|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#21
|
|||
|
|||
Do I understand this correctly?
On Nov 28, 11:35*am, Tom Roberts wrote:
mpc755 wrote: When a neutrino 'disappears' it has simply 'evaporated' into aether. How about the ones that appear? 'Ether and the Theory of Relativity by Albert Einstein' http://www-groups.dcs.st-and.ac.uk/~...ein_ether.html "Since according to our present conceptions the elementary particles of matter are also, in their essence, nothing else than condensations of the electromagnetic field" The electromagnetic field is a state of aether. Matter is the condensation of aether. At a rate consistent with the disappearance measured in other detectors, with momenta pointing back to the source, and with timing consistent with that of the source. Remember that the different neutrino detectors are sensitive to different types (flavors) of neutrinos, and the different sources generate different types of neutrinos. * * * * For instance, the LSND source cannot generate tau neutrinos, * * * * but the MINOS source can and does. The MINOS detector cannot * * * * cleanly distinguish electron from tau neutrinos but can determine * * * * the sign of muons (i.e. nu_mu vs anti-nu_mu in quasi-elastic * * * * scattering). Other detectors have difficulty identifying muon * * * * neutrino events. Early radiochemical detectors were sensitive only * * * * anti-nu_e. Etc. The whole collection of experiments is MUCH better modeled as oscillations among neutrino flavors than as "evaporating into aether". DOES THE INERTIA OF A BODY DEPEND UPON ITS ENERGY-CONTENT?' A.EINSTEIN http://www.fourmilab.ch/etexts/einstein/E_mc2/e_mc2.pdf "If a body gives off the energy L in the form of radiation, its mass diminishes by L/c2." The matter which no longer exists as part of the body has not vanished. It still exists, as aether. As matter converts to aether it expands in three dimensional space. The physical effects this transition has on the neighboring matter and aether is energy. Mass is conserved. Energy is conserved. * * * * Indeed, if "evaporating into aether" was common, then given that * * * * NOBODY has ever observed aether, then 4-momentum conservation * * * * would NOT be experimentally observed (because the energy and * * * * momentum carried by the aether is unobservable). Instead, 4-momentum * * * * conservation is solidly established in elementary particle * * * * interactions. Historically, of course, neutrinos were postulated in * * * * order to preserve energy-momentum conservation in certain decays, and * * * * they were triumphantly observed with the appropriate properties. * * * * Contrast that with your GUESSES about aether.... Tom Roberts What is presently described as dark matter is displaced aether. The galaxy clusters in the following articles are not traveling with dark matter. The galaxy clusters are moving through the aether. The galaxy clusters displace aether. The moving galaxy clusters have associated aether displacement waves. 'Hubble Finds Ghostly Ring of Dark Matter' http://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/hu...g_feature.html "Astronomers using NASA’s Hubble Space Telescope got a first-hand view of how dark matter behaves during a titanic collision between two galaxy clusters. The wreck created a ripple of dark mater, which is somewhat similar to a ripple formed in a pond when a rock hits the water." The 'pond' consists of aether. The 'ripple' is an aether displacement wave. The 'ripple' is a gravitational wave. 'Dark Halo Around Our Galaxy Looks Like Squished Beach Ball' http://www.space.com/scienceastronom...milky-way.html "Dark matter seems to shroud the remaining visible matter in giant spheres called haloes." The Milky Way's halo is displaced aether. "But the new study found that the Milky Way's halo isn't exactly spherical, but squished. In fact, its beach-ball form is flattened in a surprising direction — perpendicular to the galaxy's visible, pancake-shaped spiral disk." All of the aether displaced by the matter exerts force towards the matter. The force exerted towards the matter by the aether displaced perpendicular to the galaxy's pancake-shaped spiral disk offsets. It is the aether which is displaced outward relative to the plane of the spiral disk which exerts force towards the center of the galaxy. This forces the matter in the pancake-shaped spiral disk towards the center of the galaxy which results in the displaced aether looking like a squished beach ball. In the following image, what is being shown is the state of the aether which is the aether's state of displacement. http://news.bbc.co.uk/nol/shared/spl...1092/img/1.jpg A moving particle has an associated aether displacement wave. In a double slit experiment the particle travels a single path and enters and exits a single slit. It is the associated aether displacement wave which enters and exits multiple slits. The aether displacement wave creates interference upon exiting the slits. It is this interference which alters the direction the particle travels. Detecting the particle causes a loss of coherence between the particle and its associated aether displacement wave and there is no interference. Mass is a measurement of force. All objects displace aether. Displaced aether exerts force towards the objects. The faster an object's momentum with respect to the state of the aether the more aether the object displaces the more force exerted by the displaced aether towards the object. The same for the measuring apparatus. When the object is on the scale, the force exerted towards the object (and the measuring apparatus) by the aether displaced by the object (and the measuring apparatus) is a measurement of the object's relativistic mass. 'Gravitational mass' and 'inertial mass' are both aspects of Aether Displacement. Aether is displaced by matter. The displaced aether exerts force towards the matter. The force exerted towards the Earth by the aether displaced by the Earth determines gravitational mass. The aether's resistance to change determines inertial mass. Aether has mass. Aether is displaced by matter. Aether displaced by matter exerts force towards the matter. Force exerted towards matter by aether displaced by matter is gravity. |
#22
|
|||
|
|||
Paul Draper, what is mass, fundamentally?
On Nov 26, 1:55*pm, Matt wrote:
On Fri, 26 Nov 2010 10:53:41 -0800, hanson wrote: "PD" wrote: "hanson" wrote: snip. Paul "PD" snip "hanson" wrote: PD, kindly clarify, delineate, describe, IOW, do teach, IYOW, what mass is, fundamentally, so that neutrino oscillations can be explained without you resorting to abstract terms, such as "flavor" like you did below. TIA, hanson snip Pau wrote: OK. Mass has had its meaning refined, especially over the last 100 years or so. What it means now is the frame-independent quantity of a physical system (where a physical system is a collection of physical things, possibly interacting with each other) that can be calculated from measured energy and measured momentum: (mass) = sqrt ((Sum (energies))^2 - (Sum (momentum))^2). The fact that it is invariant regardless of inertial reference frame is what makes it interesting. For a closed physical system -- one where no net interaction crosses the boundary -- the fact that the mass is also conserved is also what makes it interesting. This conservation means that it will have the same value in a closed system, no matter what happens INSIDE the system. Conserved quantities always point to some fundamental law of symmetry in nature. There is the tendency to ask, "But what IS it, other than a quantity?" This is a misplaced question, because some quantities are interesting in their own right in physics, because they exhibit frame-independence and conservation. They don't have to have another "explanation" other than these circumstances. What we also know is that mass is not what we once thought it was, though it is close. For example, we once thought mass was a measure of "the amount of stuff". This rule doesn't work, though, because mass isn't additive -- you can't get the mass of a system by adding the masses of the parts of the system. We once thought that mass was a measure of the *inertia* of an object, where that is the ratio of the force applied to the acceleration observed. That rule doesn't work either though, because there is a velocity-dependent factor missing in that relationship (which just happened to be close to 1 for most of the everyday examples we looked at). Since these previous qualitative descriptions have fallen short, we now just talk about it as a quantity with the observed frame-independence and conservation behaviors -- which is about the same as what we do with a number of other properties like electric charge. hanson wrote: THANK YOU, Paul. *Let me fine-comb thru it for a while & then tell you how it came across to me and what I perceived you have meant to tell me, from my pov. I appreciated it, Paul. I'll be back. hanson Paul wrote: snip I think this will be helpful for me in understanding concept, but I stumbled over this: *(mass) = sqrt ((Sum (energies))^2 - (Sum (momentum))^2). It seems to need factors of 'c' for consistency in conventional units: *(mass) = sqrt ((Sum (energies))^2 - (Sum (momentum * c))^2) / c. That depends on the system of units. In MKS (SI) units, yes, it's important to put the c in there. |
#23
|
|||
|
|||
Paul Draper, what is mass, fundamentally?
"Yehiel.Porat" wrote:
PD wrote: "Y.Porat" wrote: PD wrote: "hanson" wrote: Paul "PD" wrote: snip hanson wrote: ahahaha...Paul, you write "This, however, doesn't tell you what the masses are, only that they are different."... ahahaha.. and then you go and write a lengthy tripe around it, instead of explaining what "mass" FUNDAMENTALLY means. Bad pedagogic, Paul...Now, explain to Joe what "mass" is. Paul wrote: I don't think that was his question, hanson. If you want to know what mass fundamentally means, why don't you make a new post with that question? Addressing Paul, Yehiel wrote: Paul, you imbecile parrot!! mass is conserved as well as energy is conserved Paul answered Yehi and wrote: Nope. Observationally incorrect. Addressing Paul, Yehiel wrote: do you know why, Paul, you hopeless idiot crook ?? because ENERGY **HAS MASS** **THE ONLY MASS!!** NO MASS - THE ONLY MASS -- NO REAL PHYSICS !! the fact that our observations are badly interpreted it is not natures fault IT IS YOUR and your parrots FAULT ! no mass is growing or shrinking by movement had you understand WAT IS MOVEMENT AND RELATIVE MOVEMENTat high speed YOU might UNDERSTAND WHY THAT observation ILLUSION OCCURS !1 at higth velocities mass is not swelling it is the energy needed to invest for more acceleration is becoming bigger !! NO MASS -*** THE ONLY MASS***-- NO REAL PHYSICS ! hanson wrote: .... ahahahaha... AHAHAHAHA... AHAHAHA... Yehi, Yehi, don't get so excited over this or you will choke on some barbs that were left in the gefilte fish.. AHAHA.. Listen, my dear khaver, Paul Draper's post ----- http://tinyurl.com/Paul-Drapers-Mass -------- is actually very enlightening... especially in regards to that you and him have agreed, in part, that ......... mass has to do with acceleration........ Of course, there is a difference in the Weltbild that you 2 have. Draper is a Ph_ilosophical D_octor, a PhD, who philosophizes & whose job is to pontificate about Nature. OTOH, Yehi, you are a doer, a builder, an engineer. So, your way of looking at things is perfectly good & valuable too. Don't waste your time to cram your views down the throat of Draper. He has no use for that. His inner world is very different from yours... But don't let me cramp your style, Yehi. Carry on and thanks for the laughs... ahahahanson PS: I may post on this issue directly to Draper. He said some very interesting things in his tripe. The consequences of his, the establishment's, notions are quite intriguing. |
#24
|
|||
|
|||
Paul Draper, what is mass, fundamentally?
Paul, in your http://tinyurl.com/Paul-Drapers-Mass
you came across very well on several fronts, and you certainly are not alone when dealing with this issue of "what is mass, fundamentally" as a brief survey indicates: == 27,700 results for http://tinyurl.com/was-ist-Masse == 1,090 hits for -[What is mass ]- http://tinyurl.com/2cczqk9 == 46,900,000 hits for http://tinyurl.com/Definition-of-Mass and I indicated my notion on the issue of "what is mass" in == http://tinyurl.com/Aether-Properties-Equations wherein it says:... "that it is like asking the question "What is the electric charge, or gravity, mass, matter, length or time." etc... But there are no answers to that. The best that can be hoped for is to dig up some characteristics for it that may be associated with EM &/or G in interactions that occur in the familiar M, L, T dimensions & combinations thereof" So, that then is where you and me see the world as a similar painting. Where/why we diverge on this is due to the different ways we traveled, after our education, as = Ph_ilosphical D_octors = aka PhDs. You stayed in the hen house. --- I went with the foxes... ahaha... Your job's prime directive was/is to convey ken to the next generation which is a noble necessity & endeavor. In biz, I create and produce things with/by hiring the folks that "you" educated. I found though that the best educated folks for industry do come from the "Engineering Schools". Univ-drilled PhDs do not know a smidgen more of useful things then do these Dipl.Eng.'s. OTOH, PhDs have the social advantage when being used as "Herr Doktor" as expert witnesses in legal proceedings.. or for Product advertisements. As said, your pov on this is different of course... Now, let's get back to the fine tripe you produced in http://tinyurl.com/Paul-Drapers-Mass and look for common ground. 1st of all I can understand now when and why you posted that "What Einstein said about relativity is irrelevant." and asked me "What do YOU mean by objective physics", as detailed in http://tinyurl.com/Einstein-irrelevant-No-obj-phy Furthermore you said along these lines that "Mass has had its meaning refined, especially over the last 100 years or so".., to which one could add that Einstein's crap then has retarded the development of fundamental physics for the last 100 years... ahaha.. All this is due to the soft PHILOSOPHICAL underpinning, of hard core physics by "Gedanken experiments" which is exampled in what you suggested in your, well, the establishment's, definition of mass-variability as ... ||[1]|| (mass) = sqrt ((Sum (energies))^2 - (Sum (momentum))^2). In ||[1]|| it appears that you are setting "c" as 1 with varying dimensions since in traditional dim-analysis it should be m = sqrt ((E/c^2)^2 - (P/c)^2)) Now the sqrt in that notion ||[1]|| also implies that mass can be negative. How is that dealt with? Can one read into this that positive & negative mass properties do fundamentally attract and annihilate each other.. aka .. Gravitation...?? If so, then there is a corollary here with EM in e = sqrt (hbar*a*c) or also with Planck's expression that m_Pl = e* sqrt (a/G) which then too must be very fundamental equations, both of which indicate that mass & charge can be + or -. Furthermore, if so, one can read into Planck's mass, that m_pl has a spatial expanse of 1 Planck length and decays within 1 unit of Planck time... into 1/2 mole of electrons and positrons each as m_pl / m_e = a * (N_A*pi*sqrt3), or = m_pl / m_e = a * (R/k*pi*sqrt3) saying that 1 mole of e-/e+ masses = 1 Planck mass .... which so far are all existing only due to PhD-philosophy, n'est pas!?... Now, following your notion ||[1]|| some more, the question arises, why not expand the definition of mass into an even more generalized form by using the entire sequence from Action *1/t -- Energy *1/c -- Momentum *1/c -- Mass and say that **mass is the operative property of all time derivatives of Action (if c=1). Is such a notion viable at all too?... Now, it seems to me that there are other implications in the trend of your ||[1]||, because it bring into question whether there are any truly fixed constants at all.. Only one constant, "c" is deemed to be fixed, and only so cuz the establishment has agreed to ** define "c" ** as fixed, because without that philosophical "Fixation of "c", all the other fundamental constants like "G", h, e & a, would be no longer "constant"... But, if that new floating physics of "variable mass", in ||[1]||, is universal, are they? Oddly enough there is physics' stepchild, a notable exception, namely N_A, Avogadro's constant, that defines the "amount of substance" which seems to be fixed and is not subject to the variability of mass, or is it... ... why, so? ---------------- http://tinyurl.com/Paul-Drapers-Mass ---------------- Thanks for the fun, Paul. Take care. hanson |
#25
|
|||
|
|||
Paul Draper, what is mass, fundamentally?
On Nov 29, 1:13*pm, "hanson" wrote:
Paul, in your http://tinyurl.com/Paul-Drapers-Mass you came across very well on several fronts, and you certainly are not alone when dealing with this issue of "what is mass, fundamentally" as a brief survey indicates: == 27,700 results for http://tinyurl.com/was-ist-Masse == 1,090 hits for -[What is mass ]- http://tinyurl.com/2cczqk9 == 46,900,000 hits for http://tinyurl.com/Definition-of-Mass and I indicated my notion on the issue of "what is mass" in == http://tinyurl.com/Aether-Properties-Equations wherein it says:... "that it is *like asking the question "What is the electric charge, or gravity, mass, matter, length or time." etc... *But there are no answers to that. The best that can be hoped for is to dig up some characteristics for it that may be associated with EM &/or G in interactions that occur in the familiar M, L, T dimensions & combinations thereof" So, that then is where you and me see the world as a similar painting. Where/why we diverge on this is due to the different ways we traveled, after our education, as *= Ph_ilosphical D_octors = aka PhDs. You stayed in the hen house. --- *I went with the foxes... ahaha... Your job's prime directive was/is to convey ken to the next generation which is a noble necessity & endeavor. Well, let me clarify this a little, because your perception is just a touch off. The purpose of teaching advanced physics students is not to get them to see things your way. If that were true, then there would be no Nobel Prizes awarded for upsetting the applecart, which is what most of the award-winning work in fact did. The main objective is teaching young physicists *how to find out* if a certain statement is true. That is, we teach them how to investigate questions like a physicist. In biz, I create and produce things with/by hiring the folks that "you" educated. I found though that the best educated folks for industry do come from the "Engineering Schools". * Univ-drilled PhDs do not know a smidgen more of useful things then do these Dipl.Eng.'s. *OTOH, PhDs have the social advantage when being used as "Herr Doktor" as expert *witnesses in legal proceedings.. or for Product advertisements. As said, your pov on this is different of course... Not so very different. Now, let's get back to the fine tripe you produced in http://tinyurl.com/Paul-Drapers-Mass and look for common ground. 1st of all I can understand now when and why you posted that *"What Einstein said about relativity is irrelevant." and asked me "What do YOU mean by objective physics", as detailed in http://tinyurl.com/Einstein-irrelevant-No-obj-phy Furthermore you said along these lines that "Mass has had its meaning refined, especially over the last 100 years or so".., to which one could add that Einstein's crap then has retarded the development of fundamental physics for the last 100 years... ahaha.. No, I wouldn't put it that way at all. If someone takes four steps forward and one back, or four steps forward and one to the side, would it have been better if that person had never taken the four steps forward at all? New theories usually get some things right and some things wrong or not quite right. The wrong things get corrected and the right things represent advances. I would not say that something that is partially right holds anything back. All this is due to the soft PHILOSOPHICAL underpinning, of hard core physics by "Gedanken experiments" which is exampled in what you suggested in your, well, the establishment's, definition of mass-variability as ... ||[1]|| (mass) = sqrt ((Sum (energies))^2 - (Sum (momentum))^2). This isn't the result of a gedanken. It's what is experimentally observed to be the invariant and conserved quantity. In ||[1]|| it appears that you are setting "c" as 1 with varying dimensions since in traditional dim-analysis it should be * m = sqrt ((E/c^2)^2 - (P/c)^2)) Yes, I was using natural units, which also confused Androcles. Now the sqrt in that notion *||[1]|| also implies that mass can be negative. How is that dealt with? Can one read into this that positive & negative mass properties do fundamentally attract and annihilate each other.. aka .. Gravitation...?? I'm not sure why you think mass could be negative? Because the sqrt of 4 is +2 and -2?. If that's the case, then allow me to clarify further that the positive root is what is intended. If so, then there is a corollary here with EM in e = sqrt (hbar*a*c) or also with Planck's expression that m_Pl = e* sqrt (a/G) which then too must be very fundamental equations, both of which indicate that mass & charge can be + or -. Again, the positive root is what is intended in both cases. Furthermore, if so, one can read into Planck's mass, that m_pl has a spatial expanse of 1 Planck length and decays within 1 unit of Planck time. No, this is certainly not suggested. A Planck mass is a number, not a particle. It is not a physical object. .. into 1/2 mole of electrons and positrons each *as m_pl / m_e *= *a * * (N_A*pi*sqrt3), *or = m_pl / m_e *= *a * * (R/k*pi*sqrt3) * * saying that 1 mole of e-/e+ masses = 1 Planck mass .... which so far are all existing only due to PhD-philosophy, n'est pas!?... Now, following your notion *||[1]|| some more, the question arises, why not expand the definition of mass into an even more generalized form by using the entire sequence from Action *1/t -- Energy **1/c -- Momentum **1/c -- Mass and say that **mass is the operative property of all time derivatives of Action (if c=1). Is such a notion viable at all too?... * I'm sorry, but you'll have to elaborate on that. I couldn't make sense of it. Now, it seems to me that there are other implications in the trend *of your ||[1]||, because it bring into question whether there are any truly fixed constants at all.. Only one constant, "c" is deemed to be fixed, and only so cuz the establishment has agreed to ** define "c" ** as fixed, because without that philosophical "Fixation of "c", *all the other fundamental constants like "G", h, e & a, would be no longer "constant"... But, *if that new floating physics of "variable mass", in ||[1]||, is universal, are they? The establishment only agreed to DEFINE c to be constant after measuring it extensively prior to 1987 and finding it to be constant before it was so defined. But this convention in no way *fixed* constants like G, h, e, and alpha to be constants. Just because you can write one in terms of the other does not mean that *all* of them are free. It only means that a pair of them could be free. For example, if c is not constant, then h and e would still be constant but alpha would not. Oddly enough there is physics' stepchild, a notable exception, namely N_A, Avogadro's constant, that defines the "amount of substance" which *seems to be fixed and is not subject to the variability of mass, or is it... *... *why, so? N_A is a *number*, like "dozen" or "gross" or "billion". It is literally a count of things. If mass were to change, a mole of things would still be that many things, though the mass would be different. ---------------- http://tinyurl.com/Paul-Drapers-Mass ---------------- Thanks for the fun, Paul. Take care. hanson |
#26
|
|||
|
|||
Paul Draper, what is mass, fundamentally?
Paul, "PD" wrote:
(1) Paul wrote http://tinyurl.com/Paul-Drapers-Mass (2) hanson wrote http://tinyurl.com/Questions-on-Mass-definition wherein the following points, made by Paul, are worthwhile to pursue: Paul wrote: Well, let me clarify this a little, because your perception is just a touch off. hanson wrote: ahahahaha... Good one!.. You sound now like Reverend Koster who caught me washing my balls in the chalice of holy water after his beautiful wife Laura Lee gave me a phenomenal & memorable ride on the altar... ahahahaha.... "your perception is just a touch off" cuz "this isn't what it looks like, Reverend Koster"... ahahaha... AHAHAHAHA..... Earlier, hanson wrote: As said, your pov on this is different of course... Paul wrote: Not so very different. Earlier, hanson wrote: the establishment's definition of mass-variability as ... ||[1]|| (mass) = sqrt ((Sum (energies))^2 - (Sum (momentum))^2). Now the sqrt in that notion ||[1]|| also implies that mass can be negative. How is that dealt with? Can one read into this that positive & negative mass properties do fundamentally attract and annihilate each other.. aka .. Gravitation...?? Paul wrote: I'm not sure why you think mass could be negative? Because the sqrt of 4 is +2 and -2?. If that's the case, then allow me to clarify further that the positive root is what is intended. hanson wrote: If so, then there is a corollary here with EM in e = sqrt (hbar*a*c) or also with Planck's expression that m_Pl = e* sqrt (a/G) which then too must be very fundamental equations, both of which indicate that mass & charge can be + or -. Paul wrote: Again, the positive root is what is intended in both cases. hanson wrote: Yes, Paul, it would interest me, why only "the positive root is what is intended". If mass is not a lump of stuff but more of an Energy-Momentum-acceleration thing ||[1]|| then why can't it be negative? The force implied in the momentum would merely change the direction from pos to neg. Right? An/your answer that this is so because it is observed, then raises the question of why this is advocated in a mathematical form that presents/gives two choices? PS: ahahaaha...Such dual possibilities invite gimmickry galo http://tinyurl.com/The-50-vs-41-Einstein-hoses |
#27
|
|||
|
|||
Paul Draper, what is mass, fundamentally?
On Mon, 29 Nov 2010 14:06:10 -0800 (PST), PD wrote:
On Nov 29, 1:13*pm, "hanson" wrote: In ||[1]|| it appears that you are setting "c" as 1 with varying dimensions since in traditional dim-analysis it should be * m = sqrt ((E/c^2)^2 - (P/c)^2)) Yes, I was using natural units, which also confused Androcles. Androcles?! Mistaken for Androcles. Ouch. |
#28
|
|||
|
|||
Paul Draper, what is mass, fundamentally?
"Matt" wrote in message ... | On Mon, 29 Nov 2010 14:06:10 -0800 (PST), PD wrote: | | On Nov 29, 1:13 pm, "hanson" wrote: | In ||[1]|| it appears that you are setting "c" as 1 with varying | dimensions since in traditional dim-analysis it should be | m = sqrt ((E/c^2)^2 - (P/c)^2)) | | Yes, I was using natural units, which also confused Androcles. | | Androcles?! | | Mistaken for Androcles. | | Ouch. | "c = 1 and unitless in natural units" -- Phuckwit Duck Quacks are quackless in natural ducks, but Phuckwit Duck is a plat-billed duckypus. http://www.scisite.info/pd.jpg |
#29
|
|||
|
|||
Paul Draper, what is mass, fundamentally?
On Nov 29, 5:31*pm, "hanson" wrote:
Paul, "PD" wrote: (1) Paul wrote http://tinyurl.com/Paul-Drapers-Mass (2) hanson wrote http://tinyurl.com/Questions-on-Mass-definition *wherein the following points, made by Paul, are worthwhile to pursue: Paul wrote: Well, let me clarify this a little, because your perception is just a touch off. hanson wrote: ahahahaha... Good one!.. You sound now like Reverend Koster who caught me washing my balls in the chalice of holy water after his beautiful wife Laura Lee gave me a phenomenal & memorable ride on the altar... ahahahaha.... "your perception is just a touch off" cuz "this isn't what it looks like, Reverend Koster"... ahahaha... AHAHAHAHA..... Earlier, hanson wrote: As said, your pov on this is different of course... Paul wrote: Not so very different. Earlier, hanson wrote: the establishment's definition of mass-variability as ... ||[1]|| (mass) = sqrt ((Sum (energies))^2 - (Sum (momentum))^2). Now the sqrt in that notion ||[1]|| also implies that mass can be negative. How is that dealt with? Can one read into this that positive & negative mass properties do fundamentally attract and annihilate each other.. aka .. Gravitation...?? Paul wrote: I'm not sure why you think mass could be negative? Because the sqrt of 4 is +2 and -2?. If that's the case, then allow me to clarify further that the positive root is what is intended. hanson wrote: If so, then there is a corollary here with EM in e = sqrt (hbar*a*c) or also with Planck's expression that m_Pl = e* sqrt (a/G) which then too must be very fundamental equations, both of which indicate that mass & charge can be + or -. Paul wrote: Again, the positive root is what is intended in both cases. hanson wrote: Yes, Paul, it would interest me, why only "the positive root is what is intended". If mass is not a lump of stuff but more of an Energy-Momentum-acceleration thing ||[1]|| then why can't it be negative? The force implied in the momentum would merely change the direction from pos to neg. Right? It's no so much a matter of what the implications of negative mass would be. The ultimate arbiter is whether negative mass is ever actually observed -- and there are plenty of places where if it existed, we would be able to look. For example, we've created antimatter, and you would expect that if antimatter has negative mass, it would fall up in Earth's gravitational field. As far as we can tell, it doesn't. An/your answer that this is so because it is observed, then raises the question of why this is advocated in a mathematical form that presents/gives two choices? The math is fit to nature, not the other way around. A positive square root is still a square root. The only thing needed is to be clear about which root you mean when you write down the math. There are LOTS of places where square roots are used in physics and where only the positive square root is implied. For example, the period of a simple pendulum is T = (1/2pi)sqrt(L/g), where L is the length of the pendulum. This doesn't and shouldn't imply to you that there are both positive and negative periods to a pendulum. PS: ahahaaha...Such dual possibilities invite gimmickry galo http://tinyurl.com/The-50-vs-41-Einstein-hoses |
#30
|
|||
|
|||
Paul Draper, what is mass, fundamentally?
Paul, you did so well, pedagogically, until now.
But below you reverted to your old style of obfuscation and weaseling over the question I posed, which I only raised because you said "allow me to clarify further", which you promptly did not. Thanks for the laughs though...ahahaha I'll talk to you later & elsewhere.... hahahahanson ---------------- Paul "PD" wrote: "hanson" wrote: Paul, "PD" wrote: (1) Paul wrote http://tinyurl.com/Paul-Drapers-Mass (2) hanson wrote http://tinyurl.com/Questions-on-Mass-definition wherein the following points, made by Paul, are worthwhile to pursue: Paul wrote: Well, let me clarify this a little, because your perception is just a touch off. hanson wrote: ahahahaha... Good one!.. You sound now like Reverend Koster who caught me washing my balls in the chalice of holy water after his beautiful wife Laura Lee gave me a phenomenal & memorable ride on the altar... ahahahaha.... "your perception is just a touch off" cuz "this isn't what it looks like, Reverend Koster"... ahahaha... AHAHAHAHA..... Earlier, hanson wrote: As said, your pov on this is different of course... Paul wrote: Not so very different. Earlier, hanson wrote: the establishment's definition of mass-variability as ... ||[1]|| (mass) = sqrt ((Sum (energies))^2 - (Sum (momentum))^2). Now the sqrt in that notion ||[1]|| also implies that mass can be negative. How is that dealt with? Can one read into this that positive & negative mass properties do fundamentally attract and annihilate each other.. aka .. Gravitation...?? Paul wrote: I'm not sure why you think mass could be negative? Because the sqrt of 4 is +2 and -2?. If that's the case, then allow me to clarify further that the positive root is what is intended. hanson wrote: If so, then there is a corollary here with EM in e = sqrt (hbar*a*c) or also with Planck's expression that m_Pl = e* sqrt (a/G) which then too must be very fundamental equations, both of which indicate that mass & charge can be + or -. Paul wrote: Again, the positive root is what is intended in both cases. hanson wrote: Yes, Paul, it would interest me, why only "the positive root is what is intended". If mass is not a lump of stuff but more of an Energy-Momentum-acceleration thing ||[1]|| then why can't it be negative? The force implied in the momentum would merely change the direction from pos to neg. Right? Weaseling Paul wrote: It's no so much a matter of what the implications of negative mass would be. The ultimate arbiter is whether negative mass is ever actually observed -- and there are plenty of places where if it existed, we would be able to look. For example, we've created antimatter, and you would expect that if antimatter has negative mass, it would fall up in Earth's gravitational field. As far as we can tell, it doesn't. hanson wrote: An/your answer that this is so because it is observed, then raises the question of why this is advocated in a mathematical form that presents/gives two choices? Weaseling Paul wrote: The math is fit to nature, not the other way around. A positive square root is still a square root. The only thing needed is to be clear about which root you mean when you write down the math. There are LOTS of places where square roots are used in physics and where only the positive square root is implied. For example, the period of a simple pendulum is T = (1/2pi)sqrt(L/g), where L is the length of the pendulum. This doesn't and shouldn't imply to you that there are both positive and negative periods to a pendulum. hanson wrote: PS: ahahaaha...Such dual possibilities invite gimmickry galo http://tinyurl.com/The-50-vs-41-Einstein-hoses |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
everyone correctly witness outside Chester when the systematic youths present onto the alive rear | [email protected] | Amateur Astronomy | 0 | August 14th 07 10:19 AM |
Let's see if I understand this correctly | FB | Astronomy Misc | 1 | March 20th 07 09:38 PM |
Do we really understand the Sun? | SuperCool Plasma | Misc | 0 | May 25th 05 02:48 PM |
Saturn's moons, now named correctly | Chris Taylor | UK Astronomy | 10 | November 15th 04 11:21 PM |