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: 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 00:48 ------- ahahahahaha.... AHAHAHAHAHA... ------- > "eric gisse" <jowr.pi.nospam(a)gmail.com> with his BSc still out of reach will probably settle for a liberal BA.. but even that seem to be beyond his grasp as can be seen in his remarks which he wrote: > 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. > Eric Gisse wrote: Because he's a communist - everyone will have the same score. > hanson wrote: .... ahahahaha... So, Eric you who aspires to become an astro-physicist, a profession that needs keen observational talent should re-evaluate your choice... ahahaha... 'cuz, Eric, you are as bad with your political observations and judgments as you are about phyisics, which brings up your own classification that you have reminded me about;... the post from Saturday, June 12, 2010 8:50 PM > > "eric gisse" <jowr.pi.nospam(a)gmail.com> wrote: > ..@..(Henry Wilson DSc) wrote: > someone wrote: The fully qualified physicist with degrees in math and physics, Doctor Henry Wilson, yet again demonstrates his expertise in elementary physics. :-) > Eric Gisse wrote: How did you get a degree in physics without passing a course in classical electrodynamics, Henri? > hanson wrote: Eric, interesting question, ... ahahaha... which is reminiscent of what was discussed more than 2 years ago with you in http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics/msg/71e914deb42fe778 wherein it says: |||| ... why do you, Eric, evade to answer the question for the |||| second time about: |||| "Eric, when is your BSc graduation going to take place?" > Eric Gisse wrote: ||| The same answer 3drealms gives regarding duke nukem ||| forever: When Its' Done. ||| Stupid worthless sociology bullshit wastes my time, but is a ||| graduation requirement. > hanson wrote: So, == "did you get a degree in physics" == now, finally, Eric? Eric, it's been 6 six long years that you have been polishing your school bench with your pant-seat, and you have nothing to show for except your loud mouthing on the Usenet... Bad Scene!... but thanks for the laughs, though... ahahahanson
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 |