Education Forums
| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
Mitch Raemsch
Guest
|
 Posted: Fri Jul 11, 2008 4:07 am Post subject: Light has mass; That's smart |
 |
|
Light does not have any kinetic energy. None of its mass comes from
its constant motion therefore it does not behave like matter. Light's
mass comes from the energy of its frequency. Matters additional mass
comes from its motion.
Mitch Raemsch |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
| |
Ads |
Advertising
Sponsor
|
|
Benj
Guest
|
| Posted: Fri Jul 11, 2008 6:40 am Post subject: Re: Light has mass; That's smart |
|
|
On Jul 11, 12:07 am, Mitch Raemsch <mitch.nicolas.raem...@gmail.com>
wrote:
| Quote: |
Light does not have any kinetic energy. None of its mass comes from
its constant motion therefore it does not behave like matter. Light's
mass comes from the energy of its frequency. Matters additional mass
comes from its motion.
|
Light has no kinetic energy? Then how does it generate enough force to
float a glass sphere or collapse a mylar satellite?
No dual Nobel prizes for you THIS year!
moron.
(uncle Al made me do it!) |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| |
Ads |
Advertising
Sponsor
|
|
The Ghost In The Machine
Guest
|
| Posted: Fri Jul 11, 2008 11:00 am Post subject: Re: Light has mass; That's smart |
|
|
In sci.physics.relativity, Benj
<bjacoby@iwaynet.net>
wrote
on Thu, 10 Jul 2008 23:40:36 -0700 (PDT)
<eced3790-71a2-4098-b444-143c5b7f49b0@d77g2000hsb.googlegroups.com>:
| Quote: |
On Jul 11, 12:07 am, Mitch Raemsch <mitch.nicolas.raem...@gmail.com
wrote:
Light does not have any kinetic energy. None of its mass comes from
its constant motion therefore it does not behave like matter. Light's
mass comes from the energy of its frequency. Matters additional mass
comes from its motion.
Light has no kinetic energy? Then how does it generate enough force to
float a glass sphere or collapse a mylar satellite?
No dual Nobel prizes for you THIS year!
moron.
(uncle Al made me do it!)
|
Not to belabor the obvious, but light is also known to:
[1] spin vanes in an evacuated globe (a radiometer).
[2] eject electrons from a sensitive surface (photoelectric effect).
[3] heat things; granted, this one might be explained by
thermal rather than kinetic, but what is thermal but a
submicroscopic jiggle?
[4] wiggle electrons in a coil or antenna, feeding an amplifier.
Granted, that one might be explained by magnetic or electric,
rather than kinetic.
In any event, I'm not sure mass comes from anything; it just is. ;-)
Though the Big Bang might be a good explanation as to where mass "comes
from".
--
#191, ewill3@earthlink.net
Useless C/C++ Programming Idea #12398234:
void f(char *p) {char *q = strdup(p); strcpy(p,q);}
** Posted from http://www.teranews.com ** |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| |
Ads |
Advertising
Sponsor
|
|
Johnnie In The Billows
Guest
|
| Posted: Fri Jul 11, 2008 2:49 pm Post subject: Re: Light has mass; That's smart |
|
|
| Quote: |
Light has mass; That's smart
|
Light is heavy. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| |
Ads |
Advertising
Sponsor
|
|
Johnnie In The Billows
Guest
|
| Posted: Fri Jul 11, 2008 2:50 pm Post subject: Re: Light has mass; That's smart |
|
|
On Jul 11, 7:40 am, Benj <bjac...@iwaynet.net> wrote:
| Quote: |
On Jul 11, 12:07 am, Mitch Raemsch <mitch.nicolas.raem...@gmail.com
wrote:
Light does not have any kinetic energy. None of its mass comes from
its constant motion therefore it does not behave like matter. Light's
mass comes from the energy of its frequency. Matters additional mass
comes from its motion.
Light has no kinetic energy? Then how does it generate enough force to
float a glass sphere or collapse a mylar satellite?
No dual Nobel prizes for you THIS year!
moron.
(uncle Al made me do it!)
|
In the interests of good digestion, I won't ask you *what* he made you
do. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| |
Ads |
Advertising
Sponsor
|
|
Androcles
Guest
|
| Posted: Fri Jul 11, 2008 4:16 pm Post subject: Re: Light has mass; That's smart |
|
|
"The Ghost In The Machine" <ewill@sirius.tg00suus7038.net> wrote in message
news:6hojk5-f3t.ln1@sirius.tg00suus7038.net...
| In sci.physics.relativity, Benj
| <bjacoby@iwaynet.net>
| wrote
| on Thu, 10 Jul 2008 23:40:36 -0700 (PDT)
| <eced3790-71a2-4098-b444-143c5b7f49b0@d77g2000hsb.googlegroups.com>:
| > On Jul 11, 12:07 am, Mitch Raemsch <mitch.nicolas.raem...@gmail.com>
| > wrote:
| >> Light does not have any kinetic energy. None of its mass comes from
| >> its constant motion therefore it does not behave like matter. Light's
| >> mass comes from the energy of its frequency. Matters additional mass
| >> comes from its motion.
| >
| > Light has no kinetic energy? Then how does it generate enough force to
| > float a glass sphere or collapse a mylar satellite?
| >
| > No dual Nobel prizes for you THIS year!
| >
| > moron.
| > (uncle Al made me do it!)
|
| Not to belabor the obvious, but light is also known to:
|
| [1] spin vanes in an evacuated globe (a radiometer).
| [2] eject electrons from a sensitive surface (photoelectric effect).
| [3] heat things; granted, this one might be explained by
| thermal rather than kinetic, but what is thermal but a
| submicroscopic jiggle?
| [4] wiggle electrons in a coil or antenna, feeding an amplifier.
| Granted, that one might be explained by magnetic or electric,
| rather than kinetic.
[5] Not heavy.
[6] Watered down beer. http://www.coorslight.com/
| In any event, I'm not sure mass comes from anything; it just is. ;-)
| Though the Big Bang might be a good explanation as to where mass "comes
| from".
Yeah, and Santa Claus might be a really, really good explanation where
Christmas "comes from". Not that I'd believe that either... |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| |
Ads |
Advertising
Sponsor
|
|
Pmb
Guest
|
| Posted: Fri Jul 11, 2008 6:00 pm Post subject: Re: Light has mass; That's smart |
|
|
"Benj" <bjacoby@iwaynet.net> wrote in message
news:eced3790-71a2-4098-b444-143c5b7f49b0@d77g2000hsb.googlegroups.com...
On Jul 11, 12:07 am, Mitch Raemsch <mitch.nicolas.raem...@gmail.com>
wrote:
| Quote: |
Light does not have any kinetic energy. None of its mass comes from
its constant motion therefore it does not behave like matter. Light's
mass comes from the energy of its frequency. Matters additional mass
comes from its motion.
Light has no kinetic energy? Then how does it generate enough force to
float a glass sphere or collapse a mylar satellite?
|
The energy of light is actually considered to be all kinetic.
Pete |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| |
Ads |
Advertising
Sponsor
|
|
Pmb
Guest
|
| Posted: Fri Jul 11, 2008 6:04 pm Post subject: Re: Light has mass; That's smart |
|
|
"The Ghost In The Machine" <ewill@sirius.tg00suus7038.net> wrote in message
news:6hojk5-f3t.ln1@sirius.tg00suus7038.net...
| Quote: |
In sci.physics.relativity, Benj
bjacoby@iwaynet.net
wrote
on Thu, 10 Jul 2008 23:40:36 -0700 (PDT)
eced3790-71a2-4098-b444-143c5b7f49b0@d77g2000hsb.googlegroups.com>:
On Jul 11, 12:07 am, Mitch Raemsch <mitch.nicolas.raem...@gmail.com
wrote:
Light does not have any kinetic energy. None of its mass comes from
its constant motion therefore it does not behave like matter. Light's
mass comes from the energy of its frequency. Matters additional mass
comes from its motion.
Light has no kinetic energy? Then how does it generate enough force to
float a glass sphere or collapse a mylar satellite?
No dual Nobel prizes for you THIS year!
moron.
(uncle Al made me do it!)
Not to belabor the obvious, but light is also known to:
[1] spin vanes in an evacuated globe (a radiometer).
|
That is incorrect. It is heat that does that, i.e. one side of the vane is
black while the other is relfective. The black side heats up and thus heat
up the air inside the globe (the globe is not completely evacuated contrary
to your assumption). If the globe were completely evacuated the friction
from the spindal would over come the extremely small force of the light.
This is all easily confirmed by noting that the vane spins in a direction
which is opposite to what it would if the torque was due to radiation
pressure.
| Quote: |
[2] eject electrons from a sensitive surface (photoelectric effect).
[3] heat things; granted, this one might be explained by
thermal rather than kinetic, but what is thermal but a
submicroscopic jiggle?
[4] wiggle electrons in a coil or antenna, feeding an amplifier.
Granted, that one might be explained by magnetic or electric,
rather than kinetic.
In any event, I'm not sure mass comes from anything; it just is. ;-)
Though the Big Bang might be a good explanation as to where mass "comes
from".
|
Inertial mass is what gives a particle momentum and its momentum which
causes radiation pressure.
Pete |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| |
Ads |
Advertising
Sponsor
|
|
hhc314@yahoo.com
Guest
|
| Posted: Fri Jul 11, 2008 6:09 pm Post subject: Re: Light has mass; That's smart |
|
|
On Jul 11, 9:00 am, "Pmb" <physics_wo...@yahoo.com> wrote:
| Quote: |
"Benj" <bjac...@iwaynet.net> wrote in message
news:eced3790-71a2-4098-b444-143c5b7f49b0@d77g2000hsb.googlegroups.com...
On Jul 11, 12:07 am, Mitch Raemsch <mitch.nicolas.raem...@gmail.com
wrote:
Light does not have any kinetic energy. None of its mass comes from
its constant motion therefore it does not behave like matter. Light's
mass comes from the energy of its frequency. Matters additional mass
comes from its motion.
Light has no kinetic energy? Then how does it generate enough force to
float a glass sphere or collapse a mylar satellite?
The energy of light is actually considered to be all kinetic.
Pete
|
Pete, that statement is just a little broad in my opinion. Kinetic
Energy in physics is regarded as the energy associated with mass in
motion.
With electromagnetic radiation, such as light, often no mass is
present in the energy transmission so by fundamental definition, light
is not kindetic energy.
I know, just a nit. Sure I know, electromagnetic radiation has
momentum, but that does no imply that it has mass, hence it is not to
a physicist kinetic energy.
Watch out for the formal definitions of terms. If you are unaware of
them, they can screw you on every turn! :-)
Still, I like your posts which are usually right on the money.
Harry C. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| |
Ads |
Advertising
Sponsor
|
|
hhc314@yahoo.com
Guest
|
| Posted: Fri Jul 11, 2008 6:45 pm Post subject: Re: Light has mass; That's smart |
|
|
On Jul 11, 9:04 am, "Pmb" <physics_wo...@yahoo.com> wrote:
| Quote: |
"The Ghost In The Machine" <ew...@sirius.tg00suus7038.net> wrote in messagenews:6hojk5-f3t.ln1@sirius.tg00suus7038.net...
In sci.physics.relativity, Benj
bjac...@iwaynet.net
wrote
on Thu, 10 Jul 2008 23:40:36 -0700 (PDT)
eced3790-71a2-4098-b444-143c5b7f4...@d77g2000hsb.googlegroups.com>:
On Jul 11, 12:07 am, Mitch Raemsch <mitch.nicolas.raem...@gmail.com
wrote:
Light does not have any kinetic energy. None of its mass comes from
its constant motion therefore it does not behave like matter. Light's
mass comes from the energy of its frequency. Matters additional mass
comes from its motion.
Light has no kinetic energy? Then how does it generate enough force to
float a glass sphere or collapse a mylar satellite?
No dual Nobel prizes for you THIS year!
moron.
(uncle Al made me do it!)
Not to belabor the obvious, but light is also known to:
[1] spin vanes in an evacuated globe (a radiometer).
That is incorrect. It is heat that does that, i.e. one side of the vane is
black while the other is relfective. The black side heats up and thus heat
up the air inside the globe (the globe is not completely evacuated contrary
to your assumption). If the globe were completely evacuated the friction
from the spindal would over come the extremely small force of the light.
This is all easily confirmed by noting that the vane spins in a direction
which is opposite to what it would if the torque was due to radiation
pressure.
|
Absolutely correct!
Snip.
| Quote: |
In any event, I'm not sure mass comes from anything; it just is. ;-)
Though the Big Bang might be a good explanation as to where mass "comes
from".
Inertial mass is what gives a particle momentum and its momentum which
causes radiation pressure.
|
Pete, here you are combining apples and oranges and arriving at in
incorrect explanation.
Your error is that you are mixing particles (where you are absolutely
correct) with photons which ACT in some cases like particles, but in
relaity of electromagnetic waves.
The fact is that electromagnetic waves sometimes seem to act like
particles (the photoelectric effect), while accelererated partcles
(say protons) have as associate De Broglie wavelenth depending on
their energy.
Both accelerated particles and photons have wave properties, and while
both acclerated particles and photons have momentum, particles have
mass while photons have none. This is an enigma that troubled even
Dr. Einstein. So don't look to Usenet for an explanation.
So here is the basic enigma. Because since Maxwell, science has been
able to understand how electromagnetic radiation travels through to
void of mass free space, and though the vacuum.
Now in my ignorance, I am going to throw out a hypothesis that I
believe could be correct. So please SPACEMAN, please pardon me for
this. Now tested SR demonstrates and shows that particles increase
with mass as their energy increases, is it much of a stretch to assume
that the apararent mass of a photon is that of its energy content?
You know, the E = Mc^2 thing that we all learned in highschool
physics.
It works for me, although I am not familiar with the experimental
physics that supports such a contention. Actually, it seems to be to
be rather basic.
Still, it is important for a lay reader here to understand that as a
physicist, I employ a great deal of logicial and mathematical
abstraction, and am sophisticated enough to not regard these as
reality. Still, mathematical abstractions can be very useful,
particularly when supported by experimental evidence. That doesn't
mean that they are reality, and this is something that lay readers
sometimes have trouble in comprehending.
Reality is something that only exists in our minds, in itself an
abstract concept. What we accept as seeing is a coordinately
collection of diffraction patterns, which out mind correlates into an
image which we accept as fact. Keep that in mind. Absolute reality is
very difficult to see.
'Nuff said.
Harry C.
| Quote: |
Pete- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text - |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| |
Ads |
Advertising
Sponsor
|
|
hhc314@yahoo.com
Guest
|
| Posted: Fri Jul 11, 2008 7:15 pm Post subject: Re: Light has mass; That's smart |
|
|
On Jul 11, 11:45 am, Uncle Al <Uncle...@hate.spam.net> wrote:
| Quote: |
Mitch Raemsch wrote:
Light does not have any kinetic energy. None of its mass comes from
its constant motion therefore it does not behave like matter. Light's
mass comes from the energy of its frequency. Matters additional mass
comes from its motion.
Mitch Raemsch
Fucking imbecile.
http://prola.aps.org/abstract/PRL/v90/i8/e081801
Phys. Rev. Lett. 90 081801 (2003)
Phys. Rev. Lett. 80 1826 (1998)
Phys. Rev. Lett. 68 23 3383 (1992)
Phys. Rev. D 8 2349 (1973)
Photon rest mass is less than 10^(-51) grams or 7x10^(-19) electron
volts. If the photon had non-zero rest mass then electromagnetism
would have a finite range and force proportional to 1/r^2 would not
obtain.
1) Idiot Raemsch has no education.
2) Idiot Raemsch is no autodidact.
3) Idiot Raemsch has no math skills.
4) Idiot Raemsch is uncouth.
5) Idiot Raemsch is a masochist.
6) Idiot Raemsch is a eunuch in a brothel, a capon in a henhouse, a
steer amidst cows; a stot, a gelding, a gelt, a havier, a gib, a
lapin, a seg, a hog, a wether... a troll in a science newsgroup.
7) Idiot Raemsch exercises anile kneejerk spasms befitting a
particulary inferior undergrad assignment in spew emulation. Having
pissed upon a skyscraper wall, troll Raemsch rears back and exhorts
the crowd to admire both his spoor and the stunted flesh straw that
emplaced it.
Hey stooopid Raemsch - hypo-orchidism plus hypospadias? How greatly
empowered you are to piss into your own eyes.
--
Uncle Alhttp://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/
(Toxic URL! Unsafe for children and most mammals)http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/lajos.htm#a2
|
Al, realize that these cluless dorks have been present since the
original origins of Usenet. They come and they go over the years.
There is no point in even responding to them, since they exist in a
transmit only mode, evidently lacking a receiver.
Then too Al, why do you post in sci.physics, since as I recall
sci.chem was your usual lurk.
I really cannot criticize the accuracy of the information that you
post, but have to wonder why you bother to post it, without any
attempt to explain it to the reader who at the particular time you are
attempting to intimidate with your vast wealth of stored knowledge.
Yes, Al, I realize that you are a very smart guy with a great deal in
stored facts in your brain. Trust me, I went through both college and
graduate school with guys exactly like you, but I remember a friend,
this guy has a photographic memory. The problem was that although his
head was filled with memorized fact, he couldn't understand even a
simple EE lab experiment and called me every Sunday night to ask me to
explain the purpose of the experiment to him...Poor guy, had something
like a 3.9 GPA, but flunked out during the 4th year, because he could
not pass exams in Junior year classes in Theoretical Mechanics. (Sad
too, because at the time he was a Pennsylvania State Chess Master.
Trust me Al, you would not want to play chess with this guy.)
Al, we both know that a majority of posters here has no background in
formal physics. So what perverse pleasure do you derive by repeately
calling them "stoopid"?
Why not spend some time helping them to elevate themselves up to your
level by explaining their errors. I know, thats a Quaker and Masonic
concept, but I am aware that this is also a Jewish thing...to teach.
At least to try!
Harry C. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| |
Ads |
Advertising
Sponsor
|
|
Uncle Al
Guest
|
| Posted: Fri Jul 11, 2008 8:45 pm Post subject: Re: Light has mass; That's smart |
|
|
Mitch Raemsch wrote:
| Quote: |
Light does not have any kinetic energy. None of its mass comes from
its constant motion therefore it does not behave like matter. Light's
mass comes from the energy of its frequency. Matters additional mass
comes from its motion.
Mitch Raemsch
|
Fucking imbecile.
http://prola.aps.org/abstract/PRL/v90/i8/e081801
Phys. Rev. Lett. 90 081801 (2003)
Phys. Rev. Lett. 80 1826 (1998)
Phys. Rev. Lett. 68 23 3383 (1992)
Phys. Rev. D 8 2349 (1973)
Photon rest mass is less than 10^(-51) grams or 7x10^(-19) electron
volts. If the photon had non-zero rest mass then electromagnetism
would have a finite range and force proportional to 1/r^2 would not
obtain.
1) Idiot Raemsch has no education.
2) Idiot Raemsch is no autodidact.
3) Idiot Raemsch has no math skills.
4) Idiot Raemsch is uncouth.
5) Idiot Raemsch is a masochist.
6) Idiot Raemsch is a eunuch in a brothel, a capon in a henhouse, a
steer amidst cows; a stot, a gelding, a gelt, a havier, a gib, a
lapin, a seg, a hog, a wether... a troll in a science newsgroup.
7) Idiot Raemsch exercises anile kneejerk spasms befitting a
particulary inferior undergrad assignment in spew emulation. Having
pissed upon a skyscraper wall, troll Raemsch rears back and exhorts
the crowd to admire both his spoor and the stunted flesh straw that
emplaced it.
Hey stooopid Raemsch - hypo-orchidism plus hypospadias? How greatly
empowered you are to piss into your own eyes.
--
Uncle Al
http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/
(Toxic URL! Unsafe for children and most mammals)
http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/lajos.htm#a2 |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| |
Ads |
Advertising
Sponsor
|
|
Sue...
Guest
|
| Posted: Fri Jul 11, 2008 9:13 pm Post subject: Re: Light has mass; That's smart |
|
|
On Jul 11, 9:00 am, "Pmb" <physics_wo...@yahoo.com> wrote:
| Quote: |
"Benj" <bjac...@iwaynet.net> wrote in message
news:eced3790-71a2-4098-b444-143c5b7f49b0@d77g2000hsb.googlegroups.com...
On Jul 11, 12:07 am, Mitch Raemsch <mitch.nicolas.raem...@gmail.com
wrote:
Light does not have any kinetic energy. None of its mass comes from
its constant motion therefore it does not behave like matter. Light's
mass comes from the energy of its frequency. Matters additional mass
comes from its motion.
Light has no kinetic energy? Then how does it generate enough force to
float a glass sphere or collapse a mylar satellite?
The energy of light is actually considered to be all kinetic.
|
For every positive charge that is pushed by an emitter an
equivalent negative charge is pulled.
I get nothing but angular momentum from that.
Sue...
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| |
Ads |
Advertising
Sponsor
|
|
Ken S. Tucker
Guest
|
| Posted: Fri Jul 11, 2008 9:35 pm Post subject: Re: Light has mass; That's smart |
|
|
On Jul 11, 2:13 pm, "Sue..." <suzysewns...@yahoo.com.au> wrote:
| Quote: |
On Jul 11, 9:00 am, "Pmb" <physics_wo...@yahoo.com> wrote:
"Benj" <bjac...@iwaynet.net> wrote in message
news:eced3790-71a2-4098-b444-143c5b7f49b0@d77g2000hsb.googlegroups.com...
On Jul 11, 12:07 am, Mitch Raemsch <mitch.nicolas.raem...@gmail.com
wrote:
Light does not have any kinetic energy. None of its mass comes from
its constant motion therefore it does not behave like matter. Light's
mass comes from the energy of its frequency. Matters additional mass
comes from its motion.
Light has no kinetic energy? Then how does it generate enough force to
float a glass sphere or collapse a mylar satellite?
The energy of light is actually considered to be all kinetic.
For every positive charge that is pushed by an emitter an
equivalent negative charge is pulled.
I get nothing but angular momentum from that.
Sue...
|
Well Sue, we'd need to explain how we radio
xmitter guys put power into an antenna then
it is radiated, turn on a radio.
Recall "angular momentum" is expressible as
ACTION, and energy is the Rate of Action.
You (Sue) might be right, but I thought there
was a "momentum recoil". I've read photon
thrusters max the Isp.
Regards
Ken S. Tucker |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| |
Ads |
Advertising
Sponsor
|
|
Mitch Raemsch
Guest
|
| Posted: Fri Jul 11, 2008 10:19 pm Post subject: Re: Light has mass; That's smart |
|
|
On Jul 10, 10:40 pm, Benj <bjac...@iwaynet.net> wrote:
| Quote: |
On Jul 11, 12:07 am, Mitch Raemsch <mitch.nicolas.raem...@gmail.com
wrote:
Light does not have any kinetic energy. None of its mass comes from
its constant motion therefore it does not behave like matter. Light's
mass comes from the energy of its frequency. Matters additional mass
comes from its motion.
Light has no kinetic energy? Then how does it generate enough force to
float a glass sphere or collapse a mylar satellite?
|
From the energy of its frequency benj.
Mitch Raemsch
| Quote: |
No dual Nobel prizes for you THIS year!
moron.
(uncle Al made me do it!) |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| |
Ads |
Advertising
Sponsor
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
|
93 Attacks blocked
Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2005 phpBB Group
|
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Usergroups
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
