"Pax" wrote in message om...
Part 2 of " Ken, need help with this"... continuation of Part 1

"Ken S. Tucker" wrote in message
om...
"Pax" wrote in message
news:e ...


2) "In classical mechanics, massless objects are an ill-defined
concept, since applying any force to one would produce, via Newton's
second law, an infinite acceleration - a nonsensical result."


This may sound like a cop out, but there is no way (according to
relativity) to transform measurements from a FoR (Frame of Reference)
moving at the velocity of light to one that is moving at vc.
So to get any measure of the floton's energy, it must be
deaccelerated, so that a transformation of some part of it's momentum
can be transferred to the deaccelerating mass, the photo-electric effect
does that bluntly.

The photoelectric effect shows very nicely the amount of energy
delivered by the impacting photon.

Re 2): First, it's far from "nonsensical", but more to the point,
one must wonder how someone goes about applying force to a massless
object. That's like trying to put a circle around "nothing", the minute
you attempt such an exercise, it's no longer "nothing", it's
"something", the area within the circle.

Ha, reminds me of Star Trek 4, "Nothing unreal exists"...

Rather like they used to say about what our universe existed
within: nothing? Elementary logic overcomes that.

Force is a form of mass.


Careful...

No. Force is the ultimate form of mass. Instead of disagreeing,
falsify the statement.

Hmmm, you'll need to disprove that a banana is not
a fish.

Mass and energy are interchangeable. Zero mass must then equal zero
energy. If something has no mass, what is there to convert to energy or
add energy to? Photons could very well be the bottom of the particle
"food chain", the enablers of force interaction. However, this seems to
already be assumed, justified, explained, and utilized to the point of
being more a law than anything else.


Well, that's the basic idea behind "virtual" photons, but your
description is funner, "bottom of food chain" that about sums it up.
Better ask Bilge.


3) "The net force on any massless object must be zero. If a
string is massless, the tension force is the same at either end (and any
point in the middle)."

Re 3): Sense at last.

4) "Massless objects such as photons also carry momentum; the
formula is p=E/c, where E is the energy the photon carries and c is
the speed of light."

Re 4): How do they justify the above statement? Did someone just
decide all the numbers were wrong where photons were concerned simply by
virtue of the fact they found nothing of mass to be the medium for
aether? Did no one at any time notice photons have no mass and add the
two facts? An undetectable medium + a massless particle = an
undetectable, massless aethereal medium composed of massless particles.
Photons do not have energy, but waves are very capable of having it, in
fact, all waves are a form of energy in motion.

Let's hold those questions, pending my rant above, otherwise other
posters may be better able to answer, ((translation, I need to think)).

Agreed. I communicated at last, didn't I?

Sure, asking questions, especially the right ones
often contain the answers. What you call aether I
likely call "spacetime field". I literally believe
in the conversion of length to energy by GR, as we
discussed before. Furthermore, I do believe it
should be possible to describe *flotons* in terms
of a varing spacetime field. In fact it sounds like
a very good test of a unified field theory connecting
EM and mass.

Let us consider the Photoelectric Effect. How can a massless object
like a photon be thrown, what can interact with something that has no
mass? Further, how can a massless thing be thrown against something of
mass in such a manner as to cause parts of that object of mass, a metal
plate, to dislodge? First, it is electrons (negatively charged leptons)
that are dislodged from the metal plate. Could the Photoelectric Effect
be the result of the interaction of charged forces rather than
particles?

It's proven that photons may be converted to electrons and positrons,
so yes the photoelectric effect may be regarded as an electromagnetic
effect, thanks that's neat.



Where do quarks and gluons fit in? The number parade into the tiny
seems neverending. However, the number of gluons in each of the gluon
chains binding quarks together is determined by force.

I must restudy that, sorry, been awhile, let me get back.

Sure.

I posted a theory about geometric invariants called
"unitivity", and derived a force accounting for the
strong nuclear force along the lines of *supergravity*,
there should be net references about *supergravity*.
Essentially, one derives a particle from a field by
defining "action". For example, Planck's "h" is in
units of action, and when this is multiplied by 1/t,

E = h/t == h*frequency, when t = period.

Similiarly, charge^2 are units of action and

E = q*Q/r (r= ct = t)

Einstein concluded ejected electrons take on a photon and that is
what causes them to become dislodged, many even call such ejected
electrons "photoelectrons", denoting the energy added to the electron
when it absorbs the force of a photon. Is there a difference between
force, as assigned the name "quanta", and the deliverer of that force,
the photon? Yes, however the photon is incorporated into the electron,
but for another reason, the electron is a particle of mass with
properties immediately sympathetic to such absorption.


Yes, in analogy, your use of the term "sympathetic" is like tuning a
radio antenna. But you should think in terms of a dipole. The electron
"alone" cannot absorb a photon, (except in vary unusual circumstances),
it is the positive nucleus together with the negative electron that
forms the dipole when emission or absorption occurs, it's like a tiny
antenna.

I don't agree because, so far, no monopoles have been discovered. The
primary requirement for absorption is compatible resonance, which then
results in the electron jumping outward a ring in the atom's shell. If
the electron is already at the outermost position in the shell, it has
nowhere to go but out of the atom.

Well I think we are discussing electrical conduction???

There must first be mass in order for a reaction to force to occur,
however, even if force could be applied, that force would result in
imparting mass to the former massless object, but then, what are waves
if not the results of force? It could only be that they are not waves of
physical force in the sense commonly assumed (as when a bat hits a
ball), they are waves composed entirely of electromagnetic force. This
explains the EM pulse that accompanies an atomic blast.


As I understand it the EM pulse is *conventionally* explained by
radiation reacting with the atmosphere.

Don't agree with that one.

But there is an alternative explanation...when some quantity of mass
is converted to energy, there is an accompanying gravitational
reduction. That gravitational reduction shakes the spacetime field, and
spacetime field vibration relates as an electromagnetic disturbance,
because the only wave capable of transmission in spacetime are
electromagnetic.

Yes, in my opinion, that's vaguely correct. Gravitation is still
applicable to each element that retains an amount of mass, but gravity's
focused force is reduced due to dispersion. However, some of the mass is
completely transformed into an expansive force, which is directly
counter to gravity. The implosion that precedes the explosion seems
indicative of a massive gravitational build-up that compresses the mass
undergoing conversion beyond its minimum allowable compression limit.

ok

I must say that my opinion is unorthodox, because GRist's have
theorized the existence of gravitational radiation, and are searching
for these using the LIGO apparatus.

At this time, IMHO, I think it doubtful they will ever find gravitons,
but they might find waves. Seems such waves would require a constant
vibratory cycling of mass between a more dense and less dense state,
though.

This may be a bit technical but I find the g-waves are not covariant,
i.e. they exist in one FoR but not another, aka they are CS figments,
like phantoms.

Please expound, that sounds rather counterintuitive. Can understand if
you said their effects would vary between FoRs, but "exist in one FoR
but not another," what do you mean by that?

We have Maxwell's beautiful equations,

0 = F_ab,c + F_bc,a + F_bc,a

that describe an EM wave, but I haven't yet found a
similiar description for g-waves.

Secondly, applying advanced nonsymmetrical metric unified field theory
to bear, the six remaining candidates within the metric able to transfer
that information via the spacetime field (the asymmetric of g01
...g12...g30), are used to transfer electromagnetic effects.

More expounding requested. There is, as yet, no Unified Field
Theory... at least there's been no prize ceremony and accompanying
parade.

Well Einstein proposed g_uv =-g_vu in his last entry
to his book "Idea's and Opinions" as a footnote on
the last page, do you have that book?


It is the transformation of mass into electromagnetism and heat (the
highest forms of energy) during thermal reactions that causes
displacement waves.


Yes.


Though true waves of physical force in the form of heat are released
with the conversion of mass into its highest order manifestation of
photons, it is the EM waves that are responsible for light. My Lord!
Does that mean that Universal expansion is due to the transformation of
denser forms of energy into higher forms of energy?


My Lord, I hope HE/SHE answers that question .

Personally, I think the answer's everywhere around us, we just haven't
looked in the right way yet.

That is what happened at the time of the Big Bang (which is quite
plausible now since the introduction of the Clashing Branes Theory).
Then transformation into denser forms of energy would result,
ultimately, in a return to a state of greatest density, such as in the
case of Schwarzschild Radii, and this would result in a shrinking of
space!

What must follow from that thought is that gravity itself is an
indication of a shrinking of space, which would explain why spacetime is
warped in the vicinity of mass.

Wait! It suddenly occurred to me that a supraforce "enveloped
within" a supraforce could manifest as multiple dimensions and time,
since the enveloping supraforce could pull in all directions "outward"
from the internal supraforce!


The way I would model that is with a balloon, (condom snicker). Then
analogize the "envelope" as the balloons surface with some drawings on
it to see how they vary depending upon the differential pressure in the
balloon wrt the atmospheric pressure.

Two balloons would be needed, one inside the other and pulling in
opposite directions on a "stickiness" between them.

That last just sort of flowed from the other, so left it in.

ok

Be well - Pax

"Be well doing" == "Well be doing" =="doing, be well"

Ken S. Tucker

Thanks so much for your reply, Ken, it's truly appreciated.

Well you've certainly made me think!

Be well some more - Pax

snip generously

Regards
Ken S. Tucker

I know Tom can fend for himself, but...

"Pax" wrote in message om...
"Tom Roberts" wrote in message
m...


[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.


Please see article:
What is the Mass of a Photon?
http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/physic...oton_mass.html


[Tom]
Had you assumed SR instead, you would get indeterminate values (either 0/0
or 0*infinity) using your approach. That just means that SR cannot exclude
particles with zero mass. And, in fact, QED relies on this and uses massless
photons.


[Pax]
Of course. It was not my assumption, however, that was a quoted
statement.


[Pax]
This would seem on the surface to be a ridiculous assertion, since
photons http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Photon were first described by Max
Planck by their virtue of being packets of energy (See Planck’s Law
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Planck's_law). If you examine that you might
notice the word “packets”. A packet is a container, a carrier, something
that is capable of containing and, one would assume, delivering something
else. I am asserting nothing different from that.


[Tom]
Your problem is assuming Newtonian mechanics rather than SR.


[Pax]
No. Your problem is assuming that's what I assume. However, Newton didn't
go in the trashcan when Einstein trumped some of his basic assumptions.

On the contrary, some of Newton DID go in the trashcan. Understanding
what is foundational in Newtonian physics and must be replaced, and
what happens to work as a useful calculation in a low-speed
approximation, is a crucial distinction. Absolutely crucial.



[Pax]
What I am saying is that, rather than one photon carrying a portion of
energy separately from source to destination, photons work in tandem like
“bucket-brigades”, picking up energy from the source and then handing it off
to the next photon in “line”. In normal terms, photons pass energy on
through waves. This would explain why photons seem so commonly to be
“destroyed” in tied groups.


[Tom]
This does not explain the basic phenomena observed. Specifically the
photon effect. The discrepancy is most strongly illustrated by experiments
that count individual photons (which can now be done for visible light
through gamma rays of many GeV).


[Pax]
The simultaneous destruction/absorption of a group of identical photons is
something Einstein could never figure out, though he tried. What can cause a
group to react simultaneously? The conclusion was that they were somehow
tied due to their being created at exactly the same time and possessing
exactly the same characteristics. (Boy! Do I ever need to rediscover that
reference! I don't like to trust to memory.)

I'm not sure, but I think you're alluding to the EPR test. But your
interpretation seems to be mangled. This does not have to do with the
simultaneous absorbtion of a group of photons.


In double slit, with both slits open, one photon interferes with itself;
with one slit open and one closed, it does not. Both slits open or one slit
open, a true single particle will take one path or the other. That is
Newtonian. The interference-like pattern build-up with electrons is
different, since electrons are fermions (though they're also waves, of
course).

Please see hotly debated article (and its reference links):
Copenhagen interpretation
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Copenhagen_interpretation


[Pax]
In order for the energy carried in a wave to diminish, gravity or
friction of the medium must offer resistance,


[Tom]
Or, perhaps, the waves in question are not classical waves. That's how
modern physical theories treat this....


[Pax]
Yes, I said that. But they are considered to have all of the
characteristics of classic waves. The primary way modern theories disagree
with classic theories is in their assertion that the photon itself exists at
c, has no medium and is, instead, its own medium. They have taken the energy
and insisted it is the particle. This works in application, just as calling
a water wave water works in application. Both assertions are true.

Explain the propagation method of the photon. What causes it to travel in
wave form? Without the addition of a medium, the wave characteristics of the
photon in flight are nothing short of voodoo assertions.

No, and this is a crucial point. A wave can be defined as a traveling
periodic mathematical solution to a set of physical laws that
describes behavior as a function of space and time. That is, if the
physical laws permit the solution, and it is periodic, and it travels,
then it's a wave. Period. Note there is NO assumption about what's
waving in what. There is NO assumption of a medium. You are relying on
an overly restrictive, intuitive notion of a wave that demands a
medium in order for the very idea of a wave to make sense. That's
what's holding you back.

However, if you
consider photons as the medium, and return their full -1, 0, +1 spin
possibilities to them... which 0 state has been *accepted* in the special
case of photons... the propagation of electromagnetic waves through them
might become explanatory. Even though spin is not a real vector, it could be
an indication of a possible tendency for travel in a real vector.

Where photons are concerned there are so many "this is how it is *except* in
the case of the photon" statements it's rather ridiculous. Einstein never
said there was no medium for light, all he said was the utilization of such
a medium wasn't necessary in order for GR to work.

Right. And then the presence of a medium, even if SR doesn't demand
it, would then require certain observational effects if the medium is
simple, or quite complicated behavior if the observational effects are
to be hidden. At some point, if the observational effects of the two
competing theories are identical, then Occam's razor applies. A
simpler, albeit less intuitive theory wins over a more complicated
one, under the knife.


I'm not here to try to convince you or anyone else I'm right, Tom, I'm here
to work through a mystery. This is an exercise for my own pleasure to
satisfy my own questions. So many exceptions concerning the photon are
unacceptable to me, since they fly in the face of logic. Most are happy to
live with "that's just the way it is," unfortunately for me, I'm not one of
those.

In Physics today, assumptions are drawn that directly counter Relativity, at
least the founding assertions of Einstein's Relativity, and then those
assumptions are defended as if they were theology rather than science. If
you don't agree with my conclusions, that's fine with me... truly. I'm
here to gather more complete information, not to be "indoctrinated". Such
attempts are unnecessary where I'm concerned, since I already agree with
Einstein... even though it might not seem to some that I do.


Tom Roberts


Be well - Pax

.~*~._.~*~._.~*~._.~*~._.~*~._.~*~._.~*~._.~*~._.~ *~.

May people say of you:
"The world is a better place because you are in it."

From Andromeda:
"Dillon Hunt, there are three kinds of people in this
universe, those who can count, and those who can't."

We sit inside the impossible and say the impossible
is impossible.

"Paul Draper" wrote in message
om...
I know Tom can fend for himself, but...

"Pax" wrote in message
om...
"Tom Roberts" wrote in message
m...


[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/physic...oton_mass.html


Be well - Pax

"Ken S. Tucker" wrote in message
om...
"Pax" wrote in message
om...
Part 2 of " Ken, need help with this"... continuation of Part 1

"Ken S. Tucker" wrote in message
om...
"Pax" wrote in message
news:e ...

[Pax]
Force is a form of mass.

[Ken]
Careful...

[Pax]
No. Force is the ultimate form of mass. Instead of disagreeing,
falsify the statement.

[Ken]
Hmmm, you'll need to disprove that a banana is not a fish.

[Pax]
It's not *that* hard. You simply need to show that a force applied to an
object does not increase its mass.

[Pax]
4) "Massless objects such as photons also carry momentum; the
formula is p=E/c, where E is the energy the photon carries and c is the
speed of light."

Re 4): How do they justify the above statement? Did someone just
decide all the numbers were wrong where photons were concerned simply by
virtue of the fact they found nothing of mass to be the medium for aether?
Did no one at any time notice photons have no mass and add the two facts? An
undetectable medium + a massless particle = an undetectable, massless
aethereal medium composed of massless particles. Photons do not have energy,
but waves are very capable of having it, in fact, all waves are a form of
energy in motion.

[Ken]
Let's hold those questions, pending my rant above, otherwise other
posters may be better able to answer, ((translation, I need to think)).

[Pax]
Agreed. I communicated at last, didn't I?

[Ken]
Sure, asking questions, especially the right ones often contain the
answers. What you call aether I likely call "spacetime field". I literally
believe in the conversion of length to energy by GR, as we discussed before.
Furthermore, I do believe it should be possible to describe *flotons* in
terms of a varying spacetime field. In fact it sounds like a very good test
of a unified field theory connecting EM and mass.

[Pax]
Interesting observation.

[Pax]
Where do quarks and gluons fit in? The number parade into the tiny
seems neverending. However, the number of gluons in each of the gluon chains
binding quarks together is determined by force.

[Ken]
I must restudy that, sorry, been awhile, let me get back.

[Pax]
Sure.

[Ken]
I posted a theory about geometric invariants called "unitivity", and
derived a force accounting for the strong nuclear force along the lines of
*supergravity*, there should be net references about *supergravity*.
Essentially, one derives a particle from a field by defining "action". For
example, Planck's "h" is in units of action, and when this is multiplied by
1/t,

E = h/t == h*frequency, when t = period.

Similarly, charge^2 are units of action and

E = q*Q/r (r= ct = t)

[Pax]
Please clarify the last equation, what are "q" and "Q"?

[Pax]
Einstein concluded ejected electrons take on a photon and that is
what causes them to become dislodged, many even call such ejected electrons
"photoelectrons", denoting the energy added to the electron when it absorbs
the force of a photon. Is there a difference between force, as assigned the
name "quanta", and the deliverer of that force, the photon? Yes, however the
photon is incorporated into the electron, but for another reason, the
electron is a particle of mass with properties immediately sympathetic to
such absorption.

[Ken]
Yes, in analogy, your use of the term "sympathetic" is like tuning a
radio antenna. But you should think in terms of a dipole. The electron
"alone" cannot absorb a photon, (except in vary unusual circumstances), it
is the positive nucleus together with the negative electron that forms the
dipole when emission or absorption occurs, it's like a tiny antenna.

[Pax]
I don't agree because, so far, no monopoles have been discovered. The
primary requirement for absorption is compatible resonance, which then
results in the electron jumping outward a ring in the atom's shell. If the
electron is already at the outermost position in the shell, it has nowhere
to go but out of the atom.

[Ken]
Well I think we are discussing electrical conduction???

[Pax]
Production, in the case of the photoelectric effect. Here, read over this
and let's discuss from common ground, perhaps I was being overly simplistic
and missed something important.

[Ken]
This may be a bit technical but I find the g-waves are not covariant,
i.e. they exist in one FoR but not another, aka they are CS figments, like
phantoms.

[Pax]
Please expound, that sounds rather counterintuitive. Can understand if
you said their effects would vary between FoRs, but "exist in one FoR but
not another," what do you mean by that?

[Ken]
We have Maxwell's beautiful equations,

0 = F_ab,c + F_bc,a + F_bc,a

that describe an EM wave, but I haven't yet found a similar description
for g-waves.

[Pax]
Still not explained for me, sorry. Are you saying the lack of a description
for g-waves is what led to your "exist in one FoR but not another"
statement?

[Ken]
Secondly, applying advanced nonsymmetrical metric unified field
theory to bear, the six remaining candidates within the metric able to
transfer that information via the spacetime field
(the asymmetric of g01...g12...g30),
are used to transfer electromagnetic effects.

[Pax]
More expounding requested. There is, as yet, no Unified Field
Theory... at least there's been no prize ceremony and accompanying parade.


[Ken]
Well Einstein proposed g_uv =-g_vu in his last entry to his book "Idea's
and Opinions" as a footnote on the last page, do you have that book?

[Pax]
Yes, I do, it's one of those I just bought. The last footnote in the book
states:

"The generalization can be characterized in the following way. In accordance
with its derivation from empty "Minkowski space," the pure gravitational
field of the functions g_ik has the property of symmetry given by
g_ik = g_ki (g_12 = g_21, etc.).
The generalized field is of the same kind, but without this property of
symmetry. The derivation of the field law is completely analogous to that of
the special case of pure gravitation."

Is that the one you mean?

[Pax]
Thanks so much for your reply, Ken, it's truly appreciated.

[Ken]
Well you've certainly made me think!

[Pax]
Same here. You've been very helpful to me.


Regards
Ken S. Tucker


And to you.
Be well - Pax

..~*~._.~*~._.~*~._.~*~._.~*~._.~*~._.~*~._.~*~._. ~*~.

May people say of you:
"The world is a better place because you are in it."

From Andromeda:
"Dillon Hunt, there are three kinds of people in this
universe, those who can count, and those who can't."

We sit inside the impossible and say the impossible
is impossible.

Guess it would help if I included the link if I want you read something,
huh?

Link added in context below:


"Pax" wrote in message
m...
"Ken S. Tucker" wrote in message
om...
"Pax" wrote in message
om...
Part 2 of " Ken, need help with this"... continuation of Part 1

"Ken S. Tucker" wrote in message
om...
"Pax" wrote in message
news:e ...


[Ken]
Yes, in analogy, your use of the term "sympathetic" is like tuning a
radio antenna. But you should think in terms of a dipole. The electron
"alone" cannot absorb a photon, (except in vary unusual circumstances), it
is the positive nucleus together with the negative electron that forms the
dipole when emission or absorption occurs, it's like a tiny antenna.

[Pax]
I don't agree because, so far, no monopoles have been discovered. The
primary requirement for absorption is compatible resonance, which then
results in the electron jumping outward a ring in the atom's shell. If the
electron is already at the outermost position in the shell, it has nowhere
to go but out of the atom.

[Ken]
Well I think we are discussing electrical conduction???

[Pax]
Production, in the case of the photoelectric effect. Here, read over this
and let's discuss from common ground, perhaps I was being overly simplistic
and missed something important.

Photoelectric effect
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Photoelectric_effect


Be well - Pax

"Pax" wrote in message om...
"Paul Draper" wrote in message
om...
I know Tom can fend for himself, but...

"Pax" wrote in message
om...
"Tom Roberts" wrote in message
m...


[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/physic...oton_mass.html


Be well - Pax

I'm sorry, I did not follow your first paragraph. Could you please
rephrase?

Note that in Baez's FAQ article, he points out that energy and mass
are not equivalent, except by an antiquated definition of mass. Using
the invariant definition of mass, the energy relationship is given by
E^2 = m^2*c^4 + p^2*c^2.
In this definition, note that it is entirely possible for an object to
have nonzero E and zero m.

Which definition are you using?

Your next point should probably be the following:
OK, so let's suppose a photon has nonzero E and zero m, by virtue of
having a nonzero p. Now, how can p be nonzero if m is zero? Is that
your fundamental question?

PD

"Pax" wrote in message om...
Guess it would help if I included the link if I want you read something,
huh?

Link added in context below:


"Pax" wrote in message
m...
"Ken S. Tucker" wrote in message
om...
"Pax" wrote in message
om...
Part 2 of " Ken, need help with this"... continuation of Part 1

"Ken S. Tucker" wrote in message
om...
"Pax" wrote in message
news:e ...


[Ken]
Yes, in analogy, your use of the term "sympathetic" is like tuning a
radio antenna. But you should think in terms of a dipole. The electron
"alone" cannot absorb a photon, (except in vary unusual circumstances), it
is the positive nucleus together with the negative electron that forms the
dipole when emission or absorption occurs, it's like a tiny antenna.

[Pax]
I don't agree because, so far, no monopoles have been discovered. The
primary requirement for absorption is compatible resonance, which then
results in the electron jumping outward a ring in the atom's shell. If the
electron is already at the outermost position in the shell, it has nowhere
to go but out of the atom.

[Ken]
Well I think we are discussing electrical conduction???

[Pax]
Production, in the case of the photoelectric effect. Here, read over this
and let's discuss from common ground, perhaps I was being overly simplistic
and missed something important.

Photoelectric effect
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Photoelectric_effect

Oh now I get it, hit me over the head, then it sinks
in!!!

I'm sure to be flamed if I abuse you, and you are
always welcome to post my explanations as a general
question in a new thread, that said, I'll speak with
confidence.

When a photon is absorbed by an atomic antenna that
consists of a nucleus and an electron, an equal
EM energy is absorbed by both the -charge and the
+charge according to their charge magnitude,
(not according to their respective masses).

The photon only sees the charges, and in the case
of hydrogen the the nuclear and electronic
charges are the same.

But because the inertial mass of the charge is so
much less than a protons, (~1/1834) it is the
electron that exhibits the greatest *recoil* and
get's the attention.

As a result a common misconception results that
the electron is absorbing the energy and the
nucleus is passive. IMHO that's not true when
you get down and dirty...let's get down and
dirty...it's an equal thing, I'll push my
point by stating the "the absorption of a
photon by an atom creates an equal and opposite
reaction on the nucleus and the electron", sound
familiar, I'm aping Newtons 3rd.
But the most disconcernible measurement, for
many reasons, is focused on how the electron reacts,
and the nucleus plays is relegated to a passive role.

Be well - Pax

Hope you understand a wee bit...
Ken

"Pax" wrote in message om...
"Ken S. Tucker" wrote in message
om...
"Pax" wrote in message
om...
Part 2 of " Ken, need help with this"... continuation of Part 1

"Ken S. Tucker" wrote in message
om...
"Pax" wrote in message
news:e ...

[Pax]
Force is a form of mass.

[Ken]
Careful...

[Pax]
No. Force is the ultimate form of mass. Instead of disagreeing,
falsify the statement.

[Ken]
Hmmm, you'll need to disprove that a banana is not a fish.

[Pax]
It's not *that* hard. You simply need to show that a force applied to an
object does not increase its mass.

Pax, I must confess to you, I'm a hard core GRist
and in my books the're is no such thing as force.

[Pax]
4) "Massless objects such as photons also carry momentum; the
formula is p=E/c, where E is the energy the photon carries and c is the
speed of light."

Re 4): How do they justify the above statement? Did someone just
decide all the numbers were wrong where photons were concerned simply by
virtue of the fact they found nothing of mass to be the medium for aether?
Did no one at any time notice photons have no mass and add the two facts? An
undetectable medium + a massless particle = an undetectable, massless
aethereal medium composed of massless particles. Photons do not have energy,
but waves are very capable of having it, in fact, all waves are a form of
energy in motion.

[Ken]
Let's hold those questions, pending my rant above, otherwise other
posters may be better able to answer, ((translation, I need to think)).

[Pax]
Agreed. I communicated at last, didn't I?

[Ken]
Sure, asking questions, especially the right ones often contain the
answers. What you call aether I likely call "spacetime field". I literally
believe in the conversion of length to energy by GR, as we discussed before.
Furthermore, I do believe it should be possible to describe *flotons* in
terms of a varying spacetime field. In fact it sounds like a very good test
of a unified field theory connecting EM and mass.

[Pax]
Interesting observation.

[Pax]
Where do quarks and gluons fit in? The number parade into the tiny
seems neverending. However, the number of gluons in each of the gluon chains
binding quarks together is determined by force.

[Ken]
I must restudy that, sorry, been awhile, let me get back.

[Pax]
Sure.

[Ken]
I posted a theory about geometric invariants called "unitivity", and
derived a force accounting for the strong nuclear force along the lines of
*supergravity*, there should be net references about *supergravity*.
Essentially, one derives a particle from a field by defining "action". For
example, Planck's "h" is in units of action, and when this is multiplied by
1/t,

E = h/t == h*frequency, when t = period.

Similarly, charge^2 are units of action and

E = q*Q/r (r= ct = t)

[Pax]
Please clarify the last equation, what are "q" and "Q"?

Electrostic charge q and another spatial different charge Q.

[Pax]
Einstein concluded ejected electrons take on a photon and that is
what causes them to become dislodged, many even call such ejected electrons
"photoelectrons", denoting the energy added to the electron when it absorbs
the force of a photon. Is there a difference between force, as assigned the
name "quanta", and the deliverer of that force, the photon? Yes, however the
photon is incorporated into the electron, but for another reason, the
electron is a particle of mass with properties immediately sympathetic to
such absorption.

[Ken]
Yes, in analogy, your use of the term "sympathetic" is like tuning a
radio antenna. But you should think in terms of a dipole. The electron
"alone" cannot absorb a photon, (except in vary unusual circumstances), it
is the positive nucleus together with the negative electron that forms the
dipole when emission or absorption occurs, it's like a tiny antenna.

[Pax]
I don't agree because, so far, no monopoles have been discovered. The
primary requirement for absorption is compatible resonance, which then
results in the electron jumping outward a ring in the atom's shell. If the
electron is already at the outermost position in the shell, it has nowhere
to go but out of the atom.

[Ken]
Well I think we are discussing electrical conduction???

[Pax]
Production, in the case of the photoelectric effect. Here, read over this
and let's discuss from common ground, perhaps I was being overly simplistic
and missed something important.

I'm less than well studied on the photo-electric, but
I recall it needed free electrons in a metal to push.

[Ken]
This may be a bit technical but I find the g-waves are not covariant,
i.e. they exist in one FoR but not another, aka they are CS figments, like
phantoms.

[Pax]
Please expound, that sounds rather counterintuitive. Can understand if
you said their effects would vary between FoRs, but "exist in one FoR but
not another," what do you mean by that?

[Ken]
We have Maxwell's beautiful equations,

0 = F_ab,c + F_bc,a + F_bc,a

that describe an EM wave, but I haven't yet found a similar description
for g-waves.

[Pax]
Still not explained for me, sorry. Are you saying the lack of a description
for g-waves is what led to your "exist in one FoR but not another"
statement?

Yes, (but my views are unorthodox, I do respect the views
of conventional GRist who think otherwise).

The GR equation above is true in all FoR's, hence
electromagnetic radiation was predicted, and this
led Hertz to conduct radio experiments to prove it
using basic sparks and antennae. Sure enough he
proved it and an entire new way of transmitting
porn was born.

What, I have yet to learn is an equivalent way
to express g-radiation, that is invariant. Perhaps
brighter theoreticians have solved that problem,
but I have not found, seen or learned it yet,
therefore, on the basis of my experience I am
unable to under-write the effect.

[Ken]
Secondly, applying advanced nonsymmetrical metric unified field
theory to bear, the six remaining candidates within the metric able to
transfer that information via the spacetime field
(the asymmetric of g01...g12...g30),
are used to transfer electromagnetic effects.

[Pax]
More expounding requested. There is, as yet, no Unified Field
Theory... at least there's been no prize ceremony and accompanying parade.


[Ken]
Well Einstein proposed g_uv =-g_vu in his last entry to his book "Idea's
and Opinions" as a footnote on the last page, do you have that book?

[Pax]
Yes, I do, it's one of those I just bought. The last footnote in the book
states:

"The generalization can be characterized in the following way. In accordance
with its derivation from empty "Minkowski space," the pure gravitational
field of the functions g_ik has the property of symmetry given by
g_ik = g_ki (g_12 = g_21, etc.).
The generalized field is of the same kind, but without this property of
symmetry. The derivation of the field law is completely analogous to that of
the special case of pure gravitation."

Is that the one you mean?

Yes, good of you to consider Einstein's last foot-note
in his last publication of his life. What he is recommending
is serious consideration to g_ik = - g_ki (asymmetrical) in
certain circumstances.

I'm awfully glad you took the time to repeat the footnote,
....like a good twink I donated my copy to the local library.

At least you won't think I'm a total crank to consider
g_ik = - g_ki when appropriate. I'll warn you right now,
some think of me as unorthodox to consider Einstein's
last thought's as reasonable, and other's are so frustrated
by the mathematical difficulty that they just "kill file me".

I'm not cowarded by his statement, on the contrary I've
done careful study since HS and find it totally reasonable.

One last thing...Why would an Einstein, who is commited to
finding truth and honesty use his last words to mislead me?

I checked out the guy, and find he was completely honest
when he made that claim.

You've studied him, what axe was he grinding if any?

[Pax]
Thanks so much for your reply, Ken, it's truly appreciated.

[Ken]
Well you've certainly made me think!

[Pax]
Same here. You've been very helpful to me.

Likewise

Ken S. Tucker
....glad to share some common interests.

"Ken S. Tucker" wrote in message
om...
"Pax" wrote in message
om...
"Ken S. Tucker" wrote in message
om...
"Pax" wrote in message
om...
Part 2 of " Ken, need help with this"... continuation of Part 1

"Ken S. Tucker" wrote in message
om...
"Pax" wrote in message
news:e ...

[Pax]
Force is a form of mass.

[Ken]
Careful...

[Pax]
No. Force is the ultimate form of mass. Instead of disagreeing,
falsify the statement.

[Ken]
Hmmm, you'll need to disprove that a banana is not a fish.

[Pax]
It's not *that* hard. You simply need to show that a force applied to
an object does not increase its mass.

[Ken]
Pax, I must confess to you, I'm a hard core GRist and in my books there is
no such thing as force.

[Pax]
Okay, not you've got my head spinning.

Force
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Force

You can call it momentum, energy, tension, etc., but it all boils down to
"force". Electromagnetic, Strong, Weak... these all have "Force" as the
final part of their names.

[Ken]
I posted a theory about geometric invariants called "unitivity", and
derived a force accounting for the strong nuclear force along the lines of
*supergravity*, there should be net references about *supergravity*.
Essentially, one derives a particle from a field by defining "action". For
example, Planck's "h" is in units of action, and when this is multiplied by
1/t,

E = h/t == h*frequency, when t = period.

Similarly, charge^2 are units of action and

E = q*Q/r (r= ct = t)

[Pax]
Please clarify the last equation, what are "q" and "Q"?

[Ken]
Electrostatic charge q and another spatial different charge Q.

[Pax]
Okay... still not following. Sorry. Writing it out as I understand it,
please correct it where needed:

Energy equals electrostatic charge(q) times spatial charge(Q) divided by r,
which r is equal to c times time(t) which is equal to time(t).

[Ken]
Well I think we are discussing electrical conduction???

[Pax]
Cutting the part concerning this since it's the topic of the appended post
and you answered there.

[Pax]
Still not explained for me, sorry. Are you saying the lack of a
description for g-waves is what led to your "exist in one FoR but not
another" statement?

[Ken]
Yes, (but my views are unorthodox, I do respect the views of conventional
GRist who think otherwise).

The GR equation above is true in all FoR's, hence electromagnetic
radiation was predicted, and this led Hertz to conduct radio experiments to
prove it using basic sparks and antennae. Sure enough he proved it and an
entire new way of transmitting porn was born.

[Pax]
grin

[Ken]
What, I have yet to learn is an equivalent way to express g-radiation,
that is invariant. Perhaps brighter theoreticians have solved that problem,
but I have not found, seen or learned it yet, therefore, on the basis of my
experience I am unable to under-write the effect.

[Pax]
See quote below, perhaps it will help.

[Ken]
Secondly, applying advanced nonsymmetrical metric unified field
theory to bear, the six remaining candidates within the metric able to
transfer that information via the spacetime field
(the asymmetric of g01...g12...g30),
are used to transfer electromagnetic effects.

[Pax]
More expounding requested. There is, as yet, no Unified Field
Theory... at least there's been no prize ceremony and accompanying parade.


[Ken]
Well Einstein proposed g_uv =-g_vu in his last entry to his book
"Idea's and Opinions" as a footnote on the last page, do you have that book?

[Pax]
Yes, I do, it's one of those I just bought. The last footnote in the
book states:

"The generalization can be characterized in the following way. In
accordance with its derivation from empty "Minkowski space," the pure
gravitational field of the functions g_ik has the property of symmetry given
by
g_ik = g_ki (g_12 = g_21, etc.).
The generalized field is of the same kind, but without this property of
symmetry. The derivation of the field law is completely analogous to that of
the special case of pure gravitation."

Is that the one you mean?

[Ken]
Yes, good of you to consider Einstein's last foot-note in his last
publication of his life. What he is recommending is serious consideration to
g_ik = - g_ki (asymmetrical) in certain circumstances.

[Pax]
Why are you adding the "-" in front of the second part of the equation? In
my limited understanding, it would seem
g_ik = g_ki
would not be the same as
g_ik = - g_ki

[Ken]
I'm awfully glad you took the time to repeat the footnote ...like a good
twink I donated my copy to the local library.

[Pax]
Think this is the 2nd or 3rd time I've bought my books, flooding... but
never had a copy of Ideas and Opinions until now, and haven't yet read it.

[Ken]
At least you won't think I'm a total crank to consider g_ik = - g_ki when
appropriate. I'll warn you right now, some think of me as unorthodox to
consider Einstein's last thought's as reasonable, and others are so
frustrated by the mathematical difficulty that they just "kill file me".

[Pax]
I don't think you're the least bit of a crank! I don't understand... why
would they kill file you?

[Ken]
I'm not cowarded by his statement, on the contrary I've done careful study
since HS and find it totally reasonable.

One last thing...Why would an Einstein, who is committed to finding truth
and honesty use his last words to mislead me?

I checked out the guy, and find he was completely honest when he made that
claim.

You've studied him, what axe was he grinding if any?

[Pax]
He didn't have any axes to grind in that arena that I can see, he was
completely consumed in his search for Truth, with a capital "T". He was
after the laws that describe "exhaustively physical reality," and he really
didn't care if the products of that pursuit angered others or went against
the accepted norms.

From the last part of Ideas and Opinions, it's starkly apparent he
considered spacetime to be a construct of gravitational fields that would,
in the absence of those fields, cease to exist. (I have to smile, since
that's what I said in my post you Zenned out on at the end.) He prefaced his
arguments that followed with an argument of Descartes': "space is identical
with extension, but extension is connected with bodies; thus there is no
space without bodies and hence no empty space." After that he states:

[Open quote]
On the basis of the general theory of relativity, on the other hand, space
as opposed to "what fills space," which is dependent on the coordinates, has
no separate existence. Thus a pure gravitational field might have been
described in terms of the g_ik (as functions of the coordinates), by
solution of the gravitational equations. If we imagine the gravitational
field, i.e., the functions g_ik, to be removed, there does not remain a
space of type (1) [[ref--ds^2=dx_1^2+dx_2^2+dx_3^2-dx_4^2]], but absolutely
*nothing*, and also no "topological space." For the functions g_ik describe
not only the field, but at the same time also the topological and metrical
structures of the manifold. A space of type (1), judged from the standpoint
of the general theory of relativity, is not a space without a field, but a
special case of the g_ik field, for which--for the coordinate system used,
which in itself has no objective significance--the functions g_ik have
values that do not depend on the coordinates. There is no such thing as an
empty space, i.e., a space without a field. Space-time does not claim
existence on its own, but only as a structural quality of the field.
[...]
[re Generalized Theory of Gravitation... after he sets Minkowski-space as a
special case of the law of gravitation...] The further development of the
theory is not so unequivocally determined by the general principle of
relativity; it has been attempted in various directions during the last few
decades. It is common to all these attempts, to conceive physical reality as
a field, and moreover, one which is a generalization of the gravitational
field, and in which the field law is a generalization of the law for the
pure gravitational field. After long probing I believe that I have now
found*[[footnote]] the most natural form for this generalization, but I have
not yet been able to find out whether this generalized law can stand up
against the facts of experience.

*[[footnote]] The generalization can be characterized in the following way.
In accordance with its derivation from empty "Minkowski space," the pure
gravitational field of the functions g_ik has the property of symmetry given
by g_ik = g_ki (g_12 = g_21, etc.). The generalized field is of the same
kind, but without this property of symmetry. The derivation of the field law
is completely analogous to that of the special case of pure gravitation.
[Close quote]

Hope this helps you.

[Pax]
Thanks so much for your reply, Ken, it's truly appreciated.

[Ken]
Well you've certainly made me think!

[Pax]
Same here. You've been very helpful to me.

Likewise

Ken S. Tucker
...glad to share some common interests.

Yes, indeed, Ken. Same here.
Be well - Pax