No mass (The only one) No real physics!!
in [Physics]
|
Prev: * Hates US * admits his homosexuality while committing EPIC FAIL in futile attempt to support his LYING CLAIM about PNAC, which of course never said anything remotely suggesting it "wanted" the 9/11 attacks
Next: Arrow of Causality
From: PD on 1 Jul 2010 15:10 On Jul 1, 1:58 pm, "Y.Porat" <y.y.po...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > On Jul 1, 7:05 pm, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > On Jul 1, 12:00 pm, "hanson" <han...(a)quick.net> 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 > > > I see you have the same problem, ahahahahanson. > > > The permittivity of empty space is a number that has DIMENSIONS > > electric charge. It is necessary in your mind to explain why this does > > not mean that empty space has electric charge? Are you as much a > > bonehead as Porat is? > > -------------- > idot > > how do you discover the properties of > permittivity !!! :>) If you don't know how the properties of *completely empty space* are found, then you need to educate yourself. I'll remind you that the permittivity of empty space means exactly that. It does not mean the permittivity of space with stuff in it. To help you figure this out, you can look up how Galileo *experimentally* deduced what is now known as Newton's first law: that an object with no net force on it will continue its motion forever. Now, you might be asking yourself how Galileo, using the crude experimental tools that he had at the time, could deduce any law about the behavior of objects that have NO net force on them. That's why I suggested you do some reading to find out how. This will give you some insight on how it is we can deduce properties of *empty space*, not just the properties of space with stuff in it. > you are less intelligent than the little > i assumed about you > Y.P > --------------------- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text -
From: hanson on 1 Jul 2010 18:24 .... ahahahaha.... AHAHAHAHA.... ahahahaha..... > "PD" <thedraperfamily(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 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
From: PD on 1 Jul 2010 18:37 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.
From: artful on 1 Jul 2010 20:32 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.
From: eric gisse on 1 Jul 2010 21:22
PD 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. Because he's a communist - everyone will have the same score. |