Thread: Argument supporting existence of a God

1. Originally Posted by Idolater
Thank you.

As it turns out, light does have momentum, and I think that is part of why I was thinking that there is some obviously minute mass associated with light, but it looks like even without mass, light still can possess momentum. But that returns me to my question, with a little twist on it now. If light has momentum, and passing through a medium reduces its velocity, then I also suppose that therefor its momentum also diminishes, but perhaps that's not necessarily the case, because it appears that the momentum of light is dependent upon its wavelength more than any mass or lack thereof, it appears that momentum for light is derived differently than it is for something with real mass.

I'm just beginning to unravel what was hidden from me in my years of physics courses in school, where teachers for some reason didn't explain very well the relationship between momentum, force, acceleration, and the conservation of momentum. It's proven very powerful for me now in understanding some concepts that I missed, through imo a bit of a deficit in teaching procedure for this subject. At least in my case.

Momentum is mathematically just mass multiplied by velocity (when dealing with things that have mass), which is close to the math of kinetic energy, which is half the mass multiplied by the velocity squared. When a massive (not large, just something with non-zero mass) object changes its velocity, it also, mathematically, changes its momentum, since its mass remains unchanged but it's velocity changes. The only way that an object can change its velocity is through the application of a force upon it, and so in a sense, momentum Is force, even though I know that force is mathematically defined as mass multiplied by acceleration, the bottom line is that a massive object that accelerates acquires momentum, and a massive object that decelerates 'sloughs off' momentum, as force, acting on its environment or upon another massive object.

So I remain confused about how light even though it has no mass, nonetheless has momentum, and I'm trying to work it all through cogently. And understanding the relationship between momentum and force has clarified some things, and has led me to wonder about now others, in this case, light.

So thank you again!
You won't ever figure it out.

- Any number multiplied by zero equals zero.
- Momentum equals mass times velocity.
- Photons are massless particles (i.e. mass equals zero).
- The velocity of light is 299,792,458 metres per second
- 299,792,458 m/s X 0 kg = 0 kg⋅m/s

--Therefore the momentum of light is 0 kg⋅m/s.

QED

2. The Following User Says Thank You to Clete For Your Post:

JudgeRightly (February 21st, 2019)

3. Originally Posted by Idolater
I remember 3.14159 and have for a while now. 22/7 = 3.14286 rounded by comparison, which is a difference of 4 more parts in 10,000, which means that you're probably in almost every case correct; it is "good enough." By another comparison, the most commonly used approximation 3.14 is a difference of 5.1 less parts per 10,000---still quite a small difference and in almost every case, 3.14 is also probably good enough for what people need the number for.

I think that in dealing with circles in a plane, that 3.14 is probably good enough, but when you are calculating spheres, then those additional significant digits come into play more. Compared with 3.14159, the cubes for 22/7 and 3.14 diverge by 12.1 parts more per 10,000, and 15.2 parts less per 10,000, respectively, which might become more of a significant error, when calculating the volume of spheres.

Knowing what I do about the number pi, it does irk me a little when people call March 14 "pi day," because my own approximation of 3.14159 is so much more accurate than 3.14, but 3.14159 doesn't lend itself do a date, and I don't suppose there's any harm in people who don't even know what pi is, to think that whatever it is, it's "equal to" 3.14.

I have wondered what in nature is the perfectest circle. Because the endless string of digits that computers crunch when computing pi is based upon a perfect circle, which until I see some evidence otherwise, I don't believe exists anywhere in nature or in man made things. A perfect circle is a concept, with no bearing on reality, iow, so far as I can tell.

So what is the value in consuming all the electricity that computers consume when calculating pi? idk. idk of any application where it's necessary to know pi to anything beyond PPM or PPB (parts per billion) accuracy. That's nine significant digits. I think the most accurate approximations of pi are on the order of millions of significant digits, maybe I'm even off there by a factor of millions, or even trillions, but in any case, idk of an application that would require even nine significant digits.
When I was in Junior High School we had a competition to see how many digits of π we could memorize. I lost horribly. But to this day, I have π memorized to 3.1415926535

That doesn't make me smart, just a nerd!

4. The Following User Says Thank You to Clete For Your Post:

JudgeRightly (February 21st, 2019)

5. Originally Posted by ok doser
So the idea is that the energy is carrying the momentum, presumably with the convertion equation of E=mc^2

Thus, in order for it have momentum, some amount of energy is converted to mass and thus produces momentum.

Bottom line is that without mass there is no momentum - by definition.

Anyone claiming otherwise ought to use the phrase "in manner of speaking" because stated outright, it is quite false.

6. The Following User Says Thank You to Clete For Your Post:

JudgeRightly (February 21st, 2019)

7. best to remember that "in a manner of speaking" when discussing this anyways, as the particle/wave descriptors of light are attempts to describe a natural phenomenon that is poorly understood

8. The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to ok doser For Your Post:

Clete (February 21st, 2019),JudgeRightly (February 21st, 2019)

9. Originally Posted by Clete
Just as Pi is PRECISELY equal to the circumference of a circle divided by is diameter, mass converted to joules of energy is PRECISELY equal to the mass in kilograms times 89875517873681764.
89875517873681764 is a mathematical constant that represents a relationship between mass and energy in the same way that pi is a mathematical constant that represents a relationship between the diameter and circumference of a circle.
89875517873681764 is not of a physical limit on the speed of travel of light through a vacuum, even though the number is similar to the measurement of the speed of light in a vacuum.

Originally Posted by Clete
The meter has been officially defined as the distance light travels in a vacuum in 1/299792458th of a second. This means that the speed of light is EXACTLY 299792458 meters per second.

That's not a wish, a guess or a theory nor any other sort of approximate value. It cannot get any more exactly accurate than that - period.
It doesn't matter what number you come up with for how fast light travels in a vacuum, it has nothing to do with the value of the mathematical constant c that is falsely called the speed of light.
If a tortoise travels 3.14159 meters per hour in wet sand, we could call pi the speed of tortoise instead, but that would not mean that the speed a tortoise travels in wet sand has anything to do with the relationship between the diameter and circumference of a circle.

10. Originally Posted by genuineoriginal
89875517873681764 is a mathematical constant that represents a relationship between mass and energy in the same way that pi is a mathematical constant that represents a relationship between the diameter and circumference of a circle.
89875517873681764 is not of a physical limit on the speed of travel of light through a vacuum, even though the number is similar to the measurement of the speed of light in a vacuum.
Saying it doesn't make it so.

The speed of light is PRECISELY 299792458 m/s by definiton. That is, based on the definitions of the words "meter" and "second", the speed of light is not close to nor is it estimated to be anything. It is EXACTLY 299792458 m/s - period.

I can go on repeating this until we are all blue in the fact if you want.

It doesn't matter what number you come up with for how fast light travels in a vacuum, it has nothing to do with the value of the mathematical constant c that is falsely called the speed of light.
Saying it doesn't make it so.

If a tortoise travels 3.14159 meters per hour in wet sand, we could call pi the speed of tortoise instead, but that would not mean that the speed a tortoise travels in wet sand has anything to do with the relationship between the diameter and circumference of a circle.
Is that supposed to be an argument?

The speed of a tortoise has nothing to do with circles but π has everything to do with the circumferance of a circle divided by the circle's diameter, in fact, it is precisely defined by it.

The point is the just because π is an irrational number and therefore any numerical expression of it is an aproximation, doesn't mean that π itself is an apoximation nor is the formula used to derive it.

11. The Following User Says Thank You to Clete For Your Post:

JudgeRightly (February 21st, 2019)

12. Originally Posted by Clete
But it isn't pi and not at all anything remotely similar to E=mc^2

Just as Pi is PRECISELY equal to the circumference of a circle divided by is diameter, mass converted to joules of energy is PRECISELY equal to the mass in kilograms times 89875517873681764.

Further more, units of measure are arbitrary and can be defined as anything you want so long as everyone using them is on the same page. As it stands right right, there is no sense whatsoever in which the speed of light in a vacuum is an approximation. The meter has been officially defined as the distance light travels in a vacuum in 1/299792458th of a second. This means that the speed of light is EXACTLY 299792458 meters per second.

That's not a wish, a guess or a theory nor any other sort of approximate value. It cannot get any more exactly accurate than that - period.
In the world of maths, exactness is possible. However, E is mathematically demonstrable as only approximately equal to mass times the speed of light squared.

It might be possible to find the exact relationship. I'm not sure on that one. Or it might be like pi. Irrational numbers are only able to be expressed exactly by inventing a symbol for them.

In the physical realm, c is, as you say, defined as the speed of light under perfect conditions, so that number can never be found in direct testing, as there will always be a margin of error.

Maths is the only way to define Einstein's equation exactly, but that is yet to be done (as far as I know).

13. The Following User Says Thank You to Stripe For Your Post:

JudgeRightly (February 21st, 2019)

14. Originally Posted by Clete
The speed of light is PRECISELY 299792458 m/s by definiton.
So what?
The speed of light has nothing to do with the mathematical constant c in the formula E=mc2.
Originally Posted by Clete
The speed of a tortoise has nothing to do with circles but π has everything to do with the circumferance of a circle divided by the circle's diameter, in fact, it is precisely defined by it.
Exactly.

It doesn't matter whether we call π "the speed of tortoise" or whether we call c "the speed of light".
π and c are both mathematical constants.
Any apparent similarity between the speed of tortoise and π is a mere coincidence.
Any apparent similarity between the speed of light and c is also a mere coincidence.

15. Originally Posted by Idolater
I remain confused about how light even though it has no mass, nonetheless has momentum, and I'm trying to work it all through cogently.
Apparently, photons have an upper limit on mass they might have of 7×10-17eV (according to long-distance electro-static measurements).

But maybe they have mass and Newton remains in the picture.

There are alternatives to Einstein out there.

16. The Following User Says Thank You to Stripe For Your Post:

Idolater (February 21st, 2019)

17. Originally Posted by Idolater
.
So what is the value in consuming all the electricity that computers consume when calculating pi? idk. idk of any application where it's necessary to know pi to anything beyond PPM or PPB (parts per billion) accuracy.
I think there were some computer applications in data protection. And it gives Indians something to do. One of them memorized pi to 70,000 decimal places.

If you like 22/7, celebrate pi day on July 22.

18. The Following User Says Thank You to Stripe For Your Post:

Idolater (February 21st, 2019)

19. Originally Posted by Stripe
I think there were some computer applications in data protection. And it gives Indians something to do. One of them memorized pi to 70,000 decimal places.

If you like 22/7, celebrate pi day on July 22.

 JUL 22 Fun Holiday – Pi Approximation Day Depends on Date Format People in countries that write their dates in the date/ month format celebrate Pi Approximation or Casual Pi Day on 22 July or 22/7. On the other hand, those who write their date in month/ date format celebrate Pi Day on March 14 (3/14 or 3-14) because the first three digits of the date correspond to the first three digits of pi - 3.14.

20. The Following User Says Thank You to genuineoriginal For Your Post:

Idolater (February 21st, 2019)

21. I'm from both.

22. Originally Posted by Stripe
I'm from both.
You should celebrate τ (tau) day, so you can have twice the π (pi)

23. The Following User Says Thank You to genuineoriginal For Your Post:

ok doser (February 21st, 2019)

24. Originally Posted by genuineoriginal
You should celebrate τ (tau) day, so you can have twice the π (pi)
I'll do the jokes, thanks.

25. The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to Stripe For Your Post:

JudgeRightly (February 22nd, 2019),ok doser (February 21st, 2019)

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Posting Permissions

• You may not post new threads
• You may not post replies
• You may not post attachments
• You may not edit your posts
•