Who is really the 'personality' that calls himself 'Inertial' ??!!
in [Physics]
|
Prev: Defining the "War On Some Drugs"
Next: All laws in science are based upon explanations of observations. All explanations are theoretical. Therefore laws are theories.
From: whoever on 11 Jun 2010 01:04 "Y.Porat" <y.y.porat(a)gmail.com> wrote in message news:df8b5a22-6969-499a-b097-8b3382e81c3f(a)z8g2000yqz.googlegroups.com... > On Jun 10, 10:14 pm, nimrod > as someone that is twice the age you > are ) >> >> Now you're using the "I'm older and wiser than you" argument. But if >> you are show me your numbers! And back up your claim that everyone for >> the last century has been wrong. You're the one with the claim, so it >> is you who bear the burden of proving we're wrong. It doesn't matter >> to me, because the equation works and is in accordance with nature - >> that is why it is up to you to show us. And if you do not want to - >> then why are you posting here? > ------------------------------ > so you went so far as to ask ME why i am posting here !!! (:-) > and getting 6000 readers .... > > so i am going to show you why I am posting here > i am posting here because i am beginner in physics > and not a poet > so how about going to our physics point ??!! > inless mumbling and more formula analysis?? > so there we go: > > th e momentum of photon was presented here as > P =h/Lambda as simple as that That's all it has to be. Though there is not just one single possible formula for photon momentum. You can also have, as I have told you before, P = E/c P = hf/c P = Mc etc > i prefer to present it more simple for me > since Lmbda is c/f and 1/lambda is f/c > i prefer to present out momentum as > > P=hf/c it is much obvious Its the same thing. It is no more or less obvious .. in fact as it has an extra term, it is slightly more complicated. One formula just says momentum is proportional to frequency, the other that it is inversely proportional to wavelength. Both are equivalent. > sine the whole story becomes > > P = E/c = hf/c !! Of course it is .. for a photon. I've told you all those formulas before. They are standard physics formulas for photons > jsut as simple as that Yes .. it is simple .. why you waste tens of posts arguing with me about it is anyone's guess. > we come again to the old > > P momentum is Energy/c !! Or E = Pc Of course it is a valid formula. for photon. In general, no it is not. The general formula is: E^2 = (mc^2)^2 + (pc)^2 Because m = 0 for a photon you get E^2 = 0 + (pc)^2 E^2 = (pc)^2 E = pc p = E/c > jsut as simple as that Yeup > so it is again > P photon = hf /c !!! (E/c) Yeup > h is 6.6 exp -34 > f is a scalar figure divided by the time dimension No .. its just a frequency which has units 1/T, which is a scalar. > c is 3 Exp 10 > please note > > any physics formula is composed (built up ) of > physical dimensions (for instance M K S ) > and what i call ' scalar multipliers ' You are using terms incorrectly. You should call them 'dimensionless numbers' .. or just 'numbers' (as dimensionless is implied) > scalar multipliers are for me > NET FIGURES with no dimensions So they are dimensionless numbers . > ie jsut algebraic figures !! No .. they are dimensionless numbers . > so > now i can do easily the analysis of > of > hf/c (the old well known E/C > > as m c^2 /c = m c (:-) ) Where M is relativistic mass. I showed you P = Mc several posts ago. You make it sound like something new you've just discovered. Cheater > while the only difference - > ** the name of the game ** > are rather those scalar figures that you so much > UNDER ESTIMATED !! They don't make any difference. > and i prefer for better understanding it > so separate the dimensions of it > and the net figures of it > so we get the old m c (M L/T But we already had P = Mc .. you've done nothing new > or > Kilogram Meter /second --as you like it to be )) > > multiplied by the net figures associated with it !! > > again i am not going to do it for (excuse me the lofty word ) > for > didactic reasons !! > because if i will do it then > 1 > some crook s here will say it is not right There are no crooks here. And of course it is right .. it is what I have been telling you for AGES. And it refutes your clamed proof of photon mass, because experiment shows the mass of a photon NOT P/c .. it is zero (to the accuracy we can measure). > 2 > it will not be enshrined good enough It doesn't need enshrining .. its just simple physics > AND THAT IS WHY I INSIST SO LONG > and persistent THAT > SOMEONE ELSE WILL DO IT !! Will do what? > BTW (surprisingly ) i wonder if that simple > but crucially important - analysis was > ever done in a text book !! Of course it has been .. E = pc is old as the hills, and p = E/c. > so > Nimrod or anyone else > please tell us > what are those SCALAR NET FIGURES THAT ARE > ASSOCIATED WITH THOSE -- > M L/T dimensions ??!! You mean the dimensionless numbers .. it all depedns on the photon frequency (or wavelength) and the units of measure. Iv'e been telling you that for ages. You cannot give a particular answer unless you specif them . .And then the anser is P = h/lambda = hf/c = Mc etc > just a (big) hint > they are important by > WHAT THERE **IS** IN THEM > AS WELL AS IN > WHAT THERE IS *NOT* IN THEM !!.. You are speaking gibberish again > so here Nimrod and others > please dont tell me that i am not talking physics > and formula analysis You aren't doing formula analysis .. just repeating what I hav already said when you asked me to do dimensional analysis and in previous posts where I explained all those formulas before --- news://freenews.netfront.net/ - complaints: news(a)netfront.net ---
From: Y.Porat on 11 Jun 2010 03:29 On Jun 11, 7:04 am, "whoever" <whoe...(a)whereever.com> wrote: > "Y.Porat" <y.y.po...(a)gmail.com> wrote in message > > news:df8b5a22-6969-499a-b097-8b3382e81c3f(a)z8g2000yqz.googlegroups.com... > > > > > On Jun 10, 10:14 pm, nimrod > as someone that is twice the age you > > are ) > > >> Now you're using the "I'm older and wiser than you" argument. But if > >> you are show me your numbers! And back up your claim that everyone for > >> the last century has been wrong. You're the one with the claim, so it > >> is you who bear the burden of proving we're wrong. It doesn't matter > >> to me, because the equation works and is in accordance with nature - > >> that is why it is up to you to show us. And if you do not want to - > >> then why are you posting here? > > ------------------------------ > > so you went so far as to ask ME why i am posting here !!! (:-) > > and getting 6000 readers .... > > > so i am going to show you why I am posting here > > i am posting here because i am beginner in physics > > and not a poet > > so how about going to our physics point ??!! > > inless mumbling and more formula analysis?? > > so there we go: > > > th e momentum of photon was presented here as > > P =h/Lambda as simple as that > > That's all it has to be. Though there is not just one single possible > formula for photon momentum. You can also have, as I have told you before, > > P = E/c > P = hf/c > P = Mc > etc > > > i prefer to present it more simple for me > > since Lmbda is c/f and 1/lambda is f/c > > i prefer to present out momentum as > > > P=hf/c it is much obvious > > Its the same thing. It is no more or less obvious .. in fact as it has an > extra term, it is slightly more complicated. > > One formula just says momentum is proportional to frequency, the other that > it is inversely proportional to wavelength. Both are equivalent. > > > sine the whole story becomes > > > P = E/c = hf/c !! > > Of course it is .. for a photon. I've told you all those formulas before. > They are standard physics formulas for photons > > > jsut as simple as that > > Yes .. it is simple .. why you waste tens of posts arguing with me about it > is anyone's guess. > > > we come again to the old > > > P momentum is Energy/c !! > > Or E = Pc > > Of course it is a valid formula. for photon. > > In general, no it is not. > > The general formula is: > > E^2 = (mc^2)^2 + (pc)^2 ----------------------- you started for a change nicely and then ... i stil what to remain polite i dont know if yoy did that cheasting maliciously or innocently!! it oa along namy years that peopel tryed toboggle us withthat mc^2 plus pc ] ^ of yourse AND THAT IS WHY AT LAST I FIND A WAY TO BYPASS THAT CHEATING I CONCENTRATED ON A NET PHOTONMOMENTUM FORMULA !! AFAIN A NETPHOTON MOMENTUM FORMULA IS IS P= h /lambda or exactly the same hf/c got it!! so we are in a net photon momentum sopleas internalize it and dont boggle our mind with that compsed ENERY FORMULA !! GO IT (one of the famous system to cheat others or even yourself is si start with truth facts AND SMUGGLE IN IT SOME (little ) WRONG 'FACTS' ------------ so please if youwould like to saty in the honest science league dont bring u s that general energy formula while we are dealing with NET photon momentum formula !!! OK ?? ------------------- > > Because m = 0 for a photon you get -------------- and that exactly wHah we are going to find out BY THE ANALYSIS OF THE MOMETUM FORMULA AND ITS SCALARIC NUMBERS so if you are sointerested in dealing withphysics jsut bring to us the 3 scalar figures that are attached to the M L/T dinesions btw A BIG BTW YOU ARWE WRONG AGAIN WITH THAT f understanding of yourse f is not 1/T it is a scalr figure /T got it (it seems thast i am going to be the priest of those scalar figures ....) look it f was just 1/T you could never find the difference between f1 f2 etc it is the scalar figure that are attached to that makes that difference got it sometimes a 'day and night difference' so f is a scalar figure /T !!! the 1/T is calcelr and in many cases the 1/T is canceled BUT THE SCALAR FIGURE REMAINS !!! that is one of my well enough known innovations that enabled me to make unprecedented insights !! it is valid even in out current analysis .... !! as you will see later !! but as for now please bring us those scalar figures that are associated to that M L/T dimensions of photon momentum TIA Y.Porat ---------------------------
From: Inertial on 12 Jun 2010 04:36 "Y.Porat" <y.y.porat(a)gmail.com> wrote in message news:fdc05ffc-805d-4451-8072-131dc2d88522(a)c33g2000yqm.googlegroups.com... > On Jun 11, 7:04 am, "whoever" <whoe...(a)whereever.com> wrote: >> "Y.Porat" <y.y.po...(a)gmail.com> wrote in message >> >> news:df8b5a22-6969-499a-b097-8b3382e81c3f(a)z8g2000yqz.googlegroups.com... >> >> >> >> > On Jun 10, 10:14 pm, nimrod > as someone that is twice the age you >> > are ) >> >> >> Now you're using the "I'm older and wiser than you" argument. But if >> >> you are show me your numbers! And back up your claim that everyone for >> >> the last century has been wrong. You're the one with the claim, so it >> >> is you who bear the burden of proving we're wrong. It doesn't matter >> >> to me, because the equation works and is in accordance with nature - >> >> that is why it is up to you to show us. And if you do not want to - >> >> then why are you posting here? >> > ------------------------------ >> > so you went so far as to ask ME why i am posting here !!! (:-) >> > and getting 6000 readers .... >> >> > so i am going to show you why I am posting here >> > i am posting here because i am beginner in physics >> > and not a poet >> > so how about going to our physics point ??!! >> > inless mumbling and more formula analysis?? >> > so there we go: >> >> > th e momentum of photon was presented here as >> > P =h/Lambda as simple as that >> >> That's all it has to be. Though there is not just one single possible >> formula for photon momentum. You can also have, as I have told you >> before, >> >> P = E/c >> P = hf/c >> P = Mc >> etc >> >> > i prefer to present it more simple for me >> > since Lmbda is c/f and 1/lambda is f/c >> > i prefer to present out momentum as >> >> > P=hf/c it is much obvious >> >> Its the same thing. It is no more or less obvious .. in fact as it has >> an >> extra term, it is slightly more complicated. >> >> One formula just says momentum is proportional to frequency, the other >> that >> it is inversely proportional to wavelength. Both are equivalent. >> >> > sine the whole story becomes >> >> > P = E/c = hf/c !! >> >> Of course it is .. for a photon. I've told you all those formulas >> before. >> They are standard physics formulas for photons >> >> > jsut as simple as that >> >> Yes .. it is simple .. why you waste tens of posts arguing with me about >> it >> is anyone's guess. >> >> > we come again to the old >> >> > P momentum is Energy/c !! >> >> Or E = Pc >> >> Of course it is a valid formula. for photon. >> >> In general, no it is not. >> >> The general formula is: >> >> E^2 = (mc^2)^2 + (pc)^2 > ----------------------- > you started for a change nicely I'm always nice :) > and then ... > i stil what to remain polite No .. you don't > i dont know if yoy did that cheasting maliciously or innocently!! I didn't cheat > it oa along namy years that peopel tryed toboggle us withthat That is just gibberish . .were you trying to say something? > mc^2 plus pc ] ^ of yourse > AND THAT IS WHY AT LAST I FIND A WAY > TO BYPASS THAT CHEATING There is no cheating by anyone but you > I CONCENTRATED ON A NET PHOTONMOMENTUM > FORMULA !! > AFAIN > A NETPHOTON MOMENTUM FORMULA IS IS > > P= h /lambda or exactly the same hf/c > got it!! Yes .. I've been telling YOU that > so we are in a net photon momentum > sopleas internalize it and dont boggle our mind with > that compsed ENERY FORMULA !! > GO IT Go what? > (one of the famous system to cheat others or even yourself is > si start with truth facts > AND SMUGGLE IN IT SOME (little ) > WRONG 'FACTS' I don't do that . . that is YOUR trick > ------------ > so please if youwould like to saty in the > honest science league I always am. You are not > dont bring u s that general energy formula Why .. it is perfectly valid for any thing .. photons or not > while we are dealing with NET photon momentum formula !!! Which is exactly what I am discussing [snip rest .. no point]
From: Y.Porat on 12 Jun 2010 06:05 On Jun 12, 10:36 am, "Inertial" <relativ...(a)rest.com> wrote: > "Y.Porat" <y.y.po...(a)gmail.com> wrote in message > > news:fdc05ffc-805d-4451-8072-131dc2d88522(a)c33g2000yqm.googlegroups.com... > > > > > On Jun 11, 7:04 am, "whoever" <whoe...(a)whereever.com> wrote: > >> "Y.Porat" <y.y.po...(a)gmail.com> wrote in message > > >>news:df8b5a22-6969-499a-b097-8b3382e81c3f(a)z8g2000yqz.googlegroups.com.... > > >> > On Jun 10, 10:14 pm, nimrod > as someone that is twice the age you > >> > are ) > > >> >> Now you're using the "I'm older and wiser than you" argument. But if > >> >> you are show me your numbers! And back up your claim that everyone for > >> >> the last century has been wrong. You're the one with the claim, so it > >> >> is you who bear the burden of proving we're wrong. It doesn't matter > >> >> to me, because the equation works and is in accordance with nature - > >> >> that is why it is up to you to show us. And if you do not want to - > >> >> then why are you posting here? > >> > ------------------------------ > >> > so you went so far as to ask ME why i am posting here !!! (:-) > >> > and getting 6000 readers .... > > >> > so i am going to show you why I am posting here > >> > i am posting here because i am beginner in physics > >> > and not a poet > >> > so how about going to our physics point ??!! > >> > inless mumbling and more formula analysis?? > >> > so there we go: > > >> > th e momentum of photon was presented here as > >> > P =h/Lambda as simple as that > > >> That's all it has to be. Though there is not just one single possible > >> formula for photon momentum. You can also have, as I have told you > >> before, > > >> P = E/c > >> P = hf/c > >> P = Mc > >> etc > > >> > i prefer to present it more simple for me > >> > since Lmbda is c/f and 1/lambda is f/c > >> > i prefer to present out momentum as > > >> > P=hf/c it is much obvious > > >> Its the same thing. It is no more or less obvious .. in fact as it has > >> an > >> extra term, it is slightly more complicated. > > >> One formula just says momentum is proportional to frequency, the other > >> that > >> it is inversely proportional to wavelength. Both are equivalent. > > >> > sine the whole story becomes > > >> > P = E/c = hf/c !! > > >> Of course it is .. for a photon. I've told you all those formulas > >> before. > >> They are standard physics formulas for photons > > >> > jsut as simple as that > > >> Yes .. it is simple .. why you waste tens of posts arguing with me about > >> it > >> is anyone's guess. > > >> > we come again to the old > > >> > P momentum is Energy/c !! > > >> Or E = Pc > > >> Of course it is a valid formula. for photon. > > >> In general, no it is not. > > >> The general formula is: > > >> E^2 = (mc^2)^2 + (pc)^2 > > ----------------------- > > you started for a change nicely > > I'm always nice :) > > > and then ... > > i stil what to remain polite > > No .. you don't > > > i dont know if yoy did that cheasting maliciously or innocently!! > > I didn't cheat > > > it oa along namy years that peopel tryed toboggle us withthat > > That is just gibberish . .were you trying to say something? > > > mc^2 plus pc ] ^ of yourse > > AND THAT IS WHY AT LAST I FIND A WAY > > TO BYPASS THAT CHEATING > > There is no cheating by anyone but you > > > I CONCENTRATED ON A NET PHOTONMOMENTUM > > FORMULA !! > > AFAIN > > A NETPHOTON MOMENTUM FORMULA IS IS > > > P= h /lambda or exactly the same hf/c > > got it!! > > Yes .. I've been telling YOU that > > > so we are in a net photon momentum > > sopleas internalize it and dont boggle our mind with > > that compsed ENERY FORMULA !! > > GO IT > > Go what? > > > (one of the famous system to cheat others or even yourself is > > si start with truth facts > > AND SMUGGLE IN IT SOME (little ) > > WRONG 'FACTS' > > I don't do that . . that is YOUR trick > > > ------------ > > so please if youwould like to saty in the > > honest science league > > I always am. You are not > > > dont bring u s that general energy formula > > Why .. it is perfectly valid for any thing .. photons or not > > > while we are dealing with NET photon momentum formula !!! > > Which is exactly what I am discussing > > [snip rest .. no point] ------------------------ momentum of photon is P = h/lambda = hf/c rigth?? its dimestions are M L/T and the dimensionless figures associated to it are 1 6.6.exp -34 2 3 exp 10 (of c so WERE DO YOU SEE ANYTHING TO MULTIPLY ML/T BY ZERO ?? OR BY ANYTHING LIKE A RELATIVISTIC FACTOR ?? TIA Y.Porat -----------------------------
From: Inertial on 12 Jun 2010 07:07
"Y.Porat" <y.y.porat(a)gmail.com> wrote in message news:e9e29d53-2120-4b16-837c-0888600ceaab(a)x21g2000yqa.googlegroups.com... > On Jun 12, 10:36 am, "Inertial" <relativ...(a)rest.com> wrote: >> "Y.Porat" <y.y.po...(a)gmail.com> wrote in message >> >> news:fdc05ffc-805d-4451-8072-131dc2d88522(a)c33g2000yqm.googlegroups.com... >> >> >> >> > On Jun 11, 7:04 am, "whoever" <whoe...(a)whereever.com> wrote: >> >> "Y.Porat" <y.y.po...(a)gmail.com> wrote in message >> >> >>news:df8b5a22-6969-499a-b097-8b3382e81c3f(a)z8g2000yqz.googlegroups.com... >> >> >> > On Jun 10, 10:14 pm, nimrod > as someone that is twice the age you >> >> > are ) >> >> >> >> Now you're using the "I'm older and wiser than you" argument. But >> >> >> if >> >> >> you are show me your numbers! And back up your claim that everyone >> >> >> for >> >> >> the last century has been wrong. You're the one with the claim, so >> >> >> it >> >> >> is you who bear the burden of proving we're wrong. It doesn't >> >> >> matter >> >> >> to me, because the equation works and is in accordance with >> >> >> nature - >> >> >> that is why it is up to you to show us. And if you do not want to - >> >> >> then why are you posting here? >> >> > ------------------------------ >> >> > so you went so far as to ask ME why i am posting here !!! (:-) >> >> > and getting 6000 readers .... >> >> >> > so i am going to show you why I am posting here >> >> > i am posting here because i am beginner in physics >> >> > and not a poet >> >> > so how about going to our physics point ??!! >> >> > inless mumbling and more formula analysis?? >> >> > so there we go: >> >> >> > th e momentum of photon was presented here as >> >> > P =h/Lambda as simple as that >> >> >> That's all it has to be. Though there is not just one single possible >> >> formula for photon momentum. You can also have, as I have told you >> >> before, >> >> >> P = E/c >> >> P = hf/c >> >> P = Mc >> >> etc >> >> >> > i prefer to present it more simple for me >> >> > since Lmbda is c/f and 1/lambda is f/c >> >> > i prefer to present out momentum as >> >> >> > P=hf/c it is much obvious >> >> >> Its the same thing. It is no more or less obvious .. in fact as it >> >> has >> >> an >> >> extra term, it is slightly more complicated. >> >> >> One formula just says momentum is proportional to frequency, the other >> >> that >> >> it is inversely proportional to wavelength. Both are equivalent. >> >> >> > sine the whole story becomes >> >> >> > P = E/c = hf/c !! >> >> >> Of course it is .. for a photon. I've told you all those formulas >> >> before. >> >> They are standard physics formulas for photons >> >> >> > jsut as simple as that >> >> >> Yes .. it is simple .. why you waste tens of posts arguing with me >> >> about >> >> it >> >> is anyone's guess. >> >> >> > we come again to the old >> >> >> > P momentum is Energy/c !! >> >> >> Or E = Pc >> >> >> Of course it is a valid formula. for photon. >> >> >> In general, no it is not. >> >> >> The general formula is: >> >> >> E^2 = (mc^2)^2 + (pc)^2 >> > ----------------------- >> > you started for a change nicely >> >> I'm always nice :) >> >> > and then ... >> > i stil what to remain polite >> >> No .. you don't >> >> > i dont know if yoy did that cheasting maliciously or innocently!! >> >> I didn't cheat >> >> > it oa along namy years that peopel tryed toboggle us withthat >> >> That is just gibberish . .were you trying to say something? >> >> > mc^2 plus pc ] ^ of yourse >> > AND THAT IS WHY AT LAST I FIND A WAY >> > TO BYPASS THAT CHEATING >> >> There is no cheating by anyone but you >> >> > I CONCENTRATED ON A NET PHOTONMOMENTUM >> > FORMULA !! >> > AFAIN >> > A NETPHOTON MOMENTUM FORMULA IS IS >> >> > P= h /lambda or exactly the same hf/c >> > got it!! >> >> Yes .. I've been telling YOU that >> >> > so we are in a net photon momentum >> > sopleas internalize it and dont boggle our mind with >> > that compsed ENERY FORMULA !! >> > GO IT >> >> Go what? >> >> > (one of the famous system to cheat others or even yourself is >> > si start with truth facts >> > AND SMUGGLE IN IT SOME (little ) >> > WRONG 'FACTS' >> >> I don't do that . . that is YOUR trick >> >> > ------------ >> > so please if youwould like to saty in the >> > honest science league >> >> I always am. You are not >> >> > dont bring u s that general energy formula >> >> Why .. it is perfectly valid for any thing .. photons or not >> >> > while we are dealing with NET photon momentum formula !!! >> >> Which is exactly what I am discussing >> >> [snip rest .. no point] > > ------------------------ > momentum of photon is > > P = h/lambda = hf/c and also P = E/c = Mc > rigth?? > > its dimestions are > > M L/T Yes > and the dimensionless figures associated to it are Given your choice of units of measure. Dimensions on their own don't have units, of course .. they are arbitrary human choices. > 1 > 6.6.exp -34 For h .. close enough > 2 > 3 exp 10 (of c For c .. close enough And then you need the numerical value of f or lambda or E to complete the equations > so > WERE DO YOU SEE ANYTHING TO > MULTIPLY ML/T > BY ZERO ?? I never said it got multiplied by zero. Photon momentum is non-zero. I've never said otherwise. And when you divide that momentum by c you get its relativstic / apparent / inertial (pick your favorite adjective .. they all refer to the same thing) mass. > OR BY ANYTHING LIKE > A RELATIVISTIC FACTOR ?? I never said it got multiplied by gamma or 1/gamma. There does not need to be a gamma in a formula for it to be a valid relativistic formula. Note that in general, relativistic formulas degenerate to the familiar Newtonian formulas at low speeds, but as speeds get closer to c the relativistic formulas diverge from the Newtonian ones. Measured lengths and clock rates are different and apparent / inertial mass is different. Anyway ... why are you asking me where I see things that I never said I see? |