LOL---I wouldn't even try. The nature of events in nature always amaze me. Who determines the causality of events in the universe? I wouldn't mind the crushing of stars and the formation of all manner of objects--but then, you bring in humans (conscious) and the whole story changes.
** *Committed to strategic visioning and the state of our nationhood. * ** On Wed, May 15, 2013 at 6:46 AM, sadovnik socratus <is.socra...@gmail.com>wrote: > Take your time. > = > > On May 14, 11:00 pm, nominal9 <nomin...@yahoo.com> wrote: > > sure.... give me five years to try to understand Faster than Light.... > OK? > > > > > > > > On Monday, May 13, 2013 11:43:41 AM UTC-4, sadovnik socratus wrote: > > > > > More details > > > ===. > > > > > The basis of SRT ( by an uneducated Socratus) > > > > > ===. > > > > > SRT is based on four facts. > > > > > Fact number 1: > > > > > The constant speed of photon in vacuum is minimal. > > > > > ( from vacuum's point of view and tachyon theory ) > > > > > Fact number 2: > > > > > The inertia of photon depends on its potential energy: E=Mc^2 > > > > > In 1905 Einstein asked: > > > > > “ Does the inertia of a body depend upon its energy content ?” > > > > > As he realized the answer was: > > > > > “ Yes, it depends on E= Mc^2 ” > > > > > It means that inertia of quantum particle (photon, electron ) > > > > > depends on E= Mc^2 ( nobody explains the details of such > > > > > possibility of inertia movement. How can E=Mc^2 > > > > > be responsible for inertial movement of quantum particle ? ) > > > > > Someone wrote to me: > > > > > “An old professor of mine used to say > > > > > that anyone who can answer that question > > > > > what inertia is, would win a Nobel Prize. “ > > > > > Fact number 3: > > > > > Every speed and energy > > > > > ( including the speed and energy of photon ) are relative. > > > > > Speed, energy, impulse . . . . etc they are physical parameters > > > > > which belong to one, single quantum particle. > > > > > If you change one parameter all others will change automatically too. > > > > > For example : > > > > > In 1916 Sommerfeld found the formula of electron : e^2=ah*c. > > > > > If you change one electron's parameter all others parameters > > > > > also will be changed and the electron's energy will change too. > > > > > Take, for example, electron in atom. > > > > > Electron tied with atom by the energy: E=-me^4/2h*^2= -13,6eV. > > > > > But if someone parameter changes, then electron jumps out from atom > > > > > with energy E=h*f ( it is said: electron emits quantum of light, > > > > > but where this quantum of light is hidden in the electron, in which > pocket > > > ?) > > > > > In vacuum the energy of electron is E=Mc^2 (according to SRT and > Dirac), > > > > > but when someone parameter is changed then electron jumps out from > > > > > vacuum with energy E=h*f. ( effect of vacuum fluctuation ). > > > > > Fact number 4: > > > > > The Lorentz equations explain the transformations (revolving movement) > > > > > of quantum particles using the Goudsmit – Uhlenbeck inner impulse > > > > > of particle: h* = h/ 2pi. > > > > > ===. > > > > > All the best. > > > > > Israel Sadovnik Socratus > > > > > =====… > > > > > P.S. > > > > > " Einstein's special theory of relativity is based on two postulates: > > > > > One is the relativity of motion, and the second is the constancy > > > > > and universality of the speed of light. > > > > > Could the first postulate be true and the other false? > > > > > If that was not possible, Einstein would not have had to make two > > > > > postulates. But I don't think many people realized until recently > > > > > that you could have a consistent theory in which you changed only > > > > > the second postulate." > > > > > / Lee Smolin, The Trouble With Physics, p. 226. / > > > > > # > > > > > Question: > > > > > Can quantum of light change its constant speed ? > > > > > Answer: Faster-than-light. > > > > >http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Faster-than-light > > > > > etc . . . > > > > > ===… > > > > > On Mon, May 13, 2013 at 6:05 PM, nominal9 <nomi...@yahoo.com<javascript:> > > > > wrote: > > > > >> So... Socratus and Awori..... I guess I should ask the question > > >> differently.... do photons have "mass"? > > >>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Photon > > >> Experimental checks on photon mass > > > > >> The photon is currently understood to be strictly massless, but this > is > > >> an experimental question. If the photon is not a strictly massless > > >> particle, it would not move at the exact speed of light in vacuum, > *c*. > > >> Its speed would be lower and depend on its frequency. Relativity > would be > > >> unaffected by this; the so-called speed of light, *c*, would then not > be > > >> the actual speed at which light moves, but a constant of nature which > is > > >> the maximum speed that any object could theoretically attain in > space-time. > > >> [21] <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Photon#cite_note-23> Thus, it > would > > >> still be the speed of space-time ripples (gravitational waves< > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gravitational_waves>and > > >> gravitons <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Graviton>), but it would > not be > > >> the speed of photons. > > > > >> A massive photon would have other effects as well. Coulomb's law< > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coulomb%27s_law>would be modified and the > electromagnetic field would have an extra > > >> physical degree of freedom. These effects yield more sensitive > experimental > > >> probes of the photon mass than the frequency dependence of the speed > of > > >> light. If Coulomb's law is not exactly valid, then that would cause > the > > >> presence of an electric field< > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electric_field>inside a hollow conductor > when it is subjected to an external electric > > >> field. This thus allows one to test< > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tests_of_electromagnetism>Coulomb's law to > very high precision. > > >> [22] <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Photon#cite_note-24> A null > result > > >> of such an experiment has set a limit of *m* ≲ 10−14 eV/c2.[23]< > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Photon#cite_note-25> > > > > >> Sharper upper limits have been obtained in experiments designed to > detect > > >> effects caused by the galactic vector potential< > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Magnetic_potential>. > > >> Although the galactic vector potential is very large because the > galactic magnetic > > >> field <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Magnetic_field> exists on very > long > > >> length scales, only the magnetic field is observable if the photon is > > >> massless. In case of a massive photon, the mass term [image: > > >> \scriptstyle\frac{1}{2} m^2 A_{\mu}A^{\mu}] would affect the galactic > > >> plasma. The fact that no such effects are seen implies an upper bound > on > > >> the photon mass of *m* < 3×10−27 eV/c2.[24]< > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Photon#cite_note-26>The galactic vector > potential can also be probed directly by measuring the > > >> torque exerted on a magnetized ring.[25]< > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Photon#cite_note-27>Such methods were used > to obtain the sharper upper limit of 10 > > >> −18eV/c2 (the equivalent of 1.07×10−27 atomic mass units) given by the > > >> Particle Data Group.[26]< > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Photon#cite_note-amsler-28> > > > > >> These sharp limits from the non-observation of the effects caused by > the > > >> galactic vector potential have been shown to be model dependent.[27]< > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Photon#cite_note-29>If the photon mass is > generated via the Higgs > > >> mechanism <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Higgs_mechanism> then the > upper > > >> limit of *m*≲10−14 eV/c2 from the test of Coulomb's law is valid. > > > > >> Photons inside superconductors< > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Superconductors>do develop a nonzero > effective > > >> rest mass< > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Effective_mass_%28solid-state_physics%29>; > > >> as a result, electromagnetic forces become short-range inside > > >> superconductors.[28] < > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Photon#cite_note-30> > > >> See also: Supernova/Acceleration Probe< > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Supernova/Acceleration_Probe> > > > > >> On Saturday, May 11, 2013 1:31:48 PM UTC-4, sadovnik socratus wrote: > > > > >>> photon is an energy/mass particle: E=Mc^2 > > > > >>> this energy/mass ( E=Mc^2 ) is not constant parameter > > > > >>> this energy/mass ( E=Mc^2 ) can be changed ( together with speed ) > > > > >>> for example: E=Mc^2 changes into E=h*f and vice versa > > >>> == > > > > >>> On Sat, May 11, 2013 at 4:53 PM, nominal9 <nomi...@yahoo.com> wrote: > > > > >>>>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/**Photon< > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Photon> > > >>>> Do you agree with this? > > >>>> so, is a photon energy or particle..... when, if both?...... > > > > >>>> On Saturday, May 11, 2013 7:03:26 AM UTC-4, sadovnik socratus wrote: > > > > >>>>> SRT by an uneducated Socratus. > > >>>>> =. > > >>>>> SRT is based on three facts ! > > >>>>> Fact number 1: > > >>>>> The constant speed of photon in vacuum is minimal. > > >>>>> Fact number 2: > > >>>>> The inertia of photon depends on its potential energy: E=Mc^2 > > >>>>> Fact number 3: > > >>>>> Every speed and energy > > >>>>> ( including the speed and energy of photon ) are relative. > > >>>>> ===. > > >>>>> Israel Socratus > > > > >>>>> -- > > >>>> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google > > >>>> Groups "Epistemology" group. > > >>>> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, > send > > >>>> an email to epistemology...@**googlegroups.com. > > >>>> To post to this group, send email to episte...@googlegroups.com. > > >>>> Visit this group athttp:// > groups.google.com/**group/epistemology?hl=en< > http://groups.google.com/group/epistemology?hl=en> > > >>>> . > > >>>> For more options, visithttps://groups.google.com/**groups/opt_out< > https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out> > > >>>> . > > > > >>> -- > > >>> You do not really understand something unless you can explain > > >>> it to your grandmother. / Albert Einstein / > > >>> The secret of God and Existence is hidden in ‘Quantum of Light > Theory ’. > > > > >> -- > > >> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google > Groups > > >> "Epistemology" group. > > >> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, > send an > > >> email to epistemology...@googlegroups.com <javascript:>. > > >> To post to this group, send email to episte...@googlegroups.com > <javascript:> > > >> . > > >> Visit this group athttp://groups.google.com/group/epistemology?hl=en. > > >> For more options, visithttps://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out. > > > > > -- > > > You do not really understand something unless you can explain... > > > > read more » > > -- > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups > "Epistemology" group. > To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an > email to epistemology+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. > To post to this group, send email to epistemology@googlegroups.com. > Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/epistemology?hl=en. > For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out. > > > -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Epistemology" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to epistemology+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to epistemology@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/epistemology?hl=en. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
