Re: Photons orr special relativity


Dirk Van de moortel wrote:
<kdthrge@xxxxxxxxx> wrote in message news:1159841968.736557.193770@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

Dirk Van de moortel wrote:
<kdthrge@xxxxxxxxx> wrote in message news:1159709355.727321.31910@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

Helmut Wabnig wrote:
On Sun, 01 Oct 2006 10:09:00 GMT, "Sorcerer"
<Headmaster@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:



1: Define "photon".
2: Derive SR from first principles.

Androcles

the OP. is trying to mix SRT with quantum stuff,
therefore he should learn how to

1: Define "photon".
2: Derive SR from first principles.


w.
--
uuuaaahhhh agree with A. uhhhaaaaaa......!

The photon has energy hv, mass hv/c^2, it has momentum ,,hv/c^2 x c,
(mass x velocity)
it has two components to its kinetic energy, it's motion 1/2mc^2, and
it's vibration 1/2mc^2, therefore it has the energy mc^2. If it has a
vibration ' v ' in cycles per second, and travels at c, what is
considered 'wavelength', is just the distance between cycles of it's
vibration.. The volume of the photon is very small for such a very
small quantity of mass. So the concept of the photon is much better for
your thought experiment. What you have done is proven the invalidity of
the concept of light being a wave. So QM's postulate of probability
waves is false. Other phenomena can all be explained within the
framework of the discreet packet of the photon which has measurable
momentum.

Kent Deatherage


You sound like that other imbecile, Yasser Porat, that we have here.
Are you sure you're not related?

Dirk Vdm

So obviously you are a believer in Heisenberg and his wisdom.

So obviously you are another religious fanatic.

Dirk Vdm

No, just someone that enjoys studying the truth of natural phenomena,
not the made up fantasy crap called QM, that is the disease you guys
share in the academic world. Your psycological disease is so severe
that you cannot even discuss the very simple issue of particles of
common size and properties, arranged in simple three dimensional space,
in balanced organizations that originate from strong attractive forces
that directs common and composite force towards the center of the
structure. Therefore you have no interest in the truth and I can prove
that in court, just as I can prove that at some point your refusal to
be interested in the truth is criminal fraud and embezzlement of public
money.

Let's see, with six protons there are only two stable structures that
represent the two stable iotopes of carbon, 12 and 13. Two aligned
triangles, all units at common minimum distance. Another stable
structure is a unit square, with one proton attached either side, all
units at common minimum distance. Both of these structures are very
stable with force towards center of composite of particles. The first
structure of two aligned triangles,has a neutron at the center of the
structure, three neutrons above and below for 7, and total weight 13.
The second structure has 6 neutrons packed within the structure.
Neutrons have different properties than the protons. Their effect is
like a highly viscous liquid. At this close proximity to the proton's
electric field, they are under pressure from the protons' electric
field. Stability of the structure is determined mainly by stability of
proton structure and the negation of the six degrees freedom of motion
which occurs with three rigid bonds. If eight neutrons are present, the
six protons form a hexagon of unit distance. two neutrons perpendicular
to the plane of the hexagon and six neutrons around this axis. The
hexagon of protons is not really stable, it conducts vibrations too
easily and this is carbon 14, which is radioactive and has a half life
of about 5700 yrs when it converts to N14.

This is a perfect structrural analyses of Six protons for carbon. ALL
the rest of the structural analyses is equally as perfect for the
elements. I admit the structures of Nitrogen are by far the most
difficult. There is another structure for 7 protons, I really can't say
for sure which is the structure for N-15 which is a very rare stable
isotope of Nitrogen.

This very simple science of common particles in normal space proves
absolutely the nuclei are composed of structures in which the particles
of protons and neutrons are in non-relative motion or structural
organizations. Instabilty or structural vibration defines unstable
nucliedes.

Kent Deatherage.

.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Photons orr special relativity
    ... Dirk Van de moortel wrote: ... composite of neutrons which are composed within the proton structure, ... for each number of protons. ... Relative proportions of naturally occurring stable isotopes can be ...
    (sci.physics)
  • Re: Photons orr special relativity
    ... all units at common minimum distance. ... | stable with force towards center of composite of particles. ... | structure, three neutrons above and below for 7, and total weight 13. ... | Neutrons have different properties than the protons. ...
    (sci.physics)
  • Re: Photons orr special relativity
    ... Dirk Van de moortel wrote: ... structure, three neutrons above and below for 7, and total weight 13. ... different properties than the protons. ... If you analyze structures for say,,12 magnesium (3 stable isotopes) 13 ...
    (sci.physics)
  • Re: Photons orr special relativity
    ... composite of neutrons which are composed within the proton structure, ... that nuclei of specific numbers of protons and neutrons ... Deviation from spherical symmetry ... Relative proportions of naturally occurring stable isotopes can be ...
    (sci.physics)
  • Re: Aether is the empty space in which the Universe sits
    ... > about the internal structure of the protons and neutrons? ... octahedral configuration and but they do not blend into the aether and ... The atoms fill space and the nucleus occupies the ... > If empty space is filled with neutrons as you say, ...
    (sci.physics)
Quantcast