A simple Q. but not a simple A,,
in [Relativity]
|
Prev: float..my farts
Next: LHC Math gives a Doomsday.
From: cjcountess on 15 Jan 2010 08:09 That is right, I do have it backwards, it was "D.K.Y." not, "glird" who said that a photon is not a wave and not physical. Sorry. A photon interacts with physical things in the physical world, and so it too, must be physical 1) Planck discovered (E=hf), for photons 2) Einstein discovered (E=m/c^2) for photons and (E=mc^2) for electrons in 1905 thought experiment, yielding that famous equation 3)deBroglie discovered (E=hf=mc^2) for electrons, and that electron is also wave, as demonstrated by diffraction, constructive and destructive interference, which is also know for waves light and other forms of waves This also indicated a smooth from waves to particles, energy to matter along the same EM spectrum, which might even be called the "energy/ matter", as well as "electromagnetic", spectrum 4) Bohr discovered, that wavelength of electron = circumference of circle, with an angular momentum of, a multiple integer of h/2pi. 5) I discovered that geometrically (E=mc^2) as c in linear direction x c in 90 degree angular direction creating a 90 degree arc which if constant creates a circle = E=mc^circled) with wavelength = (cx2pi) = (hx2pi), and momentum being inversely proportional = (h/ 2pi), and if amplitude is constant will make two rotations in order to complete one wave cycle as a standing spherical wave of (spin 1/2) and angular momentum, (h/2pi/2), And of course, if it spins counter to its trajectory, it will have (-1 charge). There is just too much evidence, that connects so seamlessly and logical together, like pieces of puzzle that fit together to reveals a picture, .. To me, it seems statistically improbable, to have this much evidence fit together this seamlessly, revealing such a clear picture, and it not be correct . Just as improbable for me to find a bunch of scattered pieces among the trash, see a connection between them, put them together to reveal a picture of a real object, and not conclude that someone had throne away a puzzle, perhaps because they could not solve it. All they evidence that is need to solve this was already here, just scattered like pieces of puzzle that dont reveal its picture until it is put together. This is what I did together with the geometrical interpretation of (E=mc^2) = (E=mc^circled), (c = sqrt-1) and (h/2pi/2) as measure of, certainty; of simultaneous (momentum and position), of particle, not uncertainty. All that was needed to solve, (Quantum Gravity), take (sqrt-1); out of realm of imaginary numbers into world of real world of natural units, and to explain (Uncertainty Principle), is GEOMETRY Conrad J Countess
From: cjcountess on 15 Jan 2010 08:22 On Jan 14, 3:42 pm, "Y.Porat" <y.y.po...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > On Jan 14, 7:09 pm,cjcountess<cjcount...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > > > > > > > Porat > > > I did not say that "YOU" said a photon is not a wave and not physical, > > I addressed that to "glird" > > That is the second time I addressed something to glird and you though > > I was addressing you. > > That is ok though, perhaps I was not clear and it is my fault. > > > As a matter of fact, I addressed at least 4 people in that post, you, > > glird, D.Y.K. and Uncle Al, each with something different. > > > Sorry that it was not clear, but that "comment/question", was > > addressed to glird. > > > I know very well that a photon is a wave, that it becomes more > > particle like as it attains more mass, momentum, and energy, and that > > it attains rest mass as a standing spherical wave at c^2. > > > I am very clear on that. > > > As a matter of fact, my whole theory hangs on that fact, and I do not > > want anyone to think otherwise. > > > Let be be very clear about this > > > A photon has relativistic mass/kinetic energy, of E=m/c^2 = E=hf/c^2 > > It becomes more particle like, as it becomes shorter, and more > > massive, energetic, and momentive, as demonstrated by photo electric > > effect. > > And as the wave reaches an energy of E=hf=mc^2 it attains rest mass.. > > > "REST MASS", is just, (relative mass/kinetic energy), in circular and > > or spherical rotation. > > And so I agree with you also on the point that there is just one kind > > of mass in different configurations, which is energy, which takes on > > the form of waves and or particles depending on energy level. > > > And if we look even deeper, we can even say that "h" is the "rest > > mass" of a photon, that (c = h), is not the fastest speed in the > > universe, but actualy the slowest. > > > Contemplate that. I will explain latter, although one could look up my > > earlier post to see the logic behind it. > > > I am still waiting on "D.Y.K." not "Porat", to explain why poton is > > not a wave or physical entity. > > > Conrad J Countess > > ------------------- > if you say that there is just one kind of mass > you cant say tha the photon relativistic mass > > becuse at that moment you say that -- there > is no inertial mass > while every body agree that inertic mass is common agreement > > ATB > Y.Porat > ------------------------ Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text - Porat there is just one kind of mass. Relativ mass is not in conflict with inerti. Somethig moving, and having relative mass due to mation, does have inertia mass = to its realative mass, and will resist a change in direction of motion. That is what the photo electric effect demonstrated among other things. Conrad J Countess
From: Y.Porat on 15 Jan 2010 08:57 On Jan 15, 12:47 pm, "Inertial" <rel It doesn't matter whether you talk about inertial mass or not > > > 2 > > th e orriginal famous formula of Einstein > > is .... > > > E = mc^2 !! > > > so where the hell do you (crooky) see there > > THE GAMMA FACTOR ???!! > > That is the formula for rest energy from rest mass. Gamma is 1 because v = > 0 .. so it is ommitted. Gees. you should read more > > > so even if you are a sore learner > > one day you will have to stick it to your stiff skull > > and the hard way :: > > I already have learnt. I'm not afraid of reading like you are. Maybe you > should be like the nazi's and start burning books? > > > ENERGY IS MASS IN MOTION even in microcosm > > That is kinetic energy > > > (it is no doubt in macrocosm ) and > > if you deny it in microcosm == the burden of prove is on you !! > > Photons have energy and no rest mass. > > > AND > > and if it i s mass in motion **conserved** > > mass is conserved as well !!!!! > > No .. it is not > > > if you dont understand it > > go discuss with your friends > > not with me > > My 'friend's understand science and are not afraid to read physics texts and > to learn. > > > IT IS RIGHT ABOVE IN THAT FORMULA!! > > no need for further prove !!! > > You have (as usual) proved nothing. ---------------------- and now you did a sensational discovery: ""REST ENERGY !!!"" (E =mc^2) do you have any energy that is in rest and not in motion?? is c^2 is rest ??? m (mass) here is in its top velocity !! and still does not have your gamma factor (as you say it is 1.000 ie still not relevant !! iow non existant ) dont you realize that you are a joker as well??!! BYE Y.P ------------------------------
From: Inertial on 15 Jan 2010 09:21 "Y.Porat" <y.y.porat(a)gmail.com> wrote in message news:1ddafb3a-83de-472d-9d0a-ec6bebb34cb9(a)k35g2000yqb.googlegroups.com... > On Jan 15, 12:47 pm, "Inertial" <rel It doesn't matter whether you > talk about inertial mass or not >> >> > 2 >> > th e orriginal famous formula of Einstein >> > is .... >> >> > E = mc^2 !! >> >> > so where the hell do you (crooky) see there >> > THE GAMMA FACTOR ???!! >> >> That is the formula for rest energy from rest mass. Gamma is 1 because v >> = >> 0 .. so it is ommitted. Gees. you should read more >> >> > so even if you are a sore learner >> > one day you will have to stick it to your stiff skull >> > and the hard way :: >> >> I already have learnt. I'm not afraid of reading like you are. Maybe >> you >> should be like the nazi's and start burning books? >> >> > ENERGY IS MASS IN MOTION even in microcosm >> >> That is kinetic energy >> >> > (it is no doubt in macrocosm ) and >> > if you deny it in microcosm == the burden of prove is on you !! >> >> Photons have energy and no rest mass. >> >> > AND >> > and if it i s mass in motion **conserved** >> > mass is conserved as well !!!!! >> >> No .. it is not >> >> > if you dont understand it >> > go discuss with your friends >> > not with me >> >> My 'friend's understand science and are not afraid to read physics texts >> and >> to learn. >> >> > IT IS RIGHT ABOVE IN THAT FORMULA!! >> > no need for further prove !!! >> >> You have (as usual) proved nothing. > ---------------------- > and now you did a sensational discovery: > > ""REST ENERGY !!!"" Yes .. nothing sensational about that > (E =mc^2) Yeup > do you have any energy that is in rest and not in motion?? Yes .. rest energy .. or the mass-equivalent to energy > is c^2 is rest ??? Irrelevant .. rest mass is when velocity of the object is zero. > m (mass) Yes .. that's what m means > here is in its top velocity !! No .. at its minimum speed .. zero > and still does not have your gamma factor Because it is at rest. Gees. > (as you say it is 1.000 ie still not relevant !! > iow > non existant ) No.. its just 1 > dont you realize that you are a joker as well??!! No .. I'm not. I understand the physics. Unlike you I read and learn. You're like a nazi's burning books and repressing information.
From: cjcountess on 16 Jan 2010 09:53
On Jan 14, 8:03 pm, k...(a)nventure.com wrote: > On Jan 14, 9:09 am,cjcountess<cjcount...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > > > I am still waiting on "D.Y.K." not "Porat", to explain why poton is > > not a wave or physical entity. > > > Conrad J Countess > > You got it backwards. > > Is it not more legitimate for me to ask you to > empirically demonstrate that a photon is a wave? > > Furthermore, is it not up to you to empirically > prove that a photon is a physical entity? > > You're the one making these assertions. > > I'm maintaining that there are many dogmas within > mainline science, and that science does not yet > truly understand mass, force, and time. > > So all I have to do logically and rationally point > out some (and not necessarily all) of the significant > and/or meaningful dogmas and misconceptions > about mass, force, and time within mainline > science to prove my point. > > I thought I did a fair job in explaining that a > photon cannot have mass, but I guess I was wrong. > So I will give another example. > > Photons are claimed to move at the speed of light. > So if a light is turned on, did it (i.e., the > photon of this light) start from rest, or just > innately move at c. > > If the photon stated from rest,and had even the > most infinitely miniscule mass, the energy > requirement to instantly (i.e., in zero passage of > time) accelerate this tiny mass would be infinite, > a zillon times more than that in the flame of a > small candle. > If not, and the photon innately starts at c, then > we have a micro-mini-Big Bang. So whenever you > turn on a flashlight, are you creating a Big Bang? > > Everyone explaining the wave properties of light > uses the analogy of a stone thrown into a pond, > and the waves on the water are analogous with > the waves of light. > > This tale misses the point, for it mistakes the > effect with the cause. The dynamics of the rock > are analogous to the force of light (i.e., that > segment of the Fundamental Electromagnetic > Force of Nature that we call visible light) on > the pond that is analogous to your eye, or > photo-detector, or what ever. > In other words; The ripples on the water of the > pond are the results (the effects) of the action > of the rock (the cause). The ripples (what we see, > or connote as the energy of light) are the effects > of the force of the visible potion of the > Electromagnetic segment of the Fundamental > Forces of Nature instilled upon an interacting > recipient entity, body, etc. > > It is here, in the recipient entity of this force > that the enigmatic 'mass' requirement for the > energy, power, etc., and the colloquial 'waves' > of light resides. If I understand you correctly, waves are the effect of a photon, not the photon itself, which itself has no mass, because it could not possibly accelerate from rest to c, in an instant,unless it had infinite energy, or the result of a mini "Big Bang". Well, even if the wave is in the medium and not the photon itself, analogous to the waves in water, caused by a boat, being in the water itself, and not the property of the boat, still the photon, like the boat, reacts on the wave medium, pushing it with a degree of inertia, that = mass, and therefore, the photon, weather the wave, or cause of the wave, in the wave medium, still has inertia = mass. As to a photon accelerating from rest to c in that instant, from the perspective of my theory, rest mass is relative mass in circular and or spherical rotation, and the acceleration of a photon from this rest mass, is analogous to, someone turning a rock on a string in circular motion at a constant velocity, measured as, (a=v^2/r) or (F=mv/r^2), which would = (a=c^2/c) and (E=hf=mc^2) on quantum level, and accelerated to c in a relativly straight line at E=hf//c^2, when the photon is released from the rest stated which is c in circular and or spherical motion. Conrad J Countess |