Printable Version of Topic
Click here to view this topic in its original format
PhysForum Science, Physics and Technology Discussion Forums > Relativity, Quantum Mechanics, New Theories > The SAGNAC Effect speaks Volumes ?


Posted by: The_Right_Stuff Jul 30 2006, 09:23 PM
Does the SAGNAC Effect speak volumes ?

According to the Sagnac Effect, if an apparatus such as that used in the Michelson and Morley tests, is rotated such that there is a constant angular momentum, then it will have an effect that indicates that it takes longer for light to travel in one direction of the circular path, than it does in the other direction of the same circular path.


User posted image

The above picture shows a typical method of detecting the Sagnac effect. The light path does not have to be perfectly circular, just as long as a 2 dimensional round trip is complete, will do the trick.

This ring interferometer is located on a platform that can rotate. When the platform is rotating the lines of the interference pattern are displaced sideways as compared to the position of the interference pattern when the platform is not rotating. The amount of displacement is proportional to the angular velocity of the rotating platform.

When the platform is rotating, the point of entry/exit moves during the transit time of the light. So one beam has covered less distance than the other beam. This creates the shift in the interference pattern.

OK, that sounds good smile.gif

So what we are saying is that if we unfold the loop and move in a straight line, this effect suddenly disappears, hence this is why this phenomena is confined to an effect known as the sagnac effect. Or is it confined ? ph34r.gif

Imagine that we say that the light that travels from one end of a moving train to the other end of that moving train, takes the exact same time to do so, as it would take if the direction of the light was in the exact opposite direction. In other words we would be saying that the speed of light is seen as equal in both directions relative to the moving reference of the train itself.

Now comes the fun part. wacko.gif

What if the train track suddenly changes from being a straight track, to becoming a circular loop. The train already has its own frame of reference as it maintains its steady speed of motion. But suddenly, as it completes the loop, light no longer is able to move from one end of the train to the other end of the train, in the same time as it does if moving in the opposite direction. ( Note: Fibre optics are used to send light from end to end of the Train, such that each light path may also bend when the train bends around the loop)

On top of that, if the train then leaves the loop, Bi-directional light speed measurements are somehow then restored.

Question: HOW CAN THIS BE ????


For further details See --

http://www.outersecrets.com/real/5_4d_3.htm

Images are a tad large if you use less than 1280x1024 screen resolution, but I did say a Tad.

Posted by: Upisoft Jul 30 2006, 10:22 PM
QUOTE (The_Right_Stuff @ Jul 31 2006, 12:23 AM)
( Note: Fibre optics are used to send light from end to end of the Train, such that each light path may also bend when the train bends around the loop)

Are you sure that if you make the original test with fiber optics instead with mirrors the effect will show up?

Posted by: The_Right_Stuff Jul 30 2006, 10:33 PM
OK, you got me.

But if you check the web site, you will see that I stated that the fiber optics used in this thought experiment ,were hollow flex tubes with an internal mirror finish. I also stated that the tubes were capped at the ends, and that the inside of the flex tubes there is also a vacuum.

Detail, details.

And so in short, we are still using mirrors.

Posted by: Montec Jul 30 2006, 10:46 PM
Hello all
Fiber optics are used to make very sensitive fiber optic gyroscopes.
See here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fiber_optic_gyroscope

The Sagnac effect works in fiber optic cables.
smile.gif

Posted by: Why Not? Jul 31 2006, 04:00 AM
QUOTE (The_Right_Stuff @ Jul 30 2006, 09:23 PM)
So what we are saying is that if we unfold the loop and move in a straight line, this effect suddenly disappears, ...

What if the train track suddenly changes from being a straight track, to becoming a circular loop.

Hey The Right Stuff,

Keep in mind, when your train is traveling in a straight line it is not accelerating but when it is in the loop it is accelerating.

Posted by: The_Right_Stuff Jul 31 2006, 04:35 PM
QUOTE Posted by Why Not? at 4:00 AM
QUOTE
Keep in mind, when your train is traveling in a straight line it is not accelerating but when it is in the loop it is accelerating


In today's language of understanding, it is said that acceleration is occurring if under such circular conditions. Unfortunately, that, if in error, then produces a stage used for circular arguments.

Logic says that a constant acceleration, as in the case of accelerating in a straight line, requires constant application of Force, yet in this case there is no additional force applied, no force added on top of what force was already applied to the train to get it to its present speed. If an object is in space, and is constantly spinning, this can go on forever, yet no other external force is applied nor required to maintain this spin.

The point that my web site is making, is that 3 dimensional understanding of a 4 dimensional reality, produces never ending 3 dimensional explanations of 4 dimensional events. The explanations are therefore in Error since all components are not included.

Granted, in the world of Physics, if the big boys say that a white horse is black, then everyone will then proceed to believe that all white horses are black horses, and they will defend this claim, with their life.


What I have done on the other hand, is examined the basics of reality, the basics of motion, and started off doing so without any knowledge, and therefore any possible error, of today to be included.

What got my interest started long before having known of Albert Einstein's work, was the peculiarity of motion. Motion contains two variables, SPEED and DISTANCE. Variables range from zero to infinity. I chose to think of what would happen if these two variables were set to infinity.


1) Traveling across an infinite distance --> To continue to travel without end.

2) Traveling at an infinite speed --> To travel across any distance without the passage of any time.

If you then add these two together, this means that you will " Go on forever, across the infinite distance, in no time at all, due to the infinite speed. ".

This meant that motion across Space was still part of the package, but passage of Time was not.

If at the opposite end of things, where objects are at a stand still, there is zero Motion across space, but in this case, there is the passage of Time.

It was a game of give and take. It became clear that Motion across Space, and Motion across Time, were both encapsulated within a Finite of some kind. It also became clear that Motion always existed in one form or the other, or a mix of the two. Therefore, what we have is a finite degree of (C)onstant motion that can be directed across Space or Time, or both.

This then produced some interesting equations when I performed a geometric examination of my understandings.

user posted imageuser posted imageuser posted image

In the above diagrams,
" C " = the objects constant momentum across Time-Space.
" V " = the objects motion across Space only.
" a " = the objects motion across Time only.

" L* " = the objects constant length.
" L " = the objects length extending across Space.
" b " = the objects length extending across Time.

" t* " = the rate of passage of Time if at rest in Space.
" t " = the rate of passage of Time if in motion across Space.

And the independent study of reality went on from there.

Posted by: Confused2 Jul 31 2006, 04:51 PM
QUOTE (The_Right_Stuff)

In today's language of understanding, it is said that it is acceleration is occurring if under such circular conditions. Unfortunately, that, if in error, then produces a stage used for circular arguments.


Here might (?) help -
http://www.physicsclassroom.com/mmedia/circmot/ucm.html

Hope it does..

-C2.

Posted by: The_Right_Stuff Jul 31 2006, 05:25 PM
If you examine the two pictures below, they look the same.

user posted imageuser posted image

However, one represent the rotation of a solid object that it spinning.
No force is being applied to maintain this spin.

The second, represents an object in motion that is constantly being redirected, and done so in a circular manner.
Force is being applied to make this possible.


If Force comes into the picture, then acceleration can be mentioned.


But the point I have also been making, is that in truth, there is no possible case of true ACCELERATION, since all objects are constantly in motion, and at a fixed momentum. All that can be done is change the direction of travel of the object within Time-Space. In other words, if we viewed objects from a higher 5th dimension, we would see all objects moving with a common momentum, but only movement in different directions of travel in Time-Space is what is possible for these objects

Posted by: Why Not? Jul 31 2006, 05:59 PM
Hey The Right Stuff,

QUOTE
Logic says that a constant acceleration, as in the case of accelerating in a straight line, requires constant application of Force, yet in this case there is no additional force applied, no force added on top of what force was already applied to the train to get it to its present speed. If an object is in space, and is constantly spinning, this can go on forever, yet no other external force is applied nor required to maintain this spin.


There certainly is an application of an additional force as soon as the train enters the loop (as clearly described in the link provided by Confused2). This centripetal force is an acceleration perpendicular to the train tacks and directed to the center of the loop caused by the change in direction of the train. Imagine you are a passenger on the train. Are you not going to feel "thrown" to the outside of the train (experience lateral g's in response to the centripetal force)? This is Newtonian mechanics 101. Check out http://csep10.phys.utk.edu/astr161/lect/history/newton3laws.html if you are so inclined. You are asking the good questions but are breaking known (experimentally verified on a daily basis) laws of mechanics in formulating your answers.

Posted by: rpenner Jul 31 2006, 06:23 PM
http://arxiv.org/abs/gr-qc/9805089

QUOTE (Abstract)
It is often taken for granted that on board a rotating disk it is possible to operate a global 3+1 splitting of space-time, such that both lengths and time intervals are uniquely defined in terms of measurements performed by real rods and real clocks at rest on the platform. This paper shows that this assumption, although widespread and apparently trivial, leads to an anisotropy of the velocity of two light beams travelling in opposite directions along the rim of the disk; which in turn implies some recently pointed out paradoxical consequences undermining the self-consistency of the Special Theory of Relativity (SRT). A correct application of the SRT solves the problem and recovers complete internal consistency for the theory. As an immediate consequence, it is shown that the Sagnac effect only depends on the non homogeneity of time on the platform and has nothing to do with any anisotropy of the speed of light along the rim of the disk, contrary to an incorrect but widely supported idea.

Posted by: The_Right_Stuff Jul 31 2006, 07:14 PM
MY MY MY, there are a lot of those Black white horses out there.

The point I am raising is to view reality from a higher position.


If your arguments are complete and correct, then they are directly attached to all other complete and correct arguments or facts. If this is the case, then this immediately leads you to the complete understanding of reality, such that you know how to create reality itself.

However, if there is error in your understandings, also known a incompleteness, the complete understanding of reality is beyond your reach, for there is a GAP which prevents your Theories from being directly attached to the remainder of facts which are responsible for the existence of Reality.

Therefore, to assume that any theory is complete and correct, prior to achieving complete understanding of reality, is a serious mistake.

One must ALWAYS label theories with probability ratings only, and must not attach certainty to any theory unless the entire puzzle can be assembled with these theories.

One defective piece of the puzzle will prevent that final assembly, if one worships that one piece with absolute certainty.

user posted imageuser posted image
I didn't place the proper second pic on my last post, but here it is.

http://www.outersecrets.com/real/2_motion.htm

My examination of reality starts on the above web page.

Posted by: Why Not? Jul 31 2006, 07:45 PM
Hey The Right Stuff,

QUOTE
The point I am raising is to view reality from a higher position.


The point that you are missing is that if you ignore, disregard, and/or contradict the everyday experiences in our "lower" position of reality, your view from a higher position will make no sense as it will not describe the reality that we experience. If you are convinced that the sky is purple, your theory better be able to explain why everyone experiences it as blue.

QUOTE
However, one represent the rotation of a solid object that it spinning.
No force is being applied to maintain this spin.


But a force is required to change it... Maybe this link will help.... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Angular_momentum.

Finally, no one has claimed a "complete and correct" theory. In fact Newtonian Mechanics is known to be incomplete. However, within a known set of boundaries, Newton's Laws of Motion work extremely well. And when those boundary conditions were violated, Einstein discovered General Relativity, which is 100% consistent with the predictions of Newtonian Mechanics within the boundaries of Newtonian Mechanics.

Edit: General Relativity is known to be incomplete as well. It has boundaries beyond which the equations are no longer valid for describing reality.

Posted by: The_Right_Stuff Jul 31 2006, 08:06 PM
QUOTE: from why not ?
QUOTE
The point that you are missing is that if you ignore, disregard, and/or contradict the everyday experiences in our "lower" position of reality, your view from a higher position will make no sense as it will not describe the reality that we experience. If you are convinced that the sky is purple, your theory better be able to explain why everyone experiences it as blue.


The point that you are missing is that if you ignore the fact that the Lesser(lower) resides within the Greater (Higher point of view), then you will not be able to realize that all Lessers are included within the Greater, and that the view of them from this higher point of view, reveals them all, and flawlessly.


In fact, the Greater is presently not included in the land of Physics, and this has led to not understanding the cause of Particle-Wave behavior, Action at a Distance, Uncertainty, the Quantum Leap, entangled Particles, etc.

Add the component in which all relativistic functions reside within, and all your questions are answered. Assume that relativistic functions have no foundation and that they simply happen without a cause, and all your questions will not be answered.

Posted by: rpenner Jul 31 2006, 08:09 PM
So replace a part of your (approximately) rigid rod with a spring scale and tell us what you measure.

The acceleration is real, and is obvious from any finite element or microscopic analysis. Macroscopic rigid rotation always implies microscopic accelerations exactly as per your mass on a string.

The rest of your site is a mishmash of relativistic notation and Euclidean ideas (and Bible Code and a claim Kevin is numerically equal to Jesus, which is why he feels compelled to use his middle name, and very poor statistical analysis). Specifically, you assume a global notion of time, and as a result throw out the LLI principle. A person traveling 1/2 the speed of light in your model is closer in some definite way to light speed, which is not the case, experimentally.

For more on LLI and GR and how scientist test these theoretical principles, I have gathered some info and links here:
http://forum.physorg.com/index.php?showtopic=7908&view=findpost&p=110718

Posted by: Pupamancur Aug 1 2006, 12:02 AM
QUOTE (The_Right_Stuff @ Jul 31 2006, 04:35 PM)
QUOTE Posted by Why Not? at 4:00 AM


In today's language of understanding, it is said that acceleration is occurring if under such circular conditions. Unfortunately, that, if in error, then produces a stage used for circular arguments.

Logic says that a constant acceleration, as in the case of accelerating in a straight line, requires constant application of Force, yet in this case there is no additional force applied, no force added on top of what force was already applied to the train to get it to its present speed. If an object is in space, and is constantly spinning, this can go on forever, yet no other external force is applied nor required to maintain this spin.

The point that my web site is making, is that 3 dimensional understanding of a 4 dimensional reality, produces never ending 3 dimensional explanations of 4 dimensional events. The explanations are therefore in Error since all components are not included.

Granted, in the world of Physics, if the big boys say that a white horse is black, then everyone will then proceed to believe that all white horses are black horses, and they will defend this claim, with their life.


What I have done on the other hand, is examined the basics of reality, the basics of motion, and started off doing so without any knowledge, and therefore any possible error, of today to be included.

What got my interest started long before having known of Albert Einstein's work, was the peculiarity of motion. Motion contains two variables, SPEED and DISTANCE. Variables range from zero to infinity. I chose to think of what would happen if these two variables were set to infinity.


1) Traveling across an infinite distance --> To continue to travel without end.

2) Traveling at an infinite speed --> To travel across any distance without the passage of any time.

If you then add these two together, this means that you will " Go on forever, across the infinite distance, in no time at all, due to the infinite speed. ".

This meant that motion across Space was still part of the package, but passage of Time was not.

If at the opposite end of things, where objects are at a stand still, there is zero Motion across space, but in this case, there is the passage of Time.

It was a game of give and take. It became clear that Motion across Space, and Motion across Time, were both encapsulated within a Finite of some kind. It also became clear that Motion always existed in one form or the other, or a mix of the two. Therefore, what we have is a finite degree of (C)onstant motion that can be directed across Space or Time, or both.

This then produced some interesting equations when I performed a geometric examination of my understandings.

user posted imageuser posted imageuser posted image

In the above diagrams,
" C " = the objects constant momentum across Time-Space.
" V " = the objects motion across Space only.
" a " = the objects motion across Time only.

" L* " = the objects constant length.
" L " = the objects length extending across Space.
" b " = the objects length extending across Time.

" t* " = the rate of passage of Time if at rest in Space.
" t " = the rate of passage of Time if in motion across Space.

And the independent study of reality went on from there.

Time "contraction"? You are onto something, a BIG FAT ERROR.
Your formulas are wrong, why not pick up a good book on relativity and learn about time DILATION?

Posted by: The_Right_Stuff Aug 1 2006, 12:43 AM
No thanks. Propagation of other peoples errors, is just not my thing.

I'll just hang on until others begin question their certainty.

Posted by: Guest Aug 1 2006, 04:00 AM
QUOTE (The_Right_Stuff @ Aug 1 2006, 12:43 AM)
No thanks. Propagation of other peoples errors, is just not my thing.

I'll just hang on until others begin question their certainty.

Yes, right. Why bother with learning when ignorance is instantaneous?

Well, there are bad news for your theory: there are experiments that confirm time dilation and infirm time contraction. Don't quit your day job, you will not be able to support yourself through amateur physics. Especially when you do it wrongly.

Posted by: The_Right_Stuff Aug 1 2006, 02:38 PM
QUOTE
(Mr/s. Unregistered  @ Aug 1 2006, 4:00 AM)   Well, there are bad news for your theory: there are experiments that confirm time dilation and infirm time contraction. Don't quit your day job, you will not be able to support yourself through amateur physics. Especially when you do it wrongly.


Thanks for pointing out my typo.

I meant to say " Time Period contraction equation " , not " Time contraction equation "

User posted image

Thanks again.

Posted by: Pupamancur Aug 1 2006, 03:20 PM
QUOTE (The_Right_Stuff @ Aug 1 2006, 02:38 PM)

Thanks for pointing out my typo.

I meant to say " Time Period contraction equation " , not " Time contraction equation "

User posted image

Thanks again.

It is not a typo, it is a gross error. You cannot correct it with changing the wording.
School and studying is the best remedy.

Posted by: The_Right_Stuff Aug 1 2006, 04:00 PM
QUOTE (Pupamancur @ Aug 1 2006, 03:20 PM)
It is not a typo, it is a gross error. You cannot correct it with changing the wording. School and studying is the best remedy.

For you to be certain of your claims, and those of others, that means that you know of ALL that surrounds those claims. Therefore you have unraveled the Grand Unified Theory, the Theory Of Everything.

Even Albert Einstein knew that certainty can not be supported unless the Absolute is exposed as well, and that was a about hundred years ago.

But, please do present the TOE to us soon. We just can't wait.

You should examine all forms of conclusions drawn from examination of data, and comb them for assumption. Unfortunately, assumption is found in physics more than anywhere else that I know of. Assumption and fact are still being defined as one in the same. It makes me shiver when I think about how human certainty is still not yet recognized for what it is, a flawed mental function. All conclusions made by us should only be stamped with probability ratings of correctness. If not, and one places certainty within the mind, then this certainty becomes a solid barrier that will prevent all further chances of change and progress.

What did you think of my explanation of the TWO SLIT experiment.

Posted by: Pupamancur Aug 1 2006, 04:39 PM
QUOTE (The_Right_Stuff @ Aug 1 2006, 04:00 PM)
For you to be certain of your claims, and those of others, that means that you know of ALL that surrounds those claims.  Therefore you have unraveled the Grand Unified Theory, the Theory Of Everything.



No, I simply debunked a gross error in what you are claiming <shrug>

Posted by: The_Right_Stuff Aug 1 2006, 06:22 PM
QUOTE (Pupamancur @ Aug 1 2006, 04:39 PM)
No, I simply debunked a gross error in what you are claiming <shrug>

Well thanks again for debunking the gross error.

If you had debunked what I am claiming, well that's one thing, but to debunk the " gross error " in what I am claiming, is truly appreciated.

Here are some equations taken from Wikipedia, along with my noting of the time Period equation.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_relativistic_equations

user posted image

seems to look the same as mine.
User posted image

What is the " Gross Error ??

Posted by: Pupamancur Aug 1 2006, 06:33 PM
QUOTE (The_Right_Stuff @ Aug 1 2006, 06:22 PM)
Well thanks again for debunking the gross error.

If you had debunked what I am claiming, well that's one thing, but to debunk the " gross error  " in what I am claiming, is truly appreciated.

Here are some equations taken from Wikipedia, along with my noting of the time Period equation.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_relativistic_equations

user posted image

seems to look the same as mine.
User posted image

What is the " Gross Error  ??

You have them backwards wrt wiki. Look at what they say about reference frames.
You seem unable to even quote some formulas correctly. Look the Time DILATION entry. (there is no such thing as time CONTRACTION, as you claim)
Enroll in school .

Posted by: The_Right_Stuff Aug 1 2006, 08:26 PM
What the heck are you talking about ?

The ticking of time on a moving body, is slower than that of a stationary body.

Hence, the time taken for the decay of a particle to take place, is observed to be significantly longer, if the the particle is in motion close to the speed of light.

Therefore, the length of time which has passed from the particles point of view, is significantly less than the length of time that is noted from the stationary observers point of view.

For a moving body, there is a contraction in the length of the time Period experienced by such a moving body, when compared to the length of the time Period experienced by the stationary observer.

Hence the Time Period Contraction Equation

If my way of looking at these situations, is not in the same " CONFORMAL " manner, you have to understand that I came up with these equations
User posted image
and
user posted image
before having known anything about physics at all. Therefore, my language of thought and expression is not the the same as those who belong to the CONFORMAL CLUB.

Einstein examined light. I examined Motion. Unlike Albert Einstein, I had no assistance of knowing of the equations written by Lorentz. So personally , I think its a darn good achievement for me to come up with these equations while using nothing but my own independent thought while lying down, thinking of how motion could be possible.

Posted by: Pupamancur Aug 1 2006, 09:01 PM
QUOTE (The_Right_Stuff @ Aug 1 2006, 08:26 PM)
What the heck are you talking about ?

The ticking of time on a moving body, is slower than that of a stationary body.


Nope, stop right here.
Time passes always at a rate of 1 sec per sec in the proper system (this is the proper time). As observed from ANOTHER system, in motion wrt the first system time appears ALWAYS dilated.
The muons reach the Earth because their lifespan appears dilated from the Earth reference frame as compared to the proper (muon) reference frame. Always DILATION, never contraction.

Enroll in a class.You need to take classes, then come back.

Posted by: The_Right_Stuff Aug 1 2006, 11:41 PM
QUOTE (Pupamancur @ Aug 1 2006, 09:01 PM)
Enroll in a class.You need to take classes, then come back.

Classes given, simply supply what is already known of. If one wished to repeat the mistakes of others, then this is a great suggestion.

But as far as I recall, this post is listed under " Relativity, Quantum Mechanics, and New Theories .

If you have read my web site, I state that all mass objects are constantly in motion at a " C " momentum in Time-Space, and that only their direction of travel in Time-Space may be altered.

If at rest in Space, they are in motion across Time.
If at rest in Time, they are in motion across Space.
If in motion through both Time And Space, then each form of motion is therefore at a lesser amount than the maximum possible.

I have also stated that the momentum of a Photon is not only a " C " momentum across Space, but it also has the same " C " momentum across Time. The total momentum of a Photon is therefore " C " times the square of two.

I have also stated that relativity is only a function which allows variables (0 -> Infinity) to exist within a finite. In other words, variable speeds only exist relativistically, and not in the absolute sense. Within Time-Space, particles are constantly on the go. All we can do is change their direction of travel within that Time-Space.




These are new theories.


Have you banned the new ?


Do you not allow a new, unless it contains the old ?

Posted by: Pupamancur Aug 1 2006, 11:54 PM
QUOTE (The_Right_Stuff @ Aug 1 2006, 11:41 PM)
Classes given, simply supply what is already known of. If one wished to repeat the mistakes of others, then this is a great suggestion.

But as far as I recall, this post is listed under " Relativity, Quantum Mechanics, and New Theories .

If you have read my web site, I state that all mass objects are constantly in motion at a " C " momentum in Time-Space, and that only their direction of travel in Time-Space may be altered.

If at rest in Space, they are in motion across Time.
If at rest in Time, they are in motion across Space.
If in motion through both Time And Space, then each form of motion is therefore at a lesser amount than the maximum possible.

I have also stated that the momentum of a Photon is not only a " C " momentum across Space, but it also has the same " C " momentum across Time. The total momentum of a Photon is therefore " C " times the square of two.

I have also stated that relativity is only a function which allows variables (0 -> Infinity) to exist within a finite. In other words, variable speeds only exist relativistically, and not in the absolute sense. Within Time-Space, particles are constantly on the go. All we can do is change their direction of travel within that Time-Space.




These are new theories.


Have you banned the new ?


Do you not allow a new, unless it contains the old ?

"New" is ok if it valid. It is not ok if it contains gross errors and misunderstandings, like yours.
Learn the "Old" before you can generate a valid "New". So, go to school.

Posted by: Confused2 Aug 3 2006, 03:21 PM
Hi The_Right_Stuff,

And into the realms of Crackpottery we go. No problem as long as we know where we are.

http://www.outersecrets.com/real/2_motion.htm Sorry, I can't see anything worth salvaging on this page ..

http://www.outersecrets.com/real/3_spin.htm This actually looks a quite inspired to me. Despite comments made by others it's generating equations of roughly the right form .. which is a good start.

You don't seem to understand momentum.

"Subtract the view of one dimension and you have the Birth of all Variables"

I don't think that will mean anything to anyone except perhaps yourself.

http://www.outersecrets.com/real/4_4d_2.htm IMHO this has lost touch completely and I go no further.

After a while maybe post a question .. what is the SAGNAC effect?

Best I can do as one crackpot to another.

Best wishes,

-C2.

Posted by: Pupamancur Aug 3 2006, 03:30 PM
QUOTE (Confused2 @ Aug 3 2006, 03:21 PM)


After a while maybe post a question .. what is the SAGNAC effect?

Best I can do as one crackpot to another.

Best wishes,

-C2.

Here is a good explanation:

http://www.mathpages.com/rr/s2-07/2-07.htm

Posted by: The_Right_Stuff Aug 3 2006, 06:06 PM
QUOTE (Confused2 @ Aug 3 2006, 03:21 PM)
(*1)  And into the realms of Crackpottery we go. No problem as long as we know where we are.

(*2)  http://www.outersecrets.com/real/2_motion.htm   Sorry, I can't see anything worth salvaging on this page ..

(*3)  http://www.outersecrets.com/real/3_spin.htm  This actually looks a quite  inspired to me. Despite comments made by others it's generating equations of roughly the right form .. which is a good start.

(*4)  You don't seem to understand momentum.

"Subtract the view of one dimension and you have the Birth of all Variables"

(*5)  I don't think that will mean anything to anyone except perhaps yourself.

(*6)  http://www.outersecrets.com/real/4_4d_2.htm IMHO this has lost touch completely and I go no further.


HELLO CONFUSED2.


(*1) CRACKPOTTERY is a bit of a problem. If one person has a breakthrough that redefines everything, then this person may never ever ever be known of. Once buried by the instant classification system, and buried under the title " crackpot ", that's it, the dead end has come for that person. It will then require several generations to pass before it becomes obvious that theories which to not lead to the result of completeness, are theories in error.

(*2) The kind of thinking mentioned on this page, involves singular thinking. Singular thinking is not easy to do while being present in a relativistic reality. Singularities become lost in the face of relativistic exploration.

(*4) Thanks ! But it is not the staring point. The starting point begins on http://www.outersecrets.com/real/2_motion.htm, and that is what lead to what is on http://www.outersecrets.com/real/3_spin.htm.

(*5) Momentum, as you see it, deals only with movement through space. Momentum also can be present throughout Time. The point I am making, is that momentum is fixed, it is a constant. With this brought to view, what you call changing of Momentum, I call changing the direction of travel in Time-Space, but at the same time retaining a fixed Momentum. Objections to such original thinking, is to be expected, since originality is presently banned by the majority, and has become classified as " Crackpottery ".

That is why I found one of Albert Einstein's teacher somewhat amusing. To him, he thought that Albert was possibly mentally handicapped, and definitely had no academic future. A crackpot lies outside of the norm. So does a Genius. The normal person lies within the norm and therefore can not extend out of it. They therefore can not tell the difference between anything that lies outside of the norm.

A genius, from the norms point of view, is just another norm, but a norm with a twist. If a norm knows X amount of Y kind of knowledge, and if another norm knows of X amount Z kind of knowledge, then another norm who knows of both X and Z and the full X extent of both, is considered to be a genius, when in fact he or she is just a bigger norm.

(*6) Thanks again. You say " lost touch completely ". That is the goal. If other theories do not lead to completeness..... Then you had better lose touch with them at least for a while such that independent thought is permitted.


My web site is trying to get the point across that one has to find the constants that when related produce the variables. In the Case of the SAGNAC Effect , we see before us logic at work, but in my train example, prior to the train reaching the loop, or once the train leaves the loop, Logic goes out the window.

Physics is presently in the mode of promoting mystery. The mystery is to be accepted as a barrier that can not be broken. Quantum physics is bizarre, period. How dare mankind expose its true foundation !

Einstein said that Quantum mechanics is incomplete. I say Relativity is also incomplete. Completeness of either of them will merge the two together as a NEW singular theory.

THANKS CONFUSED2 for your response. On other Forums, or should I say AGAINSTums, I was nailed to the wall and executed for not being a robotic conformist.

Posted by: Pupamancur Aug 3 2006, 06:24 PM
QUOTE
On other Forums, or should I say AGAINSTums, I was nailed to the wall and executed for not being a robotic conformist.




...most likely for pushing incorrect ideas , like "time contraction" and for not understanding the basics of the Sagnac experimemt.
If you want to criticise the mainstream physics , you need to understand it first.

Posted by: Zephir Aug 3 2006, 06:50 PM
QUOTE (Pupamancur @ Aug 3 2006, 09:24 PM)
If you want to criticize the mainstream physics , you need to understand it first.

The alternative physic is no exception. Especially, when it uses a classical physic.... wink.gif

Posted by: The_Right_Stuff Aug 3 2006, 07:28 PM
I think independent thinking is that which is rejected.

For example, I am mostly self educated and have spent most of my life working in the field of electronics. Despite being self educated, I have put a few Engineers out of work. My uniqueness has been appreciated. The engineers, on the other hand, were taught all sorts of blocks of knowledge. And so they were very good at using these blocks of knowledge to construct impressive complex circuity.

I did not have these blocks of knowledge, and so I made my own.

Unfortunately, creative thinking can produce highly efficient circuitry. Highly efficient circuitry produces a circuit with a minimal number of components.

An engineer produces a huge complex looking circuit containing 12 Integrated Circuit (I.C.'s) and the additional supporting resistors, capacitors, etc.. The efficient circuit on the other hand, the circuit which does the same job, only contains 2 I.C.'s and a few supporting components. The complex looking circuit impresses the viewers. The highly efficient circuit looks like nothing at all.

I once designed a Pay TV decoder and presented it to the cable industry. They were impressed. They then rejected it. The efficiency was so good, that each component had more than one function, and the circuit itself constantly fed information back to itself, which lead to the circuit itself also having more than one function.

The end result was a circuit that would cost less than 5% of the cost of the circuits presently being used at that time. However, if the public got the news of such a design, then copying it was just going to be too darn easy. That was why they rejected it. It was too good.

And so, just because someones new theory might sound simple, small, and useless, it does not mean that it is not a theory that is highly efficient in function, and that a great degree of effort had gone into creating such a simple but efficient theory.

To the simple minded viewer, it appears as though far more work had gone into the engineers complex and huge circuit, than that of the simple but highly efficient two I.C. circuit, when in fact, this is the exact opposite of the truth. Also, one may create a common set of equations, but it is based on an entirely different theory. Therefore if one skips through my web site and see commonalities, this does not mean that anything common at all surrounds these commonalities. To think so, brings assumption in the picture. To think so, may bring uncalled for rejection.

Posted by: Zephir Aug 3 2006, 07:35 PM
QUOTE (The_Right_Stuff @ Aug 3 2006, 10:28 PM)
Unfortunately, creative thinking can produce highly efficient circuitry.  Highly efficient circuitry produces a circuit with a minimal number of components.

Well, the http://superstruny.aspweb.cz/?s=main%20introducing%20point uses just two equations for equations for the explanation of the whole observable world: the wave equation and the mass-energy equivalence principle.

For some people just the two equations aren't enough, obviously... wink.gif The world is soo difficult, after all...

Posted by: Pupamancur Aug 3 2006, 07:38 PM
QUOTE (The_Right_Stuff @ Aug 3 2006, 07:28 PM)
I think independent thinking is that which is rejected.



What is rejected are your mistakes.Like the claim of "time contraction"

Posted by: Pupamancur Aug 3 2006, 07:42 PM
QUOTE (Zephir @ Aug 3 2006, 07:35 PM)
Well, the http://superstruny.aspweb.cz/?s=main%20introducing%20point  uses just two equations for equations for the explanation of the whole observable world: the wave equation and the mass-energy equivalence principle.

For some people just the two equations aren't enough, obviously... wink.gif The world is soo difficult, after all...

You never tire of pushing "AWT". Despite all the pushing, no one is buying.
The reason is that , while you claim that "AWT" can explain everything under the sun, in reality it has no predictive power whatsoever. Do you know why? Compare it with established theories like SR/GR and you will find out.

Posted by: The_Right_Stuff Aug 3 2006, 07:42 PM
Well if it isn't the LAST WORD man, at work again.

Posted by: Zephir Aug 3 2006, 07:53 PM
QUOTE (Pupamancur @ Aug 3 2006, 10:42 PM)
The reason is that , while you claim that "AWT" can explain everything under the sun, in reality it has no predictive power whatsoever.

Even the super-string theory predictive power isn't quite high. After all, Mendeleev have predicted with a relative hight degree of precision the future properties of number of unknown chemical elements, just using a single thermodynamic extra/interpolations - i.e without any knowledge about the real atom structure (the atom nuclei existence was revealed after a few years later, not to say about the orbitals existence, etc..)! Does it means, the simple thermodynamic has so strong predictive power? Of course not, it's just near sight extrapolation, but effective at this particular situation.

The current quantum mechanic despite of it's predictive power isn't able to predict all the properties of atom/molecular structures ab initio - even in the simple case. But the problem isn't theoretical, but rather practical, due to its large computational requirements. The same problem, just in much more pronounced ways appear at the case of modern theories. With the honor exception of Heim's theory, which is solely ingenious from formal point of view, but I believe it will be overcomed by the http://superstruny.aspweb.cz/?s=main%20introducing%20point simplicity as well in the near future.

At the first glance, the http://superstruny.aspweb.cz/?s=main%20introducing%20point predicts, for example:

1. The Universe can be described by substitution of mass density of vibrating string by the energy density by E=mc2
2. The gravity field is manifestation of Aether density, the gravity force is tendency of Aether to level the energy density via diffusion of Aether
3. The Aether theory derives the constant speed of light and Lorentz transforms of SR
4. The vacuum has a 6D spongy structure composed from 3D bubbles recursively
5. The Universe is highly, if not infinitesimally recursive
6. The Universe is formed by black hole interior, filled by such spongy matter
7. The Universe collapses, instead of expansion with increasing speed like common gravity bounded objects without need of dark energy postulate
8. The supermassive black holes inside of gallaxies are the rest of quasars and these quasars were created by collisions of newly created vacuum mass during inflation
9. The observable mass was created from secondary condensation of energy radiated from quasars by adiabatic cooling
10. The dark matter was formed from non-condensed portions of such energy as the zone of more dense Aether surrounding the quasars and secondarily all the observable mass
11. The dark matter gradient is responsible for so called Pioneer spacecraft anomaly and the Galaxy shape anomaly
12. The particles are created by dense aggregates of Aether foam by phase transition process
13. The spin of particles is formed by mutual composition of motion on the phase interface inside of Aether foam
14. The charge of particle is the result of helicity of such motion.
15. The photon is the result of interference of light wave with Planck size wave pockets, forming our vacuum.
16. The wave function is the Aether mass/energy density profile formed by the internal motion inside the particle, forming an wave pocket confined by the dense vacuum like by gravitational lens (blob).
17. The "hidden variable" responsible for quantum entanglement is the phase shift of wave forming particle with respect of the center of gravity of such blob.

Posted by: Pupamancur Aug 3 2006, 08:02 PM
QUOTE (Zephir @ Aug 3 2006, 07:53 PM)
Even the superstring theory predictive power isn't quite high. After all, Mendeleyev have predicted with a relative hight degree of precision the future properties of number of unknown chemical elements, just using a extra/interpolation - i.e without any knowledge about the real atom structure (the atom nuclei existence was revealed after a few years later, not to say about the orbitals existence, etc..)!

Even the current quantum mechanic isn't able to predict all the properties of atom structures, event in the simple case. But the problem isn't theoretical, but rather practical, due to its large computational requirements.


We aren't talking superstring theory, we are talking your "fabulation with pictures"
Listing all the things that you think your theory predicts means nothing. Do you know why your "theory" has ZERO predictive power?

Posted by: Zephir Aug 3 2006, 08:19 PM
QUOTE (Pupamancur @ Aug 3 2006, 11:02 PM)
Do you know why your "theory" has ZERO predictive power?

Well, I've no idea... smile.gif Try to surprise me.. smile.gif

Posted by: rpenner Aug 3 2006, 08:29 PM
QUOTE (Zephir @ Aug 3 2006, 07:53 PM)
3. The Aether theory derives the constant speed of light and Lorentz transforms of SR

I'm pretty sure it doesn't. Your multi- (infinite??) dimensional universe appears to be Euclidean, so how can you derive the (quantitative) Lorentz transforms. I followed http://superstruny.aspweb.cz/?s=main%20introducing%20point and while you mention quantum mechanics (which can be written axiomatically), I don't see the axioms of SR.

QUOTE (Aether Wave Theory)
The observable Universe is composed from the waves of massive environment, the evolution of which can be computed recursively using wave equation for string as modular form, where the mass density of string corresponds the total energy density of the wave motion (i.e. the sum of the potential and kinetic energy of this motion). The one-step solution of such modular form leads to the Schrodinger equation known from quantum mechanic.

I believe, from this relation is possible to derive all the other insights...

The gravity is formed by the Casimir force between gravitons.....


For example, how do you get a Casmir force, when the Casmir force depends on QED, and thus SR for it's calculation?

For example, how do you derive that some things are 6- or 12-dimensional?

Far from being a "semi-qualitative TOE theory" these appear to be total non-sequiters. What is "massive environment" -- is it literally "massive" or did you mean to say something else. In the phrase "wave equation for string as modular form" you have two problems: ( a ) it's not obvious at all you know what a "modular form" is as used in mathmatics. Your paper is devoid of mathematics. and ( b ) what is it? What is this wave equation. There are an infinite number of wave equations, and numerous parameterizations of each. What formulas are you using for potential energy? What formulas are you using for kinetic energy? Since Einstein's formula for kinetic energy is only justified as a result of SR, and Newton offers NO Justification for 1/2 m v^2 other than "it works," does your theory rest on the axioms of SR?

QUOTE (Zephir @ Aug 3 2006, 07:53 PM)
17. The "hidden variable" responsible for quantum entanglement is the phase shift of wave forming particle with respect of the center of gravity of such blob.

So if an experiment proved that quantum entanglement could not be mathematically reconciled with a hidden variable, then is AWT dead?

It's interesting to know that Einstein calculated quantum entanglement's "spooky action at a distance" from first principles to try and show that Quantum Mechanics had to be wrong because it's counter-intuitive.

It's a consequence of the math of the universe not closely matching the math of intuitive set theory. A new intuition is needed: http://arxiv.org/abs/quant-ph/0510032

Posted by: Zephir Aug 3 2006, 08:34 PM
QUOTE (rpenner @ Aug 3 2006, 11:29 PM)
I'm pretty sure it doesn't. Your multi- (infinite??) dimensional universe appears to be Euclidean, so how can you derive the (quantitative) Lorentz transforms.

Such axioms were derived by Lorentz from Maxwell's Aether Theory of Light in 1895 (which was used the transversal wave spreading model). The derivation of Lorentz transform using wave spreading model you can found for example http://home.att.net/~SolidUniverse/Relativity/Relativity.html. My web site contains the geometrical interpretation of Lorentz transform and http://superstruny.aspweb.cz/images/fyzika/relativity/doppler.htm in applets and animations.

http://superstruny.aspweb.cz/images/fyzika/lorentz.gif

QUOTE (rpenner @ Aug 3 2006, 11:29 PM)
For example, how do you get a Casimir force, when the Casimir force depends on QED, and thus SR for it's calculation?

The Casimir force mechanism is classical physic mechanism, no quantum mechanic is required for it's explanation. It appears a quite often at wave water surface. It's a reason of sticking of free boats and other buoyant object at the wavy water surface due the energy waves shielding effect.

http://www.no-big-bang.com/process/sailingship.gif

QUOTE (rpenner @ Aug 3 2006, 11:29 PM)
  how do you derive that some things are 6- or 12-dimensional?

From Lagrangian mechanic of energy wave spreading follows, the most dense space-time (the maximal surface to volume ratio) is achieved by the 6D hypersphere and the most compact 6D space can be formed by the system of stacked 3D spheres (see the Kepler conjecture for hyperspheres). I've repeated such explanation here at least a ten times...

http://mathworld.wolfram.com/images/eps-gif/HypersphereArea_900.gif http://superstruny.aspweb.cz/images/fyzika/math/kepler1.gif

QUOTE (rpenner @ Aug 3 2006, 11:29 PM)
  So if an experiment proved that quantum entanglement could not be mathematically reconciled with a hidden variable, then is AWT dead??

You mean probably the experimental proof of Bell's inequalities by this experiment. But such experiment is just a proof of delocality principle of quantum mechanic, not the non-existence of hidden variables such of these. Please compare the latest The Fabric of the Cosmos book by Brian Greene (BTW a very carefully written, definitely the best popular book about physic today), where the interpretation of Bell's inequalities evidence is disputed in great details.
Like at the case of Michelson Morley experiment, the best experiments are meaningless, if we aren't able to interpret it correctly.

QUOTE (rpenner @ Aug 3 2006, 11:29 PM)
  What is "massive environment" -- is it literally "massive" or did you mean to say something else...

The massive world means "being able to exhibit the gravity and inertia".

QUOTE (rpenner @ Aug 3 2006, 11:29 PM)
  what is this wave equation....There are an infinite number of wave equations, and numerous parameterizations of each...

user posted image ... cool.gif I know about the Love, Rayleigh and many others equations, but the http://mathworld.wolfram.com/WaveEquation.html is unique and such of this an exactly defined concept of physical math. The potencial energy of wave is proportional the amplitude.

QUOTE (rpenner @ Aug 3 2006, 11:29 PM)
  ..Since Einstein's formula for kinetic energy is only justified as a result of SR...

The mass-energy equivalence principle E=mc^2 has nothing to do with SR and such of this is http://www.wbabin.net/ajay/sharma3.htm, it can be derived for example from photon momentum.

QUOTE (rpenner @ Aug 3 2006, 11:29 PM)
  ..It's interesting to know that Einstein calculated quantum entanglement's "spooky action at a distance" from first principles to try and show that Quantum Mechanics had to be wrong because it's counter-intuitive...

The http://superstruny.aspweb.cz/?s=main%20introducing%20point (AWT) explains the mechanism of such "action at a distance" in details, for example http://forum.physorg.com/index.php?showtopic=5490&st=0. Even two vibrating oily droplets in lava lamp are delocalized at distance by such mechanisms, because they're can share the spatial phase of undulations on theirs surface,

http://superstruny.aspweb.cz/images/fyzika/quantum/two_photons.gif http://superstruny.aspweb.cz/images/fyzika/quantum/LavaLamp.gif

QUOTE (rpenner @ Aug 3 2006, 11:29 PM)
  ...It's a consequence of the math of the universe not closely matching the math of intuitive set theory. A new intuition is needed..

It's quite true and this is exactly why the http://superstruny.aspweb.cz/?s=main%20introducing%20point is targeted to such intuition.

Posted by: Pupamancur Aug 3 2006, 08:54 PM
QUOTE (Pupancur)
We aren't talking superstring theory, we are talking your "fabulation with pictures"
Listing all the things that you think your theory predicts means nothing. Do you know why your "theory" has ZERO predictive power?



QUOTE (Zephir @ Aug 3 2006, 08:19 PM)
Well, I've no idea... smile.gif Try to surprise me.. smile.gif

you don't know? Too bad.
A professional physicist can tell in a few seconds after looking at your webpage. (or after reading your error riddled claims)

Posted by: Zephir Aug 3 2006, 09:38 PM
QUOTE (Pupamancur @ Aug 3 2006, 11:54 PM)
A professional physicist can tell in a few seconds after looking at your webpage...

Well, it's evident in few seconds, you're definitely not such physicist... laugh.gif I've never heard some direct answer from you, so I'm afraid, you're solely useless for relevant discussion with me.

The true is, the http://superstruny.aspweb.cz/?s=main%20introducing%20point could be invented by more than one hundred years before (and possibly even more, as all the basic assumptions of http://superstruny.aspweb.cz/?s=main%20introducing%20point were known a many years before the relativity theory). But the true is, nobody did even try to think by such way, so I suppose, some physical qualification is probably requred to develop such concept.

Despite of this, I consider the development of http://superstruny.aspweb.cz/?s=main%20introducing%20point as undeniable product of human knowledge evolution - if it wouldn't be invented by me, it would be developed by a few years later. The barrier in consideration of Aether model of Universe isn't technical, just psychological - it's a simply subject of deep scientific disbelief - no less, no more.

Everybody knows, the mass in proportional to energy, so what prohibits us to use such equivalence at the case of oscillating string? A truly nothing, just deeprooted & long standing disbelief in such concept.

Posted by: rpenner Aug 3 2006, 09:49 PM
QUOTE (Zephir @ Aug 3 2006, 08:34 PM)
Such axioms were derived by Lorentz from Maxwell's Aether Theory of Light in 1895 (which was used the transversal wave spreading model). The derivation of Lorentz transform using wave spreading model you can found for example http://home.att.net/~SolidUniverse/Relativity/Relativity.html. My web site contains the geometrical interpretation of Lorentz transform and http://superstruny.aspweb.cz/images/fyzika/relativity/doppler.htm in applets and animations.
This is not correct. This was a phenomenological model to try and explain the null result of the Michelson and Morley interferometer searches for the absolute motion of the earth in the lumeniferous ether. The first paper you cite is wrong at equation 2, as it confuses c with 1/c, so has not been peer reviewed. It's also not consistent with experiment, as there is no Lorentz contraction in water waves. Nor does the refractive index of a material have an effect of the Lorentz effect. Also the model of absolute motion means there must be direction and motion of a particle where lengths get longer as you move closer to absolute zero of movement. This was not observed. It's only when (as Einstein did) that you throw out absolute movement do the Lorentz transformations have predictive power.
QUOTE (Zephir @ Aug 3 2006, 08:34 PM)
The Casimir force mechanism is classical physic mechanism, no quantum mechanic is required for it's explanation. It appears a quite often at wave water surface. It's a reason of sticking of free boats and other buoyant object at the wavy water surface due the energy waves shielding effect.
The Casimir force mechanism requires a quantum description of the vacuum as a ground state of the electromagnetic field, in short: quantum electrodynamics, which rests upon SR. The 19th century ether model requires absolute motion, and predicts the Casimir effect will depend on absolute motion, thus is incompatible with experiment. The "sticking of free boats" is not a quantum effect and has nothing to do with the Casimir force which is about the ground state of a cavity.

QUOTE (Zephir @ Aug 3 2006, 08:34 PM)
From Lagrangian mechanic of energy wave spreading follows, the most dense space-time (the maximal surface to volume ratio) is achieved by the 6D hypersphere and the most compact 6D space can be formed by the system of stacked 3D spheres (see the Kepler conjecture for hyperspheres). I've repeated such explanation here at least a ten times...


The red line is not at D=6, but D=7.2569464048605767801...
http://mathworld.wolfram.com/Hypersphere.html
Kepler's conjecture was for spheres, not hyperspheres, and has lots of counter examples in high dimensions, especially at D=12 and D=24
http://mathworld.wolfram.com/KeplerConjecture.html
http://mathworld.wolfram.com/Coxeter-ToddLattice.html
http://mathworld.wolfram.com/KissingNumber.html
http://mathworld.wolfram.com/LeechLattice.html
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sphere_packing

Posted by: Pupamancur Aug 3 2006, 10:00 PM
QUOTE (Zephir @ Aug 3 2006, 09:38 PM)
Well, it's evident in few seconds, you're definitely not such physicist... laugh.gif I've never heard some direct answer from you, so I'm afraid, you're solely useless for relevant discussion with me.


Turns out you are wrong, on both accounts.
I have shown you numerous times that you cannot calculate, a "must have" ingredient of a real physicist.

Here is just one example of how weasy is to debunk your "theory. You write:

"3. The Aether theory derives the constant speed of light and Lorentz transforms of SR"

You cannot DERIVE the constant speed of light (correctled grammar: light speed constancy). You can only postulate it and verify that the theory built on top of such a postulate is self-consistent (like SR, for example). You can't bluff your way thru postings, people like Alphanumeric, rpenner and me would expose your bluffs. Every time. Mercilessly. Until you stop.




QUOTE

Despite of this, I consider the development of http://superstruny.aspweb.cz/?s=main%20introducing%20point as undeniable product of human knowledge evolution - if it wouldn't be invented by me, it would be developed by a few years later. The barrier in consideration of Aether model of Universe isn't technical, just psychological - it's a simply subject of deep scientific disbelief - no less, no more.


Turns out that the barrier is the presence of a battery of experiments that disprove it that you are totally ignorant of.


QUOTE

Everybody knows, the mass in proportional to energy,


Nope, another gross mistake. You got your formulas wrong. Again.

Posted by: Confused2 Aug 3 2006, 10:40 PM
Zephir,

Try to learn from these guys. Despite what you obviously think they are both trying to help you and everyone else in the forum.

Personally I cringe when I see "by the AWT relativity is explained" and many other things .. oh no it isn't explained.. it's just an unsubstantiated claim which gets nobody any further forwards.. a complete waste of time and space.

I know you are a really bright person .. but it gets lost in the nonsense so I have to treat you as a fool. These guys have the same view .. give yourself the same credit all of us are giving you.

-C2.

Posted by: rpenner Aug 3 2006, 10:59 PM
"Green [sic] has a deep appreciation for De Broglie-Bohm hidden variables, while by no means accepting that the theory is on the right track." -- D. N. Tarpley (Concord, CA United States) http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/1573920223?v=glance
http://puhep1.princeton.edu/~mcdonald/examples/QM/tittel_prl_81_3563_98.pdf

Since your wave equation is not a de Broglie "pilot wave," nor is it consistant with Bohmian mechanics, you don't have hidden variables. The above link is a modern experiment which is an experiment designed to be "loophole free" and quench the critics of earlier tests.

Your square operator implies your waves move at the speed of light. This operator only exists in texts which subscribe to SR.

Also your "proportionality" is not an equation. What's the constant of proptionality?

None of the pre-Einstein examples Ajay Sharma invents are derivations, just musings and speculations. Poincare's musings on photon effective mass don't apply to massive particles, or doppler shifts, as Einstein pointed out in the earlier 1905 paper. Sharma's famous paper: http://www.wbabin.net/ajay/sharma.htm is a demonstration of his understanding of physics.

Your lava lamp and animations about the superposition of wave packets carry no information about nonlocality or spooky action at a distance. Since they contribute nothing, a casual reader would assume you know nothing.

And as for intuition, I think the evidence shows your intuition rejects as unreal many of the effects of SR, and requires abolute space. It would be helpful if you would axiomize your theory, and define all your terms, so that people don't have to guess if you are keeping SR or throwing it away.

Posted by: Pupamancur Aug 4 2006, 12:00 AM
QUOTE (rpenner @ Aug 3 2006, 10:59 PM)


None of the pre-Einstein examples Ajay Sharma invents are derivations, just musings and speculations. Poincare's musings on photon effective mass don't apply to massive particles, or doppler shifts, as Einstein pointed out in the earlier 1905 paper. Sharma's famous paper: http://www.wbabin.net/ajay/sharma.htm is a demonstration of his understanding of physics.


You mean the one that Ajay Sharma has been peddling for years at all the imaginable conferences. The one that he tried to wallpaper over all the imaginable links in all the imaginable forums. The one in which he takes the momentum variation caused by recoil as mass variation.
Yes, a very interesting piece of junk.

Posted by: Zephir Aug 4 2006, 02:16 PM
QUOTE (Confused2 @ Aug 4 2006, 01:40 AM)
Try to learn from these guys. Despite what you obviously think they are both trying to help you and everyone else in the forum.

Nope, the problem is somewhere else. By the opinion of rpenner & Pupamancur the mass-energy equivalence is violated at the case of photon, which "doesn't has mass, just momentum". But such stance means, no just the E=mc^2 equation is violated at this case, but the p=mv equation (i.e. the momentum definition), too.

But by my opinion such assumptions are completely wrong. If we close some energetic photon in resonator box equipped by parallel mirrors, such box will obtain an additional mass, which is proportional to photon energy. Such experiment corresponds the charging of atoms by photon in lasers or in some other resonating environment. Such experiment can therefore serve as the proof, the mass-energy equivalence is quite universal principle and the photon energy isn't no exceptions. After all, I can see no problems in assumption, if some particle obtains a momentum, such momentum cannot be converted to the effective mass by the same way, like any other momentum. The energy/momentum without mass has simply no physical meaning and no math tricks with energy and momentum in SR textbooks cannot change nothing to such conclusion.

QUOTE (Confused2 @ Aug 4 2006, 01:40 AM)
..Personally I cringe when I see "by the AWT relativity is explained" and many other things .. oh no it isn't explained.. it's just an unsubstantiated claim which gets nobody any further forwards....

The bare facts are, the Aether concept was able to explain the relativity effects a long time before the relativity, not only the http://superstruny.aspweb.cz/?s=introducing%20point (AWT). Please consider, the Lorentz transforms were derived from Maxwell's equations, based on Maxwell's Aether Theory of light finished in 1867 - i.e. a more than thirty years before relativity WITHOUT any light speed invariance postulate. After all, no other theory is able to derive the relativity transforms without such postulate till now.

Posted by: Pupamancur Aug 4 2006, 02:37 PM
QUOTE (Zephir @ Aug 4 2006, 02:16 PM)
Nope, the problem is somewhere else. By the opinion of rpenner & Pupamancur the mass-energy equivalence is violated at the case of photon, which "doesn't has mass, just momentum". But such stance means, no just the E=mc^2 equation is violated at this case, but the p=mv equation (i.e. the momentum definition), too.

But by my opinion such assumptions are completely wrong. <rest snipped as opinions are irrelevant>


Tough, you need to read a book for a change, before you "emmit" opinions.

Get this :

1. The COMPLETE formula is E^2=(mc^2)^2+(pc)^2
2. For the photon we know that m=0 (confirmed experimentally) so the formula becomes:
E=pc

BTW, m_photon=0 comes from QED, so you will need to read both relativity and QED college books.


QUOTE

The energy/momentum without mass has simply no physical meaning and no math tricks with energy and momentum in SR textbooks cannot change nothing to such conclusion.


Nonsense, you have been told that the photons have momentum though they are massles. Re-read (2) above:

p=E/c




<rest of the standard self promotion of AWT is dismissed as irrelevant and untrue>

Posted by: Zephir Aug 4 2006, 03:01 PM
QUOTE (Pupamancur @ Aug 4 2006, 05:37 PM)
you need to read a book for a change, before you "emit" opinions

My stance is based on simple logic, but it's testable at this point.

So are you really suppose, if we introduce some photon in closed resonator, the total mass of resonator doesn't change, because the photon "has just only the momentum" and the formula m=p/c isn't applicable furthermore?

Just make sure.... wink.gif

The argument "something is in (text)book" isn't relevant argument for me, because at the beginning of the last century, the Aether hypothesis was part of (text)books too.

Posted by: Pupamancur Aug 4 2006, 03:41 PM
QUOTE (Zephir @ Aug 4 2006, 03:01 PM)
My stance is based on simple logic, but it's testable at this point.

So are you really suppose, if we introduce some photon in closed resonator, the total mass of resonator doesn't change, because the photon "has just only the momentum"


You are simply showing how naive is your interpretation of relativity.
You need to study the relativity conservation laws, they are not the same as the ones in Newtonian mechanics.

QUOTE
and the formula m=p/c isn't applicable furthermore?


Not for the photon, how many times do you need to be told?



QUOTE

The argument "something is in (text)book" isn't relevant argument for me, because at the beginning of the last century, the Aether hypothesis was part of (text)books too.


The difference is the experimental proof. Remember?

Posted by: Zephir Aug 4 2006, 03:46 PM
QUOTE (Pupamancur @ Aug 4 2006, 06:41 PM)
If we introduce some photon in closed resonator, the total mass of resonator doesn't change ... You are simply showing how naive is your interpretation of relativity.

Does it means, the correct answer is:

OH NO, OF COURSE NOT!

??? cool.gif

QUOTE (Pupamancur @ Aug 4 2006, 06:41 PM)
..The difference is the experimental proof. Remember?...

Yep...

What http://www.turpion.org/php/paper.phtml?journal_id=qe&paper_id=343 are you supposing?

Posted by: The_Right_Stuff Aug 4 2006, 04:26 PM
High levels of gravitation will create noticeable bending of light.

If Photons have no mass, then what is it that gravity is having an effect upon ?


My second question, which is a bit off the topic, but how can light bounce off a mirror that is at a 90% angle relative to the path of the photons ?

In such cases, it is a complete reversal of direction.

Although, according to my theories, the Photons actually reflect at a 45% angle in Time-Space. In fact, my theory says that that is the maximum angle achievable.

user posted image

Anyone, please toss in some points of view.

Posted by: Zephir Aug 4 2006, 05:39 PM
QUOTE (The_Right_Stuff @ Aug 4 2006, 07:26 PM)
Although, according to my theories, the Photons actually reflect at a 45% angle in Time-Space.

I can say as well, by my theory the photons reflect at a 43,14608 ° angle in space-time.. tongue.gif

The stance isn't important, just proofs and proofs of proofs...

QUOTE (The_Right_Stuff @ Aug 4 2006, 07:26 PM)
If Photons have no mass, then what is it that gravity is having an effect upon?

The sound wave has no mass and it's bended by the dense air as well. The bending phenomena cannot serve as the proof of mass of photon or even the particle nature of photon.

Posted by: rpenner Aug 4 2006, 05:45 PM
QUOTE (The_Right_Stuff @ Aug 4 2006, 04:26 PM)
High levels of gravitation will create noticeable bending of light.
If Photons have no mass, then what is it that gravity is having an effect upon ?

According to GR (Einstein, 1915), the null geodesics of space-time. That's why, not only does the path light takes bend, by an amount different than Newtonian physics would predict, but the time it takes light to follow the path increases (Shapiro delay) which is the opposite effect from what Newtonian mechanics predicts.
QUOTE (The_Right_Stuff @ Aug 4 2006, 04:26 PM)
My second question, which is a bit off the topic, but how can light bounce off a mirror that is at a 90% angle relative to the path of the photons ?

Angles are measured in the space of an inertial coordinate system, not space-time. While it's true that a mirror will flip the sign of one of the (abstract) spacial components of the photon's 4-momentum (the corner reflector being one superb application of this, where 3 mutually perpendicular mirrors conspire to flip the signs of all three spacial components of the photon's 4-momentum), what is meant by the term angle is not Lorentz-invariant.

Likewise, path almost always means path in 3-dimensions, the projection of the 4-dimensional world-line. If they meant path in 4-dimensions, then they would have almost certainly said world line.

Knowing the context is easy when you get a lot of hands-on experience with physics (classroom, lab work, journals).

In the proper 3-dimension context, the angle that the incoming light makes with the normal vector of the mirror, is equal but opposite in sign to the outgoing ray. You should be able to demonstrate this with a flat mirror, a semi-circle protractor and a ray-casting light source, like a laser pointer with an attachment to spread the dot into a line.

The Sagnac effect does not depend on SR or mirrors, however. The Sagnac effect completely destroys the "ballistic" theory of photons. It is equally compatible with a 19th century naive ether theory, where the speed of light is only absolute with respect to the unmoving ether, and SR where the speed of light is c for any inertial observer. It can be done with mirrors OR fiber optics, which is preferred because you can put 100 km of fiber optics in a lab. However since Euclidean notions pervade intuition, it's easy to get intellectually lazy and accidentally come to the (erroneous) conclusion that Sagnac is not compatible with SR.

http://www.mathpages.com/rr/s2-07/2-07.htm (from an earlier post, not mine.)

Posted by: Pupamancur Aug 4 2006, 06:05 PM
QUOTE (Zephir @ Aug 4 2006, 03:46 PM)
Does it means, the correct answer is:

OH NO, OF COURSE NOT!

??? cool.gif


Yep...

What http://www.turpion.org/php/paper.phtml?journal_id=qe&paper_id=343 are you supposing?

This one (you received it before):

A limit on the photon mass can be obtained through satellite
measurements of planetary magnetic fields. The Charge Composition
Explorer spacecraft was used to derive a limit of 6x10^-16 eV with high
certainty. This was slightly improved in 1998 by Roderic Lakes in a
laborartory experiment which looked for anomalous forces on a Cavendish
balance. The new limit is 6x10^-17 eV. See here:

http://pdg.lbl.gov/2005/tables/gxxx.pdf

Studies of galactic magnetic fields suggest a much better limit of less
than 3x10^-27 eV but there is some doubt about the validity of this
method.
References:

[1]E. Fischbach et al., Physical Review Letters, 73,
514-517 25 July 1994.


[2] http://pdg.lbl.gov/2005/tables/gxxx.pdf


If one uses your formula, plug in lambda=500nm and h=4.135*10^-15 eV*s
and you will get a photon mass of about 3eV, meaning that you are off by about 16 orders of magnitude. Go to school, kiddo, stop posting nonsense.

Posted by: Zephir Aug 4 2006, 06:30 PM
QUOTE (Pupamancur @ Aug 4 2006, 09:05 PM)
Explorer spacecraft was used to derive a limit of 6x10^-16 eV with high certainty.

Sorry, but it you're not able to distinguish between the rest mass and the effective mass of photon, you've no place in relevant physical discussion.

You're trying to make impression, you're skeptical, nevertheless qualified person, but the arguments of yours have nothing with trivial logic.

Are you really believing, I don't know, the photon has a rest mass equal to zero?

Posted by: Pupamancur Aug 4 2006, 06:43 PM
QUOTE (Zephir @ Aug 4 2006, 06:30 PM)
Sorry, but it you're not able to distinguish between the rest mass and the effective mass of photon, you've no place in relevant physical discussion.


What is "effective" mass? Did you make up this term? it doesn't exist in physics.

'Rest" mass for the photon? Don't you know that photons cannot exist at rest?


QUOTE

You're trying to make impression, you're skeptical, nevertheless qualified person, but the arguments of yours have nothing with trivial logic.


Personal attacks don't count as scientific arguments. Are you getting frustrated because your bluffs are repeatedly exposed?

QUOTE

Are you really believing, I don't know, the photon has a rest mass equal to zero?




There is only one mass for the photon, the photon cannot exist at rest, so "rest mass" is an oxymoron.


Read (again) here:

A limit on the photon mass can be obtained through satellite
measurements of planetary magnetic fields. The Charge Composition
Explorer spacecraft was used to derive a limit of 6x10^-16 eV with high
certainty. This was slightly improved in 1998 by Roderic Lakes in a
laborartory experiment which looked for anomalous forces on a Cavendish
balance. The new limit is 6x10^-17 eV. See here:

http://pdg.lbl.gov/2005/tables/gxxx.pdf

Studies of galactic magnetic fields suggest a much better limit of less
than 3x10^-27 eV but there is some doubt about the validity of this
method.
References:

[1]E. Fischbach et al., Physical Review Letters, 73,
514-517 25 July 1994.


[2] http://pdg.lbl.gov/2005/tables/gxxx.pdf


If one uses your formula, plug in lambda=500nm and h=4.135*10^-15 eV*s
and you will get a photon mass of about 3eV, meaning that you are off by about 16 orders of magnitude. Go to school, kiddo, stop posting nonsense.

Posted by: Zephir Aug 4 2006, 06:45 PM
QUOTE (Pupamancur @ Aug 4 2006, 09:43 PM)
There is no difference for the photon, there is only one mass....

Can you prove it? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Effective_mass

QUOTE (Pupamancur @ Aug 4 2006, 09:43 PM)
..And it is zero.

http://www.turpion.org/php/paper.phtml?journal_id=qe&paper_id=343 that this mass is identical with the quantity found earlier and equal to the energy of a photon of critical frequency divided by the square of the velocity of light. This is one more piece of evidence of the universal nature of the photon mass in spatially confined wave fields

Sorry, I don't waste my time with ignorants.

Posted by: Pupamancur Aug 4 2006, 06:50 PM
QUOTE (Zephir @ Aug 4 2006, 06:45 PM)
Can you prove it? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Effective_mass




You got the wrong term from the wrong place. This is what happens when your education is what you pick up at random from wiki.


QUOTE

http://www.turpion.org/php/paper.phtml?journal_id=qe&paper_id=343 that this mass is identical with the quantity found earlier and equal to the energy of a photon of critical frequency divided by the square of the velocity of light. This is one more piece of evidence of the universal nature of the photon mass in spatially confined wave fields




This is what happens if you pick up your knowledge from crackpot authors (Sovied Quantum Elecronics 1995) .

QUOTE

Sorry, I don't waste my time with ignorants.


Are you getting frustrated that your bluffs keep getting exposed? No need to resort to personal attacks, you might get banned and all the fun about reading your posts will be gone.

Posted by: Zephir Aug 4 2006, 07:50 PM
QUOTE (Pupamancur @ Aug 4 2006, 09:50 PM)
You got the wrong term from the wrong place..

It's evident, you simply http://einstein.stanford.edu/content/relativity/q1647.html about relativity... wink.gif

If you take Einstein's equation E = m c^2 , where m = mass and c = speed of light, and the Planck equation for the energy of a photon, E = h f , where h = Planck's constant and f = the frequency of the photon, and combine them you get: m c^2 = hf or that m = h f/c^2. This equation says that the energy carried by a photon which has NO REST MASS, is equivalent to an amount of ordinary mass in grams, and that this 'effective mass' varies with the frequency of the photon. This effective mass can be acted upon by gravity which only cares how much mass a particle has; alternately, gravity only cares about how much mass or EQUIVALENT ENERGY a particle has given by E = m c^2. Also, if you prefer the particle description of physics over the wave description, you can approximate all photons as 'bullets' each carrying a mass of m = hf/c^2 and traveling at the speed of light

So are you really suppose, if we introduce some photon in closed resonator, the total mass of resonator doesn't change, because the photon "has just only the momentum" and the formula m=p/c isn't applicable furthermore?

Just make sure.... wink.gif

QUOTE (Pupamancur @ Aug 4 2006, 09:43 PM)
What is "effective" mass? Did you make up this term? it doesn't exist in physics.

Did you ever heard about http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Effective_mass, dynamic mass, invariant mass, thermal mass, working mass, inertial mass, relativistic mass, ADM mass...?

Posted by: Zephir Aug 4 2006, 08:08 PM
http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/relativ/blahol.html#c2:

The http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/relativ/releng.html#c1 attributes a mass to any energetic particle, and for the http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/mod2.html#c3
user posted image

The http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/gpot.html#ufm is then
User posted image
When the photon escapes the gravity field, it will have a different frequency

User posted image

Since it is reduced in frequency, this is called the http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/relativ/gratim.html#c1 or the Einstein red shift.
It's evident, the E=mc^2 remains fully valid even for photon, because it's possible to derive the most important equations of relativity just by using it. No scrambled babbling about momentum replacement for photon can be useful at this case...

Posted by: Pupamancur Aug 4 2006, 08:28 PM
QUOTE (Zephir @ Aug 4 2006, 07:50 PM)
It's evident, you simply http://einstein.stanford.edu/content/relativity/q1647.html about relativity... wink.gif

If you take Einstein's equation E = m c^2 , where m = mass and c = speed of light, and the Planck equation for the energy of a photon, E = h f , where h = Planck's constant and f = the frequency of the photon, and combine them you get: m c^2 = hf or that m = h f/c^2. This equation says that the energy carried by a photon which has NO REST MASS, is equivalent to an amount of ordinary mass in grams, and that this 'effective mass' varies with the frequency of the photon. This effective mass can be acted upon by gravity which only cares how much mass a particle has; alternately, gravity only cares about how much mass or EQUIVALENT ENERGY a particle has given by E = m c^2. Also, if you prefer the particle description of physics over the wave description, you can approximate all photons as 'bullets' each carrying a mass of m = hf/c^2 and traveling at the speed of light

So are you really suppose, if we introduce some photon in closed resonator, the total mass of resonator doesn't change, because the photon "has just only the momentum" and the formula m=p/c  isn't applicable furthermore?

Just make sure....  wink.gif


Did you ever heard about http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Effective_mass, dynamic mass, invariant mass, thermal mass, working mass, inertial mass, relativistic mass, ADM mass...?

You dig yourself deeper and deeper: if you subsitute lambda=500nm (approx wavelength of green light) and h_bar=4.136*10^-15eV*s, you get an equivalent mass for the photon, BY USING YOUR REASONING of 3eV.
The current experimental limit is LESS than 6*10^-17 eV.

Looks like you like getting embarrassed. Repeatedly.

Posted by: Zephir Aug 4 2006, 08:31 PM
QUOTE (rpenner @ Aug 4 2006, 12:49 AM)
...This is not correct. This was a phenomenological model to try and explain the null result of the Michelson and Morley interferometer searches for the absolute motion of the earth in the lumeniferous ether...

This is nonsence, as the Maxwell's Aether theory of light and the corresponding equations set was derived a long, long time before the Michelson and Morley interferometer searches for the absolute motion of the earth in the lumeniferous ether... wink.gif

QUOTE (Pupamancur @ Today at 11:28 PM)
...you get an equivalent mass for the photon, BY USING YOUR REASONING of 3eV. The current experimental limit is LESS than 6*10^-17 eV...

Like I've told repeatedly, I know quite well about the difference between the mass and the rest mass of photon. But it seem's, you're always ignoring the simple question - why?:

So are you really supposing, if we introduce some photon in closed resonator, the total mass of resonator doesn't change, because the photon "has just only the momentum " and the formula m=p/c isn't applicable furthermore?

Just make sure.... wink.gif

Posted by: Pupamancur Aug 4 2006, 08:40 PM
QUOTE (Zephir @ Aug 4 2006, 08:31 PM)
This is nonsence, as the Maxwell's Aether theory of light and the corresponding equations set was derived a long, long time before the Michelson and Morley interferometer searches for the absolute motion of the earth in the lumeniferous ether... wink.gif


Like I've told repeatedly, I know quite well about the difference between the mass and the rest mass of photon. But it seem's, you're always ignoring the simple question:

So are you really suppose, if we introduce some photon in closed resonator, the total mass of resonator doesn't change, because the photon "has just only the momentum " and the formula m=p/c isn't applicable furthermore?

Just make sure.... wink.gif

Your "calculations" are equally botched for both rest mass and any other mass. Notwithstanding that you didn't get the elementary fact that the photon has ONLY one mass (and it isn't rest mass because the photon does not exist at rest).

Posted by: Pupamancur Aug 4 2006, 08:43 PM
QUOTE (Zephir @ Aug 4 2006, 08:08 PM)
http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/relativ/blahol.html#c2:

The http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/relativ/releng.html#c1 attributes a mass to any energetic particle, and for the http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/mod2.html#c3
user posted image

The http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/gpot.html#ufm is then
User posted image
When the photon escapes the gravity field, it will have a different frequency

User posted image

Since it is reduced in frequency, this is called the http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/relativ/gratim.html#c1 or the Einstein red shift.
It's evident, the E=mc^2  remains fully valid even for photon, because it's possible to derive the most important equations of relativity just by using it. No scrambled babbling about momentum replacement for photon can be useful at this case...

Gee, you can even put a few formulas together. Too bad that they are not valid for the photon......Right off the bat, the first equation produces m=3eV. Experiment says that it is less than 6*10^-17 eV.
So you cobbled together the wrong formulas, kid. You can't learn physics of the internet websites, you need to get into college for that. Doesn't look like you'll make the admission exam any time soon.

Posted by: Zephir Aug 4 2006, 08:45 PM
QUOTE (Pupamancur @ Aug 4 2006, 11:40 PM)
..you didn't get the elementary fact that the photon has ONLY one mass..

Please consider, the E=mc^2 formula remains fully valid for photon, because it's possible to derive one of the most important formula of relativity: the gravitational red-shift just by using it!

So you can express the effective mass for photon m=E/c^2 = h f / c^2 and nothing wrong can be on such equation.

So are you really supposing, if we introduce some photon in closed resonator, the total mass of resonator doesn't change, because the photon "has just only the momentum " and the formula m=p/c isn't applicable furthermore?

Just make sure.... wink.gif

Posted by: Pupamancur Aug 4 2006, 08:47 PM
QUOTE (Zephir @ Aug 4 2006, 08:45 PM)
Please consider, the E=mc^2 formula remains fully valid for photon, because it's possible to derive one of the most important formula of relativity: the gravitational red-shift just by using it!

So you can express the effective mass for photon m=E/c^2 = h f / c^2  and nothing wrong can be on such equation.

No, you don't. You botched things again. You are getting m=3eV which is refuted by experiment. Can you follow elementary math?

Posted by: Zephir Aug 4 2006, 08:49 PM
QUOTE (Pupamancur @ Aug 4 2006, 11:47 PM)
No, you don't. You botched things again. See above.

I don't see anything... unsure.gif

So are you really supposing, if we introduce some photon in closed resonator, the total mass of resonator doesn't change, because the photon "has just only the momentum " and the formula m=p/c isn't applicable furthermore?

Just make sure.... wink.gif

It's a pitty, the expert like you isn't able to answer such stupid question... dry.gif Why I should believe You in other things?

Posted by: Pupamancur Aug 4 2006, 08:56 PM
QUOTE (Zephir @ Aug 4 2006, 08:49 PM)
I don't see anything...  unsure.gif 

So are you really supposing, if we introduce some photon in closed resonator, the total mass of resonator doesn't change, because the photon "has just only the momentum " and the formula m=p/c  isn't applicable furthermore?


Do the calculations and prove your point.
So far you flunked the most elementary test, you got m_photon=3eV, so you are off by 10^17.
Let's see what you "calculate" for your photon box.......You can't botch things by more than 10^17. Or maybe you manage? Calculate


QUOTE

It's a pitty, the expert like you isn't able to answer such stupid question... dry.gif


I agree with you, you asked a stupid question. Now calculate the answer.

Posted by: Zephir Aug 4 2006, 09:02 PM
QUOTE (Pupamancur @ Aug 4 2006, 11:56 PM)
Do the calculations and prove your point.

LOL.. laugh.gif Does it means, you're not able to answer such question without some layman's calculations? Yes - or not?

Posted by: Pupamancur Aug 4 2006, 09:04 PM
QUOTE (Zephir @ Aug 4 2006, 09:02 PM)
LOL..  laugh.gif Does it means, you're not able to answer such question without some layman's calculations? Yes - or not?

It means that I challenged you to calculate.
You botched the mass of 1 photon, let's see what you do about a boxfull of them.
Based on past history, at this point you "disappear"

Posted by: Zephir Aug 4 2006, 09:18 PM
QUOTE (Pupamancur @ Aug 5 2006, 12:04 AM)
You botched the mass of 1 photon, let's see what you do about a boxfull of them.

OK, I asked you by five-times with no answer, so I suppose, I've no answer by using of your theory, of you don't want to answer, because of direct contradiction with your assumptions.

I needn't your stance anymore.

You know, I cannot reach the willing acceptation of my arguments without obtrusion in free discussion - it's virtually impossible.

But I can put the question, which you'll never want to answer, instead... wink.gif

Posted by: Pupamancur Aug 4 2006, 09:27 PM
QUOTE (Zephir @ Aug 4 2006, 09:18 PM)
OK, I asked you by five-times with no answer, so I suppose, I've no answer by using of your theory, of you don't want to answer, because of contradiction with your assumptions.

I needn't your stance anymore.

You know, I cannot reach the acceptation of my arguments without obtrusion - but I can push the question, which you'll never want to answer... wink.gif

You botched the calculation of the mass of 1 photon (3eV according to you), there is no reason to assume that you can calculate anything more complicated.
I'll give you a hint though: you aren't adding mass to the box by "adding" photons, you are injecting energy. Another hint: forget about "photon mass" . It is zero.

Now try calculating. Don't come back before you get a result. Look up all the web pages, consult wiki, perhaps crack open some books, do whatever and try to figure out the answer.

Oh, BTW, your much touted "ATW" says nothing about the "mass of the photon". How come? I thought it predicted it to be non-zero. Once you perform the calculations, you might want to add them to your web page.

Posted by: Zephir Aug 4 2006, 09:33 PM
QUOTE (Pupamancur @ Aug 5 2006, 12:27 AM)
you aren't adding mass to the box by "adding" photons, you are injecting energy

Nope, like I've told you clearly, I'm pushing the single photon into resonator ... biggrin.gif Please, let me decide, what I'm doing by now.

But you can try some other nonsense, of course - if nothing else, it makes you quite entertaining...

Posted by: Pupamancur Aug 4 2006, 09:38 PM
QUOTE (Zephir @ Aug 4 2006, 09:33 PM)
Nope, like I've told you clearly, I'm pushing the single photon into resonator ... biggrin.gif

But you can try some other nonsense, of course - if nothing else, it makes you quite entertaining...

Even better, it will make your calculations even easier.
Whatever you do, remember the two hints I gave you.
Now, start calculating. You have all the necessary data.

Posted by: Zephir Aug 4 2006, 09:44 PM
QUOTE (Pupamancur @ Aug 5 2006, 12:38 AM)
Even better, it will make your calculations even easier....

Blah, blah...

It's not just your problem. Whole the modern physic is based on such trivial nonsenses, based on refusal of Aether concept before years.

You're simply believe it without understanding, so you're just believer, that's whole story. You're just visible demonstration of global stupidity.

Posted by: Pupamancur Aug 4 2006, 09:53 PM
QUOTE (Zephir @ Aug 4 2006, 09:44 PM)
Blah, blah...

It's not just your problem. Whole the modern physic is based on such trivial nonsenses, based on refusal of Aether concept before years.


Because the Aether was refuted about 100 years ago. Michelson-Morley, remember?
No one needs Aether, Zephyr or whatever other name you call it, dear "Zephir".


QUOTE

You're simply believe it without understanding, so you're just believer, that's whole story. You're just visible demonstration of global stupidity.


Your personal attacks show the frustration for having called your bluffs. Get calculating, kiddo. Let's see what other "discoveries" you make. With m_photon=3eV you got an F.

Posted by: Confused2 Aug 4 2006, 10:21 PM
Might or might not help..

Not disputed
E^2=(mc^2)^2+(pc)^2

Slightly disputed (photon rest mass cannot be confirmed as zero)
Photon energy E = pc

Photons in box
Zephir claims Aether photons now have mass
m = E/c^2 and Aether photons have no momentum.

My guess is that at some point Pupamancur will concede that E has an effective mass leaving Zephir to explain his momentumless photons.

Some elements of the Big-Endian v. Little-Endian war are emerging.

-C2.

Zephir .. just in case there's a cultural problem.. EGG .. do you eat it from the big end or the little end?

Posted by: Zephir Aug 4 2006, 10:36 PM
QUOTE (Confused2 @ Aug 5 2006, 01:21 AM)
Zephir claims Aether photons now have mass m = E/c^2....

...and Aether photons have no momentum ...

HOW and FROM which did you derived such conclusion, please?

Posted by: Confused2 Aug 4 2006, 10:46 PM
QUOTE (me)

Not disputed
E^2=(mc^2)^2+(pc)^2


My mistake .. please clarify your POV

-C2.

Posted by: Zephir Aug 4 2006, 10:54 PM
QUOTE (Confused2 @ Aug 5 2006, 01:46 AM)
My mistake .. please clarify your POV

.....??? m=E/c^2=hf/c^2=p/c ...

The rest mass of photon is (nearly) zero, but as such of this it can be never measured - just because the photon never stays at the rest having always some nonzero energy/momentum at the same time.

So that the energy of photon is always nonzero... Simple, trivial, logical, consistent. No exception(s) for photon and/or another particle(s) are required.

Posted by: Pupamancur Aug 4 2006, 11:05 PM
QUOTE (Confused2 @ Aug 4 2006, 10:21 PM)
Might or might not help..

Not disputed
E^2=(mc^2)^2+(pc)^2

Slightly disputed (photon rest mass cannot be confirmed as zero)
Photon energy  E = pc   

Photons in box
Zephir claims Aether photons now have mass
m = E/c^2 and  Aether photons have no momentum.

My guess is that at some point Pupamancur will concede that E has an effective mass  leaving Zephir to explain his momentumless photons.


No, no such thing. Photon mass is zero. Period. You'd better get used to this because it is the only way photons can travel at c. In addition, it is confirmed by experiment. In addition to this, it is one of the main tenents of QED.

Posted by: Pupamancur Aug 4 2006, 11:08 PM
QUOTE (Zephir @ Aug 4 2006, 10:54 PM)
.....???  m=E/c^2=hf/c^2

The rest mass of photon is (nearly) zero, but as such of this it can be never measured - 


Nonsense, this is how you get m=3eV which is refuted by experiment.
Repeating the same error doesn't make it scientific truth, it simply showcases ignorance.

Posted by: Confused2 Aug 4 2006, 11:11 PM
The post I was responding to has been substantially edited

[Please ignore what follows] .. more edits above .. I'm on MY side .. as you like!
-----------------------------
Sorry, clearly
E^2=(mc^2)^2+(pc)^2
does not apply in Aether theory.

My mistake was putting
E^2 = E^2 + (pc)^2
leaving (pc)^2 = 0

Within the conventional equation (its probably very ancient) you can't have your m (big) and p (big) at the same time .. it's just the way the equation works.

Please clarify your POV further
-C2.
--------------------

Posted by: Pupamancur Aug 4 2006, 11:17 PM
QUOTE (Confused2 @ Aug 4 2006, 11:11 PM)
The post I was responding to has been substantially edited

Please ignore what follows
-----------------------------
Sorry, clearly
E^2=(mc^2)^2+(pc)^2
does not apply in Aether theory.

My mistake was putting
E^2 = E^2 + (pc)^2
leaving (pc)^2 = 0

Within the conventional equation (its probably very ancient) you can't have your m (big) and p (big) at the same time .. it's just the way the equation works.

Please clarify your POV further
-C2.
--------------------

what are you asking and who are you asking?

Posted by: Zephir Aug 4 2006, 11:18 PM
QUOTE (Pupamancur @ Aug 5 2006, 02:05 AM)
No, no such thing. Photon mass is zero. Period.

Period = final proof without further objections.... smile.gif

Posted by: Confused2 Aug 5 2006, 12:08 AM
QUOTE (Pupamancur)

(Of a photon)
The current experimental limit is LESS than 6*10^-17 eV.

QUOTE (me)

(photon rest mass cannot be confirmed as zero)

QUOTE (Pupamancur)

Photon mass is zero. Period.


Perhaps Zephir is correct when he suggests 1 = 1 + 1

Which posts have been edited? Who can say.

-C2.

Posted by: Pupamancur Aug 5 2006, 03:35 AM
QUOTE (Confused2 @ Aug 5 2006, 12:08 AM)
QUOTE (Pupamancur)

(Of a photon)
The current experimental limit is LESS than 6*10^-17 eV.

QUOTE (me)

(photon rest mass cannot be confirmed as zero)

QUOTE (Pupamancur)

Photon mass is zero. Period.


Perhaps Zephir is correct when he suggests 1 = 1 + 1

Which posts have been edited? Who can say.

-C2.

This may clear all your confusions:

http://www.lassp.cornell.edu/~cew2/P209/part11.pdf

1. I already explained the experiments that lead asymptotically to m_photon=0
These experiments put a limit of 6*10^-17 eV on m_photon (you can never measure a zero due to equipment limitations)

2. I also explained why you cannot write m_photon*c^2=h_bar*f (because it would give a m_photon=3eV which contradics the experimental limits by 17 orders of magnitude)

Try reading the theory in the link provided, looks like most everybody else that read this thread understood why m_photon is zero.

Posted by: Zephir Aug 5 2006, 08:45 AM
QUOTE (Pupamancur @ Aug 5 2006, 06:35 AM)
I also explained why you cannot write m_photon*c^2=h_bar*f

It explains nothing. For example, it doesn't explains, why the photon captured in closed resonator increases the mass of resonator by the same way, like each massive particle. The distinguishing the energy and momentum of such particle is solely useless, because the both enables to express the effective mass:

m = E / c^2 = p / c

Even the one simple experiment is able to disprove whole nice theory.

QUOTE (Pupamancur @ Aug 5 2006, 06:35 AM)
it  would give a m_photon=3eV which contradicts the experimental limits by 17 orders of magnitude

The true is, nobody did see the massless photon, because in each experiment the photon behaves like normal massive particle, which transfers both the energy, both the momentum. The zero rest mass is just an approximation to the state of zero speed of photon, which is virtually unreachable for us.

This is a bare fact.

Posted by: Confused2 Aug 5 2006, 09:25 AM
Hi Pupamancur,

We are on the same side here!

The only way to move Zephir into the twentieth century is by debate backed up by experimental evidence. If science is to be reduced to a matter of faith then I think you will find Zephir has the advantage over both of us.

Many thanks for your input.

-C2.

Zephir .. hopefully Pupamancur will find time to discuss the point you make.

Posted by: Zephir Aug 5 2006, 09:47 AM
QUOTE (Confused2 @ Aug 5 2006, 12:25 PM)
..hopefully Pupamancur will find time to discuss the point you make..

Of course, the matter-of-fact & logical discussion is always welcomed.. cool.gif The experimental evidence must be followed by solid logic. For example, at the case, some the (Aether) theory predicts the constant speed of light (from Maxwell's equation), the experimental result (of Michelson-Morley experiment) which confirms such conclusion cannot be interpreted as the refusal of such theory.

The math & formal logic is as important for successful interpretation of reality, as the experimental evidence. So you cannot never say, the "zero mass photon was observed" as experimental evidence, because it's not definitely true.

Just the zero mass of photon was calculated by some formal math - no less, no more. The direct observation(s) only says, the photon has always some the energy and momentum. The rest is just an interpretation of such result by some formal logic, which may, or may not be fully correct and as such it can be disproved by another experiment(s) independently, of course.

I hope, the situation is totally clear by now for everybody.

Posted by: Pupamancur Aug 5 2006, 01:43 PM
QUOTE (Zephir @ Aug 5 2006, 08:45 AM)
It explains nothing. For example, it doesn't explains, why the photon captured in closed resonator increases the mass of resonator by the same way, like each massive particle.


Because it doesn't. You keep repeating the same mistake in the hope of convincing us that it is true. Have you run this experiment? Try running it and then come back with the results


QUOTE

The distinguishing the energy and momentum of such particle is solely useless, because the both enables to express the effective mass:

      m = E / c^2 = p / c

Even the one simple experiment is able to disprove whole nice theory.



Claiming mc^2=h*f and getting m_photon-hf/c^2 is what got you in trouble in first place because you are getting m_photon=3eV. Experiment says that theupper limit is 6*10^-17. If you repeat the same mistakes incessantly, it doesn't make you right, it makes you ridiculous.

QUOTE

The true is, nobody did see the massless photon, because in each experiment the photon behaves like normal massive particle, which transfers both the energy, both the momentum. The zero rest mass is just an approximation to the state of zero speed of photon, which is virtually unreachable for us.

This is a bare fact.


You pass your own phantasies as "bare fact". In reality, your phantasies are being debunked daily on this websites for what they are.: BS

Posted by: Pupamancur Aug 5 2006, 01:47 PM
QUOTE (Zephir @ Aug 5 2006, 09:47 AM)
Of course, the matter-of-fact & logical discussion is always welcomed.. cool.gif The experimental evidence must be followed by solid logic. For example, at the case, some the (Aether) theory predicts the constant speed of light (from Maxwell's equation), the experimental result (of Michelson-Morley experiment) which confirms such conclusion cannot  be interpreted as the refusal of such theory.

The math & formal logic is as important for successful interpretation of reality, as the experimental evidence. So you cannot never say, the "zero mass photon was observed" as experimental evidence, because it's not definitely true.

Just the zero mass of photon was calculated by some formal math - no less, no more. The direct observation(s) only says, the photon has always some the energy and momentum. The rest is just an interpretation of such result by some formal logic, which may, or may not be fully correct and as such it can be disproved by another experiment(s) independently, of course.

I hope, the situation is totally clear by now for everybody.



Yes, it is totally clear to all of us that you don't know what you are talking about.:

-you don't understand and you don't want to understand
-you ignore experimental data that contradicts your views
-you keep pushing your own theories despite being proven both wrong and worthless
-you don't read any of the materials furnished to you because you don't believe in mainstream physics and because you can't read simple math

Here is a college level chapter that you'd do right to read (and hopefully comprehend) :

http://www.lassp.cornell.edu/~cew2/P209/part11.pdf

Posted by: Zephir Aug 5 2006, 02:38 PM
QUOTE (Pupamancur @ Aug 5 2006, 04:43 PM)
why the photon captured in closed resonator increases the mass of resonator by the same way, like each massive particle 
Because it doesn't .

LOL... laugh.gif This is typical Amrit or Pancho Vales style argument. But WHY we should believe you? Try to prove it at first - the science is based on the proofs, as u probably know.

Everybody knows, the introducing the energy into closed system increases its mass by the E=mc^2 equivalence principle.

So why the energy introduced in the form of photon should be exception, just because it doesn't plays well with your naive ideas about photon mass?

No math and/or pile of textbooks will not help you here, if you don't understand the subject. After all, the simple binary logic is part of math as well.
Maybe such approach will help you to pass some exams at college - but definitely no right here, my dear. wink.gif

Posted by: Pupamancur Aug 5 2006, 02:56 PM
QUOTE (Zephir @ Aug 5 2006, 02:38 PM)
LOL...  laugh.gif  This is typical Amrit or Pancho Vales style argument. But WHY we should believe you? Try to prove it at first - the science is based on the proofs, as u probably know.

Everybody knows, the introducing the energy into closed system increases its mass by the E=mc^2  equivalence principle.


Where did you pull that one out from? Can you write some equations to prove it? Can you quote some experiment?

QUOTE

So why the energy introduced in the form of photon should be exception, just because it doesn't plays well with your naive ideas about photon mass?



I explained to you repeatedly why m_photon=0 , have you taken the trouble to read the experimental descriptions? Have you read the course notes from Cornell? Do you understand your gross mistake in "calculating" the m_photon according yo your simple-minded and incorrect formula? The one that disagrees with experiment by 17 orders of magnitude?


QUOTE

No math and/or pile of textbooks will not help you here, if you don't understand the subject. After all, the simple binary logic is part of math as well.
Maybe such approach will help you to pass some exams at college - but definitely no right here, my dear. wink.gif


Well, when mainstream science tells you are wrong, you stop babbling and you try to understand.

Posted by: Zephir Aug 5 2006, 03:10 PM
QUOTE (Pupamancur @ Aug 5 2006, 05:56 PM)
Where did you pull that one out from? Can you write some equations to prove it? Can you quote some experiment?

1) Such conclusion follows from Occam's razor principle, i.e. the requirement of consistency of physical law. So if the energy introduced into system increases the mass of system, the energy introduced in the form of photon shouldn't be any exception, until you supply some relevant proof.

2) My equation is m = hf/c^2 ≈ 3eV at the case of green light photon

3) The experimental proof of photon effective mass is for example http://www.turpion.org/php/paper.phtml?journal_id=qe&paper_id=343.

So, now it's just ME, who expects the:

1) Origin of conclusion, the photon trapped into resonator doesn't increase the mass of resonator by its mass/energy
2) The equation, which describes this conclusion in formal math
3) The experimental proof of such statement.

Every fun has it's own price.... wink.gif

Posted by: Pupamancur Aug 5 2006, 03:22 PM
QUOTE (Zephir @ Aug 5 2006, 03:10 PM)
1) Such conclusion follows from Occam's razor principle, i.e. the requirement of consistency of physical law. So if the energy introduced into system increases the mass of system, the energy introduced in the form of photon shouldn't be any exception, until you supply some relevant proof.


What sci-fi story did you get this from? Because it isn't true. Since you are not producing any proof despite multiple challenges, I will give you the counter-proof. Not that it will do any good but for the benefit of the others.


Actually, if you have box, you can MAKE IT LOOK AS IF YOU COULD weigh just ONE photon. Does that mean the photon has a mass? No. It means you still are stuck with a SYSTEM of two objects (box + photon), which you can look at from many inertial frames, until you find one in which the total momentum of the two is zero. What would that look like? In that frame, if the photon is moving the right with momentum p = E/c, then the box is moving to the left with the same momentum m*v. Obviously v will be small. When the photon bangs off the other side, they trade directions. If you weigh this collection you see it jumps from side to side (jiggles) as the photon hits, but the net downward force can be calculated, because the one photon suffers aberration in a g field, and hits each wall at a slightly downward angle. Downward MOMENTUM transferred APPEARS to give extra weight, and over and above the m*g of the box, you find that this extra weight is [E/c^2]*g where E is the energy of the photon in your zero-momentum frame. So the single photon SEEMS to act like it has mass of E/c^2, but only because of your PREJUDICE that the weight of a box has to equal the sum of the rest masses of the things in it. It doesn't. You're NOT weighing the photon, but weighing the photon's KINETIC energy. If the box was full of gas molecules you'd weigh their kinetic energies in the same way, along with their rest masses. But kinetic energy is ALL the photon has. The photon has ZERO mass. You weigh JUST the energy, and you can do it for ONE photon, so long as it's part of a zero-momentum system.


QUOTE

2) My equation is m = hf/c^2 ≈ 3eV at the case of green light photon


By repeating the same mistake you help debunk your notions. Experimental limits are 17 orders of magnitude lower than your "calculations". Even the Soviet era "paper" you keep quoting below disproves your numbers. Have you actually read your "reference"? Obviously not.


QUOTE

3) The experimental proof of photon effective mass is for example http://www.turpion.org/php/paper.phtml?journal_id=qe&paper_id=343.



From 1995? From "Soviet Quantum Mechanics"? When there are more current experiments in peer reviwed journals that set m_photon to 6*10^-17?


QUOTE

So, now it's just ME, who expects the:

1) Origin of conclusion, the photon trapped into resonator doesn't increase  the mass of resonator by its mass/energy
2) The equation, which describes this conclusion in formal math
3) The experimental proof of such statement.

Every fun has it's own price.... wink.gif



Looks like you are alone in your errors. Thank goodness.

Posted by: Zephir Aug 5 2006, 03:26 PM
QUOTE (Pupamancur @ Aug 5 2006, 06:22 PM)
set  m_photon to 6*10^-17?

I don't care about rest mass of photon: it's the mass, which was never measured, just extrapolated/computed, because the photon never stays at rest and it has always some non-zero energy/momentum.

But I don't even care about mass of photon in motion at this point.

You simply told me, the photon trapped into resonator doesn't increases it's mass and I'd like to see

1) the reason of such statement,
2) corresponding math equation and
3) experimental proof of it.

tongue.gif

Posted by: Pupamancur Aug 5 2006, 03:38 PM
QUOTE (Zephir @ Aug 5 2006, 03:26 PM)
I don't care about rest mass of photon: it's the mass, which was never measured, just extrapolated/computed, because the photon never stays at rest and it has always some non-zero energy/momentum.

But I don't even care about mass of photon in motion at this point.

You simply told me, the photon trapped into resonator doesn't increases it's mass and I'd like to see

1) the reason of such statement,
2) corresponding math equation and
3) experimental proof of it.

tongue.gif

Photon has only one mass. There is no such thing as "rest mass" for the photon, you have been told numerous times.


You have the explanation of your "resonator" fixation above. You must have read this in some website, I have given you the explanation, would you care to do your AWT "calculations" to disprove the explanations?

I doubt that you'll understand it but hopefully the other people following the thread will.

Posted by: Zephir Aug 5 2006, 03:41 PM
zero rest mass
QUOTE (Pupamancur @ Aug 5 2006, 06:38 PM)
Photon has only one mass. There is no such thing as "rest mass" for the photon.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Photon. I'll accept any statement from you without proof anymore. Because you're simply liar.

According to the quantum electrodynamics of the Standard Model, photons have zero rest mass and zero electric charge, but they do carry energy, momentum and angular momentum

Posted by: Pupamancur Aug 5 2006, 03:43 PM
QUOTE (Zephir @ Aug 5 2006, 03:41 PM)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Photon. I'll accept any statement from you without proof anymore.

According to the quantum electrodynamics of the Standard Model, photons have zero rest mass and zero electric charge, but they do carry energy, momentum and angular momentum

Good, you finally copied something from somewhere that is correct. At least you stopped quoting your misconceptions as if they were scientific fact. This is progress.
You've been told this about 100 posts back, you are finally accepting it.


Anyways, I asked first, I gave you the explanation to your fixation on the "photon in the box", use AWT in order to disprove it. The math , please.

Posted by: Zephir Aug 5 2006, 03:51 PM
QUOTE (Pupamancur @ Aug 5 2006, 06:43 PM)
I gave you the explanation to your fixation on the "photon in the box", use AWT in order to disprove it. The math , please.

Everything important including the AWT math is on http://superstruny.aspweb.cz/images/fyzika/MassOfPhoton.mht. You can use it for your pleasure... cool.gif I'll use it, too.

Posted by: Pupamancur Aug 5 2006, 07:53 PM
QUOTE (Zephir @ Aug 5 2006, 03:51 PM)
Everything important including the AWT math is on http://superstruny.aspweb.cz/images/fyzika/MassOfPhoton.mht. You can use it for your pleasure... cool.gif I'll use it, too.



There is no math, so "AWT" is worthless. Everyone knows that by now.
Try writing a few equations (if you can).

Posted by: Zephir Aug 5 2006, 08:07 PM
QUOTE (Pupamancur @ Aug 5 2006, 10:53 PM)
There is no math, so "AWT" is worthless.

How to compute the mass of photon, trapped in the resonator:

m = hf/c^2

Posted by: Pupamancur Aug 5 2006, 08:21 PM
QUOTE (Zephir @ Aug 5 2006, 08:07 PM)
How to compute the mass of photon, trapped in the resonator:

m = hf/c^2

According to the above, the "mass" of the box increases by 3eV. As shown before, there is no mass icrease to the resonator box, there is an additional (very small) vertical component of the photon impulse on the box vertical walls. See again:


Actually, if you have box, you can MAKE IT LOOK AS IF YOU COULD weigh just ONE photon. Does that mean the photon has a mass? No. It means you still are stuck with a SYSTEM of two objects (box + photon), which you can look at from many inertial frames, until you find one in which the total momentum of the two is zero. What would that look like? In that frame, if the photon is moving the right with momentum p = E/c, then the box is moving to the left with the same momentum m*v. Obviously v will be small. When the photon bangs off the other side, they trade directions. If you weigh this collection you see it jumps from side to side (jiggles) as the photon hits, but the net downward force can be calculated, because the one photon suffers aberration in a g field, and hits each wall at a slightly downward angle. Downward MOMENTUM transferred APPEARS to give extra weight, and over and above the m*g of the box, you find that this extra weight is [E/c^2]*g where E is the energy of the photon in your zero-momentum frame. So the single photon SEEMS to act like it has mass of E/c^2, but only because of your PREJUDICE that the weight of a box has to equal the sum of the rest masses of the things in it. It doesn't. You're NOT weighing the photon, but weighing the photon's KINETIC energy. If the box was full of gas molecules you'd weigh their kinetic energies in the same way, along with their rest masses. But kinetic energy is ALL the photon has. The photon has ZERO mass. You weigh JUST the energy, and you can do it for ONE photon, so long as it's part of a zero-momentum system.




Thank you for working with me in refuting the crackpot theory named "AWT".

Posted by: Zephir Aug 5 2006, 08:30 PM
QUOTE (Pupamancur @ Aug 5 2006, 11:21 PM)
As shown before, there is no mass increase to the resonator box...

I know, You've told this already by many times... tongue.gif

You're the solid proof of results of physic teaching on the background of math. The graduates are able to derive & integrate, but they've no idea about real physic and how it works.

Try to bring-up the resonator as the single atom in excited state, for example in the lasing environment... wink.gif

QUOTE (Pupamancur @ Aug 5 2006, 11:21 PM)
You're NOT weighing the photon, but weighing the photon's KINETIC energy...

Can you separate the kinetic energy of photon from the photon? Can it weighted separately, in different location, for example?
Was it done ever by somebody by such way?

Posted by: Pupamancur Aug 5 2006, 08:32 PM
QUOTE (Zephir @ Aug 5 2006, 08:30 PM)
I know, You've told this already by many times... tongue.gif

You're the solid proof of results of physic teaching on the background of math. The graduates are able to derive & integrate, but they've no idea about real physic and how it works.

Try to bring-up the resonator as the single atom in excited state, for example in the lasing environment... wink.gif

Standard word salad.


Once again, thank you for debunking the crackpot theory named "AWT"

Posted by: fivedoughnut Aug 5 2006, 08:45 PM
Papa',

Are you a disciple of Jack Sarfatti?.....as he often describes subjectively conflicting models as "wrong word salad"?

Posted by: The_Right_Stuff Aug 5 2006, 09:25 PM
QUOTE (Pupamancur @ Aug 5 2006, 07:53 PM)
There is no math, so "AWT"  is worthless. Everyone knows that by now.

Hey can you show us the mathematical equation of yourself ?

Posted by: Zephir Aug 5 2006, 09:28 PM
QUOTE (Pupamancur @ Aug 5 2006, 11:32 PM)
Once again, thank you for debunking the crackpot theory named "AWT"

Thank you for supplying of the nice example, how the new theories are maintained and "refuted" by mainstream science proponents using pure demagogy... cool.gif

Please consider, each existing model & approach can be disproved in every moment - this is a reason, why we are calling it theory, not the fact. Nearly nobody can know about some relativity theory in few years by the same way, like about aether or phlogiston theory today. This is a relativity in praxis.

Unfortunately for me, you're just an arrogant anonymous nobody, which can serve as the relevant proof of anything. You're just an illustration of the irreversibility of scientific evolution based on belief in up to now models & theories, which is independent to actual level of progress in science. This is the same motivation, like at the Galileo & Copernicus times. Personally, for me the Aether is rather boring concept, which is so simple & natural, so it's trivial.

From my personal perspective, the question, why such simple & natural concept of massive environment for energy wave spreading was refuted by so obligingly before one hundred years appears much more interesting for me. And why all these cryptic relativity and quantum mechanic concept were accepted so readily both by mainstream science, both by public ?

On the example disputed we can see , each indicia, every formula which can lead to the consideration of Aether hypothesis was removed from textbooks carefully, even the photon energy formula has an specific exception, which prohibits the normal usage of photon mass. Why is it so? Was such movement organized by some jew-masonry lobby, or is it just a result of spontaneous brainwashing? Are the official science interested about role of new priestcraft? The Aether refusal history is definitely much more interesting case, then whole concept itself. But it's not job for me, but historians of science.

The Aether hypothesis is exceptional by the fact, it's refusal was clear and unbelievable mistake followed by irreversible lost of information about reality - at least from my point of view. Never before in the modern history the mainstream science was done such big side-step. For example, the Newton particle concept of light can be considered as the natural expression of particle-wave duality - but the massive environment concept has no such counterpart obviously, so it cannot be replaced by anything else without deep formal complication of model and/or without need of introducing of large amount of ad-hoc postulates. Even each the single wave observed in the Nature cannot be explained without inertia concept...

I cannot really understand this... blink.gif The Aether theory refusal is the shame of modern physic and whole the belief in providence of human progress.

Posted by: Zephir Aug 5 2006, 09:36 PM
QUOTE (The_Right_Stuff @ Aug 6 2006, 12:25 AM)
Hey can you show us the mathematical equation of yourself ?

You should know, the Popamancur http://forum.physorg.com/index.php?showtopic=7739&st=90&#entry108794 any math, supporting his stance.

It has no sense to waste a time with him, unless you're interested about sterile discussion.

Posted by: Confused2 Aug 5 2006, 10:08 PM
QUOTE (Zephir)

It has no sense to waste a time with him, unless you're interested about sterile discussion.


Or physics.

-C2.

Posted by: Zephir Aug 5 2006, 10:51 PM
QUOTE (Confused2 @ Aug 6 2006, 01:08 AM)
Or physics.

Try to explain, what's the difference between the "mass of photon energy" and the "mass of photon"... wink.gif And how it can be computed.

Please consider, I know about the classical physic models a quite well, so I can easily to occupy the Popamandur's stance, and to explain all the my ideas on the background of "politically correct" therms without using even a single word like the "Aether" or massive environment, just replacing it by the worlds "quantum field", "space time fabric", "virtual particle sea", "Higgs latticce", etc.. thus diminishing the material character of the field totally by such way.

Furthermore, we can dispute the massless "waves" or "membrane" models of black holes and vacuum together like two quite different things, talk about expansion of Universe like "inflation" directed by "cosmological constant" and "hypothetical dark energy", and believe in power of formal math, which is able to support, if not prove each thinkable model. We can believe, the Michelson-Morley experiment has refuted the Aether concept by proving of constant speed of light and the same result of Maxwell's theory was just coincidence, because such theory was flawed by root and branch . We can believe, each the theoretical proof of the light speed invariance is solely unnecessary, because the belief in the ad-hoc postulates without any connection to everyday reality is enough for it's complete understanding. The number of postulates needed for description of reality plays no role, because we have already an robust and deeply sofisticated math model of it!

Everybody would remain happy, and everybody would keep the smug feeling, the aether theory is solely unnecessary, if not mistaken, here's no "http://motls.blogspot.com/2006/05/luminiferous-aether-and-physical.html", because the current approach is the most simple, logical and natural model possible and nobody needs even to consider some ancient theories...

Do you believe, it's a quite correct stance with respect of the long-term perspective - or just the result of cowardly opportunistic politic, which helps to keep the mainstream science an nimbus infallibility and impeccability?

Posted by: Pupamancur Aug 5 2006, 11:19 PM
QUOTE (The_Right_Stuff @ Aug 5 2006, 09:25 PM)
Hey can you show us the mathematical equation of yourself ?

The issue at hand is that AWT is worthless as a theory.
I have shown enough equations., try reading for a change.

Posted by: Pupamancur Aug 5 2006, 11:23 PM
QUOTE (Zephir @ Aug 5 2006, 09:36 PM)
You should know, the Popamancur http://forum.physorg.com/index.php?showtopic=7739&st=90&#entry108794 any math, supporting his stance.

It has no sense to waste a time with him, unless you're interested about sterile discussion.

The discussion with you helped me expose some gross errors in your theory (massive photon, right?) . You participated in refuting your own theory by repeating the same mistakes over and over. People who know physics see thru all your "claims".


Actually, if you have box, you can MAKE IT LOOK AS IF YOU COULD weigh just ONE photon. Does that mean the photon has a mass? No. It means you still are stuck with a SYSTEM of two objects (box + photon), which you can look at from many inertial frames, until you find one in which the total momentum of the two is zero. What would that look like? In that frame, if the photon is moving the right with momentum p = E/c, then the box is moving to the left with the same momentum m*v. Obviously v will be small. When the photon bangs off the other side, they trade directions. If you weigh this collection you see it jumps from side to side (jiggles) as the photon hits, but the net downward force can be calculated, because the one photon suffers aberration in a g field, and hits each wall at a slightly downward angle, say by a very small deviation from the horizontal angle "theta" . Downward MOMENTUM p_tangential=p*sin(theta) transferred to the vertical wall of the box APPEARS to give extra weight, and over and above the m*g of the box, you find that this extra weight is derivative of the momentum wrt time dp_tangential/dt So the single photon SEEMS to act like it has mass , but only because of your PREJUDICE that the weight of a box has to equal the sum of the rest masses of the things in it. It doesn't. You're NOT weighing the photon, but weighing the photon's KINETIC energy and you are measuring the effect of its variation of momentum when it bounces of the vertical walls of the box. If the box was full of gas molecules you'd weigh their kinetic energies in the same way, along with their rest masses. But kinetic energy and momentum is ALL the photon has. The photon has ZERO mass. You weigh JUST the VERY small tangential component of its momentum when it bounces off the walls, and you can do it for ONE photon, so long as it's part of a zero-momentum system.

Posted by: Zephir Aug 5 2006, 11:25 PM
QUOTE (Pupamancur @ Aug 6 2006, 02:19 AM)
The issue at hand is that AWT is worthless as a theory.
I have shown enough equations., try reading for a change.

The issue of yours is, the "enough equations" is too much for us, we need just the single expression for calculation of the mass difference of resonator before and after trapping a lone photon inside it... wink.gif

How big such mass difference should be by your theory? Are you able to supply a single expression for its estimation? If not, where's the problem?

QUOTE (Pupamancur @ Aug 6 2006, 02:19 AM)
..Actually, if you have box...
.........................
...............zero-momentum system....

Actually, please keep such standard word salad for yourself. All what we're needing be now is just a simple math. This is a formal language of physic - as you probably know, considering you passed the grammar school exams in your country... wink.gif

Posted by: Pupamancur Aug 5 2006, 11:34 PM
QUOTE (Zephir @ Aug 5 2006, 11:25 PM)
The issue of yours is, the "enough equations" is too much for us, we need just the single expression for calculation of the mass difference of resonator before and after trapping a lone photon inside it... wink.gif

How big such mass difference should be by your theory? Are you able to supply a single expression for its estimation? If not, where's the problem?

Look above.

You already provided your "calculations" Good enough to refute AWT. Refutation provide by the "AWT theory" author himself. Next.

Posted by: Zephir Aug 5 2006, 11:38 PM
QUOTE (Pupamancur @ Aug 6 2006, 02:34 AM)
Look above.

I can see anything. I'm just expecting the straightforward formula, like at the case of [Zephir 11:07 PM] post - no less, no more. Just the weight difference of resonator before and after the trapping of the lone photon of frequency f.

The mass difference equals Δ m = ....... ???

Are you even able to derive such formula by using of your technobabbling? If not, where's the problem? Are you tired or busy so much?

Posted by: Pupamancur Aug 5 2006, 11:47 PM
QUOTE (Zephir @ Aug 5 2006, 11:38 PM)
I can see anything.

The mass difference equals Δ m = ....... ???

Are you even able to derive such formula by using of your technobabbling? If not, where's the problem?

My pleasure, looks like you really like to see AWT refuted repeatedly. Here it is one more time;


Actually, if you have box, you can MAKE IT LOOK AS IF YOU COULD weigh just ONE photon. Does that mean the photon has a mass? No. It means you still are stuck with a SYSTEM of two objects (box + photon), which you can look at from many inertial frames, until you find one in which the total momentum of the two is zero. What would that look like? In that frame, if the photon is moving the right with momentum p = E/c, then the box is moving to the left with the same momentum m*v. Obviously v will be small. When the photon bangs off the other side, they trade directions. If you weigh this collection you see it jumps from side to side (jiggles) as the photon hits, but the net downward force can be calculated, because the one photon suffers aberration in a g field, and hits each wall at a slightly downward angle, say by a very small deviation from the horizontal angle "theta" . Downward MOMENTUM p_tangential=p*sin(theta) transferred to the vertical wall of the box APPEARS to give extra weight, and over and above the m*g of the box, you find that this extra weight force is the derivative of the momentum wrt time dp_tangential/dt So the single photon SEEMS to act like it has mass , but only because of your PREJUDICE that the weight of a box has to equal the sum of the rest masses of the things in it. It doesn't. You're NOT weighing the photon, but weighing the photon's KINETIC energy and you are measuring the effect of its variation of momentum when it bounces of the vertical walls of the box. If the box was full of gas molecules you'd weigh their kinetic energies in the same way, along with their rest masses. But kinetic energy and momentum is ALL the photon has. The photon has ZERO mass. You weigh JUST the VERY small tangential component of its momentum when it bounces off the walls, and you can do it for ONE photon, so long as it's part of a zero-momentum system.


Now, would you care to show YOUR calculations?

Posted by: Zephir Aug 5 2006, 11:50 PM
QUOTE (Pupamancur @ Aug 6 2006, 02:47 AM)
Now, would you care to show YOUR calculations?

Are u able to read the [Zephir 11:07 PM]?

Do you have a correct browser and/or operating system type or version?
Maybe some encoding problem, it happens sometimes... wink.gif

Are you even able to write down such formula too, or should I forget to your case http://forum.physorg.com/index.php?showtopic=7739&st=105&#entry108847?

Posted by: Pupamancur Aug 6 2006, 12:15 AM
QUOTE (Zephir @ Aug 5 2006, 11:50 PM)
Are u able to read the [Zephir 11:07 PM]?

Do you have a correct browser and/or operating system type or version?
Maybe some encoding problem, it happens sometimes... wink.gif

Are you even able to write down such formula too, or should I forget to your case http://forum.physorg.com/index.php?showtopic=7739&st=105&#entry108847?

There is no [Zephir 11;07] and, as usual, there are no calculations.
The last "calculations" you graced us with was the gross repeated error:

m=hf/c^2

Do you plan to refute AWT again with the above formula? Don't you think you demonstrated enough times the failure of AWT? We are convinced, no need to repeat the "proofs"

Posted by: Zephir Aug 6 2006, 12:24 AM
QUOTE (Pupamancur @ Aug 6 2006, 03:15 AM)
...There is no [Zephir 11;07] and, as usual, there are no calculations....

I see... biggrin.gif

http://superstruny.aspweb.cz/images/fyzika/gonegahgah/blind1.gif

QUOTE (Pupamancur @ Aug 6 2006, 03:15 AM)
Do you plan to refute AWT again with the above formula?
Definitely... smile.gif I'm even enjoying it.. biggrin.gif

So, what's the weight difference of resonator before and after trapping the single photon by your "theory"? I'd like to help you, so you can choose from the options below:

0) Δm < 0
1) Δm = 0
2) Δm > 0 ∧ Δm < h f / c^2
3) Δm = h f / c^2 (..yep, the http://superstruny.aspweb.cz/?s=main%20introducing%20point result)
4) Δm > h f / c^2

Very easy to solve by now.. Just say a number from 0 to 4 - and we're ready at this moment... wink.gif

Posted by: Pupamancur Aug 6 2006, 02:21 AM
QUOTE (Zephir @ Aug 6 2006, 12:24 AM)
I see... biggrin.gif

http://superstruny.aspweb.cz/images/fyzika/gonegahgah/blind1.gif

Definitely... smile.gif  I'm even enjoying it.. biggrin.gif

So, what's the weight difference of resonator before and after trapping the single photon by your "theory"? I'd like to help you, so you can choose from the options below:

0) Δm < 0
1) Δm = 0
2) Δm > 0 ∧ Δm < h f / c^2
3) Δm = h f / c^2                  (..yep, the http://superstruny.aspweb.cz/?s=main%20introducing%20point result)
4) Δm > h f / c^2

Very easy to solve by now.. Just say a number from 0 to 4 - and we're ready at this moment... wink.gif



All your choices are BS. The "AWT" choice is the BIGGEST nonsense of them all. You have been given the correct one. Read again:

Actually, if you have box, you can MAKE IT LOOK AS IF YOU COULD weigh just ONE photon. Does that mean the photon has a mass? No. It means you still are stuck with a SYSTEM of two objects (box + photon), which you can look at from many inertial frames, until you find one in which the total momentum of the two is zero. What would that look like? In that frame, if the photon is moving the right with momentum p = E/c, then the box is moving to the left with the same momentum m*v. Obviously v will be small. When the photon bangs off the other side, they trade directions. If you weigh this collection you see it jumps from side to side (jiggles) as the photon hits, but the net downward force can be calculated, because the one photon suffers aberration in a g field, and hits each wall at a slightly downward angle, say by a very small deviation from the horizontal angle "theta" . Downward MOMENTUM p_tangential=p*sin(theta) transferred to the vertical wall of the box APPEARS to give extra weight, and over and above the m*g of the box, you find that this extra weight force is the derivative of the momentum wrt time dp_tangential/dt So the single photon SEEMS to act like it has mass , but only because of your PREJUDICE that the weight of a box has to equal the sum of the rest masses of the things in it. It doesn't. You're NOT weighing the photon, but weighing the photon's KINETIC energy and you are measuring the effect of its variation of momentum when it bounces of the vertical walls of the box. If the box was full of gas molecules you'd weigh their kinetic energies in the same way, along with their rest masses. But kinetic energy and momentum is ALL the photon has. The photon has ZERO mass. You weigh JUST the VERY small tangential component of its momentum when it bounces off the walls, and you can do it for ONE photon, so long as it's part of a zero-momentum system


Congratulations, you refuted AWT again

Posted by: Zephir Aug 6 2006, 08:07 AM
QUOTE (Pupamancur @ Aug 6 2006, 05:21 AM)
Actually, if you have box ..
...blah, blah ....
...blah, blah ....
... so long as it's part of a zero-momentum system.

Sorry, but I don't understand Your word salad.. sad.gif So, what's the weight difference of resonator before and after trapping the single photon by your "theory"? I'd like to help you, so you can choose from the options below:

http://superstruny.aspweb.cz/images/fyzika/aether/resonator.gif

0) Δm < 0
1) Δm = 0
2) Δm > 0 ∧ Δm < h f / c^2
3) Δm = h f / c^2 (..yep, this is the AWT result)
4) Δm > h f / c^2

Very easy to solve by now..
Just write down a number from 0 to 4 - and we're ready at this moment... wink.gif

Posted by: Confused2 Aug 6 2006, 08:23 AM
Hi Zephir,

QUOTE (Pupamancur)

Actually, if you have box, you can MAKE IT LOOK AS IF YOU COULD weigh just ONE photon. Does that mean the photon has a mass? No.


And so you have drawn a box. And the mass of a photon is .. ?

-C2.

Posted by: fivedoughnut Aug 6 2006, 08:32 AM
C2, Zeph etc,

As I see it, mass increase would only occur when the photon is absorbed (harmonically integrated) into higher trans-dimensional wave prop'n.

Posted by: Zephir Aug 6 2006, 08:34 AM
QUOTE (Confused2 @ Aug 6 2006, 11:23 AM)
And so you have drawn a box. And the mass of a photon is .. ?

m = h f / c^2

smile.gif

QUOTE (fivedoughnut @ Aug 6 2006, 11:23 AM)
mass increase would only occur when the photon is absorbed (harmonically integrated) into higher trans-dimensional wave prop'n

From the perspective of external observer, the resonator is black box (virtually or by metaphorical way). I needn't to care about photon destiny, the only fact is, the photon was absorbed by resonator. End of story.

Posted by: Pupamancur Aug 6 2006, 02:32 PM
QUOTE (Zephir @ Aug 6 2006, 08:07 AM)
Sorry, but I don't understand Your word salad..  sad.gif So, what's the weight difference of resonator before and after trapping the single photon by your "theory"? I'd like to help you, so you can choose from the options below:

0) Δm < 0 
1) Δm = 0 
2) Δm > 0 ∧ Δm < h f / c^2 
3) Δm = h f / c^2  (..yep, this is the AWT result)
4) Δm > h f / c^2

Very easy to solve by now..
Just write down a number from 0 to 4 - and we're ready at this moment...  wink.gif

This is not a stupid multiple choice proble.

All your choices are BS. The "AWT" choice is the BIGGEST nonsense of them all. You have been given the correct one. Read again:

Actually, if you have box, you can MAKE IT LOOK AS IF YOU COULD weigh just ONE photon. Does that mean the photon has a mass? No. It means you still are stuck with a SYSTEM of two objects (box + photon), which you can look at from many inertial frames, until you find one in which the total momentum of the two is zero. What would that look like? In that frame, if the photon is moving the right with momentum p = E/c, then the box is moving to the left with the same momentum m*v. Obviously v will be small. When the photon bangs off the other side, they trade directions. If you weigh this collection you see it jumps from side to side (jiggles) as the photon hits, but the net downward force can be calculated, because the one photon suffers aberration in a g field, and hits each wall at a slightly downward angle, say by a very small deviation from the horizontal angle "theta" . Downward MOMENTUM p_tangential=p*sin(theta) transferred to the vertical wall of the box APPEARS to give extra weight, and over and above the m*g of the box, you find that this extra weight force is the derivative of the momentum wrt time dp_tangential/dt So the single photon SEEMS to act like it has mass , but only because of your PREJUDICE that the weight of a box has to equal the sum of the rest masses of the things in it. It doesn't. You're NOT weighing the photon, but weighing the photon's KINETIC energy and you are measuring the effect of its variation of momentum when it bounces of the vertical walls of the box. If the box was full of gas molecules you'd weigh their kinetic energies in the same way, along with their rest masses. But kinetic energy and momentum is ALL the photon has. The photon has ZERO mass. You weigh JUST the VERY small tangential component of its momentum when it bounces off the walls, and you can do it for ONE photon, so long as it's part of a zero-momentum system

Posted by: Pupamancur Aug 6 2006, 02:35 PM
QUOTE (Zephir @ Aug 6 2006, 08:34 AM)
m = h f / c^2




Congratulations! You have refuted AWT again. I must give it to you, you are very dilligent in refuting your own theory.
The AWT prediction" is 17 orders of magnitude larger than the current experimental limits. Good job! You do the job better than anyone else when it comes to refuting your own theory.

Posted by: Zephir Aug 6 2006, 03:36 PM
QUOTE (Pupamancur @ Aug 6 2006, 05:35 PM)
The AWT prediction" is 17 orders of magnitude larger than the current experimental limits..

The interesting thing is the gravitophoton effects measured in recent http://esamultimedia.esa.int/docs/gsp/Experimental_Detection.pdf violates the relativity prediction at the same range, http://www.prweb.com/releases/2006/3/prweb364473.htm. But, as I've told you by many times before, the rest mass of photon has nothing to do with the mass of photon under motion, just because the rest mass of photon can never been measured directly (the photon is in perpetual motion).

It's evident, your theory isn't able to predict the mass difference of resonator after photon absorbtion at all, so it's useless from practical purpose. Fortunately it has nothing with standard theory, so it just remains your personal stance with no connection to reality.

Posted by: Pupamancur Aug 6 2006, 03:39 PM
QUOTE (Zephir @ Aug 6 2006, 03:36 PM)
The interesting thing is the gravitophoton effects measured in recent http://esamultimedia.esa.int/docs/gsp/Experimental_Detection.pdf violates the relativity prediction at the same range, http://www.prweb.com/releases/2006/3/prweb364473.htm.


Interesting diversion but not relevant.
When your BS gets exposed you change the subject.
At least you troll the internet for papers that you don't understand.

QUOTE
But, as I've told you by many times before, the rest mass of photon has nothing to do with the mass of photon under motion, just because the rest mass of photon can never been measured directly (photon is in perpetual motion).


The "rest mass of the photon" does not exist, as it has been explained to you multiple times. You are doing a fine job exposing your BS. Pray continue."

Posted by: Zephir Aug 6 2006, 03:44 PM
QUOTE (Pupamancur @ Aug 6 2006, 06:39 PM)
...the "rest mass of the photon" does not exist...

It's nearly zero, but it http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Photon, of course. A lot of other bosons are having a quite high rest mass (gluons 0.12 MeV, Z/W bosons 81 GeV), although they're moving by the light speed, too.

According to the quantum electrodynamics of the Standard Model, photons have zero rest mass

Posted by: Pupamancur Aug 6 2006, 03:55 PM
QUOTE (Zephir @ Aug 6 2006, 03:44 PM)
It's nearly zero, but it http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Photon, of course.

According to the quantum electrodynamics of the Standard Model, photons have zero rest mass

You "managed" to misquote QED (too bad, you quoted it correctly in an earlier post).The correct quote"

According to QED the photon has zero mass

The experimental limits you are referring to (good, things are starting to penetrate your prejudices) set an experimental limit of MUCH LESS than what you and AWT predict (m=hf). You and your AWT prdict m=3eV, the experimental imits are at 6*10^-17 and they are driven lower. Of course that we could never measure a zero, we can only approach it asymptotcally as we tighten the measurements error bars. (quick, check wiki on "error bars")

Posted by: Zephir Aug 6 2006, 04:01 PM
QUOTE (Pupamancur @ Aug 6 2006, 06:55 PM)
The correct quote According to QED the photon has zero mass

My quote is the exact quote of the source. I don't understand your remark, as the http://www-hep.physics.uiowa.edu/~meurice/dmp/beyond/node7.html.

By my opinion you're don't know about physic too much. By your opinion, the "effective mass doesn't exist", "the photon has no rest mass", "quantum electrodynamics of the Standard Model is invalid" , and you're evidently unable to distinguish between the efective mass and the rest mass of particles. Forthemore you're unable to compute the mass stored in the resonator by the photon absorbed.

Posted by: Pupamancur Aug 6 2006, 04:39 PM
QUOTE (Zephir @ Aug 6 2006, 04:01 PM)
My quote is  the exact quote of the source. I don't understand your remark, as the http://www-hep.physics.uiowa.edu/~meurice/dmp/beyond/node7.html.


Can you see the difference between your quote about the mass of the photon (no REST mass) and the official , scientific quote (no mass)? Apparently not.

Can you get the fact that it is a nonsense to talk about "photon rest mass"? Apparently not.




QUOTE

By my opinion you're don't know about physic too much.


Personal attacks don't count as scientific arguments. You only resort to them when you lost the scientific argument.So, it looks like you lost.



QUOTE

By your opinion, the "effective mass doesn't exist", "the photon has no rest mass", "quantum electrodynamics of the Standard Model is invalid" , and you're evidently unable to distinguish between the efective mass and the rest mass of particles.


No, this is the projection of your misunderstandings. In the case of the photon there is no such thing as "mass". Luxons are massless particles. Read QED and stop spewing nonsense.



QUOTE

Forthemore you're unable to compute the mass stored in the resonator by the photon absorbed.


You meant that I debunked your nonsense answer? You mean that I challenged you to show how you arrived to the result and you failed to show any calculations? Did you copy the result from somewhere? Any website that we know? Wiki?


QUOTE

Do you know about physic at all?


You open with a personal attack and you close with one.Under the protective eyes of the moderators. Meaning that you lost.

Posted by: Zephir Aug 6 2006, 04:45 PM
QUOTE (Pupamancur @ Aug 6 2006, 07:39 PM)
then please stop peddling your AWT at every opportunity

I'm using the reference to the http://superstruny.aspweb.cz/?s=main%20introducing%20point to distinguish my private idea from the official science stance. I can see it as useful, because everybody has to possibility to decide immediately, whether is worth to believe in it or not. I don't like the presentation the mixture of official and personal stances as a fact.

Please consider, you're not approved to dictate the others, what can have and cannot do here. This is solely a matter of forum administrators. This forum is dedicated to presentation of private theories and the public discussion about it.

Posted by: Pupamancur Aug 6 2006, 04:48 PM
QUOTE (Zephir @ Aug 6 2006, 04:45 PM)
I'm using the reference to the http://superstruny.aspweb.cz/?s=main%20introducing%20point to distinguish my private idea from the official science stance. I can see it as useful, because everybody has to possibility to decide immediately, whether is worth to believe in it or not. I don't like the presentation the mixture of official and personal stances as a fact.

Please consider, you're not approved to dictate the others, what can have and cannot do. This is solely a matter of forum administrators.

We decided, it is not worth. Too many mistakes, no predictive power, only philosophy with no model and no math. Read what TROC had to say.

Posted by: Zephir Aug 6 2006, 05:00 PM
QUOTE (Pupamancur @ Aug 6 2006, 07:48 PM)
Too many mistakes, no predictive power, only philosophy with no model and no math...

The math background of Aether Wave theory (AWT) consist in the common solution of two equations:

1) the wave equation user posted image
2) the mass-energy equivalence principle user posted image

These equations are describing the oscillations of massive elastic string, where the mass density of string is always proportional to it's energy density in each moment & location. Here's lot of ways, how to solve such system and such solution is job for math, not for physic. The few first iterations can be done even on normal PC computer, in 2D the result looks like this:

http://superstruny.aspweb.cz/images/fyzika/quantum/waveschrod.gif

At the first glance, the http://superstruny.aspweb.cz/?s=main%20introducing%20point predicts, for example:

1. The Universe can be described by substitution of mass density of vibrating string by the energy density by E=mc2
2. The gravity field is manifestation of Aether density, the gravity force is tendency of Aether to level the energy density via diffusion of Aether
3. The Aether theory derives the constant speed of light and Lorentz transforms of SR
4. The vacuum has a 6D spongy structure composed from 3D bubbles recursively
5. The Universe is highly, if not infinitesimally recursive
6. The Universe is formed by black hole interior, filled by such spongy matter
7. The Universe collapses, instead of expansion with increasing speed like common gravity bounded objects without need of dark energy postulate
8. The supermassive black holes inside of gallaxies are the rest of quasars and these quasars were created by collisions of newly created vacuum mass during inflation
9. The observable mass was created from secondary condensation of energy radiated from quasars by adiabatic cooling
10. The dark matter was formed from non-condensed portions of such energy as the zone of more dense Aether surrounding the quasars and secondarily all the observable mass
11. The dark matter gradient is responsible for so called Pioneer spacecraft anomaly and the Galaxy shape anomaly
12. The particles are created by dense aggregates of Aether foam by phase transition process
13. The spin of particles is formed by mutual composition of motion on the phase interface inside of Aether foam
14. The charge of particle is the result of helicity of such motion.
15. The photon is the result of interference of light wave with Planck size wave pockets, forming our vacuum.
16. The wave function is the Aether mass/energy density profile formed by the internal motion inside the particle, forming an wave pocket confined by the dense vacuum like by gravitational lens (blob).
17. The "hidden variable" responsible for quantum entanglement is the phase shift of wave forming particle with respect of the center of gravity of such blob. smile.gif

Posted by: Pupamancur Aug 6 2006, 05:06 PM
QUOTE (Zephir @ Aug 6 2006, 05:00 PM)
The math background of Aether Wave theory (AWT) consist in the common solution of two equations:


At the first glance, ....predicts, for example:

<nonsense snipped>
3. The Aether theory derives the constant speed of light and Lorentz transforms of SR
<more nonsense snipped>


"3. The Aether theory derives the constant speed of light and Lorentz transforms of SR"


You refuted your theory again. Can you spot the gross mistake?

Posted by: Zephir Aug 6 2006, 05:15 PM
QUOTE (Pupamancur @ Aug 6 2006, 08:06 PM)
The Aether theory derives the constant speed of light and Lorentz transforms of SR... Can you spot the gross mistake?

The constant speed of light was derived in 1895 by etherist Lorentz from equations of Maxwell's Aether Theory of Light.

No other theory till now is able to derive the light speed invariance. The relativity theory just uses the result of Maxwell's theory as an ad-hoc postulate, i.e. the assumption without proof.

Posted by: Pupamancur Aug 6 2006, 06:38 PM
QUOTE (Zephir @ Aug 6 2006, 05:15 PM)
The constant speed of light was derived in 1895 by etherist Lorentz from equations of Maxwell's Aether Theory of Light.

No other theory till now is able to derive the light speed invariance. The relativity theory just uses the result of Maxwell's theory as an ad-hoc postulate, i.e. the assumption without proof.

Repeating the same BS over and over doesn't make it fact

PS: You also got the part with Lorentz wrong.

Posted by: ubavontuba Aug 6 2006, 06:54 PM
Pupamancur et al,

I have a question relating to this topic:

If a photon truly has absolutely no rest mass (only relativistic mass), then doesn't that mean that in a frame relative to only itself, it doesn't exist? How can it both exist and not exist at the same time?

Posted by: rpenner Aug 7 2006, 12:27 AM
The annoying part about trying to match up Newtonian physics with SR, is that the two only meet in the limit of low velocity. Since photons never travel "Slow" in any frame of reference, a lot of problems crop up when you try and use Newtonian physics.

For example, "relativistic mass" is not used by any SR course in university because it's built on the mistaken premise that you can make Newton and Einstein agree on things when v != 0.

For example, Newton gives p = m v and Einstein gives p = gamma m v (for massive particles). gamma is not naturally associated with with m or v. So when you associate gamma with m to get relativistic mass, you restore p = m v, and F = dp / dt, but NOT F = m a.

Likewise, m^2 c^4 = E^2 - p^2 c^2 is the true and "natural" relation between mass, energy and mass and momentum in SR. If p is 0, this reduces to m c ^2 = E, and if m is zero, this reduces to E = |p|c, and if both m and p are 0, this is E = 0. Since photon's are always observed at E > 10^-17 eV, then |p| > 0.

E = pv doesn't work for slowly moving, massive particles because a much better approximation is E = mc^2 + 1/2 pv, as follows from an approximation to Pythagoras. ( when a >> b, sqrt(a^2 + b^2) =~ a + b^2/(2a) , thus E =~ mc^2 + p^2 c ^2 / 2 m c ^2 = m c^2 + gamma ^ 2 m v ^2 /2 = m c ^2 + 1/(2(1-v^2/c^2)) m v^2

As for the photon in the box, the photon IN the box is 1) localized, and 2) has a specific energy. As localized photons do NOT have a well defined momentum (could be + or -, up or down, etc) the problem is best addressed in the energy domain. E_system = E_box + E_photon = m_box c^2 + h-bar f_photon. And since the box is going nowhere, E_system = m_system c^2, so m_system - m_box = h-bar f_photon/c^2 = 3 eV/c^2. This is not the same as saying the (relativistic) mass of the photon is 3 eV, since that's a fiction of math. If the photon had an ordinary Newtonian mass, then you could accelerate it so it would move either faster or slower than c.

Which brings us back to the Sagnac effect. Mixing Newtonian/Euclidean assumptions and SR will lead to contradictions ("paradoxes") and lead you down the path to error. Both Zephir's approach based on "pop science" explanations for Newtonian intuition and Pupamancur aggressive and insensitive postings based on the notion that Zephir is always wrong, are not helpful. A person is not always wrong, but a theory can be. Which gets us back to D=6 versus D=7.2569464048605767801... and the total failure of Kepler's conjecture in high dimensions.

ubavontuba, if the photon is indeed exactly massless, then you can't really speak of an inertial frame of reference for a single photon, as the Lorentz translations are singular, and instead of 4-dimension space-time it is actually zero-dimensional. Photons have no clocks.

In the http://us.metamath.org/mpegif/mmtheorems50.html#mm4921s, the Real Numbers are extended with + and - infinity. You can do some math with + and - infinity, and what ever real number you have, + inifinity is always bigger than it, just like the speed of light is always faster than a massive particle. (This is the rapidity transform of velocity, so the analogy is exact.) One of the things you can do with a real number that you can't do with + infinity is use it to transform your origin and recover the dynamics of the original reals. If K is any real, you can use K as 0. Because (A - cool.gif = (A-K) - (B-K) = A - K - B + K = A - B + K - K, and K - K = 0. But infinity - infinity is undefined, just like 0/0.

Posted by: Pupamancur Aug 7 2006, 03:54 AM
QUOTE (rpenner @ Aug 7 2006, 12:27 AM)

Both Zephir's approach based on "pop science" explanations for Newtonian intuition and Pupamancur aggressive and insensitive postings based on the notion that Zephir is always wrong, are not helpful. A person is not always wrong, but a theory can be. Which gets us back to D=6 versus D=7.2569464048605767801... and the total failure of Kepler's conjecture in high dimensions.


Please keep your personal attacks to yourself. Please keep your postings to scientific issues. I don't need your evaluations. If you have an issue with the scientific part, I will be more than happy to discuss.

Posted by: ubavontuba Aug 7 2006, 06:48 AM
rpenner,

That was an interesting answer, but here's what interests me about this concept.

Supposing the universe's expansion is accelerating as curently hypothesized.

Supposing this expansion leads to a FTL rate of inflation (relative to us) similar to the hypothesized early FTL expansion of space during the Big Bang.

If this happens, or is happening, mass must leave our observable universe at the farthest extremes of distance. What happens to the photons emanating from these masses as they pass the "perception barrier"? Do they decay into the hypothesized gravitons (similar to photons, only with less spin, as I recall)? Do they simply cease to exist? If so, at what point?

Posted by: Zephir Aug 7 2006, 07:27 AM
QUOTE (Pupamancur @ Aug 6 2006, 09:38 PM)
Repeating the same BS over and over doesn't make it fact

Sorry, the SR is based on two theorems: Lorentz transform (which can be derived from constant speed of light easily) and Lorentz invariance.

Both these theorems was derived by etherist Lorentz (from there is the naming), derived from quaternion form of equations, derived by another etherist Maxwell.

The SR did added to this concept nothing useless, just a "philosophy" - the formal part of theory was derived at least a ten years before. Despite of Einstein geniality, his significance should be targeted to the GR derivation instead, considering the well known fact, the English mathematician Hilbert would able to derive the same equations just a few weeks later.

From this point of view, the Einstein was pretty lucky.

Posted by: Confused2 Aug 7 2006, 07:28 AM
QUOTE (rpenner)

E = pv doesn't work for slowly moving, massive particles because a much better approximation is E = mc^2 + 1/2 pv, as follows from an approximation to Pythagoras. ( when a >> b, sqrt(a^2 + b^2) =~ a + b^2/(2a) , thus E =~ mc^2 + p^2 c ^2 / 2 m c ^2 = m c^2 + gamma ^ 2 m v ^2 /2 = m c ^2 + 1/(2(1-v^2/c^2)) m v^2


Many thanks rpenner.

To get these approximations (and elesewhere) I suspect you are using power series expansions ohmy.gif - for the less mathematically intuitive among us huh.gif it would be really nice if you'd say which - partly so we can see what higher order terms have been dropped unsure.gif and partly because the concept is useful elsewhere as a general method of tuning nasty ph34r.gif equations into 'nicer' rolleyes.gif ones.

best wishes,

-C2.

Posted by: Pupamancur Aug 7 2006, 02:19 PM
QUOTE (Zephir @ Aug 7 2006, 07:27 AM)
Sorry, the SR is based on two theorems: Lorentz transform (which can be derived from constant speed of light easily) and  Lorentz invariance.


Nope. SR is not based on "theorems" it is based on postulates. And they are not the ones listed by you, they are two totally different ones. Continue to search in wiki, you might find the correct answer. Come back when you have it.



QUOTE

Both these theorems was derived by etherist Lorentz (from there is the naming), derived from quaternion form of equations, derived by another etherist Maxwell.


So Lorentz derived the "theorem" of Lorentz invariance? We learn new (and incorrect) things from you every day.
So Lorentz, the aetherist derived the Lorentz transform "from constant speed of light"? Are you sure it wasn't Einstein who did that? Your crass ignorance is showing.
Read a little here:

http://www.fourmilab.ch/etexts/einstein/specrel/www/


QUOTE

The SR did added to this concept nothing useless, just a "philosophy" - the formal part of theory was derived at least a ten years before. Despite of Einstein geniality, his significance should be targeted to the GR derivation instead, considering the well known fact, the English mathematician Hilbert would able to derive the same equations just a few weeks later.


Ahh, something new, your "Einstein did not do anything" attitude is starting to show. Are you quoting from the standard antisemitic press now?
As an amusing aside, "the English mathematician Hilbert " was ......German!


QUOTE

From this point of view, the Einstein was pretty lucky.


.....thank you, you have put your foot in your mouth enough now.

Posted by: Zephir Aug 7 2006, 02:37 PM
QUOTE (Pupamancur @ Aug 7 2006, 05:19 PM)
So Lorentz, the aetherist  derived the Lorentz transform  "from constant speed of light"? Are you sure it wasn't Einstein who did that?

Nope - the Lorentz transform is named "Lorentz", 'cause it's a result of Lorentz's derivation, not the Einstein's derivation... biggrin.gif What a surprise!

The Lorentz derived both the light speed invariance, both the Lorentz transforms from Maxwell's equations, a long time before Einstein.

QUOTE (Pupamancur @ Aug 7 2006, 05:19 PM)
"the English mathematician Hilbert " was ......German!?

That's true, but it doesn't changes the subject. The fact, the Einstein wasn't the first person, who derived the Lorentz transform isn't manifestation of antisemitism, but it's quite symptomatic, you're trying to make a political problem from it due the lack of relevant arguments... dry.gif

Posted by: Pupamancur Aug 7 2006, 02:42 PM
QUOTE (Zephir @ Aug 7 2006, 02:37 PM)


The Lorentz derived both the light speed invariance, both the Lorentz transforms from Maxwell's equations, a long time before Einstein.


Try to take your foot from your mouth.

Posted by: Zephir Aug 7 2006, 02:56 PM
QUOTE (Pupamancur @ Aug 7 2006, 05:42 PM)
Try to take your foot from your mouth.

As usually, just a personal offensive comments instead of arguments.
Just a very naive person should suppose, the Lorentz transforms were derived by Einstein... wink.gif

Posted by: Pupamancur Aug 7 2006, 03:01 PM
QUOTE (Zephir @ Aug 7 2006, 02:37 PM)


The Lorentz (sic!)  DERIVED both the light speed invariance.....

<rest snipped, this is too good as a joke>


Quoted straight from your post. Hope you see the humor.

Posted by: Zephir Aug 7 2006, 03:12 PM
QUOTE (Pupamancur @ Aug 7 2006, 06:01 PM)
Quoted straight from your post. Hope you see the humor.

Just a wishful thinking.

The light speed invariance can be derived from Maxwells theory all the time.
No ad-hoc postulate is required for relativity theory.

Posted by: Pupamancur Aug 7 2006, 03:18 PM
QUOTE (Zephir @ Aug 7 2006, 03:12 PM)
Just a wishful thinking.

The light speed invariance can be derived from Maxwells theory all the time.
No ad-hoc postulate is required for relativity theory.

This is an advanced subject but we can broach it.
No, you cannot do that. There are mainstream theories like the Robertson Mansouri Sexl that operate from the assumption that light speed is not isotropic in any inertial reference frame bar one (a so called "preferential frame"). So, Einstein had to postulate the principle of light speed constancy and isotropy. "The Lorentz" (sic!) did not DERIVE it.

Posted by: Zephir Aug 7 2006, 03:27 PM
QUOTE (Pupamancur @ Aug 7 2006, 06:18 PM)
No, you cannot do that.

On the contrary, http://www.vttoth.com/LIGHT/light.htm.

Posted by: Pupamancur Aug 7 2006, 03:38 PM
QUOTE (Zephir @ Aug 7 2006, 03:27 PM)
On the contrary, http://www.vttoth.com/LIGHT/light.htm.

Good, at least you are reading (and quoting) Feynman, no more crackpot fare.


Now, go back to the previous post. Try reading and understanding. Lorentz did not believe in the principle of light speed constancy and isotropy, actually he believed in the Lorentz-FitzGerald contraction, a hypothesis put forward by FitzGerald and further developed by Lorentz. He battled Einstein until about 1920 when he finally conceded, that there is no c+v, that c is just c IN ALL IRF's and in ALL DIRECTIONS within an IRF.

Posted by: Zephir Aug 7 2006, 03:58 PM
QUOTE (Pupamancur @ Aug 7 2006, 06:38 PM)
Good, at least you are reading (and quoting) Feynman, no more crackpot fare.

I don't know, what the Lorentz believed in - I wasn't his psychoanalyst.

The true is, you're repeatedly lying in quite trivial facts, like that the "light speed invariance cannot be derived from Maxwell's equation", the "Lorentz didn't made such derivation", the "Lorentz transforms were derived by Einstein" (LOL) - until you'll see a direct link, which everybody can verify independently, including you..

Furthermore you're claiming the things like "effective mass doesn't exist", "the photon has no rest mass", and so on..

This is not so "Good", don't you think? You're becoming an untruthfulness, at least in my eyes. How do you want to achieve respect, after than?

Posted by: Pupamancur Aug 7 2006, 04:53 PM
QUOTE (Zephir @ Aug 7 2006, 03:58 PM)
I don't know, what the Lorentz believed in - I wasn't his psychoanalyst.

The true is, you're repeatedly lying in quite trivial facts, like that the "light speed invariance cannot be derived from Maxwell's equation", the "Lorentz didn't made such derivation", the "Lorentz transforms were derived by Einstein" (LOL) - until you'll see a direct link, which everybody can verify independently, including you..

Furthermore you're claiming the things like "effective mass doesn't exist", "the photon has no rest mass", and so on..

This is not so "Good", don't you think? You're becoming an untruthfulness, at least in my eyes. How do you want to achieve respect, after than?

You are projecting your misunderstandings of mainstream science as facts.
If you cannot read and comprehend what is being told to you, too bad.

Posted by: rpenner Aug 8 2006, 04:47 AM
QUOTE (Confused2 @ Aug 7 2006, 07:28 AM)
QUOTE (rpenner)
E = pv doesn't work for slowly moving, massive particles because a much better approximation is E = mc^2 + 1/2 pv, as follows from an approximation to Pythagoras. ( when a >> b, sqrt(a^2 + b^2) =~ a + b^2/(2a) , thus E =~ mc^2 + p^2 c ^2 / 2 m c ^2 = m c^2 + gamma ^ 2 m v ^2 /2 = m c ^2 + 1/(2(1-v^2/c^2)) m v^2


Many thanks rpenner.

I suspect you are using power series expansions ohmy.gif - for the less mathematically intuitive among us huh.gif it would be really nice if you'd say which - partly so we can see what higher order terms have been dropped unsure.gif and partly because the concept is useful elsewhere as a general method of tuning nasty ph34r.gif equations into 'nicer' rolleyes.gif ones.

best wishes,

-C2.

A very good question, and one I was in the middle of answering when a 3 am mistake shut down my web browser.

Physicists have a long history of using approximations like Taylor series, spherical harmonics, Feynmann diagrams, Fourier series, multipole expansion, moments, etc, to get approximate answers with well-behaved errors. Because v/c is small for most ordinary things, a Taylor expansion gets a "good enough" answer with a simple polynomial of few terms. Because alpha =~ 1/137 is small, Quantum Electrodynamics gets good answers to very complex questions with relatively little work.

I remember E = mc^2 + 1/2 m v^2 + 3/8 m v^4/c^2 ...
which I remember as E = mc^2 ( 1 + 1/2 b^2 + 3/8 b^4 .... ) where b = v/c,
as an approximation to E = mc^2 (1 / sqrt(1 - b^2))
A nice smooth function with a relatively nice Taylor series.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mass_in_special_relativity#Kinetic_energy

E = mc^2 + 1/2 m v^2 + 3/8 m v^4/c^2 + 5/16 m v^6/c^4 + 35/128 m v^8/c^6 ....

If v/c = 0, E = mc^2, done!

If v/c = 0.01, E = mc^2 * ( 1 + 0.00005 + 0.00000000375 ..... ) ( or mc^2/sqrt(0.9999) = 1.0000500037503125273462..... mc^2 if you use the exact formula)

But if v/c = 0.8, then this Taylor series is a pretty slow way to get a close answer.
E = mc^2 ( 1 + 0.36 + 0.1536 + 0.08192 + 0.0458752 .... ) ( or mc^2/sqrt(1 - 0.64) = 1.66666... mc^2)

Clearly if v/c < 0.01, then Newton's K.E. = 1/2 mv^2 is going to get you a long way to an exact answer.

Posted by: rpenner Aug 8 2006, 06:24 AM
ubavontuba, the same shutdown event caused my answer to you to be lost, also.
QUOTE (ubavontuba @ Aug 7 2006, 06:48 AM)
What happens to the photons emanating from these masses as they pass the "perception barrier"?  Do they decay into the hypothesized gravitons (similar to photons, only with less spin, as I recall)?  Do they simply cease to exist?  If so, at what point?

Basically, we have physics theories because we can't, even in principle, be observers of the universe everywhere and everywhen. A physics theory that says the universe acts in some unknown manner in the places we can't see it is sterile and devoid of predictive power because the number of ways something can behave in a unknown manner greatly exceeds the number of ways something can behave as predicted. :-)
Within (General) Relativity, there is the assumption of Local Positional Invariance, that the outcome of any non-gravitational experiment is independent of the time and place in the universe where you perform the experiment. The LPI is tested often, and lots it has http://forum.physorg.com/index.php?showtopic=7908&view=findpost&p=110718.

From LPI, it clear that 1) nothing special happens to the photons as they leave the "observable universe" (technically, almost any photon headed away from Earth has left the "observable universe" except in the vanishing small case of it interacting with something (spacecraft, dust, moon, planet, extraterrestrial civilization, etc) because we can't catch up with it, and 2) nothing special happens to the photons, especially decaying into gravitons, a spin-1 particle can't decay into 1 or more spin-2 particles without violating other tested laws, like conversation of angular momentum, and 3) ceasing to exist is likewise forbidden for conversation of angular momentum, linear momentum, and energy.

Certain students of philosophy would point out that since we can't test the LPI everywhere and everywhen in the universe, then basing expectations on it is only a provisional assertion, but all scientific predictions are provisional on "the universe behaving the way we have observed it to behave." The LPI, in addition to being a philosophically nice way of assuming that the universe behaves well went our backs are turned, is also scientifically testable within the limits of our imaginations and budgets. I don't know of an experimental disprove of any part of the LPI, so it's part of my "physics common sense." I would rely on it just as I would rely on P. G. Wodehouse's Jeeves to come to the rescue of Bertram Wooster.

Posted by: ubavontuba Aug 8 2006, 06:44 AM
QUOTE (rpenner @ Aug 8 2006, 06:24 AM)
ubavontuba, the same shutdown event caused my answer to you to be lost, also.
Basically, we have physics theories because we can't, even in principle, be observers of the universe everywhere and everywhen. A physics theory that says the universe acts in some unknown manner in the places we can't see it is sterile and devoid of predictive power because the number of ways something can behave in a unknown manner greatly exceeds the number of ways something can behave as predicted. :-)
Within (General) Relativity, there is the assumption of Local Positional Invariance, that the outcome of any non-gravitational experiment is independent of the time and place in the universe where you perform the experiment. The LPI is tested often, and lots it has http://forum.physorg.com/index.php?showtopic=7908&view=findpost&p=110718.

From LPI, it clear that 1) nothing special happens to the photons as they leave the "observable universe" (technically, almost any photon headed away from Earth has left the "observable universe" except in the vanishing small case of it interacting with something (spacecraft, dust, moon, planet, extraterrestrial civilization, etc) because we can't catch up with it, and 2) nothing special happens to the photons, especially decaying into gravitons, a spin-1 particle can't decay into 1 or more spin-2 particles without violating other tested laws, like conversation of angular momentum, and 3) ceasing to exist is likewise forbidden for conversation of angular momentum, linear momentum, and energy.

Certain students of philosophy would point out that since we can't test the LPI everywhere and everywhen in the universe, then basing expectations on it is only a provisional assertion, but all scientific predictions are provisional on "the universe behaving the way we have observed it to behave." The LPI, in addition to being a philosophically nice way of assuming that the universe behaves well went our backs are turned, is also scientifically testable within the limits of our imaginations and budgets. I don't know of an experimental disprove of any part of the LPI, so it's part of my "physics common sense." I would rely on it just as I would rely on P. G. Wodehouse's Jeeves to come to the rescue of Bertram Wooster.

rpenner,

Thanks again for a very interesting answer. I'm sorry to hear of your computer problems.

Anyway, I would argue that the relative energy of photons moving away from us (say like from a flashlight) retain their relative energy value to the source. Therefore, this argument seems irrelevant to the question.

What I'm asking about are photons that are observed from a source that is accelerating (along with space) past the speed of light, away from us. Essentially, the relative energy of such a photon must be infinitely small. I.e. no relativistic mass, but does it still exist?

As far as the conservation of angular momentum is concerned, wouldn't that depend on the internal clock rate of such a particle relative to the observer? Couldn't its spin be perceived by the observer to be slower but, to its own internal clock, it experiences no change?

Posted by: rpenner Aug 8 2006, 07:34 AM
QUOTE (ubavontuba @ Aug 8 2006, 06:44 AM)
What I'm asking about are photons that are observed from a source that is accelerating (along with space) past the speed of light, away from us.  Essentially, the relative energy of such a photon must be infinitely small.  I.e. no relativistic mass, but does it still exist?

I think that you'll agree that there are only two possibilities here, either it is possible that zero-energy photons can make it to Earth from a distant galaxy, or the class of photons which can actually arrive at Earth all have energies > 0. I think in the case of GR, the cosmological redshift is only finite for photons that actually make it to their destinations. Specfically, if the photon never arrives at the detection point, you don't say anything about it's energy as it really is outside of your universe. Cosmology, is not however my strong suit.

QUOTE (ubavontuba @ Aug 8 2006, 06:44 AM)
As far as the conservation of angular momentum is concerned, wouldn't that depend on the internal clock rate of such a particle relative to the observer?  Couldn't its spin be perceived by the observer to be slower but, to its own internal clock, it experiences no change?

Not as I understand the Poincare derivations of the law of conservation of angular momentum. I don't have any good short references on this, however, since most of my web-linkable references are whole textbooks. I like Warren Siegel's Fields textbook, but it's intended for physics graduate students.

http://insti.physics.sunysb.edu/~siegel/errata.html

Exercise III B 4.1 on pages 199-200 or I A 4.3 on pages 58-59

Posted by: ubavontuba Aug 9 2006, 05:30 AM
QUOTE (rpenner @ Yesterday at 7:34 AM )
QUOTE (ubavontuba @  Aug 8 2006, 06:44 AM)
What I'm asking about are photons that are observed from a source that is accelerating (along with space) past the speed of light, away from us.  Essentially, the relative energy of such a photon must be infinitely small.  I.e. no relativistic mass, but does it still exist?


I think that you'll agree that there are only two possibilities here, either it is possible that zero-energy photons can make it to Earth from a distant galaxy, or the class of photons which can actually arrive at Earth all have energies > 0. I think in the case of GR, the cosmological redshift is only finite for photons that actually make it to their destinations. Specfically, if the photon never arrives at the detection point, you don't say anything about it's energy as it really is outside of your universe. Cosmology, is not however my strong suit.


This is interesting. The cosmic microwave background radiation (CMBR) is said to date back to about 380,000 years after the Big Bang. If you think of it in a different way, It took 13 billion years for those photons to reach earth from a distance of the size of the universe at 380,000 years of age (when this snapshot was taken). That's a maximum of 380,000 light years distance traveled, and yet it took 13 billion years for the photons to get here!

I can't access your physics volume reference. It's just too large for my poor little dial-up connection. Thanks anyway.

Posted by: Zephir Aug 12 2006, 08:38 AM
QUOTE (ubavontuba @ Aug 9 2006, 08:30 AM)
...cosmic microwave background radiation (CMBR) is said to date back to about 380,000 years after the Big Bang.  If you think of it in a different way, It took 13 billion years for those photons to reach earth from a distance of the size of the universe at 380,000 years of age...

The whole discussion of Universe size with connection to the speed of background microwave radiation spreading is solely pointless in context of http://superstruny.aspweb.cz/?s=main%20introducing%20point, because such radiation has "expanded" too together with vacuum and the speed of light has nothing to do with the rate of such expansion.

http://superstruny.aspweb.cz/images/fyzika/spaceexp.gif

At this point the contemporary cosmology is deeply non-relativistic, if not irrational. If the speed of environment (reference frame) motion cannot be observed, why to bother with it at all?

Posted by: The_Right_Stuff Aug 17 2006, 08:43 AM
I just had a thought. I was talking before of what was happening if a train was running down a track and light pulses were being sent from end to end. According to Einstein, the light should travel from one end of the train to the other in the same time as it would if in the light was traveling in the opposite direction, and this is to be the case even if the train is in motion.

Now the next step is that further down the the train track, suddenly the track turns into a loop shape and also has an exit which can be used to place you back a straight track heading in the same direction as you were on beforehand, which is similar to the shape of the Sagnac test apparatus shown below. See middle of http://www.outersecrets.com/real/5_4d_3.htm web page for a GIF image of the Train experiment.


User posted image

The peculiarity is that once the train is on the loop section, according to the Sagnac Effect, the light no longer will travel from end to end in the same time in both directions, but once the train is back on the straight track, all will be magically restored to the Einstein norm.

The immediate argument against this by others of this Forum, was that the train was no longer moving at the same consistent speed, but that it was now constantly accelerating as it traveled the loop.


The question this now brings to my mind, is that if instead of the train, it is a photon which is heading down the straight train track via fiber optics cable, and then it enters the loop via that fiber optics cable, does this mean that as the Photon does the loop, that it is constantly accelerating, and if not, what property is it that the Photon has, that the train does not ?

Posted by: Guest_nobody Aug 17 2006, 12:17 PM
QUOTE (The_Right_Stuff @ Aug 17 2006, 08:43 AM)
I just had a thought. I was talking before of what was happening if a train was running down a track and light pulses were being sent from end to end. According to Einstein, the light should travel from one end of the train to the other in the same time as it would if in the light was traveling in the opposite direction, and this is to be the case even if the train is in motion.

Now the next step is that further down the the train track, suddenly the track turns into a loop shape and also has an exit which can be used to place you back a straight track heading in the same direction as you were on beforehand, which is similar to the shape of the Sagnac test apparatus shown below. See middle of http://www.outersecrets.com/real/5_4d_3.htm web page for a GIF image of the Train experiment.


User posted image

The peculiarity is that once the train is on the loop section, according to the Sagnac Effect, the light no longer will travel from end to end in the same time in both directions, but once the train is back on the straight track, all will be magically restored to the Einstein norm.

The immediate argument against this by others of this Forum, was that the train was no longer moving at the same consistent speed, but that it was now constantly accelerating as it traveled the loop.


The question this now brings to my mind, is that if instead of the train, it is a photon which is heading down the straight train track via fiber optics cable, and then it enters the loop via that fiber optics cable, does this mean that as the Photon does the loop, that it is constantly accelerating, and if not, what property is it that the Photon has, that the train does not ?

Sound similar to Ronald Mallett. Interesting. wink.gif

Posted by: Nick Aug 17 2006, 05:35 PM
The photon won't change speed just direction. Can't say the same for the train. Acceleration of light is only a change in its direction. But for the train it can be both a change in speed and a change in direction.

Look at rotation. It is a constant speed with a changing direction.
Drop something. It is a constant direction(straight down) and a changing speed(due to free fall)

Posted by: The_Right_Stuff Aug 17 2006, 10:40 PM
QUOTE (Nick @ Aug 17 2006, 05:35 PM)
Acceleration of light is only a change in its direction.

Look at rotation. It is a constant speed with a changing direction.

This is my point. A flawed analysis of a condition, produces an absurd claim.

You said it yourself, " Acceleration of light is only a change in its direction. ".

This is like having an analysis tell you that cats are dogs when they walk in circular patterns, but return to being cats again after they have returned to a straight path. But since the FLAWED analysis says so, everyone is willing to put their on mothers life on the line to defend what the analysis has ordered them to believe.

In other words, if an event is an (X+1) dimensional event, and those living in a (X) dimensional reality attempt to describe the (X+1) dimensional event using only (X) dimensions in the description, the outcome is flawed. But because they know not of the additional (1) dimension, and therefore do not of its part in the event, their flawed theory is accepted as accurate even though it may claim something as ridiculous as saying that the surface of the sun is colder than our north pole.

What is even more amusing, is that these flawed analysis's create opposing beliefs.

1) Following a rotational path, results in constant acceleration.
2) Light speed is consistent.
3) " Acceleration of light is only a change in its direction "

If it is claimed that anything following a circular path is therefore constantly accelerating, then there is no way what so ever to exclude the " Photon " from the " Anything " list.

And if it is claimed that the speed of the photon can not be accelerated, for the speed of light is " C " and that's it, then this includes no acceleration occurring even if putting the Photon on a circular path. And if this is the case, then this rule must apply the to all that are on the " Anything " list, meaning no acceleration occurs while on a circular path.

A wiser mind will simply notice the absurdity, and realize that something is missing in the analysis.

Posted by: Nick Aug 17 2006, 11:36 PM
One more thing: light does slow down. It moves at a constant speed but in slower gravitational time. It actually moves slower in gravity. The metric is rearranged.

Posted by: The_Right_Stuff Aug 20 2006, 12:30 PM
QUOTE (Why Not? @ Jul 31 2006, 04:00 AM)
Hey The Right Stuff,

Keep in mind, when your train is traveling in a straight line it is not accelerating but when it is in the loop it is accelerating.

What is overlooked here in your claim, is the fact that the acceleration you speak of, applies to both the train, and the Photons.

Therefore this argument is canceled out biggrin.gif


Posted by: The_Right_Stuff Aug 21 2006, 09:38 AM
QUOTE (The_Right_Stuff @ Aug 20 2006, 12:30 PM)
What is overlooked here in your claim, is the fact that the acceleration you speak of, applies to both the train, and the Photons.

Therefore this argument is canceled out  biggrin.gif

Right on TRS. biggrin.gif

And the acceleration refers to Angular acceleration , and Centripetal acceleration, which have nothing to do with the Velocity of the object that follows the circular path itself.

The objects consistant Velocity( v ) is measured by user posted image where T = Time Period, and R = raduis.

Posted by: Montec Aug 21 2006, 03:28 PM
Hello all

The time of flight (TOF) for the photon traveling from the rear of the train to the front will always be longer than the TOF for the photon traveling from the front to the rear of the train if the train has any velocity. This is what the Sagnac effect measures (via phase change) for changes in rotational velocity.

smile.gif

Posted by: Confused2 Aug 22 2006, 01:50 PM
QUOTE (Montec)

The time of flight (TOF) for the photon traveling from the rear of the train to the front will always be longer than the TOF for the photon traveling from the front to the rear of the train if the train has any velocity.


Do you have any evidence for this?

-C2.

Posted by: Pupamancur Aug 22 2006, 02:08 PM
QUOTE (Confused2 @ Aug 22 2006, 01:50 PM)
QUOTE (Montec)

The time of flight (TOF) for the photon traveling from the rear of the train to the front will always be longer than the TOF for the photon traveling from the front to the rear of the train if the train has any velocity.


Do you have any evidence for this?

-C2.

http://www.mathpages.com/rr/s2-07/2-07.htm

Posted by: Confused2 Aug 22 2006, 02:32 PM
Hi Pupamancur,

Montec's statement was about about the differing time of flight of a photon up and down a moving carriage .. this is a much simpler test of relativity than the SAGNAC effect.

Montec..... ?

-C2.

Posted by: Pupamancur Aug 22 2006, 02:54 PM
QUOTE (Confused2 @ Aug 22 2006, 02:32 PM)
Hi Pupamancur,

Montec's statement was about about the differing time of flight of a photon up and down a moving carriage .. this is a much simpler test of relativity than the SAGNAC effect.

Montec..... ?

-C2.

c=light speed
v=car speed
T=time towards front of the car
t=time towards rear of the car


Equations towards the front of the car:

cT=L+vT

T=L/(c-v)

Equations towards the rear of the car

ct=L-vt

t=L/(c+v)

t<T

Posted by: Confused2 Aug 22 2006, 03:27 PM
Hi Pupancur,

QUOTE (Pupancur)


c=light speed
v=car speed
T=time towards front of the car
t=time towards rear of the car


Equations towards the front of the car:

cT=L+vT

T=L/(c-v)

Equations towards the rear of the car

ct=L-vt

t=L/(c+v)

t<T


I think this makes Montec's rather nicely. All we need to do is find the speed where t=T and we can be sure we are then at rest with respect to 'space' or 'the Aether' (as we like to call it).

-C2.

Posted by: Pupamancur Aug 22 2006, 04:15 PM
QUOTE (Confused2 @ Aug 22 2006, 03:27 PM)
Hi Pupancur,

QUOTE (Pupancur)


c=light speed
v=car speed
T=time towards front of the car
t=time towards rear of the car


Equations towards the front of the car:

cT=L+vT

T=L/(c-v)

Equations towards the rear of the car

ct=L-vt

t=L/(c+v)

t<T


I think this makes Montec's rather nicely. All we need to do is find the speed where t=T and we can be sure we are then at rest with respect to 'space' or 'the Aether' (as we like to call it).

-C2.

You can't do that. The equations you see are for one way light speed, you cannot measure that. At the two ends of the car, there are two mirrors, all you can measure is the two way light speed (light returning to the car center). The return paths cancel the effects , so in the end you always see t1=t2.
Otherwise this experiment would have violated PoR.

Posted by: Confused2 Aug 22 2006, 04:40 PM
Hi Pupamancur,

An experiment to eliminate the two way effect.

Synchronise two clocks in the middle of the carriage (car) . At every (1 second) tick these clocks sent out a short radio pulse. Take 1 to the back of the coach and 1 to the front. Increase/decrease speed of coach until the pings meet at the centre of the coach, you are then at rest wrt the Aether.


-C2.

I would urge you to consider the possibility that the [edit] times are the same in both directions whatever speed the coach is moving.

Posted by: Pupamancur Aug 22 2006, 05:14 PM
QUOTE (Confused2 @ Aug 22 2006, 04:40 PM)
Hi Pupamancur,

An experiment to eliminate the two way effect.

Synchronise two clocks in the middle of the carriage (car) . At every (1 second) tick these clocks sent out a short radio pulse. Take 1 to the back of the coach and 1 to the front. Increase/decrease speed of coach until the pings meet at the centre of the coach, you are then at rest wrt the Aether.


-C2.

I would urge you to consider the possibility that the [edit] times are the same in both directions whatever speed the coach is moving.

No, I'll let you find the error in your thinking by yourself. You are violating PoR

Posted by: rpenner Aug 22 2006, 05:19 PM
In relativity, observers which are in relative motion disagree, even in principle, on whether two events, A & B, which happen at different locations are "Simultaneous".
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Relativity_of_simultaneity

So any question about events at the two ends of the railcar happening "at the same time" would have to be answered with respect to the relative velocity of the railcar and the observer.
http://www.learner.org/resources/series42.html (Episodes 41-43)

Synchronizing the clocks then moving them to the ends of the train will add a SR-based time differential, as moving clocks run slow. You could wire up some pulleys so that the clocks always move at the same speed, in the frame of the railway car, but then an exterior moving observer will see the clocks as moving at different speeds.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Velocity-addition_formula

All of which is meaningless to the discussion of the Sagnac effect, as to first order, the Sagnac effect is the same in Newtonian and Lorentzian mechanics.

http://forum.physorg.com/index.php?showtopic=8100&view=findpost&p=112968
QUOTE (rpenner @ Aug 4 2006, 05:45 PM)
The Sagnac effect does not depend on SR or mirrors, however. The Sagnac effect completely destroys the "ballistic" theory of photons. It is equally compatible with a 19th century naive ether theory, where the speed of light is only absolute with respect to the unmoving ether, and SR where the speed of light is c for any inertial observer. It can be done with mirrors OR fiber optics, which is preferred because you can put 100 km of fiber optics in a lab. However since Euclidean notions pervade intuition, it's easy to get intellectually lazy and accidentally come to the (erroneous) conclusion that Sagnac is not compatible with SR.

http://www.mathpages.com/rr/s2-07/2-07.htm (from an earlier post, not mine.)

Posted by: Confused2 Aug 22 2006, 05:45 PM
rpenner,Montec,Pupamancur et al,

Re the recent car excursion..

I think there is a danger of overkill here. Everything happens within the car/carriage/coach (whatever!). Knowing Montec I suspect his view is that the car/carriage/coach (whatever!) is moving through the Aether (I'm not sure where Pupamancur stands on this). Assume the car is moving forwards through the Aether .. for an observer in the centre of the car it is reasonable to assume that light will take longer to reach the front of the car (it has to fly against the flow of Aether) than it willl to reach the back of the car (where the speed of the Aether adds to the speed of light) . This is not a complicated problem. I would be grateful if Montec would clarify whether or not he feels my clock test is a good test or not. Pupamancur clearly feels it is a bad test (ie it will fail) but leaves it to me to work out why he thinks this which is less than helpful.

My own view is that the speed of light is the same regardless of 'frame' and Pupamancur's answer about the time of flight up and down the car was either wrong or he was attempting to answer the question in a way that I have not understood yet.

-C2.

Posted by: Confused2 Aug 22 2006, 05:50 PM
QUOTE (Montec)

The time of flight (TOF) for the photon traveling from the rear of the train to the front will always be longer than the TOF for the photon traveling from the front to the rear of the train if the train has any velocity.


The meaning of this seems clear to me .. am I missing something?
-C2.

Posted by: Ensa Aug 22 2006, 05:54 PM
Sorry if I am demonstrating missing the point of this thread and anyway bringing it down to a layman's level but...
Surely a pulse of light will take longer to travel from the back to the front of a moving train (than a stationary train) simply because the front of the train will be further away by the time the pulse gets there.
So isn't the answer to the clocks point obvious, or am I missing something?

Also, it seems that this answers the loop / straight apparant paradox because in the loop scenario the start and end of the journey of the light may not neccessarily be any further away due to rotation of the system (it depends on the speed of rotation of the system, and how long it takes the light to complete a loop) but they are neccessarily further away in the straight line scenario.

Just my confusion anyway...

Posted by: Pupamancur Aug 22 2006, 05:56 PM
QUOTE (Confused2 @ Aug 22 2006, 05:45 PM)
rpenner,Montec,Pupamancur et al,

Re the recent car excursion..

I think there is a danger of overkill here. Everything happens within the car/carriage/coach (whatever!). Knowing Montec I suspect his view is that the car/carriage/coach (whatever!) is moving through the Aether (I'm not sure where Pupamancur stands on this).  Assume the car is moving forwards through the Aether .. for an observer in the centre of the car it is reasonable to assume that light will take longer to reach the front of the car (it has to fly against the flow of Aether)  than it willl to reach the back of the car (where the speed of the Aether adds to the speed of light) . This is not a complicated problem. I would be grateful if Montec would clarify whether or not he feels my clock test is a good test or not. Pupamancur clearly feels it is a bad test (ie it will fail)  but leaves it to me to work out why he thinks this which is less than helpful.

My own view is that the speed of light is the same regardless of 'frame' and Pupamancur's answer about the time of flight up and down the car was either wrong or he was attempting to answer the question in a way that I have not understood yet.

-C2.

You don't understand it. Both Sagnac and the car "thought" experiment use the same concept called "closing speed". This explains the c+v and c-v. This is why I wrote the equations in great detail for you

Posted by: Confused2 Aug 22 2006, 06:00 PM
QUOTE (ensa)

Surely a pulse of light will take longer to travel from the back to the front of a moving train (than a stationary train) simply because the front of the train will be further away by the time the pulse gets there.
So isn't the answer to the clocks point obvious, or am I missing something?


I'm afraid the answer isn't obvious at all.

I see Pupamancur has just introduced 'closing speed' .. is this an Aether term or what?

-C2.

Posted by: Pupamancur Aug 22 2006, 06:00 PM
QUOTE (Ensa @ Aug 22 2006, 05:54 PM)
Sorry if I am demonstrating missing the point of this thread and anyway bringing it down to a layman's level but...
Surely a pulse of light will take longer to travel from the back to the front of a moving train (than a stationary train) simply because the front of the train will be further away by the time the pulse gets there.
So isn't the answer to the clocks point obvious, or am I missing something?


Correct

Posted by: Confused2 Aug 22 2006, 06:04 PM
I resign!
C2

Posted by: Pupamancur Aug 22 2006, 10:04 PM
QUOTE (Confused2 @ Aug 22 2006, 06:04 PM)
I resign!
C2

Don't give up so easily.
The above exchange underscores the need to express yourself mathematically, not with words. You cannot learn relativity by posting, you really need to take a class. then, all these issues will become a lot easier to understand. Try enrolling at the local college, don't give up!

Posted by: ubavontuba Aug 23 2006, 06:24 AM
QUOTE (Pupamancur @ Aug 22 2006, 10:04 PM)
Don't give up so easily.
The above exchange underscores the need to express yourself mathematically, not with words. You cannot learn relativity by posting, you really need to take a  class. then, all these issues will become a lot easier to understand. Try enrolling at the local college, don't give up!

Pupamancur,

You know, this is really good advice... for the idle rich! The rest of have jobs, families, lawns to mow, structures to maintain, bills to pay, children to tend to, PTA meetings, and a thousand other little chores that just barely provide us with a suitable home in which to raise our children.

We come to these sites as an intellectual respite from the daily grind. Your arrogant preaching "go to school" only serves to remind us that we can't. We just can't.

And just so you know, this isn't a cop-out. For years I enrolled in various classes as time permitted. I even have a 4.0 GPA! Alas, the time is no longer available to me. I'm sure the same can be said for many others.

So knock it off with the preachy crap. People here are short of time and desire quick, concise, and pleasant replies to their questions. Can you do that?

Posted by: Confused2 Aug 23 2006, 01:26 PM
Re:Correct

It might be helpful if the intent of the question and the intent of the answer could be clarified.

My interpretation of the intent of the questioner (perhaps incorrectly) is that the length of time is measured on the moving train and my interpretation of the answer is that it applies to an observer by the side of the track.

-C2.

Posted by: Pupamancur Aug 26 2006, 03:53 PM
QUOTE (ubavontuba @ Aug 23 2006, 06:24 AM)
Pupamancur,

You know, this is really good advice... for the idle rich! The rest of have jobs, families, lawns to mow, structures to maintain, bills to pay, children to tend to, PTA meetings, and a thousand other little chores that just barely provide us with a suitable home in which to raise our children.

We come to these sites as an intellectual respite from the daily grind. Your arrogant preaching "go to school" only serves to remind us that we can't. We just can't.

And just so you know, this isn't a cop-out. For years I enrolled in various classes as time permitted. I even have a 4.0 GPA! Alas, the time is no longer available to me. I'm sure the same can be said for many others.

So knock it off with the preachy crap. People here are short of time and desire quick, concise, and pleasant replies to their questions. Can you do that?

If you took classes, they obviously didn't "take". Otherwise, you wouldn't be posting the antiscientific stuff you are posting.

Posted by: Pupamancur Aug 26 2006, 03:55 PM
QUOTE (Confused2 @ Aug 23 2006, 01:26 PM)
Re:Correct

It might be helpful if the intent of the question and the intent of the answer could be clarified.

My interpretation of the intent of the questioner (perhaps incorrectly) is that the length of time is measured on the moving train and my interpretation of the answer is that it applies to an observer by the side of the track.

-C2.

..and what does relativity say about such attempts of applying the observations in one frame to another frame in relative motion?

Posted by: Confused2 Aug 26 2006, 05:04 PM
To answer Pupamancur's question..

I can't find an explicit 'Relativity says' covering the precise circumstances .. however..

Einstein ( 'Relativity' translated by Robert Lawson pub: Routledge) does say that

"Every general law of nature must be ['is' (C2)] so constituted that it is transformed into a law of exactly the same form when, instead of the space-time variables x,y,z,t of the original co-ordinate system K we introduce new space-time variables x',y',z',t' of the new co-ordinate system K'. "

We may reasonably conclude that the general laws of nature will not be preserved where only parts of the coordinate x,y,z,t co-ordinate system are transformed. We may agree a 'definition' of what we mean when we mix co-ordinates between frames but in general it requires greater caution and clarity than is generally found... IMHO it should be avoided whenever possible.

-C2.

Posted by: Pupamancur Aug 26 2006, 05:53 PM
QUOTE (Confused2 @ Aug 26 2006, 05:04 PM)
To answer Pupamancur's question..

I can't find an explicit 'Relativity says' covering the precise circumstances .. however..

Einstein ( 'Relativity' translated by Robert Lawson pub: Routledge) does say that

"Every general law of nature must be ['is' (C2)] so constituted that it is transformed into a law of exactly the same form when, instead of the space-time variables x,y,z,t of the original co-ordinate system K we introduce new space-time variables x',y',z',t' of the new co-ordinate system K'. "

We may reasonably conclude that the general laws of nature will not be preserved where only parts of the coordinate x,y,z,t co-ordinate system are transformed. We may agree a 'definition' of what we mean when we mix co-ordinates between frames but in general it requires greater caution and clarity than is generally found... IMHO it should be avoided whenever possible.

-C2.

This is why I ask you very precise questions, so you cannot get away by replying with word salads.

Posted by: Confused2 Aug 26 2006, 06:42 PM
QUOTE (Pupamancur @ Aug 22 2006, 06:00 PM)
Correct

QUOTE (Ensa @ Aug 22 2006 @ 05:54 PM)

Sorry if I am demonstrating missing the point of this thread and anyway bringing it down to a layman's level but...
Surely a pulse of light will take longer to travel from the back to the front of a moving train (than a stationary train) simply because the front of the train will be further away by the time the pulse gets there.
So isn't the answer to the clocks point obvious, or am I missing something?


QUOTE (Pupamancur)

Correct.


Is there anything wrong with your answer? .. missing perhaps?

-C2.

Posted by: Pupamancur Aug 26 2006, 06:51 PM
QUOTE (Confused2 @ Aug 26 2006, 06:42 PM)


QUOTE (Pupamancur)

Correct.


Is there anything wrong with your answer? .. missing perhaps?

-C2.

No, there is nothing missing in my answers, there is a lot missing in your education and reasoning. Hence your quasi-perpetual state of confusion.

Posted by: geirlade Aug 26 2006, 10:02 PM
http://www.mathpages.com/rr/s2-07/2-07.htm

--
GR

Posted by: Pupamancur Aug 27 2006, 04:11 AM
QUOTE (geirlade @ Aug 26 2006, 10:02 PM)
http://www.mathpages.com/rr/s2-07/2-07.htm

--
GR

Yep, I gave them this same link long ago, they can't read math, can't read physics , so they are in a perpetual state of confusion.

Posted by: Zephir Aug 27 2006, 04:57 AM
QUOTE (Pupamancur @ Aug 27 2006, 07:11 AM)
Yep, I gave them this same link long ago, they can't read math, can't read physics , so they are in a perpetual state of confusion.

Yep, exactly like the mainstream physicists after refusal of Aether based on Michelson-Morley experiment... wink.gif
These Aussies plays no game with you - they just can see the logical gaps in such misunderstanding by the same way, I can see the gaps in understanding of physic of yours.

Posted by: Pupamancur Aug 27 2006, 05:02 AM
QUOTE (Zephir @ Aug 27 2006, 04:57 AM)
Yep, exactly like the mainstream physicists after refusal of Aether based on Michelson-Morley experiment... wink.gif
These Aussies plays no game with you - they just can see the logical gaps in such misunderstanding by the same way, I can see the gaps in understanding of physic of yours.

What "Aussies", are you having a new set of hallucinations?

Posted by: Zephir Aug 27 2006, 05:11 AM
QUOTE (Pupamancur @ Aug 27 2006, 08:02 AM)
What "Aussies", are you having a new set of hallucinations?

Yep, I can see some idiot...

Posted by: ubavontuba Aug 27 2006, 05:13 AM
QUOTE (Pupamancur @ Aug 26 2006, 03:53 PM)
If you took classes, they obviously didn't "take". Otherwise, you wouldn't be posting the antiscientific stuff you are posting.

What "antiscientific stuff" are you referring too?

Posted by: Pupamancur Aug 27 2006, 05:24 AM
QUOTE (ubavontuba @ Aug 27 2006, 05:13 AM)
What "antiscientific stuff" are you referring too?

Just the type that some of you post in answer to the subject of this thread, when you can't understand what's said here:

http://www.mathpages.com/rr/s2-07/2-07.htm

Posted by: Pupamancur Aug 27 2006, 05:57 AM
QUOTE (Zephir @ Aug 27 2006, 05:11 AM)
Yep, I can see some idiot...

..admiring yourself in the mirror again?

Posted by: Confused2 Aug 27 2006, 01:35 PM
Ubavontuba, Zephir et al,
I regret that it has taken me so long to realize that a crackpot with a good theory can be every bit as much of a crackpot as one with a bad theory.
-C2.

Posted by: Knot of this world Aug 27 2006, 08:26 PM
'CiviliZation' dictates that we are all crackpots. (Divided-mind and rule)

Posted by: Zephir Aug 27 2006, 09:21 PM
QUOTE (Confused2 @ Aug 27 2006, 04:35 PM)
I regret that it has taken me so long to realize that a crackpot with a good theory can be every bit as much of a crackpot as one with a bad theory.

In fact, It's not so difficult to distinguish between good and foolish theory, at least for me. For example, if you check the discussion here, you'll see, I didn't interfere the discussion about SAGNAC Effect here - simply because such phenomena doesn't violates the relativity theory by my opinion and http://forum.physorg.com/index.php?showtopic=8535&st=15&#entry117116 has nothing to add to such phenomena. After all, I'm not required to assist in each discussion here, but from my point of view the truth is (rather exceptionally) on Pupamancur side, here. My diplomatic decision therefore was, not to interfere such discussion at all... wink.gif

The Pupamancur's feedback would be very important and useful at the case, if it would be supported by some relevant arguments - not just by blind attacks. Without arguments the good stance can be every bit as much like the subjective negativistic stance. Such stance doesn't help understanding by the very same way, like some the missleading opinions, because it cannot be correlated with the arguments.

After all, by http://forum.physorg.com/index.php?showtopic=8535&st=15&#entry117116 the reasoning plays the same role in understanding development, like the gradient in matter evolution. The truth isn't important, just the reason. And the reason isn't so important, like the reasons of reason, etc... By such way, the truth is quite recursive by the same way, like the gradients inside matter and the understanding is just the process of recursive belief in reasons. Doesn't it means, the absolute truth doesn't exist at all?

Nope, at the scope of some limited subset of axioms we can postulate absolute valid claims by the same way, like at the scope of 12 dimensions the number of fundamental physical laws are quite finite. The wave equation covers the geometry, time and energy mutual relations, whereas the mass-energy equivalence covers the matter and energy dependence, thus closing a circle of mutual dependencies. We should find some generalization of fundamental concepts, like energy, matter, time and gradient at first, before searching for some more ultimate theory.

Posted by: Confused2 Aug 27 2006, 09:41 PM
Zephir,

Since we seem to be in a temporary zone of peace and tranquility .. where DO the Aussies come into it unsure.gif ? Cricket? FYI Americans don't play cricket and whatever nationality the Pupa might be .. I don't think he's ever played cricket biggrin.gif .

C2 smile.gif .

Posted by: Zephir Aug 27 2006, 09:45 PM
QUOTE (Confused2 @ Aug 28 2006, 12:41 AM)
Where DO the Aussies come into it?

You should to realize, the http://forum.physorg.com/index.php?showtopic=8535&st=15&#entry117116 isn't just the relation between the wave equation and E=mc^2, but very general evolutionary philosophy, which can be applied to very common situations, far outside the physical reality. The Socratic discussion and the opinion colloquy is very similar process to exchange of bosons between fermions. It can create both the attractive, both repulsive stances, but it always should lead into some evolution. From such perspective, just the evolution is absolute truth, the temporary truth doesn't matter.

I believe, you're not comming from Australia, really.. wink.gif But many other people here do...

Posted by: ubavontuba Aug 28 2006, 12:07 AM
QUOTE (Pupamancur @ Aug 27 2006, 05:24 AM)
Just the type that some of you post in answer to the subject of this thread, when you can't understand what's said here:

http://www.mathpages.com/rr/s2-07/2-07.htm

Again, what "antiscientific stuff" have I posted that you are referring too? You accused me personally, not "some of you". Now back it up, or apologize.

If you won't, I will report you for perpetrating a personal attack.

Posted by: Confused2 Aug 28 2006, 12:53 AM
Hi Ubavontuba,

He posted the paper - he shared what he knows. I haven't checked but I'd guess his contribution is probably the best on the thread. Engage sense of humour .. tease the Pupa a bit.. he enjoys that. I think he wants to be a teacher.. try to help him.

-C2.

Posted by: ubavontuba Aug 28 2006, 01:48 AM
QUOTE (Confused2 @ Aug 28 2006, 12:53 AM)
Hi Ubavontuba,

He posted the paper - he shared what he knows. I haven't checked but I'd guess his contribution is probably the best on the thread. Engage sense of humour .. tease the Pupa a bit.. he enjoys that. I think he wants to be a teacher.. try to help him.

-C2.

I don't mind him trying to be an educator. I simply object to the condescending attitude.

I've seen this effect discussed before. A basic thought experiment concerning this is shining two flashlights in opposite directions. How can they both propagate away from you at the speed of light? Wouldn't that mean that the leading photons are traveling at twice the speed of light relative to each other?

The key is to consider the flow of information. We might thusly shine a light at two diametrically opposed sensors, but the sensor localities can't tell each other that they got the signal, as quickly.

Interestingly, his reference doesn't consider that light doesn't really travel in a circle (except around black holes!), it doesn't discuss the effects of the ever changing projection and reflection angles, and it doesn't discuss frames of reference.

Posted by: Pupamancur Aug 28 2006, 02:07 AM
QUOTE (ubavontuba @ Aug 28 2006, 12:07 AM)
Again, what "antiscientific stuff" have I posted that you are referring too? You accused me personally, not "some of you". Now back it up, or apologize.

If you won't, I will report you for perpetrating a personal attack.

Did you feel like one of the crackpots? Are your posts cranks?

Posted by: Pupamancur Aug 28 2006, 02:10 AM
QUOTE (ubavontuba @ Aug 28 2006, 01:48 AM)
I don't mind him trying to be an educator.  I simply object to the condescending attitude.

I've seen this effect discussed before.  A basic thought experiment concerning this is shining two flashlights in opposite directions.  How can they both propagate away from you at the speed of light?  Wouldn't that mean that the leading photons are traveling at twice the speed of light relative to each other?


Because it offends your "senses". Turns out that your senses are wrong and that the above statement shows your ignorance on the subject, there are plenty of experiments that confirm that light speed is independent of the speed of the emitter and that it is always c.


QUOTE

The key is to consider the flow of information.  We might thusly shine a light at two diametrically opposed sensors, but the sensor localities can't tell each other that they got the signal, as quickly.

Interestingly, his reference doesn't consider that light doesn't really travel in a circle (except around black holes!), it doesn't discuss the effects of the ever changing projection and reflection angles, and it doesn't discuss frames of reference.





Nonsense, read chapter 3.3 here:

http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/physics/Relativity/SR/experiments.html#one-way%20tests

Posted by: ubavontuba Aug 28 2006, 02:13 AM
QUOTE (Pupamancur @ Aug 28 2006, 02:07 AM)
Did you feel like one of the crackpots? Are your posts cranks?

No, and no. How about keeping the discussion topical?

Posted by: ubavontuba Aug 28 2006, 02:17 AM
QUOTE (Pupamancur @ Aug 28 2006, 02:10 AM)

Because it offends your "senses". Turns out that your senses are wrong and that the above statement shows your ignorance on the subject, there are plenty of experiments that confirm that light speed is independent of the speed of the emitter and that it is always c.







Nonsense, read chapter 3.3 here:

http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/physics/Relativity/SR/experiments.html#one-way%20tests

That is little more than a reference list. Can you elaborate?

Posted by: Pupamancur Aug 28 2006, 02:17 AM
QUOTE (ubavontuba @ Aug 28 2006, 02:13 AM)
No, and no. How about keeping the discussion topical?

Look at what you posted about your "common sense" relative to the speed of light. And many more like that.

Posted by: ubavontuba Aug 28 2006, 02:23 AM
QUOTE (Pupamancur @ Aug 28 2006, 02:17 AM)
Look at what you posted about your "common sense" relative to the speed of light. And many more like that.

What are you talking about? Provide a reference please. Perhaps you are referring to my rhetorical question on the propagation speed of diametrically opposed beams?

Posted by: Pupamancur Aug 28 2006, 02:27 AM
QUOTE (ubavontuba @ Aug 28 2006, 01:48 AM)
How can they both propagate away from you at the speed of light?  Wouldn't that mean that the leading photons are traveling at twice the speed of light relative to each other?


Nope. Your "senses" are deceiving you , turning the post into a crackpot one.

Before posting any more of this nonsense read chapter 3.3 here:

http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/physics/Rela...one-way%20tests

Come back after you read the evidence.

Posted by: ubavontuba Aug 28 2006, 02:39 AM
QUOTE (Pupamancur @ Aug 28 2006, 02:27 AM)
Nope. Your "senses" are deceiving you , turning the post into a crackpot one.

Before posting any more of this nonsense read chapter 3.3 here:

http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/physics/Rela...one-way%20tests

Come back after you read the evidence.

This was a rhetorical question. Do you understand the concept; "rhetorical"?

Again, your reference is little more than a reference list. Can you elaborate?

Posted by: Pupamancur Aug 28 2006, 02:54 AM
QUOTE (ubavontuba @ Aug 28 2006, 02:39 AM)
This was a rhetorical question. Do you understand the concept; "rhetorical"?

Again, your reference is little more than a reference list. Can you elaborate?

"Rhetorical" as in crackpot. Light speed is independent of the speed of the light source. Confirmed by many experiments. Read the papers, come back when you understood them.

Posted by: Montec Aug 29 2006, 04:26 AM
Hello all

I have been out of town for a few days so I'm sorry for not posting a response sooner.

Take a long train with atomic clocks at each end. Put the train on a loop track slightly longer than the train. The atomic clocks are right next to each other and can be easily synchronized. Send pulses of light along with time information from each end of the train to the other end (similar to GPS). If the train is stationary, the encoded light pulses will decode with the same time information. If the train is moving then the time encoding carried by the light pulses will differ. This is the Sagnac effect. When you are measuring the phase difference between the CW and CCW light you are also measuring the TOF (time of flight) for each path of light relative to each other.

Now direct the train onto a straight track. The atomic clocks are still sending out time-encoded light pulses to each other and will be able to tell if the TOF for the light going in the forward direction is the same/different from the light going in the backward direction.

If the above moving train measures no TOF change between the forward and reverse light pulses then either the train is stationary or the speed of light is linked to the motion of the emission source.

Hi Confused2. My current idea for aether is that of a 4th dimensional bulk that our 3D space-time resides in. This may change as I try to work out the characteristics of this 4th dimension.

smile.gif

Posted by: ubavontuba Aug 29 2006, 04:46 AM
QUOTE (Pupamancur @ Aug 28 2006, 02:54 AM)
"Rhetorical" as in crackpot.

"Rhetorical" does not share a common definition with "crackpot".
QUOTE
Light speed is independent of the speed of the light source. Confirmed by many experiments. Read the papers, come back when you understood them.

Yes. I agree. Light speed is independent of the speed of the light source. Now can you elaborate? What point are you trying to make with your list of references?

Posted by: Pupamancur Aug 29 2006, 04:51 AM
QUOTE (Montec @ Aug 29 2006, 04:26 AM)
Hello all

I have been out of town for a few days so I'm sorry for not posting a response sooner.

Take a long train with atomic clocks at each end.  Put the train on a loop track slightly longer than the train. The atomic clocks are right next to each other and can be easily synchronized. Send pulses of light along with time information from each end of the train to the other end (similar to GPS). If the train is stationary, the encoded light pulses will decode with the same time information.



Correct.

QUOTE

If the train is moving then the time encoding carried by the light pulses will differ.


Not from the PoV of the train. From inside the train, you will still see the clocks perfectly synchronized. Only from the PoV of the track you will see the clocks desyncronized and only because the light from the two ends arrives non-simulataneously to the center of the car. Do the math and you will know why.

QUOTE

This is the Sagnac effect.


Not exactly, the Sagnac effect is a different story. See here:

http://www.mathpages.com/rr/s2-07/2-07.htm

QUOTE

When you are measuring the phase difference between the CW and CCW light you are also measuring the TOF (time of flight) for each path of light relative to each other.


Now you are correct again.

QUOTE

Now direct the train onto a straight track. The atomic clocks are still sending out time-encoded light pulses to each other and will be able to tell if the TOF for the light going in the forward direction is the same/different from the light going in the backward direction.


Not from inside the car. Only from the PoV of a system that sees the car is in motion.

QUOTE

If the above moving train measures no TOF change between the forward and reverse light pulses then either the train is stationary or the speed of light is linked to the motion of the emission source.


Incorrect, this would violate PoR, you cannot tell the difference from WITHIN the car.

QUOTE

Hi Confused2. My current idea for aether is that of a 4th dimensional bulk that our 3D space-time resides in. This may change as I try to work out the characteristics of this  4th dimension.


This is a word salad, there is no such thing as "aether" and even if there were, you cannot detect it.

Posted by: ubavontuba Aug 29 2006, 05:07 AM
QUOTE (Montec @ Aug 29 2006, 04:26 AM)
Hello all

I have been out of town for a few days so I'm sorry for not posting a response sooner.

Take a long train with atomic clocks at each end.  Put the train on a loop track slightly longer than the train. The atomic clocks are right next to each other and can be easily synchronized. Send pulses of light along with time information from each end of the train to the other end (similar to GPS). If the train is stationary, the encoded light pulses will decode with the same time information. If the train is moving then the time encoding carried by the light pulses will differ. This is the Sagnac effect. When you are measuring the phase difference between the CW and CCW light you are also measuring the TOF (time of flight) for each path of light relative to each other.

Right. That makes perfect sense... unless your observer is in the train. However, since light only travels in straight lines, I think an angular difference in targeting might be observable.

QUOTE
Now direct the train onto a straight track. The atomic clocks are still sending out time-encoded light pulses to each other and will be able to tell if the TOF for the light going in the forward direction is the same/different from the light going in the backward direction.

If the above moving train measures no TOF change between the forward and reverse light pulses then either the train is stationary or the speed of light is linked to the motion of the emission source.


And what is the result? If the motion is uniform, wouldn't a positive result indicate a preferred reference frame/direction?

I think the only difference could be observed by an outside observer with relative motion to the straight train. An internal observer couldn't discern the effect.

Is this correct?

Posted by: Montec Aug 29 2006, 05:44 AM
Hello all

The clocks are still synchronized. Light travels at a constant speed IE distance/time. Both clocks are in the same frame of reference. The velocity vector of the light (photon) is independent of the emission source. The velocity of the train moves the receiving points for the light pulses. The distance the light pulse travels depends on which direction (forward or reverse) the pulse is emitted. The time information encoded in the pulses when they are received will be different.

Where is the flaw in my logic?

smile.gif

Posted by: rpenner Aug 29 2006, 07:53 AM
The Sagnac effect, as least to first order effects, can't distinguish Relativity from Ether descriptions of light. It can however distinguish people who are good in Relativity from people who mix Relativity concepts inconsistently, which is why it has such a long history on Internet discussions. Kind of like "Will a plane on a conveyor belt take off?"

The rule is, you get consistent descriptions of things in SR, if you do the math from the viewpoint of a fictional, inertial observer, like a non-rotating observer at the center of the ring. Once you start talking about an effect in the frame of the rotating mirror, which is accelerating, you can't talk about space and time the same way.

The conversation gets more confused when people introduce non-Sagnac configurations. At this point, I don't know if anyone has any questions about the Sagnac effect itself.

Montec should be able to parameterize his effect in terms of the Radius of Curvature, velocity of the train and length of the train and solve exactly. Since SR predicts that a inertial train is in a decent state of rest, there should be a smooth dependence on 1/R, which is to say the effect goes to zero as the track straightens out.

If L = 2 pi R, then the train is effectly a fiber optic system exactly parallel to the Sagnac experiment. The effect should be proportional to L, so I would hazard L/(2 pi R) would be the propotionality between Montec effect and Sagnac effect. The difficulty is that L is in the direction of motion, thus subject to Lorentz contraction, which makes some assumtions iffy unless at least L << R or v << c.

Yu might then expect the Montec effect is delta t = 4 pi R^2 (v/ R) (L / 2 pi R) / ( c^2 - v^2) = v L / ( (c^2 - v^2) ) but this is naive. Specifically the R behavior is wrong.

The correct analysis, from the instantaneously comoving frame as the center of the train is:
delta t = 2 v / (c^2 - v^2) times the integral of (1 - cos(theta) ) from -L/2R to +L/2R = 2 v ((L/R) - 2sin(L/2R)) / (c^2 - v^2) -- and since 2sin(x/2) ~ x when x << 1, then this effect is zero for a straight train, and 4 pi R (v/R) / (c^2 - v^2) for a circular Montec train. (What's the physcial interpretation of theta - sin(theta) for a unit circle? Does this make sense to you?)

The Sagnac effect with 4 aligned mirrors is a bit "purer" than the Montec train, and I don't see the point of the Montec train. Was there a question?

See "the link" if you want to know where 1-cos(x) comes from.

Posted by: Confused2 Aug 29 2006, 12:21 PM
Pupamancur,

QUOTE (Pupamancur)

[..of TOF of light with motion]
Not from inside the car. Only from the PoV of a system that sees the car is in motion.


Correct.

-C2.

Posted by: Pupamancur Aug 29 2006, 01:43 PM
QUOTE (Montec @ Aug 29 2006, 05:44 AM)


smile.gif

QUOTE
Hello all

The clocks are still synchronized.


In the car frame. Not in any other frame (see SR). This is the first flaw in your thinking.


QUOTE

Light travels at a constant speed IE distance/time. Both clocks are in the same frame of reference.  The velocity vector of the light (photon) is independent of the emission source.
The velocity of the train moves the receiving points for the light pulses. The distance the light pulse travels depends on which direction (forward or reverse) the pulse is emitted.


All correct .

QUOTE

The time information encoded in the pulses when they are received will be different.


Not in the car frame. In any other frame, yes. This is the second flaw.
Try writing the equations describing your experiment. Writing prose only hides all the reasoning flaws.

Posted by: Confused2 Aug 29 2006, 11:08 PM
QUOTE (Montec)

The time information encoded in the pulses when they are received will be different.


QUOTE (Pupamancur)

Not in the car frame. In any other frame, yes.


Pupamancur: Right again! .. I'm so pleased to see you're getting the hang of this.

-C2.

Posted by: Pupamancur Aug 30 2006, 12:01 AM
QUOTE (Confused2 @ Aug 29 2006, 11:08 PM)
QUOTE (Montec)

The time information encoded in the pulses when they are received will be different.


QUOTE (Pupamancur)

Not in the car frame. In any other frame, yes.


Pupamancur: Right again! .. I'm so pleased to see you're getting the hang of this.

-C2.

What are you talking about? The fact that you are starting to understand relativity and you post less nonsense? You are still a long way from being able to perform calculations.
Any chance that you have finished your calculations with the train and the light signals?

Posted by: Confused2 Aug 30 2006, 01:28 AM
http://forum.physorg.com/index.php?showtopic=8100&view=findpost&p=118886

The fact that you now realize you need to specify which frame you are referring to is the spectacular breakthrough I have been hoping for. Well done!

Best wishes,

C2.

Posted by: Pupamancur Aug 30 2006, 01:47 AM
QUOTE (Confused2 @ Aug 30 2006, 01:28 AM)
http://forum.physorg.com/index.php?showtopic=8100&view=findpost&p=118886

The fact that you now realize you need to specify which frame you are referring to is the spectacular breakthrough I have been hoping for. Well done!

Best wishes,

C2.

You are projecting your own gross misunderstandings of SR.
Any chance that you would understand the difference between SR calculations done in different inertial frames (rail vs. trackj)?
How are your own calculations going? Any time in this century that we could see something other than word salads from you? Some real equations? No?

Posted by: Confused2 Aug 31 2006, 02:46 PM
http://www.chinapage.com/sunzi-e.html

"These .. 'devices' .. must not be divulged beforehand."

But may help us prepare for Phase 2.

-C2.

Posted by: Montec Sep 1 2006, 06:45 AM
Hello all
Here is a good site for information about the Sagnac effect http://www.mathpages.com/rr/s2-07/2-07.htm
Here is a site that discusses how the GPS system works with the Sagnac effect. http://relativity.livingreviews.org/open?pubNo=lrr-2003-1&page=node2.html

What is under discussion is whether or not changes in distances via rotations are equal to changes in distances via velocity.
Is "Linear Sagnac Effect" or "One-way Sagnac Effect" effective terms to describe how the GPS system handles the change in the receivers position during the time it takes the time-encoded signal to travel from the satellite to the receiver.

smile.gif

Posted by: Pupamancur Oct 29 2006, 09:56 PM
QUOTE (Zephir @ Aug 4 2006, 06:45 PM)
Can you prove it? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Effective_mass


http://www.turpion.org/php/paper.phtml?journal_id=qe&paper_id=343 that this mass is identical with the quantity found earlier and equal to the energy of a photon of critical frequency divided by the square of the velocity of light. This is one more piece of evidence of the universal nature of the photon mass in spatially confined wave fields

Sorry, I don't waste my time with ignorants.

Since you are asking for it, I have a little math problem for you:

Given that photon rest mass m_0=0 and that relativistic mass is

m=m_0/sqrt(1-(v/c)^2)

calculate m for the photon.

Posted by: Zephir Oct 29 2006, 10:02 PM
QUOTE (Pupamancur @ Oct 30 2006, 12:56 AM)
Since you are asking for it, I have a little math problem for you

Ask Alphanumeric instead - http://forum.physorg.com/index.php?showtopic=9862&st=225&#entry138092, the photon has a "relativistic mass".

Posted by: AlphaNumeric Oct 29 2006, 10:17 PM
QUOTE (Zephir @ Oct 29 2006, 11:02 PM)
Ask Alphanumeric instead - http://forum.physorg.com/index.php?showtopic=9862&st=225�entry138092, the photon has a "relativistic mass".

It has mass in a different way from other particles, in that Pup is right that you can't work it out via the Lorentz dilation formula. Instead it comes from it's EM energy, hf. This is NOT the same m as in E^2 = (mc^2)^2 + (pc)^2, so contrary to what YOU said, you can't replace it with p=mc in that formula, so you were wrong in that respect.

The fact you're so haphazard with your descriptions of things Zephir, too much armwaving, not enough precision, is the reason people often get muddled talking to you. You ill define what you're talking about and sometimes just plain don't make sense. We can hardly be blamed for your inability to communicate, even if it is a language barrier you can't help.

Posted by: Pupamancur Oct 29 2006, 10:17 PM
QUOTE (Zephir @ Oct 29 2006, 10:02 PM)
Ask Alphanumeric instead - http://forum.physorg.com/index.php?showtopic=9862&st=225&#entry138092, the photon has a "relativistic mass".

I asked YOU to calculate a simple thing. I know that Alphanumeric knows physics.

Posted by: Zephir Oct 29 2006, 10:21 PM
QUOTE (Pupamancur @ Oct 30 2006, 01:17 AM)
I asked YOU to calculate a simple thing. I know that Alphanumeric knows physics.

You should know, the relativity has nothing to say to the mass of photon, being a particular theory.

Posted by: AlphaNumeric Oct 29 2006, 10:29 PM
QUOTE (Zephir @ Oct 29 2006, 11:21 PM)
You should know, the relativity has nothing to say to the mass of photon, being a particular theory.

The fact E=hf for a photon has long been involved in relativity. Why do you think things like gravitational redshifting are talked about?

Posted by: Zephir Oct 29 2006, 10:48 PM
QUOTE (AlphaNumeric @ Oct 30 2006, 01:29 AM)
The fact E=hf for a photon has long been involved in relativity. Why do you think things like gravitational redshifting are talked about?

The E=hf is quantum mechanic theorem, it has nothing to do with relativistic transforms of mass and it cannot be derived from relativistic postulates.

I can say easily after then, the E=hf is http://forum.physorg.com/index.php?showtopic=8535&st=15&#entry117116 theorem as well.. wink.gif

Posted by: AlphaNumeric Oct 29 2006, 10:57 PM
QUOTE (Zephir @ Oct 29 2006, 11:48 PM)
The E=hf is quantum mechanic theorem, it has nothing to do with relativistic transforms of mass and it cannot be derived from relativistic postulates.

Yes, but that doesn't mean it isn't used a lot in relativistic considersations of things like predicting time dilation due to gravity. It's not derived in relativity as E=hf but it certainly has uses.
QUOTE (Zephir @ Oct 29 2006, 11:48 PM)
I can say easily after then, the E=hf is AWT theorem as well..
Relativity does involve the fact light has zero restmass, because it has it moving at the fastest speed possible for 'physical' objects. Anything with mass can't move at the speed of light according to relativity. By special relativities two postulates you can derive that light must have no rest mass or else it couldn't move at it's own speed!

How does AWT derive it's mass?

Posted by: Zephir Oct 29 2006, 11:14 PM
QUOTE (AlphaNumeric @ Oct 30 2006, 01:57 AM)
How does AWT derive it's mass?

The http://forum.physorg.com/index.php?showtopic=8535&st=15&#entry117116 explains, what the photon IS, at the first line. This is a more fundamental question, don't you think?

Posted by: AlphaNumeric Oct 29 2006, 11:27 PM
QUOTE (Zephir @ Oct 30 2006, 12:14 AM)
The http://forum.physorg.com/index.php?showtopic=8535&st=15�entry117116 explains, what the photon IS, at the first line. This is a more fundamental question, don't you think?

So are you saying the photon has rest mass? Because that mass in AWT is rest mass, given it applies to all the other particles in the same way. If it's mass, then it's experimentally demonstrated wrong because the photon doesn't has rest mass m = hf/c^2.

Posted by: Pupamancur Oct 29 2006, 11:29 PM
QUOTE (Zephir @ Oct 29 2006, 10:21 PM)
You should know, the relativity has nothing to say to the mass of photon, being a particular theory.

I asked you to show us your abilities to solve a simple problem.

Posted by: amrit Nov 2 2006, 10:19 PM
light moves into space only and not in space-time
movement of light itself is time
and speed of light movement is constant for all observers
strange but it seems so

Posted by: Zephir Nov 2 2006, 10:33 PM
QUOTE (Pupamancur @ Oct 30 2006, 02:29 AM)
I asked you to show us your abilities to solve a simple problem.

This is exactly what I'm doing here: I'm explaining the wave character of light, the transversal wave spreading and phase transitions of vacuum, quantum mechanic & relativity behavior of foam, etc...

QUOTE (Alfanumeric @ Oct 30 2006, 02:29 AM)
because that mass in AWT is rest mass....

The http://forum.physorg.com/index.php?showtopic=8535&st=15&#entry117116 is using the concept of dynamic mass by the same way, like the rest mass.

Powered by Invision Power Board (http://www.invisionboard.com)
© Invision Power Services (http://www.invisionpower.com)