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 26 Jun 2010 08:46 On Jun 26, 7:04 am, "Y.Porat" <y.y.po...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > On Jun 26, 12:38 pm, "Y.Porat" <y.y.po...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > On Jun 26, 11:03 am, waldofj <wald...(a)verizon.net> wrote: > > > > > 1 > > > > why do we have to involve other dimasion systems!! > > > > IS THEM K S SYSTEM NOT GOOD ENOUGH?? > > > > Good question. It seems someone is always re-inventing the wheel. > > > The M K S system is just fine, the latest attempt at standardization. > > > We'll see how long it lasts. > > > > WALDOF!! > > > > > 2 > > > > CAN WE** NEGLECT THEM** WHILE WE USE > > > > A CERTAIN LEGITIMATE SYSTEM UNIT > > > > LIKE say) THE M K S SYSTEM?? > > > > as i did before?? > > > ----------------------------------------------------------- > > > I think the problem here is there are two different types of > > > dimensional analysis (at least that's the way it was taught to me). > > > In the first case the analysis is only concerned with the fundamental > > > quantities i.e Mass, Length. Time, etc. > > > So, if I want to analyze the equation > > > P = E / V > > > I know P has dimensions ML/T, E is M L^2/T^2 and V is L/T so > > > P = (M L^2/T^2) / (L/T) > > > P = ML/T > > > So this equation is dimensionally correct. > > > However, if I'm going to USE this equation I have to use the second > > > kind of dimensional analysis which checks that the units work out > > > right. > > > In the MKS system P has units KM/S, E is in Joules which is K M^2/S^2, > > > and V is M/S > > > P = Joules/V(MKS) > > > P = (K M^2/S^2) / (M/S) > > > P = KM/S > > > So this equation is dimensionally correct. > > > However, if I do this instead: > > > P = E(Joules, MKS system) / V(feet per second, FPS system) > > > Now I'm mixing systems of units and will get the wrong result (just > > > ask NASA :-) > > > Of course, the first type of dimensional analysis ignores the units > > > and won't catch the error, the second type will. > > > I would call the first type theoretical and the second type applied. > > > If I'm working on a theory I'm, at first, only concerned that the > > > fundamental quantities work out right. Momentum equals energy divided > > > by velocity. I don't care about units, numbers, nothing. The first > > > type analysis is just what I need. Once I have my theory, now I want > > > to make predictions that can be tested by experiment, now I need the > > > second type of analysis. I need to take into consideration what system > > > of units I'm going to use and so forth. The units, not just the > > > fundamental quantities (dimensions) have to work out right. > > > Which type of analysis to use just depends on what you are doing, > > > theoretical or applied. > > > ------------------------- > > thank you Waldof! > > at last somone is talking > > apposite physics !!! > > and not personal physics !! > > you talk about two kinds of dimensional anakysis > > i think it was obvious that > > I WAS NOT TALKING ABOUT THE FIRST KIND > > THAT I AM WELL AWARE OF IT > > IE JusT THE BASIC DIMENSION > > COMPARISON OF THE LEFT AND RIGTH > > SIDE OF AN EQUATION!! > > > I AM TALKING ABOUT THE ANALYSIS > > OF **JUST ONE SIDE OF THE FORMULA!! > > iow > > to dig in its PHYSICAL components !!! > > (btw i think it eas clear tothe above crocks as well > > because the followed me long enough to know it !! > > > I AM TALKING ABOUT ANALYZING THE FORMULA NOT ABOUT ITS 'SKELETON' > > BUT > > ''SKELETON PLUS FLESH ''!! > > if youwaht toexamine how that formula is > > 'alive' > > you cant examine only its skeleton > > because the skeleton itself is **a dead object'' > > if youlike tocheckit as a 'live object' > > you have to examine its 'flesh' as well > > AND THE FLESH IS > > IS THE DIMENSION LESS FIGURES !!! > > > the crooks above preffered to ignoe it > > and they did it NOT INNOCENTLY !! > > they knew that > > while we examns that dimensionless figures > > we will find > > THAT NO ONE OF THEM IS RELATIVISTIC !!!! > > > not 6.6 exp -34 > > > not fs (the dimension less figure attached to the > > frequency > > > nor > > the 3 exp 8 figure > > non of them tell you THE SLIGHTEST SIGN > > THAT THERE IS SOMETHING RELATIVISTIC IN THEM!!! > > relativistic was strting with the gamma factor > > 1/(1-v^2/c^2) > > > you havwe noting like that in our equation!!! > > so > > THERE IS JSUT ONE KIND OF MASS > > EVEN IN THE PHOTON!! > > of course itis not written yet in any text book > > but itis > > shockingly SIMPLE !!! > > even trivial > > the croks are shocked by that simple ans shocking finding > > because > > it is an EARTH QUACK IN MODERN PHYSICS !! > > iow > > NO MASS- NO REAL PHYSICS !! > > if so > > can you immagine the mountain of Bulshit > > dsicovered now in 'modern physics that cntardict that > > simple finding !!??? > > 2 > > th eM K S system is good and legitimate enough > > to cope will all these issues !!! > > anyone who > > involve in it > > other dimension systems > > has just one purpose in his mind !! > > ie > > TO CHEAT AND OBFUSCATE THE > > simple ISSUE !!! > > so please remember: > > you cant deeply examine the formula > > by ignoring its > > dimension less figures in it!!! > > (in case you waht the formula > > to be alive and not CASTRATED > > > (as those crooks above !! > > that would like to castrate others here !!!) > > > THEY CANT CHEAT EVERY- ONE --FOREVER !!! > > > TIA > > Y.Porat > > ----------------------- > > -------------------- > > and a little typo to the above new rule > > is should be: > > NO MASS (THE ONLY MASS) - NO REAL PHYSICS!!! > > ATB > Y.Porat > ------------------------------ TROLL TROLL TROLL TROLL TROLL TROLL TROLL TROLL TROLL TROLL TROLL TROLL TROLL TROLL TROLL TROLL TROLL TROLL TROLL TROLL TROLL TROLL TROLL TROLL TROLL TROLL TROLL TROLL TROLL TROLL TROLL TROLL TROLL TROLL TROLL TROLL TROLL TROLL TROLL TROLL Go back under your bridge, Poor Rat.
From: Y.Porat on 26 Jun 2010 09:05 On Jun 26, 2:39 pm, "Inertial" <relativ...(a)rest.com> wrote: > "Y.Porat" <y.y.po...(a)gmail.com> wrote in message > > news:c64eaf8c-9eeb-4039-bada-9fdecae80700(a)a30g2000yqn.googlegroups.com... > > > > > On Jun 23, 10:59 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 > >> ---------------------- > > > BTW > > i found that Paul Draper > > that popped in to this thread and > > popped out the same velocity > > > (WITH SAYING NOTHING MORE PHYSICS > > THAN THE AMBASSADOR OF US IN CHINA COULD SAY ABOUT the > > MOMENTUM FORMULA ANALYSIS ) > > ????? > > (just check what he '''said'' above > > in his pop in pop out intervention) -- > > > so that guy > > ***belongs as well to the Company > > named: *** > > > Miffline Haurcurt Publishing CO !!! > > (or something lke that) > > > is it possible that he has is not such an inocent lamb > > science lover that is clean of some private business motivations > > or some (for instance) > > copyright thefts ideas in his mind ??? > > (:-) > > for instance > > he got my book > > and never informed me about > > how he got it ...!!! > > may be he is waiting eagerly for my death > > in order to do some more business > > like stealing some of my copyright > > innovations here ?? > > sitting all day next to that ng > > posting thousands of posts > > iow > > that is in some 'unknown way' > > **his main day job and main income ** ?? > > > not to mention that (how about) > > using some anonymous names on that ng to push himself or milk some > > ideas here and reject other miked people > > from this ng that 'disturb ''his business ??? > > is it not a nice idea ?? > > > or may be at the ***good case ** > > he is just an idiot crooked parrot ???!!! > > > TIA > > Y.Porat > > ----------------------------- > > > ATB > > Y.Porat > > this ng ??? > > Porat again just waffles on with insults and doesn't talk physics. When he > tries to he fails. Porat is a joke ------------------- (:-) who is a joke??? (:-) dear readers please note: THAT GANGSTER TOLD (ORDERED??!!)-- -----PD ----NOT TO ANSWER ME AND..........???? voila !!!.. AND NOW HE IS ANSWERING ME got it dear readers what is that psychopath that is on the net ??? (:-) Y.P ---------------------
From: Y.Porat on 26 Jun 2010 09:12 On Jun 26, 2:46 pm, Robert Higgins <robert_higgins...(a)hotmail.com> wrote: > On Jun 26, 7:04 am, "Y.Porat" <y.y.po...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > On Jun 26, 12:38 pm, "Y.Porat" <y.y.po...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > On Jun 26, 11:03 am, waldofj <wald...(a)verizon.net> wrote: > > > > > > 1 > > > > > why do we have to involve other dimasion systems!! > > > > > IS THEM K S SYSTEM NOT GOOD ENOUGH?? > > > > > Good question. It seems someone is always re-inventing the wheel. > > > > The M K S system is just fine, the latest attempt at standardization. > > > > We'll see how long it lasts. > > > > > WALDOF!! > > > > > > 2 > > > > > CAN WE** NEGLECT THEM** WHILE WE USE > > > > > A CERTAIN LEGITIMATE SYSTEM UNIT > > > > > LIKE say) THE M K S SYSTEM?? > > > > > as i did before?? > > > > ----------------------------------------------------------- > > > > I think the problem here is there are two different types of > > > > dimensional analysis (at least that's the way it was taught to me). > > > > In the first case the analysis is only concerned with the fundamental > > > > quantities i.e Mass, Length. Time, etc. > > > > So, if I want to analyze the equation > > > > P = E / V > > > > I know P has dimensions ML/T, E is M L^2/T^2 and V is L/T so > > > > P = (M L^2/T^2) / (L/T) > > > > P = ML/T > > > > So this equation is dimensionally correct. > > > > However, if I'm going to USE this equation I have to use the second > > > > kind of dimensional analysis which checks that the units work out > > > > right. > > > > In the MKS system P has units KM/S, E is in Joules which is K M^2/S^2, > > > > and V is M/S > > > > P = Joules/V(MKS) > > > > P = (K M^2/S^2) / (M/S) > > > > P = KM/S > > > > So this equation is dimensionally correct. > > > > However, if I do this instead: > > > > P = E(Joules, MKS system) / V(feet per second, FPS system) > > > > Now I'm mixing systems of units and will get the wrong result (just > > > > ask NASA :-) > > > > Of course, the first type of dimensional analysis ignores the units > > > > and won't catch the error, the second type will. > > > > I would call the first type theoretical and the second type applied.. > > > > If I'm working on a theory I'm, at first, only concerned that the > > > > fundamental quantities work out right. Momentum equals energy divided > > > > by velocity. I don't care about units, numbers, nothing. The first > > > > type analysis is just what I need. Once I have my theory, now I want > > > > to make predictions that can be tested by experiment, now I need the > > > > second type of analysis. I need to take into consideration what system > > > > of units I'm going to use and so forth. The units, not just the > > > > fundamental quantities (dimensions) have to work out right. > > > > Which type of analysis to use just depends on what you are doing, > > > > theoretical or applied. > > > > ------------------------- > > > thank you Waldof! > > > at last somone is talking > > > apposite physics !!! > > > and not personal physics !! > > > you talk about two kinds of dimensional anakysis > > > i think it was obvious that > > > I WAS NOT TALKING ABOUT THE FIRST KIND > > > THAT I AM WELL AWARE OF IT > > > IE JusT THE BASIC DIMENSION > > > COMPARISON OF THE LEFT AND RIGTH > > > SIDE OF AN EQUATION!! > > > > I AM TALKING ABOUT THE ANALYSIS > > > OF **JUST ONE SIDE OF THE FORMULA!! > > > iow > > > to dig in its PHYSICAL components !!! > > > (btw i think it eas clear tothe above crocks as well > > > because the followed me long enough to know it !! > > > > I AM TALKING ABOUT ANALYZING THE FORMULA NOT ABOUT ITS 'SKELETON' > > > BUT > > > ''SKELETON PLUS FLESH ''!! > > > if youwaht toexamine how that formula is > > > 'alive' > > > you cant examine only its skeleton > > > because the skeleton itself is **a dead object'' > > > if youlike tocheckit as a 'live object' > > > you have to examine its 'flesh' as well > > > AND THE FLESH IS > > > IS THE DIMENSION LESS FIGURES !!! > > > > the crooks above preffered to ignoe it > > > and they did it NOT INNOCENTLY !! > > > they knew that > > > while we examns that dimensionless figures > > > we will find > > > THAT NO ONE OF THEM IS RELATIVISTIC !!!! > > > > not 6.6 exp -34 > > > > not fs (the dimension less figure attached to the > > > frequency > > > > nor > > > the 3 exp 8 figure > > > non of them tell you THE SLIGHTEST SIGN > > > THAT THERE IS SOMETHING RELATIVISTIC IN THEM!!! > > > relativistic was strting with the gamma factor > > > 1/(1-v^2/c^2) > > > > you havwe noting like that in our equation!!! > > > so > > > THERE IS JSUT ONE KIND OF MASS > > > EVEN IN THE PHOTON!! > > > of course itis not written yet in any text book > > > but itis > > > shockingly SIMPLE !!! > > > even trivial > > > the croks are shocked by that simple ans shocking finding > > > because > > > it is an EARTH QUACK IN MODERN PHYSICS !! > > > iow > > > NO MASS- NO REAL PHYSICS !! > > > if so > > > can you immagine the mountain of Bulshit > > > dsicovered now in 'modern physics that cntardict that > > > simple finding !!??? > > > 2 > > > th eM K S system is good and legitimate enough > > > to cope will all these issues !!! > > > anyone who > > > involve in it > > > other dimension systems > > > has just one purpose in his mind !! > > > ie > > > TO CHEAT AND OBFUSCATE THE > > > simple ISSUE !!! > > > so please remember: > > > you cant deeply examine the formula > > > by ignoring its > > > dimension less figures in it!!! > > > (in case you waht the formula > > > to be alive and not CASTRATED > > > > (as those crooks above !! > > > that would like to castrate others here !!!) > > > > THEY CANT CHEAT EVERY- ONE --FOREVER !!! > > > > TIA > > > Y.Porat > > > ----------------------- > > > -------------------- > > > and a little typo to the above new rule > > > is should be: > > > NO MASS (THE ONLY MASS) - NO REAL PHYSICS!!! > > > ATB > > Y.Porat > > ------------------------------ > > TROLL TROLL TROLL TROLL TROLL TROLL TROLL TROLL TROLL TROLL TROLL > TROLL TROLL TROLL TROLL TROLL TROLL TROLL TROLL TROLL TROLL TROLL > TROLL TROLL TROLL TROLL TROLL TROLL TROLL TROLL TROLL TROLL TROLL > TROLL TROLL TROLL TROLL TROLL TROLL TROLL > > Go back under your bridge, Poor Rat. --------------------- (:-) (:-) (:-) (:-) wHat a grEat physicist is that Prof..DULITLE WHAT GRATE * PHYSICS ARGUMENTS* HE HAS !!! (:-) (:-) (:-) tell me piggy do you by any chance some private business with PD in that publishing business ?? y.p ----------------------
From: Robert Higgins on 26 Jun 2010 10:49 On Jun 26, 9:12 am, "Y.Porat" <y.y.po...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > On Jun 26, 2:46 pm, Robert Higgins <robert_higgins...(a)hotmail.com> > wrote: > > > > > On Jun 26, 7:04 am, "Y.Porat" <y.y.po...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > On Jun 26, 12:38 pm, "Y.Porat" <y.y.po...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > On Jun 26, 11:03 am, waldofj <wald...(a)verizon.net> wrote: > > > > > > > 1 > > > > > > why do we have to involve other dimasion systems!! > > > > > > IS THEM K S SYSTEM NOT GOOD ENOUGH?? > > > > > > Good question. It seems someone is always re-inventing the wheel. > > > > > The M K S system is just fine, the latest attempt at standardization. > > > > > We'll see how long it lasts. > > > > > > WALDOF!! > > > > > > > 2 > > > > > > CAN WE** NEGLECT THEM** WHILE WE USE > > > > > > A CERTAIN LEGITIMATE SYSTEM UNIT > > > > > > LIKE say) THE M K S SYSTEM?? > > > > > > as i did before?? > > > > > ----------------------------------------------------------- > > > > > I think the problem here is there are two different types of > > > > > dimensional analysis (at least that's the way it was taught to me). > > > > > In the first case the analysis is only concerned with the fundamental > > > > > quantities i.e Mass, Length. Time, etc. > > > > > So, if I want to analyze the equation > > > > > P = E / V > > > > > I know P has dimensions ML/T, E is M L^2/T^2 and V is L/T so > > > > > P = (M L^2/T^2) / (L/T) > > > > > P = ML/T > > > > > So this equation is dimensionally correct. > > > > > However, if I'm going to USE this equation I have to use the second > > > > > kind of dimensional analysis which checks that the units work out > > > > > right. > > > > > In the MKS system P has units KM/S, E is in Joules which is K M^2/S^2, > > > > > and V is M/S > > > > > P = Joules/V(MKS) > > > > > P = (K M^2/S^2) / (M/S) > > > > > P = KM/S > > > > > So this equation is dimensionally correct. > > > > > However, if I do this instead: > > > > > P = E(Joules, MKS system) / V(feet per second, FPS system) > > > > > Now I'm mixing systems of units and will get the wrong result (just > > > > > ask NASA :-) > > > > > Of course, the first type of dimensional analysis ignores the units > > > > > and won't catch the error, the second type will. > > > > > I would call the first type theoretical and the second type applied. > > > > > If I'm working on a theory I'm, at first, only concerned that the > > > > > fundamental quantities work out right. Momentum equals energy divided > > > > > by velocity. I don't care about units, numbers, nothing. The first > > > > > type analysis is just what I need. Once I have my theory, now I want > > > > > to make predictions that can be tested by experiment, now I need the > > > > > second type of analysis. I need to take into consideration what system > > > > > of units I'm going to use and so forth. The units, not just the > > > > > fundamental quantities (dimensions) have to work out right. > > > > > Which type of analysis to use just depends on what you are doing, > > > > > theoretical or applied. > > > > > ------------------------- > > > > thank you Waldof! > > > > at last somone is talking > > > > apposite physics !!! > > > > and not personal physics !! > > > > you talk about two kinds of dimensional anakysis > > > > i think it was obvious that > > > > I WAS NOT TALKING ABOUT THE FIRST KIND > > > > THAT I AM WELL AWARE OF IT > > > > IE JusT THE BASIC DIMENSION > > > > COMPARISON OF THE LEFT AND RIGTH > > > > SIDE OF AN EQUATION!! > > > > > I AM TALKING ABOUT THE ANALYSIS > > > > OF **JUST ONE SIDE OF THE FORMULA!! > > > > iow > > > > to dig in its PHYSICAL components !!! > > > > (btw i think it eas clear tothe above crocks as well > > > > because the followed me long enough to know it !! > > > > > I AM TALKING ABOUT ANALYZING THE FORMULA NOT ABOUT ITS 'SKELETON' > > > > BUT > > > > ''SKELETON PLUS FLESH ''!! > > > > if youwaht toexamine how that formula is > > > > 'alive' > > > > you cant examine only its skeleton > > > > because the skeleton itself is **a dead object'' > > > > if youlike tocheckit as a 'live object' > > > > you have to examine its 'flesh' as well > > > > AND THE FLESH IS > > > > IS THE DIMENSION LESS FIGURES !!! > > > > > the crooks above preffered to ignoe it > > > > and they did it NOT INNOCENTLY !! > > > > they knew that > > > > while we examns that dimensionless figures > > > > we will find > > > > THAT NO ONE OF THEM IS RELATIVISTIC !!!! > > > > > not 6.6 exp -34 > > > > > not fs (the dimension less figure attached to the > > > > frequency > > > > > nor > > > > the 3 exp 8 figure > > > > non of them tell you THE SLIGHTEST SIGN > > > > THAT THERE IS SOMETHING RELATIVISTIC IN THEM!!! > > > > relativistic was strting with the gamma factor > > > > 1/(1-v^2/c^2) > > > > > you havwe noting like that in our equation!!! > > > > so > > > > THERE IS JSUT ONE KIND OF MASS > > > > EVEN IN THE PHOTON!! > > > > of course itis not written yet in any text book > > > > but itis > > > > shockingly SIMPLE !!! > > > > even trivial > > > > the croks are shocked by that simple ans shocking finding > > > > because > > > > it is an EARTH QUACK IN MODERN PHYSICS !! > > > > iow > > > > NO MASS- NO REAL PHYSICS !! > > > > if so > > > > can you immagine the mountain of Bulshit > > > > dsicovered now in 'modern physics that cntardict that > > > > simple finding !!??? > > > > 2 > > > > th eM K S system is good and legitimate enough > > > > to cope will all these issues !!! > > > > anyone who > > > > involve in it > > > > other dimension systems > > > > has just one purpose in his mind !! > > > > ie > > > > TO CHEAT AND OBFUSCATE THE > > > > simple ISSUE !!! > > > > so please remember: > > > > you cant deeply examine the formula > > > > by ignoring its > > > > dimension less figures in it!!! > > > > (in case you waht the formula > > > > to be alive and not CASTRATED > > > > > (as those crooks above !! > > > > that would like to castrate others here !!!) > > > > > THEY CANT CHEAT EVERY- ONE --FOREVER !!! > > > > > TIA > > > > Y.Porat > > > > ----------------------- > > > > -------------------- > > > > and a little typo to the above new rule > > > > is should be: > > > > NO MASS (THE ONLY MASS) - NO REAL PHYSICS!!! > > > > ATB > > > Y.Porat > > > ------------------------------ > > > TROLL TROLL TROLL TROLL TROLL TROLL TROLL TROLL TROLL TROLL TROLL > > TROLL TROLL TROLL TROLL TROLL TROLL TROLL TROLL TROLL TROLL TROLL > > TROLL TROLL TROLL TROLL TROLL TROLL TROLL TROLL TROLL TROLL TROLL > > TROLL TROLL TROLL TROLL TROLL TROLL TROLL > > > Go back under your bridge, Poor Rat. > > --------------------- > (:-) (:-) (:-) (:-) > wHat a grEat physicist is that > Prof..DULITLE > WHAT GRATE * PHYSICS ARGUMENTS* HE HAS !!! > (:-) (:-) (:-) > tell me piggy > do you by any chance some > private business with PD No, I don't have "private business" with anyone. I only know "PD" as someone who posts on this newsgroup, who obviously has the patience of a saint. > in that publishing business ?? > y.p > ---------------------- TROLL TROLL TROLL TROLL TROLL TROLL TROLL TROLL TROLL TROLL TROLL TROLL TROLL TROLL TROLL TROLL TROLL TROLL TROLL TROLL TROLL TROLL TROLL TROLL TROLL TROLL TROLL TROLL TROLL TROLL TROLL TROLL TROLL TROLL TROLL TROLL TROLL TROLL TROLL TROLL Go back under your bridge, Poor Rat.
From: PD on 26 Jun 2010 10:50
On Jun 26, 9:45 am, "Y.Porat" <y.y.po...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > ---------------------i > ddint mean just the M K S or else basic dimension analysis > AND I EXPLAINED IT CLEARLY!! > > THE M K S (OR ANOTHER DIMESION STYSTEM > IS ONLY THE SKELETON OF THE FORMULA!! And it is only the skeleton of the formula -- the dimensions -- that dimensional analysis deals with! That's what it's for! That's why I keep telling you that you're trying to do too much with dimensional analysis -- more than what dimensional analysis is designed to provide. This is because you do not understand what dimensional analysis is FOR, or HOW TO DO IT, or WHAT YOU LEARN when you do it properly. Therefore, whenever you say you're going to do dimensional analysis of anything, your readers know right away that what you're about to write is going to be nonsense. > > THE SKELETON OF A FORMULA > IS GOOD AS A SKELETON OF A DEAD MAN !!! > i was meaning a muchdealer analysis!! > probably not written in any book > (unless you wil yel the popel that it was done > already 80 years ago !! (:-) (remember ) (:-) > > we need may be for the first time ?? > > AN ANALYSIS OF THE SKELETON PLUS FLESH > of that momentum formula > TO MAKE THAT FORMULA ALIVE > by > REAL AND DEEPER AND MORE CORRECT UNDERSTANDING OF IT !! > without false interpretations of it !! > it seems that you dont understand what is on stake !! > on stake is a revolution in some of modern physics paradigms !!! > it s does nt matter with any system we do it > the M K S system is good enough > but while examing (examining !! > you call it any namwe of examination > i dont mind its name!! > anyway > it is not only a '''post mortem"" examination of just a skeleton of > the formula !!! > it is an examination of > ALL OF IT TO THE LAST DETAIL AVAILABLE TO US !! > > sine here was a claim that soemthingin it is relativistic > we have tolook intop it if that has some solid base > > ( in case you dont remember i am a poor bridge Engineer > and as such i am always looking for solid bases > not just hand savings !!) > so > i did that simple basic (probably unprecedented though very simple) > andi asked myself > wahtthe hell is relativistic in that 'decomposed ' formula?? > > nothing in the m K S basic dimensions > (there is no > M! K1 K2 K3 S system > there is M K S sysem > unless you are comitted toinvent a new dimension system > and BTW > if you say tha there is an > M K1 K2 K3 S systyem then > which of them K is relativistic > K1 K2 or K3 ??? > or may it is the Meter that is relativistic?? > or may be the BASIC Second is relativistic > if not we goon examining > may be > 6.6 exp-34 is relativistic?? > may be > fs (the figure associated the freqaunxcy ?? > even thatnot > or may be > in that 30000000 figure (of c ) > so > > where do you see anything relativistic in that formula ?? > > i expect an honest serious RESPONSIBLE answer !! > > TIA > Y.Porat > ------------------------- > |