A prove that the electron is not a point particle!!
in [Relativity]
|
From: Ste on 30 Dec 2009 01:39 On 29 Dec, 17:35, cjcountess <cjcount...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > The Geometrical interpretation of (E=mc^2), contains more info than > equation alone, including electron structure. > > (E=mc^2), tells us that a lot of energy is trapped inside of matter, > and that they are one, related through mathematical conversion factor > c^2, but does not show how. Neither can physicist and professors > explain it. See:http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/einstein/experts.html When I read that page I almost thought it was a joke, but now I'm not so sure... "When an object emits light, say, a flashlight, it gets lighter." Yes, isn't that a dynamite discovery. Or perhaps "It's easiest to explain by how things looked from the point of view of Newton." Hmm. In other words, from a point of view without relativity. "Ninety-five percent of the mass of matter as we know it comes from energy." What, not 100%? "You can get access to parts of nature you have never been able to get access to before." And I presume for mainstream theoretical physicists the part of nature that they have not had access to before is another person's genitalia.
From: Y.Porat on 30 Dec 2009 04:15 do you expect an imbecile donkey CROOK like Fuerbacher to understand that energy is MASS - IN MOTION ???!!! and that NO MASS - NO REAL PHYSICS !!!! ??? Y.Porat ------------------------------
From: Y.Porat on 30 Dec 2009 04:21 On Dec 30, 8:39 am, Ste <ste_ro...(a)hotmail.com> wrote: > On 29 Dec, 17:35, cjcountess <cjcount...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > > > The Geometrical interpretation of (E=mc^2), contains more info than > > equation alone, including electron structure. > > > (E=mc^2), tells us that a lot of energy is trapped inside of matter, > > and that they are one, related through mathematical conversion factor > > c^2, but does not show how. Neither can physicist and professors > > explain it. See:http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/einstein/experts.html > > When I read that page I almost thought it was a joke, but now I'm not > so sure... > > "When an object emits light, say, a flashlight, it gets lighter." > Yes, isn't that a dynamite discovery. > > Or perhaps "It's easiest to explain by how things looked from the > point of view of Newton." > Hmm. In other words, from a point of view without relativity. > > "Ninety-five percent of the mass of matter as we know it comes from > energy." > What, not 100%? > > "You can get access to parts of nature you have never been able to get > access to before." > And I presume for mainstream theoretical physicists the part of nature > that they have not had access to before is another person's genitalia. ----------------- if a particle emits light it certainly looses mass yet that is not a grantee that you will be able to notice it ... because of the probability that a particle has the ability ('talent' ..) TO RECOVER ITS MASS LOSS BY GETTING IT AGAIN FROM ITS ENVIRONMENT !!! Y.Porat ----------------------------
From: Inertial on 30 Dec 2009 04:49 "Y.Porat" <y.y.porat(a)gmail.com> wrote in message news:7d1c295a-5022-4411-b741-3c875eede152(a)c3g2000yqd.googlegroups.com... > do you expect an imbecile donkey CROOK like > Fuerbacher > to understand that > energy is MASS - IN MOTION ???!!! > and that > NO MASS - NO REAL PHYSICS !!!! > ??? > Y.Porat > ------------------------------ You'd have to ask him.
From: Inertial on 30 Dec 2009 04:57
"Y.Porat" <y.y.porat(a)gmail.com> wrote in message news:12199ff6-c21a-473d-a1e2-139eb3efc344(a)k17g2000yqh.googlegroups.com... > On Dec 30, 8:39 am, Ste <ste_ro...(a)hotmail.com> wrote: >> On 29 Dec, 17:35, cjcountess <cjcount...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: >> >> > The Geometrical interpretation of (E=mc^2), contains more info than >> > equation alone, including electron structure. >> >> > (E=mc^2), tells us that a lot of energy is trapped inside of matter, >> > and that they are one, related through mathematical conversion factor >> > c^2, but does not show how. Neither can physicist and professors >> > explain it. See:http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/einstein/experts.html >> >> When I read that page I almost thought it was a joke, but now I'm not >> so sure... >> >> "When an object emits light, say, a flashlight, it gets lighter." >> Yes, isn't that a dynamite discovery. >> >> Or perhaps "It's easiest to explain by how things looked from the >> point of view of Newton." >> Hmm. In other words, from a point of view without relativity. >> >> "Ninety-five percent of the mass of matter as we know it comes from >> energy." >> What, not 100%? >> >> "You can get access to parts of nature you have never been able to get >> access to before." >> And I presume for mainstream theoretical physicists the part of nature >> that they have not had access to before is another person's genitalia. > > ----------------- > if a particle emits light > it certainly looses mass Not necessarily .. depends on what you mean by a 'particle'. Like a small piece of matter? Or a molecule? Or an atom? Or a subatomic particle? It could just lose energy and retain its mass. But obviously the combined system of photon and particle must conserve energy (including mass equivalent). > yet > that is not a grantee that you will be able to notice it ... > > because of the probability that a particle > has the ability ('talent' ..) > TO RECOVER ITS MASS LOSS BY GETTING IT AGAIN FROM ITS ENVIRONMENT !!! Depends on whether whatever-it-is loses any mass in the first place, and whether there is any reason for it to gain mass again. Again, as long as the total energy (including mass equivalent) of the system is conserved. |