Re: The Nature of Mass

From: Nick (no.spam.please_at_nospam.com)
Date: 07/26/04 

Date: Mon, 26 Jul 2004 19:50:47 +0000 (UTC)

You need a bit of understanding here.

I know that if I flap a piece of paper in front of me, it isn't going to
destroy my study.

But if you really want to do the calcs regarding the radiation pressure of
3K radiation - then read a bl*ody book on the subject.

(I do hope you don't drive a car - it must seem like a miracle each time it
starts up - given your irrational, and ill educated attitude to everything
around you)

"cherring17" <cherring17@home.com> wrote in message
news:Uv_Mc.17515$Zr.8523@okepread01...
>
> "Shooter" <nospam@nospam.spam> wrote in message
> news:cdvpmj$der$1@titan.btinternet.com...
> > Ref:
> >
> > <<THERE HAVE BEEN NO OBJECTIVE REBUTTALS OF ANY OF THE MATERIAL
> > PRESENTED>>
> >
> > How about:
> >
> > <<all of the effects occurring in our Universe are dependent on
> interactions
> > between masses>>
> >
> > There's a howler in the very first sentence!
> >
> > -------
> >
> > I agree that the idea of a photon having momentum but no mass is
strange,
> > and appears to defy intuition. But P=E/C is nevertheless believed and
> > accepted for one very important reason - experimentally it has been
shown
> to
> > be true - time and time again.
> >
> > BTW, the radiation pressure of the cosmic background radiation at only
3K
> is
> > many orders of magnitude too small to be a candidate for Universal
> expansion
> > or acceleration.
>
> You say this and the previous text states...
>
> > > A back of the envelope calculation suggests
> > > that the inertial mass of these particles,
> > > as evidenced by the 3 degree Kelvin
> > radiation temperature of space, exceeds the
> > > inertial mass of the matter in our Universe by a factor of 10
>
> ...but neither of you give those calculations so an independent critique
may
> follow.
>
> >
> > "Desuwq" <desuwq@aol.com> wrote in message
> > news:20040724084939.24921.00000219@mb-m20.aol.com...
> > > The Nature of Mass
> > >
> > > We have all been taught in our physics classes that mass is one
of
> > the
> > > fundamental entities of our reality and that all of the effects
> occurring
> > in
> > > our Universe are dependent on interactions between masses. It behooves
> us
> > then
> > > to examine what we know of mass.
> > >
> > > About 40 years ago the writer came across the observation in a
> > Scientific
> > > American article that, in the equation E=M*C^2 there can only be two
> > > independent variables. One of those variables, E, M, or C must be
> > dependent
> > > upon the other two. If we look at the velocity of light, C, it is
> obvious
> > that
> > > it must be one of the independent variables. Since velocity involves
> only
> > > length and time, we can measure the velocity of light under conditions
> > that are
> > > independent of either mass or energy. Similarly, it is obvious that
> > energy, E,
> > > is an independent variable since energy involves only force and
length,
> we
> > can
> > > also measure it under conditions that are independent of the velocity
of
> > light
> > > and of mass. There remains only mass to be examined.
> > >
> > > If one wished to determine the mass of an object, one could weigh
> it
> > > (gravitational mass), shake it (inertial mass) or observe the amount
of
> > energy
> > > released if it where annihilated. Weighing a mass provides a
measurement
> > of its
> > > mass but the observation is made in terms of a reference mass (e.g.-
the
> > mass
> > > of the Earth) and, in effect, we would then be defining the mass in
> terms
> > of
> > > another mass. This is hardly an acceptable solution since it leads to
a
> > dead
> > > end. Annihilating the mass is a legitimate solution providing one can
> > measure
> > > the energy content of the end products without relying on a
measurement
> of
> > > their mass (such a reliance would be a form of circular reasoning).
The
> > > remaining possibility is to measure the inertial properties of the
mass
> > by, for
> > > example, shaking it and measuring the force required to produce an a
> given
> > > acceleration. This type of measurement involves force, length, and
time,
> > all of
> > > which are directly observable and does not suffer form the limitations
> of
> > the
> > > other methods. What we would then be doing is measuring mass as the
> > incremental
> > > impulse required to produce an incremental change in velocity. (In the
> > case of
> > > photons and neutrinos it might be desirable to remove the word
> > "incremental"
> > > from the measurement since these particles exist only at the velocity
of
> > > light). Seen in this light, what we consider to be mass is actually a
> > property
> > > which is an indication of the energy required to change the velocity
of
> > the
> > > quantity of energy defined by E=M*C^2. With this definition, the
Lorentz
> > > Transformation for Mass becomes equal to the cube of the accepted
value
> > and
> > > allows problems involving STR to be solved without resorting to
> momentum.
> > This
> > > conclusion is consistent with STR because the conventional Lorentz
> > > Transformation results when one integrates this transformation between
> the
> > > limits of 0 and V.
> > >
> > > An intellectual difficulty occurs when one considers the
so-called
> > > "massless" particles. They have this name because they have no "rest
> > mass". A
> > > reasonable man would consider such a terminology to be frivolous
because
> > these
> > > particles exist only when traveling at the velocity of light. They
have
> no
> > > "rest mass" because they don't exist at rest. These so called
"massless"
> > > particles do however, possess inertial mass as evidenced by the
> radiation
> > > pressure they exert when their velocity vectors are altered, either by
> > > reflection or absorption. They provide the same reaction force as
would
> a
> > > material particle of the same relativistic mass that was traveling
> > > infinitesimally close to the velocity of light. They also experience
> > > gravitational forces that are twice the force that would be
experienced
> by
> > a
> > > material particle of the same energy. A simple "thought experiment" as
> > > outlined in Part 4 of http://members.aol.com/einsteinhoax/gravity.htm
> > easily
> > > shows this. (The writer has received a rather cryptic E-mail from
> someone
> > who
> > > apparently is associated with the physics establishment to the effect
> that
> > the
> > > photon imparts momentum because its energy is equal to the product of
> its
> > > frequency and Plank's Constant and it is traveling at the velocity of
> > light.
> > > The sender denied vehemently that the expression E=M*C^2 and the idea
> that
> > even
> > > though the photon contains energy and imparts a momentum equivalent to
a
> > mass
> > > of that energy traveling at the velocity of light, means that the
photon
> > has
> > > mass. Bertrand Russell is reported to have said that the sign of a
great
> > mind
> > > is the ability to hold two mutually exclusive beliefs at the same
time.
> > The
> > > writer disagrees with him. That ability is the sign of a mind which is
> too
> > lazy
> > > to resolve the contradiction and/or is too damn lazy or too damn
stupid
> to
> > > resolve it)
> > >
> > > The inertial and gravitational masses of the so-called "massless"
> > > particles have a significant effect on our understanding of cosmology.
A
> > back
> > > of the envelope calculation suggests that the inertial mass of these
> > particles,
> > > as evidenced by the 3 degree Kelvin radiation temperature of space,
> > exceeds the
> > > inertial mass of the matter in our Universe by a factor of 10. When we
> > consider
> > > that neutrinos are formed in nucleons that have 1800 times the energy
> > content
> > > of the source of photons (electrons), it may be possible that the mass
> of
> > > neutrinos outweighs the mass of photons by a factor of 1800! Looked at
> it
> > in
> > > this light, our Universe may actually be a gasbag of photons and
> neutrinos
> > > filled with a miniscule amount of the dust we call matter. Rather than
> > being
> > > the King of the Universe, what we call as matter may actually be only
a
> > > miniscule contaminant.
> > >
> > > If we examine the radiation pressure produced by the observed
level
> > of
> > > photons in space, it is easy to see why space appears to be expanding.
> > > Radiation pressure is counteracting the gravitational pressure. It is
> also
> > easy
> > > to understand why the dynamics of galaxies appears to be skewed by
what
> is
> > > termed "dark matter". There would seem to be no need to postulate the
> > existence
> > > of "dark matter" until the gravitational and inertial effects of the
> > photons
> > > and neutrinos that populate the Universe have been amply explored.
This
> > has not
> > > been done, primarily because these particles have been foolishly
defined
> > as
> > > "massless".
> > >
> > > The source material for this posting may be found in "Gravity"
> > (1987),
> > > "The Einstein Hoax" (1997), and "Corrections to Residual Errors in
> Special
> > > Relativity (1999) located at
> > http://www.members.aol.com/einsteinhoax/site.htm.
> > > EVERYTHING WHICH WE ACCEPT AS TRUE MUST BE CONSISTENT WITH EVERYTHING
> ELSE
> > WE
> > > HAVE ACCEPTED AS TRUE, IT MUST BE CONSISTENT WITH ALL OBSERVATIONS,
AND
> IT
> > MUST
> > > BE MATHEMATICALLY VIABLE. PRESENT TEACHINGS DO NOT ALWAYS MEET THIS
> > > REQUIREMENT. THE WORLD IS ENTITLED TO A HIGHER STANDARD OF WORKMANSHIP
> > FROM
> > > THOSE IT HAS GRANTED WORLD CLASS STATUS.
> > >
> > > All Newsposts by this Website are available at
> > > http://www.members.aol.com/postinglog/newspostings.com
> > >
> > > Please make any response via E-mail as Newsgroups are not
monitored
> > on a
> > > regular basis. Objective responses will be treated with the same
> courtesy
> > as
> > > they are presented. To prevent the wastage of time on both of our
parts,
> > please
> > > do not raise objections that are not related to material that you have
> > read at
> > > the Website. This posting is merely a summary.
> > >
> > > E-mail:- einsteinhoax@aol.com
> > >
> > > The material at the Website has been posted continuously for over
5
> > years.
> > > In that time THERE HAVE BEEN NO OBJECTIVE REBUTTALS OF ANY OF THE
> MATERIAL
> > > PRESENTED. There have only been hand waving arguments by individuals
who
> > have
> > > mindlessly accepted the prevailing wisdom without questioning it. If
> > anyone
> > > provides a significant rebuttal that cannot be objectively answered,
the
> > > material at the Website will be withdrawn.
> > >
> >
> >
>
>

Quantcast