On Apr 30, 6:57*am, "Robert Karl Stonjek"
wrote:
If we compare the question on W and Z to another Boson, say the photon

Everything you said of the W (and W*) and Z applies to photons and
everything you said of photons applies to the W (and W*) and Z.

Therefore your question is not appropriate. You're drawing a
distinction that isn't there. Either you have to mean the question
also of photons and have to be asking the same thing of photons you
just did of the W and Z, or you have to be meaning the question of
nothing at all.

On May 4, 4:34*am, "Y.Porat" wrote:
On May 3, 6:22*pm, Rock Brentwood wrote:

On Apr 30, 6:57*am, "Robert Karl Stonjek"
wrote:

If we compare the question on W and Z to another Boson, say the photon

Everything you said of the W (and W*) and Z applies to photons and
everything you said of photons applies to the W (and W*) and Z.

Therefore your question is not appropriate. You're drawing a
distinction that isn't there. Either you have to mean the question
also of photons and have to be asking the same thing of photons you
just did of the W and Z, or you have to be meaning the question of
nothing at all.

-----------------------
Mr Brentwood

the answer is very simple:

there is a very basic wrong assumption both
about photons ans about W or any baba yaga story
like the W boson
it lied in the stupid invention
that there is any physical *detected entity
THAT DOES NOT HAVE MASS !! * and only one kind of mass !!!!

why do *you idiots not *realize once and for all that
there is no detectable physical entity that
'does not have mass'

*and than anything is settled
and oceans of human
material and intellectual *resources** are saved !!!**

ATB
Y.Porat
-----------------------------

Then why doesn't your brain have any mass?

On May 2, 1:02*am, "Robert Karl Stonjek"
wrote:
And yes, the photon has no **REST** Mass

wrong, dolt: http://google.com/groups?q=Autymn+infinite-rest

On May 2, 1:24*am, "Y.Porat" wrote:
On May 1, 9:01*pm, Igor wrote:
Does the emitting nucleon lose mass, energy or mass-energy as in the case of
the emitting atom with respect to photon exhange (energy state of electron
falls, for instance).

Anything losing energy will also lose mass.

'''anything loosing energy will also lose mass '''''???
no, illiterate
hi idiot crook
dont you feel that you are an idiot crook ??
(btw if loosing energy is loosing mass as well then
energy does not contain mass ????)

loose != lose
It doesn't, any more than any other equation in cinematics has
intercontenant terms.

F = mg to your E = mcc.

the W or the Z are dozens of times heavier than *the
proton or Neutron
can an idiot like you tel us how is it that
any physical entity id sending a messenger that is
100 times heavier thanitself ??

can you fart something that is 100 times heavier than you ??

They are bound, so they're not as weihty.

i guess and i see *YOU CAN !!
2
jus ttell the poeple where has ever a W or Z been found!!
why dont you tell them that secrete ??

cloud tracks and particul detectors; Z-machine

On May 4, 10:07*am, Robert Hubbard wrote:
Now lets consider the W and Z:
1) there are two nucleons and no W and Z particles;
2) the two nucleons come close enough for W and Z interaction;
3) ?
4) ?

That's way too ambiguous. *It's quarks and leptons that emit and
absorb W and Zs.

A) What does, say, a proton lose upon emitting a W or Z particle?

A proton is two up quarks and a down quark. *An up may emit a W+ and
become a down. *Or a down may emit a W- and become an up. *And either
may emit a Z without changing identity at all. *The Z is more or less
just a heavy photon.

B) What does, say, a proton gain upon absorbing a W or Z particle?

An up may absorb a W- and become a down. *Or a down may absorb a W+
and become an up. *Just as in emission, either may absorb a Z without
changing identity.

C) What does the W or Z particle transmit between nucleons?

The Ws and Z carry the weak interaction between quarks and leptons.

Is it mass, energy, or mass-energy as in the case of the photon?

The ohoton has no mass. *But, due to E = mc^2, whenever energy is lost
or gained, mass is lost or gained also.

Does the emitting nucleon lose mass, energy or mass-energy as in the case of
the emitting atom with respect to photon exhange (energy state of electron
falls, for instance).

Anything losing energy will also lose mass

Is the weak "force" actually a force (at short enough range)? *Will

The weak interaction is difortia. It's not a fundamental forse, unlik
whas the academics say.

two neutrinos, for example, either attract or repel each other if they
get close enough? *(assume for simplicity they don't have enough
energy to do something like create an e+e- pair and they actually get
close enough for the weak force to have an effect) *How about a

They both attract and repel, by the weak neutral current W\0.
Academics leave out this bosòn in publications, as well as the strong
neutral current B[\0], for the same wherefore as they don't cover the
zeroth or nouhth cardinal in elementary school.

neutrino and antineutrino, or neutrino of a different "flavor"? *A
neutrino and an electron? *Is there such a thing as a weak "charge"?

Use Google.

If so, how many kinds of "charge" (electromagnetism has 2, +/-,
gravitation just has mass, I guess the strong has 3, r/g/b)

http://google.com/groups?q=Autymn+New-Model
http://google.com/groups?q=Autymn+Quigg

-Aut

On May 6, 9:35*am, "Autymn D. C." wrote:
On May 4, 10:07*am, Robert Hubbard wrote:


Is the weak "force" actually a force (at short enough range)? *Will

The weak interaction is difortia. *It's not a fundamental forse, unlik
whas the academics say.

What's a difortia? Did Porat teach you how to spell?

two neutrinos, for example, either attract or repel each other if they
get close enough? *(assume for simplicity they don't have enough
energy to do something like create an e+e- pair and they actually get
close enough for the weak force to have an effect) *How about a

They both attract and repel, by the weak neutral current W\0.
Academics leave out this bosòn in publications, as well as the strong
neutral current B[\0], for the same wherefore as they don't cover the
zeroth or nouhth cardinal in elementary school.

W has charge + or -. I don't know of any B0. What's a nouhth?

neutrino and antineutrino, or neutrino of a different "flavor"? *A
neutrino and an electron? *Is there such a thing as a weak "charge"?

Use Google.

I already did but didn't find much when I posted my reply. Since then
I found more and I see the weak charge is connected to the spin, LH
spin=weak charge, RH spin= no weak charge. Weird.

On May 7, 8:03*am, Robert Hubbard wrote:
On May 6, 9:35*am, "Autymn D. C." wrote:

On May 4, 10:07*am, Robert Hubbard wrote:

Is the weak "force" actually a force (at short enough range)? *Will

The weak interaction is difortia. *It's not a fundamental forse, unlik
whas the academics say.

What's a difortia? *Did Porat teach you how to spell?

two neutrinos, for example, either attract or repel each other if they
get close enough? *(assume for simplicity they don't have enough
energy to do something like create an e+e- pair and they actually get
close enough for the weak force to have an effect) *How about a

They both attract and repel, by the weak neutral current W\0.
Academics leave out this bosòn in publications, as well as the strong
neutral current B[\0], for the same wherefore as they don't cover the
zeroth or nouhth cardinal in elementary school.

W has charge + or -. *I don't know of any B0. *What's a nouhth?
---------------------

never mind my spelling
just mind your imbecilic croocked physics

the W boson does not have a charge + or -
it has a + fart plus - fart !!

got it ???
that fart is 100 times bigger than yourse ...
Mr crackparoter ....
-------
-----------

neutrino and antineutrino, or neutrino of a different "flavor"? *A
neutrino and an electron? *Is there such a thing as a weak "charge"?

Use Google.

I already did but didn't find much when I posted my reply. *Since then
I found more and I see the weak charge is connected to the spin, LH

i thought it is connected to the baba yaga spin
---------

spin=weak charge, RH spin= no weak charge. Weird.
weird eh ??? (:-)

you are becomming at last a bit less stupid
like Adam and Eve
who ate from the common sense apple
and found out that they are actually naked Eh ???

and again never mind my spelling
i can correct it in a few seconds , had i just wanted to..


Keep well
Y.Porat
-----------------------

On May 7, 3:24*am, "Y.Porat" wrote:
and again never mind my spelling
i can correct it in a few seconds , had i just wanted to..

Please do. Some of your replies are almost unintelligible,


Keep well
Y.Porat
------------------------

On May 8, 2:25*am, Robert Hubbard wrote:
On May 7, 3:24*am, "Y.Porat" wrote:

and again never mind my spelling
i can correct it in a few seconds , had i just wanted to..

Please do. *Some of your replies are almost unintelligible,





Keep well
Y.Porat
------------------------- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

--------------------
unintelligible ??

may be illegible ??

but how about
a messenger that is 100 times bigger than its mother ??
is it intellectual ???

ATB
Y.Porat
------------------------------

On May 10, 6:39*am, "Autymn D. C." wrote:
On May 6, 10:03*pm, Robert Hubbard wrote:

On May 6, 9:35*am, "Autymn D. C." wrote:

The weak interaction is difortia. *It's not a fundamental forse, unlik
whas the academics say.

What's a difortia? *Did Porat teach you how to spell?

Difortia are two fortium.

Oh.

What's a fortium?

*No, I tauhd myself.

Maybe you should have hired Porat.

two neutrinos, for example, either attract or repel each other if they
get close enough? *(assume for simplicity they don't have enough
energy to do something like create an e+e- pair and they actually get
close enough for the weak force to have an effect) *How about a

They both attract and repel, by the weak neutral current W\0.
Academics leave out this bosòn in publications, as well as the strong
neutral current B[\0], for the same wherefore as they don't cover the
zeroth or nouhth cardinal in elementary school.

W has charge + or -. *I don't know of any B0. *What's a nouhth?

So? *It also has no charge.

Perhaps you meant what most physicists call the Z. Anyway, I was
interested in what exists from a "charge" perspective.
Electromagnetism can be described by the exchange of neutral photons,
but that explanation doesn't bring up electric charges and the fact
like charges repel etc. The extent is photons couple to electric
charges. Similarly, I'd expect W and Z to couple to "weak charges"
and I was wondering what they were like.

*A nouhth is the cardinal of nouht.

What's nouht? Naught (slang for zero)? "Zeroth" only really makes
sense in computer languages like C where if you have an array x[3],
its valid members are x[0], x[1], x[2]

neutrino and antineutrino, or neutrino of a different "flavor"? *A
neutrino and an electron? *Is there such a thing as a weak "charge"?

Use Google.

I already did but didn't find much when I posted my reply. *Since then
I found more and I see the weak charge is connected to the spin, LH
spin=weak charge, RH spin= no weak charge. Weird.

There are awfully many weak interactions and their charges or
"hypercharges"; this is due to loos meanings in scientific speakship.
The "weak charge" is equivalent to the elèctrocoloral partial charge
in a London interaction. *Its free carriers are free radicals with a
destabil lifetime with respect to their background or vacvum. *I find
glueballs as fascinant as red oxygen.

You lost me here.

To anyone else: Is my understanding correct, weak charge = spin (plus
an effect from the ordinary electric charge which I forgot) ?
Changing spin is just moving weak charges around? How does "flavor"
or particle generations get involved? It seems that the changing of
generations or "flavors" is a weak effect.

The RH neutrino is a real elusive beast. Doesn't interact strongly,
nor by EM, nor by weak (uncharged), and only weakly by gravity. Is
"dark matter" RH neutrinos?