A simple Q. but not a simple A,,
in [Relativity]
|
Prev: float..my farts
Next: LHC Math gives a Doomsday.
From: Inertial on 31 Dec 2009 06:05 "Y.Porat" <y.y.porat(a)gmail.com> wrote in message news:1503ce81-feec-4bdc-87cb-8e799980de23(a)e27g2000yqd.googlegroups.com... > On Dec 30, 9:30 pm, cjcountess <cjcount...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: >> I do agree > ----------------- > -nice ! > we need more people on our side > ad less on the mathematician parrots > on the other side >> >> The idea that a photon has no mass does not make sense. >> h determines its constant mass, and f its variable mass, in equation >> E=hf/c^2 >> And although it may not be rest mass, it is still mass, from kinetic > ----------------- > there are no 2 kinds of mass How quickly he drifted from 'your side' > no one is alowed (a fucker mathematician )to invent kinds of masses > to fit his idiotic moronic )ad hock need! They don't > (idiotic is not realizing that the photon is an exception case that > can move at c > and have mass > because of the new iron rule that > NO MASS - NO REAL PHYSICS !!) No need for an exception when a zero rest-mass photon fits the rules as it is > no need to be a genius to understand it > after a 100 years of experiments !!! and simple thinking ) All experiments are consistent with the zero rest mass [snip more porat waffle]
From: Y.Porat on 1 Jan 2010 04:21 On Dec 31 2009, 9:21 pm, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > On Dec 26, 5:42 pm, Spencer Spindrift > > <spencerspindr...(a)btinternet.com> wrote: > > Q.: How is it that a photon has momentum but no mass? > > Or in other words how does light carry energy? > > As far as I know momentum is a property of moving or spinning > > mass. > > A photon cannot have mass or it would be infinite at C.. > > > A.; ??? > > If you've been led to believe that momentum is a property of a moving > mass and SOLELY a moving mass, then you've been misled. > It is often stated that FOR a moving mass, the momentum is defined as > mass x velocity. > This turns out also to be a lie. > > First of all, it's not a definition, it's an empirically derived rule. > > Secondly, it's not right, though it works very well at low velocities. > At higher velocities, you have to use gamma x mass x velocity, where > gamma is a number that is darn close to 1 for low speeds but gets > bigger and bigger as you get to an appreciable fraction of the speed > of light. -------------------------- and who the hell told you that this Gamma is attached to the mass?? just because you understand only algebra parroting ??? and evn by algebra that you understand how about instead of momentum = gamma m v Momentum /gamma = m v in that case you dont have to **Invent*** a new kind of mass !!!!!! **and m re,mains constant !!!??? how about thinking physics and not parroting btw as for the photon THE GAMMA FACTOR DOES NOT APPLY AT ALL TO IT !! it is another indication about the need to know were and how to use it !!! 9bacause of ambiguity situations !!! -------------- > > Third, this rule ONLY applies for moving masses, and should not be > used for just anything that has momentum. Other entities also carry > momentum but not described by that rule. > > In the end, what momentum is, is whatever quantity can be ascribed to > a physical entity such that the total of that quantity for all objects > of all kinds in a closed system is constant. It's still remarkable > that such a rule can be found at all. > --------------------- (:-) Hi abstract philosopher !! ps excuse me PD for 'leeching' on you but you can see that i bring physics arguments !! ATB Y.Porat --------------
From: Inertial on 1 Jan 2010 05:21 "Y.Porat" <y.y.porat(a)gmail.com> wrote in message news:2c7de598-5bc2-47cc-b923-04afde4c7d25(a)d20g2000yqh.googlegroups.com... > On Dec 31 2009, 9:21 pm, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: >> On Dec 26, 5:42 pm, Spencer Spindrift >> >> <spencerspindr...(a)btinternet.com> wrote: >> > Q.: How is it that a photon has momentum but no mass? >> > Or in other words how does light carry energy? >> > As far as I know momentum is a property of moving or spinning >> > mass. >> > A photon cannot have mass or it would be infinite at C.. >> >> > A.; ??? >> >> If you've been led to believe that momentum is a property of a moving >> mass and SOLELY a moving mass, then you've been misled. >> It is often stated that FOR a moving mass, the momentum is defined as >> mass x velocity. >> This turns out also to be a lie. >> >> First of all, it's not a definition, it's an empirically derived rule. >> >> Secondly, it's not right, though it works very well at low velocities. >> At higher velocities, you have to use gamma x mass x velocity, where >> gamma is a number that is darn close to 1 for low speeds but gets >> bigger and bigger as you get to an appreciable fraction of the speed >> of light. > -------------------------- > and who the hell told you that this Gamma > is attached to the mass?? As has been explained to you countless times .. it is NOT attached to anything > just because you understand only algebra parroting ??? > and evn by algebra that you understand You clearly do not understand math or algebra > how about > instead of > momentum = gamma m v > > Momentum /gamma = m v Same thing > in that case you dont have to **Invent*** > a new kind of mass !!!!!! There was no invention of a new kind of mass > **and m re,mains constant !!!??? It always was constant > how about thinking physics > and not parroting You're not thinking at all > btw > as for the photon > THE GAMMA FACTOR DOES NOT APPLY AT ALL TO IT !! Why .. does it have some of special anti-gamma-factor shield? > it is another indication about the need to know > were and how to use it !!! You don't > 9bacause of ambiguity situations !!! > -------------- > > > >> >> Third, this rule ONLY applies for moving masses, and should not be >> used for just anything that has momentum. Other entities also carry >> momentum but not described by that rule. >> >> In the end, what momentum is, is whatever quantity can be ascribed to >> a physical entity such that the total of that quantity for all objects >> of all kinds in a closed system is constant. It's still remarkable >> that such a rule can be found at all. >> --------------------- > > (:-) > Hi abstract philosopher !! > ps > excuse me PD for 'leeching' on you > but you can see that i bring physics > arguments !! No .. not a word of rational physics there.
From: Y.Porat on 1 Jan 2010 05:40 On Jan 1, 12:21 pm, "Inertial" <relativ...(a)rest.com> wrote: > "Y.Porat" <y.y.po...(a)gmail.com> wrote in message > > news:2c7de598-5bc2-47cc-b923-04afde4c7d25(a)d20g2000yqh.googlegroups.com... > > > > > On Dec 31 2009, 9:21 pm, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > >> On Dec 26, 5:42 pm, Spencer Spindrift > > >> <spencerspindr...(a)btinternet.com> wrote: > >> > Q.: How is it that a photon has momentum but no mass? > >> > Or in other words how does light carry energy? > >> > As far as I know momentum is a property of moving or spinning > >> > mass. > >> > A photon cannot have mass or it would be infinite at C.. > > >> > A.; ??? > > >> If you've been led to believe that momentum is a property of a moving > >> mass and SOLELY a moving mass, then you've been misled. > >> It is often stated that FOR a moving mass, the momentum is defined as > >> mass x velocity. > >> This turns out also to be a lie. > > >> First of all, it's not a definition, it's an empirically derived rule. > > >> Secondly, it's not right, though it works very well at low velocities. > >> At higher velocities, you have to use gamma x mass x velocity, where > >> gamma is a number that is darn close to 1 for low speeds but gets > >> bigger and bigger as you get to an appreciable fraction of the speed > >> of light. > > -------------------------- > > and who the hell told you that this Gamma > > is attached to the mass?? > > As has been explained to you countless times .. it is NOT attached to > anything > > > just because you understand only algebra parroting ??? > > and evn by algebra that you understand > > You clearly do not understand math or algebra > > > how about > > instead of > > momentum = gamma m v > > > Momentum /gamma = m v > > Same thing > > > in that case you dont have to **Invent*** > > a new kind of mass !!!!!! > > There was no invention of a new kind of mass > > > **and m re,mains constant !!!??? > > It always was constant > > > how about thinking physics > > and not parroting > > You're not thinking at all > > > btw > > as for the photon > > THE GAMMA FACTOR DOES NOT APPLY AT ALL TO IT !! > > Why .. does it have some of special anti-gamma-factor shield? > > > it is another indication about the need to know > > were and how to use it !!! > > You don't > > > > > 9bacause of ambiguity situations !!! > > -------------- > > >> Third, this rule ONLY applies for moving masses, and should not be > >> used for just anything that has momentum. Other entities also carry > >> momentum but not described by that rule. > > >> In the end, what momentum is, is whatever quantity can be ascribed to > >> a physical entity such that the total of that quantity for all objects > >> of all kinds in a closed system is constant. It's still remarkable > >> that such a rule can be found at all. > >> --------------------- > > > (:-) > > Hi abstract philosopher !! > > ps > > excuse me PD for 'leeching' on you > > but you can see that i bring physics > > arguments !! > > No .. not a word of rational physics there. ---------------------- F.F.F.F. (:-) Y.P ------------------------
From: PD on 1 Jan 2010 13:28
On Jan 1, 3:21 am, "Y.Porat" <y.y.po...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > On Dec 31 2009, 9:21 pm, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > On Dec 26, 5:42 pm, Spencer Spindrift > > > <spencerspindr...(a)btinternet.com> wrote: > > > Q.: How is it that a photon has momentum but no mass? > > > Or in other words how does light carry energy? > > > As far as I know momentum is a property of moving or spinning > > > mass. > > > A photon cannot have mass or it would be infinite at C.. > > > > A.; ??? > > > If you've been led to believe that momentum is a property of a moving > > mass and SOLELY a moving mass, then you've been misled. > > It is often stated that FOR a moving mass, the momentum is defined as > > mass x velocity. > > This turns out also to be a lie. > > > First of all, it's not a definition, it's an empirically derived rule. > > > Secondly, it's not right, though it works very well at low velocities. > > At higher velocities, you have to use gamma x mass x velocity, where > > gamma is a number that is darn close to 1 for low speeds but gets > > bigger and bigger as you get to an appreciable fraction of the speed > > of light. > > -------------------------- > and who the hell told you that this Gamma > is attached to the mass?? It isn't attached to the mass. It's a factor that is included in the expression for momentum of massive objects. That's one of three factors, none of which is "attached" to any of the others. > just because you understand only algebra parroting ??? > and evn by algebra that you understand > > how about > instead of > momentum = gamma m v > > Momentum /gamma = m v > > in that case you dont have to **Invent*** > a new kind of mass !!!!!! Nor am I inventing a new kind of mass here. What I'm doing is writing the CORRECT expression for the momentum of a massive object. > > **and m re,mains constant !!!??? > how about thinking physics > and not parroting > btw > as for the photon > THE GAMMA FACTOR DOES NOT APPLY AT ALL TO IT !! That's correct, and the formula momentum = gamma x mass x velocity doesn't apply to photons at all. A wholly different expression for momentum is used for photons. > it is another indication about the need to know > were and how to use it !!! > 9bacause of ambiguity situations !!! > -------------- > > > > > Third, this rule ONLY applies for moving masses, and should not be > > used for just anything that has momentum. Other entities also carry > > momentum but not described by that rule. > > > In the end, what momentum is, is whatever quantity can be ascribed to > > a physical entity such that the total of that quantity for all objects > > of all kinds in a closed system is constant. It's still remarkable > > that such a rule can be found at all. > > --------------------- > > (:-) > Hi abstract philosopher !! Nothing abstract about it. It's really very straightforward and practical. > ps > excuse me PD for 'leeching' on you > but you can see that i bring physics > arguments !! > ATB > Y.Porat > -------------- |