JaKiri

I have literally no idea what you're talking about. They were wrong.

Because if you convert a photon into mass, you will indeed get m by E=mc^2, but that doesn't mean that the photon HAS that mass. E=mc^2 is the equation of proportionality which expresses how much mass is 'worth' as energy; it's commonly used, for instance, to find the nuclear binding energy, or to calculate the output of a nuclear reaction (the sum total mass of the products of nuclear fission is slightly less than that which it came from; you get the amount of energy produced by putting this mass deviation into E=mc^2). Of course, that's ignoring momentum, but it doesn't really make a difference.

What, that there's increasing proof of the photon having a zero mass? Why the hell would I need to 'explain' something that states within the article that it supports my position? That's you totally misunderstanding the E=mc2 relationship.

Just look on it as one of those odd quantum effects. And as per affecting gravity, according to GR gravity is caused by ALL energy, and EVERYTHING is affected by it. See Tom's post in another thread.

There's a theoretical island of stability around 140, if memory serves.

No, it's not related. And mass increases when speed increases because the speed of light is constant for all observers.

No, I said you were overvaluing philosophy.

No.

If you're serious, you're very stupid. Of course, that would make your speed of light much less than mine, so we'd have problems!

Or a square, but a square is a type of kite, and a type of rhombus.

Light doesn't have mass, and in a manner of speaking doesn't slow down. Say you have two racing cars. One takes the racing line down the track, the other weaves all over the place. Their speedometers claim they were doing the same speed throughout, but to someone who can only calculate speed relative to distance moved forward on the track it looks like the bobbing one is going much slower.

Gravity, in GR and in QM where it's predicted by the graviton, are both limited by c.

There wasn't a division sign in the 16/4, so he subtracted 164, rather than 4, which gives you -145.

Lambda is the wavelength. h is planck's constant. p is momentum. :lclambda: = h/p

Actually, it doesn't. The definition of those terms mean's it's 1. It's like saying 'What's the chance of the speed of light being exactly 299792458ms^-1?' when that's what the meter was standardised to mean.

'Radiation' isn't a seperate group of particles you know. As I said, Gamma Rays are a form of radiation, and they don't have mass.

It's to do with the structure of water as a solid, vs the structure of water as a liquid. The crystal formed by water is reasonably spread out because of the way that water forms bonds, compared to how it works as a liquid.

No. Mass doesn't equal ionisation potential; neutrinoes have mass, and pass through us nigh on constantly. Gamma rays don't have mass, and they cause damage (and are a form of light). Furthermore, I don't think mass effects what can pass through objects, to any great degree.

How? Because the speed of light is the same for all observers. Why? Because the speed of light is the same for all observers. It's a mathematical derivation from that fact.

Yeah, but it's a pretty stupid question if it is just normal.

6 could also be a square, and it's 78, assuming that's what he meant. And I'm not sure what the 16 4 means in the last q.

Black holes (through a variety of possible methods, I can't remember which one's in vogue) emit subatomic particles. Obviously, this is a loss of mass, so they gradually get smaller.

You're wrong. A photon is massless, but has momentum (de Broglie's equation).

2. Opposing numbers add up to 10, 5 in the middle. 3. Children go over. One rows boat back. Parent goes over, child rows back. Children row over, one child rows back, other parent goes over, child rows back, both children go over. 4. Even, by 50 (50 odd numbers, evens are odds + 1). I think. Can't be bothered to work it out. 5. 11. And so on (I think you missed out the power bits for 7, because which is bigger? 78 or 87 isn't much of a question)

By general relativity, gravity is expressed by a distortion in 4 dimensional space, so light is affected even without mass If you want to 'trap' light in a box, there's 2 easy ways. 1. Put a lamp in a box. Typically, the light will be absorbed by the inner surface, which is sort of trapping. A better way (by a different interpretation) would be to have a box with the inside coated with mirrors. 2. Have a black hole inside the box.