What makes a formula - to be relativistic??
in [Relativity]
|
From: PD on 6 Jul 2010 17:37 On Jul 3, 1:23 am, "Y.Porat" <y.y.po...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > Wat makes a physics formula- to be relativistic??!! > > TIA > Y.Porat > ------------------------------------- That it matches experiment in relativistic cases. This is usually the case where v is not very, very small compared with c. Otherwise, you can't tell by looking at a formula whether it is relativistic or not. PD
From: Robert Higgins on 6 Jul 2010 18:05 On Jul 6, 12:31 am, "Y.Porat" <y.y.po...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > On Jul 6, 2:55 am, Robert Higgins <robert_higgins...(a)hotmail.com> > wrote: > > > On Jul 5, 7:55 pm, "Y.Porat" <y.y.po...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > On Jul 5, 5:41 pm, Robert Higgins <robert_higgins...(a)hotmail.com> > > > wrote: > > > > > On Jul 5, 3:57 am, "Y.Porat" <y.y.po...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > On Jul 5, 2:12 am, "whoever" <whoe...(a)whereever.com> wrote: > > > > > > > > lets take the photon Momentum P > > > > > > > it is > > > > > > > hf/c > > > > > > > But now you've contradicted your claims that photon energy is NOT hf .. > > > > > > little l pigshit!! Josef Goebbels > > > > > show me were i said that phootn energy is not > > > > > hf !! > > > > > Here, liar: > > > > > "Here is my better definition about the range > > > > in which the real single photon energy emission should be > > > > found (in > > > > future !!! it was not yet been found!! > > > > > E single photon = hf n > > > > > while n can be *only* in the flowing range > > > > > 0 > n <<<< 1.0000 " > > > > > from March 4. > > > >---------------------------- > > > > (:-) (:-) (:-) (:-) > > > > MR Higgins > > > DOCTOR Higgins, if you please... > > > > i am glad that at least you remember waht isaid > > > better than YOU do. > > > > (and you better do !!! > > > because i am doing History > > > Well, it sure isn't physics. > > > > and it is betetr toremember waht i say > > > while i am sure about what i say > > > No matter if it makes any sense at all. > > > > (while i am noty sure i say > > > 'i am not sure !) > > > waht yopu quoted above is really another > > > hiatoric insight of mime > > > THAT ONE DAY YOU WILLBE ABLE TOSREAL FROMME > > > I can't even guess what you're on about here. > > > > AND RELATE IT TO YOUSELF OR TOYOUR > > > FRIENDS (:-) > > > > yousee the problem Mr Higins > > > the problem is that you ar eless intelligent than > > > waht i assumed about you!! > > > 'Tis always disappointing to disappoint a disappointment like > > yourself. > > > > indeed isaid that photonenergy is > > > > hf times n > > > THE PROBLEM IS THAT YOU DIDNT UNDERSTAND MY HISTORIC EXPLANATIONS > > > ABOUT IT !! > > > I understood it perfectly; the only problem it is ludicrously > > incorrect. > > > > that n there that i added IS JUST THE **DINESION LESS FIGURE** THAT > > > IS ASSOCIATED WITH f !!! > > > Yes, that is equal to ONE for 1 photon, TWO for two photons, und so > > weiter. (Oops, sorry, et cetera.) > > > > and now if you afre a suchg a diligent student of mine > > > jUSt go back to my orriginal thread there > > > and re read it > > > God no - it was excruciating torture the first time. > > > > FROM START TO END !! > > > Nein! No! > > > > INCLUDING THE SIMPLE EXPERIMENT I ADDED TO IT > > > WITH THE LED TORCH > > > AND THE PHOTO ELECTRIC CELL !!! > > > My vote for the most ridiculous suggested experiment in the history of > > creation. > > > > to prove that > > > hf IS NOT THE DEFINITION OF THE REAL > > > SINGLE PHOTON !! > > > Right - it is the MAGNITUDE of the photon ENERGY. > > > > THE REAL SINGLE PHOTON IS NOT EMMITED > > > DURING ONE SECOND > > > BUT DURING PLAMCK TIME > > > Is that like "Miller Time"? > > Or "Michelob Lite, for the Winners" > > Even still: "Schaefer is the one beer to have/ When you're having more > > than one." > > > > if i remember corect withmyold memory > > > the figure for Planck time is > > > 5.38 exp -24 > > > (yet i have a feeling that i dont remember it right > > > and i am too lazy to check it now (:-)! > > > ELECTRONIC transitions occur during time spans of about 10E-15 second. > > > > 2 > > > i proved in that series of threads that > > > the Doppler effect > > > *is another prove* that the hf is not the definition of the > > > real single photon > > > Another "Epic Fail" on your part. > > > > and i am not going to show it now again > > > Danke! > > > > it is all documented > > > so > > > to sum it up now > > > You'll add? > > > > more clearly > > > hf is indeed the ** common definition** of the single photon > > > Right, but what about a MARRIED photon? Or one that is ENGAGED? What > > about a photon that "loves" you so much, that she doesn't want to > > spoil your friendship with a messy sexual relationship? > > > > i showed that it is a definition of photon energy > > > BUT NOT THAT OF THE **SINGLE SMALLEST PHOTON > > > I think you can find the answer on "LIttle People, Big World." > > > > now > > > piggy > > > if you have some plans to steal somemtning from me > > > BETTT ER STEAL IT EIGHT!! (:-) > > > > ie exactly and fully as i presented it > > > because otherwise > > > you are going to make a fool of yourself > > > eveb as a thief ... > > > > because even to be a thief one must have some minimal > > > intelligence !! (and exact memory ?? (:-) > > > thanks for remembering > > > ]and studying my innovations > > > it shows that deep in your hearth > > > you at least suspect that i am right (:-) > > > Oh, Porat, you've got a million of 'em. > > > > keep well (and dont wish me dead > > > (as inertial -artful Whoever do by their stupidity) > > > > because i have some other" rabbits in my hat' > > > that you wil be able to steal from me one day (:-) > > > Y.P > > > ----------------- > > BTW > 'Dr' Higgins > you said > Danke.... > it means that you are not a native born American It means I am a native born Australian. I am playing off your "Goebbels" comments by writing in simple German > so why do you call yourself Higgins?? Ya ne znayu. Interessno, kogda ya v russkom chate, bce chitaem, chto ya russkiy, potomu chto oni dumaem, chto net amerikantsi, kotoriy mogut govorit' po-russki. > how long are you in the US ??...........!! Whole life. Or whole life in Australia - I'm not sure. > > about my above physics arguments > i have a strange feeling (:-) that if you really undertood it > you cant say much against it > (provided you really understood it) > un less you know you play a dishonest dirty game !! > > anyway it is well recorded and impossible > to steal it (:-)....... > BYE > Y.P > ----------------- > > Y.P > ----------------
From: Y.Porat on 7 Jul 2010 03:14 On Jul 6, 11:37 pm, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > On Jul 3, 1:23 am, "Y.Porat" <y.y.po...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > Wat makes a physics formula- to be relativistic??!! > > > TIA > > Y.Porat > > ------------------------------------- > > That it matches experiment in relativistic cases. > This is usually the case where v is not very, very small compared with > c. > > Otherwise, you can't tell by looking at a formula whether it is > relativistic or not. > > PD ----------------- Please be more ****specific*** with examples**!! ie bring those experiments that yo talk about !! and i promise you a few surprises !! or else it is as if to say' : 'it is relativistic because i said' it is relativistic' that is not how you convince SCIENTIFICALLY scientists AND THAT IS EXCTLY MY POINT IN THIS THREAD IE TO REEXAMINE COMMON PARADIGMS ! **TO SCRATCH !!! ** AND YOU PD KNOWS IT WELL !!! (while it fits your interests !! ) iow had i been (the other way ) that i (y.Porat would say -what you said just above you would tell me : Hey Porat ''that is not how science is done and EXAMINED !!!'' 2 ps in macrocosm i dont have much differences with you even if we take the firmula F=gamma a my (and once** '''''your**interpretation'''' was ..) -------------------------------------------- F/Gamma = m a 'and m (mass) remains CONSTANT!!! mind you constant is not relativistic ========================== i quoted just abve something **you** said once !! and you even added'' ''that has been known for 80 years!!'' please note you said then quote ;AND M REMAINS CONSTANT** AGAIN 'AND'' M''' REMAINS CONSTANT'!!!!!!!! that is what you said then !!! (while you considered it as 'your interpretation...') so anyway the sharper differences between us is ABOUT MICROCOSM again -MICROCOSM iow while v-c !!!!! like photons !!! so please -**concentrate** on that last issue TIA Y.Porat --------------------
From: artful on 7 Jul 2010 03:32 On Jul 7, 5:14 pm, "Y.Porat" <y.y.po...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > On Jul 6, 11:37 pm, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > On Jul 3, 1:23 am, "Y.Porat" <y.y.po...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > Wat makes a physics formula- to be relativistic??!! > > > TIA > > > Y.Porat > > > ------------------------------------- > > That it matches experiment in relativistic cases. > > This is usually the case where v is not very, very small compared with > > c. > > Otherwise, you can't tell by looking at a formula whether it is > > relativistic or not. > > > PD > > ----------------- > Please be more ****specific*** with examples**!! > ie > bring those experiments that yo talk about !! > and i promise you a few surprises !! What experiments do you wnat .. the wealth of experiments that support SR predictions? What is it that you think is WRONG about SR? > or else it is as if to say' : > 'it is relativistic because i said' it is relativistic' 'relativistic' is a word .. it means whatever it is defined to mean. It is not something that you prove with an experiment. > that is not how you convince SCIENTIFICALLY > scientists Scientists understand what a definition means. > AND THAT IS EXCTLY MY POINT IN THIS THREAD > IE > TO REEXAMINE COMMON PARADIGMS ! > **TO SCRATCH !!! ** Are you itchy? > AND YOU PD KNOWS IT WELL !!! > (while it fits your interests !! ) > iow > had i been (the other way ) > that i (y.Porat would say -what you said just above > you would tell me : > Hey Porat > ''that is not how science is done and EXAMINED !!!'' By you asking what a word means, and when told what it means rejecting it? You're right .. thats not how one learns. > 2 > ps > in macrocosm i dont have much differences with you > even if we take the firmula > F=gamma a That is not a valid formula for Force .. even when you put in the 'm' you are missing > my (and once** '''''your**interpretation'''' was ..) > -------------------------------------------- > F/Gamma = m a That is a useless formula, and still incorrect. F = gamma.ma is not the relativistic version of the equation for force > 'and m (mass) remains CONSTANT!!! NOONE SAYS IT DOESN'T .. it is called "invariant mass" BECAUSE it DOES NOT VARY!. My god but you're stupid > mind you > constant is not relativistic That's right .. the m in the equation you got wrong is the rest (or invariant) mass .. NOT the relativistic one > ========================== > i quoted just abve something **you** said once !! > and you even added'' > ''that has been known for 80 years!!'' > please note > you said then quote > > ;AND M REMAINS CONSTANT** Yes it does .. that's why its called invariant mass Relativistic mass does NOT remain constant when velocity varies. > AGAIN > 'AND'' M''' REMAINS CONSTANT'!!!!!!!! Yes it does .. that's why its called invariant mass Relativistic mass does NOT remain constant when velocity varies. > that is what you said then !!! > (while you considered it as 'your interpretation...') We've been telling you this for ages. > so anyway > the sharper differences between us is > ABOUT MICROCOSM again -MICROCOSM > iow > while v-c !!!!! What about v-c .. other than it will be negative? And what does that have to do with microcosm vs macrocosm. > like photons !!! > so please -**concentrate** on that last issue What issue is that? You've just spewing out randow thought-farts.
From: Y.Porat on 7 Jul 2010 04:30 On Jul 7, 9:32 am, artful > > p > Relativistic mass does NOT remain constant when velocity varies. > > > that is what you said then !!! > > (while you considered it as 'your interpretation...') > > We've been telling you this for ages. > > > so anyway > > the sharper differences between us is > > ABOUT MICROCOSM again -MICROCOSM > > iow > > while v-c !!!!! > > What about v-c .. other than it will be negative? And what does that > have to do with microcosm vs macrocosm. > > > like photons !!! > > so please -**concentrate** on that last issue > > What issue is that? You've just spewing out randow thought-farts. ------------------- (:-) (:-) -------------------
First
|
Prev
|
Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 Prev: Some mathematical truth Next: Preferred Frame Theory indistinguishable from SR |