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

Groups > sci.physics.relativity > #379467 > unrolled thread

The Dingleberry Anti-Gravity, Perpetual Motion Machine.

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

Contents

  The Dingleberry Anti-Gravity, Perpetual Motion Machine. HGW <hgw@...> - 2016-03-19 09:30 +1100
    Re: The Dingleberry Anti-Gravity, Perpetual Motion Machine. JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2016-03-18 16:09 -0700
      Re: The Dingleberry Anti-Gravity, Perpetual Motion Machine. Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2016-03-19 00:23 +0100
        Re: The Dingleberry Anti-Gravity, Perpetual Motion Machine. JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2016-03-18 16:40 -0700
          Re: The Dingleberry Anti-Gravity, Perpetual Motion Machine. Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2016-03-19 08:51 +0100
    Re: The Dingleberry Anti-Gravity, Perpetual Motion Machine. pnalsing@gmail.com - 2016-03-18 17:23 -0700
      Re: The Dingleberry Anti-Gravity, Perpetual Motion Machine. HGW <HGW@home.com> - 2016-03-20 03:43 +1100
      Re: The Dingleberry Anti-Gravity, Perpetual Motion Machine. Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2016-03-20 12:11 -0500
        Re: The Dingleberry Anti-Gravity, Perpetual Motion Machine. HGW <HGW@home.com> - 2016-03-21 06:46 +1100
    Re: The Dingleberry Anti-Gravity, Perpetual Motion Machine. pcardinale@volcanomail.com - 2016-03-19 07:26 -0700
      Re: The Dingleberry Anti-Gravity, Perpetual Motion Machine. HGW <HGW@home.com> - 2016-03-20 03:50 +1100
        Re: The Dingleberry Anti-Gravity, Perpetual Motion Machine. Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2016-03-19 11:56 -0700
          Re: The Dingleberry Anti-Gravity, Perpetual Motion Machine. cryptoclearance <cryptoclearance@cryptoclearance.net> - 2016-03-19 19:48 +0000
            Re: The Dingleberry Anti-Gravity, Perpetual Motion Machine. Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2016-03-19 22:42 +0100
              Re: The Dingleberry Anti-Gravity, Perpetual Motion Machine. cryptoclearance <cryptoclearance@cryptoclearance.net> - 2016-03-19 22:10 +0000
        Re: The Dingleberry Anti-Gravity, Perpetual Motion Machine. pcardinale@volcanomail.com - 2016-03-20 08:20 -0700
          Re: The Dingleberry Anti-Gravity, Perpetual Motion Machine. HGW <HGW@home.com> - 2016-03-21 06:55 +1100
            Re: The Dingleberry Anti-Gravity, Perpetual Motion Machine. Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2016-03-20 17:27 -0700
              Re: The Dingleberry Anti-Gravity, Perpetual Motion Machine. HGW <hw@...> - 2016-03-21 12:13 +1100
                Re: The Dingleberry Anti-Gravity, Perpetual Motion Machine. Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2016-03-20 20:48 -0700
                Re: The Dingleberry Anti-Gravity, Perpetual Motion Machine. "Paul B. Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> - 2016-03-22 21:09 +0100
                Re: The Dingleberry Anti-Gravity, Perpetual Motion Machine. Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2016-03-22 23:19 +0100
                  Re: The Dingleberry Anti-Gravity, Perpetual Motion Machine. HGW <hw@...> - 2016-03-23 09:46 +1100
                    Re: The Dingleberry Anti-Gravity, Perpetual Motion Machine. Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2016-03-23 09:43 -0500
                    Re: The Dingleberry Anti-Gravity, Perpetual Motion Machine. Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2016-03-23 19:11 +0100
                      Re: The Dingleberry Anti-Gravity, Perpetual Motion Machine. Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-03-23 13:15 -0500
                        Re: The Dingleberry Anti-Gravity, Perpetual Motion Machine. Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2016-03-23 20:08 +0100
                          Re: The Dingleberry Anti-Gravity, Perpetual Motion Machine. Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-03-23 14:19 -0500
                            Re: The Dingleberry Anti-Gravity, Perpetual Motion Machine. HGW <hw@...> - 2016-03-24 09:34 +1100
                              Re: The Dingleberry Anti-Gravity, Perpetual Motion Machine. Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2016-03-24 02:05 +0100
                                Re: The Dingleberry Anti-Gravity, Perpetual Motion Machine. HGW <hw@...> - 2016-03-24 13:11 +1100
                                  Re: The Dingleberry Anti-Gravity, Perpetual Motion Machine. Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2016-03-24 20:54 +0100
                                    Re: The Dingleberry Anti-Gravity, Perpetual Motion Machine. HGW <hw@...> - 2016-03-25 09:09 +1100
                                      Re: The Dingleberry Anti-Gravity, Perpetual Motion Machine. Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2016-03-24 23:54 +0100
                                        Re: The Dingleberry Anti-Gravity, Perpetual Motion Machine. HGW <HGW@home.com> - 2016-03-25 22:38 +1100
                                          Re: The Dingleberry Anti-Gravity, Perpetual Motion Machine. Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2016-03-25 13:59 +0100
                                          Re: The Dingleberry Anti-Gravity, Perpetual Motion Machine. Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2016-03-25 21:45 +0100
                                            Re: The Dingleberry Anti-Gravity, Perpetual Motion Machine. HGW <hgw@...> - 2016-03-26 14:33 +1100
                                              Re: The Dingleberry Anti-Gravity, Perpetual Motion Machine. Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2016-03-26 05:00 +0100
                                                Re: The Dingleberry Anti-Gravity, Perpetual Motion Machine. HGW <xxx@....> - 2016-03-26 15:18 +1100
                                                  Re: The Dingleberry Anti-Gravity, Perpetual Motion Machine. Bojana Kudryavtseva <bojkud@rtyn56h67i.org> - 2016-03-26 10:18 +0000
                                                  Re: The Dingleberry Anti-Gravity, Perpetual Motion Machine. Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2016-03-26 14:30 +0100
                                                    Re: The Dingleberry Anti-Gravity, Perpetual Motion Machine. Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2016-03-26 15:53 +0100
                                                      Re: The Dingleberry Anti-Gravity, Perpetual Motion Machine. HGW <HGW@home.com> - 2016-03-27 20:48 +1100
                                                    Re: The Dingleberry Anti-Gravity, Perpetual Motion Machine. HGW <xxx@....> - 2016-03-27 10:08 +1100
                                                      Re: The Dingleberry Anti-Gravity, Perpetual Motion Machine. Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-03-28 09:48 -0500
                                                Re: The Dingleberry Anti-Gravity, Perpetual Motion Machine. Bojana Kudryavtseva <bojkud@rtyn56h67i.org> - 2016-03-26 10:17 +0000
        Re: The Dingleberry Anti-Gravity, Perpetual Motion Machine. Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> - 2016-03-22 12:35 +1100
          Re: The Dingleberry Anti-Gravity, Perpetual Motion Machine. Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-03-22 07:22 -0500
          Re: The Dingleberry Anti-Gravity, Perpetual Motion Machine. HGW <HGW@home.com> - 2016-03-25 22:23 +1100
            Re: The Dingleberry Anti-Gravity, Perpetual Motion Machine. Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> - 2016-03-26 15:48 +1100
              Re: The Dingleberry Anti-Gravity, Perpetual Motion Machine. HGW <xxx@....> - 2016-03-27 10:11 +1100
                Re: The Dingleberry Anti-Gravity, Perpetual Motion Machine. Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> - 2016-03-27 13:11 +1100
                  Re: The Dingleberry Anti-Gravity, Perpetual Motion Machine. HGW <HGW@home.com> - 2016-03-27 20:40 +1100
                Re: The Dingleberry Anti-Gravity, Perpetual Motion Machine. Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-03-28 09:49 -0500
                  Re: The Dingleberry Anti-Gravity, Perpetual Motion Machine. Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2016-03-28 21:53 +0200
                    Re: The Dingleberry Anti-Gravity, Perpetual Motion Machine. HGW <xxx@....> - 2016-03-29 09:54 +1100
                  Re: The Dingleberry Anti-Gravity, Perpetual Motion Machine. HGW <xxx@....> - 2016-03-29 09:58 +1100
                    Re: The Dingleberry Anti-Gravity, Perpetual Motion Machine. Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-04-07 08:24 -0500
                      Re: The Dingleberry Anti-Gravity, Perpetual Motion Machine. HGW <hw@...> - 2016-04-08 17:18 +1000
                        Re: The Dingleberry Anti-Gravity, Perpetual Motion Machine. Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2016-04-08 08:40 -0700
                          Re: The Dingleberry Anti-Gravity, Perpetual Motion Machine. HGW <HGW@....> - 2016-04-09 08:36 +1000
                            Re: The Dingleberry Anti-Gravity, Perpetual Motion Machine. Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2016-04-08 20:38 -0700
                              Re: The Dingleberry Anti-Gravity, Perpetual Motion Machine. HGW <HGW@....> - 2016-04-09 19:54 +1000
                                Re: The Dingleberry Anti-Gravity, Perpetual Motion Machine. Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2016-04-09 05:29 -0700
                                  Re: The Dingleberry Anti-Gravity, Perpetual Motion Machine. HGW <hw@...> - 2016-04-10 18:07 +1000
                                    Re: The Dingleberry Anti-Gravity, Perpetual Motion Machine. Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2016-04-10 06:04 -0700
                                    Re: The Dingleberry Anti-Gravity, Perpetual Motion Machine. pnalsing@gmail.com - 2016-04-10 19:46 -0700
                                      Re: The Dingleberry Anti-Gravity, Perpetual Motion Machine. Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2016-04-11 05:14 -0700
                                      Re: The Dingleberry Anti-Gravity, Perpetual Motion Machine. HGW <hw@...> - 2016-04-12 08:03 +1000
                                        Re: The Dingleberry Anti-Gravity, Perpetual Motion Machine. Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2016-04-11 15:56 -0700
                                          Re: The Dingleberry Anti-Gravity, Perpetual Motion Machine. HGW <hw@...> - 2016-04-12 19:48 +1000
                                            Re: The Dingleberry Anti-Gravity, Perpetual Motion Machine. Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2016-04-12 05:29 -0700
    Re: The Dingleberry Anti-Gravity, Perpetual Motion Machine. Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-03-19 09:38 -0500
      Re: The Dingleberry Anti-Gravity, Perpetual Motion Machine. HGW <HGW@home.com> - 2016-03-20 03:44 +1100

Page 2 of 4 — ← Prev page 1 [2] 3 4  Next page →

#379884

On 21.03.2016 02:13, HGW wrote:
> On 21/03/16 11:27, Gary Harnagel wrote:
>> On Sunday, March 20, 2016 at 1:55:47 PM UTC-6, HGW wrote:
>>>
>>> I was merely pointing out his stupidity.
>>
>> No, you didn't.  You only proved your dishonesty.
>>
>>> If what he said was right,
>>
>> Nope, you didn't understand what I said.  I didn't say that positrons had
>> negative mass, that was solely an invention of your mind.
>>
>>> he would certainly be able to achieve not only perpetual motion but also
>>> spontaneous and eternal acceleration.
>>
>> YOU are the one that brought up  anti-gravity perpetual motion and then
>> tried to blame the concept on "dingleberries."  I said IF positrons had
>> negative mass, positrons would chase electrons all over the universe.
>> That they don't do so demonstrates that positrons have the same kind of
>> mass as electrons do. they did have negative mass, by E = m*c^2 there
>> would be no energy at all in the combination.  I hesitate to even say
>> that because you will probably scramble it up in your brain and come out
>> with another stupid personal attack.  But what the hey, let the cards
>> fall where they may ....
>
> You don't get it.
> Your 'proof' that positrons DO NOT have negative mass fails because if
> they did and your proof was valid, you would be able to make a perpetual
> motion machine. In other words, the equation you provided to back up
> your claim does not apply.
>
> So the high probability that positrons have zero mass remains...and  a
> photon can be a massless e+e- combination.
>

Good grief!
The stupidity of this thread is simply unbelievable!

Ralph, you are claiming that 1+1 = 0.
And when somebody tries to explain the obvious to you,
you pretend to have misinterpreted what they are saying,
and claim that they said what you know they never did,
probably to divert the attention from the stupid blunder
you have realized you made.

Give it up, Ralph.
There is no way you can save this one.

-- 
Paul

https://paulba.no/

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

#379893

 wrote:

> Your 'proof' that positrons DO NOT have negative mass fails because if
> they did and your proof was valid, you would be able to make a perpetual
> motion machine.
> 
> In other words, the equation you provided to back up
> your claim does not apply.
> 
> So the high probability that positrons have zero mass remains...
> 
> and  a photon can be a massless e+e- combination.

OK then, let us take this one step at a time.

Do you agree that the positron is the anti-particle of the electron?
(A simple “Yes” or “No” will suffice.)


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]

#379895

On 23/03/16 09:19, Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote:
>   wrote:
>
>> Your 'proof' that positrons DO NOT have negative mass fails because if
>> they did and your proof was valid, you would be able to make a perpetual
>> motion machine.
>>
>> In other words, the equation you provided to back up
>> your claim does not apply.
>>
>> So the high probability that positrons have zero mass remains...
>>
>> and  a photon can be a massless e+e- combination.
>
> OK then, let us take this one step at a time.
>
> Do you agree that the positron is the anti-particle of the electron?
> (A simple “Yes” or “No” will suffice.)
>
>
> PointedEars
>

I made a typo that should have been obvious to even a dingleberry...but 
I apparently overestimated them all.

I obviously should have said, "So it is still possible for a positron to 
have NEGATIVE mass. (in spite of Harnagel's bogus 'proof' that they do 
not).

Note it is bogus because it leads to free energy and perpetual motion.

The question is, does  anyone have a better proof that a positron's mass 
is not negative such that when combined with an electron the into a 
photon, the masses almost cancel.  I say 'almost' because if they don't 
exactly cancel, that would link electric forces with gravity and might 
indeed explain the latter. It has previously been suggested that a +ve 
charge might not exactly equal a -ve one in magnitude. I am proposing 
that a +ve mass might not have exactly the same magnitude as a -ve mass 
and so photons do possess only an extremely small inertial mass but a 
gravitational mass of two.

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

#379927

On 3/22/16 3/22/16   5:46 PM, HGW wrote:
>  does  anyone have a better proof that a positron's mass is not
> negative

OF COURSE! (Of course "proof" does not really apply, as this is SCIENCE.)

There are zillions of observations of positrons in particle-physics detectors. 
They have positive charge within 40 parts per billion of a proton's charge, and 
they bend in the same direction as protons. Thus their mass is positive.

There are also zillions of measurements of the mass of a positron, and it is 
within 8 parts per billion of the electron's mass.


As I have said before, it is remarkable how ignorant and illiterate you are 
about very basic concepts and ideas in physics.


Tom Roberts

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

#379958

 wrote:

> On 23/03/16 09:19, Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote:
>>   wrote:
>>> Your 'proof' that positrons DO NOT have negative mass fails because if
>>> they did and your proof was valid, you would be able to make a perpetual
>>> motion machine.
>>>
>>> In other words, the equation you provided to back up
>>> your claim does not apply.
>>>
>>> So the high probability that positrons have zero mass remains...
>>>
>>> and  a photon can be a massless e+e- combination.
>>
>> OK then, let us take this one step at a time.
>>
>> Do you agree that the positron is the anti-particle of the electron?
>> (A simple “Yes” or “No” will suffice.)
> 
> […]
> I obviously should have said, "So it is still possible for a positron to
> have NEGATIVE mass. […]

You have not answered the question.  Here it is again, slightly simplified:

Is the positron the anti-particle of the electron?

(A simple “Yes” or “No” will suffice.)


PointedEars
-- 
Q: What happens when electrons lose their energy?  
A: They get Bohr'ed.

(from: WolframAlpha)

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

#379959

On 3/23/2016 1:11 PM, Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote:
> You have not answered the question.  Here it is again, slightly simplified:
>
> Is the positron the anti-particle of the electron?
>
> (A simple “Yes” or “No” will suffice.)

You are speaking with "Henry" Rope-A-Dope "Wilson".

The problem with wrestling with pigs is that you get covered in mud and 
shit, and the pig likes it.

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

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

#379965

Odd Bodkin wrote:

> On 3/23/2016 1:11 PM, Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote:
>> You have not answered the question.  Here it is again, slightly
>> simplified:
>>
>> Is the positron the anti-particle of the electron?
>>
>> (A simple “Yes” or “No” will suffice.)
> 
> […]
> The problem with wrestling with pigs is that you get covered in mud and
> shit, and the pig likes it.

Which is why *I* don’t.  Please do not interfere and give him, whatever his 
name is, the opportunity to answer the question.


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]

#379966

On 3/23/2016 2:08 PM, Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote:
> Odd Bodkin wrote:
>
>> On 3/23/2016 1:11 PM, Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote:
>>> You have not answered the question.  Here it is again, slightly
>>> simplified:
>>>
>>> Is the positron the anti-particle of the electron?
>>>
>>> (A simple “Yes” or “No” will suffice.)
>>
>> […]
>> The problem with wrestling with pigs is that you get covered in mud and
>> shit, and the pig likes it.
>
> Which is why *I* don’t.  Please do not interfere and give him, whatever his
> name is, the opportunity to answer the question.

Enjoy. I'll just put on a poncho and sit on the bleachers and watch.

>
>
> PointedEars
>


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

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

#379992

On 24/03/16 06:19, Odd Bodkin wrote:
> On 3/23/2016 2:08 PM, Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote:

>>>>
>>>> Is the positron the anti-particle of the electron?
>>>>
>>>> (A simple “Yes” or “No” will suffice.)
>>>
>>> […]
>>> The problem with wrestling with pigs is that you get covered in mud and
>>> shit, and the pig likes it.
>>
>> Which is why *I* don’t.  Please do not interfere and give him,
>> whatever his
>> name is, the opportunity to answer the question.
>
> Enjoy. I'll just put on a poncho and sit on the bleachers and watch.

Bodkin, I would say your main problem is that you have been sitting on 
the bleachers all your life and missed a proper education.
It should be plainly obvious that if matter and anti matter combine, 
their masses neutralize each other and EM radiation is produced instead.

The fact that force accelerates the two in the same direction does not 
prove anything.

What constitutes mass anyway?

>> PointedEars
>>
>
>

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

#380007

 wrote:

> It should be plainly obvious that if matter and anti matter combine, 
> their masses neutralize each other and EM radiation is produced instead.

It is anything but obvious to those who know what they are talking about.

> What constitutes mass anyway?

Einstein found out that it is a measure of the inner energy of a body;
a measure of its energy content in the center-of-momentum frame.  Thus,
a body loses mass as it emits radiation.  This has been experimentally 
confirmed.

Now it is your turn:

Is the positron the antiparticle of the electron?


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]

#380014

On 24/03/16 12:05, Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote:
> wrote:
>
>> It should be plainly obvious that if matter and anti matter
>> combine, their masses neutralize each other and EM radiation is
>> produced instead.
>
> It is anything but obvious to those who know what they are talking
> about.

So you are saying that a photon has twice the mass of an electron? Is 
that what you think?

>> What constitutes mass anyway?
>
> Einstein found out that it is a measure of the inner energy of a
> body; a measure of its energy content in the center-of-momentum
> frame.  Thus, a body loses mass as it emits radiation.  This has been
> experimentally confirmed.


HAHAHHAHHAHHHAHA! Bloody moron! Einstein did nothing. He simply
plagiarized an equation that was around long before him.

> Now it is your turn:
>
> Is the positron the antiparticle of the electron?

Well one would think so.
That's why their masses annihilate when they unite.

> PointedEars
>

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

#380089

 wrote:

> On 24/03/16 12:05, Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote:
>> wrote:
>>> It should be plainly obvious that if matter and anti matter
>>> combine, their masses neutralize each other and EM radiation is
>>> produced instead.
>> It is anything but obvious to those who know what they are talking
>> about.
> 
> So you are saying that a photon has twice the mass of an electron? Is
> that what you think?

No and no.
 
>>> What constitutes mass anyway?
>> Einstein found out that it is a measure of the inner energy of a
>> body; a measure of its energy content in the center-of-momentum
>> frame.  Thus, a body loses mass as it emits radiation.  This has been
>> experimentally confirmed.
> 
> HAHAHHAHHAHHHAHA! Bloody moron! Einstein did nothing. He simply
> plagiarized an equation that was around long before him.

Cite evidence.
 
>> Now it is your turn:
>>
>> Is the positron the antiparticle of the electron?
> 
> Well one would think so.

OK then, what is the characteristic property of an antiparticle
compared to the particle it is the antiparticle of?

> That's why their masses annihilate when they unite.

You have a misconception there.


PointedEars
-- 
Heisenberg is out for a drive when he's stopped by a traffic cop. 
The officer asks him "Do you know how fast you were going?" 
Heisenberg replies "No, but I know where I am."
(from: WolframAlpha)

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

#380099

On 25/03/16 06:54, Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote:
>   wrote:
>
>> On 24/03/16 12:05, Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote:

>> So you are saying that a photon has twice the mass of an electron? Is
>> that what you think?
>
> No and no.
>
>>>> What constitutes mass anyway?
>>> Einstein found out that it is a measure of the inner energy of a
>>> body; a measure of its energy content in the center-of-momentum
>>> frame.  Thus, a body loses mass as it emits radiation.  This has been
>>> experimentally confirmed.
>>
>> HAHAHHAHHAHHHAHA! Bloody moron! Einstein did nothing. He simply
>> plagiarized an equation that was around long before him.
>
> Cite evidence.

There was much speculation at the time about what happened when a 
particle mass transformed into radiation moving at c. The idea of 
1/2mc^2 received a lot of attention....as though the mass still existed 
but in a different state.


>>> Is the positron the antiparticle of the electron?
>>
>> Well one would think so.
>
> OK then, what is the characteristic property of an antiparticle
> compared to the particle it is the antiparticle of?

Well, in the case of a charged particle that is pretty obvious but what 
is an anti-neutron? I dunno. I suppose I could look it up if I wanted 
to. That wont change the fact that nobody really knows how mass can 
change into energy.

>> That's why their masses annihilate when they unite.
>
> You have a misconception there.

Maybe...I actually have an open mind about all of this.

> PointedEars
>

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

#380105

 wrote:

> On 25/03/16 06:54, Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote:
>>   wrote:
>>> On 24/03/16 12:05, Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote:
>>>>> What constitutes mass anyway?
>>>> Einstein found out that it is a measure of the inner energy of a
>>>> body; a measure of its energy content in the center-of-momentum
>>>> frame.  Thus, a body loses mass as it emits radiation.  This has been
>>>> experimentally confirmed.
>>> HAHAHHAHHAHHHAHA! Bloody moron! Einstein did nothing. He simply
>>> plagiarized an equation that was around long before him.
>> Cite evidence.
> 
> There was much speculation at the time about what happened when a
> particle mass transformed into radiation moving at c. The idea of
> 1/2mc^2 received a lot of attention....as though the mass still existed
> but in a different state.

You have made another claim now; you have not cited evidence to support your 
previous claim.

I take it then that you cannot or do not want to support your previous 
claim.  That would be OK for me this time; let us not be distracted by your 
red herring, and concentrate on the question at hand instead:

>>>> Is the positron the antiparticle of the electron?
>>> Well one would think so.
>> OK then, what is the characteristic property of an antiparticle
>> compared to the particle it is the antiparticle of?
> 
> Well, in the case of a charged particle that is pretty obvious

So, what is the characteristic property of an antiparticle compared to the 
particle it is the antiparticle of?

> but what is an anti-neutron? I dunno. I suppose I could look it up if I
> wanted to.

An antineutron consists of three antiquarks (among a “sea” of anti-gluons 
where 99 % of its mass comes from): an up-antiquark (q_u̅ = −⅔e), and two 
down-antiquarks (q_d̅ = +⅓e).  As a result, its electric charge is zero, too 
(q_n = q_n̅ = 0), but a neutron and an antineutron are still not the same 
kind of particle, and they annihilate each other when interacting, as their 
constituents annihilate.

> That wont change the fact that nobody really knows how mass can
> change into energy.

But mass does not change into energy; instead, mass and energy are 
equivalent.  A body at relative rest (IOW: in the center-of-momentum frame) 
that has the mass m carries the energy E₀ = m c²; a body at relative rest 
that carries the energy E₀ has the mass m = E₀∕c².  And the mass m of a body 
that emits radiation transporting an energy difference ∆E elsewhere, is 
reduced by ∆m = ∆E∕c² (see the last paragraphs in Einstein’s first paper on 
special relativity).

For example, Einstein knew this.  The people who designed the atomic bomb 
knew this.  Hawking knew this (see Hawking radiation).  Scientists 
researching stellar dynamics know this.  Particle physicists, including 
those working with particle accelerators, like those working at CERN and 
SLAC, to name just two, do know this.
 
>>> That's why their masses annihilate when they unite.
>> You have a misconception there.
> 
> Maybe...I actually have an open mind about all of this.

That is really good to hear.


PointedEars
-- 
Q: What did the female magnet say to the male magnet?  
A: From the back, I found you repulsive, but from the front
   I find myself very attracted to you.
(from: WolframAlpha)

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

#380124

On 25/03/16 09:54, Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote:
>   wrote:
>

>> That wont change the fact that nobody really knows how mass can
>> change into energy.
>
> But mass does not change into energy; instead, mass and energy are
> equivalent.  A body at relative rest (IOW: in the center-of-momentum frame)
> that has the mass m carries the energy E₀ = m c²; a body at relative rest
> that carries the energy E₀ has the mass m = E₀∕c².  And the mass m of a body
> that emits radiation transporting an energy difference ∆E elsewhere, is
> reduced by ∆m = ∆E∕c² (see the last paragraphs in Einstein’s first paper on
> special relativity).

yes he got the idea from someone else.


>>>> That's why their masses annihilate when they unite.
>>> You have a misconception there.
>>
>> Maybe...I actually have an open mind about all of this.
>
> That is really good to hear.

You see, I am way ahead of you. You people just accept the maths without 
thinking of the physics. I want to know more about how mass can turn 
into energy. You're aall so hypnotized by the name Einstein that you 
have lost the ability to think.
One minute mass constitutes a solid object that is acted on by gravity 
and is hard to stop if moving. Next minute it changes into pure 
radiation that will pass through most massive objects. What is the 
physical explanation?


>
>
> PointedEars
>

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

#380127

HGW wrote:

> On 25/03/16 09:54, Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote:
>>   wrote:
>>> That wont change the fact that nobody really knows how mass can
>>> change into energy.
>> But mass does not change into energy; instead, mass and energy are
>> equivalent.  A body at relative rest (IOW: in the center-of-momentum
>> frame) that has the mass m carries the energy E₀ = m c²; a body at
>> relative rest that carries the energy E₀ has the mass m = E₀∕c².  And
>> the mass m of a body that emits radiation transporting an energy
>> difference ∆E elsewhere, is reduced by ∆m = ∆E∕c² (see the last
>> paragraphs in Einstein’s first paper on special relativity).
> 
> yes he got the idea from someone else.

So you claim again.  Where is the evidence?  If what you are saying is true, 
it should not be that hard for you to find.  And if you have the evidence 
supporting your claim already, it is illogical of you to withhold it.

>>>>> That's why their masses annihilate when they unite.
>>>> You have a misconception there.
>>> Maybe...I actually have an open mind about all of this.
>> That is really good to hear.
> 
> You see, I am way ahead of you.

I do not think so.

> You people just accept the maths without thinking of the physics.

Incorrect.

> I want to know more about how mass can turn into energy.

Once again, it has been *experimentally* confirmed numerous times that mass 
and energy are equivalent quantities.  They do not change or turn into one 
another, but are different aspects of the same thing.  IOW, they are there 
*at the same time*.

Let us return to our discussion:

  You have agreed that the positron is the antiparticle of the electron.

You have still not answered the question:

  What is the characteristic property of an antiparticle compared to the 
  particle it is the antiparticle of?

If you find that question too difficult to understand, you can also answer 
this more simple version:

  What makes an antiparticle different from the particle it is
  the antiparticle of?


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

(from: WolframAlpha)

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

#380156

HGW wrote:

> One minute mass constitutes a solid object that is acted on by gravity
> and is hard to stop if moving. Next minute it changes into pure
> radiation that will pass through most massive objects. What is the
> physical explanation?

The explanation is that you have the misconception that “mass constitutes a 
solid object”.  Instead, mass is *a* property of an object, solid or not.  
Energy is another.  So is momentum.  For example, in quantum mechanics, 
virtual bosons have mass – they are anything but solid objects, they are not 
even observables.

What the layman (and sometimes even the expert) calls a “massive object” is, 
as experimentor during the last two centuries have discovered, actually made 
up of constituents held together by fundamental interactions (also, 
“forces”):

“Solid objects” usually are built from molecules or crystals; molecules and 
crystals consist of atoms that are held together by electron pair-binding, 
for example; an atom consists of electrons and a nucleus that are held 
together by the electromagnetic interaction; a nucleus consists of protons 
and neutrons that are held together by the residual strong interaction; a 
proton and a neutron, respectively, consist of three quarks that are held 
together by the strong interaction.  Whether quarks and other *now* point-
like particles have constituents or are merely results of vibrating, multi-
dimensional strings is still being discussed.

In any case, when you consider that we now know that 98.7 % to 99 % of the 
mass of protons and neutrons, which make up most of the mass of baryonic 
matter in this universe (you, me, everything that you can see), does _not_ 
come from their constituent quarks [1], but from the space between the 
quarks, from the *energy* of *empty space* [2], and that atoms are mostly 
empty as well¹, it should not be at all surprising that matter “can change 
into pure radiation”.  And it should not be surprising that where there is 
so much empty space, radiation can “pass through most massive objects”.

[1] 
<http://www.wolframalpha.com/input/?dataset=&i=1+-+(down+quark+mass+%2B+2+*+up+quark+mass)%2F(proton+mass)>

[2] <https://youtu.be/sbsGYRArH_w?t=2277>


PointedEars
___________
¹  A common description is that if a (European) football stadium had the 
   size of an atom, then a cherry stone at the center point had the size
   and location of that atom’s nucleus.
-- 
Q: What did the nuclear physicist order for lunch?  
A: Fission chips.

(from: WolframAlpha)

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

#380169

On 26/03/2016 7:45 AM, Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote:
> HGW wrote:
>
>> One minute mass constitutes a solid object that is acted on by gravity
>> and is hard to stop if moving. Next minute it changes into pure
>> radiation that will pass through most massive objects. What is the
>> physical explanation?
>
> The explanation is that you have the misconception that “mass constitutes a
> solid object”.  Instead, mass is *a* property of an object, solid or not.
> Energy is another.  So is momentum.  For example, in quantum mechanics,
> virtual bosons have mass – they are anything but solid objects, they are not
> even observables.
>
> What the layman (and sometimes even the expert) calls a “massive object” is,
> as experimentor during the last two centuries have discovered, actually made
> up of constituents held together by fundamental interactions (also,
> “forces”):
>
> “Solid objects” usually are built from molecules or crystals; molecules and
> crystals consist of atoms that are held together by electron pair-binding,
> for example; an atom consists of electrons and a nucleus that are held
> together by the electromagnetic interaction; a nucleus consists of protons
> and neutrons that are held together by the residual strong interaction; a
> proton and a neutron, respectively, consist of three quarks that are held
> together by the strong interaction.  Whether quarks and other *now* point-
> like particles have constituents or are merely results of vibrating, multi-
> dimensional strings is still being discussed.

Yes we know all that. Matter is made of smaller bits of matter, all of 
which have mass. ..and part of the mass is associated with binding 
energy. That doesn't tell us anything.

> In any case, when you consider that we now know that 98.7 % to 99 % of the
> mass of protons and neutrons, which make up most of the mass of baryonic
> matter in this universe (you, me, everything that you can see), does _not_
> come from their constituent quarks [1], but from the space between the
> quarks, from the *energy* of *empty space* [2], and that atoms are mostly
> empty as well¹, it should not be at all surprising that matter “can change
> into pure radiation”.  And it should not be surprising that where there is
> so much empty space, radiation can “pass through most massive objects”.

Yes we know all that. It does not tell us anything about the 
transformation from mas to energy. What we really need to know is more 
information about the physical nature of fields.
>
> [1]
> <http://www.wolframalpha.com/input/?dataset=&i=1+-+(down+quark+mass+%2B+2+*+up+quark+mass)%2F(proton+mass)>
>
> [2] <https://youtu.be/sbsGYRArH_w?t=2277>
>
>
> PointedEars
> ___________
> ¹  A common description is that if a (European) football stadium had the
>     size of an atom, then a cherry stone at the center point had the size
>     and location of that atom’s nucleus.

Yes we know all that..

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

#380171

 wrote:

> On 26/03/2016 7:45 AM, Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote:
>> The explanation is that you have the misconception that “mass 
>> constitutes a solid object”.  […]
>> What the layman […] calls a “massive object” is […] actually made up of
>> constituents held together by fundamental interactions (also,
>> “forces”): […]
> 
> Yes we know all that. Matter is made of smaller bits of matter, all of 
> which have mass. ..and part of the mass is associated with binding 
> energy. That doesn't tell us anything.

It does not tell *you* anything.  It tells *me* that there is more to matter
than mass, and that assuming otherwise is the cause of your misconception
about how electron–positron annihilation works.

>> […] when you consider that we now know that 98.7 % to 99 % of the mass 
>> of protons and neutrons […] does _not_ come from their constituent 
>> quarks [1], but from the space between the quarks, from the *energy*
>> of *empty space* [2], and that atoms are mostly empty as well¹, it
>> should not be at all surprising that matter “can change into pure
>> radiation”. And it should not be surprising that where there is so much
>> empty space, radiation can “pass through most massive objects”.
> 
> Yes we know all that.

The truth is: Now that I have told *you*, *you* know it.  Because people who
know this would not claim that the positron could have negative mass.

> It does not tell us anything about the transformation from mas to 
> energy.

Mass is not transformed to energy.  *Only* *you* have the misconception that
it would be, that those two would be independent properties and quantities.

> What we really need to know is more information about the physical
> nature of fields.

What *you* really need to know is how to consult introductory resources on
physics.

What you still have to do is to answer the question in the other subthread.


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]

#380172

On Sat, 26 Mar 2016 05:00:36 +0100, Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn
<PointedEars@web.de> wrote:

> wrote:
>
>> On 26/03/2016 7:45 AM, Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote:
>>> The explanation is that you have the misconception that “mass 
>>> constitutes a solid object”.  […]
>>> What the layman […] calls a “massive object” is […] actually made up of
>>> constituents held together by fundamental interactions (also,
>>> “forces”): […]
>> 
>> Yes we know all that. Matter is made of smaller bits of matter, all of 
>> which have mass. ..and part of the mass is associated with binding 
>> energy. That doesn't tell us anything.
>
>It does not tell *you* anything.  It tells *me* that there is more to matter
>than mass, and that assuming otherwise is the cause of your misconception
>about how electron–positron annihilation works.

It tells you nothing other than the fact that it does happen.

>>> […] when you consider that we now know that 98.7 % to 99 % of the mass 
>>> of protons and neutrons […] does _not_ come from their constituent 
>>> quarks [1], but from the space between the quarks, from the *energy*
>>> of *empty space* [2], and that atoms are mostly empty as well¹, it
>>> should not be at all surprising that matter “can change into pure
>>> radiation”. And it should not be surprising that where there is so much
>>> empty space, radiation can “pass through most massive objects”.
>> 
>> Yes we know all that.
>
>The truth is: Now that I have told *you*, *you* know it.  Because people who
>know this would not claim that the positron could have negative mass.

Well since no definition exists for either positive or negative mass you seem
mumbling nonsense.

>> It does not tell us anything about the transformation from mas to 
>> energy.
>
>Mass is not transformed to energy.  *Only* *you* have the misconception that
>it would be, that those two would be independent properties and quantities.

You have no asnwer. I dout if you have ever even considered the that the
question exists.

>> What we really need to know is more information about the physical
>> nature of fields.
>
>What *you* really need to know is how to consult introductory resources on
>physics.

You don't understand the question so you can hardly mark comments about its
answer. 

>What you still have to do is to answer the question in the other subthread.

>PointedEars

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

Page 2 of 4 — ← Prev page 1 [2] 3 4  Next page →

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

csiph-web