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 » Particle
magnetic propeties from spinning electric field
Post new topic   Reply to topic Page 89 of 92 [1376 Posts] View previous topic :: View next topic
Goto page:  Previous  1, 2, 3, ..., 87, 88, 89, 90, 91, 92 Next
Author Message
yt56erd
science forum Guru


Joined: 13 May 2005
Posts: 313

PostPosted: Wed Jul 12, 2006 12:17 pm    Post subject: Re: PHOTON MASS -- A FACT. MASSLESS PARTICLES -- NOT FACT. Reply with quote

Y.Porat wrote:
Quote:
------------------------------------

(Smile
-----------------------------

most fucking sensible think you have ever wrote. even when you try a
bastard smiley you get it wrong you illiterate idiot.
Back to top
Y.Porat
science forum Guru


Joined: 04 May 2005
Posts: 1809

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

Cranks Reply wrote:
Quote:
Y.Porat wrote:
------------------------------------

(Smile
-----------------------------

most fucking sensible think you have ever wrote. even when you try a
bastard smiley you get it wrong you illiterate idiot.
----------------------

(Smile
-------------------------------
Back to top
T Wake
science forum Guru


Joined: 08 May 2005
Posts: 1978

PostPosted: Wed Jul 12, 2006 2:45 pm    Post subject: Re: PHOTON MASS -- A FACT. MASSLESS PARTICLES -- NOT FACT. Reply with quote

"Y.Porat" <maporat@012.net.il> wrote in message
news:1152679615.988839.266360@i42g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
Quote:

T Wake wrote:
"Y.Porat" <maporat@012.net.il> wrote in message
news:1152645465.999984.158630@p79g2000cwp.googlegroups.com...
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 !

Gibberish.

What is the mass of the photon in kg? You are so smart you can type in
capitals, so tell me the answer?
----------------
1 now i was discussing with Bhore

You replied to me. Stop making up people you want to claim to be talking to.
This is USENET. If you want a 1 to 1 conversation use email.

I am not asking about your "proof" or asking you to prove anything. I am
just asking what the mass of the photon is (in kg).

Can you answer the question?

The rest of your gibberish was duly ignored.
Back to top
Y.Porat
science forum Guru


Joined: 04 May 2005
Posts: 1809

PostPosted: Wed Jul 12, 2006 3:15 pm    Post subject: Re: PHOTON MASS -- A FACT. MASSLESS PARTICLES -- NOT FACT. Reply with quote

T Wake wrote:
Quote:
"Y.Porat" <maporat@012.net.il> wrote in message
news:1152679615.988839.266360@i42g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...

T Wake wrote:
"Y.Porat" <maporat@012.net.il> wrote in message
y not mine !

Gibberish.

What is the mass of the photon in kg? You are so smart you can type in
capitals, so tell me the answer?
----------------
1 now i was discussing with Bhore

You replied to me. Stop making up people you want to claim to be talking to.
This is USENET. If you want a 1 to 1 conversation use email.

I am not asking about your "proof" or asking you to prove anything. I am
just asking what the mass of the photon is (in kg).

Can you answer the question?

The rest of your gibberish was duly ignored.
--------------------------

i stsrt to suspect that you are serious with your question so

1 cant you do it youself ??

2 if not let me try

3 my suggestion for th esmallest one is :

phton mass (min) = h/c^2 *1.000/time unit
that is my suggestion to the smallest possoble

4 it ha s nothing to do with my qualitiative proof of nonzero rest
mass fo rany photon
you will see just folowing why ?

5

E=hf = 6.6 10 ^-34 * Kg meter ^2* f /second =E
so it we realeaee the mass form it
it is :

m (kg) = E * 1 second \ 6.6 10 ^-34 *1 meter^2 *f

provided i didnt do an aritmethic mistake
( an aritmetic mistake should be forgivable for me
since i do it quick and jst on the secreen and i am an old ghoat but
still a physicist (Smile
if wrong aritmetaically please correct but it does not change the
prionciple )

so now you can see the problem
you have here ONE EQUATION WITH TWO UNKNOWNS E and f

so you cant solve it QUALTITATIVELY
now one of my breakthrough insite was that i realized that
the qualitative proof for nonzero reat mass is enough

th e other break through insight was that
there is only just one kind of mass
so the Energy of the photon containes mass!
and tha t is an innovation proof !!
so may be now(and once and for all ) you wil start to understand why
i did it only qualitatively ??
yet if all your intention is to drive me crazy than you wont succeed
with it

ATB
Y.Porat
----------------------------
Back to top
T Wake
science forum Guru


Joined: 08 May 2005
Posts: 1978

PostPosted: Wed Jul 12, 2006 3:30 pm    Post subject: Re: PHOTON MASS -- A FACT. MASSLESS PARTICLES -- NOT FACT. Reply with quote

"Y.Porat" <maporat@012.net.il> wrote in message
news:1152717305.535878.17270@b28g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
Quote:

--------------------------
i stsrt to suspect that you are serious with your question so

1 cant you do it youself ??

No, because all the thories and experiments I have been taught or part off
have confirmed the consistency with zero.

Quote:
2 if not let me try

Go on then. In kg.

Quote:
3 my suggestion for th esmallest one is :

phton mass (min) = h/c^2 *1.000/time unit
that is my suggestion to the smallest possoble

What is that in kg?

Quote:
4 it ha s nothing to do with my qualitiative proof of nonzero rest
mass fo rany photon
you will see just folowing why ?

eh?

Quote:
5

E=hf = 6.6 10 ^-34 * Kg meter ^2* f /second =E
so it we realeaee the mass form it
it is :

m (kg) = E * 1 second \ 6.6 10 ^-34 *1 meter^2 *f

provided i didnt do an aritmethic mistake
( an aritmetic mistake should be forgivable for me
since i do it quick and jst on the secreen and i am an old ghoat but
still a physicist (Smile
if wrong aritmetaically please correct but it does not change the
prionciple )

It still isnt the mass of the photon in kg.

Quote:
so now you can see the problem
you have here ONE EQUATION WITH TWO UNKNOWNS E and f

so you cant solve it QUALTITATIVELY
now one of my breakthrough insite was that i realized that
the qualitative proof for nonzero reat mass is enough

th e other break through insight was that
there is only just one kind of mass
so the Energy of the photon containes mass!
and tha t is an innovation proof !!
so may be now(and once and for all ) you wil start to understand why
i did it only qualitatively ??
yet if all your intention is to drive me crazy than you wont succeed
with it


Its not. It is to find out what the mass of the photon is supposed to be in
kg.
Back to top
Y.Porat
science forum Guru


Joined: 04 May 2005
Posts: 1809

PostPosted: Wed Jul 12, 2006 5:06 pm    Post subject: Re: PHOTON MASS -- A FACT. MASSLESS PARTICLES -- NOT FACT. Reply with quote

T Wake wrote:
Quote:
"Y.Porat" <maporat@012.net.il> wrote in message
news:1152542744.490719.99090@s13g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...

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


Pure k00kScreed. You could distil this and have 100% idiocy.
-----------------------------

imbecil nazi s**t disturbed bump pararite
a zero phsycist
(never a single word of physics just Nazi shitting )
a zero human being
i thought for a moment of weakness that he is a partnere for physics
discussion
go discuss with yiour nazi gang or find youself a day job
as a dish wahsher or wahtever but dont sit here all day
while your wife has to work hard for your bread and butter

Y.P
-----------------
Back to top
T Wake
science forum Guru


Joined: 08 May 2005
Posts: 1978

PostPosted: Wed Jul 12, 2006 5:45 pm    Post subject: Re: PHOTON MASS -- A FACT. MASSLESS PARTICLES -- NOT FACT. Reply with quote

"Y.Porat" <maporat@012.net.il> wrote in message
news:1152723979.783359.54520@m73g2000cwd.googlegroups.com...
Quote:

T Wake wrote:
"Y.Porat" <maporat@012.net.il> wrote in message
news:1152542744.490719.99090@s13g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...

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


Pure k00kScreed. You could distil this and have 100% idiocy.
-----------------------------
imbecil nazi s**t disturbed bump pararite
a zero phsycist
(never a single word of physics just Nazi shitting )
a zero human being
i thought for a moment of weakness that he is a partnere for physics
discussion
go discuss with yiour nazi gang or find youself a day job
as a dish wahsher or wahtever but dont sit here all day
while your wife has to work hard for your bread and butter

Yawn.

Your fr0thing is repetitive.

What is the mass of a photon in kg?

Stop ranting on about nonsense - keep your delusions to yourself for a while
(if you can).
Back to top
Y.Porat
science forum Guru


Joined: 04 May 2005
Posts: 1809

PostPosted: Thu Jul 13, 2006 4:52 am    Post subject: Re: PHOTON MASS -- A FACT. MASSLESS PARTICLES -- NOT FACT. Reply with quote

T Wake wrote:
Quote:
"Y.Porat" <maporat@012.net.il> wrote in message
news:1152717305.535878.17270@b28g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...

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

Go on then. In kg.

3 my suggestion for th esmallest one is :

phton mass (min) = h/c^2 *1.000/time unit
that is my suggestion to the smallest possoble

What is that in kg?

4 it ha s nothing to do with my qualitiative proof of nonzero rest
mass fo rany photon
you will see just folowing why ?

eh?

5

E=hf = 6.6 10 ^-34 * Kg meter ^2* f /second =E
so it we realeaee the mass form it
it is :

m (kg) = E * 1 second \ 6.6 10 ^-34 *1 meter^2 *f

provided i didnt do an aritmethic mistake
( an aritmetic mistake should be forgivable for me
since i do it quick and jst on the secreen and i am an old ghoat but
still a physicist (Smile
if wrong aritmetaically please correct but it does not change the
prionciple )

It still isnt the mass of the photon in kg.

so now you can see the problem
you have here ONE EQUATION WITH TWO UNKNOWNS E and f

so you cant solve it QUALTITATIVELY
now one of my breakthrough insite was that i realized that
the qualitative proof for nonzero reat mass is enough

th e other break through insight was that
there is only just one kind of mass
so the Energy of the photon containes mass!
and tha t is an innovation proof !!
so may be now(and once and for all ) you wil start to understand why
i did it only qualitatively ??
yet if all your intention is to drive me crazy than you wont succeed
with it


Its not. It is to find out what the mass of the photon is supposed to be in
kg.
-------------------------------

i still cannot decide to myself whther are are just interested to drive
me crazy
or may be you are ineed (for some unknown reason (Smile
unable to understand
WHAT IS THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN A QUANTITATIVEPROOF
AND A QUALITIATIVE PROOF

may be just because it is so unprecedentd and surprosiongly simple
........
so if you are realy serious with your question (which i realy could not
know untill now ..)

here it is again
it needs some general undersytanding :

th eformula E =hf
cannot for itself answer your question (waht is the mass of the photon
quantitatively)
because waht it is !!

even the formula E=mc^2 cant do it
but that doe snot mean that we cannot get from it the QUALITATIVE
ANSWER
of yes or no mass for the photon
and why ??

because lets take a more concrete example :

i kg of mass if it is annihilated to photon energy can give you
E=hf1 phtons of energy please note the f1 it means a specific wave
length!!

if in case 2
you take 2 kg of mass and annihilate it to photons energy
you can still get th e photns withth the *same frequency * f1
exactly the same as in case 1
but can we say that the energy we get in case 1 is the *same
quantitatively*
as in case 2 ??
of course nmot - from 2 kg mass you should get two times mor eenergy
than
from 1 kk of mass
EVEN THOUGH IN BOTH CASES YOU GOT THE SAME PHOTONS WITH THE SAME FR
FREQUENCY f1 !!
so even E=hf csannot for itself give you the amswer to the question
waht is the mass of the photons that we got why ??
because we dont know how many photons were involved in that
annihilation process!!

if we could know how many photon were involved we could divide trhe
total energy
recieved by n photons and thats all
now comes the 1 million $ question :
even so can we get a QUALITATIVE answwer to the question
of
is there mass in that photon energy or not ???

the second question is if htere is mass
do we have one kind of mass or more than one kind ??!

let me leave the answer to cleaver and honest people
(CLEAVER AND HONEST .....nothing nothing of *both* missing !!..
iow for real physicists (Smile!!!

ATB
Y.Porat
-----------------------
Back to top
T Wake
science forum Guru


Joined: 08 May 2005
Posts: 1978

PostPosted: Thu Jul 13, 2006 5:49 pm    Post subject: Re: PHOTON MASS -- A FACT. MASSLESS PARTICLES -- NOT FACT. Reply with quote

"Y.Porat" <maporat@012.net.il> wrote in message
news:1152766346.984878.142510@75g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...
Quote:

T Wake wrote:
"Y.Porat" <maporat@012.net.il> wrote in message
news:1152717305.535878.17270@b28g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...

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

Go on then. In kg.

3 my suggestion for th esmallest one is :

phton mass (min) = h/c^2 *1.000/time unit
that is my suggestion to the smallest possoble

What is that in kg?

4 it ha s nothing to do with my qualitiative proof of nonzero rest
mass fo rany photon
you will see just folowing why ?

eh?

5

E=hf = 6.6 10 ^-34 * Kg meter ^2* f /second =E
so it we realeaee the mass form it
it is :

m (kg) = E * 1 second \ 6.6 10 ^-34 *1 meter^2 *f

provided i didnt do an aritmethic mistake
( an aritmetic mistake should be forgivable for me
since i do it quick and jst on the secreen and i am an old ghoat but
still a physicist (Smile
if wrong aritmetaically please correct but it does not change the
prionciple )

It still isnt the mass of the photon in kg.

so now you can see the problem
you have here ONE EQUATION WITH TWO UNKNOWNS E and f

so you cant solve it QUALTITATIVELY
now one of my breakthrough insite was that i realized that
the qualitative proof for nonzero reat mass is enough

th e other break through insight was that
there is only just one kind of mass
so the Energy of the photon containes mass!
and tha t is an innovation proof !!
so may be now(and once and for all ) you wil start to understand why
i did it only qualitatively ??
yet if all your intention is to drive me crazy than you wont succeed
with it


Its not. It is to find out what the mass of the photon is supposed to be
in
kg.
-------------------------------
i still cannot decide to myself whther are are just interested to drive
me crazy
or may be you are ineed (for some unknown reason (Smile
unable to understand
WHAT IS THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN A QUANTITATIVEPROOF
AND A QUALITIATIVE PROOF

may be just because it is so unprecedentd and surprosiongly simple
.......
so if you are realy serious with your question (which i realy could not
know untill now ..)

here it is again
it needs some general undersytanding :

th eformula E =hf
cannot for itself answer your question (waht is the mass of the photon
quantitatively)
because waht it is !!

even the formula E=mc^2 cant do it
but that doe snot mean that we cannot get from it the QUALITATIVE
ANSWER
of yes or no mass for the photon
and why ??

because lets take a more concrete example :

i kg of mass if it is annihilated to photon energy can give you
E=hf1 phtons of energy please note the f1 it means a specific wave
length!!

if in case 2
you take 2 kg of mass and annihilate it to photons energy
you can still get th e photns withth the *same frequency * f1
exactly the same as in case 1
but can we say that the energy we get in case 1 is the *same
quantitatively*
as in case 2 ??
of course nmot - from 2 kg mass you should get two times mor eenergy
than
from 1 kk of mass
EVEN THOUGH IN BOTH CASES YOU GOT THE SAME PHOTONS WITH THE SAME FR
FREQUENCY f1 !!
so even E=hf csannot for itself give you the amswer to the question
waht is the mass of the photons that we got why ??
because we dont know how many photons were involved in that
annihilation process!!

if we could know how many photon were involved we could divide trhe
total energy
recieved by n photons and thats all
now comes the 1 million $ question :
even so can we get a QUALITATIVE answwer to the question
of
is there mass in that photon energy or not ???

the second question is if htere is mass
do we have one kind of mass or more than one kind ??!

let me leave the answer to cleaver and honest people
(CLEAVER AND HONEST .....nothing nothing of *both* missing !!..
iow for real physicists (Smile!!!

You claim to be a "clever physicist" yet you cant answer the apparently
simple question. What is the mass of the photon in kg?

I am not asking you for anything complicated. You claim you have the proof
of the photon having mass, so what mass is it? Not in arcane formula which
as a far as I remember from university don't apply.

_YOU_ claim it has mass. You answer the question. How much mass? What is the
mass of the photon in kg?

Stop handwaving and answer.
Back to top
Y.Porat
science forum Guru


Joined: 04 May 2005
Posts: 1809

PostPosted: Fri Jul 14, 2006 5:01 am    Post subject: Re: PHOTON MASS -- A FACT. MASSLESS PARTICLES -- NOT FACT. Reply with quote

since the crook wake snipped the relativity and particle ng
here it is again :

---------------------------
T Wake wrote:
Quote:
"G=EMC^2 Glazier" <herbertglazier@webtv.net> wrote in message
news:12887-44B693F2-93@storefull-3338.bay.webtv.net...
T. Wake The photon has no rest,and that means no mass. It has great
energy,and energy and mass are equivalent E=M is the best equation for
the photon. We think because we are born into mass that the universe
first of all is mass,but reality is energy is # 1 Bert


Yeah, thanks for that.
-----------------------------------

wat can i do while wake considers himself a thinking pgysicsit
while the truth is that he is a parrot that is unable to
understandsomething that is still not written in his text book ??!!
what do you think science and tecnology could be if all our world
was populated by people as capable as you ???!!! (Smile
we would still be climbing on trees
--
i showed you mathematically that the E=hf
cannt anwer whastsoever your querstion
i showed you that even the E=mc^2 cannot answer quantitatively
your answer
because we dont know how many potons were relaesd by 1 kg or 2 kg of
mass
yet
i shoed you that obviously those formula can (do ) show qualitatively
that they include the physically mass entity
now what can we do while it i snot written in your old books ???
are you able to leaern sometbning new ???
i am much older than you - and i could !!

now toi Bert
you as well just stop being a parrot !!

if you take thwe E=mc^2 the mass is obviously there !!
dont you see the mass there ?? or are you blind ??
its more than time for you to understand that

ENERGY IS MASS IN MOTION !!! that is exactly waht that E=mc^2 says !!

historicvally the 'genious idea that phtons have energy but not mass
was
INVENTED ARBITRARILY !!
'because 'it was understood that any mass cannot reach the speed of
light
or else 'it would inflate to infinity !!
THAT WAS THE ONLY 'REASON ' WHY THE MASSLESS ENERGY OF PHOTON WAS
INVENTED

yet no isiot before ever thought about thepossibility that
th ephoton is a limit case of which the gamma factor does not apply to
it !!
if there is no Gamma
there is no room for the idiotic idea that we canhave energy but not
mass
in a photon
i even showed to stupidity of that idea mathematically :

the 'claim was
if E=gamma mc^2 than while v=c it will become infinity
because of divided nyzero
now we have top fo further and ask
suopose that claim is right
so lets put th emass there as you suggest = as zero mass
WAHT WILL WE GET THAN ??!

we willget
E=gamma m c^2 = 0/0 c^2
but the hell with you !!

0/0 is an undefined quamtity !!!
i can say anything i like about that qauntity
THA TIS NOT PHYSICS EVEN NOT MATHEMATICS !!!
so just stick it into your hevy mind
RGHE GAMMA FACTOR (NOT CONSTANT ,,,,)
DOES NOT APPLY TO THE PHOTON BECAUSE THE PHOTON IS A LIMIT CASE !

AND IF IT DOES NOT APPLY TOTHE PHOTN .--

THERE IS NO MORE ROOM FOR THE CLAIM THAT
the mass of the photon IS ZERO!!
it can be tiny but not zero and you dont need anymore the stupid
***modern invention***
of energy without mass !!
(the simpler the betetr !!!)

complicated for parrots ???
anyway
no chance that wake and his gang will get it
evenif the start to understand it
because it was explained by Porat
it is impossible for them to get anythiong form an enemy !!
and that is why i said
it is not enough even to be cleaver
one must be honst as well!

but that is impossible for people who where educated as Wake and his
freinds
honsety was not and is not in their diet for them personal
politics is much more important !!
honesty for Nazi educated people -
is a sighn of weakness while they admire only power
(and themselves and their Clan ) and nothing else !!

Y.Porat
----------------------
Back to top
T Wake
science forum Guru


Joined: 08 May 2005
Posts: 1978

PostPosted: Fri Jul 14, 2006 11:40 am    Post subject: Re: PHOTON MASS -- A FACT. MASSLESS PARTICLES -- NOT FACT. Reply with quote

"Y.Porat" <maporat@012.net.il> wrote in message
news:1152853287.819470.203520@s13g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
Quote:
since the crook wake snipped the relativity and particle ng
here it is again :

Yeah, keep posting your crap into as many groups as you can. Shows what a
sane person you are...
Back to top
Y.Porat
science forum Guru


Joined: 04 May 2005
Posts: 1809

PostPosted: Sat Jul 15, 2006 2:40 am    Post subject: Re: PHOTON MASS -- A FACT. MASSLESS PARTICLES -- NOT FACT. Reply with quote

T Wake wrote:
Quote:
"Y.Porat" <maporat@012.net.il> wrote in message
news:1152853287.819470.203520@s13g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
since the crook wake snipped the relativity and particle ng
here it is again :

Yeah, keep posting your crap into as many groups as you can. Shows what a
sane person you are...
-------------

The first thing that i can easyly show is that you are a ng maniac
since if you have ever read the posting code of this ng
it is not ethical to change the orriginal groups that the OP stsrted
and youdo it nonstop

2
it is not acording tothose ethics to go on asking the same quuestion
expecially while you got an answer for it
especially while the question is stupid and malicious
you keep on asking waht is the mass of the photon in Kg
while i answered that the smallest possoible
according to my suggestion is

m min = h/c^2 *1/time unit
and it is not far from the exsperimental measurements
while it is obvious that as is all those photon mass measurments are
very unreliable:
the wide dispertion of results prves it

3 i showed you that E=hf cannot give a quantitative answer to the
question
waht is the mass of the photon
4 i showed you that even E=mc^2 cannot give a quantitative answer
because we dont know how many photons are involved in that m

4
i ddi show (not to you but to cleaver decent peole )
that both E=hf and E=mc^2 for photons
CAN TELL US A QUANTITATIVE ANSWER
whether the phon has mass or not
and the answer is yes !!

so
stay away from it and find yourself a day job as a dish washer (or a
gangster )
and leave it to realscintists
and not to bump parasites

Y.Porat
-----------------------
Back to top
T Wake
science forum Guru


Joined: 08 May 2005
Posts: 1978

PostPosted: Sat Jul 15, 2006 2:50 pm    Post subject: Re: PHOTON MASS -- A FACT. MASSLESS PARTICLES -- NOT FACT. Reply with quote

"Y.Porat" <maporat@012.net.il> wrote in message
news:1152931226.766836.8750@h48g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...
Quote:

T Wake wrote:
"Y.Porat" <maporat@012.net.il> wrote in message
news:1152853287.819470.203520@s13g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
since the crook wake snipped the relativity and particle ng
here it is again :

Yeah, keep posting your crap into as many groups as you can. Shows what a
sane person you are...
-------------
The first thing that i can easyly show is that you are a ng maniac
since if you have ever read the posting code of this ng
it is not ethical to change the orriginal groups that the OP stsrted
and youdo it nonstop

Stop whining. You are posting your crap to multiple newsgroups, this is not
"ethical" by the commonly accepted USENET standards. The only thing you
could be doing worse would be to multipost.

In reality, you are a crank who wants the attention. You arent getting
enough in news://sci.physics where you are simply mocked daily. You are
trying to spread your insanity over a wider area now. Stop it.

Quote:
2
it is not acording tothose ethics to go on asking the same quuestion
expecially while you got an answer for it

You havent answered it. I asked what the mass of the photon was in SI units.
You replied with about 90 lines of gibberish. Not once were kg mentioned in
your replies. You just reassert the formula which you feel identifies the
smallest possible mass.

Sadly, this is because your ideas determine photon massess which are already
experimentally disproven. You arent really aware of how this has happened
because you have never actually predicted a mass (you just repeat e=hf ad
nauseam).

What do you predict is the mass of the photon in kg? Numbers followed by the
letters kg are the only acceptable answer. Everything else is evasion.
Back to top
Y.Porat
science forum Guru


Joined: 04 May 2005
Posts: 1809

PostPosted: Sun Jul 16, 2006 3:49 am    Post subject: Re: PHOTON MASS -- A FACT. MASSLESS PARTICLES -- NOT FACT. Reply with quote

T Wake wrote:
Quote:
"Y.Porat" <maporat@012.net.il> wrote in message
news:1152931226.766836.8750@h48g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...
enough in news://sci.physics where you are simply mocked daily. You are
trying to spread your insanity over a wider area now. Stop it.

2
it is not acording tothose ethics to go on asking the same quuestion
expecially while you got an answer for it

You havent answered it. I asked what the mass of the photon was in SI units.
You replied with about 90 lines of gibberish. Not once were kg mentioned in
your replies. You just reassert the formula which you feel identifies the
smallest possible mass.

imbecile nazi s**t
your intelligence is less than a rprimery school
and you waht to teach people physics !!
-----------------
2 you are a Nazi s**t lier a josef Gebeless
that distirs even the ethics code of those ng
you are not allowed to chage the orriginal destiantions of the OP
poster
to be a shamless klier is one of the prpperties of a nazi s**t
-------------------
an sinbecil like you cannot understand that

NEITHER THE hf not the E=mc^2
CANNOT GIVE A QUANTITATIVE ANSWER TO YOUR STUPID QUESTION
WHAT TIS THE MASS OF THE PHOTON QUANTITATIVELY

it is like to ask what is the mass of he barain of a connon imbecile
!! (:-)

actually frankly i dont wast my time on answering you!
if if i bother to answer a nazi disturbed bump parasite
it is becausei am not intersted in you
i am intsrested in the silent majority of cleave and honest readers
and they already know that you are animbecile gangster .

you speak about experiemnts while you dont understand a damn s**t about
it



so go on bump distured moron and find yorself a day job as a dish
whasher
if anyone will take you even for that job
Y.P
----------------
Quote:

.
Back to top
T Wake
science forum Guru


Joined: 08 May 2005
Posts: 1978

PostPosted: Sun Jul 16, 2006 9:44 am    Post subject: Re: PHOTON MASS -- A FACT. MASSLESS PARTICLES -- NOT FACT. Reply with quote

"Y.Porat" <maporat@012.net.il> wrote in message
news:1153021780.858281.296780@m79g2000cwm.googlegroups.com...
Quote:
T Wake wrote:
"Y.Porat" <maporat@012.net.il> wrote in message
news:1152931226.766836.8750@h48g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...
enough in news://sci.physics where you are simply mocked daily. You are
trying to spread your insanity over a wider area now. Stop it.

2
it is not acording tothose ethics to go on asking the same quuestion
expecially while you got an answer for it

You havent answered it. I asked what the mass of the photon was in SI
units.
You replied with about 90 lines of gibberish. Not once were kg mentioned
in
your replies. You just reassert the formula which you feel identifies the
smallest possible mass.

imbecile nazi s**t

Poor old YP. Are you not sleeping properly?

Non-answer noted.

Quote:
your intelligence is less than a rprimery school

A whole primary school? Including teachers? Wow.

Quote:
and you waht to teach people physics !!

Nope. You are conflating me with you. You are the idiot who has no idea
about physics but wants to teach people.

I just want to mock you for the insane, bumbling fool that you are.

Quote:
-----------------
2 you are a Nazi s**t lier a josef Gebeless
that distirs even the ethics code of those ng
you are not allowed to chage the orriginal destiantions of the OP
poster

Show me where it says I am not allowed to change the destinations of the
messages I post?

Quote:
to be a shamless klier is one of the prpperties of a nazi s**t

So is babbling on nonsense about things you dont understand - and accusing
any one who doesnt agree with you of being a "nazi s**t.

Quote:
-------------------
an sinbecil like you cannot understand that

NEITHER THE hf not the E=mc^2
CANNOT GIVE A QUANTITATIVE ANSWER TO YOUR STUPID QUESTION
WHAT TIS THE MASS OF THE PHOTON QUANTITATIVELY

Because your formula doesnt work for the photon. Your "proof" is nonsense.

Quote:
it is like to ask what is the mass of he barain of a connon imbecile
!! (Smile

Weigh your head.

Quote:
actually frankly i dont wast my time on answering you!
if if i bother to answer a nazi disturbed bump parasite
it is becausei am not intersted in you
i am intsrested in the silent majority of cleave and honest readers
and they already know that you are animbecile gangster .

you speak about experiemnts while you dont understand a damn s**t about
it

so go on bump distured moron and find yorself a day job as a dish
whasher
if anyone will take you even for that job

Yawn. You have no answer. Your "proof" is a non proof. You can not predict
the mass of a photon. Your "theory" fails to meet any scientific criteria.
Six year old school girls do better.
Back to top
Google

Back to top
Display posts from previous:   
Post new topic   Reply to topic Page 89 of 92 [1376 Posts] Goto page:  Previous  1, 2, 3, ..., 87, 88, 89, 90, 91, 92 Next
View previous topic :: View next topic
The time now is Tue Dec 18, 2018 7:45 pm | All times are GMT
Forum index » Science and Technology » Physics » Particle
Jump to:  

Similar Topics
Topic Author Forum Replies Last Post
No new posts Units for electric field strength Gavin Electromagnetics 0 Thu Aug 24, 2006 3:00 pm
No new posts Infinitesimal generator of a vector field Julien Santini Math 0 Fri Jul 21, 2006 8:01 am
No new posts Behaviour of a Ball (Bouncing and Spinning) Jonas Huckestein Physics 0 Thu Jul 20, 2006 2:38 pm
No new posts Vector field flow problem - help? Daniel Nierro Math 1 Wed Jul 19, 2006 10:28 am
No new posts Geomagnetic field reason h_v_ansari@yahoo.com Electromagnetics 2 Tue Jul 18, 2006 3:34 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: 0.0358s ][ Queries: 16 (0.0098s) ][ GZIP on - Debug on ]