What makes a formula - to be relativistic??
in [Physics]
|
Prev: Lab experiment done to figure out how quickly molecular hydrogenformed after Big Bang
Next: Quantum Gravity 399.99: P(A-->B) + P(B-->A) = 1 + P(A<-->B) and P(A-->B) - P(B-->A) = P(B) - P(A) in LISP-like Notation
From: Robert Higgins on 3 Jul 2010 20:18 On Jul 3, 7:04 pm, "Androcles" <Headmas...(a)Hogwarts.physics_z> wrote: Still lying about being an "engineer", when you could never even pass Calc I?
From: Y.Porat on 3 Jul 2010 21:02 On Jul 3, 10:25 pm, eric gisse <jowr.pi.nos...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > Inertial wrote: > > "blackhead" wrote in message > >news:3ff03b45-5b68-4aa8-93ce-abb573ac11e2(a)z10g2000yqb.googlegroups.com.... > >>It's relativistic if its form doesn't change when viewed from any > >>frame using the transformations of relativity. > > > I like that definition. > > Its' called 'Lorentz invariance', a concept Porat will never understand. ------------------- is it relevant to the ( for a little instance) to the PHOTON?? (:-) something that Gisse & Parrots Co will never understand and better let it so ..... Y.P ---------------------------
From: Y.Porat on 3 Jul 2010 21:05 On Jul 4, 12:22 am, waldofj <wald...(a)verizon.net> wrote: > On Jul 3, 8:58 am, "Inertial" <relativ...(a)rest.com> wrote: > > > "blackhead" wrote in message > > >news:3ff03b45-5b68-4aa8-93ce-abb573ac11e2(a)z10g2000yqb.googlegroups.com.... > > > >It's relativistic if its form doesn't change when viewed from any > > >frame using the transformations of relativity. > > > I like that definition. > > I must disagree. That is the definition of a Lorentz invariant > quantity, which is not necessarily relativistic. The links you > provided earlier are much better definitions. ------------ there are still honest people here !! Thanks Y.P ------------------
From: whoever on 5 Jul 2010 19:44 "whoever" wrote in message news:i0tpgm$2igc$1(a)adenine.netfront.net... >No .. its not the formula you used. You're lying again. You incorrectly >claimed that E = hf is the energy in a single SECOND and so you incorrectly >multiplied hf by plank time per second to get a much smaller value and then >divided that by c^2 to get the photon energy. typo correction above "to get the photon mass" That, of course, was just you cheating .. because if you use E = hf and divide hf by c^2 to get mass, then you come up a figure that is HUGE compared to the limits of measurement of mass that have shown it to be zero. In other words, because using E = hf prove you were WRONG about photon mass ... you had to CHEAT to make the value smaller. You're a liar and a fraud Porat. A pitiful excuse for a human being. --- news://freenews.netfront.net/ - complaints: news(a)netfront.net ---
From: Y.Porat on 5 Jul 2010 19:55
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 i am glad that at least you remember waht isaid (and you better do !!! because i am doing History and it is betetr toremember waht i say while i am sure about what i say (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 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!! indeed isaid that photonenergy is hf times n THE PROBLEM IS THAT YOU DIDNT UNDERSTAND MY HISTORIC EXPLANATIONS ABOUT IT !! that n there that i added IS JUST THE **DINESION LESS FIGURE** THAT IS ASSOCIATED WITH f !!! and now if you afre a suchg a diligent student of mine jUSt go back to my orriginal thread there and re read it FROM START TO END !! INCLUDING THE SIMPLE EXPERIMENT I ADDED TO IT WITH THE LED TORCH AND THE PHOTO ELECTRIC CELL !!! to prove that hf IS NOT THE DEFINITION OF THE REAL SINGLE PHOTON !! THE REAL SINGLE PHOTON IS NOT EMMITED DURING ONE SECOND BUT DURING PLAMCK TIME 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 (:-)! 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 and i am not going to show it now again it is all documented so to sum it up now more clearly hf is indeed the ** common definition** of the single photon i showed that it is a definition of photon energy BUT NOT THAT OF THE **SINGLE SMALLEST PHOTON 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 (:-) 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 ----------------- |