Prev: No mass (The only one) No real physics!!
Next: Arrow of Causality
From: Y.Porat on 2 Jul 2010 02:46
On Jul 2, 7:16 am, artful <artful...(a)hotmail.com> wrote:
> 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"

-----------------
i like that yep**!!
of that big Serif of this ng
(of that psychopath imbecile crooK
anonymous leech a Serif with 3 anonymous names ...)

that **Yep** is VERY IMPRESIVE
AND FULL OF PHYSICS SCIENCE
and Authority !!
he said
*no need of Gamma*

THAN NO NEED OF GAMMA !!!!!

WHY??
because the psychopath imbecile crook Sherif said so !!! full
stop !!!
that s physics !!!
(:-)

next
Y.P
---------------------------
----------------
First  |  Prev  | 
Pages: 1 2 3 4 5
Prev: No mass (The only one) No real physics!!
Next: Arrow of Causality