On Sep 17, 3:25*am, Jeff Liebermann wrote:
On Wed, 17 Sep 2008 00:13:47 -0700, Jeff Liebermann
wrote:





On Tue, 16 Sep 2008 17:58:35 -0700, Richard Clark
wrote:

No Newtonians in this crowd. *Perhaps it was the relativistic term
"speed of light" that confused this group so much. *Let's restate it
in units that Newton could have appreciated.

We know that we can accelerate an electron to *167,770 miles/s - it
happens every femtosecond in one of any 100 billion crt
displays still glowing in the world. *Some of us know its mass at this
speed. *A question for the Newtonian philosopherz:
* * * *"What is the mass of a photon traveling at 167,770 miles/s?"

Google to the rescue:
http://asistm.duit.uwa.edu.au/synchrotron/downloads/pdfs/chapter11_7.pdf

mr / mo = 1 / (1 - (v^2/c^2))^0.5

whe
*mr = relativistic mass
*mo = mass at rest
*v *= velocity of particle
*c *= speed-o-light = 186,000 miles/sec

For v = 167,700 miles/sec
*mr/mo = 1/ (1 - (167,700^2 / 186,000^2))^0.5
*mr/mo = 1/ 1 - 0.813^0.5 = 1/ (1 - 0.902) = 1/ 0.0984 = 10.2

So, the mass of the particle at 90% the speed-o-light is 10 times that
of the particle at rest. *It doesn't matter what particle. *Do I get a
gold star?

(Somebody please check my arithmetic as I forgot to eat dinner, it's
after midnight, my brain is mush, and my calculator battery is fading
fast).

All wrong. *No gold star for that mess. *I just hate it when I click
"send" and only then discover my arithmetic error. *Rev 1.0 follows:

mr / mo = 1 / (1 - (v^2/c^2))^0.5

whe
* mr = relativistic mass
* mo = mass at rest
* v *= velocity of particle
* c *= speed-o-light = 186,000 miles/sec

For v = 167,700 miles/sec
* mr/mo = 1/ (1 - (167,700^2 / 186,000^2))^0.5
* mr/mo = 1/ (1 - 0.813)^0.5 = 1/ (0.187)^0.5 = 1/ 0.432 = 2.31

So, the mass of the particle at 90% the speed-o-light is 2.3 times
that of the particle at rest. *It doesn't matter what particle. *Maybe
a silver star?

--
# Jeff Liebermann 150 Felker St #D Santa Cruz CA 95060
# 831-336-2558 * * * * *
#http://802.11junk.com* * * * * * *
#http://www.LearnByDestroying.com* * * * * * * AE6KS- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Not correct. It's not quite as simple as e = m*c**2. You must use the
Lorentz transformation.

Using the same values you have assiged to c and v, the correct
equation would be:

mr = mo/SQRT(1 - v**2/c**2)

As v = c, mr must = infinity (therefore no mass can reach c)

OK So nobody wants to talk about equilibrium or current flow on a
radiator.
Thats fine by me. Took a lot of posts to get to that point. JB I
apologize
I have been nailed to the cross so many times I tend to bundle things
together.
When I started I zeroed on equilibrium as a start because existing
laws state that if a charge is moving on the outside of a radiator
then there is movement on the inside of a radiator Now that is not in
the books. Why is that? However discussion went away from the intent
of the thread. equilibrium with respect to radiation. O well another
try later
Regards
Art

Consider that there is little difference in the performance of a solid
radiator and hollow radiator.

There are things about Electromagnetic Radiation that aren't discussed by
Newton. Study classical antenna theory, then you will be on common ground
with others that study antennas. The danger of concentrating on your own
line of study so much is that you wind up out on a limb. I see this often
when dealing with different terminology spawned of different paradigms,
where similar circuits are redrawn and renamed by different engineering
teams. This is nowhere more evident in Psychology and Philosophy, where
insight springs from the conclusions derived from the limited experiences of
an isolated group or individual. It is like the blind men describing an
elephant when they have only one part in front of them. They each call the
elephant something else based on their singular experience and arrive at
logical conclusions that are false. The fact that we only have one lifetime
to devote to all the pieces is indeed a limitation.

John Smith wrote:
Where is motion?

Velocity = c

Where is time?

Time stands still for anything traveling at
velocity = c
--
73, Cecil http://www.w5dxp.com

Rectifier wrote:
It's not the light that bends the comet's tail.

If the sun put out nothing except EM waves, what
would a comet's tail look like? I suggest you
read Eugene Hecht's section in "Optics" titled:
"3.3.4 Radiation Pressure and Momentum" in my
4th edition.
--
73, Cecil http://www.w5dxp.com

On Sep 16, 4:07*pm, Art Unwin wrote:
On Sep 16, 3:39*pm, "Wayne" wrote:

"Art Unwin" wrote in message

...Iconsi der it a real shame that equilibrium is not a part of
examinations since equilibrium
is a basic in the electrical circuit of all antennas No where do I see
antennas explained other than the showing of capacitive coupling to
ground of antennas as a perceived circuit of an antenna?. Until this
is corrected we will never have continium of discussion between hams
on antennas.It is not a mystery anymore so why do the ARRL avoid it
like a plague?
Art

-
My engineering training is many years old now, but I haven't seen
equilibrium in the context of antennas discussed anywhere except by you, in
this newsgroup. *Do you have any references to papers that have been peer
reviewed and published?

Oh I suppose a search on google re antennas and equilibrium will get
you something to read
but difficult if you are starting from Zero. The point where you begin
is Newtons laws, if they are in error then so am I
I doubt if you will find anything that definitely proves that he is
wrong.If a professor does not know what I have stated he should be
nfired
which goes for some of the people at *University of Illinois in the
electrical engineering area.
EVERYTHING in science revolves around equilibrium. If a posting denys
that or does not respond to that Law
i will not respond and that includes Richard whose sole aim in life if
to divert the crowd with off topic nothings as he does not ahve any
Wayne
engineering degree from any accredited college and thus is a
pretender
looking for a date with any poster.
Art
Wayn e I stated that I started at the point of first principles which
is Newton and I went from there.
There is not a book that I know that starts there. You want a lst of
authors that physics examiners look for to determine
what"famous " people will side with him if he accepts it. That lesson
is not lost on all that aspire to heights in the academic world
so a paper MUST be buillt on the works of others whose work has been
accepted. In my case I start at a point where the shoulders that I
stand aupon are all dead. I made reference to Newton only and I havent
got a list of supporters. So I start at the beginning with just one
name in consideration to isolate the point of possible error. The ARRL
infers the circuit is the capacitance to ground where as I put the
cuircuit as going thru the center of the conductor.
I dont see the need to bring in quantum physics or to speculate about
photons or massless items or how many gears that they can race thru to
obtain
the speed of light. I was not an electrical engineer and I am not
wired like Richard as I have a wife and I am a great grandpa and no
wish to be any part of his world. My subject is and will always be
until in someway I am satisfied is what is the electrical circuit of a
fractional wavelength antenna which is not specifically stated in the
books and where every poster is waiting for somnebody else to dip his
toe in the water and thus avoid any subsequent
verbal thrashing. I can never point to a list of supporting evidence
beyond Newton and his laws.
Best regards.....I have to cut an acre of grass with a hand mower as
my daily excercise yes I do have a tractor but that is not excercise
Art

Jim Kelley wrote:
Cecil Moore wrote:
Rectifier wrote:
When travelling at the speed of light, it exhibits wave properties.

When traveling at the speed of light, it exhibits particle
properties.

When does light travel at a speed other than the speed of light?

From another of my postings: "If I remember correctly,
a photon cannot travel slower than the speed of light."

The first nine words in my first statement above are
not mine but were copied verbatim from Rectifier's posting
(except for the misspelled word). If there was an implication
that light can travel at less than the speed of light, it
didn't come from me.
--
73, Cecil http://www.w5dxp.com

Rectifier wrote:
Photons (the particle nature explanation of EMR) have no mass:
http://www.physchem.co.za/OB12-ele/radiation.htm

They should have said "no rest mass" to keep the
uninitiated from getting confused. Any particle that
can apply pressure, possesses momentum and "penetrating
ability" at the least has relativistic mass.

http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/physic...oton_mass.html

"In special relativity, it turns out that we are still able to
define a particle's momentum p such that it behaves in well-
defined ways that are an extension of the Newtonian case.
Although p and v still point in the same direction, it turns
out that they are no longer proportional; the best we can
do is relate them via the particle's 'relativistic mass'."

"It is almost certainly impossible to do any experiment that
would establish the photon rest mass to be exactly zero."
--
73, Cecil http://www.w5dxp.com

Rectifier wrote:
You say the "idea was postulated in 1915." Since when does a postulate
become proof making something a law?

It was postulated by Einstein in 1915 and measurements
agreed in 1919. It is said to have been proven a scientific
fact in 1959. I'm just surprised that your university didn't
teach it in the postulate stage, valid measurement stage, or
in the scientific fact stage. :-)
--
73, Cecil http://www.w5dxp.com

On Sep 17, 11:18*am, Cecil Moore wrote:
Richard Clark wrote:
You misspelled plonk, but baby makes three. *That makes the last one
who can't do the math.

The photon mass math is trivial.

E= mc^2 = hf

m = hf/c^2 = h/(c)lamda

If I remember correctly, a photon cannot travel slower
than the speed of light.
--
73, Cecil *http://www.w5dxp.com

Are you proposing that a photon cannot travel slower than the speed of
light in a vacuum, or it cannot travel slower than the speed of light
in water or the speed of light through glass or air? Please reference
which speed of light a photon cannot travel slower than. Assuming your
answer is the universal constrant "c", then my question is, knowing
that light travels faster through a vacuum than it does through water,
is the light travelling through water still "photons" or is that
impossible because they are travelling too slow? What are they then?
Please advise. Thanks.

On Sep 17, 2:04*pm, "Rectifier" wrote:
"Cecil Moore" wrote in message

...

Rectifier wrote:
Read it again! *I didn't say photons have zero mass; I said
electromagnetic radiation (EMR) has no mass. *EMR exhibits both wave and
particle properties. *When travelling at the speed of light, it exhibits
wave properties.

When traveling at the speed of light, it exhibits particle
properties. It has been about half a century since experiments
proved that light waves are bent by gravity thus proving that
electromagnetic radiation has mass. That idea was postulated
in 1915. Did you get your degree before then? :-)
--
73, Cecil *http://www.w5dxp.com

Photons (the particle nature explanation of EMR) have no mass:

http://www.physchem.co.za/OB12-ele/radiation.htm

No REST mass.