🚀 go-pugleaf

On Jul 21, 6:11 pm, rick_so...@hotmail.com wrote:
> On Jul 21, 5:43 pm, rick_so...@hotmail.com wrote:
>
>
>
> > On Jul 14, 8:09 am, "Y.Porat" <y.y.po...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > On Jul 14, 9:26 am, Pentcho Valev <pva...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > > > Tom Roberts wrote in sci.physics.relativity:
>
> > > > > develope...@hotmail.com wrote:
> > > > > > If there is no such thing as absolute motion, it follow there is no
> > > > > > such thing as absolute rest.  How, then, can we speak of an object's
> > > > > > rest mass?  Rest wrt what?
>
> > > > > The underlying concept is of invariant mass. This is an intrinsic
> > > > > property of an object, and in relativity is the closest analog of what
> > > > > "mass" meant in Newtonian mechanics.
>
> > > > > The phrase "rest mass" hearkens back to the old days in which there was
> > > > > confusion between mass (aka invariant mass) and "relativistic mass".
> > > > > "Relativistic mass" is not really mass, and is frame dependent so it is
> > > > > not intrinsic to an object, either; it is numerically equal to the
> > > > > energy of the object, and "energy" is a much better name for this
> > > > > quantity than "relativistic mass". The "relativistic mass" of an object
> > > > > in its rest frame is equal to its invariant mass, or in the usual
> > > > > shortcut way of speaking, its rest mass.
>
> > > > > So this is "rest relative to the object itself". In modern physics, the
> > > > > first word of "invariant mass", and the first word of "rest mass", are
> > > > > redundant, because the concept "mass" includes those aspects as well.
> > > > > The first word of "relativistic mass" is an oxymoron.
>
> > > > > Tom Roberts
>
> > > > Unfortunately Roberts Roberts the relativistic verbiage contains too
> > > > many oxymorons. As far as photons are concerned, the only important
> > > > question is:
>
> > > > Does the speed of photons vary with the gravitational potential, as
> > > > the speed of other particles does, and, equivalently, does the speed
> > > > of photons vary with the relative speed of the light source and the
> > > > observer, as the speed of other particles does?
>
> > > > Roberts Roberts this question is directly relevant to the axioms of
> > > > relativity and for that reason I called it "the only important
> > > > question". The question "Do photons have mass?" is important but not
> > > > directly relevant.
>
> > > > Roberts Roberts you have already given half of the answer:
>
> > > > Tom Roberts wrote in sci.physics.relativity:
>
> > > > > Pentcho Valev wrote:
> > > > > > CAN THE SPEED OF LIGHT EXCEED 300000 km/s IN A GRAVITATIONAL FIELD?
> > > > > Sure, depending on the physical conditions of the measurement. It can
> > > > > also be less than "300000 km/s" (by which I assume you really mean the
> > > > > standard value for c). And this can happen even for an accelerated
> > > > > observer in a region without any significant gravitation (e.g. in
> > > > > Minkowski spacetime).
> > > > > Tom Roberts tjrobe...@lucent.com
>
> > > > Pentcho Valev- Hide quoted text -
>
> > > > - Show quoted text -
>
> > > ------------
> > > To your question whether the photon has mass
>
> > > the answwer is Yes
> > > it has mass  a verylittl eone
> > > 2
> > > there is only jsy one kind of mass
> > > you can choose any name for it
> > > but jus tone knd of mass
> > > (if you think about 'relatiovistic mass'
> > > better forget about it
> > > and
> > > how come that the phton has mas
> > > and still movwes at c
> > > ask Wormley  he is a cleaver innovative sciensut
> > > alternatively youcan ask Gisse
>
> > > the 23 years old  boy from Alasks
> > > (that could not finish a Bsc !!
> > > and sits all day on the net ...teaching the world physics ....)
> > > He is the new Einstien
> > > of the 21 century
> > > (and may be of Alaska (University )as well !!who knowes ??
>
> > > Y.Porat
> > > -------------------
>
> > I don't agree.
>
> > A water wave can hit a wall, with force.
> > That doesn't mean it has intrinsic mass.
>
> > Keeping in mind that a photon is just a wave packet. It is not a
> > particle of dust.
>
> > And I gave the example yesterday if you missed it, that if an observer
> > has a switch, and as a high speed rocket passes him, he flips the
> > switch. The rocket is going 1 million miles per hour towards the moon,
> > and the observer is stationary.
> >  When he flips the switch, his high beam beside him and the one on the
> > ship will shine a beam onto a detector on the moon.
>
> > If light had mass, it would have momentum, and his beam would strike
> > the moon first.
> > Since it does not have mass, it has no forward momentum towards the
> > moon, and hence both beams hit the moon at the same time.
>
> Intrinsic mass would be in a nucleus, it is expanding along with the
> universe. But in it and all around it, is the quantum foam, which is
> also expanding, and so there is a certain amount of pressure that
> resists that expansion. That bubble becomes like a gyroscope in a way,
> that it is relative to the quantum foam. (Newton's Bucket, Einstein-
> Bose condensate vortices) so it reacts with the quantum foam, and that
> individuality of the nucleus, and its trying to expand in absolute
> space-time, gives it mass.
> When you move an atom or group of atoms through space-time, they have
> to plow through the quantum foam, and as a result, it presses you into
> your seat.
> Step on the gas feel the pressure opposing you as you plow through it.
> Now you can say well even a transverse light wave will expand as it
> travels towards the target, but that expansion of that wave is
> relative to the rest of the surroundings which are also expanding, and
> so that pressure of it getting larger is not even noticeable.
> I don't think it would be because it does not contain anything in it.
> A nucleus has quantum foam in it. A transverse wave is just a wave in
> the quantum foam.
> Its the skin of the nucleus, that elasticity, that gives the interior
> of the nucleus a different pressure than the exterior background.
> If you make Einstein Bose condensate, and keep going cooling it
> further, it will flat line, and that quantum foam inside will go back
> to the background, but when it does that, it creates a small explosion
> from a small temporary vacuum.
> It implodes, some of it will flat line and as the rest of the
> condensate comes together to fill that void (implosion) then impacts
> itself from the force of the surrounding pressure, and recoils
> (explodes).
>
> So only the nucleus of an atom, has intrinsic mass.
>
> If you say well at the shell radius, there is a spherical wave of dark
> energy (black body radiation, and they have levitated frogs on a
> magnetic field as simple proof of this) that is like mass, and I think
> that is just a semantical argument, and the mass it has, is not its
> own, but it is merely tossing the mass of the quantum foam around.
> The individual quantum foam bubbles also having mass.
> And if you were to flatten one of those, then what happens is similar
> to the Bosenova (mentioned above implosion explosion)
> except that now you have created a perfect vacuum, a wormhole, and the
> surrounding pressure is greater, and the quantum foam comes together
> to fill that gap.
>
> And if enough of the quantum foam gets flattened, it looks like
> this...http://www.space.com/scienceastronomy/big_explosion_050105.html

So what is this skin of the nucleus?
Well foam is in a liquid, and as far as we can tell it is a liquid.
And that is why, when it flat-lines, and the nucleus bubble collapses
in super-cooled Bose-Einstein condensate, you can actually detect that
momentum, of the slap, of the liquid, as the bubble collapses and the
liquid slaps on the surrounding surfaces of the foam.
And also the reason we think it is a fluid, is because all motion,
through the quantum foam is fluid motion.

Only flying saucers apparently can make 90 degree turns at high speed.
Other things with mass, cannot do that.
And since that is in the realm of the unproven, it might be because
the laws of physics state, that anything with mass, in this physical
universe, has to plow through the quantum foam. There is no way around
that.
You cannot mass cancel nothing.
Nada.
No way José Rodriguez.
So the only explanation then for any of those sightings or stories, is
that one, they are made up, some of them, and two, if there was
anything like that seen, it was not made of atoms that had mass, but
must have been made of light as in an illusion, or a mirage, or a
projection of some kind.
Unless you can somehow create a beam or a force field that can somehow
move the quantum foam around without resistance, but there is no
examples of that happening anywhere in the universe, and always, if
you try to move the foam around it will just lock up and explode.
If you move it too quickly.
Like if you are in a spaceship traveling close to c, the second you
hit c, it becomes a supersolid mass.
Travel at a constant speed, and it is slipping past you with uniform
motion as a superfluid and no problem, but accelerate, and suddenly
your dark energy waves are pushing against each other (the wave front
in front of it) and then against the foam, and then it will squish in
itself, the foam and its its own little bubbles will get squashed a
bit, and when you accelerate at c, one wall of the bubble hits the
opposite side as it is squished in completely and well you stop dead
in your tracks as it locks up in that area.

If you had sufficient force to just blow through that, you would get a
supernova explosion.

A nuclear explosion is when the nucleus pressure is overcome, and a
supernova when you overcome the pressure of the quantum foam.
Its like a Doppler effect.
Just like going through the sound barrier, then the light barrier and
then the quantum barrier.