0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
We had a lot of threads about mass in this forum.
But, as I and others have already written to you, ..
if the system it's not still, its energy is not its mass multiplied c2.Quoteis wrong.
Quote from: lightarrowBecause (and Einstein exploited this fact in GR) gravitational mass and inertial mass are the same thing.Let’s be precise about this. Inertial mass, which I’ll label mi is not the same thing as gravitational mass. They are not identical, they are proportional. What follows is how this is all explained in the physics literature, not merely something I came up with. Although it is something I highly agree with.Einstein used the emperical fact that the inertial mass of an object is proportional to the bodies passive gravitational mass which I’ll label as mp. This is the mass on which gravity acts. If we let active gravitational mass as ma, which is the source of gravity. The gravitational force on the body due to the source, Fg, is thenFg = Kmamp/r^2where K is a constant of proportionality. Then since Fg = maia = (mp/mi)Kma/r^2What Einstein exploited was the fact that there exists some constant c such thatmp = c*mia = (cmi/mi)Kma/r^2a = cKma/r^2Define the constant G = cK and call it the gravitational constant. Thena = Gma/r^2
Because (and Einstein exploited this fact in GR) gravitational mass and inertial mass are the same thing.
Quote from: lightarrowWe had a lot of threads about mass in this forum. And you’ve been ignoring the other definition of mass which is widely used and what is confusing mxplxxx who wrote It is like saying energy is mass*speed of light squared to which you responded I wish you could! To define energy in general is not so simple, my friend!, the accuracy of which depends on which definition of mass one is referring to. Did you ever tell him that there actually is a definition for which his statement is true?
..and I replied that we had a lot of threads about mass, so he could look for them and understand that E = mc2 is not simply a units conversion.
You don't agree with me? I thought you did.
And about the fact "mass is just concentrated energy" you agree with him?
I suggest that you try not to be so adverse to when others think that the entire story needs to be explicitly stated rather than assume the reader can dig out the point they wish to make by a vauge suggestion to "search the forum for mass."
But on the fact "the entire story needs to be explicitly stated" I certainly agree. I suggested him to look for other threads just because I didn't want to write again what I (and you and others) have already written many times about what he needed to know.--lightarrow
And it's nice to see you writing again Lightarrrow, long time no see.
The product of energy and time is called "action"…
… so Planck's constant "h" was and is referred to as an action constant.
Planck didn't really like it at first as he had an energy constant in mind, not an action constant. It produced the odd result that the fundamental particle of light came in an infinite variety of energies, rather than having a constant defining energy ... a defining constant characteristic such as the charge on an electron.
Maybe the translations from German to English are off a little, but I would encourage you to go back and read some of the original papers. Fascinating reading!
PS - The cites to the original papers by Planck, Einstein and others can be found in my papers at ...sorry, you cannot view external links. To see them, please
REGISTER or LOGIN. The mathematics I reviewed with Hans Peter are laid out in good detail in papers #1 and #2.