Hi, Ken.



The following math relies on my abilities in algebra, and I'm not certain if algebra is up to what really determines the results of it all. As presented by the renowned men responsible for the foundational calculations, one would think the reductions into algebra are accurate, but have trouble understanding many of the conclusions that spring form this math. The algebra seems to say certain assumptions taken so much for granted are not warranted.



Below is a section of my "study notes".




--------------------------------------------------------------------------------




1) The law of conservation of momentum

2) The First Law of Thermodynamics concerning conservation of energy (This needs no further explanation it merely needs to be remembered.)



The law concerning the conservation of momentum (p) results from a consideration of both rest mass (m0) and velocity (v)...

p = m0v (classic statement), its checking permutations being

m0 = p/v,

and

v = p/m0,

but v = p/m0 will not hold true if m0 = 0 unless v = 0 to begin with.

For a massless particle if

m0 = 0,

then

p = 0,

since 0*v = 0,

so the equation for finding energy (E),

E2/c2 = (m02c2) + p2,

that uses for its basic elements both mass (m) and momentum (p), breaks down to

E2/c2 = (02c2) + 02

E2/c2 = 0c + 0

reducing to

E = 0+0

(or, classically, E = pc) must result in

E = 0

for a massless object.



Strange, it seems a massless particle can have no velocity, is incapable of momentum, and has no energy. If the energy carried by an object is directly proportional to its mass and momentum, then for a massless object it appears that would calculate to 0 energy, yet we know light has energy. The energy must therefore be in the wave and not in the photon. Can we then go the final step and conclude that photons are the stationary medium of transmission, better known classically as aether, for electromagnetic waves that propagate through it?



This would seem on the surface to be a ridiculous assertion, since photons were first described by Max Planck by their virtue of being packets of energy (See 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.



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.



In order for the energy carried in a wave to diminish, gravity or friction of the medium must offer resistance, in other words, the medium must absorb some of the energy or be inhibited by gravity, and/or both. A massless medium is incapable of such absorption or inhibition... or is it? What is warped by gravity in the vicinity of a gravitational mass, is it only time or is it space as well? Most certainly it must be both.



In my studies I have come across these statements ([bracketed] are my insertions):



1) "The de Broglie wavelength of a particle equals Planck's constant divided by its momentum [w=h/p]. The momentum of a particle equals the square root of twice its mass times its kinetic energy [p=sqrt(2m0)*Ek]. The kinetic energy of a particle equals the square of its momentum divided by twice its mass [Ek=p2/2m0]."

[http://www.hsphys.com/ibahl_quantum_summary_L.doc]



Re 1): All of the above assertions seem to hinge upon rest mass being greater than zero (m00), would they not all otherwise zero out? Wavelength depends upon momentum, momentum depends upon velocity times mass, kinetic energy depends upon momentum divided by mass. Is the assertion that photons always move at c based on anything other than the observation of light waves? If wavelength equals Planck's Constant divided by momentum, then photons cannot have a wavelength.

Planck's Constant is

H = 6.626*10-34J*s,

where J is Joules and s is seconds) and

J = 1 kg m2/s2,

where kg is kilograms and m is meters.



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." [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mass#Re...tic_mechanics]



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.



Force is a form of mass. 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.



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)."

[http://scott-yost.baylor.edu/phy1422f04/review2.pdf]



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."

[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Momentum]



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 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? 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.



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.



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.



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



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!


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


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

Be well - Pax

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

What are ten years in the history of humanity? Must
not all those forces that determine the life of a man
be regarded as constant compared with such a trifling
interval? - Albert Einstein - Out of My Later Years

As far as the laws of mathematics refer to reality,
they are not certain; and as far as they are certain,
they do not refer to reality - Albert Einstein

I don't believe in mathematics. - Albert Einstein

Do not worry about your problems with mathematics,
I assure you mine are far greater. - Albert Einstein

"Pax" wrote in message m...
There are a few additions and changes I needed to make to the above post, so am reposting the revised version. Sorry for any inconvenience this repost might cause. Sure hope you can help me.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


1) The law of conservation of momentum

2) The First Law of Thermodynamics concerning conservation of energy (This needs no further explanation it merely needs to be remembered.)



The law concerning the conservation of momentum (p) results from a consideration of both rest mass (m0) and velocity (v)...

p = m0v (classic statement), its checking permutations being

m0 = p/v,

and

v = p/m0,

but v = p/m0 will not hold true if m0 = 0 unless v = 0 to begin with.

For a massless particle if

m0 = 0,

then

p = 0,

since 0*v = 0,

so the equation for finding energy (E),

E2/c2 = (m02c2) + p2,

that uses for its basic elements both mass (m) and momentum (p), breaks down to

E2/c2 = (02c2) + 02

E2/c2 = 0c + 0

reducing to

E = 0+0

(or, classically, E = pc) must result in

E = 0

for a massless object.



Strange, it seems a massless particle can have no velocity, is incapable of momentum, and has no energy. If the energy carried by an object is directly proportional to its mass and momentum, then for a massless object it appears that would calculate to 0 energy, yet we know light has energy. The energy must therefore be in the wave and not in the photon. Can we then go the final step and conclude that photons are the stationary medium of transmission, better known classically as aether, for electromagnetic waves that propagate through it?



This would seem on the surface to be a ridiculous assertion, since photons were first described by Max Planck by their virtue of being packets of energy (See 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.



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.



In order for the energy carried in a wave to diminish, gravity or friction of the medium must offer resistance, in other words, the medium must absorb some of the energy or be inhibited by gravity, and/or both. A massless medium is incapable of such absorption or inhibition... or is it? What is warped by gravity in the vicinity of a gravitational mass, is it only time or is it space as well? Most certainly it must be both.



In my studies I have come across these statements ([bracketed] are my insertions):



1) "The de Broglie wavelength of a particle equals Planck's constant divided by its momentum [w=h/p]. The momentum of a particle equals the square root of twice its mass times its kinetic energy [p=sqrt(2m0)*Ek]. The kinetic energy of a particle equals the square of its momentum divided by twice its mass [Ek=p2/2m0]."



Re 1): All of the above assertions seem to hinge upon rest mass being greater than zero (m00), would they not all otherwise zero out? Wavelength depends upon momentum, momentum depends upon velocity times mass, kinetic energy depends upon momentum divided by mass. Is the assertion that photons always move at c based on anything other than the observation of light waves?



If wavelength equals Planck's Constant divided by momentum, then photons cannot have a wavelength. But if photons are in turn made up of even smaller particles, those smaller particles (such as gluons) very well could have wavelengths and mass. Would that mean wavelength is a requirement of mass?



Planck's Constant is

h = 6.626*10-34J*s,

where J is Joules and s is seconds) and

J = 1 kg m2/s2,

where kg is kilograms and m is meters.



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."



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.



Force is a form of mass. 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.



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 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? 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.



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.



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.



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



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!


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



Be well - Pax

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

Everything should be made as simple as possible,
but not simpler. - Albert Einstein

"Pax" wrote in message om...

Hi, Ken.

Hi Pax, just want to preface my reply that some of the subjects
below, I'm only superficially acquainted with, also, I've read
through your complete post, and some replies will respect items
in your arguments that would follow, ok.

The following math relies on my abilities in algebra, and I'm not
certain if algebra is up to what really determines the results of it
all. As presented by the renowned men responsible for the foundational
calculations, one would think the reductions into algebra are accurate,
but have trouble understanding many of the conclusions that spring form
this math. The algebra seems to say certain assumptions taken so much
for granted are not warranted.

Yes, the more incisive math tool is tensor analysis,
algebra is good up to a point, but in the nitty gritty
it's unreliable.

Below is a section of my "study notes".




-------------------------------------------------------------------------
-------




1) The law of conservation of momentum

2) The First Law of Thermodynamics concerning conservation of energy
(This needs no further explanation it merely needs to be remembered.)


The law concerning the conservation of momentum (p) results from a
consideration of both rest mass (m0) and velocity (v)...

p = m0v (classic statement), its checking permutations being

((never heard it put that way, interesting))

m0 = p/v,

and

v = p/m0,

but v = p/m0 will not hold true if m0 = 0 unless v = 0 to begin
with.

ok

For a massless particle if

m0 = 0,

then

p = 0,

since 0*v = 0,

so the equation for finding energy (E),

E2/c2 = (m02c2) + p2,

that uses for its basic elements both mass (m) and momentum (p), breaks
down to

E2/c2 = (02c2) + 02

E2/c2 = 0c + 0

reducing to

E = 0+0

(or, classically, E = pc) must result in

E = 0

for a massless object.

ok

Strange, it seems a massless particle can have no velocity, is incapable
of momentum, and has no energy. If the energy carried by an object is
directly proportional to its mass and momentum, then for a massless
object it appears that would calculate to 0 energy, yet we know light
has energy. The energy must therefore be in the wave and not in the
photon. Can we then go the final step and conclude that photons are the
stationary medium of transmission, better known classically as aether,
for electromagnetic waves that propagate through it?

((That's topical, pardon my rant))...

IMO, the rest mass of a photon can only be measured when
it leaves a system K and takes some energy, and the rest
mass of the photon appears as a deficit to the emitting
system and/or is then brought to rest by absorption in
system K' adding energy to that system.
Between K and K' a doppler shift can occur or in a
g-field an Einstein shift, so the emission deficit may
not be the same as the absorption increment.

There is really no point in discussing the "rest mass"
of a "photon in flight", (I call that a floton), because
it's not at rest.

It gets complicated when a "floton" is deflected in a
g-field. Basically what happens is the floton appears
to be deaccelerated by the g-field in the process of
deflection. That deacceleration from speed c to a lesser
speed C (C = speed of light in a g-field) can be regarded
as part of the floton being absorbed by the g-field,
thus exhibiting a "rest mass" absorption, and the rest
whizzes by but red shifted by momentum exchange.

This would seem on the surface to be a ridiculous assertion, since
photons were first described by Max Planck by their virtue of being
packets of energy (See 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.

ok

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.

Sure a photon is a tiny oscillator, it has wave
characteristics.

This would explain why photons seem so
commonly to be "destroyed" in tied groups.

That's over my head, do you have a ref?

In order for the energy carried in a wave to diminish, gravity or
friction of the medium must offer resistance, in other words, the medium
must absorb some of the energy or be inhibited by gravity, and/or both.

Yeah, that's what I figure, as I ranted above.

A massless medium is incapable of such absorption or inhibition... or is
it? What is warped by gravity in the vicinity of a gravitational mass,
is it only time or is it space as well? Most certainly it must be both.

Yes both, recall we can convert mass to sucking 1.5 km of length
call that number m = 1.5 km.
We also suck 1.5 km of time, for a total of 2m sucked in spacetime.

It turns out that the deflection of light by the spacetime "warp",
(maybe we should call it spacetime suction) is

deflection = 2m / R , R = closets approach to m
(oo = R)

and that is reported to be confirmed by measuring the
deflection and retarded flight times of photons by the
sun.

In my studies I have come across these statements ([bracketed] are my
insertions):



1) "The de Broglie wavelength of a particle equals Planck's
constant divided by its momentum [w=h/p]. The momentum of a particle
equals the square root of twice its mass times its kinetic energy
[p=sqrt(2m0)*Ek]. The kinetic energy of a particle equals the square
of its momentum divided by twice its mass [Ek=p2/2m0]."

[http://www.hsphys.com/ibahl quantum summary L.doc]



Re 1): All of the above assertions seem to hinge upon rest mass being
greater than zero (m00), would they not all otherwise zero out?
Wavelength depends upon momentum, momentum depends upon velocity times
mass, kinetic energy depends upon momentum divided by mass. Is the
assertion that photons always move at c based on anything other than the
observation of light waves? If wavelength equals Planck's Constant
divided by momentum, then photons cannot have a wavelength.

Before discussing those questions, please see if they are
altered by my rant.

Planck's Constant is

H = 6.626*10-34J*s,

where J is Joules and s is seconds) and

J = 1 kg m2/s2,

where kg is kilograms and m is meters.

yup

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."
[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mass#Relation between Mass.2C Energy and Mo
mentum in relativistic mechanics]

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 flotons 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.

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"...

Force is a form of mass.

Careful...

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)."

[http://scott-yost.baylor.edu/phy1422f04/review2.pdf]

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."

[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Momentum]


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)).

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.

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.

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.
But there is an alternative explanation...when some quantity
of mass is converted to energy, there is an accompaning
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.

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

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.

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

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 .

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 ballon, (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.


-------------------------------------------------------------------------
-------


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


.~*~. .~*~. .~*~. .~*~. .~*~. .~*~. .~*~. .~*~. .~*~.

What are ten years in the history of humanity? Must
not all those forces that determine the life of a man
be regarded as constant compared with such a trifling
interval? - Albert Einstein - Out of My Later Years

As far as the laws of mathematics refer to reality,
they are not certain; and as far as they are certain,
they do not refer to reality - Albert Einstein

I don't believe in mathematics. - Albert Einstein

Do not worry about your problems with mathematics,
I assure you mine are far greater. - Albert Einstein


--

"Pax" wrote in message om...



[a bunch of misguided statements, strewn willy-nilly across the
countryside, which I will now attempt to set upright, one by one.]



The following math relies on my abilities in algebra, and I'm not
certain if algebra is up to what really determines the results of it
all.

It doesn't, and you shouldn't let it. Your intuition should guide your
use of the math, not the other way round. If your intuition is not
sound, the math will just be a meat grinder, churning away on garbage,
and you will still get garbage out.

As presented by the renowned men responsible for the foundational
calculations, one would think the reductions into algebra are accurate,
but have trouble understanding many of the conclusions that spring form
this math. The algebra seems to say certain assumptions taken so much
for granted are not warranted.

The math is not so much the problem. In fact, the problem you face is
always assuming an equation is right.




Below is a section of my "study notes".




-------------------------------------------------------------------------
-------




1) The law of conservation of momentum

2) The First Law of Thermodynamics concerning conservation of energy
(This needs no further explanation it merely needs to be remembered.)



The law concerning the conservation of momentum (p) results from a
consideration of both rest mass (m0) and velocity (v)...

No, it doesn't, especially if you're going to talk about nonclassical
things.


p = m0v (classic statement), its checking permutations being

The key disclaimer is "classical statement". In general, this formula
for momentum is WRONG. It is an approximation. It only works at low
speeds.


m0 = p/v,

and

v = p/m0,

but v = p/m0 will not hold true if m0 = 0 unless v = 0 to begin
with.

Here your math *is* weak. This will not hold true if m0=0 regardless
whether v=0 or not. Something divided by zero is not zero.


For a massless particle if

m0 = 0,

then

p = 0,

since 0*v = 0,

And here is where you go wrong, using an approximate formula in a case
where it doesn't work. "p=mv" doesn't apply for anything that is
massless or traveling at high speed (or both).


so the equation for finding energy (E),

E2/c2 = (m02c2) + p2,

And now you compound the mistake by using a classical approximation
("p=mv") to embed in a relativistic one. You can't do that. It doesn't
follow. You shouldn't be surprised that using an incorrect formula
inside a correct one yields funny results.


that uses for its basic elements both mass (m) and momentum (p), breaks
down to

E2/c2 = (02c2) + 02

E2/c2 = 0c + 0

reducing to

E = 0+0

(or, classically, E = pc) must result in

E = 0

for a massless object.


Which of course should tip you off that you've done something wrong.
Not in the algebra, but in the understanding of what formulas apply
when.



Strange, it seems a massless particle can have no velocity, is incapable
of momentum, and has no energy. If the energy carried by an object is
directly proportional to its mass and momentum, then for a massless
object it appears that would calculate to 0 energy, yet we know light
has energy. The energy must therefore be in the wave and not in the
photon.

No, that doesn't follow at all. It's not like there's two energy
buckets for light, one for a wave and one for a photon. The SAME
energy in the light must be accounted for in EITHER description.

Can we then go the final step and conclude that photons are the
stationary medium of transmission, better known classically as aether,
for electromagnetic waves that propagate through it?

Certainly not. You just concluded, by your own analysis, that photons
have no meaning because they have no energy (when physicists
practically *define* photons as packets of light energy). And yet you
then claim they must mean something else? That's like claiming that,
because cows are not mammals, they must be fish.




This would seem on the surface to be a ridiculous assertion, since
photons were first described by Max Planck by their virtue of being
packets of energy (See 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.


A packet is not just a container, a carrier. If you like, define a
photon as a "wad" of energy, or a "clump" of energy, or a "bit" of
energy, or a "chunk" of energy. Let the concept drive the language,
not the language drive the concept.



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".

Lovely concept. Not what a photon is. Nor is a bucket-brigade
required, any more than a baseball, once struck, needs hands passing
it from one to another for it to reach the outfield bleachers. Why do
you think light needs to be carried in a bucket?

In normal terms, photons
pass energy on through waves. This would explain why photons seem so
commonly to be "destroyed" in tied groups.

I have no idea where you got the impression that photons are destroyed
in tied groups. Nothing could be further from the truth.




In order for the energy carried in a wave to diminish, gravity or
friction of the medium must offer resistance, in other words, the medium
must absorb some of the energy or be inhibited by gravity, and/or both.
A massless medium is incapable of such absorption or inhibition... or is
it? What is warped by gravity in the vicinity of a gravitational mass,
is it only time or is it space as well? Most certainly it must be both.

Yes it is both. And you're right, in a vacuum, the energy in light
does not diminish as long as it's not going uphill. The same is true
for any wave. It might get *spread out* with distance as it moves from
a source, but it doesn't diminish.




In my studies I have come across these statements ([bracketed] are my
insertions):



1) "The de Broglie wavelength of a particle equals Planck's
constant divided by its momentum [w=h/p]. The momentum of a particle
equals the square root of twice its mass times its kinetic energy
[p=sqrt(2m0)*Ek]. The kinetic energy of a particle equals the square
of its momentum divided by twice its mass [Ek=p2/2m0]."

Both of the added bracketed statements are incorrect. Like the formula
for momentum above, you have used the low speed approximation, which
is not correct in general. Moreover, the de Broglie wavelength as
expressed above does not apply to all particles, it only applies to
massive particles. Once again, you have led the formulas lead you
astray from the correct understanding.


[http://www.hsphys.com/ibahl quantum summary L.doc]



Re 1): All of the above assertions seem to hinge upon rest mass being
greater than zero (m00), would they not all otherwise zero out?
Wavelength depends upon momentum, momentum depends upon velocity times
mass, kinetic energy depends upon momentum divided by mass. Is the
assertion that photons always move at c based on anything other than the
observation of light waves? If wavelength equals Planck's Constant
divided by momentum, then photons cannot have a wavelength.

Well, that all assumes that all the formulas you've used will work for
massless or high-speed particles, which they won't.


Planck's Constant is

H = 6.626*10-34J*s,

where J is Joules and s is seconds) and

J = 1 kg m2/s2,

where kg is kilograms and m is meters.



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."
[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mass#Relation between Mass.2C Energy and Mo
mentum in relativistic mechanics]


Which goes to warn that it's not a good idea to apply a classical idea
(like Newton's 2nd Law) to a non-classical object.



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.

I'm not sure you do! Applying a force is a classical concept.

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.



Force is a form of mass.

The heck it is! Where did you get that idea?

Mass and energy are interchangeable.

That statement doesn't say that mass and energy are equal. What it
says is, that within the bounds of the other laws of physics that work
even non-classically (like conservation of momentum), mass can be
turned into energy and energy into mass.

Zero mass
must then equal zero energy.

No, that doesn't follow. Even taking your mass-energy
interchangeability statement literally, take the following case. I
have an object with some mass, and I convert it to energy completely
somehow. Now I have all energy left, and no mass. Are you going to
conclude that because I have no mass left, that there must be no
energy, either?

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.

What if -- and I'm just supposing here -- what if the photons *are*
the energy that you converted mass into? And if you convert energy
back into mass, it's photons that disappear and massive particles that
appear?




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)."

[http://scott-yost.baylor.edu/phy1422f04/review2.pdf]


This is a blatant case of taking a statement out of context. You are
quoting a classical treatment of an idealized piece of string, not a
photon; moreover the author of that statement makes no pretense that
the statement applies to photons. Moreover, a force acting on a photon
is mixing classical and nonclassical concepts. Again, you are letting
language dictate the concepts, rather than a good conceptual
understanding dictate your language.



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."

[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Momentum]



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?

Not quite. They decided that "p=mv" is a classical approximation to a
better definition, which you have not learned or invoked.

Did
no one at any time notice photons have no mass and add the two facts?

Sure they did, but you apparently got left behind, confused.

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 us consider the Photoelectric Effect. How can a massless object like
a photon be thrown, what can interact with something that has no mass?

Why do you assume that something has to have mass to interact with it?
You interact with waves all the time. A sound wave can cause blood to
come from your ears. A microwave oven can congeal the protein in an
egg. A radio wave can send electrons zinging up and down an antenna.

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 could be, but it isn't. Otherwise we'd detect the charge beyond the
electrons liberated. Note, by the way, that the wave description of
light FAILS to account for the behavior of the photoelectric effect.
Read that section again. Waves CANNOT make what we observe in the
photoelectric effect.

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'm not sure what you're issue here is. Gluons have nothing to do with
light. Or are you just complaining that it's all so complicated?




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.


I'm sorry, I didn't even understand what you were trying to say in
that last paragraph so I can't fix the errors.



There must first be mass in order for a reaction to force to occur,

No that's not true, and even Newton didn't say that. Where did you
conclude that?

however, even if force could be applied, that force would result in
imparting mass to the former massless object.

No, that's not true, either. Exerting a force does not impart mass.

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.


OK, I have to admit I'm getting a little winded.



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


No, and you've not only wandered into the weeds, but are leaping over
bushes in the weeds.



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!

OK, I'm standing back here on the road, and I can't even see you
anymore. I hear you whooping and making a lot of animal noises, but I
can't make it out.



-------------------------------------------------------------------------
-------


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

Be well - Pax

.~*~. .~*~. .~*~. .~*~. .~*~. .~*~. .~*~. .~*~. .~*~.

What are ten years in the history of humanity? Must
not all those forces that determine the life of a man
be regarded as constant compared with such a trifling
interval? - Albert Einstein - Out of My Later Years

As far as the laws of mathematics refer to reality,
they are not certain; and as far as they are certain,
they do not refer to reality - Albert Einstein

I don't believe in mathematics. - Albert Einstein

Do not worry about your problems with mathematics,
I assure you mine are far greater. - Albert Einstein


--

"Paul Draper" wrote in message
om...
"Pax" wrote in message
om...



[a bunch of misguided statements, strewn willy-nilly across the
countryside, which I will now attempt to set upright, one by one.]



The following math relies on my abilities in algebra, and I'm not
certain if algebra is up to what really determines the results of it
all.

It doesn't, and you shouldn't let it. Your intuition should guide your
use of the math, not the other way round. If your intuition is not
sound, the math will just be a meat grinder, churning away on garbage,
and you will still get garbage out.





As presented by the renowned men responsible for the foundational
calculations, one would think the reductions into algebra are accurate,
but have trouble understanding many of the conclusions that spring form
this math. The algebra seems to say certain assumptions taken so much
for granted are not warranted.

The math is not so much the problem. In fact, the problem you face is
always assuming an equation is right.




Below is a section of my "study notes".




-------------------------------------------------------------------------
-------




1) The law of conservation of momentum

2) The First Law of Thermodynamics concerning conservation of energy
(This needs no further explanation it merely needs to be remembered.)



The law concerning the conservation of momentum (p) results from a
consideration of both rest mass (m0) and velocity (v)...

No, it doesn't, especially if you're going to talk about nonclassical
things.


p = m0v (classic statement), its checking permutations being

The key disclaimer is "classical statement". In general, this formula
for momentum is WRONG. It is an approximation. It only works at low
speeds.

That is misguiding statement,
p = mv works perfectly at high speeds too, and is a definition.
In FACT, the problem you face is not assuming an equation is right.


m0 = p/v,

and

v = p/m0,

but v = p/m0 will not hold true if m0 = 0 unless v = 0 to begin
with.

Here your math *is* weak. This will not hold true if m0=0 regardless
whether v=0 or not. Something divided by zero is not zero.

Correct. We can discuss the momentum of a photon, however; it is
hf(c+v/c, but since f = 1/t, this becomes h(c+v)/tc.


For a massless particle if

m0 = 0,

then

p = 0,

since 0*v = 0,

And here is where you go wrong, using an approximate formula in a case
where it doesn't work. "p=mv" doesn't apply for anything that is
massless or traveling at high speed (or both).

This is where you make misleading statements.
For the photon traveling at high speed, in this case c,
E = hf (Planck) = mc^2 (Langevin)
m = hf/c^2.
So p = hf/c if and only if p = mc.



so the equation for finding energy (E),

E2/c2 = (m02c2) + p2,

No it isn't.
E = Rest Energy + K.E.
= mc^2 + 1/2mv^2.
E^2 = ( mc^2 + 1/2mv^2)^2
= m^2c^4 +m^2v^2c^2 + m^2v^4 /4
Since p = mv,
E^2 = m^2c^4 +p^2c^2 + m^2v^4 / 4.
Dividing through by c^2,

E^2/c^2 = m^2c^2 + p^2 + m^2v^4/c^2 /4

You've left out m^2v^4/c^2 / 4.
For v close to c, this approximates to m^2c^2/4.



And now you compound the mistake by using a classical approximation
("p=mv") to embed in a relativistic one. You can't do that. It doesn't
follow. You shouldn't be surprised that using an incorrect formula
inside a correct one yields funny results.


that uses for its basic elements both mass (m) and momentum (p), breaks
down to

E2/c2 = (02c2) + 02

E2/c2 = 0c + 0

reducing to

E = 0+0

(or, classically, E = pc) must result in

E = 0

for a massless object.


Which of course should tip you off that you've done something wrong.
Not in the algebra, but in the understanding of what formulas apply
when.

I should tip you off that your algebra is incorrect. You didn't complete the
square.





Strange, it seems a massless particle can have no velocity, is incapable
of momentum, and has no energy. If the energy carried by an object is
directly proportional to its mass and momentum, then for a massless
object it appears that would calculate to 0 energy, yet we know light
has energy. The energy must therefore be in the wave and not in the
photon.

No, that doesn't follow at all. It's not like there's two energy
buckets for light, one for a wave and one for a photon. The SAME
energy in the light must be accounted for in EITHER description.

Correct.


Can we then go the final step and conclude that photons are the
stationary medium of transmission, better known classically as aether,
for electromagnetic waves that propagate through it?

Certainly not. You just concluded, by your own analysis, that photons
have no meaning because they have no energy (when physicists
practically *define* photons as packets of light energy). And yet you
then claim they must mean something else? That's like claiming that,
because cows are not mammals, they must be fish.

Cows are not mammals? Who claims that?






This would seem on the surface to be a ridiculous assertion, since
photons were first described by Max Planck by their virtue of being
packets of energy (See 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.


A packet is not just a container, a carrier. If you like, define a
photon as a "wad" of energy, or a "clump" of energy, or a "bit" of
energy, or a "chunk" of energy. Let the concept drive the language,
not the language drive the concept.

That's fine, but the wad has both momemtum and mass equivalence.
E = hf = mc^2
p = hf/c = mc




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".

Lovely concept. Not what a photon is. Nor is a bucket-brigade
required, any more than a baseball, once struck, needs hands passing
it from one to another for it to reach the outfield bleachers. Why do
you think light needs to be carried in a bucket?

In normal terms, photons
pass energy on through waves. This would explain why photons seem so
commonly to be "destroyed" in tied groups.

I have no idea where you got the impression that photons are destroyed
in tied groups. Nothing could be further from the truth.




In order for the energy carried in a wave to diminish, gravity or
friction of the medium must offer resistance, in other words, the medium
must absorb some of the energy or be inhibited by gravity, and/or both.
A massless medium is incapable of such absorption or inhibition... or is
it? What is warped by gravity in the vicinity of a gravitational mass,
is it only time or is it space as well? Most certainly it must be both.

Yes it is both. And you're right, in a vacuum, the energy in light
does not diminish as long as it's not going uphill. The same is true
for any wave. It might get *spread out* with distance as it moves from
a source, but it doesn't diminish.




In my studies I have come across these statements ([bracketed] are my
insertions):



1) "The de Broglie wavelength of a particle equals Planck's
constant divided by its momentum [w=h/p]. The momentum of a particle
equals the square root of twice its mass times its kinetic energy
[p=sqrt(2m0)*Ek]. The kinetic energy of a particle equals the square
of its momentum divided by twice its mass [Ek=p2/2m0]."

Both of the added bracketed statements are incorrect.

YOU are incorrect, but I lack time to point it out.
I'll just say

p = h/w , ct = w, p = h/ct, f = 1/t,
p = hf/c.
so w=h/p is correct.



Like the formula
for momentum above, you have used the low speed approximation, which
is not correct in general. Moreover, the de Broglie wavelength as
expressed above does not apply to all particles, it only applies to
massive particles. Once again, you have led the formulas lead you
astray from the correct understanding.


[http://www.hsphys.com/ibahl quantum summary L.doc]



Re 1): All of the above assertions seem to hinge upon rest mass being
greater than zero (m00), would they not all otherwise zero out?
Wavelength depends upon momentum, momentum depends upon velocity times
mass, kinetic energy depends upon momentum divided by mass. Is the
assertion that photons always move at c based on anything other than the
observation of light waves? If wavelength equals Planck's Constant
divided by momentum, then photons cannot have a wavelength.

Well, that all assumes that all the formulas you've used will work for
massless or high-speed particles, which they won't.


Planck's Constant is

H = 6.626*10-34J*s,

where J is Joules and s is seconds) and

J = 1 kg m2/s2,

where kg is kilograms and m is meters.



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."
[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mass#Relation between Mass.2C Energy and Mo
mentum in relativistic mechanics]


Which goes to warn that it's not a good idea to apply a classical idea
(like Newton's 2nd Law) to a non-classical object.



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.

I'm not sure you do! Applying a force is a classical concept.

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.



Force is a form of mass.

The heck it is! Where did you get that idea?

Mass and energy are interchangeable.

That statement doesn't say that mass and energy are equal. What it
says is, that within the bounds of the other laws of physics that work
even non-classically (like conservation of momentum), mass can be
turned into energy and energy into mass.

Zero mass
must then equal zero energy.

No, that doesn't follow. Even taking your mass-energy
interchangeability statement literally, take the following case. I
have an object with some mass, and I convert it to energy completely
somehow. Now I have all energy left, and no mass. Are you going to
conclude that because I have no mass left, that there must be no
energy, either?

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.

What if -- and I'm just supposing here -- what if the photons *are*
the energy that you converted mass into? And if you convert energy
back into mass, it's photons that disappear and massive particles that
appear?




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)."

[http://scott-yost.baylor.edu/phy1422f04/review2.pdf]


This is a blatant case of taking a statement out of context. You are
quoting a classical treatment of an idealized piece of string, not a
photon; moreover the author of that statement makes no pretense that
the statement applies to photons. Moreover, a force acting on a photon
is mixing classical and nonclassical concepts. Again, you are letting
language dictate the concepts, rather than a good conceptual
understanding dictate your language.



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."

[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Momentum]



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?

Not quite. They decided that "p=mv" is a classical approximation to a
better definition, which you have not learned or invoked.

Did
no one at any time notice photons have no mass and add the two facts?

Sure they did, but you apparently got left behind, confused.

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 us consider the Photoelectric Effect. How can a massless object like
a photon be thrown, what can interact with something that has no mass?

Why do you assume that something has to have mass to interact with it?
You interact with waves all the time. A sound wave can cause blood to
come from your ears. A microwave oven can congeal the protein in an
egg. A radio wave can send electrons zinging up and down an antenna.

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 could be, but it isn't. Otherwise we'd detect the charge beyond the
electrons liberated. Note, by the way, that the wave description of
light FAILS to account for the behavior of the photoelectric effect.
Read that section again. Waves CANNOT make what we observe in the
photoelectric effect.

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'm not sure what you're issue here is. Gluons have nothing to do with
light. Or are you just complaining that it's all so complicated?




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.


I'm sorry, I didn't even understand what you were trying to say in
that last paragraph so I can't fix the errors.



There must first be mass in order for a reaction to force to occur,

No that's not true, and even Newton didn't say that. Where did you
conclude that?

however, even if force could be applied, that force would result in
imparting mass to the former massless object.

No, that's not true, either. Exerting a force does not impart mass.

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.


OK, I have to admit I'm getting a little winded.



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


No, and you've not only wandered into the weeds, but are leaping over
bushes in the weeds.



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!

OK, I'm standing back here on the road, and I can't even see you
anymore. I hear you whooping and making a lot of animal noises, but I
can't make it out.



-------------------------------------------------------------------------
-------


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

Be well - Pax

.~*~. .~*~. .~*~. .~*~. .~*~. .~*~. .~*~. .~*~. .~*~.

What are ten years in the history of humanity? Must
not all those forces that determine the life of a man
be regarded as constant compared with such a trifling
interval? - Albert Einstein - Out of My Later Years

As far as the laws of mathematics refer to reality,
they are not certain; and as far as they are certain,
they do not refer to reality - Albert Einstein

I don't believe in mathematics. - Albert Einstein

Do not worry about your problems with mathematics,
I assure you mine are far greater. - Albert Einstein

Yes, Einstein's math was hopeless and nobody ever pointed out his errors:

For quotations following, reference:
http://www.fourmilab.ch/etexts/einstein/specrel/www/
("On the Electrodynamics of Moving Bodies" by Albert Einstein)

1) "light is always propagated in empty space with a definite velocity c
which is independent of the state of motion of the emitting body",
a totally unproven assumption without any evidence to support it.

2) "In agreement with experience we further assume the quantity
2AB/(t'A-tA) = c to be a universal constant- the velocity of light in empty
space.",
an admitted assumption that is quite worthless when there is any
relative motion between A and B, yet essential to the derivation of the
remainder of Einstein's nonsense.

3) The equation
½[tau(0,0,0,t)+tau(0,0,0,t+x'/(c-v)+x'/(c+v))] = tau(x',0,0,t+x'/(c-v)) ,
the ½ of which is derived from 2) above and is tantamount to saying
(1/3 + 2/3)/2 = 1/3.

4) The missing 0' from that equation, since x' = x-vt, hence 0' = 0-vt,
and the equation should be
½[tau(-vt,0,0,t)+tau(-vt,0,0,t+x'/(c-v)+x'/(c+v))] = tau(x',0,0,t+x'/(c-v))
at the very least.

5) The further assumption "IF we place x' = x-vt ... " without considering
IF we place x' = x+vt, from which we derive (using Einstein's method)
tau = (t+xv/c^2)/sqrt(1-v^2/c^2)
xi = (x + vt)/sqrt(1-v^2/c^2)" -Paul B. Andersen

6) The statements
"But the ray moves relatively to the initial point of k,
when measured in the stationary system, with the velocity c-v..."
and
"It follows, further, that the velocity of light c cannot be altered by
composition with a velocity less than that of light. For this case we obtain
V = (c+w)/(1+w/c) = c."
which are contradictory, the first being Galilean, the second being
contrary to the vector addition of velocities, an axiom of a vector space.

7) The lack of a check to verify the theory is self-consistent by feeding
the new PoR given in 6) into the equation given in 3) and finding a total
failure.
Check:
(t1-t)/(t2-t)*[tau(-vt,0,0,t)+tau(-vt,0,0,t+x'/V+x'/V)] = tau(x',0,0,t+x'/V)
where V = (c+v)/(1+v/c) as required by the redefined PoR.

Androcles.

"Paul Draper" wrote in message
om...
"Pax" wrote in message
m...


Paul, you are still the same screwed-up mind you were 5 years ago. Go bother
someone else.

Pax

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

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