Radi Khrapko:
Radi to Bilge 061449

Please try to format your responses to make them readable. You've
totally screwed up the structure of the article to the extent that
it would take more time to reformat than it would to respond.

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.

[snipped-line too long - 212 characters] If mass is a 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.

[snipped-line too long - 115 characters] That's not a measurement

[rest ignored]

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.

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

Usually that means "truth" and fact.

: Joe Fischer wrote:
: 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.

I don't see any physicists trying to explain
anything.

: The entire point here is that there is a relationship between mass,
: velocity and momemtum - p = mv.

There is a more important relationship,
that of "quantity of matter".

: And since it's a definition it's
: independent of any law of nature.

So I should not consider physics to have
anything to do with nature?

: However if one takes the law of the
: conservation of momentum to be true

So that is what is affecting your reasoning?

: and one defines an inertial frame of referance as
: a frame in which space is homogeneous and isotropic

Another faulty concept?

: 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

After you learn some chemistry you will
be able to write that in a more meaningful way.

: 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.

I have nothing but time, but I don't enjoy
discussing physics with clowns.
Where can I buy apparatus that will collect
all the products of a collision so I can mix a
chemical solution accurately?

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

You have it backwards, that is common for
math majors who have done little practical work.

Momentum is something that does not exist,
it is a math tool.
And it is only useful for parts of certain
calculations, it is not as useful as kinetic energy.

: 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).

I think he could if he forgot about frequency.

: 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?

No, it is a way to manipulate and calculate
and predict, physical quantities must be defined
by other means.

Somebody may think you are a fool to be
arguing with a high school dropout.

: 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?)

Yes, and I ignore nonsense and confusion.

: 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 don't consider my remarks about FTL,
speed of gravity, and velocity dependent mass
as flames, do you?

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

You choosing to call the quantity assigned
the word "mass" as something different than the
dictionary makes it less than rational.

: 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.

Try measuring mass before finishing, it
may save a lot of embarrasment.

: 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.

Mass was defined long before Einstein,
and he did nothing to change that definition.

: Tell me joe - We know that if you heat an object it's rest mass
: increases.

Only until it radiates that heat away.

: IOf you push two charges together then the system of two
: charges has more energy and thus the rest mass of the system
: increases.

Please provide a practical experiment that
supports that.

: If you have a box of photons then the rest mass of the box
: depends on the energy of the photons.

A box of photons is an imaginary and
hypothetical concept, the photons will almost
instantly be converted to thermal energy,
and transfer all energy to atoms and molecules
in motion.

: All of that is true - energy increases rest mass.

So minutely that it is only mentioned to
give math students something to do.
Velocity is not energy, velocity is velocity.

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

Maybe you are not aware there is a newsgroup
called sci.physics.particle, do you try to make
trouble there too?

Joe Fischer

--
3

"Joe Fischer" wrote in message
...
Gauge wrote:
: 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?

It has nothing to do with what I like,
a person who thinks the word "mass" unqualified
should mean relativistic mass _IS_ a clown.

That's what I mean. You insult someone for a perfectly legitimate opinion.
But nobody was every really saying that anyway. I've only said that's not
the way it is - whether you like it or not

I suggest you take two semesters of
chemistry and learn what "mass" means.

Too late joe - I already took chemistry - two semesters worth. It's required
for physics majors. But that has nothing to do with what we're talking about
anyway. The concept of relativistic mass never comes up in chemistry - nor
does relativity.

If you took your own advice you'd know that.

So I see that from now on, whomever disagrees with you your going to
insult - You have a very closed mind joe. You should consider changing a bit
and open yourself up to new ideas,.

Pmb

Gauge wrote:
: Joe Fischer wrote:
: Why, did they quit making balance beams and
: standard weights to compare an unknown mass to?
:
: Balance beams are one way to measure weight.

No they are NOT, they _NEVER_ measure weight
or anything else, they compare unknown masses with
mass standards.

: It is not the only way to measure weight.

Balance beams compare _MASSES_!

: And weight is a measure of passive gravitational mass.

That is what Don Shead has been saying
in sci.physics for ten years, and thousands,
literally thousands of physicists and chemists
have spent countless hours trying to correct him.

: Not inertial mass. It happens to be an emperical
: fact that the two are proportional.

In a brain-dead physical model, maybe, but
in a better model only rest mass exists.

: Mass is rarey measured as such in particle physics.

There is a sci.physics.particle newsgroup.

: And one can indirectly compare to a standard. It doesn't
: have to be a direct comparison.

It does to be anything more than an estimate.

: In almost all cases one is not directy comparing to
: a standard.

There are master standards, and there are
secondary standards.
And secondary standards do have the same
mass as the master within measuring ability.

: Instruments are calibrated using stardards (ideally).

What instruments?

Balance beams are calibrated by simply
substituting various standards in all combinations
of side to side, and nothing is calibrated except
getting the beam to have the same mass on both
sides of the pivot and marking the center position.

: After the calibration then one doesn't need the standard - it's
: implied in the calibration.

Balance beams _always_ require a standard,
there are no numbers on it.

: 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.

To whom, somebody who has had their brain
damaged by cosmic rays?
Or to the few hundred or thousand particle
physicists?

: That's how masses are measured in particle physics.

Oh, you are not an injun ear, you are
a Particle Physicist?

: 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).

I didn't see a bubble chamber in the bureau
of weights and standards.
:
: 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??????????

Yes, and you also. :-)

Both of you apparently have no peers.

Joe Fischer

--
3

"Joe Fischer" wrote in [childish nonsense]


Sorry joe. But you're posting childish crap at a rate far exceeding anyones
patience to correct you or to put up with.

You seriously need to get a life and stop being such a closed minded
curmudgeon

Pmb

"Joe Fischer" wrote [childish nonsense]


Sorry joe. But you're posting childish crap at a rate far exceeding anyones
patience to correct you or to put up with.

You seriously need to get a life and stop being such a closed minded
curmudgeon

Pmb

"Joe Fischer" wrote

[Pmb wrote]
: 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

[joe wrote]

After you learn some chemistry you will
be able to write that in a more meaningful way.

Well as I said, I probably know chemistry far better than you - but most
chemistry courses do not take into account relativistic dynamics.

But one thing chemistry does state as a law regarding mass is that the sum
of all masses in a system is remains constant in all reactions. I.e. Mass is
conserved in chemistry. Conservation of mass and conservation of momentum,
along with the principle of relativity which states that the conservation
laws must hold in all inertial frames of referance, implies that mass
depends on velocity.

But you didn't know that did you joe?

: 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).

I think he could if he forgot about frequency.

Nope - he refuses to clearly define what is means for a particle to be
"free" - and that's the entire problem in physics. I.e. How does one define
an inertial frame of referance without the concept of force and how does one
define force without the concept of an inertial frame of referance - this is
what leads to problems defining mass - and nobody has successfully solved
that problem in physics to this day - waite refuses to even address the
issue - instead he posts his claim that it's not a problem (which is very
wrong) and as such refuses to address the issue - That's the strongest
trademark of a crackpot.




: 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?)

Yes, and I ignore nonsense and confusion.

So you admit that you ignore all physics that you don't agree with or
understand - Well I already knew that anyway.


You don't consider my remarks about FTL,
speed of gravity, and velocity dependent mass
as flames, do you?

You need to go to a dictionary and look up the word "flame"

Unless you don't mind be referred to as a clown?? Tell you what. Why don't I
call you clown from now on instead of joe.

How does that sound clown?


: 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.

Try measuring mass before finishing, it
may save a lot of embarrasment.

What's your point? To measure a quantity it must be clearly defined.
Concepts like mass, momentum and energy are not like basic kinematic
concepts like time and distance which really don't to be defined.

And if you must know - it's long been said in physics that its a measured
fact that mass depends on velocity. This is exactly what it states in
"Special Relativity," A.P. French, MIT Press. I think they still use this at
MIT as a text. But they know the difference between proper mass and
relativistic mass - it seems that you don't though. Maybe you'd read
French's text and learn a bit - But that'd require an open mind. So I guess
it's not for you.

Mass was defined long before Einstein,
and he did nothing to change that definition.

That's the furthest thing from the truth that I've seem you say to date.

: Tell me joe - We know that if you heat an object it's rest mass
: increases.

Only until it radiates that heat away.

Who says it radiates it away? Has all the heat in your body been radiated
away? Have you assumed room temperature?



: IOf you push two charges together then the system of two
: charges has more energy and thus the rest mass of the system
: increases.

Please provide a practical experiment that
supports that.

It's theory joe and that's a prediction of Einstein's theory of relativity.

It's becomming overlyt apparent that you don't know what E = mc^2 means.


: If you have a box of photons then the rest mass of the box
: depends on the energy of the photons.

A box of photons is an imaginary and
hypothetical concept,

Nope. Any object which has a hollow interior (i.e. a cavity) will have
photons inside the cavity. It's called "blackbody radiation" - - look it up
before you post comments like this.




Wow! I was right! This is a ton of work correcting all this erroneous ideas
you have

Maybe you are not aware there is a newsgroup
called sci.physics.particle, do you try to make
trouble there too?

You need to stop posting in a relativity newsgroup if you're irritated by
concepts in relativity.

Pmb

Pmb:

"Joe Fischer" wrote

[Pmb wrote]
: 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

[joe wrote]

After you learn some chemistry you will
be able to write that in a more meaningful way.

Well as I said, I probably know chemistry far better than you - but most
chemistry courses do not take into account relativistic dynamics.

But one thing chemistry does state as a law regarding mass is that the sum
of all masses in a system is remains constant in all reactions. I.e. Mass is
conserved in chemistry. Conservation of mass and conservation of momentum,
along with the principle of relativity which states that the conservation
laws must hold in all inertial frames of referance, implies that mass
depends on velocity.

But you didn't know that did you joe?

It's also not true. The reason one does that in chemistry is because
the binding energy is on the order of eV, which is really small, even
compared with a hydrogen atom, which has a mass of 938.9 MeV.

Chemists also say that isotopes have identical chemical properties,
too, but that is also an approximation. Heavy water is poisonous
due to reaction kinematics. You take too many generalities at
face value.

Nope - he refuses to clearly define what is means for a particle to be
"free" - and that's the entire problem in physics. I.e. How does one define
an inertial frame of referance without the concept of force

A frame which doesn't radiate.

On Fri, 8 Aug 2003, Bilge wrote:

Pmb:
Nope - he refuses to clearly define what is means for a particle to be
"free" - and that's the entire problem in physics. I.e. How does one define
an inertial frame of referance without the concept of force

A frame which doesn't radiate.

Sorry to interrupt Bilge, but it just occurred to me that since we're not
in an inertial frame, then shouldn't everything on Earth be experiencing
bremstralung? Yet I've never seen this taken into account anywhere, so it
leads to believe that it doesn't happen and that my logic is flawed.

--
William C. Hogg

"wchogg" wrote in message
...
On Fri, 8 Aug 2003, Bilge wrote:

Pmb:
Nope - he refuses to clearly define what is means for a particle to be
"free" - and that's the entire problem in physics. I.e. How does one
define
an inertial frame of referance without the concept of force

A frame which doesn't radiate.

Sorry to interrupt Bilge, but it just occurred to me that since we're not
in an inertial frame, then shouldn't everything on Earth be experiencing
bremstralung?

No. The detection of radiation is a frame dependant phenomena

Yet I've never seen this taken into account anywhere, so it
leads to believe that it doesn't happen and that my logic is flawed.

It's been addressed in the physics literature. You just have to know where
to look.

See http://www.geocities.com/physics_wor...ing_charge.htm

Pmb