Yeah I was beginning to think this is the case. Oh well. Cheers for the heads up. I'm leaving this thread alone because it's not going anywhere. On to something more interesting and time worthy!
You're one to talk. Try a more civil introduction next time you start participating in a forum. It could go a long way. All that you proved to me is that you are automatically wrong when you say anything. Try proving something else next time.
I've never once shown the slightest sign of irrationality - because I'm not. But you seem to go off your medication fairly often and lash out at people that haven't even said one unkind word to you.
We've had meta discussions before Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! They are the most interesting and heated that there are here at sciforums. Next to some invert nexus discussions. LOL I kill myself
And why would you suppose I care one iota what you may think of me? You give yourself FAR too much credit. If you totally vanished right at this moment it wouldn't bother in the slightest. Or if you thought I was THE greatest person ever, it still wouldn't interest me at all.
lol Read only you rock. Had to say it. It's when things start getting personal that they turn into debates of equality etc etc etc etc.
To try to get this back on topic: Momentum equals mass times velocity. Kinetic energy equals mass times half the velocity squared, or mass times the integral of the velocity. When you have a very tiny mass, you can have a lot of kinetic energy and very little momentum. If you can measure the kinetic energy, you can work backwards to get the mass from the speed of the particle. Take the square root of the velocity and double it. Divide the kinetic energy of the particle by that number to get the mass. Anyone who is not a pussy can work up an equation. This leaves you with a number that is the effective mass of the photon. The fact that momentum is conserved within a system and not kinetic energy makes for a different universe from what people thought we had. It is why solar sails can be hit with billions of watts of energy and exert only a few kilograms of thrust. It is why it takes megawatts of power to get a few pounds of thrust out of an ion drive. A car is more energy efficient than a rocket because it sort of throws away mass, in that it pushes the mass of the road behind it, expending a lot less energy to transfer momentum. People who read Reiku's writings for understanding gain a lot. Mercaptan, you are a loser.
How this thread comes till page 11 when it is well solved at page 2? Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! http://www.sciforums.com/showpost.php?p=1657460&postcount=31 :argue: ..... ??? :truce:
No they don't. p = hk Planck's reduced constant times the wave vector. http://dev.physicslab.org/Document.aspx?doctype=3&filename=AtomicNuclear_ComptonEffect.xml What the hell is wrong with you?
What the hell is wrong with you? That link says that I am right. If you say that link is right, then the place that it says p=mv says that I am right. p = big E over cee. That's exactly what I was saying.
http://dev.physicslab.org/Document.aspx?doctype=3&filename=AtomicNuclear_ComptonEffect.xml Here it says that those equations apply to photons. They did exactly what I did. This is why photons do not transfer much momentum to any object that they iimpact, and we can be thankful for that.
