| Topic: |
Science > Physics |
| User: |
"Billy Bob" |
| Date: |
07 Apr 2006 07:05:27 AM |
| Object: |
Mass of Light |
I'm reading the theory of relativity, but I've a little problem:
Light travels with the speed of light, so its mass should be zero or
infinite. It couldn't have an endless mass and my teacher says that
light isn't really a wave but a kind of particle, so its mass couldn't
be zero..
What's the mass of light?
Billy Bob
PS: I'm Dutch, so don't blame me for the fact that I make a lot of
writing errors.
.
|
|
| User: "Greg Neill" |
|
| Title: Re: Mass of Light |
07 Apr 2006 10:30:49 AM |
|
|
"Billy Bob" <billy_bob_felder@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1144411527.057084.291580@j33g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
I'm reading the theory of relativity, but I've a little problem:
Light travels with the speed of light, so its mass should be zero or
infinite. It couldn't have an endless mass and my teacher says that
light isn't really a wave but a kind of particle, so its mass couldn't
be zero..
What's the mass of light?
Light is thought to be comprised of photons which have
both particle-like and wave-like properties (depending
largely on what and how you are measuring them).
The rest mass of the photon is zero (photons move at c
always, and are never at rest as long as they exist).
In media other than a vacuum, light can move at less
than c, but this is attributed to electromagnetic
interactions with the media -- the light still moves
from encounter to encounter at c.
The photon carries energy (it can be thought of as an
energy packet) in the form of momentum. This energy
has a mass equivalent via E=m*c^2. Note that this is
not rest mass, which is zero for the photon.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Spaceman" |
|
| Title: Re: Mass of Light |
07 Apr 2006 10:28:34 AM |
|
|
"Billy Bob" <billy_bob_felder@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1144411527.057084.291580@j33g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
I'm reading the theory of relativity, but I've a little problem:
Light travels with the speed of light, so its mass should be zero or
infinite.
Infinite would not be true and light could still have a mass.
Lightspeed does not take infinite energy.
The only speed that would need infinite energy is infinite speed.
It couldn't have an endless mass and my teacher says that
light isn't really a wave but a kind of particle, so its mass couldn't
be zero..
The mass can not be a complete 0 because anyone with
a brain knows a 0 mass can not have any energy.
What's the mass of light?
It is very small, it is so small that using 0 is basically
allowed as long as you include an energy equation that ignores
mass.
The basic thing is light is a dual vibration of a particle (usually an
electron)
one vibration occurs in the electric field and one in the magnetic field,
hence the electromagnetic wave.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Greg Neill" |
|
| Title: Re: Mass of Light |
07 Apr 2006 10:35:52 AM |
|
|
"Spaceman" <Realspace@comcast.not> wrote in message
news:RPGdnS0sYZCKGKvZnZ2dnUVZ_vidnZ2d@comcast.com...
[nothing with any value whatsoever]
Ignore the Specimen idiot. It knows not of
what it speaks.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Spaceman" |
|
| Title: Re: Mass of Light |
07 Apr 2006 10:55:59 AM |
|
|
"Greg Neill" <gneillREM@OVE.THIS.netcom.ca> wrote in message
news:BFvZf.3576$pZ3.513587@news20.bellglobal.com...
"Spaceman" <Realspace@comcast.not> wrote in message
news:RPGdnS0sYZCKGKvZnZ2dnUVZ_vidnZ2d@comcast.com...
[nothing with any value whatsoever]
Ignore the Specimen idiot. It knows not of
what it speaks.
Silly relativists, they are always afraid of anything that makes
sense.
LOL
.
|
|
|
| User: "T Wake" |
|
| Title: Re: Mass of Light |
07 Apr 2006 01:16:48 PM |
|
|
"Spaceman" <Realspace@comcast.not> wrote in message
news:qaqdnZdpfsseFqvZ4p2dnA@comcast.com...
"Greg Neill" <gneillREM@OVE.THIS.netcom.ca> wrote in message
news:BFvZf.3576$pZ3.513587@news20.bellglobal.com...
"Spaceman" <Realspace@comcast.not> wrote in message
news:RPGdnS0sYZCKGKvZnZ2dnUVZ_vidnZ2d@comcast.com...
[nothing with any value whatsoever]
Ignore the Specimen idiot. It knows not of
what it speaks.
Silly relativists, they are always afraid of anything that makes
sense.
Well, nothing you ever say makes sense so what does that tell you?
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Eric Gisse" |
|
| Title: Re: Mass of Light |
07 Apr 2006 01:55:58 PM |
|
|
Spaceman wrote:
"Billy Bob" <billy_bob_felder@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1144411527.057084.291580@j33g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
I'm reading the theory of relativity, but I've a little problem:
Light travels with the speed of light, so its mass should be zero or
infinite.
For future reference, ignore spaceshit.
Infinite would not be true and light could still have a mass.
Lightspeed does not take infinite energy.
The only speed that would need infinite energy is infinite speed.
OK spaceshit. Tell me how much energy it would take to accelerate a
proton from 0 to c+1 m/s.
It couldn't have an endless mass and my teacher says that
light isn't really a wave but a kind of particle, so its mass couldn't
be zero..
The mass can not be a complete 0 because anyone with
a brain knows a 0 mass can not have any energy.
You and Porat would be kindred spirits, fuckwit.
The photon's observed mass is consistant with zero.
What's the mass of light?
It is very small, it is so small that using 0 is basically
allowed as long as you include an energy equation that ignores
mass.
You don't even know what the equations are, idiot.
Care to quantify "very small" ? Oh wait, you are spaceshit, you are
scared of numbers because you ***** up every time you use them.
The basic thing is light is a dual vibration of a particle (usually an
electron)
one vibration occurs in the electric field and one in the magnetic field,
hence the electromagnetic wave.
Spaceshit has no idea what he is talking about, as usual. Hey spaceshit
- just because you don't know what the words actually mean does not
mean others don't.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Spaceman" |
|
| Title: Re: Mass of Light |
07 Apr 2006 02:21:44 PM |
|
|
"Eric Gisse" <jowr.pi@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1144436158.735711.309770@z34g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...
Spaceman wrote:
"Billy Bob" <billy_bob_felder@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1144411527.057084.291580@j33g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
I'm reading the theory of relativity, but I've a little problem:
Light travels with the speed of light, so its mass should be zero or
infinite.
For future reference, ignore spaceshit.
Infinite would not be true and light could still have a mass.
Lightspeed does not take infinite energy.
The only speed that would need infinite energy is infinite speed.
OK spaceshit. Tell me how much energy it would take to accelerate a
proton from 0 to c+1 m/s.
Who cares
You are using a energy force that is limited to lightspeed
anyways.
It is still very funny you can't grasp such a fact..
It is not proof that infinite energy is needed nor
infinite mass would occur from lightspeed motion.
LOL
<snipped rest of Eric's insultation physics>
.
|
|
|
| User: "T Wake" |
|
| Title: Re: Mass of Light |
07 Apr 2006 03:23:43 PM |
|
|
"Spaceman" <Realspace@comcast.not> wrote in message
news:bNGdnVVq2oIgJqvZRVn-tw@comcast.com...
"Eric Gisse" <jowr.pi@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1144436158.735711.309770@z34g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...
Spaceman wrote:
"Billy Bob" <billy_bob_felder@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1144411527.057084.291580@j33g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
I'm reading the theory of relativity, but I've a little problem:
Light travels with the speed of light, so its mass should be zero or
infinite.
For future reference, ignore spaceshit.
Infinite would not be true and light could still have a mass.
Lightspeed does not take infinite energy.
The only speed that would need infinite energy is infinite speed.
OK spaceshit. Tell me how much energy it would take to accelerate a
proton from 0 to c+1 m/s.
Who cares
Translation courtesy of CRANKOMETER:
"I dont know because I have no idea how to do any mathematics."
<snip rest of spaceloon's drivel>
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Eric Gisse" |
|
| Title: Re: Mass of Light |
07 Apr 2006 05:31:33 PM |
|
|
Spaceman wrote:
"Eric Gisse" <jowr.pi@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1144436158.735711.309770@z34g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...
Spaceman wrote:
"Billy Bob" <billy_bob_felder@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1144411527.057084.291580@j33g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
I'm reading the theory of relativity, but I've a little problem:
Light travels with the speed of light, so its mass should be zero or
infinite.
For future reference, ignore spaceshit.
Infinite would not be true and light could still have a mass.
Lightspeed does not take infinite energy.
The only speed that would need infinite energy is infinite speed.
OK spaceshit. Tell me how much energy it would take to accelerate a
proton from 0 to c+1 m/s.
Who cares
You are using a energy force that is limited to lightspeed
anyways.
It is still very funny you can't grasp such a fact..
It is not proof that infinite energy is needed nor
infinite mass would occur from lightspeed motion.
LOL
Lets try again, spaceshit.
Infinite energy for infinite speed implies finite energy for finite
speed. So, again, how much energy does it take for me to accelerate a
proton from 0 to c+1 m/s?
If you are incapable of answering, just say so.
<snipped rest of Eric's insultation physics>
I like "insultation physics" over "arbitrary and wrong in every way
possible" physics. I can justify insulting you by pointing out that you
are stupid. How do you justify physics that is wrong?
.
|
|
|
| User: "Spaceman" |
|
| Title: Re: Mass of Light |
07 Apr 2006 06:37:58 PM |
|
|
"Eric Gisse" <jowr.pi@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1144449093.715007.27440@z34g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...
Spaceman wrote:
"Eric Gisse" <jowr.pi@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1144436158.735711.309770@z34g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...
Spaceman wrote:
"Billy Bob" <billy_bob_felder@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1144411527.057084.291580@j33g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
I'm reading the theory of relativity, but I've a little problem:
Light travels with the speed of light, so its mass should be zero or
infinite.
For future reference, ignore spaceshit.
Infinite would not be true and light could still have a mass.
Lightspeed does not take infinite energy.
The only speed that would need infinite energy is infinite speed.
OK spaceshit. Tell me how much energy it would take to accelerate a
proton from 0 to c+1 m/s.
Who cares
You are using a energy force that is limited to lightspeed
anyways.
It is still very funny you can't grasp such a fact..
It is not proof that infinite energy is needed nor
infinite mass would occur from lightspeed motion.
LOL
Lets try again, spaceshit.
Infinite energy for infinite speed implies finite energy for finite
speed. So, again, how much energy does it take for me to accelerate a
proton from 0 to c+1 m/s?
What kind of energy Eric?
The speed is limited by the energies own speed.
Do you have an energy source that can push thigns faster
than c yet to determine how much energy would be needed?
If you are incapable of answering, just say so.
Where is your proof that infinite energy is needed?
Prove the energy you are using can move faster than c at all
to be able to move the proton faster than c or you have no
proof at all about ho0w much energy is needed..
You are just way to ignorant to actually think about such
facts at all anymore huh?
.
|
|
|
| User: "Eric Gisse" |
|
| Title: Re: Mass of Light |
07 Apr 2006 07:19:47 PM |
|
|
Spaceman wrote:
"Eric Gisse" <jowr.pi@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1144449093.715007.27440@z34g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...
Spaceman wrote:
"Eric Gisse" <jowr.pi@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1144436158.735711.309770@z34g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...
Spaceman wrote:
"Billy Bob" <billy_bob_felder@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1144411527.057084.291580@j33g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
I'm reading the theory of relativity, but I've a little problem:
Light travels with the speed of light, so its mass should be zero or
infinite.
For future reference, ignore spaceshit.
Infinite would not be true and light could still have a mass.
Lightspeed does not take infinite energy.
The only speed that would need infinite energy is infinite speed.
OK spaceshit. Tell me how much energy it would take to accelerate a
proton from 0 to c+1 m/s.
Who cares
You are using a energy force that is limited to lightspeed
anyways.
It is still very funny you can't grasp such a fact..
It is not proof that infinite energy is needed nor
infinite mass would occur from lightspeed motion.
LOL
Lets try again, spaceshit.
Infinite energy for infinite speed implies finite energy for finite
speed. So, again, how much energy does it take for me to accelerate a
proton from 0 to c+1 m/s?
What kind of energy Eric?
The speed is limited by the energies own speed.
Do you have an energy source that can push thigns faster
than c yet to determine how much energy would be needed?
So you can't answer it. I expected nothing less from you, spaceshit.
If you are incapable of answering, just say so.
Where is your proof that infinite energy is needed?
YOU SAID IT, IDIOT. Don't pawn your stupidity off on me.
Prove the energy you are using can move faster than c at all
to be able to move the proton faster than c or you have no
proof at all about ho0w much energy is needed..
You are just way to ignorant to actually think about such
facts at all anymore huh?
Shutup, spaceshit. You made the assertion, you can't back it up, so
there is no reason for you to continue talking.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Spaceman" |
|
| Title: Re: Mass of Light |
07 Apr 2006 07:28:30 PM |
|
|
"Eric Gisse" <jowr.pi@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1144455587.855094.310110@i40g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...
Spaceman wrote:
"Eric Gisse" <jowr.pi@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1144449093.715007.27440@z34g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...
Spaceman wrote:
"Eric Gisse" <jowr.pi@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1144436158.735711.309770@z34g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...
Spaceman wrote:
"Billy Bob" <billy_bob_felder@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1144411527.057084.291580@j33g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
I'm reading the theory of relativity, but I've a little problem:
Light travels with the speed of light, so its mass should be zero
or
infinite.
For future reference, ignore spaceshit.
Infinite would not be true and light could still have a mass.
Lightspeed does not take infinite energy.
The only speed that would need infinite energy is infinite speed.
OK spaceshit. Tell me how much energy it would take to accelerate a
proton from 0 to c+1 m/s.
Who cares
You are using a energy force that is limited to lightspeed
anyways.
It is still very funny you can't grasp such a fact..
It is not proof that infinite energy is needed nor
infinite mass would occur from lightspeed motion.
LOL
Lets try again, spaceshit.
Infinite energy for infinite speed implies finite energy for finite
speed. So, again, how much energy does it take for me to accelerate a
proton from 0 to c+1 m/s?
What kind of energy Eric?
The speed is limited by the energies own speed.
Do you have an energy source that can push thigns faster
than c yet to determine how much energy would be needed?
So you can't answer it. I expected nothing less from you, spaceshit.
So you refuse to even think about the limits of the
energy itself?
If you are incapable of answering, just say so.
Where is your proof that infinite energy is needed?
YOU SAID IT, IDIOT. Don't pawn your stupidity off on me.
I said there is not proof that such is needed.
You can not show such is needed since you don't even have
an energy that can move faster than c your stuck up ignorant moron.
You provide an energy that can move FTL and I will show you
infinite mass will not occur.
If you provide an object traveling FTL, I can show you infinite
energy is not needed to do such.
So..
Where is your physical proof that infinite energy is needed
at all or can be shown to be needed at all?
.
|
|
|
| User: "T Wake" |
|
| Title: Re: Mass of Light |
08 Apr 2006 04:10:47 AM |
|
|
"Spaceman" <Realspace@comcast.not> wrote in message
news:0-Cdnd--XvA4nqrZnZ2dnUVZ_sCdnZ2d@comcast.com...
"Eric Gisse" <jowr.pi@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1144455587.855094.310110@i40g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...
Spaceman wrote:
"Eric Gisse" <jowr.pi@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1144449093.715007.27440@z34g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...
Spaceman wrote:
"Eric Gisse" <jowr.pi@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1144436158.735711.309770@z34g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...
Spaceman wrote:
"Billy Bob" <billy_bob_felder@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1144411527.057084.291580@j33g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
I'm reading the theory of relativity, but I've a little problem:
Light travels with the speed of light, so its mass should be
zero or
infinite.
For future reference, ignore spaceshit.
Infinite would not be true and light could still have a mass.
Lightspeed does not take infinite energy.
The only speed that would need infinite energy is infinite speed.
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
OK spaceshit. Tell me how much energy it would take to accelerate a
proton from 0 to c+1 m/s.
Who cares
You are using a energy force that is limited to lightspeed
anyways.
It is still very funny you can't grasp such a fact..
It is not proof that infinite energy is needed nor
infinite mass would occur from lightspeed motion.
LOL
Lets try again, spaceshit.
Infinite energy for infinite speed implies finite energy for finite
speed. So, again, how much energy does it take for me to accelerate a
proton from 0 to c+1 m/s?
What kind of energy Eric?
The speed is limited by the energies own speed.
Do you have an energy source that can push thigns faster
than c yet to determine how much energy would be needed?
So you can't answer it. I expected nothing less from you, spaceshit.
So you refuse to even think about the limits of the
energy itself?
If you are incapable of answering, just say so.
Where is your proof that infinite energy is needed?
YOU SAID IT, IDIOT. Don't pawn your stupidity off on me.
I said there is not proof that such is needed.
Actually you did say infinite speed requires infinite energy.
I have marked it above so you can see it.
You misunderstand the way energy works. You are obsessing with the "speed of
the energy" being the key. This is partly because you obsess with
irrelevant, broken analogies.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Eric Gisse" |
|
| Title: Re: Mass of Light |
07 Apr 2006 07:49:10 PM |
|
|
Spaceman wrote:
"Eric Gisse" <jowr.pi@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1144455587.855094.310110@i40g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...
Spaceman wrote:
"Eric Gisse" <jowr.pi@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1144449093.715007.27440@z34g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...
Spaceman wrote:
"Eric Gisse" <jowr.pi@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1144436158.735711.309770@z34g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...
Spaceman wrote:
"Billy Bob" <billy_bob_felder@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1144411527.057084.291580@j33g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
I'm reading the theory of relativity, but I've a little problem:
Light travels with the speed of light, so its mass should be zero
or
infinite.
For future reference, ignore spaceshit.
Infinite would not be true and light could still have a mass.
Lightspeed does not take infinite energy.
The only speed that would need infinite energy is infinite speed.
OK spaceshit. Tell me how much energy it would take to accelerate a
proton from 0 to c+1 m/s.
Who cares
You are using a energy force that is limited to lightspeed
anyways.
It is still very funny you can't grasp such a fact..
It is not proof that infinite energy is needed nor
infinite mass would occur from lightspeed motion.
LOL
Lets try again, spaceshit.
Infinite energy for infinite speed implies finite energy for finite
speed. So, again, how much energy does it take for me to accelerate a
proton from 0 to c+1 m/s?
What kind of energy Eric?
The speed is limited by the energies own speed.
Do you have an energy source that can push thigns faster
than c yet to determine how much energy would be needed?
So you can't answer it. I expected nothing less from you, spaceshit.
So you refuse to even think about the limits of the
energy itself?
What energy?
If one considers the energy of your stupidity, one finds that no amount
of it can do any useful work but the noise generated is directly
proportional to the amount present.
If you are incapable of answering, just say so.
Where is your proof that infinite energy is needed?
YOU SAID IT, IDIOT. Don't pawn your stupidity off on me.
I said there is not proof that such is needed.
You can not show such is needed since you don't even have
an energy that can move faster than c your stuck up ignorant moron.
You provide an energy that can move FTL and I will show you
infinite mass will not occur.
If you provide an object traveling FTL, I can show you infinite
energy is not needed to do such.
So..
Where is your physical proof that infinite energy is needed
at all or can be shown to be needed at all?
So, as usual, you say something stupid, and are surprised when it is
pointed out to be stupid.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Spaceman" |
|
| Title: Re: Mass of Light |
07 Apr 2006 08:05:09 PM |
|
|
"Eric Gisse" <jowr.pi@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1144457350.797665.25900@v46g2000cwv.googlegroups.com...
Spaceman wrote:
"Eric Gisse" <jowr.pi@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1144455587.855094.310110@i40g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...
Spaceman wrote:
"Eric Gisse" <jowr.pi@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1144449093.715007.27440@z34g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...
Spaceman wrote:
"Eric Gisse" <jowr.pi@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1144436158.735711.309770@z34g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...
Spaceman wrote:
"Billy Bob" <billy_bob_felder@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1144411527.057084.291580@j33g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
I'm reading the theory of relativity, but I've a little
problem:
Light travels with the speed of light, so its mass should be
zero
or
infinite.
For future reference, ignore spaceshit.
Infinite would not be true and light could still have a mass.
Lightspeed does not take infinite energy.
The only speed that would need infinite energy is infinite
speed.
OK spaceshit. Tell me how much energy it would take to accelerate
a
proton from 0 to c+1 m/s.
Who cares
You are using a energy force that is limited to lightspeed
anyways.
It is still very funny you can't grasp such a fact..
It is not proof that infinite energy is needed nor
infinite mass would occur from lightspeed motion.
LOL
Lets try again, spaceshit.
Infinite energy for infinite speed implies finite energy for finite
speed. So, again, how much energy does it take for me to accelerate
a
proton from 0 to c+1 m/s?
What kind of energy Eric?
The speed is limited by the energies own speed.
Do you have an energy source that can push thigns faster
than c yet to determine how much energy would be needed?
So you can't answer it. I expected nothing less from you, spaceshit.
So you refuse to even think about the limits of the
energy itself?
What energy?
The energy you are saying would need to be infinite yet
you can not even prove that energy can move something at c,
nevermind past c.
If one considers the energy of your stupidity, one finds that no amount
of it can do any useful work but the noise generated is directly
proportional to the amount present.
Still can't admit that you can not prove infinite energy is needed huh?
So, as usual, you say something stupid, and are surprised when it is
pointed out to be stupid.
As usual, you can't prove anything you are stating.
Where is your proof infinite energy is needed Eric?
What experiment shows it can come close to infinite energy
at all?
Sheesh
You are so ignorant and arrogant simultaneously.
LOL
.
|
|
|
| User: "Eric Gisse" |
|
| Title: Re: Mass of Light |
07 Apr 2006 08:27:27 PM |
|
|
Spaceman wrote:
"Eric Gisse" <jowr.pi@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1144457350.797665.25900@v46g2000cwv.googlegroups.com...
Spaceman wrote:
"Eric Gisse" <jowr.pi@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1144455587.855094.310110@i40g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...
Spaceman wrote:
"Eric Gisse" <jowr.pi@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1144449093.715007.27440@z34g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...
Spaceman wrote:
"Eric Gisse" <jowr.pi@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1144436158.735711.309770@z34g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...
Spaceman wrote:
"Billy Bob" <billy_bob_felder@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1144411527.057084.291580@j33g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
I'm reading the theory of relativity, but I've a little
problem:
Light travels with the speed of light, so its mass should be
zero
or
infinite.
For future reference, ignore spaceshit.
Infinite would not be true and light could still have a mass.
Lightspeed does not take infinite energy.
The only speed that would need infinite energy is infinite
speed.
OK spaceshit. Tell me how much energy it would take to accelerate
a
proton from 0 to c+1 m/s.
Who cares
You are using a energy force that is limited to lightspeed
anyways.
It is still very funny you can't grasp such a fact..
It is not proof that infinite energy is needed nor
infinite mass would occur from lightspeed motion.
LOL
Lets try again, spaceshit.
Infinite energy for infinite speed implies finite energy for finite
speed. So, again, how much energy does it take for me to accelerate
a
proton from 0 to c+1 m/s?
What kind of energy Eric?
The speed is limited by the energies own speed.
Do you have an energy source that can push thigns faster
than c yet to determine how much energy would be needed?
So you can't answer it. I expected nothing less from you, spaceshit.
So you refuse to even think about the limits of the
energy itself?
What energy?
The energy you are saying would need to be infinite yet
you can not even prove that energy can move something at c,
nevermind past c.
You were the one talking about infinite energy, spaceshit.
If one considers the energy of your stupidity, one finds that no amount
of it can do any useful work but the noise generated is directly
proportional to the amount present.
Still can't admit that you can not prove infinite energy is needed huh?
You were the one talking about infinite energy, spaceshit.
So, as usual, you say something stupid, and are surprised when it is
pointed out to be stupid.
As usual, you can't prove anything you are stating.
Where is your proof infinite energy is needed Eric?
What experiment shows it can come close to infinite energy
at all?
Sheesh
You are so ignorant and arrogant simultaneously.
LOL
You were the one talking about infinite energy, spaceshit.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Spaceman" |
|
| Title: Re: Mass of Light |
08 Apr 2006 09:49:09 AM |
|
|
"Eric Gisse" <jowr.pi@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1144459647.203014.7230@e56g2000cwe.googlegroups.com...
Spaceman wrote:
"Eric Gisse" <jowr.pi@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1144457350.797665.25900@v46g2000cwv.googlegroups.com...
Spaceman wrote:
"Eric Gisse" <jowr.pi@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1144455587.855094.310110@i40g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...
Spaceman wrote:
"Eric Gisse" <jowr.pi@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1144449093.715007.27440@z34g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...
Spaceman wrote:
"Eric Gisse" <jowr.pi@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1144436158.735711.309770@z34g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...
Spaceman wrote:
"Billy Bob" <billy_bob_felder@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1144411527.057084.291580@j33g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
I'm reading the theory of relativity, but I've a little
problem:
Light travels with the speed of light, so its mass should
be
zero
or
infinite.
For future reference, ignore spaceshit.
Infinite would not be true and light could still have a mass.
Lightspeed does not take infinite energy.
The only speed that would need infinite energy is infinite
speed.
OK spaceshit. Tell me how much energy it would take to
accelerate
a
proton from 0 to c+1 m/s.
Who cares
You are using a energy force that is limited to lightspeed
anyways.
It is still very funny you can't grasp such a fact..
It is not proof that infinite energy is needed nor
infinite mass would occur from lightspeed motion.
LOL
Lets try again, spaceshit.
Infinite energy for infinite speed implies finite energy for
finite
speed. So, again, how much energy does it take for me to
accelerate
a
proton from 0 to c+1 m/s?
What kind of energy Eric?
The speed is limited by the energies own speed.
Do you have an energy source that can push thigns faster
than c yet to determine how much energy would be needed?
So you can't answer it. I expected nothing less from you, spaceshit.
So you refuse to even think about the limits of the
energy itself?
What energy?
The energy you are saying would need to be infinite yet
you can not even prove that energy can move something at c,
nevermind past c.
You were the one talking about infinite energy, spaceshit.
You are the one that says it is needed for speeds faster than c.
Prove it!
<snipped multiple same statements as non answers>
.
|
|
|
| User: "Eric Gisse" |
|
| Title: Re: Mass of Light |
08 Apr 2006 06:34:07 PM |
|
|
Spaceman wrote:
"Eric Gisse" <jowr.pi@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1144459647.203014.7230@e56g2000cwe.googlegroups.com...
Spaceman wrote:
"Eric Gisse" <jowr.pi@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1144457350.797665.25900@v46g2000cwv.googlegroups.com...
Spaceman wrote:
"Eric Gisse" <jowr.pi@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1144455587.855094.310110@i40g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...
Spaceman wrote:
"Eric Gisse" <jowr.pi@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1144449093.715007.27440@z34g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...
Spaceman wrote:
"Eric Gisse" <jowr.pi@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1144436158.735711.309770@z34g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...
Spaceman wrote:
"Billy Bob" <billy_bob_felder@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1144411527.057084.291580@j33g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
I'm reading the theory of relativity, but I've a little
problem:
Light travels with the speed of light, so its mass should
be
zero
or
infinite.
For future reference, ignore spaceshit.
Infinite would not be true and light could still have a mass.
Lightspeed does not take infinite energy.
The only speed that would need infinite energy is infinite
speed.
OK spaceshit. Tell me how much energy it would take to
accelerate
a
proton from 0 to c+1 m/s.
Who cares
You are using a energy force that is limited to lightspeed
anyways.
It is still very funny you can't grasp such a fact..
It is not proof that infinite energy is needed nor
infinite mass would occur from lightspeed motion.
LOL
Lets try again, spaceshit.
Infinite energy for infinite speed implies finite energy for
finite
speed. So, again, how much energy does it take for me to
accelerate
a
proton from 0 to c+1 m/s?
What kind of energy Eric?
The speed is limited by the energies own speed.
Do you have an energy source that can push thigns faster
than c yet to determine how much energy would be needed?
So you can't answer it. I expected nothing less from you, spaceshit.
So you refuse to even think about the limits of the
energy itself?
What energy?
The energy you are saying would need to be infinite yet
you can not even prove that energy can move something at c,
nevermind past c.
You were the one talking about infinite energy, spaceshit.
You are the one that says it is needed for speeds faster than c.
Prove it!
<snipped multiple same statements as non answers>
Why should I prove anything to you? At the end of the day, you will
still be uneducated and proud of it. My efforts would be wasted.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Sam Wormley" |
|
| Title: Re: Mass of Light |
07 Apr 2006 10:39:55 AM |
|
|
Spaceman wrote:
It is very small, it is so small that using 0 is basically
allowed as long as you include an energy equation that ignores
mass.
The basic thing is light is a dual vibration of a particle (usually an
electron)
one vibration occurs in the electric field and one in the magnetic field,
hence the electromagnetic wave.
Physics FAQ: Does light have mass?
http://edu-observatory.org/physics-faq/Relativity/SR/light_mass.html
Photon
http://scienceworld.wolfram.com/physics/Photon.html
Spitshit, Spaceshit, Spaceman, or whatever you call the little
troll has quite the track record and is a registered crank at
crank dot net.
http://www.google.com/search?q=Spaceman+site%3Awww.crank.net
For a few laughs try the Spaceman [spaceshit] Emulator
http://www.hyperdeath.co.uk/spaceman/
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Old Man" |
|
| Title: Re: Mass of Light |
07 Apr 2006 12:29:59 PM |
|
|
"Billy Bob" <billy_bob_felder@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1144411527.057084.291580@j33g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
I'm reading the theory of relativity, but I've a little problem:
Light travels with the speed of light, so its mass should be zero or
infinite. It couldn't have an endless mass and my teacher says that
light isn't really a wave but a kind of particle, so its mass couldn't
be zero. What's the mass of light?
A single photon has no rest mass. A system of two or more photons,
such as that of "light" or that of an electromagnetic wave, can have rest
mass. In the center-of-momentum, the rest mass energy is equal to the
system's total energy. One cannot define a center-of-momentum for
a single photon. In the language of physics, "particle" doesn't imply
"mass".
[Old Man]
Billy Bob
.
|
|
|
| User: "hanson" |
|
| Title: Re: Mass of Light -- OLD MAN Read |
10 Apr 2006 12:29:10 PM |
|
|
Jako Epke aka "Old Man" <nomail@nomail.net> wrote in message
news:9YidnTjQ6MQ9PKvZnZ2dnUVZ_uWdnZ2d@prairiewave.com...
[Jako]
A single photon has no rest mass. A system of two or more photons,
such as that of "light" or that of an electromagnetic wave, can have rest
mass. In the center-of-momentum, the rest mass energy is equal to the
system's total energy. One cannot define a center-of-momentum for
a single photon. In the language of physics, "particle" doesn't imply
"mass".
[hanson]
Jako, it is good to have you back and it is interesting to see that
nobody responded to your statement, ... ahahahaha...
So, I wish you would elaborate on it because if a single photon
doesn't have rest mass but two or more do so, when being described
as a system, then where does that rest-mass of the rest-mass-energy
come from?... and what does this rest mass of the rest-mass-energy
represent?... especially if "mass" does not imply "particle" in the
language of physics.
hanson
.
|
|
|
| User: "FrediFizzx" |
|
| Title: Re: Mass of Light -- OLD MAN Read |
10 Apr 2006 12:42:26 PM |
|
|
"hanson" <hanson@quick.net> wrote in message
news:GBw_f.4747$8g3.1125@trnddc02...
| Jako Epke aka "Old Man" <nomail@nomail.net> wrote in message
| news:9YidnTjQ6MQ9PKvZnZ2dnUVZ_uWdnZ2d@prairiewave.com...
| [Jako]
| > A single photon has no rest mass. A system of two or more photons,
| > such as that of "light" or that of an electromagnetic wave, can have
rest
| > mass. In the center-of-momentum, the rest mass energy is equal to
the
| > system's total energy. One cannot define a center-of-momentum for
| > a single photon. In the language of physics, "particle" doesn't
imply
| > "mass".
| >
| [hanson]
| Jako, it is good to have you back and it is interesting to see that
| nobody responded to your statement, ... ahahahaha...
| So, I wish you would elaborate on it because if a single photon
| doesn't have rest mass but two or more do so, when being described
| as a system, then where does that rest-mass of the rest-mass-energy
| come from?... and what does this rest mass of the rest-mass-energy
| represent?... especially if "mass" does not imply "particle" in the
| language of physics.
| hanson
Hey hanson,
What Old Man said is exactly right and it looks to me to be a very
elegant way of saying it. However in most cases, I wouldn't call the
mass of a system of two photons "practical mass". ;-)
FrediFizzx
http://www.vacuum-physics.com
.
|
|
|
| User: "hanson" |
|
| Title: Re: Mass of Light -- OLD MAN Read |
10 Apr 2006 04:15:19 PM |
|
|
"FrediFizzx" <fredifizzx@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:49vjgcFqmd9dU1@individual.net...
"hanson" <hanson@quick.net> wrote in message
news:GBw_f.4747$8g3.1125@trnddc02...
| Jako Epke aka "Old Man" <nomail@nomail.net> wrote in message
| news:9YidnTjQ6MQ9PKvZnZ2dnUVZ_uWdnZ2d@prairiewave.com...
| [Jako]
| > A single photon has no rest mass. A system of two or more photons,
| > such as that of "light" or that of an electromagnetic wave, can have
| > rest mass. In the center-of-momentum, the rest mass energy is
| >equal to the system's total energy. One cannot define a
| > center-of-momentum for a single photon.
| > In the language of physics, "particle" doesn't imply "mass".
| >
| [hanson]
| Jako, it is good to have you back and it is interesting to see that
| nobody responded to your statement, ... ahahahaha...
| So, I wish you would elaborate on it because if a single photon
| doesn't have rest mass but two or more do so, when being described
| as a system, then where does that rest-mass of the rest-mass-energy
| come from?... and what does this rest mass of the rest-mass-energy
| represent?... especially if "mass" does not imply "particle" in the
| language of physics.
| hanson
[Fredi]
Hey hanson,
What Old Man said is exactly right and it looks to me to be a very
elegant way of saying it. However in most cases, I wouldn't call the
mass of a system of two photons "practical mass". ;-)
[hanson]
..... ahahaha... AHAHA... ok, Fredi, if it is so elegant and exactly
right then one presumes that you too, like Sam, can answer my
questions, can you now, Fredi? But be kind and do NOT invoke
your "practical mass" which implies that there is also some
"impractical mass", which alludes to mass-like stuff, which of
course is not like ponderable mass at all but something else..,
.... and hence it is that something else that is playing games in
(1) some space-like environment that is not quite real 3D space and
(2) does requires any real time but only time-like intervals to manifest.
If you require any of these things to explain my questions, then
I do not understand why you have issues with Savain's POV.
You would then sound much more far ahead in free thinking
then he is, except he sounds honest and he does not hide
behind the heuristic double talk that causes the ever worsening
****** "Panic in Einstein's Criminal Cult" ******
Now have at it, Fredi, and explain the questions, please... ahahaha...
ahahaha... ahahanson
.
|
|
|
| User: "FrediFizzx" |
|
| Title: Re: Mass of Light -- OLD MAN Read |
10 Apr 2006 05:19:08 PM |
|
|
"hanson" <hanson@quick.net> wrote in message
news:HVz_f.9230$Fp4.5159@trnddc01...
| "FrediFizzx" <fredifizzx@hotmail.com> wrote in message
| news:49vjgcFqmd9dU1@individual.net...
| > "hanson" <hanson@quick.net> wrote in message
| > news:GBw_f.4747$8g3.1125@trnddc02...
| > | Jako Epke aka "Old Man" <nomail@nomail.net> wrote in message
| > | news:9YidnTjQ6MQ9PKvZnZ2dnUVZ_uWdnZ2d@prairiewave.com...
| > | [Jako]
| > | > A single photon has no rest mass. A system of two or more
photons,
| > | > such as that of "light" or that of an electromagnetic wave, can
have
| > | > rest mass. In the center-of-momentum, the rest mass energy is
| > | >equal to the system's total energy. One cannot define a
| > | > center-of-momentum for a single photon.
| > | > In the language of physics, "particle" doesn't imply "mass".
| > | >
| > | [hanson]
| > | Jako, it is good to have you back and it is interesting to see
that
| > | nobody responded to your statement, ... ahahahaha...
| > | So, I wish you would elaborate on it because if a single photon
| > | doesn't have rest mass but two or more do so, when being described
| > | as a system, then where does that rest-mass of the
rest-mass-energy
| > | come from?... and what does this rest mass of the rest-mass-energy
| > | represent?... especially if "mass" does not imply "particle" in
the
| > | language of physics.
| > | hanson
| >
| [Fredi]
| > Hey hanson,
| > What Old Man said is exactly right and it looks to me to be a very
| > elegant way of saying it. However in most cases, I wouldn't call
the
| > mass of a system of two photons "practical mass". ;-)
| >
| [hanson]
| .... ahahaha... AHAHA... ok, Fredi, if it is so elegant and exactly
| right then one presumes that you too, like Sam, can answer my
| questions, can you now, Fredi?
I did answer your questions. Guess you don't "see it". However, most
any decent particle physics textbook will also answer your questions if
you are really interested.
| But be kind and do NOT invoke
| your "practical mass" which implies that there is also some
| "impractical mass", which alludes to mass-like stuff, which of
| course is not like ponderable mass at all but something else..,
| ... and hence it is that something else that is playing games in
| (1) some space-like environment that is not quite real 3D space and
| (2) does requires any real time but only time-like intervals to
manifest.
Don't you think the mass of a *system* of two photons would be
"impractical mass"? Compared to the practical mass of matter?
Certainly the mass of a system of two photons is not "ponderable" mass
like that of matter.
| If you require any of these things to explain my questions, then
| I do not understand why you have issues with Savain's POV.
I really don't have any issues with Luigi's POV because I really don't
give a rat's ***** about his POV. ;-) And he knows that. Maybe something
you missed?
| You would then sound much more far ahead in free thinking
| then he is, except he sounds honest and he does not hide
| behind the heuristic double talk that causes the ever worsening
| ****** "Panic in Einstein's Criminal Cult" ******
| Now have at it, Fredi, and explain the questions, please... ahahaha...
| ahahaha... ahahanson
Guess what hanson? I really don't care how much "far ahead" I am in
free thinking. Especially compared to anyone on these groups. ;-) Ya
know what they say; time tells and ***** smells. I am always holding my
nose when Luigi comes around. LOL!
I have a plan and it is lookin' good! Quantum Vacuum Charge rules,
baby!
FrediFizzx
http://www.vacuum-physics.com
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Traveler" |
|
| Title: Re: Mass of Light -- OLD MAN Read |
10 Apr 2006 02:02:18 PM |
|
|
On Mon, 10 Apr 2006 10:42:26 -0700, "FrediFizzx"
<fredifizzx@hotmail.com> wrote:
Hey hanson,
What Old Man said is exactly right and it looks to me to be a very
elegant way of saying it. However in most cases, I wouldn't call the
mass of a system of two photons "practical mass". ;-)
ahahaha... The crackpot double talk of geriatric physicists never
ceases to amaze me. ahahaha... I should know better. It's mass but
it's not really mass. ahahaha...
My favorite so far is this on from fuzzy Fizzie: An electron is a
massless particle traveling at c within a closed double helix.
ahahaha... OK. ahahaha... Right.
Louis Savain
Why Software Is Bad and What We Can Do to Fix It:
http://www.rebelscience.org/Cosas/Reliability.htm
.
|
|
|
| User: "FrediFizzx" |
|
| Title: Re: Mass of Light -- OLD MAN Read |
10 Apr 2006 03:24:09 PM |
|
|
"Traveler" <traveler@nospam.net> wrote in message
news:qsal325jrn80e70u00ek2qbvevi2q440rf@4ax.com...
| On Mon, 10 Apr 2006 10:42:26 -0700, "FrediFizzx"
| <fredifizzx@hotmail.com> wrote:
|
| >Hey hanson,
| >
| >What Old Man said is exactly right and it looks to me to be a very
| >elegant way of saying it. However in most cases, I wouldn't call the
| >mass of a system of two photons "practical mass". ;-)
|
| ahahaha... The crackpot double talk of geriatric physicists never
| ceases to amaze me. ahahaha... I should know better. It's mass but
| it's not really mass. ahahaha...
Hmm... I didn't think the concept of "practical mass" was that hard to
comprehend. But in your case... who knows?
| My favorite so far is this on from fuzzy Fizzie: An electron is a
| massless particle traveling at c within a closed double helix.
| ahahaha... OK. ahahaha... Right.
Guess what, you freakin' moronic jackass; nobody cares about what you
think or have to say. ;-) It's simply a different kind of string theory
with longer strings.
FrediFizzx
http://www.vacuum-physics.com
.
|
|
|
| User: "Traveler" |
|
| Title: Re: Mass of Light -- OLD MAN Read |
10 Apr 2006 03:48:40 PM |
|
|
On Mon, 10 Apr 2006 13:24:09 -0700, "FrediFizzx"
<fredifizzx@hotmail.com> wrote:
"Traveler" <traveler@nospam.net> wrote in message
news:qsal325jrn80e70u00ek2qbvevi2q440rf@4ax.com...
| On Mon, 10 Apr 2006 10:42:26 -0700, "FrediFizzx"
| <fredifizzx@hotmail.com> wrote:
|
| >Hey hanson,
| >
| >What Old Man said is exactly right and it looks to me to be a very
| >elegant way of saying it. However in most cases, I wouldn't call the
| >mass of a system of two photons "practical mass". ;-)
|
| ahahaha... The crackpot double talk of geriatric physicists never
| ceases to amaze me. ahahaha... I should know better. It's mass but
| it's not really mass. ahahaha...
Hmm... I didn't think the concept of "practical mass" was that hard to
comprehend. But in your case... who knows?
You're kidding. Everyone knows that mass comes in two flavors:
impractical and practical. ahahaha...
| My favorite so far is this on from fuzzy Fizzie: An electron is a
| massless particle traveling at c within a closed double helix.
| ahahaha... OK. ahahaha... Right.
Guess what, you freakin' moronic jackass; nobody cares about what you
think or have to say. ;-) It's simply a different kind of string theory
with longer strings.
Did you know that one of the chief champions of sring theory is Brian
"superstring" Greene, the time travel believing crackpot from Columbia
university? ahahaha... AHAHAHA... ahahaha...
Personally I would prefer a "bean" theory of the universe. Beans are
so much cuter than strings. ahahaha...
Louis Savain
Why Software Is Bad and What We Can Do to Fix It:
http://www.rebelscience.org/Cosas/Reliability.htm
.
|
|
|
| User: "FrediFizzx" |
|
| Title: Re: Mass of Light -- OLD MAN Read |
10 Apr 2006 05:24:22 PM |
|
|
"Traveler" <traveler@nospam.net> wrote in message
news:ivgl32dtlm4sg7bg5su2kht926duid1mc3@4ax.com...
| On Mon, 10 Apr 2006 13:24:09 -0700, "FrediFizzx"
| <fredifizzx@hotmail.com> wrote:
|
| >"Traveler" <traveler@nospam.net> wrote in message
| >news:qsal325jrn80e70u00ek2qbvevi2q440rf@4ax.com...
| >| On Mon, 10 Apr 2006 10:42:26 -0700, "FrediFizzx"
| >| <fredifizzx@hotmail.com> wrote:
| >|
| >| >Hey hanson,
| >| >
| >| >What Old Man said is exactly right and it looks to me to be a very
| >| >elegant way of saying it. However in most cases, I wouldn't call
the
| >| >mass of a system of two photons "practical mass". ;-)
| >|
| >| ahahaha... The crackpot double talk of geriatric physicists never
| >| ceases to amaze me. ahahaha... I should know better. It's mass but
| >| it's not really mass. ahahaha...
| >
| >Hmm... I didn't think the concept of "practical mass" was that hard
to
| >comprehend. But in your case... who knows?
|
| You're kidding. Everyone knows that mass comes in two flavors:
| impractical and practical. ahahaha...
Sheesh... Didn't you know that?
| >| My favorite so far is this on from fuzzy Fizzie: An electron is a
| >| massless particle traveling at c within a closed double helix.
| >| ahahaha... OK. ahahaha... Right.
| >
| >Guess what, you freakin' moronic jackass; nobody cares about what you
| >think or have to say. ;-) It's simply a different kind of string
theory
| >with longer strings.
|
| Did you know that one of the chief champions of sring theory is Brian
| "superstring" Greene, the time travel believing crackpot from Columbia
| university? ahahaha... AHAHAHA... ahahaha...
And this has what to do with the Hubius Helix string concept?
Absolutely nuttin'. I told you that you still don't "get it".
| Personally I would prefer a "bean" theory of the universe. Beans are
| so much cuter than strings. ahahaha...
Cool, man! Let's see your "bean" theory of an electron. We can start
simple. ;-)
FrediFizzx
http://www.vacuum-physics.com
.
|
|
|
| User: "Traveler" |
|
| Title: Re: Mass of Light -- OLD MAN Read |
10 Apr 2006 08:52:31 PM |
|
|
On Mon, 10 Apr 2006 15:24:22 -0700, "FrediFizzx"
<fredifizzx@hotmail.com> wrote:
| You're kidding. Everyone knows that mass comes in two flavors:
| impractical and practical. ahahaha...
Sheesh... Didn't you know that?
Sure. I also knew that dimensions can be curled up into tiny fucking
little balls and that one can use a wormhole (Thorne) or twisted light
(Mallett) to travel back in time and have sex with one's forebears.
ahahaha...
| >| My favorite so far is this on from fuzzy Fizzie: An electron is a
| >| massless particle traveling at c within a closed double helix.
| >| ahahaha... OK. ahahaha... Right.
| >
| >Guess what, you freakin' moronic jackass; nobody cares about what you
| >think or have to say. ;-) It's simply a different kind of string
| >theory with longer strings.
Are you saying that your string is longer than Brian Greene's and
Michio Kaku's string? ahahaha... I've seen relativists compare their
relative ***** size before but I had never heard of anybody compare
their string lengths before. ahahaha...
| Did you know that one of the chief champions of sring theory is Brian
| "superstring" Greene, the time travel believing crackpot from Columbia
| university? ahahaha... AHAHAHA... ahahaha...
And this has what to do with the Hubius Helix string concept?
I got your Hubius Helix hanging. ahahaha...
Absolutely nuttin'. I told you that you still don't "get it".
Of course I don't get it and I don't plan to. I got other plans.
Sorry.
| Personally I would prefer a "bean" theory of the universe. Beans are
| so much cuter than strings. ahahaha...
Cool, man! Let's see your "bean" theory of an electron. We can start
simple. ;-)
Is your bean bigger than Hawking's atrophied bean? Somehow I doubt it.
ahahaha... AHAHAHA... ahahaha...
Making phun of "physicists" is so much phucking phun. ahahaha...
Louis Savain
Why Software Is Bad and What We Can Do to Fix It:
http://www.rebelscience.org/Cosas/Reliability.htm
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Old Man" |
|
| Title: Re: Mass of Light -- OLD MAN Read |
10 Apr 2006 09:30:01 PM |
|
|
"hanson" <hanson@quick.net> wrote in message
news:GBw_f.4747$8g3.1125@trnddc02...
Jako Epke aka "Old Man" <nomail@nomail.net> wrote in message
news:9YidnTjQ6MQ9PKvZnZ2dnUVZ_uWdnZ2d@prairiewave.com...
[Jako]
A single photon has no rest mass. A system of two or more photons,
such as that of "light" or that of an electromagnetic wave, can have rest
mass. In the center-of-momentum, the rest mass energy is equal to the
system's total energy. One cannot define a center-of-momentum for
a single photon. In the language of physics, "particle" doesn't imply
"mass".
[hanson]
Jako, it is good to have you back and it is interesting to see that
nobody responded to your statement, ... ahahahaha...
So, I wish you would elaborate on it because if a single photon
doesn't have rest mass but two or more do so, when being described
as a system, then where does that rest-mass of the rest-mass-energy
come from?... and what does this rest mass of the rest-mass-energy
represent?... especially if "mass" does not imply "particle" in the
language of physics.
hanson
Greetings hanson
"rest-mass" isn't necessarily associated with "matter". A diverging
light beam has rest mass, the center of which travels at less than the
speed of the photons that makeup the beam. There's no "matter'
there; no need to explain "where does the rest mass come from".
If the energy density of the diverging beam is E, then its momentum
density, p, is less than E / c. Explicitly,
p^2 = ( E / c )^2 - ( m c )^2
Where m is the beam's rest mass density. The beam's rest mass
density is invariant WRT observer reference frame.
The observer can overtake the beam's center-of-mass. He can travel
with it. Think about it.
[Old Man]
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Related Articles |
|
|
