Re: Photon, Momentum, Mass

On 2007-05-09, Jeckyl <noone@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
"Bilge" <dubious@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:slrnf43pbd.2b17.dubious@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
On 2007-05-09, vern@xxxxxxxxxxxx <vern@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
On May 8, 1:16 pm, Bilge <dubi...@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
On 2007-05-08, v...@xxxxxxxxxxxx <v...@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

<snip>

Regardless of what you think about me, John posed a simple question
and the geometrical argument provided by Tom and you does not provide

The answers has been explained to both you and mr. kennaugh numerous
times and in great detail. The fact that you are still asking the same
non-sequitur indicates that you and mr. kennaugh need to find new
hobbies.
Neither of you have the capacity for the depth of thought required to
understand the physical basis for the answer. Your comprehension of
physics is so superficial that even the simplest physics eludes your
grasp. Go study on your own for a while. Everyone who has wasted their
efforts on you and mr. kennaugh over the years has exhibited a great
deal more patience than either of you deserve.- Hide quoted text -

That's bull*** Bilge; you're just an ***.


It is not bull*** and if not putting up with bull*** from people
who want to pontificate on subjects they know nothing about makes
me an ***, then I'm an *** (or anything else you want to
call me). Ignorance is not a crime, but your choice to disregard
all of the attempts to enlighten you and instead deliberately remain
remain ignorant, is inexcusable.


Show me even one other
post in the history of this group where in the context of your
"geometry" argument, anyone has discussed why the motion of the source
does not affect the speed of emitted light.

Try the search feature at http://groups.google.com

Do you agree with Jeckyl's post that the "geometry" of the universe
has no effect in the FOR of the source, but only affects things in
other FORs?

That is not what he said and attempting to straighten out your
misunderstanding is not worth the effort, since you have never
once made the slightest effort to understand anything which
might jeopardize your 15th century grasp of physical phenomena.

What I said was that from the FoR of the source, the light is emitted at,
and measured at, c .. it never goes faster or slower than c as far as the
source is concerned, so there needs to be no explanation of what makes it
NOT travel at c from the FoR the source, because it always DOES travel at c
from the FoR of the source.

Which, as I pointed out to vern, is not what he claims you said.
Vern spends all of his effort creating semantic ambiguities that
he hopes he can use to promote his own ill-conceived ideas.

And in every other FoR, the light ALSO is measured as going at c. No FoR
ever measures it going slower or faster than c. So there is no mechanism
required to make it slow down or speed up .. because it doesn't.

What there DOES need to be is a 'geometry' that explains how the different
FoR all measure the same speed for light.

Your last sentence is not quite accurate. In order to measure distances,
you need to define a metric. For a physically sensible result, you can
choose two groups of transformations that preserve the metric: the
galilean group and the poincare group. In both cases, there exists a
``lightlike'' vector which is invariant under the respective group
of transformations and which has a velocity `c' which is frame independent.
In the galilean case, that velocity is \infty.

Once you choose a group of transformations either c is finite or c is
infinite. The reason that vern thinks there must be some ``cause''
for `c' to be constant and finite is that he assumes a geometry where
`c' is constant and infinite so that he has to find some way to fix
his erroneous assumption, which otherwise makes incorrect predictions.

The identification of `c' with the speed of light is an historical
artifact due to the desire of einstein to explain maxwell's equations
as his motivation for developing special relativity. The identification
is only correct if maxwell's equations are correct (which implies
the photon is massless). This has been explained to vern (and to many
other kooks) before in an attempt to get them to separate geometry from
the theory of electromagnetism. The choice of geometry only contrains
the possibility for the theories which are self-consistent with the
geometry and I can easily write down a relativistic theory of E&M in
which the speed of light is not `c' and which contains a massive photon.















.