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

Groups > sci.physics > #694811 > unrolled thread

Density of Photons ?????

Back to article view | Back to sci.physics

Contents

  Density of Photons ????? "reber G=emc^2" <herbertglazier0@gmail.com> - 2018-07-20 14:16 -0700
    Re: Density of Photons ????? "hanson" <hanson@quick.net> - 2018-07-20 14:24 -0700
    Re: Density of Photons ????? Double-A <double-a3@hush.com> - 2018-07-20 14:31 -0700
      Re: Density of Photons ????? "reber G=emc^2" <herbertglazier0@gmail.com> - 2018-07-20 14:44 -0700
        Re: Density of Photons ????? "hanson" <hanson@quick.net> - 2018-07-20 14:58 -0700
        Re: Density of Photons ????? mitchrae3323@gmail.com - 2018-07-20 15:15 -0700
          Re: Density of Photons ????? "reber G=emc^2" <herbertglazier0@gmail.com> - 2018-07-21 09:38 -0700
            Re: Density of Photons ????? Double-A <double-a3@hush.com> - 2018-07-21 15:36 -0700
              Re: Density of Photons ????? "reber G=emc^2" <herbertglazier0@gmail.com> - 2018-07-21 17:42 -0700
                Re: Density of Photons ????? "hanson" <hanson@quick.net> - 2018-07-21 18:19 -0700
                Re: Density of Photons ????? Double-A <double-a3@hush.com> - 2018-07-22 15:26 -0700
                  Re: Density of Photons ????? poraty6@gmail.com - 2018-07-22 16:34 -0700
                  Re: Density of Photons ????? "reber G=emc^2" <herbertglazier0@gmail.com> - 2018-07-23 13:44 -0700
                    Re: Density of Photons ????? mitchrae3323@gmail.com - 2018-07-23 13:55 -0700
                    Re: Density of Photons ????? "hanson" <hanson@quick.net> - 2018-07-23 16:03 -0700
              Re: Density of Photons ????? poraty6@gmail.com - 2018-07-21 23:55 -0700
        Re: Density of Photons ????? Double-A <double-a3@hush.com> - 2018-07-20 16:00 -0700
          Gravity is residual eXergy. Jeff-Relf.Me  @. - 2018-07-20 21:56 -0700
            Re: Gravity is residual eXergy. paulcardinale0@gmail.com - 2018-07-22 19:12 -0700
        Re: Density of Photons ????? paulcardinale0@gmail.com - 2018-07-22 19:09 -0700
          Re: Density of Photons ????? poraty6@gmail.com - 2018-07-23 00:12 -0700
            Re: Density of Photons ????? Double-A <double-a3@hush.com> - 2018-07-23 13:39 -0700
              Re: Density of Photons ????? poraty6@gmail.com - 2018-07-23 18:13 -0700
            Re: Density of Photons ????? "reber G=emc^2" <herbertglazier0@gmail.com> - 2018-07-23 14:01 -0700
              Re: Density of Photons ????? Double-A <double-a3@hush.com> - 2018-07-23 14:54 -0700
                Re: Density of Photons ????? "reber G=emc^2" <herbertglazier0@gmail.com> - 2018-07-23 17:26 -0700
                  Re: Density of Photons ????? "hanson" <hanson@quick.net> - 2018-07-23 21:06 -0700
                Re: Density of Photons ????? poraty6@gmail.com - 2018-07-23 18:30 -0700
                Re: Density of Photons ????? poraty6@gmail.com - 2018-07-23 23:05 -0700
                  Re: Density of Photons ????? Double-A <double-a3@hush.com> - 2018-07-24 14:07 -0700
                    Re: Density of Photons ????? benj <benj.fake@gmail.com> - 2018-07-24 17:20 -0400
                      Re: Density of Photons ????? Double-A <double-a3@hush.com> - 2018-07-24 14:57 -0700
                        Re: Density of Photons ????? jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2018-07-25 01:57 +0000
                          Re: Density of Photons ????? "reber G=emc^2" <herbertglazier0@gmail.com> - 2018-07-25 12:27 -0700
                            Re: Density of Photons ????? jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2018-07-25 19:47 +0000
                              Re: Density of Photons ????? "reber G=emc^2" <herbertglazier0@gmail.com> - 2018-07-25 15:40 -0700
                                Re: Density of Photons ????? "hanson" <hanson@quick.net> - 2018-07-25 15:51 -0700
                                Re: Density of Photons ????? jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2018-07-25 23:23 +0000
                            Re: Density of Photons ????? "hanson" <hanson@quick.net> - 2018-07-25 14:52 -0700
                        Re: Density of Photons ????? poraty6@gmail.com - 2018-07-24 20:50 -0700
                    Re: Density of Photons ????? jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2018-07-24 21:50 +0000
                    Re: Density of Photons ????? poraty6@gmail.com - 2018-07-24 16:35 -0700
                      Re: Density of Photons ????? mitchrae3323@gmail.com - 2018-07-24 16:51 -0700
                        Re: Density of Photons ????? poraty6@gmail.com - 2018-07-24 20:56 -0700
                          Re: Density of Photons ????? mitchrae3323@gmail.com - 2018-07-24 21:12 -0700
                            Re: Density of Photons ????? poraty6@gmail.com - 2018-07-25 02:00 -0700
                              Re: Density of Photons ????? mitchrae3323@gmail.com - 2018-07-25 13:27 -0700
                    Re: Density of Photons ????? "reber G=emc^2" <herbertglazier0@gmail.com> - 2018-07-24 19:17 -0700
                      Re: Density of Photons ????? mitchrae3323@gmail.com - 2018-07-24 19:23 -0700
                      Re: Density of Photons ????? "hanson" <hanson@quick.net> - 2018-07-24 20:19 -0700
              Re: Density of Photons ????? "hanson" <hanson@quick.net> - 2018-07-23 15:49 -0700
                Re: Density of Photons ????? poraty6@gmail.com - 2018-07-23 18:30 -0700
              Re: Density of Photons ????? paulcardinale0@gmail.com - 2018-07-26 10:09 -0700
                Re: Density of Photons ????? "reber G=emc^2" <herbertglazier0@gmail.com> - 2018-07-26 15:38 -0700
                  Re: Density of Photons ????? "hanson" <hanson@quick.net> - 2018-07-26 16:22 -0700
                Re: Density of Photons ????? poraty6@gmail.com - 2018-07-27 01:39 -0700
                  Re: Density of Photons ????? poraty6@gmail.com - 2018-07-27 01:41 -0700
      Re: Density of Photons ????? poraty6@gmail.com - 2018-07-21 00:02 -0700
      Re: Density of Photons ????? paulcardinale0@gmail.com - 2018-07-22 19:08 -0700
    Re: Density of Photons ????? poraty6@gmail.com - 2018-07-20 17:24 -0700
    Re: Density of Photons ????? mitchrae3323@gmail.com - 2018-07-20 17:30 -0700

Page 3 of 4 — ← Prev page 1 2 [3] 4  Next page →

#695424

Double-A <double-a3@hush.com> wrote:

<snip irrelevant babble>

> Why insist that the photon moves at c?

Because it is well proven that they do.

The rest of this is just utter nonsense.

> It makes much more consistent theory to say that the photon merely gets very close to c, because its mass has gotten very small, since you do agree that the photon has mass.  Scientific tests are not yet precise enough to prove it one way or the other.

> 
> Double-A


-- 
Jim Pennino

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

#695445

On Wednesday, July 25, 2018 at 12:07:57 AM UTC+3, Double-A wrote:
> On Monday, July 23, 2018 at 11:05:27 PM UTC-7, por...@gmail.com wrote:
> > On Tuesday, July 24, 2018 at 12:54:22 AM UTC+3, Double-A wrote:
> > > On Monday, July 23, 2018 at 2:01:14 PM UTC-7, reber G=emc^2 wrote:
> > > > On Monday, July 23, 2018 at 12:12:24 AM UTC-7, por...@gmail.com wrote:
> > > > > On Monday, July 23, 2018 at 5:09:52 AM UTC+3, paulcar...@gmail.com wrote:
> > > > > > On Friday, July 20, 2018 at 2:44:34 PM UTC-7, reber G=emc^2 wrote:
> > > > > > > On Friday, July 20, 2018 at 2:31:28 PM UTC-7, Double-A wrote:
> > > > > > > > On Friday, July 20, 2018 at 2:16:42 PM UTC-7, reber G=emc^2 wrote:
> > > > > > > > > I believe it relates to its wave length.It goes well with my twin photon constructure.Bert
> > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > Density of photons?  An interesting idea, because it implies that photons have mass!
> > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > Double-A
> > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > Mass they have AA.This is proven when gamma photons can kick electrons off a metal surface.
> > > > > > 
> > > > > > No, stupid.  That proves that photons have energy, not mass.
> > > > > 
> > > > > =============================
> > > > > idiot parrot !!
> > > > > 
> > > > > ''have energy but no mass ''?1!
> > > > > 
> > > > > E=hf
> > > > > 
> > > > > h is 
> > > > > Kilogram x meter ^2  times  (scalar f)/second 
> > > > > 
> > > > > now Holly shit 
> > > > > where do you see in the above
> > > > > any f en 'relativistic factor''????/!!!!
> > > > > or
> > > > > any f en zero multiplier ??!!
> > > > > ==
> > > > > got it idiot parrot  once and for all ??!!!!
> > > > > just open your mind
> > > > > and stop parroting like a parrot 
> > > > > the photon has mass
> > > > > the only mass
> > > > > indeed extremely tiny but yet 
> > > > > has mass !!!
> > > > > --
> > > > > in another analysis I proved that
> > > > > the mass of the real **single** photon  is
> > > > > about 
> > > > > (sit still on your chair)
> > > > > approximately:
> > > > > 
> > > > > expo -90  Kilogram !!!!!
> > > > > 
> > > > > no one will ever be able to notice it
> > > > > or detect it !!but 
> > > > > the  **theoretically* it is important to realize it !!
> > > > >  even if it is too small for our tools to detect it 
> > > > > as a real single photon
> > > > > ===
> > > > > TIA
> > > > > Y.Porat
> > > > > =================================  
> > > > > ==
> > > > > copyright explanation
> > > > > Y.Porat
> > > > > =========================
> > > > 
> > > > Photons have mass that moves at c.That means they have weight.This has been proven and gave Einstein his Nobel.He deserved two more(SR + GR}  Gravity gives all weight,and if it moves it curves.Nothing can go without a spin.Nothing can spin without a wobble.Neutrinos have the tiny  wobble of all.Yes three of my best theories  I have united into one.Its Nobel time.O Ya  Bert
> > > 
> > > 
> > > The fact that photons have mass also proves that they do not actually move at c.  Nothing with mass can.  c is an upper limit faster than which nothing can go.  A photon goes as close to it as anything we know, except maybe neutrinos!
> > > 
> > > Double-A
> > =============================
> > photons move at c !! even having mass the only mass 
> > thy are an exception to the rule
> > do you know why 
> > because the mass of the real single photon is about
> > (sit still  on your chair ..)
> > it is 
> > about 
> > exp  -90   kilogram !!!
> > 
> > not relativistic an not schmelativistic 
> > Kilogram !!
> > nature  does not know what is a second 
> > 
> > NATURE DOES KNOW!! WAHT IS THE PLABK TIME !!!
> > as the shortest time 
> > 
> > (nature  does know about PLANK TIME as the shortest time duration  )
> > SO
> > IF YOU TAKE INSTEAD hf/second ^2 with f as one  second defined
> > but plank time defined and divide it by c^2
> > to get  its mass (E/c^2)
> > you get photon ** mass**of a  single photon  (the only mass) 
> > 
> > about exp -90 Kilogram !!!
> > ===============================
> > historic  old copyright 
> > 2
> > =====================================================
> > MASS IS THE CREATOR OF ALL FORCES INCLUDINGGRAVITY !!
> > ======================================================
> > Eng
> > 
> > Y.Porat (old Catto )..
> > ===============================
> 
> 
> Why insist that the photon moves at c?  It makes much more consistent theory to say that the photon merely gets very close to c, because its mass has gotten very small, since you do agree that the photon has mass.  Scientific tests are not yet precise enough to prove it one way or the other.
> 
> Double-A
=============================
indeed 


may be that our measurements are not precise enough 
yet you cant deny that the photon is moving 
faster than anything else and still me and you agree that
it has mass 
if so while passing  next to  earth
it is attracted to  earth 
because mass is attracting another   mass
and not 'curved space' 
====================
TIA
Y.P
==================

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

#695448

On Tuesday, July 24, 2018 at 4:35:19 PM UTC-7, por...@gmail.com wrote:
> On Wednesday, July 25, 2018 at 12:07:57 AM UTC+3, Double-A wrote:
> > On Monday, July 23, 2018 at 11:05:27 PM UTC-7, por...@gmail.com wrote:
> > > On Tuesday, July 24, 2018 at 12:54:22 AM UTC+3, Double-A wrote:
> > > > On Monday, July 23, 2018 at 2:01:14 PM UTC-7, reber G=emc^2 wrote:
> > > > > On Monday, July 23, 2018 at 12:12:24 AM UTC-7, por...@gmail.com wrote:
> > > > > > On Monday, July 23, 2018 at 5:09:52 AM UTC+3, paulcar...@gmail.com wrote:
> > > > > > > On Friday, July 20, 2018 at 2:44:34 PM UTC-7, reber G=emc^2 wrote:
> > > > > > > > On Friday, July 20, 2018 at 2:31:28 PM UTC-7, Double-A wrote:
> > > > > > > > > On Friday, July 20, 2018 at 2:16:42 PM UTC-7, reber G=emc^2 wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > I believe it relates to its wave length.It goes well with my twin photon constructure.Bert
> > > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > > Density of photons?  An interesting idea, because it implies that photons have mass!
> > > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > > Double-A
> > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > Mass they have AA.This is proven when gamma photons can kick electrons off a metal surface.
> > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > No, stupid.  That proves that photons have energy, not mass.
> > > > > > 
> > > > > > =============================
> > > > > > idiot parrot !!
> > > > > > 
> > > > > > ''have energy but no mass ''?1!
> > > > > > 
> > > > > > E=hf
> > > > > > 
> > > > > > h is 
> > > > > > Kilogram x meter ^2  times  (scalar f)/second 
> > > > > > 
> > > > > > now Holly shit 
> > > > > > where do you see in the above
> > > > > > any f en 'relativistic factor''????/!!!!
> > > > > > or
> > > > > > any f en zero multiplier ??!!
> > > > > > ==
> > > > > > got it idiot parrot  once and for all ??!!!!
> > > > > > just open your mind
> > > > > > and stop parroting like a parrot 
> > > > > > the photon has mass
> > > > > > the only mass
> > > > > > indeed extremely tiny but yet 
> > > > > > has mass !!!
> > > > > > --
> > > > > > in another analysis I proved that
> > > > > > the mass of the real **single** photon  is
> > > > > > about 
> > > > > > (sit still on your chair)
> > > > > > approximately:
> > > > > > 
> > > > > > expo -90  Kilogram !!!!!
> > > > > > 
> > > > > > no one will ever be able to notice it
> > > > > > or detect it !!but 
> > > > > > the  **theoretically* it is important to realize it !!
> > > > > >  even if it is too small for our tools to detect it 
> > > > > > as a real single photon
> > > > > > ===
> > > > > > TIA
> > > > > > Y.Porat
> > > > > > =================================  
> > > > > > ==
> > > > > > copyright explanation
> > > > > > Y.Porat
> > > > > > =========================
> > > > > 
> > > > > Photons have mass that moves at c.That means they have weight.This has been proven and gave Einstein his Nobel.He deserved two more(SR + GR}  Gravity gives all weight,and if it moves it curves.Nothing can go without a spin.Nothing can spin without a wobble.Neutrinos have the tiny  wobble of all.Yes three of my best theories  I have united into one.Its Nobel time.O Ya  Bert
> > > > 
> > > > 
> > > > The fact that photons have mass also proves that they do not actually move at c.  Nothing with mass can.  c is an upper limit faster than which nothing can go.  A photon goes as close to it as anything we know, except maybe neutrinos!
> > > > 
> > > > Double-A
> > > =============================
> > > photons move at c !! even having mass the only mass 
> > > thy are an exception to the rule
> > > do you know why 
> > > because the mass of the real single photon is about
> > > (sit still  on your chair ..)
> > > it is 
> > > about 
> > > exp  -90   kilogram !!!
> > > 
> > > not relativistic an not schmelativistic 
> > > Kilogram !!
> > > nature  does not know what is a second 
> > > 
> > > NATURE DOES KNOW!! WAHT IS THE PLABK TIME !!!
> > > as the shortest time 
> > > 
> > > (nature  does know about PLANK TIME as the shortest time duration  )
> > > SO
> > > IF YOU TAKE INSTEAD hf/second ^2 with f as one  second defined
> > > but plank time defined and divide it by c^2
> > > to get  its mass (E/c^2)
> > > you get photon ** mass**of a  single photon  (the only mass) 
> > > 
> > > about exp -90 Kilogram !!!
> > > ===============================
> > > historic  old copyright 
> > > 2
> > > =====================================================
> > > MASS IS THE CREATOR OF ALL FORCES INCLUDINGGRAVITY !!
> > > ======================================================
> > > Eng
> > > 
> > > Y.Porat (old Catto )..
> > > ===============================
> > 
> > 
> > Why insist that the photon moves at c?  It makes much more consistent theory to say that the photon merely gets very close to c, because its mass has gotten very small, since you do agree that the photon has mass.  Scientific tests are not yet precise enough to prove it one way or the other.
> > 
> > Double-A
> =============================
> indeed 
> 
> 
> may be that our measurements are not precise enough 
> yet you cant deny that the photon is moving 
> faster than anything else and still me and you agree that
> it has mass 
> if so while passing  next to  earth
> it is attracted to  earth 
> because mass is attracting another   mass
> and not 'curved space' 
> ====================
> TIA
> Y.P
> ==================

The light particle would be quantized at the infinitely small.
In that sense it has no spread out density.
Einstein decided against his Nobel light particle in 1937.
He said instead it is a spherical wavelet.

Mitchell Raemsch

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

#695481

On Wednesday, July 25, 2018 at 2:51:59  > > > (nature  does know about PLANK TIME as the shortest time duration  )
> > > > SO
> > > > IF YOU TAKE INSTEAD hf/second ^2 with f as one  second defined
> > > > but plank time defined and divide it by c^2
> > > > to get  its mass (E/c^2)
> > > > you get photon ** mass**of a  single photon  (the only mass) 
> > > > 
> > > > about exp -90 Kilogram !!!
> > > > ===============================
> > > > historic  old copyright 
> > > > 2
> > > > =====================================================
> > > > MASS IS THE CREATOR OF ALL FORCES INCLUDINGGRAVITY !!
> > > > ======================================================
> > > > Eng
> > > > 
> > > > Y.Porat (old Catto )..
> > > > ===============================
> > > 
> > > 
> > > Why insist that the photon moves at c?  It makes much more consistent theory to say that the photon merely gets very close to c, because its mass has gotten very small, since you do agree that the photon has mass.  Scientific tests are not yet precise enough to prove it one way or the other.
> > > 
> > > Double-A
> > =============================
> > indeed 
> > 
> > 
> > may be that our measurements are not precise enough 
> > yet you cant deny that the photon is moving 
> > faster than anything else and still me and you agree that
> > it has mass 
> > if so while passing  next to  earth
> > it is attracted to  earth 
> > because mass is attracting another   mass
> > and not 'curved space' 
> > ====================
> > TIA
> > Y.P
> > ==================
> 
> The light particle would be quantized at the infinitely small.
> In that sense it has no spread out density.
> Einstein decided against his Nobel light particle in 1937.
> He said instead it is a spherical wavelet.
> 
> Mitchell Raemsch
===
it is a helix movement !!
and why wonder
the mass of a single  photon  is 
about
exp -90  Kilogram !!!!
old copyright 
Y.Porat
==============

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

#695483

On Tuesday, July 24, 2018 at 8:56:45 PM UTC-7, por...@gmail.com wrote:
> On Wednesday, July 25, 2018 at 2:51:59  > > > (nature  does know about PLANK TIME as the shortest time duration  )
> > > > > SO
> > > > > IF YOU TAKE INSTEAD hf/second ^2 with f as one  second defined
> > > > > but plank time defined and divide it by c^2
> > > > > to get  its mass (E/c^2)
> > > > > you get photon ** mass**of a  single photon  (the only mass) 
> > > > > 
> > > > > about exp -90 Kilogram !!!
> > > > > ===============================
> > > > > historic  old copyright 
> > > > > 2
> > > > > =====================================================
> > > > > MASS IS THE CREATOR OF ALL FORCES INCLUDINGGRAVITY !!
> > > > > ======================================================
> > > > > Eng
> > > > > 
> > > > > Y.Porat (old Catto )..
> > > > > ===============================
> > > > 
> > > > 
> > > > Why insist that the photon moves at c?  It makes much more consistent theory to say that the photon merely gets very close to c, because its mass has gotten very small, since you do agree that the photon has mass.  Scientific tests are not yet precise enough to prove it one way or the other.
> > > > 
> > > > Double-A
> > > =============================
> > > indeed 
> > > 
> > > 
> > > may be that our measurements are not precise enough 
> > > yet you cant deny that the photon is moving 
> > > faster than anything else and still me and you agree that
> > > it has mass 
> > > if so while passing  next to  earth
> > > it is attracted to  earth 
> > > because mass is attracting another   mass
> > > and not 'curved space' 
> > > ====================
> > > TIA
> > > Y.P
> > > ==================
> > 
> > The light particle would be quantized at the infinitely small.
> > In that sense it has no spread out density.
> > Einstein decided against his Nobel light particle in 1937.
> > He said instead it is a spherical wavelet.
> > 
> > Mitchell Raemsch
> ===
> it is a helix movement !!
> and why wonder
> the mass of a single  photon  is 
> about
> exp -90  Kilogram !!!!
> old copyright 
> Y.Porat
> ==============

There is something sub time. It is the infinitely small instant.
Inside the hypersphere there is no time just the sub time instant.
No time happens there... just instants.

Mitchell Raemsch

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

#695499

On Wednesday, July 25, 2018 at 7:12:05 AM UTC+3, mitchr...@gmail.com wrote:
> On Tuesday, July 24, 2018 at 8:56:45 PM UTC-7, por...@gmail.com wrote:
> > On Wednesday, July 25, 2018 at 2:51:59  > > > (nature  does know about PLANK TIME as the shortest time duration  )
> > > > > > SO
> > > > > > IF YOU TAKE INSTEAD hf/second ^2 with f as one  second defined
> > > > > > but plank time defined and divide it by c^2
> > > > > > to get  its mass (E/c^2)
> > > > > > you get photon ** mass**of a  single photon  (the only mass) 
> > > > > > 
> > > > > > about exp -90 Kilogram !!!
> > > > > > ===============================
> > > > > > historic  old copyright 
> > > > > > 2
> > > > > > =====================================================
> > > > > > MASS IS THE CREATOR OF ALL FORCES INCLUDINGGRAVITY !!
> > > > > > ======================================================
> > > > > > Eng
> > > > > > 
> > > > > > Y.Porat (old Catto )..
> > > > > > ===============================
> > > > > 
> > > > > 
> > > > > Why insist that the photon moves at c?  It makes much more consistent theory to say that the photon merely gets very close to c, because its mass has gotten very small, since you do agree that the photon has mass.  Scientific tests are not yet precise enough to prove it one way or the other.
> > > > > 
> > > > > Double-A
> > > > =============================
> > > > indeed 
> > > > 
> > > > 
> > > > may be that our measurements are not precise enough 
> > > > yet you cant deny that the photon is moving 
> > > > faster than anything else and still me and you agree that
> > > > it has mass 
> > > > if so while passing  next to  earth
> > > > it is attracted to  earth 
> > > > because mass is attracting another   mass
> > > > and not 'curved space' 
> > > > ====================
> > > > TIA
> > > > Y.P
> > > > ==================
> > > 
> > > The light particle would be quantized at the infinitely small.
> > > In that sense it has no spread out density.
> > > Einstein decided against his Nobel light particle in 1937.
> > > He said instead it is a spherical wavelet.
> > > 
> > > Mitchell Raemsch
> > ===
> > it is a helix movement !!
> > and why wonder
> > the mass of a single  photon  is 
> > about
> > exp -90  Kilogram !!!!
> > old copyright 
> > Y.Porat
> > ==============
> 
> There is something sub time. It is the infinitely small instant.

====================
I told you exactly  what is the smallest 
laps of time

IT IS THE PLANK TIME   UNIT 
===================================================
TIA
Y.Porat
=============================

> Inside the hypersphere there is no time just the sub time instant.
> No time happens there... just instants.
> 
>==========================
(:-)

Y.P
================ 

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

#695562

On Wednesday, July 25, 2018 at 2:00:14 AM UTC-7, por...@gmail.com wrote:
> On Wednesday, July 25, 2018 at 7:12:05 AM UTC+3, mitchr...@gmail.com wrote:
> > On Tuesday, July 24, 2018 at 8:56:45 PM UTC-7, por...@gmail.com wrote:
> > > On Wednesday, July 25, 2018 at 2:51:59  > > > (nature  does know about PLANK TIME as the shortest time duration  )
> > > > > > > SO
> > > > > > > IF YOU TAKE INSTEAD hf/second ^2 with f as one  second defined
> > > > > > > but plank time defined and divide it by c^2
> > > > > > > to get  its mass (E/c^2)
> > > > > > > you get photon ** mass**of a  single photon  (the only mass) 
> > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > about exp -90 Kilogram !!!
> > > > > > > ===============================
> > > > > > > historic  old copyright 
> > > > > > > 2
> > > > > > > =====================================================
> > > > > > > MASS IS THE CREATOR OF ALL FORCES INCLUDINGGRAVITY !!
> > > > > > > ======================================================
> > > > > > > Eng
> > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > Y.Porat (old Catto )..
> > > > > > > ===============================
> > > > > > 
> > > > > > 
> > > > > > Why insist that the photon moves at c?  It makes much more consistent theory to say that the photon merely gets very close to c, because its mass has gotten very small, since you do agree that the photon has mass.  Scientific tests are not yet precise enough to prove it one way or the other.
> > > > > > 
> > > > > > Double-A
> > > > > =============================
> > > > > indeed 
> > > > > 
> > > > > 
> > > > > may be that our measurements are not precise enough 
> > > > > yet you cant deny that the photon is moving 
> > > > > faster than anything else and still me and you agree that
> > > > > it has mass 
> > > > > if so while passing  next to  earth
> > > > > it is attracted to  earth 
> > > > > because mass is attracting another   mass
> > > > > and not 'curved space' 
> > > > > ====================
> > > > > TIA
> > > > > Y.P
> > > > > ==================
> > > > 
> > > > The light particle would be quantized at the infinitely small.
> > > > In that sense it has no spread out density.
> > > > Einstein decided against his Nobel light particle in 1937.
> > > > He said instead it is a spherical wavelet.
> > > > 
> > > > Mitchell Raemsch
> > > ===
> > > it is a helix movement !!
> > > and why wonder
> > > the mass of a single  photon  is 
> > > about
> > > exp -90  Kilogram !!!!
> > > old copyright 
> > > Y.Porat
> > > ==============
> > 
> > There is something sub time. It is the infinitely small instant.
> 
> ====================
> I told you exactly  what is the smallest 
> laps of time
> 
> IT IS THE PLANK TIME   UNIT 
> ===================================================
> TIA
> Y.Porat
> =============================
> 
> > Inside the hypersphere there is no time just the sub time instant.
> > No time happens there... just instants.
> > 
> >==========================
> (:-)
> 
> Y.P
> ================

I believe the smallest is infinitely small math for instants
that are for sub time not time...Y.P.


Mitchell Raemsch

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

#695463

On Tuesday, July 24, 2018 at 2:07:57 PM UTC-7, Double-A wrote:
> On Monday, July 23, 2018 at 11:05:27 PM UTC-7, por...@gmail.com wrote:
> > On Tuesday, July 24, 2018 at 12:54:22 AM UTC+3, Double-A wrote:
> > > On Monday, July 23, 2018 at 2:01:14 PM UTC-7, reber G=emc^2 wrote:
> > > > On Monday, July 23, 2018 at 12:12:24 AM UTC-7, por...@gmail.com wrote:
> > > > > On Monday, July 23, 2018 at 5:09:52 AM UTC+3, paulcar...@gmail.com wrote:
> > > > > > On Friday, July 20, 2018 at 2:44:34 PM UTC-7, reber G=emc^2 wrote:
> > > > > > > On Friday, July 20, 2018 at 2:31:28 PM UTC-7, Double-A wrote:
> > > > > > > > On Friday, July 20, 2018 at 2:16:42 PM UTC-7, reber G=emc^2 wrote:
> > > > > > > > > I believe it relates to its wave length.It goes well with my twin photon constructure.Bert
> > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > Density of photons?  An interesting idea, because it implies that photons have mass!
> > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > Double-A
> > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > Mass they have AA.This is proven when gamma photons can kick electrons off a metal surface.
> > > > > > 
> > > > > > No, stupid.  That proves that photons have energy, not mass.
> > > > > 
> > > > > =============================
> > > > > idiot parrot !!
> > > > > 
> > > > > ''have energy but no mass ''?1!
> > > > > 
> > > > > E=hf
> > > > > 
> > > > > h is 
> > > > > Kilogram x meter ^2  times  (scalar f)/second 
> > > > > 
> > > > > now Holly shit 
> > > > > where do you see in the above
> > > > > any f en 'relativistic factor''????/!!!!
> > > > > or
> > > > > any f en zero multiplier ??!!
> > > > > ==
> > > > > got it idiot parrot  once and for all ??!!!!
> > > > > just open your mind
> > > > > and stop parroting like a parrot 
> > > > > the photon has mass
> > > > > the only mass
> > > > > indeed extremely tiny but yet 
> > > > > has mass !!!
> > > > > --
> > > > > in another analysis I proved that
> > > > > the mass of the real **single** photon  is
> > > > > about 
> > > > > (sit still on your chair)
> > > > > approximately:
> > > > > 
> > > > > expo -90  Kilogram !!!!!
> > > > > 
> > > > > no one will ever be able to notice it
> > > > > or detect it !!but 
> > > > > the  **theoretically* it is important to realize it !!
> > > > >  even if it is too small for our tools to detect it 
> > > > > as a real single photon
> > > > > ===
> > > > > TIA
> > > > > Y.Porat
> > > > > =================================  
> > > > > ==
> > > > > copyright explanation
> > > > > Y.Porat
> > > > > =========================
> > > > 
> > > > Photons have mass that moves at c.That means they have weight.This has been proven and gave Einstein his Nobel.He deserved two more(SR + GR}  Gravity gives all weight,and if it moves it curves.Nothing can go without a spin.Nothing can spin without a wobble.Neutrinos have the tiny  wobble of all.Yes three of my best theories  I have united into one.Its Nobel time.O Ya  Bert
> > > 
> > > 
> > > The fact that photons have mass also proves that they do not actually move at c.  Nothing with mass can.  c is an upper limit faster than which nothing can go.  A photon goes as close to it as anything we know, except maybe neutrinos!
> > > 
> > > Double-A
> > =============================
> > photons move at c !! even having mass the only mass 
> > thy are an exception to the rule
> > do you know why 
> > because the mass of the real single photon is about
> > (sit still  on your chair ..)
> > it is 
> > about 
> > exp  -90   kilogram !!!
> > 
> > not relativistic an not schmelativistic 
> > Kilogram !!
> > nature  does not know what is a second 
> > 
> > NATURE DOES KNOW!! WAHT IS THE PLABK TIME !!!
> > as the shortest time 
> > 
> > (nature  does know about PLANK TIME as the shortest time duration  )
> > SO
> > IF YOU TAKE INSTEAD hf/second ^2 with f as one  second defined
> > but plank time defined and divide it by c^2
> > to get  its mass (E/c^2)
> > you get photon ** mass**of a  single photon  (the only mass) 
> > 
> > about exp -90 Kilogram !!!
> > ===============================
> > historic  old copyright 
> > 2
> > =====================================================
> > MASS IS THE CREATOR OF ALL FORCES INCLUDINGGRAVITY !!
> > ======================================================
> > Eng
> > 
> > Y.Porat (old Catto )..
> > ===============================
> 
> 
> Why insist that the photon moves at c?  It makes much more consistent theory to say that the photon merely gets very close to c, because its mass has gotten very small, since you do agree that the photon has mass.  Scientific tests are not yet precise enough to prove it one way or the other.
> 
> Double-A

Photons go at 186,282 mps I read it so it must be true Fermi lab.got electrons up to 99.999999999 of c.They gained 37,000 times their rest mass weight.Another proof Einstein was on the money.Bert

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

#695464

On Tuesday, July 24, 2018 at 7:17:15 PM UTC-7, reber G=emc^2 wrote:
> On Tuesday, July 24, 2018 at 2:07:57 PM UTC-7, Double-A wrote:
> > On Monday, July 23, 2018 at 11:05:27 PM UTC-7, por...@gmail.com wrote:
> > > On Tuesday, July 24, 2018 at 12:54:22 AM UTC+3, Double-A wrote:
> > > > On Monday, July 23, 2018 at 2:01:14 PM UTC-7, reber G=emc^2 wrote:
> > > > > On Monday, July 23, 2018 at 12:12:24 AM UTC-7, por...@gmail.com wrote:
> > > > > > On Monday, July 23, 2018 at 5:09:52 AM UTC+3, paulcar...@gmail.com wrote:
> > > > > > > On Friday, July 20, 2018 at 2:44:34 PM UTC-7, reber G=emc^2 wrote:
> > > > > > > > On Friday, July 20, 2018 at 2:31:28 PM UTC-7, Double-A wrote:
> > > > > > > > > On Friday, July 20, 2018 at 2:16:42 PM UTC-7, reber G=emc^2 wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > I believe it relates to its wave length.It goes well with my twin photon constructure.Bert
> > > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > > Density of photons?  An interesting idea, because it implies that photons have mass!
> > > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > > Double-A
> > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > Mass they have AA.This is proven when gamma photons can kick electrons off a metal surface.
> > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > No, stupid.  That proves that photons have energy, not mass.
> > > > > > 
> > > > > > =============================
> > > > > > idiot parrot !!
> > > > > > 
> > > > > > ''have energy but no mass ''?1!
> > > > > > 
> > > > > > E=hf
> > > > > > 
> > > > > > h is 
> > > > > > Kilogram x meter ^2  times  (scalar f)/second 
> > > > > > 
> > > > > > now Holly shit 
> > > > > > where do you see in the above
> > > > > > any f en 'relativistic factor''????/!!!!
> > > > > > or
> > > > > > any f en zero multiplier ??!!
> > > > > > ==
> > > > > > got it idiot parrot  once and for all ??!!!!
> > > > > > just open your mind
> > > > > > and stop parroting like a parrot 
> > > > > > the photon has mass
> > > > > > the only mass
> > > > > > indeed extremely tiny but yet 
> > > > > > has mass !!!
> > > > > > --
> > > > > > in another analysis I proved that
> > > > > > the mass of the real **single** photon  is
> > > > > > about 
> > > > > > (sit still on your chair)
> > > > > > approximately:
> > > > > > 
> > > > > > expo -90  Kilogram !!!!!
> > > > > > 
> > > > > > no one will ever be able to notice it
> > > > > > or detect it !!but 
> > > > > > the  **theoretically* it is important to realize it !!
> > > > > >  even if it is too small for our tools to detect it 
> > > > > > as a real single photon
> > > > > > ===
> > > > > > TIA
> > > > > > Y.Porat
> > > > > > =================================  
> > > > > > ==
> > > > > > copyright explanation
> > > > > > Y.Porat
> > > > > > =========================
> > > > > 
> > > > > Photons have mass that moves at c.That means they have weight.This has been proven and gave Einstein his Nobel.He deserved two more(SR + GR}  Gravity gives all weight,and if it moves it curves.Nothing can go without a spin.Nothing can spin without a wobble.Neutrinos have the tiny  wobble of all.Yes three of my best theories  I have united into one.Its Nobel time.O Ya  Bert
> > > > 
> > > > 
> > > > The fact that photons have mass also proves that they do not actually move at c.  Nothing with mass can.  c is an upper limit faster than which nothing can go.  A photon goes as close to it as anything we know, except maybe neutrinos!
> > > > 
> > > > Double-A
> > > =============================
> > > photons move at c !! even having mass the only mass 
> > > thy are an exception to the rule
> > > do you know why 
> > > because the mass of the real single photon is about
> > > (sit still  on your chair ..)
> > > it is 
> > > about 
> > > exp  -90   kilogram !!!
> > > 
> > > not relativistic an not schmelativistic 
> > > Kilogram !!
> > > nature  does not know what is a second 
> > > 
> > > NATURE DOES KNOW!! WAHT IS THE PLABK TIME !!!
> > > as the shortest time 
> > > 
> > > (nature  does know about PLANK TIME as the shortest time duration  )
> > > SO
> > > IF YOU TAKE INSTEAD hf/second ^2 with f as one  second defined
> > > but plank time defined and divide it by c^2
> > > to get  its mass (E/c^2)
> > > you get photon ** mass**of a  single photon  (the only mass) 
> > > 
> > > about exp -90 Kilogram !!!
> > > ===============================
> > > historic  old copyright 
> > > 2
> > > =====================================================
> > > MASS IS THE CREATOR OF ALL FORCES INCLUDINGGRAVITY !!
> > > ======================================================
> > > Eng
> > > 
> > > Y.Porat (old Catto )..
> > > ===============================
> > 
> > 
> > Why insist that the photon moves at c?  It makes much more consistent theory to say that the photon merely gets very close to c, because its mass has gotten very small, since you do agree that the photon has mass.  Scientific tests are not yet precise enough to prove it one way or the other.
> > 
> > Double-A
> 
> Photons go at 186,282 mps I read it so it must be true Fermi lab.got electrons up to 99.999999999 of c.They gained 37,000 times their rest mass weight.Another proof Einstein was on the money.Bert

Light waves have curved motion by gravity curve we can't see directly.

Mitchell Raemsch

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

#695475

"reber G=emc^2" <herbertglazier0@gmail.com> 
is, and has always been a mental cadaver
as seen in SwineBert's idiotic Palaver. O ya. Bert.

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

#695255

"reber G=emc^2" <herbertglazier0@gmail.com> wrote:
"Its Nobel time.O Ya" says Bert and it will happen as
\soon as Bert gets rid of the albatross Bert has hung
around his neck.... (check today's posts containing albatross)

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

#695306

On Tuesday, July 24, 2018 at 1:49:46 AM UTC+3, hanson wrote:
> "reber G=emc^2" <herbertglazier0@gmail.com> wrote:
> "Its Nobel time.O Ya" says Bert and it will happen as
> \soon as Bert gets rid of the albatross Bert has hung
> around his neck.... (check today's posts containing albatross)

c

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

#695718

On Monday, July 23, 2018 at 2:01:14 PM UTC-7, reber G=emc^2 wrote:
> On Monday, July 23, 2018 at 12:12:24 AM UTC-7, por...@gmail.com wrote:
> > On Monday, July 23, 2018 at 5:09:52 AM UTC+3, paulcar...@gmail.com wrote:
> > > On Friday, July 20, 2018 at 2:44:34 PM UTC-7, reber G=emc^2 wrote:
> > > > On Friday, July 20, 2018 at 2:31:28 PM UTC-7, Double-A wrote:
> > > > > On Friday, July 20, 2018 at 2:16:42 PM UTC-7, reber G=emc^2 wrote:
> > > > > > I believe it relates to its wave length.It goes well with my twin photon constructure.Bert
> > > > > 
> > > > > 
> > > > > Density of photons?  An interesting idea, because it implies that photons have mass!
> > > > > 
> > > > > Double-A
> > > > 
> > > > Mass they have AA.This is proven when gamma photons can kick electrons off a metal surface.
> > > 
> > > No, stupid.  That proves that photons have energy, not mass.
> > 
> > =============================
> > idiot parrot !!
> > 
> > ''have energy but no mass ''?1!
> > 
> > E=hf
> > 
> > h is 
> > Kilogram x meter ^2  times  (scalar f)/second 
> > 

Idiot.  The fact that a constant contains mass as a component of its dimension does not imply anything about the mass of a photon.
Massless particles are allowed, and they can have energy and momentum.

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

#695782

On Thursday, July 26, 2018 at 10:09:24 AM UTC-7, paulcar...@gmail.com wrote:
> On Monday, July 23, 2018 at 2:01:14 PM UTC-7, reber G=emc^2 wrote:
> > On Monday, July 23, 2018 at 12:12:24 AM UTC-7, por...@gmail.com wrote:
> > > On Monday, July 23, 2018 at 5:09:52 AM UTC+3, paulcar...@gmail.com wrote:
> > > > On Friday, July 20, 2018 at 2:44:34 PM UTC-7, reber G=emc^2 wrote:
> > > > > On Friday, July 20, 2018 at 2:31:28 PM UTC-7, Double-A wrote:
> > > > > > On Friday, July 20, 2018 at 2:16:42 PM UTC-7, reber G=emc^2 wrote:
> > > > > > > I believe it relates to its wave length.It goes well with my twin photon constructure.Bert
> > > > > > 
> > > > > > 
> > > > > > Density of photons?  An interesting idea, because it implies that photons have mass!
> > > > > > 
> > > > > > Double-A
> > > > > 
> > > > > Mass they have AA.This is proven when gamma photons can kick electrons off a metal surface.
> > > > 
> > > > No, stupid.  That proves that photons have energy, not mass.
> > > 
> > > =============================
> > > idiot parrot !!
> > > 
> > > ''have energy but no mass ''?1!
> > > 
> > > E=hf
> > > 
> > > h is 
> > > Kilogram x meter ^2  times  (scalar f)/second 
> > > 
> 
> Idiot.  The fact that a constant contains mass as a component of its dimension does not imply anything about the mass of a photon.
> Massless particles are allowed, and they can have energy and momentum.

Particles create all that is with the help of gravity .Its all the parts coming from the BB.The Sun loses a great deal of mass each second by giving out photons.I read that so it must be true.Bert

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

#695791

"reber G=emc^2" <herbertglazier0@gmail.com> wrote:
"it must be true" that Bert is just a mental cadaver
which is seen in Bert's posted stupid palaver. O ya. Bert

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

#695846

On Thursday, July 26, 2018 at 8:09:24 PM UTC+3, paulcar...@gmail.com wrote:
> On Monday, July 23, 2018 at 2:01:14 PM UTC-7, reber G=emc^2 wrote:
> > On Monday, July 23, 2018 at 12:12:24 AM UTC-7, por...@gmail.com wrote:
> > > On Monday, July 23, 2018 at 5:09:52 AM UTC+3, paulcar...@gmail.com wrote:
> > > > On Friday, July 20, 2018 at 2:44:34 PM UTC-7, reber G=emc^2 wrote:
> > > > > On Friday, July 20, 2018 at 2:31:28 PM UTC-7, Double-A wrote:
> > > > > > On Friday, July 20, 2018 at 2:16:42 PM UTC-7, reber G=emc^2 wrote:
> > > > > > > I believe it relates to its wave length.It goes well with my twin photon constructure.Bert
> > > > > > 
> > > > > > 
> > > > > > Density of photons?  An interesting idea, because it implies that photons have mass!
> > > > > > 
> > > > > > Double-A
> > > > > 
> > > > > Mass they have AA.This is proven when gamma photons can kick electrons off a metal surface.
> > > > 
> > > > No, stupid.  That proves that photons have energy, not mass.
> > > 
> > > =============================
> > > idiot parrot !!
> > > 
> > > ''have energy but no mass ''?1!
> > > 
> > > E=hf
> > > 
> > > h is 
> > > Kilogram x meter ^2  times  (scalar f)/second 
> > > 
> 
> Idiot.  The fact that a constant contains mass as a component of its dimension does not imply anything about the mass of a photon.
> Massless particles are allowed, and they can have energy and momentum.

===================
another imbecile parrot around the  table 
I showed you idiot crock 
the energy of the  photon  
 AGAIN !!
ENERGY OF THE PHOTON 
NOT OF F  CROCK ;LIKE YOU 

ENERGY OF THE **PHOTON **!!
not the ass of your mother 

E photon*** is hf 

while h
is 
some scalar  times KILOGRAM  meter^2/second    times f    

so where do you piggy idiot ass any 
relativistic multiplier
or any zero multiplier ??
did you imbecile
did you  ever did  a dimension analysis of a formula ??
who was your teacher of physics 
or teacher of any academic science??!!
==
Y.P
================= 

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

#695847

On Friday, July 27, 2018 at 11:39:15 AM UTC+3, por...@gmail.com wrote:
> On Thursday, July 26, 2018 at 8:09:24 PM UTC+3, paulcar...@gmail.com wrote:
> > On Monday, July 23, 2018 at 2:01:14 PM UTC-7, reber G=emc^2 wrote:
> > > On Monday, July 23, 2018 at 12:12:24 AM UTC-7, por...@gmail.com wrote:
> > > > On Monday, July 23, 2018 at 5:09:52 AM UTC+3, paulcar...@gmail.com wrote:
> > > > > On Friday, July 20, 2018 at 2:44:34 PM UTC-7, reber G=emc^2 wrote:
> > > > > > On Friday, July 20, 2018 at 2:31:28 PM UTC-7, Double-A wrote:
> > > > > > > On Friday, July 20, 2018 at 2:16:42 PM UTC-7, reber G=emc^2 wrote:
> > > > > > > > I believe it relates to its wave length.It goes well with my twin photon constructure.Bert
> > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > Density of photons?  An interesting idea, because it implies that photons have mass!
> > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > Double-A
> > > > > > 
> > > > > > Mass they have AA.This is proven when gamma photons can kick electrons off a metal surface.
> > > > > 
> > > > > No, stupid.  That proves that photons have energy, not mass.
> > > > 
> > > > =============================
> > > > idiot parrot !!
> > > > 
> > > > ''have energy but no mass ''?1!
> > > > 
> > > > E=hf
> > > > 
> > > > h is 
> > > > Kilogram x meter ^2  times  (scalar f)/second 
> > > > 
> > 
> > Idiot.  The fact that a constant contains mass as a component of its dimension does not imply anything about the mass of a photon.
> > Massless particles are allowed, and they can have energy and momentum.
> 
> ===================
> another imbecile parrot around the  table 
> I showed you idiot crock 
> the energy of the  photon  
>  AGAIN !!
> ENERGY OF THE PHOTON 
> NOT OF F  CROCK ;LIKE YOU 
> 
> ENERGY OF THE **PHOTON **!!
> not the ass of your mother 
> 
> E photon*** is hf 
> 
> while h
> is 
> some scalar  times KILOGRAM  meter^2/second    times f    
> 
> so where do you piggy idiot ass any 
> relativistic multiplier
> or any zero multiplier ??
> did you imbecile
> did you  ever did  a dimension analysis of a formula ??
> who was your teacher of physics 
> or teacher of any academic science??!!
> ==
> Y.P
> =================
and who the hell is that
Paulcar ??

======
Y.P

======

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

#694890

On Saturday, July 21, 2018 at 12:31:28 AM UTC+3, Double-A wrote:
> On Friday, July 20, 2018 at 2:16:42 PM UTC-7, reber G=emc^2 wrote:
> > I believe it relates to its wave length.It goes well with my twin photon constructure.Bert
> 
> 
> Density of photons?  An interesting idea, because it implies that photons have mass!
> 
> Double-A
=====
bingo !  A A !

that is what I have to  fight so hard and so long
to stick that obvious to 
endless ***armies**   of blockheads  !!
such a simple thing 

E=hf right ??

h is 
a constant times   kilogram meter ^2/second 
times f that is a scalar /second !!

now
what the fuck is relativistic  to multiply those
Kilograms!!! there 
by any relativistic factor ???!!!


OR IN   ANY''' ZERO FACTOR'' ???!!!

does one has to be  genius
in order to notice it !!

or a pig parrot
not** to notice it ??!!!

so
bottom lime

that is
 photons are deflecting  by passing next toe earth 
and   not  by/because 

F EN ''CURVED SPACE ''
but by gravity between 2 masses  
===  
see as well 
Google 
the  y circlon 

2
I suggested too  many times 
the photon movement
as a' helix' shape  movement 
3
now you can ask 
why is it 
if the photon is curving next to  earth
why should  it not
go on with it and do orbiting all around our earth !
and 
go on and  on with that orbiting ??!!
any idea ?? 
======
TIA
Y.P
======================= 

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

#695130

On Friday, July 20, 2018 at 2:31:28 PM UTC-7, Double-A wrote:
> On Friday, July 20, 2018 at 2:16:42 PM UTC-7, reber G=emc^2 wrote:
> > I believe it relates to its wave length.It goes well with my twin photon constructure.Bert
> 
> 
> Density of photons?  An interesting idea, because it implies that photons have mass!
> 
> Double-A

It also implies that they have a size.  However it is generally believed that the property of size is not applicable to photons.

So the density of a photon is 0/NaN.

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

#694858

On Saturday, July 21, 2018 at 12:16:42 AM UTC+3, reber G=emc^2 wrote:
> I believe it relates to its wave length.It goes well with my twin photon constructure.Bert
===========================================================
see Google
the y circlon mechanism 
======
Y.Porat
==================================

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

Page 3 of 4 — ← Prev page 1 2 [3] 4  Next page →

Back to top | Article view | sci.physics

csiph-web