Groups > sci.physics.relativity > #429196

Re: What Do Dingleberries Actually Mean When They Claim Moving Clocks Run Slow?

From	"HGW..." <hgw@....>
Newsgroups	sci.physics.relativity
Subject	Re: What Do Dingleberries Actually Mean When They Claim Moving Clocks Run Slow?
Date	2017-08-18 08:07 +1000
Organization	Aioe.org NNTP Server
Message-ID	<on542j$1c58$1@gioia.aioe.org> (permalink)
References	(9 earlier) <9eab92f1-dac0-4414-b99d-5529c37d56a7@googlegroups.com> <on14hv$1djh$1@gioia.aioe.org> <11a73817-68f0-4a0a-bd96-35f083e33470@googlegroups.com> <on2fij$1h78$1@gioia.aioe.org> <36f747a1-bdfb-4617-b58a-d7954499180d@googlegroups.com>

Show all headers | View raw

On 17/08/17 09:37, dancouriann@gmail.com wrote:
> On Wednesday, August 16, 2017 at 3:05:13 PM UTC-7, HGW... wrote:
>> When energy is converted to mass, it is the latter that resists acceleration not the energy.
> 
> You apparently didn't read my post before responding, because it described the inertia of a photon, which has no rest
> mass at all.

A photon has momentum...and it probably has mass...very small mass. There is no reason to think it has inertia. You
don't seem to understand what the word 'inertia' means and continually confuse it with mass.

Also, it's a well known misconception among beginning students that "energy is converted to mass".  Energy and mass are
equivalent.  Mass is just bound energy, as shown by many of the examples I've given you, e.g., the rest mass of a
container of gas increases when the kinetic energy of the gas particles inside the container increases.

There is no proof that the entire mass of something, say a neutron, can be converted to mc^2. I'm not saying it cannot
but the whole concept of mass is so little understood that it would be presumptuous to say that it could.

>>> When a uranium atom splits apart into smaller atoms, the sum of the rest masses of the parts is less than the
>>> rest mass of the original atom (by an amount equal to the binding energy), but the total relativistic mass (i.e.,
>>> mass-energy) is unchanged, because the parts have HUGE kinetic energies....
>> 
>> Yes we know that.
> 
> Most people know it, but you don't seem to know it, because your entire belief system rests on the denial of these
> well-known facts.

Idiot, are you just a college student? I have even taught these well-known facts to others.

>>> Nothing you've said gives any support to your claim that energy cannot logically have inertia, i.e., that E
>>> cannot logically equal mc^2.
>> 
>> I didn't say that.
> 
> The denial of E = mc^2 is the essence of your belief system.  If you ever accepted this well-known fact, your beliefs
> would all be falsified instantly.

Idiot. E- mc^2. m DOES NOT = mc^2

>> I said energy does not normally resist change...
> 
> Before you said "does not ever", now you say "does not normally".  Baby steps toward enlightenment?
> 
> But I've given you many examples illustrating that energy *always* resists changes in its state of motion (whether it
> is in the form of mass or not), and that mass is bound energy, and that the inertial mass of any object is
> proportional to its energy content.  You either don't read those examples, or else you say "We know all that"
> (presumably using the royal "we").  But if you knew it, you would stop denying it, and stop holding beliefs that
> directly contradict it.
> 
>> You are totally confused as to what inertia is...
> 
> Please look "inertia on Wikipedia, or any dictionary.  Look at the "physics" definition of the word.

I know what inertia means. You don't. You seem to think that inertia only applies to movement, in which case inertia 
equal mass.
Inertia applies to many things. One could say the inertia of the value of common bank shares is greater than that of the 
Luxembourg Submarine Manufacturing Company.

>> ... and believe it is always the same thing as mass.
> 
> I explained that a photon has inertia, even though a photon has no rest mass.  

A photon has momentum....or at least it behaves as though it has. This has nothing to do with the word inertia.

Now, if you are referring to what is
> sometimes called relativistic mass, that is indeed always strictly proportional to energy.  It isn't just me telling
> you this.  Look it up.

Poor fellow, I have taught this stuff to students that were obviously a lot brighter than you.
> 

--

Thread

csiph-web