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: Y.Porat on 12 Jun 2010 07:55 On Jun 12, 1:07 pm, "Inertial" <relativ...(a)rest.com> wrote: > "Y.Porat" <y.y.po...(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 ------------- ok but it is still not relativistic rigth?? so not relevant to our discussion and that is why i committed it ok ? -------------- ------------ > > > 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 ----------------------- is it an as you like it program ???!! or is it physics ?? you ay it is relativistic mass if you divide it by c were do you see it*** from that formula ***!!components ---- -----any relativistic component in order to be relativistic it must have a numeric or formula definition of relativistic: like the Gamma factor or else it is hand waving not physics I SAY IT IS **ASTRONAUTIC MASS!** or!! **WITCHES ON BROOM MASS ** in what is your definition better than my new above definitions ???!! TIA Y.Porat -----------------------
From: Inertial on 12 Jun 2010 11:39 "Y.Porat" <y.y.porat(a)gmail.com> wrote in message news:f9383750-4395-47c8-bf64-b8854b149b84(a)z10g2000yqb.googlegroups.com... > On Jun 12, 1:07 pm, "Inertial" <relativ...(a)rest.com> wrote: >> "Y.Porat" <y.y.po...(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 > ------------- > ok but it is still not relativistic rigth?? No, Pretty much anything where speeds are not << c are relativistic. > so not relevant to our discussion and that is why i committed it > ok ? You are being quite civilised and rational in your discussion. I congratulate you. Lets hope you can keep it up. > -------------- > ------------ >> >> > 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 > ----------------------- > is it an as you like it program ???!! > or is it physics ?? Physics .. I'm always discussing physics and presenting valid physics arguments. > you ay > it is relativistic mass if you divide it by c It is all relativistic (ie what SR predicts) already. But yes .. if you take the energy of the photon and divide by c you get its momentum. If you divide that by c you get its relativistic or apparent or inertial mass. The concept is that in the Newtonian world (approximated when v <<c) we have p = mv .. so if you know p and v, you can calculate m = p/v.. When v for an object gets closer to c, one notices that the mass that is apparent when we calculate it that way increases above the rest mass. This is the relativistic or inertial or apparent mass. BTW: note that even in Newtonian phsyics, m =p/v is indeterminate when v=0 ... but p = mv still applies. > were do you see it*** from that formula ***!!components ---- See what ?? > -----any relativistic component In P = Mc > in order to be relativistic it must have a numeric or formula > definition of relativistic: > like the Gamma factor NO .. that is TOTALLY WRONG. It does NOT need a gamma factor to be relativistic. eg . The relativistic formula for total energy is E^2 = (mc^2)^2 + (pc)*2 .. but there is no gamma there. The relativistic formula for velocity 'addition' is v (+) w = (v + w) / ( 1 + vw/c^2) .. but there is no gamma there The relativistic formula for doppler shift of light is f_s/f_o = sqrt ( (1+v/c)/(1-v/c)) .. but there is no gamma there 'relativistic ' does NOT mean 'has a gamma factor in it' see http://www.thefreedictionary.com/relativistic relativistic (adj) 2. Physics a. Of, relating to, or resulting from speeds approaching the speed of light: eg relativistic increase in mass. b. Having to do with or based on the theory of relativity: eg relativistic mechanics. > or else it is hand waving not physics > > I SAY IT IS **ASTRONAUTIC MASS!** > or!! > **WITCHES ON BROOM MASS ** You cannot make up your own terminology and expect others to accept it .. especially when there is already well defined terminology. Even worse, you use existing terminology incorrectly, for the wrong things. That is just plain stupid, for someone posting in a physics newsgroup. > in what is your definition better than my new above > definitions ???!! Because mine is accepted physics terminology. You should LEARN physics so you KNOW what people (like me) who speak in accepted physics terminologym are actually saying. Then you might have some chance of a fruitful discussion
From: Y.Porat on 12 Jun 2010 16:02 On Jun 12, 5:39 pm, "Inertial" <relativ...(a)rest.com> wrote: > "Y.Porat" <y.y.po...(a)gmail.com> wrote in message > > news:f9383750-4395-47c8-bf64-b8854b149b84(a)z10g2000yqb.googlegroups.com... > > > > > On Jun 12, 1:07 pm, "Inertial" <relativ...(a)rest.com> wrote: > >> "Y.Porat" <y.y.po...(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 > > ------------- > > ok but it is still not relativistic rigth?? > > No, Pretty much anything where speeds are not << c are relativistic. > > > so not relevant to our discussion and that is why i committed it > > ok ? > > You are being quite civilised and rational in your discussion. I > congratulate you. Lets hope you can keep it up. ----------------- i wil expaln later why i chnged the 'tone of my discussion anyway it is not becase physics arguments!! ------------- ... > > > > >> > 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 > > ----------------------- > > is it an as you like it program ???!! > > or is it physics ?? > > Physics .. I'm always discussing physics and presenting valid physics > arguments. > > > you ay > > it is relativistic mass if you divide it by c > > It is all relativistic (ie what SR predicts) already. But yes .. if you > take the energy of the photon and divide by c you get its momentum. If you > divide that by c you get its relativistic or apparent or inertial mass. > > The concept is that in the Newtonian world (approximated when v <<c) we have > p = mv .. so if you know p and v, you can calculate m = p/v.. When v for an > object gets closer to c, one notices that the mass that is apparent when we > calculate it that way increases above the rest mass. This is the > relativistic or inertial or apparent mass. > > BTW: note that even in Newtonian phsyics, m =p/v is indeterminate when v=0 > .. but p = mv still applies. > > > were do you see it*** from that formula ***!!components ---- ???? ----------- > > See what ?? see what is relativistic there relativistic to what ?? ie DIFFERENT FROM JUST MASS ??!! TELL US WHAT IS THE **QUANTITATIVE DIFFERENCE** BETWEEN JUST MASS AND RELATIVISTIC MASS --- and how do you calculate it ?? (THAT DIFFERENCE !) IN hf/c ??? 2 you divided momentum by c!! you didnt divide ENERGY BY C!! energy divided by c^2 is mass what is momentum divided by c ?? what has dividing mometum divided by c got to do with mass or relativistic mass? is it p/c = m ?? if so P= m c ?? (with no dimensionless figures) ?? ie all momentum, in our universe has the same quantity ?? and there is no p1 p2 etc ??!! 2 you say that mass in relativity 'is always relativistic ' even if there is no gamma !! so lets take the example of F = gamma m a is ther a gamma factor here ??!! if it is not needed why do you write F=gamma m a and not just F=m a !! ?? 3 if you divide ML/T by c whY do you get only relativistic mass why not relativistic L (length?? why not relativistic T (time ?/)) and if we get relativistic L and T HOW CAN THE VELOCITY OF PHOTON BE CONSTANT ?? TIA Y.Porat -------------------------------
From: Inertial on 12 Jun 2010 20:48 "Y.Porat" <y.y.porat(a)gmail.com> wrote in message news:4262fd54-8649-4d94-a377-71933fe60c9b(a)x27g2000yqb.googlegroups.com... > On Jun 12, 5:39 pm, "Inertial" <relativ...(a)rest.com> wrote: >> "Y.Porat" <y.y.po...(a)gmail.com> wrote in message >> >> news:f9383750-4395-47c8-bf64-b8854b149b84(a)z10g2000yqb.googlegroups.com... >> >> >> >> > On Jun 12, 1:07 pm, "Inertial" <relativ...(a)rest.com> wrote: >> >> "Y.Porat" <y.y.po...(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 >> > ------------- >> > ok but it is still not relativistic rigth?? >> >> No, Pretty much anything where speeds are not << c are relativistic. >> >> > so not relevant to our discussion and that is why i committed it >> > ok ? >> >> You are being quite civilised and rational in your discussion. I >> congratulate you. Lets hope you can keep it up. > ----------------- > i wil expaln later why i chnged the 'tone of my discussion I'm glad you have. Perhaps that means you are willing now to discuss physics .. and maybe even learn a little, as there are glaring gaps in your basic physics understanding. > anyway it is not becase physics arguments!! Hopefully its because you realize that attacking,. insulting, and lying about the people who are kinf enough to discuss your post with you is not productive. You're just lucky that there are a couple of people that give you the time of day. > ------------- ... >> >> >> >> >> > 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 >> > ----------------------- >> > is it an as you like it program ???!! >> > or is it physics ?? >> >> Physics .. I'm always discussing physics and presenting valid physics >> arguments. >> >> > you ay >> > it is relativistic mass if you divide it by c >> >> It is all relativistic (ie what SR predicts) already. But yes .. if you >> take the energy of the photon and divide by c you get its momentum. If >> you >> divide that by c you get its relativistic or apparent or inertial mass. >> >> The concept is that in the Newtonian world (approximated when v <<c) we >> have >> p = mv .. so if you know p and v, you can calculate m = p/v.. When v for >> an >> object gets closer to c, one notices that the mass that is apparent when >> we >> calculate it that way increases above the rest mass. This is the >> relativistic or inertial or apparent mass. >> >> BTW: note that even in Newtonian phsyics, m =p/v is indeterminate when >> v=0 >> .. but p = mv still applies. >> >> > were do you see it*** from that formula ***!!components ---- > > ???? > ----------- >> >> See what ?? > see what is relativistic there > relativistic to what ?? I have explained .. "relativistic: does not mean "has a gamma factor" or "includes more than one velocity to be relative to". It means that it is a formula or concept that is related to relativity, or is dealing with speeds approaching c.. usually you use the term "relativistic" when the formula or concept is somewhat different in relativity than in classical physics (at higher speeds). eg there is the classical formula for velocity composition, and the relativistic formula for velocity composition. At lover speeds, they give close to identical results (too close to measure). > ie > DIFFERENT FROM JUST MASS ??!! It IS a mass. It is a different mass calculation. A bit like an object can have a length and a width and an area .. several different measurements that are all lengths. To further extend that analogy ... an object can have a proper (or rest or invariant) length and a different measured length (it is really a relativistic length, but by convention we just call it length). Its the same notion with mass .. an object can have a proper (or rest or invariant) mass, and a different relativistic (or apparent or inertial) mass. > TELL US WHAT IS THE **QUANTITATIVE DIFFERENCE** BETWEEN > JUST MASS > AND RELATIVISTIC MASS --- For a photon, the (rest) mass is zero (and has been measured to be zero to a very high precision). the relativistic mass of a photon ( P/c or E/c^2 ) is non-zero .. and MUCH MUCH greater than the precision at which rest mass has been measured. If you want you can pick a particular frequency photon, and work out what hf/c^2 is, and that is the relativistic (or apparent or inertial) mass. We know from experiment that they are most definitely different values .. and as predicts by relativity > and how do you calculate it ?? (THAT DIFFERENCE !) > IN hf/c ??? You don't calculate it in that .. because relativistic mass isn't directly in that formula. But we also have P = Mc.. So Mc = hf/c, so M = hf/c^2 = E/c^2 This is very basic work with formulas. > 2 > you divided momentum by c!! Yes. Because P = Mc for a photon. In general P = Mv, but for a photon v=c > you didnt divide ENERGY BY C!! No .. you divide it by c^2. E = Mc^2 > energy divided by c^2 is mass Yes it is .. relativistic mass. That is how relativistic mass is defined > what is > momentum divided by c ?? Yes it is .. relativistic mass. That is how relativistic mass is defined > what has dividing mometum > divided by c got to do with mass or relativistic mass? P = Mc > is it p/c = m ?? Yes .. where the m there is relativistic mass. > if so > P= m c ?? Yes .. it is. > (with no dimensionless figures) ?? Of course there are dimensionless figures in the values for m and c and P .. but there are no other dimensionless numeric constant.s there ... why should there be You are confusing P = Mc formula with the dimensions of momentum which are ML/T. P = Mv is the formula for momentum given relativistic mass for all objects. > ie > all momentum, in our universe has the same > quantity ?? What the hell are you on abount .. that would only be the case if everything have the same relativistic mass > and there is no p1 p2 etc ??!! No .. you are talking nonsense .. where DO you come up with this gibberish? > 2 > you say that mass in relativity > 'is always relativistic ' relativistic mass is. rest mass is rest mass. They are two different measurements with two difference values UNLESS the object is at rest. > even if there is no gamma !! of course .. you do not NEED to have a gamma in a formula for it to be relativistic. I gave you some examples > so lets take the example of > > F = gamma m a That is not the correct formula for force in relativity. I have told you that several times before over the months/years. Please see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special_relativity#Force for force in the same direction as motion it is F = gamma ^ 3 m a > is ther a gamma factor here ??!! Yes there is .. and that formula uses rest mass, not relativistic mass > if it is not needed why do you write > F=gamma m a You mean F = gamma ^ 3 m a .... Well .. because that is what the formula relating rest mass and force is > and not just > F=m a !! ?? F = gamma ^ 2 M a ... Well .. because that is what the formula relating relativistic mass and force is. > 3 > if you divide ML/T by c That is nonsense. ML/T is dimensions. You can't multiply or divide them by anything, other than other dimensions. NOTE: I have been using M for relativistic mass and 'm' for rest mass. But we also use the letter 'M' as a dimension. Do not confuse these two values that happen to share the same letter in my posts. I just find 'M' and 'm' for masses easier than something like 'm_rel' and 'm_0'. > whY do you get only > relativistic mass If you divide an ML/T-dimensioned value (momentum P) by an M/L-dimensioned value (speed c), you get an M-dimensioned value., ie a mass value .. and it is the relativistic (or apparent or inertial) mass > why not relativistic L (length?? Because that would be nonsense .. you cannot divide a momentum by a speed to get a length .. the dimensions are wrong > why not relativistic T (time ?/)) Because that would be nonsense .. you cannot divide a momentum by a speed to get a time .. the dimensions are wrong > and if we get > relativistic L > and T > HOW CAN THE VELOCITY OF PHOTON BE CONSTANT ?? We don't
From: Y.Porat on 12 Jun 2010 22:07
On Jun 13, 2:48 am, "Inertial" <relativ...(a)rest.com> wrote: > "Y.Porat" <y.y.po...(a)gmail.com> wrote in message > > news:4262fd54-8649-4d94-a377-71933fe60c9b(a)x27g2000yqb.googlegroups.com... > > > On Jun 12, 5:39 pm, "Inertial" <relativ...(a)rest.com> wrote: > >> "Y.Porat" <y.y.po...(a)gmail.com> wrote in message > > > > Hopefully its because you realize that attacking,. insulting, and lying > about the people who are kinf enough to discuss your post with you is not > productive. You're just lucky that there are a couple of people that give > you the time of day. -------------------- speak physics !!! ( )! or else i am going to tell you my hand waving the name of the game is PHYSICS ARGUMENTS NOT DEMAGOGIC HAND WAVINGS THAT I CAM DO EVEN BETTER THAN YOU BESIDE PHYSICS ARGUMENTS AS YOU WILL SEE LATER you are jucky yhat i spend time with you ------------------ - > > > > >> >> 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 > >> > ----------------------- > >> > is it an as you like it program ???!! > >> > or is it physics ?? > > >> Physics .. I'm always discussing physics and presenting valid physics > >> arguments. hand waving !! do you say that relativistic and inertial mass is the same ?? so why call them differnt names ?? -------------- > > >> > you ay > >> > it is relativistic mass if you divide it by c > > >> It is all relativistic (ie what SR predicts) already. But yes .. if you > >> take the energy of the photon and divide by c you get its momentum. If > >> you > >> divide that by c you get its relativistic or apparent or inertial mass.. > > >> The concept is that in the Newtonian world (approximated when v <<c) we > >> have > >> p = mv .. so if you know p and v, you can calculate m = p/v.. When v for > >> an > >> object gets closer to c, one notices that the mass that is apparent when > >> we > >> calculate it that way increases above the rest mass. ---------------- SO WHILE YOU TALK ABOUT V/C YOU ARE ACTUALLY **USE* THE GAMMA FACTOR !! AND ACTUALLY YOU CANT HAVE THE DIFFERENCE UNLESS BETWEEN REST MAS AND RELATIVISTIC MASS **UNLESS *** YOU USE THE GAMMA FACTOR RIGHT ?? --------------------------------------- This is the > >> relativistic or inertial or apparent mass. > > >> BTW: note that even in Newtonian phsyics, m =p/v is indeterminate when > >> v=0 SO ?? IT MEANS THAT ANY PHYSICS FORMULA HAS ITS LIMITS OF VALIDATION THAT YOU CANT EXTRAPOLATE !! RIGHT ?? so while v=c it is a limit case in which there is no gamma BECAUSE YOU CANT USE IT ANY MORE !! SO HOW DO YOU PROVE THAT NO REST MASS CAN REACH c !!!WHILE YOU HAVE NO MATHEMATICAL TOOL TO PROVE IT ??!! (iow you cant use it by the gamma factor that by definition does not work at that point TIA Y.Porat ------------------------------- |