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 21 May 2010 02:24 On May 20, 10:20 am, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > On May 20, 12:52 am, Koobee Wublee wrote: > > An example is the MMX. Clearly, it must reference all readings back > > to the stationary background of the Aether. > > Clearly not, since relativity involves no references to a stationary > background. 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> > > Larmor was the first to > > come up with a transform that does so. In Larmor's Lorentz transform, > > one of the two observers must be the absolute frame of reference. > > Poincare took a special case in Larmor's Lorentz transform and made a > > general case into the one that does not require any of the two > > observers to be the stationary background of the Aether. That is not > > an acceptable axiom. > > 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. 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> > > So, why do self-styled physicists embrace that? > > That is not doing physics according to your book. <shrug> > > > In the example above, you and the self-styled physicists including > > Poincare and later on plagiarized by Einstein the nitwit, the > > plagiarist, and the liar had failed miserably. > > On the contrary. Relativity makes a large number of predictions that > are distinct from other models, including Lorentz Ether Theory, and > those predictions have been borne out by dozens of experiments. 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> 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. Well, except the ballistic theory of light that predates the discovery of electromagnetism. <shrug> Since electromagnetism really does not accept the principle of relativity, 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> > > Another example is the > > photon bending experiment. The 1919 experiments and expeditions made > > by Eddington did not prove a twice-Newtonian deflection if properly > > interpreting the experimental data. So, the twice-Newtonian > > deflection was interpreted from how much delay a photon would arrive > > relative to a straight line of sight as indicated so by Shapiro's > > experiments and others. The interpretation is Ok if there is no time > > dilation. However, with the effect of time dilation, the > > interpretation no longer holds. In doing so, the self-styled > > physicists are doing physics. They are merely shamans trying to > > proliferate a pagan mysticism. <shrug> > > > > If you think that's a sucky way to do business, and you're not about > > > to go along with that game plan, then that's fine, but you're no > > > longer doing physics. > > > 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. The mysticism on your part is exactly what we are discussing. How can someone this dumb be a professor? The institution that used to employ your service must not be anything better than kindergarten level. <shrug> > > You are no different from > > these preachers trying to interpret what the Bible says according to > > historic events. <shrug>
From: Y.Porat on 21 May 2010 03:53 On May 21, 5:41 am, spudnik <Space...(a)hotmail.com> wrote: > 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? > -------------------------- my answer isYES!! and we have been in it in my thread 'a betetr new definition of the real single'*photon and it is h times Plank time duration!! but a big but: you will never detect it because its ** mass** (the only mass that exists (:-) of that photon according to my copyright insight is about exp -90 Kg !!!! ATB Y.Porat ------------------------------- > 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.
From: PD on 21 May 2010 11:04 On May 21, 1:24 am, Koobee Wublee <koobee.wub...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > On May 20, 10:20 am, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > On May 20, 12:52 am, Koobee Wublee wrote: > > > An example is the MMX. Clearly, it must reference all readings back > > > to the stationary background of the Aether. > > > Clearly not, since relativity involves no references to a stationary > > background. > > 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. > > > > Larmor was the first to > > > come up with a transform that does so. In Larmor's Lorentz transform, > > > one of the two observers must be the absolute frame of reference. > > > Poincare took a special case in Larmor's Lorentz transform and made a > > > general case into the one that does not require any of the two > > > observers to be the stationary background of the Aether. That is not > > > an acceptable axiom. > > > 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. > > 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." You have pointed out that there were alternative models which also reproduced the results of the MMX. That's fine. However, relativity does not rest its validation on the MMX. Relativity makes a huge number of predictions, and a large number of them have been experimentally validated completely independent of the MMX. No theory rests on a single experiment, ever. > > > > So, why do self-styled physicists embrace that? > > > That is not doing physics according to your book. <shrug> > > > > In the example above, you and the self-styled physicists including > > > Poincare and later on plagiarized by Einstein the nitwit, the > > > plagiarist, and the liar had failed miserably. > > > On the contrary. Relativity makes a large number of predictions that > > are distinct from other models, including Lorentz Ether Theory, and > > those predictions have been borne out by dozens of experiments. > > 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. > > 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. > 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. 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. > 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. > > > > > > Another example is the > > > photon bending experiment. The 1919 experiments and expeditions made > > > by Eddington did not prove a twice-Newtonian deflection if properly > > > interpreting the experimental data. So, the twice-Newtonian > > > deflection was interpreted from how much delay a photon would arrive > > > relative to a straight line of sight as indicated so by Shapiro's > > > experiments and others. The interpretation is Ok if there is no time > > > dilation. However, with the effect of time dilation, the > > > interpretation no longer holds. In doing so, the self-styled > > > physicists are doing physics. They are merely shamans trying to > > > proliferate a pagan mysticism. <shrug> > > > > > If you think that's a sucky way to do business, and you're not about > > > > to go along with that game plan, then that's fine, but you're no > > > > longer doing physics. > > > > 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? > The mysticism on your part is exactly what we > are discussing. How can someone this dumb be a professor? The > institution that used to employ your service must not be anything > better than kindergarten level. <shrug> > > > > You are no different from > > > these preachers trying to interpret what the Bible says according to > > > historic events. <shrug> > >
From: Y.Porat on 21 May 2010 12:55 On Apr 20, 9:39 pm, spudnik <Space...(a)hotmail.com> wrote: > light is the exception taht proves the rule, > that every particle (mass) has a wave-function; ----------------------------------------- indeed light or photons are exception to the rule THAT NO MASS CAN REACH c !!! light can and does move at c and have mass-- the only mass that exists while V=c the situation is undefined BUT THAT DOES NOT MEAN THAT ANYONE CAN MAKE EXTRAPOLATIONS BEYOND EXPERIMENTAL!!! SINCE I SHOWED THAT PHOOTN MOMENTUM HAS MASS- AND NO GAMMA FACTOR PHOTONS HAS MASS FULL STOP (.)ONCE AND FOR ALL !! that is an old copyright of mine!! Y.Porat ------------------ >
From: spudnik on 21 May 2010 14:33
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. |