(Gauge) wrote in message . com...
"Zarkovic" wrote in message news:_fQsb.384619$9l5.370470@pd7tw2no...
Thanks guys, by the way, EMR=electro-magnetic radiation.

I just came across another referance on relativistic mass.

And yet there is another one. This one touches on this debate.

"The mass of a gas of massless photons," H. Kolbenstcedt, Am. J. Phys.
63(1), Jan (1995)
------------------------------------------------------------------
Consider a hollow body, e.g., a hot oven, and assume that its cavity
is filled with radiation of total energy U. According to Einstein's
mass-energy formula, the radiation contributes ot the mass of the body
an amount

(1) dM = U/c^2

where c is the velocity of light
If the radiation is considered as a gas of photons, and a photon of
energy E_i has a mass of

(2) m_i = E/c^2

the mass dM is naturally explained as the sum of the individual photon
masses.
However, most current textbooks have adopted the convention that
photons are particles of mass m = 0 fulfilling the relation

(3) E = mc = hv

bewteen energy E, momentum p, and frequency v. How, then, can one
render it plausible that a collection of such particles makes a finite
contribution when they are trapped in a cavity?
[explains invariant mass]
We demonstrate here an alternative to the two aforementioned methods
based, respectively, on photon mass and invariant mass.
------------------------------------------------------------------

Interesting article. I highly recommend it.

Pmb

Subject: Relativistic mass of EMR particles/waves
From: (Gauge)
Date: 11/14/03 8:10 AM US Mountain Standard Time
Message-id:

(WaiteDavid137) wrote [flame]

When waite is unable to find an error in a web page of mine he calls
it a crank site. That is the reason he has always been unable to find
an error besides typos


No, you know I've explained to you corrections behind very many of your
conceptual and mathematical errors as well as caught mistakes in what you often
try to copy. Instead of continuing correcting them I just decided to let you
keep all the mistakes without any more correction so people will see more
easily for themselves what a rediculously flawed crank site you've built. I
don't mind you looking like the fool you are. So instead I just tell people its
a crank site and point out where to look for the correct physics.

On Fri, 14 Nov 2003 03:21:38 -0800, Gauge wrote:

Jeff Krimmel wrote [flame]

Why do you constantly act so childsish with these responses?

I'm not the one begging people not to pay attention to other posters, or
consistently acting like a seven year old whining about people picking on
me.

You're a grown man. Act like it.

Jeff

--
Add an underscore between 'd' and 's' for email.

(WaiteDavid137) wrote [more pathetic lies]


Dude you're so full of **** that I can smell it up here on Boston's
North Shore.

You should be ashamed of yourself for posting so many lies. But then
again you'd have to really understand relativity before you were aware
how dumb your claims are

"Zarkovic" wrote in message news:_fQsb.384619$9l5.370470@pd7tw2no...

Thanks guys, by the way, EMR=electro-magnetic radiation.

Hi guys.

HI, I've read through the thread before posting.

From a person by the posting name of Bilge, I copied this part of the
conversation: "photon has relativistic mass m =hf/c^2."
My apologies for the ignorance, what exactly does relativistic mass mean?

Before relativity the laws of conservation of mass and
conservation of energy were separate. A great
achievement of relativity was to unify these laws.
This resulted in the famous relation E_o=m_o c^2,
(E_o and m_o are rest energy and mass respectively).

Because of the equivalence of mass and energy, it
stands to reason that the *kinetic energy* of a moving
object may also be equated to a measure of mass.
The sum of this *kinetic mass* (=kinetic energy/c^2)
+ the rest mass is the so-called relativistic mass.
I agree with most other posters that this quantity is
most accurately termed the *invariant energy*.

Does this mean that if photon was not traveling, it would no have mass, or
does this mean that regardless of whether or not it's moving, it has as you
guys call it relativistic mass?

When a photon is absorbed it is brought to rest, and
provides an energy E=hf, so we should call this the
rest energy of the photon.
This rest energy depends on how the absorber is
moving relative to the source due to Doppler effects.

Sorry again, but for years I could never get
why a wave/particle such as those of the EMR do not have mass, how could
they then have energy and so on.

A good question. You know anything moving at the
speed of light transforms the units of cm, grams, secs
to 0, oo, 0. (length =0, mass= infinite, time=0), so it is
useless to consider a photon in terms of units.
Instead only invariants apply.
Consider Plancks Equation E=hf, and call

frequency = N cycles/sec.

In this definition of frequency, N is a pure number.

The rest energy of a photon is ,

E_o = h*N/t

assuming the rest energy = covariant energy E_0
then an invariant energy is h*N, if the contravariant
component is E^0 = h*N*t by the relation,

e^2 = invariant energy = E_0 E^0

This is somewhat subjective, but the required
invariant energy of the photon becomes,

e = h*N. (c=1).

This invariant becomes actualized, (measured)
only when the photon is absorbed into some
system, then components of vector e are projected
onto some mass and the energy increment can be
recorded. (this is the process of vision).

Now I kind of got used to the fact that
this is true, yet could someone please explain the concept to me of
relativistic mass of the EMR particles/waves and so on, and do particles
alone have relativistic mass, and what about the waves alone as well.

I think your question concerns a Generally Relativistic
solution to Quantum Mechanics, and Wave Mechanics.

That's a neat question. It appears the mathematicians
cannot solve the problem generally, and the physicists
cannot solve the problem specifically from any general
solution , ie. the specific solution requires boundaries
because there is no general solution.

Regards
Ken S. Tucker

(Gauge) wrote in message . com...
(WaiteDavid137) wrote [more pathetic lies]


Dude you're so full of **** that I can smell it up here on Boston's
North Shore.

You better change your diapers.