A simple Q. but not a simple A,,
in [Relativity]
|
Prev: float..my farts
Next: LHC Math gives a Doomsday.
From: glird on 16 Jan 2010 20:05 On Jan 16, 4:18 pm, cjcountess <cjcount...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > > 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. Since 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 = cx2pi), 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 smallest quantum of energy that equals rest mass. Aside from the latter sentence, that smells like bullsh t. As to your final sentence, that one is bs^2. If you disagree, Dear Countess, please explain how a photon, which is a quantum of energy, can have a "rest mass" when it is never at rest at all "except when it is". (And even then, inside an atom it travels at c' = c x the Fine Structure constant, and has a "mass" of about 9.1095 x 10^-28 grams. glird
From: cjcountess on 17 Jan 2010 00:01 On Jan 16, 8:05 pm, glird <gl...(a)aol.com> wrote: > On Jan 16, 4:18 pm,cjcountess<cjcount...(a)yahoo.com> wrote:> > 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. > Since 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 = cx2pi), 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 smallest quantum of > energy that equals rest mass. > > Aside from the latter sentence, that smells like bullsh t. As to > your final sentence, that one is bs^2. > If you disagree, Dear Countess, please explain how a photon, which > is a quantum of energy, can have a "rest mass" when it is never at > rest at all "except when it is". (And even then, inside an atom it > travels at c' = c x the Fine Structure constant, and has a "mass" of > about 9.1095 x 10^-28 grams. > > glird My name is Conrad J Countess What is the smallest quantum of energy that equals rest mass in your opinion? In my view it is the quantum of energy equal to c^2 as in E=mc^2 in the electron. It's frequency would cycle in the smallest time cycle which is also c^2 and also be that point on EM spectrum where energy = rest mass or E=mc^2 and also = F=mv^2. As for the rest mass of a photon, everything in the universe is in motion' even so called rest mass. Rest mass is energy at c^2 = c^circled = cx2pi, which is c in circular motion and is not really at rest. And photons, which have a constant mass/energy of "h" from the constant velocity of "c", from one perspecive, is moving slower than rest mass that moves at "c^2". Just as any mass; moving in straight line, at constant speed, is equal to being at rest, a photon, traveling at constant speed of c, in straight line, can be also, from this pespective, considerd at rest, and we moving at c relative to it, sense also, all motion is relative. Conrad J Countess
From: Y.Porat on 17 Jan 2010 06:00 On Jan 17, 2:39 am, glird <gl...(a)aol.com> wrote: > 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. -------------- the conrovery is not weighing MASS AT REST ! it is measuring it in movement and ESPECIALLY IN VERY HIGH VELOCITIES !!! 2 i never said that we cant meaure anything i said that as presented by some parrots it is impossible for example a i said just above mass at reast can be meaured as weight divided by g (actually that is how it is DEFINED !! and it is sound because you can measure separately* and** independently** !!! -g and separately wight !!!) because it does not change it i s constant for aslong as you wish at the same spot !! it is not like meauring at your the silly** momentum--- relativistic mass** **at that case** YOU CANT MEASURE* SEPARATELY* MASS AND VELOCITY !! SO while youmeasured growth of momentum you cant relate it only to the **growth of mass"" ------------------ > Unfortunately, physics changed that to, the mas of a body is EQUAL to > its weight usc. wrong ---------- > > > > 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. > -------------- andeven at that case you cant say that at high velocity it wa grwing mass ----------- > > > As I stated earlier, light is a force and a nonphysical > > > quality. How can you weigh something that is not > > > physical? > ------------------ not physical ?? anything that you can sense by your senses IS PHYSICAL !!! ---------------- > A force is a net pressure. PRESSURE IS NOT FEFINED AS A FORCE ( or vice versa ) presure is FORCE PER UNIT OF ARIA !! ----------------- As a measure, it is a dmension. ????!!! > Pressure physically exists whether measured or not. A dimension, ------------- only you said that itis a dimension ------------ > however, is an abstract invention of the human mind. it is not abstract it i s very tangible and can be measured by the right tools !! (except Time .. that is motion comparison ..) ---------------- 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". -------------- parrot !!! learn how a physical formula is created and used !! E = hf h CONTAINES MASS ( not just as a garmament and i am tired to explainit to parrots ------------ ---- > > > 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. >--------------------- (:-) you ddint read me there are many physical entites THAT YOU DO CAN MEASURE !!! in too many cases the problem is with WRONG **INTERPRETATIONS** OF MEASUREMENTS if you dont understand my physics go discuss with your people not with me ATB Y.Porat -------------------- > glird
From: Y.Porat on 17 Jan 2010 06:21 On Jan 17, 2:39 am, glird < et 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 -------------------- if you think say as Inertial that energy is NOT MASS IN MOTION even in microcosm !!!?? and that the mass in E=mc^2 is INERTIAL ENERGY (:-) just go help Inertial to explain waht is 'inertial energy' ..... take a piece of Iron put it on you table stand still and tell us is there no in it some mass on motion??!! ( just because you dont see any motion ?? (:-) are the electrons there not MASS ON MOTION is the nucleus and its inside components not MASS IN MOTION?! (is the nuc inside 'mass in *deep freeze* OF MOTION'?? TIA Y.Porat ----------------------
From: cjcountess on 17 Jan 2010 12:46
Porat here is something to collaborate your circlo idea http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3gox8PpNOPY&NR=1 Conrad J Countess |