Re: Is mass a property of matter?
- From: "Y.Porat" <y.y.porat@xxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Tue, 10 Jul 2007 04:59:46 -0700
On Jul 10, 11:51 am, Eric Gisse <jowr...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
On Jul 10, 12:12 am, "Y.Porat" <y.y.po...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
On Jul 9, 10:42 pm, PD <TheDraperFam...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
On Jul 9, 1:41 pm, "roger" <r...@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
"Randy Poe" <poespam-t...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote in messagenews:1184003338.150605.41210@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
On Jul 9, 11:15 am, malibu <vega...@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
Well, it is said that under certain circumstances,
i.e. significant fractions of c, that the mass changes.
That's one already.
I don't think mass is a constant. The number, placement and
type of atoms stays the same, but the mass is the
result of the reaction of the matter to an incoming and outgoing
omnidirectional current, or aether,
and if this current is changed, or the reaction of the matter
to the current is manipulated, the mass can be changed
during that time.
The mass may even be made to approach zero in one
direction, much the same as it increases in one direction
when matter is going c speeds.
You're saying that the mass can be less than the rest
mass? How, exactly?
RelativityTheory is wrong when it says mass changes with speed.
I don't believe this, and it also wasn't measured in particle accelerators.
Relativity has two contexts for talking about mass, one which is
invariant with choice of reference frame and one which changes. Both
have very clear and distinct definitions and domains of applicability.
Both, in a manner consistent with those contexts, have been amply
verified in particle accelerators.
But falling in a gravity field with an acceleration >g
gives a negative weight(force).
Ie. falling normal (with g) makes the object "weightless",
but falling even faster (ie. with additional acceleration)
the weight of the object becomes negative.
Simple maths.- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -
--------
parrot
no accelerator verified relativistic mass
you sinply dont know how to interpret
thos expariamntal data
...what, and you do?
[...]- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -
----------
psychoapth
Y.Porat
---------------
.
- References:
- Is mass a property of matter?
- From: malibu
- Re: Is mass a property of matter?
- From: Randy Poe
- Re: Is mass a property of matter?
- From: roger
- Re: Is mass a property of matter?
- From: PD
- Re: Is mass a property of matter?
- From: Y.Porat
- Re: Is mass a property of matter?
- From: Eric Gisse
- Is mass a property of matter?
- Prev by Date: Re: terahertz for measuring mass?
- Next by Date: Proof without words. Photographs of weird mathematical art.
- Previous by thread: Re: Is mass a property of matter?
- Next by thread: Re: Is mass a property of matter?
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|