In article .com,
"Y.Porat" wrote:
yes
whats the principal difference (mass likwise in one particle having
mass
or many of them having mass)

do you want to claim that mass is a 'social creature' ? (:-)

Mass comes about in two ways:

1. Gravitational mass -- a measure of how strongly one object is attracted to
another. Wouldn't apply if only 1 particle in the universe.
2. Inertial mass -- a measure of how hard it is to change an object's
momentum. Since momentum must be measured relative to something else, this
also wouldn't apply if only 1 particle in the universe.


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

"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?

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


| Androcles.
|

yes
whats the principal difference (mass likwise in one particle having
mass
or many of them having mass)

do you want to claim that mass is a 'social creature' ? (:-)

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

Y.Porat wrote:
yes
whats the principal difference (mass likwise in one particle having
mass
or many of them having mass)

do you want to claim that mass is a 'social creature' ? (:-)

Yes. Exactly.


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

"Lloyd Parker" wrote in message
...
| 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.
Good for you, but apparently you cannot read at all.

|
| Can't learn physics if you won't look.
|
| Fiction is not physics.

Correct.
"also introduce another postulate, which is only apparently
irreconcilable with the former, namely, that light is always propagated
in empty space with a definite velocity c which is independent of the
state of motion of the emitting body." --- Einstein the fiction writer.
Fiction is not physics.

[quote]
we establish by definition that the "time" required by a turtle to
travel
from A to B equals the "time" it requires to travel from B to A.
[end quote]
Ref: http://www.fourmilab.ch/etexts/einstein/specrel/www/
Fiction is not physics.
[quote]
For velocities greater than that of a turtle our deliberations become
meaningless; we shall, however, find in what follows, that the velocity
of a turtle in our theory plays the part, physically, of an infinitely
great velocity.
[quote]
Ref: http://www.fourmilab.ch/etexts/einstein/specrel/www/

Fiction is not physics.
Nothing can go faster than a turtle.
Oops!... Did I say 'a turtle'? Sorry...'light'.
Same phuckwit math, though.
Can't help being a phuckwit, can you?
Androcles.

didnt you noticed - didn't you notice

illiterate retarded ****head

Hi ****ty
a piece of human ****
you are jealous Eh..??

but people already know who you are and who i am
it want help you
i am marching on and you sunk down in your ****
people now realize that you are a sabotager
and will ignore you as a farting mad dog
go see your psychiatrists

PS to the other readers

please bypass that mad sabotager.(that surely is not a woman- it is a
mad impostor.)

Y.P

Anyway
do you agree with me that the Lorentz factor
does not apply to the photon??

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

Y.Porat wrote:
Anyway
do you agree with me that the Lorentz factor
does not apply to the photon??

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

A *photon* has little if any definition outside
the near-field of an atomic oscillator. It is
just a chunk of EM perturbation in a sea of
other EM perturbations... with some phase information.

"Feynman's approach to optics"
http://www.physics.yorku.ca/undergra...ch/Feynm1.html

The near-field of an EM coupling structure is
the only place the transformation applies.

If you are saying the transform cannot apply
to the far-field path, then I would agree.

Sue...
http://farside.ph.utexas.edu/teachin...es/node46.html
http://arxiv.org/abs/physics/0204034

in More simple words:

the Lorentz factor does not apply to the photon
the photon is a special case that has to be treated separately

and if no Lorentz factor for it- no need anymore to claim the weird
claim
that it has no mass( though having Energy and momentum!!)
and the mass of the photon is defined simply as;

mC^2 = hf
therefore

photon mass is

m (photon) =hf/ C^2

does it make sense to you??
very simple isn't it??
does it makes so many things much simpler ??!!

(instead of the mountains of junglaring just because one false
assumption
that the L factor app lyes to the photon as well)??!!


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