Science needs to define it as a fundamental
energy quantity of each fundamental particle.

If Higgs donated in the end it is left empty is it not?
How did we measure an empty particle?
No. Science is lying to itself and the world.

Mitchell Raemsch

On Monday, March 13, 2023 at 11:38:50 PM UTC-3, mitchr...@gmail.com wrote:
> Science needs to define it as a fundamental
> energy quantity of each fundamental particle.
>
> If Higgs donated in the end it is left empty is it not?
> How did we measure an empty particle?
> No. Science is lying to itself and the world.
>
> Mitchell Raemsch

I think that the title is the best thing you ever wrote. Very insightful and true. Rest mass, in relativity, is an oxymoron,
a proof of how stupid and nonsensical this einstenian shit is.

Under relativity theory, it should not be such a thing as a relative mass. Brilliant!

On Monday, March 13, 2023 at 7:38:50 PM UTC-7, wrote:
> Science needs to define it as a fundamental
> energy quantity of each fundamental particle.
>
> If Higgs donated in the end it is left empty is it not?
> How did we measure an empty particle?
> No. Science is lying to itself and the world.
>
> Mitchell Raemsch
Current physics understands that all kinds of mass are identical so there is only one kind of mass. Your title proves there is no such thing as rest mass.

On Tuesday, March 14, 2023 at 8:27:46 AM UTC-7, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote:
> On Monday, March 13, 2023 at 7:38:50 PM UTC-7, wrote:
> > Science needs to define it as a fundamental
> > energy quantity of each fundamental particle.
> >
> > If Higgs donated in the end it is left empty is it not?
> > How did we measure an empty particle?
> > No. Science is lying to itself and the world.
> >
> > Mitchell Raemsch
> Current physics understands that all kinds of mass are identical so there is only one kind of mass. Your title proves there is no such thing as rest mass.

Instead there is fundamental particle energies.
And they are equivalent.

On Tuesday, March 14, 2023 at 10:36:34 AM UTC-7, wrote:
> On Tuesday, March 14, 2023 at 8:27:46 AM UTC-7, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote:
> > On Monday, March 13, 2023 at 7:38:50 PM UTC-7, wrote:
> > > Science needs to define it as a fundamental
> > > energy quantity of each fundamental particle.
> > >
> > > If Higgs donated in the end it is left empty is it not?
> > > How did we measure an empty particle?
> > > No. Science is lying to itself and the world.
> > >
> > > Mitchell Raemsch
> > Current physics understands that all kinds of mass are identical so there is only one kind of mass. Your title proves there is no such thing as rest mass.
> Instead there is fundamental particle energies.
> And they are equivalent.
Einstein makes various unwarranted inferences from the supposed equivalence of rest mass and gravitational mass. I'm trying to remember...

On Monday, March 13, 2023 at 7:54:35 PM UTC-7, Richard Hertz wrote:
> On Monday, March 13, 2023 at 11:38:50 PM UTC-3, mitchr...@gmail.com wrote:
> > Science needs to define it as a fundamental
> > energy quantity of each fundamental particle.
> >
> > If Higgs donated in the end it is left empty is it not?
> > How did we measure an empty particle?
> > No. Science is lying to itself and the world.
> >
> > Mitchell Raemsch
> I think that the title is the best thing you ever wrote. Very insightful and true. Rest mass, in relativity, is an oxymoron,

It's just a _name_ that stuck because of some convoluted development
history. The correct name is "mass" which is just like "charge", etc.
> a proof of how stupid and nonsensical this einstenian shit is.

No, it's only a proof that people tend to stick to old traditional
names sometimes. It's like saying "ether waves" when referring to
radio signals.

--
Jan

On Tuesday, March 14, 2023 at 5:57:40 PM UTC-3, JanPB wrote:
> On Monday, March 13, 2023 at 7:54:35 PM UTC-7, Richard Hertz wrote:
> > On Monday, March 13, 2023 at 11:38:50 PM UTC-3, mitchr...@gmail..com wrote:
> > > Science needs to define it as a fundamental
> > > energy quantity of each fundamental particle.
> > >
> > > If Higgs donated in the end it is left empty is it not?
> > > How did we measure an empty particle?
> > > No. Science is lying to itself and the world.
> > >
> > > Mitchell Raemsch
> > I think that the title is the best thing you ever wrote. Very insightful and true. Rest mass, in relativity, is an oxymoron,
> It's just a _name_ that stuck because of some convoluted development
> history. The correct name is "mass" which is just like "charge", etc.
> > a proof of how stupid and nonsensical this einstenian shit is.
> No, it's only a proof that people tend to stick to old traditional
> names sometimes. It's like saying "ether waves" when referring to
> radio signals.
>
> --
> Jan

There are about 960,000 entries for the exact search of "rest mass".
All of them are different.

As you are an expert, you should join the inbreed cretins from this expert's site.
It would be nice to see a kookfight between retarded relativists.

************************************************

What is rest mass? How to explain it especially to the high school students?
https://www.physlink.com/education/askexperts/ae161.cfm

Answer
One of the consequences of Einstein's special theory of relativity (1905) is that the mass of an object increases with its velocity relative to the observer. When an object is at rest (relative to the observer), it has the usual (inertial = tendency to resist an applied force) mass that we are all familiar with. This is called the 'rest mass' of the object.
.....
So, quite simply, the 'rest mass' of an object is the inertial mass that an object has when it is at rest.
Answered by: Warren Davis, Ph.D., President, Davis Associates, Inc., Newton, MA USA
************************************************

Le 14/03/2023 à 22:36, Richard Hertz a écrit :

> search of "rest mass".

Stupid expression.

As stupid as "dehydrated water" or "round square" or "scarlet white".

Rien de réellement compréhensible dans mon esprit.

Strictement aucun intérêt en physique relativiste ou ailleurs.

"Un autobus ne devient pas deux autobus par changement de référentiel".

R.H.

On Tuesday, March 14, 2023 at 2:36:19 PM UTC-7, Richard Hertz wrote:
> On Tuesday, March 14, 2023 at 5:57:40 PM UTC-3, JanPB wrote:
> > On Monday, March 13, 2023 at 7:54:35 PM UTC-7, Richard Hertz wrote:
> > > On Monday, March 13, 2023 at 11:38:50 PM UTC-3, mitchr...@gmail.com wrote:
> > > > Science needs to define it as a fundamental
> > > > energy quantity of each fundamental particle.
> > > >
> > > > If Higgs donated in the end it is left empty is it not?
> > > > How did we measure an empty particle?
> > > > No. Science is lying to itself and the world.
> > > >
> > > > Mitchell Raemsch
> > > I think that the title is the best thing you ever wrote. Very insightful and true. Rest mass, in relativity, is an oxymoron,
> > It's just a _name_ that stuck because of some convoluted development
> > history. The correct name is "mass" which is just like "charge", etc.
> > > a proof of how stupid and nonsensical this einstenian shit is.
> > No, it's only a proof that people tend to stick to old traditional
> > names sometimes. It's like saying "ether waves" when referring to
> > radio signals.
> >
> > --
> > Jan
> There are about 960,000 entries for the exact search of "rest mass".
> All of them are different.

I really don't care. You can name it any way you want. Just
leave me out of it.

--
Jan

On Tuesday, March 14, 2023 at 7:43:22 PM UTC-3, JanPB wrote:

<snip>

> I really don't care. You can name it any way you want. Just
> leave me out of it.

Is this one of those "Queen of England" moments that Maciej mentioned?

On Tuesday, March 14, 2023 at 4:31:46 PM UTC-7, Richard Hertz wrote:
> On Tuesday, March 14, 2023 at 7:43:22 PM UTC-3, JanPB wrote:
>
> <snip>
> > I really don't care. You can name it any way you want. Just
> > leave me out of it.
> Is this one of those "Queen of England" moments that Maciej mentioned?

The point is the original poster's claim about rest mass was
not even wrong (let alone false). You are now the second person
on this thread tying yourself in pretzels trying to change the
subject to irrelevancies and debates about my humble persona.

--
Jan

On Tuesday, March 14, 2023 at 6:42:16 PM UTC-7, JanPB wrote:
> On Tuesday, March 14, 2023 at 4:31:46 PM UTC-7, Richard Hertz wrote:
> > On Tuesday, March 14, 2023 at 7:43:22 PM UTC-3, JanPB wrote:
> >
> > <snip>
> > > I really don't care. You can name it any way you want. Just
> > > leave me out of it.
> > Is this one of those "Queen of England" moments that Maciej mentioned?
> The point is the original poster's claim about rest mass was
> not even wrong (let alone false). You are now the second person
> on this thread tying yourself in pretzels trying to change the
> subject to irrelevancies and debates about my humble persona.

You are humble... and proud of it... jan..

>
> --
> Jan

On Tuesday, March 14, 2023 at 10:42:16 PM UTC-3, JanPB wrote:
> On Tuesday, March 14, 2023 at 4:31:46 PM UTC-7, Richard Hertz wrote:
> > On Tuesday, March 14, 2023 at 7:43:22 PM UTC-3, JanPB wrote:
> >
> > <snip>
> > > I really don't care. You can name it any way you want. Just
> > > leave me out of it.
> > Is this one of those "Queen of England" moments that Maciej mentioned?
> The point is the original poster's claim about rest mass was
> not even wrong (let alone false). You are now the second person
> on this thread tying yourself in pretzels trying to change the
> subject to irrelevancies and debates about my humble persona.
>
> --
> Jan

The main point is that relativists like you talk about mass "at relative rest" all the time.

If mass is an absolute concept, that doesn't change with motion (Okun, 1992), its value is ABSOLUTE.

And ABSOLUTE mass is another way to express "mass relative to the entire mass of the universe", which
makes relativity sound even more stupid.

It's the same with celestial bodies rotations. Everything rotates, and this is a CONSTANT in the visible universe.

But rotates with reference to what? To the ether, which some imbeciles try to replace with the CBR, and measure
motion relative to it, like the speed of rotation of the Milky Way, the Solar System or neutron star.

Relativity is running out of gas, and can't explain cumulative amounts of contradictions and incoherence, like what is "mass at rest".

On 3/14/2023 10:12 PM, Richard Hertz wrote:
> On Tuesday, March 14, 2023 at 10:42:16 PM UTC-3, JanPB wrote:
>> On Tuesday, March 14, 2023 at 4:31:46 PM UTC-7, Richard Hertz wrote:
>>> On Tuesday, March 14, 2023 at 7:43:22 PM UTC-3, JanPB wrote:
>>>
>>> <snip>
>>>> I really don't care. You can name it any way you want. Just
>>>> leave me out of it.
>>> Is this one of those "Queen of England" moments that Maciej mentioned?
>> The point is the original poster's claim about rest mass was
>> not even wrong (let alone false). You are now the second person
>> on this thread tying yourself in pretzels trying to change the
>> subject to irrelevancies and debates about my humble persona.
>>
>> --
>> Jan
>
> The main point is that relativists like you talk about mass "at relative rest" all the time.
>
> If mass is an absolute concept, that doesn't change with motion (Okun, 1992), its value is ABSOLUTE.
>
> And ABSOLUTE mass is another way to express "mass relative to the entire mass of the universe", which
> makes relativity sound even more stupid.
>
> It's the same with celestial bodies rotations. Everything rotates, and this is a CONSTANT in the visible universe.
>
> But rotates with reference to what? To the ether, which some imbeciles try to replace with the CBR, and measure
> motion relative to it, like the speed of rotation of the Milky Way, the Solar System or neutron star.
>
> Relativity is running out of gas, and can't explain cumulative amounts of contradictions and incoherence, like what is "mass at rest".

All of science appears to work within limits (limitations if you
prefer.) Discontinuities abound. Use what is good and don't worry about
the rest. Of course if you prefer to drive yourself crazy, have at it.