Trapped Light

[Graviphoton]

yes

[mooeypoo]

yes

 

... to what?

[Graviphoton]

But to talk about the invariant mass of a photon being zero, wasn't a lie, and i find it easier to talk like that.

[mooeypoo]

But to talk about the invariant mass of a photon being zero, wasn't a lie, and i find it easier to talk like that.

 

Easy, maybe, but unscientific.

[Graviphoton]

How do you conclude that?

 

I can't wait to hear this one.

[mooeypoo]

As I said, speaking of the invariant mass of a photon is irrelevant, so even if it's "easy", it's still irrelevant.

 

Also, jumping from "photon HAS energy" to "photon IS energy" is an unscientific and inaccurate leap.

 

That's how.

[Graviphoton]

Well saying a photon doesn't have an invariant mass, is the equivalant to saying the photon does not have a rest mass, and since the rest mass of a photon is zero, then it concludes that the invariant mass is also zero, so you will find it might count after all.

 

And where did this start in the conversation between me and you?

 

Also, jumping from "photon HAS energy" to "photon IS energy" is an unscientific and inaccurate leap. That's how.

 

You squeezed that in there didn't you? Did you forget what you qouted as being non-scientific?

Edited June 3, 2008 by swansont
fix quote tag

[mooeypoo]

Well saying a photon doesn't have an invariant mass, is the equivalant to saying the photon does not have a rest mass, and since the rest mass of a photon is zero, then it concludes that the invariant mass is also zero, so you will find it might count after all.

Yes, perhaps, but that wasn't what I complained against, was it? You're nitpicking again. Your logic was flawed regardless of the mishmash of terms.

 

And where did this start in the conversation between me and you?

I just happen to be online and respond, others are either busy or went to sleep (which I will do soon too).

 

Also, jumping from "photon HAS energy" to "photon IS energy" is an unscientific and inaccurate leap. That's how.

 

You squeezed that in there didn't you? Did you forget what you qouted as being non-scientific?

 

I didn't squeeze it anywhere, you specifically stated that photons are energy. I stated that this conclusion is an illogical leap.

[Graviphoton]

I'm nitpicking... the hypocrisy. You are the master of that act. And no, i neve specificated it to you, and when you said i was unscientific, you niether qouted that, so no, funnily, its not me being illogical at all. I would say that is quite logical.

 

Now, i showed, concerning that specific line of thought, that by treating the photon as a shell is wrong. If a photon by definition, has an energy, and you cannot remove the energy without moving the entire photon, then the photon is the energy in question. That is certainly NOT illogical.

[mooeypoo]

I'm nitpicking... the hypocrisy. You are the master of that act. And no, i neve specificated it to you, and when you said i was unscientific, you niether qouted that, so no, funnily, its not me being illogical at all. I would say that is quite logical.

 

Now, i showed, concerning that specific line of thought, that by treating the photon as a shell is wrong. If a photon by definition, has an energy, and you cannot remove the energy without moving the entire photon, then the photon is the energy in question. That is certainly NOT illogical.

 

I did quote. Go back and read it. I am spending time arguing with you about circular logic and everything other than the actual point you were making - which I objected to.

 

Don't go on personal lines, Graviphoton, it doesn't suit the forums. I didn't go on personal lines, I analyzed your logic. That's what we do here. Analyze. Get used to it, and do read the rules already, it's getting quite tedious arguing obvious rules with you.

 

It is also very disrespectful. You came here for a purpose, it is only basic that you read the rules of the place you decided to spend time in. To be frank with you, I am not sure how long the people of the forum can keep up with your breaches. Read the rules, it's becoming a serious issue here.

 

And stop making everything personal. Again, this is a scientific oriented forum. We analyze people's speculations scientifically and according to logical rules, avoiding logical fallacies. For some reason (?) every time you're called up on a logical fallacy, you either run off to open another thread or start an endless argument about whether or not we are fair with you.

 

We have been, imho, very patient.

 

Take a look at other threads by other people in this Speculation forum. People are being grilled by *LESS*, and they either cooperate and succeed in basing their theories, or drop their theories for the reason of LACK of EVIDENCE.

 

Stop making a martyr out of yourself, you are not the only speculator who is being asked to prove his points according to the scientific method in a scientific forums network.

 

I am not going to repeat my points again. I stated exactly what is wrong with saying that photons are energy. So did Klaynos. So did iNow. The only reason it isn't the previous post is because you started an argument about why to use or not use logic.

 

 

• You should use logic.
  
• You should not base your theory only on faith, if you want it to be scientific.
  
• You should read the rules.
  

 

Repetitive as it may be, it is, really, that simple.

 

 

~moo

[swansont]

Look, i am not going to argue this anymore. The both of you are arguing that the photon is something like a shell, that contains energy. Its not. Its diffused matter. It is energy.

 

Who said anything about a shell? A photon is a vibrational mode of the electromagnetic field. The fields have energy.

[Klaynos]

I'm nitpicking... the hypocrisy. You are the master of that act. And no, i neve specificated it to you, and when you said i was unscientific, you niether qouted that, so no, funnily, its not me being illogical at all. I would say that is quite logical.

 

For when you get back, it's a public forum, you say something to one person you say it to the whole world, whether they'll bother to read it or not is another thing....

 

Now, i showed, concerning that specific line of thought, that by treating the photon as a shell is wrong. If a photon by definition, has an energy, and you cannot remove the energy without moving the entire photon, then the photon is the energy in question. That is certainly NOT illogical.

 

You can't remove the rest mass energy of an electron without removing the electron, and as pretty much every electron is in some kind of potential barrier you can't remove the ground state energy without removing the whole electron either, although for other reasons other than the photons. So are electrons just energy? NO! And neither are photons they have other properties other than energy.