|
| If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|||||||
| Tags: inertial, mass, rest |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
|
#51
August 8th 03
posted to sci.physics.relativity
|
|||
|
|||
Rest mass or inertial mass?
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. It was chemists that found and worked with spontaneous decomposition, which surely is relativistic dynamics. Fine. Then in more advanced courses students study relativistic corrections to the Hamoltonian. The first correction is what's known as the mass variation term. Happy? Pmb 
|
| Ads |
|
#52
August 9th 03
posted to sci.physics.relativity
|
|||
|
|||
|
Rest mass or inertial mass?
Gauge:
(Bilge) wrote [usual flames] 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. No, it isn't, unless you believe that burning gasoline represents a a means of perpetual motion. You are a complete idiot. At best. Your choices are (1) chemical reactions don't conserve mass, just like nuclear reactions apart from degree, or (2) chemical reactions are an inexhaustible supply of free energy. Take your pick. Choice number two has the advantage that you can continue to say I'm wrong but the distinct disadvantage of being indicted for fraud if you try to sell a means to exploit it.
|
|
#53
August 9th 03
posted to sci.physics.relativity
|
|||
|
|||
|
Rest mass or inertial mass?
Gauge wrote:
: Joe Fischer wrote: : 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. : : 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. You are not describing a beam balance, and I think you have a hell of a lot of nerve calling yourself a physicist without knowing what a beam balance is. : Let the distance : from the pivot point on the opposite side be d. Beam balances are designed with pans on both sides, and special mechanisms holding the pans are designed to exert the force at the same distance from the pivot no matter where the masses are placed on the pan. I suggest you stop making an ass out of yourself in front of thousands of readers and simply stop in a physics or chemistry lab and examine a balance and see that it needs no weight to move along a graduated arm. : The condition met is : then found to be when there is no tourque. You may also ask anybody with a teaching certificate in physics to explain how all those little brass mass standards are used, and why there is so many of them. : That happens when WL = wd. It is sad when a student begins to make imagine or conceive of what he thinks is good information and gets ahead of the teacher in a formal setting. I made this mistake in the second grade, when the third or fourth grade was learning multiplication from cards the teacher was showing, I got ahead and determined that if 6 x 6 is 36, then 6 x 7 should be 43. And for the rest of my life if I do math, I write 43 instead of 42 much of the time, and that really hurt me, when I should have gotten a perfect score on a test, I got 95 or 97. : 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 If you want to waste your time with such nonsense just search google for Don Shead articles on mass and weight, and don't mislead readers. : 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 There is no passive gravitational mass, there is just invariant mass, which is a measure of an object's resistance to acceleration. : : It is not the only way to measure weight. : : Balance beams compare _MASSES_! : : Nope. Weight. The mass is *deduced* from the weight measurement. Beam balances _COMPARE_ masses, seek knowledge in a class room where they have a beam balance and not a scale. : Learn more about Beam balances. Here's a good place to start : : http://genchem.rutgers.edu/balance3b.html Read it, without even looking I know it will say what I said. : : 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. That is exactly what he said, and he cost ISPs and colleges all over the world thousands of dollars with that unadulterated horse****, and I was a fool to ever respond to his idiocy, and now I am doing the same thing. : 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. I expect people who post here to be able to think rationally and be able to see when their mistakes are pointed out to them. Thanks to you and all the nuts and fruitcakes posting here now there are very few good posters left. : You can start with Wheeler's book "Gravitation and Inertia" : : http://pup.princeton.edu/sample_chap...i/chapter3.pdf Thats a good idea, you mention the one book I just happen not to have, but I will have it within a week or so. : Look up the term "passive gravitational mass". In particular - look in : section 3.3 "Active and passive gravitational mass" which starts on : page 30 I really am not interested in Newtonian concepts, instead of gradually changing the subject, please learn what a balance is and how it works to compare an unknown mass with machined mass standards. A balance will work in a rocket, at any acceleration, and on a centrifuge at any acceleration, which obviously shows your whole mistaken assumption is wrong, so much for you "gravitational mass". : 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. And all are really just the invariant mass given different names by hopelessly confused Newtonians. : -------------------------------------------------------------- : 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. : --------------------------------------------------------------- Isn't it obvious if there is no other mass but the invariant mass called many names by Newtonians, what a time wasting experiment. : I hope you're not going to start calling John Wheeler a clown now are : you? Possibly, it depends on what he states, can you reference a monograph by him so I can tell for sure what he states? : Do you know what these terms mean joe? Read Wheeler's text above and : Learn instead of flaming. I can read Airy or any other 19th century author if I want to read Newtonian terminology. I really regret your approach to the obvious fallacies you hold regarding mass and balances. : : 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 You should be offering thanks for pointing out misimpressions instead of voicing more ego garbage. : READ!!!! http://pup.princeton.edu/sample_chap...i/chapter3.pdf : : Sheeeeesh!!! Why, does he make the same mistakes? : : 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. I am not overly impressed with relativity, but it does offer an improvement over Newton where gravity is concerned. : [joe's crap delete] : : Stop flaming fischer and grow up Maybe a few real physicists will speak up and I won't have to waste my time with nonsense such as this. I really would rather discuss gravity theory with an open mind, but it seems all your brain cells are already filled with partially flawed information, and you are not willing to even learn what a balance is and how it works. I will gladly pass the flame machine to Uncle Al. Joe Fischer -- 3
|
|
#54
August 9th 03
posted to sci.physics.relativity
|
|||
|
|||
|
Rest mass or inertial mass?
Gauge wrote: : Joe Fischer wrote: : 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. : : 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. You are not describing a beam balance, and I think you have a hell of a lot of nerve calling yourself a physicist without knowing what a beam balance is. : Let the distance : from the pivot point on the opposite side be d. Beam balances are designed with pans on both sides, and special mechanisms holding the pans are designed to exert the force at the same distance from the pivot no matter where the masses are placed on the pan. I suggest you stop making an ass out of yourself in front of thousands of readers and simply stop in a physics or chemistry lab and examine a balance and see that it needs no weight to move along a graduated arm. : The condition met is : then found to be when there is no tourque. You may also ask anybody with a teaching certificate in physics to explain how all those little brass mass standards are used, and why there is so many of them. : That happens when WL = wd. It is sad when a student begins to make imagine or conceive of what he thinks is good information and gets ahead of the teacher in a formal setting. I made this mistake in the second grade, when the third or fourth grade was learning multiplication from cards the teacher was showing, I got ahead and determined that if 6 x 6 is 36, then 6 x 7 should be 43. And for the rest of my life if I do math, I write 43 instead of 42 much of the time, and that really hurt me, when I should have gotten a perfect score on a test, I got 95 or 97. : 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 If you want to waste your time with such nonsense just search google for Don Shead articles on mass and weight, and don't mislead readers. : 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 There is no passive gravitational mass, there is just invariant mass, which is a measure of an object's resistance to acceleration. : : It is not the only way to measure weight. : : Balance beams compare _MASSES_! : : Nope. Weight. The mass is *deduced* from the weight measurement. Beam balances _COMPARE_ masses, seek knowledge in a class room where they have a beam balance and not a scale. : Learn more about Beam balances. Here's a good place to start : : http://genchem.rutgers.edu/balance3b.html Read it, without even looking I know it will say what I said. : : 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. That is exactly what he said, and he cost ISPs and colleges all over the world thousands of dollars with that unadulterated horse****, and I was a fool to ever respond to his idiocy, and now I am doing the same thing. : 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. I expect people who post here to be able to think rationally and be able to see when their mistakes are pointed out to them. Thanks to you and all the nuts and fruitcakes posting here now there are very few good posters left. : You can start with Wheeler's book "Gravitation and Inertia" : : http://pup.princeton.edu/sample_chap...i/chapter3.pdf Thats a good idea, you mention the one book I just happen not to have, but I will have it within a week or so. : Look up the term "passive gravitational mass". In particular - look in : section 3.3 "Active and passive gravitational mass" which starts on : page 30 I really am not interested in Newtonian concepts, instead of gradually changing the subject, please learn what a balance is and how it works to compare an unknown mass with machined mass standards. A balance will work in a rocket, at any acceleration, and on a centrifuge at any acceleration, which obviously shows your whole mistaken assumption is wrong, so much for you "gravitational mass". : 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. And all are really just the invariant mass given different names by hopelessly confused Newtonians. : -------------------------------------------------------------- : 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. : --------------------------------------------------------------- Isn't it obvious if there is no other mass but the invariant mass called many names by Newtonians, what a time wasting experiment. : I hope you're not going to start calling John Wheeler a clown now are : you? Possibly, it depends on what he states, can you reference a monograph by him so I can tell for sure what he states? : Do you know what these terms mean joe? Read Wheeler's text above and : Learn instead of flaming. I can read Airy or any other 19th century author if I want to read Newtonian terminology. I really regret your approach to the obvious fallacies you hold regarding mass and balances. : : 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 You should be offering thanks for pointing out misimpressions instead of voicing more ego garbage. : READ!!!! http://pup.princeton.edu/sample_chap...i/chapter3.pdf : : Sheeeeesh!!! Why, does he make the same mistakes? : : 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. I am not overly impressed with relativity, but it does offer an improvement over Newton where gravity is concerned. : [joe's crap delete] : : Stop flaming fischer and grow up Maybe a few real physicists will speak up and I won't have to waste my time with nonsense such as this. I really would rather discuss gravity theory with an open mind, but it seems all your brain cells are already filled with partially flawed information, and you are not willing to even learn what a balance is and how it works. I will gladly pass the flame machine to Uncle Al. Joe Fischer -- 3
|
|
#55
August 9th 03
posted to sci.physics.relativity
|
|||
|
|||
|
Rest mass or inertial mass?
Gauge wrote: : Joe Fischer wrote: 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. : : 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. You are not describing a beam balance, and I think you have a hell of a lot of nerve calling yourself a physicist without knowing what a beam balance is. : Let the distance : from the pivot point on the opposite side be d. Beam balances are designed with pans on both sides, and special mechanisms holding the pans are designed to exert the force at the same distance from the pivot no matter where the masses are placed on the pan. I suggest you stop making an ass out of yourself in front of thousands of readers and simply stop in a physics or chemistry lab and examine a balance and see that it needs no weight to move along a graduated arm. : The condition met is : then found to be when there is no tourque. You may also ask anybody with a teaching certificate in physics to explain how all those little brass mass standards are used, and why there is so many of them. : That happens when WL = wd. It is sad when a student begins to make imagine or conceive of what he thinks is good information and gets ahead of the teacher in a formal setting. I made this mistake in the second grade, when the third or fourth grade was learning multiplication from cards the teacher was showing, I got ahead and determined that if 6 x 6 is 36, then 6 x 7 should be 43. And for the rest of my life if I do math, I write 43 instead of 42 much of the time, and that really hurt me, when I should have gotten a perfect score on a test, I got 95 or 97. : 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 If you want to waste your time with such nonsense just search google for Don Shead articles on mass and weight, and don't mislead readers. : 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 There is no passive gravitational mass, there is just invariant mass, which is a measure of an object's resistance to acceleration. : : It is not the only way to measure weight. : : Balance beams compare _MASSES_! : : Nope. Weight. The mass is *deduced* from the weight measurement. Beam balances _COMPARE_ masses, seek knowledge in a class room where they have a beam balance and not a scale. : Learn more about Beam balances. Here's a good place to start : : http://genchem.rutgers.edu/balance3b.html Read it, without even looking I know it will say what I said. : : 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. That is exactly what he said, and he cost ISPs and colleges all over the world thousands of dollars with that unadulterated horse****, and I was a fool to ever respond to his idiocy, and now I am doing the same thing. : 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. I expect people who post here to be able to think rationally and be able to see when their mistakes are pointed out to them. Thanks to you and all the nuts and fruitcakes posting here now there are very few good posters left. : You can start with Wheeler's book "Gravitation and Inertia" : : http://pup.princeton.edu/sample_chap...i/chapter3.pdf Thats a good idea, you mention the one book I just happen not to have, but I will have it within a week or so. : Look up the term "passive gravitational mass". In particular - look in : section 3.3 "Active and passive gravitational mass" which starts on : page 30 I really am not interested in Newtonian concepts, instead of gradually changing the subject, please learn what a balance is and how it works to compare an unknown mass with machined mass standards. A balance will work in a rocket, at any acceleration, and on a centrifuge at any acceleration, which obviously shows your whole mistaken assumption is wrong, so much for you "gravitational mass". : 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. And all are really just the invariant mass given different names by hopelessly confused Newtonians. : -------------------------------------------------------------- : 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. : --------------------------------------------------------------- Isn't it obvious if there is no other mass but the invariant mass called many names by Newtonians, what a time wasting experiment. : I hope you're not going to start calling John Wheeler a clown now are : you? Possibly, it depends on what he states, can you reference a monograph by him so I can tell for sure what he states? : Do you know what these terms mean joe? Read Wheeler's text above and : Learn instead of flaming. I can read Airy or any other 19th century author if I want to read Newtonian terminology. I really regret your approach to the obvious fallacies you hold regarding mass and balances. : : 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 You should be offering thanks for pointing out misimpressions instead of voicing more ego garbage. : READ!!!! http://pup.princeton.edu/sample_chap...i/chapter3.pdf : : Sheeeeesh!!! Why, does he make the same mistakes? : : 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. I am not overly impressed with relativity, but it does offer an improvement over Newton where gravity is concerned. : [joe's crap delete] : : Stop flaming fischer and grow up Maybe a few real physicists will speak up and I won't have to waste my time with nonsense such as this. I really would rather discuss gravity theory with an open mind, but it seems all your brain cells are already filled with partially flawed information, and you are not willing to even learn what a balance is and how it works. I will gladly pass the flame machine to Uncle Al. Joe Fischer -- 3
|
|
#56
August 9th 03
posted to sci.physics.relativity
|
|||
|
|||
|
Rest mass or inertial mass?
Gauge wrote:
: Joe Fischer wrote: 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. : : 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. You are not describing a beam balance, and I think you have a hell of a lot of nerve calling yourself a physicist without knowing what a beam balance is. : Let the distance : from the pivot point on the opposite side be d. Beam balances are designed with pans on both sides, and special mechanisms holding the pans are designed to exert the force at the same distance from the pivot no matter where the masses are placed on the pan. I suggest you stop making an ass out of yourself in front of thousands of readers and simply stop in a physics or chemistry lab and examine a balance and see that it needs no weight to move along a graduated arm. : The condition met is : then found to be when there is no tourque. You may also ask anybody with a teaching certificate in physics to explain how all those little brass mass standards are used, and why there is so many of them. : That happens when WL = wd. It is sad when a student begins to make imagine or conceive of what he thinks is good information and gets ahead of the teacher in a formal setting. I made this mistake in the second grade, when the third or fourth grade was learning multiplication from cards the teacher was showing, I got ahead and determined that if 6 x 6 is 36, then 6 x 7 should be 43. And for the rest of my life if I do math, I write 43 instead of 42 much of the time, and that really hurt me, when I should have gotten a perfect score on a test, I got 95 or 97. : 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 If you want to waste your time with such nonsense just search google for Don Shead articles on mass and weight, and don't mislead readers. : 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 There is no passive gravitational mass, there is just invariant mass, which is a measure of an object's resistance to acceleration. : : It is not the only way to measure weight. : : Balance beams compare _MASSES_! : : Nope. Weight. The mass is *deduced* from the weight measurement. Beam balances _COMPARE_ masses, seek knowledge in a class room where they have a beam balance and not a scale. : Learn more about Beam balances. Here's a good place to start : : http://genchem.rutgers.edu/balance3b.html Read it, without even looking I know it will say what I said. : : 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. That is exactly what he said, and he cost ISPs and colleges all over the world thousands of dollars with that unadulterated horse****, and I was a fool to ever respond to his idiocy, and now I am doing the same thing. : 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. I expect people who post here to be able to think rationally and be able to see when their mistakes are pointed out to them. Thanks to you and all the nuts and fruitcakes posting here now there are very few good posters left. : You can start with Wheeler's book "Gravitation and Inertia" : : http://pup.princeton.edu/sample_chap...i/chapter3.pdf Thats a good idea, you mention the one book I just happen not to have, but I will have it within a week or so. : Look up the term "passive gravitational mass". In particular - look in : section 3.3 "Active and passive gravitational mass" which starts on : page 30 I really am not interested in Newtonian concepts, instead of gradually changing the subject, please learn what a balance is and how it works to compare an unknown mass with machined mass standards. A balance will work in a rocket, at any acceleration, and on a centrifuge at any acceleration, which obviously shows your whole mistaken assumption is wrong, so much for you "gravitational mass". : 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. And all are really just the invariant mass given different names by hopelessly confused Newtonians. : -------------------------------------------------------------- : 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. : --------------------------------------------------------------- Isn't it obvious if there is no other mass but the invariant mass called many names by Newtonians, what a time wasting experiment. : I hope you're not going to start calling John Wheeler a clown now are : you? Possibly, it depends on what he states, can you reference a monograph by him so I can tell for sure what he states? : Do you know what these terms mean joe? Read Wheeler's text above and : Learn instead of flaming. I can read Airy or any other 19th century author if I want to read Newtonian terminology. I really regret your approach to the obvious fallacies you hold regarding mass and balances. : : 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 You should be offering thanks for pointing out misimpressions instead of voicing more ego garbage. : READ!!!! http://pup.princeton.edu/sample_chap...i/chapter3.pdf : : Sheeeeesh!!! Why, does he make the same mistakes? : : 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. I am not overly impressed with relativity, but it does offer an improvement over Newton where gravity is concerned. : [joe's crap delete] : : Stop flaming fischer and grow up Maybe a few real physicists will speak up and I won't have to waste my time with nonsense such as this. I really would rather discuss gravity theory with an open mind, but it seems all your brain cells are already filled with partially flawed information, and you are not willing to even learn what a balance is and how it works. I will gladly pass the flame machine to Uncle Al. Joe Fischer -- 3
|
|
#57
August 9th 03
posted to sci.physics.relativity
|
|||
|
|||
|
Rest mass or inertial mass?
"Joe Fischer" wrote in message ... Gauge wrote: : Joe Fischer wrote: : 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. : : 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. You are not describing a beam balance, and I think you have a hell of a lot of nerve calling yourself a physicist without knowing what a beam balance is. You're joking!! Excuse me fischer but that is EXACTLY what a beam balance is. You're refering to a "balance" or to be precise, an equal-arm balance" which is different. A balance is, by definition, "a beam that is supported freely in the center and has two pans of equal weight suspended from its ends " Look it up before you post more of your childish flames fischer. : Let the distance : from the pivot point on the opposite side be d. Beam balances are designed with pans on both sides, and special mechanisms holding the pans are designed to exert the force at the same distance from the pivot no matter where the masses are placed on the pan. That's an equal-arm balance. Not a beam balance. I suggest you stop making an ass out of yourself in front of thousands of readers and simply stop in a physics or chemistry lab and examine a balance and see that it needs no weight to move along a graduated arm. fischer - you're so incredibly arrogant its beyone words. Even when I give you a detailed description and definition you still have to be a creep and post flames. I've even given you a web site when gives you a detailed definition and even a damb picture! Get a life. And I've told you - I spent a year as an undergrad in chemistry - that's why I know this stuff so much better than you do. The only person making an ass of themself is "joe fischer" [snipped childish antics by curmudgeon] : You can start with Wheeler's book "Gravitation and Inertia" : : http://pup.princeton.edu/sample_chap...i/chapter3.pdf Thats a good idea, you mention the one book I just happen not to have, but I will have it within a week or so. You don't have to wait - the part I refer to is online. : Look up the term "passive gravitational mass". In particular - look in : section 3.3 "Active and passive gravitational mass" which starts on : page 30 I really am not interested in Newtonian concepts, instead of gradually changing the subject, please learn what a balance is and how it works to compare an unknown mass with machined mass standards. Again you show your ignorance - and I even gave you the reference by wheeler - more arrogance. A balance will work in a rocket, at any acceleration, and on a centrifuge at any acceleration, which obviously shows your whole mistaken assumption is wrong, so much for you "gravitational mass". I see that you've learned nothing and continue to learn nothing. It's a law of nature that passive gravitational mass = inertial mass. So if you measure the passive gravitational mass then you can find the inertial mass. But the method of measuring inertial mass is what you refuse to address. Thank God physicists don't ingore this stuff - only "joe fischer" : 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. And all are really just the invariant mass given different names by hopelessly confused Newtonians. No. They are not. And I've explained why and you keep ingoring it. I've even given you a detailed derivation of passive gravitational mass showing you that it increases with speed since the weight is a function of velocity --- when you open your eyes then you'll start learning. Isn't it obvious if there is no other mass but the invariant mass called many names by Newtonians, what a time wasting experiment. : I hope you're not going to start calling John Wheeler a clown now are : you? Possibly, it depends on what he states, can you reference a monograph by him so I can tell for sure what he states? I just did!!! MAN - you're not even reading this stuff you jerk! I've just quoted Wheeler describing what passive gravitational mass is and not only do you refuse to read the article I posted for yourself - the book you yourself claim to have ordered - but you even rrefuse to read that part I quote - Pure crackpot behaviour; You should be offering thanks for pointing out misimpressions instead of voicing more ego garbage. Thanks? From someone who has no clue about special or general relativity and deomonstrates that on a daily basis? Sorrry flamer - I don't think so. I am not overly impressed with relativity, then stop flaming in the relativitiy newsgroup and find a place who buys your ideas - we don't buy them here Maybe a few real physicists will speak up and I won't have to waste my time with nonsense such as this. They have. I mailed my paper to several physicists and discussed this with them. It's all in the modern physcics literature anyway - all one has to do is pick up a physics text and read it. You should try it one day. Start with "Basic Relativitiy," Richard A. Mould, Springer Verglag, (1994) tom roberts quotes/referances this alot - so why not look in it since you seem to admire tom? Is there any chance fischer will stop flaming? Nah
|
|
#59
August 9th 03
posted to sci.physics.relativity
|
|||
|
|||
|
Rest mass or inertial mass?
Gauge:
(Bilge) wrote in message ue-al.net... No, it isn't, unless you believe that burning gasoline represents a a means of perpetual motion. How many times do I have to keep reminding you that I'm refering to relativistic mass? I've told you this time and time again. Until you get it right.
|
|
#60
August 9th 03
posted to sci.physics.relativity
|
|||
|
|||
|
Rest mass or inertial mass?
Gauge:
(Bilge) wrote No, it isn't, unless you believe that burning gasoline represents a a means of perpetual motion. You are a complete idiot. At best. Your choices are (1) chemical reactions don't conserve mass, just like nuclear reactions apart from degree, or (2) chemical reactions are an inexhaustible supply of free energy. Take your pick. Choice number two has the advantage that you can continue to say I'm wrong but the distinct disadvantage of being indicted for fraud if you try to sell a means to exploit it. Tell ya what sparky. You think you have an open mind right? If that's correct then if you came across a derivation of a proof that mass is conserved in relativity (given the definition I've described to you a e+ + e- - \gamma\gamma p + n - d + \gamma (2.2 MeV) Mass is not conserved. Add the numbers.
|
| Thread Tools | |
| Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads
|
||||
| Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
| Rest mass or inertial mass? | WaiteDavid137 | The Theory of Relativity | 21 | August 4th 03 08:53 AM |
| Rest mass or inertial mass? | GOLD527 | The Theory of Relativity | 16 | July 31st 03 09:11 AM |
| Rest mass or inertial mass? | GOLD527 | The Theory of Relativity | 14 | July 28th 03 11:58 PM |
| Rest mass or inertial mass? | GOLD527 | The Theory of Relativity | 0 | July 21st 03 02:45 AM |
| Rest mass or inertial mass? | Vetwannabe1 | The Theory of Relativity | 1 | July 18th 03 01:09 PM |
Linear Mode
