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

Groups > sci.physics > #585246 > unrolled thread

'NO MASS' -THE ONLY **ONE* !! MASS -== NO REAL PHYSICS !!!

Back to article view | Back to sci.physics

Contents

  'NO MASS' -THE ONLY **ONE* !! MASS -== NO REAL PHYSICS !!! "Y.Porat" <y.y.porat@gmail.com> - 2016-06-16 23:01 -0700
    Re: 'NO MASS' -THE ONLY **ONE* !! MASS -== NO REAL PHYSICS !!! Double-A <double-a3@hush.com> - 2016-06-20 12:31 -0700
      Re: 'NO MASS' -THE ONLY **ONE* !! MASS -== NO REAL PHYSICS !!! john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2016-06-20 17:52 -0700
        Re: 'NO MASS' -THE ONLY **ONE* !! MASS -== NO REAL PHYSICS !!! ClutterFreak <ClutterFreak@FakeAddress.com> - 2016-06-20 20:36 -0500
          Re: 'NO MASS' -THE ONLY **ONE* !! MASS -== NO REAL PHYSICS !!! Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-06-21 08:40 -0500
            Re: 'NO MASS' -THE ONLY **ONE* !! MASS -== NO REAL PHYSICS !!! ClutterFreak <ClutterFreak@FakeAddress.com> - 2016-06-21 10:50 -0500
              Re: 'NO MASS' -THE ONLY **ONE* !! MASS -== NO REAL PHYSICS !!! Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-06-21 11:41 -0500
                Re: 'NO MASS' -THE ONLY **ONE* !! MASS -== NO REAL PHYSICS !!! "Y.Porat" <y.y.porat@gmail.com> - 2016-06-23 02:45 -0700
              Re: 'NO MASS' -THE ONLY **ONE* !! MASS -== NO REAL PHYSICS !!! Mahipal <mahipal7638@gmail.com> - 2016-06-21 15:09 -0700
                Re: 'NO MASS' -THE ONLY **ONE* !! MASS -== NO REAL PHYSICS !!! ClutterFreak <ClutterFreak@FakeAddress.com> - 2016-06-21 19:17 -0500
                  Re: 'NO MASS' -THE ONLY **ONE* !! MASS -== NO REAL PHYSICS !!! moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2016-06-22 15:51 +0000
                    Re: 'NO MASS' -THE ONLY **ONE* !! MASS -== NO REAL PHYSICS !!! "Y.Porat" <y.y.porat@gmail.com> - 2016-06-23 02:50 -0700
                Re: 'NO MASS' -THE ONLY **ONE* !! MASS -== NO REAL PHYSICS !!! ClutterFreak <ClutterFreak@FakeAddress.com> - 2016-06-21 19:36 -0500
                  Re: 'NO MASS' -THE ONLY **ONE* !! MASS -== NO REAL PHYSICS !!! john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2016-06-21 18:55 -0700
                  Re: 'NO MASS' -THE ONLY **ONE* !! MASS -== NO REAL PHYSICS !!! Mahipal <mahipal7638@gmail.com> - 2016-06-22 09:53 -0700
                    Re: 'NO MASS' -THE ONLY **ONE* !! MASS -== NO REAL PHYSICS !!! ClutterFreak <ClutterFreak@FakeAddress.com> - 2016-06-22 13:35 -0500
                      Re: 'NO MASS' -THE ONLY **ONE* !! MASS -== NO REAL PHYSICS !!! john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2016-06-22 14:58 -0700
              Re: 'NO MASS' -THE ONLY **ONE* !! MASS -== NO REAL PHYSICS !!! "Y.Porat" <y.y.porat@gmail.com> - 2016-06-21 23:47 -0700
        Re: 'NO MASS' -THE ONLY **ONE* !! MASS -== NO REAL PHYSICS !!! moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2016-06-21 02:06 +0000
        Re: 'NO MASS' -THE ONLY **ONE* !! MASS -== NO REAL PHYSICS !!! Double-A <double-a3@hush.com> - 2016-06-21 13:30 -0700
      Re: 'NO MASS' -THE ONLY **ONE* !! MASS -== NO REAL PHYSICS !!! noTthaTguY <abu.kuanysh05@gmail.com> - 2016-06-20 18:29 -0700
      Re: 'NO MASS' -THE ONLY **ONE* !! MASS -== NO REAL PHYSICS !!! "Y.Porat" <y.y.porat@gmail.com> - 2016-06-21 00:46 -0700
        corpuscles are onion\newty (and Snell's laW is the simplest sine law, other then the law of sines (a/sinA = b/sinB = c/sinC ... what is the spatial version noTthaTguY <abu.kuanysh05@gmail.com> - 2016-06-21 14:32 -0700
          Re: corpuscles are onion\newty (and Snell's laW is the simplest sine law, other then the law of sines (a/sinA = b/sinB = c/sinC ... what is the spatial version "Y.Porat" <y.y.porat@gmail.com> - 2016-06-21 23:55 -0700
            Re: corpuscles are onion\newty (and Snell's laW is the simplest sine law, other then the law of sines (a/sinA = b/sinB = c/sinC ... what is the spatial version john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2016-06-22 06:10 -0700
              Re: corpuscles are onion\newty (and Snell's laW is the simplest sine law, other then the law of sines (a/sinA = b/sinB = c/sinC ... what is the spatial version "Y.Porat" <y.y.porat@gmail.com> - 2016-06-25 02:48 -0700
                Re: corpuscles are onion\newty (and Snell's laW is the simplest sine law, other then the law of sines (a/sinA = b/sinB = c/sinC ... what is the spatial version noTthaTguY <abu.kuanysh05@gmail.com> - 2016-06-25 16:21 -0700
                  Re: corpuscles are onion\newty (and Snell's laW is the simplest sine law, other then the law of sines (a/sinA = b/sinB = c/sinC ... what is the spatial version noTthaTguY <abu.kuanysh05@gmail.com> - 2016-06-25 16:52 -0700
                    Re: corpuscles are onion\newty (and Snell's laW is the simplest sine law, other then the law of sines (a/sinA = b/sinB = c/sinC ... what is the spatial version noTthaTguY <abu.kuanysh05@gmail.com> - 2016-06-26 17:00 -0700
                      Re: corpuscles are onion\newty (and Snell's laW is the simplest sine law, other then the law of sines (a/sinA = b/sinB = c/sinC ... what is the spatial version noTthaTguY <abu.kuanysh05@gmail.com> - 2016-06-27 17:13 -0700
                        Re: corpuscles are onion\newty (and Snell's laW is the simplest sine law, other then the law of sines (a/sinA = b/sinB = c/sinC ... what is the spatial version "Y.Porat" <y.y.porat@gmail.com> - 2016-06-28 00:27 -0700
                          space is free with atoms in it noTthaTguY <abu.kuanysh05@gmail.com> - 2016-06-28 10:54 -0700

Page 1 of 2  [1] 2  Next page →

#585246 — 'NO MASS' -THE ONLY **ONE* !! MASS -== NO REAL PHYSICS !!!

'NO MASS' -THE ONLY **ONE* !!!! MASS -== NO REAL PHYSICS !!!

Even photons have mass = the only one mass !
(not ''relativistic'' and not 'schmelativistic '' mass !!
 
old copyright by

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

[toc] | [next] | [standalone]

#585854

On Thursday, June 16, 2016 at 11:01:08 PM UTC-7, Y.Porat wrote:
> 'NO MASS' -THE ONLY **ONE* !!!! MASS -== NO REAL PHYSICS !!!
> 
> Even photons have mass = the only one mass !
> (not ''relativistic'' and not 'schmelativistic '' mass !!
>  
> old copyright by
> 
>  TIA
> Eng
> Y.Porat
>  ================================


Of course.  All other particles have mass, so why not photons?  Just because our science has not yet precise enough instruments to measure it does not mean it does not exist.

Double-A

 

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

#585913

What is "mass"?
The Earth's mass has been shown to
vary according to a sine wave.
How can something have less or more mass
depending on spin?
Hmm??

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

#585927

On Mon, 20 Jun 2016 17:52:10 -0700 (PDT), john wrote:

> What is "mass"?
> The Earth's mass has been shown to
> vary according to a sine wave.
> How can something have less or more mass
> depending on spin?
> Hmm??

Mass boils down to proton. If we know what it is in
proton that's mass, we will know all about mass
everywhere because much to the contrary to other
scale-related rules and/or physics mass at macro scale
is just mass at proton scale multiplied by a very
large number. As simple as that. I.E. no "emerging"
complications whatsoever. 

Why mass of proton and not neutron? Because everything
was just proton and electrons (hydrogen) at one time
in the past. Nothing else existed. 

I don't have my physics books to look up what role
mass of proton plays in an atom, and I refuse to use
wikipedia for physics issues. Papers? I want money to
go to that length. So... one of you guys may have
something about this I'd like to know. 
==
     "az khar miporseh chAhArshanbe keye."

---
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
https://www.avast.com/antivirus

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

#585990

On 6/20/2016 8:36 PM, ClutterFreak wrote:
> Why mass of proton and not neutron? Because everything
> was just proton and electrons (hydrogen) at one time
> in the past. Nothing else existed.

Reference?

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

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

#586007

On Tue, 21 Jun 2016 08:40:49 -0500, Odd Bodkin wrote:

> On 6/20/2016 8:36 PM, ClutterFreak wrote:
>> Why mass of proton and not neutron? Because everything
>> was just proton and electrons (hydrogen) at one time
>> in the past. Nothing else existed.
> 
> Reference?
> 

BodBod I just said I don't have my physics material
with me. Some words and responses come out of you
purely spontaneously. 

Since at some time back everything was just protons
and electrons, hydrogen atom is a black box containing
everything in physics that there is. It is the key to
everything. 

Before protons and electrons existed things were even
simpler than that but I'd say too simple to give way
to the secrets of physics. And on the other hands,
what came after protons and electrons didn't get too
different from them. Therefore hydrogen atom is the
ideal system to study. 

They say hydrogen atom is "fully understood". This is
nonsense. The issue of mass and gravity and its
relation to other theories would've been established
firmly if hydrogen was fully understood. 

If hydrogen was understood enough, we would know much
better what light is, what mass is, what electricity
is, and what gravity is. None of this is known. We
don't even have the math to help us understand such
stuff. We are at the beginning of the road, stuck in
parochial shit, thanks to short-sighted people and
cultures who've made it their business to study such
matters. These will have to change before progress is
made. 
--
     "moddati in masnavi ta'khir shod
     mohlati bAyast tA khun shir shod"

                        - Mowlana

---
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
https://www.avast.com/antivirus

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

#586020

On 6/21/2016 10:50 AM, ClutterFreak wrote:
> On Tue, 21 Jun 2016 08:40:49 -0500, Odd Bodkin wrote:
>
>> On 6/20/2016 8:36 PM, ClutterFreak wrote:
>>> Why mass of proton and not neutron? Because everything
>>> was just proton and electrons (hydrogen) at one time
>>> in the past. Nothing else existed.
>>
>> Reference?
>>
>
> BodBod I just said I don't have my physics material
> with me. Some words and responses come out of you
> purely spontaneously.

OK, so your statement that at one time only protons and electrons 
existed is not supportable by any reference material, and you only 
stated it because you THINK it is true? And what am I supposed to do 
with unsupported conjectures from you that you present as fact?

>
> Since at some time back everything was just protons
> and electrons, hydrogen atom is a black box containing
> everything in physics that there is. It is the key to
> everything.
>
> Before protons and electrons existed things were even
> simpler than that but I'd say too simple to give way
> to the secrets of physics. And on the other hands,
> what came after protons and electrons didn't get too
> different from them. Therefore hydrogen atom is the
> ideal system to study.
>
> They say hydrogen atom is "fully understood". This is
> nonsense. The issue of mass and gravity and its
> relation to other theories would've been established
> firmly if hydrogen was fully understood.
>
> If hydrogen was understood enough, we would know much
> better what light is, what mass is, what electricity
> is, and what gravity is. None of this is known. We
> don't even have the math to help us understand such
> stuff. We are at the beginning of the road, stuck in
> parochial shit, thanks to short-sighted people and
> cultures who've made it their business to study such
> matters. These will have to change before progress is
> made.
> --
>      "moddati in masnavi ta'khir shod
>      mohlati bAyast tA khun shir shod"
>
>                         - Mowlana
>
> ---
> This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
> https://www.avast.com/antivirus
>


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

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

#586294

On Tuesday, June 21, 2016 at 7:41:05 PM UTC+3, Odd Bodkin wrote:
> On 6/21/2016 10:50 AM, ClutterFreak wrote:
> > On Tue, 21 Jun 2016 08:40:49 -0500, Odd Bodkin wrote:
> >
> >> On 6/20/2016 8:36 PM, ClutterFreak wrote:
> >>> Why mass of proton and not neutron? Because everything
> >>> was just proton and electrons (hydrogen) at one time
> >>> in the past. Nothing else existed.
> >>
> >> Reference?
> >>
> >
> > BodBod I just said I don't have my physics material
> > with me. Some words and responses come out of you
> > purely spontaneously.
> 
> OK, so your statement that at one time only protons and electrons 
> existed is not supportable by any reference material, and you only 
> stated it because you THINK it is true? And what am I supposed to do 
> with unsupported conjectures from you that you present as fact?
> 
> >
> > Since at some time back everything was just protons
> > and electrons, hydrogen atom is a black box containing
> > everything in physics that there is. It is the key to
> > everything.
> >
> > Before protons and electrons existed things were even
> > simpler than that but I'd say too simple to give way
> > to the secrets of physics. And on the other hands,
> > what came after protons and electrons didn't get too
> > different from them. Therefore hydrogen atom is the
> > ideal system to study.
> >
> > They say hydrogen atom is "fully understood". This is
> > nonsense. The issue of mass and gravity and its
> > relation to other theories would've been established
> > firmly if hydrogen was fully understood.
> >
> > If hydrogen was understood enough, we would know much
> > better what light is, what mass is, what electricity
> > is, and what gravity is. None of this is known. We
> > don't even have the math to help us understand such
> > stuff. We are at the beginning of the road, stuck in
> > parochial shit, thanks to short-sighted people and
> > cultures who've made it their business to study such
> > matters. These will have to change before progress is
> > made.
> > --
> >      "moddati in masnavi ta'khir shod
> >      mohlati bAyast tA khun shir shod"
> >
> >                         - Mowlana
> >
> > ---
> > This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
> > https://www.avast.com/antivirus
> >
> 
> 
> -- 
> Odd Bodkin --- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
======================
the electron is on and off the proton
and you get Neutron on and off 
in certain cases

see 
Google
'the Y Porat Model an abstract '

Protons are marked 'white''
and neutrons 'black
(for the sake of visualizing and memorizing
and   handling it 

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

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

#586083

On Tuesday, June 21, 2016 at 11:50:04 AM UTC-4, ClutterFreak wrote:
> On Tue, 21 Jun 2016 08:40:49 -0500, Odd Bodkin wrote:
> 
> > On 6/20/2016 8:36 PM, ClutterFreak wrote:
> >> Why mass of proton and not neutron? Because everything
> >> was just proton and electrons (hydrogen) at one time
> >> in the past. Nothing else existed.
> > 
> > Reference?
> 
> BodBod I just said I don't have my physics material
> with me. Some words and responses come out of you
> purely spontaneously. 

For BodBod, all answers preexist in his precious B&W books.
No new books or thoughts need ever be born... just SciHD shows.
 
> Since at some time back everything was just protons
> and electrons, hydrogen atom is a black box containing
> everything in physics that there is. It is the key to
> everything. 

Everything is a lock? Makes sense... I feel imprisoned...

> Before protons and electrons existed things were even
> simpler than that but I'd say too simple to give way
> to the secrets of physics. And on the other hands,
> what came after protons and electrons didn't get too
> different from them. Therefore hydrogen atom is the
> ideal system to study. 
> 
> They say hydrogen atom is "fully understood". This is
> nonsense. The issue of mass and gravity and its
> relation to other theories would've been established
> firmly if hydrogen was fully understood. 

Well, they pretend and convey that gravity does not exist. Gravity is
like a sari, a burka, or a thong, or a pink invisible miniskirt...
NFAR, someones (12 of 'em) are out there controlling the message...
 
> If hydrogen was understood enough, we would know much
> better what light is, what mass is, what electricity
> is, and what gravity is. None of this is known. We
> don't even have the math to help us understand such
> stuff. We are at the beginning of the road, stuck in
> parochial shit, thanks to short-sighted people and
> cultures who've made it their business to study such
> matters. These will have to change before progress is
> made. 

Start here... my paper books are distant from me as well...
Odd took them from me! http://users.aber.ac.uk/ruw/teach/237/hatom.php

Actually, if I recall correctly, the Hydrogen Atom is the only atom
with an exact mathematical solution, via Schrödinger's Equation, for
its behaviour/mechanics/structure... All other elements in the
Periodic Table require computational solutions, for ...youKnow.
 
https://www.google.com/?gws_rd=ssl#q=quantum+mechanics+hydrogen+atom

> --
>      "moddati in masnavi ta'khir shod
>      mohlati bAyast tA khun shir shod"
>                         - Mowlana

Perhaps provide an English translation of your quotes?

> ---
> This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
> https://www.avast.com/antivirus

-- Mahipal “IPMM... माहिपाल ७६३८: d(me) != 0 ... me alwa(y)s changes...”

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

#586099

On Tue, 21 Jun 2016 15:09:56 -0700 (PDT), Mahipal 
wrote:

> Start here... my paper books are distant from me as well...
> Odd took them from me! http://users.aber.ac.uk/ruw/teach/237/hatom.php
> 
> Actually, if I recall correctly, the Hydrogen Atom is the only atom
> with an exact mathematical solution, via Schrödinger's Equation, for
> its behaviour/mechanics/structure... All other elements in the
> Periodic Table require computational solutions, for ...youKnow.
>  
> https://www.google.com/?gws_rd=ssl#q=quantum+mechanics+hydrogen+atom

Yes, that treatment only brings in the charges into 
account. It doesn't say anything about nucleus and 
considers it motionless in one spot. Mass and inertia 
are totally out of the picture. Would've been a nice 
exercise what the result would be if proton was, say, 
only 10 times more massive than electrons. Would this 
theory match observation? I doubt it. Actually the 
whole world would be different. So mass must play a 
role. 
--
     "AftAbeh lagan haft dast, shAmo nAhAr hichchi"

---
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
https://www.avast.com/antivirus

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

#586171

ClutterFreak <ClutterFreak@FakeAddress.com> writes:

>On Tue, 21 Jun 2016 15:09:56 -0700 (PDT), Mahipal 
>wrote:

>> Actually, if I recall correctly, the Hydrogen Atom is the only atom
>> with an exact mathematical solution, via Schrödinger's Equation, for
>> its behaviour/mechanics/structure... All other elements in the
>> Periodic Table require computational solutions, for ...youKnow.

They have exact solutions for hydrogenLIKE atoms/ions.  These are atoms/ions
with a nucleus and one electron.  A hydrogenlike oxygen ion will have an
oxygen nucleus (+8) and one electron, for a total charge of +7.

As soon as you add more electrons, the electrons interact with/repel each
other and the you can no longer compute an exact solution.

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

#586295

On Wednesday, June 22, 2016 at 6:52:13 PM UTC+3, Michael Moroney wrote:
> ClutterFreak <ClutterFreak@FakeAddress.com> writes:
> 
> >On Tue, 21 Jun 2016 15:09:56 -0700 (PDT), Mahipal 
> >wrote:
> 
> >> Actually, if I recall correctly, the Hydrogen Atom is the only atom
> >> with an exact mathematical solution, via Schrödinger's Equation, for
> >> its behaviour/mechanics/structure... All other elements in the
> >> Periodic Table require computational solutions, for ...youKnow.
> 
> They have exact solutions for hydrogenLIKE atoms/ions.  These are atoms/ions
> with a nucleus and one electron.  A hydrogenlike oxygen ion will have an
> oxygen nucleus (+8) and one electron, for a total charge of +7.
> 
> As soon as you add more electrons, the electrons interact with/repel each
> other and the you can no longer compute an exact solution.

===========================
some shocking'''' news''' for you 
IN  heavy Atom
you don't have the same number of electrons
as Protons !!

see table 2 and 3 at my abstract

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

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

#586102

On Tue, 21 Jun 2016 15:09:56 -0700 (PDT), Mahipal
wrote:

> For BodBod, all answers preexist in his precious B&W books.
> No new books or thoughts need ever be born... just SciHD shows.

BodBod is, in effect, another Hanson. Not a single
line of any use as long as I remember in the past
three months. And then he goes around like a crusader
here too :) Yes he can "resent". Big deal. 
--
     "tobeye gorg margeh."

---
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
https://www.avast.com/antivirus

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

#586109

Bod has just about worn this 'nym out.
Number 5,.....or 6

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

#586175

On Tuesday, June 21, 2016 at 8:36:22 PM UTC-4, ClutterFreak wrote:
> On Tue, 21 Jun 2016 15:09:56 -0700 (PDT), Mahipal
> wrote:
> 
> > For BodBod, all answers preexist in his precious B&W books.
> > No new books or thoughts need ever be born... just SciHD shows.
> 
> BodBod is, in effect, another Hanson. Not a single
> line of any use as long as I remember in the past
> three months. And then he goes around like a crusader
> here too :) Yes he can "resent". Big deal. 

You just don't get/comprehend/understand my pal Sir HansonJi. Try to.
That words have multiple meanings is a fault in and of them Readers.

Writing/Literature provides for many ways to express one's self.

In my experience, one has to read for substance, not just empty rhetoric
that BodBodOdd provides. One does have to ponder, why does BodBodOdd
provide so much emptiness to this Earth? Why why WHY?! Who reads it?!

> --
>      "tobeye gorg margeh."

Slang for "hooked on chronics"? Don't make me search, ClusterFuckedUpFreak.

I could care less about the Analytics BigData Google stores upon us Us US...
I exist, therefore I am, deal with me Me ME... I as Sir René DescartesIsmIshQ+Ji...
You, Corporate/GovernMentalists, already have/hold my shopping history/capability...

> ---
> This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
> https://www.avast.com/antivirus

-- Mahipal “IPMM... माहिपाल ७६३८: d(me) != 0 ... me alwa(y)s changes...”

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

#586198

On Wed, 22 Jun 2016 09:53:18 -0700 (PDT), Mahipal
wrote:

>>      "tobeye gorg margeh."
> 
> Slang for "hooked on chronics"? Don't make me search, 
> ClusterFuckedUpFreak.

Hehe :) It's a persian saying, meaning "a repentant
wolf is a dead wolf." I thought it had application for
the cases of Hanson or BodBod (or hvac). 
--

---
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
https://www.avast.com/antivirus

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

#586230

:)

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

#586131

On Tuesday, June 21, 2016 at 6:50:04 PM UTC+3, ClutterFreak wrote:
> On Tue, 21 Jun 2016 08:40:49 -0500, Odd Bodkin wrote:
> 
> > On 6/20/2016 8:36 PM, ClutterFreak wrote:
> >> Why mass of proton and not neutron? Because everything
> >> was just proton and electrons (hydrogen) at one time
> >> in the past. Nothing else existed.
> > 
> > Reference?
> > 
> 
> BodBod I just said I don't have my physics material
> with me. Some words and responses come out of you
> purely spontaneously. 
> 
> Since at some time back everything was just protons
> and electrons, hydrogen atom is a black box containing
> everything in physics that there is. It is the key to
> everything. 
> 
> Before protons and electrons existed things were even
> simpler than that but I'd say too simple to give way
> to the secrets of physics. And on the other hands,
> what came after protons and electrons didn't get too
> different from them. Therefore hydrogen atom is the
> ideal system to study. 
> 
> They say hydrogen atom is "fully understood". This is
> nonsense. The issue of mass and gravity and its
> relation to other theories would've been established
> firmly if hydrogen was fully understood. 
> 
> If hydrogen was understood enough, we would know much
> better what light is, what mass is, what electricity
> is, and what gravity is. None of this is known. We
> don't even have the math to help us understand such
> stuff. We are at the beginning of the road, stuck in
> parochial shit, thanks to short-sighted people and
> cultures who've made it their business to study such
> matters. These will have to change before progress is
> made. 
> --
>      "moddati in masnavi ta'khir shod
>      mohlati bAyast tA khun shir shod"
> 
>=============================
gravity does not belong only yo Protons or Hydrogen

===========================
IT BELONGS TO **ANY MASS **
MASS IS THE MOTHER OF ALL FORCES INCLUDING GRAVITY !

said copyrighter - old Y.Porat
=====================================

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

#585938

john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> tarded:

>What is "mass"?
>The Earth's mass has been shown to
>vary according to a sine wave.

Reference?

And how much is this alleged variation? (And what's the period?)

NASA lists the earth mass as (5.9722±0.0006)×10^24 kg. That's enough
sig figs that it couldn't be much, if it actually existed.

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

#586060

On Monday, June 20, 2016 at 5:52:13 PM UTC-7, john wrote:
> What is "mass"?
> The Earth's mass has been shown to
> vary according to a sine wave.
> How can something have less or more mass
> depending on spin?
> Hmm??


What trig book did you read that in?

Double-A

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

Page 1 of 2  [1] 2  Next page →

Back to top | Article view | sci.physics

csiph-web