circle or elipse is a quantity of energy. Therefore, mass, as we
> > understand it, is two-dimentional. Electrons do not orbit in a plane
the
> > way planets do, not even in hydrogen. Science would do well to
determine
> > what orbit electrons do actually take in 3-D, otherwise; Science?,
> > Engineering?, What's the differance?
>
> err, your points are very well taken, but there is already such a
thing as
> 3D orbits that don't behave like planets. They're called orbitals.
>
> Cheers - Alain
>
>
Sent via Deja.com
http://www.deja.com/