Re: Higgs Boson
Y.Porat
> If the higgs boson confers mass on non matter\matter. does this mean
> the conservation of energy law is broken since mass is energy.
---------------------
mass is not energy
Enery is
*mass in *****motion**!!!
2
NO mass - no real physics !!!
ATB
Y.Porat
-----------------------------
Uncle Al
>
> On Jun 30, 11:45 pm, muser <charlie12...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> > If the higgs boson confers mass on non matter\matter. does this mean
> > the conservation of energy law is broken since mass is energy.
>
> ---------------------
> mass is not energy
> Enery is
> *mass in *****motion**!!!
> 2
>
> NO mass - no real physics !!!
idiot
What is "in motion" in a charged capacitor?
E = (CV^2)/2
Hey fucking stupid - how many times must we plunge your face into a
puddle of your own loose shit before you realize something doesn't
quite smell right?
--
Uncle Al
http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/
(Toxic URL! Unsafe for children and most mammals)
http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/lajos.htm#a2
jason
mass is not energy
Enery is
*mass in *****motion**!!!
2
NO mass - no real physics !!!
ATB
Y.Porat
-----------------------------
energy is not always mass in motion... take a oz of uranium and place it on
the table... it isn't going anywhere..
Take a piece of lead and put it on the same table and weather you like it or
not there is still energy there
Kinetic energy
--
God is really a pink elephant with television rabbit ears.... think I am
wrong?
Prove it
Assume nothing; expect everything
Y.Porat
> hume wrote:
> > On Jul 1, 3:23 am, Sam Wormley <sworml...@mchsi.com> wrote:
> >> muser wrote:
> >>> If the higgs boson confers mass on non matter\matter. does this mean
> >>> the conservation of energy law is broken since mass is energy.
> >> conservation of momentum-energy?
>
> > I was thinking of the law which states energy isn't being created and
> > i'm pretty sure i did a wiki to make sure i was right.
> > does the higgs theory try to explain the circumstances necessary to
> > trigger the mechanisms (higgs boson) into affecting matter\ non matter.
>
> The Higgs boson (assuming there is one) cam into play at the
> time that matter and energy were created. New matter and energy
> are not being created.
-------------------
so why idiot crookdont you say it loud and clear:
mass (as energy) IS CONSERVED!!
and do you mean idiot parrot waht does that mean??
it means idiot that
ENERGY IS MASS IN MOTION!!
got it once and for all
so if many others are parroting that
photons do not have rest mass
tell them they are idiot parrots
because
energy has mass
**and there is just one kind of mass*
tell them as well :
NO MASS - NO REAL PHYSICS !
and by that you will save mankind
tons of time and energy
wasted on nonsense physics
including time and money
on Higgs and Schmiggs Bosons
it will deprive you and alike you
of some of your
mumbling scope
but i can ensure you that even no Higgs and 'Scmigs' will be anymore
on the agenda
we will still have enough unknown physics
to deal and mumble
to the rest of our lives !!!
(but much more useful for the taxpayers !!)
Keep well
Y.Porat
--------------------
Whoever
news:be7c0c8b-c763-4b21...@x17g2000yqd.googlegroups.com...
> On Jul 1, 6:53 pm, Sam Wormley <sworml...@mchsi.com> wrote:
>> hume wrote:
>> > On Jul 1, 3:23 am, Sam Wormley <sworml...@mchsi.com> wrote:
>> >> muser wrote:
>> >>> If the higgs boson confers mass on non matter\matter. does this mean
>> >>> the conservation of energy law is broken since mass is energy.
>> >> If a Higgs boson, what does that have to do with the
>> >> conservation of momentum-energy?
>>
>> > I was thinking of the law which states energy isn't being created and
>> > i'm pretty sure i did a wiki to make sure i was right.
>> > does the higgs theory try to explain the circumstances necessary to
>> > trigger the mechanisms (higgs boson) into affecting matter\ non matter.
>>
>> The Higgs boson (assuming there is one) cam into play at the
>> time that matter and energy were created. New matter and energy
>> are not being created.
>
> -------------------
> so why idiot crookdont you say it loud and clear:
>
> mass (as energy) IS CONSERVED!!
>
> and do you mean idiot parrot waht does that mean??
>
> it means idiot that
>
> ENERGY IS MASS IN MOTION!!
That is a fairly useless definition of energy. Sound more like a naive
definition of momentum. And there is more than just kinetic energy (which
is the mass-in-motion energy)
> got it once and for all
> so if many others are parroting that
> photons do not have rest mass
They don't .. they don't have rest for a start. If they had rest mass, then
they could not travel at speed c. They do have momentum though when moving
(which they always do)
> tell them they are idiot parrots
> because
> energy has mass
There is mass equivalent. That doesn't mean there is a rest mass for a
photon.
> **and there is just one kind of mass*
What makes you think that?
> tell them as well :
>
> NO MASS - NO REAL PHYSICS !
There is kinematics ?
Y.Porat
> "Y.Porat" <y.y.po...@gmail.com> wrote in message
ok just give me an example of energy that is not mass
in motion
do you mean for instance potential energy (:-)
(do you think i neglected that possibility ???
i am in physics more than 60 years ....
so just ask me or better youself how potential energy
is created ...... provided you are not a mathematician (:-).)
--------
>
> > got it once and for all
> > so if many others are parroting that
> > photons do not have rest mass
>
> They don't .. they don't have rest for a start. If they had rest mass, then
> they could not travel at speed c.
-------------
you are a person with a very creative imagination (:-)
did it ever occured to you that the photon is
AN EXCEPTION CASE??
even mathematically it is a limit case!
and even if you are only a mathematician
you probably know that limits cases even in mathematics
are proplematic or ambigous ???
if youwas a real physics thinker you would notice that
as mass becomed smaller and smatter
it can reach closer and closer to c !!
so ??
so cant you make THE NEXT STEP forwards ??
and had you made the next step and realised that there is
just one kind of mass
isnt that in that case that things became simpler ??
dont you think that one kind of mass
without any ad hock invented kind of mass
is
the simpler the better ??
have you heared about the
O cum s razor principle in physics ::
the simper the better !!
They do have momentum though when moving
> (which they always do)
and momentum ??
can you have momentum without mass ??
just see the dimensions
>
> > tell them they are idiot parrots
> > because
> > energy has mass
>
> There is mass equivalent.
and how allowed you to invent ad hock kins of mass??
just because you dont know what is really going on there ??
--------------
That doesn't mean there is a rest mass for a
> photon.
>
> > **and there is just one kind of mass*
>
> What makes you think that?
>
> > tell them as well :
>
> > NO MASS - NO REAL PHYSICS !
>
> There is kinematics ?
that is going to be the new iron law of physics
taht will save a lot of ball boggling ,, time and money
and human reaourcess !!!
ATB
Y.Porat
-----------------------
Whoever
No need for it to be.. it works perfectly well without making an exception
> even mathematically it is a limit case!
Yes it is. And that is why it must have a zero rest mass.
> and even if you are only a mathematician
> you probably know that limits cases even in mathematics
> are proplematic or ambigous ???
> if youwas a real physics thinker you would notice that
> as mass becomed smaller and smatter
> it can reach closer and closer to c !!
And cannot get to c while it is greater than zero
> so ??
> so cant you make THE NEXT STEP forwards ??
That's right. . that photon rest mass must be zero. Its logical
> and had you made the next step and realised that there is
> just one kind of mass
> isnt that in that case that things became simpler ??
>
> dont you think that one kind of mass
> without any ad hock invented kind of mass
> is
> the simpler the better ??
What invented mass?
> have you heared about the
> O cum s razor principle in physics ::
> the simper the better !!
That's why no need for a special case for photons.
> They do have momentum though when moving
>> (which they always do)
>
> and momentum ??
> can you have momentum without mass ??
Without rest mass .. yes. Without total mass .. no. Photons have a mass
equivalent to their energy. But no rest mass.
> just see the dimensions
I'm well aware of the dimensions.
>>
>> > tell them they are idiot parrots
>> > because
>> > energy has mass
>>
>> There is mass equivalent.
>
> and how allowed you to invent ad hock kins of mass??
Who said its invented?
> just because you dont know what is really going on there ??
I seem to have a much better idea that you
> --------------
>
> That doesn't mean there is a rest mass for a
>> photon.
>>
>> > **and there is just one kind of mass*
>>
>> What makes you think that?
>>
>> > tell them as well :
>>
>> > NO MASS - NO REAL PHYSICS !
>>
>> There is kinematics ?
>
> that is going to be the new iron law of physics
No .. its not going to be a new law. It isn't a law. It is a slogan.
> taht will save a lot of ball boggling ,, time and money
> and human reaourcess !!!
Hardly.
Autymn D. C.
> > got it once and for all
> > so if many others are parroting that
> > photons do not have rest mass
>
> They don't .. they don't have rest for a start. If they had rest mass, then
> they could not travel at speed c. They do have momentum though when moving
> (which they always do)
They /do/ momentum. But there are no real fotòns. All carriers are
plasmòns.
Y.Porat
-----------------------
i dont have patience for uncleave parrots
BYE
Y.P
------------------
------------------
Y.Porat
> On Jun 30, 4:45 pm, muser <charlie12...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> > If the higgs boson confers mass on non matter\matter. does this mean
> > the conservation of energy law is broken since mass is energy.
>
> of mass. It means that the *sum* of all energy contributions,
> including those of rest mass, is conserved. It does not mean that the
> individual contributions are each conserved.
------------------
smarty Oracle of Delphi
who said individual contribution??!!!
now jsut tell us if :
in the **overall system ** ---
mass is conserved ???!!!
TIA
Y.Porat
----------------------------
Whoever
In other words, you are a stubborn and stupid old fool. I had already
worked that out.
Y.Porat
> "Sam Wormley" <sworml...@mchsi.com> wrote in message
>
> news:RvM2m.765910$yE1.277871@attbi_s21...
>
>
>
> > hume wrote:
> >> On Jul 1, 3:23 am, Sam Wormley <sworml...@mchsi.com> wrote:
> >>> muser wrote:
> >>>> If the higgs boson confers mass on non matter\matter. does this mean
> >>>> the conservation of energy law is broken since mass is energy.
> >>> If a Higgs boson, what does that have to do with the
> >>> conservation of momentum-energy?
>
> >> I was thinking of the law which states energy isn't being created and
> >> i'm pretty sure i did a wiki to make sure i was right.
> >> does the higgs theory try to explain the circumstances necessary to
> >> trigger the mechanisms (higgs boson) into affecting matter\ non matter.
>
> > The Higgs boson (assuming there is one) cam into play at the
> > time that matter and energy were created. New matter and energy
> > are not being created.
>
>
> "...came into play at the time that matter and energy were created." (WERE
> CREATED?!)
>
> ILLUCID!
>
> GL
>
> ======================
of course not created!!
it was always there !!
it cant be otherwise
(provided he has some brains in his skull)
people understood it
thousand years ago !!!
ATB
Y.Porat
-----------------
PD
No! We know this already. In experiment.
I'll give you an example.
SLAC has created pairs of protons from pairs of colliding electrons.
There is nothing in the initial state except an electron-positron
pair, and there is nothing in the final state other than a proton-
antiproton pair. The final state mass is 1800 times larger than the
initial state mass. No, mass is not conserved in an isolated system.
Now, you have stated that you believe that mass is conserved ANYWAY
and that mass is hidden in stuff that isn't being taken into account.
This is believing in the existence of stuff that is hidden and
unobserved for the sake of a principle you WANT to believe is true,
independent of whether you have evidence for it.
Certain people believe in ghosts and spirits but think that the
evidence for them is hidden and not taken into account. That's fun and
keeps people happy, but it is not scientific.
PD
>
> TIA
> Y.Porat
> ----------------------------
Y.Porat
> On Jul 2, 10:50 am, "Y.Porat" <y.y.po...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> > On Jul 2, 5:14 pm, PD <TheDraperFam...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > On Jun 30, 4:45 pm, muser <charlie12...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > If the higgs boson confers mass on non matter\matter. does this mean
> > > > the conservation of energy law is broken since mass is energy.
>
> > > No, not necessarily. Conservation of energy doesn't mean conservation
> > > of mass. It means that the *sum* of all energy contributions,
> > > including those of rest mass, is conserved. It does not mean that the
> > > individual contributions are each conserved.
>
> > ------------------
> > smarty Oracle of Delphi
>
> > who said individual contribution??!!!
> > now jsut tell us if :
>
> > in the **overall system ** ---
> > mass is conserved ???!!!
>
> No! We know this already. In experiment.
>
> I'll give you an example.
> SLAC has created pairs of protons from pairs of colliding electrons.
> There is nothing in the initial state except an electron-positron
> pair, and there is nothing in the final state other than a proton-
> antiproton pair. The final state mass is 1800 times larger than the
------------------------
and who on earth made you sure that
you know
**how may electrons and posotrons went in that
process **???
and how many photons went into it
or other sub particles
or how much energy was pumped into it
have you heared the rumor that
energy is mass in motion ??? (:-)
and who told you that the out commin gmass
was peoperly measured ???
may be they got it as 'relativistic mass ' ??
while that 'relativistic paert was
a result of ENERGY PUMPED into it ???!!!
Mr PD just take into account that
all the*** blind believes*** that you attribute to me
are actually attributed and hanging on your own tail ???
(save us all your abstract pompous empty rest of hand waings
that contribute nothing even to your system
of physics
iow
it is just your interpretations and believes
all we need and count on is
experiments and RIGHT ** interpretations** of it!!
right interpretations or wrong ones are important at least
as the experiments themselves !!!
2
dont forget that we are waiting for your Higgs bosons the LHC
i just wonder what will you say for your defense
if it will be found as a big empty Bollony
(i count on you that in that case
your wonderful rhetoric talent
that can turn a cat to a mouse and vice versa will work nicely
again !!.....)
ATB
Y.Porat
------------------------
Mike
> On Jul 2, 10:50 am, "Y.Porat" <y.y.po...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Jul 2, 5:14 pm, PD <TheDraperFam...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > On Jun 30, 4:45 pm, muser <charlie12...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > If the higgs boson confers mass on non matter\matter. does this mean
> > > > the conservation of energy law is broken since mass is energy.
>
> > > No, not necessarily. Conservation of energy doesn't mean conservation
> > > of mass. It means that the *sum* of all energy contributions,
> > > including those of rest mass, is conserved. It does not mean that the
> > > individual contributions are each conserved.
>
> > ------------------
> > smarty Oracle of Delphi
>
> > who said individual contribution??!!!
> > now jsut tell us if :
>
> > in the **overall system ** ---
> > mass is conserved ???!!!
>
> No! We know this already. In experiment.
>
> I'll give you an example.
> SLAC has created pairs of protons from pairs of colliding electrons.
> There is nothing in the initial state except an electron-positron
> pair, and there is nothing in the final state other than a proton-
> antiproton pair. The final state mass is 1800 times larger than the
> initial state mass. No, mass is not conserved in an isolated system.
180 or 1800 times?
Mass and energy are conserved in an isolated system. A collider is not
an isolated system. If mass and energy are not conserved in isolated
systems then you have miracles of ex nihilo creation. You then drop
physics and pray to God for relevation, as He would be the only One to
know what is really happening.
Mike
>
> Now, you have stated that you believe that mass is conserved ANYWAY
> and that mass is hidden in stuff that isn't being taken into account.
>
> This is believing in the existence of stuff that is hidden and
> unobserved for the sake of a principle you WANT to believe is true,
> independent of whether you have evidence for it.
>
> Certain people believe in ghosts and spirits but think that the
> evidence for them is hidden and not taken into account. That's fun and
> keeps people happy, but it is not scientific.
>
> PD
>
>
>
>
>
> > TIA
> > Y.Porat
> > ----------------------------- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
Y.Porat
------------------
well said Mike!!
did you read it PD ??
its time even for you to
get out of your hermetic box !!!
mass is conserved
Energy is -- mass in motion
'No mass - No real physics !!!'
just simple as that !!
no more mass less particles
now the problem is
what are the embarrassing correction that you have to tell
your students
i suspect that that is your main problem that prevents you from some
advance
ATB
Y.Porat
----------------------------
ATB
Y.Porat
---------------------------
Y.Porat
<qualityservic...@verizon.net> wrote:
> Now that I think of it, what confers mass on the Higgs Boson?
>
> Another Higgs Boson?
>
> And what confers mass on that one...?
>
> --
> Mike
>
> -----------------------------------------------------------------------
> Michael J. Strickland
> Quality Services qualityservic...@verizon.net
> 703-560-7380
> -----------------------------------------------------------------------"muser" <charlie12...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>
> news:97b27dd2-c3d3-440e...@b14g2000yqd.googlegroups.com...
>
> > If the higgs boson confers mass on non matter\matter. does this mean
> > the conservation of energy law is broken since mass is energy.
--------------
and now we have another kind of mass ??!!
please educate me
what is confers mass
TIA
Y.Porat
---------------------------
Eric Gisse
You weren't even listening, dipshit.
[snip]
PD
I don't know where you got the idea that summative mass is conserved
in an isolated system?
> A collider is not
> an isolated system.
Really? What other interactions go on at the collision point besides
the ones between the constituents of the system?
> If mass and energy are not conserved in isolated
> systems then you have miracles of ex nihilo creation.
The change of a nonconserved property in an isolated system is not a
miracle of any kind.
Mike
Dipstick little dropout crank. Do you want me to remind you the facv
that you think the Newtonian gravity equation is an ODE? Here it is
for everyone to laugh at your immense ignorance:
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics.relativity/msg/dd24a9cdf16c4daf?hl=en
Did you make any progress in the last two years marketing student?
>
> [snip]- Hide quoted text -
Mike
Read well. You claim to have a Ph.D and you don't know how to read
yet?
Mass AND energy is conserved in an isolated system.
Hey crank, did I speak of summative mass? Where do you make up these?
Are you on any drugs?
>
> > A collider is not
> > an isolated system.
>
> Really? What other interactions go on at the collision point besides
> the ones between the constituents of the system?
Only the universe as a whole can be isolated system. Only a crank will
insist a collider is an isolated system because you have no basis for
such assertion.
You have no basis for making such assertions. A collider needs energy
to run, the energy comes from somewhere. It is not an isolated
system.
>
> > If mass and energy are not conserved in isolated
> > systems then you have miracles of ex nihilo creation.
>
> The change of a nonconserved property in an isolated system is not a
> miracle of any kind.
If you change, it will be a miracle. YOu never answer on the main
issue, you always try to divert attention with red herrings.
I think you are a crank. Sonner or later it will become evident to
everybody you are a crank.
Y.Porat
-----------------
little imbecile
Y.Porat
------------------
Y.Porat
-------------
well said Mike
do you know what is the worse
HARMFUL part of it
it is that
PD is a physics teacher !!!
got it ??
actually may be it is not his fault
he is just a parrot parroting others
that is unable to learn something new !!
ATB
Y.Porat
----------------------------
PD
Summative mass is what I was referring to with Porat, and you jumped
in and said that mass is conserved. Now, if you are talking about
something else, then kindly respect the context of the conversation
you've jumped into.
> Where do you make up these?
> Are you on any drugs?
>
>
>
> > > A collider is not
> > > an isolated system.
>
> > Really? What other interactions go on at the collision point besides
> > the ones between the constituents of the system?
>
> Only the universe as a whole can be isolated system.
Ah, that's interesting. So the laws of conservation of energy and
linear and angular momentum, as taught in freshman physics classes,
are pointless, as the only circumstance they apply to is the universe
as a whole. Ah. I see.
> Only a crank will
> insist a collider is an isolated system because you have no basis for
> such assertion.
>
> You have no basis for making such assertions. A collider needs energy
> to run, the energy comes from somewhere. It is not an isolated
> system.
Ah, interesting. So when a freshman physics text talks about
collisions in isolated systems, you say there is no such thing,
because the colliding things have to have acquired their motion from
someplace?
Don't you think it would be better if you actually took a freshman
physics class before you started spouting off nonsense about basics?
Mike
You totally confuse closed and isolated systems. It appears you do not
know the difference.
I said mass AND energy are conserved in an isolated system. I do not
understand what your objection is. I never said anything about
momentum or energy. You do not understand the difference between laws
and physical systems.
>
> > Only a crank will
> > insist a collider is an isolated system because you have no basis for
> > such assertion.
>
> > You have no basis for making such assertions. A collider needs energy
> > to run, the energy comes from somewhere. It is not an isolated
> > system.
>
> Ah, interesting. So when a freshman physics text talks about
> collisions in isolated systems, you say there is no such thing,
> because the colliding things have to have acquired their motion from
> someplace?
YOu talk about models, not reality,. In reality, you have all kinds of
energy dissipation or influenses on the bodies involved. I understand
some of you do not know the difference between models and physical
reality.
"Truly isolated physical systems do not exist in reality (except
perhaps for the universe as a whole), "
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Isolated_system
Now call wikipedia and cry foul...
" hello, this is PD, the usenet king. I have been teaching my pupils
that there are isolated systems all over the place. Remove the entry
please".
Crank
>
> Don't you think it would be better if you actually took a freshman
> physics class before you started spouting off nonsense about basics?
>
You are a fool.
PD
Interesting. And what do physics textbooks say is the distinction?
>
> I said mass AND energy are conserved in an isolated system.
Summative mass, which is what I was discussing with Porat, is not.
> I do not
> understand what your objection is. I never said anything about
> momentum or energy. You do not understand the difference between laws
> and physical systems.
And what do the laws say about what is true in isolated (or closed)
systems?
>
>
>
> > > Only a crank will
> > > insist a collider is an isolated system because you have no basis for
> > > such assertion.
>
> > > You have no basis for making such assertions. A collider needs energy
> > > to run, the energy comes from somewhere. It is not an isolated
> > > system.
>
> > Ah, interesting. So when a freshman physics text talks about
> > collisions in isolated systems, you say there is no such thing,
> > because the colliding things have to have acquired their motion from
> > someplace?
>
> YOu talk about models, not reality,. In reality, you have all kinds of
> energy dissipation or influenses on the bodies involved. I understand
> some of you do not know the difference between models and physical
> reality.
Really, and so what do the physical laws say? Or are physical laws
about models and not physical reality, Mike?
>
> "Truly isolated physical systems do not exist in reality (except
> perhaps for the universe as a whole), "
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Isolated_system
>
> Now call wikipedia and cry foul...
It's a free resource. You get what you pay for.
>
> " hello, this is PD, the usenet king.
You are under some impression I'm trying to force anything on usenet.
I'm just encouraging you to look up some better resources. Of course,
if you want to say something completely different on usenet because
you have the freedom to, be my guest. That's the beauty of the open-
access internet; just about anybody can make of fool of himself
without spending a penny.
> I have been teaching my pupils
> that there are isolated systems all over the place. Remove the entry
> please".
>
> Crank
>
>
>
> > Don't you think it would be better if you actually took a freshman
> > physics class before you started spouting off nonsense about basics?
>
> You are a fool.
That's your answer to the question?
Y.Porat
-----------------
you are the freshman
you brought the example of creating
protons from electrons in a collider
remember ??!
do yo0u thjink we forgot it ???
2
willingly or not one day you will have to confess that
energy has mass
and
there is just one kind of mass !!!
and the sooner the better .
ATB
Y.Porat
------------------------
Eric Gisse
[...]
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Isolated_system
>
> Now call wikipedia and cry foul...
[...]
Wikipedia is not a physics textbook, Mike.
Have you ever read a physics textbook? If you think so, please name
one.
Y.Porat
-------------------
Gisse
its time for you to stop being a parrot
(in the **holly scrolls **** it is written that
the sun orbits earth (:-)
knowledge is changing with time
and not always by professors .....
and surely not by mathematicians
that call themselves physicists ...
2
just wait for the Higgs Bosons
that will be discovered by the
LHC with the probability of
1 to 100000 billion .........
Y.P
----------------
Y.Porat
-----------------------
lets take the bull by its horns:
the real question is
doe s energy has mass??
the answer is yes!!
moreover
there is just ONE kind of mass!
one day
willingly or not
you wil have to admit it!!
and the sooner the better
ATB
Y.Porat
--------------------------------------
PD
You make this statement as though it should just be accepted on the
face of it.
You furthermore insist that, though it is true, this mass is hidden in
energy somewhere in such a way that it escapes measurement.
This is akin to insisting that invisible leprechauns that leave no
trace are responsible for the fact that objects in motion continue in
motion, even in the absence of a traceable external force.
It's a cute notion, but it ain't physics.
> one day
> willingly or not
> you wil have to admit it!!
> and the sooner the better
When you make quantitative predictions that match measurement better
than any prevailing theory, then (and ONLY then) will your germs of
ideas be considered at all.
>
> ATB
> Y.Porat
> --------------------------------------
PD
> On Jul 6, 10:25 pm, Eric Gisse <jowr...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > On Jul 6, 8:29 am, Mike <elea...@yahoo.gr> wrote:
> > [...]
>
> > >http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Isolated_system
>
> > > Now call wikipedia and cry foul...
>
> > [...]
>
> > Wikipedia is not a physics textbook, Mike.
>
> > Have you ever read a physics textbook? If you think so, please name
> > one.
>
> -------------------
> Gisse
> its time for you to stop being a parrot
> (in the **holly scrolls **** it is written that
> the sun orbits earth (:-)
> knowledge is changing with time
> and not always by professors .....
So are the textbooks. So is the consensus of active researchers.
The question is not whether you have the right to propose something
new. You do have that right.
However, there is an expectation of scientific methodology.
Your failing is not in what you claim, but *how you've tested* what
you claim. Scientists do those tests a certain way, which you do not
understand (you think it's all done by fudging parameters and trial
and error, which is flat wrong), and you do not participate in that
methodology. Science is less about what we know, but HOW WE KNOW what
we know.
> and surely not by mathematicians
> that call themselves physicists ...
> 2
> just wait for the Higgs Bosons
> that will be discovered by the
> LHC with the probability of
> 1 to 100000 billion .........
Well, we'll see if you're surprised. Got any money down on the bet?
>
> Y.P
> ----------------
Y.Porat
------------------
tha is only because we dont have as is sensitive enough measuring
tools for it!!
but we have to ability to see
'withthe power of thinking !!
i vever saw an a tom and a nuc
but i could ;see; it
by my powe to 'see' withthe power of thinking
(einstein never saw the curvature of space .... etc etc)
moreover:
we have enough indirect evidence
that eenrgy has mass
lets start from the beginning!!
energy in macrocosm **has mass*
right??
so who on earth had the right
to claim that it is not the case in
microcosm??
did anyone observed that
energy **does not havemass ??
dont you see that your argunets
against me
can be reverser exactly the same
agianst you ??!!
2
E=hf
is a masterpeace example of a tested
for mula right??
just ook in its dimensions
and see thee the mass!
ansd i could go on with it
the idea is
**acumulative evidence **
got it??
anothe argument:
we see that as mass becomes smaller ans smaller its velocity is
able to reach closer and cloaser
to c
THOUGH IT HAS MASS !!
so ??
why not even samller that will be able to reach c
you claim that according to the gamma factor
v cannot reach c for mass
because it will be a 0/0 case
so
a singular case in mathematics
is ambiguous!!
so why should that ambigous situation should be as you want
and not is i suggest
while i have a lot of acumulative evodence to justify it!!
youe experiments
**never proved that teh photon
**does not have mass**so why on top of all my above claimes
you should preffere your claim
and not mine while my scumulative evidence is much stronger than
yours ??
3
QM claimes that no mass camn reach c becauee that gamma factor
gamma factor was not created by God
it was created by mathematicians
so whoon earth can asure you
that the photon (on top of all the above cumulative evidence!!)::
IS NOT AN** EXCEPTION** CASE
THAT CAN REACH c THOUGH IT HAS A VERY LITTL EMASS ??!!
and i guess we could ad on it
so may be you start now to understand what i mean:
'to see' with the power of thinking
it includes as well your phylosophy of science about to base things
on
experiments!!
my claimes are not claen from experimental; acumulative experimental
evidence -- as you try to present it
-----------------
> This is akin to insisting that invisible leprechauns that leave no
> trace are responsible for the fact that objects in motion continue in
> motion, even in the absence of a traceable external force.
-----------
and waht about your gravity that is done by curvature of space ??
its time for you to understand that
the is a world of permanent movement even without
additional energy from out that closed system
that is how Einstein came to his
curved space time
the electron movement
in your model has an eternal movement even without exoernal energy
TNT has in itself energy that pops out
in a fraction of a second !!
do you think that such a pheumenon can be
without a permenent inside movement
in the chemical elements ??
a magnet
can attract a mass without
external addition energy
can that be without sone constant
invisible intrinsic movemen t of
'something' ??? (force messengers )
------------
> It's a cute notion, but it ain't physics.
yours ain' t real physics !
moreover your is leading for certuties
to a dead end !!!
--------
>
> > one day
> > willingly or not
> > you wil have to admit it!!
> > and the sooner the better
>
> When you make quantitative predictions that match measurement better
> than any prevailing theory, then (and ONLY then) will your germs of
> ideas be considered at all.
> -----------------------
dont consider it at all
it is your choice
anyway and above all
i expect from you
less private politics and more sincerity !!
new science
doe snot start only by mathematics
physics is not just mathematics
espacially pioneering physics !!
though i showed you a lot of
quantitative evidence inmy claims
in my model etc etc
if you ignore it all 'just like that'
as worth nothing --
you dont have enough
intellectual integrity
but more personal interests
and fortunatly enough
the recognition about my contributions
is not dependant only on you
i can do well without you!1
and your choice is to
take it or something of it
or leave it
in that case other will take it
and already started to do it !!
and we will see in future
how far you will go
and how far my findings will go !!
ATB
Y.Porat
--------------------
Ahmed Ouahi, Architect
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kw0iRW2hoC4
--
Ahmed Ouahi, Architect
Best Regards!
"Y.Porat" <y.y....@gmail.com> kirjoitti
viestiss�:21589564-6707-4e84...@h11g2000yqb.googlegroups.com...
PD
>
> > You make this statement as though it should just be accepted on the
> > face of it.
> > You furthermore insist that, though it is true, this mass is hidden in
> > energy somewhere in such a way that it escapes measurement.
>
> ------------------
> tha is only because we dont have as is sensitive enough measuring
> tools for it!
> but we have to ability to see
> 'withthe power of thinking !!
This is the kind of thing I was talking about earlier.
You invent things and say they are there but hidden from view, and
that's why we have no evidence for them. And yet you convince yourself
that it is so, purely by "the power of thinking" aka speculation.
Scientists do something that you have not done.
They hold in reserve whether their speculations are true -- remaining
unconvinced -- but then they say IF this is true, then here are the
experimental tests that you would do to test it, and this is the
measurement you would make, and IF this is true then this is what the
VALUE of that measurement should yield. And this *quantitative
prediction* is distinct from the prediction made by other
speculations. This is how one speculation is weighed vs. another.
You have not made quantitative predictions based on your speculations.
You want affirmation of the IDEA, prior to your making any
quantitative predictions, prior to any measurements done to test that
prediction. Scientists will steadfastly refuse to do that, and rightly
so.
You have a lot to learn about how science is done, and why.
> and not mine while my scumulative ...
>
> read more »
Simple Simon
> Scientists do something that you have not done.
>
> They hold in reserve whether their speculations are true -- remaining
> unconvinced -- but then they say IF this is true, then here are the
> experimental tests that you would do to test it, and this is the
> measurement you would make, and IF this is true then this is what the
> VALUE of that measurement should yield. And this *quantitative
> prediction* is distinct from the prediction made by other
> speculations. This is how one speculation is weighed vs. another.
>
This seems incomplete to me. e.g.
LET and SR make the same quantitative predictions, yet it is SR that is
taught. It is my impression that SR is preferred because it is more elegant.
It is more elegant because it is simpler. Therefore (under such
circumstances), it is not merely by quantitative prediction alone by which
speculation is weighed.
The reason I raise this is to question whether or not the advancement of a
scientific theory that produces the same results but is more elegant is
worth pursuing.
Y.Porat
-----------------
and you call youself physics teacher ??!!!
you ignored all my exparimantal evidence
did the experiments tell you for sure that
the photon has no mass
no tto mention that any reasonabel physicsit
will tell you that the answer about
yes or no mass in the photon is not
decisive
2
i brought for you and others the
experimental formula
E=hf
and showed you that it includes mass
if you are not educated enough about basic of ohysics
gokearn first before you are teaching
how a physics formula is built and used !!
that formula containes no dispute about it
the mass dimsion
now you say that containing a dimention doe snot mean
it exist in the tested object ??
if you say so go learn before you teach th e basics of
physics !!!
if we have for instance the formula
F= x m meter /second ^2
does it mean that
just because m there is a dinesion of mass then
FORCE HAS NOTHING TO DO ANYTHING WITH MASS ???!!!
------------------
and that is just one example
3
we have the Gamma factor
i showed you that as masses become smaller and smaller
they come cloaser to c withjtheir velocity
now why should there be no mass
that is so small that can reach exactly c
the case of v=c
IS A LIMIT CASE
NOW EVEN IN MATHEMATICS
A LIMIT CASE IS AMBIGOUS
so who on earth alowed and asured you
totake jsut one INTERPRETATION
OF THAT AMBIGOUS SITUATION
and neglect the orher possibility that
you cant take just the mathematical
ambiguty and interpret it as your
wishes ???
inthat case
your interpretation is no better
than mine
while we keep in mind that
there is the E=hf prove as well !!!
4
if we take my interpretation than
we dont need to invent a new
claim that mass is not conserved while that is the known situation
from
macrocosm !!
(we use then less ad hock inventions )
and i could go on and on with it 5
we are goint to see waht wil happen
with your Higgs bosons with no mass!!
i remember that it was rather you
who published here a post that
somethink like in free transtation from my memory:
that
those Higgs in current experiments
**do not show up**
inspight the tremendous efforts to find it
(provided that they will not be cheating with their interpretations )
remember ???
(and mind you that is the
op title !!!.....)
you say i predict nothing??
so here is just one prediction:
no Higgs and no schmigs will be found
not in LHC not anywhere
do you know why
because i have an iron new rule in physics:
NO MASS-- NO REAL PHYSICS!!
will you remember it for my credit ??
ATB
Y.Porat
----------------------------
PD
wrote:
> PD wrote:
> > Scientists do something that you have not done.
>
> > They hold in reserve whether their speculations are true -- remaining
> > unconvinced -- but then they say IF this is true, then here are the
> > experimental tests that you would do to test it, and this is the
> > measurement you would make, and IF this is true then this is what the
> > VALUE of that measurement should yield. And this *quantitative
> > prediction* is distinct from the prediction made by other
> > speculations. This is how one speculation is weighed vs. another.
>
> This seems incomplete to me. e.g.
> LET and SR make the same quantitative predictions, yet it is SR that is
> taught. It is my impression that SR is preferred because it is more elegant.
> It is more elegant because it is simpler. Therefore (under such
> circumstances), it is not merely by quantitative prediction alone by which
> speculation is weighed.
This is not quite right. Within a certain set of of experiments, SR
and LET make the same predictions.
But SR also requires manifest covariance of *any* physical
interaction, and this in turn has driven the form of quantum field
theories of all descriptions since then. For example, quantum
chromodynamics and its Lagrangian are manifestly covariant, where LET
is (as far as I know) silent. So the experimental support for QCD is
in fact support for SR, and in this way SR survives better not because
it is more elegant but because it has a larger scope of implications.
Perhaps I should have said earlier that the model that makes the most
accurate predictions in the broadest set of applications is the one
that wins.
>
> The reason I raise this is to question whether or not the advancement of a
> scientific theory that produces the same results but is more elegant is
> worth pursuing.
This is a valid point, and is a difficult place for science, because
the scientific method *relies* on the fact that competing theories can
always be distinguished one way or the other, either by scope or by
different predictions where they both claim scope. When this doesn't
happen, it's always been the case (so far) that the two theories can
be shown to be mathematically equivalent and this further presses the
question whether they are conceptually equivalent as well.
This is the problem with quantum gravity now, with the added issue
that quantum gravity theories don't have much in the way of concrete
predictions to begin with. :>)
PD
Y.Porat
> On Jul 8, 4:12 pm, PD <TheDraperFam...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> > On Jul 8, 2:01 am, "Y.Porat" <y.y.po...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
(that E=hf is a wonderful experimental prove that photon energy has
mass-
i will bring another example
toshow him what a phjysics teacher
he is for me .....:
if we have
F= scalar times kilograms times Meter/Sec ^2
DOES THAT MEAN THAT FORCE HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH SAY---
SECONDS (ie nothing to do with time ???!!!
wile thee is jsut one kind of mass??
F/Gamma = m a remember ???
before anything in science
we need honesty !!
without honesty there will not be advance in science !!
ATB
Y.Porat
---------------------------
Whoever
news:766eb7ff-2f5f-4750...@b15g2000yqd.googlegroups.com...
It is a formula.. it doesn't prove anything
Photons have momentum, they have energy, they have frequency. They don't
have rest mass
Y.Porat
> "Y.Porat" <y.y.po...@gmail.com> wrote in message
-------------------
do you want some insults from me ??
a known physics formula
is EXPERIMENTALLY BASED
GO IT !!!
and lets take your Momentum
momentum is
Momentum = scallar times kilograms times Meter /Second
does it mean that
momentum has nothing to do with Time ????
**just because Time here is 'just' a physics dimension ** here ??!!
go learn the most fundamentals of physics
and how a physics formula is created and used
and all that** before** you parrot your pompous QM !!that was
leading to ---
Higgs Bosons !!!
where are your Higgs ???
with their no mass and yes mass
at different times ??
NO MASS - NO REAL PHYSICS!
just learn that new iron rule
and the sooner the better
Y.Porat
----------------------------
Whoever
Why .. is that the only way you can defend your position?
> a known physics formula
> is EXPERIMENTALLY BASED
> GO IT !!!
Yeup .. sure is. But E=hf does not say anything about rest mass of a photon
.. only about its energy and its frequency.
> and lets take your Momentum
>
> momentum is
> Momentum = scallar times kilograms times Meter /Second
>
> does it mean that
> momentum has nothing to do with Time ????
Everything has something to do with something else
> **just because Time here is 'just' a physics dimension ** here ??!!
>
> go learn the most fundamentals of physics
I suggest you do the same.
> and how a physics formula is created and used
I know already . .thanks
> and all that** before** you parrot your pompous QM !!that was
> leading to ---
>
> Higgs Bosons !!!
> where are your Higgs ???
> with their no mass and yes mass
> at different times ??
>
> NO MASS - NO REAL PHYSICS!
> just learn that new iron rule
> and the sooner the better
That's not a rule.. just a slogan. Maybe I should get it put on some
t-shirts and sell it. I'm sure I'd make a fortune.
Y.Porat
-----------------
untill now you said nothing physics
beside net hand wavings
do you think you can fool everybody forebver
do you think that every body are fools
not to detect that you are not a erious physicist ??
did you notices that??
may be better be a diplomat or a merchant
btw
why are you hiding behind a false name??
what is your real name
do you have something to hide
using a false name is the first
alarm sighn that we are dealing with a dishonest person!!
keep well
and go deal with **your** parroting friends
Y.Porat
-------------
Whoever
I'm jsut responding to your non-physics posts in kind
> do you think you can fool everybody forebver
I'm not trying to fool anyone .. are you?
> do you think that every body are fools
No .. some are though
> not to detect that you are not a erious physicist ??
Do you have a serious-physicist detector? If so, who do you test it on?
> did you notices that??
>
> may be better be a diplomat or a merchant
>
> btw
> why are you hiding behind a false name??
Because it is wise.
> what is your real name
It doesn't matter.
> do you have something to hide
No
> using a false name is the first
> alarm sighn that we are dealing with a dishonest person!!
No ... it is the first sign that one is dealing with a sensible person.
> keep well
> and go deal with **your** parroting friends
I have no feathered friends
Y.Porat
Bye
Y.P
-------------------
Mike
Of course, if you study physics and you do not learn it from
sci.physics like you. A closed system does not include the agent. A
collider is a closed system. It is not an isolated system. Closed
systems are used to solve problems. Otherwise, you would need an
infinite regression os agents/causes top solve problems.
>
>
> > I said mass AND energy are conserved in an isolated system.
>
> Summative mass, which is what I was discussing with Porat, is not.
>
But I never referred to sumamtive mass. So why is it that you atatcked
me? Do you choose your target in random? Of course sumamtive mass is
not conserved.
> > I do not
> > understand what your objection is. I never said anything about
> > momentum or energy. You do not understand the difference between laws
> > and physical systems.
>
> And what do the laws say about what is true in isolated (or closed)
> systems?
Closed systems: symmetry laws and associated conservation laws.
Isolated systems: total mass AND energy is conserved. (no creation ex
nihilo). You need that for the no-miracles argument.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > > > Only a crank will
> > > > insist a collider is an isolated system because you have no basis for
> > > > such assertion.
>
> > > > You have no basis for making such assertions. A collider needs energy
> > > > to run, the energy comes from somewhere. It is not an isolated
> > > > system.
>
> > > Ah, interesting. So when a freshman physics text talks about
> > > collisions in isolated systems, you say there is no such thing,
> > > because the colliding things have to have acquired their motion from
> > > someplace?
>
> > YOu talk about models, not reality,. In reality, you have all kinds of
> > energy dissipation or influenses on the bodies involved. I understand
> > some of you do not know the difference between models and physical
> > reality.
>
> Really, and so what do the physical laws say? Or are physical laws
> about models and not physical reality, Mike?
We talked about this before. Our laws are about models of physical
reality. Reality is a subject of metaphysics. If there are unknowable
truths, i.e. propositions that are true but cannot be known, then
verificationism fails and with it the anti-realist position. Prove to
me there are no unknowable truths and I will accept that models may be
approximate descriptions of physical reality. But again in that case,
I will prove to you formally that if there are no unknowable truths,
then anti-realism collapses to naive idealism.
> > "Truly isolated physical systems do not exist in reality (except
> > perhaps for the universe as a whole), "
>
> >http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Isolated_system
>
> > Now call wikipedia and cry foul...
>
> It's a free resource. You get what you pay for.
>
Your local library is also a free resource. Do you discount all the
books in it?
>
> > " hello, this is PD, the usenet king.
>
> You are under some impression I'm trying to force anything on usenet.
> I'm just encouraging you to look up some better resources. Of course,
> if you want to say something completely different on usenet because
> you have the freedom to, be my guest. That's the beauty of the open-
> access internet; just about anybody can make of fool of himself
> without spending a penny.
Red herring?
>
> > I have been teaching my pupils
> > that there are isolated systems all over the place. Remove the entry
> > please".
>
> > Crank
>
> > > Don't you think it would be better if you actually took a freshman
> > > physics class before you started spouting off nonsense about basics?
>
> > You are a fool.
>
> That's your answer to the question?
>
When are you going to stop undermining people? Only fools undermine
what they do not know.
Mike
PD
And epsilon-zero, the permittivity of empty space, has got Coulombs in
its units. This must mean to you that empty space is filled with
electric charge.
Y.Porat
you sry to obfuscate
we are dealing with
E=hf !!
i ddint study the dimensions of Coulomb
we are dealing with the 3 basic dinensions of
MKS
so just tell us what is Coulomb in MKS
and we will see if there is mass there
2
is Coulomb a complete description of a physical
phenomemon
or is it only a part of it
just give us an example
in which Coulomb is a part of a ohysical phenomenon
and we will check it
btw
IIRC
Frazir once showed you that
some electric constant
containes in it the mass dimention
while actually you have to dig for it
it is 'hideen there'
2
in E=hf wich is our cureent analysis
it is clear that it has the mass dinmention
you can describe it by any unit system
but
if it has mass in MKS it will have mass in any
legitimate unit system
because there is just one nature
there are no two kind if nature
3
i showed you in principle by the F=m a
that any dimension there is indispensable
even though it is 'just a dimention'
iow any dimension in a physics formula
is part of the physical phenomenon
anmd you cant claim that it is nonexisting there
for the physical phenomenon it defines !!!
still in other words
without that physical dimension
your description is wrong !!
and worse
it is misleading !!
4
if a dimension in one formula is indispensible
you have the over all principle that
dimesions are not jsut for 'inertic roll'
they are the active skeleton of a formula
(unlike your claim with
E=hf
your claim is refuted in that case
5
you have to bring more than just one case
in which it seems' 9according to you'
that dimensions in a formula are
sort of 'inactive '
-------------------------------
> > momentum is
> > Momentum = scallar times kilograms times Meter /Second
>
> > does it mean that
> > momentum has nothing to do with Time ????
> > **just because Time here is 'just' a physics dimension ** here ??!!
----------------------
Mr PD
you didnt answer that above question !!!
ATB
Y.Porat
-------------------------
>
>
PD
The argument is the same. If you say there is mass in energy because
mass units appears in h, and h appears in E=hf; then you must also say
that there is charge in empty space, because charge units appear in
epsilon-zero, and epsilon-zero appears in Maxwell's equations.
If the second case is no good, then neither is the first case.
You don't know the difference between experimental results and
dimensional analysis. You think somehow that if you use one when you
use the other, then they must be the same thing. You know, you use a
hammer when you use a nail; this must mean a hammer is the same as a
nail.
PD
I don't undermine people. I let them know, if they're pretending, that
it's obvious they are pretending. You are pretending, and it's
obvious. Also, if someone says something that is contrary to
experimental fact, then sometimes I will point out that the claim is
in error, as it is in conflict with experimental fact. Often those
same people, when confronted with this, will want something different,
such as a compelling counterargument (as though physics were
philosophy) or an education on what the current theory really says (as
though this forum were a school). This is one of the places where it's
apparent when there's pretense going on.
jem
> PD wrote:
>> Scientists do something that you have not done.
>>
>> They hold in reserve whether their speculations are true -- remaining
>> unconvinced -- but then they say IF this is true, then here are the
>> experimental tests that you would do to test it, and this is the
>> measurement you would make, and IF this is true then this is what the
>> VALUE of that measurement should yield. And this *quantitative
>> prediction* is distinct from the prediction made by other
>> speculations. This is how one speculation is weighed vs. another.
>>
>
> This seems incomplete to me. e.g.
> LET and SR make the same quantitative predictions, yet it is SR that is
> taught. It is my impression that SR is preferred because it is more elegant.
> It is more elegant because it is simpler. Therefore (under such
> circumstances), it is not merely by quantitative prediction alone by which
> speculation is weighed.
>
LET and SR (c. 1905) are scientifically equivalent descriptions of
their common domain. However, SR is preferred, because it has
subsequently proven to be the more extensible of the two models,
leading to (e.g.) GR, QED, and QCD.
> The reason I raise this is to question whether or not the advancement of a
> scientific theory that produces the same results but is more elegant is
> worth pursuing.
>
Physical theories (i.e. formal axiomatic systems linked to
measurements) that produce the same results (i.e. predict the same
measurements) are the same theory. Theories can be /interpreted/ in
different ways to produce different models (e.g., SR/LET, and the many
interpretations of Quantum Mechanics), but models of a particular
theory are neither unique nor experimentally testable. And there are
no hard and fast rules for deciding whether one model is better than
another; interested individuals/organizations decide that for
themselves and pursue the extensibility of those models they find most
appealing (perhaps, but not necessarily, using elegance as a criterion).
Mike
{snip]
Do you know understand the difference between closed and isolated
systems? This is what is important.
Are you ever going to thank people for clearing your misundertandings?
(which I fear to think that you ever passed to students)
Mike
Y.Porat
> On Jul 9, 7:25 am, "Y.Porat" <y.y.po...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> > On Jul 9, 1:47 pm, PD <TheDraperFam...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > On Jul 9, 12:49 am, "Y.Porat" <y.y.po...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > On Jul 9, 7:23 am, "Whoever" <no...@nowhere.com> wrote:
>
> > > > > "Y.Porat" <y.y.po...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>
>
>
>
> > > > > > mass-
>
>
>
>
> > > -------------------
>
> > you sry to obfuscate
> > we are dealing with
> > E=hf !!
> > i ddint study the dimensions of Coulomb
> > we are dealing with the 3 basic dinensions of
> > MKS
> > so just tell us what is Coulomb in MKS
> > and we will see if there is mass there
>
> The argument is the same. If you say there is mass in energy because
> mass units appears in h, and h appears in E=hf; then you must also say
> that there is charge in empty space, because charge units appear in
> epsilon-zero, and epsilon-zero appears in Maxwell's equations.
--------------------
do you wab\nt me to tell you that
again you dont uinderstand the basic of physics ??!!
common man
you cannot separate a physics fromula
to fractions and amake conclusions from
parts or a section of it of the truth
because part of the truth is a lie
and that is what you are doing
in my case of
E=hf there is just a scalar before the dimensions !!
and you ddint answer my question about the
momentum of the photon
even there there is no physical entities beside the
dimensions
so would you say that
momentum does not have mass
just because *mass* there is jsut dimensions??
with that logic of
mometum has nothig todo with Time ---
because Time is just a dimension there
does momentum has nothing to do with Time ??
would you please answer that question ??
-----------------
what are the rest of those equations elements
in **addition** to that epsilon ??
btw
what physical testable phenomena are
Maxwell equations define ??
i ddint *seperate* h from f etc in E=hf
you did it
for me all of it as a whole is a physical model
of a physical phenomenon !!
iow
you must deal it as one block
so
you cant take just epsilon and make conclusions
just first of all
**take all your formula and test its ingredients
all along the formula
including analyze epsilon to its more basic
components (without of course) committing non of them
so while you will do it as a complerted unit
we can go on and test our case**!!
>
> If the second case is no good, then neither is the first case.
>
> You don't know the difference between experimental results and
> dimensional analysis.
just tell me about it (:-)
i ddint separate the dimensions from the rest of the formula
**you did it **!!!
it is called cheating ...
so just go on and examine not only epsilon but
all the experimetal formula as one unit !!!!!!!!!
---------
TIA
Y.Porat
-------------------
Whoever
That is also what YOU are doing. That's the point.
> in my case of
> E=hf there is just a scalar before the dimensions !!
Yeup .. all that formula says is that the energy is proportional to the
frequency. The scalar constant has to have certain units to make the
dimensional analysis happy.
Y.Porat
now PD os not answer
and probably at last may be he knows why !!.......
i will help him (and others)togetto the right answer:
so MR PD
according to your last 'brilliant' argumment
against my claim that
E=hf showes mass in photon energy
so according to your last claim:
**the Maxwell equations..........
........... describe or define ...
..EMPTHY SPACE ........!!!.
so if you undertood it at last
that you was talking and arguing nonsense
you have a good reason not to answer
so may be instead of being against me
better join me ???? !!!!
ATB
Y.Porat
-------------------------------------
Y.Porat
> On Jul 9, 2:42 pm, PD <TheDraperFam...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> > On Jul 9, 7:25 am, "Y.Porat" <y.y.po...@gmail.com> wrote:
> rote in message
>
> > > > > > > mass-
>
> > > > -------------------
>
> > > you sry to obfuscate
> > > we are dealing with
> > > E=hf !!
> > > i ddint study the dimensions of Coulomb
> > > we are dealing with the 3 basic dinensions of
> > > MKS
> > > so just tell us what is Coulomb in MKS
> > > and we will see if there is mass there
>
> > The argument is the same. If you say there is mass in energy because
now PD os not answer
and probably at last may be he knows why !!.......
i will help him (and others)togetto the right answer:
so MR PD
according to your last 'brilliant' argumment
against my claim that
E=hf showes mass in photon energy
so according to your last claim:
**the Maxwell equations......(.as a whole thing ...!!)
........... describe or define ...
..EMPTHY SPACE ........!!!.
on the other hand
in my unprecedented claim
E=hf describes as a whole - photon energy!!
having mass !!
-----
so if you understood it at last
Whoever
> so if you understood it at last
> that you was talking and arguing nonsense
> you have a good reason not to answer
>
> so may be instead of being against me
> better join me ???? !!!!
So people who are talking and arguing nonsense should join with Y.Porat ..
guess because he's doing the same thing :):)
Y.Porat
> "Y.Porat" <y.y.po...@gmail.com> wrote in message
-------------------
no
they should admit that they were talking nonsense and change some of
their parroting
and paradigms
2
until now you ddint speak a single word of science
arguments
it was al of it politics hand wavings
yet
waht can we expect from a litte crook
who hide his real identity??
antway
one thing is clear
you were nominated as ass leaker of PD
ddi he nominated you to be his spokesman ??
dont you think that he should answer for himslf??
do you know PD as someone who refrain from answering
while he thinks he has something to answer??
he didnt answer because at last
he understood that he was talking nonsense!
he was acusing me that i claim that
if a fraction of the formula conterines
mass then
'just because that fraction has mass
than all the formula describes mass
but that is not waht i claimed!!
i claimed that
the whole formula E=hf
described ENERGY not mass!!
yet even so since h containes the dimension of mass then
all that formula THAT DESCRIBES AND DEFINES **ENERGY* CONTAINS MASS!!
got it??
and waht was his ingenious agruamnt against me ??
it was :
since epsilon describes electric charge
IN VACUM
THEN THE WHOLE MAXWEL FORMULA
DESCRIBES (WAHT JUST THE EPSILON DESCRIBED)
IE
THE WHOLE MAXWELL EQUATION --
DESCRIBED ELECTRICCHARGE IN...
**vACUUM **
yet that was not my clime
that was a demgogic or moronic claim
of PD not mine !!
i didnt say that -
what is described by a fraction of a fomula
describes what all the formula describes !!
iow
a fraction of a formula can decribe something
while the whole formula describes
something else (then the fraction( !!!
in short
E=hf describes enegy of photon
h in it showes mass in it
so
hf shows mass in the ENERGY OF PHOTON!!
(hf does not describe mass
as PD whater to show(me !!) it in a distorted logic ) it describes
mass in **energy *of the photon
complicated for you ??
seems that too complicated for you
so
go discuss with your level intellectual
and moral friends
not with me
unless you are hired by some gangsters
you dont do good enough even for a gangster...
ps
let PD speak for himself
and if he does not answer
that is an answer as well !!!
------------
Y.P
-------------------
Whoever
> On Jul 10, 3:49 am, "Whoever" <no...@nowhere.com> wrote:
>> "Y.Porat" <y.y.po...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>>
>> news:6eca824b-0781-4d39...@b15g2000yqd.googlegroups.com...
>>
>> > so if you understood it at last
>> > that you was talking and arguing nonsense
>> > you have a good reason not to answer
>>
>> > so may be instead of being against me
>> > better join me ???? !!!!
>>
>> So people who are talking and arguing nonsense should join with Y.Porat
>> ..
>> guess because he's doing the same thing :):)
>
> -------------------
> no
> they should admit that they were talking nonsense and change some of
> their parroting
> and paradigms
>
> 2
> until now you ddint speak a single word of science
> arguments
I'm waiting for you to speak some., rather than your insults.
Y.Porat
> "Y.Porat" <y.y.po...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>
> news:38ec02a6-2ed1-4283...@h8g2000yqm.googlegroups.com...
>
>
>
> > On Jul 10, 3:49 am, "Whoever" <no...@nowhere.com> wrote:
> >> "Y.Porat" <y.y.po...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>
> >>news:6eca824b-0781-4d39...@b15g2000yqd.googlegroups.com...
>
> >> > so if you understood it at last
> >> > that you was talking and arguing nonsense
> >> > you have a good reason not to answer
>
> >> > so may be instead of being against me
> >> > better join me ???? !!!!
>
> >> So people who are talking and arguing nonsense should join with Y.Porat
> >> ..
> >> guess because he's doing the same thing :):)
>
> > -------------------
> > no
> > they should admit that they were talking nonsense and change some of
> > their parroting
> > and paradigms
>
> > 2
> > until now you ddint speak a single word of science
> > arguments
>
> I'm waiting for you to speak some., rather than your insults.
------------------
do you think i am happy to insult
just oook back to this thread ans see
who between the two of us started
inserting insults.
now if you are able tosleak ohysics
just answer my question:
you say that the photon has momentum
but does not include mass
'because' mass in mometum is 'jsut a dimension
so momentum of the photon has nothing to do with mass (that is
yours)
now if so
lets examine your logic in your claim ::
momentum includes (as well as the mass dimesion THE TIME
DIMENSION..)
so according to your 'logic
momentum has nothing to do with Time as well ???
a simjple question ist that??
so please answer that
TIA
Y.Porat
you see i am polite with you .....
-----------------------
Whoever
You seem to be
> just oook back to this thread ans see
> who between the two of us started
> inserting insults.
Probably you .. you call people crooks all the time
> now if you are able tosleak ohysics
> just answer my question:
> you say that the photon has momentum
> but does not include mass
It does not have REST mass.
> 'because' mass in mometum is 'jsut a dimension
> so momentum of the photon has nothing to do with mass (that is
> yours)
I said nothing of the sort
> now if so
> lets examine your logic in your claim ::
What claim?
> momentum includes (as well as the mass dimesion THE TIME
> DIMENSION..)
>
> so according to your 'logic
> momentum has nothing to do with Time as well ???
Why would I say that?
> a simjple question ist that??
> so please answer that
> TIA
> Y.Porat
> you see i am polite with you .....
Makes a change.
E = hf says that the energy is propoertional to the frequency. The units of
the ratio are set to make the units correct.
I'm sure you would accept that if the speed of a photon was zero, then its
frequency would be zero. Seeing the frequency is the speed divided by the
wavelength, and the speed is zero, then the frequency must be zero. Them
means E = hf = 0 for a photon at rest, because f = 0 .. and zero energy
means zero mass. So the rest mass of a photon must be zero.
PD
> ps
> let PD speak for himself
> and if he does not answer
> that is an answer as well !!!
> ------------
> Y.P
> -------------------
There comes a time, Porat, when you stop speaking coherently enough
(physics, let alone English) that I do not see value in further
engagement with you.
I don't really care about your childish dares and taunts. At your age!
You should be ashamed.
Y.Porat
so waht is youranswer after all that
does momentum of the photon
**has noting to do with time as well??
just ell us yes or no
i am not interested in your'' 'reasonings'''
jus tell us the **bottom line**
does the momentum of photon has nothing to do with th e time
physical entity ??
yes or no??
TIA
Y.Porat
------------------------------------
>
Y.Porat
------------------
coward infantile crook!!
as usual
any time PD is pushed to the corner
he quits !!
he was pushed tohis stupid corner
by my question if
momentum of the photom
has nothing to do (according his
logic')
so if that momentum has nothing to do with the
Time physical entity
('since Time there is just
a dinmension' )
he revales here as a shameless crook
that btw since can not answer it
and appear as an idiot
picking on my English !!!
yet Mr PD
not all the readers that followed that discussion
are fools to see that you are a shameless little crook
you cannot cheat everyone
forever !!!
Y.Porat
-----------
----------------
PD
> On Jul 10, 3:10 pm, PD <TheDraperFam...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> > On Jul 10, 12:10 am, "Y.Porat" <y.y.po...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > ps
> > > let PD speak for himself
> > > and if he does not answer
> > > that is an answer as well !!!
> > > ------------
> > > Y.P
> > > -------------------
>
> > There comes a time, Porat, when you stop speaking coherently enough
> > (physics, let alone English) that I do not see value in further
> > engagement with you.
>
> > I don't really care about your childish dares and taunts. At your age!
> > You should be ashamed.
>
> ------------------
> coward infantile crook!!
> as usual
> any time PD is pushed to the corner
> he quits !!
Sorry. I wasn't in a corner. I was just bored to tears.
Maybe you were in the corner. I don't know.
Is this a personality issue with you, that you think that if someone
doesn't answer one or your posts, then you've scared them?
Whoever
My answer is that your understanding of physics is minimal
> does momentum of the photon
> **has noting to do with time as well??
Why would you suggest that?
> just ell us yes or no
> i am not interested in your'' 'reasonings'''
Obviously, as reasoning is one of your weak points
> jus tell us the **bottom line**
> does the momentum of photon has nothing to do with th e time
> physical entity ??
> yes or no??
What is the 'time physical entity'? What exactly do you mean by 'nothing to
do with'?
Whoever
I notice you snipped my illustration that E= hf proves that the photon has
NO rest mass. That smacks of dishonesty.
Whoever
same insubstantial nonsense year in and year out.
Ahmed Ouahi, Architect
However, and a definitely the higgs boson, is a just an addition as a model
to a quarks along a subatomic matter...
Therefore, which would consist along a physical forces all along, a
definitely of the strong nuclear force and the weak nuclear force and the
electromagnetism matter, and this is what is all about, along that matter, a
definitely as a matter a fact...
--
Ahmed Ouahi, Architect
Best Regards!
"Whoever" <no...@nowhere.com> kirjoitti
viestiss�:0267c251$0$6988$c3e...@news.astraweb.com...
Y.Porat
---------------------
it means that Time is not a factor in the
momentum process??
dont make crooked escaping manouvers
just tell us that according to you
and your pogic about the roll of mass dimsnsion
the time physicsl entiy
dies not take any active part in a momentum process??
can there be a more clear question for an honest
scientist??
so answer
2
mind you momentum is as well
dF/d/T
got it
TIA
Y.Porat
-------------------------
Y.Porat
and in addition to the above
PD aswewred to that
an naswer that
deos not appear on the screen
go it his students ??
ATB
Y.Porat
--------------------
Whoever
I'm not
> just tell us that according to you
> and your pogic
What is pogic?
> about the roll of mass
Mass rolls? Are you talking about a ball rolling down a hill perhaps?
> dimsnsion
> the time physicsl entiy
> dies
Time dies?
> not take any active part in a momentum process??
A rolling pogic mass with dying time .. oh yes .. they are critical to the
momentum process. Odd, I didn't think momentum was a process.
> can there be a more clear question for an honest
> scientist??
Oh most certainly there can be. Its not very clear at all. Though I am
taking a wild guess that you are asking if there is time involved in
momentum .. seeing motion is involved that requires time, so of course there
is. Though in the units for momentum its actually frequency there rather
than time .. mass units multiplied by distance units multiplied by frequency
units (as you know that frequency is the reciprocal of time). So what
frequency is being talked about there in that formula? And what is the
meaning of mass multiplied by distance in that formula? Hmm.
> so answer
> 2
> mind you momentum is as well
>
> dF/d/T
>
> got it
I get that you need to be much more careful with your typing .. its
atrocious.
Now .. back to my proof that E = hf shows that the rest mass of a photon
would be zero. You know.. the one you dishonestly try to avoid discussing,
typical actions of a crook and a parrot.
Y.Porat
--------------------
who told you imbecile crook that there is]
a photon moving with the speed zero ??
do youthing that physics is phylosophy
or diplomacy
physics is valid only
(listen stupid crook)
only for detectable and measurable cases
a photon with speed zero is not detectable
and therefore non existant for reasonable physics
now poor crooky
answer my old above question:
if you say that dimensions are meaningless
or not existing or not trelavant- whatever
THEN
do yo0u say on that physics logic that
that momentum doe snot have
in it the dimension of Time
''''just becasei it is just a dimension that
was fitted to fit the experimental data **
actually i dont mind you silly idiotic 'reasonings
i mind the bottom line of your idiotc crooked claimes
that Time is nonexistent
or not exist actively in the process
of the physical phenomenon that is called
momentum??
and you say that even i show you that
momentum is as well ----
dF/dT !!!!
can you crooky answer that simple question??
and if you dont answer
do you think that all people here will not notice that you are a
shameless disturbed crook ??
or may be worse
a hired poor uncapabe even for being
a good gangster ???
TIA
Y.Porat
---------------------------
Whoever
> On Jul 10, 10:03 pm, "Y.Porat" <y.y.po...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On Jul 10, 3:10 pm, PD <TheDraperFam...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>> > On Jul 10, 12:10 am, "Y.Porat" <y.y.po...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> > > ps
>> > > let PD speak for himself
>> > > and if he does not answer
>> > > that is an answer as well !!!
>> > > ------------
>> > > Y.P
>> > > -------------------
>>
>> > There comes a time, Porat, when you stop speaking coherently enough
>> > (physics, let alone English) that I do not see value in further
>> > engagement with you.
>>
>> > I don't really care about your childish dares and taunts. At your age!
>> > You should be ashamed.
>>
>> ------------------
>> coward infantile crook!!
Yes .. yes you are
>> as usual
>> any time PD is pushed to the corner
>> he quits !!
Maybe you should avoid the insults .. they are extremetly childish in their
form.
>> he was pushed tohis stupid corner
>> by my question if
>> momentum of the photom
>> has nothing to do (according his
>> logic')
>> so if that momentum has nothing to do with the
>> Time physical entity
>> ('since Time there is just
>> a dinmension' )
>> he revales here as a shameless crook
>> that btw since can not answer it
>> and appear as an idiot
>> picking on my English !!!
But your English is abysmal
>> yet Mr PD
>> not all the readers that followed that discussion
>> are fools to see that you are a shameless little crook
>>
>> you cannot cheat everyone
>> forever !!!
Good thing he is not trying to, unlike you. Though I had hoped you might
have stopped trying by now. . obviously not.
>> Y.Porat
>> -----------
>>
>> ----------------
>
> and in addition to the above
> PD aswewred to that
> an naswer that
> deos not appear on the screen
> go it his students ??
And interesting collection of words .. do they have a meaning? If Porat
utters them, then probably not.
Whoever
Y.Porat
--------------------
every one can see now that you whoever you are ....
is a psychopath idiot moron crook
that is not a parthber for a physics discussion
**nor for any discussion**
BYE psychopath moron crook gangster !!
btw
i am sure that this nasty pigg
was in this ng with other names...
can someone detect his real identity ??.
Y.P
------------------------------
Whoever
you feel like a big man? It gives the exact opposite effect to everyone
else, you know]
Y.Porat
-------------------
i tried to fing out WHO IS WHOEVER
and have a look about waht i got
(anyone can follow it by clicking
his profile
quote from Google:
Profile
'This account has been banned because it violated the Google Groups'
end of quote :
and those are PD s 'friends'
or defenders that PD has their protestion
or may be cooperation ??
btw
that 'Whoever 'smelles' to me like
either Varney
or Eric Gisse ......
can anybody tell us who is hiding behind that
'Whoever ' ???
TIA
Y.Porat
---------------------------------
Whoever
Are you becoming obsessed with me. I'm not sure if that is flattering or
disturbing
> and have a look about waht i got
> (anyone can follow it by clicking
> his profile
Of course, I don't have a profile at Google, but don't let that stop you.
> quote from Google:
>
> Profile
>
>
> 'This account has been banned because it violated the Google Groups'
>
> end of quote :
Your investigative skills and powers of deduction and reasoning astound me.
> and those are PD s 'friends'
> or defenders that PD has their protestion
> or may be cooperation ??
Oh .. this is all a big conspiracy now, is it? I think I'm quite please
with the idea of being a conspirator .. it sounds exciting.
> btw
> that 'Whoever 'smelles' to me like
> either Varney
> or Eric Gisse ......
Why .. what deodorant do THEY use?
> can anybody tell us who is hiding behind that
> 'Whoever ' ???
No-one other than you really cares .. because it doesn't matter. Why you
are so obsessed with it is beyond me. I certainly don't care who you really
are. Other than I'd go out of my way to avoid a person as rude and
offensive as you if I knew. Do you have any friends?
Y.Porat
--------------------
a lot (:-)
BTW i think it was me who asked you
that question first ...
you see
even with this you are just a little Parrot
even Google band you ....
so
go deal with your gangsters bot with me
you are worth nothing here
even Google thought so
2
even if you will change again your identity
it want help you
a pig remains a pig
and with the same smell ......
i just wonder how is it that you didnt try again
to divert me to your morons NG (:-)
BTE
Y.Porat
------------------
Whoever
"Y.Porat" <y.y....@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:62a88945-0add-478a...@f16g2000vbf.googlegroups.com...
Oh gawd .. you're not still playing "i said it first" games are you. next
thing you know you'll be claiming copyright on "Do you have any friends".
> you see
> even with this you are just a little Parrot
[snip everything after childish insults and lies]
Simple Simon
> Simple Simon wrote:
>> PD wrote:
>>> Scientists do something that you have not done.
>>>
>>> They hold in reserve whether their speculations are true --
>>> remaining unconvinced -- but then they say IF this is true, then
>>> here are the experimental tests that you would do to test it, and
>>> this is the measurement you would make, and IF this is true then
>>> this is what the VALUE of that measurement should yield. And this
>>> *quantitative prediction* is distinct from the prediction made by
>>> other speculations. This is how one speculation is weighed vs.
>>> another.
>>>
>>
>> This seems incomplete to me. e.g.
>> LET and SR make the same quantitative predictions, yet it is SR that
>> is taught. It is my impression that SR is preferred because it is
>> more elegant. It is more elegant because it is simpler. Therefore
>> (under such circumstances), it is not merely by quantitative
>> prediction alone by which speculation is weighed.
>>
>
> LET and SR (c. 1905) are scientifically equivalent descriptions of
> their common domain. However, SR is preferred, because it has
> subsequently proven to be the more extensible of the two models,
> leading to (e.g.) GR, QED, and QCD.
>
1) My understanding of the extension of SR to GR is the "equivalency
principle" between a uniform field of acceleration and the first order
effects of a gravitational field. I don't see any obstacle to extending LET
in a like manner.
2) I don't know of any reason why the above would not also apply to QED and
QCD (of course I have even less understanding of them than I do of SR and
GR).
3) I would expect that since LET and SR are mathematically equivalent that
there are no obstacles to the extension of LET to QED and QCD.
4) Since Professor Draper parenthetically qualifies his contention that LET
does not lend itself by extension to QCD, "(as far as I know)", that he can
not immediately name an obstacle to doing so.
5) If such obstacles existed would they not rule out LET (since, for
example, GR is observed to be "true") and hence aether and therefore betray
Einstein's oft paraphrased contention that (something to the effect) there
might be an aether theory (such as LET) but that at any rate the aether is
extraneous (have I got that right?).
6) The mathematical equivalency of SR and LET, at first blush and in the
absence of elegance (simplicity of the model and extension thereof) as a
consideration, indicate that they are for all other purposes equivalent..
>> The reason I raise this is to question whether or not the
>> advancement of a scientific theory that produces the same results
>> but is more elegant is worth pursuing.
>>
>
> Physical theories (i.e. formal axiomatic systems linked to
> measurements) that produce the same results (i.e. predict the same
> measurements) are the same theory. Theories can be /interpreted/ in
> different ways to produce different models (e.g., SR/LET, and the many
> interpretations of Quantum Mechanics), but models of a particular
> theory are neither unique nor experimentally testable. And there are
> no hard and fast rules for deciding whether one model is better than
> another; interested individuals/organizations decide that for
> themselves and pursue the extensibility of those models they find most
> appealing (perhaps, but not necessarily, using elegance as a
> criterion).
PD
wrote:
The equivalency principle only captures one key element of GR and
certainly is not a sufficient backbone for the extension. The
equivalency principle just says that in a *uniform* gravitational
field, we are back the the special relativistic case. The real step is
what happens when the field is measurably *nonuniform*, and the
association between the tidal forces and the curvature of spacetime.
> 2) I don't know of any reason why the above would not also apply to QED and
> QCD (of course I have even less understanding of them than I do of SR and
> GR).
Yes, that's plain. There is no "equivalence principle" involved in the
extension of SR to QED and QCD. Rather, it is the requirement that --
because of the structure of spacetime -- all interaction Lagrangians
must *necessarily* be manifestly covariant. In LET, an ad hoc
assumption that this is the case must be applied (and without much in
the way of a good rationale) to all interactions other than
electromagnetic.
> 3) I would expect that since LET and SR are mathematically equivalent that
> there are no obstacles to the extension of LET to QED and QCD.
They *aren't* mathematically equivalent. They produce identical
predictions over a circumscribed set of experimental results. However,
SR provides a basis for the experimental results for QCD, while LET
is mum.
> 4) Since Professor Draper parenthetically qualifies his contention that LET
> does not lend itself by extension to QCD, "(as far as I know)", that he can
> not immediately name an obstacle to doing so.
This is *certainly* true. It is *never* the case that one theory is
ever *proven* to be superior to other competing theories, ruling them
out. However, what is the case is that LET has not been developed to
extend to QCD in the way you suggest. For those that are proponents of
LET, the onus to demonstrate that is on them, and this has not
happened.
Now, you might ask why in the interest of science, someone hasn't been
*assigned* to develop LET to extend to QCD. This is a fair question,
but the scientific community lets people determine their own research
paths, and they do so on the basis of risk vs return. This does tend
to leave some unlikely but not completely stomped out models
underserviced sometimes. I'm not sure what to suggest to change that.
> 5) If such obstacles existed would they not rule out LET (since, for
> example, GR is observed to be "true") and hence aether and therefore betray
> Einstein's oft paraphrased contention that (something to the effect) there
> might be an aether theory (such as LET) but that at any rate the aether is
> extraneous (have I got that right?).
Well, not quite. Here the statement is that if you have two equivalent
models and one requires an extra element that the other does not (in
this case, the aether), then there isn't much reward in pursuing the
more complicated one.
jem
OK. So?
> 2) I don't know of any reason why the above would not also apply to QED and
> QCD (of course I have even less understanding of them than I do of SR and
> GR).
Again, so? LET could perhaps have led to the development of new
theories as good or better than GR, QED and QCD, but it didn't. SR
did, and that's why it's preferred.
> 3) I would expect that since LET and SR are mathematically equivalent that
> there are no obstacles to the extension of LET to QED and QCD.
Not at all. LET and SR are ontologically very different.
Construction of ether based models of GR/QED/QCD would certainly be
difficult, and perhaps overwhelmingly difficult.
> 4) Since Professor Draper parenthetically qualifies his contention that LET
> does not lend itself by extension to QCD, "(as far as I know)", that he can
> not immediately name an obstacle to doing so.
So? Even if an ether based model of QCD were developed, it wouldn't
change the relative status of SR and LET. SR is always going to be
the one that provided the insights which led to the creation of QCD.
> 5) If such obstacles existed would they not rule out LET (since, for
> example, GR is observed to be "true") and hence aether and therefore betray
> Einstein's oft paraphrased contention that (something to the effect) there
> might be an aether theory (such as LET) but that at any rate the aether is
> extraneous (have I got that right?).
LET can't be "ruled out" (experimentally) unless SR is also ruled out.
Simple fact. But don't read too much into it - it has nothing to do
with any extensions of the models.
> 6) The mathematical equivalency of SR and LET, at first blush and in the
> absence of elegance (simplicity of the model and extension thereof) as a
> consideration, indicate that they are for all other purposes equivalent..
At all blushes, the two models are experimentally equivalent (i.e.,
they predict exactly the same measurements) over their common domain.
Anti Vigilante
> "Y.Porat" wrote:
>>
>> On Jun 30, 11:45 pm, muser <charlie12...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>> > If the higgs boson confers mass on non matter\matter. does this mean
>> > the conservation of energy law is broken since mass is energy.
The mass is not created. It is simply a side effect. A kind of control
valve.
>> ---------------------
>> mass is not energy
>> Enery is
>> *mass in *****motion**!!!
>> 2
>>
>> NO mass - no real physics !!!
>
> idiot
>
> What is "in motion" in a charged capacitor? E = (CV^2)/2
That's potential energy also known as Physics Futures. They don't do zip
until excited.
> Hey fucking stupid - how many times must we plunge your face into a
> puddle of your own loose shit before you realize something doesn't quite
> smell right?
With the Higgs boson, which I doubt they'll find since it's just another
slap-a-particle-on-a-question and give me them research dollars, mass
becomes an afterthought.
We don't need a new particle, we just need to appreciate Higgs as a
principle, a subtle artifact of quantization itself. Of course chicken
and egg will disagree who gets shotgun on that ride.
--
Fuck the Enlightenment! Viva la Renaissance!
Anti Vigilante
> On Jul 2, 11:18 pm, PD <TheDraperFam...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On Jul 2, 10:50 am, "Y.Porat" <y.y.po...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>> > On Jul 2, 5:14 pm, PD <TheDraperFam...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> > > On Jun 30, 4:45 pm, muser <charlie12...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> > > > If the higgs boson confers mass on non matter\matter. does this
>> > > > mean the conservation of energy law is broken since mass is
>> > > > energy.
>>
>> > > No, not necessarily. Conservation of energy doesn't mean
>> > > conservation of mass. It means that the *sum* of all energy
>> > > contributions, including those of rest mass, is conserved. It does
>> > > not mean that the individual contributions are each conserved.
>>
>> > ------------------
>> > smarty Oracle of Delphi
>>
>> > who said individual contribution??!!! now jsut tell us if :
>>
>> > in the **overall system ** ---
>> > mass is conserved ???!!!
>>
>> No! We know this already. In experiment.
>>
>> I'll give you an example.
>> SLAC has created pairs of protons from pairs of colliding electrons.
>> There is nothing in the initial state except an electron-positron pair,
>> and there is nothing in the final state other than a proton- antiproton
>> pair. The final state mass is 1800 times larger than the
> ------------------------
> and who on earth made you sure that
> you know
Experiments can have ways of separating velocities.
> **how may electrons and posotrons went in that process **???
Unnecessary consideration. Fast electron-positron collisions produce
slower proton-antiproton jets. Energy is conserved.
> 2
> dont forget that we are waiting for your Higgs bosons the LHC
They won't find the Higgs. It's a process not a particle. It's a process
for every particle even massless ones.
Just like the wave property. They don't exchange wave particles (dadading
dadadoom, c'mon it was bound to happen). The wave property of particles
is innate.
> i just wonder what will you say for your defense if it will be found as
> a big empty Bollony (i count on you that in that case
> your wonderful rhetoric talent
> that can turn a cat to a mouse and vice versa will work nicely again
> !!.....)
> ATB
> Y.Porat
> ------------------------
Y.Porat
> On Wed, 01 Jul 2009 08:00:36 -0700, Uncle Al wrote:
> > "Y.Porat" wrote:
>
> >> On Jun 30, 11:45 pm, muser <charlie12...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> >> > If the higgs boson confers mass on non matter\matter. does this mean
> >> > the conservation of energy law is broken since mass is energy.
>
> The mass is not created. It is simply a side effect. A kind of control
> valve.
>
> >> ---------------------
> >> mass is not energy
> >> Enery is
> >> *mass in *****motion**!!!
> >> 2
>
> >> NO mass - no real physics !!!
>
> > idiot
>
> > What is "in motion" in a charged capacitor? E = (CV^2)/2
and answer tio the old farther idiot crook
Uncle Al:
Mr imbecile parrot moron:
lust have alook into the dimensions of
(CV^2)/2
**and you will find the mass iN motion
THERE !!
old ***mathematician*** imbecile crooks
farthers
CANNOT BE TEACHERS OF PHYSICS !!
2
just tellus about your innovations in physics
BESIDE THE GIANT DIAMOND PRODUCTION (:-)
3
dont forget to take your drugs each
3 hours otherwise you might piss your pants
or instead use adults nappies ...
4
you may as well fuck yourself with the HIggs Bosons for the rest
of your miserable life
your humble servant
Y.Porat
----------------------------
Magnetic
Some theorists suggest that the Higgs bosons will be registered at the
LHC. And, if these particles will not been found, the theorists would
be very surprised; - this would prove that the Standard Model is
wrong. Higgs boson had received a new name, "the God particle". We
know that the most of particles have their corresponding
antiparticles. So, if there is a particle of God, then there is a
particle of Devil. Two colliding particles can give two more massive
particles, - the particle and its antiparticle, for example, an
electron and positron. By adding the colliding energy, we can get the
God particle and its anti-particle, the magnetic trap of Devil.
Particles and antiparticles have diametrically opposed properties.
Indeed, the Higgs boson causes the ordinary matter to have a mass. But
the magnetic hole captures the substance and transforms its rest mass-
energy into another form of matter, - the magnetic field of the
Devil's trap. Say me now, have we the right to touch the particle of
God?
------------------
Here is not complete list of your potential killers:
2003 J.-P. Blaizot, J. Iliopoulos, J. Madsen, G.G. Ross, P.
Sonderegger, H.-J. Specht.
2008 John Ellis, Gian Giudice, Michelangelo Mangano, Igor Tkachev, and
Urs Wiedemann.
And of course, Rolf Heuer, director of CERN, who neglects the opinion
of physicists, saying about dangers of LHC.
The crudest error, made by them, is equating of the consequences of
collider collisions with cosmo-atmospheric collisions. To see the
difference between these consequences look my model with two 10-kg
bottles with neutrons. You will see that the bottle, corresponding to
cosmic rays, will be safe. But the bottle, corresponding to LHC
collisions, will transform the town into Hiroshima.
Here are some CERN addresses. Write them and demand to stop the
Collider. Otherwise they kill us all with probability about several
dozens of percents.
rolf.heuer(AT)cern.ch, cern.reception(AT)cern.ch, visits.service(AT)
cern.ch, press.office(AT)cern.ch, john.ellis(AT)cern.ch, jean-
pierre.koutchouk(AT)cern.ch
rudiger.voss(AT)cern.ch, patricia.mage(AT)cern.ch, felicitas.pauss(AT)
cern.ch, external.relations(AT)cern.ch, council-president(AT)cern.ch,
fc-chairman(AT)cern.ch, spc-chairman(AT)cern.ch, scientific-secretary
(AT)cern.ch, council-secretariat(AT)cern.ch
Here are some phones of your potential killers:
CERN CH-1211 Genève 23 Switzerland. +41 22 76 761 11
Organisation Européenne pour la Recherche Nucléaire F-01631 CERN Cedex
France Telephone Switchboard: +41 22 76 761 11 Central Fax: +41 22 76
765 55
Visitors Reception. Telephone number:+41 22 76 766 49
Visits Service. Telephone number: +41 22 767 8484, Fax: +41 22 767
8710
Press Office. Telephone number: 41 22 767 3432 / 2141 Fax: +41 22 785
0247
Stop global suicide!
Inertial
news:ac052277-5fdd-4f79...@n35g2000yqm.googlegroups.com...
>
> Some theorists suggest that the Higgs bosons will be registered at the
> LHC. And, if these particles will not been found, the theorists would
> be very surprised; - this would prove that the Standard Model is
> wrong.
No .. it won't It will just mean they have not been isolated .. not that
they don't exist
> Higgs boson had received a new name, "the God particle".
Just a catchy nickname .. not at all meaningful
> We
> know that the most of particles have their corresponding
> antiparticles.
Not all
> So, if there is a particle of God, then there is a
> particle of Devil.
BAHAHA .. don't be silly
> Two colliding particles can give two more massive
> particles, - the particle and its antiparticle, for example, an
> electron and positron. By adding the colliding energy, we can get the
> God particle and its anti-particle, the magnetic trap of Devil.
You really are insane
> Particles and antiparticles have diametrically opposed properties.
> Indeed, the Higgs boson causes the ordinary matter to have a mass. But
> the magnetic hole captures the substance and transforms its rest mass-
> energy into another form of matter, - the magnetic field of the
> Devil's trap. Say me now, have we the right to touch the particle of
> God?
Get help .. you are crazy
Magnetic
> Get help .. you are crazy
That you, and CERN suicides are crazy.
------------
Here is not complete list of your potential killers:
2003 J.-P. Blaizot, J. Iliopoulos, J. Madsen, G.G. Ross, P.
Sonderegger, H.-J. Specht.
2008 John Ellis, Gian Giudice, Michelangelo Mangano, Igor Tkachev, and
Urs Wiedemann.
And of course, Rolf Heuer, director of CERN, who neglects the opinion
of physicists, saying about dangers of LHC.
The crudest error, made by them, is equating of the consequences of
collider collisions with cosmo-atmospheric collisions. To see the
difference between these consequences look my model with two 10-kg
bottles with neutrons. You will see that the bottle, corresponding to
cosmic rays, will be safe. But the bottle, corresponding to LHC
collisions, will transform the town into Hiroshima.
Here are some CERN addresses. Write them and demand to stop the
Collider. Otherwise they kill us all with probability about several
dozens of percents.
rolf....@cern.ch, cern.re...@cern.ch, visits....@cern.ch,
press....@cern.ch, john....@cern.ch, jean-
pierre.k...@cern.ch
rudige...@cern.ch, patric...@cern.ch, felicit...@cern.ch,
external....@cern.ch, council-...@cern.ch, fc-
chai...@cern.ch, spc-ch...@cern.ch, scientific...@cern.ch,
council-s...@cern.ch
Here are some phones of your potential killers:
CERN CH-1211 Genève 23 Switzerland. +41 22 76 761 11
Organisation Européenne pour la Recherche Nucléaire F-01631 CERN Cedex
France Telephone Switchboard: +41 22 76 761 11 Central Fax: +41 22 76
765 55
Visitors Reception. Telephone number:+41 22 76 766 49
Visits Service. Telephone number: +41 22 767 8484, Fax: +41 22 767
8710
Press Office. Telephone number: 41 22 767 3432 / 2141 Fax: +41 22 785
0247
Stop global suicide!
http://darkenergy.narod.ru/index.html
eric gisse
[snip idiocy]
Another day has passed without your promised catastrofuck killing us all.
How many days must pass before you STFU?
Magnetic
> Magnetic wrote:
>
> [snip idiocy]
>
> Another day has passed without your promised catastrofuck killing us all.
They have made about million collisions.
The billionth collision can be the last for our planet.
----------
Here is not complete list of your potential killers:
2003 J.-P. Blaizot, J. Iliopoulos, J. Madsen, G.G. Ross, P.
Sonderegger, H.-J. Specht.
2008 John Ellis, Gian Giudice, Michelangelo Mangano, Igor Tkachev,
and
Urs Wiedemann.
And of course, Rolf Heuer, director of CERN, who neglects the opinion
of physicists, saying about dangers of LHC.
The crudest error, made by them, is equating of the consequences of
collider collisions with cosmo-atmospheric collisions. To see the
difference between these consequences look my model with two 10-kg
bottles with neutrons. You will see that the bottle, corresponding to
cosmic rays, will be safe. But the bottle, corresponding to LHC
collisions, will transform the town into Hiroshima.
Here are some CERN addresses. Write them and demand to stop the
Collider. Otherwise they kill us all with probability about several
dozens of percents.
rolf.heuer(at)cern.ch, cern.reception(at)cern.ch, visits.service(at)
cern.ch, press.office(at)cern.ch, john.ellis(at)cern.ch, jean-
pierre.koutchouk(at)cern.ch
rudiger.voss(at)cern.ch, patricia.mage(at)cern.ch, felicitas.pauss(at)
cern.ch, external.relations(at)cern.ch, council-president(at)cern.ch,
fc-chairman(at)cern.ch, spc-chairman(at)cern.ch, scientific-secretary
(at)cern.ch, council-secretariat(at)cern.ch
Inertial
> On Dec 14, 6:50 pm, eric gisse <jowr.pi.nos...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> Magnetic wrote:
>>
>> [snip idiocy]
>>
>> Another day has passed without your promised catastrofuck killing us all.
>
> They have made about million collisions.
> The billionth collision can be the last for our planet.
So you're going to be posting your scare-mongering terrorist crap for
centuries.
Y.Porat
> "Magnetic" <magnetic.t...@yandex.ua> wrote in message
-------------------
imbecile psychopath
------------------------------
Inertial
That's the perfect signature for you as it sums up your personality nicely