[lyner]

It's a wonder that you bother to post on these forums if you opinion of other contributors is so low.

Do you think that this has not all been discussed before?

Perhaps you should put us all to shame and publish a complete and mathematically consistent paper on your theory. Obviously Albert wasn't up to much as a Scientist.

[Bishadi]

without even reading through the thread.....  you bet energy has mass



take 2 base element; how about H and O;

isolate them

in BEC cold state

weigh them separately

combine them; allow to sit to room temperature

now weight them again combined

will the combined weigh more than the 2 added separately?

Energy has mass

[lyner]

But photons do not have 'Rest Mass'. There is a serious distinction there.

And why bother to read through a thread? It might interfere with one's opinions.

[lightarrow]

My guess for what it's worth is that light has a momentum but could have a rest mass > 0 so that its speed "c" is just a bit less. Will anyone here have the brain space to understand this?

Or maybe such people choose to obscure simple ideas

By Jove! You don't even accept that people could be on holiday? Slow down and wait a little! []

Yes, photons could have mass, and in this case they would go slightly slower than c. Furthermore, their speed would depend on their frequency. Maxwell's equations should be substituted with Proca equations.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Variable_speed_of_light

Varying c in classical physics

The photon, the particle of light which mediates the electromagnetic force is believed to be massless. The so-called Proca action describes a theory of a massive photon.[1] Classically, it is possible to have a photon which is extremely light but nonetheless has a tiny mass, like the neutrino. These photons would propagate at less than the speed of light defined by special relativity and have three directions of polarization. However, in quantum field theory, the photon mass is not consistent with gauge invariance or renormalizability and so is usually ignored. However, a quantum theory of the massive photon can be considered in the Wilsonian effective field theory approach to quantum field theory, where, depending on whether the photon mass is generated by a Higgs mechanism or is inserted in an ad hoc way in the Proca Lagrangian, the limits implied by various observations/experiments may be different.[2]

However, "could have mass" doesn't mean that we are not able to measure it, it means that "if" they have, its value is under the experimental limits, that is < ~ 10^-52 kg.

Anyway, the photon's mass would NOT be E/c², but an incredibly smaller value (and independent from the energy E).

[lightarrow]

without even reading through the thread.....  you bet energy has mass

But If you had done it..... you would have found what exactly your statement means and what doesn't mean.

take 2 base element; how about H and O;

isolate them

in BEC cold state

weigh them separately

combine them; allow to sit to room temperature

now weight them again combined

will the combined weigh more than the 2 added separately?

Energy has mass

You don't need such complicated way to show that giving energy to a body AT REST increases its mass: heat a piece of iron and you increases its mass; spin it and you increases its mass, ecc, ecc.
Not only: while a single photon has NO mass, a system of two photons travelling in two different directions DO have mass!

If you want to know a bit more:
http://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/index.php?topic=14606.msg174225#msg174225

[Bishadi]

But photons do not have 'Rest Mass'. There is a serious distinction there.

every single atom that increases a state or even combines with another atom to form a molecule is em or simply a per se photon; at rest if you will.

energy itself is simply a line item of the em spectrum

And why bother to read through a thread? It might interfere with one's opinions.

i did my homework decades ago.....

by 10 quadratics, parabola.... by 16 a thesis on the human brain;

designed a gyro for navigation and even how to build a firecracker....

an opinion from you after our last thread is not worth much

You don't need such complicated way to show that giving energy to a body AT REST increases its mass: heat a piece of iron and you increases its mass; spin it and you increases its mass, ecc, ecc. 

   Hey a thinker.... 

Not only: while a single photon has NO mass,

  ooops...

i disagree, that is a math error, not reality


to see your 2 examples you can see the contradictions

[lightarrow]

Not only: while a single photon has NO mass,

  ooops...

i disagree, that is a math error, not reality


to see your 2 examples you can see the contradictions

No contradictions. Mass is NOT additive.

[Bishadi]

No contradictions. Mass is NOT additive.

now do you see why Virial is so messed up?

All that energy and simply land locked and now you can see why the data from the spiraling galaxies do not meet the math of Virial; because of the exact statment you just made.

i.e... if i told you you won the lotterey; would you have more potential than if i told you you just lost your job.

simple exchanges of energy and a huge variation of potential

The energy upon mass has far more affect/potential than most comprehend.

[Andrew K Fletcher]

I agree!

I remember having as a child what looked like an upside down glass light bulb.

It had a small set of sails inside that were white on one side and black on the other and they rotated in sunlight or from a strong beam of light. Cant remember what it was called though.

I think that a photon is a particle that does have mass and its the gravitational force (wave) that propels it. I don't believe in the theory of any strong or weak forces.

[Andrew K Fletcher]

Now I disagree as the mass holds my feet on the ground.

Thanks for that explanation Light Arrow.

If I remember the vanes in the glass bulb were in a semi vacuum.

Yes I still think light has mass and I also think that gravity is a wave and not produced by mass.

Time it does take and as there are many many gaps and assumptions in our current theories of mass, gravity and light that I think a unified field theory is hard to construct without taking a different approach.

The Crookes radiometer is well known to the physics student and in science shops as a fascinating toy (Figure 13). It is a rotator with vanes polished on one side and black on the other. These are placed on a free shaft in a glass bulb which has been evacuated to a pressure of 10-3 to 10-4 atmospheres. It was the first demonstration of the conversion of light into mechanical energy. There was vigorous debate in the 1870’s over how it worked1.  The traditional explanation involves collision of air molecules with the hot black surface causing it to recoil, but this is incorrect2.  Reynolds and Maxwell proposed an explanation involving ‘thermal transpiration’ but even today there is still no complete explanation of how this little toy works.

The vanes rotate very rapidly in bright sunlight making several thousand revolutions per minute. Crookes3 measured the ‘radiometer force’ and found it to be several orders of magnitude greater than the ‘light pressure’ anticipated by Maxwell. There has been no attempt to harness the rotational energy to measure the efficiency of conversion but I suspect that solar is converted into rotational energy with very high efficiency in the radiometer.
http://www.globalwarmingsolutions.co.uk/crooks_radiometer_and_otheoscope.htm
http://www.kbescientific.com.sg/science_demonstration.htm

http://www.genuineideas.com/HallofInventions/SolarFerrisWheel/solarferriswheel.html

On Ebay http://shop.ebay.co.uk/?_from=R40&_trksid=m38&_nkw=Solar+Radiometer

[lightarrow]

No contradictions. Mass is NOT additive.

now do you see why Virial is so messed up?

All that energy and simply land locked and now you can see why the data from the spiraling galaxies do not meet the math of Virial; because of the exact statment you just made.

i.e... if i told you you won the lotterey; would you have more potential than if i told you you just lost your job.

simple exchanges of energy and a huge variation of potential

The energy upon mass has far more affect/potential than most comprehend.

Are you talking with yourself, maybe? It's impossible to understand anything (concerning physics) of what you've written.

[lightarrow]

I agree!

I remember having as a child what looked like an upside down glass light bulb.

It had a small set of sails inside that were white on one side and black on the other and they rotated in sunlight or from a strong beam of light. Cant remember what it was called though.

I think that a photon is a particle that does have mass and its the gravitational force (wave) that propels it. I don't believe in the theory of any strong or weak forces.

Andrew, you remind me of another person in another forum, which believe physics is something like soccer's opinions. Physics IS NOT. If physics says that a photon's mass is zero, it's not an opinion. IT HAS BEEN MEASURED.

[lightarrow]

Now I disagree as the mass holds my feet on the ground.

Thanks for that explanation Light Arrow.

If I remember the vanes in the glass bulb were in a semi vacuum.

Yes I still think light has mass and I also think that gravity is a wave and not produced by mass.

Time it does take and as there are many many gaps and assumptions in our current theories of mass, gravity and light that I think a unified field theory is hard to construct without taking a different approach.

The Crookes radiometer is well known to the physics student and in science shops as a fascinating toy (Figure 13). It is a rotator with vanes polished on one side and black on the other. These are placed on a free shaft in a glass bulb which has been evacuated to a pressure of 10-3 to 10-4 atmospheres. It was the first demonstration of the conversion of light into mechanical energy. There was vigorous debate in the 1870’s over how it worked1.  The traditional explanation involves collision of air molecules with the hot black surface causing it to recoil, but this is incorrect2.  Reynolds and Maxwell proposed an explanation involving ‘thermal transpiration’ but even today there is still no complete explanation of how this little toy works.

The vanes rotate very rapidly in bright sunlight making several thousand revolutions per minute. Crookes3 measured the ‘radiometer force’ and found it to be several orders of magnitude greater than the ‘light pressure’ anticipated by Maxwell. There has been no attempt to harness the rotational energy to measure the efficiency of conversion but I suspect that solar is converted into rotational energy with very high efficiency in the radiometer.
http://www.globalwarmingsolutions.co.uk/crooks_radiometer_and_otheoscope.htm
http://www.kbescientific.com.sg/science_demonstration.htm

http://www.genuineideas.com/HallofInventions/SolarFerrisWheel/solarferriswheel.html

On Ebay http://shop.ebay.co.uk/?_from=R40&_trksid=m38&_nkw=Solar+Radiometer

And so? Does he say light has mass?

[Andrew K Fletcher]

If physics says a photons mass is zero it does not prove it is zero! Any more than saying water under normal atmospheric pressure in a single open ended tube will not rise higher than 10 metres which is also incorrect!

You remind me of the majority of people who read text and believe it without questioning how they arrived at it

I agree!

I remember having as a child what looked like an upside down glass light bulb.

It had a small set of sails inside that were white on one side and black on the other and they rotated in sunlight or from a strong beam of light. Cant remember what it was called though.

I think that a photon is a particle that does have mass and its the gravitational force (wave) that propels it. I don't believe in the theory of any strong or weak forces.

Andrew, you remind me of another person in another forum, which believe physics is something like soccer's opinions. Physics IS NOT. If physics says that a photon's mass is zero, it's not an opinion. IT HAS BEEN MEASURED.

[Bishadi]

No contradictions. Mass is NOT additive.

now do you see why Virial is so messed up?

All that energy and simply land locked and now you can see why the data from the spiraling galaxies do not meet the math of Virial; because of the exact statment you just made.

i.e... if i told you you won the lotterey; would you have more potential than if i told you you just lost your job.

simple exchanges of energy and a huge variation of potential

The energy upon mass has far more affect/potential than most comprehend.

Are you talking with yourself, maybe? It's impossible to understand anything (concerning physics) of what you've written.

because you may not be aware of what physics are

http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/virial.html

point being, that apparently you are not versus in what the math

which to me means you may be living off of the media; maybe a newsweek column

first reality is a photon in a perfect vacuum has never been produced.

second;    energy upon mass (photon) is entangled (gravitation)to it's source and environment. 

Energy has always been 'additive' to mass......

what you do not understand is what rolls through all of physics by the incorrect assessment of energy itself

that is why you had no idea what was meant about Virial

[Alan McDougall]

Light does not have mass but it contains energy that can be channelled and directed as per laser beam.

How do we overcome the fact that matter is  (crudely put) Frozen energy in the  form of mass and when this mass is converted into energy by an antimatter/matter collision it morphs into massless light.

Or am I just being silly?

Regards

Alan

[Bishadi]

Light does not have mass but it contains energy that can be channelled and directed as per laser beam.

How do we overcome the fact that matter is  (crudely put) Frozen energy in the  form of mass and when this mass is converted into energy by an antimatter/matter collision it morphs into massless light.

Or am I just being silly?

Regards

Alan

is that like slapping 2 magnets together and seeing a spark of light....

or can you explain a chemical reaction of hydrogen and oxygen....  where did the light come from?

point being, all energy upon mass is a photon of light in one fashion or another, as since no energy 'photon' is floating around without being within a field (associated) ever...

that is the problem many cannot realize

no vacuum... 

[lightarrow]

If physics says a photons mass is zero it does not prove it is zero! Any more than saying water under normal atmospheric pressure in a single open ended tube will not rise higher than 10 metres which is also incorrect!

You remind me of the majority of people who read text and believe it without questioning how they arrived at it

Physics is not phylosophy or personal theories; if you want to discuss about them, you should choose another section.
Regards.

[lightarrow]

No contradictions. Mass is NOT additive.

now do you see why Virial is so messed up?

All that energy and simply land locked and now you can see why the data from the spiraling galaxies do not meet the math of Virial; because of the exact statment you just made.

i.e... if i told you you won the lotterey; would you have more potential than if i told you you just lost your job.

simple exchanges of energy and a huge variation of potential

The energy upon mass has far more affect/potential than most comprehend.

Are you talking with yourself, maybe? It's impossible to understand anything (concerning physics) of what you've written.

because you may not be aware of what physics are

http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/virial.html

point being, that apparently you are not versus in what the math

which to me means you may be living off of the media; maybe a newsweek column

first reality is a photon in a perfect vacuum has never been produced.

second;    energy upon mass (photon) is entangled (gravitation)to it's source and environment. 

Energy has always been 'additive' to mass......

what you do not understand is what rolls through all of physics by the incorrect assessment of energy itself

that is why you had no idea what was meant about Virial

So does Virial Theorem says that mass is additive? Probably you have to study physics a little bit more before talking about strange things.

[lightarrow]

is that like slapping 2 magnets together and seeing a spark of light....

or can you explain a chemical reaction of hydrogen and oxygen....  where did the light come from?

point being, all energy upon mass is a photon of light in one fashion or another, as since no energy 'photon' is floating around without being within a field (associated) ever...

Can you explain the physics of those words, I couldn't understand them.