A simple Q. but not a simple A,,
in [Relativity]
|
Prev: float..my farts
Next: LHC Math gives a Doomsday.
From: Y.Porat on 16 Jan 2010 12:21 On Jan 15, 3:22 pm, cjcountess <cjcount...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > 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. >-------------------------- it i sin conflict while you interpret relativistic mass as inertial mass that was growing quantitavively !!! that controversy is crucial to be clarified one and fo rall because the false interpretation of mass 'inflation' or relativistic mass is preventing advance in science like thinking that the photon does not have inertial mass and from that tbge way to Higgs bosons is very short !!! (if you see it harmfula and damaging as i see it ) ATB Y.Porat ------------------ > 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: cjcountess on 16 Jan 2010 16:18 > Is it not more legitimate for me to ask you to > empirically demonstrate that a photon is a wave? > 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 agree that there are many dogmas and miscoceptions about mass, force, and time, within mainline science. I have taken that into account, and very few people understand this the way I do. Did you know that mass, force, and time, as well as charge, temp, energy, gravity, are all quantified and equal at c^2. Sense we are focusing on force mass and time, (F=mv^2) = (E=mc^2) = (m=Ec^2) = (T or time = mc^2). on quantum level In other words, (energy = mass = force) at (c^2 = c^circled = c x 2pi), and is the smallest quantum of time as a cyclical motion, just as the orbit and rotation of the earth and moon represent larger cycles of time. And it is the smalest quantum of energy that equals rest mass. Conrad J Countess
From: glird on 16 Jan 2010 18:53 On Jan 14, 8:03 pm, k...(a)nventure.com wrote: > I'm maintaining that there are many dogmas within > mainline science, and that science does not yet > truly understand mass, force, and time. That's mainly because they don't define them, they only measure quantities. Here are my definitions: A "mass" is "a quantity of matter'. A "force" is a net pressure independent of its area of application. As to time, there are two meanings for that one word: Physical time is "duration". "Metrical time" is a dimension we invented to measure portions of physical time. In today's physics (metrical) time is the indications of the hands of a specified clock, as hand set by the co-moving infinitesimally small person who is next to it. gl
From: cjcountess on 16 Jan 2010 19:01 Planck' s constant or "h" is constant, "relative mass/kinetic energy", due to constant velocity of c. And sense any mass, traveling in straight line, at constant speed, is equivalent to being at rest, the speed of light at "c", with constant mass of "h", can be considered the "rest frame" of the universe. According to relativity' motion is relative and as a poton moves away from us at c in one diretcttion, we move away from it at c in the opposite direction' and there is no way to tell which is really moving and which is still, except that the speed of light is constant in linear direction, "In straight line", regeardless of motion of observer. Everything in the universe is in motion, and the speed of light in straight line, with constant mass/ energy of "h", represents what is still, within that motion. Rest mass is just relative mass in circular and or spherical rotation at "c^2", and could from the above perspective, be considered faster than "c". Rest mass at "c^2", which appears to be the slowest speed, may actualy be the fastest, and "c", which appears to be the fastest, may actualy be the slowest. Conrad J Countess
From: glird on 16 Jan 2010 19:39
On Jan 15, 5:00 am, "Y.Porat" <y.y.po...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > On Jan 15, 12:25 am, k...(a)nventure.com wrote: > > On Jan 14, 4:47 am, "Y.Porat" wrote: > > > In physics it is direct measurements that count!! > > Correct! > > Furthermore, there is no way to directly empirically > > measure mass, period. It is not even possible to > > directly empirically measure the mass of a body that > > is stationary in your frame of reference, let alone > > that within another frame of reference. To measure the mass of a body at rest on Earth you weigh it. As Newton said, the mass of a body is proportional to its weight. Unfortunately, physics changed that to, the mas of a body is EQUAL to its weight usc. > > All the values of the mass of any entity, body, thing, > > etc., are calculated by dividing the weight of the > > entity, body, etc., by the acceleration due to > > gravitation. ??? Perhaps you got that from F = ma--> m = f/a. If so, it is m = WEIGHT (yes, our textbooks agree that "weight is a force") that is obtained by dividing the force=pressure by a=acceleration. > > As I stated earlier, light is a force and a nonphysical > > quality. How can you weigh something that is not > > physical? A force is a net pressure. As a measure, it is a dimension. Pressure physically exists whether measured or not. A dimension, however, is an abstract invention of the human mind. Other than that, it is nonphysical=non-existant. You CAN and do measure weight=force=pressure. > > Moreover, all the dynamic qualities (i.e., momentum, > > energy, impulse, etc.,) are also not empirically > > measured, but calculated values. The true calculations > > for the dynamic qualities necessitates the true > > understanding of time, which science has yet to do. "Science" doesn't understand anything at all about physical reality. It only kows quantities. > you didn't take in account that > a photon has mass !! "except when it doesn't". > if you cant measure anything > there is no physics at all ....(:-) > Y.Porat RIGHT!! And if you can't define the words symbolized in your resulting equations you don't know what your quantities have measured; so there is no understanding at all in your physics. glird |