art wrote:

...
Art


Art:

You seek to answer the unanswerable, you seek to explain the
unexplainable ... this is far from "being wrong." It simply proves that
our knowledge is incomplete, at present. This is something we all hope
to cure in the future. Now, we simply debate the different explanations
which exist. Magnetic fields certainly play a prominent part in
manipulations of EM waves/particles, and the opposite ... what is going
on precisely is up for grabs, again, in my humble opinion.

The fact is, although I think we can see the stress lines in the ether
with the simple iron filings, paper and magnet, we know nothing about
it--indeed, the "proof of its' existence" I am citing might have yet
another explanation. Indeed, at this point, ether almost requires a
"leap of faith" such as necessary with a belief in God. By sheer
definition we cannot even devise a bottle to hold a sample of ether.

However, cowards will run from the unknown, brave men will sit and
discuss how to attempt to prove it, one way or another.

A system with equilibrium will, at some point, cease movement, unless
there is an input of energy from an external source, this energy might
appear cloaked in many forms. Can we at least agree upon this single
point, first?

Regards,
JS

art wrote:

...
I believe we view aether differently as well as the term equilibrium.
...
Art


Art:

I found an interesting fellow on the net, here is a .pdf of his free
ebook: (chapter 8 I found very interesting)

http://www.teslaphysics.com/files/Detection.pdf

If you would like to read it in .html instead:

http://www.teslaphysics.com/

Look near the bottom of the page for the book, but this page itself is
interesting.

He has done some experimenting and claims to have detected the ether.
He cites another fellows experiments which his own experiments followed.

Beware and be warned, his thinking challenges Einsteins' own ...

Regards,
JS

On Thu, 06 Sep 2007 16:07:09 -0700, Jim Kelley
wrote:

Richard Clark wrote:

On Thu, 06 Sep 2007 12:47:46 -0700, K7ITM wrote:


On Sep 5, 5:02 pm, Jim Kelley wrote:
...

I'd like to offer m = E/c^2 as a guess.

73, ac6xg

"E=pc."

Yes, and p=mv,

Hi Jim,

Tom opines about my reading, but it is about the writing from the good
doctor that we find (in regard to your snippet above):
"we find that the momentum relation p=mv is
only an approximation. It is only correct when speed (v) is much
smaller than the speed of light (c).
which distinctly contradicts your tie-in:
so when v=c as is true for photons, and we substitute
mc for p in the equation above and then solve for m (the mass of a
photon was the original question), we're back at the equation offered
previously.

The circularity of Dr. Ken Mellendorf's foggy writing might suggest
it, if it weren't otherwise nipped in the bud by the bald statement.
"For a particle with no mass, the relation reduces to E=pc.
This works for a photon."

Hence the proximity of this to p=mv is textual, not factual.

What is the term p? Could it be (p)hoton? I've speculated about
Planck's constant (which you comment upon, below), but I find it very
sloppy writing for Dr. Mellendorf to wander into his own naming
conventions. Migrating through
E = mc²
something all can agree is a fair basis to begin with, we then have
expressly for a (p)hoton:
E = pc
Substituting for the previous E
pc = mc²
divide both sides by c
p = mc
which to me is new territory. What is mass times the speed of light
for a particle that has no mass?

Perhaps Tom's special reading skills can rescue this p term from the
oblivion of E = 0 for a (p)hoton.

But we usually relate more directly to the frequency (or wavelength)
of the photon rather than its energy or momentum, so in such a case
E=h*nu would provide a more direct route to its mass equivalent.

Yes, and it seems your daughter trumped me on Planck once before. ;-)

It is exceedingly obvious that the link offered amounts to
considerable wool gathering. Or maybe its the late hour....

73's
Richard Clark, KB7QHC

Richard Clark wrote:
What is mass times the speed of light
for a particle that has no mass?

A nonsense question since "no mass" for a
photon is associated with it being *at rest*,
i.e. *not moving at the speed of light*.

Perhaps Tom's special reading skills can rescue this p term from the
oblivion of E = 0 for a (p)hoton.

For a photon possessing zero rest mass,
traveling at the speed of light yields
a finite measurable mass.
--
73, Cecil http://www.w5dxp.com

On Sep 7, 12:51 am, Richard Clark wrote:

The circularity of Dr. Ken Mellendorf's foggy writing might suggest
it, if it weren't otherwise nipped in the bud by the bald statement.

On the other hand perhaps Dr. Mellendorf has some expertise in the
subject.

What is the term p? Could it be (p)hoton? I've speculated about
Planck's constant (which you comment upon, below), but I find it very
sloppy writing for Dr. Mellendorf to wander into his own naming
conventions.

I think you should make those comments directly to him so that he an
opportunity to respond. Shall I forward them for you? :-)

What is mass times the speed of light
for a particle that has no mass?

Seems like something is wrong in that sentence, doesn't it.

Perhaps Tom's special reading skills can rescue this p term from the
oblivion of E = 0 for a (p)hoton.

It's also possible that since E=0 is wrong, the assumption that p=0
might also be wrong. If not, then you'll need to explain radiation
pressure in an all new way.

Yes, and it seems your daughter trumped me on Planck once before. ;-)

She's better at math than I ever was.

73, ac6xg

On 6 Sep, 22:21, John Smith wrote:
art wrote:
...
I believe we view aether differently as well as the term equilibrium.
...
Art

Art:

I found an interesting fellow on the net, here is a .pdf of his free
ebook: (chapter 8 I found very interesting)

http://www.teslaphysics.com/files/Detection.pdf

If you would like to read it in .html instead:

http://www.teslaphysics.com/

Look near the bottom of the page for the book, but this page itself is
interesting.

He has done some experimenting and claims to have detected the ether.
He cites another fellows experiments which his own experiments followed.

Beware and be warned, his thinking challenges Einsteins' own ...

Regards,
JS

John, I have only stated how I as an individual views things.
Since I have not studied physics all that much it can be seen as just
guessing.
Reading Planck at the moment while wife is in hospital ICU so time is
limited all the way around
Regards
Art

John Smith wrote:

way...
(no Virginia, that is not a vacuum inside the radiometer, just high
altitude - and yes there is no Santa Claus - now come over here and
sit on my lap)

denny


Really? So, someone should tell the engineers who have proposed the
"solar sail?" A massive silvered mylar sail which would be unfolded in
space and sail spacecraft on the "solar winds", photons reflected
mass--actually.

You guys missed your calling ... you could have been "fact debunkers!"


I'm no expert (although play one on TV), but I thought that the
process at work was reflection of the photon, which shows a measurable
doppler shift. The doppler shift lowers it's wavelength. The wavelength
increases, and energy decreases. That energy has to go somewhere, and
it goes into the sail and takes the spacecraft or whatever is attached
along for the ride. So it really isn't a mass issue - although it is
possible that the solar wind which does have mass and may contribute
some small push on the sail. But that is another issue.Photon push is a
radiation pressure energy transfer mechanism.

- 73 de Mike KB3EIA -

Richard Clark wrote:
On Sat, 01 Sep 2007 06:00:46 -0700, Denny wrote:

Uhhh, gawd, I hate to even get into THIS mess... But, somebody has
gotta do it...

Hi Denny,

Well, for such a melodramatic dip of your toe into this cesspool, I
hope you brought your snorkel.

Or at least a fork and spoon...


- 73 de Mike KB3EIA -

Michael Coslo wrote:

...
some small push on the sail. But that is another issue.Photon push is a
radiation pressure energy transfer mechanism.

- 73 de Mike KB3EIA -

Ahhh, you are such a "jokester!" I always enjoy a good laugh, ha ha ha.

JS

On Sep 7, 9:08 am, Jim Kelley wrote:
On Sep 7, 12:51 am, Richard Clark wrote:

The circularity of Dr. Ken Mellendorf's foggy writing might suggest
it, if it weren't otherwise nipped in the bud by the bald statement.

On the other hand perhaps Dr. Mellendorf has some expertise in the
subject.

What is the term p? Could it be (p)hoton? I've speculated about
Planck's constant (which you comment upon, below), but I find it very
sloppy writing for Dr. Mellendorf to wander into his own naming
conventions.

I think you should make those comments directly to him so that he an
opportunity to respond. Shall I forward them for you? :-)

What is mass times the speed of light
for a particle that has no mass?

Seems like something is wrong in that sentence, doesn't it.

Perhaps Tom's special reading skills can rescue this p term from the
oblivion of E = 0 for a (p)hoton.

It's also possible that since E=0 is wrong, the assumption that p=0
might also be wrong. If not, then you'll need to explain radiation
pressure in an all new way.

Yes, and it seems your daughter trumped me on Planck once before. ;-)

She's better at math than I ever was.

73, ac6xg

For the lurkers who may care to sift a tiny bit of wheat from the
chaff, see common physics symbol usage at http://www.alcyone.com/max/reference...s/symbols.html,
http://selland.boisestate.edu/jbrenn...cs_symbols.htm,
http://www.hazelwood.k12.mo.us/~gric...b/formulas.htm and
others. If you're reading physics writings, it helps to have an
understanding of the language of the physicist.

See concise explanations about photon momentum and relativistic
momentum, energy and mass in general at
http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu...iv/relmom.html,
http://physics.mtsu.edu/~phys2020/Le..._momentum.html
and others.