🚀 go-pugleaf

"Y.Porat" <y.y.porat@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1184731962.999887.92680@i38g2000prf.googlegroups.com...
> 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

I don't think anyone is trying to

> now the old paradigm was that
> indeed it is mass but ....... 'relativistic mass'

NO .. the m in E=mc^2 is good old proper invarant rest mass.  And the E 
there is the rest energy, so it _should_ be written E_0 = m_0.c^2 to be 
unambiguous

The total energy for a moving object is E = gamma.m_0.c^2 or E = M.c^2 
(where M = gamma.m_0 = relativistic mass)

> now since bothe of us agreed that
> THERE IS JUST KND OF MASS

There are a few things with units of mass, and a few things with the word 
'mass' in their names.  But when you say 'mass' it means the invariant / 
proper / rest mass, not the apparent / inertial / relativistic mass.

> so energy containes that only kind of madd that we agreed on

Rest energy .. yes

The total energy has the energy equivalent to the mass, combined with the
kinetic energy

E = sqrt((mc^2)^2+(pc)^2)

> if that is noty sceince
> thanwhat is science ??
>
> your denial to admit that energy is mass in motion ??

I never denied it .. I said there is more to energy than just mass in motion
(ie kinetic energy)

> just because younever saw it putthat way before
> in inone of your text books ?

My old high-school introductory text described kinetic energy as the energy
of mass in motion (or words to that effect).  Are you just using high-school
physics texts?

> or may be just because you have
> a mental block to get anything from Y.Porat??
> or may be a personal politics block ??

Give your paranoia a rest, ratty.