Re: photon animation



On Jan 27, 3:37 pm, "Eric Gisse" <jowr...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
On Jan 27, 8:05 am, kdth...@xxxxxxxxx wrote:





On Jan 26, 10:19 pm, "Eric Gisse" <jowr...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:

kdth...@xxxxxxxxx wrote:
On Jan 26, 9:07 pm, "Eric Gisse" <jowr...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
On Jan 26, 5:42 pm, kdth...@xxxxxxxxx wrote:

On Jan 26, 4:28 am, "Y.Porat" <y.y.po...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:

On Jan 26, 8:56 am, "malibu" <vega...@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:>http://users.accesscomm.ca/john/wavetrain1.GIF
rotation in a plane parallel to the axis of travel
coupled to rotation around the axis of travel in
a one-to-one ratio.
John
Galaxy Model--------------------
if you describe a hellix
you are on the right direction
yet

you describe a' full aria' hellix'
which does not make sense to me
the ful aria might be just a methematical
guess
IMHO
you have to descrine it as a
'point paerticle' that moves
in a hellix path
ATB
Y.Porat
------------------
Why does everyone need to make a photon into a wave??If you had _any_ background in physics, you wouldn't ask such a
question.

[snip remaining tripe]
Since you cannot discuss the subject matter, it means your background
is worthless. You should hire a lawyer to sue the academics that sold
it to you.It isn't that I am incapable of discussing physics, it is that I have
no expectation that you will be able to understand what I say or
participate equally in the conversation. I have attempted to discuss
physics with you before - remember our little conversation where I
attempted to explain to you the utility of something simple like L = r
x p?
Well you are still wrong about that. This is only the angular momentum
of a flywheel and is, and has been incorrectly applied to orbital
mechanics. Look Eric, 25 years ago I was taught orbital mechanics by
the very best. What I was taught is very different than what passes as
valid for you. I tried to show you a means, directly from Issac
Newton, that shows that because gravity always induces a change in
velocity, either increasing or decreasing, it is impossible to have a
circular orbit, with which he confirmed Keplers first law.Our definitions of "the very best" are divergent. Whoever this guy
was, he was ignorant of the finer aspects of classical mechanics. You
wouldn't know this because you have never taken a goddamn physics
course in your life where you have to actually use what you were
taught.

I'm not saying what he taught you was wrong, what I am saying is that
the formalism I have been taught is more powerful and contains that
formalism _exactly_.

You sure are a whiny little bitch, Eric. Again you cannot discuss the
subject matter, you just make references of how good your science
theory is. Orbits of less area have greater energy. This does mean
something, for if you add energy to an orbital body it will achieve an
orbit of less area. Circular obits are impossible as Kepler and Newton
decided, but which is the basis of YOUR formalism.

Photons have mass. This is proved in many ways by direct science. Very
direct scientific investigations have been conducted which entirley
confirm this. Even the Germans in the twenties and thirties that hated
Einstein because he was Jewish, could not refute this fact. But you
and your piss poor theory does. This is also proved by the recoil of
nuclei by the absorption and emission of gamma photons. When the
Hubble telescope was brought online, it became apparent at these
extreme magnifications that the effect of the mass of the sunlight
must be considered as it comes out of shadow. This was not foreseen
theoretically. Just a fact of life that the light has mass and imparts
momentum just as Einstein said. But you certainly have the right to
live with your head up your ass.

How can a radio photon with wavelength of several miles have less mass
than gamma photons. Experiment proves that they do. Wavelength means
actually nothing to a photon. A photon has frequency in integral
multiples of h. This is it's energy and is according to the mass it
posseses. Any relavance to distance within a wave is meaningless.

Thanks again for demonstrating the mentality of the dishonest little
twits that dominate theoretical science in academia. Your mamma should
have taught you basic honesty. Your enjoyment of calling me an
uneducated roofer that rejects real science just demonstrates your
normal mentality of twisting the truth. Anything that does not conform
to the things you do not understand, but just copy and paste, must be
called stupid. In your mind this makes people believe your lie, that
you actually understand any theoretical science. Good luck in your
life believing your own lies.

Deatherage



I was taught that orbits of equal area have equal energy. Orbits of
less area have greater energy. This is not in compliance with the
'Neils Bohr' theory of orbital motion and this only shows the
depravity of your theoretical science.I'm not talking about the Bohr model, idiot. What I am talking about
straight up Newtonian mechanics. That reminds me - do you even know
why the Bohr model is a bad one, or are you merely repeating what you
have read in the first 20 pages of a physics textbook before you put
it down? Are you aware nobody uses the Bohr model expect as historical
background? Are you aware modern quantum mechanics is much different
than this?

Now how do you KNOW they have equal/greater energy? How do you know
energy is conserved? Using classical mechanics, I can _prove_ it. Can
you?



Because you are so full of your preconceptions, you did not notice
that the means to obtain the mean orbital velocity for any mean
orbital distance is you use the basic for force and work, which is KE
= force x distance of applied force x cosine of theta. Therefore at a
specific distance from the source of gravity, you determine the angle
to a point that will be on a circle in the vertical distance that the
gravity will move the object in one second. The object must have the
lateral velocity so that it reaches this point in the time that it
falls this vertical distance. This velocity, multiplied by the cosine
of the angle to the gravity equals the acceleration of the gravity. At
90 degrees cosine is 0.Actually all I would have used was conservation of energy. I only need
a few pieces of orbital data.



However, if gravity moves an object a certain distance, at the end of
this time it will have a final velocity. Since gravity is a uniform
acceleration, the average velocity in this time is 1/2 of final
velocity. Average velocity x time gives actual distance.A reasonable approximation, but incorrect especially in orbital
mechanics. I fail to see why you mentioned it, except perhaps to show
me that your breadth of education would be adequately covered with
highschool physics.



This is also the fundamental of 1/2mv^2, or kinetic energy. KE = force
x distance of applied force x cosine of theta. If cosine is 1, force =
mass x acceleration or mass x (final velocity - intitial velocity/
time), distance = average velocity x time. If initial velocity is
zero, the time cancels in this formula leaving mass x final velocity x
average velocity. Average velocity is 1/2 final velocity. So v x v/2 x
mass is the kinetic energy.
You do not understand kinetic energy until you understand that
mathematically it is the same as momentum, only integrating the
inverse function for different mass.Momentum is a vector, kinetic energy is a scalar.

Momentum has units of mass * velocity, kinetic energy has units of
mass * velocity squared.

They are not the same, nor are they actually related the way you think
they are.

Congratulations death-rage, you once again reminded me that you are a
roofer who hates science. You have no actual training, but that
doesn't stop you from talking about every facet of physics like you
have an actual education. You might have been good at it if you
actually went to university and took some classes, instead of reading
popularizations and then going up and putting on three tab in the
blazing sun.





Deatherage

Someone who knows about say, diffraction, will not ask a question that
belies complete ignorance of the wave behavior of light.- Hide quoted text -- Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -- Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -- Show quoted text -

.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: .Re: Why all the fascination with E = mc^2 ??
    ... The *correct* expression for the kinetic energy ... frame of the mass). ... > velocity v, and being relativists, we immediately invoke the Lorentz ... > relativistic mass but such does not exist). ...
    (sci.physics)
  • Re: .Re: Why all the fascination with E = mc^2 ??
    ... The *correct* expression for the kinetic energy ... frame of the mass). ... > velocity v, and being relativists, we immediately invoke the Lorentz ... > relativistic mass but such does not exist). ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)
  • Re: RELATIVISTIC MASS
    ... Velocity is distance per time. ... As to your misconception of R-mass vs invariable mass, Kinetic energy ... But you can't have motion without energy, ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)
  • Re: E = mc^2 VIOLATES Conservation of Energy Law.
    ... of energy never changes. ... converted to energy, or energy to mass, but the total energy and mass ... as the result of an increase in the velocity of a mass. ... from the middle of the bridge, ...
    (sci.physics)
  • Re: Odd derivation of the GR gravitational shift formula
    ... for escape velocity is to use conservation ... of energy. ... of mass of the planet, ... be an infinite distance away from the planet, ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)