sci.physics.particle

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.