what is matter?

[demiGOD]

matter is everything - all things and entities that are able to occupy space are matter so its safe to say that matter is EVERYTHING

-how about energy? like light, sound, radio, etc - light cant occupy space, sound cannot be compressed nor pressurized? so what is energy then when it is not covered under the elementary definition of matter?

[queball]

Matter is made of fermions. Light and radio are made of bosons. Energy is kinetic energy plus potential energy. I think sound carries half its energy by the kinetic energy of the medium's particles and half by the macroscopic potential energy from differences in pressure. Hope this helps!

[queball]

PS.
What is mind? No matter. What is matter? Never mind!

(just because someone else will post it if I don't)

[djbass]

I'd answer this but it's really out of my league beyond the highschool level of science anyway. I'm more a purveyor of useless info.

[Phang]

Originally Posted by queball

PS.
What is mind? No matter. What is matter? Never mind!

(just because someone else will post it if I don't)

[JonnyBGood]

Originally Posted by demiGOD

matter so its safe to say that matter is EVERYTHING

You'd be fairly wrong there.

[Marilyn Manson]

Originally Posted by queball

fermions.

Wasn't he a PA official at one point?

[Gayle29uk]

Originally Posted by demiGOD

matter is everything

Paging anyone who passed A level physics to thread 182961.

[NEWSBOT3]

Originally Posted by Gayle29uk

Paging anyone who passed A level physics to thread 182961.

that's not a good idea you know.

for one i'll turn up and i -barely- passed it.

also, mark.

[Thermodynamics]

Ohoh....FUN!

Well yes-

A survey was conducted whereby everything known to man in the universe was weighed (observations then calculations etc.- not too sharp on the details) and scientist concluded that there is only 1/3 of the matter needed the give the universe its present shape- adding credulence to the theory of "dark matter"- matter residing in deep space that we can't see yet has mass, but for example we can't see black holes- yet the effect their gravity wells have on everything around them is impoosible to miss (they suck EVERYTHING INTO THEM), including light- which brings us to photons [the stuff that light is made of] If light is sucked into a black hole it must have mass [there are lots of other reasons too- but we won't get into them] so light must be a waveicle [displaying properties of both a wave and particle]- so yes in a way- light has mass so therefore is made up of matter.

Now sound- sound cannot and isn't present in a vacuum. When you hear me something- it is essentially the particles of air being rapidly compressed- and this continual compression hitting your ear drum.

Now finally e= mc (squared) [oh, i think there really should be a delta in there to represent the *change* in mass etc.) this means that matter and energy are interchangle- that any partivle can be turned into mass and vice versa, very difficult to do, but tis a lot of fun in high energy physics.

Energy in the form of heat, kinetic and sound involves matter- it is the relative interaction of matter with each other. Light we have disscussed,

Hope it all helps!

[demiGOD]

thermo is the shit just checking if anybody has even the time to think about these things, good to know im not alone

[Yahwe]

yawn.

i can tell you what happens when you die. but you'd rather pretend that 'matter' exists.

funny mortals

[Ste]

I got an A in A-level physics... I can't remember anything.

[Belgarath The Sorcerer]

What

[Marilyn Manson]

Originally Posted by demiGOD

so what is energy then when it is not covered under the elementary definition of matter?

It matters not.











BOOM BOOM!

[Nodrog]

"Matter" is a word that people invented back in the days where the main split in the universe was taken to be between mental entities/processes (mainly consciousness and the supernatural, but also things such as numbers and concepts), and non-mental entities (everything else). Hence 'matter vs mind'. Whether it is still meaningful now that the fundamental classifications of the world have changed is debateable, as is highlighted by the problems most people have when asked to define it.

[Inferno]

Originally Posted by Thermodynamics

Ohoh....FUN!

Well yes-

A survey was conducted whereby everything known to man in the universe was weighed (observations then calculations etc.- not too sharp on the details) and scientist concluded that there is only 1/3 of the matter needed the give the universe its present shape- adding credulence to the theory of "dark matter"- matter residing in deep space that we can't see yet has mass, but for example we can't see black holes- yet the effect their gravity wells have on everything around them is impoosible to miss (they suck EVERYTHING INTO THEM), including light- which brings us to photons [the stuff that light is made of] If light is sucked into a black hole it must have mass [there are lots of other reasons too- but we won't get into them] so light must be a waveicle [displaying properties of both a wave and particle]- so yes in a way- light has mass so therefore is made up of matter.

Now sound- sound cannot and isn't present in a vacuum. When you hear me something- it is essentially the particles of air being rapidly compressed- and this continual compression hitting your ear drum.

Now finally e= mc (squared) [oh, i think there really should be a delta in there to represent the *change* in mass etc.) this means that matter and energy are interchangle- that any partivle can be turned into mass and vice versa, very difficult to do, but tis a lot of fun in high energy physics.

Energy in the form of heat, kinetic and sound involves matter- it is the relative interaction of matter with each other. Light we have disscussed,

Hope it all helps!

is there anything this guy doesnt know?!?!?

[Marilyn Manson]

He doesn't know how to lead a balanced and stable existence at harmony with his surroundings. Only Manson knows this.

[demiGOD]

Originally Posted by Inferno

is there anything this guy doesnt know?!?!?

he's apparently introvertly incapable of initiating a situation that leads to getting laid -aside from that, he's generally intelligent regarding the physical world

as for manson, there is a balance in this universe, and he's living proof that theres a heaven

[Marilyn Manson]

Originally Posted by demiGOD

as for manson, there is a balance in this universe, and he's living proof that theres a heaven

This is the greatest lie ever to have been concieved.

[mist]

Originally Posted by Inferno

is there anything this guy doesnt know?!?!?

wasn't the majority of is not past a-level physics?
i was kinda wating for mrL to show up and tell us all the inaccuracies etc

[demiGOD]

Originally Posted by Marilyn Manson

This is the greatest lie ever to have been concieved.

but your unquestionable evil ways bring a balance that proves the existence of heaven, your uhm.. evilness

[Marilyn Manson]

Originally Posted by demiGOD

but your unquestionable evil ways bring a balance that proves the existence of heaven, your uhm.. evilness

'Evil' is a concept concieved by Calvinists in order to repress, control and subvert normal people, and I implore you to reject it instantly.

[Thermodynamics]

Originally Posted by demiGOD

he's apparently introvertly incapable of initiating a situation that leads to getting laid -aside from that, he's generally intelligent regarding the physical world

as for manson, there is a balance in this universe, and he's living proof that theres a heaven

Amy would beg to diifer.

I agree with Nodrog- "matter" is essentially word used to describe what our physical enviroment is made up of.

And no, MRL wouldn't find inaccurries (oh it be 20% rather than a 1/3, i just can't remember), if there is something I *actually* know, it's physics.

[JonnyBGood]

I'd trade everything I know about physics to able to play the guitar :)))

[MrL_JaKiri]

Originally Posted by Thermodynamics

but for example we can't see black holes

It depends what you mean by 'see'. We can see radiation they produce, for example, and the accretion disk and what have you.

Originally Posted by Thermodynamics

(they suck EVERYTHING INTO THEM), including light

Well, not quite. Light cannot escape them, but if you have light going parallel to the event horizon it'll just go round and round forever without actually crossing it.

Originally Posted by Thermodynamics

If light is sucked into a black hole it must have mass

Incorrect. Since GR, which works by a system of space-time curvature, rather than the rather simplistic Newtonian interaction between masses, objects don't need rest mass, or any mass, to be affected by gravity. And Photons don't have any rest mass.

Originally Posted by Thermodynamics

so light must be a waveicle [displaying properties of both a wave and particle]- so yes in a way- light has mass so therefore is made up of matter

No, no, no. First, 'waveical' is in no way a scientific term. It's 'particle/wave duality' that you're looking for, and is true of everything. Everything.

Secondly, light acting as a particle was orignally really thought of as part of the Photoelectric Effect.

And light isn't made of matter. Matter has rest mass.

Now finally e= mc (squared)

You're missing a bit. Specifically the momentum bit, which you really should include if you're talking about light.

[oh, i think there really should be a delta in there to represent the *change* in mass etc.)

I don't. It's showing equivilency, not necessarily change from one to the other. Sure, there are uses of such (calculating the change in the nuclear binding energy in an atom, for example), but they're not the only application by any means.

that any partivle can be turned into mass and vice versa

What?

very difficult to do

It's not difficult to do at all. I turn energy into mass every time I move.

Energy in the form of heat, kinetic and sound involves matter- it is the relative interaction of matter with each other. Light we have disscussed,

What? Heat/sound, yes, but massless particle (eg light) have kinetic energy, and you've also missed off potential energies.

And no, MRL wouldn't find inaccurries

Oh my.

[MrL_JaKiri]

Oh, and to answer the original question:

Matter is 'stuff' with rest mass.

[Proteus]

Originally Posted by Flavius

he gets one reputation point from me!

"You must spread some Reputation around before giving it to MrL_JaKiri again."

Couldn't we have that setting set to 5 or something? 20 is just silly.

[mist]

Originally Posted by Thermodynamics

And no, MRL wouldn't find inaccurries

death of an optimist?

[Thermodynamics]

Originally Posted by MrL_JaKiri

It depends what you mean by 'see'. We can see radiation they produce, for example, and the accretion disk and what have you.



Well, not quite. Light cannot escape them, but if you have light going parallel to the event horizon it'll just go round and round forever without actually crossing it.



Incorrect. Since GR, which works by a system of space-time curvature, rather than the rather simplistic Newtonian interaction between masses, objects don't need rest mass, or any mass, to be affected by gravity. And Photons don't have any rest mass.



No, no, no. First, 'waveical' is in no way a scientific term. It's 'particle/wave duality' that you're looking for, and is true of everything. Everything.

Secondly, light acting as a particle was orignally really thought of as part of the Photoelectric Effect.

And light isn't made of matter. Matter has rest mass.



You're missing a bit. Specifically the momentum bit, which you really should include if you're talking about light.



I don't. It's showing equivilency, not necessarily change from one to the other. Sure, there are uses of such (calculating the change in the nuclear binding energy in an atom, for example), but they're not the only application by any means.



What?



It's not difficult to do at all. I turn energy into mass every time I move.



What? Heat/sound, yes, but massless particle (eg light) have kinetic energy, and you've also missed off potential energies.



Oh my.

Ok, people hav oft complained that they cannot understand some the more compicated words and terms I use:

I said see, as in the convential sense, if we look up at the sky, we cannot "see" black holes etc. as opposed to saying they do not emit any light etc.

Yes, light doesn't neccessarily get compressed in the core, yet it *IS* affected by the black hole, as is evident by its change of direction, this is merely you being fussy about terminology, I used the word "suck" to dramtic effect, to emphasise that light is affected by balck holes.

Yes this is true- I was being simplistic in my descriptions- yet there are arguments for light having mass. First off, yes it has no rest mass. The photon is a massless particle (hehe if the Higg's bosun is ever found it won't be here...) A photon has energy [packets etc. according to quantum theory] E = hf,
E = mc (squared) shows the relationship between mass and energy.
p = mv [a photon has momentum, and momentum is innately realted to mass too]

so light has no rest mass {i shall call this invariant mass from now on...of we must use proper terms}
But what about relativistic mass?

m = sqrt(E2/c4 - p2/c2) [let 2= squared and 4= to the power of four)

This is the defintion invariant mass, using this, light has no mass... unless:

Say that if light is trapped in a wooden box with flawless mirrors plating the inside, so that the photons are reflected again and again in the box, then the total momentum of the box, as a whole is zero, but the energy is not. Therefore the light affects the mass of the box by adding to it. This could be measured either by an increase in its gravitational pull or by an increase in inertia when the box is slowly accelerated. You might say that the light in the box has mass but it would be more correct to say that the light contributes to the total mass of the box of light.


Now, what about the special case concerning particles that move at the speed of light, 3 x 10 to the power of 8.If we look at the formula for relativistic mass and its relationship to invariant mass, the invariant mass of a photon must be zero, but this does NOT mean its relativistic mass is zero aswell. WE can never ever say the "rest/invariant mass of a photon is zero" why? because a photon is NEVER at rest.

Stephen Hawking in A Brief History of Time writes "Because of the equivalence of energy and mass, the energy which an object has due to its motion will add to its mass."

So therefore we can conclude that light does not have mass in the conventional sense but has relativistic mass.

Yes waveical is not a scientific term- i used it as a a layman's term- as in a hybrid word that would be a lot easier for GD to understand than trying to explain light dual nature as a particle and a wave. And the "everything" hmmmm... are you reffering to string theory? the nice thing about that is an experiment can never be devised to disprove, or at that, prove it. but that is waaaaaay beyond GD.

And "difficult" as in the complete conversion of mass into energy, of one form, rather than you accomplishing respiration- that produces by-products.

Potential enrgies were not part of the original question so were left out.

Now, i think that is everything covered, you studying physics at college mate?

And so, those of you who have told me not try "impress others with big words etc.", see what happens when i concede and try talk about one of the few things i love?

[demiGOD]

Originally Posted by JonnyBGood

I'd trade everything I know about physics to able to play the guitar ))

ive been playing for 14 years.. with whatever resources we have, i think i can still be able to teach you

[JonnyBGood]

You have to form your niche on GD and demonstrate a certain level of knowledge consistently over an extended period of time before your posts are accepted.



PS I don't think you can teach me through the internet demigod

[demiGOD]

Originally Posted by Thermodynamics

Ok, people hav oft complained that they cannot understand some the more compicated words and terms I use:

I said see, as in the convential sense, if we look up at the sky, we cannot "see" black holes etc. as opposed to saying they do not emit any light etc.

Yes, light doesn't neccessarily get compressed in the core, yet it *IS* affected by the black hole, as is evident by its change of direction, this is merely you being fussy about terminology, I used the word "suck" to dramtic effect, to emphasise that light is affected by balck holes.

Yes this is true- I was being simplistic in my descriptions- yet there are arguments for light having mass. First off, yes it has no rest mass. The photon is a massless particle (hehe if the Higg's bosun is ever found it won't be here...) A photon has energy [packets etc. according to quantum theory] E = hf,
E = mc (squared) shows the relationship between mass and energy.
p = mv [a photon has momentum, and momentum is innately realted to mass too]

so light has no rest mass {i shall call this invariant mass from now on...of we must use proper terms}
But what about relativistic mass?

m = sqrt(E2/c4 - p2/c2) [let 2= squared and 4= to the power of four)

This is the defintion invariant mass, using this, light has no mass... unless:

Say that if light is trapped in a wooden box with flawless mirrors plating the inside, so that the photons are reflected again and again in the box, then the total momentum of the box, as a whole is zero, but the energy is not. Therefore the light affects the mass of the box by adding to it. This could be measured either by an increase in its gravitational pull or by an increase in inertia when the box is slowly accelerated. You might say that the light in the box has mass but it would be more correct to say that the light contributes to the total mass of the box of light.


Now, what about the special case concerning particles that move at the speed of light, 3 x 10 to the power of 32.If we look at the formula for relativistic mass and its relationship to invariant mass, the invariant mass of a photon must be zero, but this does NOT mean its relativistic mass is zero aswell. WE can never ever say the "rest/invariant mass of a photon is zero" why? because a photon is NEVER at rest.

Stephen Hawking in A Brief History of Time writes "Because of the equivalence of energy and mass, the energy which an object has due to its motion will add to its mass."

So therefore we can conclude that light does not have mass in the conventional sense but has relativistic mass.

Yes waveical is not a scientific term- i used it as a a layman's term- as in a hybrid word that would be a lot easier for GD to understand than trying to explain light dual nature as a particle and a wave. And the "everything" hmmmm... are you reffering to string theory? the nice thing about that is an experiment can never be devised to disprove, or at that, prove it. but that is waaaaaay beyond GD.

And "difficult" as in the complete conversion of mass into energy, of one form, rather than you accomplishing respiration- that produces by-products.

Potential enrgies were not part of the original question so were left out.

Now, i think that is everything covered, you studying physics at college mate?

And so, those of you who have told me not try "impress others with big words etc.", see what happens when i concede and try talk about one of the few things i love?

and again, that is why you will make it on the T10 next round i'm an electrical engineer with physics as my bread and water to survive my field and i hear what your saying.. hehe rep points to this guy..

[demiGOD]

Originally Posted by JonnyBGood

PS I don't think you can teach me through the internet demigod

heres for starters http://chordfind.com/ buy u an acoustic guitar (preferebaly something on the cheaper sides of yamaha, ibanez, taylor or ovation) and memorize all majors and minors first, including all flats and sharps, for they are the most basic of chords.. it might look overwhelming but its really not, once youve memorized these "basic" chords, then you can pretty much play any song out there - strumming is easy just as long as you can follow a beat..

p.s. u didnt ban thermo did you? lol!

[Thermodynamics]

Why thank you.... i just hope MRL sees it the same way....

[Thermodynamics]

Originally Posted by demiGOD

p.s. u didnt ban thermo did you? lol!

Oh dear... now that you have suggested it.....

[demiGOD]

hehe naah

[JonnyBGood]

Money spent on a guitar is money not spent on guinness.

Why would I ban thermodynamics?


PS Dear thermodynamics, is thermo an acceptable shortening of your name? Thermodynamics is far too long for me to type out every time I'm referring to you by name. Alternatively I could call your Mr. T?

[Thermodynamics]

Originally Posted by JonnyBGood

PS Dear thermodynamics, is thermo an acceptable shortening of your name? Thermodynamics is far too long for me to type out every time I'm referring to you by name. Alternatively I could call your Mr. T?

Thermo is fine, JBG.

[Marilyn Manson]

Originally Posted by MrL_JaKiri

It depends what you mean by 'see'. We can see radiation they produce, for example, and the accretion disk and what have you.



Well, not quite. Light cannot escape them, but if you have light going parallel to the event horizon it'll just go round and round forever without actually crossing it.



Incorrect. Since GR, which works by a system of space-time curvature, rather than the rather simplistic Newtonian interaction between masses, objects don't need rest mass, or any mass, to be affected by gravity. And Photons don't have any rest mass.



No, no, no. First, 'waveical' is in no way a scientific term. It's 'particle/wave duality' that you're looking for, and is true of everything. Everything.

Secondly, light acting as a particle was orignally really thought of as part of the Photoelectric Effect.

And light isn't made of matter. Matter has rest mass.



You're missing a bit. Specifically the momentum bit, which you really should include if you're talking about light.



I don't. It's showing equivilency, not necessarily change from one to the other. Sure, there are uses of such (calculating the change in the nuclear binding energy in an atom, for example), but they're not the only application by any means.



What?



It's not difficult to do at all. I turn energy into mass every time I move.



What? Heat/sound, yes, but massless particle (eg light) have kinetic energy, and you've also missed off potential energies.



Oh my.

I'm ****ed if I can understand a word of this, but it makes you sound sufficently knowledgable enough to likely be correct.

[demiGOD]

Originally Posted by JonnyBGood

Money spent on a guitar is money not spent on guinness.

well youll have the reference available when youre in front of a music store and found a really cheap guitar and decide to buy one hehehe

-money spent on anything is money not spent on heineken and budweiser, actually is the more proper statement

[JonnyBGood]

But Mr. T would pity the poor fool who disagreed with him!

[Marilyn Manson]

Originally Posted by JonnyBGood

But Mr. T would pity the poor fool who disagreed with him!

Mark is the housefag's choice.

[Thermodynamics]

Apologies for saying speed of light was 3 x 10 to the power of 32, i have corrected it, i was thinking in logs to the base of 2, as in log 8 to the base 2 is equal to 3, mind cudn't keep up etc.

And also i forgotmy units, apologies again m/s,

Just to clarify all this before MRL snaps me up on it!

[Stew]

Originally Posted by Thermodynamics

that is waaaaaay beyond GD.

Woah their dude, hold up. I am offended and feel patronised (well not really but you know).
Sure, I wouldn't get it, well I might but I doubt it, I haven't done physics in years, but lots of people here would. I doubt there are many things that are "waaaaay beyond GD" if you take GD as a whole.

[Marilyn Manson]

Originally Posted by Stew

I doubt there are many things that are "waaaaay beyond GD" if you take GD as a whole.

Apart from the abiility to form proper relationships.

[JonnyBGood]

I also study physics at college level.

A veritable renaissance man you could say.

[MrL_JaKiri]

Originally Posted by Thermodynamics

Ok, people hav oft complained that they cannot understand some the more compicated words and terms I use:

But not me.

Originally Posted by Thermodynamics

I said see, as in the convential sense, if we look up at the sky, we cannot "see" black holes etc. as opposed to saying they do not emit any light etc.

That's an idiotic way of doing things, to be perfectly frank. And, in context, I would say that you're actually incorrect, because you were using the lack of being able to 'see' things in the context of dark matter, and, given that we can observe black holes, I don't think that is a particularly well together put argument.

Yes, light doesn't neccessarily get compressed in the core, yet it *IS* affected by the black hole, as is evident by its change of direction, this is merely you being fussy about terminology, I used the word "suck" to dramtic effect, to emphasise that light is affected by balck holes.

Maybe you should learn that being technically correct is more useful than dramatic effect when discussing things. This statement is also pretty meaningless, as light is affected by everything with mass.

Yes this is true- I was being simplistic in my descriptions- yet there are arguments for light having mass.

Light does have a small amount of mass, because it has energy. Inertial mass is the usual term.

A photon has energy [packets etc. according to quantum theory] E = hf,
E = mc (squared) shows the relationship between mass and energy.
p = mv [a photon has momentum, and momentum is innately realted to mass too

That's a bad equation to define momentum with. Use the De Broglie equation. Furtheremore, you're also still not using the complete 'E=mc^2', which is lunacy.

so light has no rest mass {i shall call this invariant mass from now on...of we must use proper terms}

Rest mass is the proper term, and every scientific discussion must be conducted with proper terms. Science uses a very precise language just to stop potential confusion; talk about accuracy and precision, and a scientist should understand what two distinct concepts have been mentioned.

Say that if light is trapped in a wooden box with flawless mirrors plating the inside, so that the photons are reflected again and again in the box, then the total momentum of the box, as a whole is zero, but the energy is not

I'm not particularly happy with this, as this statement is only true if there's another prerequisite that you haven't mentioned, as, under the given requirements, the box has mean 0 momentum, but it is not true that at every point the system has a net momentum of 0.

the invariant mass of a photon must be zero, but this does NOT mean its relativistic mass is zero aswell.

Oh wow, I wondered if that's why I referred to the rest mass.

WE can never ever say the "rest/invariant mass of a photon is zero" why? because a photon is NEVER at rest.

Yes we can, because, if it wasn't, it would have infinite inertial mass, and therefore infinite energy, by the Lorentz Transforms. Anyway, that's immaterial; we can perfectly easily calculate the rest mass of particles that we've never seen at rest, because we have the precise mathematical means to calculate the rest mass from the observations we have made. For example, we have calculated the rest mass of an electron, but electrons are never stationary either.

Stephen Hawking in A Brief History of Time writes "Because of the equivalence of energy and mass, the energy which an object has due to its motion will add to its mass."

Hawking, and especially ABHOT, is not a technical resource. Try this or this.

So therefore we can conclude that light does not have mass in the conventional sense but has relativistic mass.

Woah! I never knew that before!

Yes waveical is not a scientific term- i used it as a a layman's term- as in a hybrid word that would be a lot easier for GD to understand than trying to explain light dual nature as a particle and a wave

Why the hell did you think that it would be easier? People on here show a reasonable level of education, but, even if they didn't, making up a term by smushing two words together doesn't really help anyone. Particle/Wave duality is not only fairly easy to explain, it's also fairly easy to guess the meaning of assuming you know the definition of 'particle', 'wave' and 'duality'.

And the "everything" hmmmm... are you reffering to string theory?

Hahaha. No.

the nice thing about that is an experiment can never be devised to disprove, or at that, prove it.

That's not a nice thing about it at all. That's what makes it, as it stands, unable to be called a scientific theory, or even a scientific conjecture. It has no evidence, and, given that more and more people are abandoning it, quite possibly no future if 'good' evidence isn't discovered when the LHC starts operating.

And "difficult" as in the complete conversion of mass into energy, of one form, rather than you accomplishing respiration- that produces by-products.

Oh sweet jesus. You really don't know what you're talking about, do you? Any motion creates (a small amount of) mass from the energy. I don't really know how you got from this kind of thing to 'respiration' which is not only the OTHER WAY AROUND, also creates energy from the difference in bond enthalpies between the intial state and its products and not significantly from any mass interactions.

Potential enrgies were not part of the original question so were left out.

Kinetic wasn't mentioned in the original question, but, like potential, it's fairly obvious as to the use of mentioning them.

Oh, and use x^y to mean x to the power of y. It's standard practice, and makes things look so much nicer.

[demiGOD]

Originally Posted by MrL_JaKiri

[For example, we have calculated the rest mass of an electron, but electrons are never stationary either.

electrons are at rest on an open DC circuit [ - ========>| |========> + ]

edit: valence electrons anyways, so calculations of electron rest mass is possible because all rest mass of any electron of any atom be it valence or not is constant unless influenced by an outside force, then it (mass) becomes different

[Ste]

Originally Posted by demiGOD

and again, that is why you will make it on the T10 next round i'm an electrical engineer with physics as my bread and water to survive my field and i hear what your saying.. hehe rep points to this guy..

I'm an Electronic Engineer. Know anything about Electromagnetic Compatability? I have an exam on it next week, it's a bugger