wrote:
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.

VERGON

m = E/c^2 E = hf

wrote:
tomgee wrote:
Igor wrote:
tomgee wrote:
Some argue that SR state the reason a mass cannot move at c is because

SNIP

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

I just read somewhere that M = e/c^2, where M(w/subscript 0)
is the invariant mass. Is that correct?

wrote:
wrote:
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.

VERGON

m = E/c^2 E = hf

You are an idiot, VERGON.

Mabey if you spent more time learning physics and less time putting
VERGON at the beginning of each and every post you would learn
something.

Did VERGON even look at pdg.lbl.gov/2006/listings/s000.pdf? Hell, did
VERGON even look at the question? He asked about how to perform the
measurment - not "what do you think the photon's mass is".

"tomgee" wrote in message
oups.com...
|
| 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.

Well, at least you know who I'm addressing.
Don't you ****heads have your own ngs? Or are yall like the
religious nuts who must convert somebody - anybody?

Androcles

"tomgee" wrote in message
ups.com...
|
| 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.

Don't you ****heads have your own ngs? Or are yall like the
religious nuts who must convert somebody - anybody?
Androcles

"tomgee" wrote in message
oups.com...

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,

Don't you ****heads have your own ngs? Or are yall like the
religious nuts who must convert somebody - anybody?
Androcles

"tomgee" wrote in message
oups.com...
|
| 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.


Don't you ****heads have your own ngs? Or are yall like the
religious nuts who must convert somebody - anybody?
Androcles

"tomgee" wrote in message
ups.com...
|
| wrote:
| tomgee wrote:
| Igor wrote:
| tomgee wrote:
| Some argue that SR state the reason a mass cannot move at c is
because
|
| SNIP
|
| Tell us how you would measure the mass of a photon.
|
| I just read somewhere that M = e/c^2, where M(w/subscript 0)
| is the invariant mass. Is that correct?

Don't you ****heads have your own ngs? Or are yall like the
religious nuts who must convert somebody - anybody?
Androcles

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.
|
| VERGON
|
| There's no need for your brain to have mass either.
|
| What a stupid observation

How would you know, ****-for-brains?
You can't even write English, ****head.
|
|
|
| http://members.tripod.com/~gravitee/rules.htm
|
| See rule 1.
|
| Androcles
|

wrote:
Koobee Wublee wrote:
Igor wrote:

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. It

What type of confusion?

Well, for one thing, two types of mass, one invariant and the other
not, is confusing. Maybe not to everyone, but that's the main reason
it was de-emphasized in the first place.

If invariant and not invariant is confusing to you, you should
not even be a fan of science, let alone be working in it. The
main reason was because physicists could not understand
the difference between relativistic mass and rest mass, and
so some were taking running jumps from their ivory tower
terraces because they could not stand being so inadequate.

Of course, some in the physics community would never
admit to such goings-on, so they said, as they stood naked
on their terraces, "You all down there are getting confused
about mass, so to save your stupid asses we will correct the
mistake others made about what to call invariant mass vs
variable mass." Of course, we all know it was physicists
who selected those terms, not laypersons.

IMO, SRians changed the terms because they could not
always get it right and so they were confused. Even now,
they can't figure out what rest mass is, as evidenced by
the posts that spring up now and then about it. Hard-core
SRians are becoming a rarity, fortunately for physics,


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.

The rest mass of a photon must be zero to be able to move at the speed
of light. This is verified in the very mathematics. Hoping for a
non-zero rest mass for photons is an evil wish. If photons have
non-zero rest mass, life would cease to exist.

Same was thought to be true for neutrinos. But now, most people are
sure they have an extremely small mass. This doesn't slow them down
too much as their v is still approximately c, just not exactly c. Same
would apply for the photon. Your claims about life ceasing to exist
are pure nonsense.

You don't understand what he's saying. He means that at zero velocity
the amount of variable mass is the same as the amount of the invariant
mass, if the mass is to increase at non-zero velocity. There can be no

measure of the real rest mass of a photon because no photon can be
tested at rest, since photons are said to never be at rest. In
calculating
the invariant mass, we find the mass of a photon that is not affected
by
its velocity. We ignore the photon velocity to find the invariant
mass.

That means the invariant mass is the amount of mass in a photon when
we ignore the fact that it has velocity - which is the same as saying
that
if the photon could be measured when it is not moving, it would have
the
same amount of variable (relativistic) mass as the amount of its
invariant
mass. If it were possible for the photon to be _not_ moving, which it
is
not, it would be _at_ rest. Note that it would be at rest, and not
that it
would _have_ rest mass.

It cannot have rest mass because it can never be at rest. Invariant
mass,
therefore, is fictional, a figment of our math that cannot exist
because a
photon can have nonesuch because it can never be at rest. Or so goes
the story. I can't make it any plainer than that, so if you're still
confused,
your brain has lost its capacity - if it ever had it - to understand
basic
physics or basic English. And it will undoubtedly become ever more
confused with what follows below.

In my model, a certain amount of energy is inserted into a dark matter
particle by a colliding em wave, causing it to be transformed into a
real
particle having a mass equal to the energy acquired from the em wave
en passant. That can be considered to be the photon's real invariant
mass, if we choose to accept it as such. It is real because in my
model
the photon does not move along with the em wave. The photon particle
exists as a dark matter particle that has negative mass as per Dirac's
positron "holes", and which exists in Gamow's sea of invisible negative

mass particles.

It becomes visible to us when it is infused with energy from the em
wave's momentum, or, "pressure". It stays essentially in place in
space,
so it can have mass because it does not move along with the em wave
at lightspeed velocity. But how much mass does it have? That must
depend on how much is transferred over to it and not lost in the
mechanical process. Since it is essentially stationary (there must be
some motion due to the exchange of momentum from the em wave),
there is no energy-of-motion to contend with, and the mass can be
determined from the energy of the em wave (minus any losses, as I've
said) that is required to transform it into a real particle having
+energy.

If we know the energy in the wave, and we know the energy in the
photon,
we can calculate its invariant mass.

The famous equation (E = m' c^2, where m' = observed or relativistic
mass) has never been derived until yours truly has done so in the past
year.

It seems to me that to find the energy, you need to know the mass
first. If
you know the energy, you should be able to find the mass.

So you have delusions of adequacy? Maybe you've figured out how to
transform domains too?

ridiculous items snipped