The reality of energy.
in [Relativity]
|
From: BURT on 2 Mar 2010 16:37 On Mar 2, 1:25 pm, Mahipal7638 <mahipal7...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > On Mar 2, 10:28 am, ben6993 <ben6...(a)hotmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > > On Mar 2, 3:10 pm, "Y.Porat" <y.y.po...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > what is so diffficult for you to understand??: > > > if the target is 'running away from the > > > moving photons > > > then > > > LESS PHOTON UNITS * PER SECOND* > > > ARE HITTING THE TARGET !!! > > > less photon units = less enrgy !!! > > > no need to stumble on entropy questions > > > and that again shows you that > > > photon energy emission is > > > TIME DEPENDENT !! > > > Yes, the target is running away from the photon, but the photon is > > still moving at relative speed c no matter fast the observer retreats. > > Also, it is less energy even when only one photon is involved. > > Somewhere you apologized for imaging traveling at the speed of a > photon. Why?! Is that thought experiment restricted to a teenager > Einstein only? > > Consider this Ben, there far more potential frames of references than > any theoretical model can claim to have considered. I used to call > this the Infinite Perspectives Machine(s) -- plural or otherwise. > > > I can understand (I trust) a ball being caught by a retreating > > catcher, and also doppler for sound waves, but the fact is that you > > cannot reduce your relative speed wrt a photon no matter how fast you > > retreat. Even though you do not reduce the photon's relative speed, > > the momentum is reduced and the energy is reduced. So the retreat > > works wrt energy and momentum (p) yet fails to work with the speed. I > > want to understand why E and p are reduced, and I am not sure that > > knowing all the maths formula will help me to know 'why'. But I will > > try. > > There is no "try" only "I will do." Perhaps you might learn what I > mean from this link: > > http://www.hep.ucl.ac.uk/opal/gammagamma/gg-tutorial.html > > While electrons collide, photons are absorbed or released. Except for > the low-lower-lowest collision cross-sectional area graphed measures > at the site above for photon-photon collisions. > > Google, The truly DoNoEvil, is your friend if you know what to search. > But shhhhh... don't giveaway your search strings/spellings to anyone > by the physical act of typing. I know, they are not watching the > keystrokes. I must hanson laugh now! Ahahahahahahaha.... > > Enjo(y)... > -- > Mahipal > Just My GPS And Me At The Edge Of The Universe > Just My GRB And Me At The Edge Of The Universe > Just My GOD And Me At The Edge Of The Universe > Just My DOG And Me At The Edge Of The Universe -- Bee Gees.- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text - The gravity geometry of the Sun intersects with that surrounding the Earth. There is more than one geometry in one space. Mitch Raemsch
From: ben6993 on 2 Mar 2010 17:12 On Mar 2, 9:25 pm, Mahipal7638 <mahipal7...(a)gmail.com> wrote: <snip> Thanks very much for the link. Apologetic? Just being polite and trying not to step too much outside physics while learning about physics. Especially when I have already had an idea that the BB universe may be an E-M emission, which maybe is just a little wrong. But that may be only because I do not know enough about non E-M mass/ energy. So you can see it is not a fixed idea or obsession.
From: Inertial on 2 Mar 2010 17:48 "Y.Porat" <y.y.porat(a)gmail.com> wrote in message news:117c06fa-70f8-4fee-8281-bc8cf335a233(a)j27g2000yqn.googlegroups.com... > On Mar 2, 1:44 pm, ben6993 <ben6...(a)hotmail.com> wrote: >> On Mar 2, 9:35 am, "Inertial" <relativ...(a)rest.com> wrote: >> >> > "ben6993" <ben6...(a)hotmail.com> wrote in message >> > > Light always travels at speed c compared to any observer, but the >> > > effort of keeping up this speed when an observer is retreating fast >> > > makes the photon seem tired to the retreating observer. Ie energy is >> > > lost (somewhere in this process) in the maintenance of speed c. >> > > That >> > > doesn't sound so odd. >> > It may not sound odd .. but it is not what happens. There is no tiring >> > of >> > light. It doesn't take any 'effort' for light to travel at c. That >> > energy >> > 'loss' is from the moment the light is emitted. It is not something >> > that >> > happens over distance. That's where you are getting confused. >> >> I know that I have much to learn but I did not think that the >> 'distance' aspect was confusing me. I think it was again a problem >> with my previous wording. I knew that distance has nothing to do >> with causing a redshift except inasfar as an observer (or the >> observer's galaxy) needed distance and time to build up a high speed >> worthy of calling it a Hubble size redshift. I agree that a minute >> redshift could be obtained instantly by just stepping back, away, from >> a torch shone at you, and that would have done just as well as an >> example. >> >> > Have a look at relativistic Doppler shift to see how it works. >> >> Will do. Particularly trying to understand the reason why the photon >> energy is reduced in the observer's framework. > > -------------------- > what is so diffficult for you to understand??: Its not > if the target is 'running away from the > moving photons > then > LESS PHOTON UNITS * PER SECOND* > ARE HITTING THE TARGET !!! Yeup (close enough) > less photon units = less enrgy !!! Yeup .. this is what I've been trying to tell YOU !!! > no need to stumble on entropy questions > and that again shows you that > photon energy emission is > TIME DEPENDENT !! No .. it does NOT. It shows that the number of photons ARRIVING is time dependent. You just explained it that way. GEEES!
From: Inertial on 2 Mar 2010 17:49 "ben6993" <ben6993(a)hotmail.com> wrote in message news:92562fe7-940b-402b-a2c8-5cd4dc3baafa(a)o3g2000yqb.googlegroups.com... > On Mar 2, 3:10 pm, "Y.Porat" <y.y.po...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > >> what is so diffficult for you to understand??: >> if the target is 'running away from the >> moving photons >> then >> LESS PHOTON UNITS * PER SECOND* >> ARE HITTING THE TARGET !!! >> less photon units = less enrgy !!! >> no need to stumble on entropy questions >> and that again shows you that >> photon energy emission is >> TIME DEPENDENT !! > > Yes, the target is running away from the photon, but the photon is > still moving at relative speed c no matter fast the observer retreats. > Also, it is less energy even when only one photon is involved. Yeup. Look at Relativistic Doppler. The frequency is lower, so the photon energy is lower. > I can understand (I trust) a ball being caught by a retreating > catcher, and also doppler for sound waves, but the fact is that you > cannot reduce your relative speed wrt a photon no matter how fast you > retreat. Even though you do not reduce the photon's relative speed, > the momentum is reduced and the energy is reduced. So the retreat > works wrt energy and momentum (p) yet fails to work with the speed. I > want to understand why E and p are reduced, and I am not sure that > knowing all the maths formula will help me to know 'why'. But I will > try.
From: ben6993 on 3 Mar 2010 04:12
On Mar 2, 9:35 am, "Inertial" <relativ...(a)rest.com> wrote: > Have a look at relativistic Doppler shift to see how it works I have started. The maths will keep me busy for a while longer. I will look at cosmological redshift and gravitational redshift, too. The idea of transverse redshift is very interesting, and I am wondering if there is a transverse redshift element component to the cosmological redshift ... but I will keep reading to find out. Thanks. |