>Date: Tue, 02 Aug 2005 11:57:37 +0100
>To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>From: Grimer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>Subject: RE: Negative mass, etc.
>
>At 02:20 am 02/08/2005 -0500, you wrote:
>>If this is true, Frank. How does the annihilation of an electron with a
>>positron
>>produce two photons each with 510 Mev positive energy?
>>
>>Frederick
>>
>
>
>No problem at all Fred.
>
>If you "annihilate" a prestressed concrete beam by destroying
>the wedges at one end, then the steel shoots off in one direction
>spearing anyone who's unfortunate enough to be standing in
>line, and the concrete shoots off in the other direction squashing
>the opposite in-liner.
>
>In the case of the steel it is minus epsilon strain energy which
>has been converted into motion (your photon going in one direction)
>and in the case of the concrete it is plus epsilon strain energy
>which has been converted into motion (your photon going in the other
>direction).
>
>The problem with the concept of energy is that it is really a
>disguised velocity/strain squared - and in squaring, the vector
>aspect of velocity/strain is hidden.
>
>Also as the Hotson paradox shows, the electron and positron don't
>"annihilate" each other at all. They merely neutralize each others
>mass and charge to form a neutral mass, neutral charge particle,
>the Materon, the forth member of the minimalist nuclear Mendeleev
>table.
>
>If we pursue the prestress beam analogy the we can see that
>charge is analogous to the linear tension strain in the
>steel and mass is analogous to the area compressive strain in
>the steel. When the wedges are destroyed both the offset tensile
>and area strains are converted into velocity, the photon analog.
>
>After all - ask yourself. Why on earth should the photons head off
>in opposite directions, something you conveniently omitted to mention?
>Velocity is a vector. The net velocity of the system is zero.
>
>Energy and mass are derivative concepts with consequent loss of
>information. To understand the mechanics of any system one has
>to integrate back to the underlying velocity/strain aspects.
>
>I would use the term "get back to basics" if it hadn't been besmirched
>by the hypocritical action of John Major who introduced it to British
>politics.
>
>Cheers
>
>Frank Grimer
>
