Light is energy.Also light has photons as energy carriers.So,if large amount of light is concentrated on a small area to an extent that the energy has effect of significantly large mass,would it create gravity as energy also warps space-time?
They differ in the way they are defined. For example gravitational potential energy is defined as the potential energy per unit mass of an object in a gravitational field. Thermal energy is defined as internal energy of a system.Why do forms of energy differ at all?
Why do forms of energy differ at all?
Electrical energy doesnt bring about the motion of electrons, rather its the energy made available by the flow of electric charge in a conductor.heat energy has the heating effect,electrical energy causes motion of electrons.Why isnt it say,the other way round?
With all due respect, I suggest you read up on the fundamentals of energy. Then come back with a specific question with respect to a point that you are not clear on, since, at present, you are just waffling!Yea surely i did as the thread was made by me.But still i havent got any clear answer.Zap was wrong as what he was trying to say was lik saying if u stack up shoes ull get a house.That was not what i meant
It seems that a lot of people get quit emotional about relativistic mass :rofl:. The concept of relativistic mass is a DEFINITION which can be looked up in many books, so the concept is real enough (even if some dislike it).Yes, photons do produce curvature in space-time. As you correctly say, energy curves space-time. However, as I have said in previous threads I strongly disagree that photons have 'mass' so much in as I strongly disagree with the use of 'relativistic mass' which is not real. So I would prefer if we do not discuss that photons 'in effect' have mass.
This is just a (very misleading) synonym for kinetic energy (in relativistic kinematics).The concept of relativistic mass is a DEFINITION which can be looked up in many books, so the concept is real enough (even if some dislike it).
Photons do not have mass. But they carry energy, which gravitates.I'm very sure that the photon-filled box will weigh now more then the empty box. This proves that photons have mass (while the invariant mass is of course zero).
True, I do disagree with the notion of relativistic mass (as Einstein*), since the actual definition, is somewhat misleading and as Chris Hillman said, it is much better to consider it kinetic energy in SR. However, another reason I disagree with its use is that it usually only serves to complicate problems (especially conceptual ones), as this thread exemplifies. For example, a common 'definition' of 'relativistic mass' is, as I'm sure you know;It seems that a lot of people get quit emotional about relativistic mass :rofl:. The concept of relativistic mass is a DEFINITION which can be looked up in many books, so the concept is real enough (even if some dislike it).