An electron changes a quark
mitch.nico...@gmail.com
forced together. This is an oxymoron. Also interesting is when forced
together they become a neutron and this is due to one of the protons
quarks being transmuted by the electron. An understanding of how a
lepton can change a sub hadron should be forthcoming.
Mitch Raemsch Twice Nobel Laureate 2008
Igor
> Protons and electrons are attractive and at the same time they must be
> forced together. This is an oxymoron. Also interesting is when forced
> together they become a neutron and this is due to one of the protons
> quarks being transmuted by the electron. An understanding of how a
> lepton can change a sub hadron should be forthcoming.
Look up the hypothetical hyperweak interaction. They'll be a test
later, which you are sure to fail, and hopefully be banned from
sci.physics forever.
mitch.nico...@gmail.com
There is no weak force. There is radioactive instability in my
opinion. They got it wrong having to call it a force.
PD
Mitch, Halley's comet is attracted to the sun by the force of gravity.
Yet, every 76 years or so, it passes its closest point to the sun
(perihelion) and then gets further away from the sun. It does this
without gravity turning into a repulsive force to push the comet away.
It has repeated this behavior in documented fashion for thousands of
years. It would be useful for you to understand how this can happen
without being any oxymoron.
PD
mitch.nico...@gmail.com
The only answer is that atomic shells hold electrons and protons at
bay. Otherwise their attraction would bring them together. But what
are shells made of?
Demicritus said atoms are little hard things.
Rock Brentwood
> There is no weak force. There is radioactive instability in my
> opinion. They got it wrong having to call it a force.
That's precisely what characterizes a non-Abelian gauge force -- the
flavor-changing interactions that underlie radioactive instability.
So, it's a force even by your own account. The electroweak force is
described by a field law comprising a non-linear variant of Maxwell's
equations and the quantized version of the force accords well with
experimental data. This is decades beyond guess work. People are way
past the point of having to guess "oh, I think this is a gauge force",
and are at the point of precisely fitting decay ratios and times
predicted by the quantized theory. GSW would never even had made the
research literature in the first place were it not for this level of
matching with experimental data.
Enes
>
> - Pokaż cytowany tekst -
>
>
Twice Mitch Raemsch,
you must have to know, that electrons (electropositrons rather) and
nucleons ( so, protons too) are build with the ~sames submassiv
paricles, which have (+) on one side and (-) on another once
( summary ~0).
]ohn from Enes
Enes
> On 24 Kwi, 07:24, mitch.nicolas.raem...@gmail.com wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Apr 20, 1:26 pm, PD <TheDraperFam...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > On Apr 19, 9:09 pm, mitch.nicolas.raem...@gmail.com wrote:
>
> > > > Protons and electrons are attractive and at the same time they must be
> > > > forced together. This is an oxymoron. Also interesting is when forced
> > > > together they become a neutron and this is due to one of the protons
> > > > quarks being transmuted by the electron. An understanding of how a
> > > > lepton can change a sub hadron should be forthcoming.
>
> > > > Mitch Raemsch Twice Nobel Laureate 2008
>
> > > Mitch, Halley's comet is attracted to the sun by the force of gravity.
> > > Yet, every 76 years or so, it passes its closest point to the sun
> > > (perihelion) and then gets further away from the sun. It does this
> > > without gravity turning into a repulsive force to push the comet away.
> > > It has repeated this behavior in documented fashion for thousands of
> > > years. It would be useful for you to understand how this can happen
> > > without being any oxymoron.
>
> > > PD
>
> > The only answer is that atomic shells hold electrons and protons at
> > bay. Otherwise their attraction would bring them together. But what
> > are shells made of?
>
> > Demicritus said atoms are little hard things.
>
> > Mitch Raemsch Twice Nobel Laureate 2008- Ukryj cytowany tekst -
>
>
> Twice Mitch Raemsch,
> you must have to know, that electrons (electropositrons rather) and
> nucleons ( so, protons too) are build with the ~sames submassiv
> paricles, which have (+) on one side and (-) on another once
> ( summary ~0).
>
>
> - Pokaż cytowany tekst -
Mitch, what*s about you ?
Yes, it*s new, but easy to understand :)
Let me show you an example:
http://tiny.comm.pl/?0HC
hanson
>
<mitch.nico...@gmail.com>
Twice Mitch Raemsch,
Mitch, what's about you ?
Yes, it's new, but easy to understand :)
>
Enes wrote
Let me show you, Raemsch, an example:
http://tiny.comm.pl/?0HC
http://www.atto.fysik.lth.se/
>
hanson wrote:
No, Raemsch won't understand. He is a sample of the
latter-day issues of the Einstein Dingleberries... ahaha..
So, never mind Raemsch. Raemsch does not play with
a full deck, nor does he have all the cups in his cupboard
... but he compulsively pisses into each and every post...
like a filthy little homeless street mutt in his hope to get
noticed.... ahahahaha....
>
Anyways "Enes"... your link http://www.atto.fysik.lth.se/
is quite interesting. But what does that have to do with
"An electron changes a quark"?....
BTW, is that YOUR stuff, YOUR Website?
Which one of these authors are you?
Have you PhD'd by now?
hanson
Enes
> "Enes" <pies_na_teo...@gazeta.pl> wrote to
>
> <mitch.nicolas.raem...@gmail.com>
> Twice Mitch Raemsch,
> Mitch, what's about you ?
> Yes, it's new, but easy to understand :)
>
> Enes wrote
>
> hanson wrote:
>
> No, Raemsch won't understand. He is a sample of the
> latter-day issues of the Einstein Dingleberries... ahaha..
> So, never mind Raemsch. Raemsch does not play with
> a full deck, nor does he have all the cups in his cupboard
> ... but he compulsively pisses into each and every post...
> like a filthy little homeless street mutt in his hope to get
> noticed.... ahahahaha....
>
He removed his "twice Nobel "
> Anyways "Enes"... your linkhttp://www.atto.fysik.lth.se/
> is quite interesting. But what does that have to do with
> "An electron changes a quark"?....
> BTW, is that YOUR stuff, YOUR Website?
> Which one of these authors are you?
> Have you PhD'd by now?
> hanson
>
It is not my website, but there is experiment good to explain
electropositron hypothesis. They do not know about it and return to
Kepler*s laws to explain.
I,m not PhD, an engineer-constructor and iventor, only.
PD
Atomic shells hold Halley's comet at bay from the sun?
mitch.nico...@gmail.com
>
> - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
Non sequiter
PD
You probably mean "non sequitur".
But actually, it DOES follow.
You apparently would *like* to say that the only thing that keeps
electrons from falling into protons is material atomic shells.
But the question you haven't asked yourself yet is why anything is
needed at all. And as another example of a case where nothing is
needed at all, I mentioned Halley's comet, which is gravitationally
*attracted* to the Sun (not repelled) and yet both approaches and
recedes from the Sun every seven decades, without needing anything to
keep it from falling in.
So when you understand how something can behave that way, even though
it is under the influence of a purely attractive force, and without
anything holding it out, then you might -- just might -- see that the
material atomic shells you imagine are necessary in the atom are not
necessary at all.
PD
Enes
> On 30 Kwi, 23:48, "hanson" <han...@quick.net> wrote:
...
> > Anyways "Enes"... your linkhttp://www.atto.fysik.lth.se/
> > is quite interesting. But what does that have to do with
> > "An electron changes a quark"?....
...
Electropositron hypothesis predict submassive particle with +/-
charge. The same particles build leptons and nucleons (let it be, that
quarks as parton"s substitutes too ).
hanson
news:aa04ee36-3126-4d65...@x41g2000hsb.googlegroups.com...
I,ve forgotten:
>
> On 30 Kwi, 23:48, "hanson" <han...@quick.net> wrote:
> > Anyways "Enes"... your linkhttp://www.atto.fysik.lth.se/
> > is quite interesting. But what does that have to do with
> > "An electron changes a quark"?....
...
Electropositron hypothesis predict submassive particle with +/-
charge. The same particles build leptons and nucleons (let it be, that
quarks as parton"s substitutes too ).
>
ahahaha.. ok. if you say so. It would be of course nicer
if you'd make an experiment and then brag about it's
out-come which you predicted. Till then thanks for the
laughs... ahahahaha... ahahahanson
mitch.nico...@gmail.com
>
> - Show quoted text -
An electron transmutes a quark. How can a lepton transmute a baryon?
Mitch Raemsch
PD
No, it doesn't. A W boson does.
Enes
> "Enes" <pies_na_teo...@gazeta.pl> wrote in message
>
> news:aa04ee36-3126-4d65...@x41g2000hsb.googlegroups.com...
> I,ve forgotten:
>
> > On 30 Kwi, 23:48, "hanson" <han...@quick.net> wrote:
> > > Anyways "Enes"... your linkhttp://www.atto.fysik.lth.se/
> > > is quite interesting. But what does that have to do with
> > > "An electron changes a quark"?....
>
> ...
> Electropositron hypothesis predict submassive particle with +/-
> charge. The same particles build leptons and nucleons (let it be, that
> quarks as parton"s substitutes too ).
>
> hanson wrote:
>
> ahahaha.. ok. if you say so. It would be of course nicer
> if you'd make an experiment and then brag about it's
> out-come which you predicted. Till then thanks for the
> laughs... ahahahaha... ahahahanson
Hanson,
there are many phenomenons, even Androcles can explain,
thanks to electropositron hypothesis. For instance:
- radiation of akcelerated electrons,
- luminescence,
- Sun or fire radiation,
- ...
Hypothesis predict halfantihydrogen, may be even natural
between H2.
If it"s true, Androcles can register hard radiation when H2
becomes H.
I don"t know. May be Androcles can and know, can"t He ?
]ohn from Enes
mitch.nico...@gmail.com
>
> - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
Combining an electron with a proton into a neutron requires force. But
they are supposed to be electrically attractive.
Non sequitur.
Enes
>
> - Pokaż cytowany tekst -
Mitch,
take new hypothesis (submassive +/- particle) and solve your atomic
problems yourself.
Don"t hide your head like an ostrich.
Chicken ???
mitch.nico...@gmail.com
>
> - Show quoted text
Particles of different charge should attract.
foolsrushout
>>
>
>>- Show quoted text
>
>
> Particles of different charge should attract.
Assuming for a moment that they do, proximity isn't unity.
Enes
>
> - Pokaż cytowany tekst -
Obviously yes, but there is / between. Can not you see ?
mitch.nico...@gmail.com
>
> >>- Show quoted text
>
> > Particles of different charge should attract.
>
>
> - Show quoted text -
That opposite electric charge is attraction is not an assumption.
Mitch Raemsch
mitch.nico...@gmail.com
(the EM gravity and) strong.
Only the strong force binds quarks.
Mitch Raemsch
Enes
Yes Mitch, fuck that all and don't believe in fabulist"s colors,
smells or flavors. They devised strong and weak nuclear forces too.
What for ? EM and gravity are enough ( but particle +/- must be
known).
Fabulists devised quarks too, as a parton"s substitutes.
Enes
>
> - Pokaż cytowany tekst -
Hanson,
would you mind ask Androcles for radiation when H2 ->H
P.s.
Nothing about halfantihydrogen, don"t irritate him yet.
Autymn D. C.
You familiar with the elèctròn's elèctronic dipole moment?
Autymn D. C.
> they are supposed to be electrically attractive.
>
> Non sequitur.
Hydrogen is a two-body sýstem; a neutròn is a one-body (collective,
but nonetheless). The third body of [anti]neutrino keeps the reaction
happy--the neutrino comes out of the protòn-elèctròn superpotential,
where super- means excess.
-Aut
PD
A neutron weighs more than a proton plus an electron. So being
electrically attracted doesn't solve that problem.
>
> Non sequitur.
Enes
>
> - Pokaż cytowany tekst -
I don,t know what do you realy want.
Please ask me again (without familiar ;), can you ?
Btw:
+/- particle gives us many possibilities. For instance there was 2
electropositron helium models. The Swedish experiment confirm only one
of them.
Enes ]ohn
Autymn D. C.
> > You familiar with the elèctròn's elèctronic dipole moment?
>
> Please ask me again (without familiar ;), can you ?
Are you aware of its measurement and how that constrains your new
leptòn?
> Btw:
> +/- particle gives us many possibilities. For instance there was 2
> electropositron helium models. The Swedish experiment confirm only one
> of them.
how?
mitch.nico...@gmail.com
Electron and protons are attractive but they do not come together
without force. This is a contradiction.
Mitch Raemsch
>
>
>
>
> > Non sequitur.- Hide quoted text -
Y.Porat
> On May 2, 7:33 pm, mitch.nicolas.raem...@gmail.com wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On May 2, 1:16 pm, PD <TheDraperFam...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > On May 2, 2:54 pm, mitch.nicolas.raem...@gmail.com wrote:
>
> > > > On May 2, 5:42 am, PD <TheDraperFam...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > > On May 1, 3:11 pm, mitch.nicolas.raem...@gmail.com wrote:
>
> > > > > > On May 1, 8:59 am, PD <TheDraperFam...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > > > > On Apr 24, 12:24 am, mitch.nicolas.raem...@gmail.com wrote:
>
> > > > > > > > On Apr 20, 1:26 pm, PD <TheDraperFam...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > > > > > > On Apr 19, 9:09 pm, mitch.nicolas.raem...@gmail.com wrote:
>
> > > > > > > > > > Protons and electrons are attractive and at the same time they must be
>
> > > > > > > > > PD
>
> > > > > > > > The only answer is that atomic shells hold electrons and protons at
> > > > > > > > bay. Otherwise their attraction would bring them together. But what
> > > > > > > > are shells made of?
>
> > > > > > > Atomic shells hold Halley's comet at bay from the sun?
>
> > > > > > > > Demicritus said atoms are little hard things.
>
> > > > > > Non sequiter
>
> > > > > You probably mean "non sequitur".
>
> > > > > But actually, it DOES follow.
>
> > > > > You apparently would *like* to say that the only thing that keeps
> > > > > electrons from falling into protons is material atomic shells.
>
> > > > > But the question you haven't asked yourself yet is >
> > > > > it is under the influence of a purely attractive force, and without
> > > > > anything holding it out, then you might -- just might -- see that the
> > > > > material atomic shells you imagine are necessary in the atom are not
> > > > > necessary at all.
>
> > > > > PD- Hide quoted text -
>
> > > > > - Show quoted text -
>
> > > > An electron transmutes a quark.
>
> > > No, it doesn't. A W boson does.
>
> > > > How can a lepton transmute a baryon?
>
> > > > Mitch Raemsch- Hide quoted text -
>
> > > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>
> > > - Show quoted text -
>
> > Combining an electron with a proton into a neutron requires force. But
> > they are supposed to be electrically attractive.
>
> A neutron weighs more than a proton plus an electron. So being
> electrically attracted doesn't solve that problem.
>
>
>
>
>
>
> - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
----------------
yes but you dont know why
one of the problems is something that is non existsnt in
curent pompous modern physics
ie
the geometric structure of all those components
there must be some geometric 'fitness'
(geometric composition ability)
so geometric needed features are an aditional
condition for particle combination!!!!!
now
dont forget who told you that for the first time !!
ie
who is the copyrighter of it
so that you cant say later thatit is well known 80 years ago !!!
Y.Porat
-------------------------
Enes
> On May 6, 12:07 pm, Enes <pies_na_teo...@gazeta.pl> wrote:
>
> > Btw:
> > +/- particle gives us many possibilities. For instance there was 2
> > electropositron helium models. The Swedish experiment confirm only one
> > of them.
>
> how?
>
No 1.
Electropositron helium model,
theoretical possible but not real confirm.
(1 cycle, 1D substitute -to easy understanding)
(+)....[+8+]....(+)
(0)........[+8+]........ (0)
(-)................[+8+]................ (-)
(0)........[+8+]........ (0)
(+)....[+8+]....(+)
No 2 .
Electropositron helium model,
(1 cycle, 1D substitute -to easy understanding).
theoretical possible and experiment confirm.
Fig.3.
>> Article in Physical Review Letters
(Sorry but They do not know about electropositron hypothesis, yet !)
(-)................[+8+]...(+)
(0).........[+8+].........(0)
(+)....[+8+]................(-)
(0).........[+8+].........(0)
(-)................[+8+]...(+)
[+8+] - nucleus : 2 protons and 2 neutrons,
(-) - electropositron ( electron phase),
(0) - electropositron ( neutral phase),
(+) –electropositron (positron phase) ,
Enes
Enes
2 No 2 :
http://www.atto.fysik.lth.se/
go to -> Article in Physical Review Letters
and then go to -> Fig.3.
Y.y.Porat
>
> - Show quoted text -
-----------------
in adition to th e above
i am looking fo r a proper word for that
'geometric fitness'
so may be as well in addition to the other properties--
'geometric compatibiliy' for bonding
that is something that is commpletely missing
in modern physics
(and no wondered that it was discovered by
a well experienced and trained structural engineer !!
and not by a theoretist mathematician )
ATB
Y.Porat
------------
PD
Halley's comet and the Sun are attractive, but they do not come
together without force. Is that a contradiction, Mitch?
mitch.nico...@gmail.com
Gravity is not a force.
Electrons and protons are attractive by electric force but they have
to be forced together. Such a contradiction.
>
>
> > Mitch Raemsch
>
> > > > Non sequitur.- Hide quoted text -
>
> > > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>
Enes
>
> - Pokaż cytowany tekst -
Porat,
you are right and your "geometric compatibility" is good.
How can anybody even real think without any logical&geometrical
model ???
Only fabulists can and they made modern physics (quantium specially !).
PD
Well, there you go! Well done, Mitch. Make it up as you go along.
Enes
>
> - Pokaż cytowany tekst -
If you say hydrogen you mean H. Why not H2 ?
H2 is basic form. Where is more energy ( 2 H or H2 ) ???
mitch.nico...@gmail.com
Protons and electrons attract yet they do not come together without
being forced. That is a mutual contradiction.
Mitch Raemsch