The reality of energy.
in [Relativity]
|
From: BURT on 4 Mar 2010 18:10 On Mar 4, 2:15 pm, Mahipal7638 <mahipal7...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > On Mar 4, 4:17 pm, glird <gl...(a)aol.com> wrote: > > > > > > > On Feb 28, 6:50 am, "Y.Porat" <y.y.po...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > On Feb 27, 3:54 am, glird <gl...(a)aol.com> wrote: > > > > > "Energy" is the ability to do work, an ability that > > > > is possessed by organized portions of matter. > > > -------------------- > > > so what is that thing > > > that enables those 'portions of matter' > > > to do work ?? > > > Pressure, of, by and against matter. > > > in Physics, work = md, where d is a distance. From F = ma we get, m > > = f/a. Substituting this value of m into the first equation we get > > w = f(cm)/(cm/sec^2) = pressure per second per second. > > > glird > > What timezone are you in and how much sleep have you had after all > that moonshine? What Physics, where work=md, are you thinking of?! > > In Physics, the real world kind, work=fd. Force distance. At best > your md is mass distance. Or a md doctor who doesn't make house calls, > in the state of Maryland MD. A stupid typing joke, I confess. > > Please try not to help when you're not cognizant of what you type. > Tia. Seeing your name/alias in Usenet is not worth the ignorance you > convey. Just in and from my frame of reference. > > Enjo(y)... > -- > Mahipal > In Today's real-time search and links world, perhaps Usenet should be > called Usenot.- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text - Expanding space creates new points in the light sphere oscillation red shifting its energy by distance traveled through. Expanding space red shifts light in cosmology. Mitch Raemsch
From: Inertial on 4 Mar 2010 19:46 "glird" <glird(a)aol.com> wrote in message news:fd0569e7-5fa1-42a3-9acc-b1c05315927b(a)y17g2000yqd.googlegroups.com... > On Mar 2, 5:48 pm, "Inertial" <relativ...(a)rest.com> wrote: >> >>>< by the time it reaches us it has redshifted quite a long way and to us >>>it appeard to have a reduced energy,> >> >>It always had reduced energy to us. > >>>< can we think of that discrepancy between higher energy in its framework >>>and its lower energy in our framework as being the entropy gain of the >>>photon?> > > That depends on which of the present two diametrically different two > definitions of "entropy" you use. > >>Nothing in the photon changed. The energy it 'has' in our frame is >>constant the whole time. The energy it 'has' in the frame of the star >>that emitted it is constant the whole time. There is no change > > > Bullshit! Nope. > as proved by the compton effect, every time a photon > interacts with an atom it happens to pass, a tiny bit of its energy is > transferred to the atom and the light-waves continue on, at c, with a > trifle les energy remaining in them. THAT's why the light shifts to > the red. No .. I am talking about red-shift due to Doppler shift. >> >>>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. > > > The "relavistic" Doppler shift won't help you understand anything at > all. Except redshift due to difference in velocities, which is what we were discussing > (As of now, the red shift isn't even attributed to the > recessional velocity of the source, It is asssigned to an expansion of > empty space itself!! Which causes objects to move apart causing Doppler effects > (Nonsense breeds insanity breeds physics.) Indeed it does .. please stop it.
From: ben6993 on 5 Mar 2010 04:35 On Mar 5, 12:46 am, "Inertial" <relativ...(a)rest.com> wrote: > "glird" <gl...(a)aol.com> wrote in message > > news:fd0569e7-5fa1-42a3-9acc-b1c05315927b(a)y17g2000yqd.googlegroups.com... > > > > > > > On Mar 2, 5:48 pm, "Inertial" <relativ...(a)rest.com> wrote: > > >>>< by the time it reaches us it has redshifted quite a long way and to us > >>>it appeard to have a reduced energy,> > > >>It always had reduced energy to us. > > >>>< can we think of that discrepancy between higher energy in its framework > >>>and its lower energy in our framework as being the entropy gain of the > >>>photon?> > > > That depends on which of the present two diametrically different two > > definitions of "entropy" you use. > > >>Nothing in the photon changed. The energy it 'has' in our frame is > >>constant the whole time. The energy it 'has' in the frame of the star > >>that emitted it is constant the whole time. There is no change > > > > Bullshit! > > Nope. > > > as proved by the compton effect, every time a photon > > interacts with an atom it happens to pass, a tiny bit of its energy is > > transferred to the atom and the light-waves continue on, at c, with a > > trifle les energy remaining in them. THAT's why the light shifts to > > the red. > > No .. I am talking about red-shift due to Doppler shift. > > >> >>>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. > > > > The "relavistic" Doppler shift won't help you understand anything at > > all. > > Except redshift due to difference in velocities, which is what we were > discussing > > > (As of now, the red shift isn't even attributed to the > > recessional velocity of the source, It is asssigned to an expansion of > > empty space itself!! > > Which causes objects to move apart causing Doppler effects > > > (Nonsense breeds insanity breeds physics.) > > Indeed it does .. please stop it.- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text - I can see that the Compton effect is relevant (next on my reading list!) but is a separate issue needing to be considered in addition to each of the redshifts caused by the velocity of observer, spacetime inflation and gravitation. In the Compton Effect, the incoming (indivisible) photon will be absorbed by the atom and a new (indivisible) photon emitted. I don't know what determines the difference in energies. I suppose it would be a slightly different outcome for different atoms as they won't all have an identical set of quanta available within them for emission.
From: BURT on 5 Mar 2010 17:12 On Mar 5, 1:35 am, ben6993 <ben6...(a)hotmail.com> wrote: > On Mar 5, 12:46 am, "Inertial" <relativ...(a)rest.com> wrote: > > > > > > > "glird" <gl...(a)aol.com> wrote in message > > >news:fd0569e7-5fa1-42a3-9acc-b1c05315927b(a)y17g2000yqd.googlegroups.com.... > > > > On Mar 2, 5:48 pm, "Inertial" <relativ...(a)rest.com> wrote: > > > >>>< by the time it reaches us it has redshifted quite a long way and to us > > >>>it appeard to have a reduced energy,> > > > >>It always had reduced energy to us. > > > >>>< can we think of that discrepancy between higher energy in its framework > > >>>and its lower energy in our framework as being the entropy gain of the > > >>>photon?> > > > > That depends on which of the present two diametrically different two > > > definitions of "entropy" you use. > > > >>Nothing in the photon changed. The energy it 'has' in our frame is > > >>constant the whole time. The energy it 'has' in the frame of the star > > >>that emitted it is constant the whole time. There is no change > > > > > Bullshit! > > > Nope. > > > > as proved by the compton effect, every time a photon > > > interacts with an atom it happens to pass, a tiny bit of its energy is > > > transferred to the atom and the light-waves continue on, at c, with a > > > trifle les energy remaining in them. THAT's why the light shifts to > > > the red. > > > No .. I am talking about red-shift due to Doppler shift. > > > >> >>>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. > > > > > The "relavistic" Doppler shift won't help you understand anything at > > > all. > > > Except redshift due to difference in velocities, which is what we were > > discussing > > > > (As of now, the red shift isn't even attributed to the > > > recessional velocity of the source, It is asssigned to an expansion of > > > empty space itself!! > > > Which causes objects to move apart causing Doppler effects > > > > (Nonsense breeds insanity breeds physics.) > > > Indeed it does .. please stop it.- Hide quoted text - > > > - Show quoted text - > > I can see that the Compton effect is relevant (next on my reading > list!) but is a separate issue needing to be considered in addition to > each of the redshifts caused by the velocity of observer, spacetime > inflation and gravitation. > > In the Compton Effect, the incoming (indivisible) photon will be > absorbed by the atom and a new (indivisible) photon emitted. I don't > know what determines the difference in energies. I suppose it would > be a slightly different outcome for different atoms as they won't all > have an identical set of quanta available within them for emission.- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text - Expanding space that light travels through expands its wavelength. Mitch Raemsch
From: glird on 6 Mar 2010 14:54
On Mar 4, 5:15 pm, Mahipal7638 wrote: > On Mar 4, 4:17 pm, glird <gl...(a)aol.com> wrote: > > On Feb 28, 6:50 am, "Y.Porat" wrote: > > > On Feb 27, 3:54 am, glird <gl...(a)aol.com> wrote: > > > > "Energy" is the ability to do work, an ability > > > > that's possessed by organized portions of matter. > > > -------------------- > > > so what is that thing > > > that enables those 'portions of matter' > > > to do work ?? > > > Pressure, of, by and against matter. > > in Physics, work = md, where d is a distance. From F = ma we get, m > > = f/a. Substituting this value of m into the first equation we get w = f(cm)/(cm/sec^2) = pressure per second per second. > > glird > >< What timezone are you in and how much sleep have you had after all that moonshine? What Physics, where work=md, are you thinking of?! > i KNEW something was wrong so I stopped in the middle of my reply. > In Physics, the real world kind, work=fd. Force distance. At best your md is mass distance. Or a mad doctor who doesn't make house calls, in the state of Maryland MD. A stupid typing joke, I confess. > Thank you for correcting my stupid error. Here is what I started to show: In Physics, work = fd, where d is a distance. From F = ma we get (by substitution), w = mad = grams x cm/sec^2 x cm = grams x cm^2/sec^2 = mv^2. Taken to the relativistic limit of v, that becomes e = w = mc^2, in which m (in grams) is the pressure a body exerts against a scale. glird |