but you didnt comment on the main point claime:

that there is no real physics without mass.
actually we could say as well that there is no real
physics without Length
or without Time

am i right??

TIA
Y.Porat
--------------------

people of the Chem ng
should know that this thread was cross posted form sci.physics
the orriginal thread and claim is there and it is much in detaile
there

ATB
Y.Porat
-----------------------

"Edward C, Otto III" wrote in message
...
| This whole thread is a waste of time...
|
| See, the Italians have proven that the speed of light is no longer a
| constant...
|
| Now, the speed is different depending on what frame of reference you
are
| actually measuring it in.


It always was.
Observation:
http://www.britastro.org/vss/gifc/00918-ck.gif
Explanation:
http://www.ebicom.net/~rsf1/sekerin.htm (fig 3)

(Or stars explode twice in three months).

Androcles.

What has all that to do withour thread??

it seems that you are unable to think or learn something new:

1 The Lorentz factor *does not apply to the photon*
so ??

does the photon has mass or not??

2 thers is only one kind of mass - reat mass - that does not change
with anything - it is a constant basic entity
no relatiovistic and no shmelativistic mass.

so without mass or wothout length - there is no real physics-
(may be spooky physics)

ATB
Y.Porat
-----------------------

"Y.Porat" kirjoitti viestissä
oups.com...
What has all that to do withour thread??

it seems that you are unable to think or learn something new:

1 The Lorentz factor *does not apply to the photon*
so ??

does the photon has mass or not??

2 thers is only one kind of mass - reat mass - that does not change
with anything - it is a constant basic entity
no relatiovistic and no shmelativistic mass.

so without mass or wothout length - there is no real physics-
(may be spooky physics)

ATB
Y.Porat
-----------------------

That English is even worse than mine, but the question is good. Mass is
accelerative motion of space, and there certainly is accelerative motion in
a light wave. I don't use the word photon, because it confuses the reality
of light. Photon means one wave length of a light beam, and it is also
called a quantum.

Henry Haapalainen

Henry Haapalainen wrote:
"Y.Porat" kirjoitti viestissä
oups.com...
What has all that to do withour thread??

it seems that you are unable to think or learn something new:

1 The Lorentz factor *does not apply to the photon*
so ??

does the photon has mass or not??

2 thers is only one kind of mass - reat mass - that does not change
with anything - it is a constant basic entity
no relatiovistic and no shmelativistic mass.

so without mass or wothout length - there is no real physics-
(may be spooky physics)

ATB
Y.Porat
-----------------------

That English is even worse than mine,
------------
sorry it i is parents fault
they were not native English speakers (:-)


but the question is good.

thank Goodness -- at last in my life something good .

btw didnt you noticed that we succeeded to get some inevitable answers
as well??
it was by pushing questions in a position that you cant find a better
answer !!( that was my system of argument and that is what i am trying
to do provided you follow what is written *all along this thread!!*)

Mass is
accelerative motion of space,

????
here we have so divide!!

sorry man for me space is nothing and nothing cannot have any
properties
beside hosing matter. matter is the main hero in our story!!
do you have evidence that space has any other properties beside hosting
matter??
----------------



and there certainly is accelerative motion in

accelerative motion is only for all matter smaller than light
(or photons)
yet once you come to light nothing can accelerate it
because ... guess what? there is nothing faster than
the speed (velocity?) of light
just try to operate a bit and stretch your creative imagination:

how is acceleration done??
there is a physical* driving agent and
there is a physical (again not a spooky) driven agent
the acceleration is done how ????
by collision of them ! (if you have a better suggestion
please step for wards)
now the driven matter can never speed out the velocity of ???
of what ?? of the driving agent so
if light or whatever you call that unknown yet driving agent
has some velocity-- nothing cannot exceed that velocity.

do i make sense to you??
----------
a light wave. I don't use the word photon, because it confuses the reality
of light. Photon means one wave length of a light beam, and it is also
called a quantum.

OK
-
now bottom line:
do you agree with my thread title postulate??
it is indeed and earthquake postulate and i believe
it is just a matter of time to me a common consensus.
(and mind you a very simple yet powerful postulate!!!

TIA
Y.Porat
-------------

In article ,
"Edward C, Otto III" wrote:
This whole thread is a waste of time...

See, the Italians have proven that the speed of light is no longer a
constant...

Now, the speed is different depending on what frame of reference you are
actually measuring it in.

That's not true.


Ed
"brian a m stuckless" wrote in message
...
Sue ..i can hardly say you're almost as bad.
There is NO COHERENT cgs SYSTEM of UNiTs.!!
Esu and emu CANNOT relate the AFFiNE GAP.!!
The Heavyside Lorentz scow is DOUBLE cgs.!!
i.e. The esu & emu "equate *SEPARATELY*".!!
The SI Giorgi SYSTEM was best 'til GUESS.!!
brian a m stuckless

Sue... wrote:
PD wrote:
Y.Porat wrote:
PD wrote:
wrote:
everybody agrees that photon has momentum

the dimensions of momentum a

kilogram meter/seconds

kilograms is mass!!

ATB
Y.Porat
-----------------------

The units of momentum are joules*seconds/meter.

and waht are the dimensions of Jaules ? .........(as more basic
dimensions)

I don't know why you think that kg*m^2/s^2 are more fundamental than
joules for the case of photons.


common
it is imposible in righ tphysics that a physical entity
like say energy or momentum can eescape to othere basic
dimentions
afaik th eonly basic dimensions are
in mks kilograms meterss and seconds

Amperes are included in that SI set as well, you'll note. That is a
*convention* which does not in any way dictate physical fundamentality.

if you use another system it must be the same basic
dimensions or else something is wrong in your analysis.
--

I've tried to explain
this to you before. It is dangerous to look at the units of a
number
and try to derive physical basis from them. Energy has units
kg*m^2/s^2, but it also has units farads*volts^2,

so what are the more basic dimensions of farads and volts??

I don't know that there are more *physically* fundamental dimensions of
farads and volts. I know that there is a *convention* about units that
are tied to unit *standards*.


you have to go to the scratch!! you cant avoid coming to the same
results
by covering it by more complicated entities.

I'm really not trying to cover it up. I know what you're trying to say.
The problem is that you're ascribing too much *physical* importance to
a *convention* used to set up a system of units.

Indeed, SI and MKS, for the sake of utility, make some
general 'homogenised' assumtions about Maxwell fields.

In interpreting the validity of an electromagnetic expression,
it is frequently helpful to see it in cgs and some
of the other time and homogenity variations which exist.

http://farside.ph.utexas.edu/teachin...res/node6.html
http://farside.ph.utexas.edu/teaching/em/em.html

Sue...


-----------


and it is dangerous
to say that one is more fundamental than the other.

the most basic are kilograms meter and seconds
all the others are derivations of those basics.

ATB
Y.Porat
-----------------

PD

In article . com,
"Y.Porat" wrote:
but you didnt comment on the main point claime:

that there is no real physics without mass.

If there were only 1 particle in the universe, would it have mass?

actually we could say as well that there is no real
physics without Length
or without Time

am i right??

TIA
Y.Porat
--------------------

In article ,
"Androcles" Androcles@ MyPlace.org wrote:

"Edward C, Otto III" wrote in message
m...
| This whole thread is a waste of time...
|
| See, the Italians have proven that the speed of light is no longer a
| constant...
|
| Now, the speed is different depending on what frame of reference you
are
| actually measuring it in.


It always was.

Never was, and never shall be. Einsten.

Observation:
http://www.britastro.org/vss/gifc/00918-ck.gif
Explanation:
http://www.ebicom.net/~rsf1/sekerin.htm (fig 3)

(Or stars explode twice in three months).

Androcles.

In article ,
"Androcles" Androcles@ MyPlace.org wrote:

"Lloyd Parker" wrote in message
...
| In article ,
| "Androcles" Androcles@ MyPlace.org wrote:
|
| "Edward C, Otto III" wrote in message
| m...
| | This whole thread is a waste of time...
| |
| | See, the Italians have proven that the speed of light is no longer
a
| | constant...
| |
| | Now, the speed is different depending on what frame of reference
you
| are
| | actually measuring it in.
|
|
| It always was.
|
| Never was, and never shall be. Einsten.

Who the heck is Einsten? Never heard of her.

| Observation:
| http://www.britastro.org/vss/gifc/00918-ck.gif
| Explanation:
| http://www.ebicom.net/~rsf1/sekerin.htm (fig 3)
|
| (Or stars explode twice in three months).
|
So you didn't bother to read this part, then?


I don't read creationist texts either.

Can't learn physics if you won't look.

Fiction is not physics.



| Androcles.
|