Am I incorrect in assuming that a particle travelling at the speed of light
has infinite mass ?
Dean
----Original Message Follows----
From: "Michel Jullian" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Reply-To: [email protected]
To: <[email protected]>
Subject: [Vo]: Re: Di-Ozone
Date: Fri, 16 Mar 2007 21:09:43 +0100
Sure it is quantized, but this doesn't make it "apparent".
Michel
----- Original Message -----
From: "Harry Veeder" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[email protected]>
Sent: Friday, March 16, 2007 8:08 PM
Subject: Re: [Vo]: Re: Re: Di-Ozone
>
> If light was literally a projectile, then it should be literally subject
> to the laws of mechanics and momentum changes should vary continuously.
> However, we know empirically that light of a particular wavelength
> can only bring about discrete changes of momentum.
>
>
> Harry
>
> Michel Jullian wrote:
>
>> Well, it does bounce back from the object (e.g. solar sail) it imparted
>> momentum to, with total momentum being conserved and all.
>>
>> Michel
>>
>> ----- Original Message -----
>> From: "Harry Veeder" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>> To: <[email protected]>
>> Sent: Friday, March 16, 2007 6:09 PM
>> Subject: Re: [Vo]: Re: Re: Di-Ozone
>>
>>
>>> In my natural philosophy, light has an _apparent_ momentum, because the
>>> nature of light is such that it refuses to be subjected to a mechanical
>>> force. (I do mean "refuses" and not simply "resists").
>>>
>>> Harry
>>>
>>> Michel Jullian wrote:
>>>
>>>> For a projectile what matters is momentum, and light does have
momentum,
>>>> that's what pushes solar sails.
>>>>
>>>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radiation_pressure
>>>>
>>>> Michel
>>>>
>>>> ----- Original Message -----
>>>> From: "R.C.Macaulay" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>>>> To: <[email protected]>
>>>> Sent: Friday, March 16, 2007 2:03 PM
>>>> Subject: [Vo]: Re: Di-Ozone
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> Howdy Jones,
>>>>>
>>>>> You amaze me with your ability to stretch the elastic of the mind.
One
>>>>> must eat a heartly breakfast and tighten the safety belt before
launching
>>>>> into one of your posts <grin> that can range from rail guns to
Ormus... and
>>>>> that is a stretch.
>>>>>
>>>>> Now that light has been accepted as having "particle" or "weight", it
can
>>>>> be
>>>>> taken to the next step and think of light having "projectile force"
>>>>> qualities. A rail gun projectile would not necessarily require a
socalled
>>>>> "mass" ( I have always been abhorred by the term mass). A better
>>>>> constructed
>>>>> railgun would fire a " projectile of light"... hmmm.. a strange
beasty
>>>>> indeed.. Why so ?
>>>>> Because the projectile could be " tuned" to either/or focus or
impact.
>>>>> Strange account of a battle predicted centuries ago where the
flesh,eyes
>>>>> and
>>>>> tongue will rot while they are still standing ( bones remain) Zec:
14.
>>>>> This
>>>>> description seeems to indicate a type of a ray gun, however, the
projectile
>>>>> does not knock the person off their feet.. only dissolves the flesh.
>>>>>
>>>>> You referred to Barry Carter's Subtleenergy website that mentions a
new
>>>>> method of producing O3 and O6 but does not describe the process. He
does
>>>>> describe the healing qualities of vortex induced ormus water. Reminds
me of
>>>>> the account of the angel that would "stir" or "trouble" the waters in
the
>>>>> pool. Whoever would be the first sick person to enter the pool
thereafter
>>>>> would be healed. If the "stirring" means inducing a water vortex and
only
>>>>> the first person would be healed, could this mean the vortex was
destroyed
>>>>> by entering the pool and the residual remains of the vortex
properties
>>>>> dissappear?
>>>>>
>>>>> Out in the wildwood behind the Dime Box Saloon lurks an old whisky
still
>>>>> left over from the old days. The tale goes that sippin some that "
thinkin
>>>>> drinkin" stuff could make a person believe the earth was flat.
>>>>>
>>>>> Richard
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>
>
