41

New Theories / Re: What is a photon ?

« on: 18/05/2020 08:51:18 »

A 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

42

New Theories / Re: What is a photon ?

« on: 18/05/2020 07:43:52 »

A 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 will not have any acceleration in any circumstances in the universe  . Its speed can change but it  jumps from a velocity value to another velocity value   .Inertia is the resistance to change in  velocity or to gain acceleration .A Photon also has gravity because a photon is energy , both energy and rest mass have gravity .
A photon moves .As it has no rest mass it will move at the maximum speed which is c this is without any obstacles. that prevents it from reaching c .This obstacle is rest mass which if a photon has it will prevent a photon from reaching c.. The rest mass is an obstacle because  a rest mass never reaches c.

43

New Theories / Re: What is a photon ?

« on: 17/05/2020 14:03:39 »

@Colin2B
Yes a proton in a particle accelerator will approach c with no reach to c. And the proton decelerate in its motion . That doesn't mean proton has a relativistic mass.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#24

Inertia 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.R
I=I0/√(1-v²/c²)

The I0 is the inertia of a mass at rest. For each rest mass M0 kg there is a rest inertia I0, in which I=cM , c is a constant.
The factor 1/√(1-v²/c²) in Einstein equation above doesn't change because of the idea that velocity never reach c .But there will not be change in mass.The change is in mass inertia.

Think of a mass  m at  motion pushed by force F=ma , all these are constant , F, m and a. The velocity will multiply and will not reach c. And now think of this mass reached v velocity.This mass can collide a spring with some compression force and if v is bigger the force will be bigger.So the force by the spring to stop motion or to overcome inertia will be bigger for a bigger v. Inertia increases by the increment in v the equation above. . There is not increment in mass here.There is increment in inertia for the mass at motion .

Inertia is the resistance to move a mass and the resistance to stop this mass .Force in the spring or  inertia increases by the increment in velocity and that is  according to  Einstein's equation above.

There is not something called kinetic energy .Kinetic energy doesn't exist. Instead there is a work done .The work done by a force F to push a mass m is the work done by this force to a distance d this distance is at which v stops in a maximum value " no acceleration" .

We can consider work as force times distance d at this distance velocity reached a maximum constant v" no acceleration"

If I push a mass m with force F the work done is force times distance d.
The work done is :
W=ma*d
W= 1/2 (mv)/(t*d)
v=s/t
W=1/2mv²
1) W=1/2mv²   v is constant when acceleration stops and force stops
2)W=ma*d        d is constant . its value is the distance at which v stops increasing.

Equation 1 is work done on a spring.Work done by mass at constant velocity when it collides a spring.
Equation 2  is work done or force times d , d is the distance at which v reaches maximum" the same v as in the first equation "

The energy 1/2mv² only appears when the mass collides something .Then the 1/2mv² energy is just another way to calculate W=Fd .Because there is a relation between distance and constant  velocity we can write W=Fd in another way with respect to v  we can write it W=1/2mv²
The mass resists motion .Force overcame this inertia .Making a mass to move at constant speed . Then a mass possess this inertia this inertia a mass has possessed  appears in colliding spring.The inertia it possess is not a thing it is how this mass resists motion to reach constant v and how it will resist to reach 0 velocity.
.
A photon is energy and with no  rest mass" massless"  . A photon then does not have an inertia .In this case it can move at c .Nothing will decelerate it because no inertia and no resistance to its motion.Mass is mass energy is energy they are different things  . E=mc² is true but that doesn't mean energy behaves as mass .A photon is energy moves at c rest mass is mass doesn't move at c.This explains well a photon issue and a void the Energy/Mass wrong equivalence .

44

New Theories / Re: What is a photon ?

« on: 16/05/2020 09:22:12 »

Mass/ energy is just confusion and have no meaning

The fact that nuclear bombs work is proof that you are wrong.

They work
E=mc² .but the  energy due to motion and rest mass shouldn't be added together. They are different .One is energy and the other is mass "compounds and elements" .So the Energy/Mass equivalence here is meaningless.

In any case, every test of special relativity to date has passed. So if you are positing that special relativity has a flaw, then it is significantly more likely that you are mistaken than relativity being mistaken. Unless, of course, you can point out the flaws in the experiments. Can you?

There is not a proof for relativistic mass .That is there is not a proof that mass increases and decelerate and prevent itself from reaching c.

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.

Energy due to motion and energy of photon are both energy .I'm comparing between energy due to motion  and the energy we know that a photon contains

45

New Theories / Re: What is a photon ?

« on: 15/05/2020 15:31:51 »

Mass/ energy is just confusion and have no meaning .The K.E due to motion  shouldn't be treated as mass of  " compounds and elements " and affect the motion . Relativistic mass is just an invention.

The goal from below is if rest mass can't move at c then a photon shouldn't and if a photon moves at c then a rest mass should

Let me start with:
Let me refer to energy due to motion as " pure energy which is different from rest mass compounds and elements or matter"

Relativistic mass is rest mass " compounds and elements " added to it energy due to motion. Both can be treated as mass  this mass is " relativistic mass " with the same effect " preventing to reach c "S.R

If the above is true.Energy due to motion and rest mass  both can be treated as matter.
In this case  then why this specific energy can be treated as matter ? why not a photon ? if this is for the photon  then photon can be treated as matter and shouldn't move at c" A photon does move at c.

If the above is wrong and photon can not be treated as mass then energy due to motion also can not be treated as mass " because a photon and energy due to motion are both energy" .Energy due to motion is energy and photon is energy and if photon doesn't prevent itself from reaching c then this energy due to motion can not prevent rest mass to reach c .photon is not a special case it is energy and the energy preventing rest mass to reach speed of light is also energy.It is not scientific to describe some phenomenon that contradict physics as a special case only if we have an explanation if we do not have an explanation then we should a apply physical laws on that phenomenon since a photon and energy due to motion are both energy then any  thing applied to energy must be applied to a photon , we can't say F=ma for any mass but iron there must an explanation for that and a new knowledge that explains this .Not because we want to accept Einstein' theory of special relativity we refer to something contradicts it as a special case

If they are the same, rest mass " compounds and elements "  is just pure energy  like a photon and energy due to motion is just pure energy  then energy plus energy can move at c  just like a photon Energy plus energy is just a photon that can move at c, in this case a rest mass can move at c

If mass and energy are one,what is energy is mass and what is mass is energy then rest mass is a photon and can move at c

Einstein just made energy mass " moving object"  and energy energy " a photon "  he didn't know where energy is mass and where energy is energy and why.

46

New Theories / Re: What is a photon ?

« on: 04/05/2020 21:15:38 »

he says mass or energy "light" shouldn't move at c.

I am not aware of anywhere in special relativity that states that energy cannot move at c.

Einstein considers a moving object with its rest mass and other energy as a whole mass  in his equations , then mass is just energy and energy is just mass if a photon is energy then it is just a mass , it is a mass moves at c which it shouldn't. He does't distinguish between mass and energy in his theory and equations or mass/energy equivalence

47

New Theories / Re: What is a photon ?

« on: 04/05/2020 20:51:34 »

Einstein knew perfectly well that light
(1) has energy and
(2) travels at the speed of light

He knew light is energy and it travels with c but he says mass or energy "light" shouldn't move at c.
Can you see any contradiction here ?

48

New Theories / Re: What is a photon ?

« on: 04/05/2020 20:49:44 »

If you are, instead, trying to assert that light doesn't move at the speed of light and you are trying to convince us that it doesn't, this is belongs in the New Theory section.

I'm speaking about a contradiction in special relativity.

49

New Theories / Re: What is a photon ?

« on: 04/05/2020 20:30:52 »

A photon is a mathematical construct that helps us predict the behaviour of electromagnetic radiation.

It contains energy.
Einstein says no mass nor energy should move at the speed c.

50

New Theories / What is a photon ?

« on: 04/05/2020 18:41:02 »

What is a photon ?
A photon whether it is mass or energy  it shouldn’t move at c.

51

Just Chat! / Re: Excuse me

« on: 14/03/2020 14:24:07 »

 I have become worldwide famous  for my threads.

52

Just Chat! / Excuse me

« on: 11/03/2020 21:56:31 »

Excuse me I would like to publish my photo.

53

New Theories / Re: How does a massive human body stand on feet weak toes ?

« on: 27/01/2020 22:20:05 »

Are you aware that rock climbers are able to support themselves using just their fingers?
https://www.liveabout.com/six-basic-finger-grips-face-climbing-755397

Can you do that ? but every person can stand on toes.

54

New Theories / Re: How does a massive human body stand on feet weak toes ?

« on: 27/01/2020 20:52:55 »

So, as usual, there doesn't seem to be a problem to solve.

There is a difference between putting a load on toes tips, putting the load on toes, and and putting it on feet balls . A human can stand on toes tips, toes , or a compilation of toes and feet balls  .I can stand on my toes only with ease. But if the person on the link put the loads on toes only  " and without wearing shoes " they will break joints.

Ballet dancers stand on the toes, but they have reinforced shoes to support them.

Of course they need shoes to stand on toes tips since the force I suggested is small but not zero also giving in consideration the toes tips are sensitive

55

New Theories / Re: How does a massive human body stand on feet weak toes ?

« on: 27/01/2020 13:37:22 »

So why did you state earlier 'It is biological that this phenomenon appears only to humans.'?

It looks like he just makes this up as he goes along and forgets what he wrote earlier.  This results in him contradicting himself a lot.

To humans only but not to other masses, and I referred to humans only because it is a better example " everyone can test it"

There is no mathematics for this exact part.It is biological that this phenomenon appears only to humans.It is like physiologically human body stop working after death .

The phenomenon  related only to gravity on a human body that is the toes won't bear for instance   "equivalent to human body "  80 kg mass  put on it it.That will press the toes extremely hard.

56

New Theories / Re: How does a massive human body stand on feet weak toes ?

« on: 27/01/2020 10:11:13 »

It is biological that this phenomenon appears only to humans.

And several other bipedal species from Tyrannosaurus to chickens. And all quadruped mammals walk on fewer toes than bipeds.

Thanks.
I was going to mention that , but humans is a better example.

57

New Theories / Re: How does a massive human body stand on feet weak toes ?

« on: 27/01/2020 07:29:42 »

https://www.fitness-superstore.co.uk/powerline-vertical-leg-press.html?gclid=CjwKCAiAjrXxBRAPEiwAiM3DQrBSAdmKH_5N4_o_wf-w1vfX8ryr5KIBf_J6O-dDWZpzO6aI-IEYcxoClZ8QAvD_BwE

This is a person lifting by feet balls and wearing shoes.lifting by toes and without shoes will break toes , causing huge pain and feels high pressure .

58

New Theories / Re: How does a massive human body stand on feet weak toes ?

« on: 26/01/2020 17:10:53 »

Bones are stronger than concrete.
On a weight for weight basis tendons are stronger than steel.

It is not just about breaking bones or tendons.It is a whole collection of factors. The 80 kg mass will cause huge pain, cutting flesh, breaking  joints, and above all pressing the toes extremely hard.
Compare standing on concrete and putting 80 kg concrete on ones toes.

59

New Theories / Re: How does a massive human body stand on feet weak toes ?

« on: 26/01/2020 07:09:40 »

I'm waiting for you to supply the math shows that toes can't bear the weight of the body.

There is no mathematics for this exact part.It is biological that this phenomenon appears only to humans.It is like physiologically human body stop working after death .

60

New Theories / Re: How does a massive human body stand on feet weak toes ?

« on: 25/01/2020 23:39:30 »

Come back when you have some math to support your claims.

You might be confused by the repeated paragraphs.I edited it.I mentioned that the forces are related to each other mathematically  , which implies simple proportionality.