Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > sci.physics.relativity > #403364 > unrolled thread
| Started by | Pentcho Valev <pvalev@yahoo.com> |
|---|---|
| First post | 2016-12-29 11:35 -0800 |
| Last post | 2017-01-05 09:26 -0800 |
| Articles | 20 on this page of 98 — 19 participants |
Back to article view | Back to sci.physics.relativity
E = mc^2 : Einstein was not the author of course Pentcho Valev <pvalev@yahoo.com> - 2016-12-29 11:35 -0800
Re: E = mc^2 : Einstein was not the author of course Demetrice Barren <teercere@tmerunin.tme> - 2016-12-29 22:28 +0000
Re: E = mc^2 : Einstein was not the author of course JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2016-12-29 19:23 -0800
Re: E = mc^2 : Einstein was not the author of course mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2016-12-30 00:00 -0800
Re: E = mc^2 : Einstein was not the author of course Tiffany Wuest <eesio@esufsi.info> - 2016-12-30 10:00 +0000
Re: E = mc^2 : Einstein was not the author of course Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2016-12-30 22:19 +0100
Re: E = mc^2 : Einstein was not the author of course Tiffany Wuest <eesio@esufsi.info> - 2016-12-30 21:27 +0000
Re: E = mc^2 : Einstein was not the author of course Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2016-12-31 06:23 +0100
Re: E = mc^2 : Einstein was not the author of course Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2017-01-02 08:16 +0100
Re: E = mc^2 : Einstein was not the author of course Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2017-01-02 04:59 -0800
Re: E = mc^2 : Einstein was not the author of course Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2017-01-03 04:28 +0100
Re: E = mc^2 : Einstein was not the author of course Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2017-01-03 05:16 -0800
Re: E = mc^2 : Einstein was not the author of course Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2017-01-03 19:25 +0100
Re: E = mc^2 : Einstein was not the author of course Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2017-01-03 13:52 -0800
Re: E = mc^2 : Einstein was not the author of course "David (Lord Kronos Prime) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> - 2017-01-03 14:02 -0800
Re: E = mc^2 : Einstein was not the author of course Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2017-01-03 19:05 -0800
Re: E = mc^2 : Einstein was not the author of course Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2017-01-04 07:26 +0100
Re: E = mc^2 : Einstein was not the author of course Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2017-01-04 15:11 -0800
Re: E = mc^2 : Einstein was not the author of course Kurt Getman <erttarnKmu@erttarnKmu.ert> - 2017-01-05 00:05 +0000
Re: E = mc^2 : Einstein was not the author of course Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2017-01-04 18:21 -0800
Re: E = mc^2 : Einstein was not the author of course Sharilyn Vore <inolr@nryowno.an> - 2017-01-09 21:22 +0000
Re: E = mc^2 : Einstein was not the author of course Kurt Getman <erttarnKmu@erttarnKmu.ert> - 2017-01-05 00:06 +0000
Re: E = mc^2 : Einstein was not the author of course Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2017-01-07 08:15 +0100
Re: E = mc^2 : Einstein was not the author of course Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2017-01-07 08:10 -0800
Re: E = mc^2 : Einstein was not the author of course Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2017-01-07 22:24 +0100
Re: E = mc^2 : Einstein was not the author of course Sharilyn Vore <inolr@nryowno.an> - 2017-01-07 21:52 +0000
Re: E = mc^2 : Einstein was not the author of course Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2017-01-08 07:21 +0100
Re: E = mc^2 : Einstein was not the author of course Sharilyn Vore <inolr@nryowno.an> - 2017-01-08 11:29 +0000
Re: E = mc^2 : Einstein was not the author of course Sharilyn Vore <inolr@nryowno.an> - 2017-01-08 11:30 +0000
Re: E = mc^2 : Einstein was not the author of course Sharilyn Vore <inolr@nryowno.an> - 2017-01-08 11:32 +0000
Re: E = mc^2 : Einstein was not the author of course Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2017-01-08 12:01 -0800
Re: E = mc^2 : Einstein was not the author of course Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2017-01-08 22:49 +0100
Re: E = mc^2 : Einstein was not the author of course Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2017-01-08 14:57 -0800
Re: E = mc^2 : Einstein was not the author of course Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2017-01-09 06:05 +0100
Re: E = mc^2 : Einstein was not the author of course Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2017-01-09 03:35 -0800
Re: E = mc^2 : Einstein was not the author of course Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2017-01-10 06:52 +0100
Re: E = mc^2 : Einstein was not the author of course Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2017-01-10 04:41 -0800
Re: E = mc^2 : Einstein was not the author of course Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2017-01-11 04:43 +0100
Re: E = mc^2 : Einstein was not the author of course Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2017-01-10 20:30 -0800
Re: E = mc^2 : Einstein was not the author of course Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2017-01-11 22:06 +0100
Re: E = mc^2 : Einstein was not the author of course Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2017-01-11 16:40 -0800
Re: E = mc^2 : Einstein was not the author of course Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2017-01-12 07:46 +0100
Re: E = mc^2 : Einstein was not the author of course Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2017-01-12 05:06 -0800
Re: E = mc^2 : Einstein was not the author of course Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2017-01-12 18:33 +0100
Re: E = mc^2 : Einstein was not the author of course Ward Nusbaum <uqowm@msdmmsuus.org> - 2017-01-12 19:38 +0000
Re: E = mc^2 : Einstein was not the author of course Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2017-01-12 14:09 -0800
Re: E = mc^2 : Einstein was not the author of course "Paul B. Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> - 2017-01-13 09:38 +0100
Re: E = mc^2 : Einstein was not the author of course "David (Lord Kronos Prime) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> - 2017-01-13 08:05 -0800
Re: E = mc^2 : Einstein was not the author of course Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2017-01-14 07:43 +0100
Re: E = mc^2 : Einstein was not the author of course "Paul B. Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> - 2017-01-14 11:33 +0100
Re: E = mc^2 : Einstein was not the author of course Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2017-01-14 21:08 +0100
Re: E = mc^2 : Einstein was not the author of course "Dono," <sa_ge@comcast.net> - 2017-01-13 08:11 -0800
Re: E = mc^2 : Einstein was not the author of course Ward Nusbaum <uqowm@msdmmsuus.org> - 2017-01-13 18:58 +0000
Re: E = mc^2 : Einstein was not the author of course Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2017-01-13 20:51 +0100
Re: E = mc^2 : Einstein was not the author of course Reid Schaffner <dnfoonio@acdnfni.info> - 2017-01-14 17:17 +0000
Re: E = mc^2 : Einstein was not the author of course Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2017-01-14 20:58 +0100
Re: E = mc^2 : Einstein was not the author of course alsor@interia.pl - 2017-01-14 12:31 -0800
Re: E = mc^2 : Einstein was not the author of course Reid Schaffner <dnfoonio@acdnfni.info> - 2017-01-14 20:43 +0000
Re: E = mc^2 : Einstein was not the author of course Reid Schaffner <dnfoonio@acdnfni.info> - 2017-01-14 20:47 +0000
Re: E = mc^2 : Einstein was not the author of course Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2017-01-14 22:32 +0100
Re: E = mc^2 : Einstein was not the author of course Reid Schaffner <dnfoonio@acdnfni.info> - 2017-01-15 19:21 +0000
Re: E = mc^2 : Einstein was not the author of course alsor@interia.pl - 2017-01-15 12:11 -0800
Re: E = mc^2 : Einstein was not the author of course Reid Schaffner <dnfoonio@acdnfni.info> - 2017-01-15 20:22 +0000
Re: E = mc^2 : Einstein was not the author of course alsor@interia.pl - 2017-01-15 14:13 -0800
Re: E = mc^2 : Einstein was not the author of course Reid Schaffner <dnfoonio@acdnfni.info> - 2017-01-15 22:54 +0000
Re: E = mc^2 : Einstein was not the author of course alsor@interia.pl - 2017-01-15 15:31 -0800
Re: E = mc^2 : Einstein was not the author of course Reid Schaffner <dnfoonio@acdnfni.info> - 2017-01-15 23:58 +0000
Re: E = mc^2 : Einstein was not the author of course alsor@interia.pl - 2017-01-15 16:27 -0800
Re: E = mc^2 : Einstein was not the author of course Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2017-01-16 06:57 +0100
Re: E = mc^2 : Einstein was not the author of course Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2017-01-12 07:57 +0100
Re: E = mc^2 : Einstein was not the author of course Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2017-01-12 08:04 +0100
Re: E = mc^2 : Einstein was not the author of course Helmut Wabnig <hwabnig@.- --- -.dotat> - 2017-01-12 09:21 +0100
Re: E = mc^2 : Einstein was not the author of course Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2017-01-12 18:20 +0100
Re: E = mc^2 : Einstein was not the author of course alsor@interia.pl - 2017-01-12 09:41 -0800
Re: E = mc^2 : Einstein was not the author of course Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2017-01-12 19:58 +0100
Re: E = mc^2 : Einstein was not the author of course "David (Lord Kronos Prime) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> - 2017-01-12 11:34 -0800
Re: E = mc^2 : Einstein was not the author of course Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2017-01-13 21:06 +0100
Re: E = mc^2 : Einstein was not the author of course Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-01-13 14:07 -0600
Re: E = mc^2 : Einstein was not the author of course alsor@interia.pl - 2017-01-14 10:29 -0800
Re: E = mc^2 : Einstein was not the author of course Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-01-14 14:26 -0600
Re: E = mc^2 : Einstein was not the author of course Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2017-01-12 14:26 -0800
Re: E = mc^2 : Einstein was not the author of course Ward Nusbaum <uqowm@msdmmsuus.org> - 2017-01-12 23:42 +0000
Re: E = mc^2 : Einstein was not the author of course alsor@interia.pl - 2017-01-12 15:48 -0800
Re: E = mc^2 : Einstein was not the author of course Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2017-01-12 16:27 -0800
Re: E = mc^2 : Einstein was not the author of course Ward Nusbaum <uqowm@msdmmsuus.org> - 2017-01-13 18:36 +0000
Re: E = mc^2 : Einstein was not the author of course "Dono," <sa_ge@comcast.net> - 2017-01-11 18:06 -0800
Re: E = mc^2 : Einstein was not the author of course "Dono," <sa_ge@comcast.net> - 2017-01-11 18:03 -0800
Re: E = mc^2 : Einstein was not the author of course alsor@interia.pl - 2017-01-08 14:11 -0800
Re: E = mc^2 : Einstein was not the author of course Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2017-01-08 15:01 -0800
Re: E = mc^2 : Einstein was not the author of course alsor@interia.pl - 2017-01-08 15:31 -0800
Re: E = mc^2 : Einstein was not the author of course Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2017-01-08 16:57 -0800
Re: E = mc^2 : Einstein was not the author of course alsor@interia.pl - 2017-01-10 10:32 -0800
Re: E = mc^2 : Einstein was not the author of course Alan Folmsbee <omnilobe@gmail.com> - 2017-01-04 20:15 -0800
Re: E = mc^2 : Einstein was not the author of course Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2017-01-05 06:43 +0100
E = mc^2 : Einstein was not the author of course Pentcho Valev <pvalev@yahoo.com> - 2016-12-30 12:57 -0800
Re: E = mc^2 : Einstein was not the author of course Eric Baird <erkdemon@gmail.com> - 2016-12-30 17:47 -0800
Re: E = mc^2 : Einstein was not the author of course Helmut Wabnig <hwabnig@.- --- -.dotat> - 2017-01-04 22:52 +0100
Re: E = mc^2 : Einstein was not the author of course alsor@interia.pl - 2017-01-05 09:26 -0800
Page 2 of 5 — ← Prev page 1 [2] 3 4 5 Next page →
| From | Sharilyn Vore <inolr@nryowno.an> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-01-09 21:22 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <o50uuj$npd$2@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #404060 |
Gary Harnagel wrote: > On Wednesday, January 4, 2017 at 5:05:36 PM UTC-7, Stupid, ignorant > 'nym-shifting troll Kurt Getman wrote: >> >> [Stupid, ignorant cow pies and disgusting baloney] > > 'nuff said. I see - that must be the reason you snipped the entire treatise proving you wrong. You must feel shame, if I'm allowed to intercalate.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Kurt Getman <erttarnKmu@erttarnKmu.ert> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-01-05 00:06 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <o4k2lp$1v3e$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #404046 |
Gary Harnagel wrote: > On Tuesday, January 3, 2017 at 11:26:14 PM UTC-7, Thomas Heger wrote: >> >> 'mass' and 'energy' are physical terms and have a definition. >> The main characteristic of 'mass' is inertia, > > Actually, one definition is RESISTANCE to acceleration. But ANOTHER > definition is the ability to attract other bodies ( or to curve > spacetime). Your later definition is entirely bullshit. There is no attraction involving massive bodies. Common error in Relaivity, btw. So much indeed. Freefall is not, and can't be, attraction. Never. Please correct this unforgivable error immediately.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-01-07 08:15 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <edbitkFhmjmU1@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #404046 |
Am 05.01.2017 00:11, schrieb Gary Harnagel:
> On Tuesday, January 3, 2017 at 11:26:14 PM UTC-7, Thomas Heger wrote:
>>
>> 'mass' and 'energy' are physical terms and have a definition.
>>
>> The main characteristic of 'mass' is inertia,
>
> Actually, one definition is RESISTANCE to acceleration. But ANOTHER
> definition is the ability to attract other bodies ( or to curve
> spacetime).
>
>> while 'energy' is used for something non-inert, hence of the opposite
>> kind.
>
> I don't see them as opposites.
>
>> E=m* c² does not say, that mass is a form of energy.
>
> Who are you to claim that?
>
>> mass is measured in kilogram and energy in Joule.
>
> Irrelevant. Kelvins is a measure of temperature. So is the Fahrenheit
> system. A formula relates the two. Are you saying that one is a form
> of temperature but the other is not? Ergs measure energy, Joules do too.
> A scale factor relates the two. c^2 is the scale factor relating mass to
> energy.
Kelvin and Celsius are just different units, but of the same physical value.
Mass and energy are not the same thing, hence have different units (kg
and Nm) and those units do not represent the same concept.
What you say would be like measuring temperature in meters or Farad.
So: units belong to a certain physical concept. Here: mass belongs to
inertia.
The term energy is more like the grand total, by which we make different
processes compatible.
So there is something ('energy') which is stored here and goes there.
And if we add all those energies up, the sum must be equal.
From this we draw the conclusion, that in every thing, process or
situation is something hidden, that we call 'energy', which we regard as
reason for all of these events.
To express the energy in mass, this formula was derived.
But there is a flaw in this equation, since the energy is NOT stored in
mass, but in matter.
Matter has mass, but is not mass.
The kg is a unit in physics, not a thing.
What the equation tried to express was the energy released by a
radioactive sample, where the emitted energy is balance by missing mass.
This would require opposite signs on both sides of the equation.
If the signs are not opposite, the equation would address impossible
quantities, like the mass of light.
..
TH
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-01-07 08:10 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <c9f4bb96-b907-4553-a2ed-f72e3224736c@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #404403 |
On Saturday, January 7, 2017 at 12:16:07 AM UTC-7, Thomas Heger wrote:
>
> Am 05.01.2017 00:11, schrieb Gary Harnagel:
> >
> > On Tuesday, January 3, 2017 at 11:26:14 PM UTC-7, Thomas Heger wrote:
> > >
> > > 'mass' and 'energy' are physical terms and have a definition.
> > >
> > > The main characteristic of 'mass' is inertia,
> >
> > Actually, one definition is RESISTANCE to acceleration. But ANOTHER
> > definition is the ability to attract other bodies ( or to curve
> > spacetime).
> >
> > > while 'energy' is used for something non-inert, hence of the opposite
> > > kind.
> >
> > I don't see them as opposites.
> >
> > > E=m* c² does not say, that mass is a form of energy.
> >
> > Who are you to claim that?
> >
> > > mass is measured in kilogram and energy in Joule.
> >
> > Irrelevant. Kelvins is a measure of temperature. So is the Fahrenheit
> > system. A formula relates the two. Are you saying that one is a form
> > of temperature but the other is not? Ergs measure energy, Joules do too.
> > A scale factor relates the two. c^2 is the scale factor relating mass to
> > energy.
>
> Kelvin and Celsius are just different units, but of the same physical value.
But E = kT. Thus energy is related to temperature.
> Mass and energy are not the same thing, hence have different units (kg
> and Nm) and those units do not represent the same concept.
They do when related by velocity squared. Kinetic energy of a mass is
E = 0.5*m*v^2
This is EXACTLY the same relationship that you are choking on. And it's
very REAL, particularly if a truck going 100 km/hour runs into you. And
a lot of that energy gets converted to heat.
> What you say would be like measuring temperature in meters or Farad.
No, it's not the same thing at all. You are putting up a straw man.
> So: units belong to a certain physical concept. Here: mass belongs to
> inertia.
And to energy.
> The term energy is more like the grand total, by which we make different
> processes compatible.
Like getting hit by a truck.
> So there is something ('energy') which is stored here and goes there.
> And if we add all those energies up, the sum must be equal.
>
> From this we draw the conclusion, that in every thing, process or
> situation is something hidden, that we call 'energy', which we regard as
> reason for all of these events.
>
> To express the energy in mass, this formula was derived.
>
> But there is a flaw in this equation, since the energy is NOT stored in
> mass, but in matter.
There is no difference and there's no flaw.
> Matter has mass, but is not mass.
How do you know this. Did you pull it out of a stinky orifice?
> The kg is a unit in physics, not a thing.
>
> What the equation tried to express was the energy released by a
> radioactive sample, where the emitted energy is balance by missing mass.
It's MUCH more than that.
> This would require opposite signs on both sides of the equation.
You should study particle physics as well as logic, because your claim
is baloney.
> If the signs are not opposite, the equation would address impossible
> quantities, like the mass of light.
>
> ..
>
>
> TH
Not at all. The mass of light is zero. The energy of any mass is
E = sqrt[p^2*c^2 + m^2*c^4)
For light, m = 0 so E = p*c, which is exactly what Maxwell's equations
predict. And energy has mass by m = E/c^2, so it has gravitational
attraction (albeit insignificant in most cases).
You really should try to limit your assertions to some semblance of reality.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-01-07 22:24 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <edd4jpFtvbkU1@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #404445 |
Am 07.01.2017 17:10, schrieb Gary Harnagel:
>>>> E=m* c² does not say, that mass is a form of energy.
>>>
>>> Who are you to claim that?
>>>
>>>> mass is measured in kilogram and energy in Joule.
>>>
>>> Irrelevant. Kelvins is a measure of temperature. So is the Fahrenheit
>>> system. A formula relates the two. Are you saying that one is a form
>>> of temperature but the other is not? Ergs measure energy, Joules do too.
>>> A scale factor relates the two. c^2 is the scale factor relating mass to
>>> energy.
>>
>> Kelvin and Celsius are just different units, but of the same physical value.
>
> But E = kT. Thus energy is related to temperature.
Nobody had ever questioned, that energy is related to heat.
But heat and temperature are different things, too.
And temperature is not energy.
>> Mass and energy are not the same thing, hence have different units (kg
>> and Nm) and those units do not represent the same concept.
>
> They do when related by velocity squared. Kinetic energy of a mass is
>
> E = 0.5*m*v^2
>
> This is EXACTLY the same relationship that you are choking on. And it's
> very REAL, particularly if a truck going 100 km/hour runs into you. And
> a lot of that energy gets converted to heat.
Not really..
kinetic energy is the energy of a moving body with velocity v.
This velocity v is not a constant - as c is.
This velocity is also 'relative', since it depends in respect to which
base-point you measure v.
So: kinetic energy is not 'intrinsic', but depending on the FoR.
>> What you say would be like measuring temperature in meters or Farad.
>
> No, it's not the same thing at all. You are putting up a straw man.
Ok. It was slightly exaggerated, but not that much.
>> So: units belong to a certain physical concept. Here: mass belongs to
>> inertia.
>
> And to energy.
Somehow everything belongs to everything else. E.g. voltage belongs to
current (in a way).
But it is essential to stick to definitions of physical units.
So: mass is not a measure for stuff, but for inertia. Since stuff has
resistance to acceleration, we can measure stuff in kg.
But still: inertia is neither stuff nor energy.
>> The term energy is more like the grand total, by which we make different
>> processes compatible.
>
> Like getting hit by a truck.
No.
Collisions between small and large objects are not governed by energy.
The dangerous quantity (for the person) is acceleration.
>> So there is something ('energy') which is stored here and goes there.
>> And if we add all those energies up, the sum must be equal.
>>
>> From this we draw the conclusion, that in every thing, process or
>> situation is something hidden, that we call 'energy', which we regard as
>> reason for all of these events.
>>
>> To express the energy in mass, this formula was derived.
>>
>> But there is a flaw in this equation, since the energy is NOT stored in
>> mass, but in matter.
>
> There is no difference and there's no flaw.
Of course there is a difference.
Matter has an attribute call 'mass'. But matter has also other
attributes like density, colour or viscosity.
And the attributes are not the thing.
>> Matter has mass, but is not mass.
>
> How do you know this. Did you pull it out of a stinky orifice?
From here:
>> The kg is a unit in physics, not a thing.
...
TH
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Sharilyn Vore <inolr@nryowno.an> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-01-07 21:52 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <o4rnvn$1n5j$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #404482 |
Thomas Heger wrote: >> But E = kT. Thus energy is related to temperature. > > Nobody had ever questioned, that energy is related to heat. Another half-engineer. Heat IS energy, and nothing else. Better stick with History, something you are good at. > But heat and temperature are different things, too. > And temperature is not energy. What is energy then? > Not really.. > kinetic energy is the energy of a moving body with velocity v. That's work. > So: kinetic energy is not 'intrinsic', but depending on the FoR. No it doesnt, once you have it as work.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-01-08 07:21 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <ede43rF6ct4U1@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #404490 |
Am 07.01.2017 22:52, schrieb Sharilyn Vore: >>> But E = kT. Thus energy is related to temperature. >> >> Nobody had ever questioned, that energy is related to heat. > > Another half-engineer. Heat IS energy, and nothing else. Heat is not only a form of energy. One main characteristic of heat is temperature, while other forms of energy could be cold (like kinetic energy or stored electric energy). To mix terms is not really a good idea. 'Temperature' has a certain meaning and that meaning would not fit to the definition of the term 'energy'. It is related, but 'related' is not enough for saying it is equal. Of course higher temperature of a certain substance would be equivalent to more thermal energy. But without a specific substance the relation between temperature and thermal energy in undefined. > >> But heat and temperature are different things, too. >> And temperature is not energy. > > What is energy then? This is actually a good question (like all 'What is ... really ?' questions.) > >> Not really.. >> kinetic energy is the energy of a moving body with velocity v. > > That's work. Are you trying to start a contest for the most stupid misuse of physical terms? TH
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Sharilyn Vore <inolr@nryowno.an> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-01-08 11:29 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <o4t7q8$1s4i$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #404536 |
Thomas Heger wrote: > Am 07.01.2017 22:52, schrieb Sharilyn Vore: > >>>> But E = kT. Thus energy is related to temperature. >>> >>> Nobody had ever questioned, that energy is related to heat. >> >> Another half-engineer. Heat IS energy, and nothing else. > > Heat is not only a form of energy. One main characteristic of heat is > temperature, while other forms of energy could be cold (like kinetic > energy or stored electric energy). To mix terms is not really a good > idea. Indeed, what a joke. Temperature is a procedure, or a parameter describing the amount of Heat. > 'Temperature' has a certain meaning and that meaning would not fit to > the definition of the term 'energy'. Learn the basics in Physics, before talking nonsense. >>> Not really.. >>> kinetic energy is the energy of a moving body with velocity v. >> >> That's work. > > Are you trying to start a contest for the most stupid misuse of > physical terms? TH You don't even know that Energy is Heat AND Work?? And nothing else? Work is convertible in Heat, and Heat is convertible in Heat. That's Energy. You don't even need to know Physics to realize this. How is your car working, etc, how were they heating up their homes in Berlin before and after 1945??
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Sharilyn Vore <inolr@nryowno.an> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-01-08 11:30 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <o4t7t1$1s86$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #404548 |
Sharilyn Vore wrote: > Thomas Heger wrote: > >> Am 07.01.2017 22:52, schrieb Sharilyn Vore: >> >>>>> But E = kT. Thus energy is related to temperature. >>>> >>>> Nobody had ever questioned, that energy is related to heat. >>> >>> Another half-engineer. Heat IS energy, and nothing else. >> >> Heat is not only a form of energy. One main characteristic of heat is >> temperature, while other forms of energy could be cold (like kinetic >> energy or stored electric energy). To mix terms is not really a good >> idea. > > Indeed, what a joke. Temperature is a procedure, or a parameter > describing the amount of Heat. > >> 'Temperature' has a certain meaning and that meaning would not fit to >> the definition of the term 'energy'. > > Learn the basics in Physics, before talking nonsense. > > >>>> Not really.. >>>> kinetic energy is the energy of a moving body with velocity v. >>> >>> That's work. >> >> Are you trying to start a contest for the most stupid misuse of >> physical terms? TH > > You don't even know that Energy is Heat AND Work?? And nothing else? > Work is convertible in Heat, and Heat is convertible in Heat. That's I meant "into" of course. > Energy. You don't even need to know Physics to realize this. How is your > car working, etc, how were they heating up their homes in Berlin before > and after 1945??
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Sharilyn Vore <inolr@nryowno.an> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-01-08 11:32 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <o4t7vg$1s86$2@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #404548 |
Sharilyn Vore wrote: > Thomas Heger wrote: > >> Am 07.01.2017 22:52, schrieb Sharilyn Vore: >> >>>>> But E = kT. Thus energy is related to temperature. >>>> >>>> Nobody had ever questioned, that energy is related to heat. >>> >>> Another half-engineer. Heat IS energy, and nothing else. >> >> Heat is not only a form of energy. One main characteristic of heat is >> temperature, while other forms of energy could be cold (like kinetic >> energy or stored electric energy). To mix terms is not really a good >> idea. > > Indeed, what a joke. Temperature is a procedure, or a parameter > describing the amount of Heat. > >> 'Temperature' has a certain meaning and that meaning would not fit to >> the definition of the term 'energy'. > > Learn the basics in Physics, before talking nonsense. > > >>>> Not really.. >>>> kinetic energy is the energy of a moving body with velocity v. >>> >>> That's work. >> >> Are you trying to start a contest for the most stupid misuse of >> physical terms? TH > > You don't even know that Energy is Heat AND Work?? And nothing else? > Work is convertible in Heat, and Heat is convertible in Heat. That's Still wrong, I meant "Heat convertible back into Work" > Energy. You don't even need to know Physics to realize this. How is your > car working, etc, how were they heating up their homes in Berlin before > and after 1945??
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-01-08 12:01 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <186430f5-3e22-4445-9f3c-cecd17b37ebc@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #404482 |
On Saturday, January 7, 2017 at 2:24:11 PM UTC-7, Thomas Heger wrote:
>
> Am 07.01.2017 17:10, schrieb Gary Harnagel:
> >
> > But E = kT. Thus energy is related to temperature.
>
> Nobody had ever questioned, that energy is related to heat.
>
> But heat and temperature are different things, too.
I didn't even mention heat.
> And temperature is not energy.
That equation says you're wrong.
> > > Mass and energy are not the same thing, hence have different units (kg
> > > and Nm) and those units do not represent the same concept.
> >
> > They do when related by velocity squared. Kinetic energy of a mass is
> >
> > E = 0.5*m*v^2
> >
> > This is EXACTLY the same relationship that you are choking on. And it's
> > very REAL, particularly if a truck going 100 km/hour runs into you. And
> > a lot of that energy gets converted to heat.
>
>
> Not really..
Yes, really. Are you truly this dense?
> kinetic energy is the energy of a moving body with velocity v.
>
> This velocity v is not a constant - as c is.
Irrelevant. c is a maximum velocity.
> This velocity is also 'relative', since it depends in respect to which
> base-point you measure v.
Yes, v is relative velocity. C is also relative velocity.
> So: kinetic energy is not 'intrinsic', but depending on the FoR.
E = gamma*m*c^2 includes kinetic energy. And when an electron meets a
positron, E = gamma*m*c^2 is verified.
> > > What you say would be like measuring temperature in meters or Farad.
> >
> > No, it's not the same thing at all. You are putting up a straw man.
>
> Ok. It was slightly exaggerated, but not that much.
We're talking about relationships between energy and temperature or velocity.
Your straw man isn't even in the same ballpark.
> > > So: units belong to a certain physical concept. Here: mass belongs to
> > > inertia.
> >
> > And to energy.
>
>
> Somehow everything belongs to everything else. E.g. voltage belongs to
> current (in a way).
>
> But it is essential to stick to definitions of physical units.
I do, but you seem to ignore proportionality factors, which come about
because we have chosen non-ideal physical units.
> So: mass is not a measure for stuff, but for inertia.
This is cow plop baloney. Have you never taken a chemistry course? Have you
never heard of Avogadro's number?
> Since stuff has resistance to acceleration, we can measure stuff in kg.
That's ONE way. Your problem is that you find one way and believe it can't
be any other way, too.
> But still: inertia is neither stuff nor energy.
Actually, inertia doesn't have any units, so making that assertion is pure,
unadulterated cow plop.
> > > The term energy is more like the grand total, by which we make different
> > > processes compatible.
> >
> > Like getting hit by a truck.
>
> No.
Yes.
> Collisions between small and large objects are not governed by energy.
> The dangerous quantity (for the person) is acceleration.
Show us an equation for energy involving acceleration.
“Have you ever listened to someone for a while and wondered …
‘Who ties your shoelaces for you?’” – Mom’s Got Ink
> > > So there is something ('energy') which is stored here and goes there.
> > > And if we add all those energies up, the sum must be equal.
> > >
> > > From this we draw the conclusion, that in every thing, process or
> > > situation is something hidden, that we call 'energy', which we regard as
> > > reason for all of these events.
> > >
> > > To express the energy in mass, this formula was derived.
> > >
> > > But there is a flaw in this equation, since the energy is NOT stored in
> > > mass, but in matter.
> >
> > There is no difference and there's no flaw.
>
>
> Of course there is a difference.
"Matter has many definitions, but the most common is that it is any substance
which has mass and occupies space."
http://physics.about.com/od/glossary/g/Matter.htm
"Mass is the property which reflects the quantity of matter within a sample."
http://chemistry.about.com/od/chemistryglossary/a/massdefinition.htm
> Matter has an attribute call 'mass'. But matter has also other
> attributes like density, colour or viscosity.
>
> And the attributes are not the thing.
So write us an equation that relates matter to energy without mentioning
mass. You can't, because mass is the QUANTITY of matter. In fact, if you
pose a question relating energy to matter, you must write m for the amount
of matter.
> > > Matter has mass, but is not mass.
> >
> > How do you know this. Did you pull it out of a stinky orifice?
>
>
> From here:
>
> > > The kg is a unit in physics, not a thing.
> ...
>
> TH
It is a quantity of matter. Trying to separate them results in this:
"Did you ever get the feeling that the world was a tuxedo and you were a
pair of brown shoes?" – George Gobel
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-01-08 22:49 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <edfqg8FjjmaU1@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #404620 |
Am 08.01.2017 21:01, schrieb Gary Harnagel: >>> But E = kT. Thus energy is related to temperature. >> >> Nobody had ever questioned, that energy is related to heat. >> >> But heat and temperature are different things, too. > > I didn't even mention heat. > >> And temperature is not energy. > > That equation says you're wrong. You forgot to mention, that the equation is only valid for ideal gases. In this case the thermal energy is proportional to temperature times Boltzman constant. This would not justify to call temperature 'energy'. Thermal energy in motion is called 'heat'. Thermal energy in a certain material object is not well defined. See here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thermal_energy "In thermodynamics, thermal energy refers to the internal energy present in a system due to its temperature.[1] The concept is not well-defined or broadly accepted in physics or thermodynamics, because the internal energy can be changed without changing the temperature, and there is no way to distinguish which part of the internal energy is "thermal". Instead, the appropriate thermodynamic concept is heat, defined as a transfer of energy (just as work is another type of transfer of energy)." >>>> Mass and energy are not the same thing, hence have different units (kg >>>> and Nm) and those units do not represent the same concept. >>> >>> They do when related by velocity squared. Kinetic energy of a mass is >>> >>> E = 0.5*m*v^2 >>> >>> This is EXACTLY the same relationship that you are choking on. .. >> Not really.. > > Yes, really. Are you truly this dense? >> kinetic energy is the energy of a moving body with velocity v. >> >> This velocity v is not a constant - as c is. > > Irrelevant. c is a maximum velocity. You have to exchange mass for velocity, if you want to reach c. In the final case of v=c you have m=0, what makes the equation pointless. Actually it is wrong, since light mas energy, but no mass. >> This velocity is also 'relative', since it depends in respect to which >> base-point you measure v. > > Yes, v is relative velocity. C is also relative velocity. This statement is a little twisted. ... > >> Collisions between small and large objects are not governed by energy. >> The dangerous quantity (for the person) is acceleration. > > Show us an equation for energy involving acceleration. If a fly hits the wind screen of a truck, you would not calculate the kinetic energy of the fly in relation to that of a truck. You can do that, if you insist. But the energy is irrelevant, since it's not the energy of the fly that kills her. TH
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-01-08 14:57 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <6cf68fb9-7b2f-4062-a983-7323c9ce092e@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #404641 |
On Sunday, January 8, 2017 at 2:50:03 PM UTC-7, Thomas Heger wrote: > > Am 08.01.2017 21:01, schrieb Gary Harnagel: > > > > > > But E = kT. Thus energy is related to temperature. > > > > > > Nobody had ever questioned, that energy is related to heat. > > > > > > But heat and temperature are different things, too. > > > > I didn't even mention heat. > > > > > And temperature is not energy. > > > > That equation says you're wrong. > > > You forgot to mention, that the equation is only valid for ideal gases. > In this case the thermal energy is proportional to temperature times > Boltzman constant. NOTHING in this world is exact, but for gases at room temperature, it's very, very close. > This would not justify to call temperature 'energy'. So the equation gets more complicated when the gas is not "ideal" - so what? A new relationship would STILL relate temperature to energy. > Thermal energy in motion is called 'heat'. > > Thermal energy in a certain material object is not well defined. > > See here: > > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thermal_energy > > "In thermodynamics, thermal energy refers to the internal energy present > in a system due to its temperature.[1] The concept is not well-defined > or broadly accepted in physics or thermodynamics, because the internal > energy can be changed without changing the temperature, and there is no > way to distinguish which part of the internal energy is "thermal". > Instead, the appropriate thermodynamic concept is heat, defined as a > transfer of energy (just as work is another type of transfer of energy)." You split hairs very well. So what? > > > > E = 0.5*m*v^2 > > > > > > > > This is EXACTLY the same relationship that you are choking on. .. > > > > Not really.. > > > > Yes, really. Are you truly this dense? > > > > kinetic energy is the energy of a moving body with velocity v. > > > > > > This velocity v is not a constant - as c is. > > > > Irrelevant. c is a maximum velocity. > > You have to exchange mass for velocity, if you want to reach c. You can't reach c, didn't you get the memo? > In the final case of v=c you have m=0, what makes the equation pointless. Not this one: E = sqrt(p^2*c^2 + m^2*c^4) which you can derive from gamma*m*c^2. > Actually it is wrong, since light mas energy, but no mass. It is NOT wrong. See the above equation. > > > This velocity is also 'relative', since it depends in respect to which > > > base-point you measure v. > > > > Yes, v is relative velocity. C is also relative velocity. > > This statement is a little twisted. So you don't believe that light from your flashlight is traveling at c relative to you? Weird! > > > Collisions between small and large objects are not governed by energy. > > > The dangerous quantity (for the person) is acceleration. > > > > Show us an equation for energy involving acceleration. > > If a fly hits the wind screen of a truck, you would not calculate the > kinetic energy of the fly in relation to that of a truck. You wouldn't calculate acceleration, either. You failed. > You can do that, if you insist. > > But the energy is irrelevant, since it's not the energy of the fly that > kills her. > > > > TH It's not the acceleration, either. It's the sudden change in relative energy that does it. I can't understand how someone can prattle on this way when numerous examples refute your delusional beliefs. I guess this explains it: “Ninety-nine percent of the people in the world are fools and the rest of us are in great danger of contagion.” – Thornton Wilder
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-01-09 06:05 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <edgk0cFp5h5U1@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #404650 |
Am 08.01.2017 23:57, schrieb Gary Harnagel:
> On Sunday, January 8, 2017 at 2:50:03 PM UTC-7, Thomas Heger wrote:
>>
>> Am 08.01.2017 21:01, schrieb Gary Harnagel:
>>>
>>>>> But E = kT. Thus energy is related to temperature.
>>>>
>>>> Nobody had ever questioned, that energy is related to heat.
>>>>
>>>> But heat and temperature are different things, too.
>>>
>>> I didn't even mention heat.
>>>
>>>> And temperature is not energy.
>>>
>>> That equation says you're wrong.
>>
>>
>> You forgot to mention, that the equation is only valid for ideal gases.
>> In this case the thermal energy is proportional to temperature times
>> Boltzman constant.
>
> NOTHING in this world is exact, but for gases at room temperature, it's very,
> very close.
>
>> This would not justify to call temperature 'energy'.
>
> So the equation gets more complicated when the gas is not "ideal" - so what?
> A new relationship would STILL relate temperature to energy.
Energy could be imagined as kind of invisible and indestructible fluid,
that fills all space and things.
And it could show up in all sorts of guises and fashions.
The appearance has then attributes, which come in logical combinations.
And temperature requires some kind of substance, that has this temperature.
Without a substance it is pretty pointless to speak of a temperature.
If it is a gas, we have also pressure as important feature and the kind
of gas, or course.
But still the temperature is only among the attributes of that system in
question and not a thing.
Similar with mass. Mass is not a thing, but a certain attribute of a
material object and describes its resistance against acceleration.
The number of atoms in a certain sample is related to Avogadro's number
and the unit 'Mol'.
So this number is yet another attribute of the object in question ('thing').
>> Thermal energy in motion is called 'heat'.
>>
>> Thermal energy in a certain material object is not well defined.
>>
>> See here:
>>
>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thermal_energy
>>
>> "In thermodynamics, thermal energy refers to the internal energy present
>> in a system due to its temperature.[1] The concept is not well-defined
>> or broadly accepted in physics or thermodynamics, because the internal
>> energy can be changed without changing the temperature, and there is no
>> way to distinguish which part of the internal energy is "thermal".
>> Instead, the appropriate thermodynamic concept is heat, defined as a
>> transfer of energy (just as work is another type of transfer of energy)."
>
> You split hairs very well. So what?
As far as I remember you have started this dispute. So I had to defend
my position.
You wrote "Baseless assertion flying in the face of experimental evidence."
>>>>> E = 0.5*m*v^2
>>>>>
>>>>> This is EXACTLY the same relationship that you are choking on. ..
>>
>>>> Not really..
>>>
>>> Yes, really. Are you truly this dense?
>>
>>>> kinetic energy is the energy of a moving body with velocity v.
>>>>
>>>> This velocity v is not a constant - as c is.
>>>
>>> Irrelevant. c is a maximum velocity.
>>
>> You have to exchange mass for velocity, if you want to reach c.
>
> You can't reach c, didn't you get the memo?
Maybe I personally can fly that fast. But light beams can.
So lets apply E= m* c² to a beam of light.
m=0
v=c
E=?
actually how do you do that?
>> In the final case of v=c you have m=0, what makes the equation pointless.
>
> Not this one:
>
> E = sqrt(p^2*c^2 + m^2*c^4)
>
> which you can derive from gamma*m*c^2.
but still m=0.
momentum is m times v, hence is still zero.
>> Actually it is wrong, since light has energy, but no mass.
>
> It is NOT wrong. See the above equation.
???
..
>> If a fly hits the wind screen of a truck, you would not calculate the
>> kinetic energy of the fly in relation to that of a truck.
>
> You wouldn't calculate acceleration, either. You failed.
>
>> You can do that, if you insist.
>>
>> But the energy is irrelevant, since it's not the energy of the fly that
>> kills her.
>>
> It's not the acceleration, either. It's the sudden change in relative energy
> that does it.
You will get a price for the most stupid definition of the term
'acceleration'.
> I guess this explains it:
Well, in a way...
TH
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-01-09 03:35 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <ef482369-e277-4fea-8ab0-e313a2871e71@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #404687 |
On Sunday, January 8, 2017 at 10:05:20 PM UTC-7, Thomas Heger wrote:
>
> Am 08.01.2017 23:57, schrieb Gary Harnagel:
> >
> > On Sunday, January 8, 2017 at 2:50:03 PM UTC-7, Thomas Heger wrote:
> > >
> > > You forgot to mention, that the equation is only valid for ideal gases.
> > > In this case the thermal energy is proportional to temperature times
> > > Boltzman constant.
> >
> > NOTHING in this world is exact, but for gases at room temperature, it's
> > very, very close.
> >
> > > This would not justify to call temperature 'energy'.
> >
> > So the equation gets more complicated when the gas is not "ideal" - so what?
> > A new relationship would STILL relate temperature to energy.
>
> Energy could be imagined as kind of invisible and indestructible fluid,
> that fills all space and things.
"Could be"? And the moon could be imagined as made of green cheese.
> And it could show up in all sorts of guises and fashions.
>
> The appearance has then attributes, which come in logical combinations.
> And temperature requires some kind of substance, that has this temperature.
>
> Without a substance it is pretty pointless to speak of a temperature.
>
> If it is a gas, we have also pressure as important feature and the kind
> of gas, or course.
>
> But still the temperature is only among the attributes of that system in
> question and not a thing.
>
> Similar with mass. Mass is not a thing, but a certain attribute of a
> material object and describes its resistance against acceleration.
And it's attraction to other mass.
> The number of atoms in a certain sample is related to Avogadro's number
> and the unit 'Mol'.
>
> So this number is yet another attribute of the object in question ('thing').
They are all related.
> > > Thermal energy in motion is called 'heat'.
> > >
> > > Thermal energy in a certain material object is not well defined.
> > >
> > > See here:
> > >
> > > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thermal_energy
> > >
> > > "In thermodynamics, thermal energy refers to the internal energy present
> > > in a system due to its temperature.[1] The concept is not well-defined
> > > or broadly accepted in physics or thermodynamics, because the internal
> > > energy can be changed without changing the temperature, and there is no
> > > way to distinguish which part of the internal energy is "thermal".
> > > Instead, the appropriate thermodynamic concept is heat, defined as a
> > > transfer of energy (just as work is another type of transfer of energy)."
> >
> > You split hairs very well. So what?
>
> As far as I remember you have started this dispute. So I had to defend
> my position.
Your position is not defensible.
> You wrote "Baseless assertion flying in the face of experimental evidence."
And it's still baseless.
> > > > Irrelevant. c is a maximum velocity.
> > >
> > > You have to exchange mass for velocity, if you want to reach c.
> >
> > You can't reach c, didn't you get the memo?
>
> Maybe I personally can fly that fast. But light beams can.
>
> So lets apply E= m* c² to a beam of light.
>
> m=0
> v=c
> E=?
>
>
> actually how do you do that?
Use the correct equation:
E = sqrt(p^2*c^2 + m^2*c^4)
E = p*c
> > > In the final case of v=c you have m=0, what makes the equation pointless.
> >
> > Not this one:
> >
> > E = sqrt(p^2*c^2 + m^2*c^4)
> >
> > which you can derive from gamma*m*c^2.
>
> but still m=0.
> momentum is m times v,
No, it's not. p = gamma*m*v
> hence is still zero.
When you use the wrong equation, you get the wrong answer.
> > > Actually it is wrong, since light has energy, but no mass.
> >
> > It is NOT wrong. See the above equation.
>
> ???
What's the matter, do you have a blindness problem?
> ..
> > > If a fly hits the wind screen of a truck, you would not calculate the
> > > kinetic energy of the fly in relation to that of a truck.
> >
> > You wouldn't calculate acceleration, either. You failed.
> >
> > > You can do that, if you insist.
> > >
> > > But the energy is irrelevant, since it's not the energy of the fly that
> > > kills her.
> >
> > It's not the acceleration, either. It's the sudden change in relative
> > energy that does it.
>
> You will get a price for the most stupid definition of the term
> 'acceleration'.
Word salad?
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-01-10 06:52 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <edjb5jFf3h2U1@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #404712 |
Am 09.01.2017 12:35, schrieb Gary Harnagel: >> As far as I remember you have started this dispute. So I had to defend >> my position. > > Your position is not defensible. > >> You wrote "Baseless assertion flying in the face of experimental evidence." > > And it's still baseless. > >>>>> Irrelevant. c is a maximum velocity. >>>> >>>> You have to exchange mass for velocity, if you want to reach c. >>> >>> You can't reach c, didn't you get the memo? >> >> Maybe I personally can fly that fast. But light beams can. >> >> So lets apply E= m* c² to a beam of light. >> >> m=0 >> v=c >> E=? >> >> >> actually how do you do that? > > Use the correct equation: > > E = sqrt(p^2*c^2 + m^2*c^4) > > E = p*c In a better world you would hereby admit, the equation in question (E=m*c²) is wrong. Actually you have tried to defend E=m* c² and stated, it would be applicable to light. Now you write, it's wrong. So on what kind of schizophrenia you suffer? >>>> In the final case of v=c you have m=0, what makes the equation pointless. >>> >>> Not this one: >>> >>> E = sqrt(p^2*c^2 + m^2*c^4) >>> >>> which you can derive from gamma*m*c^2. >> >> but still m=0. >> momentum is m times v, > > No, it's not. p = gamma*m*v > >> hence is still zero. > > When you use the wrong equation, you get the wrong answer. Now you want to multiply something with zero and get non-zero result. Of course you base your statement on SRT, while I wrote, that SRT is wrong. I would agree, that light has momentum, but based on my own concept (called 'structured spacetime'). In this construct a photon and an electron are the same thing. This is a certain pattern and a photon is like a tiny helical screw. And if this is pushed flat, you get an electron. (this is of course a simplified explanation) >>>> Actually it is wrong, since light has energy, but no mass. >>> >>> It is NOT wrong. See the above equation. >> >> ??? > > What's the matter, do you have a blindness problem? Problem is, how you want to overcome the problem of m=0, since this zero would make all parts of this equation zero. here it is again: E = sqrt(p^2*c^2 + m^2*c^4)= p* c (because 0^2 =0) p = gamma*m*v =gamma*0*v = 0 E=p* c = 0* c = 0 TH
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-01-10 04:41 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <ff452443-e39a-4d5b-aab7-e0a1c1fbe8e6@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #404884 |
On Monday, January 9, 2017 at 10:52:54 PM UTC-7, Thomas Heger wrote: > > Am 09.01.2017 12:35, schrieb Gary Harnagel: > > > > > As far as I remember you have started this dispute. So I had to defend > > > my position. > > > > Your position is not defensible. > > > > > You wrote "Baseless assertion flying in the face of experimental > > > evidence." > > > > And it's still baseless. > > > > > Maybe I personally can fly that fast. But light beams can. > > > > > > So lets apply E= m* c² to a beam of light. > > > > > > m=0 > > > v=c > > > E=? > > > > > > > > > actually how do you do that? > > > > Use the correct equation: > > > > E = sqrt(p^2*c^2 + m^2*c^4) > > > > E = p*c > > > In a better world you would hereby admit, the equation in question > (E=m*c²) is wrong. Nope. In a better world all people would be smart. “Ninety-nine percent of the people in the world are fools and the rest of us are in great danger of contagion.” – Thornton Wilder > Actually you have tried to defend E=m* c² and stated, it would be > applicable to light. > > Now you write, it's wrong. NO, I didn't. You are GREATLY confused. You have to understand what each symbol means. If m is rest mass, then it applies to normal matter. If m is relativistic mass, then it applies to everything. The relationship E = gamma*m*c^2 is equivalent to E = sqrt(p^2*c^2 + m^2*c^4). > So on what kind of schizophrenia you suffer? I'm not the one that intentionally forgets the context of the discussion. “Being ignorant is not so much a shame, as being unwilling to learn.” -- Benjamin Franklin > > > > E = sqrt(p^2*c^2 + m^2*c^4) > > > > > > > > which you can derive from gamma*m*c^2. > > > > > > but still m=0. > > > momentum is m times v, > > > > No, it's not. p = gamma*m*v > > > > > hence is still zero. > > > > When you use the wrong equation, you get the wrong answer. > > Now you want to multiply something with zero and get non-zero result. SO you don't understand gamma. It's 1/sqrt(1 - v^2/c^2). What happens when v = c? > Of course you base your statement on SRT, while I wrote, that SRT is wrong. Which is a really stupid thing to claim. > I would agree, that light has momentum, but based on my own concept > (called 'structured spacetime'). Light has momentum by Maxwell's equations. Nobody needs your "theory." > In this construct a photon and an electron are the same thing. Which is another really stupid thing to claim because: (1) Electrons have rest mass, light doesn't. (2) Electrons have electrical charge, light doesn't. Therefore your claim violates conservation of charge. At least have the intelligence to claim that a photon and an electron-positron pair are the same thing. It would STILL be wrong, but it save you from being really, really stupid. > This is a certain pattern and a photon is like a tiny helical screw. And > if this is pushed flat, you get an electron. > > (this is of course a simplified explanation) Doesn't matter, it's still baloney. Anyway, string theory has a much better chance of being correct. > > > > > Actually it is wrong, since light has energy, but no mass. > > > > > > > > It is NOT wrong. See the above equation. > > > > > > ??? > > > > What's the matter, do you have a blindness problem? > > Problem is, how you want to overcome the problem of m=0, since this zero > would make all parts of this equation zero. > > here it is again: > > E = sqrt(p^2*c^2 + m^2*c^4)= p* c (because 0^2 =0) > p = gamma*m*v =gamma*0*v = 0 Nope. You are wrong again. What is infinity times zero? > E=p* c = 0* c = 0 > > > > TH Now your being stupid again. You ASSUME gamma is finite when v = c, but it's not. Didn't you get the memo?
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-01-11 04:43 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <edlnuqF2ojuU1@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #404908 |
Am 10.01.2017 13:41, schrieb Gary Harnagel: >>>> So lets apply E= m* c² to a beam of light. >>>> >>>> m=0 >>>> v=c >>>> E=? >>>> >>>> >>>> actually how do you do that? >>> >>> Use the correct equation: >>> >>> E = sqrt(p^2*c^2 + m^2*c^4) >>> >>> E = p*c >> >> >> In a better world you would hereby admit, the equation in question >> (E=m*c²) is wrong. > > Nope. In a better world all people would be smart. Don't think, this would be a better world. > >> Actually you have tried to defend E=m* c² and stated, it would be >> applicable to light. >> >> Now you write, it's wrong. > > NO, I didn't. You are GREATLY confused. You have to understand what > each symbol means. If m is rest mass, then it applies to normal matter. > If m is relativistic mass, then it applies to everything. The relationship > E = gamma*m*c^2 is equivalent to E = sqrt(p^2*c^2 + m^2*c^4). What you try to apply in physics is a mixture of Voodoo and black-magic. If we talk about light, we would not talk about rest-mass. For me x * 0 = 0 (for all numbers out of R). 0 times something not equal to zero would require something like a 'esoteric number'. Well, maybe mathematicians entertain themselves with such numbers. But physicists should avoid such an equation, where infinity is multiplied. >> So on what kind of schizophrenia you suffer? > > I'm not the one that intentionally forgets the context of the discussion. I tried to prove, the equation E=m*c² is wrong and you try to prove it's right. > “Being ignorant is not so much a shame, as being unwilling to learn.” > -- Benjamin Franklin No. Incompetence is not always harmful, only in a position, where competence is necessary. For instance it is possible to talk about mathematical problems like how to multiply infinity in a pub, while drinking beer. This would disturb a little air and that's it. >>>>> E = sqrt(p^2*c^2 + m^2*c^4) >>>>> >>>>> which you can derive from gamma*m*c^2. >>>> >>>> but still m=0. >>>> momentum is m times v, >>> >>> No, it's not. p = gamma*m*v >>> >>>> hence is still zero. >>> >>> When you use the wrong equation, you get the wrong answer. >> >> Now you want to multiply something with zero and get non-zero result. > > SO you don't understand gamma. It's 1/sqrt(1 - v^2/c^2). What happens > when v = c? We would get 1/0 Now you have told me, this would be the correct equation, while I have rejected your claim. Now your statement hinges on the problem how to multiply zero and infinity. Well.... please... TH
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-01-10 20:30 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <84ddb5a1-5b5d-4620-9dbb-de6e69424255@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #405052 |
On Tuesday, January 10, 2017 at 8:43:26 PM UTC-7, Thomas Heger wrote: > > Am 10.01.2017 13:41, schrieb Gary Harnagel: > > > > > In a better world you would hereby admit, the equation in question > > > (E=m*c²) is wrong. > > > > Nope. In a better world all people would be smart. > > Don't think, this would be a better world. So you want people to be like YOU? > > > Actually you have tried to defend E=m* c² and stated, it would be > > > applicable to light. > > > > > > Now you write, it's wrong. > > > > NO, I didn't. You are GREATLY confused. You have to understand what > > each symbol means. If m is rest mass, then it applies to normal matter. > > If m is relativistic mass, then it applies to everything. The relationship > > E = gamma*m*c^2 is equivalent to E = sqrt(p^2*c^2 + m^2*c^4). > > > What you try to apply in physics is a mixture of Voodoo and black-magic. That is pure, unadulterated horse plop. > If we talk about light, we would not talk about rest-mass. I wasn't, ignorant one. > For me x * 0 = 0 (for all numbers out of R). > > 0 times something not equal to zero would require something like a > 'esoteric number'. It would require infinity. Do you even have an INKLING of what 1/sqrt(1 - v^/c^2) is as v approaches c? > Well, maybe mathematicians entertain themselves with such numbers. > > But physicists should avoid such an equation, where infinity is multiplied. That's why I introduced E = sqrt(p^2*c^2 + m^2*c^4) You seem to have trouble concentrating. > > > So on what kind of schizophrenia you suffer? > > > > I'm not the one that intentionally forgets the context of the discussion. > > I tried to prove, the equation E=m*c² is wrong and you try to prove it's > right. It's right for massive particles. I introduced the fully-correct equation but you seem to have an intentional avoidance issue. > > “Being ignorant is not so much a shame, as being unwilling to learn.” > > -- Benjamin Franklin > > No. Absolutely true! I see that in YOU. > Incompetence is not always harmful, only in a position, where competence > is necessary. That depends on what you're incompetent in. If you're incompetent at living .... > For instance it is possible to talk about mathematical problems like how > to multiply infinity in a pub, while drinking beer. > > This would disturb a little air and that's it. So you never heard of L'Hopital's rule, right? > > > > > > E = sqrt(p^2*c^2 + m^2*c^4) See? There it is again. > > > > > > which you can derive from gamma*m*c^2. > > > > > > > > > > but still m=0. > > > > > momentum is m times v, > > >> > > > > No, it's not. p = gamma*m*v > > > > > > > > > hence is still zero. > > > > > > > > When you use the wrong equation, you get the wrong answer. > > > > > > Now you want to multiply something with zero and get non-zero result. > > > > SO you don't understand gamma. It's 1/sqrt(1 - v^2/c^2). What happens > > when v = c? > > > We would get 1/0 No, idiot! We would get 0/0. You keep insisting m = 0, buffoon. > Now you have told me, this would be the correct equation, while I have > rejected your claim. Why do you avoid E = sqrt(p^*c^2 + m^2*c^4)? Are you just being OCD? > Now your statement hinges on the problem how to multiply zero and infinity. > > Well.... please... > > > TH Get serious! You're acting like a stupid troll.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-01-11 22:06 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <ednl22Fh7cvU1@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #405055 |
Am 11.01.2017 05:30, schrieb Gary Harnagel: >> I tried to prove, the equation E=m*c² is wrong and you try to prove it's >> right. > > It's right for massive particles. I introduced the fully-correct equation > but you seem to have an intentional avoidance issue. > >>> “Being ignorant is not so much a shame, as being unwilling to learn.” >>> -- Benjamin Franklin >> >> No. > > Absolutely true! I see that in YOU. What do you see? Apparently you think, that I don't learn. But that's absolutely wrong. >> Incompetence is not always harmful, only in a position, where competence >> is necessary. > > That depends on what you're incompetent in. If you're incompetent at > living .... No, my competence was not the subject. I replayed to your quote about a better world full of smart people. And I wrote, that smartness alone does not make better people or a better world. >> For instance it is possible to talk about mathematical problems like how >> to multiply infinity in a pub, while drinking beer. >> >> This would disturb a little air and that's it. > > So you never heard of L'Hopital's rule, right? No, actually not. >>>>>>> E = sqrt(p^2*c^2 + m^2*c^4) > > See? There it is again. In my understanding there are two terms, which contain 'm' and that is zero. >>>>>>> which you can derive from gamma*m*c^2. >>>>>> >>>>>> but still m=0. >>>>>> momentum is m times v, >>>>> >>>>> No, it's not. p = gamma*m*v >>>>> >>>>>> hence is still zero. >>>>> >>>>> When you use the wrong equation, you get the wrong answer. >>>> >>>> Now you want to multiply something with zero and get non-zero result. >>> >>> SO you don't understand gamma. It's 1/sqrt(1 - v^2/c^2). What happens >>> when v = c? >> >> >> We would get 1/0 > > No, idiot! We would get 0/0. You keep insisting m = 0, buffoon. Now you say, that dividing zero by zero gives a different result then dividing one by zero. Sorry, but I cannot follow. >> Now you have told me, this would be the correct equation, while I have >> rejected your claim. > > Why do you avoid E = sqrt(p^*c^2 + m^2*c^4)? Are you just being OCD? We had that already. My question was: how do you solve the problem with mass = zero ? You say, that light has momentum, but no mass. I wrote: no, photons and electrons are the same thing. This is what causes the photoelectric effect. And this is why light has momentum. .. TH
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
Page 2 of 5 — ← Prev page 1 [2] 3 4 5 Next page →
Back to top | Article view | sci.physics.relativity
csiph-web