No more please
Pmb
"light has inertial mass" thing. I was helping a person with a question. I
do not wish to be interegated or dragged through the gutter because of my
desire to help people with physics.
Thank you
Peter M. Brown
WaveMechanic
"Best wishes Pete" <peter1025...@comcast.net> wrote in message news:UrmdnSlqWJ3EUzLY...@comcast.com...
Hahahaha!
Best wishes and good luck, but should you not learn physics first?
dlzc
You are in effect "helping" this person to get the same "ridicule" you
get. Are you sure that is what you want to do?
If your opinion / impression / presentation is denigrated by people
whom you otherwise respect the opinion of, why then do you have to keep
expressing this opinion / impression and promulgating it to "newbies"?
What were you thinking? You cannot honestly believe that this "helps"
a newbie. Not to climb down your throat, but look at what your "help"
is setting others up for.
David A. Smith
Pmb
"dlzc" <dl...@cox.net> wrote in message
news:1169154936.0...@m58g2000cwm.googlegroups.com...
> Dear Pmb:
>
> Pmb wrote:
>> I would like to request a cease of quesrtions/comments
>> regarding this who "light has inertial mass" thing. I was
>> helping a person with a question. I do not wish to be
>> interegated or dragged through the gutter because of my
>> desire to help people with physics.
>
> You are in effect "helping" this person to get the same "ridicule" you
> get. Are you sure that is what you want to do?
Nope. But you know how it is. So many erroneous claims are made that the
place as to where to finally say "This is of no use" gets to be fuzzy. I
posted this to stop my participation in it by asking people not to ask me
anything because its sometimes difficult as to who is serious and who is
not. As time goes on I'll get the hang of it. This time I caught on far too
late. But I saw myself lapsing into the ways of the old days when I got into
a lot of flame wars and I simply can't have them in my life anymore. But
since the time I left and the time I came back I became a very devout
Christian and as such I have a desire to to hurt anyone's feelings so I
posted this thread so people would know I'm not posting and not simply
ignoring them.
>
> If your opinion / impression / presentation is denigrated by people
> whom you otherwise respect the opinion of, why then do you have to keep
> expressing this opinion / impression and promulgating it to "newbies"?
I didn't notice that. Whom are you refering to??
> What were you thinking?
Leaving it as is has always meant in the past that the same thing will occur
all over again the next time the subject arises. So there is a desire to
head that off at the pass. That was my error. It won't happen again.
> You cannot honestly believe that this "helps"
> a newbie.
Present ones? No. Future ones? That's the ideal goal. But I'd have to admit
that I now see that it was a totally unrealistic goal. Thanks for pointing
it out Dave.
Best Regards
Pete
N:dlzc D:aol T:com (dlzc)
"Pmb" <peter1025...@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:2qudneap69zaezLY...@comcast.com...
>
> "dlzc" <dl...@cox.net> wrote in message
> news:1169154936.0...@m58g2000cwm.googlegroups.com...
>> Dear Pmb:
>>
>> Pmb wrote:
>>> I would like to request a cease of quesrtions/comments
>>> regarding this who "light has inertial mass" thing. I was
>>> helping a person with a question. I do not wish to be
>>> interegated or dragged through the gutter because of my
>>> desire to help people with physics.
>>
>> You are in effect "helping" this person to get the same
>> "ridicule" you get. Are you sure that is what you want to
>> do?
>
> Nope. But you know how it is. So many erroneous claims
> are made that the place as to where to finally say "This is
> of no use" gets to be fuzzy.
The first response post on the "photon mass" thread was yours.
Did you make an erroneous claim? You claim you are out to
correct erroneous claims...
> I posted this to stop my participation in it by asking
> people not to ask me anything because its sometimes
> difficult as to who is serious and who is not. As time goes
> on I'll get the hang of it. This time I caught on far too late.
You have had input from at least four people that I consider
serious, not asking but arguing against your opinion. I see you
running from them, not the OP.
> But I saw myself lapsing into the ways of the old days
> when I got into a lot of flame wars and I simply can't
> have them in my life anymore. But since the time I left
> and the time I came back I became a very devout Christian and
> as such I have a desire to
... [not] ... ?
> to hurt anyone's feelings so I posted this thread so
> people would know I'm not posting and not simply ignoring them.
You are discussing your feelings in a sci.* newsgroup. Your
intention to no longer respond is on topic in the thread it was
occuring in. But a new thread is not on topic.
>> If your opinion / impression / presentation is denigrated
>> by people whom you otherwise respect the opinion of,
>> why then do you have to keep expressing this opinion /
>> impression and promulgating it to "newbies"?
>
> I didn't notice that. Whom are you refering to??
You got negative responses every time you brought it up. I'd ask
you "which time", but there would be little point in it. You
have four serious, thoughtful responses in the "photon mass"
thread alone from different people. Perhaps you should review?
>> What were you thinking?
>
> Leaving it as is has always meant in the past that the
> same thing will occur all over again the next time the
> subject arises.
It didn't happen when you were gone, Pete. And yours was the
first foot into the puddle...
> So there is a desire to head that off at the pass. That
> was my error. It won't happen again.
This behavior doesn't become you. You intentionally responded as
you did, despite the consequences. Consequences that, unless you
have developed Alzheimers, you were quite aware of.
>> You cannot honestly believe that this "helps"
>> a newbie.
>
> Present ones? No. Future ones? That's the ideal goal.
Relativistic mass has been the bane of newbies since "forever".
So you intend to continue for it to be a problem, by "teaching"
it (or variants of it)?
> But I'd have to admit that I now see that it was a
> totally unrealistic goal. Thanks for pointing it out Dave.
I'm not trying to sh*t on you, you cannot seem to resist making
the kind of statements you do, but are unwilling to be swayed by
facts or other argument. This is a discussion group, not a "hit
and run" group. If you say "I agree to disagree" that is a
positive message, and no more has to be said. But you are
clearly setting newbies up to suffer the same grief you endure
over the topic. And then you "tag" a message in a separate
thread that says "I don't care to discuss it"...
Consider your motivation.
David A. Smith
Pmb
"N:dlzc D:aol T:com (dlzc)" <dl...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:4cVrh.57964$uA2....@newsfe07.phx...
> Dear Pmb:
>
> "Pmb" <peter1025...@comcast.net> wrote in message
> news:2qudneap69zaezLY...@comcast.com...
>>
>> "dlzc" <dl...@cox.net> wrote in message
>> news:1169154936.0...@m58g2000cwm.googlegroups.com...
>>> Dear Pmb:
>>>
>>> Pmb wrote:
>>>> I would like to request a cease of quesrtions/comments
>>>> regarding this who "light has inertial mass" thing. I was
>>>> helping a person with a question. I do not wish to be
>>>> interegated or dragged through the gutter because of my
>>>> desire to help people with physics.
>>>
>>> You are in effect "helping" this person to get the same
>>> "ridicule" you get. Are you sure that is what you want to
>>> do?
I don't believe that the person felt any ridiccule at all.
>>
>> Nope. But you know how it is. So many erroneous claims
>> are made that the place as to where to finally say "This is
>> of no use" gets to be fuzzy.
>
> The first response post on the "photon mass" thread was yours. Did you
> make an erroneous claim? You claim you are out to correct erroneous
> claims...
The first post read "if photons has no mass but momentum, where is the
momentum
stored in the photon, what forces keeps the momentum captured?"
My response was "Photons do have mass, they have inertial mass. What you're
thinking about is
proper mass. It is the inertial mass which gives a particle momentum."
>> I posted this to stop my participation in it by asking
>> people not to ask me anything because its sometimes
>> difficult as to who is serious and who is not. As time goes
>> on I'll get the hang of it. This time I caught on far too late.
>
> You have had input from at least four people that I consider serious, not
> asking but arguing against your opinion. I see you running from them, not
> the OP.
I was trying to avoid getting in that very old discussion yet once again. I
failed as you can see.
Best wishes
Pete
Eric Gisse
Learn from your mistake, don't cry when you are corrected.
N:dlzc D:aol T:com (dlzc)
"Pmb" <peter1025...@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:taadndAfw6bkuS3Y...@comcast.com...
...
> I was trying to avoid getting in that very old discussion
> yet once again. I failed as you can see.
Yes Pete, I do see. And I see you cannot seem to help yourself.
I am sorry.
David A. Smith
harry
"N:dlzc D:aol T:com (dlzc)" <dl...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:4cVrh.57964$uA2....@newsfe07.phx...
Yes that's a bit confusing.
Teaching it isn't a problem. The only problem is when people who can't
handle a concept react with agression.
My advice to pmb: simply ignore the problem makers, it's their problem - not
yours.
Cheers,
Harald
Jerry
Pete,
Consider the behavior of the sole non-crackpot aetherist on these
newsgroups when answering a newbie's question. Ilja generally answers
the question with the mainstream view, and although he throws in
reference to his own theory based on condensed matter physics at
every opportunity, he very carefully distinguishes his views from
those of the mainstream.
Perhaps you could consider a similar approach. You certainly seem to
understand the mainstream viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
While I don't claim any expertise whatsoever in this subject, I do
understand that a large majority of physicists consider inertial mass
to be an unproductive concept, despite its continuing presentation in
popular expositions on relativity.
Jerry
pmb
> Dear Pmb:
>
> "Pmb" <peter1025...@comcast.net> wrote in message
> news:2qudneap69zaezLY...@comcast.com...
Dear Dave
I'm curious. What was your motivation for writing this post?
You said to me
> The first response post on the "photon mass" thread was yours.
> Did you make an erroneous claim? You claim you are out to
> correct erroneous claims...
Could be. That's one goal of everyidy here etc,;
> You have had input from at least four people that I consider
> serious, not asking but arguing against your opinion.
You are entitiled to your opinpnion as are they as am I. I see you
running from them, not the OP.
> > But I saw myself lapsing into the ways of the old days
> > when I got into a lot of flame wars and I simply can't
> > have them in my life anymore. I post packed it wo since the time I left
dlzc
pmb wrote:
> N:dlzc D:aol T:com (dlzc) wrote:
> > Dear Pmb:
> >
> > "Pmb" <peter1025...@comcast.net> wrote in message
> > news:2qudneap69zaezLY...@comcast.com...
>
> Dear Dave
>
> I'm curious. What was your motivation for writing this post?
I was complaining that an off topic post was made in a sci.* newsgroup,
to someone who seems to care about the quality of the discussion that
occurs here.
> You said to me
> > The first response post on the "photon mass" thread was
> > yours. Did you make an erroneous claim? You claim you
> > are out to correct erroneous claims...
>
> Could be. That's one goal of everyidy here etc,;
So you feel that a *question* relating to {photon, mass} is erroneous?
Nothing else had been said on the topic, in that thread. The OP was
simply trolling anyway, based on posting behavior...
It is pretty clear that you set yourself up, again, to have this
happen. But it is your life, if you need drama, you certanily know how
to get it.
> > You have had input from at least four people that I consider
> > serious, not asking but arguing against your opinion.
>
> You are entitiled to your opinpnion as are they as am I. I
> see you running from them, not the OP.
Assuming this last sentence was yours, and not a misquote.
I was, and to some extent still am, sure that c is changing with time.
But I know that I don't have the horsepower to either describe it,
defend it, or test it. Especially since I fully expect my measuring
tools are keeping pace with said change. So I keep my mouth shut, and
only deliver to newbies a perspective that is a little different,
without running this / their path "off into the woods" somewhere. Not
running from my (knowledgeable, talented, patient) critics, but helping
to define a path... without barring the way to anyone.
I allow that my opinion is just an opinion, and I allow those that have
differing opinions to voice theirs, and to disagree fundamentally with
me. I don't have to have an investment in being "right".
If I have to head "off into the woods", I do as Harald described, I
express what I am about to say as my opinion... and I even (sometimes)
cite (some) names of those that disagree with me, so that anyone
following the thread can judge the alternate viewpoint.
What I have to watch is my propensity to have "the last word". Good
thing you asked a question! ;>)
David A. Smith
Pmb
"harry" <harald.vanlin...@epfl.ch> wrote in message
news:1169202...@sicinfo3.epfl.ch...
True. I've already plonked a fee of them. Especially those who simply can't
let go, like you know who
.Best regards
Pete
bergeron
If you want to help peple with physics,
don't make erroneous statements, like your
assertion that photons have mass. If photons
have a mass, then (1) what is the photon mass?
(2) How do you reconcile a non-zero mass with
Maxwell's equations and conservation of charge?
Pmb
"bergeron" <badd...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1169344904....@38g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
You're confusing "proper mass" and "inertial mass" (aka "relativistic mass")
Everything that I post can be found in a journal or a text. Try reading
Rindler's SR text.Then you'll understand the difference.
The proper mass of a photon is zero
The inertial mass of a photon = E/c^2 = hf/c^2
Eric Gisse
Pmb wrote:
> "bergeron" <badd...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:1169344904....@38g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
> >
> > Pmb wrote:
> >> I would like to request a cease of quesrtions/comments regarding this who
> >> "light has inertial mass" thing. I was helping a person with a question.
> >> I
> >> do not wish to be interegated or dragged through the gutter because of my
> >> desire to help people with physics.
> >
> > If you want to help peple with physics,
> > don't make erroneous statements, like your
> > assertion that photons have mass. If photons
> > have a mass, then (1) what is the photon mass?
> > (2) How do you reconcile a non-zero mass with
> > Maxwell's equations and conservation of charge?
>
> You're confusing "proper mass" and "inertial mass" (aka "relativistic mass")
Shut the fuck up, pmb. He is confusing no such thing.
>
> Everything that I post can be found in a journal or a text. Try reading
> Rindler's SR text.Then you'll understand the difference.
How about you try reading for comprehension for a change?
>
> The proper mass of a photon is zero
>
> The inertial mass of a photon = E/c^2 = hf/c^2
WRONG by as many orders of magnitude as there are days in a week.
Mike
Hey imbecile, you do the same. Remember what you wrote when asked to
solve the Newtonian free fall equations::
"Exactly - a simple free fall problem. You aren't asking anything
interesting or even challenging. Your problem bores me - walking to the
toilet and peeing takes longer, and required the same amount of mental
horsepower. "
http://groups.google.gr/group/sci.physics.relativity/msg/376309b49478f820?hl=en&
Yet, you gave the following solution to the problem:
http://groups.google.gr/group/sci.physics.relativity/msg/01b8793b2b1f235b?hl=en&
where you insisted the differential equation is an ODE of the Euler
type you stupid head.
This is because you do not know the difference between an indedendent
and a dependent variable and you thought as Mati pointed out that
You thought x^2 d^2y/dx^2.... is the same as y^2 d^2y/dx^2....
http://groups.google.gr/group/sci.physics.relativity/msg/2aa27eb6106edcda?hl=en&
Look here for more details about you:
In your position I would not talk about people like Peter. You know
nothing compared to him.
Mike
Eric Gisse
Mike wrote:
> Eric Gisse wrote:
> > Pmb wrote:
> > > I would like to request a cease of quesrtions/comments regarding this who
> > > "light has inertial mass" thing. I was helping a person with a question. I
> > > do not wish to be interegated or dragged through the gutter because of my
> > > desire to help people with physics.
> >
> > Learn from your mistake, don't cry when you are corrected.
>
> Hey imbecile, you do the same. Remember what you wrote when asked to
> solve the Newtonian free fall equations::
I admitted the mistake *and* I went around solving the problem in a
different way.
To this day you are yet to admit having made a mistake. Notice the
difference?
bergeron
Pmb wrote:
> "bergeron" <badd...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:1169344904....@38g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
> >
> > Pmb wrote:
> >> I would like to request a cease of quesrtions/comments regarding this who
> >> "light has inertial mass" thing. I was helping a person with a question.
> >> I
> >> do not wish to be interegated or dragged through the gutter because of my
> >> desire to help people with physics.
> >
> > If you want to help peple with physics,
> > don't make erroneous statements, like your
> > assertion that photons have mass. If photons
> > have a mass, then (1) what is the photon mass?
> > (2) How do you reconcile a non-zero mass with
> > Maxwell's equations and conservation of charge?
>
> You're confusing "proper mass" and "inertial mass"
No, I am not.
> (aka "relativistic mass")
Relativistic mass is not the inertial mass.
The equivalence principle relates the
gravitational mass to the mass defined by the
mass-energy-momentum relations. That is
the m in E^2 - p^2 = m^2.
> Everything that I post can be found in a journal or a text. Try reading
> Rindler's SR text.Then you'll understand the difference.
Pedagogical preferences for expedience in teaching undergraduates
is not a basis for asserting physical content.
> The proper mass of a photon is zero
> The inertial mass of a photon = E/c^2 = hf/c^2
The mass/energy momentum relations in terms
of frequencies or wavelengths is given by the
relations, k = p/hbar, k_0 = mc/hbar. k_0 is
zero for the photon.
Pmb
"Mike" <ele...@yahoo.gr> wrote in message
news:1169400662.6...@s34g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
Thanks Mike. I'm trying to be as polite as I can here so I don't know where
their anger comes from?!??
Kind Regards
Pete
Pmb
>
> Pmb wrote:
>> "bergeron" <badd...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>> news:1169344904....@38g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
>> >
>> > Pmb wrote:
>> >> I would like to request a cease of quesrtions/comments regarding this
>> >> who
>> >> "light has inertial mass" thing. I was helping a person with a
>> >> question.
>> >> I
>> >> do not wish to be interegated or dragged through the gutter because of
>> >> my
>> >> desire to help people with physics.
>> >
>> > If you want to help peple with physics,
>> > don't make erroneous statements, like your
>> > assertion that photons have mass. If photons
>> > have a mass, then (1) what is the photon mass?
>> > (2) How do you reconcile a non-zero mass with
>> > Maxwell's equations and conservation of charge?
>>
>> You're confusing "proper mass" and "inertial mass"
>
> No, I am not.
>
>> (aka "relativistic mass")
>
> Relativistic mass is not the inertial mass.
Many relativists use the terms synonymously. I posted "relativistic mass" in
case there was an uncertainty.
In any case all this that I've been saying is in the FAQ on photon mass.
Have you read it?
> The equivalence principle relates the
> gravitational mass to the mass defined by the
> mass-energy-momentum relations. That is
> the m in E^2 - p^2 = m^2.
>
>> Everything that I post can be found in a journal or a text. Try reading
>> Rindler's SR text.Then you'll understand the difference.
>
> Pedagogical preferences for expedience in teaching undergraduates
> is not a basis for asserting physical content.
When it comes to terminology it can be taken as a source as often is the
case. And I've been talking mostly about terminology
>
>> The proper mass of a photon is zero
>
>> The inertial mass of a photon = E/c^2 = hf/c^2
>
> The mass/energy momentum relations in terms
> of frequencies or wavelengths is given by the
> relations, k = p/hbar, k_0 = mc/hbar. k_0 is
> zero for the photon.
Incorrect. You can't use that relation for a photon to obtain its
relativistic mass.
Best regards
Pete
Eric Gisse
Your inability to learn from basic mistakes while maintaining the
holier-than-thou position.
>
> Kind Regards
>
> Pete
bergeron
> > Relativistic mass is not the inertial mass.
>
> Many relativists use the terms synonymously.
Your evidence from the literature being?
*snip*
> > Pedagogical preferences for expedience in teaching undergraduates
> > is not a basis for asserting physical content.
>
> When it comes to terminology it can be taken as a source as often is the
> case.
Hence the massive confusion that persists in the
newsgroups. The idea is to eliminate confusion, not
come up with new ways to justify it.
> And I've been talking mostly about terminology
OK, then the term ``mass'' refers to the ``m'' in
E^2 - p^2 = m^2.
*snip*
> > The mass/energy momentum relations in terms
> > of frequencies or wavelengths is given by the
> > relations, k = p/hbar, k_0 = mc/hbar. k_0 is
> > zero for the photon.
>
> Incorrect.
It is not incorrect. It works for every particle - massive or
massless.
> You can't use that relation for a photon to obtain its
> relativistic mass.
Of course not - relativistic mass is not consistent with
the basic idea of relativity. Relativity does not require
invoking one set of rules for massive particles and a special
set of rules for photons. Your definitions do. If your goal is
to perpetuate confusion, then let me be the first to thank you
for the kooks on this newsgroup who post new theories and
arguments against relativity based on their confusion about what
mass means.
Pmb
>
> Pmb wrote:
>> "bergeron" <badd...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>
>> > Relativistic mass is not the inertial mass.
>>
>> Many relativists use the terms synonymously.
>
> Your evidence from the literature being?
"Basic Relativity," Richard A. Mould (1994)
"Introducing Einstein's Relativity," D'Inverno (2001)
"Relativity: Special, General and Cosmological (2001)
"Special Relativity," A.P. French (1964)
Do you need page numbers and exact quotes?
[snip]
Regards
Pete
Ken S. Tucker
Pmb wrote:
> "bergeron" <badd...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:1169440521....@51g2000cwl.googlegroups.com...
> >
> > Pmb wrote:
> >> "bergeron" <badd...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> >
> >> > Relativistic mass is not the inertial mass.
> >>
> >> Many relativists use the terms synonymously.
> >
> > Your evidence from the literature being?
>
> "Basic Relativity," Richard A. Mould (1994)
> "Introducing Einstein's Relativity," D'Inverno (2001)
> "Relativity: Special, General and Cosmological (2001)
> "Special Relativity," A.P. French (1964)
>
> Do you need page numbers and exact quotes?
>
> [snip]
>
> Regards
>
> Pete
Pete et al,
As I understand one cannot transform tensor
components between frames moving at relative "c",
it's an improper transformation, so as a result
assigning components to a "flying photon" is
mute, it can't be done. Components can be
established when the "rest mass" of a photon
is brought to rest, and thereby no longer "flying",
either at absorption or emission.
An interesting caveat occurs when a photon
is deflected (and slowed down) by a g-field.
In that case, the photon looses energy (is
red-shifted) by passing momentum and energy
to the deflecting sub-light mass.
I suppose an argument can be waged whereby
the photon goes sub-light speed in a g-field
and thereby enters into the momentum reaction
complete with measureable components.
There even exists a hypothesis based on
measurements, that the cosmological red shift
is quantized.
Regards
Ken
bergeron
Pmb wrote:
> "bergeron" <badd...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:1169440521....@51g2000cwl.googlegroups.com...
> >
> > Pmb wrote:
> >> "bergeron" <badd...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> >
> >> > Relativistic mass is not the inertial mass.
> >>
> >> Many relativists use the terms synonymously.
> >
> > Your evidence from the literature being?
>
> "Basic Relativity," Richard A. Mould (1994)
> "Introducing Einstein's Relativity," D'Inverno (2001)
> "Relativity: Special, General and Cosmological (2001)
> "Special Relativity," A.P. French (1964)
I said "from the literature," not from the type of
introductory textbook I referred to as a personal idea
of expedient pedagogy which is not a basis for physics.
That sort of misguided attempts at pedagogy only
perpetuate the confusion upon which kookdom thrives.
Your are not being very sincere in saying that you are
interested in helping people with physics.
> Do you need page numbers and exact quotes?
Do you need further clarification regarding the meaning
of "from the literature?"
Pmb
>
> Pmb wrote:
>> "bergeron" <badd...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>> news:1169440521....@51g2000cwl.googlegroups.com...
>> >
>> > Pmb wrote:
>> >> "bergeron" <badd...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>> >
>> >> > Relativistic mass is not the inertial mass.
>> >>
>> >> Many relativists use the terms synonymously.
>> >
>> > Your evidence from the literature being?
>>
>> "Basic Relativity," Richard A. Mould (1994)
>> "Introducing Einstein's Relativity," D'Inverno (2001)
>> "Relativity: Special, General and Cosmological (2001)
>> "Special Relativity," A.P. French (1964)
>
> I said "from the literature," not from the type of
> introductory textbook I referred to as a personal idea
> of expedient pedagogy which is not a basis for physics.
> That sort of misguided attempts at pedagogy only
> perpetuate the confusion upon which kookdom thrives.
> Your are not being very sincere in saying that you are
> interested in helping people with physics.
Textbooks *are* part of the literature.
>
>> Do you need page numbers and exact quotes?
>
> Do you need further clarification regarding the meaning
> of "from the literature?"
Let me say this - Due to your attitude, at this point I will agree to
disagree. That quite literally means that I will no longer respond to your
posts.
Kind Regards
Pete
Pmb
"Ken S. Tucker" <dyna...@vianet.on.ca> wrote in message
news:1169456135.2...@l53g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
> Pete et al,
> As I understand one cannot transform tensor
> components between frames moving at relative "c",
> it's an improper transformation, so as a result
> assigning components to a "flying photon" is
> mute, it can't be done.
That is true for the 4-velocity but false for 4-momentum. Inertial mass (aka
rel-mass) is proportional to the time component of the 4-momentum, i.e. P^0
= mc.
> An interesting caveat occurs when a photon
> is deflected (and slowed down) by a g-field.
> In that case, the photon looses energy (is
> red-shifted) by passing momentum and energy
> to the deflecting sub-light mass.
Recall that the photon always moves on null geodesics. Only particles with
zero proper mass can moves on null geodesics. I.e. the speed of a photon is
always locally "c."
Regards
Pete
karand...@yahoo.com
Pmb wrote:
>
> The inertial mass of a photon = E/c^2 = hf/c^2
Sorry, you are way off , by several orders of magnitude:
http://pdg.lbl.gov/2005/tables/gxxx.pdf
Try reading (and comprehending) the experimental tests, you can start
with this one:
Eric Gisse
A copout if I ever saw one.
>
> Kind Regards
>
> Pete
Pmb
<karand...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1169485536.9...@s34g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
I don't challenge the value of the **proper mass** (aka "rest mass") of the
photon. I'm talking about the so-called "relativistic mass".
See
http://www.math.ucr.edu/home/baez/physics/ParticleAndNuclear/photon_mass.html
Best regards
Pete
karand...@yahoo.com
Yes, you are way off , like I said, try reading the references:
http://pdg.lbl.gov/2005/tables/gxxx.pdf
Try reading (and comprehending) the experimental tests, you can start
with this one:
http://prola.aps.org/abstract/PRL/v80/i9/p1826_1
The experiment deals with "photon mass", not with "photon rest mass"
Pmb
<karand...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1169489520.5...@m58g2000cwm.googlegroups.com...
>
> Pmb wrote:
>> <karand...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>> news:1169485536.9...@s34g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
>> >
>> > Pmb wrote:
>> >
>> >
>> >>
>> >> The inertial mass of a photon = E/c^2 = hf/c^2
>> >
>> > Sorry, you are way off , by several orders of magnitude:
>> >
>> > http://pdg.lbl.gov/2005/tables/gxxx.pdf
>> >
>> >
>> > Try reading (and comprehending) the experimental tests, you can start
>> > with this one:
>> >
>> > http://prola.aps.org/abstract/PRL/v80/i9/p1826_1
>> >
>>
>> I don't challenge the value of the **proper mass** (aka "rest mass") of
>> the
>> photon. I'm talking about the so-called "relativistic mass".
>>
>> See
>> http://www.math.ucr.edu/home/baez/physics/ParticleAndNuclear/photon_mass.html
>>
>> Best regards
>>
>> Pete
>
> Yes, you are way off , like I said, try reading the references:
I didn't say that I was way off. I said that what the value of the mass of
the photon is will depend on the definition. That is a fact of life and
there is no way around it.
>
> http://pdg.lbl.gov/2005/tables/gxxx.pdf
>
> Try reading (and comprehending) the experimental tests, you can start
> with this one:
>
> http://prola.aps.org/abstract/PRL/v80/i9/p1826_1
>
> The experiment deals with "photon mass", not with "photon rest mass"
They use the term "photon mass" to *mean* "photon proper mass."
Please read the FAQ before we continue this cycle.Okay? Thanks.
Kind regards
Pete
karand...@yahoo.com
Umm, nice way of trying to twist things around. The point was that no
one is talking about "photon RELATIVISTIC mass", Pete. Even the FAQ
that you keep referring me to is quite clear on this.
Pmb
<karand...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1169491334.6...@a75g2000cwd.googlegroups.com...
The FAQ reads "The problem is simply that people are using two different
definitions of mass."
Pete
Pmb
<karand...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1169491334.6...@a75g2000cwd.googlegroups.com...
In any case why in the world would I ever want to twist something around???
I'm usually, if not always, quite precise when I'm writing a post.
pete
Pmb
In any case I've been talking about the **relativistic mass** from the start
of the original thread until now. Like some others I use the term "inertial
mass" and like "mass" some people take that to mean proper mass. In any case
I always place an (aka "relativistic mass") next to the term at least once
when I use it. And that's the name of the game, i.e. specify your terms!
Pete - for the last time in this thread
Ken S. Tucker
Pmb wrote:
> "Ken S. Tucker" <dyna...@vianet.on.ca> wrote in message
> news:1169456135.2...@l53g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
>
> > Pete et al,
> > As I understand one cannot transform tensor
> > components between frames moving at relative "c",
> > it's an improper transformation, so as a result
> > assigning components to a "flying photon" is
> > mute, it can't be done.
>
> That is true for the 4-velocity but false for 4-momentum. Inertial mass (aka
> rel-mass) is proportional to the time component of the 4-momentum, i.e. P^0
> = mc.
Ok, what experiment can you describe to prove
your equation?
Ken
Pmb
>
> Pmb wrote:
>> "Ken S. Tucker" <dyna...@vianet.on.ca> wrote in message
>> news:1169456135.2...@l53g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
>>
>> > Pete et al,
>> > As I understand one cannot transform tensor
>> > components between frames moving at relative "c",
>> > it's an improper transformation, so as a result
>> > assigning components to a "flying photon" is
>> > mute, it can't be done.
>>
>> That is true for the 4-velocity but false for 4-momentum. Inertial mass
>> (aka
>> rel-mass) is proportional to the time component of the 4-momentum, i.e.
>> P^0
>> = mc.
>
> Ok, what experiment can you describe to prove
> your equation?
> Ken
Definitions cannot be "proved" in any way that I know of. Are asking me
about proving that there is a 4-momentum to a photon??
Regards
Pete
Eric Gisse
Who gives a shit?
Null rest mass ---> Null relativistic mass.
harry
"Eric Gisse" <jow...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1169518613.2...@11g2000cwr.googlegroups.com...
According to you, 0/0 = 0 ? ;-))
Tom Roberts
> Null rest mass ---> Null relativistic mass.
I assume by "null" you mean zero. Do you seriously think 0/0 = 0 ???
The formula for "relativistic mass" M_r is
M_r = m / sqrt(1-v^2/c^2)
and for a zero-mass particle v=c so both numerator and denominator are zero.
[And if you try to argue that some sort of limiting process
could be used, it should be clear that one could choose to
make v be a function of m such that any value could be
obtained in the limit m->0.]
While I agree that the use of "relativistic mass" is both a confusing
pun and unwarranted, I think that arguments against it should be valid.
Yours isn't.
Tom Roberts
karand...@yahoo.com
Harry,
Are you sure that Eric is talking about lim (x/y) when x->0 and y->0 ?
Perhaps he's talking about another limit, like lim 0/y when y->0?
Be careful with the irony, it may bite you back.
MathMagician
"Tom Roberts" <tjrobe...@sbcglobal.net> wrote in message news:4qpth.51728$wc5....@newssvr25.news.prodigy.net...
> Eric Gisse wrote:
>> Null rest mass ---> Null relativistic mass.
>
> I assume by "null" you mean zero. Do you seriously think 0/0 = 0 ???
What do you think it is, Roberts?
Pmb
"Tom Roberts" <tjrobe...@sbcglobal.net> wrote in message
news:4qpth.51728$wc5....@newssvr25.news.prodigy.net...
>> Null rest mass ---> Null relativistic mass.
>
> I assume by "null" you mean zero. Do you seriously think 0/0 = 0 ???
>
> The formula for "relativistic mass" M_r is
> M_r = m / sqrt(1-v^2/c^2)
> and for a zero-mass particle v=c so both numerator and denominator are
> zero.
The correct formula for relativistic mass is the m in p = mv. That this
quantity is defined as a quantity to be conserved in elastic collisions
defines the rel-mass. For a photon v = c so p = mc => m = p/c = (E/c)/c =
E/c^2. Only when the particle is tardyon does the relation " M_r = m_0 /
sqrt(1-v^2/c^2)" apply since that is the assumption on which the derivation
of that expression is based.
Pmb
Eric Gisse
Tom Roberts wrote:
> Eric Gisse wrote:
> > Null rest mass ---> Null relativistic mass.
>
> I assume by "null" you mean zero. Do you seriously think 0/0 = 0 ???
I should have said zero, but I was getting tired of saying zero because
it wasn't sinking in.
...and no, I do not think 0/0 = 0.
>
> The formula for "relativistic mass" M_r is
> M_r = m / sqrt(1-v^2/c^2)
> and for a zero-mass particle v=c so both numerator and denominator are zero.
>
> [And if you try to argue that some sort of limiting process
> could be used, it should be clear that one could choose to
> make v be a function of m such that any value could be
> obtained in the limit m->0.]
>
> While I agree that the use of "relativistic mass" is both a confusing
> pun and unwarranted, I think that arguments against it should be valid.
> Yours isn't.
My argument is that since the photon has no rest mass, the concept of
relativistic mass is worthless. The 0/0 crap is a good example of _why_
that is the case.
>
>
> Tom Roberts
bergeron
Pmb wrote:
> "Tom Roberts" <tjrobe...@sbcglobal.net> wrote in message
> news:4qpth.51728$wc5....@newssvr25.news.prodigy.net...
> > Eric Gisse wrote:
> >> Null rest mass ---> Null relativistic mass.
> >
> > I assume by "null" you mean zero. Do you seriously think 0/0 = 0 ???
> >
> > The formula for "relativistic mass" M_r is
> > M_r = m / sqrt(1-v^2/c^2)
> > and for a zero-mass particle v=c so both numerator and denominator are
> > zero.
>
> The correct formula for relativistic mass is the m in p = mv. That this
p is not mv, even in a Newtonian setting.
p is defined by p = dL/dq_dot, with L being the
Lagrangian and q = q(x) possibly depending on
the coordinates. That definition
is fundamental to obtaining the Hamililtonian
as the total energy via the Legendre transform,
H = pq_dot - L = (dL/dq_dot)q_dot - L.
The concept of relativistic mass only appears
in intoductory textbooks for the dubious
pedagogical value of making relativity look like
Newtonian mechanics to unlucky students.
> quantity is defined as a quantity to be conserved in elastic
collisions
> defines the rel-mass. For a photon v = c so p = mc => m = p/c = (E/c)/c =
> E/c^2. Only when the particle is tardyon does the relation "
Give me any example of an elastic collision and I'll obtain the
kinematics
faster and more clearly without ever using those definitions. if the
calculation
can be done more easily without introducing extraneous and inconsistent
terminology, why would you think introducing those definitions is a
help?
> M_r = m_0 /
> sqrt(1-v^2/c^2)" apply since that is the assumption on which the derivation
> of that expression is based.
Have you noticed that you have to go to a lot of effort just to
define things which
only obscure the physics and looks like a set of ad hoc rules? Special
(or general)
relativity is not Galilean relativity.
Mike
Your argument demonstrates you are an imbecile lacking basic knowledge
in physics, math, even simple algebra. In other words you are a total
waste.
The rest mass of a photon is (probably) zero stupid but its
relativistic mass is frequncy dependent.
M_r x 0 = 0 is ok, you imbecile. M_r is not zero.
Mike
>
> >
> >
> > Tom Roberts
harry
>
> Pmb wrote:
>> "Tom Roberts" <tjrobe...@sbcglobal.net> wrote in message
>> news:4qpth.51728$wc5....@newssvr25.news.prodigy.net...
>> > Eric Gisse wrote:
>> >> Null rest mass ---> Null relativistic mass.
>> >
>> > I assume by "null" you mean zero. Do you seriously think 0/0 = 0 ???
>> >
>> > The formula for "relativistic mass" M_r is
>> > M_r = m / sqrt(1-v^2/c^2)
>> > and for a zero-mass particle v=c so both numerator and denominator are
>> > zero.
>>
>> The correct formula for relativistic mass is the m in p = mv. That this
>
> p is not mv, even in a Newtonian setting.
- You're terribly mistaken: p = mv in one of Newton's definitions and that
definition is also used for "relativistic mass". You're not obliged
to use it of course. ;-)
Harald
Pmb
"harry" <harald.vanlin...@epfl.ch> wrote in message
news:1169727...@sicinfo3.epfl.ch...
You're a bright man Harald. :) In fact this post was why I started the
thread on the definition of momentum. bergeron confused mechanical momentum
p = mv with canonical momentum. The two have different values in general and
I was correct by what I was using.
Kind Regards
Pete
bergeron
harry wrote:
> "bergeron" <badd...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:1169663220.4...@13g2000cwe.googlegroups.com...
> >
> > Pmb wrote:
> >> "Tom Roberts" <tjrobe...@sbcglobal.net> wrote in message
> >> news:4qpth.51728$wc5....@newssvr25.news.prodigy.net...
> >> > Eric Gisse wrote:
> >> >> Null rest mass ---> Null relativistic mass.
> >> >
> >> > I assume by "null" you mean zero. Do you seriously think 0/0 = 0 ???
> >> >
> >> > The formula for "relativistic mass" M_r is
> >> > M_r = m / sqrt(1-v^2/c^2)
> >> > and for a zero-mass particle v=c so both numerator and denominator are
> >> > zero.
> >>
> >> The correct formula for relativistic mass is the m in p = mv. That this
> >
> > p is not mv, even in a Newtonian setting.
>
> - You're terribly mistaken: p = mv in one of Newton's definitions
Go buy a textbook on classical mechanics. First of all, that is not
what Newton wrote. It is probably what he meant, but it goes to show
that you make it up as you go. Second, since Newton never defined
kinetic
energy; that came much later. So, of you want to limit your definition
of
Newtonian mechanics to that which Newton explicitly wrote down, rather
than
the physics it led to and which the rest of the world calls Newtonian
mechanics,
be my guest. Third, if you want to define a Hamiltonian which is the
total
energy, then the momentum follows from p = dL/dx_dot.
> and that definition is also used for "relativistic mass".
Fourth, that cannot be the same definition that applies to Newtonian
mechanics,
(except at the simplistic level of the audience at which that dubious
pedagogical
construct is aimed).
> You're not obliged
> to use it of course. ;-)
Why thanks, but I realized that long before I had your
blessing to do so.
bergeron
Pmb wrote:
> You're a bright man Harald. :) In fact this post was why I started the
> thread on the definition of momentum. bergeron confused mechanical momentum
> p = mv with canonical momentum.
No, I did not. I made it very clear that my definition of
momentum was the momentum defined for the case where the
Hamiltonian is the total energy.
> The two have different values in general and
> I was correct by what I was using.
Then basically, your argument amounts to claiming
that relativistic mass is useful so long as you have
no interest in applying relativity to fundamental
phenomena.
Mike
On Jan 26, 6:26 am, "bergeron" <badd_...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> harry wrote:
> > "bergeron" <badd_...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> >news:1169663220.4...@13g2000cwe.googlegroups.com...
>
> > > Pmb wrote:
> > >> "Tom Roberts" <tjroberts...@sbcglobal.net> wrote in message
> > >>news:4qpth.51728$wc5....@newssvr25.news.prodigy.net...
> > >> > Eric Gisse wrote:
> > >> >> Null rest mass ---> Null relativistic mass.
>
> > >> > I assume by "null" you mean zero. Do you seriously think 0/0 = 0 ???
>
> > >> > The formula for "relativistic mass" M_r is
> > >> > M_r = m / sqrt(1-v^2/c^2)
> > >> > and for a zero-mass particle v=c so both numerator and denominator are
> > >> > zero.
>
> > >> The correct formula for relativistic mass is the m in p = mv. That this
>
> > > p is not mv, even in a Newtonian setting.
>
> > - You're terribly mistaken: p = mv in one of Newton's definitions
> Go buy a textbook on classical mechanics. First of all, that is not
> what Newton wrote. It is probably what he meant, but it goes to show
> that you make it up as you go.
You are wrong:
DEFINITION II.
The quantity of motion is the measure of the same, arising from the
velocity and quantity of matter conjunctly. The motion of the whole is
the sum of the motions of all the parts; and therefore in a body double
in quantity, with equal velocity, the motion is double; with twice the
velocity, it is quadruple.
http://members.tripod.com/~gravitee/definitions.htm
Then, on the second law:
"The alteration of motion is ever proportional to the motive force
impressed; and is made in the direction of the right line in which that
force is impressed."
http://members.tripod.com/~gravitee/axioms.htm
Not only Newton was the first to define p = mv as a vector (he called
it quantity of motion then) but he was also the first to to come up
with a science that will always be ahead of its time.
Mike
> Second, since Newton never defined
> kinetic
> energy; that came much later. So, of you want to limit your definition
> of
> Newtonian mechanics to that which Newton explicitly wrote down, rather
> than
> the physics it led to and which the rest of the world calls Newtonian
> mechanics,
> be my guest. Third, if you want to define a Hamiltonian which is the
> total
> energy, then the momentum follows from p = dL/dx_dot.
>
> > and that definition is also used for "relativistic mass". Fourth, that cannot be the same definition that applies to Newtonian
> mechanics,
> (except at the simplistic level of the audience at which that dubious
> pedagogical
> construct is aimed).
>
> > You're not obliged
> > to use it of course. ;-) Why thanks, but I realized that long before I had your
> blessing to do so.- Hide quoted text -- Show quoted text -
Pmb
"Mike" <ele...@yahoo.gr> wrote in message
news:1169865815.8...@l53g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
Hi Mike
I have to congradulate you on your patience with someone who has a serious
problem with the basics. I can only wish I could be so patient with people
like him. I have a lot of respect for you in this sense.
Pete
Koobee Wublee
> Eric Gisse wrote:
> > Null rest mass ---> Null relativistic mass.
>
> I assume by "null" you mean zero. Do you seriously think 0/0 = 0 ???
>
> The formula for "relativistic mass" M_r is
> M_r = m / sqrt(1-v^2/c^2)
> and for a zero-mass particle v=c so both numerator and denominator are zero.
>
> [And if you try to argue that some sort of limiting process
> could be used, it should be clear that one could choose to
> make v be a function of m such that any value could be
> obtained in the limit m->0.]
Thank you for coming down hard on this person who only accepts
spoon-fed nonsense.
> While I agree that the use of "relativistic mass" is both a confusing
> pun and unwarranted,
Relativistic mass is merely an observed mass in which you have agreed.
<shrug>
> I think that arguments against it should be valid.
However, the rest mass is not necessarily the intrinsic mass. Did I
open myself up for more ridicules by the clowns?
> Yours isn't.
I agree.
Koobee Wublee
> Pmb wrote:
> > The correct formula for relativistic mass is the m in p = mv
> That this p is not mv, even in a Newtonian setting.
You must be a clown. <shrug>
> p is defined by p = dL/dq_dot, with L being the
> Lagrangian and q = q(x) possibly depending on
> the coordinates. That definition
> is fundamental to obtaining the Hamililtonian
> as the total energy via the Legendre transform,
> H = pq_dot - L = (dL/dq_dot)q_dot - L.
Geez! This is very skin-deep. Care to derive what L is? What
justifies L to be a density of something? What is this something?
> The concept of relativistic mass only appears
> in intoductory textbooks for the dubious
> pedagogical value of making relativity look like
> Newtonian mechanics to unlucky students.
You are not educated enough to judge that. <shrug>
> > quantity is defined as a quantity to be conserved in elastic
> collisions
>
> > defines the rel-mass. For a photon v = c so p = mc => m = p/c = (E/c)/c =
> > E/c^2. Only when the particle is tardyon does the relation "
>
> Give me any example of an elastic collision and I'll obtain the
> kinematics faster and more clearly without ever using those
> definitions. if the calculation can be done more easily without
> introducing extraneous and inconsistent terminology, why
> would you think introducing those definitions is a help?
Derive me the Lagrangian that you have claimed, and we will be even.
> > M_r = m_0 / sqrt(1-v^2/c^2)" apply since that is the assumption
> > on which the derivation of that expression is based.
>
> Have you noticed that you have to go to a lot of effort just to
> define things which > only obscure the physics and looks like
> a set of ad hoc rules?
No, on the contrary, it is the easiest way to define an observed mass.
<shrug>
> Special (or general) relativity is not Galilean relativity.
But SR embraces the principle of Relativity from the Galilean physics
which is fine. However, all experimental interpretations really f*ck
up the principle of Relativity royally. <sigh>
karand...@yahoo.com
On Jan 23, 9:05 am, "Pmb" <peter102560_nos...@comcast.net> >The correct
formula for relativistic mass is the m in p = mv.
>
> Pmb
Not exactly:
The so-called "relativistic nass" is the meaningless, antiquated entity
that intervenes in:
1. Relativistic momentum p=gamma*m*v
2. Relativistic energy: E=gamma*m*c^2
m=proper mass (the only meaningful physical entity)
If one insists to put a pair of parenses around (gamma*m) and call
this "relativistic mass" , this is ok, it still has no meaning other
than that would be what an observer moving at speed v would measure the
mass m to be. Give it another 10 years, this notion will disappear even
from the next edition of your beloved Schutz that you like to quote so
much. And it will disappear because it is a meaningless entity, with no
intrinsic (excuse the pun) physical meaning.
Once you come to grips that "relativistic mass" is meaningless, you
will also manage to come to grips with the "massless photon". Give it
another 10 years. ok?
Pmb
<karand...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1169885560.4...@k78g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
>
>
> On Jan 23, 9:05 am, "Pmb" <peter102560_nos...@comcast.net> >The correct
> formula for relativistic mass is the m in p = mv.
>>
>> Pmb
>
> Not exactly:
>
> The so-called "relativistic nass" is the meaningless, antiquated entity
> that intervenes in:
>
> 1. Relativistic momentum p=gamma*m*v
> 2. Relativistic energy: E=gamma*m*c^2
>
> m=proper mass (the only meaningful physical entity)
>
> If one insists to put a pair of parenses around (gamma*m) and call
> this "relativistic mass" , this is ok, it still has no meaning other
> than that would be what an observer moving at speed v would measure the
> mass m to be. Give it another 10 years, this notion will disappear even
> from the next edition of your beloved Schutz that you like to quote so
> much.
I rarely quote texts and when I do its to demonstrate the existance of a
statement which others claim don't exist.
> And it will disappear because it is a meaningless entity, ...
according to you and some others and not according to still others. Why
you're so anxious to force you're opinion on me is beyond me. I could just
as well state that it is quite meaningful and very useful and you couldn't
prove otherwise except to get a bunch of people to vote on it.
with no
> intrinsic (excuse the pun) physical meaning.
> Once you come to grips that "relativistic mass" is meaningless, you
> will also manage to come to grips with the "massless photon". Give it
> another 10 years. ok?
I don't undestand why it bothers you so darn much that I hold it to be a
valid concept. I doubt that you've undertaken to study the entier concept of
mass to the extent that I did and it wasn't until the end of that 6 years
that I chose an opinion. But like everyone else you seem to believe that I
either chose it on a whim without any good reason or that I simply stuck to
what by old sr text says that I learned SR from, right?
Pete
Mike
On Jan 27, 3:12 am, karandash2...@yahoo.com wrote:
> On Jan 23, 9:05 am, "Pmb" <peter102560_nos...@comcast.net> >The correct
> formula for relativistic mass is the m in p = mv.
>
>
>
> > PmbNot exactly:
>
> The so-called "relativistic nass" is the meaningless, antiquated entity
> that intervenes in:
Everyone in these groups knows you are a lunatic. You first cann
relativistic mass mieaningless and later on you admit that this
meaningless quantity can be measured "... it still has no meaning
other than that would be what an observer moving at speed v would
measure the mass m to be."
hey, phakhead karandash how meaningless is a quantity that can be
measured.
>
> 1. Relativistic momentum p=gamma*m*v
> 2. Relativistic energy: E=gamma*m*c^2
>
> m=proper mass (the only meaningful physical entity)
>
> If one insists to put a pair of parenses around (gamma*m) and call
> this "relativistic mass" , this is ok, it still has no meaning other
> than that would be what an observer moving at speed v would measure the
> mass m to be. Give it another 10 years....
and we will have a device to measure how phaked up is the head of
people like you, lunatic impecile karandash.
Hey phakhead, I am asking you again: how meaningless is a quantity
that ACCORDING TO YOU can be measured?
idiot, sooner or later idiots like you are exposed by exhibiting a
profound misunderstanding of even the simplest concepts. So is your
MIRROR IMAGE Eric GIssa.
I suggest ou take your fingure and stick it hard where it belongs.
Mike
Pmb
Well said sir. Mike, is karandash and androcles one in the same person?
Best regards
Pete
karand...@yahoo.com
On Jan 27, 12:46 am, "Pmb" <peter102560_nos...@comcast.net> wrote:
> But like everyone else you seem to believe that I
> either chose it on a whim without any good reason or that I simply stuck to
> what by old sr text says that I learned SR from, right?
>
> Pete
I simply think that you are wasting your time on an irrelevant issue.
karand...@yahoo.com
On Jan 27, 4:14 am, "Mike" <elea...@yahoo.gr> wrote:
><ranting and raving snipped>
>
> Mike
Still trying to discuss concepts that you don't understand?
Still trying to pass yourself as a "scientist" when it is clear that
u flunked 9-th grade repeatedly until you had to transfer to an
obscure school in Greece , where you continued flunking?
How is that you "Newton first law" going? "If F=0 THEN v=0"? I love
it when you start "calculating, drolly - trolly.
How is your "breakthrough" on the OWLS measurement coming along? You
threatened with it months ago and you produced absolutely .....zero?
To be fair, you produced a lot of foam at the mouth and a lot of shit
that you got to eat on your own. Fuck off, shithead!
karand...@yahoo.com
On Jan 27, 6:20 am, "Pmb" <peter102560_nos...@comcast.net> wrote:
> "Mike" <elea...@yahoo.gr> wrote in messagenews:1169900095.1...@m58g2000cwm.googlegroups.com...
> > MikeWell said sir. Mike, is karandash and androcles one in the same person?
>
> Best regards
>
> Pete
Now you are sucking each others dicks? "Pete and Mike", this is
droll......
Mike
On Jan 27, 10:30 am, karandash2...@yahoo.com wrote:
> On Jan 27, 4:14 am, "Mike" <elea...@yahoo.gr> wrote:
>
> ><ranting and raving snipped>
>
> > MikeStill trying to discuss concepts that you don't understand?
> Still trying to pass yourself as a "scientist" when it is clear that
> u flunked 9-th grade repeatedly until you had to transfer to an
> obscure school in Greece , where you continued flunking?
>
> How is that you "Newton first law" going? "If F=0 THEN v=0"? I love
> it when you start "calculating, drolly - trolly.
Idiot, I never said this is Newton's first law, I was talking about
non-inertial frames and I corrected THEN to AND and said that F = 0
AND v= 0 statisfy Newton's first law since rest is one conditrion
allowed by the law when F = 0.
But you do nto understand physics, it is obvious when you claim that
something that can be measured, according to you, is of no
significance.
You are the drolly - trolly thes groups, everyone now sees that, you
are the kak saking idiot, probably a retired software moron who wants
to play physicist in these groups.
You ahve been exposed. Now repeat the most significant action you can
do: stick your fingure where it belongs.
Mike
karand...@yahoo.com
On Jan 27, 8:57 am, "Mike" <elea...@yahoo.gr> wrote:
> On Jan 27, 10:30 am, karandash2...@yahoo.com wrote:
>
> > On Jan 27, 4:14 am, "Mike" <elea...@yahoo.gr> wrote:
>
> > ><ranting and raving snipped>
>
> > > MikeStill trying to discuss concepts that you don't understand?
> > Still trying to pass yourself as a "scientist" when it is clear that
> > u flunked 9-th grade repeatedly until you had to transfer to an
> > obscure school in Greece , where you continued flunking?
>
> > How is that you "Newton first law" going? "If F=0 THEN v=0"? I love
> > it when you start "calculating, drolly - trolly
>Idiot, I never said this is Newton's first law, I was talking about
> non-inertial frames and I corrected THEN to AND and said that F = 0
> AND v= 0 statisfy Newton's first law since rest is one conditrion
> allowed by the law when F = 0.
Too late, you were caught and you tried and failed to weasel out. You
don't only write badly, you also lie badly. Unfortunately for you, the
proof remains in the forum posts, imbecillic liar. Everybody knows
that you never got past 8-th grade.
So, how is your "breakthrough" on the OWLS measurement coming along?
You threatened with it months ago and you produced
absolutely .....zero? To be fair, you produced a lot of foam at the
mouth and a lot of shit that you got to eat on your own.Every time you
write up more shit I make you eat it. Fuck off, shithead!
Eric Gisse
Yea remember the time I admitted not knowing what radiation pressure
was? Oh wait, that was you.