What is the experimentally measurable difference between rest mass and the 'relativistic mass' of the photon ??!!
in [Relativity]
|
From: Y.Porat on 19 May 2010 23:41 On May 20, 5:06 am, spudnik <Space...(a)hotmail.com> wrote: > I looked at your website; > are you sure it's not steganogrphy? > > I don't know, becuase > I have never been able to see one of those -- > don't tell me, how! > > Hide quoted text - > > > > > - Show quoted text - ------------- i looked in the dictinary and ddint find waht is steganography anyway if you dont understand waht is in my site WHOES FAULT IS IT?? MINE OR YOURS ?? (:-) 2 if you dont understnad ask first whoes fault is it may be your parrotong education?? may be you see there something historic that no one eveer was there ??!! indeed noone ever was where i was !!! why ?? idontknow may be my special biography my allovwer my education as a combination of someone why was interested in physics may be the great phycicists inmy country that i was listening to tyhem longly may be the combination with my long practical work with 3D objects etc etc tec now if you dont understand JUST START TO ASK ME QUESTIONS!! i can assure you it is not my fault that you dont understand and a few examples thjere are items there that you should understand easily for instance table 2 and its far going results and insights it is not too complicated !!! if you invest some time with it and tha ti just an example keep well 2 btw p (photon momentum is = h/lambda = 6.4 exp -34 m c and dont let anyone cheat or obfuscate there is nozero therer there is no Gamma factor there conclusion THEPHOTON MAS NON SERO NO RELATIVISTIC MASS!!! no one ever saw it as i saw it so?? what doe sit mean who is the strange person here ??? me or the others ??? (:-) Y.Porat ------------------------
From: Y.Porat on 19 May 2010 23:49 On May 19, 4:27 pm, "Y.Porat" <y.y.po...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > On May 19, 2:55 pm, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > On May 18, 11:57 pm, "Y.Porat" <y.y.po...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > On May 18, 10:09 pm, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > On May 18, 2:19 pm, "Androcles" <Headmas...(a)Hogwarts.physics_z> wrote: > > > > > > Present the evidence; all you need do is argue your case logically, > > > > > based on acceptable axioms, and I'll accept what you say. > > > > > When one teaches, two learn. > > > > > I'm quite willing to listen, but I'll jump down your throat and rip your > > > > > lungs out (metaphorically, of course) if you try to bullshit me. > > > > > > Able to follow? > > > > > Sorry, but you're talking mathematics and philosophy, not physics. > > > > Cases in physics are not made by arguing logically from mutually > > > > acceptable axioms. > > > > If this is how you'd like to proceed with physics, then you're barking > > > > up the wrong tree. > > > > > Physics does things a little differently. The proposer puts together a > > > > model that includes some axioms, whether the axioms or the model are > > > > considered acceptable or not. Quite often, the axioms are considered > > > > outlandish and contrary to conventional wisdom. So what? From that > > > > model and those *assumed* axioms, certain conclusions are deduced from > > > > them, including a number of conclusions that are distinct from other > > > > models and which can be directly or indirectly tested in experimental > > > > measurement. When a significant number of those distinguishing > > > > conclusions are found in accord with measurement, then this > > > > provisionally *forces* the acceptance of the model and the axioms, in > > > > that the model has demonstrated itself to be superior to competing > > > > models on the grounds of experimental confirmation. > > > > > If you think that's a sucky way to do business, and you're not about > > > > to go along with that game plan, then that's fine, but you're no > > > > longer doing physics. > > > > > PD > > > > -------------------------- > > > crook PD > > > one sign that you are talking a lot about how physics should be > > > tells us the less physicist you are > > > not a physicist you are a crook politician!! > > > a parrot politician!! > > > > there is just one kind of mass !! > > > no matter how do you call it > > > > it is shown easily by the momentum > > > of the photon: > > > > P (photon momentum) =m c !!! > > > That's not the momentum of the photon. It is not the momentum of any > > object known, in fact. > > We've already discussed this. Case closed. > > > > see the Plank momentum > > > Pl momentum = Plank mass times c !!! > > > > now > > > in that m c > > > > THERE IS NOTHING 'RELATIVISTIC' > > > (or anything else ) > > > EVEN IF YOU WILL STAND ON YOUR BLOCKED > > > crooked HEAD > > > no gamma factor non of the slightest sign that > > > that mass is something else than just **mass!!* > > > the only mass that exists in that M K S system !! > > > (it is the K there !!) > > > > FULL STOP !! > > > NO NEED FOR LONGER MUMBLINGS !!!! > > > keep well > > > Y.Porat > > > --------------------------- > > so why should it be called > (by scientists ) > Plank momentum ?? > does Plank momentum is > by principle another kind of > photon momentum?? > may be you can prove that it is a new kind of momentum?? > while its dimensions are the same > as your dimensions of photon momentum!! > it cant be by definition other dimensions !! > including mass times c > P is not zero > c is not zero > so > were do you see any zero !!!! > AND WERE ANOTHER GAMMA ?? > 2 > see my answer to Anderson > where the hell you see a gamma factor > in** his** (your** ) formula for photon momentum ??! > what happens to gamma > while > v= c !!!! > > ATB > Y.Porat > ------------------- and in addition to the above?: P PHOTON MOMENTUM THAT NO ONE CLAIMS IT IS ZERO IS h /lambda right ?? so it is iow 6.4 times exp -34 times m c so 1 where do you see a zero ??!! 2 where do you see A GAMMA FACTOR to meke ANYTHING IN IT it relativistic ??!! so conclusions ??? (a little revolution in physics !!) keep well Y.Porat ------------------------------------
From: Inertial on 20 May 2010 00:34 "Y.Porat" <y.y.porat(a)gmail.com> wrote in message news:9a9cb031-7c6e-4374-b88d-84db7a32c210(a)j27g2000vbp.googlegroups.com... > On May 20, 5:06 am, spudnik <Space...(a)hotmail.com> wrote: >> I looked at your website; >> are you sure it's not steganogrphy? >> >> I don't know, becuase >> I have never been able to see one of those -- >> don't tell me, how! >> >> Hide quoted text - >> >> >> >> > - Show quoted text - > > ------------- > i looked in the dictinary > and ddint find waht is steganography Porat didn't look very hard .. http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/steganography http://www.thefreedictionary.com/steganography http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/steganography http://www.yourdictionary.com/computer/steganography http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Steganography http://www.webopedia.com/TERM/s/steganography.html As usual Porat just doesn't even bother reading or studying or researching.
From: Koobee Wublee on 20 May 2010 01:14 On May 18, 10:59 am, Tony M <marc...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > The clock rate of a GPS satellite is constant and includes a constant > correction factor. As long as the following three things are achieved, GPS will function without any GR correction factors even if GR is correct about the corresponding effect in time dilation. ** All satellites run at the same clock rate. ** Each satellite tracks its actual position and synchronizes its chronological time (not necessarily clock rate) with other satellites. ** At least 4 satellites are referenced when a receiver tries to acquire its position and thus time. All satellites are automatically running at the same clock rate when built on the same altitude (most likely close to the sea level). The most basic of how the GPS actually works lies in the following simple equation: ** c^2 (t_n - t)^2 = (x_n - x)^2 + (y_n - y)^2 + (z_n - z)^2 Where ** t_n = Chronological time reference of the n'th satellite ** x_n, y_n, z_n = Position reference of the n'th satellite ** t = Time of the receiver relative to the satellites' time (unknown) ** x, y, z = Position of the receiver (also unknown) With four satellites giving their time and position information, all the receive has to do is to calculate the four equations and four unknowns established by the equation above. Since each satellite broadcasts its time and position information at the snail-moving pace of 50-bits/sec, it would take several seconds to complete one acquisition. Clock rates has no first-order impact on how GPS actually works. <shrug> Hope this helps for the ones not embracing mysticism tossed around by self-styled physicists and self-styled-physicist-want-to-be like little professor Andersen who loves to chase after chickens. <shrug>
From: Koobee Wublee on 20 May 2010 01:24
On May 18, 6:22 am, "Paul B. Andersen" wrote: > On 12.05.2010 15:55, Tony M wrote: > > 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'. It sounds like you are OK with the concept of the 'relativistic mass' thing. In that case, a massless particle (defined so at rest) would certainly have a non-zero relativistic mass. This is all in the mathematics if you care to examine so instead of unproductively chasing after chickens. <shrug> > The 'mass equivalent' of its energy, h*nu/c^2 > is not the same as 'relativistic mass'. It actually can be and intuitively must be as shown in the mathematics. <shrug> ps. With the economic chaos going around, are you by any chance also unemployed just like ben-professor Draper aka DP? |