Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]

Groups > sci.physics.relativity > #597538 > unrolled thread

What is mass? 350 years of not knowing it.

Back to article view | Back to sci.physics.relativity

Contents

  What is mass? 350 years of not knowing it. Richard Hertz <hertz778@gmail.com> - 2022-12-14 16:10 -0800
    Re: What is mass? 350 years of not knowing it. JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2022-12-14 16:47 -0800
      Re: What is mass? 350 years of not knowing it. Maciej Wozniak <maluwozniak@gmail.com> - 2022-12-14 17:57 -0800
      Re: What is mass? 350 years of not knowing it. Brent Làconi <oll@ntonoobe.bc> - 2022-12-15 20:42 +0000
    Crank Richard Hertz reduced to trolling "Dono." <eggy20011951@gmail.com> - 2022-12-14 18:05 -0800
    Re: What is mass? 350 years of not knowing it. The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2022-12-14 22:00 -0800
      Re: What is mass? 350 years of not knowing it. Richard Hertz <hertz778@gmail.com> - 2022-12-15 05:38 -0800
        Re: What is mass? 350 years of not knowing it. "mitchr...@gmail.com" <mitchrae3323@gmail.com> - 2022-12-15 11:26 -0800
        Re: What is mass? 350 years of not knowing it. The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2022-12-16 11:11 -0800
          Re: What is mass? 350 years of not knowing it. Trolidan7 <Trolidan7@eternal-september.org> - 2022-12-17 11:53 -0800
    Re: What is mass? 350 years of not knowing it. "mitchr...@gmail.com" <mitchrae3323@gmail.com> - 2022-12-16 11:08 -0800
      Re: What is mass? 350 years of not knowing it. Dario De filippis <ioss@delloidl.id> - 2022-12-16 19:13 +0000
        Re: What is mass? 350 years of not knowing it. Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2022-12-17 01:39 +0100
          Re: What is mass? 350 years of not knowing it. Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2022-12-17 01:47 +0100
          Re: What is mass? 350 years of not knowing it. Dario De filippis <ioss@delloidl.id> - 2022-12-17 13:51 +0000
            Re: What is mass? 350 years of not knowing it. Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2022-12-17 22:35 +0100
              Re: What is mass? 350 years of not knowing it. Dario De filippis <ioss@delloidl.id> - 2022-12-17 21:51 +0000
                Re: What is mass? 350 years of not knowing it. Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2022-12-17 23:10 +0100
                  Re: What is mass? 350 years of not knowing it. Dario De filippis <ioss@delloidl.id> - 2022-12-17 23:49 +0000
                  Re: What is mass? 350 years of not knowing it. Dario De filippis <ioss@delloidl.id> - 2022-12-18 03:02 +0000
                Re: What is mass? 350 years of not knowing it. Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2022-12-17 23:19 +0100
                  Re: What is mass? 350 years of not knowing it. Dario De filippis <ioss@delloidl.id> - 2022-12-17 23:43 +0000
                    Re: What is mass? 350 years of not knowing it. Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2022-12-18 19:37 +0100
                    Re: What is mass? 350 years of not knowing it. Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2022-12-18 19:37 +0100
                    Re: What is mass? 350 years of not knowing it. Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2022-12-18 19:39 +0100
                      Re: What is mass? 350 years of not knowing it. Vitaliy Bazzoli <zvt@viavzl.oi> - 2022-12-18 19:36 +0000
                        Re: What is mass? 350 years of not knowing it. Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2022-12-18 21:12 +0100
                          Re: What is mass? 350 years of not knowing it. Vitaliy Bazzoli <zvt@viavzl.oi> - 2022-12-18 20:58 +0000
                        Re: What is mass? 350 years of not knowing it. whodat <whodaat@void.nowgre.com> - 2022-12-18 15:58 -0600
                      Re: What is mass? 350 years of not knowing it. Vitaliy Bazzoli <zvt@viavzl.oi> - 2022-12-18 19:51 +0000
                        Re: What is mass? 350 years of not knowing it. whodat <whodaat@void.nowgre.com> - 2022-12-18 16:00 -0600
                          Re: What is mass? 350 years of not knowing it. Vitaliy Bazzoli <zvt@viavzl.oi> - 2022-12-18 22:47 +0000
                            Re: What is mass? 350 years of not knowing it. whodat <whodaat@void.nowgre.com> - 2022-12-18 17:04 -0600
                              Re: What is mass? 350 years of not knowing it. Vitaliy Bazzoli <zvt@viavzl.oi> - 2022-12-18 23:24 +0000
                                Re: What is mass? 350 years of not knowing it. whodat <whodaat@void.nowgre.com> - 2022-12-18 18:56 -0600
                                Re: What is mass? 350 years of not knowing it. whodat <whodaat@void.nowgre.com> - 2022-12-18 22:06 -0600
                                  Re: What is mass? 350 years of not knowing it. Vitaliy Bazzoli <zvt@viavzl.oi> - 2022-12-19 19:20 +0000
                                    Re: What is mass? 350 years of not knowing it. whodat <whodaat@void.nowgre.com> - 2022-12-19 14:21 -0600
                              Re: What is mass? 350 years of not knowing it. Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2022-12-19 01:42 +0100
              Re: What is mass? 350 years of not knowing it. Dario De filippis <ioss@delloidl.id> - 2022-12-17 21:58 +0000

Page 1 of 2  [1] 2  Next page →

#597538 — What is mass? 350 years of not knowing it.

Newton didn't know of atoms and subatomic particles. Neither Maxwell, 
Gauss, Euler, Laplace, Le Verrier, Gerber and so many other scientists that
developed theories using such concept.

Lorentz had a clear vision of what mass of electrons were: in his 1904 paper,
he asserted that mass was something of electromagnetic nature, at least for
the electron. He also wrote: "I shall suppose that there is no other, no "true" 
or "material" mass."

For Lorentz, electrons in state of rest had a mass  m = e²/(6πc²R), [e value in electrostatic units or esu]. 

1 e = 4,774E-10 esu = 4,774E-10 √(g.cm³)/s, SO m has gram units.

He surely knew that the potential energy outside a spherically symmetric 
charge distribution with total charge e sand radius R is given by:

E = e²/(4πε₀R), with 4π included for reasons of spherical geometry, as the
6π in the electron mass.

He missed connecting mass and energy, or he would have got

m/E ∝ 1/c²

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vacuum_permittivity

Einstein thought of mass in terms of INERTIA, as Galileo and Newton. That
would be the "resistance" of matter to be put in motion or to be stopped 
from a uniform motion ("m.v" or "vis viva").

Today, mass, in physics, is a quantitative measure of inertia, a fundamental property of all matter. It is, in effect, the resistance that a body of matter offers to a change in its speed or position upon the application of a force. 
That's highly esoteric: "fundamental property of all matter".

In chemistry, mass is a measure of the amount of matter in a substance or an object.

But, in reality, nobody knows. The same with electricity, magnetism, protons,
muons, nuclear energy, cosmic rays and how is that a bicycle work.

Maybe relativists can chip in with some insights.

[toc] | [next] | [standalone]

#597542

On Wednesday, December 14, 2022 at 4:10:18 PM UTC-8, Richard Hertz wrote:
> Newton didn't know of atoms and subatomic particles. Neither Maxwell, 
> Gauss, Euler, Laplace, Le Verrier, Gerber and so many other scientists that 
> developed theories using such concept. 
> 
> Lorentz had a clear vision of what mass of electrons were: in his 1904 paper, 
> he asserted that mass was something of electromagnetic nature, at least for 
> the electron. He also wrote: "I shall suppose that there is no other, no "true" 
> or "material" mass." 
> 
> For Lorentz, electrons in state of rest had a mass m = e²/(6πc²R), [e value in electrostatic units or esu]. 
> 
> 1 e = 4,774E-10 esu = 4,774E-10 √(g.cm³)/s, SO m has gram units. 
> 
> He surely knew that the potential energy outside a spherically symmetric 
> charge distribution with total charge e sand radius R is given by: 
> 
> E = e²/(4πε₀R), with 4π included for reasons of spherical geometry, as the 
> 6π in the electron mass. 
> 
> He missed connecting mass and energy, or he would have got 
> 
> m/E ∝ 1/c² 
> 
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vacuum_permittivity 
> 
> Einstein thought of mass in terms of INERTIA, as Galileo and Newton. That 
> would be the "resistance" of matter to be put in motion or to be stopped 
> from a uniform motion ("m.v" or "vis viva"). 
> 
> Today, mass, in physics, is a quantitative measure of inertia, a fundamental property of all matter. It is, in effect, the resistance that a body of matter offers to a change in its speed or position upon the application of a force. 
> That's highly esoteric: "fundamental property of all matter". 
> 
> In chemistry, mass is a measure of the amount of matter in a substance or an object. 
> 
> But, in reality, nobody knows. The same with electricity, magnetism, protons, 
> muons, nuclear energy, cosmic rays and how is that a bicycle work. 
> 
> Maybe relativists can chip in with some insights.

There may be no answer, given that they don't exist.

--
Jan

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#597543

On Thursday, 15 December 2022 at 01:47:51 UTC+1, JanPB wrote:
> On Wednesday, December 14, 2022 at 4:10:18 PM UTC-8, Richard Hertz wrote: 
> > Newton didn't know of atoms and subatomic particles. Neither Maxwell, 
> > Gauss, Euler, Laplace, Le Verrier, Gerber and so many other scientists that 
> > developed theories using such concept. 
> > 
> > Lorentz had a clear vision of what mass of electrons were: in his 1904 paper, 
> > he asserted that mass was something of electromagnetic nature, at least for 
> > the electron. He also wrote: "I shall suppose that there is no other, no "true" 
> > or "material" mass." 
> > 
> > For Lorentz, electrons in state of rest had a mass m = e²/(6πc²R), [e value in electrostatic units or esu]. 
> > 
> > 1 e = 4,774E-10 esu = 4,774E-10 √(g.cm³)/s, SO m has gram units. 
> > 
> > He surely knew that the potential energy outside a spherically symmetric 
> > charge distribution with total charge e sand radius R is given by: 
> > 
> > E = e²/(4πε₀R), with 4π included for reasons of spherical geometry, as the 
> > 6π in the electron mass. 
> > 
> > He missed connecting mass and energy, or he would have got 
> > 
> > m/E ∝ 1/c² 
> > 
> > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vacuum_permittivity 
> > 
> > Einstein thought of mass in terms of INERTIA, as Galileo and Newton. That 
> > would be the "resistance" of matter to be put in motion or to be stopped 
> > from a uniform motion ("m.v" or "vis viva"). 
> > 
> > Today, mass, in physics, is a quantitative measure of inertia, a fundamental property of all matter. It is, in effect, the resistance that a body of matter offers to a change in its speed or position upon the application of a force. 
> > That's highly esoteric: "fundamental property of all matter". 
> > 
> > In chemistry, mass is a measure of the amount of matter in a substance or an object. 
> > 
> > But, in reality, nobody knows. The same with electricity, magnetism, protons, 
> > muons, nuclear energy, cosmic rays and how is that a bicycle work. 
> > 
> > Maybe relativists can chip in with some insights.
> There may be no answer, given that they don't exist. 

And, of course, poor idiot Jan is a queen of England.
> 
> -- 
> Jan

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#597601

JanPB wrote:

> On Wednesday, December 14, 2022 at 4:10:18 PM UTC-8, Richard Hertz wrote:
>> In chemistry, mass is a measure of the amount of matter in a substance
>> or an object.
>> But, in reality, nobody knows. The same with electricity, magnetism,
>> protons,
>> muons, nuclear energy, cosmic rays and how is that a bicycle work.
>> Maybe relativists can chip in with some insights.
> 
> VGhlcmUgbWF5IGJlIG5vIGFuc3dlciwgZ2l2ZW4gdGhhdCB0aGV5IGRvbid0IGV4aXN0.

indolence. Piss off.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#597544 — Crank Richard Hertz reduced to trolling

On Wednesday, December 14, 2022 at 4:10:18 PM UTC-8, Richard Hertz wrote:
 
> Maybe relativists can chip in with some insights.

You have no idea what "relativists" are. Hint: it is not what you think, dumbass. 

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#597548

Richard Hertz wrote:
> 
> Newton didn't know of atoms and subatomic particles. Neither Maxwell,
> Gauss, Euler, Laplace, Le Verrier, Gerber and so many other scientists that
> developed theories using such concept.
> 
> Lorentz had a clear vision of what mass of electrons were: in his 1904 paper,
> he asserted that mass was something of electromagnetic nature, at least for
> the electron. He also wrote: "I shall suppose that there is no other, no "true"
> or "material" mass."
> 
> For Lorentz, electrons in state of rest had a mass  m = e²/(6πc²R), [e value in electrostatic units or esu].
> 
> 1 e = 4,774E-10 esu = 4,774E-10 √(g.cm³)/s, SO m has gram units.
> 
> He surely knew that the potential energy outside a spherically symmetric
> charge distribution with total charge e sand radius R is given by:
> 
> E = e²/(4πε₀R), with 4π included for reasons of spherical geometry, as the
> 6Ï€ in the electron mass.
> 
> He missed connecting mass and energy, or he would have got
> 
> m/E ∝ 1/c²
> 
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vacuum_permittivity
> 
> Einstein thought of mass in terms of INERTIA, as Galileo and Newton. That
> would be the "resistance" of matter to be put in motion or to be stopped
> from a uniform motion ("m.v" or "vis viva").
> 
> Today, mass, in physics, is a quantitative measure of inertia, a fundamental property of all matter. It is, in effect, the resistance that a body of matter offers to a change in its speed or position upon the application of a force.
> That's highly esoteric: "fundamental property of all matter".
> 
> In chemistry, mass is a measure of the amount of matter in a substance or an object.
> 
> But, in reality, nobody knows. The same with electricity, magnetism, protons,
> muons, nuclear energy, cosmic rays and how is that a bicycle work.
> 
> Maybe relativists can chip in with some insights.



'In the beginning, God created the heavens and the earth.'



If you understand the 'order of events'...

first comes 'heavens' then 'the earth'...the earth is Mass.

The big bang was the creation of...mass.

Before the big bang Mass didn't exist.



-- 
The Starmaker -- To question the unquestionable, ask the unaskable,
 to think the unthinkable, mention the unmentionable, say the unsayable,
and challenge
 the unchallengeable.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#597563

On Thursday, December 15, 2022 at 2:59:29 AM UTC-3, The Starmaker wrote:
> Richard Hertz wrote: 
> > 
> > Newton didn't know of atoms and subatomic particles. Neither Maxwell, 
> > Gauss, Euler, Laplace, Le Verrier, Gerber and so many other scientists that 
> > developed theories using such concept. 
> > 
> > Lorentz had a clear vision of what mass of electrons were: in his 1904 paper, 
> > he asserted that mass was something of electromagnetic nature, at least for 
> > the electron. He also wrote: "I shall suppose that there is no other, no "true" 
> > or "material" mass." 
> > 
> > For Lorentz, electrons in state of rest had a mass m = e²/(6πc²R), [e value in electrostatic units or esu]. 
> > 
> > 1 e = 4,774E-10 esu = 4,774E-10 √(g.cm³)/s, SO m has gram units. 
> > 
> > He surely knew that the potential energy outside a spherically symmetric 
> > charge distribution with total charge e sand radius R is given by: 
> > 
> > E = e²/(4πε₀R), with 4π included for reasons of spherical geometry, as the 
> > 6π in the electron mass. 
> > 
> > He missed connecting mass and energy, or he would have got 
> > 
> > m/E ∝ 1/c² 
> > 
> > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vacuum_permittivity 
> > 
> > Einstein thought of mass in terms of INERTIA, as Galileo and Newton. That 
> > would be the "resistance" of matter to be put in motion or to be stopped 
> > from a uniform motion ("m.v" or "vis viva"). 
> > 
> > Today, mass, in physics, is a quantitative measure of inertia, a fundamental property of all matter. It is, in effect, the resistance that a body of matter offers to a change in its speed or position upon the application of a force. 
> > That's highly esoteric: "fundamental property of all matter". 
> > 
> > In chemistry, mass is a measure of the amount of matter in a substance or an object. 
> > 
> > But, in reality, nobody knows. The same with electricity, magnetism, protons, 
> > muons, nuclear energy, cosmic rays and how is that a bicycle work. 
> > 
> > Maybe relativists can chip in with some insights.
> 'In the beginning, God created the heavens and the earth.' 
> 
> 
> 
> If you understand the 'order of events'... 
> 
> first comes 'heavens' then 'the earth'...the earth is Mass. 
> 
> The big bang was the creation of...mass. 
> 
> Before the big bang Mass didn't exist. 
> 
> 
> 
> -- 
> The Starmaker -- To question the unquestionable, ask the unaskable, 
> to think the unthinkable, mention the unmentionable, say the unsayable, 
> and challenge 
> the unchallengeable.


What came first? The chicken or the egg?  Matter or energy?

But if it's energy then, by E=mc^2, ALCHEMIA-TRANSMUTATION took place. Like the snacks in Star Trek OS stations.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#597585

On Thursday, December 15, 2022 at 5:38:14 AM UTC-8, Richard Hertz wrote:
> On Thursday, December 15, 2022 at 2:59:29 AM UTC-3, The Starmaker wrote: 
> > Richard Hertz wrote: 
> > > 
> > > Newton didn't know of atoms and subatomic particles. Neither Maxwell, 
> > > Gauss, Euler, Laplace, Le Verrier, Gerber and so many other scientists that 
> > > developed theories using such concept. 
> > > 
> > > Lorentz had a clear vision of what mass of electrons were: in his 1904 paper, 
> > > he asserted that mass was something of electromagnetic nature, at least for 
> > > the electron. He also wrote: "I shall suppose that there is no other, no "true" 
> > > or "material" mass." 
> > > 
> > > For Lorentz, electrons in state of rest had a mass m = e²/(6πc²R), [e value in electrostatic units or esu]. 
> > > 
> > > 1 e = 4,774E-10 esu = 4,774E-10 √(g.cm³)/s, SO m has gram units. 
> > > 
> > > He surely knew that the potential energy outside a spherically symmetric 
> > > charge distribution with total charge e sand radius R is given by: 
> > > 
> > > E = e²/(4πε₀R), with 4π included for reasons of spherical geometry, as the 
> > > 6π in the electron mass. 
> > > 
> > > He missed connecting mass and energy, or he would have got 
> > > 
> > > m/E ∝ 1/c² 
> > > 
> > > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vacuum_permittivity 
> > > 
> > > Einstein thought of mass in terms of INERTIA, as Galileo and Newton. That 
> > > would be the "resistance" of matter to be put in motion or to be stopped 
> > > from a uniform motion ("m.v" or "vis viva"). 
> > > 
> > > Today, mass, in physics, is a quantitative measure of inertia, a fundamental property of all matter. It is, in effect, the resistance that a body of matter offers to a change in its speed or position upon the application of a force. 
> > > That's highly esoteric: "fundamental property of all matter". 
> > > 
> > > In chemistry, mass is a measure of the amount of matter in a substance or an object. 
> > > 
> > > But, in reality, nobody knows. The same with electricity, magnetism, protons, 
> > > muons, nuclear energy, cosmic rays and how is that a bicycle work. 
> > > 
> > > Maybe relativists can chip in with some insights. 
> > 'In the beginning, God created the heavens and the earth.' 
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > If you understand the 'order of events'... 
> > 
> > first comes 'heavens' then 'the earth'...the earth is Mass. 
> > 
> > The big bang was the creation of...mass. 
> > 
> > Before the big bang Mass didn't exist. 
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > -- 
> > The Starmaker -- To question the unquestionable, ask the unaskable, 
> > to think the unthinkable, mention the unmentionable, say the unsayable, 
> > and challenge 
> > the unchallengeable.
> What came first? The chicken or the egg? Matter or energy? 
> 
> But if it's energy then, by E=mc^2, ALCHEMIA-TRANSMUTATION took place. Like the snacks in Star Trek OS stations.

What brought about the first quantum fluctuation?
If the quantum fields are the beginning what began them?
If gravity was with an original singularity it would be
in the way of the BB.

Mitchell Raemsch

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#597668

Richard Hertz wrote:
> 
> On Thursday, December 15, 2022 at 2:59:29 AM UTC-3, The Starmaker wrote:
> > Richard Hertz wrote:
> > >
> > > Newton didn't know of atoms and subatomic particles. Neither Maxwell,
> > > Gauss, Euler, Laplace, Le Verrier, Gerber and so many other scientists that
> > > developed theories using such concept.
> > >
> > > Lorentz had a clear vision of what mass of electrons were: in his 1904 paper,
> > > he asserted that mass was something of electromagnetic nature, at least for
> > > the electron. He also wrote: "I shall suppose that there is no other, no "true"
> > > or "material" mass."
> > >
> > > For Lorentz, electrons in state of rest had a mass m = e²/(6πc²R), [e value in electrostatic units or esu].
> > >
> > > 1 e = 4,774E-10 esu = 4,774E-10 √(g.cm³)/s, SO m has gram units.
> > >
> > > He surely knew that the potential energy outside a spherically symmetric
> > > charge distribution with total charge e sand radius R is given by:
> > >
> > > E = e²/(4πε₀R), with 4π included for reasons of spherical geometry, as the
> > > 6Ï€ in the electron mass.
> > >
> > > He missed connecting mass and energy, or he would have got
> > >
> > > m/E ∝ 1/c²
> > >
> > > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vacuum_permittivity
> > >
> > > Einstein thought of mass in terms of INERTIA, as Galileo and Newton. That
> > > would be the "resistance" of matter to be put in motion or to be stopped
> > > from a uniform motion ("m.v" or "vis viva").
> > >
> > > Today, mass, in physics, is a quantitative measure of inertia, a fundamental property of all matter. It is, in effect, the resistance that a body of matter offers to a change in its speed or position upon the application of a force.
> > > That's highly esoteric: "fundamental property of all matter".
> > >
> > > In chemistry, mass is a measure of the amount of matter in a substance or an object.
> > >
> > > But, in reality, nobody knows. The same with electricity, magnetism, protons,
> > > muons, nuclear energy, cosmic rays and how is that a bicycle work.
> > >
> > > Maybe relativists can chip in with some insights.
> > 'In the beginning, God created the heavens and the earth.'
> >
> >
> >
> > If you understand the 'order of events'...
> >
> > first comes 'heavens' then 'the earth'...the earth is Mass.
> >
> > The big bang was the creation of...mass.
> >
> > Before the big bang Mass didn't exist.
> >
> >
> >
> > --
> > The Starmaker -- To question the unquestionable, ask the unaskable,
> > to think the unthinkable, mention the unmentionable, say the unsayable,
> > and challenge
> > the unchallengeable.
> 
> What came first? The chicken or the egg?  Matter or energy?
> 
> But if it's energy then, by E=mc^2, ALCHEMIA-TRANSMUTATION took place. Like the snacks in Star Trek OS stations.



Do you even undertstand Why you ask the question: What is mass? 






-- 
The Starmaker -- To question the unquestionable, ask the unaskable,
 to think the unthinkable, mention the unmentionable, say the unsayable,
and challenge
 the unchallengeable.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#597726

On 12/16/22 11:11 AM, The Starmaker wrote:
> Richard Hertz wrote:
>>
>> On Thursday, December 15, 2022 at 2:59:29 AM UTC-3, The Starmaker wrote:
>>> Richard Hertz wrote:
>>>>
>>>> Newton didn't know of atoms and subatomic particles. Neither Maxwell,
>>>> Gauss, Euler, Laplace, Le Verrier, Gerber and so many other scientists that
>>>> developed theories using such concept.
>>>>
>>>> Lorentz had a clear vision of what mass of electrons were: in his 1904 paper,
>>>> he asserted that mass was something of electromagnetic nature, at least for
>>>> the electron. He also wrote: "I shall suppose that there is no other, no "true"
>>>> or "material" mass."
>>>>
>>>> For Lorentz, electrons in state of rest had a mass m = e²/(6πc²R), [e value in electrostatic units or esu].
>>>>
>>>> 1 e = 4,774E-10 esu = 4,774E-10 √(g.cm³)/s, SO m has gram units.
>>>>
>>>> He surely knew that the potential energy outside a spherically symmetric
>>>> charge distribution with total charge e sand radius R is given by:
>>>>
>>>> E = e²/(4πε₀R), with 4π included for reasons of spherical geometry, as the
>>>> 6Ï€ in the electron mass.
>>>>
>>>> He missed connecting mass and energy, or he would have got
>>>>
>>>> m/E ∝ 1/c²
>>>>
>>>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vacuum_permittivity
>>>>
>>>> Einstein thought of mass in terms of INERTIA, as Galileo and Newton. That
>>>> would be the "resistance" of matter to be put in motion or to be stopped
>>>> from a uniform motion ("m.v" or "vis viva").
>>>>
>>>> Today, mass, in physics, is a quantitative measure of inertia, a fundamental property of all matter. It is, in effect, the resistance that a body of matter offers to a change in its speed or position upon the application of a force.
>>>> That's highly esoteric: "fundamental property of all matter".
>>>>
>>>> In chemistry, mass is a measure of the amount of matter in a substance or an object.
>>>>
>>>> But, in reality, nobody knows. The same with electricity, magnetism, protons,
>>>> muons, nuclear energy, cosmic rays and how is that a bicycle work.
>>>>
>>>> Maybe relativists can chip in with some insights.
>>> 'In the beginning, God created the heavens and the earth.'
>>>
>>> If you understand the 'order of events'...
>>>
>>> first comes 'heavens' then 'the earth'...the earth is Mass.
>>>
>>> The big bang was the creation of...mass.
>>>
>>> Before the big bang Mass didn't exist.
>>> --
>>> The Starmaker -- To question the unquestionable, ask the unaskable,
>>> to think the unthinkable, mention the unmentionable, say the unsayable,
>>> and challenge
>>> the unchallengeable.
>>
>> What came first? The chicken or the egg?  Matter or energy?
>>
>> But if it's energy then, by E=mc^2, ALCHEMIA-TRANSMUTATION took place. Like the snacks in Star Trek OS stations.
> 
> Do you even undertstand Why you ask the question: What is mass?

I am thinking that nearly every spoken language
has something like nouns and something like verbs.

Some languages tend to put the verb first in a
sentence and some the nouns.

To me, it seems feasible that the nouns might be
sound patterns that represent states of matter
and the verbs might represent states of energy.

Maybe that could be way off, who knows.

To me 'Fermions' sound something like 'Firm', and
they are something like 'Firm' because they have a
'Pauli Exclusion Principle' phenomenon and thus
'take up space', at least if you try to compress
a gas or liquid to a very great extent.  'Firm'
as in 'Fermi' is different from 'Bose' as in
'Boson'.  'Fermions' have 'one half integer
spin' and are different from 'Bosons'.  Then there
is the 'Poynting Vector' and 'Southern Blots'.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#597667

On Wednesday, December 14, 2022 at 4:10:18 PM UTC-8, Richard Hertz wrote:
> Newton didn't know of atoms and subatomic particles. Neither Maxwell, 
> Gauss, Euler, Laplace, Le Verrier, Gerber and so many other scientists that 
> developed theories using such concept. 
> 
> Lorentz had a clear vision of what mass of electrons were: in his 1904 paper, 
> he asserted that mass was something of electromagnetic nature, at least for 
> the electron. He also wrote: "I shall suppose that there is no other, no "true" 
> or "material" mass." 
> 
> For Lorentz, electrons in state of rest had a mass m = e²/(6πc²R), [e value in electrostatic units or esu]. 
> 
> 1 e = 4,774E-10 esu = 4,774E-10 √(g.cm³)/s, SO m has gram units. 
> 
> He surely knew that the potential energy outside a spherically symmetric 
> charge distribution with total charge e sand radius R is given by: 
> 
> E = e²/(4πε₀R), with 4π included for reasons of spherical geometry, as the 
> 6π in the electron mass. 
> 
> He missed connecting mass and energy, or he would have got 
> 
> m/E ∝ 1/c² 
> 
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vacuum_permittivity 
> 
> Einstein thought of mass in terms of INERTIA, as Galileo and Newton. That 
> would be the "resistance" of matter to be put in motion or to be stopped 
> from a uniform motion ("m.v" or "vis viva"). 
> 
> Today, mass, in physics, is a quantitative measure of inertia, a fundamental property of all matter. It is, in effect, the resistance that a body of matter offers to a change in its speed or position upon the application of a force. 
> That's highly esoteric: "fundamental property of all matter". 
> 
> In chemistry, mass is a measure of the amount of matter in a substance or an object. 
> 
> But, in reality, nobody knows. The same with electricity, magnetism, protons, 
> muons, nuclear energy, cosmic rays and how is that a bicycle work. 
> 
> Maybe relativists can chip in with some insights.


Energy has its density.

Mitchell Raemsch

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#597670

mitchr...@gmail.com wrote:

>> But, in reality, nobody knows. The same with electricity, magnetism,
>> protons,
>> muons, nuclear energy, cosmic rays and how is that a bicycle work.
>> Maybe relativists can chip in with some insights.
>  
> E̶n̶e̶r̶g̶y̶ h̶a̶s̶ i̶t̶s̶ d̶e̶n̶s̶i̶t̶y̶.

that's a flux or intensity, not density.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#597682

Dario De filippis wrote:

> mitchr...@gmail.com wrote:
>>> But, in reality, nobody knows. The same with electricity, magnetism,
>>> protons,
>>> muons, nuclear energy, cosmic rays and how is that a bicycle work.
>>> Maybe relativists can chip in with some insights.
>>  
>> E̶n̶e̶r̶g̶y̶ h̶a̶s̶ i̶t̶s̶ d̶e̶n̶s̶i̶t̶y̶.
> 
> that's a flux or intensity, not density.

There is an energy density, ρ_E ≔ dE/dV, too.  In fact, it is (in natural 
units) the time—time component of the energy–momentum tensor T_μν in the 
Einstein Field Equation of general relativity.

With it, and realizing that E = m c² at relative rest, one can explain why 
and how the spacetime in the vicinity of an object with non-zero mass is 
curved, which leads to observable effects that we call “gravity”, 
“gravitational time dilation”, “gravitational redshift/blueshift”, and 
“deflection of light”.


PointedEars
-- 
Q: Where are offenders sentenced for light crimes?  
A: To a prism.

(from: WolframAlpha)

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#597684

Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote:

> There is an energy density, ρ_E ≔ dE/dV, too.  In fact, it is (in natural
> units) the time—time component of the energy–momentum tensor T_μν in the
> Einstein Field Equation of general relativity.
> 
> With it, and realizing that E = m c² at relative rest, one can explain why
> and how the spacetime in the vicinity of an object with non-zero mass is
> curved, which leads to observable effects that we call “gravity”,
> “gravitational time dilation”, “gravitational redshift/blueshift”, and
> “deflection of light”.

And, I should add, “gravitational waves” as they become increasingly 
important in astrophysics, allowing us to observe places from where light 
does not get in or out, possibly/hopefully even our universe before 378'000 
years after its expansion began.


PointedEars
-- 
“Nature uses only the longest threads to weave her patterns
 so that each small piece of her fabric reveals the organization
 of the entire tapestry.”
   —Richard Feynman, theoretical physicist, “Messenger Lecture” 1 (1964)

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#597709

Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote:

> Dario De filippis wrote:
> 
>> mitchr...@gmail.com wrote:
>>>> But, in reality, nobody knows. The same with electricity, magnetism,
>>>> protons,
>>>> muons, nuclear energy, cosmic rays and how is that a bicycle work.
>>>> Maybe relativists can chip in with some insights.
>>>  
>>> E̶n̶e̶r̶g̶y̶ h̶a̶s̶ i̶t̶s̶ d̶e̶n̶s̶i̶t̶y̶.
>> 
>> that's a flux or intensity, not density.
> 
> There is an energy density, ρ_E ≔ dE/dV, too.  In fact, it is (in
> natural units) the time—time component of the e̶n̶e̶r̶g̶y̶–m̶o̶m̶e̶n̶t̶u̶m̶ t̶e̶n̶s̶o̶r̶
> T_μν i̶n̶ t̶h̶e̶ E̶i̶n̶s̶t̶e̶i̶n̶ F̶i̶e̶l̶d̶ E̶q̶u̶a̶t̶i̶o̶n̶ o̶f̶ g̶e̶n̶e̶r̶a̶l̶ r̶e̶l̶a̶t̶i̶v̶i̶t̶y̶.

has nothing to do with tensors, you inbreed cretin. Tensors are not about 
densities.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#597738

Dario De filippis wrote:

> Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote:
>> Dario De filippis wrote:
>>> mitchr...@gmail.com wrote:
>>>>> But, in reality, nobody knows. The same with electricity, magnetism,
>>>>> protons,
>>>>> muons, nuclear energy, cosmic rays and how is that a bicycle work.
>>>>> Maybe relativists can chip in with some insights.
>>>> E̶n̶e̶r̶g̶y̶ h̶a̶s̶ i̶t̶s̶ d̶e̶n̶s̶i̶t̶y̶.
>>> that's a flux or intensity, not density.
>> 
>> There is an energy density, ρ_E ≔ dE/dV, too.  In fact, it is (in
>> natural units) the time—time component of the
>> e̶n̶e̶r̶g̶y̶–m̶o̶m̶e̶n̶t̶u̶m̶ t̶e̶n̶s̶o̶r̶ T_μν i̶n̶ t̶h̶e̶
>> E̶i̶n̶s̶t̶e̶i̶n̶ F̶i̶e̶l̶d̶ E̶q̶u̶a̶t̶i̶o̶n̶ o̶f̶ g̶e̶n̶e̶r̶a̶l̶
>> r̶e̶l̶a̶t̶i̶v̶i̶t̶y̶.

Which part of “inappropriate” did you not get?  But I suspect you are just 
the ‘nym-shifting troll again.
 
> has nothing to do with tensors, you inbreed cretin. Tensors are not about
> densities.

You could not be more wrong.

Already in special relativity:
	
<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electromagnetic_stress%E2%80%93energy_tensor#Conservation_laws>
|
| This equation is equivalent to the following 3D conservation laws
| 
| […]
| 
| respectively describing the flux of electromagnetic energy density
                                                             ^^^^^^^ 
| […]
| 
| and electromagnetic momentum density
                               ^^^^^^^ 
| […]
| 
| where J is the electric current density, ρ the electric charge density,
                                  ^^^^^^^                        ^^^^^^^
| and f is the Lorentz force density.
                             ^^^^^^^

And in general relativity:

<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stress%E2%80%93energy_tensor>
| 
| The *stress–energy tensor*, sometimes called the *stress–energy–momentum*
| *tensor* or the *energy–momentum tensor*, is a tensor physical quantity
| that describes the density and flux of energy and momentum in spacetime,
                     ^^^^^^^
| generalizing the stress tensor of Newtonian physics. 
| 
| […]
| 
| The components of the stress-energy tensor
| -------------------------------------------
| 
| Because the stress–energy tensor is of order 2, its components can be
| displayed in 4 × 4 matrix form:
| 
| […]
| 
| In the following, k and ℓ range from 1 through 3:
| 
| a. The time–time component is the density of relativistic mass, i.e., the
|    energy density divided by the speed of light squared, while being in
            ^^^^^^^
|    the co-moving frame of reference.[2] It has a direct physical
|    interpretation. In the case of a perfect fluid this component is
| 
|      T⁰⁰ = ρ,
| 
|    where ρ is the relativistic mass per unit volume,

– which is nothing else but the mass density, so precisely what I said –

|    and for an electromagnetic field in otherwise empty space this
|    component is
| 
|    […]
| 
|    where E and B are the electric and magnetic fields, respectively.[3]
| 
| b. The flux of relativistic mass across the x^k surface is equivalent to
|    the density of the kth component of linear momentum,
         ^^^^^^^
|    […]


PointedEars
-- 
“Science is empirical: knowing the answer means nothing;
 testing your knowledge means everything.”
   —Dr. Lawrence M. Krauss, theoretical physicist,
    in “A Universe from Nothing” (2009)

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#597741

Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote:

>>>>> E̶n̶e̶r̶g̶y̶ h̶a̶s̶ i̶t̶s̶ d̶e̶n̶s̶i̶t̶y̶.
>>>> that's a flux or intensity, not density.
>>> 
>>> There is an energy density, ρ_E ≔ dE/dV, too.  In fact, it is (in
>>> natural units) the time—time component of the
>>> e̶n̶e̶r̶g̶y̶–m̶o̶m̶e̶n̶t̶u̶m̶ t̶e̶n̶s̶o̶r̶ T_μν i̶n̶ t̶h̶e̶
>>> E̶i̶n̶s̶t̶e̶i̶n̶ F̶i̶e̶l̶d̶ E̶q̶u̶a̶t̶i̶o̶n̶ o̶f̶ g̶e̶n̶e̶r̶a̶l̶
>>> r̶e̶l̶a̶t̶i̶v̶i̶t̶y̶.
> 
> W̶h̶i̶c̶h̶ p̶a̶r̶t̶ o̶f̶ “i̶n̶a̶p̶p̶r̶o̶p̶r̶i̶a̶t̶e̶” d̶i̶d̶ y̶o̶u̶ n̶o̶t̶ g̶e̶t̶?  B̶u̶t̶ I̶ s̶u̶s̶p̶e̶c̶t̶ y̶o̶u̶ a̶r̶e̶
> j̶u̶s̶t̶ t̶h̶e̶ ‘n̶y̶m̶-s̶h̶i̶f̶t̶i̶n̶g̶ t̶r̶o̶l̶l̶ a̶g̶a̶i̶n̶.
>  
>> has nothing to do with tensors, you inbreed cretin. Tensors are not
>> about densities.
> 
> You could not be more wrong. A̶l̶r̶e̶a̶d̶y̶ i̶n̶ s̶p̶e̶c̶i̶a̶l̶ r̶e̶l̶a̶t̶i̶v̶i̶t̶y̶:	

tensors are NOT contained by special relativity, idiot. Where are you 
coming from??

> <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/
Electromagnetic_stress%E2%80%93energy_tensor#Conservation_laws>
> | respectively describing the flux of electromagnetic energy 
density                                                          ^^^^^^^
> | and electromagnetic momentum density
                                ^^^^^^^
that's not about relativity, and it's about *flux* and momentum, 
*said_above* NOT "densities". You don't understand what you read. Much 
less tensors.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#597744

[It must give you a perverse pleasure to manually copypaste stroke-through 
Unicode letters or to do it automatically by some software.  What a 
character.]

The ‘nym-shifting troll trolled as “Dario De filippis” (now via eternal-
september.org as apparently they were finally kicked out from aioe.org):

[Quotation fixed]

> Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote:
>> You could not be more wrong. Already in special relativity:
> 
> tensors are NOT contained by special relativity, idiot.

They are.  You are just (willfully) ignorant about it.

> Where are you coming from??

The Electrodynamics lecture I heard this semester whose last section was 
titled “Relativistic Electrodynamics”.

But a ‘nym-shifting troll like you is not interested in facts, of course, 
let alone learning.


PointedEars
-- 
Q: What did the nuclear physicist order for lunch?  
A: Fission chips.

(from: WolframAlpha)

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#597756

Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote:

> [I̶t̶ m̶u̶s̶t̶ g̶i̶v̶e̶ y̶o̶u̶ a̶ p̶e̶r̶v̶e̶r̶s̶e̶ p̶l̶e̶a̶s̶u̶r̶e̶ t̶o̶ m̶a̶n̶u̶a̶l̶l̶y̶ c̶o̶p̶y̶p̶a̶s̶t̶e̶
> st̶r̶o̶k̶e̶-t̶h̶r̶o̶u̶g̶h̶ U̶n̶i̶c̶o̶d̶e̶ l̶e̶t̶t̶e̶r̶s̶ o̶r̶ t̶o̶ d̶o̶ i̶t̶ a̶u̶t̶o̶m̶a̶t̶i̶c̶a̶l̶l̶y̶ b̶y̶ s̶o̶m̶e̶
> s̶o̶f̶t̶w̶a̶r̶e̶.  W̶h̶a̶t̶ a̶ c̶h̶a̶r̶a̶c̶t̶e̶r̶.]
> 
> T̶h̶e̶ ‘n̶y̶m̶-s̶h̶i̶f̶t̶i̶n̶g̶ t̶r̶o̶l̶l̶ t̶r̶o̶l̶l̶e̶d̶ a̶s̶ “D̶a̶r̶i̶o̶ D̶e̶ f̶i̶l̶i̶p̶p̶i̶s̶” (now via eternal-
> se̶p̶t̶e̶m̶b̶e̶r̶.o̶r̶g̶ a̶s̶ a̶p̶p̶a̶r̶e̶n̶t̶l̶y̶ t̶h̶e̶y̶ w̶e̶r̶e̶ f̶i̶n̶a̶l̶l̶y̶ k̶i̶c̶k̶e̶d̶ o̶u̶t̶ f̶r̶o̶m̶ a̶i̶o̶e̶.o̶r̶g̶):

I only press a button on your ineptness, you uneducated german troll. You 
are stupid like fuck.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#597779

Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote:

> The ‘n̶y̶m̶-s̶h̶i̶f̶t̶i̶n̶g̶ t̶r̶o̶l̶l̶ t̶r̶o̶l̶l̶e̶d̶ as “Dario De filippis” (now via e̶t̶e̶r̶n̶a̶l̶-
> s̶e̶p̶t̶e̶m̶b̶e̶r̶.o̶r̶g̶ as apparently they were f̶i̶n̶a̶l̶l̶y̶ k̶i̶c̶k̶e̶d̶ o̶u̶t̶ f̶r̶o̶m̶ a̶i̶o̶e̶.o̶r̶g̶):

wasn't you the repulsive retard complaining making aioe.org blocking 
sci.physics.relativity for everybody, you putrid uneducated sociopath 
idiot. Go take yourself a proper education, you stupid bag of rocks.

saying special relativity is about tensors, just expose the retard inbreed 
imbecile you are. The most in that shithole of a country seems to be 
extreme crank stupid. Read here, they don't even know why.

Protests in Munich against inflation, rising prices and the economic 
policies of the Scholz government
https://%62%69%74%63%68%75%74%65.com/%76%69%64%65%6f/Hf1YhwnO4SlR

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

Page 1 of 2  [1] 2  Next page →

Back to top | Article view | sci.physics.relativity

csiph-web