• Guest, The rules for the P & N subforum have been updated to prohibit "ad hominem" or personal attacks against other posters. See the full details in the post "Politics and News Rules & Guidelines."

This guy sits on the "House Committee on Science, Space and Technology".

Page 7 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.

Nemesis 1

Lifer
Dec 30, 2006
11,366
2
0
Here is A very old reality that grows stronger min.by min. Why does it grow stronger. Because more and more people are starting to believe the words of that old powerful reality. You can try to deny this reality you can't prove its not reality. You can deny it and doom yourself its your choice. But as events unfold this old reality grows more and more until its reality is fully relized. In this video which is fact based pay attention to about 12:45 of video . You wizards in here explain what happened , You people really need to let go of what you think you know and start living according to natures laws as heartless as they may seem . I broken man becomes sick in his reality . A man who lives by nature has no illiness unless sick people are introduced into their reality which makes the healthy ill.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5L4KGU37Aik&NR=1&feature=endscreen
 

lotus503

Diamond Member
Feb 12, 2005
6,502
1
76
I will give you a pretty good example that you can scuff at . Here is a reality to some its a new reality, to others not so much .

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f3TThzlYgyM

Ok if you watched the video the guy explaining it all isn't telling you his reality . He is lieing giving you a false reality . He states its been there for 10,000 yeats and than states it could have just moved in . Now he has projected 2 differant realities to differant people. Many people believe this trojan is elenin thats their reality , My reality is this is not a astroid at all and is elenin which showed manuverbility while being observed on its way here . timing is everthing . Now this is not a new reality for me . This reality was project a vary long time ago. But you have to except that reality to benefit from it . reject it and you reject a reality greater than your own that can't stand. Your ignorance is based primarily on the fact you recieved your knowledge from idiots and liers . and you will share in their reality . LOL all you want go into denial and insults to others reality . You will not share in the stronger reality because you deny that reality .
"My reality is this is not a astroid at all and is elenin which showed manuverbility while being observed on its way here ."

Yes its called gravitational pull of the Sun.
 

Braznor

Diamond Member
Oct 9, 2005
3,863
63
91
It is admittedly impressive that someone could use so many words and say almost nothing of consequence.

You act like the fact that objects of varying mass have varying degrees of gravitation between them is some kind of mystical magic. OOOooooOOOooohhhh... 10 grams of pot only weighs 2 grams on Uranus! My dealer cheated me!

Here's a tip, Deepak: "absolute truth" is an attribute of statements, not objects. You will not find it "within" any "structures." You're simply babbling.
Listen Bob, my point still stands. You are arrogant and have done nothing productive here except making inane posts attacking me. At the very least, I gave examples from my side, my reasoning. What did you do apart from attacking me? Keep this up, you will go places. :whiste:
 

Braznor

Diamond Member
Oct 9, 2005
3,863
63
91
Christ, the ignorance of the people here is astounding. Let me explain it to you kids again and this is final.

Take a proton somewhere on Earth.

On Earth, it will have its own mass and gravitational potential as per Earth's gravity. But is this a complete picture, no its not kids.

Remember now the Earth revolves around the Sun, so alongwith Earth's gravity, you shall also have to compound the Sun's gravitational influence on this proton alongwith the other planets and satellites. Do you think it ends with this? Thats what all of you here claim.

After you add the sun's gravitational effect of the Proton, you will have to probably do the same with the gravitational forces of all the local stars in our neighborhood and then after comes the galaxy's gravitational potential and then after that the gravitational potential of the galaxy cluster we belong to and then after that the supercluster and this will continue through infinity. So in essence, the 'truth' within that proton will never be known in an exact sense, all we can do is estimate approximations from our relative gravitation reference (Earth, Moon, Sun etc. for us)

You people are incredibly biased and yes, I will stress again blindly ignorant.
 
Last edited:

shira

Diamond Member
Jan 12, 2005
9,567
6
81
Christ, the ignorance of the people here is astounding. Let me explain it to you kids again and this is final.

Take a proton somewhere on Earth.

On Earth, it will have its own mass and gravitational potential as per Earth's gravity. But is this a complete picture, no its not kids.

Remember now the Earth revolves around the Sun, so alongwith Earth's gravity, you shall also have to compound the Sun's gravitational influence on this proton alongwith the other planets and satellites. Do you think it ends with this? Thats what all of you here claim.

After you add the sun's gravitational effect of the Proton, you will have to probably do the same with the gravitational forces of all the local stars in our neighborhood and then after comes the galaxy's gravitational potential and then after that the gravitational potential of the galaxy cluster we belong to and then after that the supercluster and this will continue through infinity. So in essence, the 'truth' within that proton will never be known in an exact sense, all we can do is estimate approximations from our relative gravitation reference (Earth, Moon, Sun etc. for us)

You people are incredibly biased and yes, I will stress again blindly ignorant.
Ignoring the effects of masses other than the Earth, the Sun, and the Moon, we'll know the gravitational field experienced by that proton to at least five or six digits of accuracy, which would be plenty good for almost any calculation. But even that's beside the point at the proton level, as quantum effects will dominate our knowledge of it's state. So why are you even presenting this example? It makes you look like a poseur making like he knows something about physics.

Honestly, your posts in this thread have been gibberish. Just look at one of your own sentences a few posts ago:

One KG of matter on Earth is mostly 21.5 Megatons of chemical energy released by 2,150,000 tons of exploding TNT of a few Kgs of fissile U238, but can you really measure it so?
Bolding is mine.

First of all, that qualifier "on Earth" for "one kg of matter" is totally irrelevant. A [resting mass] of 1 kg is a resting mass of 1 kg EVERYWHERE in the universe; telling us that it's "on Earth" just reveals your ignorance of physics.

And, no, a kg of matter isn't 21.5 megatons of "chemical energy." Chemical energy is what you get from making or breaking chemical bonds, and the amount of chemical energy in a kg of matter is HIGHLY dependent on what the specific matter is. Furthermore, the chemical energy of a substance will always be far, far below the E = MC**2 mass-energy of 1 kg of the substance. Again, you're just confirming that you know almost nothing about physics.

Finally, U-238 isn't "fissile" at all. Fissile means that the substance can sustain a (fission) chain reaction. U-235 is the predominant fissile form of Uranium. So referencing "a few Kgs of fissile U238" is just imbecilic.

From beginning to end, that sentence is pure, meaningless blather. Why are you even bothering to post this nonsense?
 

Braznor

Diamond Member
Oct 9, 2005
3,863
63
91
Ignoring the effects of masses other than the Earth, the Sun, and the Moon, we'll know the gravitational field experienced by that proton to at least five or six digits of accuracy, which would be plenty good for almost any calculation. But even that's beside the point at the proton level, as quantum effects will dominate our knowledge of it's state. So why are you even presenting this example? It makes you look like a poseur making like he knows something about physics.

Honestly, your posts in this thread have been gibberish. Just look at one of your own sentences a few posts ago:



Bolding is mine.

First of all, that qualifier "on Earth" for "one kg of matter" is totally irrelevant. A [resting mass] of 1 kg is a resting mass of 1 kg EVERYWHERE in the universe; telling us that it's "on Earth" just reveals your ignorance of physics.
Hey, did you even understand what I said?

What do you want me to spoonfeed you with? In terms of the number of protons?

Of course, genius. The rest mass of the two groups of fifty zillion protons will be the same. But only in a frame of reference when they possess no motion relative to each other. These two groups of fifty zillion protons will be absolutely the same if they are not moving with respect to each other. This is at best again an approximation because in real life everything is moving and has its own velocity (both external and internal). Relativistic mass is the one which is relevant in real life.


And, no, a kg of matter isn't 21.5 megatons of "chemical energy." Chemical energy is what you get from making or breaking chemical bonds, and the amount of chemical energy in a kg of matter is HIGHLY dependent on what the specific matter is. Furthermore, the chemical energy of a substance will always be far, far below the E = MC**2 mass-energy of 1 kg of the substance. Again, you're just confirming that you know almost nothing about physics.
Did you read again what I said above? I compared the energy of one KG of protons with a 21.5 Megaton Nuclear explosion which is itself modeled on tons of TNT. Another thing you got that E = MC**2 wrong too. E = MC**2 will not be violated when you calculate a proton's rest mass with the addition of its kinetic energy. It will approach its limits only when it is very significant percentage (99.99999999`) of the speed of light. The proton itself will have energy by two variables i.e. standard energy for a proton + its velocity. Your ideal rest mass with zero gravitational influence or velocity does not in real life sorry. Please do not try to make reality fit into your theory. The normal process is other way round.


Finally, U-238 isn't "fissile" at all. Fissile means that the substance can sustain a (fission) chain reaction. U-235 is the predominant fissile form of Uranium. So referencing "a few Kgs of fissile U238" is just imbecilic.

From beginning to end, that sentence is pure, meaningless blather. Why are you even bothering to post this nonsense?
Yep, flog it over one irrelevant detail. So I said U238 instead of U235, yea a mistake on my part, but completely irrelevant to the point. If I just used the word Uranium, you would had nothing to shit over.

Your entire point of rest mass being the same everywhere is just a calculation convenience. It does not apply to real life. All mass in this universe is relativistic.
 
Last edited:

shira

Diamond Member
Jan 12, 2005
9,567
6
81
Ignoring the effects of masses other than the Earth, the Sun, and the Moon, we'll know the gravitational field experienced by that proton to at least five or six digits of accuracy, which would be plenty good for almost any calculation. But even that's beside the point at the proton level, as quantum effects will dominate our knowledge of it's state. So why are you even presenting this example? It makes you look like a poseur making like he knows something about physics.

Honestly, your posts in this thread have been gibberish. Just look at one of your own sentences a few posts ago:



Bolding is mine.



Hey, did you even understand what I said?

What do you want me to spoonfeed you with? In terms of the number of protons?

Of course, genius. The rest mass of the two groups of fifty zillion protons will be the same. But only in a frame of reference when they possess no motion relative to each other. These two groups of fifty zillion protons will be absolutely the same if they are not moving with respect to each other. This is at best again an approximation because in real life everything is moving and has its own velocity (both external and internal). Relativistic mass is the one which is relevant in real life.




Did you read again what I said above? I compared the energy of one KG of protons with a 21.5 Megaton Nuclear explosion which is itself modeled on tons of TNT. Another thing you got that E = MC**2 wrong too. E = MC**2 will not be violated when you calculate a proton's rest mass with the addition of its kinetic energy. It will approach its limits only when it is very significant percentage (99.99999999`) of the speed of light. The proton itself will have energy by two variables i.e. standard energy for a proton + its velocity. Your ideal rest mass with zero gravitational influence or velocity does not in real life sorry. Please do not try to make reality fit into your theory. The normal process is other way round.




Yep, flog it over one irrelevant detail. So I said U238 instead of U235, yea a mistake on my part, but completely irrelevant to the point. If I just used the word Uranium, you would had nothing to shit over.

Your entire point of rest mass being the same everywhere is just a calculation convenience. It does not apply to real life. All mass in this universe is relativistic.
Mass/energy equivalence is based on the REST MASS of an object, not the moving mass. Want to do calculations for a fusion reactor? Use rest masses, not moving masses. Even if you were trying to say something about the effects of relative motion, adding "on Earth" in the sentence I quoted is meaningless because you've just used a roundabout way of saying that relative to Earth's reference frame, the mass of objects on Earth is their rest mass. If you were trying to say something about relative motion, you need TWO reference frames.

You're posts are so utterly scrambled and confused it's not even worth responding to them. You seem to think that you're expressing something meaningful, but you truly do sound like those psychotics I mentioned in my earlier post. This isn't picking nits: You're seeing the universe through a thick haze, and your powers of expression are even more limited than your vision. You're a fathomless quicksand bog of confusion.
 

Jeff7

Lifer
Jan 4, 2001
41,599
17
81
Mass/energy equivalence is based on the REST MASS of an object, not the moving mass. Want to do calculations for a fusion reactor? Use rest masses, not moving masses. Even if you were trying to say something about the effects of relative motion, adding "on Earth" in the sentence I quoted is meaningless because you've just used a roundabout way of saying that relative to Earth's reference frame, the mass of objects on Earth is their rest mass. If you were trying to say something about relative motion, you need TWO reference frames.

You're posts are so utterly scrambled and confused it's not even worth responding to them. You seem to think that you're expressing something meaningful, but you truly do sound like those psychotics I mentioned in my earlier post. This isn't picking nits: You're seeing the universe through a thick haze, and your powers of expression are even more limited than your vision. You're a fathomless quicksand bog of confusion.
You're falling into the trap of doing calculations with proper units? You're just missing the "truth" and the path to salvation. :awe:
 

SagaLore

Elite Member
Dec 18, 2001
24,036
20
81
Mass/energy equivalence is based on the REST MASS of an object, not the moving mass. Want to do calculations for a fusion reactor? Use rest masses, not moving masses. Even if you were trying to say something about the effects of relative motion, adding "on Earth" in the sentence I quoted is meaningless because you've just used a roundabout way of saying that relative to Earth's reference frame, the mass of objects on Earth is their rest mass. If you were trying to say something about relative motion, you need TWO reference frames.

You're posts are so utterly scrambled and confused it's not even worth responding to them. You seem to think that you're expressing something meaningful, but you truly do sound like those psychotics I mentioned in my earlier post. This isn't picking nits: You're seeing the universe through a thick haze, and your powers of expression are even more limited than your vision. You're a fathomless quicksand bog of confusion.
There are too many smart words in that response, please tone it down. :colbert:
 

Paul98

Diamond Member
Jan 31, 2010
3,699
138
106
This is crap, you, sir have no attitude towards science or anything in particular, just things what you wish are true. You seek no proofs by yourself, but is perfectly content to rest on the laurels of others. Let me say you are exactly the kind of guy who will stumble upon nothing. Keep reading below.



So what is your grouse here?

I kg of matter = chemical energy of 2,150,000 tons of TNT - a few kilos of fissile material. If you notice, this is exactly the trap I warned you all against in the first place in the original post which you made your bone of contention here. Here are the exact words I said.



As I said, you people are fixated on structures whereas the meat of the story lies in what is the 'truth' is. All of your debate i.e whether the energy content of two tons of matter-antimatter or the chemical energy of TNT etc. The structure is not important in the ultimate sense. This is my instinctive insight, you can ridicule me all about it. But this is exactly the point I was trying to explain all about. That structure has no relevance with the energy potential within. Do you why? I will explain here again for your benefit, but remember this is a limit I usually reserve for the ignorants and since you only seem a semi-ignorant, I'm indulging you here. Consider this a favor by me. I usually never dispense knowledge for free. Read this carefully.

Lets take an example of a KG of matter, since by my own estimation here and by all scientific considerations, a KG of matter should have 21.5 MT of radiation or the chemical energy of 2,150,000 tons of TNT or just one meatball by the flying spaghetti monster, it is very likely that rational structures within our universe ( in terms of protons, electrons, neutrons, remember I'm simplifying for your benefit here) have no inherent 'absoluteness' here. Why? You will ask. Here is my explanation:

One KG of matter on Earth is mostly 21.5 Megatons of chemical energy released by 2,150,000 tons of exploding TNT of a few Kgs of fissile U238, but can you really measure it so? You can't in the ultimate perspective of things.

Why? This is the reason and I'm not going to repeat this again. Your ignorance is not something I'm going to dispel with my candle forever. Here is the reason why 'truth' cannot be predicted elsewhere.

Lets take two discrete units of masses, one KG of hydrogen on Earth and one of the same on Jupiter.

In both, the structure of the internal matter within are same i.e. both are composed of hydrogen nuclei. But the key question here is whether their 'truth' in totality is the same or different.

You will immediately realize that they are not. One KG of matter on Earth has somewhat 7 times the less the gravitational potential of one KG of the same matter on Jupiter. In both cases, the structures of the mass-energy involved are the same i.e protons, but the 'truth' they hold within in Jupiter is not the same 'truth' they hold on Earth.

Do you see the fundamental point I'm referring to here? The bone of contention you raised i.e units of this 'truth' is the very point I'm stressing here. The structure is not important i.e = the energy equivalent of one KG of matter can be anything i.e 21.5 Megaton Nuclear explosion, 2,150,000 tons of TNT or whatever. The absolute truth within it is which that matters ultimately, not the structure. Thats all I wish to say and conclude here now. You are free to contact me on PM.
LMAO at you trying to lecture people on this "truth" when you don't even understand what you write about when you write something like 21.5 Megaton nuclear explosion.
 

Paul98

Diamond Member
Jan 31, 2010
3,699
138
106
Christ, the ignorance of the people here is astounding. Let me explain it to you kids again and this is final.

Take a proton somewhere on Earth.

On Earth, it will have its own mass and gravitational potential as per Earth's gravity. But is this a complete picture, no its not kids.


Remember now the Earth revolves around the Sun, so alongwith Earth's gravity, you shall also have to compound the Sun's gravitational influence on this proton alongwith the other planets and satellites. Do you think it ends with this? Thats what all of you here claim.

After you add the sun's gravitational effect of the Proton, you will have to probably do the same with the gravitational forces of all the local stars in our neighborhood and then after comes the galaxy's gravitational potential and then after that the gravitational potential of the galaxy cluster we belong to and then after that the supercluster and this will continue through infinity. So in essence, the 'truth' within that proton will never be known in an exact sense, all we can do is estimate approximations from our relative gravitation reference (Earth, Moon, Sun etc. for us)

You people are incredibly biased and yes, I will stress again blindly ignorant.
What the hell are you talking about? Rest mass doesn't change, you might be talking about the weight of an object.

What does the word truth mean when you say it? also what does the gravitational influence on objects have to do with anything?
 

Braznor

Diamond Member
Oct 9, 2005
3,863
63
91
Mass/energy equivalence is based on the REST MASS of an object, not the moving mass. Want to do calculations for a fusion reactor? Use rest masses, not moving masses. Even if you were trying to say something about the effects of relative motion, adding "on Earth" in the sentence I quoted is meaningless because you've just used a roundabout way of saying that relative to Earth's reference frame, the mass of objects on Earth is their rest mass. If you were trying to say something about relative motion, you need TWO reference frames.

You're posts are so utterly scrambled and confused it's not even worth responding to them. You seem to think that you're expressing something meaningful, but you truly do sound like those psychotics I mentioned in my earlier post. This isn't picking nits: You're seeing the universe through a thick haze, and your powers of expression are even more limited than your vision. You're a fathomless quicksand bog of confusion.
You can't seriously be this stupid. Read above, ignorant. I clearly mentioned how the circumstances of Mass-Energy conservation operates in the proton I mentioned above. Absolute Rest Mass is a theoretical concept, not one which translates into reality. It makes assumption of an absolute frame of reference which stopped existing, since I lasted noticed since the early 1900s. Rest Mass, my dear ignorant, is only a CLOSED system concept. It assumes no energy is added or leaves the system it evaluates. However sadly for you, all systems are open in this real universe. No system escapes sharing energy with the outside environment in the real world. I said it all above, it is not my fault if you are not clever enough to understand or too stupid to even think in those terms. You probably learnt or googled some clever word yesterday and think you know everything today, this is your fallacy. I make no such assumptions about my own knowledge, I'm open to everything including my own shortcomings which I always apologized for.

But if you think my posts are not worth responding, why did you waste your own time? Why not let a fool like me preach my nonsense and simply ignore me as you probably do with most other things which can be truly idiotic by themselves. There is only reason for this, you probably got butthurt. Perhaps you should practice what you preach by yourself or even better try being consistent with your own intent, advice and words.

Rest mass is used only as a theoretical model NOT meant for practical measurements. The only extent it is used in practical measuring is as an assumption and not reality and even that assumption is only valid upto the limits it has been measured by us, not the complete 'truth' as I mentioned earlier.

You're falling into the trap of doing calculations with proper units? You're just missing the "truth" and the path to salvation. :awe:
Look, what do you define as proper units? Units which have been completely measured eg: 2 + 2 = 4 or as units which exist physically as a force of nature and circumstances measured through our devices.

This has come full circle. I will bring up my post here which started all this nitpicking on details.

The truth I speak of refers to a quality possessed by everything within this universe, the factor which causes that thing to exist in the first place. The nature of this 'truth' is that it will always elude physical description, but there is no limit to our observations of it and it is undeniable i.e. denying the existence of it will destroy the very foundation of the observation and the observers themselves
Nothing what either of us said contradicts the above, the truth I speak of cannot be known completely, but can be understood as only in succeeding continuous measurements. I ask you Jeff, what are proper units? They are what we measured and understood to the best of our abilities. What are our abilities then? They are the devices which lets us understand this world in increasing accuracy.

Jeff, do you think that measures of real life phenomenon can ever stop at a point when it becomes completely known? No, it cannot. The truth can never be known in the complete sense. Even your proper units are 'proper' only upto the last decimal place they have been measured till. Beyond that, you will need a more accurate device to measure it. My point here is that there is always a limitation to our measurement. This was acknowledged by itself through the Heisenberg principle. Nothing can never be known to its totality until you get a sort of theory of everything which can be M string theory. But even then string theory has its own limitations which I mentioned as this:

String theory : Strings themselves are defined as geometric ideals in string theory. They cannot be broken down further into anything meaningful. So in a sense, all of our understanding of mass-energy stops with them. So in essence if mass-energy are made of strings, what are strings made of? I think the answer is even if we find something below strings, we will be further on left holding the question what composes particles smaller than strings. In the perspective of the question I asked earlier (what is the most fundamental form of mass-energy) , the truth is we will never know, but that shouldn't deter us from seeking this 'truth' further and further. Remember while the complete nature of this 'truth' can never be known, there is no good reason to stop our efforts at observing it.
Note here: Nothing I say now contradicts anything I said in the previous post. If I did, I will be the first to admit my own mistake. But it doesn't at all. Everyone is prone to mistakes. Remember while I said the complete truth cannot be known, I also stated there is no good reason or any reason at all ever to stop searching for it. We can do this 'search' only in terms of more and more advanced (measurement) devices, each of them built on a greater truth (i.e in terms of accuracy and conceptualization) So please let go of the illusion of 'real' units. Accuracy at this point of time only extends in mental and computational mathematics and even that can have severe flaws. In the real world, all we have are approximations, the complete absolute 'truth' can never be known by itself. Again nothing I said before contradicts anything I say now.

Dear Jeff, it is said the devil lies in the details. It is this same devil which can stop someone from going beyond them and discover the theory of objective. Nothing I said is nonscientific here.

You're posts are so utterly scrambled and confused it's not even worth responding to them. You seem to think that you're expressing something meaningful, but you truly do sound like those psychotics I mentioned in my earlier post. This isn't picking nits: You're seeing the universe through a thick haze, and your powers of expression are even more limited than your vision. You're a fathomless quicksand bog of confusion.
No, I'm seeing the universe as exactly it is. You are the one hiding beyond the laurels of men before you. You see ignorant, the path to the more truthful world usually isn't what others have walked upon. I'm not psychotic, instead it is you who is closeminded and heavily biased. Remember this stupid, you will never get the concept of the higher reality unless you stop walking well beaten paths of men far greater than you. Unless you learn to 'unlearn' your own prejudices, you most probably will never be able to grasp the higher sense of existence. The humans who have achieved this did so exactly this way, they taught themselves to not see things the way their predecessor did, they taught themselves to let go of their irrelevant prejudices which clouded them from thinking the way they ultimately did, they learnt to question each and everything until they were satisfied by themselves and not by the judgment of strangers and most important of all, they had the courage to assert that their way of thinking was better than one before.

These are none of the traits I see in you, shira and I suggest you get working on them as soon as you get over this butthurt.
 

Braznor

Diamond Member
Oct 9, 2005
3,863
63
91
What the hell are you talking about? Rest mass doesn't change, you might be talking about the weight of an object.

What does the word truth mean when you say it? also what does the gravitational influence on objects have to do with anything?
Please read above. I'm not going through this again and again. Even kindergarten teachers have limits of patience.

The concept of rest mass is the approximation (to the limit measurable by the device capable of measuring the structure under question) of the summation of atomic or subatomic particles within a consistent unit of matter.

This is only an approximation because even if the mathematical value of a proton's mass-energy can be termed accurate (I seriously doubt this), the actual spacetime dimensions of the same have still not been accurately confirmed.

Note this:

Because the proton is not a fundamental particle, it possesses a physical size—although this is not perfectly well-defined since the surface of a proton is somewhat fuzzy, due to being defined by the influence of forces that do not come to an abrupt end. The proton is about 1.6–1.7 fm in diameter.[2]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proton
Again nothing I said before contradicts anything I say now. If it was, I will accept my mistake and alter my thinking of reality.
 

Paul98

Diamond Member
Jan 31, 2010
3,699
138
106
Please read above. I'm not going through this again and again. Even kindergarten teachers have limits of patience.

The concept of rest mass is the approximation (to the limit measurable by the device capable of measuring the structure under question) of the summation of atomic or subatomic particles within a consistent unit of matter.

This is only an approximation because even if the mathematical value of a proton's mass-energy can be termed accurate (I seriously doubt this), the actual spacetime dimensions of the same have still not been accurately confirmed.

Note this:



Again nothing I said before contradicts anything I say now. If it was, I will accept my mistake and alter my thinking of reality.
You keep on using words that you have no understanding of. Yet you try to talk to people like you know what you are talking about.

It's not anything complicated ether, you simply sound ignorant of what you are talking about. How about first you understand mass-energy equivalence and the basic units that are used and what it means. You should also learn about relativity and some quantum physics.

There are multiple things you have written is factually wrong, using words that don't mean what you think they do.

The rest mass can be known exactly or know to a certain decimal place, it just depends on the units used.
 

zinfamous

No Lifer
Jul 12, 2006
106,228
21,264
146
Hey, did you even understand what I said?

What do you want me to spoonfeed you with? In terms of the number of protons?


Did you read again what I said above? I compared the energy of one KG of protons with a 21.5 Megaton Nuclear explosion which is itself modeled on tons of TNT. Another thing you got that E = MC**2 wrong too. E = MC**2 will not be violated when you calculate a proton's rest mass with the addition of its kinetic energy. It will approach its limits only when it is very significant percentage (99.99999999`) of the speed of light. The proton itself will have energy by two variables i.e. standard energy for a proton + its velocity. Your ideal rest mass with zero gravitational influence or velocity does not in real life sorry. Please do not try to make reality fit into your theory. The normal process is other way round.




Yep, flog it over one irrelevant detail. So I said U238 instead of U235, yea a mistake on my part, but completely irrelevant to the point. If I just used the word Uranium, you would had nothing to shit over.

Your entire point of rest mass being the same everywhere is just a calculation convenience. It does not apply to real life. All mass in this universe is relativistic.

Yo, how's that novel coming along?
 

Nemesis 1

Lifer
Dec 30, 2006
11,366
2
0
For you it sums it up .


Many many christian more than not except science as science. Of course there is discourse between people of faith and those who lack faith. If you believe your an evolved Ape that is your right . and people of faith should treat you as you profess to be . an animal you act like one and talk like when when you link to such things . Thats his belief not many believe what he says. the majority of people who have faith really don't care what you think or say. Its like they say . He has the right to believe as he does . Might not be wise to say such in a muslim country . I know for fact that you wouldn't . Because they would kill you . You being a coward wouldn't say such a thing because of your fear. That is your defining moment .
 

sandorski

No Lifer
Oct 10, 1999
68,518
3,618
126
For you it sums it up .


Many many christian more than not except science as science. Of course there is discourse between people of faith and those who lack faith. If you believe your an evolved Ape that is your right . and people of faith should treat you as you profess to be . an animal you act like one and talk like when when you link to such things . Thats his belief not many believe what he says. the majority of people who have faith really don't care what you think or say. Its like they say . He has the right to believe as he does . Might not be wise to say such in a muslim country . I know for fact that you wouldn't . Because they would kill you . You being a coward wouldn't say such a thing because of your fear. That is your defining moment .
You are an Animal, deal with it. Did you think you were a Plant?
 

lotus503

Diamond Member
Feb 12, 2005
6,502
1
76
For you it sums it up .


Many many christian more than not except science as science. Of course there is discourse between people of faith and those who lack faith. If you believe your an evolved Ape that is your right . and people of faith should treat you as you profess to be . an animal you act like one and talk like when when you link to such things . Thats his belief not many believe what he says. the majority of people who have faith really don't care what you think or say. Its like they say . He has the right to believe as he does . Might not be wise to say such in a muslim country . I know for fact that you wouldn't . Because they would kill you . You being a coward wouldn't say such a thing because of your fear. That is your defining moment .
And what are you if not a biological mammal?
 

zinfamous

No Lifer
Jul 12, 2006
106,228
21,264
146
Did you know that humans have, by far, the largest ding-dongs out of all primates?

Wonder why that is....

:hmm:
 

ASK THE COMMUNITY