My observations on light and the effects observed between light and gravitic bodies

[Tenaus]

First and foremost, the idea that light can instantly go the maximum speed possible by anything is because it has no mass. If light has no mass, it has no resistance to acceleration, meaning it will instantly go the maximum speed possible. If this is true, that means that the less mass you have, the easier it is to go the speed of light.

It also means that nothing can go past the speed of light, because if light has no mass, then light has no resistance to acceleration, and thus goes as fast as physically possible. Meaning an object that has mass cannot go past the speed of light either, because it is physically impossible to go past it, if it were possible, than light would have to have some sort of mass.

This also means that in order to go the speed of light, you need to give a proportional amount of acceleration to the amount of mass you have. This is, of course, assuming there are no other forces involved. Which then means that you need a proportional amount of energy to 'induce' that velocity.

But wait, stop for a moment... How can light not have mass? Mass is a property of matter. As Einstein's theory of relativity states, mass is energy, so then conversely, energy must be mass. And if mass is a property of matter, that means that energy is also a property of matter.

Light can transfer energy, which means it must also transfer mass, which means it must also have mass because you can only transfer energy by using something with mass. Light has energy, if light did not have energy then anything propagating light would not also propagate heat in that direction and at the same speed. Light must also have mass because energy IS mass, and if light can be effected by gravitational forces than it has to have mass, if not, than the science contradicts itself.

Light itself transfers heat, otherwise the Earth would be frozen, and heat is a form of energy, if heat is a form of energy which can be transferred by light, then light must have some sort of energy or the law of conservation of energy would be violated. Furthermore, If E.M radiation is light, and if we use E.M radiation to transfer energy it must, therefor, transfer energy, have energy, and emit energy.

The most important point, I think, is that if light had no mass then it would not be effected by gravity. Since light IS effected by gravity then it must have mass.

[Franco malgarini]

The Gravitational Isolator by Mihail Vrapcea

[GSM]

The most important point, I think, is that if light had no mass then it would not be effected by gravity. Since light IS effected by gravity then it must have mass.

Ooops !.......... Are Universities still this crap at educating ?
State controlled 'education' has let you, me and everyone else down Tenaus, and now that you are 'educated', you are FREE TO RE-LEARN !
Think of what you might already know if you had been instructed Truthfully !

Light is radiation = a massless EM photon = a spinning quanta of energy having e=mc^2 mass equivalent related to its propagating frequency.

Photons do not transfer mass, only energy, though their propagating mass equivalent spin is as any other - affected by gravity.

Cheers .............. Graham.

[boguslaw]

The mass concept was paralysed by another one called "weight ". Mass is nothing special : it is subjective idea about the actual object dimensions in relation to it's activity in forces and speed. More strictly we should talk about object density and size and of course about momentum. Waves have momentum but they are massless actually. Their mass is somehow artificial, because once wave is stopped it doesn't exists anymore.

[Tenaus]

The mass concept was paralysed by another one called "weight ". Mass is nothing special : it is subjective idea about the actual object dimensions in relation to it's activity in forces and speed. More strictly we should talk about object density and size and of course about momentum. Waves have momentum but they are massless actually. Their mass is somehow artificial, because once wave is stopped it doesn't exists anymore.

Hmm.... That doesn't make any logical since... Unless the wave was a manipulation of some sort of field? The thing is, I've seen a video of physicists claiming to be "stopping" light, and they said that they did it, but only for a very short period of time.

Ooops !.......... Are Universities still this crap at educating ?
State controlled 'education' has let you, me and everyone else down Tenaus, and now that you are 'educated', you are FREE TO RE-LEARN !
Think of what you might already know if you had been instructed Truthfully !

Light is radiation = a massless EM photon = a spinning quanta of energy having e=mc^2 mass equivalent related to its propagating frequency.

Photons do not transfer mass, only energy, though their propagating mass equivalent spin is as any other - affected by gravity.

Cheers .............. Graham.

No, you don't understand, I've only have gone through high school, and am gearing up to go to college at this moment. Thank you for the information though.

[5150]

Ooops !.......... Are Universities still this crap at educating ?
State controlled 'education' has let you, me and everyone else down Tenaus, and now that you are 'educated', you are FREE TO RE-LEARN !
Think of what you might already know if you had been instructed Truthfully !

Light is radiation = a massless EM photon = a spinning quanta of energy having e=mc^2 mass equivalent related to its propagating frequency.

Photons do not transfer mass, only energy, though their propagating mass equivalent spin is as any other - affected by gravity.

Cheers .............. Graham.

ok cool..

Now let me think out loud here

Light (which is not mass but actually radiation) can only travel at one speed, which is what we refer to as the speed of light. Can it not travel any faster or slower and if it does what will happen then when it does travel at a different speed?

I understand mass in any form is unable to travel at the speed of light because then it would convert and change into pure energy. This was why it was explained that Einstein said man or mass will never travel at the speed of light because at that point we would change into energy.

is this right? and what if light traveled faster than the speed of light?

[GSM]

No, you don't understand, I've only have gone through high school, and am gearing up to go to college at this moment. Thank you for the information though.

Oh but I do understand - now - I took your words here at face value -http://www.energeticforum.com/renewable-energy/12447-eric-p-dollard-crazy.html

Piece of advice - always answer exam questions in the way you have been taught - not the way you might discover here !

Cheers ........... Graham.

[GSM]

ok cool..

Now let me think out loud here

Light (which is not mass but actually radiation) can only travel at one speed, which is what we refer to as the speed of light. Can it not travel any faster or slower and if it does what will happen then when it does travel at a different speed?

I understand mass in any form is unable to travel at the speed of light because then it would convert and change into pure energy. This was why it was explained that Einstein said man or mass will never travel at the speed of light because at that point we would change into energy.

is this right? and what if light traveled faster than the speed of light?

'c' is a mathematical constant.

What if some component of light does travel faster than 'c', only we can't see it ?
What if that component is more energetic and more destructive of matter but is rarely observed due to the Earth's atmosphere ?

Yet we all have easy acess to a device capable of radiating EM in excess of 'c', but we need to be very careful
because direct exposure to EM propagating in excess of 'c' is most destructive to all kinds of electronic circuitry and even to our bodies if exposure is not limited.
That device - a 'toy' plasma ball !

Cheers ............ Graham.

[Tenaus]

Lets all remember that light travels slower when propagating through a medium, like air, or water.

This is not because it's actual speed 'slows' down, but because the photons themselves are reflecting against the particles in the object. So instead of it being a normal straight wave (Straight as in the net direction of travel), the wave would zig-zag across each particle. This would make it's total net movement in relation to time slower, but it's actual speed the same.

Correct?

[5150]

Lets all remember that light travels slower when propagating through a medium, like air, or water.

This is not because it's actual speed 'slows' down, but because the photons themselves are reflecting against the particles in the object. So instead of it being a normal straight wave (Straight as in the net direction of travel), the wave would zig-zag across each particle. This would make it's total net movement in relation to time slower, but it's actual speed the same.

Correct?

its a given that light slows down when penetrating those things but the question I had was without those things what if light either slowed down or sped up thus not raveling at what is considered a constant speed of light.

[GSM]

Lets all remember that light travels slower when propagating through a medium, like air, or water .... because the photons themselves are reflecting against the particles in the object.
Correct?

Reflection changes velocity of light ?

[GSM]

what if light either slowed down or sped up thus not traveling at what is considered a constant speed of light.

Light through a vacuum travels at velocity 'c', and close through air.

[Dave45]

We use the speed of light as a guide post but surely there are frequency's above the speed of light that travel faster than light that we cannot see.
Just like there are frequency's we cannot hear so who is to say the speed of light is the limit.