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

Groups > sci.physics > #634524 > unrolled thread

E=M

Back to article view | Back to sci.physics

Contents

  E=M The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2017-05-27 11:12 -0700
    ! This topic has been hidden because it was flagged for abuse. The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2017-05-27 13:06 -0700
      Re: ! This topic has been hidden because it was flagged for abuse. The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2017-05-27 13:20 -0700
    Re: E=M Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> - 2017-05-31 14:41 +1000
      Re: E=M Serg io <invalid@invalid.com> - 2017-05-31 08:11 -0500
        Re: E=M Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2017-05-31 09:09 -0500
          Re: E=M "HGW..." <hgw@....> - 2017-06-04 19:33 +1000
            Re: E=M Poutnik <poutnik4nntp@gmail.com> - 2017-06-04 11:58 +0200
              Re: E=M Prudence Youngs <usue@weuem.ge> - 2017-06-04 11:53 +0000
              Re: E=M "HGW..." <hgw@....> - 2017-06-05 08:58 +1000
            Re: E=M poraty350@gmail.com - 2017-06-04 06:14 -0700
            Re: E=M Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-06-04 13:25 +0000
              Re: E=M "HGW..." <hgw@....> - 2017-06-05 09:00 +1000
                Re: E=M Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-06-04 23:13 +0000
                  Re: E=M "HGW..." <hgw@....> - 2017-06-05 11:10 +1000
        Re: E=M Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2017-06-01 01:49 +0200
    Re: E=M poraty350@gmail.com - 2017-05-31 07:55 -0700
      Re: E=M poraty350@gmail.com - 2017-05-31 07:57 -0700
        Re: E=M The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2017-05-31 10:16 -0700
          Re: E=M Edward Prochak <edprochak@gmail.com> - 2017-05-31 15:47 -0700
            Re: E=M Serg io <invalid@invalid.com> - 2017-05-31 18:11 -0500
            Re: E=M The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2017-05-31 19:30 -0700
              Re: E=M poraty350@gmail.com - 2017-06-01 01:01 -0700
                Re: E=M The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2017-06-01 10:33 -0700
                  Re: E=M poraty350@gmail.com - 2017-06-02 17:45 -0700
              Re: E=M Edward Prochak <edprochak@gmail.com> - 2017-06-01 10:57 -0700
                Re: E=M The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2017-06-01 11:35 -0700
                  Re: E=M Edward Prochak <edprochak@gmail.com> - 2017-06-02 14:53 -0700
          Re: E=M poraty350@gmail.com - 2017-06-01 00:53 -0700
            Re: E=M The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2017-06-01 10:36 -0700

Page 1 of 2  [1] 2  Next page →

#634524 — E=M

something is wrong..here or somewhere

You got

space and time

and some of yous

say spacetime

or space-time

as if space and time are
one of the same.

But yous then say

mass is energy

and engery is mass

or

engery equals mass

but

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


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

it should be

energymass


just one word.


Did somebody here forget to do that????

[toc] | [next] | [standalone]

#634532 — ! This topic has been hidden because it was flagged for abuse.

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

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

#634534 — Re: ! This topic has been hidden because it was flagged for abuse.

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



is the topic hidden????

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

#634829

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

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

Sylvia.

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

#634851

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

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

nope.  They have different units.

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

#634857

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

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

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

Tom Roberts

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

#635281

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

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

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

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

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

Mass is NOT the same as energy.

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


> Tom Roberts


-- 

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

#635282

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

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

These dimensions differ in cgs and SI unit systems.

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


-- 
Poutnik ( The Pilgrim, Der Wanderer )

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

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

#635285

Poutnik wrote:

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

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

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

#635328

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

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

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

absolute crap....


-- 

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

#635288

On Sunday, June 4, 2017 at 12:33:51 PM UTC+3, HGW... wrote:
> On 01/06/17 00:09, Tom Roberts wrote:
> > On 5/31/17 5/31/17   8:11 AM, Serg io wrote:
> >>> Scientists well know that units of energy and mass are just
> >>> different representations of the same thing, and use whichever
> >>> unit is the most convenient.
> >> 
> >> nope.  They have different units.
> > 
> > In some systems of units mass and energy are different, such as MKS
> > and CGS. In other systems of units they are identical, such as all
> > units with c=1 (called "natural units").
> 
> HAHAHHAHHHA! Roberts again proves his complete ignorance of basic
> physics....No wonder he was silly enough to waste his whole life backing
> a loser....
> 
> >> The Particle Data Group reports particle masses in MeV, which is
> >> the
> > most common unit for mass and energy in particle physics. Geant4, the
> >  most common particle-interaction toolkit, uses MeV for both energy
> > and mass.
> 
> mc^2 does not have the same dimensions as m.
> 
> The dimensions of energy are ML^2T^-2
> The dimensions of mass are just M.
> 
> Mass is NOT the same as energy.
> 
> You are just as much a moron as the rest of your dingleberry colleagues,

====================
right 
the dimensions  of energy is say:

kilogram meter ^2/second 
now where the f you  see here anything like
a relativistic coefficient   ??!!!

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


 

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

#635289

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

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

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

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

#635329

On 04/06/17 23:25, Odd Bodkin wrote:
> HGW... <hgw@....> wrote:

>>
>> mc^2 does not have the same dimensions as m.
>>
>> The dimensions of energy are ML^2T^-2
>> The dimensions of mass are just M.
>>
>> Mass is NOT the same as energy.
>>
>> You are just as much a moron as the rest of your dingleberry colleagues,
>> Tom.
>>
>>
>>> Tom Roberts
>>
>>
> 
> In natural units [L] and [T] are indistinguishable dimensions. 

Absolute dingleberry inspired crap.

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

It would collapse....just like your own credibility has.....not that it 
was ever any better...



-- 

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

#635330

HGW... <hgw@....> wrote:
> On 04/06/17 23:25, Odd Bodkin wrote:
>> HGW... <hgw@....> wrote:
> 
>>> 
>>> mc^2 does not have the same dimensions as m.
>>> 
>>> The dimensions of energy are ML^2T^-2
>>> The dimensions of mass are just M.
>>> 
>>> Mass is NOT the same as energy.
>>> 
>>> You are just as much a moron as the rest of your dingleberry colleagues,
>>> Tom.
>>> 
>>> 
>>>> Tom Roberts
>>> 
>>> 
>> 
>> In natural units [L] and [T] are indistinguishable dimensions. 
> 
> Absolute dingleberry inspired crap.
> 
> Now, there
>> may be some people who recoil from that in horror, believing that the
>> entirety of physics would collapse if the sacred distinction between [L]
>> and [T] is breached.
> 
> It would collapse....just like your own credibility has.....not that it 
> was ever any better...
> 
> 
> 

In the Old Country, people respected Tradition. Tradition! The state of the
world today is the lack of Respect for Traditions!

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

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

#635338

On 05/06/17 09:13, Odd Bodkin wrote:
> HGW... <hgw@....> wrote:

>>>
>>> In natural units [L] and [T] are indistinguishable dimensions.
>>
>> Absolute dingleberry inspired crap.
>>
>> Now, there
>>> may be some people who recoil from that in horror, believing that the
>>> entirety of physics would collapse if the sacred distinction between [L]
>>> and [T] is breached.
>>
>> It would collapse....just like your own credibility has.....not that it
>> was ever any better...
>>
>>
>>
> 
> In the Old Country, people respected Tradition. Tradition! The state of the
> world today is the lack of Respect for Traditions!

 From your last two messages, I can only assume that you have finally 
slid over the edge.



-- 

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

#634921

Serg io <invalid@invalid.com> wrote:

> On 5/30/2017 11:41 PM, Sylvia Else wrote:
>> Scientists well know that units of energy and mass are just different
>> representations of the same thing, and use whichever unit is the most
>> convenient.
> 
> nope.  They have different units.

Good morning, sunshine!

<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mass-energy_equivalence> is known since 1905.

The computer you are (ab)using to post¹ would not work if it were different.

F'up2 .relativity

_______
¹ <https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc5536#section-3.1.2>
-- 
PointedEars

Twitter: @PointedEars2
Please do not cc me. / Bitte keine Kopien per E-Mail.

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

#634859

On Saturday, May 27, 2017 at 9:12:09 PM UTC+3, The Starmaker wrote:
> something is wrong..here or somewhere
> 
> You got
> 
> space and time
> 
> and some of yous
> 
> say spacetime
> 
> or space-time
> 
> as if space and time are
> one of the same.
> 
> But yous then say
> 
> mass is energy
> 
> and engery is mass
> 
> or
> 
> engery equals mass
> 
> but
> 
> Why don't you simply call it: massenergy? or mass-energy? or energymass? or energy-mass?
> 
> 
> i mean if mass is energy and energy is mass...
> 
> it should be
> 
> energymass
> 
> 
> just one word.
> 
> 
> Did somebody here forget to do that????
==================
mass is ,ass
and energy is energy
mass is not energy

energy iS 
MASS IN MOTION !!

the dimension of energy is
is
kilogram  times meter ^2 /second ^2


 
FULL STOP !!
======
Y.Porat
========================

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

#634860

On Wednesday, May 31, 2017 at 5:55:23 PM UTC+3, pora...@gmail.com wrote:
> On Saturday, May 27, 2017 at 9:12:09 PM UTC+3, The Starmaker wrote:
> > something is wrong..here or somewhere
> > 
> > You got
> > 
> > space and time
> > 
> > and some of yous
> > 
> > say spacetime
> > 
> > or space-time
> > 
> > as if space and time are
> > one of the same.
> > 
> > But yous then say
> > 
> > mass is energy
> > 
> > and engery is mass
> > 
> > or
> > 
> > engery equals mass
> > 
> > but
> > 
> > Why don't you simply call it: massenergy? or mass-energy? or energymass? or energy-mass?
> > 
> > 
> > i mean if mass is energy and energy is mass...
> > 
> > it should be
> > 
> > energymass
> > 
> > 
> > just one word.
> > 
> > 
> > Did somebody here forget to do that????
> ==================
> mass is ,ass
(:-_)
sorry 
mass is mass not ass ////
> and energy is energy
> mass is not energy
> 
> energy iS 
> MASS IN MOTION !!
> 
> the dimension of energy is
> is
> kilogram  times meter ^2 /second ^2
> 
> 
>  
> FULL STOP !!
> ======
> Y.Porat
> ========================

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

#634868

poraty350@gmail.com wrote:
> 
> On Wednesday, May 31, 2017 at 5:55:23 PM UTC+3, pora...@gmail.com wrote:
> > On Saturday, May 27, 2017 at 9:12:09 PM UTC+3, The Starmaker wrote:
> > > something is wrong..here or somewhere
> > >
> > > You got
> > >
> > > space and time
> > >
> > > and some of yous
> > >
> > > say spacetime
> > >
> > > or space-time
> > >
> > > as if space and time are
> > > one of the same.
> > >
> > > But yous then say
> > >
> > > mass is energy
> > >
> > > and engery is mass
> > >
> > > or
> > >
> > > engery equals mass
> > >
> > > but
> > >
> > > Why don't you simply call it: massenergy? or mass-energy? or energymass? or energy-mass?
> > >
> > >
> > > i mean if mass is energy and energy is mass...
> > >
> > > it should be
> > >
> > > energymass
> > >
> > >
> > > just one word.
> > >
> > >
> > > Did somebody here forget to do that????
> > ==================
> > mass is ,ass
> (:-_)
> sorry
> mass is mass not ass ////
> > and energy is energy
> > mass is not energy
> >
> > energy iS
> > MASS IN MOTION !!
> >
> > the dimension of energy is
> > is
> > kilogram  times meter ^2 /second ^2
> >
> >
> >
> > FULL STOP !!
> > ======
> > Y.Porat
> > ========================



maybe i don't know what 'mass' is...
i certaintly not going to look it up and get more confused.

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

#634908

On Wednesday, May 31, 2017 at 1:16:36 PM UTC-4, The Starmaker wrote:
> 
> maybe i don't know what 'mass' is...
> i certaintly not going to look it up and get more confused.

That boat sailed long ago.
ed

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

Page 1 of 2  [1] 2  Next page →

Back to top | Article view | sci.physics

csiph-web