What is the experimentally measurable difference between rest mass and the 'relativistic mass' of the photon ??!!
in [Relativity]
|
From: Koobee Wublee on 13 May 2010 01:41 On May 12, 4:13 pm, "Inertial" <relativ...(a)rest.com> wrote: > "Paul B. Andersen" <paul.b.ander...(a)somewhere.no> wrote: > > On 12.05.2010 07:02, Koobee Wublee wrote: > >> 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, but there are always bevies of > >> Einstein Dingleberries who would aloofly swear to their god Einstein > >> the nitwit, the plagiarist, and the liar that equation *1* is the only > >> one that is any valid. > > > They are identical for massive objects only. > > What does *2* say the energy of a photon is? > > Is it correct? > > If you only define m' by using > > m' = gamma.m > > then you are correct, as that formula is indeterminate for the value of m' > when v=c and m=0 (it ends up 0/0 .. which can be any value) Thanks guys (Tony M and Inertial) for taking the initiative to tell a professor that his cranial elevator has failed to reach the top floor once again. <shrug> You see. Professor Andersen was once an RF engineer working for one of these startup Zigbee/Bluetooth-related companies in Norway. I guess due to his fondness of the occult and mysticism, he found himself out of reality and into the world of mysticism and mathemagics. He loves to chase after chickens! That is a seemingly fine hobby that would render any sane person to scratch his head. Anyhow, the same Professor Andersen was once a champion of GR in GPS. His pitch was the supposedly minute frequency difference between the ground and the satellite if it indeed exists. He showed himself to be so clueless about how GPS actually works. Well, I guess he has an excuse that he got out of the field too early to go into the academics. Once in the academics, the comfort of mysticism is just too hard to resist. <shrug> Oh, he even tried to solve problems, that require a breakdown in the principle of relativity, using the principle of relativity. Just like Einstein the nitwit, the plagiarist, and the liar, some would call him a god, but true scholars of physics would immediately identify that as a trait of Einstein-Dingleberrism where: ** FAITH IS THEORY ** LYING IS TEACHING ** NITWIT IS GENIUS ** OCCULT IS SCIENCE ** PARADOX IS KOSHER ** BULLSHIT IS TRUTH ** BELIEVING IS LEARNING ** IGNORANCE IS KNOWLEDGE ** MYSTICISM IS WISDOM ** CONJECTURE IS REALITY ** PLAGIARISM IS CREATIVITY ** MATHEMAGICS IS MATHEMATICS <shrug> > However, that is not the only way to calculate an m' value (in particular > for photons). By its observed frequency. Thanks Planck for that! Uh! How about Einstein the nitwit, the plagiarist, and the liar? <shrug>
From: Y.Porat on 13 May 2010 02:16 On May 13, 7:41 am, Koobee Wublee <koobee.wub...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > On May 12, 4:13 pm, "Inertial" <relativ...(a)rest.com> wrote: > > > > > "Paul B. Andersen" <paul.b.ander...(a)somewhere.no> wrote: > > > On 12.05.2010 07:02, Koobee Wublee wrote: > > >> 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, but there are always bevies of > > >> Einstein Dingleberries who would aloofly swear to their god Einstein > > >> the nitwit, the plagiarist, and the liar that equation *1* is the only > > >> one that is any valid. > > > > They are identical for massive objects only. > > > What does *2* say the energy of a photon is? > > > Is it correct? > > > If you only define m' by using > > > m' = gamma.m > > > then you are correct, as that formula is indeterminate for the value of m' > > when v=c and m=0 (it ends up 0/0 .. which can be any value) > > Thanks guys (Tony M and Inertial) for taking the initiative to tell a > professor that his cranial elevator has failed to reach the top floor > once again. <shrug> > > You see. Professor Andersen was once an RF engineer working for one > of these startup Zigbee/Bluetooth-related companies in Norway. I > guess due to his fondness of the occult and mysticism, he found > himself out of reality and into the world of mysticism and > mathemagics. He loves to chase after chickens! That is a seemingly > fine hobby that would render any sane person to scratch his head. > > Anyhow, the same Professor Andersen was once a champion of GR in GPS. > His pitch was the supposedly minute frequency difference between the > ground and the satellite if it indeed exists. He showed himself to be > so clueless about how GPS actually works. Well, I guess he has an > excuse that he got out of the field too early to go into the > academics. Once in the academics, the comfort of mysticism is just > too hard to resist. <shrug> > > Oh, he even tried to solve problems, that require a breakdown in the > principle of relativity, using the principle of relativity. Just like > Einstein the nitwit, the plagiarist, and the liar, some would call him > a god, but true scholars of physics would immediately identify that as > a trait of Einstein-Dingleberrism where: > > ** FAITH IS THEORY > ** LYING IS TEACHING > ** NITWIT IS GENIUS > ** OCCULT IS SCIENCE > ** PARADOX IS KOSHER > ** BULLSHIT IS TRUTH > ** BELIEVING IS LEARNING > ** IGNORANCE IS KNOWLEDGE > ** MYSTICISM IS WISDOM > ** CONJECTURE IS REALITY > ** PLAGIARISM IS CREATIVITY > ** MATHEMAGICS IS MATHEMATICS > > <shrug> > > > However, that is not the only way to calculate an m' value (in particular > > for photons). > > By its observed frequency. Thanks Planck for that! > > Uh! How about Einstein the nitwit, the plagiarist, and the liar? > <shrug> ------------------------ Koobbe i agree with you that GR is nonsense cheatings 2 The gamma factor does nor belong to the photon as i explained endless times untill the imbecile croks here got ot AND ITS MEANINGS !!: AND THEREFORE THERE IS NO 'RELATIVISTIC MASS' AND NO ZERO MASS !! IN PHOTONS AND NO SCHMELATIVISTIC MASS JUST ONE KIND OF MASS!! 3 if so why do you refuse to answer me whether :: NO MASS - NO REAL PHYSICS !!!! it is enormously important !!! TIA Y.Porat -----------------------------
From: Paul B. Andersen on 18 May 2010 09:22 On 13.05.2010 01:13, Inertial wrote: > "Paul B. Andersen" <paul.b.andersen(a)somewhere.no> wrote in message > news:hse85f$tnb$1(a)news01.tp.hist.no... >> On 12.05.2010 07:02, Koobee Wublee wrote: >>> 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, but there are always bevies of >>> Einstein Dingleberries who would aloofly swear to their god Einstein >>> the nitwit, the plagiarist, and the liar that equation *1* is the only >>> one that is any valid. >> >> They are identical for massive objects only. >> What does *2* say the energy of a photon is? >> Is it correct? > > If you only define m' by using > > m' = gamma.m > > then you are correct, as that formula is indeterminate for the value of > m' when v=c and m=0 (it ends up 0/0 .. which can be any value) > > However, that is not the only way to calculate an m' value (in > particular for photons). > A massless particle has no 'relativistic mass'. The 'mass equivalent' of its energy, h*nu/c^2 is not the same as 'relativistic mass'. -- Paul http://home.c2i.net/pb_andersen/
From: Paul B. Andersen on 18 May 2010 09:22 On 12.05.2010 15:55, Tony M wrote: > On May 12, 8:49 am, "Paul B. Andersen"<paul.b.ander...(a)somewhere.no> > wrote: >> On 12.05.2010 07:02, Koobee Wublee wrote: >> >> >> >> >> >>> 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, but there are always bevies of >>> Einstein Dingleberries who would aloofly swear to their god Einstein >>> the nitwit, the plagiarist, and the liar that equation *1* is the only >>> one that is any valid. >> >> They are identical for massive objects only. >> What does *2* say the energy of a photon is? >> Is it correct? >> >> -- >> Paul >> >> http://home.c2i.net/pb_andersen/- Hide quoted text - >> >> - Show quoted text - > > > It says the energy of a photon is equal to its observed (or > relativistic) mass (not the rest mass) multiplied by c^2. > And yes, it is very correct. A massless particle has no 'relativistic mass'. The 'mass equivalent' of its energy, h*nu/c^2 is not the same as 'relativistic mass'. -- Paul http://home.c2i.net/pb_andersen/
From: Y.Porat on 18 May 2010 11:55
On May 18, 3:22 pm, "Paul B. Andersen" <paul.b.ander...(a)somewhere.no> wrote: > On 13.05.2010 01:13, Inertial wrote: > > > > > "Paul B. Andersen" <paul.b.ander...(a)somewhere.no> wrote in message > >news:hse85f$tnb$1(a)news01.tp.hist.no... > >> On 12.05.2010 07:02, Koobee Wublee wrote: > >>> 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, but there are always bevies of > >>> Einstein Dingleberries who would aloofly swear to their god Einstein > >>> the nitwit, the plagiarist, and the liar that equation *1* is the only > >>> one that is any valid. > > >> They are identical for massive objects only. > >> What does *2* say the energy of a photon is? > >> Is it correct? > > > If you only define m' by using > > > m' = gamma.m > > > then you are correct, as that formula is indeterminate for the value of > > m' when v=c and m=0 (it ends up 0/0 .. which can be any value) > > > However, that is not the only way to calculate an m' value (in > > particular for photons). > > A massless particle has no 'relativistic mass'. > The 'mass equivalent' of its energy, h*nu/c^2 > is not the same as 'relativistic mass'. > > -- > Paul > > http://home.c2i.net/pb_andersen/ -------------------- Mr Andersen did you understand what Inertial is theaching you: THE PHOTON HAS RELATIVISTIC MASS BECAUSE ...........................................> ............ .....BECAUSE IT HAS RELATIVISTIC MASS !! do you get how much that creature is cleaver ??!! even if you grind him by a grinder his brain will not be grind ed it will remain stiff as ever ATB Y.Porat ------------------------- (:-) |