What is the experimentally measurable difference between rest mass and the 'relativistic mass' of the photon ??!!
in [Relativity]
|
From: Y.Porat on 24 May 2010 11:43 On May 24, 2:50 pm, PD eally 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. --------------------- by those above points i agree with PD : no aether and no Scmaether !! and i have another argument against Aether: if our universe is **expanding* if aether was in space between planets of our galaxy and beyond it SHOULD BE DEPLETED !! while no experiment of the alleged effects of Aether should be diminished as well !!! while there is no sign for it !! ATB Y.Porat ----------------------------
From: spudnik on 24 May 2010 13:37 and have a nice life! thusNso: here is what I asked you to reply to, as in not just macro-ing the same ol', same ol' bull****. > well, that is where the problem with assigning a particle > to a wave, a la de Broglie et al, comes. the assumption, > that causes folks to say "particle," is that because a quantum > of light is absorbed by one atom of siver dioxide (say, > in the photographic emulsion; or, other detector) --some how-- > that it must be that a rock of light hit the electronic orbital > (although > this is never specified, as to how it could be, and the whole problem > of EM is also hard to describe, and variously is). > > this is really all of a confusion from Newton's "geometrical optics," > that is, the "ray" of light, which is just one "normal" > to the wave (or Huyghens wavelet). > thus: > about your five "cloture" events, the real problem is that > "the Fed" was never properly ratified (and is unconstitutional > for that reason, if not directly; it is modeled > upon the Federal Reserve System > of England). of coursel the 527 cmtes. have essentially taken > over the TV advertizing on all national issues & candidates, > through an Act that was passed unaanimously in both houses. > > "Senate rules don't trump the Constitution" --http://GreaterVoice.org/60 > > thus: > I've been saying, for a while, that if "green" gasoline can > be made, and gasoline fuel cells, what is the problem > with Fossilized Fuels (TM), which ain't fossilized? ... anyway, > see "Green Freedom" in the article, > which is not quite what I was refering to! thusNso: Young's two-pinhole experiment was the thing that killed the corpuscle o'light, so that anomalous & highly particular (sik) set-ups with giant molecules are only of pecuniary interest ... er, what ever "pecuniary" means, you have to actually look at the "particulars" of the write-up with the fullerenes, to be able to say any thing of interest -- to make a hypothesis, beyond regurgtiating their delciious resultage. see, you did not even bother to deal with the whole idea of duality, that Pascal essntially created in projective geometry (cf., "two-column proofs" .-) another way to "check" your theory -- iff it is one -- would be to explain Snell's law, electromagnetically and/or with aether ... even if it is an "undefined element" of your axioms. > The 'particle' associated with the photon wave enters and exits a > single slit. The 'particle' occupies a very small region of the wave. thusNso: yeah, but you don't need the particle, at all; your theory says nothing, at all, either, at least til you attempt to make it do some thing. one way to "check" it, would be to explain permitivity & permeability with the theory, if it is a theory & not just typing & macro-ing practice. > The associated wave exits the both slits and creates interference > which alters the direction the particle travels. thusNso: being legally enjoined from using the googolplex, what's YUV? thusNso: complainant: there's a series of his books from Cambridge U. Press, paperback, very nice, but they want $45 for the one that I was peruzing at the bookstore! (I think, I'd bought one of these, before, for about $25, although I lost it.) the titles of these seem generally to be a list of three subjects, _This, That and Another Thing_, although also the usual format of several independent essays/chapters. r.i.p., MG. --Pi, the surfer's canonical value -- accept no other! http://wlym.com
From: BURT on 24 May 2010 13:45 On May 24, 10:37 am, spudnik <Space...(a)hotmail.com> wrote: > and have a nice life! > > thusNso: > here is what I asked you to reply to, as in > not just macro-ing the same ol', same ol' bull****. > > > > > > > well, that is where the problem with assigning a particle > > to a wave, a la de Broglie et al, comes. the assumption, > > that causes folks to say "particle," is that because a quantum > > of light is absorbed by one atom of siver dioxide (say, > > in the photographic emulsion; or, other detector) --some how-- > > that it must be that a rock of light hit the electronic orbital > > (although > > this is never specified, as to how it could be, and the whole problem > > of EM is also hard to describe, and variously is). > > > this is really all of a confusion from Newton's "geometrical optics," > > that is, the "ray" of light, which is just one "normal" > > to the wave (or Huyghens wavelet). > > thus: > > about your five "cloture" events, the real problem is that > > "the Fed" was never properly ratified (and is unconstitutional > > for that reason, if not directly; it is modeled > > upon the Federal Reserve System > > of England). of coursel the 527 cmtes. have essentially taken > > over the TV advertizing on all national issues & candidates, > > through an Act that was passed unaanimously in both houses. > > > "Senate rules don't trump the Constitution" --http://GreaterVoice.org/60 > > > thus: > > I've been saying, for a while, that if "green" gasoline can > > be made, and gasoline fuel cells, what is the problem > > with Fossilized Fuels (TM), which ain't fossilized? ... anyway, > > see "Green Freedom" in the article, > > which is not quite what I was refering to! > > thusNso: > Young's two-pinhole experiment was the thing > that killed the corpuscle o'light, so that > anomalous & highly particular (sik) set-ups > with giant molecules are only of pecuniary interest ... er, > what ever "pecuniary" means, you have to actually look > at the "particulars" of the write-up with the fullerenes, > to be able to say any thing of interest -- to make a hypothesis, > beyond regurgtiating their delciious resultage. > > see, you did not even bother to deal with the whole idea > of duality, that Pascal essntially created > in projective geometry (cf., "two-column proofs" .-) > > another way to "check" your theory -- iff it is one -- > would be to explain Snell's law, electromagnetically and/or > with aether ... even if it is an "undefined element" of your axioms. > > > The 'particle' associated with the photon wave enters and exits a > > single slit. The 'particle' occupies a very small region of the wave. > > thusNso: > yeah, but you don't need the particle, at all; > your theory says nothing, at all, either, at least > til you attempt to make it do some thing. > > one way to "check" it, would be to explain permitivity & permeability > with the theory, if it is a theory & not just typing & macro-ing > practice. > > > The associated wave exits the both slits and creates interference > > which alters the direction the particle travels. > > thusNso: > being legally enjoined from using the googolplex, what's YUV? > > thusNso: > complainant: there's a series of his books from Cambridge U. Press, > paperback, very nice, but they want $45 for the one > that I was peruzing at the bookstore! (I think, > I'd bought one of these, before, for about $25, although > I lost it.) > the titles of these seem generally to be a list > of three subjects, _This, That and Another Thing_, although > also the usual format of several independent essays/chapters. > r.i.p., MG. > > --Pi, the surfer's canonical value -- accept no other!http://wlym.com- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text - Light has no rest mass. It can never be brought to absolute rest. This is true for matter as well. Light has no kinetic energy. If it did it would be from the constant of C and all light would have the same energy. This is untrue. Lights energy comes from its oscillation frequency. Mitch Raemsch
From: Koobee Wublee on 25 May 2010 16:03 On May 24, 5:50 am, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > On May 21, 6:15 pm, Koobee Wublee <koobee.wub...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > 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. They were never wrong. <shrug> > > 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. Electromagnetism does not satisfy the principle of relativity anyway. The ridiculous thing is to mathemagically fudge the Maxwells equations to satisfy the principle of relativity. <shrug> > This was not lost on the folks of the day. The only ones got lost are the self-styled physicists in the past 100 years. <shrug> > > 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? Failing to find so means a re-tweak of the mathematical model. In any case, all mathematical models show a breakdown in the principle of relativity. <shrug> > 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. You are getting insane as a grumpy old man. Is it the unemployment thing, grand kids not visiting, or just old age? <shrug> > > 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. When seen divine signs, you still refuse to recognize Christ. Just repent. <shrug> > > I meant what Poincare came up with is not valid. You need to get over > > with that. <shrug> Finally, you got over with that. <shrug> > > There are actually a infinite numbers of models that will explain the > > null results of the MMX, yes. <shrug> Understand? > > 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! Who? Me? Not. > Relativity is not ballistic and it also satisfies the > principle of relativity AND it also accounts for the results of the > MMX. Again, the ballistic theory of light satisfies the Galilean transform and the principle of relativity. It also explains the null results of the MMX. You need to get over with that as well. <shrug> > More importantly, it also accounts for a huge number of results > other than the MMX. What are those again? > > Relativity seems only to hold at low speeds. Name one experiment to > > test relativity at high speeds. <shrug> > > You're joking, right? No. <shrug> So, no experiments actually prove the validity in the principle of relativity. > > But one single experiment can prove a conjecture invalid. <shrug> > > This is true, but the MMX certain did not prove relativity invalid, > did it? No, if you accept the ballistic theory of light. Yes, if you dont. <shrug> > 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. Whats that again? <shrug> > > 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. See the reply I gave to Paul Stowe. > > 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. Yes, the Lorentz transform (Poincares version) does satisfy the principle of relativity, but it is only valid in a very special case. In general, it is not. Thus, it does not explain the null results of the MMX. However, Larmors version where every observation is dependent on the stationary background of the Aether does explain the null results. <shrug> http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics.relativity/msg/c5a0a3c587fd4df4?hl=en > > But the Lorentz transform is not valid. > > That is determined by whether it matches experimental results. Period. > So far, it does. No, it does not. <shrug> > > 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. You got that all wrong again. It is If I (PD) am mystified, I certainly would not know that I am indeed mystified myself. The moral of the story is that ignorant people like PD just dont know they are ignorant. <shrug>
From: BURT on 25 May 2010 16:11
On May 25, 1:03 pm, Koobee Wublee <koobee.wub...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > On May 24, 5:50 am, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > On May 21, 6:15 pm, Koobee Wublee <koobee.wub...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > 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. > > They were never wrong. <shrug> > > > > 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. > > Electromagnetism does not satisfy the principle of relativity anyway. > The ridiculous thing is to mathemagically fudge the Maxwells > equations to satisfy the principle of relativity. <shrug> > > > This was not lost on the folks of the day. > > The only ones got lost are the self-styled physicists in the past 100 > years. <shrug> > > > > 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? > > Failing to find so means a re-tweak of the mathematical model. In any > case, all mathematical models show a breakdown in the principle of > relativity. <shrug> > > > 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. > > You are getting insane as a grumpy old man. Is it the unemployment > thing, grand kids not visiting, or just old age? <shrug> > > > > 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. > > When seen divine signs, you still refuse to recognize Christ. Just > repent. <shrug> > > > > I meant what Poincare came up with is not valid. You need to get over > > > with that. <shrug> > > Finally, you got over with that. <shrug> > > > > There are actually a infinite numbers of models that will explain the > > > null results of the MMX, yes. <shrug> > > Understand? > > > > 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! > > Who? Me? Not. > > > Relativity is not ballistic and it also satisfies the > > principle of relativity AND it also accounts for the results of the > > MMX. > > Again, the ballistic theory of light satisfies the Galilean transform > and the principle of relativity. It also explains the null results of > the MMX. You need to get over with that as well. <shrug> > > > More importantly, it also accounts for a huge number of results > > other than the MMX. > > What are those again? > > > > Relativity seems only to hold at low speeds. Name one experiment to > > > test relativity at high speeds. <shrug> > > > You're joking, right? > > No. <shrug> > > So, no experiments actually prove the validity in the principle of > relativity. > > > > But one single experiment can prove a conjecture invalid. <shrug> > > > This is true, but the MMX certain did not prove relativity invalid, > > did it? > > No, if you accept the ballistic theory of light. Yes, if you dont. > <shrug> > > > 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. > > Whats that again? <shrug> > > > > 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. > > See the reply I gave to Paul Stowe. > > > > 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. > > Yes, the Lorentz transform (Poincares version) does satisfy the > principle of relativity, but it is only valid in a very special case. > In general, it is not. Thus, it does not explain the null results of > the MMX. However, Larmors version where every observation is > dependent on the stationary background of the Aether does explain the > null results. <shrug> > > http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics.relativity/msg/c5a0a3c587f... > > > > But the Lorentz transform is not valid. > > > That is determined by whether it matches experimental results. Period. > > So far, it does. > > No, it does not. <shrug> > > > > 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. > > You got that all wrong again. It is If I (PD) am mystified, I > certainly would not know that I am indeed mystified myself. The > moral of the story is that ignorant people like PD just dont know > they are ignorant. <shrug> Einstein was right about predetermism. The universe was designed forever. Mitch Raemsch |