🚀 go-pugleaf

On Sep 13, 1:37 pm, Pentcho Valev <pva...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> On Sep 13, 12:19 pm, "Y.Porat" <y.y.po...@gmail.com> wrote in
> sci.physics:
>
> > > Porat 2 : is the speed of light in vacum constant ??
> > > hanson : It depends.
>
> > it depends on   nothing in vacum
>
> Porat, you often claim that the photon is a particle with a mass. Then
> its speed must depend on the speed of the light source mustn't it:
>
> http://books.google.com/books?id=JokgnS1JtmMC
> "Relativity and Its Roots" By Banesh Hoffmann
> p.92: "There are various remarks to be made about this second
> principle. For instance, if it is so obvious, how could it turn out to
> be part of a revolution - especially when the first principle is also
> a natural one? Moreover, if light consists of particles, as Einstein
> had suggested in his paper submitted just thirteen weeks before this
> one, the second principle seems absurd: A stone thrown from a speeding

thank you Pentco for your interesting resond
but please note:

i am not all along with Einstein even with SR!!

i am very sepective
if einstein ever said that th e   photon has no mass
i am not with that !!
i even proved it that the photon has mass
and it is hidden in the h (Planck) factor
there fore i came all  by myself it seems orriginally
that the photon is an EXCEPTION CASE   **
and if an exception  case
*it can have mass AND move by c *!!
does it speak to you ??
and if an exception case
it can have mass and move at c  IN VACUUM
(the speller told me to write it with 2 u  .. strange to me ..??)

so as an exception it might as well for some unknown reason
not be dependant on the speed of its source ??
i dont bet my head on it
i just take it as an experimental fact
if** experiments** will prove others i will change my mind
now
it is c;ear to me that we must base our velocity analysis
on   some constant movement
or else i dint see  how we can handle it !!
just to remind you
my claim is as well that Time
is nothing but **motion comparison to some
motion reference **
and if we have not a single motion reference
we are out of any bussinnes with it
if light is amotion reference for movement
than we can refere it to that
and that ia actually what we are doing in SR
ans you cant deny a lot of experimenal dtata
that suppory  SR
BTW
my personal beleife is that
**motion does not change masses or object dismstions
it is only changing
the measuring units of time and  length !!
(if the** measurment unit** are  changed due to motion
 it seems only that the
real objects themselves  were changed ( ie relatively !!)

how do you like that idea ??
-------------------


> train can do far more damage than one thrown from a train at rest; the
> speed of the particle is not independent of the motion of the object
> emitting it.

as i sayd   th ephoton is an exception case
----------
 And if we take light to consist of particles and assume
> that these particles obey Newton's laws, they will conform to
> Newtonian relativity and thus automatically account for the null
> result of the Michelson-Morley experiment without recourse to
> contracting lengths, local time, or Lorentz transformations. Yet, as
> we have seen, Einstein resisted the temptation to account for the null
> result in terms of particles of light and simple, familiar Newtonian
> ideas, and introduced as his second postulate something that was more

he didnt think about    the photon as an exception case ....(:-)
and that is as well why he thought that  it cannot move at c
and have mass .
------
> or less obvious when thought of in terms of waves in an ether

i dont think we need aether
---------
> was so obvious, though, why did he need to state it as a principle?
> Because, having taken from the idea of light waves in the ether the
> one aspect that he needed, he declared early in his paper, to quote
> his own words, that "the introduction of a 'luminiferous ether' will
> prove to be superfluous."
>
> Pentcho Valev

and please note
that i think
GR as nonsense !!!!!!!

so i am very selective !!!
and  surely not biased nationally or   race whise
that should be rejected completely from
scientific discussions    !!

TIA
Y.Porat
-----------------------