What is the experimentally measurable difference between rest mass and the 'relativistic mass' of the photon ??!!
in [Relativity]
|
From: hanson on 1 May 2010 17:38 ------- AHAHAHAHA... ahahaha.... AHAHAHA ------- > Paul Draper: "PD" <thedraperfamily(a)gmail.com> wrote: > In < http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics/msg/3e4af12502a33a7b> > Koobee Wublee <koobee.wub...(a)gmail.com> wrote: >> PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > Koobee Wublee wrote: > > > ** E^2 = m^2 c^4 + p^2 c^2 ------- [1] > > > ** E = m� c^2 ------- [2] > hanson wrote: E^2 = m�^2 c^4 --------- [3] = [2]^2 m�^2 c^4 = m^2 c^4 + p^2 c^2 ---------- [3] = [1] p^2 c^2 = m�^2 c^4 - m^2 c^4 p^2 = m�^2 c^2 - m^2 c^2 p^2 = (m�^2 - m^2) * c^2 ---------- or p^2/c^2 = m'^2 - m^2 ---------- [4] > Already here in [4] it is seen that momentum p happens to be a (function of) mass, no matter what one calls it... A rose by any other name is still a rose... Any momentum needs mass to be present ... or to quote Y. Porat: ----------- No mass --- No physics ---------- with Porat implying that the photon has mass... etc, etc... > Now, depending on how the size of that difference [4] in [p] by (m' - m ) is mathematically treated, whether it is manipulated as a delta or as a differential, one will gain or loose a factor of 2 in the result, which is the loudly trumpeted **2** that appears to be the key argument in the analysis of the measurements of Mercury's precession and other experiments. So, it has nothing to do with any relativity... Newton still trumps and towers over Einstein, no matter how frantically the Einstein Dingleberries do twist, spin or bob in the breeze of the farts that come out of Albert's sphincter & do tremble in their angsts when KW says:" Einstein was a nitwit, plagiarist, and a liar. ? > Koobee Wublee wrote: > > > Where > > > ** E = Observed energy > > > ** m = Rest mass > > > ** m� = observed mass > > > ** p = observed momentum > > The second equation [2] can be directly derived as one > of the geodesic equations. In the meanwhile, the first > equation [1] 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? Paul Draper wrote Good grief, KW. Quit blustering and spluttering. The first equation stems directly from the expression for the norm of the 4-momentum. > hanson wrote: But Paul, you, as a pedagogue, (not necessarily a demagogue, as Porat would have it), should nevertheless not engage into the exact same behavior mode that you accuse KW of doing. To make this character flaw of yours more understandable let me quote my friend from Israel, Yehiel Porat, who stressed on 29-April, 6:16 the following,....... for your benefit, Paul: > Yehiel Porat wrote: === PD, you nasty pig demagogue! lier ! why do you obfuscate the problem ?? we have a simple equation trhat you youself brought it is E^2 =(mc^2) plus (pc)^2 === now nast pig PD if we have a physical formula withthe 3 dimjewnsions of M K S C = A +B does all of the above items MUST HAVE EXACTLY THE SAME DIMeENSIONS?? YES OR NO NASTY PIG ?? sow where do you see in those formula something like M K2 K2 K3 S --- DIMENSIONS ?? where do you see different kinds of mass!! as K1 or K2 ?? === hey nasty pig ?? you could say that in one item there is a sclalr multiplier of zero for the mass WHERE ( NASTY PIG ) YOU SEE A ZERO SCALAR MULTIPLIER ? FOR ANY OF THEM ?? YOU COULD SAY THAT MAY BE THERE IS SOME RELATIVISTIC GAMMA IN IT SO WHERE (NASTY SHAMELESS DEMAGOGUE) YOU SEE A GAMMA FACTOR WHILE THE GAMMA FACTOR DOES NOT APPLY AT ALL TO THE PHOTON OR TO ENERGY ?? === why( nasty demagogue obfuscator) you mingle GR in it !! does your fucken GR create new kinds of mass !!??? while again he gamma factor does not apply to energy nor to mass or new kinds of ENERGY !!! other than the E^2 = ( m c^2)^ + (p c)^2 ????? is that formula that *you yourself brought at the beginning of this discussion ---- ** NOT VALID ANYMORE ** --- why ?? BECAUSE IT IS MORE DIFFICULT TO OBFUSCATE IT ?? a btw question, can you have Gravitation without mass how long you was spending thinking about you way to cheat and obfuscate ??? === do you think that all the readers are idiot or suckers !!!??? Y.Porat > hanson wrote: Paul, try to understand that pigs are NOT kosher... ahahaha,, Thanks for the laughs, though, guys.... ahahahahanson
From: Dono. on 1 May 2010 20:16 On May 1, 1:36 pm, glird <gl...(a)aol.com> wrote: > 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" No. Imbecile.
From: Y.Porat on 2 May 2010 03:17 On May 1, 11:38 pm, "hanson" <han...(a)quick.net> wrote: > ------- AHAHAHAHA... ahahaha.... AHAHAHA ------- > > Paul Draper: "PD" <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote:> In <http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics/msg/3e4af12502a33a7b> > > Koobee Wublee <koobee.wub...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > >> PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > Koobee Wublee wrote: > > > > ** E^2 = m^2 c^4 + p^2 c^2 ------- [1] > > > > ** E = m c^2 ------- [2] > > hanson wrote: > > E^2 = m^2 c^4 --------- [3] = [2]^2 > m^2 c^4 = m^2 c^4 + p^2 c^2 ---------- [3] = [1] > p^2 c^2 = m^2 c^4 - m^2 c^4 > p^2 = m^2 c^2 - m^2 c^2 > p^2 = (m^2 - m^2) * c^2 ---------- or > p^2/c^2 = m'^2 - m^2 ---------- [4] > > Already here in [4] it is seen that momentum p happens > to be a (function of) mass, no matter what one calls it... > A rose by any other name is still a rose... Any momentum > needs mass to be present ... or to quote Y. Porat: > ----------- No mass --- No physics ---------- > with Porat implying that the photon has mass... etc, etc... > > Now, depending on how the size of that difference [4] in > [p] by (m' - m ) is mathematically treated, whether it is > manipulated as a delta or as a differential, one will gain > or loose a factor of 2 in the result, which is the loudly > trumpeted **2** that appears to be the key argument in > the analysis of the measurements of Mercury's precession > and other experiments. So, it has nothing to do with any > relativity... Newton still trumps and towers over Einstein, > no matter how frantically the Einstein Dingleberries do > twist, spin or bob in the breeze of the farts that come out > of Albert's sphincter & do tremble in their angsts when > KW says:" Einstein was a nitwit, plagiarist, and a liar. ? > > > > > > Koobee Wublee wrote: > > > > Where > > > > ** E = Observed energy > > > > ** m = Rest mass > > > > ** m = observed mass > > > > ** p = observed momentum > > > The second equation [2] can be directly derived as one > > of the geodesic equations. In the meanwhile, the first > > equation [1] 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? > > Paul Draper wrote > Good grief, KW. Quit blustering and spluttering. > The first equation stems directly from the expression for the > norm of the 4-momentum. > > hanson wrote: > > But Paul, you, as a pedagogue, (not necessarily a demagogue, > as Porat would have it), should nevertheless not engage into > the exact same behavior mode that you accuse KW of doing. > To make this character flaw of yours more understandable let > me quote my friend from Israel, Yehiel Porat, who stressed > on 29-April, 6:16 the following,....... for your benefit, Paul: > > Yehiel Porat wrote: > > === PD, you nasty pig demagogue! lier ! > why do you obfuscate the problem ?? > we have a simple equation trhat you youself brought > it is E^2 =(mc^2) plus (pc)^2 > === now nast pig PD > if we have a physical formula withthe 3 dimjewnsions of M K S > C = A +B does all of the above items MUST HAVE EXACTLY > THE SAME DIMeENSIONS?? YES OR NO NASTY PIG ?? > sow where do you see in those formula something like > M K2 K2 K3 S --- DIMENSIONS ?? where do you > see different kinds of mass!! as K1 or K2 ?? > === hey nasty pig ?? > you could say that in one item there is a sclalr multiplier of zero > for the mass WHERE ( NASTY PIG ) YOU SEE A ZERO > SCALAR MULTIPLIER ? FOR ANY OF THEM ?? > YOU COULD SAY THAT MAY BE THERE IS SOME RELATIVISTIC > GAMMA IN IT SO WHERE (NASTY SHAMELESS DEMAGOGUE) > YOU SEE A GAMMA FACTOR WHILE THE GAMMA FACTOR > DOES NOT APPLY AT ALL TO THE PHOTON OR TO > ENERGY ?? > === why( nasty demagogue obfuscator) you mingle GR in it !! > does your fucken GR create new kinds of mass !!??? while > again he gamma factor does not apply to energy nor to mass > or new kinds of ENERGY !!! other than the > E^2 = ( m c^2)^ + (p c)^2 ????? > is that formula that *you yourself brought at the beginning of this > discussion ---- ** NOT VALID ANYMORE ** --- why ?? > BECAUSE IT IS MORE DIFFICULT TO OBFUSCATE IT ?? > a btw question, can you have Gravitation without mass > how long you was spending thinking about you way > to cheat and obfuscate ??? > === do you think that all the readers are idiot or suckers !!!??? > Y.Porat > > hanson wrote: > > Paul, try to understand that pigs are NOT kosher... ahahaha,, > Thanks for the laughs, though, guys.... ahahahahanson ------------------- thank you my friend Hanson!! luckily we still have some honest and brave people here !! 2 BTW hanson for me **Special relativity*** SR is valid!! Einstein got his just hist just historic place in science of course he dint start from scratch as Newton said once ''I could see further away -- BECAUSE I WAS STANDING ON THE SHOULDERS OF GIANTS !!!''' no one is starting from scratch !! 2 i agree with you that GR is nonsense and cheating s gravity is not a property of space!! btw am i again the first one to make that difference between validity of SR and rejection of GR !!?? ---- and how did old Porat said it NO MASS - NO REAL PHYSICS !! therefore no virtual particles without mass even not for a fraction of a second !!! and thetrouble of a great deal of "" modern science' starts exactly in the point we are dealing above!! and now you understand WHY IT IS SO IMPORTANT TO ME TO MAKE ALL THAT *!!UNPLEASANT FIGHTING S HERE !! BECAUSE I KNOW EXACTLY WHAT IS ON STAKE !!! ATB Y.Porat ----------------------
From: Tony M on 3 May 2010 09:27 Guys, what is this nonsense about photons having energy but no mass? Energy and mass are BOTH observer dependent quantities, so when we discuss the two we MUST use the SAME frame of reference for BOTH. Therefore, if we talk about the rest mass of a photon then we also have to talk about the rest energy of the photon. Is there such a thing as rest energy for a photon? There is no such thing (or you can say it is zero). The same applies to its rest mass. If we talk about photon energy in a frame where this energy is not zero (photon is not at rest) then we MUST refer to the OBSERVED mass in the SAME frame of reference, and that would NOT be zero either. We can't mix non-rest energy with rest mass and say photons have energy but no mass! E=m c^2 applies, where BOTH E and m are OBSERVED quantities, regardless of the frame of reference we choose, as long as it is the SAME frame for both quantities. Photon mass contributes to the invariant mass of a system which contains photons.
From: Androcles on 3 May 2010 09:53
"Tony M" <marcuac(a)gmail.com> wrote in message news:9e015792-b53a-428e-84e1-0ab7f4fe4ac1(a)o14g2000yqb.googlegroups.com... > Guys, what is this nonsense about photons having energy but no mass? Guys, what is this nonsense about spinning wheels having mass but no energy? |