A single red photon has a mass of 3.17E-33 grams.

A single blue photon has a mass of 5.53E-33 grams.

A single photon of an FM radio broadcasting station has a mass of 7.4E-40 gr.

A single photon of a deadly gamma ray has a mass of 10E-29 gr.

Schrodinger, de Broglie, Pound and Rebka support this.

On Wednesday, December 22, 2021 at 4:34:43 AM UTC-3, Richard Hertz wrote:
> A single red photon has a mass of 3.17E-33 grams.
>
> A single blue photon has a mass of 5.53E-33 grams.
>
> A single photon of an FM radio broadcasting station has a mass of 7.4E-40 gr.
>
> A single photon of a deadly gamma ray has a mass of 10E-29 gr.
>
>
> Schrodinger, de Broglie, Pound and Rebka support this.

Daily star light is deflected, when passing by the Sun's surface, by this equation with e > 1.5

ɸ = ∫ r dr/√ {r³ [(1 - e)/Rs r² + 2 r - (e + 1) Rs]} , between - π/2 and + π/2, where r(0) is orthogonal to the line of sight Earth-Sun. Word!

Piece of cake, Dono. Solve it and prove me wrong.

Richard Hertz <hertz778@gmail.com> wrote:

> A single red photon has a mass of 3.17E-33 grams.
>
> A single blue photon has a mass of 5.53E-33 grams.
>
> A single photon of an FM radio broadcasting station has a mass of 7.4E-40 gr.
>
> A single photon of a deadly gamma ray has a mass of 10E-29 gr.
>
>
> Schrodinger, de Broglie, Pound and Rebka support this.

If you insist.
But this 'relativistic mass' formulation has been obsolete
for more than fifty years by now.
It is not wrong, it is just a very clumsy way of doing things.

And yes, radiation pressure was predicted by James Clerk Maxwell (1862)
and experimentally demonstrated by Pyotr Lebedev (1900)
So nothing to do with at first with Einstein,
but Einstein did predict it also for photons.

As for the practicalities of EM-drive: it helps to remember that

c ~= 300 megawatt/newton,

in slightly unconventional units,

Jan

On 12/22/21 1:34 AM, Richard Hertz wrote:
> A single red photon has a mass of 3.17E-33 grams.
> A single blue photon has a mass of 5.53E-33 grams.
> A single photon of an FM radio broadcasting station has a mass of 7.4E-40 gr.
> A single photon of a deadly gamma ray has a mass of 10E-29 gr.

Nope. Every photon has zero mass. You do not know what these words
ACTUALLY mean.

[I'm ignoring the difficulties inherent in attempting to
designate a single photon.]

> Schrodinger, de Broglie, Pound and Rebka support this.

The first two predate QED and are thus irrelevant. The Pound and Rebka
experiment is fully consistent with GR+QED, in which photons have zero mass.

Tom Roberts

On Tuesday, December 21, 2021 at 11:34:43 PM UTC-8, utter cretin Richard Hertz kept eating shit:
> A single red photon has a mass of 3.17E-33 grams.
>
> A single blue photon has a mass of 5.53E-33 grams.
>
> A single photon of an FM radio broadcasting station has a mass of 7.4E-40 gr.
>
> A single photon of a deadly gamma ray has a mass of 10E-29 gr.
>
>
> Schrodinger, de Broglie, Pound and Rebka support this.

Cretinoid,

Photons have zero mass. Keep eating shit.

On Wednesday, December 22, 2021 at 7:51:29 AM UTC-8, Dono. wrote:
> On Tuesday, December 21, 2021 at 11:34:43 PM UTC-8, utter cretin Richard Hertz kept eating shit:
> > A single red photon has a mass of 3.17E-33 grams.
> >
> > A single blue photon has a mass of 5.53E-33 grams.
> >
> > A single photon of an FM radio broadcasting station has a mass of 7.4E-40 gr.
> >
> > A single photon of a deadly gamma ray has a mass of 10E-29 gr.
> >
> >
> > Schrodinger, de Broglie, Pound and Rebka support this.
> Cretinoid,
>
> Photons have zero mass.

Science has to admit it could be nonzero...
as energy and mass are equivalent...

Mitchell Raemsch

On Wednesday, December 22, 2021 at 12:51:29 PM UTC-3, Dono. wrote:

<snip>

> > A single red photon has a mass of 3.17E-33 grams.
> > A single blue photon has a mass of 5.53E-33 grams.
> >
> > Schrodinger, de Broglie, Pound and Rebka support this.

> Cretinoid, Photons have zero mass. Keep eating shit.

de Broglie won a Nobel Prize, but he's an idiot for you, are you are the FUCKING GENIUS, SOB.

More, everyone who approved his PhD Thesis of 81 pages is an imbecile, because French are imbeciles and you, fucking ant, are not.

This is his PhD Thesis, which contains the origins of his path toward a Nobel, Schrodinger's theory and the electron microscope.
But, I insist, he WAS AN IDIOT, and everyone here (including Roberts) is a FUCKING GENIUS.

https://fondationlouisdebroglie.org/LDB-oeuvres/De_Broglie_Kracklauer.pdf

Excerpt:

CHAPTER 1
The Phase Wave
1.1. The relation between quantum and relativity theories

One of the most important new concepts introduced by Relativity is the inertia of
energy. Following EINSTEIN, energy may be considered as being equivalent to mass,
and all mass represents energy. Mass and energy may always be related one to another by
(1.1.1) energy = mass x c² where c is a constant known as the “speed of light”, but which, for
reasons delineated below, we prefer to denote the “limit speed of energy.”
........
Having recalled the above, we now seek to find a way to introduce quanta into relativistic dynamics.
It seems to us that the fundamental idea pertaining to quanta is the impossibility to consider an isolated
quantity of energy without associating a particular frequency to it.

This association is expressed by what I call the ‘quantum relationship’, namely:

(1.1.4) energy = h x frequency , where h is Planck’s constant.
.........
The notion of a quantum makes little sense, seemingly, if energy is to be continuously distributed through space;
but, we shall see that this is not so. One may imagine that, by cause of a meta law of Nature, to each portion of
energy with a proper mass m₀, one may associate a periodic phenomenon of frequency υ₀, such that one finds:

(1.1.5) hυ₀ = m₀c²

The frequency υ₀ is to be measured, of course, in the rest frame of the energy packet. This hypothesis is the basis of
our theory: it is worth as much, like all hypotheses, as can be deduced from its consequences.
............
THEN HE DEVELOPS HIS QUANTUM THEORY THAT MADE HIM TO EARN A NOBEL PRIZE.

Another excerpt:

CHAPTER 5
Light quanta
5.1. The atom of light

........
This agglomeration of energy has a total value ε₀ (measured by a fixed observer), from which, by the principle
of inertia of energy, we may attribute to it a proper mass:

(5.1.1) m₀ = ε₀/c²

This definition is entirely analogue to that used for electrons. There is, however, an
essential difference between it and an electron. While an electron must be considered
as a fully spherically symmetric object, an atom of light posses additional symmetry
corresponding to its polarisation. We shall, therefore, represent a quantum of light as
having the same symmetry as an electrodynamic doublet. This paradigm is provisional;
one may only, if it is accepted, make precise the constitution of the unit of light after
serious modifications to electrodynamics, a task we shall not attempt here.
...........
Let us try to determine the upper limit of m₀ for light. Effectively, the experiments of T.
S. F.2 have shown that even light waves with wave length of several kilometres have a
velocity essentially equal to c. Let us take it that waves for which 1/υ = 1/10 1/seconds
have a velocity differing from c by less than 1%. This implies that the upper limit of m₀ is:

(5.1.9) (m₀)max = √2/10 hυ/c²

which is approximately 10^(-24) grams. It is possible that m₀ is still smaller; yet one might
hope that some day experiments on very long wave length light will reveal evidence of a
velocity discernibly below c .

One should not overlook that it is not a question regarding velocity of a phase wave,
which is always above c , but of energy transport detectable experimentally

***************************

So, due to E = mc² was accepted (and not because of Einstein, but due to 20/30 years of theories before him),
Einstein wrote a paper in 1911 which has one of many conclusions accepted today (blueshifting due to gravity).
de Broglie thought that light had mass, as well as 100's of physicists in the next 45 years (Pound-Rebka).

But you, fucking reptilian lifeform, Roberts and others here THINK THEY KNOW BETTER than 100's of physicists
prior to Feynman gang, and THEY ARE THE IDIOTS, not any of you.

FUCKING, PRIMITIVE, IGNORANT & NEGATIONIST CRETINS. How dare you? Have no shame?

If you all accept E = mc² and E = hf, DEAL WITH THESE AND THE CONSEQUENCES, RETARDED!

On Thursday, December 23, 2021 at 2:49:01 AM UTC-3, Richard Hertz wrote:
> On Wednesday, December 22, 2021 at 12:51:29 PM UTC-3, Dono. wrote:
>
> <snip>
> > > A single red photon has a mass of 3.17E-33 grams.
> > > A single blue photon has a mass of 5.53E-33 grams.
> > >
> > > Schrodinger, de Broglie, Pound and Rebka support this.
>
> > Cretinoid, Photons have zero mass. Keep eating shit.
> de Broglie won a Nobel Prize, but he's an idiot for you, are you are the FUCKING GENIUS, SOB.
>
> More, everyone who approved his PhD Thesis of 81 pages is an imbecile, because French are imbeciles and you, fucking ant, are not.
>
> This is his PhD Thesis, which contains the origins of his path toward a Nobel, Schrodinger's theory and the electron microscope.
> But, I insist, he WAS AN IDIOT, and everyone here (including Roberts) is a FUCKING GENIUS.
>
> https://fondationlouisdebroglie.org/LDB-oeuvres/De_Broglie_Kracklauer.pdf
>
> Excerpt:
>
> CHAPTER 1
> The Phase Wave
> 1.1. The relation between quantum and relativity theories
>
> One of the most important new concepts introduced by Relativity is the inertia of
> energy. Following EINSTEIN, energy may be considered as being equivalent to mass,
> and all mass represents energy. Mass and energy may always be related one to another by
> (1.1.1) energy = mass x c² where c is a constant known as the “speed of light”, but which, for
> reasons delineated below, we prefer to denote the “limit speed of energy.”
> .......
> Having recalled the above, we now seek to find a way to introduce quanta into relativistic dynamics.
> It seems to us that the fundamental idea pertaining to quanta is the impossibility to consider an isolated
> quantity of energy without associating a particular frequency to it.
>
> This association is expressed by what I call the ‘quantum relationship’, namely:
>
> (1.1.4) energy = h x frequency , where h is Planck’s constant.
> ........
> The notion of a quantum makes little sense, seemingly, if energy is to be continuously distributed through space;
> but, we shall see that this is not so. One may imagine that, by cause of a meta law of Nature, to each portion of
> energy with a proper mass m₀, one may associate a periodic phenomenon of frequency υ₀, such that one finds:
>
> (1.1.5) hυ₀ = m₀c²
>
> The frequency υ₀ is to be measured, of course, in the rest frame of the energy packet. This hypothesis is the basis of
> our theory: it is worth as much, like all hypotheses, as can be deduced from its consequences.
> ...........
> THEN HE DEVELOPS HIS QUANTUM THEORY THAT MADE HIM TO EARN A NOBEL PRIZE.
>
> Another excerpt:
>
> CHAPTER 5
> Light quanta
> 5.1. The atom of light
>
> .......
> This agglomeration of energy has a total value ε₀ (measured by a fixed observer), from which, by the principle
> of inertia of energy, we may attribute to it a proper mass:
>
> (5.1.1) m₀ = ε₀/c²
>
> This definition is entirely analogue to that used for electrons. There is, however, an
> essential difference between it and an electron. While an electron must be considered
> as a fully spherically symmetric object, an atom of light posses additional symmetry
> corresponding to its polarisation. We shall, therefore, represent a quantum of light as
> having the same symmetry as an electrodynamic doublet. This paradigm is provisional;
> one may only, if it is accepted, make precise the constitution of the unit of light after
> serious modifications to electrodynamics, a task we shall not attempt here.
> ..........
> Let us try to determine the upper limit of m₀ for light. Effectively, the experiments of T.
> S. F.2 have shown that even light waves with wave length of several kilometres have a
> velocity essentially equal to c. Let us take it that waves for which 1/υ = 1/10 1/seconds
> have a velocity differing from c by less than 1%. This implies that the upper limit of m₀ is:
>
> (5.1.9) (m₀)max = √2/10 hυ/c²
>
> which is approximately 10^(-24) grams. It is possible that m₀ is still smaller; yet one might
> hope that some day experiments on very long wave length light will reveal evidence of a
> velocity discernibly below c .
>
> One should not overlook that it is not a question regarding velocity of a phase wave,
> which is always above c , but of energy transport detectable experimentally
>
> ***************************
>
> So, due to E = mc² was accepted (and not because of Einstein, but due to 20/30 years of theories before him),
> Einstein wrote a paper in 1911 which has one of many conclusions accepted today (blueshifting due to gravity).
> de Broglie thought that light had mass, as well as 100's of physicists in the next 45 years (Pound-Rebka).
>
> But you, fucking reptilian lifeform, Roberts and others here THINK THEY KNOW BETTER than 100's of physicists
> prior to Feynman gang, and THEY ARE THE IDIOTS, not any of you.
>
> FUCKING, PRIMITIVE, IGNORANT & NEGATIONIST CRETINS. How dare you? Have no shame?
>
> If you all accept E = mc² and E = hf, DEAL WITH THESE AND THE CONSEQUENCES, RETARDED!

The 10^(-24) grams is what de Broglie thought as the UPPER LIMIT OF MASS FOR A "PHOTON" of 10 Hz only
is a TYPO, due to the use of the cgs system and h = 6.55.10E-27 erg.sec (g cm²/s), as he recognized afterwards.

It correspond to a photon of 1.94E+22 Hz, which is an extremely energetic gamma ray (wavelength 1.54E-12 cm)
and not from an ULF photon of 10 Hz, as it seems to be stated in the paper.

Actually the lower limit is 10^(-54) grams, and this value wasn't expressed on his PhD Thesis.

When visible light is used, the limits are what I wrote at the OP:

3.17E-33 grams (red) < m₀ < 5.53E-33 grams (blue).

And m₀ increases LINEARLY with the frequency, reaching > 10E-29 grams.

Richard Hertz <hertz778@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Wednesday, December 22, 2021 at 12:51:29 PM UTC-3, Dono. wrote:
>
> <snip>
>
>>> A single red photon has a mass of 3.17E-33 grams.
>>> A single blue photon has a mass of 5.53E-33 grams.
>>>
>>> Schrodinger, de Broglie, Pound and Rebka support this.
>
>> Cretinoid, Photons have zero mass. Keep eating shit.
>
> de Broglie won a Nobel Prize, but he's an idiot for you, are you are the
> FUCKING GENIUS, SOB.

No, de Broglie deserved his Nobel. Fortunately, though, his advancements
were not the final word. Same for every Nobelist before or after. Doesn’t
make them idiots.

Rest of your off-track rant ignored.

>
> More, everyone who approved his PhD Thesis of 81 pages is an imbecile,
> because French are imbeciles and you, fucking ant, are not.
>
> This is his PhD Thesis, which contains the origins of his path toward a
> Nobel, Schrodinger's theory and the electron microscope.
> But, I insist, he WAS AN IDIOT, and everyone here (including Roberts) is a FUCKING GENIUS.
>
> https://fondationlouisdebroglie.org/LDB-oeuvres/De_Broglie_Kracklauer.pdf
>
> Excerpt:
>
> CHAPTER 1
> The Phase Wave
> 1.1. The relation between quantum and relativity theories
>
> One of the most important new concepts introduced by Relativity is the inertia of
> energy. Following EINSTEIN, energy may be considered as being equivalent to mass,
> and all mass represents energy. Mass and energy may always be related one to another by
> (1.1.1) energy = mass x c² where c is a constant known as the “speed of
> light”, but which, for
> reasons delineated below, we prefer to denote the “limit speed of energy.”
> .......
> Having recalled the above, we now seek to find a way to introduce quanta
> into relativistic dynamics.
> It seems to us that the fundamental idea pertaining to quanta is the
> impossibility to consider an isolated
> quantity of energy without associating a particular frequency to it.
>
> This association is expressed by what I call the ‘quantum relationship’, namely:
>
> (1.1.4) energy = h x frequency , where h is Planck’s constant.
> ........
> The notion of a quantum makes little sense, seemingly, if energy is to be
> continuously distributed through space;
> but, we shall see that this is not so. One may imagine that, by cause of
> a meta law of Nature, to each portion of
> energy with a proper mass m₀, one may associate a periodic phenomenon of
> frequency υ₀, such that one finds:
>
> (1.1.5) hυ₀ = m₀c²
>
> The frequency υ₀ is to be measured, of course, in the rest frame of the
> energy packet. This hypothesis is the basis of
> our theory: it is worth as much, like all hypotheses, as can be deduced
> from its consequences.
> ...........
> THEN HE DEVELOPS HIS QUANTUM THEORY THAT MADE HIM TO EARN A NOBEL PRIZE.
>
> Another excerpt:
>
> CHAPTER 5
> Light quanta
> 5.1. The atom of light
>
> .......
> This agglomeration of energy has a total value ε₀ (measured by a fixed
> observer), from which, by the principle
> of inertia of energy, we may attribute to it a proper mass:
>
> (5.1.1) m₀ = ε₀/c²
>
> This definition is entirely analogue to that used for electrons. There is, however, an
> essential difference between it and an electron. While an electron must be considered
> as a fully spherically symmetric object, an atom of light posses additional symmetry
> corresponding to its polarisation. We shall, therefore, represent a quantum of light as
> having the same symmetry as an electrodynamic doublet. This paradigm is provisional;
> one may only, if it is accepted, make precise the constitution of the unit of light after
> serious modifications to electrodynamics, a task we shall not attempt here.
> ..........
> Let us try to determine the upper limit of m₀ for light. Effectively, the experiments of T.
> S. F.2 have shown that even light waves with wave length of several kilometres have a
> velocity essentially equal to c. Let us take it that waves for which 1/υ = 1/10 1/seconds
> have a velocity differing from c by less than 1%. This implies that the
> upper limit of m₀ is:
>
> (5.1.9) (m₀)max = √2/10 hυ/c²
>
> which is approximately 10^(-24) grams. It is possible that m₀ is still
> smaller; yet one might
> hope that some day experiments on very long wave length light will reveal evidence of a
> velocity discernibly below c .
>
> One should not overlook that it is not a question regarding velocity of a phase wave,
> which is always above c , but of energy transport detectable experimentally
>
> ***************************
>
> So, due to E = mc² was accepted (and not because of Einstein, but due to
> 20/30 years of theories before him),
> Einstein wrote a paper in 1911 which has one of many conclusions accepted
> today (blueshifting due to gravity).
> de Broglie thought that light had mass, as well as 100's of physicists in
> the next 45 years (Pound-Rebka).
>
> But you, fucking reptilian lifeform, Roberts and others here THINK THEY
> KNOW BETTER than 100's of physicists
> prior to Feynman gang, and THEY ARE THE IDIOTS, not any of you.
>
> FUCKING, PRIMITIVE, IGNORANT & NEGATIONIST CRETINS. How dare you? Have no shame?
>
> If you all accept E = mc² and E = hf, DEAL WITH THESE AND THE CONSEQUENCES, RETARDED!
>

--
Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables

On Wednesday, December 22, 2021 at 9:49:01 PM UTC-8, cretin Richard Hertz persevered:
> On Wednesday, December 22, 2021 at 12:51:29 PM UTC-3, Dono. wrote:
>
> <snip>
> > > A single red photon has a mass of 3.17E-33 grams.
> > > A single blue photon has a mass of 5.53E-33 grams.
> > >
> > > Schrodinger, de Broglie, Pound and Rebka support this.
>
> > Cretinoid, Photons have zero mass. Keep eating shit.
> de Broglie won a Nobel Prize,

Yes, he did. On the other hand, Kracklauer is a crank and so is the "journal" Fondation Louis de Broglie. But neither is a bigger crank than Richard Hertz.