swansont

On the contrary, mass is generally taken to mean invariant mass. You need to specify relativistic mass if you are going to use it.

As a whole, we are in freefall with respect to the sun, just as the ISS is in freefall about earth, owing to the orbit.

I'd challenge anyone who claimed it to provide some evidence to back it up. It's not obvious to me. Photons are bosons and can be created and annihilated — they are not conserved. When a photon is absorbed it ceases to exist. The only avenue I see here is with the unification of the interactions at very high energies.

If you try and hold your breath, perhaps, because the gas wants to expand. Solids and liquids have a much smaller tendency to expand under such a small reduction in pressure (only one atmosphere difference)

Yes.

Do the calculation, then, based on index of refraction, and see what you get. Just ran across this http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/12/081216131106.htm

How is this an example something made of of trapped light? It's an instance of converting energy into matter according to E = mc^2.

How can inertia and total inertia have the same units when you've got I = M and It = pM ?

[math]E^2 = m^2c^4 + p^2c^2[/math] The energy changes when an object is moving. The mass doesn't.

Energy/mass conversion is not a philosophical matter. (Though I'm sure it could be Deepak Chopra'd into one)

In what sense? Photons are not constituents of any other particle. OTOH, there are no other particles that comprise a photon. I second the call. Cite a reliable source.

Or a neurologist.

X-rays are ionizing radiation, so atoms with lots of electrons and materials with a high density of atoms present more opportunities for absorption. RF is much lower energy — it doesn't cause ionization. Materials that have resonances at the frequency of the radiation will absorb the RF, Also conductors; the free electrons can absorb the energy much like any antenna, which is why wrapping things in aluminum will tend to shield the radio waves.

Ah, the "scientists were wrong before" ploy. Old hat. It shows a profound lack of appreciation for scientific discovery, as it is basically implying that scientists know nothing and that relativity is merely a guess. This is not the medium for transferring the incredible amount of information that you are ignoring, but the information is pretty easily obtained on the web. Avail yourself of it, and stop trolling.

Post #24. Mass doesn't change with speed; all of that energy shows up in the kinetic term, p^2c^2

Of course, Googling on this is an easy way to answer part of the question http://www.iop.org/EJ/abstract/1063-7818/23/1/A06 http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1989PhDT.........6Y

Fock states. Sounds dirty, but actually isn't. (Kinda like the way horology and herpetology make sound — to the uninitiated — like you're studying something very different than what you actually are) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fock_state

On the contrary, it is this contention that has no evidence. It's a logical fallacy to assume that one view is true simply because it hasn't been disproven. Relativity has been confirmed in countless experiments. This conjecture has nothing to recommend it — you would need to come up with ways of testing and confirming/disproving it.

Nice shoes. Wanna Fock? Probably not considered PG-rated, though.

There's a saying that anything will lase if you pump it hard enough. They made Jell-o lase. It's an issue of what frequency and the efficiency.

The photon is one of the exchange particles responsible for forces (specifically, the electromagnetic force). This does not make it a constituent of matter.

Yes. An isomer (long-lived excited state) of iron was discovered because its mass is different than the ground state. http://blogs.scienceforums.net/swansont/archives/278

You have neglected the testing part that is required. Math allows for precise predictions, as Klaynos has already explained.

Well, sort of. Some of the HP5061 clocks actually had an analog display on them. And I don't think there was anything inherently digital in the electronics (though I could easily be missing something in my mental reconstruction) Of course, this is completely beside the point of the OP. And the paper that follows, which gives the results.

If you are claiming that the photon is the substructure for other particles, the answer is no. This is not the speculations forum. You are expected to respond with established physics here. Actually "we" do have some understanding of what some things are, or more to the point, how some things behave. Someone built your computer, for instance, which is not a trivial task that could be accomplished without some understanding of science. And though it wasn't your intent, implying otherwise is a bit insulting. It's easy enough to provide a link (copy and paste), and it's your responsibility to do so. The first link I found in doing that search was "Oklahoma City bombing trial" Absent that, there is no basis for discussion. And popular media doesn't have a stellar track record for reporting science.