Re: recoiling photons evidence?

"George Dishman" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> "ralph sansbury" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> >
> > "George Dishman" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> > news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > >
> > > "ralph sansbury" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> > > news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > > That is the wrong equation.The correct form is:
> > >
> > >  E^2 = m^2 * c^4  +  p^2 * c^2
> >
> > No this is the wrong equation. The correct form is
> > E^2 = (m_0)^2 * c^4  +  p^2 * c^2
>
> Physics these days has generally dropped the old 'relativistic
> mass' presentation as anachronistic and confusing.

      I hope not.
      It is confusing not to make the distinction. You also
misunterstood my question. Namely, when you start an oscillation
 of charge in a distant isolated source
by thermally exciting bound electrons in tungsten for example,
the oscillating electrons may recoil from one another as you
suggest in a random and cancelling manner  but the whole source
 would not be recoiling against anything.
   My  point then  is that you cannot use a mathematical equation
that
applies to source and reflector together over a small distance,
 as evidence for photon recoil causing a motion of eg an 8 watt
transmitter on a distant spacecraft as photons are emitted.

  My point is that the evidence for photon recoil in a receiver
and
reflector when the source is close cannot be used as evidence for
the case when the source is distant and the energy of the emitted
photons
is large enough but the energy of the received photons is
miniscule.





>
> >   The correct implicit equation I was using was
> > m=E/c^2 not m_0=E/c^2.
> >    And since p=mv=Ev/c^2
> > and mc^2=(m_0)c^2/(1-v^2/c^2)^1/2 you get
> > the corrected equation above.
>
>    The equation you used implies non-zero mass while the
> (invariant) mass of a photon is zero, hence the possible
> confusion.

    The whole concept of the photon is confused and full of
contradictions.  There
is no such thing as a photon at rest so the mass of the photon
is never zero!!!

If you want to use "relativistic mass", it is
> best to use that phrase so everyone understands you.

 I was using mass in the normative sense or total mass
 which can be analysed into the rest mass and the relativistic
mass
or whatever else you might desire. You were using mass
in the specialized sense of "rest" mass.


Ralph