A simple Q. but not a simple A,,
in [Relativity]
|
Prev: float..my farts
Next: LHC Math gives a Doomsday.
From: cjcountess on 23 Jan 2010 08:23 Even if I left out the disputed equations it would not invalidate my findings The geometrical evidence is sound it is also backed by mathmatical evidence listed by Planck Einstien Debroglie and Bohr that is independant of but still supports it You have no argument. E=mc^2+1/2mv^2 does not make E=mc^2 invalid and E=hf/c^2(delta)V does not make E=hf/c^2 invalid. Show us your work, you have none, and so you resort to criticising. But the more you clain to know, the more you reveal what you don' t know. You act like a jealious woman. Excuse me ladies, you are not that bad. You are a pitiful failier and you want to strike out at others But you cannot touch me Conrad J Countess
From: cjcountess on 23 Jan 2010 10:12 You are right Spencer, except for last statement. Some of us do think that we comprehend how quantum and relativity can agree. But lots of us, I included, use these threads as jump off points, to test and talk about our own ideas, especialy if we think our idears can answer the question at hand. But some of these arguments do get messy, and imature, and so I am going to rest my case, but with the introduction of just one more piece of evidence that (E=hf/c^2), is valid equation than I am not going to waste my time anymore on it http://www.google.com/search?sourceid=navclient&ie=UTF-8&rlz=1T4TSHB_enUS314US314&q=e%3dhf%2fc2 Using above Google search I found Spacetime physics: introduction to special relativity - Google Books Result by Edwin F. Taylor, John Archibald Wheeler - 1992 - Science - 312 pages Use the Einstein relation between photon energy £ and classical wave frequency / namely £CTM = WOT E = hf/c2 and £' = hf/c2, to derive the transformations Conrad J Countess
From: kado on 23 Jan 2010 19:12 On Jan 23, 5:45 am, Spencer Spindrift <spencerspindr...(a)btinternet.com> wrote: > > I started this thread 251 posts ago with a simple question. > By now I think I've shown that there is no simple answer; hence the > 251 posts. The question was:- > How can a photon have momentum but not mass? > Of course a photon has no rest mass as it only exists at C, the speed > of light. Again- You are supposing that a photon has momentum, no rest mass... That is, this whole supposition is based on the assumption that photons exists, and not just an artifact...i.e., a 'red herring'. > I agree that a wave carries energy ..... Another assumption. When you can really prove, and not with round-about- mathematical equations that may not apply under the conditions, and/or that may not even be true- all the facts that apply to to your question, then maybe you can answer this for your self. Go back and really, and I mean really, study all my past posts to get some of the truths that apply to your conundrum AND get rid of all the dogmas within physics associated with your question that may instantly cloud your line of thinking. In other words; the mystery is really not too hard to resolve. > I am not one of them. I can use maths as a tool but it can never give > me any answers to satisfy my mind. Good for you. D.Y.K.
From: Inertial on 23 Jan 2010 19:19 <kado(a)nventure.com> wrote in message news:60dd1ab1-4bf4-47d4-b4f1-f64a51c31ff0(a)w12g2000vbj.googlegroups.com... > > > On Jan 23, 5:45 am, Spencer Spindrift > <spencerspindr...(a)btinternet.com> wrote: > >> >> I started this thread 251 posts ago with a simple question. >> By now I think I've shown that there is no simple answer; hence the >> 251 posts. The question was:- >> How can a photon have momentum but not mass? >> Of course a photon has no rest mass as it only exists at C, the speed >> of light. > > Again- You are supposing that a photon has momentum, > no rest mass... > That is, this whole supposition is based on the assumption > that photons exists, and not just an artifact...i.e., a 'red > herring'. There is something we detect, and we call it a photon. So that exists. It can have its momentum measured, and it is non-zero. It can have its (rest) mass measured and it is zero (to as accurately as we can measure) .. so no reason to think it is not as predicted. Note that though a photon has no rest mass, it does have a relativistic mass (ie the value you calculate from its energy or momentum) >> I agree that a wave carries energy ..... > > Another assumption. It is something we find experimentally. > When you can really prove, and not with round-about- > mathematical equations that may not apply under the > conditions, and/or that may not even be true- all the > facts that apply to to your question, then maybe you > can answer this for your self. It is something we find experimentally. > Go back and really, and I mean really, study all my past > posts to get some of the truths that apply to your > conundrum AND get rid of all the dogmas within physics > associated with your question that may instantly cloud > your line of thinking. > > In other words; the mystery is really not too hard to > resolve. > >> I am not one of them. I can use maths as a tool but it can never give >> me any answers to satisfy my mind. > > Good for you. > > > D.Y.K.
From: cjcountess on 23 Jan 2010 20:03
One more example of E=hf/c^2 http://www.plambeck.org/oldhtml/physics/physicspedestrian9.pdf page 119 problem 8-6c [PDF] C:\work\dellmigration\qxmail\websrc\html\physics\book ... - 6:41am File Format: PDF/Adobe Acrobat - View as HTML Light of frequency / is composed of photons of energy E = hf/c2. Show that the fractional energy loss for photons rising in a gravitational field ... www.plambeck.org/oldhtml/physics/physicspedestrian9.pdf Conrad J Countess |