Re: The sixth Porat postulate

Bjoern Feuerbacher <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message news:<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>...
> "  as fact?
> 
> 
> > anyway i askedyou a question about my sixth postolate:
> > do you have something against it,
> > untill now there is no answer.
> 
> I answered this two days ago already. Didn't you read that post?
> Here is the link:
> <http://www.google.de/groups?q=insubject:porat+author:bjoern&hl=de&lr=&ie=UTF-8&as_drrb=b&as_mind=24&as_minm=11&as_miny=2003&as_maxd=24&as_maxm=11&as_maxy=2003&selm=3FC1DC90.DE0ED7F5%40ix.urz.uni-heidelberg.de&rnum=2&filter=0>
> 
> 
> > actually i know the answer, no answer. 
> 
> Wrong. See above.
> 
> 
> > it is a right
> > and *useful* postulate 
> 
> There is nothing useful about it - it is already clear that this
> *has* to be satisfied, simply because of conservation of energy.
ok
so at last you agree with my sixth postulate.
(actually no one can have anything againt it!)
so lets examin its paractical uses
(provided you undersatnd it proprerly):

> 
> 
> > especially to prevent people
> > from the nonsense that they are in up to their neckes.
> 
> How often do I need to point out to you that in beta
> decay, the emitted W boson is *virtual* and therefore
> *not* "bigger than its sender"?
---------
so lets make it clear:
the W boson of the beta decay- does it have a mass
or does it not have a mass?

2 another question just to save time:
in case the W boson has mass, what is its mass

3 if it has a mass and the one of the beta decay hasnt-
what is the point to to try and find a particle
that is not involved in the beta decay?

or may be that one with the mass is involved with other
processes?
in that case is the W (with mass)that is involved in creating
*or mediating*  particles that are actually much (or even not much)
less massive than the W (that is 85 times more massive than the nucleid?)

4 how can a particle be in one case with mass
and in another incarnation without mass?

5 in all the above question, i ask for physical answers
not matematical answers.
--------------
TIA
Y.porat
------------
> 
> 
> 
> > (i mean the experiments to find virtuals.
> 
> No one would ever design such an experiment - this makes no
> sense. However, what people *had* done were experiments
> which demonstrated the *effects* of the existence of virtual
> particles.
> 
> 
> > i saw on the net that some german institue (forgot its name- Herra ???)
> 
> HERA, probably.
> 
> 
> > is involved in those neosense
> 
> Why do you think it's nonsense?
> 
> 
> > so i suggest that you address them quickly to stop it
> 
> Why?
> 
> 
> > and save their precious time and money and go on something
> > more productive, (that could be for a change a productive
> > tongible deed of yours)
> > at least if you dont believe me, just draw their attantion
> > to my postulate.
> 
> See my comments on it. Follow the link above.
> 
> 
> > btw i did a Google serch and saw there loud and clear
> > that the W Bosson has a mass of 85 times the nucleid
> > something that you denied
> 
> I *never* denied this!!!
> 
> I only said that the W bosons which are emitted in beta decay
> are *virtual* W bosons, not *real* W bosons! Only *real*
> W bosons have a mass of around 85 GeV!!!
> 
> 
> > will you once in your life admitt a mistake ??
> 
> You are attacking a straw man. I *NEVER* said that W bosons
> (*real* W bosons) don't have this mass!
> 
> 
> > another btw that Google search revealed to me once again
> > how stupid and pathetic is all that story of virtuals and the W
> > unbelieable how stupid (may be dishonest !) many scintists are.
> 
> So, hundreds of thousands of physicists are soooo stupid, because
> they think that virtual particles exist and make sense, and only you,
> a layman, is intelligent enough to see that this is nonsense?
> Try reading up the word "arrogance".
> 
> 
> Bye,
> Bjoern