• Security incident: ISF was recently accessed by intruders. Please change your password, and change it anywhere else you used it. Read more

If Sunlight is quantity of SUN?/Is the Sun Alive?

Let's try it this way

Tough choice. I like cake and money.
Make it easier for me - what sort of cake?

Once there was a man who had two girl friends, Kay and Edith. The girl friends didn't know about each other -- until one day, the man was walking down the street with Kay on his arm, and who should they run into but Edith!

Oh what a hullaballoo! There was yelling and weeping and explaining! The upshot was that the man got his face smartly slapped, and the two girls flounced off arm-in-arm, leaving him standing there all abashed.

Which illustrates the old saying: You can't have your Kay and Edith too.
 
Last edited:
Because the trapped energy exists largely as heat. Unless that heat is trapped and converted into solid matter, it won't increase the mass of the earth. Heat has no weight. A pot containing 12 ounces of cold water weighs the same as a pot containing 12 ounces of water that's just about to boil.


Not true. The hot water will weigh a tiny, tiny bit more.

From Wikipedia: "For instance, adding 25 kilowatt-hours (90 megajoules) of any form(s) of energy to any object increases its mass by 1 microgram. If you had a sensitive enough mass balance or scale, this mass increase of the object could be verified."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mass–energy_equivalence

So if your pot of 12 ounces of hot water had 90 joules more thermal energy than your pot of cold water, then it would weigh a millionth of a microgram more than the pot of cold water.

Kumar prefers upside-down cake.

Not light fruitcake?

ETA:
Which illustrates the old saying: You can't have your Kay and Edith too.

I think that joke would work better with "Kate". It sounds more like "cake" than "Kay".
 
Last edited:
No no no no, emittance of light is external energy to fruitcake and fruitcake is gaining mass on that account so will be adverses aeffect.

And fruitcake not A&F but upside-down cake A&F upside-down . But fruitcake emit currants for mass peoples.
 
Last edited:
Energy isn't a thing it's a property. Particles have the property of energy, and the amount of energy the particle has affects its mass.

Your question makes no sense.

Of now pls take it like that: a mass in sunlight is heavier than that mass not in sunlight? If heavier, it will suggest that sunlight has mass.
 
I think you should conduct a little experiment and see if you can discern the answer for yourself.


Equipment:

1 bucket​


Method:

  1. Take bucket outside on sunny day and fill with sunlight.

  2. Set bucket aside until it's nighttime.

  3. Measure amount of sunlight remaining in bucket.


Report back here with your findings.
Sunray therapy or colour therapy may indicate that something is left in water on exposure it to sunlight.;)
 
You have chosen to misunderstand what I wrote.

edited to add....

For people who are interested, here is the Wikipedia article on energy/mass equivalence

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mass–energy_equivalence

I suppose a (bad) analogy would be the money/cake equivalence

Money can be converted into cake at the rate of £1 per 100g

If I have £10 I could have £10 and no cake or 1kg of cake and no money or anywhere in-between

The cake does not have money and the money does not have cake.

Actual question is not refer to conversion but is as told that energy has mass. How a massless thing can be converted into mass?
 
Because it's energy. It isn't mass, it doesn't have mass. Energy [in J]= mass [in kg] multiplied by the square of the speed [in metres per second] of light. This describes the relationship between energy and mass, and shows that one can be converted to the other.

This is what I (we) mean when we say that your basic understandings are flawed. If you cannot grasp what E=mc2 means, as well as what it doesn't mean, then you need to do more study before you ask about concepts which rely on a through understanding of basics.

How a massless thing can be converted into mass?

Btw, whether mass is aggragation or modification of energy?
 
Then they were wrong. What you have been told here is that objects have mass, and that that mass is increased when energy is added to the object. That is not the same as energy having mass.

I asked it in simple way:-

If we keep a sustance in sunlight, will mass of that substance increase or not than when it is not kept in sunlight?

If increase, how it can be possible that massless energy can increase mass?

Btw, in view of energy mass conversion:- whether mass is an aggragation or modification of energy?
 
Because the photons are not specific to a specific substance.

Just as a sound is not specific to the loudspeaker that made it.
You can't tell from measuring the individual compressions and rarefactions in the air that make up a sound what loudspeaker they were generated by.

How then we can get a photo or vision of a substance?

Is it like it:-

Consider for example a lighted lighted bulb as a photon.

We can not recognize a substance by seeing at one bulb but can recognize a figure if many bulbs are forming that substance's shape. ?
 
I am not aware of any geothermal sources of light pollution visible from space.
Our entire solar system is inside the Sun's Heliosphere

I meant it:-
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geothermal_energy






Because the trapped energy exists largely as heat. Unless that heat is trapped and converted into solid matter, it won't increase the mass of the earth. Heat has no weight. A pot containing 12 ounces of cold water weighs the same as a pot containing 12 ounces of water that's just about to boil.

Your post indicates that energy has mass on one side but no mass on other side.?

Moreover how energy can be converted into mass if it has no mass?



You have confused complexity with instability.

The link:
http://science.howstuffworks.com/science-vs-myth/everyday-myths/quantum-cryptology3.htm

discusses the complexity of the behavior of photons, but that complexity does not make them unpredictable or unstable. The article itself describes how the very stability and predictability of light could be used as a component in cryptography. Your link says the exact opposite of what you seem to think it says about photon stability.

You have, to date, provided NO evidence to support your claim that photos are unstable, just that their behavior is beyond your comprehension. The fact that you personally find photons too complicated to understand does not mean others are similar stumped or that photons are somehow unstable just because you don't grok them.



As I explained above, the link actually says the opposite of what you think it says.



Again, you are confusing complexity with instability. The fact that you don't understand photons doesn't make them unstable. Photons behave as both a a particle and a wave. This makes them complicated, but not unstable. Their behavior in some circumstances can be hard to understand at first, but that does not make them unstable.

I felt simplicity is linked to satability. Moving a photon in any unpredictable direction(as per link), I consider it unstability.



Such as?

Citation needed.[/QUOTE]
 
He was told that, but he was also told that the amount of energy required to have anything like measureable mass is vast... or in the form of matter.

He just ignores that and keeps asking how to store energy, no matter how many times it's explained to him that "Matter" fits that bill, and nothing else.

Still you confirm that energy has mass. More or less is an different issue.

Unless energy has mass, how it can be converted or aggragated into mass?
 
No, I don't think you were. I think you were told that mass has (or perhaps is) energy.

Please show us where you were told energy has mass.

Many had indicated in this topic. Pls read few initial posts of this topic. MR hans has also indicated it.
 
Energy and matter are equivalent. They can be considered as one single thing, mass-energy.
The following is an analogy. I'm going to ignore for now the true fact that adding energy also adds mass during this analogy.

Let's say you had some ice. There's a certain number of water molecules in the ice.
If you warm the ice so it melts, keeping all the molecules, you will have liquid water. If you only melt part of it, part of it will be liquid water, and part will be solid ice. But you will still have the same mass of water. It's just that some of it will be solid, and some will be liquid. But you still have the same amount of water. The liquid water has properties different from the solid water, but it's still all water. The ice is solid water, and the liquid water is liquid.

Now, if you warmed the ice in a sieve, the liquid water would drain away, and you would have less total water in the sieve. That drained water would still exist. It might go on to be absorbed by a plant, and have the hydrogen in it turn into a sugar, and the oxygen released to the air, or any number of other things. But the mass of that water molecule would still exist, perhaps split up into many different places.


In the same way, if you have matter in the Sun, and it fuses, giving off energy, you have changed the properties of that portion of the Sun's matter that was converted into energy. Matter turned into energy has different properties from matter, just as ice melted into water has different properties from ice.
But it still exists. And just as the sum of ice and melt water adds up to the same amount of water as was in the original block of ice, the sum of energy released and remaining matter released by fission, fusion or matter-antimatter annihilation remains the same. Some of the energy might warm the Earth, some might warm the moon. Some go on and add a teeny bit of warmth to planets around other suns.

So far as I know, there isn't any way to create matter or energy. It can only be changed into a different form.

So the Sun converts part of its matter into energy in the form of photons, and photons, having different properties than matter, will wander off into the universe, just as liquid water, having different properties from ice, will drain through a sieve. So the Sun loses mass, just as the melting block of ice loses mass. It's not that the mass the Sun had doesn't exist anymore, it's just that it's somewhere else, doing other things.

To address the part I ignored for the sake of simplifying the analogy, it shouldn't surprise anyone that there is more mass-energy in the sum of ice and meltwater than there is in just the ice. You added mass-energy to the mass-energy of the ice to melt it into water. Of course it's larger.

Since, all forms you mentioned above has mass even molecules of water, your above example also suggest that energy(say in H2O form) has mass.
 

ISF - Join now!

Every member here is approved by hand. No bots, no spam, just people who care about evidence and honest debate.

Membership is free!

Create your free account

Back
Top Bottom