What is the experimentally measurable difference between rest mass and the 'relativistic mass' of the photon ??!!
in [Relativity]
|
From: Koobee Wublee on 1 May 2010 03:35 On Apr 26, 7:18 pm, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > On Apr 26, 7:06 pm, Koobee Wublee wrote: > > ** E^2 = m^2 c^4 + p^2 c^2 > > ** E = m c^2 > > > Where > > > ** E = Observed energy > > ** m = Rest mass > > ** m = observed mass > > ** p = observed momentum The second equation can be directly derived as one of the geodesic equations. In the meanwhile, the first equation can only be claimed after the second equation is established. So, what is this absurd claim that the second equation is not preferably accepted by the self- styled physicists nowadays. It just does not make any sense. So, good professor Draper, how do you derive at the first equation without knowing the second equation?
From: Y.Porat on 1 May 2010 08:45 On May 1, 9:35 am, Koobee Wublee <koobee.wub...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > On Apr 26, 7:18 pm, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > On Apr 26, 7:06 pm, Koobee Wublee wrote: > > > ** E^2 = m^2 c^4 + p^2 c^2 > > > ** E = m c^2 > > > > Where > > > > ** E = Observed energy > > > ** m = Rest mass > > > ** m = observed mass > > > ** p = observed momentum > > The second equation can be directly derived as one of the geodesic ------------------ No geodesic and no schmeodesic!! E=m c^2 is the original for formula that made Einstein the scientist of the 20 th century!! 2 p c is DIMENSIONALLY mc^2 AS WELL it cant be otherwise !!! now look at the op post ?!! we are dealing fist of all about the mass dimension !! the mass in mc^2 and pc cannot be different !!!!! 1 if you insert zero for the mass THE WHOLE ENERGY BECOMES ZERO!! 2 while you cant find a zero scalar multiplier there EVEN IF YOU WILL STAND ON YOUR HEAD !!! there is no zero mass dimension and no zero scalar there it is only in the morons crooks and suckers mind !! that decided stupidly todefine the massof energy as Zero because those idiots decided ** ARBITRARILY** and groundless that ''''***NO MASS CAN REACH c !! **''''' 3 in any case-- THE SCALAR MULTIPLIERS DO NOT CHANGE THE BASIC DIMENSIONS IT IS ONLY THE CROOK DRAPER & CO THAT TRIED TO CHEAT**AND OBFUSCATE ABOUT IT !!! and are a pain in the neck for advance in science !! HE IS A MASTER OF OBFUSCATIONS! A NASTY SHAMELESS DEMAGOGUE!! --- ----that can turn a mouse to a cat and vice versa !!! --- JUST WHILE HIS PERSONAL POLITICS DEMAND IT FOR HIM !!! and cal himself a professor ???!!! THE FIRST THING HE SHOULD TEACH HIS STUDENTS IS ***HONESTY !!!! it seems that in his school there was not such a word in his dictionary !!! Y.Porat -------------------------- > equations. In the meanwhile, the first equation can only be claimed > after the second equation is established. So, what is this absurd > claim that the second equation is not preferably accepted by the self- > styled physicists nowadays. It just does not make any sense. > > So, good professor Draper, how do you derive at the first equation > without knowing the second equation?
From: Inertial on 1 May 2010 09:19 "Y.Porat" <y.y.porat(a)gmail.com> wrote in message news:c97fa70f-a812-4b47-8bde-7b560c88cbec(a)o14g2000yqb.googlegroups.com... > On May 1, 9:35 am, Koobee Wublee <koobee.wub...(a)gmail.com> wrote: >> On Apr 26, 7:18 pm, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: >> >> > On Apr 26, 7:06 pm, Koobee Wublee wrote: >> > > ** E^2 = m^2 c^4 + p^2 c^2 >> > > ** E = m� c^2 >> >> > > Where >> >> > > ** E = Observed energy >> > > ** m = Rest mass >> > > ** m� = observed mass >> > > ** p = observed momentum >> >> The second equation can be directly derived as one of the geodesic > > ------------------ > No geodesic and no schmeodesic!! > > E=m c^2 > is the original for formula that made Einstein > the scientist of the 20 th century!! AS I've told you OVER and OVER .. it is the formula for rest energy E, given rest mass m > 2 > p c is DIMENSIONALLY mc^2 AS WELL We know that > it cant be otherwise !!! Noone says it is > now look at the op post ?!! > we are dealing fist of all about the mass dimension !! > the mass in mc^2 > and pc cannot be different !!!!! Noone says it is different .. its your senile imagination that anyone is saying otherwise > 1 > if you insert zero for the mass > THE WHOLE ENERGY BECOMES ZERO!! No .. you end up with E = pc Simple math. > 2 > while you cant find a zero scalar multiplier there > EVEN IF YOU WILL STAND ON YOUR HEAD !!! > there is no > zero mass dimension and no zero scalar there > it is > only in the morons crooks and suckers mind !! No .. just in yours > that decided stupidly todefine the massof energy > as Zero > because those idiots decided ** ARBITRARILY** > and groundless that > ''''***NO MASS CAN REACH c !! **''''' No .. that's what Einstein found. Perhaps you should study him instead of you hero Goebbels > 3 > in any case-- > THE SCALAR MULTIPLIERS > DO NOT CHANGE THE BASIC DIMENSIONS Noone says they do > IT IS ONLY THE CROOK DRAPER & CO > THAT > TRIED TO CHEAT**AND OBFUSCATE ABOUT IT !!! No .. we were very clear .. there is only one mass dimension. It is YOU who invented the notion that physics claimed otherwise. You were wrong > and are a pain in the neck for advance in science !! Indeed you are > HE IS A MASTER OF OBFUSCATIONS! No .. he is very clear in his explanations > A NASTY SHAMELESS DEMAGOGUE!! --- No .. that's you > ----that can turn a mouse to a cat > and vice versa !!! --- You think you're a mouse .. you've never been anything here other than a nasty angry old man > JUST WHILE HIS PERSONAL POLITICS > DEMAND IT FOR HIM !!! What politics .. you are the one who brings politics and organised crime into it > and cal himself a professor ???!!! > THE FIRST THING HE SHOULD TEACH HIS STUDENTS IS > ***HONESTY !!!! You wouldn't understand honesty. You lie over and over and over again .. Its all there to see in your threads > it seems that in his school there was not such a word > in his dictionary !!! Drop dead old man. You don't deserve to live
From: PD on 1 May 2010 10:49 On May 1, 2:35 am, Koobee Wublee <koobee.wub...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > On Apr 26, 7:18 pm, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > On Apr 26, 7:06 pm, Koobee Wublee wrote: > > > ** E^2 = m^2 c^4 + p^2 c^2 > > > ** E = m c^2 > > > > Where > > > > ** E = Observed energy > > > ** m = Rest mass > > > ** m = observed mass > > > ** p = observed momentum > > The second equation can be directly derived as one of the geodesic > equations. In the meanwhile, the first equation can only be claimed > after the second equation is established. So, what is this absurd > claim that the second equation is not preferably accepted by the self- > styled physicists nowadays. It just does not make any sense. > > So, good professor Draper, how do you derive at the first equation > without knowing the second equation? Good grief, KW. Quit blustering and spluttering. The first equation stems directly from the expression for the norm of the 4-momentum.
From: glird on 1 May 2010 16:36
On May 1, 10:49 am, PD wrote: >< The first equation [e = mc^2] stems directly from the expression for the norm of the 4-momentum. > Assuming that "the norm of the 4 momentum" means "the line perpendicular to the momentum in x,y,z,t" and that momentum = mv, please show how "The first equation stems directly from the expression for the norm of the 4-momentum". Along the way, note that in the expression "mv" the m is the mass (quantity of matter) of the object that moves at v; and explain how the m in e = mc^2 -> m = e/c^2 is that same quantity of matter. glird |