Quote:
I am afraid that Count Iblis II is displaying his ignorance of Galileo's statement of relativity that finally led to Newton's first law. I still think that one should first truly understand Newton's mechanics before spouting nonsense about the physics that came after it. Any "particle" can have two types of energy: kinetic and potential. Without kinetic energy it can only have potential energy. Mass is energy and within the inertial reference frame that a particle with mass is stationary its "rest mass" must represent its lowest energy state. But it is not kinetic energy because the particle is stationary within its proper inertial reference frame. Even Einstein's special theory of relativity tells you that the rest mass is NOT kinetic energy. So it must be potential energy which manifests when the particle is at rest within its inertial reference frame. A photon can never be at rest within any inertial reference frame. So it cannot have potential energy which can be ascribed to mass. What is illogical about this argument Count Iblis II. Or do you not believe that the rest mass is energy? Where do my "personal theories" come in? The argument is based on physics that has been accepted as correct (at low speeds) for more than 300 years, as well as Einstein's special theory of relativity which is now more than 100 years old!!!
How about I take a perfect box filled of a perfect reflective material, and shoot into it a beam of light. I then close the box. The box doesn't move , and thus the system is stationary with concern to momentum. Will the box not gain a very small amount of mass?