What is the way in SR -to define something relativistic
Y.Porat
to define something relativistic ??
TIA
Y.Porat
--------------------------------
Inertial
news:9ea378f7-6f09-4352...@q1g2000yqg.googlegroups.com...
>
>what is the way in SR -
>to define something relativistic ??
As you've been told .. relativistic means "to do with the theory of
relativity"
==
rel·a·tiv·is·tic (rl-t-vstk)
adj.
1. Of or relating to relativism.
2. Physics
a. Of, relating to, or resulting from speeds approaching the speed of light:
relativistic increase in mass.
b. Having to do with or based on the theory of relativity: relativistic
mechanics.
===
SR itself does not definition of the word 'relativistic' .. 'relativistic'
is simply an adjective used to for concepts and formulas related to the
theory of relativity. Every formula and concept in SR is relativistic ..
but usually we only use that adjective if it is DIFFERENT under SR/GR than
it is under classical physics.
As such, physics *does* have definitions of particular terms, like
'relativistic mass' and 'relativistic Doppler' and 'relativistic aberration'
etc etc etc. That is, what these terms mean and how they are calculated in
terms of the theory of relativity.
The concept of light in vacuo travelling at a fixed speed c for all inertial
observers, regardless of the speed of the light source, is most definitely a
relativistic concept .. its the basis for the original formulation of
relativity.
You continue with your delusion that 'relativistic' simply means "different
values for different observers". That is what 'relative' means ... not
'relativistic'. Different values for different observers is the case for
many measurements REGARDLESS of whether we are talking about SR or not .. in
classical physics, things like velocity have different values for different
observers. That does NOT make velocity 'relativistic' in classical physics.
Gees .. how many times do you need to be told the same thing before you get
it through your thick Neanderthal skull
Y.Porat
-------------------
(:-)
the crook anonymous with 3 anonymous names
is draging the issue to the linguistic side
and that is exactly why i dreged it to the mathematical side !!
science is not done only by shiting ambiguous words
it is done*** mainly** by exact mathematical
formula !!!
only later --as secondary important
can come verbal interpretations
provided they are given reasonably
and the simpler -- the better !!!
BTW
2
Pigshit subhuman gangster --
dont change the op title to your psychopathic
personal insane fight !!!
that is no way to discuss science
for civilized people !!!
i ddint insert in my above thread
ANYTHING PERSONAL !!!
only a pigshit psycho gangster does it
so again to my
op post :
what is the way in SR- to define something relativistic
first the mathematical way !!!
the personal interpretations can come later !!!
TIA
Y.Porat
--------------------------
you cant cheat every body forever !!!
that atre hindong some physical understandings
Inertial
news:1032e5bf-5e36-438b...@d8g2000yqf.googlegroups.com...
>
>On Aug 24, 3:36 am, "Inertial" <relativ...@rest.com> wrote:
>> "Y.Porat" wrote in message
>>
>> news:9ea378f7-6f09-4352...@q1g2000yqg.googlegroups.com...
>>
>>
>>
>> >what is the way in SR -
>> >to define something relativistic ??
>>
>> As you've been told .. relativistic means "to do with the theory of
>> relativity"
>>
>> ==
I am not a crook.. Please provide any evidence you have of any suck illegal
activity .. or withdraw your accusation
> anonymous with 3 anonymous names
As I have openly admitted and explained
> is draging the issue to the linguistic side
You ask about the meaning of a word . .that IS linguistics .. you moron.
> and that is exactly why i dreged it to the mathematical side !!
There is no 'mathematical' definition of the adjective "relativistic".
There are mathematical formula for things like "relativistic Doppler" etc.
> science is not done only by shiting ambiguous words
"relativistic" is not ambiguous .. it simply does NOT mean what you want it
to.
> it is done*** mainly** by exact mathematical
> formula !!!
Yes it is. So why do you go asking what the word "relativistic" means ? ..
and then rejecting the answer because it was the meaning of the word.
>only later --as secondary important
> can come verbal interpretations
And that is why definitions of words and terms are important. I gave you
the meaning.
> provided they are given reasonably
I gave a very reasonable definition
> and the simpler -- the better !!!
I gave a very simple definition
>BTW
[snip typical porat ranting]
> what is the way in SR- to define something relativistic
I just told you above .. "relativistic" means to do with SR/GR and/or to do
with things having significant velocities compared to c.
> first the mathematical way !!!
It is an adjective .. it doesn't have a "mathematical" meaning. You want to
know what it means .. look it up in a dictionary (which I even did for you,
knowing your limited intelligence)
> the personal interpretations can come later !!!
There is no "personal" interpretation .. despite you not liking what it DOES
mean ... it is a well defined word. Look it up.
Y.Porat
> "Y.Porat" wrote in message
>
> news:1032e5bf-5e36-438b...@d8g2000yqf.googlegroups.com...
>
>
>
>
>
> >On Aug 24, 3:36 am, "Inertial" <relativ...@rest.com> wrote:
> >> "Y.Porat" wrote in message
>
> >>news:9ea378f7-6f09-4352...@q1g2000yqg.googlegroups.com...
>
> >> >what is the way in SR -
> >> >to define something relativistic ??
>
> >> As you've been told .. relativistic means "to do with the theory of
> >> relativity"
>
> >> ==
---------------------
Please by pass the sub human gorilla
sabotager that is obviously in a psychic in panic from the
possible answer of same people here
and please answr
what is the mathematical way of SR-
to define something relativistic
BTW
a good sign that the Gorilla is in panic
is that the pigshit gorilla tried to divert me to his moron ng (while
the retard still didnt learn that
it does not work anymore with me )
sub human is a compliment for him !!
please by pass him
with a mathematical definition
because it is important for some advance in science
not to surrender to Ben Laden gang gangsterism like that
TIA (not to the psycho Gorilla
Y.Porat
------------------
rotchm
>
> science is not done only by shiting ambiguous words
> it is done*** mainly** by exact mathematical
> formula !!!
> only later --as secondary important
> can come verbal interpretations
> provided they are given reasonably
> and the simpler -- the better !!!
We humans communicate by language.
To do communicate science/math or anything else, if we wish to
communicate, language must be used; the definitions must be presented
beforehand. Many also consider math as a language.
> so again to my op post :
> what is the way in SR- to define something relativistic
SR, does not define such a word.
Some people define it for their own context.
Inertial gave you some definitions.
I gave you some defintions.
Now, if *you* whish to use that word in a context, *you* must define
it your way.
Y.y.Porat
----------------
very simple:
as yoyu know
just words are not doing science
words are stuff for lawyers !!
so
whAt i mean is
WHAT IS THE MATHEMATICAL FACTOR
THAT TURNS A CONSTANT IN A FORMULA
TO BE WAHT IS CONSIDERED
OR SHOULD BE CONSIDERED RELATIVISTIC ??!
IE
to be ***DIFFERENT PHYSICALLY**!!! FROM A CONSTANT PHYSICAL ENTITY
TIA
Y.Porat
----------------
-------------------------
Darwin123
> what is the way in SR -
> to define something relativistic ??
Usually the word is an adjective, modifying a noun. Could you
please define the word "relativistic" as you use the word?
Dirk Van de moortel
46ad3fc6-4474-40cd...@g6g2000yql.googlegroups.com
In this case it is very simple: relativistic is defined as everything
that makes Porat foam at the mouth.
Dirk Vdm
papa...@gmail.com
>
> - Mostrar texto de la cita -
Special Relativity, as developed by Einstein, is based on two
postulates:
1. The laws by which the states of physical systems undergo change are
not affected, whether these changes of state be referred to the one or
the other of
two systems of co-ordinates in uniform translatory motion.
2. Any ray of light moves in the “stationary” system of co-ordinates
with the determined velocity c, whether the ray be emitted by a
stationary or by a
moving body.
The speed of light, then, is a physical constant important in many
areas of physics. Light and all other electromagnetic radiation always
travel at this speed in empty space (vacuum), regardless of the motion
of the source or the inertial frame of the observer. Its value is
exactly 299,792,458 metres per second. In the theory of relativity, c
connects space and time, and appears in the famous equation of mass–
energy equivalence E = mc2. The speed of light is the speed of all
massless particles and associated fields in vacuum, and it is
predicted by the current theory to be the speed of gravity and of
gravitational waves and an upper bound on the speed at which energy,
matter, and information can travel.
In Classical Mechanics, this speed of light is not an upper bound on
the speed. For instance, if a vehicle going at a speed v=0.6c emits a
flashlight, the translatory speed of that signal is v+c=1.6c.
Hence the second postulate closely bounds c to relativity.
Miguel Rios
Y.Porat
----------------
untill that point i fully agree!!
but not from now on !!!! :::---
The speed of light is the speed of all
> massless particles and associated fields in vacuum,
------------
who told you that there are massless particles??
i wil tell you where from that stupidity started
and i will tell you whyit is stupidy and how i proved it !!
and here we come to the factor of wich i was so longs hereasked for :
it is the Gamma factor !!
as we knowas v is closing c
that UNLINEAR factor works
exparimentally
BUT NOT THE COMMON INTERPRETATIONS!!
ther is for instance
F=Gamma m a
that is right numericall resuts
but who on earth told you that
gamma is magifying mass
why not
F /gamma = m a
AND m REMAINS CONSTANT ??
can yioutell me that i am not slowed formally to present the formula
the above way ??
waht is becomming bigger with v
is
listen carefully
it is not m that inslates
it is the energy needed that inflates !!
ddiyou ever take in a count such a possibility ??
so
it is a that is beconning bigger and not m !!
1
now to the more serious problem ?
WHAT HAP PENCE TO GAMMA
WHILR v=c
which is our photns andEM case ??!!!
you know mathematics betetr than me
but you dnt think phyasics!!plus mathematics :
even mathematically while v=c
listen carefully
THE GAMMA BECOMES UNDEFINED !!
SO
WHO ONEARTH ALOWED YOU TO RELATE
YOUR PERSONAL OF COMMON INTERPRATATION THAT IT MEASN
THAT
MASS OF PHOTONS BECOME INFINITY!!
or may be that is th epoint is undefined
THAT IS A SPECIAL; POING
AND AN EXCEPTION TO THE
*EXTRAPOLATED * JUMPING TO CONCLUSIONS IS NEEDED TO BE REVISED ??
iow
the photon mass is an exception to the rule that
no mass can reac c
th emass of the photon is doing it !!
and i proved it in past
and wil do some hints about it folowing!
we have the photon momentum formula
P = hf/c or even the energy of photon
E=hf
now listen carefully
THAT FORMULA IS AN *EXPERIMENTAL FOR MULA THAT HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH
THE THEORY OF RELATIVITY !!!!!
IT IS A LINEAR FORMULA
THAT DINT STEM OUT FROM RELATIVITY
soeven just by that has nothing to do with relativity
and noting in it is relativistic
you have in that mass !!
and you ahvein it nothing to multiply it
by Gamma or any relativistic factor
so it has mass and no relativistic mass!!
2
c is a constant
so the most stupid crocked thing to say
is that this constant c is relativistic
not in that hf/c that has nothing todowithrelativity
and not by
thereis no gamma factore or any other
magnifying factor there !!
as you said jus abi\ove
c is constant always
and in any frame
3
the fact that c takes place in relativistic formula
DOES NOT MEAN THAT THE NET c IS RELATIVISTIC !!
there must be other factors that will multiply it
to get
A RELATIVISTIC RESULT
but it is not c that is responsible forthat result
the other components are doing it
not to mentions
that hf/c EVEN as ***THE whole of it **
HAS NOTHING TO DOWITH
THE RELATIVITY THEORY !!!
and mind you
th ephoton momentum
hf/c is experimentally proven
it has mass and no magifying factors to non of its components
just constants and scalar figures !!
i thing that it is enough for one post !!
TIA
Y.Porat
---------------------
Y.Porat
-------------
sorry correction
hf has nothig to do withrelativity
hf/c is from E=mc^2
and even in E=mc^2
there is NO gamma FACTOR
BECAUSE
THE GAMMA FACTOR
( for those who dont know !!)
***DOES NOT APPLY TO THE PHOTONS !!!
TIA
Y.Porat
----------------------------
Y.Porat
<dirkvandemoor...@nospAm.hotmail.com> wrote:
> Darwin123 <drosen0...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>
> 46ad3fc6-4474-40cd-ae64-90c66fba9...@g6g2000yql.googlegroups.com
>
> > On Aug 23, 9:12 pm, "Y.Porat" <y.y.po...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >> what is the way in SR -
> >> to define something relativistic ??
> > I have no idea of what you mean by "relativistic".
> > Usually the word is an adjective, modifying a noun. Could you
> > please define the word "relativistic" as you use the word?
>
> In this case it is very simple: relativistic is defined as everything
> that makes Porat foam at the mouth.
>
> Dirk Vdm
-----------------
N W A
------------------
Darwin123
<dirkvandemoor...@nospAm.hotmail.com> wrote:
> Darwin123 <drosen0...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>
> 46ad3fc6-4474-40cd-ae64-90c66fba9...@g6g2000yql.googlegroups.com
>
> >> what is the way in SR -
> >> to define something relativistic ??
> > I have no idea of what you mean by "relativistic".
> > Usually the word is an adjective, modifying a noun. Could you
> > please define the word "relativistic" as you use the word?
>
> In this case it is very simple: relativistic is defined as everything
> that makes Porat foam at the mouth.
>
> Dirk Vdm
It is what Pentcho Valev, Androcles or Henry Wilson foam at the
mouth.
Y Porat claims to agree with special relativity (SR) but disagree
with general relativity (GR). I don't think he understands either, but
its hard to tell. His question about whether c being relativistic
probably relates to SR, or whatever he thinks is SR. So I don't think
he will foam at the mouth whether or not c is relativistic.
Still, I don't know what relativistic means. The value of c is a
measured quantity. It is like asking whether the universal
gravitational constant relativistic. Or whether the consumer price
index is relativistic.
I don't understand how so many people can answer without know
what he means by relativistic.
Androcles
Y Porat claims to agree with special relativity (SR) but disagree
with general relativity (GR). I don't think he understands either, but
its hard to tell. His question about whether c being relativistic
probably relates to SR, or whatever he thinks is SR. So I don't think
he will foam at the mouth whether or not c is relativistic.
Still, I don't know what relativistic means. The value of c is a
measured quantity.
It is like asking whether the universal
gravitational constant relativistic. Or whether the consumer price
index is relativistic.
I don't understand how so many people can answer without know
what he means by relativistic.
=================================================
Measured quantity:
"It seems that Light is propagated in time, spending in its passage from
the sun to us about seven Minutes of time:" -- DEFIN. II of Opticks Or,
A Treatise of the Reflections, Refractions, Inflections and Colours of
Light - Sir Isaac Newton.
Relativistic quantity:
2AB/(t'A-tA) = c (Einstein foaming at the mouth.)
Who measured it?
Oh, right, Einstein did.
"the velocity of light in our theory plays the part, physically, of an
infinitely great velocity" --§ 4. Physical Meaning of the Equations
Obtained in Respect to Moving Rigid Bodies and Moving Clocks
-- ON THE ELECTRODYNAMICS OF MOVING BODIES By A. Einstein
Anything Einstein or his supporters foam at the mouth about is relativistic
or plays the part, physically, of being infinitely relativistic, is
relativistic by definition. Naturally you would not understand that, you
imagine it others that foam at the mouth and not you.
Y.Porat
--------------
dont you think that--
no mater what and how ---
----a constant canot be
(by definition) - relativistic !!!???
ATB
Y.Porat
-------------------------
Darwin123
noun that specifies a velocity of an object. A "relativistic velocity"
has a speed very close to that of light. There is no quantitative
meaning to being close to light. When I see the phrase "relativistic
velocity," I know that I shouldn't truncate a series past first order
in v/c.
I have never heard the adjective "relativistic" applied to
anything else but a velocity. However, I have never heard it applied
to a constant, either.
Thus, your question seems grammatical rather than scientific.
Your answer depends on the correct English usage of the word
"relativistic."
If relativistic simply means "close to c," then of course c is
relativistic. The constant c has units of speed, and the value of c
"is close" to the value of c. It appears to be a tuatology.
However, maybe it is improper to use "relativistic" on any speed
that can't be applied to an object. The constant c is really an
electrodynamic constant, and is used in all sorts of things other than
photons. So if you want to use "relativistic" in this restrictive way,
c is not relativistic. No constant can be called relativistic.
I myself would avoid applying the word relativistic to any
universal constant. Applied to the velocity of objects, the word gives
a clue to the background mathematics. One knows when to truncate
certain series if a velocity of an object is not "relativistic".
However, there is no series associated with a universal constant. So
it seems to me that the word "relativistic" is confusing when applied
to a universal constant.
The use of the word "relativistic" does not influence the
physical system at all. It is short hand, telling you when to
truncate. When a word is unclear, it is necessary to look at the
mathematics. The mathematics provides the context with which a word is
used.
I have seen someone like you refer to "fat photons." He asked
"Can't you imagine "fat photons." The image of these obese photons
rolling down the path seems a bit humorous. In the same way, I think
"relativistic constant" is rather humorous. I am imagining the letter
c, jumping off the page and rushing near the speed of light.
For the sake of the English language, please tell us what think
the word relativistic means.
Robert Higgins
Fortunately, you missed the trajectory of this thread. One of Porat's
ideas is that only equations with gamma in them are "relativistic".
Like most of Porat's questions, he does not care what the answer is.
The fact that the question might not be well-formed is not important,
because Porat can't answer even a well-formed question.
He spent months insisting that there was a lowest frequency photon (1
Hz), and then that E = hf was not true, that the photon energy was E =
khf, where k was some constant between 0 and 1. His motto is "No mass
- no real physics", so he argues that photons have mass. He is a
hopeless troll, who continually insults anyone foolish enough to
engage him in conversation.
blackhead
Robert Higgins
TROLL TROLL TROLL TROLL TROLL
TROLL TROLL TROLL TROLL TROLL
TROLL TROLL TROLL TROLL TROLL
TROLL TROLL TROLL TROLL TROLL
TROLL TROLL TROLL TROLL TROLL
TROLL TROLL TROLL TROLL TROLL
>
> ATB
> Y.Porat
> -------------------------
Darwin123
- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -
> > > 46ad3fc6-4474-40cd-ae64-90c66fba9...@g6g2000yql.googlegroups.com
> > > Dirk Vdm
> ATB
> Y.Porat
> -------------------------
The only "relativistic" that I know is an adjective modifying a
I have seen someone like you refer to "fat photons." He asked,
"Can't you imagine fat photons?" At first, I couldn't but I managed to
come up with an image. The image of these obese photons
Igor
I'm surprised you're still posting, Borat. I was betting your head
would have exploded months ago.
whoever
news:90cba85d-1087-4559...@s9g2000yqd.googlegroups.com...
[snip my valid physics response]
And this is how Porat responds ...
>---------------------
>Please by pass the sub human gorilla
>sabotager that is obviously in a psychic in panic from the
>possible answer of same people here
>and please answr
>
>what is the mathematical way of SR-
>to define something relativistic
>
>BTW
>a good sign that the Gorilla is in panic
>is that the pigshit gorilla tried to divert me to his moron ng (while
>the retard still didnt learn that
>it does not work anymore with me )
>sub human is a compliment for him !!
>
>please by pass him
>with a mathematical definition
>because it is important for some advance in science
>not to surrender to Ben Laden gang gangsterism like that
>
>TIA (not to the psycho Gorilla
>Y.Porat
Die Porat .. you're a piece of filth that doesn't deserve to live and whose
very presence on this newsgroup (and on this planet) makes my physically
sick
--- news://freenews.netfront.net/ - complaints: ne...@netfront.net ---
whoever
news:e6602d00-52a2-4ec4...@l6g2000yqb.googlegroups.com...
>WHAT IS THE MATHEMATICAL FACTOR
>THAT TURNS A CONSTANT IN A FORMULA
>TO BE WAHT IS CONSIDERED
>OR SHOULD BE CONSIDERED RELATIVISTIC ??!
>IE
> to be ***DIFFERENT PHYSICALLY**!!! FROM A CONSTANT PHYSICAL ENTITY
There is none .. you moron. Everyone has been telling you. And note that a
formula or concept does NOT need to have a gamma factor in it to be
'relativistic'.
whoever
news:012cdf7c-d91a-4591...@q22g2000yqm.googlegroups.com...
>and here we come to the factor of wich i was so longs hereasked for :
>
>it is the Gamma factor !!
WRONG .. though there is a gamma factor in many relativistic formulas that
is NOT what makes something relativistic. You make up your own meanings for
words and then get all shitty when people say that is wrong.
[snip]
>F=Gamma m a
That is NOT the formula for relativistic force. You've been told countless
times and given the correct formulas but you REFUSE TO LEARN. THAT is why
you are a moron
>F /gamma = m a
It is the same formula simply rearranged to make it useless.
[snip huge amount of lies and ranting and idiocy from Porat .. what a waste
.. the sooner he dies and rids the planet of his filth, the better]
artful
news:577cff77-fdc1-4167-91a3-
d917a9...@x42g2000yqx.googlegroups.com...
> I have never heard the adjective "relativistic" applied to
>anything else but a velocity. However, I have never heard it applied
>to a constant, either.
So you've never heard of ..
relativistic mass
relativistic Doppler
relativistic aberration
relativistic length contraction
relativistic time contraction
etc etc
'relativistic;' means ;'to do with relativistic' or 'to do with
velocities a
significant fraction of the speed of light;'
I've given the definitions already.
Porat WANTS it to mean something else for whatever personal perverted
dishonest reasons.
artful
news:d1a2b6fe-0450-4b66-8b02-
d795ea...@g6g2000yql.googlegroups.com...
>hf has nothig to do withrelativity
>
>hf/c is from E=mc^2
>and even in E=mc^2
>there is NO gamma FACTOR
Yes it is one of the most famous relativistic equations. You've just
proved
you notion that 'relativistic' means 'has a gamma factor'
> BECAUSE
>THE GAMMA FACTOR
>( for those who dont know !!)
>***DOES NOT APPLY TO THE PHOTONS !!!
That formula is NOT JUST FOR PHOTONS .. moron. It applies for ANY
system or
object (at rest in a given frame)
You've just said that the relativistic formula for mass-energy
equivalence
is NOT relativistic
Relativistic Doppler has no gamma in it either .. so by your stupid
definition, relativistic Doppler is not relativistic
nor does relativistic aberration aberration, so relativistic
aberration is
not relativistic either.
You've just proved yourself wrong.
Your nonsense is shown to be just that once again .... utter nonsense
BAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
Y.Porat
> "Y.Porat" wrote in message
>
> news:d1a2b6fe-0450-4b66-8b02-
-------------------
(:-)
hf/c
is relativistic only for mother fuckers
hf
has nothing to do with relativity
*** IT DIDNT STEM OUT FROM THE RELATIVITY THEORY***!!!!
AND c is a constant!!!
(c IS A CONSTANT !!!!
got is pigshit moron psycho gorilla ---
a constant is relativistic --
only for psychopath moron lier imbeciles !!!
so go fuck yourself with your mother !!!
Y.P
--------------------------------------------
artful
You're a nasty foul-mouthed little creature.
Who is claiming hf/c is relativistic? I didn't
But YOU claimed E = mc^2 was not.
> hf
> has nothing to do with relativity
> *** IT DIDNT STEM OUT FROM THE RELATIVITY THEORY***!!!!
Who is claiming hf is relativistic? I didn't
But YOU claimed E = mc^2 was not.
> AND c is a constant!!!
Yes it is .. and that IS to do with relativity. In classical physics
light speed is relative to the observer and not a constnat
> (c IS A CONSTANT !!!!
> got is pigshit moron psycho gorilla ---
>
> a constant is relativistic --
Yes
> only for psychopath moron lier imbeciles !!!
>
> so go fuck yourself with your mother !!!
You're a nasty foul-mouthed little creature.
Your pathetic ranting doesn't make you right .. you just proved
yourself wrong .. but you're not man enough to admit it. You're not a
man at all. Of course, you can't go fuck your mother, as much as I'm
sure you'd like to .. thankfully she was gassed so she doesn't have to
endure the embarrassment you'd cause her.
Y.Porat
--------------
as you said
c i snot cloase to c
it is peerfectly and exactly c !!
and as you said
c is a constant
A CONSTANT IS BY DEFINITION NOT RELATIVISTIC
RELATIVISTIC IS RELATIVE TO SOMETHING ELSE
NOT TO ITSELF !!
the stupidity and cheating of a
defnit soldarity of that above small gang
is obvious
it is always
inertial artfulwhoever who is the same gorilla with3 names
including Igor
Higgins
Darwin
PD
and no more !!
PD is a partner of a publishing company
and probably all those crooks as well
are a scociated with the same
business company of thieves
always the same little gang !!
-------------------------------------
and as you said as well
as me or any one same honest person:
c is a constant
A CONSTANT CANNOT BY DEFINITION
BE RELATIVISTIC
thanks
that are still some cleaver and honest people
THANKS AGAIN
Y.Porat
---------------------
artful
You can't get closer than that.
> and as you said
> c is a constant
>
> A CONSTANT IS BY DEFINITION NOT RELATIVISTIC
Wrong .. look up a dictionary
> RELATIVISTIC IS RELATIVE TO SOMETHING ELSE
> NOT TO ITSELF !!
Wrong .. look up a dictionary
> the stupidity and cheating of a
> defnit soldarity of that above small gang
> is obvious
> it is always
> inertial artfulwhoever who is the same gorilla with3 names
> including Igor
> Higgins
> Darwin
> PD
> and no more !!
You are paranoid and a liar
> PD is a partner of a publishing company
> and probably all those crooks as well
> are a scociated with the same
> business company of thieves
> always the same little gang !!
You are paranoid and a liar
> -------------------------------------
> and as you said as well
> as me or any one same honest person:
> c is a constant
> A CONSTANT CANNOT BY DEFINITION
> BE RELATIVISTIC
Wrong .. look up a dictionary
> thanks
> that are still some cleaver
a cleaver? You are thinking a knife?
> and honest people
> THANKS AGAIN
You're welcome. Of course you were referring to me because I am
always honest. Unlike you who lies over and over and over.
rotchm
> > it your way.
>
> ----------------
> very simple:
> as yoyu know
> just words are not doing science
> words are stuff for lawyers !!
Wrong. Have you ever opend a book on binary numbers? 1011 is a 4 digit
word.
The four combinations aa, ab, ba, bb are four words. "words" are not
restricted to the english language not to lawyers.
> > Now, if *you* wish to use that word in a context, *you* must define
> > it your way.
> so
> whAt i mean is
> WHAT IS THE MATHEMATICAL FACTOR
> THAT TURNS A CONSTANT IN A FORMULA
> TO BE WAHT IS CONSIDERED
> OR SHOULD BE CONSIDERED RELATIVISTIC ??!
> IE
> to be ***DIFFERENT PHYSICALLY**!!! FROM A CONSTANT PHYSICAL ENTITY
What ever all than means. Can you rephrase all of that into the
english language so that we may understand your question and intent?
As for the meaning of 'relativistic', Inertial and I gave it you some.
Have you not seen/read those definition? Have you not looked up in a
few dictionaries? Dont you understand that words may have different
meanings depending of the subject/context/author ?
artful
> So I don't think
> he will foam at the mouth whether or not c is relativistic.
He foams at the mouth about EVERYTHING
hanson
"Robert Higgins" <robert_h...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
Goldy <ur...@bezeqint.net> wrote:
>
Goldy wrote:
> Why are physicists so unfriendly? I thought biologists were the ones
> with the ego issues but now I see that physicists have issues too.
>
Robert Higgins wrote:
Who do you consider a "physicist"?
|| RH||: Androcles, is a TROLL. Androcles claims to be an
|| RH||: "engineer", but he neither can do even introductory
|| RH||: differential calculus ("Calc I"), such as is found in the
|| RH||: first introductory course in University. Engineering math
|| RH||: BEGINS with Calc I, and our troll can't even do that.
>
hanson wrote:
... ahahahaha... Higgie, your acerbic comments maybe called for,
but ONLY if you can do what you infer above.. namely you having
the ken in "introductory differential calculus" and you produce the
2 equations d(1/rho)/dt = ? --- & --- 1/rho = ? which arise out of
integration from the 2nd derivative d2(1/rho)dt^2 = G. Background
for it is given here in <<http://tinyurl.com/Androcles-d2-rho>>
So, let me see your solutions, Higgie.
It should be a breeze for you.
Take care, Higgie
hanson
hanson
Androcles
"hanson" <han...@quick.net> wrote in message
news:i52f5p$1b8m$1...@adenine.netfront.net...
|
| "Robert Higgins" <robert_h...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
| Goldy <ur...@bezeqint.net> wrote:
| >
| Goldy wrote:
| > Why are physicists so unfriendly?
That's back-arsewards, the question is why do unfriendly people
become physicists.
Simple answer: their career, they like to work alone and win prizes
for a reward, to hell with social interaction. Developing a nuclear
bomb isn't particularly friendly, in fact it is downright psychopathic
as well as hostile. Nobel liked to blow things up, made lots of money
doing it and gave away prizes to those that can do better. In reality
a Nobel prize is small potatoes and a lottery, thousands of individuals
beavering away for no money and only one or two win it each year.
Most "successful" physicists were already wealthy to begin with
and could devote their time to research while the rest of us have to
push the plough and dream of GPS guided tractors to do it for us.
Robert Higgins
wrote:
>
> | >| Goldy wrote:
>
> | > Why are physicists so unfriendly?
>
> That's back-arsewards, the question is why do unfriendly people
> become physicists.
No, the question is why do people who can't do math pretend to be
engineers, and then cry like babies when someone snips their rants?
> Simple answer: their career, they like to work alone and win prizes
So physics is the only field with awards?
> for a reward, to hell with social interaction. Developing a nuclear
> bomb isn't particularly friendly,
Of course it's friendly - in fact, IT'S THE BOMB.
> in fact it is downright psychopathic
> as well as hostile.
Unlike calling everyone a c***.
> Nobel liked to blow things up, made lots of money
Some people just like to blow things.
> doing it and gave away prizes to those that can do better. In reality
> a Nobel prize is small potatoes and a lottery, thousands of individuals
> beavering away for
beaver?
> no money and only one or two win it each year.
> Most "successful" physicists were already wealthy to begin with
> and could devote their time to research while the rest of us have to
pretend to be engineers.
> push the plough and dream of GPS guided tractors to do it for us.
with a new GPS system that doesn't use GR.
Robert Higgins
i snot?
>
> and as you said
> c is a constant
In fact, "c" is constantly being a constant.
>
> A CONSTANT IS BY DEFINITION NOT RELATIVISTIC
> RELATIVISTIC IS RELATIVE TO SOMETHING ELSE
> NOT TO ITSELF !!
Dude, you can't speak of write English - why are you quibbling about
the meaning of English words?
> the stupidity and cheating of a
Why Poor Rat?
> defnit soldarity of that above small gang
> is obvious
> it is always
> inertial artfulwhoever who is the same gorilla with3 names
> including Igor
> Higgins
PRESENT!
> Darwin
> PD
> and no more !!
>
> PD is a partner of a publishing company
> and probably all those crooks as well
> are a scociated with the same
> business company of thieves
> always the same little gang !!
> -------------------------------------
> and as you said as well
> as me or any one same honest person:
> c is a constant
> A CONSTANT CANNOT BY DEFINITION
> BE RELATIVISTIC
TROLL TROLL TROLL TROLL
TROLL TROLL TROLL TROLL
TROLL TROLL TROLL TROLL
TROLL TROLL TROLL TROLL
TROLL TROLL TROLL TROLL
> thanks
> that are still some cleaver
June? Leave it to Beaver.
> and honest people
> THANKS AGAIN
Tanks for the memories....
>
> Y.Porat
> ---------------------
Androcles
On Aug 25, 4:12 am, "Androcles" <Headmas...@Hogwarts.physics_aa>
wrote:
> "hanson" <han...@quick.net> wrote in message
>
> news:i52f5p$1b8m$1...@adenine.netfront.net...
> |
> | "Robert Higgins" <robert_higgins...@hotmail.com> wrote in message| Goldy
> <ur...@bezeqint.net> wrote:
>
> | >| Goldy wrote:
>
> | > Why are physicists so unfriendly?
>
> That's back-arsewards, the question is why do unfriendly people
> become physicists.
No, the question is why do people who can't do math pretend to be
engineers, and then cry like babies when someone snips their rants?
=============================================
No, the question is why do unfriendly shits like you shove their heads
up there arses and join the Relativity Taliban, and the answer is they
cannot abide having their faith challenged. Now fuck off, my reply was
chachahanson who is pure and pristine as the driven snow, he's the
driver.
> Simple answer: their career, they like to work alone and win prizes
So physics is the only field with awards?
> for a reward, to hell with social interaction. Developing a nuclear
> bomb isn't particularly friendly,
Of course it's friendly - in fact, IT'S THE BOMB.
> in fact it is downright psychopathic
> as well as hostile.
Unlike calling everyone a c***.
==========================================
You mean I left out "stupid" before "cunt"? Watch a movie sometime,
prude. Ms. Ratchet was called a cunt by Jack Nicholson in "One Flew
over the Cuckoo's Nest". Read a book sometime, prude. A prisoner
said to Jodie Foster, "I smell your cunt" in "The Silence of the Lambs"
but it was changed in the movie to "I smell your scent". I live in the real
world, you stupid scent.
> Nobel liked to blow things up, made lots of money
Some people just like to blow things.
=============================
You are not blowing me, rent boy, I'm straight.
> doing it and gave away prizes to those that can do better. In reality
> a Nobel prize is small potatoes and a lottery, thousands of individuals
> beavering away for
beaver?
================================
"Busy as a beaver", dumbfuck, and not even profanity.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Busy_beaver
Get back to your ivory tower, it's only made of soap anyway.
BURT
wrote:
Math isn't smart until it becomes most simple.
Mitch Raemsch
artful
> Math isn't smart until it becomes most simple.
For once one of your platitudes makes sense. Guess you fluked it
BURT
I am describing the future of math.
I have debunked the Mother Theorem of the Calculus.
Unfortunately it is a mistake that noone even noticed.
My claim to fame is also in Calculus besides physics.
Maybe some day you will see my work.
Mitch Raemsch
blackhead
> On Aug 24, 3:49 pm, rotchm <rot...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > > science is not done only by shiting ambiguous words
> > > it is done*** mainly** by exact mathematical
> > > formula !!!
> > > only later --as secondary important
> > > can come verbal interpretations
> > > provided they are given reasonably
> > > and the simpler -- the better !!!
>
> > To do communicate science/math or anything else, if we wish to
> > communicate, language must be used; the definitions must be presented
> > beforehand. Many also consider math as a language.
>
> > > so again to my op post :
>
> > SR, does not define such a word.
>
> > Some people define it for their own context.
> > Inertial gave you some definitions.
> > I gave you some defintions.
>
> > Now, if *you* whish to use that word in a context, *you* must define
> > it your way.
>
> ----------------
> very simple:
> as yoyu know
> just words are not doing science
> words are stuff for lawyers !!
>
> whAt i mean is
> WHAT IS THE MATHEMATICAL FACTOR
> THAT TURNS A CONSTANT IN A FORMULA
> TO BE WAHT IS CONSIDERED
> OR SHOULD BE CONSIDERED RELATIVISTIC ??!
> IE
> to be ***DIFFERENT PHYSICALLY**!!! FROM A CONSTANT PHYSICAL ENTITY
>
> Y.Porat
> ----------------
> -------------------------- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
Special relativity doesn't convert a formula into a relativistic one
simply by replacing variables or constants with relativistic ones. It
*derives* the relativistic formulas using the Lorentz transformations,
and that's all there is to it.
Define your physical quantities by defining how they're measured in
some experimental setup. Using the LTs will enable you to predict what
someone in another frame will measure and from this, you create a
"relativistic" formula for some measurable quantity.
E.g in one frame define the x component velocity, u1_x, of a particle,
then use the LTs to predict what someone in another frame will measure
for this velocity, u2_x, using the LTs. This then gives you the
"relativistic addition of velocities for the x component formula":
u2_x = (u1_x + V)/(1 + V*u1_x/c^2)
And not one gamma in sight.
Y.Porat
----------------
thanks
now
and what do you do
it you can measure the momentum of photon
ONLY IN ONWE FRAME??!!! (:-)
TIA
Y.Porat
----------------------------------------------
Y.Porat
wrote:
> ideas is that only equations with gamma in them are "relativistic".
> Like most of Porat's questions, he does not care what the answer is.
> The fact that the question might not be well-formed is not important,
> because Porat can't answer even a well-formed question.
>
> He spent months insisting that there was a lowest frequency photon (1
> Hz), and then that E = hf was not true, that the photon energy was E =
> khf, where k was some constant between 0 and 1. His motto is "No mass
> - no real physics", so he argues that photons have mass. He is a
> hopeless troll, who continually insults anyone foolish enough to
> engage him in conversation.
-------------------
shameless pigshit human being:
i never said that hf is not rigth
isaid and proved (for honest intelligent people )
that hf
IS NOT THE FORMULA FOR THE SMALLEST
PHOTON ENERGY !!
the smallest photon energy is
hf times n
while n must be in th elimits :
< n <<<< 1.000
and i even suggested that n will be
the scalr number of
Planck time
now there is here some private gang of gangsters
that are associated with a private publishing company
that intend to steal new ideas
and present them later in their company
as their innovations
and here is that company :
quote
===================
Ref: http://whois.arin.net/rest/net/NET-206-208-104-0-1
OrgName: Houghton Mifflin Harcourt Publishing Company
OrgId: HOUGH-3
Address: 222 Berkeley Street
City: Boston
StateProv: MA
PostalCode: 02116
Country: US
RegDate: 2009-05-21
Updated: 2009-05-21
Ref: http://whois.arin.net/rest/org/HOUGH-3
OrgTechHandle: JPB95-ARIN
OrgTechName: Baker, Jonathan Peter
OrgTechPhone: +1-617-351-3822
begin_of_the_skype_highlighting +1-617-351-3822
end_of_the_skype_highlighting
OrgTechEmail:
OrgTechRef: http://whois.arin.net/rest/poc/JPB95-ARIN
-------------------------------
yet
all my innovations are well documented in Google.....
Y.Porat
----------------------
artful
> Special relativity doesn't convert a formula into a relativistic one
> simply by replacing variables or constants with relativistic ones. It
> *derives* the relativistic formulas using the Lorentz transformations,
> and that's all there is to it.
Yeup .. Sometimes those formulas are similar to classical formulas,
sometimes quite different.
> Define your physical quantities by defining how they're measured in
> some experimental setup. Using the LTs will enable you to predict what
> someone in another frame will measure and from this, you create a
> "relativistic" formula for some measurable quantity.
Yeup .. although not ALL relativistic formulas are explicitly between
frames. eg the famous E = mc^2 is a relativistic formula that doesn't
involve relationships between two frames .. though the more general
equation does.
> E.g in one frame define the x component velocity, u1_x, of a particle,
> then use the LTs to predict what someone in another frame will measure
> for this velocity, u2_x, using the LTs. This then gives you the
> "relativistic addition of velocities for the x component formula":
>
> u2_x = (u1_x + V)/(1 + V*u1_x/c^2)
>
> And not one gamma in sight.
Indeed there isn't .. as I've been telling Porat .. relativistic
formulas do not HAVE to have a gamma factor in them. He seems to have
two different and incorrect ideas about what the word 'relativistic'
means:
PORAT MEANING 1) different values for something in different frames
PORAT MEANING 2) has a gamma factor in the formula
Though often (but not always) one or both of these are true, it is NOT
what MAKES something relativistic.
Porat simply doesn't like that fact that the word doesn't mean what he
wants it to mean.
artful
There are some things that can only be measured once for a given
occurrence (eg photons are usually destroyed in the process of
measuring them). That does not mean one cannot take multiple
measurements with multiple occurrences. ie measure separate photon
momentum for individual photons from a given source in one frame and
in another, and then compare them.
Y.Porat
-------------------
(:-)
pigshit retard crook
the momentum of photon
CAN BE MEASURED
ONLY IN ONE FRAME!!
GOT IT MORON LIER GANGSTER??
if you create a photon
**that is not measuring it !!*
TH E MOMENT YOU MEASURE IT
IT IS NOT ANY MORE THE ORIGINAL PHOTON!
even by the HUP and by experimental facts
so you can never measure a photn momentum accurately
in two frames
got it little imbecile crook
it means that the photon momentum
and photon as a whole
it has nothing to do with SR relativity!!
and nothing in hf/c
is relativistic
nor of course the mass in it !!!
not to mention that it didnt stem at all
and didnt use relativity at all
in order to come to this world of modern science
and
TO BE FORMULATED MATHEMATICALLY !!!
go fuck yourself with
Josef Goebbels and PD
you crook moron parrots teachers
Y.P
-----------------------
artful
news:4e535261-9c9b-4d2b-b3a3-
dc608c...@q22g2000yqm.googlegroups.com...
Thanks for introducing yourself.
>the momentum of photon
> CAN BE MEASURED
>ONLY IN ONE FRAME!!
That's what I've already told you more than once. And you're welcome
for me
educating you in that regard. But you can get two identical photons
and
measure their momentums in two different frames
>GOT IT
Yes .. *I* told you that. Of course I "get it".
> MORON LIER GANGSTER??
You're already introduced yourself .. no need to do it twice.
> if you create a photon
>**that is not measuring it !!*
Noone said it was, moron. Of course, creating it is essential in
order to
measure it.
>TH E MOMENT YOU MEASURE IT
>IT IS NOT ANY MORE THE ORIGINAL PHOTON!
As I said before. But you can get two (or lots of)
identical photons and measure their individual momentums in two
different
frames. We find P = hf/c for all frames, and we find that the f value
for
different frames is related via the relativistic Doppler.
> even by the HUP and by experimental facts
>so you can never measure a photon momentum accurately
>in two frames
As I said .. that's what I already told you.
But you can get two (or lots of)
identical photons and measure their individual momentums in two
different
frames. We find P = hf/c for all frames, and we find that the f value
for
different frames is related via the relativistic Doppler.
> got it
Yes .. *I* told you that. Of course I "get it".
> little imbecile crook
You're already introduced yourself .. no need to do it three times ..
we
know what you are.
>it means that the photon momentum
>and photon as a whole
>
> it has nothing to do with SR relativity!!
How photons are measured to behave in different frames most certainly
does.
In particular that their speed is always measured as c. And their
frequency
for different observers is related by relativistic Doppler.
>and nothing in hf/c
>is relativistic
Except that their speed is always measured as c. And their frequency
for
different observers is related by relativistic Doppler.
Classical ballistic theory would have the momentum as hf/(c-v), where
v is
the velocity of the observer relative to the light source. But
relativity
says it is hf/c. Do you notice the difference?
>nor of course the mass in it !!!
There is no "mass in it" .. there is planks constant, frequency, and
the speed
of light, and that gives you momentum.
Of course, if you divide momentum by the velocity of the light you get
(by
definition) its *relativistic mass*. That is what relativistic mass
is ..
momentum divided by velocity.
>not to mention that it didnt stem at all
>and didnt use relativity at all
Except that the speed is always measured as c. And the frequency in
different frames is related by relativistic Doppler.
>in order to come to this world of modern science
> and
>TO BE FORMULATED MATHEMATICALLY !!!
Except that the speed is always measured as c. And the frequency in
different frames is related by relativistic Doppler.
In a given frame, with the light source at rest in that frame, hf/c is
what
classical theory would agree with (most relativistic formulas
degenerate to
classical ones when at rest) .. with moving light sources they don't
agree..
because the f value is different in relativity vs. classical physics
with a
moving source, and the speed of light is different in relativity vs.
classical (ballistic) physics with a moving source.
It is, of course, true that the E = hf formula (even though you deny
that it
is true) came directly from experimental observations where source
and
detector were at rest in the laboratory, and so relativity was not
actually
USED directly in working out the ratio h between frequency and energy.
> go fuck yourself with
> Josef Goebbels and PD
No thanks .. you can have sex with your hero Goebbels as much as you
like ..
get used to fucking dead people .. you'll be one yourself soon enough.
> you crook moron parrots teachers
You clearly have me confused with someone else.
PD
> what is the way in SR -
> to define something relativistic ??
>
> Y.Porat
> --------------------------------
You don't.
PD
The presence of a mathematical constant or factor is not what makes
anything relativistic.
BURT
relatiivty is based on an appearence of motion in the opposite
direction of energy flow through space.
Mitch Raemsch
PD
No, not at all. But thanks for your wild-ass guess.
Remember: Since science can't claim anything, then you can't claim
anything either.
>
> Mitch Raemsch
BURT
>
> - Show quoted text -
me.
When energy begins to move an appearence is created.
This is Relativity. An appearence of an opposite motion around real
speed through space.
Mitch Raemsch
PD
> On Aug 26, 2:16 pm, PD <thedraperfam...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > On Aug 26, 3:57 pm, BURT <macromi...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > > On Aug 26, 9:57 am, PD <thedraperfam...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > On Aug 23, 8:12 pm, "Y.Porat" <y.y.po...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > > what is the way in SR -
> > > > > to define something relativistic ??
>
> > > > > TIA
> > > > > Y.Porat
> > > > > --------------------------------
>
> > > > You don't.
>
> > > relatiivty is based on an appearence of motion in the opposite
> > > direction of energy flow through space.
>
> > No, not at all. But thanks for your wild-ass guess.
> > Remember: Since science can't claim anything, then you can't claim
> > anything either.
>
> > > Mitch Raemsch- Hide quoted text -
>
> > - Show quoted text -
>
> Science can't claim what it can't back up and the opposite is true for
> me.
Oh, so you think you CAN claim what you can't back up?
You're a special breed, Mitch. It's a long word, but it's abbreviated
"loooon".
bert
> On Aug 24, 6:03 pm, "papar...@gmail.com" <papar...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > to be ***DIFFERENT PHYSICALLY**!!! FROM A CONSTANT PHYSICAL ENTITY
>
> > > TIA
> > > Y.Porat
> > > ----------------
>
> > > - Mostrar texto de la cita -
>
> > Special Relativity, as developed by Einstein, is based on two
> > postulates:
>
> > 1. The laws by which the states of physical systems undergo change are
> > not affected, whether these changes of state be referred to the one or
> > the other of
> > two systems of co-ordinates in uniform translatory motion.
>
> > 2. Any ray of light moves in the “stationary” system of co-ordinates
> > with the determined velocity c, whether the ray be emitted by a
> > stationary or by a
> > moving body.
>
> > The speed of light, then, is a physical constant important in many
> > areas of physics. Light and all other electromagnetic radiation always
> > travel at this speed in empty space (vacuum), regardless of the motion
> > of the source or the inertial frame of the observer. Its value is
> > exactly 299,792,458 metres per second. In the theory of relativity, c
> > connects space and time, and appears in the famous equation of mass–
> > energy equivalence E = mc2.
>
> ----------------
> untill that point i fully agree!!
>
> but not from now on !!!! :::---
>
> The speed of light is the speed of all> massless particles and associated fields in vacuum,
>
> ------------
> who told you that there are massless particles??
>
> i wil tell you where from that stupidity started
> and i will tell you whyit is stupidy and how i proved it !!
> and here we come to the factor of wich i was so longs hereasked for :
>
> it is the Gamma factor !!
> as we knowas v is closing c
> that UNLINEAR factor works
> exparimentally
> BUT NOT THE COMMON INTERPRETATIONS!!
>
> ther is for instance
> F=Gamma m a
> that is right numericall resuts
> but who on earth told you that
> gamma is magifying mass
> why not
>
> F /gamma = m a
> AND m REMAINS CONSTANT ??
> can yioutell me that i am not slowed formally to present the formula
> the above way ??
> waht is becomming bigger with v
> is
> listen carefully
> it is not m that inslates
> it is the energy needed that inflates !!
> ddiyou ever take in a count such a possibility ??
> so
> it is a that is beconning bigger and not m !!
>
> 1
> now to the more serious problem ?
>
> WHAT HAP PENCE TO GAMMA
> WHILR v=c
> which is our photns andEM case ??!!!
> you know mathematics betetr than me
> but you dnt think phyasics!!plus mathematics :
>
> even mathematically while v=c
> listen carefully
> THE GAMMA BECOMES UNDEFINED !!
> SO
> WHO ONEARTH ALOWED YOU TO RELATE
> YOUR PERSONAL OF COMMON INTERPRATATION THAT IT MEASN
> THAT
> MASS OF PHOTONS BECOME INFINITY!!
> or may be that is th epoint is undefined
> THAT IS A SPECIAL; POING
> AND AN EXCEPTION TO THE
> *EXTRAPOLATED * JUMPING TO CONCLUSIONS IS NEEDED TO BE REVISED ??
>
> iow
> the photon mass is an exception to the rule that
> no mass can reac c
> th emass of the photon is doing it !!
> and i proved it in past
> and wil do some hints about it folowing!
>
> we have the photon momentum formula
>
> P = hf/c or even the energy of photon
> E=hf
> now listen carefully
> THAT FORMULA IS AN *EXPERIMENTAL FOR MULA THAT HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH
> THE THEORY OF RELATIVITY !!!!!
> IT IS A LINEAR FORMULA
> THAT DINT STEM OUT FROM RELATIVITY
> soeven just by that has nothing to do with relativity
> and noting in it is relativistic
> you have in that mass !!
> and you ahvein it nothing to multiply it
> by Gamma or any relativistic factor
> so it has mass and no relativistic mass!!
> 2
> c is a constant
> so the most stupid crocked thing to say
> is that this constant c is relativistic
> not in that hf/c that has nothing todowithrelativity
> and not by
> thereis no gamma factore or any other
> magnifying factor there !!
> as you said jus abi\ove
> c is constant always
> and in any frame
> 3
> the fact that c takes place in relativistic formula
> DOES NOT MEAN THAT THE NET c IS RELATIVISTIC !!
> there must be other factors that will multiply it
> to get
> A RELATIVISTIC RESULT
> but it is not c that is responsible forthat result
> the other components are doing it
> not to mentions
> that hf/c EVEN as ***THE whole of it **
> HAS NOTHING TO DOWITH
> THE RELATIVITY THEORY !!!
> and mind you
> th ephoton momentum
>
> hf/c is experimentally proven
> it has mass and no magifying factors to non of its components
> just constants and scalar figures !!
>
> i thing that it is enough for one post !!
>
> TIA
> Y.Porat
> ---------------------
>
> and it is
>
> > predicted by the current theory to be the speed of gravity and of
> > gravitational waves and an upper bound on the speed at which energy,
> > matter, and information can travel.
>
> > In Classical Mechanics, this speed of light is not an upper bound on
> > the speed.
>
> For instance, if a vehicle going at a speed v=0.6c emits a
>
>
>
> > flashlight, the translatory speed of that signal is v+c=1.6c.
>
> > Hence the second postulate closely bounds c to relativity.
>
> > Miguel Rios- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
No Frame of refference to show light slowing down or going faster. All
obervers measure light at c. TreBert
BURT
>
> - Show quoted text -
Light is at C through space. Matter's motion througth space makes
light relative
above and below C.
Mitch Raemsch
Inertial
news:2e089959-3a4f-405e...@j18g2000yqd.googlegroups.com...
Yes
> Matter's motion througth space makes
>light relative
>above and below C.
Nope .. never happens. You seem to think that 'space' is some fixed
absolute. Every object travelling with uniform velocity is at rest in his
own space (inertial frame), and light travels at c in that space. So light
travels at c wrt every inertially moving object despite what other observers
may measure his velocity to be.