Jump to content


Photo
- - - - -

The Concept Of Mass


  • Please log in to reply
216 replies to this topic

#35 Moronium

Moronium

    Creating

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2894 posts

Posted 12 April 2019 - 06:32 AM

Oxford lecturer John Roche states that relativistic mass is not referenced in nuclear and particle physics, and that about 60% of authors writing about special relativity do not introduce it.

 

 

And there's a reason for that.  As I have noted in other threads, GR with it's notion of "relative time" is incompatible with the "absolute time" presupposed by QM.

 

If either QM or GR has to go in order to eliminate the conflict between the two, then my money is on GR biting the dust, not QM.


Edited by Moronium, 12 April 2019 - 07:46 AM.


#36 Moronium

Moronium

    Creating

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2894 posts

Posted 12 April 2019 - 06:50 AM

I'm not saying that inertia is a force... 

 

Just for the record, I'm not saying it aint, either.


Edited by Moronium, 12 April 2019 - 06:50 AM.


#37 Moronium

Moronium

    Creating

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2894 posts

Posted 12 April 2019 - 06:57 AM

Right, you're a literal thinker, you can't understand through analogies

 

For your part, Ralf, you are very quick to use the word "therefore" when it is totally unwarranted and unjustified.

 

You often draw what you somehow think are "necessary" conclusions based upon the most fallacious and irrelevant sort of "reasoning."

 

I guess that's what you would call "non-literal thinking," eh?  As though fallacy is some sort of virtue.



#38 Moronium

Moronium

    Creating

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2894 posts

Posted 12 April 2019 - 07:06 AM

From Wiki:

 

 The more general invariant mass (calculated with a more complicated formula) loosely corresponds to the "rest mass" of a "system".

 

Thus, invariant mass is a natural unit of mass used for systems which are being viewed from their center of momentum frame (COM frame), as when any closed system (for example a bottle of hot gas) is weighed, which requires that the measurement be taken in the center of momentum frame where the system has no net momentum.

 

Under such circumstances the invariant mass is equal to the relativistic mass (discussed below), which is the total energy of the system divided by c^2 (the speed of light squared).

 

For other frames...

 

Thanks, Popeye, this is what I was referring to earlier when I said that the COM frame should be considered to be (and used as) a preferred frame in order to best understand the connection between rest mass and momentum.  "Relativistic mass," with its infinite number of supposedly "equivalent" frames, just creates conceptual confusion.

 

Is leads GAHD to say that the universally accepted equation of E=Mc2 is just a "dumbed down layman's" formula, for example.

 

Well, then again, maybe it is other things which lead him to say that. It affords him another opportunity. to state that he aint dumb and that he aint no layman.  He says he has an IQ that is...wait for it......over 140!!!!!!  According to him, anyone who is "a few decimals short" of a 140 IQ aint nuthin but a damn foo.

 

I have to admit, though, that I've never seen another poster on a message board, when announcing his own IQ, give a number less than 200, so in that respect he's being quite modest, I suppose.


Edited by Moronium, 12 April 2019 - 08:19 AM.


#39 ralfcis

ralfcis

    Explaining

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 885 posts

Posted 12 April 2019 - 07:18 AM

I believe in GAHD.



#40 Moronium

Moronium

    Creating

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2894 posts

Posted 12 April 2019 - 09:39 AM

One force can oppose, and offset, another.  Does that mean that one not a force any more?

 

The moon has lateral motion which (the force of) inertia maintains, for example.  Because of this it is able to offset the "force" of the earth's gravity.  Rather than being sucked down to earth, it just eternally orbits it because the opposing forces have reached an equilibrium.

 

Ya know, the more I think about it, the more I am inclined to view inertia (mass) as an independent "force" as opposed to just simply being a passive "property" of matter.  Conceptually it seems more consistent.

 

Perhaps "counter-force" expresses it better.  If the moon, for example, is not motivated by an "inertial force," then how do you explain its orbiting pattern?  And, again, it is much easier to understand a "force" as being energy (the ability to do work) than it is some obscure "resistance to acceleration."  

 

A train can be kept moving at a uniform speed (in a straight line), but ONLY by applying opposing forces which result in no "net" change in speed.  You must apply an external force (energy) in order to counteract other "forces" (e.g. friction) and thereby "restore" the force of inertia.

 

Viewed this way, in F=MA, the "M" would just be another force which must be overcome in order to effectuate a "net" acceleration.

 

Know what I'm sayin?


Edited by Moronium, 12 April 2019 - 09:53 AM.


#41 Moronium

Moronium

    Creating

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2894 posts

Posted 12 April 2019 - 09:59 AM

Viewed this way, in F=MA, the "M" would just be another force which must be overcome in order to effectuate a "net" acceleration.

 

Know what I'm sayin?

 

But of course then you just get into questions about what a "force" is.  That too is somewhat ambiguous.  I don't view "friction" as an independent fundamental "force" for some reason

 

On the other hand, it is common in physics to refer to "the force of friction."  For example:

 

A force of friction is any force that opposes the motion of an object due to the contact of the object with other bodies.

 

http://problemsphysi...e_friction.html

 

So even if inertia (mass) is viewed as a "force," nothing says it would have to be a "fundamental" one.  It could just be another run-of-the-mill force like friction.  Although Newton's law of inertia is often summarized by saying than an "external" force is required to change an object's state of motion, what it really contemplates is not "a" force, but rather a "net force" after all relevant forces affecting the object are factored in and combined into one net force.  Many different forces can thereby reduced to a "single" force.

 

Gravity, however, is deemed (by most anyway) to be a "fundamental force."  But it is precisely GR's concept of gravity as an effect of "curved spacetime" that presents the greatest impediment to the development of a unified theory. GR views "gravity" as merely a "fictitious force."  But I don't view GR as being sacrosanct and unassailable, even if some others do.

 

Some physicists speculate that there is a fifth "fundamental force."  Maybe that is inertia.  Or maybe "gravity" is not really fundamental and it is really a product of gravity's interaction with the force of "mass," which might then result in a different conception of the "fourth fundamental force."


Edited by Moronium, 12 April 2019 - 10:51 PM.


#42 VictorMedvil

VictorMedvil

    The Human Shadow

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1354 posts

Posted 12 April 2019 - 10:02 AM

But of course then you just get into questions about what a "force" is.  That too is somewhat ambiguous.  I don't view "friction" as an independent fundamental "force" for some reason

 

On the other hand, it is common in physics to refer to "the force of friction."  For example:

 

 

http://problemsphysi...e_friction.html

 

You know what Moronium I think I have finally put my finger on why you are like you are about physics, you put too much stake into Pre-unification ideas, It would be like believing the World is still flat even though it has been proven the world is round. In the 1900s there was much work put into unification of physics you are missing everything or disagree with everything after that time to an extent. The physics world was changed after Unification of Electromagnetism and Gravity along with Time and Space, it changed the very nature of how the universe was viewed and written, Stop believing the physics world is flat moronium. This is all Pre- Unified Field Theory, I hope if I ever make the Grand Unified field theory that someone like you doesn't always question me, cause I promise you I thought it through and so did Einstein if something like that was achieved.


Edited by VictorMedvil, 12 April 2019 - 10:05 AM.


#43 Moronium

Moronium

    Creating

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2894 posts

Posted 12 April 2019 - 10:29 AM

Hmmm, Vic.

 

I basically agree with this, I suppose:

 

The physics world was changed after Unification of Electromagnetism and Gravity along with Time and Space, it changed the very nature of how the universe was viewed and written

 

But, your faith and certitude nothwithstanding, I can't agree with this:

 

It would be like believing the World is still flat even though it has been proven the world is round.

 

Nothing has been "proven" about the postulates of SR (or GR) and the implications thereof, and I don't think anyone other than a scientifically unsophisticated person would claim otherwise.

 

I wish you luck in this venture, however, and it's reassuring to know that you would have "thought it through:"

 

I hope if I ever make the Grand Unified field theory that someone like you doesn't always question me, cause I promise you I thought it through...

 

 

But you should keep in mind that a "unified theory" would not necessarily demand that the concepts of GR be included.  Many are working on theories of "quantum gravity" and many of them seem quite plausible.  

https://en.wikipedia...ity_researchers

 

In general, such theories reject curved spacetime and apply concepts of flat spacetime in 3 dimensions. If one of those theories is eventually accepted, then GR will go out the window.


Edited by Moronium, 12 April 2019 - 01:24 PM.


#44 Moronium

Moronium

    Creating

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2894 posts

Posted 12 April 2019 - 11:01 AM

I believe in GAHD.

 

I see your intended pun, Ralf, but, that said, I can see why you might see him as a "kindred spirit."

 

Like you, I think that GAHD tends to view his own opinions as being unquestionably correct.  And, like you, such an attitude gives him license to dismiss anyone who disagrees with him as "stupid."

 

But, personally, I don't see such an attitude as being in the spirit of "scientific inquiry."  It just strikes me as being dogmatic, I'm afraid.


Edited by Moronium, 12 April 2019 - 12:06 PM.


#45 Moronium

Moronium

    Creating

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2894 posts

Posted 12 April 2019 - 12:16 PM

Some physicists speculate that there is a fifth "fundamental force."  Maybe that is inertia.  Or maybe "gravity" is not really fundamental and it is really a product of gravity's interaction with the force of "mass," which might then result in a different conception of the "fourth fundamental force."

 

As far as that goes, I guess you could say that many physicists have already embraced a "5th force," i.e., so-called "dark energy."  It is deemed to be some kind of "anti-gravitation" counter-force to gravity, it seems.



#46 GAHD

GAHD

    Eldritch Horror

  • Administrators
  • 2649 posts

Posted 12 April 2019 - 07:52 PM

I see your intended pun, Ralf, but, that said, I can see why you might see him as a "kindred spirit."

 

Like you, I think that GAHD tends to view his own opinions as being unquestionably correct.  And, like you, such an attitude gives him license to dismiss anyone who disagrees with him as "stupid."

 

But, personally, I don't see such an attitude as being in the spirit of "scientific inquiry."  It just strikes me as being dogmatic, I'm afraid.

Aww cute, you're trying to pick a fight and stitch together unrelated comments from different conversations to make yourself feel justified....or maybe you're just trying to get some attention and just don't know how to do it in a way that's not inherently self-destructive.

Beyond that, try sticking to the topic rather than digressing into logic faults because you're suffering from cognitive dissonance. Get more self awareness and mental health, it will benefit you.

Bottom right of the page, there's four links. Read them, well at least the first of the four. :)

Go back and read what you're cherry-picking those comments from again, because you're cherry picking the saying and not the logical reasoning behind the saying (which I put down in writing) to make your petulant cry for attention.



#47 Moronium

Moronium

    Creating

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2894 posts

Posted 12 April 2019 - 10:34 PM

 you put too much stake into Pre-unification ideas

 

Maybe you don't put enough "stake" into what you're calling pre-unification ideas, eh, Vic?

 

Ever consider that possibility?



#48 VictorMedvil

VictorMedvil

    The Human Shadow

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1354 posts

Posted 12 April 2019 - 11:55 PM

Maybe you don't put enough "stake" into what you're calling pre-unification ideas, eh, Vic?

 

Ever consider that possibility?

 

Well, its the truth moronium I'll be honest with you, You will never bring down GR and SR with Pre-unification ideas because of the Nature of what GR and SR did in physics.



#49 Moronium

Moronium

    Creating

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2894 posts

Posted 13 April 2019 - 12:09 AM

Well, its the truth moronium I'll be honest with you, You will never bring down GR and SR with Pre-unification ideas because of the Nature of what GR and SR did in physics.

 

The "truth," eh?

 

What is the "nature of what GR and SR did in physics," exactly, in your view, Vic?


Edited by Moronium, 13 April 2019 - 12:12 AM.


#50 VictorMedvil

VictorMedvil

    The Human Shadow

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1354 posts

Posted 13 April 2019 - 12:16 AM

The "truth," eh?

 

What is the "nature of what GR and SR did in physics," exactly, in your view, Vic?

 

The nature of GR is curvature and Gravity, SR is the nature of Motion and kinetic energy, In my view SR and GR are both different theories looking at the same problem from different angles which is the full and awesome nature of the universe, they are both correct beyond refutation as they redefined the very nature of physics,Both are theories that are the Space Field based on a Temporal Field, Albert Einstein's legacy to physics two theories that almost perfectly show the universe that need to be unified with Quantum Mechanics and Quantum Field Theory ask me about those next.


Edited by VictorMedvil, 13 April 2019 - 12:17 AM.


#51 Moronium

Moronium

    Creating

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2894 posts

Posted 13 April 2019 - 12:21 AM

SR and GR are both...correct beyond refutation...

 

 

Yeah, OK, whatever.

 

My Mama done told me, that there one time, she said:  "Looky here, boy, it's OK if you want to hang out with homeys who are seeking the truth.  But remember this:  Run like hell ffrom anyone who done found it, see?"

 

I said:  "OK, Mama."


Edited by Moronium, 13 April 2019 - 12:21 AM.