justafool @zeccano@qoto.org
Joined Nov 2019
@freemo @CCoinTradingIdeas
How could I believe Dr Lincon or any relativist physicist? He's your boy, Im just using his statements to point out the errors.
These guys always leave the back door open to duck and dodge criticism of relativity. Always.
So here has says one thing clearly, next time if challenged, he he will say the exact opposite. Or employ some distracting mechanism, as a dodge.
Its like talking to a Mormon about scriptural truth.
@freemo
I agree these equations are the accepted and correct equations according to relativity theory, so please now show me the math where you get a non zero value for mass or momentum.
@freemo
both, use relativistic mas or rest mass, it make no difference.
@CCoinTradingIdeas @freemo
he claims that its real, but his words reveal a problem that he skips over.
Ive already explained the nature of the problem.
Ok please show using these two equations that a photon has momentum. or mass.
@CCoinTradingIdeas @freemo
This thinking is backwards.
Having already presumed that there are two types of mass, they then comclude that for a photon, they cant stop them to weight them, so they just set it to zero, so that a bunch of other theories can still work.
Inferring that the photon has mass at speed, and little at rest, but we havent measured either!
But zero for the mass makes all other theories work just fine. However for this one theory of einstein's, we have to guess about the true mass of a photon, and claim that whatever it is, its best thought of a energy.
despite the prior statement that there is no such thing as relativistic mass.
@freemo @CCoinTradingIdeas
""Pretty much what he said" is using your opinion or interpretation of what he said.
What he ACTUALLY said, off his carefully worded script written as a physicist, was, “We (Physicists) say that an object has only has one mass, which is the mass you measure for an object when it isn’t moving with respect to you. Some people called that the “rest mass” but it’s REALLY the ONLY mass.
Here Dr Lincon is making an ambiguous statement, when he should know better, as he is making this statement in order to explain or clarify the term “mass” as a Physicist in a statement specifically about the meaning of mass.
Its ambiguous because of the phrase “when it isn’t moving with respect to you”.
Seemingly indicating that there will be “another different” result for the normally static measurement of the mass of an object if you measure it when it is moving relative to you.
However he just got through saying that there is “only one mass”, and there is no physicist today who teaches a mass increase with relative velocity, they only ever talk about the idea that its only momentum that increases with velocity, and NOT mass that increases.
Dr Lincon made this clear when he mentioned the claim made by “some confused people” that claim that a photon passing the earth would have an infinite mass, which he said was wrong, its only the momentum or energy that changes with the speed of the photon. (because its impossible that that every photon has infinite or any near infinite mass.
So they swap over to using einstein’s energy mass equivalence here, to get out of a logic hole.
And for that they start talking about inertia and then momentum.
He does this beginning at 1:50 in the video (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LTJauaefTZM)
Where ha says that inertia is the property of WHAT? Of MATTER… last I looked, light is NOT MATTER.
Then he says that inertia is only for low speed, and at low speeds inertia is equivalent to mass, you must talk about momentum for really fast things, aka a photon.
(We should not be talking about inertia or momentum for light, it’s not made of matter.)
So this is exactly what Dr Lincon and all his Physicist buddies understand, spelled out in their own words.
There is only one mass, and it doesn’t change with velocity, momentum does. And they later equate momentum to energy with Einstein’s energy matter equivalence equation, because STILL light cant have anything other than a zero momentum, but you can hide this problem by doing the two step from mass to energy. But the very name of the equation gives it away as a sleght of hand. Its called the ENERGY-MATTER Equivalence equation. Again light is not matter so this equation will give a nonsense result if the vales measured are in incompatible terms.
May as well plug into the equation the numerical value in Hexidecimal of the color red, expecting that it will give some meaningful result.
No, he said that there was no such thing as relativistic mass at ALL.
Its developed ONLY as for illustrative purposes as an intuitive aid when trying to teach relativity to students.
So, as there is no such thing as relativistic mass, we cant very well use it as a variable in an equation, can we?
BUT even if you insist that we do, the result in the case of the photon is still that the photon has no mass of any kind, (even thought there is only one kind)
its ZERO always, with anyone''s math.
Show me how you get a non zero, being a real number, not calculation error result which is infinity, or undefined, or divide by zero error.
@freemo @CCoinTradingIdeas
watch it first, then comment, anything else is speculation, which is what you relativists do a lot.
from 7:30 to 7:50.
or watch it all, same difference.
Well you need to pin this down better than "we have no idea" (undefined number) about what value the measurement of a photon is.
Where is you relativistic equation that equates to a real number?
Now you are just claiming that your math is perfect, but the result is "just a whole lot". live with that precise answer.
Face it, any time a math result comes up with "undefined number"" you have a nonsense equation.
You trued to divide by zero.
Can I materialize an infinite number of apples by putting them into zero boxes? NO
This math is NOT REALITY.
You are saying the the highly regarded Physicist Dr Don Lincon, from Fermilab, is LYING when he stated that practically EVERY respectable Physicist today says that there is no such thing as relativistic mass? there is only just mass, which is also called rest mass. and mass does not change when seen from different frames.
SO he is WRONG? and also LYING?
As long as your NEW equation does not introduce any other variables.
We have all the necessary einstein approved equations already, they suffice for everything else, why you need to go to some new equation?
Thats because they HAVE to say this irrational statement, or einsteins relativity fails in the math. On one hand, ALL credible physicists claim that there is no such thing as relativistic mass, for any object, but they do a exact opposite claim for the photon.
Please explain how both contradicting claims by your best physicists can both be correct.
@CCoinTradingIdeas @freemo
This guy is saying that a photon has no mass of any sort? correct? is this supposed to back up your claim that it magically has momentum but no mass?
@CCoinTradingIdeas @freemo
JUST SHOW ME THE MATH, THAT EQUATES A PHOTONS MOMENTUM OR MASS AS ANYTHING OTHER THAN ZERO. WE HAVE ALL THE REQUIRED EQUATIONS HERE FROM EINSTEIN AND NEWTON.
CAPS LOCK, FUCK IT.
@freemo @CCoinTradingIdeas
And to further support the obvious reason why the rest mass of a aphoton is zero ans so is the relativistic mass zero, please watch Dr Loncons video
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LTJauaefTZM
Note the statement near the end, from 7:30 to 7:50.
"There is only one mass of an object, the rest mass.""
And the only mass of a photon is zero,
So as momentum is a result of the multiplication of velocity and MASS, then for a photon its impossible to be anything but ZERO.
Q.E.D.
This is THE equation for calculating the relativistic mass given the rest mass.
The only possible result for a photon is ZERO.
@freemo @CCoinTradingIdeas
You may wonder why gamma makes the mass of an object get more and more the faster you go, but when you get to the speed of light is strangely cant equate to any actual value? Infinity is the same in physics as ""undefined number"" or a divide by zero error.
The answer is that the Lorentz equation does not reflect reality in the first place!
You are assuming it does because the results are impossible to measure at any speed we can experience in our physical world.
You have to start playing with photons which as I pointed out ARE NOT PHYSICAL, so NONE of Newtons laws of PHYSICAL OBJECTS AND MOTION apply neither do the modified version of physical objects by Einstein apply. Einsteins are just wrong, because he mixes both physical and non physical, which is the reason for his mistakes.
@freemo @CCoinTradingIdeas
You did not read my explanation very well.
I DID USE the relativistic or "correct" calculation for momentum (p)
the equation is p=gamma*REST MASS*v.
Straight from Dr Don Lincon's detailed video entitled "Is relativistic Mass real?"
The mas here IS BEING CONVERTED to relativistic mass by the use of gamma.
So now what are you going to show me?
Joined Nov 2019
