Twice the speed of light.

Discussion in 'Physics & Math' started by Beaconator, Jul 18, 2021.

  1. Write4U Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    20,069
    Seems to me that Einstein occasionally assigned an "inherent potential" to stuff.

    OK, now I'd like your falsification of post #99.

    You have made me work. Do you now expect me to take your word over Bohmian Mechanics?
    Your turn to extend your bland yes and no to something more substantial, fair?
    If you have a doctorate in physics, impress me!
     
  2. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  3. Write4U Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    20,069
    What is that supposed to mean?

    The Bohm paper says something about particles, so it does address your request for reference. For a scientist you are falling into the very trap Bohm complained about. "Science has become so fractured" (specialized) that no one knows what the others are talking about anymore. He wrote a book about that; "Wholeness and the Implicate Order".
    I'm sure you have heard of it.
     
  4. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  5. Ssssssss Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    302
    Again please provide a reference and also please explain why this is relevant to your incorrect claims about Bohm?
    What do you mean "falsification"? The problem with the StackExchange post is that it uses relativistic mass which confuses people like you who don't seem to be able to keep it separate from mass and which is a point made and acknowledged by the author in the comments below the post on StackExchange.
    It was you who decided to hunt down loads of irrelevant stuff instead of just admitting that what you said about Bohmian mechanics had no basis in what Bohm or anyone else actually said. It is not my fault if you decided to demonstrate by example that you don't know what you are talking about instead of just admitting it.
    My word for what?
     
  6. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  7. Ssssssss Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    302
    What Bohm paper? If you've linked it I've missed it.
     
  8. Write4U Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    20,069
    Please, give me a break. You are just resisting constructive exchange.

    Falsify what I quoted in post #99 if you can! If you can't, then get off my case with your ad hominems.
     
  9. Write4U Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    20,069
    And which you vehemently opposed accompanied by ad hominem.

    Your position is that a photon has no mass of any kind other than zero. It is you who created all the confusion.
    Why did you not just admit that photons can acquire relative mass, huh! @

    I'm done with you.
     
  10. Ssssssss Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    302
    There's nothing to falsify about it (except arguably the last sentence which is a huge stretch). It's just bad pedagogy to use relativistic mass because it was a bad idea. The point is that it's got damn all to do with Bohm.
    Then say which Bohm paper you mean. As far as I can see you've linked a Wiki page and a Results in Physics paper and a StackExchange post none of which support your "inherent potential" nonsense.
     
    exchemist likes this.
  11. Ssssssss Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    302
    No. My position is that it has no mass. I never said anything about relativistic mass and your continuing inability to distinguish between mass and relativistic mass is your problem not mine.
     
  12. Write4U Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    20,069
    OFF TOPIC!!!
     
  13. Ssssssss Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    302
    What Bohm? Then why did you bring him up?
     
  14. Write4U Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    20,069
    Where did I say they are the same? You want to play games, go play in the sandbox.
     
  15. Write4U Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    20,069
    Photons are particles. It seems you are wholly unfamiliar with Bohmian Mechanics. You may want to check it out.

    Until then, be well.
     
  16. Ssssssss Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    302
    Post #42 where you said "@ c , it's mass is the equivalent of its energy divided by c^2" which is wrong unless you are confusing mass and relativistic mass and post #45 where you said "[energy divided by \(c^2\)] is mass!" which is wrong unless you are confusing mass and relativistic mass and post #99 where you said "If a photon never has any kind of mass" which is not what the StackExchange article says and is only the same as what I've said if you are confusing mass and relativistic mass.
    I'm not unfamiliar with it but I've never read anything about Bohmian mechanics claiming what you said it did which is why I asked for a freaking reference which you have not provided instead choosing to offer irrelevant links so I can only conclude this is because it doesn't say what you say it does.
     
    Last edited: Aug 28, 2021
  17. James R Just this guy, you know? Staff Member

    Messages:
    39,397
    Don't be ridiculous!

    You said some wrong stuff about photons. Sssssss helpfully explained some stuff to you. You mentioned Bohm, as if it was relevant somehow. Ssssssss asked you which particular Bohmian article or paper you were referring to. So far, you've provided nothing. And now you accuse him of posting off-topic?

    Stop acting like a troll when somebody is trying to help you learn.
     
    exchemist likes this.
  18. Beaconator Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,486
    I can’t learn anymore

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

     
  19. Beaconator Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,486
    If there was no light not only could you not see but you could bot have even been born. That is not to say we are light dependent but light is what pushes electricity. And without electric signals brains can not function.

    how stupid are we to not believe that?
     
  20. Beaconator Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,486
    By the way I’ve gotten two different hypothesis from other members on my main theory so could you please stop closing my thread. It’s disheartening to hear extrapolation from sources you trust guide your decisions.
     

Share This Page