A New Limit on Photon Mass
jesus
A new limit on photon mass, less than 10-51 grams or 7 x 10-19
electron volts, has been established by an experiment in which light
is aimed at a sensitive torsion balance; if light had mass, the
rotating balance would suffer an additional tiny torque. This
represents a 20-fold improvement over previous limits on photon mass.
Photon mass is expected to be zero by most physicists, but this is an
assumption which must be checked experimentally. A nonzero mass would
make trouble for special relativity, Maxwell's equations, and for
Coulomb's inverse-square law for electrical attraction.
The work was carried out by Jun Luo and his colleagues at Huazhong
University of Science and Technology in Wuhan, China
(jun...@mail.hust.edu.cn, 86-27-8755-6653). They have also carried out
a measurement of the universal gravitational constant G (Luo et al.,
Physical Review D, 15 February 1999) and are currently measuring the
force of gravity at the sub-millimeter range (a departure from
Newton's inverse-square law might suggest the existence of extra
spatial dimensions) and are studying the Casimir force, a quantum
effect in which nearby parallel plates are drawn together. (Luo et
al., Physical Review Letters, 28 February 2003)
Y.Porat
-----------------------
i showed it before theoretically!!
first by the minimal possible photon energy as
mim photon energy = hf times Planck time
and next
for the minimal mass of photon
by dividing it by c^2!!
it is all recorded in this ng
and thousand of people saw it !!!
2
not to mention that i was the first one
TO PROVE THEORETICALLY
THROUGH THE PHOTON MOMENTUM
FORMULA
P photon =hf/c
while showing first
that
there is mass there
2
by showing that there is nothing relativistic there!!
3
i am the THE FIRST ONE WITH the new golden rule
of modern physics
NO MASS - THE ONLY MASS -
NO REAL PHYSICS!!
IT IS ALL DOCUMENTED IN THOSE
GOOGLE SCI GROUPS
and thousans of people saw it !!!
ATB
Y.Porat
------------------------
photon
Hikaru Yamoshi
> On Aug 14, 7:36 am, jesus <almoh...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> > A New Limit on Photon Mass
> > A new limit on photon mass, less than 10-51 grams or 7 x 10-19
> > electron volts, has been established by an experiment in which light
> > is aimed at a sensitive torsion balance; if light had mass, the
> > rotating balance would suffer an additional tiny torque. This
> > represents a 20-fold improvement over previous limits on photon mass.
> > Photon mass is expected to be zero by most physicists, but this is an
> > assumption which must be checked experimentally. A nonzero mass would
> > make trouble for special relativity, Maxwell's equations, and for
> > Coulomb's inverse-square law for electrical attraction.
> > The work was carried out by Jun Luo and his colleagues at Huazhong
> > University of Science and Technology in Wuhan, China
> > (jun...@mail.hust.edu.cn, 86-27-8755-6653). They have also carried out
> > a measurement of the universal gravitational constant G (Luo et al.,
> > Physical Review D, 15 February 1999) and are currently measuring the
> > force of gravity at the sub-millimeter range (a departure from
> > Newton's inverse-square law might suggest the existence of extra
> > spatial dimensions) and are studying the Casimir force, a quantum
> > effect in which nearby parallel plates are drawn together. (Luo et
> > al., Physical Review Letters, 28 February 2003)
>
> -----------------------
> i showed it before theoretically!!
you mean, you had no numbers?
> ATB
> Y.Porat
> ------------------------
>
> photon
Y.Porat
--------------------
they are all documented
as for now i am too lazy to lok for it
anyway
if i tell you
take hf while f is one
multiply it by Planck time
(from memory something like exp-34 secomd
yet take only the scalar figure of planck time ie the exp-34 and not
the time dimension- for dimension ballance!!)
and you will get (if i quote right from memory
about exp -70 joule!
and if you what to get its mass
divide that above by c^2
it will be something like exp -93 kilogram
!!!
one thing is sure!!
non of our tools will ever be able to detect it !!
it will remain in theory only
an old copyright of mine
yet
my
NO MASS THE ONLY ONE - NO REAL PHYSICS !!
IS VERY VERY PRACTICAL!!!
IE very practical meaning about
what is possible
and what will be nonsense by arival
for instance a common nonsense physics
is
mass less particles
knowing it will save billions of waist
btw
are you Chinese or Japanese ??
i am optimistic about their open mildness !!
ATB
Y.Porat
----------------------
Hikaru Yamoshi
sorry Sir, i am not good at numbers
how wrong is you number compared to
the standard wrong number they use?
put these number please
Inertial
news:37de3847-8a7d-4ddb...@g17g2000yqe.googlegroups.com...
>
>On Aug 14, 7:36 am, jesus <almoh...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> A New Limit on Photon Mass
>> A new limit on photon mass, less than 10-51 grams or 7 x 10-19
>> electron volts, has been established by an experiment in which light
>> is aimed at a sensitive torsion balance; if light had mass, the
>> rotating balance would suffer an additional tiny torque. This
>> represents a 20-fold improvement over previous limits on photon mass.
>> Photon mass is expected to be zero by most physicists, but this is an
>> assumption which must be checked experimentally. A nonzero mass would
>> make trouble for special relativity, Maxwell's equations, and for
>> Coulomb's inverse-square law for electrical attraction.
>> The work was carried out by Jun Luo and his colleagues at Huazhong
>> University of Science and Technology in Wuhan, China
>> (jun...@mail.hust.edu.cn, 86-27-8755-6653). They have also carried out
>> a measurement of the universal gravitational constant G (Luo et al.,
>> Physical Review D, 15 February 1999) and are currently measuring the
>> force of gravity at the sub-millimeter range (a departure from
>> Newton's inverse-square law might suggest the existence of extra
>> spatial dimensions) and are studying the Casimir force, a quantum
>> effect in which nearby parallel plates are drawn together. (Luo et
>> al., Physical Review Letters, 28 February 2003)
>
>-----------------------
>i showed it before theoretically!!
Liar .. you have never shown non-zero rest-mass for photons
> first by the minimal possible photon energy as
>
> mim photon energy = hf times Planck time
Wrong. By experiment we know that photon energy is E = hf
>and next
>for the minimal mass of photon
>by dividing it by c^2!!
That would give the relativistic mass of the photon .. which we CAN
calculate and measure and is non zero.
>it is all recorded in this ng
>and thousand of people saw it !!!
We've seen your nonsense over and over
>2
>not to mention that i was the first one
No .. lots of people have posted nonsense before. But you were the first to
propose that particular pile of shit.
Y.Porat
--------------
i am not good as we;; with numbers as you (:-)
yet i am not sure you came in 'Bon ffide'
because
I GAVE YOU MUCH MORE IMPORTANT INSIGHTS THAN THE
NET FIGURES"
iof i tols you they way i got it
just ask your friends to do it for you
2
i gave youmuchmor eimportant conclusions like
if is an energy of about exp-70 jouile
and intelligent physicist willunderstand that non of our tools will
ever be able
to detect it !!
AND THAT IS THE MAIN relevant and practical POINT HERE
3
you ddint answer me if you are from Japan or china??
is it a secrete as well ??
TIA
Y.Porat
---------------------------
Y.Porat
(with 3 anonymous names )psychopath imbeciles
are not partners for discussion with me !!
next please !!!
Y.Porat
-------------------
Inertial
news:a5742cf5-b144-4f38...@t2g2000yqe.googlegroups.com...
> sub human ***anonymous** pigshits
>(with 3 anonymous names )psychopath imbeciles
>are not partners for discussion with me !!
>
>next please !!!
Fuck off and die you evil senile lying pig-shift of a psychopath. I want
you dead. NOW. And I'm sure I'm not alone.
Tom Roberts
Interesting. But a non-zero photon mass would be no problem for Special
Relativity as currently understood. It would be a problem for Maxwell's
equations, QED, and the standard model.
SR would not be affected because modern derivations of it
replace Einstein's original second postulate with one
unrelated to electromagnetism. Indeed, no second postulate
is needed at all, if one accepts that the derivation gives
three theories, two of which are experimentally refuted.
Tom Roberts
Tom Roberts
>> A New Limit on Photon Mass
>> A new limit on photon mass, less than 10-51 grams or 7 x 10-19
>> electron volts, has been established by an experiment in which light
>> is aimed at a sensitive torsion balance; if light had mass, the
>> rotating balance would suffer an additional tiny torque. This
>> represents a 20-fold improvement over previous limits on photon mass.
>> Photon mass is expected to be zero by most physicists, but this is an
>> assumption which must be checked experimentally. A nonzero mass would
>> make trouble for special relativity, Maxwell's equations, and for
>> Coulomb's inverse-square law for electrical attraction.
>> The work was carried out by Jun Luo and his colleagues at Huazhong
>> University of Science and Technology in Wuhan, China
>> (jun...@mail.hust.edu.cn, 86-27-8755-6653). They have also carried out
>> a measurement of the universal gravitational constant G (Luo et al.,
>> Physical Review D, 15 February 1999) and are currently measuring the
>> force of gravity at the sub-millimeter range (a departure from
>> Newton's inverse-square law might suggest the existence of extra
>> spatial dimensions) and are studying the Casimir force, a quantum
>> effect in which nearby parallel plates are drawn together. (Luo et
>> al., Physical Review Letters, 28 February 2003)
Interesting. But a non-zero photon mass would be no problem for Special
PD
Why? The minimum value of f is not 1.
Y.Porat
togetthe minimum integer number of h
iow
to get the net h
h is actually the slope of the
energy versus time
and then i multiply it by the smallest possible emission time
of the photon
ATB
Y.Porat
--------------------
Y.Porat
--------------------------
i proved by
phootn momentum
hf/c
that the photon has a nonzero non relativistic mass
so nothing will do
if some theory has a conflict with it
it is not my problem it is that theories
problem
may be practically the difference
is very small ??
because energy of say
exp-70 joule might be **practically zero!!**
(yet not theoretically !!! principally )
ATB
Y.Porat
-------------------------
--------------------------
Y.Porat
> Phys Rev Lett. 2003 Feb 28;90(8):081801. Epub 2003 Feb 26.
>
> New experimental limit on the photon rest mass with a rotating torsion
> balance.
> http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/12633416
-----------------
ok
we already had it above
so ??
i already answered thatit is not the smallest possible
theoretically !!
any way
you can from now on be sure that
hf
is not the energy of the smallest photon
as parroted until now !!!
ATB
Y.Porat
----------------------
BURT
There are two energies. One infinitely dense the other finite.
There is mass that weighs and spread out energy that does not.
Mitch Raemsch
Y.Porat
-------------------
ok
now if i proved that there is just one mass
that is non relativistic
at the original frame in which it was created
THEN IT IS RIGHT FOR ALL FRAMES !!!
ie for the red shift as well !!
(another copyright ....)
ATB
Y.Porat
-------------------------------
eric gisse
I'd settle for quiet.
Inertial
news:a523bb20-35f1-4d69...@i13g2000yqd.googlegroups.com...
>i proved by
>phootn momentum
>hf/c
>that the photon has a nonzero non relativistic mass
hf/c is BY DEFINTIION the RELATIVISTIC mass.
Igor
Borat does it again! He proved that a ham sandwich plus a big mac
divided by a whopper results in a dozen eggs.
PD
But why an *integer* number of h?
The minimum value of f is not 1,
and the minimum value of the energy of a photon is not h x 1.
Inertial
news:4c67f907$0$11093$c3e...@news.astraweb.com...
>
>"Y.Porat" wrote in message
>news:a523bb20-35f1-4d69...@i13g2000yqd.googlegroups.com...
>>i proved by
>>phootn momentum
>>hf/c
Which you ALSO claim to prove is NOT photon momentum
>>that the photon has a nonzero non relativistic mass
>hf/c is BY DEFINTIION the RELATIVISTIC mass.
Correction .. hf/c^2 is BY DEFINTIION the RELATIVISTIC mass. P = hf/c is
the momentum (even tho Porat elsewhere says it is NOT), P/c is the
relativistic mass (that's how relativistic mass is defined)
BURT
Set H-bar to one because it doesn't calculate energy accurately.
Mitch Raemsch
Inertial
news:062b552c-3cc1-45c1...@i18g2000pro.googlegroups.com...
>Set H-bar to one because it doesn't calculate energy accurately.
You're a moron troll
BURT
>
> - Show quoted text -
Light has no kinetic energy. Because its speed is a constant it could
only have one energy. And of course that is not true. Its energy
varies continuously by its frequency.
Mitch Raemsch
Y.Porat
i hold myself not to insult your intelligence
and your calling yousef a physicist!!
did you understand the concept QUANTUM??
quantum means that mater is composed of some
indivisible units of matter
physics is not just mathematics !!
2
showed you and other parrots
(parots is my milder word for block heads
that are unable to learn somethign new
that is not yet written in heir books)
now i wonder about you that generally remember my findings better
even than myself:.....
i gave you the simple experiment about the
*led light and the photoelectric cell!!***
do you remember it??
did you ever got its meaning ??
ddi you sticked it to your mind?
if not
go back and dig the relevant threds
(about February March of this year )
and see again my innovations about the
REAL **SINGLE*** SMALLEST PHOTON ENERGY
( certainly -- not at all hf !!!)
AND LATER SMALLEST MASS OF IT !!!
ATB
Y.Porat
---------------------------------------
Y.Porat
---------------------
Nazi Bolshevik psychopath
moron parrot subhuman
pigshit
BRING PHYSICS ARGUMENTS!!
here is not a meeting of
Goebbels - Stalin people
Y.P
---------------------------
Inertial
news:37109246-ad6c-4af3...@j8g2000yqd.googlegroups.com...
>i hold myself not to insult your intelligence
>and your calling yousef a physicist!!
>
>did you understand the concept QUANTUM??
You don't
>quantum means that mater is composed of some
>indivisible units of matter
>physics is not just mathematics !!
>2
> showed you and other parrots
>(parots is my milder word for block heads
>that are unable to learn somethign new
>that is not yet written in heir books)
And you're a moron
> now i wonder about you that generally remember my findings better
>even than myself:.....
>
>i gave you the simple experiment about the
>*led light and the photoelectric cell!!***
Yeup .. you showed that the longer you leave on a led torch, the more energy
you get. It didn't prove anything relevant
> do you remember it??
Still laughing about it
> did you ever got its meaning ??
Yes .. but you didn't
> ddi you sticked it to your mind?
>if not
>go back and dig the relevant threds
>(about February March of this year )
>and see again my innovations about the
>REAL **SINGLE*** SMALLEST PHOTON ENERGY
BAHAHAH .. you're a senile old moron .. all you do is come up with new ways
to completely misunderstand physics and lie and cheat everyone. Nothing to
be proud of. You should die now, as you have nothing to contribute to
humanity .. your very existence takes AWAY from the worth of humanity .. so
the best you can do is die.
>( certainly -- not at all hf !!!)
>
>AND LATER SMALLEST MASS OF IT !!!
BAHAHAHAHAH .. you;'re a stupid fucking senile and nasty old moron. Die
porat. Die
Die Die
Die Die
Die Die
Die Die
Die Die
Die Die
Die Die
Die Die
Die Die
Die Die
Die Die
Die Die
Die Die
Die Die
Die Die
Die Die
Die Die
Die Die
Die Die
Die Die
Die Die
Die Die
Die Die
Die Die
Die Die
Die Die
Get it? Good. Do it.
Inertial
news:ed86e6cb-367a-4a0a...@s9g2000yqd.googlegroups.com...
Fuck off and die Porat .. you're a waste of life .. you're less than human.
Its an insult to filth to call you filth.
Y.Porat
------------------
(:-)
without words !!
the pathological case is obvious (:-)
Y.P
-----------------------------
PD
Yes, I do. The minimum value of f is not 1, and the minimum value of
the energy of a photon is not h x 1.
I don't know where you ever got the impression that it was.
Y.Porat
------------------
yet that is not enough to understand the issue deeper!!
can you make some comments
about my experiment with the led ligth
and photoelectric cell ??
2
does it make sense toyou that
your 'instantaneous
is my Plank time suggestion ??
3
in any case it is obvious toyou that
nature of **single minimal** photon creation (energy or mass )
''''didnt here until now (or never ...)
about '''''one second'''' !!
iow
it is created in a much much shorter time !!
TIA
Y.Porat
-----------------------------
PD
Until you can acknowledge the places where you make obvious mistakes,
then you will find that your attempts to deflect the discussion to
other areas where you are hungering for attention will go largely
unheeded.
Y.Porat
nasty shameless demagogue crook !!!
you ddint say a single word of physics argument!
shameless pig and THIEF !!
btw
why dont you publish in any post of yours
a disclaimer that you are associated
with a
PUBLISHING COMPANY!!
(in which you intend to publish
stolen finding from others !!!
or even already published stolen findings of others
i will not be surprised to find that you have some
additio0nal anonymous names
or cooperate with those anonymous pigs !!
you smell too much like them !!!
Y.P
---------------------------
Y.P
-------------------------
Brad Guth
A gravity photon has a frequency of near zero.
~ BG
Brad Guth
What is the energy of the near zero frequency of a gravity photon
worth?
~ BG
Y.Porat
------------------
and your prove
or the way you got it ??
Y.P
---------------------------------------
Y.Porat
--------------
there is one thing i qm quite sure
noting that moves in a straight line
can do any attraction force !!!
because of conservation of momentum considerations !!
ATB
Y.Porat
------------------------
Y.P
--------------------
Brad Guth
I too can agree with that.
Since when do photons of Gravity to Planck go in straight lines?
Since we represent gravity and photons as we're collectively move
through space in anything but a straight line, does anything actually
move in a straight line?
~ BG
Inertial
news:7fb93101-9ecf-413c...@l6g2000yqb.googlegroups.com...
>nasty shameless demagogue crook !!!
>you ddint say a single word of physics argument!
>shameless pig and THIEF !!
>btw
>
>why dont you publish in any post of yours
>a disclaimer that you are associated
>with a
>PUBLISHING COMPANY!!
>(in which you intend to publish
>stolen finding from others !!!
>or even already published stolen findings of others
>i will not be surprised to find that you have some
>additio0nal anonymous names
>or cooperate with those anonymous pigs !!
>you smell too much like them !!!
FOAD Porat. .. you are the most repulsive excuse for a human being I've had
the misfortune to deal with. I hope you die .. quickly and painfully. And
soon. And if there is a hell .. you will surely burn there for eternity ...
and even THAT won't be long enough to satisfy my total and utter hatred for
what you stand for.
Y.Porat
-------------------
psychopath !!!
if your name is PD ......
let us know about it
(:-)
i wonder if PD is proud with his friends ...
-cooperators ....
probably
'birds of a feather -- flock together ' ...
----------------------
Y.P
------------------
Inertial
news:d10ef6e5-3c36-4c17...@q22g2000yqm.googlegroups.com...
.>psychopath !!!
You are
> if your name is PD ......
>let us know about it
> (:-)
I have ALWAYS been honest about the name I use for the three news groups i
use. I am always honest and open, I always use valid physics argument and
experimental evidence and logic to support my positions against your
nonsense.
>i wonder if PD is proud with his friends ...
>-cooperators ....
>probably
> 'birds of a feather -- flock together ' ...
i know that I would be proud of ANYONE who HATES such an evil immoral
unethical disease on humanity as you. The sooner you DIE the sooner we will
be cured of your illness and the better humanity will be. There is no place
for filth like you in our world.
BURT
>
> - Show quoted text -
The continuum is made of the infinitely small.
Mitch Raemsch
Y.Porat
------------------
in any case
PD uses you as his
'Santio Pantio''
( the famous story of Serevantez )
Y.P
--------------------------------
Inertial
news:ce2273c6-1ae0-4dc2...@p7g2000yqa.googlegroups.com...
>in any case
>PD uses you as his
>'Santio Pantio''
> ( the famous story of Serevantez )
Noone uses me, you stupid fucking moron.
Y.Porat
--------------
(:-)
------------------------
Igor
Y.Porat wrote:
>
> BRING PHYSICS ARGUMENTS!!
My point exactly. When will you bring them, moron?
BURT
He does.
Inertial
news:278c7b16-00e1-4031...@m35g2000prn.googlegroups.com...
>He does.
Fuck off troll
Y.Porat
--------------------
fucken Bolshevik pigshit
that never in his parasitic life
innovated anything !!!
beside stealing from others
(may be PD s gang )
you are a sub human creep
and not a partner to deal with me
nor in less than me
go fuck yourself with Josef Stalin
and the anonymous pigshits
moron psychopathic gangsters
Inertial =Artful=
whoever
--------------------------------------
Inertial
news:a218c238-7945-437a...@m1g2000yqo.googlegroups.com...
>--------------------
>fucken Bolshevik pigshit
>that never in his parasitic life
>innovated anything !!!
>beside stealing from others
>(may be PD s gang )
>
>you are a sub human creep
>and not a partner to deal with me
>nor in less than me
>
>go fuck yourself with Josef Stalin
>and the anonymous pigshits
>moron psychopathic gangsters
>Inertial =Artful=
>whoever
This is why I hate Porat .. he is EVERYTHIN that I hate. He is an evil
lying piece of filth. DIE PORAT. DIE.
Brad Guth
Deductively thinking, there's no upper or lower limit to the
wavelength of photons.
Like seeing those visual photons, we can feel those infinite gravity
photons.
~ BG
Brad Guth
Yes
BURT
I am the discoverer of the infinitely small size quantum of the
universe. This is for space time and particle. The continuum and what
is in it is quantized by the infinitely small and is defined by the
continuum hypothesis of math.
Mitch Raemsch
Y.Porat
> On Aug 17, 1:59 am, "Y.Porat" <y.y.po...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> > On Aug 17, 12:50 am, Brad Guth <bradg...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > On Aug 13, 10:36 pm, jesus <almoh...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > A New Limit on Photon Mass
> > > > A new limit on photon mass, less than 10-51 grams or 7 x 10-19
> > > > electron volts, has been established by an experiment in which light
> > > > is aimed at a sensitive torsion balance; if light had mass, the
> > > > rotating balance would suffer an additional tiny torque. This
> > > > represents a 20-fold improvement over previous limits on photon mass.
> > > > Photon mass is expected to be zero by most physicists, but this is an
> > > > assumption which must be checked experimentally. A nonzero mass would
> > > > make trouble for special relativity, Maxwell's equations, and for
> > > > Coulomb's inverse-square law for electrical attraction.
> > > > The work was carried out by Jun Luo and his colleagues at Huazhong
> > > > University of Science and Technology in Wuhan, China
> > > > (jun...@mail.hust.edu.cn, 86-27-8755-6653). They have also carried out
> > > > a measurement of the universal gravitational constant G (Luo et al.,
> > > > Physical Review D, 15 February 1999) and are currently measuring the
> > > > force of gravity at the sub-millimeter range (a departure from
> > > > Newton's inverse-square law might suggest the existence of extra
> > > > spatial dimensions) and are studying the Casimir force, a quantum
> > > > effect in which nearby parallel plates are drawn together. (Luo et
> > > > al., Physical Review Letters, 28 February 2003)
>
>
> > > ? if at a frequency of 1 hz = 1.2e-51 gram ?
> > > .001 hz = 1.2e-48 gram
> > > 1e-6 hz = 1.2e-45 gram
> > > 1e-12 hz=1.2e-39 gram
> > > 1e-24 hz=1.2e-27 gram
>
> > > Of course if the origin of that photon is moving away from us at 0.5c
> > > would make the photon mass worth half as much, and thereby if it were
> > > receding at c would make its mass worth zero gram, because we
> > > shouldn’t even be capable of detecting it, just like we can’t detect
> > > whatever’s inside the event horizon of a black hole.
>
> > > ~ BG
>
> > --------------------
> > you have to take in account
> > that ghenerally we dont get
> > a real single photon
> > but a huge number of single photons!!
>
> > and that huge number can change even if all of them are of exactly
> > the same f !!!
> > iow
> > f alone is not all the picture !!
> > (hf on one square meter
> > is not the same as hf collected on two m^2)
> > moreover
> > hf emitted (or collected)during one second
> > is not the same as
> > hf emitted (or collected )during 0.001 second !!!
>
> > ATB
> > Y.Porat
> > ------------
>
> That's good logic.
>
> ~ BG
-----------------------
Thanks
Y.P
--------------------
whoever
news:2fd1b2ac-281c-4d9c...@d8g2000yqf.googlegroups.com...
--- news://freenews.netfront.net/ - complaints: ne...@netfront.net ---
cjcountess
and /or sphered), (c^2) = (cx2pi) with angular momentum of (h/2pi) as
circle and (cx2pi/2) and (h/2pi/2) for circle that makes two rotations
at right angle to each other to become a standing spherical wave of
(spin ½).
Rest mass is revealed to be relative mass /kinetic energy, in circular
motion, and this is what gives it rest mass. There is no “mass gap”
between energy and matter, just a smooth transition between energy and
matter as wave/particles go from (E=hf) to (E=mc^2), or as “deBroglie”
stated, (E=hf=mc^2), at level of electron.
Einstein measured two photons emitted from a source in motion relative
to something else. From the Doppler Effect he concluded that photons
had energy of E=m/c^2, that matter had energy of E=mc^2 and that as
matter loose energy in the form of photons the mass would diminish by
M=E/c^2. From this he could have conclude that matter was just energy
in high frequency, which he did in a way but stopped short of saying
that, “matter is energy in circular and or spherical rotation, which
happens at c^2 which is c in circular and or spherical rotation, and
that rest mass is just relative mass/kinetic energy in circular and or
spherical rotation. Thus (E=mc^2) = (F=mv^2), on quantum level = (h/
2pi) which is also energy in circular motion and = (G) which is the
highest possible L/T^2 also = c^2 which is also highest possible v^2.
Einstein could have had General Relativity come smoothly from Special
Relativity and merge with Quantum theory if he had saw the geometrical
interpretation of his most famous equation E=mc^2
See http://wbabin.net/science/countess.pdf
Conrad J Countess
Y.Porat
------------------
indeed as i claime long ago
ENERGY IS MASS IN MOTION!!
it can be circular or linear !!
2
see the 'Circlon idea'
ATB
Y.Porat
-------------------------
cjcountess
Right,
and rest mass is just "relative mass/kinetic energy" in circular and
or spherical motion, such as binding energies and standing spherical
waves, such as electrons , and I suspect all other elementary
particles, as they are also spin 1/2 and have mass/energy of c^2, and
so they must too be a varient of the electron structure.
And so there is a new limit to photon mass and rest mass is included,
because (E=mc^2) geometrically means that photon energy equals and
turns to matter or rest mass, at frequency/wavelength of c^2 by
aquiring circular and or spherical motion.
There is no mass gap between energy and matter, one only has to view
the most famous equation in the world E=mc^2 geometrically as (E=mc^2)
= (E=mc^circled and/or Sphered)
People act as if they are afraid to admit that I am right about this.
IT is not blasphemy to add to this most famous equation "E=mc^2", by
the most famous scientist "Einstein", but it may be not to. The truth
of this is more sacred than the repitation and adoration almost
worshiping of this equation and scientist.
Conrad J Countess
Y.Porat
----------------
right!!
E=mc^2
means that energy is mass in motion!!
yet until now
parrots claimes that that mass is 'relativistic mass'
qwhile i showed by the formula
of photon momentum
M = hf/c
that the mass there is just the only mass
that exists!
there is notning in that formula that is
relativistic
2
not long ago i strated a thread :
'particles and energy are exchangeable
and REVERSIBLE !!!
(on a basis of 'one to one
ie mass and energy are conserved !!!)
ATB
Y.Porat
-------------------------
--------------------
Robert Higgins
Hate to break it to you, but E=mc^2 gives only the energy of mass AT
REST. All these years, and you still don't understand the most basic
things. Ignorance must be bliss.
> yet until now
> parrots claimes that that mass is 'relativistic mass'
> qwhile i showed by the formula
> of photon momentum
> M = hf/c
> that the mass there is just the only mass
> that exists!
> there is notning in that formula that is
> relativistic
Other than, of course, the SPEED OF LIGHT.
>
> 2
> not long ago i strated a thread :
>
> 'particles and energy are exchangeable
> and REVERSIBLE !!!
> (on a basis of 'one to one
> ie mass and energy are conserved !!!)
Keep on circle-jerking!
>
> ATB
> Y.Porat
> -------------------------
> --------------------
Brad Guth
> Conrad J Countess
Yes, they forgot about pi and the cubic volume that a quantum sphere
can represent.
Photons may be 2D quantum strings, but they also occupy a given
volume.
~ BG
cjcountess
The way I see it, all mass is relativistic mass, just rest mass is
relativistic mass in circular and or spherical motion, and that is
what enables it to have rest mass, its circular/spherical rotation,
Everything is relativistic because everything is interrelated and only
exist in relation to other things,
To me all mass is relativistic mass the difference between photon and
rest mass being that while photons have inertial mass in direction of
motion, which give them striking power in photo electric effect but
does not give them all around mass because they move at c in direction
of motion, rest mass has mass all around because its direction of
motion is circular and or spherical,
But they are the same phenomenon which is energy photons being energy
which exhibits mass in direction of motion which is not all around
mass and rest mass which exhibits mass all around because of its all
around motion,
Robert Higgins
E=mc^2 applies to photons as well when it is E=m/c^2 which Einstein
stated according to
http://www.fourmilab.ch/etexts/einstein/E_mc2/www/
as M=L/c^2
Einstein from comparing two photons moving from relatively still and
moving source concluded that photons had energy of (E=m/c^2), natter
had energy of (E=mc^2) and that if matter loose energy in form of
photons its mass would be reduced by (M=E/c^2),
It’s just that symbols such as L and /or E are different but still
mean the same thing,
Brad Guth
You are correct, they may have forgotten, but I did not forget,
See my paper
http://wbabin.net/science/countess.pdf
and post
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.math/msg/29ec05adc157f272
Conrad J Countess
Y.Porat
wrote:
imbecile kaker
the speed of light is constant!!
got it imbecile moron walking damage for that ng !!!
that is one of the basics of relativity
so
NASTY FUCKEN CHEMIST
LEARN CRAWLING BEFORE SPEADING YOUR
SHIT HAD ALL OVER!!
inread of thanking me teaching you th enasica of physics
you open your shit mouth against me !
a real nasty shameless pigshit
shameless nasty pigshit gangster !!
go dsicuss with inertial & Co.
you belong to them not to me
i start to susoect that rhat creep is an imposter as well as some
other creeps here
Y.Porat
-------------------------
Robert Higgins
No shit, Captain Obvious.
> got it imbecile moron walking damage for that ng !!!
> that is one of the basics of relativity
Yes, so it is .... RELATIVISTIC.
> so
> NASTY FUCKEN CHEMIST
> LEARN CRAWLING BEFORE SPEADING YOUR
> SHIT HAD ALL OVER!!
Or wearing shit-filled diapers, like you.
> inread of thanking me teaching you th enasica of physics
YOU teach ME???? You're kidding, right?
> you open your shit mouth against me !
You really love the word "shit". Do you still eat it everyday?
> a real nasty shameless pigshit
DId the little piggy really cry, "Wee, wee, wee, all the way home?"
"WEE! WEE! WEE! WEE!"
>
> shameless nasty pigshit gangster !!
I'm not gangster, I'm GANGSTA.
> go dsicuss with inertial & Co.
> you belong to them not to me
> i start to susoect that rhat creep is an imposter as well as some
> other creeps here
I suspect that you are a creep.
Y.Porat
----------------
can someone else explain to Higgins
why he is wrong while saying that
c is relativistic ???
TIA
Y.Porat
--------------------------------
Y.Porat
just to remind the quote No 64
from higgins?
quote
(first from me
and flowing without the >
from higgins):
quote:
> yet until now
> parrots claimes that that mass is 'relativistic mass'
> qwhile i showed by the formula
> of photon momentum
> M = hf/c
> that the mass there is just the only mass
> that exists!
> there is notning in that formula that is
> relativistic
(now Higgins )
'''Other than, of course, the SPEED OF LIGHT''''
end of quote
------------------
so Higgins say:
'''Other than, of course, the SPEED OF LIGHT''
-----------------
as far as we all know
THE SPEED OF LIGHT'
is as well called c !!!
-----------------
can anyone else explain tothe reverent Higgins
why he is wrong while saying that
c is RELATIVISTIC
(unless he finds a way to
'''smartly''' retreat from his own quote
and i bet that he and his gang
will find a 'way'...to do it
and if not
please explain to him
why he is wrong
TIA
Y.Porat
-------------------------------
Robert Higgins
If I say "Nothing in the formula is relativistic except the speed of
light" this is the same as saying "The speed of light is
relativistic."
> -----------------
> as far as we all know
> THE SPEED OF LIGHT'
> is as well called c !!!
> -----------------
> can anyone else explain tothe reverent Higgins
> why he is wrong while saying that
> c is RELATIVISTIC
OF COURSE "c" is relativistic! Are you really as dense as a black
hole?
Hint: what are Einstein's two postulates in "On the Electrodynamics of
Moving Bodies", the paper which introduces the theory of RELATIVITY???
Theory of relativity = "relativistic"
>
> (unless he finds a way to
> '''smartly''' retreat from his own quote
> and i bet that he and his gang
> will find a 'way'...to do it
No retreat.
Androcles
"Robert Higgins" <robert_h...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:cc68e6e9-aed3-40e2...@y10g2000vbf.googlegroups.com...
OF COURSE "c" is relativistic! Are you really as dense as a black
hole?
Hint: what are Einstein's two postulates in "On the Electrodynamics of
Moving Bodies", the paper which introduces the theory of RELATIVITY???
Theory of relativity = "relativistic"
===========================================
My niece is a relative of mine. She is relativistic.
Hint: what are Einstein's three postulates in "On the Electrodynamics of
Moving Bodies", the paper which introduces the theory of RELATIVITY?
Oh, that's right, you can't count and neither could Einstein.
Hint:
we establish by definition that the ``time'' required by light to travel
from A to B equals the ``time'' it requires to travel from B to A.
We establish by definition relativistic c is
"Go-there-stop-and-go-back-again".
http://www.fourmilab.ch/etexts/einstein/specrel/www/figures/img7.gif
How far is it from A to A and how long does it take to get there, Higgins?
Hint:
"the velocity of light in our theory plays the part, physically, of an
infinitely great velocity." -- Einstein.
Higgins plays the part, physically, of an infinitely stupid moron.
Y.Porat
others **not me** should explain to you
fucken crook chemist
why saying that c is relativistic
can be said only by
a moron psycho gangster GORILLA !!
and i am glad that it is recorded and you repeat that
stupidity moronic claim again and a gain
that c is relativistic
you have the intelligence and agressivemess
nothing but SJAMELESS aggression of of a retarded GORILLA
asuming that allpeople here are idiots!
2
i call other peopel here
to explain to Higgins
why he is a shameless moron about nasic physics
TIA
Y.Porat
-----------------------
Inertial
news:7b5eb298-ae58-4c01...@x25g2000yqj.googlegroups.com...
Robert Higgins
Because you Porat are incapable of explaining anything correctly,
> fucken crook chemist
Apparently, chemists are better at physics than ersatz
pseudo-"engineers".
> why saying that c is relativistic
> can be said only by
> a moron psycho gangster GORILLA !!
It's still correct, no matter how angry it makes you. BTW, Gorillas
can't actually SAY anything - unless you have been talking to your
relatives again.
>
> and i am glad that it is recorded and you repeat that
> stupidity moronic claim again and a gain
> that c is relativistic
> you have the intelligence and agressivemess
> nothing but SJAMELESS aggression of of a retarded GORILLA
>
> asuming that allpeople here are idiots!
No, just YOU.
Y.Porat
> > > > why he is wrong
> > > > TIA
> > > > Y.Porat
> > > > -------------------------------
>
> > others **not me** should explain to you
>
> Because you Porat are incapable of explaining anything correctly,
>
> > fucken crook chemist
>
> Apparently, chemists are better at physics than ersatz
> pseudo-"engineers".
>
> > why saying that c is relativistic
> > can be said only by
> > a moron psycho gangster GORILLA !!
>
> It's still correct, no matter how angry it makes you.
------------------
others should explain to you why you are
a ridiculous shameless idiot!!
i am quite sure that somebody alredy explained to you that you are a
ridiculous idiot moron
yet you are not honest enough to admit it
public-ally !!
can someonr explzin to him that here ??
2
you can be sure that it is was the other way
ie i was wrong
PD & his gangster cooperators would jump on me immediately!!
but they are not honest enough
as personal enemies - to tell you that i am rigth and you are wrong
c is not relativistic
one has to be an idiot moron to say that !!!
Y.Porat
--------------------
Robert Higgins
> On Aug 21, 4:05 pm, Ro > > > > please explain to him
>
>
>
> > > > > why he is wrong
> > > > > TIA
> > > > > Y.Porat
> > > > > -------------------------------
>
> > > others **not me** should explain to you
>
> > Because you Porat are incapable of explaining anything correctly,
>
> > > fucken crook chemist
>
> > Apparently, chemists are better at physics than ersatz
> > pseudo-"engineers".
>
> > > why saying that c is relativistic
> > > can be said only by
> > > a moron psycho gangster GORILLA !!
>
> > It's still correct, no matter how angry it makes you.
>
> ------------------
> others should explain to you why you are
> a ridiculous shameless idiot!!
Mo, they shouldn't, and they don;t.
>
> i am quite sure that somebody alredy explained to you that you are a
> ridiculous idiot moron
I am quite sure that you could not pass any first year College/
University course, and I am, of course, correct.
> yet you are not honest enough to admit it
> public-ally !!
> can someonr explzin to him that here ??
> 2
> you can be sure that it is was the other way
> ie i was wrong
> PD & his gangster cooperators would jump on me immediately!!
You always ask PD for his input, insanely convinced that he will agree
with you. When he doesn't, you insult him.
> but they are not honest enough
> as personal enemies - to tell you that i am rigth and you are wrong
> c is not relativistic
> one has to be an idiot moron to say that !!!
Porat - you are just too fucking stupid to handle even the most basic
science.
>
> Y.Porat
> --------------------
Y.Porat
>
>
>
>
> > "cjcountess" <cjcount...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>
> >news:fdd5ef81-7006-4629...@a36g2000yqc.googlegroups.com...
> > Ok to get back to the subject
>
> > A New Limit on Photon Mass
>
> > > A new limit on photon mass, less than 10-51 grams or 7 x 10-19
> > > electron volts, has been established by an experiment in which light
> > on pinheads and that doesn't interest me.- Hide quoted text -
>
> > - Show quoted text -
>
> sure there is more depth to it than imediately apparent.
>
> But concerning the definition of mass, I mean the manifestation of the
> phoyon that is called inertia, or the ability to make its presense
> known by impacting on the senses, directly or indirectly, as it makes
> contact with something directly, or indirectly conected to the senses.
>
> The inertia that a photon displays, which enables "the photo electric
> effect", which enables it to move electrons in the way of its motion,
> is measured to be (M or= E/c^2) or (E or M = hf/c^2), and is menifest
> in direction of motion, and the resistence to that motion, which is in
> a relatively straight or wavy line. And it is the same as inertia of
> rest mass, which is just inertia in circular and/or spherical
> rotation, cause by the 90 degree angular momentum of "c", equaling and
> balencing the linear momentum of "c", which give circular and/or
> spherical rotation, as a balence of (centripital and centrifugal
> forces) of c in the linear direction x c in the 90 degree angular
> direction.
>
> From this new geometrical interpretatiopn of (E=mc^2) = (E=mc^circled
> and or sphered), we can see the direct transition between waves at
> (E=hf) and particles at (E=mc^2) or as deBroglie stated (E=hf=mc^2)
> without the mass gap, and not just that energy and matter are equal
> and related through conversion factor "c^2", but we can see exactly
> how energy equals and turns to matter at conversion frequency/
> wavelength of "c^2".
>
> This is because we can now see, after all this time of knowing the
> amazing equation of "E=mc^2", that geometricaly "c^2" is c in circular
> and or spherical rotation and this is what gives it rest mass although
> it is just relative mass/kinetic energy in circular and/or spherical
> rotation.
>
> After this is realized, a wave of other discoveries follow
>
> ==================================================
> Very uninteresting, and I will not bother to re-read that. I, like you,
> can totally ignore anything you say.
-------------------------
so????
please tel us shortly
is there 'relativistic mass' ( for instance -for the photon)
or just one kind of mass???
TIA
Y.Porat
------------------------------------------
Inertial
news:332c84d8-d61c-4fbe...@z10g2000yqb.googlegroups.com...
On Aug 21, 4:05 pm, Ro > > > > please explain to him
> > > > why he is wrong
> > > > TIA
> > > > Y.Porat
> > > > -------------------------------
>
> > others **not me** should explain to you
>
> Because you Porat are incapable of explaining anything correctly,
>
> > fucken crook chemist
>
> Apparently, chemists are better at physics than ersatz
> pseudo-"engineers".
>
> > why saying that c is relativistic
> > can be said only by
> > a moron psycho gangster GORILLA !!
>
> It's still correct, no matter how angry it makes you.
------------------
Porat described himself
>others should explain to you why you are
>a ridiculous shameless idiot!!
>
>i am quite sure that somebody alredy explained to you that you are a
>ridiculous idiot moron
>yet you are not honest enough to admit it
>public-ally !!
>can someonr explzin to him that here ??
>2
>you can be sure that it is was the other way
>ie i was wrong
You are
>PD & his gangster cooperators would jump on me immediately!!
>but they are not honest enough
Assuming you are including me as a 'cooperator' .. I am ALWAYS honest here.
You are a known and proven liar.
>as personal enemies - to tell you that i am rigth and you are wrong
>c is not relativistic
It IS relativistic
> one has to be an idiot moron to say that !!!
You ARE an idiot moron .. that's why you DID say it
Y.Porat
wrote:
Hi little Josef Goebbels
Y.P
----------------------------
Y.Porat
> On Aug 14, 1:36 am, jesus <almoh...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> > A New Limit on Photon Mass
> > A new limit on photon mass, less than 10-51 grams or 7 x 10-19
> > electron volts, has been established by an experiment in which light
> > is aimed at a sensitive torsion balance; if light had mass, the
> > represents a 20-fold improvement over previous limits on photon mass.
> > Photon mass is expected to be zero by most physicists, but this is an
> > assumption which must be checked experimentally. A nonzero mass would
> > make trouble for special relativity, Maxwell's equations, and for
> > Coulomb's inverse-square law for electrical attraction.
> > The work was carried out by Jun Luo and his colleagues at Huazhong
> > University of Science and Technology in Wuhan, China
> > (jun...@mail.hust.edu.cn, 86-27-8755-6653). They have also carried out
> > a measurement of the universal gravitational constant G (Luo et al.,
> > Physical Review D, 15 February 1999) and are currently measuring the
> > force of gravity at the sub-millimeter range (a departure from
> > Newton's inverse-square law might suggest the existence of extra
> > spatial dimensions) and are studying the Casimir force, a quantum
> > effect in which nearby parallel plates are drawn together. (Luo et
> > al., Physical Review Letters, 28 February 2003)
>
> gravity constant, and inverse square law, being requestioned, let me
> say that according to “Geometrical Interpretation of (E=mc^2) =
> (E=mc^circled and/or sphered)”, photon limit on long wavelength end is
> “h,” and on short end is “c^2 = h/2pi or h/2pi/2 = G”, which gives the
> new gravity constant of rest mass (G = L/T^2 = c^2, which is ultimate
> L/T^2 = h/2pi, as energy in circular motion and/or h/2pi/2 as energy
> in circular motion making two rotations to complete one wave cycle as
> a standing spherical wave of spin ½ and angular momentum of h/2pi/2,
> which might also be translated to h/4pi).
>
> And of course the “Inverse Square Law”, from this perspective is not
> infinite on either long or short end, and so all of the above will
> need adjustment.
>
> Conrad J Countess
-----------------
so
according to you
the photon has relativistic mass
or not ??
TIA
Y.Porat
---------------------
cjcountess
>
> - Show quoted text -
Yes Porat
As I see it, all photons have relativistic mass = (M=hf/c^20) and this
is why we have the photo-electric effect.
"Rest mass" occures when the angular energy, relative mass, and
momentum = (c=h) to balence the linear energy, relative mass, and
momentum which is cxc or c^2 for a balence of centrifugal/centripital
forces and circular and or spherical motion. this is where "deBrolie"
stated that (E=hf=mc^2) at level of electron, that electron is also a
wave and that the only thing separating photon from electron is the
angular momentum, for all practicle purpouses, making the EM spectrum
the energy/matter as well as the electromagnetic spectrum.
Rest mass is just "relative mass/kinetic energy", in circular and or
spherical motion, for angular momentum of (h/2pi), for circle, and (h/
2pi/2), for standing spherical wave, making 2 rotations to complete
one wave cycle, (spin 1/2).
And of course if particle spins counterclockwise it has (1- charge).
From this geometrical perspective (E=mc^2) = (F=mv^2=Gmm/r^2), and
same force that compresses energy into matter at (E=mc^2) pushes
matter particles togather at (F=mv^2=Gmm/r^2).
It all fits togather so seemlessly, that it is highly improbable that
it is mere coincidence, as too many points of analogy,logic,
mathematics, geometry, and stitistical data, logicaly align to draw
this picture that fits emperical data.
So yes, Porat, "rest mass", is just "relative mass", in geometrical,
circular, and or spherical rotation.
This is the origin of "rest mass", circular and or sphericla rotation,
as mass in general, is always there, in the "ground state energy off
space itself", which like all energy, is equvalent to mass. But as I
said, "rest mass" occures when the wave reaches a high enough
frequency, that the speed of light and momentum in 90 degree angular
direction, equals and balences, the speed and momentum of light in
the linear direction, creating circular and or spherical rotation,
which is c^2.
I realy enjoy clarifing this idea, as it gets easier and easier and is
becomeing so clear that it speaks for itself and is also becoming its
own credentuials and mine. And I am glad to be the spokes person for
it.
Conrad J Countess
BURT
>
> - Show quoted text -
If light's energy is from its constant motion it would all have
the same constant kinetic energy based on C. But light is not
of one energy or colour.
Mitch Raemsch
cjcountess
>
> If light's energy is from its constant motion it would all have
> the same constant kinetic energy based on C. But light is not
> of one energy or colour.
>
> Mitch Raemsch
Let me clarify this BURT
Light involves a constant mass/energy "h" which comes from its
constant velocity "c", but it also has varying mass/energy, "f" which
couples with the constant to make up the total mass/energy (E=hf/c^2).
The constant (h=c), is always there in all wavelengths and
frequencies, but the ( f ) varies.
This is what allows energy to span the range of frequencies between (c
and c^2), (energy in its longest wavelength, slowest frequency, ground-
state-- to its highest frequency, shortest wavelength, which is c^2 =
c^circled and/or sphered, = rest mass within the "EM" a.k.a energy/
matter, spectrum
Conrad J Countess
BURT
Wrong. Einstein's using Plank constant to define light's energy
is treated by setting H-Bar to One. His equation is wrong but
was a first shot in science. Science is 400 years young and
has the wrong idea about itself.
Light has no kinetic energy constant but only frequency energy
from its wave.
Mitch Raemsch
artful
No .. it wouldn't .. because photons of different frequencies has
different relativistic masses, moron
Androcles
--
Clock A reads 6:00 am at dawn, its a perfect clock.
Clock B reads 12:00 pm at noon, its a perfect clock.
Clock A remains in synch with Earth wherever it goes because
"In accordance with definition the two clocks synchronize if tB-tA =
t'A-tB",
clock A can see the Earth and Earth can see clock A, "the ``time'' required
by
light to travel from A to B equals the ``time'' it requires to travel from B
to A."
Because of time dilation, if one of two synchronous clocks at A is moved
in a closed curve with constant velocity until it returns to A, the journey
lasting t seconds, then by the clock which has remained at rest the
travelled
clock on its arrival at A will be 1/2 tv^2/c^2 second slow.
Clock A meets clock B at A and is 6 hours slow. Both clocks synchronize
with Earth. Therefore clock A meets clock B at dawn and clock B sees clock A
arrive at noon.
"artful" <artf...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:af860b9a-e452-46d3...@u31g2000pru.googlegroups.com...
artful
Androcles
--
Einstein did NOT write
1/2[tau(0,0,0,t)+tau(0,0,0,t+x'/(c+v)+x'/(c-v))]=tau(x',0,0, t+x'/(c-v))
<http://www.fourmilab.ch/etexts/einstein/specrel/www/figures/img22.gif>
and he did not write:
"indem man durch Definition festsetzt, daß die "Zeit", welche das
Licht braucht, um von A nach B zu gelangen, gleich ist der "Zeit",
welche es braucht, um von B nach A zu gelangen." -- Einstein
-- signed, Lying Illiterate Relativistic Dunce (LIRD).
What kind of lunacy prompted Einstein to NOT say
the speed of light from A=(0,0,0) to B=(x',0,0) is c-v,
the speed of light from B=(x',0,0) to A=(0,0,0) is c+v,
the "time" each way is the same and invent time dilation,
which he did not NOT do, no, not, no, not... no... nooo...?
"artful" <artf...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:9cde2c8e-5261-4687...@u4g2000prn.googlegroups.com...
artful
BURT
>
> - Show quoted text -
mass and non kinetic mass for light? Are you that smart?
Nobody smart in science thinks that light has mass; only energy.
Mitch Raemsch
artful
There are no such things as 'kinetic mass' and 'non kinetic mass'.
There is relativistic (or inertial) mass for photons, and there is
rest mass for photons (which is always zero). Perhaps that is what
you mean?
> Are you that smart?
Yes .. given an answerable question
> Nobody smart in science thinks that light has mass; only energy.
Wrong. It has relativistic mass .. by simple definition of what that
means M = P/c (where M is relativistic mass and P is momentum).
Light has momentum, therefore it has relativistic mass.
BURT
>
> - Show quoted text -
NO light's momentum can be defined soley by its energy.
Light's spread out energy is massless.
Mitch Raemsch
Androcles
news:e7aa1b30-0cbf-40de...@e34g2000prn.googlegroups.com...
artful
Why is that a 'NO'? You just agreed with me that light has momentum.
That means, by definition, it has relativistic (or inertial) mass. You
divide momentum by speed to get relativistic mass. If something has
non-zero momentum, then it has non-zero relativistic (or inertial)
mass, by definition. Its not a matter of opinion or what theory one
believes / applies .. it is how relativistic mass is defined. It is
very simple.
BURT
>
> - Show quoted text -
No. Because the spread out form of energy of the light wave
does not weigh. No because light is massless.
Mitch Raemsch
artful
Who said anything about 'weighing' .. we are talking about mass .. not
weight. What does 'does not weigh' mean to you ??
> No because light is massless.
It has no rest mass .. yes. But it has relativistic mass . .by
definition. It is not a matter of opinion or theory ..by definition
of what relavitistic mass is, light has it. Your crap and nonsense
can't change that.
BURT
>
> - Show quoted text -
NO. Because rest never applies. Albert Einstein
says No Absolute Rest. It is not that it has no rest mass
it is that rest cannot ever apply.
Light is a form of spread out energy that is massless.
Mitch Raemsch
Inertial
"BURT" <macro...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:8f9c227e-5961-4197...@w15g2000pro.googlegroups.com...
What "NO"?
> Because rest never applies.
That's right .. no reswt mass for a photon
> Albert Einstein
> says No Absolute Rest.
I never mentioned absolute rest .. that is irrelevant to whether a photon
has relativistic mass or not. You're throwing in red herrings.
> It is not that it has no rest mass
It has a proper mass of zero. We also call that proper mass 'rest mass'.
Its a phrase. It doesn't mean the object has to be able to be at rest or
that there is such a thing as absolute rest. Try to keep up with the
terminology of physics at least.
> it is that rest cannot ever apply.
Yes .. photons are never at rest .. but that do have a zero 'rest mass' (or
'proper mass')
> Light is a form of spread out energy that is massless.
But it has relativistic mass because it has momentum .. by definition. You
cannot deny that because it is DEFINED that way. Its not a matter of
choice. If it has momentum, it has relativistic mass. Period.
BURT
> "BURT" <macromi...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
Please define its relativistic mass. What is that in quantification?
Light must have kinetic and nonkinetic mass then.
Define both parts.
Mitch Raemsch
Inertial
I already did .. divide momentum by speed and you get relativsitic (or
inertial) mass. M = P/v. Note also that at v=0, M is taken as m (rest
mass) .. which is the limit value of P/v as v->0. That's what it is. If
something has momentum and speed, then it has relativistic (or inertial)
mass. Light has momentum and speed .. so it has relativisitic (or inertial)
mass. By definition.
>What is that in quantification?
> Light must have kinetic and nonkinetic mass then.
> Define both parts.
They are your terms that you made up .. YOU define them.
BURT
There is kinetic mass and nonkinetic mass for matterial energy moving.
You are saying; whether you admit it or not; that light has both
kinds of energy.
Please define both these energies for light.
It only has one energy. Light does not have energy of motion.
Mitch Raemsch
>
> > >> > > > > > Are you that smart?
>
> > >> > > > > Yes .. given an answerable question
>
> > >> > > > > > Nobody smart in science thinks that light has mass; only
> > >> > > > > > energy.- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -...
>
> read more »
Androcles
--
Einstein did NOT write
1/2[tau(0,0,0,t)+tau(0,0,0,t+x'/(c+v)+x'/(c-v))]=tau(x',0,0, t+x'/(c-v))
<http://www.fourmilab.ch/etexts/einstein/specrel/www/figures/img22.gif>
and he did not write:
"indem man durch Definition festsetzt, daß die "Zeit", welche das
Licht braucht, um von A nach B zu gelangen, gleich ist der "Zeit",
welche es braucht, um von B nach A zu gelangen." -- Einstein
-- signed, Lying Illiterate Relativistic Dunce (LIRD).
What kind of lunacy prompted Einstein to NOT say
the speed of light from A=(0,0,0) to B=(x',0,0) is c-v,
the speed of light from B=(x',0,0) to A=(0,0,0) is c+v,
the "time" each way is the same and invent time dilation,
which he did not NOT do, no, not, no, not... no... nooo...?
"artful" <artf...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:c3004c65-8423-4f6e...@s24g2000pri.googlegroups.com...