[Top] [All Lists]

Re: Eclipse and EINSTEIN

Subject: Re: Eclipse and EINSTEIN
From: "Greg Neill"
Date: Wed, 29 Mar 2006 08:37:07 -0500
Newsgroups: sci.astro
<[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]
> Scott Miller wrote:
> Mr Miller, if that is your name, you are impertinent.
> Nothing you have said has made any sense - nor has my other critic.
> I stated, for example, that IF light has no MATTER, and has no MASS,
> THEN.......
> I went on to say, that - HOWEVER - it does make matter move.
> In order to make matter move, it must have MASS.
> I did not say at any time that light has REST MASS.
> I said it must have MASS.
> This mass is known as RELATIVISTIC MASS. I call it "Einstein Mass",
> because he showed that energy has mass.
> Before any of you arrogant people criticize, you must first READ and
> first UNDERSTAND what I am saying.

Before you jump up and down and SHOUT at your critics, you should
first make sure that what you write is correct, clearly and
unambiguously stated, and follows the accepted conventions for
terminology (unless you clearly define your usage of terminology
where it is at varience with accepted convention).

> There are two kinds of mass. There is rest mass - as with matter at
> absolute zero in the dark, and there is Einstein's relativistic mass of
> energy. They are DIFFERENT KINDS of mass - but in many ways have
> similar properties.

Actually, there are three types of mass - inertial mass, passive
gravitational mass, and active gravitational mass.  In Newtonian
terms we can write:

  F = m_1*a
  F = G*m_2*M/r^2

m_1 is "inertial mass", m_2 is "passive gravitational mass" which
describes the response of an object to a gravitational feild), and
M is "active gravitational mass".

Further, if you naively assign a mass to light according to E = m*c^2
and compute the bending of said light due to the gravitational
influence of active mass M in the Newtonian fashion, then you
obtain a deflection which is half of that predicted by General
Relativity (and half that of the empirically measured value).

> After all my years in photoelectrics, and all my studies, I do not need
> to be lectured that electricity can create magnetism, and that
> alternating magnetism can create electricity. Almost every child knows
> this.

Where did Mr. Miller say that?

> Light is called "electromagnetic" because it is alternating magnetism
> which CAN UNDER THE RIGHT CIRCUMSTANCES interact with electricity.
> Correctly it should be called "magnetic radiation".

No, because a static electric field contains no magnetic component,
and a static magnetic field no electric component.  A charged
particle in a uniform electric field moves differently than a
charged particle in a uniform magnetic field.  An electromagnetic
wave comprises *both* electric and magnetic components.  See
Maxwell's equations.

> So it is legitimate to remind any proper scientifically educated
> audience that they should not confuse electricity and light.

If the audience is properly scientifically educated, why whould
they need reminding?

> I am also fully aware that there are many ways of observing the
> "magnifying glass" effect of the sun upon light that passes near it.
> One can construct a disc of cardboard or metal, and cover the sun with
> it. You are quite presumptuous to push words into my mouth.
> I never said that an eclipse is the ONLY way of testing the hypothesis.
> There is so much wrong with your mind, that you cannot possible be a
> scientist. Scientists are precise.

Ad hominem attacks are not scientific either, Charlie boy.

> Charles Douglas Wehner

<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>