An experiment that was never done !!...
Y.Porat
case 1
measuring photon momentum
in a stationary frame
2
measuring a 'similar '' photon momentum **in!!**
a moving frame
(by 'similar' i mean we cant obviously do it
with the **same** photon momentum !!)
3
comparing the above results -- exactly -quantitatively
4
please let me know if it was done
or even possible to do ..........!!!!......
TIA
Y.Porat
---------------------
SolomonW
It cannot be done as a photon is always going at c
Y.Porat
----------------
right for me !!
yet i heard some other ideas ....
can someone with the other ideas
explain why it IS possible ??
so that will be able to clarify it to scratch
once and for all ??
TIA
Y.Porat
-----------------
PD
You can certainly measure the same light from two different reference
frames. You can measure ANY event from two different reference frames.
When you say "measure", this means you will measure certain physical
properties in that frame. As is common in physics, some of the values
of those quantities will vary from frame to frame, and others will be
the same.
Y.Porat
--------------
please dont hand wave
and bring specific examples
of experiments
including specific details
about the way it is done
lets take for instance
measuring the photon momentum
of the same photon
in two frames
if you say 'similar' photons
(that in any case are not the same photon!!)
then tell us how similar they are
quantitatively
TIA
Y.Porat
-------------------------
PD
Sure. Photons from the same elemental source are similar, because they
all have to do with the same transitions between fixed energy states.
For example, you can identify spectral lines as coming from sodium,
either by direct chemical analysis of the source or by the pattern
(ratios of wavelengths) of the lines. Then you can measure light from
that source while it is in motion with respect to the observer (or the
observer is in motion relative to the source -- same result), and
analyze the momenta of the photons from that known source. In fact, by
choosing a thermal source, where a collection of sodium atoms are in
stochastic, thermal motion, you get a *simultaneous* measurement of
the momenta of similar photons (same source energy) as measured in
different frames relative to the source atoms.
This is as far as I will go on a newsgroup about this kind of
experiment. You can find the original articles by using
scholar.google.com, can you not?
PD
Tom Roberts
It has been done. Or at least close enough (measuring frequency and Doppler
shift, not momentum).
See my recent post "Real experiment to measure mutual time dilation".
Tom Roberts
Y.Porat
--------------
please describe the expiment ion more detials
you have the photon from say
a far away galaxy
soit is red shifted
lets cal it a photon A
hf1
now while it comes toour globe
it is
hf2
right?
so can we say by definition that
hf 1
is not hf2
BY DEFINITION
2
I DID respond yet about your
E ^ = mc^2 +mc^2
you falt simple dio not understand it
i wil explain it later
3
you ddint answer about
hf/c
id c there relatiovistic
4
see what SolomonW wrote
btw
it took me only about 5 minutes to answer i have not now enough time
and i applogise it it is not detailed enough
i willdo it later
(you can see the speling mistakes as well (:-)
TIA
Y.Porat
--------------------------
ATB
Y.Porat
-------------------------------
PD
No, I did not say that. I said a sodium source, which can be a sodium
lamp in the laboratory.
>
> lets cal it a photon A
>
> hf1
> now while it comes toour globe
> it is
> hf2
> right?
They are both photons from a sodium source, and since sodium emits
photons ONLY at certain frequencies which correspond to transitions
between its energy states, then we know the photons from the source
are all similar. And yet they exhibit different momenta depending on
the frame.
>
> so can we say by definition that
> hf 1
> is not hf2
> BY DEFINITION
But that would be a stupid way to define the identify of the photons,
and it is not done that way.
Inertial
>It cannot be done as a photon is always going at c
What does that have to o with whether or not one can measure photon
momentum?
Androcles
"Inertial" <relat...@rest.com> wrote in message
news:4c7c5418$0$28638$c3e...@news.astraweb.com...
Y.Porat
stupid ???!!!
(dont start with those words
because i can do it may be better than you ...)
you cant deny the Doppler effect
of photons -- say of your' Sodium
that stem out from a far galaxy
with f1
and come to our globe with f2
while f1 is not f2 BY DEFINITION !!
it means that you (possibly?? ) dont understand the meaning of E=
hf !!! (it is not 'the" single photon !!! it is a huge number of
single photons !!!
2
and btw
if as usual f2 < f1 right ??
so
according to you thje ''same'' (similar') (Sodium) photon that started
as f1 lost energy ??
why should it lose energy??----
because its 'RELATIVISTIC MOTION' '
AT c constant ??!!!!
or may be
because the ''''relativistic mass ' of it became
****smaller **''' ??!!
(please listen to that 'music'---
'''a relativistic mass becomes SMALLER''' ...!!!)
or may be because
hf2 is not hf1 any more ??
and hf1 is not hf2 ??!!!! even by definition !!!
---
that is an answer to only a* few* among many sub issues of the
same issue that are on our table
and should be done one by one later
TIA
Y.Porat
-------------------------------
Inertial
news:90eaad31-77c4-45b4...@q22g2000yqm.googlegroups.com...
>stupid ???!!!
>(dont start with those words
>because i can do it may be better than you ...)
Nope
>you cant deny the Doppler effect
Noone here, other than you, is denying the Doppler effect. You are claiming
it can't be measured.
>of photons -- say of your' Sodium
>that stem out from a far galaxy
>with f1
>and come to our globe with f2
>
>while f1 is not f2 BY DEFINITION !!
PD did NOT deny it .. he said it happened.. gees.
>it means that you (possibly?? ) dont understand the meaning of E=
>hf !!! (it is not 'the" single photon !!! it is a huge number of
>single photons !!!
Which just shows that you DEFINITELY do NOT understand E = hf is the energy
of a SINGLE PHOTON !!! .. by definition, and from experiment
>2
>and btw
>if as usual f2 < f1 right ??
>so
>according to you thje ''same'' (similar') (Sodium) photon that started
>as f1 lost energy ??
It didn't lose anything. In the frame of reference of the observer it has
frequency f2 the whole time (from the moment of emission) .. so nothing is
lost. The frequency is simply a different value in different frames (just
like a train whistle has different frequency in different frames)
>why should it lose energy??----
It doesn't
>because its 'RELATIVISTIC MOTION' '
>AT c constant ??!!!!
>or may be
>because the ''''relativistic mass ' of it became
>****smaller **''' ??!!
It doesn't lose energy
>(please listen to that 'music'---
>'''a relativistic mass becomes SMALLER''' ...!!!)
Nothing wrong with something having different relativistic masses in
different frames .. and if different, one will be smaller and the other
large. This is nothing new .. no need for 'music'
>or may be because
>
>hf2 is not hf1 any more ??
if f1 is not the same as f2, hf1 is not the same as hf2 .. that is obvious
> and hf1 is not hf2 ??!!!! even by definition !!!
Noone said it was the same. You keep lying about what other people claim ..
you make up your own nonsense to argue against
>---
>that is an answer to only a* few* among many sub issues of the
>same issue that are on our table
WE have the answer .. you just don't listen to them .. that's why you remain
ignorant
>and should be done one by one later
Gees. .. will your stupidity never end. of course it will .. when you die.
I can't wait for that blessed day.
BURT
Light has no momentum. When it is absorbed it doesn't change the
motion
of the absorber. And it certainly doesn't bounce or ricochet.
Mitch Raemsch
Y.Porat
----------------
i will not dsicuss with a psychopath imbecile anonymous lier!!
even if actually PD i s hiding as an anonymous
behind that moron crook
you can never discuss with dishonest people !!
Y.P
------------------------
Y.Porat
---------------------
Y.Porat
=-----------------
what is more relavant to us
a Doppler effect
measured statistically as a mean of a huge number of cases that
involves
***small differences of velocity**
done with entities on our globe
or
cases like redshift from running away
galaxies with huge velocity ??!!
2
did you hear the strange rumor
that photons do not belong at all
to relativity ??
because while
V=C relativity becomes undefined
and remains out of doors !!
for just a little instance
E=hf
ddint stem **at all ** from relativity
it was found experimentally by Planck
without the smallest bit need to use relativity
Y.Porat
-------------------------------
PD
Oh but it does!
> And it certainly doesn't bounce or ricochet.
That's true. But it doesn't have to bounce or ricochet to transfer
momentum. A bullet in a block of wood does the same.
>
> Mitch Raemsch
Inertial
news:f976ca3e-0eda-4c47...@s9g2000yqd.googlegroups.com...
>for just a little instance
>E=hf
>ddint stem **at all ** from relativity
>it was found experimentally by Planck
>without the smallest bit need to use relativity
And *you* DENIED that E = hf time after time after time after time. Now you
quote it .. You're a pathetic little hypocrite.
Inertial
news:803a5fac-3018-4beb...@l38g2000pro.googlegroups.com...
>Light has no momentum.
Wrong .. it is measured experimentally
Inertial
news:dbf5aaf1-e8c3-40df...@a36g2000yqc.googlegroups.com...
>i will not dsicuss with a psychopath imbecile anonymous lier!!
>even if actually PD i s hiding as an anonymous
>behind that moron crook
>you can never discuss with dishonest people !!
I know .. I've tried with you .. but you are nothing but a lying piece of
shit who, I hope, dies painfully and soon .. even THAT is better than you
deserve.
Y.Porat
-----------------
lier psycho crook imbecile sub human creature
--------------------------------------
Y.Porat
i denied E= hf
AS THE FORMULA OF A **SINGLE PHOTON**
energy
got it pigshit retarded subhuman creep ??!!
go fuck yourself with
Josef Goebbels
actually to compare you anonymous pig
to Goebbels is an insult to Goebbels
Y.P
----------------------------------------
----------------------------
Y.Porat
---------------------
A question to MR PD:
lets take a common case
in which we take a SINGLE PHOTON''
from a far away galaxy that is running fast from us
its original energy is
hf1
now while it comes to our globe
it is (red shifted )
detected as having
hf2
while
f2 is slower than f1
so obviously that photon
lost some of its Energy !
now
do you agree with 'Inertial'
that this photon lost some of its energy
somewhere before entering to our globe (anyway before being
detected)
so
if that SINGLE PHOTON hf1
lost energy it is because (to become hf2 )
i t lost some of its FAMOUS RELATIVISTIC MASS'
therefore lost energy!!
(while we keep always in mind the fact
that that photon no matter where it is moving
***IT MOVES ALWAYS WITH THE CONSTANT VELOCITY c !!)??***
so do you agree with 'Inertial' ??
or may be you have another explanation why that
'SINGLE PHOTON' ' lost some of its energy ??
TIA
Y.Porat
-----------------------------------
SolomonW
The proposal was to measuring a 'similar '' photon momentum **in!!**
a moving frame.
PD
Porat, Porat, Porat.
A car driving along a road has a speed of 20 km/s and a mass of 2000
kg, according to an observer sitting on a bench. To this observer, the
car has a kinetic energy of 400 kJ.
But this VERY SAME car is seen by a passing motorcyclist to have a
speed of only 5 km/s. To this observer, the car has a kinetic energy
of 25 kJ.
So how is it the car lost energy (375 kJ!) just by being observed by
the motorcyclist rather than the guy on the bench?
Lest you think this is something unrelated, it is VERY related. When
you can first answer the question above, then we'll talk about why
they're related. If you don't know the answer to the question above at
all, then you've got no business asking the question about photons.
Y.Porat
> On Tue, 31 Aug 2010 09:59:26 +1000, Inertial wrote:
>
> >>It cannot be done as a photon is always going at c
> > What does that have to o with whether or not one can measure photon
> > momentum?
>
> The proposal was to measuring a 'similar '' photon momentum **in!!**
> a moving frame.
------------------
and BTW we can have THE
measurment tools
only in one frame ....
2
even if we could have it in two frames
it would not be identical tools
as far as i understand
the accuracy of relativistic measurements
should be extremely accurate
3
if it i s in two frames
we have the problem of sending the results by our electronic
instruments
from one frame to the other
(in order to compare them )!!
isnt that so ??
Y.Porat
-------------
Y.Porat
-------------------
(:-)
you forgot that a car and a byke
are not moving at c !!!
the example is out of the blue example
we are dealing with photons
photons are not cars!!
whil e moving at c
RELATIVITY DOES NOT APPLY ANYMORE !!]
GUESS WHY ??
2
now please answer my question exactly about
***photon energy** starting with f1
and entring our globe with f2
slower than f1
in case you ddint heare about it
the gamma factor
** DOES NOT APPLY TO THE PHOTON!!**
now
energy was lost at the secondary frame !!
what happened to that energy
was it or the SINGLE (AGAIN SINGLE)
photon spitted in two parts or what ??
3
dont be a demagogue that is taking the issue to other lands !!
just try and answer my question FIRST
as it is common in decent discussions
and while we are dealing with potato
dont tel us stories about tomato !!!
just stick to the potato
in al frames the photon will be observed as moving at c
so why should its relativistic mass or energy
be changed or splited at the secondary frame entrance ?
while it is considered by you
TO BE A SINGLE ENTITY?
can a ***single entity** be splited to
two **single entities* ??!!
while the observation and your 'messurments
show that they are different entities
hf1
is not hf2!!
and both of them
STARTED (stemmed ) FROM THE ONE hf1 !!
not from different sources !!
and turned to be
one of them
hf 1
and the second one
hf2
???
----------------------
TIA
Y.Porat
-----------------------------
PD
Reread what I said:
Lest you think this is something unrelated, it is VERY related. When
you can first answer the question above, then we'll talk about why
they're related. If you don't know the answer to the question above at
all, then you've got no business asking the question about photons.
Now, do you know the answer to the question above or not?
Henry Wilson DSc
wrote:
Porat, the Pound/Rebka experiment effectively detects the change in momentum of
a falling photon.
It demonstrates that light increases speed just like a particle of matter.
Henry Wilson...
.......Einstein's Relativity...The religion that worships negative space.
Henry Wilson DSc
.....that's because they have different VELOCITIES in different frames.
Henry Wilson DSc
Define 'f', dopey...
>Noone said it was the same. You keep lying about what other people claim ..
>you make up your own nonsense to argue against
>
>>---
>>that is an answer to only a* few* among many sub issues of the
>>same issue that are on our table
>
>WE have the answer .. you just don't listen to them .. that's why you remain
>ignorant
>
>>and should be done one by one later
>
>Gees. .. will your stupidity never end. of course it will .. when you die.
>I can't wait for that blessed day.
Inertial
news:8e9662e9-7168-4293...@m1g2000yqo.googlegroups.com...
On Aug 31, 2:30 pm, "Y.Porat" <y.y.po...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Aug 31, 12:18 pm, "Inertial" <relativ...@rest.com> wrote:
>
> > "Y.Porat" wrote in message
>
> >news:f976ca3e-0eda-4c47...@s9g2000yqd.googlegroups.com...
>
> > >for just a little instance
> > >E=hf
> > >ddint stem **at all ** from relativity
> > >it was found experimentally by Planck
> > >without the smallest bit need to use relativity
>
> > And *you* DENIED that E = hf time after time after time after time. Now
> > you
> > quote it .. You're a pathetic little hypocrite.
>
> -----------------
> lier psycho crook imbecile sub human creature
> --------------------------------------
>i denied E= hf
>AS THE FORMULA OF A **SINGLE PHOTON**
> energy
Glad you admit that you lied. You deny what Planck found from experiment
... that E = hf is the energy of a photon. Thanks for agreeing that you're
a pathetic little hypocrite.
Inertial
You still haven't answered the question .. photons going at c doesn't mean
you can't measure the momentum of that photon from one of a number of
differently moving frames. You must be confused.
Inertial
news:d0ba6ae5-3ce0-4db5...@f42g2000yqn.googlegroups.com...
>
>On Aug 31, 4:26 pm, SolomonW <Solom...@nospamMail.com> wrote:
>> On Tue, 31 Aug 2010 09:59:26 +1000, Inertial wrote:
>> > "SolomonW" wrote in messagenews:XYKeo.49024$Hu7.23427@hurricane...
>>
>> >>It cannot be done as a photon is always going at c
>> > What does that have to o with whether or not one can measure photon
>> > momentum?
>>
>> The proposal was to measuring a 'similar '' photon momentum **in!!**
>> a moving frame.
>
>------------------
>and BTW we can have THE
>measurment tools
>only in one frame ....
Wrong .. moron. We can have the measuring tools in whatever frame we can
place them .. you HAVE to have your measurement tool at rest in the frame
you are measuring from in order to measure in that frame. Gees .. you are
SUCH a fucking moron
PD
Nope. If they did, there would be a time dependence to the arrival of
different frequencies of the light. So we'd see the redder photons
after the bluer photons from a sodium lamp flash. Since the speed
difference, according to you, would be directly proportional to the
frequency difference, it's easy to design an apparatus sensitive
enough to this time lag. It's been done and not seen.
PD
BURT
>
> - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
Experiments that have never been done?
There is way to many of them!!!
Mitch Raemsch
Inertial
news:hfvq76lph774e0bgg...@4ax.com...
>Porat, the Pound/Rebka experiment effectively detects the change in
>momentum of
>a falling photon.
>It demonstrates that light increases speed just like a particle of matter.
Light in vacuo is always measured locally as travelling at speed c. But as
time is not uniform and absolute (eg we know that it depends on
gravitational potential), the net speed of light measured non-locally can be
different to c. Light travelling through a region where a difference in
gravitation potential slows time (relative to some outside observer) will
appear to that outside observer as travelling slower.
Y.Porat
as usual
the pigshit crook Paul Draper cant answer a question that a secondary
school boy could answer!!
why
bacause it will put him in a position of an idiot parrot
that could not understand it much earlier !!
(in much earlier discussions )
and he is caling himself a
TEACHER PF PHYSICS !!
THAT PIGSHIT IS USING AS WELL 3 FALSE NAMES!!
Inertial =Artful = Whoever
fo rhis gangster activity
that entered this NG about just only one year ago!!
AND RIGHT BY ARRIVAL STARTED
IMMEDIATELY THEY GANGSTER ACTIVITY !!
now have a lok at his real motivation here
sitting day and night next tothe computer
as a bump parasite for stealing information and know ledge
and here is real motivation :
--------------------------------
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
----------------------------
With Out A NEED FOR ADDITIONAL WORDS
Y.Porat
---------------------------
Y.Porat
> "Y.Porat" wrote in message
>
> news:8e9662e9-7168-4293...@m1g2000yqo.googlegroups.com...
>
> On Aug 31, 2:30 pm, "Y.Porat" <y.y.po...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> > On Aug 31, 12:18 pm, "Inertial" <relativ...@rest.com> wrote:
>
> > > "Y.Porat" wrote in message
>
> > >news:f976ca3e-0eda-4c47...@s9g2000yqd.googlegroups.com...
>
> > > >for just a little instance
> > > >E=hf
> > > >ddint stem **at all ** from relativity
> > > >it was found experimentally by Planck
> > > >without the smallest bit need to use relativity
>
> > > And *you* DENIED that E = hf time after time after time after time. Now
> > > you
> > > quote it .. You're a pathetic little hypocrite.
>
> > -----------------
> > lier psycho crook imbecile sub human creature
> > --------------------------------------
> >i denied E= hf
> >AS THE FORMULA OF A **SINGLE PHOTON**
> > energy
>
> Glad you admit that you lied. You deny what Planck found from experiment
> ... that E = hf is the energy of a photon. Thanks for agreeing that you're
> a pathetic little hypocrite.
-----------------
i said that i will not discuss anymore with
little
Josef Goebbels
Y.P
--------------------
Inertial
news:c54fdddc-a8fb-4314...@x42g2000yqx.googlegroups.com...
> [snip baseless libellous allegations and lies]
nothing of worth left
Inertial
news:782a1299-1791-4b02...@y11g2000yqm.googlegroups.com...
> i said that i will not discuss anymore with
>little
Who is this little? No-one here called 'little' of whom I am aware.
>Josef Goebbels
I'm glad to see you now signing your name correctly as 'Josef Goebbels'.
That is clear proof that you are indeed Josef Goebbels himself, and that you
were just hiding behind the anonymous nickname Porat .. isn't that a valid
conclusion to draw? It certainly has more evidence to support it than
anything YOU ever alleged.
Jowitz
news:4c7d965b$0$11102$c3e...@news.astraweb.com:
Wouldn't the photon just redshift and blueshift appropriately?
Y.Porat
> On Tue, 31 Aug 2010 09:12:08 -0700 (PDT), "Y.Porat" <y.y.po...@gmail.com>
-----------------
light moves as far as known until now
moves at a constant speed c
2
our issue is
is the photon momentum relativistic or not
hf
has nothing to do with relativity
c is not relativistic since it is a constant
only pigsjits like Inertial and PD
has to pigish impertinence
to say that c is relativistic to itself !
(the limit of stupidity and malice
underestimating the intelligence of most decent people here )
i just wonder where is all the silent
majority in this ng
that do not come to crush down those
shameless pigs !
with their shameless impertinence
to say that c is relativistic to c !!
and nearly no one here is blinking an eye !!
so
bottom line
photon momentum =hf/c
AND NOTHING IN IT IS RELATIVISTIC !!
hf has nothing to do with relativity
c is a constant
so
noting in hf/c is relativistic
SO AGAIN
NO MASS - THE ONLY ONE- NO REAL PHYSICS!
that is a revolution in modern physics !!
and no pigshit will stop it
YOU CANT CHEAT EVERY BODY --FOREVER !!
ATB
Y.Porat
-------------------------------------
Y.Porat
--------------------------------
Y.Porat
and as usual
while the pigshit PD crook and thief is pushed to the corner
he is running away like a rabbit !!
(comes again only with his Pigs
anonymous 'Inertial ' 'mask )
btw
never saw any dispute of differences
between
the crook PD and the crook
Inertial=Artful= Whoever !!!...--
only *always* unconditional self support
all of them are doing the same business
with that above private publishing Company
some material for additional prove ..
if was at all needed ..
Y.Porat
--------------------------------
PD
I did NOT say that, and in fact I *corrected* you when you asked me
that before.
Porat, please apologize for misattributing statements to me that I did
not make, and please refrain from doing it again. Your behavior earns
disrespect.
PD
Do not confuse my turning away from you in disgust with running away.
Henry Wilson DSc
>"Henry Wilson DSc" wrote in message
>news:hfvq76lph774e0bgg...@4ax.com...
>>Porat, the Pound/Rebka experiment effectively detects the change in
>>momentum of
>>a falling photon.
>>It demonstrates that light increases speed just like a particle of matter.
>
>Light in vacuo is always measured locally as travelling at speed c.
OWLS from a moving source has never been measured.
>But as
>time is not uniform and absolute (eg we know that it depends on
>gravitational potential), the net speed of light measured non-locally can be
>different to c. Light travelling through a region where a difference in
>gravitation potential slows time (relative to some outside observer) will
>appear to that outside observer as travelling slower.
Why hide behind the lie that space and time are distorted when the obvious fact
is that light speeditself changes?
Henry Wilson DSc
There is no point in arguing with the EPG (Einsteinian Papal Guard)
Its members are far too indoctrinated to ever be cured.
Not one has ever contributed a constructive statement to this NG in all the
time I have been here. One can only feel sorry for them.
>so
>bottom line
>
>photon momentum =hf/c
>
>AND NOTHING IN IT IS RELATIVISTIC !!
>
>hf has nothing to do with relativity
>
>c is a constant
>so
>noting in hf/c is relativistic
>
>
>SO AGAIN
>
>NO MASS - THE ONLY ONE- NO REAL PHYSICS!
>
> that is a revolution in modern physics !!
>and no pigshit will stop it
>
>YOU CANT CHEAT EVERY BODY --FOREVER !!
>ATB
>Y.Porat
>-------------------------------------
>
>
>
>Y.Porat
>--------------------------------
Henry Wilson DSc
>On Aug 31, 5:15 pm, ..@..(Henry Wilson DSc) wrote:
>> On Mon, 30 Aug 2010 12:54:40 -0700 (PDT), PD <thedraperfam...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> >On Aug 30, 2:48 pm, "Y.Porat" <y.y.po...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> >No, I did not say that. I said a sodium source, which can be a sodium
>> >lamp in the laboratory.
>>
>> >> lets cal it a photon A
>>
>> >> hf1
>> >> now while it comes toour globe
>> >> it is
>> >> hf2
>> >> right?
>>
>> >They are both photons from a sodium source, and since sodium emits
>> >photons ONLY at certain frequencies which correspond to transitions
>> >between its energy states, then we know the photons from the source
>> >are all similar. And yet they exhibit different momenta depending on
>> >the frame.
>>
>> .....that's because they have different VELOCITIES in different frames.
>
>Nope. If they did, there would be a time dependence to the arrival of
>different frequencies of the light. So we'd see the redder photons
>after the bluer photons from a sodium lamp flash. Since the speed
>difference, according to you, would be directly proportional to the
>frequency difference, it's easy to design an apparatus sensitive
>enough to this time lag. It's been done and not seen.
What the hell are you talking about now, diaper?
As far as we know, ALL EM moves at c wrt its source.
My statement that there MIGHT BE a VERY SMALL frequency dependence means that
this is a possibility that cannot be ruled out even though it has never been
demonstrated. ..remember what happened to Boyle's Law...
Since OWLS is difficult to measure at the best of times, such small
differences would be almost impossible to detect.
However, as Androcles has suggested, certain stellar phenomena DO suggest a
frequency dependence.
>PD
PD
But that's not what you're claiming. You're claiming that the
frequency dependence is quite large, as you claim the wavelength must
remain fixed (as there is nothing that could change it), and there is
the obvious and large change in the frequency as measured, and since
the product of wavelength and frequency is the speed of the propagated
signal, this would necessarily mean a large change in the speed of the
propagated signal.
So either a VERY SMALL frequency dependence of the velocity is
incompatible with measurements, or you believe that the frequency
times the wavelength of a wave is not the speed of signal propagation.
Robert Higgins
Fuck you, TROLL
Robert Higgins
Fuck you, TROLL
PD
You must mean "physicists".
And there is a simple way to cure such indoctrination. Provide
experimental evidence that is in direct conflict with a prediction of
relativity. That's how science does it anyway.
Any of this other drivel that you spout, like "I have a model that
also predicts some data, so your model must be wrong," or
"Experimental evidence isn't to be believed anyway, because it's all
corrupt," or "You can't convince me that there isn't something
completely different going on, which I will henceforth call Wilson-
Something-Else-Going-On," is less than compelling to a physicist.
> Not one has ever contributed a constructive statement to this NG in all the
> time I have been here. One can only feel sorry for them.
Don't have the foggiest idea what you would consider "constructive".
Y.Porat
> > -----------------
> > light moves as far as known until now
> > moves at a constant speed c
> > 2
> > our issue is
> > is the photon momentum relativistic or not
> > hf
> > has nothing to do with relativity
>
> > c is not relativistic since it is a constant
>
> > only pigsjits like Inertial and PD
> > has to pigish impertinence
> > to say that c is relativistic to itself !
>
> I did NOT say that, and in fact I *corrected* you when you asked me
> that before.
> Porat, please apologize for misattributing statements to me that I did
> not make, and please refrain from doing it again. Your behavior earns
> disrespect.
------------------------
=====================================
and now i dont understand you at all!!
so let us make it simple clear: once and for all
is c relativistic or not ?
it is a dead simple question that should have
a dead simple answer
no need for long speeches!!
is c -relativistic or not??
(relativistic for me in sci physics
is ***numerically relativistic**
not in the sense of family relations !!)
or a second question:
can a constant in physics
be relativistic ??
TIA
Y.Porat
-----------------------
Inertial
news:3661834d-71e6-4651...@i31g2000yqm.googlegroups.com...
>and now i dont understand you at all!!
Porat not understanding is no surprise
>so let us make it simple clear: once and for all
As has been done over and over and over .. yet Porat keeps asking
>is c relativistic or not ?
c being constant is a relativistic concept
c is a relativistic speed, as it is is significant proportion of c. at speed
c Newtonian physics and Relativistic physics are very different.
>it is a dead simple question that should have
>a dead simple answer
>no need for long speeches!!
>
>is c -relativistic or not??
>
>(relativistic for me in sci physics
>is ***numerically relativistic**
That expression makes no sense. 'Relativistic' is an adjective .. it is not
a numerical operation
>not in the sense of family relations !!)
No-one says it was .. though that does show that you confuse 'relativistic'
with 'related to' and 'relative to'
>or a second question:
>can a constant in physics
>be relativistic ??
Yes .. anything that is to do with the theory of relativity is, by
definition, relativistic. So if a constant is to do with the theory of
relativity, and you wish to make the point that it is, then you can describe
it as relativistic. Note that in classical physics, the speed of light is
not the same constant for all observers, but in relativistic physics it is
.. so the notion of c being a constant is relativistic.
'Relativistic' is just an adjective .. an English word (which is not your
native language). As an adjective, you can use it anywhere it makes
grammatical sense as you would use any adjective, and then based on its
dictionary meaning, you can determine whether or not it is true.
Though it is a word used when talking about physics, and a word used as part
of some well-defined physics terms (like "relativistic Doppler" etc), the
word 'relativistic' itself is not really a precise physics-defined term
(like 'velocity' or 'energy' etc)
Androcles
"Inertial" <relat...@rest.com> wrote in message
news:4c7f4bfe$0$11091$c3e...@news.astraweb.com...
| "Y.Porat" wrote in message
| news:3661834d-71e6-4651...@i31g2000yqm.googlegroups.com...
| >and now i dont understand you at all!!
|
| Porat not understanding is no surprise
|
| >so let us make it simple clear: once and for all
|
| As has been done over and over and over .. yet Porat keeps asking
Don't try to teach Porat English, he doesn't want to learn and has
declared his intention not to learn.
Y.Porat
-----------------
pigshit psychopath crook
if your name id PD
let us know about it
i dont discuss with little Josef Goebbels
i wil dsucuss it as for now
only with PD
he dos not need your help
unless he is PD with an anonymous name --
Inertial !!
or hiding behind you !!
and if he will answer exactly as you
i will treat him accordingly !!!...
Y.P
Inertial
news:cf7d9b36-ca90-4b3a...@i13g2000yqd.googlegroups.com...
> [snip more ranting from Porat]
Why the fuck are you asking questions when you clearly do NOT want and won't
accept the answers? Really .. WHAT IS THE POINT !!!!
Y.Porat
> "Inertial" <relativ...@rest.com> wrote in message
-----------------
Andro
i dont understand your new mad obsession
with me ?
i never attacked you
and a long many years had nothing to do with you
before you started attacking me
so ??
just ellus the through t what is you **real
sane rational motivation
for that ??
it is certainly not my English that bothers you in this
SCIENCE ng isn t that ??
2
do you claim that c is relativistic??
i don t !!
did you suddenly because a SR club member ??
so ??
Y.P
---------------------------
Androcles
"Y.Porat" <y.y....@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:b1280b70-9744-440c...@x25g2000yqj.googlegroups.com...
On Sep 2, 9:06 am, "Androcles" <Headmas...@Hogwarts.physics_aa> wrote:
> "Inertial" <relativ...@rest.com> wrote in message
>
> news:4c7f4bfe$0$11091$c3e...@news.astraweb.com...| "Y.Porat" wrote in
> message
>
> |news:3661834d-71e6-4651...@i31g2000yqm.googlegroups.com...
> | >and now i dont understand you at all!!
> |
> | Porat not understanding is no surprise
> |
> | >so let us make it simple clear: once and for all
> |
> | As has been done over and over and over .. yet Porat keeps asking
>
> Don't try to teach Porat English, he doesn't want to learn and has
> declared his intention not to learn.
-----------------
Andro
i dont understand
===================
You don't want to, either.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jabberwocky
Do moMe rAths outGrabe, you fuckinŹ jabberwock!! Yes or no!!!
Please let it be clear????
Y.Porat
wrote:
> "Y.Porat" <y.y.po...@gmail.com> wrote in message
> Please let it be clear????
------------------
BYE
PSYCHO
now it is 100 percent clear to me
that you are a psycho
--------------------
Inertial
news:9207e2a1-b720-4601...@l20g2000yqe.googlegroups.com...
>On Sep 2, 11:20 am, "Androcles" <Headmas...@Hogwarts.physics_aa>
>wrote:
A brillig reply by Androcles
>> Please let it be clear????
>BYE
>PSYCHO
>now it is 100 percent clear to me
>that you are a psycho
This is an historic day .. Porat is finally correct about something. Guess
if he keeps making enough allegations, one of them may eventually turn out
to be correct. Porat uses the 'infinite number of monkeys' method for most
things he writes.
Y.Porat
2
please show us MATHEMATICALLY
and histirocally that
that
P photon = hf/c -----
---was stemming out of the theory of relativity
3
who was the first one who coined that formula
and how ??
(actually the first shape of it was
p=h / Lambda )
TIA
Y.Porat
----------------------------
Inertial
news:e2a457b8-f799-4479...@y11g2000yqm.googlegroups.com...
>2
>please show us MATHEMATICALLY
>and histirocally that
>that
> P photon = hf/c -----
>---was stemming out of the theory of relativity
That P = hf/c is the case for all inertial frames of reference is a
relativistic idea, of course, because relativity says the speed of light is
c in all inertial frames. Newtonian physics would say P photon = hf /
(c+v). So that shows it mathematically.
>3
>who was the first one who coined that formula
>and how ??
No idea who particularly said or wrote it first .. but it would have been
around the same time Plank came up with E = hf (the energy of a single
photon) .. P = hf/c comes directly from E = hf and E = Pv (so for photons,
c=v of course, so E = Pc).
>(actually the first shape of it was
>p=h / Lambda )
You evidence for that claim .. oh, that's right .. you never have evidence
for anything
If you have ANY interest in photon and photoelectric cells and relativity
etc .. have a read of this easy to follow educational page.
http://www.colorado.edu/physics/2000/quantumzone/photoelectric2.html
Of course, I'm sure you will (as usual) continue in ignorance instead.
Androcles
He is syntactically incorrect and you are just another nonsense-writing
Jabberwock. It'll be an historic day when you realise what nonsense is,
not that a fuckwit like you ever will.
Androcles
| "Y.Porat" wrote in message
| news:e2a457b8-f799-4479...@y11g2000yqm.googlegroups.com...
| >2
| >please show us MATHEMATICALLY
| >and histirocally that
| >that
| > P photon = hf/c -----
| >---was stemming out of the theory of relativity
|
| That P = hf/c is the case for all inertial frames of reference is a
| relativistic idea, of course, because relativity says the speed of light
is
| c in all inertial frames.
A team of scientists working under the direction of researchers from the
University of Sussex have recently discovered that Einstein did not say
"inertial".
http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/inertial.JPG
Perhaps you are referring to some other relativistic inertial relativity,
since all you moronic trolls have your own version.
Robert Higgins
Fuck you, TROLL.
Robert Higgins
> "Y.Porat" <y.y.po...@gmail.com> wrote in message
> Please let it be clear????
Fuck you, TROLL.
Robert Higgins
Fuck you both, moron TROLL "engineers".
Robert Higgins
Fuck you.
Robert Higgins
Fuck you.
Androcles
"Robert Higgins" <robert_h...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:3214b072-6400-46f9...@x25g2000yqj.googlegroups.com...
> Please let it be clear????
Fuck you, TROLL.
=====================
Who pulled your chain, ignorant motherfucker?
Y.Porat
wrote:
---------------------
it is funny!
now ANDROGYNOUS
BECAME A FRIEND OF INERTIAL
(:-)
Y.P
------------------------
Y.Porat
>
> >> .......Einstein's Relativity...The religion that worships negative space.
>
> >light moves as far as known until now
> >moves at a constant speed c
> >2
> >our issue is
> >hf
> >has nothing to do with relativity
>
> >c is not relativistic since it is a constant
>
> >only pigsjits like Inertial and PD
> >has to pigish impertinence
> >to say that c is relativistic to itself !
>
> >underestimating the intelligence of most decent people here )
>
> >i just wonder where is all the silent
> >majority in this ng
> >that do not come to crush down those
> >shameless pigs !
>
> >with their shameless impertinence
> >to say that c is relativistic to c !!
> >and nearly no one here is blinking an eye !!
>
> There is no point in arguing with the EPG (Einsteinian Papal Guard)
> Its members are far too indoctrinated to ever be cured.
> time I have been here. One can only feel sorry for them.
>
>
>
> >bottom line
>
> >photon momentum =hf/c
>
> >AND NOTHING IN IT IS RELATIVISTIC !!
>
>
> >so
> >noting in hf/c is relativistic
>
> >SO AGAIN
>
> >NO MASS - THE ONLY ONE- NO REAL PHYSICS!
>
> > that is a revolution in modern physics !!
> >and no pigshit will stop it
>
> >YOU CANT CHEAT EVERY BODY --FOREVER !!
> >ATB
> >Y.Porat
> >-------------------------------------
>
> >Y.Porat
> >--------------------------------
>
>
> .......Einstein's Relativity...The religion that worships negative space.
------------------
it seems that you are not aware about
what is on stake
just try tobelieve me that there is much more on stake than you
imagine
so its worth (and how) to fight for it !!
ATB
Y.Porat
--------------------
Y.Porat
------------------
Hi Mr relativistic c (:-)
are you afraid of me
showing you as a retard moron crook ??
Y.P
---------------------------
Y.Porat
-------------------
HI MR PD
the relativistic c master of physics (:-)
you ran away with disgust ??
is runing away withdisgust
is a physics argument
or is it
a shameless pig
personal politics trick
2
what is relativistic in the
red shift ??
idot moron crook parrot
3
holding in addition 3 anonymous fake names
and by that
he is far away from running away !!
FAR AWAY FROM RUNNING AWAY !!(:-)
and makes business with some
private publishing company
without noting it here !!
that is not disgusting ...
shameless pig !!
Y.P
----------------------
Inertial
news:dd030e5a-0b63-4991...@n3g2000yqb.googlegroups.com...
[snip porat becoming even more unintelligible than ever .. and making the
usual unfounded allegations and thinking there is something terribly wrong
and sinister about someone working for a publishing house, or using
anonymous nicknames in a public newsgroup]
Hmm .. nothing left to comment on.
Y.Porat
----------------
Hi PD s ass leaker crook moron
and cooperator
in his publishing business (:-)
-------------------
PD
And this is where you are spouting nonsense.
"Relativistic" to physicists means "pertaining to relativity".
"Numerically relativistic" simply has no meaning. It's like "digitally
evolutionary".
Y.Porat
(:-)
that is youranmd your close friends new inversion
ldt me giveyou an example how it looks like
(btw ahd it been the other way
ie in a dispute between us
it mas me who would bring such an argument
you would jsutly crussh me to pieces
and expalin to me 'waht is science all about !!)
so here is your logic with your
above explaantion
suppose that
we have a rlativistic formula
that no one is arguing about its being relativistic
now that formula would include in it the plus sign
so
you will say that the plus sign is pertaining to relativity !!
we are dealing with
**PHYSICAL SUBSTANCES*
NOT WITH WORDS !!
we ar enot in a literature ng
we deal only with physical things that have physical meaning
definitions
and measurements !!
iow
even (again even suppoose that
hf/c was unquestionable relativistic
THAT DOES NOT MEAN
THAT ANY OF ITSCOMPONENTS MUST BE RELATIVISTIC
JUSTY BECAUSE THE FACT THAT IS IS BULIDINGTHE FORMULA
even say the Plack constant is not relativistic !!
just because some
relativistic formula use it !
th e Planck constant has nothing to do with relativity
it was found experimentally
it didnt even stem out of the relativistic theory !
so MR PD
you are not dealing withretarded peole
you are dealing with thinking
physicists that are not parrots
to parrot anything that someone say
even if that someone would now be the majority of scienists
th emajority of scientists
500 years ago said that the sun is orbiting our globe...
on the otherhand
any thinking scientis
if he wil think for awhile wl tell you that to say that c constant
is in any way by its* physical being* and definition=-
relativistic
is ridiculous nonsense
only because it ispresent in a relativistic formula
while inour case
if hf/c is relativistic is on the table of examination of being
relativistic or not
2
you ddint aswer my questions about the redshift of photons
ie
a single photon with hf1
is comingtous with hf2
and losing energy and mass
WHILE f1 andf2 all of them move at c ??!!
how come
did tha5 'single photon split to two ??
how can a single photon to split to two single photons
etc etc
and pleas keep in mind that
photons are not cars
and not bicycles
it moves at c
and the Gamma factoe does not
applt to them !!
they always an all of them move at the constant speed c !!
indeed it seems that no one ever asked the above questions
ye it does not mean
that they should be neglected and' 'rejected by a straw' .
3
please dont sent to me Inertial
and dont hide behind his back
because i will not discuss with him --
you cant discuss
with a dishonest declared personal enemy that is wishing
(and mean it) my death
that is' th e life mission' of that psycho gangster
it is a promise that i will not bother to discuss with him!!
the most i will do is to ridicule his parroting stupidity and
dishonesty
TIA
Y.Porat
------------------------
Henry Wilson DSc
>On Sep 1, 4:24 pm, ..@..(Henry Wilson DSc) wrote:
>> On Tue, 31 Aug 2010 15:52:58 -0700 (PDT), PD <thedraperfam...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> >On Aug 31, 5:15 pm, ..@..(Henry Wilson DSc) wrote:
>> >Nope. If they did, there would be a time dependence to the arrival of
>> >different frequencies of the light. So we'd see the redder photons
>> >after the bluer photons from a sodium lamp flash. Since the speed
>> >difference, according to you, would be directly proportional to the
>> >frequency difference, it's easy to design an apparatus sensitive
>> >enough to this time lag. It's been done and not seen.
>>
>> What the hell are you talking about now, diaper?
>> As far as we know, ALL EM moves at c wrt its source.
>>
>> My statement that there MIGHT BE a VERY SMALL frequency dependence
>
>But that's not what you're claiming. You're claiming that the
>frequency dependence is quite large, as you claim the wavelength must
>remain fixed (as there is nothing that could change it), and there is
>the obvious and large change in the frequency as measured, and since
>the product of wavelength and frequency is the speed of the propagated
>signal, this would necessarily mean a large change in the speed of the
>propagated signal.
>
>So either a VERY SMALL frequency dependence of the velocity is
>incompatible with measurements, or you believe that the frequency
>times the wavelength of a wave is not the speed of signal propagation.
You're talking absolute bullshit as usual. ...but what's new?
I said ist is not inconceivable that the speed of light wrt its source might be
slightly dependent on its (intrinsic) wavelength.
The 'frequency' of light is just 'the number of wavecrests arriving per
second'.
Henry Wilson DSc
...and you
PD
Yes it is, and the frequency of light is *observationally* known to
shift quite a bit.
And since the wavelength times the frequency is the speed of light,
then either the speed of light varies quite a bit, or your statement
that the speed of light is only SLIGHTLY dependent on the INTRINSIC
wavelength must be wrong. One or the other, Ralph.
Henry Wilson DSc
>"Y.Porat" wrote in message
>news:e2a457b8-f799-4479...@y11g2000yqm.googlegroups.com...
>>2
>>please show us MATHEMATICALLY
>>and histirocally that
>>that
>> P photon = hf/c -----
>>---was stemming out of the theory of relativity
>
>That P = hf/c is the case for all inertial frames of reference is a
>relativistic idea, of course, because relativity says the speed of light is
>c in all inertial frames.
Hahahahhahhahhaha! Lorentz said it before Einstein, you dopey bastard.
According to LET, OW light speed will ALWAYS be MEASURED as being equal to c.
Einstein merely started his silly theory with that condition and worked the
maths backwards.
In actual fact, neither theory is correct.
>Newtonian physics would say P photon = hf /
>(c+v). So that shows it mathematically.
Hahahhhahaha! the maths genius speaks....,hahahhahhahhhaa!
>>3
>>who was the first one who coined that formula
>>and how ??
>
>No idea who particularly said or wrote it first .. but it would have been
>around the same time Plank came up with E = hf (the energy of a single
>photon) .. P = hf/c comes directly from E = hf and E = Pv (so for photons,
>c=v of course, so E = Pc).
>
>>(actually the first shape of it was
>>p=h / Lambda )
>
>You evidence for that claim .. oh, that's right .. you never have evidence
>for anything
>
>If you have ANY interest in photon and photoelectric cells and relativity
>etc .. have a read of this easy to follow educational page.
>
>http://www.colorado.edu/physics/2000/quantumzone/photoelectric2.html
>
>Of course, I'm sure you will (as usual) continue in ignorance instead.
Henry Wilson DSc
>wavelength must be wrong. One or the other, Henry.
Ah! The mind of the relativist works in strange ways....
Wavelength is uuniversal and frame invariant.
'frequency' changes are an indication of variable ligth speed.
Simple isn't it?
Y.Porat
-------------------------
Henry
indeed hf/c
has nothing to do with relativity !!
yet
SR is right!!
it is based on the fact that
in order to add more and more velocity to a mass
you need to invest more energy (exponentially)
and that is the sources of the Gamma factor
that makes SR
ONE MUST BE SELECTIVE IN SCIENCE
(and in life as a whole !!......)
ATB
Y.Porat
--------------------
PD
> On Fri, 3 Sep 2010 13:00:24 -0700 (PDT), PD <thedraperfam...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >On Sep 2, 4:30 pm, ..@..(Henry Wilson DSc) wrote:
> >> On Wed, 1 Sep 2010 14:39:45 -0700 (PDT), PD <thedraperfam...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >> >On Sep 1, 4:24 pm, ..@..(Henry Wilson DSc) wrote:
>
> >> >So either a VERY SMALL frequency dependence of the velocity is
> >> >incompatible with measurements, or you believe that the frequency
> >> >times the wavelength of a wave is not the speed of signal propagation.
>
> >> You're talking absolute bullshit as usual. ...but what's new?
>
> >> I said ist is not inconceivable that the speed of light wrt its source might be
> >> slightly dependent on its (intrinsic) wavelength.
>
> >> The 'frequency' of light is just 'the number of wavecrests arriving per
> >> second'.
>
> >Yes it is, and the frequency of light is *observationally* known to
> >shift quite a bit.
> >And since the wavelength times the frequency is the speed of light,
> >then either the speed of light varies quite a bit, or your statement
> >that the speed of light is only SLIGHTLY dependent on the INTRINSIC
> >wavelength must be wrong. One or the other, Henry.
>
> Ah! The mind of the relativist works in strange ways....
>
> Wavelength is uuniversal and frame invariant.
>
> 'frequency' changes are an indication of variable ligth speed.
>
> Simple isn't it?
Yes, indeed. And since *measured* frequency changes are significant,
then light speed changes must be significant, according to you.
Because wavelength (invariant) x frequency (frame-dependent) = light
speed.
Now the question is, is this consistent with measurement, since the
variation in light speed should be large and obvious.
You've just stated that the variation in light speed is there but it's
SMALL, underneath experimental resolution.
Cant have it both ways, Ralph.
Still don't get this?
Henry Wilson DSc
>On Sep 4, 12:39 am, ..@..(Henry Wilson DSc) wrote:
>> On Thu, 2 Sep 2010 20:13:45 +1000, "Inertial" <relativ...@rest.com> wrote:
>> >"Y.Porat" wrote in message
>> >news:e2a457b8-f799-4479...@y11g2000yqm.googlegroups.com...
>> >>2
>> >>please show us MATHEMATICALLY
>> >>and histirocally that
>> >>that
>> >> P photon = hf/c -----
>> >>---was stemming out of the theory of relativity
>>
>> >That P = hf/c is the case for all inertial frames of reference is a
>> >relativistic idea, of course, because relativity says the speed of light is
>> >c in all inertial frames.
>>
>> Hahahahhahhahhaha! Lorentz said it before Einstein, you dopey bastard.
>>
>> According to LET, OW light speed will ALWAYS be MEASURED as being equal to c.
>>
>> Einstein merely started his silly theory with that condition and worked the
>> maths backwards.
>>
>> In actual fact, neither theory is correct.
>>
>> >Newtonian physics would say P photon = hf /
>> >(c+v). So that shows it mathematically.
>>
>> Hahahhhahaha! the maths genius speaks....,hahahhahhahhhaa!
>>
>>
.
>
>-------------------------
>Henry
>
>indeed hf/c
>has nothing to do with relativity !!
>
>yet
>SR is right!!
Hahahahha! Where did you get that idea, Porat?
>
>it is based on the fact that
>in order to add more and more velocity to a mass
>you need to invest more energy (exponentially)
>and that is the sources of the Gamma factor
>that makes SR
Mass doesn't change one iota with velocity.
Nor do clocks and rods.
Would it increase of decrease? An acceleration in ONE frame can be a
deceleration in another.
>ONE MUST BE SELECTIVE IN SCIENCE
>
>(and in life as a whole !!......)
The mass of a particle APPEARS to increase in an accelerator because of the
WRFB. (Wilson Reverse Field Bubble)
>ATB
>Y.Porat
>--------------------
Henry Wilson DSc
Any departure of light speed from c wrt source must be extremely small....but
enough to explain some of the myths about SN.
However source speed is added to c in a moving frame.
I remind you that OWLS from a moving source has never been measured.
>You've just stated that the variation in light speed is there but it's
>SMALL, underneath experimental resolution.
>
>Cant have it both ways, Henry.
>
>Still don't get this?
You obviously don't.
Androcles
"Henry Wilson DSc" <..@..> wrote in message
news:j9e5865fk1fugobdm...@4ax.com...
| I remind you that OWLS from a moving source has never been measured.
I remind you that you owe me a case of Glenlivet.
GogoJF
> "Henry Wilson DSc" <..@..> wrote in messagenews:j9e5865fk1fugobdm...@4ax.com...
> | I remind you that OWLS from a moving source has never been measured.
>
> I remind you that you owe me a case of Glenlivet.
One-way is staples. I think we should measure as what will be
practical.
Androcles
"GogoJF" <jfgo...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:5f61d482-2da2-40eb...@t20g2000yqa.googlegroups.com...
=======================================
Like all theoretical physicists without any knowledge of mathematics,
Henry is poor, he can't afford to pay his debts but was foolish
enough to wager. He scratches a living as a used VW camper van
saleman. It would be both cruel and futile to sue him for breach
of contract.
Note that the windscreen is not corroded and the light source is
missing, which is why Henry cannot measure OWLS from a
moving source. Nice windscreen, though. Make him an offer
he can't refuse.
Y.Porat
wrote:
> "GogoJF" <jfgog...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
------------------
As for me -
that way or another
There must be an *upper limit velocity*
in our universe !
2
Relativity doe s not apply to photons
because while v=c
Gamma factor becomes out of use
even mathematically !
3
Andro
(I gave you a Capital letter )
my physics teacher
Am i improving ?
ATB
Y.Porat
--------------------------
Androcles
"Y.Porat" <y.y....@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:98812565-c29c-4448...@z28g2000yqh.googlegroups.com...
ATB
Y.Porat
--------------------------
You certainly are improving, well done.
The next thing is to always use a capital ' I ' when
referring to yourself, so the question you should
ask is "Am I improving?" and not "Am i improving?"
All people's names need a capital letter, so it is Jack
and Jill, never jack and jill.
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/personal%20pronoun
A 'jack' helps you change a wheel on a car, but 'Jack' is a person.
'I' will mean 'Y.Porat', but 'i' isn't an English word at all.
Y.Porat
wrote:
> "Y.Porat" <y.y.po...@gmail.com> wrote in message
--------------
BTW Andro
I use the i and not the I
Because of modesty reasons (:-)
ATB
Y.Porat
-----------------------------------
Androcles
ATB
Y.Porat
-----------------------------------
btw porat i do't anser ewe fisicks kwestions becos ov comprehension reasons
Y.Porat
That is your language
obviously tricky fooling around
to 'gain time'
----------------
Why are you bypassing a simple
question?
If you still didn t think about it
just say
i still didn t think about it good enough
to answer it responsibly
Or may be you are waiting to see what others will answer ??
TIA
Y.Porat
-----------------
Henry Wilson DSc
wrote:
I will send it over when I get the box of red YOU owe ME.
Henry Wilson DSc
....does small i mean small 'appendages'....?
>ATB
>Y.Porat
>-----------------------------------
Henry Wilson DSc
wrote:
>
>"GogoJF" <jfgo...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>news:5f61d482-2da2-40eb...@t20g2000yqa.googlegroups.com...
>On Sep 4, 4:47 pm, "Androcles" <Headmas...@Hogwarts.physics_aa> wrote:
>> "Henry Wilson DSc" <..@..> wrote in
>> messagenews:j9e5865fk1fugobdm...@4ax.com...
>> | I remind you that OWLS from a moving source has never been measured.
>>
>> I remind you that you owe me a case of Glenlivet.
>
>One-way is staples. I think we should measure as what will be
>practical.
>
>=======================================
>Like all theoretical physicists without any knowledge of mathematics,
>Henry is poor, he can't afford to pay his debts but was foolish
>enough to wager. He scratches a living as a used VW camper van
>saleman. It would be both cruel and futile to sue him for breach
>of contract.
>
> http://tinyurl.com/3yohzqt
Looks like you ran into a large farm animal...maybe that's why you exude so
much bullshit.
>Note that the windscreen is not corroded and the light source is
>missing, which is why Henry cannot measure OWLS from a
>moving source.
Nor can anyone else.
>Nice windscreen, though. Make him an offer
>he can't refuse.
Sorry, I prefer the Prius now. Why couldn't a pommie engineer think of that
system?