Common Misconceptions in Physics

[topsquark]

Dan - Why do you bother arguing with Oz?

I'm kind a stuck at home at the moment and I need a hobby.

-Dan

 

[topsquark]

I see I misunderstood topsquark's post.

Thanks to PMB for showing me that.

Sorry about that. I should have quoted only the relevant part of 0z's post.

-Dan

 

[Pmb]

I'm kind a stuck at home at the moment and I need a hobby.

-Dan

I too am stuck at home. This is my hobby. But my hobby doesn't include peeling my skin off. To me that's what its like trying to reason with Oz.

 

[topsquark]

I too am stuck at home. This is my hobby. But my hobby doesn't include peeling my skin off. To me that's what its like trying to reason with Oz.

You forgot the peroxide rinse.

-Dan

 

[oz93666]

No one has yet offered a defence for the invention of the terms passive and active gravitational mass ...

Do they have any use ???? do they help our calculations , or help explain previously unexplained experimental results?

I suggest to you again there is just MASS ...

Two masses exert a force on each other as per Newtons equation ... neither mass is either 'passive' or 'active' ....

 

[Pmb]

No one has yet offered a defence for the invention of the terms passive and active gravitational mass ...

Do they have any use ???? do they help our calculations , or help explain previously unexplained experimental results?

I suggest to you again there is just MASS ...

Two masses exert a force on each other as per Newtons equation ... neither mass is either 'passive' or 'active' ....

This is the wrong thread for this. We already explained it to you. Just brecause you claim that no defense was offered it doesn't make it true. In fact little of what you claim has ever been true.

For those who are smarter than Oz see the article I wrote here: https://arxiv.org/abs/0709.0687

I already explained all of this to Oz who was unable to grasp it. For example: Inertial mass acts in one dimension only and for that reason any stress in a body in motionm contributes to the inertial mass in the direction of motion of the body. Not so in active gravitational mass which acts in three dimensions.

For example: Suppose the body in question has the same stress in all directions such as a gas would be in a box. Then only the factor P enters into the math formula. However in the case of gravitation the factor 3P enters into the math formula.

However this was already explained to Oz and it went right over his head. Hence the reason he's in my ignore list and why its so rare that I read or respond to him - i.e. almost all of what he posts is nonsense. E.g. he once claimed that car batteries can never explode contrary to the fact that many have and thus its not only possible but its happed many times and will keep on happening. Especially if they try to learn from Oz!

The greatest problem with Oz is his inability to admit when he's wrong .. which is almost always.

 

[oz93666]

This is the wrong thread for this. We already explained it to you. Just brecause you claim that no defense was offered it doesn't make it true. In fact little of what you claim has ever been true.

For those who are smarter than Oz see the article I wrote here: https://arxiv.org/abs/0709.0687

I already explained all of this to Oz who was unable to grasp it. For example: Inertial mass acts in one dimension only and for that reason any stress in a body in motionm contributes to the inertial mass in the direction of motion of the body. Not so in active gravitational mass which acts in three dimensions.

For example: Suppose the body in question has the same stress in all directions such as a gas would be in a box. Then only the factor P enters into the math formula. However in the case of gravitation the factor 3P enters into the math formula.

However this was already explained to Oz and it went right over his head. Hence the reason he's in my ignore list and why its so rare that I read or respond to him - i.e. almost all of what he posts is nonsense. E.g. he once claimed that car batteries can never explode contrary to the fact that many have and thus its not only possible but its happed many times and will keep on happening. Especially if they try to learn from Oz!

The greatest problem with Oz is his inability to admit when he's wrong .. which is almost always.

Still no explanation of the terms passive and active gravitational mass ...

Instead lots of personal insults , and a diversion onto a previous questions relating to inertial mass ...car batteries exploding... anything but addressing the challenge of explaining...

What use or help or value is there inventing terms like Passive and active gravitational mass...

Please take a beep breath and focus on the issue ... I'm sure I'm not the only one reading this who would like to know ... imagine you are speaking to a 16 year old with a good knowledge of physics.

The link you supplied is to an article on relativistic mass and while does not address my specific question , does illustrate my point perfectly ..

This is the first line from that link... "Within the past fifteen years the use of the concept of "relativistic mass" has been on the decline and has been replaced...."

Exactly .... 'physicists' who want to make a name for themselves , try to introduce terms like "relativistic mass"..."passive gravitational mass " they come in fashion for a while , but since they are unnecessary , confusing , irrelevant and useless they are soon abandoned .

From your link we learn the term "relativistic mass" lasted 15 years ... if professional physicists had any common sense and courage to call out "the emperor has no clothes" such terms wouldn't last 15 minutes !

 

[Pmb]

Without even reading Oz's response (since I know better) I can say with absolute certainty that again he's clueless.

 

[oz93666]

Without even reading Oz's response (since I know better) I can say with absolute certainty that again he's clueless. I responded to show newcomers what we're dealing with when it comes to Oz. Hint: He also claims that the government is hiding the truth about UFOs, they're hiding aliens at Area 52 and he claims to have proof that time travelers from the future have visited us in the present. That along with any other conspiracy he can dream up. Oh yeah. He also claims that man never landed on the moon. Never mind the mountain of evidence that we have and absolute lack of evidence that we haven't.

lol ....That's all very interesting ...and is a fairly accurate outline of my understandings ....

But you have changed the subject again !!

I refer you back to my previous post.

 

[Pmb]

And Oz keeps posting like a crackpot knowing I won't read his nonsense. Typical.