Groups > sci.physics.relativity > #429349

Re: What Do Dingleberries Actually Mean When They Claim Moving Clocks Run Slow?

From	"HGW..." <hgw@....>
Newsgroups	sci.physics.relativity
Subject	Re: What Do Dingleberries Actually Mean When They Claim Moving Clocks Run Slow?
Date	2017-08-19 09:40 +1000
Organization	Aioe.org NNTP Server
Message-ID	<on7tu0$a2$1@gioia.aioe.org> (permalink)
References	(11 earlier) <11a73817-68f0-4a0a-bd96-35f083e33470@googlegroups.com> <on2fij$1h78$1@gioia.aioe.org> <36f747a1-bdfb-4617-b58a-d7954499180d@googlegroups.com> <on542j$1c58$1@gioia.aioe.org> <5caf367b-a2da-4f21-8222-9b1650f6faea@googlegroups.com>

Show all headers | View raw

On 19/08/17 03:38, dancouriann@gmail.com wrote:
> On Thursday, August 17, 2017 at 3:07:20 PM UTC-7, HGW... wrote:
>> A photon has momentum... There is no reason to think it has inertia.
> 
> That is self-contradictory.  Anything that has momentum has inertia.  They both denote resistance to changes in the state of motion.

Well that is debatable....and it does not prove that energy has inertia. A photon is more than plain energy.

>> There is no proof that the entire mass of something,
>> say a neutron, can be converted to mc^2. I'm not saying
>> it cannot but the whole concept of mass is so little
>> understood that it would be presumptuous to say that
>> it could.
> 
> Two points:  First, there was no demonstration 100 years ago that the entire rest mass of a particle could be transformed to pure energy, but particles and their anti-particles are now seen to collide and annihilate each other, yielding pure massless energy. 

You cannot assume photons and gamma rays do not have mass.

  Second, this is irrelevant to your claim that it is *logically impossible* for all forms of energy to have inertia.

I said I don't know of any and your example, using mass, doesn't prove anything except your lack of understanding of 
basic physics.

  (This is equivalent to the claim that it's logically impossible for the speed of light to be c in terms of every 
system of inertial coordinates.)

That is a plain fact according to he definition of a  frame.

>> Idiot, are you just a college student? I have even taught
>> these well-known facts to others.
> 
> I don't think so, because you claim that photons "probably" have mass, but they have no inertia (even though you agree they have momentum, and even though you say mass is inertia, or sometimes not, probably), and you deny that kinetic energy is energy, and that it is frame dependent, etc., and you oscillate on whether E = mc^2, and even on those days when you agree with it, you don't see that it implies the speed of light is c in terms of every system of inertial coordinates.

For a photon, E = h.c/lambda = mc^2
m = h/(c.lambda)....very small but finite.

>> Idiot. E- mc^2. m DOES NOT = mc^2
> 
> I can't parse those sentences, but if you are agreeing that E = mc^2, then that's good, we are in agreement.  Now you just need to understand why this implies that the speed of light is c in terms of every system of inertial coordinates.

It cannot be and I have shown that it is not. Light speed from orbiting stars moves at c+v towards Earth....and gives an 
impression that the star is varying in brightness.

The idea that OWLS will always be measured as having the value c came from LET. Einstein plagiarized the idea and his SR 
is totally reliant on the existence of an absolute medium.


>> I know what inertia means. You don't. You seem to think that
>> inertia only applies to movement, in which case inertia
>> equal mass.
> 
> In physics, the word "inertia" means resistance to changes in the state of motion, and it's a property of mass-energy.
> 
>> A photon has momentum....or at least it behaves as though
>> it has. This has nothing to do with the word inertia.
> 
> Momentum has nothing to do with inertia?

When discussing inertia in relation to movement, MASS is the relevant factor, not momentum. Momentum is not the source 
of resistance to change. The associated mass involved is.
> 


--

Thread

csiph-web