🚀 go-pugleaf

"Y.Porat" <y.y.porat@gmail.com> wrote in message 
news:1184639223.021362.162670@q75g2000hsh.googlegroups.com...
> On Jul 17, 2:07 am, "Jeckyl" <no...@nowhere.com> wrote:
>> "BURT" <macromi...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>>
>> news:1184620136.419350.260440@m37g2000prh.googlegroups.com...
>>
>> > Rest mass should be  considered the fundamental mass. But binding
>> > energy confuses this.
>> > A proton or neutron outside the nucleus has more mass than inside. A
>> > bound proton or neutron has less mass. So which mass is to be
>> > considered fundamental? the mass inside or outside?
>> > The mass of a bound nucleon or a free one?
>>
>> A very good question.  That's the problem when mass and energy are so
>> closely related. I'm not sure what the 'correct' answer is there. 
>> Probably
>> that both are the mass.  Mass can be 'converted' to energy.
>
> -----------
> the   idiot parrot Jekyle  didnt realise that
> energy is not mass

Easily understood since almost all textbooks and journal articles which 
address this point will almost invariably say that mass and energy are the 
same thing. I disagree with this assertion myself.

> IT IS MASS IN MOTION!!

What is mass in motion???

> A JSUT AS SIMPLE AS THAT
> and jsut like
> macrocosm !!!
> fro one who deals with binding energies
> of the nuc it is obvious !!
> and since we understood at last that
> THERE IS JSUT ONE KIND OF MASS!!....

Actually it is commonly accepted in relativity that there are three kinds of 
mass

(1) inertial gravitational mass = p/v
(2) passive gravitational mass - That mass which is attracted by 
gravitational field
(3) active gravtational mass - That mass which generates a gravitational 
field

> energy has reast mass!

Rest mass has energy. But it is not always true that energy has rest mass. A 
good example is that of the photon where the rest mass (which I personally 
like to call "proper mass" for certain reasons) is zero

> and i proved iit in a prallel independant  ways
> bu the crooks aprrots whold not get it
> because
> a
> it was not 'invented in ***their*** company'

What does all that mean? It makes no sense to me. What does "bu the crooks 
aprrots whold not get it: mean??

Pete