Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 111 (8738 total)
Current session began: 
Page Loaded: 04-23-2017 11:35 PM
389 online now:
CRR, Dr Adequate, NoNukes (3 members, 386 visitors)
Chatting now:  Chat room empty
Newest Member: Jayhawker Soule
Post Volume:
Total: 805,018 Year: 9,624/21,208 Month: 2,711/2,674 Week: 135/961 Day: 135/98 Hour: 3/1

Announcements: Reporting debate problems OR discussing moderation actions/inactions


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Prev12345
6
Author Topic:   gravity
PaulK
Member
Posts: 12557
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.4


Message 76 of 81 (689037)
01-27-2013 5:00 PM
Reply to: Message 75 by shadow71
01-27-2013 4:45 PM


quote:

Let me try to clear this up one last time

You do realise that the problem was that you were talking nonsense ?

quote:

In reply to your point above, I was trying to clarify that Oser was assuming there was no time prior to the BB.

My position is, That a supernatural being, God, exists before the time of the BB and thus could have created the universe before the time started by the BB.


If you want to say that there was time before the Big Bang, then say that. Don't babble nonsense instead.

quote:

Quite the contrary I have stated several times on this board that my God is the God of the Roman Catholic Church. That God is Omnipotent and was a supernatural being before the BB. So I am not arguing that supernaturalism is nonsense. Hope this clears up my position.

I'll accept that you didn't mean to imply it. But you most certainly did.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 75 by shadow71, posted 01-27-2013 4:45 PM shadow71 has not yet responded

    
AZPaul3
Member
Posts: 3427
From: Phoenix
Joined: 11-06-2006
Member Rating: 4.9


Message 77 of 81 (689039)
01-27-2013 5:40 PM
Reply to: Message 65 by cavediver
01-27-2013 6:50 AM


hf=mc2

h=mc2/f

In the case of a photon then planck's constant disappears?

λ = h/mc doesn't appear to be a suitable rewrite for f=mc2/h

Edited by AZPaul3, : No reason given.

Edited by AZPaul3, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 65 by cavediver, posted 01-27-2013 6:50 AM cavediver has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 78 by cavediver, posted 01-27-2013 6:21 PM AZPaul3 has responded

  
cavediver
Member (Idle past 1022 days)
Posts: 4129
From: UK
Joined: 06-16-2005


Message 78 of 81 (689041)
01-27-2013 6:21 PM
Reply to: Message 77 by AZPaul3
01-27-2013 5:40 PM


In the case of a photon then planck's constant disappears?

No, because we are talking about massive particles, not massless particles. This is already established in getting to where m is rest-mass, as I previously stated. If we're dealing with a massless particle, we don't have this relationship, as it is not possible to bring that particle to rest.

In your rearrangement with h on the lhs, you have to realise that as you vary m, you must also vary f.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 77 by AZPaul3, posted 01-27-2013 5:40 PM AZPaul3 has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 79 by AZPaul3, posted 01-27-2013 7:31 PM cavediver has responded

  
AZPaul3
Member
Posts: 3427
From: Phoenix
Joined: 11-06-2006
Member Rating: 4.9


Message 79 of 81 (689047)
01-27-2013 7:31 PM
Reply to: Message 78 by cavediver
01-27-2013 6:21 PM


Of course.

Thanks for the kick.

------------------------------------

A few hours later:

You mentioned Compton. The wave length of the scattered photon would be constant given the constant rest mass of the particle.

So if we look at the electron, a known constant rest mass, then Schroeder's equation ends up with 3 constants (m, c, h) and the one variable (f) to be calculated. f would also be constant for any specific mass.

So all electrons will have only the one frequency. But we know this is not right. It is still absurd.

Edited by AZPaul3, : much thinking.

Edited by AZPaul3, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 78 by cavediver, posted 01-27-2013 6:21 PM cavediver has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 81 by cavediver, posted 02-01-2013 3:55 AM AZPaul3 has acknowledged this reply

  
zi ko
Member (Idle past 999 days)
Posts: 578
Joined: 01-18-2011


Message 80 of 81 (689501)
01-31-2013 9:19 AM
Reply to: Message 68 by NoNukes
01-27-2013 2:21 PM


So the energy comes from matter? Isn't this the opposite of what you were trying to say originally?


After original material formation , interchange between energy and matter can happen any time.
It is not necessary to disintegrate matter to produce EM radiation. Accelerating a charged particle is sufficient.


Disintagration or acceration are different facets of same thing. Where is the nonsense?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 68 by NoNukes, posted 01-27-2013 2:21 PM NoNukes has acknowledged this reply

    
cavediver
Member (Idle past 1022 days)
Posts: 4129
From: UK
Joined: 06-16-2005


Message 81 of 81 (689567)
02-01-2013 3:55 AM
Reply to: Message 79 by AZPaul3
01-27-2013 7:31 PM


Sorry, didn't see your subsequent edit

The wave length of the scattered photon would be constant given the constant rest mass of the particle.

No. The Compton Wavelength is not the wavelength of the scattered photon in Compton Scattering, merely related to it (the three factors are incident wavelength, angle of incidence, and the CW.) Go study the process and you will see.

f would also be constant for any specific mass.

Yes - that is the whole point of the Compton Wavelength.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 79 by AZPaul3, posted 01-27-2013 7:31 PM AZPaul3 has acknowledged this reply

  
Prev12345
6
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2015 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2017