Can the properties of light be explained within the context of classic Newtonian Physics?

[studiot]

Since you once again decline to answer me I will sign off for the morning.

[Anonymous Participant]

Another model of light describes it as a collection of particles called photons. These photons have no rest mass but do have energy (kinetic energy).

K.E. = 1/2 m v2 , where "m"= mass

There are no known instances where kinetic energy exists in the absence of mass, mass is a necessary component for Kinetic energy to exist. It would seem the photon theory has some basic underlying problems and conflicts with known science fact

Just now, studiot said:

Since you once again decline to answer me I will sign off for the morning.

There is no need to reply to your question, it has already been answered. The fact that you don't realize it has is not relevant.

[beecee]

7 minutes ago, Anonymous Participant said:

Correct. Now when you get an education where you can actually understand what you are reading perhaps you will see how this foundation and Maxwells equations support my hypothesis.

That's nice: And when you finally get an understanding of the scientific methodology and what a scientific theory is, you will (I hope) understand that until your hypothetical explains more then the incumbent, it will stand as an "also ran"

You need to invalidate the current model...understand?

And I don't see that ever happening and just a continuation of bluster and avoiding pertinent questions re your intentions. eg: If you had anything of any real value, you would write up a scientific paper, get it published by a reputable publisher, (not vixra) and have it properly professionally reviewed. Best of luck with that.  

[studiot]

You did not answer my question.

Period.

Since you made several statements to form your chain of reasoning, I am taking them one at a time and correcting them.

 

You cannot expect the rest of the chain to be correct if the first statement in the chain is lacking.

 

So please reply to my question.

 

Without using existing light to generate heat, what is the connection between thermally generated light and electrons?

[Anonymous Participant]

1 minute ago, studiot said:

You did not answer my question.

Period.

Since you made several statements to form your chain of reasoning, I am taking them one at a time and correcting them.

 

You cannot expect the rest of the chain to be correct if the first statement in the chain is lacking.

 

So please reply to my question.

 

Without using existing light to generate heat, what is the connection between thermally generated light and electrons?

You've asked three different questions now, not the same one. Light is electrons

3 minutes ago, beecee said:

 

You need to invalidate the current model...understand?

 

Ummm..NOPE

[studiot]

1 minute ago, Anonymous Participant said:

You've asked three different questions now, not the same one. Light is electrons

No I was kind enough to ask the same question in three different ways in an attempt to help you understand, since you seem to be having trouble understanding it.

Thank you for that clear, if totally false, statement that "Light is electrons"

The plain fact is that whilst electrons can in some circumstances emit light, yet in other circumstance remain quite happily dark (without emitting light), there are other sources of light generation besides electrons.

Further by your theory, if an electron absorbs some light, one would expect to get more electrons if light were indeed electrons.
yet if an electrons or electrons absorb light you have the same number of electrons as before.

So it is up to you to explain these facts in terms of your hypothesis

[beecee]

3 hours ago, Anonymous Participant said:

  Kinetic energy is a property of a mass in relative motion to a given point or as we often refer to it, frame of reference. Kinetic energy varies within different frames of reference. Light is no different and I will explain why, 

Light has no mass but it does have momentum. This is put to practical use in light sails.

 

Quote

In later posts I will prove with specific examples that mass does reach and exceed light speed in a given frame of reference, there are several examples obviously where it can be demonstrated using hard data. (Have patience and try not to derail the subject!)

That is patently wrong but I'll wait for your evidence invalidating SR. Please though do not confuse Newtonian concepts with relativistic concepts which you seem to have done in your OP.Oh and don't forget...it's "c" for "celeritas", the Latin word for speed.

Quote

What I am going to attempt to prove is the most logical conclusion, light appears to be a particle with actual mass propagating in a waveform because that is exactly what it is. As you shall see, if a particle is moving at "light speed" and following a high frequency wave pattern it is actually moving much faster than "C". Consider the following thought experiment:

Firstly, your so called attempt to show light has mass has failed, secondly scientific theories are not based on proof. A scientific theory is always open for modification based on further empirical evidence, or even total change, but do gain in certainty over time and as they continue to match predictions. Thirdly again until you show differently nothing moves faster then "c" in any local frame of reference. 

Better luck on your next round in trying to invalidate mainstream accepted science.

 

 

Edited September 13, 2017 by beecee

[Anonymous Participant]

Just now, studiot said:

No I was kind enough to ask the same question in three different ways in an attempt to help you understand, since you seem to be having trouble understanding it.

Thank you for that clear, if totally false, statement that "Light is electrons"

The plain fact is that whilst electrons can in some circumstances emit light, yet in other circumstance remain quite happily dark (without emitting light), there are other sources of light generation besides electrons.

Further by your theory, if an electron absorbs some light, one would expect to get more electrons if light were indeed electrons.
yet if an electrons or electrons absorb light you have the same number of electrons as before.

So it is up to you to explain these facts in terms of your hypothesis

I see no cognizant facts , electrons don't 'absorb light". List some means of generation of light that you believe don't include electromagnetic radiation or electrons . You're ignoring the basic premise because it conflicts with the ridiculous photon farce.

[beecee]

22 minutes ago, Anonymous Participant said:

Ummm..NOPE

Ummm yes, most certainly...unless you just want your rhetorical ramblings to gather dust, lost in cyber space. 

[studiot]

3 minutes ago, Anonymous Participant said:

I see no cognizant facts , electrons don't 'absorb light". List some means of generation of light that you believe don't include electromagnetic radiation or electrons . You're ignoring the basic premise because it conflicts with the ridiculous photon farce.

I have been remarkably patient with your cavalier attitude towards the rules here, but since you refuse to answer rational questions, courteously put I have no option but to report this behaviour again.

[beecee]

6 minutes ago, Anonymous Participant said:

I see no cognizant facts , electrons don't 'absorb light". List some means of generation of light that you believe don't include electromagnetic radiation or electrons . You're ignoring the basic premise because it conflicts with the ridiculous photon farce.

And you're ignoring more then a 100 years of science, that shows you are totally wrong and obviously inflicted with delusions of grandeur and/or some agenda probably religious, as many religious people are always out to try and invalidate or rubbish accepted mainstream science..

http://www.brooklyn.cuny.edu/bc/ahp/LAD/C3/C3_elecEnergy.html

http://blair.pha.jhu.edu/spectroscopy/basics.html

[Anonymous Participant]

1 minute ago, studiot said:

I have been remarkably patient with your cavalier attitude towards the rules here, but since you refuse to answer rational questions, courteously put I have no option but to report this behaviour again.

I have been remarkably patient with you. I have answered your questions even though they were already answered in the original post. The fact that you cannot perceive this is not my problem. What is your real goal is to have this thread locked because it is in conflict with your BELIEFS

[beecee]

Just now, Anonymous Participant said:

I have been remarkably patient with you. I have answered your questions even though they were already answered in the original post. The fact that you cannot perceive this is not my problem. What is your real goal is to have this thread locked because it is in conflict with your BELIEFS

You mean like questions you supposedly answered satisfactorlly in your other threads that were closed?

[Anonymous Participant]

1 minute ago, beecee said:

And you're ignoring more then a 100 years of science, that shows you are totally wrong and obviously inflicted with delusions of grandeur and/or some agenda probably religious, as many religious people are always out to try and invalidate or rubbish accepted mainstream science..

http://www.brooklyn.cuny.edu/bc/ahp/LAD/C3/C3_elecEnergy.html

http://blair.pha.jhu.edu/spectroscopy/basics.html

Actually I detest the application of or involvement of religious dogma to the scientific process. I am going to request your posts be removed because they are off topic , accusatory and non responsive

[studiot]

Just now, Anonymous Participant said:

I have been remarkably patient with you. I have answered your questions even though they were already answered in the original post. The fact that you cannot perceive this is not my problem. What is your real goal is to have this thread locked because it is in conflict with your BELIEFS

 

Sadly it is posts such as these that have prevented us ever getting as far as my beliefs.
You can have no idea as to what mine are since I have never expressed them.

[beecee]

1 minute ago, Anonymous Participant said:

Actually I detest the application of or involvement of religious dogma to the scientific process. I am going to request your posts be removed because they are off topic , accusatory and non responsive

Or delusions of grandeur and the reasons your other threads were closed.

[Anonymous Participant]

1 minute ago, studiot said:

 

Sadly it is posts such as these that have prevented us ever getting as far as my beliefs.
You can have no idea as to what mine are since I have never expressed them.

Whatever your beliefs are they have no place here, or in any science. I simply don't care

[beecee]

Light has no mass, only momentum and energy;

http://www.desy.de/user/projects/Physics/Relativity/SR/light_mass.html

The short answer is "no", but it is a qualified "no" because there are odd ways of interpreting the question which could justify the answer "yes".

Light is composed of photons, so we could ask if the photon has mass.  The answer is then definitely "no": the photon is a massless particle.  According to theory it has energy and momentum but no mass, and this is confirmed by experiment to within strict limits.  Even before it was known that light is composed of photons, it was known that light carries momentum and will exert pressure on a surface.  This is not evidence that it has mass since momentum can exist without mass.  (For details see the Physics FAQ article What is the mass of a photon?).

Sometimes people like to say that the photon does have mass because a photon has energy E = hf where h is Planck's constant and f is the frequency of the photon.  Energy, they say, is equivalent to mass according to Einstein's famous formula E = mc².  They also say that a photon has momentum, and momentum p is related to mass m by p = mv.  What they are talking about is "relativistic mass", an old concept that can cause confusion (see the FAQ article Does mass change with speed?).  Relativistic mass is a measure of the energy E of a particle, which changes with velocity.  By convention, relativistic mass is not usually called the mass of a particle in contemporary physics so, at least semantically, it is wrong to say the photon has mass in this way.  But you can say that the photon has relativistic mass if you really want to.  In modern terminology the mass of an object is its invariant mass, which is zero for a photon.

If we now return to the question "Does light have mass?", this can be taken to mean different things if the light is moving freely or trapped in a container.  The definition of the invariant mass of an object is m = sqrt{E²/c⁴ - p²/c²}.  By this definition a beam of light is massless like the photons it is composed of.  However, if light is trapped in a box with perfect mirrors so the photons are continually reflected back and forth in both directions symmetrically in the box, then the total momentum is zero in the box's frame of reference but the energy is not.  Therefore the light adds a small contribution to the mass of the box.  This could be measured--in principle at least--either by the greater force required to accelerate the box, or by an increase in its gravitational pull.  You might say that the light in the box has mass, but it would be more correct to say that the light contributes to the total mass of the box of light.  You should not use this to justify the statement that light has mass in general.

Part of this discussion is only concerned with semantics.  It might be thought that it would be better to regard the mass of the photons to be their (nonzero) relativistic mass, as opposed to their (zero) invariant mass.  We could then consistently talk about the light having mass independently of whether or not it is contained.  If relativistic mass is used for all objects, then mass is conserved and the mass of an object is the sum of the masses of its parts.  However, modern usage defines mass as the invariant mass of an object mainly because the invariant mass is more useful when doing any kind of calculation.  In this case mass is not conserved and the mass of an object is not the sum of the masses of its parts.  Thus, the mass of a box of light is more than the mass of the box and the sum of the masses of the photons (the latter being zero).  Relativistic mass is equivalent to energy, which is why relativistic mass is not a commonly used term nowadays.  In the modern view "mass" is not equivalent to energy; mass is just that part of the energy of a body which is not kinetic energy.  Mass is independent of velocity whereas energy is not

Let's try to phrase this another way.  What is the meaning of the equation E=mc2?  You can interpret it to mean that energy is the same thing as mass except for a conversion factor equal to the square of the speed of light.  Then wherever there is mass there is energy and wherever there is energy there is mass.  In that case photons have mass, but we call it relativistic mass.  Another way to use Einstein's equation would be to keep mass and energy as separate and use it as an equation which applies when mass is converted to energy or energy is converted to mass--usually in nuclear reactions.  The mass is then independent of velocity and is closer to the old Newtonian concept.  In that case, only the total of energy and mass would be conserved, but it seems better to try to keep the conservation of energy.  The interpretation most widely used is a compromise in which mass is invariant and always has energy so that total energy is conserved but kinetic energy and radiation does not have mass.  The distinction is purely a matter of semantic convention.

Sometimes people ask "If light has no mass how can it be deflected by the gravity of a star?".  One answer is that all particles, including photons, move along geodesics in general relativity and the path they follow is independent of their mass.  The deflection of starlight by the sun was first measured by Arthur Eddington in 1919.  The result was consistent with the predictions of general relativity and inconsistent with the newtonian theory.  Another answer is that the light has energy and momentum which couples to gravity.  The energy-momentum 4-vector of a particle, rather than its mass, is the gravitational analogue of electric charge.  (The corresponding analogue of electric current is the energy-momentum stress tensor which appears in the gravitational field equations of general relativity.)  A massless particle can have energy E and momentum p because mass is related to these by the equation m2 = E2/c4 - p2/c2, which is zero for a photon because E = pc for massless radiation.  The energy and momentum of light also generates curvature of spacetime, so general relativity predicts that light will attract objects gravitationally.  This effect is far too weak to have yet been measured.  The gravitational effect of photons does not have any cosmological effects either (except perhaps in the first instant after the Big Bang).  And there seem to be far too few with too little energy to make any noticeable contribution to dark matter.

http://www.desy.de/user/projects/Physics/Relativity/SR/light_mass.html

Edited September 13, 2017 by beecee

[Anonymous Participant]

1 hour ago, beecee said:

Light has no mass but it does have momentum. This is put to practical use in light sails.

 

That is patently wrong but I'll wait for your evidence invalidating SR. Please though do not confuse Newtonian concepts with relativistic concepts which you seem to have done in your OP.Oh and don't forget...it's "c" for "celeritas", the Latin word for speed.

Firstly, your so called attempt to show light has mass has failed, secondly scientific theories are not based on proof. A scientific theory is always open for modification based on further empirical evidence, or even total change, but do gain in certainty over time and as they continue to match predictions. Thirdly again until you show differently nothing moves faster then "c" in any local frame of reference. 

Better luck on your next round in trying to invalidate mainstream accepted science.

 

 

The fact that light sails work supports my hypothesis. Momentum does not exist in the absence of mass

It is not necessary for me to invalidate another idea to have a valid hypothesis. Unfortunately some of the ideas you are espousing on this thread do require ignoring known facts in science but none of mine do. There is no reason to believe two mutually conflicting ideas can both be true simply by claiming there is a difference between Newtonian concepts and relativistic ones.  Relativity makes predictions based on mathematical formula that were conceived for that purpose. It is possible to create formula from observation that work but have the underlying concept be false.

The fact that light has mass is evident in the fact that it is deflected by gravity, it transmits kinetic energy across distance,and  your so called light sail works, among many other examples of solid empirical evidence. In science occams razor applies, which means the simplest explanation is the most likely true and therefor the favorable explanation. The simplest explanation for the observations is not twelve pages of equations, but that light indeed has mass.

26 minutes ago, beecee said:

Light has no mass, only momentum and energy;

http://www.desy.de/user/projects/Physics/Relativity/SR/light_mass.html

The short answer is "no", but it is a qualified "no" because there are odd ways of interpreting the question which could justify the answer "yes".

Light is composed of photons, so we could ask if the photon has mass.  The answer is then definitely "no": the photon is a massless particle.  According to theory it has energy and momentum but no mass, and this is confirmed by experiment to within strict limits.  Even before it was known that light is composed of photons, it was known that light carries momentum and will exert pressure on a surface.  This is not evidence that it has mass since momentum can exist without mass.  (For details see the Physics FAQ article What is the mass of a photon?).

Sometimes people like to say that the photon does have mass because a photon has energy E = hf where h is Planck's constant and f is the frequency of the photon.  Energy, they say, is equivalent to mass according to Einstein's famous formula E = mc².  They also say that a photon has momentum, and momentum p is related to mass m by p = mv.  What they are talking about is "relativistic mass", an old concept that can cause confusion (see the FAQ article Does mass change with speed?).  Relativistic mass is a measure of the energy E of a particle, which changes with velocity.  By convention, relativistic mass is not usually called the mass of a particle in contemporary physics so, at least semantically, it is wrong to say the photon has mass in this way.  But you can say that the photon has relativistic mass if you really want to.  In modern terminology the mass of an object is its invariant mass, which is zero for a photon.

If we now return to the question "Does light have mass?", this can be taken to mean different things if the light is moving freely or trapped in a container.  The definition of the invariant mass of an object is m = sqrt{E²/c⁴ - p²/c²}.  By this definition a beam of light is massless like the photons it is composed of.  However, if light is trapped in a box with perfect mirrors so the photons are continually reflected back and forth in both directions symmetrically in the box, then the total momentum is zero in the box's frame of reference but the energy is not.  Therefore the light adds a small contribution to the mass of the box.  This could be measured--in principle at least--either by the greater force required to accelerate the box, or by an increase in its gravitational pull.  You might say that the light in the box has mass, but it would be more correct to say that the light contributes to the total mass of the box of light.  You should not use this to justify the statement that light has mass in general.

Part of this discussion is only concerned with semantics.  It might be thought that it would be better to regard the mass of the photons to be their (nonzero) relativistic mass, as opposed to their (zero) invariant mass.  We could then consistently talk about the light having mass independently of whether or not it is contained.  If relativistic mass is used for all objects, then mass is conserved and the mass of an object is the sum of the masses of its parts.  However, modern usage defines mass as the invariant mass of an object mainly because the invariant mass is more useful when doing any kind of calculation.  In this case mass is not conserved and the mass of an object is not the sum of the masses of its parts.  Thus, the mass of a box of light is more than the mass of the box and the sum of the masses of the photons (the latter being zero).  Relativistic mass is equivalent to energy, which is why relativistic mass is not a commonly used term nowadays.  In the modern view "mass" is not equivalent to energy; mass is just that part of the energy of a body which is not kinetic energy.  Mass is independent of velocity whereas energy is not

Let's try to phrase this another way.  What is the meaning of the equation E=mc2?  You can interpret it to mean that energy is the same thing as mass except for a conversion factor equal to the square of the speed of light.  Then wherever there is mass there is energy and wherever there is energy there is mass.  In that case photons have mass, but we call it relativistic mass.  Another way to use Einstein's equation would be to keep mass and energy as separate and use it as an equation which applies when mass is converted to energy or energy is converted to mass--usually in nuclear reactions.  The mass is then independent of velocity and is closer to the old Newtonian concept.  In that case, only the total of energy and mass would be conserved, but it seems better to try to keep the conservation of energy.  The interpretation most widely used is a compromise in which mass is invariant and always has energy so that total energy is conserved but kinetic energy and radiation does not have mass.  The distinction is purely a matter of semantic convention.

Sometimes people ask "If light has no mass how can it be deflected by the gravity of a star?".  One answer is that all particles, including photons, move along geodesics in general relativity and the path they follow is independent of their mass.  The deflection of starlight by the sun was first measured by Arthur Eddington in 1919.  The result was consistent with the predictions of general relativity and inconsistent with the newtonian theory.  Another answer is that the light has energy and momentum which couples to gravity.  The energy-momentum 4-vector of a particle, rather than its mass, is the gravitational analogue of electric charge.  (The corresponding analogue of electric current is the energy-momentum stress tensor which appears in the gravitational field equations of general relativity.)  A massless particle can have energy E and momentum p because mass is related to these by the equation m2 = E2/c4 - p2/c2, which is zero for a photon because E = pc for massless radiation.  The energy and momentum of light also generates curvature of spacetime, so general relativity predicts that light will attract objects gravitationally.  This effect is far too weak to have yet been measured.  The gravitational effect of photons does not have any cosmological effects either (except perhaps in the first instant after the Big Bang).  And there seem to be far too few with too little energy to make any noticeable contribution to dark matter.

http://www.desy.de/user/projects/Physics/Relativity/SR/light_mass.html

The simplest explanation for the observations is that light does indeed possess mass , in the classical sense. You state as fact that light is photons which are defined as 'massless particles", you don't know the difference between fact and theory. How can you have a 'particle" which is defined as a minute portion of matter without mass?

  The fact is my hypothesis is based on solid science that does not conflict with established facts, common sense or logic.  "Relativistic" mass" exists only in equations formulated to explain observations within a specific context, ie light has no rest mass but does have mass in it's only definable state. "massless particle" is a contradiction in terms, it is not valid. Calling the observable mass of light "relativistic" is simply a way of getting around explaining how mass is traveling at light speed, which contradicts the theory. It's the only reason why the so called "rest mass" of light is said to be zero. there is no such thing as the rest mass of light because light by definition is moving.

Edited September 13, 2017 by Anonymous Participant

[beecee]

38 minutes ago, Anonymous Participant said:

The fact that light sails work supports my hypothesis. Momentum does not exist in the absence of mass

It is not necessary for me to invalidate another idea to have a valid hypothesis. Unfortunately some of the ideas you are espousing on this thread do require ignoring known facts in science but none of mine do. There is no reason to believe two mutually conflicting ideas can both be true simply by claiming there is a difference between Newtonian concepts and relativistic ones.  Relativity makes predictions based on mathematical formula that were conceived for that purpose. It is possible to create formula from observation that work but have the underlying concept be false.

The fact that light has mass is evident in the fact that it is deflected by gravity, it transmits kinetic energy across distance,and  your so called light sail works, among many other examples of solid empirical evidence. In science occams razor applies, which means the simplest explanation is the most likely true and therefor the favorable explanation. The simplest explanation for the observations is not twelve pages of equations, but that light indeed has mass.

The simplest explanation for the observations is that light does indeed possess mass , in the classical sense. You state as fact that light is photons which are defined as 'massless particles", you don't know the difference between fact and theory. How can you have a 'particle" which is defined as a minute portion of matter without mass?

  The fact is my hypothesis is based on solid science that does not conflict with established facts, common sense or logic.  "Relativistic" mass" exists only in equations formulated to explain observations within a specific context, ie light has no rest mass but does have mass in it's only definable state. "massless particle" is a contradiction in terms, it is not valid. Calling the observable mass of light "relativistic" is simply a way of getting around explaining how mass is traveling at light speed, which contradicts the theory. It's the only reason why the so called "rest mass" of light is said to be zero. there is no such thing as the rest mass of light because light by definition is moving.

The fact that light sails work are evidenced that the incumbent theory of light works....simple as that..ie, light has energy and momentum, but no mass, as experiments  and observations over  more then a 100 years have shown.

If your hypothesis is what you claim, [1] you wouldn't be here and would be publishing a paper with a reputable firm for peer review, [2] It would also need to predict or describe better then the incumbent theory to oust the incumbent theory, [3] you would also be smarter then you have shown here, and not mistaken C for "c" and known that a scientific theory does not worry or care about "proof," which in my experience many anti mainstream cranks and religious nuts often use in trying to down grade and rubbish science and the scientific methodology. Not sure yet which one fits in with you.

Quote

The simplest explanation for the observations is that light does indeed possess mass , in the classical sense. You state as fact that light is photons which are defined as 'massless particles", you don't know the difference between fact and theory. How can you have a 'particle" which is defined as a minute portion of matter without mass?

The simplest explanation is that light has a duel nature which has stood the test of time for more than a 100 years.ie, it is a wave and a particle. Oh, and again, I state nothing as a fact, rather I refer you to mainstream tested evidenced based scientific theories and links.

Please review what a scientific theory is, and in reviewing note that such theories do gain in certainty over time. 

 

Edited September 13, 2017 by beecee

[Anonymous Participant]

1 minute ago, beecee said:

The fact that light sails work are evidenced that the incumbent theory of light works....simple as that..ie, light has energy and momentum, but no mass, as experiments  and observations over  more then a 100 years have shown.

If your hypothesis is what you claim, [1] you wouldn't be here and would be publishing a paper with a reputable firm for peer review, [2] It would also need to predict or describe better then the incumbent theory to oust the incumbent theory, [3] you would also be smarter then you have shown here, and not mistaken C for "c" and known that a scientific theory does not worry or care about "proof," which in my experience many anti mainstream cranks and religious nuts often use in trying to down grade and rubbish science and the scientific methodology. Not sure yet which one fits in with you.

You're a broken record. If you believe my ideas have no merit, why are you wasting your time commenting repetitively about them, concentrating on attacking me personally and maligning my abilities, but totally avoiding attempting to disprove the idea itself?. You are simply parroting with copy paste. It would seem I am questioning something other than your scientific knowledge, I am questioning your faith based belief in something you scarcely understand obviously.

[beecee]

30 minutes ago, Anonymous Participant said:

You're a broken record. If you believe my ideas have no merit, why are you wasting your time commenting repetitively about them, concentrating on attacking me personally and maligning my abilities, but totally avoiding attempting to disprove the idea itself?. You are simply parroting with copy paste. It would seem I am questioning something other than your scientific knowledge, I am questioning your faith based belief in something you scarcely understand obviously.

And how many threads do you need to have closed before you get the message? You know the one....No one is going to invalidate any mainstream theory on a science forum where Abnormally Honest can claim what he likes....Secondly I have also remarked that even if your hypothetical is all that it is, by explaining what the incumbent theory does, it needs to extend the boundaries so to speak to oust the incumbent theory. What have you against copy n paste of mainstream scientific articles on a science forum? Are you not able to face the truth of the ridiculous nature of someone on a science forum, virtually trying to rewrite 20th/21st century physics? Who do you believe you are fooling? Yes, I'm a lay person. And I have the choice of standing here in awe at your nonsensical claims, or be smart enough to realize the obvious that has been experienced by many on many science forums...you know, Joe Blow claiming all science is wrong...or that he or she has a better explanation, and all obviously with an agenda, which in time generally comes to light.

By the way, while I'm certainly a lay person, I have read many reputable books by reputable science authors of the like of Sir Martin Rees, Mitch Begalman, Stephen Hawking, Kip Thorne, Paul Davis, Stephen Weinberg, Michio Kaku, and a few more which escape my memory at this time. So stop trying to pull the wool over my eyes and everyone elses. Now give me empirical evidence [not your thoughts and/or beliefs] that light has mass. Give me evidence that you have over thrown SR. The best in this instant you have achieved is some alternative that may match the same predictions of the incumbent, but I truly doubt that very much just going on your past claims.

Edited September 13, 2017 by beecee

[Anonymous Participant]

2 minutes ago, beecee said:

And how many threads do you need to have closed before you get the message? You know the one....No one is going to invalidate any mainstream theory on a science forum where Abnormally Honest can claim what he likes....Secondly I have also remarked that even if your hypothetical is all that it is, by explaining what the incumbent theory does, it needs to extend the boundaries so to speak to oust the incumbent theory. What have you against copy n paste of mainstream scientific articles on a science forum? Are you not able to face the truth of the ridiculous nature of someone on a science forum, virtually trying to rewrite 20th/21st century physics? Who do you believe you are fooling? Yes, I'm a lay person. And I have the choice of standing here in awe at your nonsensical claims, or be smart enough to realize the obvious that has been experienced by many on many science forums...you know, Joe Blow claiming all science is wrong...or that he or she has a better explanation, and all obviously with an agenda, which in time generally comes to light.

By the way, while I'm certainly a lay person, I have read many reputable books by reputable science authors of the like of Sir Martin Rees, Mitch Begalman, Stephen Hawking, Kip Thorne, Paul Davis, Stephen Weinberg, Michio Kaku, and a few more which escape my memory at this time. So stop trying to pull the wool over my eyes and everyone elses. Now give me empirical evidence [not your thoughts and/or beliefs] that light has mass. Give me evidence that you have over thrown SR. The best in this instant you have achieved is some alternative that may match the same predictions of the incumbent, but I truly doubt that very much just going on your past claims.

Perhaps you have noticed, i don't have any intelligent, scientifically educated critics and nor is anyone attempting to debunk my hypothesis on it's own merits. Why do you suppose that is? You don't have to be a butcher to know what a t bone is

[beecee]

6 minutes ago, Anonymous Participant said:

Perhaps you have noticed, i don't have any intelligent, scientifically educated critics and nor is anyone attempting to debunk my hypothesis on it's own merits. Why do you suppose that is? You don't have to be a butcher to know what a t bone is

Your delusions and self gratutious rhetoric is staggering to say the least. 

[hypervalent_iodine]

!

Moderator Note

Thread closed. Anonymous Participant, if you wish to continue participating, you had best start using the forum in accordance with the rules you agreed to upon signing up. If you have no desire to participate in genuine discussion, you may wish to try your luck elsewhere.