[simplified]

Recoil reduces energy of a photon. Your laser gun has no recoil. Therefore energy of your photons is not reduced.

Ok, but what this has to do with what pushes away a photon from light source?

Radiator loses thermal energy because  photon steals it.

[simplified]

Let's consider analogy to a lightning. A cloud beats  ground by negative charge, in the answer the ground beats the cloud by positive charge.
When a particle and an antiparticle meet, they beat  radiator by gravitational charge. In the answer the radiator beats them by charge of energy.

[lightarrow]

Let's consider analogy to a lightning. A cloud beats  ground by negative charge, in the answer the ground beats the cloud by positive charge.
When a particle and an antiparticle meet, they beat  radiator by gravitational charge. In the answer the radiator beats them by charge of energy.

hmmm...maybe you should change your nickname from "simplified" to "complicated"  []

[simplified]

Let's consider analogy to a lightning. A cloud beats  ground by negative charge, in the answer the ground beats the cloud by positive charge.
When a particle and an antiparticle meet, they beat  radiator by gravitational charge. In the answer the radiator beats them by charge of energy.

hmmm...maybe you should change your nickname from "simplified" to "complicated"  []

Then maybe you  a ruddy critic with superficial judgement []

[lightarrow]

Let's consider analogy to a lightning. A cloud beats  ground by negative charge, in the answer the ground beats the cloud by positive charge.
When a particle and an antiparticle meet, they beat  radiator by gravitational charge. In the answer the radiator beats them by charge of energy.

hmmm...maybe you should change your nickname from "simplified" to "complicated"  []

Then maybe you  a ruddy critic with superficial judgement []

Ok, I accept your critic. But then can you please explain me what is that you intended? I sincerely have not understood it ( it can be me, of course).

[simplified]

And so if a mass is a neutralized energy then energy is an activated mass  []
Photon has 100% of activated mass and 0% of usual mass.Usual object has usual mass and activated mass = (Lorentz's coefficient-1)* usual mass .
Usual mass isn't relative thing. Activated mass is just relative thing.
I only can not understand that why photons take and mass of Sun and energy of Sun? They must to take only mass,because mass turned into their energy.

[lightarrow]

And so if a mass is a neutralized energy then energy is an activated mass  []
Photon has 100% of activated mass and 0% of usual mass.Usual object has usual mass and activated mass = (Lorentz's coefficient-1)* usual mass .
Usual mass isn't relative thing. Activated mass is just relative thing.
I only can not understand that why photons take and mass of Sun and energy of Sun? They must to take only mass,because mass turned into their energy.

I'm sorry to tell you, but if you talk of "neutralized energy" or "activated mass", you are not talking of physics.

[simplified]

And so if a mass is a neutralized energy then energy is an activated mass  []
Photon has 100% of activated mass and 0% of usual mass.Usual object has usual mass and activated mass = (Lorentz's coefficient-1)* usual mass .
Usual mass isn't relative thing. Activated mass is just relative thing.
I only can not understand that why photons take and mass of Sun and energy of Sun? They must to take only mass,because mass turned into their energy.

I'm sorry to tell you, but if you talk of "neutralized energy" or "activated mass", you are not talking of physics.

And so if a mass is a neutralized energy then energy is an activated mass  []
Photon has 100% of activated mass and 0% of usual mass.Usual object has usual mass and activated mass = (Lorentz's coefficient-1)* usual mass .
Usual mass isn't relative thing. Activated mass is just relative thing.
I only can not understand that why photons take and mass of Sun and energy of Sun? They must to take only mass,because mass turned into their energy.

I'm sorry to tell you, but if you talk of "neutralized energy" or "activated mass", you are not talking of physics.

If your physics don't answer questions then I say.

[Bill S]

A vertical force can never cause a horizontal displacement; thus, a vertical force does not do work on a horizontally displaced object!!

Imagine a situation in which you are standing under an object which is on rails, such that it will move only horizontally.  The underside of this object slopes.  You use a pole to apply vertical force against that slope, and the object responds by moving horizontally. Is this not a vertical force causing horizontal displacement?

[Geezer]

A vertical force can never cause a horizontal displacement; thus, a vertical force does not do work on a horizontally displaced object!!

Imagine a situation in which you are standing under an object which is on rails, such that it will move only horizontally.  The underside of this object slopes.  You use a pole to apply vertical force against that slope, and the object responds by moving horizontally. Is this not a vertical force causing horizontal displacement?

Only if you prevent from rotating where you are holding it, but then you are producing a horizontal force. If you allow the pole to pivot freely where you are holding it, it will just tilt over as it goes up the incline and no force will be imparted to the vehicle at all.

[lightarrow]

If your physics don't answer questions then I say.

Ok, how many angels can stay on a pin's head?
If you can't answer then I say 12.
Is this science?
If you use *scientific*, *precisely defined* terms, you will have answers. If you don't use, you can't have, but not because I don't have answers or because I don't want to answer, but because your question is completely  *undefined*; I don't have the least idea of what you want to ask or if it has a real meaning. Is it more clear now?

[Bill S]

Thanks Geezer. I tried thinking of a situation in which the poll is constrained to move only vertically, but I guess whatever was constraining it would be converting vertical to horizontal force; right?

What about orbital motion, though. E.g. does the Earth's gravitational attraction not act perpendicular to the direction of motion of the moon?   

[Geezer]

Thanks Geezer. I tried thinking of a situation in which the poll is constrained to move only vertically, but I guess whatever was constraining it would be converting vertical to horizontal force; right?

What about orbital motion, though. E.g. does the Earth's gravitational attraction not act perpendicular to the direction of motion of the moon?  

Well, sort of. You are transferring the horizontal force at the top of the pole to a horizontal force at your wrist.

The Earth does not make the Moon move relative to the Earth. The gravitational force between the Moon and the Earth just maintains the Moon in an orbit around the Earth. If that force suddenly ceased, the Moon would keep on moving in a straight(ish) line.

[Bill S]

The gravitational force between the Moon and the Earth just maintains the Moon in an orbit around the Earth.

Here we seem to be treating gravity as a force, in spite of G R. This raises the question: If a force is holding the moon in orbit, is it doing any work?

[Geezer]

Yes, that's the Newtonian view. It still works quite well though!

In Newtonian mechanics there is a force, but as the force acts perpendicular to the motion, it's not doing any work.

[simplified]

Then the equation must be wrong? I agree that photons are massless, the equation only shows the energy required to produce that photon.

That equation is wrong for photons. The correct one, valid for all particles and regardless if stationary or moving (in SR) is this:

E² = (mc²)² + (cp)²

p = momentum.

For light, in classical EM, E = cp. If you apply it to photons (certainly you will agree on the fact this is allowed) you find:

(cp)² = (mc²)² + (cp)²

=> 0 = (mc²)²

so m = 0.

This is  pompous and complicated formula because you do not use correct scientific terms. []
 
                 E=m'c²

                            p=(m+m')* v

E - energy for any object
p - momentum for any object
m - usual mass,this mass has gravitation field
m'- activated mass(mass turned into energy),this mass has not gravitation field
c - light speed
v - speed of object
                          []

[Geezer]

WOAHH!!

Simplified,

Please try to be be careful with your translation (I know it's not easy) but "pompous" is probably not what you really meant to say. "Pompous" is a big insult in English.

It means "you are just saying something, but it means nothing."

[lightarrow]

                 E=m'c²

                            p=(m+m')* v

E - energy for any object
p - momentum for any object
m - usual mass,this mass has gravitation field
m'- activated mass(mass turned into energy),this mass has not gravitation field
c - light speed
v - speed of object

nonsense.

[simplified]

                 E=m'c²

                            p=(m+m')* v

E - energy for any object
p - momentum for any object
m - usual mass,this mass has gravitation field
m'- activated mass(mass turned into energy),this mass has not gravitation field
c - light speed
v - speed of object

nonsense.

Your definition is a law for dark people.

[peppercorn]

Your definition is a law for dark people.

[] [] []

What? ...Are you saying this a law for people from the African sub-continent??? []


[To clarify for anyone who might have misunderstood - my intention above is to gently ridicule the poster's English NOT make a racist comment.  Thanks!]