JudgeRightly (February 21st, 2019)
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
"The [open view] is an attempt to provide a more Biblically faithful, rationally coherent, and practically satisfying account of God and the divine-human relationship..." - Dr. John Sanders
JudgeRightly (February 21st, 2019)
"The [open view] is an attempt to provide a more Biblically faithful, rationally coherent, and practically satisfying account of God and the divine-human relationship..." - Dr. John Sanders
JudgeRightly (February 21st, 2019)
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.
"The [open view] is an attempt to provide a more Biblically faithful, rationally coherent, and practically satisfying account of God and the divine-human relationship..." - Dr. John Sanders
JudgeRightly (February 21st, 2019)
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
Clete (February 21st, 2019),JudgeRightly (February 21st, 2019)
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.
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.
Learn to read what is written.
_____
The people who are supposed to be experts and who claim to understand the science are precisely the people who are blind to the evidence.
~ Dr Freeman Dyson
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.
Saying it doesn't make it so.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.
Is that supposed to be an argument?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.
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.
"The [open view] is an attempt to provide a more Biblically faithful, rationally coherent, and practically satisfying account of God and the divine-human relationship..." - Dr. John Sanders
JudgeRightly (February 21st, 2019)
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).
Where is the evidence for a global flood?
E≈mc^{2} "the best maths don't need no stinkin' numbers"
"The waters under the 'expanse' were under the crust."
-Bob B.
JudgeRightly (February 21st, 2019)
So what?
The speed of light has nothing to do with the mathematical constant c in the formula E=mc^{2}.
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.
Learn to read what is written.
_____
The people who are supposed to be experts and who claim to understand the science are precisely the people who are blind to the evidence.
~ Dr Freeman Dyson
Apparently, photons have an upper limit on mass they might have of 7×10^{-17}eV (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.
Where is the evidence for a global flood?
E≈mc^{2} "the best maths don't need no stinkin' numbers"
"The waters under the 'expanse' were under the crust."
-Bob B.
Idolater (February 21st, 2019)
Where is the evidence for a global flood?
E≈mc^{2} "the best maths don't need no stinkin' numbers"
"The waters under the 'expanse' were under the crust."
-Bob B.
Idolater (February 21st, 2019)
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.
Learn to read what is written.
_____
The people who are supposed to be experts and who claim to understand the science are precisely the people who are blind to the evidence.
~ Dr Freeman Dyson
Idolater (February 21st, 2019)
I'm from both.
Where is the evidence for a global flood?
E≈mc^{2} "the best maths don't need no stinkin' numbers"
"The waters under the 'expanse' were under the crust."
-Bob B.
ok doser (February 21st, 2019)
Where is the evidence for a global flood?
E≈mc^{2} "the best maths don't need no stinkin' numbers"
"The waters under the 'expanse' were under the crust."
-Bob B.
JudgeRightly (February 22nd, 2019),ok doser (February 21st, 2019)
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)