What is the experimentally measurable difference between rest mass and the 'relativistic mass' of the photon ??!!
in [Relativity]
|
From: Koobee Wublee on 21 May 2010 19:15 On May 21, 8:04 am, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > On May 21, 1:24 am, Koobee Wublee wrote: > > What does the MMX have anything to do with relativity in the first > > place? It was an experiment to learn more about the Aether, and it > > did. <shrug> > > It has a lot to do with relativity. The presence of a *detectable* > aether would rule out relativity. With the advent of electromagnetism, they were very certain that the Aether existed back then. The MMX was meant to find the drift speed of the earth relative to the stationary background of the Aether not to prove or disprove the principle of relativity. Anyhow, this is irrelevant. The real issue is the valid way to interpret the null results of the MMX. What Voigt and Larmor came up with are valid, but what Poincare came up with is not. The MMX failed to find the drift speed of the earth relative to the stationary background of the Aether, but it certainly proves the existence of the Aether. In doing so, it leads to new laws of physics. <shrug> The drift speed of the earth relative to the stationary background of the earth was discovered through the Doppler shift in CMBR. <shrug> > > Hold it. I did not go that far. I merely pointed out that your > > interpretations to the null results of the MMX is totally flawed. > > Both Voigt and Larmor had come up with mathematical models that > > explains so. Both Lorentz and Einstein the nitwit, the plagiarist, > > and the liar were minor players. It was Poincare who fvcked up, and > > it has been the self-styled physicists unable to comprehend the simple > > mathematics behind Larmor's transform to continue the mysticism of > > Poincare's special case in Larmor's transform in which today it is > > known as the Lorentz transform. <shrug> > > You said, "That is not an acceptable axiom." I meant what Poincare came up with is not valid. You need to get over with that. <shrug> > You have pointed out that there were alternative models which also > reproduced the results of the MMX. There are actually a infinite numbers of models that will explain the null results of the MMX, yes. <shrug> > That's fine. However, relativity > does not rest its validation on the MMX. However, the only mathematical model that satisfies the principle of relativity is the ballistic theory of light and none else. <shrug> > Relativity makes a huge > number of predictions, and a large number of them have been > experimentally validated completely independent of the MMX. Relativity seems only to hold at low speeds. Name one experiment to test relativity at high speeds. <shrug> > No theory > rests on a single experiment, ever. But one single experiment can prove a conjecture invalid. <shrug> > > Gee! Get a grip in reality. Relativity has been around for more than > > 400 years. It has explained the observations under low speeds so > > far. In doing so, it would agree with most of the experimental > > results. <shrug> > > The *principle of relativity* as applied to *mechanics* has been > around for 400 years. It in no way was applied to electrodynamics 400 > years ago, as electrodynamics was a complete unknown 400 years ago. > The addition of the principle of relativity to electrodynamics was a > *significant* contribution, which narrowed down things quite a bit > about how things really work. For example, the principle of relativity > as applied to mechanics alone cannot distinguish between Galilean and > Lorentz transformations -- both satisfy the principle of relativity > for mechanics. However, applying the principle to electrodynamics > rules out the Galilean transformation. That is an important leap. So, if the Lorentz transform were found to be invalid, would that also invalidate electromagnetism? Electromagnetism does not need relativity to function. <shrug> > > I really don't care how Lorentz interprets Poincare's Lorentz > > transform into LET. It is all a matter of interpretations. Any > > mathematics models that explain the null results of the MMX must all > > reject the principle of relativity. > > Nonsense. The principle of relativity is completely consistent with > the results of the MMX. This is just not true. The Lorentz transform as you know of which came from Poincare is a special case to Larmors Lorentz transform. The special case is when the two observers/frames are moving in parallel to each other. Larmors Lorentz transform explains the null results of the MMX but does not satisfy the principle of relativity. <shrug> > > Well, except the ballistic theory > > of light that predates the discovery of electromagnetism. <shrug> > > > Since electromagnetism really does not accept the principle of > > relativity, > > But it does. The fact that you can produce the Lorentz transformations > in a way that does NOT respect the principle of relativity is > irrelevant. The fact that you CAN produce the Lorentz transformations > in a way that DOES respect the principle of relativity belies your > statement. But the Lorentz transform is not valid. > You have chosen to believe that if axiom set A (without the principle > of relativity) and axiom set B (with the principle of relativity) can > BOTH produce the same mathematical expression, then this should be > taken as a sign that the principle of relativity is not supported by > the mathematical expression. This, of course, is idiotic. More nonsense. > > the ballistic theory of light cannot hold under that. > > Both the Voigt and Larmor's Lorentz transforms do away the principle > > of relativity. Thus, any scholars understanding all these disciplines > > would find these modifications to the Galilean transforms supporting > > electromagnetism. Poincare's Lorentz transform does not explain the > > null results of the MMX. Thus, it cannot be considered anything > > valid. <shrug> > > > > 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. > > > Hmmm... Actually, I have a much simpler agenda. That is doing > > physics. <shrug> > > Then it's a pity you're going about it completely the wrong way. You are the one who does not understand these transformations. <shrug> > > > > 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. > > > So, remain ignorant. > > By your refusing to answer a direct question about it? You are indeed very ignorant and remain ever so mystified that even you dont realize you are totally mystified. <shrug>
From: spudnik on 21 May 2010 20:57 that's exactly what I said, again: "the actual > results of the MMX but" but, if you mean Newton's corpuscular one, it is the same as Descartes' (he, Demap's), at least til he was corrected about the noninstantaneity of light. ah, but, keep in mind that Newton, himself may have been overly influenced by the metaphor of his "geometrical optics," which used "rays" of light & is ray-tracing (whether he invented that idea, itself, I don't know). Fermat graciously allowed Descartes *formula* for refraction, a.k.a. Snell's law, but that his proof was fairly bogus. it then took about ten years for him to have a theory, which is just least time, more or less; definitely pre-electromagnetism. > > > Well, except the ballistic theory > > > of light that predates the discovery of > > > the ballistic theory of light cannot hold under that. thusNso: yes, m=cc/A just settles it absolutely ... I mean, m=CC/a, thank *you* (y'know, "divided by the aether" just sounds like, like, like that. and close that parenthesis, you silly computer! so, now that *that* is settled, let's solve some of those annoyingly aetherless problems (just the ones that need it, though). thusNso: shouldn't there be a backslash in there?... by etymology, what is Earth's biggest conspiracy? http://moneyteachers.org/Conspiracy.gov.htm --Pi_yourcanonicalvaluationdotdotdoThanks http://wlym.com
From: Y.Porat on 22 May 2010 03:18 On May 22, 1:15 am, Koobee Wub 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. > > > > So, remain ignorant. > > > By your refusing to answer a direct question about it? > > You are indeed very ignorant and remain ever so mystified that even > you dont realize you are totally mystified. <shrug> ----------------------- KooBee if you would like to get an advice from OLD Porat just forget about Aether!! space is nothing all it has in it matter all the physical properties we know are due to **mass** in space nothing to space or anything mysterious and physics can do well without Aether or else you are wasting your life on nothing useful ATB Y.Porat --------------------------------------
From: Y.Porat on 22 May 2010 03:26 On May 21, 8:33 pm, spudnik <Space...(a)hotmail.com> wrote: > I can see that you're a victim of "General Semantics and > the Nine E-primes." what ever in Hell you think that > you were saying, it does seem that "one period > of lightwaving," howsoever properly defined, would > be a sufficient unit of h-bar as a scalar of time -- > if not a dimensionless constant (a "scalar" should > be a dimensionless quantity to count some thing). > > did that make any sense at all? > > --Pi, the surfer's canonical value, is not constructible > with a pair of compasses .. but, could be with a pair and > a half of compasses; dyscuss. ---------------- it seems that there is some misunderstanding between us i dont onoe waht you mean by one period i was meaning the smallest photon energy or mass that has that energy do we speak aboutthe same thing ?? 2 about dimensions in physics formulas: it seesm that no one here understand or understood the dimension 'game' better than me-- i went further then anyone here (or ever!!) with my understanding of it !!! actually that is waht enabled me to make the new revolution in modern physics though it is incredibly simple !!! TIA Y.Porat -----------------------
From: Paul Stowe on 22 May 2010 15:41
On May 21, 4:15 pm, Koobee Wublee <koobee.wub...(a)gmail.com> wrote: >> But it does. The fact that you can produce the Lorentz transformations >> in a way that does NOT respect the principle of relativity is >> irrelevant. The fact that you CAN produce the Lorentz transformations >> in a way that DOES respect the principle of relativity belies your >> statement. > > But the Lorentz transform is not valid. ??? Can you succinctly explain why you think this? Thanks, Paul Stowe |