On Saturday, January 8, 2022 at 12:21:58 PM UTC-5, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
> Ken Seto <seto...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > On Thursday, January 6, 2022 at 1:29:52 PM UTC-5, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
> >> Richard Hachel <r.ha...@tiscali.fr> wrote:
> >>> Le 06/01/2022 à 15:05, Gary Harnagel a écrit :
> >>>
> >>> Thank you for your reply.
> >>>
> >>>> Wongo, Richard. Langevin himself "solved" it.
> >>>>
> >>>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Twin_paradox
> >>>>
> >>>> "The asymmetry that occurred because only the traveler underwent acceleration
> >>>> is used to explain why there is any difference at all,"
> >>>
> >>> This sentence does not mean anything. It absolutely does not explain the
> >>> phenomenon. When I read this, I find it sad to cry, not that a scientist
> >>> could have written such bullshit, but that other men reprized this silly
> >>> sentence as if a genius had spoken.
> >>> It is as if he was saying: "a dog is a dog because a dog is a dog".
> >>> I have said over and over again (but nobody seems to care) that it was not
> >>> the accelerations that explained the phenomenon, and that almost all of
> >>> the differences were made during the purely Galilean phases. We also said
> >>> bullshit of the type "the twin jumps of reference" or "the needles panic
> >>> during the U-turn". This is all sad.
> >>> We drown the fish with words. Nothing really obvious or understandable is
> >>> explained. In short, as I have always said: "The theory of relativity is
> >>> right, beautiful, and experimentally obvious. But when a man is asked to
> >>> explain it, he does not know how to do it. Everything turns to dust. under
> >>> the rug because we don't know how to say things ".
> >>> The accelerations? LOL.
> >>> And why not the papal balls?
> >>>
> >>> R.H.
> >>>
> >> Richard, break the problem down. There are TWO questions involved in this
> >> puzzle.
> >>
> >> 1. Why is it not a paradox?
> >
> > But it is a paradox.
> No, it’s not.

Yes it is.
> >
> >> 2. W.hat is the explanation for why one twin comes back younger
> >
> > The traveling twin doesn’t come back younger.
> Well, if that were true, then you wouldn’t have a paradox to complain
> about.

There is no paradox....your assertion that there is paradox based on the false assumption that a clock second is an absolute interval of TIME....it is not. A clock second contains a different amount of TIME in different frames.

> > His clock second contain a larger amount of TIME than the stay at home
> > clock second.....that means that clocks in different frames accumulate
> > clock seconds at different rates and thus when they meet again they show
> > different number of clock seconds. This does not mean that the traveling
> > clock is younger. It means that the traveling clock accumulated Tt
> > seconds contains the same amount of TIME as the stay at home clock
> > accumulated Ts seconds. IOW, a clock second on any clock does not
> > represent the same amount of TIME in different frame and that’s why when
> > the twin meet again they show different accumulated clock seconds but
> > these different accumulated clock seconds contain the same amount of TIME.
> >>
> >> The answer to the first question is defusing the mistake that generates the
> >> apparent paradox. The mistake is specifically this: “But snce motion is
> >> relative, it is a completely symmetric scenario. The traveling twin can
> >> think of himself as moving and the earth twin as moving away and then
> >> moving back.” The mistake is — specifically — thinking that it is a
> >> symmetric situation when it is not. Remove the symmetry and the apparent
> >> paradox dissolves, because if it is NOT symmetric, then you cannot make the
> >> claim that you can just reflect the situation as the earth twin moving away
> >> and coming back toward the traveling twin.
> >>
> >> Resolving the paradox does not answer question 2, but it does answer
> >> question 1.
> >>
> >> If you need further response about why it is not symmetric, that can be
> >> described in multiple ways. The symmetry of the situation would require
> >> both observers to be in inertial motion, when ONE is clearly not. Describe
> >> that as “one twin feels acceleration and the other not” or equivalently
> >> “one is at rest in a single inertial reference frame, while the other is
> >> not” or “the worldline of one twin is straight while the other is bent”.
> >> These all MEAN the same thing, using different words. If you don’t
> >> understand how they can mean the same thing, that’s because you do not
> >> understand connections like experienced acceleration and bends in a
> >> worldline. And that you could only fix by READING.
> >>
> >> This still doesn’t answer question 2 for you, which comes from
> >> straightforward calculation with Lorentz transforms. But first you have to
> >> understand the answer to question 1.
> >>
> >> --
> >> Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
> >
>
>
>
> --
> Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables

everything isalllies <itsalllieseverything@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Saturday, January 8, 2022 at 4:45:26 AM UTC, Michael Moroney wrote:
>
>>> So the Muon is created, and the Muon has Mass... it is supposed to
>>> accelerate to near light speed instantly? No acceleration period? That
>>> would require the application of an infinite amount of FORCE from
>>> somewhere, to accelerate ANY object that has Mass, to near light speed
>>> in ZERO time. (actually impossible)
>> Yet they exist. So you need to reexamine your thought processes. I
>> simply considered that all particles just get created with their speeds,
>> kinetic energy and momentum. Imagining near-infinite forces
>> accelerating the muon from rest (with respect to what?) seems too
>> classical to make sense.....
>
> Yep, you have no idea what Muons are about, but you are ok with simply
> claiming that they simply exist, even though it goes against the your common sense. \

Well, if you think muons go against common sense and thus their existence
is suspect, then I think this is a great example of common sense
confronting direct measurement.

> It was Einsteins I believe who said that ANY particle ( eve one with
> practically no Mass) if accelerated to near Light Speed, would gain
> almost infinite Mass which is why nothing that has Mas can reach Light speed.

Muons do not reach light speed. But don’t confuse invariant mass with
relativistic mass. Those are different terms that mean different things,
and if you confuse them you’re going to make a mistake. Relativistic mass
is just energy scaled by a factor (c^2).

> Yet the Muon can, while NOT gaining Mass to the value near infinity, and
> doing it with out much applied Energy either! No detectable force of the
> Einsteins required magnitude is to be found.. yet Muons are still doing
> it and our beliefs about Muons is still true.
>
> You should not be referring to Muons in a argument about Einsteins
> theories, because thay do not do what Einsteins claimed they should!
>
> Einstein: Any mass no mater how small, will increase in Mass towards
> infinity whilst consuming all the energy in the universe if it were to
> attain near Light speed.
>
> Now what are you claiming about Muons? We know it all? Its all been measured?
>
>
>

--
Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables

Ken Seto <setoken47@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Saturday, January 8, 2022 at 12:21:58 PM UTC-5, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
>> Ken Seto <seto...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> On Thursday, January 6, 2022 at 1:29:52 PM UTC-5, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
>>>> Richard Hachel <r.ha...@tiscali.fr> wrote:
>>>>> Le 06/01/2022 à 15:05, Gary Harnagel a écrit :
>>>>>
>>>>> Thank you for your reply.
>>>>>
>>>>>> Wongo, Richard. Langevin himself "solved" it.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Twin_paradox
>>>>>>
>>>>>> "The asymmetry that occurred because only the traveler underwent acceleration
>>>>>> is used to explain why there is any difference at all,"
>>>>>
>>>>> This sentence does not mean anything. It absolutely does not explain the
>>>>> phenomenon. When I read this, I find it sad to cry, not that a scientist
>>>>> could have written such bullshit, but that other men reprized this silly
>>>>> sentence as if a genius had spoken.
>>>>> It is as if he was saying: "a dog is a dog because a dog is a dog".
>>>>> I have said over and over again (but nobody seems to care) that it was not
>>>>> the accelerations that explained the phenomenon, and that almost all of
>>>>> the differences were made during the purely Galilean phases. We also said
>>>>> bullshit of the type "the twin jumps of reference" or "the needles panic
>>>>> during the U-turn". This is all sad.
>>>>> We drown the fish with words. Nothing really obvious or understandable is
>>>>> explained. In short, as I have always said: "The theory of relativity is
>>>>> right, beautiful, and experimentally obvious. But when a man is asked to
>>>>> explain it, he does not know how to do it. Everything turns to dust. under
>>>>> the rug because we don't know how to say things ".
>>>>> The accelerations? LOL.
>>>>> And why not the papal balls?
>>>>>
>>>>> R.H.
>>>>>
>>>> Richard, break the problem down. There are TWO questions involved in this
>>>> puzzle.
>>>>
>>>> 1. Why is it not a paradox?
>>>
>>> But it is a paradox.
>> No, it’s not.
>
> Yes it is.
>>>
>>>> 2. W.hat is the explanation for why one twin comes back younger
>>>
>>> The traveling twin doesn’t come back younger.
>> Well, if that were true, then you wouldn’t have a paradox to complain
>> about.
>
> There is no paradox....

That’s funny, just above you said it was a paradox.

It’s getting bad, Ken.

> your assertion that there is paradox based on the false assumption that
> a clock second is an absolute interval of TIME....it is not. A clock
> second contains a different amount of TIME in different frames.
>
>>> His clock second contain a larger amount of TIME than the stay at home
>>> clock second.....that means that clocks in different frames accumulate
>>> clock seconds at different rates and thus when they meet again they show
>>> different number of clock seconds. This does not mean that the traveling
>>> clock is younger. It means that the traveling clock accumulated Tt
>>> seconds contains the same amount of TIME as the stay at home clock
>>> accumulated Ts seconds. IOW, a clock second on any clock does not
>>> represent the same amount of TIME in different frame and that’s why when
>>> the twin meet again they show different accumulated clock seconds but
>>> these different accumulated clock seconds contain the same amount of TIME.
>>>>
>>>> The answer to the first question is defusing the mistake that generates the
>>>> apparent paradox. The mistake is specifically this: “But snce motion is
>>>> relative, it is a completely symmetric scenario. The traveling twin can
>>>> think of himself as moving and the earth twin as moving away and then
>>>> moving back.” The mistake is — specifically — thinking that it is a
>>>> symmetric situation when it is not. Remove the symmetry and the apparent
>>>> paradox dissolves, because if it is NOT symmetric, then you cannot make the
>>>> claim that you can just reflect the situation as the earth twin moving away
>>>> and coming back toward the traveling twin.
>>>>
>>>> Resolving the paradox does not answer question 2, but it does answer
>>>> question 1.
>>>>
>>>> If you need further response about why it is not symmetric, that can be
>>>> described in multiple ways. The symmetry of the situation would require
>>>> both observers to be in inertial motion, when ONE is clearly not. Describe
>>>> that as “one twin feels acceleration and the other not” or equivalently
>>>> “one is at rest in a single inertial reference frame, while the other is
>>>> not” or “the worldline of one twin is straight while the other is bent”.
>>>> These all MEAN the same thing, using different words. If you don’t
>>>> understand how they can mean the same thing, that’s because you do not
>>>> understand connections like experienced acceleration and bends in a
>>>> worldline. And that you could only fix by READING.
>>>>
>>>> This still doesn’t answer question 2 for you, which comes from
>>>> straightforward calculation with Lorentz transforms. But first you have to
>>>> understand the answer to question 1.
>>>>
>>>> --
>>>> Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
>>>
>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
>

--
Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables

On 1/8/2022 3:20 AM, everything isalllies wrote:
> On Saturday, January 8, 2022 at 4:45:26 AM UTC, Michael Moroney wrote:
>
>>> So the Muon is created, and the Muon has Mass... it is supposed to accelerate to near light speed instantly? No acceleration period? That would require the application of an infinite amount of FORCE from somewhere, to accelerate ANY object that has Mass, to near light speed in ZERO time. (actually impossible)
>> Yet they exist. So you need to reexamine your thought processes. I
>> simply considered that all particles just get created with their speeds,
>> kinetic energy and momentum. Imagining near-infinite forces
>> accelerating the muon from rest (with respect to what?) seems too
>> classical to make sense.....
>
> Yep, you have no idea what Muons are about, but you are ok with simply claiming that they simply exist,

There's no denying the existence of the muon. They do exist, and are
very common. Right now, unless you're thousands of feet underground in a
salt mine, there are thousands of muons streaming through your body
every minute. They exist. Deal with it.

> even though it goes against the your common sense.

As discussed here frequently, "common sense" is a very poor predictor of
science. The existence of muons isn't common sense, and their discovery
was a surprise ("Who ordered that?"), but they do exist.

> It was Einsteins I believe who said that ANY particle ( eve one with practically no Mass) if accelerated to near Light Speed, would gain almost infinite Mass which is why nothing that has Mas can reach Light speed.

You are referring to an obsolete concept called relativistic mass. It is
a confusing idea since "relativistic mass" is frame dependent and
changes, while rest mass is invariant. Nowadays what is taught is that
energy has momentum and a particle moving near c has a lot of (kinetic)
energy, which has momentum, which resists further acceleration. The
momentum is the same as that the relativistic mass would have, if you
use that concept. If you have older books discussing relativistic mass,
just multiply it by c^2 to get the equivalent energy.

> Yet the Muon can, while NOT gaining Mass to the value near infinity,

It has kinetic energy. Lots of kinetic energy for atmospheric muons
(gamma from 10-20). But not infinite (gamma=infinity).

> and doing it with out much applied Energy either!

Nope. Atmospheric muons mostly come from the decay of pions produced by
cosmic rays. The energy they have is the original kinetic energy of the
pion plus energy from the mass difference between the pion and muon (34
MeV), but this energy gets shared with two neutrinos which are also
formed. The original pion energy can be fairly substantial.

> No detectable force of the Einsteins required magnitude is to be found.. yet Muons are still doing it and our beliefs about Muons is still true.

I wouldn't want to apply classical concepts like acceleration to newly
formed muons. As I said I am satisfied with the idea that they are
"born" with their speed/momentum/energy. Just like a photon, which
never can have a speed other than c. It does not "accelerate" to c when
formed. It can't.
>
> You should not be referring to Muons in a argument about Einsteins theories, because thay do not do what Einsteins claimed they should!

But they do. They have kinetic energy, which has momentum, which resists
further acceleration. Plus they make a great example of time dilation by
being able to reach the ground even though they should be able to go
only about 600 meters in their own frame.

By your logic we need to eliminate electrons, protons, and (especially)
photons.
>
> Einstein: Any mass no mater how small, will increase in Mass towards infinity whilst consuming all the energy in the universe if it were to attain near Light speed.

A good example of why "relativistic mass" is confusing and not really
used now.

An atmospheric muon does have energy substantially more than its rest
mass equivalent, but the amount it has is that of the original pion
(large but not infinite) + 34 MeV minus what two neutrinos take.
>
> Now what are you claiming about Muons? We know it all? Its all been measured?

No scientist ever claims "we know it all", we don't. We have measured
plenty but not everything.

On Saturday, 8 January 2022 at 20:14:18 UTC+1, Michael Moroney wrote:
> As discussed here frequently, "common sense" is a very poor predictor of
> science.

But it's a perfect tool for recognizing a fanatic idiot, and
that's why your insane guru had to ban it from physics.

> You are referring to an obsolete concept called relativistic mass. It is
> a confusing idea

Since when a confusing ide is something wrong for you,
stupid Mike? When "confirmed by experiment"?

On 1/8/2022 1:11 PM, Ken Seto wrote:
> On Saturday, January 8, 2022 at 12:21:58 PM UTC-5, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
>> Ken Seto <seto...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> On Thursday, January 6, 2022 at 1:29:52 PM UTC-5, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:

>>>> Richard, break the problem down. There are TWO questions involved in this
>>>> puzzle.
>>>>
>>>> 1. Why is it not a paradox?
>>>
>>> But it is a paradox.

>> No, it’s not.
>
> Yes it is.
>>>
>>>> 2. W.hat is the explanation for why one twin comes back younger
>>>
>>> The traveling twin doesn’t come back younger.
>> Well, if that were true, then you wouldn’t have a paradox to complain
>> about.
>
> There is no paradox....

Stupid Ken, you are really losing it now. You just said, twice, in two
different posts that it is a paradox. Now you say it's not a paradox?

Time to hang up that keyboard, Ken. You've lost it.

On Sunday, January 9, 2022 at 5:15:17 AM UTC+11, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
But don’t confuse invariant mass with
> relativistic mass. Those are different terms that mean different things,
> and if you confuse them you’re going to make a mistake. Relativistic mass
> is just energy scaled by a factor (c^2).

BS.
There is no such thing as two different types of Mass, there is ONLY MASS.
This is admitted by Physics. And old ideas such as Relativistic or Rest Mass has been done away with, because it was stupid.

If Relativistic Mass is "Energy * a velocity", then that does NOT equate too Mass, it equates to just MORE ENERGY.

On Sunday, January 9, 2022 at 5:07:30 AM UTC+11, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:

"No, sorry, you’re wrong, as I’ve indicated elsewhere. Conservation of
energy is an example of a physics hypothesis — a law in fact. Kinetic
energy is a key part of that law. Kinetic energy cannot be defined without
a reference frame. Try it."

Of course. Kinetic Energy is a MEASURE not a THING, not an OBJECT.
And ALL measurements are related to other objects.
But taking a measure does not imply that your choice of where to measure FROM and in what direction, is in itself PART of PHYSICS processes.
You are reifying a CONCEPT.
FoR's are not PART of any observation, they only allow the measurement to have a verifiable origin.

On Saturday, January 8, 2022 at 7:23:18 PM UTC-5, itsalllies...@gmail.com wrote:
> On Sunday, January 9, 2022 at 5:15:17 AM UTC+11, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:

>> don’t confuse invariant mass with
> > relativistic mass. Those are different terms that mean different things, ...

> BS.

So you are claiming that "mass" and "relativistic mass" are not different things/meanings?
You are claiming that they mean the same thing?
Your "BS" above implies that.

So now you are disagreeing on the meanings of the expressions used, you are disagreeing on definitions??

> There is no such thing as two different types of Mass, there is ONLY MASS..

Nope. There are many other kinds of "mass" :

" ...A large number of people or objects crowded together"
" the majority of."
" any of the main portions in a painting or drawing that each have some unity in color..."
" the ritual of chants, readings, prayers, ..."

etc.

You need to understand that words have meanings in context. A word can mean many different things in many different languages.
You must have the brains to know which definition to use.

In physics,
There is what we call "proper Mass" (aka rest mass, or just "mass") and there is
relativistic Mass (a valid *expression* that is fading out).

On Sunday, January 9, 2022 at 12:11:23 PM UTC+11, rotchm wrote:
> In physics,
> There is what we call "proper Mass" (aka rest mass, or just "mass") and there is
> relativistic Mass (a valid *expression* that is fading out).

Rotchm,
You idiot.
In Physics "relativistic Mass" is "fading out? You mean its DEAD and no longer used more to the point.
So Relativistic Mass is valid in Physics but no one is even going to use it again?
No, its been thoroughly done away with, because having two definition of Mass is not possible in Physics.
There was always and can only ever be just Mass, to start saying that an Object possess two types of Mass that each have different values whilst at the same time saying that Mass is defined as a Measurement of Inertia, which gives only one result, not two.

The reason why the decided to kill off Relativistic Mass was because its really stupid to claim that a Mass can increase just because some is watching some object move. Where does the additional Mass come from?

On Sunday, January 9, 2022 at 12:37:03 AM UTC-5, itsalllies...@gmail.com wrote:
> On Sunday, January 9, 2022 at 12:11:23 PM UTC+11, rotchm wrote:
> > In physics,
> > There is what we call "proper Mass" (aka rest mass, or just "mass") and there is
> > relativistic Mass (a valid *expression* that is fading out).
> Rotchm,
> You idiot.
> In Physics "relativistic Mass" is "fading out? You mean its DEAD and no longer used

You must be a grade A moron. You say it is no longer used yet it was invoked by others in this discussion. It was even used by you.
Can you say it is not used. It's right there in your face in front of you and you say it is not there.

You are very delusional and a reality denier.

> So Relativistic Mass is valid in Physics

I never said that. You do not understand what you read. We *all* have been telling you this.
You must Realize by now that you do not have the appropriate understanding and reading skills.

I said that it is a "valid expression". This means, it is an expression that we understand, That we know what it refers to.

> but no one is even going to use it again?

Since it was invoked in this thread and in other threads by the way it is still in use. But it is obsolescent.

On Saturday, January 8, 2022 at 3:01:17 PM UTC-5, Michael Moroney wrote:
> On 1/8/2022 1:11 PM, Ken Seto wrote:
> > On Saturday, January 8, 2022 at 12:21:58 PM UTC-5, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
> >> Ken Seto <seto...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>> On Thursday, January 6, 2022 at 1:29:52 PM UTC-5, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
>
> >>>> Richard, break the problem down. There are TWO questions involved in this
> >>>> puzzle.
> >>>>
> >>>> 1. Why is it not a paradox?
> >>>
> >>> But it is a paradox.
>
> >> No, it’s not.
> >
> > Yes it is.
> >>>
> >>>> 2. W.hat is the explanation for why one twin comes back younger
> >>>
> >>> The traveling twin doesn’t come back younger.
> >> Well, if that were true, then you wouldn’t have a paradox to complain
> >> about.
> >
> > There is no paradox....
> Stupid Ken, you are really losing it now. You just said, twice, in two
> different posts that it is a paradox. Now you say it's not a paradox?

Moron I said that there is clock time paradox because a clock second is not and absolute interval of time.. Gee you are so fucking stupid.
>
> Time to hang up that keyboard, Ken. You've lost it.

Ken Seto wrote:

>> Stupid Ken, you are really losing it now. You just said, twice, in two
>> different posts that it is a paradox. Now you say it's not a paradox?
>
> Moron I said that there is clock time paradox because a clock second is
> not and absolute interval of time.. Gee you are so fucking stupid.

and therefore it's not a paradox, fucking stupid. When you have a reason
for something, that's not a paradox. Fucking idiot.

On Monday, January 10, 2022 at 1:44:26 AM UTC+11, rotchm wrote:
> On Sunday, January 9, 2022 at 12:37:03 AM UTC-5, itsalllies...@gmail.com wrote:
> > On Sunday, January 9, 2022 at 12:11:23 PM UTC+11, rotchm wrote:
> > > In physics,
> > > There is what we call "proper Mass" (aka rest mass, or just "mass") and there is
> > > relativistic Mass (a valid *expression* that is fading out).
> > Rotchm,
> > You idiot.
> > In Physics "relativistic Mass" is "fading out? You mean its DEAD and no longer used
> You must be a grade A moron. You say it is no longer used yet it was invoked by others in this discussion. It was even used by you.
> Can you say it is not used. It's right there in your face in front of you and you say it is not there.
>
> You are very delusional and a reality denier.
> > So Relativistic Mass is valid in Physics
> I never said that. You do not understand what you read. We *all* have been telling you this.
> You must Realize by now that you do not have the appropriate understanding and reading skills.
>
> I said that it is a "valid expression". This means, it is an expression that we understand, That we know what it refers to.
> > but no one is even going to use it again?
> Since it was invoked in this thread and in other threads by the way it is still in use. But it is obsolescent.

I cant believe how ridiculous your statements are. You have poor reason skills. Or are just trying to win an argument in any way you can, hoping that others wont see the stupidity in your claims.

A term is obsolete, meaning its not used, and its obsolete because it is invalid in Physics.
You can still physically write down that word, or speak it, but in Physics, Physicists no longer use any qualifiers for Mass. There is only Mass, and that it.
So I care not if you want to call your dog, "Relativistic Mass" but its not useful in any way in Physics.
It is useful in a Historical context, but not otherwise.

On Sunday, January 9, 2022 at 6:14:18 AM UTC+11, Michael Moroney wrote:
Nowadays what is taught is that
> energy has momentum and a particle moving near c has a lot of (kinetic)
> energy, which has momentum, which resists further acceleration. The
> momentum is the same as that the relativistic mass would have, if you
> use that concept.

This nonsense is typical of the way your brain has to slip into neutral if you accept Einsteins irrational theories.
The belief that Energy can have momentum, is a perfect example of insanity.
It was developed as a concept to try to overcome the impossibility that an object can gain Mass from nowhere just because someone is watching it move past. (that's the STR in a nutshell)

But to claim that a Property of an Object can exist without an Object, (Energy- the capacity to do work) can then have another Property that is only applicable to an object with Mass, (Momentum) is the height of insanity.
It highlights just how stupid people studying Physics have become, which explains why none of you guys can carry on a decent conservation and use rational thinking.
p=mv, that's the equation you apply if you want to calculate a comparative value for Momentum, and any later claimed equations for Momentum better be in accord with this equation. But they are not. Therefore they are wrong and its easy to see why as explained above.

Your statement, "The momentum is the same as that the relativistic mass would have,"
means that you are claiming that whatever the Mass is, that is also exactly what the Momentum is, therefore your equation becomes p=m or simply Momentum is Mass, same thing.
And "relativistic Mass" does not kick in at some percentage of lights speed, the Mass, if we assume that Einstein is correct, is increasing at any speed, its just hard to detect at lower speeds.

So what Einstein claims is this: And object has a continuously changing Mass linked to its speed as observed from another location from which the velocity was measured.
And to make it even more insane, 500 differently moving observers will all claim that the same objects Mass has 500 different values.

In other words, the Property if an object we have called Mass, is not actually a property of the Object, but is a property of observed speed of the object. We are measuring a property of speed that causes us to get different readings when we measure an objects speed but its not an objective value, its subjective.

Its hard to write about this because its difficult to rationally discuss the thoughts of an insane mind. Insane minds invent irrational ideas. Irrational ideas can't be analysed rationally.

"everything isalllies" wrote:
....
> Its hard to write about this because its difficult to rationally
> discuss the thoughts of an insane mind. Insane minds invent irrational
> ideas. Irrational ideas can't be analysed rationally.

What you describe is exactly why any discussion with you about
physics or Relativity is impossible.

On 1/9/2022 11:11 AM, Ken Seto wrote:
> On Saturday, January 8, 2022 at 3:01:17 PM UTC-5, Michael Moroney wrote:
>> On 1/8/2022 1:11 PM, Ken Seto wrote:
>>> On Saturday, January 8, 2022 at 12:21:58 PM UTC-5, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
>>>> Ken Seto <seto...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>> On Thursday, January 6, 2022 at 1:29:52 PM UTC-5, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
>>
>>>>>> Richard, break the problem down. There are TWO questions involved in this
>>>>>> puzzle.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> 1. Why is it not a paradox?
>>>>>
>>>>> But it is a paradox.
>>
>>>> No, it’s not.
>>>
>>> Yes it is.
>>>>>
>>>>>> 2. W.hat is the explanation for why one twin comes back younger
>>>>>
>>>>> The traveling twin doesn’t come back younger.
>>>> Well, if that were true, then you wouldn’t have a paradox to complain
>>>> about.
>>>
>>> There is no paradox....
>> Stupid Ken, you are really losing it now. You just said, twice, in two
>> different posts that it is a paradox. Now you say it's not a paradox?
>
> Moron I said that there is clock time paradox because a clock second is not and absolute interval of time.. Gee you are so fucking stupid.

So now you said three times there is no paradox and one time when you
said there was. Is there a paradox or not? If not, explain why you
answered yes. If yes, why did you answer no, three times?
>>
>> Time to hang up that keyboard, Ken. You've lost it.

On Monday, January 10, 2022 at 8:56:42 AM UTC+11, Python wrote:
> "everything isalllies" wrote:
> ...
> > Its hard to write about this because its difficult to rationally
> > discuss the thoughts of an insane mind. Insane minds invent irrational
> > ideas. Irrational ideas can't be analysed rationally.
> What you describe is exactly why any discussion with you about
> physics or Relativity is impossible.

And yet you have never engaged in any discussion, you only offer insults, and occasional post brief statements cut and pasted from the official Physics text book, which is what I'm challenging.
Just offering a repeat of the official view point, which is what I'm saying is incorrect, is not presenting your argument, it is achieving absolutely nothing.

I say that 2+2 =4 but you counter with ,"but you are wrong because the official Physics Bible says its 5".
This I already know, so you repeating it is not countering my claim or explaining why you believe the answer is 5.

"everything isalllies" wrote:
> On Monday, January 10, 2022 at 8:56:42 AM UTC+11, Python wrote:
>> "everything isalllies" wrote:
>> ...
>>> Its hard to write about this because its difficult to rationally
>>> discuss the thoughts of an insane mind. Insane minds invent irrational
>>> ideas. Irrational ideas can't be analysed rationally.
>> What you describe is exactly why any discussion with you about
>> physics or Relativity is impossible.
>
> And yet you have never engaged in any discussion

I've just explained you why.

On Monday, January 10, 2022 at 9:56:50 AM UTC+11, Python wrote:

> I've just explained you why.

Was it because you are a fuckwit? Is that what you were trying very poorly to say?

On Sunday, January 9, 2022 at 4:26:12 PM UTC-5, itsalllies...@gmail.com wrote:
> On Monday, January 10, 2022 at 1:44:26 AM UTC+11, rotchm wrote:

> You have poor reason skills.

I guess that is why I can solve do simple math problems and whereas you have failed them.

> Or are just trying to win an argument in any way you can,

YOU are the one who started arguing about the use of "relativistic mass".
If you did not want to argue about it you should have not started it, DuH...

> A term is obsolete, meaning its not used,

Again you are arguing about irrelevant words which are irrelevant to the discussion.
Why are you invoking the meaning of "obsolete" when I havent used that word?
Are you just looking for more useless arguments?

> and its obsolete because it is invalid in Physics.

You are also confused about the meaning of the word obsolete.

> but in Physics, Physicists no longer use any qualifiers for Mass. There is only Mass, and that it.

That is what we have been telling you. Yet YOU are the one discussing 'relativistic Mass'. I never invoked such an expression.
Google kept a record.

On Monday, January 10, 2022 at 11:39:26 AM UTC+11, rotchm wrote:

> Why are you invoking the meaning of "obsolete" when I havent used that word?

You play duck and dodge, in an effort to avoid at any cost the direct discussion of the problems because you know you can't win.
You play silly word games as if it matters to the issues I raised.
You think that is correct to claim that If I don't want to , or even cant figure out your math test, that therefore everything I say has to be wrong. Again, what I talk about is not MY ideas, and those people from whom I learned that there are unsolved problems, certainly can solve your math problem, but its nothing to do with what we are talking about. Duck and dodge.
Now you most certainly did say that Relativistic Mass is Obsolete. And that's the "approved" statement of Mainstream Physics.
You used the tense of obsolete "obsolescent" suggesting that its "in the process of becoming" obsolete. But that's stupid. The Physics community is hardly going to say from 2023 the idea of "relativistic Mass" will no longer be acceptable in Physics, so in the meantime we can occasionally use it but gradually do away with it.

Did Einstein say when his theory was accepted as fact by the scientists , that they should slowly grow out of the Physics of Galileo and ever so gradually replace it with his Physics?
No of course not.
I cant help but note that never have you responded to my claims other than criticising if I crossed the t's and dotted the i's. Moot points that have zero to do with my claims.
I'm done with replying to your stupid comments, Ill wait til someone who is capable to a direct discussion to come along.
I do expect one final stupid comment that is totally off topic from you though.
But i wont be responding.

On Sunday, January 9, 2022 at 11:55:22 PM UTC-5, itsalllies...@gmail.com wrote:
> On Monday, January 10, 2022 at 11:39:26 AM UTC+11, rotchm wrote:

<rants & cries snipped>

> Now you most certainly did say that Relativistic Mass is Obsolete.

And can you quote me on that?
I didn't think so...
You resort to lies and diversions. Typical crank behavior.

> You used the tense of obsolete "obsolescent" suggesting that its "in the process of becoming" obsolete.

Ah... So now you are agreeing that I did not say it was obsolete. So you lie and contradict yourself in a few sentences.
Typical crank characteristics.

On Monday, January 10, 2022 at 4:42:48 PM UTC+11, rotchm wrote:

<rants & cries snipped>(deleted by itsalllies)

End of useful information from Rotchm.

obsolescent- obsolete. whatever...
There is no significant difference for all practical purposes. Science does not gradually fade out bad concepts its just stops using them, unless you are not keeping up with current developments?
But rather than discussing Physics, you just like to engage in useless rhetoric for the fun of it.

On 1/10/2022 3:20 AM, everything isalllies wrote:
> On Monday, January 10, 2022 at 4:42:48 PM UTC+11, rotchm wrote:
>
> <rants & cries snipped>(deleted by itsalllies)
>
> End of useful information from Rotchm.
>
> obsolescent- obsolete. whatever...
> There is no significant difference for all practical purposes. Science does not gradually fade out bad concepts its just stops using them, unless you are not keeping up with current developments?

Modern physics books don't teach relativistic mass.
In code development we use the term 'deprecated' to describe code or an
interface superseded by newer code/interface, but left in to support
older usage. Same principle here.