| Topic: |
Science > Physics |
| User: |
"Nick" |
| Date: |
26 Mar 2005 05:42:52 PM |
| Object: |
Only Some Energy Has Mass?. |
The promoters of - massless - photons must explain this.
Why would there be an exception?
You would have two different ways to apply E=mc^2 then
instead of one.
Can't do it.
.
|
|
| User: "Bilge" |
|
| Title: Re: Only Some Energy Has Mass?. |
27 Mar 2005 06:23:30 AM |
|
|
Nick:
The promoters of - massless - photons must explain this.
Why would there be an exception?
Are you stoned or just stupid?
.
|
|
|
| User: "Morituri-|-Max" |
|
| Title: Re: Only Some Energy Has Mass?. |
27 Mar 2005 01:07:47 PM |
|
|
"Bilge" <dubious@radioactivex.lebesque-al.net> wrote in message
news:slrnd4dfka.n0h.dubious@radioactivex.lebesque-al.net...
Nick:
The promoters of - massless - photons must explain this.
Why would there be an exception?
Are you stoned or just stupid?
First he was stupid, THEN he got stoned.
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Fred Chen" |
|
| Title: Re: Only Some Energy Has Mass?. |
26 Mar 2005 11:55:40 PM |
|
|
"Massless" means the photon has no REST mass. An electron or proton
does have rest mass.
But for either case, gravitational mass would be E/c^2.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: Only Some Energy Has Mass?. |
05 Apr 2005 10:10:40 AM |
|
|
"Nick" <macromitch@yahoo.com> wrote in message news:<1111880572.120179.324550@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com>...
The promoters of - massless - photons must explain this.
Why would there be an exception?
[snip snap]
Why would there not? What makes you think mass is so important
anyway? Before you demand explanations of how massless things
can exist, you need to explain what importance mass has.
Actually, mass is the special case. Most things that carry energy
or momentum are massless.
Socks
.
|
|
|
| User: "Nick" |
|
| Title: Re: Only Some Energy Has Mass?. |
05 Apr 2005 03:43:30 PM |
|
|
wrote:
"Nick" <macromitch@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:<1111880572.120179.324550@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com>...
The promoters of - massless - photons must explain this.
Why would there be an exception?
[snip snap]
Why would there not? What makes you think mass is so important
anyway? Before you demand explanations of how massless things
can exist, you need to explain what importance mass has.
Actually, mass is the special case. Most things that carry energy
or momentum are massless.
Socks
Thats nutty.
Having momentum does not mean something is massless.
Neither does having energy. There is no special case Socks.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Bilge" |
|
| Title: Re: Only Some Energy Has Mass?. |
06 Apr 2005 06:09:13 AM |
|
|
Nick:
puppet_sock@hotmail.com wrote:
"Nick" <macromitch@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:<1111880572.120179.324550@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com>...
The promoters of - massless - photons must explain this.
Why would there be an exception?
[snip snap]
Why would there not? What makes you think mass is so important
anyway? Before you demand explanations of how massless things
can exist, you need to explain what importance mass has.
Actually, mass is the special case. Most things that carry energy
or momentum are massless.
Socks
Thats nutty.
Having momentum does not mean something is massless.
Neither does having energy. There is no special case Socks.
You're a special case, since I'm not sure anyone else is
as oblivious as you are.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Puppet_Sock" |
|
| Title: Re: Only Some Energy Has Mass?. |
05 Apr 2005 04:47:38 PM |
|
|
Nick wrote:
puppet_sock@hotmail.com wrote:
"Nick" <macromitch@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:<1111880572.120179.324550@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com>...
The promoters of - massless - photons must explain this.
Why would there be an exception?
[snip snap]
Why would there not? What makes you think mass is so important
anyway? Before you demand explanations of how massless things
can exist, you need to explain what importance mass has.
Actually, mass is the special case. Most things that carry energy
or momentum are massless.
Socks
Thats nutty.
No, that's reality. Most things that carry momentum are photons.
That's because most things are photons.
Having momentum does not mean something is massless.
Neither does having energy. There is no special case Socks.
Nor does it make it have mass. You have not yet explained
why mass is required in the first place. Photons do quite
handily without it, and they are by far the majority.
Boggling is not an argument.
You don't even show any evidence of knowing what mass is.
Come along then, what is mass?
Socks
.
|
|
|
| User: "Nick" |
|
| Title: Re: Only Some Energy Has Mass?. |
05 Apr 2005 05:15:39 PM |
|
|
Puppet_Sock wrote:
Nick wrote:
puppet_sock@hotmail.com wrote:
"Nick" <macromitch@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:<1111880572.120179.324550@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com>...
The promoters of - massless - photons must explain this.
Why would there be an exception?
[snip snap]
Why would there not? What makes you think mass is so important
anyway? Before you demand explanations of how massless things
can exist, you need to explain what importance mass has.
Actually, mass is the special case. Most things that carry energy
or momentum are massless.
Socks
Thats nutty.
No, that's reality. Most things that carry momentum are photons.
That's because most things are photons.
I mean most different things. Photons are only one thing.
Why would they be the exception?
.
|
|
|
| User: "Bilge" |
|
| Title: Re: Only Some Energy Has Mass?. |
06 Apr 2005 06:12:54 AM |
|
|
Nick:
Puppet_Sock wrote:
Nick wrote:
puppet_sock@hotmail.com wrote:
"Nick" <macromitch@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:<1111880572.120179.324550@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com>...
The promoters of - massless - photons must explain this.
Why would there be an exception?
[snip snap]
Why would there not? What makes you think mass is so important
anyway? Before you demand explanations of how massless things
can exist, you need to explain what importance mass has.
Actually, mass is the special case. Most things that carry energy
or momentum are massless.
Socks
Thats nutty.
No, that's reality. Most things that carry momentum are photons.
That's because most things are photons.
I mean most different things. Photons are only one thing.
Why would they be the exception?
Since you are really too stuoid to understand just how silly your
argument is, we can clear up your misconception regarding a special
case real easily. Gluons are massless. There are eight different
gluons. Therefore, that idiotic phrase you parrot has been demonstrated
to be wrong in addition to being stupid.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Mark Martin" |
|
| Title: Re: Only Some Energy Has Mass?. |
05 Apr 2005 05:29:22 PM |
|
|
Nick wrote:
I mean most different things. Photons are only one thing.
Why would they be the exception?
Well, why would any two things be different from one another? Why
are there different things in different places at different times? Mass
is not the be-all & end-all of quantal objects. It's like when you buy
a car. There are standard features, and there are options. Intrinsic
mass doesn't come standard. It's an option.
-Mark Martin
.
|
|
|
| User: "Nick" |
|
| Title: Re: Only Some Energy Has Mass?. |
05 Apr 2005 05:42:09 PM |
|
|
Why would only some forms of energy
have mass when all forms of mass are energy?
.
|
|
|
| User: "Mark Martin" |
|
| Title: Re: Only Some Energy Has Mass?. |
05 Apr 2005 05:50:32 PM |
|
|
Nick wrote:
Why would only some forms of energy
have mass when all forms of mass are energy?
All [A] are also [B]. Not all [B] are also [A].
-Mark Martin
.
|
|
|
| User: "Nick" |
|
| Title: Re: Only Some Energy Has Mass?. |
05 Apr 2005 06:21:21 PM |
|
|
But why?
.
|
|
|
| User: "Morituri-|-Max" |
|
| Title: Re: Only Some Energy Has Mass?. |
06 Apr 2005 02:23:30 AM |
|
|
"Nick" <macromitch@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1112743281.357075.273570@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
But why?
Why not?
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: Only Some Energy Has Mass?. |
06 Apr 2005 07:58:59 AM |
|
|
In article <1112743281.357075.273570@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>, "Nick" <macromitch@yahoo.com> writes:
But why?
Because that's what experiment tells us. "Why?" is a question of
metaphysics, not of physics.
John Briggs
.
|
|
|
| User: "Y.Porat" |
|
| Title: Re: Only Some Energy Has Mass?. |
06 Apr 2005 10:31:07 AM |
|
|
that is not waht experiment tell
that is your interpretation to th eexperiment.
you take it for granted that anything that moves in C has no mass
but that 'granted' is not granted.
it didnt ocure to the long live parrots
that light is an EXCEPTION to the common rule-
a special case
so difficlult to get it ???
anything physical entity that can be sensed
has mass
not to mention the cases that this entity
HAS MOMENTUM
mometum is mC !!
what is that 'm' doing there !!!!
Y.Porat
----------------------
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Mark Martin" |
|
| Title: Re: Only Some Energy Has Mass?. |
05 Apr 2005 08:31:18 PM |
|
|
Nick wrote:
But why?
It depends on exactly what mass is. It's been explained to you that
a hot contender is the Higgs field. But this is nowhere near being
either demonstrated or falsified. What's known for sure is how things
behave when they do or don't possess mass. Photons behave masslessly.
We don't necessarily know for sure yet what mass really amounts to. But
we do have the observations that prompt us to ask what mass is in the
first place. Not all answers are known at this time. If they were, no
one would be doing any science. We'd just be putting on the hooded
robes and burning incense.
And once again, this has all been explained to you a number of times
recently. You are making yourself an example of inertia.
-Mark Martin
.
|
|
|
| User: "Nick" |
|
| Title: Re: Only Some Energy Has Mass?. |
05 Apr 2005 08:56:37 PM |
|
|
Why is light the exception?
.
|
|
|
| User: "Morituri-|-Max" |
|
| Title: Re: Only Some Energy Has Mass?. |
06 Apr 2005 02:24:15 AM |
|
|
"Nick" <macromitch@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1112752597.703627.160080@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
Why is light the exception?
Why not?
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Y.Porat" |
|
| Title: Re: Only Some Energy Has Mass?. |
06 Apr 2005 02:01:48 AM |
|
|
becaue it has mass
and can move with th e speed C! (:-)
why the hell people are so stiff minded??
where is creativity gone ????
it is in conradiction to some of your theory???
than fix the fucken theory!!!
------------------------
Y.Porat
----------------------
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "PD" |
|
| Title: Re: Only Some Energy Has Mass?. |
06 Apr 2005 04:02:39 PM |
|
|
Nick wrote:
Puppet_Sock wrote:
Nick wrote:
puppet_sock@hotmail.com wrote:
"Nick" <macromitch@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:<1111880572.120179.324550@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com>...
The promoters of - massless - photons must explain this.
Why would there be an exception?
[snip snap]
Why would there not? What makes you think mass is so important
anyway? Before you demand explanations of how massless things
can exist, you need to explain what importance mass has.
Actually, mass is the special case. Most things that carry
energy
or momentum are massless.
Socks
Thats nutty.
No, that's reality. Most things that carry momentum are photons.
That's because most things are photons.
I mean most different things. Photons are only one thing.
Why would they be the exception?
This comes from trying to shoehorn reality into the model rather than
the model into reality. You have in your head that momentum is mass
times velocity, without recognizing that there is *nothing* in that
definition other than its utility as a predictive tool for nature. In
*most* cases, if you add up the momenta of the components of a closed
system using m*v, then you will find out (experimentally) the
tremendously useful result that -- no matter what happens internal to
the system -- the total momentum obtained from that sum will end up
being constant. However, there is nothing magical about that
"definition" other than the fact that it works. There is nothing a
priori natural about this definition of momentum that makes it stand
out above other possible candidates.
Then, as it turns out, this "definition" of momentum only works well
for a system of massive objects all traveling at velocities much
smaller than the speed of light. Loosen the restriction either on the
mass or on the speed, and you find out that this "definition" begins to
lose its shine, as the sum no longer stays invariant in a closed
system. Which means that mass times velocity is not really a
definition, but a useful approximation. Is there something that works
better and still is invariant in a closed system? Yes, and it isn't
mass times velocity.
What's nutty and not nutty is purely a function of your prejudices.
What is right and what is wrong is determined *completely* by
experiment, by matching prediction to reality.
The question "why" is motivated by prejudices, just as would be asking
why penguins cannot fly, if motivated by the prejudice that all birds
should fly. Well, not all birds fly, and penguins are indeed birds. In
this case, as in that one, it's the assumption that all birds should
fly that is wrong, not that penguins do not fly.
PD
.
|
|
|
| User: "Nick" |
|
| Title: Re: Only Some Energy Has Mass?. |
06 Apr 2005 06:21:27 PM |
|
|
The question of why is central to cause.
Why does Only Some Energy Has Mass?
All you can do PD is proclaim that there is something wrong
with the question that you can't answer!!!
Tah.Tah
.
|
|
|
| User: "Morituri-|-Max" |
|
| Title: Re: Only Some Energy Has Mass?. |
07 Apr 2005 12:30:43 AM |
|
|
"Nick" <macromitch@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1112829687.181871.11640@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
All you can do PD is proclaim that there is something wrong
with the question that you can't answer!!!
And all you can do is play word games to make yourself feel better.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Mark Martin" |
|
| Title: Re: Only Some Energy Has Mass?. |
06 Apr 2005 06:33:05 PM |
|
|
Nick wrote:
The question of why is central to cause.
Why does Only Some Energy Has Mass?
All you can do PD is proclaim that there is something wrong
with the question that you can't answer!!!
Tah.Tah
You know what Nick? It's about time you coughed up the goods. Please
explain lucidly what *you* mean by mass. It's pretty pointless to
continue this otherwise.
-Mark Martin
.
|
|
|
| User: "Nick" |
|
| Title: Re: Only Some Energy Has Mass?. |
06 Apr 2005 06:59:22 PM |
|
|
"Mass and energy are but different manifestations of the same thing."
Albert Einstein
.
|
|
|
| User: "Mark Martin" |
|
| Title: Re: Only Some Energy Has Mass?. |
06 Apr 2005 07:29:55 PM |
|
|
Nick wrote:
"Mass and energy are but different manifestations of the same thing."
Albert Einstein
*****. That's just a string of words that you stole from someone
else. It tells me nothing of what YOU mean when you say that some class
of objects behave massively. What do you mean when you think of an
object being massive?
-Mark Martin
.
|
|
|
| User: "Nick" |
|
| Title: Re: Only Some Energy Has Mass?. |
06 Apr 2005 07:32:15 PM |
|
|
Mark Martin wrote:
Nick wrote:
"Mass and energy are but different manifestations of the same
thing."
Albert Einstein
*****. That's just a string of words that you stole from
someone
else. It tells me nothing of what YOU mean when you say that some
class
of objects behave massively. What do you mean when you think of an
object being massive?
-Mark Martin
Bull-ony.
I just quoted Einstein as it pertains to this thread!
.
|
|
|
| User: "Morituri-|-Max" |
|
| Title: Re: Only Some Energy Has Mass?. |
07 Apr 2005 12:32:19 AM |
|
|
"Nick" <macromitch@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1112833934.978882.139270@l41g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...
Bull-ony.
I just quoted Einstein as it pertains to this thread!
He asked YOU what YOU mean by mass.
Or is the only thing you can do to plagiarize other peoples words? And not
even correctly, perhaps because you don't even know WHAT to quote to answer
his question?
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Mark Martin" |
|
| Title: Re: Only Some Energy Has Mass?. |
06 Apr 2005 07:40:35 PM |
|
|
Nick wrote:
Mark Martin wrote:
Nick wrote:
"Mass and energy are but different manifestations of the same
thing."
Albert Einstein
*****. That's just a string of words that you stole from
someone
else. It tells me nothing of what YOU mean when you say that some
class
of objects behave massively. What do you mean when you think of an
object being massive?
-Mark Martin
Bull-ony.
I just quoted Einstein as it pertains to this thread!
Quoting Einstein isn't the answer. Surely you know what *YOU* mean
for an object to behave massively, as opposed to masslessly, don't you?
Do you mean to say that you're arguing against massless photons, but
you have no definition of mass in the first place?
-Mark Martin
.
|
|
|
| User: "Nick" |
|
| Title: Re: Only Some Energy Has Mass?. |
06 Apr 2005 08:09:16 PM |
|
|
You won't answer to why.
Why should I?
Touche.
My parting shot, Energy has mass.
The data is up in the air.
You can call me back when it isn't!
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Related Articles |
|
|
