Re: particles without mass!

From: Y.Porat (maporat_at_012.net.il)
Date: 01/01/05 

Date: 1 Jan 2005 08:02:54 -0800

Zigoteau wrote:
> Hi, Yehiel,
Hi Zigotau
btw how is it that you are the only one (nearly)
that known my private name??
i dont use it on the net...?

>
> > 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. 

----
do you claim that anyone who understands the
(mc^2)^2 + pc^2)^2
does not understand the physical meaning of it ??
so just try me.....
>
> > 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
and what in  acse in which
my Uranium buttet is accelerated close to C
but
but !!
it is not fissioned!
will that intrinsic energy MC^2 will show of ??
let me make it shorter for us .
it will never show of unless a nucleat fission will
take place
iow itis a hidden energy!1
it has mass it has intrinsic energy but .....
it remaines *HIDEN*!
no one can discover it in accetlrating a particle!!
and that is the most abundant case
of accelerated particles, electrons protons etc etc
so ??
again
once you use that above formula it is as if
it was never there Nada!! as if it disappeard
it is only now that we are coming to my suggestion:
how about the 'massless' particles??!
may be it is a similar case??
may be the ordinary 'macroscopic ' energy
with allits vectors is showin up
while at the same time there is still
some *hidden* energy in the 'nut' that was not 'cracked out '??
so inspight of all your discovered vectors of energy
this one is 'forgotten' and neglected
and considered null while in reality it is
live but not 'kicking'?
and may be that is thre reason that
while inserting instead of the m that moves intrinsically
with the velocity of C
the experimentalist does not find it and while
he isinserting it as to  be zero
*he seems to be right 'experimantally'*
but in fact he is not all along  right??
and thatis why the above formula
with the 'interpretation of m  photon
to be zero0' only seems to be right
while in reality there is some tiny mass there
that exixst but 'is not kicking'???
---------------
all the best
Y.Porat
--------------------
>
Loading