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

Groups > sci.physics > #522840 > unrolled thread

What is mass?

Back to article view | Back to sci.physics

Contents

  What is mass? gilber34 <fafa@invalid.com> - 2015-09-23 11:02 -0500
    Re: What is mass? Poutnik <Poutnik4NNTP@gmail.com> - 2015-09-23 18:55 +0200
    Re: What is mass? Fabian Russell <root@localhost.localdomain> - 2015-09-23 16:59 +0000
      Re: What is mass? Poutnik <Poutnik4NNTP@gmail.com> - 2015-09-23 19:12 +0200
        Re: What is mass? Poutnik <Poutnik4NNTP@gmail.com> - 2015-09-23 19:17 +0200
        Re: What is mass? Fabian Russell <root@localhost.localdomain> - 2015-09-23 17:34 +0000
          Re: What is mass? Poutnik <poutnik4nntp@gmail.com> - 2015-09-23 20:35 +0200
            Re: What is mass? omnilobe@gmail.com - 2015-09-23 12:40 -0700
            Re: What is mass? Fabian Russell <root@localhost.localdomain> - 2015-09-23 21:44 +0000
              Re: What is mass? Poutnik <poutnik4nntp@gmail.com> - 2015-09-24 08:50 +0200
                Re: What is mass? "Y.Porat" <y.y.porat@gmail.com> - 2015-09-26 22:34 -0700
          Re: What is mass? Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2015-09-26 08:35 +0200
            Re: What is mass? Fabian Russell <root@localhost.localdomain> - 2015-09-26 12:35 +0000
              Re: What is mass? Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2015-09-26 15:37 +0200
                Re: What is mass? john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2015-09-26 07:14 -0700
                  Re: What is mass? Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2015-09-26 16:17 +0200
            a-hem; m = F/a is also gOOd noTthaTguY <abu.kuanysh05@gmail.com> - 2015-09-26 17:16 -0700
              Re: a-hem; m = F/a is also gOOd Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2015-09-27 03:26 +0200
                top-posting is frpowned upon by certain advertizers ... just don't ask them, why not noTthaTguY <abu.kuanysh05@gmail.com> - 2015-09-27 15:53 -0700
                  What is mass (was: top-posting is frpowned upon by certain advertizers ... just don't ask them, why not) Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2015-09-28 17:05 +0200
                    a.k.a photonics -- thanks for the tip (pi dollars is gOOd noTthaTguY <abu.kuanysh05@gmail.com> - 2015-09-29 11:28 -0700
                      Re: a.k.a photonics -- thanks for the tip (pi dollars is gOOd Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2015-09-29 21:01 +0200
                        no skwares in the medium of space noTthaTguY <abu.kuanysh05@gmail.com> - 2015-09-29 19:29 -0700
      Re: What is mass? "Y.Porat" <y.y.porat@gmail.com> - 2015-09-23 23:07 -0700
    Re: What is mass? "nuny@bid.nes" <Alien8752@gmail.com> - 2015-09-23 14:01 -0700
      Re: What is mass? "Y.Porat" <y.y.porat@gmail.com> - 2015-09-27 23:40 -0700
    Re: What is mass? "reber g=emc^2" <herbertglazier0@gmail.com> - 2015-09-24 13:36 -0700
    Re: What is mass? Yousuf Khan <bbbl67@spammenot.yahoo.com> - 2015-09-28 02:13 -0400
      Re: What is mass? Mahipal <mahipal7638@gmail.com> - 2015-09-28 09:27 -0700
        Re: What is mass? Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2015-09-29 04:31 +0200
          Re: What is mass? "Y.Porat" <y.y.porat@gmail.com> - 2015-09-29 00:29 -0700
            Re: What is mass? Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2015-09-29 13:21 +0200
              Re: What is mass? Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2015-09-29 13:34 +0200
              Re: What is mass? "Y.Porat" <y.y.porat@gmail.com> - 2015-09-29 05:19 -0700
          Re: What is mass? Mahipal <mahipal7638@gmail.com> - 2015-09-29 05:40 -0700
            Re: What is mass? Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2015-09-29 15:11 +0200
              Re: What is mass? Mahipal <mahipal7638@gmail.com> - 2015-09-29 06:37 -0700
                Re: What is mass? Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2015-09-29 16:22 +0200
                  Re: What is mass? Mahipal <mahipal7638@gmail.com> - 2015-09-29 07:51 -0700
                    Re: What is mass? Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2015-09-29 18:45 +0200
                      Re: What is mass? Mahipal <mahipal7638@gmail.com> - 2015-09-29 11:06 -0700
                        Re: What is mass? Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2015-09-29 21:00 +0200
                          Re: What is mass? Mahipal <mahipal7638@gmail.com> - 2015-09-29 13:47 -0700
                            Re: What is mass? "Ma Hipple" <invalid@example.com> - 2015-09-30 07:20 -0700
                Re: What is mass? "Alan Smith" <invalid@example.com> - 2015-09-29 07:33 -0700
            Re: What is mass? "Y.Porat" <y.y.porat@gmail.com> - 2015-09-30 02:21 -0700
              Re: What is mass? Mahipal <mahipal7638@gmail.com> - 2015-10-04 19:11 -0700
                Re: What is mass? "Y.Porat" <y.y.porat@gmail.com> - 2015-10-05 00:39 -0700
                  Re: What is mass? noTthaTguY <abu.kuanysh05@gmail.com> - 2015-10-05 18:38 -0700
                    Re: What is mass? Mahipal <mahipal7638@gmail.com> - 2015-10-05 18:50 -0700
                      Re: What is mass? "Eric Smith" <invalid@example.com> - 2015-10-05 20:01 -0700
                        Re: What is mass? Mahipal <mahipal7638@gmail.com> - 2015-10-05 20:49 -0700
                      Re: What is mass? "Y.Porat" <y.y.porat@gmail.com> - 2015-10-06 03:18 -0700
                Re: What is mass? "Fred Smith" <invalid@example.com> - 2015-10-06 17:41 -0700
                  Re: What is mass? Mahipal <mahipal7638@gmail.com> - 2015-10-06 19:38 -0700
                    Re: What is mass? "Greg Smith" <invalid@example.com> - 2015-10-07 06:59 -0700
                      Re: What is mass? gilber34 <fafa@invalid.com> - 2015-10-07 09:03 -0500
                        Re: What is mass? "Hank Smith" <invalid@example.com> - 2015-10-07 07:20 -0700
                          Re: What is mass? Mahipal <mahipal7638@gmail.com> - 2015-10-07 08:11 -0700
                            Re: What is mass? noTthaTguY <abu.kuanysh05@gmail.com> - 2015-10-07 16:07 -0700
                              Re: What is mass? "Y.Porat" <y.y.porat@gmail.com> - 2015-10-08 00:18 -0700
                                Re: What is mass? john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2015-10-08 06:15 -0700
                                  Re: What is mass? "Y.Porat" <y.y.porat@gmail.com> - 2015-10-10 01:11 -0700
                                    Re: What is mass? noTthaTguY <abu.kuanysh05@gmail.com> - 2015-10-10 16:43 -0700
                                Re: What is mass? noTthaTguY <abu.kuanysh05@gmail.com> - 2015-10-08 12:34 -0700

Page 2 of 4 — ← Prev page 1 [2] 3 4  Next page →

#523774 — a.k.a photonics -- thanks for the tip (pi dollars is gOOd

I did balance the parenthesis - badOOmp

first of all, waves have really no employ
of the regular tetragon, although
you can do it with regular tetrhedra
for the nonpolarized wwavicle

> >> > the standard about the secondpower of the speed
> >> > it is not in the most prosaical format

> > I will publish the somewhat more canonical version of E/c = mc,
>                      ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
> How did you get that idea?
> 
> > later, but, you could guess
> 
> Guess what?
> 
> And as for the Subject header which has *again* been inappropriately changed 
> by you: that is incredibly stupid.  I am not an advertiser; I am just not a 

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

#523785 — Re: a.k.a photonics -- thanks for the tip (pi dollars is gOOd

noTthaTguY wrote:

> [gibberish]
> [top post]

A word of advice:

Whatever you smoke, smoke less of it.  Alternatively, take your pills.


PointedEars
-- 
Q: Why is electricity so dangerous?  
A: It doesn't conduct itself.

(from: WolframAlpha)

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

#523886 — no skwares in the medium of space

I agree with that, but
you failed top notice what Bucky did -- and
I don't know if it is original with him -- that
the secondpower of the speed of light,
is the acceleration of the growth of the waveform
(secondpower of meters over secopndpower of seconds ... "skwares,
well, no

> Whatever you smoke, smoke less of it.  Alternatively, take your pills.
> 
> 
> PointedEars
> -- 
> Q: Why is electricity so dangerous?  
> A: It doesn't conduct itself.
> 
> (from: WolframAlpha)

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

#522945

On Wednesday, September 23, 2015 at 8:00:07 PM UTC+3, Fabian Russell wrote:
> On Wed, 23 Sep 2015 11:02:59 -0500, gilber34 wrote:
> 
> > 
> > I tried to figure it out using the formula for mass, which is F= m . a 
> >
> 
> That equation is completely *wrong*, and, furthermore, it is an error
> that is inexcusably propagated in all physics textbooks today.
> 
> The correct equation is: F = m_inertial * a.
> 
> There are two kinds of mass: inertial and gravitation.
> 
> Gravitational mass is defined by the equation: G * m_gravitational/r^2.
> 
> Although it is assumed that inertial mass equals gravitational mass,
> m_inertial = m_gravitational, it has not ever been proven to be the
> case.  The equality is the cornerstone of General Relativity (GR) and
> it has been experimentally verified to high precision.  But verification
> is not the same thing as a theoretical proof, although the validity
> of GR implies its correctness.  (Keep in mind that GR still has competing
> theories and is not absolutely established.)

=====================================
there is just one kind of mass!!!
you may call it as you like 
and more
==========================================
NO MASS *THE ONLY MASS ** - NO REAL PHYSICS 
===========================================

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

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

#522891

On Wednesday, September 23, 2015 at 9:03:19 AM UTC-7, gilber34 wrote:
> I now understand that mass is only defined by its effects, so I realize 
> that my biggest problem is related to quantification. I don't understand 
> how people came up with a system to quantify mass.
> 
> I tried to figure it out using the formula for mass, which is F= m . a

  First, rearrange the equation so that m is alone:

  m = F / a

> and my issue was the following: a: Acceleration as a concept is very 
> straightforward.
> It's a measure of the distance in relation to the time in which it is 
> traveled.

  No, that's velocity. Acceleration is *time rate of change* of velocity.

> In order to measure distance, we've taken an arbitrary amount 
> of space and called it a meter and an arbitrary amount of time and 
> called it seconds.

  Yep.

> Nothing to look for there, it's all arbitrary. F: Same with force. In 
> order to quantify it, we arbitrarily decided to equal 1 unit of force 
> (newton) with what is needed to make an object of 1 kilogram have an 
> acceleration of 1 meter per second

  ...per second.

> But when it comes to mass, I don't see what they used to quantify it 
> (given that it's definitely not the amount of atoms contained in an 
> object). You could say that it's that which causes the needed force to 
> accelerate the object to be greater the bigger it is,

  That's exactly what it is.

> but then there's a 
> loophole in the definition (force is defined in terms of mass and mass 
> is defined in terms of force).

  Nope.

> So what basis was used to standardize the measurement of the concept of 
> mass?

Let's go back to

m = F / a

  which simply states that the "mass" of an object is a measure of how much force F you have to apply to it get it to accelerate at a given rate.

  In other words, you take a given, unknown mass and apply a known, calibrated  force to it, and see how quickly the mass accelerates. Do the math and you get the mass.

  You can use ANY UNITS YOU WANT for F and a as long as they are part of a consistent system; conventionally F is in kilograms times (meters per second per second), naturally, since mass is in kilograms and acceleration is in meters per second per second, but force can be in poundals and acceleration can be in furlongs per fortnight per season. When you do the measuring whatever result you get will always convert exactly back to whatever you would have calculated in metric because...

  the equation describes a ratio, not fundamental quantities.

  The reason it doesn't describe fundamental quantities is that as far as we know so far *there is no fundamental quantized unit of mass* the way there is a fundamental quantized unit of electrical charge and of spin angular momentum. All of the units for mass we use are mere conventions.

  (The so-called Planck mass has been proposed as the fundamental quantum of mass but we don't yet have the technology to see if there exist masses less than that.)

  The bottom line is that you start with a known force, like the combustion of a given volume of fuel in a confined space, or an animal pulling on a rope, or whatever (yeah, I know, " A standard horse? Seriously?" but that was how horsepower was defined in Them Days), and time things with a clock that ticks at a reproducible rate and measure distances with a ruler marked with ticks all the same distance apart.

  The mass falls out of the equation and then tells you how to describe the force.

  It really isn't circular.


  Mark L. Fergerson

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

#523547

On Thursday, September 24, 2015 at 12:01:27 AM UTC+3, nu...@bid.nes wrote:
> On Wednesday, September 23, 2015 at 9:03:19 AM UTC-7, gilber34 wrote:
> > I now understand that mass is only defined by its effects, so I realize 
> > that my biggest problem is related to quantification. I don't understand 
> > how people came up with a system to quantify mass.
> > 
> > I tried to figure it out using the formula for mass, which is F= m . a
> 
>   First, rearrange the equation so that m is alone:
> 
>   m = F / a
> 
> > and my issue was the following: a: Acceleration as a concept is very 
> > straightforward.
> > It's a measure of the distance in relation to the time in which it is 
> > traveled.
> 
>   No, that's velocity. Acceleration is *time rate of change* of velocity.
> 
> > In order to measure distance, we've taken an arbitrary amount 
> > of space and called it a meter and an arbitrary amount of time and 
> > called it seconds.
> 
>   Yep.
> 
> > Nothing to look for there, it's all arbitrary. F: Same with force. In 
> > order to quantify it, we arbitrarily decided to equal 1 unit of force 
> > (newton) with what is needed to make an object of 1 kilogram have an 
> > acceleration of 1 meter per second
> 
>   ...per second.
> 
> > But when it comes to mass, I don't see what they used to quantify it 
> > (given that it's definitely not the amount of atoms contained in an 
> > object). You could say that it's that which causes the needed force to 
> > accelerate the object to be greater the bigger it is,
> 
>   That's exactly what it is.
> 
> > but then there's a 
> > loophole in the definition (force is defined in terms of mass and mass 
> > is defined in terms of force).
> 
>   Nope.
> 
> > So what basis was used to standardize the measurement of the concept of 
> > mass?
> 
> Let's go back to
> 
> m = F / a
> 
>   which simply states that the "mass" of an object is a measure of how much force F you have to apply to it get it to accelerate at a given rate.
> 
>   In other words, you take a given, unknown mass and apply a known, calibrated  force to it, and see how quickly the mass accelerates. Do the math and you get the mass.
> 
>   You can use ANY UNITS YOU WANT for F and a as long as they are part of a consistent system; conventionally F is in kilograms times (meters per second per second), naturally, since mass is in kilograms and acceleration is in meters per second per second, but force can be in poundals and acceleration can be in furlongs per fortnight per season. When you do the measuring whatever result you get will always convert exactly back to whatever you would have calculated in metric because...
> 
>   the equation describes a ratio, not fundamental quantities.
> 
>   The reason it doesn't describe fundamental quantities is that as far as we know so far *there is no fundamental quantized unit of mass* the way there is a fundamental quantized unit of electrical charge and of spin angular momentum. All of the units for mass we use are mere conventions.
> 
>   (The so-called Planck mass has been proposed as the fundamental quantum of mass but we don't yet have the technology to see if there exist masses less than that.)
> 
>   The bottom line is that you start with a known force, like the combustion of a given volume of fuel in a confined space, or an animal pulling on a rope, or whatever (yeah, I know, " A standard horse? Seriously?" but that was how horsepower was defined in Them Days), and time things with a clock that ticks at a reproducible rate and measure distances with a ruler marked with ticks all the same distance apart.
> 
>   The mass falls out of the equation and then tells you how to describe the force.
> 
>   It really isn't circular.
> 
> 
>   Mark L. Fergerson
==============================
why do you talk so much ??

it is not 
F = gamma a 
it is 
F /Gamma = m a
AND M REMAINS CONSTANT !!
IOW
IN ORDER OF ADDING VELOCITY
**WE NEED MORE ***FORCE**TO DO IT!!

WHILE m REMAINS  **CONSTANT**

just stick it to your blocked parroting head :


MOVEMENT CANNOT CREATE MASS !!
ENERGY IS CONSTANT
BECAUSE MASS IS CONSTANT !

(while you run
your mass becomes bigger ???
and while you stop that run
the mass 'ACCUMULATED ' disappeared   ----'PUFF """
(does it hurt you will your stuffed mass ''disappeared '???!! 
do you feel as if a skarpel (spelling ??) was cutting you ???

enough is enough with stupidity physics !!
=====================
old copyright  Yehiel  Porat
==================================

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

#522999

On Wednesday, September 23, 2015 at 9:03:19 AM UTC-7, gilber34 wrote:
> I now understand that mass is only defined by its effects, so I realize 
> that my biggest problem is related to quantification. I don't understand 
> how people came up with a system to quantify mass.
> 
> I tried to figure it out using the formula for mass, which is F= m . a 
> and my issue was the following: a: Acceleration as a concept is very 
> straightforward.
> 
> It's a measure of the distance in relation to the time in which it is 
> traveled. In order to measure distance, we've taken an arbitrary amount 
> of space and called it a meter and an arbitrary amount of time and 
> called it seconds.
> 
> Nothing to look for there, it's all arbitrary. F: Same with force. In 
> order to quantify it, we arbitrarily decided to equal 1 unit of force 
> (newton) with what is needed to make an object of 1 kilogram have an 
> acceleration of 1 meter per second. m:
> 
> But when it comes to mass, I don't see what they used to quantify it 
> (given that it's definitely not the amount of atoms contained in an 
> object). You could say that it's that which causes the needed force to 
> accelerate the object to be greater the bigger it is, but then there's a 
> loophole in the definition (force is defined in terms of mass and mass 
> is defined in terms of force).
> 
> So what basis was used to standardize the measurement of the concept of 
> mass?

I read mass is frozen energy. Hmmmm  TreBert

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

#523546

On 23/09/2015 12:02 PM, gilber34 wrote:
> I now understand that mass is only defined by its effects, so I realize
> that my biggest problem is related to quantification. I don't understand
> how people came up with a system to quantify mass.
>
> I tried to figure it out using the formula for mass, which is F= m . a
> and my issue was the following: a: Acceleration as a concept is very
> straightforward.

I'm going to go about this from a different angle, a more modern point 
of view. That is Einstein's Special Relativity:

E = m * c^2

or, more appropriately:

m = E / c^2

Why am I going from this Relativistic point of view, rather than the 
more traditional Newtonian point of view? And what difference does it 
make if you go from one POV or the other? The reason is that Einstein's 
POV actually tells you where mass comes from and how it is created, 
whereas Newton's doesn't, all Newton's does is it tells you what happens 
to a mass when you apply a force to it.

What is implied in the Relativistic interpretation of mass is that mass 
and energy are really different versions of the same thing, somewhat 
like ice and water are different versions of the same thing. 
Specifically, what mass is is a form of energy that is stuck in an area 
of space, unable to move through it at full speed (i.e. the speed of 
light). Any form of energy that travels at less than the speed of light 
is called mass. Furthermore, any form of energy that travels at the 
speed of light, but is confined within a contained area of space, acts 
like mass too, because it's stuck in the contained area, even if it's 
bouncing around at the speed of light within it.

So what this means is that you can use the same units to describe mass 
as you can use to measure Energy. So one unit of energy is the "eV" 
(electron-volt), used in particle physics, rather than the Joule; the 
associated mass unit is eV/c^2 (electron-volt per light-speed squared). 
The eV/c^2 is often just shortened down to eV because c^2 is a constant. 
You can even convert the kg to an eV/c^2:

1 kg = 5.609589×10^35 eV/c^2

> But when it comes to mass, I don't see what they used to quantify it
> (given that it's definitely not the amount of atoms contained in an
> object). You could say that it's that which causes the needed force to
> accelerate the object to be greater the bigger it is, but then there's a
> loophole in the definition (force is defined in terms of mass and mass
> is defined in terms of force).
>
> So what basis was used to standardize the measurement of the concept of
> mass?

So what does this weird value of the kilogram, tell us about the 
kilogram? It just means that the kilogram is just an arbitrary unit that 
was created at a time when we weren't measuring individual atoms, but 
bulk items of daily practical value. The original definition of the 
kilogram was 1 cubic meter of water is equal to 1 kg, at room 
temperature at standard atmospheric pressure. So if you expect the kg to 
be related to a specific rounded number of atoms of something, then you 
can forget it, it wasn't the purpose of the kg when it was created.

When we originally started creating units of measurement, they were 
based on human-scale requirements. Those units of measurement aren't 
necessarily the best units for use in particle-scale objects, because 
they weren't meant to be for those measurements. So we've got units that 
are more appropriate for particle-scale measurements (eV & eV/c^2), vs. 
human-scale (J & kg).

	Yousuf Khan

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

#523573

On Monday, September 28, 2015 at 2:13:19 AM UTC-4, Yousuf Khan wrote:
> On 23/09/2015 12:02 PM, gilber34 wrote:
> > I now understand that mass is only defined by its effects, so I realize
> > that my biggest problem is related to quantification. I don't understand
> > how people came up with a system to quantify mass.
> >
> > I tried to figure it out using the formula for mass, which is F= m . a
> > and my issue was the following: a: Acceleration as a concept is very
> > straightforward.
> 
> I'm going to go about this from a different angle, a more modern point 
> of view. That is Einstein's Special Relativity:
> 
> E = m * c^2
> 
> or, more appropriately:
> 
> m = E / c^2
> 
> Why am I going from this Relativistic point of view, rather than the 
> more traditional Newtonian point of view? And what difference does it 
> make if you go from one POV or the other? The reason is that Einstein's 
> POV actually tells you where mass comes from and how it is created, 
> whereas Newton's doesn't, all Newton's does is it tells you what happens 
> to a mass when you apply a force to it.

Regardless of Newton, your equation above is not due to Einstein. Do
your history homework before you project your brainwashing.

> What is implied in the Relativistic interpretation of mass is that mass 
> and energy are really different versions of the same thing, somewhat 
> like ice and water are different versions of the same thing. 
> Specifically, what mass is is a form of energy that is stuck in an area 
> of space, unable to move through it at full speed (i.e. the speed of 
> light). Any form of energy that travels at less than the speed of light 
> is called mass. Furthermore, any form of energy that travels at the 
> speed of light, but is confined within a contained area of space, acts 
> like mass too, because it's stuck in the contained area, even if it's 
> bouncing around at the speed of light within it.

E=hf per Planck, the true unsung hero of QM. 
 
> So what this means is that you can use the same units to describe mass 
> as you can use to measure Energy. So one unit of energy is the "eV" 
> (electron-volt), used in particle physics, rather than the Joule; the 
> associated mass unit is eV/c^2 (electron-volt per light-speed squared). 
> The eV/c^2 is often just shortened down to eV because c^2 is a constant. 
> You can even convert the kg to an eV/c^2:
> 
> 1 kg = 5.609589×10^35 eV/c^2

There are far more measurement systems than are dreamt of in your domain.
 
> > But when it comes to mass, I don't see what they used to quantify it
> > (given that it's definitely not the amount of atoms contained in an
> > object). You could say that it's that which causes the needed force to
> > accelerate the object to be greater the bigger it is, but then there's a
> > loophole in the definition (force is defined in terms of mass and mass
> > is defined in terms of force).
> >
> > So what basis was used to standardize the measurement of the concept of
> > mass?
> 
> So what does this weird value of the kilogram, tell us about the 
> kilogram? It just means that the kilogram is just an arbitrary unit that 
> was created at a time when we weren't measuring individual atoms, but 
> bulk items of daily practical value. The original definition of the 
> kilogram was 1 cubic meter of water is equal to 1 kg, at room 
> temperature at standard atmospheric pressure. So if you expect the kg to 
> be related to a specific rounded number of atoms of something, then you 
> can forget it, it wasn't the purpose of the kg when it was created.

One cubic meter of water? Seriously? Can you Yousuf lift 1kg of one cubic
meter of ...as you say... water? Post youtube. I'll find my way to there.
 
> When we originally started creating units of measurement, they were 
> based on human-scale requirements. Those units of measurement aren't 
> necessarily the best units for use in particle-scale objects, because 
> they weren't meant to be for those measurements. So we've got units that 
> are more appropriate for particle-scale measurements (eV & eV/c^2), vs. 
> human-scale (J & kg).
> 
> 	Yousuf Khan

Who is this we We WE you are a registered card carrying member of Khan?

-- Mahipal

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

#523683

Mahipal wrote:

> On Monday, September 28, 2015 at 2:13:19 AM UTC-4, Yousuf Khan wrote:
>> On 23/09/2015 12:02 PM, gilber34 wrote:
>> > I now understand that mass is only defined by its effects, so I realize
>> > that my biggest problem is related to quantification. I don't
>> > understand how people came up with a system to quantify mass.

From Newton’s «Philosophiæ Naturalis Principia Mathematica» (1686):

«Def. I.

Quantitas Materiæ est mensura ejusdem orta ex illius Densitate & Magnitudine 
conjunctim.

Aer duplo densior in duplo spatio quadruplus est. Idem intellige de Nive et 
Pulveribus per compressionem vel liquefactionem condensatis. Et par est 
ratio corporum omnium, quæ per causas quascunq; diversimode condensantur. 
Medii interea, si quod fuerit, interstitia partium libere pervadentis, hic 
nullam rationem habeo. Hanc autem quantitatem sub nomine corporis vel Massæ 
in sequentibus passim intelligo. Innotescit ea per corporis cujusq; pondus. 
Nam ponderi proportionalem esse reperi per experimenta pendulorum 
accuratissime instituta, uti posthac docebitur.»

Which Motte (1729) translated to:

“Def. I.

The Quantity of Matter is the measure of the same, arising from its density 
and bulk conjunctly.

THUS AIR of a double density, in a double space, is quadruple in quantity; 
in a triple space, sextuple in quantity. The same thing is to be understood 
of snow, and fine dust or powders, that are condensed by compression or 
liquefaction; and of all bodies that are by any causes whatever differently 
condensed. I have no regard in this place to a medium, if any such there is, 
that freely pervades the interstices between the parts of bodies. It is this 
quantity that I mean hereafter everywhere under the name of Body or Mass. 
And the same is known by the weight of each body, for it is proportional to 
the weight, as I have found by experiments on pendulums, very accurately 
made, which shall be shewn [sic] hereafter.”

<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philosophi%C3%A6_Naturalis_Principia_Mathematica#External_links>

>> > I tried to figure it out using the formula for mass, which is F= m . a
>> > and my issue was the following: a: Acceleration as a concept is very
>> > straightforward.
>> 
>> I'm going to go about this from a different angle, a more modern point
>> of view. That is Einstein's Special Relativity:
>> 
>> E = m * c^2
>> 
>> or, more appropriately:
>> 
>> m = E / c^2
>> 
>> Why am I going from this Relativistic point of view, rather than the
>> more traditional Newtonian point of view? And what difference does it
>> make if you go from one POV or the other? The reason is that Einstein's
>> POV actually tells you where mass comes from and how it is created,
>> whereas Newton's doesn't, all Newton's does is it tells you what happens
>> to a mass when you apply a force to it.

ACK.
 
> Regardless of Newton, your equation above is not due to Einstein.

Yes, it *is* (due to [*because of*] Einstein).  From “Ist die Trägheit eines 
Körpers von seinem Energieinhalt abhängig?“ (1905; “Does the inertia of a 
body depend upon its energy content?”):

„[…]
Aus dieser Gleichung folgt unmittelbar:
  Gibt ein Körper die Energie L in Form von Strahlung ab, so verkleinert 
sich seine Masse um L∕V². […]“

Whereas Einstein still used “V” for the speed of light (from /velocitas/).
Which in the book “The Principle of Relativity” (1923) is translated to:

“[…]
From this equation it directly follows that:—
  If a body gives off the energy L in the form of radiation, its mass 
diminishes by L/c². […]”

That uses the then-adopted standard of “c“ as symbol for the speed of light.

> Do your history homework before you project your brainwashing.

Do yours.  Einstein has not written the equation (this way), but, as you can 
see above, he was the first to formulate the idea of mass–energy 
equivalence.  (This is an interesting historic fact because Newton did not 
explicitly write “F = m a” either, but initially he used words to describe 
motion, the same as Aristotle before.  [Only that Aristotle’s got it 
wrong.])

<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mass%E2%80%93energy_equivalence#Nomenclature>
<https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/%C3%84quivalenz_von_Masse_und_Energie#Zeittafel>

> E=hf per Planck, the true unsung hero of QM.

Hardly.  AFAIK, Planck was the one who first used “c” as symbol for the 
speed of light in vacuum, writing down the mass–energy equivalence as

  M = (E₀ + p V₀)/c²

where p is pressure and V₀ is volume, in 1907.

And *quanta* (not: QM – Quantum Mechanics) were just an idea of Planck’s at 
the time; the idea gained acceptance and *later* there was QM because 
Einstein used Planck’s idea, including E = ℎf, to explain the photoelectric 
effect in 1905 (for which Einstein was awarded the Nobel Prize in Physics 
1921; and Einstein has given him due credit in his work, so there really is 
nothing for you to complain about).  In fact, Einstein assumed quanticized 
*light*, an idea that Planck was *opposed to* at the time.

That is not to say that someone else could not have done it later (several 
scientists were working on the problem), but Einstein was the one who did 
it.  So if you are an admirer of Planck’s, you better show a little respect 
for Einstein as well.

Finally, it turns out that the energy–momentum relation of (Einstein’s) 
special relativity, derived from the norm of the four-momentum in Minkowski 
space(time),

  E² = (pc)² + (mc²)²

when solved for energy E,

   E = √((pc)² + (mc²)²),

beautifully reduces to

   E = pc

for photons with assumed mass m = 0, which, because of Planck’s relation of 
momentum

   p = ℎf∕c,

gives

   E = ℎf∕c × c

and therefore Planck’s

   E = ℎf.

>> So what this means is that you can use the same units to describe mass
>> as you can use to measure Energy. So one unit of energy is the "eV"
>> (electron-volt), used in particle physics, rather than the Joule; the
>> associated mass unit is eV/c^2 (electron-volt per light-speed squared).
>> The eV/c^2 is often just shortened down to eV because c^2 is a constant.
>> You can even convert the kg to an eV/c^2:
>> 
>> 1 kg = 5.609589×10^35 eV/c^2
> 
> There are far more measurement systems than are dreamt of in your domain.

That is a funny reply, but this is not a measurement system, it is the 
definition of a unit of mass.  And this unit is particularly useful indeed, 
because it allows us to increase charged particles’ (e.g., protons’) 
energies by accelerating them (and we can calculate how fast they need to go 
to carry a certain energy, so we know how fast to switch the electromagnets 
accelerating them), and then creating particles with rather huge, but 
assumed distinct, masses, like Higgs bosons (one with a mass of 125 GeV∕c²), 
by having those accelerated particles collide with one another.

<http://home.web.cern.ch/about/accelerators>
  
>> So what does this weird value of the kilogram, tell us about the
>> kilogram? It just means that the kilogram is just an arbitrary unit that
>> was created at a time when we weren't measuring individual atoms, but
>> bulk items of daily practical value. The original definition of the
>> kilogram was 1 cubic meter of water is equal to 1 kg, at room
>> temperature at standard atmospheric pressure.

It was (and is) effectively one litre (1 cubic _decimetre_) of water, the 
specified temperature was lower (ca. 4 °C, not ca. 20 °C), and there was no 
statement as to the pressure (so “standard atmospheric pressure” is implied 
only).  Everything else is correct ;-)

>> So if you expect the kg to be related to a specific rounded number of
>> atoms of something, then you can forget it, it wasn't the purpose of the
>> kg when it was created.
> 
> One cubic meter of water? Seriously?

His number is off by a factor of 1000, and there are a few inaccuracies, but 
otherwise it was indeed decreed in France, 1795:

« 5. Les nouvelles mesures seront distinguées dorénavant par le surnom de 
républicaines; leur nomenclature est définitivement adoptée comme il suit:  
On appellera: Mètre, la mesure de longueur égale à la dix-millionième partie 
de l'arc du méridien terrestre compris entre le pôle boréal et l'équateur.  
[…]
Gramme, le poids absolu d'un volume d'eau pure égal au cube de la centième 
partie du mètre , et à la température de la glace fondante.
[…] »

Which, according to Google Translate and me, translates to:

“5. The new measures will now be distinguished by the additional name 
‘Republican’; their nomenclature is definitively adopted as follows:  
We will call: metre, the measurement of length equal to the ten millionth 
part of the terrestrial meridian arc between the North Pole and the equator. 
[…]
Gram, the absolute weight of a volume of pure water equal to the cube of the 
hundredth part of the meter [one cubic centimetre; the tr.], and at the 
temperature of melting ice.
[…]”

From that, because the kilogram (1'000 grams) proved to be more practical in 
everyday life, an all-platinum kilogram prototype was made in 1799; it 
served as standard until 1889.

<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kilogram#Kilogramme_des_Archives> p.

> Can you Yousuf lift 1kg of one cubic meter of ...as you say... water?

If it is confined, and given a long enough lever ;-), certainly everyone 
can.  And we can measure the mass of the confinement, say a barrel, 
separately.  So subtract that from the mass of what you are lifting 
(confinement + water), you get the mass of the water you would be lifting.

>> When we originally started creating units of measurement, they were
>> based on human-scale requirements. […]
> 
> Who is this we We WE

Humanity.  Now that was easy.

See also one of my earlier articles on the subject:

<news:8576732.FFMuFSN7Ay@PointedEars.de>


PointedEars
-- 
Q: What did the female magnet say to the male magnet?  
A: From the back, I found you repulsive, but from the front
   I find myself very attracted to you.
(from: WolframAlpha)

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

#523706

On Tuesday, September 29, 2015 at 5:31:5 PointedEars
> -- 
> Q: What did the female magnet say to the male magnet?  
> A: From the back, I found you repulsive, but from the front
>    I find myself very attracted to you.
> (from: WolframAlpha)
========================================
photons have mass = 0 ???

Your F en mother has mass 0 !!

JUST REMEMBER BLOCKHEAD  PARROT :

the most simple  powerful basic new rule of physics :

==============================================
NO MASS **THE ONLY !! MASS ** - NO REAL PHYSICS !!!
=================================================
historic copyright 
ATB
Y.Porat
======================

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

#523714

Y.Porat wrote:

> On Tuesday, September 29, 2015 at 5:31:5 PointedEars
>> --
>> Q: What did the female magnet say to the male magnet?
>> A: From the back, I found you repulsive, but from the front
>>    I find myself very attracted to you.
>> (from: WolframAlpha)
> ========================================

Why are you quoting the scientific joke in my random signature, but not the 
part of my posting that you are actually referring to?

> photons have mass = 0 ???

Yes, that is the current assumption.

It is required for two observations:

1. that the range of the electromagnetic interaction, for which photons are
   the carriers, is apparently infinite;

2. that this interaction happens at the speed of light (which lead to the
   oft-confirmed assumption of Maxwell that light *is* an electromagnetic
   wave).

It is possible that this is not exactly so, that photons have a small mass 
that is just very close to zero.  Then the range of the electromagnetic 
force would not be infinite, but just very very great (up to including about 
90 billion light-years proper distance and increasing, as we can still see 
the CMB), and then either they could not travel at the speed of light or 
relativity would have to be revised or replaced by a better theory.

The Particle Data Group currently places the limit for the mass of the 
photon at less than 10⁻¹⁸ eV in natural units (c = 1):

<http://pdg.lbl.gov/2014/tables/rpp2014-sum-gauge-higgs-bosons.pdf>

> Your F en mother has mass 0 !!
> 
> JUST REMEMBER BLOCKHEAD  PARROT :
> 
> the most simple  powerful basic new rule of physics :
> 
> ==============================================
> NO MASS **THE ONLY !! MASS ** - NO REAL PHYSICS !!!
> =================================================
> historic copyright
> ATB
> Y.Porat
> ======================

Poor crackPorat, nobody listens to your nonsense.


PointedEars
-- 
A neutron walks into a bar and inquires how much a drink costs.
The bartender replies, "For you? No charge."

(from: WolframAlpha)

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

#523715

Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote:

> It is possible that […] photons have a small mass that is just very close
> to zero.  Then the range of the electromagnetic force would not be
> infinite, but just very very great (up to including about 90 billion 
> light-years proper distance and increasing, as we can still see the CMB),
> […]

Correction: The CMB is currently about 46 billion (4.6 × 10¹⁰) light-years 
proper distance away.


PointedEars
-- 
Heisenberg is out for a drive when he's stopped by a traffic cop. 
The officer asks him "Do you know how fast you were going?" 
Heisenberg replies "No, but I know where I am."
(from: WolframAlpha)

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

#523716

On Tuesday, September 29, 2015 at 2:21:12 PM UTC+3, Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote:
> Y.Porat wrote:
> 
> > On Tuesday, September 29, 2015 at 5:31:5 PointedEars
> >> --
> >> Q: What did the female magnet say to the male magnet?
> >> A: From the back, I found you repulsive, but from the front
> >>    I find myself very attracted to you.
> >> (from: WolframAlpha)
> > ========================================
> 
> Why are you quoting the scientific joke in my random signature, but not the 
> part of my posting that you are actually referring to?
> 
> > photons have mass = 0 ???
> 
> Yes, that is the current assumption.
> 
> It is required for two observations:
> 
> 1. that the range of the electromagnetic interaction, for which photons are
>    the carriers, is apparently infinite;
> 
> 2. that this interaction happens at the speed of light (which lead to the
>    oft-confirmed assumption of Maxwell that light *is* an electromagnetic
>    wave).
> 
> It is possible that this is not exactly so, that photons have a small mass 
> that is just very close to zero.  Then the range of the electromagnetic 
> force would not be infinite, but just very very great (up to including about 
> 90 billion light-years proper distance and increasing, as we can still see 
> the CMB), and then either they could not travel at the speed of light or 
> relativity would have to be revised or replaced by a better theory.
> 
> The Particle Data Group currently places the limit for the mass of the 
> photon at less than 10⁻¹⁸ eV in natural units (c = 1):
> 
> <http://pdg.lbl.gov/2014/tables/rpp2014-sum-gauge-higgs-bosons.pdf>
> 
> > Your F en mother has mass 0 !!
> > 
> > JUST REMEMBER BLOCKHEAD  PARROT :
> > 
> > the most simple  powerful basic new rule of physics :
> > 
> > ==============================================
> > NO MASS **THE ONLY !! MASS ** - NO REAL PHYSICS !!!
> > =================================================
> > historic copyright
> > ATB
> > Y.Porat
> > ======================
> 
> Poor crackPorat, nobody listens to your nonsense.
> 
>==============================
you deck parrot do not listen
others do !!! 

the Maxwell constants contain mass 
got it fucker ??
2
indeed a very small mass:

exp -90 kilogram !!
got it f er ??
3
see the formula 
E=hf
h contains mass m 
there is no fucking factor to multiply it by your 
F en    zero
or any F en gamma factor to  make it relativistic 
got it anonymous dreck ??

4
go F yourself with 'virtual particles' 
imbecile mathematician crook
a criminal against mankind !! 

Y.P
=========================================


 

 

>

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

#523717

On Monday, September 28, 2015 at 10:31:51 PM UTC-4, Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote:
> Mahipal wrote:
> 
> > On Monday, September 28, 2015 at 2:13:19 AM UTC-4, Yousuf Khan wrote:
> >> On 23/09/2015 12:02 PM, gilber34 wrote:
> >> > I now understand that mass is only defined by its effects, so I realize
> >> > that my biggest problem is related to quantification. I don't
> >> > understand how people came up with a system to quantify mass.
> 
> From Newton’s «Philosophiæ Naturalis Principia Mathematica» (1686):
> 
> «Def. I.
> 
> Quantitas Materiæ est mensura ejusdem orta ex illius Densitate & Magnitudine 
> conjunctim.
> 
> Aer duplo densior in duplo spatio quadruplus est. Idem intellige de Nive et 
> Pulveribus per compressionem vel liquefactionem condensatis. Et par est 
> ratio corporum omnium, quæ per causas quascunq; diversimode condensantur. 
> Medii interea, si quod fuerit, interstitia partium libere pervadentis, hic 
> nullam rationem habeo. Hanc autem quantitatem sub nomine corporis vel Massæ 
> in sequentibus passim intelligo. Innotescit ea per corporis cujusq; pondus. 
> Nam ponderi proportionalem esse reperi per experimenta pendulorum 
> accuratissime instituta, uti posthac docebitur.»
> 
> Which Motte (1729) translated to:
> 
> “Def. I.
> 
> The Quantity of Matter is the measure of the same, arising from its density 
> and bulk conjunctly.
> 
> THUS AIR of a double density, in a double space, is quadruple in quantity; 
> in a triple space, sextuple in quantity. The same thing is to be understood 
> of snow, and fine dust or powders, that are condensed by compression or 
> liquefaction; and of all bodies that are by any causes whatever differently 
> condensed. I have no regard in this place to a medium, if any such there is, 
> that freely pervades the interstices between the parts of bodies. It is this 
> quantity that I mean hereafter everywhere under the name of Body or Mass. 
> And the same is known by the weight of each body, for it is proportional to 
> the weight, as I have found by experiments on pendulums, very accurately 
> made, which shall be shewn [sic] hereafter.”
> 
> <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philosophi%C3%A6_Naturalis_Principia_Mathematica#External_links>
> 
> >> > I tried to figure it out using the formula for mass, which is F= m . a
> >> > and my issue was the following: a: Acceleration as a concept is very
> >> > straightforward.
> >> 
> >> I'm going to go about this from a different angle, a more modern point
> >> of view. That is Einstein's Special Relativity:
> >> 
> >> E = m * c^2
> >> 
> >> or, more appropriately:
> >> 
> >> m = E / c^2
> >> 
> >> Why am I going from this Relativistic point of view, rather than the
> >> more traditional Newtonian point of view? And what difference does it
> >> make if you go from one POV or the other? The reason is that Einstein's
> >> POV actually tells you where mass comes from and how it is created,
> >> whereas Newton's doesn't, all Newton's does is it tells you what happens
> >> to a mass when you apply a force to it.
> 
> ACK.
>  
> > Regardless of Newton, your equation above is not due to Einstein.
> 
> Yes, it *is* (due to [*because of*] Einstein).  From “Ist die Trägheit eines 
> Körpers von seinem Energieinhalt abhängig?“ (1905; “Does the inertia of a 
> body depend upon its energy content?”):

https://www.google.com/?gws_rd=ssl#q=Italian+E%3Dmcc follow your links.

As I understand SW technologies, Google can personalize the search
results you might be allowed to read (i.e. Chinese Google, ...).

I grew up being force-fed Einsteins's famous equation. Then I actually
grew up and a few true teachers, like hanson here on Usenet, showed me
to see the actual light.

> „[…]
> Aus dieser Gleichung folgt unmittelbar:
>   Gibt ein Körper die Energie L in Form von Strahlung ab, so verkleinert 
> sich seine Masse um L∕V². […]“
> 
> Whereas Einstein still used “V” for the speed of light (from /velocitas/).
> Which in the book “The Principle of Relativity” (1923) is translated to:
> 
> “[…]
> From this equation it directly follows that:—
>   If a body gives off the energy L in the form of radiation, its mass 
> diminishes by L/c². […]”
> 
> That uses the then-adopted standard of “c“ as symbol for the speed of light.

I am not obsessed with any of the symbols used. I read/write cursive.

> > Do your history homework before you project your brainwashing.
> 
> Do yours.  Einstein has not written the equation (this way), but, as you can 
> see above, he was the first to formulate the idea of mass–energy 
> equivalence.  (This is an interesting historic fact because Newton did not 
> explicitly write “F = m a” either, but initially he used words to describe 
> motion, the same as Aristotle before.  [Only that Aristotle’s got it 
> wrong.])

I did do my research. Thomas, you need to open up your search queries.
 
> <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mass%E2%80%93energy_equivalence#Nomenclature>
> <https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/%C3%84quivalenz_von_Masse_und_Energie#Zeittafel>
> 
> > E=hf per Planck, the true unsung hero of QM.
> 
> Hardly.  AFAIK, Planck was the one who first used “c” as symbol for the 
> speed of light in vacuum, writing down the mass–energy equivalence as
> 
>   M = (E₀ + p V₀)/c²
> 
> where p is pressure and V₀ is volume, in 1907.
> 
> And *quanta* (not: QM – Quantum Mechanics) were just an idea of Planck’s at 
> the time; the idea gained acceptance and *later* there was QM because 
> Einstein used Planck’s idea, including E = ℎf, to explain the photoelectric 
> effect in 1905 (for which Einstein was awarded the Nobel Prize in Physics 
> 1921; and Einstein has given him due credit in his work, so there really is 
> nothing for you to complain about).  In fact, Einstein assumed quanticized 
> *light*, an idea that Planck was *opposed to* at the time.

What is this quanticized word mean? Typo?

https://www.google.com/?gws_rd=ssl#q=quanticized About 1,740 results (0.43 seconds)

Btw... To me see, ℎ is Planck's constant. Period. Fighting himself is heroic.

> That is not to say that someone else could not have done it later (several 
> scientists were working on the problem), but Einstein was the one who did 
> it.  So if you are an admirer of Planck’s, you better show a little respect 
> for Einstein as well.

A little is all I got, as time goes on. It's a relativistic thing. I
accept that credit is given where it's due, not where it's assigned. I
wasn't born yesterday... I think. And Society daily punishes me for
it. Not for being born, but for thinking. May be for both. Oye... 

> Finally, it turns out that the energy–momentum relation of (Einstein’s) 
> special relativity, derived from the norm of the four-momentum in Minkowski 
> space(time),
> 
>   E² = (pc)² + (mc²)²
> 
> when solved for energy E,
> 
>    E = √((pc)² + (mc²)²),
> 
> beautifully reduces to
> 
>    E = pc

Beautifully? Hmmm... the full law of cosines is far more beautiful.

> for photons with assumed mass m = 0, which, because of Planck’s relation of 
> momentum
> 
>    p = ℎf∕c,
> 
> gives
> 
>    E = ℎf∕c × c
> 
> and therefore Planck’s
> 
>    E = ℎf.

If there isn't a differential in the equation, then... Yawn yawn YAWN.
 
> >> So what this means is that you can use the same units to describe mass
> >> as you can use to measure Energy. So one unit of energy is the "eV"
> >> (electron-volt), used in particle physics, rather than the Joule; the
> >> associated mass unit is eV/c^2 (electron-volt per light-speed squared).
> >> The eV/c^2 is often just shortened down to eV because c^2 is a constant.
> >> You can even convert the kg to an eV/c^2:
> >> 
> >> 1 kg = 5.609589×10^35 eV/c^2
> > 
> > There are far more measurement systems than are dreamt of in your domain.
> 
> That is a funny reply, but this is not a measurement system, it is the 
> definition of a unit of mass.  And this unit is particularly useful indeed, 
> because it allows us to increase charged particles’ (e.g., protons’) 
> energies by accelerating them (and we can calculate how fast they need to go 
> to carry a certain energy, so we know how fast to switch the electromagnets 
> accelerating them), and then creating particles with rather huge, but 
> assumed distinct, masses, like Higgs bosons (one with a mass of 125 GeV∕c²), 
> by having those accelerated particles collide with one another.
> 
> <http://home.web.cern.ch/about/accelerators>

It's funny because it's true. Ergo the invented Canonical Unit System.
By invented, I mean discovered. But with an accent. Hear it.

> >> So what does this weird value of the kilogram, tell us about the
> >> kilogram? It just means that the kilogram is just an arbitrary unit that
> >> was created at a time when we weren't measuring individual atoms, but
> >> bulk items of daily practical value. The original definition of the
> >> kilogram was 1 cubic meter of water is equal to 1 kg, at room
> >> temperature at standard atmospheric pressure.
> 
> It was (and is) effectively one litre (1 cubic _decimetre_) of water, the 
> specified temperature was lower (ca. 4 °C, not ca. 20 °C), and there was no 
> statement as to the pressure (so “standard atmospheric pressure” is implied 
> only).  Everything else is correct ;-)

I'm too mature to deal with emoticons. I gave them up last millennium.
After reading a lot of Shakespeare and many Hindi lyrics books, in old
fashioned paper, I one day realized, there exist no emoticons there. 
Not that you or anyone asked why. I now do read paperWorks less and less.

One either respects me as a human being, or else one is ...youKnow.

> >> So if you expect the kg to be related to a specific rounded number of
> >> atoms of something, then you can forget it, it wasn't the purpose of the
> >> kg when it was created.
> > 
> > One cubic meter of water? Seriously?
> 
> His number is off by a factor of 1000, and there are a few inaccuracies, but 
> otherwise it was indeed decreed in France, 1795:

No wonder tiny French spoon sized dishes are considered a full meal. He he...

A 1000 is a lot, and Khan was talking about regular ordinary STP water.
Even in pre Pope Climate Change Obama Times, water must've moved the
same.  Funny how no one in the accounting department ever makes a 1000
times error in our favor. Do the math... and an accountant you shall be...

In the bigger picture, just because the French may have arbitrarily
defined their kilogram, I certainly, one part of the collective We, had
not heard of it before. I should get out more.

To say it in another way, just because many people thought the Earth 
(an ancient Sanskrit word, btw) was flat, doesn't mean we all ever did.

> « 5. Les nouvelles mesures seront distinguées dorénavant par le surnom de 
> républicaines; leur nomenclature est définitivement adoptée comme il suit:  
> On appellera: Mètre, la mesure de longueur égale à la dix-millionième partie 
> de l'arc du méridien terrestre compris entre le pôle boréal et l'équateur.  
> […]
> Gramme, le poids absolu d'un volume d'eau pure égal au cube de la centième 
> partie du mètre , et à la température de la glace fondante.
> […] »
> 
> Which, according to Google Translate and me, translates to:
> 
> “5. The new measures will now be distinguished by the additional name 
> ‘Republican’; their nomenclature is definitively adopted as follows:  
> We will call: metre, the measurement of length equal to the ten millionth 
> part of the terrestrial meridian arc between the North Pole and the equator. 
> […]
> Gram, the absolute weight of a volume of pure water equal to the cube of the 
> hundredth part of the meter [one cubic centimetre; the tr.], and at the 
> temperature of melting ice.
> […]”
> 
> From that, because the kilogram (1'000 grams) proved to be more practical in 
> everyday life, an all-platinum kilogram prototype was made in 1799; it 
> served as standard until 1889.

Yes, heard about it while in Thermodynamics classes at some University.
 
> <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kilogram#Kilogramme_des_Archives> p.

So definitions are arbitray. I know that, knew that, will never forget.
 
> > Can you Yousuf lift 1kg of one cubic meter of ...as you say... water?

You've deleted more than I have time to rewrite. I'll deal with it. 

As it should be, please leave others' posts intact. It's less work
(Integral of Force dot displacement vectors) for one, and two, it's
polite and not misleading. As has been demonstrated, many people pride
themselves for not reading aLongListOfNames via killfiles. This leads
to them reading your post, this one for instance, and taking my words
completely out of context. Tia.

We we WE wouldn't want to hurt the killfilers' stated feelings.

> If it is confined, and given a long enough lever ;-), certainly everyone 
> can.  And we can measure the mass of the confinement, say a barrel, 
> separately.  So subtract that from the mass of what you are lifting 
> (confinement + water), you get the mass of the water you would be lifting.

Let's leave the lever out for now. The point is, the balance scale
device is thousands of years old, with or without Newton or Einstein.
 
> >> When we originally started creating units of measurement, they were
> >> based on human-scale requirements. […]
> > 
> > Who is this we We WE
> 
> Humanity.  Now that was easy.

Well, easy since you took my words out of context. See original sentence.

> See also one of my earlier articles on the subject:
> 
> <news:8576732.FFMuFSN7Ay@PointedEars.de>

I do always read your articles Thomas (in sci.physics NG). Good stuff.

> PointedEars
> -- 
> Q: What did the female magnet say to the male magnet?  
> A: From the back, I found you repulsive, but from the front
>    I find myself very attracted to you.
> (from: WolframAlpha)

-- Mahipal "Given 'We = Us + Them' so let's Divide and Conquer!"

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

#523723

Mahipal wrote:

> […] Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote:
>> Mahipal wrote:
>> > Regardless of Newton, your equation above is not due to Einstein.
>> Yes, it *is* (due to [*because of*] Einstein).  From “Ist die Trägheit
>> eines Körpers von seinem Energieinhalt abhängig?“ (1905; “Does the
>> inertia of a body depend upon its energy content?”):
>
> https://www.google.com/?gws_rd=ssl#q=Italian+E%3Dmcc follow your links.
>
> As I understand SW technologies, Google can personalize the search
> results you might be allowed to read (i.e. Chinese Google, ...).

Probably you mean

<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Olinto_De_Pretto>

(If yes, why did you not refer to it?)

There are *claims* that De Pretto, “an Italian industrialist and geologist”
(not: physicist), has written the equation first.  Cite evidence.

> I grew up being force-fed Einsteins's famous equation. Then I actually
> grew up and a few true teachers, like hanson here on Usenet, showed me
> to see the actual light.

ROTFL.  What do you dream of at night?

>> [translation:] “[…]
>> From this equation it directly follows that:—
>>   If a body gives off the energy L in the form of radiation, its mass
>> diminishes by L/c². […]”
>>
>> That uses the then-adopted standard of “c“ as symbol for the speed of
>> light.
>
> I am not obsessed with any of the symbols used.

The point of my argument is not the symbols, but the idea.  Einstein
provably had it first *without* assuming an aether.  Learn to read.

> I read/write cursive.

You write nonsense.

>> […] In fact, Einstein assumed quanticized *light*, an idea that Planck
>> was *opposed to* at the time.
>
> What is this quanticized word mean? Typo?

Yes, it is “quantized” instead.

> Btw... To me see, ℎ is Planck's constant. Period. Fighting himself is
> heroic.

You are talking nonsense.  Of course ℎ is Planck’s constant; he used it in
his equations.  But Planck did *not* start quantum *mechanics*; Einstein
did, using Planck’s idea of quanta, but *different* from Planck, he used it
for *light*.

> [energy–momentum relation]
> If there isn't a differential in the equation, then... Yawn yawn YAWN.

There does not have to be a differential in *this* equation.

Go read
<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Energy%E2%80%93momentum_relation#Norm_of_the_four-momentum>
p.

>> >> […] The original definition of the kilogram was 1 cubic meter of
>> >> water is equal to 1 kg, at room temperature at standard atmospheric
>> >> pressure.
>> It was (and is) effectively one litre (1 cubic _decimetre_) of water, the
>> specified temperature was lower (ca. 4 °C, not ca. 20 °C), and there was
>> no statement as to the pressure (so “standard atmospheric pressure” is
>> implied only).  Everything else is correct ;-)
>
> I'm too mature to deal with emoticons.

You should say instead that you have lost your sense of humor.  Which is
_not_ a sign of maturity.

> [drivel]

Get a life.

-- 
PointedEars

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

#523730

On Tuesday, September 29, 2015 at 9:11:05 AM UTC-4, Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote:
> Mahipal wrote:
> 
> > […] Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote:
> >> Mahipal wrote:
> >> > Regardless of Newton, your equation above is not due to Einstein.
> >> Yes, it *is* (due to [*because of*] Einstein).  From “Ist die Trägheit
> >> eines Körpers von seinem Energieinhalt abhängig?“ (1905; “Does the
> >> inertia of a body depend upon its energy content?”):
> >
> > https://www.google.com/?gws_rd=ssl#q=Italian+E%3Dmcc follow your links.
> >
> > As I understand SW technologies, Google can personalize the search
> > results you might be allowed to read (i.e. Chinese Google, ...).
> 
> Probably you mean
> 
> <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Olinto_De_Pretto>
> 
> (If yes, why did you not refer to it?)

It's right there in the search results. More than just Wiki.
 
> There are *claims* that De Pretto, “an Italian industrialist and geologist”
> (not: physicist), has written the equation first.  Cite evidence.

Evidence you will merely ignore? As you just did. Open your mind PointedEars.

> > I grew up being force-fed Einsteins's famous equation. Then I actually
> > grew up and a few true teachers, like hanson here on Usenet, showed me
> > to see the actual light.
> 
> ROTFL.  What do you dream of at night?

Sometimes I dream during the day. I even D.R.E.A.M. at all times.
 
> >> [translation:] “[…]
> >> From this equation it directly follows that:—
> >>   If a body gives off the energy L in the form of radiation, its mass
> >> diminishes by L/c². […]”
> >>
> >> That uses the then-adopted standard of “c“ as symbol for the speed of
> >> light.
> >
> > I am not obsessed with any of the symbols used.
> 
> The point of my argument is not the symbols, but the idea.  Einstein
> provably had it first *without* assuming an aether.  Learn to read.
> 
> > I read/write cursive.
> 
> You write nonsense.

Of course I write nonsense, who doesn't? Cite evidence.

> >> […] In fact, Einstein assumed quanticized *light*, an idea that Planck
> >> was *opposed to* at the time.
> >
> > What is this quanticized word mean? Typo?
> 
> Yes, it is “quantized” instead.
> 
> > Btw... To me see, ℎ is Planck's constant. Period. Fighting himself is
> > heroic.
> 
> You are talking nonsense.  Of course ℎ is Planck’s constant; he used it in
> his equations.  But Planck did *not* start quantum *mechanics*; Einstein
> did, using Planck’s idea of quanta, but *different* from Planck, he used it
> for *light*.
> 
> > [energy–momentum relation]
> > If there isn't a differential in the equation, then... Yawn yawn YAWN.
> 
> There does not have to be a differential in *this* equation.

What's with all these *s of yours? What age are you, thirty something?
 
> Go read
> <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Energy%E2%80%93momentum_relation#Norm_of_the_four-momentum>
> p.

I've read plenty, even before Wiki was invented.
 
> >> >> […] The original definition of the kilogram was 1 cubic meter of
> >> >> water is equal to 1 kg, at room temperature at standard atmospheric
> >> >> pressure.
> >> It was (and is) effectively one litre (1 cubic _decimetre_) of water, the
> >> specified temperature was lower (ca. 4 °C, not ca. 20 °C), and there was
> >> no statement as to the pressure (so “standard atmospheric pressure” is
> >> implied only).  Everything else is correct ;-)
> >
> > I'm too mature to deal with emoticons.
> 
> You should say instead that you have lost your sense of humor.  Which is
> _not_ a sign of maturity.

Ok, I have lost my sense of humour. When you find it, send it back.

> > [drivel]

I agree with you, yet you too just wrote drivel. Who doesn't?
 
> Get a life.

Good advice.
 
> -- 
> PointedEars

-- Mahipal

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

#523734

Mahipal wrote:

> On Tuesday, September 29, 2015 at 9:11:05 AM UTC-4, Thomas 'PointedEars'
> Lahn wrote:
>> Mahipal wrote:
>> > […] Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote:
>> >> Mahipal wrote:
>> >> > Regardless of Newton, your equation above is not due to Einstein.
>> >> Yes, it *is* (due to [*because of*] Einstein).  From “Ist die Trägheit
>> >> eines Körpers von seinem Energieinhalt abhängig?“ (1905; “Does the
>> >> inertia of a body depend upon its energy content?”):
>> >
>> > https://www.google.com/?gws_rd=ssl#q=Italian+E%3Dmcc follow your links.
>> >
>> > As I understand SW technologies, Google can personalize the search
>> > results you might be allowed to read (i.e. Chinese Google, ...).
>> 
>> Probably you mean
>> 
>> <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Olinto_De_Pretto>
>> 
>> (If yes, why did you not refer to it?)
> 
> It's right there in the search results. More than just Wiki.

It does not work this way.

>> > [energy–momentum relation]
>> > If there isn't a differential in the equation, then... Yawn yawn YAWN.
>> 
>> There does not have to be a differential in *this* equation.
> 
> What's with all these *s of yours?

Asterisks are used for emphasis in a plain-text communications medium like 
Usenet.

> What age are you, thirty something?

Ad hominem.


PointedEars
-- 
Q: Why is electricity so dangerous?  
A: It doesn't conduct itself.

(from: WolframAlpha)

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

#523738

On Tuesday, September 29, 2015 at 10:22:32 AM UTC-4, Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote:
> Mahipal wrote:
> 
> > On Tuesday, September 29, 2015 at 9:11:05 AM UTC-4, Thomas 'PointedEars'
> > Lahn wrote:
> >> Mahipal wrote:
> >> > [...] Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote:
> >> >> Mahipal wrote:
> >> >> > Regardless of Newton, your equation above is not due to Einstein.
> >> >> Yes, it *is* (due to [*because of*] Einstein).  From "Ist die Trägheit
> >> >> eines Körpers von seinem Energieinhalt abhängig?" (1905; "Does the
> >> >> inertia of a body depend upon its energy content?"):
> >> >
> >> > https://www.google.com/?gws_rd=ssl#q=Italian+E%3Dmcc follow your links.
> >> >
> >> > As I understand SW technologies, Google can personalize the search
> >> > results you might be allowed to read (i.e. Chinese Google, ...).
> >> 
> >> Probably you mean
> >> 
> >> <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Olinto_De_Pretto>
> >> 
> >> (If yes, why did you not refer to it?)
> > 
> > It's right there in the search results. More than just Wiki.
> 
> It does not work this way.

It's not my search engine, you're welcome to use any other.
We the humans write all over the WWW, Google indexes us all.
 
> >> > [energy-momentum relation]
> >> > If there isn't a differential in the equation, then... Yawn yawn YAWN.
> >> 
> >> There does not have to be a differential in *this* equation.
> > 
> > What's with all these *s of yours?
> 
> Asterisks are used for emphasis in a plain-text communications medium like 
> Usenet.

I knew that. Each of your words is important, so no need for *s.

> > What age are you, thirty something?
> 
> Ad hominem.

No Thomas, mine's just a simple friendly question. Got emoticon for that?

> PointedEars
> -- 
> Q: Why is electricity so dangerous?  
> A: It doesn't conduct itself.
> 
> (from: WolframAlpha)

-- Mahipal 'WolframAlpha should get a Comedy Central gig.'

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

#523752

Mahipal wrote:

> On Tuesday, September 29, 2015 at 10:22:32 AM UTC-4, Thomas 'PointedEars'
> Lahn wrote:

It’s attribution *line*; _not_ attribution novel.

>> Mahipal wrote:
>> > On Tuesday, September 29, 2015 at 9:11:05 AM UTC-4, Thomas
>> > 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote:
>> >> Mahipal wrote:
>> >> > [...] Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote:
>> >> >> Mahipal wrote:
>> >> >> > Regardless of Newton, your equation above is not due to Einstein.
>> >> >> Yes, it *is* (due to [*because of*] Einstein).  From "Ist die
>> >> >> Trägheit eines Körpers von seinem Energieinhalt abhängig?" (1905;
>> >> >> "Does the inertia of a body depend upon its energy content?"):
>> >> >
>> >> > https://www.google.com/?gws_rd=ssl#q=Italian+E%3Dmcc follow your
>> >> > links.
>> >> >
>> >> > As I understand SW technologies, Google can personalize the search
>> >> > results you might be allowed to read (i.e. Chinese Google, ...).
>> >> 
>> >> Probably you mean
>> >> 
>> >> <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Olinto_De_Pretto>
>> >> 
>> >> (If yes, why did you not refer to it?)
>> > It's right there in the search results. More than just Wiki.
>> It does not work this way.
> 
> It's not my search engine, you're welcome to use any other.
> We the humans write all over the WWW, Google indexes us all.

You misunderstand.  I mean that a constructive discussion does not work this 
way.  For in a constructive discussion, one does not make a claim, gives 
keywords for a Web search, and waits for others to find the evidence; 
instead, one *directly* references the evidence that backs up one’s 
position.  Failure to produce direct evidence for one’s position is 
indicative of an empty claim, often of mere belief, wishful thinking and 
hearsay.

For example, I have referred (you) to a particular Wikipedia article, 
because there you can find evidence (with references – you are making the 
common mistake of discounting Wikipedia too quickly; it does have a 
*scientific*, encyclopaedic approach) that De Pretto did not write “E = 
mc²”.

You would be well-advised to subscribe to <news:sci.physics.relativity> 
where we have discussed these issues numerous times.
  
>> >> > [energy-momentum relation]
>> >> > If there isn't a differential in the equation, then... Yawn yawn
>> >> > YAWN.
>> >> There does not have to be a differential in *this* equation.
>> > What's with all these *s of yours?
>> Asterisks are used for emphasis in a plain-text communications medium
>> like Usenet.
> 
> I knew that. Each of your words is important, so no need for *s.

You will have to leave my posting style to me.  I thought it important to 
emphasize the word “this”.  Had you followed the reference I have given, you 
would have found out that there are differentials in the equations from 
where this equation can be derived.
 
>> > What age are you, thirty something?
>> Ad hominem.
> 
> No Thomas, mine's just a simple friendly question.

Doubtful.  You have asked that question when referring to maturity and 
emoticons, saying that you would be “too mature” to use emoticons.  which, 
as I have used an emoticon here, implies that you think an age of “thirty 
something” is not mature.

Besides, my age is irrelevant to this discussion, and none of your business 
anyway.

> Got emoticon for that?

I use emoticons where appropriate; I use them sparingly because I assume 
that people have a sense of humor.
 
>> --
>> Q: Why is electricity so dangerous?
>> A: It doesn't conduct itself.
>> 
>> (from: WolframAlpha)
> 
> -- Mahipal 'WolframAlpha should get a Comedy Central gig.'

They just collect known scientific jokes.  Among many other things, most of 
which are rather serious, you can ask WolframAlpha to give you a math joke 
(the default), a physics joke, or a chemistry joke:

<http://www.wolframalpha.com/examples/Surprises.html>


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]

Page 2 of 4 — ← Prev page 1 [2] 3 4  Next page →

Back to top | Article view | sci.physics

csiph-web