sci.energy

On Sep 9, 5:23 am, "Autymn D. C." wrote:
> On Sep 2, 7:11 pm, " " < ...@ > wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Sep 2, 8:35 am, "Autymn D. C." wrote:
> > > On Sep 1, 1:33 am, " " < ...@ > wrote:
> > > > On Aug 14, 10:21 pm, "greysky" wrote:
> > > > > one of Saturn's moons and set you up with a cozy environment and =
many sexy
> > > > > in-heat women, because form your vantage point, all you'd see is =
a very
> > > > > bright flash as the Earth stopped existing as a planet housing 6 =
billion
> > > > > humans and many billions more of various plant and animal species=
. Perhaps
> > > > > you could ask your supernatural force why it would do such a sill=
y thing?
> > > > hey Greyskeycan you tell us
> > > > how 10 percent of mass is becoming 90 pecent??
>
> > > Hmm, a hadr=F2n's empeiric formula is not lik its kemic formula? Why
> > > can't you get one molecule of watter in a cup, why only none or many?
>
> > > Did you also know there are 8 glu=F2ns? (9 with the nouht-glu=F2n)
>
> > > > can you tell os why are there only 3 quarks
> > > > why 4
> > > > why not 5 ??
>
> > > /groups?q=3DAutymn+New-Model /groups?=
q=2E..
>
> > > > 3
> > > > can you tell us by your 'not supernatural' unsedstandings
>
> > > > how
> > > > **3 quarks* are making a sphere ??
>
> > > Who said a hadr=F2n was a sfair? I gave you news that the prot=F2n c=
ould
> > > be a ring or peanut. I also said that two quarks could trend about
> > > one quark and trace out a ring of a ring, which is like a sfair.
> > sorry i ddint get you!
>
> where?
>
> > there migh tbe evn 6 quarks
> > but not in one hadron!
>
> so?
>
> > 2
> > if you whant to be clear in geometry
> > you have to be less verbal and more geometry using
>
> So where is your proof against three quarks?
>
> > 3
> > do you know tha t there are 'physicsits'
> > that claime that you can never know the geometry
> > of the hadron 'becauase of the HUP' ???
> > (that is their claime not mine (:-)
>
> who? where?
>
> > 4
> > even if i will be killed
> > (and burned on the stake in the market place (:-))
> > i will not accept the (crooked stupid ) notion of :
>
> > 10 percent of masss becoming 100 percent of
> > (REST ) mass
> > of the hadron ....
> > and i hope you and others alread know that
>
> > THERE IS ONLY ONE KIND OF MASS ----
> > INVARIANT MASS !!!.
>
> Not sorry, but I don't believe in invariants. Relativistic gamma
> distributs to both mass and velocity.- Hide quoted text -
> --------------------
you dont have any profe fo rthat!1

it i sonly a false interpretation of pormulas
take for instance

F=3D gamma m a
who told you to waht is that 'gamma beongs ?

to m or to a ??
or may be a possibility you never thought about ...!
like

F/Gamma =3D m a ?? (:-)
ask PD
he will tell you how he used it
without mensioning the copyrighter of it
and by trayng to relate it to himself .....

and if you like i will explain it once more though i did it
too many times before :

if you push a car to inite it
(i supopse that since you are a woman
you never did it ...)

so at ther beginning you push with all your might
and the car moves only very slow
as you go on with it
you keep pushing say wi tthe same force
and the car (or another object() starts to get more
velocity
now you try to push it harder
and you find that it becomes more and more imposible
for your forces to add more velocity
because of what ???

because the car got such a velocity that it is
iposible for you to reach it
may be pushing a bycicle wil be more tagnible for you
2
i wonder if the folowing example will be tangible for you
take a rocket
driven by burning gass pressure
it is a similar story:

at the beginning the mass of the pushing gas
is reaching easily the inner desighne location
(waht ever it is) to hit it and push it
now as the rocket gains more and more velocity
even the fast expanding gass
gets more and more difficulty to reach the running
away forwards rocket
(even if th e gass is monted on the rocket itself !!!)
but even then iot has to do some distance between
ity slocation and the location it is suposed to hit
inj the rocket 'engine '
so you need
more and more gas
in order to add more velocity
and it comes to a point in which the gasss
is unable to add any more velocity
to the running forwards rocket
(the energy needed to add even more velocity
becomes 'infinit' t the gass ability
and that is :

F/Gamma =3D m a !!
and similarly with E driving energy !!

hope i made myself somehow clear
if not
jsut try doing it youself in another way
and other examples .
bottom line
massis not inflating
it remaines always constance
not created form nothing !
not disapearing magically
whle a body stopes its movement

but jsut being always CONSERVED .
you can call it as many names you like
rest invariant whatever
but th manin point -- it is constant
and please remember
Ocams razor principle::
**the simpler -- the better ** !!!

ATB
Y=2EPorat
--------------------------