An unprecedents prove the the photon has a nonzer *rest mass* !
Y.Porat
here is how i derived my above conclusion:
The formula E=hf is experimentally validated and found Vaid
for the photon case right??
Now since we have an endless cases of which E and f are nonzero
than h the Planck constant is nonzero
yet that constant is not just a figure it has some physical components
and dimensions
so lets see how it is composed of :
lets use the following abbreviations :
km for mass (rest mass)
m - Meter
s - seconds
pl the Plank figure (just the 6.6 10^-34 figure not its
dimensions )
nz a nonzero figure !!
so the plank constant is never zero nz
and it is
nz (Plank constant ) = pl joule second = pl kg m^2/s^2
times s =
pl kg m^2 /s = nz
so
kg (mass of photon ) = s x nz / (divided by ) pl m ^2
( right ??)
since NON of the right side components is zero
kg (mass of photons) = nonzero !!
QED
Copyright Yehiel Porat 17-05-2006
-------------------
please note:
The above analysis was made possible once I realized that the Plank
Constant
was not just an inseparable physical entity!
If you follow its history and how it was derived
you realize that it is not a case in which first of all that constant
was found and
*only later* it was verified by measurements.
It is exactly the other way round!
i.e. first the results of experimental measurements of Energy versus
the frequency of photons
were plotted and a straight line was found.
the h factor was just the *slope* of that plotted straight line.
ONLY LATER people started to wonder what the meaning of that slope is
and later combined into one physical entity its physical components
(which are actually more basic components like mass velocity (length
seconds )
so if it was assembled it is also legitimate to decompose it into its
components
This of course provided you do it in a legitimate way .
so i found it legitimate to separate its components to the two sides of
an equation
starting from and based on the usual common formula.
(this is just another arrangement of its components )
and once i combined the fact that the h factor is nonzero
with the new insight (above) i reached the above unprecedented and
extremely important
result.
TIA
Y.Porat
---------------------
Y.Porat
it should be : an unprecedented prove.....
Y.Porat
i was too much focused on the main text so neglected the title
...(:-)
Golden Boar
Y.Porat
what i syour bottom line?
does the photon has nonzero rest mass or not ???
TIA
Y.Porat
----------------------
dda1
Y.Porat wrote:
>
> and once i combined the fact that the h factor is nonzero
> with the new insight (above) i reached the above unprecedented and
> extremely important
> result.
>
> TIA
> Y.Porat
> ---------------------
Perseverent cretin.
PD
Y.Porat wrote:
> here is how i derived my above conclusion:
>
>
> The formula E=hf is experimentally validated and found Vaid
> for the photon case right??
>
> Now since we have an endless cases of which E and f are nonzero
>
> than h the Planck constant is nonzero
> yet that constant is not just a figure it has some physical components
> and dimensions
>
> so lets see how it is composed of :
> lets use the following abbreviations :
>
> km for mass (rest mass)
> m - Meter
> s - seconds
Why on earth would you insist on using MKS units?
There are other, much better systems of units available to you.
For example, you use different units for space (m) and for time (s),
when special relativity clearly says these two should not be measured
with different units, since they are different components of the same
thing. Note this is the *same* special relativity that gives you
another equation that you use: E=mc^2. So, if you're going to use a
unit analysis to derive physical meaning, at least use units that make
physical sense as suggested by relativity.
By the way, Porat, what I'm suggesting is NOT new. It is as old as the
hills, though it seems to have escaped you.
PD
Y.Porat
PD wrote:
> Y.Porat wrote:
> > here is how i derived my above conclusion:
> >
> >
> > The formula E=hf is experimentally validated and found Vaid
> > for the photon case right??
> >
> > Now since we have an endless cases of which E and f are nonzero
> >
> > than h the Planck constant is nonzero
> > yet that constant is not just a figure it has some physical components
> > and dimensions
> >
> > so lets see how it is composed of :
> > lets use the following abbreviations :
> >
> > km for mass (rest mass)
> > m - Meter
> > s - seconds
>
> Why on earth would you insist on using MKS units?
why on earth not ???iof it works with MKS why shoud i not use it
because it leads to results that dont fit your paradigm ??
2 if it works with MKS it must work with any other sysem!!
do you claim MKS is not legitimate ??
---------
> There are other, much better systems of units available to you.
> For example, you use different units for space (m) and for time (s),
> when special relativity clearly says these two should not be measured
> with different units, since they are different components of the same
> thing. Note this is the *same* special relativity that gives you
> another equation that you use: E=mc^2. So, if you're going to use a
> unit analysis to derive physical meaning, at least use units that make
> physical sense as suggested by relativity.
1 th elorentz factor does not apply for the photon
2 we use E=mc^2 for 'annihilation of mass'
why should we not use the same formula for creation of mass??
>
> By the way, Porat, what I'm suggesting is NOT new. It is as old as the
> hills, though it seems to have escaped you.
it is not new and you showed nothing to fefute me
my main innovative point is that i 'unbundled ' the Plank consatnt to
its
mKS components
and once 'unbundeled' i can isolate the mass to the left side of the
eqaution
and all the rest of them to the right side whats wrong about it
??
do you claim i am not alowed to do it ??
TIA
Y.Porat
------------------
>
> PD
Vert
There is more than one way to say the same thing.
I have often been told that E = h nu proves the photon has no mass.
(Yes there are poor souls still believing that.) And I have to point
out to them that h contains mass,
As a unit of action, it can be expressed two ways, momentum times
distance or energy times time. Both energy and momentum have mass.
To have a litttle fun with h, I give it different dimensions.
m = mass
a = acceleration
d = distance or length
t = time
madt = h
mat = momentum
mad = energy
The fun part is the quantification of these dimentions:
a = c/sec^2
d = one light second
t = 1 sec
m = 7.372038 x 10^-48 gr.
So how do we verify m?
m x f (where f = frequency number) = mass of the photon, m_p. And
m_p times c^2 = h nu = E.
Further, m_p times the frequency of the electron, proton, and neutron
will yield the known mass of each.
I consider that verification that m is the correct mass.
PD
> As usual, Porat is on the ball.
>
> There is more than one way to say the same thing.
>
> I have often been told that E = h nu proves the photon has no mass.
Really? Who told you that? Experiment will determine if the photon has
nonzero mass, not an equation.
> (Yes there are poor souls still believing that.) And I have to point
> out to them that h contains mass,
It does? The units for h are (farad)*(coulomb)^2*(seconds).
Where do you see mass in that?
>
> As a unit of action, it can be expressed two ways, momentum times
> distance or energy times time. Both energy and momentum have mass.
>
> To have a litttle fun with h, I give it different dimensions.
> m = mass
> a = acceleration
> d = distance or length
> t = time
>
> madt = h
>
> mat = momentum
> mad = energy
>
> The fun part is the quantification of these dimentions:
>
> a = c/sec^2
> d = one light second
> t = 1 sec
> m = 7.372038 x 10^-48 gr.
This last number is unfortunately ruled out by experiment, which shows
that the mass of the photon is certainly less than 1E-51 grams for
frequencies of order 1E15 Hz.
Igor
I can prove that 1 = 2
let a = b
multiply both sides by a:
a^2 = b a
subtract b^2 from both sides:
a^b - b^2 = b a - b^2
factor both sides:
(a+ b) (a - b) = b (a - b)
divide by a - b:
a + b = a
since a = b, I can say:
2 a = a
divide both sides by a and we prove that 1 = 2
Golden Boar
In order for me to answer this question, you must tell me what you
think mass is. How would you define mass?
Golden Boar
Well since a-b = 0, all you are doing is proving that division by zero
is undefined.
Igor
Very good! The OP's proof is just as bogus.
Y.Porat
not relevant !!
in my above analysics there is not
**plus or minus sighn!! **it is all multiplications.
ATB
Y.Porat
----------------
Y.Porat
THE E=hf IS EXPERIMENTALLY
PROVEN !!!
2 abi\out your 'coulomb story proves nothing
because 1 you didnt tell us if the coulomb
is not for itself composed or can be presented by other dimension
now you still use that obfuscating system to say that only your
dimesion system is valid
while :
if just one system of dimension proves something it is enough to make
the point
physically
because say MKS is a legitimate system
and the main point that PD is unable to understand is
that if something is prresented right in one system
ANOTHER SYSTEM CANNOT DISPROVE IT
BECAUSE PHYSICSIS NOT DYMENSION SSYTEM DEPENDANT!!
iow if it is right on one system it is right *for all of them**
provided all of them are used legitimately and without errors
or cheayings or delusion tricks.
ATB
Y.Porat
------------------------
Y.Porat
since you see that i equated
nz to the plank constant
means that nz can be
a physical entity as well
not necessarily just a figure.
ATB
Y.Porat
----------------
Golden Boar
is?
Y.Porat
you equated h bar to 1
and ??
that makes hbar a unitless entity ??
2 fo r me it is enough that you know what mass is ......
3 did you find some error in my above analysics ??
ATB
Y.Porat
-----------------
Y.Porat
i think i did
did you ??? ( I repeat NON ZERO** REST MASS* not
relativistic mass!! )
TIA
Y.Porat
----------------------
Y.Porat
you jsut proved that dividing my zero is UNDEFINED
so wah does that prove????
that you are even not a mathemarican
it is a mathematical prove
yuo are an * urelaible* hasty scientist !!
(if to put it * mildly* !! we could use much more unpleasant words
!!)
anyway
lets take it as a sportive attempt in a good mood and not a malicious
one (:-)
as long as it is innocent and 'sportive ' its OK
i myseld do it a lot but with the right proportions ie
the reservation that is is just an attempt
while somethimes just those 'iresponsible attemts lead to serious
results !!
ATB
Y.Porat
=----------------------------
Harry
"Igor" <thoo...@excite.com> wrote in message
news:1147983944.3...@y43g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...
Your bogus proof is funny, but it's more useful if you point out where the
error is in the OP's proof.
Y.Porat
2 in my prove there is no whatsoever a division by zero!!
3 actually i am interested by efforts to refute me
because it is so unexpected that i want to test it 'from any possible
angle'
so attempts for refutal are really welcome i dont see in it something
hostile!!
(provided it is not dda1 Gisse Wake Rangegarder Varney etc &
Co .........) ie dont by honest sincere people
TIA
Y.Porat
----------
PD
Y.Porat wrote:
> obfuscationg and cheating as usual:::
>
>
> THE E=hf IS EXPERIMENTALLY
> PROVEN !!!
>
> 2 abi\out your 'coulomb story proves nothing
> because 1 you didnt tell us if the coulomb
> is not for itself composed or can be presented by other dimension
It is. A coulomb is an Ampere*second, where an Ampere is a base MKS
unit. There is still no mass in the units of Planck's constant, is
there?
> now you still use that obfuscating system to say that only your
> dimesion system is valid
> while :
>
> if just one system of dimension proves something it is enough to make
> the point
> physically
> because say MKS is a legitimate system
> and the main point that PD is unable to understand is
> that if something is prresented right in one system
> ANOTHER SYSTEM CANNOT DISPROVE IT
> BECAUSE PHYSICSIS NOT DYMENSION SSYTEM DEPENDANT!!
Precisely, and this should tell you something. If you see something in
one system of units that you don't see in another system of units, then
there can't be any real physics in what you saw -- because, as you say,
what is real in physics is not units-dependent.
In fact, what you are doing is *choosing* a system of units because it
shows you what you *want* to see, and ignoring other systems of units
because they don't show you what you want to see.
What a real physicist will do is to look at the same physical law in
several systems of units, and if it persists in *all* of them, then it
is a real feature of the physics. Do you understand that?
>
> iow if it is right on one system it is right *for all of them**
No, that's not right and has it completely backward.
Y.Porat
it might be wrong by another sytem
so just show me where am i wrong with the analysis i did
2 please show me i am wrong in 'your coulomb' system
though i am not an expert on that system
others could possibly judge it better than me in 'your system'
3 actually you saw that is is not always obvious to detect mass
in a formula as you saw in my case that it took us a long way to reveal
it sometimes you need some 'Rontgen eyes' to find it
4 i think the simplest way is the betetr since in a more complicated
way
you have a better chance to make mistakes .
and again
i am not familiar with your 'coulomb' ssytem so i cant judge it
and still i didnt saw *your feruting analysics by your system .
TIA
Y.Porat
PD
Y.Porat wrote:
> 1 i dont agree that if somethibng is proven by one system of units
>
> it might be wrong by another sytem
That's not what I said. I said if there is something present in one
system of units that is absent in another system of units, then that
something does not represent true physical structure.
The "mass" in Planck's constant is an *accident* of the choice of
system of units. It does not represent true physical structure.
>
> so just show me where am i wrong with the analysis i did
>
> 2 please show me i am wrong in 'your coulomb' system
It is not "my coulomb" system. The coulomb is an MKS unit, and it is
equal to an ampere-second, where an ampere is a *base* MKS unit --
which means that the ampere is not resolved into other units like
meters, kilograms, or seconds. I'm astounded that you did not know
that. http://physics.nist.gov/cuu/Units/units.html
> though i am not an expert on that system
> others could possibly judge it better than me in 'your system'
>
> 3 actually you saw that is is not always obvious to detect mass
> in a formula as you saw in my case that it took us a long way to reveal
> it sometimes you need some 'Rontgen eyes' to find it
>
> 4 i think the simplest way is the betetr since in a more complicated
> way
> you have a better chance to make mistakes .
a) It is not a more complicated system. Do not confuse "unfamiliar"
with "complicated".
b) It is not a different system. It is the same system of units.
c) Even if it were more complicated, it would only demand that you take
a little care to get it right. Taking care to get it right is a habit
that is instilled in physicists.
Y.Porat
PD wrote:
> Y.Porat wrote:
> > 1 i dont agree that if somethibng is proven by one system of units
> >
> > it might be wrong by another sytem
>
> That's not what I said. I said if there is something present in one
> system of units that is absent in another system of units, then that
> something does not represent true physical structure.
if it is the same physical entity no systen can afford missing some of
the nasoc units
it is your fault that you cant detect it
so here is the palce to ask you again a cricial question:
DO YOU SEE SOME ERROR IN MY ANALYSIS
IF YES WAHT IS IT ??!!
that should be the first rerasonable question tofind up and to srart
with !!
--------
>
> The "mass" in Planck's constant is an *accident* of the choice of
> system of units. It does not represent true physical structure.
do you disigree with me that there is a massunit in the h constant??
if you disagree we have no common language to go on .
2 do you agree or disagree that i am alowed to take one of the h
physical components
and put it in one side of a formula (that satrt withthe common one)
and put all the rest of those h components -*at the other side of that
same formula *
if not than again we have no common language to go on with .
------------------
'an accident of chice of ssytem units is your invention ' !!
---------------
> >
> > so just show me where am i wrong with the analysis i did
> >
> > 2 please show me i am wrong in 'your coulomb' system
>
> It is not "my coulomb" system. The coulomb is an MKS unit, and it is
> equal to an ampere-second, where an ampere is a *base* MKS unit --
> which means that the ampere is not resolved into other units like
> meters, kilograms, or seconds. I'm astounded that you did not know
> that. http://physics.nist.gov/cuu/Units/units.html
so just show us an example of PHOTON energy formula according to
the coulomb
ssytem in which there is no sighn of the Kg (mass) dimension!!
(i hope you remember we are dealing with photons )
>
> > though i am not an expert on that system
> > others could possibly judge it better than me in 'your system'
> >
> > 3 actually you saw that is is not always obvious to detect mass
> > in a formula as you saw in my case that it took us a long way to reveal
> > it sometimes you need some 'Rontgen eyes' to find it
> >
> > 4 i think the simplest way is the betetr since in a more complicated
> > way
> > you have a better chance to make mistakes .
>
> a) It is not a more complicated system. Do not confuse "unfamiliar"
> with "complicated".
> b) It is not a different system. It is the same system of units.
> c) Even if it were more complicated, it would only demand that you take
> a little care to get it right. Taking care to get it right is a habit
> that is instilled in physicists.
>
> > and again
> > i am not familiar with your 'coulomb' ssytem so i cant judge it
> > and still i didnt saw *your feruting analysics by your system .
-------------------------
TIA
Y.Porat
-----------------
Golden Boar
PD wrote:
> Y.Porat wrote:
> > 1 i dont agree that if somethibng is proven by one system of units
> >
> > it might be wrong by another sytem
>
> That's not what I said. I said if there is something present in one
> system of units that is absent in another system of units, then that
> something does not represent true physical structure.
Thats funny, I've beem saying I can create a system of units where mass
is not present, so by your own words, that means mass does not
represent true physical structure.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Planck_units#Derived_Planck_units
See the table of derived Planck units, in which all the quantities are
expressed in terms of hbar, lp, tp and qp.
>
> The "mass" in Planck's constant is an *accident* of the choice of
> system of units. It does not represent true physical structure.
>
> >
> > so just show me where am i wrong with the analysis i did
> >
> > 2 please show me i am wrong in 'your coulomb' system
>
> It is not "my coulomb" system. The coulomb is an MKS unit, and it is
> equal to an ampere-second, where an ampere is a *base* MKS unit --
> which means that the ampere is not resolved into other units like
> meters, kilograms, or seconds. I'm astounded that you did not know
> that. http://physics.nist.gov/cuu/Units/units.html
That's not quite true. They chose the Ampere as the base unit instead
of the Coulomb because it is easier to measure. It can still be broken
down into Coulombs and seconds though. The Coulomb is the more
fundamental of the two quantities.
Hexenmeister
"PD" <TheDrap...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1148051548....@u72g2000cwu.googlegroups.com...
|
| Y.Porat wrote:
| > 1 i dont agree that if somethibng is proven by one system of units
| >
| > it might be wrong by another sytem
|
| That's not what I said. I said if there is something present in one
| system of units that is absent in another system of units, then that
| something does not represent true physical structure.
No physics.
|
| The "mass" in Planck's constant is an *accident* of the choice of
| system of units. It does not represent true physical structure.
No physics.
|
| >
| > so just show me where am i wrong with the analysis i did
| >
| > 2 please show me i am wrong in 'your coulomb' system
|
| It is not "my coulomb" system. The coulomb is an MKS unit, and it is
| equal to an ampere-second, where an ampere is a *base* MKS unit --
| which means that the ampere is not resolved into other units like
| meters, kilograms, or seconds. I'm astounded that you did not know
| that. http://physics.nist.gov/cuu/Units/units.html
No physics
|
| > though i am not an expert on that system
| > others could possibly judge it better than me in 'your system'
| >
| > 3 actually you saw that is is not always obvious to detect mass
| > in a formula as you saw in my case that it took us a long way to reveal
| > it sometimes you need some 'Rontgen eyes' to find it
| >
| > 4 i think the simplest way is the betetr since in a more complicated
| > way
| > you have a better chance to make mistakes .
|
| a) It is not a more complicated system. Do not confuse "unfamiliar"
| with "complicated".
| b) It is not a different system. It is the same system of units.
| c) Even if it were more complicated, it would only demand that you take
| a little care to get it right. Taking care to get it right is a habit
| that is instilled in physicists.
No physics.
You ARE a boring lying cowardly cunt.
Androcles
PD
Golden Boar wrote:
>
> That's not quite true. They chose the Ampere as the base unit instead
> of the Coulomb because it is easier to measure. It can still be broken
> down into Coulombs and seconds though. The Coulomb is the more
> fundamental of the two quantities.
>
Your last statement: what makes you say that?
PD
Golden Boar
Y.Porat wrote:
> here is how i derived my above conclusion:
>
>
> The formula E=hf is experimentally validated and found Vaid
> for the photon case right??
>
> Now since we have an endless cases of which E and f are nonzero
>
> than h the Planck constant is nonzero
> yet that constant is not just a figure it has some physical components
> and dimensions
These dimensions depend on the chosen unit system.
>
> so lets see how it is composed of :
> lets use the following abbreviations :
>
> km for mass (rest mass)
> m - Meter
> s - seconds
> pl the Plank figure (just the 6.6 10^-34 figure not its
> dimensions )
> nz a nonzero figure !!
>
> so the plank constant is never zero nz
>
> and it is
>
> nz (Plank constant ) = pl joule second = pl kg m^2/s^2
> times s =
>
> pl kg m^2 /s = nz
In the SI unit sytem,
h = m * l_C * c ( kg m m/s = kg m^2/s)
where,
m is the mass (kg)
lC is the Compton wavelength (m)
c is the speed of light (m/s)
There is no need to make up other values, which just confuse people.
The above equation says the following:
The mass of a particle is inversely proportional to its Compton
wavelength.
>
> so
>
> kg (mass of photon ) = s x nz / (divided by ) pl m ^2
> ( right ??)
>
> since NON of the right side components is zero
>
> kg (mass of photons) = nonzero !!
Stop making up unneccessary quantities.
m = h / l_C.c
If photons don't have a Compton wavelength, then the equation does not
apply to the photon.
Does a photon have a Compton wavelength?
>
> QED
>
> Copyright Yehiel Porat 17-05-2006
> -------------------
>
> please note:
>
> The above analysis was made possible once I realized that the Plank
> Constant
> was not just an inseparable physical entity!
>
> If you follow its history and how it was derived
> you realize that it is not a case in which first of all that constant
> was found and
> *only later* it was verified by measurements.
>
And you should also realise that it took on the units it did in order
to make frequency proportional to energy in the unit system that was
used.
> It is exactly the other way round!
>
> i.e. first the results of experimental measurements of Energy versus
> the frequency of photons
>
> were plotted and a straight line was found.
>
> the h factor was just the *slope* of that plotted straight line.
>
> ONLY LATER people started to wonder what the meaning of that slope is
>
> and later combined into one physical entity its physical components
> (which are actually more basic components like mass velocity (length
> seconds )
> so if it was assembled it is also legitimate to decompose it into its
> components
> This of course provided you do it in a legitimate way .
It does not have physical components. It is a constant of
proportionality, which is used in the following realationships.
Energy is proportional to frequency (constant of proportionality is h).
Momentum is proportional to frequency (constant of proportionality is
h/c).
Mass is proportional to frequency (constant of proportionality is
h/c^2).
See, the emerging pattern?
>
> so i found it legitimate to separate its components to the two sides of
> an equation
> starting from and based on the usual common formula.
And you made a complete hash of it.
>
> (this is just another arrangement of its components )
>
> and once i combined the fact that the h factor is nonzero
> with the new insight (above) i reached the above unprecedented and
> extremely important
> result.
>
> TIA
> Y.Porat
> ---------------------
Everybody already knew that h was nonzero.
You had no new insight and no unprecedented and extremely important
result.
Hexenmeister
"Golden Boar" <golde...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:1148061538.5...@y43g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...
|
| PD wrote:
| > Y.Porat wrote:
| > > 1 i dont agree that if somethibng is proven by one system of units
| > >
| > > it might be wrong by another sytem
| >
| > That's not what I said. I said if there is something present in one
| > system of units that is absent in another system of units, then that
| > something does not represent true physical structure.
|
| Thats funny, I've beem saying I can create a system of units where mass
| is not present, so by your own words, that means mass does not
| represent true physical structure.
He's totally of his rocker, he now telling Ken Seto that OWLS (one way light
speed)
isn't any kind of velocity. It's a waste of time debating with a deranged
lunatic.
Androcles
Hexenmeister
His mind. At least he is not claiming OWLS isn't any kind of velocity.
You are simply jealous because he has one.
One coulomb is 1 ampere per second.
Two coulombs is 2 amps for 1 second or 1 amp for 2 seconds, or
even 1/2 amp for 4 seconds, or even a microamp for
23.148 days.
See if you can find out what a farad is, your computer has some,
and figure out how many colombs there are in a fully charged
car battery.
Androcles
Golden Boar
Dimensional analysis.
Eric Gisse
Y.Porat wrote:
> here is how i derived my above conclusion:
Desperate speculation? Every attempt you make at "proving" a nonzero
photon mass is smashed into dust - that should tell you something.
>
>
> The formula E=hf is experimentally validated and found Vaid
> for the photon case right??
Irrelevant, given your inability to understand the usage of said
question.
>
> Now since we have an endless cases of which E and f are nonzero
Master of the obvious.
>
> than h the Planck constant is nonzero
> yet that constant is not just a figure it has some physical components
> and dimensions
>
> so lets see how it is composed of :
> lets use the following abbreviations :
>
> km for mass (rest mass)
> m - Meter
> s - seconds
> pl the Plank figure (just the 6.6 10^-34 figure not its
> dimensions )
> nz a nonzero figure !!
>
> so the plank constant is never zero nz
>
> and it is
>
> nz (Plank constant ) = pl joule second = pl kg m^2/s^2
> times s =
>
> pl kg m^2 /s = nz
>
> so
>
> kg (mass of photon ) = s x nz / (divided by ) pl m ^2
> ( right ??)
>
> since NON of the right side components is zero
>
> kg (mass of photons) = nonzero !!
Impressive.
You scraped the bottom of the barrel so hard you broke through and
reached new depths of stupidity.
>
> QED
>
> Copyright Yehiel Porat 17-05-2006
Your quest to copyright every stupid thought continues, I see.
> -------------------
>
> please note:
>
> The above analysis was made possible once I realized that the Plank
> Constant
> was not just an inseparable physical entity!
No, this "analysis" was made possible when someone made the mistake of
teaching you units - something I learned in highschool.
>
> If you follow its history and how it was derived
> you realize that it is not a case in which first of all that constant
> was found and
> *only later* it was verified by measurements.
>
> It is exactly the other way round!
>
> i.e. first the results of experimental measurements of Energy versus
> the frequency of photons
>
> were plotted and a straight line was found.
>
> the h factor was just the *slope* of that plotted straight line.
>
> ONLY LATER people started to wonder what the meaning of that slope is
>
> and later combined into one physical entity its physical components
> (which are actually more basic components like mass velocity (length
> seconds )
> so if it was assembled it is also legitimate to decompose it into its
> components
> This of course provided you do it in a legitimate way .
>
> so i found it legitimate to separate its components to the two sides of
> an equation
> starting from and based on the usual common formula.
>
> (this is just another arrangement of its components )
>
> and once i combined the fact that the h factor is nonzero
> with the new insight (above) i reached the above unprecedented and
> extremely important
> result.
Did you even bother to see if you get an experimentally viable answer
or did your latest misunderstanding flood over what is left of your
rational mind?
>
> TIA
> Y.Porat
> ---------------------
Randy Poe
There's nothing in dimensional analysis that says one unit is
more "fundamental" than another. There's no fundamentality
test.
- Randy
Golden Boar
PD
Golden Boar wrote:
> The usual dimensions are mass, length, time and charge.
I don't know where you got that impression.
PD
Golden Boar
Gee, I wonder?
Why don't you tell us what the usual dimensions in physics are.
Golden Boar
Current is the flow of charge.
If you cannot see from that, that charge is more fundamental than
current, then I feel sorry for you.
FrediFizzx
|
| Y.Porat wrote:
| > 1 i dont agree that if somethibng is proven by one system of units
| >
| > it might be wrong by another sytem
|
| That's not what I said. I said if there is something present in one
| system of units that is absent in another system of units, then that
| something does not represent true physical structure.
Hmm... That doesn't sound true. It means one of the systems of units
is not self-consistent and is bogus.
| The "mass" in Planck's constant is an *accident* of the choice of
| system of units. It does not represent true physical structure.
In the system of units in which mass appears in Planck's constant, it
does represent something physical. It has to. Self-consistent systems
of units cannot change physics. Period! I have yet to see an example
that does.
FrediFizzx
http://www.vacuum-physics.com
FrediFizzx
There are no "usual" dimensions in physics. Everything is relative.
Masses are compared to other masses as dimensionless ratios, etc. You
can have a system where there is only length and charge with charge
being a dimensionless ratio. Mass is just the inverse of length. As is
energy. And everything works quite fine in that system if you know what
you are doing.
FrediFizzx
http://www.vacuum-physics.com
Golden Boar
What I meant by 'usual' is that they would be the most commonly used.
Out of curiosity, what do you consider to be more fundamental, charge
or current?
Hexenmeister
| The usual dimensions are mass, length, time and charge.
|
Almost right. You left out only one, which is understandable because
it has no name. It is that property of a pole of a magnetic field which
is analogous to charge (electric field) and mass (gravitational field).
As you know, mass without another mass makes gravity meaningless,
charge without a negative charge makes an electric field meaningless
and of course a north without a south means nothing either. For some
unknown reason researchers seem to have overlooked this.
Androcles
FrediFizzx
Niether. At this point for effective field theories, I only consider
hbar and c to be fundamental as far as dimensions go. Charge can be
represented by sqrt(hbar*c) = +, - 1. The charge of an electron is
sqrt(alpha*hbar*c) observed from a distance. Beyond effective field
theories, only hbar remains fundamental.
FrediFizzx
http://www.vacuum-physics.com
Golden Boar
There is no proof at all that gravity acts upon mass.
Gravity acts upon frequency.
Golden Boar
Since you often talk about charge, I would of thought you preferred
charge rather than current.
FrediFizzx
With only hbar and c fundamental, it is easy to see that something else
is missing from that picture. You missed it. ;-) There is no
combination of hbar and c that will give a result of representing
current. What is missing?
FrediFizzx
http://www.vacuum-physics.com
Y.Porat
'if you know what you are doing ' !!!
even if you sude a system that c is 1.00000
it does not change the physical fact that it is still velocity
ie meter per secomd !!!
becauae too mant people once using composite units
for get how it wa obtained
there is no doubt that the MKS ssytem is valid for all
including of course for the E=hf formula and analysis !!
ATB
Y.Porat
--------------------
and was say after the cgs ssytem a leading one
ATB
Y.Porat
--------------
Y.Porat
and what are the sub dimensions of hbar ???
ATB
Y.Porat
----------------
Y.Porat
if there is an error in the OP proof
you have to show exactly what is that error
or else you are just another parrot handwaver
TIA
Y.Porat
------------------
Hexenmeister
I consider dropping a mass so that it accelerates toward the Earth
a proof. Don't call us, we'll call you if we need you. Have a nice day.
Androcles.
Golden Boar
Hexenmeister wrote:
> "Golden Boar" <golde...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:1148084446.1...@j33g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
> |
> | Hexenmeister wrote:
> | > "Golden Boar" <golde...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> | > news:1148073387.4...@j73g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
> | > | The usual dimensions are mass, length, time and charge.
> | > |
> | >
> | > Almost right. You left out only one, which is understandable because
> | > it has no name. It is that property of a pole of a magnetic field which
> | > is analogous to charge (electric field) and mass (gravitational field).
> | > As you know, mass without another mass makes gravity meaningless,
> | > charge without a negative charge makes an electric field meaningless
> | > and of course a north without a south means nothing either. For some
> | > unknown reason researchers seem to have overlooked this.
> | >
> | > Androcles
> |
> | There is no proof at all that gravity acts upon mass.
> | Gravity acts upon frequency.
>
> I consider dropping a mass so that it accelerates toward the Earth
> a proof. Don't call us, we'll call you if we need you. Have a nice day.
> Androcles.
Anything that has mass also has a frequency and energy, so how can you
be sure that gravity is acting upon mass, and not upon energy or
frequency. The fact that photons are affected by gravity suggests that
it is not mass which gravity act upon.
PD
FrediFizzx wrote:
> "PD" <TheDrap...@gmail.com> wrote in message
> news:1148051548....@u72g2000cwu.googlegroups.com...
> |
> | Y.Porat wrote:
> | > 1 i dont agree that if somethibng is proven by one system of units
> | >
> | > it might be wrong by another sytem
> |
> | That's not what I said. I said if there is something present in one
> | system of units that is absent in another system of units, then that
> | something does not represent true physical structure.
>
> Hmm... That doesn't sound true. It means one of the systems of units
> is not self-consistent and is bogus.
Gee, I don't think so. In one system of units, the speed of light has
dimensions [L]/[T] and its value (shortened as "c") appears all over
physical laws. In another system of units, the speed of light is
dimensionless and has value 1 and disappears from physical laws left
and right. Now you tell me what this means to you.
PD
"Commonly used" doesn't mean physical fundamentality by any stretch of
the imagination.
PD
Y.Porat wrote:
> Thas exactly the point"
>
> 'if you know what you are doing ' !!!
>
> even if you sude a system that c is 1.00000
> it does not change the physical fact that it is still velocity
> ie meter per secomd !!!
The speed of light is definitely not 1.00000 meters per second, not
under any system of units that I'm aware of.
PD
Charge is the integral of current. If you cannot see from that, that
current is at least as fundamental as charge, then I feel sorry for
you.
Tell me: Which is more *physically* fundamental: momentum or meters and
kilograms? After all, there seems to be an important physical law
regarding momentum as a special quantity, but there is no such
equivalent for meters or kilograms....
PD
Golden Boar
the water molecules it was composed of.
The meter and second are definitely more fundamental than momentum.
As for kilograms, it does not appear in my equation for momentum so it
is irrelevant, but I will say that momentum is more fundamental than
mass.
E = h.f / c^0
p = h.f / c^1
m = h.f / c^2
Energy is more fundamental than both momentum and mass.
brian a m stuckless
> mass which gravity act upon.
$$ The GR-coup changed THEiR definition-of-mass.
$$ You are confusing GR-coup-mass with SI-STANDARD-mass, dimwit.
$$ [Any QUANTiTY ..expressed in SI-STANDARD-kilograms, is mass].
PD
Golden Boar wrote:
> With that type of reasoning, a river would be just as fundamental as
> the water molecules it was composed of.
Really? Is momentum "composed" of smaller parts? What parts are those?
>
> The meter and second are definitely more fundamental than momentum.
How so?
>
> As for kilograms, it does not appear in my equation for momentum so it
> is irrelevant, but I will say that momentum is more fundamental than
> mass.
>
> E = h.f / c^0
> p = h.f / c^1
> m = h.f / c^2
>
> Energy is more fundamental than both momentum and mass.
Now, that's interesting! Energy is more fundamental than both momentum
and mass? Please use the same arguments as you use to assert that the
meter and the second are more fundamental than momentum.
PD
Hexenmeister
That is equivalent to saying an observer doesn't see anything, his eyes do.
| The fact that photons are affected by gravity suggests that
| it is not mass which gravity act upon.
I consider dropping a mass so that it accelerates toward the Earth
a proof that gravity acts on mass. If it acts on something else, fine,
but it still acts on mass, and that is adequate proof to me that gravity
acts on mass, contrary to your claim that there is no proof gravity
acts on mass.
If you wish to debate the nature of mass, that's fine too, I'd welcome
it from a logical individual. I am not interested in debating whether mass
exists or not, I accept that is does but I do not know what it is
and neither do you or anyone else; nor am I interested in your concept
of what a proof is. Bodies are attracted to each other gravitationally,
repel and attract each other both electrostatically and magnetically.
Marge (or chass) is the magnetic equivalent to electrical charge because
I have so named it as its discoverer, although it was always there.
The five usual dimensions are time, length, charge, mass and marge; we'll
make no progress in physics without marge.
No force exists between one body. To say it does is the sound of
one hand clapping and I'm not going to get into the definition of what a
hand is or what clapping is, whatever the frequency of the clap may be
or the energy of the clap may be.
Androcles.
Hexenmeister
|
| Golden Boar wrote:
| > PD wrote:
| > > Golden Boar wrote:
| > > >
| > > > That's not quite true. They chose the Ampere as the base unit
instead
| > > > of the Coulomb because it is easier to measure. It can still be
broken
| > > > down into Coulombs and seconds though. The Coulomb is the more
| > > > fundamental of the two quantities.
| > > >
| > >
| > > Your last statement: what makes you say that?
| > >
| > > PD
| >
| > Current is the flow of charge.
| > If you cannot see from that, that charge is more fundamental than
| > current, then I feel sorry for you.
|
| Charge is the integral of current.
Ok, current is the derivative of charge.
http://mathworld.wolfram.com/FundamentalTheoremsofCalculus.html
You are both correct.
Emotions such as pity are really non sequitur but since the matter was
raised,
I don't feel sorry for you, you are a stooopid cunt.
| If you cannot see from that, that
| current is at least as fundamental as charge, then I feel sorry for
| you.
|
| Tell me: Which is more *physically* fundamental: momentum or meters and
| kilograms?
p = v.sqrt(E^2-p^2), right?
You really are a stoooopid cunt as well as a boor.
Androcles.
FrediFizzx
|
| FrediFizzx wrote:
| > "PD" <TheDrap...@gmail.com> wrote in message
| > news:1148051548....@u72g2000cwu.googlegroups.com...
| > |
| > | Y.Porat wrote:
| > | > 1 i dont agree that if somethibng is proven by one system of
units
| > | >
| > | > it might be wrong by another sytem
| > |
| > | That's not what I said. I said if there is something present in
one
| > | system of units that is absent in another system of units, then
that
| > | something does not represent true physical structure.
| >
| > Hmm... That doesn't sound true. It means one of the systems of
units
| > is not self-consistent and is bogus.
|
| Gee, I don't think so. In one system of units, the speed of light has
| dimensions [L]/[T] and its value (shortened as "c") appears all over
| physical laws. In another system of units, the speed of light is
| dimensionless and has value 1 and disappears from physical laws left
| and right. Now you tell me what this means to you.
Are you serious? ;-) One is not zero. It doesn't "disappear" from
physical laws. The speed of things less than light just become less
than 1. I don't see a problem.
FrediFizzx
http://www.vacuum-physics.com/QVC/quantum_vacuum_charge.pdf
or postscript
http://www.vacuum-physics.com/QVC/quantum_vacuum_charge.ps
Y.Porat
PD wrote:
> Y.Porat wrote:
> > Thas exactly the point"
> >
> > 'if you know what you are doing ' !!!
> >
> > even if you sude a system that c is 1.00000
> > it does not change the physical fact that it is still velocity
> > ie meter per secomd !!!
>
> The speed of light is definitely not 1.00000 meters per second, not
> under any system of units that I'm aware of.
just i case i didnt make mysekf clear:
even at the c-1 ssytem
c does not LOOOSE ITS DIEMNSIONS of meter per second !!
even if its value must appear soemwher else in tha eqauation
i n a similat way while we get mass as energy we have later to
divide it by c^2 to get kilograms !!
iow have have to know how touse that system and remember how it was
derived !!
----------------
>
>
> > becauae too mantypeople once using composite units
> > for get how it was obtained
> > there is no doubt that the MKS ssytem is valid for all
> > including of course for the E=hf formula and analysis !!
so that is a sytem i used (the most common one !) and no one can say
i missed it
> >
> > ATB
> > Y.Porat
> > --------------------
>
Y.Porat
ATB
Y.Porat
----------------
Y.Porat
and dont know how to use different ssytems
as Fred said and as i said and any reasonable physicist will say
if one system is correctlty used and we get results and conclusions
form it
there is no more need to do it by another system !!
because th e physical word **is independant of our systems**
we have just to resent it just once !!properly and then it is enough!1
ATB
Y.Porat
--------------------
Y.Porat
and the main poit :
if one ssytem works nicely there is no need to
boggle the mind with another system
unless you what to obfuacate .......... and confuse your co discusser
!!....!!!
ATB
Y.Porat
-------------
Golden Boar
Y.Porat wrote:
> PD wrote:
> > Y.Porat wrote:
> > > Thas exactly the point"
> > >
> > > 'if you know what you are doing ' !!!
> > >
> > > even if you sude a system that c is 1.00000
> > > it does not change the physical fact that it is still velocity
> > > ie meter per secomd !!!
> >
> > The speed of light is definitely not 1.00000 meters per second, not
> > under any system of units that I'm aware of.
>
> just i case i didnt make mysekf clear:
>
> even at the c-1 ssytem
> c does not LOOOSE ITS DIEMNSIONS of meter per second !!
> even if its value must appear soemwher else in tha eqauation
When you let c=1, it becomes dimensionless. That is the whole point.
See,
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dimensionless
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dimensionless#Dimensionless_physical_constants
>
> i n a similat way while we get mass as energy we have later to
> divide it by c^2 to get kilograms !!
If c=1, then E=m.
Golden Boar
Does the word 'dimensionless' ring any bells?
Golden Boar
He did, but you was not paying attention.
Golden Boar
Y.Porat wrote:
> didyou prove that th e photon has nonmzero rest *mass*
>
> i think i did
> did you ??? ( I repeat NON ZERO** REST MASS* not
> relativistic mass!! )
>
> TIA
> Y.Porat
> ----------------------
Well think again, you didn't prove anything.
Golden Boar
I can agree that bodies are attracted to each other gravitationally,
but I will not agree that it is the mass of those bodies which is the
cause of the attraction, because I cannot prove or disprove it.
A body consists of a number of basic properties, frequency, energy,
momentum, and mass,all of which could be causing the attraction.
Since energy, momentum, and mass are all proportional to frequency,
then it is reasonable to assume that it is the frequency which gravity
affects.
See,
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gravitational_redshift
(In the above link, it is interesting to see that Einstein is yet again
acused of plagiarism. Is any of his work actually original, I wonder?)
E = f * h/c^0
p = f * h/c^1
m = f * h/c^2
We can then get a new equation for gravity based on frequency as
follows:
G_f = 2 * pi * l_P^2 * h / c = (2 * pi * l_P)^2 * hbar / c
F_g = G_f * f_1 * f_2 / r^2
These can be compared to the Newtonian equations:
G = 2 * pi * l_P^2 * c^3 / h = l_P^2 * c^3 / hbar
F_g = G * m_1 * m_2 / r^2
where
G_f = frequency based gravitational constant
G = mass based gravitational constant
l_P is the Planck length
h is Planck's constant
hbar is Planck's constant over 2 pi
c is the speed of light in vacuum
F_g is the gravitational force
f_1 is the frequency of body 1
f_2 is the frequency of body 2
m_1 is the mass of body 1
m_2 is the mass of body 2
r is the distance between the bodies
It turns out that G_f is about 1.8398 * 10^100 times smaller than G.
Golden Boar
I am using the same arguments. From the equations I posted, you can see
that energy, momentum and mass are quantities derived from frequency.
PD
Y.Porat wrote:
> PD wrote:
> > Y.Porat wrote:
> > > Thas exactly the point"
> > >
> > > 'if you know what you are doing ' !!!
> > >
> > > even if you sude a system that c is 1.00000
> > > it does not change the physical fact that it is still velocity
> > > ie meter per secomd !!!
> >
> > The speed of light is definitely not 1.00000 meters per second, not
> > under any system of units that I'm aware of.
>
> just i case i didnt make mysekf clear:
>
> even at the c-1 ssytem
> c does not LOOOSE ITS DIEMNSIONS of meter per second !!
> even if its value must appear soemwher else in tha eqauation
Nonsense. There is no "somewhere else in the equation". I'm quoting a
number, which in different systems of units has different values and
different units.
c in the MKS system of units has a value of approximately 300,000,000
and units of m/s.
c in another system of units has a value of approximately 11.8 and
units of inches/nanosecond.
c in another system of units has a value of 1 and no units whatsoever.
PD
Golden Boar wrote:
> PD wrote:
> > Golden Boar wrote:
> > > With that type of reasoning, a river would be just as fundamental as
> > > the water molecules it was composed of.
> >
> > Really? Is momentum "composed" of smaller parts? What parts are those?
> >
> > >
> > > The meter and second are definitely more fundamental than momentum.
> >
> > How so?
I ask again: How so?
Hexenmeister
"Golden Boar" <golde...@hotmail.com> snipped in message
news:1148131681.8...@j73g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
so nobody knows who or what he's referring to.
Androcles
Golden Boar
PD wrote:
> Golden Boar wrote:
> > PD wrote:
> > > Golden Boar wrote:
> > > > With that type of reasoning, a river would be just as fundamental as
> > > > the water molecules it was composed of.
> > >
> > > Really? Is momentum "composed" of smaller parts? What parts are those?
> > >
> > > >
> > > > The meter and second are definitely more fundamental than momentum.
> > >
> > > How so?
>
> I ask again: How so?
Then I will tell you yet again.
p = f * h/c^1 = omega * hbar / c^1
f = 1/T (s^-1)
omega = 2pi / T (rad s^-1)
So angular frequency is dependant upon the ratio between two lengths
and a period of time.
Momentum is dependant upon frequency or angular frequency, and is
therfore less fundamental than both length and time.
Its's pretty obvious really.
Golden Boar
I was replying to PD.
PD
Golden Boar wrote:
> PD wrote:
> > Golden Boar wrote:
> > > PD wrote:
> > > > Golden Boar wrote:
> > > > > With that type of reasoning, a river would be just as fundamental as
> > > > > the water molecules it was composed of.
> > > >
> > > > Really? Is momentum "composed" of smaller parts? What parts are those?
> > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > The meter and second are definitely more fundamental than momentum.
> > > >
> > > > How so?
> >
> > I ask again: How so?
>
> Then I will tell you yet again.
>
> p = f * h/c^1 = omega * hbar / c^1
>
> f = 1/T (s^-1)
> omega = 2pi / T (rad s^-1)
>
> So angular frequency is dependant upon the ratio between two lengths
> and a period of time.
frequency is less fundamental than time?
And what's are the two lengths in this case -- specifically?
Golden Boar
PD wrote:
> Golden Boar wrote:
> > PD wrote:
> > > Golden Boar wrote:
> > > > PD wrote:
> > > > > Golden Boar wrote:
> > > > > > With that type of reasoning, a river would be just as fundamental as
> > > > > > the water molecules it was composed of.
> > > > >
> > > > > Really? Is momentum "composed" of smaller parts? What parts are those?
> > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > The meter and second are definitely more fundamental than momentum.
> > > > >
> > > > > How so?
> > >
> > > I ask again: How so?
> >
> > Then I will tell you yet again.
> >
> > p = f * h/c^1 = omega * hbar / c^1
> >
> > f = 1/T (s^-1)
> > omega = 2pi / T (rad s^-1)
> >
> > So angular frequency is dependant upon the ratio between two lengths
> > and a period of time.
>
> frequency is less fundamental than time?
> And what's are the two lengths in this case -- specifically?
I can play this game as well.
What do you mean by fundamental?
What do you mean by specifically?
FrediFizzx
news:1148148287.9...@i40g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...
| yes and certainly c remains distance divided by time unit !!
c = 1 means that length and time have the same dimension. One second
equals 299,792,458 meters exactly.
| and the main poit :
| if one ssytem works nicely there is no need to
| boggle the mind with another system
|
| unless you what to obfuacate .......... and confuse your co discusser
While that may be true, unfortunately the physics literature is written
in several different unit systems. To have any hope of fully
understanding what is written in a paper or textbook, one must become
proficient in and be able to recognize the different unit systems
because the authors may not tell you what unit system they are using.
For example, Weinberg's "Gravitation and Cosmology..." is written using
Heaviside-Lorentz units with c = 1. And he doesn't really mention it.
Yeah, it is a pain in the ass but it gets easier with practice. ;-)
Y.Porat
PD wrote:
> Y.Porat wrote:
> > PD wrote:
> > > Y.Porat wrote:
> > > > Thas exactly the point"
> > > >
> > > > 'if you know what you are doing ' !!!
> > > >
> > > > even if you sude a system that c is 1.00000
> > > > it does not change the physical fact that it is still velocity
> > > > ie meter per secomd !!!
> > >
> > > The speed of light is definitely not 1.00000 meters per second, not
> > > under any system of units that I'm aware of.
> >
> > just i case i didnt make mysekf clear:
> >
> > even at the c-1 ssytem
> > c does not LOOOSE ITS DIEMNSIONS of meter per second !!
> > even if its value must appear soemwher else in tha eqauation
>
> Nonsense. There is no "somewhere else in the equation". I'm quoting a
> number, which in different systems of units has different values and
> different units.
>
> c in the MKS system of units has a value of approximately 300,000,000
> and units of m/s.
> c in another system of units has a value of approximately 11.8 and
> units of inches/nanosecond.
> c in another system of units has a value of 1 and no units whatsoever.
>
ok you are doing your best to obfuscate the main points
may be you are right that i should not write 'somewhere else'
but you try to obfuscate our man dispue and put it as your roightous
way:
c remains always lenth divided by time unit
and i said it poud and clear even in my above post
so presenting c as just a figure without dimensions is a mistake
or a lie !!
and the same with mass !!
i saied that using *one vaid * system correctly is enough
no need to do it by another system
DO YOU DENY THAT ??
iow if something is prooven by one VALID system- there is no need
to prove it by another system
because there might be many systems but
just one physical world
and to another main point:
do you see any error in my op post (by the MKS system )??
if yes just say it loud and clear what is that error !!
btw i added a little correction to that op inone of the last posts here
in this thread .
ie
nz should be not just a nonzero figure-
but a nonzero PHYSICAL ENETITY as well
i will correct it in the op opening posts !!
TIA
Y.Porat
-------------------
Y.Porat
anyway do you see any error in my op post??
and its conslusion that the photon has a nonzero rest mass?
i say* rest mass* becuse the Lorentz factor does not apply and
is not relevant fot the photon case because of th e main reason that
while V+c it becomes an undefined figure
and that the photon is a limit case
so no reason to claim that its mass is 'inflating with c velocity'
(inflating to what ?? and why at all inflating ??
btw i added a correction:
nz should be not just a nonzero figure
but a* nonzero physical entity as well!*
TIA
Y.Porat
----------------
FrediFizzx
In our QVC scenario, photons have to be massless. In that picture, they
are simply a "wavicle" of a relativistic quantum medium. Any
instantaneous mass-like properties have to come from the relativistic
medium. Not the photon. IOW, a photon is simply a representation of an
energy-momentum flow thru the medium. The medium has the mass. Just
because E = m*c^2 doesn't mean that energy and mass are the same thing.
They aren't. Even if you cheat and could go to the frame of a photon,
you won't see anything like a photon.
Y.Porat
i didnt ask you if my findings* fit your theory* !!
because your theory is a new suggestion that i dont know
how it is suported i am not familiar with it
i did a very simple analysis
i was asking if my analysis is consistant with the mks system
and whether i used it LEGITIMATELY !!
( was i breaking some laws of basic physics ie not just the comon
paradigm and common interoretations becuse that is sure i did )
it is not forbiden to break INTERPRETATIONS OF FORMULAS
it is not alowed to break th e basics of physics
TIA
Y.Porat
--------------
Hexenmeister
Thank you for clearing that up. I daresay Phuckwit Duck is clairvoyant,
but I'm not.
Androcles
Hexenmeister
I didn't claim a hand was the cause of a clap, did I?
|
| A body consists of a number of basic properties, frequency, energy,
| momentum, and mass,all of which could be causing the attraction.
|
| Since energy, momentum, and mass are all proportional to frequency,
| then it is reasonable to assume that it is the frequency which gravity
| affects.
No, it isn't reasonable at all.
|
| See,
| http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gravitational_redshift
No. The subject is
"The usual dimensions are mass, length, time and charge." AND MARGE.
[rest snipped unread, it is off topic, I'm interested in discussing physics,
not drivel]
Androcles
Y.Porat
The correction is that
nz is not just a nonzero figure but
A NONZERO PHYSICAL ENTITY AS WELL
so tha tis how it should be corrected:
here is how i derived my above conclusion:
The formula E=hf is experimentally validated and found Vaid
for the photon case right??
Now since we have an endless cases of which E and f are nonzero
than h the Planck constant is nonzero
yet that constant is not just a figure it has some physical components
and dimensions
so lets see how it is composed of :
lets use the following abbreviations :
km for mass (rest mass)
m - Meter
s - seconds
pl the Plank figure (just the 6.6 10^-34 figure not its
dimensions )
nz a nonzero PHYSICAL ENTITY !!
so the plank constant is never zero nz
and it is
nz (Plank constant ) = pl joule second = pl kg m^2/s^2
times s =
pl kg m^2 /s = nz
so
kg (mass of photon ) = s x nz / (divided by ) pl m ^2
( right ??)
since NON of the right side components is zero
kg (mass of photons) = nonzero !!
QED
Copyright Yehiel Porat 17-05-2006
-------------------
> Copyright Yehiel Porat 17-05-2006
Copyright correction in 21-05-06
> -------------------
>
> please note:
>
> The above analysis was made possible once I realized that the Plank
> Constant
> was not just an inseparable physical entity!
>
> If you follow its history and how it was derived
> you realize that it is not a case in which first of all that constant
> was found and
> *only later* it was verified by measurements.
>
> It is exactly the other way round!
>
> i.e. first the results of experimental measurements of Energy versus
> the frequency of photons
>
> were plotted and a straight line was found.
>
> the h factor was just the *slope* of that plotted straight line.
>
> ONLY LATER people started to wonder what the meaning of that slope is
>
> and later combined into one physical entity its physical components
> (which are actually more basic components like mass velocity (length
> seconds )
> so if it was assembled it is also legitimate to decompose it into its
> components
> This of course provided you do it in a legitimate way .
>
> so i found it legitimate to separate its components to the two sides of
> an equation
> starting from and based on the usual common formula.
>
> (this is just another arrangement of its components )
>
> and once i combined the fact that the h factor is nonzero
> with the new insight (above) i reached the above unprecedented and
> extremely important
> result.
>
> TIA
> Y.Porat
> ---------------------
Eric Gisse
Y.Porat wrote:
[...]
I notice you don't even bother attempting to calculate the mass through
your method.
Y.Porat
i will rel[ly to you :
(btw thank you for your apposite question !!!....)
THAT IS ALL MY TRICK !! (ingenuitive ???? (:-)........
actually first i tried it but then i found that i have
*one formula with two unknowns!!*
so ?? someone else will raise up his hands up but not me ..
(do you kno wwhy .. because i personally know :
no mass - no real physics -- that is my greate teacher ..)
so laltr i asked myself
do i need to calcualte the mass IN ORDER TO MAKE MY POINT!!
(that th e photon has nonzero mass??)
my answer to myself (and to others )was actually i dont ned to
calcualte
a specific mass!!
I HAVE ONLY TO SHOW THAT THERE IS A NONZERO MASS!!
ie a much more abastract task !!
but good enough to make that breakthrough point!!
now just a humble request from you :
since i know you hate my guts personally ( a physiologic hatered)
try jusy once in your life to reply to me* physics*
(in that case it is even amthematics ) and not just
a general personal abuse that has nothing to do with my
mathematical proofe !!
or if you dont find an error in my analysis just say nothing
as others did untill that point while i asked them to
find an error in it !!
TIA
Y.Porat
-----------------------
because i realized that
Eric Gisse
Y.Porat wrote:
[snip]
The error is that you think there is physics in your unit manipulation.
Y.Porat
here is againe a amthematical prove that you a dirty sahmless crook
YOU DIVERTED AGAIN MY POST TO SCI .MORONS!!
that is not a beghaviour of a scienetist that come in with
a wish to dsicuss
that is a dirty personal politician!!
so here is waht i answered him
and the dirty Nazi pigg diverted to ' alLt.morons
but it wahnt help you Josef Goebeless
i am marching on inspight of piggs like you
and dont you dare asking me any questions any more
anyway just for the record and let the record know who is
dada1 = gisse=Wake = range guarder=varney
one scitzo manian.
here is my respons tothe other readers not to the schitzo crook:
(i thought to my naivity that i am dealing with a human being .....)
----------------------------------
1 waht you d\saied is just an abstarct hanwavings.
2 what i did it is indeed very unusual but it does not mean it is
an error
3 whati did is based on my new understanding that the plank consatnt
i snot just an inseparable physical entity
you probaly didnt read intentively my expalantion about how that
consatnt
was historically derived
it is not that it was first found experimentally and only than
mesueremnts of Enery versus frequency were plotted toget a straight
line
it was the opposite way:
first Energy versus ferequency were measured to get a strigth line
and only later peole stat\rted to wonder why and how is it
that rhey get a straight line and
WAHT IS THE MEANING OF THAT SLOPE OF THAT LINE ??!!
so later they RECONSTARCTED the physical dimensions
of that slope at the beginning there was no physical meaning to that
slope
and certainly no meaning to the 'strange assembly(of physical
entities- that composedthat slope !!
only later they related some physical meaning tothe slope - constant
so it is not a physical enetily that 'landed out of the heaven'
as a gift from heaven and as a born since this world was clreated
in much simpler words:
it is not an inseparable physical entily it is- separable to its more
simple components
i say 'simple and not 'more basic' in order that PD will not jump and
say
there is no more basic dimensions !!
but there are more simple ones ie less composed of other physical
entities!!
*even not composed of even ** two **other entities like the MKS
dimsnsions .but rather
single physical entities as the MKS ones!
so the only change i did is to rearrange the E=hf formula
in another order
in which the mass is extracted to the right side while all the others
are on the left side thtas all
and btw
EVEN IF I WILL NOT DO IT
and leave all of them on their orriginal location than still
all around that mass entity ie all the other physical entities
left side of the equation and right side of it
all of them are NONZERO!!
so the mass entity must be as well nonzero!!
another thing to keep in miond is ;
while you write a formula with dimensionless figures plus
physical dimensions (or else it isnot a physical formula!!)
you have to keep in mond that the meaning of any of the mks dismnsions
attached there is 1.00 kg or 1.00 meter or 1.00 seconds!!
but then the formula can gives it another value than 1.00
if you rearange the dimensions AND THE DOMSNSIONLESS FIGURES.
it is alowed because it is just another amthematical preentation
OF THE SAME THING
iti s just rearagnging a series of MULTIPLATED ENTITIES
(in multiplation you are alowed to aragne the order of entities as you
like
'first this one or first that one' it does not change the result !!
because it is exactly the same result no matter how you arange them
(that was just he formal mathematical reasoning and my justification
todo the above . )
hope it is not too complicated
certainly it is not usual and needs 'to think about it
'to sleep on it for a while '
so just in one sentence;
the Plank constant is not a 'holy physical entity' that is inseparable
it is a conglomeration of physical entities a slope of a straight
line !!(found experimentally
by measuring energy versus frequancy )
ps sprry for not spell checking
Y.Porat
-----------------
PD
Golden Boar wrote:
> PD wrote:
> > Golden Boar wrote:
> > > PD wrote:
> > > > Golden Boar wrote:
> > > > > PD wrote:
> > > > > > Golden Boar wrote:
> > > > > > > With that type of reasoning, a river would be just as fundamental as
> > > > > > > the water molecules it was composed of.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Really? Is momentum "composed" of smaller parts? What parts are those?
> > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > The meter and second are definitely more fundamental than momentum.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > How so?
> > > >
> > > > I ask again: How so?
> > >
> > > Then I will tell you yet again.
> > >
> > > p = f * h/c^1 = omega * hbar / c^1
> > >
> > > f = 1/T (s^-1)
> > > omega = 2pi / T (rad s^-1)
> > >
> > > So angular frequency is dependant upon the ratio between two lengths
> > > and a period of time.
> >
> > frequency is less fundamental than time?
> > And what's are the two lengths in this case -- specifically?
>
> I can play this game as well.
> What do you mean by fundamental?
That's precisely what I'm asking you.
Note that because of a *choice* of units systems the unit for energy
can be written as the composition of units for mass, length and time,
does NOT mean that mass, length and time are physically more
fundamental than than eneergy.
Note that because you happen to see in introductory textbooks f=1/T
more frequently than T=1/f does NOT mean that T is more fundamental
than f.
What is YOUR criterion for physical fundamentality?
> What do you mean by specifically?
I mean, what two physical lengths are involved in the the frequency of
a photon, which you say is the ratio of two lengths divided by a time?
PD
PD
What are the dimensions of a radian, Porat?
Is it a length unit divided by a length unit? What are the dimensions
of a length unit divided by a length unit?
PD
Y.Porat
you don thave the 'physics thouch
so amy be if you dont understand waht is more fundamental because you
seem to be a new born in physics and donr know mch abou tthe history
of physics
may be you might understand waht is more complicated
physical entities and waht is less coml;icated and COMPOSED
so if you dont understand for insatnce that
length (meter) i sless complicated than say velocity
or velocity id less complicated than acceleration
and mass is less comolicated than energy
or kg mzss times meter ^2/second ^2 is more complicated
than say just kg mass
than either you unserstand it now or you undersatnd it ten years later
or never understand it
or dont undersatnd what you youself say in naother way
while it fits you ... that the plank consatnt can be unbunddeled
to its components-- *in the same eqaution of E=hf*
and just be rearranged in a different order --
if never -- than there isno point in discussion with you
on the op subjest !!
ATB
Y.Porat
------------------
Y.Porat
start learn some of the basics of physics
physics dismnsions are not just
letters and cannot be deprved form their
physical meaning no mattr how you manipolate them
or present them
physics is the same no matter what
a physical dimensin system you use
if it is right inone system it should be the same in all other systems
that is the a b c of physics
ATB
Y.Porat
---------------
The Sorcerer
"PD" <TheDrap...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1148321422.4...@38g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
| Note that because you happen to see in introductory textbooks f=1/T
| more frequently than T=1/f does NOT mean that T is more fundamental
| than f.
You have really lost it.
The Earth has a frequency of 1 rotation per day.
The Earth has a frequency of 1 revolution per year.
The Earth has a frequency of 365 rotations per year.
The ratio of days to years is 365:1
The ratio of frequency to frequency is ???
T is therefore more fundamental than f.
Did you know you were a fuckin' stooopid cunt?
How the fuck does your family put up with you?
Androcles Vdm.
Golden Boar
By fundamental I mean it is basic
Energy is more fundamental than momentum, and momentum is more
fundamental than mass. You can see this clearly in the following
equation:
E_n = f.h / c^n
If n=0 then E_n is energy.
If n=1 then E_n is momentum.
If n=2 then E_n is mass
And maybe, if n=2, then E_n is the coefficient of damping.
Frequency is more fundamental than all of them.
>
> Note that because you happen to see in introductory textbooks f=1/T
> more frequently than T=1/f does NOT mean that T is more fundamental
> than f.
I never made such a conclusion.
What I originally said was that charge is more fundamental than the
flow of charge.
You cannot have a flow of charge without charge, but you can have
charge without a flow of charge.
>
> What is YOUR criterion for physical fundamentality?
>
> > What do you mean by specifically?
>
> I mean, what two physical lengths are involved in the the frequency of
> a photon, which you say is the ratio of two lengths divided by a time?
>
I said angular frequency, not frequency. If you want to know what a
radian is, go and look it up.
Golden Boar
Y.Porat wrote:
> since you came to physics from matrhematics (and it i sobvious !!)
>
> you don thave the 'physics thouch
> so amy be if you dont understand waht is more fundamental because you
> seem to be a new born in physics and donr know mch abou tthe history
> of physics
> may be you might understand waht is more complicated
> physical entities and waht is less coml;icated and COMPOSED
>
> so if you dont understand for insatnce that
> length (meter) i sless complicated than say velocity
>
> or velocity id less complicated than acceleration
> and mass is less comolicated than energy
Mass is more complicated than momentum.
Momentum is more commplicated than energy
Energy is more complicated than frequency.
E = f.h / c^0
p = f.h / c^1
m = f.h / c^2
All the above can be represented by a single equation:
E_n = f.h / c^n
>
PD
So the more fewer powers of c, then the less physically fundamental it
is?
>
> >
> > Note that because you happen to see in introductory textbooks f=1/T
> > more frequently than T=1/f does NOT mean that T is more fundamental
> > than f.
>
> I never made such a conclusion.
> What I originally said was that charge is more fundamental than the
> flow of charge.
>
> You cannot have a flow of charge without charge, but you can have
> charge without a flow of charge.
Ah, OK, so here is the basis for your "fundamentality".
So apply this to the case of energy, momentum, and mass.
Can you have energy without momentum, or momentum without energy?
Can you have momentum without mass, or mass without momentum?
>
> >
> > What is YOUR criterion for physical fundamentality?
> >
> > > What do you mean by specifically?
> >
> > I mean, what two physical lengths are involved in the the frequency of
> > a photon, which you say is the ratio of two lengths divided by a time?
> >
>
> I said angular frequency, not frequency. If you want to know what a
> radian is, go and look it up.
OK, so the radian *in the context of a circle* is arc length divided by
radius.
When radians are used for the phase of a simple harmonic oscillator,
such as a mass bouncing on the end of a spring, what are the two
lengths involved?
When radians are used to describe the phase between current and voltage
in an AC circult, what are the two lengths involved?
When you you are talking about a photon, what are the two lengths
involved?