The Book Thread (cool people need not apply)

[Coach is Back!]

Coach John Woodens Pyramid of Success for about the fifth time. Great inspiration!

[tbombz]

Are you trolling?

With this kind of nonsense for a response you have to be joking surely.

im not going to get into a scientific debate because i am not an expert on the science. in the last thread we talked about this i quoted someone else who was more informed than I who explained that indeed photons have mass, just immeasurable mass. 

It is not that a photon has no mass. A photon has no “rest-mass” but it does have a unified entity called “mass-energy”, which has the same properties as rest mass does, as far as gravitation is concerned.

Consider a pair of electron and positron. They have rest mass, which other masses surrounding them can feel and react to. If this pair of electron and positron were to collide each other and turn themselves into photons, their previous rest mass did not just simply vanish but became mass-energy of the photons. The surrounding masses would still feel the gravitational effect of “mass-energy” of the photons as if it still were rest mass of a pair of electron and positron.

What is meant by the sentence “A photon has no rest-mass” is that there is no frame in which a photon appears at rest. So, it’s impossible to talk about rest-mass of a photon. A photon can only travel at a speed of light and what is measurable is only its mass-energy quantity.


but this kind of talk is unnecessary.

this is basic, common sense.  if soemthing exists, it takes up space. if something takes up space, it has mass.

[tbombz]

His arrogance and ignorance is simply awe-inspiring.

the arrogance of the scientists of the last century is what is awe-inspiring.

[lovemonkey]

im not going to get into a scientific debate because i am not an expert on the science. in the last thread we talked about this i quoted someone else who was more informed than I who explained that indeed photons have mass, just immeasurable mass.  

It is not that a photon has no mass. A photon has no “rest-mass” but it does have a unified entity called “mass-energy”, which has the same properties as rest mass does, as far as gravitation is concerned.

Consider a pair of electron and positron. They have rest mass, which other masses surrounding them can feel and react to. If this pair of electron and positron were to collide each other and turn themselves into photons, their previous rest mass did not just simply vanish but became mass-energy of the photons. The surrounding masses would still feel the gravitational effect of “mass-energy” of the photons as if it still were rest mass of a pair of electron and positron.

What is meant by the sentence “A photon has no rest-mass” is that there is no frame in which a photon appears at rest. So, it’s impossible to talk about rest-mass of a photon. A photon can only travel at a speed of light and what is measurable is only its mass-energy quantity.


but this kind of talk is unnecessary.

this is basic, common sense.  if soemthing exists, it takes up space. if something takes up space, it has mass.

Wanna play the copy and paste game huh? Let's do it

http://imagine.gsfc.nasa.gov/docs/ask_astro/answers/960731.html

"The Question

(Submitted July 31, 1996)
Do photons have mass? Because the equations E=mc2, and E=hf, imply that m=hf/c2 . Is it so?

The Answer

No, photons do not have mass, but they do have momentum. The proper, general equation to use is E2 = m2c4 + p2c2 So in the case of a photon, m=0 so E = pc or p = E/c. On the other hand, for a particle with mass m at rest (i.e., p = 0), you get back the famous E = mc2.
This equation often enters theoretical work in X-ray and Gamma-ray astrophysics, for example in Compton scattering where photons are treated as particles colliding with electrons.

Andy Ptak"

http://www.ccmr.cornell.edu/education/ask/index.html?quid=240

Do photons have mass? If not, then how does gravity affect light (i.e. Black holes)?

Photons, the tiny packets that make up light, do not have mass. However, they do have momentum, even though we learn in physics class that an object's momentum is proportional to its mass. Scientists discovered that a photon's momentum is proportional to its frequency - a property that we usually use to describe things like sound waves. So how can this "particle" have no mass (a property of particles), and yet have a frequency (a property of waves)?
Countless experiments have led scientists to conclude that light is neither a wave nor a particle, but that it is actually both! This is called the wave-particle duality of light: one experiment will show that light is made of particle-like bundles of energy, while another will show light splitting and recombining like wave-fronts in water.

But if light has no mass, then how is the pull of gravity from a black hole so strong that light can't escape? Einstein figured this out with a thought experiment (a favorite past time of great thinkers), and detailed the answer in his theory of general relativity.

Imagine you are in a transparent elevator and your friend is outside aiming a flashlight into your eyes. Annoyed, you press the second floor button. If your friend doesn't move the flashlight, you'll see the light move from your eyes, down your chest, and then past your feet as you accelerate away. From your point of view in the elevator, the light "bent" as you accelerated. So what does this have to do with gravity? In short, Einstein's principle of equivalence states that there is no difference between being accelerated and being pulled by gravity. So if an acceleration "bent" light, then so should gravity - and this is what experiments show! It's usually only seen with massive objects that have very strong gravitational pulls like the Sun and black holes, but scientists have documented this phenomenon and Einstein's theories have been proven extremely accurate.

[lovemonkey]

the arrogance of the scientists of the last century is what is awe-inspiring.

How can you say that when you know absolutely nothing about the things they do research on? Were they all wrong? What the hell do you think you're typing on right now?

[tbombz]

what you copy and pasted didnt address what i copy and pasted.

  in fact it doesnt nothing to refute it at all.

if one were to read both copy and pastes,  they would still understand that a photon is only "massless" because its never at rest and therefore its rest-mass is immeasurable.

but it indeed has "mass-energy", which is the same thing as just plain "mass".

[tbombz]

How can you say that when you know absolutely nothing about the things they do research on? Were they all wrong? What the hell do you think you're typing on right now?

basic, common sense my friend.  the principles of logic applied to physics and the history of time.

[lovemonkey]

what you copy and pasted didnt address what i copy and pasted.

  in fact it doesnt nothing to refute it at all.

if one were to read both copy and pastes,  they would still understand that a photon is only "massless" because its never at rest and therefore its rest-mass is immeasurable.

but it indeed has "mass-energy", which is the same thing as just plain "mass".

This is where you're wrong and it also seems that whoever typed that quote is also wrong/misguided. It's a common misconception to apply the E=mc^2 formula to photons and therefore think they have mass.

But photons have energy. By E=mc2, doesn't this mean that they have A mass?

The equation above was derived from this expression:

E2=(pc)2+(m0c2)2


A photon can still have zero invariant mass (m0), and can still have energy. There's nothing inconsistent here. All of the photon's energy is in the term pc. Some people would say that this is the photon's "inertial mass", since it is similar to the inertia that one feels when trying to stop a moving mass. This may or may not be useful to consider. However, it certainly should not be confused with the concept of the ordinary mass that most people are familiar with.

[lovemonkey]

basic, common sense my friend.  the principles of logic applied to physics and the history of time.

There's absolutely no way you're not trolling at this point.

[dr.chimps]

basic, common sense my friend.  the principles of logic applied to physics and the history of time.

Might as well drop out now, bombz. It's obvious you know it all. A(ny) degree would just be superfluous at this point.

[tbombz]

This is where you're wrong and it also seems that whoever typed that quote is also wrong/misguided. It's a common misconception to apply the E=mc^2 formula to photons and therefore think they have mass.

no, he wasnt wrong.

If this pair of electron and positron were to collide each other and turn themselves into photons, their previous rest mass did not just simply vanish but became mass-energy of the photons.

this is basic. niether mass nor energy is ever destroyed.

 again, if something exists it takes up space. if something takes up space, it has mass.
  

i will  suggest to you though.. if you consider the idea of energy as not existing at all in physical terms.. but only in a supernatural "ghostly" manner..  like a spirit which can be seen but is transparant, permeable, and not physical... then its possible for it to exist and not have any physical mass..

[tbombz]

Might as well drop out now, bombz. It's obvious you know it all. A(ny) degree would just be superfluous at this point.

chimps, use your head a little bit, if you read my posts its obvious im not being arrogant, i wont even attempt to dicsuss complex scientific issues because i am unable to do so. i stay in the realm of basic concepts and logical deduction. 

[lovemonkey]

no, he wasnt wrong.

If this pair of electron and positron were to collide each other and turn themselves into photons, their previous rest mass did not just simply vanish but became mass-energy of the photons.

this is basic. niether mass nor energy is ever destroyed.

 again, if something exists it takes up space. if something takes up space, it has mass.
  

i will  suggest to you though.. if you consider the idea of energy as not existing at all in physical terms.. but only in a supernatural "ghostly" manner..  like a spirit which can be seen but is transparant, permeable, and not physical... then its possible for it to exist and not have any physical mass..

You're making the exact same mistake again. Photons have momentum-energy and not mass-energy.

Btw, for someone ripping modern science apart to its core you sure do like to use the results of it to try and prove a misguided point. You can't have it both ways.

[dr.chimps]

chimps, use your head a little bit, if you read my posts its obvious im not being arrogant, i wont even attempt to dicsuss complex scientific issues because i am unable to do so. i stay in the realm of basic concepts and logical deduction. 

That's all right. I've met a goodly number of bar-stool prophets in my time. They never really accomplish anything, but, boyo, they do know how to talk a good game. Usually flamed out by 40, and dead by 50, so ya got that to look forward to.