|
|
| Author |
Message |
Y.Porat
science forum Guru
Joined: 04 May 2005
Posts: 1809
|
 Posted: Mon Jun 20, 2005 3:21 pm Post subject:
Re: The Photon as an attraction force carrier ??
|
|
|
pleae bypass that obfuscation
intervention attempt
Y.Porat
----------------------------- |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
Ranando King
science forum Guru Wannabe
Joined: 28 Apr 2005
Posts: 129
|
| Posted: Mon Jun 20, 2005 5:27 pm Post subject:
Re: The Photon as an attraction force carrier ??
|
|
|
"Y.Porat" <maporat@012.net.il> wrote in message
news:1118817125.437968.135830@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com...
| Quote: |
1
What is the experimental evidence (repeat) *experimental evidence*-
that the photon is an attraction force producer?
2
What is the experimental prove (repeat) *experimental prove*
- (as commonly is concidered to be experimental prove)--
that the photon is an attraction force producer?
TIA
Y.Porat
--------------------------
|
Let me try - (repeat) *try* - to answer these for you.
1 & 2: There is none. None at all.
The problem is that you seem to be thinking about the problem from the wrong
angle. Instead of looking at things from the point of view of "particle
interactions", look at the wave mechanics for a photon.
Remember that a photon is equally described by a massless packet of EM and a
wave induced in an EM field. In all truth, neither of those definitions is
entirely accurate. A photon is more of an event that occurs in an EM field.
When a charged particle moves, it creates waves in its EM field. Those waves
are not themselves photons. If another particle that interacts with EM
fields encounters this wave, that encounter is considered to be a
transmission of a photon from the source of the wave to the receiving
particle.
So in all actuality, "photon" is just the generic name for an interaction in
an EM field. So if an EM field repels a particle, "a photon" repelled the
particle; if an EM field attracts a particle, "a photon" attracted the
particle.
Hope this helps.
R. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Y.Porat
science forum Guru
Joined: 04 May 2005
Posts: 1809
|
| Posted: Tue Jun 21, 2005 2:50 am Post subject:
Re: The Photon as an attraction force carrier ??
|
|
|
Thank you Ranado
actually i think you are not even aware that you actually
come closer to my point of view!!
what you did above is actually to deprive the word 'photon'
from its 'traditional understanding'!!
because the traditional understanding of a photon is
an em wave that movws in strieight lines!
now if you folow me and otheers all laong this thread
once it moves in a stright line it is 'dead by arival' as an
attraction agent!!
and that exactly waht i wahnted to lead people to the right
revolutuionary conclution
that it is not the photon 'as known' which makes any attraction force
IT IS SOMETHING ELSE THERE!
the poor photon was just picked up being an 'innocent victim'
that just 'passed by the scene of crime' and ;was cought by the
police'!! (
the 'police here' is hasty scintists that were too clumsy
to 'identify that poor creature as responsible for the field creation!
th ephoton is just one of the (evennot most important0 results
of the electric or magnetic field
*it is a result not a reason*
the main hero of that story id still hiding itself and loughing at all
the scintific comunity (
ans to make it shorter and much more tangible
as i explained yesterday
a particle that moves naturally in a curved or circular path
is UNEVITABLE
all the best
Y.Porat
--------------------------- |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Zigoteau
science forum addict
Joined: 07 May 2005
Posts: 94
|
| Posted: Tue Jun 21, 2005 7:54 am Post subject:
Re: The Photon as an attraction force carrier ??
|
|
|
Hi, Yehiel,
| Quote: | it is obviuos that this last intervention here is if to put it mildly-
nasty!!!
|
I understand why you think it was nasty, and I was probably in a bad
mood.
Hamas probably thought the attack by your compatriots on September 8
last year, which killed 14 or their supporters, was also nasty. You may
think it was totally justified - I am sure that the Israeli soldiers
involved in the attack did. So you can see that there is room for
differences of opinion about these things.
Your initial posting was a challenge - *prove* that photons are
involved in the interaction between charged particles! In spite of the
fact that this very question is answered in great detail in all the
textbooks, I went to some effort to answer your question. You dismissed
my answer with " all the 'evidence that you quoted above dpes not prove
that photons *make the electric or megmetic field* ".
In addition to your atrocious disregard for correct spelling, you
clearly also have an atrocious disregard for valid logic.
I have never once seen you give any math in your posts, or any
indication that you understand any of the theory of modern physics.
Your 'circlon' contravenes the most basic principles of Newtonian
physics. I have never once seen you give any experimental evidence for
any of your claims. You do not seem to be aware that this is what
differentiates science from other human endeavours, from religion to
the ramblings of madmen.
Cheers,
Zigoteau. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Y.Porat
science forum Guru
Joined: 04 May 2005
Posts: 1809
|
| Posted: Tue Jun 21, 2005 9:04 am Post subject:
Re: The Photon as an attraction force carrier ??
|
|
|
Zigoteau wrote:
| Quote: | Hi, Yehiel,
it is obviuos that this last intervention here is if to put it mildly-
nasty!!!
I understand why you think it was nasty, and I was probably in a bad
mood.
---------------- |
bad mood so you admit improper behaviour??
actually it is not only behaviour
it is wrong physics sense as well
-----------
| Quote: |
Hamas probably thought the attack by your compatriots on September 8
last year, which killed 14 or their supporters, was also nasty. You may
think it was totally justified - I am sure that the Israeli soldiers
involved in the attack did. So you can see that there is room for
differences of opinion about these things.
------------ |
why (the heck) you bring it here??
is it a politica ng??
shell i guess that you have some sympathy to hamas
and dislike to Israelis??
may be that explaines many things ......?
-----------
| Quote: |
Your initial posting was a challenge - *prove* that photons are
involved in the interaction between charged particles! In spite of the
fact that this very question is answered in great detail in all the
textbooks,
---------- |
so ??
i knoe some text book in which it is aied that the world was created in
6 days....
and other text books that say that the sun orbits the earth...
the trouble is that it is ... onmly saied
you misses some answers of othere readers much moee honest than you
who admit explicitly that the answer to my original op
questions no1 and No 2 is ..... NO
did you got it??
there is no prove that the photon is an em fiels maker??
there are methmatical partial solutions that
*are acompanied by *words* that the photon is th emessenger
but you see to be educated like you, much more than me,
is not enough to realise that those are just
acompanied *words* of wishfull thinking
and not stemming out(uneaquivocally) from the mathematical prove!
so you see there is need to be something more than just
a mathematician in physics.
i woud say to be just a bit more than a parrot.
------------
I went to some effort to answer your question. You dismissed
| Quote: | my answer with " all the 'evidence that you quoted above dpes not prove
------- |
now that we gave up politeness i can say
that your 'answers' were empthy mumbling
obfuscations that could confuse only youself
but not me !!
there was nothing in your smarthguy answers that
proved that the photon is the em field creator!
and you have the guts to acuse me
in not accepting your sensless paroting
that does not prove or adress my questions
--
| Quote: | that photons *make the electric or megmetic field* ".
In addition to your atrocious disregard for correct spelling, your spelling bussiness mensioning is demagogism
and obfuscatios |
it is obvius that you are personaly hostile!
---
| Quote: | clearly also have an atrocious disregard for valid logic.
|
oh realy ??
that exactly what i though t about you!!
you certainly didnt understood my explanation to Hansen
about how is is imposible that a photon tha tmoves in stright line
should make any attraction force
or field
such a creature cannot stay in a confined location
and surely not confine other physical entities
to a confined volume!1
because it will run out immediately
yet that is too complicated for a parrot!!
and now your mumbling suggested that
there is some field that is confining the photons
and at the same time you claim that that field
is done by .. photons..
and you dare to talk to me *about physics logic *???
----------
| Quote: |
I have never once seen you give any math in your posts, or any
indication that you understand any of the theory of modern physics.
|
--------
another nice understanding of physics:
listen carefully parrot:
calculus of matrix methematics is nothing but
exrapolation of experimental data
what you put in is what you get
if you put in wrong assumption nothing and even Newton
will not save yu from wrong or crippled output!
now matrics mathematics is not the only way
to do even calculations
it was nice a hundred yeaers ago
it was even the onlyway
now do you know how a modrn computer is solving
many unknowns equations??
it solves it by *trial and error* not by calculus.
and that rrial and error was my calculations system
while i was building my model
yet you knoe nothing about my model
and you ahve the guts to evaluate it or its findings
without being able to folow if because you dont have it
yet in this case i had even an advantage on a computer
because i could do things that a computor could not do
i could do shorcuts that only a physics thinker could do
together with chmestry knowledge cryslalography
etc etc that enabled me for instance
to reject 'by birth' some posibilities
and make the work a bitless thanimpossible
not like your fucken model that is stuck
with the iron element and cant go on with it
not realising that there are some bad assumptions
in your paradigma.
and for an example
since unlike you i am a original thinker and not a parrot
the second i see a theory that claimes
that a photon is an attraction force carier
it is 'dead by arival' fo rme
and i am not going to spend the rest of my life
and my gradchildrens life onnonsense physics .
that cannot make further advance.
-----------
| Quote: | Your 'circlon' contravenes the most basic principles of Newtonian
that idea i snot for parrots |
it is as i shoewd and it is above your intelelctual
ability to get it that
it is unsvitable!!
actually as now it is only a postulate
but an unevitable postulate
that stems out from your idiotic notion that
a particle tha moves in astright line can pruduce attraction
you will not get a betetr assumption that will solve the problem.
and from other reasons that i dont bother
to waist my time on a apriory hostile person
because once irational hostility is ruling
nothing rational can do.
-
| Quote: | physics. I have never once seen you give any experimental evidence for
any of your claims. You do not seem to be aware that this is what
differentiates science from other human endeavours, from religion to
the ramblings of madmen.
|
i xpalines (not to you!) that it is a postulate
and it is unevitable due to the dead end of the existing situation
but again we are conductiond a dialogue of deafs
and nothing will do about it
while instincts instead of reason are prevaling
btw
the fact that you hide you real identity
and you intervean in a hostle way just in cases
that i start gaining points
is another prove that yoy are a dishonest personality
of which physics is(or scince) not his priority in life
personal politics is the first priority
your hamas mentioning is just another prove for it.
(btw just in case you are a Muslem - or a racist than in that case
everything becomes obvious ...)
ps th elot of spelling mistakes are because of fast typing
and because i dont give much damn fro you...
i dont bother to look back and fix .
Y.Porat
-------------------
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Y.Porat
science forum Guru
Joined: 04 May 2005
Posts: 1809
|
| Posted: Tue Jun 21, 2005 9:34 am Post subject:
Re: The Photon as an attraction force carrier ??
|
|
|
ps
i addition to my above post for other readers than Zigoteau.
about my Circon ans in contardiction to first newtons law.
sine i am astructural engineer than the last thing that you could
expect
from me is not to be aware of it
it is not in contardiction
i have the gutts to say : it is an expantion of Newtons first law!!
it is only that 'Circlon ' that moves tha way
all the others move in stright line
and not least it is a postualte that is badly needed
just have a look at trhe appendix of my site
about how powerful can be that new idea in solving
th existing entanglements
things become surprisingly simople even though
at this stage jsut qualitatively.
i am sure that with some investment it could be done
quantitative as well
yet first of all people must understand that th eexisting situation is
in a dead lock.
and only then they will start to look for corrections
all the best
Y.Porat
-------------------- |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Ranando King
science forum Guru Wannabe
Joined: 28 Apr 2005
Posts: 129
|
| Posted: Tue Jun 21, 2005 2:55 pm Post subject:
Re: The Photon as an attraction force carrier ??
|
|
|
"Y.Porat" <maporat@012.net.il> wrote in message
news:1119329456.045014.146110@g49g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
| Quote: | Thank you Ranado
actually i think you are not even aware that you actually
come closer to my point of view!!
what you did above is actually to deprive the word 'photon'
from its 'traditional understanding'!!
because the traditional understanding of a photon is
an em wave that movws in strieight lines!
now if you folow me and otheers all laong this thread
once it moves in a stright line it is 'dead by arival' as an
attraction agent!!
and that exactly waht i wahnted to lead people to the right
revolutuionary conclution
that it is not the photon 'as known' which makes any attraction force
IT IS SOMETHING ELSE THERE!
the poor photon was just picked up being an 'innocent victim'
that just 'passed by the scene of crime' and ;was cought by the
police'!! (
the 'police here' is hasty scintists that were too clumsy
to 'identify that poor creature as responsible for the field creation!
th ephoton is just one of the (evennot most important0 results
of the electric or magnetic field
*it is a result not a reason*
the main hero of that story id still hiding itself and loughing at all
the scintific comunity (
ans to make it shorter and much more tangible
as i explained yesterday
a particle that moves naturally in a curved or circular path
is UNEVITABLE
all the best
Y.Porat
---------------------------
|
Somehow, I think you missed what I was trying to tell you. The event
definition of a photon IS the original one. It was given because it was
found that EM radiation under differing situations acted on different items
in different ways, sometimes following wave mechanics, and sometimes acting
like a classical solid. The only way to denote both seemingly contradictory
models was to label the event point. They called that event a "photon."
The "photon", because it sometimes acted like a classical solid, was given
the status of a particle by some people who didn't really understand and
were looking for a way to explain away the wave mechanics. That's where the
confusion comes from.
If you think about it, there's nothing wrong with an EM wave moving away
from a source in a straight line. All you need to do is take your original
wave function, which obviously radiates in all directions away from the
source, and integrate it along a given path. That path can be considered the
path of your "photon." The key is to NOT think of a point particle flying
through space and remember that the actual "photon" is only the encounter
between the EM wave and some non-source, EM interacting particle.
As for waves causing attractive and repulsive forces, well, one need only
look at the ocean (or even a swimming pool) to see how that happens.
.....then again, I might just be misunderstanding your point. Sometimes it
gets really difficult to understand what you mean amid all the hurriedly
typed statements.
R. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Y.Porat
science forum Guru
Joined: 04 May 2005
Posts: 1809
|
| Posted: Wed Jun 22, 2005 2:50 am Post subject:
Re: The Photon as an attraction force carrier ??
|
|
|
Ranando King wrote:
| Quote: | "Y.Porat" <maporat@012.net.il> wrote in message
news:1119329456.045014.146110@g49g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
Thank you Ranado
actually i think you are not even aware that you actually
come closer to my point of view!!
what you did above is actually to deprive the word 'photon'
from its 'traditional understanding'!!
because the traditional understanding of a photon is
an em wave that movws in strieight lines!
now if you folow me and otheers all laong this thread
once it moves in a stright line it is 'dead by arival' as an
attraction agent!!
and that exactly waht i wahnted to lead people to the right
revolutuionary conclution
that it is not the photon 'as known' which makes any attraction force
IT IS SOMETHING ELSE THERE!
the poor photon was just picked up being an 'innocent victim'
that just 'passed by the scene of crime' and ;was cought by the
police'!! (
the 'police here' is hasty scintists that were too clumsy
to 'identify that poor creature as responsible for the field creation!
th ephoton is just one of the (evennot most important0 results
of the electric or magnetic field
*it is a result not a reason*
the main hero of that story id still hiding itself and loughing at all
the scintific comunity (
ans to make it shorter and much more tangible
as i explained yesterday
a particle that moves naturally in a curved or circular path
is UNEVITABLE
all the best
Y.Porat
---------------------------
Somehow, I think you missed what I was trying to tell you. The event
definition of a photon IS the original one. It was given because it was
found that EM radiation under differing situations acted on different items
in different ways, sometimes following wave mechanics, and sometimes acting
like a classical solid. The only way to denote both seemingly contradictory
models was to label the event point. They called that event a "photon."
---------------- |
untill now i agree with you ....(until th eabove (
-----------
| Quote: |
The "photon", because it sometimes acted like a classical solid, was given
the status of a particle by some people who didn't really understand and
were looking for a way to explain away the wave mechanics. That's where the
confusion comes from.
|
no need for confusion
tbhe photon as mass in motion
the confusion is not realising that there is actually mass there
yet the tremendous movement must not be forgottn as well
but we have t keep in mind and not to forget for a second
that the photon whatever it is - moves in stright lines
unless deviated by something external.
the photon *itself is not changing its own movement*
th e path is changed only by external force.
----------
| Quote: |
If you think about it, there's nothing wrong with an EM wave moving away
from a source in a straight line. All you need to do is take your original
wave function, which obviously radiates in all directions
|
it is not a single photon in all directions
a single photon moved only in the direction it started!!
so to make it cleare: the particle emits *many photons in many
directions*
good that you remember that
i am not sure all people keep it in their recognition
it is a key fact to be remembered.
away from the
| Quote: | source, and integrate it along a given path. That path can be considered the
path of your "photon." The key is to NOT think of a point particle flying
through space and remember that the actual "photon" is only the encounter
between the EM wave and some non-source, EM interacting particle.
|
please elaborate on :
'non sourse EM interacting particle' ??
if you take my 'Circlons' (many of them!!) to consist that 'non
souce... of yours
i take it with both hands ..... (
-------------
| Quote: |
As for waves causing attractive and repulsive forces, well, one need only
look at the ocean (or even a swimming pool) to see how that happens.
|
ranando
you overlooked the bigg difference between our oceans
and the envirinment of photon creation (or much better!)-
attraction force creation
can you do it in a second thought by youself?
if not i will try to help:
your swiming pool is full of water ie material
2 it is confined by concrete walls (again) concrete walls
if you take my 'Circlon ' to be your walls than .... ok
but th eparticle that cousing attraction by 'photons ???
God gracious... how can as 'assembly of photons make an alleged
'concrete wall' hw can it even stay one pico second at the envirinment
of the particle and not be bombed out like hell???!!
so though i like macrocosm methaphors
and use it a lot
yourse is ..... missing the target (mildly saing...)
anyway it was good enough to make ....... my point more tangible
so thank you again Ranando for your remarks and interest
i would like to hear more of your remerks hoping
that you will use my old system of
'trial and error' ie to realise an error and to try correctng it
failing again and correcting again.....
that is the only system
but the tragic popint untill now is that people even do not notice
being wrong being just parrots.
i will say it again;
there is nothing even in the mathematical solusion (a very partial
solution)
that requires unequivocally that the attraction agent will be
just the photon !!!
'that *it is* the photon' is just wishfull thinking mumbling words
that are going aside the mathematical solusion sorry -- solution (:-)
it does not stem out from it unequivocally!!
and i dont what to repeat my explanation why something
that moves in curved space is inevitable (i asked my wife and she
corrected me
to say inevitable andnot unevitable
(my wife you whant beleive it
is an English teacher and she never demanded a devorce from me
because of my typing and spelling... (
so you see peole can live with me peacefully though my shorcomings.))
so it is the field that makes the trick of attraction
and it cant do it without something that moves naturally in a closed
path
or curved path it is inevitable
actually i 'borroed that idea from Einstien
he realsed it apprently nuch before me
yet there is a difference;
acording to him curved slace is for all paerticles!!
in my understanding it is only the circlon that does it
all th eothers move in strigh tlines
and you must come to it
if you dont believe in Aether!!!
because if the field is blocking the burting out entitles
*than that 'wall tha tyou was taking about shoud be pushed out
so what is keeping that wall from not being pushed out
you will say : another ;wall???!!
so you cone to a vicuous circle of questions that do not end!1
unless you come to some 'Circlon idea'
hope i made myself a bit clearer
TIA
Y.Porat
-------------------
-------
| Quote: |
....then again, I might just be misunderstanding your point. Sometimes it
gets really difficult to understand what you mean amid all the hurriedly
typed statements.
R. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Ranando King
science forum Guru Wannabe
Joined: 28 Apr 2005
Posts: 129
|
| Posted: Wed Jun 22, 2005 4:08 pm Post subject:
Re: The Photon as an attraction force carrier ??
|
|
|
"Y.Porat" <maporat@012.net.il> wrote in message
news:1119415821.841836.34790@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com...
| Quote: |
Ranando King wrote:
snipped
The "photon", because it sometimes acted like a classical solid, was
given
the status of a particle by some people who didn't really understand and
were looking for a way to explain away the wave mechanics. That's where
the
confusion comes from.
no need for confusion
tbhe photon as mass in motion
the confusion is not realising that there is actually mass there
yet the tremendous movement must not be forgottn as well
but we have t keep in mind and not to forget for a second
that the photon whatever it is - moves in stright lines
unless deviated by something external.
the photon *itself is not changing its own movement*
th e path is changed only by external force.
|
The only problem with your conjecture here is the need to prove that a
photon actually has mass, i.e. inertia. Lacking inertia doesn't imply eratic
movement, but rather that momentum transfers occur instantaneously at the
transfer point. In either case, again remember that a photon is an event
occuring in an EM field. Consider this: if a photon has mass, then the
energy applied to an electron to cause it to emit a photon would have to be
partly converted to mass. If a photon has mass, then it CANNOT travel at the
speed of light in a vaccuum as this would require infinite energy. What's
more is that if a photon were a true particle as well as having mass, then a
free electron falling into an atom would have to have significantly less
mass than it did before falling in. It would literally radiate all of its
mass and energy away. Since that's not what happens....
| Quote: | ----------
If you think about it, there's nothing wrong with an EM wave moving away
from a source in a straight line. All you need to do is take your
original
wave function, which obviously radiates in all directions
it is not a single photon in all directions
a single photon moved only in the direction it started!!
so to make it cleare: the particle emits *many photons in many
directions*
good that you remember that
i am not sure all people keep it in their recognition
it is a key fact to be remembered.
away from the
source, and integrate it along a given path. That path can be considered
the
path of your "photon." The key is to NOT think of a point particle
flying
through space and remember that the actual "photon" is only the
encounter
between the EM wave and some non-source, EM interacting particle.
please elaborate on :
'non sourse EM interacting particle' ??
|
Electrically charged particles interact with EM fields. Electrically neutral
ones **usually** don't. The exception is electrically neutral particles with
magnetic moments. Since the EM wave radiates away from the source particle
that caused the wave, that particle is excluded from the encounter list.
| Quote: | if you take my 'Circlons' (many of them!!) to consist that 'non
souce... of yours
i take it with both hands ..... (
-------------
As for waves causing attractive and repulsive forces, well, one need
only
look at the ocean (or even a swimming pool) to see how that happens.
ranando
you overlooked the bigg difference between our oceans
and the envirinment of photon creation (or much better!)-
attraction force creation
can you do it in a second thought by youself?
if not i will try to help:
your swiming pool is full of water ie material
2 it is confined by concrete walls (again) concrete walls
if you take my 'Circlon ' to be your walls than .... ok
but th eparticle that cousing attraction by 'photons ???
God gracious... how can as 'assembly of photons make an alleged
'concrete wall' hw can it even stay one pico second at the envirinment
of the particle and not be bombed out like hell???!!
so though i like macrocosm methaphors
and use it a lot
yourse is ..... missing the target (mildly saing...)
anyway it was good enough to make ....... my point more tangible
|
I didn't miss that fact. Consider something, an ocean or pool wave applies a
force on whatever is on the water, right? In the same way, an EM wave
applies a force on whatever EM interacting particle is in the path of the EM
wave. The EM field is just as "material" to an EM interacting particle as
water is to a "rubber duckie" floating on the water.
| Quote: | so thank you again Ranando for your remarks and interest
i would like to hear more of your remerks hoping
that you will use my old system of
'trial and error' ie to realise an error and to try correctng it
failing again and correcting again.....
that is the only system
but the tragic popint untill now is that people even do not notice
being wrong being just parrots.
i will say it again;
there is nothing even in the mathematical solusion (a very partial
solution)
that requires unequivocally that the attraction agent will be
just the photon !!!
'that *it is* the photon' is just wishfull thinking mumbling words
that are going aside the mathematical solusion sorry -- solution (
|
The "photon" is merely an event. It's not a carrier of anything anymore than
the event of an ocean wave meeting a ship at sea is a carrier of momentum.
The event is merely the time and place where the momentum is transfered. The
carrier is the field/water that the particle/ship is in.
| Quote: | it does not stem out from it unequivocally!!
and i dont what to repeat my explanation why something
that moves in curved space is inevitable (i asked my wife and she
corrected me
to say inevitable andnot unevitable
(my wife you whant beleive it
is an English teacher and she never demanded a devorce from me
because of my typing and spelling... (
so you see peole can live with me peacefully though my shorcomings.))
|
Keep paying attention to her. I look forward to seeing your spelling and
grammar improve over time.
| Quote: | so it is the field that makes the trick of attraction
|
Absolutely correct.
| Quote: | and it cant do it without something that moves naturally in a closed
path
or curved path it is inevitable
|
Huh? What gives you that impression? If all of the field geodesics
(gravitational, EM, Strong, & Weak) were removed from the universe, then
there would be nothing naturally traveling along a curved path because the
universe would be geometrically flat. Things only travel curved paths where
a field curves space.
R. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Orion
science forum Guru Wannabe
Joined: 20 Jun 2005
Posts: 115
|
| Posted: Wed Jun 22, 2005 6:38 pm Post subject:
Re: The Photon as an attraction force carrier ??
|
|
|
How do we know that the spectrum of light is composed of photons? Is
light a wave, particle or just a matter-energy state? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Y.Porat
science forum Guru
Joined: 04 May 2005
Posts: 1809
|
| Posted: Thu Jun 23, 2005 4:16 am Post subject:
Re: The Photon as an attraction force carrier ??
|
|
|
Ranando King wrote:
| Quote: | "Y.Porat" <maporat@012.net.il> wrote in message
news:1119415821.841836.34790@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com...
Ranando King wrote:
snipped
no need for confusion
The only problem with your conjecture here is the need to prove that a
photon actually has mass, i.e. inertia. Lacking inertia doesn't imply eratic
movement, but rather that momentum transfers occur instantaneously at the
transfer point.
--------------- |
tha photon having mass or not i snot our curent issue
i an convined and showed it in may ways
if you like we can discuss it separately
alteratively you can folow my long discissions and disputes here in
this ng
along many years.
yet not it i snot relevant
th eonly relevance is that acording to me it has mass
there fore momentum . th e momentum fact is not in dispue
it seenms that anyone accepts it
for our discusion and my claimes, carring momentum is enough for it
because , just keep in mind
that if th e photon has momentum and ...
it moves in a stright line,
its momentum transfere will be *only along that stright line*
that is because of conservation of momentum* that we all agree.
ie the 'overall (botom line) momentum transfer- should be
the same as that of the hitting photon.
------------
In either case, again remember that a photon is an event
| Quote: | occuring in an EM field.
-- |
ranando
we are not in a literature ng
we are in a sci.physics ng
later you will say 'it is a happy event'.....
and the day later you sill say 'a tragic even'....
we are not dealing with abstact literaturistic term or substance
you must expalin *what that even it* *in detailes*!!
each detail migh tbe 'fatal' to me or to you.
'the devil is in the detailes'!!!!
Consider this: if a photon has mass, then the
| Quote: | energy applied to an electron to cause it to emit a photon would have to be
partly converted to mass.
you see |
you are living in your world an efuse even to try
and live fo ra moment in my world:
th ephoton acordng to me does not have to convert energy to mass:
energy is mass in motion!!
If a photon has mass, then it CANNOT travel at the
| Quote: | speed of light in a vaccuum as this would require infinite energy.
--- |
again you dont know my theories:
di dit occured to you that the photon is an *exception* to that
lorentz formula??
did it ever ocured to you that a formula might have its limits
of validation??
acording to me , th e photon is the only mass that can move
at the velocity of C!
but again that is not our curerent issue.
----------
What's
| Quote: | more is that if a photon were a true particle as well as having mass, then a
free electron falling into an atom would have to have significantly less
mass than it did before falling in.
1 why should it have less mass? |
2 if the photon is composed of the smallest possible mass
that it cannot have less mass!!
3 mind uou acording to my claimes the mass of the smallest photon is
exp -51 kg !!! got it ??
i asure you that non of our existing tools can detact such diferences
in mass.
It would literally radiate all of its
| Quote: | mass and energy away.
why should it radiate all its mass |
please explain.
Since that's not what happens....
and how do you know that??
| Quote: |
----------
If you think about it, there's nothing wrong with an EM wave moving away
from a source in a straight line. All you need to do is take your
original
wave function, which obviously radiates in all directions
it is not a single photon in all directions
a single photon moved only in the direction it started!!
so to make it cleare: the particle emits *many photons in many
directions*
good that you remember that
i am not sure all people keep it in their recognition
it is a key fact to be remembered.
away from the
only the
encounter
between the EM wave and some non-source, EM interacting particle.
please elaborate on :
'non sourse EM interacting particle' ??
Electrically charged particles interact with EM fields.
|
you still didnt tell us what is that 'charge'
and didnt prove that it is done by photons
just remember that is our curent main discusion
i will say it again may be then you will remember it
our dsipue and discussion is wether the *field' is done by photons*!!
(or em waves thats the same)
Electrically neutral
| Quote: | ones **usually** don't. The exception is electrically neutral particles with
magnetic moments. Since the EM wave radiates away from the source particle
that caused the wave, that particle is excluded from the encounter list.
????? |
i read it a few times....
i guess it is not my fauld that i didn undestood you expalntion
pleae fry again for people with slow grasp.
------------
| Quote: | if you take my 'Circlons' (many of them!!) to consist that 'non
souce... of yours
i take it with both hands ..... (
-------------
As for waves causing attractive and repulsive forces, well, one need
only
look at the ocean (or even a swimming pool) to see how that happens.
ranando
you overlooked the bigg difference between our oceans
and the envirinment of photon creation (or much better!)-
attraction force creation
can you do it in a second thought by youself?
if not i will try to help:
your swiming pool is full of water ie material
2 it is confined by concrete walls (again) concrete walls
if you take my 'Circlon ' to be your walls than .... ok
but th eparticle that cousing attraction by 'photons ???
God gracious... how can as 'assembly of photons make an alleged
'concrete wall' hw can it even stay one pico second at the envirinment
of the particle and not be bombed out like hell???!!
so though i like macrocosm methaphors
and use it a lot
yourse is ..... missing the target (mildly saing...)
anyway it was good enough to make ....... my point more tangible
I didn't miss that fact. Consider something, an ocean or pool wave applies a
force on whatever is on the water, right?
|
the devil is in the detales:
in what direction it palyes force?
In the same way, an EM wave
| Quote: | applies a force on whatever EM interacting particle is in the path of the EM
wave. The EM field is just as "material" to an EM interacting particle as
water is to a "rubber duckie" floating on the water.
|
again you play that X=X prove!!
you stick always to your assumption that the field is done by em waives
and atke it as a base to your argument
and you forget that you cant take it as an accepted fact and build your
building on the base that was not proved!.
if you will replace your arguments by using insted of
the em field the 'Circlon field' that i am with you ...(
i expalined in detales
that an en foeld of photons or em waives that move like madd
with the velocity of C has nothing to hold it
i a very small location it will 'bomb' out imediately!!
you didnt answwer that key question
that is a 'to be or not to be' question
since the photons that run like madd run as well in the outwards
direction
*it applies and outside ' momentum
so ther must be something that will reject them backwards inwards.
yet
since the conservation of momentum and keeping in mind
that what was apl;ied to our 'constraining wall' was
an outside momentum (from the running out photons- en waves-)
so that 'wall is pushed out!!
so what prevents that 'wall from running out ???
will you suggest another 'wall'
sont you see the dead lock??
so imho
that is the plcace to apply the Ciclon'
because if you understand it properly (i hope you saw some hints of it
in my appendix of my site ??)
so if you understand it=
it prevents all the above dead lock!!
--------
btw are you of the Aether people??
if yes please let us know !
and than things become clearer at least from the
'religious point of view .....
----------------
| Quote: |
or curved path it is inevitable
Huh? What gives you that impression? If all of the field geodesics
(gravitational, EM, Strong, & Weak) were removed from the universe, then
there would be nothing naturally traveling along a curved path because the
universe would be geometrically flat.
--------- |
if you take away all the Circlons-
there will be only stright line movement
i told you my theory
it is only the Circlon that moved in a curved path
and i told you that Einstein procceeded me in the understanding
that something curved must exist or else we are
in a dead lock
yet my Circlon idea is different from the ;curved spacetime idea.
and i explained what is the difference.
TIA for your interesting comments and interest
i am waiting for your answers.
Y.Porat
--------------------- |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Ranando King
science forum Guru Wannabe
Joined: 28 Apr 2005
Posts: 129
|
| Posted: Thu Jun 23, 2005 3:16 pm Post subject:
Re: The Photon as an attraction force carrier ??
|
|
|
"Y.Porat" <maporat@012.net.il> wrote in message
news:1119507414.062374.54700@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com...
| Quote: |
Ranando King wrote:
"Y.Porat" <maporat@012.net.il> wrote in message
news:1119415821.841836.34790@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com...
Ranando King wrote:
snipped
no need for confusion
The only problem with your conjecture here is the need to prove that a
photon actually has mass, i.e. inertia. Lacking inertia doesn't imply
eratic
movement, but rather that momentum transfers occur instantaneously at
the
transfer point.
---------------
tha photon having mass or not i snot our curent issue
i an convined and showed it in may ways
if you like we can discuss it separately
alteratively you can folow my long discissions and disputes here in
this ng
along many years.
yet not it i snot relevant
th eonly relevance is that acording to me it has mass
there fore momentum . th e momentum fact is not in dispue
it seenms that anyone accepts it
for our discusion and my claimes, carring momentum is enough for it
because , just keep in mind
that if th e photon has momentum and ...
it moves in a stright line,
its momentum transfere will be *only along that stright line*
that is because of conservation of momentum* that we all agree.
ie the 'overall (botom line) momentum transfer- should be
the same as that of the hitting photon.
------------
|
You've got it, and then you miss it. A "photon" does indeed transfer
momentum. However, momentum does not require mass. So while it is true that
having mass and moving requires having momentum, it is not true that moving
and having momentum requires having mass. Besides, do the math. If a
"photon" had momentum and mass, it either a) wouldn't be moving at the speed
of light or b) would have infinite momentum and infinite energy. Since the
latter cannot possibly be correct...
Since a "photon" is massless, it is free to transfer momentum in any
direction. If a "photon" had mass, then the billiard ball mechanics you've
described above would be accurate. So whether or not the "photon" has mass
is actually important to your point.
| Quote: |
In either case, again remember that a photon is an event
occuring in an EM field.
--
ranando
we are not in a literature ng
we are in a sci.physics ng
later you will say 'it is a happy event'.....
and the day later you sill say 'a tragic even'....
we are not dealing with abstact literaturistic term or substance
you must expalin *what that even it* *in detailes*!!
each detail migh tbe 'fatal' to me or to you.
'the devil is in the detailes'!!!!
|
Maybe you need to revise your definition of event in this context. Let me
help.
From http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=event
e·vent ( P ) Pronunciation Key (-vnt)
n.
1. a) Something that takes place; an occurrence.
b) A significant occurrence or happening. See Synonyms at occurrence.
c) A social gathering or activity.
2. The final result; the outcome.
3. Sports. A contest or an item in a sports program.
4. Physics. A phenomenon or occurrence located at a single point in
space-time, regarded as the fundamental observational entity in relativity
theory.
You're thinking of definition 1.c. but the appropriate definition in this
context is 4.
I described the nature of the event in the previous post, but I'll state it
again here in case you missed it. The event denoted by the interaction
between an EM participating particle that is not the source of the EM wave
and an wave traveling through an EM field is called a "photon".
| Quote: | Consider this: if a photon has mass, then the
energy applied to an electron to cause it to emit a photon would have to
be
partly converted to mass.
you see
you are living in your world an efuse even to try
and live fo ra moment in my world:
th ephoton acordng to me does not have to convert energy to mass:
energy is mass in motion!!
|
As I said before. All you need to do is prove it... scientifically, and
model it... mathematically. If you manage those 2 feats, then you will have
turned all of science on its ear. The catch is that there are innumerable
experiments that have been performed that disagree with your assertions.
You've definitely got your work cut out for you.
| Quote: | If a photon has mass, then it CANNOT travel at the
speed of light in a vaccuum as this would require infinite energy.
---
again you dont know my theories:
di dit occured to you that the photon is an *exception* to that
lorentz formula??
did it ever ocured to you that a formula might have its limits
of validation??
acording to me , th e photon is the only mass that can move
at the velocity of C!
but again that is not our curerent issue.
----------
|
I considered that, but it poses too many inconsistencies...
| Quote: | What's
more is that if a photon were a true particle as well as having mass,
then a
free electron falling into an atom would have to have significantly less
mass than it did before falling in.
1 why should it have less mass?
|
Mass is a version of energy posessing inertia. So if you calculate the total
energy of a free electron, including the energy due to its mass, then
calculate the total energy of all the photons released as the electron falls
into an atom, you'd find that the energy of these massive photons would
exceed the non-mass energy the electron had available. The only other place
to take the needed energy from is the mass of the electron itself.
| Quote: | 2 if the photon is composed of the smallest possible mass
that it cannot have less mass!!
|
I said the electron would lose mass, not the photon....
| Quote: | 3 mind uou acording to my claimes the mass of the smallest photon is
exp -51 kg !!! got it ??
i asure you that non of our existing tools can detact such diferences
in mass.
|
I'm well aware of that. However, consider how easy it is to produce photons.
If photons did indeed have mass, then test using a high-frequency laser
should be able to detect that mass. If you can perform such a test and prove
the mass of the photons, then you'd likely be the next Nobel millionaire.
| Quote: |
It would literally radiate all of its
mass and energy away.
why should it radiate all its mass
please explain.
|
See above: "Mass is a version...."
| Quote: | Since that's not what happens....
and how do you know that??
|
....because the electron still exists with the same mass after falling into
orbit around an atom (excuse the non-qm description)
| Quote: |
----------
If you think about it, there's nothing wrong with an EM wave moving
away
from a source in a straight line. All you need to do is take your
original
wave function, which obviously radiates in all directions
it is not a single photon in all directions
a single photon moved only in the direction it started!!
so to make it cleare: the particle emits *many photons in many
directions*
good that you remember that
i am not sure all people keep it in their recognition
it is a key fact to be remembered.
away from the
only the
encounter
between the EM wave and some non-source, EM interacting particle.
please elaborate on :
'non sourse EM interacting particle' ??
Electrically charged particles interact with EM fields.
you still didnt tell us what is that 'charge'
and didnt prove that it is done by photons
just remember that is our curent main discusion
|
Do you remember my first post to you in this thread? I clearly stated that
there is no evidence or proof that a "photon" is an attraction force
producer because a "photon" isn't even a particle or a wave. A "photon" is
an event. The force producer is the EM field.
| Quote: | i will say it again may be then you will remember it
our dsipue and discussion is wether the *field' is done by photons*!!
(or em waves thats the same)
|
I was under the impression I'd already answered that to your satisfaction. I
just keep disagreeing with you every time you imply or state that a photon
has mass.
| Quote: |
Electrically neutral
ones **usually** don't. The exception is electrically neutral particles
with
magnetic moments. Since the EM wave radiates away from the source
particle
that caused the wave, that particle is excluded from the encounter list.
?????
i read it a few times....
i guess it is not my fauld that i didn undestood you expalntion
pleae fry again for people with slow grasp.
------------
|
Ok. I'll re-state it slightly differently. "Photon" events occur when a wave
in an EM field encounters a particle that participates in EM interactions,
but did not cause the wave. Particles that participate in EM interactions
include electrically charged particles and particles with magnetic moments.
| Quote: | if you take my 'Circlons' (many of them!!) to consist that 'non
souce... of yours
i take it with both hands ..... (
-------------
As for waves causing attractive and repulsive forces, well, one need
only
look at the ocean (or even a swimming pool) to see how that happens.
ranando
you overlooked the bigg difference between our oceans
and the envirinment of photon creation (or much better!)-
attraction force creation
can you do it in a second thought by youself?
if not i will try to help:
your swiming pool is full of water ie material
2 it is confined by concrete walls (again) concrete walls
if you take my 'Circlon ' to be your walls than .... ok
but th eparticle that cousing attraction by 'photons ???
God gracious... how can as 'assembly of photons make an alleged
'concrete wall' hw can it even stay one pico second at the envirinment
of the particle and not be bombed out like hell???!!
so though i like macrocosm methaphors
and use it a lot
yourse is ..... missing the target (mildly saing...)
anyway it was good enough to make ....... my point more tangible
I didn't miss that fact. Consider something, an ocean or pool wave
applies a
force on whatever is on the water, right?
the devil is in the detales:
in what direction it palyes force?
|
That depends on the nature of the wave, doesn't it? Some waves cause boats
on the ocean to move closer together. Otherwaves cause boats on the ocean to
move further apart.
| Quote: | In the same way, an EM wave
applies a force on whatever EM interacting particle is in the path of
the EM
wave. The EM field is just as "material" to an EM interacting particle
as
water is to a "rubber duckie" floating on the water.
again you play that X=X prove!!
|
I didn't use any kind of proof. I made a statement of fact.
| Quote: | you stick always to your assumption that the field is done by em waives
and atke it as a base to your argument
and you forget that you cant take it as an accepted fact and build your
building on the base that was not proved!.
|
Whoa... Wrong. You misunderstood what I'm saying again. Let me retry for
you....
The field is not caused by EM waves. The field exists. Period. A source
particle, say an electron, causes waves in that field when it moves. Those
waves are EM waves. By analog, a filled pool has water in it. A water
interacting child, say my daughter, makes waves in the pool when she swims.
<snipped>
| Quote: | --------
btw are you of the Aether people??
if yes please let us know !
and than things become clearer at least from the
'religious point of view .....
|
Whether or not I think aether exists is neither a religious point or
relevant to this discussion as the mechanics of what we're discussion is the
same regardless of the existance or non-existance of aether.
| Quote: | ----------------
or curved path it is inevitable
Huh? What gives you that impression? If all of the field geodesics
(gravitational, EM, Strong, & Weak) were removed from the universe, then
there would be nothing naturally traveling along a curved path because
the
universe would be geometrically flat.
---------
if you take away all the Circlons-
there will be only stright line movement
i told you my theory
it is only the Circlon that moved in a curved path
and i told you that Einstein procceeded me in the understanding
that something curved must exist or else we are
in a dead lock
yet my Circlon idea is different from the ;curved spacetime idea.
and i explained what is the difference.
TIA for your interesting comments and interest
i am waiting for your answers.
Y.Porat
---------------------
|
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Y.Porat
science forum Guru
Joined: 04 May 2005
Posts: 1809
|
| Posted: Fri Jun 24, 2005 5:26 am Post subject:
Re: The Photon as an attraction force carrier ??
|
|
|
Ranando King wrote:
| Quote: | "Y.Porat" <maporat@012.net.il> wrote in message
news:1119507414.062374.54700@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com...
instantaneously at
the
transfer point.
---------------
tha photon having mass or not i snot our curent issue
i an convined and showed it in may ways
if you like we can discuss it separately
alteratively you can folow my long discissions and disputes here in
this ng
along many years.
yet not it i snot relevant
th eonly relevance is that acording to me it has mass
there fore momentum . th e momentum fact is not in dispue
it seenms that anyone accepts it
for our discusion and my claimes, carring momentum is enough for it
because , just keep in mind
that if th e photon has momentum and ...
it moves in a stright line,
its momentum transfere will be *only along that stright line*
that is because of conservation of momentum* that we all agree.
ie the 'overall (botom line) momentum transfer- should be
the same as that of the hitting photon.
------------
You've got it, and then you miss it. A "photon" does indeed transfer
momentum. However, momentum does not require mass. So while it is true that
having mass and moving requires having momentum, it is not true that moving
and having momentum requires having mass. Besides, do the math. If a
"photon" had momentum and mass, it either a) wouldn't be moving at the speed
of light or b) would have infinite momentum and infinite energy. Since the
latter cannot possibly be correct...
|
----------
just a short time i was answering about more than half an hour
and .... there was a break down in electricity
and it all got lost so my patiance now will bwe shorter
and i will answer much shorter.. with your permitions.....
(nad since i am more tired there will be more spelling mistakes..
i apologise )
oue duscussion is not about th ephoton having mass or not
it is since it has momentum
it has a magnitude and not least direction!!
if the direction of an escaping from the limited volume
it is an outwarss direction that is because of conservation of
direction
and the bototm line of all your calculations muct be keeping the
original
momentum magnitude and direction
so it it intedas to run out
ther must be something that repels it back inwars
if it is the field that does it
the field itself 'suffers' an outwads 'kick' that should
force something of it to be repelled outeards
and whqt then keeps that field not todereriiorate and get lost??
it is a dead end queston
so the Circlon' is inevitable
---------------
| Quote: |
---
again you dont know my theories:
di dit occured to you that the photon is an *exception* to that
lorentz formula??
did it ever ocured to you that a formula might have its limits
of validation??
acording to me , th e photon is the only mass that can move
at the velocity of C!
but again that is not our curerent issue.
----------
I considered that, but it poses too many inconsistencies...
that waht you hand wave |
i hand wave just the oposite...
-----------
| Quote: |
What's
more is that if a photon were a true particle as well as having mass,
then a
free electron falling into an atom would have to have significantly less
mass than it did before falling in.
1 why should it have less mass?
Mass is a version of energy posessing inertia. So if you calculate the total
energy of a free electron, including the energy due to its mass, then
calculate the total energy of all the photons released as the electron falls
into an atom, you'd find that the energy of these massive photons would
exceed the non-mass energy the electron had available. The only other place
to take the needed energy from is the mass of the electron itself.
---------- |
no sir just to make it very short (since a lot on my work was
lost in the power break down (
energy is masss in motion
if you are right in your calculations and realy it lost energy
it is because of .....
lost of *veleocity*!!
----------------
| Quote: |
3 mind uou acording to my claimes the mass of the smallest photon is
exp -51 kg !!! got it ??
i asure you that non of our existing tools can detact such diferences
in mass.
I'm well aware of that. However, consider how easy it is to produce photons.
If photons did indeed have mass, then test using a high-frequency laser
should be able to detect that mass. If you can perform such a test and prove
the mass of the photons, then you'd likely be the next Nobel millionaire.
------------
pleae prove that hand waving! |
----------------
| Quote: | and how do you know that??
...because the electron still exists with the same mass after falling into
orbit around an atom (excuse the non-qm description)
------------
see above |
-----------------
| Quote: |
Electrically charged particles interact with EM fields.
you still didnt tell us what is that 'charge'
and didnt prove that it is done by photons
just remember that is our curent main discusion
Do you remember my first post to you in this thread? I clearly stated that
there is no evidence or proof that a "photon" is an attraction force
producer because a "photon" isn't even a particle or a wave. A "photon" is
an event. The force producer is the EM field.
---------------- |
so you see what happned
we argeed just from the beginning that photons are not the
EM *feild* makers ans went on disputing and disputing
while my main goal was just to make it clear the above:
but please note:
that i was actually the first one toput it on the table
loud and clear
actually i did it many years ago all laong those years
and it is only now that my claim starts to be accepted!!
why just now ?? whay so late??
after all these long years of abusing me?
so something is realy starst to move and advance
and please remember who is the 'copyrighter of it'!1
because just now thre will be a pop out of many 'fathers ' to it (
----------------------
| Quote: |
i will say it again may be then you will remember it
our dsipue and discussion is wether the *field' is done by photons*!!
(or em waves thats the same)
I was under the impression I'd already answered that to your satisfaction. I
just keep disagreeing with you every time you imply or state that a photon
has mass.
but that is not our issue now |
we can discuss it another occation
----------
| Quote: |
pleae fry again for people with slow grasp.
------------
Ok. I'll re-state it slightly differently. "Photon" events occur when a wave
in an EM field encounters a particle that participates in EM interactions,
but did not cause the wave. Particles that participate in EM interactions
include electrically charged particles and particles with magnetic moments.
-------------
so it is not in contardiction to me |
| Quote: | if you take my 'Circlons' (many of them!!) to consist that 'non
souce... of yours
i take it with both hands ..... (
-------------
As for waves causing attractive and repulsive forces, well, one need
only
I didn't miss that fact. Consider something, an ocean or pool wave
applies a
force on whatever is on the water, right?
the devil is in the detales:
in what direction it palyes force?
That depends on the nature of the wave, doesn't it? Some waves cause boats
on the ocean to move closer together. Otherwaves cause boats on the ocean to
move further apart.
---------- |
i think i located the 'problem' with your methaphore:
in your mathaphore the 'ocean' is actually spreads infinitely
around your boat and evenly dispersed all around and all along
in the field case it is not like that:
it is not infinitly all around
and not least: not evenly dispersed all laround
the field for instance becomes deluded withdiatnce!!
so nioce nethaphore but not satisfactory!1
if you are an Aether man than you have your Aether all around
the same
but that is another religion that has to be proven
and i guess that the simpler is the betetrin many cases
ie th eless you have to invent entities - the better
both of us agree that 'something has to be added
tothe dead end physics situation
indeed myself had to invent the 'Circlon'
but inho it solves problems much simpler.
-----------
---------
| Quote: |
In the same way, an EM wave
applies a force on whatever EM interacting particle is in the path of
the EM
wave. The EM field is just as "material" to an EM interacting particle
as
water is to a "rubber duckie" floating on the water.
again you play that X=X prove!!
I didn't use any kind of proof. I made a statement of fact.
you say its facts |
i have another facts .....
| Quote: |
you stick always to your assumption that the field is done by em waives
and atke it as a base to your argument
and you forget that you cant take it as an accepted fact and build your
building on the base that was not proved!.
Whoa... Wrong. You misunderstood what I'm saying again. Let me retry for
you....
The field is not caused by EM waves. The field exists. Period. A source
particle, say an electron, causes waves in that field when it moves. Those
waves are EM waves. By analog, a filled pool has water in it. A water
interacting child, say my daughter, makes waves in the pool when she swims.
------------------------
i have as well not a daughter but a grand child making waves |
in my bath ( so you are you are youger than me ...
but the bath has 'walls' stiff ones and that is not a elevant example.
----------
| Quote: | snipped
--------
btw are you of the Aether people??
if yes please let us know !
and than things become clearer at least from the
'religious point of view .....
Whether or not I think aether exists is neither a religious point or
relevant to this discussion as the mechanics of what we're discussion is the
same regardless of the existance or non-existance of aether.
|
the ocean example that you brough insinuates and ;demands' something
like Aether yet it is far from being proven.
-----------------
| Quote: |
---------
if you take away all the Circlons-
there will be only stright line movement
|
and i forgot to add
not only that
if all the Circlons will be removed
our globe will exploded imediately into the endless universe!!
------------
| Quote: |
i told you my theory
it is only the Circlon that moved in a curved path
and i told you that Einstein procceeded me in the understanding
that something curved must exist or else we are
in a dead lock
yet my Circlon idea is different from the ;curved spacetime idea.
and i explained what is the difference.
TIA for your interesting comments and interest
i am waiting > > Y.Porat
---------------------
all the best |
Y.Porat
-----------
> > |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Ranando King
science forum Guru Wannabe
Joined: 28 Apr 2005
Posts: 129
|
| Posted: Fri Jun 24, 2005 4:56 pm Post subject:
Re: The Photon as an attraction force carrier ??
|
|
|
"Y.Porat" <maporat@012.net.il> wrote in message
news:1119597986.129848.87920@g47g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
| Quote: |
Ranando King wrote:
"Y.Porat" <maporat@012.net.il> wrote in message
news:1119507414.062374.54700@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com...
instantaneously at
the
transfer point.
---------------
tha photon having mass or not i snot our curent issue
|
You may not think so, but you have to understand that whether or not a
photon has mass is in fact very much critical to the discription you've
given below.
<snipped>
| Quote: | th eonly relevance is that acording to me it has mass
there fore momentum . th e momentum fact is not in dispue
it seenms that anyone accepts it
for our discusion and my claimes, carring momentum is enough for it
because , just keep in mind
that if th e photon has momentum and ...
it moves in a stright line,
its momentum transfere will be *only along that stright line*
that is because of conservation of momentum* that we all agree.
ie the 'overall (botom line) momentum transfer- should be
the same as that of the hitting photon.
------------
|
This is the description I'm talking about. You're right in that no one
disputes a photon has momentum. However, the rest of your description about
momentum transfers only occuring along straight line paths is highly
dependant on inertia, i.e. mass. If a photon has mass, then your description
is possible. But if a photon does not have mass, then your discription is
not necessary, and in fact, very much incorrect. So then it becomes critical
to determine whether or not a photon has mass in order to validate the basis
of your conjectures.
| Quote: | You've got it, and then you miss it. A "photon" does indeed transfer
momentum. However, momentum does not require mass. So while it is true
that
having mass and moving requires having momentum, it is not true that
moving
and having momentum requires having mass. Besides, do the math. If a
"photon" had momentum and mass, it either a) wouldn't be moving at the
speed
of light or b) would have infinite momentum and infinite energy. Since
the
latter cannot possibly be correct...
----------
just a short time i was answering about more than half an hour
and .... there was a break down in electricity
and it all got lost so my patiance now will bwe shorter
and i will answer much shorter.. with your permitions.....
(nad since i am more tired there will be more spelling mistakes..
i apologise )
oue duscussion is not about th ephoton having mass or not
it is since it has momentum
it has a magnitude and not least direction!!
if the direction of an escaping from the limited volume
it is an outwarss direction that is because of conservation of
direction
and the bototm line of all your calculations muct be keeping the
original
momentum magnitude and direction
so it it intedas to run out
ther must be something that repels it back inwars
if it is the field that does it
the field itself 'suffers' an outwads 'kick' that should
force something of it to be repelled outeards
and whqt then keeps that field not todereriiorate and get lost??
it is a dead end queston
so the Circlon' is inevitable
|
Did you not know that waves can transfer momentum in directions opposite of
their own? As such, an EM wave can transfer momentum to an object such that
the object begins moving toward the source of the wave. This is a well known
function in wave mechanics. There is no need for your Circlons unless you
can prove that photons have mass.
| Quote: | ---------------
---
again you dont know my theories:
di dit occured to you that the photon is an *exception* to that
lorentz formula??
did it ever ocured to you that a formula might have its limits
of validation??
acording to me , th e photon is the only mass that can move
at the velocity of C!
but again that is not our curerent issue.
----------
I considered that, but it poses too many inconsistencies...
that waht you hand wave
i hand wave just the oposite...
-----------
What's
more is that if a photon were a true particle as well as having
mass,
then a
free electron falling into an atom would have to have significantly
less
mass than it did before falling in.
1 why should it have less mas |
| | |
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Usergroups
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
Forum index
»
Science and Technology
»
Physics
»
Particle
