No mass (The only one) No real physics!!
in [Relativity]
|
From: Y.Porat on 1 Jul 2010 23:25 On Jul 2, 2:32 am, artful <artful...(a)hotmail.com> wrote: > On Jul 2, 7:13 am, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > On Jul 1, 3:29 pm, "hanson" <han...(a)quick.net> wrote: > > > > Pitiful Dancer "PD" <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote:> "hanson" > <han...(a)quick.net> wrote: > > > > >> Paul Draper "PD" <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > >> "Yehiel.Porat" > <y.y.po...(a)gmail.com>, the Israeli wrote: > > > > [snip]hanson wrote: > > > > > > ... ahahahaha... but you are hand-waving and weaseling > > > > > > to/for & at Porat, and what is even funnier, Paul, is that > > > > > > YOU are not able to explain away the DIMENSION of > > > > > > mass in the (definition of the) momentum of the photon, > > > > > > which is the essential beef that Porat is harping about... > > > > > > Thanks for the laughs though, guys... ahahahanson > > > > Draper danced and wrote: > > > > [snip Paul's Dilettante dancing} > > > > hanson wrote: > > > > To help you figure what Porat is after, let me remind > > > you, that when Porat first raised the Issue, then you and > > > other Einstein Dingleberries crammed this photon > > > equation down Porat's throat: E^2 = m^2c^4+ p^2c^2. > > > > You EDs insisted that in the photon's case m =0, and > > > that the photon has only momentum, p. Porat accepted > > > that but asked how momentum could be without mass > > > when the momentum is defined as p = m*v, resp. m*c > > > from which Porat concluded that the photon has mass > > > after all...courtesy of its momentum of m*c... > > > Ah, so THAT's the problem. > > The issue, you see, is that momentum is not *defined* as m*v. And in > > NO case does the momentum ever equal mc. > > What the formula for momentum is, depends on what the kind of object > > it is. There is no formula for momentum that works universally for all > > objects. The formula m*v is a handy and simple formula that works for > > massive objects, and even then only as a decent approximation as long > > as v<<c. If anyone ever told you that m*v is the *definition* of > > momentum, then you were sadly misled. > > > There. That was simple. I hope it's fixed for you now. > > There is p = Mv .. where M is relativistic (or inertial) mass. That's > pretty much how relativistic mass is defined. And for a photon it is > p = Mc (because v=c). But for rest mass, m, we do *not* have p = mv > EXCEPT when v = 0 :) Its just very CLOSE to p = mv for v << c. ---------------- notonly artful is a crook idiot but he uses as well 3 DIFFERENT NAMES ON THE SAME THREAD GOT IT READERS 3 DIFFERENT NAMES OF THE SAME PERSON IN THE SAME THREAD !!! IOW JUST WAITE FOR HIS 'INERTIAL' TO COME IN (:-) 2 for the velocity c there is no gamma factor nor for any aspect of the photon because v/c makes it **undefined* and irrelevant !!! and there is no 'relativistic' without the gamma factor !! Y.P -------------------------
From: Y.Porat on 1 Jul 2010 23:27 On Jul 1, 8:54 pm, BURT <macromi...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > On Jul 1, 11:52 am, "Y.Porat" <y.y.po...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > On Jul 1, 7:19 pm, Uncle Ben <b...(a)greenba.com> wrote: > > > > On Jul 1, 12:51 am, "Y.Porat" <y.y.po...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > The analysis of the Photon Momentum > > > > shows us clearly that > > > > No mass (the only one) - no real physics !! > > > > ie > > > > the mass of the photon (in Kilograms !) is neither zero -- nor > > > > relativistic !! > > > > the dimension less figures associated there > > > > to the M K S dimensions -- > > > > show it clearly and unequivocally > > > > (if you donr mind > > > > the KILOGRAM dimension is just one > > > > basic dimension > > > > there is no Kg 1 Kg 2 etc -just one kilogram !! > > > > (with just one meaning and interpretation of it- > > > > no many interpretations for it !!) > > > > > that should be a beginning of some revolution > > > > in modern physics > > > > for instance > > > > no more 'massless particles evennot for a fraction of a second !! > > > > IOW > > > > that one mass is conserved1 > > > > exsctly as in marcocosm and as > > > > Energy is conserved > > > > > E=m c^2 > > > > and > > > > Momentum of Photon is hf/c etc etc > > > > as i analyzed it in a previous thread > > > > > ps > > > > not for parrots > > > > (that will come right on (:-) > > > > copyright > > > > Yehiel Porat June 2010 > > > > ( just now - the main point for me is that it will be > > > > formally recorded ... No thefts later (:-).) > > > > ATB > > > > Y.Porat > > > > ---------------------- > > > > That is a new use for dimensional analysis! Let's try it out: c is in > > > m/sec in vacuum. Therefore there are mater sticks and clocks of an > > > invisible kind in a vacuum, since light can traverse a vacuum. Let's > > > get a research grant to look for them! > > > > Uncle Ben > > > ---------------- > > another genius around the table > > didyou ever hread that > > > no mass the only one no real physics??!! > > > so listen genius : > > > if there is just Meter and Second and no mass > > what are the tools that you will use > > TO MEASURE ANYTHING ???!!! > > massless tools ??? > > > just start to be a physicist > > and not just a fucken mathematician > > snd only them you might learn something new about physics !! > > keep well > > > Y.P > > ------------ Hide quoted text - > > > - Show quoted text - > > Mass is for weight. There are some forms of energy that are massless. > Those forms are unconcentrated energy for light and atomic bond > forces. > > Mitch Raemsch ------------------- tell it to PD the professor of physics and publisher & CO. (:-) ------------------ y.p --------------------------
From: Y.Porat on 1 Jul 2010 23:38 On Jul 2, 12:37 am, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > On Jul 1, 5:24 pm, "hanson" <han...(a)quick.net> wrote: > > > > > ... ahahahaha.... AHAHAHAHA.... ahahahaha..... > > > "PD" <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > "hanson" <han...(a)quick.net> wrote: > > > Pitiful Dancer "PD" <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > "hanson" > <han...(a)quick.net> wrote: > > > > >> Paul Draper "PD" <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > >> "Yehiel.Porat" > <y.y.po...(a)gmail.com>, the Israeli wrote: > > > [snip] > > > hanson wrote: > > > > > > ... ahahahaha... but you are hand-waving and weaseling > > > > > > to/for & at Porat, and what is even funnier, Paul, is that > > > > > > YOU are not able to explain away the DIMENSION of > > > > > > mass in the (definition of the) momentum of the photon, > > > > > > which is the essential beef that Porat is harping about... > > > > > > Thanks for the laughs though, guys... ahahahanson > > > > Draper danced and wrote: > > > [snip Paul's Dilettante dancing] > > > > hanson wrote: > > > To help you figure what Porat is after, let me remind > > > you, that when Porat first raised the Issue, then you and > > > other Einstein Dingleberries crammed this photon > > > equation down Porat's throat: E^2 = m^2c^4+ p^2c^2. > > > > You EDs insisted that in the photon's case m =0, and > > > that the photon has only momentum, p. Porat accepted > > > that but asked how momentum could be without mass > > > when the momentum is defined as p = m*v, resp. m*c > > > from which Porat concluded that the photon has mass > > > after all...courtesy of its momentum of m*c... > > > Paul Draper wrote: > > > Ah, so THAT's the problem. The issue, you see, > > is that momentum is not *defined* as m*v. > > And in NO case does the momentum ever equal mc. > > What the formula for momentum is, depends on > > what the kind of object it is. There is no formula for > > momentum that works universally for all objects. > > The formula m*v is a handy and simple formula > > that works for massive objects, and even then only > > as a decent approximation as long as v<<c. > > If anyone ever told you that m*v is the *definition* of > > momentum, then you were sadly misled. > > There. That was simple. I hope it's fixed for you now. > > > hanson wrote: > > > Paul, don't lecture me... ahaha... I have no problems > > with the issue... Go after Porat. Lets' see whether > > Porat is going to buy your tripe, with 25.8MM google > > hits for "define momentum physics", most of them > > saying that: p = m*v > > Well, there you go, ahahahahahanson, learning physics with Google. > Good luck with that. > Oh, by the way, there are 3.3MM google hits for "proof evolution > wrong". Must be wrong then, huh? > > > and with 4 million google hits > > for "momentum of a photon" most of them saying: > > E(photon) = p*c ... I wish you good luck with your > > attempts to educate Professor Yehiel Porat... ahaha... > > I will keep score of the game. So far it stands: > > ------ [ Porat 1 : Draper 0, zilch, nada ] ----- > > Go sic'em, Paul.... hahahaha... ahahahanson- > > Oh, I don't gauge my worth by whether I can educate Porat or you. I > don't know why you'd want to keep a score on that. ------------------- indeed Paul was talking just above a lot of physics arguments to teach us physics!! indeed he is a MOMENTOUS physicists !! and a great personality to teach us even human behavior about how to be a demagogue obfuscater (to mingle electric permittivity with photon mass of momentum ) Y.P -------------------
From: hanson on 2 Jul 2010 00:52 .... ahahahaha.... AHAHAHAHA.... ahahahaha..... ..... AHAHAHAHA.... ahahahaha.....AHAHAHAHA.... > "PD" <thedraperfamily(a)gmail.com> wrote: "hanson" <han...(a)quick.net> wrote: > "PD" <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > "hanson" <han...(a)quick.net> wrote: > > Pitiful Dancer "PD" <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > "hanson" > <han...(a)quick.net> wrote: > > > >> Paul Draper "PD" <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > >> "Yehiel.Porat" > <y.y.po...(a)gmail.com>, the Israeli wrote: > > [snip] > > hanson wrote: > > > > > ... ahahahaha... but you are hand-waving and weaseling > > > > > to/for & at Porat, and what is even funnier, Paul, is that > > > > > YOU are not able to explain away the DIMENSION of > > > > > mass in the (definition of the) momentum of the photon, > > > > > which is the essential beef that Porat is harping about... > > > > > Thanks for the laughs though, guys... ahahahanson > > > Draper danced and wrote: > > [snip Paul's Dilettante dancing] > > > hanson wrote: > > To help you figure what Porat is after, let me remind > > you, that when Porat first raised the Issue, then you and > > other Einstein Dingleberries crammed this photon > > equation down Porat's throat: E^2 = m^2c^4+ p^2c^2. > > > You EDs insisted that in the photon's case m =0, and > > that the photon has only momentum, p. Porat accepted > > that but asked how momentum could be without mass > > when the momentum is defined as p = m*v, resp. m*c > > from which Porat concluded that the photon has mass > > after all...courtesy of its momentum of m*c... > > Paul Draper wrote: > Ah, so THAT's the problem. The issue, you see, > is that momentum is not *defined* as m*v. > And in NO case does the momentum ever equal mc. > What the formula for momentum is, depends on > what the kind of object it is. There is no formula for > momentum that works universally for all objects. > The formula m*v is a handy and simple formula > that works for massive objects, and even then only > as a decent approximation as long as v<<c. > If anyone ever told you that m*v is the *definition* of > momentum, then you were sadly misled. > There. That was simple. I hope it's fixed for you now. > > hanson wrote: > Paul, don't lecture me... ahaha... I have no problems > with the issue... Go after Porat. Lets' see whether > Porat is going to buy your tripe, with 25.8MM google > hits for "define momentum physics", most of them > saying that: p = m*v > Draper, sidestepping the issue again, wrote: Well, there you go, ahahahahahanson, learning physics with Google. Good luck with that.. .Oh, by the way, there are 3.3MM google hits for "proof evolution wrong". Must be wrong then, huh? > > hanson wrote: > ...and with 4 million google hits > for "momentum of a photon" most of them saying: > E(photon) = p*c ... I wish you good luck with your > attempts to educate Professor Yehiel Porat... ahaha... > I will keep score of the game. So far it stands: > ------ [ Porat 1 : Draper 0, zilch, nada ] ----- > Go sic'em, Paul.... hahahaha... ahahahanson- > Draper, sidestepping the issue again, wrote: Oh, I don't gauge my worth by whether I can educate Porat or you. I don't know why you'd want to keep a score on that. > hanson wrote: ahahaha.. But Paul, nobody asked you for gauging your self-worth... ahahaha.... and I already told you that I don't need your lectures.. ahaha.... but it becomes clear and apparent that *** you are afraid of Porat:*** ------ [ Porat 2 : Draper 0, zilch, nada ] ----- Thanks for the laugh, though Paul... AHAHAHAHA... ahahahaha... ahahanson
From: artful on 2 Jul 2010 01:16 On Jul 2, 1:25 pm, "Y.Porat" <y.y.po...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > On Jul 2, 2:32 am, artful <artful...(a)hotmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > > On Jul 2, 7:13 am, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > On Jul 1, 3:29 pm, "hanson" <han...(a)quick.net> wrote: > > > > > Pitiful Dancer "PD" <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote:> "hanson" > <han...(a)quick.net> wrote: > > > > > >> Paul Draper "PD" <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > >> "Yehiel.Porat" > <y.y.po...(a)gmail.com>, the Israeli wrote: > > > > > [snip]hanson wrote: > > > > > > > ... ahahahaha... but you are hand-waving and weaseling > > > > > > > to/for & at Porat, and what is even funnier, Paul, is that > > > > > > > YOU are not able to explain away the DIMENSION of > > > > > > > mass in the (definition of the) momentum of the photon, > > > > > > > which is the essential beef that Porat is harping about... > > > > > > > Thanks for the laughs though, guys... ahahahanson > > > > > Draper danced and wrote: > > > > > [snip Paul's Dilettante dancing} > > > > > hanson wrote: > > > > > To help you figure what Porat is after, let me remind > > > > you, that when Porat first raised the Issue, then you and > > > > other Einstein Dingleberries crammed this photon > > > > equation down Porat's throat: E^2 = m^2c^4+ p^2c^2. > > > > > You EDs insisted that in the photon's case m =0, and > > > > that the photon has only momentum, p. Porat accepted > > > > that but asked how momentum could be without mass > > > > when the momentum is defined as p = m*v, resp. m*c > > > > from which Porat concluded that the photon has mass > > > > after all...courtesy of its momentum of m*c... > > > > Ah, so THAT's the problem. > > > The issue, you see, is that momentum is not *defined* as m*v. And in > > > NO case does the momentum ever equal mc. > > > What the formula for momentum is, depends on what the kind of object > > > it is. There is no formula for momentum that works universally for all > > > objects. The formula m*v is a handy and simple formula that works for > > > massive objects, and even then only as a decent approximation as long > > > as v<<c. If anyone ever told you that m*v is the *definition* of > > > momentum, then you were sadly misled. > > > > There. That was simple. I hope it's fixed for you now. > > > There is p = Mv .. where M is relativistic (or inertial) mass. That's > > pretty much how relativistic mass is defined. And for a photon it is > > p = Mc (because v=c). But for rest mass, m, we do *not* have p = mv > > EXCEPT when v = 0 :) Its just very CLOSE to p = mv for v << c. > > ---------------- > notonly artful is a crook idiot Nope > but > he uses as well > 3 DIFFERENT NAMES ON THE SAME THREAD Yeup > GOT IT READERS > 3 DIFFERENT NAMES OF THE SAME PERSON > IN THE SAME THREAD !!! Yeup > IOW > JUST WAITE FOR HIS 'INERTIAL' TO COME IN (:-) If that's what makes your day > 2 > for the velocity c there is no gamma > factor Who said there had to be one? > nor for any aspect of the photon > because v/c makes it **undefined* > and irrelevant !!! > and there is no 'relativistic' without the gamma factor !! WRONG .. totally and completely wrong. "relativisitc" does not mean "has a gamma factor"
First
|
Prev
|
Next
|
Last
Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 Prev: No mass (The only one) No real physics!! Next: Arrow of Causality |