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: Y.Porat on 20 May 2010 14:16 On May 20, 6:34 am, "Inertial" <relativ...(a)rest.com> wrote: > "Y.Porat" <y.y.po...(a)gmail.com> wrote in message > > news:9a9cb031-7c6e-4374-b88d-84db7a32c210(a)j27g2000vbp.googlegroups.com... > > > > > On May 20, 5:06 am, spudnik <Space...(a)hotmail.com> wrote: > >> I looked at your website; > >> are you sure it's not steganogrphy? > > >> I don't know, becuase > >> I have never been able to see one of those -- > >> don't tell me, how! > > >> Hide quoted text - > > >> > - Show quoted text - > > > ------------- > > i looked in the dictinary > > and ddint find waht is steganography > > Porat didn't look very hard .. > > http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/steganographyhttp://www.thefreedictionary.com/steganographyhttp://dictionary.reference.com/browse/steganographyhttp://www.yourdictionary.com/computer/steganographyhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Steganographyhttp://www.webopedia.com/TERM/s/steganography.html > > As usual Porat just doesn't even bother reading or studying or researching. -------------------- if you know the basics of physics you dont have to follow any nonsense tha tis published fo r me its enough that photon momentum is h/Lambda iow some scalar figures that are not relevant to the dinension analysis and non of those scalars is zero ! non of them is a relativistic multiplier so what else we need torealize that just remember that nature of inorganic matter is not cleaver enough to learn your devious crooked physics so the simpler - the better !! NO MASS (TH E ONLY ONE) - NO REAL PHYSICS !! Y.P ---------------------------
From: Y.Porat on 20 May 2010 14:23 On Apr 20, 12:13 pm, artful <artful...(a)hotmail.com> wrote: > On Apr 20, 8:06 pm, "Y.Porat" <y.y.po...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > On Apr 20, 7:51 am, artful > No .. it doesn't > > > > > photon has as well Momentum!! > > > > Yes .. it does > > > > > P photon =m c > > > quote from Artful > > > No. That is not the formula for momentum. It is > > > > P photon = h / lambda > > > -------------------------------------- > > > btw > > the Nazi pig > > That's you > > > was obfuscation and cheating again!!!: > > You do that a lot. I don't. > > > P photon = E photon /c > > Yes it is > > E = hf > > So E/c = hf/c = h/lambda > > > so it is as i presented it as well > > as > > P photon = m c !!!! (mc^2/c !!!) > > Nope .. because E = mc^2 is NOT the energy of a photon. That is the > formula for the REST energy for something of invariant mass m. That > doesn't apply to a photon. > > > so !!! in any case > > **the kilograms are still there !!*** > > MOMENTUM OF PHOTONS HAS MASS!! > > Well derrr .. if its momentum it HAS to have a M dimension in its > units. ---------------- phootn momentum is h/lambda and it is exactly m c ---- multiplied by scalar number that ar e not relevant to our dimension analysis because non of them is zero and non of them is relativistic he gamma facor does not belong to the photon world !! too complicated for you ???..... keep well Y.Porat -----------------------------
From: BURT on 20 May 2010 14:28 On May 20, 11:23 am, "Y.Porat" <y.y.po...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > On Apr 20, 12:13 pm, artful <artful...(a)hotmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > > On Apr 20, 8:06 pm, "Y.Porat" <y.y.po...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > On Apr 20, 7:51 am, artful > No .. it doesn't > > > > > > photon has as well Momentum!! > > > > > Yes .. it does > > > > > > P photon =m c > > > > quote from Artful > > > > No. That is not the formula for momentum. It is > > > > > P photon = h / lambda > > > > -------------------------------------- > > > > btw > > > the Nazi pig > > > That's you > > > > was obfuscation and cheating again!!!: > > > You do that a lot. I don't. > > > > P photon = E photon /c > > > Yes it is > > > E = hf > > > So E/c = hf/c = h/lambda > > > > so it is as i presented it as well > > > as > > > P photon = m c !!!! (mc^2/c !!!) > > > Nope .. because E = mc^2 is NOT the energy of a photon. That is the > > formula for the REST energy for something of invariant mass m. That > > doesn't apply to a photon. > > > > so !!! in any case > > > **the kilograms are still there !!*** > > > MOMENTUM OF PHOTONS HAS MASS!! > > > Well derrr .. if its momentum it HAS to have a M dimension in its > > units. > > ---------------- > phootn momentum is > > h/lambda > and it is exactly m c ---- > multiplied by scalar number that ar e not relevant to our > dimension analysis > > because non of them is zero > and non of them is relativistic > he gamma facor does not belong to the photon world !! > > too complicated for you ???..... > keep well > Y.Porat > ------------------------------ Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text - Where is the proof of the momentum of light? I don't think so. Mitch Raemsch
From: Inertial on 20 May 2010 22:31 "PD" <thedraperfamily(a)gmail.com> wrote in message news:cfa57977-2061-4b29-a3b1-c9ba26df95d0(a)p17g2000vbe.googlegroups.com... [snip for brevity] > 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. Of course, whatever axioms you start with need to be consistent with experiment and observation .. otherwise one's theory is already dead in the water. So in *that* sense they need to be acceptable. But not simply based on whether one likes them or not, or whether they are contrary to ones existing ideas.
From: spudnik on 20 May 2010 23:41
on the wayside, one should preliminarily determine what a "beam" is, that is split by the beamsplitter; people, who habitually think of a particle, when use of the word, quantum, is made for the click of a geigercounter (well, those might be ions) or what ever. that is, a laser beam is just a very special case, a highly modified or shaped set of waves, or a standing wave of some sort, frequency, polarity of lightwaves ... not Newton's clacking balls! can a photon be only one cycle of light? thus: hey; maybe tehy'd let you look at your trophy with those 3d glasses! thusNso: dood, my valu of pi is lots simpler to calculate than yours -- seven cans of beer & a string! thusNso: nice cartoon; is there only one beamsplitter in Sagnac? --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. |