Discussion:
A box full of photons
(too old to reply)
Y.Porat
2011-10-28 06:03:42 UTC
Permalink
        Take a box full of photons.
        Gravity - Photons pick up energy as they head down and so the ones at the bottom exert more pressure at the bottom
than the top - same as weight/mass
        Inertia - Accelerate the box and we blueshift the photons at the back and redshift the front ones - more pressure
at back than front - inertia.
        Photons have no mass but........................
Mr Forbes
it seesm that you stole some idea
but you sto;e it not good enough
see my 'Circlon idea'
it is not exactly photons
photons are different than the 'Circlon'
yet might be 'cousins ' .....
see
see my ''Circlon''' and some applications of it
at the appendix of my poor site :

http://sites.google.com/site/theyporatmodel/an-abstract

ATB
Y.Porat
------------------------
Y.Porat
2011-10-28 05:57:53 UTC
Permalink
Take a box full of photons.
Gravity - Photons pick up energy as they head down and so the ones at the bottom exert more pressure at the bottom
than the top - same as weight/mass
Inertia - Accelerate the box and we blueshift the photons at the back and redshift the front ones - more pressure
at back than front - inertia.
Photons have no mass but........................
   Gravitation and acceleration cannot be differentiated by observation
   or experiment within your box.
--------------
San i you are rigth
but youdont know why you are right !!
(:-)

you are right because
th e mass of the real single photon is
about (listen carefully )
about
exp-90 KILOGRAMS OF THE ONLY MASS THAT EXIST !!

and please dont forget who told you that
as the first one

and since you are good in quoting
then go on with it and dont forget to quote the anonymous
Y.Porat ...

TIA
Y.Porat
--------------------------------
Y.Porat
2011-10-28 06:17:44 UTC
Permalink
Take a box full of photons.
Gravity - Photons pick up energy as they head down and so the ones at the bottom exert more pressure at the bottom
than the top - same as weight/mass
Inertia - Accelerate the box and we blueshift the photons at the back and redshift the front ones - more pressure
at back than front - inertia.
Photons have no mass but........................
   Gravitation and acceleration cannot be differentiated by observation
   or experiment within your box.
-----------------
i dontknow why my first reply ddint come so here it is again
-------------------------------
Sami
at this case you are right
yet there is no chance that you will understand why you are right
so here it is

the real single photon mass (yes mass
th eonly mass )
is about listen carefully :
is about
exp - 90 KILOGRAMS !!
again
exp-90 KILOGRAMS OT THE ONLY MASS THAT EXIST !!

so since you are JUST a very good quoter
please dont forget who told you that for the first time in
history !!
it was the anonymous Y.Porat
----------------------------------------
TIA
Y.Porat
----------------------------
Y.Porat
2011-10-28 06:35:15 UTC
Permalink
Take a box full of photons.
Gravity - Photons pick up energy as they head down and so the ones at the bottom exert more pressure at the bottom
than the top - same as weight/mass
Inertia - Accelerate the box and we blueshift the photons at the back and redshift the front ones - more pressure
at back than front - inertia.
Photons have no mass but........................
   Momentum is conserved for your closed system box.
----------------
and the momentum of thephootn is

Ph momentum = hf/c
so
nothing in it is relativsic**
it was found 5 years before SR
and nothing that Planck s
meanderings tools -
used was not moving
for that experiment
IT HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH SR!!
so 1
to Forbes
you are wroong and anoying me
while you say that th ephotonhasno mass
2
for the Genus honest teacher PD:

all the above Planck experiment was done
AND MEASURED - just in one frame!
and not to mention that The Gamma factor does not apply to photons

and in addition to the above
nothing in the formula of photons energy
is to multiply photon energy
dimension s
by7zero !!

so nothing to do with SR
and the mass of the photon is the only mass that exist
not relativistic and not schmelativistic !!
just mass !
so again
don t forget who told you that for the fist tome in history

ATB
Y.Porat
----------------------------
Y.Porat
2011-10-28 11:52:39 UTC
Permalink
        Take a box full of photons.
        Gravity - Photons pick up energy as they head down and so the ones at the bottom exert more pressure at the bottom
than the top - same as weight/mass
        Inertia - Accelerate the box and we blueshift the photons at the back and redshift the front ones - more pressure
at back than front - inertia.
The "inertia" case is straightforward, and goes back to the physics of
the 1870s.
The "gravity" case is newer, and for many (perhaps most), was
unexpected. But experimentally, 'tis what we see.
That the "weight" of the photons in both cases is the same is just
what is predicted by general relativity (follows directly from the
equivalence principle). Surprising to see you post such blatant pro-GR
propaganda!
        Photons have no mass but........................
No rest mass, but we've known for well over a century that
electromagnetic radiation has inertia. So, but what?
-----------------
just tel us loud and clear
do photons have mass
or not ??
iow
is the mass of photons -- relativistic
or just the one kind of mass that there is

TIA
Y.Porat
------------------
r***@comcast.net
2011-10-28 17:58:42 UTC
Permalink
On Fri, 28 Oct 2011 04:52:39 -0700 (PDT), "Y.Porat"
Post by Y.Porat
        Take a box full of photons.
        Gravity - Photons pick up energy as they head down and so the ones at the bottom exert more pressure at the bottom
than the top - same as weight/mass
        Inertia - Accelerate the box and we blueshift the photons at the back and redshift the front ones - more pressure
at back than front - inertia.
The "inertia" case is straightforward, and goes back to the physics of
the 1870s.
The "gravity" case is newer, and for many (perhaps most), was
unexpected. But experimentally, 'tis what we see.
That the "weight" of the photons in both cases is the same is just
what is predicted by general relativity (follows directly from the
equivalence principle). Surprising to see you post such blatant pro-GR
propaganda!
        Photons have no mass but........................
No rest mass, but we've known for well over a century that
electromagnetic radiation has inertia. So, but what?
-----------------
just tel us loud and clear
do photons have mass
or not ??
iow
is the mass of photons -- relativistic
or just the one kind of mass that there is
TIA
Y.Porat
------------------
Perhaps photons contain rest mass and zero inertial mass

I think the evidence for gravitational red/blue shift (the Pound-Rebka
experiment) ignores the influence of gravitational potential energy on
Fe itself. Quantized molecular energy levels are a function of total
energy, which includes KE and gravitational potential energy. In
other words, gravitational potential energy MUST influence the
wavelength of Fe emission. If gravity indeed directly decreased
photon energy in the Pound-Rebka experiment, what gains the released
energy?

Einstein used the "principle of equivalence" to conclude, "Rate of
clocks at different heights was altered according to the gravitational
field". The principle of equivalence is the equivalence of rest mass
and inertial mass. Without inertial mass or rest mass, gravity cannot
cause redshift in photons, or a difference in a photon's clock rate.
Rest mass (not inertial mass) changes potential energy with height.
Inertial mass opposes the result of force (acceleration), without
regard for the type of applied force. Because photons have neither
rest mass nor inertial mass, photons have zero gravitational redshift.
Photons can convert to other energies without the burden of also
converting kinetic or potential energy due to mass, to the other
energy.
Y.Porat
2011-10-28 20:35:01 UTC
Permalink
Post by r***@comcast.net
On Fri, 28 Oct 2011 04:52:39 -0700 (PDT), "Y.Porat"
Post by Y.Porat
Take a box full of photons.
Gravity - Photons pick up energy as they head down and so the ones at the bottom exert more pressure at the bottom
than the top - same as weight/mass
Inertia - Accelerate the box and we blueshift the photons at the back and redshift the front ones - more pressure
at back than front - inertia.
The "inertia" case is straightforward, and goes back to the physics of
the 1870s.
The "gravity" case is newer, and for many (perhaps most), was
unexpected. But experimentally, 'tis what we see.
That the "weight" of the photons in both cases is the same is just
what is predicted by general relativity (follows directly from the
equivalence principle). Surprising to see you post such blatant pro-GR
propaganda!
Photons have no mass but........................
No rest mass, but we've known for well over a century that
electromagnetic radiation has inertia. So, but what?
-----------------
just tel  us loud and clear
do photons have mass
or not ??
iow
is the  mass  of photons   -- relativistic
or just   the  one kind of mass that there is
TIA
Y.Porat
------------------
Perhaps photons contain rest mass and zero inertial mass
-----------------------
in case you dont know
rest mass
and inertial mass are different words for the same
thing!!
we are not dealing with words
we deal with physical entities
so rest mass ans inertial mass
are
THE SAME PHYSICAL ENTITY
th e substantial physical question is
rest mass in photons??
or relativistic mass in photons ??
in other words
can movement create mass
or not ???

2
in short
what is relativistic in
E=hf
that was found and defined 5 years before
SR ?

TIA
Y.Porat
------------------------------------
Post by r***@comcast.net
I think the evidence for gravitational red/blue shift (the Pound-Rebka
experiment) ignores the influence of gravitational potential energy on
Fe itself.  Quantized molecular energy levels are a function of total
energy, which includes KE and gravitational potential energy.  In
other words, gravitational potential energy MUST influence the
wavelength of Fe emission.  If gravity indeed directly decreased
photon energy in the Pound-Rebka experiment, what gains the released
energy?  
Einstein used the "principle of equivalence" to conclude, "Rate of
clocks at different heights was altered according to the gravitational
field".  The principle of equivalence is the equivalence of rest mass
and inertial mass.  Without inertial mass or rest mass, gravity cannot
cause redshift in photons, or a difference in a photon's clock rate.
Rest mass (not inertial mass) changes potential energy with height.
Inertial mass opposes the result of force (acceleration), without
regard for the type of applied force.  Because photons have neither
rest mass nor inertial mass, photons have zero gravitational redshift.
Photons can convert to other energies without the burden of also
converting kinetic or potential energy due to mass, to the other
energy.  
r***@comcast.net
2011-10-29 13:08:03 UTC
Permalink
Post by Y.Porat
in case you dont know
rest mass
and inertial mass are different words for the same
thing!!
My references made a distinction; I covered the bases.
Post by Y.Porat
we are not dealing with words
we deal with physical entities
so rest mass ans inertial mass
are
THE SAME PHYSICAL ENTITY
th e substantial physical question is
rest mass in photons??
or relativistic mass in photons ??
in other words
can movement create mass
or not ???
2
in short
what is relativistic in
E=hf
that was found and defined 5 years before
SR ?
TIA
Y.Porat
Many isotopes (H3, S35) have decay products that have more mass than
the original isotope. For example:

C14 --> N14 + e
14.003241 14.003074 .00055

Therefore, mass is not a requirement of all types of energy (possibly
including photons).

Each type of force is a property of a certain type of energy
(coulombic, magnetic.) Therefore, mass is a property of a particular
form of energy. If electrons contained only mass, they would not
differ from positrons. Mass is a form of energy that might not exist
w/o other types of energy. C14 indicates that atoms contain massless
energy and the massless energy could be greater than the energy due to
(rest) mass.

For example, the amount of magnetic energy within a molecule is not a
function of mass.

Relativistic speeds add more energy than KE. The form of this energy
is not likely pure mass. An electron with 3x original energy can
start forming electron-positron pairs.

Oops, I'm on a tangent.

Gravity is not a property of photons. There is a possibility that
photons contain mass (accounting for gravity.) The relativistic speed
of photons does not indicate that photons have mass. Relativistic
speed only increases the energy of things that already have mass.
Y.Porat
2011-11-01 06:36:14 UTC
Permalink
Post by Y.Porat
in case you dont know
rest mass
and inertial mass are  different words for the same
thing!!
My references made a distinction; I covered the bases.  
Post by Y.Porat
we are not dealing with words
we deal with physical entities
so rest mass ans inertial mass
are
THE SAME PHYSICAL ENTITY
th e   substantial  physical question is
rest mass  in photons??
or relativistic mass  in photons ??
in other words
can movement create mass
or not  ???
2
in short
what is relativistic in
E=hf
that was found and defined 5 years before
SR ?
TIA
Y.Porat
Many isotopes (H3, S35) have decay products that have more mass than
     C14     -->     N14     +    e                  
14.003241    14.003074  .00055  
Therefore, mass is not a requirement of all types of energy (possibly
including photons).
========
interesting information
but wrong INTERPRETATIONS !!!

your example if right means for me  
decay of particles is not always exothermic !!!
you got there is a di d the calculation
you go there ''excessive 0.000383 Amu
right ??
it means the process is exothermic
and i am not shocked about it
because i dont remamber that decay
must be endothermic or exothermic
it can be each of them

please have a look at my abstract
and tell me if i know something of your staff

http://sites.google.com/site/theyporatmodel/an-abstract

it is from 1993 !!!!....
and it i s only a little abstract of my **whole* book !!
so i knoe something about binding enries of a great deal of cases
actually i solved the geometric srtucture of all the periodic table
of elements
and i cannot be done without vast knowledge
of that issue
there are many cases in which a particle has some
em waves around it that give it more mass
forinstance
a magnet has a field around it
but its mass is so small that cannot dedetected

one of my historic findings is that
the real single photon mass is
about Exp - 90 Kilogram !!
do you get how tiny it is ???
and how elusive it is
------------------
now
my prove that E=hf HAS NOTHING RELATIVISTIC !
ie no relativistic mass in it
and i hope you understand that mass is hiding in that h ...
so my above prove is much general and stronger than your example !!!
i showed as well that the paradigm that
no mass can reach c
is an idiotic jump to conclusion becuse
while v= c Gamma is undefined !!!
so o one has the permission just his own guess !!
and my second prove that
E=hf is another confirmation for the other interpretation that
there is** no** relativistic mass
and even more reasonable than say
jsut motion can create mass from nothing but motion
and while motion stops Hukus fokus --that relativistic mass
DISAPPEAR ...!!!
and i had other proves for it yet
not necessary now ...all i brought untill now is enough ..

TIA
Y.Porat
--------------------------
Each type of force is a property of a certain type of energy
(coulombic, magnetic.)  Therefore, mass is a property of a particular
form of energy.  If electrons contained only mass, they would not
differ from positrons.  Mass is a form of energy that might not exist
w/o other types of energy.  C14 indicates that atoms contain massless
energy and the massless energy could be greater than the energy due to
(rest) mass.  
For example, the amount of magnetic energy within a molecule is not a
function of mass.  
Relativistic speeds add more energy than KE.  The form of this energy
is not likely pure mass.  An electron with 3x original energy can
start forming electron-positron pairs.  
Oops, I'm on a tangent.  
Gravity is not a property of photons.  There is a possibility that
photons contain mass (accounting for gravity.)  The relativistic speed
of photons does not indicate that photons have mass.  Relativistic
speed only increases the energy of things that already have mass.  
Byron Forbes
2011-10-29 04:48:44 UTC
Permalink
Post by r***@comcast.net
On Fri, 28 Oct 2011 04:52:39 -0700 (PDT), "Y.Porat"
Post by Y.Porat
        Take a box full of photons.
        Gravity - Photons pick up energy as they head down and so the ones at the bottom exert more pressure at the bottom
than the top - same as weight/mass
        Inertia - Accelerate the box and we blueshift the photons at the back and redshift the front ones - more pressure
at back than front - inertia.
The "inertia" case is straightforward, and goes back to the physics of
the 1870s.
The "gravity" case is newer, and for many (perhaps most), was
unexpected. But experimentally, 'tis what we see.
That the "weight" of the photons in both cases is the same is just
what is predicted by general relativity (follows directly from the
equivalence principle). Surprising to see you post such blatant pro-GR
propaganda!
        Photons have no mass but........................
No rest mass, but we've known for well over a century that
electromagnetic radiation has inertia. So, but what?
-----------------
just tel us loud and clear
do photons have mass
or not ??
iow
is the mass of photons -- relativistic
or just the one kind of mass that there is
TIA
Y.Porat
------------------
Perhaps photons contain rest mass and zero inertial mass
I think the evidence for gravitational red/blue shift (the Pound-Rebka
experiment) ignores the influence of gravitational potential energy on
Fe itself. Quantized molecular energy levels are a function of total
energy, which includes KE and gravitational potential energy. In
other words, gravitational potential energy MUST influence the
wavelength of Fe emission. If gravity indeed directly decreased
photon energy in the Pound-Rebka experiment, what gains the released
energy?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pound-Rebka_experiment

"The result confirmed that the predictions of general relativity were borne out at the 10% level.[3] This was later
improved to better than the 1% level by Pound and Snider.[4]

Another test involving a space-borne hydrogen maser increased the accuracy of the measurement to about 10-4 (0.01%).["
Post by r***@comcast.net
Einstein used the "principle of equivalence" to conclude, "Rate of
clocks at different heights was altered according to the gravitational
field". The principle of equivalence is the equivalence of rest mass
and inertial mass. Without inertial mass or rest mass, gravity cannot
cause redshift in photons, or a difference in a photon's clock rate.
Rest mass (not inertial mass) changes potential energy with height.
Inertial mass opposes the result of force (acceleration), without
regard for the type of applied force. Because photons have neither
rest mass nor inertial mass, photons have zero gravitational redshift.
Photons can convert to other energies without the burden of also
converting kinetic or potential energy due to mass, to the other
energy.
The notion of a photon gaining energy in a grav' field is certainly consistent with BaTH.

I am wondering if experiments have been done from great heights with sound waves - I wonder if a phonon picks up
speed or frequency if it travels down?
Timo Nieminen
2011-10-28 20:27:21 UTC
Permalink
Post by Y.Porat
        Photons have no mass but........................
No rest mass, but we've known for well over a century that
electromagnetic radiation has inertia. So, but what?
-----------------
just tel  us loud and clear
do photons have mass
or not ??
iow
is the  mass  of photons   -- relativistic
or just   the  one kind of mass that there is
TIA
Y.Porat
------------------
"No rest mass" isn't clear enough?

First, this isn't known for certain. The standard classical and
quantum theories either predict or assume this (the classical theory
predicts it; for the quantum theory, it can be done either way). But
experiment is the decider, not theory. So one needs to look at
experimental evidence. Given the limitations of experiment, it isn't
possible (or hasn't been yet) to exclude the possibility of a very
tiny rest mass. A few years old, but a good review is Liang Cheng Tu,
Jun Luo, and George T. Gillies, "The mass of the photon", Reports on
Progress in Physics 68, 77-130 (2005). By now you should be quite
familiar with this, since this paper has been mentioned in many
threads in which you have participated over the last 1/2 decade, and,
IIRC, has been mentioned specifically to you. If, for some reason, you
haven't read it yet, do so!

Second, I know you don't like the idea of "rest mass", "relativistic
mass", etc., what with your "one kind of mass" line. A whole bunch of
physicists also agree that "one kind of mass" is the way to go, and
therefore have decided that "mass" should always mean "rest mass". If
you want a good word for what was once called "relativistic mass", try
"energy". It's cohesive and complete: "mass" (i.e., rest mass) is the
magnitude of the energy-momentum 4-vector, "energy" is the time-
coordinate-axis component of the energy-momentum 4-vector, and
"momentum" is the 3 spatial components.

Earlier, "mass" was used rather ambiguously (and still is in some
writing). But don't be confused by that! The modern statement that
"photons have no mass" refers unambiguously to rest mass!

Third, in light of the above, you had better clarify just what kind of
"mass" _you_ mean with your "one kind of mass", if you want other
people to understand you. How about (a) and operational definition of
_your_ mass, and (b) include an operational definition of your mass
for moving objects.

Fourth, the experimental upper limit on the rest mass of the photon is
_much_ higher than your proposed mass of a "photon". However, keep in
mind that this upper limit is for a conventional photon, of energy
E=hf (and thus of easily detectable "relativistic mass"), rather than
your "single photon" (i.e., some kind of "sub-photon").
Y.Porat
2011-10-29 09:56:20 UTC
Permalink
Post by Timo Nieminen
Post by Y.Porat
        Photons have no mass but........................
No rest mass, but we've known for well over a century that
electromagnetic radiation has inertia. So, but what?
-----------------
just tel  us loud and clear
do photons have mass
or not ??
iow
is the  mass  of photons   -- relativistic
or just   the  one kind of mass that there is
TIA
Y.Porat
------------------
"No rest mass" isn't clear enough?
First, this isn't known for certain. The standard classical and
quantum theories either predict or assume this (the classical theory
predicts it; for the quantum theory, it can be done either way). But
experiment is the decider, not theory. So one needs to look at
experimental evidence. Given the limitations of experiment, it isn't
possible (or hasn't been yet) to exclude the possibility of a very
tiny rest mass. A few years old, but a good review is Liang Cheng Tu,
Jun Luo, and George T. Gillies, "The mass of the photon", Reports on
Progress in Physics 68, 77-130 (2005). By now you should be quite
familiar with this, since this paper has been mentioned in many
threads in which you have participated over the last 1/2 decade, and,
IIRC, has been mentioned specifically to you. If, for some reason, you
haven't read it yet, do so!
Second, I know you don't like the idea of "rest mass", "relativistic
mass", etc., what with your "one kind of mass" line. A whole bunch of
physicists also agree that "one kind of mass" is the way to go, and
therefore have decided that "mass" should always mean "rest mass". If
you want a good word for what was once called "relativistic mass", try
"energy". It's cohesive and complete: "mass" (i.e., rest mass) is the
magnitude of the energy-momentum 4-vector, "energy" is the time-
coordinate-axis component of the energy-momentum 4-vector, and
"momentum" is the 3 spatial components.
Earlier, "mass" was used rather ambiguously (and still is in some
writing). But don't be confused by that! The modern statement that
"photons have no mass" refers unambiguously to rest mass!
Third, in light of the above, you had better clarify just what kind of
"mass" _you_ mean with your "one kind of mass", if you want other
people to understand you. How about (a) and operational definition of
_your_ mass, and (b) include an operational definition of your mass
for moving objects.
Fourth, the experimental upper limit on the rest mass of the photon is
_much_ higher than your proposed mass of a "photon". However, keep in
mind that this upper limit is for a conventional photon, of energy
E=hf (and thus of easily detectable "relativistic mass"), rather than
your "single photon" (i.e., some kind of "sub-photon").
----------------
way do you talk so much ??!!
lets take the 'clasic' example of phottn energy
and later we wil see about
phootn momentum that is
hf/c
so that is why
E=hf is so important to examine
so please answer my simple question:

WHAT IS RELATIVISTIC IN
E=hf
Planck **didnt use*** any moving tool
or measuring equipment !!
it was all in just one single ;""frame ''
(that was defined ,measured ,formulated
5 years before any SR was published
and noting in formulation of it used any
relativistic concept or ''relativistic' multiplier /factor or alike!!
btw
please dont tell us that c is relativistic
because in that vase
you are going to get from me
on your head (:-)

TIA
Y.Porat
-----------------------


like say gamma
Timo Nieminen
2011-10-29 10:20:00 UTC
Permalink
Post by Y.Porat
WHAT IS RELATIVISTIC IN
E=hf
That wasn't what you asked! You asked "just tel us loud and clear do
photons have mass or not ??" Which is why I answered a question about
photon mass. I wrote a lot since I've answered the same question from
you before, and since you ask again, I must assume that you didn't
understand the answer the last time around.

But since you didn't like the answer to that question and now ask a
_completely_ different one: nothing. That is, there isn't anything
relativistic in E=hf. Is there supposed to be? Relativity is not a
quantum theory; quantum theories are not necessarily relativistic.
Y.Porat
2011-10-29 13:17:05 UTC
Permalink
Post by Y.Porat
WHAT IS RELATIVISTIC IN
E=hf
That wasn't what you asked! You asked "just tel  us loud and clear do
photons have mass or not ??" Which is why I answered a question about
photon mass. I wrote a lot since I've answered the same question from
you before, and since you ask again, I must assume that you didn't
understand the answer the last time around.
But since you didn't like the answer to that question and now ask a
_completely_ different one: nothing. That is, there isn't anything
relativistic in E=hf. Is there supposed to be? Relativity is not a
quantum theory; quantum theories are not necessarily relativistic.
--------------------
please tell us loud and clear and SHORT !!!

what is the mass in E=hf ( mind you it is energy !!! ---energy!! and
it means a lot !!! )
so
is it
relativistic mass or not relativistic mass
ie just mass the only mass !!??
BTW
need i have to explain to you that
E=hf has mass in it ??!!
TIA
Y.Porat
----------------------------
-----------------------
Timo Nieminen
2011-10-29 19:15:21 UTC
Permalink
Post by Y.Porat
Post by Y.Porat
WHAT IS RELATIVISTIC IN
E=hf
That wasn't what you asked! You asked "just tel  us loud and clear do
photons have mass or not ??" Which is why I answered a question about
photon mass. I wrote a lot since I've answered the same question from
you before, and since you ask again, I must assume that you didn't
understand the answer the last time around.
But since you didn't like the answer to that question and now ask a
_completely_ different one: nothing. That is, there isn't anything
relativistic in E=hf. Is there supposed to be? Relativity is not a
quantum theory; quantum theories are not necessarily relativistic.
--------------------
please tell us loud and clear and SHORT !!!
what is the mass in E=hf  ( mind you it is energy !!! ---energy!! and
it means a lot !!! )
It doesn't have any mass in it. E=hf is about _energy_, not _mass_.
These are different things. There are accepted technical usages of
these terms, with narrow, well-defined meanings. E=hf doesn't have
what physicists mean by "mass" in it. I don't know what _you_ mean by
mass, because you haven't said. Will you say? Below, I ask.
Post by Y.Porat
so
 is it
relativistic  mass or not  relativistic mass
 ie just mass  the only mass !!??
BTW
need i have to explain to you that
E=hf has mass in it ??!!
I know you keep saying that E=hf "has mass in it". That's why earlier,
I wrote the paragraphs below. Basically, you are using a _different_
definition of mass from that used in modern physics (and it's also
different from Newton's definition).

What is your definition of mass? Be clear! You can be loud and short
if you wish, but _clear_ is essential!

"Second, I know you don't like the idea of "rest mass", "relativistic
mass", etc., what with your "one kind of mass" line. A whole bunch of
physicists also agree that "one kind of mass" is the way to go, and
therefore have decided that "mass" should always mean "rest mass". If
you want a good word for what was once called "relativistic mass", try
"energy". It's cohesive and complete: "mass" (i.e., rest mass) is the
magnitude of the energy-momentum 4-vector, "energy" is the time-
coordinate-axis component of the energy-momentum 4-vector, and
"momentum" is the 3 spatial components.

Earlier, "mass" was used rather ambiguously (and still is in some
writing). But don't be confused by that! The modern statement that
"photons have no mass" refers unambiguously to rest mass!

Third, in light of the above, you had better clarify just what kind of
"mass" _you_ mean with your "one kind of mass", if you want other
people to understand you. How about (a) and operational definition of
_your_ mass, and (b) include an operational definition of your mass
for moving objects."
jon car
2011-10-29 19:34:36 UTC
Permalink
Post by Timo Nieminen
Post by Y.Porat
Post by Y.Porat
WHAT IS RELATIVISTIC IN
E=hf
That wasn't what you asked! You asked "just tel  us loud and clear do
photons have mass or not ??" Which is why I answered a question about
photon mass. I wrote a lot since I've answered the same question from
you before, and since you ask again, I must assume that you didn't
understand the answer the last time around.
But since you didn't like the answer to that question and now ask a
_completely_ different one: nothing. That is, there isn't anything
relativistic in E=hf. Is there supposed to be? Relativity is not a
quantum theory; quantum theories are not necessarily relativistic.
--------------------
please tell us loud and clear and SHORT !!!
what is the mass in E=hf  ( mind you it is energy !!! ---energy!! and
it means a lot !!! )
It doesn't have any mass in it. E=hf is about _energy_, not _mass_.
These are different things. There are accepted technical usages of
these terms, with narrow, well-defined meanings. E=hf doesn't have
what physicists mean by "mass" in it. I don't know what _you_ mean by
mass, because you haven't said. Will you say? Below, I ask.
Post by Y.Porat
so
 is it
relativistic  mass or not  relativistic mass
 ie just mass  the only mass !!??
BTW
need i have to explain to you that
E=hf has mass in it ??!!
I know you keep saying that E=hf "has mass in it". That's why earlier,
I wrote the paragraphs below. Basically, you are using a _different_
definition of mass from that used in modern physics (and it's also
different from Newton's definition).
What is your definition of mass? Be clear! You can be loud and short
if you wish, but _clear_ is essential!
"Second, I know you don't like the idea of "rest mass", "relativistic
mass", etc., what with your "one kind of mass" line. A whole bunch of
physicists also agree that "one kind of mass" is the way to go, and
therefore have decided that "mass" should always mean "rest mass". If
you want a good word for what was once called "relativistic mass", try
"energy". It's cohesive and complete: "mass" (i.e., rest mass) is the
magnitude of the energy-momentum 4-vector, "energy" is the time-
coordinate-axis component of the energy-momentum 4-vector, and
"momentum" is the 3 spatial components.
Earlier, "mass" was used rather ambiguously (and still is in some
writing). But don't be confused by that! The modern statement that
"photons have no mass" refers unambiguously to rest mass!
Third, in light of the above, you had better clarify just what kind of
"mass" _you_ mean with your "one kind of mass", if you want other
people to understand you. How about (a) and operational definition of
_your_ mass, and (b) include an operational definition of your mass
for moving objects."- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -
Mass is infinitely dense energy. It is quantized infinitely small
point of C squared energy.
Aetherist
2011-10-29 19:36:33 UTC
Permalink
Post by Timo Nieminen
Post by Y.Porat
Post by Y.Porat
WHAT IS RELATIVISTIC IN
E=hf
That wasn't what you asked! You asked "just tel  us loud and clear do
photons have mass or not ??" Which is why I answered a question about
photon mass. I wrote a lot since I've answered the same question from
you before, and since you ask again, I must assume that you didn't
understand the answer the last time around.
But since you didn't like the answer to that question and now ask a
_completely_ different one: nothing. That is, there isn't anything
relativistic in E=hf. Is there supposed to be? Relativity is not a
quantum theory; quantum theories are not necessarily relativistic.
--------------------
please tell us loud and clear and SHORT !!!
what is the mass in E=hf  ( mind you it is energy !!! ---energy!! and
it means a lot !!! )
It doesn't have any mass in it. E=hf is about _energy_, not _mass_.
These are different things. There are accepted technical usages of
these terms, with narrow, well-defined meanings. E=hf doesn't have
what physicists mean by "mass" in it. I don't know what _you_ mean by
mass, because you haven't said. Will you say? Below, I ask.
Let f = 1E+16 thus 'a photon' has hf energy or 6.63E-18 J. We have
'a box' that weighs precisely 1 kg empty. We add 1.36E+34 photons
to that box, what does it now weigh? If photons are, if fact,
massless, should it not be still precisely 1 kg? :)
Post by Timo Nieminen
Post by Y.Porat
so
 is it
relativistic  mass or not  relativistic mass
 ie just mass  the only mass !!??
BTW
need i have to explain to you that
E=hf has mass in it ??!!
I know you keep saying that E=hf "has mass in it". That's why earlier,
I wrote the paragraphs below. Basically, you are using a _different_
definition of mass from that used in modern physics (and it's also
different from Newton's definition).
What is your definition of mass? Be clear! You can be loud and short
if you wish, but _clear_ is essential!
"Second, I know you don't like the idea of "rest mass", "relativistic
mass", etc., what with your "one kind of mass" line. A whole bunch of
physicists also agree that "one kind of mass" is the way to go, and
therefore have decided that "mass" should always mean "rest mass". If
you want a good word for what was once called "relativistic mass", try
"energy". It's cohesive and complete: "mass" (i.e., rest mass) is the
magnitude of the energy-momentum 4-vector, "energy" is the time-
coordinate-axis component of the energy-momentum 4-vector, and
"momentum" is the 3 spatial components.
Earlier, "mass" was used rather ambiguously (and still is in some
writing). But don't be confused by that! The modern statement that
"photons have no mass" refers unambiguously to rest mass!
Third, in light of the above, you had better clarify just what kind of
"mass" _you_ mean with your "one kind of mass", if you want other
people to understand you. How about (a) and operational definition of
_your_ mass, and (b) include an operational definition of your mass
for moving objects."
jon car
2011-10-29 19:39:37 UTC
Permalink
Post by Timo Nieminen
Post by Y.Porat
Post by Y.Porat
WHAT IS RELATIVISTIC IN
E=hf
That wasn't what you asked! You asked "just tel  us loud and clear do
photons have mass or not ??" Which is why I answered a question about
photon mass. I wrote a lot since I've answered the same question from
you before, and since you ask again, I must assume that you didn't
understand the answer the last time around.
But since you didn't like the answer to that question and now ask a
_completely_ different one: nothing. That is, there isn't anything
relativistic in E=hf. Is there supposed to be? Relativity is not a
quantum theory; quantum theories are not necessarily relativistic.
--------------------
please tell us loud and clear and SHORT !!!
what is the mass in E=hf  ( mind you it is energy !!! ---energy!! and
it means a lot !!! )
It doesn't have any mass in it. E=hf is about _energy_, not _mass_.
These are different things. There are accepted technical usages of
these terms, with narrow, well-defined meanings. E=hf doesn't have
what physicists mean by "mass" in it. I don't know what _you_ mean by
mass, because you haven't said. Will you say? Below, I ask.
Let f = 1E+16 thus 'a photon' has hf energy or 6.63E-18 J.  We have
'a box' that weighs precisely 1 kg empty.  We add 1.36E+34 photons
to that box, what does it now weigh?  If photons are, if fact,
massless, should it not be still precisely 1 kg? :)
Post by Timo Nieminen
Post by Y.Porat
so
 is it
relativistic  mass or not  relativistic mass
 ie just mass  the only mass !!??
BTW
need i have to explain to you that
E=hf has mass in it ??!!
I know you keep saying that E=hf "has mass in it". That's why earlier,
I wrote the paragraphs below. Basically, you are using a _different_
definition of mass from that used in modern physics (and it's also
different from Newton's definition).
What is your definition of mass? Be clear! You can be loud and short
if you wish, but _clear_ is essential!
"Second, I know you don't like the idea of "rest mass", "relativistic
mass", etc., what with your "one kind of mass" line. A whole bunch of
physicists also agree that "one kind of mass" is the way to go, and
therefore have decided that "mass" should always mean "rest mass". If
you want a good word for what was once called "relativistic mass", try
"energy". It's cohesive and complete: "mass" (i.e., rest mass) is the
magnitude of the energy-momentum 4-vector, "energy" is the time-
coordinate-axis component of the energy-momentum 4-vector, and
"momentum" is the 3 spatial components.
Earlier, "mass" was used rather ambiguously (and still is in some
writing). But don't be confused by that! The modern statement that
"photons have no mass" refers unambiguously to rest mass!
Third, in light of the above, you had better clarify just what kind of
"mass" _you_ mean with your "one kind of mass", if you want other
people to understand you. How about (a) and operational definition of
_your_ mass, and (b) include an operational definition of your mass
for moving objects."- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -
Light is weightless until it is absorbed by the side of the box.
Only at that point will it contribute to any weight.
Aetherist
2011-10-29 20:01:19 UTC
Permalink
Post by jon car
Post by Timo Nieminen
Post by Y.Porat
--------------------
please tell us loud and clear and SHORT !!!
what is the mass in E=hf  ( mind you it is energy !!! ---energy!! and
it means a lot !!! )
It doesn't have any mass in it. E=hf is about _energy_, not _mass_.
These are different things. There are accepted technical usages of
these terms, with narrow, well-defined meanings. E=hf doesn't have
what physicists mean by "mass" in it. I don't know what _you_ mean by
mass, because you haven't said. Will you say? Below, I ask.
Let f = 1E+16 thus 'a photon' has hf energy or 6.63E-18 J.  We have
'a box' that weighs precisely 1 kg empty.  We add 1.36E+34 photons
to that box, what does it now weigh?  If photons are, if fact,
massless, should it not be still precisely 1 kg? :)
Light is weightless until it is absorbed by the side of the box.
Only at that point will it contribute to any weight.
Then let's clarify my question above by saying the photons are
just 'bouncing around' inside by reflection. And yes, I know
that real mirrors are NOT 100% reflective at any frequency...
jon car
2011-10-29 20:34:59 UTC
Permalink
Post by Aetherist
Post by jon car
Post by Timo Nieminen
Post by Y.Porat
--------------------
please tell us loud and clear and SHORT !!!
what is the mass in E=hf  ( mind you it is energy !!! ---energy!! and
it means a lot !!! )
It doesn't have any mass in it. E=hf is about _energy_, not _mass_.
These are different things. There are accepted technical usages of
these terms, with narrow, well-defined meanings. E=hf doesn't have
what physicists mean by "mass" in it. I don't know what _you_ mean by
mass, because you haven't said. Will you say? Below, I ask.
Let f = 1E+16 thus 'a photon' has hf energy or 6.63E-18 J.  We have
'a box' that weighs precisely 1 kg empty.  We add 1.36E+34 photons
to that box, what does it now weigh?  If photons are, if fact,
massless, should it not be still precisely 1 kg? :)
Light is weightless until it is absorbed by the side of the box.
Only at that point will it contribute to any weight.
Then let's clarify my question above by saying the photons are
just 'bouncing around' inside by reflection.  And yes, I know
that real mirrors are NOT 100% reflective at any frequency...- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -
If light goes in and out of the mirror it will only weigh more when
absorbed and stored until its coming out radiating at all the angles
of a mirror.

Mitchell Raemsch
Timo Nieminen
2011-10-29 21:00:20 UTC
Permalink
Let f = 1E+16 thus 'a photon' has hf energy or 6.63E-18 J.  We have
'a box' that weighs precisely 1 kg empty.  We add 1.36E+34 photons
to that box, what does it now weigh?  If photons are, if fact,
massless, should it not be still precisely 1 kg? :)
To repeat what I already wrote earlier in this thread, "photons are
massless" means that photons have zero rest mass. Rest mass is the
magnitude of the energy-momentum 4-vector.

The E-M 4-vector is P=(E/c^2,p_x,p_y,p_z). (That's the contravariant
vector - the covariant vector is neater, = (-E,p_x,p_y,p_z).) In
general, rest mass is m = |P|, in appropriate units (and sign,
depending on our choice of sign in the metric). So, we have:

m = sqrt(E^2/c^4 - |p|^2/c^2).

For your 1kg box, stationary, P_box = (1kg,0,0,0). If we add 9e16J of
EM radiation, stationary (i.e., in a bunch of standing wave modes in
the stationary box, on average), this has P_rad = (1kg,0,0,0).

The total E-M 4-vector is then P_total = (2kg,0,0,0). From which the
rest mass of the system (box + contained radiation) is 2kg.

(E=hf is entirely irrelevant in the above, unless you want to count
photons. All of the momentum/mass/energy stuff follows purely from
classical (i.e., non-quantum) considerations.)

But wait! It gets better!

Consider a collimated pulse of light, of energy 9e16J. This has
momentum p=E/c (collimated, so we can assume the energy-momentum
relation for a plane wave is good). Let us assume it is travelling in
the x-direction.

The 4-vector is P_collimated = (1kg,3e8N.s,0,0). The magnitude is
zero; rest mass of the collimated pulse is zero.

Now consider a spherically symmetric expanding pulse, of energy 9e16J.
Every point on the surface of the expanding pulse has some momentum,
directed outwards. Due to the spherical symmetry, the total momentum
is zero.

So, P_spherical = (1kg,0,0,0), and the rest mass of the spherical
pulse is 1kg.

Ponder the above results for what is effectively a plane EM wave, and
a spherical wave. We see the statement that "photons are massless",
i.e., have zero rest mass. We also see (single) photons being defined
in terms of plane wave modes. So:

(i) Massless photons are plane wave photons.

(ii) The rest mass of a system is not the rest mass of its components
(follows directly from m = sqrt(E^2/c^4 - |p|^2/c^2, since E is
scalar, and p is a vector quantity).

(iii) For non-plane wave radiation, we can add a bunch of plane wave
modes. To obtain a standing wave in a box, with a total of a single
photon, that's a half-photon going one way, and a half-photon going
the other way - the usual recipe for non-zero rest mass.
Aetherist
2011-10-30 02:26:30 UTC
Permalink
Post by Timo Nieminen
Let f = 1E+16 thus 'a photon' has hf energy or 6.63E-18 J.  We have
'a box' that weighs precisely 1 kg empty.  We add 1.36E+34 photons
to that box, what does it now weigh?  If photons are, if fact,
massless, should it not be still precisely 1 kg? :)
To repeat what I already wrote earlier in this thread, "photons are
massless" means that photons have zero rest mass. Rest mass is the
magnitude of the energy-momentum 4-vector.
The E-M 4-vector is P=(E/c^2,p_x,p_y,p_z). (That's the contravariant
vector - the covariant vector is neater, = (-E,p_x,p_y,p_z).) In
general, rest mass is m = |P|, in appropriate units (and sign,
m = sqrt(E^2/c^4 - |p|^2/c^2).
For your 1kg box, stationary, P_box = (1kg,0,0,0). If we add 9e16J of
EM radiation, stationary (i.e., in a bunch of standing wave modes in
the stationary box, on average), this has P_rad = (1kg,0,0,0).
The total E-M 4-vector is then P_total = (2kg,0,0,0). From which the
rest mass of the system (box + contained radiation) is 2kg.
So, to be clear, the box weighed 1 kg, the photons weigh 1 kg so
the total is 2 kg. Without opening the box one cannot know
whether the are photons or marbles in the box, just that whatever
it is 'masses' as 1 kg. Hmmm, it act like a mass, weighs like a
mass has inetia like a mass, but they're 'massless'. I agree you
cannot 'stop' a photon & weigh it BUT disagree that by any reasonable
definition of mass, that they are 'massless'.
Post by Timo Nieminen
(E=hf is entirely irrelevant in the above, unless you want to count
photons. All of the momentum/mass/energy stuff follows purely from
classical (i.e., non-quantum) considerations.)
But wait! It gets better!
Consider a collimated pulse of light, of energy 9e16J. This has
momentum p=E/c (collimated, so we can assume the energy-momentum
relation for a plane wave is good). Let us assume it is travelling in
the x-direction.
The 4-vector is P_collimated = (1kg,3e8N.s,0,0). The magnitude is
zero; rest mass of the collimated pulse is zero.
Now consider a spherically symmetric expanding pulse, of energy 9e16J.
Every point on the surface of the expanding pulse has some momentum,
directed outwards. Due to the spherical symmetry, the total momentum
is zero.
So, P_spherical = (1kg,0,0,0), and the rest mass of the spherical
pulse is 1kg.
Ponder the above results for what is effectively a plane EM wave, and
a spherical wave. We see the statement that "photons are massless",
i.e., have zero rest mass. We also see (single) photons being defined
(i) Massless photons are plane wave photons.
(ii) The rest mass of a system is not the rest mass of its components
(follows directly from m = sqrt(E^2/c^4 - |p|^2/c^2, since E is
scalar, and p is a vector quantity).
(iii) For non-plane wave radiation, we can add a bunch of plane wave
modes. To obtain a standing wave in a box, with a total of a single
photon, that's a half-photon going one way, and a half-photon going
the other way - the usual recipe for non-zero rest mass.
I would argue that the p is simply mc but no-one wants to go there...
so, instead they concoct this form because you cannot stop a photon
to weigh it. Since any physical carrier medium is expressly denied
where as the mass in other wave phenomena is solely in the carrier
media it is claimed it simply 'can't 'by definition, be' for light.
Timo Nieminen
2011-10-30 07:07:23 UTC
Permalink
Post by Aetherist
So, to be clear, the box weighed 1 kg, the photons weigh 1 kg so
the total is 2 kg.  Without opening the box one cannot know
whether the are photons or marbles in the box, just that whatever
it is 'masses' as 1 kg.
 Hmmm, it act like a mass, weighs like a
mass has inetia like a mass, but they're 'massless'.
Stop right here! Nobody is saying that a "box of photons" is massless.
(Well, some people would say it, but that's overgeneralising the
"photons are massless", and isn't what the theory actually says.)

What (conventional) theory says is that m = sqrt(E^2/c^4 - |p|^2/c^2),
and a box of photons of total energy 9e16J and zero momentum quite
clearly has a rest mass of 1kg. Which is not zero.

What conventional theory says is that a single photon in a plane-wave
mode, or N photons all in the same plane wave mode (or plane wave
modes with parallel (_not_ including anti-parallel) k) have zero rest
mass. If you want to disagree with that go ahead, but it doesn't seem
at all useful to spend time disagreeing with a mis-interpreted cartoon
of what conventional theory says.
Post by Aetherist
 I agree you
cannot 'stop' a photon & weigh it BUT disagree that by any reasonable
definition of mass, that they are 'massless'.  
So, you say that m = sqrt(E^2/c^4 - |p|^2/c^2), which, as the
magnitude of the energy-momentum 4-vector, is a relativistic
invariant, and also happens to be the only useful relativistic
invariant connected with mass, is not a reasonable definition of mass.
Post by Aetherist
I would argue that the p is simply mc but no-one wants to go there...
so, instead they concoct this form because you cannot stop a photon
to weigh it.
It's an old definition of mass. And out of the confusion of "mass" as
possibly "relativistic mass", "rest mass", "longitudinal mass",
"transverse mass", "volume * density", and perhaps more, _modern_
terminology is:

(a) the invariant quantity is simply called "mass", and

(b) the total quantity, which changes with (kinetic) energy, is
"energy". This is what you want to call "mass", except for the
different units.

So, you want to call (effectively) total energy "mass". That would
work, but is it useful? It conflicts with existing terminology, and
conflicts with some everyday ideas about "mass". (Which is why there
has been a revision of terminology.)

Yes, one can call "total energy" mass. What do you propose calling the
invariant mass? Back to always "rest mass"? (Or "invariant mass" would
do, too.) Certainly one shouldn't just throw away invariant mass,
since

Anyway, that's just quibbling about terminology. I don't see any
advantage in your proposed changes, and plenty of potential for
confusion. You, OTOH, clearly do see some advantages. Fair enough.

But keep in mind that while your revised terminology would have
photons having "mass", that's identical to conventional terminology
saying that photons have "energy", or older terminology saying that
photons have "relativistic mass". Which really has nothing to do with
the conventional statement that a (plane wave mode) photon has zero
rest mass.
Post by Aetherist
Since any physical carrier medium is expressly denied
where as the mass in other wave phenomena is solely in the carrier
media it is claimed it simply 'can't 'by definition, be' for light.
No, this is wrong. Specifically, it has been shown that energy in
other wave phenomena has inertia independently of the mass of the
medium, with energy-momentum relationship p=E/v, where v is the speed
of transport of the energy (and not just waves, it also applies to,
e.g., transport of thermal energy by conduction). Light is simply
treated identically, and not as a special case.

If you want to say that light has "mass" due to its inertia, you must
also say that other waves have "mass" due to their inertia as well, in
addition to the mass of the medium.

Sorry, I don't know a good English language reference. Umov's 1874
paper is (in Russian) in his "Selected Works", and also appeared in
German, Umov (Umoff), N.A., 1874. Beweg-Gleich. d. Energie in contin.
Korpern, Zeitschriff d. Math. and Phys. V. XIX. This hasn't gotten
much attention in the Western literature, since the relativistic
energy-momentum relationship covers it simply and compactly.
Tom Roberts
2011-10-30 15:20:51 UTC
Permalink
Post by Timo Nieminen
So, you want to call (effectively) total energy "mass". That would
work, but is it useful? It conflicts with existing terminology, and
conflicts with some everyday ideas about "mass". (Which is why there
has been a revision of terminology.)
The basic problem with Aetherist's (and other people's) attempt at non-standard
usage, is that "mass" carries the historical baggage that it represents "how
much stuff is present" [*]. Since "how much stuff is present" cannot change if
one looks at an object with different coordinates or from a different frame,
"mass" MUST be invariant under changes of coordinates. Hence the modern usage is
BY FAR the best approach. IMHO this is a major part of why that is the modern
usage of the word "mass".

[*] That is certainly how "mass" was discussed in my high school
physics class. While the major point was to differentiate weight
from mass, the principle still holds in ALL theories of modern
physics.

BTW this was not a "revision" of terminology, this was a SELECTION from among a
set of alternatives introduced by relativity, selecting the usage that most
closely represents the previous usage:
* Mass, meaning the norm of an object's 4-momentum, goes smoothly into
the m of Newtonian mechanics, as in F=ma and p=mv.
* Energy, meaning the time component of an object's 4-momentum in an
inertial frame, goes smoothly into a new "rest energy" plus kinetic
energy.
* The momentum equation of Newton, p=mv, is a relationship between
3-vectors, and is directly generalized using 4-vectors: P=mV;
"m" is obviously the norm of the 4-momentum P.
* None of the alternatives do the above.
* None of the alternatives for mass represent "how much stuff is present".


So that is why we say "photons have no mass" -- the norm of their 4-momentum is
identically zero in free space. Though if one goes deeper, in QED one finds that
the propagator for a photon has no mass term (which applies even in situations
other than free space). "Porat" and "car" are just completely clueless, and
"Aetherist" is wrong.

When one seals a bunch of photons into a box, the INDIVIDUAL photons
remain massless (in the sense of their propagator in QED), but the
BINDING ENERGY involved in keeping them inside the box introduces a
net mass that is measurable for the box plus contents. In the real
world, the photons are quickly absorbed by the mirrors, heating them.
Heating such an object is KNOWN to increase its mass -- so the modern
usage is the only one that directly satisfies energy and momentum
conservation (4-momentum conservation).


Tom Roberts
Aetherist
2011-10-30 16:38:26 UTC
Permalink
Post by Tom Roberts
Post by Timo Nieminen
So, you want to call (effectively) total energy "mass". That would
work, but is it useful? It conflicts with existing terminology, and
conflicts with some everyday ideas about "mass". (Which is why there
has been a revision of terminology.)
The basic problem with Aetherist's (and other people's) attempt at non-standard
usage, is that "mass" carries the historical baggage that it represents "how
much stuff is present" [*]. Since "how much stuff is present" cannot change if
one looks at an object with different coordinates or from a different frame,
Agreed...
Post by Tom Roberts
"mass" MUST be invariant under changes of coordinates.
While I agree, this is not ordained by God. Thus there is no MUST...
Post by Tom Roberts
Hence the modern usage is BY FAR the best approach. IMHO this is a major part
of why that is the modern usage of the word "mass".
While I know you don't pay any attention to what I say I've consistently
argued that the term 'rest mass' is an emergent quantity, and only
momentum is primal (as in a fundamental of physics). In turn that the
actual momentum of any 'massive' object is relative to the universal
background, the CMBR and 'relative' momentum between FOR's is, as always,
mdv... Thus energy, momentum, ... etc. does not just 'appear/dissappear'
when changing relative FORs... everything has a common base and the
conservation arrise from this fact.
Post by Tom Roberts
[*] That is certainly how "mass" was discussed in my high school
physics class. While the major point was to differentiate weight
from mass, the principle still holds in ALL theories of modern
physics.
BTW this was not a "revision" of terminology, this was a SELECTION from among a
set of alternatives introduced by relativity, selecting the usage that most
* Mass, meaning the norm of an object's 4-momentum, goes smoothly into
the m of Newtonian mechanics, as in F=ma and p=mv.
* Energy, meaning the time component of an object's 4-momentum in an
inertial frame, goes smoothly into a new "rest energy" plus kinetic
energy.
* The momentum equation of Newton, p=mv, is a relationship between
3-vectors, and is directly generalized using 4-vectors: P=mV;
"m" is obviously the norm of the 4-momentum P.
* None of the alternatives do the above.
* None of the alternatives for mass represent "how much stuff is present".
So that is why we say "photons have no mass" -- the norm of their 4-momentum is
identically zero in free space. Though if one goes deeper, in QED one finds that
the propagator for a photon has no mass term (which applies even in situations
other than free space). "Porat" and "car" are just completely clueless, and
"Aetherist" is wrong.
Photons do have 'mass' in the sense that:

E = pc

And

p = mv

and with v = c

E = (mc)c = mc^2

Photons do NOT! have any 'rest mass' but all energy has 'mass' in the form
of momentum and all energy thus gravitates. This brings a thought to my mind
that given the CMBR and its power density of sT^4 (s -> Stefhan-Boltzmann's
constant) it certainly will have 'massive' gravitational effects throughout
space.
Post by Tom Roberts
When one seals a bunch of photons into a box, the INDIVIDUAL photons
remain massless (in the sense of their propagator in QED), but the
BINDING ENERGY involved in keeping them inside the box introduces a
net mass that is measurable for the box plus contents. In the real
world, the photons are quickly absorbed by the mirrors, heating them.
Heating such an object is KNOWN to increase its mass -- so the modern
usage is the only one that directly satisfies energy and momentum
conservation (4-momentum conservation).
I deliberately stated that 'I Know! mirrors aren't perfect'. I also
know that you physically cannot put 9E+16 J of photons in a box.
Further, I stated that you, by any physical measurement, cannot tell
whether the box contained a 1 kg foam or photons WITHOUT looking
inside. The 1 kg of foam will behave EXACTLY! like the photons.
Mass IS! mass, all theoretical mumbo jumbo aside.

Since, the equation say mass, it weighs like a mass, has inertia
like mass, behaves like mass, it is illogical and stupid to claim
it not mass. Mass is not synonomous with 'rest mass'...
Post by Tom Roberts
Tom Roberts
Tom Roberts
2011-10-31 20:45:01 UTC
Permalink
Post by Aetherist
Post by Tom Roberts
The basic problem with Aetherist's (and other people's) attempt at non-standard
usage, is that "mass" carries the historical baggage that it represents "how
much stuff is present" [*]. Since "how much stuff is present" cannot change if
one looks at an object with different coordinates or from a different frame,
Agreed...
Post by Tom Roberts
"mass" MUST be invariant under changes of coordinates.
While I agree, this is not ordained by God. Thus there is no MUST...
The MUST is ordained by man: Arbitrary human choices, such as selection of
coordinates, cannot possibly affect any natural phenomenon, such as "how much
stuff is present". This is inherent in the observed ability for people to do
physics -- there is a common world "out there" which we can all observe and
model....

Ultimately this comes down to the distinction between world and
model; coordinates are part of the MODEL, but "stuff" is part of
the world. The model cannot affect the world.
Post by Aetherist
Post by Tom Roberts
Hence the modern usage is BY FAR the best approach. IMHO this is a major part
of why that is the modern usage of the word "mass".
While I know you don't pay any attention to what I say I've consistently
argued that the term 'rest mass' is an emergent quantity, and only
momentum is primal (as in a fundamental of physics).
"Rest mass" is irrelevant. The mass of an object is the norm of its 4-momentum.
One can easily show that when its 4-momentum is projected onto its (inertial)
rest frame, its total energy is equal to its mass.

IMHO "Rest mass" is an oxymoron, because "rest" has nothing to
do with it (mass is invariant). At a minimum, the first word is
redundant; n the case of photons, "rest mass" is inapplicable.
Post by Aetherist
In turn that the
actual momentum of any 'massive' object is relative to the universal
background, the CMBR and 'relative' momentum between FOR's is, as always,
mdv... Thus energy, momentum, ... etc. does not just 'appear/dissappear'
when changing relative FORs... everything has a common base and the
conservation arrise from this fact.
Your fantasies and dreams are not a constraint on nature, or on physical
theories and models of nature.
Post by Aetherist
E = pc
And
p = mv
and with v = c
E = (mc)c = mc^2
When you don't understand basic physics, you can write down nonsense like this.
Writing nonsense in the form of equations does not change the fact that it is
nonsense. But since you did not bother to describe what the symbols in your
equations mean, you have deluded yourself into thinking they are not nonsense.

Specifically: state what your "m" means, and note that it does
not apply when v=c. Be sure to read Einstein's paper on "E=mc^2"
VERY CAREFULLY (ditto for any other paper on the subject).


Moreover, above you said that you agreed with my statement "mass must be
invariant under changes of coordinates". Look at your equations above and note
that your "m" is NOT invariant.

How does moving away from or toward a light source change "how
much stuff is present" in the light beam?

Are you unable to see the inconsistencies of your approach?
Post by Aetherist
Photons do NOT! have any 'rest mass' but all energy has 'mass' in the form
of momentum and all energy thus gravitates.
Not so. It's just that the "source" of gravity is not merely mass, it is the
entire energy-momentum tensor. All energy "gravitates" because it contributes to
the energy-momentum tensor (not because all energy "has mass"). This completely
resolves your confusion. But you clearly do not know enough modern physics to
understand it.

BTW momentum is not some "form" of mass. They are incommensurate.

A wave on the surface of the ocean clearly has energy. What is
its "mass"? Where does that "mass" reside? How much "stuff" is
contained in the wave, and what is it made of? How does moving
relative to the surface affect "how much stuff is present" in
the wave? How is this related to the old question "Where does
the kinetic energy of a bullet reside?"

Are you unable to see the inconsistencies of your approach?
Post by Aetherist
you, by any physical measurement, cannot tell
whether the box contained a 1 kg foam or photons WITHOUT looking
inside.
Sure.
Post by Aetherist
Since, the equation say mass, it weighs like a mass, has inertia
like mass, behaves like mass, it is illogical and stupid to claim
it not mass.
The mass of box+contents is the norm of the 4-momentum of box+contents. One
obtains the 4-momentum of a bound, compound system like this by adding up the
4-momenta of its constituents. In particular, one CANNOT simply add the masses
of the constituents [#]. There is nothing "illogical and stupid" about applying
the definition of "mass" properly.

And, of course, YOUR equation above is nonsense, so "it" does not "say mass".

[#] Example: consider the decay pi0 => two photons. Initially
the pi0 mass is 135 MeV/c^2, but the masses of the final photons
are both zero. Mass is not conserved for the individual
particles. But 4-momentum is conserved in this decay, and the
SYSTEM consisting of the two final photons has a mass of 135
MeV/c^2 (though in practice the mass of such an unbound system
is essentially useless).
Post by Aetherist
Mass is not synonomous with 'rest mass'...
In modern usage it is, whenever "rest mass" has meaning.

What is the "rest mass" of the two photons in my example above?
[I deliberately phrased this loosely, matching YOUR style.]

Are you unable to see the inconsistencies of your approach?


Tom Roberts
Aetherist
2011-10-30 18:11:53 UTC
Permalink
Post by Timo Nieminen
Post by Aetherist
So, to be clear, the box weighed 1 kg, the photons weigh 1 kg so
the total is 2 kg.  Without opening the box one cannot know
whether the are photons or marbles in the box, just that whatever
it is 'masses' as 1 kg.
 Hmmm, it act like a mass, weighs like a
mass has inetia like a mass, but they're 'massless'.
Stop right here! Nobody is saying that a "box of photons" is massless.
(Well, some people would say it, but that's overgeneralising the
"photons are massless", and isn't what the theory actually says.)
Tell that to Paul Draper :) He insisted that photons 'are massless'
and that one must not infer from their momentum that they have any
mass.
Post by Timo Nieminen
What (conventional) theory says is that m = sqrt(E^2/c^4 - |p|^2/c^2),
and a box of photons of total energy 9e16J and zero momentum quite
clearly has a rest mass of 1kg. Which is not zero.
Agreed, those photons mass to 1 kg... How one wants to declare
that 'mass' is model dependent but, the 'measured' quantity is
plain ols mass just like any other that could be in the box.
Post by Timo Nieminen
What conventional theory says is that a single photon in a plane-wave
mode, or N photons all in the same plane wave mode (or plane wave
modes with parallel (_not_ including anti-parallel) k) have zero rest
mass. If you want to disagree with that go ahead,
I don't disagree, no plane wave of any sort has any rest mass.
It is the directionalized momentum carried by the medium (which
has its own momentum) that give the 'wave' its momenta.
Post by Timo Nieminen
but it doesn't seem at all useful to spend time disagreeing with a
mis-interpreted cartoon of what conventional theory says.
Boy, do I agree with this, now if only Draper, Dono, Gisse, ... etc
could get on board :)
Post by Timo Nieminen
Post by Aetherist
 I agree you
cannot 'stop' a photon & weigh it BUT disagree that by any reasonable
definition of mass, that they are 'massless'.  
So, you say that m = sqrt(E^2/c^4 - |p|^2/c^2), which, as the
magnitude of the energy-momentum 4-vector, is a relativistic
invariant, and also happens to be the only useful relativistic
invariant connected with mass, is not a reasonable definition of mass.
Based on the current definitions, yes. I just would add that
p = mc is always valid as well. One just needs to realized
that m DOES NOT! need to be 'rest mass'.
Post by Timo Nieminen
Post by Aetherist
I would argue that the p is simply mc but no-one wants to go there...
so, instead they concoct this form because you cannot stop a photon
to weigh it.
It's an old definition of mass. And out of the confusion of "mass" as
possibly "relativistic mass", "rest mass", "longitudinal mass",
"transverse mass", "volume * density", and perhaps more, _modern_
I agree that there was 'confusion' as to what constituted mass because
of the piecemeal nature of that time.
Post by Timo Nieminen
(a) the invariant quantity is simply called "mass", and
I would argue an invariant quantity called momentum (mc) and
given:

Vx^2 + Vy^2 + Vz^2 = c^2

If Vy & Vz are exactly zero we have a photon... Any other
situation let's say Vx is v and the other two components
make up either a standing wave or soliton structure.

In any case,

p = Sqrt[(mVx)^2 + (mVy)^2 + (mVz)^2] = mc
Post by Timo Nieminen
(b) the total quantity, which changes with (kinetic) energy, is
"energy". This is what you want to call "mass", except for the
different units.
No, I'd want to call it 'net kinetic energy' or relative
kinetic energy thus clearly defining it realtive to a
certain frame of reference.
Post by Timo Nieminen
So, you want to call (effectively) total energy "mass". That would
work, but is it useful? It conflicts with existing terminology, and
conflicts with some everyday ideas about "mass". (Which is why there
has been a revision of terminology.)
No, to me the total kinetic energy or momentum of any object
with relative 'rest mass' is aways defined in terms of the
universal background, the CMBR frame. I take a universal,
uinifed view of nature.
Post by Timo Nieminen
Yes, one can call "total energy" mass. What do you propose calling the
invariant mass? Back to always "rest mass"? (Or "invariant mass" would
do, too.) Certainly one shouldn't just throw away invariant mass,
since
Yes, I would simply say that anything with measurable 'rest mass'
is an invariant quantity. Likewise, all energy has mass. The
is the equivalence principle, no?
Post by Timo Nieminen
Anyway, that's just quibbling about terminology. I don't see any
advantage in your proposed changes, and plenty of potential for
confusion. You, OTOH, clearly do see some advantages. Fair enough.
But keep in mind that while your revised terminology would have
photons having "mass", that's identical to conventional terminology
saying that photons have "energy", or older terminology saying that
photons have "relativistic mass". Which really has nothing to do with
the conventional statement that a (plane wave mode) photon has zero
rest mass.
I have never had a problem with saying photons have no 'rest mass'.
I do have a problem when someone trys to tell me that because of
this photons have no mass whatsoever. For me either p = mv
or it does not, there is no well, but... Unless one can prove
it's false by showing that there exist a situation where something
has momentum yet no inertia...
Post by Timo Nieminen
Post by Aetherist
Since any physical carrier medium is expressly denied
where as the mass in other wave phenomena is solely in the carrier
media it is claimed it simply 'can't 'by definition, be' for light.
No, this is wrong. Specifically, it has been shown that energy in
other wave phenomena has inertia independently of the mass of the
medium, with energy-momentum relationship p=E/v, where v is the speed
of transport of the energy (and not just waves, it also applies to,
e.g., transport of thermal energy by conduction). Light is simply
treated identically, and not as a special case.
Yes, that's because a directionalized momentum pulse is what
the wave is, no? But the mass and that pulse is imposed on
the medium carrier,right?
Post by Timo Nieminen
If you want to say that light has "mass" due to its inertia, you must
also say that other waves have "mass" due to their inertia as well, in
addition to the mass of the medium.
Yes, there is an apparent mass in the pulse...
Post by Timo Nieminen
Sorry, I don't know a good English language reference. Umov's 1874
paper is (in Russian) in his "Selected Works", and also appeared in
German, Umov (Umoff), N.A., 1874. Beweg-Gleich. d. Energie in contin.
Korpern, Zeitschriff d. Math. and Phys. V. XIX. This hasn't gotten
much attention in the Western literature, since the relativistic
energy-momentum relationship covers it simply and compactly.
Thank Timo, alway a pleasure to disuss a topic with you. Unlike
most, you're civil and reasonable even when one does not see eye
to eye. You are a great example of how one 'should' conduct
themselve with proper decorum. One does not need to talk down to
or be rude to others just because you disagree with their POV.

Best,
Dono.
2011-10-30 18:27:25 UTC
Permalink
Tell that to Paul Draper :)  He insisted that photons 'are massless'
and that one must not infer from their momentum that they have any
mass.
Stop deluding yourself that Timo Niemenen is agreeing with your
crackpot views, Paul.
Tom (Roberts) already explaine away your misconceptions in this post:

http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics.relativity/msg/3b7b4f06c3333e2b?dmode=print

Why don't you STFU and read Tom's post?
Aetherist
2011-10-30 19:04:53 UTC
Permalink
Post by Dono.
Tell that to Paul Draper :)  He insisted that photons 'are massless'
and that one must not infer from their momentum that they have any
mass.
Stop deluding yourself that Timo Niemenen is agreeing with your
crackpot views, Paul.
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics.relativity/msg/3b7b4f06c3333e2b?dmode=print
Why don't you STFU and read Tom's post?
Bizinga... :)
jon car
2011-10-30 19:20:13 UTC
Permalink
Post by Aetherist
Post by Dono.
Tell that to Paul Draper :) He insisted that photons 'are massless'
and that one must not infer from their momentum that they have any
mass.
Stop deluding yourself that Timo Niemenen is agreeing with your
crackpot views, Paul.
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics.relativity/msg/3b7b4f06c33...
Why don't you STFU and read Tom's post?
Bizinga... :)
A massless light wave works because its energy is spread out.
Electric field energy is not concentrated energy like mass.

Mitchell Raemsch
Timo Nieminen
2011-10-30 19:46:24 UTC
Permalink
Post by Timo Nieminen
Post by Aetherist
So, to be clear, the box weighed 1 kg, the photons weigh 1 kg so
the total is 2 kg.  Without opening the box one cannot know
whether the are photons or marbles in the box, just that whatever
it is 'masses' as 1 kg.
 Hmmm, it act like a mass, weighs like a
mass has inetia like a mass, but they're 'massless'.
Stop right here! Nobody is saying that a "box of photons" is massless.
(Well, some people would say it, but that's overgeneralising the
"photons are massless", and isn't what the theory actually says.)
Tell that to Paul Draper :)  He insisted that photons 'are massless'
and that one must not infer from their momentum that they have any
mass.
Argue with what he actually says, not a cartoon of it. He has said
quite clearly, many times, that the rest mass of a system is not equal
to the sum of the rest mass of its components. He has no problem with
the rest mass of a box of photons being non-zero, even if the rest
mass of the photons is zero.
I don't disagree, no plane wave of any sort has any rest mass.
It is the directionalized momentum carried by the medium (which
has its own momentum) that give the 'wave' its momenta.
Some plane waves will surprise you then! Back to the definition of
rest mass: m = sqrt(E^2/c^4 - |p|^2/c^2).

Consider, for example, an electron in a plane wave mode.
Post by Timo Nieminen
It's an old definition of mass. And out of the confusion of "mass" as
possibly "relativistic mass", "rest mass", "longitudinal mass",
"transverse mass", "volume * density", and perhaps more, _modern_
I agree that there was 'confusion' as to what constituted mass because
of the piecemeal nature of that time.
Don't reintroduce that confusion! There are very good reasons (which
Tom pointed out very well) for the modern usages of "mass" and
"energy".
Post by Timo Nieminen
(a) the invariant quantity is simply called "mass", and
I would argue an invariant quantity called momentum (mc)
Momentum is _not_ a relativistic invariant! "Invariant" = same in all
inertial frames. This means it has to be, geometrically speaking, a
scalar, vector, or high-rank tensor in Minkowski space. I.e., a 4-
scalar, 4-vector, 4-tensor, etc.
Post by Timo Nieminen
(b) the total quantity, which changes with (kinetic) energy, is
"energy". This is what you want to call "mass", except for the
different units.
No, I'd want to call it 'net kinetic energy' or relative
kinetic energy thus clearly defining it realtive to a
certain frame of reference.
No, that isn't the same thing. Total energy = kinetic energy + rest
mass.

The total energy is the same thing as your proposed "mass". This is
the "mass" you need in p=mc to use "mass" to find the (magnitude of
the) momentum of a photon.

To have this usage of "mass", and
Post by Timo Nieminen
So, you want to call (effectively) total energy "mass". That would
work, but is it useful? It conflicts with existing terminology, and
conflicts with some everyday ideas about "mass". (Which is why there
has been a revision of terminology.)
No, to me the total kinetic energy or momentum of any object
with relative 'rest mass' is aways defined in terms of the
universal background, the CMBR frame.  I take a universal,
uinifed view of nature.
Post by Timo Nieminen
Yes, one can call "total energy" mass. What do you propose calling the
invariant mass? Back to always "rest mass"? (Or "invariant mass" would
do, too.) Certainly one shouldn't just throw away invariant mass,
since
Yes, I would simply say that anything with measurable 'rest mass'
is an invariant quantity.  Likewise, all energy has mass.  The
is the equivalence principle, no?
The rest mass is invariant. What does "anything with measurable 'rest
mass' is an invariant quantity" mean?

Better to say that all energy has inertia. No, that isn't the
equivalence principle (but we can use that and say that all energy
gravitates).

So, just throw away invariant mass as a quantity useful enough to
keep. Well, we can always calculate it from total energy (i.e., your
mass) minus the kinetic energy. Or |p| where p is the energy-momentum
4-vector. Seems clunkier than need be to do it that way, and rather
anti-Newtonian.
I have never had a problem with saying photons have no 'rest mass'.
I do have a problem when someone trys to tell me that because of
this photons have no mass whatsoever.
Then they're wrong (or not talking about a conventional plane-wave
photon), or telling you that the only kind of mass is "rest mass".
 For me either p = mv
or it does not, there is no well, but...  Unless one can prove
it's false by showing that there exist a situation where something
has momentum yet no inertia...
You could call this "inertia", rather than "mass". Or relativistic
mass, or inertial mass. You won't get anywhere by insisting that this
the "one true mass", and the only thing that shall forevermore be
called "mass".

Would it really hurt to much to just use "mass" for rest mass/
invariant mass, "inertia" for inertia, and "energy" for total energy?
Post by Timo Nieminen
Post by Aetherist
Since any physical carrier medium is expressly denied
where as the mass in other wave phenomena is solely in the carrier
media it is claimed it simply 'can't 'by definition, be' for light.
No, this is wrong. Specifically, it has been shown that energy in
other wave phenomena has inertia independently of the mass of the
medium, with energy-momentum relationship p=E/v, where v is the speed
of transport of the energy (and not just waves, it also applies to,
e.g., transport of thermal energy by conduction). Light is simply
treated identically, and not as a special case.
Yes, that's because a directionalized momentum pulse is what
the wave is, no?
I don't think that's a good definition of a wave. But, as noted above,
this isn't just about waves; it's about transport of any energy in a
medium. Is thermal energy a "directionalized momentum pulse"? Is
electromagnetic field energy a "directionalized momentum pulse"?
But the mass and that pulse is imposed on
the medium carrier,right?
Post by Timo Nieminen
If you want to say that light has "mass" due to its inertia, you must
also say that other waves have "mass" due to their inertia as well, in
addition to the mass of the medium.
Yes, there is an apparent mass in the pulse...
So, the (relativistic) mass of (medium + wave) is more than that of
the medium alone. Also, the (rest) mass of (medium + wave) is more
than that of the medium alone. This mass isn't solely the mass of the
medium.

'Tis a dangerous philosophy to simply declare that you know the One
Truth, and that these additional masses "is solely in the carrier
media". The conventional picture is that these are the inertia and
rest mass of the energy, which gives a seamless combination with waves
in free space, and classical and quantum mechanics.

Anyway, my advice is to use modern terminology, with "mass" = "rest
mass"/"invariant mass", and inertia when you mean inertia, energy when
you mean energy, etc. Then there will be less confusion. And if
somebody insists that photons have no inertia, then just tell them
that they're wrong. (Should be enough to show that they have momentum,
and if that isn't enough, you're arguing with a True Believer who
won't look at evidence anyway.)

It isn't just for communication! If you are using multiple meanings of
mass when thinking about these things, it's easy to slip from one
meaning to another, and end up quite wrong.
Tom Roberts
2011-10-30 22:55:35 UTC
Permalink
Post by Timo Nieminen
"Invariant" = same in all
inertial frames. This means it has to be, geometrically speaking, a
scalar, vector, or high-rank tensor in Minkowski space. I.e., a 4-
scalar, 4-vector, 4-tensor, etc.
Don't forget spinors! And, of course, tensors come in all ranks (scalar=rank 0,
vector=rank 1, etc.), in covariant and contravariant versions. These are the
invariants commonly used in physics; I believe there are other mathematical
quantities that can also be invariant under coordinate transforms but are
non-trivial functions on the manifold. This is all pretty much predicated on
Riemannian manifolds, but there are other metric manifolds as well....

So it is difficult to attempt an exhaustive enumeration....
Post by Timo Nieminen
The rest mass is invariant.
Except for objects that cannot be at rest in any locally inertial frame. Such as
photons which have no property that could be called "rest mass"; of course their
mass is zero (meaning invariant mass, of course, which needs no qualifier except
possibly in discussions such as this).
Post by Timo Nieminen
Anyway, my advice is to use modern terminology, with "mass" = "rest
mass"/"invariant mass", and inertia when you mean inertia, energy when
you mean energy, etc.
Yes, except "rest mass" in there is redundant -- it is always equal to the
invariant mass of an object, when the object has a rest mass.
Post by Timo Nieminen
It isn't just for communication! If you are using multiple meanings of
mass when thinking about these things, it's easy to slip from one
meaning to another, and end up quite wrong.
Yes. A point I often make as well. MANY people around here get confused in their
minds by not thinking precisely enough. This is just one aspect of that; an
unacknowledged pun can destroy just about any argument....


Tom Roberts
PD
2011-10-31 15:52:45 UTC
Permalink
Post by Timo Nieminen
Post by Aetherist
Post by Timo Nieminen
Post by Aetherist
So, to be clear, the box weighed 1 kg, the photons weigh 1 kg so
the total is 2 kg. Without opening the box one cannot know
whether the are photons or marbles in the box, just that whatever
it is 'masses' as 1 kg.
Hmmm, it act like a mass, weighs like a
mass has inetia like a mass, but they're 'massless'.
Stop right here! Nobody is saying that a "box of photons" is massless.
(Well, some people would say it, but that's overgeneralising the
"photons are massless", and isn't what the theory actually says.)
Tell that to Paul Draper :) He insisted that photons 'are massless'
and that one must not infer from their momentum that they have any
mass.
Argue with what he actually says, not a cartoon of it. He has said
quite clearly, many times, that the rest mass of a system is not equal
to the sum of the rest mass of its components. He has no problem with
the rest mass of a box of photons being non-zero, even if the rest
mass of the photons is zero.
That's absolutely right. Timo speaks correctly.
[snip for brevity]
Post by Timo Nieminen
Post by Aetherist
For me either p = mv
or it does not, there is no well, but... Unless one can prove
it's false by showing that there exist a situation where something
has momentum yet no inertia...
This is not a great approach. Momentum is not defined by a formula. It
is defined by being a vector quantity that is conserved in a closed
system, regardless of interactions internal to the system. There are
different contributions to that total momentum, depending on what kinds
of entities are present in the system, and each of them may have a
different formula for calculating that contribution. It is remarkable
that, even with different formulas for calculating momenta for different
kinds of entities, it is still true that the sum remains constant.
Post by Timo Nieminen
You could call this "inertia", rather than "mass". Or relativistic
mass, or inertial mass. You won't get anywhere by insisting that this
the "one true mass", and the only thing that shall forevermore be
called "mass".
Aetherist
2011-10-31 16:55:59 UTC
Permalink
Post by PD
Post by Timo Nieminen
Post by Aetherist
Post by Timo Nieminen
Post by Aetherist
So, to be clear, the box weighed 1 kg, the photons weigh 1 kg so
the total is 2 kg. Without opening the box one cannot know
whether the are photons or marbles in the box, just that whatever
it is 'masses' as 1 kg.
Hmmm, it act like a mass, weighs like a
mass has inetia like a mass, but they're 'massless'.
Stop right here! Nobody is saying that a "box of photons" is massless.
(Well, some people would say it, but that's overgeneralising the
"photons are massless", and isn't what the theory actually says.)
Tell that to Paul Draper :) He insisted that photons 'are massless'
and that one must not infer from their momentum that they have any
mass.
Argue with what he actually says, not a cartoon of it. He has said
quite clearly, many times, that the rest mass of a system is not equal
to the sum of the rest mass of its components. He has no problem with
the rest mass of a box of photons being non-zero, even if the rest
mass of the photons is zero.
That's absolutely right. Timo speaks correctly.
Then you recant you earlier statements in threads like this;

http://tinyurl.com/3csrr6o

Me: "It's mv, even for a so called photon. In that case
m = h(nu)/c^2 and since v = c, p = h(nu)/c The real
question there should be if the 'stuff' constituting
a photon isn't 'massive' how does it have momentum at
all? I already know what you'll say, don't bother... "

You: No, it is not.

Me: "quantum entities having momentum/energy interacting
with each other in accordance with basic kinetic
theory of elastic bodies. If, as you have claimed,
momentum can and does exist independent of mass
these entities do not need to be massive, a.k.a.
'material'. There has never being a direct observance
of a reversal of time. "

Me: "If, as YOU! have claimed, momentum can and does exist
independent of mass these entities do not need to be
massive, a.k.a. 'material'"

Here is where I was being clear that we are NOT! talking about
'rest mass' or 'matter' BUT! just mass!

Me: "Going by what your definition and argument was, remember
the lowly photon... I'm not the one who invented the
massless momentum concept... "

You: "Yet you are the one who says that fields, let alone
quantized fields, cannot be considered part of a
fundamental explanation. And yet here you are invoking
one. Hmmmm.... "

A current clarification for you on this point.

A 'Field' is the manifestation of a underlying physical process
like pressure, density, ... etc. Claiming a "Field' is
fundamental is simply a copout, not wanting to know the root
cause of same... But As I said in that thread I am consistently
consistent...
jon car
2011-10-31 17:13:09 UTC
Permalink
Post by Aetherist
Post by PD
Post by Timo Nieminen
Post by Timo Nieminen
Post by Aetherist
So, to be clear, the box weighed 1 kg, the photons weigh 1 kg so
the total is 2 kg.  Without opening the box one cannot know
whether the are photons or marbles in the box, just that whatever
it is 'masses' as 1 kg.
  Hmmm, it act like a mass, weighs like a
mass has inetia like a mass, but they're 'massless'.
Stop right here! Nobody is saying that a "box of photons" is massless.
(Well, some people would say it, but that's overgeneralising the
"photons are massless", and isn't what the theory actually says.)
Tell that to Paul Draper :)  He insisted that photons 'are massless'
and that one must not infer from their momentum that they have any
mass.
Argue with what he actually says, not a cartoon of it. He has said
quite clearly, many times, that the rest mass of a system is not equal
to the sum of the rest mass of its components. He has no problem with
the rest mass of a box of photons being non-zero, even if the rest
mass of the photons is zero.
That's absolutely right. Timo speaks correctly.
Then you recant you earlier statements in threads like this;
http://tinyurl.com/3csrr6o
Me:  "It's mv, even for a so called photon.  In that case
      m = h(nu)/c^2 and since v = c, p = h(nu)/c  The real
      question there should be if the 'stuff' constituting
      a photon isn't 'massive' how does it have momentum at
      all?  I already know what you'll say, don't bother... "
You:  No, it is not.
Me:  "quantum entities having momentum/energy interacting
      with each other in accordance with basic kinetic
      theory of elastic bodies.  If, as you have claimed,
      momentum can and does exist independent of mass
      these entities do not need to be massive, a.k.a.
      'material'.  There has never being a direct observance
      of a reversal of time. "
Me:  "If, as YOU! have claimed, momentum can and does exist
      independent of mass these entities do not need to be
      massive, a.k.a. 'material'"
Here is where I was being clear that we are NOT! talking about
'rest mass' or 'matter'  BUT! just mass!
Me:  "Going by what your definition and argument was, remember
      the lowly photon...  I'm not the one who invented the
      massless momentum concept... "
You: "Yet you are the one who says that fields, let alone
      quantized fields, cannot be considered part of a
      fundamental explanation. And yet here you are invoking
      one. Hmmmm.... "
A current clarification for you on this point.
A 'Field' is the manifestation of a underlying physical process
like pressure, density, ... etc.  Claiming a "Field' is
fundamental is simply a copout, not wanting to know the root
cause of same...  But As I said in that thread I am consistently
consistent...- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -
Light is in the side of the box.

Light is freefall weightless when not absorbed.
PD
2011-10-31 17:38:29 UTC
Permalink
Post by Aetherist
Post by PD
Post by Timo Nieminen
Post by Aetherist
Post by Timo Nieminen
Post by Aetherist
So, to be clear, the box weighed 1 kg, the photons weigh 1 kg so
the total is 2 kg. Without opening the box one cannot know
whether the are photons or marbles in the box, just that whatever
it is 'masses' as 1 kg.
Hmmm, it act like a mass, weighs like a
mass has inetia like a mass, but they're 'massless'.
Stop right here! Nobody is saying that a "box of photons" is massless.
(Well, some people would say it, but that's overgeneralising the
"photons are massless", and isn't what the theory actually says.)
Tell that to Paul Draper :) He insisted that photons 'are massless'
and that one must not infer from their momentum that they have any
mass.
Argue with what he actually says, not a cartoon of it. He has said
quite clearly, many times, that the rest mass of a system is not equal
to the sum of the rest mass of its components. He has no problem with
the rest mass of a box of photons being non-zero, even if the rest
mass of the photons is zero.
That's absolutely right. Timo speaks correctly.
Then you recant you earlier statements in threads like this;
http://tinyurl.com/3csrr6o
Me: "It's mv, even for a so called photon. In that case
m = h(nu)/c^2 and since v = c, p = h(nu)/c The real
question there should be if the 'stuff' constituting
a photon isn't 'massive' how does it have momentum at
all? I already know what you'll say, don't bother... "
You: No, it is not.
Me: "quantum entities having momentum/energy interacting
with each other in accordance with basic kinetic
theory of elastic bodies. If, as you have claimed,
momentum can and does exist independent of mass
these entities do not need to be massive, a.k.a.
'material'. There has never being a direct observance
of a reversal of time. "
Me: "If, as YOU! have claimed, momentum can and does exist
independent of mass these entities do not need to be
massive, a.k.a. 'material'"
Here is where I was being clear that we are NOT! talking about
'rest mass' or 'matter' BUT! just mass!
The terminology I am using for mass is invariant mass, just as Timo has
pointed out to you.
What I have said in the past is that a system of photons can have
nonzero invariant mass, while each of the photons has zero invariant
mass. THAT is the statement made.

I have no interest in your claims of what I have said, provided that you
substitute *YOUR* understanding of mass for the meaning that *I* used in
my statements.
Post by Aetherist
Me: "Going by what your definition and argument was, remember
the lowly photon... I'm not the one who invented the
massless momentum concept... "
You: "Yet you are the one who says that fields, let alone
quantized fields, cannot be considered part of a
fundamental explanation. And yet here you are invoking
one. Hmmmm.... "
A current clarification for you on this point.
A 'Field' is the manifestation of a underlying physical process
like pressure, density, ... etc. Claiming a "Field' is
fundamental is simply a copout, not wanting to know the root
cause of same... But As I said in that thread I am consistently
consistent...
Aetherist
2011-11-01 18:58:04 UTC
Permalink
Post by PD
Post by Aetherist
Post by PD
Post by Timo Nieminen
Post by Aetherist
Post by Timo Nieminen
Post by Aetherist
So, to be clear, the box weighed 1 kg, the photons weigh 1 kg so
the total is 2 kg. Without opening the box one cannot know
whether the are photons or marbles in the box, just that whatever
it is 'masses' as 1 kg.
Hmmm, it act like a mass, weighs like a
mass has inetia like a mass, but they're 'massless'.
Stop right here! Nobody is saying that a "box of photons" is massless.
(Well, some people would say it, but that's overgeneralising the
"photons are massless", and isn't what the theory actually says.)
Tell that to Paul Draper :) He insisted that photons 'are massless'
and that one must not infer from their momentum that they have any
mass.
Argue with what he actually says, not a cartoon of it. He has said
quite clearly, many times, that the rest mass of a system is not equal
to the sum of the rest mass of its components. He has no problem with
the rest mass of a box of photons being non-zero, even if the rest
mass of the photons is zero.
That's absolutely right. Timo speaks correctly.
Then you recant you earlier statements in threads like this;
http://tinyurl.com/3csrr6o
Me: "It's mv, even for a so called photon. In that case
m = h(nu)/c^2 and since v = c, p = h(nu)/c The real
question there should be if the 'stuff' constituting
a photon isn't 'massive' how does it have momentum at
all? I already know what you'll say, don't bother... "
You: No, it is not.
Me: "quantum entities having momentum/energy interacting
with each other in accordance with basic kinetic
theory of elastic bodies. If, as you have claimed,
momentum can and does exist independent of mass
these entities do not need to be massive, a.k.a.
'material'. There has never being a direct observance
of a reversal of time. "
Me: "If, as YOU! have claimed, momentum can and does exist
independent of mass these entities do not need to be
massive, a.k.a. 'material'"
Here is where I was being clear that we are NOT! talking about
'rest mass' or 'matter' BUT! just mass!
The terminology I am using for mass is invariant mass, just as Timo has
pointed out to you. What I have said in the past is that a system of
photons can have nonzero invariant mass, while each of the photons has
zero invariant mass. THAT is the statement made.
Well if you had said, that and agreed that momentum is 'massive'
as clearly demonstrated by the box full of photons illustration
there would BE! no confusion. All forms of energy has mass,
period, end of story! Not all energy has a measurable rest or
'invariant' mass. But, just because you cannot stop something
to 'weigh' it does NOT! mean it is massless. In our known
universe nothing is 'massless'. This was my focus and key point
of that earlier thread. Yuo argued M-A-S-S-L-E-S-S, period!
claiming the can be momentum without mass. I said no way!
There can be momentum without the ability to measure an
invariant mass BUT! there is still mass present in the system
even in those cases as this clearly illustrates...
Post by PD
I have no interest in your claims of what I have said, provided that you
substitute *YOUR* understanding of mass for the meaning that *I* used in
my statements.
I provided the link so that anyone interested can go look for
themselves. It clear, you said that photons were massless...
Massless is NOT! the same as having no invariant mass. I'm
pretty damned sure you knew what I was getting at in that
thread. That the aether medium entities have momentum and
energy, thus, by definition, are also 'massive' but without
'invariant mass'!...
Post by PD
Post by Aetherist
Me: "Going by what your definition and argument was, remember
the lowly photon... I'm not the one who invented the
massless momentum concept... "
You: "Yet you are the one who says that fields, let alone
quantized fields, cannot be considered part of a
fundamental explanation. And yet here you are invoking
one. Hmmmm.... "
A current clarification for you on this point.
A 'Field' is the manifestation of a underlying physical process
like pressure, density, ... etc. Claiming a "Field' is
fundamental is simply a copout, not wanting to know the root
cause of same... But As I said in that thread I am consistently
consistent...
Timo Nieminen
2011-11-01 19:25:50 UTC
Permalink
Post by Aetherist
Massless is NOT! the same as having no invariant mass.
[moved]
Post by Aetherist
 All forms of energy has mass,
period, end of story!  Not all energy has a measurable rest or
'invariant' mass.  But, just because you cannot stop something
to 'weigh' it does NOT! mean it is massless.  In our known
universe nothing is 'massless'.  This was my focus and key point
of that earlier thread.  Yuo argued M-A-S-S-L-E-S-S, period!
claiming the can be momentum without mass.  I said no way!
So the argument leaves physics and becomes one of terminology, at
best.

It isn't even usefully an argument about terminology unless you can
cough up a good enough definition of what you mean by "mass". How
about it?

If your definition is tied to momentum as closely as the above
suggests, then the modern term used in physics would be "inertia".
Which would make your argument purely one of whether 'tis better to
use the word "mass" or the word "inertia", which is rather devoid of
physics.

And such choice of meaning of "mass" means that "mass" depends on our
(purely human) choice of coordinate system. Not a fundamental property
of anything then! (No more than position or velocity are fundamental
properties of an object - they depend on our choice of coordinate
system.)
jon car
2011-11-01 21:26:20 UTC
Permalink
Post by Aetherist
Post by PD
Post by Aetherist
Post by PD
Post by Timo Nieminen
Post by Timo Nieminen
Post by Aetherist
So, to be clear, the box weighed 1 kg, the photons weigh 1 kg so
the total is 2 kg.  Without opening the box one cannot know
whether the are photons or marbles in the box, just that whatever
it is 'masses' as 1 kg.
   Hmmm, it act like a mass, weighs like a
mass has inetia like a mass, but they're 'massless'.
Stop right here! Nobody is saying that a "box of photons" is massless.
(Well, some people would say it, but that's overgeneralising the
"photons are massless", and isn't what the theory actually says.)
Tell that to Paul Draper :)  He insisted that photons 'are massless'
and that one must not infer from their momentum that they have any
mass.
Argue with what he actually says, not a cartoon of it. He has said
quite clearly, many times, that the rest mass of a system is not equal
to the sum of the rest mass of its components. He has no problem with
the rest mass of a box of photons being non-zero, even if the rest
mass of the photons is zero.
That's absolutely right. Timo speaks correctly.
Then you recant you earlier statements in threads like this;
http://tinyurl.com/3csrr6o
Me:  "It's mv, even for a so called photon.  In that case
       m = h(nu)/c^2 and since v = c, p = h(nu)/c  The real
       question there should be if the 'stuff' constituting
       a photon isn't 'massive' how does it have momentum at
       all?  I already know what you'll say, don't bother... "
You:  No, it is not.
Me:  "quantum entities having momentum/energy interacting
       with each other in accordance with basic kinetic
       theory of elastic bodies.  If, as you have claimed,
       momentum can and does exist independent of mass
       these entities do not need to be massive, a.k.a.
       'material'.  There has never being a direct observance
       of a reversal of time. "
Me:  "If, as YOU! have claimed, momentum can and does exist
       independent of mass these entities do not need to be
       massive, a.k.a. 'material'"
Here is where I was being clear that we are NOT! talking about
'rest mass' or 'matter'  BUT! just mass!
The terminology I am using for mass is invariant mass, just as Timo has
pointed out to you.  What I have said in the past is that a system of
photons can have nonzero invariant mass, while each of the photons has
zero invariant mass. THAT is the statement made.
Well if you had said, that and agreed that momentum is 'massive'
as clearly demonstrated by the box full of photons illustration
there would BE! no confusion.  All forms of energy has mass,
period, end of story!  Not all energy has a measurable rest or
'invariant' mass.  But, just because you cannot stop something
to 'weigh' it does NOT! mean it is massless.  In our known
universe nothing is 'massless'.  This was my focus and key point
of that earlier thread.  Yuo argued M-A-S-S-L-E-S-S, period!
claiming the can be momentum without mass.  I said no way!
There can be momentum without the ability to measure an
invariant mass BUT! there is still mass present in the system
even in those cases as this clearly illustrates...
Post by PD
I have no interest in your claims of what I have said, provided that you
substitute *YOUR* understanding of mass for the meaning that *I* used in
my statements.
I provided the link so that anyone interested can go look for
themselves.  It clear, you said that photons were massless...
Massless is NOT! the same as having no invariant mass.  I'm
pretty damned sure you knew what I was getting at in that
thread.  That the aether medium entities have momentum and
energy, thus, by definition, are also 'massive' but without
'invariant mass'!...
Post by PD
Post by Aetherist
Me:  "Going by what your definition and argument was, remember
       the lowly photon...  I'm not the one who invented the
       massless momentum concept... "
You: "Yet you are the one who says that fields, let alone
       quantized fields, cannot be considered part of a
       fundamental explanation. And yet here you are invoking
       one. Hmmmm.... "
A current clarification for you on this point.
A 'Field' is the manifestation of a underlying physical process
like pressure, density, ... etc.  Claiming a "Field' is
fundamental is simply a copout, not wanting to know the root
cause of same...  But As I said in that thread I am consistently
consistent...- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -
Spread out energy vibrates. It aligns to gravity time.
PD
2011-11-02 15:32:18 UTC
Permalink
Post by Aetherist
Post by PD
Post by Aetherist
Post by PD
Post by Timo Nieminen
Post by Aetherist
Post by Timo Nieminen
Post by Aetherist
So, to be clear, the box weighed 1 kg, the photons weigh 1 kg so
the total is 2 kg. Without opening the box one cannot know
whether the are photons or marbles in the box, just that whatever
it is 'masses' as 1 kg.
Hmmm, it act like a mass, weighs like a
mass has inetia like a mass, but they're 'massless'.
Stop right here! Nobody is saying that a "box of photons" is massless.
(Well, some people would say it, but that's overgeneralising the
"photons are massless", and isn't what the theory actually says.)
Tell that to Paul Draper :) He insisted that photons 'are massless'
and that one must not infer from their momentum that they have any
mass.
Argue with what he actually says, not a cartoon of it. He has said
quite clearly, many times, that the rest mass of a system is not equal
to the sum of the rest mass of its components. He has no problem with
the rest mass of a box of photons being non-zero, even if the rest
mass of the photons is zero.
That's absolutely right. Timo speaks correctly.
Then you recant you earlier statements in threads like this;
http://tinyurl.com/3csrr6o
Me: "It's mv, even for a so called photon. In that case
m = h(nu)/c^2 and since v = c, p = h(nu)/c The real
question there should be if the 'stuff' constituting
a photon isn't 'massive' how does it have momentum at
all? I already know what you'll say, don't bother... "
You: No, it is not.
Me: "quantum entities having momentum/energy interacting
with each other in accordance with basic kinetic
theory of elastic bodies. If, as you have claimed,
momentum can and does exist independent of mass
these entities do not need to be massive, a.k.a.
'material'. There has never being a direct observance
of a reversal of time. "
Me: "If, as YOU! have claimed, momentum can and does exist
independent of mass these entities do not need to be
massive, a.k.a. 'material'"
Here is where I was being clear that we are NOT! talking about
'rest mass' or 'matter' BUT! just mass!
The terminology I am using for mass is invariant mass, just as Timo has
pointed out to you. What I have said in the past is that a system of
photons can have nonzero invariant mass, while each of the photons has
zero invariant mass. THAT is the statement made.
Well if you had said, that and agreed that momentum is 'massive'
as clearly demonstrated by the box full of photons illustration
there would BE! no confusion.
If I had said that, though, I would be misspeaking, because the momentum
does not have mass even if you put quotation marks around it. The
problem, I gather, is that you believe that if a system has invariant
mass, then you must find where in the constituents this invariant mass
resides, and this in turn stems from an assumption that invariant mass
is additive: that is, the total of a system must be numerically equal to
the algebraic sum of an equivalent property exhibited by the system
constituents. But you see, I do not share this assumption.
Post by Aetherist
All forms of energy has mass,
period, end of story!
And what is the basis for this statement? I take it that when you append
"end of story!" this is a marker for some axiom that you take to be true
without necessity of evidence or proof.
Post by Aetherist
Not all energy has a measurable rest or
'invariant' mass. But, just because you cannot stop something
to 'weigh' it does NOT! mean it is massless. In our known
universe nothing is 'massless'.
See the previous two comments. I have no idea what you hope to gain by
putting "massless" in quotation marks. What I mean by "massless" is that
it has zero invariant mass, and that is a determination from
experimental measurement not by axiom.
Post by Aetherist
This was my focus and key point
of that earlier thread. Yuo argued M-A-S-S-L-E-S-S, period!
claiming the can be momentum without mass. I said no way!
There can be momentum without the ability to measure an
invariant mass BUT! there is still mass present in the system
even in those cases as this clearly illustrates...
Post by PD
I have no interest in your claims of what I have said, provided that you
substitute *YOUR* understanding of mass for the meaning that *I* used in
my statements.
I provided the link so that anyone interested can go look for
themselves. It clear, you said that photons were massless...
Massless is NOT! the same as having no invariant mass.
It is to me, as I've just reiterated to you. I have no interest in what
goofy concept to "massless" you attach to that word other than what I
intend by it when I say it.
Post by Aetherist
I'm
pretty damned sure you knew what I was getting at in that
thread. That the aether medium entities have momentum and
energy, thus, by definition, are also 'massive' but without
'invariant mass'!...
Post by PD
Post by Aetherist
Me: "Going by what your definition and argument was, remember
the lowly photon... I'm not the one who invented the
massless momentum concept... "
You: "Yet you are the one who says that fields, let alone
quantized fields, cannot be considered part of a
fundamental explanation. And yet here you are invoking
one. Hmmmm.... "
A current clarification for you on this point.
A 'Field' is the manifestation of a underlying physical process
like pressure, density, ... etc. Claiming a "Field' is
fundamental is simply a copout, not wanting to know the root
cause of same... But As I said in that thread I am consistently
consistent...
Aetherist
2011-11-02 17:09:06 UTC
Permalink
Post by PD
Post by Aetherist
Post by PD
Post by Aetherist
Post by PD
Post by Timo Nieminen
Post by Aetherist
Post by Timo Nieminen
Post by Aetherist
So, to be clear, the box weighed 1 kg, the photons weigh 1 kg so
the total is 2 kg. Without opening the box one cannot know
whether the are photons or marbles in the box, just that whatever
it is 'masses' as 1 kg.
Hmmm, it act like a mass, weighs like a
mass has inetia like a mass, but they're 'massless'.
Stop right here! Nobody is saying that a "box of photons" is massless.
(Well, some people would say it, but that's overgeneralising the
"photons are massless", and isn't what the theory actually says.)
Tell that to Paul Draper :) He insisted that photons 'are massless'
and that one must not infer from their momentum that they have any
mass.
Argue with what he actually says, not a cartoon of it. He has said
quite clearly, many times, that the rest mass of a system is not equal
to the sum of the rest mass of its components. He has no problem with
the rest mass of a box of photons being non-zero, even if the rest
mass of the photons is zero.
That's absolutely right. Timo speaks correctly.
Then you recant you earlier statements in threads like this;
http://tinyurl.com/3csrr6o
Me: "It's mv, even for a so called photon. In that case
m = h(nu)/c^2 and since v = c, p = h(nu)/c The real
question there should be if the 'stuff' constituting
a photon isn't 'massive' how does it have momentum at
all? I already know what you'll say, don't bother... "
You: No, it is not.
Me: "quantum entities having momentum/energy interacting
with each other in accordance with basic kinetic
theory of elastic bodies. If, as you have claimed,
momentum can and does exist independent of mass
these entities do not need to be massive, a.k.a.
'material'. There has never being a direct observance
of a reversal of time. "
Me: "If, as YOU! have claimed, momentum can and does exist
independent of mass these entities do not need to be
massive, a.k.a. 'material'"
Here is where I was being clear that we are NOT! talking about
'rest mass' or 'matter' BUT! just mass!
The terminology I am using for mass is invariant mass, just as Timo has
pointed out to you. What I have said in the past is that a system of
photons can have nonzero invariant mass, while each of the photons has
zero invariant mass. THAT is the statement made.
Well if you had said, that and agreed that momentum is 'massive'
as clearly demonstrated by the box full of photons illustration
there would BE! no confusion.
If I had said that, though, I would be misspeaking, because the momentum
does not have mass even if you put quotation marks around it. The
problem, I gather, is that you believe that if a system has invariant
mass, then you must find where in the constituents this invariant mass
resides, and this in turn stems from an assumption that invariant mass
is additive: that is, the total of a system must be numerically equal to
the algebraic sum of an equivalent property exhibited by the system
constituents. But you see, I do not share this assumption.
NO! I think that invariant mass is just another form of the medium
that allows for it to be at 'relative' rest in a FOR. Vortex rings
for example. Vortices exhibit inertia and thus can be construed to
have a 'rest' mass. Perhaps I have a much more unified approach to
physics that you. To me, there is NO! difference other that the
structural form of the momentum. Circulation certainly can be
self contained and at relative rest to a system of measure. The
aethe entities are the same, have the same momenta but because of
what they are manifesting can be construed to be invariant mass
or a photon, but Underneath, its the very same stuff. It all has
momenta & inertia, thus, but the strong equivalence principle, mass.
Post by PD
Post by Aetherist
All forms of energy has mass,
period, end of story!
And what is the basis for this statement? I take it that when you append
"end of story!" this is a marker for some axiom that you take to be true
without necessity of evidence or proof.
See above...
Post by PD
Post by Aetherist
Not all energy has a measurable rest or
'invariant' mass. But, just because you cannot stop something
to 'weigh' it does NOT! mean it is massless. In our known
universe nothing is 'massless'.
See the previous two comments. I have no idea what you hope to gain by
putting "massless" in quotation marks. What I mean by "massless" is that
it has zero invariant mass, and that is a determination from
experimental measurement not by axiom.
Massless means you can express in an equation that under no
circumstances has mass in it. This is not the case in our
universe. The momentum equation is:

p = mv

and m has inertia! Invoke the strong equivalence principle
since you seem to like thing explained to you in that fashion!

If p in the case of photons had no mass a.k.a inertia then
they could/would not contribute to the mass/weigh/inertia
of the box, period. You seem to like logical contradictions!
Post by PD
Post by Aetherist
This was my focus and key point
of that earlier thread. Yuo argued M-A-S-S-L-E-S-S, period!
claiming the can be momentum without mass. I said no way!
There can be momentum without the ability to measure an
invariant mass BUT! there is still mass present in the system
even in those cases as this clearly illustrates...
Post by PD
I have no interest in your claims of what I have said, provided that you
substitute *YOUR* understanding of mass for the meaning that *I* used in
my statements.
I provided the link so that anyone interested can go look for
themselves. It clear, you said that photons were massless...
Massless is NOT! the same as having no invariant mass.
It is to me, as I've just reiterated to you. I have no interest in what
goofy concept to "massless" you attach to that word other than what I
intend by it when I say it.
Goofy in what way???
Post by PD
Post by Aetherist
I'm
pretty damned sure you knew what I was getting at in that
thread. That the aether medium entities have momentum and
energy, thus, by definition, are also 'massive' but without
'invariant mass'!...
Post by PD
Post by Aetherist
Me: "Going by what your definition and argument was, remember
the lowly photon... I'm not the one who invented the
massless momentum concept... "
You: "Yet you are the one who says that fields, let alone
quantized fields, cannot be considered part of a
fundamental explanation. And yet here you are invoking
one. Hmmmm.... "
A current clarification for you on this point.
A 'Field' is the manifestation of a underlying physical process
like pressure, density, ... etc. Claiming a "Field' is
fundamental is simply a copout, not wanting to know the root
cause of same... But As I said in that thread I am consistently
consistent...
PD
2011-11-03 21:51:40 UTC
Permalink
Post by Aetherist
Post by PD
Post by Aetherist
Post by PD
The terminology I am using for mass is invariant mass, just as Timo has
pointed out to you. What I have said in the past is that a system of
photons can have nonzero invariant mass, while each of the photons has
zero invariant mass. THAT is the statement made.
Well if you had said, that and agreed that momentum is 'massive'
as clearly demonstrated by the box full of photons illustration
there would BE! no confusion.
If I had said that, though, I would be misspeaking, because the momentum
does not have mass even if you put quotation marks around it. The
problem, I gather, is that you believe that if a system has invariant
mass, then you must find where in the constituents this invariant mass
resides, and this in turn stems from an assumption that invariant mass
is additive: that is, the total of a system must be numerically equal to
the algebraic sum of an equivalent property exhibited by the system
constituents. But you see, I do not share this assumption.
NO! I think that invariant mass is just another form of the medium
that allows for it to be at 'relative' rest in a FOR. Vortex rings
for example. Vortices exhibit inertia and thus can be construed to
have a 'rest' mass. Perhaps I have a much more unified approach to
physics that you. To me, there is NO! difference other that the
structural form of the momentum. Circulation certainly can be
self contained and at relative rest to a system of measure. The
aethe entities are the same, have the same momenta but because of
what they are manifesting can be construed to be invariant mass
or a photon, but Underneath, its the very same stuff. It all has
momenta& inertia, thus, but the strong equivalence principle, mass.
Sorry, but to be honest, very little of this made any sense to me. Is
there a connection to the invariant mass as I use the term? That is, is
it possible to have a system composed of objects such that each of the
objects has zero invariant mass and the system has nonzero invariant mass?
Post by Aetherist
Post by PD
Post by Aetherist
All forms of energy has mass,
period, end of story!
And what is the basis for this statement? I take it that when you append
"end of story!" this is a marker for some axiom that you take to be true
without necessity of evidence or proof.
See above...
So is the statement a *consequence* of your model? Or is it an assumption?
Post by Aetherist
Post by PD
Post by Aetherist
Not all energy has a measurable rest or
'invariant' mass. But, just because you cannot stop something
to 'weigh' it does NOT! mean it is massless. In our known
universe nothing is 'massless'.
See the previous two comments. I have no idea what you hope to gain by
putting "massless" in quotation marks. What I mean by "massless" is that
it has zero invariant mass, and that is a determination from
experimental measurement not by axiom.
Massless means you can express in an equation that under no
circumstances has mass in it. This is not the case in our
p = mv
and m has inertia! Invoke the strong equivalence principle
since you seem to like thing explained to you in that fashion!
You say, "the momentum equation is p=mv". This is precisely where I have
a dispute. This is an equation that relates momentum and other
properties of a body FOR A CERTAIN CLASS of bodies. It is not a
definition of momentum. Momentum is defined as the vector quantity of
dynamical systems that exhibits conservation in closed systems -- and it
is the property that is associated with the invariance of the laws of
physics with translation. HOW YOU CALCULATE the momentum depends on what
the object is -- for some kinds of objects, the momentum is related to
this and that property of the object (rest mass and velocity, for
example), and for other kinds of objects, the momentum is related to
OTHER properties of the object (the wavelength, for example). It is
remarkable that we have all these DIFFERENT relations for different
kinds of objects that can inhabit a system, but that the sum of all
those different kinds of contributions ends up being constant in a
closed system.

(Conservation of energy is just as remarkable, given that you're adding
together terms for ordered translational kinetic, disordered
translational kinetic, rotational kinetic, potential energy of various
kinds, rest energy, etc., that all have different methods for
calculating each contribution, and yet the scalar sum ends up being
constant for a closed system.)
Post by Aetherist
If p in the case of photons had no mass a.k.a inertia then
they could/would not contribute to the mass/weigh/inertia
of the box, period. You seem to like logical contradictions!
And this is the assumption I pointed out before: You are ASSUMING that
mass is an additive property, and that the mass of a system MUST be
accounted for by the sum of the masses of the constituents, and that if
a constituent has no mass then it cannot contribute to the mass of the
system. The point I made in response is that mass IS NOT ADDITIVE in
this sense, nor does it NEED to be.
Aetherist
2011-11-04 01:23:04 UTC
Permalink
Post by PD
Post by Aetherist
Post by PD
Post by Aetherist
Post by PD
The terminology I am using for mass is invariant mass, just as Timo has
pointed out to you. What I have said in the past is that a system of
photons can have nonzero invariant mass, while each of the photons has
zero invariant mass. THAT is the statement made.
Well if you had said, that and agreed that momentum is 'massive'
as clearly demonstrated by the box full of photons illustration
there would BE! no confusion.
If I had said that, though, I would be misspeaking, because the momentum
does not have mass even if you put quotation marks around it. The
problem, I gather, is that you believe that if a system has invariant
mass, then you must find where in the constituents this invariant mass
resides, and this in turn stems from an assumption that invariant mass
is additive: that is, the total of a system must be numerically equal to
the algebraic sum of an equivalent property exhibited by the system
constituents. But you see, I do not share this assumption.
NO! I think that invariant mass is just another form of the medium
that allows for it to be at 'relative' rest in a FOR. Vortex rings
for example. Vortices exhibit inertia and thus can be construed to
have a 'rest' mass. Perhaps I have a much more unified approach to
physics that you. To me, there is NO! difference other that the
structural form of the momentum. Circulation certainly can be
self contained and at relative rest to a system of measure. The
aether entities are the same, have the same momenta but because of
what they are manifesting can be construed to be invariant mass,
or a photon, but Underneath, its the very same stuff. It all has
momenta& inertia, thus, but the strong equivalence principle, mass.
Sorry, but to be honest, very little of this made any sense to me. Is
there a connection to the invariant mass as I use the term?
Yes... As Feynman would ask, What is matter, really? Maxwell-Kelvin
suggested vortex structures. Vortices are local circulations of a
medium. Vorices and their circulation opposites annilate just like
particle/anti-paricles. Vortices exhibit inertia, contain circulating
medium particles that have momenta, thus have an intrinsic mass
associated with them. Ring vortices have both spin (poloidal circulation)
and angular momentum (toroidal twist) and each has two states up/down
left/right, thus four distinct states up-right, up-left, down-right,
down left. Up-left & down-right or up-right & down-left are the state
anti-state for these and will cancel the circulation of both rings
when colliding. Other states like up-right, down-right or up-right,
up-left have other distinctive interactions. Really, go look at Maxwell's
paper "On Physical Lines of Force" and see how EM was actually modeled.
Vortex rings can & do have oscillating waves within their structure.
Both on the poloidal axis and toroidal axis. These, as you might
imagine can only be in whole number ratios of the diameter of either.
These are soliton states. Vortex ring systems are, by their very nature,
quantum, thus the superfluid results. If after this rather brief but
lengthy discription you still cannot get an inkling of how aether models
can map to the world we inhabit then look at Volvik's "The Universe in
a Heluim Droplet". But, the key is that which makes up the vortices
must seemingly must adher to kinetic theory of an inviscid medium and
is dicretely granular containing momentum & energy.
Post by PD
That is, is
it possible to have a system composed of objects such that each of the
objects has zero invariant mass and the system has nonzero invariant mass?
The photons in a box... As pointed out, you 'weigh' 1 kg of something
in the box. Unless you opened & looked you simply cannot tell the
difference between 'invariant mass' like a gell and the imposed mass
induced by the photons. It is rather stupid to claim those photons
don't have inertia, thus mass...
Post by PD
Post by Aetherist
Post by PD
Post by Aetherist
All forms of energy has mass,
period, end of story!
And what is the basis for this statement? I take it that when you append
"end of story!" this is a marker for some axiom that you take to be true
without necessity of evidence or proof.
See above...
So is the statement a *consequence* of your model? Or is it an assumption?
It is a consequence of the Maxwellian vortex lattice model.
Post by PD
Post by Aetherist
Post by PD
Post by Aetherist
Not all energy has a measurable rest or
'invariant' mass. But, just because you cannot stop something
to 'weigh' it does NOT! mean it is massless. In our known
universe nothing is 'massless'.
See the previous two comments. I have no idea what you hope to gain by
putting "massless" in quotation marks. What I mean by "massless" is that
it has zero invariant mass, and that is a determination from
experimental measurement not by axiom.
Massless means you can express in an equation that under no
circumstances has mass in it. This is not the case in our
p = mv
and m has inertia! Invoke the strong equivalence principle
since you seem to like thing explained to you in that fashion!
You say, "the momentum equation is p=mv". This is precisely where I have
a dispute. This is an equation that relates momentum and other
properties of a body FOR A CERTAIN CLASS of bodies.
KISS... Ockham's Razor ... etc. Why 'a certain class of bodies'?
Because you say so? Or is it because someone just said that's
the way we like it uh huh, uh huh... On what measured basis
do you say m != hf/c^2. Certainly that's how much mass a system
will physically gain when absorbing the photon. Energy gravitates
thus, again, by how much? .
Post by PD
It is not a definition of momentum. Momentum is defined as the vector
quantity of dynamical systems that exhibits conservation in closed systems
-- and it is the property that is associated with the invariance of the laws
Post by PD
of physics with translation. HOW YOU CALCULATE the momentum depends on what
the object is -- for some kinds of objects, the momentum is related to
this and that property of the object (rest mass and velocity, for
example), and for other kinds of objects, the momentum is related to
OTHER properties of the object (the wavelength, for example). It is
remarkable that we have all these DIFFERENT relations for different
kinds of objects that can inhabit a system, but that the sum of all
those different kinds of contributions ends up being constant in a
closed system.
p = hf/c = mc, hf = mc^2

But no rest or invariant mass since it a propagating wavicle... However,
as the photons in a box illustrates, it has inertial mass...
Post by PD
(Conservation of energy is just as remarkable, given that you're adding
together terms for ordered translational kinetic, disordered
translational kinetic, rotational kinetic, potential energy of various
kinds, rest energy, etc., that all have different methods for
calculating each contribution, and yet the scalar sum ends up being
constant for a closed system.)
YES!! All forms of stuff has mass. Not all forms have what you
want to call invariant mass, just those of closed circulatory
form. At least in the Maxwellian aether view. But even if you
don't share this view GR tells you that all things gravitate,
thus are in that sense, massive.
Post by PD
Post by Aetherist
If p in the case of photons had no mass a.k.a inertia then
they could/would not contribute to the mass/weigh/inertia
of the box, period. You seem to like logical contradictions!
And this is the assumption I pointed out before: You are ASSUMING that
mass is an additive property, and that the mass of a system MUST be
accounted for by the sum of the masses of the constituents, and that if
a constituent has no mass then it cannot contribute to the mass of the
system. The point I made in response is that mass IS NOT ADDITIVE in
this sense, nor does it NEED to be.
That does not remove the logical inconsistency, you're just saying
'by definition' we want to say that while we can compute the mass
inertia response of the box of photons by the m = hf/c^2 or
m = p/c that don't count, they're still massless even though the
box gain 1 kg of weight.

Hmmm...
jon car
2011-11-04 01:59:13 UTC
Permalink
Post by PD
Post by Aetherist
Post by PD
Post by Aetherist
Post by PD
The terminology I am using for mass is invariant mass, just as Timo has
pointed out to you.  What I have said in the past is that a system of
photons can have nonzero invariant mass, while each of the photons has
zero invariant mass. THAT is the statement made.
Well if you had said, that and agreed that momentum is 'massive'
as clearly demonstrated by the box full of photons illustration
there would BE! no confusion.
If I had said that, though, I would be misspeaking, because the momentum
does not have mass even if you put quotation marks around it. The
problem, I gather, is that you believe that if a system has invariant
mass, then you must find where in the constituents this invariant mass
resides, and this in turn stems from an assumption that invariant mass
is additive: that is, the total of a system must be numerically equal to
the algebraic sum of an equivalent property exhibited by the system
constituents. But you see, I do not share this assumption.
NO! I think that invariant mass is just another form of the medium
that allows for it to be at 'relative' rest in a FOR.  Vortex rings
for example.  Vortices exhibit inertia and thus can be construed to
have a 'rest' mass.  Perhaps I have a much more unified approach to
physics that you.  To me, there is NO! difference other that the
structural form of the momentum.  Circulation certainly can be
self contained and at relative rest to a system of measure.  The
aether entities are the same, have the same momenta but because of
what they are manifesting can be construed to be invariant mass,
or a photon, but Underneath, its the very same stuff.  It all has
momenta&  inertia, thus, but the strong equivalence principle, mass.
Sorry, but to be honest, very little of this made any sense to me. Is
there a connection to the invariant mass as I use the term?
Yes...  As Feynman would ask, What is matter, really?  Maxwell-Kelvin
suggested vortex structures.  Vortices are local circulations of a
medium.  Vorices and their circulation opposites annilate just like
particle/anti-paricles.  Vortices exhibit inertia, contain circulating
medium particles that have momenta, thus have an intrinsic mass
associated with them.  Ring vortices have both spin (poloidal circulation)
and angular momentum (toroidal twist) and each has two states up/down
left/right, thus four distinct states up-right, up-left, down-right,
down left.  Up-left & down-right or up-right & down-left are the state
anti-state for these and will cancel the circulation of both rings
when colliding.  Other states like up-right, down-right or up-right,
up-left have other distinctive interactions.  Really, go look at Maxwell's
paper "On Physical Lines of Force" and see how EM was actually modeled.
Vortex rings can & do have oscillating waves within their structure.
Both on the poloidal axis and toroidal axis.  These, as you might
imagine can only be in whole number ratios of the diameter of either.
These are soliton states.  Vortex ring systems are, by their very nature,
quantum, thus the superfluid results.  If after this rather brief but
lengthy discription you still cannot get an inkling of how aether models
can map to the world we inhabit then look at Volvik's "The Universe in
a Heluim Droplet".  But, the key is that which makes up the vortices
must seemingly must adher to kinetic theory of an inviscid medium and
is dicretely granular containing momentum & energy.
Post by PD
That is, is
it possible to have a system composed of objects such that each of the
objects has zero invariant mass and the system has nonzero invariant mass?
The photons in a box...  As pointed out, you 'weigh' 1 kg of something
in the box.  Unless you opened & looked you simply cannot tell the
difference between 'invariant mass' like a gell and the imposed mass
induced by the photons.  It is rather stupid to claim those photons
don't have inertia, thus mass...
Post by PD
Post by Aetherist
Post by PD
Post by Aetherist
  All forms of energy has mass,
period, end of story!
And what is the basis for this statement? I take it that when you append
"end of story!" this is a marker for some axiom that you take to be true
without necessity of evidence or proof.
See above...
So is the statement a *consequence* of your model? Or is it an assumption?
It is a consequence of the Maxwellian vortex lattice model.
Post by PD
Post by Aetherist
Post by PD
Post by Aetherist
Not all energy has a measurable rest or
'invariant' mass.  But, just because you cannot stop something
to 'weigh' it does NOT! mean it is massless.  In our known
universe nothing is 'massless'.
See the previous two comments. I have no idea what you hope to gain by
putting "massless" in quotation marks. What I mean by "massless" is that
it has zero invariant mass, and that is a determination from
experimental measurement not by axiom.
Massless means you can express in an equation that under no
circumstances has mass in it.  This is not the case in our
p = mv
and m has inertia!  Invoke the strong equivalence principle
since you seem to like thing explained to you in that fashion!
You say, "the momentum equation is p=mv". This is precisely where I have
a dispute. This is an equation that relates momentum and other
properties of a body FOR A CERTAIN CLASS of bodies.
KISS... Ockham's Razor ... etc.  Why 'a certain class of bodies'?
Because you say so?  Or is it because someone just said that's
the way we like it uh huh, uh huh...  On what measured basis
do you say m != hf/c^2.  Certainly that's how much mass a system
will physically gain when absorbing the photon.  Energy gravitates
thus, again, by how much? .
Post by PD
It is not a definition of momentum. Momentum is defined as the vector
quantity of dynamical systems that exhibits conservation in closed systems
-- and it  is the property that is associated with the invariance of the laws
Post by PD
of physics with translation. HOW YOU CALCULATE the momentum depends on what
the object is -- for some kinds of objects, the momentum is related to
this and that property of the object (rest mass and velocity, for
example), and for other kinds of objects, the momentum is related to
OTHER properties of the object (the wavelength, for example). It is
remarkable that we have all these DIFFERENT relations for different
kinds of objects that can inhabit a system, but that the sum of all
those different kinds of contributions ends up being constant in a
closed system.
p = hf/c = mc, hf = mc^2
But no rest or invariant mass since it a propagating wavicle...  However,
as the photons in a box illustrates, it has inertial mass...
Post by PD
(Conservation of energy is just as remarkable, given that you're adding
together terms for ordered translational kinetic, disordered
translational kinetic, rotational kinetic, potential energy of various
kinds, rest energy, etc., that all have different methods for
calculating each contribution, and yet the scalar sum ends up being
constant for a closed system.)
YES!!  All forms of stuff has mass.  Not all forms have what you
want to call invariant mass, just those of closed circulatory
form.  At least in the Maxwellian aether view.  But even if you
don't share this view GR tells you that all things gravitate,
thus are in that sense, massive.
Post by PD
Post by Aetherist
If p in the case of photons had no mass a.k.a inertia then
they could/would not contribute to the mass/weigh/inertia
of the box, period.  You seem to like logical contradictions!
And this is the assumption I pointed out before: You are ASSUMING that
mass is an additive property, and that the mass of a system MUST be
accounted for by the sum of the masses of the constituents, and that if
a constituent has no mass then it cannot contribute to the mass of the
system. The point I made in response is that mass IS NOT ADDITIVE in
this sense, nor does it NEED to be.
That does not remove the logical inconsistency, you're just saying
'by definition' we want to say that while we can compute the mass
inertia response of the box of photons by the m = hf/c^2 or
m = p/c that don't count, they're still massless even though the
box gain 1 kg of weight.
Hmmm...- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -
Einstein said it best. Matter is concentrated energy.
It must be fundamnetal and C squared in relation to its mass.
Mass is point like and can be kinetic.

Mitchell Raemsch
Y.Porat
2011-11-04 05:50:45 UTC
Permalink
Post by PD
Post by Aetherist
Post by PD
Post by Aetherist
Post by PD
The terminology I am using for mass is invariant mass, just as Timo has
pointed out to you.  What I have said in the past is that a system of
photons can have nonzero invariant mass, while each of the photons has
zero invariant mass. THAT is the statement made.
Well if you had said, that and agreed that momentum is 'massive'
as clearly demonstrated by the box full of photons illustration
there would BE! no confusion.
If I had said that, though, I would be misspeaking, because the momentum
does not have mass even if you put quotation marks around it. The
problem, I gather, is that you believe that if a system has invariant
mass, then you must find where in the constituents this invariant mass
resides, and this in turn stems from an assumption that invariant mass
is additive: that is, the total of a system must be numerically equal to
the algebraic sum of an equivalent property exhibited by the system
constituents. But you see, I do not share this assumption.
NO! I think that invariant mass is just another form of the medium
that allows for it to be at 'relative' rest in a FOR.  Vortex rings
for example.  Vortices exhibit inertia and thus can be construed to
have a 'rest' mass.  Perhaps I have a much more unified approach to
physics that you.  To me, there is NO! difference other that the
structural form of the momentum.  Circulation certainly can be
self contained and at relative rest to a system of measure.  The
aethe entities are the same, have the same momenta but because of
what they are manifesting can be construed to be invariant mass
or a photon, but Underneath, its the very same stuff.  It all has
momenta&  inertia, thus, but the strong equivalence principle, mass.
Sorry, but to be honest, very little of this made any sense to me. Is
there a connection to the invariant mass as I use the term? That is, is
it possible to have a system composed of objects such that each of the
objects has zero invariant mass and the system has nonzero invariant mass?
Post by Aetherist
Post by PD
Post by Aetherist
  All forms of energy has mass,
period, end of story!
And what is the basis for this statement? I take it that when you append
"end of story!" this is a marker for some axiom that you take to be true
without necessity of evidence or proof.
See above...
So is the statement a *consequence* of your model? Or is it an assumption?
Post by Aetherist
Post by PD
Post by Aetherist
Not all energy has a measurable rest or
'invariant' mass.  But, just because you cannot stop something
to 'weigh' it does NOT! mean it is massless.  In our known
universe nothing is 'massless'.
See the previous two comments. I have no idea what you hope to gain by
putting "massless" in quotation marks. What I mean by "massless" is that
it has zero invariant mass, and that is a determination from
experimental measurement not by axiom.
Massless means you can express in an equation that under no
circumstances has mass in it.  This is not the case in our
p = mv
------------------
it is as well

E=hf/c
and in
hf/c
NOTING IS RELATIVISTIC !!!
INCLUDING THE MASS THAT IS HIDING IN THAT h !!


ENRGY YES ENERGY OF EM WAVES
AND IF EM WAVES HAS MASS THE ONLY MASS
ANYTHING THAT WE CAN DETECT HAS MASS
THE ONLY MASS!!

zero mass is only in the skull of
the crook PD &CO of crooks

GOT IT IMBECILE shameless
BLOCKHEAD CROOK PD ??
---------------------------

Y.Porat
------------------------
m***@hotmail.com
2011-11-04 01:07:32 UTC
Permalink
Post by Aetherist
Post by PD
Post by Aetherist
Post by PD
Post by Aetherist
Post by PD
Post by Timo Nieminen
Post by Timo Nieminen
Post by Aetherist
So, to be clear, the box weighed 1 kg, the photons weigh 1 kg so
the total is 2 kg.  Without opening the box one cannot know
whether the are photons or marbles in the box, just that whatever
it is 'masses' as 1 kg.
    Hmmm, it act like a mass, weighs like a
mass has inetia like a mass, but they're 'massless'.
Stop right here! Nobody is saying that a "box of photons" is massless.
(Well, some people would say it, but that's overgeneralising the
"photons are massless", and isn't what the theory actually says.)
Tell that to Paul Draper :)  He insisted that photons 'are massless'
and that one must not infer from their momentum that they have any
mass.
Argue with what he actually says, not a cartoon of it. He has said
quite clearly, many times, that the rest mass of a system is not equal
to the sum of the rest mass of its components. He has no problem with
the rest mass of a box of photons being non-zero, even if the rest
mass of the photons is zero.
That's absolutely right. Timo speaks correctly.
Then you recant you earlier statements in threads like this;
http://tinyurl.com/3csrr6o
Me:  "It's mv, even for a so called photon.  In that case
        m = h(nu)/c^2 and since v = c, p = h(nu)/c  The real
        question there should be if the 'stuff' constituting
        a photon isn't 'massive' how does it have momentum at
        all?  I already know what you'll say, don't bother... "
You:  No, it is not.
Me:  "quantum entities having momentum/energy interacting
        with each other in accordance with basic kinetic
        theory of elastic bodies.  If, as you have claimed,
        momentum can and does exist independent of mass
        these entities do not need to be massive, a.k.a.
        'material'.  There has never being a direct observance
        of a reversal of time. "
Me:  "If, as YOU! have claimed, momentum can and does exist
        independent of mass these entities do not need to be
        massive, a.k.a. 'material'"
Here is where I was being clear that we are NOT! talking about
'rest mass' or 'matter'  BUT! just mass!
The terminology I am using for mass is invariant mass, just as Timo has
pointed out to you.  What I have said in the past is that a system of
photons can have nonzero invariant mass, while each of the photons has
zero invariant mass. THAT is the statement made.
Well if you had said, that and agreed that momentum is 'massive'
as clearly demonstrated by the box full of photons illustration
there would BE! no confusion.
If I had said that, though, I would be misspeaking, because the momentum
does not have mass even if you put quotation marks around it. The
problem, I gather, is that you believe that if a system has invariant
mass, then you must find where in the constituents this invariant mass
resides, and this in turn stems from an assumption that invariant mass
is additive: that is, the total of a system must be numerically equal to
the algebraic sum of an equivalent property exhibited by the system
constituents. But you see, I do not share this assumption.
NO! I think that invariant mass is just another form of the medium
that allows for it to be at 'relative' rest in a FOR.  Vortex rings
for example.  Vortices exhibit inertia and thus can be construed to
have a 'rest' mass.  Perhaps I have a much more unified approach to
physics that you.  To me, there is NO! difference other that the
structural form of the momentum.  Circulation certainly can be
self contained and at relative rest to a system of measure.  The
aethe entities are the same, have the same momenta but because of
what they are manifesting can be construed to be invariant mass
or a photon, but Underneath, its the very same stuff.  It all has
momenta & inertia, thus, but the strong equivalence principle, mass.
Post by PD
Post by Aetherist
 All forms of energy has mass,
period, end of story!
And what is the basis for this statement? I take it that when you append
"end of story!" this is a marker for some axiom that you take to be true
without necessity of evidence or proof.
See above...
Post by PD
Post by Aetherist
Not all energy has a measurable rest or
'invariant' mass.  But, just because you cannot stop something
to 'weigh' it does NOT! mean it is massless.  In our known
universe nothing is 'massless'.
See the previous two comments. I have no idea what you hope to gain by
putting "massless" in quotation marks. What I mean by "massless" is that
it has zero invariant mass, and that is a determination from
experimental measurement not by axiom.
Massless means you can express in an equation that under no
circumstances has mass in it.  This is not the case in our
p = mv
and m has inertia!  Invoke the strong equivalence principle
since you seem to like thing explained to you in that fashion!
If p in the case of photons had no mass a.k.a inertia then
they could/would not contribute to the mass/weigh/inertia
of the box, period.  You seem to like logical contradictions!
Post by PD
Post by Aetherist
This was my focus and key point
of that earlier thread.  Yuo argued M-A-S-S-L-E-S-S, period!
claiming the can be momentum without mass.  I said no way!
There can be momentum without the ability to measure an
invariant mass BUT! there is still mass present in the system
even in those cases as this clearly illustrates...
Post by PD
I have no interest in your claims of what I have said, provided that you
substitute *YOUR* understanding of mass for the meaning that *I* used in
my statements.
I provided the link so that anyone interested can go look for
themselves.  It clear, you said that photons were massless...
Massless is NOT! the same as having no invariant mass.
It is to me, as I've just reiterated to you. I have no interest in what
goofy concept to "massless" you attach to that word other than what I
intend by it when I say it.
Goofy in what way???
Post by PD
Post by Aetherist
 I'm
pretty damned sure you knew what I was getting at in that
thread.  That the aether medium entities have momentum and
energy, thus, by definition, are also 'massive' but without
'invariant mass'!...
Post by PD
Post by Aetherist
Me:  "Going by what your definition and argument was, remember
        the lowly photon...  I'm not the one who invented the
        massless momentum concept... "
You: "Yet you are the one who says that fields, let alone
        quantized fields, cannot be considered part of a
        fundamental explanation. And yet here you are invoking
        one. Hmmmm.... "
A current clarification for you on this point.
A 'Field' is the manifestation of a underlying physical process
like pressure, density, ... etc.  Claiming a "Field' is
fundamental is simply a copout, not wanting to know the root
cause of same...  But As I said in that thread I am consistently
consistent...- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -
All forms of energy are mass?
No. Only concentrated energy for mass. Einstein called that C squared.
The rest is spread out energy for light and matter bond field.

Free particles are heavier.

Mitchell Raemsch
Y.Porat
2011-11-02 17:20:43 UTC
Permalink
Post by PD
Post by Aetherist
Post by PD
Post by Aetherist
Post by PD
Post by Timo Nieminen
Post by Timo Nieminen
Post by Aetherist
So, to be clear, the box weighed 1 kg, the photons weigh 1 kg so
the total is 2 kg.  Without opening the box one cannot know
whether the are photons or marbles in the box, just that whatever
it is 'masses' as 1 kg.
    Hmmm, it act like a mass, weighs like a
mass has inetia like a mass, but they're 'massless'.
Stop right here! Nobody is saying that a "box of photons" is massless.
(Well, some people would say it, but that's overgeneralising the
"photons are massless", and isn't what the theory actually says.)
Tell that to Paul Draper :)  He insisted that photons 'are massless'
and that one must not infer from their momentum that they have any
mass.
Argue with what he actually says, not a cartoon of it. He has said
quite clearly, many times, that the rest mass of a system is not equal
to the sum of the rest mass of its components. He has no problem with
the rest mass of a box of photons being non-zero, even if the rest
mass of the photons is zero.
That's absolutely right. Timo speaks correctly.
Then you recant you earlier statements in threads like this;
http://tinyurl.com/3csrr6o
Me:  "It's mv, even for a so called photon.  In that case
        m = h(nu)/c^2 and since v = c, p = h(nu)/c  The real
        question there should be if the 'stuff' constituting
        a photon isn't 'massive' how does it have momentum at
        all?  I already know what you'll say, don't bother... "
You:  No, it is not.
Me:  "quantum entities having momentum/energy interacting
        with each other in accordance with basic kinetic
        theory of elastic bodies.  If, as you have claimed,
        momentum can and does exist independent of mass
        these entities do not need to be massive, a.k.a.
        'material'.  There has never being a direct observance
        of a reversal of time. "
Me:  "If, as YOU! have claimed, momentum can and does exist
        independent of mass these entities do not need to be
        massive, a.k.a. 'material'"
Here is where I was being clear that we are NOT! talking about
'rest mass' or 'matter'  BUT! just mass!
The terminology I am using for mass is invariant mass, just as Timo has
pointed out to you.  What I have said in the past is that a system of
photons can have nonzero invariant mass, while each of the photons has
zero invariant mass. THAT is the statement made.
Well if you had said, that and agreed that momentum is 'massive'
as clearly demonstrated by the box full of photons illustration
there would BE! no confusion.
If I had said that, though, I would be misspeaking, because the momentum
does not have mass even if you put quotation marks around it. The
problem, I gather, is that you believe that if a system has invariant
mass, then you must find where in the constituents this invariant mass
resides, and this in turn stems from an assumption that invariant mass
is additive: that is, the total of a system must be numerically equal to
the algebraic sum of an equivalent property exhibited by the system
constituents. But you see, I do not share this assumption.
Post by Aetherist
 All forms of energy has mass,
period, end of story!
And what is the basis for this statement? I take it that when you append
"end of story!" this is a marker for some axiom that you take to be true
without necessity of evidence or proof.
Post by Aetherist
Not all energy has a measurable rest or
'invariant' mass.  But, just because you cannot stop something
to 'weigh' it does NOT! mean it is massless.  In our known
universe nothing is 'massless'.
See the previous two comments. I have no idea what you hope to gain by
putting "massless" in quotation marks. What I mean by "massless" is that
it has zero invariant mass, and that is a determination from
experimental measurement not by axiom.
Post by Aetherist
This was my focus and key point
of that earlier thread.  Yuo argued M-A-S-S-L-E-S-S, period!
claiming the can be momentum without mass.  I said no way!
There can be momentum without the ability to measure an
invariant mass BUT! there is still mass present in the system
even in those cases as this clearly illustrates...
Post by PD
I have no interest in your claims of what I have said, provided that you
substitute *YOUR* understanding of mass for the meaning that *I* used in
my statements.
I provided the link so that anyone interested can go look for
themselves.  It clear, you said that photons were massless...
----------------------
imbecile retarded crook!!

how any times i prved that thephoton has mass
theonly mass
got it blockhead pig ??

E=hf is energy
now
nothing in that is relativistic
and if sothemass in it is not relativistic as well
got it shameless crook
i was sking you what is relativistic in
E=hf
and you could no fine asnswer to that question
so faded away like crook demagogue
now imbecile moron
you ask where is that mas hiding in that
E=hf ??

it is in the h idiot !!
there si the dimension of kilogarms there
and if a pig like you doe snot know
how a physics formula is buoit and used that
just fuck of
and dont poison the brains of people here
with you shitty physics
that caused already so much harm for advance of science !!
is is a basic moral
if a fucker like you never innovated anything in physics
at least dont disturb with your shameless crookedness !!!

NO MASS - THE ONLY MASS - NO REAL PHYSICS !!

Y.Porat
--------------------------
Post by PD
Post by Aetherist
Massless is NOT! the same as having no invariant mass.
Timo Nieminen
2011-11-03 19:44:46 UTC
Permalink
Post by Y.Porat
Post by Timo Nieminen
Post by Y.Porat
Post by Timo Nieminen
Post by Y.Porat
Post by Timo Nieminen
Post by Y.Porat
Post by Timo Nieminen
This has nothing to do with E=hf; this is just ordinary classical
mechanics. Does energy "contain" mass because the units of energy can
be written in terms of units of mass (and other quantities)? You might
as well ask "Does energy contain area?", since there's (unit of
length)^2 there, too.
-------------
no sir!!
No to what? Be clear?
Does energy contain area?
no !!!
But the units of energy contain the unit of area! Don't you see that
m^2 in there?
But since that isn't a valid reason for energy to contain area,
neither can we say that energy contains mass, just because the units
of energy contain the unit of mass.
Post by Y.Porat
so my question
does
E=hf
contain **anything** relativistic
No.
Post by Y.Porat
if yes
WHAT IS IT THAT IS RELATIVISTIC
in E=hf??
Nothing.
Why do you keep asking? Already said "no" many times!
=-------------------------
Bravo !!! Thank you :!!
no more questions!!
Q E D !!
now Timo
dont you see that we did just above
History of physics ??!!
hf ie Enrgy
DOES NOT HAVE RELATIVISTIC MASS!!
Hold it! You asked what is relativistic about E=hf. Answer: nothing.
You asked if energy contains mass. Answer: no. But you're about to
overgeneralise below!
-----------------------------------
the trouble is that you dont understand what you yourself was
talking and agreed !!!!
if you agreed that
E=hf has nothing relativistic
you said all of it !!!
because
E is eenrgy of photons !!
AND PHOTONS ARE EM WAVES!!
AND EM WAVES ARE ENERGY !!!!
GOT IT
EM WAVES ARE ENERGY !!
SO IF EENRGY HAS NOTHING RELATIVISTIC IN IT
THEN IT HAS MASS IN IT
Stop here! That's _your_ claim. What we know, experimentally, is that
EM
waves have _momentum_. This also comes from theory, including theory
dating back to 1874, which assumes that they _don't_ have mass. That
is,
we know that moving energy should have momentum, even on non-
relativistic
grounds.

If you want to jump in at this point and claim that EM waves have
mass,
you need to define what you mean by "mass". You aren't using "mass" to
mean what it conventionally means in modern physics, or to mean what
it
conventionally means in Newtonian physics.
Post by Y.Porat
the MKS system has just one KILOGRAM in it
thereis no
K1 k2 k3 kilogram
is _not_ a definition of mass.

Define, clearly, what _you_ mean by mass.
Post by Y.Porat
BECAUSE
E=hf HAS NOTHING IN IT THAT
MULTIPLY IT AS A RELATIVISTIC SCALAR
and jsutly so !!
because in the Planckexperiment there was nothing relativistic
IT WAS FOUND AND DEFINED 5 YEARS
BEFORE sr WAS BORN!!
... and momentum of moving energy goes back decades earlier than that.
Post by Y.Porat
while jsut above we proved that
there is nothing relativistic in
E=hf
Sure. So what? Momentum of moving energy can be, and was, shown
independently of relativity, long before Planck's E=hf. Whether or not
E=hf is relativistic is irrelevant. (And it isn't relativistic; it's
_quantum_.)
Y.Porat
2011-11-03 20:17:48 UTC
Permalink
Post by Timo Nieminen
Post by Timo Nieminen
Post by Y.Porat
Post by Timo Nieminen
Post by Y.Porat
Post by Timo Nieminen
 > This has nothing to do with E=hf; this is just ordinary classical
Post by Timo Nieminen
mechanics. Does energy "contain" mass because the units of energy can
be written in terms of units of mass (and other quantities)? You might
as well ask "Does energy contain area?", since there's (unit of
length)^2 there, too.
-------------
no sir!!
No to what? Be clear?
Does energy contain area?
no !!!
But the units of energy contain the unit of area! Don't you see that
m^2 in there?
But since that isn't a valid reason for energy to contain area,
neither can we say that energy contains mass, just because the units
of energy contain the unit of mass.
Post by Y.Porat
so  my question
does
E=hf
contain **anything** relativistic
No.
Post by Y.Porat
if yes
WHAT IS IT  THAT IS RELATIVISTIC
in E=hf??
Nothing.
Why do you keep asking? Already said "no" many times!
=-------------------------
Bravo !!! Thank you :!!
no more questions!!
Q E D !!
now Timo
dont you see that we did just above
History of physics ??!!
hf ie Enrgy
DOES NOT HAVE RELATIVISTIC MASS!!
Hold it! You asked what is relativistic about E=hf. Answer: nothing.
You asked if energy contains mass. Answer: no. But you're about to
overgeneralise below!
-----------------------------------
the trouble is that  you dont understand what you yourself was
talking  and agreed !!!!
if you agreed that
E=hf has nothing relativistic
you said all     of it !!!
because
E is eenrgy of photons !!
AND PHOTONS ARE EM WAVES!!
AND EM WAVES ARE ENERGY !!!!
GOT IT
EM WAVES ARE ENERGY !!
SO IF EENRGY HAS NOTHING RELATIVISTIC IN IT
THEN  IT HAS MASS IN IT
Stop here! That's _your_ claim. What we know, experimentally, is that
EM
waves have _momentum_. This also comes from theory, including theory
dating back to 1874, which assumes that they _don't_ have mass. That
is,
we know that moving energy should have momentum, even on non-
relativistic
grounds.
If you want to jump in at this point and claim that EM waves have
mass,
you need to define what you mean by "mass". You aren't using "mass" to
mean what it conventionally means in modern physics, or to mean what
it
conventionally means in Newtonian physics.
Your statement that:> the MKS system has just one  KILOGRAM in it
thereis no
K1 k2 k3 kilogram
is _not_ a definition of mass.
Define, clearly, what _you_ mean by mass.
BECAUSE
E=hf HAS NOTHING IN  IT THAT
MULTIPLY IT AS A  RELATIVISTIC SCALAR
and jsutly so !!
because in the Planckexperiment there was nothing relativistic
IT WAS FOUND AND DEFINED 5 YEARS
BEFORE sr WAS BORN!!
... and momentum of moving energy goes back decades earlier than that.
while jsut above we proved that
there is nothing relativistic in
E=hf
Sure. So what? Momentum of moving energy can be,
-----------------------
enegy has momentum so ??
how about its mass??

momentum of photons is = hf/c
sop if hfhas mass th eonly mass
then hf/c has mass theonly mass
so waht is your poing
there are many ways to show that

energy of photons
HAS MASS THE ONLY MASS

that is my point dont you know that
it is **not** the common paradigm ??!!
what is your point ??

TIA
Y.Porat
------------------


and was, shown
Post by Timo Nieminen
independently of relativity, long before Planck's E=hf. Whether or not
E=hf is relativistic is irrelevant. (And it isn't relativistic; it's
_quantum_.)
Timo Nieminen
2011-11-03 20:34:27 UTC
Permalink
Post by Y.Porat
Post by Timo Nieminen
Post by Timo Nieminen
Post by Y.Porat
Post by Timo Nieminen
Post by Y.Porat
Post by Timo Nieminen
 > This has nothing to do with E=hf; this is just ordinary classical
Post by Timo Nieminen
mechanics. Does energy "contain" mass because the units of energy can
be written in terms of units of mass (and other quantities)? You might
as well ask "Does energy contain area?", since there's (unit of
length)^2 there, too.
-------------
no sir!!
No to what? Be clear?
Does energy contain area?
no !!!
But the units of energy contain the unit of area! Don't you see that
m^2 in there?
But since that isn't a valid reason for energy to contain area,
neither can we say that energy contains mass, just because the units
of energy contain the unit of mass.
Post by Y.Porat
so  my question
does
E=hf
contain **anything** relativistic
No.
Post by Y.Porat
if yes
WHAT IS IT  THAT IS RELATIVISTIC
in E=hf??
Nothing.
Why do you keep asking? Already said "no" many times!
=-------------------------
Bravo !!! Thank you :!!
no more questions!!
Q E D !!
now Timo
dont you see that we did just above
History of physics ??!!
hf ie Enrgy
DOES NOT HAVE RELATIVISTIC MASS!!
Hold it! You asked what is relativistic about E=hf. Answer: nothing.
You asked if energy contains mass. Answer: no. But you're about to
overgeneralise below!
-----------------------------------
the trouble is that  you dont understand what you yourself was
talking  and agreed !!!!
if you agreed that
E=hf has nothing relativistic
you said all     of it !!!
because
E is eenrgy of photons !!
AND PHOTONS ARE EM WAVES!!
AND EM WAVES ARE ENERGY !!!!
GOT IT
EM WAVES ARE ENERGY !!
SO IF EENRGY HAS NOTHING RELATIVISTIC IN IT
THEN  IT HAS MASS IN IT
Stop here! That's _your_ claim. What we know, experimentally, is that
EM
waves have _momentum_. This also comes from theory, including theory
dating back to 1874, which assumes that they _don't_ have mass. That
is,
we know that moving energy should have momentum, even on non-
relativistic
grounds.
If you want to jump in at this point and claim that EM waves have
mass,
you need to define what you mean by "mass". You aren't using "mass" to
mean what it conventionally means in modern physics, or to mean what
it
conventionally means in Newtonian physics.
Your statement that:> the MKS system has just one  KILOGRAM in it
thereis no
K1 k2 k3 kilogram
is _not_ a definition of mass.
Define, clearly, what _you_ mean by mass.
BECAUSE
E=hf HAS NOTHING IN  IT THAT
MULTIPLY IT AS A  RELATIVISTIC SCALAR
and jsutly so !!
because in the Planckexperiment there was nothing relativistic
IT WAS FOUND AND DEFINED 5 YEARS
BEFORE sr WAS BORN!!
... and momentum of moving energy goes back decades earlier than that.
while jsut above we proved that
there is nothing relativistic in
E=hf
Sure. So what? Momentum of moving energy can be,
-----------------------
enegy has momentum so ??
how about its mass??
momentum of photons is  = hf/c
sop if hfhas mass th eonly mass
then hf/c has mass theonly mass
so waht is your poing
there are many ways to show that
energy of photons
HAS  MASS THE  ONLY MASS
that is my point dont you  know that
it is  **not** the common  paradigm ??!!
what is your point ??
You're the one who is insisting that _something_ (everything? energy?
photons? what? Be clear!) has something you call "mass". _You_ are the
one who claims to have a point, but you refuse to be at all clear as
to what it is. What you mean by "mass" is not what is meant in physics
by "mass". So your claim is unclear.

(a) What do you mean by "mass"? Be clear! An operational definition
would be good!

(b) Exactly what are you claiming has this "mass"?

Apart from that, you seem to think that whether or not E=hf is
relativistic is somehow relevant (it isn't), and that Planck having
suggested E=hf 5 years before Einstein's paper on special relativity
is somehow important (it isn't).
Y.Porat
2011-11-04 06:21:20 UTC
Permalink
Post by Y.Porat
Post by Y.Porat
Post by Timo Nieminen
Post by Timo Nieminen
Post by Y.Porat
Post by Timo Nieminen
Post by Y.Porat
Post by Timo Nieminen
 > This has nothing to do with E=hf; this is just ordinary classical
Post by Timo Nieminen
mechanics. Does energy "contain" mass because the units of energy can
be written in terms of units of mass (and other quantities)? You might
as well ask "Does energy contain area?", since there's (unit of
length)^2 there, too.
-------------
no sir!!
No to what? Be clear?
Does energy contain area?
no !!!
But the units of energy contain the unit of area! Don't you see that
m^2 in there?
But since that isn't a valid reason for energy to contain area,
neither can we say that energy contains mass, just because the units
of energy contain the unit of mass.
Post by Y.Porat
so  my question
does
E=hf
contain **anything** relativistic
No.
Post by Y.Porat
if yes
WHAT IS IT  THAT IS RELATIVISTIC
in E=hf??
Nothing.
Why do you keep asking? Already said "no" many times!
=-------------------------
Bravo !!! Thank you :!!
no more questions!!
Q E D !!
now Timo
dont you see that we did just above
History of physics ??!!
hf ie Enrgy
DOES NOT HAVE RELATIVISTIC MASS!!
Hold it! You asked what is relativistic about E=hf. Answer: nothing.
You asked if energy contains mass. Answer: no. But you're about to
overgeneralise below!
-----------------------------------
the trouble is that  you dont understand what you yourself was
talking  and agreed !!!!
RELATIVISTIC IN IT
Post by Y.Porat
Post by Timo Nieminen
THEN  IT HAS MASS IN IT
Stop here! That's _your_ claim. What we know, experimentally, is that
EM
waves have _momentum_. This also comes from theory, including theory
dating back to 1874, which assumes that they _don't_ have mass. That
is,
we know that moving energy should have momentum, even on non-
relativistic
grounds.
If you want to jump in at this point and claim that EM waves have
mass,
you need to define what you mean by "mass". You aren't using "mass" to
mean what it conventionally means in modern physics, or to mean what
it
conventionally means in Newtonian physics.
Your statement that:> the MKS system has just one  KILOGRAM in it
thereis no
K1 k2 k3 kilogram
is _not_ a definition of mass.
Define, clearly, what _you_ mean by mass.
BECAUSE
E=hf HAS NOTHING IN  IT THAT
MULTIPLY IT AS A  RELATIVISTIC SCALAR
and jsutly so !!
because in the Planckexperiment there was nothing relativistic
IT WAS FOUND AND DEFINED 5 YEARS
BEFORE sr WAS BORN!!
... and momentum of moving energy goes back decades earlier than that.
while jsut above we proved that
there is nothing relativistic in
E=hf
Sure. So what? Momentum of moving energy can be,
-----------------------
enegy has momentum so ??
how about its mass??
momentum of photons is  = hf/c
sop if hfhas mass th eonly mass
then hf/c has mass theonly mass
so waht is your poing
there are many ways to show that
energy of photons
HAS  MASS THE  ONLY MASS
that is my point dont you  know that
it is  **not** the common  paradigm ??!!
what is your point ??
You're the one who is insisting that _something_ (everything? energy?
photons? what? Be clear!) has something you call "mass". _You_ are the
one who claims to have a point,
------------------
ANYTHING WE CAN DETECT HAS MASS
GOT IT ??!
WE ARE NOT IN LA LA LAND !!
of witches on brooms
------------

but you refuse to be at all clear as
Post by Y.Porat
to what it is. What you mean by "mass" is not what is meant in physics
-----------------
not what it is in physics ??
do your ears here what your mouth is talking ??
so mass of what
of philosophy of literature ??!!
we are i a physics ng
ddi you forget ??
in physics there is the
M K S system
we donnot have to nter every day to that
questin what is meter
waht is kilogram what is second
unless we aere going to mumble to the end
of our lives
if i willtell you that mass is a property of
objets to rsist change in stand stil of movement situation
you willgo on and ask
so
'what is a stand stillsituation
and next-- what is a movement situation
and later you wil ask me
what is the meaning og the word what ..
in short
THE MOMENT WE FIND IN AN EXPERIMENTAL FORMULA
THE DIMENSION K
it means it has mass !!.

THE ONLY HISTORIC INNOVATION I DID
AMONG ALL THE OTHERS --IS THAT
if E=hf has **nothing to do with relativity***

that includes **all that is **in** that hf **
because if you would find even **JUST ONE **ELEMENT IN IT THAT IS
**IS ** RELATIVISTIC -

**YOU CANT SAY ANYMORE THAT
'ANYTHING IN IT IS **not ** RELATIVISTIC !!
(as you admitted )

OR THAT IT BELONGS to relativity
AND YOU ADMITTED THAT
NOTHING IN THAT E-hf is relativistic !
you had no option but to admit it !!

and BTW
the idiot crook PD still didnt get it !!!
or may be he has some psychological block to admit it !!
or perusal business reasons !!

but by that he makes himself
a criminal against mankind !!....
not only against me
there must be some
minimal ethics even in physics !!

TIA
Y.Porat
-------------
Timo Nieminen
2011-11-04 09:45:51 UTC
Permalink
Post by Y.Porat
Post by Y.Porat
Post by Y.Porat
Post by Timo Nieminen
Post by Timo Nieminen
Post by Y.Porat
Post by Timo Nieminen
Post by Y.Porat
Post by Timo Nieminen
 > This has nothing to do with E=hf; this is just ordinary classical
Post by Timo Nieminen
mechanics. Does energy "contain" mass because the units of energy can
be written in terms of units of mass (and other quantities)? You might
as well ask "Does energy contain area?", since there's (unit of
length)^2 there, too.
-------------
no sir!!
No to what? Be clear?
Does energy contain area?
no !!!
But the units of energy contain the unit of area! Don't you see that
m^2 in there?
But since that isn't a valid reason for energy to contain area,
neither can we say that energy contains mass, just because the units
of energy contain the unit of mass.
Post by Y.Porat
so  my question
does
E=hf
contain **anything** relativistic
No.
Post by Y.Porat
if yes
WHAT IS IT  THAT IS RELATIVISTIC
in E=hf??
Nothing.
Why do you keep asking? Already said "no" many times!
=-------------------------
Bravo !!! Thank you :!!
no more questions!!
Q E D !!
now Timo
dont you see that we did just above
History of physics ??!!
hf ie Enrgy
DOES NOT HAVE RELATIVISTIC MASS!!
Hold it! You asked what is relativistic about E=hf. Answer: nothing.
You asked if energy contains mass. Answer: no. But you're about to
overgeneralise below!
-----------------------------------
the trouble is that  you dont understand what you yourself was
talking  and agreed !!!!
RELATIVISTIC IN IT
Post by Y.Porat
Post by Timo Nieminen
THEN  IT HAS MASS IN IT
Stop here! That's _your_ claim. What we know, experimentally, is that
EM
waves have _momentum_. This also comes from theory, including theory
dating back to 1874, which assumes that they _don't_ have mass. That
is,
we know that moving energy should have momentum, even on non-
relativistic
grounds.
If you want to jump in at this point and claim that EM waves have
mass,
you need to define what you mean by "mass". You aren't using "mass" to
mean what it conventionally means in modern physics, or to mean what
it
conventionally means in Newtonian physics.
Your statement that:> the MKS system has just one  KILOGRAM in it
thereis no
K1 k2 k3 kilogram
is _not_ a definition of mass.
Define, clearly, what _you_ mean by mass.
BECAUSE
E=hf HAS NOTHING IN  IT THAT
MULTIPLY IT AS A  RELATIVISTIC SCALAR
and jsutly so !!
because in the Planckexperiment there was nothing relativistic
IT WAS FOUND AND DEFINED 5 YEARS
BEFORE sr WAS BORN!!
... and momentum of moving energy goes back decades earlier than that.
while jsut above we proved that
there is nothing relativistic in
E=hf
Sure. So what? Momentum of moving energy can be,
-----------------------
enegy has momentum so ??
how about its mass??
momentum of photons is  = hf/c
sop if hfhas mass th eonly mass
then hf/c has mass theonly mass
so waht is your poing
there are many ways to show that
energy of photons
HAS  MASS THE  ONLY MASS
that is my point dont you  know that
it is  **not** the common  paradigm ??!!
what is your point ??
You're the one who is insisting that _something_ (everything? energy?
photons? what? Be clear!) has something you call "mass". _You_ are the
one who claims to have a point,
------------------
ANYTHING WE CAN DETECT HAS MASS
GOT IT ??!
We can detect the colour "red". Does colour have mass? We can measure
the resting metabolic rate of a human. Does resting metabolic rate
have mass? We can detect tides. Do tides have mass? We can detect the
flight of bats? Does flight have mass?

No, that's not a clear definition at all.
Post by Y.Porat
WE ARE NOT IN LA LA LAND !!
of witches on brooms
------------
 but you refuse to be at all clear as
to what it is. What you mean by "mass" is not what is meant in physics
-----------------
not what it is in physics ??
No, you aren't using "mass" to mean what it means in modern physics
technical terminology.
Post by Y.Porat
do your ears here what your mouth is talking ??
so mass of what
of philosophy  of literature ??!!
we are i a physics ng
ddi you forget ??
in physics there is the
M K S system
we donnot have to nter every day to that
questin what is meter
waht is kilogram what is second
unless we aere going to mumble to  the end
of our lives
Irrelevant. And not helping to clarify what _you_ mean by "mass".
Post by Y.Porat
if i willtell you that mass is a property of
objets to rsist change in stand stil of movement situation
OK, so by "mass", you mean what modern physics means by "inertia".

So, you could harmonise your terminology with that of modern physics,
and use "inertia" instead of "mass", and be understood.

Do you know why modern physics distinguishes between "mass" and
"inertia"?

Consider the inertia of a photon. Take a photon of wavelength lambda
500nm. You can find the frequency, and the energy, and the momentum.
The momentum is p=h/lambda.

To adopt your definition of mass, we would say that the photon has
mass h/(c*lambda).

Now choose a coordinate system moving at 3x10^7 m/s in the same
direction as the photon. In this coordinate system, the wavelength of
the photon is approximately 550nm.

Calculate the "mass" (according to your definition of mass), and
compare. It's now about 10% less.

Does the mass of an object depend on our arbitrary choice of
coordinate system? According to your definition of mass, it does. If
you don't like that, you need a different definition of "mass". Modern
physics doesn't like that, and uses a different definition of mass,
that agrees more closely with the old Newtonian definition of mass.

(Your definition of mass has been used in physics, alonside a number
of other definitions of mass.)
Post by Y.Porat
you willgo on and ask
so
'what is a stand stillsituation
and next-- what is   a movement situation
and later you wil ask me
what is the meaning og the word what ..
in short
THE MOMENT WE FIND IN AN EXPERIMENTAL FORMULA
THE DIMENSION K
it means it has  mass !!.
Oh? And energy includes the dimensions of area. Does energy have area
in it?

No, that isn't a valid argument at all.
Post by Y.Porat
THE ONLY HISTORIC  INNOVATION I DID
AMONG ALL THE OTHERS --IS THAT
if E=hf has   **nothing to do  with  relativity***
That isn't an innovation; that's obvious from the historical sequence,
and evident to anybody who knows the difference between relativity and
quantum theory.

And it's irrelevant, anyway.
Y.Porat
2011-11-04 13:06:05 UTC
Permalink
On Nov 4, 11:45 am, Timo Nie > > one who claims to have a point,
Post by Timo Nieminen
Post by Y.Porat
------------------
ANYTHING WE CAN DETECT HAS MASS
GOT IT ??!
We can detect the colour "red". Does colour have mass? We can measure
the resting metabolic rate of a human. Does resting metabolic rate
have mass? We can detect tides. Do tides have mass? We can detect the
flight of bats? Does flight have mass?
No, that's not a clear definition at all.
Post by Y.Porat
WE ARE NOT IN LA LA LAND !!
of witches on brooms
------------
 but you refuse to be at all clear as
to what it is. What you mean by "mass" is not what is meant in physics
----------------
so may be its more than time to change it
and that is exactly why i am here !!!
----------------
Post by Timo Nieminen
Post by Y.Porat
-----------------
not what it is in physics ??
No, you aren't using "mass" to mean what it means in modern physics
technical terminology.
-----------
in our case i dont mind waht it i s in other cases
E=hf
for me if i see the Kilogram dimension in that
formula it is mass
now the dispute is only
whether it is relativistic or not
thats all
we cant go back to Adam and eve forever
so lest s stick to the question is the kilograms
(prvided that we are knowlagable enough to
know how a physics formula is built and used!!
if not we have no common languags to dsicuss
if you like you can get from me some basic lecture about it ....)
so
is the mass in E=hf
relativistic mass or not relativistic mass
ok ??
Post by Timo Nieminen
Post by Y.Porat
do your ears here what your mouth is talking ??
so mass of what
of philosophy  of literature ??!!
we are i a physics ng
ddi you forget ??
in physics there is the
M K S system
we donnot have to nter every day to that
questin what is meter
waht is kilogram what is second
unless we aere going to mumble to  the end
of our lives
Irrelevant. And not helping to clarify what _you_ mean by "mass".
it seems that you dont understand English !!
Post by Timo Nieminen
Post by Y.Porat
if i will tell you that mass is a property of
objets to resist change in stand still of movement situation
OK, so by "mass", you mean what modern physics means by "inertia".
--------------
you can call it by any name you like
yet for me a showed in many ways that
there is JUST ONE KIND IF MASS !! INERTIA
WHATEVER YOU CALL IT !!
--------------
Post by Timo Nieminen
So, you could harmonise your terminology with that of modern physics,
and use "inertia" instead of "mass", and be understood.
---------------------
ok as above !!
yet please not my unprecedented innovation--
JUST ONE KIND OF ''INERTIA'' OF MATTER !!
-------------
--------------
Post by Timo Nieminen
Do you know why modern physics distinguishes between "mass" and
"inertia"?
------------------
I DONT MIND SINCE AS ABOVE
FOR ME THERE IS **JUST ONE KIND IF ''IT''!!
all the others is parrots morons mumblings
-------------
--------------
Post by Timo Nieminen
Consider the inertia of a photon. Take a photon of wavelength lambda
500nm. You can find the frequency, and the energy, and the momentum.
The momentum is p=h/lambda.
-------------
right
Post by Timo Nieminen
To adopt your definition of mass, we would say that the photon has
mass h/(c*lambda).
hc/lambda is Momentum not mass
how did you got it ??
THE MASS IS HIDING IN THAT h
got it ?
----------------
Post by Timo Nieminen
Now choose a coordinate system moving at 3x10^7 m/s in the same
direction as the photon. In this coordinate system, the wavelength of
the photon is approximately 550nm.
-------------
why do you whant to obfuscate the issue

the
E=hf as found measured and defined
in just one fram that was standing still
got it
we discuss only that formula as it was foun
and defined
and you actually agreed that
in that case
nothing (NOTHING !!) IN IT IS RELATIVISTIC
EVEN THOUGH THE PHOTONS THERE WERE MOVING AT c !!
**but the energy they emitted was
hf and nothing more than that !!!***
-------------
Post by Timo Nieminen
Calculate the "mass" (according to your definition of mass), and
compare. It's now about 10% less.
-------------
MAY BESOME NEWS FOR YOU

c moved as c and nothing more
IN ANY FRAME !!
all the other components remain as in
the Planck frame
oh i see your problem

YOU DONT KNOW TO DEFINE
THE REAL **SINGLE PHOTON

YOU THINK THAT hf IS THE ENERGY
OD A SINGLE PHOTON RIGHT?!
AND THAT IS WERE YOUR DEAD DOG LYE

e=hf
id theformula of ahuge bundle odf single photons
and while they run in a procession from one frame to the other moving
one
some of them are not quick enough
(because they are limited by their c )

to neter the second fram that is running away from the first frame
so
THE ENERGY THAT ENTERED THE SECOND FRAME
IS NOT ANY MORE THE ORRIGINAL
ENERGY !!
------------
yet all the addditional explaantion i gave it
is not obliging my first asetion that
nothing in the orriginal frame energy
E=hf
has nothing to do with relativity !!
and you attmpt to drag me to your
lack of understanding and confusion
of different issues !!
i dont need to fall into your trap
because it is obfuscation of the original issue
that is allin one stand still frame !!
(tough i gave you some new hints about your
more comlicated question
but that is another oppera !!
in analysing
the trick is to analyses *to break (cut) it to its smaller
components to make it as
simple and not complicated as possible !!
and not the other way !!
that is 'analyzing '!!
-------------------
Post by Timo Nieminen
Does the mass of an object depend on our arbitrary choice of
coordinate system? According to your definition of mass, it does.
-------------
not at all
i explained to you waht was your mistake about hf
you was wrong with your basic understanding of it
AND YOU ARE NOT THE ONLY ONE
it is not my fault that i am an innovator .
--------------------..

If
Post by Timo Nieminen
you don't like that, you need a different definition of "mass". Modern
----------
--here lies the dead dog of modern physics

E=hf
is not rhe definition of the real singlephoton !
and that is the roote of all its confusion
and ball boglings about 'relativistic mass'
of say photons
and mind you i have some news for you
even in macrocosm there is no relativistic mass!
i explained it more than once and tied of doing it
again and again !!
yet that is another Opera !!
no need tocnfuse and complicate
different ''Operas ''
-------------
-----------------
----------
Post by Timo Nieminen
physics
physics ??? ):-)
moron parrots not physics
no one nominated you to epalk in bahlf of ''physics''
just leave it to the shameless demagogue
moron parrot PD !!

the one advantage that i found in you is that
]you admitted that
E=hf as a whole

has nothing to do with relativity

has nothing relativistic **in it **
(you cant have a situation that
one component of it --is' relativistic'
while **the whole combination of its component**--
has nothing relativistic !!(
theother components d nt have somemagic ability to
smother a relativistic component to be
non relativistic !!
how many ways do you want from me
to explain the same thing (:-)

TIA
Y.Porat

TIA
Y.Porat
------------------


TIA
Y.Porat
---------------------------
something tha the pig PD still ddint
admit or understood


doesn't like that, and uses a different definition of mass,
Post by Timo Nieminen
that agrees more closely with the old Newtonian definition of mass.
(Your definition of mass has been used in physics, alonside a number
of other definitions of mass.)
Post by Y.Porat
you willgo on and ask
so
'what is a stand stillsituation
and next-- what is   a movement situation
and later you wil ask me
what is the meaning og the word what ..
in short
THE MOMENT WE FIND IN AN EXPERIMENTAL FORMULA
THE DIMENSION K
it means it has  mass !!.
Oh? And energy includes the dimensions of area. Does energy have area
in it?
No, that isn't a valid argument at all.
Post by Y.Porat
THE ONLY HISTORIC  INNOVATION I DID
AMONG ALL THE OTHERS --IS THAT
if E=hf has   **nothing to do  with  relativity***
That isn't an innovation; that's obvious from the historical sequence,
and evident to anybody who knows the difference between relativity and
quantum theory.
And it's irrelevant, anyway.
jon car
2011-11-04 16:58:03 UTC
Permalink
On Nov 4, 11:45 am, Timo Nie  > > one who claims to have a point,
Post by Timo Nieminen
Post by Y.Porat
------------------
ANYTHING WE CAN DETECT HAS MASS
GOT IT ??!
We can detect the colour "red". Does colour have mass? We can measure
the resting metabolic rate of a human. Does resting metabolic rate
have mass? We can detect tides. Do tides have mass? We can detect the
flight of bats? Does flight have mass?
No, that's not a clear definition at all.
Post by Y.Porat
WE ARE NOT IN LA LA LAND !!
of witches on brooms
------------
 but you refuse to be at all clear as
to what it is. What you mean by "mass" is not what is meant in physics
----------------
so may be its more than time to  change it
and that is exactly why i am here !!!
----------------
Post by Timo Nieminen
Post by Y.Porat
-----------------
not what it is in physics ??
No, you aren't using "mass" to mean what it means in modern physics
technical terminology.
-----------
in our case i dont mind  waht it i s in other cases
E=hf
for  me  if i see the Kilogram dimension in that
formula it is mass
now the dispute is only
whether it is relativistic or not
thats all
we cant go back to Adam and eve forever
so lest s  stick to the question is the kilograms
(prvided that we are  knowlagable enough to
know how a physics formula is built and used!!
if not we have no common  languags to dsicuss
if  you like you can get from me some basic lecture about it ....)
so
is the mass  in  E=hf
relativistic mass or  not relativistic mass
ok ??
Post by Timo Nieminen
Post by Y.Porat
do your ears here what your mouth is talking ??
so mass of what
of philosophy  of literature ??!!
we are i a physics ng
ddi you forget ??
in physics there is the
M K S system
we donnot have to nter every day to that
questin what is meter
waht is kilogram what is second
unless we aere going to mumble to  the end
of our lives
Irrelevant. And not helping to clarify what _you_ mean by "mass".
it seems that you dont understand English !!
Post by Timo Nieminen
Post by Y.Porat
if i will tell you that mass is a property of
objets to resist change in stand still of movement situation
OK, so by "mass", you mean what modern physics means by "inertia".
--------------
you can call  it by any name you   like
yet for me a showed in many ways that
there is JUST ONE KIND IF MASS !! INERTIA
WHATEVER YOU CALL IT !!
--------------> So, you could harmonise your terminology with that of modern physics,
Post by Timo Nieminen
and use "inertia" instead of "mass", and be understood.
---------------------
ok as above !!
yet please not my  unprecedented innovation--
JUST ONE KIND OF ''INERTIA'' OF MATTER !!
-------------
--------------
Post by Timo Nieminen
Do you know why modern physics distinguishes between "mass" and
"inertia"?
------------------
I DONT MIND SINCE AS ABOVE
FOR ME THERE  IS **JUST ONE KIND IF ''IT''!!
all   the others is parrots morons  mumblings
-------------
--------------
Post by Timo Nieminen
Consider the inertia of a photon. Take a photon of wavelength lambda
500nm. You can find the frequency, and the energy, and the momentum.
The momentum is p=h/lambda.
-------------
right
Post by Timo Nieminen
To adopt your definition of mass, we would say that the photon has
mass h/(c*lambda).
hc/lambda is Momentum not mass
how did you got it ??
THE  MASS   IS HIDING IN THAT h
got  it ?
----------------
Post by Timo Nieminen
Now choose a coordinate system moving at 3x10^7 m/s in the same
direction as the photon. In this coordinate system, the wavelength of
the photon is approximately 550nm.
-------------
why do you whant to obfuscate the issue
the
E=hf as found measured and defined
in just one fram that was standing still
got it
we discuss only that formula as it was foun
and defined
and you actually agreed that
in that case
nothing (NOTHING !!) IN IT IS RELATIVISTIC
 EVEN THOUGH THE PHOTONS THERE WERE MOVING AT c !!
**but the energy they emitted was
hf and nothing more than that !!!***
-------------> Calculate the "mass" (according to your definition of mass), and
Post by Timo Nieminen
compare. It's now about 10% less.
-------------
MAY BESOME NEWS FOR YOU
c moved as c and  nothing more
IN ANY FRAME !!
all the other components remain as in
the Planck frame
oh i see your problem
YOU DONT KNOW TO DEFINE
THE REAL **SINGLE  PHOTON
YOU THINK THAT hf IS THE ENERGY
OD A SINGLE PHOTON RIGHT?!
AND THAT IS WERE YOUR DEAD DOG LYE
e=hf
id theformula of ahuge bundle odf single photons
and while they run in a procession from one frame to the other moving
one
some of them are  not quick enough
(because they are limited by their c )
to  neter the second fram that is running away from the first frame
so
THE ENERGY THAT ENTERED THE SECOND FRAME
IS NOT ANY  MORE THE ORRIGINAL
ENERGY !!
------------
yet all the addditional explaantion i gave it
is not obliging my first  asetion that
nothing in the orriginal frame energy
E=hf
has nothing to  do with  relativity !!
and you attmpt to drag me to your
lack of understanding and confusion
of different issues  !!
i dont need to fall  into your trap
because it is obfuscation of the original issue
that is allin one stand still  frame !!
(tough i gave you some new hints about your
more comlicated question
but that is another oppera !!
in analysing
the trick  is to analyses *to break (cut) it to its   smaller
components  to make it as
simple and not complicated as possible !!
and   not the other way !!
that is 'analyzing '!!
-------------------
Post by Timo Nieminen
Does the mass of an object depend on our arbitrary choice of
coordinate system? According to your definition of mass, it does.
-------------
not at all
i explained to you  waht was your mistake about hf
you was wrong with your basic understanding of it
AND YOU ARE NOT THE  ONLY ONE
it is  not my fault that i am an  innovator .
--------------------..
 If> you don't like that, you need a different definition of "mass". Modern
----------
--here lies the dead dog of modern physics
E=hf
is not rhe definition of the real singlephoton !
and that is the roote of all its confusion
and ball  boglings about 'relativistic mass'
of say photons
and  mind you i have some  news for you
even in macrocosm   there is no relativistic mass!
i explained it more than once and tied of doing it
again and again !!
yet that is another Opera !!
no need tocnfuse and complicate
different   ''Operas ''
-------------
-----------------
----------> physics
physics ??? ):-)
moron  parrots  not physics
no one nominated you to epalk  in bahlf of ''physics''
just leave it to the shameless demagogue
moron parrot PD !!
the one advantage that i found in you is that
]you admitted that
E=hf as a  whole
has nothing to do with   relativity
has nothing relativistic **in it **
(you cant have a situation that
one component of it --is' relativistic'
while **the whole combination of its component**--
has    nothing relativistic !!(
theother components d nt have somemagic ability to
smother a relativistic component to be
non  relativistic !!
how many ways do you want from me
to explain the same thing (:-)
TIA
Y.Porat
TIA
Y.Porat
------------------
TIA
Y.Porat
---------------------------
something tha the pig PD still ddint
admit or understood
doesn't like that, and uses a different definition of mass,
Post by Timo Nieminen
that agrees more closely with the old Newtonian definition of mass.
(Your definition of mass has been used in physics, alonside a number
of other definitions of mass.)
Post by Y.Porat
you willgo on and ask
so
'what is a stand stillsituation
and next-- what is   a movement situation
and later you wil ask me
what is the meaning og the word what ..
in short
THE MOMENT WE FIND IN AN EXPERIMENTAL FORMULA
THE DIMENSION K
it means it has  mass !!.
Oh? And energy includes the dimensions of area. Does energy have area
in it?
No, that isn't a valid argument at all.
Post by Y.Porat
THE ONLY HISTORIC  INNOVATION I DID
AMONG ALL THE OTHERS --IS THAT
if E=hf has   **nothing to do  with  relativity***
That isn't an innovation; that's obvious from the historical sequence,
and evident to anybody who knows the difference between relativity and
quantum theory.
And it's irrelevant, anyway.- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -
Mass is infinitely dense. Einstein would say concentrated.

Mitchell Raemsch
G=EMC^2
2011-11-04 19:00:06 UTC
Permalink
Post by jon car
On Nov 4, 11:45 am, Timo Nie  > > one who claims to have a point,
Post by Timo Nieminen
Post by Y.Porat
------------------
ANYTHING WE CAN DETECT HAS MASS
GOT IT ??!
We can detect the colour "red". Does colour have mass? We can measure
the resting metabolic rate of a human. Does resting metabolic rate
have mass? We can detect tides. Do tides have mass? We can detect the
flight of bats? Does flight have mass?
No, that's not a clear definition at all.
Post by Y.Porat
WE ARE NOT IN LA LA LAND !!
of witches on brooms
------------
 but you refuse to be at all clear as
to what it is. What you mean by "mass" is not what is meant in physics
----------------
so may be its more than time to  change it
and that is exactly why i am here !!!
----------------
Post by Timo Nieminen
Post by Y.Porat
-----------------
not what it is in physics ??
No, you aren't using "mass" to mean what it means in modern physics
technical terminology.
-----------
in our case i dont mind  waht it i s in other cases
E=hf
for  me  if i see the Kilogram dimension in that
formula it is mass
now the dispute is only
whether it is relativistic or not
thats all
we cant go back to Adam and eve forever
so lest s  stick to the question is the kilograms
(prvided that we are  knowlagable enough to
know how a physics formula is built and used!!
if not we have no common  languags to dsicuss
if  you like you can get from me some basic lecture about it ....)
so
is the mass  in  E=hf
relativistic mass or  not relativistic mass
ok ??
Post by Timo Nieminen
Post by Y.Porat
do your ears here what your mouth is talking ??
so mass of what
of philosophy  of literature ??!!
we are i a physics ng
ddi you forget ??
in physics there is the
M K S system
we donnot have to nter every day to that
questin what is meter
waht is kilogram what is second
unless we aere going to mumble to  the end
of our lives
Irrelevant. And not helping to clarify what _you_ mean by "mass".
it seems that you dont understand English !!
Post by Timo Nieminen
Post by Y.Porat
if i will tell you that mass is a property of
objets to resist change in stand still of movement situation
OK, so by "mass", you mean what modern physics means by "inertia".
--------------
you can call  it by any name you   like
yet for me a showed in many ways that
there is JUST ONE KIND IF MASS !! INERTIA
WHATEVER YOU CALL IT !!
--------------> So, you could harmonise your terminology with that of modern physics,
Post by Timo Nieminen
and use "inertia" instead of "mass", and be understood.
---------------------
ok as above !!
yet please not my  unprecedented innovation--
JUST ONE KIND OF ''INERTIA'' OF MATTER !!
-------------
--------------
Post by Timo Nieminen
Do you know why modern physics distinguishes between "mass" and
"inertia"?
------------------
I DONT MIND SINCE AS ABOVE
FOR ME THERE  IS **JUST ONE KIND IF ''IT''!!
all   the others is parrots morons  mumblings
-------------
--------------
Post by Timo Nieminen
Consider the inertia of a photon. Take a photon of wavelength lambda
500nm. You can find the frequency, and the energy, and the momentum.
The momentum is p=h/lambda.
-------------
right
Post by Timo Nieminen
To adopt your definition of mass, we would say that the photon has
mass h/(c*lambda).
hc/lambda is Momentum not mass
how did you got it ??
THE  MASS   IS HIDING IN THAT h
got  it ?
----------------
Post by Timo Nieminen
Now choose a coordinate system moving at 3x10^7 m/s in the same
direction as the photon. In this coordinate system, the wavelength of
the photon is approximately 550nm.
-------------
why do you whant to obfuscate the issue
the
E=hf as found measured and defined
in just one fram that was standing still
got it
we discuss only that formula as it was foun
and defined
and you actually agreed that
in that case
nothing (NOTHING !!) IN IT IS RELATIVISTIC
 EVEN THOUGH THE PHOTONS THERE WERE MOVING AT c !!
**but the energy they emitted was
hf and nothing more than that !!!***
-------------> Calculate the "mass" (according to your definition of mass), and
Post by Timo Nieminen
compare. It's now about 10% less.
-------------
MAY BESOME NEWS FOR YOU
c moved as c and  nothing more
IN ANY FRAME !!
all the other components remain as in
the Planck frame
oh i see your problem
YOU DONT KNOW TO DEFINE
THE REAL **SINGLE  PHOTON
YOU THINK THAT hf IS THE ENERGY
OD A SINGLE PHOTON RIGHT?!
AND THAT IS WERE YOUR DEAD DOG LYE
e=hf
id theformula of ahuge bundle odf single photons
and while they run in a procession from one frame to the other moving
one
some of them are  not quick enough
(because they are limited by their c )
to  neter the second fram that is running away from the first frame
so
THE ENERGY THAT ENTERED THE SECOND FRAME
IS NOT ANY  MORE THE ORRIGINAL
ENERGY !!
------------
yet all the addditional explaantion i gave it
is not obliging my first  asetion that
nothing in the orriginal frame energy
E=hf
has nothing to  do with  relativity !!
and you attmpt to drag me to your
lack of understanding and confusion
of different issues  !!
i dont need to fall  into your trap
because it is obfuscation of the original issue
that is allin one stand still  frame !!
(tough i gave you some new hints about your
more comlicated question
but that is another oppera !!
in analysing
the trick  is to analyses *to break (cut) it to its   smaller
components  to make it as
simple and not complicated as possible !!
and   not the other way !!
that is 'analyzing '!!
-------------------
Post by Timo Nieminen
Does the mass of an object depend on our arbitrary choice of
coordinate system? According to your definition of mass, it does.
-------------
not at all
i explained to you  waht was your mistake about hf
you was wrong with your basic understanding of it
AND YOU ARE NOT THE  ONLY ONE
it is  not my fault that i am an  innovator .
--------------------..
 If> you don't like that, you need a different definition of "mass". Modern
----------
--here lies the dead dog of modern physics
E=hf
is not rhe definition of the real singlephoton !
and that is the roote of all its confusion
and ball  boglings about 'relativistic mass'
of say photons
and  mind you i have some  news for you
even in macrocosm   there is no relativistic mass!
i explained it more than once and tied of doing it
again and again !!
yet that is another Opera !!
no need tocnfuse and complicate
different   ''Operas ''
-------------
-----------------
----------> physics
physics ??? ):-)
moron  parrots  not physics
no one nominated you to epalk  in bahlf of ''physics''
just leave it to the shameless demagogue
moron parrot PD !!
the one advantage that i found in you is that
]you admitted that
E=hf as a  whole
has nothing to do with   relativity
has nothing relativistic **in it **
(you cant have a situation that
one component of it --is' relativistic'
while **the whole combination of its component**--
has    nothing relativistic !!(
theother components d nt have somemagic ability to
smother a relativistic component to be
non  relativistic !!
how many ways do you want from me
to explain the same thing (:-)
TIA
Y.Porat
TIA
Y.Porat
------------------
TIA
Y.Porat
---------------------------
something tha the pig PD still ddint
admit or understood
doesn't like that, and uses a different definition of mass,
Post by Timo Nieminen
that agrees more closely with the old Newtonian definition of mass.
(Your definition of mass has been used in physics, alonside a number
of other definitions of mass.)
Post by Y.Porat
you willgo on and ask
so
'what is a stand stillsituation
and next-- what is   a movement situation
and later you wil ask me
what is the meaning og the word what ..
in short
THE MOMENT WE FIND IN AN EXPERIMENTAL FORMULA
THE DIMENSION K
it means it has  mass !!.
Oh? And energy includes the dimensions of area. Does energy have area
in it?
No, that isn't a valid argument at all.
Post by Y.Porat
THE ONLY HISTORIC  INNOVATION I DID
AMONG ALL THE OTHERS --IS THAT
if E=hf has   **nothing to do  with  relativity***
That isn't an innovation; that's obvious from the historical sequence,
and evident to anybody who knows the difference between relativity and
quantum theory.
And it's irrelevant, anyway.- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -
Mass is infinitely dense. Einstein would say concentrated.
Mitchell Raemsch
Singularity has mass density just about infinite. GR has a universe
concentrated into a smaller than Planck size length.. That is the "Big
squeeze" TYreBert
jon car
2011-11-05 01:09:54 UTC
Permalink
Post by G=EMC^2
Post by jon car
On Nov 4, 11:45 am, Timo Nie  > > one who claims to have a point,
Post by Timo Nieminen
Post by Y.Porat
------------------
ANYTHING WE CAN DETECT HAS MASS
GOT IT ??!
We can detect the colour "red". Does colour have mass? We can measure
the resting metabolic rate of a human. Does resting metabolic rate
have mass? We can detect tides. Do tides have mass? We can detect the
flight of bats? Does flight have mass?
No, that's not a clear definition at all.
Post by Y.Porat
WE ARE NOT IN LA LA LAND !!
of witches on brooms
------------
 but you refuse to be at all clear as
to what it is. What you mean by "mass" is not what is meant in physics
----------------
so may be its more than time to  change it
and that is exactly why i am here !!!
----------------
Post by Timo Nieminen
Post by Y.Porat
-----------------
not what it is in physics ??
No, you aren't using "mass" to mean what it means in modern physics
technical terminology.
-----------
in our case i dont mind  waht it i s in other cases
E=hf
for  me  if i see the Kilogram dimension in that
formula it is mass
now the dispute is only
whether it is relativistic or not
thats all
we cant go back to Adam and eve forever
so lest s  stick to the question is the kilograms
(prvided that we are  knowlagable enough to
know how a physics formula is built and used!!
if not we have no common  languags to dsicuss
if  you like you can get from me some basic lecture about it ....)
so
is the mass  in  E=hf
relativistic mass or  not relativistic mass
ok ??
Post by Timo Nieminen
Post by Y.Porat
do your ears here what your mouth is talking ??
so mass of what
of philosophy  of literature ??!!
we are i a physics ng
ddi you forget ??
in physics there is the
M K S system
we donnot have to nter every day to that
questin what is meter
waht is kilogram what is second
unless we aere going to mumble to  the end
of our lives
Irrelevant. And not helping to clarify what _you_ mean by "mass".
it seems that you dont understand English !!
Post by Timo Nieminen
Post by Y.Porat
if i will tell you that mass is a property of
objets to resist change in stand still of movement situation
OK, so by "mass", you mean what modern physics means by "inertia".
--------------
you can call  it by any name you   like
yet for me a showed in many ways that
there is JUST ONE KIND IF MASS !! INERTIA
WHATEVER YOU CALL IT !!
--------------> So, you could harmonise your terminology with that of modern physics,
Post by Timo Nieminen
and use "inertia" instead of "mass", and be understood.
---------------------
ok as above !!
yet please not my  unprecedented innovation--
JUST ONE KIND OF ''INERTIA'' OF MATTER !!
-------------
--------------
Post by Timo Nieminen
Do you know why modern physics distinguishes between "mass" and
"inertia"?
------------------
I DONT MIND SINCE AS ABOVE
FOR ME THERE  IS **JUST ONE KIND IF ''IT''!!
all   the others is parrots morons  mumblings
-------------
--------------
Post by Timo Nieminen
Consider the inertia of a photon. Take a photon of wavelength lambda
500nm. You can find the frequency, and the energy, and the momentum.
The momentum is p=h/lambda.
-------------
right
Post by Timo Nieminen
To adopt your definition of mass, we would say that the photon has
mass h/(c*lambda).
hc/lambda is Momentum not mass
how did you got it ??
THE  MASS   IS HIDING IN THAT h
got  it ?
----------------
Post by Timo Nieminen
Now choose a coordinate system moving at 3x10^7 m/s in the same
direction as the photon. In this coordinate system, the wavelength of
the photon is approximately 550nm.
-------------
why do you whant to obfuscate the issue
the
E=hf as found measured and defined
in just one fram that was standing still
got it
we discuss only that formula as it was foun
and defined
and you actually agreed that
in that case
nothing (NOTHING !!) IN IT IS RELATIVISTIC
 EVEN THOUGH THE PHOTONS THERE WERE MOVING AT c !!
**but the energy they emitted was
hf and nothing more than that !!!***
-------------> Calculate the "mass" (according to your definition of mass), and
Post by Timo Nieminen
compare. It's now about 10% less.
-------------
MAY BESOME NEWS FOR YOU
c moved as c and  nothing more
IN ANY FRAME !!
all the other components remain as in
the Planck frame
oh i see your problem
YOU DONT KNOW TO DEFINE
THE REAL **SINGLE  PHOTON
YOU THINK THAT hf IS THE ENERGY
OD A SINGLE PHOTON RIGHT?!
AND THAT IS WERE YOUR DEAD DOG LYE
e=hf
id theformula of ahuge bundle odf single photons
and while they run in a procession from one frame to the other moving
one
some of them are  not quick enough
(because they are limited by their c )
to  neter the second fram that is running away from the first frame
so
THE ENERGY THAT ENTERED THE SECOND FRAME
IS NOT ANY  MORE THE ORRIGINAL
ENERGY !!
------------
yet all the addditional explaantion i gave it
is not obliging my first  asetion that
nothing in the orriginal frame energy
E=hf
has nothing to  do with  relativity !!
and you attmpt to drag me to your
lack of understanding and confusion
of different issues  !!
i dont need to fall  into your trap
because it is obfuscation of the original issue
that is allin one stand still  frame !!
(tough i gave you some new hints about your
more comlicated question
but that is another oppera !!
in analysing
the trick  is to analyses *to break (cut) it to its   smaller
components  to make it as
simple and not complicated as possible !!
and   not the other way !!
that is 'analyzing '!!
-------------------
Post by Timo Nieminen
Does the mass of an object depend on our arbitrary choice of
coordinate system? According to your definition of mass, it does.
-------------
not at all
i explained to you  waht was your mistake about hf
you was wrong with your basic understanding of it
AND YOU ARE NOT THE  ONLY ONE
it is  not my fault that i am an  innovator .
--------------------..
 If> you don't like that, you need a different definition of "mass". Modern
----------
--here lies the dead dog of modern physics
E=hf
is not rhe definition of the real singlephoton !
and that is the roote of all its confusion
and ball  boglings about 'relativistic mass'
of say photons
and  mind you i have some  news for you
even in macrocosm   there is no relativistic mass!
i explained it more than once and tied of doing it
again and again !!
yet that is another Opera !!
no need tocnfuse and complicate
different   ''Operas ''
-------------
-----------------
----------> physics
physics ??? ):-)
moron  parrots  not physics
no one nominated you to epalk  in bahlf of ''physics''
just leave it to the shameless demagogue
moron parrot PD !!
the one advantage that i found in you is that
]you admitted that
E=hf as a  whole
has nothing to do with   relativity
has nothing relativistic **in it **
(you cant have a situation that
one component of it --is' relativistic'
while **the whole combination of its component**--
has    nothing relativistic !!(
theother components d nt have somemagic ability to
smother a relativistic component to be
non  relativistic !!
how many ways do you want from me
to explain the same thing (:-)
TIA
Y.Porat
TIA
Y.Porat
------------------
TIA
Y.Porat
---------------------------
something tha the pig PD still ddint
admit or understood
doesn't like that, and uses a different definition of mass,
Post by Timo Nieminen
that agrees more closely with the old Newtonian definition of mass.
(Your definition of mass has been used in physics, alonside a number
of other definitions of mass.)
Post by Y.Porat
you willgo on and ask
so
'what is a stand stillsituation
and next-- what is   a movement situation
and later you wil ask me
what is the meaning og the word what ..
in short
THE MOMENT WE FIND IN AN EXPERIMENTAL FORMULA
THE DIMENSION K
it means it has  mass !!.
Oh? And energy includes the dimensions of area. Does energy have area
in it?
No, that isn't a valid argument at all.
Post by Y.Porat
THE ONLY HISTORIC  INNOVATION I DID
AMONG ALL THE OTHERS --IS THAT
if E=hf has   **nothing to do  with  relativity***
That isn't an innovation; that's obvious from the historical sequence,
and evident to anybody who knows the difference between relativity and
quantum theory.
And it's irrelevant, anyway.- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -
Mass is infinitely dense. Einstein would say concentrated.
Mitchell Raemsch
Singularity has mass density just about infinite. GR has a universe
concentrated into a smaller than Planck size length.. That is the "Big
HBar is set to One.
Post by G=EMC^2
squeeze"   TYreBert- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -
How about gravity drop off inside the black hole like anything else?
That is not what Einstein's original theory said.

Mitchell Raemsch
Unified_Perspective
2011-11-05 02:56:25 UTC
Permalink
Photon's in a Box.

If you released a one Kg pulse of light from the center of a mirrored
box it would not increase the gravitational mass of the closed system
at all, assuming a spherically symmetric light pulse.

It would temporarily increase the inertial mass of the box as the
external acceleration put upon the box would deform the spherical
symmetry of the pulse trapped within.

In time the pulse would be absorbed by the box and its quasi kinetic
energy would be converted into heat. Causing the gravitational and
inertial energies to resume their normal condition of equality.

When Max Planck originally derived E=hf he gave it as E=hf. He was
equating the total energy of emitted light and thermo-dynamic energy
of the matter in the light source so this is the correct scalar form.

If you assume the perspective of a frame of reference moving with an
individual photon then f falls to zero and E=h ergs, but no ergs per
second. If you assume the frame of a stationary observer then E=-hf.

Before it was created the photon had a certain thermal and dynamic
energy in the atom. Once emitted it carries this energy along with.
The apparent kinetic energy is highly dependent upon the frame of
reference of the observer. If it is absorbed - ie observed, then the
thermal energy recovered is influenced by any observer motion relative
to the source.

Critics will argue that the solar wind proves that light has a
positive momentum. The near solar wind is composed mostly of particles
with a measurable rest mass and thus a push. The photons do not, in
fact they pull!

This can be demonstrated by a correct understanding of photon
absorption. Photon's which are absorbed by electrons excite the
electrons. The effective orbital radius is incrementally increased
which reduces the electrons speed but increases its total energy.
(Orbital mechanics are complex and tend to work backwards of what we
tend to consider "normal". (Consider the spinning figure skater, arms
in = faster, arms out = slower, rotational energy arms in or out is
equal.)

In photon absorption the photon has "lifted" the electron to a higher
orbital, increasing its energy, but reducing its speed.

In photon emission the electron "falls" to a lower orbital. In doing
so it rips a hole in the fields of space-time (momentum) and electro-
magnetic (spectral lines and such) in order to maintain a net
thermodynamic equilibrium. These holes self propagate at a fixed rate
of c regardless of frame of reference.

The light from stars we have left behind will never catch up. Their
matter and energy are now dead to us.

We can reasonably infer that these stars once existed because the
ghost of their material presence is still observable to us as if a
"dark matter" that we calculate must have once existed is now gone and
their apparent demise further demonstrated by a "dark energy" that we
observe is causing our still observable universe to appear as if it is
expanding at an ever increasing rate.

We currently observe that these bygone stars nearer or speedier
cousins are in the process of red-shifting their way toward
observational oblivion and we can reasonably infer that this has been
going on for some time now.

What we observe clearly indicates that vast distance and or fast
relative motion cause apparently "real" changes in "real" mass, in
exactly the same relative way that these factors effect apparent
photon mass and energies.

AAG
Timo Nieminen
2011-11-04 20:21:09 UTC
Permalink
Post by Y.Porat
On Nov 4, 11:45 am, Timo Nie
Post by Timo Nieminen
Post by Y.Porat
------------------
ANYTHING WE CAN DETECT HAS MASS
GOT IT ??!
We can detect the colour "red". Does colour have mass? We can measure
the resting metabolic rate of a human. Does resting metabolic rate
have mass? We can detect tides. Do tides have mass? We can detect the
flight of bats? Does flight have mass?
No, that's not a clear definition at all.
Post by Y.Porat
WE ARE NOT IN LA LA LAND !!
of witches on brooms
------------
 but you refuse to be at all clear as
to what it is. What you mean by "mass" is not what is meant in physics
----------------
so may be its more than time to  change it
and that is exactly why i am here !!!
----------------
But you KEEP REFUSING to define YOUR meaning of "mass", to explain
clearly what YOU mean by "mass". If you don't even try to explain your
terminology, how do you expect people to understant? Telepathy?
Post by Y.Porat
Post by Timo Nieminen
Post by Y.Porat
-----------------
not what it is in physics ??
No, you aren't using "mass" to mean what it means in modern physics
technical terminology.
Post by Y.Porat
if i will tell you that mass is a property of
objets to resist change in stand still of movement situation
OK, so by "mass", you mean what modern physics means by "inertia".
--------------
you can call  it by any name you   like
yet for me a showed in many ways that
there is JUST ONE KIND IF MASS !! INERTIA
WHATEVER YOU CALL IT !!
There have been at least three distinct usages of the word "mass" in
physics. At first, people didn't realise they meant different things.
When this was realised, it was time to change.
Post by Y.Porat
Post by Timo Nieminen
So, you could harmonise your terminology with that of modern physics,
and use "inertia" instead of "mass", and be understood.
---------------------
ok as above !!
yet please not my  unprecedented innovation--
JUST ONE KIND OF ''INERTIA'' OF MATTER !!
-------------
If you actually do this, you won't get much argument about it. Go
ahead, call it inertia. Maybe people will begin to understand you.
Post by Y.Porat
Post by Timo Nieminen
Do you know why modern physics distinguishes between "mass" and
"inertia"?
------------------
I DONT MIND SINCE AS ABOVE
FOR ME THERE  IS **JUST ONE KIND IF ''IT''!!
all   the others is parrots morons  mumblings
-------------
--------------
Post by Timo Nieminen
Consider the inertia of a photon. Take a photon of wavelength lambda
500nm. You can find the frequency, and the energy, and the momentum.
The momentum is p=h/lambda.
-------------
right
Post by Timo Nieminen
To adopt your definition of mass, we would say that the photon has
mass h/(c*lambda).
hc/lambda is Momentum not mass
hc/lambda is not h/(c*lambda). In any case, h/lambda is the momentum
of a photon. If you disagree that, with your definition of "mass", h/
(c*lambda) would be the "mass" of a photon, what do you say it would
be?

Isn't it just a matter of your "mass" = E/c^2 = hf/c^2 = h*(f/c) * 1/c
= h/lambda *1/c = h/(c*lambda)?
Post by Y.Porat
how did you got it ??
THE  MASS   IS HIDING IN THAT h
got  it ?
----------------
Post by Timo Nieminen
Now choose a coordinate system moving at 3x10^7 m/s in the same
direction as the photon. In this coordinate system, the wavelength of
the photon is approximately 550nm.
-------------
why do you whant to obfuscate the issue
the
E=hf as found measured and defined
in just one fram that was standing still
No. E=hf works in all inertial frames.

Really, E=hf is irrelevant to this. Try the pre-quantum version then:

Take a pulse of light, collimated, of total energy 1J, with a spectrum
with central wavelength 500nm.

Energy is 1J, momentum is 1/3e8 kg.m/s, inertia in units of mass is 1/
(3e8)^2 kg.

Now choose a coordinate system moving at 3x10^7 m/s in the same
direction as the pulse. In this coordinate system, the central
wavelength of
the spectrum of the pulse is approximately 550nm, the energy is
approximately 0.9J, momentum is 0.9/3e8 kg.m/s, inertia in units of
mass is 0.9/(3e8)^2 kg.

In this coordinate system, the inertia is different. That's what _you_
want to call "mass". You think it's OK for the "mass" to depend on our
arbitrary choice of coordinate system? Modern physics has decided
"no", and what modern physics calls "mass" doesn't depend on our
choice of coordinate system.
Post by Y.Porat
Post by Timo Nieminen
Does the mass of an object depend on our arbitrary choice of
coordinate system? According to your definition of mass, it does.
-------------
not at all
i explained to you  waht was your mistake about hf
No, you incoherently frothed at the mouth. Try again with the "no
E=hf" version above. What it comes down to is that what you want to
call "mass" depends on our arbitrary choice of coordinate system.
Post by Y.Porat
you was wrong with your basic understanding of it
AND YOU ARE NOT THE  ONLY ONE
it is  not my fault that i am an  innovator .
--------------------..
Chest-beating about being an innovator, when this all dates back to
the 1800s, is not a valid argument.

If you can't explain your position and argument clearly and
coherently, how will anybody know you actually have one? How will
_you_ know you have one?
Y.Porat
2011-11-05 04:00:08 UTC
Permalink
Post by Y.Porat
Post by Y.Porat
On Nov 4, 11:45 am, Timo Nie
Post by Timo Nieminen
Post by Y.Porat
------------------
ANYTHING WE CAN DETECT HAS MASS
GOT IT ??!
We can detect the colour "red". Does colour have mass? We can measure
the resting metabolic rate of a human. Does resting metabolic rate
have mass? We can detect tides. Do tides have mass? We can detect the
flight of bats? Does flight have mass?
--------------------
you begine t o cheat AND OBFUSCATE Mr Nimo
if E=hf was found to be right
as not relativistic
in just one frame
then is it relativistic ??
you admitted that
E=hf
is not relativistic
do you want now to deny that you agreed about it ??

(please note that i start to be tired of your
dishonest and inconsistent behavior

and if is that your croocked tactics
s you will have to go on to discuss with your
idiot parrot friends not with me !!
-----------

-
i explained to you dumbo
what i smass for me and you keep on asking me what is mass
mass is as Newton defined it
in one frame
and if we find kilograms of it in a formula
it is enough to say that the formula has mass
NOW
if you say something is relativistic
THE BURDEN OF PROVE IS ON YOU
NOT ON ME !!
2
i expanded to you dumbo
that
E=hf
IS NOT THE FORMULA FOR THE REAL
SINGLE PHOTON!!
DiD YOU UNDERSTOOD MY EXPLANATION?
and please
if you ddint understand it
or dont agree with it just let us that you
dont understand or dont agree

just tell us that you dont understand or dont agree with it
and we will know with whom we are dealing here !!
because the above is the KEY
to understand the behavior of a photon
in two frames !!
NOT AS A common PARROT BUT AS A THINKING SCIENTIST !!


AND NOT LEAST:
DID YOU UNDERSTAND IT S
MEANING ABOUT
PHOTONS IN DIFFERNT FRAMES ??

IF NOT ASK AGAIN
and if even after my explanations you still dont agree **or get it**
then go discuss with your kind of parrots not with me
i prefer honest cleaver people !!

TIA
Y.Porat
------------------------
Timo Nieminen
2011-11-05 04:48:17 UTC
Permalink
Post by Y.Porat
Post by Y.Porat
On Nov 4, 11:45 am, Timo Nie
Post by Timo Nieminen
Post by Y.Porat
------------------
ANYTHING WE CAN DETECT HAS MASS
GOT IT ??!
We can detect the colour "red". Does colour have mass? We can measure
the resting metabolic rate of a human. Does resting metabolic rate
have mass? We can detect tides. Do tides have mass? We can detect the
flight of bats? Does flight have mass?
--------------------
you  begine t o cheat  AND OBFUSCATE  Mr Nimo
if E=hf was found  to be right
as not relativistic
 in just one frame
 then is it relativistic ??
you admitted that
E=hf
is not relativistic
do you want  now to deny that you agreed about it ??
When I say it isn't "relativistic", I mean that it isn't a "special
(or general) relativity thing". What do _you_ mean by "relativistic"?

The expression for kinetic energy from classical mechanics, KE =
(1/2)m*v^2 is generally agreed to not be "relativistic", again in the
sense that it isn't a special (or general) relativity thing. However,
it is very much dependent on our choice of coordinate system.

You say that what you mean by "mass" is "inertia", including for
photons. Experimentally, we find that this is dependent on our choice
of coordinate system. For light, specifically, this dates back to 1876
(Bartoli). For inertia of energy in general, it dates back to 1874
(Umov). It was implicit in Maxwell's results for radiation pressure
(1873 at the latest). Are you trying to claim that these results,
which predate special and general relativity by decades, are somehow
"relativistic"?

If so, you really need to explain what _you_ mean by "relativistic".

You've refused over and over to even try to define what you mean by
"mass", and then when you finally admit that you mean "inertia", you
refuse to discuss that, and instead focus on the entirely irrelevant
matter of whether E=hf is "relativistic".

Here is the non-relativistic, non-quantum version:

Take a pulse of light, collimated, of total energy 1J, with a spectrum
with central wavelength 500nm.

Energy is 1J, momentum is 1/3e8 kg.m/s, inertia in units of mass is 1/
(3e8)^2 kg.

Now choose a coordinate system moving at 3x10^7 m/s in the same
direction as the pulse. In this coordinate system, the central
wavelength of the spectrum of the pulse is approximately 550nm, the
energy is approximately 0.9J, momentum is 0.9/3e8 kg.m/s, inertia in
units of mass is 0.9/(3e8)^2 kg.

In this coordinate system, the inertia is different. That's what YOU
want to call "mass". You think it's OK for the "mass" to depend on our
arbitrary choice of coordinate system? Modern physics has decided
"no", and what modern physics calls "mass" doesn't depend on our
choice of coordinate system.

But YOU want to call it mass. Why not call it "inertia", and be
understood more easily? But whether or not you call it "mass" or
"inertia", that's a matter of nomenclature, not physics. Not a new
contribution to physics - physics has been there and done that,
discovered the problems with calling "inertia" "mass", and moved on to
more sound terminology).
i explained to you dumbo
what i smass for me and you keep on asking me what is mass
mass is as Newton defined it
in one frame
No, that isn't what you said at all. You refused, over and over, to
explain what you meant, and when you did explain it, that wasn't your
explanation. I kept on asking you to explain because you kept on
refusing to explain.

If you are now going to descend into insults and lies, then be off
with you!
Y.Porat
2011-11-05 08:16:10 UTC
Permalink
On Nov 5, 6:48 am, Timo "relativistic"?
Post by Timo Nieminen
If so, you really need to explain what _you_ mean by "relativistic".
You've refused over and over to even try to define what you mean by
"mass", and then when you finally admit that you mean "inertia", you
refuse to discuss that, and instead focus on the entirely irrelevant
matter of whether E=hf is "relativistic".
-------------------
=========================
if that is irrelevant to you than
you are a moron parrot !!!

2
just came back t o me
**ONLY AFTER YOU UNDERSTAND THAT
E=hf
IS NOT THE FORMULA OF A SINGLE PHOTON **

got it little parrot ??


if you dont understand that you understand nothing about our issue
about
photons and SR !!!
you are a incurable parrot!!
so again
we will go on with our discussion
only if you understand the above
meaning of ( E=hf !!!
(that is not the formula for a SINGLE PHOTON !!!
that is were the dead dog lye!! )

or else we have no common language !!

BTW
from the Tons masses of your mumbling and walking around the bush
i guess you are a 'physics teacher' (:-)
is it a right guess ??

Y.Porat
-----------------
Timo Nieminen
2011-11-05 09:05:08 UTC
Permalink
On Nov 5, 6:48 am, Timo   "relativistic"?
Post by Timo Nieminen
If so, you really need to explain what _you_ mean by "relativistic".
You've refused over and over to even try to define what you mean by
"mass", and then when you finally admit that you mean "inertia", you
refuse to discuss that, and instead focus on the entirely irrelevant
matter of whether E=hf is "relativistic".
-------------------
=========================
if that is irrelevant to you than
you are a moron  parrot !!!
OK, so you ignore the point of the discussion, and descend into
psychopathic insults and hostility. Why? To avoid the issue at hand?

Where we were at (apart from you refusing to state your position
clearly) was the non-relativistic, non-quantum version of the problem
(that it is non-relativistic shows that the question of whether E=hf
is "relativistic" is irrelevant, that it is non-quantum shows that
E=hf is irrelevant):

Take a pulse of light, collimated, of total energy 1J, with a spectrum
with central wavelength 500nm.

Energy is 1J, momentum is 1/3e8 kg.m/s, inertia in units of mass is 1/
(3e8)^2 kg.

Now choose a coordinate system moving at 3x10^7 m/s in the same
direction as the pulse. In this coordinate system, the central
wavelength of the spectrum of the pulse is approximately 550nm, the
energy is approximately 0.9J, momentum is 0.9/3e8 kg.m/s, inertia in
units of mass is 0.9/(3e8)^2 kg.

In this coordinate system, the inertia is different. That's what YOU
want to call "mass". You think it's OK for the "mass" to depend on our
arbitrary choice of coordinate system? Modern physics has decided
"no", and what modern physics calls "mass" doesn't depend on our
choice of coordinate system.

But YOU want to call it mass. Why not call it "inertia", and be
understood more easily? But whether or not you call it "mass" or
"inertia", that's a matter of nomenclature, not physics. Not a new
contribution to physics - physics has been there and done that,
discovered the problems with calling "inertia" "mass", and moved on to
more sound terminology).
Y.Porat
2011-11-05 09:28:02 UTC
Permalink
Post by Timo Nieminen
On Nov 5, 6:48 am, Timo   "relativistic"?
Post by Timo Nieminen
If so, you really need to explain what _you_ mean by "relativistic".
You've refused over and over to even try to define what you mean by
"mass", and then when you finally admit that you mean "inertia", you
refuse to discuss that, and instead focus on the entirely irrelevant
matter of whether E=hf is "relativistic".
-------------------
=========================
if that is irrelevant to you than
you are a moron  parrot !!!
OK, so you ignore the point of the discussion, and descend into
psychopathic insults and hostility. Why? To avoid the issue at hand?
Where we were at (apart from you refusing to state your position
clearly) was the non-relativistic, non-quantum version of the problem
(that it is non-relativistic shows that the question of whether E=hf
is "relativistic" is irrelevant, that it is non-quantum shows that
Take a pulse of light, collimated, of total energy 1J, with a spectrum
with central wavelength 500nm.
Energy is 1J, momentum is 1/3e8 kg.m/s, inertia in units of mass is 1/
(3e8)^2 kg.
Now choose a coordinate system moving at 3x10^7 m/s in the same
direction as the pulse. In this coordinate system, the central
wavelength of the spectrum of the pulse is approximately 550nm, the
energy is approximately 0.9J, momentum is 0.9/3e8 kg.m/s, inertia in
units of mass is 0.9/(3e8)^2 kg.
In this coordinate system, the inertia is different. That's what YOU
want to call "mass". You think it's OK for the "mass" to depend on our
arbitrary choice of coordinate system? Modern physics has decided
"no", and what modern physics calls "mass" doesn't depend on our
choice of coordinate system.
But YOU want to call it mass. Why not call it "inertia", and be
understood more easily? But whether or not you call it "mass" or
"inertia", that's a matter of nomenclature, not physics. Not a new
contribution to physics - physics has been there and done that,
discovered the problems with calling "inertia" "mass", and moved on to
more sound terminology).
----------------------
Oh Gosh !!!
are you unable to talk short and to the point ??
i asked you if you are a physics teacher
and you dont answer

2
i asked youis you understand that
E]hf
IS **NOT THE FORMULA FOR A SINGLE PHOTON
and you dont answer !!
just try to believe an old goth like me
(73 howold ate you??
it seems that hings thati started to forget
you stil didnt learn !!)

so jsut give me some credit to believe that
(E=hf not the formula of a single photon!!)

is an invaluable key to understand a lot of confusion that is in
'''modern physics'' !!
(it is an historic copyright of mine !!)

anyway
you admitted that
E=hf has nothing to do with relativity
and that by itself is a great achievement of mine
(to extract such admittance( by itself) !!
from a common physicist it is not common regular understanding as for
now !!)
it seems that you dont understand even what you admitted
(while you had no choice but to admit it !!
because that is the true facts )

ATB
Y.Porat
-----------------------
Timo Nieminen
2011-11-05 11:34:29 UTC
Permalink
Post by Y.Porat
Post by Timo Nieminen
On Nov 5, 6:48 am, Timo   "relativistic"?
Post by Timo Nieminen
If so, you really need to explain what _you_ mean by "relativistic".
You've refused over and over to even try to define what you mean by
"mass", and then when you finally admit that you mean "inertia", you
refuse to discuss that, and instead focus on the entirely irrelevant
matter of whether E=hf is "relativistic".
-------------------
=========================
if that is irrelevant to you than
you are a moron  parrot !!!
OK, so you ignore the point of the discussion, and descend into
psychopathic insults and hostility. Why? To avoid the issue at hand?
Where we were at (apart from you refusing to state your position
clearly) was the non-relativistic, non-quantum version of the problem
(that it is non-relativistic shows that the question of whether E=hf
is "relativistic" is irrelevant, that it is non-quantum shows that
Take a pulse of light, collimated, of total energy 1J, with a spectrum
with central wavelength 500nm.
Energy is 1J, momentum is 1/3e8 kg.m/s, inertia in units of mass is 1/
(3e8)^2 kg.
Now choose a coordinate system moving at 3x10^7 m/s in the same
direction as the pulse. In this coordinate system, the central
wavelength of the spectrum of the pulse is approximately 550nm, the
energy is approximately 0.9J, momentum is 0.9/3e8 kg.m/s, inertia in
units of mass is 0.9/(3e8)^2 kg.
In this coordinate system, the inertia is different. That's what YOU
want to call "mass". You think it's OK for the "mass" to depend on our
arbitrary choice of coordinate system? Modern physics has decided
"no", and what modern physics calls "mass" doesn't depend on our
choice of coordinate system.
But YOU want to call it mass. Why not call it "inertia", and be
understood more easily? But whether or not you call it "mass" or
"inertia", that's a matter of nomenclature, not physics. Not a new
contribution to physics - physics has been there and done that,
discovered the problems with calling "inertia" "mass", and moved on to
more sound terminology).
----------------------
Oh  Gosh  !!!
are you  unable to talk short and to  the  point ??
i asked you if you are a physics teacher
and you dont answer
2
i asked youis you understand that
E]hf
IS  **NOT THE FORMULA FOR A SINGLE PHOTON
and you dont answer !!
just try to believe an old  goth  like me
(73  howold ate you??
it seems that hings thati started to forget
you stil didnt learn !!)
so   jsut give me some credit  to believe that
(E=hf  not the formula  of a single photon!!)
That's something else entirely. You asked:

(a) Whether E=hf is relativistic - it predates relativity by years,
and it isn't relativistic; it's a quantum thing. Relativity is not the
same thing as quantum theory. This isn't anything new or surprising.

(b) You asked whether there is "mass in energy" (while refusing, over
and over, to explain clearly what you mean by "mass".

Whether or not (c) "E=hf is the formula of a single photon" is
entirely different from these. If you wanted to ask about (c), why ask
about an entirely different (a) and (b)? Further, if you don't agree
with Planck's E=hf (as the quantisation of EM energy) - that is, you
don't believe that E=hf, then how can it be relevant whether E=hf is
relativistic?

Why change the subject to something irrelevant to the previous? If you
weren't interested in discussing the previous topic, why did you keep
asking questions about it?

Where we were at (apart from you refusing to state your position
clearly) was the non-relativistic, non-quantum version of the problem
(that it is non-relativistic shows that the question of whether E=hf
is "relativistic" is irrelevant, that it is non-quantum shows that
E=hf is irrelevant):

Take a pulse of light, collimated, of total energy 1J, with a spectrum
with central wavelength 500nm.

Energy is 1J, momentum is 1/3e8 kg.m/s, inertia in units of mass is 1/
(3e8)^2 kg.

Now choose a coordinate system moving at 3x10^7 m/s in the same
direction as the pulse. In this coordinate system, the central
wavelength of the spectrum of the pulse is approximately 550nm, the
energy is approximately 0.9J, momentum is 0.9/3e8 kg.m/s, inertia in
units of mass is 0.9/(3e8)^2 kg.

In this coordinate system, the inertia is different. That's what YOU
want to call "mass". You think it's OK for the "mass" to depend on our
arbitrary choice of coordinate system? Modern physics has decided
"no", and what modern physics calls "mass" doesn't depend on our
choice of coordinate system.

But YOU want to call it mass. Why not call it "inertia", and be
understood more easily? But whether or not you call it "mass" or
"inertia", that's a matter of nomenclature, not physics. Not a new
contribution to physics - physics has been there and done that,
discovered the problems with calling "inertia" "mass", and moved on to
more sound terminology).

There are questions above, which you have now refused, rudely, to
answer many times over. You've asked questions, and I've answered.
Don't you have the common decency to answer mine?
Y.Porat
2011-11-05 13:40:14 UTC
Permalink
Post by Timo Nieminen
Post by Y.Porat
Post by Timo Nieminen
On Nov 5, 6:48 am, Timo   "relativistic"?
Post by Timo Nieminen
If so, you really need to explain what _you_ mean by "relativistic".
You've refused over and over to even try to define what you mean by
"mass", and then when you finally admit that you mean "inertia", you
refuse to discuss that, and instead focus on the entirely irrelevant
matter of whether E=hf is "relativistic".
-------------------
=========================
if that is irrelevant to you than
you are a moron  parrot !!!
OK, so you ignore the point of the discussion, and descend into
psychopathic insults and hostility. Why? To avoid the issue at hand?
Where we were at (apart from you refusing to state your position
clearly) was the non-relativistic, non-quantum version of the problem
(that it is non-relativistic shows that the question of whether E=hf
is "relativistic" is irrelevant, that it is non-quantum shows that
Take a pulse of light, collimated, of total energy 1J, with a spectrum
with central wavelength 500nm.
Energy is 1J, momentum is 1/3e8 kg.m/s, inertia in units of mass is 1/
(3e8)^2 kg.
Now choose a coordinate system moving at 3x10^7 m/s in the same
direction as the pulse. In this coordinate system, the central
wavelength of the spectrum of the pulse is approximately 550nm, the
energy is approximately 0.9J, momentum is 0.9/3e8 kg.m/s, inertia in
units of mass is 0.9/(3e8)^2 kg.
In this coordinate system, the inertia is different. That's what YOU
want to call "mass". You think it's OK for the "mass" to depend on our
arbitrary choice of coordinate system? Modern physics has decided
"no", and what modern physics calls "mass" doesn't depend on our
choice of coordinate system.
But YOU want to call it mass. Why not call it "inertia", and be
understood more easily? But whether or not you call it "mass" or
"inertia", that's a matter of nomenclature, not physics. Not a new
contribution to physics - physics has been there and done that,
discovered the problems with calling "inertia" "mass", and moved on to
more sound terminology).
----------------------
Oh  Gosh  !!!
are you  unable to talk short and to  the  point ??
i asked you if you are a physics teacher
and you dont answer
2
i asked youis you understand that
E]hf
IS  **NOT THE FORMULA FOR A SINGLE PHOTON
and you dont answer !!
just try to believe an old  goth  like me
(73  howold ate you??
it seems that hings thati started to forget
you stil didnt learn !!)
so   jsut give me some credit  to believe that
(E=hf  not the formula  of a single photon!!)
(a) Whether E=hf is relativistic - it predates relativity by years,
and it isn't relativistic; it's a quantum thing. Relativity is not the
same thing as quantum theory. This isn't anything new or surprising.
---------------------
wrong
you ar enot in the picyure!!

all current physics will ''tell you'' that
th emass of the phootn is relativistic !!

and a whole pile of shit physics i s built on that !!
-----------------
Post by Timo Nieminen
(b) You asked whether there is "mass in energy" (while refusing, over
and over, to explain clearly what you mean by "mass".
imBecilE
i asked you if there is the mass dimension in it
I DONT NEED MORE THAN THAT !!
JUST THE MASS DIMENSION
and if so does it mean that the mass in
hf is relativistic??
if you know how a physics formula is built i wil tell you some hints
it is compsed of physical dimensions
MKS)
and scalars that multiply it tofit it to
experimental data
without those dimensions whi each one is critic toits validity
there is no physical formula
(it is worth nothiong
now
idiot
tel me what is the scalar multiplyer
in hf that multiplies **anything** there
to be relativistic ??
-------------
Post by Timo Nieminen
Whether or not (c) "E=hf is the formula of a single photon" is
entirely different from these. If you wanted to ask about (c),
ok what is relativistic in c ???
---------------

why ask
Post by Timo Nieminen
about an entirely different (a) and (b)? Further, if you don't agree
with Planck's E=hf (as the quantisation of EM energy) - that is, you
don't believe that E=hf, then how can it be relevant whether E=hf is
relativistic?
see above
what is the relativistic scalar in that formula ??
(th e mass dinension is already there
whether you understand it or not
it is there!!
----------------
Post by Timo Nieminen
Why change the subject to something irrelevant to the previous?
----------
idiot an there be something more relevant than my
above questions ??!!
------------------
If you
Post by Timo Nieminen
weren't interested in discussing the previous topic, why did you keep
asking questions about it?
------------
it is about photons isn t it
so ??
photons or photon energy is not relevant to it
or may be you brain is not relevant ??
----------------------
Post by Timo Nieminen
Where we were at (apart from you refusing to state your position
clearly) was the non-relativistic, non-quantum version
---
you are cheating
i never said non quantum !!
i said
non relativistic
quantum is not relativity
it was defined 5 years before
got it ??
-------------------
of the problem
Post by Timo Nieminen
(that it is non-relativistic shows that the question of whether E=hf
is "relativistic" is irrelevant, that it is non-quantum shows that
--
you are not relevant !! who are you to decide if it is relevant or
not ??

BTW
even if it was not relevant- cant you answer
as a BTW question ( a '''not relevant question'')
is the mass in hf relativistic or not ??!!
just for general education (:-)
-------------
Post by Timo Nieminen
Take a pulse of light, collimated, of total energy 1J, with a spectrum
with central wavelength 500nm.
Energy is 1J, momentum is 1/3e8 kg.m/s, inertia in units of mass is 1/
(3e8)^2 kg.
Now choose a coordinate system moving at 3x10^7 m/s in the same
direction as the pulse. In this coordinate system, the central
wavelength of the spectrum of the pulse is approximately 550nm, the
energy is approximately 0.9J, momentum is 0.9/3e8 kg.m/s, inertia in
units of mass is 0.9/(3e8)^2 kg.
In this coordinate system, the inertia is different. That's what YOU
want to call "mass". You think it's OK for the "mass" to depend on our
arbitrary choice of coordinate system? Modern physics has decided
"no", and what modern physics calls "mass" doesn't depend on our
choice of coordinate system.
------------
i told yoi idiot incurable parrot that if you dont know
the meaning of hf
all your clacualtions about hf in another frame
are bullshit
---------
hf is th e formula of a huge number of single photons !!
can you operagte your brain
t o uderstand how i is works
in a secondary moving frame ??

is it not a little or a big ball that is called hf
it is an enormous stream of single masses moving entities
moving like a procession of them
one after the other !!
not one tenis ball that changes its mass
miraculously jus t because
Nimo had it in his imagination !!

i showed and proved that
the real single photon formula
listen carefully to that histiric copyright
and dont forget who told you that for the first time
the realsingle photon energy is

hf TIMES n
while
0 > n <<<< 1.0000

got it and its meaning ??
including its behavior in a secondary frame
while billions of those single photons are running one after the
other
with the velocity c ????!!


TIA
Y.Porat
--------------------------
PD
2011-11-05 14:22:40 UTC
Permalink
Post by Y.Porat
Post by Y.Porat
---------------------
wrong
you ar enot in the picyure!!
all  current physics will  ''tell  you''  that
th emass of the phootn is relativistic !!
and a whole pile of shit physics i s  built on  that !!
Porat, catch up.
Truly modern physics will tell you that the mass of the photon is
zero, not "relativistic".
You are using a terminology is a half-century old, not modern at all.
Y.Porat
2011-11-05 16:37:15 UTC
Permalink
Post by PD
Post by Y.Porat
Post by Y.Porat
---------------------
wrong
you ar enot in the picyure!!
all  current physics will  ''tell  you''  that
th emass of the phootn is relativistic !!
and a whole pile of shit physics i s  built on  that !!
Porat, catch up.
Truly modern physics will tell you that the mass of the photon is
zero, not "relativistic".
You are using a terminology is a half-century old, not modern at all.
-------------
):-)
so ??

there is no mass at all ??
or you say it is relativistic mass ??
you cant deny that the kilogram dimssion is there
so
just show me where do you see
any zero multiplier in the formula

TIA
Y.Porat
-----------------------

E=hf

TIA
Y.Porat
-------------------
Timo Nieminen
2011-11-05 19:41:01 UTC
Permalink
Post by Y.Porat
Post by Timo Nieminen
Post by Y.Porat
Post by Timo Nieminen
On Nov 5, 6:48 am, Timo   "relativistic"?
Post by Timo Nieminen
If so, you really need to explain what _you_ mean by "relativistic".
You've refused over and over to even try to define what you mean by
"mass", and then when you finally admit that you mean "inertia", you
refuse to discuss that, and instead focus on the entirely irrelevant
matter of whether E=hf is "relativistic".
-------------------
=========================
if that is irrelevant to you than
you are a moron  parrot !!!
OK, so you ignore the point of the discussion, and descend into
psychopathic insults and hostility. Why? To avoid the issue at hand?
Where we were at (apart from you refusing to state your position
clearly) was the non-relativistic, non-quantum version of the problem
(that it is non-relativistic shows that the question of whether E=hf
is "relativistic" is irrelevant, that it is non-quantum shows that
Take a pulse of light, collimated, of total energy 1J, with a spectrum
with central wavelength 500nm.
Energy is 1J, momentum is 1/3e8 kg.m/s, inertia in units of mass is 1/
(3e8)^2 kg.
Now choose a coordinate system moving at 3x10^7 m/s in the same
direction as the pulse. In this coordinate system, the central
wavelength of the spectrum of the pulse is approximately 550nm, the
energy is approximately 0.9J, momentum is 0.9/3e8 kg.m/s, inertia in
units of mass is 0.9/(3e8)^2 kg.
In this coordinate system, the inertia is different. That's what YOU
want to call "mass". You think it's OK for the "mass" to depend on our
arbitrary choice of coordinate system? Modern physics has decided
"no", and what modern physics calls "mass" doesn't depend on our
choice of coordinate system.
But YOU want to call it mass. Why not call it "inertia", and be
understood more easily? But whether or not you call it "mass" or
"inertia", that's a matter of nomenclature, not physics. Not a new
contribution to physics - physics has been there and done that,
discovered the problems with calling "inertia" "mass", and moved on to
more sound terminology).
----------------------
Oh  Gosh  !!!
are you  unable to talk short and to  the  point ??
i asked you if you are a physics teacher
and you dont answer
2
i asked youis you understand that
E]hf
IS  **NOT THE FORMULA FOR A SINGLE PHOTON
and you dont answer !!
just try to believe an old  goth  like me
(73  howold ate you??
it seems that hings thati started to forget
you stil didnt learn !!)
so   jsut give me some credit  to believe that
(E=hf  not the formula  of a single photon!!)
(a) Whether E=hf is relativistic - it predates relativity by years,
and it isn't relativistic; it's a quantum thing. Relativity is not the
same thing as quantum theory. This isn't anything new or surprising.
---------------------
wrong
you ar enot in the picyure!!
What's wrong? I said

(i) E=hf predates relativity by years. Is that wrong?

(ii) E=hf isn't relativistic. Is that wrong?

(iii) E=hf is a quantum thing. Is that wrong?

(iv) Relativity is not the same thing as quantum theory. Is that
wrong?

(v) That points (i)-(iv) above are not new or surprising. Is that
wrong?

You claim "wrong". Be precise - which of the above is wrong?
Post by Y.Porat
all  current physics will  ''tell  you''  that
th emass of the phootn is relativistic !!
No, all current physics will tell you that the mass of the photon is
zero.
Post by Y.Porat
and a whole pile of shit physics i s  built on  that !!
Such as?
Post by Y.Porat
Post by Timo Nieminen
(b) You asked whether there is "mass in energy" (while refusing, over
and over, to explain clearly what you mean by "mass".
imBecilE
i asked you if there  is the mass dimension in it
I DONT NEED MORE THAN THAT !!
JUST THE MASS DIMENSION
and if so does it mean that the mass in
hf is relativistic??
if you know how a physics formula is built i wil tell you some hints
it is compsed of physical dimensions
MKS)
and scalars that multiply it tofit it to
experimental data
without those dimensions whi each one is critic toits validity
there is no physical formula
(it is worth nothiong
now
idiot
tel me what is the scalar multiplyer
in hf that multiplies **anything**  there
to be relativistic ??
This was an opportunity for you to state your definition and position
clearly and coherently. Why spend the opportunity on insults and
incoherent frothing at the mouth?

If you can't explain your position and argument clearly and
coherently, how will anybody know you actually have one? How will
_you_ know you have one?
Post by Y.Porat
Post by Timo Nieminen
Whether or not (c) "E=hf is the formula of a single photon" is
entirely different from these. If you wanted to ask about (c),
ok what is relativistic in c ???
What is relativistic about "E=hf is the formula of a single photon"?
Nothing. This has already been said in this thread, over and over. Why
do you keep asking? Are you expecting a different answer?
Post by Y.Porat
 why ask> about an entirely different (a) and (b)? Further, if you don't agree
Post by Timo Nieminen
with Planck's E=hf (as the quantisation of EM energy) - that is, you
don't believe that E=hf, then how can it be relevant whether E=hf is
relativistic?
see above
what is the   relativistic  scalar  in that formula ??
(th e  mass  dinension  is already there
whether you understand it or not
it is there!!
The area dimension is already there, whether you understand it or not.
You already said that energy doesn't contain area, despite the
dimensions of energy including the dimensions of area. This isn't a
valid argument.
Post by Y.Porat
Post by Timo Nieminen
Where we were at (apart from you refusing to state your position
clearly) was the non-relativistic, non-quantum version
---
you are cheating
i  never said  non quantum !!
 i said
non relativistic
quantum is not relativity
it was defined 5 years before
got it ??
You were making statements about "mass" and "energy". Those concepts
predate both quantum theory and relativity by many, many, years. The
link between energy and inertia was made decades before either quantum
theory or relavitiy appeared.

In what possible way is it cheating?
Post by Y.Porat
-------------------
 of the problem> (that it is non-relativistic shows that the question of whether E=hf
Post by Timo Nieminen
is "relativistic" is irrelevant, that it is non-quantum shows that
--
you are not relevant !! who are you to decide if it is relevant or
not ??
On historical grounds, all of this about inertia of energy was done
before decades before quantum theory and relativity existed. How can
they be relevant? The concepts of inertia and mass (and energy, in a
limited way) existed centuries before quantum theory and relativity
existed.

Who are you to decide if it is relevant or not?
Post by Y.Porat
BTW
even  if  it was not relevant- cant you answer
as a BTW question ( a '''not relevant question'')
is   the mass in hf relativistic or not ??!!
There is _no_ mass in hf. (Is there area in hf? Is there time in hf?)
Post by Y.Porat
Post by Timo Nieminen
Take a pulse of light, collimated, of total energy 1J, with a spectrum
with central wavelength 500nm.
Energy is 1J, momentum is 1/3e8 kg.m/s, inertia in units of mass is 1/
(3e8)^2 kg.
Now choose a coordinate system moving at 3x10^7 m/s in the same
direction as the pulse. In this coordinate system, the central
wavelength of the spectrum of the pulse is approximately 550nm, the
energy is approximately 0.9J, momentum is 0.9/3e8 kg.m/s, inertia in
units of mass is 0.9/(3e8)^2 kg.
In this coordinate system, the inertia is different. That's what YOU
want to call "mass". You think it's OK for the "mass" to depend on our
arbitrary choice of coordinate system? Modern physics has decided
"no", and what modern physics calls "mass" doesn't depend on our
choice of coordinate system.
------------
 i told yoi idiot  incurable parrot that if you dont know
the meaning of hf
all your clacualtions about hf in another frame
are bullshit
What "hf"? This is the non-relativistic, non-quantum version.

If you disagree with my (approximate) calculations above, rather than
just insulting me, why not provide what you think are the correct
calculations? If I'm wrong, the correct calculation will produce a
different result. Go ahead!

There are questions above, which you have now refused, rudely, to
answer many times over. You've asked questions, and I've answered.
Don't you have the common decency to answer mine?
Post by Y.Porat
i showed and proved that
the real single photon formula
listen carefully to that  histiric copyright
and dont forget who told you that for the first time
the realsingle photon energy is
hf TIMES n
while
0  > n <<<< 1.0000
   got it and its meaning ??
You didn't show this or prove it. All you did was say it. With no
argument to justify it theoretically, and no experimental evidence in
support, and no consideration at all of the experimental evidence in
support of E=hf as the energy of single photons.
Post by Y.Porat
including its behavior in a secondary frame
No, you didn't say, show, or prove anything about this.
Post by Y.Porat
while billions of those single photons are running one after the
other
with   the velocity c ????!!
Didn't show or prove this. I don't recall you saying this before
either (you might have said it; not like I read your posts regularly),
but it follows directly from your E=hf*n, if n is billions or larger.
Y.Porat
2011-11-06 06:48:43 UTC
Permalink
On Nov 5, 9:41 pm, T >
Post by Y.Porat
Post by Y.Porat
Post by Timo Nieminen
Post by Y.Porat
----------------------
Oh  Gosh  !!!
are you  unable to talk short and to  the  point ??
i asked you if you are a physics teacher
and you dont answer
2
i asked youis you understand that
E]hf
IS  **NOT THE FORMULA FOR A SINGLE PHOTON
and you dont answer !!
just try to believe an old  goth  like me
(73  howold ate you??
it seems that hings thati started to forget
you stil didnt learn !!)
so   jsut give me some credit  to believe that
(E=hf  not the formula  of a single photon!!)
--------------------------
why don t you answer that Pigy
(i must say piggy because that is exactly your behavior !!
i asked you and you dint answer:


is E =hf
the formula for the real single photon or not ??

2
about your claime that we can find as well
**aria** in that formula is again a sigh that you are a pig moron
***demagog***
not a decent physicist :
so listen piggy

kilograms is A BASIC DIMENSION

LENGTH IS A BASIC DIMENSION!!

ARIA IS ** NOT A BASIC DIMENSION !
GOT IT WHY YOU ARE A PIG ??
now how about

E minimum =hf times n
while
0>n<<<<1.00000

IS THAT as well long known
and not my innovation ???
------------------------------------------
BTW
stop mumling hundreds of lines as an incurable mumbler and
professional obfuscator !!

TIA
Y.Porat
-----------------------------
Post by Y.Porat
Post by Y.Porat
Post by Timo Nieminen
(a) Whether E=hf is relativistic - it predates relativity by years,
and it isn't relativistic; it's a quantum thing. Relativity is not the
same thing as quantum theory. This isn't anything new or surprising.
------------a---------
wrong
you ar enot in the picyure!!
What's wrong? I said
(i) E=hf predates relativity by years. Is that wrong?
(ii) E=hf isn't relativistic. Is that wrong?
(iii) E=hf is a quantum thing. Is that wrong?
(iv) Relativity is not the same thing as quantum theory. Is that
wrong?
(v) That points (i)-(iv) above are not new or surprising. Is that
wrong?
You claim "wrong". Be precise - which of the above is wrong?
Post by Y.Porat
all  current physics will  ''tell  you''  that
th emass of the phootn is relativistic !!
No, all current physics will tell you that the mass of the photon is
zero.
Post by Y.Porat
and a whole pile of shit physics i s  built on  that !!
Such as?
Post by Y.Porat
Post by Timo Nieminen
(b) You asked whether there is "mass in energy" (while refusing, over
and over, to explain clearly what you mean by "mass".
imBecilE
i asked you if there  is the mass dimension in it
I DONT NEED MORE THAN THAT !!
JUST THE MASS DIMENSION
and if so does it mean that the mass in
hf is relativistic??
if you know how a physics formula is built i wil tell you some hints
it is compsed of physical dimensions
MKS)
and scalars that multiply it tofit it to
experimental data
without those dimensions whi each one is critic toits validity
there is no physical formula
(it is worth nothiong
now
idiot
tel me what is the scalar multiplyer
in hf that multiplies **anything**  there
to be relativistic ??
This was an opportunity for you to state your definition and position
clearly and coherently. Why spend the opportunity on insults and
incoherent frothing at the mouth?
If you can't explain your position and argument clearly and
coherently, how will anybody know you actually have one? How will
_you_ know you have one?
Post by Y.Porat
Post by Timo Nieminen
Whether or not (c) "E=hf is the formula of a single photon" is
entirely different from these. If you wanted to ask about (c),
ok what is relativistic in c ???
What is relativistic about "E=hf is the formula of a single photon"?
Nothing. This has already been said in this thread, over and over. Why
do you keep asking? Are you expecting a different answer?
Post by Y.Porat
 why ask> about an entirely different (a) and (b)? Further, if you don't agree
Post by Timo Nieminen
with Planck's E=hf (as the quantisation of EM energy) - that is, you
don't believe that E=hf, then how can it be relevant whether E=hf is
relativistic?
see above
what is the   relativistic  scalar  in that formula ??
(th e  mass  dinension  is already there
whether you understand it or not
it is there!!
The area dimension is already there, whether you understand it or not.
You already said that energy doesn't contain area, despite the
dimensions of energy including the dimensions of area. This isn't a
valid argument.
Post by Y.Porat
Post by Timo Nieminen
Where we were at (apart from you refusing to state your position
clearly) was the non-relativistic, non-quantum version
---
you are cheating
i  never said  non quantum !!
 i said
non relativistic
quantum is not relativity
it was defined 5 years before
got it ??
You were making statements about "mass" and "energy". Those concepts
predate both quantum theory and relativity by many, many, years. The
link between energy and inertia was made decades before either quantum
theory or relavitiy appeared.
In what possible way is it cheating?
Post by Y.Porat
-------------------
 of the problem> (that it is non-relativistic shows that the question of whether E=hf
Post by Timo Nieminen
is "relativistic" is irrelevant, that it is non-quantum shows that
--
you are not relevant !! who are you to decide if it is relevant or
not ??
On historical grounds, all of this about inertia of energy was done
before decades before quantum theory and relativity existed. How can
they be relevant? The concepts of inertia and mass (and energy, in a
limited way) existed centuries before quantum theory and relativity
existed.
Who are you to decide if it is relevant or not?
Post by Y.Porat
BTW
even  if  it was not relevant- cant you answer
as a BTW question ( a '''not relevant question'')
is   the mass in hf relativistic or not ??!!
There is _no_ mass in hf. (Is there area in hf? Is there time in hf?)
Post by Y.Porat
Post by Timo Nieminen
Take a pulse of light, collimated, of total energy 1J, with a spectrum
with central wavelength 500nm.
Energy is 1J, momentum is 1/3e8 kg.m/s, inertia in units of mass is 1/
(3e8)^2 kg.
Now choose a coordinate system moving at 3x10^7 m/s in the same
direction as the pulse. In this coordinate system, the central
wavelength of the spectrum of the pulse is approximately 550nm, the
energy is approximately 0.9J, momentum is 0.9/3e8 kg.m/s, inertia in
units of mass is 0.9/(3e8)^2 kg.
In this coordinate system, the inertia is different. That's what YOU
want to call "mass". You think it's OK for the "mass" to depend on our
arbitrary choice of coordinate system? Modern physics has decided
"no", and what modern physics calls "mass" doesn't depend on our
choice of coordinate system.
------------
 i told yoi idiot  incurable parrot that if you dont know
the meaning of hf
all your clacualtions about hf in another frame
are bullshit
What "hf"? This is the non-relativistic, non-quantum version.
If you disagree with my (approximate) calculations above, rather than
just insulting me, why not provide what you think are the correct
calculations? If I'm wrong, the correct calculation will produce a
different result. Go ahead!
There are questions above, which you have now refused, rudely, to
answer many times over. You've asked questions, and I've answered.
Don't you have the common decency to answer mine?
Post by Y.Porat
i showed and proved that
the real single photon formula
hf TIMES n
while
0  > n <<<< 1.0000
   got it and its meaning ??
Timo Nieminen
2011-11-06 07:22:16 UTC
Permalink
Post by Y.Porat
Post by Y.Porat
so   jsut give me some credit  to believe that
(E=hf  not the formula  of a single photon!!)
--------------------------
why don t you   answer that Pigy
(i must say piggy because that  is exactly your behavior !!
is E =hf
the formula for   the real single photon or not ??
No, you didn't ask that. The above "so jsut give me some credit to
believe that (E=hf not the formula of a single photon!!)" is not a
question, at least as understood as a question in English. (If you did
ask that in your preceding posts, do quote exactly where, and I will
apologise that I missed it - I certainly saw no such question, but I
might have missed it in the less comprehensible parts of your posts.)

You didn't ask it; you just declared that it is so, with no evidence
or other any other support. You _claimed_ that you had shown it and
proved it, but you hadn't. No proof, no showing, no evidence. Not even
dealing with the ample contrary evidence.

You claimed, quite explicitly, that I was wrong when I stated "Whether
E=hf is relativistic - it predates relativity by years, and it isn't
relativistic; it's a quantum thing. Relativity is not the same thing
as quantum theory. This isn't anything new or surprising."

What's wrong? I said

(i) E=hf predates relativity by years. Is that wrong?

(ii) E=hf isn't relativistic. Is that wrong?

(iii) E=hf is a quantum thing. Is that wrong?

(iv) Relativity is not the same thing as quantum theory. Is that
wrong?

(v) That points (i)-(iv) above are not new or surprising. Is that
wrong?

You claim "wrong". Be precise - which of the above is wrong?

Also, we were discussing the non-relativistic, non-quantum version,
and you disagreed with my (approximate) calculations. Rather than just
insulting me, why not provide what you think are the correct
calculations? If I'm wrong, the correct calculation will produce a
different result. Go ahead!

I've asked questions, which you have now refused, rudely, to answer
many times over. You've asked questions, and I've answered. Don't you
have the common decency to answer mine? Is all you can do is to lie
about what you've asked, so you can claim I haven't answered? I can
point out multiple questions in my posts up-thread, which you've
refused to answer.

Since you're refusing to answer any questions, refusing to even try to
clarify any of your points that remain unclear, and generally
descending into a psychopathic round of insults and lies, there
doesn't seem much point in continuing this.

However, I will give you another chance. Where we were at (apart from
you refusing to state your position clearly) was the non-relativistic,
non-quantum version of the problem (that it is non-relativistic shows
that the question of whether E=hf is "relativistic" is irrelevant,
that it is non-quantum shows that E=hf is irrelevant):

Take a pulse of light, collimated, of total energy 1J, with a spectrum
with central wavelength 500nm.

Energy is 1J, momentum is 1/3e8 kg.m/s, inertia in units of mass is 1/
(3e8)^2 kg.

Now choose a coordinate system moving at 3x10^7 m/s in the same
direction as the pulse. In this coordinate system, the central
wavelength of the spectrum of the pulse is approximately 550nm, the
energy is approximately 0.9J, momentum is 0.9/3e8 kg.m/s, inertia in
units of mass is 0.9/(3e8)^2 kg.

In this coordinate system, the inertia is different. That's what YOU
want to call "mass". You think it's OK for the "mass" to depend on our
arbitrary choice of coordinate system? Modern physics has decided
"no", and what modern physics calls "mass" doesn't depend on our
choice of coordinate system.

But YOU want to call it mass. Why not call it "inertia", and be
understood more easily? But whether or not you call it "mass" or
"inertia", that's a matter of nomenclature, not physics. Not a new
contribution to physics - physics has been there and done that,
discovered the problems with calling "inertia" "mass", and moved on to
more sound terminology).

If you can't explain your position and argument clearly and
coherently, how will anybody know you actually have one? How will
_you_ know you have one?
Y.Porat
2011-11-06 10:52:54 UTC
Permalink
Post by Y.Porat
Post by Y.Porat
so   jsut give me some credit  to believe that
(E=hf  not the formula  of a single photon!!)
--------------------------
why don t you   answer that Pigy
(i must say piggy because that  is exactly your behavior !!
is E =hf
the formula for   the real single photon or not ??
No, you didn't ask that. The above "so   jsut give me some credit  to
believe that (E=hf  not the formula  of a single photon!!)" is not a
question, at least as understood as a question in English. (If you did
ask that in your preceding posts, do quote exactly where, and I will
apologise that I missed it - I certainly saw no such question, but I
might have missed it in the less comprehensible parts of your posts.)
You didn't ask it; you just declared that it is so, with no evidence
or other any other support. You _claimed_ that you had shown it and
proved it, but you hadn't. No proof, no showing, no evidence. Not even
dealing with the ample contrary evidence.
You claimed, quite explicitly, that I was wrong when I stated "Whether
E=hf is relativistic - it predates relativity by years, and it isn't
relativistic; it's a quantum thing. Relativity is not the same thing
as quantum theory. This isn't anything new or surprising."
What's wrong? I said
(i) E=hf predates relativity by years. Is that wrong?
(ii) E=hf isn't relativistic. Is that wrong?
(iii) E=hf is a quantum thing. Is that wrong?
(iv) Relativity is not the same thing as quantum theory. Is that
wrong?
(v) That points (i)-(iv) above are not new or surprising. Is that
wrong?
You claim "wrong". Be precise - which of the above is wrong?
Also, we were discussing the non-relativistic, non-quantum version,
and you disagreed with my (approximate) calculations. Rather than just
insulting me, why not provide what you think are the correct
calculations? If I'm wrong, the correct calculation will produce a
different result. Go ahead!
I've asked questions, which you have now refused, rudely, to answer
many times over. You've asked questions, and I've answered. Don't you
have the common decency to answer mine? Is all you can do is to lie
about what you've asked, so you can claim I haven't answered? I can
point out multiple questions in my posts up-thread, which you've
refused to answer.
Since you're refusing to answer any questions, refusing to even try to
clarify any of your points that remain unclear, and generally
descending into a psychopathic round of insults and lies, there
doesn't seem much point in continuing this.
However, I will give you another chance. Where we were at (apart from
you refusing to state your position clearly) was the non-relativistic,
non-quantum version of the problem (that it is non-relativistic shows
that the question of whether E=hf is "relativistic" is irrelevant,
Take a pulse of light, collimated, of total energy 1J, with a spectrum
with central wavelength 500nm.
Energy is 1J, momentum is 1/3e8 kg.m/s, inertia in units of mass is 1/
(3e8)^2 kg.
Now choose a coordinate system moving at 3x10^7 m/s in the same
direction as the pulse. In this coordinate system, the central
wavelength of the spectrum of the pulse is approximately 550nm, the
energy is approximately 0.9J, momentum is 0.9/3e8 kg.m/s, inertia in
units of mass is 0.9/(3e8)^2 kg.
In this coordinate system, the inertia is different. That's what YOU
want to call "mass". You think it's OK for the "mass" to depend on our
arbitrary choice of coordinate system? Modern physics has decided
"no", and what modern physics calls "mass" doesn't depend on our
choice of coordinate system.
But YOU want to call it mass. Why not call it "inertia", and be
understood more easily? But whether or not you call it "mass" or
"inertia", that's a matter of nomenclature, not physics. Not a new
contribution to physics - physics has been there and done that,
discovered the problems with calling "inertia" "mass", and moved on to
more sound terminology).
If you can't explain your position and argument clearly and
coherently, how will anybody know you actually have one? How will
_you_ know you have one?
-================================-----------------
i told you donkey imbecile
that if you would understand that
E=hf
is not the formula of a single photon energy

you will noat ask me your silly questions about
''photons changing their energy while entering a secondary frame''
got it donkey ??

2
i sked you if you ever saw that formula :

photon min energy =hf times n
while
0 > n >>>>>1.0000
if you dont know and understand why and how
dug into old posts of mine
and you will see it proven by experiment
that i called
the experiment with
lead light torch and a photo- electric cell

i have no intentions to give again and again
private lessons to a parrots in the world
that proved (at least to me )to have a very hard skull !!)
other readers saw and understood it
so my question is just that

did you ever saw that before
(many other readers sw it from me
in this ng many times as my innovation copyright historic formula )
for me it only matters to get from you admittance
THAT YOU NEVER SAW IT !
and later will come back and cheat that
it is long ago known !!!

2 what is your day job ??

TIA
Y.Porat
-----------------




2
Timo Nieminen
2011-11-06 19:53:11 UTC
Permalink
Post by Y.Porat
i told you donkey imbecile
that if you would understand that
E=hf
is not the formula of a single photon energy
Insults, no evidence, and this is irrelevant to the previous
discussion about mass (the topic of the thread, and also what we were
discussing). That you have a fantasy about what science calls
"photons" being composed of billions and billions of what you call
"photons" is old stuff. And you just repeat that claim with no
coherent evidence. And irrelevant as to what the "mass" (as you wish
to call it) or inertia of that E=hf energy is.
Post by Y.Porat
you will noat ask me  your silly questions about
''photons changing their energy while entering a secondary frame''
got it donkey ??
So, more insults, but no answers from you. I didn't ask you about
''photons changing their energy while entering a secondary frame''. Do
you need me to explain to you what a coordinate system is? Do you need
me to explain to you how the photon exists in both coordinate systems
being considered, at the same time, and doesn't leave one and enter
the other. I can also explain that the photon doesn't change energy -
as measured in either coordinate system, the energy of the photon
stays the same (and is given by E=hf).

Where we were at (apart from
you refusing to state your position clearly) was the non-relativistic,
non-quantum version of the problem (that it is non-relativistic shows
that the question of whether E=hf is "relativistic" is irrelevant,
that it is non-quantum shows that E=hf is irrelevant):

Take a pulse of light, collimated, of total energy 1J, with a spectrum
with central wavelength 500nm.

Energy is 1J, momentum is 1/3e8 kg.m/s, inertia in units of mass is 1/
(3e8)^2 kg.

Now choose a coordinate system moving at 3x10^7 m/s in the same
direction as the pulse. In this coordinate system, the central
wavelength of the spectrum of the pulse is approximately 550nm, the
energy is approximately 0.9J, momentum is 0.9/3e8 kg.m/s, inertia in
units of mass is 0.9/(3e8)^2 kg.

In this coordinate system, the inertia is different. That's what YOU
want to call "mass". You think it's OK for the "mass" to depend on our
arbitrary choice of coordinate system? Modern physics has decided
"no", and what modern physics calls "mass" doesn't depend on our
choice of coordinate system.

But YOU want to call it mass. Why not call it "inertia", and be
understood more easily? But whether or not you call it "mass" or
"inertia", that's a matter of nomenclature, not physics. Not a new
contribution to physics - physics has been there and done that,
discovered the problems with calling "inertia" "mass", and moved on to
more sound terminology).

If you can't explain your position and argument clearly and
coherently, how will anybody know you actually have one? How will
_you_ know you have one?
Timo Nieminen
2011-11-06 19:59:12 UTC
Permalink
did you ever  saw that before
(many other readers sw it from me
in   this ng many times  as my innovation copyright historic formula )
for me it only  matters to get from you admittance
THAT YOU  NEVER SAW IT !
and   later will come   back and cheat that
it is long ago known !!!
Don't lie! You claimed that you had _asked_ about that stuff, in this
thread, and that I hadn't answered. If you asked me in this thread
(before that post where you claimed you had asked), show where.

Of course I've seen your claims of billions and billions of sub-
photons before. We've discussed it before, as much as you're willing
to discuss anything. Don't you remember?

What I said was that I hadn't seen was where in this thread you had
_asked_ me about it. So, don't lie about it! If you asked it, show
where. If you didn't ask it, don't post lies claiming that you had
asked it. And don't lie about what I said. If you don't understand
what I wrote in plain English, ask for clarification - don't lie about
it.
Y.Porat
2011-11-07 02:09:39 UTC
Permalink
On Nov 6, 9:59 pm, T remember?
---------------------
little idiot pig

i asked you a specific question
and a disturbed pig like you cant answer a queastion like a decent
human being!!

i ddint ask you about billions of photons etc
and we never discussed it with you !!

i asked
listen carefully pig
i asked whether you ever saw the formula for the my (again (mine)
real single photon

E min =hf times n
while
0> n <<< 1.000 ???

ddi you ever saw such a formula
for the real single photon??
or not ?
ie
ddi you saw it the first time
ONLY from me
Y.Porat
--
thats all i asked you and you ddint answer
plain simple: as a decent human being should answer :like

''' i saw it the first time from you
Y.Porat''
( ie -- you never saw it in another place
by another one but from Y.Porat
!!)

that s all !!
we dont need all you long bublings
and walking around the bush
so again
please answer **shortly** my above question
(i asked you as well what is your day job
and of course for some reason
you dont answer it ...
so i don t ask it again ...no answer is an answer as well !!.....)

TIA
Y.Porat
---------------------------------
Timo Nieminen
2011-11-07 03:47:55 UTC
Permalink
Y.Porat
2011-11-07 10:14:57 UTC
Permalink
Post by Y.Porat
On Nov 6, 9:59 pm, T remember?
---------------------
little idiot pig
 i asked you a specific question
and a disturbed pig like you cant answer a queastion  like a d > _you_ know you have one?
--------------------
may be betetr to stop that childish quarrel

'i said you sais you said i said
we are in a physics ng
AND WHANT TO DO SOME ADVANCE IN SCIENCE

you agreed that
there is nothing relativistic in hf
AND I TANKED YOU FOR THAT!!
now listen
you didnt made the one important step forwards thoug i pushed you
desperately to that
if hf has nothing to do with relativiry
then
HE MASS IN THAT HF IS NOT RELATIVISTIC!!
you didnt understand it then
and it seesm thjat you dont understand it to this moment
you keep on with your nonsense
physics moronic smartguy quetion as
if the kilograns there mean nothing for you as
length ^2 = aria means nothibng
if so
yo ahve to learn how a physics frmula is built and used !!

that is why i asked you if you are a physics teacher
and you ddint answer !!...
2
now just see my new thread

E minimum = hf times n
while
0< n <<<< 1.0000
and a few comments there
3
if you really what to know with whom you are dealing
have a glimps at the abstract of my book:
(from 1993 !!!)

http://sites.google.com/site/theyporatmodel/an-abstract

and that is only a little part of my innovations
ATB
Y.Porat
-----------------------------


'
Timo Nieminen
2011-11-07 10:36:27 UTC
Permalink
Post by Y.Porat
Post by Y.Porat
On Nov 6, 9:59 pm, T remember?
---------------------
little idiot pig
 i asked you a specific question
and a disturbed pig like you cant answer a queastion  like a d > _you_ know you have one?
--------------------
may be  betetr to stop that childish quarrel
'i said  you sais you said i said
we are in a physics ng
AND WHANT TO DO SOME ADVANCE IN SCIENCE
you agreed that
there is nothing relativistic  in hf
AND I TANKED YOU FOR THAT!!
 now listen
you didnt made the one important step  forwards thoug i pushed you
desperately to that
if hf has nothing to do  with  relativiry
then
HE MASS IN THAT HF IS NOT RELATIVISTIC!!
 you didnt understand it then
and it seesm thjat you dont understand it to this moment
you  keep on with your nonsense
 physics  moronic smartguy quetion as
if the  kilograns there  mean nothing for you as
length ^2 = aria means nothibng
if so
yo ahve to learn how a physics frmula is built and used !!
So, you say that there is "mass in energy". Why do you refuse to look
at the consequences of this claim?

Take a pulse of light, collimated, of total energy 1J, with a spectrum
with central wavelength 500nm.

Energy is 1J, momentum is 1/3e8 kg.m/s, inertia in units of mass is 1/
(3e8)^2 kg.

Now choose a coordinate system moving at 3x10^7 m/s in the same
direction as the pulse. In this coordinate system, the central
wavelength of the spectrum of the pulse is approximately 550nm, the
energy is approximately 0.9J, momentum is 0.9/3e8 kg.m/s, inertia in
units of mass is 0.9/(3e8)^2 kg.

In this coordinate system, the inertia is different. That's what YOU
want to call "mass". You think it's OK for the "mass" to depend on our
arbitrary choice of coordinate system? Modern physics has decided
"no", and what modern physics calls "mass" doesn't depend on our
choice of coordinate system.

But YOU want to call it mass. Why not call it "inertia", and be
understood more easily? But whether or not you call it "mass" or
"inertia", that's a matter of nomenclature, not physics. Not a new
contribution to physics - physics has been there and done that,
discovered the problems with calling "inertia" "mass", and moved on to
more sound terminology).
Post by Y.Porat
E minimum  = hf times n
while
0<   n <<<< 1.0000
and a few comments there
So you say, and keep saying. There isn't any point in discussing this
with you, because all you do is repeat your claim. On this point, I
think you are wrong, but from past experience, you are thoroughly
convinced, so what point in discussing - you won't convince me, and I
won't convince you.
Y.Porat
2011-11-07 11:23:35 UTC
Permalink
Post by Timo Nieminen
Post by Y.Porat
Post by Y.Porat
On Nov 6, 9:59 pm, T remember?
---------------------
little idiot pig
 i asked you a specific question
and a disturbed pig like you cant answer a queastion  like a d > _you_ know you have one?
--------------------
may be  betetr to stop that childish quarrel
'i said  you sais you said i said
we are in a physics ng
AND WHANT TO DO SOME ADVANCE IN SCIENCE
you agreed that
there is nothing relativistic  in hf
AND I TANKED YOU FOR THAT!!
 now listen
you didnt made the one important step  forwards thoug i pushed you
desperately to that
if hf has nothing to do  with  relativiry
then
HE MASS IN THAT HF IS NOT RELATIVISTIC!!
 you didnt understand it then
and it seesm thjat you dont understand it to this moment
you  keep on with your nonsense
 physics  moronic smartguy quetion as
if the  kilograns there  mean nothing for you as
length ^2 = aria means nothibng
if so
yo ahve to learn how a physics frmula is built and used !!
So, you say that there is "mass in energy". Why do you refuse to look
at the consequences of this claim?
Take a pulse of light, collimated, of total energy 1J, with a spectrum
with central wavelength 500nm.
Energy is 1J, momentum is 1/3e8 kg.m/s, inertia in units of mass is 1/
(3e8)^2 kg.
Now choose a coordinate system moving at 3x10^7 m/s in the same
direction as the pulse. In this coordinate system, the central
wavelength of the spectrum of the pulse is approximately 550nm, the
energy is approximately 0.9J, momentum is 0.9/3e8 kg.m/s, inertia in
units of mass is 0.9/(3e8)^2 kg.
In this coordinate system, the inertia is different. That's what YOU
want to call "mass". You think it's OK for the "mass" to depend on our
arbitrary choice of coordinate system? Modern physics has decided
"no", and what modern physics calls "mass" doesn't depend on our
choice of coordinate system.
But YOU want to call it mass. Why not call it "inertia", and be
understood more easily? But whether or not you call it "mass" or
"inertia", that's a matter of nomenclature, not physics. Not a new
contribution to physics - physics has been there and done that,
discovered the problems with calling "inertia" "mass", and moved on to
more sound terminology).
Post by Y.Porat
E minimum  = hf times n
while
0<   n <<<< 1.0000
and a few comments there
So you say, and keep saying. There isn't any point in discussing this
with you, because all you do is repeat your claim. On this point, I
think you are wrong, but from past experience, you are thoroughly
convinced, so what point in discussing - you won't convince me, and I
won't convince you.
--------------
i said and say again and again
and you dont get it::

had you understand that
E=hf is not the formula of the real single
photon
you would not ask the above question !!
full stop !!

ATB
Y.Porat
--------------------------
Y.Porat
2011-11-07 12:03:48 UTC
Permalink
Post by Y.Porat
Post by Timo Nieminen
Post by Y.Porat
Post by Y.Porat
On Nov 6, 9:59 pm, T remember?
---------------------
little idiot pig
 i asked you a specific question
and a disturbed pig like you cant answer a queastion  like a d > _you_ know you have one?
--------------------
may be  betetr to stop that childish quarrel
'i said  you sais you said i said
we are in a physics ng
AND WHANT TO DO SOME ADVANCE IN SCIENCE
you agreed that
there is nothing relativistic  in hf
AND I TANKED YOU FOR THAT!!
 now listen
you didnt made the one important step  forwards thoug i pushed you
desperately to that
if hf has nothing to do  with  relativiry
then
HE MASS IN THAT HF IS NOT RELATIVISTIC!!
 you didnt understand it then
and it seesm thjat you dont understand it to this moment
you  keep on with your nonsense
 physics  moronic smartguy quetion as
if the  kilograns there  mean nothing for you as
length ^2 = aria means nothibng
if so
yo ahve to learn how a physics frmula is built and used !!
So, you say that there is "mass in energy". Why do you refuse to look
at the consequences of this claim?
Take a pulse of light, collimated, of total energy 1J, with a spectrum
with central wavelength 500nm.
Energy is 1J, momentum is 1/3e8 kg.m/s, inertia in units of mass is 1/
(3e8)^2 kg.
Now choose a coordinate system moving at 3x10^7 m/s in the same
direction as the pulse. In this coordinate system, the central
wavelength of the spectrum of the pulse is approximately 550nm, the
energy is approximately 0.9J, momentum is 0.9/3e8 kg.m/s, inertia in
units of mass is 0.9/(3e8)^2 kg.
In this coordinate system, the inertia is different. That's what YOU
want to call "mass". You think it's OK for the "mass" to depend on our
arbitrary choice of coordinate system? Modern physics has decided
"no", and what modern physics calls "mass" doesn't depend on our
choice of coordinate system.
But YOU want to call it mass. Why not call it "inertia", and be
understood more easily? But whether or not you call it "mass" or
"inertia", that's a matter of nomenclature, not physics. Not a new
contribution to physics - physics has been there and done that,
discovered the problems with calling "inertia" "mass", and moved on to
more sound terminology).
Post by Y.Porat
E minimum  = hf times n
while
0<   n <<<< 1.0000
and a few comments there
So you say, and keep saying. There isn't any point in discussing this
with you, because all you do is repeat your claim. On this point, I
think you are wrong, but from past experience, you are thoroughly
convinced, so what point in discussing - you won't convince me, and I
won't convince you.
--------------
i said and say again and again
had you understand that
E=hf is not the formula of the real single
photon
you  would not ask the above question !!
full  stop !!
ATB
Y.Porat
--------------------------
Timo
Please go to my new thread :
---------
'''E minimum = hf times n
while
0 > n >>>>> 1.0000'''''
----------
and ask me there -exactly the above question of yours
(about a photon is two frames )

TIA
Y.Porat
--------------------
eric gisse
2011-11-07 16:10:48 UTC
Permalink
Timo Nieminen <***@physics.uq.edu.au> wrote in news:Pine.LNX.4.50.1111071324260.2629-***@localhost:


[...]
Post by Y.Porat
is E =hf
the formula for   the real single photon or not ??
Are you deliberately lying, or just unable to communicate in English?
[...]

A bit of background....

Porat has been posting gibberish exactly like this since 2003. He has
literally learned nothing of English syntax in almost a decade.
hanson
2011-11-07 16:51:07 UTC
Permalink
Post by eric gisse
[...]
Post by Y.Porat
is E =hf
the formula for the real single photon or not ??
Are you deliberately lying, or just unable to communicate in English?
[...]
A bit of background....
Porat has been posting gibberish exactly like this since 2003. He has
literally learned nothing of English syntax in almost a decade.
A bit of background....
Gisse has been posting gibberish exactly like this since 2002. He has
literally learned nothing of anything in almost a decade while he sat
in college. He finally got kicked out without even a BSc.
PD
2011-11-07 18:46:52 UTC
Permalink
Post by Timo Nieminen
Post by Y.Porat
Post by Y.Porat
On Nov 4, 11:45 am, Timo Nie
Post by Timo Nieminen
Post by Y.Porat
------------------
ANYTHING WE CAN DETECT HAS MASS
GOT IT ??!
We can detect the colour "red". Does colour have mass? We can measure
the resting metabolic rate of a human. Does resting metabolic rate
have mass? We can detect tides. Do tides have mass? We can detect the
flight of bats? Does flight have mass?
--------------------
you begine t o cheat AND OBFUSCATE Mr Nimo
if E=hf was found to be right
as not relativistic
in just one frame
then is it relativistic ??
you admitted that
E=hf
is not relativistic
do you want now to deny that you agreed about it ??
When I say it isn't "relativistic", I mean that it isn't a "special
(or general) relativity thing". What do _you_ mean by "relativistic"?
The expression for kinetic energy from classical mechanics, KE =
(1/2)m*v^2 is generally agreed to not be "relativistic", again in the
sense that it isn't a special (or general) relativity thing. However,
it is very much dependent on our choice of coordinate system.
You say that what you mean by "mass" is "inertia", including for
photons. Experimentally, we find that this is dependent on our choice
of coordinate system. For light, specifically, this dates back to 1876
(Bartoli). For inertia of energy in general, it dates back to 1874
(Umov). It was implicit in Maxwell's results for radiation pressure
(1873 at the latest). Are you trying to claim that these results,
which predate special and general relativity by decades, are somehow
"relativistic"?
If so, you really need to explain what _you_ mean by "relativistic".
You've refused over and over to even try to define what you mean by
"mass", and then when you finally admit that you mean "inertia", you
refuse to discuss that, and instead focus on the entirely irrelevant
matter of whether E=hf is "relativistic".
To Porat, something is relativistic if someone can point to a variable
and say "This is relativistic mass" or if there is a gamma factor in it.

He believes that a theory should be recognizable by certain variables
that appear in all its equations.

For example, he possibly also believes that an equation is recognized as
belonging to quantum mechanics if it has an h in it.

Byron Forbes
2011-10-30 15:26:48 UTC
Permalink
Post by Timo Nieminen
Let f = 1E+16 thus 'a photon' has hf energy or 6.63E-18 J.  We have
'a box' that weighs precisely 1 kg empty.  We add 1.36E+34 photons
to that box, what does it now weigh?  If photons are, if fact,
massless, should it not be still precisely 1 kg? :)
To repeat what I already wrote earlier in this thread, "photons are
massless" means that photons have zero rest mass. Rest mass is the
magnitude of the energy-momentum 4-vector.
The E-M 4-vector is P=(E/c^2,p_x,p_y,p_z). (That's the contravariant
vector - the covariant vector is neater, = (-E,p_x,p_y,p_z).) In
general, rest mass is m = |P|, in appropriate units (and sign,
m = sqrt(E^2/c^4 - |p|^2/c^2).
For your 1kg box, stationary, P_box = (1kg,0,0,0). If we add 9e16J of
EM radiation, stationary (i.e., in a bunch of standing wave modes in
the stationary box, on average), this has P_rad = (1kg,0,0,0).
The total E-M 4-vector is then P_total = (2kg,0,0,0). From which the
rest mass of the system (box + contained radiation) is 2kg.
(E=hf is entirely irrelevant in the above, unless you want to count
photons. All of the momentum/mass/energy stuff follows purely from
classical (i.e., non-quantum) considerations.)
But wait! It gets better!
Consider a collimated pulse of light, of energy 9e16J. This has
momentum p=E/c (collimated, so we can assume the energy-momentum
relation for a plane wave is good). Let us assume it is travelling in
the x-direction.
The 4-vector is P_collimated = (1kg,3e8N.s,0,0). The magnitude is
zero; rest mass of the collimated pulse is zero.
Now consider a spherically symmetric expanding pulse, of energy 9e16J.
Every point on the surface of the expanding pulse has some momentum,
directed outwards. Due to the spherical symmetry, the total momentum
is zero.
So, P_spherical = (1kg,0,0,0), and the rest mass of the spherical
pulse is 1kg.
Gravity is in play - momentum is not constant.
Post by Timo Nieminen
Ponder the above results for what is effectively a plane EM wave, and
a spherical wave. We see the statement that "photons are massless",
i.e., have zero rest mass. We also see (single) photons being defined
(i) Massless photons are plane wave photons.
(ii) The rest mass of a system is not the rest mass of its components
(follows directly from m = sqrt(E^2/c^4 - |p|^2/c^2, since E is
scalar, and p is a vector quantity).
Is there a rule that says a scalar + vector = scalar? Are you making that up?
Post by Timo Nieminen
(iii) For non-plane wave radiation, we can add a bunch of plane wave
modes. To obtain a standing wave in a box, with a total of a single
photon, that's a half-photon going one way, and a half-photon going
the other way - the usual recipe for non-zero rest mass.
Uncle Ben
2011-10-31 02:22:36 UTC
Permalink
................
Post by Timo Nieminen
m = sqrt(E^2/c^4 - |p|^2/c^2).
.................
Post by Timo Nieminen
(ii) The rest mass of a system is not the rest mass of its components
(follows directly from m = sqrt(E^2/c^4 - |p|^2/c^2, since E is
scalar, and p is a vector quantity).
        Is there a rule that says a scalar + vector = scalar? Are you making that up?
Do you think that one of the above terms is not a scalar? If so,
review your vector properties. If v is a vector, |v| is a scalar.
Y.Porat
2011-10-29 20:41:40 UTC
Permalink
Post by Timo Nieminen
Post by Y.Porat
Post by Y.Porat
WHAT IS RELATIVISTIC IN
E=hf
That wasn't what you asked! You asked "just tel  us loud and clear do
photons have mass or not ??" Which is why I answered a question about
photon mass. I wrote a lot since I've answered the same question from
you before, and since you ask again, I must assume that you didn't
understand the answer the last time around.
But since you didn't like the answer to that question and now ask a
_completely_ different one: nothing. That is, there isn't anything
relativistic in E=hf. Is there supposed to be? Relativity is not a
quantum theory; quantum theories are not necessarily relativistic.
--------------------
please tell us loud and clear and SHORT !!!
what is the mass in E=hf  ( mind you it is energy !!! ---energy!! and
it means a lot !!! )
It doesn't have any mass in it. E=hf is about _energy_, not _mass_.
These are different things. There are accepted technical usages of
these terms, with narrow, well-defined meanings. E=hf doesn't have
what physicists mean by "mass" in it. I don't know what _you_ mean by
mass, because you haven't said. Will you say? Below, I ask.
Post by Y.Porat
so
 is it
relativistic  mass or not  relativistic mass
 ie just mass  the only mass !!??
BTW
need i have to explain to you that
E=hf has mass in it ??!!
I know you keep saying that E=hf "has mass in it". That's why earlier,
I wrote the paragraphs below. Basically, you are using a _different_
definition of mass from that used in modern physics (and it's also
different from Newton's definition).
What is your definition of mass? Be clear! You can be loud and short
if you wish, but _clear_ is essential!
"Second, I know you don't like the idea of "rest mass", "relativistic
mass", etc., what with your "one kind of mass" line. A whole bunch of
physicists also agree that "one kind of mass" is the way to go, and
therefore have decided that "mass" should always mean "rest mass". If
you want a good word for what was once called "relativistic mass", try
"energy". It's cohesive and complete: "mass" (i.e., rest mass) is the
magnitude of the energy-momentum 4-vector, "energy" is the time-
coordinate-axis component of the energy-momentum 4-vector, and
"momentum" is the 3 spatial components.
Earlier, "mass" was used rather ambiguously (and still is in some
writing). But don't be confused by that! The modern statement that
"photons have no mass" refers unambiguously to rest mass!
Third, in light of the above, you had better clarify just what kind of
"mass" _you_ mean with your "one kind of mass", if you want other
people to understand you. How about (a) and operational definition of
_your_ mass, and (b) include an operational definition of your mass
for moving objects."
----------------
again you talk a lot and do not answer simply:

i dont mind and we dont need the philosophy about mass
because we can make it much simpler

so i will stick at this stage to the formality of it
so i will ask you :
does E=hf
has the** mass unit** entity ??
2
if yes
what is there to multiply it(the mass unit) or any of the other
dimensions there
by Zero ??

(is is not needed to ask about if there is any relativistic factor
like say
the Gamma factor
because it is obvious that there is nothing like that in it )

TIA
Y.Porat
--------------------------

TIA
Y.Porat
----------------------
Timo Nieminen
2011-10-29 21:12:44 UTC
Permalink
Post by Y.Porat
Post by Timo Nieminen
Post by Y.Porat
Post by Y.Porat
WHAT IS RELATIVISTIC IN
E=hf
That wasn't what you asked! You asked "just tel  us loud and clear do
photons have mass or not ??" Which is why I answered a question about
photon mass. I wrote a lot since I've answered the same question from
you before, and since you ask again, I must assume that you didn't
understand the answer the last time around.
But since you didn't like the answer to that question and now ask a
_completely_ different one: nothing. That is, there isn't anything
relativistic in E=hf. Is there supposed to be? Relativity is not a
quantum theory; quantum theories are not necessarily relativistic.
--------------------
please tell us loud and clear and SHORT !!!
what is the mass in E=hf  ( mind you it is energy !!! ---energy!! and
it means a lot !!! )
It doesn't have any mass in it. E=hf is about _energy_, not _mass_.
These are different things. There are accepted technical usages of
these terms, with narrow, well-defined meanings. E=hf doesn't have
what physicists mean by "mass" in it. I don't know what _you_ mean by
mass, because you haven't said. Will you say? Below, I ask.
Post by Y.Porat
so
 is it
relativistic  mass or not  relativistic mass
 ie just mass  the only mass !!??
BTW
need i have to explain to you that
E=hf has mass in it ??!!
I know you keep saying that E=hf "has mass in it". That's why earlier,
I wrote the paragraphs below. Basically, you are using a _different_
definition of mass from that used in modern physics (and it's also
different from Newton's definition).
What is your definition of mass? Be clear! You can be loud and short
if you wish, but _clear_ is essential!
"Second, I know you don't like the idea of "rest mass", "relativistic
mass", etc., what with your "one kind of mass" line. A whole bunch of
physicists also agree that "one kind of mass" is the way to go, and
therefore have decided that "mass" should always mean "rest mass". If
you want a good word for what was once called "relativistic mass", try
"energy". It's cohesive and complete: "mass" (i.e., rest mass) is the
magnitude of the energy-momentum 4-vector, "energy" is the time-
coordinate-axis component of the energy-momentum 4-vector, and
"momentum" is the 3 spatial components.
Earlier, "mass" was used rather ambiguously (and still is in some
writing). But don't be confused by that! The modern statement that
"photons have no mass" refers unambiguously to rest mass!
Third, in light of the above, you had better clarify just what kind of
"mass" _you_ mean with your "one kind of mass", if you want other
people to understand you. How about (a) and operational definition of
_your_ mass, and (b) include an operational definition of your mass
for moving objects."
----------------
i dont mind and we dont need the philosophy  about mass
because we can make it much simpler
so i will stick at  this stage to the formality of it
does E=hf
has the** mass unit** entity  ??
Define "the** mass unit** entity"!

I can try to guess what you mean (and if this is wrong, you need to go
back and _clearly_ define what you mean by "mass unit entity", which
might require you to define mass, which for some reason, you keep
refusing to do).

Via the work-energy theorem, we can see that the units of energy are
(units of force)*(units of length).

From Newton's 2nd law, (unit of force) = (unit of mass)*(unit of
acceleration) = (unit of mass) * (unit of length) / (unit of time)^2.

So, we have (unit of energy) = (unit of mass) * (unit of length)^2 /
(unit of time)^2.

This has nothing to do with E=hf; this is just ordinary classical
mechanics. Does energy "contain" mass because the units of energy can
be written in terms of units of mass (and other quantities)? You might
as well ask "Does energy contain area?", since there's (unit of
length)^2 there, too.

In SI, I can also write [J] = [C]*[V]. Does energy contain electric
charge?
Post by Y.Porat
2
if yes
what is there to multiply it(the mass unit)  or any of the other
dimensions there
 by Zero ??
Y.Porat
2011-10-30 03:38:43 UTC
Permalink
On Oct 29, 11:12 pm, Timo Nie perational definition of your mass
Post by Timo Nieminen
Post by Y.Porat
Post by Timo Nieminen
for moving objects."
----------------
i dont mind and we dont need the philosophy  about mass
because we can make it much simpler
so i will stick at  this stage to the formality of it
does E=hf
has the** mass unit** entity  ??
Define "the** mass unit** entity"!
-----------------------------------
i dont have to define the mass unit!!

it is the K of the MKS system
we dont need now to satrt from
Adam and eve !!

unless you want to obfuscate the issue
Post by Timo Nieminen
I can try to guess what you mean (and if this is wrong, you need to go
back and _clearly_ define what you mean by "mass unit entity", which
might require you to define mass, which for some reason, you keep
refusing to do).
-------------------
i dont have to define the mass unit
as well as i dont have to define
what is length unit or Time unit at this point of our discussion
or else we are not going to clarify it
untill the end of this year!!
it is the
K of kilograms as defined in th eMKS system
unless you are going to ask me later :
''define what is define !! etc etc etc
go it
the question is if you are intending to
examine the E=hf as it is as a physics formula or waht to run away
from answering simple questions

so Nimo
we have that K in E=hf
right ??? !!!
if so
what is **in THAT FORMULA***
THAT MAKES YOU TELL THAT IT IS RELATIVISTIC MASS?????
or not for instance
socialistic mass !!
unless you have an intention to run away
from the current issue !!! or obfuscate it
TIA
Y.Porat
-------------------------------
Timo Nieminen
2011-10-30 06:23:42 UTC
Permalink
Post by Y.Porat
the question is if you are intending to
examine the E=hf as it is as a physics formula  or waht to run away
from answering simple questions
so Nimo
we have that K in E=hf
right  ??? !!!
Via the work-energy theorem, we can see that the units of energy are
(units of force)*(units of length).

From Newton's 2nd law, (unit of force) = (unit of mass)*(unit of
acceleration) = (unit of mass) * (unit of length) / (unit of time)^2.

So, we have (unit of energy) = (unit of mass) * (unit of length)^2 /
(unit of time)^2.

This has nothing to do with E=hf; this is just ordinary classical
mechanics. Does energy "contain" mass because the units of energy can
be written in terms of units of mass (and other quantities)? You might
as well ask "Does energy contain area?", since there's (unit of
length)^2 there, too.

In SI, I can also write [J] = [C]*[V]. Does energy contain electric
charge?

Or, to write it more breifly since the above slides off your mind like
water off a duck's back:

(A) THE UNITS OF ENERGY CAN BE WRITTEN IN TERMS OF UNITS OF MASS,
LENGTH, AND TIME. THIS DOESN'T MEAN THAT ENERGY "CONTAINS" MASS, OR
LENGTH, OR AREA, OR TIME.

(B) THIS HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH E=hf, WITH RELATIVISTIC STUFF, OR WITH
QUANTUM STUFF - THIS IS JUST ELEMENTARY CLASSICAL MECHANICS. IT ALSO
HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH THE MASS OF PHOTONS.
Post by Y.Porat
if so
what is **in THAT FORMULA***
THAT MAKES YOU TELL THAT IT IS RELATIVISTIC MASS?????
or not for instance
socialistic mass  !!
unless you have an intention to run away
from the current issue !!! or obfuscate it
Such a strange question! Does energy (the units of which I can write
in terms of units of charge) contain relativistic charge or
socialistic charge? Does energy contain relativistic area or
socialistic area?

Simply put, energy doesn't contain mass, so asking whether _any_
energy, whether the E in E=hf, or some other energy, contains
relativistic mass or the "one true mass" (which you keep refusing to
define) is simply nonsense! Does your television contain green people
or purple people?

This has _nothing_ to do with E=hf.
Y.Porat
2011-10-30 08:49:48 UTC
Permalink
Post by Timo Nieminen
Post by Y.Porat
the question is if you are intending to
examine the E=hf as it is as a physics formula  or waht to run away
from answering simple questions
so Nimo
we have that K in E=hf
right  ??? !!!
Via the work-energy theorem, we can see that the units of energy are
(units of force)*(units of length).
-------------------
Nimo
we are not in literature !!!

we are in exact physics got it exact physics!!

ALL ENERGY HAS THE

KILOGRAM METER ^2.SECOND^2

THA TIS ENERGY !!!
YOU SOME NEWS FOR YOU MY TEACHER OF PHYSICS!!

***ANY PHYSICS FORMULA ***IS NOT JUST DIMENSIONS
IT IS DIMENSIONS MULTIPLIED BY SOME SCALARS
GOT IT ??!!!
WITHOUT THOSE **SCALAR MULTIPLES** THE FORMULA IS WORTH
AND MEAN NOTHING NOTHING !!
-------------
Post by Timo Nieminen
From Newton's 2nd law, (unit of force) = (unit of mass)*(unit of
acceleration) = (unit of mass) * (unit of length) / (unit of time)^2.
------------
why do you boggle the balls???
***you mingle the right and left sides
of equations
to one big salad !!!

we are analising th eformula and se[rating it to its components
AND WE ARE A;OWED TO DO THAT THAT WAY !!
that is analysis !!
yet analysis i snot a sald of words !!!
and entities !!!
-------------
--------------
Post by Timo Nieminen
So, we have (unit of energy) = (unit of mass) * (unit of length)^2 /
(unit of time)^2.
This has nothing to do with E=hf; this is just ordinary classical
mechanics. Does energy "contain" mass because the units of energy can
be written in terms of units of mass (and other quantities)? You might
as well ask "Does energy contain area?", since there's (unit of
length)^2 there, too.
-------------
no sir!!

take th e formula of say
free fall

Lf (length of free fall = 1/2 g times
seconds ^2 S
right ??

so

can you say that Length of free fall
has nothing to do with the Length (Meter)
dimension just because that Meter is **hiding** in that g
constant** ??!!
or that length of free fall
does not include the lenght DIMENSION ??
OR IN ANOTHER WAY
CAN FREE FALL BE DONE** WITHOUT **THAT LENGTH * DIMENSION ??
THAT IS AS WELL A PHYSICAL ENTITY ??

anyway
if you say that E=hf
has **no mass** then why and how come
relativistic mass ??!!!
why not socialistic mass ??!!
and jsut to remind you
E=hf
WAS FOUND 5 YEARS BEFORE SR!!
you ddint answer my queastion:
if we folow the way Planck got it

WAHT THE HELL WAS IN THE WAY HE FOUND AND DEFINED IT
THAT IS RELATIVISTIC !!

DONT YOU UNDERSTAND THAT IN CASE YOU SAY
RELATIVISTIC MASS
TH E BURDAiN OF PROVE IS ON YOU !
NOT ON ME TO DENY THE ''RELATIVISTIC'''
IT IS NOT RELATIVISTIC AS LONG YOU PROVE IT TO BE RELATIVISTIC
AND UNTIL NOW BESIDE YOUR BUBLING and walking around the bush --

YOU DIDNT SAY **A SINGLE WORD** TO
**PROVE THAT IT **IS RELATIVISTIC !!"""

again not only to say what it is not
the ordianry mass (that you didnt show )--

but what it is !! and substantiate it
just form Planck s experiment and the way he did it and formulated
it
not all the al around bubling and obfuscations !!

''YOU CANT MILK CAMEL MILK--
FROM A COW !!''

that is going to be my nest copyright Physics historic slogan (:-)

TIA
Y.Porat
----------
Timo Nieminen
2011-10-30 10:15:01 UTC
Permalink
 > This has nothing to do with E=hf; this is just ordinary classical
Post by Timo Nieminen
mechanics. Does energy "contain" mass because the units of energy can
be written in terms of units of mass (and other quantities)? You might
as well ask "Does energy contain area?", since there's (unit of
length)^2 there, too.
-------------
no sir!!
No to what? Be clear?

Does energy contain area?
OR IN ANOTHER WAY
CAN FREE FALL BE DONE** WITHOUT **THAT LENGTH  * DIMENSION ??
THAT IS AS WELL A PHYSICAL ENTITY ??
The distance of free fall _is_ a length, and has units of length.
Energy is not mass; energy doesn't even have the same units as mass.
anyway
if you  say that E=hf
has **no mass** then why and how come
relativistic mass ??!!!
"Relativistic mass" has nothing to do with E=hf. "Relativistic mass"
is just a post-SR pre-modern expression for the inertia of energy.
Inertia of energy predates special relativity by over 3 decades.
WAHT THE HELL WAS  IN THE WAY HE FOUND AND DEFINED IT
THAT IS RELATIVISTIC !!
Nothing.
YOU DIDNT SAY **A SINGLE WORD** TO
**PROVE THAT IT **IS RELATIVISTIC !!"""
Don't you read? I said "there isn't anything relativistic in E=hf."
Why would I say a single word to **PROVE THAT IT **IS
RELATIVISTIC !!""" when there isn't anything relativistic in E=hf?
Y.Porat
2011-10-30 10:42:02 UTC
Permalink
Post by Timo Nieminen
 > This has nothing to do with E=hf; this is just ordinary classical
Post by Timo Nieminen
mechanics. Does energy "contain" mass because the units of energy can
be written in terms of units of mass (and other quantities)? You might
as well ask "Does energy contain area?", since there's (unit of
length)^2 there, too.
-------------
no sir!!
No to what? Be clear?
Does energy contain area?
no !!!

so my question
does
E=hf
contain **anything** relativistic
if yes
WHAT IS IT THAT IS RELATIVISTIC
in E=hf??


TIA
Y.Porat
-------------------------------
Timo Nieminen
2011-10-30 11:02:23 UTC
Permalink
Post by Y.Porat
Post by Timo Nieminen
 > This has nothing to do with E=hf; this is just ordinary classical
Post by Timo Nieminen
mechanics. Does energy "contain" mass because the units of energy can
be written in terms of units of mass (and other quantities)? You might
as well ask "Does energy contain area?", since there's (unit of
length)^2 there, too.
-------------
no sir!!
No to what? Be clear?
Does energy contain area?
no !!!
But the units of energy contain the unit of area! Don't you see that
m^2 in there?

But since that isn't a valid reason for energy to contain area,
neither can we say that energy contains mass, just because the units
of energy contain the unit of mass.
Post by Y.Porat
so  my question
does
E=hf
contain **anything** relativistic
No.
Post by Y.Porat
if yes
WHAT IS IT  THAT IS RELATIVISTIC
in E=hf??
Nothing.

Why do you keep asking? Already said "no" many times!
k***@kymhorsell.com
2011-10-30 11:14:00 UTC
Permalink
In sci.physics Timo Nieminen <***@physics.uq.edu.au> wrote:
...
Post by Timo Nieminen
But the units of energy contain the unit of area! Don't you see that
m^2 in there?
But since that isn't a valid reason for energy to contain area,
neither can we say that energy contains mass, just because the units
of energy contain the unit of mass.
...

Ah, well. Maybe if we think in terms of elementary QIT. Energy is
an information carrier and at the quantum level, anyway, information content of
a volume is bounded by the area of the region, not its volume.
Dimensional analysis can be dodgy at the best of times I will admit,
but just maybe there is some kind of "Just So" explanation for that
L^2 in there.
--
I believe my post was cogent, then you changed the original posit just
to be a smart-ass.
-- John Stafford <***@droffats.net>, 09 Dec 2010 16:30:53 -0600
Y.Porat
2011-10-30 12:25:22 UTC
Permalink
Post by Timo Nieminen
Post by Y.Porat
Post by Timo Nieminen
 > This has nothing to do with E=hf; this is just ordinary classical
Post by Timo Nieminen
mechanics. Does energy "contain" mass because the units of energy can
be written in terms of units of mass (and other quantities)? You might
as well ask "Does energy contain area?", since there's (unit of
length)^2 there, too.
-------------
no sir!!
No to what? Be clear?
Does energy contain area?
no !!!
But the units of energy contain the unit of area! Don't you see that
m^2 in there?
But since that isn't a valid reason for energy to contain area,
neither can we say that energy contains mass, just because the units
of energy contain the unit of mass.
Post by Y.Porat
so  my question
does
E=hf
contain **anything** relativistic
No.
Post by Y.Porat
if yes
WHAT IS IT  THAT IS RELATIVISTIC
in E=hf??
Nothing.
Why do you keep asking? Already said "no" many times!
-----------------------
Bravo !!! Thank you!!
So
NO MORE QUESTIONS!!

Q E D !!
dont you see that we did history just above ??
TIA
Y.Porat
------------------------

----------------------
Y.Porat
2011-10-30 16:57:12 UTC
Permalink
Post by Timo Nieminen
Post by Y.Porat
Post by Timo Nieminen
 > This has nothing to do with E=hf; this is just ordinary classical
Post by Timo Nieminen
mechanics. Does energy "contain" mass because the units of energy can
be written in terms of units of mass (and other quantities)? You might
as well ask "Does energy contain area?", since there's (unit of
length)^2 there, too.
-------------
no sir!!
No to what? Be clear?
Does energy contain area?
no !!!
But the units of energy contain the unit of area! Don't you see that
m^2 in there?
But since that isn't a valid reason for energy to contain area,
neither can we say that energy contains mass, just because the units
of energy contain the unit of mass.
Post by Y.Porat
so  my question
does
E=hf
contain **anything** relativistic
No.
Post by Y.Porat
if yes
WHAT IS IT  THAT IS RELATIVISTIC
in E=hf??
Nothing.
Why do you keep asking? Already said "no" many times!
=-------------------------
Bravo !!! Thank you :!!
no more questions!!

Q E D !!

now Timo
dont you see that we did just above
History of physics ??!!

hf ie Enrgy
DOES NOT HAVE RELATIVISTIC MASS!!

thatis not what 20 The century 'mpdern physics'
was pumping unjustly all laong
with billions of $ wasted on it
as virtual aprticles without mass but relativistic mass
90 percent of Proton mass done
by 'relativistic mass of Gluens etc etc

Thank you again
historic copyright

Y.Porat
----------------
Timo Nieminen
2011-10-30 19:56:51 UTC
Permalink
Post by Y.Porat
Post by Timo Nieminen
Post by Y.Porat
Post by Timo Nieminen
 > This has nothing to do with E=hf; this is just ordinary classical
Post by Timo Nieminen
mechanics. Does energy "contain" mass because the units of energy can
be written in terms of units of mass (and other quantities)? You might
as well ask "Does energy contain area?", since there's (unit of
length)^2 there, too.
-------------
no sir!!
No to what? Be clear?
Does energy contain area?
no !!!
But the units of energy contain the unit of area! Don't you see that
m^2 in there?
But since that isn't a valid reason for energy to contain area,
neither can we say that energy contains mass, just because the units
of energy contain the unit of mass.
Post by Y.Porat
so  my question
does
E=hf
contain **anything** relativistic
No.
Post by Y.Porat
if yes
WHAT IS IT  THAT IS RELATIVISTIC
in E=hf??
Nothing.
Why do you keep asking? Already said "no" many times!
=-------------------------
Bravo !!! Thank you :!!
no more questions!!
Q E D !!
now Timo
dont you see that we did just above
History of physics ??!!
hf ie Enrgy
DOES NOT HAVE RELATIVISTIC MASS!!
Hold it! You asked what is relativistic about E=hf. Answer: nothing.
You asked if energy contains mass. Answer: no. But you're about to
overgeneralise below!
Post by Y.Porat
thatis not what   20 The century 'mpdern physics'
was pumping unjustly all laong
with billions of $ wasted on it
as virtual aprticles without mass but relativistic mass
90 percent of Proton  mass done
by 'relativistic mass of Gluens    etc etc
A suggestion in keeping with much of the rest of the argument in this
thread: use "mass" to mean the invariant mass, a.k.a. the rest mass.
Use inertia to mean inertia, use energy to mean energy. Follow modern
usage and throw away terms like "relativistic mass".

Then you needn't be offended by "90% of the proton mass is due to
relativistic mass of gluons" etc., and you can have instead "90% of
the proton mass is due to the energy of gluons". Better, yes?
Y.Porat
2011-10-31 04:11:13 UTC
Permalink
Post by Timo Nieminen
Post by Y.Porat
Post by Timo Nieminen
Post by Y.Porat
Post by Timo Nieminen
 > This has nothing to do with E=hf; this is just ordinary classical
Post by Timo Nieminen
mechanics. Does energy "contain" mass because the units of energy can
be written in terms of units of mass (and other quantities)? You might
as well ask "Does energy contain area?", since there's (unit of
length)^2 there, too.
-------------
no sir!!
No to what? Be clear?
Does energy contain area?
no !!!
But the units of energy contain the unit of area! Don't you see that
m^2 in there?
But since that isn't a valid reason for energy to contain area,
neither can we say that energy contains mass, just because the units
of energy contain the unit of mass.
Post by Y.Porat
so  my question
does
E=hf
contain **anything** relativistic
No.
Post by Y.Porat
if yes
WHAT IS IT  THAT IS RELATIVISTIC
in E=hf??
Nothing.
Why do you keep asking? Already said "no" many times!
=-------------------------
Bravo !!! Thank you :!!
no more questions!!
Q E D !!
now Timo
dont you see that we did just above
History of physics ??!!
hf ie Enrgy
DOES NOT HAVE RELATIVISTIC MASS!!
Hold it! You asked what is relativistic about E=hf. Answer: nothing.
You asked if energy contains mass. Answer: no. But you're about to
overgeneralise below!
-----------------------------------
the trouble is that you dont understand what you yourself was
talking and agreed !!!!
if you agreed that
E=hf has nothing relativistic
you said all of it !!!
because
E is eenrgy of photons !!
AND PHOTONS ARE EM WAVES!!
AND EM WAVES ARE ENERGY !!!!
GOT IT
EM WAVES ARE ENERGY !!
SO IF EENRGY HAS NOTHING RELATIVISTIC IN IT
THEN IT HAS MASS IN IT
NOW
PARROTS SAID AL ALONG THE 20TH CENTURY THAT
EENRGY HAS MASS!! BUT ITISNOT REST MASS
BUT' RELATIVISTIC MASS'
again the common claime was
'energy has mass
'but it is 'relativistic mass'
yet jsut above we proved that
the Planck experiment that discovered the
energy of photons as
E=hf
***has nothing relativistic in it **
you cant say anymore that
EM waves** has** 'relativistic mass
the COMMON PARADIGM ADMITTED THAT
THERE IS SOME KIND OF MASS
IN EM WAVES !!

while we proved and showed just above that
THERE IS NOTHING AGAIN NOTHING!!
IN THE ENERGY OF PHOPTON THAT IS RELATIVISTIC
SO IF NOTHING IN IT IS RELATIVISTIC!!
THEN EVEN THE MASSIN IT
IS NOT RELATIVISTIC !!
do you uderstand the meaning of
''noting in it '??!!!
nothing in it includes the thing that is called mass
insimpler words
themass in E=hf is not relativistic
and if not relativistic it is rest mass

the MKS system has just one KILOGRAM in it
thereis no
K1 k2 k3 kilogram
unless
listen carefully

UNLESS-
there i is in a formula SOMETHING
A SCALR THAT IS
MULTIPLYING IT BY SOMETHING RELATIVISTIC

BECAUSE
E=hf HAS NOTHING IN IT THAT
MULTIPLY IT AS A RELATIVISTIC SCALAR
and jsutly so !!
because in the Planckexperiment there was nothing relativistic
IT WAS FOUND AND DEFINED 5 YEARS
BEFORE sr WAS BORN!!
MOREOVER:
ALL THE TOLS USING TO FIND IT
AND MEASURING TOOLS FOR IT
WERE IN A **STAND STILL** SITUATION!!
it is not a mathematical issue
it is a physical issue !!!
physical facts involved with it and how it was derived
so again
YOU CANT GET CAMEL MILK FROM A COW!!
iow you cant get something that is only in your imamgination or
private wrong interpretations
while it does not exist physically and even formally !!
now let me explain something that didnt have to
say and explain to veryfy my above histiric finding !!iow
i proved it even without what i am going to say
following
what is confusing people here is

THE WRONG PARADIGM and idiotic jump to conclusion THAT
''NO MASS CAM REACH c''
the idiotc mathematical 'prove' for it was
that while you take the gamma factor

Gamma = 1 /squarute (1-v^2/c^2)
then while v=c
becomes infinite !!!

but the idiots didnt noticed that infinite
IS AN UNDEFINED SITUATION
EVEN MATHEMATICALLY !!
so you cant reffere from it your private
beliefs !!
and fish in the dirthy water as you like it !!
because there are other alternatives
in that vague that are differnt from yours
like
THE PHOTKN IS AN EXCEPTION TO THE RULE THAT NO MASS** CAN ** REACH
c !!
(yes we can said Obama lately (?:-)

because it is a limit case that is not defined mathematically
AND YOU CANT GET CAMEL MILK FROM A COW !!!
while jsut above we proved that
there is nothing relativistic in
E=hf
that you Nimo
justly agreed just above !!!
(you had no choice as an
intelligent honest mas
--but to agree with it ) !!

so believe it or not:

we did some history of physics just above !!!

because its meaning and goes **far beyond**
and a head
much further than you can imagine just at this moment !!
copyright (with some willing or not willing confirmation from Timo
Neiminen )
ATB
Y.Porat
----------



not only the one you 'like to think '
Post by Timo Nieminen
Post by Y.Porat
thatis not what   20 The century 'mpdern physics'
was pumping unjustly all laong
with billions of $ wasted on it
as virtual aprticles without mass but relativistic mass
90 percent of Proton  mass done
by 'relativistic mass of Gluens    etc etc
A suggestion in keeping with much of the rest of the argument in this
thread: use "mass" to mean the invariant mass, a.k.a. the rest mass.
Use inertia to mean inertia, use energy to mean energy. Follow modern
usage and throw away terms like "relativistic mass".
Then you needn't be offended by "90% of the proton mass is due to
relativistic mass of gluons" etc., and you can have instead "90% of
the proton mass is due to the energy of gluons". Better, yes?
jon car
2011-10-29 01:31:20 UTC
Permalink
Post by Y.Porat
        Take a box full of photons.
        Gravity - Photons pick up energy as they head down and so the ones at the bottom exert more pressure at the bottom
than the top - same as weight/mass
        Inertia - Accelerate the box and we blueshift the photons at the back and redshift the front ones - more pressure
at back than front - inertia.
        Photons have no mass but........................
Mr Forbes
it seesm that you stole some idea
but you sto;e it not good enough
see my 'Circlon idea'
it is not exactly photons
photons are different than the 'Circlon'
yet might be  'cousins ' .....
see
see my ''Circlon''' and some applications of it
http://sites.google.com/site/theyporatmodel/an-abstract
ATB
Y.Porat
------------------------
No particle is needed for light wave absorption.
Byron Forbes
2011-10-29 03:22:44 UTC
Permalink
Post by Y.Porat
        Take a box full of photons.
        Gravity - Photons pick up energy as they head down and so the ones at the bottom exert more pressure at the bottom
than the top - same as weight/mass
        Inertia - Accelerate the box and we blueshift the photons at the back and redshift the front ones - more pressure
at back than front - inertia.
        Photons have no mass but........................
Mr Forbes
it seesm that you stole some idea
but you sto;e it not good enough
see my 'Circlon idea'
it is not exactly photons
photons are different than the 'Circlon'
yet might be 'cousins ' .....
see
see my ''Circlon''' and some applications of it
http://sites.google.com/site/theyporatmodel/an-abstract
ATB
Y.Porat
------------------------
I stole northing - this is just something that occurred to me and I thought I'd post it and see the response. I do
not claim that it's original or anything else - it's pretty straight forward really based on what's already known.
jon car
2011-11-05 20:34:21 UTC
Permalink
Post by Y.Porat
        Take a box full of photons.
        Gravity - Photons pick up energy as they head down and so the ones at the bottom exert more pressure at the bottom
than the top - same as weight/mass
        Inertia - Accelerate the box and we blueshift the photons at the back and redshift the front ones - more pressure
at back than front - inertia.
        Photons have no mass but........................
Mr Forbes
it seesm that you stole some idea
but you sto;e it not good enough
see my 'Circlon idea'
it is not exactly photons
photons are different than the 'Circlon'
yet might be  'cousins ' .....
see
see my ''Circlon''' and some applications of it
http://sites.google.com/site/theyporatmodel/an-abstract
ATB
Y.Porat
------------------------
Gravity can give energy, take it or conserve it.
This is a consequence of space flow science.

Mitchell Raemsch
Continue reading on narkive:
Loading...