Just a dimension analysis of photon momentum!!
in [Physics]
|
Prev: 9-11 Truth makes HUGE showing at Los Angeles Peace March as bushkultie Iarndud Crackwhore Kook for War screeches in helpless rage
Next: FLUSHING THE TOILET
From: Robert Higgins on 24 Jun 2010 12:56 On Jun 24, 11:04 am, "Y.Porat" <y.y.po...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > On Jun 24, 3:54 pm, Robert > find the units of momentum (in SI) as > "kg m s^-1", which are the > > > > > correct units. > > > > --------------------- > > > and according to Higgins correction: > > > > ====================================== > > > 6.6 exp -34 KILOGRAM MET/SEC times fs / > > > 3/exp 8 > > > ======================================== > > > Thank you Higgins for saving me and my above analysis (:-) > > > No one can save you. Help! Help! Help!!!!!!!!! > > > > TIA > > > Y.Porat > > > --------------------- > > > > > > now my question is > > > > > where do you see anything relativistic in it ??!! > > > > > I have to ask - where did you get your "engineering" degree? > > > Please answer this question, so young people everywhere know which > > school to avoid. > > > > > > TIA > > > > > Y.Porat > > > > > ---------------------- > > Dear readers > ddi you hear above a single word of physics arguments ??~~ It was all physics, dufus. Before you worry about "physics", you should learn the basics of dimensional analysis. YOUR post was about dimensional analysis, and I corrected you several mistakes about - dimensional analysis. For you, "physics" is whatever nonsense you post, and any real physics is something else, because you are simply unable to any science, at all. It must be quite a drag, really, for you, that not only can't you "revolutionize" physics, you can't even do the simplest thing correctly. > > you dint answer a simple question: > where do you see in my equation or in your equation as you will ike > it > > SOMETHING RELATIVISTIC !!! ??? What the hell does that even mean? For Newton's Second Law (F=ma), where is there anything "Classical" or "Newtonian" in it? > > now big scientist > (i will skip you cheap demagogism that cannot convince a > secondary scol boy not tomention inteligent peopel as are here and Intelligent people here already know that you are joke. Secondary school students, and their parents, would be embarrassed to be associated with someone as ignorant as you. > HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH PHYSICS ARGUMENTS BUT RATHER TO A FISH > MARKET)) I guess a bad argument suddenly becomes "physics" by writing it in all caps. > > so my question is: > > we know from binding energy analysis "we know"? Don't include yourself in any "we". > of particles that > **the mass that was lost from the particle > IS EXACTLY **QUANTITATIVELY** THE SAME > AS THE ***RELATIVISTIC MASS** > THAT WAS GAINED BY (into) THE ENERGY > created by that process ??? We get it - you don't understand the concept of "relativistic mass" - boo hoo. Give up. > > SO > WHAT IS (AT THE ABOVE CASE ) > THE ***QUANTITATIVE DIFFERENCE *** BETWEEN THE 'RELATIVISTIC > MASS** (of energy gain) > AND THE REST MASS THAT WAS TAKEN FROM --- the above PARTICLE > MASS ?? A photon HAS NO REST MASS, just as YOU have NO INTELLIGENCE. > > TIA > Y.Porat > -----------------------
From: Y.Porat on 24 Jun 2010 13:02 On Jun 24, 5:30 pm, Mathal <mathmusi...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > On Jun 23, 11:42 pm, "Y.Porat" <y.y.po...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > On Jun 24, 7:56 am, Mathal <mathmusi...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > On Jun 23, 1:59 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 > > > > > 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 > > > > ==================================== > > > > now my question is > > > > where do you see anything relativistic in it ??!! > > > > > TIA > > > > Y.Porat > > > > ---------------------- > > > > P = hf/c > > > > h is constant. > > > c is constant. > > > f is not constant. > > > > Since the measured frequency of a received photon is dependant on the > > > initial frequency and the difference between the velocity of this > > > sending frame and the receiving frame one has to take relativity (SR) > > > into consideration if the two frames are not motionless WRT each > > > -------------------------- > > 1 > > very nice!! > > if you take the Doppler effect > > yiou see that the** f **is changing!! > > AND YOU CAN SEE IT IN THE FORMULA AS I PRESENTED IT (PRESENTED by THAT > > fs > > so IT IS THE fs THAT IS CHANGING NOT > > **THE INITIAL*** MASS UNITS ** > > it is their number thaqt can change > > IOW > > MORE OR LESS **MASS UNITS **ARE COMING INTO THE SECONDARY FRAME > > BUT > > LISTEN CAREFULLY > > TH E MASS ** UNITS** ARE NOT CHANGING > > IT IS THE **NUMBER OF THOSE ** MASS UNITS !!! > > and it i s presented nicely in my above formula analysis presented > > in that ** fs ** > > the number of mas s units is linearity > > (nothing like the relativistic ***second order** )!!!!! and nicely > > presented by that fs > > no need to look for more formula > > or 'interpretations'' > > > btw > > it is as well my new insight > > about how the Doppler effect is a prove > > that the hf is not the right definition of the REAL SINGLE > > PHOTON !!! > > 2 > > you forgot that > > TH E VELOCITY OF PHOTON > > ****IS ALWAYS c > > IN ALL FRAMES!! *** > > > no mater if in relative motion or not > > so ??!! > > even relative to the secondary frame > > it remains c!!! > > as well as c -- in the original; frame !! > > 2 > > being in motion for itself > > ***is not enough to be relativistic !!!*** > > as long it is relative to***** itself **** !!! > > > and that is why > > YOU CANT SEE ANYTHING RELATIVISTIC IN THAT PHOTON MOMENTUM > > FORMULA !!! > > > except that that photons > > declared himself to be > > 'pope of Rome' !!! (:-) > > 3 > > WHIL WE WE DELL WITH > > PHOTON MOMENTUM > > > WE DEAL JUST IN ** ONE FRAME** > > NOT IN MANY FRAMES !!! > > > about many FRAMES > > see my above explanations > > about how it works in the Doppler case > > two frames > > but no need to obfuscate it > > we have to conclude (resume) first about > > just one frame !!! > > > > other. This is where gamma enters the picture. How can the momentum > > > be anything but relativistic. > > > see about the pope of Rome (:-) > > ie > > how can i not be the pope of Rome ??!! > > -------------------- > > > TIA > > Y.Porat > > ------------------------------ > > > > Mathal > > I said the velocity difference in frames is where relativity enters > into the picture. The notion that relativity has no bearing on the > results of using the formula is silly. > The Doppler effect has a more significant effect on the frequency > than the relativistic frame effect. > This notion that frequency of light is the number of 'mass units' > for a specific period of time > is absurd on many levels. > 1. photons don't have mass. ------------------------ you say thatphotons dont have mass!! but that is actually the core of our dsicussion to find out NOT BY SAYING THAT THE PHOTON DOES NOT HAVE MASS YOU HAVE TO SHOW IT HOW DDI YOU GIT TO THAT CONCLUSION NOT JUST BY 'SAYING' BUT BY BRINGING PHYSICS ARGUMENTS!!! i can say that ity is rather the length dimension there **is relativistic** in what is your say better than mine ?? ------------------------ > 2.Your hypothesis means necessarily that an individual photon does > not have a frequency or a wavelength. It is just this 'mass unit'. How -- i ddint say that i can saiy now for instance that one unit and another one and another one that are moving i a procession make the 'photon wave may be other characteristics needed about may be the character if that movement etc yet my nmain point is that a wave''' is not one block' but sub divided to smaller constituents TIA Y.Porat ------------------------ > does your FM radio receiver decide which mass units it wants to > acknowledge and which 'mass' units it chooses to ignore? > > Mathal
From: Y.Porat on 24 Jun 2010 13:09 On Jun 24, 3:39 pm, waldofj <wald...(a)verizon.net> wrote: > 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 > > > 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 > > ==================================== > > now my question is > > where do you see anything relativistic in it ??!! > > > TIA > > Y.Porat > > ---------------------- > > it depends on what you mean by "relativistic" (:-) hello Mr wakdof didnt you notice untill now that I AM THE LAST ONE IN THIS WORLD THAT THIS 'RELATIVISTIC' MEANS NOTHING to him ??!! forme there can ve mass in motion and even relative motion between masses but that say nothing FOR ME about 'MOTION CANGING ANYTHING OD THE MASS !! moreover movement **creating *** any sort of mass is for me -- shear stupidity !!! ATB Y.Porat ----------------------------------------------
From: Robert Higgins on 24 Jun 2010 15:14 On Jun 24, 1:02 pm, "Y.Porat" <y.y.po...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > On Jun 24, 5:30 pm, Mathal <mathmusi...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > On Jun 23, 11:42 pm, "Y.Porat" <y.y.po...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > On Jun 24, 7:56 am, Mathal <mathmusi...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > On Jun 23, 1:59 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 > > > > > > 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 > > > > > ==================================== > > > > > now my question is > > > > > where do you see anything relativistic in it ??!! > > > > > > TIA > > > > > Y.Porat > > > > > ---------------------- > > > > > P = hf/c > > > > > h is constant. > > > > c is constant. > > > > f is not constant. > > > > > Since the measured frequency of a received photon is dependant on the > > > > initial frequency and the difference between the velocity of this > > > > sending frame and the receiving frame one has to take relativity (SR) > > > > into consideration if the two frames are not motionless WRT each > > > > -------------------------- > > > 1 > > > very nice!! > > > if you take the Doppler effect > > > yiou see that the** f **is changing!! > > > AND YOU CAN SEE IT IN THE FORMULA AS I PRESENTED IT (PRESENTED by THAT > > > fs > > > so IT IS THE fs THAT IS CHANGING NOT > > > **THE INITIAL*** MASS UNITS ** > > > it is their number thaqt can change > > > IOW > > > MORE OR LESS **MASS UNITS **ARE COMING INTO THE SECONDARY FRAME > > > BUT > > > LISTEN CAREFULLY > > > TH E MASS ** UNITS** ARE NOT CHANGING > > > IT IS THE **NUMBER OF THOSE ** MASS UNITS !!! > > > and it i s presented nicely in my above formula analysis presented > > > in that ** fs ** > > > the number of mas s units is linearity > > > (nothing like the relativistic ***second order** )!!!!! and nicely > > > presented by that fs > > > no need to look for more formula > > > or 'interpretations'' > > > > btw > > > it is as well my new insight > > > about how the Doppler effect is a prove > > > that the hf is not the right definition of the REAL SINGLE > > > PHOTON !!! > > > 2 > > > you forgot that > > > TH E VELOCITY OF PHOTON > > > ****IS ALWAYS c > > > IN ALL FRAMES!! *** > > > > no mater if in relative motion or not > > > so ??!! > > > even relative to the secondary frame > > > it remains c!!! > > > as well as c -- in the original; frame !! > > > 2 > > > being in motion for itself > > > ***is not enough to be relativistic !!!*** > > > as long it is relative to***** itself **** !!! > > > > and that is why > > > YOU CANT SEE ANYTHING RELATIVISTIC IN THAT PHOTON MOMENTUM > > > FORMULA !!! > > > > except that that photons > > > declared himself to be > > > 'pope of Rome' !!! (:-) > > > 3 > > > WHIL WE WE DELL WITH > > > PHOTON MOMENTUM > > > > WE DEAL JUST IN ** ONE FRAME** > > > NOT IN MANY FRAMES !!! > > > > about many FRAMES > > > see my above explanations > > > about how it works in the Doppler case > > > two frames > > > but no need to obfuscate it > > > we have to conclude (resume) first about > > > just one frame !!! > > > > > other. This is where gamma enters the picture. How can the momentum > > > > be anything but relativistic. > > > > see about the pope of Rome (:-) > > > ie > > > how can i not be the pope of Rome ??!! > > > -------------------- > > > > TIA > > > Y.Porat > > > ------------------------------ > > > > > Mathal > > > I said the velocity difference in frames is where relativity enters > > into the picture. The notion that relativity has no bearing on the > > results of using the formula is silly. > > The Doppler effect has a more significant effect on the frequency > > than the relativistic frame effect. > > This notion that frequency of light is the number of 'mass units' > > for a specific period of time > > is absurd on many levels. > > 1. photons don't have mass. > > ------------------------ > you say thatphotons dont have mass!! > > but that is actually the core of our dsicussion > to find out > NOT BY SAYING THAT THE PHOTON DOES NOT HAVE MASS > YOU HAVE TO SHOW IT HOW DDI YOU GIT TO THAT CONCLUSION NOT JUST > BY > 'SAYING' BUT BY BRINGING PHYSICS ARGUMENTS!!! Can you finally feed yourself? Or does your mother still spoon-feed you? There are these wonderful things called BOOKS, and this wonderful process called READING. If you READ these BOOKS your questions will be answered - all without wasting someone else's time. > i can say that ity is rather the length dimension there > **is relativistic** > in what is your say > better than mine ?? > > ------------------------> 2.Your hypothesis means necessarily that an individual photon does > > not have a frequency or a wavelength. It is just this 'mass unit'. How > > -- > i ddint say that > i can saiy now for instance > that > one unit and another one and another one > that are moving i a procession make the > 'photon wave > may be other characteristics needed about may be the character if > that movement etc > yet my nmain point is that a wave''' > is not one block' > but sub divided to smaller constituents Blah, blah,. blah. You can get access to thousands of books FOR FREE online. Many of these will explain everything to you. It is YOUR responsibility to find this stuff out. You could also take and finally pass the first year courses that you obviously never took on the way to your "engineering" education. > > TIA > Y.Porat Fake engineer. > ------------------------ > > > does your FM radio receiver decide which mass units it wants to > > acknowledge and which 'mass' units it chooses to ignore? > > > Mathal
From: waldofj on 24 Jun 2010 15:23
On Jun 24, 1:09 pm, "Y.Porat" <y.y.po...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > On Jun 24, 3:39 pm, waldofj <wald...(a)verizon.net> wrote: > > > > > 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 > > > > 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 > > > ==================================== > > > now my question is > > > where do you see anything relativistic in it ??!! > > > > TIA > > > Y.Porat > > > ---------------------- > > > it depends on what you mean by "relativistic" > > (:-) > hello Mr wakdof > didnt you notice untill now that > > I AM THE LAST ONE IN THIS WORLD > THAT THIS 'RELATIVISTIC' > MEANS NOTHING to him ??!! > forme there can ve mass in motion > and even relative motion between masses > but that say nothing FOR ME about > 'MOTION CANGING ANYTHING OD THE MASS !! > > moreover > movement **creating *** any sort of mass > is for me -- shear stupidity !!! > > ATB > Y.Porat > ---------------------------------------------- then why did you ask the question? talking to yourself again? |