wchogg:
On Tue, 5 Aug 2003, Bilge wrote:


Okay then where does the low energy limit you mentioned enter in to it?
Is it because you're only doing a 3-space momentum integral instead of the
4-d fourier transform that would give you the co-ordinate space green's
function?

Yes.

Sorry if I'm just sounding confused.


The replacement of:


-1/(p^2 - m^2 + i\epsilon)

where p^2 is p^{u}p_{u} by

1/[|p|^2 + m^2]


where here p is the three-momentum.

(Bilge) wrote in message ...
My opponents write about mass all time.
I asked my opponents, Joe Fischer, Jeff Kimmel, Waite David,
Vetwannabel, Tom Roberts, Bilge, to define the mass in the spirit
of operationism.
It's a poincare invariant.
The words are nonsence.
I asked for an operation to measure the mass. I have no answer.
I answered this. Use a balance.
It is a mistake. The operation is to measure velocity and momentum of
a body and to divide the momentum by the velocity.

Radi Khrapko wrote:
Bilge) wrote:
: My opponents write about mass all time.
: I asked my opponents, Joe Fischer, Jeff Kimmel, Waite David,
: Vetwannabel, Tom Roberts, Bilge, to define the mass in the spirit
: of operationism.
:
: It's a poincare invariant.
:
: The words are nonsence.

They look like perfectly good words.

: I asked for an operation to measure the mass. I have no answer.
:
: I answered this. Use a balance.
:
: It is a mistake. The operation is to measure velocity and momentum of
: a body and to divide the momentum by the velocity.

Why, did they quit making balance beams and
standard weights to compare an unknown mass to?

Mathematics isn't needed for everything,
rest mass (which is invariant) is measured with
great ease in any physics lab class.
There really is no reason to think of
particles when discussing mass, particles are
very difficult to measure in their own rest frame.

Rest mass is easy to measure in it's own
rest frame, they do weight astronauts just about
every day in space.

Please quit trying to show your superior
intelligence by promoting the complicated way
of doing things.

Joe Fischer

--
3

"Joe Fischer" wrote [flame]

joe - if you can't say ahything intelligent then just say nothing. flaming
helps nobody expect you.

Radi Khrapko:
(Bilge) wrote in message
e-al.net...

Someone who radi does not properly identify said:

My opponents write about mass all time.
I asked my opponents, Joe Fischer, Jeff Kimmel, Waite David,
Vetwannabel, Tom Roberts, Bilge, to define the mass in the spirit
of operationism.

It's a poincare invariant.

The words are nonsence.

If mass is a fundamental property of an object, then there is a point at
which you cannot discuss it in terms of other quantities. Since mass is a
poincare invariant, it doesn't get much more fundamental.

Someone who radi does not properly identify said:

I asked for an operation to measure the mass. I have no answer.

I answered this. Use a balance.

It is a mistake. The operation is to measure velocity and momentum of
a body and to divide the momentum by the velocity.

That's not a measurement of a mass. It's a measurement of a velocity
and a momentum, neither of which themselves are really measurements.
A measurement of something consists of comparing an experimentally
measured number to a standard definition. As far as I am aware, there
exists no set of standard velocities or momenta one can hold up
next to an object for comparison. One measures things like distances,
times, currents, voltages, etc. and determines quantities like
momentum, mass, velocity, etc, from the measurements. Now, answer
your own question by explaining how one _measures_ a mass in a
laboratory, not determines a mass from other measurements. I gave
you one method. I would like to see you supply an answer which is
more suitable.

Joe Fischer wrote[insults]


I don't flame, I am stating facts, ..

If you dopn't like what the person says then every time I see you post
I see you insult the person you're posting to - like this one - you
don't think calling somone a clown is an insult?

Okay - Now I have more time to respond to joe's usual round of insults
and inuendo's

Joe Fischer wrote in message ...
Pmb wrote:
:
: "Joe Fischer" wrote [flame]

I did not write [flame], I have been trying to
tell a couple of clowns that you can't measure monentum
or velocity and end up with a measurement of mass.


If you spent as much time learning physics as you do insulting the
physicists who are trying to explain it to you then you woulnd't make
comments like this.

The entire point here is that there is a relationship between mass,
velocity and momemtum - p = mv. And since it's a definition it's
independent of any law of nature. However if one takes the law of the
conservation of momentum to be true and one defines an inertial frame
of referance as a frame in which space is homogeneous and isotropic
and time is homogeneous then one can define "m" as the quantity in

sum(k = 1 to n) m_k*v_k = sum(j = n + 1 to p) m_j*v_j

where the left side is a sum over particles going into a collision and
the right side is a sum over particles comming out of the collision.

The m's can be determined in this way. The "m" is called "mass." The
term "momentum" is the name given to p = mv.

And that is a very rigid definition of both mass and momentum given
the exitance of an inertial frame of refernace (which waite is both
unable and unwilling to give you).


It seems like mathematics is a game to you,

Nonsense. It's a very precise way to define very meaningful physical
quantities. What do you have against math?



but it is worthless without good data,..

The data comes from measurements of velocity both before and after
collisions in the definition that I've given you above (which is a
widely used definition ujsed by those physicists who want to be
absolutely precise - its in the physics literature - have you looked?)



I don't flame, I am stating facts, and
I think you should ask Uncle Al what a flame
looks like, you are too much of a newbie to
know for sure.

I see you flame on a constant basis. You choosing to call it something
else does not make it less of a flame. That's just you trying top
justify your flamming.


Is there anything you ever think about
besides "relativistic mass"?

Of course. But mass is something I've spent a great deal of time
reasearching in order to write a paper. I started the task a few years
ago and now I'm finishing it up.

In fact - at this very moment I'm in boston - one reason I'm here is
to discuss certain aspects of Einstein's work with an historian I
know. This will be part of my paper and its one of the bases I wanted
to cover.

Tell me joe - We know that if you heat an object it's rest mass
increases. IOf you push two charges together then the system of two
charges has more energy and thus the rest mass of the system
increases. If you have a box of photons then the rest mass of the box
depends on the energy of the photons.

All of that is true - energy increases rest mass.

But do you know ***WHY**** that's true? Tell us joe? We'd love to
know.

Pmb

Joe Fischer wrote in message ...
Radi Khrapko wrote:
Bilge) wrote:
: My opponents write about mass all time.
: I asked my opponents, Joe Fischer, Jeff Kimmel, Waite David,
: Vetwannabel, Tom Roberts, Bilge, to define the mass in the spirit
: of operationism.
:
: It's a poincare invariant.
:
: The words are nonsence.

They look like perfectly good words.

: I asked for an operation to measure the mass. I have no answer.
:
: I answered this. Use a balance.
:
: It is a mistake. The operation is to measure velocity and momentum of
: a body and to divide the momentum by the velocity.

Why, did they quit making balance beams and
standard weights to compare an unknown mass to?

Balance beams are one way to measure weight. It is not the only way to
measure weight. And weight is a measure of passive gravitational mass.
Not inertial mass. It happens to be an emperical fact that the two are
proportional.

Mass is rarey measured as such in particle physics.

And one can indirectly compare to a standard. It doesn't have to be a
direct comparison. In almost all cases one is not directy comparing to
a standard. Instruments are calibrated using stardards (ideally).
After the calibration then one doesn't need the standard - it's
implied in the calibration.



Mathematics isn't needed for everything,
rest mass (which is invariant) is measured with
great ease in any physics lab class.
There really is no reason to think of
particles when discussing mass, particles are
very difficult to measure in their own rest frame.

That's why particle trajectorties are important. That's how masses are
measured in particle physics. The strength of the B field is known and
the charge is known (or assumed to be a mulitiple of the proton
charge). E.g. For a charged particle - it leaves a track in bubble
chamber and the curvature of the track is determined from the path the
particle leaves (track of bubbles).


Please quit trying to show your superior
intelligence by promoting the complicated way
of doing things.

Are you telling Radi to shut up because he's too smart for
you??????????

Radi to Bilge 061449
Someone who radi does not properly identify said:
The words are nonsence
My opponents write about mass all time. I asked my opponents, Joe
Fischer, Jeff Kimmel, Waite David, Vetwannabel, Tom Roberts,
Bilge, to define the mass in the spirit of operationism.
It's a poincare invariant.
The words are nonsence.
If mass is a fundamental property of an object, then there is a point at which you cannot discuss it in terms of other quantities. Since mass is a poincare invariant, it doesn't get much more fundamental.
There are many Poincare invariants. To say {mass is a poincare
invariant} means to say nothing. Operationism demands an operation.

I asked for an operation to measure the mass. I have no answer.
I answered this. Use a balance.
It is a mistake. The operation is to measure velocity and momentum
of a body and to divide the momentum by the velocity.
That's not a measurement of a mass. It's a measurement of a velocity and a
momentum, neither of which themselves are really measurements. A
measurement
of something consists of comparing an experimentally measured number
to a
standard definition.
Not {a standard definition} but an etalon.

As far as I am aware, there exists no set of standard velocities or
momenta
one can hold up next to an object for comparison. One measures things
like
distances, times, currents, voltages, etc. and determines quantities
like
momentum, mass, velocity, etc, from the measurements. Now, answer
your own
question by explaining how one _measures_ a mass in a laboratory, not
determines a mass from other measurements. I gave you one method. I
would like
to see you supply an answer which is more suitable.
OK! I agree with you. But I do not know a border between a measurement
and a determination. And it does not matter. Well, I asked for an
operation to determine mass of a body. The use of a balance is a
mistake because the use does not give a unique number.

Radi to Joe 080613
It's a poincare invariant.
:: The words are nonsence.
They look like perfectly good words.

There are many Poincare invariants. To say {mass is a poincare
invariant} means to say nothing.
Operationism demands an operation.

: I asked for an operation to measure the mass. I have no answer.
: I answered this. Use a balance.
: It is a mistake. The operation is to measure velocity and momentum
of a body and to divide the momentum by the velocity.
Why, did they quit making balance beams and standard weights to compare an unknown mass to?

The point is, does mass change with velocity? Your operation must be
applied to a moving body.