1

**Just Chat! / Re: Rock music**

« **on:**20/05/2020 17:32:11 »

I wonder what the thing under the rocks

This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.

2

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 ..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.

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

3

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 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 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.

4

@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

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 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 .

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

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 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 .

5

They workMass/ energy is just confusion and have no meaningThe fact that nuclear bombs work is proof that you are wrong.

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

6

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" if photon can't be treated as mass then energy due to motion also can not.Energy due to motion and rest mass can't be added and treated as one entity " relativistic mass " because both can not be treated the same.They can not be added in a way that both rest mass and energy due to motion prevent relativistic mass from reaching speed c and treated as an entity that can't move at c.

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 photon and can move at c

Einstein just made mass energy and energy mass where he needed.

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" if photon can't be treated as mass then energy due to motion also can not.Energy due to motion and rest mass can't be added and treated as one entity " relativistic mass " because both can not be treated the same.They can not be added in a way that both rest mass and energy due to motion prevent relativistic mass from reaching speed c and treated as an entity that can't move at c.

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 photon and can move at c

Einstein just made mass energy and energy mass where he needed.

7

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 equivalencehe 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.

8

Einstein knew perfectly well that lightHe knew light is energy and it travels with c but he says mass or energy "light" shouldn't move at c.

(1) has energy and

(2) travels at the speed of light

Can you see any contradiction here ?

9

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.

10

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.

11

What is a photon ?

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

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

12

I have become worldwide famous for my threads.

14

Are you aware that rock climbers are able to support themselves using just their fingers?Can you do that ? but every person can stand on toes.

https://www.liveabout.com/six-basic-finger-grips-face-climbing-755397

15

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

16

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

There is no mathematics for this exact part.It isbiologicalthat 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.

17

Thanks.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.

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

18

https://www.fitness-superstore.co.uk/powerline-vertical-leg-press.html?gclid=CjwKCAiAjrXxBRAPEiwAiM3DQrBSAdmKH_5N4_o_wf-w1vfX8ryr5KIBf_J6O-dDWZpzO6aI-IEYcxoClZ8QAvD_BwEThis 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 .

19

Bones are stronger than concrete.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.

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

Compare standing on concrete and putting 80 kg concrete on ones toes.

20

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 .