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

Groups > sci.physics.relativity > #420788 > unrolled thread

E=M

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

Contents

  E=M The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2017-05-27 11:12 -0700
    Re: E=M "David (Lord Kronos Prime) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> - 2017-05-27 11:15 -0700
      ! This topic has been hidden because it was flagged for abuse. The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2017-05-27 13:06 -0700
        Re: ! This topic has been hidden because it was flagged for abuse. The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2017-05-27 13:20 -0700
      Re: E=M The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2017-05-27 22:28 -0700
    Re: E=M Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> - 2017-05-31 14:41 +1000
      Re: E=M Serg io <invalid@invalid.com> - 2017-05-31 08:11 -0500
        Re: E=M Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2017-05-31 09:09 -0500
          Re: E=M "HGW..." <hgw@....> - 2017-06-04 19:33 +1000
            Re: E=M Poutnik <poutnik4nntp@gmail.com> - 2017-06-04 11:58 +0200
              Re: E=M Prudence Youngs <usue@weuem.ge> - 2017-06-04 11:53 +0000
              Re: E=M "HGW..." <hgw@....> - 2017-06-05 08:58 +1000
            Re: E=M Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-06-04 13:25 +0000
              Re: E=M mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2017-06-04 06:43 -0700
                Re: E=M Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-06-04 21:21 +0000
                  Re: E=M "HGW..." <hgw@....> - 2017-06-05 09:05 +1000
                    Re: E=M Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-06-05 09:29 -0500
                  Re: E=M mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2017-06-05 09:56 -0700
                    Re: E=M Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-06-05 17:03 +0000
                      Re: E=M mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2017-06-05 10:31 -0700
                        Re: E=M Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-06-05 20:14 +0000
                          Re: E=M mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2017-06-05 13:27 -0700
                            Re: E=M Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-06-05 22:13 +0000
                              Re: E=M mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2017-06-06 00:09 -0700
                                Re: E=M mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2017-06-06 00:17 -0700
                                Re: E=M Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-06-06 14:13 +0000
                                  Re: E=M mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2017-06-06 08:40 -0700
                                Re: E=M JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2017-06-06 14:56 -0700
                                  Re: E=M mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2017-06-06 22:57 -0700
                              Re: E=M Gerald Kelleher <kelleher.gerald@gmail.com> - 2017-06-06 02:16 -0700
                              Re: E=M Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2017-06-06 16:32 +0200
                                Re: E=M mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2017-06-06 08:15 -0700
                              Re: E=M "HGW..." <hgw@....> - 2017-06-07 11:41 +1000
                                Re: E=M Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-06-07 03:04 +0000
                                  Re: E=M "HGW..." <hgw@....> - 2017-06-07 15:02 +1000
                                    Re: E=M Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-06-07 12:19 -0500
                                      Re: E=M mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2017-06-07 10:45 -0700
                                      Re: E=M "HGW..." <hgw@....> - 2017-06-08 18:29 +1000
                                        Re: E=M Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-06-08 12:17 -0500
                                  Re: E=M mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2017-06-06 23:00 -0700
                            Re: E=M JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2017-06-06 14:52 -0700
                              Re: E=M mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2017-06-06 22:55 -0700
              Re: E=M "HGW..." <hgw@....> - 2017-06-05 09:00 +1000
                Re: E=M Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-06-04 23:13 +0000
                  Re: E=M "HGW..." <hgw@....> - 2017-06-05 11:10 +1000
        Re: E=M Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2017-06-01 01:49 +0200

Page 1 of 3  [1] 2 3  Next page →

#420788 — E=M

something is wrong..here or somewhere

You got

space and time

and some of yous

say spacetime

or space-time

as if space and time are
one of the same.

But yous then say

mass is energy

and engery is mass

or

engery equals mass

but

Why don't you simply call it: massenergy? or mass-energy? or energymass? or energy-mass?


i mean if mass is energy and energy is mass...

it should be

energymass


just one word.


Did somebody here forget to do that????

[toc] | [next] | [standalone]

#420789

On Saturday, May 27, 2017 at 1:12:08 PM UTC-5, The Starmaker wrote:
> something is wrong..here or somewhere
> 
> You got
> 
> space and time
> 
> and some of yous
> 
> say spacetime
> 
> or space-time
> 
> as if space and time are
> one of the same.
> 
> But yous then say
> 
> mass is energy
> 
> and engery is mass
> 
> or
> 
> engery equals mass
> 
> but
> 
> Why don't you simply call it: massenergy? or mass-energy? or energymass? or energy-mass?
> 
> 
> i mean if mass is energy and energy is mass...
> 
> it should be
> 
> energymass
> 
> 
> just one word.
> 
> 
> Did somebody here forget to do that????

Reported as Purposefully Harassing SPAM

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

#420800 — ! This topic has been hidden because it was flagged for abuse.

! This topic has been hidden because it was flagged for abuse.

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

#420805 — Re: ! This topic has been hidden because it was flagged for abuse.

The Starmaker wrote:
> 
> ! This topic has been hidden because it was flagged for abuse.



is the topic hidden????

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

#420826

David (Lord Kronos Prime) Fuller wrote:
> 
> On Saturday, May 27, 2017 at 1:12:08 PM UTC-5, The Starmaker wrote:
> > something is wrong..here or somewhere
> >
> > You got
> >
> > space and time
> >
> > and some of yous
> >
> > say spacetime
> >
> > or space-time
> >
> > as if space and time are
> > one of the same.
> >
> > But yous then say
> >
> > mass is energy
> >
> > and engery is mass
> >
> > or
> >
> > engery equals mass
> >
> > but
> >
> > Why don't you simply call it: massenergy? or mass-energy? or energymass? or energy-mass?
> >
> >
> > i mean if mass is energy and energy is mass...
> >
> > it should be
> >
> > energymass
> >
> >
> > just one word.
> >
> >
> > Did somebody here forget to do that????
> 
> Reported as Purposefully Harassing SPAM


you just want a beer for $5.00

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

#421159

On 28/05/2017 4:12 AM, The Starmaker wrote:
> something is wrong..here or somewhere
>
> You got
>
> space and time
>
> and some of yous
>
> say spacetime
>
> or space-time
>
> as if space and time are
> one of the same.
>
> But yous then say
>
> mass is energy
>
> and engery is mass
>
> or
>
> engery equals mass
>
> but
>
> Why don't you simply call it: massenergy? or mass-energy? or energymass? or energy-mass?
>
>
> i mean if mass is energy and energy is mass...
>
> it should be
>
> energymass
>
>
> just one word.
>
>
> Did somebody here forget to do that????
>

Scientists well know that units of energy and mass are just different 
representations of the same thing, and use whichever unit is the most 
convenient.

Sylvia.

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

#421181

On 5/30/2017 11:41 PM, Sylvia Else wrote:
> On 28/05/2017 4:12 AM, The Starmaker wrote:
>> something is wrong..here or somewhere
>>

>>
>> energymass
>>
>>
>> just one word.
>>
>>
>> Did somebody here forget to do that????
>>
> 
> Scientists well know that units of energy and mass are just different 
> representations of the same thing, and use whichever unit is the most 
> convenient.
> 
> Sylvia.

nope.  They have different units.

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

#421192

On 5/31/17 5/31/17   8:11 AM, Serg io wrote:
>> Scientists well know that units of energy and mass are just different 
>> representations of the same thing, and use whichever unit is the most convenient.
> 
> nope.  They have different units.

In some systems of units mass and energy are different, such as MKS and CGS. In 
other systems of units they are identical, such as all units with c=1 (called 
"natural units").

The Particle Data Group reports particle masses in MeV, which is the most common 
unit for mass and energy in particle physics. Geant4, the most common 
particle-interaction toolkit, uses MeV for both energy and mass.

Tom Roberts

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

#421509

On 01/06/17 00:09, Tom Roberts wrote:
> On 5/31/17 5/31/17   8:11 AM, Serg io wrote:
>>> Scientists well know that units of energy and mass are just
>>> different representations of the same thing, and use whichever
>>> unit is the most convenient.
>> 
>> nope.  They have different units.
> 
> In some systems of units mass and energy are different, such as MKS
> and CGS. In other systems of units they are identical, such as all
> units with c=1 (called "natural units").

HAHAHHAHHHA! Roberts again proves his complete ignorance of basic
physics....No wonder he was silly enough to waste his whole life backing
a loser....

>> The Particle Data Group reports particle masses in MeV, which is
>> the
> most common unit for mass and energy in particle physics. Geant4, the
>  most common particle-interaction toolkit, uses MeV for both energy
> and mass.

mc^2 does not have the same dimensions as m.

The dimensions of energy are ML^2T^-2
The dimensions of mass are just M.

Mass is NOT the same as energy.

You are just as much a moron as the rest of your dingleberry colleagues,
Tom.


> Tom Roberts


-- 

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

#421510

Dne 04/06/2017 v 11:33 HGW... napsal(a):
> On 01/06/17 00:09, Tom Roberts wrote:

>> most common unit for mass and energy in particle physics. Geant4, the
>>  most common particle-interaction toolkit, uses MeV for both energy
>> and mass.
> 
> mc^2 does not have the same dimensions as m.
> 
> The dimensions of energy are ML^2T^-2
> The dimensions of mass are just M.

These dimensions differ in cgs and SI unit systems.

They do not differ in some of natural unit systems.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natural_units


-- 
Poutnik ( The Pilgrim, Der Wanderer )

A wise man guards words he says,
as they say about him more,
than he says about the subject.

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

#421515

Poutnik wrote:

>> The dimensions of energy are ML^2T^-2 The dimensions of mass are just
>> M.
> 
> These dimensions differ in cgs and SI unit systems.

The units differs, imbecile, not the dimensions. That's the whole point.

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

#421557

On 04/06/17 19:58, Poutnik wrote:
> Dne 04/06/2017 v 11:33 HGW... napsal(a):
>> On 01/06/17 00:09, Tom Roberts wrote:
> 
>>> most common unit for mass and energy in particle physics. Geant4, the
>>>   most common particle-interaction toolkit, uses MeV for both energy
>>> and mass.
>>
>> mc^2 does not have the same dimensions as m.
>>
>> The dimensions of energy are ML^2T^-2
>> The dimensions of mass are just M.
> 
> These dimensions differ in cgs and SI unit systems.

HAHHAHHAHHAHHHAHHA! You are no less stupid than Roberts. You 
dingleberries don't have a clue about basic physics...

> They do not differ in some of natural unit systems.
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natural_units

absolute crap....


-- 

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

#421527

HGW... <hgw@....> wrote:
> On 01/06/17 00:09, Tom Roberts wrote:
>> On 5/31/17 5/31/17   8:11 AM, Serg io wrote:
>>>> Scientists well know that units of energy and mass are just
>>>> different representations of the same thing, and use whichever
>>>> unit is the most convenient.
>>> 
>>> nope.  They have different units.
>> 
>> In some systems of units mass and energy are different, such as MKS
>> and CGS. In other systems of units they are identical, such as all
>> units with c=1 (called "natural units").
> 
> HAHAHHAHHHA! Roberts again proves his complete ignorance of basic
> physics....No wonder he was silly enough to waste his whole life backing
> a loser....
> 
>>> The Particle Data Group reports particle masses in MeV, which is
>>> the
>> most common unit for mass and energy in particle physics. Geant4, the
>> most common particle-interaction toolkit, uses MeV for both energy
>> and mass.
> 
> mc^2 does not have the same dimensions as m.
> 
> The dimensions of energy are ML^2T^-2
> The dimensions of mass are just M.
> 
> Mass is NOT the same as energy.
> 
> You are just as much a moron as the rest of your dingleberry colleagues,
> Tom.
> 
> 
>> Tom Roberts
> 
> 

In natural units [L] and [T] are indistinguishable dimensions. Now, there
may be some people who recoil from that in horror, believing that the
entirety of physics would collapse if the sacred distinction between [L]
and [T] is breached. 

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

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

#421530

W dniu niedziela, 4 czerwca 2017 15:25:04 UTC+2 użytkownik Odd Bodkin napisał:

> In natural units [L] and [T] are indistinguishable dimensions. 

And, as we can see, some fanatics are trying to 
redefine  nature to match their moronic ideology.

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

#421548

<mlwozniak@wp.pl> wrote:
> W dniu niedziela, 4 czerwca 2017 15:25:04 UTC+2 użytkownik Odd Bodkin napisał:
> 
>> In natural units [L] and [T] are indistinguishable dimensions. 
> 
> And, as we can see, some fanatics are trying to 
> redefine  nature to match their moronic ideology.
> 
> 

[M], [L], [T] are not fundamental natural concepts. Where, other than your
"common sense", did you get the idea they are?

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

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

#421559

On 05/06/17 07:21, Odd Bodkin wrote:
> <mlwozniak@wp.pl> wrote:
>> W dniu niedziela, 4 czerwca 2017 15:25:04 UTC+2 użytkownik Odd Bodkin napisał:
>>
>>> In natural units [L] and [T] are indistinguishable dimensions.
>>
>> And, as we can see, some fanatics are trying to
>> redefine  nature to match their moronic ideology.
>>
>>
> 
> [M], [L], [T] are not fundamental natural concepts. Where, other than your
> "common sense", did you get the idea they are?

Bodkin, I really feel sorry for you.
They are certainly regarded as fundamental to the whole of mathematical 
physics. The dimensions on both sides of any physical equation must be 
identical in each term. Every true physicist always checks his equations 
to see if that is correct.....but you being a self-confessed non 
physicist would not know anything about dimensional analysis...and nor, 
apparently, does your head mentor, Roberts..



-- 

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

#421604

On 6/4/17 6:05 PM, HGW... wrote:
> On 05/06/17 07:21, Odd Bodkin wrote:
>> <mlwozniak@wp.pl> wrote:
>>> W dniu niedziela, 4 czerwca 2017 15:25:04 UTC+2 użytkownik Odd Bodkin 
>>> napisał:
>>>
>>>> In natural units [L] and [T] are indistinguishable dimensions.
>>>
>>> And, as we can see, some fanatics are trying to
>>> redefine  nature to match their moronic ideology.
>>>
>>>
>>
>> [M], [L], [T] are not fundamental natural concepts. Where, other than 
>> your
>> "common sense", did you get the idea they are?
> 
> Bodkin, I really feel sorry for you.
> They are certainly regarded as fundamental to the whole of mathematical 
> physics. 

Ah, no they are not. It might make you comfortable if they were, but 
they are not.

> The dimensions on both sides of any physical equation must be 
> identical in each term. 

Yes, this is true. This does not meant [M] and [L] are distinguishable 
in all systems of units. The dimensions will still agree.

> Every true physicist always checks his equations 
> to see if that is correct.....but you being a self-confessed non 
> physicist would not know anything about dimensional analysis...and nor, 
> apparently, does your head mentor, Roberts..
> 
> 
> 


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

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

#421616

W dniu niedziela, 4 czerwca 2017 23:21:08 UTC+2 użytkownik Odd Bodkin napisał:
> <mlwozniak@wp.pl> wrote:
> > W dniu niedziela, 4 czerwca 2017 15:25:04 UTC+2 użytkownik Odd Bodkin napisał:
> > 
> >> In natural units [L] and [T] are indistinguishable dimensions. 
> > 
> > And, as we can see, some fanatics are trying to 
> > redefine  nature to match their moronic ideology.
> > 
> > 
> 
> [M], [L], [T] are not fundamental natural concepts.

In opposition to "natural" natural units announced by 
your moronic gurus, of course.

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

#421618

<mlwozniak@wp.pl> wrote:
> W dniu niedziela, 4 czerwca 2017 23:21:08 UTC+2 użytkownik Odd Bodkin napisał:
>> <mlwozniak@wp.pl> wrote:
>>> W dniu niedziela, 4 czerwca 2017 15:25:04 UTC+2 użytkownik Odd Bodkin napisał:
>>> 
>>>> In natural units [L] and [T] are indistinguishable dimensions. 
>>> 
>>> And, as we can see, some fanatics are trying to 
>>> redefine  nature to match their moronic ideology.
>>> 
>>> 
>> 
>> [M], [L], [T] are not fundamental natural concepts.
> 
> In opposition to "natural" natural units announced by 
> your moronic gurus, of course.
> 
> 

No, those units are not considered fundamental, either. That would be the
point. In this system, the only fundamental qualities are dimensionless
constants like the fine structure constant.  

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

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

#421621

W dniu poniedziałek, 5 czerwca 2017 19:03:43 UTC+2 użytkownik Odd Bodkin napisał:
> <mlwozniak@wp.pl> wrote:
> > W dniu niedziela, 4 czerwca 2017 23:21:08 UTC+2 użytkownik Odd Bodkin napisał:
> >> <mlwozniak@wp.pl> wrote:
> >>> W dniu niedziela, 4 czerwca 2017 15:25:04 UTC+2 użytkownik Odd Bodkin napisał:
> >>> 
> >>>> In natural units [L] and [T] are indistinguishable dimensions. 
> >>> 
> >>> And, as we can see, some fanatics are trying to 
> >>> redefine  nature to match their moronic ideology.
> >>> 
> >>> 
> >> 
> >> [M], [L], [T] are not fundamental natural concepts.
> > 
> > In opposition to "natural" natural units announced by 
> > your moronic gurus, of course.
> > 
> > 
> 
> No, those units are not considered fundamental, either. 

Nononononononononono! Calling them "natural"
by your bunch of fanatics is just a pure 
coincidence.
You really should read your mumble sometimes, 
sad halfbrain.

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

Page 1 of 3  [1] 2 3  Next page →

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

csiph-web