----------------------
Jeckyle ????!!!!!
is not a scientist
and not a human being for two reasos:

1
he appears here as ana annymous
and surely he has good reasons to do it as annymous
that is not the way decent people
not to mension real sciensuts
andnot personal politiciance!

2

he refused to get into the dimension analysys

BECAUSE he FELT (or was even sure ??

PROVIDED HE WAS A REAL SCIENTIST)

**THAT THE DIMENSION ANALYSIS WILL DFEAT HIN
IN THIS DISCUSSION**!!!

Y.Porat
ps
my full name is Yehiel Porat (:-)
(i am not hiding ..behind anything .......)

he refused to get into the dimension analysys

BECAUSE he FELT (or was even sure ??
PROVIDED HE WAS A REAL SCIENTIST)

**THAT THE DIMENSION ANALYSIS WILL DFEAT HIN
IN THIS DISCUSSION**!!!

that has some misunderstanding here.

see the section on "The relativistic energy-momentum equation" inhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Relativistic_mass

many others got it ......!!

Noone here has .. because it is incorrect

from me (:-) i am the first one to
do it by the E=hf

You ar eone of many many people who make mistakes thgouh lack of knowledge
or understanding

ie i could see waht no one before could see ...

You see something that isn't there .. that's why

i could spoon feed you
but i leave it for you
(spoon feeding i s not appreciated .)

Not when you are spoon feeding *****.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

On Apr 17, 10:24 pm, "Y.Porat" <y.y.po...@gmail.com> wrote:

On Apr 17, 1:58 pm, "Jeckyl" <n...@nowhere.com> wrote:

"Y.Porat" <y.y.po...@gmail.com> wrote in message

news:1176803976.193116.274530@y80g2000hsf.googlegroups.com...

On Apr 17, 12:03 pm, PD <TheDraperFam...@gmail.com> wrote:

On Apr 17, 3:45 am, Eric Gisse <jowr...@gmail.com> wrote:

--------------
no sir
btw
i am waiting for your evodence that
E/gama
was done 80 years ago (:-)

E_rest = E / gamma is the formula for rest energy .. all you've done is
written the already know formula for rest energy in a less useful way

now to our hf and dimensions

do you agree with me that is you can show somwe
physics conclusions
**by one set of dimensions* that is legitimate set
of dimensins
than youdont need to do it by another set of diamnsions??

Can you repeat that slowly and in English?

another BTW
i am going to show in the other relevant thread
why if you asume zero mass to the photon
you get ...surprise
a zero mass fopr the photon

Yes .. zero mass for proton also gives you expect results in SR and other
theories .. without it they fall apart

but once you realise that mass is not inflatiing

We know that .. its been know for decades .. it is energy that is
'inflating' and if there is ANY rest mass at all, then at speed 'c' you have
infinite energy. That is why a photon cannot have non-zero mass.

and you asume nonsero mass for the photon

Which is wrong

based of the experimental E=hf ..........

Which says nothing about mass, only about energy and frequency

Voilla!
you get
surprise
that the E=mama mc^2

'mama'?

**cannot be valid and used for the photon case**!!!

Yes .. because photons do not have mass .. instead you use E = pc

as old Catto (Porat) saied

'each physical formula
HAS ITS LIMITS OF VALIDATIONS!!"""

What does that mean in English?

copyright long a go - even not 80 years ago ..(:-)

and i am going to demand a copyright even for thaat!!
Unless PD will find it was done 80 years ago (:-)

You are indeed a pompous little fool

----------------------
just study the formula
E=hf
study its dimensions in the MKS system
(even some of other dimesion systems show
it clearly that the h facor includes mass)

The argument has not improved with age. It is just as stupid as the
moment when it was first introduced.

There are representations of h that have no mass - I can express h in
eV.s, with no reference to mass. It is a unit-dependent "proof" that
isn't worth the bits used for its' display.

***learn how a physics formula is built and **used**!!!

Remind us...how long did it take you to learn how to convert Joules to
and from electron volts?

You have no right to make such an asinine statement given your abject
inability to understand even the most rudimentary equations.

and then you will realizt the
the photon has a nonzero mass!!

This is the type of ***** that introductory physics and engineering
classes that is meant to be eliminated when unit systems are taught to
freshman.

and only than come back to me
and i will exaplain (the 100 time for blockheads )
that the photon is a limit spacial caseof which the
E=gama m
does not apply!!

The "no *****" award for today goes to Y. Porat for his amazing display
of the utterly obvious. Photons travel at the speed of light - the
same invariant speed as in special relativity. Photons are utterly
excluded.

and only hf applyes

No stoooopid - E^2 = [mc^2]^2 + [pc]^2 is the general energy relation.
This is constructed directly from the definition of four-velocity and
the Minkowski metric.

This reduces to E = pc for the photon. For a wave, p = hbar * k, where
k is the wave vector. The wave vector, via the vacuum dispersion
relation, is w = ck. So E = hbar*w. But w is angular frequency, to
convert to regular frequency multiply by 2pi. Now, E = hf.

Isn't that nice and elegant? Since I have an *actual* education in
physics, as opposed to your imaginary education, I was able to derive
that for you. You, on the other hand, have to wave your hand and say
"it must be so".

Were photons massive, there would be the Proca vs Maxwell issues, plus
the fact that energy would not appear to be conserved were photons
massive while being treated as massless - rest energy would be in
play, which is assumed to be zero. This is not seen [Compton
scattering is a major, major example].

and than you will be able toteach all the other
little crooks morons here
some pionnring physics

Why do you even post to this newsgroup, vacuum for brains? You
obviously understand nothing about physics, and are lying when you say
you were a structural engineer.

ATB
Y.Porat
--------------------------- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

In article <1176775545.807981.158...@o5g2000hsb.googlegroups.com>,
EricGisse<jowr...@gmail.com> wrote:

How about actually learning some relativity before spewing your screed
all over USENET? Massive particles cannot reach c. Period. End of
discussion.

Making the observation that Maxwell's equations are invariant under
Lorentz transformations fixes the c in relativity to the c in
Maxwell's equations. Period. End of discussion.

Out of interest Eric. I have a bunch of papers on VSL cosmology thats
pretty interesting ( I'm critiquing them to the best of my ability for a
course).

Never really thought too long and hard about c_em, c_e, c_gw and
c_causality ;-)

--
Got mail? I did ;-) Three and counting.
Got proof? Not yet, still waiting.

"Y.Porat" <y.y.po...@gmail.com> wrote in message

news:1176523893.209756.292580@y80g2000hsf.googlegroups.com...

On Apr 13, 11:40 pm, "PD" <TheDraperFam...@gmail.com> wrote:

On Apr 13, 2:09 pm, "Y.Porat" <y.y.po...@gmail.com> wrote:

On Apr 13, 7:47 pm, "PD" <TheDraperFam...@gmail.com> wrote:

On Apr 13, 10:23 am, "Y.Porat" <y.y.po...@gmail.com> wrote:

On Apr 13, 4:30 pm, "Jeckyl" <n...@nowhere.com> wrote:

"Y.Porat" <y.y.po...@gmail.com> wrote in message

news:1176470098.239007.84660@n76g2000hsh.googlegroups.com...

On Apr 13, 2:06 pm, "Jeckyl" <n...@nowhere.com> wrote:

"Y.Porat" <y.y.po...@gmail.com> wrote in message

news:1176461153.438204.100240@d57g2000hsg.googlegroups.com...

On Apr 13, 12:45 pm, "Jeckyl" <n...@nowhere.com> wrote:

Y.Porat" <y.y.po...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1176456986.723060.221710@e65g2000hsc.googlegroups.com...

try udersatnd the imporatnce of my new insite
of the E/gama =ma formula
or the
F/Gama = m a

What new insight are you claiming .. thats just the usual
formula using
relativistic mass.

It is described as part of SR
athttp://scienceworld.wolfram.com/physics/SpecialRelativity.html
orhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mass_in_special_relativity

=-------------
werong!!
you ddint get the main point!!!!
first
non of the quotes that you cited did waht i did

What did you do then?

in non of it
the gama factor is not at the energy or force side
and that is all the point
it ios not just algebra

Yes .. it is .. its just algebra.

it showes forst that theabove fomulas
are not unequivocally interpretated
i showed to it can have at least two interpretations !
not to mension that i am sire that my interpretation is the
physics right oneseem that you never folowed me
because i expalin it many years ago :

it is not the mass that becomes gigger with velocity
it is the needed force or energy that become bigger !!

That's what the equations in the links I give show .. that the
force
required becomes bigger. That's old 'news'.

Your algebraic rearrangement of the same equations (from what
I've seen)
actually makes that less clear.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

------------
still didnt get the point

is it so difficult for you emotionally
to give soecredit tosomeone else (:-)

::
the existing common explanation why it is
more difficult to add velocity to anobjesct is ....

'because mass is inflationg with
increase of velocity!!

Porat, here's the point. What you consider the "common explanation"
is
a superficial and dated explanation that you either got from poor
sites on the internet or a cheesy book for laymen.

It is your mistake to think that because this is the "common
explanation" that you have run into in your limited resources, that
no
one has already entertained a deeper understanding and that this
deeper understanding hasn't already been documented in places you
haven't looked.

It is your further mistake to think that because you on your own were
able to extrapolate beyond what is found in the "common explanation",
that you were the first to do it. Though your extrapolation is based
on a eensy little algebraic manipulation, it doesn't occur to you
that
just about anyone that has looked at the same common explanation has
already done the same eensy little algebraic manipulation *in their
heads*, saw the same thing you saw, and then moved on.

It is your *further* mistake to think that because you are unaware,
due to your limited resources, of other works that provide a much
deeper exploration of the matter than the "common explanation" that
you've seen, then you are entitled to copyright and seize credit for
an extrapolation that is made by hundreds of beginner students every
year. It doesn't occur to you that you are obligated to perform a
search on your own and at your expense to determine whether your idea
is original before you declare it as yours. It also doesn't occur to
you that no one needs to bring to *you* the evidence that your idea
is
not original -- that burden of due diligence is on you. This is why
physicists do *thorough* literature searches before they embark on
any
new ideas.

Credit is given to an idea when it is new AND it is right AND it is
useful. Not before.

PD- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

-------------
instead of ahnd waving and cheating
just bring the sourses and evidence that
it was done 80 years a go

Did I not just explain it to you that this is not my burden but yours?

Believe me, Porat, I'm not trying to take credit from you and
attribute it to me. If you told me that you should have copyright for
4 + 7 = 11, I would tell you that this too is an old idea. That
doesn't mean I'm trying to take the credit for 4 + 7 = 11.

What's the deal with you and "credit"? Are you so at a loss for
accomplishment that you need to have something to attach to the family
name?

PD

if not you are falt cheating

we dont need hand wavings
that is not science
that is laywers paractice
we need documented evidenceinstead of
mumbling and obfuscation about my limited resouses
just a SHOW YOUR RESOURSES!!!
AND SHOW THAT IT IS 80 YEARS OLD!!!
that was your orriginal claim got it??
'80 years old'
iof your claimwas basless
just admit it
your mistake is that you think
you are talking to a little chield!!
or that the other readers will give you
authomatic credit

so
just do it or admit your mistake
without too much 'smartguyings'
TIA
Y.Porat
--------------------- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

-----------------
1 whats wrong to wahnt to be atatched to the establishment ?(:-)

Please try to use better English if you wish to communicate with others ..
the above is just a jumble of letters

2
the issue is very simple
yet you ahnd wave and junglaring in order toobfuscate ie:

Please try to use better English if you wish to communicate with others ..
the above is just a jumble of letters

you used that idea of shifting the gama factor
from the mass side of the equation to the othwer side
and you dont deny it because it is documented
in Google

It is simple algebra

there are only 3 possibilities

1
you invented it
2
you saw it somewhere else
3
you saw it from me
for examle in
'postualte No three by Y.Porat'
from Jan 2004and many many other cases in which i kept
repeating that idea in one or another way,

Putting gamma on the other side of an equation changes nothing, it is
nothing new. Further it actually makes it LESS obvious that force changes

now
you dont claim that it is your invention

you deny that it is my invention!\

You've not invented anything

and that i am the first one
in history in which that postulate or idea is
recorded by him in Google

You've not invented anything

so the posiblility that remains is
*that you saw it **somewhere else**
so ?????
where else did you see it ???!

In the theories of Special Relativity that have been around for around a
century

[snip lots of ranting and raving and hand waving over nothing]

ie
that from that you get another insight
that
the poton has mass

That does not come from your equations, from what I've seen.

On what theoretical or experimental basis do you claim proof for a proton
having mass, and what is that mass- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -