Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > sci.physics > #700703 > unrolled thread
| Started by | poraty149@gmail.com |
|---|---|
| First post | 2018-09-01 06:54 -0700 |
| Last post | 2018-09-01 15:46 -0700 |
| Articles | 20 on this page of 38 — 12 participants |
Back to article view | Back to sci.physics
WHAT IS MORE BASIC ? ! - ENERGY - OR MASS ?? poraty149@gmail.com - 2018-09-01 06:54 -0700
Re: WHAT IS MORE BASIC ? ! - ENERGY - OR MASS ?? Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-09-01 15:30 +0000
Re: WHAT IS MORE BASIC ? ! - ENERGY - OR MASS ?? benj <benj.fake@gmail.com> - 2018-09-01 11:38 -0400
Re: WHAT IS MORE BASIC ? ! - ENERGY - OR MASS ?? Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-09-01 15:50 +0000
Re: WHAT IS MORE BASIC ? ! - ENERGY - OR MASS ?? benj <benj.fake@gmail.com> - 2018-09-01 12:09 -0400
Re: WHAT IS MORE BASIC ? ! - ENERGY - OR MASS ?? Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-09-01 16:34 +0000
Re: WHAT IS MORE BASIC ? ! - ENERGY - OR MASS ?? poraty149@gmail.com - 2018-09-01 11:21 -0700
Re: WHAT IS MORE BASIC ? ! - ENERGY - OR MASS ?? poraty149@gmail.com - 2018-09-01 11:04 -0700
Re: WHAT IS MORE BASIC ? ! - ENERGY - OR MASS ?? Wally W. <ww84wa@aim.com> - 2018-09-01 14:48 -0400
Re: WHAT IS MORE BASIC ? ! - ENERGY - OR MASS ?? Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-09-01 20:04 +0000
Re: WHAT IS MORE BASIC ? ! - ENERGY - OR MASS ?? Double-A <double-a3@hush.com> - 2018-09-01 15:00 -0700
Re: WHAT IS MORE BASIC ? ! - ENERGY - OR MASS ?? poraty149@gmail.com - 2018-09-01 19:17 -0700
Re: WHAT IS MORE BASIC ? ! - ENERGY - OR MASS ?? Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-09-02 02:27 +0000
Re: WHAT IS MORE BASIC ? ! - ENERGY - OR MASS ?? poraty149@gmail.com - 2018-09-02 02:28 -0700
Re: WHAT IS MORE BASIC ? ! - ENERGY - OR MASS ?? Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> - 2018-09-02 19:57 +1000
Re: WHAT IS MORE BASIC ? ! - ENERGY - OR MASS ?? poraty149@gmail.com - 2018-09-02 06:26 -0700
Re: WHAT IS MORE BASIC ? ! - ENERGY - OR MASS ?? Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-09-02 13:39 +0000
Re: WHAT IS MORE BASIC ? ! - ENERGY - OR MASS ?? Volney <volney@volney.invalid> - 2018-09-02 10:45 -0400
Re: WHAT IS MORE BASIC ? ! - ENERGY - OR MASS ?? benj <benj.fake@gmail.com> - 2018-09-02 12:17 -0400
Re: WHAT IS MORE BASIC ? ! - ENERGY - OR MASS ?? Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-09-02 18:57 +0000
Re: WHAT IS MORE BASIC ? ! - ENERGY - OR MASS ?? Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> - 2018-09-03 08:41 +1000
Re: WHAT IS MORE BASIC ? ! - ENERGY - OR MASS ?? mitchrae3323@gmail.com - 2018-09-02 15:48 -0700
Re: WHAT IS MORE BASIC ? ! - ENERGY - OR MASS ?? poraty149@gmail.com - 2018-09-02 20:10 -0700
Re: WHAT IS MORE BASIC ? ! - ENERGY - OR MASS ?? "reber G=emc^2" <herbertglazier0@gmail.com> - 2018-09-03 11:51 -0700
Re: WHAT IS MORE BASIC ? ! - ENERGY - OR MASS ?? "hanson" <hanson@quick.net> - 2018-09-03 17:49 -0700
Re: WHAT IS MORE BASIC ? ! - ENERGY - OR MASS ?? poraty149@gmail.com - 2018-09-03 22:47 -0700
Re: WHAT IS MORE BASIC ? ! - ENERGY - OR MASS ?? "reber G=emc^2" <herbertglazier0@gmail.com> - 2018-09-04 13:06 -0700
Re: WHAT IS MORE BASIC ? ! - ENERGY - OR MASS ?? "hanson" <hanson@quick.net> - 2018-09-04 13:11 -0700
Re: WHAT IS MORE BASIC ? ! - ENERGY - OR MASS ?? poraty149@gmail.com - 2018-09-04 21:32 -0700
Re: WHAT IS MORE BASIC ? ! - ENERGY - OR MASS ?? Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-09-02 13:19 +0000
Re: WHAT IS MORE BASIC ? ! - ENERGY - OR MASS ?? poraty149@gmail.com - 2018-09-02 06:40 -0700
Re: WHAT IS MORE BASIC ? ! - ENERGY - OR MASS ?? john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2018-09-02 07:19 -0700
Re: WHAT IS MORE BASIC ? ! - ENERGY - OR MASS ?? benj <benj.fake@gmail.com> - 2018-09-02 12:18 -0400
Re: WHAT IS MORE BASIC ? ! - ENERGY - OR MASS ?? Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-09-02 18:57 +0000
Re: WHAT IS MORE BASIC ? ! - ENERGY - OR MASS ?? benj <benj.fake@gmail.com> - 2018-09-02 12:20 -0400
Re: WHAT IS MORE BASIC ? ! - ENERGY - OR MASS ?? poraty149@gmail.com - 2018-09-02 11:45 -0700
Re: WHAT IS MORE BASIC ? ! - ENERGY - OR MASS ?? Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-09-02 18:57 +0000
Re: WHAT IS MORE BASIC ? ! - ENERGY - OR MASS ?? Horatio Trollmeister <invalid@example.com> - 2018-09-01 15:46 -0700
Page 1 of 2 [1] 2 Next page →
| From | poraty149@gmail.com |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-09-01 06:54 -0700 |
| Subject | WHAT IS MORE BASIC ? ! - ENERGY - OR MASS ?? |
| Message-ID | <2b189f54-b41e-4f11-8ddd-b04ac072595a@googlegroups.com> |
What is more basic Energy or mass ?? ====== TIA Y.Porat ==========================
[toc] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-09-01 15:30 +0000 |
| Subject | Re: WHAT IS MORE BASIC ? ! - ENERGY - OR MASS ?? |
| Message-ID | <pmeb9u$9eb$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #700703 |
<poraty149@gmail.com> wrote: > What is more basic > > Energy > or mass ?? > ====== > TIA > Y.Porat > ========================== > > Energy. Our ARBITRARY choice of base dimensions is a historical accident. Humans just didn’t understand how central energy was before they set up units for length, time, and mass. Had we known then what we know now, energy would have been one of the fundamental dimensions and mass and length and time would have been defined in term of that. You make the mistake of believing that the way you were taught is the physically natural way of thinking rather than the by product of historical accident and arbitrary choices. You know why we have seconds at all? Because Sumerians 6000 years ago were fascinated by the numbers 12 and 60. No other reason. -- Odd Bodkin — Maker of fine toys, tools, tables
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | benj <benj.fake@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-09-01 11:38 -0400 |
| Subject | Re: WHAT IS MORE BASIC ? ! - ENERGY - OR MASS ?? |
| Message-ID | <pmebph$a91$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #700706 |
On 9/1/2018 11:30 AM, Odd Bodkin wrote: > <poraty149@gmail.com> wrote: >> What is more basic >> >> Energy >> or mass ?? >> ====== >> TIA >> Y.Porat >> ========================== >> >> > > Energy. > > Our ARBITRARY choice of base dimensions is a historical accident. Humans > just didn’t understand how central energy was before they set up units for > length, time, and mass. Had we known then what we know now, energy would > have been one of the fundamental dimensions and mass and length and time > would have been defined in term of that. > > You make the mistake of believing that the way you were taught is the > physically natural way of thinking rather than the by product of historical > accident and arbitrary choices. > > You know why we have seconds at all? Because Sumerians 6000 years ago were > fascinated by the numbers 12 and 60. No other reason. > Odd you are a fool. Energy is just a mathematical construct. Fantasy. Mass has all indications of representing some kind of objective matter. Porat is right on. You have ZERO idea why Sumerians (or Mayans) used the number systems they did. But then total ignorance never stopped you from making your pronouncements, did it? To say we would have no "seconds" without the Sumerians only shows your total ignorance. Did Sumerians use the word "seconds"? With different divisions one can still have "seconds" only their length will be different. Thinking isn't something you do, is it?
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-09-01 15:50 +0000 |
| Subject | Re: WHAT IS MORE BASIC ? ! - ENERGY - OR MASS ?? |
| Message-ID | <pmecg6$bc3$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #700707 |
benj <benj.fake@gmail.com> wrote: > On 9/1/2018 11:30 AM, Odd Bodkin wrote: >> <poraty149@gmail.com> wrote: >>> What is more basic >>> >>> Energy >>> or mass ?? >>> ====== >>> TIA >>> Y.Porat >>> ========================== >>> >>> >> >> Energy. >> >> Our ARBITRARY choice of base dimensions is a historical accident. Humans >> just didn’t understand how central energy was before they set up units for >> length, time, and mass. Had we known then what we know now, energy would >> have been one of the fundamental dimensions and mass and length and time >> would have been defined in term of that. >> >> You make the mistake of believing that the way you were taught is the >> physically natural way of thinking rather than the by product of historical >> accident and arbitrary choices. >> >> You know why we have seconds at all? Because Sumerians 6000 years ago were >> fascinated by the numbers 12 and 60. No other reason. >> > Odd you are a fool. Energy is just a mathematical construct. Fantasy. > Mass has all indications of representing some kind of objective matter. > > Porat is right on. No he’s not. You just hate it when people like Porat and John and others get corrected, because you ALWAYS defend the flake against the mainstream, out of some principle you cherish. Energy obeys a conservation law and is tied to the time symmetry of natural laws. Mass obeys no conservation law and is tied to no fundamental symmetry. Of course, we didn’t KNOW that in Newton’s day. You confuse “objectively real” with what is apparent to our senses, which in turn is an accidental artifact of our evolutionary development. > > You have ZERO idea why Sumerians (or Mayans) used the number systems > they did. Yes I do. Want a good book reference in the Sumerians? I finished one last year. > But then total ignorance never stopped you from making your > pronouncements, did it? To say we would have no "seconds" without the > Sumerians only shows your total ignorance. Did Sumerians use the word > "seconds"? With different divisions one can still have "seconds" only > their length will be different. Thinking isn't something you do, is it? > Where do you think the word “second” came from? -- Odd Bodkin — Maker of fine toys, tools, tables
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | benj <benj.fake@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-09-01 12:09 -0400 |
| Subject | Re: WHAT IS MORE BASIC ? ! - ENERGY - OR MASS ?? |
| Message-ID | <pmediv$dao$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #700708 |
On 9/1/2018 11:50 AM, Odd Bodkin wrote: > benj <benj.fake@gmail.com> wrote: >> On 9/1/2018 11:30 AM, Odd Bodkin wrote: >>> <poraty149@gmail.com> wrote: >>>> What is more basic >>>> >>>> Energy >>>> or mass ?? >>>> ====== >>>> TIA >>>> Y.Porat >>>> ========================== >>>> >>>> >>> >>> Energy. >>> >>> Our ARBITRARY choice of base dimensions is a historical accident. Humans >>> just didn’t understand how central energy was before they set up units for >>> length, time, and mass. Had we known then what we know now, energy would >>> have been one of the fundamental dimensions and mass and length and time >>> would have been defined in term of that. >>> >>> You make the mistake of believing that the way you were taught is the >>> physically natural way of thinking rather than the by product of historical >>> accident and arbitrary choices. >>> >>> You know why we have seconds at all? Because Sumerians 6000 years ago were >>> fascinated by the numbers 12 and 60. No other reason. >>> >> Odd you are a fool. Energy is just a mathematical construct. Fantasy. >> Mass has all indications of representing some kind of objective matter. >> >> Porat is right on. > > No he’s not. You just hate it when people like Porat and John and others > get corrected, because you ALWAYS defend the flake against the mainstream, > out of some principle you cherish. > > Energy obeys a conservation law and is tied to the time symmetry of natural > laws. Mass obeys no conservation law and is tied to no fundamental > symmetry. Of course, we didn’t KNOW that in Newton’s day. > > You confuse “objectively real” with what is apparent to our senses, which > in turn is an accidental artifact of our evolutionary development. > >> >> You have ZERO idea why Sumerians (or Mayans) used the number systems >> they did. > > Yes I do. Want a good book reference in the Sumerians? I finished one last > year. John is right. You are totally hopeless. Where did you ever get the idea that because something is written in a book that the author is all-knowing and above error? So how many ancient Sumerians did this author talk to to determine they were "fascinated" with the number 60? >> But then total ignorance never stopped you from making your >> pronouncements, did it? To say we would have no "seconds" without the >> Sumerians only shows your total ignorance. Did Sumerians use the word >> "seconds"? With different divisions one can still have "seconds" only >> their length will be different. Thinking isn't something you do, is it? >> > > Where do you think the word “second” came from? It came from Latin you uneducated Trog. If you think it's Sumerian please give the relationship. Where do you think the word "minute" came from? When you find yourself in a hole. Stop digging.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-09-01 16:34 +0000 |
| Subject | Re: WHAT IS MORE BASIC ? ! - ENERGY - OR MASS ?? |
| Message-ID | <pmef2k$fk3$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #700711 |
benj <benj.fake@gmail.com> wrote: > On 9/1/2018 11:50 AM, Odd Bodkin wrote: >> benj <benj.fake@gmail.com> wrote: >>> On 9/1/2018 11:30 AM, Odd Bodkin wrote: >>>> <poraty149@gmail.com> wrote: >>>>> What is more basic >>>>> >>>>> Energy >>>>> or mass ?? >>>>> ====== >>>>> TIA >>>>> Y.Porat >>>>> ========================== >>>>> >>>>> >>>> >>>> Energy. >>>> >>>> Our ARBITRARY choice of base dimensions is a historical accident. Humans >>>> just didn’t understand how central energy was before they set up units for >>>> length, time, and mass. Had we known then what we know now, energy would >>>> have been one of the fundamental dimensions and mass and length and time >>>> would have been defined in term of that. >>>> >>>> You make the mistake of believing that the way you were taught is the >>>> physically natural way of thinking rather than the by product of historical >>>> accident and arbitrary choices. >>>> >>>> You know why we have seconds at all? Because Sumerians 6000 years ago were >>>> fascinated by the numbers 12 and 60. No other reason. >>>> >>> Odd you are a fool. Energy is just a mathematical construct. Fantasy. >>> Mass has all indications of representing some kind of objective matter. >>> >>> Porat is right on. >> >> No he’s not. You just hate it when people like Porat and John and others >> get corrected, because you ALWAYS defend the flake against the mainstream, >> out of some principle you cherish. >> >> Energy obeys a conservation law and is tied to the time symmetry of natural >> laws. Mass obeys no conservation law and is tied to no fundamental >> symmetry. Of course, we didn’t KNOW that in Newton’s day. >> >> You confuse “objectively real” with what is apparent to our senses, which >> in turn is an accidental artifact of our evolutionary development. >> >>> >>> You have ZERO idea why Sumerians (or Mayans) used the number systems >>> they did. >> >> Yes I do. Want a good book reference in the Sumerians? I finished one last >> year. > > John is right. You are totally hopeless. Where did you ever get the idea > that because something is written in a book that the author is > all-knowing and above error? So how many ancient Sumerians did this > author talk to to determine they were "fascinated" with the number 60? Lol. Because we know nothing unless it’s first hand knowledge. Which is why we know NOTHING about the Revolutionary War because all those people are dead! > >>> But then total ignorance never stopped you from making your >>> pronouncements, did it? To say we would have no "seconds" without the >>> Sumerians only shows your total ignorance. Did Sumerians use the word >>> "seconds"? With different divisions one can still have "seconds" only >>> their length will be different. Thinking isn't something you do, is it? >>> >> >> Where do you think the word “second” came from? > > It came from Latin you uneducated Trog. And it’s meaning? > If you think it's Sumerian > please give the relationship. > > Where do you think the word "minute" came from? Exactly. > > When you find yourself in a hole. Stop digging. > > Good advice. Ever take it yourself? -- Odd Bodkin — Maker of fine toys, tools, tables
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | poraty149@gmail.com |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-09-01 11:21 -0700 |
| Subject | Re: WHAT IS MORE BASIC ? ! - ENERGY - OR MASS ?? |
| Message-ID | <933624c0-42f5-4ff2-bcb1-e84d43b11178@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #700714 |
On Saturday, September 1, 2018 at 7:34:33 PM UTC+3, Odd Bodkin wrote: > benj <benj.fake@gmail.com> wrote: > > On 9/1/2018 11:50 AM, Odd Bodkin wrote: > >> benj <benj.fake@gmail.com> wrote: > >>> On 9/1/2018 11:30 AM, Odd Bodkin wrote: > >>>> <poraty149@gmail.com> wrote: > >>>>> What is more basic > >>>>> > >>>>> Energy > >>>>> or mass ?? > >>>>> ====== > >>>>> TIA > >>>>> Y.Porat > >>>>> ========================== > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>> > >>>> Energy. > >>>> > >>>> Our ARBITRARY choice of base dimensions is a historical accident. Humans > >>>> just didn’t understand how central energy was before they set up units for > >>>> length, time, and mass. Had we known then what we know now, energy would > >>>> have been one of the fundamental dimensions and mass and length and time > >>>> would have been defined in term of that. > >>>> > >>>> You make the mistake of believing that the way you were taught is the > >>>> physically natural way of thinking rather than the by product of historical > >>>> accident and arbitrary choices. > >>>> > >>>> You know why we have seconds at all? Because Sumerians 6000 years ago were > >>>> fascinated by the numbers 12 and 60. No other reason. > >>>> > >>> Odd you are a fool. Energy is just a mathematical construct. Fantasy. > >>> Mass has all indications of representing some kind of objective matter. > >>> > >>> Porat is right on. > >> > >> No he’s not. You just hate it when people like Porat and John and others > >> get corrected, because you ALWAYS defend the flake against the mainstream, > >> out of some principle you cherish. > >> > >> Energy obeys a conservation law and is tied to the time symmetry of natural > >> laws. Mass obeys no conservation law and is tied to no fundamental > >> symmetry. Of course, we didn’t KNOW that in Newton’s day. > >> > >> You confuse “objectively real” with what is apparent to our senses, which > >> in turn is an accidental artifact of our evolutionary development. > >> > >>> > >>> You have ZERO idea why Sumerians (or Mayans) used the number systems > >>> they did. > >> > >> Yes I do. Want a good book reference in the Sumerians? I finished one last > >> year. > > > > John is right. You are totally hopeless. Where did you ever get the idea > > that because something is written in a book that the author is > > all-knowing and above error? So how many ancient Sumerians did this > > author talk to to determine they were "fascinated" with the number 60? > > Lol. Because we know nothing unless it’s first hand knowledge. Which is why > we know NOTHING about the Revolutionary War because all those people are > dead! > > > > >>> But then total ignorance never stopped you from making your > >>> pronouncements, did it? To say we would have no "seconds" without the > >>> Sumerians only shows your total ignorance. Did Sumerians use the word > >>> "seconds"? With different divisions one can still have "seconds" only > >>> their length will be different. Thinking isn't something you do, is it? > >>> > >> > >> Where do you think the word “second” came from? > > > > It came from Latin you uneducated Trog. > > And it’s meaning? > > > If you think it's Sumerian > > please give the relationship. > > > > Where do you think the word "minute" came from? > > Exactly. > > > > > When you find yourself in a hole. Stop digging. > > > > > > Good advice. Ever take it yourself? > > > > -- > Odd Bodkin — Maker of fine toys, tools, tables =========================== can you define energy without mass ?? BTW the chair that you sit on it is made of energy or made of mass??? 2 obviously Bodkin is a master of obfuscation !! ENTERING **TIME** TO OUR DISCUSSION is a masterpiece of obfuscation !!! TIA Y.P ======================
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | poraty149@gmail.com |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-09-01 11:04 -0700 |
| Subject | Re: WHAT IS MORE BASIC ? ! - ENERGY - OR MASS ?? |
| Message-ID | <03349a7f-fd5b-4ef2-a493-e60785212dc8@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #700707 |
On Saturday, September 1, 2018 at 6:38:30 PM UTC+3, benj wrote: > On 9/1/2018 11:30 AM, Odd Bodkin wrote: > > <poraty149@gmail.com> wrote: > >> What is more basic > >> > >> Energy > >> or mass ?? > >> ====== > >> TIA > >> Y.Porat > >> ========================== > >> > >> > > > > Energy. > > > > Our ARBITRARY choice of base dimensions is a historical accident. Humans > > just didn’t understand how central energy was before they set up units for > > length, time, and mass. Had we known then what we know now, energy would > > have been one of the fundamental dimensions and mass and length and time > > would have been defined in term of that. > > > > You make the mistake of believing that the way you were taught is the > > physically natural way of thinking rather than the by product of historical > > accident and arbitrary choices. > > > > You know why we have seconds at all? Because Sumerians 6000 years ago were > > fascinated by the numbers 12 and 60. No other reason. > > > Odd you are a fool. Energy is just a mathematical construct. Fantasy. > Mass has all indications of representing some kind of objective matter. >============================================== > Porat is right on. > > You have ZERO idea why Sumerians (or Mayans) used the number systems > they did. But then total ignorance never stopped you from making your > pronouncements, did it? To say we would have no "seconds" without the > Sumerians only shows your total ignorance. Did Sumerians use the word > "seconds"? With different divisions one can still have "seconds" only > their length will be different. Thinking isn't something you do, is it? ===================== thank you Beng ! Bodkin is more stupid even more than i thought before we will see it later now let us see more responds from others ie sort of a' democratic vote ' === TIA Y.P ======================
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Wally W. <ww84wa@aim.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-09-01 14:48 -0400 |
| Subject | Re: WHAT IS MORE BASIC ? ! - ENERGY - OR MASS ?? |
| Message-ID | <fbnlodll0gpbas5lnotb2ifvb3goqj14qt@4ax.com> |
| In reply to | #700706 |
fOn Sat, 1 Sep 2018 15:30:06 +0000 (UTC), Odd Bodkin wrote: ><poraty149@gmail.com> wrote: >> What is more basic >> >> Energy >> or mass ?? >> ====== >> TIA >> Y.Porat >> ========================== >> >> > >Energy. > >Our ARBITRARY choice of base dimensions is a historical accident. Humans >just didn’t understand how central energy was before they set up units for >length, time, and mass. Had we known then what we know now, energy would >have been one of the fundamental dimensions and mass and length and time >would have been defined in term of that. I get that energy could be a base unit instead of mass, but wouldn't length and time still be base units? One of the problems with the base unit for mass is that it references a lump of metal in a locked vault. Time and length can be related to a portable standard based on light of known wavelength. How would an energy standard be more portable than the lump of metal that is the mass standard? >You make the mistake of believing that the way you were taught is the >physically natural way of thinking rather than the by product of historical >accident and arbitrary choices. > >You know why we have seconds at all? Because Sumerians 6000 years ago were >fascinated by the numbers 12 and 60. No other reason.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-09-01 20:04 +0000 |
| Subject | Re: WHAT IS MORE BASIC ? ! - ENERGY - OR MASS ?? |
| Message-ID | <pmercf$14hl$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #700736 |
Wally W. <ww84wa@aim.com> wrote: > fOn Sat, 1 Sep 2018 15:30:06 +0000 (UTC), Odd Bodkin wrote: > >> <poraty149@gmail.com> wrote: >>> What is more basic >>> >>> Energy >>> or mass ?? >>> ====== >>> TIA >>> Y.Porat >>> ========================== >>> >>> >> >> Energy. >> >> Our ARBITRARY choice of base dimensions is a historical accident. Humans >> just didnt understand how central energy was before they set up units for >> length, time, and mass. Had we known then what we know now, energy would >> have been one of the fundamental dimensions and mass and length and time >> would have been defined in term of that. > > I get that energy could be a base unit instead of mass, but wouldn't > length and time still be base units? Certainly not both. Length or time is all that’s needed at best as that’s what’s set up now. > > One of the problems with the base unit for mass is that it references > a lump of metal in a locked vault. And that is being phased out in terms of Avogadro’s number, in the same way that the standard of length is defined by the standard of time and a fundamental constant, which functionally serves as a conversion factor in exactly the same way that 2.54cm=1in. > > Time and length can be related to a portable standard based on light > of known wavelength. > > How would an energy standard be more portable than the lump of metal > that is the mass standard? One can define, for example anything that serves as a highly stable carrier of energy - rest energy of one mole of protons, perhaps. I think the day and age of having a stored physical artifact that represents a standard unit, like an iridium meter bar or a kilogram ball, are passing quickly in terms of standards based on physical constants. > > >> You make the mistake of believing that the way you were taught is the >> physically natural way of thinking rather than the by product of historical >> accident and arbitrary choices. >> >> You know why we have seconds at all? Because Sumerians 6000 years ago were >> fascinated by the numbers 12 and 60. No other reason. > > -- Odd Bodkin — Maker of fine toys, tools, tables
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Double-A <double-a3@hush.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-09-01 15:00 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <5700048b-2a31-466e-92e5-bbcbfdf39539@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #700703 |
On Saturday, September 1, 2018 at 6:54:30 AM UTC-7, pora...@gmail.com wrote: > What is more basic > > Energy > or mass ?? > ====== > TIA > Y.Porat > ========================== E=mc^2. Therefore mass and energy are the same thing! Double-A
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | poraty149@gmail.com |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-09-01 19:17 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <9d987166-593e-4242-84c7-31fa1bce141a@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #700756 |
On Sunday, September 2, 2018 at 1:00:11 AM UTC+3, Double-A wrote: > On Saturday, September 1, 2018 at 6:54:30 AM UTC-7, pora...@gmail.com wrote: > > What is more basic > > > > Energy > > or mass ?? > > ====== > > TIA > > Y.Porat > > ========================== > > > > E=mc^2. Therefore mass and energy are the same thing! > > Double-A ============================== mass can be either in movement or stationary can Energy be in a stationary situation ??!!!! =============== TIA Y.P ======================
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-09-02 02:27 +0000 |
| Subject | Re: WHAT IS MORE BASIC ? ! - ENERGY - OR MASS ?? |
| Message-ID | <pmfhpp$3kf$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #700786 |
<poraty149@gmail.com> wrote: > On Sunday, September 2, 2018 at 1:00:11 AM UTC+3, Double-A wrote: >> On Saturday, September 1, 2018 at 6:54:30 AM UTC-7, pora...@gmail.com wrote: >>> What is more basic >>> >>> Energy >>> or mass ?? >>> ====== >>> TIA >>> Y.Porat >>> ========================== >> >> >> >> E=mc^2. Therefore mass and energy are the same thing! >> >> Double-A > ============================== > mass can be > either in movement > or stationary > > can Energy be in a stationary situation ??!!!! Yes of course. Potential energy stored in a spring is a good example. > =============== > TIA > Y.P > ====================== > > -- Odd Bodkin — Maker of fine toys, tools, tables
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | poraty149@gmail.com |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-09-02 02:28 -0700 |
| Subject | Re: WHAT IS MORE BASIC ? ! - ENERGY - OR MASS ?? |
| Message-ID | <ef1ed9e3-cff1-4fb2-a7ba-5ec2bb333c2e@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #700788 |
On Sunday, September 2, 2018 at 5:27:11 AM UTC+3, Odd Bodkin wrote: > <poraty149@gmail.com> wrote: > > On Sunday, September 2, 2018 at 1:00:11 AM UTC+3, Double-A wrote: > >> On Saturday, September 1, 2018 at 6:54:30 AM UTC-7, pora...@gmail.com wrote: > >>> What is more basic > >>> > >>> Energy > >>> or mass ?? > >>> ====== > >>> TIA > >>> Y.Porat > >>> ========================== > >> > >> > >> > >> E=mc^2. Therefore mass and energy are the same thing! > >> > >> Double-A > > ============================== > > mass can be > > either in movement > > or stationary > > > > can Energy be in a stationary situation ??!!!! > > Yes of course. Potential energy stored in a spring is a good example. > > > =============== > > TIA > > Y.P > > ====================== > > > > > > > > -- > Odd Bodkin — Maker of fine toys, tools, tables =================== potential energy ?? (:-) it has no mass? now anothr question for you i think i asked you but you answer... only**what ''fits you'... so another question for you ... THE CHAIR THAT YOU ARE SITTING ON IT IS IT ENERGY OR IS IT MASS ? TIA Y.P =====================
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-09-02 19:57 +1000 |
| Subject | Re: WHAT IS MORE BASIC ? ! - ENERGY - OR MASS ?? |
| Message-ID | <fv1qgdFpkc1U1@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #700834 |
On 2/09/2018 7:28 PM, poraty149@gmail.com wrote: > potential energy ?? > (:-) > it has no mass? What makes you think that? Sylvia.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | poraty149@gmail.com |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-09-02 06:26 -0700 |
| Subject | Re: WHAT IS MORE BASIC ? ! - ENERGY - OR MASS ?? |
| Message-ID | <21934e92-2ed8-4cbe-8303-14640623a715@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #700836 |
On Sunday, September 2, 2018 at 12:57:36 PM UTC+3, Sylvia Else wrote: > On 2/09/2018 7:28 PM, poraty149@gmail.com wrote: > > > potential energy ?? > > (:-) > > it has no mass? > > What makes you think that? > > Sylvia. =============== sorry i don t understand your question any energy !! even just potential has the DIMENSIONS OF MASS or else it is not energy !!! btw even if crooked mathematicians that are not physicists are noting/defining mass as 1 (by their private definition and 'play chess' with themselves .. it does snot turn it to be zero in reality == ATB Y.P ============================
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-09-02 13:39 +0000 |
| Subject | Re: WHAT IS MORE BASIC ? ! - ENERGY - OR MASS ?? |
| Message-ID | <pmgp7c$1q8m$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #700841 |
<poraty149@gmail.com> wrote: > On Sunday, September 2, 2018 at 12:57:36 PM UTC+3, Sylvia Else wrote: >> On 2/09/2018 7:28 PM, poraty149@gmail.com wrote: >> >>> potential energy ?? >>> (:-) >>> it has no mass? >> >> What makes you think that? >> >> Sylvia. > =============== > sorry > i don t understand your question > any energy !! > even just potential has the DIMENSIONS OF MASS > or else it is not energy !!! Already addressed this and you didn’t absorb a single word. Which dimensions were basic when you were educated as an engineer is an accident of history and is not what we would choose today were we to start over. > btw > even if crooked mathematicians that are not physicists > are > noting/defining mass as 1 (by their private definition > and 'play chess' with themselves .. > > it does snot turn it to be zero in reality > == > ATB > Y.P > ============================ > -- Odd Bodkin — Maker of fine toys, tools, tables
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Volney <volney@volney.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-09-02 10:45 -0400 |
| Subject | Re: WHAT IS MORE BASIC ? ! - ENERGY - OR MASS ?? |
| Message-ID | <pmgt39$o44$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #700843 |
On 9/2/2018 9:39 AM, Odd Bodkin wrote: > <poraty149@gmail.com> wrote: >> On Sunday, September 2, 2018 at 12:57:36 PM UTC+3, Sylvia Else wrote: >>> On 2/09/2018 7:28 PM, poraty149@gmail.com wrote: >>> >>>> potential energy ?? >>>> (:-) >>>> it has no mass? >>> >>> What makes you think that? >>> >>> Sylvia. >> =============== >> sorry >> i don t understand your question >> any energy !! >> even just potential has the DIMENSIONS OF MASS >> or else it is not energy !!! > > Already addressed this and you didn’t absorb a single word. Which > dimensions were basic when you were educated as an engineer is an accident > of history and is not what we would choose today were we to start over. > That's correct. Another example of historical accident is assignment of electric charge. Franklin knew of two opposite types of charge. He called one type "+" and the other "-". Unfortunately he got them backwards, leading to the weirdness that the current flow in physics is opposite to the actual electron flow in a wire, a disaster for dyslexic would-be electrical engineers.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | benj <benj.fake@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-09-02 12:17 -0400 |
| Subject | Re: WHAT IS MORE BASIC ? ! - ENERGY - OR MASS ?? |
| Message-ID | <pmh2et$b5b$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #700849 |
On 9/2/2018 10:45 AM, Volney wrote: > On 9/2/2018 9:39 AM, Odd Bodkin wrote: >> <poraty149@gmail.com> wrote: >>> On Sunday, September 2, 2018 at 12:57:36 PM UTC+3, Sylvia Else wrote: >>>> On 2/09/2018 7:28 PM, poraty149@gmail.com wrote: >>>> >>>>> potential energy ?? >>>>> (:-) >>>>> it has no mass? >>>> >>>> What makes you think that? >>>> >>>> Sylvia. >>> =============== >>> sorry >>> i don t understand your question >>> any energy !! >>> even just potential has the DIMENSIONS OF MASS >>> or else it is not energy !!! >> >> Already addressed this and you didn’t absorb a single word. Which >> dimensions were basic when you were educated as an engineer is an >> accident >> of history and is not what we would choose today were we to start over. >> > That's correct. Another example of historical accident is assignment of > electric charge. Franklin knew of two opposite types of charge. He > called one type "+" and the other "-". Unfortunately he got them > backwards, leading to the weirdness that the current flow in physics is > opposite to the actual electron flow in a wire, a disaster for dyslexic > would-be electrical engineers. Standard bullshit nonsense. Franklin did not "get it wrong". There were two charges and he picked one. There is no over-riding reason to say that because current is electron flow in a wire that somehow this means that all "real" currents are electrons. Bullshit stories like this one (and worse idiot attempts to change "right hand rules" into "left hand rules") just show a basic lack of understanding of both math and science.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-09-02 18:57 +0000 |
| Subject | Re: WHAT IS MORE BASIC ? ! - ENERGY - OR MASS ?? |
| Message-ID | <pmhbq1$r4v$2@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #700854 |
benj <benj.fake@gmail.com> wrote: > On 9/2/2018 10:45 AM, Volney wrote: >> On 9/2/2018 9:39 AM, Odd Bodkin wrote: >>> <poraty149@gmail.com> wrote: >>>> On Sunday, September 2, 2018 at 12:57:36 PM UTC+3, Sylvia Else wrote: >>>>> On 2/09/2018 7:28 PM, poraty149@gmail.com wrote: >>>>> >>>>>> potential energy ?? >>>>>> (:-) >>>>>> it has no mass? >>>>> >>>>> What makes you think that? >>>>> >>>>> Sylvia. >>>> =============== >>>> sorry >>>> i don t understand your question >>>> any energy !! >>>> even just potential has the DIMENSIONS OF MASS >>>> or else it is not energy !!! >>> >>> Already addressed this and you didn’t absorb a single word. Which >>> dimensions were basic when you were educated as an engineer is an >>> accident >>> of history and is not what we would choose today were we to start over. >>> >> That's correct. Another example of historical accident is assignment of >> electric charge. Franklin knew of two opposite types of charge. He >> called one type "+" and the other "-". Unfortunately he got them >> backwards, leading to the weirdness that the current flow in physics is >> opposite to the actual electron flow in a wire, a disaster for dyslexic >> would-be electrical engineers. > > Standard bullshit nonsense. Franklin did not "get it wrong". There were > two charges and he picked one. There is no over-riding reason to say > that because current is electron flow in a wire that somehow this means > that all "real" currents are electrons. But in his case, he erroneously said IN THAT CONTEXT that the mobile carriers were positive, and IN THAT CONTEXT he guessed wrong. > Bullshit stories like this one > (and worse idiot attempts to change "right hand rules" into "left hand > rules") just show a basic lack of understanding of both math and science. > -- Odd Bodkin — Maker of fine toys, tools, tables
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
Page 1 of 2 [1] 2 Next page →
Back to top | Article view | sci.physics
csiph-web