wrote:


My work is available at
A. Sharma, Physics Essays, 17 (2004) 195-222.
�The Origin of Generalized Mass-Energy Equation �E = Ac2 �M; and
its applications in General physics and Cosmology�.
http://www.burningbrain.org/pdf/ajaysharma_einstein.pdf


Yes, and your "work" is still a piece of **** because it is all
incorrect. Starting at eq (13) you miss the momentum variation of the
system and you mistakenly assume that the em radiation may result into
"mass invcrease". Ajay Sharma , you ARE an idiot.

wrote:
Igor wrote:
wrote:

"Energy" is mass in motion.

Oh, I'm sorry! That's not the true definition of energy. Give this
guy the consolation prize and get him off stage. He's had his fifteen
minutes of ignominious fame and we're not going to allow him back until
he can learn some actual physics.

rest of Sharma's BS snipped


Yes, and your "work" is still a piece of **** because it is all
incorrect. Starting at eq (13) you miss the momentum variation of the
system and you mistakenly assume that the em radiation may result into
"mass invcrease". Ajay Sharma , you ARE an idiot.

wrote:
PD wrote:
Igor wrote:
PD wrote:
wrote:

What if these fields have mass. There have been experiments ( Nieto and
Goldhaber ) that determine the mass upper limit of electric and
magnetic fields. So these fields have mass and are pliable. Then we can
think of them as waves -- waves that have mass.



rest of Sharma's BS snipped

Yes, and your "work" is still a piece of **** because it is all
incorrect. Starting at eq (13) you miss the momentum variation of the
system and you mistakenly assume that the em radiation may result into
"mass invcrease". Ajay Sharma , you ARE an idiot.

wrote:

This paper is published in journal
Physics Essays , CANADA
www.physicsessays.com
I will be published in 2007 Galilean Electrodynamics, Massachusetts,
USA.
In parts it is published in various others journals.
----------------------
Book 100 Years of E=mc2
For details
https://www.novapublishers.com/catal...oducts_id=4554

AJAY SHARMA


rest of Sharma's BS snipped

Yes, and your "work" is still a piece of **** because it is all
incorrect. Starting at eq (13) you miss the momentum variation of the
system and you mistakenly assume that the em radiation may result into
"mass invcrease". Ajay Sharma , you ARE an idiot.

wrote:

rest of Sharma's BS snipped

Yes, and your "work" is still a piece of **** because it is all
incorrect. Starting at eq (13) you miss the momentum variation of the
system and you mistakenly assume that the em radiation may result into
"mass invcrease". Ajay Sharma , you ARE an idiot.

wrote:

physicsajay wrote:

You don't know what upper limit means do you?

VERGON

I can tell you this, I have never liked the term.

If I didn't understand something, I probably wouldn't like it either.

But here is one
definition (of many):
The limsup can be defined in a dual fashion.
The supremum of a sequence of sets is the smallest set containing all
the
sets, i.e., the countable union of the sets.

Wrong! The upper bound is literally the largest possible value allowed
based on conditions. In this case, on observation.

My translation for the mass of the photon is, the upper limit
(supremum) is the
smallest number of a set.

To my way of thinking that means the smallest mass detected. So the
upperlimit
is the smallest mass determined.

Well, your way of thinking is horribly wrong. An upper bound doesn't
imply existence at all. It's merely the largest value possible, given
that the quantity exists, which may or may not be true.

In my mind. the smallest mass should be the lower limit. But I don't
have a weird
mathematical mind.

If you can definitely set a lower limit together with an upper limit,
then you have essentially pinned down existence. For a photon, we have
no way to establish a lower limit for mass, so it must be the lowest
possible value allowed, which is zero.

Y.Porat wrote:

one of the basic of scince is DECENCY

Funny, but I've never seen the word decency in a statement of the
scientific method.

ie not to be a thief

That's not scientific concern, that's an ethical concern. And a good
one to follow.

if you borroed an idea from someone
just tell it and dont cheat
i can prove you by quotes that you are undecent - not honest
now
you r are working just for pure scince ?
no ego is involed it it ??
so it seems tha tyou are not only a hyporcit and a litle thiefe
you are unintelligent as well
may be age is speaking??
anyway if you think that anyone will beielve you that you are working
just for scince and not a bit of Ego
than you are either an idiot or a lier
and from now on
wile you claim that
Enrgy is mass in motion- dont forget me

Oh I'm sorry. Again, that is not the proper definition of energy. You
people just aren't trying. At least you could try looking it up before
you post your nonsense. But you aren't even trying. Johnny, give this
kid a consolation prize for at least having delusions of adequacy.
Escorted stage right...

if you claim that that there is only just one kind of mass - dont
forget me

if you caim tha the mass of the photon i sonly reat mass (or invariant
mass)
and not realtivistc mass - dont forget me
and if you for get i will prove it to you because

IT IS ALL DOCUMANTED!!
it seesm that you was not cleaver enough or decent enough to

Ward or June?

Igor wrote:
Y.Porat wrote:

one of the basic of scince is DECENCY

Funny, but I've never seen the word decency in a statement of the
scientific method.
------------------------------------
and that is exactly dealIgor THE **** IN YOUR EDUCATION!!!

a scintist that is not decent to other poeple will not be decent to
scintific
considerstions as well
that is exactly the difference between a real scintist
and a politician!!
and tha tis exactly the reason why you wilbever be able toinnovate
anything in scince
UNLESS YOU STEALSOMETHING FROM SOMEBODY ELSE!!
and it seems that stealing ideas is a legitimate and may be usweful
for developing a rich carier in scince
i am not surprised !!!

for me just toknow waht is your private name is enough to satrt
tounderstand your personality 9in adition if jsut a few posts of yours)
you or your parants lived under the Bolshevic regeame
and that speaks alot
for the Bolsheviks the mosdt important thing is not the stuid truth!
th emost important is - the comunist party - come waht come may !!
no problem to cheat
no problem to murder in cold blood all is legitimate in enhansing the
party!
and who is the party????? a big guestion but not too comoplicated
it is Mr A and Mr B that are in power thebigger crook lier and murderer
=- the betetr .
te bigegr the terrorist - the better !!
so you got some education ye !!!
--------------

ie not to be a thief

That's not scientific concern, that's an ethical concern. And a good
one to follow.
-----------------
AND ????????
a waht are th e every day conclusions ??? out of that ??
btw do you think you can cheat every body forever ??
even Stalin didnt make it fo rtoo long !!!
abd another btw
under Stalin the SDoviet scince was flat down
th eonly thing he developed is Arned forces
and yes ( i mensioned honesty) he adanced mas education
but in a low level
------------------
------------

if you borroed an idea from someone
just tell it and dont cheat
i can prove you by quotes that you are undecent - not honest
now
you r are working just for pure scince ?
no ego is involed it it ??
so it seems tha tyou are not only a hyporcit and a litle thiefe
you are unintelligent as well
may be age is speaking??
anyway if you think that anyone will beielve you that you are working
just for scince and not a bit of Ego
than you are either an idiot or a lier
and from now on
wile you claim that
Enrgy is mass in motion- dont forget me

Oh I'm sorry. Again, that is not the proper definition of energy.
---------------
youtry to be too much a smartguy mathematician
just have a loook at the formula

E=mc^2 !!
it speaks for itself
c alone is not mass
so ??
waht makes it energy ??
it is more than obvious
not tomension that energy is mass in motion in macrocosm !!!
and no rerason to deny it in microcosm
if you deny it in microcosm - th eburdain of proof is ** on you **
not on me !!
actually you dont stop to demand from me to understand waht other
aprrots say
but all that zero mass ideasatrted from where ??
from the Lorentz factor 'tobe attached to anything !!
th ebig mistake of amthematicalparrots started by
not understanding that any physcsi formula
HAS ITS LIMITS OF VALIDATION!!
you cant drag it anywher and without limits without checking
had you understood that the photon is a limit case even amthematically
youwould understand that the lorentrz factor
DOES NOT APPLY TO THE PHOTON!!
and if so
ther is no grounds tothe demand that the mass of the photon will be
zero!
it can be so small and be the exceptioncase in which
it smass CAN MOVE WITH THE VELOCITY OF c
---------
now since youare a bolshevic.....
after some years while you will think that i am not alive anymore
you igor and others willpop up with 'your innoaavtion'
that energy is mass in motion
and that th ephoton has a small rest mass (or invariant mass or
wahtever you may call it)
it will be YOUR INNOVATION!!
why ??
becasue decenct is not a factor(or argument or wahtever ) for a
Bolshevic !!!
(BTW the nazies behaved the same .........for them all the 'ancient'
cultures
that spoke abot morality wheere nonsense of the feable huiman beings
for the strong human 'lions' the law of the jungle was admired
the survuival of the strongest and annihilation of the 'weak ones'
the brutal old Romans were their hero worships .
yet even the brulal old Romans has some law and order and even some
moral
dignity -- sociaty cannot live other wise or else it becomes a lungle
in which anyone is eathing anyone
this Ng seems sometimes like that .....!!
and that is one of its weakness beside advantages !!)
Keep well
Y.Porat
-----------------------------

Igor wrote:
wrote:

"Energy" is mass in motion.

Oh, I'm sorry! That's not the true definition of energy. Give this
guy the consolation prize and get him off stage. He's had his fifteen
minutes of ignominious fame and we're not going to allow him back until
he can learn some actual physics.

VERGON

Of course there is the definition that energy is the ability to do
work.

However, there are other ways of looking at it that are not necessarily
wrong.

It is this ability to look at things from different angles that
separates the men from the boys.

Of course, those with not too much ability feel exposed if exact
definitions are not used. They feel uncertain and out of their depth
--- and they are because they do not have the ability to see the big
picture. Einstein called it "musicality" --- you either had the ability
or you didn't. Apparently you don't.

As a generality, saying energy is mass in motion is just another way of
looking at it --- another slant, This is a characteristic of creative
thinking. You either have it or you don't

wrote in message
ups.com...
|
| Igor wrote:
| wrote:
|
| "Energy" is mass in motion.
|
| Oh, I'm sorry! That's not the true definition of energy. Give this
| guy the consolation prize and get him off stage. He's had his fifteen
| minutes of ignominious fame and we're not going to allow him back until
| he can learn some actual physics.
|
| VERGON
|
| Of course there is the definition that energy is the ability to do
| work.
|
| However, there are other ways of looking at it that are not necessarily
| wrong.
|
| It is this ability to look at things from different angles that
| separates the men from the boys.

True enough.



|
| Of course, those with not too much ability feel exposed if exact
| definitions are not used. They feel uncertain and out of their depth
| --- and they are because they do not have the ability to see the big
| picture. Einstein called it "musicality" --- you either had the ability
| or you didn't. Apparently you don't.
|
| As a generality, saying energy is mass in motion is just another way of
| looking at it --- another slant, This is a characteristic of creative
| thinking. You either have it or you don't

Surely intelligent perception has greater weight than wild imagination!
Since when did science require creative thinking?
Androcles.