What is the experimentally measurable difference between rest mass and the 'relativistic mass' of the photon ??!!
in [Physics]
|
Prev: EINSTEIN NAMED REUTERS PERSONALITY OF THE MILLENNIUM [in 1999]
Next: Another Tom Potter theory confirmed
From: Koobee Wublee on 12 May 2010 01:02 On May 11, 6:05 am, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > On May 11, 1:20 am, Koobee Wublee wrote: > > Hmmm... Thanks to hanson. We now have learnt that PD is now > > unemployed. > > Well, you see there? You take information from someone like hanson, > and it's no wonder you get so many things wrong. So amusing. What's > even more amusing is that it would take a 7th grader to get better > information than what you two have been able to put together. The rest > below is sprinkled with more of the same of your half-assed misfires. > Story of your life? Come one, PD. There is no shame to be unemployed. However, when grandkids don't come to visit anymore, that may cause a little concern. <shrug> > > He is no longer a professor. I think the next generation > > would be better off with one fewer Einstein Dingleberries trying to > > park his tongue into the anus of the ones who sings "halleluiah > > Einstein" if you ask me. <shrug> Amen. After losing his professorship, I strongly doubt it if he would be able to understand any logics anymore. Let's bring back the two equations describing energy, mass, and momentum below. *1* E^2 = m^2 c^4 + p^2 c^2 *2* E^2 = m'^2 c^4 Where ** m = Rest mass ** m' = Observed mass ** p = Observed momentum These equations are actually identical, but there are always bevies of Einstein Dingleberries who would aloofly swear to their god Einstein the nitwit, the plagiarist, and the liar that equation *1* is the only one that is any valid. In this case, how do these Einstein Dingleberries find closure with the following equation? ** E' = (E - [B] * [p] c) / sqrt(1 - B^2) Where ** E' = Observed energy of a test particle by the primed frame ** E = Observed energy of the same test particle by the unprimed frame ** [B] c = Velocity vector of the primed frame relative the unprimed frame ** [p] = [you should be able to figure it out] ** c = [self-explanatory] ** '*' = Dot product of two vectors (for those who are still scratching their empty heads) I am sure the unemployed PD possess no intellects to comprehend the issue at hand. <shrug>
From: Y.Porat on 12 May 2010 03:22 On May 12, 7:02 am, Koobee Wublee <koobee.wub...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > On May 11, 6:05 am, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > On May 11, 1:20 am, Koobee Wublee wrote: > > > Hmmm... Thanks to hanson. We now have learnt that PD is now > > > unemployed. > > > Well, you see there? You take information from someone like hanson, > > and it's no wonder you get so many things wrong. So amusing. What's > > even more amusing is that it would take a 7th grader to get better > > information than what you two have been able to put together. The rest > > below is sprinkled with more of the same of your half-assed misfires. > > Story of your life? > > Come one, PD. There is no shame to be unemployed. However, when > grandkids don't come to visit anymore, that may cause a little > concern. <shrug> > > > > He is no longer a professor. I think the next generation > > > would be better off with one fewer Einstein Dingleberries trying to > > > park his tongue into the anus of the ones who sings "halleluiah > > > Einstein" if you ask me. <shrug> > > Amen. > > After losing his professorship, I strongly doubt it if he would be > able to understand any logics anymore. Let's bring back the two > equations describing energy, mass, and momentum below. > > *1* E^2 = m^2 c^4 + p^2 c^2 > *2* E^2 = m'^2 c^4 > > Where > > ** m = Rest mass > ** m' = Observed mass > ** p = Observed momentum > > These equations are actually identical, but there are always bevies of > Einstein Dingleberries who would aloofly swear to their god Einstein > the nitwit, the plagiarist, and the liar that equation *1* is the only > one that is any valid. > > In this case, how do these Einstein Dingleberries find closure with > the following equation? > > ** E' = (E - [B] * [p] c) / sqrt(1 - B^2) > > Where > > ** E' = Observed energy of a test particle by the primed frame > ** E = Observed energy of the same test particle by the unprimed > frame > ** [B] c = Velocity vector of the primed frame relative the unprimed > frame > ** [p] = [you should be able to figure it out] > ** c = [self-explanatory] > ** '*' = Dot product of two vectors (for those who are still > scratching their empty heads) > > I am sure the unemployed PD possess no intellects to comprehend the > issue at hand. <shrug> ---------------------- Koobee you still ddint answer me if you think(as me) that NO MASS - NO REAL PHYSICS !! TIA Y.Porat --------------------------------
From: Paul B. Andersen on 12 May 2010 08:49 On 12.05.2010 07:02, Koobee Wublee wrote: > Let's bring back the two > equations describing energy, mass, and momentum below. > > *1* E^2 = m^2 c^4 + p^2 c^2 > *2* E^2 = m'^2 c^4 > > Where > > ** m = Rest mass > ** m' = Observed mass > ** p = Observed momentum > > These equations are actually identical, but there are always bevies of > Einstein Dingleberries who would aloofly swear to their god Einstein > the nitwit, the plagiarist, and the liar that equation *1* is the only > one that is any valid. They are identical for massive objects only. What does *2* say the energy of a photon is? Is it correct? -- Paul http://home.c2i.net/pb_andersen/
From: PD on 12 May 2010 09:00 On May 12, 12:02 am, Koobee Wublee <koobee.wub...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > On May 11, 6:05 am, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > On May 11, 1:20 am, Koobee Wublee wrote: > > > Hmmm... Thanks to hanson. We now have learnt that PD is now > > > unemployed. > > > Well, you see there? You take information from someone like hanson, > > and it's no wonder you get so many things wrong. So amusing. What's > > even more amusing is that it would take a 7th grader to get better > > information than what you two have been able to put together. The rest > > below is sprinkled with more of the same of your half-assed misfires. > > Story of your life? > > Come one, PD. There is no shame to be unemployed. However, when > grandkids don't come to visit anymore, that may cause a little > concern. <shrug> Keep digging. Keep making your mind up about wild guesses and being absolutely, positively sure about things that are nevertheless factually wrong. It's your pattern, and it's how you've gotten yourself into the position where you actually believe that you alone in the world see things that no one else sees. You're tetched in the head. > > > > He is no longer a professor. I think the next generation > > > would be better off with one fewer Einstein Dingleberries trying to > > > park his tongue into the anus of the ones who sings "halleluiah > > > Einstein" if you ask me. <shrug> > > Amen. > > After losing his professorship, I strongly doubt it if he would be > able to understand any logics anymore. Let's bring back the two > equations describing energy, mass, and momentum below. > > *1* E^2 = m^2 c^4 + p^2 c^2 > *2* E^2 = m'^2 c^4 > > Where > > ** m = Rest mass > ** m' = Observed mass > ** p = Observed momentum > > These equations are actually identical, but there are always bevies of > Einstein Dingleberries who would aloofly swear to their god Einstein > the nitwit, the plagiarist, and the liar that equation *1* is the only > one that is any valid. > > In this case, how do these Einstein Dingleberries find closure with > the following equation? > > ** E' = (E - [B] * [p] c) / sqrt(1 - B^2) > > Where > > ** E' = Observed energy of a test particle by the primed frame > ** E = Observed energy of the same test particle by the unprimed > frame > ** [B] c = Velocity vector of the primed frame relative the unprimed > frame > ** [p] = [you should be able to figure it out] > ** c = [self-explanatory] > ** '*' = Dot product of two vectors (for those who are still > scratching their empty heads) > > I am sure the unemployed PD possess no intellects to comprehend the > issue at hand. <shrug>
From: Tony M on 12 May 2010 09:55
On May 12, 8:49 am, "Paul B. Andersen" <paul.b.ander...(a)somewhere.no> wrote: > On 12.05.2010 07:02, Koobee Wublee wrote: > > > > > > > Let's bring back the two > > equations describing energy, mass, and momentum below. > > > *1* E^2 = m^2 c^4 + p^2 c^2 > > *2* E^2 = m'^2 c^4 > > > Where > > > ** m = Rest mass > > ** m' = Observed mass > > ** p = Observed momentum > > > These equations are actually identical, but there are always bevies of > > Einstein Dingleberries who would aloofly swear to their god Einstein > > the nitwit, the plagiarist, and the liar that equation *1* is the only > > one that is any valid. > > They are identical for massive objects only. > What does *2* say the energy of a photon is? > Is it correct? > > -- > Paul > > http://home.c2i.net/pb_andersen/- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text - 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. |