Re: Energy is conserved & mass is conserved


 Science > Physics > Re: Energy is conserved & mass is conserved

LINK TO THIS PAGE  


rating :  0   |  0


  Page 1 of 1

1
 
Topic: Science > Physics
User: "V ertner Vergon"
Date: 14 Apr 2004 02:16:07 PM
Object: Re: Energy is conserved & mass is conserved
(Y.Porat) wrote in message news:<4e35159f.0403252222.10a8ce9@posting.google.com>...

we hear that 'modern scince claimes that:
energy is conserved but .... mass is not conserved.
my new postulate
(at least postulate) is :

Energy is conserved and *mass is conserved*

the claim against it was that EM waves do not have mass
if you make a kittke switch in your mind
to recognize that even EM waves has mass
than things become clear and simpler.
ie mass can be 'destroyed into energy ie em waves'
but that is actually not destruction of mass
but rather another 'incarnation of mass'
another indication (at least indication) that em waves and photons ......
need i to go on with this ? ......
all the best
Y.Porat
---------------------
ps
the common known parrots are not invited to comment on my
new postulate.
---------------------

Read Einstein. Your "postulate" was developed by him a long time ago
as a combined law -- the law of the conservation of mass and energy --
meaning the two are conserved collaterally.
The conservation is determined by m = E/c^2.
.

User: "Y.Porat"

Title: Re: Energy is conserved & mass is conserved 15 Apr 2004 03:43:38 AM
(V ertner Vergon) wrote in message news:<b337f5db.0404141116.19b9aeb7@posting.google.com>...

maporat@012.net.il (Y.Porat) wrote in message news:<4e35159f.0403252222.10a8ce9@posting.google.com>...

we hear that 'modern scince claimes that:
energy is conserved but .... mass is not conserved.
my new postulate
(at least postulate) is :

Energy is conserved and *mass is conserved*

the claim against it was that EM waves do not have mass
if you make a kittke switch in your mind
to recognize that even EM waves has mass
than things become clear and simpler.
ie mass can be 'destroyed into energy ie em waves'
but that is actually not destruction of mass
but rather another 'incarnation of mass'
another indication (at least indication) that em waves and photons ......
need i to go on with this ? ......
all the best
Y.Porat
---------------------
ps
the common known parrots are not invited to comment on my
new postulate.
---------------------


Read Einstein. Your "postulate" was developed by him a long time ago
as a combined law -- the law of the conservation of mass and energy --
meaning the two are conserved collaterally.

The conservation is determined by m = E/c^2.

--------------------
i never said it is my postulate
for me it is clear that E=MC^2 means that energy is mass in movement
the problem is not wiht me the problem is with all the other
parrots that do not understand
that the photon is an exceptional case
of a mass 9may be the slmallerst that moves with the volocity
C
anyway i thinkg it is *my* (even that 'my ' is not sure)
that *there is nothing but invariant mass*
no relativistic mass !!!
and i showed it in the formula:
E/gama = mC^2
even if you use the 'momentum formula' (that i deeply suspect
it does not apply to the photon) you can release the gama
factor to the energy side
so there is onlt 'relativistic energy'
relativistic mass is physics stupidity.
-------------
all the best
Y.Porat
----------------
.
User: "Bjoern Feuerbacher"

Title: Re: Energy is conserved & mass is conserved 15 Apr 2004 08:36:47 AM
Y.Porat wrote:

vergon_enterprises@highstream.net (V ertner Vergon) wrote in message news:<b337f5db.0404141116.19b9aeb7@posting.google.com>...

maporat@012.net.il (Y.Porat) wrote in message news:<4e35159f.0403252222.10a8ce9@posting.google.com>...

we hear that 'modern scince claimes that:
energy is conserved but .... mass is not conserved.
my new postulate
(at least postulate) is :

Energy is conserved and *mass is conserved*

the claim against it was that EM waves do not have mass
if you make a kittke switch in your mind
to recognize that even EM waves has mass
than things become clear and simpler.
ie mass can be 'destroyed into energy ie em waves'
but that is actually not destruction of mass
but rather another 'incarnation of mass'
another indication (at least indication) that em waves and photons ......
need i to go on with this ? ......
all the best
Y.Porat
---------------------
ps
the common known parrots are not invited to comment on my
new postulate.
---------------------


Read Einstein. Your "postulate" was developed by him a long time ago
as a combined law -- the law of the conservation of mass and energy --
meaning the two are conserved collaterally.

The conservation is determined by m = E/c^2.


--------------------
i never said it is my postulate
for me it is clear that E=MC^2 means that energy is mass in movement

Why on earth should it mean that???

the problem is not wiht me the problem is with all the other
parrots that do not understand

No. The problem is with you: you don't understand the counterarguments
against your strange claims.

that the photon is an exceptional case

Unsupported assertion.

of a mass 9may be the slmallerst that moves with the volocity
C

Something with a non-zero rest mass can't move with the velocity c.

anyway i thinkg it is *my* (even that 'my ' is not sure)
that *there is nothing but invariant mass*
no relativistic mass !!!

Unsupported, nonsensical assertion.

and i showed it in the formula:
E/gama = mC^2

That you are able to write down a formula which doesn't contain
relativistic mass explicitly does not prove that relativistic mass
doesn't exist.

even if you use the 'momentum formula' (that i deeply suspect
it does not apply to the photon)

What's the basis for that suspection?

you can release the gama factor to the energy side

There is no gamma factor in the momentum formula (if you mean the
formula E^2 = m^2 c^4 + p^2 c^2).

so there is onlt 'relativistic energy'

Well, that's one viewpoint. Why is the other not also valid?

relativistic mass is physics stupidity.

Why?
Bye,
Bjoern
.


User: "Bjoern Feuerbacher"

Title: Re: Energy is conserved & mass is conserved 15 Apr 2004 08:33:42 AM
V ertner Vergon wrote:

maporat@012.net.il (Y.Porat) wrote in message news:<4e35159f.0403252222.10a8ce9@posting.google.com>...

we hear that 'modern scince claimes that:
energy is conserved but .... mass is not conserved.
my new postulate
(at least postulate) is :

Energy is conserved and *mass is conserved*

the claim against it was that EM waves do not have mass
if you make a kittke switch in your mind
to recognize that even EM waves has mass
than things become clear and simpler.
ie mass can be 'destroyed into energy ie em waves'
but that is actually not destruction of mass
but rather another 'incarnation of mass'
another indication (at least indication) that em waves and photons ......
need i to go on with this ? ......
all the best
Y.Porat
---------------------
ps
the common known parrots are not invited to comment on my
new postulate.
---------------------



Read Einstein. Your "postulate" was developed by him a long time ago
as a combined law -- the law of the conservation of mass and energy --
meaning the two are conserved collaterally.

Unfortunately for you, what he meant was *relativistic* mass. (or
perhaps the invariant mass of the whole system, although I doubt that)
If you think that the sum of the rest masses of the components of a
system is conserved, please explain the creation of muon-antimuon pairs
from electron-positron annihilation.

The conservation is determined by m = E/c^2.

This formula gives *relativistic* mass. Not *rest* mass. This is easily
shown by considering the simple fact that E increases with velocity - so
m = E/c^2 increases with velocity, too.
Bye,
Bjoern
.
User: "Y.Porat"

Title: Re: Energy is conserved & mass is conserved 15 Apr 2004 01:23:49 PM
Bjoern Feuerbacher <feuerbac@thphys.uni-heidelberg.de> wrote in message news:<c5m2vl$e3b$3@news.urz.uni-heidelberg.de>...

V ertner Vergon wrote:

maporat@012.net.il (Y.Porat) wrote in message news:<4e35159f.0403252222.10a8ce9@posting.google.com>...





from electron-positron annihilation.


The conservation is determined by m = E/c^2.


This formula gives *relativistic* mass. Not *rest* mass. This is easily
shown by considering the simple fact that E increases with velocity - so
m = E/c^2 increases with velocity, too.

---------------------
good for you
now you will start to understand that the photon is a special case
*IN WHICH THE GAMA FACTOR *DOES NOT APPLY TO **
nothing can increase neither the velocity of a photon nor its energy.!!
or its mass.
th e moment you chnged its energy
by an *extrnal action of energy* -it is notanymore the orriginal photon
is is another one.!!!.
because noting can add to it more velocity than C and more mass
than it has orriginally.
it might only seem that it changed but it is 'a wizards quiick hand
illusion' you just was not quick enough ot folow the
compleet *sequence of events* that took place there
it is aprocess in which some factors went in and others went out.
yet the basic pronciples of physics cannot be violated ir
mass cannot be created from nothing
and
mass cannot *disapear* or become something else it is one of the most
fundamental entities of nature that is invariant
it might only chnge faces' change 'looks' but fundamentally
a 'spade remaines a spade'(and a spider remaines a spider' (:-)
(waht happened to your *conservatism* ???!!! (:-)
----------------
Y.Porat
------------------




Bye,
Bjoern

.
User: "Bjoern Feuerbacher"

Title: Re: Energy is conserved & mass is conserved 16 Apr 2004 03:11:42 AM
Y.Porat wrote:

Bjoern Feuerbacher <feuerbac@thphys.uni-heidelberg.de> wrote in message news:<c5m2vl$e3b$3@news.urz.uni-heidelberg.de>...

V ertner Vergon wrote:

maporat@012.net.il (Y.Porat) wrote in message news:<4e35159f.0403252222.10a8ce9@posting.google.com>...






from electron-positron annihilation.



The conservation is determined by m = E/c^2.


This formula gives *relativistic* mass. Not *rest* mass. This is easily
shown by considering the simple fact that E increases with velocity - so
m = E/c^2 increases with velocity, too.


---------------------
good for you
now you will start to understand that the photon is a special case
*IN WHICH THE GAMA FACTOR *DOES NOT APPLY TO **

Since this is still a totally unsupported assertion, I don't see why
I should try to understand this.

nothing can increase neither the velocity of a photon nor its energy.!!
or its mass.

Right. So what???

th e moment you chnged its energy
by an *extrnal action of energy* -it is notanymore the orriginal photon
is is another one.!!!.

How do you plan to change the energy of a photon "by an external action
of energy"? Inverse Compton effect, or what? And why is that in any way
relevant to the question if the gamma factor "applies" to the photon or not?

because noting can add to it more velocity than C and more mass
than it has orriginally.

Right. So what???
[snip more of the same]

mass cannot be created from nothing

Right - but from energy.

and mass cannot *disapear* or become something else

Wrong. It can become energy.

it is one of the most
fundamental entities of nature that is invariant

Completely unsupported assertion.
[snip]
Bye,
Bjoern
.
User: "Y.Porat"

Title: Re: Energy is conserved & mass is conserved 16 Apr 2004 10:53:40 AM
Bjoern Feuerbacher <feuerbac@thphys.uni-heidelberg.de> wrote in message news:<c5o4fu$7g5$1@news.urz.uni-heidelberg.de>...

Y.Porat wrote:

Bjoern Feuerbacher <feuerbac@thphys.uni-heidelberg.de> wrote in message news:<c5m2vl$e3b$3@news.urz.uni-heidelberg.de>...

V ertner Vergon wrote:

maporat@012.net.il (Y.Porat) wrote in message news:<4e35159f.0403252222.10a8ce9@posting.google.com>...






from electron-positron annihilation.



The conservation is determined by m = E/c^2.


This formula gives *relativistic* mass. Not *rest* mass. This is easily
shown by considering the simple fact that E increases with velocity - so
m = E/c^2 increases with velocity, too.


---------------------
good for you
now you will start to understand that the photon is a special case
*IN WHICH THE GAMA FACTOR *DOES NOT APPLY TO **


Since this is still a totally unsupported assertion, I don't see why
I should try to understand this.


nothing can increase neither the velocity of a photon nor its energy.!!
or its mass.


Right. So what???


th e moment you chnged its energy
by an *extrnal action of energy* -it is notanymore the orriginal photon
is is another one.!!!.


How do you plan to change the energy of a photon "by an external action
of energy"? Inverse Compton effect, or what? And why is that in any way
relevant to the question if the gamma factor "applies" to the photon or not?
----------------------

it is a very important point
so i will trry to explain it better to myself (!!!!) and to others
actually the idea that once you axert on a photon by say
anotrher photon or let it collide with another particle or matter-
it becomes *another photon* is even new to ..... myself!
it just occured to me lately during the duscussions i saw
for instance your claim that while E increases- the mass of *the photon*
increases!!
at the first glance it seemed to me logic
but later i sayed to myself and asked myself:
is it realy posible that a photon will change its energy?
impossible !
it can change its energy only if .... something external to it
will contribute to it energy1(or deprive it from some of its energy)
now how is that done?
it is done by say collision with it *by somethinjg else*
i cant see it been done *spontaneously*(we talk about a photon!)
now once something is coliding it *it is changed*!
and once it was changed it is not anymore the orriginal photon!
(the identity card' of a photon is its frequency -
once it changes its frequency- it is no more the orriginal photon.)
now i can understand that the *resulting photon* can have
more or even less energy (in some cases there might be even more than
one outputed photon due to the reaction that took place
IOW it is much more complicated than what it looks for the first glance.
-----------
do i make sense ?
i ask because those arguments are as i sayed new even to myself!
----------
Y.Porat
---------------


because noting can add to it more velocity than C and more mass
than it has orriginally.


Right. So what???

[snip more of the same]


mass cannot be created from nothing


Right - but from energy.


and mass cannot *disapear* or become something else


Wrong. It can become energy.


it is one of the most
fundamental entities of nature that is invariant


Completely unsupported assertion.


[snip]


Bye,
Bjoern

.





  Page 1 of 1

1
 


Related Articles
 

NEWER
pg.1612     pg.1232     pg.940     pg.716     pg.544     pg.412     pg.311     pg.234     pg.175     pg.130     pg.96     pg.70     pg.50     pg.35     pg.24     pg.16     pg.10     pg.6     pg.3     pg.1

OLDER