A thought experiment about light

[OceanBreeze]

On 4/27/2021 at 8:47 AM, Dubbelosix said:

You don't need to doubt experiments when others have done it for you. I'm going to diagnose this. Not only are you suffering from a complex science delusion. But you are ignoring incontrovertible evidence which you have ignorantly ignored. There's a narcissistic tendency going on. Because if you CAN'T SEE THE PARTICLE, look you'll always use this loophole - you can in fact see particles, we detected them all in accelerators. It's not a mass delusion, but rather a mass paranoia!

When you cannot find a single source to support your absurd claim that light has mass. And you posted a formula (m = E/c^2) that any high school physics student can tell you  has nothing to do with light, but only particles that have mass, you resort to your usual diversion of insults, although it is not clear who they are directed at.

How about those four references you promised to provide, that light has mass?

Edited May 2, 2021 by OceanBreeze

[Dubbelosix]

I beg your pardon. But I can recite anything. It's not my fault you do not have any patience, I've been in the muddle of writing physics, you know, because that's what I do. Now I'll answer and cite when I'm finished what I am doing, thank you.

Edited May 2, 2021 by Dubbelosix

[Dubbelosix]

Anyway...  Now that I have a bit of spare time.. Let's get some things clear 

1. Do not demand on me to cite something when I'm a voice of authority in threads that you can barely retort or give two cents worth 

2. Don't assume that because I haven't yet replied to your requests that I cannot. Assumption is the biggest **** up of all errors

 

 

Edited May 4, 2021 by Dubbelosix

[Dubbelosix]

Right first of all I never said it has matter, what I said is that some physicists like to highlight exactly what I said, that light is measured in units of mass because of the said formula,

Go read, "physics, the fundamentals for the inquiring mind" by Eric Rogers. 

 

He states exactly what I have said, that light contributes to mass through M = E/c^2 because of this, we cannot calculate it how it provides a system with mass without invoking a different concept, that is that light has a mass, but it is not matter. The fact you had serious problems in the past with subjects I have simplified, worries me because it means you're not really accepting of anything I say, no matter how close to the truth it is.

Edited May 4, 2021 by Dubbelosix

[Dubbelosix]

See now? I'll wait till you get the book. Hope you have a year to spare to read it. It's as big as a bible. Secondly, don't mess me about saying "its simple high-school stuff,"... Yeah, so simple you can't even understand it. Or whay I wrote.

Edited May 2, 2021 by Dubbelosix

[Dubbelosix]

Also, here's another reference in baby language for you

en.m.wikipedia.org › wiki › Mass–e...
Mass–energy equivalence - Wikipedia

"If an isolated box of ideal mirrors could contain light, the individually massless photons would contribute to the total mass of the box, by the ..."

 

so yes, a photon when absorbed by a system must contribute mass. The issue here is that the contribution has to measured in units of mass. This has nothing to do with the full relativitistic formula, just really an issue of you and your awful grasp of physics, once again.

[Dubbelosix]

By the way, your snarky coment that I'll just resort to insults, you're right. I can do with you quite often. You're a simple case that you don't like receiving unto which you like to dish out. If you can't handle the heat of your own behaviour, and the expectation of any insults back, get outta the kitchen!

Edited May 2, 2021 by Dubbelosix

[Simon4159870717]

On 5/2/2021 at 1:16 PM, Dubbelosix said:

that light continues to mass through M = E/c^2 because of this

Can I understand it this way: "everything that has energy has mass"?

[Dubbelosix]

Maybe only because of the units it works in. According to actual physics textbooks that I have read such as the one quoted, and other online sources as provided, you can say a photon must be measured in units of mass, because again, a photon when absorbed by matter contributes to a total mass. So energy contributes to mass, hence why some physicists like discern there is a difference between mass, and matter. Energy does not have matter, but it may well have a mass. How do we discern between these two concepts, it's still curious the whole discussion. How can we tell the terminology of mass and matter are just aspects of two different but closely related things? It's like the formula directly as E= mc^2. The conversion factor c^2 hints that energy is a diffused matter, while matter is a concentrated type of mass. The fact that each time a particle of energy contributes a photon to a box with mirrors inside of it, M=E/c^2 you can very well say it must have a mass if it is to contribute to a total energy of a system. What if the concept of mass and matter is actually the same, but it adds a a concept of weight? I can't answer these questions fully, I can only highlight the physics behind it. Try and get your hands on

"physics, the fundamentals for the inquiring mind" by Eric Rogers. 

because this textbook goes into quite a lengthy discussion on it. Some of it I don't agree with it, such as his explanation that centrifugal forces don't really exist, but he admits from a statics physics understanding, it us very useful. His book has even been proof read by some great minds in physics, so if there was anything terribly wrong with what he said, I doubt it would ever had been published. He's quite well respected in his area as a lecturer and teacher. 

 

Edited May 5, 2021 by Dubbelosix

[Dubbelosix]

I used think that any difference between mass and matter was purely a semantic argument but I have since changed my view on this.

[Dubbelosix]

By the way. You quoted me saying "continues with mass", it's this damn spell checker. It should be "contributes to mass."

Edited May 4, 2021 by Dubbelosix

[OceanBreeze]

On 5/3/2021 at 3:33 AM, Dubbelosix said:

Also, here's another reference in baby language for you

en.m.wikipedia.org › wiki › Mass–e...
Mass–energy equivalence - Wikipedia

"If an isolated box of ideal mirrors could contain light, the individually massless photons would contribute to the total mass of the box, by the ..."

 

so yes, a photon when absorbed by a system must contribute mass. The issue here is that the contribution has to measured in units of mass. This has nothing to do with the full relativitistic formula, just really an issue of you and your awful grasp of physics, once again.

Equivalence does not mean they are the same thing and you continue to post a formuala that has to do with a particle with mass, not Light!

In other words you are posting bollocks.

And you continue with your insults.

 

It may be time for you to take a vacation again.

Don't mess with me or you will be doing your BS posting somewhere else.

You have been warned, and in your case, I only give you one warning before I give you a vacation.

 

[Dubbelosix]

6 hours ago, OceanBreeze said:

Equivalence does not mean they are the same thing and you continue to post a formuala that has to do with a particle with mass, not Light!

In other words you are posting bollocks.

And you continue with your insults.

 

It may be time for you to take a vacation again.

Don't mess with me or you will be doing your BS posting somewhere else.

You have been warned, and in your case, I only give you one warning before I give you a vacation.

 

Go away, I never said they were the same thing, you're looking more foolish than you ever did. In fact I'm saying the complete opposite, I'm saying mass and matter is not the same thing. Besides, I provided not just a textbook quote, but even an online quote which clearly demonstrates that there is more to the notion that a photon has a measure of mass but not matter. See you don't like being corrected? 

 

Put me on a vacation all you want, I dont act kindly to idol threats, Ocean. If you even dare I'll never return. Either way, I would care. I'm in the middle of some serious chess training so it's not as if come here because im bored. I come here to help people understand science. You're just like trump sitting behind a nuclear button and it gives you some kind of cheap thrill. If others learn from me. Then that's a good thing, but don't start waving your fist about because you didn't lime being told off in a subject you are poorly educated on. That's not my fault.

Edited May 5, 2021 by Dubbelosix

[Dubbelosix]

And to add, if you do vacation me. I promise I won't be coming back and others can thank you for it. Your censorship reeks of impertinence, and your blatant refusal to acknowledge references is just as surmountable to the damage of any threats you can dish out to me. Put it this way, you'd probably have some moral highground if

 

A. I had not provided references 

And

B. That you had not just intentionally twisted what I said

 

Edited May 5, 2021 by Dubbelosix

[Simon4159870717]

No fighting please.

Let's go back to the experiment at 1st, after I rotate the set, what will happen? Do you guys think the light will move to west?

[Dubbelosix]

1 hour ago, Simon4159870717 said:

No fighting please.

Let's go back to the experiment at 1st, after I rotate the set, what will happen? Do you guys think the light will move to west?

I wasn't fighting though, I explained some physics which Ocean is twisting to suit his own interpretation of what I said and dangling my account about like it's his to take, it's not even mine to keep, I only choose to come here. I don't actually need to.

 

In reference to what you're asking, did you look into the bending of light by the Shapiro effect? Because the earth rotating against the light emitted does mean it affects it's motion because of gravity and a sense of spin. When light goes against a rotating massive body like earth, it is affected by a distortion in spacetime which means it has been stretched in such a way the photon has to travel a little longer. I can't think of a better known phenomenon to try and make sense of the thought experiment in mind.

Edited May 5, 2021 by Dubbelosix

[Simon4159870717]

20 minutes ago, Dubbelosix said:

When light goes against a rotating massive body like earth,

I think you misunderstand me because of my terrible English. Allow me state it again.

1. I  set up two perfectly balanced mirrors, plumb to earth. One faces south and the other faces north.
2. I set up a light source in them, keep the light being reflected back and forth at a fixed point in the two mirrors.
3. Because whole set equipment is moving from west to east, then the angle of the light source must not be perpendicular to the two mirrors, but slightly to the east.  If the light is not affected by the movement of the light source, the light source must be slightly east to catch up the two mirrors in motion.
4. If I rotate the device 180 degrees horizontally, like the Michelson–Morley experiment.  Then the light source will be slightly to the west.
5. My question: will the light still reflect at the same two points? or goes to west?