| Author |
Message |
Y.Porat
science forum Guru
Joined: 04 May 2005
Posts: 1809
|
 Posted: Fri May 19, 2006 3:40 am Post subject:
Re: An unprecedents prove the the photon has a nonzer *rest mass* !
|
|
|
obfuscationg and cheating as usual:::
THE E=hf IS EXPERIMENTALLY
PROVEN !!!
2 abi\out your 'coulomb story proves nothing
because 1 you didnt tell us if the coulomb
is not for itself composed or can be presented by other dimension
now you still use that obfuscating system to say that only your
dimesion system is valid
while :
if just one system of dimension proves something it is enough to make
the point
physically
because say MKS is a legitimate system
and the main point that PD is unable to understand is
that if something is prresented right in one system
ANOTHER SYSTEM CANNOT DISPROVE IT
BECAUSE PHYSICSIS NOT DYMENSION SSYTEM DEPENDANT!!
iow if it is right on one system it is right *for all of them**
provided all of them are used legitimately and without errors
or cheayings or delusion tricks.
ATB
Y.Porat
------------------------ |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
Y.Porat
science forum Guru
Joined: 04 May 2005
Posts: 1809
|
| Posted: Fri May 19, 2006 4:47 am Post subject:
Re: An unprecedents prove the the photon has a nonzer *rest mass* !
|
|
|
Just clarification remark::
since you see that i equated
nz to the plank constant
means that nz can be
a physical entity as well
not necessarily just a figure.
ATB
Y.Porat
---------------- |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Golden Boar
science forum Guru
Joined: 17 May 2005
Posts: 651
|
| Posted: Fri May 19, 2006 5:08 am Post subject:
Re: An unprecedents prove the the photon has a nonzer *rest mass* !
|
|
|
How can you say that a photon has mass if you dont even know what mass
is? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Y.Porat
science forum Guru
Joined: 04 May 2005
Posts: 1809
|
| Posted: Fri May 19, 2006 6:10 am Post subject:
Re: An unprecedents prove the the photon has a nonzer *rest mass* !
|
|
|
do you ??
you equated h bar to 1
and ??
that makes hbar a unitless entity ??
2 fo r me it is enough that you know what mass is ......
3 did you find some error in my above analysics ??
ATB
Y.Porat
----------------- |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Y.Porat
science forum Guru
Joined: 04 May 2005
Posts: 1809
|
| Posted: Fri May 19, 2006 6:15 am Post subject:
Re: An unprecedents prove the the photon has a nonzer *rest mass* !
|
|
|
didyou prove that th e photon has nonmzero rest *mass*
i think i did
did you ??? ( I repeat NON ZERO** REST MASS* not
relativistic mass!! )
TIA
Y.Porat
---------------------- |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Y.Porat
science forum Guru
Joined: 04 May 2005
Posts: 1809
|
| Posted: Fri May 19, 2006 6:48 am Post subject:
Re: An unprecedents prove the the photon has a nonzer *rest mass* !
|
|
|
as Golden Boar said
you jsut proved that dividing my zero is UNDEFINED
so wah does that prove????
that you are even not a mathemarican
it is a mathematical prove
yuo are an * urelaible* hasty scientist !!
(if to put it * mildly* !! we could use much more unpleasant words
!!)
anyway
lets take it as a sportive attempt in a good mood and not a malicious
one (:-)
as long as it is innocent and 'sportive ' its OK
i myseld do it a lot but with the right proportions ie
the reservation that is is just an attempt
while somethimes just those 'iresponsible attemts lead to serious
results !!
ATB
Y.Porat
=---------------------------- |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Harry
science forum Guru
Joined: 08 May 2005
Posts: 1010
|
| Posted: Fri May 19, 2006 10:55 am Post subject:
Re: An unprecedents prove the the photon has a nonzer *rest mass* !
|
|
|
"Igor" <thoovler@excite.com> wrote in message
news:1147983944.319717.188360@y43g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...
| Quote: |
Golden Boar wrote:
Igor wrote:
Y.Porat wrote:
here is how i derived my above conclusion:
The formula E=hf is experimentally validated and found Vaid
for the photon case right??
Now since we have an endless cases of which E and f are nonzero
than h the Planck constant is nonzero
yet that constant is not just a figure it has some physical
components
and dimensions
so lets see how it is composed of :
lets use the following abbreviations :
km for mass (rest mass)
m - Meter
s - seconds
pl the Plank figure (just the 6.6 10^-34 figure not
its
dimensions )
nz a nonzero figure !!
so the plank constant is never zero nz
and it is
nz (Plank constant ) = pl joule second = pl kg
m^2/s^2
times s =
pl kg m^2 /s = nz
so
kg (mass of photon ) = s x nz / (divided by ) pl m ^2
( right ??)
since NON of the right side components is zero
kg (mass of photons) = nonzero !!
QED
Copyright Yehiel Porat 17-05-2006
-------------------
please note:
The above analysis was made possible once I realized that the Plank
Constant
was not just an inseparable physical entity!
If you follow its history and how it was derived
you realize that it is not a case in which first of all that
constant
was found and
*only later* it was verified by measurements.
It is exactly the other way round!
i.e. first the results of experimental measurements of Energy
versus
the frequency of photons
were plotted and a straight line was found.
the h factor was just the *slope* of that plotted straight line.
ONLY LATER people started to wonder what the meaning of that slope
is
and later combined into one physical entity its physical components
(which are actually more basic components like mass velocity
(length
seconds )
so if it was assembled it is also legitimate to decompose it into
its
components
This of course provided you do it in a legitimate way .
so i found it legitimate to separate its components to the two sides
of
an equation
starting from and based on the usual common formula.
(this is just another arrangement of its components )
and once i combined the fact that the h factor is nonzero
with the new insight (above) i reached the above unprecedented and
extremely important
result.
TIA
Y.Porat
---------------------
I can prove that 1 = 2
let a = b
multiply both sides by a:
a^2 = b a
subtract b^2 from both sides:
a^b - b^2 = b a - b^2
factor both sides:
(a+ b) (a - b) = b (a - b)
divide by a - b:
a + b = a
since a = b, I can say:
2 a = a
divide both sides by a and we prove that 1 = 2
Well since a-b = 0, all you are doing is proving that division by zero
is undefined.
Very good! The OP's proof is just as bogus.
|
Your bogus proof is funny, but it's more useful if you point out where the
error is in the OP's proof. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Y.Porat
science forum Guru
Joined: 04 May 2005
Posts: 1809
|
| Posted: Fri May 19, 2006 11:08 am Post subject:
Re: An unprecedents prove the the photon has a nonzer *rest mass* !
|
|
|
1 it is not even funny
2 in my prove there is no whatsoever a division by zero!!
3 actually i am interested by efforts to refute me
because it is so unexpected that i want to test it 'from any possible
angle'
so attempts for refutal are really welcome i dont see in it something
hostile!!
(provided it is not dda1 Gisse Wake Rangegarder Varney etc &
Co .........) ie dont by honest sincere people
TIA
Y.Porat
---------- |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
PD
science forum Guru
Joined: 03 May 2005
Posts: 4363
|
| Posted: Fri May 19, 2006 1:28 pm Post subject:
Re: An unprecedents prove the the photon has a nonzer *rest mass* !
|
|
|
Y.Porat wrote:
| Quote: | obfuscationg and cheating as usual:::
THE E=hf IS EXPERIMENTALLY
PROVEN !!!
2 abi\out your 'coulomb story proves nothing
because 1 you didnt tell us if the coulomb
is not for itself composed or can be presented by other dimension
|
It is. A coulomb is an Ampere*second, where an Ampere is a base MKS
unit. There is still no mass in the units of Planck's constant, is
there?
| Quote: | now you still use that obfuscating system to say that only your
dimesion system is valid
while :
if just one system of dimension proves something it is enough to make
the point
physically
because say MKS is a legitimate system
and the main point that PD is unable to understand is
that if something is prresented right in one system
ANOTHER SYSTEM CANNOT DISPROVE IT
BECAUSE PHYSICSIS NOT DYMENSION SSYTEM DEPENDANT!!
|
Precisely, and this should tell you something. If you see something in
one system of units that you don't see in another system of units, then
there can't be any real physics in what you saw -- because, as you say,
what is real in physics is not units-dependent.
In fact, what you are doing is *choosing* a system of units because it
shows you what you *want* to see, and ignoring other systems of units
because they don't show you what you want to see.
What a real physicist will do is to look at the same physical law in
several systems of units, and if it persists in *all* of them, then it
is a real feature of the physics. Do you understand that?
| Quote: |
iow if it is right on one system it is right *for all of them**
|
No, that's not right and has it completely backward.
| Quote: | provided all of them are used legitimately and without errors
or cheayings or delusion tricks.
ATB
Y.Porat
------------------------ |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Y.Porat
science forum Guru
Joined: 04 May 2005
Posts: 1809
|
| Posted: Fri May 19, 2006 1:43 pm Post subject:
Re: An unprecedents prove the the photon has a nonzer *rest mass* !
|
|
|
1 i dont agree that if somethibng is proven by one system of units
it might be wrong by another sytem
so just show me where am i wrong with the analysis i did
2 please show me i am wrong in 'your coulomb' system
though i am not an expert on that system
others could possibly judge it better than me in 'your system'
3 actually you saw that is is not always obvious to detect mass
in a formula as you saw in my case that it took us a long way to reveal
it sometimes you need some 'Rontgen eyes' to find it
4 i think the simplest way is the betetr since in a more complicated
way
you have a better chance to make mistakes .
and again
i am not familiar with your 'coulomb' ssytem so i cant judge it
and still i didnt saw *your feruting analysics by your system .
TIA
Y.Porat |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
PD
science forum Guru
Joined: 03 May 2005
Posts: 4363
|
| Posted: Fri May 19, 2006 3:12 pm Post subject:
Re: An unprecedents prove the the photon has a nonzer *rest mass* !
|
|
|
Y.Porat wrote:
| Quote: | 1 i dont agree that if somethibng is proven by one system of units
it might be wrong by another sytem
|
That's not what I said. I said if there is something present in one
system of units that is absent in another system of units, then that
something does not represent true physical structure.
The "mass" in Planck's constant is an *accident* of the choice of
system of units. It does not represent true physical structure.
| Quote: |
so just show me where am i wrong with the analysis i did
2 please show me i am wrong in 'your coulomb' system
|
It is not "my coulomb" system. The coulomb is an MKS unit, and it is
equal to an ampere-second, where an ampere is a *base* MKS unit --
which means that the ampere is not resolved into other units like
meters, kilograms, or seconds. I'm astounded that you did not know
that. http://physics.nist.gov/cuu/Units/units.html
| Quote: | though i am not an expert on that system
others could possibly judge it better than me in 'your system'
3 actually you saw that is is not always obvious to detect mass
in a formula as you saw in my case that it took us a long way to reveal
it sometimes you need some 'Rontgen eyes' to find it
4 i think the simplest way is the betetr since in a more complicated
way
you have a better chance to make mistakes .
|
a) It is not a more complicated system. Do not confuse "unfamiliar"
with "complicated".
b) It is not a different system. It is the same system of units.
c) Even if it were more complicated, it would only demand that you take
a little care to get it right. Taking care to get it right is a habit
that is instilled in physicists.
| Quote: | and again
i am not familiar with your 'coulomb' ssytem so i cant judge it
and still i didnt saw *your feruting analysics by your system .
TIA
Y.Porat |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Y.Porat
science forum Guru
Joined: 04 May 2005
Posts: 1809
|
| Posted: Fri May 19, 2006 3:30 pm Post subject:
Re: An unprecedents prove the the photon has a nonzer *rest mass* !
|
|
|
PD wrote:
| Quote: | Y.Porat wrote:
1 i dont agree that if somethibng is proven by one system of units
it might be wrong by another sytem
That's not what I said. I said if there is something present in one
system of units that is absent in another system of units, then that
something does not represent true physical structure.
|
if it is the same physical entity no systen can afford missing some of
the nasoc units
it is your fault that you cant detect it
so here is the palce to ask you again a cricial question:
DO YOU SEE SOME ERROR IN MY ANALYSIS
IF YES WAHT IS IT ??!!
that should be the first rerasonable question tofind up and to srart
with !!
--------
| Quote: |
The "mass" in Planck's constant is an *accident* of the choice of
system of units. It does not represent true physical structure.
|
do you disigree with me that there is a massunit in the h constant??
if you disagree we have no common language to go on .
2 do you agree or disagree that i am alowed to take one of the h
physical components
and put it in one side of a formula (that satrt withthe common one)
and put all the rest of those h components -*at the other side of that
same formula *
if not than again we have no common language to go on with .
------------------
'an accident of chice of ssytem units is your invention ' !!
---------------
| Quote: |
so just show me where am i wrong with the analysis i did
2 please show me i am wrong in 'your coulomb' system
It is not "my coulomb" system. The coulomb is an MKS unit, and it is
equal to an ampere-second, where an ampere is a *base* MKS unit --
which means that the ampere is not resolved into other units like
meters, kilograms, or seconds. I'm astounded that you did not know
that. http://physics.nist.gov/cuu/Units/units.html
|
so just show us an example of PHOTON energy formula according to
the coulomb
ssytem in which there is no sighn of the Kg (mass) dimension!!
(i hope you remember we are dealing with photons )
| Quote: |
though i am not an expert on that system
others could possibly judge it better than me in 'your system'
3 actually you saw that is is not always obvious to detect mass
in a formula as you saw in my case that it took us a long way to reveal
it sometimes you need some 'Rontgen eyes' to find it
4 i think the simplest way is the betetr since in a more complicated
way
you have a better chance to make mistakes .
a) It is not a more complicated system. Do not confuse "unfamiliar"
with "complicated".
b) It is not a different system. It is the same system of units.
c) Even if it were more complicated, it would only demand that you take
a little care to get it right. Taking care to get it right is a habit
that is instilled in physicists.
and again
i am not familiar with your 'coulomb' ssytem so i cant judge it
and still i didnt saw *your feruting analysics by your system .
------------------------- |
TIA
Y.Porat
----------------- |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Golden Boar
science forum Guru
Joined: 17 May 2005
Posts: 651
|
| Posted: Fri May 19, 2006 5:58 pm Post subject:
Re: An unprecedents prove the the photon has a nonzer *rest mass* !
|
|
|
PD wrote:
| Quote: | Y.Porat wrote:
1 i dont agree that if somethibng is proven by one system of units
it might be wrong by another sytem
That's not what I said. I said if there is something present in one
system of units that is absent in another system of units, then that
something does not represent true physical structure.
|
Thats funny, I've beem saying I can create a system of units where mass
is not present, so by your own words, that means mass does not
represent true physical structure.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Planck_units#Derived_Planck_units
See the table of derived Planck units, in which all the quantities are
expressed in terms of hbar, lp, tp and qp.
| Quote: |
The "mass" in Planck's constant is an *accident* of the choice of
system of units. It does not represent true physical structure.
so just show me where am i wrong with the analysis i did
2 please show me i am wrong in 'your coulomb' system
It is not "my coulomb" system. The coulomb is an MKS unit, and it is
equal to an ampere-second, where an ampere is a *base* MKS unit --
which means that the ampere is not resolved into other units like
meters, kilograms, or seconds. I'm astounded that you did not know
that. http://physics.nist.gov/cuu/Units/units.html
|
That's not quite true. They chose the Ampere as the base unit instead
of the Coulomb because it is easier to measure. It can still be broken
down into Coulombs and seconds though. The Coulomb is the more
fundamental of the two quantities.
| Quote: |
though i am not an expert on that system
others could possibly judge it better than me in 'your system'
3 actually you saw that is is not always obvious to detect mass
in a formula as you saw in my case that it took us a long way to reveal
it sometimes you need some 'Rontgen eyes' to find it
4 i think the simplest way is the betetr since in a more complicated
way
you have a better chance to make mistakes .
a) It is not a more complicated system. Do not confuse "unfamiliar"
with "complicated".
b) It is not a different system. It is the same system of units.
c) Even if it were more complicated, it would only demand that you take
a little care to get it right. Taking care to get it right is a habit
that is instilled in physicists.
and again
i am not familiar with your 'coulomb' ssytem so i cant judge it
and still i didnt saw *your feruting analysics by your system .
TIA
Y.Porat |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Androfizzx
science forum Guru Wannabe
Joined: 17 May 2006
Posts: 115
|
| Posted: Fri May 19, 2006 6:10 pm Post subject:
Re: An unprecedents prove the the photon has a nonzer *rest mass* !
|
|
|
"PD" <TheDraperFamily@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1148051548.482263.66620@u72g2000cwu.googlegroups.com...
|
| Y.Porat wrote:
| > 1 i dont agree that if somethibng is proven by one system of units
| >
| > it might be wrong by another sytem
|
| That's not what I said. I said if there is something present in one
| system of units that is absent in another system of units, then that
| something does not represent true physical structure.
No physics.
|
| The "mass" in Planck's constant is an *accident* of the choice of
| system of units. It does not represent true physical structure.
No physics.
|
| >
| > so just show me where am i wrong with the analysis i did
| >
| > 2 please show me i am wrong in 'your coulomb' system
|
| It is not "my coulomb" system. The coulomb is an MKS unit, and it is
| equal to an ampere-second, where an ampere is a *base* MKS unit --
| which means that the ampere is not resolved into other units like
| meters, kilograms, or seconds. I'm astounded that you did not know
| that. http://physics.nist.gov/cuu/Units/units.html
No physics
|
| > though i am not an expert on that system
| > others could possibly judge it better than me in 'your system'
| >
| > 3 actually you saw that is is not always obvious to detect mass
| > in a formula as you saw in my case that it took us a long way to reveal
| > it sometimes you need some 'Rontgen eyes' to find it
| >
| > 4 i think the simplest way is the betetr since in a more complicated
| > way
| > you have a better chance to make mistakes .
|
| a) It is not a more complicated system. Do not confuse "unfamiliar"
| with "complicated".
| b) It is not a different system. It is the same system of units.
| c) Even if it were more complicated, it would only demand that you take
| a little care to get it right. Taking care to get it right is a habit
| that is instilled in physicists.
No physics.
You ARE a boring lying cowardly cunt.
Androcles
| > and again
| > i am not familiar with your 'coulomb' ssytem so i cant judge it
| > and still i didnt saw *your feruting analysics by your system .
| >
| > TIA
| > Y.Porat
| |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
PD
science forum Guru
Joined: 03 May 2005
Posts: 4363
|
| Posted: Fri May 19, 2006 6:11 pm Post subject:
Re: An unprecedents prove the the photon has a nonzer *rest mass* !
|
|
|
Golden Boar wrote:
| Quote: |
That's not quite true. They chose the Ampere as the base unit instead
of the Coulomb because it is easier to measure. It can still be broken
down into Coulombs and seconds though. The Coulomb is the more
fundamental of the two quantities.
|
Your last statement: what makes you say that?
PD |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Google
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Usergroups
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
Forum index
»
Science and Technology
»
Physics
»
Particle
