Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > sci.physics.relativity > #403364 > unrolled thread
| Started by | Pentcho Valev <pvalev@yahoo.com> |
|---|---|
| First post | 2016-12-29 11:35 -0800 |
| Last post | 2017-01-05 09:26 -0800 |
| Articles | 20 on this page of 98 — 19 participants |
Back to article view | Back to sci.physics.relativity
E = mc^2 : Einstein was not the author of course Pentcho Valev <pvalev@yahoo.com> - 2016-12-29 11:35 -0800
Re: E = mc^2 : Einstein was not the author of course Demetrice Barren <teercere@tmerunin.tme> - 2016-12-29 22:28 +0000
Re: E = mc^2 : Einstein was not the author of course JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2016-12-29 19:23 -0800
Re: E = mc^2 : Einstein was not the author of course mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2016-12-30 00:00 -0800
Re: E = mc^2 : Einstein was not the author of course Tiffany Wuest <eesio@esufsi.info> - 2016-12-30 10:00 +0000
Re: E = mc^2 : Einstein was not the author of course Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2016-12-30 22:19 +0100
Re: E = mc^2 : Einstein was not the author of course Tiffany Wuest <eesio@esufsi.info> - 2016-12-30 21:27 +0000
Re: E = mc^2 : Einstein was not the author of course Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2016-12-31 06:23 +0100
Re: E = mc^2 : Einstein was not the author of course Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2017-01-02 08:16 +0100
Re: E = mc^2 : Einstein was not the author of course Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2017-01-02 04:59 -0800
Re: E = mc^2 : Einstein was not the author of course Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2017-01-03 04:28 +0100
Re: E = mc^2 : Einstein was not the author of course Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2017-01-03 05:16 -0800
Re: E = mc^2 : Einstein was not the author of course Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2017-01-03 19:25 +0100
Re: E = mc^2 : Einstein was not the author of course Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2017-01-03 13:52 -0800
Re: E = mc^2 : Einstein was not the author of course "David (Lord Kronos Prime) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> - 2017-01-03 14:02 -0800
Re: E = mc^2 : Einstein was not the author of course Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2017-01-03 19:05 -0800
Re: E = mc^2 : Einstein was not the author of course Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2017-01-04 07:26 +0100
Re: E = mc^2 : Einstein was not the author of course Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2017-01-04 15:11 -0800
Re: E = mc^2 : Einstein was not the author of course Kurt Getman <erttarnKmu@erttarnKmu.ert> - 2017-01-05 00:05 +0000
Re: E = mc^2 : Einstein was not the author of course Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2017-01-04 18:21 -0800
Re: E = mc^2 : Einstein was not the author of course Sharilyn Vore <inolr@nryowno.an> - 2017-01-09 21:22 +0000
Re: E = mc^2 : Einstein was not the author of course Kurt Getman <erttarnKmu@erttarnKmu.ert> - 2017-01-05 00:06 +0000
Re: E = mc^2 : Einstein was not the author of course Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2017-01-07 08:15 +0100
Re: E = mc^2 : Einstein was not the author of course Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2017-01-07 08:10 -0800
Re: E = mc^2 : Einstein was not the author of course Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2017-01-07 22:24 +0100
Re: E = mc^2 : Einstein was not the author of course Sharilyn Vore <inolr@nryowno.an> - 2017-01-07 21:52 +0000
Re: E = mc^2 : Einstein was not the author of course Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2017-01-08 07:21 +0100
Re: E = mc^2 : Einstein was not the author of course Sharilyn Vore <inolr@nryowno.an> - 2017-01-08 11:29 +0000
Re: E = mc^2 : Einstein was not the author of course Sharilyn Vore <inolr@nryowno.an> - 2017-01-08 11:30 +0000
Re: E = mc^2 : Einstein was not the author of course Sharilyn Vore <inolr@nryowno.an> - 2017-01-08 11:32 +0000
Re: E = mc^2 : Einstein was not the author of course Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2017-01-08 12:01 -0800
Re: E = mc^2 : Einstein was not the author of course Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2017-01-08 22:49 +0100
Re: E = mc^2 : Einstein was not the author of course Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2017-01-08 14:57 -0800
Re: E = mc^2 : Einstein was not the author of course Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2017-01-09 06:05 +0100
Re: E = mc^2 : Einstein was not the author of course Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2017-01-09 03:35 -0800
Re: E = mc^2 : Einstein was not the author of course Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2017-01-10 06:52 +0100
Re: E = mc^2 : Einstein was not the author of course Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2017-01-10 04:41 -0800
Re: E = mc^2 : Einstein was not the author of course Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2017-01-11 04:43 +0100
Re: E = mc^2 : Einstein was not the author of course Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2017-01-10 20:30 -0800
Re: E = mc^2 : Einstein was not the author of course Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2017-01-11 22:06 +0100
Re: E = mc^2 : Einstein was not the author of course Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2017-01-11 16:40 -0800
Re: E = mc^2 : Einstein was not the author of course Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2017-01-12 07:46 +0100
Re: E = mc^2 : Einstein was not the author of course Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2017-01-12 05:06 -0800
Re: E = mc^2 : Einstein was not the author of course Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2017-01-12 18:33 +0100
Re: E = mc^2 : Einstein was not the author of course Ward Nusbaum <uqowm@msdmmsuus.org> - 2017-01-12 19:38 +0000
Re: E = mc^2 : Einstein was not the author of course Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2017-01-12 14:09 -0800
Re: E = mc^2 : Einstein was not the author of course "Paul B. Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> - 2017-01-13 09:38 +0100
Re: E = mc^2 : Einstein was not the author of course "David (Lord Kronos Prime) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> - 2017-01-13 08:05 -0800
Re: E = mc^2 : Einstein was not the author of course Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2017-01-14 07:43 +0100
Re: E = mc^2 : Einstein was not the author of course "Paul B. Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> - 2017-01-14 11:33 +0100
Re: E = mc^2 : Einstein was not the author of course Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2017-01-14 21:08 +0100
Re: E = mc^2 : Einstein was not the author of course "Dono," <sa_ge@comcast.net> - 2017-01-13 08:11 -0800
Re: E = mc^2 : Einstein was not the author of course Ward Nusbaum <uqowm@msdmmsuus.org> - 2017-01-13 18:58 +0000
Re: E = mc^2 : Einstein was not the author of course Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2017-01-13 20:51 +0100
Re: E = mc^2 : Einstein was not the author of course Reid Schaffner <dnfoonio@acdnfni.info> - 2017-01-14 17:17 +0000
Re: E = mc^2 : Einstein was not the author of course Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2017-01-14 20:58 +0100
Re: E = mc^2 : Einstein was not the author of course alsor@interia.pl - 2017-01-14 12:31 -0800
Re: E = mc^2 : Einstein was not the author of course Reid Schaffner <dnfoonio@acdnfni.info> - 2017-01-14 20:43 +0000
Re: E = mc^2 : Einstein was not the author of course Reid Schaffner <dnfoonio@acdnfni.info> - 2017-01-14 20:47 +0000
Re: E = mc^2 : Einstein was not the author of course Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2017-01-14 22:32 +0100
Re: E = mc^2 : Einstein was not the author of course Reid Schaffner <dnfoonio@acdnfni.info> - 2017-01-15 19:21 +0000
Re: E = mc^2 : Einstein was not the author of course alsor@interia.pl - 2017-01-15 12:11 -0800
Re: E = mc^2 : Einstein was not the author of course Reid Schaffner <dnfoonio@acdnfni.info> - 2017-01-15 20:22 +0000
Re: E = mc^2 : Einstein was not the author of course alsor@interia.pl - 2017-01-15 14:13 -0800
Re: E = mc^2 : Einstein was not the author of course Reid Schaffner <dnfoonio@acdnfni.info> - 2017-01-15 22:54 +0000
Re: E = mc^2 : Einstein was not the author of course alsor@interia.pl - 2017-01-15 15:31 -0800
Re: E = mc^2 : Einstein was not the author of course Reid Schaffner <dnfoonio@acdnfni.info> - 2017-01-15 23:58 +0000
Re: E = mc^2 : Einstein was not the author of course alsor@interia.pl - 2017-01-15 16:27 -0800
Re: E = mc^2 : Einstein was not the author of course Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2017-01-16 06:57 +0100
Re: E = mc^2 : Einstein was not the author of course Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2017-01-12 07:57 +0100
Re: E = mc^2 : Einstein was not the author of course Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2017-01-12 08:04 +0100
Re: E = mc^2 : Einstein was not the author of course Helmut Wabnig <hwabnig@.- --- -.dotat> - 2017-01-12 09:21 +0100
Re: E = mc^2 : Einstein was not the author of course Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2017-01-12 18:20 +0100
Re: E = mc^2 : Einstein was not the author of course alsor@interia.pl - 2017-01-12 09:41 -0800
Re: E = mc^2 : Einstein was not the author of course Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2017-01-12 19:58 +0100
Re: E = mc^2 : Einstein was not the author of course "David (Lord Kronos Prime) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> - 2017-01-12 11:34 -0800
Re: E = mc^2 : Einstein was not the author of course Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2017-01-13 21:06 +0100
Re: E = mc^2 : Einstein was not the author of course Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-01-13 14:07 -0600
Re: E = mc^2 : Einstein was not the author of course alsor@interia.pl - 2017-01-14 10:29 -0800
Re: E = mc^2 : Einstein was not the author of course Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-01-14 14:26 -0600
Re: E = mc^2 : Einstein was not the author of course Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2017-01-12 14:26 -0800
Re: E = mc^2 : Einstein was not the author of course Ward Nusbaum <uqowm@msdmmsuus.org> - 2017-01-12 23:42 +0000
Re: E = mc^2 : Einstein was not the author of course alsor@interia.pl - 2017-01-12 15:48 -0800
Re: E = mc^2 : Einstein was not the author of course Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2017-01-12 16:27 -0800
Re: E = mc^2 : Einstein was not the author of course Ward Nusbaum <uqowm@msdmmsuus.org> - 2017-01-13 18:36 +0000
Re: E = mc^2 : Einstein was not the author of course "Dono," <sa_ge@comcast.net> - 2017-01-11 18:06 -0800
Re: E = mc^2 : Einstein was not the author of course "Dono," <sa_ge@comcast.net> - 2017-01-11 18:03 -0800
Re: E = mc^2 : Einstein was not the author of course alsor@interia.pl - 2017-01-08 14:11 -0800
Re: E = mc^2 : Einstein was not the author of course Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2017-01-08 15:01 -0800
Re: E = mc^2 : Einstein was not the author of course alsor@interia.pl - 2017-01-08 15:31 -0800
Re: E = mc^2 : Einstein was not the author of course Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2017-01-08 16:57 -0800
Re: E = mc^2 : Einstein was not the author of course alsor@interia.pl - 2017-01-10 10:32 -0800
Re: E = mc^2 : Einstein was not the author of course Alan Folmsbee <omnilobe@gmail.com> - 2017-01-04 20:15 -0800
Re: E = mc^2 : Einstein was not the author of course Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2017-01-05 06:43 +0100
E = mc^2 : Einstein was not the author of course Pentcho Valev <pvalev@yahoo.com> - 2016-12-30 12:57 -0800
Re: E = mc^2 : Einstein was not the author of course Eric Baird <erkdemon@gmail.com> - 2016-12-30 17:47 -0800
Re: E = mc^2 : Einstein was not the author of course Helmut Wabnig <hwabnig@.- --- -.dotat> - 2017-01-04 22:52 +0100
Re: E = mc^2 : Einstein was not the author of course alsor@interia.pl - 2017-01-05 09:26 -0800
Page 3 of 5 — ← Prev page 1 2 [3] 4 5 Next page →
| From | Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-01-11 16:40 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <fd349bef-a97e-46a7-98f3-52cca93ef694@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #405165 |
On Wednesday, January 11, 2017 at 2:06:12 PM UTC-7, Thomas Heger wrote: > > Am 11.01.2017 05:30, schrieb Gary Harnagel: > > > > > I tried to prove, the equation E=m*c² is wrong and you try to prove it's > > > right. > > > > It's right for massive particles. I introduced the fully-correct equation > > but you seem to have an intentional avoidance issue. > > > > > > “Being ignorant is not so much a shame, as being unwilling to learn.” > > > > -- Benjamin Franklin > > > > > > No. > > > > Absolutely true! I see that in YOU. > > > What do you see? > > Apparently you think, that I don't learn. No, I think you are unwilling to learn about physics. > But that's absolutely wrong. Not absolutely :-) > > > Incompetence is not always harmful, only in a position, where competence > > > is necessary. > > > > That depends on what you're incompetent in. If you're incompetent at > > living .... > > > No, my competence was not the subject. It is now. :-) > I replayed to your quote about a better world full of smart people. > > And I wrote, that smartness alone does not make better people or a > better world. That depends on your definition of "smart." > > > For instance it is possible to talk about mathematical problems like how > > > to multiply infinity in a pub, while drinking beer. > > > > > > This would disturb a little air and that's it. > > > > So you never heard of L'Hopital's rule, right? > > No, actually not. So you never got to calculus in math? How do you expect to even TALK intelligently about physics? > > > > > > > > E = sqrt(p^2*c^2 + m^2*c^4) > > > > See? There it is again. > > > In my understanding there are two terms, which contain 'm' and that is zero. There's only ONE term that contains m. Do you have double vision? > > > > SO you don't understand gamma. It's 1/sqrt(1 - v^2/c^2). What happens > > > > when v = c? > > > > > > > > > We would get 1/0 > > > > No, idiot! We would get 0/0. You keep insisting m = 0, buffoon. > > Now you say, that dividing zero by zero gives a different result then > dividing one by zero. > > Sorry, but I cannot follow. So you never went beyond arithmetic in school? Never studied calculus? > > > Now you have told me, this would be the correct equation, while I have > > > rejected your claim. You can reject that truth is truth, too. > > Why do you avoid E = sqrt(p^*c^2 + m^2*c^4)? Are you just being OCD? > > We had that already. You had OCD? > My question was: how do you solve the problem with mass = zero ? We've been through that, but you're not smart at math. > You say, that light has momentum, but no mass. > > I wrote: no, photons and electrons are the same thing. This is what > causes the photoelectric effect. > > And this is why light has momentum. > > .. > > TH And that's not smart, either.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-01-12 07:46 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <edon34Fome3U1@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #405196 |
Am 12.01.2017 01:40, schrieb Gary Harnagel: > So you never got to calculus in math? How do you expect to even TALK > intelligently about physics? > >>>>>>>>> E = sqrt(p^2*c^2 + m^2*c^4) >>> >>> See? There it is again. >> >> >> In my understanding there are two terms, which contain 'm' and that is zero. > > There's only ONE term that contains m. Do you have double vision? P= m* v so in momentum is another m hidden. You want to say, that light has momentum, even if it has no mass. This should make you scratch your head, since momentum is depending on mass. So how does light gets mass? Right: light 'materialises' upon impact. And do we know about such an effect? Sure: the photo-electric effect. >>>>> SO you don't understand gamma. It's 1/sqrt(1 - v^2/c^2). What happens >>>>> when v = c? >>>> >>>> >>>> We would get 1/0 >>> >>> No, idiot! We would get 0/0. You keep insisting m = 0, buffoon. >> >> Now you say, that dividing zero by zero gives a different result then >> dividing one by zero. >> >> Sorry, but I cannot follow. > > So you never went beyond arithmetic in school? Never studied calculus? In Germany we have a certain system in the school-type called 'Gymnasium'. This school is finished with an examination called 'Abitur'. The system is called 'Reformierte Oberstufe' (reformed higher classes stage). In this you have to chose two 'Leistungskurse' (roughly: classes at higher level of education). These special classes are quite high in level, but little lower than academic. I had mathematics and chemistry. I was actually quite good at both and won a (small) price in mathematics. I have also a university degree as Engineer (Dipl. Ing.). >>>> Now you have told me, this would be the correct equation, while I have >>>> rejected your claim. > > You can reject that truth is truth, too. The problem is: what actually is the truth? This was a question of debate. So 'truth' is the final stage of knowledge, not what you could base your argumentation on. >>> Why do you avoid E = sqrt(p^*c^2 + m^2*c^4)? Are you just being OCD? >> >> We had that already. > > You had OCD? Don't know what that is, but most likely an insult. >> My question was: how do you solve the problem with mass = zero ? > > We've been through that, but you're not smart at math. Well, depends on your definition of 'smart'. Somehow I'm a little out of training, but certainly smart enough. >> You say, that light has momentum, but no mass. >> >> I wrote: no, photons and electrons are the same thing. This is what >> causes the photoelectric effect. >> >> And this is why light has momentum. >> > > And that's not smart, either. Well, we were not searching for smartness, but for truth. It does not make much difference, if such wisdom is delivered by an idiot or by a genius, thou smarter people are more likely among the inventors. TH
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-01-12 05:06 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <2f072a5f-5c63-4481-ab8a-e4580486f019@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #405216 |
On Wednesday, January 11, 2017 at 11:47:03 PM UTC-7, Thomas Heger wrote: > > Am 12.01.2017 01:40, schrieb Gary Harnagel: > > > > So you never got to calculus in math? How do you expect to even TALK > > intelligently about physics? > > > >>>>>>>>> E = sqrt(p^2*c^2 + m^2*c^4) > > > > > > In my understanding there are two terms, which contain 'm' and that > > > is zero. > > > > There's only ONE term that contains m. Do you have double vision? > > P= m* v Yes and no. p has the UNITS of kg*m/sec but actually, p = gamma*m*v, so again we have 0/0 when m = 0 because when m is zero, ANY tiny, tiny fluctuation in force, a random radio photon, will make its velocity c. > so in momentum is another m hidden. > > You want to say, that light has momentum, even if it has no mass. That's the conventional way to look at it. The old way to look at it (and I still wonder about it) is to say that light has "relativistic" mass. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mass%E2%80%93energy_equivalence#Relativistic_mass > This should make you scratch your head, since momentum is depending on mass. > > So how does light gets mass? See above. Also, energy has mass: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mass%E2%80%93energy_equivalence#Practical_examples "Raising the temperature of an object (increasing its heat energy) increases its mass." > Right: light 'materialises' upon impact. > > And do we know about such an effect? > > Sure: the photo-electric effect. Actually, it happens when light heats up whatever it hits. You DO realize a hot cup of water weighs more than a cold cup of water, don't you? > > > Now you say, that dividing zero by zero gives a different result then > > > dividing one by zero. > > > > > > Sorry, but I cannot follow. > > > > So you never went beyond arithmetic in school? Never studied calculus? > > In Germany we have a certain system in the school-type called > 'Gymnasium'. This school is finished with an examination called 'Abitur'. > > The system is called 'Reformierte Oberstufe' (reformed higher classes > stage). > > In this you have to chose two 'Leistungskurse' (roughly: classes at > higher level of education). > > These special classes are quite high in level, but little lower than > academic. > > I had mathematics and chemistry. > > I was actually quite good at both and won a (small) price in mathematics. > > I have also a university degree as Engineer (Dipl. Ing.). And you never heard of L'Hopital's rule? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/L%27H%C3%B4pital%27s_rule > >>>> Now you have told me, this would be the correct equation, while I have > >>>> rejected your claim. > > > > You can reject that truth is truth, too. > > The problem is: what actually is the truth? > > This was a question of debate. So 'truth' is the final stage of > knowledge, not what you could base your argumentation on. I was using an analogy. It's not a good idea to reject something you don't know anything about. > > > > Why do you avoid E = sqrt(p^*c^2 + m^2*c^4)? Are you just being OCD? > > > > > > We had that already. > > > > You had OCD? > > Don't know what that is, but most likely an insult. Oppositional Compulsive Disorder :-) > > > My question was: how do you solve the problem with mass = zero ? > > > > We've been through that, but you're not smart at math. > > Well, depends on your definition of 'smart'. > > Somehow I'm a little out of training, but certainly smart enough. Okay. > > > You say, that light has momentum, but no mass. > > > > > > I wrote: no, photons and electrons are the same thing. This is what > > > causes the photoelectric effect. > > > > > > And this is why light has momentum. > > > > > > > And that's not smart, either. > > Well, we were not searching for smartness, but for truth. I was using "smart" as defined by "reality." I see NO justification for asserting that photons and electrons are the same thing. First of all, electrons have electrical charge and photons don't. That flies in the face of charge conservation. Second, electrons have spin h/4pi, photons have spin h/2pi. That destroys conservation of spin. Third, a lone electron has NEVER been observed turning into a photon. > It does not make much difference, if such wisdom is delivered by an > idiot or by a genius, thou smarter people are more likely among the > inventors. > > TH There's more than one way around the 0/0 problem. One way is by L'Hopital's rule: "In mathematics, and more specifically in calculus, L'Hôpital's rule or L'Hospital's rule (French: [lopital]) uses derivatives to help evaluate limits involving indeterminate forms."
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-01-12 18:33 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <edpsvaF3dapU1@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #405251 |
Am 12.01.2017 14:06, schrieb Gary Harnagel: ... >>>> You say, that light has momentum, but no mass. >>>> >>>> I wrote: no, photons and electrons are the same thing. This is what >>>> causes the photoelectric effect. >>>> >>>> And this is why light has momentum. >>>> >>> >>> And that's not smart, either. >> >> Well, we were not searching for smartness, but for truth. > > I was using "smart" as defined by "reality." I see NO justification for > asserting that photons and electrons are the same thing. First of all, > electrons have electrical charge and photons don't. That flies in the > face of charge conservation. Second, electrons have spin h/4pi, photons > have spin h/2pi. That destroys conservation of spin. Third, a lone > electron has NEVER been observed turning into a photon. I use my 'private' theory and in this a photon and an electron are the same structure, but tilted by a certain angle. Since you have most likely no idea, what I'm talking about, I suggest you have a look at my 'book': https://docs.google.com/present/view?id=dd8jz2tx_3gfzvqgd6 It's not really a book, but kind of. Actually it's a google.doc presentation, which I have written some years ago. Second: how do we produce light? Answer: We use electric current, mainly. Current is charge in motion. We pass current through a device and out comes light. Now time-revert this. Then in comes light and out goes current. TH
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Ward Nusbaum <uqowm@msdmmsuus.org> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-01-12 19:38 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <o58lvn$s5l$2@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #405311 |
Thomas Heger wrote: > I use my 'private' theory and in this a photon and an electron are the > same structure, but tilted by a certain angle. In what domain that angle?
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-01-12 14:09 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <c52a3c7e-a67a-431d-9807-805e42e3af2b@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #405311 |
On Thursday, January 12, 2017 at 10:33:33 AM UTC-7, Thomas Heger wrote: > > Am 12.01.2017 14:06, schrieb Gary Harnagel: > > ... > > I was using "smart" as defined by "reality." I see NO justification for > > asserting that photons and electrons are the same thing. First of all, > > electrons have electrical charge and photons don't. That flies in the > > face of charge conservation. Second, electrons have spin h/4pi, photons > > have spin h/2pi. That destroys conservation of spin. Third, a lone > > electron has NEVER been observed turning into a photon. > > I use my 'private' theory and in this a photon and an electron are the > same structure, but tilted by a certain angle. > > Since you have most likely no idea, what I'm talking about, I suggest > you have a look at my 'book': > > https://docs.google.com/present/view?id=dd8jz2tx_3gfzvqgd6 I already did and passed judgment on it. > It's not really a book, but kind of. Actually it's a google.doc > presentation, which I have written some years ago. > > > Second: > how do we produce light? > > Answer: > We use electric current, mainly. Heat works, too. No current needed. > Current is charge in motion. We pass current through a device and out > comes light. > > Now time-revert this. > > Then in comes light and out goes current. > > > > TH It's called a photovoltaic cell. You have addressed none of the serious objections that refute your idea.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Paul B. Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-01-13 09:38 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <o5a3n2$6pb$1@news.albasani.net> |
| In reply to | #405311 |
On 12.01.2017 18:33, Thomas Heger wrote: > > I use my 'private' theory and in this a photon and an electron are the > same structure, but tilted by a certain angle. > > Since you have most likely no idea, what I'm talking about, I suggest > you have a look at my 'book': > > https://docs.google.com/present/view?id=dd8jz2tx_3gfzvqgd6 > > > It's not really a book, but kind of. Actually it's a google.doc > presentation, which I have written some years ago. > I take it for granted that your theory is capable of predicting something. Have you compared the predictions of your theory with the results of experiments already done? -- Paul https://paulba.no/
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "David (Lord Kronos Prime) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-01-13 08:05 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <d45959dc-5f4e-4570-ab3c-5f2688a7f2f1@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #405421 |
2:38 AMPaul B. Andersen On 12.01.2017 18:33, Thomas Heger wrote: > > I use my 'private' theory and in this a photon and an electron are the > same structure, but tilted by a certain angle. > > Since you have most likely no idea, what I'm talking about, I suggest > you have a look at my 'book': > > https://docs.google.com/present/view?id=dd8jz2tx_3gfzvqgd6 > > > It's not really a book, but kind of. Actually it's a google.doc > presentation, which I have written some years ago. > I take it for granted that your theory is capable of predicting something. Have you compared the predictions of your theory with the results of experiments already done? -- Paul I don't know why you are picking on Mr Heger. His model is mostly just a graphical representation of the Lorentz Transformation
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-01-14 07:43 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <edtvkaF2s7oU1@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #405421 |
Am 13.01.2017 09:38, schrieb Paul B. Andersen: >> I use my 'private' theory and in this a photon and an electron are the >> same structure, but tilted by a certain angle. >> >> Since you have most likely no idea, what I'm talking about, I suggest >> you have a look at my 'book': >> >> https://docs.google.com/present/view?id=dd8jz2tx_3gfzvqgd6 >> >> >> It's not really a book, but kind of. Actually it's a google.doc >> presentation, which I have written some years ago. >> > > I take it for granted that your theory is capable > of predicting something. > > Have you compared the predictions of your theory > with the results of experiments already done? > I don't call it 'theory' but 'concept'. A theory is a hypothesis, that could not be disproved. So I have developed another hypothesis for how nature might work on a fundamental level. This is not fully finished, but quite. The mathematical part I have from Jonathan Scott and his book about complex four vectors. Now I try to show, that such a construct would in fact allow to connect general relativity to quantum mechanics. QM represents the concepts of particles and fields, while GR stands for larger structures in cosmology. This could be done, but at the expense of particles as fundamental entities. Instead particles are certain 'structures', but not real things. As example for 'matter out of nothing' I used 'Growing Earth' and tried to prove, that planets do in fact grow. Other examples is a phenomenon called 'magic dust', which is dust at unusual or impossible places. This is - according to my 'theory' - matter out of nowhere and created by purely em-influence (through walls) of pulsed micro-waves. Another example would be destruction of matter and vanishing substances. TH
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Paul B. Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-01-14 11:33 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <o5cuou$4n4$1@news.albasani.net> |
| In reply to | #405539 |
On 14.01.2017 07:43, Thomas Heger wrote: > Am 13.01.2017 09:38, schrieb Paul B. Andersen: > >>> I use my 'private' theory and in this a photon and an electron are the >>> same structure, but tilted by a certain angle. >>> >>> Since you have most likely no idea, what I'm talking about, I suggest >>> you have a look at my 'book': >>> >>> https://docs.google.com/present/view?id=dd8jz2tx_3gfzvqgd6 >>> >>> >>> It's not really a book, but kind of. Actually it's a google.doc >>> presentation, which I have written some years ago. >>> >> >> I take it for granted that your theory is capable >> of predicting something. >> >> Have you compared the predictions of your theory >> with the results of experiments already done? >> > > I don't call it 'theory' but 'concept'. > > > A theory is a hypothesis, that could not be disproved. > > So I have developed another hypothesis for how nature might work on a > fundamental level. > > This is not fully finished, but quite. The mathematical part I have from > Jonathan Scott and his book about complex four vectors. > > Now I try to show, that such a construct would in fact allow to connect > general relativity to quantum mechanics. > > QM represents the concepts of particles and fields, while GR stands for > larger structures in cosmology. > > This could be done, but at the expense of particles as fundamental > entities. Instead particles are certain 'structures', but not real things. > > As example for 'matter out of nothing' I used 'Growing Earth' and tried > to prove, that planets do in fact grow. > > Other examples is a phenomenon called 'magic dust', which is dust at > unusual or impossible places. This is - according to my 'theory' - > matter out of nowhere and created by purely em-influence (through walls) > of pulsed micro-waves. > > Another example would be destruction of matter and vanishing substances. > > > > TH So the answer is no. -- Paul https://paulba.no/
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-01-14 21:08 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <edvepoFe7vkU1@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #405550 |
Am 14.01.2017 11:33, schrieb Paul B. Andersen: >>>> I use my 'private' theory and in this a photon and an electron are the >>>> same structure, but tilted by a certain angle. >>>> >>>> Since you have most likely no idea, what I'm talking about, I suggest >>>> you have a look at my 'book': >>>> >>>> https://docs.google.com/present/view?id=dd8jz2tx_3gfzvqgd6 >>>> >>>> >>>> It's not really a book, but kind of. Actually it's a google.doc >>>> presentation, which I have written some years ago. >>>> >>> >>> I take it for granted that your theory is capable >>> of predicting something. >>> >>> Have you compared the predictions of your theory >>> with the results of experiments already done? >>> >> >> I don't call it 'theory' but 'concept'. >> >> >> A theory is a hypothesis, that could not be disproved. >> >> So I have developed another hypothesis for how nature might work on a >> fundamental level. >> >> This is not fully finished, but quite. The mathematical part I have from >> Jonathan Scott and his book about complex four vectors. >> >> Now I try to show, that such a construct would in fact allow to connect >> general relativity to quantum mechanics. >> >> QM represents the concepts of particles and fields, while GR stands for >> larger structures in cosmology. >> >> This could be done, but at the expense of particles as fundamental >> entities. Instead particles are certain 'structures', but not real >> things. >> >> As example for 'matter out of nothing' I used 'Growing Earth' and tried >> to prove, that planets do in fact grow. >> >> Other examples is a phenomenon called 'magic dust', which is dust at >> unusual or impossible places. This is - according to my 'theory' - >> matter out of nowhere and created by purely em-influence (through walls) >> of pulsed micro-waves. >> >> Another example would be destruction of matter and vanishing substances. >> >> >> >> TH > > So the answer is no. > > 'No' to what question? If my theory would fit to experimental data? I wrote: it's not a theory but a concept. I do not derive any numerical values, but describe a concept about how I think, that nature could possibly function on a very low level. This concept is called 'structured spacetime'. It's aim is to provide a connection between GR and QM. From GR I take 'spacetime' and try to show, that the subjects of QM are structures within this spacetime. (hence the name) This is in fact a logical connection. And if you have a better proposal, than I'm interest to hear about it. TH
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Dono," <sa_ge@comcast.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-01-13 08:11 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <8261b0ab-5032-45b0-9c99-3ff708cef835@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #405216 |
On Wednesday, January 11, 2017 at 10:47:03 PM UTC-8, Thomas Heger wrote: > > P= m* v > > so in momentum is another m hidden. > > You want to say, that light has momentum, even if it has no mass. > > This should make you scratch your head, since momentum is depending on mass. > > So how does light gets mass? > It doesn't , imbecile. I already explained that to you, for light: E=hf p=E/c=hf/c
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Ward Nusbaum <uqowm@msdmmsuus.org> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-01-13 18:58 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <o5b801$s1d$3@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #405216 |
Thomas Heger wrote: > I had mathematics and chemistry. > I was actually quite good at both and won a (small) price in > mathematics. I have also a university degree as Engineer (Dipl. Ing.). Another half-engineer. You need much more to become a proper engineer. I would feel ashamed to be a half-engineer.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-01-13 20:51 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <edspe6Fp1gkU1@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #405457 |
Am 13.01.2017 19:58, schrieb Ward Nusbaum: >> I had mathematics and chemistry. >> I was actually quite good at both and won a (small) price in >> mathematics. I have also a university degree as Engineer (Dipl. Ing.). > > Another half-engineer. You need much more to become a proper engineer. I > would feel ashamed to be a half-engineer. > 'Half engineer' is actually true, since it is a combination of engineering and economies. It is called in German 'Wirtschaftsingenieurswesen'. This means roughly ' economics engineering'. Germans are pretty proud about especially this subject and it's actually not easy. If this is such a good combination, I cannot say. Certainly it's useful in industrial positions, where some high-tech stuff is produced. Unfortunately Berlin has not much industry left. It was once a very important industrial city, but now there is less then in most other regions of Germany. So I have done all sorts of other things and had never designed a turbine or a robot. And physics is among the 'other things'. TH
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Reid Schaffner <dnfoonio@acdnfni.info> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-01-14 17:17 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <o5dmg5$hpd$2@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #405466 |
Thomas Heger wrote: >>> I had mathematics and chemistry. >>> I was actually quite good at both and won a (small) price in >>> mathematics. I have also a university degree as Engineer (Dipl. Ing.). >> >> Another half-engineer. You need much more to become a proper engineer. >> I would feel ashamed to be a half-engineer. >> >> > 'Half engineer' is actually true, since it is a combination of > engineering and economies. It is called in German > 'Wirtschaftsingenieurswesen'. This means roughly ' economics > engineering'. I can't even pronounce, but does not matter, economics engineering is an oxymoron. Either is it about economics, or engineer. But you need a PhD or at least a MSc level, if you want to become an engineer like the rest of us. You are insufficient, know no Tensors.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-01-14 20:58 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <edve89Fe3q5U1@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #405578 |
Am 14.01.2017 18:17, schrieb Reid Schaffner: >>> Another half-engineer. You need much more to become a proper engineer. >>> I would feel ashamed to be a half-engineer. >>> >>> >> 'Half engineer' is actually true, since it is a combination of >> engineering and economies. It is called in German >> 'Wirtschaftsingenieurswesen'. This means roughly ' economics >> engineering'. > > I can't even pronounce, but does not matter, economics engineering is an > oxymoron. Either is it about economics, or engineer. But you need a PhD or > at least a MSc level, if you want to become an engineer like the rest of > us. You are insufficient, know no Tensors. German universities are a little different to that in the USA (for instance). I have a degree called 'Diplom'. Since it is about engineering, I have a title called 'Dipl. Ing.' (abbreviated), what stands for 'Diplom Ingenieur'. This is roughly the same as a master degree in science (MSc). Of course engineering and economics fit together very well. It's just a little difficult to learn both. Tensors I tried to circumvent by using complex four vectors. The idea is actually simple and goes like this: if you want to connect QM an GR you need a common 'language', that would fit to both realms. And complex four vectors do. I have actually started with quaternions, but found them not really fitting. So I have searched for an alternative, that could also be called 'quaternions' as well (what would not require too much rewriting). Those constructs would do, since they are also called 'bi-quaternions'. TH
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | alsor@interia.pl |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-01-14 12:31 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <2e19c5bd-1b96-41ef-aa14-fd553593a5b0@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #405596 |
W dniu sobota, 14 stycznia 2017 20:59:07 UTC+1 użytkownik Thomas Heger napisał: > Those constructs would do, since they are also called 'bi-quaternions'. There is no such thing, because the 4D spece doesn't provide a cross product operator. u x v = nonsense in the 4D..
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Reid Schaffner <dnfoonio@acdnfni.info> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-01-14 20:43 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <o5e2i8$17k8$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #405596 |
Thomas Heger wrote: >> I can't even pronounce, but does not matter, economics engineering is >> an oxymoron. Either is it about economics, or engineer. But you need a >> PhD or at least a MSc level, if you want to become an engineer like the >> rest of us. You are insufficient, know no Tensors. > > German universities are a little different to that in the USA (for > instance). > > I have a degree called 'Diplom'. Since it is about engineering, I have a > title called 'Dipl. Ing.' (abbreviated), what stands for 'Diplom > Ingenieur'. This is roughly the same as a master degree in science (MSc). That's a three years study, mostly a BSc. Take a look, your "diplom" grade must equivalate a BSc??. > Of course engineering and economics fit together very well. It's just a > little difficult to learn both. Another bullshit. I have no idea why you insist in doing it.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Reid Schaffner <dnfoonio@acdnfni.info> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-01-14 20:47 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <o5e2op$17k8$2@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #405596 |
Thomas Heger wrote: > I have actually started with quaternions, but found them not really > fitting. > So I have searched for an alternative, that could also be called > 'quaternions' as well (what would not require too much rewriting). Smart for certain applications, but useless in general. Known to give singularities upon sets of data. As a full blown engineer you should know this thing already.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-01-14 22:32 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <edvjnlFffpiU1@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #405611 |
Am 14.01.2017 21:47, schrieb Reid Schaffner: >> I have actually started with quaternions, but found them not really >> fitting. >> So I have searched for an alternative, that could also be called >> 'quaternions' as well (what would not require too much rewriting). > > Smart for certain applications, but useless in general. Known to give > singularities upon sets of data. As a full blown engineer you should know > this thing already. Quaternions are not really 'mainstream'. They are useful do describe rotations. Also game programmers use them to shuffle their monsters around. But bi-quaternions are very unusual constructs. (I have not heard of them too much.) Initially I had tried to use a quaternion formula for rotation: v' = q * v * q^-1 I wanted to show, that the bra-ket construct of QM has similar features. From spacetime of GR it is easy to come to quaternions, so that would enable a connection. But complex numbers are also interesting. E.g. a Minkowski diagram looks quite similar to an Argand diagram. Then I found the papers of Jonathan Scott about complex four vectors and therefore changed from quaternions to bi-quaternions. TH
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
Page 3 of 5 — ← Prev page 1 2 [3] 4 5 Next page →
Back to top | Article view | sci.physics.relativity
csiph-web