Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]

Groups > sci.physics > #550629 > unrolled thread

Re: Gravity needs NO Matter

Back to article view | Back to sci.physics

This discussion starts older than the indexed window; earlier articles aren't shown. The article labeled Started by below is the oldest one visible, not the original post.

Contents

  Re: Gravity needs NO Matter "Y.Porat" <y.y.porat@gmail.com> - 2016-02-05 00:14 -0800
    Re: Gravity needs NO Matter Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2016-02-05 22:38 +0100
      Re: Gravity needs NO Matter "Y.Porat" <y.y.porat@gmail.com> - 2016-02-06 06:34 -0800
        Re: Gravity needs NO Matter HVAC <mr.hvac@gmail.com> - 2016-02-06 08:01 -0800
          Re: Gravity needs NO Matter Mahipal <mahipal7638@gmail.com> - 2016-02-06 08:42 -0800
            Re: Gravity needs NO Matter "Y.Porat" <y.y.porat@gmail.com> - 2016-02-06 10:11 -0800
              Re: Gravity needs NO Matter Mahipal <mahipal7638@gmail.com> - 2016-02-06 10:22 -0800
            Re: Gravity needs NO Matter "Y.Porat" <y.y.porat@gmail.com> - 2016-02-08 10:39 -0800
              Re: Gravity needs NO Matter Mahipal <mahipal7638@gmail.com> - 2016-02-08 11:06 -0800
                Re: Gravity needs NO Matter "Y.Porat" <y.y.porat@gmail.com> - 2016-02-08 22:32 -0800
                editen sujet noTthaTguY <abu.kuanysh05@gmail.com> - 2016-02-09 10:14 -0800
          Re: Gravity needs NO Matter "Y.Porat" <y.y.porat@gmail.com> - 2016-02-06 10:00 -0800
        Re: Gravity needs NO Matter Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2016-02-06 17:22 +0100
          Re: Gravity needs NO Matter john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2016-02-06 08:41 -0800
            Re: Gravity needs NO Matter Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2016-02-06 18:08 +0100
              Re: Gravity needs NO Matter john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2016-02-06 09:17 -0800
                Re: Gravity needs NO Matter Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2016-02-06 18:25 +0100
                  Re: Gravity needs NO Matter john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2016-02-06 09:27 -0800
                  Re: Gravity needs NO Matter "Y.Porat" <y.y.porat@gmail.com> - 2016-02-09 10:45 -0800
                    Re: Gravity needs NO Matter Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2016-02-09 23:31 +0100
          Re: Gravity needs NO Matter "Y.Porat" <y.y.porat@gmail.com> - 2016-02-09 10:41 -0800
            Re: Gravity needs NO Matter Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2016-02-09 23:04 +0100
              Re: Gravity needs NO Matter "Y.Porat" <y.y.porat@gmail.com> - 2016-02-09 22:37 -0800
                Re: Gravity needs NO Matter Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2016-02-10 20:33 +0100
                  Re: Gravity needs NO Matter Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2016-02-10 20:44 +0100
                  Re: Gravity needs NO Matter "Y.Porat" <y.y.porat@gmail.com> - 2016-02-10 22:57 -0800
                    Re: Gravity needs NO Matter Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2016-02-13 19:41 +0100

Page 1 of 2  [1] 2  Next page →

#550629 — Re: Gravity needs NO Matter

On Monday, February 1, 2016 > -- 
> Two neutrinos go through a bar ...
> 
> (from: WolframAlpha)
=====================================
=======================================
you are a common  parrot manipulator !!

if V= c
gamma becomes undefined ***even mathematically**!!
and you  jangler manipulations want help  you!!
you cant fish in dirty water !!


2
in that case 
see the formula 
E=hf photon Energy 
it was found  EXPERIMENTALLY 5 YEARS BEFORE RELATIVITY !!!
Planck didn t use any F en relativistic entity/TOOL  to define it EXPERIMENTALLY 
----
h has the Kilogram dimension !!!!!
GOT IT ??!!!
 and
nothing F en relativistic  there
nor anything to multiply it by zero!!
Epstein was wrong by claiming that
NO MASS CAN REACH c
 MASS OF PHOTONS DOES IT !!!
the mass of the photon is an exception to the rule that
no mass can reach c 
you can see even by experimental  EVIDENCE  
that
as MASS COMES  becomes  smaller and smaller 
IT CAN REACH -CLOSER AND CLOSER TO C !!!! 
old copyright by me 
2
=============================================
NO MASS THE ONLY *** MASS - NO REAL PHYSICS !!
================================================
please don t forget who is the father of that 
important historical most basic  physical assertion !!

it can save tone on  tons of physics bublings

and  save a  wast of a huge amount of** ****precious**human resources !!! 
and lead to some new  useful physics 

TIA
Y.Porat
===================================
 

[toc] | [next] | [standalone]

#550767

Y.Porat wrote:

> On Monday, February 1, 2016 > --
>> Two neutrinos go through a bar ...
>> 
>> (from: WolframAlpha)

What you are quoting here is a (randomly selected) Usenet signature.  You 
are not referring to it in your follow-up, so you should not have quoted it.  
As you should not quote anything that you are *not* referring to, while you 
should quote *everything* that you *are* referring to, even if you have to 
shorten it.  Simply omitting relevant quotations as you did (and replacing 
them with irrelevant ones) is _not_ appropriate discussion style.

> =====================================
> =======================================

Please don’t.

> you are a common  parrot manipulator !!

I have no idea what that is supposed to mean, but evidentially you are a 
name-caller, and not a very good one at that.
 
> if V= c

That’s _v_ (lowercase letter) in the equation that I have posted (and you 
have not quoted).

> gamma becomes undefined ***even mathematically**!!

The equation in my posting that you are referring to is either the equation 
for the momentum of objects whose mass is *not zero* –

  p = m v∕√(1 − (v∕c)²); m ≠ 0(!)
                         ^^^^^^^^

– or the equation for the kinetic energy of *such* objects –

  E_k = m c²∕√(1 − (v∕c)²) − m c²; m ≠ 0(!)
                                   ^^^^^^^^
    [Why?  You subtract from the total energy that such an object has in
     relative motion the energy that it has *at relative rest*, E = m c².]

–, so *neither applies to photons* as *photons have mass zero* (m = 0) and 
(the magnitude of) their momentum is

  p = ℏ k = ℎ∕λ = ℎ f∕c

instead (where ℏ = ℎ∕2π, k = |k⃗| = 2π∕λ is the wave number, k⃗ is the wave 
vector, λ is the wavelength, and f is the wave’s frequency).  As I have said 
multiple times now (as if it would not be self-evident to all who can read), 
*the velocity v does not feature in the momentum equation for photons*, nor 
does their zero mass.  Why?  Photons *always* travel at c.

However, the energy–momentum relation from special relativity that I 
posted –

  E = √((m c²)² + (p c)²)

– is supposed to apply to *all* physical objects.  It depends only on their 
mass m and on their *object-specific* momentum p (since c is a constant).  
As a function of mass and momentum then, and with explicit multiplication 
sign, you can write it

  E(m, p) = √((m × c²)² + (p × c)²).

Photons have m = 0 and p = ℏ k = ℎ∕λ = ℎ f∕c, so they have energy

  E(0, p) = √(p × c)² = p × c = ℎ f∕c × c = ℎ f

which confirms _Einstein’s_ prior observations and reasoning about the 
photoelectric effect.

What is so difficult for you to understand about that?

> and you  jangler manipulations want help  you!!
> you cant fish in dirty water !!

Gibberish.

> 2
> in that case
> see the formula
> E=hf photon Energy
> it was found  EXPERIMENTALLY 5 YEARS BEFORE RELATIVITY !!!

Can’t you read?  Your claim is *wrong*; it was _Einstein_ who found that 
"formula" “experimentally” _in 1905_, _only three months_ before he 
published the first paper on special relativity.

Planck did find and present in 1900 to the Deutsche Physikalische 
Gesellschaft (German Society of Physics) a radiation law that featured ℎ (of 
which sources that I have not confirmed yet say that was chosen as an 
abbreviation for German „Hilfsgrösse“ [“helper quantity”]), but *nobody*, 
including Planck, was aware of ℎ’s importance for photon energy *at the 
time*.

> Planck didn t use any F

Nobody but you used “F” (capital letter).  I used “f” (lowercase letter) for 
frequency.  Planck used “ν” for frequency, which he called “oscillation 
number (per second)” in “On the Law of Distribution of Energy in the Normal 
Spectrum” (1900/1901), but E = ℎν does not feature either in that work 
(which you can’t have read, let alone understood):

<http://www.physik.uni-augsburg.de/annalen/history/historic-papers/1901_309_553-563.pdf>

> en relativistic entity/TOOL  to define it
> EXPERIMENTALLY ----

Gibberish.

> h has the Kilogram dimension !!!!!

Utter nonsense.  First of all, kilogram (kg) is a *unit* for the dimension 
of mass, not a dimension itself.  Second, the dimension of ℎ is energy × 
time, _not_ mass.  The possible units for ℎ include J s (joule-second) where 
1 J s = 1 N m s = 1 kg m²∕s² × s = 1 kg m²∕s.

> GOT IT ??!!!

I got that you have delusions of knowledge.

>  and
> nothing F en relativistic  there

That’s gibberish again.  Please do everyone a favor and get yourself an 
English dictionary (and some relaxation pills).  And *use it* (and take 
them) when you post (in English).

> nor anything to multiply it by zero!!

Nonsense, see above.

> Epstein was wrong by claiming that
  ^^^^^^^
Who?

> NO MASS CAN REACH c

AISB, no object whose mass is *greater than zero* (m > 0) can travel at c, 
and that follows from the form of the equations for relativistic momentum 
and kinetic energy *for such objects*.

>  MASS OF PHOTONS DOES IT !!!

The mass of photons is *zero*, so photons can and must travel at c.

Or, if you can understand that better, in your (wrong) terminology “photons 
are not masses”.

> the mass of the photon is an exception to the rule that
> no mass can reach c

You have two major misconceptions:

First, that there would be “a mass”; that mass would be the same as an 
object.  Since photons have no (non-zero) mass and are still objects, your 
idea of a moving mass, instead of an object *with a certain mass*, is wrong.

Instead, mass m is a property of an object as is its rest energy E₀, whereas 
they are related (as Einstein found) by the equation m = E₀∕c².

Second, since photons have zero mass (m = 0), the momentum equation and the 
equation for kinetic energy for objects that have non-zero mass (m > 0) 
*does not apply to photons*.

> you can see even by experimental  EVIDENCE
> that
> as MASS COMES  becomes  smaller and smaller
> IT CAN REACH -CLOSER AND CLOSER TO C !!!!

AISB twice now (only that I used, correctly, the terms “object” and “mass of 
an object” instead).  Can’t you read?

> old copyright by me 

Copyright has been duly added to the list of things that you do not yet 
understand.

This discussion has to do with relativity; there is a special newsgroup for 
that subject in the Big 8.  In Usenet, you are supposed to post to the 
newsgroup that is *the most specific one* in a hierarchy, so in this case 
*you are supposed to post to* sci.physics.*relativity*.  I had set Followup-
To (F'up2) there, which you ignored.  Please do not do that again.


F'up2 sci.physics.relativity

PointedEars
-- 
I heard that entropy isn't what it used to be.

(from: WolframAlpha)

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#550892

On Friday, February 5, 2016 at 11:3 > (from: WolframAlpha)

===========================
i will do it again for you 
i snipped the other text because it is only obfuscation the main  point i bring here 
you see while you see the forest you don t see the trees there 
so 

E photon  Energy  is 
E = h f 
right??

do you know the dimensions of h  
if not i will do it for you
 h has the dimensions 

 ~6.6 expo -24 times   Kilogram Meter^2/second

Kilogram is here the dimension of mass  MASS (MASS) !!!! it and  cant be something else 
all together is  an equation of energy right ??

if you note it by  something  else than mass 
-it want help you -it will always be NOTATION OF   mass
or else the equation is not a physical quotation  dimension  of energy 

right ?
now Please tell  us 
WHERE (THE 'HECK'  JUST A FINE CURSE
BECAUSE I AM ANGRY ()....)(:-)

so where do you see  there anything 
to multiply that formula including  the mass dimension there 
by anything relativistic ????
or zero ???
   old copyright by 
TIA
 Eng Y.Porat
====================================
  
 
 

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#550899

9:34 AMY.Porat
On Friday, February 5, 2016 at 11:3 > (from: WolframAlpha) 

=========================== 
i will do it again for you 
i snipped the other text because it is only obfuscation the main  point i bring here 
you see while you see the forest you don t see the trees there 
so 

E photon  Energy  is 
E = h f 
right?? 

do you know the dimensions of h   
if not i will do it for you 
 h has the dimensions 

 ~6.6 expo -24 times   Kilogram Meter^2/second 

Kilogram is here the dimension of mass  MASS (MASS) !!!! it and  cant be something else 
all together is  an equation of energy right ?? 

if you note it by  something  else than mass 
-it want help you -it will always be NOTATION OF   mass 
or else the equation is not a physical quotation  dimension  of energy 

right ? 
now Please tell  us 
WHERE (THE 'HECK'  JUST A FINE CURSE 
BECAUSE I AM ANGRY ()....)(:-) 
----------

Why you mad MapleLoops?

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#550905

On Saturday, February 6, 2016 at 11:01:20 AM UTC-5, HVAC wrote:
> 9:34 AMY.Porat
> On Friday, February 5, 2016 at 11:3 > (from: WolframAlpha) 
> 
> =========================== 
> i will do it again for you 
> i snipped the other text because it is only obfuscation the main  point i bring here 
> you see while you see the forest you don t see the trees there 
> so 
> 
> E photon  Energy  is 
> E = h f 
> right?? 
> 
> do you know the dimensions of h   
> if not i will do it for you 
>  h has the dimensions 
> 
>  ~6.6 expo -24 times   Kilogram Meter^2/second 

Dimensions are for losers, come to the Canonical Measures. First left at Hairdo. 
 
> Kilogram is here the dimension of mass  MASS (MASS) !!!! it and  cant be something else 
> all together is  an equation of energy right ?? 
> 
> if you note it by  something  else than mass 
> -it want help you -it will always be NOTATION OF   mass 
> or else the equation is not a physical quotation  dimension  of energy 
> 
> right ? 
> now Please tell  us 
> WHERE (THE 'HECK'  JUST A FINE CURSE 
> BECAUSE I AM ANGRY ()....)(:-) 
> ----------
> 
> Why you mad MapleLoops?

Yehiel Porat is now MapleLoops too?! HVAC, rent a conscious.

-- Mahipal “IPMM... माहिपाल ७६३८: I like Porat, though Yehiel should spellcheck before posting.”

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#550933

On Saturday, February 6, 2016 at 6:42:39 PM UTC+2, Mahipal wrote:
> On Saturday, February 6, 2016 at 11:01:20 AM UTC-5, HVAC wrote:
> > 9:34 AMY.Porat
> > On Friday, February 5, 2016 at 11:3 > (from: WolframAlpha) 
> > 
> > =========================== 
> > i will do it again for you 
> > i snipped the other text because it is only obfuscation the main  point i bring here 
> > you see while you see the forest you don t see the trees there 
> > so 
> > 
> > E photon  Energy  is 
> > E = h f 
> > right?? 
> > 
> > do you know the dimensions of h   
> > if not i will do it for you 
> >  h has the dimensions 
> > 
> >  ~6.6 expo -24 times   Kilogram Meter^2/second 
> 
> Dimensions are for losers, come to the Canonical Measures. First left at Hairdo.
==========================]
imbecile pig 
canonical or shamanonical 
if a formula is good for one dimension system 
it is goo for all systems !!
how is the pig that thought you physics !
may be Josef ??...
go  better f your mother
==================
next to human decent beings
not to criminals against mankind 
------- 
Y.Porat
======================  
>  
> > Kilogram is here the dimension of mass  MASS (MASS) !!!! it and  cant be something else 
> > all together is  an equation of energy right ?? 
> > 
> > if you note it by  something  else than mass 
> > -it want help you -it will always be NOTATION OF   mass 
> > or else the equation is not a physical quotation  dimension  of energy 
> > 
> > right ? 
> > now Please tell  us 
> > WHERE (THE 'HECK'  JUST A FINE CURSE 
> > BECAUSE I AM ANGRY ()....)(:-) 
> > ----------
> > 
> > Why you mad MapleLoops?
> 
> Yehiel Porat is now MapleLoops too?! HVAC, rent a conscious.
> 
> -- Mahipal “IPMM... माहिपाल ७६३८: I like Porat, though Yehiel should spellcheck before posting.”

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#550935

On Saturday, February 6, 2016 at 1:11:59 PM UTC-5, Y.Porat wrote:
> On Saturday, February 6, 2016 at 6:42:39 PM UTC+2, Mahipal wrote:
> > On Saturday, February 6, 2016 at 11:01:20 AM UTC-5, HVAC wrote:
> > > 9:34 AMY.Porat
> > > On Friday, February 5, 2016 at 11:3 > (from: WolframAlpha) 
> > > 
> > > =========================== 
> > > i will do it again for you 
> > > i snipped the other text because it is only obfuscation the main  point i bring here 
> > > you see while you see the forest you don t see the trees there 
> > > so 
> > > 
> > > E photon  Energy  is 
> > > E = h f 
> > > right?? 
> > > 
> > > do you know the dimensions of h   
> > > if not i will do it for you 
> > >  h has the dimensions 
> > > 
> > >  ~6.6 expo -24 times   Kilogram Meter^2/second 
> > 
> > Dimensions are for losers, come to the Canonical Measures. First left at Hairdo.
> ==========================]
> imbecile pig 
> canonical or shamanonical 
> if a formula is good for one dimension system 
> it is goo for all systems !!
> how is the pig that thought you physics !
> may be Josef ??...
> go  better f your mother
> ==================
> next to human decent beings
> not to criminals against mankind 
> ------- 
> Y.Porat
> ======================  

Why so rude Yeheil? Get focused.
Not everybody is a non human here.
Ftr, I am no criminal against mankind, just womankind! Duh?!
Your response makes me ponder whether you Y.Porat are human?

> >  
> > > Kilogram is here the dimension of mass  MASS (MASS) !!!! it and  cant be something else 
> > > all together is  an equation of energy right ?? 
> > > 
> > > if you note it by  something  else than mass 
> > > -it want help you -it will always be NOTATION OF   mass 
> > > or else the equation is not a physical quotation  dimension  of energy 
> > > 
> > > right ? 
> > > now Please tell  us 
> > > WHERE (THE 'HECK'  JUST A FINE CURSE 
> > > BECAUSE I AM ANGRY ()....)(:-) 
> > > ----------
> > > 
> > > Why you mad MapleLoops?
> > 
> > Yehiel Porat is now MapleLoops too?! HVAC, rent a conscious.
> > 
> > -- Mahipal “IPMM... माहिपाल ७६३८: I like Porat, though Yehiel should spellcheck before posting.”

-- Mahipal “IPMM... माहिपाल ७६३८: Read My Lips, They Are Not Moving Mass.”

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#551314

On Saturday, February 6, 2016 at 6:42:39 PM UTC+2, Mahipal wrote:
> On Saturday, February 6, 2016 at 11:01:20 AM UTC-5, HVAC wrote:
> > 9:34 AMY.Porat
> > On Friday, February 5, 2016 at 11:3 > (from: WolframAlpha) 
> > 
> > =========================== 
> > i will do it again for you 
> > i snipped the other text because it is only obfuscation the main  point i bring here 
> > you see while you see the forest you don t see the trees there 
> > so 
> > 
> > E photon  Energy  is 
> > E = h f 
> > right?? 
> > 
> > do you know the dimensions of h   
> > if not i will do it for you 
> >  h has the dimensions 
> > 
> >  ~6.6 expo -24 times   Kilogram Meter^2/second 
> 
> Dimensions are for losers, come to the Canonical Measures. First left at Hairdo. 
>  
> > Kilogram is here the dimension of mass  MASS (MASS) !!!! it and  cant be something else 
> > all together is  an equation of energy right ?? 
> > 
> > if you note it by  something  else than mass 
> > -it want help you -it will always be NOTATION OF   mass 
> > or else the equation is not a physical quotation  dimension  of energy 
> > 
> > right ? 
> > now Please tell  us 
> > WHERE (THE 'HECK'  JUST A FINE CURSE 
> > BECAUSE I AM ANGRY ()....)(:-) 
> > ----------
> > 
> > Why you mad MapleLoops?
> 
> Yehiel Porat is now MapleLoops too?! HVAC, rent a conscious.
> 
> -- Mahipal “IPMM... माहिपाल ७६३८: I like Porat, though Yehiel should spellcheck before posting.”
===========================
=sorry Mahipal 
but while you  that dimensions are  for loosers
you are driving me mad !!
because you have no idea how wrong and harmful is
what you day 
dimension analysis is one of the most simple and POWERFUL TOOLS  WE HAVE
NOT ONLY IN PHYSICS 
BUT IN ENGINEERING AND OTHERS


so if you make an anysis of the formula
E=hf
and you dont see the mass there
the only mass 
you  are harmful for advance in physics
and that is for me means
being destructive   !!
i dint notice at that moment that
in past we had rather some common understandings 
so let me apologize my rudeness 
w
actually i am aggressive here  since there is here 
a lot of shameless piggish irresponsible behavior 

ATB
Y.Porat
===================================

TIA
Y.Porat
===================== 

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#551323

On Monday, February 8, 2016 at 1:39:04 PM UTC-5, Y.Porat wrote:
> On Saturday, February 6, 2016 at 6:42:39 PM UTC+2, Mahipal wrote:
> > On Saturday, February 6, 2016 at 11:01:20 AM UTC-5, HVAC wrote:
> > > 9:34 AMY.Porat
> > > On Friday, February 5, 2016 at 11:3 > (from: WolframAlpha) 
> > > 
> > > =========================== 
> > > i will do it again for you 
> > > i snipped the other text because it is only obfuscation the main  point i bring here 
> > > you see while you see the forest you don t see the trees there 
> > > so 
> > > 
> > > E photon  Energy  is 
> > > E = h f 
> > > right?? 
> > > 
> > > do you know the dimensions of h   
> > > if not i will do it for you 
> > >  h has the dimensions 
> > > 
> > >  ~6.6 expo -24 times   Kilogram Meter^2/second 
> > 
> > Dimensions are for losers, come to the Canonical Measures. First left at Hairdo. 
> >  
> > > Kilogram is here the dimension of mass  MASS (MASS) !!!! it and  cant be something else 
> > > all together is  an equation of energy right ?? 
> > > 
> > > if you note it by  something  else than mass 
> > > -it want help you -it will always be NOTATION OF   mass 
> > > or else the equation is not a physical quotation  dimension  of energy 
> > > 
> > > right ? 
> > > now Please tell  us 
> > > WHERE (THE 'HECK'  JUST A FINE CURSE 
> > > BECAUSE I AM ANGRY ()....)(:-) 
> > > ----------
> > > 
> > > Why you mad MapleLoops?
> > 
> > Yehiel Porat is now MapleLoops too?! HVAC, rent a conscious.
> > 
> > -- Mahipal “IPMM... माहिपाल ७६३८: I like Porat, though Yehiel should spellcheck before posting.”
> ===========================
> =sorry Mahipal 
> but while you  that dimensions are  for loosers
> you are driving me mad !!

That was the point of my joke Yeheil. No apology required.
Misunderstandings happen, especially while communicating.

> because you have no idea how wrong and harmful is
> what you day 
> dimension analysis is one of the most simple and POWERFUL TOOLS  WE HAVE
> NOT ONLY IN PHYSICS 
> BUT IN ENGINEERING AND OTHERS

There's an s key one next left to your d key, so I get what you say.
 
> so if you make an anysis of the formula
> E=hf
> and you dont see the mass there
> the only mass 
> you  are harmful for advance in physics
> and that is for me means
> being destructive   !!

I am not in the WeControlPhysicsThoughtPoliceCrowd. I did apply, once. Feh happens.

I do get your Mass mass MASS is the key to Physics! Hence my advanced
Canonical Measures joke, IMO. By the way, I loved your shamanonical.

> i dint notice at that moment that
> in past we had rather some common understandings 
> so let me apologize my rudeness 
> w
> actually i am aggressive here  since there is here 
> a lot of shameless piggish irresponsible behavior 

Yes, agreed. But never paint everyone with the same one brush.
 
> ATB
> Y.Porat
> ===================================
> 
> TIA
> Y.Porat
> =====================

It's OK to be rude to those who deserve it, but not everybody does.

I loved your word shamanonical! Just terrific, Yeheil.

-- Mahipal “IPMM... माहिपाल ७६३८: I'm going to use shamanonical on my friends!”

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#551528

On Monday, February 8, 2016 at 9:06:31 PM UTC+2, Mahipal wrote:
> On Monday, February 8, 2016 at 1:39:04 PM UTC-5, Y.Porat wrote:
> > On Saturday, February 6, 2016 at 6:42:39 PM UTC+2, Mahipal wrote:
> > > On Saturday, February 6, 2016 at 11:01:20 AM UTC-5, HVAC wrote:
> > > > 9:34 AMY.Porat
> > > > On Friday, February 5, 2016 at 11:3 > (from: WolframAlpha) 
> > > > 
> > > > =========================== 
> > > > i will do it again for you 
> > > > i snipped the other text because it is only obfuscation the main  point i bring here 
> > > > you see while you see the forest you don t see the trees there 
> > > > so 
> > > > 
> > > > E photon  Energy  is 
> > > > E = h f 
> > > > right?? 
> > > > 
> > > > do you know the dimensions of h   
> > > > if not i will do it for you 
> > > >  h has the dimensions 
> > > > 
> > > >  ~6.6 expo -24 times   Kilogram Meter^2/second 
> > > 
> > > Dimensions are for losers, come to the Canonical Measures. First left at Hairdo. 
> > >  
> > > > Kilogram is here the dimension of mass  MASS (MASS) !!!! it and  cant be something else 
> > > > all together is  an equation of energy right ?? 
> > > > 
> > > > if you note it by  something  else than mass 
> > > > -it want help you -it will always be NOTATION OF   mass 
> > > > or else the equation is not a physical quotation  dimension  of energy 
> > > > 
> > > > right ? 
> > > > now Please tell  us 
> > > > WHERE (THE 'HECK'  JUST A FINE CURSE 
> > > > BECAUSE I AM ANGRY ()....)(:-) 
> > > > ----------
> > > > 
> > > > Why you mad MapleLoops?
> > > 
> > > Yehiel Porat is now MapleLoops too?! HVAC, rent a conscious.
> > > 
> > > -- Mahipal “IPMM... माहिपाल ७६३८: I like Porat, though Yehiel should spellcheck before posting.”
> > ===========================
> > =sorry Mahipal 
> > but while you  that dimensions are  for loosers
> > you are driving me mad !!
> 
> That was the point of my joke Yeheil. No apology required.
> Misunderstandings happen, especially while communicating.
> 
> > because you have no idea how wrong and harmful is
> > what you day 
> > dimension analysis is one of the most simple and POWERFUL TOOLS  WE HAVE
> > NOT ONLY IN PHYSICS 
> > BUT IN ENGINEERING AND OTHERS
> 
> There's an s key one next left to your d key, so I get what you say.
>  
> > so if you make an anysis of the formula
> > E=hf
> > and you dont see the mass there
> > the only mass 
> > you  are harmful for advance in physics
> > and that is for me means
> > being destructive   !!
> 
> I am not in the WeControlPhysicsThoughtPoliceCrowd. I did apply, once. Feh happens.
> 
> I do get your Mass mass MASS is the key to Physics! Hence my advanced
> Canonical Measures joke, IMO. By the way, I loved your shamanonical.
> 
> > i dint notice at that moment that
> > in past we had rather some common understandings 
> > so let me apologize my rudeness 
> > w
> > actually i am aggressive here  since there is here 
> > a lot of shameless piggish irresponsible behavior 
> 
> Yes, agreed. But never paint everyone with the same one brush.
>  
> > ATB
> > Y.Porat
> > ===================================
> > 
> > TIA
> > Y.Porat
> > =====================
> 
> It's OK to be rude to those who deserve it, but not everybody does.
> 
> I loved your word shamanonical! Just terrific, Yeheil.
> 
> -- Mahipal “IPMM... माहिपाल ७६३८: I'm going to use shamanonical on my friends!”

========================
THANKS Mahipal  MY FRIEND !!!
--------
Y.Porat
===========================

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#551712 — editen sujet

and, so, fh = cmc;
h = cmc/f;
c = secondroot(fh/m);
f = cmc/h

> > > > E = h f 
>

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#550929

On Saturday, February 6, 2016 at 6:01:20 PM UTC+2, HVAC wrote:
> 9:34 AMY.Porat
> On Friday, February 5, 2016 at 11:3 > (from: WolframAlpha) 
> 
> =========================== 
> i will do it again for you 
> i snipped the other text because it is only obfuscation the main  point i bring here 
> you see while you see the forest you don t see the trees there 
> so 
> 
> E photon  Energy  is 
> E = h f 
> right?? 
> 
> do you know the dimensions of h   
> if not i will do it for you 
>  h has the dimensions 
> 
>  ~6.6 expo -24 times   Kilogram Meter^2/second 
> 
> Kilogram is here the dimension of mass  MASS (MASS) !!!! it and  cant be something else 
> all together is  an equation of energy right ?? 
> 
> if you note it by  something  else than mass 
> -it want help you -it will always be NOTATION OF   mass 
> or else the equation is not a physical quotation  dimension  of energy 
> 
> right ? 
> now Please tell  us 
> WHERE (THE 'HECK'  JUST A FINE CURSE 
> BECAUSE I AM ANGRY ()....)(:-) 
> ----------
> 
> Why you mad MapleLoops?
======================
***anonymous**criminal against mankind
go fuck your mother
=====================
next to human beings  
Y.P
==============================

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#550901

Y.Porat wrote:

> i will do it again for you
> i snipped the other text because it is only obfuscation the main  point i
> bring here you see while you see the forest you don t see the trees there
> so

It is *you* who is missing the point multiple times here, as you can see 
below.

> E photon  Energy  is
> E = h f
> right??

Yes (AISB).
 
> do you know the dimensions of h
> if not i will do it for you
>  h has the dimensions
> 
>  ~6.6 expo -24 times   Kilogram Meter^2/second
> 
> Kilogram is here the dimension of mass  MASS (MASS) !!!! it and  cant be
> something else

1. It can be something else, see 
   <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Planck_constant>

2. That there is a “kg” in it does not mean that “ℎ has the kilogram
   dimension” as you claimed.  The kilogram is a unit, not a dimension.

> all together is  an equation of energy right ??

If by “all together” you mean E = ℎ f, then yes.  And so the dimensions in 
that are:

  energy × time × frequency = energy × time × 1∕time = energy.
 
> so where do you see  there anything
> to multiply that formula including  the mass dimension there
> by anything relativistic ????
> or zero ???
>    old copyright by
> TIA

For the last time, in statements so short and simple that hopefully even you 
can understand them (use a fixed-width Unicode font for display):

1. The equation for relativistic momentum that has v for velocity in it
   only applies to objects whose mass is not equal to zero.

2. The equation for relativistic kinetic energy that has v for velocity
   in it only applies to objects whose mass is not equal to zero.

3. The mass of a photon is (assumed to be) zero.  Thus, 

   a) the equation for relativistic momentum that has v for velocity in
      it *does not apply to photons*;

   b) the equation for relativistic kinetic energy that has v for velocity 
      in it *does not apply to photons*;

   c) it is *irrelevant to the motion of photons* that neither equation has 
      a solution for v = c;
      
   d) it is not irrelevant to the motion of objects *other than photons*
      that neither equation has a solution for v = c, because both equations
      are *for objects with non-zero mass*.

      d1) lim p(m, v) = +∞
          v→c

          lim E(m, v) = +∞  ⇒  lim E_k(m, v) = +∞
          v→c                  v→c

      d2) Thus, objects with non-zero mass cannot travel at (a relative 
          speed of) c.  One would need infinite energy for acceleration.

4. The energy–momentum relation from special relativity,

     E(m, p) = √((m c²)² + (p c)²),

   applies to all objects.  You must replace m with the mass of the object
   and p with the *specific* expression to calculate (the magnitude of)
   its (relativistic) momentum.

5. For photons, m = 0 and p = ℎ f∕c; the latter follows from Planck’s wave
   equations.  As a result,

     E(m = 0, p = ℎ f∕c) = ℎ f.

   There is no contradiction between Planck’s and Einstein’s equations;
   on the contrary.

6. This discussion is about relativity.  You are supposed to post about
   this to sci.physics.relativity, not to sci.physics.

   Get yourself a newsreader that supports the Followup-To header field.
   Do not post using Google Groups, it is broken.

   <http://twovoyagers.com/improve-usenet.org/>

HTH.


F'up2 sci.physics.relativity

PointedEars
-- 
Q: What happens when electrons lose their energy?  
A: They get Bohr'ed.

(from: WolframAlpha)

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#550904

Thomas
Head
Wall

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#550908

john wrote:

> Thomas
> Head
> Wall

What do you mean by that?


PointedEars
-- 
Q: Where are offenders sentenced for light crimes?  
A: To a prism.

(from: WolframAlpha)

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#550911

You're banging your head against a brick wall.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#550916

john wrote:

> You're banging your head against a brick wall.

I see.  Maybe I am wasting my precious free time with those explanations (it 
remains to be seen how “Y.Porat” reacts to those most simple ones now), but 
then nobody can say that I have not tried to make myself abundantly clear.


PointedEars
-- 
Q: What did the nuclear physicist post on the laboratory door
   when he went camping?  
A: 'Gone fission'.
(from: WolframAlpha)

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#550917

No, I love your precise explanations 

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#551731

On Saturday, February 6, 2016 at 7:25:39 PM UTC+2, Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote:
> john wrote:
> 
> > You're banging your head against a brick wall.
> 
> I see.  Maybe I am wasting my precious free time with those explanations (it
===========================
your time is worth a big zero !!
it is you who waist our precious time
it seems that you are an i curable old fart 
Y.P
================================ 

 
> remains to be seen how "Y.Porat" reacts to those most simple ones now), but 
> then nobody can say that I have not tried to make myself abundantly clear.
> 
> 
> PointedEars
>

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#551848

Y.Porat wrote:

> On Saturday, February 6, 2016 at 7:25:39 PM UTC+2, Thomas 'PointedEars'
> Lahn wrote:
>> john wrote:
>> > You're banging your head against a brick wall.
>> I see.  Maybe I am wasting my precious free time with those explanations
>> (it
> ===========================
> your time is worth a big zero !!

It is unfortunate that you would not only think so but also say so.

> it is you who waist our precious time

How dare you to speak for all subscribers?  There is *at least* one other 
subscriber who does not agree with you.

> it seems that you are an i curable old fart

Strange, in my upbringing I was taught to respect and revere older people 
for their wisdom gained through experience.

In Usenet terms, I am a teenager :)


PointedEars
-- 
Q: What did the nuclear physicist post on the laboratory door
   when he went camping?  
A: 'Gone fission'.
(from: WolframAlpha)

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

Page 1 of 2  [1] 2  Next page →

Back to top | Article view | sci.physics

csiph-web