🚀 go-pugleaf

On Jul 17, 6:23 am, "Jeckyl" <no...@nowhere.com> wrote:
> "Y.Porat" <y.y.po...@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
>
> I am neither an idiot nor a parrot
>
> > didnt realise that
> > energy is not mass
>
> I didn't say it was .. I said it there is an equivalence between them.
> Einstein's
> famous E = mc^2 describes the relationship between rest energy and rest
> mass.  Perhaps you've heard of him and the formula?
>
> > IT IS MASS IN MOTION!!
> > A JSUT AS SIMPLE AS THAT
>
> No .. that is how you might describe kinetic energy .. there is more to
> energy than that
>
> > and jsut like
> > macrocosm !!!
>
> Exactly .. ever hear of potential energy (in classical physics)?
>
> > 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!!....
> > energy has reast mass!
>
> I thought you just said it didn't?
>
> > and i proved iit in a prallel independant  ways
>
> Really .. where is this proof?
>
> > bu the crooks aprrots whold not get it
> > because
> > a
> > it was not 'invented in ***their*** company'
>
> What company is that?
>
> > b
> > it is  not written yet
> > in their text books ..!!
>
> Probably because what you say is just your own distorted vie of the world
> that is not supported by any sound theoretical work, nor any experimental
> evidence.
>
> Please .. keep this thread on a scientific basis, and stop hijacking it for
> pushing your own weird ideas.- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

-------------
no one can deny that
E=mc^2
containes mass
now the old paradigm was that
indeed it is mass but ....... 'relativistic mass'
now since bothe of us agreed that
THERE IS JUST KND OF MASS
so energy containes that only kind of madd that we agreed on

if that is noty sceince
thanwhat is science ??

your denial to admit that energy is mass in motion ??
just because younever saw it putthat way before
in inone of your text books ?
or may be just because you have
a mental block to get anything from Y.Porat??
or may be a personal politics block ??
-------
Y.Porar
---------