No, I was excluded.

Alright then, subtract an additional 100b from India. It matters not to me!

Seeing as we are the 3rd poorest nation in the game, the people of Kazakhia are asking for an aid mission.

NO AID FOR YOU

No, don't subtract an extra 100B from me.

 

@Rocco, I only want aid cause if I get 3 more people to say yes it'll be done by this decade making my space mission cheaper cause a lot of the cost is cause of the spaceship. Also I could also say that cause your also going to be using my space elevator, no help, no service.

Photons travell at 99.99999999% of the speed of light.

Photons are the conveyers of Light, so they must travel at light speed...by defination.

 

They have mass, however they are too small and have too great velocities to be meassured by current technology. A proof of them having mass is how they are pulled into powerfull gravitational fields, most visibly black holes.

Hmmm, this is not correct, though it appears to be because of the first law of motion:

Every body persists in its state of being at rest or of moving uniformly straight forward, except insofar as it is compelled to change its state by force impressed.

 

However space is not flat, or even curved, but a mass of waves and troughs and bulges.

These bulges and such are caused by gravity warping space.

Light, though, travels in a straight line across space, in much the same way as a traveller will walk up a hill and then down the other side, we do not say that the traveller has been pulled up or down the hill by gravity.

This gives the illusion that Light is pulled by Gravity.

Its a little bit of relativity. Light only ever travels in a straight line, however we observers see it bend.

 

When you think about this it makes a lot of sense. If light had mass, the smallest mass imaginable, then how would it stay at lightspeed when it left a star? The gravitation pull of the star would slow light down, and light would speed up near other stars, planets and bodies. If we take that to be true then we would have to disregard Lightspeed as a constant, it would also mean that E=MC^2 wouldn't work anymore, since C is no longer a constant.

 

There is no way, currently, to practically prove that either one of us is right. One day we might be able to measure the mass of a Star exactly, and if we could do that we could work out exactly how much gravity it should be 'producing', and then determine if it is producing more than it should be, thus meaning that photons have a small mass, or producing just the right amount, thus meaning that photons do not have mass, or have such a microscopic mass that, if the whole universe was converted into photons, there would not be enough mass to create a proton's worth of gravity.

 

 

Light also appears to have mass because of things such as solar sails...Light must have mass otherwise it couldn't hit the sail and move it.

However this is due to the momentum of light, not the mass of light.

The light travels and is absorbed or reflected by the surface of the solar sail, transfering the energy from the photon, to the object.

If the light is reflected then an additional force is garnered by the third law of motion-To every action opposes an equal and opposite reaction.

Mind = blown.

I just ignore all of Arch and Ross' scientific tantrum posts.

I always thought momentum was Momentum = Mass * Velocity

Same. I read the first sentence then realise I'm not at school.

 

Sorry Arch!

Its alright Dungeonal, I don't require people to understand, just to know that I know what I am talking about.

 

Anyway, Ico, Momentum also equals Energy divided by the Speed of light.

Though Momentum is not my speciality.

I see... Well thats blown my mind a little. Though I still want to know if theres anything below Earth.

I see... Well thats blown my mind a little. Though I still want to know if theres anything below Earth.

 

Dwarves.

 

I hear they call it Svartheim. Some call it Moria. Others just call it China.

It would be interesting to find out.

E=MC^2

 

M-E=C^2

 

M=C/E^2

 

M=E/C

 

 

Archi, is this how you came up with your momentum formula? I thought that the M meant mass.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Four-momentum

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Four-momentum

 

 

Sweet. I'll just assume that your momentum formula is derived from the energy formula.

 

See? I'm not as algebraically-challenged as I thought.

E=MC^2

 

M-E=C^2

 

M=C/E^2

 

M=E/C

 

Real numbers:

 

12=6*2^2 (12=12)

 

6-12=2^2 (6=4)

 

6=2/12^2 (6=0.0138)

 

6=12/2 (6=6)

 

Not sure entirely how you managed to get there....

E=MC^2

 

M-E=C^2

 

M=C/E^2

 

M=E/C

 

Real numbers:

 

12=6*2^2 (12=12)

 

6-12=2^2 (6=4)

 

6=2/12^2 (6=0.0138)

 

6=12/2 (6=6)

 

Not sure entirely how you managed to get there....

 

I flipped the C/E part because of the exponent.

But the equations inbetween didn't make sense...

E=MC^2

 

E=MC

 

ME=C

 

M=E/C

The photon is currently believed to be strictly massless, but this is an experimental question. If the photon is not a strictly massless particle, it would not move at the exact speed of light in vacuum, c. Its speed would be lower and depend on its frequency. Relativity would be unaffected by this; the so-called speed of light, c, would then not be the actual speed at which light moves, but a constant of nature which is the maximum speed that any object could theoretically attain in space-time.[18] Thus, it would still be the speed of space-time ripples (gravitational waves and gravitons), but it would not be the speed of photons.

 

^ Wikipedia.

There is no way, currently, to practically prove that either one of us is right. One day we might be able to measure the mass of a Star exactly, and if we could do that we could work out exactly how much gravity it should be 'producing', and then determine if it is producing more than it should be, thus meaning that photons have a small mass, or producing just the right amount, thus meaning that photons do not have mass, or have such a microscopic mass that, if the whole universe was converted into photons, there would not be enough mass to create a proton's worth of gravity.

 

^ Archimage :rolleyes:

Real numbers:

 

12=6*2^2 (12=12)

 

6-12=2^2 (6=4)

 

6=2/12^2 (6=0.0138)

 

6=12/2 (6=6)

 

More like

 

12=6*2^2 (12=24)

 

6-12=2^2 (-6=4)

 

6=2/12^2 (6=0.0139)

 

6=12/2 (6=6)

That's what she said.

 

God damnit Snubbe, you ruin everything.

Hehe, I yield to Snub

E=24, M=6, C=2

24=6*2^2 (24=24)

 

6-24=2^2 (-18=4)

 

6=2/24^2 (6=0.006)

 

6=24/2 (6=12)

 

Turns out Sere was wrong anyway.