 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
Natural Science Forum / Physics / Particle Physics / March 2004The mass of the Photon, defined *theoreticaly* by Y.Porat!
the mass of the photon was defined *theoretically by me as follows: photon mass = h/C^2 times 1.0000/time unit thats all while : h is the Plank constsnt C is the velocity of light and the time unit has to be consistant as chosen for h and C. -------------------- it was done at the 29 / january/ 2004 and once one gets it properly it is an event in the history of science. the coming time will show it is a start of a new revolution in Modern scince --------------------- Thanks to Google sci.physics all the best Y.Porat ---------------------- > the mass of the photon was defined *theoretically by me as follows: > > photon mass = h/C^2 times 1.0000/time unit Hello crackpot. | the mass of the photon was defined *theoretically by me as follows: | [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] | C is the velocity of light | and the time unit has to be consistant as chosen for h and C. The time unit is the same as nu, frequency. All you have done is divided h*nu by c^2. Sorry, it doesn't work that way. FrediFizzx > | the mass of the photon was defined *theoretically by me as follows: > | [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > > FrediFizzx --------------------- please go to the threads: The second Porat postulate' and The third Porat postulate' and only after you have done and understood it properly please come back with apposit remarks all the best Y.porat -------------------- | > | the mass of the photon was defined *theoretically by me as follows: | > | [quoted text clipped - 19 lines] | Y.porat | -------------------- No need to. In my concept, a photon has to be massless. It is just an energy-momentum ripple thru the quantum vacuum. I don't see a photon as a kind of entity (quantum object) that could have mass. Or even *needs* mass. Plus we really have no fundamental definition of mass anywise. All we have is the relativistic expression relating energy and mass. But just because they are related, doesn't mean they are the same thing. Heck, I don't even think "bare" fermions have intrinsic mass. Mass just comes from how they interact with each other and the quantum vacuum. FrediFizzx > | "FrediFizzx" <fredifizzx@hotmail.com> wrote in message > news:<bvie5v$sh0du$1@ID-185976.news.uni-berlin.de>... [quoted text clipped - 33 lines] > > FrediFizzx ----------- Hi Fred i realise that you are afraied of my finding but what can i do? saying that you dont need to see my threads is actually an austridge (spelling?) deed actually i am not the first one to say that there is no relativistic mass what soever i think that even Einstein at his last years saied that my first contribution was that i prersented it mathematically ie instead of E=gama mC^2 i was preenting it as E/gama = mC^2 you might say its the same, but not physically... see there now my next contribution was to claim that : gama deos not apply to the photon the photon is a special case! it can have mass and yet move with the speed of light that op-ened the way to use the formula E=mC^2 fo revaluation of the mass of the photon once you have its energy ie hf the next breakthrough idea was to look at the mass of the smallest integer frequancy so i got the formula: m photon= h/C^2 with the unit corrections ie times 1/t while t is the time dimension now came the punch line untill now we had only an theoretic prediction yet while we insert the fiures into it if fitts more than nicely to the .... experimental predictions so what else one needs to prove a theorethic suggaestion?! the above was just a breaf resume to those threads one has to folow it in detailes it was a long dispute with Feuerbacher and even some contributions of his all the best Y.Porat --------------- > the mass of the photon was defined *theoretically by me as follows: > [quoted text clipped - 16 lines] > Y.Porat > ---------------------- You've calculated the Plank mass times 2*pi - bit heavy for a photon I think. > > the mass of the photon was defined *theoretically by me as follows: > > [quoted text clipped - 20 lines] > You've calculated the Plank mass times 2*pi - bit heavy for a photon I > think. --------------------- sorry i dont see the 2*pi ??!! it is numerically h/C^2 now i didnt inset figures, i left it to the readers so you are invited to put in the figures and *compair it with the common updated upper limit for photon mass* jusy do it and see what you get TIA Y.Porat ---------------- > > > the mass of the photon was defined *theoretically by me as follows: > > > [quoted text clipped - 30 lines] > Y.Porat > ---------------- I did, and got 2*pi*mP, because the Planck mass is now calculated using h-bar, c and G, no longer h, c and G, hence the 2*pi multiplier. I suggest you put in the numbers and see what you get. :-) J. > > "Phaedrus" <no.thanks@no.spam> wrote in message > news:<401cf0d5$0$9387$cc9e4d1f@news-text.dial.pipex.com>... [quoted text clipped - 38 lines] > > I suggest you put in the numbers and see what you get. :-) ------------------ i dont know what 'the plank mass 'is afaik h is not a mass constant in my book it is just h nothing else do you say that the energy of a photon is not hf? thats what i foud too many years. anyway you have to remember that the result is exp -52 or exp -53 so ..... 2 pai ...is close enough for me ...... and 2 the experimental value is an upper limit so how is that compatible with my prediction i didnt bother to find out may be you can give a hand ? TIA Y.Porat ----------- > > > "Phaedrus" <no.thanks@no.spam> wrote in message > > news:<401cf0d5$0$9387$cc9e4d1f@news-text.dial.pipex.com>... [quoted text clipped - 42 lines] > afaik h is not a mass constant > in my book it is just h nothing else In that case you are reading the wrong books. If you intend googling on it, note that it is actually spelt "Planck mass". There is a c between the n and the k > do you say that the energy of a photon is not hf? > thats what i foud too many years. [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > to find out > may be you can give a hand ? Your latest post gives me the impression that you have been swinging the bottle. What do you drink? Franz > > "Phaedrus" <no.thanks@no.spam> wrote in message > news:<401f34ec$0$13353$cc9e4d1f@news-text.dial.pipex.com>... [quoted text clipped - 67 lines] > > Franz ------------ Hi Frantz first i dring mainly .... whater a good advice for old Fartheres (:-) 2 Mr Fahedrus is talking about using hbar instread of h in energy of the photon ? do you have anyidea about that he is talking about ? i dont sso please explain it to me TIA Y.porat --------------- > > > "Phaedrus" <no.thanks@no.spam> wrote in message > > news:<401f34ec$0$13353$cc9e4d1f@news-text.dial.pipex.com>... [quoted text clipped - 75 lines] > do you have anyidea about that he is talking about ? i dont > sso please explain it to me Since hbar is h/(2*pi), you can use either according to taste, as long as you dispose of the 2*pi properly. Franz > > > "Phaedrus" <no.thanks@no.spam> wrote in message > > news:<401cf0d5$0$9387$cc9e4d1f@news-text.dial.pipex.com>... [quoted text clipped - 56 lines] > Y.Porat > ---------- As you asked for help, I will try to help you. In your original post you stated that the time unit has to be consistent in h and c, well normally the time unit is derived by calculating the Planck dimension values of Mass, Length and Time using h-bar, c and G - the gravitational constant and h-bar is h/2*pi . This then gives you the following Planck dimension values. Planck mass = 2.176E-8kg Planck length = 1.616E-35m Planck time = 5.391E-44s I like to name these units Pm, Pl & Pt, but standard convention is to write them as m subscript P, l subscript P and t subscript P You then derive h-bar, c and G as follows, using my notation h-bar has dimensions of Js = kg*m^2*s^-1 and its value equals Pm*Pl^2*Pt^-1 c has dimensions m*s^-1 and its value is equal to Pl*Pt^-1 G has dimensions kg^-1*m^3*s^-2 and its value is equal to Pm^-1*Pl^3*Pt^-2 Now you wrote: - photon mass = h/C^2 times 1.0000/time unit and the time unit has to be consistent as chosen for h and C. Well I used the consistent Plank time unit Pt value so if you write out your equation h/(C^2*Pt) then change the h and c values to use the Planck values, you get: ( h = 2*pi*Pm*Pl^2*Pt^-1 c= Pl*Pt^-1 ) h/(C^-2*Pt) = 2*pi*Pm*Pl^2*Pt^-1/(Pl^2*Pt^-2*Pt) = 2*pi*Pm*Pl^2*Pt^-1*Pl^-2*Pt^2*Pt^-1 = 2*pi*Pm*(Pl^2*Pl^-2*Pt^2*Pt^-2) = 2*pi*Pm as the positive and negative indices of length and time cancel out So your left with 2*pi times the Planck mass, which is not the result you are looking for, as you wrote "we expect the mass of a photon to be below 1E-50kg. and the time unit has to be consistent as chosen for h and C." It is theoretically zero kg, ie has no mass. If you specify a time unit consistent only with h and c, then you can arbitrarily set this time unit value to ANYTHING and alter the unit values of mass and length to obtain the correct values of h and c. so if you want your answer to give you exactly a mass value of 1E-53kg then set Pm to this value and Pt to any value you want and then get the corresponding Pl value. This is why the value of G is required to calculate the three Planck dimension values, as you need these three constants to be able to algebraically manipulate these constants to derive the values of the three dimensions, ie mass, length and time. These values are then known as the Planck values for each dimension value calculated, hence Planck mass, Planck Length and Planck time. Just for your information the way these Planck values are derived by algebraic manipulation to get the Planck dimension value on one side of the equation, is shown below. Pm = (h-bar*c/G)^1/2 Pl = (h-bar*c^5/G)^1/2 or h-bar/(Pm*c) Pt = (h-bar*G/c^5)^1/2 or Pl/c Remembering that h-bar = Pm*Pl^2*Pt^-1 c = Pl*Pt^-1 G = Pm^-1*Pl^3*Pt^-2 you can see how the algebraic manipulation works. Hope this helps you. Joe > > "Phaedrus" <no.thanks@no.spam> wrote in message > news:<401f34ec$0$13353$cc9e4d1f@news-text.dial.pipex.com>... [quoted text clipped - 24 lines] > > > > > > Y.Porat > > > > > > ---------------------- -------------- sory for top posting than you Mr Faedrus for yourcomplicated explanation i will study it anyway my idea is to set the equation in a way that the time factor will be elimenated and we get pure mass dimension can you give a hand in it and than put in the figures and compare it to the experimental u[pper limmit? if not i will have to do it or else someone else will be quicker in doing it anyway the idea is clear: the bottom line is to get a tilemless formula with only mass dimentions (kilograms are preffered) TIA Y.Porat ------------------ > > > > > You've calculated the Plank mass times 2*pi - bit heavy for a photon > I [quoted text clipped - 113 lines] > > Joe [snip] > > i dont know what 'the plank mass 'is > > afaik h is not a mass constant [quoted text clipped - 21 lines] > values of Mass, Length and Time using h-bar, c and G - the gravitational > constant and h-bar is h/2*pi You misunderstood him completely (well, that's not hard to do...) - when he wrote "time unit", he didn't mean "the Planck time", "the quantum of time" or something like that, but simply something like "unit time". If I understand him correctly, he wants to say something like: "If you measure h and c in the usual units J*s and m/s, then you have to put in nu = 1/s; if you use other units for h and c, you have to change nu appropriately." Why one should do this and how this appropriate changing should be done is beyond me - probably only he himself can understand this. [snip lots - hint: this goes all above his head, he won't understand it] > "we expect the mass of a photon to be below 1E-50kg. > and the time unit has to be consistent as chosen for h and C." > > It is theoretically zero kg, ie has no mass. Porat simply postulates that photons have a rest mass. That this 1) makes no sense and 2) is inconsistent with the evidence doesn't bother him. He also simply postulates that for photons, one doesn't have to use E = gamma m c^2 (he recognizes the problem that for v = c, gamma would be infinitely large), but simply E = m c^2 - the photon, according to him, is an "exception". [snip rest] Bye, Bjoern > [snip] > [quoted text clipped - 51 lines] > be infinitely large), but simply E = m c^2 - the photon, according to > him, is an "exception". > Bjoern ---------------- Thank you Bjoern thats right that is actually one of the important breakthrough ideas that enabled the use of E=mC^2 for photon mass evaluation btw wht do you think about Phedrus explanations about the dimentions adjaustment untill now i am in the impression he complicated the problem too much iow it seems to me it can be derived much simpler (the question is to all the readers) TIA Y.Porat ------------- > > [snip] > > [quoted text clipped - 56 lines] > Thank you Bjoern > thats right So, I'm not a "slow learner" after all? This should tell you something: if I disagree with you on something, this is usually *not* simply because I am a "slow learner" and therefore aren't able to understand your ideas - it is because I *do* understand your ideas and therefore am able to find the flaws in them! > that is actually one of the important breakthrough ideas > that enabled the use of E=mC^2 for photon mass evaluation You still have to provide either a logical argument or evidence that using E = m c^2 for the rest mass of photons makes any sense. Hey, you even have to provide a logical argument or evidence that photons even *have* rest mass! > btw wht do you think about Phedrus explanations about > the dimentions adjaustment As I pointed out to him: he totally misunderstood what you meant by "time unit", and therefore his explanation doesn't apply to your ideas. > untill now i am in the impression he complicated the problem > too much He didn't complicate your problem, he talked about another problem. > iow it seems to me it can be derived much simpler > (the question is to all the readers) Good luck. Bye, Bjoern > [snip] > [quoted text clipped - 51 lines] > be infinitely large), but simply E = m c^2 - the photon, according to > him, is an "exception". Like his "circlon" is an exception to Newton's Laws? Franz > > [snip] > > [quoted text clipped - 46 lines] > > Franz --------------- 1 thank you Frantz that you remember my circlon 2 yes it is an exception to Newton but only by the 'straight line' aspect ot it 3 thank Godness that you start to understand how pioneering scince is done !! it is not written in your books it is anew chapter! 4 are you able to concider just in principle that new suggestions might be one day useful ? or you are in principle against anmything 'that is not written ' in your books / 5 or may be you are in principle against anything no matter bad or wrong that is not stemming from 'your clan'? all the beat Y.Porat -------- [snip] > > > He also simply postulates that for photons, one doesn't have to > > > use E = gamma m c^2 (he recognizes the problem that for v = c, gamma [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > 2 yes it is an exception to Newton but only by the > 'straight line' aspect ot it How does a circlon react when a force is acting on it? In other words, what is the "circlon" version of Newton's second law? If a circlon is accelerated, has to be a force there, or not? > 3 thank Godness that you start to understand how pioneering scince > is done !! it is not written in your books it is anew chapter! Well, pioneering science is written in scientific papers in journals, not in books - hence you are right, although in another sense than you meant. > 4 are you able to concider just in principle that new suggestions > might be one day useful ? Yes, obviously. But apparently you are unable to consider that not *all* new suggestions might be one day useful. > or you are in principle against > anmything 'that is not written ' in your books / I think no physicist is against new suggestions - provided that they make sense... > 5 or may be > you are in principle against anything no matter bad or wrong > that is not stemming from 'your clan'? No, I don't think he is. Bye, Bjoern > [snip] > [quoted text clipped - 15 lines] > How does a circlon react when a force is acting on it? In other words, > what is the "circlon" version of Newton's second law? ---------------- thank you Bjoern for your question (no cynisism) because it gives me the chnce to explain actually it was cleAr to me yet not necessary to someone else so here is my answer: my circlon is the (possibly smallest particle) it *moves always with the velocity of light so nothing can change its velocity noe its momentumand nothing is reacting with it but ..... another circlon in a perfectly elestic collition (oh nearly forgot ..) so the conclusion of it is ... Newtins asecond law is .... surprise... not rellevant for that particle it vever accelerates never deccelerate the only possibll change is direction change and radiious movement change- depends on the angle it collided with the other circlon now just may be you can save me explanations just start to use your creative immagination and start examining all the posibble collition angles and its results , based on the above rules that i noted it is just a matter of examining the possibilites now the most excciting result is to produce *the attraction force* by moving back and forth and hitting the acted particles that take part in attraction--- from thr rare side!! forcing them to get closer and closer hope you get it now the inverse law of force is valid to the corclon(acting on a big particle) because as distance becomes bigger \\ more circlons will *miss the target* and not causing attraction that does not mean the circlon is getting lost- it goes in its circle this time even it didnt hit the particle (didnt 'do its 'duty' in the attarction process) and vice versa while our attracted particles come closer and closer more circlons are able 'to do their job' btw my job is to show it mathematically but i am may be too lazy or too clumsy in mathematics so i leave it as a mission to others (Bjoern ?......may be you?)(ie to show thatr the inverse law rule is valid for the circlon in attraction force) --------------- -------------- > If a circlon is accelerated, has to be a force there, or not? you can call it force i preffere to see it as just elestic cllisions probably you have there inner forces yet the third law of Newton is 'celebrating there ie action eqall to reaction i think that model shows it as clear as possible so i suggest that the circlon is the mother of all forcess! (arrogant speculative suggestion ?may be) but if you folow it all along i think it is exciting and opense new 'worlds'. ----------- > > 3 thank Godness that you start to understand how pioneering scince > > is done !! it is not written in your books it is anew chapter! > > Well, pioneering science is written in scientific papers in journals, > not in books - hence you are right, although in another sense than you > meant. so be it > > 4 are you able to concider just in principle that new suggestions > > might be one day useful ? > > Yes, obviously. But apparently you are unable to consider that not > *all* new suggestions might be one day useful. --------- yes pioneering scince and even the not pioneering is at the end of the day a trial and error process. ------- > > or you are in principle against > > anmything 'that is not written ' in your books / > > I think no physicist is against new suggestions - provided that > they make sense.. you have no idea about how much personal instincts are working between scintists. --------------- > > 5 or may be > > you are in principle against anything no matter bad or wrong > > that is not stemming from 'your clan'? > > No, I don't think he is. > ------------- see above one of my proves to that is that thjose people just 'flsme you with one or two words nothing like a scintific discussion (hymann called me just in this thread 'imbacile' just one word! as far as you knoe me i am an 'imbacile' ?? ------ > Bye, > Bjoern --------- bye Y.porat ------------------- [snip] > > > 2 yes it is an exception to Newton but only by the > > > 'straight line' aspect ot it [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > (oh nearly forgot ..) so the conclusion of it is ... > Newtins asecond law is .... surprise... not rellevant for that Err, I already knew that you think that Newton's 2nd law is not relevant here. That's why I asked you in the first place what the "circlon" version of Newton's second law is!!! In other words: if one can't use Newton's 2nd law to say what happens when a force acts on the circlon, what do we have to use *instead* if we want to find out what happen when a force acts on the circlon? > particle it vever accelerates never deccelerate Err, did it ever occur to you that even a particle for which the *magnitude* of velocity is constant can nevertheless be accelerate or decelerated? Did it ever occur to you that *changes in direction of velocity* are *also* a form of acceleration? Apparently not... Well, let's try again, this time with an example: If a force is acting on a circlon perpendicular to its line of movement, how does it react to this force? > the only possibll change is direction change Hint: a change in direction *is* an acceleration. By *definition* of the word "acceleration" (this is defined as "change in velocity per time", and a change in direction *obviously* is a change in velocity). > and radiious movement change Pardon? >- depends on the angle it collided with the other circlon In what way does it depend on this angle? And how do these collisions work? Are the circlons like small marbles or billard balls with hard surfaces? > now just may be you can save me explanations just start to > use your creative immagination and start examining all the posibble > collition angles and its results , based on the above rules > that i noted > it is just a matter of examining the possibilites I can't tell what collision angle we will get in a certain collision until you explain to me how a circlon acts in a collision. Again, does it act like a small marble? > now the most excciting result is > to produce *the attraction force* by moving back and forth [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > and vice versa while our attracted particles come closer and closer > more circlons are able 'to do their job' And why does this growing amount of particles which miss the particles leads to an inverse square law? It's clear that it will lead to a decreasing force - but why should this force decrease proportional to the inverse of the square of the distance? > btw my job is to show it mathematically but i am may be too lazy > or too clumsy in mathematics so i leave it as a mission to others > (Bjoern ?......may be you?)(ie to show thatr the inverse law rule > is valid for the circlon in attraction force) Why on earth do you think I would do a calculation about a hypothesis I don't think to be valid? [snip] > > If a circlon is accelerated, has to be a force there, or not? > > you can call it force i preffere to see it as just elestic cllisions I wasn't necessarily talking about collisions - I was referring to *any* acceleration. (for example, the acceleration which is coupled to the circular movement - ever heard of "centripetal acceleration"?) > probably you have there inner forces What do you mean by "inner" here? > yet the third law of Newton is 'celebrating there > ie action eqall to reaction Why? [snip] > > > or you are in principle against > > > anmything 'that is not written ' in your books / [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > you have no idea about how much personal instincts are working > between scintists. Well, I *know* a lot of scientists *personally*. How many scientists do you know personally? Not just from the newsgroup here? > > > 5 or may be > > > you are in principle against anything no matter bad or wrong [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > that thjose people just 'flsme you with one or two words > nothing like a scintific discussion Well, Franz has been here far longer than me - I understand that he is rather angry now about all the kooks he encountered in this time. > (hymann called me just in this thread 'imbacile' just one word! > as far as you knoe me i am an 'imbacile' ?? Well, the word "imbacile" doesn't exist, so I can't answer this question. Bye, Bjoern > [snip] > [quoted text clipped - 23 lines] > when a force acts on the circlon, what do we have to use *instead* if we > want to find out what happen when a force acts on the circlon? ------------ a good question we start to introduce some new laws for an unique particle! can you diget such a thing even just in princilpe ? actually in a second thought we dont even do much new laws it is mostely the 'old laws' whith some of them even *ommited* s it mighjt be even *simpler* see later... > -------- > [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > decelerated? Did it ever occur to you that *changes in direction of > velocity* are *also* a form of acceleration? Apparently not... ------- no you dont realy understand the postulate ..... (it seems to me that you cant get ridd from the ordinart'srtaight line motion. you force it in a system that elimenates the posibility of straight line movenet oh yess neerly forgot it is realy very important: if the circlon gets hitted by another one *perpendicular to its plan of movement that plan does move in a straight line* > Well, let's try again, this time with an example: If a force is acting > on a circlon perpendicular to its line of movement, how does it react to > this force? > --------- sory i dint read it before so you have the answer above actually i mentioned it even befor this article a possible explanation to that is that the orriginal hitted circlon had no mementun in the perpendiculat to that plan iow it had momentum only in its plan of movement ------- > > the only possibll change is direction change > > Hint: a change in direction *is* an acceleration. By *definition* of the > word "acceleration" (this is defined as "change in velocity per time", > and a change in direction *obviously* is a change in velocity). > ---------- just stick to your definition but remember that the circlons bvelocity does not change (cannot chage because it is the maximum so only direction can change. and in our 'circlon physics' a chnge in direction is not acceleration or decceleration a chnge in direction is done (listen carefully) without any change in anargy . it is a perfect elastic collission. > > and radiious movement change > > Pardon? > ---------- the radius od diameter of movement can change (again without any investment of energy which just reminds me what is energy in my circlon physics! it is the amount or mumber of circlons involved with a process!. ie more corclons involved - = more energy and vice versa. btw just by diascussing with you i make things clear to myself the truth is i am not sure in invested it is as much *as it deserves*....... i allway related to it as just an intriguing idea a pioneering idea that migh twell be an unripe one ie a lot has still to be invested in it ( a good challenge for a young physicist.....) > >- depends on the angle it collided with the other circlon > > In what way does it depend on this angle? ------- you have just to mmagine different cases of angles of collisions and based on the basic assumptions, try to figure out what should be the result. the way is to take examples one by one and studdy it. > And how do these collisions work? Are the circlons like small marbles or > billard balls with hard surfaces? ------- yes i alreay sayed that many times- a perfect elestic collision (that might be the 'mother ' of elastic collitions.)--- > > now just may be you can save me explanations just start to > > use your creative immagination and start examining all the posibble [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > it act like a small marble? > ------ yess ----- > > now the most excciting result is > > to produce *the attraction force* by moving back and forth [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > And why does this growing amount of particles which miss the particles > leads to an inverse square law? ------- because as the driven (big ) particles come closer they are hitted by more corclons actually the opposite example is more obvious ie what happense while the acted particles are far away! since our hero circlons move in a closed circle ie and not to forget that their orrigine id from those acted particles ie if it is earth sun bodies that we study those ciclond come out from .... earth and sun so the space in with they are acting is limited just becuse of that circular movenent so if you take the two assumptions 1 that it oggigines from the particle (earth sun ) combined with the second assumption of circular movenent you get that the probability of finding them reduces with distance from 'earth sun' particles btw here you have an example ofwhat i call 'intuitive thinking'! the fact is i \never before (untill now) was putting it on paper even not explained it to myself *formaly*! is wa so clear to me *intuitively* so i disnt had to explain it to myself... now i am sure that once you take all the feattresi prented here yuo can show it mathmatically that the 'inverse sqare distance" law , applyes to our circlon as well if you do it you start to put my postulate on a more scintific base!! ------ > It's clear that it will lead to a decreasing force - but why should this > force decrease proportional to the inverse of the square of the > distance? > ---------- because actually 'force' is the nuber of collission involved. ------ > > btw my job is to show it mathematically but i am may be too lazy > > or too clumsy in mathematics so i leave it as a mission to others > > (Bjoern ?......may be you?)(ie to show thatr the inverse law rule > > is valid for the circlon in attraction force) > ------- ...... a challenge... > Why on earth do you think I would do a calculation about a hypothesis I > don't think to be valid? > -------- ok take it or leave it for someone elese. -------- > [snip] > [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > circular movement - ever heard of "centripetal acceleration"?) > ---------- the centripetal movement is ..... not our oppera! it is the oppera of bigg bodies (possibly made of too many circlons the **center** of the ciclon circle* can move as the known Newonian laws. > > probably you have there inner forces > > What do you mean by "inner" here? --------- the innser collissions of the circlons that build the bigger particle. > > yet the third law of Newton is 'celebrating there > > ie action eqall to reaction > > Why? -------- thats the meaning of elastic collision isnt that so? ------- > > > > or you are in principle against > > > > anmything 'that is not written ' in your books / [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > > ------------- all the best and thank you for your questions Y.Porat ------- [snip] > > > answer: > > > my circlon is the (possibly smallest particle) [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] > ------------ > a good question Nice that you admit this! > we start to introduce some new laws for an unique particle! Well, then please do this! Tell us what happens when a force acts on a circlon! > can you diget such a thing even just in princilpe ? I can digest new proposals if there are good reasons to make them, and at least the possibility to find evidence for them. > actually in a second thought we dont even do much new laws > it is mostely the 'old laws' whith some of them even *ommited* > s it mighjt be even *simpler* see later... I notice that you *still* don't bother to tell us what happens when a force acts upon a circlon. > > > particle it vever accelerates never deccelerate > > [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > motion. you force it in a system that elimenates the posibility of > straight line movenet No, *you* simply don't understand that a change in direction is an acceleration! > oh yess neerly forgot it is realy very important: > if the circlon gets hitted by another one *perpendicular to its > plan of movement that plan does move in a straight line* A plane (I suppose you meant this) which moves in a straight line? What is this supposed to mean??? > > Well, let's try again, this time with an example: If a force is acting > > on a circlon perpendicular to its line of movement, how does it react to > > this force? > > --------- > sory i dint read it before so you have the answer above Above you only told me how the "plan" (plane?) moves, you didn't tell me how the circlon moves. And you only told me that this results in a motion along a straight line - but you didn't told me anything about the velocity change involved there. You give only qualitative, hand wavy statements, but don't bother to formulate a quantitative law! > actually i mentioned it even befor this article > a possible explanation to that is that the orriginal hitted circlon > had no mementun in the perpendiculat to that plan > iow it had momentum only in its plan of movement Why is this an explanation of this reaction????? > > > the only possibll change is direction change > > [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > > ---------- > just stick to your definition Do you prefer another? > but remember that the circlons > bvelocity does not change (cannot chage because it is the maximum > so only direction can change. Err, velocity is a *vector*. If the direction changes, then velocity *does* change. What *you* mean is that the *magnitude* of the velocity cannot change. Try to be more careful with words! And you *still* do not understand that a change in direction, without any change of (the magnitude of) velocity *IS* an acceleration. > and in our 'circlon physics' a chnge in direction is not > acceleration or decceleration Then what *is* an acceleration in your circlon physics??? How do you define the vector a, if not by the change of the vector v per time????? (you *do* know what a vector is, don't you?) > a chnge in direction is done (listen carefully) > without any change in anargy . it is a perfect elastic collission. Yes, you already said this several times. However, how do you get from "a change in direction is done without any change in energy" to "there is no acceleration"????? Hint: acceleration doesn't necessarily change the energy. > > > and radiious movement change > > [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > the radius od diameter of movement can change (again without > any investment of energy According to which laws? > which just reminds me what is energy in my circlon physics! > it is the amount or mumber of circlons involved with a process!. > ie more corclons involved - = more energy and vice versa. Err, energy is *defined* as "the ability to do work". What has this to do with the number of circlons??? Additionally, processes don't have energies, so this makes no sense at all. [snip] > > >- depends on the angle it collided with the other circlon > > [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > and based on the basic assumptions, try to figure out > what should be the result. What basic assumptions? You haven't told us anything so far how circlons react to collisions *quantitatively*. "these are elastic collisions" doesn't tell us much about the angle dependence! > the way is to take examples one by one and studdy it. Please tell us how to do such examples. Why don't you give an example yourself? > > And how do these collisions work? Are the circlons like small marbles or > > billard balls with hard surfaces? > ------- > yes i alreay sayed that many times- a perfect elestic collision > (that might be the 'mother ' of elastic collitions.)--- What has "a perfect elastic collision" to do with "the circlons act like small marbles or billard balls with hard surfaces"???????????? These two statements are by no means equivalent!!! > > > now just may be you can save me explanations just start to > > > use your creative immagination and start examining all the posibble [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > > ------ > yess How does it manage to do this? In other words: if it has got a hard surface, what is it made of? How do the surfaces of the two circlons which collide manage to repel each other? Where does the force come from in the collision which changes the directions of the two circlons? (you *do* know the standard explanation for why bodies have hard surfaces and don't penetrate each other, don't you?) > ----- > > [quoted text clipped - 17 lines] > because as the driven (big ) particles come closer they are hitted by more > corclons That's not an explanation, that's pure handwaving. You can only explain why the force increases in this way, but *not* why it increases according to the inverse square law!!! > actually the opposite example is more obvious ie what happense > while the acted particles are far away! [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > you get that the probability of finding them reduces with distance > from 'earth sun' particles How do you arrive at an inverse square law in this way? And, BTW, you said that the same circlons which cause gravity also cause electrostatic forces, right? If yes: how do you explain that gravity is always an attracting force, whereas electrostatic forces can attract and repel, based on the charges involved? > btw here you have an example ofwhat i call 'intuitive thinking'! > the fact is i \never before (untill now) was putting it on paper [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > yuo can show it mathmatically that the 'inverse sqare distance" > law , applyes to our circlon as well In other words: *you* can't show this? > if you do it you start to put my postulate on a more scintific base!! Why don't you do this yourself? > ------ > > [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > > ---------- > because actually 'force' is the nuber of collission involved. And why should the number of collision involved decrease proportional to the inverse of the square of the distance? [snip] > > > > If a circlon is accelerated, has to be a force there, or not? > > > [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > > ---------- > the centripetal movement is ..... not our oppera! You talk about movement in a circle. If you have movement in a circle, you have a centripetal acceleration. That follows directly from the very *definition* of acceleration. If you want to use another definition, feel free to point it out. > it is the oppera of bigg bodies (possibly made of too many circlons > the **center** of the ciclon circle* can move as the known Newonian laws. Nonsense. The existence of a centripetal acceleration has *nothing* to do with the size of a body - it follows directly from the very *definition* of "acceleration". [snip] > > > yet the third law of Newton is 'celebrating there > > > ie action eqall to reaction > > > > Why? > -------- > thats the meaning of elastic collision isnt that so? No, it isn't. Why on earth do you think so?????? "elastic collision" means *only* that no energy is lost in the collision - it is *not* equivalent to Newton's third law!!! Newton's third law applies to inelastic collisions, too!!! [snip] > > > > I think no physicist is against new suggestions - provided that > > > > they make sense.. > > > > > > you have no idea about how much personal instincts are working > > > between scintists. You snipped my comment here - I will restore it for convenience: Well, I *know* a lot of scientists *personally*. How many scientists do you know personally? Not just from the newsgroup here? Now would you please answer the question? Bye, Bjoern > > > [snip] > > > [quoted text clipped - 47 lines] > --------------- > 1 thank you Frantz that you remember my circlon > 2 yes it is an exception to Newton but only by the > 'straight line' aspect ot it Ordinary physics has advanced much further than you will ever advance, and it does not require the exceptional circlon > 3 thank Godness that you start to understand how pioneering scince > is done !! Yes, I do. And no, you don't. To do pioneering work in physics demands as entry fee that one knows some physics to start with. You don't. > it is not written in your books it is anew chapter! > 4 are you able to concider just in principle that new suggestions [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > you are in principle against anything no matter bad or wrong > that is not stemming from 'your clan'? Porat, if you don't stop posting and spend some time learning some introductory mathematics and physics, you will simply continue to get the bucket overturned on your head. Franz > > "Phaedrus" <no.thanks@no.spam> wrote in message > news:<401f34ec$0$13353$cc9e4d1f@news-text.dial.pipex.com>... [quoted text clipped - 44 lines] > > > I suggest you put in the numbers and see what you get. :-) > > ------------------ i dont know whats wrong with using the mks system if you use h in Newtons meters and seconds jaul is Newton meter second and if we devide it by (velocity)^2 we get kg mass and in adition devide it by the i/second (because of the frequenct 1.00/second that we chose in order to get the smallest interer unit for f ) i think we get it in newton devided by meter/second ^2 am i wrong if wrong pleae correct TIA Y.Porat ------------ you get the mass (on the left side with .......... kilograms yet not kg force but ...... kg mass isnt it? and thats exactly what we need it is due to deviding by second we get exactly the dimentions of kilogram mass > > i dont know what 'the plank mass 'is > > afaik h is not a mass constant [quoted text clipped - 94 lines] > > Joe > the mass of the photon was defined *theoretically by me as follows: > [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > --------------------- > Thanks to Google sci.physics Imbecile Franz > > the mass of the photon was defined *theoretically by me as follows: > > [quoted text clipped - 17 lines] > > Franz -------------------- that is the only scintific comment that an old senil farther like you can supply ? keep well and dont forget your pills your time is over granpa face it not to mention that you are immotionaly disturned, your reaction is a good prove of it. ------------- Y.Porat ----------------- > the mass of the photon was defined *theoretically by me as follows: > > photon mass = h/C^2 times 1.0000/time unit > thats all Bullshit! The mass of a photon is "q." South of the Equator it is "q'." Depending on which side of the International date line you inhabit, you will want to make the obvious second order increment or decrement. If you do not use a Latinate alphabet, then the universe hates you. If you speak Polish, it's a push. No WAIT! The mass of a photon can only be "x." No Wait! The mass of a photon can only be an intangible philosophical heuristic given hermeneutic dialectic discordant monkey puke. No Wait! NOT MONKEY PUKE! The mass of a photon can only be related to mung: what comes out of a pregnant female ape's nose when she is hung by her feet from the branch of a tall oak tree and her belly is slammed with a Louisville Slugger to a 4/23 beat. You see yourself this way, http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/effete6.jpg The entire remainder of the planet sees you this way, http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/effete7.jpg  SignatureUncle Al http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/ (Toxic URL! Unsafe for children and most mammals) "Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?" The Net! > > the mass of the photon was defined *theoretically by me as follows: > > [quoted text clipped - 19 lines] > The entire remainder of the planet sees you this way, > http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/effete7.jpg ------------------- Hi Uncle it seems that your mental situation is deteriorating and about the site you quoted: i didnt even dream to open it do you know why? because sick destructive characters like you are able to contribute nothing but destruction, yet your site is probably anothe virus trap! so this time you missed me 2 actually i need as much opposition to my finding as possible do you know why: a it will throw ,on the long run all of your kind ,to the garbage of the history of scince b it will show at the end of the day actually and will assert the extent of my personal achievment 3 btw how many kilograms of diamond do you produce per day ??... you are a frostrated old monkey? dont wory you are not alone dont forget to take your pills . 4 go find another tree to climb on. all the best Y.Porat ------------ > the mass of the photon was defined *theoretically by me as follows: > [quoted text clipped - 16 lines] > Y.Porat > ---------------------- You can never define a theory, it violates the law of motion. > > the mass of the photon was defined *theoretically by me as follows: > > [quoted text clipped - 18 lines] > > You can never define a theory, it violates the law of motion. ------------------ ???????? 1 i heared once a saing: 'never say never!'......... 2 did you saw that i claimed defining a thoery? 3 please tell me which laws of motion 4 did you noticed that i claim for something innovative? do you know what innovative is ? it is something different from some of the existing paradigma. while Copernicus saied that the earth is moving around the sun it was 'violating the laws of motion...... 5 please folow the threds: 'The second Porat postulate' and 'The third Porat Postulate' and see something about it was born 'in live broadcast' in order to refute me one need more than one sentense of handwaving verdict so pleas go on and make some homework on it i did some home work on it do you know how long it took? it took 65 years. all the best Y.Porat > > > the mass of the photon was defined *theoretically by me as follows: > > > [quoted text clipped - 44 lines] > all the best > Y.Porat Bullshit. There is no live broadcast, only dead ones. > > > > the mass of the photon was defined *theoretically by me as follows: > > > > [quoted text clipped - 46 lines] > > Bullshit. There is no live broadcast, only dead ones. --------- and your scintific comments are ........? Y.Porat ------------------- > > > > > the mass of the photon was defined *theoretically by me as follows: > > > > > [quoted text clipped - 50 lines] > Y.Porat > ------------------- that you are lost in maths world > > > > > > the mass of the photon was defined *theoretically by me as follows: > > > > > > [quoted text clipped - 52 lines] > > that you are lost in maths world ---------- ok lets see your contribution please explain to us how the are the units of the furmula E= hf are setled ie how E/C^2 gives us net mass units while say you use h in jauls ie instead of chest drumming may be you can contribute something useful 2 mind you physics is not just mathematics. i never claimed that i am a mathematiciam, and you will be surprised about how big an advantage* it might be for a physicist ..........because as is too masny physicist has nothing of the 'physicsd touch' all they have in mind is flast papers with fiures and formulas and they are not aware that this is only a vague immage of the real physiocal wordl i know , Bohr what a great prophet of it but he was a false prophet and a most harmfull 'profet' (just myho) TIA Y.porat ------------- > > > > > > > the mass of the photon was defined *theoretically by me as follows: > > > > > > > [quoted text clipped - 74 lines] > Y.porat > ------------- So work out an example for me. For a red light photon with a frequency of 4 x 10^14 hertz, what would be its mass? Double-A > > > osen for h and C. [quoted text clipped - 36 lines] > > Double-A ------------------- as you know i am very weak in arithmetics so i will give you just the formula for it E= h f = h times 4x10^14 Jaul so. m= E/C^2 my atithmetis ability ends here can you do it ? i said that my arithmetics is weak yet i didnt yet say my physics is weak.......can you guess why? TIA Y.porat ------------- [snip] > i said that my arithmetics is weak yet i didnt yet say > my physics is weak.......can you guess why? You forgot to say so? Franz > [snip] > [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > > Franz ----------------- it is obvious the the old man is disturbing ---- just for disturbing! we are dealing here with unprecedented surprizing developments and yet the old cook keeps disturbing i promis you surprising developments (not for hemann for him nothing will do the man became irrational) so plseas just bypass him and wait for new developments and revolutionaly suggestions Mr double A you asked what is the mass of a more than 1(much more )fequancy photon can you guess what will be my answer? can anyone else guess? and that will lead to new developments so dont let the old cook to disturb. TIA Y.Porat ----------------- [snip] > > So work out an example for me. For a red light photon with a > > frequency of 4 x 10^14 hertz, what would be its mass? [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > > E= h f = h times 4x10^14 Jaul Huh????? Where did you get the "Jaul" (I think you mean "Joule", right?) from here? > so. m= E/C^2 my atithmetis ability ends here What's the problem with putting the values of the constants in and do a little bit of multiplication and division????? Hey, every 10 year old child can do this! > can you do it ? > i said that my arithmetics is weak "Non-existent" would be a better term in light of the fact that you can't even do multiplications and divisions! > yet i didnt yet say > my physics is weak.......can you guess why? Because you don't realize that your physics is weak. (and again, "non-existent" might be a better term) Bye, Bjoern > [snip] > [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > Huh????? Where did you get the "Jaul" (I think you mean "Joule", right?) > from here? -------------- i can notice that you cant find some victories in your life except about my spelling > > so. m= E/C^2 my atithmetis ability ends here > > What's the problem with putting the values of the constants in and do a > little bit of multiplication and division????? Hey, every 10 year old > child can do this! ---------- oh yes i forgot that you are a young Phd yet dont you think i can, put in those figures?and may be i had some intention in not doing it just by myself hey young man i think you just underestimate an engineer that was desighning 60 bridges that are still standing still. btw by how many standing still objects have you proven youself? anyway i thank you for ypur tutering > > can you do it ? > > i said that my arithmetics is weak > > "Non-existent" would be a better term in light of the fact that you > can't even do multiplications and divisions! -------- another profe of blind hatered. --------- > > yet i didnt yet say > > my physics is weak.......can you guess why? > > Because you don't realize that your physics is weak. (and again, > "non-existent" might be a better term) --------------- hey Mr jelousy ! it want help you ------------------ now i think it is my turn to ask a few questions: 1 what is the smallest experimental known frequency of a photon? 2 as you know there is the famous 'double slit' experiment in which a single photon is emmited to the slits and- interfering with itself now my question is : what is the frequency of that single photon that is used in that experiment? TIA Y.Porat ps the question is not only to Bjoern but to anyone *who knows what he is speaking about* ------------------------ > Bye, > Bjoern > > [snip] > > [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > i can notice that you cant find some victories in your life > except about my spelling I notice that you didn't answer the question where you get the "Joule" from here. You only whined that I attacked your spelling, which was only a minor point of me here. Apparently you didn't even *understand* what my question was!!! So, again: Where did you get the Joule from here? > > > so. m= E/C^2 my atithmetis ability ends here > > [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > oh yes i forgot that you are a young Phd > yet dont you think i can, put in those figures? Then why did you say that your "arithmetic ability" ends here? > and may be i had some > intention in not doing it just by myself In other words, what you said above wasn't true? Your ability does not end here? > hey young man i think you just underestimate an engineer Well, *you yourself* said that your ability ends here... > that was desighning 60 bridges that are still standing still. Nice. > btw by how many standing still objects have you proven youself? The question doesn't make sense - objects which stand still aren't "proven". [snip] > > > yet i didnt yet say > > > my physics is weak.......can you guess why? [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > --------------- > hey Mr jelousy ! *You* think that *I* am *JEALOUS* of you??? ROTFL!!!!!!!! > it want help you > ------------------ > now i think it is my turn to ask a few questions: > 1 what is the smallest experimental known frequency of a photon? I don't know - IANA experimental physicist. But why is this relevant for your ideas? > 2 > as you know there is the famous 'double slit' experiment Yes. Hint: it (among several hundred other experiments) disproves your ideas. > in which a single photon is emmited to the slits and- > interfering with itself Hey, you got this vaguely right! > now my question is : > what is the frequency of that single photon that is used > in that experiment? This experiment was done for electromagnetic waves (not photons - photons don't have a frequency) with several different frequencies, AFAIK (obviously, in every *single* experiment, only em waves of one fixed frequency were used). Bye, Bjoern > > > [snip] > > > [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > > > > > > > > E= h f = h times 4x10^14 Jaul --------- h is joul second hf is joul second times f/time unit btw did you already prepered your respectful retreat from your suggestion to use other time units than seconds? --------- > > > Huh????? Where did you get the "Jaul" (I think you mean "Joule", right?) > > > from here? [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > my question was!!! > -------- no i dont know what is your question -------- > So, again: Where did you get the Joule from here? > ------------- see above --------- > > > > so. m= E/C^2 my atithmetis ability ends here > > > [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > Then why did you say that your "arithmetic ability" ends here? > ------------ hey what is with your memory ? dont you remember that i was the firt one to put the figures in my threads 'the second and the third postulates youcam later and prsented your figues remarking that is prety close t the experimental. 2 my intention in leaving it to others is ....... spoon feeding is not appreciated and remebered people remeber and appreciate only while they do it themselves. got it ? ------------ > > and may be i had some > > intention in not doing it just by myself > > In other words, what you said above wasn't true? Your ability does not > end here? > ------ see above it should be obvious to you as one who was my coopreator in that photon mass evaluation. of mine. ----------- > > hey young man i think you just underestimate an engineer > > Well, *you yourself* said that your ability ends here... ---------- where is your humour sense? ---------- > > that was desighning 60 bridges that are still standing still. > > Nice. now to spoon feed you ..... in desighning bridges you have to insert somefigures some correct figures or else .......!! in that case there is no respectful retreat you are not cheating people you have to cheat the laws of nature. and sometimes in our profession a mistake is very cruel resulting. that is not paper verification it is steel and concreet verification with traffic on it !(heavy traffic) ---------- > > btw by how many standing still objects have you proven youself? > > The question doesn't make sense - objects which stand still aren't > "proven". > ----- see above --------- > [snip] > [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > *You* think that *I* am *JEALOUS* of you??? ROTFL!!!!!!!! > ---------- actually the opposite is right i am jealous at your Phd.... --------------- > > it want help you > > ------------------ [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > But why is this relevant for your ideas? > ---------- you will see later it is very relevant! i would like to get it if not from you than from others TIA ----- > > 2 > > as you know there is the famous 'double slit' experiment > > Yes. Hint: it (among several hundred other experiments) disproves your > ideas. -------- we will see later about it i undestand that you dont have even a clue about myintentions dont you? ------------ > > in which a single photon is emmited to the slits and- > > interfering with itself [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > fixed frequency were used). > ------------- i thought that em waves are composed of photons. ------ anyway i am intersted to know what is the frequency of those em waves from you or from others. > Bye, > Bjoern ----------- TIA Y.porat -------------- > > > > [snip] > > > > [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > --------- > h is joul second Right. > hf is joul second times f/time unit Again right. However, this *still* doesn't explain where you got E = hf = h times 4x10^15 joule from!!! > btw did you already prepered your respectful retreat from > your suggestion to use other time units than seconds? No. Why on earth should I retreat from that? [snip] > > I notice that you didn't answer the question where you get the "Joule" > > from here. You only whined that I attacked your spelling, which was only > > a minor point of me here. Apparently you didn't even *understand* what > > my question was!!! > > -------- > no i dont know what is your question Where you get the joule from in your equation E = hf = h times 4x10^14 joule. If you write 1/second or Hertz instead of the joule, the equation is right - but written as above, it is wrong. > -------- > > So, again: Where did you get the Joule from here? > > ------------- > see above You didn't explain this above. > > > > > so. m= E/C^2 my atithmetis ability ends here > > > > [quoted text clipped - 16 lines] > people remeber and appreciate only while they do it themselves. > got it ? Even if this is your intention, this doesn't explain why you said "my arithmetric ability ends here". Do you admit that this wasn't honest? [snip] > > > hey young man i think you just underestimate an engineer > > > > Well, *you yourself* said that your ability ends here... > ---------- > where is your humour sense? I already explained *several times* to you that it's very hard to understand what is meant sincere and what is meant as a joke on usenet. And I recommend the use of emoticons/smilies to you. Unfortunately, you *still* haven't understood this. > ---------- > > > that was desighning 60 bridges that are still standing still. [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > that is not paper verification it is steel and concreet verification > with traffic on it !(heavy traffic) Well, you can calculate with pure numbers quite reasonably, apparently. Unfortunately, you have some *big* troubles with using physical units... [snip] > > > 2 > > > as you know there is the famous 'double slit' experiment [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > -------- > we will see later about it As usual. > i undestand that you dont have even a clue about myintentions dont you? Your intentions have nothing to do with the fact that the double slit experiment disproves your ideas. [snip] > > > now my question is : > > > what is the frequency of that single photon that is used [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > > ------------- > i thought that em waves are composed of photons. Yes. Why on earth do you think anything that I said here contradicts this? I merely pointed out that "frequency" is a property of electromagnetic waves, not of the photons associated with them. [snip] Bye, Bjoern > > > > osen for h and C. [quoted text clipped - 49 lines] > Y.porat > ------------- It looks to me that you are merely calculating the mass equivalent of the photon's energy. Nothing new in this. The real question is whether the photon has a rest mass, which is a will-of the-wisp since the photon has no rest frame. Double-A > > double-a@hush.com (Double-A) wrote in message ne . > > > > [quoted text clipped - 52 lines] > > Double-A ------------- it only looks to you yet you are exactly what i called a mathematician that has not the minimal physics touch (sory t put it that way but without that little shock you will not do any advance in modern physics) it seems that you didnt folow at all my innovations in the threads 'the second Porat postulate' and 'the third Porat postulate' in which i showed that (listen carefully and try to stick it well into your mrmory) *there is no relativistic mass* and no shelativistic mass and no equivalent mass and no shmivalent lass *JUST MASS* REST MASS AND NOTHING ELSE* all the rest is inventions of stupid mathematicains that understand very little physics those physicists misinterpreted the formula E= gama C^2 and ascociated the ganma to mess wich is nonsense physics the gama belongs to the energy side of the equation i will not releat it hear , you can just go to the above threads. now just whach it how nasty is that creature that is walking on two (not jusy you) while you innovate something first all call you Crackopt idiot imbecil- jusy folow theese threads the responses of Varney Heymann uncle Al etc (all the old fartheres) later while it comes up that you realy did something valuable suddenly the sucsses gets a lot of fathres sort of nothing new in it i sayed it long ago etc etc. anyway it seems that thats the fath of an innovater in our 'sweet csociety' no i will try to assert for you and others just in short what my innovation is ; 1 you could never use the E=mc^2 formula unless...... you realise 1 that there is in our world nothjing but rest mass 2 the photon is an exception in which the gama factor does not apply! (it is an important innovation which a mathematics mind would never would think of because mathematicallt gama is just a factor that can go from zero to innfinity yet i say that physically you cant use it for all cases and with all possible mathematical values. now further advancing step of mine was to use that formula 9without having a clue about what will be the numeric result) for the single photon mass evaluation!9and you stil remember that mass is only *mass*) so i used that formula with anew innovation: inserting for f *just one cycle per second (unit time dimention) you can use any unit time you whant provided you use it for all parts of that formula since in any case time will disappear) it is an innovation and i was attacked about it :say 'why do you use just one cycle per unit time the answer was (as well not easy to diget) because i.00000 is the smallest integer!! here again is the difference between the physicist and the mathematician because mathematically you can put any value for f beginning with a fraction of f ans infinity number now the roll of the physicist is .... to put limmits to that number f !! so just in that ocation i am asking agin you and the others: what is the smallest- known by experiment value- for f ?!!! and another question: what is the biggest number for it known by experiment.? since you realise that out world of matter is not laways our mathematics alone you should know that our matter and physics entites are quantum based entities! ie ther is some units of it that are indivisible !! the h factor is one of them and not jst ocational it representssome basic unit of matter and matter system so in our case i used 1.0000 just for not breaking h into fractions and than came the punch line: my predicted value for photon mass ie h/C^2 times 1.00/time unit was verified more than satisfactory by the now known 'upper limt' for photon mass apprently experimentally based. it is aomething around exp -53 kilograms i dont even bother to recall the exact figure (you know ... age and laziness!) did you got it / *kilograms * !!! no spooky mesurments just that kilogram that you can hold in your hands not energy equivalent like and not shmenery like just kilograms. and noe we have just to wait for the nest guy who will tell us 'oh yess i claimed it long ago '!!!! that mathematic alone can know nothing of it unless the physicst comes in. ------ and now more surprise for you one the way: jsut tell me 1 what is the smallest known f 2 may be not less important: as you know the 'double slit experiment what is the frequency of the single photon that is used there? and now you will tell me that you tought about it long ago !!!.... -------- TIA Y.porat ------------- > > > double-a@hush.com (Double-A) wrote in message ne . > > > > > [quoted text clipped - 159 lines] > Y.porat > ------------- I ask for a concrete example so I can see if I am correctly understanding what he is saying, and what I get is a snow job! Double-A > maporat@012.net.il (Y.Porat) wrote in message n > ------------ snipped thr heavy quoted parts ----------- > > > It looks to me that you are merely calculating the mass equivalent of > > > the photon's energy. Nothing new in this. The real question is [quoted text clipped - 114 lines] > > Double-A ------------------- sorry i didnt got you ??????? whome are you addressing? what concrete example are you looking 2 sorrt dont know the slang 'snow jon' TIA Y.Porat ----------------- > the mass of the photon was defined *theoretically by me as follows: > > photon mass = h/C^2 times 1.0000/time unit What is "time unit"? > thats all > while : > h is the Plank constsnt > C is the velocity of light > and the time unit has to be consistant as chosen for h and C. What do you mean by "consistent" here? > -------------------- > it was done at the 29 / january/ 2004 > and once one gets it properly it is an event in the history of science. > > the coming time will show it is a start of a new revolution in Modern > scince You are really full of yourself, aren't you? Bye, Bjoern > > the mass of the photon was defined *theoretically by me as follows: > > [quoted text clipped - 18 lines] > > You are really full of yourself, aren't you? > Bye, > Bjoern ---------------------- full of myself ? i am a good student, i learned it from you.. now more seriously and your scitific comments ?? btw i gave you some credit about it may be one day you could be proud about it ..... Y.Porat ------------------ > > > the mass of the photon was defined *theoretically by me as follows: > > > > > > photon mass = h/C^2 times 1.0000/time unit > > > > What is "time unit"? Hello? > > > thats all > > > while : [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > > > > What do you mean by "consistent" here? Hello? > > > -------------------- > > > it was done at the 29 / january/ 2004 [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > ---------------------- > full of myself ? Yes. Postulating something contrary to well-established physics and then proudly claiming that this "is a start of a new revolution in Modern scince [sic]" is a *very* good sign for this. > i am a good student, i learned it from you.. Did I ever claim things like the one above? *I* only claim to have knowledge about things I *studied* for *years*. *You*, on the other hand, keep claiming proud pronouncement and boasting about things you know close to nothing about. I rest my case. > now more seriously > and your scitific comments ?? See the questions above which you ignored. Big surprise. > btw i gave you some credit about it Thanks, but I don't want to have credit for this stuff. > may be one day you could be proud about it ..... Again: you are full of yourself. Bye, Bjoern > > > > the mass of the photon was defined *theoretically by me as follows: > > > > [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > > Hello? ----------------- whatever time unit you use the main goal is to eliminate the time factor amnd to leave the formula with the net mass unit ie net mass dimentions > > > > thats all > > > > while : [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > > Hello? ---------- ie not to mix units to use just one unit or alternatively use some units provided the end of the day you get a time free formula because at the left side we have mass.... just mass ------------ > > > > -------------------- > > > > it was done at the 29 / january/ 2004 [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > > > You are really full of yourself, aren't you? > snipped personal wratting it is not productive all the best Y.Porat -------------- > > > > > the mass of the photon was defined *theoretically by me as follows: > > > > > [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > ----------------- > whatever time unit you use Err, hence the mass of the photon depends on the time unit one chooses??? Shouldn't there be an *objective* mass, not dependent on any choice of the one who does do the calculation????? > the main goal is to eliminate the time factor amnd to leave the formula > with the net mass unit ie net mass dimentions Well, unless you don't tell us *how* the time factor has to be eliminated (in other words, by *what* time unit one has to divide), your formula has no value - one can't use it to calculate anything. > > > > > thats all > > > > > while : [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > ---------- > ie not to mix units to use just one unit Err, both h and c already *have* mixed units (one has J * s, which is equal to N * m * s, which is equal to kg * m^2 / s, the other has m / s), so what on earth are you talking about? > or alternatively use some units provided the end of the day > you get a time free formula Again: if you leave this open, there are lots of different possibilites what the outcome of the formula will be! This makes no sense! > because at the left side we have mass.... just mass But how big is this mass? [snip] Bye, Bjoern > > > > > > the mass of the photon was defined *theoretically by me as follows: > > > > > > [quoted text clipped - 43 lines] > > But how big is this mass? ---------------- we look for the smallest quantum unit untill now taking f as one cycle per second seems to work nicely with the 'experimental' as tou realised in our tread 'the second Porat postulate' all the best Y.Porat ------------------ > > > > > > > the mass of the photon was defined *theoretically by me as follows: > > > > > > > [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > > chooses??? Shouldn't there be an *objective* mass, not dependent > > on any choice of the one who does do the calculation????? Hello? > > > the main goal is to eliminate the time factor amnd to leave the formula > > > with the net mass unit ie net mass dimentions > > > > Well, unless you don't tell us *how* the time factor has to be > > eliminated (in other words, by *what* time unit one has to divide), your > > formula has no value - one can't use it to calculate anything. Hello? > > > > > > > thats all > > > > > > > while : [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > > equal to N * m * s, which is equal to kg * m^2 / s, the other has m / > > s), so what on earth are you talking about? Hello? > > > or alternatively use some units provided the end of the day > > > you get a time free formula > > > > Again: if you leave this open, there are lots of different possibilites > > what the outcome of the formula will be! This makes no sense! Hello? > > > because at the left side we have mass.... just mass > > > > But how big is this mass? > > > ---------------- > we look for the smallest quantum unit How do we look for this? > untill now taking f as one cycle per second seems to work Why do you think so? Only becau |
Enable EMail Alerts
Start New Thread
Reply to this Message