Re: recoiling photons evidence?

"ralph sansbury" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
> "George Dishman" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> >
> > "ralph sansbury" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> > news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > The mass of the photon remains zero. The factor called
> > > > > > reativistic mass can be useful for massive particles as
> > > > > > long as you remain aware of its limitations but is
> doesn't
> > > > > > work for photons as it becomes undefined (not
> infinite).
> > >
> > >    Nonsense we are talking physics not mathematics. No
> particles
> > > except photons accelerate instaneously and so as in
> Kaufmann's
> > > original and mass spectrometer etc readings, masses appear
> > > to increase as they approach eg .1c the speed of light
> according
> > > to the above formula.
> >
> > The above formula you posted says a photon's mass would be
> > zero for all speeds even infinitesimally below v=c because
> > your term (rest mass) = 0.
>
>    Again we are talking physics not mathematics. The mass of the photon
may be
> measureably indistinguishable from zero but not mathematically zero. I
assume,
> that to make the photon more like other particles this is the case.
>    I am assuming that the rest mass increases to above measureable zero as
it
> is accelerated so that it is like other particles.

Rest mass doesn't change for any particle, only the combined
factor called "relativistic mass" changes because it is a
combination of mass and kinetic energy.

> If this is not
> the case then this is another premise that distinguishes photons
> from other particles. This is what makes the assumption that the
> conservation of momentum alone to be  an unreliable source of
> evidence.

You can't have it both ways Ralph. If the mass of a photon is not
zero then you can never have v=c and the momentum is related to
mass and speed exactly as for any other particle.

> Hence you need another mechanism to support such an argument.

I need nothing at all. The effects we have talked about prove
photons carry momentum whether we can explain it or not. You
have shown no problem with the conventional explanation, you
have just made an asumption that photons have mass then tried
to use that to prove there are problems if it moves at c. Of
course that will produce problems because you have used two
incompatible assumptions.

> When you have an isolated emission of photons unlike the cases
> where light pressure occurs because of the magnetic force between
> pairs of oscillating charge groups, the photon conservation
> argument has no track record.

A photon is a photon. We have proof that photons carry
momentum. It is up to you to conduct an experiment that
shows they don't under your suggested circumstances, that's
the way science works.

> > > Therefore you can not assume that
> > > the conservation of momentum for photons is like the
> conservation
> > > of momentum for other particles like bullets and guns.
> >
> > The momentum of photons is measured, not assumed, and
> > is found to be conserved, just like any other particle.
> >
>
> > >   Yes the momentum conservation of photons and electrons
> > > in the Compton and  the the laser particle suspension cases
> > > is different
> >
> > No, a collision with a photon imparts momentum just like
> > a collision with any other particle.
> >
>    Saying so and wishing so again and again is not good science.

What I said is proven by the details of the Compton Effect.
Drawing a conclusion from experiment is the basis of all
good science .

> Better buttress your argument with a real mechnism.

Been there, done that, bullets and guns, remember?

> The mechanism
> in the Compton case is that the magnetic effect of the oscillating
> charge in the supposed photon-electron collision decreases the
> moreso the greater the reduction in frequency.

All explanations are secondary. The experiment proves that
photons carry momentum whether we have an explanation or not.

> > > in these cases than that which occurs in bullets and
> > > guns because of the difference in the characteristics of the photon
> > > particle and all other particles
> >
> > As far as momentum goes, photons are just like any other
> > particle.
> >
>  I have showed you why it may not be and you have not showed any
> reason that it should be.

The Compton Effect shows it is. You have not offered any
contradictory experimental evidence. In fact all you have
done is assume photons have mass when all experiments suggest
they don't.


>   The speed of the craft,now 12km/sec according to Pioneer home page
>  was about 36.67km/sec  as it
> passed Jupiter while  29km per sec relative to the sun when it was on
earth
> orbiting the sun.
>     These differences in speed may have caused increases and
> decreases in its attraction to the sun but perhaps no differences
> in acceleration.

F=ma

>  That is the difference in speed times some, to
> be determined, constant of proportionality could produce a
> greater attraction GMm/r^2 where m=Kv is the mass of the craft
> where
> K is determined from the mass of the craft on earth of
> 270kg=(K)(29km/sec).
>     This would imply K=270/29 and the mass in the Newtonian force
> formula is no longer a constant but rather something that varies
> with velocity  in a way
>  consistent with relativity. But if we write ma=GMm/r^2 and
> divide both sides by m, we always get an acceleration that is
> independent of, m, whether m of the same object varies or is
> constant.

The predicted motion includes all the relativistic corrections.
The anomaly is a departure from that.

>   Another consideration is that  the centripetal velocities, v=
> sqr(GM/r), of orbiting planets according to Newton's formula
> decrease with their increasing distance from the sun,r. and that
> these velocities may be less than the spacecraft at the same
> distance r.
>    There may be something here to explain the anomalous effect
> but I don't see it at the moment.

Since all these effects are already taken into account,
you need to look for something beyond relativity.

>    It may be that the Newtonian formula could be modified to
> (GMm/2^2)(1+km*) so that when you divide by m to get the
> acceleration you still have m* representing the variable mass as
> in relativity.

Mass is not variable in relativity as I have pointed out
repeatedly. The term you call "relativistic mass" is not
a scalar.

George