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

Groups > sci.physics > #550629 > unrolled thread

Re: Gravity needs NO Matter

Back to article view | Back to sci.physics

This discussion starts older than the indexed window; earlier articles aren't shown. The article labeled Started by below is the oldest one visible, not the original post.

Contents

  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

Page 2 of 2 — ← Prev page 1 [2]

#551727

On Saturday, February 6, 2016 at 6:22:38 PM UTC+2, Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote:
> Y.Porat wrote:
> 
> > 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
> 
> It is *you* who is missing the point multiple times here, as you can see 
> below.
> 
> > E photon  Energy  is
> > E = h f
> > right??
> 
> Yes (AISB).
>  
> > 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
> 
> 1. It can be something else, see 
>    <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Planck_constant>
> 
> 2. That there is a “kg” in it does not mean that “ℎ has the kilogram





>    dimension” as you claimed.  The kilogram is a unit, not a dimension.

=====================================
(:-)
Kilogram is not a dimension ??
so what  is  it ??
is it length 
is it time ?
is it zero entity for garment ?

G W)= m  g   
m is not a dimension ??
so what is it ??


what are the dimensions of G weight
if your weight is 70 kilograms 
can you describe the dimensions of your weight ??
TIA 
Y.P
==============================

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

#551821

Y.Porat wrote:

> On Saturday, February 6, 2016 at 6:22:38 PM UTC+2, Thomas 'PointedEars'
> Lahn wrote:
>> 2. That there is a “kg” in it does not mean that “ℎ has the kilogram
>>    dimension” as you claimed.  The kilogram is a unit, not a dimension.
> 
> […]
> Kilogram is not a dimension ??

Yes (it is not).

> so what  is  it ??

A unit.

> is it length
> is it time ?
> is it zero entity for garment ?

AISB (if only you cared to read), the kilogram is the SI unit of mass.
 
> G W)= m  g

This is nonsense.  But let us assume that it was intended to be an equation 
instead, then:

> m is not a dimension ??

Yes, in a form of the equation above that makes sense, “m” is a *symbol* for 
the physical *quantity* of “mass” instead.

> what are the dimensions of G weight

There is no such thing as “G weight”.

> if your weight is 70 kilograms

Different to common non-scientific usage, in physics weight is actually 
_not_ measured in kilograms or any other unit of mass.  It is a force – the 
algebraic opposite of the force that needs to exerted on a body in order to 
prevent that body from free fall –; its SI unit is the newton (unit symbol 
“N”; 1 N = 1 kg × m × s⁻²).

> can you describe the dimensions of your weight ??

Yes.  BTDT.

> TIA

You’re welcome.  HTH.


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

(from: WolframAlpha)

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

#551943

On Wednesday, February 10, 2016 at 12:04:15 AM UTC+2, Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote:
> Y.Porat wrote:
> 
> > On Saturday, February 6, 2016 at 6:22:38 PM UTC+2, Thomas 'PointedEars'
> > Lahn wrote:
> >> 2. That there is a “kg” in it does not mean that “ℎ has the kilogram
> >>    dimension” as you claimed.  The kilogram is a unit, not a dimension.
> > 
> > […]
> > Kilogram is not a dimension ??
> 
> Yes (it is not).
> 
> > so what  is  it ??
> 
> A unit.
> 
> > is it length
> > is it time ?
> > is it zero entity for garment ?
> 
> AISB (if only you cared to read), the kilogram is the SI unit of mass.
>  
> > G W)= m  g
> 
> This is nonsense.  But let us assume that it was intended to be an equation 
> instead, then:
> 
> > m is not a dimension ??
> 
> Yes, in a form of the equation above that makes sense, “m” is a *symbol* for 
> the physical *quantity* of “mass” instead.
> 
> > what are the dimensions of G weight
> 
> There is no such thing as “G weight”.
> 
> > if your weight is 70 kilograms
> 
> Different to common non-scientific usage, in physics weight is actually 
> _not_ measured in kilograms or any other unit of mass.  It is a force – the 
> algebraic opposite of the force that needs to exerted on a body in order to 
> prevent that body from free fall –; its SI unit is the newton (unit symbol 
> “N”; 1 N = 1 kg × m × s⁻²).
> 
> > can you describe the dimensions of your weight ??
> 
> Yes.  BTDT.
> 
> > TIA
> 
> You’re welcome.  HTH.
> 
> 
> PointedEars
> -- 
> I heard that entropy isn't what it used to be.
> 
> (from: WolframAlpha)
============================
did you ever hear about the 
c g s dimension system 

did you ever heard about the 
M K S SYSTEM 
What is the M doing there ?? 
2
who was you r physics teacher 
what is your formal education ??
or may be it is too formal ?
3
the 'standard  system' 
is a fucken mathematical stystem 
because
in that system 
YOU LOOSE YOUR PHYSICS TOUCH !!!

i guess you came to physics 
 from  mathematics ??

Y.Porat
==================================

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

#552076

Y.Porat wrote:

> On Wednesday, February 10, 2016 at 12:04:15 AM UTC+2, Thomas 'PointedEars'
> Lahn wrote:

Attribution line, not attribution novel.

>> [Full quote]

Why would you quote all of this but not refer to it at all?

In Usenet, it is appropriate to refer to each point explicitly by quoting it 
putting the response directly beneath each quotation, and in the process 
removing the points that one does not refer to.  See my postings for 
examples.

> ============================
> did you ever hear about the
> c g s dimension system

Yes.
 
> did you ever heard about the
> M K S SYSTEM

Yes.

> What is the M doing there ??

It stands for the meter, the SI unit of length.  (_Not_ for mass.  The “K” 
stands for the kilogram, the SI unit of mass instead.  “S” stands for the 
second, the SI unit of time.)

> 2
> who was you r physics teacher
> what is your formal education ??

I do not think that is relevant here.  From this discussion, at least, it is 
evident that I know more about physics than you.

> or may be it is too formal ?

I do not think that education can be too formal, especially not in the 
sciences where clear thinking and an exact methodology are paramount.

> 3
> the 'standard  system'
> is a fucken mathematical stystem
> because
> in that system
> YOU LOOSE YOUR PHYSICS TOUCH !!!

That’s _lose_.

Mathematics is a tool used to express physics since Isaac Newton at least; 
by that time, physics emerged from natural philosophy and subsequently 
separated itself in teaching from schools of philosophy.  Hence «Philosophiæ 
Naturalis Principia *Mathematica*» – “*Mathematical* Principles of Natural 
Philosophy” (1687).

For it was not enough for Newton to explain the world, he wanted to find the 
*laws* on which it worked; laws that then could be used to make *precise* 
*predictions*, for example, of the motion of bodies.  He wanted to 
*calculate* them.  For that, he created calculus (independent of Leibniz).
 
> i guess you came to physics  from  mathematics ??

I do not know what you guess.


PointedEars
-- 
Two neutrinos go through a bar ...

(from: WolframAlpha)

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

#552080

Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote:

> Y.Porat wrote:
>> ============================
>> did you ever hear about the
>> c g s dimension system
         ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
> Yes.

Correction, I overlooked this:

It is the c(entimetre)–g(ram)–s(econd) system of _units_ instead.

<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Centimetre%E2%80%93gram%E2%80%93second_system_of_units>

You are still confusing units with dimensions.  (It is possible that you do 
this because there is both a quantity and a dimension named “mass”.)

There are physical *quantities* that are of *dimensions*, and they have a 
*unit*.  For example, AISB the quantity “weight” is of the dimensions [mass] 
× [length] × [time]⁻², and its SI unit is the newton:

<http://www.wolframalpha.com/input/?i=weight>
  

PointedEars
-- 
Two neutrinos go through a bar ...

(from: WolframAlpha)

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

#552199

On Wednesday, February 10, 2016 at 9:33:15 PM UTC+2, Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote:
> Y.Porat wrote:
> 
> > On Wednesday, February 10, 2016 at 12:04:15 AM UTC+2, Thomas 'PointedEars'
> > Lahn wrote:
> 
> Attribution line, not attribution novel.
> 
> >> [Full quote]
> 
> Why would you quote all of this but not refer to it at all?
> 
> In Usenet, it is appropriate to refer to each point explicitly by quoting it 
> putting the response directly beneath each quotation, and in the process 
> removing the points that one does not refer to.  See my postings for 
> examples.
> 
> > ============================
> > did you ever hear about the
> > c g s dimension system
> 
> Yes.
>  
> > did you ever heard about the
> > M K S SYSTEM
> 
> Yes.
> 
> > What is the M doing there ??
> 
> It stands for the meter, the SI unit of length.  (_Not_ for mass.  The "K" 
> stands for the kilogram, the SI unit of mass instead. 
========================================
in short 
can you have physics without mass ??
TIA
Y.Porat
====================================

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

#552848

Y.Porat wrote:

> in short

It would have been short had you trimmed the parts of the quotation that you 
did not refer to (which was everything that you quoted).

> can you have physics without mass ??

That depends on what you mean by that.

A) Can you have any proper physics of an object without considering its 
   mass?

   Probably not.

B) Can you have a proper physics of an object whose mass is (assumed to be)
   zero?

   Certainly; photons are the prime example.


PointedEars
-- 
Two neutrinos go through a bar ...

(from: WolframAlpha)

[toc] | [prev] | [standalone]

Page 2 of 2 — ← Prev page 1 [2]

Back to top | Article view | sci.physics

csiph-web