Nuclear explosion

[Grumblenuts]

Extra credit 2:
Develop a test to prove whether this "mass" you ascribe to these "photons" is responsible for turning the vanes or whether it might just be the third means of heat transfer you forgot about.

{Just an fyi: mainstream cosmologists and physicists have stopped ascribing any mass to photons. Electrons, yes. Photons, no}

 

[watchingfromafar]

{Just an fyi: mainstream cosmologists and physicists have stopped ascribing any mass to photons. Electrons, yes. Photons, no}

A photon (from Ancient Greek φῶς, φωτός (phôs, phōtós) 'light') is an elementary particle that is a quantum of the electromagnetic field, including electromagnetic radiation such as light and radio waves, and the force carrier for the electromagnetic force. Photons are massless, so they always move at the speed of light in vacuum, 299792458 m/s (or about 186,282 mi/s). The photon belongs to the class of bosons.
Photon - Wikipedia

The invariant mass, rest mass, intrinsic mass, proper mass, or in the case of bound systems simply mass, is the portion of the total mass of an object or system of objects that is independent of the overall motion of the system. More precisely, it is a characteristic of the system's total energy and momentum that is the same in all frames of reference related by Lorentz transformations. If a center-of-momentum frame exists for the system, then the invariant mass of a system is equal to its total mass in that "rest frame". In other reference frames, where the system's momentum is nonzero, the total mass (a.k.a. relativistic mass) of the system is greater than the invariant mass, but the invariant mass remains unchanged.
Invariant mass - Wikipedia
-

 

[Here and there]

How do you know?

It’s called sarcasm.

 

[Leo123]

A super nova is a nuclear explosion.

 

[Grumblenuts]

A photon (from Ancient Greek φῶς, φωτός (phôs, phōtós) 'light') is an elementary particle that is a quantum of the electromagnetic field, including electromagnetic radiation such as light and radio waves, and the force carrier for the electromagnetic force. Photons are massless, so they always move at the speed of light in vacuum, 299792458 m/s (or about 186,282 mi/s). The photon belongs to the class of bosons.
Photon - Wikipedia

So are you trying to say a beam of light doesn't slow down while passing through glass?

Scientists have long known that the speed of light can be slowed slightly as it travels through materials such as water or glass.

Btw, thanks for confirming what I just said, i.e. they now say -- "Photons are massless" -- But wait, they'll also say:

The invariant mass, rest mass, intrinsic mass, proper mass, or in the case of bound systems simply mass, is the portion of the total mass of an object or system of objects that is independent of the overall motion of the system. More precisely, it is a characteristic of the system's total energy and momentum that is the same in all frames of reference related by Lorentz transformations. If a center-of-momentum frame exists for the system, then the invariant mass of a system is equal to its total mass in that "rest frame". In other reference frames, where the system's momentum is nonzero, the total mass (a.k.a. relativistic mass) of the system is greater than the invariant mass, but the invariant mass remains unchanged.
Invariant mass - Wikipedia
-

Invariant mass, eh? Indeed QM die-hards continue attempting to cover their asses every which way they can imagine.. They've "got nowhere else to go!" Anyway, I gather you'll attempt no pertinent responses to my questions. No credits for you then. That's okay. I wasn't really expecting any.

 

[Grumblenuts]

It’s called sarcasm.

No kidding. Sarcasm why? Because you obviously disagree "that light would" never "over take the speed of light." How do you know that it ever "would" from any observer's POV?

Btw, I might agree depending upon what sort of "light" is being considered.

 

[Here and there]

No kidding. Sarcasm why? Because you obviously disagree "that light would" never "over take the speed of light." How do you know that it ever "would" from any observer's POV?

Btw, I might agree depending upon what sort of "light" is being considered.

I don't know which is why I asked. You seem to have all the answers so I assume you have evidence of what I said.
Well done because you have been.

 

[Grumblenuts]

I don't know which is why I asked.

Which is why I immediately responded with "The mainstream physics 'splaination" which has still earned me no credit from you.

You seem to have all the answers so I assume you have evidence of what I said.
Well done because you have been.

Highly ambiguous statements. I'll proudly wear "pedantic" any day by comparison. If you still seek help from me, please state your request plainly and specifically. Stifle the unhelpful snark and vague references.