Printable View
moxnix: light dose have enery(or is energy) and as Schrodinger stated it has momentum, so while it is on the scale it registers. Mush like you can get a sound wave to register on a scale to show weight even though it dosn't have any mass. Light isn't a partical - wave its a partical and a wave (or neither) at the same time.
More hereQuote:
Light, mass, gravity and momentum.
The photon has no mass: The argument goes " light has energy and momentum, it responds to gravity, therefore it has mass" Not true. Light does have energy and momentum but these don't imply mass. In fact what they lead to is relativistic mass.
RaodClosed's first link does give proof that light does not have mass, but may appear to due to it's momentum. Besides, a photon is a massless particle if we are to beieve our friend Einstein's general theory of relativity. You still lose, clintonsucks!
Yes the theory of relativity would fall to pieces if light has mass. It would be incapable of reaching it's own measured constant. In addition light does not have an acceleration factor. If it did, it would take time to excellerate because mass takes time to excellerate. Light does not do this.
<------ still an idiot.
//edited later... in case no one notices the original posted topic was modified instead of a new post being added to change the flow of thinking.
Does an electron have mass? Then? Why a fight? Doesn't solve anything.
Here we go again....... For a min. am going with the scientific belief, if gas where to have no matter (which it does) and the sun where made up from it, would you still stick next to your theory?Quote:
Yes the theory of relativity would fall to pieces if light has mass. It would be incapable of reaching it's own measured constant. In addition light does not have an acceleration factor. If it did, it would take time to excellerate because mass takes time to excellerate because mass takes time to excellerate. Light does not do this.
You said something about, that the sun doesn't move or nonetheless have motion? The galaxy is always growing and moving...
PS: Will add more, in a sec., am working on something important!
:confused: Huh!?!?!Quote:
Originally posted here by d00dz Attackin
Does an electron have mass? Then? Why a fight? Doesn't solve anything.
Here we go again....... For a min. am going with the scientific belief, if gas where to have no matter (which it does) and the sun where made up from it, would you still stick next to your theory?
You said something about, that the sun doesn't move or nonetheless have motion? The galaxy is always growing and moving...
Imma be an idiot too. A photon has no mass. Does a photon have relativistic mass ¿. . . of course, but where getting into a semantic argument about the word 'mass', b/c relativistic mass would just be a measure of energy. So no, no mass to a photon, but what about a tachyon, heh?? :D
err, ugghh, is'nt light energy? I don't think energy has mass.
but then again, i'm a network admin, not a physics guru.
Thanks that's kind of what i meant but I didn't know how to phrase it.Quote:
Originally posted here by bballad
moxnix: light dose have enery(or is energy) and as Schrodinger stated it has momentum, so while it is on the scale it registers. Mush like you can get a sound wave to register on a scale to show weight even though it dosn't have any mass. Light isn't a partical - wave its a partical and a wave (or neither) at the same time.
d00dz Attackin said:
I'm not sure if I am understanding correctly, but the sun is made up of hydrogen, a gas, not photons which only make up the light that it emits. Just like a lightbulb is made up of glass and tugsten, but still emits light, made of photons which are massless.Quote:
if gas where to have no matter (which it does) and the sun where made up from it, would you still stick next to your theory?
doodz, I am not sure where your going with the electron gas analogy. They both have mass and aren't related to light. Electrons are atomic particles with weight and gas could be anything: water, hydrogen, farts... etc.
Light is Energy and that is entirely where the thinking comes from that light has to have mass. After all no one disputes that E in the equation equals mass, just look at E=MC, it says it right there! So people went, "Hmm light has to have mass because the theory of special relativity says so! Energy EQUALS Mass, times C. In early discovery some thought it did have mass and those experiments are where the term "Relativistic Mass" as known today come from. It's old thinking that has since been disproved. Because it was once associated with the possibility of physical mass on a photon. The experiment with light producing a "weight" on a scale is the result of momentum. It does not change the physical properties of light and does not give it mass. The term is misleading.
"Relativistic Mass" does not equal "Mass” They are two extremely different things and do not relate to one another. It's like saying the reflection in the mirror IS you, and the reflection has your mass and physical properties. It IS an argument in semantics.
Also some seem to want to dispute the theory of Special Relativity. Good luck, I hope you do because it means we can shape the universe and space time to our bidding and toss everything out the window. It does not relate to anything else except light. The C in E=MC^2 is the light constant speed in a vacuum as measured and accepted. It’s not a belief or a religion. Sure it’s an uncontested theory, but the ramifications of its failure are astounding. As stated we humans would be able to warp time and space to our will.
//edit the term "unconstested theory" is misleading. I meant to say the theory hasn't been broken. It's been contested heavily by leagues of scientists trying to find holes in it and disprove it. The theory of special relativity is also much more than just the subjects posted here. It rocks.