Newton's law of gravitational attraction
in [Physics]
|
Prev: New Volcanic Activity This Week- Three~~ Total 16 active
Next: Solutions manual to Intermediate Accounting 13e Kieso
From: NoEinstein on 21 Dec 2009 14:15 On Dec 14, 8:09 am, "Autymn D. C." <lysde...(a)sbcglobal.net> wrote: > Dear Autymn: Your science reasoning is as skewed as your English writing ability. Your having another imagined explanation for what I have explained doesn't negate my explanation. That said... I wish you a Happy Holidays! NoEinstein > > On Dec 13, 6:17 pm, NoEinstein <noeinst...(a)bellsouth.net> wrote: > > > On Dec 11, 11:24 am, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > On Dec 10, 8:59 pm, NoEinstein <noeinst...(a)bellsouth.net> wrote: > > > > On Dec 8, 3:13 pm, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > Dear PD, the, yes, Parasite Dunce: True to form, you sidestep the > > basic issue of whether or not SR goes to infinity at 'c'. There is no > > whether or not = whether or not whether, ocsýmòrònic > > > requirement that there has been an infinite mass to test that theory. > > VELOCITY is one manifestation of energy which has never, and will > > never, cause even a speck of mass to grow bigger. You yourself > > acknowledged that when the SR divisor goes to zero, E becomes > > infinite. Now, why the change of heart? Is 186,272 miles per second > > forgot a ghamma > > > an infinite velocity? If not, then, the E resulting from traveling > > such velocity can't be infinite either. Mathematical equations not > > relating to ENERGY can be quadratic, as you say, but NO energy > > equation can ever be anything but LINEAR! > > It can only be linear when celerity is infinite, as Newton > misbelieved. Then there'd be no univers, no bodies. > > > In the past you've argued that gamma rays have no mass. But all > > radioactive decay involves the release of gamma rays, does it not? > > And all radioactive decay LOWERS the atomic weight of the matter, does > > it not? Then, gamma rays must have mass, otherwise the radioactive > > decay would keep the mass the same! Having even one gamma ray, with > > No, two ghamma waves interfere groupwise to carry mass. Liht is a > hap, not a thing, so it can't hav any weiht. > > > mass, travel at very, very close to 'c' would, if SR is correct, > > require most of the energy in the Universe to make that one spec of > > matter go so fast. But, obviously, there is enough energy in a lone > > atom to cause that gamma ray to go so fact. To me, THAT is a more > > profound disproof of SR than your injected requirement that a near > > infinite mass is required before SR can be disproved. Violating the > > Law of the Conservation of Energy is the simplest and most profound > > disproof of SR to be had; credit one... NoEinstein. > > all spurius > [You don't trim quotes, arsehole.] > > -Aut
From: NoEinstein on 21 Dec 2009 14:46 On Dec 14, 10:19 am, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > Dear PD, the HOPELESS Parasite Dunce: Reasoning ability has never been your long suit! Einstein himself said: "To accelerate even a speck of matter to velocity 'c', it will require more energy than is in all of the Universe." Einstein's concept of his own SR theory is that his 'E' must be INFINITE at velocity 'c'. So, your self-serving notions don't apply! Yes, there are three different particles given off via radioactive decay. Each of those remove mass from the mother material. So, each of thoseto their own degreedisprove SR by going very near to velocity 'c'. Plot the waterfall curve corresponding to SR theory and you can estimate the area under the curve. If the velocity of a particle is, say, 95% of 'c', then the total energy would be like 75% of that in the entire Universe. Just TWO particles from a single atom would use up all of the energy in the Universe! (Sic, sic, SIC!) As expected, you side-step the requirement that the Law of the Conservation of Energy not be violated in any ENERGY equation. The only equations not in violation are LINEAR, or additive equations. There can be NO exponential (including quadratic) energy equations! When one says: Conservation of Energy, that has to include the energy locked inside of matter which has not yet decayed back to just pure energy. A loss of mass due to radioactive decay will conserve the energy and/or mass. The latter is an absolutely true statement which doesn't lock-in that the mass (alone) must be unchanging. You, sir, are a shell game con artist! Suckers will always point to a shell without the little ball, because youbeing the crook that you are tossed the ball into your hand along the way. PD, you aren't a... scientist, you are a hold-out from the DARK AGES OF EINSTEIN! NoEinstein > > On Dec 13, 8:17 pm, NoEinstein <noeinst...(a)bellsouth.net> wrote: > > > On Dec 11, 11:24 am, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > On Dec 10, 8:59 pm, NoEinstein <noeinst...(a)bellsouth.net> wrote: > > > > > On Dec 8, 3:13 pm, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > Dear PD, the, yes, Parasite Dunce: True to form, you sidestep the > > basic issue of whether or not SR goes to infinity at 'c'. > > SR is a theory, not a quantity. A theory doesn't "go to" any number. > What number does Coulomb's law "go to"? > > > There is no > > requirement that there has been an infinite mass to test that theory. > > I said nothing about an infinite mass. Please check your reading > again. > > > VELOCITY is one manifestation of energy which has never, and will > > never, cause even a speck of mass to grow bigger. You yourself > > acknowledged that when the SR divisor goes to zero, E becomes > > infinite. > > Yes, but that divisor never gets to zero. It *approaches* zero. But it > stays nonzero, and so the mass stays finite. > > > Now, why the change of heart? Is 186,272 miles per second > > an infinite velocity? If not, then, the E resulting from traveling > > such velocity can't be infinite either. > > Don't be ridiculous. Take a look at the quantity 1/(2-x). This > quantity goes to infinity when x is quite finite and has the value 2. > It doesn't require x to be infinite for 1/(2-x) to be infinite. > > Did you fail 5th grade algebra? > > > Mathematical equations not > > relating to ENERGY can be quadratic, as you say, but NO energy > > equation can ever be anything but LINEAR! > > But it IS, right there. KE = (1/2)mv^2. That's quadratic in v. > Here's another one: Work = F * d = F * ((1/2)at*2). That's quadratic > in t. > > > > > In the past you've argued that gamma rays have no mass. > > That's right. > > > But all > > radioactive decay involves the release of gamma rays, does it not? > > Some radioactive decays do, yes. There are four basic kinds of natural > radioactive decay: alpha, beta, gamma, and fission. > > > And all radioactive decay LOWERS the atomic weight of the matter, does > > it not? Then, gamma rays must have mass, otherwise the radioactive > > decay would keep the mass the same! > > No sir. Mass is not a conserved quantity, never has been. There is no > law of conservation of mass. > > > Having even one gamma ray, with > > mass, travel at very, very close to 'c' would, if SR is correct, > > require most of the energy in the Universe to make that one spec of > > matter go so fast. > > Nope, because SR does not say that the Lorentz factor applies to gamma > rays at all. You did, but you've made a mistake. > > > > > But, obviously, there is enough energy in a lone > > atom to cause that gamma ray to go so fact. To me, THAT is a more > > profound disproof of SR than your injected requirement that a near > > infinite mass is required before SR can be disproved. Violating the > > Law of the Conservation of Energy is the simplest and most profound > > disproof of SR to be had; credit one... NoEinstein. > > > > Dear PD, the... should I still call him the Parasite Dunce?: For ONCE > > > > you are acknowledging that SR goes to infinity at 'c'. > > > > Well, "SR" doesn't go to infinity. There is a Lorentz factor gamma > > > that WOULD go to infinity at c. However, no massive particle ever gets > > > to c, so no massive particle ever sees a Lorentz factor gamma of > > > infinity, and the Lorentz factor gamma does not apply to massless > > > particles. > > > > > Thanks for > > > > realizing that fact! Pardon me for not copying that God d. Lorentz > > > > divisor every time I mention SR. Most encyclopedias only show E = > > > > mc^2 when talking about relativity. > > > > And this shows the problem with trying to understand relativity by > > > reading encyclopedia articles. > > > It may be of value to you to learn read something of more depth and > > > quality if you want to really understand it better. > > > > > My bet is that Einstein had no > > > > idea whatsoever that Lorentz had screwed up his simple minded notion: > > > > "Energy can be converted to mass; and mass can be converted to > > > > energy." In no way is the velocity of the velocity of light part of > > > > the measure of the total energy within a given mass. Einstein was > > > > also totally clueless as to just what kinds of energy will convert to > > > > mass. Unfortunately for Einstein, VELOCITY can never be converted to > > > > mass! > > > > Well, you may want to consider how two particles as light as electrons > > > can collide at high velocities and produce a particle that is 90,000 > > > times heavier than the two electrons combined. And yes, this has been > > > done millions of times. > > > > > When I say "exponential" I mean at a rate of increase greater than > > > > linear. > > > > Then this is a terminology problem, because that is definitely not > > > what "exponential" means to mathematicians and scientists. This is > > > part of the thing that I've been reminding you of -- that certain > > > words have very specific meanings and you've been using them in a much > > > looser and inaccurate way. > > > > > "Quadratic" applies specifically to parabolic rates of > > > > increase, like d = t^2. > > > > ANY function that goes as the square of another quantity is a > > > quadratic function. > > > So, for example, (1/2)mv^2 is quadratic in v. > > > > > I am well aware that Coriolis's equation, KE > > > > = 1/2mv^2 doesn't have the KE going to infinity at velocity 'c'. What > > > > I was wanting you to grasp is that both equations increase > > > > exponentially (non-linearly). > > > > Quadratic is not exponential. Neither of them is linear, but that > > > doesn't make (1/2)mv^2 exponential. I'm asking you to learn how to use > > > terms appropriately. > > > > > Thus, both equations violate the Law of > > > > the Conservation of Energy. That's because the two equations "input" > > > > velocity uniformly, but "output" the E or KE exponentially (non- > > > > linearly). > > > > That's what ANY quadratic function does. For example, in d=(1/2)at^2, > > > you input time uniformly and the output distance emerges non-linearly.. > > > That isn't a violation of anything. > > > > > Effectively, both Coriolis and Einstein created energy in > > > > their own minds that was never being imparted by Nature! > > > > Nonsense. All the energy is delivered by work, which comes from force > > > applied through a distance. There is no energy that comes from no > > > place. It's all accounted for. > > > > > Coriolis's equation was semi-quadratic, not quadratic. > > > > "Semi-quadratic" is a meaningless word. > > > The area of a circle is quadratic in the diameter: A = (1/4)*pi*d^2.. > > > The presence of the constants out in front doesn't change that fact. > > > > A function can be linear in one variable and quadratic in another. > > > For example, d=(1/2)a*t^2 is linear in acceleration a, and quadratic > > > in the time t. > > > > All this is 6th grade arithmetic, John. Perhaps you have forgotten > > > your 6th grade arithmetic. > > > > > I suspect > > > > Einstein dropped the... "1/2" so that people wouldn't realize that he > > > > had copied Coriolis. Einstein had no idea whatsoever how much energy > > > > resides inside of a given mass. > > > > Please, John, stop making stuff up. It's transparent, and it makes you > > > look bad. > > > > > He would leave that up to future > > > > generations of scientists to figure out. > > > > > I hope you feel better for beginning to side with science truths, not > > > > just the errant science status quo. The problem for both of us, now, > > > > is that those in academia couldn't care less about science truths so > > > > long as they can keep repeating their boring memorized lessons, and > > > > keep getting NSF grant money to research anything and everything > > > > about... Einstein's notions. The desire of young minds to > > > > 'understand' relativity has been a cash cow for universities. If I > > > > had the power, I would fire 75% of the physics teachers at > > > > universities and increase the entry requirement so as to reduce the > > > > number of ALL students by 50%. There is far too much emphasis being > > > > put on obtaining worthless college degrees. The USA is loosing its > > > > Work Ethic > > > > You owe your livelihood to your college degree, John. You would not be > > > able to work at your profession without it. > > > > > > On Dec 8, 2:02 pm, NoEinstein <noeinst...(a)bellsouth.net> wrote: > > > > > > > If you will agree that both E = 1/2mv^2 and E = mc^2 / [1 - v^2 / c^2] > > > > > > ^1/2 go to infinity close to velocity 'c', then you will be > > > > > > acknowledging that the OUTPUT energy exceeds the INPUT energy > > > > > > (velocity). The issue here is the terminal energy, not the disparity > > > > > > in the profile of the two curves. NoEinstein > > > > > > Well, I'm glad to see that you replaced E=mc^2 with E=mc^2/(1-v^2/ > > > > > c^2). At least now you're not talking about rest energy. > > > > > > And it's pretty obvious that E=mc^2/(1-v^2/c^2) goes to infinity when > > > > > v approaches c. The term in the denominator becomes zero, and you know > > > > > what happens when you divide by zero. > > > > > > On the other hand, I wouldn't dream of saying that E=(1/2)mv^2 goes to > > > > > infinity when v approaches c. Any child with a 5th grade math > > > > > education will see that it doesn't. I assume you've at least had a 5th > > > > > grade math education. > > > > > > Of course, E=(1/2)mv^2 is known to be an approximation that only works > > > > > when v is much smaller than c, and can't be used reliably at all with > > > > > v anywhere near c. > > > > > > However, the fact that energy goes to infinity when v approaches c > > > > > doesn't violate energy conservation at all. It is true, just as it has > > > > > always been true, that any energy increase is due to work done by an > > > > > exerted force, and this is what energy conservation requires. > > > > > > It is also true that for any v at all less than c, the energy is not > > > > > infinite. Big is not infinite. And as we calculated before, the energy > > > > > required to get a proton up to 0.9999995 c is actually > > ... > > read more »- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text -
From: PD on 21 Dec 2009 16:44 On Dec 21, 1:46 pm, NoEinstein <noeinst...(a)bellsouth.net> wrote: > On Dec 14, 10:19 am, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > Dear PD, the HOPELESS Parasite Dunce: Reasoning ability has never > been your long suit! Einstein himself said: "To accelerate even a > speck of matter to velocity 'c', it will require more energy than is > in all of the Universe." And so no "speck of matter" is ever accelerated to velocity c. It just doesn't happen in nature. Nothing with matter in it ever travels with speed c. It ALL travels with speed under c. And then the energy required to get it to a speed under c is quite finite. > Einstein's concept of his own SR theory is > that his 'E' must be INFINITE at velocity 'c'. So, your self-serving > notions don't apply! It would help if you would READ what he actually writes. > > Yes, there are three different particles given off via radioactive > decay. Each of those remove mass from the mother material. No, they don't. Gammas do not carry mass away. > So, each > of thoseto their own degreedisprove SR by going very near to > velocity 'c'. "Very near" the velocity c does not require infinite energy. The energy to emit a beta particle is in fact quite low. > Plot the waterfall curve corresponding to SR theory and > you can estimate the area under the curve. If the velocity of a > particle is, say, 95% of 'c', then the total energy would be like 75% > of that in the entire Universe. And that is patently ridiculous and you've never done the calculation. I will show you exactly how to do the calculation to see what the result will be. A beta particle emitted at 95% of c has a gamma factor of 3.203, which means it has an energy of 1.637 MeV. By comparison, a dime falling out of your hip pocket acquires a kinetic energy of 153,000,000,000 MeV. So you see, this beta particle at 95% of c carries nothing like 75% of the energy of the universe. It barely has more than 1 hundred- billionth of the energy of a fallen dime. > Just TWO particles from a single atom > would use up all of the energy in the Universe! (Sic, sic, SIC!) If you don't know how to do the calculations, you shouldn't make statements like this. You only end up looking foolish. I thought architects knew how to calculate, so that they know how to size beams and so on. > > As expected, you side-step the requirement that the Law of the > Conservation of Energy not be violated in any ENERGY equation. The > only equations not in violation are LINEAR, or additive equations. > There can be NO exponential (including quadratic) energy equations! Why can't there be any nonlinear energy equations? As long as all the energy increase is due to the work done by a force, there is no energy lost or created. And the word for anything that isn't linear is not "exponential". A quadratic equation is not exponential. Please educate yourself better. > > When one says: Conservation of Energy, that has to include the energy > locked inside of matter which has not yet decayed back to just pure > energy. A loss of mass due to radioactive decay will conserve the > energy and/or mass. The latter is an absolutely true statement which > doesn't lock-in that the mass (alone) must be unchanging. You, sir, > are a shell game con artist! Suckers will always point to a shell > without the little ball, because youbeing the crook that you are > tossed the ball into your hand along the way. PD, you aren't a... > scientist, you are a hold-out from the DARK AGES OF EINSTEIN! > NoEinstein The quadratic dependence you find repulsive was confirmed decades before Einstein was born. > > > > > On Dec 13, 8:17 pm, NoEinstein <noeinst...(a)bellsouth.net> wrote: > > > > On Dec 11, 11:24 am, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > On Dec 10, 8:59 pm, NoEinstein <noeinst...(a)bellsouth.net> wrote: > > > > > > On Dec 8, 3:13 pm, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > Dear PD, the, yes, Parasite Dunce: True to form, you sidestep the > > > basic issue of whether or not SR goes to infinity at 'c'. > > > SR is a theory, not a quantity. A theory doesn't "go to" any number. > > What number does Coulomb's law "go to"? > > > > There is no > > > requirement that there has been an infinite mass to test that theory. > > > I said nothing about an infinite mass. Please check your reading > > again. > > > > VELOCITY is one manifestation of energy which has never, and will > > > never, cause even a speck of mass to grow bigger. You yourself > > > acknowledged that when the SR divisor goes to zero, E becomes > > > infinite. > > > Yes, but that divisor never gets to zero. It *approaches* zero. But it > > stays nonzero, and so the mass stays finite. > > > > Now, why the change of heart? Is 186,272 miles per second > > > an infinite velocity? If not, then, the E resulting from traveling > > > such velocity can't be infinite either. > > > Don't be ridiculous. Take a look at the quantity 1/(2-x). This > > quantity goes to infinity when x is quite finite and has the value 2. > > It doesn't require x to be infinite for 1/(2-x) to be infinite. > > > Did you fail 5th grade algebra? > > > > Mathematical equations not > > > relating to ENERGY can be quadratic, as you say, but NO energy > > > equation can ever be anything but LINEAR! > > > But it IS, right there. KE = (1/2)mv^2. That's quadratic in v. > > Here's another one: Work = F * d = F * ((1/2)at*2). That's quadratic > > in t. > > > > In the past you've argued that gamma rays have no mass. > > > That's right. > > > > But all > > > radioactive decay involves the release of gamma rays, does it not? > > > Some radioactive decays do, yes. There are four basic kinds of natural > > radioactive decay: alpha, beta, gamma, and fission. > > > > And all radioactive decay LOWERS the atomic weight of the matter, does > > > it not? Then, gamma rays must have mass, otherwise the radioactive > > > decay would keep the mass the same! > > > No sir. Mass is not a conserved quantity, never has been. There is no > > law of conservation of mass. > > > > Having even one gamma ray, with > > > mass, travel at very, very close to 'c' would, if SR is correct, > > > require most of the energy in the Universe to make that one spec of > > > matter go so fast. > > > Nope, because SR does not say that the Lorentz factor applies to gamma > > rays at all. You did, but you've made a mistake. > > > > But, obviously, there is enough energy in a lone > > > atom to cause that gamma ray to go so fact. To me, THAT is a more > > > profound disproof of SR than your injected requirement that a near > > > infinite mass is required before SR can be disproved. Violating the > > > Law of the Conservation of Energy is the simplest and most profound > > > disproof of SR to be had; credit one... NoEinstein. > > > > > Dear PD, the... should I still call him the Parasite Dunce?: For ONCE > > > > > you are acknowledging that SR goes to infinity at 'c'. > > > > > Well, "SR" doesn't go to infinity. There is a Lorentz factor gamma > > > > that WOULD go to infinity at c. However, no massive particle ever gets > > > > to c, so no massive particle ever sees a Lorentz factor gamma of > > > > infinity, and the Lorentz factor gamma does not apply to massless > > > > particles. > > > > > > Thanks for > > > > > realizing that fact! Pardon me for not copying that God d. Lorentz > > > > > divisor every time I mention SR. Most encyclopedias only show E = > > > > > mc^2 when talking about relativity. > > > > > And this shows the problem with trying to understand relativity by > > > > reading encyclopedia articles. > > > > It may be of value to you to learn read something of more depth and > > > > quality if you want to really understand it better. > > > > > > My bet is that Einstein had no > > > > > idea whatsoever that Lorentz had screwed up his simple minded notion: > > > > > "Energy can be converted to mass; and mass can be converted to > > > > > energy." In no way is the velocity of the velocity of light part of > > > > > the measure of the total energy within a given mass. Einstein was > > > > > also totally clueless as to just what kinds of energy will convert to > > > > > mass. Unfortunately for Einstein, VELOCITY can never be converted to > > > > > mass! > > > > > Well, you may want to consider how two particles as light as electrons > > > > can collide at high velocities and produce a particle that is 90,000 > > > > times heavier than the two electrons combined. And yes, this has been > > > > done millions of times. > > > > > > When I say "exponential" I mean at a rate of increase greater than > > > > > linear. > > > > > Then this is a terminology problem, because that is definitely not > > > > what "exponential" means to mathematicians and scientists. This is > > > > part of the thing that I've been reminding you of -- that certain > > > > words have very specific meanings and you've been using them in a much > > > > looser and inaccurate way. > > > > > > "Quadratic" applies specifically to parabolic rates of > > > > > increase, like d = t^2. > > > > > ANY function that goes as the square of another quantity is a > > > > quadratic function. > > > > So, for example, (1/2)mv^2 is quadratic in v. > > > > > > I am well aware that Coriolis's equation, KE > > > > > = 1/2mv^2 doesn't have the KE going to infinity at velocity 'c'.. What > > > > > I was wanting you to grasp is that both equations increase > > > > > exponentially (non-linearly). > > > > > Quadratic is not exponential. Neither of them is linear, but that > > > > doesn't make (1/2)mv^2 exponential. I'm asking you to learn how to use > > > > terms appropriately. > > > > > > Thus, both equations violate the Law of > > > > > the Conservation of Energy. That's because the two equations "input" > > > > > velocity uniformly, but "output" the E or KE exponentially (non- > > > > > linearly). > > > > > That's what ANY quadratic function does. For example, in d=(1/2)at^2, > > > > you input time uniformly and the output distance emerges non-linearly. > > > > That isn't a violation of anything. > > > > > > Effectively, both Coriolis and Einstein created energy in > > > > > their own minds that was never being imparted by Nature! > > > > > Nonsense. All the energy is delivered by work, which comes from force > > > > applied through a distance. There is no energy that comes from no > > > > place. It's all accounted for. > > > > > > Coriolis's equation was semi-quadratic, not quadratic. > > > > > "Semi-quadratic" is a meaningless word. > > > > The area of a circle is quadratic in the diameter: A = (1/4)*pi*d^2. > > > > The presence of the constants out in front doesn't change that fact.. > > > > > A function can be linear in one variable and quadratic in another. > > > > For example, d=(1/2)a*t^2 is linear in acceleration a, and quadratic > > > > in the time t. > > > > > All this is 6th grade arithmetic, John. Perhaps you have forgotten > > > > your 6th grade arithmetic. > > > > > > I suspect > > > > > Einstein dropped the... "1/2" so that people wouldn't realize that he > > > > > had copied Coriolis. Einstein had no idea whatsoever how much energy > > > > > resides inside of a given mass. > > > > > Please, John, stop making stuff up. It's transparent, and it makes you > > > > look bad. > > > > > > He would leave that up to future > > > > > generations of scientists to figure out. > > > > > > I hope you feel better for beginning to side with science truths, not > > > > > just the errant science status quo. The problem for both of us, now, > > > > > is that those in academia couldn't care less about science truths so > > > > > long as they can keep repeating their boring memorized lessons, and > > > > > keep getting NSF grant money to research anything and everything > > > > > about... Einstein's notions. The desire of young minds to > > > > > 'understand' relativity has been a cash cow for universities. If I > > > > > had the power, I would > > ... > > read more »
From: waldofj on 22 Dec 2009 09:51 > > No, they don't. Gammas do not carry mass away. you're wrong on this point. Gammas definitely carry away mass. Consider when an electron and a positron annihilate, a pair of 511 Kev gammas are produced moving in opposite directions. They carry away all the mass of the two particles. They just don't carry it in the form of rest mass.
From: PD on 22 Dec 2009 10:28
On Dec 22, 8:51 am, waldofj <wald...(a)verizon.net> wrote: > > No, they don't. Gammas do not carry mass away. > > you're wrong on this point. Gammas definitely carry away mass. > Consider when an electron and a positron annihilate, a pair of 511 Kev > gammas are produced moving in opposite directions. They carry away all > the mass of the two particles. They just don't carry it in the form of > rest mass. Fair enough. The more correct statement is that there is no mass that is associable to each photon. |