On Jul 11, 12:07*am, Mitch Raemsch
wrote:
Light does not have any kinetic energy. None of its mass comes from
its constant motion therefore it does not behave like matter. Light's
mass comes from the energy of its frequency. Matters additional mass
comes from its motion.

Light has no kinetic energy? Then how does it generate enough force to
float a glass sphere or collapse a mylar satellite?

No dual Nobel prizes for you THIS year!

moron.
(uncle Al made me do it!)

In sci.physics.relativity, Benj

wrote
on Thu, 10 Jul 2008 23:40:36 -0700 (PDT)
:
On Jul 11, 12:07*am, Mitch Raemsch
wrote:
Light does not have any kinetic energy. None of its mass comes from
its constant motion therefore it does not behave like matter. Light's
mass comes from the energy of its frequency. Matters additional mass
comes from its motion.

Light has no kinetic energy? Then how does it generate enough force to
float a glass sphere or collapse a mylar satellite?

No dual Nobel prizes for you THIS year!

moron.
(uncle Al made me do it!)

Not to belabor the obvious, but light is also known to:

[1] spin vanes in an evacuated globe (a radiometer).
[2] eject electrons from a sensitive surface (photoelectric effect).
[3] heat things; granted, this one might be explained by
thermal rather than kinetic, but what is thermal but a
submicroscopic jiggle?
[4] wiggle electrons in a coil or antenna, feeding an amplifier.
Granted, that one might be explained by magnetic or electric,
rather than kinetic.

In any event, I'm not sure mass comes from anything; it just is. ;-)
Though the Big Bang might be a good explanation as to where mass "comes
from".

--
#191,
Useless C/C++ Programming Idea #12398234:
void f(char *p) {char *q = strdup(p); strcpy(p,q);}
** Posted from http://www.teranews.com **

"The Ghost In The Machine" wrote in message
...
| In sci.physics.relativity, Benj
|
| wrote
| on Thu, 10 Jul 2008 23:40:36 -0700 (PDT)
| :
| On Jul 11, 12:07 am, Mitch Raemsch
| wrote:
| Light does not have any kinetic energy. None of its mass comes from
| its constant motion therefore it does not behave like matter. Light's
| mass comes from the energy of its frequency. Matters additional mass
| comes from its motion.
|
| Light has no kinetic energy? Then how does it generate enough force to
| float a glass sphere or collapse a mylar satellite?
|
| No dual Nobel prizes for you THIS year!
|
| moron.
| (uncle Al made me do it!)
|
| Not to belabor the obvious, but light is also known to:
|
| [1] spin vanes in an evacuated globe (a radiometer).
| [2] eject electrons from a sensitive surface (photoelectric effect).
| [3] heat things; granted, this one might be explained by
| thermal rather than kinetic, but what is thermal but a
| submicroscopic jiggle?
| [4] wiggle electrons in a coil or antenna, feeding an amplifier.
| Granted, that one might be explained by magnetic or electric,
| rather than kinetic.

[5] Not heavy.
[6] Watered down beer. http://www.coorslight.com/


| In any event, I'm not sure mass comes from anything; it just is. ;-)
| Though the Big Bang might be a good explanation as to where mass "comes
| from".

Yeah, and Santa Claus might be a really, really good explanation where
Christmas "comes from". Not that I'd believe that either...

"Benj" wrote in message
...
On Jul 11, 12:07 am, Mitch Raemsch
wrote:
Light does not have any kinetic energy. None of its mass comes from
its constant motion therefore it does not behave like matter. Light's
mass comes from the energy of its frequency. Matters additional mass
comes from its motion.

Light has no kinetic energy? Then how does it generate enough force to
float a glass sphere or collapse a mylar satellite?

The energy of light is actually considered to be all kinetic.

Pete

"The Ghost In The Machine" wrote in message
...
In sci.physics.relativity, Benj

wrote
on Thu, 10 Jul 2008 23:40:36 -0700 (PDT)
:
On Jul 11, 12:07 am, Mitch Raemsch
wrote:
Light does not have any kinetic energy. None of its mass comes from
its constant motion therefore it does not behave like matter. Light's
mass comes from the energy of its frequency. Matters additional mass
comes from its motion.

Light has no kinetic energy? Then how does it generate enough force to
float a glass sphere or collapse a mylar satellite?

No dual Nobel prizes for you THIS year!

moron.
(uncle Al made me do it!)

Not to belabor the obvious, but light is also known to:

[1] spin vanes in an evacuated globe (a radiometer).

That is incorrect. It is heat that does that, i.e. one side of the vane is
black while the other is relfective. The black side heats up and thus heat
up the air inside the globe (the globe is not completely evacuated contrary
to your assumption). If the globe were completely evacuated the friction
from the spindal would over come the extremely small force of the light.
This is all easily confirmed by noting that the vane spins in a direction
which is opposite to what it would if the torque was due to radiation
pressure.


[2] eject electrons from a sensitive surface (photoelectric effect).
[3] heat things; granted, this one might be explained by
thermal rather than kinetic, but what is thermal but a
submicroscopic jiggle?
[4] wiggle electrons in a coil or antenna, feeding an amplifier.
Granted, that one might be explained by magnetic or electric,
rather than kinetic.

In any event, I'm not sure mass comes from anything; it just is. ;-)
Though the Big Bang might be a good explanation as to where mass "comes
from".

Inertial mass is what gives a particle momentum and its momentum which
causes radiation pressure.

Pete

On Jul 11, 7:40*am, Benj wrote:
On Jul 11, 12:07*am, Mitch Raemsch
wrote:

Light does not have any kinetic energy. None of its mass comes from
its constant motion therefore it does not behave like matter. Light's
mass comes from the energy of its frequency. Matters additional mass
comes from its motion.

Light has no kinetic energy? Then how does it generate enough force to
float a glass sphere or collapse a mylar satellite?

No dual Nobel prizes for you THIS year!

moron.
(uncle Al made me do it!)

In the interests of good digestion, I won't ask you *what* he made you
do.

On Jul 11, 9:00*am, "Pmb" wrote:
"Benj" wrote in message

...
On Jul 11, 12:07 am, Mitch Raemsch
wrote:

Light does not have any kinetic energy. None of its mass comes from
its constant motion therefore it does not behave like matter. Light's
mass comes from the energy of its frequency. Matters additional mass
comes from its motion.

Light has no kinetic energy? Then how does it generate enough force to
float a glass sphere or collapse a mylar satellite?

The energy of light is actually considered to be all kinetic.

Pete

Pete, that statement is just a little broad in my opinion. Kinetic
Energy in physics is regarded as the energy associated with mass in
motion.

With electromagnetic radiation, such as light, often no mass is
present in the energy transmission so by fundamental definition, light
is not kindetic energy.

I know, just a nit. Sure I know, electromagnetic radiation has
momentum, but that does no imply that it has mass, hence it is not to
a physicist kinetic energy.

Watch out for the formal definitions of terms. If you are unaware of
them, they can screw you on every turn! :-)

Still, I like your posts which are usually right on the money.

Harry C.

On Jul 11, 9:04*am, "Pmb" wrote:
"The Ghost In The Machine" wrote in ...





In sci.physics.relativity, Benj

wrote
on Thu, 10 Jul 2008 23:40:36 -0700 (PDT)
:
On Jul 11, 12:07 am, Mitch Raemsch
wrote:
Light does not have any kinetic energy. None of its mass comes from
its constant motion therefore it does not behave like matter. Light's
mass comes from the energy of its frequency. Matters additional mass
comes from its motion.

Light has no kinetic energy? Then how does it generate enough force to
float a glass sphere or collapse a mylar satellite?

No dual Nobel prizes for you THIS year!

moron.
(uncle Al made me do it!)

Not to belabor the obvious, but light is also known to:

[1] spin vanes in an evacuated globe (a radiometer).

That is incorrect. It is heat that does that, i.e. one side of the vane is
black while the other is relfective. The black side heats up and thus heat
up the air inside the globe (the globe is not completely evacuated contrary
to your assumption). If the globe were completely evacuated the friction
from the spindal would over come the extremely small force of the light.
This is all easily confirmed by noting that the vane spins in a direction
which is opposite to what it would if the torque was due to radiation
pressure.

Absolutely correct!

Snip.

In any event, I'm not sure mass comes from anything; it just is. ;-)
Though the Big Bang might be a good explanation as to where mass "comes
from".

Inertial mass is what gives a particle momentum and its momentum which
causes radiation pressure.

Pete, here you are combining apples and oranges and arriving at in
incorrect explanation.

Your error is that you are mixing particles (where you are absolutely
correct) with photons which ACT in some cases like particles, but in
relaity of electromagnetic waves.

The fact is that electromagnetic waves sometimes seem to act like
particles (the photoelectric effect), while accelererated partcles
(say protons) have as associate De Broglie wavelenth depending on
their energy.

Both accelerated particles and photons have wave properties, and while
both acclerated particles and photons have momentum, particles have
mass while photons have none. This is an enigma that troubled even
Dr. Einstein. So don't look to Usenet for an explanation.

So here is the basic enigma. Because since Maxwell, science has been
able to understand how electromagnetic radiation travels through to
void of mass free space, and though the vacuum.

Now in my ignorance, I am going to throw out a hypothesis that I
believe could be correct. So please SPACEMAN, please pardon me for
this. Now tested SR demonstrates and shows that particles increase
with mass as their energy increases, is it much of a stretch to assume
that the apararent mass of a photon is that of its energy content?
You know, the E = Mc^2 thing that we all learned in highschool
physics.

It works for me, although I am not familiar with the experimental
physics that supports such a contention. Actually, it seems to be to
be rather basic.

Still, it is important for a lay reader here to understand that as a
physicist, I employ a great deal of logicial and mathematical
abstraction, and am sophisticated enough to not regard these as
reality. Still, mathematical abstractions can be very useful,
particularly when supported by experimental evidence. That doesn't
mean that they are reality, and this is something that lay readers
sometimes have trouble in comprehending.

Reality is something that only exists in our minds, in itself an
abstract concept. What we accept as seeing is a coordinately
collection of diffraction patterns, which out mind correlates into an
image which we accept as fact. Keep that in mind. Absolute reality is
very difficult to see.

'Nuff said.

Harry C.





Pete- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

wrote in message
...
On Jul 11, 9:00 am, "Pmb" wrote:
"Benj" wrote in message

...
On Jul 11, 12:07 am, Mitch Raemsch
wrote:

Light does not have any kinetic energy. None of its mass comes from
its constant motion therefore it does not behave like matter. Light's
mass comes from the energy of its frequency. Matters additional mass
comes from its motion.

Light has no kinetic energy? Then how does it generate enough force to
float a glass sphere or collapse a mylar satellite?

The energy of light is actually considered to be all kinetic.

Pete

Pete, that statement is just a little broad in my opinion. Kinetic
Energy in physics is regarded as the energy associated with mass in
motion.

Well that's how it is whether we like it or not. It comes from the relation
E = K + E_0 where E = total inertial mass, K = kinetic energy and E_0 =
m_0c^2 = rest energy. Since m_0 = 0 it follows that E_0 = 0 and thus E = K.

The inertial mass of light is therefore E = K = mc^2 or m = K/c^2 = E/c^2

With electromagnetic radiation, such as light, often no mass is
present in the energy transmission so by fundamental definition, light
is not kindetic energy.

Actually I was speaking of photons but I'd hazard to guess that it holds in
general. But there is no reason to claim that there is no kinetic energy in
light since the kinetic energy is, by definition, the total energy minus the
rest energy. Since the rest energy is zero it follows that the total energy
is kinetic energy. If you disagree then please find a valid relativity
source in which kinetic energy is defined differently in relativity and
quote that reference.

Note: Proper mass = 0 does not mean that inertial mass = p/v is nonzero.

I know, just a nit. Sure I know, electromagnetic radiation has
momentum, but that does no imply that it has mass, hence it is not to
a physicist kinetic energy.

Actually it sure does - by definition! Inertial mass (*not* rest mass) is
the ratio of |momentum| to speed.

Watch out for the formal definitions of terms. If you are unaware of
them, they can screw you on every turn! :-)

I'm always aware of formal definitions and I've yet to see a *rigid* formal
definition fail.

Still, I like your posts which are usually right on the money.

Thanks!

Pete

wrote in message
...
On Jul 11, 9:04 am, "Pmb" wrote:
"The Ghost In The Machine" wrote in
...





In sci.physics.relativity, Benj

wrote
on Thu, 10 Jul 2008 23:40:36 -0700 (PDT)
:
On Jul 11, 12:07 am, Mitch Raemsch
wrote:
Light does not have any kinetic energy. None of its mass comes from
its constant motion therefore it does not behave like matter. Light's
mass comes from the energy of its frequency. Matters additional mass
comes from its motion.

Light has no kinetic energy? Then how does it generate enough force to
float a glass sphere or collapse a mylar satellite?

No dual Nobel prizes for you THIS year!

moron.
(uncle Al made me do it!)

Not to belabor the obvious, but light is also known to:

[1] spin vanes in an evacuated globe (a radiometer).

That is incorrect. It is heat that does that, i.e. one side of the vane is
black while the other is relfective. The black side heats up and thus heat
up the air inside the globe (the globe is not completely evacuated
contrary
to your assumption). If the globe were completely evacuated the friction
from the spindal would over come the extremely small force of the light.
This is all easily confirmed by noting that the vane spins in a direction
which is opposite to what it would if the torque was due to radiation
pressure.

Absolutely correct!

Snip.

In any event, I'm not sure mass comes from anything; it just is. ;-)
Though the Big Bang might be a good explanation as to where mass "comes
from".

Inertial mass is what gives a particle momentum and its momentum which
causes radiation pressure.

Pete, here you are combining apples and oranges and arriving at in
incorrect explanation.
-------------------------
I was explaining to the poster that light can have mass due to its momentum.
That seemed to be what he was talking about.

Your error is that you are mixing particles (where you are absolutely
correct) with photons which ACT in some cases like particles, but in
relaity of electromagnetic waves.

What error are you referring to? And why do you not consider a photon to be
a particle?

The fact is that electromagnetic waves sometimes seem to act like
particles (the photoelectric effect), while accelererated partcles
(say protons) have as associate De Broglie wavelenth depending on
their energy.

Both accelerated particles and photons have wave properties, and while
both acclerated particles and photons have momentum, particles have
mass while photons have none. This is an enigma that troubled even
Dr. Einstein. So don't look to Usenet for an explanation.

Depends on what you mean when you use the term "mass". It has two different
meanings depending on who is using it. I try to use the term "inertial mass"
so as to not confuse it with "proper mass" (aka rest mass). Inertial mass is
defined as the ratio of the magnitude of momentum to speed. Thus, that which
has momentum and moves will have inertial mass (but not neccesarily proper
mass)

So here is the basic enigma. Because since Maxwell, science has been
able to understand how electromagnetic radiation travels through to
void of mass free space, and though the vacuum.

Now in my ignorance, I am going to throw out a hypothesis that I
believe could be correct. So please SPACEMAN, please pardon me for
this. Now tested SR demonstrates and shows that particles increase
with mass as their energy increases, ...

That is only true if by "mass" you are referring to "inertial mass" which is
defined as m = p/v. According to your own usage of the term, a photon has
inertial mass.

is it much of a stretch to assume
that the apararent mass of a photon is that of its energy content?

Why do you call it "apparent mass" and not do the same with the velocity
dependant mass that you spoke of above?

You know, the E = Mc^2 thing that we all learned in highschool
physics.

It works for me, although I am not familiar with the experimental
physics that supports such a contention. Actually, it seems to be to
be rather basic.

Still, it is important for a lay reader here to understand that as a
physicist, I employ a great deal of logicial and mathematical
abstraction, and am sophisticated enough to not regard these as
reality. Still, mathematical abstractions can be very useful,
particularly when supported by experimental evidence. That doesn't
mean that they are reality, and this is something that lay readers
sometimes have trouble in comprehending.

Reality is something that only exists in our minds, in itself an
abstract concept. What we accept as seeing is a coordinately
collection of diffraction patterns, which out mind correlates into an
image which we accept as fact. Keep that in mind. Absolute reality is
very difficult to see.

Reality bugs me. LOL!

Pete