A simple Q. but not a simple A,,
in [Relativity]
|
Prev: float..my farts
Next: LHC Math gives a Doomsday.
From: artful on 3 Feb 2010 17:19 On Feb 3, 11:47 pm, "Y.Porat" <y.y.po...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > On Feb 3, 2:00 pm, artful <artful...(a)hotmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > > On Feb 3, 10:32 pm, "Y.Porat" <y.y.po...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > On Feb 3, 12:43 pm, artful <artful...(a)hotmail.com> wrote: > > > > > On Feb 3, 7:01 pm, "Y.Porat" <y.y.po...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > we have tounderstandit much deeper physically > > > > > not only the dry amthematical formula > > > > > just find out how is that > > > > > 1/2 mv^2 is derived > > > > > itis derived first of all frome some > > > > > physical understanding > > > > > and it as actually describes how that energy > > > > > is acumulated from the **stationary* point to the maximum > > > > > velocity!! (if i remember right by heart from long ago) > > > > > There is no reference to maximum velocities in KE = 1/2 mv^2 > > > > > Also the formula E = mc^2 has to do with rest energy and rest mass .. > > > > no mention of things moving from stationary to maximum velocity > > > > -------------------- > > > i ddint claim that for microcosm > > > I didn't say you did > > > > and that is one of the differences tha** i** whanted to > > > assert ! > > > The formula is the same for all. E = mc^2 is rest energy of a system > > of given mass. > > > > ------------- > > > > > And the formula E = gamma.mc^2 has to do with the energy a moving > > > > system .. at small values of v, > > > > -------------------- > > > you forgot to mention that > > > THE GAMMA FACTOR DOES NOT APPLY > > > TO PARTICLES THAT MOVE AT C > > > IE PHOTONS !! > > > because while v=c gamma becomes infinity !! > > > Neither I not you were talking about photons. That formula is > > indeterminate for photons, instead one should use E = hf. But that is > > beside the point. > > > > ------------------------ > > > -------------------------- > > > > the difference between this and the> rest energy is given by KE = 1/2 mv^2 > > > > > > by integration the dF X dx/ along from x =zero > > > > > to x final > > > > > now i would like to know in a parallel way > > > > > th e physical story (on site !!) > > > > > about how E=mc^2 is derived > > > > > That is well presented already in the papers where the idea was first > > > > put forward .. and in many physics text since > > > > ---------------------- > > > > the current books deal with it > > > only mathematically!! > > > Which books? You do realise that mathematics is simply the most > > efficient and precise way to express the relationships. Just because > > you express something mathematically doesn't mean it is 'only > > mathematics'. That would be like saying that if you read a > > description of it, it was only words > > > > it is not good enough for me!! > > > What do you need then? > > > > i told you i would like to know waht happence > > > 'in site - the physical 'site' > > > i want some ADVANCE !!! > > > Advance from what? E = mc^2 has been derived, and shown to be valid > > > > ie not just parroting !! > > > > btw > > > even the current mathematics > > > canot rely only on the magic toughof marthematics > > > it must insert in some > > > belive it or not > > > some assumptions > > > for instance the notion of coseravtion of momentum > > > or conservation of energy > > > *8is not derived from the net mathematics** > > > it is **inserted into that mathematics !!!** > > > based on experimental observations !! > > > and while you do it by guessing > > > No .. you do it from observation and experimental evidence. We find > > that total energy is always conserved. > > > You do realize that the mathematics is just a language for expressing > > the physics. It still has to relate to the physical model and the > > physical laws we find that hold true > > > > you can get the **common mistake** that > > > > in microcosm '' MASS IS NOT CONSERVED" > > > Noone says it is conserved (other than in the most elementary physics > > books for simplistic cases) > > > > and that is one of the huge mistakes of 'modern physics > > > to say for instance that photons > > > the photon has no mass'!!! > > > It is supported experimentally, as well as following logically from > > existing non-refuted theories. > > > > it is only a person like me that was not cheated to > > > to fall into parroting traps > > > and insuisted to understand it better than the > > > parroting > > > came to the conclusion that > > > NO MASS - NO REAL PHYSICS ! > > > because mass is conserved even in microcosm !! > > > No .. it is not conserved anywhere, except under special conditions > > > > (and there is no EM without mass > > > (that makes microcosm physics much simpler > > > Not really. > > > > and while i see > > > mc^2 > > > i see MASS IN MOTION ! > > > Except E = mc^2 is the formula for REST energy .. not energy of > > something in motion. If you wnat energy of something in motion it is > > E = gamma.mc^2 > > > > just as simple as that !! > > > Just because it is simple, doesn't mean it is correct > > > > ------------------ > > > > > > one difference i can see ie > > > > > in the Microcosm case we do not have a stationary situation at > > > > > all !! > > > > > it start from motion and ends with motion > > > > > No > > > > yes (:-) > > > to say no is not enough !! > > > my yes is not less valuable than your NO ... > > > Except your yes is wrong :) > > > > ---------->--- > > > > > actually the same motion !! > > > > > the only difference i can see is > > > > > that it seems that ONLY the mass- doubled ! > > > > > (c is constant ) > > > > > No > > > > yes .... > > > There is no doubling of mass. You are wrong. > > > > ---------- > > > > > > now what is behind that riddle ?? > > > > > it grew exactly 2 times !! > > > > > not 1.5 not 3 > > > > > just 2 !! > > > > > so what is the **physical secrete** behind it ??? > > > > > There is no secret .. if you read books on physics you would know > > > > this. > > > > -------------------- > > > so just tel me about it > > > Read about it. I do not have the time or space to write a physics > > text in reply to your questions. Go to a library, look up on the net.. > > > > in physics argments (in site') > > > not in mathematical parroting > > > Mathematics is the best language for physics > > > > iow > > > we need a better PHYSICAL UNDERSTANDING OF IT !! > > > No .. YOU need a better understanding of it. As clearly you do not > > havea clear understanding of what current physics says > > > > (if we want some real advance !!) > > > Then you need to know where we are now .. that requires you reading > > and learning about current modern physics > > > > (do you feel that existing theory > > > does not need any advance ??!! > > > Of course.. but it cannot advance by going backwards. > > > > (and now you will tell me :---- > > > it really needs > > > 'BUT NOT BY YOU' (:-) !! > > > so may be by you (:-)) ?? > > > Say what? > > -------------------- > BYE and ATB > ( i start to smell some familiar smell (:-) > > Y.Porat > ------------------- What is it you don't agree with? Do you understand my arguments? Do you have any valid physics arguments against what I had said? Or do you know I am correct and so are running away?
From: Y.Porat on 4 Feb 2010 02:40 On Feb 4, 12:19 am, artful <artful...(a)hotmail.com> wrote: > On Feb 3, 11:47 pm, "Y.Porat" <y.y.po...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > On Feb 3, 2:00 pm, artful <artful...(a)hotmail.com> wrote: > > > > On Feb 3, 10:32 pm, "Y.Porat" <y.y.po...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > On Feb 3, 12:43 pm, artful <artful...(a)hotmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > On Feb 3, 7:01 pm, "Y.Porat" <y.y.po...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > > we have tounderstandit much deeper physically > > > > > > not only the dry amthematical formula > > > > > > just find out how is that > > > > > > 1/2 mv^2 is derived > > > > > > itis derived first of all frome some > > > > > > physical understanding > > > > > > and it as actually describes how that energy > > > > > > is acumulated from the **stationary* point to the maximum > > > > > > velocity!! (if i remember right by heart from long ago) > > > > > > There is no reference to maximum velocities in KE = 1/2 mv^2 > > > > > > Also the formula E = mc^2 has to do with rest energy and rest mass .. > > > > > no mention of things moving from stationary to maximum velocity > > > > > -------------------- > > > > i ddint claim that for microcosm > > > > I didn't say you did > > > > > and that is one of the differences tha** i** whanted to > > > > assert ! > > > > The formula is the same for all. E = mc^2 is rest energy of a system > > > of given mass. > > > > > ------------- > > > > > > And the formula E = gamma.mc^2 has to do with the energy a moving > > > > > system .. at small values of v, > > > > > -------------------- > > > > you forgot to mention that > > > > THE GAMMA FACTOR DOES NOT APPLY > > > > TO PARTICLES THAT MOVE AT C > > > > IE PHOTONS !! > > > > because while v=c gamma becomes infinity !! > > > > Neither I not you were talking about photons. That formula is > > > indeterminate for photons, instead one should use E = hf. But that is > > > beside the point. > > > > > ------------------------ > > > > -------------------------- > > > > > the difference between this and the> rest energy is given by KE = 1/2 mv^2 > > > > > > > by integration the dF X dx/ along from x =zero > > > > > > to x final > > > > > > now i would like to know in a parallel way > > > > > > th e physical story (on site !!) > > > > > > about how E=mc^2 is derived > > > > > > That is well presented already in the papers where the idea was first > > > > > put forward .. and in many physics text since > > > > > ---------------------- > > > > > the current books deal with it > > > > only mathematically!! > > > > Which books? You do realise that mathematics is simply the most > > > efficient and precise way to express the relationships. Just because > > > you express something mathematically doesn't mean it is 'only > > > mathematics'. That would be like saying that if you read a > > > description of it, it was only words > > > > > it is not good enough for me!! > > > > What do you need then? > > > > > i told you i would like to know waht happence > > > > 'in site - the physical 'site' > > > > i want some ADVANCE !!! > > > > Advance from what? E = mc^2 has been derived, and shown to be valid > > > > > ie not just parroting !! > > > > > btw > > > > even the current mathematics > > > > canot rely only on the magic toughof marthematics > > > > it must insert in some > > > > belive it or not > > > > some assumptions > > > > for instance the notion of coseravtion of momentum > > > > or conservation of energy > > > > *8is not derived from the net mathematics** > > > > it is **inserted into that mathematics !!!** > > > > based on experimental observations !! > > > > and while you do it by guessing > > > > No .. you do it from observation and experimental evidence. We find > > > that total energy is always conserved. > > > > You do realize that the mathematics is just a language for expressing > > > the physics. It still has to relate to the physical model and the > > > physical laws we find that hold true > > > > > you can get the **common mistake** that > > > > > in microcosm '' MASS IS NOT CONSERVED" > > > > Noone says it is conserved (other than in the most elementary physics > > > books for simplistic cases) > > > > > and that is one of the huge mistakes of 'modern physics > > > > to say for instance that photons > > > > the photon has no mass'!!! > > > > It is supported experimentally, as well as following logically from > > > existing non-refuted theories. > > > > > it is only a person like me that was not cheated to > > > > to fall into parroting traps > > > > and insuisted to understand it better than the > > > > parroting > > > > came to the conclusion that > > > > NO MASS - NO REAL PHYSICS ! > > > > because mass is conserved even in microcosm !! > > > > No .. it is not conserved anywhere, except under special conditions > > > > > (and there is no EM without mass > > > > (that makes microcosm physics much simpler > > > > Not really. > > > > > and while i see > > > > mc^2 > > > > i see MASS IN MOTION ! > > > > Except E = mc^2 is the formula for REST energy .. not energy of > > > something in motion. If you wnat energy of something in motion it is > > > E = gamma.mc^2 > > > > > just as simple as that !! > > > > Just because it is simple, doesn't mean it is correct > > > > > ------------------ > > > > > > > one difference i can see ie > > > > > > in the Microcosm case we do not have a stationary situation at > > > > > > all !! > > > > > > it start from motion and ends with motion > > > > > > No > > > > > yes (:-) > > > > to say no is not enough !! > > > > my yes is not less valuable than your NO ... > > > > Except your yes is wrong :) > > > > > ---------->--- > > > > > > actually the same motion !! > > > > > > the only difference i can see is > > > > > > that it seems that ONLY the mass- doubled ! > > > > > > (c is constant ) > > > > > > No > > > > > yes .... > > > > There is no doubling of mass. You are wrong. > > > > > ---------- > > > > > > > now what is behind that riddle ?? > > > > > > it grew exactly 2 times !! > > > > > > not 1.5 not 3 > > > > > > just 2 !! > > > > > > so what is the **physical secrete** behind it ??? > > > > > > There is no secret .. if you read books on physics you would know > > > > > this. > > > > > -------------------- > > > > so just tel me about it > > > > Read about it. I do not have the time or space to write a physics > > > text in reply to your questions. Go to a library, look up on the net. > > > > > in physics argments (in site') > > > > not in mathematical parroting > > > > Mathematics is the best language for physics > > > > > iow > > > > we need a better PHYSICAL UNDERSTANDING OF IT !! > > > > No .. YOU need a better understanding of it. As clearly you do not > > > havea clear understanding of what current physics says > > > > > (if we want some real advance !!) > > > > Then you need to know where we are now .. that requires you reading > > > and learning about current modern physics > > > > > (do you feel that existing theory > > > > does not need any advance ??!! > > > > Of course.. but it cannot advance by going backwards. > > > > > (and now you will tell me :---- > > > > it really needs > > > > 'BUT NOT BY YOU' (:-) !! > > > > so may be by you (:-)) ?? > > > > Say what? > > > -------------------- > > BYE and ATB > > ( i start to smell some familiar smell (:-) > > > Y.Porat > > ------------------- > > What is it you don't agree with? Do you understand my arguments? Do > you have any valid physics arguments against what I had said? Or do > you know I am correct and so are running away? ----------------------- i dont see any advance in our discussion it i stuck in the same plcase for instance yuou are happy witht e mathematical formula E=mc^ i amnot satisfied only by the matrhematicalformula do you know why ? because i was not born to be a parrot i see in it blackon while mass in motion! and you try to drag me to some twisted explanations that are based on parroting paradigms 2 idont see why energy should not be mass in motion as in macrocosm andf you again try to push me to your mystical worlds 3 i see that th e agmma facrot does not aply to the case while v=c because even amtrhematically it is undewfined and you try to darg me that no mas cam reach the velocity c based on that undefined situation of Gamma while v=c so i claiom that th ephoton is an exception case a limity case that does reach c and i see the consistent trend while as mass becomes slaller and smaller it can reach closer and closer to c and i see the mass in mc^2 and i see the mass in E=hf and you dont see it you tel lme about relativistic mass while for me there is jsut one kind of mass th e difficulty to ad more and more velocitytomass is not because mass is infalting but at that velocity the force agents tha tmove withthe velocity upper limit of c vweleocity cannot run anymore after the acted mass and you dont see it so WHAT ELSE DO WE HAVE IN COMMON to dsucuss about ?? and btw waht happened to 'Inrerial ' ?? (:-) i think i have some smell about it .... soon i will ask you is there a photon with a frequency of one cycle per 100 billion years ?? (:-).. is it at all possible ??? . may i get your answer for that ?? Y.Porat ------------------------ ATB Y.Porat ----------
From: artful on 4 Feb 2010 08:10 On Feb 4, 6:40 pm, "Y.Porat" <y.y.po...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > On Feb 4, 12:19 am, artful <artful...(a)hotmail.com> wrote: > > What is it you don't agree with? Do you understand my arguments? Do > > you have any valid physics arguments against what I had said? Or do > > you know I am correct and so are running away? > > ----------------------- > i dont see any advance in our discussion That's not my fault. > it i stuck in the same plcase > for instance > yuou are happy witht e mathematical formula > E=mc^ Why not (I assume you mean E = mc^2) .. it has been derived and sums up the relationship between rest energy and mass well. > i amnot satisfied only by the matrhematicalformula As a mathematical formula, its not terribly interesting .. it is only interesting when it is applied to a physics model. > do you know why ? > because i was not born to be a parrot I'm so glad you do not have feathers .. but that doesn't seem relevant > i see in it blackon while > mass in motion! It is a formula for the rest energy of a system or object (ie the energy of a system which is at rest). It is the special case when v=0 of the more general formula E = gamma.mc^2 > and you try to drag me to some twisted explanations > that are based on parroting paradigms No .. I'm presenting physics .. if you can't handle that, that is not my problem > 2 > idont see why energy should not be mass in motion as in macrocosm It isn't always mass in motion in macrocosm either .. that is only kinetic energy. Why do you think E = mc^2 is only applicable in the microcosm? That is incorrect .. it is applicable in both realms > andf you again try to push me to your mystical worlds Nothing mystical about it > 3 > i see that th e agmma facrot does not aply to > the case while v=c > because even amtrhematically it is undewfined Not exactly .. it is infinite .. 1/0. That's not really undefined. > and you try to darg me > that no mas cam reach the velocity c Of course not. as then you get infinite energy required > based on that undefined situation No .. its not undefined .. its infinite. > of Gamma while v=c > so i claiom that th ephoton is an exception case No need for an exceptino when physics works consistently with a photon having zero mass. > a limity case that does reach c And so mass must reach zero > and i see the consistent trend while > as mass becomes slaller and smaller it can reach > closer and closer to c And when it becomes zero it reaches c. > and i see the mass in mc^2 yes .. that is the formula for the rest energy of that much mass > and i see the mass in E=hf No mass there .. just energy, frequency and a constant .. but there is mass in the dimensions > and you dont see it Of course I see what is there > you tel lme about relativistic mass Where did I mention that? > while for me there is jsut one kind of mass Define what you mean by a 'kind of mass'. Is there more than one kind of length? > th e difficulty to ad more and more velocitytomass > is not because mass is infalting If you mean the 'm' in E = gamma.mc^2 .. of course it doesn't increase. Noone says it does. But the energy required approaches infinity (certainly more than all the energy in the universe) at a given finite speed below c for a given non-zero mass. Nothing with mass can travel at c. > but at that velocity the force agents > tha tmove withthe velocity upper limit of c vweleocity > cannot run anymore after the acted mass Say what ..that was just gibberish . .Try again > and you dont see it > so > WHAT ELSE DO WE HAVE IN COMMON > to dsucuss about ?? Well. it doesn't seem like we have an understanding of physics in common. Perhaps that is something that you can learn? > and btw > waht happened to 'Inrerial ' ?? (:-) > i think i have some smell about it .... > soon i will ask you > is there a photon with a frequency of > one cycle per 100 billion years ?? (:-).. > is it at all possible ??? . > may i get your answer for that ?? You seem to ask everyone that. There is no valid physics of which I am aware that has a particular lowest limit on photon frequency and energy. There are clearly limits on the highest energy. However, such a photon would be almost impossible to ever detect .. I don't see why you think its existence or not is at all relevant. Do you have and valid theory that suggest a particular lowest possible energy or frequency for a photon (or any other wave/particle/quantum object) ??
From: Y.y.Porat on 5 Feb 2010 05:54 On Feb 4, 3:10 pm, artful <artful...(a)hotmail.com> wrote: > On Feb 4, 6:40 pm, "Y.Porat" <y.y.po...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > On Feb 4, 12:19 am, artful <artful...(a)hotmail.com> wrote: > > > What is it you don't agree with? Do you understand my arguments? Do > > > you have any valid physics arguments against what I had said? Or do > > > you know I am correct and so are running away? > > > ----------------------- > > i dont see any advance in our discussion > > That's not my fault. > > > it i stuck in the same plcase > > for instance > > yuou are happy witht e mathematical formula > > E=mc^ > > Why not (I assume you mean E = mc^2) .. it has been derived and sums > up the relationship between rest energy and mass well. > > > i amnot satisfied only by the matrhematicalformula > > As a mathematical formula, its not terribly interesting .. it is only > interesting when it is applied to a physics model. > > > do you know why ? > > because i was not born to be a parrot > > I'm so glad you do not have feathers .. but that doesn't seem relevant > > > i see in it blackon while > > mass in motion! > > It is a formula for the rest energy of a system or object (ie the > energy of a system which is at rest). > > It is the special case when v=0 of the more general formula E = > gamma.mc^2 > > > and you try to drag me to some twisted explanations > > that are based on parroting paradigms > > No .. I'm presenting physics .. if you can't handle that, that is not > my problem > > > 2 > > idont see why energy should not be mass in motion as in macrocosm > > It isn't always mass in motion in macrocosm either .. that is only > kinetic energy. Why do you think E = mc^2 is only applicable in the > microcosm? That is incorrect .. it is applicable in both realms > > > andf you again try to push me to your mystical worlds > > Nothing mystical about it > > > 3 > > i see that th e agmma facrot does not aply to > > the case while v=c > > because even amtrhematically it is undewfined > > Not exactly .. it is infinite .. 1/0. That's not really undefined. > > > and you try to darg me > > that no mas cam reach the velocity c > > Of course not. as then you get infinite energy required > > > based on that undefined situation > > No .. its not undefined .. its infinite. > > > of Gamma while v=c > > so i claiom that th ephoton is an exception case > > No need for an exceptino when physics works consistently with a photon > having zero mass. > > > a limity case that does reach c > > And so mass must reach zero > > > and i see the consistent trend while > > as mass becomes slaller and smaller it can reach > > closer and closer to c > > And when it becomes zero it reaches c. > > > and i see the mass in mc^2 > > yes .. that is the formula for the rest energy of that much mass > > > and i see the mass in E=hf > > No mass there .. just energy, frequency and a constant .. but there is > mass in the dimensions > > > and you dont see it > > Of course I see what is there > > > you tel lme about relativistic mass > > Where did I mention that? > > > while for me there is jsut one kind of mass > > Define what you mean by a 'kind of mass'. Is there more than one kind > of length? > > > th e difficulty to ad more and more velocitytomass > > is not because mass is infalting > > If you mean the 'm' in E = gamma.mc^2 .. of course it doesn't > increase. Noone says it does. > > But the energy required approaches infinity (certainly more than all > the energy in the universe) at a given finite speed below c for a > given non-zero mass. Nothing with mass can travel at c. > > > but at that velocity the force agents > > tha tmove withthe velocity upper limit of c vweleocity > > cannot run anymore after the acted mass > > Say what ..that was just gibberish . .Try again > > > and you dont see it > > so > > WHAT ELSE DO WE HAVE IN COMMON > > to dsucuss about ?? > > Well. it doesn't seem like we have an understanding of physics in > common. Perhaps that is something that you can learn? > > > and btw > > waht happened to 'Inrerial ' ?? (:-) > > i think i have some smell about it .... > > soon i will ask you > > is there a photon with a frequency of > > one cycle per 100 billion years ?? (:-).. > > is it at all possible ??? . > > may i get your answer for that ?? > > You seem to ask everyone that. There is no valid physics of which I > am aware that has a particular lowest limit on photon frequency and > energy. There are clearly limits on the highest energy. However, > such a photon would be almost impossible to ever detect .. I don't see > why you think its existence or not is at all relevant. > > Do you have and valid theory that suggest a particular lowest possible > energy or frequency for a photon (or any other wave/particle/quantum > object) ?? -------------------- so i join you happily to the Fertz Associated Company Limited !! (:-) (how about F A C L ? or may be FUCL Pakle ) actually i have some strange feeling that you appeared here in past with other identities !! so i had enough with parrots BYE Y.P ---------------------
From: glird on 15 Feb 2010 22:22
On Jan 30, 7:10 am, cjcountess <cjcount...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > > The evidence is overwhelming and there is really no way around it. > (c^2 = h/2pi = G) and (c = h = i = 2pi) as new Planck relations.. > THIS CHANGES EVERYTHING {!} Yes it does, including the value of c or pi or h or 2. Proof: Their values are c = 2.997928 x 10^10 cm. pi = 3.1415927.... Via your first equation, the value of h is (2.997928^10)^2 = h/(2 x 3.14158) --> h = 2 x 3.14159(8.9875723^20 = 5.640582 x 10^21 cm which is about (1.35) x 10^47 MORE than the experimental value: h = 6.4 x 10^-27 (ergs) x (seconds). Via your second equation, the value of 2 is 2.997928^10 = 2.997928^10 = i = 2 x 3.14159 --> 2 = 2.997928^10/3.14159 = 9.547012 x 10^9. As to the value of i, which usually signifies (-1)^.5, your equation sets it equal to two unrelated things, "2pi" and "c =h". Either way, if c^2 = h/2pi = G and c = h = i = 2pi, then if we use eq 2's values in eq 1 we get (2pi)^2 = 2pi/2pi = i = 2pi --> 39.478418... = 1 = i = 6.28....................................... . How can we trust your logic when your equations contradict themselves? glird |