O'Barr: A photon has real mass!

Thread view:

Enable EMail Alerts

Start New Thread

Thread rating:

Gerald L. O'Barr - 26 Feb 2006 01:23 GMT

O'Barr: A photon has real mass!
(Please note: I am using the original definition
of the word 'mass.' In my usage, 'rest mass' must be
used to describe the mass of a particle that is at
rest, and a particle appears to increase in mass as
it increases in its velocity.)

Do photons have mass? Absolutely! A photon has
everything a particle would have if it had mass. Let
us list the ways in which the characteristics of mass
is seen in a photon:

1) A moving photon is a real particle! Thus, it has
to have mass by the very nature of being a real
particle.

2) A photon has inertia. It can cause a space sail
to move (accelerate) in space, etc.

3) A photon has momentum. See previous statement.
See next statement. See all these statements.

4) A photon has kinetic energy.

5) A photon is attracted by gravity.

6) The mass of photons can become the mass of an
electron and positron, and vise versa. Technically,
the mass of any object can become the mass of any
other object, because there is only one kind of mass.
Mass is mass! There is no anti mass! There might
be an anti-particle, but mass is always mass.

So, does a photon have mass? Anyone who knows
what a radiometer is (a vacuum radiometer) knows what
light can do. Anyone who knows anything knows that
light has mass. Now the questions that remain, is
why can the mass of a photon go faster than a
particle that has rest mass. What are the
differences between 'rest mass' mass and pure
'kinetic mass' mass?
Is kinetic mass different than rest mass, as a
mass? It is my opinion, that as far as the
characteristic of mass is concerned, these masses
have to be the same. One mass can result in the
other, in both directions! Now it is true that a
funny factor of 2 might from time to time pop up here
or there. But in the spall concept, such differences
are understood when one sees the differences in
interactions between particles that spall and
particles that bounce. The mass itself does not
change.
The only possible difference is in how the mass is
arranged or how it is allowed to interact with things
around it. I believe that the mass of a photon has a
unique arrangement. That is all. In terms of its
inertia, in terms of its mass, it is all the same.
It is very funny (sad?) that SR experts are
willing to overlook all these ways in which a photon
has mass, just so that they do not have to say that a
photon has mass moving at c. They make themselves
blind to obvious facts, to obvious measurements, to
obvious observations, just because they worship.

What should SR experts accept? Not only does a
photon have mass, it has mass that moves at a
velocity of c. And considering and accepting these
things would produce more advancements than running
away from such concepts. In the ether, there are no
limits to the velocity of ether particles. And ether
particles are composed of the very same mass as any
other particle that we now know in our own world.
Our limits in motions on our level is due to the
nature of the interactions with ether particles. And
particles can interact in many different ways:
1) As single particles, with no drag. This is how
ether particles work with other ether particles,
where the exchange in mass with other ether particles
is essentially zero. In the deepest of space, after
a multitude of interactions, rare events do occur.
With no drag, there are no limits to velocity.
2) As single particles, where drag is present.
These particles are larger in size than ether
particles and are exchanging mass with the ether
particles. Some of these particles show a positive
drag, some a negative drag in the ether, depending on
whether there is an increase or a decrease in the
existing dispersion in the ether, as determined along
any one directional line.
3) As dual particles (one with negative drag, the
other with positive drag), where translation effects
occur with the ether. These translations can result
in motions in the ether. These motions are unstable
in a pure linear form, but they can be stabilized
with a slight up and down planer motion (moving like
a snake) or in a slight rotational motion as is found
with light polarizations. These snake like motions
(oscillations) or rotations introduce inertial
effects that establishes a long term stability to the
translations that are occurring.
4) Groups of bounded dual particles, or more, can
also translate within the ether, and produce both
linear and rotation motions. These particles can
reach and maintain certain stable linear and
rotational motions up to the limit of c. These
particles are those that make up our standard atomic
particles.
The above list is somewhat in order of size. And
the 'drag,' as noted, in some cases, can be positive
or negative, depending on the type of interaction
being maintained with the ether.

Thanks for reading.
Gerald.

Please note, I have not 'scienced' all of the points
I have made up above. The first three types of
particles have been reasonably done by computer runs
on the simplest one-dimensional level. Anyone who
wants to come up to speed on any of this only has to
ask. But writing your own program would be the best
way to do it. Anyone should be able to duplicate
what I have done.

Natural Science Forum / Physics / Relativity / February 2006

O'Barr: A photon has real mass!