Pau Draper, what is mass, fundamentally?

[Y.Porat]

him loud-mouthing big time but  he was not capable to explain
a fundamental concept of physics. Paul, you were and still
are a very bad teacher .... But thanks for the laughs...
ahahaha... ahahahahanson
PD, kindly clarify, delineate, describe, IOW, do teach,
IYOW, what mass is, fundamentally, so that neutrino
oscillations can be explained without you resorting to
abstract terms, such as "flavor" like you did below.
TIA, hanson
I can explain what mass is,
... Then do so, Paul. It would be a good start and not
exposed yourself as being the weasel, that you are.

OK.
Mass has had its meaning refined, especially over the last 100 years
or so.
What it means now is the frame-independent quantity of a physical
system (where a physical system is a collection of physical things,
possibly interacting with each other) that can be calculated from
(mass) = sqrt ((Sum (energies))^2 - (Sum (momentum))^2).
The fact that it is invariant regardless of inertial reference frame
is what makes it interesting.
For a closed physical system -- one where no net interaction crosses
the boundary -- the fact that the mass is also conserved is also what
makes it interesting. This conservation means that it will have the
same value in a closed system, no matter what happens INSIDE the
system. Conserved quantities always point to some fundamental law of
symmetry in nature.
There is the tendency to ask, "But what IS it, other than a quantity?"
This is a misplaced question, because some quantities are interesting
in their own right in physics, because they exhibit frame-independence
and conservation. They don't have to have another "explanation" other
than these circumstances.
What we also know is that mass is not what we once thought it was,
though it is close. For example, we once thought mass was a measure of
"the amount of stuff". This rule doesn't work, though, because mass
isn't additive -- you can't get the mass of a system by adding the
masses of the parts of the system. We once thought that mass was a
measure of the *inertia* of an object, where that is the ratio of the
force applied to the acceleration observed. That rule doesn't work
either though, because there is a velocity-dependent factor missing in
that relationship (which just happened to be close to 1 for most of
the everyday examples we looked at). Since these previous qualitative
descriptions have fallen short, we now just talk about it as a
quantity with the observed frame-independence and conservation
behaviors -- which is about the same as what we do with a number of
other properties like electric charge.

..... but this will not allow you to understand
neutrino oscillations without learning what "flavor" means.
I'm sorry, hanson, but you will not be able to understand all
phenomena observed just by getting a clear handle on a small number of
basic concepts.
If "flavor" were not a new and essential concept, then it would not
have been introduced in the first place.
How much are you willing to invest in learning a whole slew of
concepts and terms in order to understand the variety of phenomena we
observe?

-----------------------------------------
Was --- Re: Do I understand this correctly?

Am I correct in my understanding that, although it was discovered in
1998 that the neutrino does indeed have mass, people still don't
know what that mass is? TIA.
What we know is that neutrinos oscillate between "flavors" -- muon
neutrinos to electron neutrinos and vice versa, tau neutrinos to muon
neutrinos and vice versa, etc. We have seen such behavior in hadrons,
including K mesons containing strange quarks, and mesons containing
charm and bottom quarks. You can google "K-long K-short" if you like.
Quantum mechanically, the oscillation is expected from a mixture of
states being produced, and the oscillation rate is proportional to the
difference between the squares of the neutrino masses, and so this is
the quantity that's been measured. If all the neutrinos were massless,
then the difference would be zero, and the oscillation rate would be
zero. This, however, doesn't tell you what the masses are, only that
they are different.
Technically, the situation is a bit more muddled, because the neutrino
*mass* states are not identical to neutrino *flavor* states. One is a
mixture of the other. Thus, if you form a specific *mass* state, then
you are producing a mix of flavor states, and an oscillation will
occur between mass states; and vice versa.
... ahahaha...Paul, you write "This, however, doesn't tell you
what the masses are, only that they are different."... ahahaha..
and then you go and write a lengthy tripe around it, instead
of explaining what "mass" FUNDAMENTALLY means. Bad
pedagogic, Paul...Now, explain to Joe what "mass" here is.
TFTLIA... ahahahaha... ahahahahanson

I don't think that was his question, hanson.
If you want to know what mass fundamentally means,
why don't you make a new post with that question?

-------------------------
imbecile parrot!!

mass is conserved as well as energy is conserved
do you know why hopeless idiot crook ??

because ENERGY **HAS MASS**
**THE ONLY MASS!!**

NO MASS - THE ONLY MASS --
NO REAL PHYSICS !!

Y.Porat
---------------------------------------
--------------------------

[mpc755]

him loud-mouthing big time but  he was not capable to explain
a fundamental concept of physics. Paul, you were and still
are a very bad teacher .... But thanks for the laughs...
ahahaha... ahahahahanson
PD, kindly clarify, delineate, describe, IOW, do teach,
IYOW, what mass is, fundamentally, so that neutrino
oscillations can be explained without you resorting to
abstract terms, such as "flavor" like you did below.
TIA, hanson
I can explain what mass is,
... Then do so, Paul. It would be a good start and not
exposed yourself as being the weasel, that you are.

OK.
Mass has had its meaning refined, especially over the last 100 years
or so.
What it means now is the frame-independent quantity of a physical
system (where a physical system is a collection of physical things,
possibly interacting with each other) that can be calculated from
(mass) = sqrt ((Sum (energies))^2 - (Sum (momentum))^2).
The fact that it is invariant regardless of inertial reference frame
is what makes it interesting.
For a closed physical system -- one where no net interaction crosses
the boundary -- the fact that the mass is also conserved is also what
makes it interesting. This conservation means that it will have the
same value in a closed system, no matter what happens INSIDE the
system. Conserved quantities always point to some fundamental law of
symmetry in nature.
There is the tendency to ask, "But what IS it, other than a quantity?"
This is a misplaced question, because some quantities are interesting
in their own right in physics, because they exhibit frame-independence
and conservation. They don't have to have another "explanation" other
than these circumstances.
What we also know is that mass is not what we once thought it was,
though it is close. For example, we once thought mass was a measure of
"the amount of stuff". This rule doesn't work, though, because mass
isn't additive -- you can't get the mass of a system by adding the
masses of the parts of the system. We once thought that mass was a
measure of the *inertia* of an object, where that is the ratio of the
force applied to the acceleration observed. That rule doesn't work
either though, because there is a velocity-dependent factor missing in
that relationship (which just happened to be close to 1 for most of
the everyday examples we looked at). Since these previous qualitative
descriptions have fallen short, we now just talk about it as a
quantity with the observed frame-independence and conservation
behaviors -- which is about the same as what we do with a number of
other properties like electric charge.

..... but this will not allow you to understand
neutrino oscillations without learning what "flavor" means.
I'm sorry, hanson, but you will not be able to understand all
phenomena observed just by getting a clear handle on a small number of
basic concepts.
If "flavor" were not a new and essential concept, then it would not
have been introduced in the first place.
How much are you willing to invest in learning a whole slew of
concepts and terms in order to understand the variety of phenomena we
observe?

-----------------------------------------
Was --- Re: Do I understand this correctly?

Am I correct in my understanding that, although it was discovered in
1998 that the neutrino does indeed have mass, people still don't
know what that mass is? TIA.
What we know is that neutrinos oscillate between "flavors" -- muon
neutrinos to electron neutrinos and vice versa, tau neutrinos to muon
neutrinos and vice versa, etc. We have seen such behavior in hadrons,
including K mesons containing strange quarks, and mesons containing
charm and bottom quarks. You can google "K-long K-short" if you like.
Quantum mechanically, the oscillation is expected from a mixture of
states being produced, and the oscillation rate is proportional to the
difference between the squares of the neutrino masses, and so this is
the quantity that's been measured. If all the neutrinos were massless,
then the difference would be zero, and the oscillation rate would be
zero. This, however, doesn't tell you what the masses are, only that
they are different.
Technically, the situation is a bit more muddled, because the neutrino
*mass* states are not identical to neutrino *flavor* states. One is a
mixture of the other. Thus, if you form a specific *mass* state, then
you are producing a mix of flavor states, and an oscillation will
occur between mass states; and vice versa.
... ahahaha...Paul, you write "This, however, doesn't tell you
what the masses are, only that they are different."... ahahaha..
and then you go and write a lengthy tripe around it, instead
of explaining what "mass" FUNDAMENTALLY means. Bad
pedagogic, Paul...Now, explain to Joe what "mass" here is.
TFTLIA... ahahahaha... ahahahahanson

I don't think that was his question, hanson.
If you want to know what mass fundamentally means,
why don't you make a new post with that question?

-------------------------
imbecile parrot!!
mass is conserved as well as energy is conserved
do you   know why hopeless  idiot crook ??
because ENERGY **HAS MASS**
**THE ONLY MASS!!**
NO MASS - THE ONLY MASS --
 NO REAL PHYSICS !!
Y.Porat
---------------------------------------
--------------------------

"Energy has mass" is incorrect.

Aether and matter are different states of maether.

A change in state of maether is energy.

http://www.ps.uci.edu/~superk/nuosc.html

"Neutrino Oscillations and Neutrino Mass

In five distinct measurements, Super-Kamiokande finds neutrinos
apparently "disappearing". Since it is unlikely that momentum and
energy are actually vanishing from the universe, a more plausible
explanation is that the types of neutrinos we can detect are changing
into types we cannot detect. This phenomenon is known as neutrino
oscillation. Neutrino oscillation is not black magic - there are very
specific predictions for the behavior of our data if neutrinos
oscillate, and we have uniformly found the data in good agreement with
these predictions. Unfortunately, a non-mathematical explanation of
why neutrino oscillation and neutrino mass are inseparable is
difficult."

A non-mathematical explanation is not difficult at all. Albert
Michelson figured it out over 100 years ago.

http://home.netcom.com/~sbyers11/

Quote from Albert A Michelson's lecture circa 1899.

"Suppose that an aether strain corresponds to an electric charge, an
aether displacement to the electric current, aether vortices to the
atoms; if we continue these suppositions, we arrive at what may be one
of the grandest generalizations of modern science, namely that all the
phenomena of the physical universe are only different manifestations
of the various modes of motion of one all-pervading (substance), the
aether. The day seems not to distant when the converging lines from
many apparently remote regions of thought will meet on some common
ground. Then the nature of the atom and the forces called into play in
their chemical union, the interactions between these atoms and the
non-
differentiated aether as manifested in the phenomena of light and
electricity , the structure of the molecule, the explanation of
cohesion, elasticity and gravitation, all of these will be marshaled
into a single compact and consistent body of scientific knowledge."

Ether and the Theory of Relativity by Albert Einstein'
http://www-groups.dcs.st-and.ac.uk/~history/Extras/Einstein_ether.html

"Since according to our present conceptions the elementary particles
of matter are also, in their essence, nothing else than condensations
of the electromagnetic field"

The electromagnetic field is a state of aether.
Matter is the condensation of aether.

DOES THE INERTIA OF A BODY DEPEND UPON ITS ENERGY-CONTENT?' A.EINSTEIN
http://www.fourmilab.ch/etexts/einstein/E_mc2/e_mc2.pdf

"If a body gives off the energy L in the form of radiation, its mass
diminishes by L/c2."

The matter which no longer exists as part of the body has not
vanished. It still exists, as aether. As matter converts to aether it
expands in three dimensional space. The physical effects this
transition has on the neighboring maether is energy. Mass is
conserved. Energy is conserved.

When a neutrino 'disappears' it has simply 'evaporated' into aether.

[PD]

him loud-mouthing big time but  he was not capable to explain
a fundamental concept of physics. Paul, you were and still
are a very bad teacher .... But thanks for the laughs...
ahahaha... ahahahahanson
PD, kindly clarify, delineate, describe, IOW, do teach,
IYOW, what mass is, fundamentally, so that neutrino
oscillations can be explained without you resorting to
abstract terms, such as "flavor" like you did below.
TIA, hanson
I can explain what mass is,
... Then do so, Paul. It would be a good start and not
exposed yourself as being the weasel, that you are.

OK.
Mass has had its meaning refined, especially over the last 100 years
or so.
What it means now is the frame-independent quantity of a physical
system (where a physical system is a collection of physical things,
possibly interacting with each other) that can be calculated from
(mass) = sqrt ((Sum (energies))^2 - (Sum (momentum))^2).
The fact that it is invariant regardless of inertial reference frame
is what makes it interesting.
For a closed physical system -- one where no net interaction crosses
the boundary -- the fact that the mass is also conserved is also what
makes it interesting. This conservation means that it will have the
same value in a closed system, no matter what happens INSIDE the
system. Conserved quantities always point to some fundamental law of
symmetry in nature.
There is the tendency to ask, "But what IS it, other than a quantity?"
This is a misplaced question, because some quantities are interesting
in their own right in physics, because they exhibit frame-independence
and conservation. They don't have to have another "explanation" other
than these circumstances.
What we also know is that mass is not what we once thought it was,
though it is close. For example, we once thought mass was a measure of
"the amount of stuff". This rule doesn't work, though, because mass
isn't additive -- you can't get the mass of a system by adding the
masses of the parts of the system. We once thought that mass was a
measure of the *inertia* of an object, where that is the ratio of the
force applied to the acceleration observed. That rule doesn't work
either though, because there is a velocity-dependent factor missing in
that relationship (which just happened to be close to 1 for most of
the everyday examples we looked at). Since these previous qualitative
descriptions have fallen short, we now just talk about it as a
quantity with the observed frame-independence and conservation
behaviors -- which is about the same as what we do with a number of
other properties like electric charge.

..... but this will not allow you to understand
neutrino oscillations without learning what "flavor" means.
I'm sorry, hanson, but you will not be able to understand all
phenomena observed just by getting a clear handle on a small number of
basic concepts.
If "flavor" were not a new and essential concept, then it would not
have been introduced in the first place.
How much are you willing to invest in learning a whole slew of
concepts and terms in order to understand the variety of phenomena we
observe?

-----------------------------------------
Was --- Re: Do I understand this correctly?

Am I correct in my understanding that, although it was discovered in
1998 that the neutrino does indeed have mass, people still don't
know what that mass is? TIA.
What we know is that neutrinos oscillate between "flavors" -- muon
neutrinos to electron neutrinos and vice versa, tau neutrinos to muon
neutrinos and vice versa, etc. We have seen such behavior in hadrons,
including K mesons containing strange quarks, and mesons containing
charm and bottom quarks. You can google "K-long K-short" if you like.
Quantum mechanically, the oscillation is expected from a mixture of
states being produced, and the oscillation rate is proportional to the
difference between the squares of the neutrino masses, and so this is
the quantity that's been measured. If all the neutrinos were massless,
then the difference would be zero, and the oscillation rate would be
zero. This, however, doesn't tell you what the masses are, only that
they are different.
Technically, the situation is a bit more muddled, because the neutrino
*mass* states are not identical to neutrino *flavor* states. One is a
mixture of the other. Thus, if you form a specific *mass* state, then
you are producing a mix of flavor states, and an oscillation will
occur between mass states; and vice versa.
... ahahaha...Paul, you write "This, however, doesn't tell you
what the masses are, only that they are different."... ahahaha..
and then you go and write a lengthy tripe around it, instead
of explaining what "mass" FUNDAMENTALLY means. Bad
pedagogic, Paul...Now, explain to Joe what "mass" here is.
TFTLIA... ahahahaha... ahahahahanson

I don't think that was his question, hanson.
If you want to know what mass fundamentally means,
why don't you make a new post with that question?

-------------------------
imbecile parrot!!
mass is conserved as well as energy is conserved

Nope. Observationally incorrect.

do you   know why hopeless  idiot crook ??
because ENERGY **HAS MASS**
**THE ONLY MASS!!**
NO MASS - THE ONLY MASS --
 NO REAL PHYSICS !!
Y.Porat
---------------------------------------
--------------------------

[Y.Porat]

Post by PD

him loud-mouthing big time but  he was not capable to explain
a fundamental concept of physics. Paul, you were and still
are a very bad teacher .... But thanks for the laughs...
ahahaha... ahahahahanson
PD, kindly clarify, delineate, describe, IOW, do teach,
IYOW, what mass is, fundamentally, so that neutrino
oscillations can be explained without you resorting to
abstract terms, such as "flavor" like you did below.
TIA, hanson
I can explain what mass is,
... Then do so, Paul. It would be a good start and not
exposed yourself as being the weasel, that you are.

OK.
Mass has had its meaning refined, especially over the last 100 years
or so.
What it means now is the frame-independent quantity of a physical
system (where a physical system is a collection of physical things,
possibly interacting with each other) that can be calculated from
(mass) = sqrt ((Sum (energies))^2 - (Sum (momentum))^2).
The fact that it is invariant regardless of inertial reference frame
is what makes it interesting.
For a closed physical system -- one where no net interaction crosses
the boundary -- the fact that the mass is also conserved is also what
makes it interesting. This conservation means that it will have the
same value in a closed system, no matter what happens INSIDE the
system. Conserved quantities always point to some fundamental law of
symmetry in nature.
There is the tendency to ask, "But what IS it, other than a quantity?"
This is a misplaced question, because some quantities are interesting
in their own right in physics, because they exhibit frame-independence
and conservation. They don't have to have another "explanation" other
than these circumstances.
What we also know is that mass is not what we once thought it was,
though it is close. For example, we once thought mass was a measure of
"the amount of stuff". This rule doesn't work, though, because mass
isn't additive -- you can't get the mass of a system by adding the
masses of the parts of the system. We once thought that mass was a
measure of the *inertia* of an object, where that is the ratio of the
force applied to the acceleration observed. That rule doesn't work
either though, because there is a velocity-dependent factor missing in
that relationship (which just happened to be close to 1 for most of
the everyday examples we looked at). Since these previous qualitative
descriptions have fallen short, we now just talk about it as a
quantity with the observed frame-independence and conservation
behaviors -- which is about the same as what we do with a number of
other properties like electric charge.

..... but this will not allow you to understand
neutrino oscillations without learning what "flavor" means.
I'm sorry, hanson, but you will not be able to understand all
phenomena observed just by getting a clear handle on a small number of
basic concepts.
If "flavor" were not a new and essential concept, then it would not
have been introduced in the first place.
How much are you willing to invest in learning a whole slew of
concepts and terms in order to understand the variety of phenomena we
observe?

-----------------------------------------
Was --- Re: Do I understand this correctly?

Am I correct in my understanding that, although it was discovered in
1998 that the neutrino does indeed have mass, people still don't
know what that mass is? TIA.
What we know is that neutrinos oscillate between "flavors" -- muon
neutrinos to electron neutrinos and vice versa, tau neutrinos to muon
neutrinos and vice versa, etc. We have seen such behavior in hadrons,
including K mesons containing strange quarks, and mesons containing
charm and bottom quarks. You can google "K-long K-short" if you like.
Quantum mechanically, the oscillation is expected from a mixture of
states being produced, and the oscillation rate is proportional to the
difference between the squares of the neutrino masses, and so this is
the quantity that's been measured. If all the neutrinos were massless,
then the difference would be zero, and the oscillation rate would be
zero. This, however, doesn't tell you what the masses are, only that
they are different.
Technically, the situation is a bit more muddled, because the neutrino
*mass* states are not identical to neutrino *flavor* states. One is a
mixture of the other. Thus, if you form a specific *mass* state, then
you are producing a mix of flavor states, and an oscillation will
occur between mass states; and vice versa.
... ahahaha...Paul, you write "This, however, doesn't tell you
what the masses are, only that they are different."... ahahaha..
and then you go and write a lengthy tripe around it, instead
of explaining what "mass" FUNDAMENTALLY means. Bad
pedagogic, Paul...Now, explain to Joe what "mass" here is.
TFTLIA... ahahahaha... ahahahahanson

I don't think that was his question, hanson.
If you want to know what mass fundamentally means,
why don't you make a new post with that question?

-------------------------
imbecile parrot!!
mass is conserved as well as energy is conserved

Nope. Observationally incorrect.

do you   know why hopeless  idiot crook ??
because ENERGY **HAS MASS**
**THE ONLY MASS!!**
NO MASS - THE ONLY MASS --
 NO REAL PHYSICS !!
Y.Porat
---------------------------------------
--------------------------

---------------------
the fact that our observations are
badly interpreted it is not natures fault
IT IS YOUR and your parrots
FAULT !
no mass is growing or shrinking
by movement

had you understand
WAT IS MOVEMENT
AND RELATIVE MOVEMENT
at high speed
YOU might UNDERSTAND
WHY THAT
observation ILLUSION
OCCURS !1
at higth velocities mass is not swelling
it is the energy needed to invest
for more acceleration
is becoming bigger !!

NO MASS -*** THE ONLY MASS***--
NO REAL PHYSICS !

ATB
Y.Porat
----------------------------

[PD]

Post by PD

him loud-mouthing big time but  he was not capable to explain
a fundamental concept of physics. Paul, you were and still
are a very bad teacher .... But thanks for the laughs...
ahahaha... ahahahahanson
PD, kindly clarify, delineate, describe, IOW, do teach,
IYOW, what mass is, fundamentally, so that neutrino
oscillations can be explained without you resorting to
abstract terms, such as "flavor" like you did below.
TIA, hanson
I can explain what mass is,
... Then do so, Paul. It would be a good start and not
exposed yourself as being the weasel, that you are.

OK.
Mass has had its meaning refined, especially over the last 100 years
or so.
What it means now is the frame-independent quantity of a physical
system (where a physical system is a collection of physical things,
possibly interacting with each other) that can be calculated from
(mass) = sqrt ((Sum (energies))^2 - (Sum (momentum))^2).
The fact that it is invariant regardless of inertial reference frame
is what makes it interesting.
For a closed physical system -- one where no net interaction crosses
the boundary -- the fact that the mass is also conserved is also what
makes it interesting. This conservation means that it will have the
same value in a closed system, no matter what happens INSIDE the
system. Conserved quantities always point to some fundamental law of
symmetry in nature.
There is the tendency to ask, "But what IS it, other than a quantity?"
This is a misplaced question, because some quantities are interesting
in their own right in physics, because they exhibit frame-independence
and conservation. They don't have to have another "explanation" other
than these circumstances.
What we also know is that mass is not what we once thought it was,
though it is close. For example, we once thought mass was a measure of
"the amount of stuff". This rule doesn't work, though, because mass
isn't additive -- you can't get the mass of a system by adding the
masses of the parts of the system. We once thought that mass was a
measure of the *inertia* of an object, where that is the ratio of the
force applied to the acceleration observed. That rule doesn't work
either though, because there is a velocity-dependent factor missing in
that relationship (which just happened to be close to 1 for most of
the everyday examples we looked at). Since these previous qualitative
descriptions have fallen short, we now just talk about it as a
quantity with the observed frame-independence and conservation
behaviors -- which is about the same as what we do with a number of
other properties like electric charge.

..... but this will not allow you to understand
neutrino oscillations without learning what "flavor" means.
I'm sorry, hanson, but you will not be able to understand all
phenomena observed just by getting a clear handle on a small number of
basic concepts.
If "flavor" were not a new and essential concept, then it would not
have been introduced in the first place.
How much are you willing to invest in learning a whole slew of
concepts and terms in order to understand the variety of phenomena we
observe?

-----------------------------------------
Was --- Re: Do I understand this correctly?

Am I correct in my understanding that, although it was discovered in
1998 that the neutrino does indeed have mass, people still don't
know what that mass is? TIA.
What we know is that neutrinos oscillate between "flavors" -- muon
neutrinos to electron neutrinos and vice versa, tau neutrinos to muon
neutrinos and vice versa, etc. We have seen such behavior in hadrons,
including K mesons containing strange quarks, and mesons containing
charm and bottom quarks. You can google "K-long K-short" if you like.
Quantum mechanically, the oscillation is expected from a mixture of
states being produced, and the oscillation rate is proportional to the
difference between the squares of the neutrino masses, and so this is
the quantity that's been measured. If all the neutrinos were massless,
then the difference would be zero, and the oscillation rate would be
zero. This, however, doesn't tell you what the masses are, only that
they are different.
Technically, the situation is a bit more muddled, because the neutrino
*mass* states are not identical to neutrino *flavor* states. One is a
mixture of the other. Thus, if you form a specific *mass* state, then
you are producing a mix of flavor states, and an oscillation will
occur between mass states; and vice versa.
... ahahaha...Paul, you write "This, however, doesn't tell you
what the masses are, only that they are different."... ahahaha..
and then you go and write a lengthy tripe around it, instead
of explaining what "mass" FUNDAMENTALLY means. Bad
pedagogic, Paul...Now, explain to Joe what "mass" here is.
TFTLIA... ahahahaha... ahahahahanson

I don't think that was his question, hanson.
If you want to know what mass fundamentally means,
why don't you make a new post with that question?

-------------------------
imbecile parrot!!
mass is conserved as well as energy is conserved

Nope. Observationally incorrect.

do you   know why hopeless  idiot crook ??
because ENERGY **HAS MASS**
**THE ONLY MASS!!**
NO MASS - THE ONLY MASS --
 NO REAL PHYSICS !!
Y.Porat
---------------------------------------
--------------------------

---------------------
the fact that our observations are
badly interpreted it is not natures fault
IT IS YOUR   and your parrots
FAULT !
no mass is growing or shrinking
by movement

When you choose to distrust observation as being "badly interpreted"
and favor "logic" over observation to determine truth is the same day
you walk away from science.

had you understand
WAT IS MOVEMENT
AND RELATIVE MOVEMENT
at high   speed
YOU might  UNDERSTAND
WHY THAT
observation  ILLUSION
OCCURS    !1
at higth   velocities mass is not swelling
it is the energy needed to  invest
for more acceleration
is becoming bigger !!
NO MASS -*** THE ONLY MASS***--
NO REAL PHYSICS !
ATB
Y.Porat
----------------------------

[Y.Porat]

Post by PD

Post by PD

him loud-mouthing big time but  he was not capable to explain
a fundamental concept of physics. Paul, you were and still
are a very bad teacher .... But thanks for the laughs...
ahahaha... ahahahahanson
PD, kindly clarify, delineate, describe, IOW, do teach,
IYOW, what mass is, fundamentally, so that neutrino
oscillations can be explained without you resorting to
abstract terms, such as "flavor" like you did below.
TIA, hanson
I can explain what mass is,
... Then do so, Paul. It would be a good start and not
exposed yourself as being the weasel, that you are.

OK.
Mass has had its meaning refined, especially over the last 100 years
or so.
What it means now is the frame-independent quantity of a physical
system (where a physical system is a collection of physical things,
possibly interacting with each other) that can be calculated from
(mass) = sqrt ((Sum (energies))^2 - (Sum (momentum))^2).
The fact that it is invariant regardless of inertial reference frame
is what makes it interesting.
For a closed physical system -- one where no net interaction crosses
the boundary -- the fact that the mass is also conserved is also what
makes it interesting. This conservation means that it will have the
same value in a closed system, no matter what happens INSIDE the
system. Conserved quantities always point to some fundamental law of
symmetry in nature.
There is the tendency to ask, "But what IS it, other than a quantity?"
This is a misplaced question, because some quantities are interesting
in their own right in physics, because they exhibit frame-independence
and conservation. They don't have to have another "explanation" other
than these circumstances.
What we also know is that mass is not what we once thought it was,
though it is close. For example, we once thought mass was a measure of
"the amount of stuff". This rule doesn't work, though, because mass
isn't additive -- you can't get the mass of a system by adding the
masses of the parts of the system. We once thought that mass was a
measure of the *inertia* of an object, where that is the ratio of the
force applied to the acceleration observed. That rule doesn't work
either though, because there is a velocity-dependent factor missing in
that relationship (which just happened to be close to 1 for most of
the everyday examples we looked at). Since these previous qualitative
descriptions have fallen short, we now just talk about it as a
quantity with the observed frame-independence and conservation
behaviors -- which is about the same as what we do with a number of
other properties like electric charge.

..... but this will not allow you to understand
neutrino oscillations without learning what "flavor" means.
I'm sorry, hanson, but you will not be able to understand all
phenomena observed just by getting a clear handle on a small number of
basic concepts.
If "flavor" were not a new and essential concept, then it would not
have been introduced in the first place.
How much are you willing to invest in learning a whole slew of
concepts and terms in order to understand the variety of phenomena we
observe?

-----------------------------------------
Was --- Re: Do I understand this correctly?

Am I correct in my understanding that, although it was discovered in
1998 that the neutrino does indeed have mass, people still don't
know what that mass is? TIA.
What we know is that neutrinos oscillate between "flavors" -- muon
neutrinos to electron neutrinos and vice versa, tau neutrinos to muon
neutrinos and vice versa, etc. We have seen such behavior in hadrons,
including K mesons containing strange quarks, and mesons containing
charm and bottom quarks. You can google "K-long K-short" if you like.
Quantum mechanically, the oscillation is expected from a mixture of
states being produced, and the oscillation rate is proportional to the
difference between the squares of the neutrino masses, and so this is
the quantity that's been measured. If all the neutrinos were massless,
then the difference would be zero, and the oscillation rate would be
zero. This, however, doesn't tell you what the masses are, only that
they are different.
Technically, the situation is a bit more muddled, because the neutrino
*mass* states are not identical to neutrino *flavor* states. One is a
mixture of the other. Thus, if you form a specific *mass* state, then
you are producing a mix of flavor states, and an oscillation will
occur between mass states; and vice versa.
... ahahaha...Paul, you write "This, however, doesn't tell you
what the masses are, only that they are different."... ahahaha..
and then you go and write a lengthy tripe around it, instead
of explaining what "mass" FUNDAMENTALLY means. Bad
pedagogic, Paul...Now, explain to Joe what "mass" here is.
TFTLIA... ahahahaha... ahahahahanson

I don't think that was his question, hanson.
If you want to know what mass fundamentally means,
why don't you make a new post with that question?

-------------------------
imbecile parrot!!
mass is conserved as well as energy is conserved

Nope. Observationally incorrect.

do you   know why hopeless  idiot crook ??
because ENERGY **HAS MASS**
**THE ONLY MASS!!**
NO MASS - THE ONLY MASS --
 NO REAL PHYSICS !!
Y.Porat
---------------------------------------
--------------------------

---------------------
the fact that our observations are
badly interpreted it is not natures fault
IT IS YOUR   and your parrots
FAULT !
no mass is growing or shrinking
by movement

When you choose to distrust observation as being "badly interpreted"
and favor "logic" over observation to determine truth is the same day
you walk away from science.

had you understand
WAT IS MOVEMENT
AND RELATIVE MOVEMENT
at high   speed
YOU might  UNDERSTAND
WHY THAT
observation  ILLUSION
OCCURS    !1
at higth   velocities mass is not swelling
it is the energy needed to  invest
for more acceleration
is becoming bigger !!
NO MASS -*** THE ONLY MASS***--
NO REAL PHYSICS !
ATB
Y.Porat
----------------------------

-----------------------
shameless crook demagogue!!!

what is your obseravtions and interpretations ??

lest take
PHOTON MOMENTUM
is
E photon =hf
the rigth formula presenting observations??

now tell me shameless fucker
is that formula
GOT ANYTHING WITH RELATIVITY ??!
it was found completely independent of relativity
nothing in it is relativistic
h has mass
so what the fuck is the relativistic coeficient
to multiply that mass
BY ANYTHING RELATIVISTIC ??

2
hf/c is photon momentum right??!
h has mass
what the fuck is anything there relativistic

is c relativistic ?? idiot ??
c is relativistic to ??? to c !!
IS IT RELATIVISTIC TO ITSELF ??

CAN ANYTHING IN PHYSICS BE RELATIVISTIC TO ITSELF??
dont you idiot crook understand what is the meaning of to be
relative to ??!!

can something be relative to itself ??!!
c is c and relative to c
so why add here the word relativistic ??

hf/c
hasnothing relativistic
INCLUDING THE MASS IN IT
indeed it is not written yet in your text books
but soon it will be
and crooks like you wilnot
on the long run - stop advance in physics !!

in short
before making me an idiot
make fist yourself an idiot
and crook as well
i say crook because you know well
( at least as a medium intelligent )
that i am right !!

NO MASS - THE ONLY MASS - NO REAL PHYSICS !!!

Y.Porat
-------------------------------------

[hanson]

<snip>
hanson wrote:
ahahaha...Paul, you write "This, however, doesn't tell you
what the masses are, only that they are different."... ahahaha..
and then you go and write a lengthy tripe around it, instead
of explaining what "mass" FUNDAMENTALLY means. Bad
pedagogic, Paul...Now, explain to Joe what "mass" is.
Paul wrote:
I don't think that was his question, hanson.
If you want to know what mass fundamentally means,
why don't you make a new post with that question?
Addressing Paul, Yehiel wrote:
Paul, you imbecile parrot!!
mass is conserved as well as energy is conserved
Paul answered Yehi and wrote:
Nope. Observationally incorrect.
Addressing Paul, Yehiel wrote:
do you know why, Paul, you hopeless idiot crook ??
because ENERGY **HAS MASS**
**THE ONLY MASS!!**
NO MASS - THE ONLY MASS --
NO REAL PHYSICS !!
the fact that our observations are
badly interpreted it is not natures fault
IT IS YOUR and your parrots FAULT !
no mass is growing or shrinking by movement
had you understand WAT IS MOVEMENT
AND RELATIVE MOVEMENTat high speed
YOU might UNDERSTAND WHY
THAT observation ILLUSION OCCURS !1
at higth velocities mass is not swelling
it is the energy needed to invest for more
acceleration is becoming bigger !!
NO MASS -*** THE ONLY MASS***-- NO REAL PHYSICS !
hanson wrote:
... ahahahaha... AHAHAHAHA... AHAHAHA...
Yehi, Yehi, don't get so excited over this or you will choke
on some barbs that were left in the gefilte fish.. AHAHA..
Listen, my dear khaver, Paul Draper's post
----- <http://tinyurl.com/Paul-Drapers-Mass> --------
is actually very enlightening... especially in regards to that
you and him have agreed, in part, that
........ mass has to do with acceleration........
Of course, there is a difference in the Weltbild that you
2 have. Draper is a Ph_ilosophical D_octor, a PhD, who
philosophizes & whose job is to pontificate about Nature.
OTOH, Yehi, you are a doer, a builder, an engineer.
So, your way of looking at things is perfectly good &
valuable too.
Don't waste your time to cram your views down the throat
of Draper. He has no use for that. His inner world is very
different from yours... But don't let me cramp your style,
Yehi. Carry on and thanks for the laughs... ahahahanson
PS:
I may post on this issue directly to Draper. He said some
very interesting things in his tripe. The consequences of his,
the establishment's, notions are quite intriguing.