From: kado on

I answer this for the benefit of Spencer Spindrift and
all the others that may be reading this, not the poster


On Jan 23, 4:19 pm, "Inertial" <relativ...(a)rest.com> wrote:

>
> It is something we find experimentally.
>

This is true. True scientists must use the Natural
Phenomena demonstrated by Nature to advance
knowledge.

Nevertheless, are the conclusions about the effects
of these empirical experiments reached by these
people correct and true? Or are these tainted by
dogmas.


D.Y.K.
From: Inertial on

<kado(a)nventure.com> wrote in message
news:02ca5ab9-ecce-4d56-9fae-081f55cabbd5(a)d14g2000vbb.googlegroups.com...
>
> I answer this for the benefit of Spencer Spindrift and
> all the others that may be reading this, not the poster

Why .. what are you afraid of that you won't reply to me?

>
> On Jan 23, 4:19 pm, "Inertial" <relativ...(a)rest.com> wrote:
>
>>
>> It is something we find experimentally.
>>
>
> This is true. True scientists must use the Natural
> Phenomena demonstrated by Nature to advance
> knowledge.

Yeup .. as it should

> Nevertheless, are the conclusions about the effects
> of these empirical experiments reached by these
> people correct and true?

The effects are what we empirically measure

> Or are these tainted by
> dogmas.

If you mean by the models we construct of reality .. if they are found to be
at odds with the experimental evidence, it is the models that are changed.

Unless any tainting is consistent with the evidence, then it won't last.


From: cjcountess on
On Jan 23, 8:18 pm, "Inertial" <relativ...(a)rest.com> wrote:
> "cjcountess" <cjcount...(a)yahoo.com> wrote in message
>
> news:2d959bbb-dadd-4afa-b1cc-661654ad3ba7(a)21g2000yqj.googlegroups.com...
>
> > One more example of E=hf/c^2
> >http://www.plambeck.org/oldhtml/physics/physicspedestrian9.pdf
> > page 119 problem 8-6c
>
> It is wrong. Amazing you've found someone else as stupid as you. You do
> realize that this isn't a physics text .. it is notes from someone who is
> having troubles learning physics .. its clear why.
>
> E = hf
>
> NOT
>
> E = hf/c^2
>
> Look at the units ..  hf/c^2 has units of MASS ONLY.  It is NOT an energy
> value !!

Do you read yourself? Even if hf/c^2, has unites of mass, still it can
be equal to E, just as E can = mc^2 which also has units of mass.
Now you are begining to not make sense.

> AS the author says "here are my notes .. I can't imagine why anyone would
> want to read them"
>
> Really .. you're getting desperate now .. are you just googling thru every
> web pages trying to find someone else who made you mistake?
>
> Try again.


Whats wrong, didn't see this? John Archibald Wheeler is repitable,
isn't he?
I guess me and that other author are in good company.

http://www.google.com/search?sourceid=navclient&ie=UTF-8&rlz=1T4TSHB_....


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: cjcountess on
More info on John Archibald Wheeler

http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&source=hp&q=john+archibald+wheeler&rlz=1R2TSHB_enUS361&aq=0&aql=&aqi=g10&oq=John+Arch

John A. Wheeler, Physicist Who Coined the Term 'Black Hole,' Is ...
Apr 14, 2008 ... Mr. Wheeler

Conrad J Countess
From: Inertial on

"cjcountess" <cjcountess(a)yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:f4b98341-db33-4b35-a3a3-951d29b1561d(a)b2g2000yqi.googlegroups.com...
> More info on John Archibald Wheeler
>
> http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&source=hp&q=john+archibald+wheeler&rlz=1R2TSHB_enUS361&aq=0&aql=&aqi=g10&oq=John+Arch
>
> John A. Wheeler, Physicist Who Coined the Term 'Black Hole,' Is ...
> Apr 14, 2008 ... Mr. Wheeler
>
> Conrad J Countess

What has that to do with the nonsense you posted? *HE* does not claim that
E = hf/c^2. No physicist would.