Does light have a mass?

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Haven't neutrinos been detected by things such as Super-K?

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

"I suggest you re-read my previous response carefully. "

which I will do

"Since you seem to be convinced that neutrinos do not exist, what do you think Super-Kamiokande is detecting, exactly. "

X-rays etc.
they're making such devices that they don't even know themselves what they are doing with it
what a waste of money

"Autodynamics is a discredited theory."

give an example where it is wrong

"I don't think you understand relativistic energy and momentum conservation, because otherwise you would have used the correct equation for momentum, for a start. And I don't know what your numbers B1, B2 and B3 are supposed to represent."

B should be beta, how do you type a beta here?
and I used the correct one

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

did you read this: "in ONE day there are more events in many other directions than from the Sun direction!!! "

whatever they detect, it's not a neutrino because there is no such thing
super-k is showing nothing, but for people who want to have a neutrino no matter what it takes, it is indeed showing great things :bugeye: it's like in paleontology, how many times have evolutionists been mislead by their very own thoughts and seen a different fossil than there really is ... it's all about prejuce
they see what they want to see
you too, you see what you wanna see

 

c'est moi,

There is also something you didn't consider about the whole neutrino detection process: What if the thoughts of the scientists are influencing the results?

This may sound whacky, but if humans possess even the smallest amount of "telekinetic" power, wouldn't subatomic particles, because of their small size and weight, be the matter that is most likely to be influenced by this power?

In this case, wishing may actually make it so.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

Tom

 

This may sound whacky, but if humans possess even the smallest amount of "telekinetic" power, wouldn't subatomic particles, because of their small size and weight, be the matter that is most likely to be influenced by this power?

Joeblow - you're absolutely right, it does sound whacky. Don't you think you're REALLY stretching here?

Scientists don't 'wish' their experiments outcome.

 

"Scientists don't 'wish' their experiments outcome."

yes they do

 

C'est moi is saying that it is the accelerators that stop particles reacing c because it is stuff travelling at c that is accelerating them, right?

well if that was the case the particles would reach c but no more. This doesn't happen, however much energy you give them they get close but never make it to c. C'est moi explains why they can't get past c but his reasoning would allow particles to reach c.

 

Elmo,

I believe that the particles might be able to reach light speed, but it would take it a very long time, if ever. The impression that I get is that the particle's velocity, after every impact, would only increase a fraction of what is required for it to reach light speed.

Although I said I would not post formulas on this forum again, I've decided to give it one more shot. This is, of course, the classical approach to solving the problem.

m1=Relative inertial mass(or real inertial mass) of object 1
m2=Mass of object 2
c=Speed of object 1(light speed)
v2=Speed of object 2
v3=Final speed of object 2

E=(m1*v^2)/2

This is the kinetic energy of the first object. Since the object is moving at light speed then:

E=(m1*c^2)/2

Where m1 is the relative inertial mass(or real inertial mass) of object 1

__________________________________________________

After object 1 hits object 2, which is at rest, and transfers all it's
energy to object 2, then object 2 will have the velocity of:

v2=sqrt(2E/m2)

or

v2=sqrt((m1*c^2)/m2)

But if object 2 is moving away from object 1 at the speed of v2 then the energy transferred to object 2 is less:

E=((m1*c^2)/2)-((m2*v2^2)/2)

or

E=((m1*c^2)-(m2*v2^2))/2

This is because object 1 does not have to come to a complete stop, it only has to slow down to the velocity of object 2. Therefore, object 1 conserves part of it's momentum.

Now to figure out the final velocity of object 2, you would replace E in the formula v3=sqrt(2E/m2) with the value of E in the formula above:

v3=sqrt(((m1*c^2)-(m2*v2^2))/m2)+v2

As you can see from the formula, it would take a very long time for object 2 to reach light speed, if ever.

Note: The above formulas assume that all of the available energy of object 1 is transferred to object 2. As Thed pointed out in a previous post, it's likely that all the energy will NOT be transferred during each impact. Some of the energy will be converted or lost. In that case, it would take even LONGER for object 2 to reach light speed(if ever).

Note 2: This is the classical approach for determining the velocity of object 2. Since we are dealing with photons and electrons, instead of larger masses, OTHER factors may influence the velocity of object 2, as well. But since a photon has inertial mass, and an electron has mass, this formula applies to the photon/electron interaction to certain extent.

Tom

 

Elmo, do you know exactly what happens when photons hit an electron? Do you think scientists know this? Well there you have it.

 

James and C'est moi,

Particles in a particle accelerator are NOT accelerated by electromagnetic photons, they are accelerated by electric and magnetic fields.

C'est Moi,

You are right. As I examined the formulas I provided, I came to the conclusion that mass can be accelerated to light speed.

Everyone:

If mass can be pushed(or pulled) to light speed, why aren't there currently more objects that are traveling at light speed??

The answer to this question is that you need a constant force, for an extended period of time, to accelerate an object to light speed. The only places that satisfy these conditions are in the gravitational fields of large masses, and in particle accelerators.

Tom

 

http://www.encyclopedia.com/html/section/partaccl_designofparticleaccelerators.asp

no EM radiation involved? James?

 

If mass can be pushed(or pulled) to light speed, why aren't there currently more objects that are traveling at light speed??

Simple. Mass cannot be accelerated to the speed of light.

The answer to this question is that you need a constant force, for an extended period of time, to accelerate an object to light speed. The only places that satisfy these conditions are in the gravitational fields of large masses, and in particle accelerators.

Have you any evidence to support your claims? What particle accelerators have successfully accelerated mass to light speeds? How does a large mass gravitational field accelerate mass to light speed?

Please provide valid information. Not your own made up formulas.

 

http://www.google.be/search?q=cache...ccelerator photons absorbed by electron&hl=nl

I guess it depends about which kind we are talking?

 

Elmo and Joeblow, in case photons are involved, what happened to the second law of thermodynamics in your reasoning? See what I mean?

 

James R, you didn't address all my points ...

 

I recant

All of modern physics is wrong, C'est Moi and others have convinced me beyond all doubt. Only this theory has it right.

To forestall the barrage of "you're wrong, post the evidence", all I ask is, post the evidence this is wrong.

 

Q,

""The answer to this question is that you need a constant force, for an extended period of time, to accelerate an object to light speed. The only places that satisfy these conditions are in the gravitational fields of large masses, and in particle accelerators."

Have you any evidence to support your claims? What particle accelerators have successfully accelerated mass to light speeds? How does a large mass gravitational field accelerate mass to light speed?"

If light speed is not the maximum speed of mass, what is the maximum speed of mass???

Do you get my point??? As long as there is a force on an object, and the object is slower than c, the object would continue to accelerate. According to common sense, the object will reach c at some point.

Has a particle ever been accelerated to c in a particle accelerator? Not that I'm aware of. But that does not mean that if the particle accelerator is on for a longer length of time that it can't be accomplished. Maybe it would take a few days, a few weeks, or maybe even a few years. But I do know that it has never been found that a particle, in a particle accelerator, suddenly stops accelerating at a certain speed, before it reaches light speed.

I also stated that an object would be able to reach light speed in a large gravitational field. Example:

If a baseball is moving towards a giant blackhole( the kind in the centers of galaxies) at 99.99% of light speed, and the baseball is one billion miles away from the blackhole, will the blackhole's gravitational field be sufficient to accelerate the baseball to c BEFORE the baseball reaches the event horizon???

I believe it will, but I can't prove it.

Tom

 

Other evidence you are absolutely right

THE TWELVE COMMANDMENTS OF FLAMING

1. Make things up about your opponent: It's important to make your lies sound true. Preface your argument with the word "clearly." "Clearly, Brian Hillis is a racist, and a dirtball to boot."

2. Be an armchair psychologist: You're a smart person. You've heard of Freud. You took a psychology course in college. Clearly, you're qualified to psychoanalyze your opponent. "Peach Pshawski (God Bless You!), by using the word 'zucchini' in her posting, shows she has a bad case of .........."

3. Cross-post your flames: Everyone on the net is just waiting for the next literary masterpiece to leave your terminal. From OPINION to EZ-READER to PETS to CHIT-CHAT, they're all holding their breaths until your next flame. Therefore, post everywhere.

4. Conspiracies abound: If everyone's against you, the reason can't *possibly* be that you're a #anatomypart@. There's obviously a conspiracy against you, and you will be doing the entire net a favor by exposing it.

5. Lawsuit threats: This is the reverse of Rule #4 (sort of like the Yin & Yang of flaming). Threatening a lawsuit is always considered to be in good form. "By saying that I've posted to the wrong group, Didley has libelled me, slandered me, and sodomized me. See you in court, Didley."

6. Force them to document their claims: Even if Ralph Gagliano states outright that he likes tomato sauce on his pasta, you should demand documentation. If Newsweek hasn't written an article on Ralph's pasta preferences, then Ralph's obviously lying.

7. Use foreign phrases: French is good, but Latin is the lingua franca of flaming. You should use the words "ad hominem" at least three times per article. Other favorite Latin phrases are "ad nauseum", "vini, vidi, vici", "fetuccini alfredo".

8. Tell 'em how smart you are: Why use intelligent arguments to convince them you're smart when all you have to do is tell them? State that you're a member of Mensa or Mega or Dorks of America. Tell them the scores you received on every exam since high school. "I got an 800 on my SATs, LSATs, GREs, MCATs, and I can also spell the word 'premeiotic'".

9. Accuse your opponent of censorship. It is your right as an American citizen to post whatever the hell you want to the net (as guaranteed by the 37th Amendment, I think). Anyone who tries to limit your cross-posting or move a flame war to Netusers is either a communist, a fascist, or both.

10. Doubt their existence: You've never actually seen your opponent, have you? And since you're the center of the universe, you should have seen them by now, shouldn't you? Therefore, THEY DON'T EXIST! This is the beauty of flamers' logic.

11. Lie, cheat, steal, leave the toilet seat up.

12. When in doubt, insult: If you forget the other 11 rules, remember this one. At some point during your wonderful career as a flamer you will undoubtedly end up in a flame war with someone who is better than you. This person will expose your lies, tear apart your arguments, make you look generally like a bozo. At this point, there's only one thing to do: insult the dirtbag!!! "Oh yeah? Well, your mother does strange things with ..........."

The Golden Rule of Flaming:

My flames will be witty, insulting, interesting, funny, caustic, or sarcastic, but never, ever, will they be boring.