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

Groups > sci.physics > #701112

Re: CAN WE HAVE ENERGY- WITHOUT MASS ??!!

From Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com>
Newsgroups sci.physics
Subject Re: CAN WE HAVE ENERGY- WITHOUT MASS ??!!
Date 2018-09-04 19:30 +0000
Organization Aioe.org NNTP Server
Message-ID <pmmmg4$1kfn$1@gioia.aioe.org> (permalink)
References (6 earlier) <af1e0fba-39d7-4c8f-b926-d42a3a066612@googlegroups.com> <pmma6n$tue$1@gioia.aioe.org> <20d1411e-50eb-42c4-bbe9-08e8addda320@googlegroups.com> <pmmhbm$1b8l$1@gioia.aioe.org> <ec64ebc8-406e-4deb-8f6e-7f9ef6b05c71@googlegroups.com>

Show all headers | View raw

<poraty149@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Tuesday, September 4, 2018 at 9:02:36 PM UTC+3, Odd Bodkin wrote:
>> <poraty149@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> On Tuesday, September 4, 2018 at 7:00:28 PM UTC+3, Odd Bodkin wrote:
>>>> <poraty149@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>> On Monday, September 3, 2018 at 8:22:51 PM UTC+3, Odd Bodkin wrote:
>>>>>> <poraty149@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>> On Monday, September 3, 2018 at 6:15:03 PM UTC+3, Odd Bodkin wrote:
>>>>>>>> <poraty149@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On Sunday, September 2, 2018 at 4:19:26 PM UTC+3, Odd Bodkin wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> <poraty149@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> can we have energy without mass ??!!
>>>>>>>>>>> -----
>>>>>>>>>>> E=m c^2
>>>>>>>>>>> right ??
>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>> Be careful. That is not saying that energy has mass or that mass is energy.
>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>> ===============================you ask me to be careful with mass in energy ?
>>>>>>>>> ("-)
>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>> may be we have to get new eyes !!
>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>> a blind  one can see there 
>>>>>>>>> energy that is done by 
>>>>>>>>> mass s well 
>>>>>>>>> movement 
>>>>>>>>> only an over supper  smarty don t see it
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> Which has nothing to do with E=mc^2. 
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>> that is the problem with you smarties 
>>>>>>>>> you make big efforts  to  be *over smart*
>>>>>>>>> unlike me that i make my best 
>>>>>>>>> to  be as simple as can be  
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> Simple is no cure for being incorrectly informed. 
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>> i think basic  nature as well does it 
>>>>>>>>> basic  nature does not know
>>>>>>>>> your over smarty   mathematics 
>>>>>>>>> and  supper sophistications  
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> Basic nature does what it does, and it s our job to understand what it
>>>>>>>> does. Nature doesn t give a damn what our common sense says, and nature has
>>>>>>>> shown over and over again that our common sense is inadequate for
>>>>>>>> understanding it. 
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> Besides, the mathematics is not that difficult for those young enough and
>>>>>>>> interested enough to learn them. Nor are the ideas of quantum mechanics and
>>>>>>>> fields all that difficult to grasp.
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> =======================================nasty   shameless  crook 
>>>>>>> do you think i am one of your miserable students ?? 
>>>>>>> =E = M C^2
>>>>>>> GOT IT SHAMELESS   CROOK 
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> DO YOU   SEE THAT   M   THERE ?!!!!!!
>>>>>>> do you think that with your mumble jummle 
>>>>>>> =i will say it in  words 
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> ENERGY ENERGY !!- IS EQUAL    TO  MASS !! TIMES C^2
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> It is the energy available from the conversion of rest  mass. It is the
>>>>>> numerical equality between two different kinds of physical quantities.
>>>>> 
>>>>> =======================================> >>> only numerical !???
>>>>> it is numeric   ** times most basic  Dimensions **
>>>> 
>>>> Yes only numerical. 
>>>> 
>>>> Notice that PV/nR has the same basic dimensions as temperature. But none of
>>>> those quantities is a temperature. 
>>>> 
>>>> What I just demonstrated with the ideal gas law is also exactly true for
>>>> E=mc^2. The dimensions of left and right side are the same, but they are
>>>> different physical quantities. 
>>>> 
>>>>>>>>> you know Bodkin
>>>>> half of the truth  is a lie !!
>>>>> don t you know that ?after so many years 
>>>>> i wonder what happened to you 
>>>>> may be it is you who are getting  older ??
>>>>> LIKE SAY 
>>>>> 'the  binding  ***energy** ..of a proton and neutron
>>>>> is say  0.00123.  A M U ... 
>>>>> A M U is in mass 
>>>>> Atomic  mass units A M U 
>>>>> Bodkin
>>>>> you find the wrong man to argue with 
>>>>> TIA
>>>>> Y.P
>>>>> ===================== 
>>> 
>>> and as usual along years !!
>>> while    Bodkin/whatever name  is'' pushed t the corner''
>>> he .........??
>>> disappear!!
>>> nice techniq  .... 
>>> ==> > Y.POrat
>>> ================= 
>>> 
>>> 
>> 
>> Look Porat, I will make a point. Often, this point will illustrate that you
>> dont have much idea what youre talking about. When Ive done that, Im
>> done. 
>> 
>> Im not here to engage with you in a protracted discussion, as most of what
>> you say is either wrong or unintelligible anyway. Im also not here to be
>> counted among those you consider allies or enemies  thats not what this
>> group is for. Finally, you are WAY too interested in personal glory, and my
>> suggestion is to be happy with the accomplishments of your professional
>> career and stop tarnishing it with the foolishness of an old man hungry for
>> fame. 
>> 
>> -- 
>> Odd Bodkin  Maker of fine toys, tools, tables
> 
> ===============do you think that by mumble jumble 
> you can confuse me or anyone else 
> here it is again 

If what I wrote confuses you then you really don’t know what you’re talking
about. 

> =========================if the*** well known binding  ENERGY
> between proton and neutron is say 
> 0.03  A M U 
> AMU in case you dont know 
> is 
> Atomic  **Mass!!!!!!! Unit 

Note that this is an inaccuracy. Energy does not have units AMU. AMU is a
unit of mass. Mass defect can be measured in AMU. Energy shouldn’t be,
because you’re missing a factor of c^2. Now, there are “natural units”
systems where c=1, but those certainly aren’t your beloved MKS system, and
amu is not commonly the unit used for either mass or energy in natural
units. 

You were trained too long ago to make sense of modern notation. 

> so do you see the** mass** there  
> if not
> do you thing you can boggle   others people mind 
> while they know somweth in physics 
> may be a bit better than you know ??!!
> or may be 
> you have not the slightest knowledge about it
> 
> IN PHYSICS !!
> and you turn you ignorance 
> on  someone   else ??
> or may be even you understand nothing about my above explanation ?
> ==TIA
> Y.P
> ===================== 
>  
> 



-- 
Odd Bodkin — Maker of fine toys, tools, tables

Back to sci.physics | Previous | Next — Previous in thread | Next in thread | Find similar | Unroll thread

Thread

CAN WE HAVE ENERGY- WITHOUT MASS  ??!! poraty149@gmail.com - 2018-09-01 20:41 -0700
  Re: CAN WE HAVE ENERGY- WITHOUT MASS  ??!! mitchrae3323@gmail.com - 2018-09-01 20:50 -0700
    Re: CAN WE HAVE ENERGY- WITHOUT MASS  ??!! poraty149@gmail.com - 2018-09-01 21:54 -0700
      Re: CAN WE HAVE ENERGY- WITHOUT MASS  ??!! poraty149@gmail.com - 2018-09-02 00:29 -0700
  CAN WE HAVE ENERGY- WITHOUT MASS  ??!! Arindam Banerjee <banerjeeadda1234@gmail.com> - 2018-09-02 04:36 -0700
  Re: CAN WE HAVE ENERGY- WITHOUT MASS ??!! Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-09-02 13:19 +0000
    Re: CAN WE HAVE ENERGY- WITHOUT MASS ??!! Arindam Banerjee <banerjeeadda1234@gmail.com> - 2018-09-02 06:38 -0700
    Re: CAN WE HAVE ENERGY- WITHOUT MASS ??!! benj <benj.fake@gmail.com> - 2018-09-02 12:22 -0400
    Re: CAN WE HAVE ENERGY- WITHOUT MASS ??!! poraty149@gmail.com - 2018-09-02 11:42 -0700
    Re: CAN WE HAVE ENERGY- WITHOUT MASS ??!! poraty149@gmail.com - 2018-09-03 06:02 -0700
      Re: CAN WE HAVE ENERGY- WITHOUT MASS ??!! Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-09-03 15:14 +0000
        Re: CAN WE HAVE ENERGY- WITHOUT MASS ??!! poraty149@gmail.com - 2018-09-03 10:15 -0700
          Re: CAN WE HAVE ENERGY- WITHOUT MASS ??!! Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-09-03 17:22 +0000
            Re: CAN WE HAVE ENERGY- WITHOUT MASS ??!! poraty149@gmail.com - 2018-09-04 05:30 -0700
              Re: CAN WE HAVE ENERGY- WITHOUT MASS ??!! Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-09-04 16:00 +0000
                Re: CAN WE HAVE ENERGY- WITHOUT MASS ??!! Sergio <invalid@invalid.com> - 2018-09-04 11:35 -0500
                Re: CAN WE HAVE ENERGY- WITHOUT MASS ??!! poraty149@gmail.com - 2018-09-04 10:17 -0700
                Re: CAN WE HAVE ENERGY- WITHOUT MASS ??!! poraty149@gmail.com - 2018-09-04 10:23 -0700
                Re: CAN WE HAVE ENERGY- WITHOUT MASS ??!! Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-09-04 18:02 +0000
                Re: CAN WE HAVE ENERGY- WITHOUT MASS ??!! poraty149@gmail.com - 2018-09-04 11:56 -0700
                Re: CAN WE HAVE ENERGY- WITHOUT MASS ??!! Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-09-04 19:30 +0000
  Re: CAN WE HAVE ENERGY- WITHOUT MASS ??!! Henrietta Foreskineater <invalid@example.com> - 2018-09-02 07:18 -0700
    Re: CAN WE HAVE ENERGY- WITHOUT MASS ??!! benj <benj.fake@gmail.com> - 2018-09-02 12:19 -0400
  Re: CAN WE HAVE ENERGY- WITHOUT MASS  ??!! "reber G=emc^2" <herbertglazier0@gmail.com> - 2018-09-02 13:45 -0700
    Re: CAN WE HAVE ENERGY- WITHOUT MASS  ??!! poraty149@gmail.com - 2018-09-03 01:49 -0700
  Re: CAN WE HAVE ENERGY- WITHOUT MASS  ??!! "reber G=emc^2" <herbertglazier0@gmail.com> - 2018-09-02 13:46 -0700
    Re: CAN WE HAVE ENERGY- WITHOUT MASS  ??!! "hanson" <hanson@quick.net> - 2018-09-02 14:23 -0700
      Re: CAN WE HAVE ENERGY- WITHOUT MASS  ??!! mitchrae3323@gmail.com - 2018-09-02 14:29 -0700

csiph-web