What is the experimentally measurable difference between rest mass and the 'relativistic mass' of the photon ??!!
in [Relativity]
|
From: PD on 7 May 2010 09:00 On May 6, 7:42 pm, "Y.Porat" <y.y.po...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > On May 6, 6:32 pm, "Y.Porat" <y.y.po...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > On May 6, 5:52 pm, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > On May 6, 10:28 am, "Y.Porat" <y.y.po...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > On May 6, 5:22 pm, P something like this: > > > > > > "Physical entities usually carry a property called momentum. There are > > > > > various ways to determine the momentum of an object, if you know > > > > > something about the other properties of the object, but there is no > > > > > fast rule that always works. There are different rules that can be > > > > > used sometimes for the same object, to the same result. There are > > > > > different rules that have to be applied to different kinds of objects. > > > > > What is remarkable is that if you add up the momenta you find by these > > > > > various formulas for all the objects in a closed system, the total > > > > > will remain constant, no matter what happens in the interactions > > > > > between the objects in the system. As an example of how you might find > > > > > the momentum of an object, it happens that if you have a material > > > > > object that has mass and a velocity that is slow (v<<c), then the > > > > > calculation m*v gives a very good approximation to the momentum of > > > > > that object. But this expression does not work in general, and so you > > > > > have to choose an appropriate rule for the entity you're considering." > > > > > > You'll note there is no definition of momentum in that statement. > > > > > --------------- > > > > why do you talk so much ?? > > > > cant you answer a simple question?? > > > > science is dealing and calculating > > > > photon momentum > > > > without a formula for it??!!!! > > > > As I just told you, Porat, there are several formulas. None of them > > > define the momentum of the photon. > > > > Quit trying to pigeonhole my answer, and READ what I wrote to you. > > > > You have been using dimensional analysis incorrectly, and until you > > > correct that, you will not be coming to any sensible conclusions. > > > > READ. > > > > > let me tell you a quote that i looked for you > > > > from VIKI: > > > > > ------------- > > > > # > > > > 35 KB (5,277 words) - 20:11, 13 March 2010 > > > > # Planck momentum > > > > > Planck Momentum is the unit of momentum , denoted by ** m_P c,** in > > > > the system of natural ... primordial photons > > > > No, Porat, that is not the formula for momentum of a photon. > > > That is a special *constant* called the Planck momentum. > > > -------------------- > > it is a specific amount of momentum > > NOT A GENERAL DEFINITION > > SO THAT IS EXACTLY WHAT WE NEED!! > > HAD I GIVEN YOU A GENERAL > > DEFITION > > YOU WOULD SAY THAT > > 'IT IS NOT A SPECIFIC ONE !!! > > anyway > > it gives you a definition of photon momentum > > that is exactly as it is defined!! > > see above !! > > so lets take that private case of > > photon momentum definition: > > > you see that no mattter what system you uses > > YOU CANT RUN AWAY FROM MASS IN THAT SPECIFIC PHOTON MOMENTUM > > (it is not particvle momentum because > > in particle momentum you use V and not c !!! > > so it is momentum definition > > not energy definition !! > > if it was energy definition it has to me > > mc^2 !! > > and it is not > > it is only m c !!! > > and called Plank momentum definition !! > > so it is momentum of photons !!! > > > that was jsut a two minutes of my search!! > > had i spent more i would give you more > > it is always in phootn momjentum > > m c !! > > without entering the question of > > how big is that mass > > (iow what is the scalar multiplier of it > > our interest is > > that it is never zero mass!! > > right ?? > > so > > IT IS NEVER ZERO!! > > BECAUSE IF IT WAS ZERO MASS > > IT WAS ... WHAT ??? > > CAN YOU GUESS NOW ?? > > WHAT I MEAN ???!! > > TIA > > Y.Porat > > -------------------------- > > > if you read more of it you realize that > > is dealt withthe Big Bang situation > > as smallest momentum unit of what?? > > according to you ?? > > now jsut tell us > > waht will the plank momentum > > > > If you cannot understand what you read, then there is no hope. > > > If you refuse to read the responses given to you, then there is no > > > hope. > > > > > how about it ?? > > > > > TIA > > > > Y.Porat > > > > ---------------------------- > > and here is another quote about the > Planck momentum > from Wikipedia: > quote : > ------ > In SI units Planck momentum is approximately 6.5 kg m/s. It is > *****equal to the Planck mass multiplied by the speed of light,****** > > usually associated with the momentum of primordial photons in some > prevailing Big Bang models. Unlike most of the other Plan > > end of quote !!! > > so Mr PD > is Plank mass ---- mass or not ???!! Porat, I won't play your games. I've asked you a number of direct questions which you have fastidiously ignored. You expect others to live by rules you are not willing to live by yourself. Not interested in that kind of conversational arrangement. At all. Repent of your ways or die alone. > > DOES **PHOTON MOMENTUM**- HAS MASS OR NOT?? > TIA > Y.Porat > -----------------------------
From: spudnik on 7 May 2010 15:32 like I said, dimensional analysis is fine, and woe to he who ignores it, but it cannot be used ex post facto to remake a wave-form into a particle. surely, the wave can impart, at least, internal "momentum" to the atomic system that is tuned to absorb it. that is, whatever energy propogates through the *medium* of space, not a vacuum, is in its effect upon that medium just as waves in H2O. so, do not apply "momentum" to the wave, only as a formalism for the seemingly-aimed "photon" that was speared by the cone of your eye. so, you can use other, valid formlisms, like E=hf, or what ever. otherwise, you get absurdities like the EPR paradox, and simplistic statements about the photoelectrical effect. not to say that a total formalism of rocks o'light is not possible, and a gravity that is "pushed" by such-like, but it is probably at present "intractible," even as Huyghens wavelets are intractible, except for getting a concept of light, propogating. (photons are massless & cannot propogate at any speed, because they don't exist, is my feeling, even though they are the *only* thing that can "go at c.") as for wlym.com, folks who pretend to "do the math," should know what *mathematica* ("maths") is; if you "go" to wlym.com, and hit the Fermat button, and find the Geometrical Fragments pdf, you''ll find his reconstruction of Euclid's porisms, whis are quite elementary. lastly, here is a thought experiment: what are those little black & white paddle-wheels, tht rotate in the sunlight in clear globe?... since there is no actual vacuum in the globe, provide an *aerodynamical/thermal* explanation of the force, after waves of light have been absorbed by the black pigment in the vanes. thought of that, yesterday, after more of this chat. > Get rid of that [M] dimension in the photon equation thus: Moon could have supported life, a long time ago (i.e., smaller bodies have shorter lives), as is evidences by the remnants of plate tectonics (maria & highlands). > >http://www.meteorite.com/meteorite-gallery/meteorites-alpha_frame.htm thus: you call that, an explanation, "photons wedged apart by light rays?" an interesting relationship between two things that only exist as mathematics, both representing "rocks o'light!" thus: you are pretending to define "complex 4-vectors," but "real" 4-vectors are part of the gross and unfinished porgramme of Minkowski, to "spatialize" time, while it is quite obvious that the "time part" is not symmetrical with the spatial coordinates, either in 4-vectors or quaternions. anyway, bi-quaternions would be 8-dimensional or octonions. and, it is all obfuscation, trying to insist that a phase-space tells you what time really is; it's very useful for seeing patterns "in" time though, as in electronics (although, NB, electronics is mostly done in "1-1" complex phase-space, instead of quaternions, as it could be, for some reason .-) maybe, all you and polysignosis need to do, is work the math of quaternions ... that'll take me wome time, as well. (I mean, what is the difference in labeling a coordinate axis with a "different sign" and a different letter, whether or not negatives are even needed?) --Light: A History! http://wlym.com --Stop Waxman's #2 capNtrade rip-off (unless, you like gasoline at a dime per drop)
From: spudnik on 8 May 2010 17:40 so, HAnson, are you going to explain Porat's dysproof of Coriolis force and/or effect -- like, you really "got" what he was trying to type in his maniacal self-defense as bandmaster & architect? > Thanks for the laughs, thou, all you highly entertaining fanatics. > ahahaha... ahahahaha... ahahahanson thus: yeah, and "A=mcc" -- maether, the *really* perfect gas. so, now, all that you have to do is laboriously show that this theory accounts for all of the phenomena of the other theory(s), instead of asserting a handwavingology (as in scare-quoting, "I have a dream!") "Exactly what occurs -- exactly & with decimal points!" > This is exactly what occurs when the mæther decompresses. thus: to reiterate, for the sake of Obispo, above, Fermat had to prove the very special case, n=4, because his proof only applied to prime exponents, excepting two (plus the lemma on multiples of prime exponents). thus: yeah, OK; so, what is the difference between "energy" and "aether?..." what is the shape of the wave of light? > Aether is matter times the second power of the speed of light. thus: spatially, there are "mutually inscribed tetrahedra," meaning that the vertices of one lie on the faces of the other, and vise versa. thus: the formalism of relativity isn't needed, if one does not presume that Pascal's vacuum was perfect (and still is) a la "Newtonian optics" or ray-tracing, and the calculus-launch problemma of the brachistochrone. thus: how about this: show us that your theory agrees with Sophie Germaine; then, tackle the remaining primes. thus: NB, Lanczos used quaternions in _Variational Mechanics_ for special relativity, and it's just "real time" and "three ('imaginary') axes of space;" but, this is just the original "vectors." compare Lanczos' biquaternions with the "Cayley-Dickerson doubling" procedure, to go from real to complex to quaternion to octonion. "wroldlines" are just the crappola in Minkowski's "pants," totally obfuscatory outside of a formalism -- time is not a dimension; time is awareness & mensurability (of dimensionality !-) thus: try a search on Gauss & Ceres. or "go" to wlym.com. > This problem and its solution are found in a paper by Ceplecha, 1987, thus: the problem appears to be, "some observers measure the angle to the marker, relative to the other observers," which would not give you the distance *on a plane*, because of similar trigona. Gauss meaasured the curvature of Earth with his theodolite *and* a chain measure of distance (working for France in Alsace-Lorraine, triangulatin' that contested area .-) thus: notice that no-one bothered with the "proofs" that I've seen, and the statute of limitation is out on that, but, anyway, I think it must have been Scalia, not Kennedy, who changed his little, oligarchical "Federalist Society" mind. thus: sorry; I guess, it was Scalia who'd "mooted" a yea on WS-is-WS, but later came to d'Earl d'O. ... unless it was Breyer, as I may have read in an article about his retirement. > I know of at least three "proofs" that WS was WS, but > I recently found a text that really '"makes the case," > once and for all (but the Oxfordians, Rhodesian Scholars, and > others brainwashed by British Liberal Free Trade, > capNtrade e.g.). > what ever it says, Shapiro's last book is just a polemic; > his real "proof" is _1599_; > the fans of de Vere are hopelessly stuck-up -- > especially if they went to Harry Potter PS#1. > http://www.google.com/url?sa=D&q=http://entertainment.timesonline.co..... --Light: A History! http://wlym.com --Waxman's capNtrade#2 [*]: "Let the arbitrageurs raise the cost of your energy as much as They can ?!?" * His first such bill was in '91 under HW on NOx & SO2 viz acid rain; so?
From: spudnik on 8 May 2010 17:52 hey, I'd forgotten about that; wonder what HAnson could reply, given that he associates it with Barbara Streisand, who wasn't nearly as weighty. > Conservation laws COME FROM Noether's theorem. thus: yeah, and "A=mcc" -- maether, the *really* perfect gas. so, now, all that you have to do is laboriously show that this theory accounts for all of the phenomena of the other theory(s), instead of asserting a handwavingology (as in scare-quoting, "I have a dream!") "Exactly what occurs -- exactly & with decimal points!" > This is exactly what occurs when the mæther decompresses. thus: to reiterate, for the sake of Obispo, above, Fermat had to prove the very special case, n=4, because his proof only applied to prime exponents, excepting two (plus the lemma on multiples of prime exponents). thus: yeah, OK; so, what is the difference between "energy" and "aether?..." what is the shape of the wave of light? > Aether is matter times the second power of the speed of light. thus: spatially, there are "mutually inscribed tetrahedra," meaning that the vertices of one lie on the faces of the other, and vise versa. thus: the formalism of relativity isn't needed, if one does not presume that Pascal's vacuum was perfect (and still is) a la "Newtonian optics" or ray-tracing, and the calculus-launch problemma of the brachistochrone. thus: how about this: show us that your theory agrees with Sophie Germaine; then, tackle the remaining primes. thus: NB, Lanczos used quaternions in _Variational Mechanics_ for special relativity, and it's just "real time" and "three ('imaginary') axes of space;" but, this is just the original "vectors." compare Lanczos' biquaternions with the "Cayley-Dickerson doubling" procedure, to go from real to complex to quaternion to octonion. "wroldlines" are just the crappola in Minkowski's "pants," totally obfuscatory outside of a formalism -- time is not a dimension; time is awareness & mensurability (of dimensionality !-) thus: try a search on Gauss & Ceres. or "go" to wlym.com. > This problem and its solution are found in a paper by Ceplecha, 1987, thus: the problem appears to be, "some observers measure the angle to the marker, relative to the other observers," which would not give you the distance *on a plane*, because of similar trigona. Gauss meaasured the curvature of Earth with his theodolite *and* a chain measure of distance (working for France in Alsace-Lorraine, triangulatin' that contested area .-) thus: notice that no-one bothered with the "proofs" that I've seen, and the statute of limitation is out on that, but, anyway, I think it must have been Scalia, not Kennedy, who changed his little, oligarchical "Federalist Society" mind. thus: sorry; I guess, it was Scalia who'd "mooted" a yea on WS-is-WS, but later came to d'Earl d'O. ... unless it was Breyer, as I may have read in an article about his retirement. > I know of at least three "proofs" that WS was WS, but > I recently found a text that really '"makes the case," > once and for all (but the Oxfordians, Rhodesian Scholars, and > others brainwashed by British Liberal Free Trade, > capNtrade e.g.). > what ever it says, Shapiro's last book is just a polemic; > his real "proof" is _1599_; > the fans of de Vere are hopelessly stuck-up -- > especially if they went to Harry Potter PS#1. > http://www.google.com/url?sa=D&q=http://entertainment.timesonline.co..... --Light: A History! http://wlym.com --Waxman's capNtrade#2 [*]: "Let the arbitrageurs raise the cost of your energy as much as They can ?!?" * His first such bill was in '91 under HW on NOx & SO2 viz acid rain; so?
From: Inertial on 11 May 2010 02:42
"Koobee Wublee" <koobee.wublee(a)gmail.com> wrote in message news:49528312-b354-405b-a4b3-a7ce06bfd46a(a)b18g2000yqb.googlegroups.com... [snip childish nonsense] > Let's bring back the two > equations describing energy, mass, and momentum below. > > *1* E^2 = m^2 c^4 + p^2 c^2 > *2* E^2 = m'^2 c^4 > > Where > > ** m = Rest mass > ** m' = Observed mass > ** p = Observed momentum > > These equations are actually identical, Clearly NOT identical equations :) .. but one can be derived from the other ... so both describe the same relationship. > but there are always bevies of > Einstein Dingleberries who would aloofly swear to their god Einstein > the nitwit, the plagiarist, and the liar Einstein is noone's god. He was in no way a nitwit, though he was also not always right. He built on other peoples work, as all good scientists do, and by present day rules that apply to publishing papers, he could perhaps be technically charged with plagiarism for not correctly attributing references, that doesn't mean he stole the work of others. Everyone lies at some stage, but I don't know of any time Einstein lied that is relevant to his work in physics .. though he was wrong about some things. > that equation *1* is the only > one that is any valid. I've never seen one physicist (they are the people you seem to call dingleberries) claiming that. Only that the m' term has fallen out of favour (and so equations in forms that use it) |