On Wed, 17 Sep 2008 10:18:49 -0500, Cecil Moore
wrote:

The photon mass math is trivial.

I still don't see a computation, so trivial must be beyond your
capacity.

E= mc^2 = hf

m = hf/c^2 = h/(c)lamda

If I remember correctly, a photon cannot travel slower
than the speed of light.

Well, we've established you can't compute it for an electron,
certainly. And this speculation about a photon.... Do it for 167,770
miles/s then.

Naw, let's simply say you've done it (there will never be any actual
evidence of your work as we can all agree), and move on. So much for
practicing Newtonian Philosopherz.

I don't "ploink" your postings, I just don't read them because they
are run off the xerox with no obvious intellectual value added - this
last round fairly confirmed that.

"Cecil Moore" wrote in message
...
Ed Cregger wrote:
A wave has no mass, agreed?

Not agreed. An EM wave possesses momentum per unit volume
from which the mass of the wave can be calculated.

A container of light has more mass than a similar
container that does not contain light.

EM waves certainly have mass that can bend a comet's
tail away from the sun.
--
73, Cecil http://www.w5dxp.com

Do you know that the sun puts out a lot of neutrons and other particles?
It's not the light that bends the comet's tail.

On Sep 17, 12:24*pm, "Wayne" wrote:
"Art Unwin" wrote in message

...
On Sep 16, 3:39 pm, "Wayne" wrote:

"Art Unwin" wrote in message

....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

-
My engineering training is many years old now, but I haven't seen
equilibrium in the context of antennas discussed anywhere except by you,
in
this newsgroup. Do you have any references to papers that have been peer
reviewed and published?

Oh I suppose a search on google re antennas and equilibrium will get
you something to read
but difficult if you are starting from Zero.

-
-
I'm not starting from zero, but it has been a number of years since I did
theoretical analysis.

When I google "equilibrium" and then start trying to filter the responses
down to things that are potentially "on topic", the references lead back to
you on this newsgroup.

The point where you begin
is Newtons laws, if they are in error then so am I
I doubt if you will find anything that definitely proves that he is
wrong.If a professor does not know what I have stated he should be
nfired
which goes for some of the people at *University of Illinois in the
electrical engineering area.

-
I'm not saying that you are wrong. *But your claims would hve much more
credibility if they were explained somewhere in addition to r.r.a.a.

.EVERYTHING in science revolves around equilibrium. If a posting denys
that or does not respond to that Law
i will not respond and that includes Richard whose sole aim in life if
to divert the crowd with off topic nothings as he does not ahve any
engineering degree from any accredited college and thus is a pretender
looking for a date with any poster.
Art

Wayn everybody wants me to answer their questions and not address mine
so they took over the thread
So to clear the air I started at the very beginning a radiator in
equilibrium and what it presents to me.
It has nothing to do with any of the sciences presented by the
posters. In direct terms I have stated that current flows down the
center
of a radiator if it is of a fractional wave length. A very simple
statement which nobody wishes to address. Fine by me, the thread would
then have a single posting and the multitude can generate questions
and discussion about deep space or other topics of choice. Ofcourse I
am not knowledable in those areas and I would stand aside. I would
prefer however the discussion to at least start with equilibrium which
leads to why or why not it is correct that current can flow thru the
center of a conductor the answer of which is not in the books. Some
people prefer to read the last page of the book first.
I prefere to examine foundations before determining the merits of a
house.
Regards
Art

Cecil Moore wrote:

When traveling at the speed of light, it exhibits particle
properties.

When does light travel at a speed other than the speed of light?

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.

And later it was postulated that space is curved by massive objects and
that light simply follows the curves.

The idea of epicycles was first postulated in the 6th century BC.
Therefore, what?

73 ac6xg

On Tue, 16 Sep 2008 22:52:40 -0700, Richard Clark
wrote:

On Tue, 16 Sep 2008 20:33:04 -0700, Richard Clark
wrote:

On Tue, 16 Sep 2008 08:06:15 -0700 (PDT), 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

A very simple observation:

Give us one question you would expect to see.

Give us the answer that would be marked as passing.

Without both, this sappy sentiment of yours is nothing more than a
late night exercise of crying bitter tears into the pillow - and
leaving the window open so the neighbors can hear the sobs of regret.

It appears that sentimentality rules the thread. Lacking any steps
taken by Art towards providing a question with its corresponding
answer must mean he couldn't pass the same test it might be placed in.

Barring Art's hesitancy to supply his own solution, I can only rummage
up a similar instance from him where we might make this a quality of
test a CBer might tackle that is drawn from patented (5,625,367)
technology:

Q. reflector element is usually tuned to a frequency slightly
higher than the driver resonant frequency - TRUE or FALSE?

Q. director elements are usually tuned to frequencies slightly
lower than the driver resonant frequency - TRUE or FALSE?

Thankfully, the PTO does not test nor issue licenses based upon this
technology source used as reference material.

I can well imagine how "equilibrium" would similarly pollute the
question pool and the lack of follow-up leaves us with the soap opera
it was always meant to be.

It is painfully obvious that Art will never offer the questions only
he can sign off on. The other Newtonian Philosopherz are equally
flummoxed.

As for others following this tempest in a teapot, Art has already
answered the two TRUE/FALSE questions above:

Q. reflector element is usually tuned to a frequency slightly
higher than the driver resonant frequency - TRUE!

Q. director elements are usually tuned to frequencies slightly
lower than the driver resonant frequency - TRUE!

and thus fulfills my observation he couldn't pass a test he Authured.

Gad, the irony is thick and gooey sweet.

73's
Richard Clark, KB7QHC

"Cecil Moore" wrote in message
...
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

Photons (the particle nature explanation of EMR) have no mass:

http://www.physchem.co.za/OB12-ele/radiation.htm

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? :-)

You say the "idea was postulated in 1915." Since when does a postulate
become proof making something a law?

On Wed, 17 Sep 2008 06:48:05 -0500, Cecil Moore
wrote:

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.

Yep. Brain damage after midnight. I first read electron, due to the
preceding CRT example. I then read proton without my reading glasses.
This morning, it morphed into photon. My apologies and I promise
never to post anything after midnight, on an empty stomach, without
glasses, while still working in my palatial office, and on subjects I
know little.

However, the jury is still out if photons have mass. NASA and others
say no:
http://imagine.gsfc.nasa.gov/docs/ask_astro/answers/960731.html
http://www.ccmr.cornell.edu/education/ask/index.html?quid=240
However, photons do have momentum or:
p = m v
which yields a calculatable value for mass at light speed for a
measurable momentum (i.e. transfer of momentum due to light pressure).
It's stuff like this that make me which quantum effects should never
have been discovered.

Fire the photon torpedoes...

--
Jeff Liebermann
150 Felker St #D http://www.LearnByDestroying.com
Santa Cruz CA 95060 http://802.11junk.com
Skype: JeffLiebermann AE6KS 831-336-2558

On Wed, 17 Sep 2008 04:20:23 -0700, John Smith
wrote:

I am top posting here, just because your post is so damn long, and I
could NOT bring myself to cut any of it ...

I wish you would edit my drivel. I just hate reading my own writing.
I even have myself entered in my kill file. Don't worry about the
length. The problem was that a tape backup and restore was taking far
longer than I expected. I didn't wanna do anything useful, so I
decided to dive into Usenet. Don't worry, it probably won't happen
again.

Thanks for being candid with us.

I was too tired and overworked to fabricate any lies. It's so much
easier to tell the truth, especially since I don't have to later
remember and untangle the lies that I fabricated.

Yep, you are one of us alright. Yep,
we have to use others past books, thoughts, knowledge, computer apps,
papers, etc. ... it is just too much, it is inundating ...

I'm cleaning up. After many years of neglect and sloth, there's no
more room left to add more things. I've already tossed or recycled
most of the junk. I'm now working on the good stuff. I just
discovered I have 5 air compressors, 5 bicycles, 3 sweep generators,
etc. Time to downsize.

I mean, my
home office here looks like yours! And, the wife is a "neat-freak" ...
I tell you, I spend all my time looking for materials she has
"organized" for me ... smirk

My secret is that I'm not married. Things tend to stay where I leave
them. Count your blessings. If your wife didn't pickup after you,
your shop would look like mine.

I hope you didn't come here for answers, I mean I can't speak for
everyone here, but all I have is questions! And, if I ask something
that doesn't have a black and white answer, I get slapped in the face!
blank-look

If you check my posting history, you'll find that I usually answer
questions, not ask them. I learn more by doing the necessary research
to answer other peoples questions, than I do by asking questions.

Demands for answers, demands for open discussions, demands we look at
even the quantum world in "explorations into antennas", especially from
some of the STRONG personalities you find here, can be intimidating ...
but, welcome aboard.

You obviously haven't read my postings. Try alt.internet.wireless.
I'm the one that is doing the intimidating.

However, if you thought you would find peace of mind, bliss and
enlightenment here ... think again. ROFLOL

Nope. My life is an endless search for entertainment value. That
might explain why I wasted an hour or more replying to Art.

How my world works:
http://www.LearnByDestroying.com/panorama/jeffl.htm
(Wait for the page to load. Move mouse around image.)

You are just about to find out "how deep this Rabbit-Hole goes!"

Well, thanks for the welcome and warnings.

Warm regards,

Yep. I just stacked about half a cord of firewood. I wanna be warm
this winter.

JS
--
Jeff Liebermann
150 Felker St #D http://www.LearnByDestroying.com
Santa Cruz CA 95060 http://802.11junk.com
Skype: JeffLiebermann AE6KS 831-336-2558

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.