- Thank you received: 0
C Squared
20 years 5 months ago #10128
by Jim
Replied by Jim on topic Reply from
Omni, So, now you going to the "zero rest mass" defence are you? Tell me then what is zero rest mass? Is that mass or no mass? Is it now a photon with mass and then a photon without mass? Is the next answer you give going to be it depends or what is means? Don't go there.
Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.
20 years 5 months ago #11339
by Don Omni
Replied by Don Omni on topic Reply from
Jim, ok so technically nothing's ever at rest so the term 'rest mass' is a misnomer. Rigorously it's the invariant length of the photons four momentum in the equation E=mc^2+pc. The old school term 'relativistic mass' is obviously frequency dependent. So you can give a relativistic mass to a photon that's relative to its wavelength but I'm sure you know all this.
Yet to define this misnomer the rest mass of an object is the inertial mass that an object has when it's at rest so zero rest mass would be the total lack of resistance a photon has to a change in its motional state which is why photons travel at light speed. But as the subatomic particle accelerators show things that travel at light speed increase in mass so even something with zero rest mass that travels at light speed is going to accrete the weight of space/time around itself and pick up a marginal amount of mass. But this doesn't mean that the zero rest mass photon is gone all it means is that there's a pair of photons and one of the photons is waiting in a cache dimension to have a mass accreted to it.
Thus I'm not going to the zero rest mass defense because I've claimed all along that the zero rest mass h is the cause of vetahw whose equal reaction is the zero rest mass h having its trajectory bent by the force of vetahw whose opposite reaction is the h accreting rest mass due to being bent by the force of vetahw.
This is because mass is a component of force and not something separate which means simplistically F=hf/d. What I mean is that there's a time polarized photon relating with a longitudinal photon (Mandl and Shaw, Quantum Field Theory, Chapter 5, 1984) but neither of these photons are observable seperately. How their combination is observable is as an instant scalar potential. In Whittaker's 1903 work the scalar potential is comprised of 'biwave pairs' that are coupled time polarized em wave/longitidunal em wave pairs where the unified em wave is the cause and the equal reaction is the time polarized em wave whose opposite reaction is the longitudinal em wave which's just a complicated explanation of what the photon pair is doing.
It's just we have to add Newton's 3rd Law back to classical em and photons in general.
..............................Omni
Yet to define this misnomer the rest mass of an object is the inertial mass that an object has when it's at rest so zero rest mass would be the total lack of resistance a photon has to a change in its motional state which is why photons travel at light speed. But as the subatomic particle accelerators show things that travel at light speed increase in mass so even something with zero rest mass that travels at light speed is going to accrete the weight of space/time around itself and pick up a marginal amount of mass. But this doesn't mean that the zero rest mass photon is gone all it means is that there's a pair of photons and one of the photons is waiting in a cache dimension to have a mass accreted to it.
Thus I'm not going to the zero rest mass defense because I've claimed all along that the zero rest mass h is the cause of vetahw whose equal reaction is the zero rest mass h having its trajectory bent by the force of vetahw whose opposite reaction is the h accreting rest mass due to being bent by the force of vetahw.
This is because mass is a component of force and not something separate which means simplistically F=hf/d. What I mean is that there's a time polarized photon relating with a longitudinal photon (Mandl and Shaw, Quantum Field Theory, Chapter 5, 1984) but neither of these photons are observable seperately. How their combination is observable is as an instant scalar potential. In Whittaker's 1903 work the scalar potential is comprised of 'biwave pairs' that are coupled time polarized em wave/longitidunal em wave pairs where the unified em wave is the cause and the equal reaction is the time polarized em wave whose opposite reaction is the longitudinal em wave which's just a complicated explanation of what the photon pair is doing.
It's just we have to add Newton's 3rd Law back to classical em and photons in general.
..............................Omni
Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.
20 years 5 months ago #10259
by Jim
Replied by Jim on topic Reply from
Omni, If you have a photon with mass and it does not gain mass as it gets to the speed of light then why is it observed that particles gain mass as they approch that speed? And why do some photons have more mass than others simply because it is required by Planck? I am of the opinion there is a lot more that is needed to be discovered in order to make this work in the real universe(outside the model).
Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.
20 years 5 months ago #11340
by Don Omni
Replied by Don Omni on topic Reply from
Particles gain mass due to the consequences of relativity. Yes some photons have more mass than others because it's required by Planck. Yeah I also believe there's alot more that needs to be discovered by the lower eschelon sciences (evolved model atom, true quantum stats...) but I also believe the high influence manipulation sciences already discovered most of it at Camp Hero/Montauk Point in 1984. As soon as the US Patent Board and the gov't allow free energy perpetual motion to be legal and void this insane national security patent noncents we'll have a majority of the answers to the questions you're asking because we'll have general relativity on the lab bench.
Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.
20 years 5 months ago #10262
by Jim
Replied by Jim on topic Reply from
Omni, One of the questions I would ask those people you say have the answers is weather or not the photon has any mass. If it does have mass then why not determine if photons are all of the same mass? And if photons don't have mass then what happens to the mass when matter is transformed into energy? Also the correct ratio of mass/energy should be determined. The answers to these questions currently are not known because everyone assumes E=mc^2 is less an approximate calculation than an absolute truth.
Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.
20 years 5 months ago #10146
by Don Omni
Replied by Don Omni on topic Reply from
Alright then, Jim. But what I've learned from watching and talking to Tom Bearden and other gnostics in the free energy perpetual motion society at large regarding photon mass is basically what I've written here regarding photon mass based on a Newton's 3rd Law perspective of zero rest mass photon and massive photon pairs.
Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.
Time to create page: 0.341 seconds