mass is light.

On Wed, 20 Dec 2006 01:35:14 +0100 (CET), in a place far, far away,
Jim Davis made the phosphor on my monitor
glow in such a way as to indicate that:

tomcat wrote:

Energy does not rely entirely on mass for it's kinetic energy
performance. Speed is much more important ( KE = M V^2 ).
Speed increases energy by a square factor.

At the speed of light even the tiniest mass denotes enormous
energy. But a real genuine 0 mass factor would yield no energy
at all ( KE = 0 V^2 = 0 ). So, that photons are energetic
renders mathematical proof of mass. It does not, however, tell
us what the mass is.

A dozen lifetimes would not be adequate to repay the debt of
gratitude that you owe the one that advised you to post anonymously.

Jeez, Jim. You still pay any attention whatsoever to what this
ingnoramus says? I find it amusing that the creature still worships
Guth, given what he says about him.

Rand Simberg wrote:

Jeez, Jim. You still pay any attention whatsoever to what this
ingnoramus says?

Do I begrudge you *your* amusements? Besides, it not like I actually
*argue* with the guy.

I find it amusing that the creature still
worships Guth, given what he says about him.

Apparently I'm not the only one paying attention. :-)

Jim Davis

On Wed, 20 Dec 2006 02:06:24 +0100 (CET), in a place far, far away,
Jim Davis made the phosphor on my monitor
glow in such a way as to indicate that:

Rand Simberg wrote:

Jeez, Jim. You still pay any attention whatsoever to what this
ingnoramus says?

Do I begrudge you *your* amusements?

Touche..

Besides, it not like I actually
*argue* with the guy.

I find it amusing that the creature still
worships Guth, given what he says about him.

Apparently I'm not the only one paying attention. :-)

Yes, but tomkitty apparently isn't. On that or any other subject...

In article . com,
"tomcat" wrote:

At the speed of light even the tiniest mass denotes enormous energy.
But a real genuine 0 mass factor would yield no energy at all ( KE = 0
V^2 = 0 ). So, that photons are energetic renders mathematical proof
of mass. It does not, however, tell us what the mass is.

Not the case - you are not using the relativstic expression for energy.

--
You know you've arrived when you've annoyed the cranks! Crank Hater proves his
stupidity here!

http://groups.google.gr/group/sci.ph...76a3a4b?&hl=en

--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com

"tomcat" wrote in message
oups.com

". . . a photon is nothing but the transporter of the energy . . ."
And, E = M C ^ 2. Energy and Mass are two sides of the same coin. The
particles are but forms that energy takes.

I think photons and atoms are acting/reacting somewhat AI (God particle
like).

And, the most basic and profuse form is the photon. It squirts out of
all the particles. It is smaller and has less mass than the other
particles. It is, therefore, the fastest of the particles; the most
fundamental of the waves.

Including those all important gravity waves that seem to exceed 'c' on a
regular basis.

-

Energy does not rely entirely on mass for it's kinetic energy
performance. Speed is much more important ( KE = M V^2 ). Speed
increases energy by a square factor.

At the speed of light even the tiniest mass denotes enormous energy.
But a real genuine 0 mass factor would yield no energy at all ( KE = 0
V^2 = 0 ). So, that photons are energetic renders mathematical proof
of mass. It does not, however, tell us what the mass is.

I totally agree, which means the mainstream status quo, of all that
sucks and blows, has to disagree, as in no matters what.

If two sources of mass or energy that's hauling a touch of mass are each
headed directly towards one another at the speed of light, thus 2X 'c',
perhaps the near impossible formula becomes ( KE = M + M V^2^2 ).

How the heck do such unavoidable 'c' to 'c' collisions manage to
survive, or do they nullify?
-
Brad Guth


--
Posted via Mailgate.ORG Server - http://www.Mailgate.ORG

Phineas T Puddleduck wrote:
In article . com,
"tomcat" wrote:

At the speed of light even the tiniest mass denotes enormous energy.
But a real genuine 0 mass factor would yield no energy at all ( KE = 0
V^2 = 0 ). So, that photons are energetic renders mathematical proof
of mass. It does not, however, tell us what the mass is.

Not the case - you are not using the relativstic expression for energy.

--
You know you've arrived when you've annoyed the cranks! Crank Hater proves his
stupidity here!

http://groups.google.gr/group/sci.ph...76a3a4b?&hl=en

--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com




The 'light principle' of Albert Einstein gives constancy to the speed
of light in a vacuum. His famous formula E = M C^2 appears to me to be
the coming together of the two sided coin of energy and mass. Why the
speed of light 'squared' I do not know.

Einsein's formula E = M C^2 mirrors the kinetic energy formula of KE =
M V^2. But Einstein is dealing with 'pure energy' here, not just
simply kinetic energy of a moving body. If a photon's mass is zero,
however, the change of formulas makes no difference: E = 0 C^2 = 0.

Ergo, light has mass.


tomcat

In article . com,
"tomcat" wrote:

The 'light principle' of Albert Einstein gives constancy to the speed
of light in a vacuum. His famous formula E = M C^2 appears to me to be
the coming together of the two sided coin of energy and mass. Why the
speed of light 'squared' I do not know.


Dimensional analysis is one clue

Einsein's formula E = M C^2 mirrors the kinetic energy formula of KE =
M V^2. But Einstein is dealing with 'pure energy' here, not just
simply kinetic energy of a moving body. If a photon's mass is zero,
however, the change of formulas makes no difference: E = 0 C^2 = 0.

Ergo, light has mass.

Do you know the relativistic formula for energy?

--
You know you've arrived when you've annoyed the cranks! Crank Hater proves his
stupidity here!

http://groups.google.gr/group/sci.ph...76a3a4b?&hl=en

--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com

"John Griffin" wrote in message
. 1.4

Anyway, the moon landings were all timed to occur while Venus was
on the other side of the sun so the Venusians couldn't watch.
You can use a web-based solar system simulator to verify that if
you care to build it into your goofy raving. The Venusians watch
our chemical rockets' exhaust trails and ask one another "What do
you suppose those ****ing things eat?!"

Wow! You shouldn't go Usenet postal with a lose cannon like "moon
landings were all timed to occur while Venus was on the other side of
the sun so the Venusians couldn't watch".

BTW; "a web-based solar system simulator" more than proves that you're
an extremely sick old fart of a liar, like all the others of your kind.

Besides that, it would be impossible to capture an image of Venus
over a sunlit foreground.

More of the same old LLPOF infomercial ****ology that's easily proven as
being otherwise.

Why are you and others of your kind being such incest cloned
pagan born-again liars?

"Born-again" is one of the stupidest expressions ever fabricated.
It's almost too bad the world didn't wait for you to author it.

If you're a member in good standing with the Skull and Bones cult, being
born-again as a pagan Third Reich borg (aka brown-nosed minion) is about
all that matters to those of your kind.

BTW; your spermware/****ware is into doing it's thing once again
-
Brad Guth


--
Posted via Mailgate.ORG Server - http://www.Mailgate.ORG

"Jim Davis" wrote in message
. 96.26

A dozen lifetimes would not be adequate to repay the debt of
gratitude that you owe the one that advised you to post anonymously.

That's supposed to make sense?

This following makes a whole lot more sense, and at least it's on topic.

tomcat:
". . . a photon is nothing but the transporter of the energy . . ."
And, E = M C ^ 2. Energy and Mass are two sides of the same coin. The
particles are but forms that energy takes.

I think photons and atoms are acting/reacting somewhat AI (God particle
like).

And, the most basic and profuse form is the photon. It squirts out of
all the particles. It is smaller and has less mass than the other
particles. It is, therefore, the fastest of the particles; the most
fundamental of the waves.

Including those all important gravity waves that seem to exceed 'c' on a
regular basis.
-
Energy does not rely entirely on mass for it's kinetic energy
performance. Speed is much more important ( KE = M V^2 ). Speed
increases energy by a square factor.

At the speed of light even the tiniest mass denotes enormous energy.
But a real genuine 0 mass factor would yield no energy at all ( KE = 0
V^2 = 0 ). So, that photons are energetic renders mathematical proof
of mass. It does not, however, tell us what the mass is.

I totally agree, which means the mainstream status quo, of all that
sucks and blows, has to disagree, as in no matters what.

If two sources of mass or energy that's hauling a touch of mass are each
headed directly towards one another at the speed of light, thus 2X 'c',
perhaps the near impossible formula becomes ( KE = M + M V^2^2 ).

Question/subquestion of the quantum day:
How the heck do such unavoidable 'c' to 'c' collisions manage to
survive, or do they nullify?
-
Brad Guth


--
Posted via Mailgate.ORG Server - http://www.Mailgate.ORG

"Jim Davis" wrote in message
. 96.26

A dozen lifetimes would not be adequate to repay the debt of
gratitude that you owe the one that advised you to post anonymously.

Jim Davis

Hmmmmm. Something is not correctly posting. It's exactly as though the
brown-nosed rusemasters of this Usenet that sucks and blows are trying
to hide whatever replies they don't like.

tomcat wrote:
". . . a photon is nothing but the transporter of the energy . . ."
And, E = M C ^ 2. Energy and Mass are two sides of the same coin. The
particles are but forms that energy takes.

I think photons and atoms are acting/reacting somewhat AI (God particle
like).

And, the most basic and profuse form is the photon. It squirts out of
all the particles. It is smaller and has less mass than the other
particles. It is, therefore, the fastest of the particles; the most
fundamental of the waves.

Including those all important gravity waves that seem to exceed 'c' on a
regular basis.
-

Energy does not rely entirely on mass for it's kinetic energy
performance. Speed is much more important ( KE = M V^2 ). Speed
increases energy by a square factor.

At the speed of light even the tiniest mass denotes enormous energy.
But a real genuine 0 mass factor would yield no energy at all ( KE = 0
V^2 = 0 ). So, that photons are energetic renders mathematical proof
of mass. It does not, however, tell us what the mass is.

I totally agree, which means the mainstream status quo of all that sucks
and blows has to disagree, as in no matters what.

If two sources of mass or energy that's hauling a touch of mass are each
headed directly towards one another at the speed of light, thus 2X 'c',
perhaps the near impossible formula becomes ( KE = M + M V^2^2 ).

Question/subquestion of the quantum day:
How the heck do such unavoidable 'c' to 'c' collisions manage to
survive, or do they nullify?
-
Brad Guth


--
Posted via Mailgate.ORG Server - http://www.Mailgate.ORG