tomgee wrote:

[...]

Your lack of critical thinking skills are impressive.

This guy cites *himself* a half a dozen times. What does that tell you?

Sorcerer wrote:
"tomgee" wrote in message
oups.com...
|
| Sorcerer wrote:
| "tomgee" wrote in message
| oups.com...
| | Some argue that SR state the reason a mass cannot move at c is because
| | mass increases with velocity and at c a mass would become of infinite
| | size - which is impossible. Others argue that AE never said mass
| | increases with velocity, and we all know he definitely said we can
| | increase the mass by adding heat to it. If it turned out that mass
| | does not increase with velocity, there is then no need for the photon
| | to be massless, as it can have mass and still move at c. Same for em
| | waves: they can have mass and still move at c.
|
| There is no need for a photon to have mass.
|
| There isn't even a reason for an electron to have mass.
|
| The relationship of mass to energy is one of interdependence,
| and that is a reason for particles to have mass.
|
| http://members.tripod.com/~gravitee/rules.htm
|
| See rule 1.
|
| That is Philosophy - not appropriate in this ng. Don't you
| Philosophers have your own ngs? Or are yall like the
| religious nuts who must convert somebody - anybody?

Philosophy:
a (1) : all learning exclusive of technical precepts and practical arts (2)
: the sciences and liberal arts exclusive of medicine, law, and theology a
doctor of philosophy (3) : the 4-year college course of a major seminary

b (1) archaic : PHYSICAL SCIENCE

Sir Isaac Newton was a philosopher as well as a physicist
and a mathematician. ****es you off does it, ****head?
Androcles

No, not a bit. Most everyone else but you lives in the 21st
century today. Philosophy was made to walk the plank of
the science ship centuries ago. I did not say one can not be
both philosopher and scientist; my point was that the two
disciplines function at different levels of reality and the
criterion for empirical research in science makes that the one
closer to the truth. Philosophy and religion fall into the same
category as Theoretical Physics and Metaphysics, all of
which fall much shorter of reality than do the many disciplines
that make up the field of science.

tomgee wrote:
Some argue that SR state the reason a mass cannot move at c is because
mass increases with velocity and at c a mass would become of infinite
size - which is impossible. Others argue that AE never said mass
increases with velocity, and we all know he definitely said we can
increase the mass by adding heat to it. If it turned out that mass
does not increase with velocity, there is then no need for the photon
to be massless, as it can have mass and still move at c. Same for em
waves: they can have mass and still move at c.

VERGON

It is well accepted that mass is velocity invariant. The reason the
myth of relativistic mass got started is that Einstein said
p = mv/R (where R is the Lorentz transform), It was further assumed
that R modified m as v was considered to have c as a limit.

Thus as R went to zero, m went to infinity. That was the notion, but
motion variable mass was untenable so there the matter lies --
unsolved. ( I have an answer in one of my papers)

There is a study by Paul Marmet, Kazan University, Kazan City, Russia,
posted at

http://www.newtonphysics.on.ca/magnetic/mass,html

that claims the mass of the energy of the induced field of a moving
electron is always identical to the relativistic mass calculated in SR,
and so he proposes that the mass increase attributed to an object as it
reaches higher velocities is not an increase of the mass of the object
itself, but only the mass of the energy of the field induced by the
moving electron.

VERGON

This is basically true. The mass of an electron (or any other particle)
accelerated in an accelerator increases because the em radiation
impelling it is absorbed in a non-elastic collision and thereby
increases the mass. This increase is commensurate with m/R. This excess
mass is shed when the electron experiences a change in velocity,i.e.,
deflected in a curve or experiencing bremstrahlung (breaking velocity).
It is also known as synchrotron radiation for the mass is shed as
radiation. See Einstein's second paper of 1905 in which he gives m =
L/c^2 --- L being the energy of radiation.


If his claims cannot be defeated, it means we may not
require that the photon be massless in order to move at c consistent
with the theory of mass increase with velocity increases.

My questions a

He is saying that mass is created by the electron's motion, and If
true, would that not be support for the Higgs field/particle concept?

What happens to the mass after the electron passes? Is it some kind of
temporary mass that reverts to "nothing" after the particle has passed,
similarly to the way my model predicts that real matter is created by
interacting em waves and particles, then reverts back to dark matter
particles?

VERGON

Look at my explanation and then look at yours --- and take your pick.

wrote:
tomgee wrote:
Sorcerer wrote:
"tomgee" wrote in message
oups.com...
| Some argue that SR state the reason a mass cannot move at c is because
| mass increases with velocity and at c a mass would become of infinite
| size - which is impossible. Others argue that AE never said mass
| increases with velocity, and we all know he definitely said we can
| increase the mass by adding heat to it. If it turned out that mass
| does not increase with velocity, there is then no need for the photon
| to be massless, as it can have mass and still move at c. Same for em
| waves: they can have mass and still move at c.

There is no need for a photon to have mass.

There isn't even a reason for an electron to have mass.

The relationship of mass to energy is one of interdependence,
and that is a reason for particles to have mass.

http://members.tripod.com/~gravitee/rules.htm

See rule 1.

That is Philosophy - not appropriate in this ng. Don't you
Philosophers have your own ngs? Or are yall like the
religious nuts who must convert somebody - anybody?

Do you believe that physical theories are uniquely determined by the
external world (i.e., empirical data)?

No. Experiment can only confirm or deny physical theories
(or fail in the attempt to do either one). Physical theories are
inventions of the human mind, and in the mind, anything is
possible. Logic and mathematics serve to develop theories
up to certain levels of validity, but they are both limited as to
the truth and cannot be used as proof that a theory is correct,
no matter how well they proof the tenets of a theory.

Empirical data, as proper results of experiment, offers the
best chance to get to the truth. Metaphysical theories are
such because their tenets cannot be tested by experiment, or
are such because only some of their tenets have been or can
be confirmed through experiment. As such, they are and
remain in limbo forever or until empirical data brings them - or
some parts of them - to the point where they stand closer to
the truth than the others.

Sorcerer wrote:
"tomgee" wrote in message
oups.com...
| Some argue that SR state the reason a mass cannot move at c is because
| mass increases with velocity and at c a mass would become of infinite
| size - which is impossible. Others argue that AE never said mass
| increases with velocity, and we all know he definitely said we can
| increase the mass by adding heat to it. If it turned out that mass
| does not increase with velocity, there is then no need for the photon
| to be massless, as it can have mass and still move at c. Same for em
| waves: they can have mass and still move at c.

There is no need for a photon to have mass.

There isn't even a reason for an electron to have mass.

VERGON

There's no need for your brain to have mass either.

What a stupid observation



http://members.tripod.com/~gravitee/rules.htm

See rule 1.

Androcles

tomgee wrote:
wrote:
tomgee wrote:
Sorcerer wrote:
"tomgee" wrote in message
oups.com...
| Some argue that SR state the reason a mass cannot move at c is because
| mass increases with velocity and at c a mass would become of infinite
| size - which is impossible. Others argue that AE never said mass
| increases with velocity, and we all know he definitely said we can
| increase the mass by adding heat to it. If it turned out that mass
| does not increase with velocity, there is then no need for the photon
| to be massless, as it can have mass and still move at c. Same for em
| waves: they can have mass and still move at c.

There is no need for a photon to have mass.

There isn't even a reason for an electron to have mass.

The relationship of mass to energy is one of interdependence,
and that is a reason for particles to have mass.

http://members.tripod.com/~gravitee/rules.htm

See rule 1.

That is Philosophy - not appropriate in this ng. Don't you
Philosophers have your own ngs? Or are yall like the
religious nuts who must convert somebody - anybody?

Do you believe that physical theories are uniquely determined by the
external world (i.e., empirical data)?

No. Experiment can only confirm or deny physical theories
(or fail in the attempt to do either one). Physical theories are
inventions of the human mind, and in the mind, anything is
possible. Logic and mathematics serve to develop theories
up to certain levels of validity, but they are both limited as to
the truth and cannot be used as proof that a theory is correct,
no matter how well they proof the tenets of a theory.

Empirical data, as proper results of experiment, offers the
best chance to get to the truth. Metaphysical theories are
such because their tenets cannot be tested by experiment, or
are such because only some of their tenets have been or can
be confirmed through experiment. As such, they are and
remain in limbo forever or until empirical data brings them - or
some parts of them - to the point where they stand closer to
the truth than the others.

You've just stated a thesis and provided a philosophical argument to
support it. And you did a good job, but the point is that physics is
more marbled with philosophy than a lazy cow is with fat. There's just
no getting around it.

Even if physical theories were uniquely determined by the external
world, they would still be formal things having an ontology of their
own. But since, as you admit, they are not, there always is a freedom
of choice of one's formal point of view. The justification of that
choice among formal points of view, unless it's made randomly or
intentionally irrationally, requires a justification that is either
metaphysical, epistemological, or esthetic, or by some other arbitrary
standard.

But I disagree with you that science is the search for truth (a
philosophic conjecture on your part, by the way). It takes truth to
measure truth. Think about it.

Science is about the invention of theories that work.

Igor wrote:
tomgee wrote:
Some argue that SR state the reason a mass cannot move at c is because
mass increases with velocity and at c a mass would become of infinite
size - which is impossible. Others argue that AE never said mass
increases with velocity, and we all know he definitely said we can
increase the mass by adding heat to it.

Nobody that is truly educated in SR ever said that.

Yours is not a rational argument, unless you can show it's
true. Since you cannot, it is only your unsupported opinion.

There is a concept
called "relativistic mass" that most people don't use anymore, since it
can cause some confusion, but that doesn't make it less valid.

That is the correct party line, alright, you have it down pat, and all
those at sci-phy.research salute you, but IMO that's just crap. I
think science would never change something to avoid confusion;
it seems to thrive on it, so why should it?

It
doesn't matter anyway, since the energy of a massive particle goes to
infinity as v approaches c.

Since you are rebutting the theory in reference, you could at least
offer some argument as to why you think it is wrong, and not just
parrot the conformist line.

If it turned out that mass
does not increase with velocity, there is then no need for the photon
to be massless, as it can have mass and still move at c. Same for em
waves: they can have mass and still move at c.

This is dead in the water since it contradicts SR.

No, it doesn't. Show where it contradicts SR, whydoncha?

Besides, EM waves
obey Maxwell's equations to tremendous accuracy, which is already proof
of a massless photon.

So how does "tremendous accuracy" constitute "proof" that a
photon is massless?

Were the photon massive, Maxwell's equations
would have been shown to break down at some point already.

Why would that happen? Besides, you have it backward: em
waves do not obey Maxwell at all.

The photon may still have a mass, albeit an extremely small one, that
hasn't been detected yet. The last that I heard, the observed upper
bound is somewhere on the order of about10^-50 kg.

More party line parroting. Repeat it often enough and
someday you may come to believe it. You forgot to add
that is such a small amount of mass that it is the same as
none.

tomgee wrote:
Igor wrote:
tomgee wrote:
Some argue that SR state the reason a mass cannot move at c is because
mass increases with velocity and at c a mass would become of infinite
size - which is impossible. Others argue that AE never said mass
increases with velocity, and we all know he definitely said we can
increase the mass by adding heat to it.

Nobody that is truly educated in SR ever said that.

Yours is not a rational argument, unless you can show it's
true. Since you cannot, it is only your unsupported opinion.

There is a concept
called "relativistic mass" that most people don't use anymore, since it
can cause some confusion, but that doesn't make it less valid.

That is the correct party line, alright, you have it down pat, and all
those at sci-phy.research salute you, but IMO that's just crap. I
think science would never change something to avoid confusion;
it seems to thrive on it, so why should it?

It
doesn't matter anyway, since the energy of a massive particle goes to
infinity as v approaches c.

Since you are rebutting the theory in reference, you could at least
offer some argument as to why you think it is wrong, and not just
parrot the conformist line.

If it turned out that mass
does not increase with velocity, there is then no need for the photon
to be massless, as it can have mass and still move at c. Same for em
waves: they can have mass and still move at c.

This is dead in the water since it contradicts SR.

No, it doesn't. Show where it contradicts SR, whydoncha?

Besides, EM waves
obey Maxwell's equations to tremendous accuracy, which is already proof
of a massless photon.

So how does "tremendous accuracy" constitute "proof" that a
photon is massless?

Were the photon massive, Maxwell's equations
would have been shown to break down at some point already.

Why would that happen? Besides, you have it backward: em
waves do not obey Maxwell at all.

The photon may still have a mass, albeit an extremely small one, that
hasn't been detected yet. The last that I heard, the observed upper
bound is somewhere on the order of about10^-50 kg.

More party line parroting. Repeat it often enough and
someday you may come to believe it. You forgot to add
that is such a small amount of mass that it is the same as
none.

Tell us how you would measure the mass of a photon.

wrote:
tomgee wrote:
wrote:
tomgee wrote:
Sorcerer wrote:
"tomgee" wrote in message
oups.com...
| Some argue that SR state the reason a mass cannot move at c is because
| mass increases with velocity and at c a mass would become of infinite
| size - which is impossible. Others argue that AE never said mass
| increases with velocity, and we all know he definitely said we can
| increase the mass by adding heat to it. If it turned out that mass
| does not increase with velocity, there is then no need for the photon
| to be massless, as it can have mass and still move at c. Same for em
| waves: they can have mass and still move at c.

There is no need for a photon to have mass.

There isn't even a reason for an electron to have mass.

The relationship of mass to energy is one of interdependence,
and that is a reason for particles to have mass.

http://members.tripod.com/~gravitee/rules.htm

See rule 1.

That is Philosophy - not appropriate in this ng. Don't you
Philosophers have your own ngs? Or are yall like the
religious nuts who must convert somebody - anybody?

Do you believe that physical theories are uniquely determined by the
external world (i.e., empirical data)?

No. Experiment can only confirm or deny physical theories
(or fail in the attempt to do either one). Physical theories are
inventions of the human mind, and in the mind, anything is
possible. Logic and mathematics serve to develop theories
up to certain levels of validity, but they are both limited as to
the truth and cannot be used as proof that a theory is correct,
no matter how well they proof the tenets of a theory.

Empirical data, as proper results of experiment, offers the
best chance to get to the truth. Metaphysical theories are
such because their tenets cannot be tested by experiment, or
are such because only some of their tenets have been or can
be confirmed through experiment. As such, they are and
remain in limbo forever or until empirical data brings them - or
some parts of them - to the point where they stand closer to
the truth than the others.

You've just stated a thesis and provided a philosophical argument to
support it.

No, I didn't. My statement does not pertain to "the study
of the nature of life and reality, or of related areas such
as ethics, logic, or metaphysics"(Microsoft® Encarta®
Reference Library 2005. © 1993-2004 Microsoft
Corporation. All rights reserved). It pertains not to the
study of all those things, but to a comparison of them with
the scientific method of experimental research. I knew it
was a trick question anyway.

And you did a good job, but the point is that physics is
more marbled with philosophy than a lazy cow is with fat.

No, that's your point, not mine. You could have said that at
first and saved us all this time wasted at clever repartee.

There's just
no getting around it.

Even if physical theories were uniquely determined by the external
world, they would still be formal things having an ontology of their
own.

That is to say, they would have a particular theory of
existence? How can a physical theory have its own
theory of existence? More important, how is that
germaine to this topic?

But since, as you admit, they are not, there always is a freedom
of choice of one's formal point of view.

Formal or not, we always have that freedom, unless
our minds are limited to preclude such a freedom.

The justification of that
choice among formal points of view, unless it's made randomly or
intentionally irrationally, requires a justification that is either
metaphysical, epistemological, or esthetic, or by some other arbitrary
standard.

In Philosophy, the adjective "formal" relates to the
essence of something instead of its content. In
such a case, such justifications as you refer to are
required, but in reference to the content of things,
the choice requires no such justification.

But I disagree with you that science is the search for truth (a
philosophic conjecture on your part, by the way). It takes truth to
measure truth. Think about it.

But Philosophy is devoted to the examination of
basic concepts, therefore, all theses can be said to
be philosophical. That's your King's X, your claim
to worthiness, your razon de existencia - but of
course, that which qualifies Philosophy as a
discipline is the very same thing that neuters it.

Science is about the invention of theories that work.

You have the freedom to call it what you will.

tomgee wrote:
Igor wrote:
tomgee wrote:
Some argue that SR state the reason a mass cannot move at c is because
mass increases with velocity and at c a mass would become of infinite
size - which is impossible. Others argue that AE never said mass
increases with velocity, and we all know he definitely said we can
increase the mass by adding heat to it.

Nobody that is truly educated in SR ever said that.

Yours is not a rational argument, unless you can show it's
true. Since you cannot, it is only your unsupported opinion.

There is a concept
called "relativistic mass" that most people don't use anymore, since it
can cause some confusion, but that doesn't make it less valid.

That is the correct party line, alright, you have it down pat, and all
those at sci-phy.research salute you, but IMO that's just crap. I
think science would never change something to avoid confusion;
it seems to thrive on it, so why should it?

It
doesn't matter anyway, since the energy of a massive particle goes to
infinity as v approaches c.

VERGON

You stubbed your toe there. If the energy of a particle goes to
infinity -- or near infinity, then the mass has to also --- or m =
E/c^2 doesn't hold --- but it does.
The way out is to say that the energy mentioned here is KINETIC energy
for which
E = mc^2 doesn't hold. It holds only for RADIANT energy--- which is the
example Einstein gave in his second 1905 paper.


Since you are rebutting the theory in reference, you could at least
offer some argument as to why you think it is wrong, and not just
parrot the conformist line.

If it turned out that mass
does not increase with velocity, there is then no need for the photon
to be massless, as it can have mass and still move at c. Same for em
waves: they can have mass and still move at c.

This is dead in the water since it contradicts SR.

No, it doesn't. Show where it contradicts SR, whydoncha?

Besides, EM waves
obey Maxwell's equations to tremendous accuracy, which is already proof
of a massless photon.

So how does "tremendous accuracy" constitute "proof" that a
photon is massless?

Were the photon massive, Maxwell's equations
would have been shown to break down at some point already.

Why would that happen? Besides, you have it backward: em
waves do not obey Maxwell at all.

The photon may still have a mass, albeit an extremely small one, that
hasn't been detected yet. The last that I heard, the observed upper
bound is somewhere on the order of about10^-50 kg.

VERGON

Nieto and Goldhaber did considerable work determining the mass of
electric and magnetic fields. They said they were determining the upper
limit of the PHOTON but actually they were looking for it in a single
field. As for the photon --- WHAT photon? Green light, infra red,
x-rays, ultra-violet ---- WHAT?

The only thing that makes sense is a single Coulomb field. I have
determined that theoretically --- and it is a fgure that Nieto and
Goldhaber came VERY close to:
7.3720385 x 10^-48 gram.

That mass times the frequncy NUMBER will yield the mass of any photon.
Here's the kicker: That mass times the frequency number of the
electron, proton and neutron will yield their respective masses.!!!!

Thus we see these fields as the basic construction matter of radiation
and matter.

More party line parroting. Repeat it often enough and
someday you may come to believe it. You forgot to add
that is such a small amount of mass that it is the same as
none.