Re: Ken, need help with this
From: Pax (pax1_at_whitesweb.com)
Date: 10/21/04
- Next message: Ben Bean: "Re: The Spin Proviso to Relativity"
- Previous message: Ken S. Tucker: "Re: How to tell if a theory is a good one"
- In reply to: Paul Draper: "Re: Ken, need help with this"
- Next in thread: Paul Draper: "Re: Ken, need help with this"
- Reply: Paul Draper: "Re: Ken, need help with this"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ]
Date: Thu, 21 Oct 2004 23:22:02 GMT
"Paul Draper" <pdraper@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:74768d2d.0410210603.14fb31a0@posting.google.com...
> I know Tom can fend for himself, but...
>
> "Pax" <pax1@whitesweb.com> wrote in message
news:<yBDdd.8064$q%7.6127@newssvr11.news.prodigy.com>...
> > > "Tom Roberts" <tjroberts@lucent.com> wrote in message
> > > news:xDWbd.9802$Rf1.7313@newssvr19.news.prodigy.com...
> >
> >
> > > > [Pax]
> > > > [...]
> > > > Strange, it seems a massless particle can have no velocity, is
incapable
> > of momentum, and has no energy.
> >
> >
> > > [Tom]
> > > When you assume Newtonian mechanics, and apply it to massless
particles,
> > you get nonsense.
> >
> >
> > [Pax]
> > Yes. True. :) But was my crippled attempt at math assuming anything
> > different where photons are concerned? Zero mass is zero mass. If mass
is
> > used as foundational, a prerequisite from which further assertions are
> > deduced, then it must be considered to be a deciding factor.
>
> Your poor assumption was that p=mv applies to a photon. It does not.
> Mass in the classic Newtonian sense (as being essential to the
> definition of momentum, for example) is NOT foundational and must be
> set aside from such.
Yes, it's "not foundational" to the continuation of a fallacious assumption.
It must be set aside to bolster the assertions that photons move when their
movement is not necessary, all that's necessary is that the energy that
travels through them moves. The easiest way to verify an error as being
correct is to make special case exceptions.
However, the energy of the photon does move, and energy is a form of mass
which, *should* photons move, gives a moving photon mass. Why don't you read
this before you continue in your illogical and unnecessarily acerbic style?
What is the Mass of a Photon?
http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/physics/ParticleAndNuclear/photon_mass.html
Be well - Pax
- Next message: Ben Bean: "Re: The Spin Proviso to Relativity"
- Previous message: Ken S. Tucker: "Re: How to tell if a theory is a good one"
- In reply to: Paul Draper: "Re: Ken, need help with this"
- Next in thread: Paul Draper: "Re: Ken, need help with this"
- Reply: Paul Draper: "Re: Ken, need help with this"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ]
Relevant Pages
|
