Jump to content


Senior Members
  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by pmb

  1. he Physis FAQ it says that light has inertial mass. I read this years ago and forgot the details but I like it forhe most part. The new FAQ is here<br /><a href='http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/physics/ParticleAndNuclear/photon_mass.html' class='bbc_url' title='External link' rel='nofollow external'>http://math.ucr.edu/...hoton_mass.html</a><br /><br />He left me out for credit which upset me a bit but no more. The author uses the symbol [math]p = m_{rel}v[/math]. The [math]m_{rel}[/math] here is a particles relativistic mass. The value is found by deviding the mom
  2. It seems to me that when the day comes that everyone participating in this thread agrees on what it means for something to exist the answer to this question will come quickly. <br /><br /><br />I disagree. IT might verywell be that the universe is jus one big quantum state. Before "time" it might very well be that the universe was described by a static quantum state. The big bang might just have been that state going from a static state to a time dependant state. So in the big picture the universes quantum state was always time depenant. The big bang might therefore have
  3. <br /><br /><br />That makes no sense to me. Especially The relation you gave is<br /><br />[math] \frac{\partial E}{\partial p} = \frac Ep = 1/c[/math] <br /><br />Dispersion relations apply only to waves and a particle moving with velocity <b>v</b> is not a wave. A photon is not a wave. This is a classical photon, not a quantum one. You can't even think of a classical photon as you could quantum one. Here, in classical mechanics, which relatiivity is of, photons move on classical trajectories.<br /><br /> <br />That's no
  4. <br /><br /><br />This thread i so fagmented along the train of thoughts that I can't follow it. Splitting a thread can make it very disturbing for me to read. My mind is messed up. Perhaps from the pain meds I'm on. Bad juju! In any case, if you want to see why the speed of light travels at the speed of light then let's start off with what we're really looking for. I want to determine what the speed of an EM Wave is where light is an EM wave. The speed is derived here http://www.scienceforums.net/topic/66476-supernovae-and-time/ in the first post. Best wishes, Pet
  5. There is such a form where I am a helper. It's at http://physicshelpforum.com/forumdisplay.php?f=44
  6. Something weird is going on. I can't initiate a PM by clicking on "pmb" at the top right of the web page like I used to. And when I post a thread it gets butso with these "break" symbols <br/> which drive me out of my mind! And then if I exit or modify it incorrectly the whole post has those symbols and it has HTML symbols for all the equations. And there are no Emiticons to the right of this page and when I try "show all" button, nothing happens. Help. Get me out of this forum hell! (sob!)
  7. <br /><br />Those equivalences which Klaynos employed originated with electrodynamics. E = pc is derived from an EM calculation. Those calulations are the ones from which the 4-momentum are constructed and the invariance estabished. The expression E^2 - (pc)^2 = (mc^2)^2 is then used with E = pc to deduce the expression m = 0. I believe what you did here was to take that and work backwards to make your point. <br /><br />It's been a while since I've worked these equations. This will be pleasing to derive from the basics again. Please give me time though. I'm studying ot
  8. pmb


    <br /><br /><br />There are so many places that I've lost track. Many many places in math that's for sure.
  9. <br /><br /><br />Unfortunately, no. I never got to meet him. Edwin lives a mere 30 minutes away from me and MIT is just a 45 minute drive. But Wheeler live in NEw Jersey and had and have no access to that mind of travel. Now that he's passed away I'll never have that chance.
  10. pmb


    You didn't provide any specs which has to be satisfied. Under certain cases such as small payloads, try submersing it in a fluid such as water.
  11. Every once in a while The American Journal of Physics has an article which is a list of resourses such as a list of important experiments done to verify relativity. A list of those articles is found here http://ajp.dickinson.edu/Readers/resLetters.html Is this the right forum to post such a list?
  12. Do you actually believe that by merely writing something down it becomes the truth? Your lack of providing an arguement to support your claims tells me that you can't provide one. And any scientist here knows that when you respond to this post without actually providing the evidence everyone keeps asking you for will have more evidence that you have zero evidence. So let me thank you in advance for demonstrating my point.
  13. I created this thread in order to demonstrate the usefulness of a sub forum on the philosophy of physics.<br /><br />The philosophy of physics obviously falls under general philosophy. The subject of falsifiability falls under the philosophy of physics. However it someone wishes to create a thread which falls under the philosophy of physics, then, as of now, it should e oosted in the general philosophy forum. Most physicists I know would never poke their nose into a forum labeled <i>General Philosophy</i>. And that includes the famous ones I know. However they just migh
  14. <br /><br /><br /><br /><br />Thermodynamics and Electrodyanmics were not intended by me to be put into one forum. When I created this thread I only had those two in mind. A little bit later I realized that Philosophy of physics should be a sub forum of Physics as well. We have a forum for Philosophy now but people only interesed in physics probably steer away from it and avoid placing scientific topics in that foum for fear of nobody caring enough to read it. And it should be more popular because it's one of the most important thing a physicist should know. I.e.
  15. <br /><br /><br /> It is true that assertions require support. Therefore the proper request would be Please provide some support.
  16. <br /><br /><br /> humbly appologize. I got mixed up. What a sad state I'm in tonight.
  17. <br />I wish I knew why I asked that but I can't recall.<br /><br /> <br />I go the speculation forum merely for entertainment. Nothing more.<br /><br /> <br />I'm quite aware of the peer review process. It's a painstaking process which can take many tries in a particular journal perhaps until you realize that you tried the wrong journal. Then you have to start the whole process all over again.<br /><br /> <br /><br /><br />I have the feeling that some people here don't consider me a physicist, or if they do then perhaps a
  18. I wish I knew why I asked that but I can't recall. I go the speculation forum merely for entertainment. Nothing more. I'm quite aware of the peer review process. It's a painstaking process which can take many tries in a particular journal perhaps until you realize that you tried the wrong journal. Then you have to start the whole process all over again. I have the feeling that you don't consider me a physicist, or if so then perhaps a really bad one. IS th true? I find that people in this forum repeating things that even an undergrad in physics should know. Let me state f
  19. Yep. I'm overly aware of that. I have to ask you, what was the purpose of you post to m? Everything in my post was created so that anybody whow knows anything about SR should be able to grasp it no matter what. That was the purpose of me stating my response for both the m = inertial mass people and the p = proper mass people. Note: It's my considered opinion that the term rest energy fo a particle be tossed out the window and replaced by proper mass. In any case, that's why I addressed the proper mass definition first and as such the eqution E = mc^2 is wrong. Given that it was G
  20. pmb


    If so I myself would stick up for you since this seems to be about a searc of knowledge, not a new theory about gravity. There is now known mechanism of gravity. Same with EM either. There is deeper and more precise knowledge of EM too but no known mechanics of it. Not to my knowledge. Please provide your reasoning which led to your conclusion here. Please define tem p-cunfused. Experience with the theory and the relevant experiments. Anynbody who believes that they know everything 100% is ignorant! I find that comment offensive. Therefore this is where I end my
  21. When people talk of time travel they are either speaking of the distant future or the past. The first one requires waiting, the second requires faster than light travel. This is because such travel requires moving on a closed timelike curve which requires faster than light travel.
  22. If Gravity Guy is using E as total energy and m as proper mass then the equation E = mc2 says that total inertial energy = proper mass * c2 which is wrong. If he's using m as inertial mass and E as total inertial enregy then you're wrong and Gravity Guy is right, at least regarding equation. Please post your theory in the speculation forum. I'm curious as to what it is. More likely than not I'll find an error in it.
  23. There is a new version of Exploring Black Holes comming out in the future. It's located at http://www.eftaylor.com/. See http://www.eftaylor.com/comments/ and http://exploringblackholes.com/. Once again I'll be proof reading for the authors. It'll be a great deal of fun. You can do the same thing if you wish. In any case it will be fun to talk about. Download the book and bind it and read it and let's chat!
  24. Congradulations Phi for All! Way to go! I quiet 22 years ago. I think it was because I started exercising and the contradiction between doing areobicxs and having a smoke after that was too much for the logic portion of my mind to handle. In my experience it never really seemed to work. All the time I was going to church in the last seven years it was like I was surounging myself mostley by hypocrits. I was suffering a lot in life due to loneliness and illness. I thought that surrounding myself by Christians that part of my life would disappeared. Instead if only got worse. There just s
  25. I'm a Christian myself and one thing I'm certain of is that nobody knows when the end of days will come. Even Jesus didn't know when I was here. Claiming to know when Jesus was here could be interpreted as blasphemy. There's a reason God doesn't want us to know when the end of days would be here, and only God knows that reason.
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.