Richard Clark wrote:
Just waiting for Cecileo to sign in for the last of the Three Stoogz.

How would you ever know since you ploinked me?
--
73, Cecil http://www.w5dxp.com

Jeff Liebermann wrote:
So, the mass of the particle at 90% the speed-o-light is 10 times that
of the particle at rest. It doesn't matter what particle. Do I get a
gold star?

That doesn't work for photons which are particles with
zero rest mass.
--
73, Cecil http://www.w5dxp.com

"Art Unwin" wrote in message
...
On Sep 16, 7:48 pm, Jim Kelley wrote:
Cecil Moore wrote:
Rectifier wrote:
Radiation has no mass ...

On the contrary, radiation is photons which indeed
do have mass when traveling at the speed of light,
which radiation does.

According to Einstein, anything with energy has mass equivalence -
especially photons. But other than that, nothing with mass can travel
at the speed of light. You can have one, or the other, not both.

73, ac6xg

True, travel is something less than the speed of light
Art

-

In what medium? Remember that the speed of light is different in different
media.

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).

"Art Unwin" wrote in message
...
On Sep 16, 2:49 pm, "Rectifier" wrote:
"Art Unwin" wrote in message

...
On Sep 16, 11:56 am, "Mike Lucas" wrote:



"Art Unwin" wrote

I consider it a real shame that equilibrium is not a part of
examinations since equilibrium
is a basic in the electrical circuit of all antennas No where do I see
antennas explained other than the showing of capacitive coupling to
ground of antennas as a perceived circuit of an antenna?. Until this
is corrected we will never have continium of discussion between hams
on antennas.It is not a mystery anymore so why do the ARRL avoid it
like a plague?
Art

Art:
You have written 2,947 posts to RRAA, and at least 2/3 of them
contain a reference to " equilibrium". Numerous people have asked
you to define or at least explain your usage of the term. So far, you
have not done so.Actually, you have either diverted the question, or
told questioners to do their own research. Your posts show that you
know nothing about how antennas work, and suspect very little.Why
would ARRL correct something that's perfectly fine as is???

Mike W5CHR
Memphis Tenn

Mike
I know more about antennas and radiation than you think !
For instance, equilibrium demands that charges do not move laterally
along an antenna when in equilibrium
Without equilibrium charges do move along the surface of a radiator
and Newtons law of parity demands
that charges are moving thru the CENTER of the radiator thus
encoundering just copper losses.
Thus for a radiator that is not in equilibrium has three resistance
1 Radiation resistance
2 outer resistance
3 Inner copper resistance.

Equilibrium is nothing more than the enforcement of Newtons law of
parity.
This is so simple to those who work from first principles for
themselves instead of being lemmings.
Correctness is not always determined from a poll
Regards
Art

-

I've heard of Newton's laws of motion, but not Newton's law of parity.
Newton dealt primarily with motion, mass, and such. Electromagnetic
radiation hadn't even been discovered when Newton was alive.
Electromagnetic radiation does not behave the same way as matter, which is
described in terms such as momentum, inertia, accceleration and such.

Mike
Einstein changed course in study because he could not solve the
description of the weak force
which I see as foucalt current. Knowing this Einstein would be proud
to stand up as state his
thoughts on Universal law has now been proved forget. You cannot
parcel laws based on a particular subject.
Universl laws are just that. UNIVERSAL. What on earth does parity mean
in the U.S.?
Art

-

The equal and opposite reaction thing applies to massive bodies and motion.
It's all different when talking about relativistic speeds for things such as
electromagnetic radiation.

"Cecil Moore" wrote in message
...
Rectifier wrote:
You are applying laws that apply to objects with mass to electromagnetic
radiation, which has no mass.

Photons have zero rest mass. Otherwise, they couldn't travel
at the speed of light. But photons traveling at the speed
of light certainly have mass. Where in the world did you
get such irrational ideas?

Read it again! I didn't say photons have zero mass; I said electromagnetic
radiation (EMR) has no mass. EMR exhibits both wave and particle
properties. When travelling at the speed of light, it exhibits wave
properties.

"Art Unwin" wrote in message
...
On Sep 16, 4:32 pm, Cecil Moore wrote:
Rectifier wrote:
You are applying laws that apply to objects with mass to
electromagnetic radiation, which has no mass.

Photons have zero rest mass. Otherwise, they couldn't travel
at the speed of light. But photons traveling at the speed
of light certainly have mass. Where in the world did you
get such irrational ideas?

I have an Engineering Physics degree from a university program that is
an ABET certified engineering program.

After your latest posting, they may de-certify your university's
program. Exactly what university was it that taught you that
photons traveling at the speed of light have zero mass?
--
73, Cecil http://www.w5dxp.com

Cecil, this sounds like a regular poster David.Perhaps he is pulling
your leg with his nonsence
Art

-

No. I'm not David; and I just started posting here. I'm not trying to pull
anyone's leg with nonsense. I'm trying to participate in a discussion where
people have different perceptions and understanding of physics. Isn't that
what causes us all to learn and/or change our perceptions on occassion? It
seems that the last vestage of a lack of answers to a point is to mount a
personal attack. Your refusal to answer the salient point and instead mount
a personal attack means your ability to listen is totally stopped.
Discussion over.

Art Unwin wrote:
On Sep 16, 8:44 pm, Tom Ring wrote:
Art Unwin wrote:

John, the danger in using mc squared is that it has not stood the test
of time.
Next thing he'll claim is that nuclear fission doesn't release energy.

tom
K0TAR

Oh Tom! bound particles means a LARGE force binding particles
together.
Break them apart and you release a large amount of energy which you
cannot destroy.
With heavy water you have two bound particles, the particles
themselves are weak in energy.
But then you are trying to get away from the subject at hand in this
thread.
Want to start atomic stuff then start a thread and attract those who
are interested in that.
Think antennas and radiation
Art

Went right over your head at 30,000 feet Art.

tom
K0TAR

Rectifier wrote:
Read it again! I didn't say photons have zero mass; I said
electromagnetic radiation (EMR) has no mass. EMR exhibits both wave and
particle properties. When travelling at the speed of light, it exhibits
wave properties.

When traveling at the speed of light, it exhibits particle
properties. It has been about half a century since experiments
proved that light waves are bent by gravity thus proving that
electromagnetic radiation has mass. That idea was postulated
in 1915. Did you get your degree before then? :-)
--
73, Cecil http://www.w5dxp.com

On Sep 17, 7:23*am, Tom Ring wrote:
Art Unwin wrote:
On Sep 16, 8:44 pm, Tom Ring wrote:
Art Unwin wrote:

John, the danger in using mc squared is that it has not stood the test
of time.
Next thing he'll claim is that nuclear fission doesn't release energy.

tom
K0TAR

Oh Tom! bound particles means a LARGE force binding particles
together.
Break them apart and you release a large amount of energy which you
cannot destroy.
With heavy water you have two bound particles, the particles
themselves are weak in energy.
But then you are trying to get away from the subject at hand in this
thread.
*Want to start atomic stuff then start a thread and attract those who
are interested in that.
Think antennas and radiation
Art

Went right over your head at 30,000 feet Art.

tom
K0TAR

OK So nobody wants to talk about equilibrium or current flow on a
radiator.
Thats fine by me. Took a lot of posts to get to that point. JB I
apologize
I have been nailed to the cross so many times I tend to bundle things
together.
When I started I zeroed on equilibrium as a start because existing
laws state that if a charge is moving on the outside of a radiator
then there is movement on the inside of a radiator Now that is not in
the books. Why is that? However discussion went away from the intent
of the thread. equilibrium with respect to radiation. O well another
try later
Regards
Art