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

Groups > sci.physics.relativity > #375125 > unrolled thread

Gravity needs NO Matter

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

Contents

  Gravity needs NO Matter Juan Sebastián <jseb@montserrat.info> - 2016-01-29 10:43 +0000
    Re: Gravity needs NO Matter Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-01-29 07:40 -0600
      Re: Gravity needs NO Matter Juan Sebastián <jseb@montserrat.info> - 2016-01-29 13:50 +0000
      Re: Gravity needs NO Matter benj <none@gmail.com> - 2016-01-29 12:22 -0500
        Re: Gravity needs NO Matter Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-01-29 11:28 -0600
          Re: Gravity needs NO Matter benj <none@gmail.com> - 2016-01-29 13:41 -0500
            Re: Gravity needs NO Matter Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-01-29 13:36 -0600
              Re: Gravity needs NO Matter benj <none@gmail.com> - 2016-01-30 02:30 -0500
            Re: Gravity needs NO Matter Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2016-01-30 14:07 +0100
              Re: Gravity needs NO Matter jamesl51165@gmail.com - 2016-01-30 09:32 -0800
                Re: Gravity needs NO Matter Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2016-01-30 20:19 +0100
                  Re: Gravity needs NO Matter jamesl51165@gmail.com - 2016-01-30 15:37 -0800
                    Re: Gravity needs NO Matter Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2016-01-31 18:15 +0100
                      Re: Gravity needs NO Matter jamesl51165@gmail.com - 2016-02-06 10:23 -0800
                        Re: Gravity needs NO Matter jamesl51165@gmail.com - 2016-02-06 11:14 -0800
                        Re: Gravity needs NO Matter Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2016-02-06 22:24 +0100
                          Re: Gravity needs NO Matter Éibhear <eibhear@no-email.net> - 2016-02-06 21:28 +0000
                            Re: Gravity needs NO Matter Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2016-02-07 10:00 +0100
              Re: Gravity needs NO Matter Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2016-02-01 21:50 +0100
                Re: Gravity needs NO Matter shan <shan@enterapps.org> - 2016-02-05 21:43 +0000
    Re: Gravity needs NO Matter Sam Wormley <swormley1@gmail.com> - 2016-01-29 08:13 -0600
      Re: Gravity needs NO Matter Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2016-01-29 16:44 +0100
    Re: Gravity needs NO Matter jamesl51165@gmail.com - 2016-01-29 11:03 -0800
      Re: Gravity needs NO Matter Juan Sebastián <jseb@montserrat.info> - 2016-01-29 19:35 +0000
    Re: Gravity needs NO Matter jamesl51165@gmail.com - 2016-01-29 16:04 -0800

Page 1 of 2  [1] 2  Next page →

#375125 — Gravity needs NO Matter

An error, many of them are doing in Relativity, is saying that mass 
(instead of Matter) is bending space and time. However, this actually is 
not an error, but essentially a 2nd Order error they are making (an Error 
of an Error).

Indeed, the only property of Matter, applicable to this Mysterious process 
of Bending space and time, may only be The Mass. This at a first cast of 
the eye over, is not significant, but as shown above, is crucial 
understanding Gravity and what is going on. 

Shockingly, it means that Matter is NOT necessary to the process of 
bending of space and time.

[toc] | [next] | [standalone]

#375140

On 1/29/2016 4:43 AM, Juan Sebastián wrote:
> An error, many of them are doing in Relativity, is saying that mass
> (instead of Matter) is bending space and time. However, this actually is
> not an error, but essentially a 2nd Order error they are making (an Error
> of an Error).
>
> Indeed, the only property of Matter, applicable to this Mysterious process
> of Bending space and time, may only be The Mass. This at a first cast of
> the eye over, is not significant, but as shown above, is crucial
> understanding Gravity and what is going on.
>
> Shockingly, it means that Matter is NOT necessary to the process of
> bending of space and time.
>

Matter is defined as a substance having mass and volume. Mass is a 
property, not a stuff.

-- 
Odd Bodkin --- maker of fine toys, tools, tables

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

#375142

Odd Bodkin wrote:

> On 1/29/2016 4:43 AM, Juan Sebastián wrote:
>> An error, many of them are doing in Relativity, is saying that mass
>> (instead of Matter) is bending space and time. However, this actually
>> is not an error, but essentially a 2nd Order error they are making (an
>> Error of an Error).
>>
>> Indeed, the only property of Matter, applicable to this Mysterious
>> process of Bending space and time, may only be The Mass. This at a
>> first cast of the eye over, is not significant, but as shown above, is
>> crucial understanding Gravity and what is going on.
>>
>> Shockingly, it means that Matter is NOT necessary to the process of
>> bending of space and time.
>>
>>
> Matter is defined as a substance having mass and volume. Mass is a
> property, not a stuff.

Exactly what is been said, odd. Can't you read?

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

#375152

On 01/29/2016 08:40 AM, Odd Bodkin wrote:
> On 1/29/2016 4:43 AM, Juan Sebastián wrote:
>> An error, many of them are doing in Relativity, is saying that mass
>> (instead of Matter) is bending space and time. However, this actually is
>> not an error, but essentially a 2nd Order error they are making (an Error
>> of an Error).
>>
>> Indeed, the only property of Matter, applicable to this Mysterious
>> process
>> of Bending space and time, may only be The Mass. This at a first cast of
>> the eye over, is not significant, but as shown above, is crucial
>> understanding Gravity and what is going on.
>>
>> Shockingly, it means that Matter is NOT necessary to the process of
>> bending of space and time.
>>
>
> Matter is defined as a substance having mass and volume. Mass is a
> property, not a stuff.
>
In fact mass is the mathematical coefficient between the acceleration 
observed in an object and force producing it. It is not even a constant 
value except at low velocities.

I'm worried. This sounds like Odd is actually starting to think for 
himself. This can't be possible.

-- 

       ___           ___           ___            ___
      /\  \         /\  \         /\__\          /\  \
     /::\  \       /::\  \       /::|  |         \:\  \
    /:/\:\  \     /:/\:\  \     /:|:|  |     ___ /::\__\
   /::\~\:\__\   /::\~\:\  \   /:/|:|  |__  /\  /:/\/__/
  /:/\:\ \:|__| /:/\:\ \:\__\ /:/ |:| /\__\ \:\/:/  /
  \:\~\:\/:/  / \:\~\:\ \/__/ \/__|:|/:/  /  \::/  /
   \:\ \::/  /   \:\ \:\__\       |:/:/  /    \/__/
    \:\/:/  /     \:\ \/__/       |::/  /
     \::/__/       \:\__\         /:/  /
      ~~            \/__/         \/__/

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

#375154

On 1/29/2016 11:22 AM, benj wrote:
> On 01/29/2016 08:40 AM, Odd Bodkin wrote:
>> On 1/29/2016 4:43 AM, Juan Sebastián wrote:
>>> An error, many of them are doing in Relativity, is saying that mass
>>> (instead of Matter) is bending space and time. However, this actually is
>>> not an error, but essentially a 2nd Order error they are making (an
>>> Error
>>> of an Error).
>>>
>>> Indeed, the only property of Matter, applicable to this Mysterious
>>> process
>>> of Bending space and time, may only be The Mass. This at a first cast of
>>> the eye over, is not significant, but as shown above, is crucial
>>> understanding Gravity and what is going on.
>>>
>>> Shockingly, it means that Matter is NOT necessary to the process of
>>> bending of space and time.
>>>
>>
>> Matter is defined as a substance having mass and volume. Mass is a
>> property, not a stuff.
>>
> In fact mass is the mathematical coefficient between the acceleration
> observed in an object and force producing it. It is not even a constant
> value except at low velocities.

That definition of mass you just described is antiquated and has been 
out of date for I think about 7 decades.

Mass is invariant and does not change with velocity, in current usage.

>
> I'm worried. This sounds like Odd is actually starting to think for
> himself. This can't be possible.
>


-- 
Odd Bodkin --- maker of fine toys, tools, tables

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

#375162

On 01/29/2016 12:28 PM, Odd Bodkin wrote:
> On 1/29/2016 11:22 AM, benj wrote:
>> On 01/29/2016 08:40 AM, Odd Bodkin wrote:
>>> On 1/29/2016 4:43 AM, Juan Sebastián wrote:
>>>> An error, many of them are doing in Relativity, is saying that mass
>>>> (instead of Matter) is bending space and time. However, this
>>>> actually is
>>>> not an error, but essentially a 2nd Order error they are making (an
>>>> Error
>>>> of an Error).
>>>>
>>>> Indeed, the only property of Matter, applicable to this Mysterious
>>>> process
>>>> of Bending space and time, may only be The Mass. This at a first
>>>> cast of
>>>> the eye over, is not significant, but as shown above, is crucial
>>>> understanding Gravity and what is going on.
>>>>
>>>> Shockingly, it means that Matter is NOT necessary to the process of
>>>> bending of space and time.
>>>>
>>>
>>> Matter is defined as a substance having mass and volume. Mass is a
>>> property, not a stuff.
>>>
>> In fact mass is the mathematical coefficient between the acceleration
>> observed in an object and force producing it. It is not even a constant
>> value except at low velocities.
>
> That definition of mass you just described is antiquated and has been
> out of date for I think about 7 decades.

Oh gosh, Boinker. How interesting that fashion is SO important in 
science. This is why you always need "authorities" to tell you what is 
"in". I presume you have a nice stubbly growth of hair on your face to 
be like all your Hollywood heros these days!

So you can't just look at the equation F = ma and notice that m is the 
factor between F and a? Are you REALLY that ignorant? Go back to your 
wooden toys.

> Mass is invariant and does not change with velocity, in current usage.

But the coefficient between Force and acceleration does. OR don't you 
speak math?

>> I'm worried. This sounds like Odd is actually starting to think for
>> himself. This can't be possible.

Sorry, Odd, I jumped to an erroneous conclusion there. Obviously you are 
not thinking for yourself yet. Fashion is much too important in your 
life. Didn't anyone ever inform you that wooden toys are hundreds of 
years out of fashion?

-- 

       ___           ___           ___            ___
      /\  \         /\  \         /\__\          /\  \
     /::\  \       /::\  \       /::|  |         \:\  \
    /:/\:\  \     /:/\:\  \     /:|:|  |     ___ /::\__\
   /::\~\:\__\   /::\~\:\  \   /:/|:|  |__  /\  /:/\/__/
  /:/\:\ \:|__| /:/\:\ \:\__\ /:/ |:| /\__\ \:\/:/  /
  \:\~\:\/:/  / \:\~\:\ \/__/ \/__|:|/:/  /  \::/  /
   \:\ \::/  /   \:\ \:\__\       |:/:/  /    \/__/
    \:\/:/  /     \:\ \/__/       |::/  /
     \::/__/       \:\__\         /:/  /
      ~~            \/__/         \/__/

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

#375181

On 1/29/2016 12:41 PM, benj wrote:
> On 01/29/2016 12:28 PM, Odd Bodkin wrote:
>> On 1/29/2016 11:22 AM, benj wrote:
>>> On 01/29/2016 08:40 AM, Odd Bodkin wrote:
>>>> On 1/29/2016 4:43 AM, Juan Sebastián wrote:
>>>>> An error, many of them are doing in Relativity, is saying that mass
>>>>> (instead of Matter) is bending space and time. However, this
>>>>> actually is
>>>>> not an error, but essentially a 2nd Order error they are making (an
>>>>> Error
>>>>> of an Error).
>>>>>
>>>>> Indeed, the only property of Matter, applicable to this Mysterious
>>>>> process
>>>>> of Bending space and time, may only be The Mass. This at a first
>>>>> cast of
>>>>> the eye over, is not significant, but as shown above, is crucial
>>>>> understanding Gravity and what is going on.
>>>>>
>>>>> Shockingly, it means that Matter is NOT necessary to the process of
>>>>> bending of space and time.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Matter is defined as a substance having mass and volume. Mass is a
>>>> property, not a stuff.
>>>>
>>> In fact mass is the mathematical coefficient between the acceleration
>>> observed in an object and force producing it. It is not even a constant
>>> value except at low velocities.
>>
>> That definition of mass you just described is antiquated and has been
>> out of date for I think about 7 decades.
>
> Oh gosh, Boinker. How interesting that fashion is SO important in
> science. This is why you always need "authorities" to tell you what is
> "in". I presume you have a nice stubbly growth of hair on your face to
> be like all your Hollywood heros these days!

Well, it's interesting to me, Ben, that you would say that what you 
learned 7 decades ago is what is still right and that anything that has 
been learned SINCE then is nothing but fashion.

>
> So you can't just look at the equation F = ma and notice that m is the
> factor between F and a? Are you REALLY that ignorant? Go back to your
> wooden toys.

Oh, I know what equation you were referring to. There's another equation 
that you no doubt learned 7 decades ago, and which is of course known to 
be WRONG.

What's ESPECIALLY interesting about that is that Newton himself 
expressed it in words that are more like F=dp/dt, not F=ma. And Newton's 
version is right, while the fashion that led to your antiquated 
education turned it into F=ma. F=ma was then found to be a MISTAKE, and 
what Newton originally wrote is still correct.

>
>> Mass is invariant and does not change with velocity, in current usage.
>
> But the coefficient between Force and acceleration does. OR don't you
> speak math?

The coefficient between force and acceleration does change. But you 
called that coefficient mass, and that's not right.

>
>>> I'm worried. This sounds like Odd is actually starting to think for
>>> himself. This can't be possible.
>
> Sorry, Odd, I jumped to an erroneous conclusion there. Obviously you are
> not thinking for yourself yet. Fashion is much too important in your
> life. Didn't anyone ever inform you that wooden toys are hundreds of
> years out of fashion?

Ben, you don't have any family to judge whether wooden toys are out of 
fashion. If they were out of fashion, nobody would buy them. I get that 
YOU have no reason to buy them. But you don't represent anybody but you.


-- 
Odd Bodkin --- maker of fine toys, tools, tables

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

#375203

On 01/29/2016 02:36 PM, Odd Bodkin wrote:
> On 1/29/2016 12:41 PM, benj wrote:
>> On 01/29/2016 12:28 PM, Odd Bodkin wrote:
>>> On 1/29/2016 11:22 AM, benj wrote:
>>>> On 01/29/2016 08:40 AM, Odd Bodkin wrote:
>>>>> On 1/29/2016 4:43 AM, Juan Sebastián wrote:
>>>>>> An error, many of them are doing in Relativity, is saying that mass
>>>>>> (instead of Matter) is bending space and time. However, this
>>>>>> actually is
>>>>>> not an error, but essentially a 2nd Order error they are making (an
>>>>>> Error
>>>>>> of an Error).
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Indeed, the only property of Matter, applicable to this Mysterious
>>>>>> process
>>>>>> of Bending space and time, may only be The Mass. This at a first
>>>>>> cast of
>>>>>> the eye over, is not significant, but as shown above, is crucial
>>>>>> understanding Gravity and what is going on.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Shockingly, it means that Matter is NOT necessary to the process of
>>>>>> bending of space and time.
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Matter is defined as a substance having mass and volume. Mass is a
>>>>> property, not a stuff.
>>>>>
>>>> In fact mass is the mathematical coefficient between the acceleration
>>>> observed in an object and force producing it. It is not even a constant
>>>> value except at low velocities.
>>>
>>> That definition of mass you just described is antiquated and has been
>>> out of date for I think about 7 decades.
>>
>> Oh gosh, Boinker. How interesting that fashion is SO important in
>> science. This is why you always need "authorities" to tell you what is
>> "in". I presume you have a nice stubbly growth of hair on your face to
>> be like all your Hollywood heros these days!
>
> Well, it's interesting to me, Ben, that you would say that what you
> learned 7 decades ago is what is still right and that anything that has
> been learned SINCE then is nothing but fashion.

SEVEN DECADES AGO? <snort>!

You anonymous internet clowns are so much fun. Even though I'm not 
anonymous, I'm in the phone book and have no CB "Handle", Somehow you 
stoners all have this idea of what I am! Lessee. I'm 100 years old, I've 
never been married. Have no children. Have no education beyond high 
school (some say it's a GED). I work cleaning tables at Burger King. I 
believe in ESP and Ghosts and Oh yeah, we can't forget Hanson: I'm 
Jewish swine who does his Yiddisher street corner act!

Have I covered all your fantasies. Probably not. Einstein says nothing 
is infinite except human stupidity and Lib fantasies.

>> So you can't just look at the equation F = ma and notice that m is the
>> factor between F and a? Are you REALLY that ignorant? Go back to your
>> wooden toys.
>
> Oh, I know what equation you were referring to. There's another equation
> that you no doubt learned 7 decades ago, and which is of course known to
> be WRONG.
>
> What's ESPECIALLY interesting about that is that Newton himself
> expressed it in words that are more like F=dp/dt, not F=ma. And Newton's
> version is right, while the fashion that led to your antiquated
> education turned it into F=ma. F=ma was then found to be a MISTAKE, and
> what Newton originally wrote is still correct.

Newton did not write "your" version. A lot of free interpretation there 
after the fact.

>>> Mass is invariant and does not change with velocity, in current usage.
>>
>> But the coefficient between Force and acceleration does. OR don't you
>> speak math?
>
> The coefficient between force and acceleration does change. But you
> called that coefficient mass, and that's not right.

And I call 'empty space" "aether" too. For you it's all in a name and 
words isn't it?  I'll bet you LOVE explaining the "Trinity" to everyone!
Makes you sound SO intelligent!

>>
>>>> I'm worried. This sounds like Odd is actually starting to think for
>>>> himself. This can't be possible.
>>
>> Sorry, Odd, I jumped to an erroneous conclusion there. Obviously you are
>> not thinking for yourself yet. Fashion is much too important in your
>> life. Didn't anyone ever inform you that wooden toys are hundreds of
>> years out of fashion?
>
> Ben, you don't have any family to judge whether wooden toys are out of
> fashion. If they were out of fashion, nobody would buy them. I get that
> YOU have no reason to buy them. But you don't represent anybody but you.

Oh here we go! Yeah I covered all your fantasies about me above. And yes 
I do only represent me, which does not mean I don't have any family. 
Which is unlike you and HVAC and the other shills here who represent 
those in power and their agenda.

You ignorant libs are a HOOT!  All of you together can't even come up 
with one clue about reality, but your fantasies are a dime a dozen.

As Hanson says: Thanks for the laughs!

-- 

       ___           ___           ___            ___
      /\  \         /\  \         /\__\          /\  \
     /::\  \       /::\  \       /::|  |         \:\  \
    /:/\:\  \     /:/\:\  \     /:|:|  |     ___ /::\__\
   /::\~\:\__\   /::\~\:\  \   /:/|:|  |__  /\  /:/\/__/
  /:/\:\ \:|__| /:/\:\ \:\__\ /:/ |:| /\__\ \:\/:/  /
  \:\~\:\/:/  / \:\~\:\ \/__/ \/__|:|/:/  /  \::/  /
   \:\ \::/  /   \:\ \:\__\       |:/:/  /    \/__/
    \:\/:/  /     \:\ \/__/       |::/  /
     \::/__/       \:\__\         /:/  /
      ~~            \/__/         \/__/

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

#375220

benj wrote in <news:sci.physics.relativity> and <news:sci.physics>:

> On 01/29/2016 12:28 PM, Odd Bodkin wrote:
>> On 1/29/2016 11:22 AM, benj wrote:
>>> In fact mass is the mathematical coefficient between the acceleration
>>> observed in an object and force producing it. It is not even a constant
>>> value except at low velocities.
>> That definition of mass you just described is antiquated and has been
>> out of date for I think about 7 decades.
> 
> Oh gosh, Boinker. How interesting that fashion is SO important in
> science.

Only *you* said “fashion”.

> This is why you always need "authorities" to tell you what is
> "in". I presume you have a nice stubbly growth of hair on your face to
> be like all your Hollywood heros these days!
> 
> So you can't just look at the equation F = ma and notice that m is the
> factor between F and a? Are you REALLY that ignorant? Go back to your
> wooden toys.

You just do not realize that the definition of a “relativistic mass” m_rel 
that increases with relative speed v according to

      E = m_rel c²

  m_rel = γm₀ = m₀∕√(1 − (v∕c)²)

was a rather confusing concept (especially to students) that Einstein 
himself deprecated later.  It is *easier* to consider that what really 
increases with relative speed is the total *energy* that an object has (thus 
the work that it can do, as its kinetic energy must be increased in order to 
put it into relative motion; the total energy in relative motion then also 
called “relativistic energy” as opposed to “rest energy”, its energy in its 
rest frame), so that there is only mass m = m₀ (previously called “rest 
mass”, i.e. the mass of an object in its rest frame), and that the energy–
momentum relation

  E = √((mc²)² + (pc)²),

derived from the norm of the four-momentum P⃗ = (E∕c, p⃗), holds both for 
objects with non-zero (rest) mass and objects with zero (rest) mass such as 
photons, whereas for m > 0 and 0 < v < c

   p = γmv = mv∕√(1 − (v∕c)²),

and for photons (m = 0)

   p = ℎf∕c

(the momentum p and thus the energy of a photon E = ℎf = pc does not depend 
on its speed which is always c, it only depends on the frequency/wavelength 
of the light, in agreement with the observations of the photoelectric 
effect), while for m > 0 and v = 0 it is *still*

   E = mc².

<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mass_in_special_relativity#Relativistic_mass>

>> Mass is invariant and does not change with velocity, in current usage.
> 
> But the coefficient between Force and acceleration does.

Actually, in special relativity it does not.  What changes is the four-
velocity-dependent four-acceleration:

  F⃗ = dP⃗∕dτ = m A

<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Four-force>

> OR don't you speak math?

Do you?  I have just given you the history and the *equations* underlying 
this definition shift.


Please stop the amok-crossposting.  F'up2 sci.physics.relativity set.


PointedEars
-- 
Q: What did the nuclear physicist post on the laboratory door
   when he went camping?  
A: 'Gone fission'.
(from: WolframAlpha)

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

#375237

On Saturday, January 30, 2016 at 5:07:29 AM UTC-8, Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote:
> benj wrote in <news:sci.physics.relativity> and <news:sci.physics>:

What builds gravity?

Mitchell Raemsch

> > On 01/29/2016 12:28 PM, Odd Bodkin wrote:
> >> On 1/29/2016 11:22 AM, benj wrote:
> >>> In fact mass is the mathematical coefficient between the acceleration
> >>> observed in an object and force producing it. It is not even a constant
> >>> value except at low velocities.
> >> That definition of mass you just described is antiquated and has been
> >> out of date for I think about 7 decades.
> > 
> > Oh gosh, Boinker. How interesting that fashion is SO important in
> > science.
> 
> Only *you* said “fashion”.
> 
> > This is why you always need "authorities" to tell you what is
> > "in". I presume you have a nice stubbly growth of hair on your face to
> > be like all your Hollywood heros these days!
> > 
> > So you can't just look at the equation F = ma and notice that m is the
> > factor between F and a? Are you REALLY that ignorant? Go back to your
> > wooden toys.
> 
> You just do not realize that the definition of a “relativistic mass” m_rel 
> that increases with relative speed v according to
> 
>       E = m_rel c²
> 
>   m_rel = γm₀ = m₀∕√(1 − (v∕c)²)
> 
> was a rather confusing concept (especially to students) that Einstein 
> himself deprecated later.  It is *easier* to consider that what really 
> increases with relative speed is the total *energy* that an object has (thus 
> the work that it can do, as its kinetic energy must be increased in order to 
> put it into relative motion; the total energy in relative motion then also 
> called “relativistic energy” as opposed to “rest energy”, its energy in its 
> rest frame), so that there is only mass m = m₀ (previously called “rest 
> mass”, i.e. the mass of an object in its rest frame), and that the energy–
> momentum relation
> 
>   E = √((mc²)² + (pc)²),
> 
> derived from the norm of the four-momentum P⃗ = (E∕c, p⃗), holds both for 
> objects with non-zero (rest) mass and objects with zero (rest) mass such as 
> photons, whereas for m > 0 and 0 < v < c
> 
>    p = γmv = mv∕√(1 − (v∕c)²),
> 
> and for photons (m = 0)
> 
>    p = ℎf∕c
> 
> (the momentum p and thus the energy of a photon E = ℎf = pc does not depend 
> on its speed which is always c, it only depends on the frequency/wavelength 
> of the light, in agreement with the observations of the photoelectric 
> effect), while for m > 0 and v = 0 it is *still*
> 
>    E = mc².
> 
> <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mass_in_special_relativity#Relativistic_mass>
> 
> >> Mass is invariant and does not change with velocity, in current usage.
> > 
> > But the coefficient between Force and acceleration does.
> 
> Actually, in special relativity it does not.  What changes is the four-
> velocity-dependent four-acceleration:
> 
>   F⃗ = dP⃗∕dτ = m A
> 
> <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Four-force>
> 
> > OR don't you speak math?
> 
> Do you?  I have just given you the history and the *equations* underlying 
> this definition shift.
> 
> 
> Please stop the amok-crossposting.  F'up2 sci.physics.relativity set.
> 
> 
> PointedEars
> -- 
> Q: What did the nuclear physicist post on the laboratory door
>    when he went camping?  
> A: 'Gone fission'.
> (from: WolframAlpha)

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

#375246

jamesl51165@gmail.com wrote:

> […] Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote:
>> benj wrote in <news:sci.physics.relativity> and <news:sci.physics>:
> 
> What builds gravity?

Gravity is not "built".  Please rephrase your question and trim your quotes 
to the relevant minimum if you desire a sensible answer.

Also, please remove from your future attributions all superfluous 
information in order to keep each attribution on *one* line whose length 
does not exceed 80 characters; see above.

It would also be adequate if you posted under your real name instead of just 
an e-mail address.  You can accomplish this with Google Groups (GG) if you 
use the “join group” button, but it is best to avoid GG for posting to 
Usenet because of GG’s bugs.

<http://twovoyagers.com/improve-usenet.org/>


PointedEars
-- 
Q: Who's on the case when the electricity goes out?  
A: Sherlock Ohms.

(from: WolframAlpha)

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

#375266

wrote:

> > 
> > What builds gravity?
> 
> Gravity is not "built".  Please rephrase your question and trim your quotes 
> to the relevant minimum if you desire a sensible answer.

Gravity is the first mathematical term in the created cosmic coded.

Mitchell Raemsch

> 
> Also, please remove from your future attributions all superfluous 
> information in order to keep each attribution on *one* line whose length 
> does not exceed 80 characters; see above.
> 
> It would also be adequate if you posted under your real name instead of just 
> an e-mail address.  You can accomplish this with Google Groups (GG) if you 
> use the "join group" button, but it is best to avoid GG for posting to 
> Usenet because of GG's bugs.
> 
> <http://twovoyagers.com/improve-usenet.org/>
> 
> 
> PointedEars
> -- 
> Q: Who's on the case when the electricity goes out?  
> A: Sherlock Ohms.
> 
> (from: WolframAlpha)

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

#375305

jamesl51165@gmail.com wrote:

[Repaired attributions]

> [Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn] wrote:
>> [jamesl51165@gmail.com wrote: ]
>> > What builds gravity?
>> Gravity is not "built".  Please rephrase your question and trim your
>> quotes to the relevant minimum if you desire a sensible answer.
> 
> Gravity is the first mathematical term in the created cosmic coded.

Such gibberish, it is not even wrong.


PointedEars
-- 
I heard that entropy isn't what it used to be.

(from: WolframAlpha)

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

#375694

On Sunday, January 31, 2016 at 9:15:24 AM UTC-8, Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote:

Gravity needs no source? A gravity wave leaves field but has an original source.
That is the only truth to that.
By what strength does this disembodied gravity action continue to pull ?

Mitchell Raemsch


> 
> [Repaired attributions]
> 
> > [Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn] wrote:

> >> > What builds gravity?
> >> Gravity is not "built".  Please rephrase your question and trim your
> >> quotes to the relevant minimum if you desire a sensible answer.
> > 
> > Gravity is the first mathematical term in the created cosmic coded.
> 
> Such gibberish, it is not even wrong.
> 
> 
> PointedEars
> -- 
> I heard that entropy isn't what it used to be.
> 
> (from: WolframAlpha)

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

#375698

On Saturday, February 6, 2016 at 10:23:48 AM UTC-8, james...@gmail.com wrote:
> On Sunday, January 31, 2016 at 9:15:24 AM UTC-8, Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote:

Gravity build requires a mathematical material calculation.

Mitchell Raemsch; God left something out


> Gravity needs no source? A gravity wave leaves field but has an original source.
> That is the only truth to that.
> By what strength does this disembodied gravity action continue to pull ?
> 
> Mitchell Raemsch
> 
> 
> > 
> > [Repaired attributions]
> > 
> > > [Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn] wrote:
> 
> > >> > What builds gravity?
> > >> Gravity is not "built".  Please rephrase your question and trim your
> > >> quotes to the relevant minimum if you desire a sensible answer.
> > > 
> > > Gravity is the first mathematical term in the created cosmic coded.
> > 
> > Such gibberish, it is not even wrong.
> > 
> > 
> > PointedEars
> > -- 
> > I heard that entropy isn't what it used to be.
> > 
> > (from: WolframAlpha)

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

#375707

jamesl51165@gmail.com wrote:

> Gravity needs no source?

Nobody but you said that.

> A gravity wave leaves field but has an original source. That is the only 
> truth to that.

Nonsense.  First of all, you mean a _gravitational_ wave; a gravity wave is 
something else.  Second, gravitational waves, if they exist, are ripple-like 
disturbances in the gravitational field of a massive body.  The 
gravitational field of a massive body (and AFAWK, spacetime as well) extends 
to infinity (where the gravitational potential approaches 0); *nothing* can 
leave it.

<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gravity_wave>
<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gravitational_wave>

> By what strength does this disembodied gravity action continue to pull ?

See above.


PointedEars
-- 
A neutron walks into a bar and inquires how much a drink costs.
The bartender replies, "For you? No charge."

(from: WolframAlpha)

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

#375708

Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote:

> First of all, you mean a _gravitational_ wave; a gravity wave is
> something else. 

What exactly. Teach me learn.

> Second, gravitational waves, if they exist, are
> ripple-like disturbances in the gravitational field of a massive body.

You just said those are something else.

> The gravitational field of a massive body (and AFAWK, spacetime as well)
> extends to infinity (where the gravitational potential approaches 0);
> *nothing* can leave it.

Another error. The story goes saying that at infinity the gravitational 
potential approaches maximum, not 0. Consequently that potential will be 
infinite as well. How do you like it?

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

#375742

Éibhear wrote:

> Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote:
>> First of all, you mean a _gravitational_ wave; a gravity wave is
>> something else.
> 
> What exactly.

Follow the reference.

> Teach me learn.

I find it highly unlikely that you want to learn.  If you would want to 
learn, you would not change pseudonyms as other people change shirts, so 
that your previous ignorance and eventually your insults could *seemingly* 
not be associated with your new pseudonym (of course, by now many 
subscribers know how to recognize you anyway).

However, there are certainly other people reading this who want to learn, so 
I’ll bite.

>> Second, gravitational waves, if they exist, are
>> ripple-like disturbances in the gravitational field of a massive body.
> 
> You just said those are something else.

I did not.
 
>> The gravitational field of a massive body (and AFAWK, spacetime as well)
>> extends to infinity (where the gravitational potential approaches 0);
>> *nothing* can leave it.
> 
> Another error.

No.

> The story goes saying that 

It is not a story.

> at infinity the gravitational potential approaches maximum,

Correct.

> not 0.

Incorrect.  By convention, the gravitational potential is *negative* near 
the source (showing that gravity is an attracting force), and approaches 
zero (therefore, its maximum value) as the distance from the source 
approaches infinity.  (Probably someone has told you this before.  I 
remember to have posted in sci.physics the equation and diagram for 
gravitational potential already.)

<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gravitational_potential#Mathematical_form>

> Consequently that potential will be infinite as well.

Ex falso quodlibet.

> How do you like it?

It does not matter if I like your statement.  However, it does matter that 
your statement is wrong.


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

(from: WolframAlpha)

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

#375377

Y.Porat wrote in <news:sci.physics>:

> On Saturday, January 30, 2016 at 3:07:31 PM UTC+2, Thomas 'PointedEars'
> Lahn wrote:

Attribution _line_, not attribution novel.

>> benj wrote in <news:sci.physics.relativity> and <news:sci.physics>:
>> > This is why you always need "authorities" to tell you what is
>> > "in". I presume you have a nice stubbly growth of hair on your face to
>> > be like all your Hollywood heros these days!
>> > 
>> > So you can't just look at the equation F = ma and notice that m is the
>> > factor between F and a? Are you REALLY that ignorant? Go back to your
>> > wooden toys.
>> 
>> You just do not realize that the definition of a “relativistic mass”
>> m_rel that increases with relative speed v according to
>>=======================================

I did not post those delimiters; you have forged the quotation.

>>       E = m_rel c²
> ===================================
> i can write
> m babayaga c^2
>  as well as you write
> m rel

I wrote “m_rel” instead, the underscore indicating a following subscript.

> why not??
> the paper can suffer anything you mumble on it

The symbols that I have used have a specific meaning, though, and that 
meaning differs as the symbols differ (as it should be).  AISB, m_rel 
specifies the previous, now-obsolete, concept of a velocity-dependent (not 
invariant) relativistic mass.

Besides, “babayaga” as-is is not an appropriate symbol in a physics equation 
as there would always be doubt whether it would be equivalent to b²a⁴yg.

> --------
>>   m_rel = γm₀ = m₀∕√(1 − (v∕c)²)
> while  (1 − (v∕c)²
> you get while v = c
> you get infinity !!

Not quite; the value for m_rel *approaches* infinity (m_rel → ∞) as v 
*approaches* c (v → c), and m_rel is not defined at v = c.  You also get 
that with the aforementioned (and futher below expanded) equation for 
relativistic momentum,

  p = γ m v = m v∕√(1 − (v∕c)²).

One of the conclusions from special relativity is that no object with 
m = m₀ > 0 can move at c as for that it would have to be supplied with an 
infinite amount of extra energy.

It can be seen even better in the equation for relativistic kinetic energy,

  E_k = m γ c² − m c² = m c²∕√(1 − (v/c)²) − m c²

where m c²∕√(1 − (v/c)²) → ∞ as v → c.  So, IOW, “the work expended 
accelerating an object [with non-zero mass; the ed.] from rest approaches 
infinity as the velocity approaches the speed of light.”

<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kinetic_energy#Relativistic_kinetic_energy_of_rigid_bodies>

> […]
>> was a rather confusing concept (especially to students) that Einstein
>> himself deprecated later.  It is *easier* to consider that what really
>> increases with relative speed is the total *energy*
> ---------
> common man

Did you mean to write “come on, man” instead?

> =====that is your private story !!

No, it is not.  Read the quotations that I posted and follow the references.

[repaired quotation]
 
>> that an object has (thus the work that it can do, as its kinetic energy
>> must be increased in order to put it into relative motion; the total
>> energy in relative motion then also called “relativistic energy” as
>> opposed to “rest energy”, its energy in its rest frame), so that there is
>> only mass m = m₀ (previously called “rest mass”, i.e. the mass of an
>> object in its rest frame), and that the energy– momentum relation
>> 
>>   E = √((mc²)² + (pc)²),
> ================================
> another stupidity cheating !!

There is no cheating, see e.g. 
<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Energy%E2%80%93momentum_relation#Norm_of_the_four-momentum>.
 
> THAT FORMULA IS FOR -
> LISTEN CAREFULLY PARROT

Your Shift key appears to be stuck.

> IT IS FOR A **MIXTURE* OF ENERGY PLUS PARTICLES !!

Nonsense.  Energy is a *property* of a physical object such as a particle; 
it is not a separate entity.  Every physical object has an energy; objects 
that have non-zero mass have a rest energy in their rest frame of reference. 
When they are moving, that is, when their velocity relative to a frame of 
reference that is not co-moving with them is not zero, and so their momentum 
is not zero, they have gained kinetic energy for an observer whose rest 
frame is that frame of reference.
 
> 2
> where do you see in m of momentum
> anything relativistic ???
> any relativistic coefficient ???

See below.
 
> =====
>> 
>> derived from the norm of the four-momentum P⃗ = (E∕c, p⃗), holds both for
>> objects with non-zero (rest) mass and objects with zero (rest) mass such
>> as photons, whereas for m > 0 and 0 < v < c
>> 
>>    p = γmv = mv∕√(1 − (v∕c)²),
> =============================
> that is as well your mathematical cheating
> ie
> one cheating based on another same cheating

There is no cheating.  γ (\gamma) is the Lorentz factor, *the* "relativistic 
coefficient".  In full (and less ambiguous), the above is:

  p = γ m v

  γ = 1∕√(1 − (v∕c)²)

  p = 1∕√(1 − (v∕c)²) × mv

  p = m v∕√(1 − (v∕c)²). ∎

>> and for photons (m = 0)
> =======================
> imbecileparrot
> see the formula for photon energy:
> E=hf
> that was found experimentally 5 years before any relativity!!

One of the good things about special relativity is that it confirms Planck’s 
equations (and probably Einstein would not have published “On the 
Electrodynamics of Moving Bodies” and subsequent works on special relativity 
like this if he had found that Minkowski spacetime would not support 
Planck’s quantum idea that he [Einstein] just confirmed about three months 
earlier in “On a Heuristic Viewpoint Concerning the Production and 
Transformation of Light”).

Let us assume that the energy–momentum relation

  E = √((m c²)² + (p c)²)      (1)

holds for all physical objects.

For a photon, we know that

  p = ℎ f∕c,                   (2)

and we assume for it

  m := 0.                      (3)

Applying (2) and (3) to (1) yields

  E = √((0 × c²)² + (ℎ f∕c × c)²)

  E = √(0         + (ℎ f)²)

  E = √(ℎ f)²

  E = ℎ f. ∎  (Planck–Einstein relation)

One can also easily see that for a photon

  E = ℎ f = p c.


F'up2 sci.physics.relativity

PointedEars
-- 
Two neutrinos go through a bar ...

(from: WolframAlpha)

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

#375638

Użytkownik Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn napisał w wiadomości grup
dyskusyjnych:

> What you are quoting here is a (randomly selected) Usenet signature. 
> You are not referring to it in your follow-up, so you should not have
> quoted it.

shut up, stupid.

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

Page 1 of 2  [1] 2  Next page →

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

csiph-web