Re: particles without mass!

From: Zigoteau (zigoteau_at_yahoo.com)
Date: 01/01/05 

Date: 1 Jan 2005 05:20:29 -0800

Hi, Yehiel,

> i am not familiar with your nmotations

I was almost certain that you had not gone to the trouble.

> but that des not change the
> physics

But it makes things easier to understand, and you apparently do not.

> my question was about the mC^2part of my example
>
> wiii it be 'materialised in my example or will the
> mC^2 energy be hideen and will not 'pop out'???

Of course not. For velocities much less than c, relativistic mechanics
must be essentially the same as Newtonian mechanics.

> iow
> will my experment reval that energy???
> (tanks for your maticulate calculations but that was not *my point*)

*My* point is that you have not gone to the trouble to understand
relativity, so your objections to it are rather point-less. In
practice, the areas where relativistic mechanics makes a measurable
difference are elementary particles and planetary trajectories (For
Mercury, v/c has order of magnitude 0.001). It is a waste of time
thinking about bullets.

Clearly, at one level, it doesn't matter what the origin of the energy
scale is. In Newtonian mechanics, it is only differences of energy
which show up anywhere. However, when and only when you consider the
rest energy of a massive particle to be mc^2 do energy and momentum
together form a 4-vector.

> ps about my open brackets:
> its time for you to know that i am an extreemely lazy man (:-)

This becomes increasingly clear.

> i saved myself the trouble to close them hoping you will get it
> youself.

I think a couple of events which occured in western Japan in 1945 made
it clear that Einstein's mc^2 is not just of academic interest. The
saga of Mordechai Vanunu shows that a lot of your countrymen also
believe in the difference it can make.

Cheers,

Zigoteau.