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 17 of 17 [246 Posts] View previous topic :: View next topic
Goto page:  Previous  1, 2, 3, ..., 15, 16, 17
Author Message
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
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 4:13 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
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
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: 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
Google

Back to top
Display posts from previous:   
Post new topic   Reply to topic Page 17 of 17 [246 Posts] Goto page:  Previous  1, 2, 3, ..., 15, 16, 17
View previous topic :: View next topic
The time now is Sat Jun 18, 2011 4:25 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: 0.4436s ][ Queries: 16 (0.3854s) ][ GZIP on - Debug on ]