A simple Q. but not a simple A,,
Spencer Spindrift
Or in other words how does light carry energy?
As far as I know momentum is a property of moving or spinning
mass.
A photon cannot have mass or it would be infinite at C..
A.; ???
Uncle Al
>
> Q.: How is it that a photon has momentum but no mass?
Quantum mechanics. BTW, stooopid, a photon has angular as well as
linear momentum.
> Or in other words how does light carry energy?
E = h(nu)
Are you in a particularly dreadful high school or a diverse community
college? If you are in a university it should be designated a nuclear
hypocenter.
> As far as I know momentum is a property of moving or spinning
> mass.
Screw yer ass into a chair and look up relativistic momentum.
> A photon cannot have mass or it would be infinite at C..
idiot
Has it occurred to you that more than 100,000 professional physicists
extant plus thousands of physics majors and hundreds of physics grad
students might notice someting was off if a throwback to
knuckle-walking could do it?
--
Uncle Al
http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/
(Toxic URL! Unsafe for children and most mammals)
http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/qz4.htm
Sam Wormley
Some properties of photons based on measurements
For inertial observers, photons propagate at c
From the quantum mechanical perspective
1. photons are emitted (by charged particles)
2. photons propagate at c
3. photons are absorbed (by charged particles)
Photon momentum
p = hν/c = h/λ
Photon Energy
E = hν
Particle Chart - Standard Model
http://www.astro.wisc.edu/~heroux/images/Particle_chart.jpg
Conservation of momentum holds. One way to measure photon
momentum is to it to measure the change in momentum of what
absorbs or emits a photon.
Androcles
"Uncle Al" <Uncl...@hate.spam.net> wrote in message
news:4B36A29B...@hate.spam.net...
> Has it occurred to you that more than 100,000 professional physicists
> extant plus thousands of physics majors and hundreds of physics grad
> students might notice someting was off if a throwback to
> knuckle-walking could do it?
It has not occurred to you that 100,000 sheep are no match for one dog,
knuckle-dragging cretin.
Androcles
"Sam Wormley" <swor...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:a4qdnUugsu3SPqvW...@mchsi.com...
> On 12/26/09 5:42 PM, Spencer Spindrift wrote:
>> Q.: How is it that a photon has momentum but no mass?
>> Or in other words how does light carry energy?
>> As far as I know momentum is a property of moving or spinning
>> mass.
>> A photon cannot have mass or it would be infinite at C..
>>
>> A.; ???
>
> Some properties of photons based on measurements
> For inertial observers, photons propagate at c
>
> From the quantum mechanical perspective
>
> 1. photons are emitted (by charged particles)
> 2. photons propagate at c
eric gisse
Fields carry energy and momentum.
Spencer Spindrift
Well that's a VERY simple answer.
Why is it forbidden to SHOUT in froups? Another simple Q. but OT.....
Sam Wormley
Like any institution, people feel comfortable if there
are rules, traditions and protocols that most people
follow. For, example, if we smell a homework problem, we
encourage the poster to do his/her own work, for that is
how they learn.
eric gisse
> On 27 Dec, 00:37, eric gisse <jowr.pi.nos...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> Spencer Spindrift wrote:
>> > Q.: How is it that a photon has momentum but no mass?
>> > Or in other words how does light carry energy?
>> > As far as I know momentum is a property of moving or spinning
>> > mass.
>> > A photon cannot have mass or it would be infinite at C..
>>
>> > A.; ???
>>
>> Fields carry energy and momentum.
>
> Well that's a VERY simple answer.
Oh, you want me to teach 2 semesters of undergraduate E&M to you?
Benj
> Oh, you want me to teach 2 semesters of undergraduate E&M to you?
The only problem with that "Eric" is that FIRST you'd have to actually
LEARN 2 semesters of undergraduate E&M.
eric gisse
I have.
You?
Timo Nieminen
Consider ripples moving across a pond; they can transfer energy from
an object producing the ripples to a distant floating object. How does
a ripple carry energy from point A to point B, without carrying mass
from point A to point B?
More generally, a charged particle being able to exert a force on a
distant object means that electromagnetic fields carry momentum.
SInce an EM field or wave can carry momentum, a photon can carry
momentum.
Asking exactly why an EM field can carry momentum or carry energy is
pretty much asking why EM forces exist. We don't know why.
What we do know is that momentum is not just a property of moving mass
- it's more generally a side-effect of moving energy. This is easiest
to get to these days as a relativistic effect; just consider Lorentz
transformation of an energy-momentum 4-vector. Zero mass means that
the magnitude of this 4-vector is zero. (It's a pre-relativistic
result, shown by Umov c. 1874 on thermodynamic considerations.)
Y.Porat
> Spencer Spindrift wrote:
>
> > Q.: How is it that a photon has momentum but no mass?
>
> Quantum mechanics. BTW, stooopid, a photon has angular as well as
> linear momentum.
>
> > Or in other words how does light carry energy?
>
> E = h(nu)
>
> Are you in a particularly dreadful high school or a diverse community
> college? If you are in a university it should be designated a nuclear
> hypocenter.
>
> > As far as I know momentum is a property of moving or spinning
> > mass.
>
> Screw yer ass into a chair and look up relativistic momentum.
>
> > A photon cannot have mass or it would be infinite at C..
>
> idiot
>
> Has it occurred to you that more than 100,000 professional physicists
> extant plus thousands of physics majors and hundreds of physics grad
> students might notice someting was off if a throwback to
> knuckle-walking could do it?
>
> --
> (Toxic URL! Unsafe for children and most mammals)http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/qz4.htm
-----------------
ibbecile senile old kaker parrot!!
THE PHOTON HAS MASS !!
got it once and for all old shitter !!!
even the momentum analysuis showes it simply as could be
but not siple for a fucken mathematician :
the momentum od the photon is
M = mc (very analogous to mv in macrocosm !!!)
so
it is KILOGRAM (mass) times meter /second !!
got it imbecile moron ??!! parrot
the KILOGRAMS there are not for
ecoration
so old farter and others
before learning how to fuck
learn first how to walk !!! (in physics)
ie
just learn how a physics formula
is built and used !!
if you hade some minimal physical thinking
you could say that
that mass there is 'relativistic mass'
but again
one of the disasters that came on physics
was that 'relativistric mass nonsens
and cheating
THERE IS JUST ONE KIND OF MASS !!
got it parrot ??!!
and the more basic stupidity and chating
that was leading to it
was the paradigm that
'no mass can reach c'
but those fuckers didnt took in acount the
THE PHOTON IS AS AN EXCEPTION CASE THAT ***CAN and does REACH c
***!!
(though it has an extremely tiny mass
so cureent experiments cannot show it
and actually leave it as an open question
yet the fuckers didnt see it as anopen question
since it 'disturbed them their paradigm
that no mass can reach c .
anyway we dont need an exeriment fo rit
the above simple formula shows it.
clear as a secondary school boy could see if fuckers would not boggle
his mind )
a simple indication forit is the experimental fact that
particles even quote 'big' as an electron
can reach a velocity close to c !!!
even if its mass is 17 orders of magnitude bigger than that of the
photon !!! (about 3 exp -34 KG !!)
the gaam factor
IS A MATHEMATICAL FORMULA
that was not created by God
it was created by huiman beings
tey those human beings forgot it was created by them...
and didnt take into acount that any physical formula
**has its limits of validation **
the case of v=c is a limit caase
**even mathematically*so even mathematicians know that limit cases
are problematic and ambiguous
ATB
Y.Porat
-----------------------------------
Inertial
"Y.Porat" <y.y....@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:3e4efac5-2373-4b72...@j42g2000yqd.googlegroups.com...
Experimental evidence has supported the 'no rest mass' prediction of a
number of physics theories and models. No accepted model / theory, that has
not been refuted, has a photon with mass
> got it once and for all old shitter !!!
It has no rest mass .. got it you old shitter?
> even the momentum analysuis showes it simply as could be
> but not siple for a fucken mathematician :
A photon has momentum, but no rest mass
> the momentum od the photon is
> M = mc (very analogous to mv in macrocosm !!!)
Nope .. its not
And the symbol for momentum is 'P'
> so
> it is KILOGRAM (mass) times meter /second !!
> got it imbecile moron ??!! parrot
We know the units of momentum, and or energy
> the KILOGRAMS there are not for
> ecoration
> so old farter and others
> before learning how to fuck
> learn first how to walk !!! (in physics)
You've never made it past crawling stage
> ie
> just learn how a physics formula
> is built and used !!
We do.
> if you hade some minimal physical thinking
> you could say that
> that mass there is 'relativistic mass'
That's what I've been telling you. Its a 'mass' that is acquired in
addition to rest mass through motion
> but again
> one of the disasters that came on physics
> was that 'relativistric mass nonsens
> and cheating
No .. it not cheating
> THERE IS JUST ONE KIND OF MASS !!
Why? There is more then one kind of energy, more then one kind of length
etc.
> got it parrot ??!!
> and the more basic stupidity and chating
> that was leading to it
> was the paradigm that
> 'no mass can reach c'
Of course it can't
> but those fuckers didnt took in acount the
> THE PHOTON IS AS AN EXCEPTION CASE THAT ***CAN and does REACH c
> ***!!
No .. it isn't .. it fits the rule exactly because it has no rest mass.
There is no need to make an exception for the rule when the rule fits just
fine
> (though it has an extremely tiny mass
> so cureent experiments cannot show it
> and actually leave it as an open question
> yet the fuckers didnt see it as anopen question
> since it 'disturbed them their paradigm
> that no mass can reach c .
It can't reach c.
Every experiment to find a mass for a photon has come up with zero (as far
as experiment can tell).
What is the mass for a photon .. you seem to think formulas give it .. you
said we have momentum of a photon is
p = m . c
But we also have
p = h / l
where l is the wavelength of the photon, so
m = h / l / c
So you should be easily able to work out what your claimed mass for a photon
of a given frequency and wavelength is (save some gamma radiation, with
wavelength of order of 10x-16).
Do a calculation and see.
Of course .. you'll find the the mass of a photon then varies depending on
who observes it, because its energy and momentum are observer dependant.
How do you explain the rest mass of a single photon varying like that .. if
there is only one mass?
> anyway we dont need an exeriment fo rit
> the above simple formula shows it.
No .. it doesn't. Something having energy or momentum does not import it
has rest mass.
> clear as a secondary school boy could see if fuckers would not boggle
> his mind )
>
> a simple indication forit is the experimental fact that
> particles even quote 'big' as an electron
> can reach a velocity close to c !!!
But never ever reach c. Otherwise they would have by now.
> even if its mass is 17 orders of magnitude bigger than that of the
> photon !!! (about 3 exp -34 KG !!)
> the gaam factor
> IS A MATHEMATICAL FORMULA
> that was not created by God
> it was created by huiman beings
No .. discovered by humans
> tey those human beings forgot it was created by them...
No .. discovered by humans
> and didnt take into acount that any physical formula
> **has its limits of validation **
> the case of v=c is a limit caase
And it is a limit that cannot be reached by an object with mass
> **even mathematically*so even mathematicians know that limit cases
> are problematic and ambiguous
It depends on whether one knows how to work with them.
Y.Porat
> "Y.Porat" <y.y.po...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>
> news:3e4efac5-2373-4b72...@j42g2000yqd.googlegroups.com...
>
>
>
> > On Dec 27, 1:56 am, Uncle Al <Uncle...@hate.spam.net> wrote:
> >> Spencer Spindrift wrote:
>
> >> > Q.: How is it that a photon has momentum but no mass?
>
> >> Quantum mechanics. BTW, stooopid, a photon has angular as well as
> >> linear momentum.
>
> >> > Or in other words how does light carry energy?
>
> >> E = h(nu)
>
> >> Are you in a particularly dreadful high school or a diverse community
> >> college? If you are in a university it should be designated a nuclear
> >> hypocenter.
>
> >> > As far as I know momentum is a property of moving or spinning
> >> > mass.
>
> >> Screw yer ass into a chair and look up relativistic momentum.
>
> >> > A photon cannot have mass or it would be infinite at C..
>
> >> idiot
>
> >> Has it occurred to you that more than 100,000 professional physicists
> >> extant plus thousands of physics majors and hundreds of physics grad
> >> students might notice someting was off if a throwback to
> >> knuckle-walking could do it?
>
> > -----------------
> > ibbecile senile old kaker parrot!!
> > THE PHOTON HAS MASS !!
>
> Experimental evidence has supported the 'no rest mass' prediction of a
> number of physics theories and models. No accepted model / theory, that has
> not been refuted, has a photon with mass
imbecile parrot psychopath
-------------
every physics formula has its limits of validation
got it imbecile mathematician ???
-----------------------
-------------------------
1
the h Planck constant has mass !!
got it little Josef Goebbels of Heidelberg ??
go discuss with him psychopath moron parrot leech gangster and
thief and pigg shit human being
Y.P
-----------------------------
Spencer Spindrift
> "Y.Porat" <y.y.po...@gmail.com> wrote in message
Quantum Theory and relativity are not compatible but any GUT must
include some version of quantum physics - none of our electronic
gadgets would work without it. IMHO someone will come along and revise
relativity in the light of Quantum mechanics.
Maybe the universe cannot be explained. My own feeling is that it's 5D
not 4D. Time is relative and could be an artefact of cnciousness.
The 5th D is conciosness or Eternity.
I tend to favour the Mind Only interpretation in Buddhism which is
like a pre-mathematical QM.
5=1 0=2
Spencer
Heisenberg may have been here
Y.Porat
-------------------
the Planck constant HAS MASS !!
got it parrot orchestra conductor !!
so go parrot your 'partitura'
Y.P
-----------------
Ste
Of course the photon has mass. All energy has mass.
Inertial
No .. its a constant .. a number .. it doesn't "have mass" because it is not
a physical entity. It does have dimensions of mass. Noone is arguing that.
But you (yet again) pointing that out does not refute any of what I said
above.
> got it little Josef Goebbels of Heidelberg ??
Who? Obviously you are talking to some imaginary person you are
hallucinating about
> go discuss with him psychopath moron parrot leech gangster and
> thief and pigg shit human being
I see you weren't able to manage a point 2. So you cannot argue with my
logic.
Inertial
"Spencer Spindrift" <spencers...@btinternet.com> wrote in message
news:c0b8a5e7-61a4-4bc7...@b2g2000yqi.googlegroups.com...
Or vice versa.
> Maybe the universe cannot be explained.
Quite possible .. the universe doesn't HAVE to behave in ways that are
explainable with simple mathematical relationships and thoeries. Though for
the most part it seems to .. which is surprising in itself
> My own feeling is that it's 5D
> not 4D. Time is relative and could be an artefact of cnciousness.
The appearance of time 'flowing' is subjective .. its our perception of
time.
> The 5th D is conciosness or Eternity.
Interesting philosophy .. but unless it is something measureable it will not
be physics.
> I tend to favour the Mind Only interpretation in Buddhism which is
> like a pre-mathematical QM.
> 5=1 0=2
> Spencer
>
> Heisenberg may have been here
Hehehehe
Inertial
No .. it has DIMENSIONS of mass. It doesn't HAVE mass .. it would need to
be an actual physical entity to have mass. All it is is a numerical
relationship between energy and frequency (and occurs in a number of
formulas) .. the dimensions of it are simply what is required to make
dimensional analysis work for the formula that expresses that
proportionality.
> got it parrot orchestra conductor !!
Clearly you don't, and instead think that 'h' having dimensions of mass
(among others) is somehow significant, and that saying it somehow acts like
a magical incantation to refute the statements he made. Odd.
Y.Porat
----------------
good for you!
just tell it to all idiotic parrots
energy is
mass in motion!!
exactly as in macrocosm !!!
not to mention that mass is
in the dimensions of energy !!
ATB
Y.Porat
-----------------------
Y.Porat
-----------------
no need to deal with your idiotic arguenmnts
it is enough that the energy of photons has mass
dimension
now
psychopath thief crook Feuerbacher from Heidelberg
go discuss with Josef Goebbels
not with me
Y.P
----------------
Y.Porat
> "Y.Porat" <y.y.po...@gmail.com> wrote in message
-----------------
psychopath Feuerbacher
go discuss with Goebbels not with me
--------------------
Inertial
news:f9046d7d-1433-4222...@j42g2000yqd.googlegroups.com...
> On 28 Dec, 07:44, "Y.Porat" <y.y.po...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> THE PHOTON HAS MASS !!
>
> Of course the photon has mass. All energy has mass.
But it has no rest mass (which is what is meant when one just says "mass").
Because a photon has no rest energy.
A lot of people are confused by E = mc^2 and what it means and when it
applies.
Inertial
> On Dec 28, 1:44 pm, Ste <ste_ro...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>> On 28 Dec, 07:44, "Y.Porat" <y.y.po...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>> > THE PHOTON HAS MASS !!
>>
>> Of course the photon has mass. All energy has mass.
>
> ----------------
> good for you!
> just tell it to all idiotic parrots
> energy is
> mass in motion!!
Not always
> exactly as in macrocosm !!!
Not always
> not to mention that mass is
> in the dimensions of energy !!
Yeup .. Mass is equivalent to energy.
That doesn't mean a photon has rest (or invariant) mass. It does have an
amount of mass equivalent to its energy (which is observer dependant). If
it had invariant mass, then that mass would be the same for all observers.
Its not.
Inertial
I'll leave the idiocy to you
> it is enough that the energy of photons has mass
> dimension
Of course it does. That does not mean photons have rest (invariant) mass
> now
> psychopath thief crook Feuerbacher from Heidelberg
> go discuss with Josef Goebbels
> not with me
Again .. you're talking about someone else that you're imagining, not about
me.
Inertial
You're clearly confused .. that's not me
> go discuss with Goebbels not with me
I note that you are incapable of addressing the valid physics arguments I
make. Instead you resort to your pathetic insults.
Androcles
"Spencer Spindrift" <spencers...@btinternet.com> wrote in message
news:c0b8a5e7-61a4-4bc7...@b2g2000yqi.googlegroups.com...
==============================================
*plonk*
Do not reply to this generic message, it was automatically generated;
you have been kill-filed, either for being boringly stupid, repetitive,
unfunny, ineducable, repeatedly posting politics, religion or off-topic
subjects to a sci. newsgroup, attempting cheapskate free advertising
for profit, because you are a troll, because you responded to George
Hammond the complete fruit cake, simply insane or any combination
or permutation of the aforementioned reasons; any reply will go unread.
Boringly stupid is the most common cause of kill-filing, but because
this message is generic the other reasons have been included. You are
left to decide which is most applicable to you.
There is no appeal, I have despotic power over whom I will electronically
admit into my home and you do not qualify as a reasonable person I would
wish to converse with or even poke fun at. Some weirdoes are not kill-
filed, they amuse me and I retain them for their entertainment value
as I would any chicken with two heads, either one of which enables the
dumb bird to scratch dirt, step back, look down, step forward to the
same spot and repeat the process eternally.
This should not trouble you, many of those plonked find it a blessing
that they are not required to think and can persist in their bigotry
or crackpot theories without challenge.
You have the right to free speech, I have the right not to listen. The
kill-file will be cleared annually with spring cleaning or whenever I
purchase a new computer or hard drive.
Update: the last clearance was 25/12/09. Some individuals have been
restored to the list.
I'm fully aware that you may be so stupid as to reply, but the purpose
of this message is to encourage others to kill-file fuckwits like you.
I hope you find this explanation is satisfactory but even if you don't,
damnly my frank, I don't give a dear. Have a nice day and fuck off.
Y.Porat
> "Y.Porat" <y.y.po...@gmail.com> wrote in message
just a reply for the benefit of other readers :
to realize what happence while a fucker mathematician
is calling himself a physicist :
first of all
if we take the above m
it is not
m=h/l/c
but
m=h/lc
----------------
> So you should be easily able to work out what your claimed mass for a photon
> of a given frequency and wavelength is (save some gamma radiation, with
> wavelength of order of 10x-16).
>
> Do a calculation and see.
and see what ??!!
the figure of the mass i gave ~3 times exp +34 is
*for the apparent *smallest photon*
-------------
>
> Of course .. you'll find the the mass of a photon then varies depending on
> who observes it, because its energy and momentum are observer dependant.
(:-)
it is obvious that feuerbacher does not really know what IS a
*single* photon !!!
if the wave length was changed
IT IS NO MORE THE ORRIGINAL SINGLE PHOTON
it is another photon
with another energy and another momentum !!!
you have to examine a photon in a single
frame not in two frames
in another frame that is not the orriginal
and f was changed
it ios no maore the orriginal photon
IT IS ANOTHER PHOTON !!
and just a tip for parrots:
hf is not a single photon it is f photons
so
if f changes fro say a shorter f it means that in one second yoiu
get
MORE SINGLE PHOTONS
the single photon didnt change
th e number of photons changes !!
AND THE SINGLE PHOTON MASS REMAINS
CONSTANT !!!
(and while th e number of single photons changed
it is obvious that it will result in change of
energy or momentum !!! of them
that is the little difference between
a mathematician
and a physicist !!!
ATB
Y.Porat
------------------------------------------
Anti Vigilante
> "Y.Porat" <y.y....@gmail.com> wrote in message
> news:f443926e-9fb3-4d6a-9c85-
cae0fe...@a32g2000yqm.googlegroups.com...
Except Newtons have dimensions of mass which multiplied by distance have
the value of Work which has the same dimensions as energy.
What's the point of dimensional analysis if you can just wave it all away
by claiming it's purely mathematical?
Incidentally Energy also has dimensions of mass.
--
Fuck the Enlightenment! Viva la Renaissance!
Anti Vigilante
>>
>> Every experiment to find a mass for a photon has come up with zero (as
>> far as experiment can tell).
>>
>> What is the mass for a photon .. you seem to think formulas give it ..
>> you said we have momentum of a photon is
>>
>> p = m . c
>>
>> But we also have
>>
>> p = h / l
>>
>> where l is the wavelength of the photon, so
>>
>> m = h / l / c
>>
>> So you should be easily able to work out what your claimed mass for a
>> photon
>> of a given frequency and wavelength is (save some gamma radiation, with
>> wavelength of order of 10x-16).
>>
>> Do a calculation and see.
>>
>> Of course .. you'll find the the mass of a photon then varies depending
>> on who observes it, because its energy and momentum are observer
>> dependant.
>>
>> How do you explain the rest mass of a single photon varying like that
>> .. if
>> there is only one mass?
>>
Simple the variation comes from the varying quantity namely frequency.
Since mass does not vary therefore the mass comes from Planck's constant.
Question is what the hell does frequency have to do with energy?
Frequency implies cyclical behavior.
Androcles
"Anti Vigilante" <antivi...@pyrabang.com> wrote in message
news:hhb5rj$gdk$1...@news.eternal-september.org...
The faster the wheel turns the faster it travels the road.
The bigger the wheel the slower it needs to turn.
If you insist it only has one speed then you'll be perplexed by the obvious.
Inertial
You get common sense and logic. Two things you appear to be lacking
> first of all
> if we take the above m
>
> it is not
> m=h/l/c
> but
> m=h/lc
Which is the same thing, you idiot
> ----------------
>> So you should be easily able to work out what your claimed mass for a
>> photon
>> of a given frequency and wavelength is (save some gamma radiation, with
>> wavelength of order of 10x-16).
>>
>> Do a calculation and see.
> and see what ??!!
> the figure of the mass i gave ~3 times exp +34 is
> *for the apparent *smallest photon*
Now .. have a look at the accuracy of the experiments for photon mass and
see if they would have detected such a mass
> -------------
>>
>> Of course .. you'll find the the mass of a photon then varies depending
>> on
>> who observes it, because its energy and momentum are observer dependant.
>
> (:-)
>
> it is obvious that feuerbacher does not really know what IS a
> *single* photon !!!
I wouldn't know what he knows .. I'm not feuerbacher
> if the wave length was changed
> IT IS NO MORE THE ORRIGINAL SINGLE PHOTON
Yes .. it is
> it is another photon
> with another energy and another momentum !!!
Nope
> you have to examine a photon in a single
> frame not in two frames
It doesn't matter. Looking at something from a different frame doesn't
change what it is.
> in another frame that is not the orriginal
> and f was changed
Wrong
> it ios no maore the orriginal photon
> IT IS ANOTHER PHOTON !!
Wrong
> and just a tip for parrots:
>
> hf is not a single photon it is f photons
WRONG .. totally wrong
> so
> if f changes fro say a shorter f it means that in one second yoiu
> get
> MORE SINGLE PHOTONS
You have not idea at all
> the single photon didnt change
> th e number of photons changes !!
Wrong
> AND THE SINGLE PHOTON MASS REMAINS
> CONSTANT !!!
Nope
> (and while th e number of single photons changed
> it is obvious that it will result in change of
> energy or momentum !!! of them
> that is the little difference between
> a mathematician
> and a physicist !!!
You are clearly neither.
You have just shown you do not understand maths, and you have no idea about
photons.
You are a complete and utter moron.
Inertial
Yes they do. That doesn't mean work if an entity that has a mass.
> What's the point of dimensional analysis if you can just wave it all away
> by claiming it's purely mathematical?
No-one said to wave it away.
There is a difference between a number having dimensions of mass, and saying
it has mass. It can't have mass .. its jsut a number. Its not a
measurement of a physical entity. Its a numerical proportion.
> Incidentally Energy also has dimensions of mass.
Which is why the constant proportion 'h' has dimension of mass (among
others) .. it is given whatever dimensions that are required to satisfy
dimensional analysis.
Inertial
>>> It can't reach c.
>>>
>>> Every experiment to find a mass for a photon has come up with zero (as
>>> far as experiment can tell).
>>>
>>> What is the mass for a photon .. you seem to think formulas give it ..
>>> you said we have momentum of a photon is
>>>
>>> p = m . c
>>>
>>> But we also have
>>>
>>> p = h / l
>>>
>>> where l is the wavelength of the photon, so
>>>
>>> m = h / l / c
>>>
>>> So you should be easily able to work out what your claimed mass for a
>>> photon
>>> of a given frequency and wavelength is (save some gamma radiation, with
>>> wavelength of order of 10x-16).
>>>
>>> Do a calculation and see.
>>>
>>> Of course .. you'll find the the mass of a photon then varies depending
>>> on who observes it, because its energy and momentum are observer
>>> dependant.
>>>
>>> How do you explain the rest mass of a single photon varying like that
>>> .. if
>>> there is only one mass?
>>>
>
> Simple the variation comes from the varying quantity namely frequency.
> Since mass does not vary therefore the mass comes from Planck's constant.
Exactly .. its just the mass part of a constant. It is not photon mass.
Saying that 'h' has dimensions of mass does NOT prove a photon has mass.
Its a nonsensical argument.
> Question is what the hell does frequency have to do with energy?
See Quantum physics for answers (though they aren't easy to understand :)).
its the Energy transmitted by a wave / photon of that frequency. You can
(very rough analogy) imagine shaking a rope to make a wave in it .. you need
to put more energy into the shaking to make it shake faster :):)
> Frequency implies cyclical behavior.
Indeed it does (though I'm sure someone will come up with something that
isn't :)).
Anti Vigilante
>> Since mass does not vary therefore the mass comes from Planck's
>> constant.
>>
>> Question is what the hell does frequency have to do with energy?
>> Frequency implies cyclical behavior.
> ================================================= The faster the wheel
> turns the faster it travels the road. The bigger the wheel the slower it
> needs to turn.
That's an interesting angle.
> If you insist it only has one speed then you'll be perplexed by the
> obvious.
That's a whole other ball game.
Androcles
>>> Simple the variation comes from the varying quantity namely frequency.
>>> Since mass does not vary therefore the mass comes from Planck's
>>> constant.
>>>
>>> Question is what the hell does frequency have to do with energy?
>>> Frequency implies cyclical behavior.
>> ================================================= The faster the wheel
>> turns the faster it travels the road. The bigger the wheel the slower it
>> needs to turn.
>
> That's an interesting angle.
http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/AC/AC.gif
In this model of a coil and a capacitor, an alternating current (AC) is
shown. Electrical charges build up on one side of the capacitor, producing
an electrical field between the plates of the capacitor as shown by the dark
arrows. When the capacitor can hold no more charge the current reverses and
gradually increases, driving a magnetic field (shown by the N and S for
North and South) until the current reaches a maximum and there is no more
voltage across the plates of the capacitor. Having exhausted the potential
energy of the voltage the magnetic field now begins to collapse and
continues to push the current in the same direction, this time building up a
voltage in the capacitor with opposite polarity, shown by the plus and minus
signs. When the magnetic field is zero (as it must eventually become), the
voltage is at a maximum and when the magnetic field is at maximum the
current is also at a maximum and the voltage is at zero. Thus we see in the
coil a kind of flywheel with inertia, reluctant to start moving and
reluctant to stop once it is, and the capacitor is a kind of spring, eager
to return from its stretched or compressed condition. On the right can be
seen voltage (red/blue) and the magnetic field (gold/purple) with a teal
vector representing constant energy.
>
>> If you insist it only has one speed then you'll be perplexed by the
>> obvious.
>
> That's a whole other ball game.
>
Waves are history, photons are a ball game.
http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/AC/Photon.gif
Anti Vigilante
First of all the minute amount of mass it would represent is comfortably
close to zero. It's close enough to be discussed. It's also a question of
where did that mass component come from?
>> Question is what the hell does frequency have to do with energy?
>
> See Quantum physics for answers (though they aren't easy to understand
> :)). its the Energy transmitted by a wave / photon of that frequency.
> You can (very rough analogy) imagine shaking a rope to make a wave in it
> .. you need to put more energy into the shaking to make it shake faster
> :):)
That's not at all what I meant. I meant how does the energy determine the
angle at which the electron goes off at? That implies some complex
machinery under those fundamental particles.
>> Frequency implies cyclical behavior.
>
> Indeed it does (though I'm sure someone will come up with something that
> isn't :)).
--
Inertial
It doesn't represent ANY amount of mass. Its a number. its the ratio of
photon energy to photon frequency.
> It's close enough to be discussed. It's also a question of
> where did that mass component come from?
There is no mass component. its not an entity. It has no mass. It has the
dimensions it does only so that dimensional analysis comes out correct.
>>> Question is what the hell does frequency have to do with energy?
>>
>> See Quantum physics for answers (though they aren't easy to understand
>> :)). its the Energy transmitted by a wave / photon of that frequency.
>> You can (very rough analogy) imagine shaking a rope to make a wave in it
>> .. you need to put more energy into the shaking to make it shake faster
>> :):)
>
> That's not at all what I meant.
But it is what you asked
> I meant how does the energy determine the
> angle at which the electron goes off at?
That is nothing like what you asked. And has nothing to do with the
equations or question being discussed.
> That implies some complex
> machinery under those fundamental particles.
You're flying off on some wild unrelated tangent now.
Y.Porat
----------------
and again for the benefit of other readers:
the fucken moron imbecile crock and thief
that is calling himself * Inertial* and is actually
FEUERBACHER FROM HEIDELBERG!!
(he has good reasons to remain anonymous !!)
that imbecile parasite tells you that the photon has zero mass!!
and (plus()!!! in addition
IT HAS RELATIVISTIC MASS AS WELL!!
got it to what an extent a blockead gangster imbecile psychopath --
can reach
'it has zero mass
but has relativistic mass ''!!! 9got it ??)
rest mass that was inflated from zero !!!
(thje zero was multiplied by Gama (:-)
now in addition - the fucker shit head Pigg
still didnt hear that
THE GAMMA FACTOR --DOES NOT APPLY TO THE PHORON !!!!!!!
among the others because
if it moves always with a constant velocity c
there is noting to mulitply anything in it
by Gamma )
the only thing shorter wave length makes is
TO ENLARGE THE ENERGY OR MOMENTUM!
of it ------>
not by inflating its 'zero mass' (you cant inflate somethig that
*does not exist !!!)
but rather by *** adding more** mass units** per second to it
iow
TO ENLARGE THE PHOTONS' ENERGY OR MOMENTUM (by adding more mass UNITS'
TO IT
THE MASS UNIT OF THE REAL SINGLE PHOTON - DOES NOT CHANGE !!!
it is only their NUMBER is increased
in addition to that
if you will ask that psychopath pigg Feuerbacher:
is it possible that there wil be a photon with
**one* cycle per billion years??
he answered in past
it is possible !!
and that is why i called him
THE INVENTOR OF THE *FERTZ* PHOTON !!
(copyright Bjoern Feuerbacher of Heidelberg)
(you can see it documented in Google )
he will peobably insist (if he is honest-
but no chance )-- even now about that claim
(unless the little Josef Goebbels changed his mind
under my pressure !!)
btw
little Feuerbacher (Goebbels ) will never admit being wrong
Y.Porat
------------------------------
to the photon
Inertial
Nope .. I'm not. I'm not even from Europe.
Your continual lies about it just make you look even more foolish
> (he has good reasons to remain anonymous !!)
Indeed I do, with psychos like you around
> that imbecile parasite tells you that the photon has zero mass!!
Yeup .. that's what physiocs tells us. Quantum physics and relativity both
agree on that
> and (plus()!!! in addition
> IT HAS RELATIVISTIC MASS AS WELL!!
Yeup .. of course it does .. everything does.
> got it to what an extent a blockead gangster imbecile psychopath --
> can reach
> 'it has zero mass
Yes
> but has relativistic mass ''!!! 9got it ??)
Yes
> rest mass that was inflated from zero !!!
No inflation
> (thje zero was multiplied by Gama (:-)
Nope.
> now in addition - the fucker shit head Pigg
> still didnt hear that
Hear what?
> THE GAMMA FACTOR --DOES NOT APPLY TO THE PHORON !!!!!!!
The same physics applies
> among the others because
> if it moves always with a constant velocity c
> there is noting to mulitply anything in it
> by Gamma )
Nonsense
> the only thing shorter wave length makes is
> TO ENLARGE THE ENERGY OR MOMENTUM!
> of it ------>
Yes it does .. because energy is proportional to the frequency
> not by inflating its 'zero mass' (you cant inflate somethig that
> *does not exist !!!)
I never said that it did
> but rather by *** adding more** mass units** per second to it
It never has anything added to it, because photons don't travel at less than
c
> iow
> TO ENLARGE THE PHOTONS' ENERGY OR MOMENTUM (by adding more mass UNITS'
> TO IT
You don't add more mass units to it.
> THE MASS UNIT OF THE REAL SINGLE PHOTON - DOES NOT CHANGE !!!
Its energy does .. as given by E = hf .. that is the energy of a SINGLE
photon of frequency f
> it is only their NUMBER is increased
Nope
> in addition to that
> if you will ask that psychopath pigg Feuerbacher:
He isn't here
> is it possible that there wil be a photon with
> **one* cycle per billion years??
No particular reason why not
> he answered in past
> it is possible !!
If you can come up with a valid physics reason why it is not impossible,
then it is possible
> and that is why i called him
Your only skill, as feeble as it is, is calling people name and insulting
them. Your gassed parents must be so ashamed of you and the dishonour you
bring to your family name by the hatred you have and by putting yourself up
for such ridicule.
> THE INVENTOR OF THE *FERTZ* PHOTON !!
> (copyright Bjoern Feuerbacher of Heidelberg)
> (you can see it documented in Google )
It would have been your idea to ask about it, I'm sure. You continue to ask
about it month after month and year after year.
> he will peobably insist
insist on what?
> (if he is honest-
> but no chance )
I have no idea about Feuerbacher's honesty.. But I have never lied here.
> -- even now about that claim
> (unless the little Josef Goebbels changed his mind
> under my pressure !!)
You are a nothing to me. You exert no pressure.
> btw
> little Feuerbacher (Goebbels ) will never admit being wrong
You'd have to ask him about that (if he was still posting here). I
certainly admit when I am wrong. Unlike Porat who cannot understand physics
enough to know what nonsense he posts.
Y.Porat
so ok
now we have another prove that
Inertial is actually Feierbacher!! from Heidelberg
(and a shame to that great university !!)
btw saying again against my physics claimes --
no! no!
and even more pompously NOPE.. (:-)
does not make him less an imbecile crook !!
the imbcile psychopath
THAT **FERTZ** INVENTION OF HIS
IS AS GOOD AS A FINGERPRINT
he even suppoted the claim that
ther can be a photon with ferequency of
one cycle per 100 billion years !!(:-)
the is only one imbecile blockhead that can support such idea (no
need to explain now why !!)
so
we have here tthe one and only one
(one in a lifetime .. (:-) Feuerbacher
btw
we can know that Inertial is not American
he is European (:-) ie
even more accurate - central Europe (:-)
Y.P
----------------------
> > he answered in past
> > it is possible !!
>
> If you can come up with a valid physics reason why it is not impossible,
> then it is possible
>
> > and that is why i
>
> ...
>
> read more »
Y.Porat
> "Anti Vigilante" <antivigila...@pyrabang.com> wrote in message
>
> news:hhauip$e88$1...@news.eternal-september.org...
>
>
>
> > On Mon, 28 Dec 2009 23:04:19 +1100, Inertial wrote:
>
> >> news:f443926e-9fb3-4d6a-9c85-
> > cae0fe2bf...@a32g2000yqm.googlegroups.com...
-------------------
dont you see that 'Inertial'(Ffeuerbacher) is an imbecile psychopath
and crook as well ??
Y.P
--------------------------
Inertial
No .. I am not.
You have a very strange idea of proof.
> btw saying again against my physics claimes --
> no! no!
Because they are wrong.. even to the point of classifying them as 'physics'
is incorrect
> and even more pompously NOPE.. (:-)
> does not make him less an imbecile crook !!
That would be you
> the imbcile psychopath
The would be you
> THAT **FERTZ** INVENTION OF HIS
> IS AS GOOD AS A FINGERPRINT
Not my idea. Though it does appear to be yours .. You certainly promote it
enough
> he even suppoted the claim that
> ther can be a photon with ferequency of
> one cycle per 100 billion years !!(:-)
I've gone thru this nonsense many times with you before .. I'm not aware of
any reason why there could not be such a photon. That means it remains a
possibility until some valid logical reason for it NOT to exist is put
forward. It would be extremely difficult to detect due to its low energy.
> the is only one imbecile blockhead that can support such idea (no
> need to explain now why !!)
No .. several people have the same rational opinion.
> so
> we have here tthe one and only one
> (one in a lifetime .. (:-) Feuerbacher
Nope .. wrong as always
> btw
> we can know that Inertial is not American
I never claimed to be one
> he is European (:-) ie
Nope. Only ever been there ones on a buinsees trip several years ago
> even more accurate - central Europe (:-)
Totally wrong. You're such a moron, Porat. And you continue to demonstrate
it so well.
Inertial
I am none of those things, nor that person. Not even from the same
continent as him. You're such a senile old fool, Porat.
Anti Vigilante
>> others) .. it is given whatever dimensions that are required to satisfy
>> dimensional analysis.
You don't get dimensions for free.
Y.Porat
---lier
--------------
Y.Porat
right!!
there is the MKS system
kilogram meter second!!
there is no
Kg 1 Kg 2 Kg 3 a s you like it
and dimensions are not there just for
garment
dimension are the skeleton of a physics formula
just tell it to the psychopath imbecile parrot
lier Feuerbacher
a fucken mathematician
(and the Fertz inventor ) will not understand it even in a thousand
years
see just above
for him
a photon with a frequancy of one cycle per
100 billion years -- is possible .... (:-)
there is jsut one idiot like that in the whole universe !!
it is good enough as a fingerprint !!--
his name is Feuerbacher from Heidelberg
yet on top of all his virtues
he is a psycho leech as well
Y.P
-----------------------------------
Inertial
Yes .. you are .. very clearly .. only it is spelt 'liar' .. you can't even
get *that* right.
Inertial
>>> Which is why the constant proportion 'h' has dimension of mass (among
>>> others) .. it is given whatever dimensions that are required to satisfy
>>> dimensional analysis.
>
> You don't get dimensions for free.
If, as Planck did, you observe that Energy of a photon is proportional to
its frequency, then the dimensions of the constant numerical ratio between
them are dictated by the dimensions of energy and frequency. Its very
simple. 'h' is the result, its dimensions MUST BE such that the dimensional
analysis is correct, and its numeric value dependant on the particular
system of units you use.
Inertial
Oh Porat .. you do spout so many lies and nonsense and pointless insults.
You claim others do not understand when you've shown time and time again
your own ignorance of basic physics. Its truly sad, yet also amusing.
Y.Porat
> "Y.Porat" <y.y.po...@gmail.com> wrote in message
-------------------
F.F.F.F. (:-)
------------------------
Y.Porat
> "Anti Vigilante" <antivigila...@pyrabang.com> wrote in message
--------------------
BEFRE LEARNING TO FUCK
LEARN TO CRAWL !!! (:-)
ps
i warned you dot to 'start' with me '
and you dont listen little dumb ass crook !!
it is more than enough that you stole my book
and spread it without my permission !!
Y.P
-------------------
Inertial
> On Dec 30, 1:22 am, "Inertial" <relativ...@rest.com> wrote:
>> "Anti Vigilante" <antivigila...@pyrabang.com> wrote in message
>>
>> news:hhd6qm$rvp$1...@news.eternal-september.org...
>>
>> >>> Which is why the constant proportion 'h' has dimension of mass (among
>> >>> others) .. it is given whatever dimensions that are required to
>> >>> satisfy
>> >>> dimensional analysis.
>>
>> > You don't get dimensions for free.
>>
>> If, as Planck did, you observe that Energy of a photon is proportional to
>> its frequency, then the dimensions of the constant numerical ratio
>> between
>> them are dictated by the dimensions of energy and frequency. Its very
>> simple. 'h' is the result, its dimensions MUST BE such that the
>> dimensional
>> analysis is correct, and its numeric value dependant on the particular
>> system of units you use.
>
> --------------------
> BEFRE LEARNING TO FUCK
>
> LEARN TO CRAWL !!! (:-)
I've well and truly learnt both.
And, unlike you, I've studied nad learn physics and actually understand it
> ps
> i warned you dot to 'start' with me '
You're the one who is starting with me. I'm just discussing physics.
You're launching personal attacks, and spreading lies. Shameful. I bet
your parents are glad they died in the gas chamber rather than witness your
appalling behavior that disgraces their family name.
> and you dont listen little dumb ass crook !!
I listen .. I'm just not intimidated by a senile old fool like you.
> it is more than enough that you stole my book
Never happened
> and spread it without my permission !!
Never happened
Y.Porat
F.F.F.F. (:-)
Y.P
---------------------
cjcountess
2) Einstein discovered E=mc^2 for electron's/matter
3) deBroglie discovered (E=hf) = (E=mc^2) for electron of -1 charge,
and that electron was also a wave.
4) Bohr discovered that the wavelength of electron is equal to
circumference of circle with angular momentum of a multiple integer of
h/2pi
5) Therefore it follows from this and other evidence, that (E=mc^2) =
(E= mc^circled) and c=(square root of -1)
If we draw progressively shorter waves, with progressively higher
energy, we will evidentially arrive at a wave whose 90 degree angular
energy/momentum equals its linear energy/momentum, which create a
balance of centripetal and centrifugal forces, and 90 degree arc,
which if constant creates a circle in 2d, or a spherical wave in 3d.
This 3d wave makes two rotations in order to complete one wave cycle,
(spin1/2) and also spins backward counter to it trajectory in half the
cases which is how electron gets its -1 charge. In the other half of
cases a forward spinning positron emerged.
A smooth transition from photon to electron, energy to matter, along
the same EM spectrum, which might from now on be called the (energy/
matter), spectrum as well as (electromagnetic), is geometrically
demonstrated.
Photons do have constant mass/energy = to h, that come from kinetic
energy of constant speed of c.
Mass / energy increases with frequency increase at (E=hf/c^2) until it
reaches (E=hf=c^2) or (E=hf=mc^2) as deBroglie stated, at which it
attains rest mass.
Rest mass is just relative mass in circular and or spherical rotation,
such as a standing spherical waves, (electron).
Therefore (E=hf /c2), the equation for quantum energy/ mass = (F=mm/
r2), Newtons equation for gravity, minus the big G, sense h is its own
constant, and (F=mv2), the equation of force or energy of mass in
motion = (E=mc2), the equation for energy/mass equivalence, on the
quantum level and (a=v2/r) = (a=c2/c). And so the same force that
compresses energy into rest mass particles at (E=hf/c2) = (E=mc2)
pushes rest mass particles together at (F=mv/r2) = (F=Gmm/r2). They
are equivalent at quantum level and directly proportional at macro
level.
See:http://docs.google.com/View?docID=0ATiDkGLEqaE-
ZHNuNXE2Zl8xMDFoZ3RqdjlmYg&revision=_latest
Conrad J Countess
Y.Porat
--------------------
if you agree with me that
NO MASS - NO REAL PHYSICS !!
i am with you !!!
ATB
Y.Porat
-----------------------------
cjcountess
The idea that a photon has no mass does not make sense.
h determines its constant mass, and f its variable mass, in equation
E=hf/c^2
And although it may not be rest mass, it is still mass, from kinetic
energy of motion.
And as you know by now, I think that I have proven that even rest
mass, is kinetic energy, relative mass, from energy at c in circular
and or spherical motion.
Wavelength = (cx2pi) and momentum (h/2pi). If it makes 2 rotations to
complete 1 wave cycle its momentum is (h/2pi/2). Furthermore as I
stated earlier, if it spins counter to its trajectory, it will have -1
charge.
The geometrical model of (E=mc^2) explains how energy gets trapped
inside of and turns to matter at the frequency wavelength of c^2,
because the energy gets trapped in a closed loop rotation, (E=mc^2 =
E=mc^circled), how -1 charge emerges from backward spin, and that (c =
natural unit sqrt of natural unit -1), taking it out of the realm of
the imaginary numbers and into the real world of natural units. And
last but not least, it explains how (h/2pi/2) is measure of certainty
of particles wavelength and momentum, not uncertainty, demystifying
uncertainty principle also.
See for more detail
http://docs.google.com/View?docID=0ATiDkGLEqaE-ZHNuNXE2Zl8xMDFoZ3RqdjlmYg&revision=_latest
Conrad J Countess
Inertial
"cjcountess" <cjcou...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:e71000a9-1c31-41e4...@z7g2000vbl.googlegroups.com...
> I do agree
>
> The idea that a photon has no mass does not make sense.
> h determines its constant mass,
h is not a property of a photon
> and f its variable mass,
f is frequency .. not mass
> in equation
> E=hf/c^2
That is not the equation.
> And although it may not be rest mass,
Indeed .. as a photon has no rest mass
> it is still mass, from kinetic
> energy of motion.
usually called 'realtivisitic' mass
[snip post degenerating into nonsense]
Inertial
> 1) Planck discovered E=hf for photons
> 2) Einstein discovered E=mc^2 for electron's/matter
> 3) deBroglie discovered (E=hf) = (E=mc^2) for electron of -1 charge,
> and that electron was also a wave.
> 4) Bohr discovered that the wavelength of electron is equal to
> circumference of circle with angular momentum of a multiple integer of
> h/2pi
> 5) Therefore it follows from this and other evidence, that (E=mc^2) =
> (E= mc^circled) and c=(square root of -1)
You were going well up until you started with that last line of nonsense.
If c=(square root of -1), then c is no longer a real number, and cannot be
the speed of anything measured. Further, if c=(square root of -1), then c^2
= -2, so E = mc^2 becomes E = -m, and that is absolute nonsense.
ka...@nventure.com
<spencerspindr...@btinternet.com> wrote:
> Q.: How is it that a photon has momentum but no mass?
> Or in other words how does light carry energy?
> As far as I know momentum is a property of moving or spinning
> mass.
> A photon cannot have mass or it would be infinite at C..
>
> A.; ???
The only way to resolve this conundrum and solve this is to take
a
philosophical approach, because one has to first understand the true
nature of light.
Furthermore, it helps if one knows how mainline science got to
this
apparent paradox. So:
The two modern and incompatible theories of the nature of light
were
developed at about the same time by Isaac Newton with his 'corpuscle'
theory and Christian Huygens with the wave theory. Newton's concept
fell out of fashion when Huygens, T. Young, G. R. Kirchhoff, J. C.
Maxwell, et al., demonstrated the wave properties of light. The
particle
nature of light came back into favor with the 'photon' of Max Planck
and
the ideas of quantum mechanics.
Nevertheless, the fundamental concept of the nature of light is
still
being debated, so is moot and not truly resolved. That is, is light
the
energy of a physical photon particle or that of a wave? Mainline
science
just gave up, i.e., acquiesced, as it could not fully support or
reject
either supposition. In other words; science cannot truly explain the
paradoxial massless mass (that can be said to be the thoughtless
thought of a mindless mind) of the photon, or the enigmatic ether
(that Special Relativity established as superfluous and unnecessary)
required of the wave theory to work in the vacuum of outer space.
So mainline science really chickened out, and just blindly accepted
(on FAITH) the flummoxial idea of the dual nature of light postulated
by Louis de Broglie.
Ever since the two conflicting concepts were conceived, light has
been considered energy. (Yes, mass is a necessary component of
both energy and momentum.) Thinking of light as energy has resulted
in the current difficulty of satisfactorily explaining the true
properties
and qualities of light.
The Fundamental Principle Forces of physics are:
The Strong Nuclear Force;
The Weak Nuclear Force;
The Electromagnetic Force;
The Gravitational Force.
Whether or not the effect of the weak nuclear interaction is an
extension of (i.e., unified with) the electromagnetic force by the
Electroweak Theory of Dr. Steven Weinberg; or whether any bending
of the path of light is due to the geodesics of General Relativity or
the
gravitation of Newton are immaterial to the following.
Visible light is just a small segment of the electromagnetic
spectrum. The invisible portions of this spectrum (i.e., the
ultraviolet,
infrared, and even those with frequencies well above or well below
the
visible portion) are often connoted as light. It may be just a matter
of
semantics, but the whole electromagnetic spectrum, or the specific
segment thereof under study, including the visible portion, outside
the context of the Fundamental Forces is almost always believed,
supposed, considered, and/or connoted as:
Energy,
Radiation,
Field,
Rays,
but seldom, if ever, as force.
Light, regardless whether visible or invisible, is not energy,
radiation
fields, or rays.
Light is a force!
Light is a force, just like electricity and magnetism. Light
force can
be converted into electrical force (i.e., the electromotive force, or
EMF),
that in turn can be changed into magnetic force, that then can be
converted into the mechanical forces that drives our civilization.
And
visa-versa. So the Laws of Thermodynamics are obeyed! Thinking of
the electromagnetic phenomenon as a trinity (i.e., electo-LIGHT-
magnetic), rather that just the duality of the electromagnetic
spectrum may help in clarifying the role of light in the true
workings
of the natural universe.
So the true answer to the question by the OP is that the photon
is a
sort of a red herring, and does not exist in the natural universe as
such.
I hope this answer is satisfactory. Many details have be omitted
for
brevity, and the above is a very condensed synopsis of the full
desertion
of light appearing in the treatise 'The Search for Reality and the
Truths'
by this author that is not yet in print.
Anyway- Have a Happy New Year
D. Y. Kadoshima
Y.Porat
> I do agree
-----------------
-nice !
we need more people on our side
ad less on the mathematician parrots
on the other side
>
> The idea that a photon has no mass does not make sense.
> h determines its constant mass, and f its variable mass, in equation
> E=hf/c^2
> And although it may not be rest mass, it is still mass, from kinetic
there are no 2 kinds of mass
no one is alowed (a fucker mathematician )to invent kinds of masses
to fit his idiotic moronic )ad hock need!
(idiotic is not realizing that the photon is an exception case that
can move at c
and have mass
because of the new iron rule that
NO MASS - NO REAL PHYSICS !!)
no need to be a genius to understand it
after a 100 years of experiments !!! and simple thinking )
there is the MKS system
meter Kilogram second
and no
METER KILIGRAM 1 KILOGRAM 2 LIKOGRAM 2
SECOND 1 SECOND 2
dimensions have to be measured (or compared to)
IN JUST ONE FRAME
NOT IN 2 AND NOT IN 3 FRAMES !!!
or else
you have no BASE TO MEASURE ANYTHING !!!
that is by definition the base of measurements !!!
3
non of the MKS dimensions are changing
in the REST FRAME !!
4
the moving frame does not **invent or create**
NEW BASIC PHYSICAL ENTITIES !!
5
ENERGY IS - MASS ON MOTION
as in macrocosm !!!
> energy of motion.
> And as you know by now, I think that I have proven that even rest
> mass, is kinetic energy, relative mass, from energy at c in circular
> and or spherical motion.
i agree
but still even it is moving it is the ONE MASS!!
no matter how do you call it
ATB
Y.Porat
----------------------------------------
Inertial
> On Dec 30, 9:30 pm, cjcountess <cjcount...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>> I do agree
> -----------------
> -nice !
> we need more people on our side
> ad less on the mathematician parrots
> on the other side
>>
>> The idea that a photon has no mass does not make sense.
>> h determines its constant mass, and f its variable mass, in equation
>> E=hf/c^2
>> And although it may not be rest mass, it is still mass, from kinetic
> -----------------
> there are no 2 kinds of mass
How quickly he drifted from 'your side'
> no one is alowed (a fucker mathematician )to invent kinds of masses
> to fit his idiotic moronic )ad hock need!
They don't
> (idiotic is not realizing that the photon is an exception case that
> can move at c
> and have mass
> because of the new iron rule that
> NO MASS - NO REAL PHYSICS !!)
No need for an exception when a zero rest-mass photon fits the rules as it
is
> no need to be a genius to understand it
> after a 100 years of experiments !!! and simple thinking )
All experiments are consistent with the zero rest mass
[snip more porat waffle]
PD
<spencerspindr...@btinternet.com> wrote:
> Q.: How is it that a photon has momentum but no mass?
> Or in other words how does light carry energy?
> As far as I know momentum is a property of moving or spinning
> mass.
> A photon cannot have mass or it would be infinite at C..
>
> A.; ???
If you've been led to believe that momentum is a property of a moving
mass and SOLELY a moving mass, then you've been misled.
It is often stated that FOR a moving mass, the momentum is defined as
mass x velocity.
This turns out also to be a lie.
First of all, it's not a definition, it's an empirically derived rule.
Secondly, it's not right, though it works very well at low velocities.
At higher velocities, you have to use gamma x mass x velocity, where
gamma is a number that is darn close to 1 for low speeds but gets
bigger and bigger as you get to an appreciable fraction of the speed
of light.
Third, this rule ONLY applies for moving masses, and should not be
used for just anything that has momentum. Other entities also carry
momentum but not described by that rule.
In the end, what momentum is, is whatever quantity can be ascribed to
a physical entity such that the total of that quantity for all objects
of all kinds in a closed system is constant. It's still remarkable
that such a rule can be found at all.
PD
Y.Porat
> On Dec 26, 5:42 pm, Spencer Spindrift
>
> <spencerspindr...@btinternet.com> wrote:
> > Q.: How is it that a photon has momentum but no mass?
> > Or in other words how does light carry energy?
> > As far as I know momentum is a property of moving or spinning
> > mass.
> > A photon cannot have mass or it would be infinite at C..
>
> > A.; ???
>
> If you've been led to believe that momentum is a property of a moving
> mass and SOLELY a moving mass, then you've been misled.
> It is often stated that FOR a moving mass, the momentum is defined as
> mass x velocity.
> This turns out also to be a lie.
>
> First of all, it's not a definition, it's an empirically derived rule.
>
> Secondly, it's not right, though it works very well at low velocities.
> At higher velocities, you have to use gamma x mass x velocity, where
> gamma is a number that is darn close to 1 for low speeds but gets
> bigger and bigger as you get to an appreciable fraction of the speed
> of light.
and who the hell told you that this Gamma
is attached to the mass??
just because you understand only algebra parroting ???
and evn by algebra that you understand
how about
instead of
momentum = gamma m v
Momentum /gamma = m v
in that case you dont have to **Invent***
a new kind of mass !!!!!!
**and m re,mains constant !!!???
how about thinking physics
and not parroting
btw
as for the photon
THE GAMMA FACTOR DOES NOT APPLY AT ALL TO IT !!
it is another indication about the need to know
were and how to use it !!!
9bacause of ambiguity situations !!!
--------------
>
> Third, this rule ONLY applies for moving masses, and should not be
> used for just anything that has momentum. Other entities also carry
> momentum but not described by that rule.
>
> In the end, what momentum is, is whatever quantity can be ascribed to
> a physical entity such that the total of that quantity for all objects
> of all kinds in a closed system is constant. It's still remarkable
> that such a rule can be found at all.
> ---------------------
(:-)
Hi abstract philosopher !!
ps
excuse me PD for 'leeching' on you
but you can see that i bring physics
arguments !!
ATB
Y.Porat
--------------
Inertial
> On Dec 31 2009, 9:21 pm, PD <thedraperfam...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On Dec 26, 5:42 pm, Spencer Spindrift
>>
>> <spencerspindr...@btinternet.com> wrote:
>> > Q.: How is it that a photon has momentum but no mass?
>> > Or in other words how does light carry energy?
>> > As far as I know momentum is a property of moving or spinning
>> > mass.
>> > A photon cannot have mass or it would be infinite at C..
>>
>> > A.; ???
>>
>> If you've been led to believe that momentum is a property of a moving
>> mass and SOLELY a moving mass, then you've been misled.
>> It is often stated that FOR a moving mass, the momentum is defined as
>> mass x velocity.
>> This turns out also to be a lie.
>>
>> First of all, it's not a definition, it's an empirically derived rule.
>>
>> Secondly, it's not right, though it works very well at low velocities.
>> At higher velocities, you have to use gamma x mass x velocity, where
>> gamma is a number that is darn close to 1 for low speeds but gets
>> bigger and bigger as you get to an appreciable fraction of the speed
>> of light.
> --------------------------
> and who the hell told you that this Gamma
> is attached to the mass??
As has been explained to you countless times .. it is NOT attached to
anything
> just because you understand only algebra parroting ???
> and evn by algebra that you understand
You clearly do not understand math or algebra
> how about
> instead of
> momentum = gamma m v
>
> Momentum /gamma = m v
Same thing
> in that case you dont have to **Invent***
> a new kind of mass !!!!!!
There was no invention of a new kind of mass
> **and m re,mains constant !!!???
It always was constant
> how about thinking physics
> and not parroting
You're not thinking at all
> btw
> as for the photon
> THE GAMMA FACTOR DOES NOT APPLY AT ALL TO IT !!
Why .. does it have some of special anti-gamma-factor shield?
> it is another indication about the need to know
> were and how to use it !!!
You don't
> 9bacause of ambiguity situations !!!
> --------------
>
>
>
>>
>> Third, this rule ONLY applies for moving masses, and should not be
>> used for just anything that has momentum. Other entities also carry
>> momentum but not described by that rule.
>>
>> In the end, what momentum is, is whatever quantity can be ascribed to
>> a physical entity such that the total of that quantity for all objects
>> of all kinds in a closed system is constant. It's still remarkable
>> that such a rule can be found at all.
>> ---------------------
>
> (:-)
> Hi abstract philosopher !!
> ps
> excuse me PD for 'leeching' on you
> but you can see that i bring physics
> arguments !!
No .. not a word of rational physics there.
Y.Porat
> "Y.Porat" <y.y.po...@gmail.com> wrote in message
----------------------
F.F.F.F. (:-)
Y.P
------------------------
PD
> On Dec 31 2009, 9:21 pm, PD <thedraperfam...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > On Dec 26, 5:42 pm, Spencer Spindrift
>
> > <spencerspindr...@btinternet.com> wrote:
> > > Q.: How is it that a photon has momentum but no mass?
> > > Or in other words how does light carry energy?
> > > As far as I know momentum is a property of moving or spinning
> > > mass.
> > > A photon cannot have mass or it would be infinite at C..
>
> > > A.; ???
>
> > If you've been led to believe that momentum is a property of a moving
> > mass and SOLELY a moving mass, then you've been misled.
> > It is often stated that FOR a moving mass, the momentum is defined as
> > mass x velocity.
> > This turns out also to be a lie.
>
> > First of all, it's not a definition, it's an empirically derived rule.
>
> > Secondly, it's not right, though it works very well at low velocities.
> > At higher velocities, you have to use gamma x mass x velocity, where
> > gamma is a number that is darn close to 1 for low speeds but gets
> > bigger and bigger as you get to an appreciable fraction of the speed
> > of light.
>
> --------------------------
> and who the hell told you that this Gamma
> is attached to the mass??
It isn't attached to the mass. It's a factor that is included in the
expression for momentum of massive objects. That's one of three
factors, none of which is "attached" to any of the others.
> just because you understand only algebra parroting ???
> and evn by algebra that you understand
>
> how about
> instead of
> momentum = gamma m v
>
> Momentum /gamma = m v
>
> in that case you dont have to **Invent***
> a new kind of mass !!!!!!
Nor am I inventing a new kind of mass here. What I'm doing is writing
the CORRECT expression for the momentum of a massive object.
>
> **and m re,mains constant !!!???
> how about thinking physics
> and not parroting
> btw
> as for the photon
> THE GAMMA FACTOR DOES NOT APPLY AT ALL TO IT !!
That's correct, and the formula momentum = gamma x mass x velocity
doesn't apply to photons at all.
A wholly different expression for momentum is used for photons.
> it is another indication about the need to know
> were and how to use it !!!
> 9bacause of ambiguity situations !!!
> --------------
>
>
>
> > Third, this rule ONLY applies for moving masses, and should not be
> > used for just anything that has momentum. Other entities also carry
> > momentum but not described by that rule.
>
> > In the end, what momentum is, is whatever quantity can be ascribed to
> > a physical entity such that the total of that quantity for all objects
> > of all kinds in a closed system is constant. It's still remarkable
> > that such a rule can be found at all.
> > ---------------------
>
> (:-)
> Hi abstract philosopher !!
Nothing abstract about it. It's really very straightforward and
practical.
Inertial
"PD" <thedrap...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:9bc72936-b582-4859...@c34g2000yqn.googlegroups.com...
Not in the form written, as it involves a division by zero and so is
indeterminate or infinite. I've explained that to Porat many times before.
If you rewrite it as:
mass = momentum / gamma / velocity
Then the factor of 1/gamma makes the expressions zero so you have
mass = 0
Which is, of course, correct for photons.
gamma appearing as a multiplier in a formula for something travelling at c
will results in infinite or indeterminate values. But it is quite valid to
divide by it (which is equivalent to multiplying by zero)
Y.Porat
if so it is much better for my claim (:-)
we will see later ....
> > just because you understand only algebra parroting ???
> > and evn by algebra that you understand
>
> > how about
> > instead of
> > momentum = gamma m v
>
> > Momentum /gamma = m v
>
> > in that case you dont have to **Invent***
> > a new kind of mass !!!!!!
>
> Nor am I inventing a new kind of mass here. What I'm doing is writing
> the CORRECT expression for the momentum of a massive object.
we will see (JUST LATER )that concluding that mass if infalated
(based on that) is just an unjustified INTERPRETATION !!
>
>
>
> > **and m re,mains constant !!!???
> > how about thinking physics
> > and not parroting
> > btw
> > as for the photon
> > THE GAMMA FACTOR DOES NOT APPLY AT ALL TO IT !!
>
> That's correct, and the formula momentum = gamma x mass x velocity
> doesn't apply to photons at all.
yes exactly
and i always have to argue about it
with parrots !!
because (among the others ) the photon
moves at c
andno mare exeleration
and
V=c is A LIMIT CASE even mathematically
not to mention - physically !!
anyway
lets examine a mass wich moves at the velocity
- something less that c just folowing:
--------------
> A wholly different expression for momentum is used for photons.
yes
and there is the famous formula for a **mixture* of
photons and bigger particles !!
------------
>
> > it is another indication about the need to know
> > were and how to use it !!!
> > 9bacause of ambiguity situations !!!
> > --------------
>
> > > Third, this rule ONLY applies for moving masses, and should not be
> > > used for just anything that has momentum. Other entities also carry
> > > momentum but not described by that rule.
>
> > > In the end, what momentum is, is whatever quantity can be ascribed to
> > > a physical entity such that the total of that quantity for all objects
> > > of all kinds in a closed system is constant. It's still remarkable
> > > that such a rule can be found at all.
> > > ---------------------
>
> > (:-)
> > Hi abstract philosopher !!
>
> Nothing abstract about it. It's really very straightforward and
> practical.
>
-----------------
now since you PD still was not able to bring
ACTUAL SPECIFIC EXAMPLES
i will do it instead of you :
lets take a mass (not a photon) say
an electron or even a proton (say like in the LHC)
and examine it in TWO SITUATIONS:
1
it moves in a velocity muchless than c amd let it collide say with a
lead screen
and examine its momentum of collission wihtthat screen
2
lets take exactly the above particle
but this time with a velocity
*very close to c
and examine its momentum collision
with that above lead screen
can you show us your analysis and calculations
**comparing the two cases ??**
incuding the *force* exserted on that screen !!
that analysis can be of course not numerically
but just by formulas
btw
the question is not only to PD
it is for anyone else who want to do it
(not including Feuerbacher from heidelberg ..
because of obvious reasons (:-)
TIA
Y.Porat
----------------------------
PD
Then your "claim" is old hat.
> we will see later ....
>
> > > just because you understand only algebra parroting ???
> > > and evn by algebra that you understand
>
> > > how about
> > > instead of
> > > momentum = gamma m v
>
> > > Momentum /gamma = m v
>
> > > in that case you dont have to **Invent***
> > > a new kind of mass !!!!!!
>
> > Nor am I inventing a new kind of mass here. What I'm doing is writing
> > the CORRECT expression for the momentum of a massive object.
>
> we will see (JUST LATER )that concluding that mass if infalated
> (based on that) is just an unjustified INTERPRETATION !!
Indeed. "Relativistic mass" which inflates is an outmoded and largely
discarded idea. Mass these days is a relativistic invariant and does
not increase with speed. You are well behind -- and I mean decades
behind -- the times.
>
>
>
> > > **and m re,mains constant !!!???
> > > how about thinking physics
> > > and not parroting
> > > btw
> > > as for the photon
> > > THE GAMMA FACTOR DOES NOT APPLY AT ALL TO IT !!
>
> > That's correct, and the formula momentum = gamma x mass x velocity
> > doesn't apply to photons at all.
>
> yes exactly
> and i always have to argue about it
> with parrots !!
> because (among the others ) the photon
> moves at c
> andno mare exeleration
Never accelerated in the first place.
> and
> V=c is A LIMIT CASE even mathematically
> not to mention - physically !!
And I've already told you *many times* that the formula involving
gamma is not applied to photons.
I don't know why you think this is YOUR insight. It is old hat.
> anyway
> lets examine a mass wich moves at the velocity
> - something less that c just folowing:
> --------------
>
> > A wholly different expression for momentum is used for photons.
>
> yes
> and there is the famous formula for a **mixture* of
> photons and bigger particles !!
Yes, and again that is old hat.
This has been done. Fixed target and collider experiments with lead
targets have been operating for DECADES.
Y.Porat
> > > > > > A photon cannot have mass or it would be infinite at C..
>
> > > > > > A.; ???
>
> > > > > mass x velocity.
> > > > > This turns out also to be a lie.
>
> > > > > First of all, it's not a definition, it's an empirically derived rule.
>
> > > > > Secondly, it's not right, though it works very well at low velocities.
> > > > > At higher velocities, you have to use gamma x mass x velocity, where
> > > > > gamma is a number that is darn close to 1 for low speeds but gets
> > > > > bigger and bigger as you get to an appreciable fraction of the speed
> > > > > of light.
>
> > > > --------------------------
> > > > and who the hell told you that this Gamma
> > > > is attached to the mass??
>
> > > It isn't attached to the mass. It's a factor that is included in the
> > > expression for momentum of massive objects. That's one of three
> > > factors, none of which is "attached" to any of the others.
> > > ------------------
>
> > if so it is much better for my claim (:-)
>
> Then your "claim" is old hat.
no sir!!
you didnt get the point
the gamma factor does not apply to the mv side
it could apply to the momentum side
if you take
F delta T = momentum = mv !!
it clould as well be
F delta T /Gamma = mv
(while V < c
and in that case
IT HAS A COMPLETELY DIFFERENT ***PHYSICAL**
INTERPRETATION !!!
in tat case
the force that was exserted to say
the other stationary Porton that collided
(with the our first accelerated proton )
so the force acted on that last proton
is much bigger that the force acted onour
fiest proton at the beginning of acceleration!!
do you have another interpretation that
is absed on some ''gauge that you sticked to the mass ''!!!
how the hell you could measure that the mass was inflated!!
only BY EXAMINING THE SECOND PROTON
AND ITS MOMENTUM !!
but still you canr even meaure not the mass
not the force there !!
only velocities
so
YOUR AND( MANY OTHERS ) INTERPRETATION THAT GAMMA BELONGS
TO THE MASS IS AN INTERPRETATION!!
and not the most cleaver one !!!!
one indicationfor that among theothers is
that
TH EMOMENT THE MASS STOPS MOVING
all you inflationthat you invented got lost at once
and only the rest mass remained
so ??
you (and others) took th e liverty create some of the most basic
dimensions and physical entities - mass
you created mass from other physical entities
plus your imagination
and later your creation disappeared !!
IF WE EXAMINE THE
SECOND PROTON THAT COLLIDED OUR FIRST ONE
(that is a way to examine the momentum of the first
proton !!!! conservation of momentum !! )
according to my interpretation
it is not mass that became bigger
it is the
**FORCE** THAT WAS NEEDED TO ADD VELOCITY
TO THAT SECOND EXAMINED PROTON
THAT WAS **BIGGER THAN THE ONE STSRTING
ACCELERATION TO THE FIRST ONE
because
F 2 delta T >> F1 delta T
because obviously delta T 1 is bigger than
delta T 2
(F delta T = mv =momentum remember ??)
and if Momentum 1 at rhebeginning of acceleration
is samller than - at the end of it MoM 2
(and collission withthe second Proton)
so
if delta T 1 is smaller that delta T 2
F2 is bigger than F 1 !!
bottom line
it is not the mass that increased !!!
but the other side of the equation the Force associated
much simper and cleaned physical basics !!
but needs some **UNCONVENTIONAL* thinking!!
and not as you say 'old hat'
it is a very*** new hat***
though i repeat it along years !!!
if needed i will try to explain it shorter !!
TIA
Y.Porat
-----------------
Inertial
It can apply on either side as long as you follow the rules of maths when
rearranging the equation. I've been telling you that for a long time
> if you take
>
> F delta T = momentum = mv !!
> it clould as well be
>
> F delta T /Gamma = mv
That's a pretty useless way to express the formula, as it doesn't have a
particular value on the LHS .. so you can't just plug the unknowns into it
and get an answer.
> (while V < c
> and in that case
> IT HAS A COMPLETELY DIFFERENT ***PHYSICAL**
> INTERPRETATION !!!
To what? F delta T = gamma.mv?
Its exactly the same equation, just rearranged.
Neither is useful though (as described above)
> in tat case
> the force that was exserted to say
> the other stationary Porton that collided
> (with the our first accelerated proton )
> so the force acted on that last proton
> is much bigger that the force acted onour
> fiest proton at the beginning of acceleration!!
Word soup
[snip more word soup]
Is what you are saying that at higher velocities, you need more force to
accelerate a given mass. That's old hat .. nothing new there. That's
exactly what the good old relativistic equation for force tells you directly
.. the force required to accelerate a given rest mass.
Y.Porat
> "Y.Porat" <y.y.po...@gmail.com> wrote in message
---------------------
F.F.F.P
next !!
Y.P
-----------------------
cjcountess
prefer, “mass/energy”, of the photon due to constant velocity of “c”.
It is still mass, and it is mass due to motion. And as I demonstrated,
even rest mass, is relative mass, in circular and or spherical
rotation. They are two aspects of the same thing. The whole universe
is in constant motion, and one might say that motion is more of a
constant than anything at rest. All mass come from energy in motion,
even rest mass, which is energy in rotation.
Like I said earlier, in equation (E=hf/c^2), “h” is constant mass/
energy due to constant velocity of, “c” and, “f” is variable mass/
energy, due to variable frequency. And higher mass/energy is due to
higher kinetic energy of motion, because higher frequency come from
higher motion of higher cycles per time unit, and translates to more
speed,.and correspondingly higher kinetic energy. In the old days the
equation (E=hf), was written as (E=hv), showing its direct
correspondence to (F=mv), as indeed they are equal on the quantum
level and directly proportional on macro level. And they updated
equation E=hf/c^2 is equal to F=mv/r^2.
Earlier I stated that E=hf/c^2 did not pertain to rest mass but it
does at the high end of the EM spectrum because when E=hf=c^2 or as
deBrolie stated E=hf=mc^2 as 1/1 = 1x1 = 1 /c^2 = x c^2.
On Dec 30 2009, 6:57 pm, "Inertial" <relativ...@rest.com> wrote:
> "cjcountess" <cjcount...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
c = the natural unit, sqrt of the natural unit -1, and is no longer
just an imaginary number, but a real natural unit just as the electron
is the real natural unit -1.
And yes E= -m in this special case.
Ever heard of the unity of the constants? As everything in the
universe come from a unified source as we get to the constants in
nature we find that they too extend from a unity.
(c^2 = G = h/2pi) and (h = c= i = 2pi) so far I’ve found that all
constants can be traced to a unity with c
In equation E=hf/c^2 and F=mv/r^2, c = r
Conrad J Countess
Inertial
No idea what that means. Sounds like you're farting.
> next !!
I see you did not argue against the points raised .. and did not answr my
question .. so I'm assuming tacit approval, that you acknowledge the
rewriting an equation is just rewriting an equation, that writing them in a
from without a single pro-numeral on the LHS is not terribly useful, and
that the concept that mass is constant and that is more force required to
accelerate it the faster it goes is decades old and is exactly what the
formulas for force in SR show.
Inertial
> Look �h�, is the constant kinetic or relativistic, call it what you
> prefer, �mass/energy�, of the photon due to constant velocity of �c�.
Nope
> It is still mass,
No .. 'h' is a constant .. it is not a property of a photon. It applies in
many areas of physics
A photon does not have mass (also called rest mass, or invariant mass)
> and it is mass due to motion.
'h' doesn't exist as an entity. It is not made of matter, it doesn't have
mass, it doesn't move
a photon never does anything other than move at 'c'. It has no rest .. it
has no rest mass. It has a mass equivalent to its energy, and that is frame
dependent.
> And as I demonstrated,
> even rest mass, is relative mass, in circular and or spherical
> rotation.
When an object (or system) is at rest, it has its rest energy and rest mass.
That there are things within it that have relativistic masses or
mass-equivalent-to-energy can contribute to that. But the object (or
system) itself ha a rest mass. They are different concepts, though all with
dimensions of mass.
> They are two aspects of the same thing. The whole universe
> is in constant motion, and one might say that motion is more of a
> constant than anything at rest. All mass come from energy in motion,
> even rest mass, which is energy in rotation.
You have no idea if that is correct. It does not explain the mass of (say)
neutrons.
> Like I said earlier, in equation (E=hf/c^2)
Don't you mean E = hf ? Looks like you have the wrong equation
> , �h� is constant mass/
> energy
No .. it is not
> due to constant velocity of, �c� and, �f� is variable mass/
> energy, due to variable frequency.
That explanation of the symbols makes no sense at all
> And higher mass/energy is due to
> higher kinetic energy of motion, because higher frequency come from
> higher motion of higher cycles per time unit, and translates to more
> speed,.and correspondingly higher kinetic energy.
Photon speed is 'c' regardless of frequency.
> In the old days the
> equation (E=hf), was written as (E=hv),
No .. it wasn't
> showing its direct
> correspondence to (F=mv),
Oh dear .. no it doesn't
> as indeed they are equal on the quantum
> level
No .. they aren't
> and directly proportional on macro level.
Nope
> And they updated
> equation E=hf/c^2
Incorrect equation
> is equal to F=mv/r^2.
Nope.
> Earlier I stated that E=hf/c^2 did not pertain to rest mass but it
> does at the high end of the EM spectrum because when E=hf=c^2 or as
> deBrolie stated E=hf=mc^2 as 1/1 = 1x1 = 1 /c^2 = x c^2.
Really .. are you just making this shit up?
Y.Porat
----------------
the psychopath idiot and thief lier Feuerbacher
ddint understand until now
and cant accept my wish
that i am not going to discuss with him anything more
from now on !!! (and actually much before now)
so
next
Y.P
-----------------------------
Y.Porat
---------------------
Inertial
Who is not me
> ddint understand until now
> and cant accept my wish
> that i am not going to discuss with him anything more
> from now on !!!
Coward
> (and actually much before now)
You never discussed .. you just insult and lie. You don't have the decency
and morals to carry on a rational discussion of physics
Don't worry.. I'll still post rebuttals to your nonsense when I see them ..
so don't think yiour lack of response means you can get away with your
rubbish.
Y.Porat
------------------------
psychopath
(:-)
---------------------
Inertial
Yes .. yes you are. One incapable of rational discussion of physics. But
that is clear to everyone who reads your posts.
Y.Porat
-----------------
psychopath
----------------
Inertial
Yes .. you're a psychopath .. and a rather repetitive one at that.
cjcountess
sense it doesn’t change, of photon due to constant invariant speed of
light. (c=h). This is only true in the linear direction and is frame
independent until a photon reaches E=hf=mc^2 which is rest mass. Than
rest mass with a momentum of h/2pi/2, becomes the constant, unless it
is converted back into energy. Even still, h is the constant within
the constant h/2pi/2.
Even if you could travel at c, alongside light, it still would not be
massless except in linear direction, just as a car moving at 30 mph
would not have enough relative mass to hurt you if you were driving
alongside it at the same speed and touched the front of it. That is
why people can pass things back and forth through the window if they
are driving at same speed next to each other. But it would probably
knock your hand off if you were at rest relative to it and it was
moving at 30 mph and hit your hand. Still we cannot move at c along
side of light and so it always maintains its constant speed and mass/
energy of h in linear direction.
But like I said even if you could move at c alongside it would still
have its angular momentum from frequency oscillation.
In order to see these things one has to look at this geometrically
which is something that equations alone cannot convey.
And also just as I said rest mass is relative mass in rotation even
compound matter are composed of particles made of rotation energy held
together by more rotating energy.
E=mc^2 = F=mv^2 and E=hf/c^2 = F=mv/r^2 on quantum level and I mean
directly not just analogously and just as 1/1 = 1x1 = 1 (m/c^2 =
mxc^2) concerning 1 quantum particle that is why E=hf/c^2 = E=mxc^2 at
level of electron as deBroglie stated.
Here are links with E=hv as equation
http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&source=hp&q=E%3Dhv&aq=f&oq=&aqi=g10
Here are some links to E=hf/c^2 as equation
http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=e+hf%2Fc%5E2+photon&btnG=Search&aq=f&oq=&aqi=
Conrad J Countess
PD
Gamma doesn't "apply" to either side. If you want a formula for
momentum, you put momentum and JUST momentum on one side (this is
called isolating a variable in elementary algebra) and everything else
on the other side. Then the equation reads "Momentum IS ..."
> it could apply to the momentum side
> if you take
>
> F delta T = momentum = mv !!
> it clould as well be
>
> F delta T /Gamma = mv
That's fine, but then the thing on the left hand side isn't momentum
anymore, and neither is the thing on the right.
> (while V < c
> and in that case
> IT HAS A COMPLETELY DIFFERENT ***PHYSICAL**
> INTERPRETATION !!!
> in tat case
> the force that was exserted to say
> the other stationary Porton that collided
> (with the our first accelerated proton )
> so the force acted on that last proton
> is much bigger that the force acted onour
> fiest proton at the beginning of acceleration!!
>
> do you have another interpretation that
> is absed on some ''gauge that you sticked to the mass ''!!!
> how the hell you could measure that the mass was inflated!!
> only BY EXAMINING THE SECOND PROTON
> AND ITS MOMENTUM !!
> but still you canr even meaure not the mass
> not the force there !!
> only velocities
> so
> YOUR AND( MANY OTHERS ) INTERPRETATION THAT GAMMA BELONGS
> TO THE MASS IS AN INTERPRETATION!!
No one said gamma belongs to the mass. You said others did but I
didn't. It doesn't "belong" to the left side either.
ka...@nventure.com
> ...
> Even if you could travel at c, alongside light, it still would not be
> massless except in linear direction, just as a car moving at 30 mph
> would not have enough relative mass to hurt you if you were driving
> alongside it at the same speed and touched the front of it. That is
> why people can pass things back and forth through the window if they
> are driving at same speed next to each other.
>
You are confusing mass with momentum and/or inertia.
The reason people can pass things back and forth under these specific
conditions is that the uniform speed of both vehicles do not cause a
change of momentum of all the bodies of interest, and the only
change of momentum of the things passed back and forth are caused
by the people doing the passing back and forth.
Should both the vehicles not be moving uniformly, i.e., turning or
changing speed (that is, accelerating), the change of momentum
of both vehicles will also change the state inertia of both vehicles
and all within these vehicles. The conservation of inertia (i.e., the
colloquial, and really screwed up prevailing idea of centrifugal
force) of
the things passed from the inside of the turn (if turning) vehicle
will
make it easier for the people in this inside of the turn vehicle to
pass
the things to the other, whereas the people in the outside of the
turn
vehicle must not only apply the force to pass the things to the other
vehicle, but must also overcome the inertia of the things to continue
to move in a straight line.
All this is just plain Newtonian mechanics as explained in Newton's
Principia.
The empirical applied scientists and engineers have long accepted
that the Classical Newtonian Mechanics of mainline science does
not always explain and/or does not seem to apply on the everyday
dynamics of how the phenomena/events/things occur on Earth and
near space (i.e., within the scale of the human). Science has also
long known that Einstein's Relativity is not compatible with modern
quantum mechanics. That is; Special and General does not work
in the ream of the very small (particle physics), and that quantum
mechanics fail in the worlds of the very large (cosmology).
Furthermore, both Relativity and quantum mechanics seem really
bizarre in respect to Classical Newtonian Mechanics.
The photon is a concept of the particle nature of light. The rest
mass
is a concept of mass within Relativity. As the concepts within
quantum mechanics do not apply within Relativity, and visa versa,
you cannot ever logically use the rest, or gravitational, or inertial
mass (wherein mass increases as a function of gamma and tensor
mechanics apply) of Einstein to explain the photon. In fact; Einstein
was a staunch opponent of the Copenhagen Interpretation of
Quantum Mechanics, exemplified by his statement that: "God does
not play dice."
All this is more comprhensively explained in the copyrighted treatise
"The Search for Reality and the Truths".
D. Y. Kadoshima
cjcountess
Just becaues mainstream scientist have not yet united quantum, special
and general relitivity, does not mean that it has not been done. Some
of us non mainstream researchers have done it.
If you look at the equation (E=mc^2) geometricaly, it can be
interpreted as (E=mc^2circled), thereby unifying special relativity,
with general relativity as it reveals that c^2 is a frequency/
wavelength, at high end of EM spectrum, which can also be called the
energy/matter, as well as electromagnetic spectrum where energy turns
to matter because it takes on a circular and or spherical mode thereby
aquiring rest mass. Just as deBroglie discovered,(E=hf=mc^2), the
(hf), which is frequency measurement, = (mc^2) which is also frequency
measurment, in that (c^2) geometricaly can be interpreted as, (c in
linear direction x c in 90 degree angular diection), creating 90
degree arc trejectory, which if constant creates a circle of energy.
This is how energy turns to matter at c^2, unifying special and
general relativity and is = to (cx2pi) which = (hx2pi,) with momentum
inversely proportional = h/2pi, thereby also uniting quantum theory
with these.
G, the gravity constant in Newton's and general relativity, as (L/T^2)
= (c^2) which is the ultamate (L/T^2) on quantum level, and also = (h/
2pi) as energy in circular motion, as I stated earlier. And so (G =
c^2 = h/2pi), and (c = h). (E=mc^2) = (F=mv^2) and (E=hf/c^2) = (F=mv/
r^2) on quantum level, concerning 1 quantum particle directly, not
just analogously. Just as (h/2pi) and its inverse (hx2pi) represents
energy in circlar motion, it is easy to see that (r = h = c).
The quantum gravity problem has been solved, but mainstream physicist
do not seem ready to accept it yet, but that is ok because the
geometrical evidence is so clear and even corresponds to the equations
and it is not hard to prove.
Your book seems interesting and I will look at it. I have so much
evidence to back my proposition that I can argue it from many angles
which is what it might take because such a revolutionary idea and
discovery is bound to provoke oposition. But as I said, I do not mind
because the evidence is overwelming and there is realy no way around
it.
Conrad J Countess
ka...@nventure.com
> I appriciate your responce. It is logical, but not intirely complete.
I in turn, appreciate that you seem to respect my ideas. I hope we
can keep this debate of the truths on the intellectual level, rather
than letting it degenerate into the personal level of trading insults
as others are so wont to do.
You are kind to mainline science by inferring that it "has not yet
caught up to your concepts." I am less kind, and maintain that
mainline science has what Isaac Newton presented in Principia so
screwed up that it will not ever 'catch up'. In other words; the
Classical Newtonian Mechanics of mainline science contains so
many canards, dogmas and misleading and/or false statements/
propositions/suppositions that it will not ever lead to, or be a part
of the path to the true understanding of the workings of the
universe.
A wise old sage said:
1. To find the truths, one must verify the ones you have.
2. The first step to knowledge is understanding the meaning of
the words.
3. The truth that you can put into words and pictures is not the
absolute truth.
So I postulate (i.e., state without further justification in the
vernacular of physics) that there are:
1. The Conditional truths, that are true under a specific set of
conditions and/or during a specific event at a particular point
in time, but false under others.
2. The Relative truths, that are true from a particular point of view
and/or a specific frame of reference, but untrue from others.
3. The Generalized truths, that are statistically (mathematically)
more probable to be true than not (i.e., 'educated guesses').
4. The Fundamental truths, that are the underlying truths upon
which all the other truths are based, and that are true all of the
time, under all conditions, and within or from any and all
perspectives, points of view, and/or frames of reference.
There is one more category that applies to this philosophical
task. The is the human subjective notion wherein an
approximation is qualified with the phrase "for all practical
purposes" (i.e., FAPP, an acronym coined by John S. Bell) and
this approximation is assumed so close to the truth that this can
be supposed a fact, thus accepted as a truth. Mainline science
often applies this reasoning to its suppositions, conclusions
and hypothesis without the qualifying FAPP. Furthermore, a lot
of mainline science's suppositions are violations of the principle
of the integration of approximations due to omitting the
qualifying FAPP.
Isaac Newton wrote Philosopiae Naturalis Principia Mathematical
(usually shortened to Principia) in Latin. So almost all who
study Principia read translations. These translations commonly
just translate the words Newton wrote, and do not correctly
interpret the then, and still new and novel ideas and concepts
presented in Principia. Therefore much as been lost in the
translations.
A prior post in this thread stated that momentum has not yet been
defined. NOT TRUE. Newton defined momentum in DEFINITION II
of the first section of Principia that he called the Definitions. He
wrote (with all the Latin words translated into English except the
Latin word motu):
The quantity of motu is the measure of the same, arising from the
velocity and quantity of matter conjointly.
In other words; motu is velocity times mass. It is momentum (p)
that is mass (m) times velocity (v), or p = mv. Motion (i.e., a
change of position) is not, and cannot be connoted mv.
Ever since Alexander Motte mistranslated the Latin word motu
and all tenses and derivations (i.e., motus, motum, etc.) as
synonymous with the Latin word movendi, all subsequent
translators continue this error.
So Isaac Newton did not write the Three Laws of Motion, but
formulated the Three Laws of Momentum. Nevertheless, it may be
clearer to think of these Laws as The Three Laws of the Change or
Changes of Momentum. However, one cannot just replace all the
words of motion within Principia into momentum, because Newton
also employed the Latin word movendi (that is correctly translated
as motion) throughout Principia.
This is not the only mistranslation that invalidates the current
Classical Newtonian Mechanics of mainline science. Newton's
very significant Third Law of Momentum is also severely twisted and
misconstrued due to a simple mistranslation and the fuzzy logic
James C. Maxwell. Furthermore, Newton's Second Law is not
F = ma.
Newton's Definitions are his postulates. Mainline science derives
the definitions the words in Newton's Definitions from its incorrect
ideas of the three laws motion. In other words, mainline science
wonts to work backwards. This is significant because the
Classical Newtonian Mechanics does not have the Three Laws of
Momentum right.
It's really hard to explain if a particular idea is true or not,
except
in a case by case manner, because many are conditional/relative
truths tied to other conditional or relative truths. The only truths
that humans can accept as undeniably true are those empirically
demonstrated as natural phenomenon by Nature. Nevertheless
these are almost always conditional and/or relative truths.
D. Y. K.
Androcles
<ka...@nventure.com> wrote in message
news:23decbb5-dff4-4cf7...@a32g2000yqm.googlegroups.com...
He
wrote (with all the Latin words translated into English except the
Latin word motu):
The quantity of motu is the measure of the same, arising from the
velocity and quantity of matter conjointly.
In other words; motu is velocity times mass. It is momentum (p)
that is mass (m) times velocity (v), or p = mv. Motion (i.e., a
change of position) is not, and cannot be connoted mv.
=============================================
Newton: Si vis aliqua motum quemvis generat; dupla duplum, tripla triplum
generabit,
Motte: If any force generates a motion, a double force will generate double
the motion, a triple force triple the motion,
Hence n(F) = n(dp/dt),
motion = dp/dt.
In other words; motion is a change of momentum, not a change of position as
you claim.
A wise old sage said:
1. To find the truths, one must verify the ones you have.
Your words are not verified.
ka...@nventure.com
> <k...@nventure.com> wrote in message
Your quote is from the elaboration of Law II, not that in the first
'chapter'
titled Definitions.You do not seem to realize that the definitions of
Newton
are his postulates, and that his Laws of Momentum are based on his
postulates. (So if you deviate from Newton's Definitions, you are in
truth,
deviating from the mechanics presented in Principia.)
In both Cajori's 1934 translation and the latest translation of
Principia by
Cohen and Whitman, Newton's definitions are in italics. (I can't find
my
copy of Motte's translation right now to verify if Motte also
italicized the
definition.) Moreover, elaboration in Cajori's translation within the
'chapter'
titled Definitions is:
The motion of the whole is the sum of the motions (read momentum) of
all the
parts; and therefore in a body double in quantity, with equal
velocity, the
motion (read momentum) is double; with twice the velocity, it is
quadruple.
This elaboration in the latest translation of Principia by Cohen and
Whitman
titled 'The Principia' is slightly different in wording, but the
substance is
basically the same.
D. Y. K.
ka...@nventure.com
long, so there are again the goofy short lines of
text.
So sorry
D. Y. K.
Androcles
<ka...@nventure.com> wrote in message
news:4f4c560b-4fad-4599...@o9g2000vbj.googlegroups.com...
D. Y. K.
==============================================
A wise old sage said:
"Engage brain before opening mouth".
In Principia Mathematica (not "Mathematical"), motion = dp/dt.
If you deny it, you deny the second law, which is against the supposition.
Inertial
<ka...@nventure.com> wrote in message
news:23decbb5-dff4-4cf7...@a32g2000yqm.googlegroups.com...
Sorry .. true .. in that we do not know what it is and how it works, only
how to calculate it
> Newton defined momentum in DEFINITION II
> of the first section of Principia that he called the Definitions. He
> wrote (with all the Latin words translated into English except the
> Latin word motu):
>
> The quantity of motu is the measure of the same, arising from the
> velocity and quantity of matter conjointly.
>
> In other words; motu is velocity times mass. It is momentum (p)
> that is mass (m) times velocity (v), or p = mv. Motion (i.e., a
> change of position) is not, and cannot be connoted mv.
That's just how to calculate it. Not what it is or how it works.
You say it as thought you are saying something new
> Ever since Alexander Motte mistranslated the Latin word motu
> and all tenses and derivations (i.e., motus, motum, etc.) as
> synonymous with the Latin word movendi, all subsequent
> translators continue this error.
What error?
> So Isaac Newton did not write the Three Laws of Motion, but
> formulated the Three Laws of Momentum.
What they are called doesn't really matter. Its the laws themselves that
matter
> Nevertheless, it may be
> clearer to think of these Laws as The Three Laws of the Change or
> Changes of Momentum. However, one cannot just replace all the
> words of motion within Principia into momentum, because Newton
> also employed the Latin word movendi (that is correctly translated
> as motion) throughout Principia.
>
> This is not the only mistranslation that invalidates the current
> Classical Newtonian Mechanics of mainline science.
You've not shown it to be invalidated. Especially as it was right (unless
you get to relativistic speeds)
> Newton's
> very significant Third Law of Momentum is also severely twisted and
> misconstrued due to a simple mistranslation and the fuzzy logic
> James C. Maxwell. Furthermore, Newton's Second Law is not
> F = ma.
But we know that is correct from experiment.
> Newton's Definitions are his postulates. Mainline science derives
> the definitions the words in Newton's Definitions from its incorrect
> ideas of the three laws motion. In other words, mainline science
> wonts to work backwards. This is significant because the
> Classical Newtonian Mechanics does not have the Three Laws of
> Momentum right.
The three laws it has are just fine (at non-relativistic words)
ka...@nventure.com
> That's just how to calculate it. Not what it is or how it works.
>
> You say it as thought you are saying something new
The original question was whether momentum was defined or not,
not how it works.
>
> > Ever since Alexander Motte mistranslated the Latin word motu
> > and all tenses and derivations (i.e., motus, motum, etc.) as
> > synonymous with the Latin word movendi, all subsequent
> > translators continue this error.
>
> What error?
If you can't accept that that the current idea and definition of
motion differs from the notion and definition of momentum differ,
then there is not much more to discuss.
>
> > So Isaac Newton did not write the Three Laws of Motion, but
> > formulated the Three Laws of Momentum.
>
> What they are called doesn't really matter. Its the laws themselves that
> matter
It does matter, for all the ideas, concepts, and understanding of
phenomena, entities, events, things, etc. are fixed by what it or
these are called. Try explaining the capabilities of an elephant
to another if you keep calling it a flea.
>> > Nevertheless, it may be
> > clearer to think of these Laws as The Three Laws of the Change or
> > Changes of Momentum. However, one cannot just replace all the
> > words of motion within Principia into momentum, because Newton
> > also employed the Latin word movendi (that is correctly translated
> > as motion) throughout Principia.
>
> > This is not the only mistranslation that invalidates the current
> > Classical Newtonian Mechanics of mainline science.
>
> You've not shown it to be invalidated. Especially as it was right (unless
> you get to relativistic speeds)
>
> > Newton's
> > very significant Third Law of Momentum is also severely twisted and
> > misconstrued due to a simple mistranslation and the fuzzy logic
> > James C. Maxwell. Furthermore, Newton's Second Law is not
> > F = ma.
>
> But we know that is correct from experiment.
>
> > Newton's Definitions are his postulates. Mainline science derives
> > the definitions the words in Newton's Definitions from its incorrect
> > ideas of the three laws motion. In other words, mainline science
> > wonts to work backwards. This is significant because the
> > Classical Newtonian Mechanics does not have the Three Laws of
> > Momentum right.
>
> The three laws it has are just fine (at non-relativistic words)
>
This can readily be resolved if you will just state your rendition of
Newton's Second and Third Laws. So I challenge you to do so!
D.Y.K.
Inertial
<ka...@nventure.com> wrote in message
news:d7fc87b0-5ac7-46ff...@g18g2000vbr.googlegroups.com...
> On Jan 6, 1:21 am, "Inertial" <relativ...@rest.com> wrote:
>> <k...@nventure.com> wrote in message
>>
>
>> That's just how to calculate it. Not what it is or how it works.
>>
>> You say it as thought you are saying something new
>
> The original question was whether momentum was defined or not,
> not how it works.
It doesn't define what it is .. just how to calculate it
>> > Ever since Alexander Motte mistranslated the Latin word motu
>> > and all tenses and derivations (i.e., motus, motum, etc.) as
>> > synonymous with the Latin word movendi, all subsequent
>> > translators continue this error.
>>
>> What error?
>
> If you can't accept that that the current idea and definition of
> motion differs from the notion and definition of momentum differ,
Of course motion and momentum are different .. what is the problem with
that?
> then there is not much more to discuss.
>>
>> > So Isaac Newton did not write the Three Laws of Motion, but
>> > formulated the Three Laws of Momentum.
>>
>> What they are called doesn't really matter. Its the laws themselves that
>> matter
>
> It does matter,
Nope
> for all the ideas, concepts, and understanding of
> phenomena, entities, events, things, etc. are fixed by what it or
> these are called.
A rose by any other name
> Try explaining the capabilities of an elephant
> to another if you keep calling it a flea.
As long as you both understand what is meant by the word 'flea' its fine.
And the point is, the title you place on the group of laws has NO BEARING AT
ALL on what the laws apply to and how they are formulated.
What needs to be resolved? The laws work ( at non relativistic speeds).
Wikipedia has:
1 In the absence of force, a body either is at rest or moves in a straight
line with constant speed.
2 A body experiencing a force F experiences an acceleration a related to F
by F = ma, where m is the mass of the body. Alternatively, force is equal to
the time derivative of momentum.
3 Whenever a first body exerts a force F on a second body, the second body
exerts a force ?F on the first body. F and ?F are equal in magnitude and
opposite in direction.
And also
1 An object in motion will stay in motion and an object at rest will stay at
rest unless acted upon by an external force
or A body persists in a state of uniform motion or of rest unless acted upon
by an external force
2 Force equals mass times acceleration"
or "F = ma."
3 To every action there is an equal and opposite reaction.
And also
1 There exists a set of inertial reference frames relative to which all
particles with no net force acting on them will move without change in their
velocity. -- law of inertia
2 Observed from an inertial reference frame, the net force on a particle is
equal to the time rate of change of its linear momentum: F = d(mv)/dt. Since
by definition the mass of a particle is constant, this law is often stated
as, "Force equals mass times acceleration (F = ma): the net force on an
object is equal to the mass of the object multiplied by its acceleration."
3 Whenever a particle A exerts a force on another particle B, B
simultaneously exerts a force on A with the same magnitude in the opposite
direction. The strong form of the law further postulates that these two
forces act along the same line. --action-reaction law
Another site has
1 Every body perseveres in its state of rest, or of uniform motion in a
right line, unless it is compelled to change that state by forces impressed
thereon. Projectiles persevere in their motions, so far as they are not
retarded by the resistance of the air, or impelled downwards by the force of
gravity.
2 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.
3 To every action there is always opposed an equal and opposite reaction: or
the mutual actions of two bodies upon each other are always equal, and
directed to contrary parts. Whatever draws or presses another is as much
drawn or pressed by that other. If you press a stone with your finger, the
finger is also pressed by the stone. If a horse draws a stone tied to a
rope, the horse (if I may so say) will be equally drawn back towards the
stone: for the distended rope, by the same endeavour to relax or unbend
itself, will draw the horse as much towards the stone, as it does the stone
towards the horse, and will obstruct the progress of the one as much as it
advances that of the other. If a body impinge upon another, and by its
force change the motion of the other, that body also (because of the
equality of the mutual pressure) will undergo an equal change, in its own
motion, towards the contrary part. The changes made by these actions are
equal, not in the velocities but in the motions of bodies; that is to say,
if the bodies are not hindered by any other impediments. For, because the
motions are equally changed, the changes of the velocities made towards
contrary parts are reciprocally proportional to the bodies. This law takes
place also in attractions.
Another site has
1 An object at rest will remain at rest unless acted on by an unbalanced
force. An object in motion continues in motion with the same speed and in
the same direction unless acted upon by an unbalanced force.
2 Acceleration is produced when a force acts on a mass. The greater the mass
(of the object being accelerated) the greater the amount of force needed (to
accelerate the object)
3 For every action there is an equal and opposite re-action.
Another site has
1 Every object in a state of uniform motion tends to remain in that state of
motion unless an external force is applied to it.
2 The relationship between an object's mass m, its acceleration a, and the
applied force F is F = ma. Acceleration and force are vectors (as indicated
by their symbols being displayed in slant bold font); in this law the
direction of the force vector is the same as the direction of the
acceleration vector.
3 For every action there is an equal and opposite reaction.
Its the same concept in all cases .. the difference is in how one chooses to
word it (as english, like most languages, is now very precise, and things
can be expressed in numerous ways). Fortunately, expressing the formulas
mathematically helps resolve any ambiguities of language. That's why 'laws'
in physics are expressed mathematically.
cjcountess
I also agree that there are a lot of preconceived notions in physics
that inhibit its progression, and I addressed some myself, also
encountering opposition along the way.
As a specific example that I overlooked in the thread mentioned above:
When I first mentioned that (c^2), geometrically could be interpreted
as “c in linear direction x c in 90 degree angular direction, to
create a balance of equal and 90 degree angular, centrifugal and
centripetal forces, that creates circular motion” I was told that
sense there was no such thing as centrifugal force the idea itself was
wrong.
Now I don’t remember the exact flow of the conversation, but from
reading your last post concerning the people handing back and forth
objects, I can see that you understand the meaning of centrifugal
force even though you yourself may not be totally comfortable with it.
To me the idea of centrifugal force is as valid as centripetal force.
But I don’t necessarily need it to make my argument, although I
believe it makes my argument smoother, except when people get stuck on
the centrifugal force debate. I am not here to argue that point though
unless someone thinks that it is necessary.
But I don’t mine, because my case is strong and the evidence so
extensive, I enjoy arguing it. But it is annoying when some people
want to turn the Google dialogs on Physics to the “goo-goo-ga-ga”
childish dialogs of name calling and the like. Oh well I guess you got
to take the good with the bad to a certain extent.
Conrad J Countess
cjcountess
described because velocity's are added not multiplied. As an example I
was shown (sqrt(a^2+b^2). I wondered why not just, “a + b”, because
the very fact that you first square them as, a^2 and b^2, before you
divide that answer into its sqrt, makes it not purely vector addition,
but some mathematical fudging scheme.
See: http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics/msg/8c5227a80122e187?hl=en
I did not argue that point at that place and time because I was not
prepared for such debates, and
this guy tried to find every way he could to defeat my argument, but
only made it stronger. Wonder what happened to him.
Anyway I soon found reference for vector multiplication, and was
prompted to state on another site that “c^2”, may not only express a
quantum leap in the energy to matter and wave to a particle, but also
a quantum leap in the mathematics that govern it as one goes from
vector addition to vector multiplication as soon as vectors are equal
and at 90 degrees to each other.
If that is the case, it might itself be a new mathematical discovery,
but if not it may be just something that sounds good for my argument.
Conrad J Countess
Uncle Al
>
> I agree� we should keep all debates civil.
"Pacifist" is German for "lousy shot." Only a fool does not adopt the
enemy's rules of engagement.
> I also agree that there are a lot of preconceived notions in
physics
> that inhibit its progression,
[snip mroe crap]
Stooopidity is not license for anything but enjoying derision.
> When I first mentioned that (c^2), geometrically could be interpreted
> as �c in linear direction x c in 90 degree angular direction, to
> create a balance of equal and 90 degree angular, centrifugal and
> centripetal forces, that creates circular motion�
[snip rest of crap]
idiot
--
Uncle Al
http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/
(Toxic URL! Unsafe for children and most mammals)
http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/qz4.htm
cjcountess
progress in physics, to people who obstruct progress.
Now I must admit that, if we were in a cold war, or pre-war stage,
"and perhaps we are" we might want to opstruct other countries
progress, especialy if one country is "Nazi Germany", and the other is
the, "European Aliance". And I can see how Al might think this way,
given his background. But if we are trying to cooporate in an
international forum, "this google physics site" to discover universal
truths, I do not want to be the one obstructing this path, unless it
will reveal something that I am afraid of. Maybe Al knows something we
don't
Conrad j Countess