wrote:
tomgee wrote:
wrote:
tomgee wrote:
wrote:
tomgee wrote:
wrote:
tomgee wrote:
Igor wrote:
tomgee wrote:
Some argue that SR state the reason a mass cannot move at c is because
mass increases with velocity and at c a mass would become of infinite
size - which is impossible.

SNIP

Sure they do. Math can prove anything - like it proved AE's
static universe.

BS

Well, do you at least believe 911 happened? Or the holocaust?

Relativistics kinematics does not
prove the existence of photons or electrons or neutrons, or the like.

No one has said that it does, so why bring it up?

And it certainly doesn't prove that the photon is either massive or
massless in truth! Why? Because physics isn't about truth! Science is
about the invention of theories that work.

Lemme get this straight: If physics is not about reality,
as you say, it cannot prove whether or not the photon
has mass or not? So then, if physics was about reality,
it could prove it one way or t'other? Much time and
tree pulp has been wasted in arguing that nothing can
ever be "proven" (except in math and logic), and so now
it is a codeword for the brainwashed to jump up and
point it out every time they see the word, "prove".

I already answered your question: Physics is about the invention of
theories that work. Don't you know the difference between a theory that
works and a theory that fails to work?


Theories employ models that are either useful or not useful.

You left out "...and that don't work."

And that
is the strongest statement one can say about any model.

I beg to differ. If I tell you your model does not work, that
would be much stronger than saying its useful or not useful.

Whether a model works or not depends on the theory that uses it. The
photon is a model. The electron is a model. Continuous mass and charge
are models. A black-body object is a model. Flat spacetime is a model.
Curved spacetime is a model. Phase space is a model. The point particle
is a model. The rigid object is a model, and on and on.


The model of
the massless photon is a good model because it found a home inside a
theory that works.

There is no model of the massless photon.

You may disagree with the model of the massless photon, but to deny
that even the model exists show you to be a nutcase. Physical concepts
are free creations of the human mind.

Then show us the model, crank.

It was invented
in the attempt to explain how a massive photon can be said
to move along with the em wave at c. It was explained by
the claim that pure energy

Nobody, including you, knows what matter or energy really is.

So what, crank? How is that germaine to our discussion?

Einstein
invented (or adapted, if you prefer, it doesn't matter to me) a model
of a massless photon,.

Not that I know of. Cite something.

That says NOTHING about whether such a thing
really exists. (We don't actually know whether photons "really" exist,
and it doesn't matter either way.) The model works though very well in
modern physics.

Apparently, you don't know if you exist.

can exist and have momentum
without mass,

It's the theory you hold allegiance to that tells you what it is you're
observing in nature.

And that's bad.

It's the theory that founds the interpretation by
which you will interpret all new experimental data.

And that's wrong.

while SR (the theory in which you claim it has
found sanctuary) disclaims it with E=mc^2.

That's because you don't understand what that CONVERSION equation
means. It means that if you took a particle of mass, m, say, at rest
and converted it all to energy, that energy would be equal to E=mc^2.
It also means that if you took a photon of pure energy E and converted
it all to mass that mass would be equal to m = E / c^2. (Actually,
there are conservation of momentum restrictions that apply in these
decays or interactions)

Sorry, you are grossly misinformed, and thus, quite incorrect. There
is no magic to a math construct. The formula E=mc^2 is a way to
determine the energy in a given mass, period. Whatever else you
ascribe to it is of your own imagination. You seem to think it has to
do with converting mass into energy, yet it saids nothing about that.


You apparently think SR admits to the massless photon, but
to do that, it will have to dump E=mc^2. Any of those books
teach you that?

E=mc^2 is a conversion equation. It's similar to a rate of exchange
formula for converting money in one currency into another currency.

No one disagrees with that. So what?

Think of it this way: The yen and the dollar are two different forms of
money. You can have just yens of just dollars or a mixture of both.

Similarly, you can have (pure) energy or (pure) mass, which is rest
mass, or a mixture.

No, you cannot. The formula links mass to energy, and vice-versa.
So does the Principle of the Conservation of Mass and Energy,
thus you cannot one or the other; to have one you must have the
other.

So, we need a word that takes the place of "money"
in the above comparison. Let's choose, say, ooble. The ooble of a
photon is pure energy.

Wrong.

The ooble of a mass particle at rest is m.

No particle can be at rest, so you mean to say "invariant mass".

Now,
if we want to talk about the energy of the mass particle, we need to
use a conversion factor, and we get mc^2.

And if we want to talk about the mass of a given amount of energy,
we convert it. But so long as the energy is nonzero, the formula
gives you some mass. The Principle makes mass and energy
interdependent, whereby you can't have one without the other.

Now, by convention, ooble is given in energy units for convenience. So,
if we have a mass particle of mass m in motion in our reference frame,
it has an ooble that is the sum of the energy of its rest mass plus its
kinetic energy (which is not the same formula for KE as in Newtonian
mechanics).

Ooble (in energy units) = mc^2 + KE

The above equation is similar to what you'd get if you had x yens and y
dollars and a conversion rate of R to convert yen to dollars, you'd
have

money (in dollars) = Rx + y

Obviously, this is simpler when we insist that m is always the rest
mass of a particle or body. Anyway, the value of the ooble concept is
that the total ooble is conserved in any reaction or decay of
particles.


But what SR kinematics does do very well is to make a bunch of
predictions about how to make measurements in the lab and get back from
the lab close agreement with those predictions.

I don't know what you mean by "SR kinematics". The only
reference to SR kinetic energy that I know of is from AE's
diagram of a pendulum explaining potential and kinetic
energy. Other than that, SR puts aside individual motion
and deals exclusively with relative motion.

So whatever did you mean by "SR kinematics"?

Physics is NOT metaphysics.

Actually, in the sense that physics has underlying principles
and theories that form the basis of its field of knowledge,
which is one definition of "metaphysics", it is.

A lousy definition. You don't seem to know the difference between
physics and metaphysics and the difference between metaphysics and
epistemology.

But a definition nevertheless. I just pointed it out to show that
Philosophy disciplines are so interwoven with science disciplines
that one cannot now say what you said without qualifying it in
some way.

If, as you claim, physics is really metaphysics, why then don't we just
call this NG sci.metaphysics.relativity?

I made no such claim. I qualified my statement so as to prevent
you saying I claim such a thing. You, OTOH, failed to qualify your
emotional outburst, enabling me to show your statements are not
so well thought out as you may think.

Physics, unlike metaphysics, has been set up to deal very superficially
with the whole of reality.

That is what makes it so easy for us laypersons to puncture your
gasbags and often cause you to fall flat on your face. Theoretical
Physics disdains empirical research, so that should tell you how far
away from reality those theories can get.

To the physicist, reality is no more than
common experience and laboratory meter readings. I know they like to
think it more than that, but that's arrogating from metaphysics its
rightful special domain.

Not in Theoretical Physics, it ain't.

Somewhere along the line you got it in that thick skull of yours that
physics is supposed to be about deep reality and now you can't disabuse
yourself of that profound misconception --- for the rest of your life,
I'll bet.

You were brainwashed into believing that stupid definition of how
physicists see their work. There is no difference between reality
and "deep reality", fool. it is either reality or not; there are no
degrees of it. It doesn't take a rocket scientist to know what physics

is, so for you to claim it doesn't deal with reality just shows how
deep
is your Pavlovian conditioning. Try to think how stupid your statement

is, and why an objective physicist might disagree with it, and you may
realize you have been programmed to believe what others want you
to believe, without question.

If you were right, all physicists would be idiots. Fortunately for us
all, you're wrong, and you and others who parrot the party line are
the only certified degreed professional idiots here.

tomgee wrote:
wrote:
tomgee wrote:
wrote:
tomgee wrote:
wrote:
tomgee wrote:
wrote:
tomgee wrote:
Igor wrote:
tomgee wrote:
Some argue that SR state the reason a mass cannot move at c is because
mass increases with velocity and at c a mass would become of infinite
size - which is impossible.

SNIP

Sure they do. Math can prove anything - like it proved AE's
static universe.

BS

Well, do you at least believe 911 happened? Or the holocaust?

Oh well done, TomGee. You've outdone yourself.

I think one of the things you have to learn about math is the
difference between a proof and a solution to an equation.

Tell me, TomGee, if I have a line that is described by the equation y =
2x + 3, is it not so that (x,y) = (4,11) is a point on that line? Does
this prove that x = 4 and y = 11?

If you were not so afraid of math, perhaps you would not be so bad at
it. If you were not so afraid of reading, perhaps you'd look up a
reference when it's given to you. If you were not so afraid of really
learning what physics is about, perhaps you'd spend less time treating
it like a debate club.

PD

tomgee wrote:
Some argue that SR state the reason a mass cannot move at c is because
mass increases with velocity and at c a mass would become of infinite
size - which is impossible. Others argue that AE never said mass
increases with velocity, and we all know he definitely said we can
increase the mass by adding heat to it. If it turned out that mass
does not increase with velocity, there is then no need for the photon
to be massless, as it can have mass and still move at c. Same for em
waves: they can have mass and still move at c.

There is a study by Paul Marmet, Kazan University, Kazan City, Russia,
posted at

http://www.newtonphysics.on.ca/magnetic/mass,html

that claims the mass of the energy of the induced field of a moving
electron is always identical to the relativistic mass calculated in SR,
and so he proposes that the mass increase attributed to an object as it
reaches higher velocities is not an increase of the mass of the object
itself, but only the mass of the energy of the field induced by the
moving electron. If his claims cannot be defeated, it means we may not
require that the photon be massless in order to move at c consistent
with the theory of mass increase with velocity increases.

My questions a

He is saying that mass is created by the electron's motion, and If
true, would that not be support for the Higgs field/particle concept?

What happens to the mass after the electron passes? Is it some kind of
temporary mass that reverts to "nothing" after the particle has passed,
similarly to the way my model predicts that real matter is created by
interacting em waves and particles, then reverts back to dark matter
particles?
---------------------------------
see 'postulate No 3 by Y.Porat'
from about two years ago

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