sci.physics.particle

Because as you get closer to a massive body light is slowed down, this bends
the rays of light towards the massive object. The same is true of other
massive objects. That is what Einstein said.



--
Anon
"Y.Porat" wrote in message
news:9e6b26b9-ed18-44db-ad5e-12dfe2c44d67@z38g2000hsc.googlegroups.com...
On Mar 30, 1:26 am, Darwin123 wrote:
> On Mar 16, 8:23 pm, BradGuth wrote:
>
> > On Mar 16, 2:55 pm, "Sue..." wrote:
>
> > Good for you and others of your open mindset kind. I'm on your side
> > of this topic rant that's giving further consideration as to why
> > photons that supposedly have zero mass, and yet still manage to
> > interact with the likes of our sun.
> > . - Brad Guth
>
> Photons have zero REST MASS, not zero total mass. Since photons
> can never be found at rest, each photon has a nonzero total mass.
>
> If you don't believe A. Einstein, read H. A. Lorentz.
> Electromagnetic waves have a nonzero inertial mass. Particles have
> mass associated with motion which can be explained by the force fields
> the particles drag along. The idea of light being bent is merely an
> application of the Law of Equivalence (Einstein's) to the concept of
> electromagnetic mass (Lorentz). It sounds like you are knocking
> Lorentz's idea, not Einstein's. Light is not massless in the way you
> imply, and no modern physicists ever claimed it was so. You are
> knocking a straw man.
> Light has inertial mass, why is it a surprise that it should have
> gravitational mass also? Some physicists restrict the word "mass" to
> meaning "rest mass." Usually, there is a statement somewhere in their
> articles or books referring to this distinction. If one can't read
> entire books, and restricts oneself to sound bites, you may miss the
> qualifier. However, the idea that "rest mass" is different from "total
> mass" is squarely consistent with the work of H. A. Lorentz. Who, by
> the way, never accused Einstein of stealing.
> Since electromagnetic waves have inertial mass, it is pretty much
> a trivial extrapolation to infer they have gravitational mass. If you
> want, you can claim that A. Einstein made a trivial extrapolation from
> the work of A. Lorentz. Some may think it unfair to Einstein, but it
> would make more sense than your idiotic "massless photon" analogy. If
> this doesn't work, you can try calling H. A. Lorentz an idiot.
> We of ZOG respect the work of H. A. Lorentz. It was the Gestapo
> that probably killed him. We ZOGites have established that Lorentz was
> poisoned, he didn't die of a heart attack in 1934. Wasn't it
> convenient Lorentz died as Hitler seized power? It didn't help the
> Jews very much. Why are the Jews accused of stealing his work when it
> was probably the Nazis that killed him?

-----------------
there is just on e kind of mass
no matter how you call it
so there is no need to invent many 'ad hoc' kinds
to fitt strange theories
so th ephoton has rest mass !!!
even if it is in motion

Y.Porat
-------------------------------