sci.physics.particle

On Mar 29, 2:26 pm, Darwin123 wrote:
> On Mar 16, 8:23 pm, BradGuth wrote:
>
> > On Mar 16, 2:55 pm, "Sue..." wrote:
>
> > Good for you and others of your open mindset kind. I'm on your side
> > of this topic rant that's giving further consideration as to why
> > photons that supposedly have zero mass, and yet still manage to
> > interact with the likes of our sun.
> > . - Brad Guth
>
> Photons have zero REST MASS, not zero total mass. Since photons
> can never be found at rest, each photon has a nonzero total mass.

? not even resting if existing as a black hole, dark energy or dark
matter?

What's the total mass potential of an IR photon?

What's the total mass potential of a gamma photon?

>
> If you don't believe A. Einstein, read H. A. Lorentz.
> Electromagnetic waves have a nonzero inertial mass. Particles have
> mass associated with motion which can be explained by the force fields
> the particles drag along. The idea of light being bent is merely an
> application of the Law of Equivalence (Einstein's) to the concept of
> electromagnetic mass (Lorentz). It sounds like you are knocking
> Lorentz's idea, not Einstein's. Light is not massless in the way you
> imply, and no modern physicists ever claimed it was so. You are
> knocking a straw man.
> Light has inertial mass, why is it a surprise that it should have
> gravitational mass also? Some physicists restrict the word "mass" to
> meaning "rest mass." Usually, there is a statement somewhere in their
> articles or books referring to this distinction. If one can't read
> entire books, and restricts oneself to sound bites, you may miss the
> qualifier. However, the idea that "rest mass" is different from "total
> mass" is squarely consistent with the work of H. A. Lorentz. Who, by
> the way, never accused Einstein of stealing.
> Since electromagnetic waves have inertial mass, it is pretty much
> a trivial extrapolation to infer they have gravitational mass. If you
> want, you can claim that A. Einstein made a trivial extrapolation from
> the work of A. Lorentz. Some may think it unfair to Einstein, but it
> would make more sense than your idiotic "massless photon" analogy. If
> this doesn't work, you can try calling H. A. Lorentz an idiot.
> We of ZOG respect the work of H. A. Lorentz. It was the Gestapo
> that probably killed him. We ZOGites have established that Lorentz was
> poisoned, he didn't die of a heart attack in 1934. Wasn't it
> convenient Lorentz died as Hitler seized power? It didn't help the
> Jews very much. Why are the Jews accused of stealing his work when it
> was probably the Nazis that killed him?

? We of ZOG respect the work of H. A. Lorentz ?
. - Brad Guth