Re: A prove that the electron is not a point particle!!
Y.Porat
> "Y.Porat" <y.y.po...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > Electron and positron are annihilating themselves to energy .....
> > that is an experimental fact....
> > but
> > that is as well a PROVE that
> > *the electron is not a point particle !!!!!2
> > 2
> > it means that we dont know (as is)
> > good enough about the electron
> > and it means that we have to look for
> > **much further ** knowledge about the electron !!
> > --and the structure of matter in general
>
> Yes, people thought they needed a special explanation why "ultraviolet
> catastrophe" didn't happen to atoms. And it does happen to
> electron-positron pairs.
>
> I also would like to know more about the structure of the electron. But
> how do you find out? A proof that electrons have some sort of structure
> would be a good start. But what good do we do to speculate about the
> structure if we cannot find a way to actually measure it?
>
> Perhaps you could infer something about electron structure by hitting
> electrons with something less massive, at very high velocities. I don't
> have a lot of candidates for what to use for that, though.
>
> Perhaps you could infer something about their structure by their
> behavior. If they do something special when you get them to spin fast,
> say. I dunno.
>
> I think maybe there hasn't been much done with electron structure
> because it is hard to do.
-------------
yes indeed
but the fact tha so muchinformation was gathered during more than a
hundred years
canmhelp us
i suggeted and found through my model
that matter is composed as
*chains of orbitals '
ie along cahin (certianly not edlesly long)
so those sub orbitals ar connected *linearily*
if you like methaphorically
as the human inveted chain composed of closed links ...
(all chemistry is nearlyall along with ''chain of orbitals'' !!!**)
it can explain how
the electron is stretching right from a point in the nuc (a very
definite point)
streching from the nuc outwards
that can be done by a chain of sub orbitals that compose the
electron....
see my abstract
now if it is such a chain
*it can fold not only to a straight line
may be it can fols up to some
spherical structure as well??
and may be orher geometric structures
does that not remind you the
string theory ?? (and a vibrationg string as well instead of the
orbiting electron !!
the formulas of a vibrating string
are exactly amthematically
as those of an orbiting mass !!!!....
now frankly
i still dont have an answer
how is it that that
long chain has always a definite
number of sub particle
definite mass
and why that structure of sub particles is so strong and difficult to
break??
except of course by annihilation by
collision with a positron !!??
can anyone have a suggestion for that last question??
(all my advance in science
was done by asking **myself first*
and other ---questions'
AND NOT PARROTING .....(while thing seems not to make ** physics
sense** .....)
TIA
Y.Porat
-----------------
Y.Porat
> "Y.Porat" <y.y.po...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>
> news:7e0afb17-436c-45f0...@w36g2000yqm.googlegroups.com...
>
>
>
> > On Sep 5, 6:47 am, eric gisse <jowr.pi.nos...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >> Y.Porat wrote:
>
> >> > Electron and positron are annihilating themselves to energy .....
> >> > that is an experimental fact....
> >> > but
> >> > that is as well a PROVE that
> >> > *the electron is not a point particle !!!!!2
> >> > 2
> >> > it means that we dont know (as is)
> >> > good enough about the electron
> >> > and it means that we have to look for
> >> > **much further ** knowledge about the electron !!
> >> > --and the structure of matter in general
>
> >> > and TIA
> >> > Y.Porat
> >> > -----------------------------------
>
> >> This is not a proof.
>
> >> When will your senility finally prevent you from using a computer?
>
> > ------------------
> > just have a look on that little 24 years retarded psychopath
> > with his Napoleonic posse .. (:-)
>
> >http://www.facebook.com/eric.gisse
>
> > that is a walking damage to this NG
> > please by pass him !!
> > and learn something new!
>
> So that is your scientific response .. You make a statement with not
> supporting logic and call it a 'proof' and then you insult how he looks in
> response
>
> You are an truly evil old man. The world would be a much better place
> without the likes of you. It is people like you, with their pure evil
> hearts fill of hatred that cause the true atrocities.
------------------
i asked you a question and you didnt
answer
and you call youself an apposite
scientists that taks physics
instead of pesonal politics
i asked you
in another thread
is a ccording toyour physics understanding
the single photon Energy has
a top or bottom limit ??
and you didnt answer !!!
can you answer??
)instead of personal politics hand waving
??)
btw
please note that i added more physical arguments to'no point particle
of the electron'
before i saw your last post
(all of you respond quite quickliy
may be authomatically ??..
without physics thinking ?? (:-)...
)
can you reffere to it as well --
*by only **net**. (:-) physics arguments ??
TIA
Y.Porat
-----------------------
khadema al suna
By Magdy Abd Al-Shafy
I know that my article is not related to this group ,but it might be
useful.
PLEASE read it.
The Holy Quran , the last revealed Holy book, carries within its holy
verses the evidence toits Divine source .Among the many mitacles that
the holy Quran contain is the scientific miracles , more than 1400
years ago ,
The Holy Quran gives scientific facts that have been discovered
already and now are scientifically established . When the Holy Quran
gives such facts it adds many dimensions to the question of faith in
God ; in addition to the faith dimension there is a spiritual
dimension that Only Moslems and reasonable non -moslems can feel . The
Holy Quran stands in the face of the atheism claims . The other Holy
books , being distorted and pregnant with scientific errors that may
feed sckepticism , are no longer able to face atheism . Atheism are
breeding and taking people away from the right path . The Holy Quran ,
being the most authenticated book , can be the challanger - No one can
believe that a book with such astounding scientific miracles that
revealed 1400 years ago can be man-mad . Such facts lead you to
believe in God and to believe that the Holy Quran is God’s book …it is
up to you to decide ………
Now to our scientific miracle
The Holy Quran ststes in one of its Holy verses that ( iron ) we send
down from high skies , i.e, it is not formed in the ground . That what
science has aleady discovered . Let’s read this short verse .
God says in the Holy Quran what means "And We sent down iron in which
there lies great force and which has many uses for mankind…. (Surat al-
Hadid: 25)
Modern astronomical findings have disclosed that the ****l of iron
found in our world has come down from the giant stars in outer space.
The Holy Quran verse used The Arabic word " Anzlna " which could be
rendered " and we sent down " . Iron needs so high temperature to be
formed ;
Professor Armstrong works at NASA, otherwise known as the National
Aeronautics and Space Administration, where he is a well-known
scientist here. He was asked about Iron and how it was formed. He
explained how all the elements in the earth were formed.
He stated that the scientists have come only recently to discover the
relevant facts about that formation process. He said that the energy
of the early solar system was not sufficient to produce elemental
Iron. In calculating the energy required to form one atom of iron, it
was found to be about four times as much as the energy of the entire
solar system. In other words, the entire energy of the earth or the
moon or the planet Mars or any other planet is not sufficient to form
one new atom of iron, even the energy of the entire solar system is
not sufficient for that. That is why Professor Armstrong said that the
scientists believe that iron is an extraterrestrial that was sent to
earth and not formed therein.
Unlike most of ****ls , iron needs so high temperature to be formed .
such high temperature is found no where in our solar system .
"Nova" and "supernova.
Temperature in the Sun is inadequate for the formation of iron. The
sun has a surface temperature of 6,000 degrees Celsius, and a core
temperature of approximately 20 million degrees. Iron can only be
produced in much larger stars than the Sun, where the temperature
reaches a few hundred million degrees. When the amount of iron exceeds
a certain level in a star, the star can no longer accommodate it, and
it eventually explodes in what is called a "nova" or a "supernova."
These explosions make it possible for iron to be given off into space.
All this shows that iron did not form on the Earth, but was carried
from Supernovas, and was "sent down," as stated in the verse. It is
clear that this fact could not have been known in the 7th century,
when the Qur’an was revealed. Nevertheless, this fact is related in
the Qur’an, the Word of Allah, Who encompasses all things in His
infinite knowledge.
Science says that iron and other materials were attracted to the earh
when enetered the earth garvity field ; iron fell down on the earth as
if it were rain . the earth at that time was like ash , not completely
solid as it is now . Iron found its way deep to the core of the
earth .
And We sent down iron in which there lies great force and which has
many uses for mankind….
what is meant by ( and in which there lies great force and which has
many uses for mankind….
In his book Nature’s Destiny, the well-known microbiologist Michael
Denton
Of all the ls there is none more essential to life than iron. It is
the accumulation of iron in the center of a star which triggers a
supernova explosion and the subsequent scattering of the vital atoms
of life throughout the cosmos. It was the drawing by gravity of iron
atoms to the center of the primeval earth that generated the heat
which caused the initial chemical differentiation of the earth, the
outgassing of the early atmosphere, and ultimately the formation of
the hydrosphere. It is molten iron in the center of the earth which,
acting like a gigantic dynamo, generates the earth’s magnetic field,
which in turn creates the Van Allen radiation belts that shield the
earth’s surface from destructive high-energy-penetrating cosmic
radiation and preserve the crucial ozone layer from cosmic ray
destruction…
in this connection the Holy Quran , to show God’s blessings , in
another verse which implies anew scientific miracle says " And we have
made the heavens as a canopy well guarded: yet do they turn away from
the Signs which these things (point to)!( Al-Anbyaa :32 )
Without the iron atom, there would be no carbon-based life in the
cosmos; no supernovae, no heating of the primitive earth, no
atmosphere or hydrosphere. There would be no protective magnetic
field, no Van Allen radiation belts, no ozone layer, no l to make
hemoglobin [in human blood], no l to tame the reactivity of oxygen,
and no oxidative *bolism.
The intriguing and intimate relationship between life and iron,
between the red color of blood and the dying of some distant star, not
only indicates the relevance of this ls to biology but also the
biocentricity of the cosmos…
This account clearly indicates the importance of the iron atom. The
fact that particular attention is drawn to iron in the Qur’an also
emphasises the importance of the element. In addition, there is
another hidden truth in the Qur’an which draws attention to the
importance of iron: Surat al-Hadid 25, which refers to iron, contains
two rather interesting mathematical codes.
"Al- Hadid" is the 57th sura in the Qur’an. The abjad of the word "Al-
Hadid" in Arabic, when the numerological values of its letters are
added up, is also 57.
The numerological value of the word "hadid" alone is 26. And 26 is the
atomic number of iron.
Moreover, iron oxide particles were used in a cancer treatment in
recent months and positive developments were observed. A team led by
Dr. Andreas Jordan, at the world famous Charité Hospital in Germany,
succeeded in destroying cancer cells with this new technique developed
for the treatment of cancer-magnetic fluid hyperthermia (high
temperature magnetic liquid). As a result of this technique, first
performed on the 26-year-old Nikolaus H., no new cancer cells were
observed in the patient in the following three months.
This method of treatment can be summarised as follows:
1. A liquid containing iron oxide particles is injected into the
tumour by means of a special syringe. These particles spread
throughout the tumour cells. This liquid consists of thousands of
millions of particles, 1,000 times smaller than the red blood
corpuscles, of iron oxide in 1 cm3 that can easily flow through all
blood vessels.42
2. The patient is then placed in a machine with a powerful magnetic
field.
3. This magnetic field, applied externally, begins to set the iron
particles in the tumour in motion. During this time the temperature in
the tumour containing the iron oxide particles rises by up to 45
degrees.
In a few minutes the cancer cells, unable to protect themselves from
the heat, are either weakened or destroyed. The tumour may then be
completely eradicated with subsequent chemotherapy.43
In this treatment it is only the cancer cells that are affected by the
magnetic field, since only they contain the iron oxide particles. The
spread of this technique is a major development in the treatment of
this potentially lethal disease. In the treatment of such a widespread
disease as cancer, the use of the expression "iron in which there lies
great force and which has many uses for mankind" (Qur’an, 57:25) in
the Qur’an is particularly noteworthy. Indeed, in that verse, the
Qur’an may be indicating the benefits of iron for human health. (Allah
knows best.)
For more information about Islam
http://english.islamway.com/
http://www.islamhouse.com/
http://www.discoverislam.com/
http://www.islambasics.com/index.php
http://english.islamway.com/
http://www.islamtoday.net/english/
http://www.islamweb.net/ver2/MainPage/indexe.php
http://www.sultan.org/
http://www.islamonline.net/
Contact Us At
Imanw...@gmail.com
Y.Porat
--------------------------
sorry
i cant see the connection to the issue
of structure of the electron
ATB
Y.Porat
-----------------------
Y.Porat
> "Y.Porat" <y.y.po...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>
>
>
>
> > Electron and positron are annihilating themselves to energy .....
> > that is an experimental fact....
> > but
> > that is as well a PROVE that
> > *the electron is not a point particle !!!!!2
>
> --------------------------
what is the physical meaning of 'annihilation' for you ??
2
is there a bottom limit to the Photon energy ??
3
i added more evidence for sub strsucture
the fact that
the electron can have
one kinds of spin! (or two ??)
while the Positron
which is as well as the electron (according to you ) ** another**
point particle **--
can it have another kind of spin ?
*can a point' have *two kinds*
or even one kind !! of ANY physical PROPERTY ??
iow
what makes one 'point' an electron
and another 'point' a positron ??!!
Y.Porat
--------------------------
Robert Higgins
> On Sep 5, 9:24 am, "Inertial" <relativ...@rest.com> wrote:> "Y.Porat" <y.y.po...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>
> >news:fd399c31-ec18-4f57...@w10g2000yqf.googlegroups.com...
>
> > > Electron and positron are annihilating themselves to energy .....
> > > that is an experimental fact....
> > > but
> > > that is as well a PROVE that
> > > *the electron is not a point particle !!!!!2
>
> > How does it prove that?
> > --------------------------
>
> what is the physical meaning of 'annihilation' for you ??
>
> 2
> is there a bottom limit to the Photon energy ??
Don't start that again.
> 3
> i added more evidence for sub strsucture
> the fact that
> the electron can have
> one kinds of spin! (or two ??)
Actually THREE! or FOUR! (depends how you count...)
There is the total spin angular momentum S, the spin angular momentum
S^2 (important because it commutes with Sx, Sy, and Sz), Sx (spin
angular momentum about x axis, Sy, and Sz.
Sx, Sy, and Sz don;t commute with each other; S^2 commute with each.
S^2 = Sx^2 + Sy^2 + Sz^2.
"Spin" is just a conventient name for a physical property of the
electron. As even freshmen know, it is not meant to represent ordinary
rotation (as of a sphere)
Just to be really cool, electrons in atoms and molecules have ORBITAL
angular momenta, too! L, L^2, Lx, Ly, Lz. L^2 commutes with
everything, and Lx, Ly, and Lz don;t commute with each other, unless
they are equal to 0.
> while the Positron
> which is as well as the electron (according to you ) ** another**
> point particle **--
> can it have another kind of spin ?
No, positrons and electrons have exactly the same spin functions.
>
> *can a point' have *two kinds*
> or even one kind !! of ANY physical PROPERTY ??
Yes. Your head comes to a point, and IT still has physical properties.
> iow
> what makes one 'point' an electron
> and another 'point' a positron ??!!
Oh, I don't know - maybe CHARGE?????
> Y.Porat
> --------------------------
ATB
Dirk Van de moortel
edd219f8-f0b8-421d...@g19g2000yqo.googlegroups.com
> What does the Holy Quran say about Iron ?
>
>
> By Magdy Abd Al-Shafy
>
>
>
> I know that my article is not related to this group ,but it might be
> useful.
>
>
> PLEASE read it.
Please EAT it.
Dirk Vdm
Y.Porat
wrote:
--------------
ow can you define
x y and z
of a point in its coordinated??
how doyoudefine a direction on a point??
you say that the olectron** point* has a charge ??
what are the force messengers that a point can send ??
2
what is the mass of a point??
you must be joking ...
i dont believe you are so stupid !!
Y.P
---------------------
Robert Higgins
How do you define x, y, and z coordinates of the point called the
ORIGIN? It's easy - kids do it every day in high school, or earlier.
It's called analytical geometry in the US.
> how doyoudefine a direction on a point??
Certainly, the "point" of a pencil has a direction. Move the pencil
around, and the direction of the point changes. Ideally, the point is
directed toward a piece of paper, rather than someone else's eye.
>
> you say that the olectron** point* has a charge ??
Yes, it has a charge. Why can't a point have charge?
Wilma and Betty: "Charge ... it!"
> what are the force messengers that a point can send ??
Photons! They are points, too! Or maybe, like Mercury, they have
little wings on their shoes.
>
> 2
> what is the mass of a point??
It depends, for an electron 9.109 x 10 ^-31 kg. For a photon, 0.
> you must be joking ...
I'm NOT joking, and don't called me Shirley.
> i dont believe you are so stupid !!
The feeling is mutual.
>
> Y.P
> ---------------------
ATB
Y.Porat
-----------------------
how old are you??
i think not muchthan a secondary school may be less??
you have to efine the x y z
ONLY UPON THE POINT
if you add to it the envoronmernt of the point
**you ddint define the point**
YOU DEFINED THE POINT PLUS (AGAIN PLUS!!)
SOME ENVIRONMENT AROUND IT
got it stupid ??
i became blant with you do you know why?
because anyone can make mistake
yet a serious person
especially if he calles himself a cscintist
makes a mistake
and somebody showes him his mistake
should appologise and say
sorry i was mistaken
now you with your fucken ego
could not admit your mistake
sowiththat you become a little fucker not a scientist
9a scientist is able to admit a mistake
again
it is not forgivable to make mistakes
it is unforgivably *not to admit it*:
x or y or z
can be defined ONLY AT LEAST BY TWO POINTS!!
got it ???
on your electron 'point
THERE IS JUST ONE POINT
one point and nothing more !!!!!
so you cant define x y z UPON (AGAIN - UPON)
A POINT
a secondary school boy will unerstand it !!
you are less than that
because you are not honest !!
one of the first things that a real school boy have tolern is
honesty before all !!!
-----------
> It's called analytical geometry in the US.
please tell me about analytical geometry!!
i am a structural engineer ....
that was building the 3d unprecedented model
of the atom and nuc ....
see my abstract .......! .
------------.
>
> > how doyoudefine a direction on a point??
>
> Certainly, the "point" of a pencil has a direction. Move the pencil
> around, and the direction of the point changes. Ideally, the point is
> directed toward a piece of paper, rather than someone else's eye.
see above your mistake
we are talking about waht you can do upon the NET
point not point plus some volume around
because
it it is a point plus volume around
it is not the point any
more !!
----------
>
>
>
> > you say that the olectron** point* has a charge ??
>
> Yes, it has a charge. Why can't a point have charge?
> Wilma and Betty: "Charge ... it!"
---------------
so fuck yourself with Wilma and Betty
they probably were measning
a very small volune while that volume is ***still unkown***
got it parrot ???
STILL UNKNOWN !!
AND THAT IS THE MAIN POINT (of mine )
inmy above thread
got it ??
--------------
>
> > what are the force messengers that a point can send ??
>
> Photons! They are points, too! Or maybe, like Mercury, they have
> little wings on their shoes.
so you realize that you are an imbecile scientist
iow
not a chientist
but a cheap clown demagogue!
but do not delude yourself
no one here will take you seriously
unless he is a lier like yourself
sorry that our discussion was deteriorated to
mutual abuse
but i cant help it !!...
i cant stand dishonerty of people
who pretend to be scientists !!!
we are not in a comedy story coffee hose .....
keep well
Y.Porat
-----------------------
Robert Higgins
Older than Moses but younger than Methuselah.
> i think not muchthan a secondary school may be less??
I was more intelligent in elementary school (what we used to call
"grade schooll") than you are now.
>
> you have to efine the x y z
> ONLY UPON THE POINT
> if you add to it the envoronmernt of the point
> **you ddint define the point**
Of course - one electron isn't the whole universe. So there is the
point (the electron) plus lots of other points (the laboratory).
> YOU DEFINED THE POINT PLUS (AGAIN PLUS!!)
> SOME ENVIRONMENT AROUND IT
> got it stupid ??
> i became blant with you do you know why?
No, why?
> because anyone can make mistake
> yet a serious person
> especially if he calles himself a cscintist
> makes a mistake
> and somebody showes him his mistake
> should appologise and say
> sorry i was mistaken
True. Now, apologize!
> now you with your fucken ego
> could not admit your mistake
What mistake? I didn't make any mistakes.
> sowiththat you become a little fucker not a scientist
> 9a scientist is able to admit a mistake
> again
> it is not forgivable to make mistakes
> it is unforgivably *not to admit it*:
>
> x or y or z
> can be defined ONLY AT LEAST BY TWO POINTS!!
> got it ???
> on your electron 'point
> THERE IS JUST ONE POINT
How do you know I don't have TWO electrons? One could be hiding in my
pocket.
> one point and nothing more !!!!!
> so you cant define x y z UPON (AGAIN - UPON)
> A POINT
Yes, you can - the origin (0, 0, 0), for example..... I arrange the z
axis to be normal to the table top, the x axis points to magentic
north, and the y axis is orthogonal to the other two axes. See, I did
it!
> a secondary school boy will unerstand it !!
> you are less than that
> because you are not honest !!
> one of the first things that a real school boy have tolern is
> honesty before all !!!
> -----------
>
> > It's called analytical geometry in the US.
>
> please tell me about analytical geometry!!
> i am a structural engineer ....
I am a professor of chemistry - so I know a thing or two about
electrons.
> that was building the 3d unprecedented model
> of the atom and nuc ....
> see my abstract .......! .
> ------------.
>
>
>
> > > how doyoudefine a direction on a point??
>
> > Certainly, the "point" of a pencil has a direction. Move the pencil
> > around, and the direction of the point changes. Ideally, the point is
> > directed toward a piece of paper, rather than someone else's eye.
>
> see above your mistake
> we are talking about waht you can do upon the NET
> point not point plus some volume around
> because
> it it is a point plus volume around
> it is not the point any
> more !!
If there's just a point, and no other points around, that isn't a very
useful vector space.
> ----------
>
> > > you say that the olectron** point* has a charge ??
>
> > Yes, it has a charge. Why can't a point have charge?
> > Wilma and Betty: "Charge ... it!"
>
> ---------------
> so fuck yourself with Wilma and Betty
OK, I will! Menage a trois! Yes! I thought Betty was kind of hot, but
WIlma was a bitch.
> they probably were measning
> a very small volune while that volume is ***still unkown***
> got it parrot ???
Too bad the joke sailed over your head. Wilma (Flintstone) and Betty
(Rubble) were characters on a cartoon.
>
> STILL UNKNOWN !!
> AND THAT IS THE MAIN POINT (of mine )
> inmy above thread
> got it ??
Got milk?
> --------------
>
> > > what are the force messengers that a point can send ??
>
> > Photons! They are points, too! Or maybe, like Mercury, they have
> > little wings on their shoes.
>
> so you realize that you are an imbecile scientist
> iow
> not a chientist
> but a cheap clown demagogue!
"Send in the CLOWNS/
There ought to be CLOWNS/
Well maybe next year..."
> but do not delude yourself
> no one here will take you seriously
> unless he is a lier like yourself
I don't care who takes me seriously on a NG, especially anyone who
doesn't know a bit of science.
>
> sorry that our discussion was deteriorated to
> mutual abuse
You're not THAT sorry.
>
> but i cant help it !!...
> i cant stand dishonerty of people
> who pretend to be scientists !!!
BTW, unlike you, i really AM a scientist. Lighten up.
> we are not in a comedy story coffee hose .....
Take my electron, please!
Y.Porat
> > mutual abuse
>
> You're not THAT sorry.
>
>
>
> > but i cant help it !!...
> > i cant stand dishonerty of people
> > who pretend to be scientists !!!
>
> BTW, unlike you, i really AM a scientist. Lighten up.
>
> > we are not in a comedy story coffee hose .....
>
> Take my electron, please!
>
>
>
> > keep well
> > Y.Porat
> > -----------------------
>
> > > > 2
> > > > what is the mass of a point??
>
> > > It depends, for an electron 9.109 x 10 ^-31 kg. For a photon, 0.
>
> > > > you must be joking ...
>
> > > I'm NOT joking, and don't called me Shirley.
>
> > > > i dont believe you are so stupid !!
>
> > > The feeling is mutual.
>
> > > > Y.P
> > > > ---------------------
>
> > > ATB
-----------------
lets make it much shorter
to show you that you are not much more than a clown and muchless
clever as you consider youself
besde that you dont use your own mind
and you are hadly a parrot mathematician
rather than a physicist
the electron has mass right?
now what is the mass of a point ??!!!
---
dont answer me
answer yourself
because i already detected your personal character !!....
(honesty is not your strong part .
you should better be much sucessful as a politician .......)
in any case
we have here no children games
we try to make futher advance in science !!
BYE
Y.Porat
----------------------------
Robert Higgins
I can't be a clown - ten of me would not fit in a small car, I don't
have a rubber nose, and I almost never wear those big floppy shoes
anymore. Honk! Honk!
> clever as you consider youself
> besde that you dont use your own mind
> and you are hadly a parrot mathematician
> rather than a physicist
>
> the electron has mass right?
Right
>
> now what is the mass of a point ??!!!
Depends. For an electron, 9.109 x 10^-31 kg. For a photon, 0. When we
say that an electron is a point, we mean that it has no internal
structure. An electron might not be a singularity, but we have an
upper limit on its size, and it's really, really small.
"Let's get ....... SMALL."
> ---
> dont answer me
Too late.
> answer yourself
I try not to talk to myself.
> because i already detected your personal character !!....
No, you didn't.
> (honesty is not your strong part .
Yes, it is! I swear! "I cannot tell a lie."
>
> you should better be much sucessful as a politician .......)
I wish :-)
>
> in any case
> we have here no children games
> we try to make futher advance in science !!
> BYE
TTFN
> Y.Porat
> ----------------------------
ATB
Y.Porat
wrote:
GOD MORNING Robet & Co.!!
!!!at last you woke up !!
only now and under my pressure
you start to talk business
so
it is not a point particle!!
see what i wrote above in my oppost
i wrote 'is not apoint particle
so why did you jump up and resisted at the first place??
just because you saw the name Y.Porat?? (:-)
VERY SMALL IS NOT A POINT !!
it is very small
and there is a great principal difference !!
between the mathematical concept
that has no room in particle world!!
bnecause a the matemathical concept point
means zero volume !!zero mass etc
---
> > ---
> > dont answer me
> > I try not to talk to myself.
>
> > because i already detected your personal character !!....
>
> No, you didn't.
>
> > (honesty is not your strong part .
>
> Yes, it is! I swear! "I cannot tell a lie."
> > > you should better be much sucessful as a politician .......)
>
> I wish :-)
my pressure worked (:-)
--------
mow Mr Robert
do you think our work is done now ??
can you now rest on your laurels??
or may be our work only STARTS ??!!
(from that 'point' (:-)
-----------------
you say that there is no inner structure of the electron
do you realize that this is stupidity ???
(without some pressure - nothing moves ahead (:-)
so what is that electron
is it a small ball ?? or what
and may be if you dont know
jUS t say
I HAVE NO FURTHER GREEN IDEA ??!!
how about that ??
the fact that this 'indivisible entity
sends force messengers
means nothing to you (Mr parrot ??)
ATB
Y.Porat
-----------------
Robert Higgins
<Yawn>
>
> only now and under my pressure
> you start to talk business
> so
> it is not a point particle!!
For all intents and purposes, it is.
> see what i wrote above in my oppost
> i wrote 'is not apoint particle
> so why did you jump up and resisted at the first place??
> just because you saw the name Y.Porat?? (:-)
> VERY SMALL IS NOT A POINT !!
> it is very small
> and there is a great principal difference !!
There is to you, but to no one else.
> between the mathematical concept
> that has no room in particle world!!
The "particle world"? Is that like the fairy world?
> bnecause a the matemathical concept point
> means zero volume !!zero mass etc
No. Zero volune doesn't mean zero mass.
> ---
>
> > > ---
> > > dont answer me
> > > I try not to talk to myself.
>
> > > because i already detected your personal character !!....
>
> > No, you didn't.
>
> > > (honesty is not your strong part .
>
> > Yes, it is! I swear! "I cannot tell a lie."
> > > > you should better be much sucessful as a politician .......)
>
> > I wish :-)
>
> my pressure worked (:-)
> --------
> mow Mr Robert
I don't like to mow. Or moo, for that matter.
> do you think our work is done now ??
Yes. "Our" work never started.
> can you now rest on your laurels??
I'd rather rest on my waterbed.
> or may be our work only STARTS ??!!
> (from that 'point' (:-)
> -----------------
> you say that there is no inner structure of the electron
Is there an echo in here?
> do you realize that this is stupidity ???
It isn;t.
> (without some pressure - nothing moves ahead (:-)
> so what is that electron
> is it a small ball ?? or what
I don't like to talk abnout someone's small balls - it isn't polite.
> and may be if you dont know
"I don't know. I really don' tknow. I really, really, realy don't
know..."
> jUS t say
> I HAVE NO FURTHER GREEN IDEA ??!!
> how about that ??
OK.
>
> the fact that this 'indivisible entity
> sends force messengers
> means nothing to you (Mr parrot ??)
"Squawk! Squawk! Polly wants a cracker! Polly wants a cracker!"
>
> ATB
> Y.Porat
> -----------------
ATB
Y.Porat
-----------------
the man is a psychopath
that came withte clear inention of sabotage
ie
a hired gangster that changes his name again and again
and now came with another identity
just this month
anyone can see it by clicking his profile !
Y.P
please bypass him if you whant to see
some new discussion about the eldtron
------------------------------
if you want to see some advance
Y.Porat
> "Y.Porat" <y.y.po...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>
>
>
>
> > On Sep 11, 1:34 am, "Inertial" <relativ...@rest.com> wrote:
> >> "Y.Porat" <y.y.po...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>
>
> >> > PD i suggest that both of us will a time out break
> >> > in order not to deteriorate the relations between us
> >> > because after all i have some appreciation to you and your knowlwdge
> >> > but not to you last attempt and GUESS above!
> >> > so lets take a time out
> >> > and see waht is the other reactions (responses)
> >> > to the above issue
> >> > and the above dispute between me and you
> >> > btw
> >> > even me belive(while in a dead lock ) in some wild guesses
> >> > **as a start*
> >> > that is called mind storming
> >> > but ( A GIG BUT )lated i start to add on it my other personality
> >> > as a strict criticizer of myself
> >> > that was always my system ...
> >> > and sometimes it works (:-).
>
> >> An electron is not a 'mathematical point' .. A 'mathematical point' is a
> >> concept only. Nothing real is a mathematical anything. However, things
> >> in
> >> reality can be DESCRIBED and MODELLED in physics by mathematical concepts
> >> (just as they can be described by words, though they are not words)
>
> >> You really need to appreciate the distinction between the two.
>
> >> As I understand, it doesn't make sense to talk about THE radius of an
> >> electron as it is such a 'fuzzy' object most of the time. It can often
> >> be
> >> modeled (ie behaves as) as a point charge however.
>
> > -------------------
> > strangely enough
> > and the first time in my life
> > i agree with you (:-)
>
> Woohoo !!
>
> > 2
> > in any case we agree that this 'point'
> > is jsut the model
> > and that is why i was puting my question:
> > *AND MY HOLE THREAD !!
>
> As a point particle is a model of something, it isn't the thing itself. An
> electron isn't a point particle. It is something that behaves the way a
> point particle behaves in the model we have for reality.
>
> Also the charge on an electron isn't negative or positive .. those signs are
> purely an arbitrary convention we adopt in the model. The physical things
> we describe as having positive and negative charges just behave the same way
> as when we model them with the appropriately signed numbers. What
> electrical charge really is, we have no idea.
> -----------------
we dontdeal with signs
we deal with different cases
in wuich in one case there is attraction
while in another case
there is repulsion
it is a *physical diffference **!!
so now you reminded me about my questions:
how can a point (indivisible particle)
have
1
charge ??
and what is that mysteriuos creature
that makes attraction of repulsion??
2
how can those 'Ghosts live in a point particle??!
is it a ghost inside a bigger ghost ?? (:-)
------
> You can keep going with this sort of argument philosophically .. for
> example, you can say that physical objects don't have speed. Speed is just
> a concept we apply in our models when we see an object at different physical
> locations at different times.
------------
you mean different distances in Vacume...
and here comes my next question that i will leave
as a surprise *weapon ..)*for next dsicussions !! (:-)
------------------
But then, as there is just one reality and
> one eternal 'now', the notion of there being different times is just a model
> that we use as well .. and so on.
> ----------------
btw
what is your degree in physics ??
i am jst a poor Bsc in civil engineering...
a very old Bsc that i got 45 years ago ......(:-)
---------------------
3 and here goes my new irin law in physics
but not only in physics !!
ie in all the vast field of **education:**
and it goes like this:
"IF SO -- THAN --
WAHT THE HELL IS -
THE BETTER MODEL !!! (:-)
(it is even a rhyme and easy to remember )
-----------------
copyright Y.Porat
11/09/ .......2009 !!
please note the special date of that copyright !!....
ATB
Y.Porat
---------------------------
Y.Porat
> On Wed, 23 Dec 2009 11:34:29 +1100, "Inertial" <relativ...@rest.com> wrote:
>
> >"Androcles" <Headmas...@Hogwarts.physics_q> wrote in message
> >news:UXcYm.94266$iW.2...@newsfe30.ams2...
>
> >> "Anti Vigilante" <antivigila...@pyrabang.com> wrote in message
> >>news:hgrhc4$1cp$1...@news.eternal-september.org...
>
> >>>> Why .. because you say so?
>
> >>> Points have no features because they have no extent in a direction.
>
> >>> The only way a point can be a place where a feature exists is if they are
> >>> the sum total of all the nearby effects on that point. Because the point
> >>> itself can be nothing. It is 0 dimensional. There isn't any internal
> >>> space in which to put anything. And even then we talk about electric
> >>> fields at a distance from the non-containing point.
>
> >>> --
> >> The Earth is clearly not a point particle, but in any model
> >> of the solar system it is treated as such. It is merely a
> >> matter of scale. When dealing with the tides the point particle
> >> model of the Earth is inadequate.
>
> >> The electron is a point particle on the scale of the CRT,
> >> the model works well. On the scale of the atom it is not.
> >> Same with pixels on your computer display. You cannot
> >> have a pixel that is half red and half green. It has one colour
> >> only, and is therefore a "point" of light, whatever shape
> >> or area it covers. It's position is important, its colour is
> >> important, its intensity is important, that's how a picture is built.
> >> It's area (or volume) is not.
>
> >For a change Androcles has it right. Clearly 'anti' doesn't understand the
> >mathematical notion of a 'point particle'
>
> hahahahahahaha!
>
> For about the millionth time, both Androcles and inertial are completely WRONG.
>
> Henry Wilson...www.scisite.info/index.htm
>
> Selling something that doesn't exist is a serious crime....unless it's called god.
----------------------------
dont youknow that
Inertial = Feuerbacher from Hydelberg
is a psycho imbecle parrot gangster ??
(and a little nasty thief as well that stole my book )
here is a quote from his above:
quote:
'For a change Androcles has it right. Clearly 'anti' doesn't
understand the
> >mathematical notion of a 'point particle
end of quote
that imbecile anonymous leech that calls itself
'Inertial'
is a mathematics parrot
that thinks that physics is primarily mathematics
he and a lot of others still didnt understand
that mathematics cannot be the real leader
of physics!!
it can be only an adding tool after the leadership
of *** physical thinking !! and knowledge ***
a point is not** by definition** a physical enetity!!
it is to say in other words:
'we know -as is --a fuck- about electron GEOMETRIC STRUCTURE
and if so we are far from idiotic satisfaction
about existing situation !!
another prove that the electron is not a point particle
is
*the very fact that it has spin !!
ie two 'geometric situations' of it
it means thatit is at leat PLANAR !
so it can be rotated 180 degrees around a **longitudinal axis**!!
and have
at least two 'faces' that are not identical '
(the Stern geralch experiemt show'es it !!
(the electron is not a 'stiff entity
that is why i suggested long ago
THE EEL STRUCTURE
ie it is flexible (chain )and can get many shapes !!!
and other indications fo r instance
its extension from he nuc outwards
shoes at least to me
that is is actually not indivisible and actually
sub composed
(for me --sub composed of as a 'chain of orbitals'
ATB
Y.Porat
-------------------------
Y.Porat
> "FrediFizzx" <fredifi...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>
> news:7plmcj...@mid.individual.net...
>
> > "Inertial" <relativ...@rest.com> wrote in message
> >news:00bf06c9$0$15661$c3e...@news.astraweb.com...
>
> >> There can be properties at a given point, obviously, eg charge.
>
> > At a mathematical point, no charge.
>
> There's no such thing in reality as a 'mathematical point' .. its only a
> concept, or abstraction, or thought. However, a mathematical point can
> correspond to a physical point, and the physical point can have charge.
>
> > Let's say the an electron was a true point "particle"; what would you see
> > if you could be in the same absolute reference frame as that electron?
> > The charge would disappear.
>
> No reason why it should. There can be a charge at a point.
-----------------------
there can be nothing physical (BY DEFINITION !!(
in a point!
2
just see above who was the first one to explain and
prove it so nicely !!!...and clearly (:-)
and so many parrots folowed him lately !!
so there is some satisfaction in my toil !!!.......
3
th e next idea of mine -that is going to be spread widely ----
will be the
'CHAIN OF ORBITALS ' .
(just a little indication but not the only one)
there are a lot of others !!
all chemistry is full of it !!
ATB
Y.Porat
---------------------------------
Henry Wilson DSc
wrote:
>On Dec 26, 7:56�am, "Inertial" <relativ...@rest.com> wrote:
>> "FrediFizzx" <fredifi...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>>
>> news:7plmcj...@mid.individual.net...
>>
>> > "Inertial" <relativ...@rest.com> wrote in message
>> >news:00bf06c9$0$15661$c3e...@news.astraweb.com...
>>
>> >> There can be properties at a given point, obviously, eg charge.
>>
>> > At a mathematical point, no charge.
>>
>> There's no such thing in reality as a 'mathematical point' .. its only a
>> concept, or abstraction, or thought. �However, a mathematical point can
>> correspond to a physical point, and the physical point can have charge.
>>
>> > Let's say the an electron was a true point "particle"; what would you see
>> > if you could be in the same absolute reference frame as that electron?
>> > The charge would disappear.
>>
>> No reason why it should. �There can be a charge at a point.
>-----------------------
>there can be nothing physical (BY DEFINITION !!(
>in a point!
We define space in terms of our familiar 3D space. A point has zero length in
the three dimensions and therefore zero 'volume' (as we define it in our 3D
space).
So we assume a 'point' can have no properties...and I have argued that way many
times in the past.
However, I have learnt to qualify that with a consideration of what might
happen if dimensions exist beyond our known 3D spatial and solitary time ones.
For instance, an entity that occupies spatial lengths 0,0,0 would be classed as
a point. But if it had lengths 0,0,0,2,3,4 in 6D, it would be a 'volume' with
physical properties for which we have no current explanation....eg charge.
>ATB
>Y.Porat
>---------------------------------
Y.Porat
> On Fri, 25 Dec 2009 23:42:13 -0800 (PST), "Y.Porat" <y.y.po...@gmail.com>
many things can be that we dont know
(and surely there are are !!)
but i think that we will never be able to measure
things (or sense them)with dimensions that we have no control on
them !!
as for me
3D is and was always good enough
to handle any physical phenomenon i was dealing with
you can add on it 'Time'
that is nothing but (for me) - relative motion
and yet still - even that is done and sensed by 3D dimensions
iow
i dont see any advantage i adding dimension
(may be i am wrong ?? who knows?
anyway until it is proven that there are
more than 3D
i cant imagine how it will be proven !!
on the other hand i do can tell
how those 3D and out curent experimental data
can be **BETTER UNDERSTOOD **
by getting rid of wrong paradigm
for instance that space is curved
or that photons do not have mass
or that no mass can reach c
the photon does it ...
or that there can be a particle without mass
or that there can be any physical entity
that can be detected without it having mass
ie
no mass - no real physics !!
etc etc
ATB
Y.Porat
------------------------
Henry Wilson DSc
wrote:
>On Dec 26, 11:02�am, ..@..(Henry Wilson DSc) wrote:
We cannot explain action at a distance with our current 4D.
We have no idea what makes space carrying a 'field' different from that which
has none.
We cannot explain why the force between a magnetic field and a current is at
right angles to both.
We have no idea how consciousness connects to the physical world.
We are the highest animal on the evolutionary ladder but we still have a very
long way to go.
>anyway until it is proven that there are
>more than 3D
> i cant imagine how it will be proven !!
>
>on the other hand i do can tell
>how those 3D and out curent experimental data
>can be **BETTER UNDERSTOOD **
>
>by getting rid of wrong paradigm
>for instance that space is curved
>or that photons do not have mass
>
>or that no mass can reach c
>the photon does it ...
plenty of photons go faster than c relative to moving bodies.
Androcles
"Henry Wilson DSc" <..@..> wrote in message
news:1rgfj51567vn8q5bc...@4ax.com...
Three fields. GEM. E and M interact and are bipolar. G is monopolar.
But space is nothing and carries nothing. Dragging space into it can
only add further confusion as the aetherialist morons have shown.
> We cannot explain why the force between a magnetic field and a current is
> at
> right angles to both.
Force? What are talking about? There is no force between
a magnetic field and a current. Perhaps you mean the force
between an egg and a chicken.
> We have no idea how consciousness connects to the physical world.
>
WAY OFF TOPIC! GEM exists without consciousness having
anything to do with it. You would confuse any issue, Wilson.
> We are the highest animal on the evolutionary ladder but we still have a
> very
> long way to go.
The hell we are, we are outnumbered by sharks and they
are outnumbered by beetles, species that are far more
adapted to their environment than human beings. And don't
give me any shit about intelligence either. No other animal
would cut the end of his dick off in the name of religion, or
strap bombs around his waist to blow himself up for either
political reasons or in the name of Allah. Man is INSANE.
glird
>
> Man is INSANE.
MANY decades ago I discovered that Earth is the lunatic asylum of
the Universe. Accordingly, if you are here, you are insane!
unfortunately 4 me, i 2 am here ... :-(
glird
Androcles
"glird" <gl...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:9e255440-809f-4654...@r24g2000yqd.googlegroups.com...
glird
--------------------------------------------------------------------
I don't cut the end of my dick off or commit myself to suicide
bombing or go in for body piercing or even tattoo myself,
I'm not religious.
I wouldn't even get in a boxing ring and try to kick the shit
out of someone else while they kick the shit out of me. If I
have to fight to defend myself I'll use a long range weapon.
The Chinese can top the "British" heroin smuggler anytime
they want and I'm not going to object. "Akmal Shaikh"
is such a famous old Anglo-Saxon name and he's "bipolar".
Have pity on the poor lunatic heroin pedlar? Watch me
fuckin' weep.
Henry Wilson DSc
wrote:
>
>"Henry Wilson DSc" <..@..> wrote in message
>news:1rgfj51567vn8q5bc...@4ax.com...
>> On Sat, 26 Dec 2009 04:37:05 -0800 (PST), "Y.Porat" <y.y....@gmail.com>
>> wrote:
>> We cannot explain action at a distance with our current 4D.
>> We have no idea what makes space carrying a 'field' different from that
>> which
>> has none.
>
>Three fields. GEM. E and M interact and are bipolar. G is monopolar.
>But space is nothing and carries nothing. Dragging space into it can
>only add further confusion as the aetherialist morons have shown.
>
>
>> We cannot explain why the force between a magnetic field and a current is
>> at
>> right angles to both.
>
>Force? What are talking about? There is no force between
>a magnetic field and a current.
Oh dear!
He must have been a civil engineer...
>Perhaps you mean the force
>between an egg and a chicken.
>
>
>
>> We have no idea how consciousness connects to the physical world.
>>
>WAY OFF TOPIC! GEM exists without consciousness having
>anything to do with it. You would confuse any issue, Wilson.
I didn't. I'm simply way ahead of you and the resat of the world.
>> We are the highest animal on the evolutionary ladder but we still have a
>> very
>> long way to go.
>
>The hell we are, we are outnumbered by sharks and they
>are outnumbered by beetles, species that are far more
>adapted to their environment than human beings. And don't
>give me any shit about intelligence either. No other animal
>would cut the end of his dick off in the name of religion, or
>strap bombs around his waist to blow himself up for either
>political reasons or in the name of Allah. Man is INSANE.
You occasionally get something right...
Androcles
"Henry Wilson DSc" <..@..> wrote in message
> On Sun, 27 Dec 2009 22:04:41 -0000, "Androcles"
> <Headm...@Hogwarts.physics_q>
> wrote:
>
>>
>>"Henry Wilson DSc" <..@..> wrote in message
>>news:1rgfj51567vn8q5bc...@4ax.com...
>>> On Sat, 26 Dec 2009 04:37:05 -0800 (PST), "Y.Porat"
>>> <y.y....@gmail.com>
>>> wrote:
>
>>> We cannot explain action at a distance with our current 4D.
>>> We have no idea what makes space carrying a 'field' different from that
>>> which
>>> has none.
>>
>>Three fields. GEM. E and M interact and are bipolar. G is monopolar.
>>But space is nothing and carries nothing. Dragging space into it can
>>only add further confusion as the aetherialist morons have shown.
>>
>>
>>> We cannot explain why the force between a magnetic field and a current
>>> is
>>> at
>>> right angles to both.
>>
>>Force? What are talking about? There is no force between
>>a magnetic field and a current.
>
>
> Oh dear!
> He must have been a civil engineer...
A civil engineer knows the difference between pressure
and flow. Ya gotta turn the tap on to get flow, Wilson, the
pressure reduces when you do that.
>
>>Perhaps you mean the force
>>between an egg and a chicken.
>>
>>
>>
>>> We have no idea how consciousness connects to the physical world.
>>>
>>WAY OFF TOPIC! GEM exists without consciousness having
>>anything to do with it. You would confuse any issue, Wilson.
>
> I didn't. I'm simply way ahead of you and the resat of the world.
You couldn't reseat an inlet valve or a tap washer, let alone the world.
>>> We are the highest animal on the evolutionary ladder but we still have a
>>> very
>>> long way to go.
>>
>>The hell we are, we are outnumbered by sharks and they
>>are outnumbered by beetles, species that are far more
>>adapted to their environment than human beings. And don't
>>give me any shit about intelligence either. No other animal
>>would cut the end of his dick off in the name of religion, or
>>strap bombs around his waist to blow himself up for either
>>political reasons or in the name of Allah. Man is INSANE.
>
> You occasionally get something right...
"Some men, reasoning preposterously, first establish some conclusion
in their minds which, either because of its being their own or because
of their having received it from some person who has their entire
confidence, impresses them so deeply that one finds it impossible
ever to get it out of their heads." - Galileo Galilei.
You are a prime example. Too dumb to understand Kepler's
equation or orbital inclination and insane enough to invent
unifuckation.
'Faced with changing one's mind, or proving that there is no need to do so,
most people get busy on the proof.'- John Kenneth Galbraith
Henry Wilson DSc
wrote:
>
>"Henry Wilson DSc" <..@..> wrote in message
>news:5dsgj5dn0p31ku4g0...@4ax.com...
>> On Sun, 27 Dec 2009 22:04:41 -0000, "Androcles"
>> <Headm...@Hogwarts.physics_q>
>>>
>>>> We cannot explain why the force between a magnetic field and a current
>>>> is
>>>> at
>>>> right angles to both.
>>>
>>>Force? What are talking about? There is no force between
>>>a magnetic field and a current.
>>
>>
>> Oh dear!
>> He must have been a civil engineer...
>
>A civil engineer knows the difference between pressure
>and flow. Ya gotta turn the tap on to get flow, Wilson, the
>pressure reduces when you do that.
So now we know. Pommie engineers use water in their electric motors.
>>>> We have no idea how consciousness connects to the physical world.
>>>>
>>>WAY OFF TOPIC! GEM exists without consciousness having
>>>anything to do with it. You would confuse any issue, Wilson.
>>
>> I didn't. I'm simply way ahead of you and the resat of the world.
>
>You couldn't reseat an inlet valve or a tap washer, let alone the world.
>
>>>> We are the highest animal on the evolutionary ladder but we still have a
>>>> very
>>>> long way to go.
>>>
>>>The hell we are, we are outnumbered by sharks and they
>>>are outnumbered by beetles, species that are far more
>>>adapted to their environment than human beings. And don't
>>>give me any shit about intelligence either. No other animal
>>>would cut the end of his dick off in the name of religion, or
>>>strap bombs around his waist to blow himself up for either
>>>political reasons or in the name of Allah. Man is INSANE.
>>
>> You occasionally get something right...
>
>"Some men, reasoning preposterously, first establish some conclusion
>in their minds which, either because of its being their own or because
>of their having received it from some person who has their entire
>confidence, imppresses them so deeply that one finds it impossible
>ever to get it out of their heads." - Galileo Galilei.
>
>You are a prime example. Too dumb to understand Kepler's
>equation or orbital inclination and insane enough to invent
>unifuckation.
>'Faced with changing one's mind, or proving that there is no need to do so,
>most people get busy on the proof.'- John Kenneth Galbraith
isn't it time you started quoting ME instead of these relatively unimportant
people.
Androcles
"Henry Wilson DSc" <..@..> wrote in message
> On Mon, 28 Dec 2009 12:12:24 -0000, "Androcles"
> <Headm...@Hogwarts.physics_q>
> wrote:
>
>>
>>"Henry Wilson DSc" <..@..> wrote in message
>>news:5dsgj5dn0p31ku4g0...@4ax.com...
>>> On Sun, 27 Dec 2009 22:04:41 -0000, "Androcles"
>>> <Headm...@Hogwarts.physics_q>
>
>>>>
>>>>> We cannot explain why the force between a magnetic field and a current
>>>>> is
>>>>> at
>>>>> right angles to both.
>>>>
>>>>Force? What are talking about? There is no force between
>>>>a magnetic field and a current.
>>>
>>>
>>> Oh dear!
>>> He must have been a civil engineer...
>>
>>A civil engineer knows the difference between pressure
>>and flow. Ya gotta turn the tap on to get flow, Wilson, the
>>pressure reduces when you do that.
>
> So now we know. Pommie engineers use water in their electric motors.
>
>>>>> We have no idea how consciousness connects to the physical world.
>>>>>
>>>>WAY OFF TOPIC! GEM exists without consciousness having
>>>>anything to do with it. You would confuse any issue, Wilson.
>>>
>>> I didn't. I'm simply way ahead of you and the resat of the world.
>>
>>You couldn't reseat an inlet valve or a tap washer, let alone the world.
>>
>>>>> We are the highest animal on the evolutionary ladder but we still have
>>>>> a
>>>>> very
>>>>> long way to go.
>>>>
>>>>The hell we are, we are outnumbered by sharks and they
>>>>are outnumbered by beetles, species that are far more
>>>>adapted to their environment than human beings. And don't
>>>>give me any shit about intelligence either. No other animal
>>>>would cut the end of his dick off in the name of religion, or
>>>>strap bombs around his waist to blow himself up for either
>>>>political reasons or in the name of Allah. Man is INSANE.
>>>
>>> You occasionally get something right...
>>
>>"Some men, reasoning preposterously, first establish some conclusion
>>in their minds which, either because of its being their own or because
>>of their having received it from some person who has their entire
>>confidence, impresses them so deeply that one finds it impossible
>>ever to get it out of their heads." - Galileo Galilei.
>>
>>You are a prime example. Too dumb to understand Kepler's
>>equation or orbital inclination and insane enough to invent
>>unifuckation.
>>'Faced with changing one's mind, or proving that there is no need to do
>>so,
>>most people get busy on the proof.'- John Kenneth Galbraith
>
> isn't it time you started quoting ME instead of these relatively
> unimportant
> people.
Marianne England (ME) was a fine software engineer, but not famous.
Why should I quote her?
Y.Porat
> "Y.Porat" <y.y.po...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>
>
>
>
> > On Dec 30, 11:57 am, "Inertial" <relativ...@rest.com> wrote:
> >> "Y.Porat" <y.y.po...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>
>
> >> > On Dec 30, 8:39 am, Ste <ste_ro...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> >> >> On 29 Dec, 17:35, cjcountess <cjcount...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> >> >> > The Geometrical interpretation of (E=mc^2), contains more info than
> >> >> > equation alone, including electron structure.
>
> >> >> > (E=mc^2), tells us that a lot of energy is trapped inside of matter,
> >> >> > and that they are one, related through mathematical conversion
> >> >> > factor
> >> >> > c^2, but does not show how. Neither can physicist and professors
> >> >> > explain it. See:http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/einstein/experts.html
>
> >> >> When I read that page I almost thought it was a joke, but now I'm not
> >> >> so sure...
>
> >> >> "When an object emits light, say, a flashlight, it gets lighter."
> >> >> Yes, isn't that a dynamite discovery.
>
> >> >> Or perhaps "It's easiest to explain by how things looked from the
> >> >> point of view of Newton."
> >> >> Hmm. In other words, from a point of view without relativity.
>
> >> >> "Ninety-five percent of the mass of matter as we know it comes from
> >> >> energy."
> >> >> What, not 100%?
>
> >> >> "You can get access to parts of nature you have never been able to get
> >> >> access to before."
> >> >> And I presume for mainstream theoretical physicists the part of nature
> >> >> that they have not had access to before is another person's genitalia.
>
> >> > -----------------
> >> > if a particle emits light
> >> > it certainly looses mass
>
> >> Not necessarily .. depends on what you mean by a 'particle'. Like a
> >> small
> >> piece of matter? Or a molecule? Or an atom? Or a subatomic particle?
> >> It
> >> could just lose energy and retain its mass. But obviously the combined
> >> system of photon and particle must conserve energy (including mass
> >> equivalent).
>
> >> > yet
> >> > that is not a grantee that you will be able to notice it ...
>
> >> > because of the probability that a particle
> >> > has the ability ('talent' ..)
> >> > TO RECOVER ITS MASS LOSS BY GETTING IT AGAIN FROM ITS ENVIRONMENT !!!
>
> >> Depends on whether whatever-it-is loses any mass in the first place, and
> >> whether there is any reason for it to gain mass again. Again, as long as
> >> the total energy (including mass equivalent) of the system is conserved.
>
> > -------------------
> > Feuerbacher
>
> Not me
>
> > do you have something else in your mind
> > except Y.Porat
>
> Its called physics. Though you seem obsessed with me, even though you don't
> know who I am
>
> > it looks like a psychotic obsession .....
>
> Yes.. you do seem psychotically obsessed
>
> > ???
> > i am tired of you
>
> Go away then
>
> > are you not tired of me ???
>
> Your insults and mistakes do become repetitive.
>
> > why dont you get of my back ??
>
> I'm not on it. You're still posting insults and lies about me though .. so
> clearly you have issues.
>
> > as a **sane** human being would do ??
>
> How would you have ANY idea what a sane human being would do?
>
> I will reply to whatever threads I want with relevant physics and reasonable
> discussion. You should try that sometime .. instead of insults and
> nonsense.
--------------
OK Fuerbacher
anyone can see now that the only language that
a psychopath Nazi pig like you understand is war
so you will get what you like War
!!....
(so excuse me the other readers )
Y.P
----------------------------
PD
No. You have decided that because the word "spin" is used, and that is
the same word that is used to describe a dinner plate or a ball or a
block when it rotates about an axis, then it must mean that ANYTHING
that is spinning must be rotating about an axis. But this is not the
case. The word "spin" as used in quantum mechanics, and the property
that is associated with electrons, does NOT HAVE THE SAME MEANING as
the word that is used with dinner plates and balls and blocks.
PD
> On Dec 26, 7:56 am, "Inertial" <relativ...@rest.com> wrote:
>
> > "FrediFizzx" <fredifi...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>
> >news:7plmcj...@mid.individual.net...
>
> > > "Inertial" <relativ...@rest.com> wrote in message
> > >news:00bf06c9$0$15661$c3e...@news.astraweb.com...
>
> > >> There can be properties at a given point, obviously, eg charge.
>
> > > At a mathematical point, no charge.
>
> > There's no such thing in reality as a 'mathematical point' .. its only a
> > concept, or abstraction, or thought. However, a mathematical point can
> > correspond to a physical point, and the physical point can have charge.
>
> > > Let's say the an electron was a true point "particle"; what would you see
> > > if you could be in the same absolute reference frame as that electron?
> > > The charge would disappear.
>
> > No reason why it should. There can be a charge at a point.
>
> -----------------------
> there can be nothing physical (BY DEFINITION !!(
> in a point!
That's because you are using a crappy definition of "physical".
Your definition of "physical" includes "having 3 dimensional extent".
That's what makes it a crappy definition.
PD
> On Fri, 25 Dec 2009 23:42:13 -0800 (PST), "Y.Porat" <y.y.po...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
>
>
> >On Dec 26, 7:56 am, "Inertial" <relativ...@rest.com> wrote:
> >> "FrediFizzx" <fredifi...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>
> >>news:7plmcj...@mid.individual.net...
>
> >> > "Inertial" <relativ...@rest.com> wrote in message
> >> >news:00bf06c9$0$15661$c3e...@news.astraweb.com...
>
> >> >> There can be properties at a given point, obviously, eg charge.
>
> >> > At a mathematical point, no charge.
>
> >> There's no such thing in reality as a 'mathematical point' .. its only a
> >> concept, or abstraction, or thought. However, a mathematical point can
> >> correspond to a physical point, and the physical point can have charge.
>
> >> > Let's say the an electron was a true point "particle"; what would you see
> >> > if you could be in the same absolute reference frame as that electron?
> >> > The charge would disappear.
>
> >> No reason why it should. There can be a charge at a point.
> >-----------------------
> >there can be nothing physical (BY DEFINITION !!(
> >in a point!
>
> We define space in terms of our familiar 3D space. A point has zero length in
> the three dimensions and therefore zero 'volume' (as we define it in our 3D
> space).
> So we assume a 'point' can have no properties
Why would you assume that?
Henry Wilson DSc
Because physically speaking, it is NOTHING.
It is a mathematical tool.
>>...and I have argued that way many
>> times in the past.
>>
>> However, I have learnt to qualify that with a consideration of what might
>> happen if dimensions exist beyond our known 3D spatial and solitary time ones.
>>
>> For instance, an entity that occupies spatial lengths 0,0,0 would be classed as
>> a point. But if it had lengths 0,0,0,2,3,4 in 6D, it would be a 'volume' with
>> physical properties for which we have no current explanation....eg charge.
>>
>> >ATB
>> >Y.Porat
>> >---------------------------------
>>
>> Henry Wilson...www.scisite.info/index.htm
>>
>> � � � �Selling something that doesn't exist is a serious crime....unless it's called god.
Henry Wilson...
Save the Planet....support my ONE-AND-A-HALF CHILD policy.
www.scisite.info/solution.rtf
Henry Wilson DSc
>On Dec 26, 1:42�am, "Y.Porat" <y.y.po...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On Dec 26, 7:56�am, "Inertial" <relativ...@rest.com> wrote:
>>
>> > "FrediFizzx" <fredifi...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>>
>> >news:7plmcj...@mid.individual.net...
>>
>> > > "Inertial" <relativ...@rest.com> wrote in message
>> > >news:00bf06c9$0$15661$c3e...@news.astraweb.com...
>>
>> > >> There can be properties at a given point, obviously, eg charge.
>>
>> > > At a mathematical point, no charge.
>>
>> > There's no such thing in reality as a 'mathematical point' .. its only a
>> > concept, or abstraction, or thought. �However, a mathematical point can
>> > correspond to a physical point, and the physical point can have charge.
>>
>> > > Let's say the an electron was a true point "particle"; what would you see
>> > > if you could be in the same absolute reference frame as that electron?
>> > > The charge would disappear.
>>
>> > No reason why it should. �There can be a charge at a point.
>>
>> -----------------------
>> there can be nothing physical (BY DEFINITION !!(
>> in a point!
>
>That's because you are using a crappy definition of "physical".
>Your definition of "physical" includes "having 3 dimensional extent".
>That's what makes it a crappy definition.
You seem to have had another of your brain seizures.
Having no "3 dimensional extent" means it is NOTHING in our familiar 3D.
'Nothing' has NO physical properties as defined in 3D. However if other
dimensions exist, an 'object' occupying zero x,y,z space can certainly have
'volume' and properties in a,b,c space at a particular x,y,z POINT.
get it?
>> 2
>> just see above who was the first one to explain and
>> prove it so � �nicely !!!...and clearly �(:-)
>> and so many parrots folowed him lately !!
>>
>> so there is some satisfaction in my toil �!!!.......
>> 3
>> th e �next idea �of mine -that is going to be spread widely ----
>> will be the
>> 'CHAIN OF ORBITALS �' � .
>> (just a little indication �but not the only one)
>> there are a lot of others !!
>> �all � � �chemistry is full of it !!
>>
>> ATB
>> Y.Porat
>> ---------------------------------
PD
Not so. It is a SOMETHING that has zero volume. I don't know where you
got the fool idea that anything that is SOMETHING must have nonzero
volume.
> It is a mathematical tool.
So is a perfect cube. And a perfect cube has extent in all three
dimensions and therefore has the properties of length, height, and
width. Even though it is a mathematical tool.
PD
> On Wed, 30 Dec 2009 11:19:04 -0800 (PST), PD <thedraperfam...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >On Dec 26, 1:42 am, "Y.Porat" <y.y.po...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >> On Dec 26, 7:56 am, "Inertial" <relativ...@rest.com> wrote:
>
> >> > "FrediFizzx" <fredifi...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>
> >> >news:7plmcj...@mid.individual.net...
>
> >> > > "Inertial" <relativ...@rest.com> wrote in message
> >> > >news:00bf06c9$0$15661$c3e...@news.astraweb.com...
>
> >> > >> There can be properties at a given point, obviously, eg charge.
>
> >> > > At a mathematical point, no charge.
>
> >> > There's no such thing in reality as a 'mathematical point' .. its only a
> >> > concept, or abstraction, or thought. However, a mathematical point can
> >> > correspond to a physical point, and the physical point can have charge.
>
> >> > > Let's say the an electron was a true point "particle"; what would you see
> >> > > if you could be in the same absolute reference frame as that electron?
> >> > > The charge would disappear.
>
> >> > No reason why it should. There can be a charge at a point.
>
> >> -----------------------
> >> there can be nothing physical (BY DEFINITION !!(
> >> in a point!
>
> >That's because you are using a crappy definition of "physical".
> >Your definition of "physical" includes "having 3 dimensional extent".
> >That's what makes it a crappy definition.
>
> You seem to have had another of your brain seizures.
> Having no "3 dimensional extent" means it is NOTHING in our familiar 3D.
I don't know where you got that fool idea. If something has no 3
dimensional extent, then it is a SOMETHING with zero volume.
Henry Wilson DSc
>On Dec 30, 2:27�pm, ..@..(Henry Wilson DSc) wrote:
>> On Wed, 30 Dec 2009 11:19:04 -0800 (PST), PD <thedraperfam...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> >On Dec 26, 1:42�am, "Y.Porat" <y.y.po...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> >> On Dec 26, 7:56�am, "Inertial" <relativ...@rest.com> wrote:
>>
>> >> there can be nothing physical (BY DEFINITION !!(
>> >> in a point!
>>
>> >That's because you are using a crappy definition of "physical".
>> >Your definition of "physical" includes "having 3 dimensional extent".
>> >That's what makes it a crappy definition.
>>
>> You seem to have had another of your brain seizures.
>> Having no "3 dimensional extent" means it is NOTHING in our familiar 3D.
>
>I don't know where you got that fool idea. If something has no 3
>dimensional extent, then it is a SOMETHING with zero volume.
It is a mathematical convenience.
It is not a physical thing.
>> 'Nothing' has NO physical properties as defined in 3D. However if other
>> dimensions exist, an 'object' occupying zero x,y,z space can certainly have
>> 'volume' and properties in a,b,c space at a particular x,y,z POINT.
>>
>> get it?
No you don't...you don't have the faintest idea of what I'm talking about.
Y.Porat
-thyank you PD for teaching me
WAHT I KNOW LONG AGO (:-)
it seems that you missed completely my point
a saied that the Stern geralch experiment
shoes two fases of the electron
i even would sat two FACES OF THE ELECTRON
with its GEOMETRICAL MEANING
similarily as you have your rigth and left sides
now
suppose you has (God forbid) just one hand:
if you make a picture of yourself thrm your front side
it is not as if you picture youself from your back side !!
so in that case you have two faces
with a definit geometric meaning
in that case you are not a point or a sphere
in that case you have and
INTRINSIC GEOMETRIC STRUCTURE
and it firther means that you are not one unit
bnut you are
SUB DIVIDED !!
or else you would not have two faces positions
so
while i said rotating arounfd a longitudinal axis
it is rotation of
ONLY 180 DEG AND THEN **FULL STOP**
NO MORE ROTATION!!
(it is not the common spinning
AND THAT IS WHAT THE SG EXPERIMENT
INDICATES clearely !!
( for people who are ** not** just
flat paper mathematicians
who can see only a flat paper and letters on it !!!...)
ATB
Y.Porat
------------------------
PD
> On Wed, 30 Dec 2009 15:33:21 -0800 (PST), PD <thedraperfam...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >On Dec 30, 2:27 pm, ..@..(Henry Wilson DSc) wrote:
> >> On Wed, 30 Dec 2009 11:19:04 -0800 (PST), PD <thedraperfam...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >> >On Dec 26, 1:42 am, "Y.Porat" <y.y.po...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >> >> On Dec 26, 7:56 am, "Inertial" <relativ...@rest.com> wrote:
>
> >> >> there can be nothing physical (BY DEFINITION !!(
> >> >> in a point!
>
> >> >That's because you are using a crappy definition of "physical".
> >> >Your definition of "physical" includes "having 3 dimensional extent".
> >> >That's what makes it a crappy definition.
>
> >> You seem to have had another of your brain seizures.
> >> Having no "3 dimensional extent" means it is NOTHING in our familiar 3D.
>
> >I don't know where you got that fool idea. If something has no 3
> >dimensional extent, then it is a SOMETHING with zero volume.
>
> It is a mathematical convenience.
> It is not a physical thing.
I don't know where you got the foolish idea that something with no 3D
extent cannot be a physical thing. Where did this come from?
Y.Porat
> On Dec 26, 3:55 pm, Anti Vigilante <antivigila...@pyrabang.com> wrote:
>
> > On Fri, 25 Dec 2009 15:16:00 +0000, Androcles wrote:
> > > "Anti Vigilante" <antivigila...@pyrabang.com> wrote in message
>
> > >> [begin masturbation]
> > >> But this is all beside the point: I want to know ... [/end
> > >> masturbation]
>
> > > What's the point?
>
> > But this is all beside the point: I want to know what causes charge,
> > mass, strangeness, charm/beauty, spin; all these descriptive terms that
> > have a mathematical model but lack a physical one.
>
> That depends on what you mean by a "physical model". Does a physical
> model NECESSARILY involve objects that have 3D extent?
> If so, then WHY?
>
> > For this purpose the
> > electron can no longer be approximated as a point particle.
>
> > --
> > Fuck the Enlightenment! Viva la Renaissance!
----------------
the very fact that the electron has a charge
is aprove that it i s not a 'final 'particle
but rather sub composed !!!it is composed amung theothers
by [hysical entities (always with mass
no mass no realphysics - remember ? (:-))
so it has sub massive entities that can be
'fountained' outwards and come back
that is one points to look for my
Circlon idea !!!
a absic particle that moves naturally**
in closed circles - if not dsiturbed on its way !!
ishggest as well
the eel model iow
a sub chain of orbitals
now if you folow that idea in my abstrat
you see there that
orbitald can combine to a linear
chain of orbitals
yet we have here another property of
those chains
ie (a rule that i found by observing them
and their producte)
according that rule
WHILE ORBITALS ARE COMBINED
IT IS ALWAYS BY A CHANGE IN DIRECTION LIKE SAY 30 OR 60
OR EVEN 90 deg !!!
you can sse it all along my model
its chemical applications nuclear etc etc
now
if you atke the electron as a chain of orbitals
**the last one onthe chain that i described it to PD as a free hand
(free means connected cantileverly
to the main body as a sort of a hand streching out )
so if it is streched sidways from the linear longitudinal axis of the
eelctron
you get
an un symmetric structure
(as if you strech jsut one hand of yours
upwards and sidewards)
that asymetric structure
has a front face and a back face
ie
only 2 faces to actually the same body !!!
and here comes the surprizing point
**it fits nicely the SG experiment
ie
some of the electrons withturn in the magnetic field - to right'
and the other 50 percent to left
because of the asymetric structure
as i described above
and trhe random posibility of 50 50
to be caught by the magnetic field to the left
and the other 50 percent to be caught
to rigth'
(nad once caught it stops rotating and held stedy in that last
position
and that waht you get in the SG experiment
i hope i made my self clear with my clumsy verbal talent
anyway
one picture is worth a hundred words
(if not a thousand one) (:-)
(shell i make a copyright on that explanation ?? (:-)
btw that explantion is for me privately in my mind
many many yrears ago !!!
TIA to thinking honest people
not to parrot hostile crooks )
Y.Porat
-------------------
Henry Wilson DSc
>On Dec 30, 7:30�pm, ..@..(Henry Wilson DSc) wrote:
>> On Wed, 30 Dec 2009 15:33:21 -0800 (PST), PD <thedraperfam...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> >On Dec 30, 2:27�pm, ..@..(Henry Wilson DSc) wrote:
>> >> On Wed, 30 Dec 2009 11:19:04 -0800 (PST), PD <thedraperfam...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> >> >On Dec 26, 1:42�am, "Y.Porat" <y.y.po...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> >> >> On Dec 26, 7:56�am, "Inertial" <relativ...@rest.com> wrote:
>>
>> >> >> there can be nothing physical (BY DEFINITION !!(
>> >> >> in a point!
>>
>> >> >That's because you are using a crappy definition of "physical".
>> >> >Your definition of "physical" includes "having 3 dimensional extent".
>> >> >That's what makes it a crappy definition.
>>
>> >> You seem to have had another of your brain seizures.
>> >> Having no "3 dimensional extent" means it is NOTHING in our familiar 3D.
>>
>> >I don't know where you got that fool idea. If something has no 3
>> >dimensional extent, then it is a SOMETHING with zero volume.
>>
>> It is a mathematical convenience.
>> It is not a physical thing.
>
>I don't know where you got the foolish idea that something with no 3D
>extent cannot be a physical thing. Where did this come from?
experience and knowledge along with common sense.
That probably means you will never understand.
PD
> On Thu, 31 Dec 2009 07:58:54 -0800 (PST), PD <thedraperfam...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >On Dec 30, 7:30 pm, ..@..(Henry Wilson DSc) wrote:
> >> On Wed, 30 Dec 2009 15:33:21 -0800 (PST), PD <thedraperfam...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >> >On Dec 30, 2:27 pm, ..@..(Henry Wilson DSc) wrote:
> >> >> On Wed, 30 Dec 2009 11:19:04 -0800 (PST), PD <thedraperfam...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >> >> >On Dec 26, 1:42 am, "Y.Porat" <y.y.po...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >> >> >> On Dec 26, 7:56 am, "Inertial" <relativ...@rest.com> wrote:
>
> >> >> >> there can be nothing physical (BY DEFINITION !!(
> >> >> >> in a point!
>
> >> >> >That's because you are using a crappy definition of "physical".
> >> >> >Your definition of "physical" includes "having 3 dimensional extent".
> >> >> >That's what makes it a crappy definition.
>
> >> >> You seem to have had another of your brain seizures.
> >> >> Having no "3 dimensional extent" means it is NOTHING in our familiar 3D.
>
> >> >I don't know where you got that fool idea. If something has no 3
> >> >dimensional extent, then it is a SOMETHING with zero volume.
>
> >> It is a mathematical convenience.
> >> It is not a physical thing.
>
> >I don't know where you got the foolish idea that something with no 3D
> >extent cannot be a physical thing. Where did this come from?
>
> experience and knowledge along with common sense.
Well, that's what you get for putting your faith in your common sense,
Henri.
But on the other hand, if you rely on what makes sense in your own
head to judge truth, you'll never have any cause to believe you've
been mistaken about anything. So whatever floats your boat.