Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > sci.physics > #549040 > unrolled thread
| Started by | Juan Sebastián <jseb@montserrat.info> |
|---|---|
| First post | 2016-01-29 10:43 +0000 |
| Last post | 2016-02-06 10:31 -0800 |
| Articles | 20 on this page of 100 — 13 participants |
Back to article view | Back to sci.physics
Gravity needs NO Matter Juan Sebastián <jseb@montserrat.info> - 2016-01-29 10:43 +0000
Re: Gravity needs NO Matter "Y.Porat" <y.y.porat@gmail.com> - 2016-01-29 03:15 -0800
Re: Gravity needs NO Matter "Reggie Harrison" <invalud@example.com> - 2016-01-29 07:18 -0800
Re: Gravity needs NO Matter john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2016-01-29 07:29 -0800
Re: Gravity needs NO Matter Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-01-29 10:40 -0600
Re: Gravity needs NO Matter HVAC <mr.hvac@gmail.com> - 2016-01-29 08:58 -0800
Re: Gravity needs NO Matter benj <none@gmail.com> - 2016-01-29 12:57 -0500
Re: Gravity needs NO Matter john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2016-01-29 10:16 -0800
Re: Gravity needs NO Matter Mahipal <mahipal7638@gmail.com> - 2016-01-29 10:32 -0800
Re: Gravity needs NO Matter "Reggie Harrison" <invalud@example.com> - 2016-01-30 17:15 -0800
Re: Gravity needs NO Matter Mahipal <mahipal7638@gmail.com> - 2016-01-30 17:37 -0800
Re: Gravity needs NO Matter Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-01-29 14:12 -0600
Re: Gravity needs NO Matter john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2016-01-29 13:39 -0800
Re: Gravity needs NO Matter Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-01-29 15:56 -0600
Re: Gravity needs NO Matter john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2016-01-29 15:31 -0800
Re: Gravity needs NO Matter Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-01-29 17:43 -0600
Re: Gravity needs NO Matter "reber g=emc^2" <herbertglazier0@gmail.com> - 2016-01-29 16:27 -0800
Re: Gravity needs NO Matter Mahipal <mahipal7638@gmail.com> - 2016-01-29 16:50 -0800
Re: Gravity needs NO Matter Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-01-30 12:28 -0600
Re: Gravity needs NO Matter "Y.Porat" <y.y.porat@gmail.com> - 2016-01-29 23:50 -0800
Re: Gravity needs NO Matter "Y.Porat" <y.y.porat@gmail.com> - 2016-01-29 23:41 -0800
Re: Gravity needs NO Matter HVAC <mr.hvac@gmail.com> - 2016-01-30 05:26 -0800
Re: Gravity needs NO Matter benj <none@gmail.com> - 2016-01-30 12:05 -0500
Re: Ben Jacoby's poverty. benj <none@gmail.com> - 2016-01-29 13:58 -0500
Re: Ben Jacoby's poverty. benj <none@gmail.com> - 2016-01-29 14:17 -0500
Re: Ben Jacoby's poverty. Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-01-29 14:44 -0600
Re: Ben Jacoby's poverty. benj <none@gmail.com> - 2016-01-30 02:36 -0500
Re: Gravity needs NO Matter "Y.Porat" <y.y.porat@gmail.com> - 2016-01-29 23:39 -0800
Re: Gravity needs NO Matter Mahipal <mahipal7638@gmail.com> - 2016-01-29 10:05 -0800
Re: Gravity needs NO Matter benj <none@gmail.com> - 2016-01-29 14:15 -0500
Re: Gravity needs NO Matter Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-01-29 07:40 -0600
Re: Gravity needs NO Matter Juan Sebastián <jseb@montserrat.info> - 2016-01-29 13:50 +0000
Re: Gravity needs NO Matter john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2016-01-29 06:06 -0800
Re: Gravity needs NO Matter Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-01-29 08:26 -0600
Re: Gravity needs NO Matter Sam Wormley <swormley1@gmail.com> - 2016-01-29 08:33 -0600
Re: Gravity needs NO Matter john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2016-01-29 07:09 -0800
Re: Gravity needs NO Matter Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-01-29 10:17 -0600
Re: Gravity needs NO Matter "Y.Porat" <y.y.porat@gmail.com> - 2016-01-29 06:27 -0800
Re: Gravity needs NO Matter benj <none@gmail.com> - 2016-01-29 12:22 -0500
Re: Gravity needs NO Matter Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-01-29 11:28 -0600
Re: Gravity needs NO Matter benj <none@gmail.com> - 2016-01-29 13:41 -0500
Re: Gravity needs NO Matter Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-01-29 13:36 -0600
Re: Gravity needs NO Matter benj <none@gmail.com> - 2016-01-30 02:30 -0500
Re: Gravity needs NO Matter "Y.Porat" <y.y.porat@gmail.com> - 2016-01-30 07:20 -0800
Re: Gravity needs NO Matter Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2016-01-30 14:07 +0100
Re: Gravity needs NO Matter Mahipal <mahipal7638@gmail.com> - 2016-01-30 07:21 -0800
Mass (was: Gravity needs NO Matter) Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2016-01-31 19:18 +0100
Re: Mass (was: Gravity needs NO Matter) Mahipal <mahipal7638@gmail.com> - 2016-01-31 13:30 -0800
Re: Mass Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2016-01-31 23:31 +0100
Re: Mass Mahipal <mahipal7638@gmail.com> - 2016-01-31 14:58 -0800
Re: Gravity needs NO Matter "Y.Porat" <y.y.porat@gmail.com> - 2016-01-31 22:03 -0800
Re: Gravity needs NO Matter Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2016-02-01 21:50 +0100
Re: Gravity needs NO Matter "Y.Porat" <y.y.porat@gmail.com> - 2016-02-05 00:14 -0800
Re: Gravity needs NO Matter Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2016-02-05 22:38 +0100
Re: Gravity needs NO Matter "Y.Porat" <y.y.porat@gmail.com> - 2016-02-06 06:34 -0800
Re: Gravity needs NO Matter HVAC <mr.hvac@gmail.com> - 2016-02-06 08:01 -0800
Re: Gravity needs NO Matter Mahipal <mahipal7638@gmail.com> - 2016-02-06 08:42 -0800
Re: Gravity needs NO Matter "Y.Porat" <y.y.porat@gmail.com> - 2016-02-06 10:11 -0800
Re: Gravity needs NO Matter Mahipal <mahipal7638@gmail.com> - 2016-02-06 10:22 -0800
Re: Gravity needs NO Matter "Y.Porat" <y.y.porat@gmail.com> - 2016-02-08 10:39 -0800
Re: Gravity needs NO Matter Mahipal <mahipal7638@gmail.com> - 2016-02-08 11:06 -0800
Re: Gravity needs NO Matter "Y.Porat" <y.y.porat@gmail.com> - 2016-02-08 22:32 -0800
editen sujet noTthaTguY <abu.kuanysh05@gmail.com> - 2016-02-09 10:14 -0800
Re: Gravity needs NO Matter "Y.Porat" <y.y.porat@gmail.com> - 2016-02-06 10:00 -0800
Re: Gravity needs NO Matter Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2016-02-06 17:22 +0100
Re: Gravity needs NO Matter john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2016-02-06 08:41 -0800
Re: Gravity needs NO Matter Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2016-02-06 18:08 +0100
Re: Gravity needs NO Matter john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2016-02-06 09:17 -0800
Re: Gravity needs NO Matter Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2016-02-06 18:25 +0100
Re: Gravity needs NO Matter john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2016-02-06 09:27 -0800
Re: Gravity needs NO Matter "Y.Porat" <y.y.porat@gmail.com> - 2016-02-09 10:45 -0800
Re: Gravity needs NO Matter Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2016-02-09 23:31 +0100
Re: Gravity needs NO Matter "Y.Porat" <y.y.porat@gmail.com> - 2016-02-09 10:41 -0800
Re: Gravity needs NO Matter Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2016-02-09 23:04 +0100
Re: Gravity needs NO Matter "Y.Porat" <y.y.porat@gmail.com> - 2016-02-09 22:37 -0800
Re: Gravity needs NO Matter Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2016-02-10 20:33 +0100
Re: Gravity needs NO Matter Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2016-02-10 20:44 +0100
Re: Gravity needs NO Matter "Y.Porat" <y.y.porat@gmail.com> - 2016-02-10 22:57 -0800
Re: Gravity needs NO Matter Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2016-02-13 19:41 +0100
Re: Gravity needs NO Matter "Y.Porat" <y.y.porat@gmail.com> - 2016-01-30 23:08 -0800
Re: Gravity needs NO Matter john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2016-01-31 06:29 -0800
Re: Gravity needs NO Matter Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-01-31 13:45 -0600
Re: Gravity needs NO Matter Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2016-01-31 23:38 +0100
Re: Gravity needs NO Matter "Y.Porat" <y.y.porat@gmail.com> - 2016-02-10 03:34 -0800
Re: Gravity needs NO Matter Sam Wormley <swormley1@gmail.com> - 2016-01-29 08:13 -0600
Re: Gravity needs NO Matter Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2016-01-29 16:44 +0100
Re: Gravity needs NO Matter "Y.Porat" <y.y.porat@gmail.com> - 2016-01-30 07:25 -0800
edit subjectif noTthaTguY <abu.kuanysh05@gmail.com> - 2016-02-01 13:22 -0800
Re: edit subjectif "reber g=emc^2" <herbertglazier0@gmail.com> - 2016-02-03 12:27 -0800
Re: edit subjectif john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2016-02-03 13:04 -0800
biG and Little pI noTthaTguY <abu.kuanysh05@gmail.com> - 2016-02-03 14:30 -0800
Re: edit subjectif "reber g=emc^2" <herbertglazier0@gmail.com> - 2016-02-03 14:50 -0800
Re: edit subjectif "reber g=emc^2" <herbertglazier0@gmail.com> - 2016-02-08 11:48 -0800
Re: edit subjectif HVAC <mr.hvac@gmail.com> - 2016-02-05 03:32 -0800
Re: Gravity needs NO Matter "Y.Porat" <y.y.porat@gmail.com> - 2016-02-06 06:37 -0800
Re: Gravity needs NO Matter "Y.Porat" <y.y.porat@gmail.com> - 2016-02-09 22:40 -0800
Re: Gravity needs NO Matter "reber g=emc^2" <herbertglazier0@gmail.com> - 2016-01-29 11:48 -0800
Re: Gravity needs NO Matter "Y.Porat" <y.y.porat@gmail.com> - 2016-02-05 00:26 -0800
Re: Gravity needs NO Matter noTthaTguY <abu.kuanysh05@gmail.com> - 2016-02-05 13:39 -0800
Re: Gravity needs NO Matter "Y.Porat" <y.y.porat@gmail.com> - 2016-02-06 10:31 -0800
Page 3 of 5 — ← Prev page 1 2 [3] 4 5 Next page →
| From | benj <none@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-01-29 13:41 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <KnOqy.365591$983.12948@fx06.iad> |
| In reply to | #549115 |
On 01/29/2016 12:28 PM, Odd Bodkin wrote:
> On 1/29/2016 11:22 AM, benj wrote:
>> On 01/29/2016 08:40 AM, Odd Bodkin wrote:
>>> On 1/29/2016 4:43 AM, Juan Sebastián wrote:
>>>> An error, many of them are doing in Relativity, is saying that mass
>>>> (instead of Matter) is bending space and time. However, this
>>>> actually is
>>>> not an error, but essentially a 2nd Order error they are making (an
>>>> Error
>>>> of an Error).
>>>>
>>>> Indeed, the only property of Matter, applicable to this Mysterious
>>>> process
>>>> of Bending space and time, may only be The Mass. This at a first
>>>> cast of
>>>> the eye over, is not significant, but as shown above, is crucial
>>>> understanding Gravity and what is going on.
>>>>
>>>> Shockingly, it means that Matter is NOT necessary to the process of
>>>> bending of space and time.
>>>>
>>>
>>> Matter is defined as a substance having mass and volume. Mass is a
>>> property, not a stuff.
>>>
>> In fact mass is the mathematical coefficient between the acceleration
>> observed in an object and force producing it. It is not even a constant
>> value except at low velocities.
>
> That definition of mass you just described is antiquated and has been
> out of date for I think about 7 decades.
Oh gosh, Boinker. How interesting that fashion is SO important in
science. This is why you always need "authorities" to tell you what is
"in". I presume you have a nice stubbly growth of hair on your face to
be like all your Hollywood heros these days!
So you can't just look at the equation F = ma and notice that m is the
factor between F and a? Are you REALLY that ignorant? Go back to your
wooden toys.
> Mass is invariant and does not change with velocity, in current usage.
But the coefficient between Force and acceleration does. OR don't you
speak math?
>> I'm worried. This sounds like Odd is actually starting to think for
>> himself. This can't be possible.
Sorry, Odd, I jumped to an erroneous conclusion there. Obviously you are
not thinking for yourself yet. Fashion is much too important in your
life. Didn't anyone ever inform you that wooden toys are hundreds of
years out of fashion?
--
___ ___ ___ ___
/\ \ /\ \ /\__\ /\ \
/::\ \ /::\ \ /::| | \:\ \
/:/\:\ \ /:/\:\ \ /:|:| | ___ /::\__\
/::\~\:\__\ /::\~\:\ \ /:/|:| |__ /\ /:/\/__/
/:/\:\ \:|__| /:/\:\ \:\__\ /:/ |:| /\__\ \:\/:/ /
\:\~\:\/:/ / \:\~\:\ \/__/ \/__|:|/:/ / \::/ /
\:\ \::/ / \:\ \:\__\ |:/:/ / \/__/
\:\/:/ / \:\ \/__/ |::/ /
\::/__/ \:\__\ /:/ /
~~ \/__/ \/__/
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-01-29 13:36 -0600 |
| Message-ID | <n8gevh$1t82$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #549164 |
On 1/29/2016 12:41 PM, benj wrote: > On 01/29/2016 12:28 PM, Odd Bodkin wrote: >> On 1/29/2016 11:22 AM, benj wrote: >>> On 01/29/2016 08:40 AM, Odd Bodkin wrote: >>>> On 1/29/2016 4:43 AM, Juan Sebastián wrote: >>>>> An error, many of them are doing in Relativity, is saying that mass >>>>> (instead of Matter) is bending space and time. However, this >>>>> actually is >>>>> not an error, but essentially a 2nd Order error they are making (an >>>>> Error >>>>> of an Error). >>>>> >>>>> Indeed, the only property of Matter, applicable to this Mysterious >>>>> process >>>>> of Bending space and time, may only be The Mass. This at a first >>>>> cast of >>>>> the eye over, is not significant, but as shown above, is crucial >>>>> understanding Gravity and what is going on. >>>>> >>>>> Shockingly, it means that Matter is NOT necessary to the process of >>>>> bending of space and time. >>>>> >>>> >>>> Matter is defined as a substance having mass and volume. Mass is a >>>> property, not a stuff. >>>> >>> In fact mass is the mathematical coefficient between the acceleration >>> observed in an object and force producing it. It is not even a constant >>> value except at low velocities. >> >> That definition of mass you just described is antiquated and has been >> out of date for I think about 7 decades. > > Oh gosh, Boinker. How interesting that fashion is SO important in > science. This is why you always need "authorities" to tell you what is > "in". I presume you have a nice stubbly growth of hair on your face to > be like all your Hollywood heros these days! Well, it's interesting to me, Ben, that you would say that what you learned 7 decades ago is what is still right and that anything that has been learned SINCE then is nothing but fashion. > > So you can't just look at the equation F = ma and notice that m is the > factor between F and a? Are you REALLY that ignorant? Go back to your > wooden toys. Oh, I know what equation you were referring to. There's another equation that you no doubt learned 7 decades ago, and which is of course known to be WRONG. What's ESPECIALLY interesting about that is that Newton himself expressed it in words that are more like F=dp/dt, not F=ma. And Newton's version is right, while the fashion that led to your antiquated education turned it into F=ma. F=ma was then found to be a MISTAKE, and what Newton originally wrote is still correct. > >> Mass is invariant and does not change with velocity, in current usage. > > But the coefficient between Force and acceleration does. OR don't you > speak math? The coefficient between force and acceleration does change. But you called that coefficient mass, and that's not right. > >>> I'm worried. This sounds like Odd is actually starting to think for >>> himself. This can't be possible. > > Sorry, Odd, I jumped to an erroneous conclusion there. Obviously you are > not thinking for yourself yet. Fashion is much too important in your > life. Didn't anyone ever inform you that wooden toys are hundreds of > years out of fashion? Ben, you don't have any family to judge whether wooden toys are out of fashion. If they were out of fashion, nobody would buy them. I get that YOU have no reason to buy them. But you don't represent anybody but you. -- Odd Bodkin --- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | benj <none@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-01-30 02:30 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <tEZqy.226412$_r1.159845@fx24.iad> |
| In reply to | #549193 |
On 01/29/2016 02:36 PM, Odd Bodkin wrote:
> On 1/29/2016 12:41 PM, benj wrote:
>> On 01/29/2016 12:28 PM, Odd Bodkin wrote:
>>> On 1/29/2016 11:22 AM, benj wrote:
>>>> On 01/29/2016 08:40 AM, Odd Bodkin wrote:
>>>>> On 1/29/2016 4:43 AM, Juan Sebastián wrote:
>>>>>> An error, many of them are doing in Relativity, is saying that mass
>>>>>> (instead of Matter) is bending space and time. However, this
>>>>>> actually is
>>>>>> not an error, but essentially a 2nd Order error they are making (an
>>>>>> Error
>>>>>> of an Error).
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Indeed, the only property of Matter, applicable to this Mysterious
>>>>>> process
>>>>>> of Bending space and time, may only be The Mass. This at a first
>>>>>> cast of
>>>>>> the eye over, is not significant, but as shown above, is crucial
>>>>>> understanding Gravity and what is going on.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Shockingly, it means that Matter is NOT necessary to the process of
>>>>>> bending of space and time.
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Matter is defined as a substance having mass and volume. Mass is a
>>>>> property, not a stuff.
>>>>>
>>>> In fact mass is the mathematical coefficient between the acceleration
>>>> observed in an object and force producing it. It is not even a constant
>>>> value except at low velocities.
>>>
>>> That definition of mass you just described is antiquated and has been
>>> out of date for I think about 7 decades.
>>
>> Oh gosh, Boinker. How interesting that fashion is SO important in
>> science. This is why you always need "authorities" to tell you what is
>> "in". I presume you have a nice stubbly growth of hair on your face to
>> be like all your Hollywood heros these days!
>
> Well, it's interesting to me, Ben, that you would say that what you
> learned 7 decades ago is what is still right and that anything that has
> been learned SINCE then is nothing but fashion.
SEVEN DECADES AGO? <snort>!
You anonymous internet clowns are so much fun. Even though I'm not
anonymous, I'm in the phone book and have no CB "Handle", Somehow you
stoners all have this idea of what I am! Lessee. I'm 100 years old, I've
never been married. Have no children. Have no education beyond high
school (some say it's a GED). I work cleaning tables at Burger King. I
believe in ESP and Ghosts and Oh yeah, we can't forget Hanson: I'm
Jewish swine who does his Yiddisher street corner act!
Have I covered all your fantasies. Probably not. Einstein says nothing
is infinite except human stupidity and Lib fantasies.
>> So you can't just look at the equation F = ma and notice that m is the
>> factor between F and a? Are you REALLY that ignorant? Go back to your
>> wooden toys.
>
> Oh, I know what equation you were referring to. There's another equation
> that you no doubt learned 7 decades ago, and which is of course known to
> be WRONG.
>
> What's ESPECIALLY interesting about that is that Newton himself
> expressed it in words that are more like F=dp/dt, not F=ma. And Newton's
> version is right, while the fashion that led to your antiquated
> education turned it into F=ma. F=ma was then found to be a MISTAKE, and
> what Newton originally wrote is still correct.
Newton did not write "your" version. A lot of free interpretation there
after the fact.
>>> Mass is invariant and does not change with velocity, in current usage.
>>
>> But the coefficient between Force and acceleration does. OR don't you
>> speak math?
>
> The coefficient between force and acceleration does change. But you
> called that coefficient mass, and that's not right.
And I call 'empty space" "aether" too. For you it's all in a name and
words isn't it? I'll bet you LOVE explaining the "Trinity" to everyone!
Makes you sound SO intelligent!
>>
>>>> I'm worried. This sounds like Odd is actually starting to think for
>>>> himself. This can't be possible.
>>
>> Sorry, Odd, I jumped to an erroneous conclusion there. Obviously you are
>> not thinking for yourself yet. Fashion is much too important in your
>> life. Didn't anyone ever inform you that wooden toys are hundreds of
>> years out of fashion?
>
> Ben, you don't have any family to judge whether wooden toys are out of
> fashion. If they were out of fashion, nobody would buy them. I get that
> YOU have no reason to buy them. But you don't represent anybody but you.
Oh here we go! Yeah I covered all your fantasies about me above. And yes
I do only represent me, which does not mean I don't have any family.
Which is unlike you and HVAC and the other shills here who represent
those in power and their agenda.
You ignorant libs are a HOOT! All of you together can't even come up
with one clue about reality, but your fantasies are a dime a dozen.
As Hanson says: Thanks for the laughs!
--
___ ___ ___ ___
/\ \ /\ \ /\__\ /\ \
/::\ \ /::\ \ /::| | \:\ \
/:/\:\ \ /:/\:\ \ /:|:| | ___ /::\__\
/::\~\:\__\ /::\~\:\ \ /:/|:| |__ /\ /:/\/__/
/:/\:\ \:|__| /:/\:\ \:\__\ /:/ |:| /\__\ \:\/:/ /
\:\~\:\/:/ / \:\~\:\ \/__/ \/__|:|/:/ / \::/ /
\:\ \::/ / \:\ \:\__\ |:/:/ / \/__/
\:\/:/ / \:\ \/__/ |::/ /
\::/__/ \:\__\ /:/ /
~~ \/__/ \/__/
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Y.Porat" <y.y.porat@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-01-30 07:20 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <56057586-3f3a-4a93-aa4a-ffbd6d6d2567@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #549193 |
On Friday, January 29, 2016 at 9:36:23 PM UTC+2, Odd Bodkin wrote: > On 1/29/2016 12:41 PM, benj wrote: > > On 01/29/2016 12:28 PM, Odd Bodkin wrote: > >> On 1/29/2016 11:22 AM, benj wrote: > >>> On 01/29/2016 08:40 AM, Odd Bodkin wrote: > >>>> On 1/29/2016 4:43 AM, Juan Sebastián wrote: > >>>>> An error, many of them are doing in Relativity, is saying that mass > >>>>> (instead of Matter) is bending space and time. However, this > >>>>> actually is > >>>>> not an error, but essentially a 2nd Order error they are making (an > >>>>> Error > >>>>> of an Error). > >>>>> > >>>>> Indeed, the only property of Matter, applicable to this Mysterious > >>>>> process > >>>>> of Bending space and time, may only be The Mass. This at a first > >>>>> cast of > >>>>> the eye over, is not significant, but as shown above, is crucial > >>>>> understanding Gravity and what is going on. > >>>>> > >>>>> Shockingly, it means that Matter is NOT necessary to the process of > >>>>> bending of space and time. > >>>>> > >>>> > >>>> Matter is defined as a substance having mass and volume. Mass is a > >>>> property, not a stuff. > >>>> > >>> In fact mass is the mathematical coefficient between the acceleration > >>> observed in an object and force producing it. It is not even a constant > >>> value except at low velocities. > >> > >> That definition of mass you just described is antiquated and has been > >> out of date for I think about 7 decades. > > > > Oh gosh, Boinker. How interesting that fashion is SO important in > > science. This is why you always need "authorities" to tell you what is > > "in". I presume you have a nice stubbly growth of hair on your face to > > be like all your Hollywood heros these days! > > Well, it's interesting to me, Ben, that you would say that what you > learned 7 decades ago is what is still right and that anything that has > been learned SINCE then is nothing but fashion. > > > > > So you can't just look at the equation F = ma and notice that m is the > > factor between F and a? Are you REALLY that ignorant? Go back to your > > wooden toys. > > Oh, I know what equation you were referring to. There's another equation > that you no doubt learned 7 decades ago, and which is of course known to > be WRONG. > > What's ESPECIALLY interesting about that is that Newton himself > expressed it in words that are more like F=dp/dt, not F=ma. And Newton's > version is right, while the fashion that led to your antiquated > education turned it into F=ma. F=ma was then found to be a MISTAKE, and > what Newton originally wrote is still correct. > > > > >> Mass is invariant and does not change with velocity, in current usage. > > > > But the coefficient between Force and acceleration does. OR don't you > > speak math? > > The coefficient between force and acceleration does change. But you > called that coefficient mass, and that's not right. > > > > >>> I'm worried. This sounds like Odd is actually starting to think for > >>> himself. This can't be possible. > > > > Sorry, Odd, I jumped to an erroneous conclusion there. Obviously you are > > not thinking for yourself yet. Fashion is much too important in your > > life. Didn't anyone ever inform you that wooden toys are hundreds of > > years out of fashion? > > Ben, you don't have any family to judge whether wooden toys are out of > fashion. If they were out of fashion, nobody would buy them. I get that > YOU have no reason to buy them. But you don't represent anybody but you. > > > -- > Odd Bodkin --- maker of fine toys, tools, tables ======================== imbecile pig blockhead E= hf h contained the kilogram mass so were the hell you see there ANYTHING TO MULTIPLY THAT KILOGRAM BY ZERO OR BY ANY RELATIVISTIC COEFFICIENT???!! HEY Mr anonymous P D a Walking DAMAGE FOR SCIENCE !!! ???? just go on with your wooden head toys and don t disturb advance of science Y.Porat ====================================
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-01-30 14:07 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <1785393.N3ZkzCx3AT@PointedEars.de> |
| In reply to | #549164 |
benj wrote in <news:sci.physics.relativity> and <news:sci.physics>:
> On 01/29/2016 12:28 PM, Odd Bodkin wrote:
>> On 1/29/2016 11:22 AM, benj wrote:
>>> In fact mass is the mathematical coefficient between the acceleration
>>> observed in an object and force producing it. It is not even a constant
>>> value except at low velocities.
>> That definition of mass you just described is antiquated and has been
>> out of date for I think about 7 decades.
>
> Oh gosh, Boinker. How interesting that fashion is SO important in
> science.
Only *you* said “fashion”.
> This is why you always need "authorities" to tell you what is
> "in". I presume you have a nice stubbly growth of hair on your face to
> be like all your Hollywood heros these days!
>
> So you can't just look at the equation F = ma and notice that m is the
> factor between F and a? Are you REALLY that ignorant? Go back to your
> wooden toys.
You just do not realize that the definition of a “relativistic mass” m_rel
that increases with relative speed v according to
E = m_rel c²
m_rel = γm₀ = m₀∕√(1 − (v∕c)²)
was a rather confusing concept (especially to students) that Einstein
himself deprecated later. It is *easier* to consider that what really
increases with relative speed is the total *energy* that an object has (thus
the work that it can do, as its kinetic energy must be increased in order to
put it into relative motion; the total energy in relative motion then also
called “relativistic energy” as opposed to “rest energy”, its energy in its
rest frame), so that there is only mass m = m₀ (previously called “rest
mass”, i.e. the mass of an object in its rest frame), and that the energy–
momentum relation
E = √((mc²)² + (pc)²),
derived from the norm of the four-momentum P⃗ = (E∕c, p⃗), holds both for
objects with non-zero (rest) mass and objects with zero (rest) mass such as
photons, whereas for m > 0 and 0 < v < c
p = γmv = mv∕√(1 − (v∕c)²),
and for photons (m = 0)
p = ℎf∕c
(the momentum p and thus the energy of a photon E = ℎf = pc does not depend
on its speed which is always c, it only depends on the frequency/wavelength
of the light, in agreement with the observations of the photoelectric
effect), while for m > 0 and v = 0 it is *still*
E = mc².
<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mass_in_special_relativity#Relativistic_mass>
>> Mass is invariant and does not change with velocity, in current usage.
>
> But the coefficient between Force and acceleration does.
Actually, in special relativity it does not. What changes is the four-
velocity-dependent four-acceleration:
F⃗ = dP⃗∕dτ = m A
<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Four-force>
> OR don't you speak math?
Do you? I have just given you the history and the *equations* underlying
this definition shift.
Please stop the amok-crossposting. F'up2 sci.physics.relativity set.
PointedEars
--
Q: What did the nuclear physicist post on the laboratory door
when he went camping?
A: 'Gone fission'.
(from: WolframAlpha)
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Mahipal <mahipal7638@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-01-30 07:21 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <742e86a1-ee4e-462a-8940-83a932baad2e@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #549341 |
On Saturday, January 30, 2016 at 8:07:31 AM UTC-5, Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote: > benj wrote in <news:sci.physics.relativity> and <news:sci.physics>: > > > On 01/29/2016 12:28 PM, Odd Bodkin wrote: > >> On 1/29/2016 11:22 AM, benj wrote: > >>> In fact mass is the mathematical coefficient between the acceleration > >>> observed in an object and force producing it. It is not even a constant > >>> value except at low velocities. > >> That definition of mass you just described is antiquated and has been > >> out of date for I think about 7 decades. > > > > Oh gosh, Boinker. How interesting that fashion is SO important in > > science. > > Only *you* said “fashion”. Fashion is just a word. It's fashionable. Why the focus on FASHION? The meaning of fashion Fashion FASHION will be hijacked by evening. Only to repeat hijack its meaning tomorrow. Repeat until silence. I bet there's a math equation to signify/solidify this sentiment mine. > > This is why you always need "authorities" to tell you what is > > "in". I presume you have a nice stubbly growth of hair on your face to > > be like all your Hollywood heros these days! > > > > So you can't just look at the equation F = ma and notice that m is the > > factor between F and a? Are you REALLY that ignorant? Go back to your > > wooden toys. > > You just do not realize that the definition of a “relativistic mass” m_rel > that increases with relative speed v according to > > E = m_rel c² > > m_rel = γm₀ = m₀∕√(1 − (v∕c)²) I have an LatinIshQ Math Equation for “fashionized mass” that will... youKnow. > was a rather confusing concept (especially to students) that Einstein > himself deprecated later. It is *easier* to consider that what really > increases with relative speed is the total *energy* that an object has (thus > the work that it can do, as its kinetic energy must be increased in order to > put it into relative motion; the total energy in relative motion then also > called “relativistic energy” as opposed to “rest energy”, its energy in its > rest frame), so that there is only mass m = m₀ (previously called “rest > mass”, i.e. the mass of an object in its rest frame), and that the energy– > momentum relation > > E = √((mc²)² + (pc)²), > > derived from the norm of the four-momentum P⃗ = (E∕c, p⃗), holds both for > objects with non-zero (rest) mass and objects with zero (rest) mass such as > photons, whereas for m > 0 and 0 < v < c > > p = γmv = mv∕√(1 − (v∕c)²), > > and for photons (m = 0) > > p = ℎf∕c > > (the momentum p and thus the energy of a photon E = ℎf = pc does not depend > on its speed which is always c, it only depends on the frequency/wavelength > of the light, in agreement with the observations of the photoelectric > effect), while for m > 0 and v = 0 it is *still* > > E = mc². > > <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mass_in_special_relativity#Relativistic_mass> > > >> Mass is invariant and does not change with velocity, in current usage. > > > > But the coefficient between Force and acceleration does. > > Actually, in special relativity it does not. What changes is the four- > velocity-dependent four-acceleration: > > F⃗ = dP⃗∕dτ = m A > > <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Four-force> > > > OR don't you speak math? > > Do you? I have just given you the history and the *equations* underlying > this definition shift. We've all seen them equations. Read my lips... There are no new equations! Thomas, there's more to Math than these few equations you focused upon. Thomas 'PointedEars,' my friend, let me depersonalize that sentence above... NFAR: There's more to Math than these few equations focused upon. The domain of Math is not limited to Physics. Because one has used an equation or two, does not mean one grasps Math. > Please stop the amok-crossposting. F'up2 sci.physics.relativity set. Two NGs is gone amok? Glad I stopped crossposting as Google/Alphabet forced me to per their limiting and controlling SW algorithms. Oye... > PointedEars > -- > Q: What did the nuclear physicist post on the laboratory door > when he went camping? > A: 'Gone fission'. > (from: WolframAlpha) Is fission fashionable these times? Wolf wolf WOLF. Ain't nothing but a Sound Dog. Wolf wolf WOLF... me m(y) Elvis impersonation now... -- Mahipal “IPMM... माहिपाल ७६३८: A song to capture my MathIshQ Wow?!”
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-01-31 19:18 +0100 |
| Subject | Mass (was: Gravity needs NO Matter) |
| Message-ID | <1900730.lnHuvmxTpX@PointedEars.de> |
| In reply to | #549366 |
Mahipal wrote:
> On Saturday, January 30, 2016 at 8:07:31 AM UTC-5, Thomas 'PointedEars'
> Lahn wrote:
Attribution _line_, not attribution novel.
>> benj wrote in <news:sci.physics.relativity> and <news:sci.physics>:
>> > On 01/29/2016 12:28 PM, Odd Bodkin wrote:
>> >> On 1/29/2016 11:22 AM, benj wrote:
>> >>> In fact mass is the mathematical coefficient between the acceleration
>> >>> observed in an object and force producing it. It is not even a
>> >>> constant value except at low velocities.
>> >> That definition of mass you just described is antiquated and has been
>> >> out of date for I think about 7 decades.
>> > Oh gosh, Boinker. How interesting that fashion is SO important in
^^^^^^^
>> > science.
>> Only *you* said “fashion”.
^^^^^^^^^^
> Fashion is just a word. It's fashionable.
More than that, the modern concept of (an invariant) “mass” (Okun 1989 [1],
Arons 1990 [2], Taylor & Wheeler 1992 [3]) is much easier to understand and
much more useful than the original concepts of “rest mass” and “relativistic
mass”.
And I stand corrected: Einstein had never used the term “mass” other than as
“rest mass”. He only later (1948) actively advocated to avoid the (now-
outdated) concepts that had been introduced by others (Lewis & Tolman 1909,
Tolman 1912 and 1934):
,-
<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mass_in_special_relativity#Relativistic_mass>
|
| It is not good to introduce the concept of the mass M = m/\sqrt{1 -
| v^2/c^2} of a moving body for which no clear definition can be given.
| It is better to introduce no other mass concept than the ’rest mass’ m.
| Instead of introducing M it is better to mention the expression for the
| momentum and energy of a body in motion.
| — Albert Einstein in letter to Lincoln Barnett, 19 June 1948
| (quote from L. B. Okun (1989), p. 42[1])
[1] L. B. Okun (1989), "The Concept of Mass" (PDF), Physics Today 42 (6):
31–36, Bibcode:1989PhT....42f..31O, doi:10.1063/1.881171
[2] A.B. Arons (1990). “A Guide to Introductory Physics Teaching”. p. 263.
Also in “Teaching Introductory Physics”, 2001, p. 308.
[3] E. F. Taylor, J. A. Wheeler (1992), Spacetime Physics, second edition,
New York: W.H. Freeman and Company, pp. 248–249, ISBN 0-7167-2327-1.
> Why the focus on FASHION?
Why, indeed?
> The meaning of fashion Fashion FASHION will be hijacked by evening.
> Only to repeat hijack its meaning tomorrow. Repeat until silence. I
> bet there's a math equation to signify/solidify this sentiment mine.
You are gibbering. Please take your pills.
>> > OR don't you speak math?
>>
>> Do you? I have just given you the history and the *equations* underlying
>> this definition shift.
>
> We've all seen them equations.
Apparently not.
> Read my lips... There are no new equations!
There are new equations, but not these.
> Thomas, there's more to Math than these few equations you focused upon.
>
> Thomas 'PointedEars,' my friend, let me depersonalize that sentence
> above...
When you are blathering nonsense like that I would rather you not consider
me your friend. I would certainly not consider you my friend then: I prefer
my friends to be *intelligent* people who are thinking *clearly* – not
gibbering fools.
> NFAR: There's more to Math than these few equations focused upon.
What are you blathering about? I only demonstrated the usefulness of the
concept of “(invariant) mass” as opposed to “rest mass” and “relativistic
mass”.
> The domain of Math is not limited to Physics.
Of course not. Nobody claimed that it were.
> Because one has used an equation or two, does not mean one grasps Math.
Understanding math is not the issue here; physics and ways to explain
(special) relativity are. In physics, math is a tool.
The concept of invariant mass, which leads to the concepts of rest energy
(when v = 0) and total energy in motion (0 < v ≤ c), can be applied so that
conservation of momentum holds in all reference frames. The obsolete
concept of a “relativistic mass” that changes with velocity cannot,
therefore too it was abolished.
>> Please stop the amok-crossposting. F'up2 sci.physics.relativity set.
>
> Two NGs is gone amok? Glad I stopped crossposting as Google/Alphabet
> forced me to per their limiting and controlling SW algorithms. Oye...
You stopped crossposting (good) but you posted to the wrong newsgroup (bad).
I think that this was not Google’s (Alphabet is just the umbrella company,
you are still just a Google customer when you are using Google Groups), but
your doing. I wrote “F'up2 sci.physics.*relativity*” for a reason. F'up2
*there* again. Please observe that.
> […]
> Is fission fashionable these times? Wolf wolf WOLF. Ain't nothing but
> a Sound Dog. Wolf wolf WOLF... me m(y) Elvis impersonation now...
^^^^^
That’s “_Hound_ Dog”: <https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MMmljYkdr-w>
And will you *please* take your pills?
(I would adjust your score now, but the Googlodyte filter was engaged
already, so I only see your replies to my postings. Please do not post
more such nonsense and force me to adjust your score separately.)
PointedEars
--
Q: Who's on the case when the electricity goes out?
A: Sherlock Ohms.
(from: WolframAlpha)
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Mahipal <mahipal7638@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-01-31 13:30 -0800 |
| Subject | Re: Mass (was: Gravity needs NO Matter) |
| Message-ID | <cff05814-c4fd-43d7-b7d0-018c88587225@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #549552 |
On Sunday, January 31, 2016 at 1:18:10 PM UTC-5, Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote:
> Mahipal wrote:
>
> > On Saturday, January 30, 2016 at 8:07:31 AM UTC-5, Thomas 'PointedEars'
> > Lahn wrote:
>
> Attribution _line_, not attribution novel.
Too many words? My bad.
> >> benj wrote in <news:sci.physics.relativity> and <news:sci.physics>:
> >> > On 01/29/2016 12:28 PM, Odd Bodkin wrote:
> >> >> On 1/29/2016 11:22 AM, benj wrote:
> >> >>> In fact mass is the mathematical coefficient between the acceleration
> >> >>> observed in an object and force producing it. It is not even a
> >> >>> constant value except at low velocities.
> >> >> That definition of mass you just described is antiquated and has been
> >> >> out of date for I think about 7 decades.
> >> > Oh gosh, Boinker. How interesting that fashion is SO important in
> ^^^^^^^
> >> > science.
> >> Only *you* said “fashion”.
> ^^^^^^^^^^
> > Fashion is just a word. It's fashionable.
>
> More than that, the modern concept of (an invariant) “mass” (Okun 1989 [1],
> Arons 1990 [2], Taylor & Wheeler 1992 [3]) is much easier to understand and
> much more useful than the original concepts of “rest mass” and “relativistic
> mass”.
>
> And I stand corrected: Einstein had never used the term “mass” other than as
> “rest mass”. He only later (1948) actively advocated to avoid the (now-
> outdated) concepts that had been introduced by others (Lewis & Tolman 1909,
> Tolman 1912 and 1934):
>
> ,-
> <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mass_in_special_relativity#Relativistic_mass>
> |
> | It is not good to introduce the concept of the mass M = m/\sqrt{1 -
> | v^2/c^2} of a moving body for which no clear definition can be given.
> | It is better to introduce no other mass concept than the ’rest mass’ m.
> | Instead of introducing M it is better to mention the expression for the
> | momentum and energy of a body in motion.
> | — Albert Einstein in letter to Lincoln Barnett, 19 June 1948
> | (quote from L. B. Okun (1989), p. 42[1])
>
> [1] L. B. Okun (1989), "The Concept of Mass" (PDF), Physics Today 42 (6):
> 31–36, Bibcode:1989PhT....42f..31O, doi:10.1063/1.881171
> [2] A.B. Arons (1990). “A Guide to Introductory Physics Teaching”. p. 263.
> Also in “Teaching Introductory Physics”, 2001, p. 308.
> [3] E. F. Taylor, J. A. Wheeler (1992), Spacetime Physics, second edition,
> New York: W.H. Freeman and Company, pp. 248–249, ISBN 0-7167-2327-1.
John A. Wheeler was a good personal friend of mine back in the 1990s.
Then he JAW died, I hate that. One of the kindest men one ever could be.
> > Why the focus on FASHION?
>
> Why, indeed?
>
> > The meaning of fashion Fashion FASHION will be hijacked by evening.
> > Only to repeat hijack its meaning tomorrow. Repeat until silence. I
> > bet there's a math equation to signify/solidify this sentiment mine.
>
> You are gibbering. Please take your pills.
What pills? That I talk too much, I attribute to being prolific. If
your attention span is Twitter limited, then you know where to go.
> >> > OR don't you speak math?
> >>
> >> Do you? I have just given you the history and the *equations* underlying
> >> this definition shift.
> >
> > We've all seen them equations.
>
> Apparently not.
Why Thomas? Only you have access to actual real math books?
> > Read my lips... There are no new equations!
>
> There are new equations, but not these.
Until new Axioms are realized, there are no new equations. IMO.
I am allowed to have an opinion or you Thomas will get offended?!
> > Thomas, there's more to Math than these few equations you focused upon.
> >
> > Thomas 'PointedEars,' my friend, let me depersonalize that sentence
> > above...
>
> When you are blathering nonsense like that I would rather you not consider
> me your friend. I would certainly not consider you my friend then: I prefer
> my friends to be *intelligent* people who are thinking *clearly* – not
> gibbering fools.
Well, despite my style, I hope you learn not to remain so dense, Thomas.
> > NFAR: There's more to Math than these few equations focused upon.
>
> What are you blathering about? I only demonstrated the usefulness of the
> concept of “(invariant) mass” as opposed to “rest mass” and “relativistic
> mass”.
>
> > The domain of Math is not limited to Physics.
>
> Of course not. Nobody claimed that it were.
Then Thomas change your fucking writing style/habit/fashion/whatever.
> > Because one has used an equation or two, does not mean one grasps Math.
>
> Understanding math is not the issue here; physics and ways to explain
> (special) relativity are. In physics, math is a tool.
Yes. So is not limiting one's physics study to relativity alone at s.p.r.!
> The concept of invariant mass, which leads to the concepts of rest energy
> (when v = 0) and total energy in motion (0 < v ≤ c), can be applied so that
> conservation of momentum holds in all reference frames. The obsolete
> concept of a “relativistic mass” that changes with velocity cannot,
> therefore too it was abolished.
Abolised? If you say so. Sure. Lighten up Thomas.
> >> Please stop the amok-crossposting. F'up2 sci.physics.relativity set.
> >
> > Two NGs is gone amok? Glad I stopped crossposting as Google/Alphabet
> > forced me to per their limiting and controlling SW algorithms. Oye...
>
> You stopped crossposting (good) but you posted to the wrong newsgroup (bad).
> I think that this was not Google’s (Alphabet is just the umbrella company,
> you are still just a Google customer when you are using Google Groups), but
> your doing. I wrote “F'up2 sci.physics.*relativity*” for a reason. F'up2
> *there* again. Please observe that.
How is that follow-up setting thing working for you? Last I read...
No thank you Thomas. I can't post to s.p.r. since... The Incident.
No I don't want to talk about it and novels are not your thing.
> > […]
> > Is fission fashionable these times? Wolf wolf WOLF. Ain't nothing but
> > a Sound Dog. Wolf wolf WOLF... me m(y) Elvis impersonation now...
> ^^^^^
> That’s “_Hound_ Dog”: <https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MMmljYkdr-w>
Of course it's Hound, that's what makes Sound sound funny! Lighten up!
Why must you ruin my joke PointedEars Thomas?! Have a beer and relax.
> And will you *please* take your pills?
I don't do pills. Check my HIPPA records. Three clicks to the right.
> (I would adjust your score now, but the Googlodyte filter was engaged
> already, so I only see your replies to my postings. Please do not post
> more such nonsense and force me to adjust your score separately.)
There exist easier ways to ignore me on Usenet or on the streets.
>
> PointedEars
> --
> Q: Who's on the case when the electricity goes out?
> A: Sherlock Ohms.
>
> (from: WolframAlpha)
How can you post that joke while not getting Sound from Hound?!
-- Mahipal “IPMM... माहिपाल ७६३८: Thomas, see the light. Duck!”
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-01-31 23:31 +0100 |
| Subject | Re: Mass |
| Message-ID | <15475734.LklI9sxiP4@PointedEars.de> |
| In reply to | #549588 |
Mahipal wrote: > On Sunday, January 31, 2016 at 1:18:10 PM UTC-5, Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn > wrote: >> Mahipal wrote: >> > On Saturday, January 30, 2016 at 8:07:31 AM UTC-5, Thomas 'PointedEars' >> > Lahn wrote: >> Attribution _line_, not attribution novel. > > Too many words? My bad. Not too many words, but superfluous information. Most of it is in the header already. >> > The meaning of fashion Fashion FASHION will be hijacked by evening. >> > Only to repeat hijack its meaning tomorrow. Repeat until silence. I >> > bet there's a math equation to signify/solidify this sentiment mine. >> You are gibbering. Please take your pills. > > What pills? Those that prevent you from further posting like a gibbering fool, hopefully. > That I talk too much, I attribute to being prolific. I don’t. > If your attention span is Twitter limited, then you know where to go. My attention span is not limited at all; you are just blathering utter nonsense. >> >> > OR don't you speak math? >> >> Do you? I have just given you the history and the *equations* >> >> underlying this definition shift. >> > We've all seen them equations. >> Apparently not. > > Why Thomas? Had “benj” already seen the equations that I posted, there would have been no doubt in their mind that invariant mass is not mere fashion, and they would not have blathered about “speaking math”. > Only you have access to actual real math books? Again, math is not the issue here. >> > Read my lips... There are no new equations! >> There are new equations, but not these. > > Until new Axioms are realized, there are no new equations. IMO. > I am allowed to have an opinion or you Thomas will get offended?! You are allowed to have an opinion, but your opinion is not necessarily correct or makes sense. In this case, it does not make *any* sense, *again*. >> When you are blathering nonsense like that I would rather you not >> consider me your friend. I would certainly not consider you my friend >> then: I prefer my friends to be *intelligent* people who are thinking >> *clearly* – not gibbering fools. > > Well, despite my style, I hope you learn not to remain so dense, Thomas. I have no idea what that is supposed to mean, but it reads like an insult. >> > NFAR: There's more to Math than these few equations focused upon. >> What are you blathering about? I only demonstrated the usefulness of the >> concept of “(invariant) mass” as opposed to “rest mass” and “relativistic >> mass”. >> >> > The domain of Math is not limited to Physics. >> Of course not. Nobody claimed that it were. > > Then Thomas change your fucking writing style/habit/fashion/whatever. I have a better idea: I add you to my killfile instead as you are apparently just a gibbering, foul-mouthed Google Groups troll. Then you can blather as much nonsense as you want, as many insults as you want, without me being aware of it and further wasting my precious free time. How about that? And which part of “please post to the newsgroup that I set Followup-To” did you not understand? > [tl;dr] F'up2 poster PointedEars -- Q: How many theoretical physicists specializing in general relativity does it take to change a light bulb? A: Two: one to hold the bulb and one to rotate the universe. (from: WolframAlpha)
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Mahipal <mahipal7638@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-01-31 14:58 -0800 |
| Subject | Re: Mass |
| Message-ID | <56d89eba-42a0-41b8-b679-7f5c82ec0381@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #549597 |
On Sunday, January 31, 2016 at 5:32:02 PM UTC-5, Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote:
> Mahipal wrote:
>
> > On Sunday, January 31, 2016 at 1:18:10 PM UTC-5, Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn
> > wrote:
> >> Mahipal wrote:
> >> > On Saturday, January 30, 2016 at 8:07:31 AM UTC-5, Thomas 'PointedEars'
> >> > Lahn wrote:
> >> Attribution _line_, not attribution novel.
> >
> > Too many words? My bad.
>
> Not too many words, but superfluous information. Most of it is in the
> header already.
So what? Bits are abundant and are better to use accurately than not@all.
> >> > The meaning of fashion Fashion FASHION will be hijacked by evening.
> >> > Only to repeat hijack its meaning tomorrow. Repeat until silence. I
> >> > bet there's a math equation to signify/solidify this sentiment mine.
> >> You are gibbering. Please take your pills.
> >
> > What pills?
>
> Those that prevent you from further posting like a gibbering fool,
> hopefully.
Can you write me a prescription PointedEars One Thomas?
> > That I talk too much, I attribute to being prolific.
>
> I don’t.
You have no sense of humour either despite your stolen sig lines.
> > If your attention span is Twitter limited, then you know where to go.
>
> My attention span is not limited at all; you are just blathering utter
> nonsense.
Whereas you Thomas are the font of knowledge! So cute. Grow up!
> >> >> > OR don't you speak math?
> >> >> Do you? I have just given you the history and the *equations*
> >> >> underlying this definition shift.
> >> > We've all seen them equations.
> >> Apparently not.
> >
> > Why Thomas?
>
> Had “benj” already seen the equations that I posted, there would have been
> no doubt in their mind that invariant mass is not mere fashion, and they
> would not have blathered about “speaking math”.
No need to quote benj. He is Ben Jacoby. Always has been. A godsend to boot.
> > Only you have access to actual real math books?
>
> Again, math is not the issue here.
No it's not, only your many defintions of quoted mass.
> >> > Read my lips... There are no new equations!
> >> There are new equations, but not these.
> >
> > Until new Axioms are realized, there are no new equations. IMO.
> > I am allowed to have an opinion or you Thomas will get offended?!
>
> You are allowed to have an opinion, but your opinion is not necessarily
> correct or makes sense. In this case, it does not make *any* sense,
> *again*.
Only you Thomas can make sense. Enjoy your ignorance.
> >> When you are blathering nonsense like that I would rather you not
> >> consider me your friend. I would certainly not consider you my friend
> >> then: I prefer my friends to be *intelligent* people who are thinking
> >> *clearly* – not gibbering fools.
> >
> > Well, despite my style, I hope you learn not to remain so dense, Thomas.
>
> I have no idea what that is supposed to mean, but it reads like an insult.
It was meant as friendly advice. Sorry for the missing emoticon, Spock.
> >> > NFAR: There's more to Math than these few equations focused upon.
> >> What are you blathering about? I only demonstrated the usefulness of the
> >> concept of “(invariant) mass” as opposed to “rest mass” and “relativistic
> >> mass”.
> >>
> >> > The domain of Math is not limited to Physics.
> >> Of course not. Nobody claimed that it were.
> >
> > Then Thomas change your fucking writing style/habit/fashion/whatever.
>
> I have a better idea: I add you to my killfile instead as you are apparently
> just a gibbering, foul-mouthed Google Groups troll. Then you can blather as
> much nonsense as you want, as many insults as you want, without me being
> aware of it and further wasting my precious free time. How about that?
Given what you wrote first, calling me foul-mouthed is rather
expected. Go ahead, kill-file me, it's your loss my friend afterall.
> And which part of “please post to the newsgroup that I set Followup-To” did
> you not understand?
Which part of I don't do s.p.r. did you not get?
> > [tl;dr]
>
>
> F'up2 poster
>
> PointedEars
> --
> Q: How many theoretical physicists specializing in general relativity
> does it take to change a light bulb?
> A: Two: one to hold the bulb and one to rotate the universe.
> (from: WolframAlpha)
-- Mahipal “IPMM... माहिपाल ७६३८: Grow up and write your own sig lines.”
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Y.Porat" <y.y.porat@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-01-31 22:03 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <3a9a2f6f-7601-41de-8004-e36b9f8df0e7@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #549341 |
On Saturday, January 30, 2016 at 3:07:31 PM UTC+2, Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote: > benj wrote in <news:sci.physics.relativity> and <news:sci.physics>: > > > On 01/29/2016 12:28 PM, Odd Bodkin wrote: > >> On 1/29/2016 11:22 AM, benj wrote: > >>> In fact mass is the mathematical coefficient between the acceleration > >>> observed in an object and force producing it. It is not even a constant > >>> value except at low velocities. > >> That definition of mass you just described is antiquated and has been > >> out of date for I think about 7 decades. > > > > Oh gosh, Boinker. How interesting that fashion is SO important in > > science. > > Only *you* said “fashion”. > > > This is why you always need "authorities" to tell you what is > > "in". I presume you have a nice stubbly growth of hair on your face to > > be like all your Hollywood heros these days! > > > > So you can't just look at the equation F = ma and notice that m is the > > factor between F and a? Are you REALLY that ignorant? Go back to your > > wooden toys. > > You just do not realize that the definition of a “relativistic mass” m_rel > that increases with relative speed v according to >======================================= > E = m_rel c² =================================== i can write m babayaga c^2 as well as you write m rel why not?? the paper can suffer anything you mumble on it -------- > m_rel = γm₀ = m₀∕√(1 − (v∕c)²) while (1 − (v∕c)² you get while v = c you get infinity !! do you understand what is it so please open your hears whidly ITIS UNDEFINED !!! got it parrot UN DEFINED EVEN MATHEMATICALLY !! ------- > > was a rather confusing concept (especially to students) that Einstein > himself deprecated later. It is *easier* to consider that what really > increases with relative speed is the total *energy* --------- common man =====that is your private story !! that an object has (thus > the work that it can do, as its kinetic energy must be increased in order to > put it into relative motion; the total energy in relative motion then also > called “relativistic energy” as opposed to “rest energy”, its energy in its > rest frame), so that there is only mass m = m₀ (previously called “rest > mass”, i.e. the mass of an object in its rest frame), and that the energy– > momentum relation > > E = √((mc²)² + (pc)²), ================================ another stupidity cheating !! THAT FORMULA IS FOR - LISTEN CAREFULLY PARROT IT IS FOR A **MIXTURE* OF ENERGY PLUS PARTICLES !! 2 where do you see in m of momentum anything relativistic ??? any relativistic coefficient ??? ===== > > derived from the norm of the four-momentum P⃗ = (E∕c, p⃗), holds both for > objects with non-zero (rest) mass and objects with zero (rest) mass such as > photons, whereas for m > 0 and 0 < v < c > > p = γmv = mv∕√(1 − (v∕c)²), ============================= that is as well your mathematical cheating ie one cheating based on another same cheating > > and for photons (m = 0) ======================= imbecileparrot see the formula for photon energy: E=hf that was found experimentally 5 years before any relativity!! see the dimensions of h it includes MASS (KILOGRAM ) SO WHERE THE FUCK YOU SEE IN THAT hf ANYTHING TO MULTIPLY THOSE KILOGRAMS BY ANYTHING RELATIVISTIC OR BY ZERO ?? enough is enough with HARMFUL stupidity!! old copyright Eng Yehiel Porat ===========================
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-02-01 21:50 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <2432664.KxaQKCeqG6@PointedEars.de> |
| In reply to | #549634 |
Y.Porat wrote in <news:sci.physics>: > On Saturday, January 30, 2016 at 3:07:31 PM UTC+2, Thomas 'PointedEars' > Lahn wrote: Attribution _line_, not attribution novel. >> benj wrote in <news:sci.physics.relativity> and <news:sci.physics>: >> > This is why you always need "authorities" to tell you what is >> > "in". I presume you have a nice stubbly growth of hair on your face to >> > be like all your Hollywood heros these days! >> > >> > So you can't just look at the equation F = ma and notice that m is the >> > factor between F and a? Are you REALLY that ignorant? Go back to your >> > wooden toys. >> >> You just do not realize that the definition of a “relativistic mass” >> m_rel that increases with relative speed v according to >>======================================= I did not post those delimiters; you have forged the quotation. >> E = m_rel c² > =================================== > i can write > m babayaga c^2 > as well as you write > m rel I wrote “m_rel” instead, the underscore indicating a following subscript. > why not?? > the paper can suffer anything you mumble on it The symbols that I have used have a specific meaning, though, and that meaning differs as the symbols differ (as it should be). AISB, m_rel specifies the previous, now-obsolete, concept of a velocity-dependent (not invariant) relativistic mass. Besides, “babayaga” as-is is not an appropriate symbol in a physics equation as there would always be doubt whether it would be equivalent to b²a⁴yg. > -------- >> m_rel = γm₀ = m₀∕√(1 − (v∕c)²) > while (1 − (v∕c)² > you get while v = c > you get infinity !! Not quite; the value for m_rel *approaches* infinity (m_rel → ∞) as v *approaches* c (v → c), and m_rel is not defined at v = c. You also get that with the aforementioned (and futher below expanded) equation for relativistic momentum, p = γ m v = m v∕√(1 − (v∕c)²). One of the conclusions from special relativity is that no object with m = m₀ > 0 can move at c as for that it would have to be supplied with an infinite amount of extra energy. It can be seen even better in the equation for relativistic kinetic energy, E_k = m γ c² − m c² = m c²∕√(1 − (v/c)²) − m c² where m c²∕√(1 − (v/c)²) → ∞ as v → c. So, IOW, “the work expended accelerating an object [with non-zero mass; the ed.] from rest approaches infinity as the velocity approaches the speed of light.” <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kinetic_energy#Relativistic_kinetic_energy_of_rigid_bodies> > […] >> was a rather confusing concept (especially to students) that Einstein >> himself deprecated later. It is *easier* to consider that what really >> increases with relative speed is the total *energy* > --------- > common man Did you mean to write “come on, man” instead? > =====that is your private story !! No, it is not. Read the quotations that I posted and follow the references. [repaired quotation] >> that an object has (thus the work that it can do, as its kinetic energy >> must be increased in order to put it into relative motion; the total >> energy in relative motion then also called “relativistic energy” as >> opposed to “rest energy”, its energy in its rest frame), so that there is >> only mass m = m₀ (previously called “rest mass”, i.e. the mass of an >> object in its rest frame), and that the energy– momentum relation >> >> E = √((mc²)² + (pc)²), > ================================ > another stupidity cheating !! There is no cheating, see e.g. <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Energy%E2%80%93momentum_relation#Norm_of_the_four-momentum>. > THAT FORMULA IS FOR - > LISTEN CAREFULLY PARROT Your Shift key appears to be stuck. > IT IS FOR A **MIXTURE* OF ENERGY PLUS PARTICLES !! Nonsense. Energy is a *property* of a physical object such as a particle; it is not a separate entity. Every physical object has an energy; objects that have non-zero mass have a rest energy in their rest frame of reference. When they are moving, that is, when their velocity relative to a frame of reference that is not co-moving with them is not zero, and so their momentum is not zero, they have gained kinetic energy for an observer whose rest frame is that frame of reference. > 2 > where do you see in m of momentum > anything relativistic ??? > any relativistic coefficient ??? See below. > ===== >> >> derived from the norm of the four-momentum P⃗ = (E∕c, p⃗), holds both for >> objects with non-zero (rest) mass and objects with zero (rest) mass such >> as photons, whereas for m > 0 and 0 < v < c >> >> p = γmv = mv∕√(1 − (v∕c)²), > ============================= > that is as well your mathematical cheating > ie > one cheating based on another same cheating There is no cheating. γ (\gamma) is the Lorentz factor, *the* "relativistic coefficient". In full (and less ambiguous), the above is: p = γ m v γ = 1∕√(1 − (v∕c)²) p = 1∕√(1 − (v∕c)²) × mv p = m v∕√(1 − (v∕c)²). ∎ >> and for photons (m = 0) > ======================= > imbecileparrot > see the formula for photon energy: > E=hf > that was found experimentally 5 years before any relativity!! One of the good things about special relativity is that it confirms Planck’s equations (and probably Einstein would not have published “On the Electrodynamics of Moving Bodies” and subsequent works on special relativity like this if he had found that Minkowski spacetime would not support Planck’s quantum idea that he [Einstein] just confirmed about three months earlier in “On a Heuristic Viewpoint Concerning the Production and Transformation of Light”). Let us assume that the energy–momentum relation E = √((m c²)² + (p c)²) (1) holds for all physical objects. For a photon, we know that p = ℎ f∕c, (2) and we assume for it m := 0. (3) Applying (2) and (3) to (1) yields E = √((0 × c²)² + (ℎ f∕c × c)²) E = √(0 + (ℎ f)²) E = √(ℎ f)² E = ℎ f. ∎ (Planck–Einstein relation) One can also easily see that for a photon E = ℎ f = p c. F'up2 sci.physics.relativity PointedEars -- Two neutrinos go through a bar ... (from: WolframAlpha)
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Y.Porat" <y.y.porat@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-02-05 00:14 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <dbe6360d-1fa1-4da8-a698-92199304bc89@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #549795 |
On Monday, February 1, 2016 > -- > Two neutrinos go through a bar ... > > (from: WolframAlpha) ===================================== ======================================= you are a common parrot manipulator !! if V= c gamma becomes undefined ***even mathematically**!! and you jangler manipulations want help you!! you cant fish in dirty water !! 2 in that case see the formula E=hf photon Energy it was found EXPERIMENTALLY 5 YEARS BEFORE RELATIVITY !!! Planck didn t use any F en relativistic entity/TOOL to define it EXPERIMENTALLY ---- h has the Kilogram dimension !!!!! GOT IT ??!!! and nothing F en relativistic there nor anything to multiply it by zero!! Epstein was wrong by claiming that NO MASS CAN REACH c MASS OF PHOTONS DOES IT !!! the mass of the photon is an exception to the rule that no mass can reach c you can see even by experimental EVIDENCE that as MASS COMES becomes smaller and smaller IT CAN REACH -CLOSER AND CLOSER TO C !!!! old copyright by me 2 ============================================= NO MASS THE ONLY *** MASS - NO REAL PHYSICS !! ================================================ please don t forget who is the father of that important historical most basic physical assertion !! it can save tone on tons of physics bublings and save a wast of a huge amount of** ****precious**human resources !!! and lead to some new useful physics TIA Y.Porat ===================================
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-02-05 22:38 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <18188435.ipTnd2qW7E@PointedEars.de> |
| In reply to | #550629 |
Y.Porat wrote:
> On Monday, February 1, 2016 > --
>> Two neutrinos go through a bar ...
>>
>> (from: WolframAlpha)
What you are quoting here is a (randomly selected) Usenet signature. You
are not referring to it in your follow-up, so you should not have quoted it.
As you should not quote anything that you are *not* referring to, while you
should quote *everything* that you *are* referring to, even if you have to
shorten it. Simply omitting relevant quotations as you did (and replacing
them with irrelevant ones) is _not_ appropriate discussion style.
> =====================================
> =======================================
Please don’t.
> you are a common parrot manipulator !!
I have no idea what that is supposed to mean, but evidentially you are a
name-caller, and not a very good one at that.
> if V= c
That’s _v_ (lowercase letter) in the equation that I have posted (and you
have not quoted).
> gamma becomes undefined ***even mathematically**!!
The equation in my posting that you are referring to is either the equation
for the momentum of objects whose mass is *not zero* –
p = m v∕√(1 − (v∕c)²); m ≠ 0(!)
^^^^^^^^
– or the equation for the kinetic energy of *such* objects –
E_k = m c²∕√(1 − (v∕c)²) − m c²; m ≠ 0(!)
^^^^^^^^
[Why? You subtract from the total energy that such an object has in
relative motion the energy that it has *at relative rest*, E = m c².]
–, so *neither applies to photons* as *photons have mass zero* (m = 0) and
(the magnitude of) their momentum is
p = ℏ k = ℎ∕λ = ℎ f∕c
instead (where ℏ = ℎ∕2π, k = |k⃗| = 2π∕λ is the wave number, k⃗ is the wave
vector, λ is the wavelength, and f is the wave’s frequency). As I have said
multiple times now (as if it would not be self-evident to all who can read),
*the velocity v does not feature in the momentum equation for photons*, nor
does their zero mass. Why? Photons *always* travel at c.
However, the energy–momentum relation from special relativity that I
posted –
E = √((m c²)² + (p c)²)
– is supposed to apply to *all* physical objects. It depends only on their
mass m and on their *object-specific* momentum p (since c is a constant).
As a function of mass and momentum then, and with explicit multiplication
sign, you can write it
E(m, p) = √((m × c²)² + (p × c)²).
Photons have m = 0 and p = ℏ k = ℎ∕λ = ℎ f∕c, so they have energy
E(0, p) = √(p × c)² = p × c = ℎ f∕c × c = ℎ f
which confirms _Einstein’s_ prior observations and reasoning about the
photoelectric effect.
What is so difficult for you to understand about that?
> and you jangler manipulations want help you!!
> you cant fish in dirty water !!
Gibberish.
> 2
> in that case
> see the formula
> E=hf photon Energy
> it was found EXPERIMENTALLY 5 YEARS BEFORE RELATIVITY !!!
Can’t you read? Your claim is *wrong*; it was _Einstein_ who found that
"formula" “experimentally” _in 1905_, _only three months_ before he
published the first paper on special relativity.
Planck did find and present in 1900 to the Deutsche Physikalische
Gesellschaft (German Society of Physics) a radiation law that featured ℎ (of
which sources that I have not confirmed yet say that was chosen as an
abbreviation for German „Hilfsgrösse“ [“helper quantity”]), but *nobody*,
including Planck, was aware of ℎ’s importance for photon energy *at the
time*.
> Planck didn t use any F
Nobody but you used “F” (capital letter). I used “f” (lowercase letter) for
frequency. Planck used “ν” for frequency, which he called “oscillation
number (per second)” in “On the Law of Distribution of Energy in the Normal
Spectrum” (1900/1901), but E = ℎν does not feature either in that work
(which you can’t have read, let alone understood):
<http://www.physik.uni-augsburg.de/annalen/history/historic-papers/1901_309_553-563.pdf>
> en relativistic entity/TOOL to define it
> EXPERIMENTALLY ----
Gibberish.
> h has the Kilogram dimension !!!!!
Utter nonsense. First of all, kilogram (kg) is a *unit* for the dimension
of mass, not a dimension itself. Second, the dimension of ℎ is energy ×
time, _not_ mass. The possible units for ℎ include J s (joule-second) where
1 J s = 1 N m s = 1 kg m²∕s² × s = 1 kg m²∕s.
> GOT IT ??!!!
I got that you have delusions of knowledge.
> and
> nothing F en relativistic there
That’s gibberish again. Please do everyone a favor and get yourself an
English dictionary (and some relaxation pills). And *use it* (and take
them) when you post (in English).
> nor anything to multiply it by zero!!
Nonsense, see above.
> Epstein was wrong by claiming that
^^^^^^^
Who?
> NO MASS CAN REACH c
AISB, no object whose mass is *greater than zero* (m > 0) can travel at c,
and that follows from the form of the equations for relativistic momentum
and kinetic energy *for such objects*.
> MASS OF PHOTONS DOES IT !!!
The mass of photons is *zero*, so photons can and must travel at c.
Or, if you can understand that better, in your (wrong) terminology “photons
are not masses”.
> the mass of the photon is an exception to the rule that
> no mass can reach c
You have two major misconceptions:
First, that there would be “a mass”; that mass would be the same as an
object. Since photons have no (non-zero) mass and are still objects, your
idea of a moving mass, instead of an object *with a certain mass*, is wrong.
Instead, mass m is a property of an object as is its rest energy E₀, whereas
they are related (as Einstein found) by the equation m = E₀∕c².
Second, since photons have zero mass (m = 0), the momentum equation and the
equation for kinetic energy for objects that have non-zero mass (m > 0)
*does not apply to photons*.
> you can see even by experimental EVIDENCE
> that
> as MASS COMES becomes smaller and smaller
> IT CAN REACH -CLOSER AND CLOSER TO C !!!!
AISB twice now (only that I used, correctly, the terms “object” and “mass of
an object” instead). Can’t you read?
> old copyright by me
Copyright has been duly added to the list of things that you do not yet
understand.
This discussion has to do with relativity; there is a special newsgroup for
that subject in the Big 8. In Usenet, you are supposed to post to the
newsgroup that is *the most specific one* in a hierarchy, so in this case
*you are supposed to post to* sci.physics.*relativity*. I had set Followup-
To (F'up2) there, which you ignored. Please do not do that again.
F'up2 sci.physics.relativity
PointedEars
--
I heard that entropy isn't what it used to be.
(from: WolframAlpha)
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Y.Porat" <y.y.porat@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-02-06 06:34 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <9ad95574-0857-4741-bc76-afd04e31c8e0@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #550767 |
On Friday, February 5, 2016 at 11:3 > (from: WolframAlpha) =========================== i will do it again for you i snipped the other text because it is only obfuscation the main point i bring here you see while you see the forest you don t see the trees there so E photon Energy is E = h f right?? do you know the dimensions of h if not i will do it for you h has the dimensions ~6.6 expo -24 times Kilogram Meter^2/second Kilogram is here the dimension of mass MASS (MASS) !!!! it and cant be something else all together is an equation of energy right ?? if you note it by something else than mass -it want help you -it will always be NOTATION OF mass or else the equation is not a physical quotation dimension of energy right ? now Please tell us WHERE (THE 'HECK' JUST A FINE CURSE BECAUSE I AM ANGRY ()....)(:-) so where do you see there anything to multiply that formula including the mass dimension there by anything relativistic ???? or zero ??? old copyright by TIA Eng Y.Porat ====================================
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | HVAC <mr.hvac@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-02-06 08:01 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <aa2da83a-7ea9-4f3f-a6b9-92f7636cec57@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #550892 |
9:34 AMY.Porat On Friday, February 5, 2016 at 11:3 > (from: WolframAlpha) =========================== i will do it again for you i snipped the other text because it is only obfuscation the main point i bring here you see while you see the forest you don t see the trees there so E photon Energy is E = h f right?? do you know the dimensions of h if not i will do it for you h has the dimensions ~6.6 expo -24 times Kilogram Meter^2/second Kilogram is here the dimension of mass MASS (MASS) !!!! it and cant be something else all together is an equation of energy right ?? if you note it by something else than mass -it want help you -it will always be NOTATION OF mass or else the equation is not a physical quotation dimension of energy right ? now Please tell us WHERE (THE 'HECK' JUST A FINE CURSE BECAUSE I AM ANGRY ()....)(:-) ---------- Why you mad MapleLoops?
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Mahipal <mahipal7638@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-02-06 08:42 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <11997ee2-d8b7-44d3-baf2-d68c80018caf@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #550899 |
On Saturday, February 6, 2016 at 11:01:20 AM UTC-5, HVAC wrote: > 9:34 AMY.Porat > On Friday, February 5, 2016 at 11:3 > (from: WolframAlpha) > > =========================== > i will do it again for you > i snipped the other text because it is only obfuscation the main point i bring here > you see while you see the forest you don t see the trees there > so > > E photon Energy is > E = h f > right?? > > do you know the dimensions of h > if not i will do it for you > h has the dimensions > > ~6.6 expo -24 times Kilogram Meter^2/second Dimensions are for losers, come to the Canonical Measures. First left at Hairdo. > Kilogram is here the dimension of mass MASS (MASS) !!!! it and cant be something else > all together is an equation of energy right ?? > > if you note it by something else than mass > -it want help you -it will always be NOTATION OF mass > or else the equation is not a physical quotation dimension of energy > > right ? > now Please tell us > WHERE (THE 'HECK' JUST A FINE CURSE > BECAUSE I AM ANGRY ()....)(:-) > ---------- > > Why you mad MapleLoops? Yehiel Porat is now MapleLoops too?! HVAC, rent a conscious. -- Mahipal “IPMM... माहिपाल ७६३८: I like Porat, though Yehiel should spellcheck before posting.”
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Y.Porat" <y.y.porat@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-02-06 10:11 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <5fa6377c-1714-40c7-bbd2-41cf6080e11b@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #550905 |
On Saturday, February 6, 2016 at 6:42:39 PM UTC+2, Mahipal wrote: > On Saturday, February 6, 2016 at 11:01:20 AM UTC-5, HVAC wrote: > > 9:34 AMY.Porat > > On Friday, February 5, 2016 at 11:3 > (from: WolframAlpha) > > > > =========================== > > i will do it again for you > > i snipped the other text because it is only obfuscation the main point i bring here > > you see while you see the forest you don t see the trees there > > so > > > > E photon Energy is > > E = h f > > right?? > > > > do you know the dimensions of h > > if not i will do it for you > > h has the dimensions > > > > ~6.6 expo -24 times Kilogram Meter^2/second > > Dimensions are for losers, come to the Canonical Measures. First left at Hairdo. ==========================] imbecile pig canonical or shamanonical if a formula is good for one dimension system it is goo for all systems !! how is the pig that thought you physics ! may be Josef ??... go better f your mother ================== next to human decent beings not to criminals against mankind ------- Y.Porat ====================== > > > Kilogram is here the dimension of mass MASS (MASS) !!!! it and cant be something else > > all together is an equation of energy right ?? > > > > if you note it by something else than mass > > -it want help you -it will always be NOTATION OF mass > > or else the equation is not a physical quotation dimension of energy > > > > right ? > > now Please tell us > > WHERE (THE 'HECK' JUST A FINE CURSE > > BECAUSE I AM ANGRY ()....)(:-) > > ---------- > > > > Why you mad MapleLoops? > > Yehiel Porat is now MapleLoops too?! HVAC, rent a conscious. > > -- Mahipal “IPMM... माहिपाल ७६३८: I like Porat, though Yehiel should spellcheck before posting.”
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Mahipal <mahipal7638@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-02-06 10:22 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <936c321e-3ef3-4696-b7f1-b335f1de1006@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #550933 |
On Saturday, February 6, 2016 at 1:11:59 PM UTC-5, Y.Porat wrote: > On Saturday, February 6, 2016 at 6:42:39 PM UTC+2, Mahipal wrote: > > On Saturday, February 6, 2016 at 11:01:20 AM UTC-5, HVAC wrote: > > > 9:34 AMY.Porat > > > On Friday, February 5, 2016 at 11:3 > (from: WolframAlpha) > > > > > > =========================== > > > i will do it again for you > > > i snipped the other text because it is only obfuscation the main point i bring here > > > you see while you see the forest you don t see the trees there > > > so > > > > > > E photon Energy is > > > E = h f > > > right?? > > > > > > do you know the dimensions of h > > > if not i will do it for you > > > h has the dimensions > > > > > > ~6.6 expo -24 times Kilogram Meter^2/second > > > > Dimensions are for losers, come to the Canonical Measures. First left at Hairdo. > ==========================] > imbecile pig > canonical or shamanonical > if a formula is good for one dimension system > it is goo for all systems !! > how is the pig that thought you physics ! > may be Josef ??... > go better f your mother > ================== > next to human decent beings > not to criminals against mankind > ------- > Y.Porat > ====================== Why so rude Yeheil? Get focused. Not everybody is a non human here. Ftr, I am no criminal against mankind, just womankind! Duh?! Your response makes me ponder whether you Y.Porat are human? > > > > > Kilogram is here the dimension of mass MASS (MASS) !!!! it and cant be something else > > > all together is an equation of energy right ?? > > > > > > if you note it by something else than mass > > > -it want help you -it will always be NOTATION OF mass > > > or else the equation is not a physical quotation dimension of energy > > > > > > right ? > > > now Please tell us > > > WHERE (THE 'HECK' JUST A FINE CURSE > > > BECAUSE I AM ANGRY ()....)(:-) > > > ---------- > > > > > > Why you mad MapleLoops? > > > > Yehiel Porat is now MapleLoops too?! HVAC, rent a conscious. > > > > -- Mahipal “IPMM... माहिपाल ७६३८: I like Porat, though Yehiel should spellcheck before posting.” -- Mahipal “IPMM... माहिपाल ७६३८: Read My Lips, They Are Not Moving Mass.”
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Y.Porat" <y.y.porat@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-02-08 10:39 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <19aac621-b1d7-4a16-91ef-2e4f801fa3b3@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #550905 |
On Saturday, February 6, 2016 at 6:42:39 PM UTC+2, Mahipal wrote: > On Saturday, February 6, 2016 at 11:01:20 AM UTC-5, HVAC wrote: > > 9:34 AMY.Porat > > On Friday, February 5, 2016 at 11:3 > (from: WolframAlpha) > > > > =========================== > > i will do it again for you > > i snipped the other text because it is only obfuscation the main point i bring here > > you see while you see the forest you don t see the trees there > > so > > > > E photon Energy is > > E = h f > > right?? > > > > do you know the dimensions of h > > if not i will do it for you > > h has the dimensions > > > > ~6.6 expo -24 times Kilogram Meter^2/second > > Dimensions are for losers, come to the Canonical Measures. First left at Hairdo. > > > Kilogram is here the dimension of mass MASS (MASS) !!!! it and cant be something else > > all together is an equation of energy right ?? > > > > if you note it by something else than mass > > -it want help you -it will always be NOTATION OF mass > > or else the equation is not a physical quotation dimension of energy > > > > right ? > > now Please tell us > > WHERE (THE 'HECK' JUST A FINE CURSE > > BECAUSE I AM ANGRY ()....)(:-) > > ---------- > > > > Why you mad MapleLoops? > > Yehiel Porat is now MapleLoops too?! HVAC, rent a conscious. > > -- Mahipal “IPMM... माहिपाल ७६३८: I like Porat, though Yehiel should spellcheck before posting.” =========================== =sorry Mahipal but while you that dimensions are for loosers you are driving me mad !! because you have no idea how wrong and harmful is what you day dimension analysis is one of the most simple and POWERFUL TOOLS WE HAVE NOT ONLY IN PHYSICS BUT IN ENGINEERING AND OTHERS so if you make an anysis of the formula E=hf and you dont see the mass there the only mass you are harmful for advance in physics and that is for me means being destructive !! i dint notice at that moment that in past we had rather some common understandings so let me apologize my rudeness w actually i am aggressive here since there is here a lot of shameless piggish irresponsible behavior ATB Y.Porat =================================== TIA Y.Porat =====================
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
Page 3 of 5 — ← Prev page 1 2 [3] 4 5 Next page →
Back to top | Article view | sci.physics
csiph-web