LizR,
See my reply to Russell. I know this is going to upset you but in my model every single photon in our Universe has a mass and that mass is determined by E = mc squared. Specifically the 1.02 MeV gamma ray photon has the same mass as the combined mass of the electron and a positron. Visible light photons have a very small mass. The green light photon has a much smaller mass of 4.08 X 10-36 kg. You can calculate it yourself using Albert’s formula. My neutrino photon has a mass almost equal to the mass of a proton! We know a photon has momentum which should indicate that it also has mass. I think the problem is that no one wants to admit that a photon has a mass because it is travelling at the speed of light which should make that mass go to infinity. I don’t have that problem with my model. All of this is explained very well in my book which should be arriving in about one week. John R. From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of LizR Sent: Wednesday, May 14, 2014 2:32 PM To: [email protected] Subject: Re: TRONNIES On 15 May 2014 04:59, John Ross <[email protected]> wrote: I assume you would agree that a photon is self-propelled. Protons and alpha particles are also self-propelled. They are sel-propelled by their own internal coulomb forces. Electrons, protons, atomic nuclei and atoms are all perpetual motion machines. You have to give a better explanation than that. According to all our current theories and observations, photons and other massless particles are in a different category from particles that have a rest mass. You need to explain why we should assume there is any equivalence between a massless particle that always travels at c, as measured in all reference frames, and a massive particle which travels at some fraction of c, a fraction that will vary depending on which frame its velocity is measured in. Also, a photon doesn't violate Galilean, Newtonian or Einsteinian relativity. Self propelled particles do - they define an absolute state of rest. I know of no observational reason to assume an absolute state of rest exists, although this is suggested by the idea that space-time is quantised. (But then I believe you reject quantum mechanics?) In any case, I wouldn't describe a photon as "self" propelled. It is created with a certain energy and momentum that are supplied by the emitter, and which it eventually passes on to the absorber. In between it doesn't gain or lose energy (except when it climbs out of or falls into gravity wells, or travels across an expanding or contracting universe - but these can't be described as self propulsion). Sorry but your above answer is a hand waving argument at best. It needs detailed theoretical backing, and explicit answers to the questions I've given above, plus any others that may come up (e.g. there was mention of the "ultraviolet catastrophe" earlier - was that resolved?) -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to [email protected]. To post to this group, send email to [email protected]. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to [email protected]. To post to this group, send email to [email protected]. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
