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

Groups > sci.physics > #700793 > unrolled thread

CAN WE HAVE ENERGY- WITHOUT MASS ??!!

Back to article view | Back to sci.physics

Contents

  CAN WE HAVE ENERGY- WITHOUT MASS  ??!! poraty149@gmail.com - 2018-09-01 20:41 -0700
    Re: CAN WE HAVE ENERGY- WITHOUT MASS  ??!! mitchrae3323@gmail.com - 2018-09-01 20:50 -0700
      Re: CAN WE HAVE ENERGY- WITHOUT MASS  ??!! poraty149@gmail.com - 2018-09-01 21:54 -0700
        Re: CAN WE HAVE ENERGY- WITHOUT MASS  ??!! poraty149@gmail.com - 2018-09-02 00:29 -0700
    CAN WE HAVE ENERGY- WITHOUT MASS  ??!! Arindam Banerjee <banerjeeadda1234@gmail.com> - 2018-09-02 04:36 -0700
    Re: CAN WE HAVE ENERGY- WITHOUT MASS ??!! Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-09-02 13:19 +0000
      Re: CAN WE HAVE ENERGY- WITHOUT MASS ??!! Arindam Banerjee <banerjeeadda1234@gmail.com> - 2018-09-02 06:38 -0700
      Re: CAN WE HAVE ENERGY- WITHOUT MASS ??!! benj <benj.fake@gmail.com> - 2018-09-02 12:22 -0400
      Re: CAN WE HAVE ENERGY- WITHOUT MASS ??!! poraty149@gmail.com - 2018-09-02 11:42 -0700
      Re: CAN WE HAVE ENERGY- WITHOUT MASS ??!! poraty149@gmail.com - 2018-09-03 06:02 -0700
        Re: CAN WE HAVE ENERGY- WITHOUT MASS ??!! Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-09-03 15:14 +0000
          Re: CAN WE HAVE ENERGY- WITHOUT MASS ??!! poraty149@gmail.com - 2018-09-03 10:15 -0700
            Re: CAN WE HAVE ENERGY- WITHOUT MASS ??!! Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-09-03 17:22 +0000
              Re: CAN WE HAVE ENERGY- WITHOUT MASS ??!! poraty149@gmail.com - 2018-09-04 05:30 -0700
                Re: CAN WE HAVE ENERGY- WITHOUT MASS ??!! Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-09-04 16:00 +0000
                  Re: CAN WE HAVE ENERGY- WITHOUT MASS ??!! Sergio <invalid@invalid.com> - 2018-09-04 11:35 -0500
                    Re: CAN WE HAVE ENERGY- WITHOUT MASS ??!! poraty149@gmail.com - 2018-09-04 10:17 -0700
                  Re: CAN WE HAVE ENERGY- WITHOUT MASS ??!! poraty149@gmail.com - 2018-09-04 10:23 -0700
                    Re: CAN WE HAVE ENERGY- WITHOUT MASS ??!! Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-09-04 18:02 +0000
                      Re: CAN WE HAVE ENERGY- WITHOUT MASS ??!! poraty149@gmail.com - 2018-09-04 11:56 -0700
                        Re: CAN WE HAVE ENERGY- WITHOUT MASS ??!! Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-09-04 19:30 +0000
    Re: CAN WE HAVE ENERGY- WITHOUT MASS ??!! Henrietta Foreskineater <invalid@example.com> - 2018-09-02 07:18 -0700
      Re: CAN WE HAVE ENERGY- WITHOUT MASS ??!! benj <benj.fake@gmail.com> - 2018-09-02 12:19 -0400
    Re: CAN WE HAVE ENERGY- WITHOUT MASS  ??!! "reber G=emc^2" <herbertglazier0@gmail.com> - 2018-09-02 13:45 -0700
      Re: CAN WE HAVE ENERGY- WITHOUT MASS  ??!! poraty149@gmail.com - 2018-09-03 01:49 -0700
    Re: CAN WE HAVE ENERGY- WITHOUT MASS  ??!! "reber G=emc^2" <herbertglazier0@gmail.com> - 2018-09-02 13:46 -0700
      Re: CAN WE HAVE ENERGY- WITHOUT MASS  ??!! "hanson" <hanson@quick.net> - 2018-09-02 14:23 -0700
        Re: CAN WE HAVE ENERGY- WITHOUT MASS  ??!! mitchrae3323@gmail.com - 2018-09-02 14:29 -0700

Page 2 of 2 — ← Prev page 1 [2]

#701112 — Re: CAN WE HAVE ENERGY- WITHOUT MASS ??!!

<poraty149@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Tuesday, September 4, 2018 at 9:02:36 PM UTC+3, Odd Bodkin wrote:
>> <poraty149@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> On Tuesday, September 4, 2018 at 7:00:28 PM UTC+3, Odd Bodkin wrote:
>>>> <poraty149@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>> On Monday, September 3, 2018 at 8:22:51 PM UTC+3, Odd Bodkin wrote:
>>>>>> <poraty149@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>> On Monday, September 3, 2018 at 6:15:03 PM UTC+3, Odd Bodkin wrote:
>>>>>>>> <poraty149@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On Sunday, September 2, 2018 at 4:19:26 PM UTC+3, Odd Bodkin wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> <poraty149@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> can we have energy without mass ??!!
>>>>>>>>>>> -----
>>>>>>>>>>> E=m c^2
>>>>>>>>>>> right ??
>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>> Be careful. That is not saying that energy has mass or that mass is energy.
>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>> ===============================you ask me to be careful with mass in energy ?
>>>>>>>>> ("-)
>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>> may be we have to get new eyes !!
>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>> a blind  one can see there 
>>>>>>>>> energy that is done by 
>>>>>>>>> mass s well 
>>>>>>>>> movement 
>>>>>>>>> only an over supper  smarty don t see it
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> Which has nothing to do with E=mc^2. 
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>> that is the problem with you smarties 
>>>>>>>>> you make big efforts  to  be *over smart*
>>>>>>>>> unlike me that i make my best 
>>>>>>>>> to  be as simple as can be  
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> Simple is no cure for being incorrectly informed. 
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>> i think basic  nature as well does it 
>>>>>>>>> basic  nature does not know
>>>>>>>>> your over smarty   mathematics 
>>>>>>>>> and  supper sophistications  
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> Basic nature does what it does, and it s our job to understand what it
>>>>>>>> does. Nature doesn t give a damn what our common sense says, and nature has
>>>>>>>> shown over and over again that our common sense is inadequate for
>>>>>>>> understanding it. 
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> Besides, the mathematics is not that difficult for those young enough and
>>>>>>>> interested enough to learn them. Nor are the ideas of quantum mechanics and
>>>>>>>> fields all that difficult to grasp.
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> =======================================nasty   shameless  crook 
>>>>>>> do you think i am one of your miserable students ?? 
>>>>>>> =E = M C^2
>>>>>>> GOT IT SHAMELESS   CROOK 
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> DO YOU   SEE THAT   M   THERE ?!!!!!!
>>>>>>> do you think that with your mumble jummle 
>>>>>>> =i will say it in  words 
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> ENERGY ENERGY !!- IS EQUAL    TO  MASS !! TIMES C^2
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> It is the energy available from the conversion of rest  mass. It is the
>>>>>> numerical equality between two different kinds of physical quantities.
>>>>> 
>>>>> =======================================> >>> only numerical !???
>>>>> it is numeric   ** times most basic  Dimensions **
>>>> 
>>>> Yes only numerical. 
>>>> 
>>>> Notice that PV/nR has the same basic dimensions as temperature. But none of
>>>> those quantities is a temperature. 
>>>> 
>>>> What I just demonstrated with the ideal gas law is also exactly true for
>>>> E=mc^2. The dimensions of left and right side are the same, but they are
>>>> different physical quantities. 
>>>> 
>>>>>>>>> you know Bodkin
>>>>> half of the truth  is a lie !!
>>>>> don t you know that ?after so many years 
>>>>> i wonder what happened to you 
>>>>> may be it is you who are getting  older ??
>>>>> LIKE SAY 
>>>>> 'the  binding  ***energy** ..of a proton and neutron
>>>>> is say  0.00123.  A M U ... 
>>>>> A M U is in mass 
>>>>> Atomic  mass units A M U 
>>>>> Bodkin
>>>>> you find the wrong man to argue with 
>>>>> TIA
>>>>> Y.P
>>>>> ===================== 
>>> 
>>> and as usual along years !!
>>> while    Bodkin/whatever name  is'' pushed t the corner''
>>> he .........??
>>> disappear!!
>>> nice techniq  .... 
>>> ==> > Y.POrat
>>> ================= 
>>> 
>>> 
>> 
>> Look Porat, I will make a point. Often, this point will illustrate that you
>> dont have much idea what youre talking about. When Ive done that, Im
>> done. 
>> 
>> Im not here to engage with you in a protracted discussion, as most of what
>> you say is either wrong or unintelligible anyway. Im also not here to be
>> counted among those you consider allies or enemies  thats not what this
>> group is for. Finally, you are WAY too interested in personal glory, and my
>> suggestion is to be happy with the accomplishments of your professional
>> career and stop tarnishing it with the foolishness of an old man hungry for
>> fame. 
>> 
>> -- 
>> Odd Bodkin  Maker of fine toys, tools, tables
> 
> ===============do you think that by mumble jumble 
> you can confuse me or anyone else 
> here it is again 

If what I wrote confuses you then you really don’t know what you’re talking
about. 

> =========================if the*** well known binding  ENERGY
> between proton and neutron is say 
> 0.03  A M U 
> AMU in case you dont know 
> is 
> Atomic  **Mass!!!!!!! Unit 

Note that this is an inaccuracy. Energy does not have units AMU. AMU is a
unit of mass. Mass defect can be measured in AMU. Energy shouldn’t be,
because you’re missing a factor of c^2. Now, there are “natural units”
systems where c=1, but those certainly aren’t your beloved MKS system, and
amu is not commonly the unit used for either mass or energy in natural
units. 

You were trained too long ago to make sense of modern notation. 

> so do you see the** mass** there  
> if not
> do you thing you can boggle   others people mind 
> while they know somweth in physics 
> may be a bit better than you know ??!!
> or may be 
> you have not the slightest knowledge about it
> 
> IN PHYSICS !!
> and you turn you ignorance 
> on  someone   else ??
> or may be even you understand nothing about my above explanation ?
> ==TIA
> Y.P
> ===================== 
>  
> 



-- 
Odd Bodkin — Maker of fine toys, tools, tables

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

#700847 — Re: CAN WE HAVE ENERGY- WITHOUT MASS ??!!

Why you posting this?

Is your brain fell out?

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

#700856 — Re: CAN WE HAVE ENERGY- WITHOUT MASS ??!!

On 9/2/2018 10:18 AM, Henrietta Foreskineater wrote:
> Why you posting this?
> 
> Is your brain fell out?
> 
Is your Engrish turn off?

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

#700882

On Saturday, September 1, 2018 at 8:41:04 PM UTC-7, pora...@gmail.com wrote:
> can we have energy without mass ??!!
> -----
> E=m c^2
> right ??
> 
> so 
> can we have m c^2
> without m ??!!
> 
>  is it not in addition!! 
>  a mathematical  prove prove that 
> there is no energy without Mass ??!!!
> 2
> could mass be created fro something else ??
> so 
> it is another  prove that
> mass was here ever since
> in other words 
> no mass was *created* 
> it was ever since 
> 2
> mass can be  either in a **static situation
> or 
> in movement   !
> 
> ==
> 2
> but now remains the question :
> WHAT     created/CREATES    all forces ?
> 
> OR 
> CAN THERE  BE MOVEMENT WITHOUT MASS ??!!
> 
> mass with- out   movement exist !!(only inner cyclic  movement  exist in that case ) !!
> ====
> TIA
> Y.Porat
> ================

Since energy waves go with mass the answer is NO.ou can;t have one without the other.Bert Ps that is one part of my wave wobble spin theory that I have posted here for 26 years.Came up with it in 1957.Bert

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

#700957

On Sunday, September 2, 2018 at 11:45:28 PM UTC+3, reber G=emc^2 wrote:
> On Saturday, September 1, 2018 at 8:41:04 PM UTC-7, pora...@gmail.com wrote:
> > can we have energy without mass ??!!
> > -----
> > E=m c^2
> > right ??
> > 
> > so 
> > can we have m c^2
> > without m ??!!
> > 
> >  is it not in addition!! 
> >  a mathematical  prove prove that 
> > there is no energy without Mass ??!!!
> > 2
> > could mass be created fro something else ??
> > so 
> > it is another  prove that
> > mass was here ever since
> > in other words 
> > no mass was *created* 
> > it was ever since 
> > 2
> > mass can be  either in a **static situation
> > or 
> > in movement   !
> > 
> > ==
> > 2
> > but now remains the question :
> > WHAT     created/CREATES    all forces ?
> > 
> > OR 
> > CAN THERE  BE MOVEMENT WITHOUT MASS ??!!
> > 
> > mass with- out   movement exist !!(only inner cyclic  movement  exist in that case ) !!
> > ====
> > TIA
> > Y.Porat
> > ================
> 
> Since energy waves go with mass the answer is NO.ou can;t have one without the other.Bert Ps that is one part of my wave wobble spin theory that I have posted here for 26 years.Came up with it in 1957.Bert
=================
Than you Reber 
no energy without mass 
2
mass was  ever since  here   
no one created it  
it is the most basic physical  entity in or universe
and
if it is in motion
IT IS  ENERGY !!
the creator of all  forces as well !!
===
TIA
Y.P
========================

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

#700883

On Saturday, September 1, 2018 at 8:41:04 PM UTC-7, pora...@gmail.com wrote:
> can we have energy without mass ??!!
> -----
> E=m c^2
> right ??
> 
> so 
> can we have m c^2
> without m ??!!
> 
>  is it not in addition!! 
>  a mathematical  prove prove that 
> there is no energy without Mass ??!!!
> 2
> could mass be created fro something else ??
> so 
> it is another  prove that
> mass was here ever since
> in other words 
> no mass was *created* 
> it was ever since 
> 2
> mass can be  either in a **static situation
> or 
> in movement   !
> 
> ==
> 2
> but now remains the question :
> WHAT     created/CREATES    all forces ?
> 
> OR 
> CAN THERE  BE MOVEMENT WITHOUT MASS ??!!
> 
> mass with- out   movement exist !!(only inner cyclic  movement  exist in that case ) !!
> ====
> TIA
> Y.Porat
> ================

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

#700890

Glazier's ex-tutor Sam Wormley <swormley1@gmail.com>
wrote to  "reber G=emc^2" <herbertglazier0@gmail.com>:
"Glazier, do not post in a science newsgroup."
"Glazier, quit posting __ your Gutter Science__."
"Glazier, exit USENET. -- IOW Glazier, beat it!."
>
"reber, take your 'you know it all thinking' to your grave" .
"reber, your horseshit gets old. Say hi to Allah for me.:
"reber, you don't believe in science."
>
"Glazier, your brain is entangled with a used garbage can."
"Glazier, your science is far worse than the man's on the street."
"Glazier, your postings are old man's garbage."
>
Glazier's neo-tutor Sam Wormley <olli.dp3@gmail.com> wrote:
"Herb you are Fucking pathetic.
Herb, you have spun a few too many times and are now
in a fucking stupor.  Fits your theory of spin is in--sane,.
& is part of your dead brain theory, eh Herb.  Oh Ya

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

#700892

Light has the smallest energy density.

[toc] | [prev] | [standalone]

Page 2 of 2 — ← Prev page 1 [2]

Back to top | Article view | sci.physics

csiph-web