[Craig W. Thomson]

That is unnecessarily hostile.

When a photon is absorbed it ceases to exist.

False. Following me here from physforum.com to harass me on a daily basis is hostile. Needlessly shoving information down my throat that I already know is also hostile, at both sites.

No, a photon does not cease to exist when it is absorbed. Particles don't just "snuff out" when they are annihilated. They are merely converted to mass. In a universe ruled by mass/energy conservation, nothing ever truly ceases to exist. That photon's energy is still there in the atom, but it is no longer a wave packet moving in a straight line forward motion, just like I said.

[agyejy]

False. Following me here from physforum.com to harass me on a daily basis is hostile.

I've already proven that I did not follow you anywhere.

No, a photon does not cease to exist when it is absorbed. Particles don't just "snuff out" when they are annihilated. They are merely converted to mass. In a universe ruled by mass/energy conservation, nothing ever truly ceases to exist. That photon's energy is still there in the atom, but it is no longer a wave packet moving in a straight line forward motion, just like I said.

This statement is completely illogical. However, we have drifted significantly from the topic of this thread and should not discuss this further.

[Craig W. Thomson]

This statement is completely illogical. However, we have drifted significantly from the topic of this thread and should not discuss this further.

Hey, you're the one who brought up earthquakes when I was talking about photons. LOL

[agyejy]

Hey, you're the one who brought up earthquakes when I was talking about photons. LOL

I request that you refrain from such attempted provocations in the future.

[Craig W. Thomson]

Hey, you're the one who brought up earthquakes when I was talking about photons. LOL

I request that you refrain from such attempted provocations in the future.

I request that you practice what you preach, earthquake photon.

[Ethos_]

I suggest that you both return to the topic in question and resolve your personal disputes via the private message board.......................Ethos

[Craig W. Thomson]

I suggest that you both return to the topic in question and resolve your personal disputes via the private message board.......................Ethos

Are you idealistic or just naive? That's not how this works. You're not familiar with this guy. He followed me here from physforum.com. That place was a madhouse. The wolves have been left in charge of the chicken coop. People like him are the reason I joined here in the first place. I WANT a forum with moderators. He's not going to resolve anything with me.

And I don't really care what the topic is, IF somebody makes a misstatement, defies fact, or contradicts what I know about science in a thread, I'm going to try to get a word in. This guy has been acting like the final authority on physics for almost a year now, and I'm not particularly happy to see him here. I truly hate it when people obfuscate the issues just to win an argument, like comparing photons to earthquakes which he just did a few posts back. Ridiculous.

[Ethos_]

Are you idealistic or just naive?

I'm not totally familiar with the dispute you two are involved in, I simply suggested that you both try to settle down a little. Has nothing to do with idealism and at my advanced age, I wouldn't consider myself naďve at all. What ever your problems are with each other, everyone has the right to express their views here at TNS.

If you don't care to engage each other, simply apply the ignore feature of our forum. Neither of you has the right to refuse the other's participation here. If you disagree with each other, it's easy enough to state your objections and allow everyone else to consider the merits of those objections. Problem solved!

As I've already suggested, if you can't get along with each other, acquaint each other with our ignore feature. It works for me, should also work for you.

And I don't really care what the topic is,

Well you should sir.............this is the reason we have these discussions, to learn. And it's part of the forum policy to try and keep replies pertinent to the topic in question when ever possible. When you find that objective impossible, simply ignore one another.

[Craig W. Thomson]

And I don't really care what the topic is,

Well you should sir.............this is the reason we have these discussions, to learn. And it's part of the forum policy to try and keep replies pertinent to the topic in question when ever possible. When you find that objective impossible, simply ignore one another.

That was taken out of context. Of course I care what the topic is, but nobody is going to learn anything if he posts contradictory information and nobody calls him on it or ignores it just because it was off topic.

Now, would you like to say something about photons or black holes, or are you just here to sit in for my parents? Because I came here to talk about science, not to get scolded.

[Ethos_]

Now, would you like to say something about photons or black holes, or are you just here to sit in for my parents?

Listen my friend, I was only making a suggestion regarding forum behavior. If you feel scolded, that's your problem and not mine.

As I formerly suggested, if you want to disregard another members contributions, simply ignore them. And to be clear, my suggestions were directed at you both and in no way meant to single you out. If you felt I was being unfair, I apologize for that misunderstanding.

[Craig W. Thomson]

Now, would you like to say something about photons or black holes, or are you just here to sit in for my parents?

Listen my friend, I was only making a suggestion regarding forum behavior. If you feel scolded, that's your problem and not mine.

As I formerly suggested, if you want to disregard another members contributions, simply ignore them. And to be clear, my suggestions were directed at you both and in no way meant to single you out. If you felt I was being unfair, I apologize for that misunderstanding.

Okay, so that's three posts in a row in this thread from you, and not one word about photons, black holes, or any kind of science. At least agyegy and I were arguing about physics. You're trying to get in that last word, that's all. Boring. Why not let the moderators do their job? You're not helping. Maybe that's why you have only five "thank you's" after more than a thousand posts, my friend. Sheesh.

[Ethos_]

I would tend to argue that according to the Principle of Mass/Energy Equivalence, everything is made of energy, including mass.

False...............While mass is equivalent to energy, matter is not. So making the statement that "everything is made of energy" is quite false. Matter has energy in association with the mass that the particle of matter has. In the case of the photon, which is BTW, a particle of matter, it's proper mass is zero. But the energy of momentum that light has traveling at c describes the photon as having energy. Fact one: "the photon is not energy", it is matter and only possesses energy. Check your facts, "my friend".

[guest39538]

I would tend to argue that according to the Principle of Mass/Energy Equivalence, everything is made of energy, including mass.

False...............While mass is equivalent to energy, matter is not. So making the statement that "everything is made of energy" is quite false. Matter has energy in association with the mass that the particle of matter has. In the case of the photon, which is BTW, a particle of matter, it's proper mass is zero. But the energy of momentum that light has traveling at c describes the photon as having energy. Fact one: "the photon is not energy", it is matter and only possesses energy. Check your facts, "my friend".

Matter has mass and energy.

[Ethos_]

I would tend to argue that according to the Principle of Mass/Energy Equivalence, everything is made of energy, including mass.

False...............While mass is equivalent to energy, matter is not. So making the statement that "everything is made of energy" is quite false. Matter has energy in association with the mass that the particle of matter has. In the case of the photon, which is BTW, a particle of matter, it's proper mass is zero. But the energy of momentum that light has traveling at c describes the photon as having energy. Fact one: "the photon is not energy", it is matter and only possesses energy. Check your facts, "my friend".

Matter has mass and energy.

Stating that Matter "has" mass and energy is not the same as: saying that (Matter "is" mass and energy). If you read what I posted, you'll notice that was explained there. Now I'm back to ignoring you BOX.

[guest39538]

I would tend to argue that according to the Principle of Mass/Energy Equivalence, everything is made of energy, including mass.

False...............While mass is equivalent to energy, matter is not. So making the statement that "everything is made of energy" is quite false. Matter has energy in association with the mass that the particle of matter has. In the case of the photon, which is BTW, a particle of matter, it's proper mass is zero. But the energy of momentum that light has traveling at c describes the photon as having energy. Fact one: "the photon is not energy", it is matter and only possesses energy. Check your facts, "my friend".

Matter has mass and energy.

Stating that Matter "has" mass and energy is not the same as: saying that (Matter "is" mass and energy). If you read what I posted, you'll notice that was explained there. Now I'm back to ignoring you BOX.

Energy is the property of an object, mass is a property of an object, are you trying to say they are the same thing?


''While mass is equivalent to energy,''

They are two different words so the can't be the equivalent, that would mean they were the same. 

Mass is kilos, energy is Jules,  two different things.

[Ethos_]

They are two different words so the can't be the equivalent, that would mean they were the same. 

I was responding to an earlier post where a member said: "everything is energy" which is completely false. While mass and energy are equivalent, Matter and energy are not. The photon possesses energy but the photon "is not energy". The M in the equation: E=mc^2 is referring to mass and not matter.

Saying that; "the photon is energy" is like saying that "I am a cold" instead of "I have a cold". This mistake is repeated over and over again by people that are frankly ignorant about the difference between Mass and Matter.

[agyejy]

Energy is the property of an object, mass is a property of an object, are you trying to say they are the same thing?


''While mass is equivalent to energy,''

They are two different words so the can't be the equivalent, that would mean they were the same. 

Mass is kilos, energy is Jules,  two different things.

One of the most important results that came from the theory of Relativity is that mass and energy are just different ways of measuring the same property. The only reason we ever thought they were different is that some things like light have no rest frame, thus no invariant mass, and some things like electrons do have a rest frame, thus they have an invariant mass. Invariant mass is much easier to measure and define so it came first and then later we learned to measure non-invariant properties that at the time didn't seem to impact the mass of the object and we called those properties energy. The theory of Relativity has shown us these two seemingly different properties are actually the same thing and that if we measure carefully enough (or add enough of that non-invariant property) we will see a change in mass as we change the non-invariant properties like relative velocity.

If you stop and think about it for a bit this actually makes the Universe much simpler on the whole. There is only one property (either mass or energy you can pick) that has invariant and non-invariant components. The invariant component appears to be controlled via interaction with the Higgs field.

[guest39538]

They are two different words so the can't be the equivalent, that would mean they were the same. 

I was responding to an earlier post where a member said: "everything is energy" which is completely false. While mass and energy are equivalent, Matter and energy is not. The photon possesses energy but the photon "is not energy". The M in the equation: E=mc^2 is referring to mass and not matter.

Saying that; "the photon is energy" is like saying that "I am a cold" instead of "I have a cold". This mistake is repeated over and over again by people that are frankly ignorant about the difference between Mass and Matter.

arr, I see now, the common mistake people make is that when looking up a definition they often don't type physics definition,  standard definition of mass is like a mass population, a collective where physics mass is kilos, that is why people get confused.  Yes  M in E=mc˛  is simply mass and a kilo amount.

[Ethos_]

Energy is the property of an object, mass is a property of an object, are you trying to say they are the same thing?


''While mass is equivalent to energy,''

They are two different words so the can't be the equivalent, that would mean they were the same. 

Mass is kilos, energy is Jules,  two different things.

One of the most important results that came from the theory of Relativity is that mass and energy are just different ways of measuring the same property. The only reason we ever thought they were different is that some things like light have no rest frame, thus no invariant mass, and some things like electrons do have a rest frame, thus they have an invariant mass. Invariant mass is much easier to measure and define so it came first and then later we learned to measure non-invariant properties that at the time didn't seem to impact the mass of the object and we called those properties energy. The theory of Relativity has shown us these two seemingly different properties are actually the same thing and that if we measure carefully enough (or add enough of that non-invariant property) we will see a change in mass as we change the non-invariant properties like relative velocity.

If you stop and think about it for a bit this actually makes the Universe much simpler on the whole. There is only one property (either mass or energy you can pick) that has invariant and non-invariant components. The invariant component appears to be controlled via interaction with the Higgs field.

Excellent post agyejy................

[Ethos_]

arr, I see now, the common mistake people make is that when looking up a definition they often don't type physics definition,  standard definition of mass is like a mass population, a collective where physics mass is kilos, that is why people get confused.  Yes  M in E=mc˛  is simply mass and a kilo amount.

Excellent Mr. Box, ..................now that you have become a little more flexible with your views, I may decide to take you off my ignore list.