Re: Einstein's energy formula E=mc^2 is WRONG!


"Pmb" <someone@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:e5udnaSRcdUBrmrbnZ2dnUVZ_tSknZ2d@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx

"bz" <bz+spr@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:Xns99B4DD462F88BWQAHBGMXSZHVspammote@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
"Pmb" <someone@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in
news:P6ydnSo258inhmrbnZ2dnUVZ_qiinZ2d@xxxxxxxxxxx:


"Jeckyl" <noone@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:13fe5i0q4h89fb9@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
"Tom Roberts" <tjroberts137@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:fvCJi.165$sw6.61@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Pmb wrote:
"bz" <bz+spr@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:Xns99B4769446E0WQAHBGMXSZHVspammote@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
in reality you willnever find a photon with
one cycle per 100 billin yeras
A photon with such a frequency and wavelength would be SO low in
energy as to be undetectable.
An antenna to emit or detect such photons would be unbuildable.

Even if that is a fundamental truth that still doesn't mean they
don't exist.

But discussing such things is about as useful as debating how many
angles can dance on the head of a pin -- neither one is science.

(sigh) Sorry Tom. You got this one wrong too. Ever hear of virtual
particles? Or quarks? These are particles which are said to exist but
can never be detected.

They have detectable effects.

Not so for photons with wavelengths of 9E23 km, energy of 2E-52 Joules.

Compute how many moles of such photons one would need to collect in order
to
produce a detectable signal. Don't forget that you need an antenna that
is at
least 1% of the wavelength.

How fast will you need to move to Doppler shift such photons to say 10
KHz,
where they could be detected with a ELF receiver?

Not really .. photons are known to exist and exhibit behaviour as
predicted by theories of physics .. angels don't.

We know different photons can have different frequencies, and that the
range of frequencies so far detected is very large. There is nothing in
the known 'laws' of physics to prevent a photon have a frequency of
1Hz, or 0.1Hz, or 0.01Hz, or 0.001Hz etc. Claiming without supporting
evidence or theory that there is some arbitrary lowest possible
frequency (ie some longest possible wavelength) is what is not science.
The actual existence and detection of a very low frequency photon,
below any proposed limit, would refute such a claim .. however, the
lack of such a photon does not support it and certainly does not prove
it .. which is what Porat claims .. and that claim is also not science.

Tom has once again shown us another error in his thinking. Given a frame
in which the photon has a frequency of 1 Hz then we can actuall make
that determination by changing frames to a frame in which the light has
a much higher frequency. When then measure the frequency in that frame
and apply the postulates of relativity to determine the frequency in the
original frame.

One cycle per second is far from one cycle per 100 billion years.
There is NO [known] possible way to change to a frame that would allow
the
detection of such a wave.

There is nothing in the known laws of physics that would prevent it.

Not enough energy in the universe to accelerate us
to the necessary relative velocity.

Let us not forget that if there are intelligent beings in other distant
galaxies that are moving away from us at high/relativistic speeds. There
should be a galaxy in which there are observers who'd be able measure the
frequency of that photon. In any case we're not discussing what is
practically possible today. We're speaking about what nature allows to
happen.

Pete

I forgot to mention something - You were thinking that a/the reason we can't
change to such a frame is because of the danger of gamma rays. Nobody made
any statement as to how or what will be doing the measuring. Hence a device
which operates automatically could be designed to stand such radiation.

Pete


.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: ISO 200000 ?
    ... You challenged my 10 photons and said try it with less. ... I was thinking total photons, however you got there, whether you get that from one frame averaging individual pixels, or from averaging multiple frames. ... not understood from what you have written, how many total photons you would consider a detection. ...
    (rec.photo.digital)
  • Re: how does light (photon) escapes suns gravity?
    ... aether and no photons. ... That is, according to special relativity. ... Thus wrt such a frame there is no distance for the wave to ...
    (sci.physics)
  • Re: Einsteins energy formula E=mc^2 is WRONG!
    ... Not so for photons with wavelengths of 9E23 km, ... The actual existence and detection of a very low frequency photon, ... that determination by changing frames to a frame in which the light has ... One cycle per second is far from one cycle per 100 billion years. ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)
  • Re: Brain teaser: Would 300 Hz TV solve the European - US compatibility problem?
    ... without any frame skipping, and without large frame stores. ... In my experience with a few datasheets, most CCD sensors do not make much use of apertures larger than f/2.8, which is 20.25 degrees. ... A fairly typical CCD pixel is a 2 micrometer square. ... How many photons is that? ...
    (sci.electronics.design)
  • Photons & SR - how is this resolved by physicists?
    ... length of a pulse emitted from a laser, ... Consider a laser pointing along the x-axis in the positive x ... reference frame that is moving in the positive x direction. ... Therefore in every frame there must also be N photons in the pulse. ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)