(WaiteDavid137) wrote in message ...
Subject: Rest mass or inertial mass?
From: (Radi Khrapko)
Date: 8/21/2003 2:34 PM US Mountain Standard Time
Message-id:

And what about a definition of mass?

I already gave it to you.
Radi to Waite 201418
Dear Waite, I have read all you wrote, and I cut our texts to shorten
our messages.
Please, repeat your definition of mass.

See-
http://www.geocities.com/zcphysicsms/chap3.htm
pay psrticular attention to the paragraphs immediately after equation 3.1.5
Radi to Waite 212140
You deceive. You do not know a definition of mass. The formula
$$m^2c^2=\eta_{\mu\nu}P^\mu P^\nu\eqno(3.1.5)$$
is not able to determine mass of a body moving past us.


Do you agree with the Wheeler definition: To find out the mass of a
particle one must weight it! Or determine its gravitational pull?

No, but I doubt that is precisely what he said.
Wheeler wrote at the page 248 which you referred to:
How do we find out the mass of a particle?
- Weight it! Or determine its gravitational pull.
I asked you, Do you agree with the Wheeler definition: To find out the
mass of a particle one must weight it! Or determine its gravitational
pull?
You have answered: No, but I doubt that is precisely what he said.
It is pathalogy!


And, please, explain what occurs when a constant force accelerates a
body: is the accelerate constant? is the velocity constant?


When a constant force F acts on a body the acceleration A is constant, but due
to time dilation as relating the time differentials of the two the coordinate
acceleration "a" is not. Why in the world would you ask if the velocity is
constant? Of course not.
Yours terms are bad. When your acceleration is constant not equal to
zero, the velocity tends to speed of light and becomes constant. You
think you can observe 4-quantity. You do not understend the concept of
inertia. You do not know that the electic field is a vector field.
Your paradigm gives birth to mistakes. E.g. Wheele wrote: Rest mass of
final system increases in an inelastic encounter (p.121 of Spacetime
Physics, 1966).

From: (Radi Khrapko)
Date: 8/21/2003 2:34 PM US Mountain Standard Time
Message-id:

And what about a definition of mass?

I already gave it to you.
Radi to Waite 201418
Dear Waite, I have read all you wrote, and I cut our texts to shorten
our messages.
Please, repeat your definition of mass.

See-
http://www.geocities.com/zcphysicsms/chap3.htm
pay particular attention to the paragraphs immediately after equation 3.1.5
Radi to Waite 212140
You deceive. You do not know a definition of mass. The formula
$$m^2c^2=\eta_{\mu\nu}P^\mu P^\nu\eqno(3.1.5)$$
is not able to determine mass of a body moving past us.

You deceive. I just gave you the definition. The formula determines it just
fine.


Do you agree with the Wheeler definition: To find out the mass of a
particle one must weight it! Or determine its gravitational pull?

No, but I doubt that is precisely what he said.
Wheeler wrote at the page 248 which you referred to:
How do we find out the mass of a particle?
- Weight it! Or determine its gravitational pull.
I asked you, Do you agree with the Wheeler definition: To find out the
mass of a particle one must weight it! Or determine its gravitational
pull?

That is not what he said. Its funny you first quote what he said and then you
change what he said and ask if I agree with your changed version. I don't. I
don't agree"with YOU" that one "must" choose one of those two methods. Nor do I
agree with either of you that gravity "pulls" at all. I already explained that
for gravitation alone F = 0 and A = 0 is the geodesic equation. So stop asking
if I agree with it. I already told you why I do not.

You have answered: No, but I doubt that is precisely what he said.
It is pathalogy!

No its your deception. You quote what he said and then change what he said and
ask if I agree with your changed version.


And, please, explain what occurs when a constant force accelerates a
body: is the accelerate constant? is the velocity constant?


When a constant force F acts on a body the acceleration A is constant, but
due
to time dilation as relating the time differentials of the two the
coordinate
acceleration "a" is not. Why in the world would you ask if the velocity is
constant? Of course not.
Yours terms are bad. When your acceleration is constant not equal to
zero, the velocity tends to speed of light and becomes constant.

In light of how the time differentials in the two are different due to time
dilation, how is that bad? As a foot note I should mention that though
hypothetically if one had constant F that one would also have constant A, but
that in fact one can not "really" even have constant F or A other than 0 at
all. One normally considers instead the case where |F| and |A| are constant as
I defined them in which case the resulting equations of motion are contained in
the part of the Baez FAQ on relativistic rocketry and at my site.

You do not understend the concept of
inertia.

No, you don't.

You do not know that the electic field is a vector field.

No its not. The electromagnetic field F^mu^nu is the vector field. E and B
alone are not vectors.

Your paradigm gives birth to mistakes.
What mistakes?

E.g. Wheele wrote: Rest mass of
final system increases in an inelastic encounter (p.121 of Spacetime
Physics, 1966).

You already quoted that and I already told you to read the second edition with
the corrections. Don't lie about his position again.

(WaiteDavid137) wrote

You deceive. I just gave you the definition. The formula determines it just
fine.

That is an equality. I is not a definition. For that to be a
definition then E would have to be measureable independant of m.
However E is the sum of kinetic energy, E, and rest energy, E_o = m_o.
To measure E measure E means to measure both. E.g. if one using a
calorimeter to measure E then all that is being measured is the
kinetic energy. To determine E from that value it requires knowing
what m is.

In the past I've asked waite to describe how E is to be measured. He
refused and then posting some snide remark about me not knowing how
energy is measured.


You do not know that the electic field is a vector field.

No its not. The electromagnetic field F^mu^nu is the vector field. E and B
alone are not vectors.

You're confusing vectors with 4-vectors again.

Pmb

From: (Gauge)

(WaiteDavid137) wrote


You deceive. I just gave you the definition. The formula determines it just
fine


That is an equality. I is not a definition.

It is so. You don't understand anything about physics so you have nothing valid
to say about it.

The electromagnetic field F^mu^nu is the vector field. E and B
alone are not vectors.

You're confusing vectors with 4-vectors again.


I'm not confusing anything. You are confusing pseudo vectors with vectors. A
vector is defined by vector properties. This is why a tensor is a vector and a
3 component pseudo vector is not. It doesn't matter how many elements it has.
It matters how it transforms.

Gauge wrote:
: (WaiteDavid137) wrote
: You deceive. I just gave you the definition. The formula
: determines it just fine.
:
: That is an equality. I is not a definition. For that to be a
: definition then E would have to be measureable independant of m.
: However E is the sum of kinetic energy, E, and rest energy, E_o = m_o.
: To measure E measure E means to measure both. E.g. if one using a
: calorimeter to measure E then all that is being measured is the
: kinetic energy.

You use a calorimeter to measure kinetic energy?

You are an imposter, who never took a physics lab.

: To determine E from that value it requires knowing
: what m is.

And howbdo you find that, with an altimeter?

Joe Fischer

--
3