|
ichugwindex
Dex



Registered: 06/04/16
Posts: 4,613
Loc: ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
Last seen: 11 months, 1 day
|
Light doesnt have mass. 1
#26406877 - 12/29/19 08:50 PM (4 years, 1 month ago) |
|
|
I can shine humanities brightest lights in existence on the world's strongest weight scale and it will say 00.000000 no matter how much light hits it. Light having particles(which = mass) is bullshit based on this. Even a single particle=mass which= quantifiable weight.
They are waves and nothing else
I invite anyone to set me strait on the matter. If light had negative mass we would use it to hover things and obviously if it had positive mass I'd set it on a weight scale.
-------------------- Only hope can give rise to the emotion we call despair. But it is nearly impossible for a man to try to live without hope, so I guess that leaves Man no choice but to walk around with despair as his companion.
Edited by ichugwindex (12/29/19 09:21 PM)
|
Niffla



Registered: 06/09/08
Posts: 46,483
Loc: Texas
|
|
Speaking of light
Does anybody here believe that there's an alien made craft/object that can actually reach the speed of light? Which is a little over 186,000 miles per second.
Which would be 670,616,629 mph.
--------------------
HAIL OUR NEW OTD KING
|
ichugwindex
Dex



Registered: 06/04/16
Posts: 4,613
Loc: ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
Last seen: 11 months, 1 day
|
|
I also think a wave existing as a wave/ AND PARTICLE is horse shit.
Niffla your idea is way more believable than ANYTHING existing as both a wave and particle at the same time
Our "speed of light" construct comes completely from people that have never made the trip themselves might I refer you to the video?
-------------------- Only hope can give rise to the emotion we call despair. But it is nearly impossible for a man to try to live without hope, so I guess that leaves Man no choice but to walk around with despair as his companion.
Edited by ichugwindex (12/29/19 09:13 PM)
|
psi
TOAST N' JAM


Registered: 09/05/99
Posts: 31,456
Loc: 613
|
Re: Light doesnt have mass. [Re: ichugwindex] 1
#26406904 - 12/29/19 09:12 PM (4 years, 1 month ago) |
|
|
If light has no mass then it should not be subject to gravity.
|
ichugwindex
Dex



Registered: 06/04/16
Posts: 4,613
Loc: ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
Last seen: 11 months, 1 day
|
Re: Light doesnt have mass. [Re: psi]
#26406912 - 12/29/19 09:15 PM (4 years, 1 month ago) |
|
|
As far as i know it's not subject to gravity. 2 slit experiment proves literally nothing bot refraction of light. Something we knew about probably 2000 years before the experiment
-------------------- Only hope can give rise to the emotion we call despair. But it is nearly impossible for a man to try to live without hope, so I guess that leaves Man no choice but to walk around with despair as his companion.
Edited by ichugwindex (12/29/19 09:29 PM)
|
psi
TOAST N' JAM


Registered: 09/05/99
Posts: 31,456
Loc: 613
|
|
I think it's more that they have observed that light gets deflected by massive objects in space.
As lay people I don't think any of us is going to be able to meaningfully debunk stuff that physics regards as pretty mainstream. Not without putting in a lot of work into studying physics. String theory sounds pretty out there though.
|
ichugwindex
Dex



Registered: 06/04/16
Posts: 4,613
Loc: ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
Last seen: 11 months, 1 day
|
Re: Light doesnt have mass. [Re: psi]
#26406953 - 12/29/19 09:43 PM (4 years, 30 days ago) |
|
|
No you're right. Please place all your light on the scale...we are all waiting. No weight=objectively no mass
-------------------- Only hope can give rise to the emotion we call despair. But it is nearly impossible for a man to try to live without hope, so I guess that leaves Man no choice but to walk around with despair as his companion.
Edited by ichugwindex (12/29/19 09:44 PM)
|
Tulipslave
Homo sapiens sapiens, lol

Registered: 07/25/17
Posts: 11,111
|
|
Quote:
ichugwindex said:
the cereal defense is one of the best newer episodes of that show, along with chardee macdennis (the first one)
|
psi
TOAST N' JAM


Registered: 09/05/99
Posts: 31,456
Loc: 613
|
|
Quote:
ichugwindex said: No you're right. Please place all your light on the scale...we are all waiting. No weight=objectively no mass
Weighing it in that way would of course be impossible. But that does not bring us any closer to explaining why light deflects towards heavy celestial objects if it has no mass.
|
TheStallionMang
Do U know who yur fuckin with?


Registered: 10/18/17
Posts: 4,531
Loc:
|
Re: Light doesnt have mass. [Re: ichugwindex] 1
#26406967 - 12/29/19 09:54 PM (4 years, 30 days ago) |
|
|
Light can be bent by gravity, or pulled in by it in the case of a black hole. Gravity only effects things that have mass, therefore, light has mass. Just because you can't put it on your bathroom scale, doesn't mean it doesn't have mass. Can you weigh air on your scale? Would you like to argue that air doesn't have mass?
|
ichugwindex
Dex



Registered: 06/04/16
Posts: 4,613
Loc: ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
Last seen: 11 months, 1 day
|
|
Air isn't compatible as it's only on earth Please hand me the black hole you've (clearly firsthand documented and witnessed) so I can hold it in my hand for the rest of the class.
Positive mass= objectively sinks a manmade scale Negative mass=objectively lifts a manmade scale
Edit:air=negative mass which we can measure unlike janky light
-------------------- Only hope can give rise to the emotion we call despair. But it is nearly impossible for a man to try to live without hope, so I guess that leaves Man no choice but to walk around with despair as his companion.
Edited by ichugwindex (12/29/19 10:19 PM)
|
psi
TOAST N' JAM


Registered: 09/05/99
Posts: 31,456
Loc: 613
|
Re: Light doesnt have mass. [Re: ichugwindex] 3
#26407004 - 12/29/19 10:26 PM (4 years, 30 days ago) |
|
|
Sounds like you have your own system worked out, have fun.
|
TheStallionMang
Do U know who yur fuckin with?


Registered: 10/18/17
Posts: 4,531
Loc:
|
|
Ok well first of all, air exists in other places besides Earth. It exists around many other planets and even moons as well as in space (although there isn't much there)
Secondly, your black hole comment is just childish and none of your response actually argues your point.
Back up your point about why you think "air isn't compatible"
|
Loaded Shaman
Psychophysiologist



Registered: 03/02/15
Posts: 8,006
Loc: Now O'Clock
Last seen: 28 days, 4 hours
|
|
Quote:
ichugwindex said:
I can shine humanities brightest lights in existence on the world's strongest weight scale and it will say 00.000000 no matter how much light hits it. Light having particles(which = mass) is bullshit based on this. Even a single particle=mass which= quantifiable weight.
They are waves and nothing else
I invite anyone to set me strait on the matter. If light had negative mass we would use it to hover things and obviously if it had positive mass I'd set it on a weight scale.
I've been asserting this for years. Modern Science is a platonic causal determinist clusterfuck of erroneous contradictory bullshit that can still be "rectified" using math.
PM me dude.
--------------------
  "Real knowledge is to know the extent of one’s ignorance." — Confucius
|
VP123
Strange



Registered: 06/27/19
Posts: 1,341
Loc: Midwest
Last seen: 10 days, 3 hours
|
|
Einstein provided the explanation based on the photoelectric effect.
Electrons, which have mass, can exhibit particle and wave like behavior at the same time. This is the basis of electron microscopy.
|
koraks
Registered: 06/02/03
Posts: 26,670
|
|
Quote:
ichugwindex said: Edit:air=negative mass which we can measure unlike janky light
Air isn't 'negative mass'. The only thing that comes close to 'negative mass' is antimatter. Air has positive mass, constituted by the cumulative weight of the nitrogen, oxygen etc. molecules that make up air. The weight of air is apparent in the concept of air pressure, which is essentially the weight of air combined with earth's gravity that pulls the air towards the planet.
The issue of the mass of light/photons is a tricky one and the experiment with a scale (which is obviously practically rather difficult and not feasible at home) won't prove much. To understand this you'd only have to think of the concept of a solar sail (which is proven technology; https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IKAROS). Apparently light (in this case from the sun) exerts a force upon the sail, analogous to light exerting a force on a scale. Still, that doesn't tell us anything about mass as the fact that light transfers a momentum to another object does not automatically imply that light has mass: http://www.desy.de/user/projects/Physics/ParticleAndNuclear/photon_mass.html
The problem with the mass of light is that it's not a straightforward 'yes' or 'no' question. In some ways, you can argue that light has no mass, but experimentally there is an upper limit (still to be determined) to the mass of a photon, implying that they have some (very tiny) mass depending on how you observe it. A perhaps somewhat ambiguous and simplistic formulation would be that light does not necessarily have mass, but it can behave as if it does: http://www.desy.de/user/projects/Physics/Relativity/SR/light_mass.html
|
VP123
Strange



Registered: 06/27/19
Posts: 1,341
Loc: Midwest
Last seen: 10 days, 3 hours
|
Re: Light doesnt have mass. [Re: koraks]
#26407172 - 12/30/19 02:34 AM (4 years, 30 days ago) |
|
|
If you don't believe the dual particle/wave nature of light, can you provide an explanation of the photoelectric effect?
|
koraks
Registered: 06/02/03
Posts: 26,670
|
Re: Light doesnt have mass. [Re: VP123]
#26407196 - 12/30/19 03:13 AM (4 years, 30 days ago) |
|
|
Quote:
VP123 said: If you don't believe the dual particle/wave nature of light, can you provide an explanation of the photoelectric effect?
Since I didn't draw into doubt the dual view, I assume this remark was not aimed at me.
Still you make me wonder how bringing up the photoelectric effect would yield any insight into the question if photons have mass. After all, explanations of the photoelectric effect do not rely on the photon having mass. It relies only on the energy of the light and the effect it has on electrons, proceeding to break down (if energy is sufficient) into the release of an electron and the remainder of the photon's energy being translated into the electron's kinetic energy. Kinetic energy implies mass, but this is of the electron, not the light itself. This leaves the question open if a photon has intrinsic mass or if it is a particle with 0 mass. See above.
|
VP123
Strange



Registered: 06/27/19
Posts: 1,341
Loc: Midwest
Last seen: 10 days, 3 hours
|
Re: Light doesnt have mass. [Re: koraks]
#26407208 - 12/30/19 03:46 AM (4 years, 30 days ago) |
|
|
No, the question was aimed at the original poster. The concept of the dual nature of light started with Einstein providing an explanation of the photoelectric effect. Basically that the energy of light being absorbed by the electrons was absorbed in discreet packets (photons as particles) rather than in a continuous manner. If people want to argue against the dual nature of light we must start from square one.
And you are quite right. The explanation of the photoelectric effect doesn't rely on the photon having mass, which is the main issue here. But we also need to understand the difference between relativistic mass and mass at rest. Quantum mechanics is an interesting subject. Trying to interpret the energy and momentum of a photon using concepts of classical mechanics is where the problem starts. The short answer is that the mass at rest of a photon should be zero.
|
VP123
Strange



Registered: 06/27/19
Posts: 1,341
Loc: Midwest
Last seen: 10 days, 3 hours
|
Re: Light doesnt have mass. [Re: VP123] 2
#26407229 - 12/30/19 04:36 AM (4 years, 30 days ago) |
|
|
Quote:
ichugwindex said: I also think a wave existing as a wave/ AND PARTICLE is horse shit.
Niffla your idea is way more believable than ANYTHING existing as both a wave and particle at the same time
Our "speed of light" construct comes completely from people that have never made the trip themselves might I refer you to the video?
I can see you are trying to debunk Albert Einstein. Good luck. A little bit of knowledge is more dangerous than no knowledge at all.
|
|