|
|
| Author |
Message |
Golden Boar
science forum Guru
Joined: 17 May 2005
Posts: 651
|
 Posted: Thu May 25, 2006 5:15 pm Post subject:
Re: An unprecedents prove the the photon has a nonzer *rest mass* !
|
|
|
Randy Poe wrote:
| Quote: | The Sorcerer wrote:
Whilst eavesdropping on one side of a conversation, I note
If Androcles is telling the truth, I'm in his killfile so he won't
see this, but...
"Golden Boar" <goldenboar@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:1148519258.098299.258160@u72g2000cwu.googlegroups.com...
The entire post reduces to "Is the f in E = h.f a me(a)surable frequency?"
Answer: Electronics are not fast enough for visible light, but
they can manage radio frequencies well enough.
Androcles is out of date. There do indeed exist means of
directly measuring visible light frequencies. Google for
"optical frequency comb" and you'll get plenty of links.
|
I think you need to explain this to PD, as he seems to be quite
confused by the equation E=h.f, and doesn't know whether the frequency
is measurable or not.
|
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
The Sorcerer
science forum Guru
Joined: 22 May 2006
Posts: 363
|
| Posted: Thu May 25, 2006 6:05 pm Post subject:
Re: An unprecedents prove the the photon has a nonzer *rest mass* !
|
|
|
"Golden Boar" <goldenboar@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:1148577317.913221.123990@j55g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
|
| Randy Poe wrote:
| > The Sorcerer wrote:
| > > Whilst eavesdropping on one side of a conversation, I note
| >
| > If Androcles is telling the truth, I'm in his killfile so he won't
| > see this, but...
Of course I see it, Golden Boar isn't killfiled.
| >
| > > "Golden Boar" <goldenboar@hotmail.com> wrote in message
| > > news:1148519258.098299.258160@u72g2000cwu.googlegroups.com...
| > > The entire post reduces to "Is the f in E = h.f a me(a)surable
frequency?"
| > > Answer: Electronics are not fast enough for visible light, but
| > > they can manage radio frequencies well enough.
| >
| > Androcles is out of date. There do indeed exist means of
| > directly measuring visible light frequencies. Google for
| > "optical frequency comb" and you'll get plenty of links.
The frequency comb is based on the assumption that light has one
velocity only. The cretin Blind Poe is too stupid to see that.
Doppler's equation states
c+v
f' = f.--------------
c
and so a source that is moving toward an obsever has a higher light
frequency than one which is stationary.
The troll Blind Poe was killfiled for
"I'm trolling *you*, if you like.
My responses to others are still with the intent of
conveying substance and exchanging ideas." - Blind Poe.
Blind Poe gets his name for:
"Where in that equation did (c+v) occur?"
http://www.fourmilab.ch/etexts/einstein/specrel/www/figures/img22.gif
There are none so blind as those that refuse to see.
|
| I think you need to explain this to PD, as he seems to be quite
| confused by the equation E=h.f, and doesn't know whether the frequency
| is measurable or not.
Phuckwit Duck is so confused he thinks his arse is his mouth and
s**t exudes from both ends.
Androcles.
| >
| > This one for instance:
| > http://www.mpq.mpg.de/~haensch/comb/research/combs.html
| >
| > Here's another good article:
| > http://focus.aps.org/story/v5/st24
| >
| > Haench received a 2005 Nobel Prize for this work. According
| > to Haench's web page (first link) frequency counting has been
| > around for decades. The advance was to greatly simplify the
| > process and the equipment required.
| >
| > - Randy
| |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Randy Poe
science forum Guru
Joined: 24 Mar 2005
Posts: 2485
|
| Posted: Thu May 25, 2006 8:00 pm Post subject:
Re: An unprecedents prove the the photon has a nonzer *rest mass* !
|
|
|
The Sorcerer wrote:
That sure is an equation with (c+v). But I don't see my quote
anywhere around that particular equation.
You can of course provide a post in which I said those words
and also included that equation, right?
Note for Androcles fans: My original statement that Androcles is
so fond of that it has made it into his permanent collection, was
made in connection with a derivation Androcles was doing. On
one line he had an equation with c on one side and (c-v) on the
other. On the next line the (c+v) appeared. I asked where the
(c+v) had come from.
- Randy |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Randy Poe
science forum Guru
Joined: 24 Mar 2005
Posts: 2485
|
| Posted: Thu May 25, 2006 8:04 pm Post subject:
Re: An unprecedents prove the the photon has a nonzer *rest mass* !
|
|
|
Golden Boar wrote:
| Quote: | Randy Poe wrote:
Androcles is out of date. There do indeed exist means of
directly measuring visible light frequencies. Google for
"optical frequency comb" and you'll get plenty of links.
I think you need to explain this to PD, as he seems to be quite
confused by the equation E=h.f, and doesn't know whether the frequency
is measurable or not.
|
I agree there is confusion, but not on PD's part.
Why don't you provide a link to where you think PD says frequency
is not measurable or "is confused by E = hf", and I'll try to break
it down into smaller chunks for you?
- Randy |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
stephen@nomail.com
science forum Guru
Joined: 11 Sep 2005
Posts: 681
|
| Posted: Thu May 25, 2006 8:59 pm Post subject:
Re: An unprecedents prove the the photon has a nonzer *rest mass* !
|
|
|
In sci.physics.relativity Randy Poe <poespam-trap@yahoo.com> wrote:
| Quote: | Golden Boar wrote:
Randy Poe wrote:
Androcles is out of date. There do indeed exist means of
directly measuring visible light frequencies. Google for
"optical frequency comb" and you'll get plenty of links.
I think you need to explain this to PD, as he seems to be quite
confused by the equation E=h.f, and doesn't know whether the frequency
is measurable or not.
I agree there is confusion, but not on PD's part.
Why don't you provide a link to where you think PD says frequency
is not measurable or "is confused by E = hf", and I'll try to break
it down into smaller chunks for you?
- Randy
|
I can help you out there Randy. See
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics.relativity/msg/4cc6f60a08319130
where PD asks the question
A diatomic gas of volume 22.1 L at STP has a certain amount of
thermal energy. What frequency do you associate with that energy,
and how would it be measured?
This is apparently Golden Boar's evidence that PD thinks
frequency is not measurable.
Stephen |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Golden Boar
science forum Guru
Joined: 17 May 2005
Posts: 651
|
| Posted: Thu May 25, 2006 9:34 pm Post subject:
Re: An unprecedents prove the the photon has a nonzer *rest mass* !
|
|
|
stephen@nomail.com wrote:
| Quote: | In sci.physics.relativity Randy Poe <poespam-trap@yahoo.com> wrote:
Golden Boar wrote:
Randy Poe wrote:
Androcles is out of date. There do indeed exist means of
directly measuring visible light frequencies. Google for
"optical frequency comb" and you'll get plenty of links.
I think you need to explain this to PD, as he seems to be quite
confused by the equation E=h.f, and doesn't know whether the frequency
is measurable or not.
I agree there is confusion, but not on PD's part.
Why don't you provide a link to where you think PD says frequency
is not measurable or "is confused by E = hf", and I'll try to break
it down into smaller chunks for you?
- Randy
I can help you out there Randy. See
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics.relativity/msg/4cc6f60a08319130
where PD asks the question
A diatomic gas of volume 22.1 L at STP has a certain amount of
thermal energy. What frequency do you associate with that energy,
and how would it be measured?
This is apparently Golden Boar's evidence that PD thinks
frequency is not measurable.
Stephen
|
No its not. The evidence is at the beginnig of that post.
He basically asks whether the f in E=hf is a measurable frequency or a
hidden frequency. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Golden Boar
science forum Guru
Joined: 17 May 2005
Posts: 651
|
| Posted: Thu May 25, 2006 9:36 pm Post subject:
Re: An unprecedents prove the the photon has a nonzer *rest mass* !
|
|
|
Randy Poe wrote:
| Quote: | Golden Boar wrote:
Randy Poe wrote:
Androcles is out of date. There do indeed exist means of
directly measuring visible light frequencies. Google for
"optical frequency comb" and you'll get plenty of links.
I think you need to explain this to PD, as he seems to be quite
confused by the equation E=h.f, and doesn't know whether the frequency
is measurable or not.
I agree there is confusion, but not on PD's part.
Why don't you provide a link to where you think PD says frequency
is not measurable or "is confused by E = hf", and I'll try to break
it down into smaller chunks for you?
- Randy
|
Well why would he ask if the f in E=hf is measurable or hidden then?
As for the link, check out his posts i this thread. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Randy Poe
science forum Guru
Joined: 24 Mar 2005
Posts: 2485
|
| Posted: Thu May 25, 2006 9:59 pm Post subject:
Re: An unprecedents prove the the photon has a nonzer *rest mass* !
|
|
|
Golden Boar wrote:
| Quote: | stephen@nomail.com wrote:
In sci.physics.relativity Randy Poe <poespam-trap@yahoo.com> wrote:
Golden Boar wrote:
Randy Poe wrote:
Androcles is out of date. There do indeed exist means of
directly measuring visible light frequencies. Google for
"optical frequency comb" and you'll get plenty of links.
I think you need to explain this to PD, as he seems to be quite
confused by the equation E=h.f, and doesn't know whether the frequency
is measurable or not.
I agree there is confusion, but not on PD's part.
Why don't you provide a link to where you think PD says frequency
is not measurable or "is confused by E = hf", and I'll try to break
it down into smaller chunks for you?
- Randy
I can help you out there Randy. See
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics.relativity/msg/4cc6f60a08319130
where PD asks the question
A diatomic gas of volume 22.1 L at STP has a certain amount of
thermal energy. What frequency do you associate with that energy,
and how would it be measured?
This is apparently Golden Boar's evidence that PD thinks
frequency is not measurable.
Stephen
No its not. The evidence is at the beginnig of that post.
|
OK, I said I'll break it down in to smaller chunks for you,
so I will.
| Quote: | He basically asks whether the f in E=hf is a measurable frequency or a
hidden frequency.
|
First small chunk: E = hf is not being discussed. Here is
what the exchange is actually about:
You said for massive particles f = gamma*fC, where gamma
= Lorentz factor and fC = Compton frequency. PD's response
is immediately after that, so he is talking about the f that
appears in this equation. Careful study of this equation
will reveal that it is not in fact E = hf. Some of the indicators
of the difference are:
(a) it doesn't contain E, and
(b) it doesn't contain h.
With me so far? Good.
Now, what PD is asking, is that when you state that for
any given massive particle, f = gamma*fC, is whether you
are claiming that this frequency f can be measured in a
diffraction experiment. Does it correspond to some physically
measurable quantity? Is there an experiment you could do
with an electron with gamma = 10 which will measure this
frequency?
A couple more small chunks.
(c) My references to optical frequency combs do not
apply to measurement of frequency of individual photons.
(d) Even if it did, you are explicitly talking about particles
with mass, not photons.
(e) The Compton frequency is not an observable frequency.
de Broglie conjectured that there might be something in
the electron wiggling at that frequency, but did not talk
about it as being something directly measurable. It's
just something calculated from the Compton wavelength
that has the units of frequency.
If PD's question is so elementary, shouldn't it be possible
for you to answer yes or no to it? What's the answer? Is it
"yes" or is it "no?
- Randy |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Golden Boar
science forum Guru
Joined: 17 May 2005
Posts: 651
|
| Posted: Fri May 26, 2006 12:08 am Post subject:
Re: An unprecedents prove the the photon has a nonzer *rest mass* !
|
|
|
Randy Poe wrote:
| Quote: | Golden Boar wrote:
stephen@nomail.com wrote:
In sci.physics.relativity Randy Poe <poespam-trap@yahoo.com> wrote:
Golden Boar wrote:
Randy Poe wrote:
Androcles is out of date. There do indeed exist means of
directly measuring visible light frequencies. Google for
"optical frequency comb" and you'll get plenty of links.
I think you need to explain this to PD, as he seems to be quite
confused by the equation E=h.f, and doesn't know whether the frequency
is measurable or not.
I agree there is confusion, but not on PD's part.
Why don't you provide a link to where you think PD says frequency
is not measurable or "is confused by E = hf", and I'll try to break
it down into smaller chunks for you?
- Randy
I can help you out there Randy. See
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics.relativity/msg/4cc6f60a08319130
where PD asks the question
A diatomic gas of volume 22.1 L at STP has a certain amount of
thermal energy. What frequency do you associate with that energy,
and how would it be measured?
This is apparently Golden Boar's evidence that PD thinks
frequency is not measurable.
Stephen
No its not. The evidence is at the beginnig of that post.
OK, I said I'll break it down in to smaller chunks for you,
so I will.
He basically asks whether the f in E=hf is a measurable frequency or a
hidden frequency.
First small chunk: E = hf is not being discussed. Here is
what the exchange is actually about:
You said for massive particles f = gamma*fC, where gamma
= Lorentz factor and fC = Compton frequency. PD's response
is immediately after that, so he is talking about the f that
appears in this equation. Careful study of this equation
will reveal that it is not in fact E = hf. Some of the indicators
of the difference are:
(a) it doesn't contain E, and
(b) it doesn't contain h.
With me so far? Good.
Now, what PD is asking, is that when you state that for
any given massive particle, f = gamma*fC, is whether you
are claiming that this frequency f can be measured in a
diffraction experiment. Does it correspond to some physically
measurable quantity? Is there an experiment you could do
with an electron with gamma = 10 which will measure this
frequency?
A couple more small chunks.
(c) My references to optical frequency combs do not
apply to measurement of frequency of individual photons.
(d) Even if it did, you are explicitly talking about particles
with mass, not photons.
|
No I'm not. I'm talking photons and massive particles, which is why I
say E=f.h / c^0 and for massive particles f = gamma.fC.
| Quote: |
(e) The Compton frequency is not an observable frequency.
de Broglie conjectured that there might be something in
the electron wiggling at that frequency, but did not talk
about it as being something directly measurable. It's
just something calculated from the Compton wavelength
that has the units of frequency.
|
Your'e joking right?
You can measure the Compton wavelength but not the Compton frequency?
So I guess you havn't realised that wavelength and frequency are the
same thing.
In Euclidean space, time is measured in seconds, let us represent this
with t.
In Minkowski space, time is measured in meters, let us represent this
with lt.
The two are related by,
lt = c * t
The realtionship between wavelength and frequency of electromagentic
radiation is,
wl = c / f and f = 1/T
So let us compare the two equations,
lt = c * t, and
wl = c * T
Would you look at that, the equations are the same.
| Quote: |
If PD's question is so elementary, shouldn't it be possible
for you to answer yes or no to it? What's the answer? Is it
"yes" or is it "no?
- Randy
|
Because I couldn't be arsed playing his silly games. He has the
equations and that's all he needs. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Y.Porat
science forum Guru
Joined: 04 May 2005
Posts: 1809
|
| Posted: Fri May 26, 2006 3:39 am Post subject:
Re: An unprecedents prove the the photon has a nonzer *rest mass* !
|
|
|
you ddint answer
can i present h as
6.6x 10-34 x Kg xMeter ^2/sec
while we keep in mid that h>0.
please just anser yes or no
we dont need your phylosophy
mathematics is not phylosophy
TIA
Y.Porat
--------------------- |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Golden Boar
science forum Guru
Joined: 17 May 2005
Posts: 651
|
| Posted: Fri May 26, 2006 5:53 am Post subject:
Re: An unprecedents prove the the photon has a nonzer *rest mass* !
|
|
|
Y.Porat wrote:
| Quote: | you ddint answer
can i present h as
6.6x 10-34 x Kg xMeter ^2/sec
while we keep in mid that h>0.
please just anser yes or no
we dont need your phylosophy
mathematics is not phylosophy
TIA
Y.Porat
---------------------
|
I did answer.
Yes. h = 6.6*10^-34 kg m^2 s^-1
And yes, E = hf.
But no, h is not 6.6*10^-34 * 1 kg * 1 m * 1 m / 1 s
That is completey wrong.
But you could say that,
h = mass (kg) * Compton wavelength (m) * speed of light (m/s)
This is not my equation. It is a rearrangement of Compton's equation,
which has been experimentally verified. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Y.Porat
science forum Guru
Joined: 04 May 2005
Posts: 1809
|
| Posted: Fri May 26, 2006 6:48 am Post subject:
Re: An unprecedents prove the the photon has a nonzer *rest mass* !
|
|
|
ok
no more questions for you
now it is for seroius scientists to judge it
(not for you because we already heared you !! amd you are not an
unbiased party !)
no need to obfuscate it by the compton wave
so i even didnt bother to folow your Compton presentation
*AND CONCLUSIONS* if they are right or wrong!!
i think others tried to follow and comment on' your horse' it is not my
horse
it is completely irelevant to the orriginal profe .
just the orriginal formula as is is good enough!!
and make conclusions
whois right
and step forwards inscience !!
ATB
Y.Porat
------------------------- |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Golden Boar
science forum Guru
Joined: 17 May 2005
Posts: 651
|
| Posted: Fri May 26, 2006 7:19 am Post subject:
Re: An unprecedents prove the the photon has a nonzer *rest mass* !
|
|
|
Y.Porat wrote:
| Quote: | ok
no more questions for you
now it is for seroius scientists to judge it
|
The so called 'serious scientists' just come here to take the piss out
of you.
| Quote: |
(not for you because we already heared you !! amd you are not an
unbiased party !)
no need to obfuscate it by the compton wave
so i even didnt bother to folow your Compton presentation
*AND CONCLUSIONS* if they are right or wrong!!
|
Do you even know anything about the Compton wavelength?
| Quote: |
i think others tried to follow and comment on' your horse' it is not my
horse
it is completely irelevant to the orriginal profe .
just the orriginal formula as is is good enough!!
|
There is no original proof.
You dont actually prove anything.
| Quote: |
and make conclusions
whois right
and step forwards inscience !!
|
Well, if the choice is between Porat or Compton, I dont think any
'serious scientist' will be choosing Porat, and I'm pretty sure that
nobody in their right mind will be choosing Porat.
| Quote: |
ATB
Y.Porat
-------------------------
|
A Day In the Life of Porat
Hmm, h = 6.6*10^-34 kg m^2 s^-1.
I wonder what the value of h is?
I wonder if it is non zero?
Hmm, I best check this out.
h = 6.6*10^-34
6.6*10^-34 > 0
h > 0
Eureka!
I've just proved that h is non zero.
(But I couln't really tell just by looking at the value of h, it
confused me)
Now, I wonder if I can write its units down as kg m^2 s^-1?
A Day In the Life of Porat |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Y.Porat
science forum Guru
Joined: 04 May 2005
Posts: 1809
|
| Posted: Fri May 26, 2006 8:24 am Post subject:
Re: An unprecedents prove the the photon has a nonzer *rest mass* !
|
|
|
1 it wahnt help you !!
bt wi suggest you to refrain from words like
'to piss out of you ' becasue just believe me i can be
moch mor einsultive fo ryou
just a fact example:
there is not a single person here who agree with your
assertion of mo mass but frequancy or wahever is your claime
non!1
otha more than one agree with me that the photon has mass
and all my above profe or at leat most of it as Vergon
that calimes somethng lkie 'reletivistic mass'
but deon not know that th ePF does not apply to the photon
2 i suggest for you to be less emotional (the above 'piss out of you
is aprove that isnot a sciemtific way of doscussion)
3 now aboutyou refusal to see the
KG meter^2/Sec
as a multiplication serie of dimwesion
ltes test that princlpal claime by a simpleexample ::
supose we have a mass of 2 Kg that is accelerated by a= 3 meter/Sec^2
we have F (Neutons) = 2 Kg times 3 meter/sec^2
are we alowed to write :
3 meter= 6 Newtons sec^2 / 2 Kg = 3 Newton sec^2/Kg ??
or even if you like (or not)
1 meter = 6 Newton sec^2 /3 x2 Kg = Newton sec^2/Kg !!
in more simpl ewords:
all that equation behaves like a multiplication series of elements
in which any order of multiplication of it s components
is valid
*provided you do it **algebraically** correct !!
TIA
Y.Porat
------------------ |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
PD
science forum Guru
Joined: 03 May 2005
Posts: 4363
|
| Posted: Fri May 26, 2006 3:52 pm Post subject:
Re: An unprecedents prove the the photon has a nonzer *rest mass* !
|
|
|
Golden Boar wrote:
| Quote: | By f, I mean frequency, so stop playing word games. For a massice
particle,
f = gamma.fC (Lorentz factor * Compton frequency)
Yes, I know it's a frequency, GB. You mean a *measurable frequency*
such as what could be measured in a diffraction experiment or a
"hidden" frequency?
You have the equations, so prove or disprove.
It's not a question of equations. You have the misapprehension that
physics is all about algebraic manipulation and proving things with
formulas. You don't prove anything with formulas. You do calculations
with the formulas and compare them to experiment. The question I'm
asking you is whether the "f", the frequency, that you say everything
is based on, is a MEASURABLE frequency -- something that can be
confronted by experiment. If you tell me yes, then I will be happy to
confront it with known experimental results. This will tell you whether
your formulas are right or not -- not whether your algebra in getting
from one line to another was done correctly.
Is the f in E = h.f a mesurable frequency? Is the Compton frequency a
measurable frequency? Just prove or disprove, and stop asking silly
questions.
|
Yes, of course it's a measurable frequency.
And since you seem to be inviting me to show you some numbers, we'll do
that.
I suggest you look up the Davisson-Germer experiment
C.J. Davisson et al., Franklin Institute Journal, 205, 597 (1928)
First I'd like you to produce some predictions from your theory, and
then I'll quote some numbers from the paper.
Assume an electron is accelerated through a potential difference in a
gap of 400V and scattered off a crystal. Since this is a
nonrelativistic energy for an electron, you'll be able to calculate the
momentum p for the electron using the following relationship:
p^2/2m = -eV
where m is the mass of the electron in kg, and e is the charge of the
electron in coulombs. Your answer will be in kg*m/s. You can verify for
yourself that gamma for this electron is not very different than 1.
Use this to calculate the frequency of this electron according to your
model.
| Quote: |
And before you jump in and say that m = f.h / c^2 means that I think a
photon has mass, I dont!
The values of n for the photon are 0 and 1.
The values of n for a massive particle are 0,1 and 2.
Let start with Max Planck's equation, E=h.f. Is this valid or not?
|
Sure it is. It matches experimental values of E and f.
| Quote: |
1a) E = m.c^2 is a pointless manipulation of E = f.h / c^0
2) Gravity acts on frequency
G_f = 2 * pi * l_P^2 * h / c = (2 * pi * l_P)^2 * hbar / c
and
F_g = G_f * f_1 * f_2 / r^2
3) You cant have energy without frequency
A diatomic gas of volume 22.1 L at STP has a certain amount of thermal
energy. What frequency do you associate with that energy, and how would
it be measured?
You have the equations, so prove or disprove.
I don't see any frequency in a diatomic gas to measure. You can get a
number out of those formulas. The question is whether it MEANS
anything. If it's a frequency, what is it a frequency OF, and how do
you propose to measure it?
Look deeper.
|
Sorry, that doesn't help. You're the one with the theory that frequency
is fundamental. You're going to have to show me.
| Quote: |
4) You cant have momentum without energy
5) You can't have mass without momentum
You'll notice momentum is frame-dependent. It is entirely possible to
choose a frame where the momentum of any massive object is zero, don't
you agree? Or do you think somehow that is a "wrong" result if you do
that?
The relative momentum between two objects which have the same momentum
is zero.
This does not mean that the objects have no momentum.
Take for example the cup on a table.
It is easy to show that the cup has momentum by measuring the momentum
relative to the sun, for example.
But, that's just changing the reference frame. So you say that
measuring the momentum in the table frame gives the "wrong" momentum,
and measuring in the sun's frame gives the "right" momentum"? How do
you know?
Neither give the true momentum, but the latter shows that it does
indeed have momentum.
Really? You just chose it because it was nonzero? How do you know the
zero value isn't the real momentum and the nonzero one is the one that
is just an artifact of the frame of reference?
It is obvious that a cup resting on a table, which is resting on a
spinning planet, which is orbiting a star, which is rotating around a
galactic center, which is moving away from or towards other galactic
centers, has momentum.
|
*Relative* momentum. Nothing says this momentum is absolute.
| Quote: |
What is the reference frame in which the "true" momentum is measured?
I dont know.
|
Ah, so you can't be sure there is such a thing, then, can you?
| Quote: |
Is there a single reference frame where the "true" momentum should be
measured?
Possibly, if you could measure the momentum relative to the big bang,
or something like that.
The big bang doesn't have a center point, a point that stays stationary
while the rest of the universe flies away from it. You didn't know
that?
Yeah, yeah, heard it before, and the universe doesn't have a centre. I
didn't buy it then, I don't buy it now, and I never will. Don't bother
trying to explain it to me.
|
OK. Of course, that may pose a problem for your model....
| Quote: |
6) You cant have a flow of charge without charge
If you provide proof that any of these are wrong, you will find that I
accept that proof.
Look, this isn't question time you know, you have the data, either
prove or disprove.
I have formulas from you. Formulas and algebra don't mean a thing, GB.
Whether the numbers you calculate have any bearing whatsoever on
something you can *measure* is what means something in physics.
I'm asking you if any of these things that you shovel around with
formulas have any physical meaning -- "true" momentum and "frequency"
of a diatomic gas -- and how those can be confronted by comparison with
experiment. If they can't, then as a physical theory, it's garbage --
simple as that. I'm surprised you don't know that.
PD
By that you mean Planck's constant(h), frequency (f), and speed of
light(c).
|
You've mentioned a specific frequency for an electron = gamma*f_c.
This should match experiment. Let's find out. See above.
| Quote: | Stop asking stupid questions, which you already know the answers to,
and get on with the disproving.
You have all the data you need. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Google
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
The time now is Thu Jan 08, 2009 9:30 pm | All times are GMT
|
|
Looking for Credit Cards? | Debt Consolidation | Sexy School Girl Costume | Credit Counseling | Debt Consolidation
|
|
Copyright © 2004-2005 DeniX Solutions SRL
|
|
Other DeniX Solutions sites:
Electronics forum |
Medicine forum |
Unix/Linux blog |
Unix/Linux documentation |
Unix/Linux forums
|
Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2005 phpBB Group
|
|
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Usergroups
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
Forum index
»
Science and Technology
»
Physics
»
Particle
