FAQFAQ   SearchSearch   MemberlistMemberlist   UsergroupsUsergroups 
 ProfileProfile   PreferencesPreferences   Log in to check your private messagesLog in to check your private messages   Log inLog in 
Forum index » Science and Technology » Physics » Relativity
PHOTON MASS -- A FACT. MASSLESS PARTICLES -- NOT FACT.
Post new topic   Reply to topic Page 1 of 17 [246 Posts] View previous topic :: View next topic
Goto page:  1, 2, 3, ..., 15, 16, 17 Next
Author Message
Golden Boar
science forum Guru


Joined: 17 May 2005
Posts: 651

PostPosted: Sun Jul 16, 2006 7:16 pm    Post subject: Re: PHOTON MASS -- A FACT. MASSLESS PARTICLES -- NOT FACT. Reply with quote

Y.Porat wrote:
Quote:
Golden Boar wrote:
Y.Porat wrote:
Golden Boar wrote:
Y.Porat wrote:
Golden Boar wrote:
Y.Porat wrote:
niether E nor f are zero remember ???!!

-------------------
and hee is were you lost the point!!!

it is not the h a lone that makes it
IT IS TH ECOMBINATION OF ALL THE COMPONENETS OF THE FORMULA !!

if anything else around or near that h was zero
THE MULTIPLICATION OF THOSE ELEMENTS WOULD GIVE ZERO
now since there is no zero there whasoever
there fore all the components of h are not multiplated by something
that could render
the assembly to zero

figure
atatched to it
but still
ONCE ANY UNIT IS THERER IT IS NEVER ZERO OF THWERE IS NOTHING TO
MAKE IT NONEXISTANT BY MULTIPLYING IT BY ZERO
in other cases ther migh tbe a confusion about if the is a zero
multiplyer
WAHT IS THE UNIT THAT BELONGS TO THAT ZERO

now fortunate for me and us (not for you sorry)
means less chances to be wrong !!)
util now no one while playing in ;'my yard ' poited a real flaw in my
proof .(beside hand wavings
i am not responsible for 'other yards ' only for mine .......
ATB
Y.Porat
-----------------

Once again, you write a pile of gobbledy-gook gibberish nonsense, and
fail to address any of the questions I asked.

iof you realy whnt to discuss it
just speap physics and not cheatong hand wavings and baseless
propaganda
see the folowing
----------------------


Since your theory says that a photon has a non zero rest mass, would
you consider it a dumb question if I were to ask when a photon is ever
at rest?

thre i sjust one kind of mass
reltivistic mass fo rthe photon is nonsense since
the Gama factor doe snot apply to it
will you try to keep it in your mind?

Porat, we all know that the Lorentz factor does not apply to the
photon, how could it, when v=c for a photon?
not only that
if v=c it is deviding by zero
and if we would take the

e=gamma m c^2 it will be infinit
now you can say ok i twill be right if we put m = zero

Why the hell would it?

Quote:
but still in that case you will get
thaty E = zero/zero which is undefined situation
so we agree about it but you dont make the right conclusoons out of it
!!

histirically rest mas was coined to make a doffeerence between
'reativistic' mass
because of its motion and it was considered to mbe inflating
and the orriginal mass before motion that was called 'rest mass'
but since people realized that there is no realtivistic mass at all
rest mass' aas well lost its meaning as 'rest' inoppositeto mass in
motion
it was an unnecessary term wahtsoever
there is only one kind of mass no mateterif in rest or in motion!
and you can call it Bhoe mass or Porat mass whaever you like
it has nothing to dowith motion or not motion !!
you just stick to the musical sound of it to be only in rest .
which is not the case .'rest mass' or the only existing mass can be as
wel all know
it can be in motion as well

Complete nonsense as usual.

Quote:
bntw
do i understand you well that you deny completely the existance of mass
??

You don't understand anything.

Quote:
--------------

You are insisting that the photon has a rest mass, and therefore
insisting that the photon has a frame of reference in which it can be
considered to be at rest.
see above nothing to do with a frame of reference it is not like legth
or time
it is always the same no matter waht frame of refference .

Rest mass is the mass a particle would have if it was at rest.

Quote:
because the Lorentz factor doe snot apply to it but to something else
i was th efirst one to detach the gamma fromthe mass

Stop being a loony, what you did is simple algebra.

Quote:
(PD used it as well without mensining myname as originator of it )


This is incorrect.


so it is either there is mass or not mass
will you try to keep it in your memory ??

Since the photon can never be considered to be at rest, then the
logical conclusion is that it cannot have a rest mass.
see above
only one kind of mass nomatter if in rest or in motion

If a mass is in motion, then it is not rest mass.

Quote:
----------

it makes no difdfrence if it is in movement or not
it is always the same mass, if you like to call it rest mass so be it
but it is only an historic misatke to call differnt kinds of mass
in different names

Do you know why they call it rest mass?
It is because that is the mass of a particle when it is at rest.
Photons do not rest, therefore they cannot have rest mass.
-------------
you stick to the 'musical sound of the term' it has nothing to dowith
rest or movement
it is just an anacronystic term !1
-------------

More nonsense.

Quote:


th e mass is always the same mass it never inflates even fo rbigger
particles
it is the energy or force that are associated that 'inflate'
ie it needs more and more energy toadd more velocity
will you try to remember it?
and dont forget who is the copyrighter of it !!

2 my qualitative proof is not a THEORY

I know it isn't.

it is jsut a amthematical physical qaulitiative proof

No it isn't.
you say so but that is exactly the subjest of our descussion
we have to discuss physics arguments not declarations of hand wavings
!!
---------

Then stop handwaving, and provide some arguments which are not
contradicted by evidence.

Quote:


can you make th edifference between a qaulitiatively and a
quantitatively
proof

you ddint answer that !!

It doesn't make any sense to me.

Quote:
if a proof is qualitative than no more need for qualitiative proofs
if you have in addition to it qualitative proofs
IT IS JUST A BUNUS IN ADDITION TO THE QUALITATIVE
the quantitative is not obligatory !!!
and in our case we dont need more than a qualitiative onle
toprove nonzero is qualitative by definition !!

More nonsense.

Quote:
---------


once you understand it you will be ashamed toask for a quantitative
proof
or experimental mesurments of it
because if at all to find mesurments that will confirm it
it will be just an additional bonus to it
the proof that is based onthe EXPERIMENTAL FORMULA E=hf
deas not need any firther experimental proofs right ?

More nonsense.

Quote:

3 i am quite sure that if i had invested some time
i would find the mistake of your attempts to refute me

Then do so.

anyway let me satr t doind it even with mo much time invested in your
'refutal'
of me :
btw if my proof is right for itself i dont need anymore to defent it
against
because it is your task toshow my misatke IN MY YARD!!
other 'disproofs ' anyway
let us make some short test of your 'disproof':

btw i have anunprecedented theory of the Atom and nucleus
but that is another Opera !!

LOL
waht is LOL

Laughing Out Loud

Quote:
2 what do you know about my Atom and nuc model that ltets you say that
??!!

I know it's a pile of crap.

Quote:
------

----------------
-----------

Would you consider it a dumb question to ask what the mass of the
photon is?

You say that h = pl * m * l^2 / t,

where,

pl = 6.6 * 10^-34
m = 1 kg
l = 1 m
t = 1 s

seems ok

Compton says that h = m.lC.c,

where,

m is the mass,
lC is the Compton wavelength,
c is the speed of light.

so where do you see that the mas sof the photon is zero
in the above for mula ???

The formula does not apply to photons.

Quote:
-------


Since the Compton equation is well established, would you consider it a
dumb question to ask why m, l, and t all have a value of 1 in your
equation, and why you invented the dimensionless constant pl?

why not ??

Maybe because h = m.lC.c.

where the hell do you see 6.6 *10 ^-34 to have any dimensions
are you crazy ??

No, but you are.

Quote:
i told you you have to plat in my yard ie withjthe formula
E=hf nothing more !
not to change it not to manipulate it just the simple formula E=hf
waht is wrong witthat formula ??which id the orriginal formula or
Einstien !!
inthat formula 6.6 10 ^-34 is a net figure without dimension
if you deny it
we have nothing to discuss
ask any same person her he will tell you the same as i
unless you what to obfuscate .
----------

More nonsense.

Quote:


E= pl *h* f

No it does not, unless now, pl = 1.

so pl there is dimensionless figure !!(that is in 'my yard' i anm
not responsible for your 'yard')
---
----------------------
you say
Compton says that h=m.1C.c

i didnt check it
yet even if right
where do you see that m is zero??

You haven't got a clue about the Compton equation have you?
i dont need in that case i have mysimpe prroginal formula E=hf
-----------

The m in the equation is the mass of a particle such as an electron,
and the lC is the Compton wavelength of the electron. But it does not
have to be for an electron only, the equation is valid for all massive
particles. I think the equation is valid for anything with mass, for
example, a planet or star, but you will have to get that confirmed from
someone else.

so where do you see that he mass of the photon is zero ??

The equation does not apply to the photon.

Quote:


2 where is the Energy here ??

Why should there be energy?
because my proof i sbased on the formula E=hf
in asll those cases in which both E and f are nonzero
and you IGNORE COMPLETELY THAT ELEMENT IN MY RPOOF
you deal onlty withthe h yet that is not my proof
we cant proof anything if we analyse only the h !! got it ??
you castarted my proof !! by dealing only withthe h !!
got it ??
without the E and f to be nonzero it is your baby not mine !

Your so called proof is based on the fact that h has kg in its units.

Quote:
----------
----------
ATB
Y.Porat
---------------------------
Back to top
Bilge
science forum Guru


Joined: 30 Apr 2005
Posts: 2816

PostPosted: Wed Jul 12, 2006 4:02 pm    Post subject: Re: PHOTON MASS -- A FACT. MASSLESS PARTICLES -- NOT FACT. Reply with quote

vertvergon@msn.com:
Quote:


VERGON
You're missing the whole point. The question is, does the photon have
mass? The minute you introduce h, you introduce mass.

No, you moron. The minute you introduce h you introduce the
quantized spin. If you want to introduce a mass, you have to introduce
a longitudinal polarization. Have you measured a longitudinal polarization?
Back to top
Golden Boar
science forum Guru


Joined: 17 May 2005
Posts: 651

PostPosted: Tue Jul 11, 2006 4:29 pm    Post subject: Re: PHOTON MASS -- A FACT. MASSLESS PARTICLES -- NOT FACT. Reply with quote

vertvergon@msn.com wrote:
Quote:
Randy Poe wrote:
Vert wrote:
So I repeat (for the 40th time)

Yes you do, but there is no N such that N repetitions will convert
a false statement into a true one.

Since p = mv,

False premise. p is not mv.

explain momentum without mass.Let's
see how you dodge that.

I don't know what the deeper definition of momentum is that includes
both gamma*m*v for particles with mass and h/lambda for photons.
Probably something in terms of wavenumber k, which is the natural
conjugate variable to position. "Momentum wave function" in QM
is the wavefunction in terms of k, IIRC.

Without the deeper mathematical connection, you could think
of it as an operational definition: p is *defined* as gamma*m*v
for particles which don't move at c, and hbar*k for particles
which do. The definition would be motivated by conservation
of momentum: what momentum does a particle get in a
collision with a photon? If you use hbar*k as the momentum
of the photon and assume conservation of momentum, you get
the right behavior of the massive particle.

(And we see here who's ignorant.)

Interesting comment, since you are making your answers up
in the absence of education on the related definitions.

Unlike you, I will admit ignorance: I'm pretty sure there is a
definition that encompasses all particles, but offhand I don't know
that I've ever seen it. hbar*k seems the most likely candidate
based on conjugate variable grounds.

You on the other hand, are also ignorant in the same sense of
having never seen the unified definition, but choose to make
up your own, or pretend that there never has been such a
definition, rather than actually investigate.

As for p =hk, don't explain k.

I've actually heard k referred to as momentum (in Solid State
physics, in connection with phonons), though more commonly
it is called the wavenumber. It's the Fourier Transform of
position, in the same way that frequency is the FT of time.

- Randy
VERGON
You're missing the whole point. The question is, does the photon have
mass? The minute you introduce h, you introduce mass.

Why, because h has kg in its units in the SI system?

The magnetic constant and the electric constant contain kg in their
units in the SI system, does that mean that the vacuum also has mass?

Quote:
From the Bohr model, we can obtain the energy of a photon with,

E = m_e * c^2 * alpha^2 * (n_i^2 - n_f^2) / (2 * n_i^2 * n_f^2)

Quote:
From this point of view you could say that the units of kg in the
equation E=hf, comes from the particle from which the photon was

emitted.

Quote:

As to hbar * k transfering the correct momentum, not according to the
Compton experiment.

Compton says that lambda_C = h / (m * c).
Quote:
From de Broglie we get, lambda = h / p = h / (gamma * m * v)

The Compton wavelength and the de Broglie wavelength are different.
Back to top
Phineas T Puddleduck
science forum Guru


Joined: 01 Jun 2006
Posts: 759

PostPosted: Tue Jul 11, 2006 4:13 pm    Post subject: Re: PHOTON MASS -- A FACT. MASSLESS PARTICLES -- NOT FACT. Reply with quote

In article <1152631067.865687.27430@75g2000cwc.googlegroups.com>,
<vertvergon@msn.com> wrote:

Quote:
Phineas T Puddleduck wrote:
In article <1151688876.463615.305310@75g2000cwc.googlegroups.com>, Vert
avergon@verizon.net> wrote:

Phineas T Puddleduck wrote:
Vert


Look at the hordes of people supporting your position Vert ... oops,
there aren't any are there. You idiot.

p=hk p=hk p=hk p=hk p=hk p=hk p=hk p=hk p=hk p=hk p=hk p=hk p=hk p=hk
p=hk p=hk p=hk p=hk p=hk p=hk p=hk p=hk p=hk p=hk p=hk p=hk p=hk p=hk
p=hk p=hk p=hk p=hk p=hk p=hk p=hk p=hk p=hk p=hk p=hk p=hk p=hk p=hk
p=hk p=hk p=hk p=hk p=hk p=hk p=hk p=hk p=hk p=hk p=hk p=hk p=hk p=hk
p=hk p=hk p=hk p=hk p=hk p=hk p=hk p=hk p=hk p=hk p=hk p=hk p=hk p=hk
p=hk p=hk


Enough for you?

-- WHEN YOU INTRODUCE h YOU INTRODUCE MASS --- ASS HOLE.

I thought you plonked me, idiot. You really hate it when people point
out what an idiot you are.

p - h k h in units Joules Sec or eV Sec
p - h k h in units Joules Sec or eV Sec
p - h k h in units Joules Sec or eV Sec
p - h k h in units Joules Sec or eV Sec
p - h k h in units Joules Sec or eV Sec
p - h k h in units Joules Sec or eV Sec
p - h k h in units Joules Sec or eV Sec
p - h k h in units Joules Sec or eV Sec
p - h k h in units Joules Sec or eV Sec
p - h k h in units Joules Sec or eV Sec
p - h k h in units Joules Sec or eV Sec
p - h k h in units Joules Sec or eV Sec
p - h k h in units Joules Sec or eV Sec
p - h k h in units Joules Sec or eV Sec
p - h k h in units Joules Sec or eV Sec
p - h k h in units Joules Sec or eV Sec

"Planck's constant, h \, was proposed in reference to the problem of
black-body radiation. The underlying assumption to Planck's law of
black body radiation was that the electromagnetic radiation emitted by
a black body could be modeled as a set of harmonic oscillators with
quantized energy of the form:

E = h \nu = \hbar \omega \ "

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Planck's_constant

See, Radiation

--
Relf's Law? -+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
"Bullshit repeated to the limit of infinity asymptotically approaches
the odour of roses."
Corollary -+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
³It approaches the asymptote faster, the more Œpseduos¹ you throw in
your formulas.²
-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
³Gravity is one of the four fundamental interactions. The classical
theory of gravity - Einstein's general relativity - is the subject
of this book.² : Hartle/ Gravity pg 1
-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
Jaffa cakes. Sweet delicious orange jaffa goodness, and an abject lesson
why parroting information from the web will not teach you cosmology.
-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
Back to top
Phineas T Puddleduck
science forum Guru


Joined: 01 Jun 2006
Posts: 759

PostPosted: Tue Jul 11, 2006 4:07 pm    Post subject: Re: PHOTON MASS -- A FACT. MASSLESS PARTICLES -- NOT FACT. Reply with quote

In article <1152630633.142803.269610@35g2000cwc.googlegroups.com>,
<vertvergon@msn.com> wrote:

Quote:
VERGON
You're missing the whole point. The question is, does the photon have
mass? The minute you introduce h, you introduce mass.

As to hbar * k transfering the correct momentum, not according to the
Compton experiment.

H is in units Joules Sec

--
Relf's Law? -+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
"Bullshit repeated to the limit of infinity asymptotically approaches
the odour of roses."
Corollary -+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
³It approaches the asymptote faster, the more Œpseduos¹ you throw in
your formulas.²
-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
³Gravity is one of the four fundamental interactions. The classical
theory of gravity - Einstein's general relativity - is the subject
of this book.² : Hartle/ Gravity pg 1
-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
Jaffa cakes. Sweet delicious orange jaffa goodness, and an abject lesson
why parroting information from the web will not teach you cosmology.
-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
Back to top
Phineas T Puddleduck
science forum Guru


Joined: 01 Jun 2006
Posts: 759

PostPosted: Tue Jul 11, 2006 4:07 pm    Post subject: Re: PHOTON MASS -- A FACT. MASSLESS PARTICLES -- NOT FACT. Reply with quote

In article <1152631067.865687.27430@75g2000cwc.googlegroups.com>,
<vertvergon@msn.com> wrote:

Quote:
Enough for you?

-- WHEN YOU INTRODUCE h YOU INTRODUCE MASS --- ASS HOLE.

NO YOU DO NOT - IDIOT

--
Relf's Law? -+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
"Bullshit repeated to the limit of infinity asymptotically approaches
the odour of roses."
Corollary -+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
³It approaches the asymptote faster, the more Œpseduos¹ you throw in
your formulas.²
-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
³Gravity is one of the four fundamental interactions. The classical
theory of gravity - Einstein's general relativity - is the subject
of this book.² : Hartle/ Gravity pg 1
-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
Jaffa cakes. Sweet delicious orange jaffa goodness, and an abject lesson
why parroting information from the web will not teach you cosmology.
-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
Back to top
vertvergon@msn.com
science forum beginner


Joined: 10 Jul 2006
Posts: 4

PostPosted: Tue Jul 11, 2006 3:17 pm    Post subject: Re: PHOTON MASS -- A FACT. MASSLESS PARTICLES -- NOT FACT. Reply with quote

Phineas T Puddleduck wrote:
Quote:
In article <1151688876.463615.305310@75g2000cwc.googlegroups.com>, Vert
avergon@verizon.net> wrote:

Phineas T Puddleduck wrote:
Vert


Look at the hordes of people supporting your position Vert ... oops,
there aren't any are there. You idiot.

p=hk p=hk p=hk p=hk p=hk p=hk p=hk p=hk p=hk p=hk p=hk p=hk p=hk p=hk
p=hk p=hk p=hk p=hk p=hk p=hk p=hk p=hk p=hk p=hk p=hk p=hk p=hk p=hk
p=hk p=hk p=hk p=hk p=hk p=hk p=hk p=hk p=hk p=hk p=hk p=hk p=hk p=hk
p=hk p=hk p=hk p=hk p=hk p=hk p=hk p=hk p=hk p=hk p=hk p=hk p=hk p=hk
p=hk p=hk p=hk p=hk p=hk p=hk p=hk p=hk p=hk p=hk p=hk p=hk p=hk p=hk
p=hk p=hk


Enough for you?

-- WHEN YOU INTRODUCE h YOU INTRODUCE MASS --- ASS HOLE.
Back to top
vertvergon@msn.com
science forum beginner


Joined: 10 Jul 2006
Posts: 4

PostPosted: Tue Jul 11, 2006 3:10 pm    Post subject: Re: PHOTON MASS -- A FACT. MASSLESS PARTICLES -- NOT FACT. Reply with quote

Randy Poe wrote:
Quote:
Vert wrote:
So I repeat (for the 40th time)

Yes you do, but there is no N such that N repetitions will convert
a false statement into a true one.

Since p = mv,

False premise. p is not mv.

explain momentum without mass.Let's
see how you dodge that.

I don't know what the deeper definition of momentum is that includes
both gamma*m*v for particles with mass and h/lambda for photons.
Probably something in terms of wavenumber k, which is the natural
conjugate variable to position. "Momentum wave function" in QM
is the wavefunction in terms of k, IIRC.

Without the deeper mathematical connection, you could think
of it as an operational definition: p is *defined* as gamma*m*v
for particles which don't move at c, and hbar*k for particles
which do. The definition would be motivated by conservation
of momentum: what momentum does a particle get in a
collision with a photon? If you use hbar*k as the momentum
of the photon and assume conservation of momentum, you get
the right behavior of the massive particle.

(And we see here who's ignorant.)

Interesting comment, since you are making your answers up
in the absence of education on the related definitions.

Unlike you, I will admit ignorance: I'm pretty sure there is a
definition that encompasses all particles, but offhand I don't know
that I've ever seen it. hbar*k seems the most likely candidate
based on conjugate variable grounds.

You on the other hand, are also ignorant in the same sense of
having never seen the unified definition, but choose to make
up your own, or pretend that there never has been such a
definition, rather than actually investigate.

As for p =hk, don't explain k.

I've actually heard k referred to as momentum (in Solid State
physics, in connection with phonons), though more commonly
it is called the wavenumber. It's the Fourier Transform of
position, in the same way that frequency is the FT of time.

- Randy
VERGON

You're missing the whole point. The question is, does the photon have
mass? The minute you introduce h, you introduce mass.

As to hbar * k transfering the correct momentum, not according to the
Compton experiment.
Back to top
Golden Boar
science forum Guru


Joined: 17 May 2005
Posts: 651

PostPosted: Mon Jul 10, 2006 3:02 pm    Post subject: Re: PHOTON MASS -- A FACT. MASSLESS PARTICLES -- NOT FACT. Reply with quote

Y.Porat wrote:
Quote:
Golden Boar wrote:
Y.Porat wrote:
T Wake wrote:
"Y.Porat" <maporat@012.net.il> wrote in message
news:1152456349.078645.101440@75g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...

T Wake wrote:
"Y.Porat" <maporat@012.net.il> wrote in message
-------------------------------
here i sthe qualitiative proof again so even a retared crook can
understand it
or else others will reallize that i am dealing with a retard crook:
hyere it is once again ;

i take the formula E=hf
no boubt it is experimentally proven
now itake all those cases in which we have
both E and f to be nonzero nothing more
untill now clear enough ??


Clear so far.

niether E nor f are zero remember ???!!
now if E and f are nonzero than

H must be algebrailly nonzero !!
untill now right ?? please confirm

This is where you begin to lose the plot.
Since h is a constant, and has a value of about 6.6 * 10^-34 kg m^2 s
it is obviously not zero. Even if E and f were zero, h would not be
zero, hence the term, constant.

-------------------
and hee is were you lost the point!!!

it is not the h a lone that makes it
IT IS TH ECOMBINATION OF ALL THE COMPONENETS OF THE FORMULA !!

if anything else around or near that h was zero
THE MULTIPLICATION OF THOSE ELEMENTS WOULD GIVE ZERO
now since there is no zero there whasoever
there fore all the components of h are not multiplated by something
that could render
the assembly to zero

you have to undersytand themeaning of a physical formula
it is an assembly of net figures and dimensions
th edimensions remain always 1.0000
but the multiplication with the other elements there
give them the altogeter value
in some case it is jsut one unit that is multipaled and the assembly
becomes
different from 1.00
in anothe case it is more than one unit that is 'dactiries by a figure
atatched to it
but still
ONCE ANY UNIT IS THERER IT IS NEVER ZERO OF THWERE IS NOTHING TO
MAKE IT NONEXISTANT BY MULTIPLYING IT BY ZERO
in other cases ther migh tbe a confusion about if the is a zero
multiplyer
WAHT IS THE UNIT THAT BELONGS TO THAT ZERO

now fortunate for me and us (not for you sorry)
in our case
trhere is nozero at all wahtsoever to amke any confusion about it
mothing there is zero neither ethe units not the net figures that
accompany tyhem
and multiply them !!our case is crystall clear a nonzero case
indeed it is surprisingly (may be stunningly!!!) simple

now since it is so simple in 'my yard'
i have no intention to get to 'your yard' and find whats wrong in it
just incase it seems to contradicts my proof
there ar e more chances tha tyou are wrong since my analysis
is much simpler !!! and simpler(as simple as that )
means less chances to be wrong !!)
util now no one while playing in ;'my yard ' poited a real flaw in my
proof .(beside hand wavings
i am not responsible for 'other yards ' only for mine .......
ATB
Y.Porat
-----------------

Once again, you write a pile of gobbledy-gook gibberish nonsense, and
fail to address any of the questions I asked.
Back to top
Art Deco
science forum Guru Wannabe


Joined: 13 May 2005
Posts: 240

PostPosted: Sun Jul 09, 2006 6:20 pm    Post subject: Re: PHOTON MASS -- A FACT. MASSLESS PARTICLES -- NOT FACT. Reply with quote

Phineas T Puddleduck <phineaspuddleduck@googlemail.com_NOSPAM> wrote:

Quote:
On 9/7/06 15:45, in article
1152456349.078645.101440@75g2000cwc.googlegroups.com, "Y.Porat"
maporat@012.net.il> wrote:


T Wake wrote:
"Y.Porat" <maporat@012.net.il> wrote in message
news:1152448043.001721.155090@m79g2000cwm.googlegroups.com...

T Wake wrote:
"Y.Porat" <maporat@012.net.il> wrote in message
news:1152418150.625525.157270@m73g2000cwd.googlegroups.com...

does anyone support your theory ??

Lets adjust that slightly. Does _anyone_ at all support YOUR theory?

1 yes

Who?
you go find it ...

He meant outside of an asylum, you senile illiterate old fool


2 speak physis idiot bump

Why should I? You dont, you idiot bump.
btw i was ddressing Bhore
you you think it is pointed to you welcome (:-)

now it is my turn to ask you :

does a qualitiative proof that the photon has a nonzero rest mass
need by principle a qauntitative additional proof ??

Yes, it does. Mainly because your "qualitative" proof is flawed because you
make assumptions which are already falsified.

imbecil crook idiot
it it is not right qualitiatively than you does a Nazi s**t educated
bum
goon asking me fo r QUANTITATIVE PROOFS
if the photion mass acording to me is qaulitiatively nonzeroAND YOU
DONT AGREE WITH IT

Your proof is like you - complete crap.

than you can t ask me to prove it to be quantitatively SOMETHING
becaue i say that all irpove is nonzero ans nothiong else
AND I DONT NEED SOEMTHING ELSE!!
if you dont agree withthe qualitative proof than sayh
i dont agree with your proof and full stop no mare room for more
discussion
yet i will show you my proof
that is painfully simple for even an idiot crook like you and Bhore:

Yawn


all i need is to take the Experimental for mula (got it idiot
experiemntal)
and see wahts in the h constant

Joules Sec

sowe find that in that constant there is the mass unit (kg)
do you deny it crook idiot ??

no you cant
so if we have the mass unit and (listen carefullt idiot )

IF ANYTHING AROUND THAT MASS UNIT IN ** ALL THAT FORMULA**
IS NOT ZERO ------THAN WAHT IDIOT ???


Absolute bollocks - mass - energy equivalence


THAN TH E MASS in it IS NOT ZERO AS WELL !!!!(it cant be
algebraically zero )
got it Josef Goebeless crook imbecile ??

Stop projecting you senile illiterate old fool

keep wel and go see your psyatrist
or may be find yourself some day job !!and leave physics tomore cleaver
peopel than you
and not least -- more decent than you

BWAHAHAHA

Unbelievable.

--
COOSN-266-06-39716
Official Associate AFA-B Vote Rustler
Official Overseer of Kooks and Saucerheads in alt.astronomy
Co-Winner, alt.(f)lame Worst Flame War, December 2005
Official "Usenet psychopath and born-again LLPOF minion",
as designated by Brad Guth

"And without accurate measuring techniques, how can they even
*call* quantum theory a "scientific" one? How can it possibly
be referred to as a "fundamental branch of physics"?"
-- Painsnuh the Lamer

"Well, orientals moved to the U.S. and did amazingly well on
their own, and the races are related (brown)."
-- "Honest" John pontificates on racial purity

"Significant new ideas have rarely come from the ranks of
the establishment."
-- Double-A on technology development
Back to top
Phineas T Puddleduck
science forum Guru


Joined: 01 Jun 2006
Posts: 759

PostPosted: Sun Jul 09, 2006 3:46 pm    Post subject: Re: PHOTON MASS -- A FACT. MASSLESS PARTICLES -- NOT FACT. Reply with quote

On 9/7/06 15:45, in article
1152456349.078645.101440@75g2000cwc.googlegroups.com, "Y.Porat"
<maporat@012.net.il> wrote:

Quote:

T Wake wrote:
"Y.Porat" <maporat@012.net.il> wrote in message
news:1152448043.001721.155090@m79g2000cwm.googlegroups.com...

T Wake wrote:
"Y.Porat" <maporat@012.net.il> wrote in message
news:1152418150.625525.157270@m73g2000cwd.googlegroups.com...

does anyone support your theory ??

Lets adjust that slightly. Does _anyone_ at all support YOUR theory?

1 yes

Who?
you go find it ...

He meant outside of an asylum, you senile illiterate old fool

Quote:

2 speak physis idiot bump

Why should I? You dont, you idiot bump.
btw i was ddressing Bhore
you you think it is pointed to you welcome (:-)

now it is my turn to ask you :

does a qualitiative proof that the photon has a nonzero rest mass
need by principle a qauntitative additional proof ??

Yes, it does. Mainly because your "qualitative" proof is flawed because you
make assumptions which are already falsified.

imbecil crook idiot
it it is not right qualitiatively than you does a Nazi s**t educated
bum
goon asking me fo r QUANTITATIVE PROOFS
if the photion mass acording to me is qaulitiatively nonzeroAND YOU
DONT AGREE WITH IT

Your proof is like you - complete crap.

Quote:
than you can t ask me to prove it to be quantitatively SOMETHING
becaue i say that all irpove is nonzero ans nothiong else
AND I DONT NEED SOEMTHING ELSE!!
if you dont agree withthe qualitative proof than sayh
i dont agree with your proof and full stop no mare room for more
discussion
yet i will show you my proof
that is painfully simple for even an idiot crook like you and Bhore:

Yawn

Quote:

all i need is to take the Experimental for mula (got it idiot
experiemntal)
and see wahts in the h constant

Joules Sec

Quote:
sowe find that in that constant there is the mass unit (kg)
do you deny it crook idiot ??

no you cant
so if we have the mass unit and (listen carefullt idiot )

IF ANYTHING AROUND THAT MASS UNIT IN ** ALL THAT FORMULA**
IS NOT ZERO ------THAN WAHT IDIOT ???


Absolute bollocks - mass - energy equivalence

Quote:

THAN TH E MASS in it IS NOT ZERO AS WELL !!!!(it cant be
algebraically zero )
got it Josef Goebeless crook imbecile ??

Stop projecting you senile illiterate old fool

Quote:
keep wel and go see your psyatrist
or may be find yourself some day job !!and leave physics tomore cleaver
peopel than you
and not least -- more decent than you

BWAHAHAHA

--

Relf's Law? -+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
"Bullshit repeated to the limit of infinity asymptotically approaches
the odour of roses."
Corollary -+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
³It approaches the asymptote faster, the more Œpseduos¹ you throw in your
formulas.²
-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
Jaffa cakes. Sweet delicious orange jaffa goodness, and an abject lesson
Why parroting information from the web will not teach you cosmology.
-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
Official emperor of sci.physics, head mumbler of the "Cult of INSANE
SCIENCE". Pay no attention to my butt poking forward, it is expanding.
-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
Back to top
tomgee1
science forum Guru


Joined: 31 Jan 2006
Posts: 750

PostPosted: Thu Jul 06, 2006 7:58 pm    Post subject: Re: PHOTON MASS -- A FACT. MASSLESS PARTICLES -- NOT FACT. Reply with quote

Phineas T Puddleduck wrote:
Quote:
http://www2.slac.stanford.edu/vvc/theory/relativity.html

Momentum

For non-relativistic objects

Paddlebutt, you and PD just make up physics as you go

along, doncha? Pray tell us, quick before the Stooges
gallery jumps to help you, what it is you're calling "non-
relativistice objects".
Quote:

I know what relativistic objects are: figments of your

combined imaginations from the SR subset of relative
motion. Are you saying "non-relativistic objects" are
those real things that we can empirically research?
Quote:

Newton defined momentum, given the symbol p, as
the product of mass and velocity -- p = m v. When speed becomes
relativistic, we have to modify this definition -- p = gamma (mv)

And just when does speed become relativistic, PQuack?

When it's in your head?
Quote:

Notice that this equation tells you that for any particle with a non-zero mass,
the momentum gets larger and larger as the speed gets closer to the speed of
light. Such a particle would have *infinite* *momentum* (SNICKER) if it could
reach the speed of light. Since it would take an infinite amount of force (or a
finite force acting over an infinite amount of time) to accelerate a particle
to infinite momentum, we are forced to conclude that a massive particle always
travels at speeds less than the speed of light.

Some text books will introduce the definition m0 for the mass of an object at
rest, calling this the "rest mass" and define the quantity (M = gamma m0) as
the mass of the moving object.

So you're saying here that anyone can arbitrarily make a real

massive object into a massless object at will? I always knew
that Mandrake could do that, but not that physicists or teachers
have the same magical powers.
Quote:

This makes Newton's definition of momentum still
true provided you choose the correct mass.

Of course, but what if you choose the wrong mass?

Can you fix that with a wave of your Mandrakian wand?
Quote:

In particle physics,

Oh, you're narrowing your studies to that, are you?

when we talk
about mass we always mean mass of an object at rest and we write it as m and
keep the factor of gamma explicit in the equations.

Which is the same as saying, "We ignore the energy

accruing to the object due to its motion, since it and us
are at constanct velocity wrt each other, and the speed
gamma cancels out." Or, "There is no such thing as an
object at rest, but we can imagine there is some such by
comparing the motion of objects that are moving at the
same speed and direction as we are." There is nothing
invalid about that, unless you claim it represents reality.
Quote:

http://physics.nmt.edu/~raymond/classes/ph13xbook/node76.html

http://galileoandeinstein.physics.virginia.edu/lectures/mass_increase.html

Much more dramatically, in modern particle accelerators very powerful electric
fields are used to accelerate electrons, protons and other particles. It is
found in practice that these particles become *heavier* *and* *heavier* as the
speed of light is approached, and hence need greater and greater forces for
further acceleration. Consequently, the speed of light is a natural absolute
speed limit. Particles are accelerated to speeds where their mass is thousands
of times greater than their mass measured at rest, usually called the "rest mass"

Now shall we make it SPNAK 4 for you TG, or are you gonna admit your ignorance.

What ignorance? That has already been covered long

before you got here. It's new to you since you just began
to read about it, but it's old hat to regular poster here. I
would not advise you to waste our time by posting stuff
you just learned.

BTW, how can those particles get heavier and heavier if
they are massless? Oh, that's right - you Stooges have
magic wands!
Quote:

I think we both know the answer. You can't shut up.

But you can, right?
Back to top
AllYou!
science forum Guru


Joined: 08 May 2005
Posts: 1088

PostPosted: Thu Jul 06, 2006 1:10 pm    Post subject: Re: PHOTON MASS -- A FACT. MASSLESS PARTICLES -- NOT FACT. Reply with quote

"PD" <TheDraperFamily@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1152145748.625149.42780@p79g2000cwp.googlegroups.com...
Quote:

tomgee wrote:
Your
"little" knowledge of math may include only the basics and rote
memorization, but you then make the mistake of thinking that all
mathematics is like the tiny little bit you know.

But that is the mistake you're making here and now in
assuming I think like that.

I don't have to. You said it yourself.


"I don't know that much math." - tomgee; 2 April 2006
Back to top
PD
science forum Guru


Joined: 03 May 2005
Posts: 4363

PostPosted: Thu Jul 06, 2006 12:29 am    Post subject: Re: PHOTON MASS -- A FACT. MASSLESS PARTICLES -- NOT FACT. Reply with quote

tomgee wrote:
Quote:
PD wrote:
tomgee wrote:
PD wrote:
tomgee wrote:

Your "model" is nothing of the sort. It makes no empirical predictions.

I've told you before, that's what the Stooges claim, but it's
not true. Neither is it true that nothing is a model if it contains
no "empirical predictions", whatever you mean by that.

OK, so let's see here. You don't know what he means by empirical
predictions ("whatever you mean by that") but you are confident your
model makes them. This is sort of like someone pointing out to that
your PWC is missing a coupling capacitor and you saying, "Don't be
silly, it's not missing a coupling capacitor, whatever that is."

Name two empirical predictions you model makes.

How can I when I don't know what he means by that?

Precisely. You can't. That's why it's foolish, Tom, for you to say that
your model is not lacking them, if you don't know what they are.

It would be if there was such a thing as that oxymoron. It is
impossible for such a thing to exist, yet you insist it does. I'm
still waiting for your definition of it, but not with bated breath.

Ah, so you don't know what it is, but you know your model is not
lacking them, and moreover you know it is an oxymoron. So your model
contains oxymorons.

Quote:

As the
ex-Chief Stooge, why don't you tell us how you definition
varies from the ones in your favorite source and mine:
"Empirical 1. based on observation and experiment: based
on or characterized by observation and experiment rather
than theory 2. medicine based on practical medical
experience: based on practical experience in the medical
treatment of real cases rather than on applied theory or
scientific proof
3. philosophy derived solely from experience: derived as
knowledge from experience, particularly from sensory
observation, rather than from the application of logic"
Microsoft® Encarta® Reference Library 2005. © 1993-2004
Microsoft Corporation. All rights reserved).

Be sure to include explanations of how math is an "empirical
prediction" and how that term is not an oxymoron.

TomGee, suppose I have enough data about you and can model your
behavior enough to say, "TomGee will get a prescription filled for an
antidepressant at the drugstore nearest his recliner, between two and
four p.m. either next Tuesday, Wednesday, or Friday," even though
you've never done that before. That would be an empirical prediction,
because it makes a quantitative (when) prediction about yet unmeasured
data.

No, that would be no. 3: philosophy derived solely from experience:
derived as knowledge from experience, particularly from sensory
observation, rather than from the application of logic.

"even though you've never done that before." What experience? What
observation?

Quote:
It cannot be
no. 1, since that requires experiment. Thus your oxymoron is not
physics. Just as I thought, you're making up physics again!

And if you do not get that prescription filled when my model for
you says you would, then that model is toast. If you do get that
prescription filled when my model says you will, then the model has
measurable experimental support.

You really believe that, don't you? You say that constitutes
"measurable experimental support", but what happened to
your oxymoron, "empirical prediction"? Or are you defining
that to be "measurable experimental support"? If so, how
can "support" of any kind be an "empirical prediction"?

On the other hand, if I have a model
that says, "TomGee may get a prescription filled for an antidepressant
or maybe not, and if he does and he gets it filled on Tuesday, then my
model is consistent with that, but if he gets it filled on Thursday
instead, then my model is consistent with that as well," then what you
see is a crappy model without empirical predictions. On the other hand,
if I say, "TomGee will not understand the difference between these two
examples," that is not an empirically predictive model either. It is
simply a statement of a regularly observed phenomenon.

This
could be your chance to win your title back. Your supporters
are counting on you - don't let them down! (You know how
easily they can turn on you, right?)

No, math is easy, because it is rote memorization, like
learning the multiplication tables. Math is a step-by-step
process, and as such, it requires little brainwork com-
pared to reasonble thinking. It is harder for those who
can't memorize as well as others, so they don't do well in
schools where memory skills are rewarded over original
thinking.

You confuse arithmetic with mathematics, TomGee. Ever complete a
mathematical proof? Ever? Even in the 9th grade?

My my PD, you must want your title back really badly. Let's
see now, arithmetic is basic math, containing all the operators
of mathematics.

Really? List all the operators of mathematics.

Unsupported assertion on your part noted.

Quote:

Tell us, PD, how in your exalted mathematics
you use other operators not used in arithmetic that makes it
distinct from arithmetic?

As I said, TomGee, ever done a mathematical proof? Ever? Even in the
9th grade?

I didn't think so.

Quote:


And your little question above puts you back into the running
because it shows your argument has to do with who knows
more math than you, even though I long ago conceded that
I know little math.

Which is precisely why you're in NO position to say what math is.]

Now, that almost wins your crown back! Are you under the false
impression that one cannot say what math is unless they know
more than a little of it?

Why yes, Tom, I do think that. Do you think you can describe what
molecular biology is unless you know more than a little of it?

Quote:
How much more? Give us the level at
which you believe someone is qualified to say what math is.

Your
"little" knowledge of math may include only the basics and rote
memorization, but you then make the mistake of thinking that all
mathematics is like the tiny little bit you know.

But that is the mistake you're making here and now in
assuming I think like that.

I don't have to. You said it yourself.

Quote:

This is akin to you
saying, "Since I live next door to a Jack-in-the-Box burger joint,
everyone in the world lives next door to a Jack-in-the-Box burger
joint."

No, that is another error on your part. You assume I
think the same way you do, and so you project your
own inadequacies onto me. My complaint is not that
math is wrong or false, as you suggest above, but it is
against those Stooges who believe it is representative
of reality, as you do. I've told you that several time
already - wonder why you keep forgetting it?

To you, that was a mistake on my part
that allows you to argue that since you know more math than
I do, you know more about everything than I do. I think any
real debater knows I said that as a bait to see if you were
vain enough to add that to your armory for when you have no
good answers. You've used that so often I've lost count of
how many times you have had no good answers.

It helped you win the title Chief Stooge the first tme, and you
are thinking it can't hurt your chances now. You're right about
that, it can't hurt.

Math allows physical theories to make predictions.

That's just what you have been taught, but predictions were
being made long before math was invented.

Good, then name two.

Distraction attempt noted.

Nonsense. I'm simply asking for support of an assertion that YOU made.
As you say, *everyone* provides support for their assertions.

Distraction attempt noted.

Evasion noted.

Quote:

As I have told you but you apparently do not agree with, the history
science is that of innocent children exposing the nakedness of the
inhabitants of the highest ivory towers. Scientific progress comes
more often from those who buck the current trends of conformist
science than from those who support conformity.

Really? Name two.

Distraction attempt noted.

Nonsense. I'm simply asking for support of an assertion that YOU made.
As you say, *everyone* provides support for their assertions.

Distraction attempt noted.

Evasion noted.

Quote:

Those who kept
the dream alive are the heros of mankind, not the ones who tried
to stifle the human mind with their conformist nonsense.
Back to top
tomgee1
science forum Guru


Joined: 31 Jan 2006
Posts: 750

PostPosted: Wed Jul 05, 2006 11:17 pm    Post subject: Re: PHOTON MASS -- A FACT. MASSLESS PARTICLES -- NOT FACT. Reply with quote

PD wrote:
Quote:
tomgee wrote:
PD wrote:
tomgee wrote:

Your "model" is nothing of the sort. It makes no empirical predictions.

I've told you before, that's what the Stooges claim, but it's
not true. Neither is it true that nothing is a model if it contains
no "empirical predictions", whatever you mean by that.

OK, so let's see here. You don't know what he means by empirical
predictions ("whatever you mean by that") but you are confident your
model makes them. This is sort of like someone pointing out to that
your PWC is missing a coupling capacitor and you saying, "Don't be
silly, it's not missing a coupling capacitor, whatever that is."

Name two empirical predictions you model makes.

How can I when I don't know what he means by that?

Precisely. You can't. That's why it's foolish, Tom, for you to say that
your model is not lacking them, if you don't know what they are.

It would be if there was such a thing as that oxymoron. It is

impossible for such a thing to exist, yet you insist it does. I'm
still waiting for your definition of it, but not with bated breath.
Quote:

As the
ex-Chief Stooge, why don't you tell us how you definition
varies from the ones in your favorite source and mine:
"Empirical 1. based on observation and experiment: based
on or characterized by observation and experiment rather
than theory 2. medicine based on practical medical
experience: based on practical experience in the medical
treatment of real cases rather than on applied theory or
scientific proof
3. philosophy derived solely from experience: derived as
knowledge from experience, particularly from sensory
observation, rather than from the application of logic"
Microsoft® Encarta® Reference Library 2005. © 1993-2004
Microsoft Corporation. All rights reserved).

Be sure to include explanations of how math is an "empirical
prediction" and how that term is not an oxymoron.

TomGee, suppose I have enough data about you and can model your
behavior enough to say, "TomGee will get a prescription filled for an
antidepressant at the drugstore nearest his recliner, between two and
four p.m. either next Tuesday, Wednesday, or Friday," even though
you've never done that before. That would be an empirical prediction,
because it makes a quantitative (when) prediction about yet unmeasured
data.

No, that would be no. 3: philosophy derived solely from experience:

derived as knowledge from experience, particularly from sensory
observation, rather than from the application of logic. It cannot be
no. 1, since that requires experiment. Thus your oxymoron is not
physics. Just as I thought, you're making up physics again!
Quote:

And if you do not get that prescription filled when my model for
you says you would, then that model is toast. If you do get that
prescription filled when my model says you will, then the model has
measurable experimental support.

You really believe that, don't you? You say that constitutes

"measurable experimental support", but what happened to
your oxymoron, "empirical prediction"? Or are you defining
that to be "measurable experimental support"? If so, how
can "support" of any kind be an "empirical prediction"?
Quote:

On the other hand, if I have a model
that says, "TomGee may get a prescription filled for an antidepressant
or maybe not, and if he does and he gets it filled on Tuesday, then my
model is consistent with that, but if he gets it filled on Thursday
instead, then my model is consistent with that as well," then what you
see is a crappy model without empirical predictions. On the other hand,
if I say, "TomGee will not understand the difference between these two
examples," that is not an empirically predictive model either. It is
simply a statement of a regularly observed phenomenon.

This
could be your chance to win your title back. Your supporters
are counting on you - don't let them down! (You know how
easily they can turn on you, right?)

No, math is easy, because it is rote memorization, like
learning the multiplication tables. Math is a step-by-step
process, and as such, it requires little brainwork com-
pared to reasonble thinking. It is harder for those who
can't memorize as well as others, so they don't do well in
schools where memory skills are rewarded over original
thinking.

You confuse arithmetic with mathematics, TomGee. Ever complete a
mathematical proof? Ever? Even in the 9th grade?

My my PD, you must want your title back really badly. Let's
see now, arithmetic is basic math, containing all the operators
of mathematics.

Really? List all the operators of mathematics.

Tell us, PD, how in your exalted mathematics
you use other operators not used in arithmetic that makes it
distinct from arithmetic?

As I said, TomGee, ever done a mathematical proof? Ever? Even in the
9th grade?


And your little question above puts you back into the running
because it shows your argument has to do with who knows
more math than you, even though I long ago conceded that
I know little math.

Which is precisely why you're in NO position to say what math is.]

Now, that almost wins your crown back! Are you under the false

impression that one cannot say what math is unless they know
more than a little of it? How much more? Give us the level at
which you believe someone is qualified to say what math is.
Quote:

Your
"little" knowledge of math may include only the basics and rote
memorization, but you then make the mistake of thinking that all
mathematics is like the tiny little bit you know.

But that is the mistake you're making here and now in

assuming I think like that.
Quote:

This is akin to you
saying, "Since I live next door to a Jack-in-the-Box burger joint,
everyone in the world lives next door to a Jack-in-the-Box burger
joint."

No, that is another error on your part. You assume I

think the same way you do, and so you project your
own inadequacies onto me. My complaint is not that
math is wrong or false, as you suggest above, but it is
against those Stooges who believe it is representative
of reality, as you do. I've told you that several time
already - wonder why you keep forgetting it?
Quote:

To you, that was a mistake on my part
that allows you to argue that since you know more math than
I do, you know more about everything than I do. I think any
real debater knows I said that as a bait to see if you were
vain enough to add that to your armory for when you have no
good answers. You've used that so often I've lost count of
how many times you have had no good answers.

It helped you win the title Chief Stooge the first tme, and you
are thinking it can't hurt your chances now. You're right about
that, it can't hurt.

Math allows physical theories to make predictions.

That's just what you have been taught, but predictions were
being made long before math was invented.

Good, then name two.

Distraction attempt noted.

Nonsense. I'm simply asking for support of an assertion that YOU made.
As you say, *everyone* provides support for their assertions.

Distraction attempt noted.

As I have told you but you apparently do not agree with, the history
science is that of innocent children exposing the nakedness of the
inhabitants of the highest ivory towers. Scientific progress comes
more often from those who buck the current trends of conformist
science than from those who support conformity.

Really? Name two.

Distraction attempt noted.

Nonsense. I'm simply asking for support of an assertion that YOU made.
As you say, *everyone* provides support for their assertions.

Distraction attempt noted.

Those who kept
the dream alive are the heros of mankind, not the ones who tried
to stifle the human mind with their conformist nonsense.
Back to top
Google

Back to top
Display posts from previous:   
Post new topic   Reply to topic Page 1 of 17 [246 Posts] Goto page:  1, 2, 3, ..., 15, 16, 17 Next
View previous topic :: View next topic
The time now is Fri Jan 23, 2015 11:58 pm | All times are GMT
Forum index » Science and Technology » Physics » Relativity
Jump to:  

Similar Topics
Topic Author Forum Replies Last Post
No new posts On the Structure of Particles and the Nature of Nuclear F... zhouyb_8@163.com Strings 0 Sat Jul 15, 2006 10:55 am
No new posts Mass Henry Haapalainen Relativity 24 Sat Jul 08, 2006 9:28 am
No new posts Capacitance and mass DGoncz@aol.com Research 1 Thu Jul 06, 2006 3:32 am
No new posts Particles bombarding earth's atomsphere muser Particle 11 Wed Jul 05, 2006 10:34 am
No new posts Radiation pressure -photon momentum qxs@rogers.com Electromagnetics 0 Tue Jul 04, 2006 9:45 pm

Copyright © 2004-2005 DeniX Solutions SRL
Other DeniX Solutions sites: Electronics forum |  Medicine forum |  Unix/Linux blog |  Unix/Linux documentation |  Unix/Linux forums  |  send newsletters
 


Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2005 phpBB Group
[ Time: 0.2561s ][ Queries: 16 (0.1881s) ][ GZIP on - Debug on ]