wrote:
PD wrote:
wrote:

What if these fields have mass. There have been experiments ( Nieto and
Goldhaber ) that determine the mass upper limit of electric and
magnetic fields. So these fields have mass and are pliable. Then we can
think of them as waves -- waves that have mass.


OK, so you don't know what "mass upper limit" means. Hint: It does NOT
mean the fields have mass.

VERGON

I suggest you study physics before you get on this NG and show what a
moron you are.

If you will look up the experiments of Nieto & Goldhaber (Scientific
American, May 1974)
the article named "MASS OF THE PHOTON" appears. In it they describe
their search for the mass of the photon and discuss it in terms of its
upper limit. They also describe that they accomplish this by
determining the mass of the coulomb field.

That's correct. And you still don't know what an upper limit
measurement is.
Hint: When a paper says "Search for...," that's a general indicator
that they didn't find it.
An upper limit mass measurement means, "We don't know what the value
is, but we know it can be no bigger than this, because if it were we
would have seen it." Hence "upper limit".




"Energy" is mass in motion. Every formula for energy contains two --
and only two -- elements, mass and motion.

This is true for E = h nu because one of the absolute dimensions of h
is mass. The others are distance and time. The unit is one of action.

No such thing as an absolute dimension, as far as I know. Where are you
getting gthat from?

VERGON

From text books and encyclopedias. Here's one:

Planck's constant has units of energy multiplied by time, which are the
units of action (J·s). These units may also be written as momentum
times distance (N·m·s), which are also the units of angular momentum.
However, often the unit of choice is eV·s, because of the small
energies that are often encountered in quantum physics.

There is nothing there about absolute dimensions and there is no such
thing.


The value of Planck's constant is:


The value of Dirac's constant (also known as the reduced Planck's
constant, and referred to as "h-bar" when you are unable to use the
symbol) is:






Momentum, of course, is mass in motion also. No mass, no momentum.
Conversely, if momentum, then mass.

That is also incorrect.

VERGON

Any jerk can say "incorrect" but an intelligent person would say why.
So your comment, like you, is worthless.

Momentum is defined by the conservation law that it respects. If there
is a term that reliably contributes to a constant momentum in a closed
system, then that qualifies as momentum.


Now we
can regard the frequency, nu, of a photon as containing n
electromagnetic fields (Each EM field being 1 HZ). "n" is the
frequency NUMBER of nu.

And why is a *physical* quantum based on an *arbitrary* length of time
(1 second)? Why on earth would nature regard 1 Hz as being a natural
unit?

VERGON

And why is the speed of light "based on an 'arbitrary' length of time
(one second)?"

It isn't.


Why on earth would nature regard the electron as part of an atom?
Idiot.

And why is the number 1 the natural unit of a series of whole numbers?

Sorry, that doesn't follow. If it did, then all natural constants would
have a smallest value of one. Experimentally that isn't the case.


And why is a brick the natural unit of a brick wall?

I see you're back to counting things rather than looking at physical
constants.


And why are you a natural unit of the population of stupids? :-)


Why would a fundamental charge unit stubbornly refuse to be 1 coulomb,
why would the Planck length stubbornly refuse to be 1 meter, but the
smallest fundamental frequency meekly succumb to being a friendly 1 Hz?

PD

VERGON

And why do you refuse to show any modicom of intelligence?

"PD" wrote in message
oups.com...

| You'll note in the reading that the experimental upper limit in
| particle and nuclear physics has nothing to do with set theory. If you
| constrain your search to a set theory definition, you'll be frustrated
| and learn little.
|
Hahaha! When did you ever learn anything, Duck?
The derivation of the cuckoo misformations:
http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonde...mart/Smart.htm
You know ****-all, do you?
Androcles.

Igor wrote:
wrote:

physicsajay wrote:

You don't know what upper limit means do you?

VERGON

I can tell you this, I have never liked the term.

If I didn't understand something, I probably wouldn't like it either.

But here is one
definition (of many):
The limsup can be defined in a dual fashion.
The supremum of a sequence of sets is the smallest set containing all
the
sets, i.e., the countable union of the sets.

Wrong! The upper bound is literally the largest possible value allowed
based on conditions. In this case, on observation.

My translation for the mass of the photon is, the upper limit
(supremum) is the
smallest number of a set.

To my way of thinking that means the smallest mass detected. So the
upperlimit
is the smallest mass determined.

Well, your way of thinking is horribly wrong. An upper bound doesn't
imply existence at all. It's merely the largest value possible, given
that the quantity exists, which may or may not be true.

In my mind. the smallest mass should be the lower limit. But I don't
have a weird
mathematical mind.

If you can definitely set a lower limit together with an upper limit,
then you have essentially pinned down existence. For a photon, we have
no way to establish a lower limit for mass, so it must be the lowest
possible value allowed, which is zero.
------------------------
whht is the acuracy of those measurments of upper limit
littl eparrot ??

no need for those measurments
the photon has mass theoretically and based on the experimental formula
E=hf while h has mass
got it moron physicist
you dont understand even how a physical formula is built !!!

Y.P
------------------------------------

Y.Porat wrote:
Igor wrote:
wrote:

physicsajay wrote:

You don't know what upper limit means do you?

VERGON

I can tell you this, I have never liked the term.

If I didn't understand something, I probably wouldn't like it either.

But here is one
definition (of many):
The limsup can be defined in a dual fashion.
The supremum of a sequence of sets is the smallest set containing all
the
sets, i.e., the countable union of the sets.

Wrong! The upper bound is literally the largest possible value allowed
based on conditions. In this case, on observation.

My translation for the mass of the photon is, the upper limit
(supremum) is the
smallest number of a set.

To my way of thinking that means the smallest mass detected. So the
upperlimit
is the smallest mass determined.

Well, your way of thinking is horribly wrong. An upper bound doesn't
imply existence at all. It's merely the largest value possible, given
that the quantity exists, which may or may not be true.

In my mind. the smallest mass should be the lower limit. But I don't
have a weird
mathematical mind.

If you can definitely set a lower limit together with an upper limit,
then you have essentially pinned down existence. For a photon, we have
no way to establish a lower limit for mass, so it must be the lowest
possible value allowed, which is zero.
------------------------
whht is the acuracy of those measurments of upper limit
littl eparrot ??

no need for those measurments
the photon has mass theoretically and based on the experimental formula
E=hf while h has mass
got it moron physicist
you dont understand even how a physical formula is built !!!

Y.P
------------------------------------

What is the mass of a photon with a wavelength of 550 nm, according to
your theory?
What is the mass of h, according to your theory?

If you can't answer these questions, then you have no logical reason to
say that a photon has mass, or that h has mass.

So please, answer these questions, and give the answers in kilograms
(since that is all you know).

If you refuse to answer these question, you show yourself to be the
little crook that you claim everyone else is.

Y.Porat wrote:
Igor wrote:
wrote:

physicsajay wrote:

You don't know what upper limit means do you?

VERGON

I can tell you this, I have never liked the term.

If I didn't understand something, I probably wouldn't like it either.

But here is one
definition (of many):
The limsup can be defined in a dual fashion.
The supremum of a sequence of sets is the smallest set containing all
the
sets, i.e., the countable union of the sets.

Wrong! The upper bound is literally the largest possible value allowed
based on conditions. In this case, on observation.

My translation for the mass of the photon is, the upper limit
(supremum) is the
smallest number of a set.

To my way of thinking that means the smallest mass detected. So the
upperlimit
is the smallest mass determined.

Well, your way of thinking is horribly wrong. An upper bound doesn't
imply existence at all. It's merely the largest value possible, given
that the quantity exists, which may or may not be true.

In my mind. the smallest mass should be the lower limit. But I don't
have a weird
mathematical mind.

If you can definitely set a lower limit together with an upper limit,
then you have essentially pinned down existence. For a photon, we have
no way to establish a lower limit for mass, so it must be the lowest
possible value allowed, which is zero.
------------------------
whht is the acuracy of those measurments of upper limit
littl eparrot ??

If you read the paper, you will see the accuracy of the measurement.


no need for those measurments

That's where you go wrong. A real physicist does not say he can prove
something with an idea (what you call "theory") alone. A real physicist
will *propose* an idea, develop it to the point where calculations can
be done with it (that's when it's a theory), and then compare those
ideas with meausurements. Nothing -- repeat, nothing -- is *proven*
before the comparison with measurement.

the photon has mass theoretically and based on the experimental formula
E=hf while h has mass
got it moron physicist
you dont understand even how a physical formula is built !!!

Y.P
------------------------------------

wrote:
wrote:
PD wrote:
Igor wrote:
PD wrote:
wrote:

What if these fields have mass. There have been experiments ( Nieto and
Goldhaber ) that determine the mass upper limit of electric and
magnetic fields. So these fields have mass and are pliable. Then we can
think of them as waves -- waves that have mass.



rest of Sharma's BS snipped

Yes, and your "work" is still a piece of **** because it is all
incorrect. Starting at eq (13) you miss the momentum variation of the
system and you mistakenly assume that the em radiation may result into
"mass invcrease". Ajay Sharma , you ARE an idiot.

===
Donkey this work is published in international journals.
It is all correct.Better you leant
physics from school.
Dont show your folly here.
Donkey can you prove mathematically what you .
BUT FOR THIS YOU HAVE TO LEARN EINSTEIN'S sEP 1905 PAPER.
Reference.
..References of Einstein’s work
..
A.Einstein, Annalen der Physik 18 (1905) 639-641.
.. DOES THE INERTIA OF A BODY DEPEND
UPON ITS ENERGY-CONTENT?
Weblink is
Einstein’s 27 Sep 1905 paper available at
http://www.fourmilab.ch/etexts/einstein/E_mc2/www/

PartII
References of Ajay Sharma’s work

My work is available at
A. Sharma, Physics Essays, 17 (2004) 195-222.
�The Origin of Generalized Mass-Energy Equation �E = Ac2 �M; and
its applications in General physics and Cosmology�.
http://www.burningbrain.org/pdf/ajaysharma_einstein.pdf
For details
https://www.novapublishers.com/catal...oducts_id=4554


International Conferences
It has been accepted for presentation over 55 conferences all over the
world
--------------------------------------few of them
1. Sharma, A. presented in 19th International Conference on the
Applications of Accelerators in Research and Industry , 20-25
August , 2006 Fort Worth Texas, USA

2. A. Sharma, Abstract Book 38th European Group of Atomic Systems
(
Euro physics Conference) Isachia (Naples) Italy (2006) 53.

3. A. Sharma , Abstract Book , A Century After Einstein Physics 2005 ,

10-14 April 2005 ( Organizer Institute of Physics , Bristol )
University of Warwick , ENGLAND

4. A. Sharma presented in 5th British gravity Conference , OXFORD
ENGLAND

5. A. Sharma,. Proc. Int. Conf. on Computational Methods in
Sciences and Engineering 2003 World Scientific Co. USA ,
(2003) 585.

6. A. Sharma, Proc. Int. Conf. on Number, Time, Relativity United
Physical Society of Russian Federation, Moscow , (2004) 81
plus more
--------------------------------------
Journals
This paper
�The Origin of Generalized Mass-Energy Equation �E = Ac2 �M; and
its applications in General physics and Cosmology�.
is published in journal
Physics Essays , CANADA
www.physicsessays.com
The paper
The past ,present and future of E=mc2
will be published in 2007 Galilean Electrodynamics, Massachusetts,
USA.
In parts it is published in various others journals.
----------------------
Book 100 Years of E=mc2
For details
https://www.novapublishers.com/catal...oducts_id=4554

devianju wrote:
snipped

Cretin, even if you managed to publish in a journal, it is STILL wrong.
For everybody is plain to see.

wrote:
devianju wrote:
snipped

Cretin, even if you managed to publish in a journal, it is STILL wrong.
For everybody is plain to see.
------------------------
Donkey Rambus
Understand 11th Class physics.
Are you 10th passing?
LAW OF CONSERVATION OF MOMENTUM IS OBEYED HERE. THIS WORK IS
PUBLISHED.
I have told you numerous times, THAT HOW IT IS OBEYED.
Donkey Read 11th Class physics ,
+++++++++ Law of conservation of momentum is obeyed in this case.
The law of conservation of implies ,
‘in an isolated system momentum of system conserved’
Practically
Initial momentum =final momentum
For this condition to be satisfied, the body recoils.
Thus law of conservation of momentum hold good on both the situations.
(i) if body recoils
(ii) body remains at rest.
My discussion is valid for this.
Conditions of Einstein’s derivation in Sep. 1905
Einstein’s Sep. 1905 paper and this derivation is valid for the cases
i.e. body may remain at rest or moves.
So everything is consistent.
WITH FURTHER DETAILS I HAVE EXPLAINED IT TO YOU IN PRVIOUS POSTS.
++++++++++++++++
Donkey , if

But you are A Typical DONKEY who dies not want to understand and
showing your folly on this Un moderated Internet Group
This work is published in international journals and conferences.
Donkey
Author /Editor /Referee are wiser than you .
---------------
References of Einstein’s work
..
A.Einstein, Annalen der Physik 18 (1905) 639-641.
.. DOES THE INERTIA OF A BODY DEPEND
UPON ITS ENERGY-CONTENT?
Weblink is
Einstein’s 27 Sep 1905 paper available at
http://www.fourmilab.ch/etexts/einstein/E_mc2/www/

PartII
References of Ajay Sharma’s work

My work is available at
A. Sharma, Physics Essays, 17 (2004) 195-222.
�The Origin of Generalized Mass-Energy Equation �E = Ac2 �M; and
its applications in General physics and Cosmology�.
http://www.burningbrain.org/pdf/ajaysharma_einstein.pdf

For details
https://www.novapublishers.com/catal...oducts_id=4554


International Conferences
It has been accepted for presentation over 55 conferences all over the
world
--------------------------------------few of them
1. Sharma, A. presented in 19th International Conference on the
Applications of Accelerators in Research and Industry , 20-25
August , 2006 Fort Worth Texas, USA

2. A. Sharma, Abstract Book 38th European Group of Atomic Systems
(
Euro physics Conference) Isachia (Naples) Italy (2006) 53.

3. A. Sharma , Abstract Book , A Century After Einstein Physics 2005 ,

10-14 April 2005 ( Organizer Institute of Physics , Bristol )
University of Warwick , ENGLAND

4. A. Sharma presented in 5th British gravity Conference , OXFORD
ENGLAND

5. A. Sharma,. Proc. Int. Conf. on Computational Methods in
Sciences and Engineering 2003 World Scientific Co. USA ,
(2003) 585.

6. A. Sharma, Proc. Int. Conf. on Number, Time, Relativity United
Physical Society of Russian Federation, Moscow , (2004) 81
plus more
--------------------------------------
Journals
This paper
�The Origin of Generalized Mass-Energy Equation �E = Ac2 �M; and
its applications in General physics and Cosmology�.
is published in journal
Physics Essays , CANADA
www.physicsessays.com
The paper
The past ,present and future of E=mc2
will be published in 2007 Galilean Electrodynamics, Massachusetts,
USA.
In parts it is published in various others journals.
----------------------
Book 100 Years of E=mc2
For details
https://www.novapublishers.com/catal...oducts_id=4554