Pmb wrote:

You really should not use an email address for a
domain name you are not associated with.

: "Joe Fischer" wrote:
: 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.

I am assuming that a physicist knows what type
of balance to use for comparison of unknown masses with
known mass standards.

: 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 "

Right, so what is the object of your argument?

: Look it up before you post more of your childish flames fischer.

I have been using the type for about 50 years.

: : 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.

You said above that a balance is........

: 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.

No problem, but only to the deserving.

: Even when I give you a detailed description and definition
: you still have to be a creep and post flames.

Not until the article I am replying to.

: I've even given you a web site when gives you a detailed
: definition and even a damb picture! Get a life.

No you didn't, do you have a reading comprehension
problem, sorry I offended you if you do.
The picture was plainly titled in a large colored
font "TRIPLE BEAM BALANCE".
It apparently was one of the first ten hits you
got on google searching for "beam balance", how many
of the other half-million hits did you read before
selecting one to base you flawed argument on?

: 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.

A lot of people have, and couldn't cut it.

: The only person making an ass of themself is "joe fischer"

That is hardly true, there must be at least
one other.

: [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.

I don't like it, and the price is way too high.

: : 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.

No you didn't, he isn't listed as author.

: 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.

I have learned that in General Relativity, the
term gravitational force is removed by having invariant
mass be the only mass term needed, eliminating the
passive and active terms.

: It's a law of nature that passive
: gravitational mass = inertial mass.

Well, what does "inertial mass" equal, rest 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"

You can get to Europe from here by
going through China too.

: : 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.

Of course, doesn't everybody ignore you?

: 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.

I don't care to learn stupid concepts.

Increases with speed relative to what, and
as measured by what observer?

: 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!!!

No you didn't, you referenced a book written
by somebody else that has Wheeler listed as "Editor".

: 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

I got tired of your urls and popup ads.

: - the book you yourself claim to have ordered -

I didn't claim that, I said I could order it,
but I am not going to pay retail for it, and may
never find it at a price I will pay.

Frankly, I probably would have ordered it
if you would not have posted the url for the
sample chapter.

: but you even rrefuse to read that part I quote -
: Pure crackpot behaviour;

I am learning from you.

: 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 have no use for Special Relativity, if I did
it is simple enough to learn in a couple of years.

Bilge does know SR quite well, and you have
more problems with him than with me, you don't even
follow up when he posts equations containing trig.

: 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

I guess the real physicists have given up on
me long ago.

: 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.

Maybe you will get lucky and find a real physicist
that will have time and the will to do something other
than humor you.

: It's all in the modern physcics literature anyway - all one
: has to do is pick up a physics text and read it.

Been there, done that.

: 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?

I don't know Tom, I do admire his ability
and knowledge of physics.

: Is there any chance fischer will stop flaming? Nah

Sure, have you seen me flame anybody undeserving?

Post good physics, in topical threads and newsgroups,
and I assure you I will support every word.

Joe Fischer

--
3

(Bilge) wrote in message ...
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.

Every day you prove to me that I've underestimated the level of your
arrogance. It's gone through the roof.

That fact that (relativistic) mass is conserved in nuclear reactions
is a well known fact in relativity. As I've said all along - you don't
know the basics. This is freshman physics stuff.

Apparently you can't learn. You've proved that you can't even post a
rebuttal when I've proven this in all the gory detail - equations and
all.

Dude - try to open your mind at least a nanonmeter for at least a pico
second!

(nah - it'll never happen)

Mr. Pmb

"Joe Fischer" wrote in message
...
Pmb wrote:

You really should not use an email address for a
domain name you are not associated with.

I don't. That is a dummy address so that robots don't send me a ton of
e-mail. You should know these things by now.


I am assuming that a physicist knows what type
of balance to use for comparison of unknown masses with
known mass standards.

I do. You don't.

: 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 "

Right, so what is the object of your argument?

I'm just explaining the operaton of a beam balance to you. You brought it
up.. It turned out you used the wrong term.

As I've explained - Using a balance of any kind tells you the weight of the
object. From the weight you can deduce whether the passive gravitational
mass of the object your measuring is the same as the passive gravitational
mass of what you're comparing it to.

But this thread has always been about inertial mass and the velocity
dependance thereof.

To tell if the inertial mass of two objects is the same is rather simple. In
an inertial frame of referance (or on an air table) Set them both moving at
the same speed on a head on collision course. If after they collide the
resulting actions are symetric then the inertial masses are equal. That's
known as the "Weyl" definition of mass and it's what is universally used in
mechanics for defining mass.

To clarify. Consider the following.

Let Object A and Object B head towards each other with equal and opposite
velocities along a staight line as follows

(Object A) ---------------- ------------------(Object B)

If the velocity of A is exactly the opposite of the velocity of B after the
collision then, by definition, the mass of A is the same as the mass of B.


No you didn't, do you have a reading comprehension
problem, sorry I offended you if you do.
The picture was plainly titled in a large colored
font "TRIPLE BEAM BALANCE".

So? That's a beam balance as I've said - what exaclty is your problem
understanding this? They use three beams so they can have a more precise
reading - but the principle is the same.

It apparently was one of the first ten hits you
got on google searching for "beam balance", how many
of the other half-million hits did you read before
selecting one to base you flawed argument on?

None - I know what a beam balance is - if you decide to stop flaming and
crack a text book then you'd know too.


: It's a law of nature that passive
: gravitational mass = inertial mass.

Well, what does "inertial mass" equal, rest mass?

No. Inertial mass is the m in the expression for momentum. I.e.. if "p" is
momentum and "v" is veloccity then, by definition, the "inertial mass" is
the "m" in p = mv. Momentum is a conserved quantity. For this to be true in
all inertial frames of referance two things follow.

(1) mass is conserved
(2) mass depends on velocity

So m = m(v). "rest mass" m_o is defined as m(0) = m_o



Of course, doesn't everybody ignore you?

Internet cranks and crackpots? I hope so. Relativists? Absolutely not.

too tired and not enough patience to read the rest of fischer's crackpot
comments

Gauge:
(Bilge) wrote

e+ + e- - \gamma\gamma

So - instead of paying attention to what you're reading you simply
ignore.

Take a swim in clue lake.

(Bilge) wrote in message ...
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.

First off - If you recall (bilge has a short memory I guess) - I asked
what someone thought the mass of the system of two particles moving in
a B-field was. You gave a meaningless answer since the particles were
subject to external forces. However the answer you gave applies here -
and yet you ignorer it!! ROTFL!!!! :-D

bilge - What is the 4-momentum before each reaction? What is the
4-momentum after each reaction? What is the magnitude of the
4-momentum in each case both before and after each reaction?

Although I know you'll never have the open mind to read for yourself
and thus learn the subject matter - others might.

The whole 'mass is conserved' thing was explained over a half a
century ago in

"Energy transformations and the Conservation of Mass," E.F. Barker,
Am. J. Phys. 14, 309-310 (1946).

More recently in

"In defense of relativistic mass," T. R. Sandin, Am. J. Phys. 59, 1032
(1991)

And the author basically tells you what I have - no matter what view
you have regarding the definiton of "mass of a system" - the mass is
conserved.

Note: Do NOT confuse "rest mass of system" with "sum of rest masses of
system"

Read the article, or something equivalent, or remain ignorant

Pmb

Pmb wrote:
: "Joe Fischer" wrote:
: You really should not use an email address for a
: domain name you are not associated with.
:
: I don't. That is a dummy address so that robots don't send me a ton of
: e-mail. You should know these things by now.

A lot of people may use it, I don't know if
there is a nowhere.com but there is a somewhere.com

: I am assuming that a physicist knows what type
: of balance to use for comparison of unknown masses with
: known mass standards.
:
: I do. You don't.

Then you should know they use a precision balance,
without notches in the beam.

: : 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 "
:
: Right, so what is the object of your argument?
:
: I'm just explaining the operaton of a beam balance to you. You brought it
: up.. It turned out you used the wrong term.

Does the "scale" device you referenced have
two pans of equal weight?

: As I've explained - Using a balance of any kind tells you
: the weight of the object.

Not the precision balance, you need mass standards
to compare with.

: From the weight you can deduce whether the passive
: gravitational mass of the object your measuring is
: the same as the passive gravitational mass of what
: you're comparing it to.

Do you not agree that the precision balance
will work on a merry-go-round where the sum of the
centrifugal force and gravity are greater than 1.0 g?

: But this thread has always been about inertial mass and the velocity
: dependance thereof.

As far as I am concerned, invariant mass means
rest mass, and if mass is invariant, i.e., does _NOT_
vary with velocity, then inertial mass equals rest mass.

: To tell if the inertial mass of two objects is the same
: is rather simple.

Of course, that is why the precision balance is used.

: In an inertial frame of referance (or on an air table) Set them both
: moving at the same speed on a head on collision course.

Surely it is not that complicated.

: If after they collide the
: resulting actions are symetric then the inertial masses are equal. That's
: known as the "Weyl" definition of mass and it's what is universally used in
: mechanics for defining mass.

And the precision balance is used universally in
physics labs.

: To clarify. Consider the following.
:
: Let Object A and Object B head towards each other with equal and opposite
: velocities along a staight line as follows
:
: (Object A) ---------------- ------------------(Object B)
:
: If the velocity of A is exactly the opposite of the velocity of B after the
: collision then, by definition, the mass of A is the same as the mass of B.

Which way is the observer moving?

: No you didn't, do you have a reading comprehension
: problem, sorry I offended you if you do.
: The picture was plainly titled in a large colored
: font "TRIPLE BEAM BALANCE".
:
: So? That's a beam balance as I've said - what exaclty is your problem
: understanding this? They use three beams so they can have a more precise
: reading - but the principle is the same.

No, they use three beams so they can use three
different mass standards along with a mechanical advantage
all at the same time.

It is just a scale, it is not a precision balance.

: It apparently was one of the first ten hits you
: got on google searching for "beam balance", how many
: of the other half-million hits did you read before
: selecting one to base you flawed argument on?
:
: None - I know what a beam balance is - if you decide to
: stop flaming and crack a text book then you'd know too.

I know what a precision balance is, it has
a beam with two equal pans, and I use it to compare
1982 copper cents with 1982 zinc cents all the time
to tell which are zinc.
I don't "weigh" the cents, I compare the mass
of a known zinc cent (1983 or later), and a 1982 cent
of unknown metal.

: : It's a law of nature that passive
: : gravitational mass = inertial mass.
:
: Well, what does "inertial mass" equal, rest mass?
:
: No. Inertial mass is the m in the expression for momentum. I.e.. if "p" is
: momentum and "v" is veloccity then, by definition, the "inertial mass" is
: the "m" in p = mv. Momentum is a conserved quantity. For this to be true in
: all inertial frames of referance two things follow.
:
: (1) mass is conserved
: (2) mass depends on velocity

I think you are making things far too complicated,
and applying particle concepts to everything in physics.

: So m = m(v). "rest mass" m_o is defined as m(0) = m_o

And if mass is invariant, doesn't rest mass
equal inertial mass?

: Of course, doesn't everybody ignore you?
:
: Internet cranks and crackpots? I hope so. Relativists? Absolutely not.
:
: too tired and not enough patience to read the rest of fischer's crackpot
: comments

Don't you have the patience to be a teacher?
Do you have a teaching certificate?

Joe Fischer

--
3

(Bilge) wrote in message ...
Gauge:
(Bilge) wrote

e+ + e- - \gamma\gamma

So - instead of paying attention to what you're reading you simply
ignore.

Take a swim in clue lake.


Is this always your response when people prove you wrong? I've always
said you were closed mind.

What part of the derivations I've given you don't you understand?


Mr. Pmb

"Joe Fischer" wrote in message
...
Pmb wrote:
: "Joe Fischer" wrote:
: You really should not use an email address for a
: domain name you are not associated with.
:
: I don't. That is a dummy address so that robots don't send me a ton of
: e-mail. You should know these things by now.

A lot of people may use it, I don't know if
there is a nowhere.com but there is a somewhere.com

It doesn't matter - nobody sends people e-mail anyway. My friends know my
e-mail address. If there is someone here that wants to contact me they have
always asked me if they could e-mail me first - so it doesn't matter at all.

I'm not going to get into your petty ingorant bickering on what the
definition of certain measuring device is. If you want me to explain
something then ask a direct question. I'm not going to get into this stupid
conversation where you define everything to fit your needs and then insult
me for not using your definitions.

As far as I am concerned, invariant mass means
rest mass, and if mass is invariant, i.e., does _NOT_
vary with velocity, ...

That's yoiur error right there. You're confusing "invariant mass" with rest
mass. "invariant" means "does not change upon change in coordinates. An
invariant quantity can be observer dependant and still be invariant. That's
why there' such thing as "Energy measured by observer." which is an
invariant and yet depends on the observer.

But rest mass does not change with velocity - nobody said it did.

then inertial mass equals rest mass.

Nope. You can't jump from "rest mass" to "inertial mass" simply by wishing
it to be like that. Inertial mass has meaning beyond rest mass and shouldn't
be confused with it. Nobody uses the term "inertial mass" to refer to "rest
mass" except crackpots.

I've explained this to you already - look it up in Schutz - Top of page 94.

: In an inertial frame of referance (or on an air table) Set them both
: moving at the same speed on a head on collision course.

Surely it is not that complicated.

This is basic physics - I thought you studied basic physics??


: To clarify. Consider the following.
:
: Let Object A and Object B head towards each other with equal and
opposite
: velocities along a staight line as follows
:
: (Object A) ---------------- ------------------(Object B)
:
: If the velocity of A is exactly the opposite of the velocity of B after
the
: collision then, by definition, the mass of A is the same as the mass of
B.

"Joe Fischer" wrote

Do you not agree that the precision balance
will work on a merry-go-round where the sum of the
centrifugal force and gravity are greater than 1.0 g?

Obviously.

: But this thread has always been about inertial mass and the velocity
: dependance thereof.

As far as I am concerned, invariant mass means
rest mass, and if mass is invariant, i.e., does _NOT_
vary with velocity, then inertial mass equals rest mass.

Then whyh do you refuse to address the subject of this post? You've
constantly stated your position on how to measure the mass of an object
**which is not moving** by placing it at rest on a balance etc.

The fact remains that, in principle, the weight of the object will increase
as the body's speed increases. That's never been questioned in relativity -
It's a fact. A fact that cannot be gotten rid of by renaming quantities to
fit your needs.

And let me remind you - This is the topic of this thread.

So do you want to address the topic of this thread? I.e. do you want to tell
us how to measure the mass of moving body? Do you want to address the
question "Does the weight of a body increase with speed?"

Pmb

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

First off - If you recall (bilge has a short memory I guess) - I asked
what someone thought the mass of the system of two particles moving in
a B-field was. You gave a meaningless answer since the particles were
subject to external forces.

Dea Miss Information:

Oh, I see. The answer was too subtle for you. Let me explain it. I'm
free to work in any frame I choose. I chose the frame in which the center
of momentum was a rest. The B-field is then irrelevant, since whatever it
is, (1) you didn't specify any particular frame for the B-field, (2) the
field in the center of momentum frame won't be a pure B-field since in
general, the center of momentum won't be at rest in the same frame in
which the field is purely magnetic and (3) I qualified the frame to be
valid at any instant and therefore at any instant, the center of momentum
is at rest. Apparently, the concept of an instantaneous rest frame goes
over your head.

However the answer you gave applies here -
and yet you ignorer it!! ROTFL!!!! :-D

What does ignorer mean?


bilge - What is the 4-momentum before each reaction? What is the
4-momentum after each reaction? What is the magnitude of the
4-momentum in each case both before and after each reaction?

Hey moron, no one is arguing that four-momentum isn't conserved,
(except perhaps you - it's rather hard to tell, since you bugger
up everything).

Although I know you'll never have the open mind to read for yourself
and thus learn the subject matter - others might.

The whole 'mass is conserved' thing was explained over a half a
century ago in

In that case, perhaps you should re-read it, since I provided two ex-
amples in which mass isn't conserved. The four-momentum is conserved. Here,
use your concept for the "relativistic mass" of a photon, m = h\nu/c^2,
with four-momentum q and an electron with four-momentum, p (and final
four-momentum, p') conserves mass (relativistic or otherwise):

?
(p + q)^2 = p'2

[...]

Note: Do NOT confuse "rest mass of system" with "sum of rest masses of
system"

If you do that often, then you should write it down on paper rather
than post it to usenet.

Read the article, or something equivalent, or remain ignorant

Take a longer swim in clue lake. You don't seem to have become
drenched in clues yet.