Well to somebody so well educated you seemed to have missed the boat. I guess, that would is because you only need to understand the most simple of issues to get what you missed. In your example above, the individual was at a concert, of a specific type of music. He was being disruptive. This group IS NOT your math sandbox. As such, those that are here are free to speak about a variety of subjects (being a non moderated group). You being in this group and getting all "mathy" on everyone makes you the one out of place. You see, the average person, will make out just fine in life with only a small understanding of math. Fact is, a whole bunch of the most successful people you can think of never had anything more than calc.
Not sure what you mean about "physically large dimensions", but I had always thought there were four dimensions. Unless time is not "physically large".
Instead of getting angry flyrcalot should have asked, "what if it is space, and you cannot cut it". To which I would reply that it is still not infinate because you would keep passing the same point. To be infinate you would never pass the same point twice.
Well you are right about the gravity, I should have said that gravity curves space. But I though light did have a very very small mass of discharged sub atomic particles. Or can light exist without them?
Umm, Ok light is energy, and according to the therory of relativity it does not have mass. But I think you understand that I do not believe much of Einstien's work. I do not believe you can have energy without mass. I also understand this will get you all hepped up again.
But then Einstien said E=mc^2. Without mass wouldn't E = 0. One of the posters on your second site said that light does have mass and that Einstien proved it at a observatory in Brazil.
It's been pointed out that my previous response was simplifying things a little. See the link at the bottom of this post for a good explination.
In that case, m refers to "relativistic mass". Quoting from the linked article below:
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 is related to mass p = mv. What they are talking about is "relativistic mass", an outdated concept which is best avoided [See Relativity FAQ article Does mass change with velocity?] 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 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.
It might be thought that it would be better to regard the relativistic mass as the actual mass of photons and light, instead of invariant mass. [...] However, modern usage defines mass as the invariant mass of an object [...]
I was assuming the standard, modern usage of the word "mass." Being more specific: light has no _rest_ mass. Photons have momentum, but not rest mass. Here's a better explination that somebody pointed out to me:
If a photon doesn't have mass does the neutron? If the neutron doesn't have mass then does the electron? If none of these has any mass then I guess I can forget about my diet.
PolyTech Forum website is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here.
All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.