 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
Natural Science Forum / Physics / General Physics / May 2007The mystery of Inertia
I've read in a few articles about the "mystery" or the "origin" of inertia, however I don't really understand what this mystery is about. If I understood correctly, the principle of inertia can be easily derived (in classical mechanics, at least) from the symmetry of space. See for example, the textbook of Landau & Lifshitz "Course of theoretical physics", where Newton's laws are derived from symmetry principles and Galilean relativity. So what is the problem? I will advance two possible answers, and I would like to ask to comment on them: - the mystery is not about inertia itself (i.e. the fact that matter continues to move unless acted upon by a force), but about the fact that inertial mass is identical to gravitational mass. That's where Mach's principle enters the scene to try to explain this "coincidence". - the mystery is about whether inertia is a property of matter or of space. I don't really understand this, but it's what I gathered from some paper. I would very much appreciate if anyone could enlighten me about this. > I've read in a few articles about the "mystery" or the "origin" of > inertia, however I don't really understand what this mystery is about. [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > theoretical physics", where Newton's laws are derived from symmetry > principles and Galilean relativity. So what is the problem? Newton was wrong. > I will advance two possible answers, and I would like to ask to > comment on them: [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > Mach's principle enters the scene to try to explain this > "coincidence". No. Inerital vs. gravitational mass is the Equivalence Principle. Any gravitation theory must either demand (metric gravitation and string theory) or ignore (affine, teleparallel, noncommutative) the EP. The only interesting empirical tests target the disjoint non-overlap of the two approaches (since the former is wholly contained within the latter). The only divergence between empirically validated non-falsified metric and non-metric gravitation is angular momentum - physical spin, quantum spin (magnets; polarized electron spin and orbital angular momentum), relativistic spin-orbit coupling, chirality. The only allowed macroscopic divergence sufficently large to be measured given current technology comprises two simple questions: 1) Do local chemically identical, opposite parity mass distributions vacuum free fall along identical minimum action trajectories? (Do left and right hands fall identically?) 2) Do local chemically identical, opposite parity mass distributions fit into space with identical energies? (Do left and right hands melt identically?) If non-metric gravitation is correct, the vacuum has a chiral background. Both (1) and (2) are then answered "detectably no." > - the mystery is about whether inertia is a property of matter or of > space. I don't really understand this, but it's what I gathered from > some paper. > > I would very much appreciate if anyone could enlighten me about this. http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/qz4.pdf Explanation, calculation, reduction to practice http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/lajos.htm#a2 More sensitive reduction to practice.  SignatureUncle Al http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/ (Toxic URL! Unsafe for children and most mammals) http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/lajos.htm#a2 : Newton was wrong. Idiot. > I've read in a few articles about the "mystery" or the "origin" of > inertia, however I don't really understand what this mystery is about. [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > theoretical physics", where Newton's laws are derived from symmetry > principles and Galilean relativity. So what is the problem? So far, no problem- as long as there is a "preferred frame of reference" (Newton and Galileo used the stars), Galilean relativity holds. Look up "Newton's bucket"- that encapsulates a lot of the conceptual difficulty encountered when there is no preferred frame of reference. If there is no way to tell if the bucket rotates or the universe is rotating, what is the equilibrium surface of the fluid? Mach's principle is rooted in this paradox. <snip> SignatureAndrew Resnick, Ph.D. Department of Physiology and Biophysics Case Western Reserve University > I've read in a few articles about the "mystery" or the "origin" of > inertia, however I don't really understand what this mystery is about. [quoted text clipped - 19 lines] > > I would very much appreciate if anyone could enlighten me about this. The fact that Inertia and Gravity have similar values? Is the energy of the standing wave behind the rock dependant on the current that hits the rock? Of course. John Proton Inertia and gravity are the same force. They are two sides to the same coin. Bert > Proton Inertia and gravity are the same force. They are two sides > to the same coin. Bert No Herb--explain: o gravitational mass o inertial mass o equivalence principle I agree with Bert, Sam, gravity is the flip-side of net inertia. Isn't that what General Relativity is telling us ? > I've read in a few articles about the "mystery" or the "origin" of > inertia, however I don't really understand what this mystery is about. [quoted text clipped - 19 lines] > > I would very much appreciate if anyone could enlighten me about this. ---------- inertia is obviously a property of mass! if there is no mass there is no inertia you cant meausre inertia of space you can meausre inertia of a mass th eonly property of space is to host mass just a s simple as that and the more mumble jumble you heare about inertia of space means the cheating is bigger the inorganic nature is not cleaver enough to understand and to behave according to the devious physics ivented some people !! th e simpler the betetr even for nature !! ATB Y.Porat ------------------- > > I've read in a few articles about the "mystery" or the "origin" of > > inertia, however I don't really understand what this mystery is about. [quoted text clipped - 43 lines] > ATB > Y.Porat So you are generally in agreement with Mach and Einstein. << I shall turn to those problems which are related to the development which I have traced. Already Newton recognized that the law of inertia is unsatisfactory in a context so far unmentioned in this exposition, namely that it gives no real cause for the special physical position of the states of motion of the inertial frames relative to all other states of motion. It makes the observable material bodies responsible for the gravitational behaviour of a material point, yet indicates no material cause for the inertial behaviour of the material point but devises the cause for it (absolute space or inertial ether). This is not logically inadmissible although it is unsatisfactory. For this reason E. Mach demanded a modification of the law of inertia in the sense that the inertia should be interpreted as an acceleration resistance of the bodies against one another and not against "space". This interpretation governs the expectation that accelerated bodies have concordant accelerating action in the same sense on other bodies (acceleration induction). This interpretation is even more plausible according to general relativity which eliminates the distinction between inertial and gravitational effects. It amounts to stipulating that, apart from the arbitrariness governed by the free choice of coordinates, the gm v -field shall be completely determined by the matter. Mach's stipulation is favoured in general relativity by the circumstance that acceleration induction in accordance with the gravitational field equations really exists, although of such slight intensity that direct detection by mechanical experiments is out of the question. >> http://nobelprize.org/nobel_prizes/physics/laureates/1921/einstein-lecture.html http://www.mypage.bluewin.ch/Bizarre/GRAV.htm http://www.esa.int/SPECIALS/GSP/SEM0L6OVGJE_0.html http://einstein.stanford.edu/ Sue... > > > I've read in a few articles about the "mystery" or the "origin" of > > > inertia, however I don't really understand what this mystery is about. [quoted text clipped - 94 lines] > > - Show quoted text - ------------- i accept SR i dont believ in GR so ????? do you think Einstein was a messenger of God? ie anything he suggested is right by definition of Einstein said so ?? ATB Y.Porat -------------- > > > > I've read in a few articles about the "mystery" or the "origin" of > > > > inertia, however I don't really understand what this mystery is about. [quoted text clipped - 104 lines] > ie anything he suggested is right by > definition of Einstein said so ?? If the referenced lecture: http://nobelprize.org/nobel_prizes/physics/laureates/1921/einstein-lecture.html ...is not in your natural language, it may not be clear to you that it is as critical of GR as it is supportive. (although the title does offer some clue). A messenger of God would never have cause to critique the message so on logical grounds we can reject that possibility. ;-) Sue... > ATB > Y.Porat > --------------- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text - "Y.Porat" <y.y.porat@gmail.com> wrote in message > ------------- > i accept SR Yet you say photons have mass, which contradicts SR (which says anything that moves at speed c must have a zero mass). > "Y.Porat" <y.y.po...@gmail.com> wrote in message > > ------------- > > i accept SR > > Yet you say photons have mass, which contradicts SR (which says anything > that moves at speed c must have a zero mass). Photons have non-zero inertial mass, though the rest mass is zero. Inertial mass (also gravitational mass) just follows from the general mass-energy equivalence. Thus m = h nu / c^2 is the inertial mass of a photon of frequency nu. > > "Y.Porat" <y.y.po...@gmail.com> wrote in message > > > ------------- [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > general mass-energy equivalence. Thus m = h nu / c^2 is the inertial > mass of a photon of frequency nu. Where are photons ever mentioned in SR ? Search Results for "photon" No documents match the query. http://www.bartleby.com/cgi-bin/texis/webinator/sitesearch?query=photon&filter=c ol173&Submit=Go "The [ ] Incompatibility of the Law of Propagation of Light with the Principle of Relativity [is only] Apparent" http://www.bartleby.com/173/7.html Maxwell's equations in classic electrodynamics (classic field theory)_ a) Maxwell equations (no movement), b) Maxwell equations (with moved bodies) http://www.wolfram-stanek.de/maxwell_equations.htm#maxwell_classic_extended Sue... > > > "Y.Porat" <y.y.po...@gmail.com> wrote in message > > > > ------------- [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > > Where are photons ever mentioned in SR ? Photons are not specifically mentioned in SR. But classical electromagnetism also ascribes energy to electromagnetic waves and whatever one's conception of light, SR does insist that if light has energy then it has an equivalent inertial mass via E=mc^2. > Search Results for "photon" > No documents match the query.http://www.bartleby.com/cgi-bin/texis/webinator/sitesearch?query=phot... [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > > Sue... > > > "Y.Porat" <y.y.po...@gmail.com> wrote in message > > > > ------------- [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > > Where are photons ever mentioned in SR ? Photons are not specifically mentioned in SR. But classical electromagnetism also ascribes energy to electromagnetic waves and whatever one's conception of light, SR does insist that if light has energy then it has an equivalent inertial mass via E=mc^2. > Search Results for "photon" > No documents match the query.http://www.bartleby.com/cgi-bin/texis/webinator/sitesearch?query=phot... [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > > Sue... > Photons are not specifically mentioned in SR. But classical > electromagnetism also ascribes energy to electromagnetic waves and > whatever one's conception of light, SR does insist that if light has > energy then it has an equivalent inertial mass via E=mc^2. Are you sure that it's necessarily inertial mass? There are three types of mass, easily identified from the usual Newtonian equations: F = G*M*m1/r^2 F = m2*a M is the 'charge' that produces a gravitational field, so it's the gravitational mass. m1 is the 'charge' that responds to a gravitational field resulting in a force on the charge carrier. m2 is the ratio of the force applied to a body (not necessarily a gravitational force) to the acceleration produced thereby. This is what we commonly call the inertial mass. The equivalence principle says that m1 = m2, leading to all bodies falling with the same acceleration in a gravitational field. We also take M = m1 thanks to the appropriate choice of G. Now along comes E = m*c^2 and E = h*nu. Where does m fit? Single photons respond to gravity in that they follow the geodesics of General Relativity, so that's like m1 above. But energy also gravitates according to the stress-energy tensor of GR. So that's like M above. Now, which mass type is responsible for what we call rest mass? Single photons don't have a rest mass, but systems of photons can. Curiouser and curiouser. > > > > "Y.Porat" <y.y.po...@gmail.com> wrote in message > > > > > ------------- [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] > whatever one's conception of light, SR does insist that if light has > energy then it has an equivalent inertial mass via E=mc^2. It "follows" ? With that kind of rigour we might expect to measure combustion temperatures in an automobiles fuel tank. . << 4) Chapter 15. General Results of the Theory. Einstein, Albert. 1920. Relativity: The Special and General Theory ...with the velocity v. Hence we can say: If a body takes up an amount of energy E0, then its inertial mass increases by an amount the inertial mass of a body is not... >> http://www.bartleby.com/cgi-bin/texis/webinator/sitesearch?FILTER=col173&query=i nertial+&x=9&y=9 http://www.bartleby.com/173/ Perhaps a real experiment might help. Abstract We show that non-zero masses for a spin-1 graviton (called graviphoton) leads to considerable gravitomagnetic fields around rotating mass densities, which are not observed. The solution to the problem is found by an equivalent graviphoton mass which depends on the local mass density to ensure the principle of equivalence. This solution, derived from Einstein-Proca equations, has important consequences such as a correction term for the Cooper-pair mass anomaly reported by Tate among many others. Similar results were obtained for the photon mass which is then proportional to the charge density in matter. For the case of coherent matter the predicted effects have been experimentally observed by the authors. >> "Local Photon and Graviton Mass and its Consequences" http://arxiv.org/abs/gr-qc/0603032 Sue... > > Search Results for "photon" > > No documents match the query.http://www.bartleby.com/cgi-bin/texis/webinator/sitesearch?query=phot... [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > > > Sue > > "Y.Porat" <y.y.po...@gmail.com> wrote in message > > > ------------- [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > general mass-energy equivalence. Thus m = h nu / c^2 is the inertial > mass of a photon of frequency nu. ---------- its time for you to learn that there is jsut one kind of mass invariant mass 2 you know nothing about photons in rest so betetr dont talk about it !! Y.Porat --------------- > > > "Y.Porat" <y.y.po...@gmail.com> wrote in message > > > > ------------- [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > there is jsut one kind of mass > invariant mass Nonsense. For either a massive particle (i.e. nonzero invariant mass) or a photon (zero invariant mass) in the equation E=mc^2, m must be understood as inertial mass. I thought you said you accept special relativity, though not general relativity. In SR a particle with nonzero invariant mass would have to have infinite energy if it travelled at light speed. You are obviously not accepting all of SR if you think otherwise. > you know nothing about photons in rest > so betetr dont talk about it !! A photon cannot be at rest in any inertial frame. Again this is very elementary SR. What did you mean when you wrote in a previous post that you accept SR? [...] Porat does not understand SR, no matter what he says. > > > > "Y.Porat" <y.y.po...@gmail.com> wrote in message > > > > > ------------- [quoted text clipped - 29 lines] > > - Show quoted text - -------------- mike you still ddint see my unprecedented profe about nonzser mass for the photon it is not based on E=mc^2 it is based on the **experimental formula** E=hf it has trhe diensions of E = kilograms times meter ^2/second ^2 while E and f are not zero there is nothing in it to multiply the kilogram unit with zero] therefore the energy of the photon has a nonzero mass!! people knew it long ago but claimes it is 'relativistic mass' yet as stme wenton they realised that there is only one kind of mass invariant mass the elativistic mass was invented in oder to fit mc^ of ther photon to SR yet the common idiot like Gise for instance do not learn untill now that the gama factor *doe snot apply to the photon case the photon is a limit case even mathematically of wich the agma factor does not apply yet waht can you expect form an agressive Parrot ?? so actually while you get it the whole logic process of yours can be reversed !! since the photon has mass therefore the Gamma factor does nt apply to it etc etc etc while you will become more mature you will get it yet dont forget who was the first one to explain it to you (:-) Y.Porat ------------------ > -------------- > mike > you still ddint see my unprecedented profe a) it not unprecedented .. many have tried using E = hf to imply a mass and that argument has been shown to be fallacious b) it is not a proof > > -------------- > > mike > > you still ddint see my unprecedented profe > > a) it not unprecedented .. many have tried using E = hf to imply a mass and ------------------------ Nazi sh.t psychpath!! just show us who did that analysis as i did: ie to get into the dimesions of it and to lister nazi crook caerefully) to indicate that i take just **all the cases of which E and f are nonzero** and only those cases !! so lisyen carefully Nazi sh.t) so if so THERE IS NOTHING THERE TOMULTIPLY TH EMASS DINMESIION BY ZERO!!! got it nazi piggshit ??! sow us that analysis in DETAILES DONE BEFORE AND BY WHOM !!!! now it is clear thata sh.t lier like you dont know that th edeavil i sin the detailes! IT IS IN SOME CSSES THAT A TINY DETAIL MAKE STHE WHOLE DIFFERENCE people could understand that the dimensions of energy are kg meter ^2/second ^2 but they could say and did say that they take mass as zero bydefinition of their undrstanding tha the photon has zsro mass so if you asume and insert zero for mass you get BIG SURPRISE ---- SERO FOR MASS!! but if you ar enot prejudiced you dont put zero for mass and you look all around as i did and no one before me did whetrher is there anything thwere that can multiply it by zero and i showed that neither E nore f can multiply iy by zero because *it is only those cases that i take in acount and even not long ago an idiot like you claimes that there is a case in which f is zero 'because of a photon in rest ' (:-) (f.ck you idoot crook physicist do you know soemething about a photon in rest ?? or you are just a disturbed demagoge that will recrute the devil himself to lie againsr Porat : were nazishit demagoge is a photon in rest thasat you know anything about it ???? so even lately a genious physicist like you broght a claim that there is soemthing to multiply the mass by sero whiloe that is a lie !! nothing to multiply the mass there by zero! now the second common idiotic claim thjat yo uand all the othjers do is to say: the mass there belongs to the h constant and therefore it is not mass of the eenrgy of the photon end of idiotic quote so it was me and no one before that shoed taht all those elements of the formula E=hf are a chin of multipliers andif so NO MATTER WERE THEY ARE THE RESULT OF MULTIPLICATION AND RSULT OF PHYSICAL MEANING REMAINS THE SAME] NO MATTER WAHJT ISD THE PLACE OF ANY OF ITS CONSTITUENTS it doesnnot matter if the mass dimension is *in* the h or outside it IT IS PART AND PARCEL OF THE WHOLE FORMULA OF PHOTON ENERGY !! and th eformula containes nonzero mass! now the profe i snot done yet there is still something importantmissing since idiots like you and 100 years along claimes that 'there might be mass there but it is RELATIVISTICV MASS' end of idiotic claim yet i ans even an idiot like you ans some others understood that there is no relativistic mas it is a moronic invensionof people who didnt understand what mass is so we agred that here is only invariant mass and if so the energy of the photon CONTAINES A NONZERO INVARIANT MASS!! so jutst show us who did all the above combination of analysis not a single argument of the above missing becaue any of the above arguemnts is vitakl to the profe ifone is missing the profe is not colmplete it was only me WHO DID IT ALL LAONG AS A COMPLETE PROFE no one ever presented it that way unless a crook like you will show oherwise bot by Nazi hand wavings but **by documents** not one detaile of the above is missing !! so you can recrute all your Nazi friends to thaat mission to find and precedented porfe as full as i did !! bTW the nast part of you is a you still dont agree wit the profe! because you are a dumb idiot !!(or nasty lier crook ) and b stil claim that it is precedented long ago !!!.... ONLY JOSEF GEOBELES OR HIS PUPILS CANBE AS NAST AS THAT !! i hope the others will realize who realy you are Y.Porat ------------------- > that argument has been shown to be fallacious > > b) it is not a proof [...] *sigh* Dimensional analysis has no physical content, fool. >> "Y.Porat" <y.y.po...@gmail.com> wrote in message >> > mike [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > ------------------------ > Nazi sh.t psychpath!! Hello poor rat http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/physics/Relativity/SR/light_mass.html === Sometimes people like to say that the photon does have mass because a photon has energy E = hf where h is Planck's constant and f is the frequency of the photon. Energy, they say, is equivalent to mass according to Einstein's famous formula E = mc2. They also say that a photon has momentum, and momentum p is related to mass m by p = mv. What they are talking about is "relativistic mass", an old concept that can cause confusion (see the FAQ article Does mass change with speed?). Relativistic mass is a measure of the energy E of a particle, which changes with velocity. By convention, relativistic mass is not usually called the mass of a particle in contemporary physics so, at least semantically, it is wrong to say the photon has mass in this way. But you can say that the photon has relativistic mass if you really want to. In modern terminology the mass of an object is its invariant mass, which is zero for a photon. === That exaplins where the 'mass' comes from. NOTE: doing a dimensional analysis only is not any sort of proof.. all it does is confrim that the units in the planks constant are correct. The only reason there is an mass unit in plancks constant is because there is a mass unit in energy. [snip usual poor rat ranting and raving and mistyping and nonsense insults and nonsense 'physics'] > i hope the others will realize who realy you are We can all see what sort of a person you are. > >> "Y.Porat" <y.y.po...@gmail.com> wrote in message > >> > mike [quoted text clipped - 37 lines] > > We can all see what sort of a person you are. ------------- imbeci Nazi shithead just strt from now tolearn how a physics formula is built it was not explaIained to you by your fucken theachers (or parrots teacgers( so you it is your tern to starstunderstanding physics more basically!! ypur aprrots mind is so much stuffed by amthematics that you lost your gripp with basicphysics (that is i case you are wrating with me innocently and not because of Nazi personal revange considerations ... because if the last case is your case we have nothing to discuss and in asecond thought i actaully dont see as now a chance that you will be able to get ridd of your paradigmatic mind so if so there no use of further discussion lets leave it for other open minded readers )) time will say who is right anyway my copyright on it as presented above is recorded fully to last detail in Google documentatation and i explained to you crook how and why the full analysis of mine is unprecedented !! that is as well documanted so no one has a chance to steal it from me ...... (even after along time you wil satrt to understand and appreciate my contribution done not by a German scientist but a bloody poor Israeli crackpot anonymous -- how painfull for you nearly untollerable emotionaly Eh ?? decent honest anaymous !! (:-)) Y.Porat >> >> "Y.Porat" <y.y.po...@gmail.com> wrote in message >> >> > mike [quoted text clipped - 48 lines] > ------------- > imbeci Nazi shithead Hello poor rat [snip same old schoolboy unit analysis] > time will say who is right > anyway Time has already said you are wrong > my copyright on it as presented above You're welcome to a copyright on nonsense non-proofs Here's mine... NO TIME - NO PHYSICS (c) Jeckyl NO SPACE - NO PHYSICS (c) Jeckyl NO PORAT - NO CRAP (c) Jeckyl > is recorded fully to last detail in Google documentatation > and i explained to you crook [snip more poor rat ranting and raving] > >> "Y.Porat" <y.y.po...@gmail.com> wrote in message > [quoted text clipped - 78 lines] > > - Show quoted text - ------------ disturbed moron imbecil Nazi sh.t and bump parasite as well Y.Porat ---------------- >> > "Y.Porat" <y.y.po...@gmail.com> wrote in message >> > > ------------- [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > there is jsut one kind of mass > invariant mass And that mass is zero for a photon > 2 > you know nothing about photons in rest > so betetr dont talk about it !! You know nothing bout physics so better dont talk about it > >> > "Y.Porat" <y.y.po...@gmail.com> wrote in message > >> > > ------------- [quoted text clipped - 23 lines] > > - Show quoted text - ---------- Nazi sh.t moron go f.ck youself witht he psychpath Gisse the main point is that theother readers that flowed those posts saw who both of you are and worth littl Nazi sh.ts cannot cheat everybody forever you are not even good crooks to do it (:-) Y.P --------------- [...] Do you act like this when interacting with other people in person? > [...] > > Do you act like this when interacting with other people in person? ---------- yes only while i interact with little Nazi sh.ts Y.P ----------- > > [...] > [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > Y.P > ----------- In other words, you are nasty and lonely little man. >> [...] >> [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > yes only while i interact with > little Nazi sh.ts And another example of the poor rats psychopathic posting. He needs help. > >> [...] > [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > > And another example of the poor rats psychopathic posting. He needs help. ------- thanks nazi disturbed bump parasite sh.t for your intersest in my welfaire!! now you are a hypocrite as well !! Y.P ---------------- >> >> [...] >> [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > for your intersest in my welfaire!! > now you are a hypocrite as well !! And another example of the poor rats psychopathic posting. He needs help. > >> "Y.Porat" <y.y.po...@gmail.com> wrote in message > [quoted text clipped - 19 lines] > > - Show quoted text - ---------- what is your day job bump parasite anonimous ? Y.P -------------------- >> >> >> [...] >> >> >> Do you act like this when interacting with other people in person? [quoted text clipped - 16 lines] > what is your day job > bump parasite anonimous ? And yet another example of the poor rats psychopathic posting. He needs help >> You know nothing bout physics so better dont talk about it > ---------- [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > > you are not even good crooks to do it (:-) Another charming post of nonsense insults with no content from the poor rat. > "Y.Porat" <y.y.po...@gmail.com> wrote in message > > ------------- > > i accept SR > > Yet you say photons have mass, which contradicts SR (which says anything > that moves at speed c must have a zero mass). ---------- 1 i prved that the mass of the photon is nonzero now goquiockly and adjust all your physics to that finding no 1 finding if so the gama factor deos not apply to the photon ie the photon is a limit case of which Gama does not apply to it! 2 if it doe snot apply the photon with its mass **can move at c** 3 if it has mass it becomesd obvious why it is deviated next to the sun and you spare yorself and invension of a new physics in which it is curved space time that does it now you say bu tthe newtonian calcualtion gives a diuble devgiation result from experiment (or vice versa no matter) sogo quickly and chanhge your calcualtions for *the sapecial case tha tis called a photon etc etc so you see just one basic assumption can revolutionaze physics with no amch revolutionary difficuly or cost !! experts to9ld me that it should not be a big problem for modern science to adjsut it to the *photon havinf mass ** (no insults as for now (:-) unless you start to 'teach me ' yours and others parrotings) ATB Y.Porat General Relativity doesn't work at densities above Planck density. S.R. doesn't work at times/lengths below Planck time/length. On May 24, 2:01 am, Jeff...Relf <Jeff_R...@Yahoo.COM> wrote: > General Relativity doesn't work at densities above Planck density. > S.R. doesn't work at times/lengths below Planck time/length. ...and you don't work at all. On May 24, 12:01 pm, Jeff...Relf <Jeff_R...@Yahoo.COM> wrote: > General Relativity doesn't work at densities above Planck density. > S.R. doesn't work at times/lengths below Planck time/length. ----------- actually GR does nor work at any densities Gr is a trial and error system that has nothing to do with curved spcaetime it has a lot to do with properties of mass !! Y.Porat -------------- > On May 24, 12:01 pm, Jeff...Relf <Jeff_R...@Yahoo.COM> wrote: > [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > spcaetime > it has a lot to do with properties of mass !! Really? How is GR "trial and error"? Please, explain. > Y.Porat > -------------- > > On May 24, 12:01 pm, Jeff...Relf <Jeff_R...@Yahoo.COM> wrote: > [quoted text clipped - 16 lines] > > - Show quoted text - ----------- see the GPS it is similar process a nonstop process of sdjusting experimental data to the formulas adjusting the constants etc if you investigate it deaply it cant be otherwise !! a practical physical formula must be adjusted to mesurments (atleast at the beginning and even later !!) if you dont get it it means you dint folow it all laong deap enough about how it was built Y.P ---------- [...] So in other words, "I have no f.cking idea". The GR correction is an offset applied before launch and not touched after. The adjustments are for unaccounted effects, which in no way means that GR is "trial and error". I still do not understand why you comment on GPS despite having NO UNDERSTANDING OF IT WHATSOEVER. http://www.navcen.uscg.gov/gps/geninfo/IS-GPS-200D.pdf > On May 24, 12:01 pm, Jeff...Relf <Jeff_R...@Yahoo.COM> wrote: >> General Relativity doesn't work at densities above Planck density. [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > spcaetime > it has a lot to do with properties of mass !! You know nothing about GR at all. Don't comment about thing outside your knowledge .. ie we should hear nothing more from you. >> "Y.Porat" <y.y.po...@gmail.com> wrote in message >> > ------------- [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > 1 > i prved that the mass of the photon is nonzero LIAR. You've done nothing of the sort .. and you know it. > now goquiockly and adjust all your physics > to that finding Why .. you've not proved anything. You'll need to give new equations that replace SR (and exaplin why SR suddenly stops applying just because a particle is a photon) > no 1 finding if so > the gama factor deos not apply to the photon Which gamma factor in which equation? > ie > the photon is a limit case of which Gama > does not apply to it! Why .. just because you say so? You need better reasoning than that, and would need to then provide a new version of SR with formulas that handles photons and non-photons. Are you saying that the photon's rest mass and its relativistic mass are the same thing somehow? ie E = gamma.m.c^2 for everything else and E = m.c^2 for a photon. > 2 > if it doe snot apply > the photon with its mass **can move at c** If it does, then with SR you end up with infinite energy > 3 > if it has mass > it becomesd obvious why it is deviated > next to the sun It doesn't need rest mass for that. > and you spare yorself and invension of a new > physics in which it is curved space time > that does it > now you say The curved space is not invented just to show the path of photons. It is to explain gravity. That it also predicts the correct bending of photon paths is a bonus. > bu tthe newtonian calcualtion gives > a diuble devgiation result from WTF is a "diuble devgiation" ?? > experiment (or vice versa no matter) > sogo quickly [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > just one basic assumption can revolutionaze > physics You need to more than just say it has mass. > with no amch revolutionary difficuly > or cost !! [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > to adjsut it to the > *photon havinf mass ** Except wit SR you end up with infinite energy. We've been thru that already > (no insults as for now (:-) > unless you start to 'teach me ' yours and others parrotings) Whatever > >> "Y.Porat" <y.y.po...@gmail.com> wrote in message > >> > ------------- [quoted text clipped - 86 lines] > > Whatever ---------------- th e litle aprrot cannot come what comes may (eespecially if it expalined by Porat (:-)) understand that the photon is a limit case even mathematically therefore gamma factor does not apply to it may be if a famous German scientist wil hammer it into his blocked head he will get it !! Y.P ---------------- >> >> "Y.Porat" <y.y.po...@gmail.com> wrote in message >> >> > ------------- [quoted text clipped - 101 lines] > wil hammer it into his blocked head > he will get it !! You've still not answered .. is the rest mass of a photon a constant for all photon, or does it vary based on frequency? > >> "Y.Porat" <y.y.po...@gmail.com> wrote in message > [quoted text clipped - 110 lines] > > - Show quoted text - ------------- there is a basic unitt of photons that can come in different quantites the frequency is making the number of photons per second if you likea methaphore : youcan have a nachine gun that sotts bullets always the same bullets yet it can be tuned to shoot with different rates if the rat eis high -- many of themper second if the rate of shooting is low less of them per second actually the 'machine gun is an Atom that vibrates with a certain frequency each time it collides due to thiose vibrations with some obsatcle (that obsatcle migh tbe an inner bond or wahtever we dont have toget into it at this point) so while thereis some inner collision of friction wiht a certain intesity (energy) it emmits a photon now as i suggeste that machine has only just one kind of 'bullets '(photon units ) it can only shoot quicker of salower and that is the meaning of the photon frequency that i show i privately see it you can take it or leave it the same as with electrons beam emmitions:!! there is only one kind of an electron yet the emmition of electron beams can be of many of them or less of them 9per second) and that maskes the diference between an energetic beam or less or mor eenergetic ie how many electrons per second why do i expalin it to Jekyle ?? only God knowes it seems that is spite of his despise for me there is some reason he does not stop geting interset in my undersatndigs and views now BTW ] he is not alone!1 i notices humdreds of vewers of my posts !! so it is amnly for my fathful audiance (:-) ps jekyle once you ddint include a single word of abuse you ddint find a single word of abuse in my response !!!! keep well you and the other hundreds ... Y.Porat ------------ >> You've still not answered .. is the rest mass of a photon a constant for >> all [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > in different quantites > the frequency is making the number of photons per second Hang on .. you've now changed the whole concepts of photon and wave/particle duality. Frequency gives the energy per photon (as per E = hf), and the intensity of light is from the number of photons (per unit of time). > if you likea methaphore : > youcan have a nachine gun that sotts bullets [quoted text clipped - 19 lines] > that i show i privately see it > you can take it or leave it I'll leave it ..as it disagrees with known physics. So you are saying the that invariant (rest) mass of all photons is the same, yet the energy in a photon from E = hf depends on the frequency. Now, we know that the energy for a moving object is the combination of the rest energy (E0 = mc^2) and the energy from its motion. So it the photon has mass, then that means thataprt of its energy comes from the constant rest energy, and so energy cannot then be linearly dependant on frequency (as E = hf tells us) unless the rest energy is zero, and so the rest mass must be zero. > the same as with electrons beam emmitions:!! > there is only one kind of an electron [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] > i notices humdreds of vewers of my posts !! > so it is amnly for my fathful audiance (:-) Get over yourself. > ps jekyle > once you ddint include a single word of abuse > you ddint find a single word of abuse > in my response !!!! I only respond in kind .. you stop your abuse, I stop mind .. you call me a nazi once more and watch out. > >> You've still not answered .. is the rest mass of a photon a constant for > >> all [quoted text clipped - 75 lines] > > - Show quoted text - ----------- just in a quick overlook on your response: (actually i wanted to mnsion it in my previous post: buit thought i will do it later in that discussion ) **there might be confusion between the enegy of a 'serie of photons thjat are emitted **on the same path!! and a group of photons that are emmited in PARALLEL lines one next to the other !! 2 i am not sure you relatd to my analogy to electron beem emmition i think we can learn a lot from that analogy! for me in both cases we deal with jsut one basic 'bullet emmited' the same as en electron is undoubtedly ahs a consatnt INVARIABLE mass ------ the same with a photon (if not exactly the same because stil there is a difference between the electron and the photon yet still there is a lot of analogy! fo rme thje main analogy is that in both cases we have the same basic 'bullet' in each case another bullet (th eelectron bullet is of course way bigger in mass but satill the characteristic of theit emmition] are similar in both cases the amount of 'energy per time unit' is actuallt **the number of(the basic !!) bullets shot per second !!! it can be onthe same geometric path or in parallel paths !! more units on the same path are considered to be ' a better intensity of emmition if it is in parallel paths it migh tbe more deluted energy but more energy as an all over efffect so again th eoverall amount of energy is just the number of photons- most basic units ----- PER SECOND!! that is how i expalin it to myself if it looks reasonable to others - welcome !! ps dont you think Jekyle that our discussion now is a bit far away from the title of this thread ?? (:-) may be it should be under another thread !! ATB Y.Porat ---------------- > ----------- > just in a quick overlook on your response: [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > a group of photons that are emmited in PARALLEL > lines one next to the other !! Ok .. but you are still saying that the mass of a photon is independant of the frequency of light. If the photon has a non-zero mass, then there must be a fixed part of the phooton energy that comes from the rest mass (via E = mc^2) But as the frequency of light is simply linearly related to the energy, that means there can be no rest energy (as the enegery of a photon can be as low as you want by making the frequency as low as you want). So there cannot be a rest mass > >> You've still not answered .. is the rest mass of a photon a constant for > >> all [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > Hang on .. you've now changed the whole concepts of photon and wave/particle > duality. Frequency gives the energy per photon (as per E = hf), -------------- after answering my first response i come back to your points just at this point: now you hang on!! how do you meause hf?? are you sure yor mesured a 'single photon'? or may be a bunch of photons ?? while you do th e phtoto eelcric effect can you make sure about how many single phtons (of the same frequrncy!!) cause an electron to jump out ?? may be it was a bunch of them ??!! he only thing you measured there is frequencyand number of electrons jumping out - thats all can you meausre a frequency if a single photon with a mass of 3.3 X 10^-51 kg ??? you see we are talking different languages you are sticking to your paradigm and i tomy claimes that are different and the > intensity of light is from the number of photons (per unit of time). nice again but !! what is the real numbe of 'single photons' there are those photons that came on after other on the same line ?? what is the width of that line of a 'single photon ' can it be defined and detected experimentally may be it is a bunch of lines of photons ----> how can you know it is not a bunch of PARALLEL lines of photons ? ----------- > > if you likea methaphore : > > youcan have a nachine gun that sotts bullets [quoted text clipped - 21 lines] > > I'll leave it ..as it disagrees with known physics. > So you are saying the that invariant (rest) mass of all photons is the same, and dont forget my claim that we have to define correctly the term A SINGLE PHOTON !! > yet the energy in a photon from E = hf depends on the frequency. Now, we > know that the energy for a moving object is the combination of the rest > energy (E0 = mc^2) and the energy from its motion. - that is waht *you know* not waht i know !! you see if you speak only your language you will always get your 'poem' !! if i speak my language i will get 'my poem ' (:-):::: you forgot my innovative claime and actally profe for the photon the fomula with mc^ - pc doe snot aplly!! because you dont have a photonin rest non of us knows about waht is a photon in rest so we dont know 'waht is its mass in 'rest' wec ant detect it and we cant merasure it in rest !!! so you can say about it energy there is sero and i can say it is zero enery becaus eof zero movement or wahtever (it is a 'balck hole ' fo rallof us ) we can speak only abou tthe photon mass in movement of c while my calimis is ....... ltes see if you remember *my* claime about th e 'photon case' ( and not yours) !! hint : as a limit case ...) and my orofe for it is by the **experimental**formula E=hf for those who really understand it !(:-) and undeerstand how a physics formula is built and used 2 just to remind you both of us agreed that ther eis no relativistix mass and 3 my claim is that during motion (of a big mass) ther is no 'inflation of mass' ther is only 'inflation' of the energy needed to add more velocity E/Gamma = mc^2 !! and it s differnt physics meaning and **interpretation* from E=Gamma mc^2 anyway it does not belong to the photon because the photon is a **special case** !! 4 enlagement of photon energy does not come from bigger motion it comes for more photon units !!(taht all of them move with consatnt c so here you ha ve your linearlty of hf :-- c i sconsatnt but increacse of energy comes **lineariliy* from ONLY FROM **linear** increase of *number of photn mas sunits in it *!! it all settls out nicely if you are consistsnt with a *set of claimes * soif you what to quote me or '**find inner contradictions in my claimes **-- please bring all the set of my claimes and not a part of it !! ATB Y.Porat -------------- So it the photon has > mass, then that means thataprt of its energy comes from the constant rest > energy, and so energy cannot then be linearly dependant on frequency (as E = [quoted text clipped - 33 lines] > > - Show quoted text - >> >> You've still not answered .. is the rest mass of a photon a constant >> >> for [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] > how do you meause hf?? > are you sure yor mesured a 'single photon'? E = hf is the formula for the energy of an individual photon of a given frequency. Remember that forumla that you think shows that photons have rest mass? > or may be a bunch of photons ?? > while you do th e phtoto eelcric effect > can you make sure about > how many single phtons (of the same frequrncy!!) > cause an electron to jump out ?? > may be it was a bunch of them ??!! I don't give a damn about electrons jumping out. I am talking about the energy in a photon. > he only thing you measured there is frequencyand number of electrons > jumping out - thats all [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > you are sticking to your paradigm > and i tomy claimes that are different The paradigm makes no difference E= hf is the formula for the neergy of a single photon. > and the >> intensity of light is from the number of photons (per unit of time). [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > it is not a bunch of PARALLEL lines of photons ? > ----------- It makes no difference .. E= hf is the formula for the neergy of a single photon. >> > if you likea methaphore : >> > youcan have a nachine gun that sotts bullets [quoted text clipped - 27 lines] > and dont forget my claim that we have to define correctly > the term A SINGLE PHOTON !! Its one of those things that you think have a non-zero rest mass. You seemed to have no trouble in talking about them before >> yet the energy in a photon from E = hf depends on the frequency. Now, we >> know that the energy for a moving object is the combination of the rest [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > your 'poem' !! > if i speak my language i will get 'my poem ' (:-):::: I'm talking physics .. what is it you are talking about? > you forgot my innovative claime and actally profe > for the photon the fomula with mc^ - pc > doe snot aplly!! You've no such proof .. and so only a nonsense "claim" [snip a load of crap that shows your complete ignorance of the subject] I've once again shown that your claim to an invariant (rest) mass for photons is disproved. > >> "Y.Porat" <y.y.po...@gmail.com> wrote in message > [quoted text clipped - 123 lines] > > - Show quoted text - ---------- ddi you say 'moron ' ??? and now waht do you exoect from me to call you ?? do youknow waht is a characteristic of a parrot crook?? it is that a parrot crook has double satndards of demands: one for hiself and another one for others !! you are not a partner for discussions with go discuss yout your flock not withpeople who dont whant to discuss withyou and dont come back to me or else you wil have it !! as you deserve !!if i am a moron stay away from me ! or else ....!!! i cant stad hypocrits nore disturbed crooks Y.Porat -------------- >> >> "Y.Porat" <y.y.po...@gmail.com> wrote in message >> [quoted text clipped - 131 lines] > ---------- > ddi you say 'moron ' ??? No .. certainly not in any of the above. I did say photon, though. It seems your problems have extended to delusions now ... seeing words that are not there. > and now waht do you exoect from me to call you ?? > do youknow waht is a characteristic of a parrot [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > or else ....!!! > i cant stad hypocrits nore disturbed crooks And there we have another uncalled-for rant by the poor rat. He doesn't like it what he is proved wrong again and again. Instead of discussing the physics he just goes for these long tirades of insults. Sad. > >> "Y.Porat" <y.y.po...@gmail.com> wrote in message > [quoted text clipped - 21 lines] > > > and now waht do you exoect from me to call you ?? has > > double satndards of demands: > > one for hiself and [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > > And there we have another uncalled-for rant by the poor rat. ----------------- and ' poor rat' is not an insult according to you ?? and later you say you are 'sad' eh ??? disturbed hypocrit idiot !! Nazi sh.t go discuss with Josef Gebeless not with me shameless crook and moron !! Y.Porat -------------------- >> And there we have another uncalled-for rant by the poor rat. > ----------------- [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > not with me > shameless crook and moron !! And there we have yet another rant by the poor rat. Have you nothing better to do with your time .. you're pretty old, you may not have much time left. Try something more constructive. >> "Y.Porat" <y.y.po...@gmail.com> wrote in message >> > ------------- [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > 1 > i prved that the mass of the photon is nonzero You did no such thing > now goquiockly and adjust all your physics > to that finding Nothing needs adjusting, as you've not proved anything > i prved that the mass of the photon is nonzero Ok .. so is the invariant mass of all photons the same (like other elementary particles like electrons etc)? Or does it depend on the frequency? >> i prved that the mass of the photon is nonzero > > Ok .. so is the invariant mass of all photons the same (like other > elementary particles like electrons etc)? Or does it depend on the > frequency? Of course, the poor rat would rather just spout off insults and ranting than answer a question that might involve talking about some physics. > > > I've read in a few articles about the "mystery" or the "origin" of > > > inertia, however I don't really understand what this mystery is about. [quoted text clipped - 94 lines] > > - Show quoted text - ------------- i accept SR i dont believ in GR so ????? do you think Einstein was a messenger of God? ie anything he suggested is right by definition of Einstein said so ?? ATB Y.Porat -------------- > > > I've read in a few articles about the "mystery" or the "origin" of > > > inertia, however I don't really understand what this mystery is about. [quoted text clipped - 94 lines] > > - Show quoted text - ------------- i accept SR i dont believ in GR so ????? do you think Einstein was a messenger of God? ie anything he suggested is right by definition of Einstein said so ?? ATB Y.Porat -------------- > > > I've read in a few articles about the "mystery" or the "origin" of > > > inertia, however I don't really understand what this mystery is about. [quoted text clipped - 94 lines] > > - Show quoted text - ------------- i accept SR i dont believ in GR so ????? do you think Einstein was a messenger of God? ie anything he suggested is right by definition of Einstein said so ?? ATB Y.Porat -------------- " An old professor of mine used to say that anyone who can answer that question what inertia is , would win a Nobel Prize." =============== And what is about "entropy" ? 1. Poincare has named concept of "entropy " as surprisingly abstract. 2. Landau wrote: " A question about the physical bases of the law of entropy monotonous increases remains open ". 3. John von Neumann said to Claude Shannon: " Name it 'entropy' then in discussions you receive solid advantage, because nobody knows, what 'entropy' basically is ". ===============. :" An old professor of mine used to say : that anyone who can answer that question : what inertia is , would win a Nobel Prize." : =============== : And what is about "entropy" ? An old professor of mine used to say that anyone can change the subject, but the tread title is inertia, not fuckin' entropy. > " An old professor of mine used to say > that anyone who can answer that question [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] > > ===============. ------------ i am afraied that Androcless ios right i dont see much connection between enthropy and inertia anyway whats wrong for you with the Newtonian definition of mass??!! something like the resisatnce of a body to cahge its position of either rest or motion i think it is a nice defintion done geniously many hundreds of years ago !! ps i remember studying about enthropy while studyiong my engineering it was realy very abstrsct and quite weird to us we mostly passed the exams just by parroting and rememering formulas by hearht i peersonally undestood it as the glogal phenomenon of matter spreading more and more with the elaps of time which btw fits the known phenomenon of galaxies separation and it makes physics sense that matter will move from places it is denser toplaces that it is more delute or nonexistant . yet practical use must be in more detailed and specific formulas . ATB Y.Porat ---------------------- >> " An old professor of mine used to say >> that anyone who can answer that question [quoted text clipped - 19 lines] > i dont see much connection between > enthropy and inertia I think the connection was simply that they are both very difficult to explain. One can state observed properties of it, and what effects it has, but when it comes to a question of what it actually is or how it works .. then things become very difficult. Interestingly, that the whatever-it-is-that-mass-measures that is involved in inertia/momentum is the same as what is involved with / causes gravity. The a resistance to acceleration should be the cause of acceleration is interesting in itself. > >> " An old professor of mine used to say > >> that anyone who can answer that question [quoted text clipped - 31 lines] > > - Show quoted text - ---------- Hey Jekyle are you all righ today ??? do you feel good ?? how is it that you dont attack me this time ?? (:-) ATB Y.Porat ---------------- You idiots. You are all still in the brick age. All matter is constantly on the move, and it does so with a fixed magnitude of motion as it constantly moves across the open dimensions of Space-Time. All we can do, is change the direction of such travel, as it continues to be on the move across the dimensions of Space-Time. See http://www.outersecrets.com/real/forum_againstum.htm One big bang, one magnitude of motion, as everything was blown apart. > You idiots. You are all still in the brick age. > [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > One big bang, one magnitude of motion, as everything was blown > apart. And one idiot poster with nothing constructive to say (hint: its not me). It is blatantly obvious that there are different speeds of motion (its not just direction of travel that changes). > It is blatantly obvious that there are different speeds of motion (its not > just direction of travel that changes). Moron. I said a fixed magnitude of motion, not a fixed speed. The term "speed" involves both spatial distances, and time periods. When an object is in constant motion, and you direct its motion such that it across Time only, then it at rest in Space. Or, you may want to direct its motion to be across Space as well, but that also means that a lesser percentage of its constant motion is now across the dimension of Time. >From the limited point of view that we have here in the present Time, we can not look across time and so a change in its direction of travel across Space-Time appears to us a change in spatial velocity rather than a change of direction. And so, when you hit your car brakes, your car is still on the move just as much as before, but now there is less travel across Space, and an increase in motion across the dimension of Time. See http://www.outersecrets.com/real/forum_againstum.htm >> It is blatantly obvious that there are different speeds of motion (its >> not >> just direction of travel that changes). > Moron. > I said a fixed magnitude of motion, not a fixed speed. The term > "speed" involves both spatial distances, and time periods. Moron Speed is magnitude of motion (velocity) > I said a fixed magnitude of motion, not a fixed speed. The term > "speed" involves both spatial distances, and time periods. Speed (as use in classical mechanics) http://scienceworld.wolfram.com/physics/Speed.html > > I said a fixed magnitude of motion, not a fixed speed. The term > > "speed" involves both spatial distances, and time periods. > > Speed (as use in classical mechanics) > http://scienceworld.wolfram.com/physics/Speed.html Right. Speed v is a scalar quantity that gives the magnitude of the velocity v. Velocity is defined as the derivative of position with respect to time. I state that there is a constant magnitude of motion for all objects present within the the open dimensions of Space-Time. Therefore if one was able to view all four dimensions, one would see all objects moving with an equal magnitude of motion, but different objects or particles may be moving in different directions within that four dimensional Space-Time. >>> I said a fixed magnitude of motion, not a fixed speed. The term >>> "speed" involves both spatial distances, and time periods. [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > may be moving in different directions within that four dimensional > Space-Time. That's correct, but not very useful. > >>> I said a fixed magnitude of motion, not a fixed speed. The term > >>> "speed" involves both spatial distances, and time periods. [quoted text clipped - 17 lines] > > - Show quoted text - WHY NOT ? See http://www.outersecrets.com/real/forum_againstum.htm As seen on the above web page, it brings the picture together such that SR has a foundation. [...] > WHY NOT ? > > Seehttp://www.outersecrets.com/real/forum_againstum.htm > > As seen on the above web page, it brings the picture together such > that SR has a foundation. As seen on the above web page, it brings the picture together such that the author has only seen SR at an introductory level and is completely ignorant of even a slightly detailed discussion of the subject. The end result is correct, but does not generalize to all four dimensions while containing \less\ insight than the group theoretical base of SR, or the light clock base, or the principle of relativity....etc > > You idiots. You are all still in the brick age. > [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] > It is blatantly obvious that there are different speeds of motion (its not > just direction of travel that changes). I think that in his confused way the moron is referring to the fact that the magnitude of the velocity 4-vector is constant. Thus in 4-dimensional space-time with its kinky Minkowsky metric everything moves with speed c. >> "Y.Porat" <y.y.po...@gmail.com> wrote in message > Hey Jekyle > are you all righ today ??? Yeup .. beautiful sunny day > do you feel good ?? Fine and dandy thanks > how is it that you dont attack me this time ?? I don't attack .. I defend. You play nice .. I play nice. > << I shall turn to those problems which are > related to the development which I have [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > inertial frames relative to all other > states of motion. That can be corrected for, thereby providing a decisive implementation of the so-called Machian principle. Klaus Kiefer discussed one of the fairly well-known (and recent) approaches to this problem. The issue, of course, is to gauge the "field" of inertial frames, yielding a altered formulation of Newtonian theory in which no assignment of inertial fram |
Enable EMail Alerts
Start New Thread
Reply to this Message