On Feb 16, 11:08*pm, "
wrote:
On Feb 16, 1:16*pm, "Robert J. Kolker" wrote:

wrote:
On Feb 16, 8:12 am, Peter wrote:

Hi! Is it correct to say that work is a form of energy? At least that
is what the work-energy theorem seems to assert.

* *Yes it is. Yes, but what the mathemetical theorem spewers
* *don't seem to understand about work, is that most often
* *it is not workable energy.

What does this mean. Work, Energy is a quantity whose unit is force X
distance.

* *It means what's it's always meant.
* *Idiot scientists should stick ro studying Quantum Mechanics,
* *rather than energy. Since photons are like most
* *in the field of energy. They are -ons, rather than energy.





Bob Kolker- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

-------------------
before you speak about idiots
speak about yourself
because you are not only an idiot
you are a crook as well
the same as the clergy crooks hundreds of years ago

1
you say that photons are the main in the force field
so
that is the first certificate that you are
an ignorant pompous physicist
because the truth is that you understand nothing
about the real process of forces
AND YOU PRETEND TO TEACH OTHERS
ABOUT WHAT YOU HAVE NOT DONT UNDERSTAND
TO SCRACH.

photons are not the main in the force field
a physical entity that moves in straight lines
can never be an attraction agent!!

the main actor there is something unknown yet
that moves IN CURVED LINES !!

got it **** head and **** human sciences !???

2
to the op post
i would say that
work is a result of energy
3
energy is mass in movement !!
exactly as in macrocosm

E=mc^2

m there i s * not* 'relativistic mass'
it is the only mass that exists !!
got it crooky ??
4
QM is not yet the final solution for physics
there was physics before it (as it is)
and there will be physics AFTER IT (as it is now !!)

got it crooky ??
so just blow down a bit you pompous ego
because you are not impressing anyone
except yourself and your stupid thru believers

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

On Feb 17, 10:42 pm, "Y.Porat" wrote:

[...]

Why is it so difficult for you to understand that E=mc^2 is a limiting
case?

On Feb 18, 3:12*am, Eric Gisse wrote:
On Feb 17, 10:42 pm, "Y.Porat" wrote:

[...]

Why is it so difficult for you to understand that E=mc^2 is a limiting
case?

Dear Eric

I don't understand this comment. What do you mean when you say that
"E=mc^2 is a limiting case?" Thank you.

Pete

On Feb 18, 4:34*pm, pmb wrote:
On Feb 18, 3:12*am, Eric Gisse wrote:

On Feb 17, 10:42 pm, "Y.Porat" wrote:

[...]

Why is it so difficult for you to understand that E=mc^2 is a limiting
case?

Dear Eric

I don't understand this comment. What do you mean when you say that
"E=mc^2 is a limiting case?" Thank you.

Pete

---------------
eric is unable to do some reading between the lines:

it is not only an abstract limit case!
it has some other conclusions :

if E=mc^2 for the photon
it means that the photon CAN move at c !
and a firther conclusion:

the photon is an exception cace to the rule that
no mass can reach c
(the mass of the photon can reach c as an exception case)

and even an additional insight :
THERE IS JUST ONE KIND OF MASS!
no matter how youcall it
just one kind of mass

all the 'other masses' were an invension of
amthematiciance who didt undersand the masic of physics
and could not grasp tha teach physics formula of eqaution
has its limits of validatio
and they could not immagine that the rule
of
no mass canreach c doe snot include the mass
of the photon
2
they could not understand that
NO MASS NO REAL PHYSICS !!

(which should be one of the basics of physics
and a more powerful 'lithmus paper' to examine
quickly if a theory makes physics sense
or jsut a fairy tale ! (spelling for 'tale ' taile ?? )
ie nonsens physics
anyway
years later even Gisse &Co will get it
but he wil claime that that is** his** innovation.. (:-)

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

On Feb 18, 5:34 am, pmb wrote:
On Feb 18, 3:12 am, Eric Gisse wrote:

On Feb 17, 10:42 pm, "Y.Porat" wrote:

[...]

Why is it so difficult for you to understand that E=mc^2 is a limiting
case?

Dear Eric

I don't understand this comment. What do you mean when you say that
"E=mc^2 is a limiting case?" Thank you.

Pete

E^2 = [mc^2]^2 + [pc]^2

http://google.com/groups?q=bloody-mote

On Feb 19, 1:08 am, "Y.Porat" wrote:
On Feb 18, 4:34 pm, pmb wrote:

On Feb 18, 3:12 am, Eric Gisse wrote:

On Feb 17, 10:42 pm, "Y.Porat" wrote:

[...]

Why is it so difficult for you to understand that E=mc^2 is a limiting
case?

Dear Eric

I don't understand this comment. What do you mean when you say that
"E=mc^2 is a limiting case?" Thank you.

Pete

---------------
eric is unable to do some reading between the lines:

it is not only an abstract limit case!
it has some other conclusions :

if E=mc^2 for the photon
it means that the photon CAN move at c !
and a firther conclusion:

the photon is an exception cace to the rule that
no mass can reach c
(the mass of the photon can reach c as an exception case)

and even an additional insight :
THERE IS JUST ONE KIND OF MASS!
no matter how youcall it
just one kind of mass

all the 'other masses' were an invension of
amthematiciance who didt undersand the masic of physics
and could not grasp tha teach physics formula of eqaution
has its limits of validatio
and they could not immagine that the rule
of
no mass canreach c doe snot include the mass
of the photon
2
they could not understand that
NO MASS NO REAL PHYSICS !!

(which should be one of the basics of physics
and a more powerful 'lithmus paper' to examine
quickly if a theory makes physics sense
or jsut a fairy tale ! (spelling for 'tale ' taile ?? )
ie nonsens physics
anyway
years later even Gisse &Co will get it
but he wil claime that that is** his** innovation.. (:-)

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

What a blithering idiot. You still don't get that E = mc^2 isn't valid
for moving objects.

On Feb 20, 7:20*am, Eric Gisse wrote:
On Feb 19, 1:08 am, "Y.Porat" wrote:





On Feb 18, 4:34 pm, pmb wrote:

On Feb 18, 3:12 am, Eric Gisse wrote:

On Feb 17, 10:42 pm, "Y.Porat" wrote:

[...]

Why is it so difficult for you to understand that E=mc^2 is a limiting
case?

Dear Eric

I don't understand this comment. What do you mean when you say that
"E=mc^2 is a limiting case?" Thank you.

Pete

---------------
eric is unable to do some reading between the lines:

it is not only an abstract limit case!
it has some other conclusions :

if E=mc^2 for the photon
it means that the photon CAN *move at c !
and a firther conclusion:

the photon is an exception cace to the rule that
no mass can reach c
(the mass of the photon can reach c as an exception *case)

and even an additional insight :
THERE IS JUST ONE KIND OF MASS!
no matter how youcall it
just one kind of mass

all the 'other masses' were an invension of
amthematiciance who didt undersand *the masic of physics
and could not grasp tha teach physics formula of eqaution
has its limits of validatio
and they could not immagine that the rule
of
no mass canreach c doe snot include the mass
of the photon
2
they could not understand that
*NO MASS NO REAL PHYSICS !!

*(which should be one of the basics of physics
and a more powerful 'lithmus paper' to examine
quickly if a theory makes physics sense
or jsut a fairy tale *! *(spelling for 'tale ' *taile ?? )
ie nonsens physics
anyway
*years later *even Gisse * &Co will get it
but he wil claime that that is** his** innovation.. *(:-)

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

What a blithering idiot. You still don't get that E = mc^2 isn't valid
for moving objects.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

-----------------
imbecil parrot
so what is that c there??

have you heared about
INTRINSIC MOVEMENT ??

doe s a little ****er like you what toteachme
about the structure of matter and energy
and mass problems ??
just whipe out the milk from your stupid arrogant face

ATB
Y.Porat

On Feb 19, 10:38 pm, "Y.y.Porat" wrote:
On Feb 20, 7:20 am, Eric Gisse wrote:



On Feb 19, 1:08 am, "Y.Porat" wrote:

On Feb 18, 4:34 pm, pmb wrote:

On Feb 18, 3:12 am, Eric Gisse wrote:

On Feb 17, 10:42 pm, "Y.Porat" wrote:

[...]

Why is it so difficult for you to understand that E=mc^2 is a limiting
case?

Dear Eric

I don't understand this comment. What do you mean when you say that
"E=mc^2 is a limiting case?" Thank you.

Pete

---------------
eric is unable to do some reading between the lines:

it is not only an abstract limit case!
it has some other conclusions :

if E=mc^2 for the photon
it means that the photon CAN move at c !
and a firther conclusion:

the photon is an exception cace to the rule that
no mass can reach c
(the mass of the photon can reach c as an exception case)

and even an additional insight :
THERE IS JUST ONE KIND OF MASS!
no matter how youcall it
just one kind of mass

all the 'other masses' were an invension of
amthematiciance who didt undersand the masic of physics
and could not grasp tha teach physics formula of eqaution
has its limits of validatio
and they could not immagine that the rule
of
no mass canreach c doe snot include the mass
of the photon
2
they could not understand that
NO MASS NO REAL PHYSICS !!

(which should be one of the basics of physics
and a more powerful 'lithmus paper' to examine
quickly if a theory makes physics sense
or jsut a fairy tale ! (spelling for 'tale ' taile ?? )
ie nonsens physics
anyway
years later even Gisse &Co will get it
but he wil claime that that is** his** innovation.. (:-)

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

What a blithering idiot. You still don't get that E = mc^2 isn't valid
for moving objects.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

-----------------
imbecil parrot
so what is that c there??

have you heared about
INTRINSIC MOVEMENT ??

doe s a little ****er like you what toteachme
about the structure of matter and energy
and mass problems ??
just whipe out the milk from your stupid arrogant face

What are you even trying to say? Your gibberish has improved - nobody
knows what the hell you are talking about.


ATB
Y.Porat

“ e ^ 2 == ( m * c^2 )^2 + ( p * c )^2 � ( c-style notation ),

Zero is a metaphysical number, wholly unphysical, not empirical.
Empirical numbers have error bars, verified by third parties.
Are gamma-rays slower than microwaves ? I wonder.