[Bored chemist]

deceleration does not necessarily  is due to mass increment ,it is due to inertia increment. Mass/Energy equivalence is just a mess as I mentioned Reply#24

Inertia is proportional to mass .Bigger mass is bigger inertia and bigger deceleration.
As inertia is proportional to mass .We can replace mass with inertia  in the equation of S.R
I=I0/√(1-v²/c²)

Did you read that before you posted it?

You start by saying that mass and inertia are different, then you say they are proportional, then you say they are the same.

While you are at it you say
"Bigger mass is bigger inertia and bigger deceleration."
which is plainly the wrong way round.

So, lets get back to the point I made.
There's an enormous reaction force on the magnets  used in accelerators.
And that's because they are accelerating rather large masses.
But the thing they are accelerating is just a bunch of protons.
If the mass of the proton didn't increase with energy, the forces needed to bend their path into a circle would be much smaller.

But the forces are real, and so we know that the mass increase is real.
This remains true whether you are confused about it or not.

A photon then does not have an inertia

And yet there is a transfer of momentum when it is emitted, reflected  or absorbed.

Your view doesn't agree with reality.
This is not because reality messed up.

E=mc² is true but that doesn't mean energy behaves as mass .

Yes it does.
If you have enough of it, and don't take account of it, it will tear the magnets out of their mountings.

[Yahya A.Sharif (OP)]

A photon then does not have an inertia .

Actually, it does. A photon falls towards a source of gravity at the same rate as an object with mass does.

A photon will not have any acceleration in any circumstances in the universe  . Its speed can change but it  jumps from a velocity value to another velocity value   .Inertia is the resistance to change in  velocity or to gain acceleration .A Photon also has gravity because a photon is energy , both energy and rest mass have gravity .
A photon moves .As it has no rest mass it will move at the maximum speed which is c this is without any obstacles. that prevents it from reaching c .This obstacle is rest mass which if a photon has it will prevent a photon from reaching c.. The rest mass is an obstacle because  a rest mass never reaches c.

[Kryptid]

A photon will not have any acceleration in any circumstances in the universe  .

Ah, so you are denying the existence of gravitational lensing. That's good to know.

[hamdani yusuf]

If it wasn't for relativistic mass, gold wouldn't be yellow: https://www.fourmilab.ch/documents/golden_glow/

With an atomic number of 79, gold is in the last row of the periodic table containing stable elements, and only four stable elements (mercury, thallium, lead, and bismuth) have greater atomic number.

Why those heavier elements look grey? Why copper look orange?

[hamdani yusuf]

The term "photon" is very specific. It refers to the quantum of the electromagnetic force. It is a boson particle with a spin of one, is electrically-neutral and does not have a rest mass. It something does not have those characteristics, then it isn't a photon.

Do transformers, induction heaters, wireless chargers, radio antennae release photons?
If a single positive pulse is fed to an antenna, will it release electrically-neutral photons?

[Yahya A.Sharif (OP)]

A photon will not have any acceleration in any circumstances in the universe  .

Ah, so you are denying the existence of gravitational lensing. That's good to know.

Acceleration the rate in increment in velocity .A photon doesn't accelerate .The photon velocity can not increase more than c .Deceleration is different .Deceleration is the rate of reduction in velocity a photon can have a reduction in its speed and this true ..

Pushing  a flashlight forward will not increase light speed . So photon has no acceleration or inertia .

pushing a flashlight forward is a good example pushing will not accelerate a photon because a photon has no rest mass.
Mass and inertia are proportional .And both can prevent mass to reach c. Einstein used mass instead of inertia and made the mess in reply #24

[xersanozgen]

OK, we know that the universe is finite.
So we know that there is only space (and energy)  in it for a finite number of photons.
so LOGIC, says you are wrong.

I would say  almost infinite  ; so opportunism is not significant.

Yet you think logic says you ar right.
So, we can deduce that you do not understand logic.

That explains a lot.
Please refrain from further posting until you have learned to be rational.

You could not comprehend requirement of a comparison material/object for the the lifetime experiment of muons. Therefore...your refeering is problematic for any subject.

[Bored chemist]

You could not comprehend requirement of a comparison material/object for the the lifetime experiment of muons. Therefore...your refeering is problematic for any subject.

Do any of the professional scientists here understand "requirement of a comparison material/object for the the lifetime experiment of muons."?
I can't even parse it.

It's true that, if stuff is written badly enough, I can't review it.

[Bored chemist]

If a single positive pulse is fed to an antenna,

What do you think you mean by that?

[Bored chemist]

Quote from: Kryptid on Today at 07:50:34
Quote from: Yahya A.Sharif on Today at 07:43:52
A photon will not have any acceleration in any circumstances in the universe  .
Ah, so you are denying the existence of gravitational lensing. That's good to know.
Acceleration the rate in increment in velocity .A photon doesn't accelerate .The photon velocity can not increase more than c .Deceleration is different .Deceleration is the rate of reduction in velocity a photon can have a reduction in its speed and this true ..

Pushing  a flashlight forward will not increase light speed . So photon has no acceleration or inertia .

pushing a flashlight forward is a good example pushing will not accelerate a photon because a photon has no rest mass.
Mass and inertia are proportional .And both can prevent mass to reach c. Einstein used mass instead of inertia and made the mess in reply #24

OK, so you don't understand what acceleration is.
It the rate of change of velocity.
Velocity is a combination of  speed and direction.
The speed of light is constant but, in a gravitational field the direction changes, and thus the velocity changes.
Light traveling on a "curved" path is accelerated towards the inside of the curve.

[Bored chemist]

Do transformers, induction heaters, wireless chargers, radio antennae release photons?

Yes.

[hamdani yusuf]

If a single positive pulse is fed to an antenna,

What do you think you mean by that?

For example, a battery is grounded on its negative terminal. The positive terminal is momentarily connected to the antenna, and then disconnected again after some time.

[Bored chemist]

So thats a bidirectional pulse where the voltage flows into the antenna, hits the end and bounces back and to for a while, followed by a similar pulse when you disconnect it.
Yes that will radiate EM radiation.

[xersanozgen]

Do any of the professional scientists here understand "requirement of a comparison material/object for the the lifetime experiment of muons."?
 

Yes absolutely, any one asks to compare what is the normal value of muons' lifetime.

Is this a discussion subject in a science forum?

You are great.

[Kryptid]

Acceleration the rate in increment in velocity .A photon doesn't accelerate .The photon velocity can not increase more than c .Deceleration is different .Deceleration is the rate of reduction in velocity a photon can have a reduction in its speed and this true ..

Pushing  a flashlight forward will not increase light speed . So photon has no acceleration or inertia .

pushing a flashlight forward is a good example pushing will not accelerate a photon because a photon has no rest mass.
Mass and inertia are proportional .And both can prevent mass to reach c. Einstein used mass instead of inertia and made the mess in reply #24

Counter-intuitively, an object can travel at constant speed and be in a state of acceleration at the same time. Take the teeth of a spinning gear as an example. The gear can be spinning at a constant speed but the teeth with be experiencing an angular acceleration. This is the same thing as a ray of light being trapped in orbit around a black hole. The ray of light is still traveling at c, but it is also experiencing angular acceleration. That, in turn, it just an extreme case of light being deflected by a gravitational field (which is what causes gravitational lensing). So light can indeed experience an acceleration due to gravity. That acceleration is the same acceleration experienced by matter.

Inertia is defined as the resistance of an object to a change in velocity. An object's mass (and therefore inertia) will cause it to resist being accelerated by a gravitational field. However, this resistance is identical to the resistance to acceleration that a light ray will experience in a gravitational field. Take a look at the equivalence principle. If we are in an elevator accelerating upwards, then its effects are indistinguishable from that of a uniform gravitational field.

Let's say that we are in that elevator and we have a pebble in one hand and a flashlight in the other. We orient the flashlight horizontally and flip it on at the exact same time that we release the pebble. Because the elevator is accelerating upwards, the floor of the elevator will accelerate towards both the pebble and the flashlight beam. In our reference frame, it will look like the pebble is accelerating towards the floor. In turn, it will look like the light beam is being bent more and more towards the floor of the elevator as well (assuming a very, very wide elevator to keep it from hitting the wall, of course). The pebble will then hit the floor at the same moment that the flashlight beam will hit the floor.

Since this is equivalent to a gravitational field, a beam of light will be bent towards a source of gravity at the same rate as the falling pebble. If the pebble is defined as having mass and inertia, then the light beam can also be defined as having mass and inertia because it behaves the same way in that same gravitational field.

[Bored chemist]

Do any of the professional scientists here understand "requirement of a comparison material/object for the the lifetime experiment of muons."?
 

Yes absolutely, any one asks to compare what is the normal value of muons' lifetime.

Is this a discussion subject in a science forum?

You are great.

Why didn't you say that the first time.

OK, we know what the lifetime of muons is- because we can make them.
The important issue is that the half life varies with speed.

And it's calculable
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Muon#Theoretical_decay_rate

So, what was that about this

Is this a discussion subject in a science forum?

?
Did you think you were doing science or someting?

[Bored chemist]

Counter-intuitively, an object can travel at constant velocity and be in a state of acceleration at the same time. Take the teeth of a spinning gear as an example. The gear can be spinning at a constant velocity

That's not a constant velocity, it's a constant speed.
That's the difference.

[Kryptid]

That's not a constant velocity, it's a constant speed.
That's the difference.

Ah, you are right. I'll go back and correct it.

[PmbPhy]

For example, a battery is grounded on its negative terminal.

That is merely a matter of convention. On American cars the negative terminal is "grounded" by attaching the negative terminal of the battery to the cars frame. In some European cars its the opposite, i.e. positive terminal is set to ground. There is nothing sacred about either convention.

[Bored chemist]

For example, a battery is grounded on its negative terminal.

That is merely a matter of convention. On American cars the negative terminal is "grounded" by attaching the negative terminal of the battery to the cars frame. In some European cars its the opposite, i.e. positive terminal is set to ground. There is nothing sacred about either convention.

Nobody said there was.
But, since I asked him for a specific example, and he provided one, he was doing what was actually needed.