Speed of Light
TIN
travel through space at around 300000K/s. We also know that light is also
moving away us at this speed regardless of our own velocities. If we are
able to travel at the known speed of light (not that I think we can), would
light still move away from us at 300000K/s?
Ron Miller
RM
Steven Gray
news:1nnR8.19504$Hj3....@newsfeeds.bigpond.com:
Your question can't be answered properly because the operative condition
("if we are able...") isn't possible, even in theory. We can't travel at
the speed of light.
However, you can, in principle, travel at any speed you wish short of the
speed of light. At any such speed you choose, light will move away from
you and toward you at the speed of light.
--
Steve Gray
sgr...@cfl.rr.com
Marcel Kanon
Why can't we travel at the speed of light ?
"Steven Gray" <sgr...@cfl.rr.com> schreef in bericht
news:Xns9236A364B154...@65.32.1.7...
Richard Bullock
"Marcel Kanon" <mar...@letsnet.nl> wrote in message
news:ngFR8.2345704$Lj7.78360237@Flipper...
>
> Why can't we travel at the speed of light ?
>
frame of reference. At the speed of light, your mass would become infinite.
You would thus need an infinite amount of energy and an infinite force to
get there.
Ric
Marcel Kanon
Thank you for the explanation !!!
Marcel Kanon
"Richard Bullock" <richard...@ntlworld.com> schreef in bericht
news:j%FR8.4113$h82....@news8-gui.server.ntli.net...
Nomen Nescio
"TIN" <TIN...@BIGPOND.COM> writes:
Short answer is.....no one knows....theory breaks down at such
a speed as the speed of light, hence the infinities. what you
must realize is that the percieved increase of mass(from an
observers view) is a consolidation of the total increase of
the energy of a mass(astronaut/craft) accelerating to the
speed of light. Try not to think of mass but think in terms
of energy.
>
>
--
CeeBee
Yes. Isn't it fascinating? (At least I think it is)
Here something about special relativity:
http://members.tripod.com/conduit9SR/
see the doggy style :) intro section
Here about cosmological basics:
http://www.astro.ucla.edu/~wright/cosmology_faq.html
CeeBee
CeeBee
> a speed as the speed of light,
I don't think that is true. Theory was created and predicted the answers.
It's *practice* that breaks down at such speeds...
Anyone volunteering to get infinite mass?
Remember the risks of overweight.
And the fines when speeding.
CeeBee
AndyPro
"CeeBee" <ceebee...@start.com.au> wrote in message
news:af8bmt$llh$1...@reader08.wxs.nl...
Nomen Nescio
"CeeBee" <ceebee...@start.com.au> writes:
> > Short answer is.....no one knows....theory breaks down at such
> > a speed as the speed of light,
>
> I don't think that is true.
Oh really, do enlighten us, show me a theory that predicts
light speed or faster travel?.
> Theory was created and predicted the answers.
The theory only deals with mass/energy at sub light
speeds, the speed of light being a special case.
> It's *practice* that breaks down at such speeds...
Nope just the theory that breaks down!.
>
> Anyone volunteering to get infinite mass?
Anyone volunteering to get you a brain?
> Remember the risks of overweight.
> And the fines when speeding.
>
> CeeBee
>
>
--
Spaceart
Nomen Nescio wrote:
> "TIN" <TIN...@BIGPOND.COM> writes:
>
> > We all know that light and in fact all forms of electromagnetic radiations
> > travel through space at around 300000K/s. We also know that light is also
> > moving away us at this speed regardless of our own velocities. If we are
> > able to travel at the known speed of light (not that I think we can), would
> > light still move away from us at 300000K/s?
>
> Short answer is.....no one knows....theory breaks down at such
> a speed as the speed of light, hence the infinities.
The "infinities" are not the result of theory "breaking down".
RM
CeeBee
> > > a speed as the speed of light,
> >
> > I don't think that is true.
>
> Oh really, do enlighten us, show me a theory that predicts
> light speed or faster travel?.
Why the agressive tone? Read the original question. It was about c being
really a constant value.
The statement that light speed remains the same like the original poster
brought up was predicted in special relativity. The speed of light is an
existing value. Particles can travel with that speed, but people can't. The
question was not about "can people travel at light speed" but "if we could,
would we still observe a constant light speed?"
So special relativity theory doesn't "break down" at such speeds, but was
the one to tell us what would happen in practice.
> The theory only deals with mass/energy at sub light
> speeds, the speed of light being a special case.
Which theory are you talking about? Again, the original poster asked " If we
are
able to travel at the known speed of light (not that I think we can), would
light still move away from us at 300000K/s?".
The answer is: we can't, but *if*, the answer is yes, and it was provided by
the theory of special relativity.
> Anyone volunteering to get you a brain?
The condescending tone is remarkable giving the fact that you don't seem to
have a clue yourself what the question was about. But small wonder with
somebody posting as "nobody".
CeeBee
riffraff-jjr Ricciarelli
prosess of freezing light was being tested. This i heard was a very
dangrerous experiment but yet benificial to our technology today & the
future.(and they say it couldn't be done!)
jjr.
riffraff-jjr Ricciarelli
space will huver weightlessly,so if an object of any sort is bumped even
slightly like a floating device in water, then that would set the course
of that object until it is bumped in an other direction. So all an
object needs to travel in space is the solar powered energy to push it
along thus while skipping across atmospheres to give it a boost of
immence speed, evetually it would travel the speed of light.(as newton
theory of gravitational attraction of large objects in space could
control smaller objects near it to control the balance of gravity within
that group of objects. How ever, the danger of traveling the speed of
light is if an object were to cross it's path, it would break the
travel path of light itself thus , if we were to place our hand in front
of a lamp, we would create shadows. That in itself has interupted the
path of light.Even though light travels around our hand, we created
shadow visible to us.this is a dissruption of light. So my opinion is
that to travel the speed of light 186,000 MPS wold be impossible without
coming to a few intersections.
jjr.
Nomen Nescio
"CeeBee" <ceebee...@start.com.au> writes:
> > > > Short answer is.....no one knows....theory breaks down at such
> > > > a speed as the speed of light,
> > >
> > > I don't think that is true.
> >
> > Oh really, do enlighten us, show me a theory that predicts
> > light speed or faster travel?.
>
> Why the agressive tone? Read the original question. It was about c being
> really a constant value.
Don't duck the point and pass the buck. I said no one knows what
haappens to mass at or beyond the speed of light, you then said
and I quote "I don't think that is true", end quote....So why
is it not true?
>
> The statement that light speed remains the same like the original poster
> brought up was predicted in special relativity. The speed of light is an
> existing value. Particles can travel with that speed, but people can't. The
> question was not about "can people travel at light speed" but "if we could,
> would we still observe a constant light speed?"
So you say 'particles' can travel at the speed of light but people
cannot, yet people are made of particles!!, arent they!!! Hello!!!
So would an observer still see a constant c, I'm telling you that
we, no one, knows. You seem to know different, so please tell us.
>
> So special relativity theory doesn't "break down" at such speeds, but was
> the one to tell us what would happen in practice.
Look, SR only deals with sub light velocites, c again being a
special case, try taking a mass using SR to a velocity of c
and the theory breaks down.
Look gamma=1/((1-(v^2/c^2))^(1/2)
As you can see, as v(velocity) aproaches c, then gamma gets larger
ie mass/energy of a test particle will increas by gamma times.
You will also see that if v=c, ie the test particle reaches
the speed of light, the equation breaks down, it becomes nonsensicle!
>
> > The theory only deals with mass/energy at sub light
> > speeds, the speed of light being a special case.
>
> Which theory are you talking about? Again, the original poster asked " If we
> are
> able to travel at the known speed of light (not that I think we can), would
> light still move away from us at 300000K/s?".
> The answer is: we can't, but *if*, the answer is yes, and it was provided by
> the theory of special relativity.
See above
>
> > Anyone volunteering to get you a brain?
>
> The condescending tone is remarkable giving the fact that you don't seem to
> have a clue yourself what the question was about. But small wonder with
> somebody posting as "nobody".
At least my brain works.
>
> CeeBee
>
>
--
Nomen Nescio
G=EMC^2 Glazier
us that. You would have infinite inertia.The only place I can visualize
that is inside a black hole. We live in the best of all universes for it
has the right speed of motion,for all its objects. Best regards Bert
CeeBee
CeeBee
Nomen Nescio
"CeeBee" <ceebee...@start.com.au> writes:
> I bow my head for someone with such deep knowledge.
you have my sympathies. As you have realised there is far
far more to cosmology than reading a few Sci-fi books and
watching a few Star Trek films!!!
My Respects.
>
> CeeBee
>
>
--
G=EMC^2 Glazier
use it to to wipe out the negative,and like nature bring my energy
thinking to "O" I like that. Best regards Bert
TIN
light. I guess there are as many answers to this matter as there are people
Earth, and none of these answers can be marked as neither right nor wrong
because so little is known for sure at this stage. My view, should anyone
wish to know, is that we can get ever closer to the speed of light if we
have the means without ever reaching it. Light would move away from us at a
constant speed of 300000m/s regardless of our own velocities. As for the
role light plays in the ever so famous equation e=mc2, I would say that it's
role is very small. The equation could easily be rewritten as E=m without
changing the principle. The reason for c to be included is to signify the
fact that a little mass can be converted into a large amount of energy.
Well, Astronomy is so full of dark matters. Maybe that is the beauty of it?
"TIN" <TIN...@BIGPOND.COM> wrote in message
news:1nnR8.19504$Hj3....@newsfeeds.bigpond.com...
AndyPro
> As for the role light plays in the ever so famous equation e=mc2, I would
say that it's
> role is very small. The equation could easily be rewritten as E=m without
> changing the principle. The reason for c to be included is to signify the
> fact that a little mass can be converted into a large amount of energy.
> Well, Astronomy is so full of dark matters. Maybe that is the beauty of
it?
Uhm..I think your misunderstanding the concept of the equation.
Light plays no part in the equation at all. the "c" refers to the speed of
electromagnetic radiation under all frequencies (a specific velocity). And
E=m is most definitly not the same as E=mc^2. The reason for c being in the
equation is a fundamental aspect of what it's supposed to mean and/or
accomplish. To say E=m means your cutting the theoretical maximum energy
output of a specific mass by a factor of at least 9,000,000,000,000,000,000
(Tha'ts 9 quintillion!). Light itself has no bearing on the output of the
theory. Read back over what was said throughout the thread and youll
understand why. I'm not going to regurgitate it all.
--Andy P
W K
Nomen Nescio <nob...@dizum.com> wrote in message
news:c341e5a28b3151aa...@dizum.com...
>
> "CeeBee" <ceebee...@start.com.au> writes:
>
> > I bow my head for someone with such deep knowledge.
>
> you have my sympathies. As you have realised there is far
> far more to cosmology than reading a few Sci-fi books and
> watching a few Star Trek films!!!
Trouble is, with a name like "Nomen Nescio", you could be confused with the
resident kook, until you start making sense.
Nomen Nescio
"W K" <bill...@wire2.com> writes:
I made perfect sense, check the math out for yourself if you like.
>
>
--
TIN
"AndyPro" <andyproDamn...@adelphia.net> wrote in message
news:5XvS8.2330$071.4...@news1.news.adelphia.net...
G=EMC^2 Glazier
energy stored in matter.The fact is it came out closer to the truth than
he could have hoped for.That is why men like Weinberg theorize the
photon as a building block. My theory is the photons make up the field
of the electron,and that field spins at "C". This helps answer
lots of questions. I posted this with the news groups about two years
ago. I titled it "SPIN IS IN" I also use spin for both magnetic
attraction and repulsion and for gravity attraction. Our universe can
best be explained by motion.(angular for sure) and its spin that creates
the curve(angular motion) In our universe"s micro realm
particle differences are caused by the motion of vibration(part of
string theory) All particles have their own rest inertia. Best regards
Bert
RALPH HERTLE
If The light as you say always moves at 300000K/S,
regardless of the velocity of the emitter, would not
the velocity of light always be measured with regard
to some other selected stationary point of reference?
If that is true, and if the emitter is moving at 300000K/S
in the same direction as the emitted light, would not the
velocity of light be 0K/S with regard to the emitter?
Therefore, relative to fast emitters, and relative to that
remote point of reference, the velocity of light would always
be both one velocity and another at the same time, which is
impossible.
Ralph Hertle
. . . . . . . . . . . .
Ron Miller wrote:
> Yes.
>
> RM
RALPH HERTLE
However, light also moves at 300000K/S (c) with respect
to any third point which is any selected reference
point regardless of the velocity of that third point.
Therefore, light can be caused to move at all selected
velocities that range from 300000 K/S to 0 K/S to
-300000 K/S.
But, the claim is that light moves at only one
velocity, 300000 K/M, with respect to all or any
selected reference points that may be in motion at
any or either the directional velocities, forward,
backward, or rest.
But, an existent cannot move at several velocities
and at one velocity at the same time, place,
context, and extent. (Ref. Axiom: Aris.)
Which is impossible.
Therefore, the claim that light moves at only
a single velocity is also impossible.
.......
The earliest discovery of the aforementioned
contradiction was by Mark Harper in the late 1980s.
............
That is, unless the Kantian scientists have decided
to repeal the laws of logic and its derivative,
arithmetic. Which is also impossible.
Ralph Hertle
/////////////////////////////////////////////
Steven Gray wrote:
> "TIN" <TIN...@BIGPOND.COM> wrote in
> news:1nnR8.19504$Hj3....@newsfeeds.bigpond.com:
>
>
>>We all know that light and in fact all forms of electromagnetic
>>radiations travel through space at around 300000K/s. We also know that
>>light is also moving away us at this speed regardless of our own
>>velocities. If we are able to travel at the known speed of light (not
>>that I think we can), would light still move away from us at 300000K/s?
>>
>
> Your question can't be answered properly because the operative condition
> ("if we are able...") isn't possible, even in theory. We can't travel at
RALPH HERTLE
FYI, the exponent may be written in the form, E=MC^2 .
Ralph Hertle
...............................
Steven Gray
news:3D1D5DA0...@verizon.net:
> Steven:
>
> However, light also moves at 300000K/S (c) with respect
> to any third point which is any selected reference
> point regardless of the velocity of that third point.
Correct, assuming that the third point is moving in uniform (unaccelerated)
motion less than light speed with respect to the first reference point.
> Therefore, light can be caused to move at all selected
> velocities that range from 300000 K/S to 0 K/S to
> -300000 K/S.
That doesn't follow. According to special relativity, velocities don't add
that way. It's not a result that appeals to the intuition, but it's
supported by experiment.
Therefore the rest of your argument fails. Someday we may find
experimental results that invalidate SR to some extent, but you're not
going to find trivial internal inconsistencies in the theory.
--
Steve Gray
sgr...@cfl.rr.com
Odysseus
>
> If The light as you say always moves at 300000K/S,
> regardless of the velocity of the emitter, would not
> the velocity of light always be measured with regard
> to some other selected stationary point of reference?
>
for every observer, and there's no absolute speed or preferred frame of
reference -- hence the term "relativity".
> If that is true, and if the emitter is moving at 300000K/S
> in the same direction as the emitted light, would not the
> velocity of light be 0K/S with regard to the emitter?
>
No. See <http://hepweb.rl.ac.uk/ppUK/PhysFAQ/headlights.html>.
> Therefore, relative to fast emitters, and relative to that
> remote point of reference, the velocity of light would always
> be both one velocity and another at the same time, which is
> impossible.
>
It may seem impossible to our 'common sense' -- but we evolved in an
environment with a preferred reference frame, i.e. the earth's. The
speed of the moon's motion through space is different when measured WRT
the earth, the sun, and the centre of the galaxy, but there's no paradox
in that.
--Odysseus
RALPH HERTLE
It appears that you are positing intuition against logic.
Are you saying that intuition wins and logic loses?
Get factual and rational. There is no way that logic is invalid.
Logic has been proven to accurately identify and validate facts
more than trillions of times by the minds of humans. The same
is true for arithmetic. Special Relativity can IN NO WAY
contradict or repeal those principles. If you do so the basis
of SR will, no doubt, be undermined to the point where it can
easily be dismissed as wishful thinking. SR flies in the face of
sense perception and rational integration of the facts.
BTW, I was attempting to use the Aristotelian technique of
scientific discussion whereby once the inductive gist of an
argument is known, or prior facts proven, the argument may proceed
from step to step towards a conclusion.
That is like say that men can fly, using airplanes, but that the
specific tensile strength of every bolt thread's metallurgy need
not be re-demonstrated if that work had been done prior.
BTW, what are the rules of logic and arithmetic according to SR?
Lets hear from you.
Ralph Hertle
....................
RALPH HERTLE
Are you saying that SR contradicts the laws of logic?
That is, because a contradiction is the impossible,
are you saying that logic is the impossible, and that
only SR identifies the facts of reality?
You appear to have drawn an intellectual "iron curtain"
between the intellectual principles of SR and logic
(both inductive and deductive).
You have passed off the entire science of logic
and its consequent as irrelevant by the use of your
term "common sense". That is a form of minimalisation
of the opponent's argument by the use of humor, which
is a form of dismissal of the opponent's statement
without challenging the facts or reasoning of his
statements. That is a fallacy of logic that goes by the
name of, "an appeal to humor."
Interestingly, you have used the modern Platonist's concept
of "common sense", which purports to describe something
in a yet undefined world of ideals, rather than to
introduce the concept of the axiom, which concept was
called by Aristotle by the name of, "Common Notion."
An axiom is a very broad concept that identifies everything,
for example, that there is a universe - that is knowable,
and the axiom that identifies that, says that, "existence
is existing." "Common sense" (not Thomas Paine's 'Common
Sense') refers to something that everyone should know but
that no one can quite prove. Whereas, an axiom may be
proved and demonstrated to be true by several means in
all types of examples.
According to SR, relativity appears to mean a concept that
denies logical identifications of the facts of reality,
and that means that everything (in the special realm of SR)
is relative, and cannot be known by means of reason and
its integral method of the identification of the facts
of reality, logic.
Your "SR" arithmetic doesn't add up.
BTW, if your next argument is that the universe is spherical
thing produced as a result of the BB, and that the universe
is a non-instantaneously produced hollow Hubbelian sphere produced
by a non-existing existent in a general realm of non-existence,
please don't tell me.
Ralph Hertle
________________________________________. .___________________
Nomen Nescio
RALPH HERTLE <ralph....@verizon.net> writes:
Er...I think you will find it does.
Relativistic Velocity Addition...Definition.
Relates the velocity U1 of a particle in an INERTIAL FRAME OF REFERENCE S1
to its velocity U in an inertial frame of reference S and the velocity V
of seperation of S1 from S.
(in two dimensional spacetime) is given by the formula.....
U(dash)1 = (U1-v) / (1- (v/c^2)U1)
which assumes that the two inertial frames of reference have their
axes aligned so that the particle is moving along both the x(dash)1
axis and the x1 axis
U(dash)1 will always yeild a result that is less than the speed of light.
If you got problems with this well established formula then please
show some math to back up your claims. You can woffle all you
like but without mathematical backup your arguments are useless.
>
>
> BTW, if your next argument is that the universe is spherical
> thing produced as a result of the BB, and that the universe
> is a non-instantaneously produced hollow Hubbelian sphere produced
> by a non-existing existent in a general realm of non-existence,
> please don't tell me.
Math backup please!!!!
--
Steven Gray
> It appears that you are positing intuition against logic.
> Are you saying that intuition wins and logic loses?
Where did you get that?? I said that SR is counter intuitive.
> Get factual and rational. There is no way that logic is invalid.
> BTW, what are the rules of logic and arithmetic according to SR?
The rules of logic and arithmetic are the same in SR as in Newtonian
mechanics. The problem with your argument has nothing to do with logic.
Start with the right assumptions and you can prove or disprove anything
logically. You assume that velocities add linearly. Experiment shows that
to be wrong. Get factual and rational.
--
Steve Gray
sgr...@cfl.rr.com
Odysseus
>
> Odysseus:
>
> Are you saying that SR contradicts the laws of logic?
No.
> That is, because a contradiction is the impossible,
> are you saying that logic is the impossible, and that
> only SR identifies the facts of reality?
>
No. It's not an either-or situation.
> You appear to have drawn an intellectual "iron curtain"
> between the intellectual principles of SR and logic
> (both inductive and deductive).
>
I don't know what you're getting at here. Both deductive and inductive
reasoning went into the development and testing of relativity theory AFAICT.
> You have passed off the entire science of logic
> and its consequent as irrelevant by the use of your
> term "common sense". That is a form of minimalisation
> of the opponent's argument by the use of humor, which
> is a form of dismissal of the opponent's statement
> without challenging the facts or reasoning of his
> statements. That is a fallacy of logic that goes by the
> name of, "an appeal to humor."
>
No; you're reading something into my use of "common sense" that I didn't
intend at all. What I meant was that our 'unschooled' perceptions of how
matter, space and energy behave are preconditioned by the 'normal'
terrestrial conditions prevailing within the range of our physical
senses. When we attempt to model electrons as tiny bullets, or stars as
gigantic furnaces, we are sometimes stretching these analogies beyond
what they'll bear.
> Interestingly, you have used the modern Platonist's concept
> of "common sense", which purports to describe something
> in a yet undefined world of ideals, rather than to
> introduce the concept of the axiom, which concept was
> called by Aristotle by the name of, "Common Notion."
Since you bring up Aristotle, IIRC he stated that a body in motion must
eventually come to rest even if no forces act on it. This error is an
excellent example of how extrapolation from 'earthbound' experience can
lead to incorrect conclusions. When Galileo and Newton developed the
theory of kinematics they weren't violating any laws of logic, or
introducing new axioms, but several of their conclusions were -- and
remain -- 'counterintuitive'. Another illustration is the way people who
haven't grasped Newton's third law picture rocket engines as needing to
push against something. It's my impression that 'newbie' questions about
how rockets can function _in vacuo_ come up fairly often in this NG, and
I think everyone who's learned any physics has had to get over several
such hurdles -- there's no shame in that, and I intend no disparagement
of 'common sense' beyond that it has its limits. I might add that some
of the laws of logic themselves can be difficult to grasp intuitively
because of the ways in which we're accustomed to expressing our ideas;
an elementary example might be the equivalence of a conditional
statement with its contrapositive.
Anyway, when Einstein _et al._ developed SR they weren't contradicting
Newtonian theory as much as extending it.
> An axiom is a very broad concept that identifies everything,
> for example, that there is a universe - that is knowable,
> and the axiom that identifies that, says that, "existence
> is existing." "Common sense" (not Thomas Paine's 'Common
> Sense') refers to something that everyone should know but
> that no one can quite prove. Whereas, an axiom may be
> proved and demonstrated to be true by several means in
> all types of examples.
>
Where does that definition come from? I'm no expert, but I think that in
logic an "axiom" is a premise that's accepted without proof. A statement
that's been proven consistent with all axioms is a "theorem".
> According to SR, relativity appears to mean a concept that
> denies logical identifications of the facts of reality,
> and that means that everything (in the special realm of SR)
> is relative, and cannot be known by means of reason and
> its integral method of the identification of the facts
> of reality, logic.
>
I think you're mixing up levels here. SR theory has been found
consistent with "the facts of reality" to the extent that we've been
able to observe them. It's hard to conduct experiments of sufficient
scale, but an early and famous 'confirmation' of SR was its explanation
for observed anomalies in Mercury's orbit.
> Your "SR" arithmetic doesn't add up.
>
Did you read the FAQ article about relativistic velocity addition to
which I posted a link? It only "doesn't add up" in the sense that two
cubic bricks each 1 dm on a side weigh much less than one cubic brick 2
dm on a side -- this doesn't contradict the fact that 1 + 1 = 2 once you
understand that volume increases with the cube of length. To claim that
the 'theory of volumes' contradicts logic because it seems to you to say
that 1 + 1 = 8 both misrepresents the theory and ignores the
observations of experiment.
> BTW, if your next argument is that the universe is spherical
> thing produced as a result of the BB, and that the universe
> is a non-instantaneously produced hollow Hubbelian sphere produced
> by a non-existing existent in a general realm of non-existence,
> please don't tell me.
>
Huh? No, I wasn't going there at all ...
--Odysseus
ha...@somewhere.com
throughout the universe or it is relative to it's source. It can't be both at
the
same time.
Hans
Ron Miller wrote:
> Yes.
>
> RM
ha...@somewhere.com
FACT! I have a theory that states that humanity doesn't understand
enough at present to make even good educated guesses as to what
is or is not possible. And the more we learn the more we understand
that there is a lot more that we don't know or understand yet.
Hans
ha...@somewhere.com
RALPH HERTLE wrote:
> TIN:
>
> FYI, the exponent may be written in the form, E=MC^2 .
Interesting formula... how do you square something that "can't
go faster" than it's self?
Tell me something... If we rearrange the formula to read:
M = E/C^2 does it imply that we can create matter from energy and
speed ... ( oh, all right velocity? )
And going a little further can we use C = ( E/M )^-2 to produce
velocity... so IF we substitute infinity for E and ( infinity -1 ) for M,
we should be able to accelerate our minuscule mass to a near
infinite velocity.
So much for E=MC^2.
We really need to learn a lot more about what happens the moment
a photon is released/created.
Hans
Steven Gray
> Theories are just that! Theories! Don't go confusing theories with
> FACT! I have a theory that states that humanity doesn't understand
I'm not, but fact is determined by experiment. At present, special
relativity explains the experimental evidence in this regard better than
anything else we have. Might it be wrong? Certainly. But the facts we
have suggest not.
--
Steve Gray
sgr...@cfl.rr.com
RALPH HERTLE
You are conning the reader with your
definition. It is apparent that you
haven't the slightest knowledge of
the correct structure of a definition.
You haven't given us a clue about
which term is the genus of the definition,
and which is the differentia. Nor is
it evident what the purpose and function
of your definition is. Furthermore, you
have not proved your definition, and
therefore, even if you had done the above
correctly, it wouldn't stand up to logical
proof.
What you claim as mathematics bears no relation
to logic. Some aspects of the symbology
seem to be more slight of hand than correct
symbology, e.g., a "dash" isn't a minus sign.
The explanation that you offer provides not
the smallest reference to a logically coherent
structure or proof. You provide no clues as to
which terms are part of which premises.
A reduction to mathematics IS NOT a reduction to
truth. Mathematics is totally dependent upon
a logically coherent identification of the facts
of reality, of the nature of existents, and of
the properties and relationships of existemts.
After the existence of existents and their
properties, concepts are the primary, and not
abstract symbols that do not refer to any part
or property of any existents in the universe.
I say to you: please provide a basis in fact,
conceptual identification of the facts, and proofs
of the definitions and the conclusions that you
draw.
What is a "frame of reference" in the context that
you intend? A place to start may be, and this is only
one of many possible starting places, with a point.
A selected point in the context of the origin and
destination points of a line through which or along
which a quanta of light will travel is a good
starting point. Or, if a point is not in any
discussion, explanation, or proof of a "frame of
reference", what is your take on the nature of
a "frame of reference". Try not to use math to
to explain what you mean, unless, that may be
helpful as an example of an identification of
a relationship.
Then, what is meant by your term "inertial" as
in an "inertial frame of reference"? How does
inertia in the context that you intend relate
to the concepts of mass, acceleration, force,
and velocity?
Ralph Hertle
...................................
RALPH HERTLE
I'm at a loss to say....do I say,
"So what?"...,
"Then what?"..., or,
"Whatever?....
I withdrew the post within minutes
after I read that someone had given
the suggested symbology. I didn't
really intend that you would get so
worked up over so insignificant a
suggestion, however, unnecessary the
suggestion was.
My suggestion concerned only the ^2,
and not the formula, E=MC^2.
You dropped context in your fervor.
Since a lot more needs to be said on the
issue, and since most discussions are
couched in purposefully abstruse language,
I've added some comments:
.......................................
ha...@somewhere.com wrote:
>
> RALPH HERTLE wrote:
>
>
>>TIN:
>>
>>FYI, the exponent may be written in the form, E=MC^2 .
>>
>
> Interesting formula... how do you square something that "can't
> go faster" than it's self?
Hans, you ask solid questions. Here are some questions for you:
Just what is "C"? What is the purpose of the square function?
If it (C^2) is a number, what is the existent in actuality that
the number identifies?
Or is it a mere characteristic of acceleration and wave mechanics that
identifies some property of the as yet unknown (photon) existents?
>
> Tell me something... If we rearrange the formula to read:
> M = E/C^2 does it imply that we can create matter from energy and
> speed ... ( oh, all right velocity? )
Is the relationship, M^-1 = C^2/E , the same as what you say? And
does either actually identify anything in existence?
>
> And going a little further can we use C = ( E/M )^-2 to produce
> velocity... so IF we substitute infinity for E and ( infinity -1 ) for M,
> we should be able to accelerate our minuscule mass to a near
> infinite velocity.
Doesn't Einstein say something to the effect that the mass of an
existent becomes infinitely great upon having been accelerated to "C"?
Would that mean that there may be a lot of humungous blue-shifted, plain,
or even red-shifted, photons hanging about in the universe somewhere? The
outer spherical surface of the proposed creationist-expansionist universe
would then have to be a solid wall of super-massive fast photons. Our
universe would be the interior of that spherical shell, which would have
an infinitely high mass. It would be the equivalent of a black hole
that was turned inside out, and towards which everything was
gravitationally attracted.
Attracted by what existents? And, by what means? The Post Modernist
scientists cleverly have no answers to those questions.
>
> So much for E=MC^2 .
>
> We really need to learn a lot more about what happens the moment
> a photon is released/created.
>
> Hans
>
>
>
The photon gets really massive. The Post Modernist scientists are now
in a backpatting conference. They will probably come out with the
proclamation that, existents can both coexist and not exist with the
same substance, property, time, place, context, and respect. They may
even discover gravitationally radiant ultra-massive black photons.
................................
Ralph Hertle
RALPH HERTLE
Steven Gray wrote:
[ text omitted ]
>
> I'm not, but fact is determined by experiment. At present, special
> relativity explains the experimental evidence in this regard better than
> anything else we have. Might it be wrong? Certainly. But the facts we
> have suggest not.
>
>
Experiments are creations of man. Experiments are used to demonstrate
theories devised by man.
Facts are the metaphysically accidental. Facts are not created by man.
Facts make up existence, and existence is all facts.
Therefore, experiments do not create facts.
Experiments, may, however, help to identify facts, that is, existents and
the properties of existents, or to prove or demonstrate the existence of
facts, but experiments do not create facts.
Facts are the metaphysical in nature. Concepts are identifications about
facts. For example, that air exists is a fact. Air, the material, is a fact.
The concept that identifies that which is a gas and that is made of a
mixture of several gases is named "air".
Ralph Hertle
.........................................
ha...@somewhere.com
IF you look at it just right.
However if you had been looking at me as I typed my response
you would have noticed that I had my tongue firmly planted in
my cheek! ... ... Well actually I was LMAO... :o))
Hans
s seven
On Mon, 24 Jun 2002 15:29:18 +0100, "Richard Bullock"
<richard...@ntlworld.com> wrote:
:
:"Marcel Kanon" <mar...@letsnet.nl> wrote in message
:news:ngFR8.2345704$Lj7.78360237@Flipper...
:>
:> Why can't we travel at the speed of light ?
:>
:As you get faster relative to someone else, your mass increases in their
:frame of reference. At the speed of light, your mass would become infinite.
:You would thus need an infinite amount of energy and an infinite force to
:get there.
:
:Ric
:
Spaceart
RALPH HERTLE wrote:
> Odysseus:
>
> Are you saying that SR contradicts the laws of logic?
> That is, because a contradiction is the impossible,
> are you saying that logic is the impossible, and that
> only SR identifies the facts of reality?
No--you're just not using the right logic.
Spaceart
RALPH HERTLE wrote:
> Steven:
>
> However, light also moves at 300000K/S (c) with respect
> to any third point which is any selected reference
> point regardless of the velocity of that third point.
>
> Therefore, light can be caused to move at all selected
> velocities that range from 300000 K/S to 0 K/S to
> -300000 K/S.
No. Light always moves at the same velocity. I think you're under the
impression that some outside observer would be able to measure these different
velocities--that is, he could observe light moving at different speeds. This
would not happen.
> But, the claim is that light moves at only one
> velocity, 300000 K/M, with respect to all or any
> selected reference points that may be in motion at
> any or either the directional velocities, forward,
> backward, or rest.
That is not just the claim, it is the observed fact.
R
Spaceart
suddenly not only discovered basic, fundamental flaws in well-tested scientific
ideas, but in this case in the underlying logic of a theory . . . the irony in
this case being that the theory in dispute was evolved through the rigorous
application of logic. The relative nature of the speed of light is the inevitable
result of logic: and unless some radical discovery is made about the fundamental
nature of the universe, it could have turned out no other way. What Ralph forgets
is that there is logic and there is logic . . .
R
Nomen Nescio
RALPH HERTLE <ralph....@verizon.net> writes:
> Nomen:
>
> You are conning the reader with your
> definition. It is apparent that you
> haven't the slightest knowledge of
> the correct structure of a definition.
> You haven't given us a clue about
> which term is the genus of the definition,
> and which is the differentia. Nor is
> it evident what the purpose and function
> of your definition is. Furthermore, you
> have not proved your definition, and
> therefore, even if you had done the above
> correctly, it wouldn't stand up to logical
> proof.
>
> What you claim as mathematics bears no relation
> to logic. Some aspects of the symbology
> seem to be more slight of hand than correct
> symbology, e.g., a "dash" isn't a minus sign.
The dash isnt supposed to be a minus signm it just
distinguishes u(dash)1 from u1!!, Gee.....
This is where you let yourself down badly and expose your
very limited knowledge of SR. Anyone who has studied SR
even at a 'relatively' low level should be familiar with
the above definition AND understand the equation with no
problems. The fact that you don't understand it shows you
in your true light.
Again you let yourself down, if you have to ask
'What is a frame of reference in the context used
in the definition', then I say again that you
clearly show a complete lack of understanding
of SR even at a basic level,, amazing!!!!
>
> Then, what is meant by your term "inertial" as
> in an "inertial frame of reference"? How does
> inertia in the context that you intend relate
> to the concepts of mass, acceleration, force,
> and velocity?
Again, I'm amazed, I see no point in continuing this
with you, simply because you lack understanding of
the subject matter.
I suggest you go away, study hard for a few years
learn the math, cos without the math your going nowhere
with your ideas, then write up your ideas, publish
them for scrutiny, and if your right, which I very much
doubt, then we can all call you a genius!.
Regards
--
Nomen Nescio
Spaceart <Spac...@1bigred.net> writes:
> I'm always amused by the number of people who show up in this newsgroup who have
> suddenly not only discovered basic, fundamental flaws in well-tested scientific
> ideas, but in this case in the underlying logic of a theory . . . the irony in
> this case being that the theory in dispute was evolved through the rigorous
> application of logic. The relative nature of the speed of light is the inevitable
> result of logic: and unless some radical discovery is made about the fundamental
> nature of the universe, it could have turned out no other way. What Ralph forgets
> is that there is logic and there is logic . . .
LOL...What people like Hertle want is for people to accept their ideas
on face value without showing or providing any proof or evidence such
as an experiment that would confirm their ideas. All Hertle can do is
to play with words and hope to atract the attentions of newbies and
the gullible. I liken what Hertle is doing to this....I'm no chemist
but I go to a chemistry related newsgroup and declare that I have
discovered a fundamental flaw in the periodic table, I offer no
evidence for my beliefs, I offer no facts, all I offer is a load
of hogwash and playing on words. The Chemists and students of
chemistry soon realise that I have no idea what I'm talking about
and they would be quite right(I'm no chemist), so the more I go
on about it the more silly and ridiculous I look to them.
That is what has happened as far as I'm concerned here with Hertle.
--
AndyPro
The thing that really makes me smile (to say the least), is how people
automatically equate things to other things. What I mean is, like the
original poster..TIN I think it was....was confused about the "speed of
light" and light itself. Alot of people keep doing this....equating speed
of light and light itself to the theory. Then there are the ones who dont
know WHAT the hell they're tlkaing about, and they're trying to blow holes
in one of the most fundamental phsyics theories. I jsut find it rather
comical sometimes. =) Im not picking on anyone in anyhting but jest...but
still. It's worth a chuckle.
--Andy P
RALPH HERTLE
There is only one system of logic that concurs
precisely with the facts of the universe, and that
can be used to identify the existents of the
universe and their properties. That logic is also
used to validate or prove the concepts that have
been discovered and which identify the facts of
the universe.
That is the system of logic that was first identified
and systematized by Aristotle. Others have added to it,
and all science which actually identifies facts is
based on that that system of logic.
If new facts are discovered, let's say, for example,
that it was discovered that photon existents are in
reality packets or aggregations of graviton existents,
then logic would be used to identify the facts, to
identify the concepts which identify the facts, and
to prove and validate the conclusions.
(I say, existents, because there is a popular theory
that says that light is comprised of waves of mathematical
constructs that are themselves metaphysical entities,
and which do not have physical referents in the ordinary
realm of existents in the universe. The hidden, and false,
premise in what they say is that epistemological existents,
that is, concepts, are in fact, the same as metaphysical
existents, that is, the entities or physical existents
that comprise the universe. In short, they say that ideas
ARE existents, rather than that ideas IDENTIFY existents.
That means that whatever they envision and cocoon in terms
of mathematical verbiage can actually be found out there.
If what they say were true we would be looking for light
in mathematical spacetime, and not in realm of the physical
existents that are light. That is their shell game.
In the philosophy of science they are mounting an attack
on the existence, identity, and consciousness axioms.)
If discoveries are made that extend or improve upon the
intellectual tools that are logic, and that enable
scientists to learn more about the facts of the universe
so be it. Two such examples of additions to the science
of logic was the discovery (in the Objectivist sense of
meaning) of the concepts of the calculus in mathematics
and of the development of the scientific method.
Communist theory was based on poly-logism, which was used
to sidestep issues regarding faults in their ethical and
economic theory. It was all hokum. The Communist scientists
gave up on poly-logism early on, and the prevailing philosophy
of science that is used today in Russia is based on
conventional Aristotelian Logic.
The theory that the velocity of light is the same everywhere
regardless of any frame of reference, or that one can
select any frame of reference to get the same value
regardless of whether the identifications of the reference
frames contradict one another is an intellectual shell
game.
If you claim that there is some special type of logic
that is separate from, and not the same as, conventional
Aristotelian logic, please say what that is. Are you saying
that SR has its own unique form of logic? Is that why
SR scientists have been unable to convincingly explain the
SR theories to other intellectuals and scientists?
Please come forth with that other "logic". What is the "right
logic" to which you refer?
Please cite some references. In turn, if that is required
I will quote numerous first rate authoritative works on the
science of conventional Aristotelian logic for comparison
purposes.
Ralph Hertle
Nomen Nescio
RALPH HERTLE <ralph....@verizon.net> writes:
[All Snipped]
Is this some kind of religous ranting, I have never in my
years of study ever come across a scientist/mathematician or
student that uses such words as 'existents' in fact I not
heard anyone talk like this, so I assume it's all some sort
of fanatical religous stuff!!, It sure aint science as we
know it captain!..
Nomen Nescio
"AndyPro" <andyproDamn...@adelphia.net> writes:
As long as you really do smile about it then no harm done, treat it
as just a bit of banter and fun, cos that's all it really is. the
problem is that if left unchallenged people like Hertle get away
with it, you get newbies and the such beleiving what he says.
I mean lets face it, if you have evidence and or proof that could
overturn SR or even GR, you would not be announcing it here first
you would be reading about it in Nature and or Scientific American
or the likes of.
It's just a bit of fun and thats how people like Hertle should
be treated.
>
> --Andy P
>
>
--
RALPH HERTLE
The term, "existent," is entirely correct
terminology in the Philosophy of Science,
which science develops the intellectual tools
that are used to identify all the facts of
existence. Some of terms used in the philosophy
of science are: logic, induction, deduction,
syllogism, premise, term, conclusion, existence,
being, is, continuity, distribution, truth,
contradiction, validation, concept, entity,
existent, something, nothing, fallacy, proof,
experimental design, metaphysics, physics,
property, attribute, characteristic,
epistemology, and identity, for example. These
all have precisely formulated and proven
definitions. Have you heard of these terms?
Do they sound religious to you?
Instead of "existent", would you prefer that the
term, "thing," be used instead?
By the way, I am not religious in any way.
I am totally devoted to the facts of existence
and to sense perception and logic as the means
of knowing facts. If I were to say that I am
either a Marxist, Zen Buddhist, or an
Objectivist, which would you say I am?
Don't assume anything. Seek out the facts, and
prove every premise and conclusion using logic.
Modern science as taught in universities is
loaded with the prevailing views of Kantianism,
Post Modernism, mysticism, and also a general
antagonism towards facts, proof and logic. The
choice of terms follows those philosophical
approaches. In education it is a matter of
buyer beware. For example, the term "space"
was big when I was in school. The prevailing
attitude was that space was something that
existed out there or in between things. Space
was to them not a nothing, for example. Clearly,
to factor such a bad definition into one's
thinking would yield wrong conclusions down
the line.
Returning to the concept of "existent"....if I
were to say that light quanta are existents, meaning
that the little things really exist, and someone
else were to say that light quanta have no
referent in the real physical universe, e.g.,
that they are non-existents....what idea would
be correct?
Ralph Hertle
...........................................
ha...@somewhere.com
holes in them the better we are for the understanding that is gained in
the testing. It is the BLIND acceptance of theories that is WRONG!
< No smiley face this time! >o| >
Hans
Nomen Nescio
RALPH HERTLE <ralph....@verizon.net> writes:
> Nomen:
>
> The term, "existent," is entirely correct
> terminology in the Philosophy of Science,
> which science develops the intellectual tools
> that are used to identify all the facts of
> existence. Some of terms used in the philosophy
> of science are: logic, induction, deduction,
> syllogism, premise, term, conclusion, existence,
> being, is, continuity, distribution, truth,
> contradiction, validation, concept, entity,
> existent, something, nothing, fallacy, proof,
> experimental design, metaphysics, physics,
> property, attribute, characteristic,
> epistemology, and identity, for example. These
> all have precisely formulated and proven
> definitions. Have you heard of these terms?
> Do they sound religious to you?
>
> Instead of "existent", would you prefer that the
> term, "thing," be used instead?
As I said I have never heard anyone use the word existent
and have never seen anyone write the way you write. You
do seem to me anyway to come across with a certain religous
bent. Admitedly I only really move in astrophysics and
mathematatical type and related circles, which is another
reason why I suspect your science/math background is rather
poor.
>
> By the way, I am not religious in any way.
> I am totally devoted to the facts of existence
> and to sense perception and logic as the means
> of knowing facts. If I were to say that I am
> either a Marxist, Zen Buddhist, or an
> Objectivist, which would you say I am?
I don't really care what you are, it's not my concern what
if any your religous beliefs are or are not.
>
> Don't assume anything. Seek out the facts, and
> prove every premise and conclusion using logic.
What present the facts like you DON'T do you mean?, no
thanks, I'll stick to what I know.
>
> Modern science as taught in universities is
> loaded with the prevailing views of Kantianism,
> Post Modernism, mysticism, and also a general
> antagonism towards facts, proof and logic. The
> choice of terms follows those philosophical
> approaches. In education it is a matter of
> buyer beware. For example, the term "space"
> was big when I was in school. The prevailing
> attitude was that space was something that
> existed out there or in between things. Space
> was to them not a nothing, for example. Clearly,
> to factor such a bad definition into one's
> thinking would yield wrong conclusions down
> the line.
>
> Returning to the concept of "existent"....if I
> were to say that light quanta are existents, meaning
> that the little things really exist, and someone
> else were to say that light quanta have no
> referent in the real physical universe, e.g.,
> that they are non-existents....what idea would
> be correct?
I can't be bothered Ralph, your talking in a different language to me.
What subjects have you studied?, that might throw some light
on why you use the language you do. I can tell you have not
studied astrophysics/cosmology/math related subjects, As I said it
comes across to me as some religous bent.
Theres no real content that I can see in much of what you say. It's
all just talk, no substance, and no meaning, no backbone.
Regards
>
>
> Ralph Hertle
>
> ...........................................
>
>
>
>
> Nomen Nescio wrote:
>
> > RALPH HERTLE <ralph....@verizon.net> writes:
> > [All Snipped]
>
> > Is this some kind of religous ranting, I have never in my
>
> > years of study ever come across a scientist/mathematician or
> > student that uses such words as 'existents' in fact I not
> > heard anyone talk like this, so I assume it's all some sort
> > of fanatical religous stuff!!, It sure aint science as we
> > know it captain!..
> >
>
>
--
Odysseus
>
> how is light exempt from having "infinite mass"?
>
is zero. It sounds paradoxical, but a (moving) photon acts as though it
has momentum even though it doesn't have any mass.
See <http://hepweb.rl.ac.uk/ppUK/PhysFAQ/light_mass.html> for a better
answer than I can give.
--Odysseus
Nomen Nescio
ha...@somewhere.com writes:
> The word theory means TARGET! The more people who try to shoot
> holes in them the better we are for the understanding that is gained in
> the testing. It is the BLIND acceptance of theories that is WRONG!
> < No smiley face this time! >o| >
I hope your not tryng to suggest that Hertle is shooting holes in SR!!
cos he most certainly isnt, he is not even close to sugesting anything
interesting to comment on. There is nothing in his posts that could
be of interest to anyone who is interested in SR..
>
> Hans
>
>
> AndyPro wrote:
>
> > The thing that really makes me smile (to say the least), is how people
> > automatically equate things to other things. What I mean is, like the
> > original poster..TIN I think it was....was confused about the "speed of
> > light" and light itself. Alot of people keep doing this....equating speed
> > of light and light itself to the theory. Then there are the ones who dont
> > know WHAT the hell they're tlkaing about, and they're trying to blow holes
> > in one of the most fundamental phsyics theories. I jsut find it rather
> > comical sometimes. =) Im not picking on anyone in anyhting but jest...but
> > still. It's worth a chuckle.
> >
> > --Andy P
>
--
RALPH HERTLE
alt.astronomy is a general level newsgroups.
If you feel that highly specialized terms
and mathematics should be used, then you
may be more interested in the Prodos email
list called, TEWLIP. They can handle any
technical nuances regarding waves, SR, and
GR that you can type.
I suggest that your evaluation of the
terminology used in the sciences of
logic and the philosophy of science
as religious is terribly naive.
Have you ever taken a course in logic?
It is unfortunate that those terms seem
foreign to you. If you are a professional
in science you could benefit tremendously
by knowing the science of logic cold.
Logic is, after all the absolute foundation
of mathematics and the scientific method.
Ralph Hertle
RALPH HERTLE
You rely on fallacies rather than facts and logic,
for example, ad hominem. That is to demean of the
character of the other person rather than to logically
deal with the ideas that the other person presents.
Ralph Hertle
Nomen Nescio
RALPH HERTLE <ralph....@verizon.net> writes:
> Nomen:
>
> alt.astronomy is a general level newsgroups.
Thats why I enjoy reading some posts here, sometimes
really interesting discussions can occur that would
not really go down to well in a more rigid environment.
> If you feel that highly specialized terms
> and mathematics should be used, then you
> may be more interested in the Prodos email
> list called, TEWLIP. They can handle any
> technical nuances regarding waves, SR, and
> GR that you can type.
Not really, thanks for the sugestion though.
>
> I suggest that your evaluation of the
> terminology used in the sciences of
> logic and the philosophy of science
> as religious is terribly naive.
Not really I think, often, in newsgroups such
as this one an indivudual pops up now and again
making all kinds of statements and claims just as
you have. It seems they either have a religous or
creationist or both agenda.
>
> Have you ever taken a course in logic?
No, not specificaly..
> It is unfortunate that those terms seem
> foreign to you. If you are a professional
> in science you could benefit tremendously
> by knowing the science of logic cold.
I'm not a professional, and I think you place
to much emphasis on logic, what about insight,
forsight, inspiration, how would you relate
logic to inspiration?.
> Logic is, after all the absolute foundation
> of mathematics and the scientific method.
Only I believe to a point, without the human
qualities I mention above the scientific method
would not progress. You can play around with
and manipulate equations to produce almost
anything you want, thats what creationists do,
they can produce equations showing that the
universe is only 6 thousand years old, but that
does not mean that those same equations must be
true and represent the real world/universe. I look
at mathematics as a tool, and like any tool it can
be used for good or bad.
By the way, another thing I notice about your
posts is that you simply ignore a lot of
questions put to you. That can also say a lot
in itself you know!.
--
Nomen Nescio
RALPH HERTLE <ralph....@verizon.net> writes:
> Nomen:
>
> You rely on fallacies rather than facts and logic,
> for example, ad hominem. That is to demean of the
> character of the other person rather than to logically
> deal with the ideas that the other person presents.
You have presented no ideas, that is the point I was making.
You have made certain claims, of which you offer no proof
or examples and refuse to justify. It is all too easy to say
something is wrong, but if your not going to justify why
you believe something is wrong then what is the point?.
You can say it as many times as you like that SR or
certain parts of SR are wrong, in fact there may well
be parts that do need modifying, I'm not so stupid to
believ that the theory is 100% solid as a rock, but
there is nothing in what you claim or say that makes
me feel you may be onto something, not even remotely.
All you seem good at is evading questions put to you, and
not questions only put by me.
I suggest we call it a day, I don't see that this discussion
one sided as it is because you seem to refuse to answer any
direct questions about what you say is going anywhere.
>
> Ralph Hertle
>
>
>
>
> Nomen Nescio wrote:
>
> > ha...@somewhere.com writes:
> >
>
> >>The word theory means TARGET! The more people who try to shoot
> >>holes in them the better we are for the understanding that is gained in
> >>the testing. It is the BLIND acceptance of theories that is WRONG!
> >>< No smiley face this time! >o| >
> >>
> > I hope your not tryng to suggest that Hertle is shooting holes in
> > SR!!
>
> > cos he most certainly isnt, he is not even close to sugesting anything
> > interesting to comment on. There is nothing in his posts that could
> > be of interest to anyone who is interested in SR..
> >
>
> >> Hans
> >>
> >>
> >>AndyPro wrote:
> >>
> >>
> >>> The thing that really makes me smile (to say the least), is how people
> >>>automatically equate things to other things. What I mean is, like the
> >>>original poster..TIN I think it was....was confused about the "speed of
> >>>light" and light itself. Alot of people keep doing this....equating speed
> >>>of light and light itself to the theory. Then there are the ones who dont
> >>>know WHAT the hell they're tlkaing about, and they're trying to blow holes
> >>>in one of the most fundamental phsyics theories. I jsut find it rather
> >>>comical sometimes. =) Im not picking on anyone in anyhting but jest...but
> >>>still. It's worth a chuckle.
> >>>
> >>>--Andy P
> >>>
> >
>
>
--
ha...@somewhere.com
Nomen Nescio wrote:
> RALPH HERTLE <ralph....@verizon.net> writes:
>
> > Nomen:
> >
> > You rely on fallacies rather than facts and logic,
> > for example, ad hominem. That is to demean of the
> > character of the other person rather than to logically
> > deal with the ideas that the other person presents.
>
> You have presented no ideas, that is the point I was making.
> You have made certain claims, of which you offer no proof
> or examples and refuse to justify. It is all too easy to say
> something is wrong, but if your not going to justify why
> you believe something is wrong then what is the point?.
The problem arises when you start dismissing ideas out of hand
without thought or reason because they are either not familiar
or fly in the face or your, generic, sacred cow theories.
The simple fact remains that GR and SR don't mesh. To me
this indicates that one or both have problems.
We, humanity, will only find the solutions by NOT accepting
theories as gospel. Science is a house of cards. Build your
data base on a single incorrect fact and everything derived from
it is corrupt.
Hans
ha...@somewhere.com
Odysseus wrote:
> s
> Because the "rest mass" of a photon -- as if one could 'stand still'! --
> is zero. It sounds paradoxical, but a (moving) photon acts as though it
> has momentum even though it doesn't have any mass.
Interesting theory... but if a photon has no mass how does a black hole
keep them from escaping?
IMHO I believe that there are a few more facts to be garnered about
photons before we can make statements and stamp them as truths.
Hans
Jonathan Silverlight
>
>
>Odysseus wrote:
>
>> s
>> Because the "rest mass" of a photon -- as if one could 'stand still'! --
>> is zero. It sounds paradoxical, but a (moving) photon acts as though it
>> has momentum even though it doesn't have any mass.
>
>Interesting theory... but if a photon has no mass how does a black hole
>keep them from escaping?
Well, at the most simplistic level, if an object's escape speed is more
than the speed of light, light can't escape.
Pierre Laplace and John Michell worked that out a couple of centuries
ago.
RALPH HERTLE
Nomen Nescio wrote:
[ TEXT OMITTED ]
Ralph Hertle wrote:
>>I suggest that your evaluation of the
>>terminology used in the sciences of
>>logic and the philosophy of science
>>as religious is terribly naive.
>
> Not really I think, often, in newsgroups such
> as this one an indivudual pops up now and again
> making all kinds of statements and claims just as
> you have. It seems they either have a religous or
> creationist or both agenda.
>
>>Have you ever taken a course in logic?
>
> No, not specificaly..
>
What can I say?
You say that I have have neither "a religious or
creationist or both agenda". No religion here - sorry.
The only questions that I've been raising have to do
with the claims that some proponents have made regarding
the velocity of light, and specifically, that multiple,
in fact any and all, frames of reference are supposed
to be appropriate for gauging the of light. Their
claim doesn't hold up to rational scrutiny, and
no proponent has offered a logical proof that I have
seen. I can't claim to have read all the material on
the subject. Nor have the proponents that I have read
arranged their facts in the form of a logical proof,
and not referred to "other" types of logic that they
don't explain.
[ TEXT OMITTED ]
You say:
> By the way, another thing I notice about your
> posts is that you simply ignore a lot of
> questions put to you. That can also say a lot
> in itself you know!.
I flipped back some ten posts, and if there is a
question there, then I've missed it again. Which
question was that? I'll be happy to try to answer it?
I recall that there is one person's post on the thread to
which I've intended to reply, and I haven't gotten to it.
Were you the writer who requested mathematical computations?
I did answer that question in terms of the purposes and
principles involved, and there was nothing being discussed in
particular for which computations would have been appropriate.
Ralph Hertle
RALPH HERTLE
Nomen Nescio wrote:
> RALPH HERTLE <ralph....@verizon.net> writes:
>
>
>>Nomen:
>>
>>You rely on fallacies rather than facts and logic,
>>for example, ad hominem. That is to demean of the
>>character of the other person rather than to logically
>>deal with the ideas that the other person presents.
>>
>
> You have presented no ideas, that is the point I was making.
> You have made certain claims, of which you offer no proof
> or examples and refuse to justify. It is all too easy to say
> something is wrong, but if your not going to justify why
> you believe something is wrong then what is the point?.
Smell the coffee. If it smells like coffee, and it tastes like
coffee, then it must be coffee.
I was not contesting a specific point that anyone was making.
Except that I was criticizing the multiple reference claim
that is used to justify the claimed constant of the velocity
of light. I was criticizing the proponent's methods as being
illogical, and if my position that requires the use of
conventional Aristotelian logic is right, then they have no
right to make the claim for the reasons they claim. They will
have to develop better claims.
I have in fact offered rational facts and logical arguments
of proof that the method used to justify the claimed single
velocity of light (standard conditions and all that) is incorrect.
Others on this NG have also so commented. I have opposed the
apparent mysticism of the proponent's methods in that they claim
that conventional Aristotelian logic is irrelevant and that
some other non-logical logic must instead be used to understand
their claims. I say impossible. If indeed "C" is a constant,
they have not proved the claim by means of logic.
By every standard of rational proof its back to the drawing
board for them.
> You can say it as many times as you like that SR or
> certain parts of SR are wrong, in fact there may well
> be parts that do need modifying, I'm not so stupid to
> believ that the theory is 100% solid as a rock, but
> there is nothing in what you claim or say that makes
> me feel you may be onto something, not even remotely.
Without logic, which is the science of correct identification
and thinking, how are you to know. Or even be able to
scientifically persuade someone of the truth or falsehood
of any position whatsoever.
At no time did I challenge SR. I have only found fault
with the multiple frame of reference argument that is used
to support the constant, "C", and some affiliated
arguments that have been used to bolster the main claim.
> All you seem good at is evading questions put to you, and
> not questions only put by me.
>
> I suggest we call it a day, I don't see that this discussion
> one sided as it is because you seem to refuse to answer any
> direct questions about what you say is going anywhere.
[ text omitted ]
Again, I may have missed something, some where. Statements
that have no ? mark have been ignored by me. On the other hand,
regarding the constant velocity of light and its claimed
justifications, I have addressed my remarks to the general
discussion. I've been totally focussed on that.
Ralph Hertle
RALPH HERTLE
Your question is the best one that I've heard all year.
I'll quote it in all capital letters:
"IF A PHOTON HAS NO MASS HOW DOES A BLACK HOLE KEEP
THEM FROM ESCAPING?"
Terrific.
I see that there are a number premises that are
implied in your question. These premises could be
phrased as questions and the answers would require proof
in order that the conclusions be used as premises in the
proof of the overall question that you raise.
1
Gravity entities are emitted from a mass. Some type of entity
must go out from the BH and interact with the second existent,
a photon, to cause the photon to be accelerated towards the
first mass.
2
A mass is substance, not a relationship, which is a form of idea.
3
A mass is attracted to a mass.
4
A photon is an existing entity, or existent.
5
A photon is a substance, not a relationship of other things.
6
The photon must have a mass in order to be attracted.
7
Just as a photon passing near a slit is attracted to the edge of
the material thus altering its trajectory, a photon is attracted to mass.
8
A photon is not a wave propagated in a hypothetical, and as yet, other
undiscovered clear, massless, elastic substance.
Ralph Hertle
......................................
RALPH HERTLE
That presumes that the object has inertia, and there is no
inertia without mass.
Ralph Hertle
.............................
David Knisely
> Interesting theory... but if a photon has no mass how does a black hole
> keep them from escaping?
A photon has no *rest* mass (ie: it doesn't exist at rest). It does in
a sense have a relativistic mass however: m = h/(c*Lambda), where Lambda
is the wavelength of the photon. Photons are affected by gravity, as
their paths can be bent by a strong field. A black hole would thus be
able to prevent light from escaping from beneath the event horizon.
Clear skies to you.
--
David Knisely KA0...@navix.net
Prairie Astronomy Club, Inc. http://www.prairieastronomyclub.org
Hyde Memorial Observatory: http://www.hydeobservatory.info/
******************************************************
* Attend the 9th Annual NEBRASKA STAR PARTY *
* August 4-9, 2002 http://www.nebraskastarparty.org *
******************************************************
Nomen Nescio
RALPH HERTLE <ralph....@verizon.net> writes:
No...it's back to the classroom for you I'm afraid.
>
>
>
> > You can say it as many times as you like that SR or
> > certain parts of SR are wrong, in fact there may well
> > be parts that do need modifying, I'm not so stupid to
> > believ that the theory is 100% solid as a rock, but
> > there is nothing in what you claim or say that makes
> > me feel you may be onto something, not even remotely.
>
>
>
>
> Without logic, which is the science of correct identification
> and thinking, how are you to know. Or even be able to
> scientifically persuade someone of the truth or falsehood
> of any position whatsoever.
>
> At no time did I challenge SR. I have only found fault
> with the multiple frame of reference argument that is used
> to support the constant, "C", and some affiliated
> arguments that have been used to bolster the main claim.
You have found no fault whatsoever.
>
>
>
> > All you seem good at is evading questions put to you, and
> > not questions only put by me.
> > I suggest we call it a day, I don't see that this discussion
>
> > one sided as it is because you seem to refuse to answer any
> > direct questions about what you say is going anywhere.
>
> [ text omitted ]
>
>
> Again, I may have missed something, some where. Statements
> that have no ? mark have been ignored by me. On the other hand,
> regarding the constant velocity of light and its claimed
> justifications, I have addressed my remarks to the general
> discussion. I've been totally focussed on that.
You have not addressed anything, your just playing on and with words.
>
> Ralph Hertle
>
--
Nomen Nescio
Spaceart
results in not only one answer but an answer that is unambiguously
sensical. This is certainly not the case.
I'm sure you're aware of the old conundrum that by a strict and very
simple application of logic one can "prove" that all crows are black by
never leaving the room one is sitting in. Logically, the proof works, in
the real world it is completely unrealistic.
R
RALPH HERTLE wrote:
> Spaceart:
>
> There is only one system of logic that concurs
> precisely with the facts of the universe, and that
> can be used to identify the existents of the
> universe and their properties. That logic is also
> used to validate or prove the concepts that have
> been discovered and which identify the facts of
> the universe, etc. etc.
Spaceart
RALPH HERTLE wrote:
> Have you ever taken a course in logic?
> It is unfortunate that those terms seem
> foreign to you. If you are a professional
> in science you could benefit tremendously
> by knowing the science of logic cold.
> Logic is, after all the absolute foundation
> of mathematics and the scientific method.
The comment asking Nomen Nescio of he has taken a course in logic goes some
way toward confirming what I'm growing to suspect: that you are a recent
graduate of just such a course. Your style of writing certainly reeks of the
recent convert.
RM
Spaceart
RALPH HERTLE wrote:
> The only questions that I've been raising have to do
> with the claims that some proponents have made regarding
> the velocity of light, and specifically, that multiple,
> in fact any and all, frames of reference are supposed
> to be appropriate for gauging the of light. Their
> claim doesn't hold up to rational scrutiny, and
> no proponent has offered a logical proof that I have
> seen. I can't claim to have read all the material on
> the subject. Nor have the proponents that I have read
> arranged their facts in the form of a logical proof,
> and not referred to "other" types of logic that they
> don't explain.
You have not read all the material on the subject you are criticising (a
not very logical basis for your criticisms), so it's not very surprising
that you can write that "no proponent has offered a logical proof that I
have seen". Well, of course not, if you've admittedly not done your
homework. You've certainly been free with your criticisms of others whom
you've felt haven't established a background in logic, but don't seem to
feel as though you ought to have obtained a similar solid grounding in
relativistic theory. Why not do that first, then criticize the logic
behind it?
RM
Nomen Nescio
RALPH HERTLE <ralph....@verizon.net> writes:
> Hans:
>
> Your question is the best one that I've heard all year.
>
> I'll quote it in all capital letters:
>
> "IF A PHOTON HAS NO MASS HOW DOES A BLACK HOLE KEEP
> THEM FROM ESCAPING?"
LOL...In short it has energy!. I could go into a lengthy
explanation of what we believe happens to a photon or
existant(giggle), when it crosses the event horizon but
it would be rather involved, require you to have an
understanding of light cones, an understaning of what
a black hole is and a lot more, all of which is
going to be beyond your understanding. Anyway you
would only respond with a lot of word play and
nonsense so I'll leave it at that. Why dont you ask
in a relativity ng, they may have more patience with
you than I now have.
--
Spaceart
RALPH HERTLE wrote:
> Smell the coffee. If it smells like coffee, and it tastes like
> coffee, then it must be coffee.
>
> I was not contesting a specific point that anyone was making.
>
> Except that I was criticizing the multiple reference claim
> that is used to justify the claimed constant of the velocity
> of light. I was criticizing the proponent's methods as being
> illogical, and if my position that requires the use of
> conventional Aristotelian logic is right, then they have no
> right to make the claim for the reasons they claim. They will
> have to develop better claims.
Lots of holes in this paragraph. You've already admitted that you've not
read much of the literature regarding relativistic theory, though you're
not hesitant to criticize it. You say IF your position requires the use
of conventional Aristotelian logic, THEN the relativists have to make a
better claim. But you've offered no compelling reasons at all for your
use of Aristotelian logic or that it is right.
RM
RALPH HERTLE
I have never taken courses in SR or GR. For the
physics courses that I have taken I have read
three physics texts.
The Logic courses that I took were during the 1970s.
You have a suspicion of my being a recent convert.
Actually, I am a designer of manufactured products and
a current architectural designer. My interest in the causes
for excellent design has taken me to study the geometry
of the Ancient Greeks, and that includes Aristotle,
Euclid, Eudoxus, Kallikrates, Archimedes and many others.
My hobby is the researching of ideas that relate to my
subjects of architecture, design, and geometry, and I've
been collecting a great many of my own writings that I will
combine into a book.
My approach may seem philosophical to you. I've actually
been immersed in the subjects of metaphysics, epistemology,
geometry, and logic for many years. Most universities have
a high degree of Kantianism in their programs, and the
study of logic is most certainly not too popular. Logic and
geometry may seem new to them. Actually, all the sciences
are to a large extent based upon those studies.
If anything, I believe that the quality of my being the
recent convert may be due to the strange sounding terminology,
and the syntax of the Ancient Greek geometers and philosophers
that I sometimes employ. For example, if I said that, some
birds are crows, and that all birds are black, I could conclude
that all crows are black. However, not all birds are black.
The facts provided by our senses and our arithmetical rational
faculties provide that evidence. It may also be true that
some crows are not black, and our senses and rational
faculties also provide that evidence. As a result the best
that one could conclude from these premises would be that,
some crows are black. Whether or not either some or all crows
are black is a matter of scientific investigation.
The weird phrasing of those syllogisms goes way back in history
to its origins with the Ancient Greeks, notably to the
systematization of thought by means of logic that was developed
by Aristotle. He did major work by his innovation of logic, and
he thereby created one of the major bases of all modern
civilization. If you are a Post Modernist and believe that
truth is validated by a process of social adaptation and
mutual agreement of some persons, then the strict scientific
rules of logic are going to seem terribly strange.
Because of the prohibitions that have been built into the
current discussions it is also impossible to discuss some
interesting discoveries in astronomy that were made by the
Ancient Greeks. You are on your own there.
Ralph Hertle
LLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLL
ha...@somewhere.com
David Knisely wrote:
> Hi there. You posted:
> > Interesting theory... but if a photon has no mass how does a black hole
> > keep them from escaping?
>
> A photon has no *rest* mass (ie: it doesn't exist at rest).
Interesting... Then how are we able to freeze a photon and change
its direction? And what does it mass out at when frozen?
Like I said we have a lot to learn yet about photons and what we
think we know are probably going to be proven mostly wrong.
Hans
ha...@somewhere.com
Jonathan Silverlight wrote:
That implies a mass to interact with. By today's theory definition a photon
has no mass. What is the BH interacting with?
Hans
ha...@somewhere.com
RALPH HERTLE wrote:
> Hans:
>
> Your question is the best one that I've heard all year.
>
> I'll quote it in all capital letters:
>
> "IF A PHOTON HAS NO MASS HOW DOES A BLACK HOLE KEEP
> THEM FROM ESCAPING?"
Hmmm ... interesting quoting method. Did you have something of
substance to add?
Hans
Nomen Nescio
ha...@somewhere.com writes:
> David Knisely wrote:
>
> > Hi there. You posted:
> > > Interesting theory... but if a photon has no mass how does a black hole
> > > keep them from escaping?
I just done a little bit of searching at google, some of you may
like to read up onsome of these. Several I looked at seem to be
written for the lay person, so no heavy math involved.
Search google for....photon sphere....non rotating black holes
rotating black holes.....charged black holes....event horizon
black hole singularity......kerr black holes......light cones
photon energy....photon rest mass.....I'll leave it there.
Once you get reading youll find other terms you can search on
to find out more.
> >
> > A photon has no *rest* mass (ie: it doesn't exist at rest).
>
> Interesting... Then how are we able to freeze a photon and change
> its direction? And what does it mass out at when frozen?
>
> Like I said we have a lot to learn yet about photons and what we
> think we know are probably going to be proven mostly wrong.
>
> Hans
>
>
--
G=EMC^2 Glazier
most long lasting particle there is.The reason is time does not exist
for it. Best regards Bert
RALPH HERTLE
You are really rocking.
You could write a book with all of your own
terrific questions.....and they seem to be the really
tough ones that the big guys of MIT and Cal Tech would
have fun either by answering, or, if they are the
intellectual mauler types, by denying.
Write that little black book!!!!!
Who was it that first said the term, "rest mass"?
Is that term not a recasting of Aristotle's concept,
"rest motion", and that literally means "a continually
existing entity, having identity, that has no dimensional
motion with regard to the dimensional motion of another
continually existing entity". Only the concept, "mass",
has been added. The essential concept that Aristotle
has referred to by "rest motion" is in fact the
modern concept of the sacred "frame of reference"!.
I think that someone has been pawning off Aristotle's
concept as his own. That would be a fundamental breach
of scientific etiquette, and perhaps some of the scholars
of Aristotle, or Aristotelian scientists, would have some
commentary to offer. Is there no one at Oxford and Cambridge
any more who studies these fine points of Aristotle?
But since the property of mass has been subtracted from
the, entity, photon, in order to make it massless, and
hence, without substance, the concept of the photon that
is used by the moderns, may in fact be a construct that
is intended to make it seem more like the concept of the
Ancient Greeks ... and without the credit.
The moderns have taken the attack a step farther. They
want to remove the property of existence from the concept
of the photon, that is, to remove its property of
"Circular motion." They appear to want you to have faith in
their claims without the requirement of facts and logical proof.
That may, from the professors of that particular view, may
also be a forthright attack on the validity of the Existence
Axiom, which is the most fundamental and broadest concept
of all the sciences (which is also by Aristotle). The existence
axiom simply says that existence is existing.
Ralph Hertle
BTW, what are all those unidentified, ">>>>>"s?
.....................................
Spaceart
RALPH HERTLE wrote:
> Spaceart:
>
> I have never taken courses in SR or GR. For the
> physics courses that I have taken I have read
> three physics texts.
Interesting, given that you took Nomen to task for not having taken any formal
courses in logic.
> The Logic courses that I took were during the 1970s.
>
> You have a suspicion of my being a recent convert.
I did indeed.
> Actually, I am a designer of manufactured products and
> a current architectural designer. My interest in the causes
> for excellent design has taken me to study the geometry
> of the Ancient Greeks, and that includes Aristotle,
> Euclid, Eudoxus, Kallikrates, Archimedes and many others.
> My hobby is the researching of ideas that relate to my
> subjects of architecture, design, and geometry, and I've
> been collecting a great many of my own writings that I will
> combine into a book.
Should be fascinating, I'm sure.
> If anything, I believe that the quality of my being the
> recent convert may be due to the strange sounding terminology,
> and the syntax of the Ancient Greek geometers and philosophers
> that I sometimes employ.
No--it was the enthusiasm. That and the belief (heard all too often in this NG)
that someone has suddenly stumbled onto a major flaw in a theory that has somehow
utterly eluded the minds of the thousands of people who have studied it for nearly
a century.
> For example, if I said that, some
> birds are crows, and that all birds are black, I could conclude
> that all crows are black. However, not all birds are black.
> The facts provided by our senses and our arithmetical rational
> faculties provide that evidence. It may also be true that
> some crows are not black, and our senses and rational
> faculties also provide that evidence. As a result the best
> that one could conclude from these premises would be that,
> some crows are black. Whether or not either some or all crows
> are black is a matter of scientific investigation.
I could say that "All crows are black". An equivalent statement would be "all
non-black objects are non-crows". This means that I could sit in a room and count
all the non-black object around me and every one I found would reinforce my
logical proof that all crows are black. It's logical but it makes very little
sense in the real world.
David Knisely
> Interesting... Then how are we able to freeze a photon and change
> its direction? And what does it mass out at when frozen?
It isn't exactly stopped dead in space as it possible with particles of
matter (ie: zero velocity). Its energy is in a sense "stored" in a
quantum state of the sodium atoms. It isn't phyisically existing as a
photon all by itself in space with zero velocity. From the article
"Stopping Light in its Tracks" in Nature:
"How can a photon be brought to a halt? Aren't these fundamental
particles of light meant to travel, after all, at the speed of light?
The key fact here is that, as the pulse of light penetrates into the
dense region of the ultracold atomic cloud, it turns into a 'quantum
coherence pattern' printed on the sodium atoms — the information in the
light beam becomes stored within the quantum phase relationship within
the internal atom states. In the final limit, when the pulse comes to a
dead stop, all the photons have been 'imprinted' (absorbed in a fully
reversible way) into the coherence pattern. Later, when the coupling
light is turned back on, the information contained in the pattern is
read out and converted back into propagating photons that
accelerate to the conventional speed of light as they come to the edge
of the atom sample."
> Like I said we have a lot to learn yet about photons and what we
> think we know are probably going to be proven mostly wrong.
>
Not in this case. A photon has zero rest mass but has a relativistic
mass, and is affected by gravity.
G=EMC^2 Glazier
to absolute zero,and claimed light going through it went at 2mph.
I dought that light slowed down at all. The sodium atoms because their
motion slowed down acted like mirrors reflecting the photons. I
would rather think that light took a longer distance than slowing down.
Photons take 100,000 years to get to the sun's surface,and we know why.
Reflection,absorption,and remitted is the reason for the illusion that
light can stop,or slow down. It makes sense since at such a low
temperature every atom would have need of energy,and the photon is the
carrier of EM energy. Best regards Bert
Nomen Nescio
RALPH HERTLE <ralph....@verizon.net> writes:
I refrained from mentioning this earlier cos I didnt want
to confuse things. Actualy Hertle there a couple of ideas
around regarding the speed of light but nothing to do with
what you were suggesting, hence my hesitation to mention them.
If you search google for joao magueijo, he is a lecturer
at imperial college who proposes that the speed of light
was much higher in the early universe but dropped suddenly
to it's current value. Another person John D Barrow
proposes a steady decrease in the spead of light over
the life span of the universe, even occuring today.
So far attempts to detect a decrease in c have not
yeilded conclusive results.
You may find it interesting. I should also point out that
neither idea/theory breaks any rules of SR or GR!!!!
I did have specific links to magueijo papers but
I lost them , sorry, but you should find then no
trouble through google.
>
> LLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLL
>
>
>
>
> Spaceart wrote:
>
> > RALPH HERTLE wrote:
>
> >
>
> >>Have you ever taken a course in logic?
> >>It is unfortunate that those terms seem
> >>foreign to you. If you are a professional
> >>in science you could benefit tremendously
> >>by knowing the science of logic cold.
> >>Logic is, after all the absolute foundation
> >>of mathematics and the scientific method.
> > The comment asking Nomen Nescio of he has taken a course in logic
> > goes some
>
> > way toward confirming what I'm growing to suspect: that you are a recent
> > graduate of just such a course. Your style of writing certainly reeks of the
> > recent convert.
> > RM
>
>
--
RALPH HERTLE
You say:
> [ text omitted ] A photon has zero rest mass but has a relativistic
> mass, and is affected by gravity. [ text omitted ]
Would you differentiate the concept of rest mass from the concept
of relativistic mass? What is the one, and what is the other?
I am from the old school of thought where things that exist are made
of substance, and that they have specific properties, one of which
is mass.
Thank you. Ralph Hertle
G=EMC^2 Glazier
only be a wave. It is a particle and like all particles it carries a
wave There are more reasons to think of a photon as both a particle and
a wave We can go as far as the say it has some tiny mass,it comes in
many wave lengths,and it is the messenger of the EM force.Yes? Best
regards Bert
David Knisely
It acts both as a particle *and* a wave. It has atributes of both, so
probably deserves the name "quanta" rather than trying to force it into
one category or the other. It acts like a wave in that it shows typical
diffraction and interference type phenomena, while at the same time,
individual "photons" can be detected, and can act like a particle in
knocking individual electrons loose from a metal, as in the
Photoelectric effect (the quantum explanation of this is what got
Einstein his Nobel prize BTW).
Bob Weber
From NASA's http://imagine.gsfc.nasa.gov/docs/ask_astro/answers/960731.html
The Question
Do photons have mass? Because the equations E=mc2, and E=hf, imply that
m=hf/c2 . Is it so?
The Answer
No, photons do not have mass, but they do have momentum. The proper, general
equation to use is E2 = m2c4 + p2c2 So in the case of a photon, m=0 so E =
pc or p = E/c. On the other hand, for a particle with mass m at rest (i.e.,
p = 0), you get back the famous E = mc2.
This equation often enters theoretical work in X-ray and Gamma-ray
astrophysics, for example in Compton scattering where photons are treated as
particles colliding with electrons.
Bob
"RALPH HERTLE" <ralph....@verizon.net> wrote in message
news:3D225CD6...@verizon.net...
> David:
> You say:
> > [ text omitted ] A photon has zero rest mass but has a relativistic
> > mass, and is affected by gravity. [ text omitted ]
>
> Would you differentiate the concept of rest mass from the concept
> of relativistic mass? What is the one, and what is the other?
...[snip]...
David Knisely
> Would you differentiate the concept of rest mass from the concept
> of relativistic mass? What is the one, and what is the other?
>
> I am from the old school of thought where things that exist are made
> of substance, and that they have specific properties, one of which
> is mass.
>
A complete explanation can be found in most basic books on Special
Relativity. However, in a nutshell, when an object made of matter is
sitting still relative to you (ie: "at rest"), it has what is known as
"rest mass". However, if it is moving relative to you, the "effective"
mass actually increases with velocity. This is why we often term this
kind of effect "relativistic mass", rather than just saying "mass". The
effective increase is very small much of the time, and only becomes
significant when the object is moving at relativistic speeds (ie: a
large fraction of the speed of light), but it can be measured. An
electron accelerated to about 25 keV of kinetic energy (a voltage
potential similar to that found in some TV picture tubes), will be
traveling about 30.7% of the speed of light, and would have a
relativistic mass about 1.05 times its rest mass. However, some
particle accelerators can push electrons to 90% of light speed (or a bit
higher), where their relativistic mass would be nearly 2.3 times their
rest mass. At the Stanford Linear accelerator, electrons have been
accelerated to 20 GeV of energy (roughly 800,000 times that of our
little "picture tube" accelerator), and are traveling at a speed *very*
close to the speed of light. Thus, they would have an equivalent
"relativistic" mass many times that of their rather minute rest mass.
If an object were to be accelerated to the speed of light, its
relativistic mass would become infinite. A photon *only* has a
relativistic mass, since in space, it travels at the speed of light, and
therefore cannot have any rest mass.
David Knisely
> The term relativistic mass is no longer used in physics.
While some in Physics choose not to use it, it is still a somewhat
useful concept when it comes to explaining various relativistic effects,
especially to laypersons. True "mass" is most correctly the rest mass.
In this vein, the photon has no mass.
G=EMC^2 Glazier
towards each other at 90% of "C" and having their head lights on their
light even relative to each other will still measure the same as when
the space ships are at rest relative to each other. No frame of
reference can change light speed. It could be interesting if we could
make space accelerate close to "C"as nature does,and if this expanding
space could add to light speed. I dought it. Best regards Bert PS
expanding space could give light the illusion of slowing down by making
distances greater
G=EMC^2 Glazier
you can see it has little mass. Anything that tiny has to come under
QM.That tells us that quantum entities travel like waves but arrive as
particles(that is interesting) The way they move is called a wave
function(yes?) Seems part of quantum mysteries is the particle can even
change when we try to observe it(not sure) Also seems that electrons
being measured can have a collapse of the wave function,and at that
point it can choose(at random) to have an up or down spin. We have
many experiments to show that a photon is both a wave and a particle to
think otherwise is naive thinking. Best to use your mind to figure out
what is "waving"? Best regards Bert PS The neutrino using QM has mass
TIN
wish to learn more. I could have read books or attending classes if I had
the time. If this group is intended only for the Know-all like AndyPro, I
have come to the wrong place. My apologies.
"Nomen Nescio" <nob...@dizum.com> wrote in message
news:4060066288790855...@dizum.com...
>
> ha...@somewhere.com writes:
>
> > The word theory means TARGET! The more people who try to shoot
> > holes in them the better we are for the understanding that is gained in
> > the testing. It is the BLIND acceptance of theories that is WRONG!
> > < No smiley face this time! >o| >
>
> I hope your not tryng to suggest that Hertle is shooting holes in SR!!
> cos he most certainly isnt, he is not even close to sugesting anything
> interesting to comment on. There is nothing in his posts that could
> be of interest to anyone who is interested in SR..
>
> >
> > Hans
> >
> >
> > AndyPro wrote:
> >
> > > The thing that really makes me smile (to say the least), is how
people
> > > automatically equate things to other things. What I mean is, like the
> > > original poster..TIN I think it was....was confused about the "speed
of
> > > light" and light itself. Alot of people keep doing this....equating
speed
> > > of light and light itself to the theory. Then there are the ones who
dont
> > > know WHAT the hell they're tlkaing about, and they're trying to blow
holes
> > > in one of the most fundamental phsyics theories. I jsut find it
rather
> > > comical sometimes. =) Im not picking on anyone in anyhting but
jest...but
> > > still. It's worth a chuckle.
> > >
> > > --Andy P
> >
>
> --
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
s seven
:Well, I joined this group because I know very little about Astronomy and
:wish to learn more. I could have read books or attending classes if I had
:the time. If this group is intended only for the Know-all like AndyPro, I
:have come to the wrong place. My apologies.
i think you misunderstood what andypro was trying to say bro.
--
7