0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Repeating nonsense doesn't turn it into sense, and starting a sentence with "If" doesn't make any of what follows into a fact.

Note for Pete: I can't find any reference to a direct measurement of positron mass, but I've seen a neat proposal for measuring the gravitational force on a positronium atom.

I am not irritating.

You are just simply wrong ...

..and unable to understand it, therefore you are irritated.

It is you who ignore the arguments that I show.

According to Einstein, a photon with frequency n has energy hf /c^{2}, and thus (as he only came to realize several years later) a finite mass and a finite momentum hf/c.

Finally, using the energy-mass relationship E = mc^{2}, we find that the relativistic mass of a photon is non-zero and given by m = p/c. Combining these results with Planck's hypothesis, we obtain the following formulae for the energy E, relativistic mass m, and linear momentum p of the photons: E = hf m = hf/c2 p = hf/c

Let us now try to put together some of the results we have discussed. For photons we have E = cp and m = E/c^{2} (the first experimental, the second based on Einstein's box). Combining these, we have m = p/c

Feynman diagrams I posted. You were unable to learn why the photon is massless.

I have told how physicists agree with me that during the Big Bang there wereequal amounts of antimatter and matter and their sum was -E + E = 0

I am listening if you have a point but I don't intend to bend according to your will.

I'm afraid does antimatter fall up? is just a soundbite to attract the attention of the popscience media.

There seems to be a general assumption, at least in Pop. Sci. that tachyons accelerate.

You are just simply wrong and unable to understand it, therefore you are irritated.

Physicist: Anti-matter is exactly the same as matter, but different. If you, and everything else on the planet, were suddenly turned into anti-matter, you’d never know the difference. While the “anti-” of anti-matter may seem to give it an air of mystery, it still acts just like ordinary matter in essentially every respect. Specifically, anti-matter carries positive energy and mass , just like regular matter, while negative matter carries negative energy and mass.

Not true. Because physicists seem to agree that:During the Big Bang there were equal amounts of antimatter and regular matterand their sum was -E + E = 0

APPENDIX ASince the negative energy of a gravitational field is crucial to the notion ofa zero-energy universe, it is a subject worth examining carefully. In thisappendix I will explain how the properties of gravity can be used to showthat the energy of a gravitational field is unambiguously negative. The argumentwill be described in the context of Newton's theory of gravity,although the same conclusion can be reached using Einstein's theory of generalrelativity.I'm visiting him

APPENDIX ASince the negative energy of a gravitational field is crucial to the notion of a zero-energy universe, it is a subject worth examining carefully. In this appendix I will explain how the properties of gravity can be used to show that the energy of a gravitational field is unambiguously negative. The argument will be described in the context of Newton's theory of gravity, although the same conclusion can be reached using Einstein's theory of general relativity.

Can you read my name? What do you think it suggests? Might I rather be a bringer of darkness instead of a joker that you seem to think I am?

Antimatter most certainly doesn't fall up since it behaves dynamically like matter. However have you read the Bondi article on negative mass? I forget what it says since its been many years since I've read it but it's surely not popscience media, that's for sure. See http://www.newenglandphysics.org/Science_Literature/Journal_Articles/Bondi.pdf [Links inactive - To make links active and clickable, login or click here to register]

Yes I've read it.

It isn't popscience, but with respect, it's bad science that results from a lack of understanding of mass and gravity, along with a touch of "lost in math".

And I will reiterate: the mass of a body is a measure of its energy-content.

Consider the electron-positron annihilationIf the positron has a negative mass -m, and the electron has a positive mass +m, their sum is-m+m=0Can we explain why the photon mass is zero (its rest-mass is 0)?Is it 0 because the photon is the particle into which the pair positron-electron is transformed in the annihilation?

Quote from: Courier of darkness on 08/03/2015 06:18:06Consider the electron-positron annihilationIf the positron has a negative mass -m, and the electron has a positive mass +m, their sum is-m+m=0Can we explain why the photon mass is zero (its rest-mass is 0)?Is it 0 because the photon is the particle into which the pair positron-electron is transformed in the annihilation?Going back to the start of this thread I see that we all missed the obvious error in this post and I'm ashamed to admit that I missed it myself too.

Quote from: PmbPhy on 11/03/2015 06:04:49Antimatter most certainly doesn't fall up since it behaves dynamically like matter. However have you read the Bondi article on negative mass? I forget what it says since its been many years since I've read it but it's surely not popscience media, that's for sure. See http://www.newenglandphysics.org/Science_Literature/Journal_Articles/Bondi.pdf [Links inactive - To make links active and clickable, login or click here to register]Yes I've read it. It isn't popscience, but with respect, it's bad science that results from a lack of understanding of mass and gravity, along with a touch of "lost in math". And I will reiterate: the mass of a body is a measure of its energy-content. If you take away all the energy, the body does not exist, and you can't take away more energy. Ditto if you shorten a pencil to 0cm. It no longer exists, and you can't make it shorter.

According to my theory in my book, the property of mass is the result of a spherical momentum oscillation. An electron has an oscillation within its radius. The positron has a 180 degree phase difference in its oscillation as compared to the electron.. In addition both have degrees of linear and angular momentum. When you add an electron to a positron, you get a cancellation of the spherical momentum. This results in two photons. The energy is conserved and the photons now have high amounts of linear momentum.

Mass is entropy related, I do not know why you mention the above which I do not understand to mean anything, can you simplify that into layman terms?

Quote from: Ethos_ on 10/03/2015 16:24:26Quote from: PmbPhy on 10/03/2015 15:08:46This joker is way beyond help since he refuses to address all the proofs I've leveled against his bogus claims. If you have any questions or wish to discuss it let's take it to our private forum. Okay?Agreed.................At least this is in the forum where it belongs. I.e. this thread was moved here because it's outside the domain of mainstream physics meaning that what the OP claims are all WRONG.

Quote from: PmbPhy on 10/03/2015 15:08:46This joker is way beyond help since he refuses to address all the proofs I've leveled against his bogus claims. If you have any questions or wish to discuss it let's take it to our private forum. Okay?Agreed.................

This joker is way beyond help since he refuses to address all the proofs I've leveled against his bogus claims. If you have any questions or wish to discuss it let's take it to our private forum. Okay?

He just can't fathom that he's wrong. What's bad about it is that he refuses to make an statement about why his claims should be taken as valid nor has he made an attempt to prove that he correct. He also ignores all the proof that he's wrong too.

Of course you are. Haven't you read the responses to your claims? Can't you see that your thread was moved to the New Theories Forum? That only happens when the claims made by the OP don't conform to mainstream physics like your bogus claims.

We know a nutcase when we see them because they insult people who explain their errors to them or say that they're wrong and that's all you've been doing since you got here is claiming that you know what's right and we don't because we're ignorant. The fact is that I've been a physicist for 30 years and you're merely an ignorant layman who refuses to state or prove why he thinks he's right.

The rest is more of the same stupid garbage. You don't deserve any help because you're not intelligent enough to grasp it.

this thread was moved here because it's outside the domain of mainstream physics meaning that what the OP claims are all WRONG

In fact you were unable to grasp the fact that photons have a well defined relativistic mass because you mistook m = m_{0}/sqrt{1 - v^{2}/c^{2}} because that was derived on the assumption that the particle is a tardyon, not a luxon. The definition of relativistic mass is given implicitly as the m in p = mv. Therefore m = p/v. Since v = c for a photon m = p/c. Substituting in E = pc or p = E/c we end up with m = E/c^{2}

In fact you were unable to grasp the fact that photons have a well defined relativistic mass because you mistook m = m_{0}/sqrt{1 - v^{2}/c^{2}}

In fact you were unable to grasp the fact that photons have a well defined relativistic mass

He just can't fathom that he's wrong

I don't think so.

so I am forcedto hide the consequences of my mega science.........