| Topic: |
Science > Physics |
| User: |
"Hexenmeister" |
| Date: |
16 Jan 2006 04:41:46 PM |
| Object: |
The Energy Square. |
http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/E%5E2/EnergySquare.htm
--
Der alte Hexenmeister ist:
Sorcerer Androcles Dumbledore, Headmaster, hogwarts.physics
school for zauberlehrlings.
"One muggle's magic is another sorcerer's engineering"
http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/how_to_be_as_smart_as_einstein.htm
http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/people_v_Baez.htm
http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/sundials.htm
http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/RR_C7/RelativityRevealed.htm
.
|
|
| User: "Puppet_Sock" |
|
| Title: Re: The Energy Square. |
17 Jan 2006 09:36:16 AM |
|
|
Folks! If you must reply to andro-slime, please do it only in
sci.physics.relativity. That is where it belongs, and what that
group is for. Relativity whinges are off topic in s.p.
Socks
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "YBM" |
|
| Title: Re: The Energy Square. |
16 Jan 2006 09:19:59 PM |
|
|
Hexenmeister wrote :
from :
http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/E%5E2/EnergySquare.htm
When we cut the red thread the projectiles fly apart with equal and
opposite momenta mv and -vm taking half the broken spring with them,
each with kinetic energy of KE = 1/2 mv2. We deduce the potential energy
stored in the compression of the spring to be PE = mv2. Momentum is
conserved, -vm + mv = 0.
By changing the symbol 'v' to the symbol 'c' to represent the speed
of the projectiles, we have potential energy PE = mc2 in the spring.
Thus Einstein's E = mc2 is actually derived by Newtonian Mechanics.
Did you ever try to understand what theses fancy symbols mean ? Like
'c', 'v' and so on ? In E=mc^2 as the energy of a mass at rest, c is
by no way the speed of the mass.
Then you do again the error of mixing relativistic and classical
dynamics that has been pointed out to you years ago.
(http://groups.google.fr/group/sci.physics.relativity/msg/d6386ce668dad560)
Your page is as stupid as :
" The surface of a sphere is S=4*pi*r^2
" By changing the symbol 'r' to the symbol 'c' and the symbol 'pi'
" by the symbol 'm', then the expression 'S/4' by the symbol 'E'
" we got E=mc^2
"
" Thus Einstein E = mc^2 is actually derived from euclidian geometry
(which is, as a matter of fact, not a so false statement if you forget
the androcles-like reasoning)
.
|
|
|
| User: "Spaceman" |
|
| Title: Re: The Energy Square. |
16 Jan 2006 09:31:21 PM |
|
|
"YBM" <ybmess@nooos.fr> wrote in message
news:43cc6207$0$27949$626a14ce@news.free.fr...
Did you ever try to understand what theses fancy symbols mean ? Like
'c', 'v' and so on ? In E=mc^2 as the energy of a mass at rest, c is
by no way the speed of the mass.
If c is a constant, and that constant is a speed,
then c IS a speed.
If c is a constant, and it is not the "speed" of light,
then please enlighten all to what it actually is?
.
|
|
|
| User: "YBM" |
|
| Title: Re: The Energy Square. |
16 Jan 2006 09:36:20 PM |
|
|
Spaceman a écrit :
"YBM" <ybmess@nooos.fr> wrote in message
news:43cc6207$0$27949$626a14ce@news.free.fr...
Did you ever try to understand what theses fancy symbols mean ? Like
'c', 'v' and so on ? In E=mc^2 as the energy of a mass at rest, c is
by no way the speed of the mass.
If c is a constant, and that constant is a speed,
then c IS a speed.
c is A speed. c is not THE speed of the mass m (and it can't) considered
in E=mc^2
.
|
|
|
| User: "Spaceman" |
|
| Title: Re: The Energy Square. |
16 Jan 2006 09:37:54 PM |
|
|
"YBM" <ybmess@nooos.fr> wrote in message
news:43cc65da$0$27949$626a14ce@news.free.fr...
Spaceman a écrit :
"YBM" <ybmess@nooos.fr> wrote in message
news:43cc6207$0$27949$626a14ce@news.free.fr...
Did you ever try to understand what theses fancy symbols mean ? Like
'c', 'v' and so on ? In E=mc^2 as the energy of a mass at rest, c is
by no way the speed of the mass.
If c is a constant, and that constant is a speed,
then c IS a speed.
c is A speed. c is not THE speed of the mass m (and it can't) considered
in E=mc^2
Sure it can.
the photon could be considered to have mass.
And there is no proof it does not have mass.
Do you have physical proof the photon has no mass at all?
What is the experiment that proves the photon has 0 mass?
.
|
|
|
| User: "Eric Gisse" |
|
| Title: Re: The Energy Square. |
16 Jan 2006 10:33:56 PM |
|
|
Spaceman wrote:
"YBM" <ybmess@nooos.fr> wrote in message
news:43cc65da$0$27949$626a14ce@news.free.fr...
Spaceman a =E9crit :
"YBM" <ybmess@nooos.fr> wrote in message
news:43cc6207$0$27949$626a14ce@news.free.fr...
Did you ever try to understand what theses fancy symbols mean ? Like
'c', 'v' and so on ? In E=3Dmc^2 as the energy of a mass at rest, c is
by no way the speed of the mass.
If c is a constant, and that constant is a speed,
then c IS a speed.
c is A speed. c is not THE speed of the mass m (and it can't) considered
in E=3Dmc^2
Sure it can.
the photon could be considered to have mass.
And there is no proof it does not have mass.
Do you have physical proof the photon has no mass at all?
What is the experiment that proves the photon has 0 mass?
Hey spaceshit. We can explain it to you but we can't understand it for
you, and your actions in the past show you won't understand.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Spaceman" |
|
| Title: Re: The Energy Square. |
17 Jan 2006 09:25:25 AM |
|
|
"Eric Gisse" <jowr.pi@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1137472436.522803.243210@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com...
Spaceman wrote:
Sure it can.
the photon could be considered to have mass.
And there is no proof it does not have mass.
Do you have physical proof the photon has no mass at all?
What is the experiment that proves the photon has 0 mass?
Hey spaceshit. We can explain it to you but we can't understand it for
you, and your actions in the past show you won't understand.
and yet again,
a non answer.
Is this "non answer stuff" all you ever do Eric?
How can you not be able to give an experiments name?
seems like a real easy task you are avoiding?
Oh, I get it..
I am right, there is no freakin experiment for such *****.
.
|
|
|
| User: "PD" |
|
| Title: Re: The Energy Square. |
17 Jan 2006 12:21:11 PM |
|
|
Spaceman wrote:
"Eric Gisse" <jowr.pi@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1137472436.522803.243210@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com...
Spaceman wrote:
Sure it can.
the photon could be considered to have mass.
And there is no proof it does not have mass.
Do you have physical proof the photon has no mass at all?
What is the experiment that proves the photon has 0 mass?
Hey spaceshit. We can explain it to you but we can't understand it for
you, and your actions in the past show you won't understand.
and yet again,
a non answer.
Is this "non answer stuff" all you ever do Eric?
Photons are not held together by a spring and a red thread as drawn in
Androcles' funny web page. His web page is not pertinent to photons.
On the other hand, neither is "c" a useful symbol for the velocity of
the receding particles, especially since a little further down in the
page he uses *both* "c" and "v" in the same equation to denote the
speed of the particles. Androcles may have nodded off in the middle of
writing that equation...
PD
How can you not be able to give an experiments name?
seems like a real easy task you are avoiding?
Oh, I get it..
I am right, there is no freakin experiment for such *****.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Spaceman" |
|
| Title: Re: The Energy Square. |
17 Jan 2006 12:32:53 PM |
|
|
"PD" <TheDraperFamily@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1137522071.431022.108600@g43g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
|
| Spaceman wrote:
| > "Eric Gisse" <jowr.pi@gmail.com> wrote in message
| > news:1137472436.522803.243210@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com...
| >
| > >Spaceman wrote:
| > >> Sure it can.
| > >> the photon could be considered to have mass.
| > >> And there is no proof it does not have mass.
| > >> Do you have physical proof the photon has no mass at all?
| > >> What is the experiment that proves the photon has 0 mass?
| >
| >
| > >Hey spaceshit. We can explain it to you but we can't understand it for
| > >you, and your actions in the past show you won't understand.
| >
| > and yet again,
| > a non answer.
| > Is this "non answer stuff" all you ever do Eric?
|
| Photons are not held together by a spring and a red thread as drawn in
| Androcles' funny web page. His web page is not pertinent to photons.
|
| On the other hand, neither is "c" a useful symbol for the velocity of
| the receding particles, especially since a little further down in the
| page he uses *both* "c" and "v" in the same equation to denote the
| speed of the particles. Androcles may have nodded off in the middle of
| writing that equation...
|
| PD
|
| > How can you not be able to give an experiments name?
| > seems like a real easy task you are avoiding?
| > Oh, I get it..
| > I am right, there is no freakin experiment for such *****.
Dear PD,
I am not talking about his webpages at all,
I asked for the experiments name that proves photons do no have mass.
Please provide such if you have such proof.
I am merely stating photons could have mass, and I would like to
see the experiment (the name and link to a explanation of such)
that proved me wrong.
.
|
|
|
| User: "PD" |
|
| Title: Re: The Energy Square. |
17 Jan 2006 12:44:09 PM |
|
|
Spaceman wrote:
"PD" <TheDraperFamily@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1137522071.431022.108600@g43g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
|
| Spaceman wrote:
| > "Eric Gisse" <jowr.pi@gmail.com> wrote in message
| > news:1137472436.522803.243210@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com...
| >
| > >Spaceman wrote:
| > >> Sure it can.
| > >> the photon could be considered to have mass.
| > >> And there is no proof it does not have mass.
| > >> Do you have physical proof the photon has no mass at all?
| > >> What is the experiment that proves the photon has 0 mass?
| >
| >
| > >Hey spaceshit. We can explain it to you but we can't understand it for
| > >you, and your actions in the past show you won't understand.
| >
| > and yet again,
| > a non answer.
| > Is this "non answer stuff" all you ever do Eric?
|
| Photons are not held together by a spring and a red thread as drawn in
| Androcles' funny web page. His web page is not pertinent to photons.
|
| On the other hand, neither is "c" a useful symbol for the velocity of
| the receding particles, especially since a little further down in the
| page he uses *both* "c" and "v" in the same equation to denote the
| speed of the particles. Androcles may have nodded off in the middle of
| writing that equation...
|
| PD
|
| > How can you not be able to give an experiments name?
| > seems like a real easy task you are avoiding?
| > Oh, I get it..
| > I am right, there is no freakin experiment for such *****.
Dear PD,
I am not talking about his webpages at all,
I asked for the experiments name that proves photons do no have mass.
Please provide such if you have such proof.
I am merely stating photons could have mass, and I would like to
see the experiment (the name and link to a explanation of such)
that proved me wrong.
There are no experiments that prove the photon is massless, nor does
the theory require it, strictly speaking.
There are a number of experiments that say that the mass is
*consistent* with zero and cannot be very much different than zero.
There are no observations that are consistent *only* with a nonzero
mass, despite some serious looking.
PD
.
|
|
|
| User: "Hexenmeister" |
|
| Title: Re: The Energy Square. |
17 Jan 2006 02:09:00 PM |
|
|
"PD" <TheDraperFamily@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1137523449.149567.322170@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com...
Spaceman wrote:
"PD" <TheDraperFamily@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1137522071.431022.108600@g43g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
|
| Spaceman wrote:
| > "Eric Gisse" <jowr.pi@gmail.com> wrote in message
| > news:1137472436.522803.243210@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com...
| >
| > >Spaceman wrote:
| > >> Sure it can.
| > >> the photon could be considered to have mass.
| > >> And there is no proof it does not have mass.
| > >> Do you have physical proof the photon has no mass at all?
| > >> What is the experiment that proves the photon has 0 mass?
| >
| >
| > >Hey spaceshit. We can explain it to you but we can't understand it
for
| > >you, and your actions in the past show you won't understand.
| >
| > and yet again,
| > a non answer.
| > Is this "non answer stuff" all you ever do Eric?
|
| Photons are not held together by a spring and a red thread as drawn in
| Androcles' funny web page. His web page is not pertinent to photons.
|
| On the other hand, neither is "c" a useful symbol for the velocity of
| the receding particles, especially since a little further down in the
| page he uses *both* "c" and "v" in the same equation to denote the
| speed of the particles. Androcles may have nodded off in the middle of
| writing that equation...
|
| PD
|
| > How can you not be able to give an experiments name?
| > seems like a real easy task you are avoiding?
| > Oh, I get it..
| > I am right, there is no freakin experiment for such *****.
Dear PD,
I am not talking about his webpages at all,
I asked for the experiments name that proves photons do no have mass.
Please provide such if you have such proof.
I am merely stating photons could have mass, and I would like to
see the experiment (the name and link to a explanation of such)
that proved me wrong.
There are no experiments that prove the photon is massless, nor does
the theory require it, strictly speaking.
There are a number of experiments that say that the mass is
*consistent* with zero and cannot be very much different than zero.
There are no observations that are consistent *only* with a nonzero
mass, despite some serious looking.
PD
AMERICAN JOURNAL OF PHYSICS
_______________________________
VOLUME 33, NUMBER 1. Jan 1965
_______________________________
Evidence Against Emission Theories
J.G. Fox
In brief, a qualitative explanation of the mass-energy equivalence exists on
the Ritz theory though a quantitative explanation is lacking. It would
require a detailed analysis, which does not now exist, to show
quantitatively that the mass-energy balance in nuclear reactions is evidence
against the theory.
--
Der alte Hexenmeister ist:
Sorcerer Androcles Dumbledore, Headmaster, hogwarts.physics
school for zauberlehrlings.
"One muggle's magic is another sorcerer's engineering"
http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/how_to_be_as_smart_as_einstein.htm
http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/people_v_Baez.htm
http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/sundials.htm
http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/RR_C7/RelativityRevealed.htm
http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/E%5E2/EnergySquare.htm
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Spaceman" |
|
| Title: Re: The Energy Square. |
17 Jan 2006 12:50:43 PM |
|
|
"PD" <TheDraperFamily@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1137523449.149567.322170@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com...
|
| Spaceman wrote:
| > "PD" <TheDraperFamily@gmail.com> wrote in message
| > news:1137522071.431022.108600@g43g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
| > |
| > | Spaceman wrote:
| > | > "Eric Gisse" <jowr.pi@gmail.com> wrote in message
| > | > news:1137472436.522803.243210@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com...
| > | >
| > | > >Spaceman wrote:
| > | > >> Sure it can.
| > | > >> the photon could be considered to have mass.
| > | > >> And there is no proof it does not have mass.
| > | > >> Do you have physical proof the photon has no mass at all?
| > | > >> What is the experiment that proves the photon has 0 mass?
| > | >
| > | >
| > | > >Hey spaceshit. We can explain it to you but we can't understand it
for
| > | > >you, and your actions in the past show you won't understand.
| > | >
| > | > and yet again,
| > | > a non answer.
| > | > Is this "non answer stuff" all you ever do Eric?
| > |
| > | Photons are not held together by a spring and a red thread as drawn in
| > | Androcles' funny web page. His web page is not pertinent to photons.
| > |
| > | On the other hand, neither is "c" a useful symbol for the velocity of
| > | the receding particles, especially since a little further down in the
| > | page he uses *both* "c" and "v" in the same equation to denote the
| > | speed of the particles. Androcles may have nodded off in the middle of
| > | writing that equation...
| > |
| > | PD
| > |
| > | > How can you not be able to give an experiments name?
| > | > seems like a real easy task you are avoiding?
| > | > Oh, I get it..
| > | > I am right, there is no freakin experiment for such *****.
| >
| > Dear PD,
| > I am not talking about his webpages at all,
| > I asked for the experiments name that proves photons do no have mass.
| > Please provide such if you have such proof.
| > I am merely stating photons could have mass, and I would like to
| > see the experiment (the name and link to a explanation of such)
| > that proved me wrong.
|
| There are no experiments that prove the photon is massless, nor does
| the theory require it, strictly speaking.
|
| There are a number of experiments that say that the mass is
| *consistent* with zero and cannot be very much different than zero.
I can not believe you actually think that..
lol
You actually think that
E=mc^2 is wrong and you have to use the "newer version"
because E=0c^2 will not work.
It is kinda sad you will not think about what the mass could actually be
and instead just jump on the "massless" train of non reality.
|
| There are no observations that are consistent *only* with a nonzero
| mass, despite some serious looking.
.
|
|
|
| User: "PD" |
|
| Title: Re: The Energy Square. |
17 Jan 2006 01:56:56 PM |
|
|
Spaceman wrote:
"PD" <TheDraperFamily@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1137523449.149567.322170@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com...
|
| Spaceman wrote:
| > "PD" <TheDraperFamily@gmail.com> wrote in message
| > news:1137522071.431022.108600@g43g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
| > |
| > | Spaceman wrote:
| > | > "Eric Gisse" <jowr.pi@gmail.com> wrote in message
| > | > news:1137472436.522803.243210@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com...
| > | >
| > | > >Spaceman wrote:
| > | > >> Sure it can.
| > | > >> the photon could be considered to have mass.
| > | > >> And there is no proof it does not have mass.
| > | > >> Do you have physical proof the photon has no mass at all?
| > | > >> What is the experiment that proves the photon has 0 mass?
| > | >
| > | >
| > | > >Hey spaceshit. We can explain it to you but we can't understand it
for
| > | > >you, and your actions in the past show you won't understand.
| > | >
| > | > and yet again,
| > | > a non answer.
| > | > Is this "non answer stuff" all you ever do Eric?
| > |
| > | Photons are not held together by a spring and a red thread as drawn in
| > | Androcles' funny web page. His web page is not pertinent to photons.
| > |
| > | On the other hand, neither is "c" a useful symbol for the velocity of
| > | the receding particles, especially since a little further down in the
| > | page he uses *both* "c" and "v" in the same equation to denote the
| > | speed of the particles. Androcles may have nodded off in the middle of
| > | writing that equation...
| > |
| > | PD
| > |
| > | > How can you not be able to give an experiments name?
| > | > seems like a real easy task you are avoiding?
| > | > Oh, I get it..
| > | > I am right, there is no freakin experiment for such *****.
| >
| > Dear PD,
| > I am not talking about his webpages at all,
| > I asked for the experiments name that proves photons do no have mass.
| > Please provide such if you have such proof.
| > I am merely stating photons could have mass, and I would like to
| > see the experiment (the name and link to a explanation of such)
| > that proved me wrong.
|
| There are no experiments that prove the photon is massless, nor does
| the theory require it, strictly speaking.
|
| There are a number of experiments that say that the mass is
| *consistent* with zero and cannot be very much different than zero.
I can not believe you actually think that..
Who said anything about "think"? I said "experiments". That's
*measurements*. It doesn't matter what *I* think photons should be. It
matters what photons say they are.
lol
You actually think that
E=mc^2 is wrong and you have to use the "newer version"
Nah, you're just not using the correct form of the law, which is
E^2 = (mc^2)^2 + (pc)^2.
This is not a "newer version". It is the correct version, just not the
one you see in the comic strips.
because E=0c^2 will not work.
It is kinda sad you will not think about what the mass could actually be
and instead just jump on the "massless" train of non reality.
PD
.
|
|
|
| User: "Hexenmeister" |
|
| Title: Re: The Energy Square. |
17 Jan 2006 08:03:04 PM |
|
|
"PD" <TheDraperFamily@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1137527816.284700.38820@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
| > | Photons are not held together by a spring and a red thread as drawn
in
| > | Androcles' funny web page. His web page is not pertinent to
photons.
Spring? what spring? There is no spring when the thread is cut.
Photons are held together.
Der alte Hexenmeister ist:
Sorcerer Androcles Dumbledore, Headmaster, hogwarts.physics
school for zauberlehrlings.
"One muggle's magic is another sorcerer's engineering"
http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/E%5E2/EnergySquare.htm
.
|
|
|
| User: "PD" |
|
| Title: Re: The Energy Square. |
18 Jan 2006 07:50:56 AM |
|
|
Hexenmeister wrote:
"PD" <TheDraperFamily@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1137527816.284700.38820@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
| > | Photons are not held together by a spring and a red thread as drawn
in
| > | Androcles' funny web page. His web page is not pertinent to
photons.
Spring? what spring? There is no spring when the thread is cut.
Photons are held together.
OK, now here is an interesting statement, the beginning of a fine
amusement.
What hold the photons together? How many at a time? What determines
their release?
PD
Der alte Hexenmeister ist:
Sorcerer Androcles Dumbledore, Headmaster, hogwarts.physics
school for zauberlehrlings.
"One muggle's magic is another sorcerer's engineering"
http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/E%5E2/EnergySquare.htm
.
|
|
|
| User: "Hexenmeister" |
|
| Title: Re: The Energy Square. |
18 Jan 2006 10:23:06 AM |
|
|
"PD" <TheDraperFamily@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1137592256.445682.201670@g47g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
Hexenmeister wrote:
"PD" <TheDraperFamily@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1137527816.284700.38820@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
| > | Photons are not held together by a spring and a red thread as
drawn
in
| > | Androcles' funny web page. His web page is not pertinent to
photons.
Spring? what spring? There is no spring when the thread is cut.
Photons are held together.
OK, now here is an interesting statement, the beginning of a fine
amusement.
What hold the photons together? How many at a time? What determines
their release?
I suggest you read the page again, I've rearranged it and added to it with
a special mention for you, muggle. The amusement is all mine.
Der alte Hexenmeister ist:
Sorcerer Androcles Dumbledore, Headmaster, hogwarts.physics
school for zauberlehrlings.
"One muggle's magic is another sorcerer's engineering"
http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/E%5E2/EnergySquare.htm
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Spaceman" |
|
| Title: Re: The Energy Square. |
17 Jan 2006 02:42:53 PM |
|
|
"PD" <TheDraperFamily@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1137527816.284700.38820@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
| This is not a "newer version". It is the correct version, just not the
| one you see in the comic strips.
*****.
It is the revised version.
It was made up to create the non zero mass *****.
Apparently you have no clue.
E^2 = (mc^2)^2 + (pc)^2.
p= a constant that was made up out of nowhere and does not
represent any physically real thing.
Too bad you don't get such a fact and just worship it without question.
.
|
|
|
| User: "PD" |
|
| Title: Re: The Energy Square. |
17 Jan 2006 03:39:37 PM |
|
|
Spaceman wrote:
"PD" <TheDraperFamily@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1137527816.284700.38820@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
| This is not a "newer version". It is the correct version, just not the
| one you see in the comic strips.
*****.
It is the revised version.
Based on what? Which do you think came first, the real version or the
comic strip version?
It was made up to create the non zero mass *****.
Wrong. It is consistent with *zero* mass as well.
Apparently you have no clue.
E^2 = (mc^2)^2 + (pc)^2.
p= a constant that was made up out of nowhere and does not
represent any physically real thing.
Ever heard of momentum? That's the thing that's been around for about
three hundred years.
Too bad you don't get such a fact and just worship it without question.
Sorry, fella. Don't have to worship something that pans out in
practice.
PD
.
|
|
|
| User: "Spaceman" |
|
| Title: Re: The Energy Square. |
17 Jan 2006 03:41:21 PM |
|
|
"PD" <TheDraperFamily@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1137533977.556604.12860@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com...
| Ever heard of momentum? That's the thing that's been around for about
| three hundred years.
momentum of a 0 mass.. lol
you still just want to be clueless huh?
.
|
|
|
| User: "PD" |
|
| Title: Re: The Energy Square. |
17 Jan 2006 03:43:58 PM |
|
|
Spaceman wrote:
"PD" <TheDraperFamily@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1137533977.556604.12860@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com...
| Ever heard of momentum? That's the thing that's been around for about
| three hundred years.
momentum of a 0 mass.. lol
you still just want to be clueless huh?
Yup. What's wrong with the momentum of a massless object?
PD
.
|
|
|
| User: "Spaceman" |
|
| Title: Re: The Energy Square. |
17 Jan 2006 03:53:50 PM |
|
|
"PD" <TheDraperFamily@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1137534238.049383.29290@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com...
|
| Spaceman wrote:
| > "PD" <TheDraperFamily@gmail.com> wrote in message
| > news:1137533977.556604.12860@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com...
| > | Ever heard of momentum? That's the thing that's been around for about
| > | three hundred years.
| >
| > momentum of a 0 mass.. lol
| > you still just want to be clueless huh?
|
| Yup. What's wrong with the momentum of a massless object?
You have no mass to have a momentum of.
You don't get that is a problem?
.
|
|
|
| User: "AndyCav" |
|
| Title: Re: The Energy Square. |
17 Jan 2006 04:01:02 PM |
|
|
"Spaceman" <Realspace@comcast.not> wrote in message
news:NYSdnbtElKP5-lDeRVn-rw@comcast.com...
"PD" <TheDraperFamily@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1137534238.049383.29290@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com...
|
| Spaceman wrote:
| > "PD" <TheDraperFamily@gmail.com> wrote in message
| > news:1137533977.556604.12860@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com...
| > | Ever heard of momentum? That's the thing that's been around for
about
| > | three hundred years.
| >
| > momentum of a 0 mass.. lol
| > you still just want to be clueless huh?
|
| Yup. What's wrong with the momentum of a massless object?
You have no mass to have a momentum of.
You don't get that is a problem?
Spaceman, just because the concept of momentum was originally applied to
massive objects does not mean we cannot find out that momentum may be
possessed in a different manner.
If we consider momentum as something possessed by things with kinetic energy
then both massive and non-massive objects are covered.
AndyCav
.
|
|
|
| User: "Spaceman" |
|
| Title: Re: The Energy Square. |
17 Jan 2006 04:04:47 PM |
|
|
"AndyCav" <a.m.ciavarella@durham.ac.uk> wrote in message
news:dqjpel$akf$1@heffalump.dur.ac.uk...
| Spaceman, just because the concept of momentum was originally applied to
| massive objects does not mean we cannot find out that momentum may be
| possessed in a different manner.
|
| If we consider momentum as something possessed by things with kinetic
energy
| then both massive and non-massive objects are covered.
Hi Andy,
I can not consider momentum of a nothing,
I am a physicalist.
I need proof of a physical element in motion for it to have momentum.
I also think you may want to question a momentum of a "nothing" for physics,
since physics is supposed to be about the "physical", not the imagined.
:)
.
|
|
|
| User: "AndyCav" |
|
| Title: Re: The Energy Square. |
17 Jan 2006 04:08:48 PM |
|
|
"Spaceman" <Realspace@comcast.not> wrote in message
news:MrydnZDL7aJo9FDenZ2dnUVZ_vydnZ2d@comcast.com...
"AndyCav" <a.m.ciavarella@durham.ac.uk> wrote in message
news:dqjpel$akf$1@heffalump.dur.ac.uk...
| Spaceman, just because the concept of momentum was originally applied to
| massive objects does not mean we cannot find out that momentum may be
| possessed in a different manner.
|
| If we consider momentum as something possessed by things with kinetic
energy
| then both massive and non-massive objects are covered.
Hi Andy,
I can not consider momentum of a nothing,
I am a physicalist.
I need proof of a physical element in motion for it to have momentum.
I also think you may want to question a momentum of a "nothing" for
physics,
since physics is supposed to be about the "physical", not the imagined.
:)
Ok, but why must you consider light as "nothing"? - we know it has effects,
it is *something*, but obviously different from what we often consider
'normal matter'. It is clear that light exerts momentum to things; it can
be tested in a lab. Or take a look at interstellar nebulae that are
blustered about by starlight.
AndyCav
.
|
|
|
| User: "Spaceman" |
|
| Title: Re: The Energy Square. |
17 Jan 2006 04:19:40 PM |
|
|
"AndyCav" <a.m.ciavarella@durham.ac.uk> wrote in message
news:dqjpsr$as0$1@heffalump.dur.ac.uk...
| Ok, but why must you consider light as "nothing"? - we know it has
effects,
| it is *something*, but obviously different from what we often consider
| 'normal matter'. It is clear that light exerts momentum to things; it can
| be tested in a lab. Or take a look at interstellar nebulae that are
| blustered about by starlight.
That is the problem, I am not considering light as nothing.
those that say it has no mass are saying it is nothing except pure energy,
or some other joke like that (non physical real stuff)
and that is a bunch of bologna I will not taste until I can tell if it is
safe to eat.
(Being a physicalist, I want to know the physicals of it, not the
physical-less of it.)
I am saying photons have mass, and that mass can transfer itself just like
water waves, sound waves, etc..
I still have not seen anyone prove light is "massless",
the only thing that has been proven is it can have momentum
and so far, having momentum only proves it has mass basically.
:)
.
|
|
|
| User: "AndyCav" |
|
| Title: Re: The Energy Square. |
17 Jan 2006 04:30:12 PM |
|
|
"Spaceman" <Realspace@comcast.not> wrote in message
news:ebednbxzHqvv8FDeRVn-jQ@comcast.com...
"AndyCav" <a.m.ciavarella@durham.ac.uk> wrote in message
news:dqjpsr$as0$1@heffalump.dur.ac.uk...
| Ok, but why must you consider light as "nothing"? - we know it has
effects,
| it is *something*, but obviously different from what we often consider
| 'normal matter'. It is clear that light exerts momentum to things; it
can
| be tested in a lab. Or take a look at interstellar nebulae that are
| blustered about by starlight.
That is the problem, I am not considering light as nothing.
those that say it has no mass are saying it is nothing except pure energy,
or some other joke like that (non physical real stuff)
and that is a bunch of bologna I will not taste until I can tell if it is
safe to eat.
(Being a physicalist, I want to know the physicals of it, not the
physical-less of it.)
I am saying photons have mass, and that mass can transfer itself just like
water waves, sound waves, etc..
I still have not seen anyone prove light is "massless",
the only thing that has been proven is it can have momentum
and so far, having momentum only proves it has mass basically.
:)
It is true that you catch physicists calling light "pure energy" or the
like, however this is not really a good way to speak. Both 'matter
particles' *and* light are described by very similar things in physical
theory: wavefunctions which are representations of certain symmetry groups
(you may wish to check out some "representation theory"). It is these
wavefunctions that are thought to exist in some manner. Energy and mass are
then just properties that can be assigned to these functions. So light, for
example, is not really pure energy but just one particular particle within
the theory to which we cannot assign mass but to which we can still assign
energy.
The idea of what is really 'physical' in modern theory only depends upon if
it can be assigned a quantity which can be *measured*.
Andy
.
|
|
|
| User: "Spaceman" |
|
| Title: Re: The Energy Square. |
17 Jan 2006 04:41:54 PM |
|
|
"AndyCav" <a.m.ciavarella@durham.ac.uk> wrote in message
news:dqjr4u$bbi$1@heffalump.dur.ac.uk...
| It is true that you catch physicists calling light "pure energy" or the
| like, however this is not really a good way to speak. Both 'matter
| particles' *and* light are described by very similar things in physical
| theory: wavefunctions which are representations of certain symmetry groups
| (you may wish to check out some "representation theory"). It is these
| wavefunctions that are thought to exist in some manner. Energy and mass
are
| then just properties that can be assigned to these functions. So light,
for
| example, is not really pure energy but just one particular particle within
| the theory to which we cannot assign mass but to which we can still assign
| energy.
Just assigning something like such is not physics.
doing such has removed the physicals from physics.
Might as well call it virtualistics.
| The idea of what is really 'physical' in modern theory only depends upon
if
| it can be assigned a quantity which can be *measured*.
quantities that can be measured should also have a physical association to
them
such nonmass is a wall that has hurt physics more than helped it.
Sorry you can't see that.
I guess you can write me off as a lost physicalist.
:)
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "tj Frazir" |
|
| Title: Re: The Energy Square. |
17 Jan 2006 09:03:01 PM |
|
|
Motion from a wave is how te wave tme effects the orbital time of the
atoms parts.
F is the distance from the center of the atoms mass to the center of
the atoms gravity.
No atom gets pushed or pulled only the orbits of its parts manipulated
to be eliptical or any shape. Momentum between any two atoms is
orbital center of mass/G .
To stop te atoms forward motion the orbits of its parts are forced to
change and the rate is stops is equal the distance from the center of
the atoms mass to the center of the atoms gravity.
No matter what caused the energyslope that changed the orbits that
moved the atom.
Atoms dont move unless they move themm selves.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Timo Nieminen" |
|
| Title: Re: The Energy Square. |
17 Jan 2006 04:02:59 PM |
|
|
On Tue, 17 Jan 2006, Spaceman wrote:
"PD" <TheDraperFamily@gmail.com> wrote:
| Spaceman wrote:
| > "PD" <TheDraperFamily@gmail.com> wrote:
| > | Ever heard of momentum? That's the thing that's been around for about
| > | three hundred years.
| >
| > momentum of a 0 mass.. lol
| > you still just want to be clueless huh?
|
| Yup. What's wrong with the momentum of a massless object?
You have no mass to have a momentum of.
You don't get that is a problem?
Make a little paper boat. Float it in a pond. Make waves in the pond. They
make the boat move. Since they make the boat move, they exert a force on
the boat. That means that the waves can transfer momentum to the boat.
Where is that momentum before the boat gets it? The wave carries it.
What is the mass of a wave?
--
Timo
.
|
|
|
| User: "Spaceman" |
|
| Title: Re: The Energy Square. |
17 Jan 2006 04:14:13 PM |
|
|
"Timo Nieminen" <timo@physics.uq.edu.au> wrote in message
news:Pine.LNX.4.50.0601180800550.1750-100000@localhost...
| Make a little paper boat. Float it in a pond. Make waves in the pond. They
| make the boat move. Since they make the boat move, they exert a force on
| the boat. That means that the waves can transfer momentum to the boat.
the waves that are mass, are moving a mass.
no prob there.
| Where is that momentum before the boat gets it? The wave carries it.
Yup, the wave that is made up of the mass of water.
still no non mass ***** at all.
| What is the mass of a wave?
It depends on how large of a wave it was.
It has mass, apparently you just don't get that is does.
If the wave had no mass, it could not have been made into a wave to begin
with.
Are you saying water does not have mass?
lol
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Related Articles |
|
|
