wrote:

...
Correction: Photons have no rest mass. "radiated" photons have the
properties of mass because they are affected by gravitation. Light can
be bent by large bodies of mass.

Oh sure, they have a "perceived mass", don't they?; I mean, we seem to
be able to measure it, don't we? How do you know it "exists ALL ITS
TRAVEL TIME", what makes you think it is not constantly oscillating for
energy to mass ... and it is ONLY the average of that which we are
REALLY measuring ... can you prove that, well, CAN YOU? Can you provide
any relevant data here to prove it? Any URLs? Any quotes from famous
physicists? Any psychics? Have you consulted Art? again-innocent-smile

But then, you ever try to run along side of one of those photons and
measure it? I mean, this is how you really gain a critics respect
(heck, you'd even gain acknowledgment from the arrl, well,
most-likely--well, I think you would--IMHO anyway, etc.) -- now, the
question to separate the men from the boys -- now, have you?
pleasant-innocent-smile

Geesh! looks-out-window

Regards,
JS

On Sep 16, 9:57*pm, John Smith wrote:
wrote:
...
Correction: Photons have no rest mass. "radiated" photons have the
properties of mass because they are affected by gravitation. Light can
be bent by large bodies of mass.

Oh sure, they have a "perceived mass", don't they?; I mean, we seem to
be able to measure it, don't we? *How do you know it "exists ALL ITS
TRAVEL TIME", what makes you think it is not constantly oscillating for
energy to mass ... and it is ONLY the average of that which we are
REALLY measuring ... can you prove that, well, CAN YOU? *Can you provide
any relevant data here to prove it? *Any URLs? *Any quotes from famous
physicists? *Any psychics? *Have you consulted Art? *again-innocent-smile

But then, you ever try to run along side of one of those photons and
measure it? *I mean, this is how you really gain a critics respect
(heck, you'd even gain acknowledgment from the arrl, well,
most-likely--well, I think you would--IMHO anyway, etc.) -- now, the
question to separate the men from the boys -- now, have you?
pleasant-innocent-smile

Geesh! *looks-out-window

Regards,
JS

I should have used black holes as my example. One only needs to accept
that black holes exist in order to believe that gravity affects the
property of mass inerent in light ;-)

wrote:

...
I should have used black holes as my example. One only needs to accept
that black holes exist in order to believe that gravity affects the
property of mass inerent in light ;-)

Really?

Then your mind is so limited it doesn't realize that a black hole would
warp the very fabric of space/time itself, and therefore the wave
propagating though it, and therefore the wave would have to choice but
purse a course towards it? ... yanno', I suspected just that thing!

Regards,
JS

On Sep 16, 10:23*pm, John Smith wrote:
wrote:
...
I should have used black holes as my example. One only needs to accept
that black holes exist in order to believe that gravity affects the
property of mass inerent in light ;-)

Really?

Then your mind is so limited it doesn't realize that a black hole would
warp the very fabric of space/time itself, and therefore the wave
propagating though it, and therefore the wave would have to choice but
purse a course towards it? ... yanno', I suspected just that thing!

Regards,
JS

Right. Black holes have high gravity. Gravity warps space. Light can
travel only through the boundaries of space, therefore light has mass.
No need to say space-time, "space" is sufficient. The discussion may
be quantum related but it is not relativistic.

On Sep 16, 9:17*pm, wrote:
On Sep 16, 9:57*pm, John Smith wrote:



wrote:
...
Correction: Photons have no rest mass. "radiated" photons have the
properties of mass because they are affected by gravitation. Light can
be bent by large bodies of mass.

Oh sure, they have a "perceived mass", don't they?; I mean, we seem to
be able to measure it, don't we? *How do you know it "exists ALL ITS
TRAVEL TIME", what makes you think it is not constantly oscillating for
energy to mass ... and it is ONLY the average of that which we are
REALLY measuring ... can you prove that, well, CAN YOU? *Can you provide
any relevant data here to prove it? *Any URLs? *Any quotes from famous
physicists? *Any psychics? *Have you consulted Art? *again-innocent-smile

But then, you ever try to run along side of one of those photons and
measure it? *I mean, this is how you really gain a critics respect
(heck, you'd even gain acknowledgment from the arrl, well,
most-likely--well, I think you would--IMHO anyway, etc.) -- now, the
question to separate the men from the boys -- now, have you?
pleasant-innocent-smile

Geesh! *looks-out-window

Regards,
JS

I should have used black holes as my example. One only needs to accept
that black holes exist in order to believe that gravity affects the
property of mass inerent in light ;-) Partly correct The big bang was an explosion
thus Newton states there must be an implosion. The law is Universal

wrote in message
...
On Sep 16, 9:57 pm, John Smith wrote:
wrote:
...
Correction: Photons have no rest mass. "radiated" photons have the
properties of mass because they are affected by gravitation. Light can
be bent by large bodies of mass.

Oh sure, they have a "perceived mass", don't they?; I mean, we seem to
be able to measure it, don't we? How do you know it "exists ALL ITS
TRAVEL TIME", what makes you think it is not constantly oscillating for
energy to mass ... and it is ONLY the average of that which we are
REALLY measuring ... can you prove that, well, CAN YOU? Can you provide
any relevant data here to prove it? Any URLs? Any quotes from famous
physicists? Any psychics? Have you consulted Art? again-innocent-smile

But then, you ever try to run along side of one of those photons and
measure it? I mean, this is how you really gain a critics respect
(heck, you'd even gain acknowledgment from the arrl, well,
most-likely--well, I think you would--IMHO anyway, etc.) -- now, the
question to separate the men from the boys -- now, have you?
pleasant-innocent-smile

Geesh! looks-out-window

Regards,
JS

I should have used black holes as my example. One only needs to accept
that black holes exist in order to believe that gravity affects the
property of mass inerent in light ;-)

-

Maybe it's not gravity that bends the light that comes near black holes.
Maybe it's something more sinister like extremely strong magnetic forces. .
.. Maybe I just don't have the faith necessary to believe in black holes
(tongue firmly in cheek).