Pictures of the new Sanatana Dharma(Hindusim)

[srev2004]

Momentum also equals the product of Planck's constant h, multiplied by the photon's frequency, divided by the speed of light c.



Flaw #2)And how can light have energy? E=mc^2

If there is no mass, energy will also be zero.


Incorrect. Energy of a photon is based on its frequency as well.

Look, Einstein demonstrated all of this nearly a century ago, and he won a Nobel prize for it. The experiment he conducted can and has been repeated numerous times. It works. Repeatedly saying "it's unpossible" doesn't make it so.



*sigh* You really don't even understand basic Newtonian mechanics, do you? Acceleration is NOT purely a change in speed, it also constitutes (or can constitute) a change in DIRECTION. That is because Acceleration is "change in velocity" - and velocity has two components, magnitude and direction. Change magnitude, that's acceleration. Change direction, also acceleration. Change both, also acceleration. Got that? If you don't, I REALLY SUGGEST YOU TAKE A PHYSICS CLASS!



No. Mass attracts mass, plain and simple. Electric charges attract or repel, and that's a separate force. Strong nuclear force is attractive.

Again - if you haven't actually studied the physics, then you really don't have much place trying to defy it.

let me put it in lamen's terms. Momentum is mass in motion. Momentum cannot be applied to an object without mass. Look it up in a dictionary.

Momentum can be defined as "mass in motion." All objects have mass; so if an object is moving, then it has momentum - it has its mass in motion. The amount of momentum which an object has is dependent upon two variables: how much stuff is moving and how fast the stuff is moving.

Momentum is directly proportional to mass.

Momentum is directly proportional to velocity.

Okay you're talking about centripetal acceleration equaling gravity. That is fine and all, but I'm talking about the force of other planets on Planet earth which are considered outside forces to the system we are observing. The earth and the sun. If an outside force acts upon an object in orbit, it will make it leave it's orbit. Orbit is a very sensitive trajectory. You need the perfect velocity, to be continuously fall towards an object, but never reach it. This is how our satellites are injected into space. With me so far? I'd also appreciate it if you didn't lecture me about taking physics. I've taken 2 years of physics at the university level, because I am a computer engineer. i understand everything from basic mechanics, to electricity and magnetism to heat wave/ light optics according to western physics. So drop the condescension please. I am simply asking questions which aren't answerable by western physics. The concept of momentum is how much inertia an object has while it's moving right. Do you feel light as a weight when it hits you? Does it slow you down? The answer is no, so how can particles of light in a wave known as photons have momentum? Can you use light to slow down? The answer is no.

Just look at it simply. E=mc^2 should be a universal equation right. Even a third grader should be able to follow this. As speed becomes higher, mass has to become smaller in order to be the same energy. Which in turn means that no object with mass can reach the speed of light. If light is a wave of particles known as photons which have momentum (which means they have mass) but , let's say photons didn't have mass, then they wouldn't have any momentum. Momentum and mass are directly proportional. How can light travel as fast as light if photons did have mass, and if they have no mass, how can it have momentum, and if it does have momentum and no mass, how can it have energy!!!!! Mass is exponentially proportional to energy!

The fact you are not understanding is that these equations you are babbling about are based upon the very thing I am questioning. Newtonian and Einsteins theories. There is a specific reason they are called theories and not facts.

 

[srev2004]

Yeah, now you feel my pain. How do you have an intelligent conversation with someone who asks unintelligent questions? This isn't intended as a "schoolyard taunt" to Srev. Questioning basic, universally agreed facts isn't an intelligent thing to do. Even creationists aren't this insane.

Incidentally Sravan, MIT and Harvard don't hold conferences on fake science like strepulsion.

http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2005isp..book.....S

This is a real book.

WHERE EINSTEIN WAS WRONG?
THE SUN REPELS STAR LIGHT
What happened to the Star light rays when radiates in vicinity of the Sun? Are Star rays ATTRACTED or REPELLED by the Sun?
An experiment was conducted on the day of total Solar Eclipse dated 29th May 1919 at England to know the solar influence. Even before the outcome of the result of experiment, ALBERT EINSTEIN DECLARED THAT STAR RAYS WILL BE ATTRACTED BY THE SUN. Up to now, whole Science World believe in this statement. But our observations and analyses of all these experiments including the last, which was conducted on 16th Feb. 1980 at Osmania University, Hyderabad, during total Solar Eclipse proved that STAR RAYS IN ALL EXPERIMENTS WERE REPELLED BY THE SUN - but not attracted. Here is the diagram of the experiment which proves - EINSTEIN WAS WRONG.
According to classical science, if the Sun exerts GRAVITATION, then Star Ray should be ATTRACTED and if the Sun exert REPULSION, then Star Ray should be REPELLED. If the Sun exert NO FORCE, Star Ray should follow its original path. Now let us observe as per below experiment - what happened?

S =The Star and its real location

E = The Earth * = The Sun

SE = Star light radiation path
unaffected by the Sun

SRE = Antisolar Radiation Curve if the Sun exert REPULSION.

SGE = Pro-Solar Radiation Curve if the Sun exert force of Gravitation

ERN = Antisolar deflection of Star-image if Sun exert REPULSION

EGM = Prosolar deflection of Star-image if the Sun exert GRAVITATION

M = Location of Star-image if the Sun exert Gravitation.

N = Location of Star-image if the Sun exert REPULSION.

ASSUMPTIONS:
1) If the Sun exert GRAVITATION, then the Star Ray should be ATTRACTED and follow PRO-SOLAR RADIATION CURVE (SGE) and Star image should follow PRO-SOLAR DEFLECTION (EGM). So Star should appear nearer to the Sun than its real location that is at point M.

2) If the Sun does not exert any force - then Star should appear at its real location S and radiation follow straight path SE.

3) If the Sun exert force of REPULSION, then the Star Ray should be REPELLED and follow ANTISOLAR RADIATION CURVE (SRE) and Star image should be deflected away from the Sun in line of ERN. The Star image should appear at point N, which is at greater distance than the real location.

 

[RealityCheck]

srev -

You need to read about Quantum Mechanics. It's a field of physics developed over a century ago that deals with the dual wave-particle nature of all matter and of light. Once you understand basic QM you'll understand why the equations of momentum you quote are valid in a purely Newtonian framework, but are not the whole picture.

Until you do that, you really have no place debating physics, and I won't even try to teach it to you given the limitations of a text forum like this. You really do have to study it, not have it explained in brief.

 

[RealityCheck]

Oh and BTW - Gravity Probe B not only showed that the sun does, in fact, exert gravitational attractive force on light, it also showed that the earth does so too.

 

[srev2004]

srev -

You need to read about Quantum Mechanics. It's a field of physics developed over a century ago that deals with the dual wave-particle nature of all matter and of light. Once you understand basic QM you'll understand why the equations of momentum you quote are valid in a purely Newtonian framework, but are not the whole picture.

Until you do that, you really have no place debating physics, and I won't even try to teach it to you given the limitations of a text forum like this. You really do have to study it, not have it explained in brief.

This is my point the whole time. The western physics likes to say it's universally applicable, but it isn't And my point being is that nothing is universally applicable. Newtonian and Einstein "Frameworks" are not applicable in every scenario. That is why they're theories and not facts. What I'm trying to say, is that they are not absolute truth and can be contradicted by the other stuff which is only true with it's own framework. For example vedic science, it is only true if you believe in certain things, like spiritual energy.

 

[srev2004]

Let me give you a puzzler, here.

Do you believe in the conservation of energy? Do you think we were created or have been always eternal existent? Do you think we have a beginning or an end. I am waiting for your answer?

My belief is that this universe is bound for creation and destruction. But the sum of all existence is always the same. This is Hindu belief, vedic belief. Do you agree or disagree with this?

What is scientifically incorrect about what I say? If I shot you with protons, would you relatively move? Meaning even the length of an atom due to the impact of protons. If the answer is no, then protons wouldn't have momentum. We are assuming they do in order to explain light through quantum mechanics.

 

[LadyGarnetRose]

yep, they don't work in a place without oxygen. They won't work in a place without an atmosphere. They won't work if the density of the air being combusted is significantly higher or lower.

They won't work in certain temperatures.... So yes I'm saying our science only applies to our Earth.

The moon isn't our Earth, and has no atmosphere, and as a result no oxygen.

Yet we've gone back and forth to the moon more than once and the engines had no problem lifting off of the moon's surface.

And lets not even get into when the Space Shuttle has to exit orbit.

 

[RealityCheck]

Let me give you a puzzler, here.

Do you believe in the conservation of energy? Do you think we were created or have been always eternal existent? Do you think we have a beginning or an end. I am waiting for your answer?

Conservation of energy isn't even an absolute. It is possible for matter/energy to be spontaneously created and almost immediately re-annihiliated.

"We" are not eternally existant and that's pretty much verified by the fact that we are born, we live, we post a few stupid things on the Internet, and die. Do you mean the universe as a whole? Our physical universe has a beginning, yes. But only within the sense of our universe - for example, it is nonsensical to ask "what happened before the universe" because there was no "before" - "before" implies time, time is equivalent to space, and the "space" of the universe did not exist before the universe existed - therefore "time" did not exist until the universe existed.

My belief is that this universe is bound for creation and destruction. But the sum of all existence is always the same. This is Hindu belief, vedic belief. Do you agree or disagree with this?

No. That's a religious belief, and one I don't share. Religious beliefs, more frequently than not, do not reflect physical reality.

What is scientifically incorrect about what I say? If I shot you with protons, would you relatively move? Meaning even the length of an atom due to the impact of protons. If the answer is no, then protons wouldn't have momentum. We are assuming they do in order to explain light through quantum mechanics.

You'd have to shoot me with a lot of photons.

Actually, each individual photon would not be able to do much to a large, cohesive mass. But each individual photon can interact with particles on/in my body. If they're of high enough energy (like, x-rays or gamma rays), they can actually damage me (as a whole) because they will interact with the particles of my body in ways that are harmful to my continued life. It's called "skin cancer", for example.

As I said, Einstein already showed that this really does happen. Shine light of a coherent wavelength at a metal plate, and you will either get no reaction at all (not high enough frequency) or a stream of electrons (high enough frequency). This experiment, called the "photoelectric effect", is well documented and you can not only look it up, but repeat it with the right lab equipment.

Again - you really need to study physics in a physics class.

 

[srev2004]

The moon isn't our Earth, and has no atmosphere, and as a result no oxygen.

Yet we've gone back and forth to the moon more than once and the engines had no problem lifting off of the moon's surface.

And lets not even get into when the Space Shuttle has to exit orbit.

Those engines have stored liquid and solid propellants. Among them is oxygen. Are you trying to say you can burn fossil fuels without oxygen?

 

[srev2004]

Conservation of energy isn't even an absolute. It is possible for matter/energy to be spontaneously created and almost immediately re-annihiliated.

"We" are not eternally existant and that's pretty much verified by the fact that we are born, we live, we post a few stupid things on the Internet, and die. Do you mean the universe as a whole? Our physical universe has a beginning, yes. But only within the sense of our universe - for example, it is nonsensical to ask "what happened before the universe" because there was no "before" - "before" implies time, time is equivalent to space, and the "space" of the universe did not exist before the universe existed - therefore "time" did not exist until the universe existed.



No. That's a religious belief, and one I don't share. Religious beliefs, more frequently than not, do not reflect physical reality.



You'd have to shoot me with a lot of photons.

Actually, each individual photon would not be able to do much to a large, cohesive mass. But each individual photon can interact with particles on/in my body. If they're of high enough energy (like, x-rays or gamma rays), they can actually damage me (as a whole) because they will interact with the particles of my body in ways that are harmful to my continued life. It's called "skin cancer", for example.

As I said, Einstein already showed that this really does happen. Shine light of a coherent wavelength at a metal plate, and you will either get no reaction at all (not high enough frequency) or a stream of electrons (high enough frequency). This experiment, called the "photoelectric effect", is well documented and you can not only look it up, but repeat it with the right lab equipment.

Again - you really need to study physics in a physics class.

But they don't have momentum. You can't speed up or slow down an object with photons unless photons have mass.

No our physical universe doesn't have a beginning. Everything existed eternally. The atoms you are composed of existed before you as you were walking around. You are composed of the various bodily fluids and chemical reactions formed within a womb, after consuming fuel (food).

Photons do have mass. The last number I saw was that a photon, if it has any mass at all, must be less than 4 x 10-48 grams. So don't tell me that photons don't have mass, but they have momentum.

You cannot create energy...... Please don't lecture me about learning physics, but you cannot create energy..... Otherwise we wouldn't be fighting wars over fossil fuels.

 

[RealityCheck]

srev - sorry, you are wrong. Photons are massless. You clearly have an extremely limited understanding of physics. TAKE A CLASS.

 

[srev2004]

srev - sorry, you are wrong. Photons are massless. You clearly have an extremely limited understanding of physics. TAKE A CLASS.

You are basing your statements on theories as facts. Something without mass cannot exist. It has to occupy some space in order to exist in a material world. If photons don't have mass, they cannot be seen, because in order to be seen you'd have to displace empty space. Since light can be treated as an object, because it refracts off other objects, it can be said that light has a mass. Just because Quantum physics allows you to do calculations one way, doesn't mean it's the infallible truth.

I have taken not one class but numerous classes. So I don't need your advice thank you.

 

[RealityCheck]

Energy is massless. Does energy exist? Of course it does.

You. Fail.

 

[srev2004]

Energy is massless. Does energy exist? Of course it does.

You. Fail.

I said objects without mass cannot exist. I didn't say energy doesn't exist. Don't try to twist my words.

But energy is not an object. A photon is. Energy doesn't have momentum. But a photon does. They are different things.

 

[arunma]

But they don't have momentum. You can't speed up or slow down an object with photons unless photons have mass.

Actually you can. That's precisely how a solar sail would work. That's right: it operates because photons have momentum, not because of some fake strepulsion force.

No our physical universe doesn't have a beginning. Everything existed eternally.

Cosmology would dictate otherwise. And given the currently unexplained acceleration in the universe's expansion, your Vedic cyclic theory doesn't seem to work either.

Photons do have mass. The last number I saw was that a photon, if it has any mass at all, must be less than 4 x 10-48 grams. So don't tell me that photons don't have mass, but they have momentum.

Photons don't have mass, but they have momentum. Sorry Sravan, but science doesn't change to suit your belief in Vedic pseudoscience. And please stop inventing numbers, it's pretty clear that you pulled the "photon mass" out of nowhere. I'm curious, how do your Hindu gods feel about you lying for them?

You cannot create energy...... Please don't lecture me about learning physics, but you cannot create energy..... Otherwise we wouldn't be fighting wars over fossil fuels.

Unlike you, RealityCheck has the proper credentials to lecture on physics. And her comment about particle pair-production is absolutely correct.

You are basing your statements on theories as facts. Something without mass cannot exist. It has to occupy some space in order to exist in a material world. If photons don't have mass, they cannot be seen, because in order to be seen you'd have to displace empty space.

Sorry, but that's not correct. And your last sentence doesn't even make any sense.

Since light can be treated as an object, because it refracts off other objects, it can be said that light has a mass.

Like all of your other comments on physics, this is also not correct. The phenomenon of refraction also has nothing to do with "treating light as an object." Refraction is a phenomenon observed in all waves.

Just because Quantum physics allows you to do calculations one way, doesn't mean it's the infallible truth.

Yeah well, it beats the Vedas at every turn.

I have taken not one class but numerous classes. So I don't need your advice thank you.

Then either you weren't paying attention in any of your science classes, you received a substandard education (a highly unlikely possibility at any accredited American college or university), or you've just chosen to ignore everything you were taught. Your knowledge of physics reflects that of a person who vaguely remembers a few things he learned in high school, and who googled the rest.

RealityCheck, myself, and several others on this forum have formal education in physics. You have zilch. You can either trust that we are accurately conveying our knowledge to you, you can reference with other people educated in physics, or you can go and formally learn this subject for yourself. What you can't do is lie. Lies are both the foundation and the end goal of Vedic "science." It isn't a science at all, and it isn't worth the paper that it's printed on.

I said objects without mass cannot exist. I didn't say energy doesn't exist. Don't try to twist my words.

My friend, they're twisted enough the way you write them. In all honesty, your ideas make absolutely no sense.

 

[srev2004]

Actually you can. That's precisely how a solar sail would work. That's right: it operates because photons have momentum, not because of some fake strepulsion force.



Cosmology would dictate otherwise. And given the currently unexplained acceleration in the universe's expansion, your Vedic cyclic theory doesn't seem to work either.



Photons don't have mass, but they have momentum. Sorry Sravan, but science doesn't change to suit your belief in Vedic pseudoscience. And please stop inventing numbers, it's pretty clear that you pulled the "photon mass" out of nowhere. I'm curious, how do your Hindu gods feel about you lying for them?



Unlike you, RealityCheck has the proper credentials to lecture on physics. And her comment about particle pair-production is absolutely correct.



Sorry, but that's not correct. And your last sentence doesn't even make any sense.



Like all of your other comments on physics, this is also not correct. The phenomenon of refraction also has nothing to do with "treating light as an object." Refraction is a phenomenon observed in all waves.



Yeah well, it beats the Vedas at every turn.



Then either you weren't paying attention in any of your science classes, you received a substandard education (a highly unlikely possibility at any accredited American college or university), or you've just chosen to ignore everything you were taught. Your knowledge of physics reflects that of a person who vaguely remembers a few things he learned in high school, and who googled the rest.

RealityCheck, myself, and several others on this forum have formal education in physics. You have zilch. You can either trust that we are accurately conveying our knowledge to you, you can reference with other people educated in physics, or you can go and formally learn this subject for yourself. What you can't do is lie. Lies are both the foundation and the end goal of Vedic "science." It isn't a science at all, and it isn't worth the paper that it's printed on.



My friend, they're twisted enough the way you write them. In all honesty, your ideas make absolutely no sense.

How can an object have mass without momentum, and how can an object have momentum without mass?

This is stupid.

 

[MrGoodBytes]

srev, I'm still in awe over your comment about combustion engines. For heaven's sake, the were designed to use atmospheric oxygen. Following your logic, seafaring is fundamentally impossible because it works only in water.

 

[Vainglorious]

Question for srev2004

Why do you give any credibility to the "strepulsion" loons?

One of the tests of dealing with a certified group of nuts is if they give themselves false qualifications.

[FONT=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]THE AMERICAN BIOGRAPHICAL INSTITUTE, RALEIGH, USA has conferred its most prestigious Award- The Millennium Gold Medal of Honour to Dr. Navin K. Shah for establishment of STREPULSION-PHYSICS (STRP). WHAT IS STREPULSION-PHYSICS ?[/FONT]

The ABI is a bogus organisation that will give out an "award" to anyone who pays them money. "The Millenium Gold Medal of Honour"? Come on, think about it people! This has all the credibility of the " [SIZE=-1]First Annual Montgomery Burns Award for Outstanding Achievement in the Field of Excellence"[/SIZE]

Another sign of mental instability is abuse of caps lock.

Why does anyone give such loons a second thought?

 

[Vainglorious]

How can an object have mass without momentum, and how can an object have momentum without mass?

This is stupid.

A photon has no mass. Its momentum is related to its energy content.

I don't think is possible to say it any simpler.

 

[jwu]

Just wondering, srev, do you have any equations which show how strong is that strepulsion force in relation to the properties of the star and the distance? Something like the gravity's F=g*m1*m2/r² ?

Are you trying to say you can burn fossil fuels without oxygen?

Yes. Combustion with oxygen is just one possible exothermic reaction among many. Gases like fluorine work as well. Fluorine works even way better than oxygen. Exposure to fluorine can make wood burn even at room temperature, it doesn't need an additional source of heat to ignite.

As the atom is balanced by Repulsion and attractional forces, accordingly, the solar system, Binary systems, galaxies - entire universe is balanced by repulsion and gravitational forces and follows sphericasl motion by retraction force.

What retraction force? If repulsion and gravity balance each other out, then planets should simply fly off from their orbits as there is nothing to keep them in orbit.

Besides, what basis do you have for the claim that the sun does not attract the earth but the earth attracts the sun? Such a force is always mutual, it being one-sided makes no sense at all.
Moreover, why shouldn't the sun attract other masses? Because some of it is busy with fusion? A good share of the mass of the sun is not involved in fusion processes at all.

Flaw #2)And how can light have energy? E=mc^2

If there is no mass, energy will also be zero.

No. This equation says how much energy is contained in mass at rest. It is not a requirement for mass to present to have energy.

Basically, the way how you interprete it, E=1/2mv² would also say that one needs to be moving in order to have energy, that energy cannot exist at rest - but it's just the kinetic of moving mass according to Newtonian physics (as an approximation of relativistic physics). Similarly, E=mc² is "mass energy".

I've taken 2 years of physics at the university level, because I am a computer engineer. i understand everything from basic mechanics, to electricity and magnetism to heat wave/ light optics according to western physics.

Interesting. I am a computer engineer as well, but taking physics classes about things like mechanics and thermodynamics seems to be quite odd in that curriculum, as these things don't really have any practical application for a normal computer engineer.