Just a dimension analysis of photon momentum!!
in [Relativity]
|
Prev: God, the ant, & Space_Time
Next: FLUSHING THE TOILET
From: Y.Porat on 23 Jun 2010 11:39 On Jun 23, 3:34 pm, "whoever" <whoe...(a)whereever.com> wrote: > "Y.Porat" <y.y.po...(a)gmail.com> wrote in message > > news:6be5f53f-9504-440b-946f-52095071051b(a)k39g2000yqb.googlegroups.com... > > > > > the photon momentum can be presented as > > > P = hf/c > > Yes .. except you incorrectly ALSO claim that ht is NOT the photon energy.. > But E = Pc .. so you just showed your previous claim to be wrong > > > right > > it is the full comprehensive presentation > > of the photon momentum > > One of them .. there is more than one way to express it eg. P = Mc .... > where M is relativistic mass > > > nothing missing - nothing excessive right ?? !! > > Thats fine > > > now lets take it as is > > (without changing anything in it as the formula > > presenting the **photon momentum * > > momentum ie not energy .....!! ) > > Yes.. its momentum .. noone was taking it as energy > > > and present it by its dimensions and > > dimensionless figures > > > h is > > 6.6 exp -34 > > h is not a dimensionless figure .. you need the value AND dimensions for h. > Otherwise its just an arbitrary number. So no .. h is NOT 6.6 exp -34 > > > > > f is > > fs/second > > > while fs is*** the dimensionless > > figure that is attached to the 1/second **** > > > c is say (aprox ) > > 3 exp10 meter/second > > now if we combine all of it > > we get > > > P 6.6 exp -Kg meter ^2 /second times fs/Sec > > divided by meter/Second times 3 exp10 > > > ie if we present it without the > > dimensions that are canceling themselves > > in nominator and denominator > > > we get > > ==================================== > > 6.6exp-34 Kg MET /SEC times fs/3 exp10 > > What a mess > > > ==================================== > > now my question is > > where do you see anything relativistic in it ??!! > > You are just showing numbers and units .. if you show anything like that it > won't look 'relativistic' > > --- news://freenews.netfront.net/ - complaints: n...(a)netfront.net --- --------------------- i will try my best with big efforts to be as polite as appropriate to the until now lever of 'discussion''': Whoever - artful = Inertial .....Anonymous -- is not (and will never be!) a partner for discussion with me !! so please other readers --bypass him !! TIA Y.Porat ------------------------
From: BURT on 23 Jun 2010 14:22 On Jun 23, 8:39 am, "Y.Porat" <y.y.po...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > On Jun 23, 3:34 pm, "whoever" <whoe...(a)whereever.com> wrote: > > > > > > > "Y.Porat" <y.y.po...(a)gmail.com> wrote in message > > >news:6be5f53f-9504-440b-946f-52095071051b(a)k39g2000yqb.googlegroups.com.... > > > > the photon momentum can be presented as > > > > P = hf/c > > > Yes .. except you incorrectly ALSO claim that ht is NOT the photon energy. > > But E = Pc .. so you just showed your previous claim to be wrong > > > > right > > > it is the full comprehensive presentation > > > of the photon momentum > > > One of them .. there is more than one way to express it eg. P = Mc ... > > where M is relativistic mass > > > > nothing missing - nothing excessive right ?? !! > > > Thats fine > > > > now lets take it as is > > > (without changing anything in it as the formula > > > presenting the **photon momentum * > > > momentum ie not energy .....!! ) > > > Yes.. its momentum .. noone was taking it as energy > > > > and present it by its dimensions and > > > dimensionless figures > > > > h is > > > 6.6 exp -34 > > > h is not a dimensionless figure .. you need the value AND dimensions for h. > > Otherwise its just an arbitrary number. So no .. h is NOT 6.6 exp -34 > > > > f is > > > fs/second > > > > while fs is*** the dimensionless > > > figure that is attached to the 1/second **** > > > > c is say (aprox ) > > > 3 exp10 meter/second > > > now if we combine all of it > > > we get > > > > P 6.6 exp -Kg meter ^2 /second times fs/Sec > > > divided by meter/Second times 3 exp10 > > > > ie if we present it without the > > > dimensions that are canceling themselves > > > in nominator and denominator > > > > we get > > > ==================================== > > > 6.6exp-34 Kg MET /SEC times fs/3 exp10 > > > What a mess > > > > ==================================== > > > now my question is > > > where do you see anything relativistic in it ??!! > > > You are just showing numbers and units .. if you show anything like that it > > won't look 'relativistic' > > > --- news://freenews.netfront.net/ - complaints: n...(a)netfront.net --- > > --------------------- > i will try my best with big efforts > to be as polite as appropriate > to the until now lever of 'discussion''': > > Whoever - artful = Inertial .....Anonymous -- > is not (and will never be!) > a partner for discussion with me !! > > so please other readers --bypass him !! > > TIA > Y.Porat > ------------------------- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text - Momentum is for matter and it is not quantum mechanical. Vibration has no momentum. It is contained withing the aether. Mitch Raemsch
From: Y.Porat on 23 Jun 2010 15:07 On Jun 23, 8:22 pm, BURT <macromi...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > On Jun 23, 8:39 am, "Y.Porat" <y.y.po...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > On Jun 23, 3:34 pm, "whoever" <whoe...(a)whereever.com> wrote: > > > > "Y.Porat" <y.y.po...(a)gmail.com> wrote in message > > > >news:6be5f53f-9504-440b-946f-52095071051b(a)k39g2000yqb.googlegroups.com.... > > > > > the photon momentum can be presented as > > > > > P = hf/c > > > > Yes .. except you incorrectly ALSO claim that ht is NOT the photon energy. > > > But E = Pc .. so you just showed your previous claim to be wrong > > > > > right > > > > it is the full comprehensive presentation > > > > of the photon momentum > > > > One of them .. there is more than one way to express it eg. P = Mc ... > > > where M is relativistic mass > > > > > nothing missing - nothing excessive right ?? !! > > > > Thats fine > > > > > now lets take it as is > > > > (without changing anything in it as the formula > > > > presenting the **photon momentum * > > > > momentum ie not energy .....!! ) > > > > Yes.. its momentum .. noone was taking it as energy > > > > > and present it by its dimensions and > > > > dimensionless figures > > > > > h is > > > > 6.6 exp -34 > > > > h is not a dimensionless figure .. you need the value AND dimensions for h. > > > Otherwise its just an arbitrary number. So no .. h is NOT 6.6 exp -34 > > > > > f is > > > > fs/second > > > > > while fs is*** the dimensionless > > > > figure that is attached to the 1/second **** > > > > > c is say (aprox ) > > > > 3 exp10 meter/second > > > > now if we combine all of it > > > > we get > > > > > P 6.6 exp -Kg meter ^2 /second times fs/Sec > > > > divided by meter/Second times 3 exp10 > > > > > ie if we present it without the > > > > dimensions that are canceling themselves > > > > in nominator and denominator > > > > > we get > > > > ==================================== > > > > 6.6exp-34 Kg MET /SEC times fs/3 exp10 > > > > What a mess > > > > > ==================================== > > > > now my question is > > > > where do you see anything relativistic in it ??!! > > > > You are just showing numbers and units .. if you show anything like that it > > > won't look 'relativistic' > > > > --- news://freenews.netfront.net/ - complaints: n...(a)netfront.net --- > > > --------------------- > > i will try my best with big efforts > > to be as polite as appropriate > > to the until now lever of 'discussion''': > > > Whoever - artful = Inertial .....Anonymous -- > > is not (and will never be!) > > a partner for discussion with me !! > > > so please other readers --bypass him !! > > > TIA > > Y.Porat > > ------------------------- Hide quoted text - > > > - Show quoted text - > > Momentum is for matter and it is not quantum mechanical. Vibration has > no momentum. It is contained withing the aether. > > Mitch Raemsch ----------------- next ----------------------
From: Jacko on 23 Jun 2010 15:51 On 23 June, 19:22, BURT <macromi...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > On Jun 23, 8:39 am, "Y.Porat" <y.y.po...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > > On Jun 23, 3:34 pm, "whoever" <whoe...(a)whereever.com> wrote: > > > > "Y.Porat" <y.y.po...(a)gmail.com> wrote in message > > > >news:6be5f53f-9504-440b-946f-52095071051b(a)k39g2000yqb.googlegroups.com.... > > > > > the photon momentum can be presented as > > > > > P = hf/c > > > > Yes .. except you incorrectly ALSO claim that ht is NOT the photon energy. > > > But E = Pc .. so you just showed your previous claim to be wrong > > > > > right > > > > it is the full comprehensive presentation > > > > of the photon momentum > > > > One of them .. there is more than one way to express it eg. P = Mc ... > > > where M is relativistic mass > > > > > nothing missing - nothing excessive right ?? !! > > > > Thats fine > > > > > now lets take it as is > > > > (without changing anything in it as the formula > > > > presenting the **photon momentum * > > > > momentum ie not energy .....!! ) > > > > Yes.. its momentum .. noone was taking it as energy > > > > > and present it by its dimensions and > > > > dimensionless figures > > > > > h is > > > > 6.6 exp -34 > > > > h is not a dimensionless figure .. you need the value AND dimensions for h. > > > Otherwise its just an arbitrary number. So no .. h is NOT 6.6 exp -34 > > > > > f is > > > > fs/second > > > > > while fs is*** the dimensionless > > > > figure that is attached to the 1/second **** > > > > > c is say (aprox ) > > > > 3 exp10 meter/second > > > > now if we combine all of it > > > > we get > > > > > P 6.6 exp -Kg meter ^2 /second times fs/Sec > > > > divided by meter/Second times 3 exp10 > > > > > ie if we present it without the > > > > dimensions that are canceling themselves > > > > in nominator and denominator > > > > > we get > > > > ==================================== > > > > 6.6exp-34 Kg MET /SEC times fs/3 exp10 > > > > What a mess > > > > > ==================================== > > > > now my question is > > > > where do you see anything relativistic in it ??!! > > > > You are just showing numbers and units .. if you show anything like that it > > > won't look 'relativistic' > > > > --- news://freenews.netfront.net/ - complaints: n...(a)netfront.net --- > > > --------------------- > > i will try my best with big efforts > > to be as polite as appropriate > > to the until now lever of 'discussion''': > > > Whoever - artful = Inertial .....Anonymous -- > > is not (and will never be!) > > a partner for discussion with me !! > > > so please other readers --bypass him !! > > > TIA > > Y.Porat > > ------------------------- Hide quoted text - > > > - Show quoted text - > > Momentum is for matter and it is not quantum mechanical. Vibration has > no momentum. It is contained withing the aether. > > Mitch Raemsch- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text - Vibration in its simplest form has 1D angular momenum.
From: Robert Higgins on 23 Jun 2010 16:05
On Jun 23, 4:59 am, "Y.Porat" <y.y.po...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > the photon momentum can be presented as > > P = hf/c > right > it is the full comprehensive presentation > of the photon momentum > nothing missing - nothing excessive right ?? !! > > now lets take it as is > (without changing anything in it as the formula > presenting the **photon momentum * > momentum ie not energy .....!! ) > > and present it by its dimensions and > dimensionless figures > > h is > 6.6 exp -34 WRONG! h = 6.626 x 10^-34 J s The "Joule-second" part is kind of important > > f is > fs/second > > while fs is*** the dimensionless > figure that is attached to the 1/second **** > > c is say (aprox ) > 3 exp10 meter/second WRONG... The speed of light is approximately 3 x 10^8 m /s. 3 x 10^10 is the speed of light in CENTIMETERS per second. > now if we combine all of it > we get > > P 6.6 exp -Kg meter ^2 /second times fs/Sec > divided by meter/Second times 3 exp10 > > ie if we present it without the > dimensions that are canceling themselves > in nominator and denominator > > we get > ==================================== > 6.6exp-34 Kg MET /SEC times fs/3 exp10 > ==================================== > now my question is > where do you see anything relativistic in it ??!! I have to ask - where did you get your "engineering" degree? > > TIA > Y.Porat > ---------------------- |