Pmb wrote:
: 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.

This is a perfect example of your flawed thinking!

Take a box a prevent it from radiating, measure
it's mass.
Then let it start radiating blackbody, and it
will have the same mass (assume exterior radiation
emitted equals radiation absorbed), because all the
interior photons came from the box walls, and as
they do they reduce the energy in the walls.

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

Which applies to you. If you would take
more time to correctly analyse a problem you would
have a better chance at a doctorate.

When you do math with p = mv you should
have some way to notate the values that are known
to be changing, which is v.
p is simply a resultant, it is not a value,
and is not an entity.

That leaves mass as an invariant.


Relativistic mass is not proportional to
or linear with velocity, which makes it an absurd
term to use for an attribute of matter.
Momentum is linear with velocity in the
Newtonian model, but kinetic energy is not.

None of your statements have focused on
kinetic energy, which is the important factor
in collisions, at least for 99 percent of all
physics problems.

Please let me know if you can find the
word abominable in "Spacetime Physics" [TW] in
reference to the term "relativistic mass".
People don't use words like that to
describe useful and accepted terms.

Joe Fischer

--
3

"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.

Frames don't radiate - accelerating charges radiate. And if he's talking
about Unruh radiation then he didn't make that clear at all. Although it's
an interesting notion - And if that actually was his notion - Well wadda ya
know! After all these months bilge may have made a valid point! Wow!

How valid remains to be seen.

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.

Btw - regarding the charge - I've already explained to bilge why a particle
this is wrong and pointed him to the literature on this. He failed to
understand the concept and refused to prove all the conclusions by each
author wrong.

If he thought he was so right then he should publish his idea - Now that's
something I'd like to see! :-)

Pmb

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

Of course they do, but maybe not the first two
semesters.
It was chemists that found and worked with
spontaneous decomposition, which surely is relativistic
dynamics.

If you don't have time to consider all aspects
of a problem then you are not working at a level of
advanced physics.

Joe Fischer

--
3

"Joe Fischer" wrote in message
...
Pmb wrote:
: Well as I said, I probably know chemistry far better than you - but most
: chemistry courses do not take into account relativistic dynamics.

Of course they do, but maybe not the first two
semesters.

This is an obvious error based on your lack of knowledge and experience in
these things.

It was chemists that found and worked with
spontaneous decomposition, which surely is relativistic
dynamics.

No. That's not relativistic dyanmics at all.

If you don't have time to consider all aspects
of a problem then you are not working at a level of
advanced physics.

Is that the excuse you're using as to your lack of consideration in these
things? That you don't take time to consider all aspects of the subject?
Well I agree - you sure don't take time to research what you think are
facts.

It takes more than chemistrty to show relativity at work. The spontaneous
decay of matter is quantum in nature. Chemists can detect these things in
the lab. But what they can't detect is the mass defect. It's too small. Thy
need to use things like mass spectrometers and other fancy gizmos which run
the particles through EM fields and see how they behave, i.e. they measure
their trajectories.

Pmb

Pmb wrote:

It takes more than chemistrty to show relativity at work. The spontaneous
decay of matter is quantum in nature. Chemists can detect these things in
the lab. But what they can't detect is the mass defect. It's too small. Thy
need to use things like mass spectrometers and other fancy gizmos which run
the particles through EM fields and see how they behave, i.e. they measure
their trajectories.

Pmb

Spin-orbit coupling is an SR affect. It isn't important for first row elements
but is important for third row elements.

Bruce Seiler

Joe Fischer wrote in message ...
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.

On the contrary. In the first place - a "balance beam" is something a
gymnast uses. You mean a "beam balance." A beam balance operates on
the principle of tourque. An object is placed in a pan. The force
produced by the object due to gravity is called the "weight" and is
labeled "W." This weight is placed a distance L from a pivot point.
The weight causes a torque which has the magnitude T = WL. An object
called a "counter weight" which has a weight "w" is adjusted along the
opposing arm such that the torque is exactly zero. Let the distance
from the pivot point on the opposite side be d. The condition met is
then found to be when there is no tourque. That happens when WL = wd.

The weight of the obect at rest equals its passive gravitational mass
M times the local acceleration to to gravity "g." Let m = passive
gravitational mass of counter weight. Then w = mg. Then

WL = wd === (Mg)L = (mg)d ===== ML = md

The passive gravitational mass of the object being measured is then
found to be

M = (d/L)m


: It is not the only way to measure weight.

Balance beams compare _MASSES_!

Nope. Weight. The mass is *deduced* from the weight measurement.

Learn more about Beam balances. Here's a good place to start

http://genchem.rutgers.edu/balance3b.html





: 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.

I doubt that's what he said. But it's a well known fact that what I've
just explained to you is 100% accurate. You need to widen your
knowledge base more if you want to discuss physics here and not be
tempted to insult everyone when they post things you've never seen.

You can start with Wheeler's book "Gravitation and Inertia"

http://pup.princeton.edu/sample_chap...i/chapter3.pdf

Look up the term "passive gravitational mass". In particular - look in
section 3.3 "Active and passive gravitational mass" which starts on
page 30



After all the weak equivalence principle is all about this and
inertial mass. It's not about invariant mass. The Weak Equivalence
Principle states

Passive Gravitational Mass = Inertial Mass

It follows from that that the active gravitational mass = passive
gravitational mass = inertial mass.

--------------------------------------------------------------
A test of the equivalence between active and passive gravitational
mass is the Kreuzer (1968)132 experiment. It measured the
gravitational field generated
by substances of different composition. The experiment was performed
with a
Cavendish balance, using two substances, one mainly composed of
fluorine and
one mainly of bromine. The two substances had the same passive
gravitational
mass, as measured in the Earth gravity field, that is, the same
weight.

---------------------------------------------------------------

I hope you're not going to start calling John Wheeler a clown now are
you?

Do you know what these terms mean joe? Read Wheeler's text above and
Learn instead of flaming.



: 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.

joe - stop being such a terrible trouble maker and horrible flamer -
learn the physics before you start making accusations

READ!!!! http://pup.princeton.edu/sample_chap...i/chapter3.pdf

Sheeeeesh!!!



: Mass is rarey measured as such in particle physics.

There is a sci.physics.particle newsgroup.

If you don't like relativity then don't read posts in a relativity
newsgroup.

[joe's crap delete]

Stop flaming fischer and grow up

"Bruce Seiler" wrote in message
...
Pmb wrote:

It takes more than chemistrty to show relativity at work. The
spontaneous
decay of matter is quantum in nature. Chemists can detect these things
in
the lab. But what they can't detect is the mass defect. It's too small.
Thy
need to use things like mass spectrometers and other fancy gizmos which
run
the particles through EM fields and see how they behave, i.e. they
measure
their trajectories.

Pmb

Spin-orbit coupling is an SR affect. It isn't important for first row
elements
but is important for third row elements.

I agree. However fischer is claiming that the concept of mass in relativity
is addressed in a two semester course in chemistry. These aren't effects one
typically focuses on in undergrad chem courses - especially not in the ones
geared towards physics students.

However it is to be noted that relativistic mass shows its face in lower
order terms than fourth. In fact mass variation is a third order term in the
Hamiltonian. The Hamiltonian can be written as

H = E_o + H_o + W_mv + W_so + ....

The terms are defined as follows

E_o = Rest energy or electron
H_o = kinetic energy + potential energy
W_mv = "mass variation term" = -P^4/8m^3c^2 (m = rest mass of electron)
W_so = Spin-Orbit term

See "Quantum Mechanics," Cohen-Tannoudji et al, Volume II, page 1215,
section (b-alpha) "Variation of the mass with velocity term (W_mv term)"

As the author's explain

"This term represents the first energy correction, due to the relativistic
variation of the mass with the velocity."

I think fischer's head might explode if he reads this part - or he'll call
the authors clowns or something foolish like that.

Pmb

"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? 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.

Then again if it's unruh radiation that bilge is refering to instead of the
undetectable radiation of a charge - how would the radiation be determined
to be Unruh radiation?

Pmb

wchogg:
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.

No, your logic isn't flawed. You just left something out, which is
the frame in which the radiation is viewed. I's not so much a matter
of _does_ the charge radiate as it is, to which observers does there
appear radiation. Rather than try to give a handwaving explanation,
which involves unruh radiation, see the following article:

arxiv.org/abs/gr-qc/9605030

Essentially, you will not see any radiation in the frame of the
charge because you (and the charge) are surrounded by a heat bath
due to the acceleration.

(Bilge) wrote [usual flames]



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.


And hence bilge demonstrates once more his ever present ignorance of
the definition of mass.

Sorry bilge - but it's true. You've confusing the definition that I
just gave. i.e. - mass defined in terems of mass conservation and
momentum conservation where p - mv, m being defined as "mass" - with
rest mass. I keep reminding you of the difference and you have yet to
demonstrate that you understand it. What's with that sparky? It's not
that hard.

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.

I was thinking more along spectroscopic details such as fine structure
etc. I've always told fischer that things things are not touched in on
in undergrad chemistry - at least not the kind he's talking about. And
the dominant term is the fine-structure is the mass variation term
W_mv (See "Quantum Mechanics," Cohen-Tannoudji et al). For the
hydrogen aton W_mv is of the order of 10^-3 eV.



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.

Blah blah blah. You REALLY need to consider these statements more
before you post such nonsense. This has nothing to do with mass
relativistic mass. Please pay more attention. Sheesh!

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.

First off - That's about the most unclear thing I've seen you post in
weeks. A "frame" doesn't radiate. And if you mean a radiation from a
charge then that's not clear either. If I'm at rest in a frame and
there is a charge at rest with respect to me then I can't detect any
radiation. I've explained this to you before. Do I need to remind you
- again?

And if you mean Unruh radiation - all that means is there is radiation
present. How is an observer to know how the radiation is generated or
where it came from? Is he to search the universe?

You need to think these things through more bilge.

Mr. Pmb