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 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. 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?

"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.

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

See rule 1.

Androcles

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?

"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

"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. Those are his words.
****es you off does it, ****wit?
Androcles

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

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. Besides, EM waves
obey Maxwell's equations to tremendous accuracy, which is already proof
of a massless photon. Were the photon massive, Maxwell's equations
would have been shown to break down at some point already.

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.

"tomgee" wrote in message oups.com...
Some argue that SR state the reason a mass cannot move at c is because

Dead on arrival, whatever follows.
Those who tell you that, have no idea what they are talking about.
You should know that because many already told you.

Dirk Vdm

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?

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.

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. So, we have

E = m' c^2

Where

** E = observed energy
** m' = a function of gravitational potential and speed

In the case where gravitational potential is zero, we have

E = m c^2 / sqrt(1 - B^2)

Where

** B = observed speed divided by c
** m = rest mass

To travel at the speed of light, (B = 1). This can only mean (m = 0).

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)?

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.

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.


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.

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

ridiculous items snipped