The Theory of Everything

[noseall]

Who is this "Steven Hawkins" in any case?

He seems very similar to Stephen Hawking.

I bet the same people say stapleford when they should be saying stableford when playing golf.

Windowscreen - windscreen.

Brought - bought.

Skellington is my fav though.

It is astonishing that so many people have got the spelling wrong seeing as it is splashed everywhere.

 

[Micilin]

Who is this "Steven Hawkins" in any case?

He seems very similar to Stephen Hawking.

I bet the same people say stapleford when they should be saying stableford when playing golf.

Windowscreen - windscreen.

Brought - bought.

Skellington is my fav though.

It is astonishing that so many people have got the spelling wrong seeing as it is splashed everywhere.

I was talking about this the other day to Chris Eubanks.

 

[noseall]

I was talking about this the other day to Chris Eubanks.

Some people like shopping in Tescos. I prefer Tesco.

 

[sooey]

It's a good job you're around to keep everybody straight.

 

[noseall]

It's a good job you're around to keep everybody straight.

I know!
I go away for five days and this happens.

Stephen Hawkins, now come on! The name has been plastered just about everywhere in the last few weeks, you would need to be a monumental ****** to get that wrong.

 

[JBR]

Who is this "Steven Hawkins" in any case?

He seems very similar to Stephen Hawking.

I bet the same people say stapleford when they should be saying stableford when playing golf.

Windowscreen - windscreen.

Brought - bought.

Skellington is my fav though.

It is astonishing that so many people have got the spelling wrong seeing as it is splashed everywhere.

I remember when we sold our first house, the woman who bought it wanted to know if we had a cerstificate for our damp-proofing.

 

[Micilin]

I was talking about this the other day to Chris Eubanks.

Some people like shopping in Tescos. I prefer Tesco.

Ahhhh...but maybe they mean Tesco's?😄

 

[Dextraneous]

@Hysteresis - thank you for your reply a couple of pages ago. I don't attend these boards often during the working week and I apologise for the delay in getting back to you. I'm sure that you can imagine how the thread had seemed, at that time, to become a tit for tat showboat for you and norcs and can understand my subsequent frustration. Anyway, back to topic....

 

[noseall]

I know, but light is energy. Therefore if energy and mass have an equivalence as expressed in the equation then light as a form of energy must have some mass.

So if you view an object, the image of that object is a beam or beams of light travelling from the object to your eye.

Are you saying that the more you view the object the lighter it becomes?

I guess that the image of the object is travelling away from the object in the form of beams of light constantly, whether it is being viewed or not. Does it lose any mass?

No.

Beams of light have no mass. Time has no mass either.

 

[sooey]

Noseall you seem to be under the impression that the light you view an object by emanates from the object you're viewing. it doesn't, it is just reflected by the object. So no loss of mass necessary.
Incidentally most of the light round here comes from the sun and that's losing mass and becoming lighter constantly as it converts matter into energy. About a million tons a second I read once.

 

[Brigadier]

Noseall you seem to be under the impression that the light you view an object by emanates from the object you're viewing. it doesn't, it is just reflected by the object. So no loss of mass necessary.
Incidentally most of the light round here comes from the sun and that's losing mass and becoming lighter constantly as it converts matter into energy. About a million tons a second I read once.

Beat me to it, Sooey (getting laddo ready for footie)

http://www.astronomycafe.net/qadir/q1491.html

But the sun is not losing mass through emitting light, I believe......

https://www.google.com/search?clien...does+light+have+mass?&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&gl=uk

Instead, mass is lost through electron and proton loss.......

http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/solar/solwin.html

 

[Dextraneous]

The "light" that one views things by is imagined anyway. So Your argument is spurious.

 

[sooey]

But the sun is not losing mass through emitting light, I believe......

Light is just a small part of the energy released in nuclear fusion, but it is part of it.
Put simplistically, two hydrogen atoms fuse to create one helium atom, which weighs slightly less than the two hydrogen atoms. The missing mass is converted into energy right across the spectrum from radio waves to gamma waves in accordance with E=MC2, visible light is part of that so I reckon the sun is losing mass through emitting light.

 

[noseall]

Noseall you seem to be under the impression that the light you view an object by emanates from the object you're viewing. it doesn't, it is just reflected by the object.

...therefore zero mass.

 

[sooey]

So if a ball bounces off a wall the ball has zero mass???