E=mc2 questions?

Status
Not open for further replies.
theorist-constant12345 said:
For example consider this thought, ''white light'' travels in a linearity until making contact with a medium or matter, and only then is it a wave by the propagation. There is no way we would know that sentence not to be true.
Click to expand...
It is not true for several reasons.
"White light" is a mixture of wavelengths. Thus it is not a single thing but a collection of photons.
Light does not always travel in a straight line; it is curved by nearby gravity wells.
Light always travels by propagation, by definition.
You can measure a strong beam of light by measuring the gravity it generates. It is tiny but measurable in sufficient intensity. So no, you do not need a beam of light to hit something to detect it (although that is how it is _usually_ detected.)
 
theorist-constant12345 said:
An object imposes a force on the ground, the ground does not impose a force on the object, the ground imposes a force on the center of mass centripetally.

That is why I broke down Newton's Law's for the reason of the third Law fails when considering the facts.
Click to expand...

From Sparknotes:
====================
Normal Force

Of all physical forces in everyday life, perhaps the most common is the normal force. The normal force comes into play any time two bodies are in direct contact with one another, and always acts perpendicular to the body that applies the force. The simplest example of the normal force can be seen in the situation of a man standing on a platform. Clearly a gravitational force acts on the man, pulling him down, perpendicular to the platform; but since the man is not moving, another force must act to counteract the gravitational force. This force is applied by the platform, and is called the normal force, and is referred to as F N .

The normal force can also be seen as a direct consequence of Newton's Third Law. Continuing with the example of the man on the platform, his weight, due to the gravitational force, pushes down on the platform. Newton's third law predicts that this force on the platform must be accompanied with an equal and opposite force applied to the man by the platform. This force is precisely the normal force.
==========================
 
theorist-constant12345 said:
The speed of light often referred to as c, is a constant speed in a Vacuum to all observers, the speed of light can slow down in a medium. Light is apart of the Electromagnetic radiation created by black bodies.
White light is a mixture of the spectral frequencies, it travels in a wave but also as the behaviour of a particle, we call this wave-particle duality.
The spectral range consists of several wavelengths , red being the weaker of the range and Ultra violet being on the higher energy level range.
Click to expand...


So light is real!!!! :)
Which makes Dark simply the absence of light.
Do you recognise the "colour" black?
Just thought your reply maybe interesting.
Finally congrats to the mods for eventually moving this anti scientific nonsense that has been spewed in this thread.
 
exchemist said:
Yes he does rather give the impression of having mugged it all up in front of a candle-lit shrine to Einstein, in his garage in Portsmouth or wherever it is. But he does understand concepts and can argue his (eccentric) case in fairly lucid English. T-C can do neither. With T-C it's a case of "My hovercraft is full of eels".
Click to expand...
Yes, I agree that the difference is probably medically diagnosable. Still, it is difficult to reconcile the apparently self-contradictory concept of an "intelligent crackpot". With some of Farsight's points, there MUST be either a deliberate lie or cognitive dissonance in them, for example his conflation of local and coordinate frames.
 
theorist-constant12345 said:
I understand most of it is the assumption you should make, but do not word it great at times.
Click to expand...
That isn't reasonable:
1. Much of what you say wrong is so basic that it is hard to fathom you could actually disagree if you understood them. I've seen plenty of crackpots argue against SR while understanding most of it, but I don't think I'd ever seen someone argue against the difference between weight and mass before.

2. Many of the wrong things you say are not clearly part of arguments you are trying to make.

3. Many of the wrong things you say aren't just wrong, they are gibberish. So they are impossible to be considerd arguments against accepted science. For example, if you knew basic science, you wouldn't claim an equation with inconsistent units has meaning.

4. It is bad etiquette to be coy about your intentions.

5. You post threads in the mainstream physics section, which is itself a statement that they are about mainstream physics.

The results of our game and your statement above are why I think you are intentionally gibberish-flooding. You appear to be capable of better (if only somewhat), but choose not to be.
 
Last edited:
billvon said:
You can measure a strong beam of light by measuring the gravity it generates. It is tiny but measurable in sufficient intensity. So no, you do not need a beam of light to hit something to detect it (although that is how it is _usually_ detected.)
Click to expand...
billvon, would you have a reference for this?
 
OnlyMe said:
billvon, would you have a reference for this?
Click to expand...


I have been certainly informed by a well respected cosmologist on another forum, that light/photons do add to spacetime curvature, due to their momentum, albeit a very tiny amount.
I also had a link somewhere which I now cannot find. :(
 
paddoboy said:
I have been certainly informed by a well respected cosmologist on another forum, that light/photons do add to spacetime curvature, due to their momentum, albeit a very tiny amount.
I also had a link somewhere which I now cannot find. :(
Click to expand...
I understand the test for gravitational lensing but what would be the test for what you are talking about (I'm not doubting it by the way)?
 
paddoboy said:
I have been certainly informed by a well respected cosmologist on another forum, that light/photons do add to spacetime curvature, due to their momentum, albeit a very tiny amount.
I also had a link somewhere which I now cannot find. :(
Click to expand...

Yes, it is obviously a theoretical postion, that photons can contribute to Spacetime curvature. That was not what I was asking billvon a reference for. His comment below,
billvon said:
You can measure a strong beam of light by measuring the gravity it generates. It is tiny but measurable in sufficient intensity. So no, you do not need a beam of light to hit something to detect it (although that is how it is _usually_ detected.)
Click to expand...
states that a gravitational field generated by a strong beam of light can be measured. I have seen no experimental reference for that in the past, so I was asking if he could provide one. I really would like to take a look at any paper describing how the measurement was made and the results.

BTW I was not challenging the statement. Just asking for a reference, for honest reasons of interest.
 
billvon said:
It is not true for several reasons.
"White light" is a mixture of wavelengths. Thus it is not a single thing but a collection of photons.
Light does not always travel in a straight line; it is curved by nearby gravity wells.
Light always travels by propagation, by definition.
You can measure a strong beam of light by measuring the gravity it generates. It is tiny but measurable in sufficient intensity. So no, you do not need a beam of light to hit something to detect it (although that is how it is _usually_ detected.)
Click to expand...
I ask for proof that white light is a mixture of frequencies in 3 dimensional space, I observe a single frequency equal to sight that is see through and in no means white .
 
theorist-constant12345 said:
I ask for proof that white light is a mixture of frequencies in 3 dimensional space, I observe a single frequency equal to sight that is see through and in no means white .
Click to expand...


Newton's famous experiment I presume, if I understand the posturing and pretense nonsense of how you have worded your post.
The glass prism and white light one.
 
paddoboy said:
Newton's famous experiment I presume, if I understand the posturing and pretense nonsense of how you have worded your post.
The glass prism and white light one.
Click to expand...
A glass prism is not light in 3 dimensional space, the light in a prism becomes visible by manipulation of the mass of the prism , try again i ask for evidence?
 
theorist-constant12345 said:
A glass prism is not light in 3 dimensional space, the light in a prism becomes visible by manipulation of the mass of the prism , try again i ask for evidence?
Click to expand...
More evidence that you don't have the first f*cking clue as to what you're talking about.
The light is white in space: it splits into the different colours AFTER it has entered the prism.
Therefore the experiment illustrates PERFECTLY exactly what you asked for.

And, just so we're clear, THIS was the (most) incoherent drivel part: "...single frequency equal to sight".
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top