Marblehead Posted February 13, 2016 Depends on your point of reference I have no points. I am round. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Wells Posted February 13, 2016 (edited) . Edited May 10, 2016 by Wells Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Wells Posted February 13, 2016 (edited) . Edited May 10, 2016 by Wells Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Marblehead Posted February 13, 2016 Why do you come to this assumption? From Wiki: The proton is a subatomic particle, symbol p or p+, with a positive electric charge of +1e elementary charge and mass slightly less than that of a neutron. Protons and neutrons, each with mass approximately one atomic mass unit, are collectively referred to as "nucleons". One or more protons are present in the nucleus of every atom. So protons have mass. That is because they are positively charged particles. That is, energy. Energy equals mass. What I was pointing out is that to say that protons have no mass is an error. They do have mass. If protons had a positive electrical charge but yet no mass would be a violation of E=MC2. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Wells Posted February 13, 2016 (edited) . Edited May 10, 2016 by Wells Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Marblehead Posted February 13, 2016 I don't understand your point. Sure they have mass. Why shouldn't they? Well, somewhere, maybe four pages back it was suggested by someone that protons have no mass. I was speaking to that. Even neutrinos have mass. It has been suggested that neutrinos might be what is called Dark Matter. 1 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Apech Posted February 14, 2016 Well, somewhere, maybe four pages back it was suggested by someone that protons have no mass. I was speaking to that. Even neutrinos have mass. It has been suggested that neutrinos might be what is called Dark Matter. That was photons not protons. 2 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Marblehead Posted February 14, 2016 That was photons not protons. Thanks. My misread. Okay. Photons. Zero rest mass. In other words, if you don't turn on the light there will be no photons. But when you turn on the light the photons are flying around all over the place allowing people to see the light. Light is energy, energy is mass. What's going on? (Beside the light switch.) Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Nungali Posted February 14, 2016 Well, I still state that a particle is an aspect of a wave. A wave consists of numerous particles. True it consists of numerous particles .... but travels via the changing relationship between them. "In a bunch ... in a bunch ! " As Dennis Moore insisted . Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Nungali Posted February 14, 2016 I have no points. I am round. Then, your point of reference is the centre .... contemplate your navel. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Marblehead Posted February 14, 2016 True it consists of numerous particles .... but travels via the changing relationship between them. "In a bunch ... in a bunch ! " As Dennis Moore insisted . Yep. And the frequency of the wave will determine how many particles it takes to make one complete wave. (The lower the frequency the longer the wave.) Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Nungali Posted February 14, 2016 Thanks. My misread. Okay. Photons. Zero rest mass. In other words, if you don't turn on the light there will be no photons. But when you turn on the light the photons are flying around all over the place allowing people to see the light. Light is energy, energy is mass. What's going on? (Beside the light switch.) No mass in photons ? What makes the space dragon's tail point away from the Sun then ? 1 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
thelerner Posted February 14, 2016 Imo, What you guys were talking about earlier is demonstrated nicely by a coin 'tornado'! The coin wants to roll in a straight line but the plastic (space time) is warped in a loop keeping in 'orbit', except there's not friction in space and the satellite (or coin) is perfectly matched to keep rolling around the curvature. Otherwise it'll be effected by the gravity but break free and leave orbit, until acted on by another warp/gravity well in space. 3 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Marblehead Posted February 14, 2016 No mass in photons ? What makes the space dragon's tail point away from the Sun then ? The photons have been excited by the energy from the sun. They are no longer at rest. They now have mass. And if you are close behind that comet you are going to feel them too. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Marblehead Posted February 14, 2016 The coin wants to roll in a straight line but the plastic (space time) is warped in a loop keeping in 'orbit', except there's not friction in space and the satellite (or coin) is perfectly matched to keep rolling around the curvature. Otherwise it'll be effected by the gravity but break free and leave orbit, until acted on by another warp/gravity well in space. Yep. That is my understanding as well. It takes either gravity or friction to slow an object down. While still just a theory, our solar systems Oort Cloud has many objects in it. The cloud is beyond our sun's gravitational effect and there is next to no friction in the area. The only way objects get ejected out is if some other object causes a gravitational push or draw on them or they actually collide with each other. 1 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Wells Posted February 14, 2016 (edited) . Edited May 10, 2016 by Wells 1 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Brian Posted March 22, 2016 I'm curious -- are the Sun and Moon flat, too? 2 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Marblehead Posted March 23, 2016 I'm curious -- are the Sun and Moon flat, too? Well, of course!! Duh! 1 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Nungali Posted March 23, 2016 I protest about what that guy on the video said .... North and South pole are NOT supposed to have the same weather ! We all know heat rises .... so the north pole , being at the top will be warmer. 1 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Marblehead Posted March 23, 2016 I protest about what that guy on the video said .... North and South pole are NOT supposed to have the same weather ! We all know heat rises .... so the north pole , being at the top will be warmer. Is that circular logic? Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Apech Posted March 23, 2016 Is that circular logic? A polar bear ate my penguin. 1 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Marblehead Posted March 23, 2016 trolls. You prefer fairies? Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Nungali Posted March 23, 2016 Is that circular logic? No ( there is no logic in this thread ) , it is circular convection currents. 2 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
