mass is light.

Brad Guth wrote:
tomcat wrote:
The science Brad and I discuss is not 'weird' or strange in any way.
It has the depth of 'genuine study'. What is apparently confusing to
some is that our level is CREATIVITY, not BOX.
This Usenet anti-think-tank is more or less like a naysay cesspool of a
black hole that only shares their form of infomercial-science, whereas
whatever their mainstream status quo BOX intends to pull off shall be
done, even if it takes another cross. Thus far, their collateral
damage and carnage of the innocent is very much going one-sided and
nearly insurmountable, especially when they've got the likes of
"tomcat" fooled to such an extent, so much so that your denial is in
denial (seven years ago that was myself, now I'm a little smarter about
such matters).
-
Brad Guth



According to the Goddard Space Flight Center all that is known for
certain is that the mass of light is less than 4 times 10 to the power
of minus 48.

tomcat

tomcat wrote:
Brad Guth wrote:
tomcat wrote:
The science Brad and I discuss is not 'weird' or strange in any way.
It has the depth of 'genuine study'. What is apparently confusing to
some is that our level is CREATIVITY, not BOX.
This Usenet anti-think-tank is more or less like a naysay cesspool of a
black hole that only shares their form of infomercial-science, whereas
whatever their mainstream status quo BOX intends to pull off shall be
done, even if it takes another cross. Thus far, their collateral
damage and carnage of the innocent is very much going one-sided and
nearly insurmountable, especially when they've got the likes of
"tomcat" fooled to such an extent, so much so that your denial is in
denial (seven years ago that was myself, now I'm a little smarter about
such matters).
-
Brad Guth



According to the Goddard Space Flight Center all that is known for
certain is that the mass of light is less than 4 times 10 to the power
of minus 48.

tomcat



P.S. My own calculations indicate that a photon of the deep red
wavelength will have a Mass of: [ 9.503939022 x 10 ^ -28 kg ]

Why the discrepancy between my figures and the experimentally based
figure of [ 4 x 10 ^ -48 ] by the Goddard Space Flight Center, I
can't really say. But, either their figure is in error or they used a
high freqency wavelength of light, instead of a nice big juicy red
photon. Or, maybe they didn't use kg as I did.


tomcat

tomcat wrote:
tomcat wrote:
Brad Guth wrote:
tomcat wrote:
The science Brad and I discuss is not 'weird' or strange in any way.
It has the depth of 'genuine study'. What is apparently confusing to
some is that our level is CREATIVITY, not BOX.
This Usenet anti-think-tank is more or less like a naysay cesspool of a
black hole that only shares their form of infomercial-science, whereas
whatever their mainstream status quo BOX intends to pull off shall be
done, even if it takes another cross. Thus far, their collateral
damage and carnage of the innocent is very much going one-sided and
nearly insurmountable, especially when they've got the likes of
"tomcat" fooled to such an extent, so much so that your denial is in
denial (seven years ago that was myself, now I'm a little smarter about
such matters).
-
Brad Guth



According to the Goddard Space Flight Center all that is known for
certain is that the mass of light is less than 4 times 10 to the power
of minus 48.

tomcat



P.S. My own calculations indicate that a photon of the deep red
wavelength will have a Mass of: [ 9.503939022 x 10 ^ -28 kg ]

Why the discrepancy between my figures and the experimentally based
figure of [ 4 x 10 ^ -48 ] by the Goddard Space Flight Center, I
can't really say. But, either their figure is in error or they used a
high freqency wavelength of light, instead of a nice big juicy red
photon. Or, maybe they didn't use kg as I did.



P.P.S. CORRECTION: A deep red photon with the frequency of 4.3 x 10 ^
14 will have a Mass of: [ 3.170172821 x 10 ^ -36 kg ].

This is a little closer to the Goddard Space Flight Center, but there
is still a significant spread between the two.


tomcat

tomcat wrote:
tomcat wrote:
tomcat wrote:
Brad Guth wrote:
tomcat wrote:
The science Brad and I discuss is not 'weird' or strange in any way.
It has the depth of 'genuine study'. What is apparently confusing to
some is that our level is CREATIVITY, not BOX.
This Usenet anti-think-tank is more or less like a naysay cesspool of a
black hole that only shares their form of infomercial-science, whereas
whatever their mainstream status quo BOX intends to pull off shall be
done, even if it takes another cross. Thus far, their collateral
damage and carnage of the innocent is very much going one-sided and
nearly insurmountable, especially when they've got the likes of
"tomcat" fooled to such an extent, so much so that your denial is in
denial (seven years ago that was myself, now I'm a little smarter about
such matters).
-
Brad Guth



According to the Goddard Space Flight Center all that is known for
certain is that the mass of light is less than 4 times 10 to the power
of minus 48.

tomcat



P.S. My own calculations indicate that a photon of the deep red
wavelength will have a Mass of: [ 9.503939022 x 10 ^ -28 kg ]

Why the discrepancy between my figures and the experimentally based
figure of [ 4 x 10 ^ -48 ] by the Goddard Space Flight Center, I
can't really say. But, either their figure is in error or they used a
high freqency wavelength of light, instead of a nice big juicy red
photon. Or, maybe they didn't use kg as I did.



P.P.S. CORRECTION: A deep red photon with the frequency of 4.3 x 10 ^
14 will have a Mass of: [ 3.170172821 x 10 ^ -36 kg ].

This is a little closer to the Goddard Space Flight Center, but there
is still a significant spread between the two.


tomcat



The theoretical weight of a red photon simply comes from Planck's
constant [ h = 6.626068 x 10 ^ -34 Joules per Second ] with a Joule
defined as [ 1 kg M ^ 2 / S ^ 2 ].

Using [ E = M C ^ 2 ] equivalent to [ M = E / C ^ 2 ] and C (speed of
light) defined as 299792458 meters/second. Then [ C ^ 2 = 8.987551787
x 10 ^ 16 ].

Planck's constant x frequency equals 2.84920924 x 10 ^ -19.

So, [ Mass = 2.84920924 / 8.987551787 x 10 ^ 16 ].

Which means that a deep red photon with the frequency of 4.3 x 10 ^
14 will have a Mass of: [ 3.170172821 x 10 ^ -36 kg ].


tomcat

------------------------------------------
From/De [tomcat]
On/Le [2006/06/12 15:01]
------------------------------------------
tomcat wrote:
tomcat wrote:
tomcat wrote:
Brad Guth wrote:
tomcat wrote:
The science Brad and I discuss is not 'weird' or strange in any way.
It has the depth of 'genuine study'. What is apparently confusing to
some is that our level is CREATIVITY, not BOX.
This Usenet anti-think-tank is more or less like a naysay cesspool of a
black hole that only shares their form of infomercial-science, whereas
whatever their mainstream status quo BOX intends to pull off shall be
done, even if it takes another cross. Thus far, their collateral
damage and carnage of the innocent is very much going one-sided and
nearly insurmountable, especially when they've got the likes of
"tomcat" fooled to such an extent, so much so that your denial is in
denial (seven years ago that was myself, now I'm a little smarter about
such matters).
-
Brad Guth


According to the Goddard Space Flight Center all that is known for
certain is that the mass of light is less than 4 times 10 to the power
of minus 48.

tomcat


P.S. My own calculations indicate that a photon of the deep red
wavelength will have a Mass of: [ 9.503939022 x 10 ^ -28 kg ]

Why the discrepancy between my figures and the experimentally based
figure of [ 4 x 10 ^ -48 ] by the Goddard Space Flight Center, I
can't really say. But, either their figure is in error or they used a
high freqency wavelength of light, instead of a nice big juicy red
photon. Or, maybe they didn't use kg as I did.


P.P.S. CORRECTION: A deep red photon with the frequency of 4.3 x 10 ^
14 will have a Mass of: [ 3.170172821 x 10 ^ -36 kg ].

This is a little closer to the Goddard Space Flight Center, but there
is still a significant spread between the two.


tomcat



The theoretical weight of a red photon simply comes from Planck's
constant [ h = 6.626068 x 10 ^ -34 Joules per Second ] with a Joule
defined as [ 1 kg M ^ 2 / S ^ 2 ].

Using [ E = M C ^ 2 ] equivalent to [ M = E / C ^ 2 ] and C (speed of
light) defined as 299792458 meters/second. Then [ C ^ 2 = 8.987551787
x 10 ^ 16 ].

Planck's constant x frequency equals 2.84920924 x 10 ^ -19.

So, [ Mass = 2.84920924 / 8.987551787 x 10 ^ 16 ].

Which means that a deep red photon with the frequency of 4.3 x 10 ^
14 will have a Mass of: [ 3.170172821 x 10 ^ -36 kg ].


tomcat

Wow, I'm floored!!!!
And all along I thought that you had some understanding of physics!!!!!!
You apparently have none.
Just a little note for your understanding (I'm mislead I know, but I
have to try): E=MC^2 describes not the relation between energy and mass
of any object at any speed, it describes the energy of mass itself
irrespective of any other factor. An object without mass may have energy
of a different kind, an object with mass will have at a minimum the
energy corresponding to the mass as described by the equation E=MC^2
plus other forms of energy such as that derived from speed (in a given
reference) or other potential energies from the effect of different
fields...
In other words you cannot derive a photon's mass the way you have tried
it (you're mixing apples and pears - putting together equations just
because they have the same dimensions is no valid logic; besides you
should learn to use the correct dimension symbols, meters is lower case
m, seconds is lower case s).

But now I know I'm feeding a troll (or a self ingratiating would-be
physicist with a lot to learn yet), goodbye!

Regards,
A.

On Mon, 12 Jun 2006 22:14:29 +0000, in a place far, far away, AC
made the phosphor on my monitor glow in such
a way as to indicate that:

The theoretical weight of a red photon simply comes from Planck's
constant [ h = 6.626068 x 10 ^ -34 Joules per Second ] with a Joule
defined as [ 1 kg M ^ 2 / S ^ 2 ].

Using [ E = M C ^ 2 ] equivalent to [ M = E / C ^ 2 ] and C (speed of
light) defined as 299792458 meters/second. Then [ C ^ 2 = 8.987551787
x 10 ^ 16 ].

Planck's constant x frequency equals 2.84920924 x 10 ^ -19.

So, [ Mass = 2.84920924 / 8.987551787 x 10 ^ 16 ].

Which means that a deep red photon with the frequency of 4.3 x 10 ^
14 will have a Mass of: [ 3.170172821 x 10 ^ -36 kg ].


tomcat

Wow, I'm floored!!!!
And all along I thought that you had some understanding of physics!!!!!!
You apparently have none.

Why in the world would you have thought that? He's certainly
displayed no evidence of it to date.

And your all-knowing or rather naysay photon mass is worth
???????????????
-
Brad Guth


AC wrote:
Wow, I'm floored!!!!
And all along I thought that you had some understanding of physics!!!!!!
You apparently have none.
Just a little note for your understanding (I'm mislead I know, but I
have to try): E=MC^2 describes not the relation between energy and mass
of any object at any speed, it describes the energy of mass itself
irrespective of any other factor. An object without mass may have energy
of a different kind, an object with mass will have at a minimum the
energy corresponding to the mass as described by the equation E=MC^2
plus other forms of energy such as that derived from speed (in a given
reference) or other potential energies from the effect of different
fields...
In other words you cannot derive a photon's mass the way you have tried
it (you're mixing apples and pears - putting together equations just
because they have the same dimensions is no valid logic; besides you
should learn to use the correct dimension symbols, meters is lower case
m, seconds is lower case s).

But now I know I'm feeding a troll (or a self ingratiating would-be
physicist with a lot to learn yet), goodbye!

Regards,
A.

Brad Guth wrote:
And your all-knowing or rather naysay photon mass is worth
???????????????
-
Brad Guth



Well, I didn't expect to get rich. But my big red juicies have Mass.
If they don't then there is something wrong with Relativity. Einsteins
equation clearly states that Pure Energy means that Mass is traveling
at the Speed of Light SQUARED. The Speed of Light SQUARED is the upper
bound of speed, not the speed of light like the BOXERS think.

And, if the Speed of Light SQUARED is the upper bound then any
difference between that an an objects relative speed means that there
is Mass PRESENT. Think about it.

If it weren't for so many Borg solidly nailed to their BOXES we would
already have Warp Drive and a few other things besides. They are
holding U.S. back and it is time to deBOX them once and for all.


tomcat



AC wrote:
Wow, I'm floored!!!!
And all along I thought that you had some understanding of physics!!!!!!
You apparently have none.
Just a little note for your understanding (I'm mislead I know, but I
have to try): E=MC^2 describes not the relation between energy and mass
of any object at any speed, it describes the energy of mass itself
irrespective of any other factor. An object without mass may have energy
of a different kind, an object with mass will have at a minimum the
energy corresponding to the mass as described by the equation E=MC^2
plus other forms of energy such as that derived from speed (in a given
reference) or other potential energies from the effect of different
fields...
In other words you cannot derive a photon's mass the way you have tried
it (you're mixing apples and pears - putting together equations just
because they have the same dimensions is no valid logic; besides you
should learn to use the correct dimension symbols, meters is lower case
m, seconds is lower case s).

But now I know I'm feeding a troll (or a self ingratiating would-be
physicist with a lot to learn yet), goodbye!

Regards,
A.

AC wrote:
Wow, I'm floored!!!!
And all along I thought that you had some understanding of physics!!!!!!
You apparently have none.
Just a little note for your understanding (I'm mislead I know, but I
have to try): E=MC^2 describes not the relation between energy and mass
of any object at any speed, it describes the energy of mass itself
irrespective of any other factor. An object without mass may have energy
of a different kind, an object with mass will have at a minimum the
energy corresponding to the mass as described by the equation E=MC^2
plus other forms of energy such as that derived from speed (in a given
reference) or other potential energies from the effect of different
fields...
In other words you cannot derive a photon's mass the way you have tried
it (you're mixing apples and pears - putting together equations just
because they have the same dimensions is no valid logic; besides you
should learn to use the correct dimension symbols, meters is lower case
m, seconds is lower case s).

But now I know I'm feeding a troll (or a self ingratiating would-be
physicist with a lot to learn yet), goodbye!




I am especially interested in objects without mass. Certainly a sphere
is such an object, but perfect spheres exist only in the privacy of our
minds. But we all see light. Light is a public display. These little
tiny 'photons' dart about, slamming into things, and knock electrons
out of their orbits. It seems strange that they, too, would have no
mass. They are, apparently, waves of aether.

Fact: Planck's Constant nails their energy. Relativity nails their
mass.

"An object without mass may have energy
of a different kind . . ."

Well, perfect circles are talked about, but describing their energy has
problems until such time that they are incarnated. When this is done
they 'fall' from grace and are no longer perfect, though they resemble
the perfection to a high degree if the work is carefully done.

Come to think of it, this is a lot like AC and Deco. Falling from
grace, I mean. And, being somewhat imperfect too. I disobeyed the BOX
LAWS by using 'M' and 'S', instead of 'm' and 's'. Well, I'm not into
.. . . BOX LAWS. I am into Science, which is a different thing.


tomcat

Team KECK and a few others have also established the mass that's
associated with photons. That number represents an extremely small
amount of mass that's even less if those photons are nearly resting,
such as photons associated with a black hole which might actually
represent a form of dark matter or dark energy as safely surrounding
the likes of antimatter, as being what I believe represents the other
90% of mass in the universe.

There is no shortage of photons.
-
Brad Guth


tomcat wrote:
tomcat wrote:
tomcat wrote:
tomcat wrote:
Brad Guth wrote:
tomcat wrote:
The science Brad and I discuss is not 'weird' or strange in any way.
It has the depth of 'genuine study'. What is apparently confusing to
some is that our level is CREATIVITY, not BOX.
This Usenet anti-think-tank is more or less like a naysay cesspool of a
black hole that only shares their form of infomercial-science, whereas
whatever their mainstream status quo BOX intends to pull off shall be
done, even if it takes another cross. Thus far, their collateral
damage and carnage of the innocent is very much going one-sided and
nearly insurmountable, especially when they've got the likes of
"tomcat" fooled to such an extent, so much so that your denial is in
denial (seven years ago that was myself, now I'm a little smarter about
such matters).
-
Brad Guth



According to the Goddard Space Flight Center all that is known for
certain is that the mass of light is less than 4 times 10 to the power
of minus 48.

tomcat



P.S. My own calculations indicate that a photon of the deep red
wavelength will have a Mass of: [ 9.503939022 x 10 ^ -28 kg ]

Why the discrepancy between my figures and the experimentally based
figure of [ 4 x 10 ^ -48 ] by the Goddard Space Flight Center, I
can't really say. But, either their figure is in error or they used a
high freqency wavelength of light, instead of a nice big juicy red
photon. Or, maybe they didn't use kg as I did.



P.P.S. CORRECTION: A deep red photon with the frequency of 4.3 x 10 ^
14 will have a Mass of: [ 3.170172821 x 10 ^ -36 kg ].

This is a little closer to the Goddard Space Flight Center, but there
is still a significant spread between the two.


tomcat



The theoretical weight of a red photon simply comes from Planck's
constant [ h = 6.626068 x 10 ^ -34 Joules per Second ] with a Joule
defined as [ 1 kg M ^ 2 / S ^ 2 ].

Using [ E = M C ^ 2 ] equivalent to [ M = E / C ^ 2 ] and C (speed of
light) defined as 299792458 meters/second. Then [ C ^ 2 = 8.987551787
x 10 ^ 16 ].

Planck's constant x frequency equals 2.84920924 x 10 ^ -19.

So, [ Mass = 2.84920924 / 8.987551787 x 10 ^ 16 ].

Which means that a deep red photon with the frequency of 4.3 x 10 ^
14 will have a Mass of: [ 3.170172821 x 10 ^ -36 kg ].


tomcat