 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
Natural Science Forum / Physics / Particle Physics / October 2005No Mass -- no real physics !!
No mass --- No real physics !! (just as simple as that!) Copyright Y.Porat 19-10- 2005 ATB Y.Porat ----------------------- WOW! Copyrighted graffiti! If you don't want anybody to steal your writings, paint them on a bridge abutment. Tom Davidson Richmond, VA and some physics discussion?? if i am right it has a huge importance and innovation. an innovation must not be too sophisticated and complicated it can be very simple actually the simpler the better provided it is not *over simplified' i think i quoted someone about simple and over simplified (:-) TIA Y.Porat ----------------- > No mass --- No real physics !! > [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > Y.Porat > ----------------------- I assume you arrived at that a priori, without bothering to consult experiment on the issue. PD it was after the interesting and productive discussion with you so we can go on with it here for instance you claimed there that there are experimental proves that the photon is massless by polarization or something like that so can you bring that experimental data here so we can examine it here? a second claim of you was about an accelerated particle that collides after that acceleration with a particle outside the accelerator so ? do you what to say that mass is created or lost in that case?? 3 you said you can bring examples of two nuclei that collide and fuse though they have no fields around them can you bring those examples?? TIA Y.Porat ------------------------- > it was after the interesting and productive discussion with you > so we can go on with it here [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > so can you bring that experimental data here > so we can examine it here? I'm on the road. I'd like to come up with about three or four different ways we know that, but I need to return to home base before doing that. > a second claim of you was about an accelerated particle that collides > after that acceleration with a particle > outside the accelerator > > so ? > do you what to say that mass is created or lost in that case?? Mass, no. Matter, almost certainly. A good example of this is e+e- => p+p- where e+ is positron e- is electron p+ is proton p- is antiproton which is seen routinely at, say, SLAC. The intitial state has much less matter in it than the final state. > 3 you said you can bring examples > of two nuclei that collide and fuse > though they have no fields around them > can you bring those examples?? If I said that, it was an error. PD > > it was after the interesting and productive discussion with you > > so we can go on with it here [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > I'm on the road. I'd like to come up with about three or four different > ways we know that, but I need to return to home base before doing that. Actually, I found an answer pretty quickly. Numerous tests have been done. - looking for deviations from the power law in Coulomb's law and Ampere's law - looking for longitudinal polarization, which would occur if the photon had mass - looking for frequency dependence of the speed of light in a vacuum (radio waves from the sun), which would be present if there were mass - there are also tests based on a toroidal balance and based on measurements of the Earth's magnetic field that I'm not familiar with. Try using http://pdg.lbl.gov/2005/listings/s000.pdf as a reference. PD > > > it was after the interesting and productive discussion with you > > > so we can go on with it here [quoted text clipped - 21 lines] > > PD your basic assumption and apparently of others is that the photon is like other particles particle behaviour' doe snot mean it is all laong like the 'ordinarry particles' btw on the way ' ans still so active and efficient is it due to you or to new technology? or both?? TIA Y.Porat -------------- > > > > it was after the interesting and productive discussion with you > > > > so we can go on with it here [quoted text clipped - 25 lines] > particle behaviour' doe snot mean it is all laong like the 'ordinarry > particles' The fact that you found the results compiled in a compendium of particle properties does not mean that the experiments performed had anything to do with particle physics, nor that any assumption about the particle of nature of light was made. The experiments referred to are wide in approach and in sub-discipline. > btw > on the way ' ans still so active and efficient [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > Y.Porat > -------------- your arguments are very abstract i would like to be more specific with examples anyway the base fact is that the photon is far from being understood so if not complete it might lead to a lot of speculations and guesses that might be wrong an d a lot of misinterpretations of experimental data might be like the misinterpretation of 'inflatin of mass' with velocity btw i trhink we agreed in our other thread that the 'inflation in mass with acceleration is actually increase of velocity of the mass and not the increase of mass yet it took a lot of time to people to reallize it and even now you will find a lot of them beleiving that mass is inflating to relativistic mass so that is just an example of misinterpretation of experimental data.that becomes sometimes the 'common knowlege' TIA Y.Porat ------------------------- > > it was after the interesting and productive discussion with you > > so we can go on with it here [quoted text clipped - 24 lines] > > The intitial state has much less matter in it than the final state. ??? who on earth told you that it is only one pair of electron positron involved in that process?? why not may of them?? > > 3 you said you can bring examples > > of two nuclei that collide and fuse > > though they have no fields around them > > can you bring those examples?? > > If I said that, it was an error. PD i start to like you ..... you are one of the few honest people here that are able emotionally to admit a mistake honesty is one of the most important feature of a reral scientist that enables him to advance!! the second good virtue that i found in you and in very few others is ... open mindedness. TIA Y.Porat ----------------- > PD > > > it was after the interesting and productive discussion with you > > > so we can go on with it here [quoted text clipped - 29 lines] > involved in that process?? > why not may of them?? This turns out to be quite trackable. Individual beam bunches are packed into fine-grained time-buckets, and the population in those buckets is given by Poisson statistics. Because we know how many electrons are in the bunch (this is in fact measured), we then know what fraction of buckets have one and only one electron, what fraction have two, and so on. We also know the cross-section for electron-positron collisions, and so we can use this to predict the rate at which double-occupancy buckets produce a more-than-two-particle interaction. This fraction is checked against measured signals for this kind of event (such as extra energy in the detector), and finding agreement, we are then confident we can trigger on (keep the data for) only single electron on single positron events. PD sound to me too complicated and speculative not at all stright forwards. i am not an expert on that issue so i would like to hear other opinions TIA Y.Porat ---------------- one of the most important feature -> one of the most important features proves -> proofs that data -> those data it -> them > No mass --- No real physics !! > [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > Y.Porat > ----------------------- If the photon had a mass, it would also necessarily have longitudinal wave polarization. This has never been observed. Also electrostatic fields would fall off expontentially and not as inverse square. Needless to say, this has never been observed either. Finally, Maxwell's equations would no longer be valid for massive photons. They would need to be replaced with Proca's equations, but unfortunately none of the consequences of these have ever been seen in nature either. And certainly it is not for lack of looking. > > No mass --- No real physics !! > > [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > wave polarization. This has never been observed. Also electrostatic > fields would fall off expontentially and not as inverse square. -------------------- IMHO you are a kind of a 'General' that 'fights the war of the latest war' IE no creative imagination and without creative imagination you have no advance the wish to do revisions must start the moment you feel and face questionable dead end with the existing theory dead ends you say later 'it was never found' did W bosons or Higges Bosons found does it makes sense to you that a messenger will be 90 times heavier than its mother?? and i guess you could point much more bugs in the theory than i can do. so in such a case you have to start to look for the source of the problem in your paradigm from scratch. and that is what i started to do base don my experience and on my achievements in nuclear structure that no one before went to far it enabled me to see things that no one could see it was a new window for me to find a new unknown world including things that lead to new understanding of the world of matter structure of matter etc that no one could ever before dream so my world of matter is a very tangible world --unlike the mathematical physics that sees anything on the flat paper with formulas. -------- > Needless to say, this has never been observed either. see above Finally, > Maxwell's equations would no longer be valid for massive photons. according to Maxwell's equations an EM wave of the frequency of one cycle per a year is possible!! **it was never observed**!!!! ( iow look for 'your problems as well'...) you and others must internalize that a physics equation HAS ITS LIMIT OF VALIDATION!! the task of the reasonable physicist is to find those limits he cannot be just a slave of a formula all Lang and unconditionally!! They > would need to be replaced with Proca's equations, and in that case will the problem will be resolved?? but unfortunately > none of the consequences of these have ever been seen in nature either. > And certainly it is not for lack of looking. i showed you problematic consequences of yours without too much looking for. having energy or momentum without having mass is not a problem for you?? creation of mass by acceleration - is not a problem for you? disappear ace of rest mass - is not a problem for you?? (provided you are not a mathematics parrot) and my last mostr important assertion and suggestion: the photon is not an ordinary particle!!-- it is a case for itself for instance: the gama or beta factors - do not apply for them and you dont as well have to expect polarization of it or exactly the force law that you expect from a proton or electron because the photon is a particle for itself- a new kind- that has to be found and defined!! and the situationnow is far from complete to do that job the first step must be asome swich 'in th emind of scientists and that is the humble job that i took on myself any help will be appreciated try to believe me- it is badly needed. ATB Y.Porat ------------------- > > > No mass --- No real physics !! > > > [quoted text clipped - 92 lines] > Y.Porat > ------------------- I have no idea what you are talking about and I don't think you do either. This entire post appears to be nothing but random babble. It's okay to critique physical theories, but first it helps to know what you are talking about. If photons have mass, it would have to be a very small mass of less than 10^-50 kg in order to be consistent with observation. And massive photons are certainly NOT supported at ALL by Maxwell's equations. So if you think you can prove a photon mass by going that route, you need to understand you're barking up the wrong tree. You are using the old GR-coup definition of "mass". Everybody knows NOW that *LiGHT-mass* is h*f / c^2. Time to give your NONsense, cracked-pot CONscience. EinsteiN's m = e / c^2; GR-coup mass, NOT= e / c^2. A small, HEAViLY FiNANCED group of dimwits actually expected to successfully ENFORCE *GR-defined* mass. Backed by UNiVERSiTYs and the MEDiA, they *ALMOST*. brian a m stuckless >><> >><> >><> >><> >><> > > > > No mass --- No real physics !! > > > > [quoted text clipped - 102 lines] > going that route, you need to understand you're barking up the wrong > tree. > > > > No mass --- No real physics !! > > > > [quoted text clipped - 94 lines] > > I have no idea what you are talking about of course you dont and it is your fault not mime and I don't think you do > either. This entire post appears to be nothing but random babble. yess for a parrot it is babble > It's okay to critique physical theories, have you ever in your life innovated anything in physics beside gathering some old stuff and combining it together so it will look like new?? like say making a parroting PhD?? ---------- but first it helps to know > what you are talking about. If photons have mass, it would have to be > a very small mass of less than 10^-50 kg good for you!!and good morning! it is actually (for the smallest) 10^-51 kilograms and i already defined it in a thread called: 'The mass of the photon defined theoretically by Y.Porat' it was more than a year ago!! so please make up your mind: does the photon has mass or not it is a question of principle not mumbling speculations it is BASIC understanding of the structure of matter that a parrot cannot have!! in order to be consistent with > observation. And massive photons are certainly NOT supported at ALL by > Maxwell's equations. so it is not a comprehensive theory!1 a friend of your parrots insisted that there may be a photon with a frequency of (listen carefully)- one cycle per YEAR so i had to call it the frequency of one Fertz... do you support a frequency of one Fertz?? if you are a parrot why not?? does your theory does not allow it?? do you agree with me that a physics formula has its limits of validation??? if yes did it even occur ed to you that the gama or beta factors- are not valid to the photon case ??!! and the photon is a special case for itself that has not beed studies enough!!yes indeed it ever appeared in your sci.physics research but still...there is life even beyond that research ng. for instance - this ng!! (:-) ---------- So if you think you can prove a photon mass by > going that route, you need to understand you're barking up the wrong > tree. first i suggest that you will lower a bit your lofty nose because it seems that you have still alot to learn yourself (even from the crackpot Y.Porat ------------------------------------ ATB Y.Porat --------------------- To itself, light doesn't exist. After all, a system travelling at light speed has its own clock stopped. Thus a photon is both emitted and absorbed in the same instant to itself. Therefor it can say, if it could talk, "I do not exist!" ******************** But wait a minute. That's wrong. The photon's clock is stopped to an external observer. But to the photon itself its clock runs as normal according to relativity. What an oversight! Sheesh! I can't believe it. I appy-polly-logize. Can we still be friends??????? > To itself, light doesn't exist. After all, a system travelling at > light speed has its own clock stopped. Thus a photon is both emitted [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > according to relativity. What an oversight! Sheesh! I can't believe > it. I appy-polly-logize. Can we still be friends??????? A Lorentz transform with a boost of exactly c doesn't work very well. If I recall correctly, one dimension is squashed down to zero so that only one coordinate value is valid and another dimension is expanded to infinity so that all coordinate values are equally valid. Neither frame gives a valid set of coordinates for all 4-dimensional events that could be described in the other. Personifying such an extreme frame of reference by trying to assume the point of view of a photon at rest within it is unlikely to yield a useful understanding. John Briggs right!! the Lorentz factor does not apply for the photon!! the photon is A special case! the only formula that applies to it IMHO is E=mC^2 and = hf ATB Y.Porat ------------------------------- > right!! > > the Lorentz factor does not apply for the photon!! > the photon is A special case! That's right. > the only formula that applies to it IMHO is > > E=mC^2 and = hf What about the momentum of the photon? A system containing photons only conserves momentum if the momentum of the photons is included. And, miraculously, with a certain choice for how to calculate the momentum of a photon, the momentum of the system is always conserved, which indicates that we don't need something in addition to ensure momentum conservation. > ATB > Y.Porat > ------------------------------- > > right!! > > > > the Lorentz factor does not apply for the photon!! > > the photon is A special case! > > That's right. good for you PD we start to make some revolusionarry advance!! > > the only formula that applies to it IMHO is > > > > E=mC^2 and = hf > > What about the momentum of the photon? see the momentum dimenssions ATB Y.Porat ------------------------ A system containing photons only > conserves momentum if the momentum of the photons is included. And, > miraculously, with a certain choice for how to calculate the momentum [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > > Y.Porat > > ------------------------------- everybody agrees that photon has momentum the dimensions of momentum are: kilogram meter/seconds kilograms is mass!! ATB Y.Porat ----------------------- > everybody agrees that photon has momentum > [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > Y.Porat > ----------------------- The units of momentum are joules*seconds/meter. I've tried to explain this to you before. It is dangerous to look at the units of a number and try to derive physical basis from them. Energy has units kg*m^2/s^2, but it also has units farads*volts^2, and it is dangerous to say that one is more fundamental than the other. PD > > everybody agrees that photon has momentum > > [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > > The units of momentum are joules*seconds/meter. and waht are the dimensions of Jaules ? .........(as more basic dimensions) common it is imposible in righ tphysics that a physical entity like say energy or momentum can eescape to othere basic dimentions afaik th eonly basic dimensions are in mks kilograms meterss and seconds if you use another system it must be the same basic dimensions or else something is wrong in your analysis. -- I've tried to explain > this to you before. It is dangerous to look at the units of a number > and try to derive physical basis from them. Energy has units > kg*m^2/s^2, but it also has units farads*volts^2, so what are the more basic dimensions of farads and volts?? you have to go to the scratch!! you cant avoid coming to the same results by covering it by more complicated entities. ----------- and it is dangerous > to say that one is more fundamental than the other. the most basic are kilograms meter and seconds all the others are derivations of those basics. ATB Y.Porat ----------------- > PD > > > everybody agrees that photon has momentum > > > [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > and waht are the dimensions of Jaules ? .........(as more basic > dimensions) I don't know why you think that kg*m^2/s^2 are more fundamental than joules for the case of photons. > common > it is imposible in righ tphysics that a physical entity > like say energy or momentum can eescape to othere basic > dimentions > afaik th eonly basic dimensions are > in mks kilograms meterss and seconds Amperes are included in that SI set as well, you'll note. That is a *convention* which does not in any way dictate physical fundamentality. > if you use another system it must be the same basic > dimensions or else something is wrong in your analysis. [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > > so what are the more basic dimensions of farads and volts?? I don't know that there are more *physically* fundamental dimensions of farads and volts. I know that there is a *convention* about units that are tied to unit *standards*. > you have to go to the scratch!! you cant avoid coming to the same > results > by covering it by more complicated entities. I'm really not trying to cover it up. I know what you're trying to say. The problem is that you're ascribing too much *physical* importance to a *convention* used to set up a system of units. > ----------- > [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > > > > PD > > > > > ----------------------- > > > [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > I don't know why you think that kg*m^2/s^2 are more fundamental than > joules for the case of photons. 1 see what Brian wrote to you he is probably more expert on that subject than both of us because he always deals with it. 2 why are Farads and Volts *defined as MKS units* 3 i suggest you will give much more importance to dimension analysis because that is an important simple but powerful 'watch dog' to examine quickly 'if you are on the right track' later i will have another question to you. TIA Y.Porat -------------------- > > common > > it is imposible in righ tphysics that a physical entity [quoted text clipped - 42 lines] > > > > > > PD > > > > everybody agrees that photon has momentum > > > > [quoted text clipped - 48 lines] > The problem is that you're ascribing too much *physical* importance to > a *convention* used to set up a system of units. Indeed, SI and MKS, for the sake of utility, make some general 'homogenised' assumtions about Maxwell fields. In interpreting the validity of an electromagnetic expression, it is frequently helpful to see it in cgs and some of the other time and homogenity variations which exist. http://farside.ph.utexas.edu/teaching/jk1/lectures/node6.html http://farside.ph.utexas.edu/teaching/em/em.html Sue... > > ----------- > > [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > > > > > > PD Sue ..i can hardly say you're almost as bad. There is NO COHERENT cgs SYSTEM of UNiTs.!! Esu and emu CANNOT relate the AFFiNE GAP.!! The Heavyside Lorentz scow is DOUBLE cgs.!! i.e. The esu & emu "equate *SEPARATELY*".!! The SI Giorgi SYSTEM was best 'til GUESS.!! brian a m stuckless >><> >><> >><> >><> >><> > > > > > everybody agrees that photon has momentum > > > > > [quoted text clipped - 74 lines] > > > > > > > > PD $ PD ..the "more fundamental" dimwit.!! Kg*m^2 (mol part)*K*Volt*(sec)^2 -- -- = -- -- -- -- - -- -- -- -- = Joule; sec^2 m^2 = Watt*sec = Volt*Amp*sec = Ohm*sec*(Amp)^2. Where: (mol part)*K*Volt*(sec)^4 -- -- -- -- - -- -- -- -- = SI kg unit mass. m^4 Which is NEW SI ..GUESS iss UNiT kg, mass.!! brian a m stuckless >><> >><> >><> >><> >><> > > everybody agrees that photon has momentum > > the dimensions of momentum are: [quoted text clipped - 15 lines] > > PD Light VELOCiTY c is a mathematical constant, like pi.!! ReCALL the BENT PHOTON mass PROOF of RELATiViTY THEORY. Stellar AMBiENT density gradients actually REFRACT c.!! But the MONEY was on SPACEtime curvature, NOT ambience. EVERYBOBY knows NOW that LiGHT-mass = h*f / c^2.!! EVERYBODY knows whereas EinsteiN-mass = e / c^2; EVERYBODY knows, that GR-coup-mass NOT= e / c^2. There is NOTHiNG COMPLEX about a POiNT on a WORLDline (in SPACEtime), with NO iNside; And NO OUTside (i.e. ambient). You say co-ordinates. Wrt WHAT, dooOP? You say co-ordinates. Of, WHAT, dooOP? GR's G_uv has NEVER been related to M. ALL exhibited equations ..Newtonian.!! > > Where > > ** U = G M / c^2 / r Note G, M & r, CANNOT BE G_uv related. There is ONLY POiNT-mass in the Gtr.!! Tom Roberts ..being VERY COY there.!! $ Urgent mass matter.!! EQUiVALENT absorbed mass of light: .!! 1. 'UNiVERSAL PHYSiCAL CONSTANTS' [ Translated, from Russian, by Yevgeni Strelchenko ]; (Revised from the 1984 Russian edition by O.P. Spiridonov): Page 103; The Photoelectric Effect: h*f = A + (m*v^2 / 2); Page 130~31; "But, according to Einstein, a photon is also endowed with a mass m_ph: E = h*f = m_ph*c^2 ; m_ph = h*f / c^2. This mass is extremely small, of course, about 10^-33 g, but some way or other, it bound to manifest itself in physical phenomena. Indeed, in 1900, P. N. Lebedev, Professor at the University of Moscow, discovered the pressure of light, which was an experimental proof of the then still unformulated relativity theory. Another evidence for the photon's mass came much later, in 1919, when in full agreement with Einstein's prediction, scientists registered the bent of light rays in the strong gravitational field [ambient density gradient] of the Sun." [Einstein's EQUiVALENT absorbed photon energy, E_o.] Page 202~3; ..NO arbitrary fundamental physical constants; Page 204; EPiLOGUE with EiNSTEiN's QUOTE: [QUOTE AUTHOR] "Why is it that the values of the constants are not obtained theoretically and should be measured experimentally, sometimes with enormous difficulties? -- -- What Einstein proposes is to get rid of dimensional constants and replace them by dimensionless ones (which are the ratios of, for example, one mass to another, one speed to another and so on). He wrote in his autobiographical notes: [QUOTE EiNSTEiN] "If one considers this done, then only dimensionless' constants could occur in the basic equations of physics... nature is so constituted that it is possible logically to lay down such strongly determined laws that within these laws only rationally completely determined constants occur (not constants, therefore, whose numerical value could be changed without destroying the theory)"." [UN-QUOTE EiNSTEiN & AUTHOR]; © Mir Publishers, Moscow. 2. 'THE UNiVERSE & DR. EiNSTEiN'; 1956; Comet Books / Collins; 1956 EDiTiON: Written by: Lincoln Barnett; SUB-Title: The Meaning of Time, Space and Matter [With foreword by Albert Einstein; Princeton, New Jersey.] [FOREWORD written: September 10, 1948; ..SEE: Pages 5 & 6] 3. 'FORMULAs FACTs AND CONSTANTs'; 1982 ~ 1987 Edited by: H J Fishbeck and K H Fishbeck © Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg ISBN 3 540 17610 1 ..note p.136 Rydberg footnote typo. 4. 'SCiENCE DATA BOOK'; 1971 ~ 1979 Edited by: R M Tennent ISBN 0 05 002487 6 © Oliver & Boyd 5. ELEMENTARY CHEMiCAL THERMODYNAMiCs' ..in SI Units (3rd Ed); G Socrates, M.Sc., M.iNST.P., Ph.D, Brunel University G Hargreaves, M.Sc., Ph.D, University of Sheffield ISBN 0 408 70431 4; 1973 London © The Butterworth Group. ISBN 0 408 70430 6; standard ..in an hardcover edition. Printed 1961-63-65-67-73; Third ed. (1973) in SI Units. 6. 'BASiC CONCEPTs OF MEASUREMENT'; 1966 © Cambridge University Press Written by: Brian Ellis LCCCN 65-1915 7. 'HARMONiC METROLOGY {iNTEGRATED STANDARD SYSTEM}' © B A STUCKLESS; ISBN 0 9693164 1 0; {iSS}.wpd; 59KB. "There are no ARBiTRARY fundamental physical constants." EQUiVALENT mass=h*f/c^2=ONLY mass [phoTon & phoNon].!! Date: Sat, 28 Feb 2004 05:36:04 -0330 Message-ID: <404059FC.1C84@avint.net> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Envelope-To: martin@hogbin.org.uk X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 2.60 (1.212-2003-09-23-exp) on mx1.global.net.uk X-Spam-Status: No, hits=-4.9 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,UPPERCASE_25_50 autolearn=no version=2.60 X-Spam-Level: N/A. brian a m stuckless /\ __ _\/_ __ \_\/_/\_\/_/ /\_\/_/\ ("`-/")_.-'"``-._ _\/_/\_\/_ \. . `; -._ )-;-, `) /_/\_\/_/\_\ \ / (v_,) _ )`-.\ ``-' /\ - O - _.- _..-_/ / ((.' \/ / \ ((,.-' ((,/ By: Toe.! IAM THAT IAM WHOLLY WHOLLY WHOLLY He and No more is more. :-.,_,.-:*'``'*:-.,_,.-:*'``'*:-.,_,.-:*'``'*:-.,_,.-:*'` ____ _ _ _ _ | _ \ | | ___ _ __ | | __ | | | | | |_) | | | / _ \ | '_ \ | |/ / | | | | The BiG | __/ | | | (_) | | | | | | < _ |_| |_| |_| |_| \___/ |_| |_| |_|\_\ (_) (_) (_) :*'``'*:-.,_,.-:*'``'*:-.,_,.-:*'``'*:-.,_,.-:*'``'*:-.,_ >><> >><> >><> >><> >><> Igor wrote: > > > > No mass --- No real physics !! > right!! > the Lorentz factor does not apply for the photon!! [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > Y.Porat > ------------------------------- | > To itself, light doesn't exist. After all, a system travelling at | > light speed has its own clock stopped. Thus a photon is both emitted [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] | very well. If I recall correctly, one dimension is squashed | down to zero Photons are point particles. Androcles. | To itself, light doesn't exist. To itself, Stockbauer does not exist. To me, Stockbauer does not exist. Ergo Stockbauer does not exist. After all, a system travelling at | light speed has its own clock stopped. Thus a photon is both emitted | and absorbed in the same instant to itself. Therefor it can say, if it [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] | according to relativity. What an oversight! Sheesh! I can't believe | it. I appy-polly-logize. Can we still be friends??????? No. You don't exist. Androcles did it even occur ed -> did it even occur illiterate retarded shithead > No mass --- No real physics !! Wrong (IMHO). If one really understood the vacuum, i.e. obtained a general solution of the GR equations (which hasn't yet been achieved AFAIK) you'd get mass practically thrown in free! see my reply to Igor Y.Porat -------------------------------------- you were cross posting: it is in sci.physics ATB Y.Porat ---------------------- If light had mass we wouldn't be able to see it. In fact, i'm not sure the spectrum is quantized. you see loght *only because* it has mass dont you think that you cant see anything that has no mass imho the fact we can see it is the best prove it has mass. what are thr dimensions of Momentum???!! ATB Y.Porat ---------------- To itself, light doesn't exist. After all, a system travelling at light speed has its own clock stopped. Thus a photon is both emitted and absorbed in the same instant to itself. Therefor it can say, if it could talk, "I do not exist!" Descarte was walking along wth a friend. "Rene, would you like to go into that coffeeshop and we can engage in lively Hofstadterian debate concerning matters germaine to the advancement of Humanity explosively here over the next few centuries???" Rene responed "I THINK NOT!!!!!" (All together now:) And then General Cartwright pushed the "Destroy the Earth" button, and everyone was fried!!!!!! (Uproarious laughter ensues on Beta Lyrae 7) Have a nice Thursday, gang, except for those on the other side of the IDL. By the way, did ewe know that it was Lewis Carrrrrrrrrollllllllllllllllllllllllllllll who got it established?????? Have a nice day. That's a cybernetic ardor. Blarp. Toodle-Lewd-Wench-Sky. "He's a kook, but dammit, he's our kook." Have a nice day. Did I say that previously? No Darlene, not now. More to write. are you sure you are sober?? or may be you are much smarter than you look and the real intention in your mind is to sabotage ?? 'light does not exist ' Ehh !! ATB Y.Porat ---------------------------------- LiGHT is LONGiTUDiNALY POLARiZED, in *ONE* way: LiGHT is ONLY seen looking DiRECTLY UPstream.!! You CANNOT see "in-TRANSiT" photons, at all. [ PhoTons CANNOT BE SEEN at all, SiDEways. ] You CANNOT see "interSTELLAR" photons, duh.!! [ THAT's what makes see-THROUGH space work. ] PAULi EXCLUSiON makes AMBiENT mass GRADiENTs. ABSORBED phoTons are NOT bosons.!!] brian a m stuckless p.s. BEST proof ABSORBED LiGHT has mass is h*f / c^2. Appropriate units all cancel, except the "mass". >><> >><> >><> >><> >><> > you see loght *only because* -- side-winding insert ..see top of PAGE.!! > -- it has mass > dont you think that you cant see anything that has no mass > imho the fact we can see it is the best prove it has mass. BEST proof ABSORBED LiGHT has mass is h*f / c^2. Appropriate units all cancel, except the "mass". > what are thr dimensions of Momentum???!! > > ATB > Y.Porat > ---------------- Your great porat!! Thank you Nike but i dont know if you realy complementing me and more importsnt - agree with my arguments? or just pulling my leg..... ATB Y.Porat ----------------- I say it because you hold your ground Y.Porat. And I agree with you. Light has mass. I've been through this top to bottom. Hi ! Hi Nike i like Nike!............. do you remember the 'i like ike' ? are you of that generation or may be younger?? btw i would like to know your real name . ATB Y.Porat -------------------------- Mitch Raemsch -- Light Falls -- I use my sig sometimes Porat. I am in my thirties. Although some of your physics means nothing to me I must say taking a stand is important and is a sign of having character. Your circlon isn't really the particle you say it is. It really is a path that such a particle would take Porat. This is where curved space-time comes in. no Sir you didnt undestood my idea of the Circlon acording to me , there is no curved space time only the circlon moved naturally in a curved circle and the difference is huge!! because fo rall other bigger particles space is not curved!!! only the Circlon does it and another thing that you didnt got or a didt tell you personally is that this Circlon is the mother of all other particles!! iow all other particles is a complcated composition of that basic particle it makes chain of orbitals that link together to make the knownparticles see my site so i hope at last you got the difference between my Circlon and the idea of curved spacetime space fo rme is nothing and nothing cannot have any properties except hostong particles and those particles have all the properties that we know ps if it is in contradiction to a theory of yourse please say it anyway in that case i am sorry to be in conflict of interest but still we can respect each other ---------------- ATB Y.Porat ------------------------ You are talking about a path not a particle!!! Why just a path you still didnt got my innovative idea the Circlon is the only particle that: *moves **naturally** in a closed Circle* (if not disturbed on its way if disturbed by another Circlon it will change its direction but then will go on in another direction but still in a closed Circle) iow exactly as Newtons first law of motion with the only difference: the straight line of Newton changes, in this case to a circular path therefore i call it - an expansion of Newtons first law it is not a complete rejection of that law. and that is the big difference between me and the 'curved space time' according to the 'curved space-time *any particle moves in a curved math- because 'all space is curved' according to me all the heavy ordinary particles move in a 'straight line*; it is only the circlon that moves in a curved live naturally (because ' that is the way it was born by nature') is it so difficult to get even just that suggestion?? TIA Y.Porat ------------------------- didnt undestood -> didn't understand, illiterate retarded shithead didnt got -> didn't get, illiterate retarded shithead didnt got -> didn't get, illiterate retarded shithead Your particle assumes a "circular" motion. That is a path not really a particle. Einstein was right. Don't doubt that! > Your particle assumes a "circular" motion. > That is a path not really a particle. -------------- that is a postulate of 'take it or leave it!! it seems that you still didnt get the difference between me and Einstein: according to him any particle moves in a curved line according to me -it is just the Circlon that is doing it!! all bigger particles move in straight lines!! do you have experimental evidence that a big particles moves in a curved path *in complete empty space* IE in a space that there is no forces there?? -------------- > Einstein was right. > Don't doubt that! he was right in many things not with the above !! ATB Y.Porat ----------------- BTW, your circlon would follow circles. As far as gravity is concerned there rarely are perfect circles. How are you going to explain the elipses? I think you are packin' baloney Mr. Porat. dont jump to conclutions too soon man iow dont be hasely! waht elipses do you talk about? the orbit of earth around the sun?? that is another complex situation. i am talking about the most basic situation on that you can built more complicated situations as are in reality ATB Y.Porat --------------------------- I think that without matter there is no real physics. really?? are you just 'pulling my leg' or you are serious and if positive is it a change in your mind after me?? TIA Y.Porat -------------------------- > Hi Nike > [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > Y.Porat > -------------------------- Sorry I posted under macromitch. That's my other name. Cheers Y.Porat. Mitch Raemsch -- Light Falls -- Ok so your name is Mitch raemsch?? if yes - nice to know it that you deal with man and not with a name... actually not easy to write ....... or remember the right spelling. so may be thats the reason you used nick name. anyway thanks and ATB Y.Porat ---------------------- |
Reply to this Message |
 Sign In
 Join
 My Latest Posts My Monitored Threads My Blog My Photo Gallery My Profile My Homepage Start New Thread Enable EMail Alerts Rate this Thread
|
©2009 Advenet LLC Privacy Policy - Terms of Use
This website includes both content owned or controlled by Advenet as well as content owned or controlled by third parties.