What is the experimentally measurable difference between rest mass and the 'relativistic mass' of the photon ??!!
in [Relativity]
|
From: Koobee Wublee on 20 May 2010 01:29 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 01:52 On May 18, 1:09 pm, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > 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. That is correct. You must bring in experimental results with proper interpretations to justify your case. <shrug> > 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. An example is the MMX. Clearly, it must reference all readings back to the stationary background of the Aether. Larmor was the first to come up with a transform that does so. In Larmor's Lorentz transform, one of the two observers must be the absolute frame of reference. Poincare took a special case in Larmor's Lorentz transform and made a general case into the one that does not require any of the two observers to be the stationary background of the Aether. That is not an acceptable axiom. So, why do self-styled physicists embrace that? That is not doing physics according to your book. <shrug> > Quite often, the axioms are considered > outlandish and contrary to conventional wisdom. So what? Indeed. <shrug> > 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. In the example above, you and the self-styled physicists including Poincare and later on plagiarized by Einstein the nitwit, the plagiarist, and the liar had failed miserably. Another example is the photon bending experiment. The 1919 experiments and expeditions made by Eddington did not prove a twice-Newtonian deflection if properly interpreting the experimental data. So, the twice-Newtonian deflection was interpreted from how much delay a photon would arrive relative to a straight line of sight as indicated so by Shapiro's experiments and others. The interpretation is Ok if there is no time dilation. However, with the effect of time dilation, the interpretation no longer holds. In doing so, the self-styled physicists are doing physics. They are merely shamans trying to proliferate a pagan mysticism. <shrug> > 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. Oh, no. I think a scientific method with no bias in interpreting its data is the only way to do physics. However, if you think otherwise as you have already done so, it is really a sucky way of doing business. You are embracing mysticism. You are no different from these preachers trying to interpret what the Bible says according to historic events. <shrug>
From: Inertial on 20 May 2010 03:47 "Koobee Wublee" <koobee.wublee(a)gmail.com> wrote in message news:6f95a6d6-16a4-4416-a779-86a9888e6de7(a)e21g2000vbl.googlegroups.com... > 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> You are correct there
From: Inertial on 20 May 2010 03:51 "Koobee Wublee" <koobee.wublee(a)gmail.com> wrote in message news:8b087edf-6f96-4042-980f-1c2cf4c883f6(a)c11g2000vbe.googlegroups.com... > On May 18, 1:09 pm, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > >> 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. > > That is correct. You must bring in experimental results with proper > interpretations to justify your case. <shrug> > >> 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. > > An example is the MMX. Clearly, it must reference all readings back > to the stationary background of the Aether. No need for any aether. MMX is explained nicely by SR and Ballistic theories which have no aether. It is only if you wish to explain the result with a theory that includes a stationary aether that you need to do that. LET handles that nicely. Or you need to have the aether dragging along with the lab. (so its not a stationary aether). A simple stationary aether, without any affect on the arm lengths, won't explain the MMX result.
From: PD on 20 May 2010 13:20
On May 20, 12:52 am, Koobee Wublee <koobee.wub...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > On May 18, 1:09 pm, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > 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. > > That is correct. You must bring in experimental results with proper > interpretations to justify your case. <shrug> > > > 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. > > An example is the MMX. Clearly, it must reference all readings back > to the stationary background of the Aether. Clearly not, since relativity involves no references to a stationary background. > Larmor was the first to > come up with a transform that does so. In Larmor's Lorentz transform, > one of the two observers must be the absolute frame of reference. > Poincare took a special case in Larmor's Lorentz transform and made a > general case into the one that does not require any of the two > observers to be the stationary background of the Aether. That is not > an acceptable axiom. Again, I will point to your inability to read. In physics, one does NOT need to first agree on a set of acceptable axioms. I've said that already. You now complain that the approach is flawed because it embraces an axiom you find unacceptable. > So, why do self-styled physicists embrace that? > That is not doing physics according to your book. <shrug> > > > Quite often, the axioms are considered > > outlandish and contrary to conventional wisdom. So what? > > Indeed. <shrug> > > > 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. > > In the example above, you and the self-styled physicists including > Poincare and later on plagiarized by Einstein the nitwit, the > plagiarist, and the liar had failed miserably. On the contrary. Relativity makes a large number of predictions that are distinct from other models, including Lorentz Ether Theory, and those predictions have been borne out by dozens of experiments. I see that you are taking the approach of trying to chip away at the veracity of a couple of important experiments, perhaps doing so with the hope of implying that there are no experiments that have been done that have agreed with the unique and distinctive implications of relativity. > Another example is the > photon bending experiment. The 1919 experiments and expeditions made > by Eddington did not prove a twice-Newtonian deflection if properly > interpreting the experimental data. So, the twice-Newtonian > deflection was interpreted from how much delay a photon would arrive > relative to a straight line of sight as indicated so by Shapiro's > experiments and others. The interpretation is Ok if there is no time > dilation. However, with the effect of time dilation, the > interpretation no longer holds. In doing so, the self-styled > physicists are doing physics. They are merely shamans trying to > proliferate a pagan mysticism. <shrug> > > > 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. > > Oh, no. I think a scientific method with no bias in interpreting its > data is the only way to do physics. However, if you think otherwise > as you have already done so, it is really a sucky way of doing > business. You are embracing mysticism. What mysticism? I've asked you REPEATEDLY what you find mysterious about relativity, and your only answer has been that if I have to ask then I am blind. Passive-aggressive non-answers do not help your cause. > You are no different from > these preachers trying to interpret what the Bible says according to > historic events. <shrug> |