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: Y.Porat on 25 Jun 2010 06:45 On Jun 24, 9:14 pm, Robert Higgins <robert_higgins...(a)hotmail.com> wrote: > 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 --------------------- inbecile pig moton!! you willbe surprised you willnever find the above ful dimension analysis !! you know why prof. Dulitle?? because such simple analysys as NEVER DONE IN ANY BOOK!! un;ess you or someone else show it andf quoteit without hand wavings so piggy just gey up and show is a precedence to my simple above analysis just show us or else you are a Dr DULITLE BTW without releasing Dulitle from that 9since he gave me the advice to look in books i ask him tell me exactly** where** or else -- a single example for that !!!) invite any other sane person HERE to so us a quote about that photon momentum dimestion analysys INCLUDING ALL ITS DIMENSION LESS FIGURES !!! and only after that we can go to interpretations about it !!! ps that invitation includes PD as well and even before that since he FOUND IT NECESSARY TO INTERVENE said that my analysis is wrong IT MEANS HE HAS SOMETHING BETTER IN HIS MIND AND HE INTERVENED JUST FOR THE SAKE OF PURE SCIENTIFIC MOTIVATIONS!! I INVITE HIM TO POINT WHERE IT IS WRONG AND TO CORRECT IT ??!!! *in case it is just the sake of pure science ** burning in his bones'' -------------------- TIA Y.Porat ---------------------------
From: Robert Higgins on 25 Jun 2010 07:54 On Jun 25, 6:45 am, "Y.Porat" <y.y.po...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > On Jun 24, 9:14 pm, Robert Higgins <robert_higgins...(a)hotmail.com> > wrote: > > > > > 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 > > --------------------- > inbecile pig moton!! > you willbe surprised I am only surprised by how resistant to education you are. So, just admit it - all that talk of being an "engineer" is a lie. It is like in the USA, when someone says that they "do construction", it often means "deal drugs". (No offense to the actual hardworking men and women who actually do construction, as also to real engineers) > > you willnever find the above ful dimension analysis !! Of course I will - I did it myself a day ago. We do simple problems like this all the time in general chemistry I. If students can't do these kinds of problems, they fail. > you know why prof. Dulitle?? Because you're stupid? > > because such simple analysys as NEVER DONE > IN ANY BOOK!! It is in some books. The only reason it is omitted is that the problem is too trivial for an advanced text. > un;ess you or someone else show it andf quoteit > without hand wavings Who needs hand waving - I did it for you in SI (Systeme International) units, and artful just did it for you in general units. You want PD to do it - he can do it in his sleep, of course. > > so piggy > just gey up and show is a precedence to my > simple ....wrong... > above analysis > just show us > or else you are a Dr DULITLE Students in the US learn the "factor label method" (aka "dimensional analysis) in the 9th grade. This is when they are 13 or 14 years old. Maybe you can go back to high school and learn this. Probably not, though. > BTW > without releasing Dulitle from that > 9since he gave me the advice to look in books > i ask him tell me exactly** where** > or else -- a single example for that !!!) > > invite any other sane person HERE > to so us a quote about that > photon momentum dimestion analysys "Digestion analysis" - watching what you eat, eh? > INCLUDING ALL ITS DIMENSION LESS FIGURES !!! As artful pointed out, the reason it is "Dimensional analysis" is the DIMENSIONS. Are you really so stupid? > and only after that we can go to > interpretations about it !!! Why do "interpretations"? You can't even do trivial algebra. > ps > that invitation includes PD as well > and even before that > since he FOUND IT NECESSARY TO INTERVENE said that my analysis is > wrong Your analysis is always wrong - you couldn't analyzed 2 + 2 = 4 and get it right. > IT MEANS HE HAS SOMETHING BETTER IN HIS MIND > AND HE INTERVENED JUST FOR THE SAKE OF PURE SCIENTIFIC MOTIVATIONS!! He does - bless him, he has far more patience than I do. > I INVITE HIM TO POINT WHERE IT IS WRONG AND TO CORRECT IT ??!!! Why? You won't believe him when he tells you - you never do - then you'll call him a gangster and a Nazi. > *in case it is just the sake of pure science > ** burning in his bones'' > -------------------- > TIA > Y.Porat > ---------------------------
From: Inertial on 25 Jun 2010 09:15 "Y.Porat" <y.y.porat(a)gmail.com> wrote in message news:bcfd6b99-492c-4d1b-8bae-c15291e27620(a)d16g2000yqb.googlegroups.com... > On Jun 25, 8:04 am, artful <artful...(a)hotmail.com> wrote: >> On Jun 25, 3:51 pm, "Y.Porat" <y.y.po...(a)gmail.com> wrote: >> >> >> >> > On Jun 25, 7:02 am, artful <artful...(a)hotmail.com> wrote: >> >> > > On Jun 25, 2:25 pm, "Y.Porat" <y.y.po...(a)gmail.com> wrote: >> > > [snip] >> >> > > > sorry Typo >> > > > he formula of photon momentum is >> >> > > > h/Lambda !!! or hf/c!! >> >> > > Yes .. we know >> >> > > > yet please note >> > > > hf /c >> > > > IS A MOMENTUM FORMULA >> >> > > Yes .. we know. You just said that >> >> > > > SOPLEASE DONT BOGGLE OUR MIDS PRESENTING IT AS AN SORT OF ENERGY >> > > > FORMULA!! >> >> > > I didn't. I gave a number of different equations for photon >> > > momentum, >> > > all equally valid >> >> > > P = Mc = E/c = hf/c = h/lambda >> >> > > > TH EMOMENT IT IS DIVIDED BY c >> >> > > Yes .. we know .. you divide the energy of the photon by c. E = hf, >> > > so E/c = hf/c = momentum of the photon >> >> > > > it isnot anymore an energy formula >> > > > but MOMENTUM FORMULA >> >> > > Yes .. we know >> >> > > > and it makes a principaldifference as you will see later because >> > > > momentum is not energy !!) >> >> > > Yes .. we know >> >> > > > so sorry my typo mistake >> > > > it is not >> > > > not >> > > > hf/Lambda >> > > > but >> > > > h/lambda or hf/lambda (momentum !!!) >> >> > > I think you mean "h/lamda or hf/c" >> >> > > > (i respond quickly and have in my mind just the main arguments >> > > > so such mistakes can occure >> > > > in my **quick responds ** >> > > > ***unlike** my main analysts in which i spend more time checking >> > > > it !! >> > > > and i noticed it before anyone to correct me (:-)) >> >> > > > so please MR PD ---as above >> > > > just give us *your analysis **of it >> >> > > I've done this before for you .. its trivial >> >> > > Dimensions of momentum are >> >> > > [Mass] x [Length] x [Time]^-1 >> >> > > Dimensions of h are >> >> > > [Mass] x [Length]^2 x [Time]^-1 >> >> > > Dimensions of lambda are >> >> > > [Length] >> >> > > Dimensions of f are >> >> > > [Time]^-1 >> >> > > Dimensions of c are >> >> > > [Length] x [time]^-1 >> >> > > So h/lambda has dimensions >> >> > > [Mass] x [Length]^2 x [Time]^-1 / [Length] = [Mass] x [Length] x >> > > [Time]^-1 >> >> > > So it is a valid momentum formula >> >> > > Similarly hf/c has dimensions >> >> > > ( [Mass] x [Length]^2 x [Time]^-1 ) x ( [Time]^-1 ) / ( [Length] x >> > > [Time]-1 ) = [Mass] x [Length] x [Time]^-1 >> >> > > So it is a valid momentum formula >> >> > > (hopefully no typos there) >> >> > > That is a complete dimensional analysis. Do you understand it? >> >> > ------------ >> > psychopath crook >> >> Nope >> >> > with 3 different anonymous names >> >> As I've explained the reason for many time .. get over it. >> >> > DO YOU THINK THAT PD NEEDS YOUR FUCKEN crooked HELP?!! >> >> Yes .. you most certainly do >> >> > 2 >> > NASTY PIGGY >> > YOU 'FORGOT'' THE DIMENSION LESS >> > FIGURES !!! (not accidentally (:-) >> >> No .. I didn't FORGET them .. and it wasn't accidentally .. you asked >> for a DIMENSIONAL ANALYSIS which does NOT include the dimensioless >> values .. only the dimensions. THAT is why it is called DIMENSIONAL >> analysis. Get it? Probably not. >> >> > so little Josef Goebbels >> >> Not me >> >> > jut let PD do it ** properly and honestly ** >> >> No need .. I already have done it properly and honestly .. But if he >> wants to do it again, he can. >> >> > and completely to the last detail !! !! >> >> Like I did. Complete and detailed. >> >> > 'THE DEVIL IS IN THE DETAILS' !!!) >> >> Yes it is .. you seem to ignore details like: what is a dimensional >> analysis. >> >> > TIA to PD >> >> Note that even including a dimensionless number (so its no longer >> dimensional anlysis) does not change anything .. the value is >> arbitrary (depending on the units you use and the values of the >> variables involved). All you'll end up showing is what we already >> know .. photon momentum is proportional to frequency and inversely >> proportional to wavelength (with some unit-dependent ratio). > > ------------------- > i said that i have no intention todsicuss with > little Josef Goebbels But that's not me > neat please not for the psycho pigshit anonymous > and please include the dimension less figures > that are indispensable for that analysis NO .. they are completely IRRELEVANT to a dimensional analysis. You have no idea what you are talking about. > iow > without them the --formula ***means nothing !! The formula has meaning .. the dimensions have meaning (and have to be correct). The values are just arbitrary depending on our chosen units of measure. > as a real physicist should know ! Yes.. but you don't > ****as its time for psycho pigshit Not me > (that wants to teach me physics BUt you don't want to learn > and to obfuscate > and to wast time ) I don't. You do however .. yo uwaffle on and go on weird tangents. > ----to know it as well!!!**** > as i said > > THE DEVIL IS IN THE DE TALES!! You don't know the details > not for little pigshits !!! Like you > so next please to PD PD .. ignore him
From: PD on 25 Jun 2010 11:23 On Jun 24, 10:50 pm, "Y.Porat" <y.y.po...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > On Jun 24, 11:17 pm, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > > On Jun 23, 3:59 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 > > > ---------------------- > > > Just a suggestion, Porat. > > > Don't title a post that implies that you're going to do dimensional > > analysis, if you don't know how to do dimensional analysis, if you > > don't know the dimensions or the units of the quantities you're going > > to look at, if you think that relativistic quantities have different > > dimensions than nonrelativistic quantities, or if you think you can > > learn something about the fundamental nature of a thing by looking at > > the dimensions of one of its properties. > > > This would be like someone proposing to do the plumbing for a kitchen > > sink while not knowing what a pipe wrench is, what the hole in the > > bottom of the sink is for, how to tell which spigot is hot and which > > one is cold, or why a sink should not be made out of rye bread. > > > PD > > -------------------- > and Mr PD > i have a suggestion for you: !!! > instead of being a CHEAP demagogue !!! > > just tell us what is ***YOUR** > AGAIN ***YOUR*** > DIMENSION ANALYSIS** OF THE PHOTON MOMENTUM > (momentum not energy > again momentum and not energy !!!) > > P = hf/Lambda > AND TEL US WHAT IS RELATIVISTIC THERE !!! > > 2 > as far as i know you > a crook like you -- will not do it !!! > for your 'tactical ' cheating reasons !!! > because you know i am right !!! > > if you want to prove that i am wrong with with my analysis --- > > JUST BRING YOUR ALTERNATIVE ANALYSIS!. > THAT IS WHAT AN HONEST PERSON > AND AN HONEST SCIENTIST -- WOULD DO !!! > and btw > do it by the MKS system unless you claim that > the MKS is '''not good enough or not legitimate for it ''' !!! > and dont just hand wave demagogically > adding relevant obfuscating philosophy stories !!! > > JUST A SIMPLE DIMENSION ANALYSIS > INCLUDING THE DIMENSION LESS FIGURES !!! > OF YOURS !!! > > DON T FORGET OR IGNORE THE DIMENSIONLESS FIGURES !!! > > TIA > Y.Porat > ---------------------------------- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text - As I told you before, Porat, your "analysis" is not analysis is you do not know what dimensional analysis even means or how to do it. I will NOT teach you this basic skill. You will have to go back and instruct yourself in it again, WITH A BOOK, before I'd even engage with you on it. Nor would I teach you how to add or subtract if you demonstrated that you didn't know how to do that reliably either. I would expect you to stop claiming you know how to add and subtract until you actually learn how to do it. Your taunts to show you how *I* would add and subtract would similarly go ignored. PD
From: Y.Porat on 25 Jun 2010 16:49
On Jun 25, 3:15 pm, "Inertial" <relativ...(a)rest.com> wrote: > "Y.Porat" <y.y.po...(a)gmail.com> wrote in message > > news:bcfd6b99-492c-4d1b-8bae-c15291e27620(a)d16g2000yqb.googlegroups.com... > > > > > On Jun 25, 8:04 am, artful <artful...(a)hotmail.com> wrote: > >> On Jun 25, 3:51 pm, "Y.Porat" <y.y.po...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > >> > On Jun 25, 7:02 am, artful <artful...(a)hotmail.com> wrote: > > >> > > On Jun 25, 2:25 pm, "Y.Porat" <y.y.po...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > >> > > [snip] > > >> > > > sorry Typo > >> > > > he formula of photon momentum is > > >> > > > h/Lambda !!! or hf/c!! > > >> > > Yes .. we know > > >> > > > yet please note > >> > > > hf /c > >> > > > IS A MOMENTUM FORMULA > > >> > > Yes .. we know. You just said that > > >> > > > SOPLEASE DONT BOGGLE OUR MIDS PRESENTING IT AS AN SORT OF ENERGY > >> > > > FORMULA!! > > >> > > I didn't. I gave a number of different equations for photon > >> > > momentum, > >> > > all equally valid > > >> > > P = Mc = E/c = hf/c = h/lambda > > >> > > > TH EMOMENT IT IS DIVIDED BY c > > >> > > Yes .. we know .. you divide the energy of the photon by c. E = hf, > >> > > so E/c = hf/c = momentum of the photon > > >> > > > it isnot anymore an energy formula > >> > > > but MOMENTUM FORMULA > > >> > > Yes .. we know > > >> > > > and it makes a principaldifference as you will see later because > >> > > > momentum is not energy !!) > > >> > > Yes .. we know > > >> > > > so sorry my typo mistake > >> > > > it is not > >> > > > not > >> > > > hf/Lambda > >> > > > but > >> > > > h/lambda or hf/lambda (momentum !!!) > > >> > > I think you mean "h/lamda or hf/c" > > >> > > > (i respond quickly and have in my mind just the main arguments > >> > > > so such mistakes can occure > >> > > > in my **quick responds ** > >> > > > ***unlike** my main analysts in which i spend more time checking > >> > > > it !! > >> > > > and i noticed it before anyone to correct me (:-)) > > >> > > > so please MR PD ---as above > >> > > > just give us *your analysis **of it > > >> > > I've done this before for you .. its trivial > > >> > > Dimensions of momentum are > > >> > > [Mass] x [Length] x [Time]^-1 > > >> > > Dimensions of h are > > >> > > [Mass] x [Length]^2 x [Time]^-1 > > >> > > Dimensions of lambda are > > >> > > [Length] > > >> > > Dimensions of f are > > >> > > [Time]^-1 > > >> > > Dimensions of c are > > >> > > [Length] x [time]^-1 > > >> > > So h/lambda has dimensions > > >> > > [Mass] x [Length]^2 x [Time]^-1 / [Length] = [Mass] x [Length] x > >> > > [Time]^-1 > > >> > > So it is a valid momentum formula > > >> > > Similarly hf/c has dimensions > > >> > > ( [Mass] x [Length]^2 x [Time]^-1 ) x ( [Time]^-1 ) / ( [Length] x > >> > > [Time]-1 ) = [Mass] x [Length] x [Time]^-1 > > >> > > So it is a valid momentum formula > > >> > > (hopefully no typos there) > > >> > > That is a complete dimensional analysis. Do you understand it? > > >> > ------------ > >> > psychopath crook > > >> Nope > > >> > with 3 different anonymous names > > >> As I've explained the reason for many time .. get over it. > > >> > DO YOU THINK THAT PD NEEDS YOUR FUCKEN crooked HELP?!! > > >> Yes .. you most certainly do > > >> > 2 > >> > NASTY PIGGY > >> > YOU 'FORGOT'' THE DIMENSION LESS > >> > FIGURES !!! (not accidentally (:-) > > >> No .. I didn't FORGET them .. and it wasn't accidentally .. you asked > >> for a DIMENSIONAL ANALYSIS which does NOT include the dimensioless > >> values .. only the dimensions. THAT is why it is called DIMENSIONAL > >> analysis. Get it? Probably not. > > >> > so little Josef Goebbels > > >> Not me > > >> > jut let PD do it ** properly and honestly ** > > >> No need .. I already have done it properly and honestly .. But if he > >> wants to do it again, he can. > > >> > and completely to the last detail !! !! > > >> Like I did. Complete and detailed. > > >> > 'THE DEVIL IS IN THE DETAILS' !!!) > > >> Yes it is .. you seem to ignore details like: what is a dimensional > >> analysis. > > >> > TIA to PD > > >> Note that even including a dimensionless number (so its no longer > >> dimensional anlysis) does not change anything .. the value is > >> arbitrary (depending on the units you use and the values of the > >> variables involved). All you'll end up showing is what we already > >> know .. photon momentum is proportional to frequency and inversely > >> proportional to wavelength (with some unit-dependent ratio). > > > ------------------- > > i said that i have no intention todsicuss with > > little Josef Goebbels > > But that's not me > > > neat please not for the psycho pigshit anonymous > > and please include the dimension less figures > > that are indispensable for that analysis > > NO .. they are completely IRRELEVANT to a dimensional analysis. You have no > idea what you are talking about. > > > iow > > without them the --formula ***means nothing !! > > The formula has meaning .. the dimensions have meaning (and have to be > correct). The values are just arbitrary depending on our chosen units of > measure. > > > as a real physicist should know ! > > Yes.. but you don't > > > ****as its time for psycho pigshit > > Not me > > > (that wants to teach me physics > > BUt you don't want to learn > > > and to obfuscate > > and to wast time ) > > I don't. You do however .. yo uwaffle on and go on weird tangents. > > > ----to know it as well!!!**** > > as i said > > > THE DEVIL IS IN THE DE TALES!! > > You don't know the details > > > not for little pigshits !!! > > Like you > > > so next please to PD > > PD .. ignore him ------------------- (:-) Y.P ------------------------------ |