What is the experimentally measurable difference between rest mass and the 'relativistic mass' of the photon ??!!
in [Relativity]
|
From: Koobee Wublee on 23 May 2010 00:11 On May 22, 12:41 pm, Paul Stowe <theaether...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > On May 21, 4:15 pm, Koobee Wublee wrote: > > But the Lorentz transform is not valid. > > ??? Can you succinctly explain why you think this? First, I have to explain what the Lorentz transform is. If I don't at this stage, I suppose there be some confusion which would allow the self-styled physicists to give an excuse to continue to worship Einstein the nitwit, the plagiarist, and the liar. Both the Galilean and the Lorentz transform as is understood today involve two observers and an observed. In both transforms, none of these two observers is required to be the stationary background of the Aether. Thus, both transforms satisfy the principle of relativity where the observed event does not depend on the stationary background of the Aether. The principle of relativity was believed to be the law for our universe before the advent of electromagnetism. Firmly believing in the Aether, there were several experiments designed to decide the drift speed of the earth against the stationary background of the Aether. The MMX of 1887 was not the first one, nor was it the first attempt by Michelson. However, it was Michelson who first pioneered and applied interference pattern to the problem. With total coherence and reproducible interference pattern from one to another, it was hint at time being absolute or absolute simultaneity when all events as observed by all difference observers would have the same chronological order with no exceptions. Any mathematical model that justifies a relative simultaneity would be deeply flawed. Well, back in those days, no one really understood what absolute or relative simultaneity was. With the null results of the MMX, the Galilean transform seems to be able to explain that through the ballistic theory of light dating back to Newton/Michell/Cavendish's time. On top of that, simultaneity is absolute under the Galilean transform. Despite the triumph of the Galilean transform, it fails miserably to reconcile with electromagnetism. Thus, to satisfy both electromagnetism and classical mechanics, a new transform that would degenerate into the Galilean transform at low speed becomes ever so necessary. Voigt was the first to modify the Galilean transform. Larmor found another one a few years later. Lorentz was the first to realize there are actually infinite such transforms as derivatives of the Voigt or Larmor's that satisfy the null results of the MMX. All these transforms must have one of the two observers to be that stationary background of the Aether. In doing so, none of these transform satisfy the principle of relativity in general, but they all manifest absolute simultaneity to justify any interference patterns. Also, they all satisfy electromagnetism and degenerate into the Galilean transform at low speed. When you want to relate two observers that none of them is the stationary background of the Aether, the absolute velocities (vectors) of the observers become ever so necessary under the new post-Galilean transforms. Since these new transforms can be written into their simpler forms in the longitudinal-centric format, the mathematics becomes ever so simpler. However, it leaves room for mathemagic tricks. Poincare (I think it was his mistake and not a deliberate one) realized he could do away with the stationary background of the Aether when working with Larmor's transform in the longitudinal- centric format. In doing so, that mathematics actually does not require one of the two observers to be the stationary background of the Aether. Thus, Larmor's transform becomes what is known as the Lorentz transform today. The Lorentz transform without the need to reference back to the stationary background of the Aether thus satisfies the principle of relativity. Due to mutual time dilation, it also manifests relative simultaneity which would predict no coherent and non-reproducible interference patterns. That should be a red flag, but it escaped the minds of the self-styled physicists. They were so preoccupied to deify Einstein the nitwit, the plagiarist, and the liar. Unfortunately, Poincare's Lorentz transform was merely a special case to Larmor's original transform. The special case calls out for both of the observers to move in parallel relative to the stationary background of the Aether. Your truly has explained in great length as how in general Larmor's transform does not embrace the principle of relativity. http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics.relativity/msg/c540aaf23412f1e2?hl=en Thus, that is why I claim beyond any reasoning of doubt that the Lorentz transform is faulty. <shrug>
From: Y.Porat on 23 May 2010 03:58 On May 6, 8:04 am, artful <artful...(a)hotmail.com> wrote: > On May 6, 1:36 pm, "Y.Porat" <y.y.po...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > [snip for brevity[ > > > MR PD > > what is the formula of > > the photon momentum?? > > Don't you know? > > p = h / lambda > > Experiments have measured photon momentum and found that to be the > case. > Just as they have measured photon energy and found it is > > E = h f > > And of course > > E = pc > > Which, as one expects, that gives you > > c = lamda f > > Isn't it nice how those formulas relate? > > Didn't you know all this? > > > 2 > > what are the M K S dimensions in it > > Don't you know? > > Its the same as for any other momentum value .. dimensions are M L / > T .. the unit system doesn't change that. Do you think there is more > than one kind of momentum .. each with different units? ------------------ but why after all of that you dont get that the photon momentum** has mass** and if its momentum has mass than its energy has mass as well- th e only mass !! because in p c or even p c multiplied by scalars that are not zero multiplier among those scalars-- and are not multiplied by Gamma so again th ephoton momentum and so the photon in general has nonzero mass- THE ONLY MAS THAT EXISTS !! (unless you are dumb of a crook!!) NO MAS (THE ONLY MASS-)-- NO REAL PHYSICS!! and we have a revolution in physics do you get it ?? ---NO CHANCE !!! (because it is by Y.Porat your personal enemy ......) but others of my 6000 readers-- get it !!! if you like it or not !!! btw why not --- ---' if you cant beat him- join him !!' said the old Romans !! ....... Keep well Y.Porat ---------------------------------
From: spudnik on 23 May 2010 14:40 aside from "your English sucks, badly," I really don't know what you mean, because it changes from day to day. why would a photon have a minimum mass of 10^-90 kilograms, and what in Hell is the Dimensions Game?... well, if you cannot answer either question, Game Over! > it seems that there is some misunderstanding between us. > i dont onoe what you mean by one period; > i was meaning the smallest photon > energy or mass that has that energy; > do we speak about the same thing ?? > > about dimensions in physics formulas: > it seesm that no one here understand > or understood the dimension 'game' > better than me-- thsNso: quaternions is got three signs (unary operators), i, j & k; now, if you wanted to get rid of the minus sign, as well, that would be an additional problem. since you do not propose to get rid of addition (binary operator) or multiplication (binary operator), but use the symbols for those operators in your hare-brained additions ... it just makes me feel bad, unless you can prove, that you don't need subtractions or negatives. on the wayside, i may not fully grok the idea of unary operators, but "exp()" and "ln()" are canonically such. > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_Hall_effect > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fractional_quantum_Hall_effect thusNso there may not have been any exposition, but I didn't think of that, that his hare-brained attempt unconsciously obliterated the pythagorean theorem, iff it actualy did any thing, at all, that any one could comprehend, including doctor Martin. thuNso: is he trying to prove that all solutions to the Fermat curves, pass only through irrational points on the grid?... welcome to the club! well, he ceraintly didn't prove that, as far as I can see (but I'm wearing the oldstyle 3d glasses, so, y'never know .-) thusNso: yeah; first, do no harm, or assign yourself to an automatic "opt-in to your killfile, thank *me*." anyway, that is not Bucky's system, but Cliff's. at least, he is not among the fanatics, who beleive what Bucky saith, that he alleviated the need for math with Nature's Co-ordinating System -- as important as some of that is. "to remove me from your killfile, send your Social Security Number to tim(a)polysignosis.org; thank *you*." thsNso: "pressure equals a third of energy density" -- really?... well, a tetrahedron is a third of the volume of the parallelopiped that it's inscribed in; so, there. "spacetime" is a totally useless word for concepts, since it is merely phase-space of ordinary space; just use quaternions, real part as time. (funny thing: I just read that Hoagland's "hyperdimensional physics" was nothing but quaternions "a la Maxwell," Yahoo!TM .-) thusNso: I don't see any neccesary resaon for *any* irrational number to have a maximum run of any digit in what ever integral base; so, rake one coal over yourself for propitiating such a silly idea! on the wayside, 0.999.... does not = 1; it equals 1.000...., the "real"number, one; take a hop, a skip & a jump over Tony Robinson's bed of coals. thusNso: the second part of the question is clearly trivial, and the first part seems to be its inverse, or what ever. have Farey sequences ever been used for continued fractions, or does that make any sense, at all? > Example: The fraction 4 / 97 occur in the place 197 of > the Farey's sequence of order 113. How can I know it > without calculate all the smaller terms? --Pi, the surfer's canonical value -- good to at least one place! http://wlym.com
From: Y.Porat on 24 May 2010 06:32 On May 23, 8:40 pm, spudnik <Space...(a)hotmail.com> wrote: > aside from "your English sucks, badly," I really don't know > what you mean, because it changes from day to day. > > why would a photon have a minimum mass of 10^-90 kilograms, and > what in Hell is the Dimensions Game?... well, if > you cannot answer either question, Game Over! > > > it seems that there is some misunderstanding between us. > > i dont onoe what you mean by one period; > > i was meaning the smallest photon > > energy or mass that has that energy; > > do we speak about the same thing ?? > > > about dimensions in physics formulas: > > it seesm that no one here understand > > or understood the dimension 'game' > > better than me-- > > thsNso: > quaternions is got three signs (unary operators), i, j & k; now, > if you wanted to get rid of the minus sign, as well, > that would be an additional problem. > > since you do not propose to get rid of addition (binary operator) or > multiplication (binary operator), but use the symbols > for those operators in your hare-brained additions ... > it just makes me feel bad, unless you can prove, > that you don't need subtractions or negatives. > > on the wayside, i may not fully grok the idea > of unary operators, but "exp()" and "ln()" are canonically such. > > >http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_Hall_effect > >http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fractional_quantum_Hall_effect > > thusNso > there may not have been any exposition, but > I didn't think of that, that > his hare-brained attempt unconsciously obliterated the pythagorean > theorem, > iff it actualy did any thing, at all, > that any one could comprehend, including doctor Martin. > > thuNso: > is he trying to prove that all solutions > to the Fermat curves, pass only through irrational points > on the grid?... welcome to the club! > > well, he ceraintly didn't prove that, as far as I can see (but > I'm wearing the oldstyle 3d glasses, so, y'never know .-) > > thusNso: > yeah; first, do no harm, or assign yourself > to an automatic "opt-in to your killfile, thank *me*." > anyway, that is not Bucky's system, but Cliff's. at least, > he is not among the fanatics, who beleive what Bucky saith, > that he alleviated the need for math with Nature's Co-ordinating > System > -- as important as some of that is. > "to remove me from your killfile, > send your Social Security Number to t...(a)polysignosis.org; thank > *you*." > > thsNso: > "pressure equals a third of energy density" -- really?... well, > a tetrahedron is a third of the volume of the parallelopiped > that it's inscribed in; so, there. > "spacetime" is a totally useless word for concepts, since > it is merely phase-space of ordinary space; > just use quaternions, real part as time. (funny thing: > I just read that Hoagland's "hyperdimensional physics" was > nothing but quaternions "a la Maxwell," Yahoo!TM .-) > > thusNso: > I don't see any neccesary resaon for *any* irrational number > to have a maximum run of any digit in what ever integral base; so, > rake one coal over yourself for propitiating such a silly idea! > on the wayside, > 0.999.... does not = 1; > it equals 1.000...., the "real"number, one; > take a hop, a skip & a jump over Tony Robinson's bed of coals. > > thusNso: > the second part of the question is clearly trivial, and > the first part seems to be its inverse, or what ever. > have Farey sequences ever been used for continued fractions, or > does that make any sense, at all? > > > Example: The fraction 4 / 97 occur in the place 197 of > > the Farey's sequence of order 113. How can I know it > > without calculate all the smaller terms? > > --Pi, the surfer's canonical value -- good to at least one place!http://wlym.com ----------------- BYE psychopath (Igor) Y.P -----------------------------
From: PD on 24 May 2010 08:50
On May 21, 6:15 pm, Koobee Wublee <koobee.wub...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > 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. That was the prevailing thought, yes. But then again, so was strict determinism. Both were wrong. > 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. Don't be ridiculous. If the aether had been found, this would have explicitly demonstrated that Maxwell's laws of electrodynamics do not respect the principle of relativity. This was not lost on the folks of the day. > 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. This is a remarkable statement. Failing to find something proves that it exists, simply because one conceptually has to posit its existence in order to design the test for it? I have an idea. Let's generate a test for angels. We'll posit their existence in order to devise a test to look for their trails. Then, when the search for their trail shows no positive results, we can nevertheless assert that the test proved the existence of angels, because we had to posit their existence even to perform the test. > 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> Nah. It shows the drift speed of the earth relative to the radiative horizon that GENERATED the CMBR. > > > > 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> Don't be silly! Relativity is not ballistic and it also satisfies the principle of relativity AND it also accounts for the results of the MMX. More importantly, it also accounts for a huge number of results other than the MMX. > > > 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> You're joking, right? > > > No theory > > rests on a single experiment, ever. > > But one single experiment can prove a conjecture invalid. <shrug> This is true, but the MMX certain did not prove relativity invalid, did it? If you have 5 models that all support an experimental result, this fact does not present any proof that any on of them is invalid. > > > > 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? Yes, it would. Because those laws would only apply in one frame. And there would have to be *different* laws of electrodynamics in other frames. This would be the point, you see. > 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> What???? The Lorentz transformation certain satisfies the principle of relativity. > > > > 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. That is determined by whether it matches experimental results. Period. So far, it does. > > > 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> Ah, the old "Well, if I'm mystified, then you should be mystified, and if you're not, then you don't even realize that you're mystified, because I am omniscient and therefore it's patently obvious that you can claim to understand something I don't" argument. |