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: 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"
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 --------------------------- ---------------- |