0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
deceleration does not necessarily is due to mass increment ,it is due to inertia increment. Mass/Energy equivalence is just a mess as I mentioned Reply#24Inertia is proportional to mass .Bigger mass is bigger inertia and bigger deceleration.As inertia is proportional to mass .We can replace mass with inertia in the equation of S.RI=I0/√(1-v²/c²)
A photon then does not have an inertia
E=mc² is true but that doesn't mean energy behaves as mass .
Quote from: Yahya A.Sharif on 17/05/2020 14:03:39A photon then does not have an inertia .Actually, it does. A photon falls towards a source of gravity at the same rate as an object with mass does.
A photon then does not have an inertia .
A photon will not have any acceleration in any circumstances in the universe .
If it wasn't for relativistic mass, gold wouldn't be yellow: https://www.fourmilab.ch/documents/golden_glow/
With an atomic number of 79, gold is in the last row of the periodic table containing stable elements, and only four stable elements (mercury, thallium, lead, and bismuth) have greater atomic number.
The term "photon" is very specific. It refers to the quantum of the electromagnetic force. It is a boson particle with a spin of one, is electrically-neutral and does not have a rest mass. It something does not have those characteristics, then it isn't a photon.
Quote from: Yahya A.Sharif on 18/05/2020 07:43:52A photon will not have any acceleration in any circumstances in the universe .Ah, so you are denying the existence of gravitational lensing. That's good to know.
OK, we know that the universe is finite.So we know that there is only space (and energy) in it for a finite number of photons.so LOGIC, says you are wrong.I would say almost infinite ; so opportunism is not significant.Yet you think logic says you ar right.So, we can deduce that you do not understand logic.That explains a lot.Please refrain from further posting until you have learned to be rational.
You could not comprehend requirement of a comparison material/object for the the lifetime experiment of muons. Therefore...your refeering is problematic for any subject.
If a single positive pulse is fed to an antenna,
Quote from: Kryptid on Today at 07:50:34Quote from: Yahya A.Sharif on Today at 07:43:52A photon will not have any acceleration in any circumstances in the universe .Ah, so you are denying the existence of gravitational lensing. That's good to know.Acceleration the rate in increment in velocity .A photon doesn't accelerate .The photon velocity can not increase more than c .Deceleration is different .Deceleration is the rate of reduction in velocity a photon can have a reduction in its speed and this true ..Pushing a flashlight forward will not increase light speed . So photon has no acceleration or inertia .pushing a flashlight forward is a good example pushing will not accelerate a photon because a photon has no rest mass.Mass and inertia are proportional .And both can prevent mass to reach c. Einstein used mass instead of inertia and made the mess in reply #24
Do transformers, induction heaters, wireless chargers, radio antennae release photons?
Quote from: hamdani yusuf on 18/05/2020 08:36:02If a single positive pulse is fed to an antenna,What do you think you mean by that?
Do any of the professional scientists here understand "requirement of a comparison material/object for the the lifetime experiment of muons."?
Acceleration the rate in increment in velocity .A photon doesn't accelerate .The photon velocity can not increase more than c .Deceleration is different .Deceleration is the rate of reduction in velocity a photon can have a reduction in its speed and this true ..Pushing a flashlight forward will not increase light speed . So photon has no acceleration or inertia .pushing a flashlight forward is a good example pushing will not accelerate a photon because a photon has no rest mass.Mass and inertia are proportional .And both can prevent mass to reach c. Einstein used mass instead of inertia and made the mess in reply #24
Quote from: Bored chemist on 18/05/2020 11:37:39Do any of the professional scientists here understand "requirement of a comparison material/object for the the lifetime experiment of muons."? Yes absolutely, any one asks to compare what is the normal value of muons' lifetime. Is this a discussion subject in a science forum? You are great.
Is this a discussion subject in a science forum?
Counter-intuitively, an object can travel at constant velocity and be in a state of acceleration at the same time. Take the teeth of a spinning gear as an example. The gear can be spinning at a constant velocity
That's not a constant velocity, it's a constant speed.That's the difference.
For example, a battery is grounded on its negative terminal.
Quote from: hamdani yusuf on 18/05/2020 12:28:39For example, a battery is grounded on its negative terminal. That is merely a matter of convention. On American cars the negative terminal is "grounded" by attaching the negative terminal of the battery to the cars frame. In some European cars its the opposite, i.e. positive terminal is set to ground. There is nothing sacred about either convention.