🚀 go-pugleaf

PD wrote: > > Henri Wilson wrote:
> > If a remote spaceship fires its engine for a period, does its length PHYSICALLY
> > increase or decrease?
> > What about its clock rate?
> 
> Length is not an intrinsic physical property of the spaceship, so
> asking whether it "PHYSICALLY increases or decreases" is a nonsequiter.
> The same is true of its clock rate.
> 
> PD

ESPECiALLY in GR: There, a GR TEST-mass is a POiNT-mass, ONLY.
However (GR aside):.
h/2*pi*c = me*wls = {mph}*ls = Moo*loo/4*pi = eR*loo/2*pi*c^2.
<h*fL = nL*h*c/wl = nL*m1*c^2/fL = nA*{mph}*ls*wl*c/rA = pL*c>

Re: RESTmass*c^2 = iNTRiNSiC energy e EQUiVALENT, references..
From: alan (darkcloud@mac.SendMeSpam.not.com)
 Newsgroups: sci.physics;  Date: 2000/06/19 
Go to: <
http://groups.google.com/groups?hl=en&lr=lang_en&ie=UTF-8&th=aae4c668cab37523&
seekm=8hm3vk%24j1c%241%40crib.corepower.com#link20 >.
> |  James A. Carr   <jac@scri.fsu.edu>
> ================
> Dear Jim,
> Three times, you have quoted this error.
> 
> The speed of light is NOT "the ratio of the electric permittivity
> of free space (vacuum)  to the magnetic permeability of free
> space.".
> 
> It's the square root of the inverse of their product.

Sorry for the error. Of course you are right, it is the "square root of
the
inverse of their product".  Thank you for correcting me. I hate being
wrong,
but now that you have corrected me I am no longer wrong.

> 
> You numbskulls are pathetic.
> 
> Sincerely,
> brian a. m. stuckless
> http://avalon.nf.ca/~bastuckl
> bastuckl@avint.net
> ================
Re: Three questions from a layman.

 #######        ###########        ##########

intrinsic energy (Jim Carr)

From: arcsign@my-deja.com; To: arcsign@my-deja.com 
Re: Do Photons Have Mass?; Date: Mon, 15 Jan 2001 20:05:56 GMT
--------------------------------------------------------------
In article  <93vike$u0a$1@nnrp1.deja.com> ,
  srp@microtec.net wrote:
>  In article  <3a631377$1@pull.gecm.com> ,
>    richard.herring@baesystems.com wrote:
>  >  In article  <3A4646B6.E787BC16@microtec.net> , srp 
(srp@microtec.net) wrote:
>  >  >  Jim Carr a Ècrit :
>  >  >  > 
>  >  >  >  In article  <3a362709.3795467@news.uq.edu.au> 
>  >  >  >  this@will.bounce writes:
>  >  >  >  > 
>  >  >  >  > Mass is equivalent to energy and photons of course have
>  >  >  >  > energy.
>  >  >  > 
>  >  >  >   Only partly true.  Mass is equivalent to (what I call)
>  >  >  >   _intrinsic_ energy, the energy a particle has that is
>  >  >  >   unrelated to its motion.
>  >  >  >   The relation is that m = sqrt{ E^2 - (pc)^2 }/c^2.
>  > 
`````snip`````
>  >  Note the sign. He's *subtracting* the momentum contribution
>  >  from the total energy. What's left is the intrinsic energy.
>
>  I understand that. The point was that pc can only theoretically
>  be completely subtracted in that equation because in reality
>  no particle can be brought completely to rest with respect to
>  all other particles.
>
>  This means that when what Jim calls the intrinsic energy is to be
>  calculated, the simple original equation E=mc^2 has always been
>  and still is the real deal.

[arcsign to srp] Yes, exactly, 'intrinsic energy' is just another simple
synonym for (Rest-mass)*c^2 = (rebel GR-invarint Rest-mass)*c^2.

>  We know c, we can measure m, so we can very precisely
>  calculate E.
> 
>  On its part, p is relative, and varies depending with respect to
>  which other particle you consider the motion of the original
>  particle. The major point being that it can never equal zero for
>  any real particle with respect to all other particles.
>
>  --
>   André Michaud
>  Service de Recherche Pédagogique http://www.microtec.net/srp/
>  La nouvelle "Société Royale" http://www.microtec.net/srp/socroyfr.htm
>  "Les choses n'arrivent dans ce monde que lorsque quelqu'un les fait
>  arriver" - Anonyme.
>
>  Sent via Deja.com >  http://www.deja.com/
    ########  ® © ¿                      
 #######     ########     ########     #######    ..end of POST.