On Apr 24, 1:01 pm, "Jeckyl" <n...@nowhere.com> wrote:

"Y.Porat" <y.y.po...@gmail.com> wrote in message

you was talking just a day before about 'calling names'
so please note the respons of Gisse
to my thread
do you have something to tell him about that now ??!!!

I've already said it .. and it applies to me as well .. I can get a
little
heated when I am attacked personally, or when I am frustrated with lies
and
ignorance of other posters.

---------------
now
i asked if you can say something personally to
Gisse
about his calling names in his fist response
to my thread ??
his remark to me was **very personal and very
'calling names' ***
so ??
can we see your direct answer to him ??

On Apr 24, 1:01 pm, "Jeckyl" <n...@nowhere.com> wrote:

"Y.Porat" <y.y.po...@gmail.com> wrote in message

news:1177406494.410410.286400@b40g2000prd.googlegroups.com...

it is a postualte

In that it without proof .. yes
In that it is something taken to be true .. no .. as physics isn't just
about mass.

Further, it is not a 'postulate' OF physics (eg like those of special
relativity) .. it is a postulate ABOUT physics. As such it is
philosophy,
and not really all that useful in actually doing any physics (ie you
can't
use it as a required basis for theories etc)

you was talking just a day before about 'calling names'
so please note the respons of Gisse
to my thread
do you have something to tell him about that now ??!!!

I've already said it .. and it applies to me as well .. I can get a
little
heated when I am attacked personally, or when I am frustrated with lies
and
ignorance of other posters.

--------------------------------------
teh post does not show
so let me try again:
---------------------------
On Apr 24, 1:01 pm, "Jeckyl" <n...@nowhere.com> wrote:

"Y.Porat" <y.y.po...@gmail.com> wrote in message

news:1177406494.410410.286400@b40g2000prd.googlegroups.com...

----------------------On Apr 24, 1:01 pm, "Jeckyl" <n...@nowhere.com>
wrote:
"Y.Porat" <y.y.po...@gmail.com> wrote in message

news:1177406494.410410.286400@b40g2000prd.googlegroups.com...

it is a postualte

In that it without proof .. yes
In that it is something taken to be true .. no .. as physics isn't just
about mass.

Further, it is not a 'postulate' OF physics (eg like those of special
relativity) .. it is a postulate ABOUT physics. As such it is
philosophy,
and not really all that useful in actually doing any physics (ie you
can't
use it as a required basis for theories etc)

you was talking just a day before about 'calling names'
so please note the respons of Gisse
to my thread
do you have something to tell him about that now ??!!!

I've already said it .. and it applies to me as well .. I can get a
little
heated when I am attacked personally, or when I am frustrated with lies
and
ignorance of other posters.

----------------------
ok
i wil help you a bit :

here is the quote form Gisse :

refering to me in this very trhread :

quote:

'"You are stupid" is even more valid and even more simple.
end of quote:

now Jekyle

is it name calling acording to you??

does it fit your standards of about
how a dissicussion should be ??
(as you preached me ?? one day ago ??)

On Apr 24, 1:01 pm, "Jeckyl" <n...@nowhere.com> wrote:

"Y.Porat" <y.y.po...@gmail.com> wrote in message
I've already said it .. and it applies to me as well .. I can get a
little
heated when I am attacked personally, or when I am frustrated with lies
and
ignorance of other posters.

teh post does not show

so let me try again:
ok
i wil help you a bit :
here is the quote form Gisse :
refering to me in this very trhread :
quote:

'"You are stupid" is even more valid and even more simple.
end of quote:

now Jekyle
is it name calling acording to you??

does it fit your standards of about
how a dissicussion should be ??
(as you preached me ?? one day ago ??)

On Apr 26, 6:36 am, "Jeckyl" <n...@nowhere.com> wrote:
Mr smartguy:

you have to decide

whether my above assertin is nonsens

or on the other jhand you say
it is nothing new!!

tomorow you will say that you said that

2
do you think that allpeopel here a redumb???

i didnt say:
no mass no real particle (as you what to obfuscate it;

i saied
NO Mass -- NO REAL PHYSICS !!!
do you what to obfuacate that as well???

do you whant to say that somebody saied it before me ??

may be reveal your real face at this occation ??

just prove that you are not one of my old
personal enemies ??

(which their personal hatred drives them out of their semses ??)

On Apr 26, 11:06 am, "Jeckyl" <n...@nowhere.com> wrote:

"Y.Porat" <y.y.po...@gmail.com> wrote in message

news:1177573305.046955.3720@r30g2000prh.googlegroups.com...

On Apr 25, 6:10 pm, Y <yanar...@hotmail.com> wrote:

Shouldn't physics be the pursuit of quantifying observable physical
phenomena ?

----------------
of course!
yet my assertion is a bit more specific!!:

my claim is that if you study it carefully (enough ...)
you realize that actually
mass
is th emost basic physical entity

It is one of several physical property .. There are several (eg
electrical
charge). However, most primitive particles do have mass (where as there
are
several with/without other properties).

That said, it is indeed probably reasonable to describe it as the most
basic
of the phyical properties of an object.

in our world and the practical rsult of it in future:
it will save a lot of waist of scientifi cefforths
on ;'massless' ideas or entities

The amount of mass in somethings doesn't tell you how important it is.
Massless particles like photons are very important to understand.

Oh shoot "light isn't physical", I forgot. Coming from the same guy
who thinks light HAS mass is very funny.

i dont only think
i proved it

You have not proved anything. You've only stated that it has mass, and
that
mass is one of the basic unit sthat make up energy (as does time, and
distance and velocity ,and momentum, and area, and squared time, and
various
otehr combinations of units).

it is not my fault that many people do not get it

It is your fault that your so-called "proof" that it doesn't actually
prove
anything.. it simply doesn't contradict the idea of a photon having mass,
and at best suggests that it might. But it does not proof that it does.

The equations of SR DO, however, proof that the mass of any particle
travelling at speed 'c' must be zero.

So you'd need a VERY convincing proof to show otherwise .. and what you
have
presented is nothing like a proof (let alone a convincing one).

or do not admit they got it !!

I quite happily admit that I "get" what you're saying .. which is
precisely
why i know it is not a proof.

(bTW i am not the **only one who think so
9that the photon has rst mass
not only think but quote
the smallest mass possoble for it !! h/c^2 )

Yes .. you don't have a monopoly on being wrong.

there are soem other c;ever guys (in their own eye ..(:-)
-------

Now if you said Mass was an essential axiom to physics, then you would
make more sense. But what is an essential axiom ?

-y

het y
you confuse me with my name!1
what is your real name /?

It doesn't matter what his real name is.

I think that your need ot know everyone's names, and that everyone knows
yours, is another sign of your insecurity.

---------------------
sorry Jekye

you are wasting our time

by repeating you caimes
and your mis understandingsyoudont even quote me properly

so why not leave it for others that are interested in it ??waht is
your obsession with me ??

if you dont take it
just leave it !! dont you rely onthe intelligence of others
to see that i talk nonsense (:-).

On Apr 26, 11:06 am, "Jeckyl" <n...@nowhere.com> wrote:
sorry Jekye

you are wasting our time
by repeating you caimes

and your mis understandingsyoudont even quote me properly

so why not leave it for others that are interested in it

??waht is
your obsession with me ??

if you dont take it just leave it !!

dont you rely onthe intelligence of others

to see that i talk nonsense (:-).