A prove that the electron is not a point particle!!
Y.Porat
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
ATB
and TIA
Y.Porat
-----------------------------------
Y.Porat
oh yes !
i forgot to add that
the above is a prove that
THE ELECTRON IS SUBDIVIDED
as well !!
ATB
Y.Porat
--------------------------------
BURT
>
> - Show quoted text -
Can we measure its spin? If it is pointlike it can't rotate.
We have never measured the rotation of a proton of neutron either.
Maybe spin will disappear as a mistake from theory porat.
Mitch Raemsch
Jonah Thomas
> 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
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.
eric gisse
This is not a proof.
When will your senility finally prevent you from using a computer?
Puppet_Sock
> 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
Look! Poor rat is up the early 18th century!
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monadology
Socks
Y.Porat
------------------
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!
Y.Porat
Y.Porat
------------------
right!!
he moment it was found experimentally
that the electron canhave two different
positions at that moment
it was proved that it is not a point particle
because a point is not a physical entity
and can have no physical propitiates
wahtsoever!!
but the imbecile amthematicians here
that have more a big mouth than
brains could not get it
because trhety were educated mathematics
and not the minimal physics thinking
that a secondary student canunderstand
immediately !!
but that sin is just ine prove
there are more additional proves on top of it
as i indicated
a **point** CANNOT BE ANNIHILATED !!
TO ENERGY!!
only as zero barin cannot undestand it at once !!
a secondary schole would understand at once that
if electron and proton annyhilate themselves to energy
IT MEAS THAT THE ELECTRON IS
SUBDIVIDED ??
no need to be a genius in order to understand it
it needs to be an imbecile
NOT to understand that !!!
and the peculiar point is that
**those imbeciles want to teach us physics !!!!!**
and the others do not notice that they are
psycho imbeciles ...
.and may be
hiered parasite gangsters !!.
Y.Porat
--------------
Inertial
news:240a4d88-dd1e-4354...@z24g2000yqb.googlegroups.com...
Why? You've not proved anything at all.
Inertial
>
> 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?
> 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
That's part of what quantum physics is exploring
Inertial
Why .. because you say so?
> only as zero barin cannot undestand it at once !!
> a secondary schole would understand at once that
> if electron and proton annyhilate themselves to energy
> IT MEAS THAT THE ELECTRON IS
> SUBDIVIDED ??
It means nothing of the sort
> no need to be a genius in order to understand it
> it needs to be an imbecile
> NOT to understand that !!!
> and the peculiar point is that
> **those imbeciles want to teach us physics !!!!!**
> and the others do not notice that they are
> psycho imbeciles ...
> .and may be
> hiered parasite gangsters !!.
You really do have psychological problems old man.
Inertial
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.
Y.Porat
-------------
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
------------------
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
-----------------------
Dirk Van de moortel
002b982f$0$2963$c3e...@news.astraweb.com
This newsgroup is crammed with truly evil old men.
If it weren't for them, this place would not exist.
Dirk Vdm
Y.Porat
<dirkvandemoor...@nospAm.hotmail.com> wrote:
> Inertial <relativ...@rest.com> wrote in message
>
> 002b982f$0$2963$c3e8...@news.astraweb.com
>
>
>
> > "Y.Porat" <y.y.po...@gmail.com> wrote in message
----------------
Hi moron vand Der Schmate!
may be for a change
talk PHYSICS ARGUMENTS ??
this ng
is full of zero politicians like you
that beside the Lorentz formulas
can not speak a single word of physics
beside
personal abuse
kep well van der schmate
you are noting more than a clown Schmate
and you lifted this ng actually
to very important innovations of yours !!
like ??......
sorry i cant remember any (:-)
my memory is old .......(:-)
Y.P
------------
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
>
> 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 ??
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
G=EMC^2 Glazier
point? Its just more of bad fudge thinking so the imperial thinkers do
not have to say I have no idea. They could say planets are points. QM
took away the point and that is why its humankinds best theory bert
BURT
>
> - Show quoted text -
I liken you to Judge Butt from the movie The Wall eric.
Mitch Raemsch
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
eric gisse
Since my facebook profile picture clearly occupies a too-large part of
people's considerations, it is now the picture of the world's largest pine
cone.
Plus your argument still isn't a proof.
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
-----------------------
Y.Porat
Not a proof ??!!!
may be for a disturbed imbecile like you !!:
THE ELECTRON HAS MASS RIGHT?
THEN WHAT IS THE MASS
OF A POINT ??!!!
a real scientist should be
**first of all** HONEST ....!!!
and you pretend to teach us science !!
..........
Y.Porat
----------------------
p
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
-----------------
Inertial
Not in the slightest
> may be for a disturbed imbecile like you !!:
>
> THE ELECTRON HAS MASS RIGHT?
Fine
> THEN WHAT IS THE MASS
> OF A POINT ??!!!
Depends on what is at that point
> a real scientist should be
> **first of all** HONEST ....!!!
Unlike you
> and you pretend to teach us science !!
You have shown a complete inability to learn science .. there is no point in
teaching you.
Y.Porat
> "Y.Porat" <y.y.po...@gmail.com> wrote in message
OHHH
now wwe have a brilliant idea
of great physics teacher ::
Mr Inertial
can put in a point he folowing things
a
he can put in it mass mass in a point !!!
that has zero volume
(that is the definition of a point !!
b
not only that this genious can put in that miserable point - mass
but moreover !!
he can put in it more physical entities
in addition to mass
don t you even relaize that you are an imbecile ??
just a short while ago
me and your friend that calles himself Mr Higins
we agreed that the electron **is not and cannot by definition be a
point particle**
but some undefined *very small particle *
so you dont agree with him either ???
Y.P
----------------------
Inertial
Nice to be recognised.
[snip more porat ranting]
BradGuth
> 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
>
> ATB
> and TIA
> Y.Porat
> -----------------------------------
How true, that we know so little about the electron and positron, as
well we know next to nothing objective about the photon which seems to
incorporate and/or interact with those electrons and positrons, as
though there is some king of photon intelligence involved.
As far as I can tell, the electron and positron each seem to perform
more like subatomic black holes.
~ BG
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
> "Y.Porat" <y.y.po...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>
> news:026c4720-87a7-4347...@w10g2000yqf.googlegroups.com...
>
>
>
> > On Sep 6, 2:48 pm, "Inertial" <relativ...@rest.com> wrote:
> >> "Y.Porat" <y.y.po...@gmail.com> wrote in message
next !!!
(the discussion with that idiot
moron *crook* that is just one month
on the net
is leading to no where
so please bypass that hired imbecile gangster ))
Y.P
------------
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
--------------
yess indeed
a black hole in sense that we know
too litle about it
crtainly it is not apoint aprticle
as those imbeciles here insist
if it is a point particle then
what makes the difference between
a point electron
and a point positron ??!!
if you say a charge
then how charge sticks to a point ??
2
most scientists agree that the electron does not orbit around the nuc
sohow is it connected to the nuc
and extends to a distance ?
the ponit is running out and back
without orbiting ??
3
if there are 80 electrons around the nuc
how he hell the nuc is controlling that
mess motion ??
4
a photon moved is a straight line
how can a physical entity that
moves in a stright line from the nuc
to the electron make any attarction force
and not a rejection force
etc etc endless unexplained question
or
explanations for idiot only
that live in a paradise of fools
Y.P
---------------------------
eric gisse
[...]
> THEN WHAT IS THE MASS
> OF A POINT ??!!!
Apparently you haven't figured out the difference between a mathematical
point, and a physical point.
Again, this is not a proof. A proof that an electron has finite spatial
extent would involve a detection of finite spatial extent, not the ignorant
rantings of someone who thinks the photon has mass because the mass unit is
involved in describing a property of the photon.
[snip rest]
Robert Higgins
Yo, dude, I said no such thing. Learn to read.
Robert Higgins
Don't get racial.
> in sense that we know
> too litle about it
> crtainly it is not apoint aprticle
> as those imbeciles here insist
You really like hurling insults.
>
> if it is a point particle then
> what makes the difference between
> a point electron
> and a point positron ??!!
An electron has negative charge and a positron has a positive charge.
(hint: that's where the "posi-" in "positron" comes from: "posi"tive)
BTW, I heard that you were going for an AIDS test - think positive!
>
> if you say a charge
> then how charge sticks to a point ??
Very nicely, it seems.
> 2
> most scientists agree that the electron does not orbit around the nuc
BUZZ! WRONG! What planet are you on? Are you really from our dark and
nasty moon?
> sohow is it connected to the nuc
> and extends to a distance ?
Electrons are not "Connected to the nucleus." "s" electrons can be IN
the nucleus, but p, d, etc CAN'T, since they have a node there. The
orbital states of the electron are EXACTLY solvable by the
Schroedinger equation (in the non-relativistic limit).
> the ponit is running out and back
> without orbiting ??
Dude, they orbit (though it is not exaclty like planetary "orbits").
There is an effect celled "Spin orbit coupling", which exists because
an orbiting charge (the nucleus) generates a magnetic field that
interacts with the magnetic moment of the electron. It was in all the
papers, boss.
> 3
> if there are 80 electrons around the nuc
> how he hell the nuc is controlling that
> mess motion ??
Very nicely, purely by coulomb force in concert with the orbital
angular momenta of the electrons. Google "hydrogen atom schroedinger
equation" or "spherical harmonics", or get a high school chemistry
book written after 1950.
> 4
> a photon moved is a straight line
> how can a physical entity that
> moves in a stright line from the nuc
> to the electron make any attarction force
> and not a rejection force
Very nicely.
xray4abc
> 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
>
> ATB
> and TIA
> Y.Porat
> -----------------------------------
You mean that the electron in fact has a structure, don't you?
I would say (actually I have said it in another thread) that
all particles that have spin, are objects with a spatial structure,
presumably a hollow one.
The same judgement will then lead us to the idea that, for example,
the electron can not be formed of parts of the same kind of
electrical charge, but at least of 2 particles of opposite
charge though different in absolute value.
Regards,LL
Inertial
> On Sep 6, 3:50 pm, "Inertial" <relativ...@rest.com> wrote:
>> "Y.Porat" <y.y.po...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>>
>> news:026c4720-87a7-4347...@w10g2000yqf.googlegroups.com...
>>
>>
>>
>> > On Sep 6, 2:48 pm, "Inertial" <relativ...@rest.com> wrote:
>> >> "Y.Porat" <y.y.po...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>>----------------------
> next !!!
> (the discussion with that idiot
> moron *crook* that is just one month
> on the net
> is leading to no where
> so please bypass that hired imbecile gangster ))
There is no such thing as a scientific and rational discussion with you ..
you just throw insults and fly off the handle. You're nothing but a
worthless troll and flamer.
Y.Porat
> "Y.Porat" <y.y.po...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>
> news:032d081f-3629-449b...@y9g2000yqn.googlegroups.com...
>
>
>
> > On Sep 6, 3:50 pm, "Inertial" <relativ...@rest.com> wrote:
> >> "Y.Porat" <y.y.po...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>
> >>news:026c4720-87a7-4347...@w10g2000yqf.googlegroups.com...
>
> >> > On Sep 6, 2:48 pm, "Inertial" <relativ...@rest.com> wrote:
> >> >> "Y.Porat" <y.y.po...@gmail.com> wrote in message
> >>----------------------
> > next !!!
> > (the discussion with that idiot
> > moron *crook* that is just one month
> > on the net
> > is leading to no where
> > so please bypass that hired imbecile gangster ))
>
> There is no such thing as a scientific and rational discussion with you ..
> you just throw insults and fly off the handle. You're nothing but a
> worthless troll and flamer.
---------------------
you ddint answer my question:
is it possible that *in our earth situation*
there will be a photon with
f= 1 billion years per cycle
what is so difficult for you to answer
what has such a question has to do
with flaming ??
yes
or no
or i dont know ??
TIA
Y.Porat
---------------------
Y.Porat
> Y.Porat wrote:
>
> [...]
>
> > THEN WHAT IS THE MASS
> > OF A POINT ??!!!
>
> Apparently you haven't figured out the difference between a mathematical
> point, and a physical point.
littl epigg shit
I ddint notice the difference
do you think that all readers that folow this discussion are idiots
like
you and a shameless lier as you ??
it is me who explained again and again
just above many times
that the mathematical concept
'point' is invalid in physics !!
only imeciles like you and the gangster Higgins
9that is one month on the net
ddint understand it at rhe first place
only under my presure
showing you your stupidiy
allof you understood that
a point particle is by definition
of physics entities is
stupidity !!
but yopu little fucker still didnt undertrood
the meaning of it
ie
IF IT IS NOT THE MATHEMATICAL POINT
THAN WE HAVE TO GO ON
AND INVESTIGATE
IF NOT A POINT PARTICLE
THAN WHAT THEHELL
*IT IS ***!
and not sit back as imbeciles
and be happy with current 'knowledge '!!!
2
yes indeed
if i prove that the elctron **cannot be a point particle**
than i proved it
(that the eelctron is not a point particle)
not only the electron:
any particle cannot be the stupid
mathematical concept** in physics* !!-
3
little gigy
what are the innovation you ever did for physics ??!!!
did all your contributions and innovation in physics
justify disturbing me ??
that last question is not for you piggy
nore for the hired gangster Higgins
that is one month on the net...!!
it is for the serious readers !!
not all of them are pigs as you are
BYE poor disturbed crook
Y.Porat
--------------------
Y.Porat
wrote:
!
!
!
O! O
---------------------
Y.Porat
wrote:
ibbecile parrot
farting words:
waht is spinning nucleus
who told you that stupidity??
only a gas can spinfreely
does an atom in a metalmesh spin!!
or may be your balls spin ??
you say magnetic charge
is it a magic word the solves all your ignorance??
what is that magnetic charge
**that is ascociated with your fucken** point particle*** ??!
you even dont *start* to understand the problem !!!
and what a mumbling farting big mouth moron parrot
dumb mathematician you are !!
Y.P
-----------------
Y.Porat
> On Sep 4, 11:55 pm, "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
>
> > ATB
> > and TIA
> > Y.Porat
> > -----------------------------------
>
> You mean that the electron in fact has a structure, don't you?
OF COURSE !!!
---------
> I would say (actually I have said it in another thread) that
> all particles that have spin, are objects with a spatial structure,
---
of course !!
--
> presumably a hollow one.
makes sens !!
ie the volune th electron occupy
is mostly empathy !!!
it is obviously a solid 'tennis ball' !!
--------
-------------
> The same judgement will then lead us to the idea that, for example,
> the electron can not be formed of parts of the same kind of
no
is is resonableto think that it is composed
of many sub particles
i suggested the chain of orbitals
see my abstract
it seems that matter is composed as chainof orbitals
**chemistry** is all laong with chain of orbitals
(at the bigger scale of matter )
-----------
> electrical charge, but at least of 2 particles of opposite
> charge though different in absolute value.
> Regards,LL
----------------
actually no one today really knows
what an 'electric charg' is !!
and how it works
it does not work due to photons !!!
something that moves in a straight line
cannot do any attarction force !!
it must be something else !!
photon sparks are a *result* of the elctric charge
BUT NOT THE CAUSE OF IT !!!
it is one of the greatest delusions - that caught
'modern physics ' !!
ATB
Y.Porat
-----------------
Inertial
> On Sep 7, 2:11 am, "Inertial" <relativ...@rest.com> wrote:
>> "Y.Porat" <y.y.po...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>>
>> news:032d081f-3629-449b...@y9g2000yqn.googlegroups.com...
>>
>>
>>
>> > On Sep 6, 3:50 pm, "Inertial" <relativ...@rest.com> wrote:
>> >> "Y.Porat" <y.y.po...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>>
>> >>news:026c4720-87a7-4347...@w10g2000yqf.googlegroups.com...
>>
>> >> > On Sep 6, 2:48 pm, "Inertial" <relativ...@rest.com> wrote:
>> >> >> "Y.Porat" <y.y.po...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>> >>----------------------
>> > next !!!
>> > (the discussion with that idiot
>> > moron *crook* that is just one month
>> > on the net
>> > is leading to no where
>> > so please bypass that hired imbecile gangster ))
>>
>> There is no such thing as a scientific and rational discussion with you
>> ..
>> you just throw insults and fly off the handle. You're nothing but a
>> worthless troll and flamer.
>
> ---------------------
> you ddint answer my question:
I did
> is it possible that *in our earth situation*
> there will be a photon with
See my previous reply where I detailed my position on any lowest or hightest
frequency and wavelength
> f= 1 billion years per cycle
> what is so difficult for you to answer
> what has such a question has to do
> with flaming ??
Your continual insults and abuse .. calling people crooks and psychopahts
without evidence or provocation.
> yes
> or no
> or i dont know ??
I've already answered .. read my previous posts.
eric gisse
> On Sep 6, 11:32 pm, eric gisse <jowr.pi.nos...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> Y.Porat wrote:
>>
>> [...]
>>
>> > THEN WHAT IS THE MASS
>> > OF A POINT ??!!!
>>
>> Apparently you haven't figured out the difference between a mathematical
>> point, and a physical point.
> ----------------
> littl epigg shit
> I ddint notice the difference
If I thought you knew the difference I wouldn't have made the comment.
> do you think that all readers that folow this discussion are idiots
Not all, just an unfortunately large fraction.
> like
> you and a shameless lier as you ??
>
> it is me who explained again and again
> just above many times
> that the mathematical concept
> 'point' is invalid in physics !!
Thanks for the insight, captain obvious. A mathematical point has no
measurable properties, which is why nobody ever argues (except in your
hallucinations) that electrons and such are mathematical points.
> only imeciles like you and the gangster Higgins
Higgins?
I know a Huggins, but I don't think he knows what this conversation is
about.
> 9that is one month on the net
> ddint understand it at rhe first place
> only under my presure
> showing you your stupidiy
If you are going to use the word 'stupidity', do yourself a favor and spell
it right.
> allof you understood that
> a point particle is by definition
> of physics entities is
> stupidity !!
Well, if the senile structural engineer thinks it is wrong I guess it must
be...
> but yopu little fucker still didnt undertrood
> the meaning of it
> ie
>
> IF IT IS NOT THE MATHEMATICAL POINT
> THAN WE HAVE TO GO ON
> AND INVESTIGATE
> IF NOT A POINT PARTICLE
> THAN WHAT THEHELL
> *IT IS ***!
Since all observation suggests it is a point particle, will you change your
perceptions of reality or will you incoherently scream and shout a few more
times before you run off in a bitchfit?
> and not sit back as imbeciles
> and be happy with current 'knowledge '!!!
Ah, so you value knowledge?
When was the last time you went to the library to look up a literature
reference?
> 2
> yes indeed
> if i prove that the elctron **cannot be a point particle**
> than i proved it
Well it follows that if you prove something, then that something is proved.
First you have to establish the proof, which is (historically) the hardest
part of the proof.
> (that the eelctron is not a point particle)
> not only the electron:
> any particle cannot be the stupid
> mathematical concept** in physics* !!-
So how big is an electron?
Is it smaller or larger than a muon?
Are neutrinos larger or smaller than both, or somewhere inbetween? Are all
neutrinos the same size?
> 3
> little gigy
> what are the innovation you ever did for physics ??!!!
I want to directly measure the precession of the stars orbiting Sgr. A* and
use that to establish a bound on the spin parameter of Sgr. A*.
Unfortunately, not only is the idea hard to implement, but the researcher
most poised to do the work already knows about the idea and intends to see
it through in the next 15 years.
Every idea I have ever had has either been done (gravitational wave lens,
estimation of density of dark matter by working backwards from Poisson's
equation, etc) or will eventually be done.
What innovations have you attempted to bring physics? Anything beyond
catchphrases screeched in broken English? I thought jews were supposed to be
smart, how come you can't put together a complete sentence in the language
of science?
> did all your contributions and innovation in physics
> justify disturbing me ??
It isn't an innovation to laugh at the moron who is wearing the dunce cap,
but thanks for crediting me with the idea.
> that last question is not for you piggy
> nore for the hired gangster Higgins
> that is one month on the net...!!
Who are you talking about?
>
> it is for the serious readers !!
> not all of them are pigs as you are
I think the so-called 'serious readers' are more likely to take me seriously
because I know how to use the shift key to invoke proper capitalization as
opposed as well as knowing how to use proper punctuation, grammar, and line
spacing.
>
> BYE poor disturbed crook
> Y.Porat
> --------------------
One of these days you will say "BYE" and keel over from a massive coronary.
The lack of ignorant rants about particle physics would probably not be
noticed for 6 months or so when suddenly it dawns on someone that this old
fuck (you) finally stopped posting. People will briefly wonder if you
finally died, or came to your senses and decided to spend more time with
your offspring than ranting on USENET where nobody takes you seriously.
Inertial
> On Sep 6, 11:32 pm, eric gisse <jowr.pi.nos...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> Y.Porat wrote:
>>
>> [...]
>>
>> > THEN WHAT IS THE MASS
>> > OF A POINT ??!!!
>>
>> Apparently you haven't figured out the difference between a mathematical
>> point, and a physical point.
> ----------------
> littl epigg shit
Flaming again Porat?
> you and a shameless lier as you ??
Flaming again Porat?
> only imeciles like you and the gangster Higgins
Flaming again Porat?
> showing you your stupidiy
Flaming again Porat?
> but yopu little fucker still didnt undertrood
Flaming again Porat?
> and not sit back as imbeciles
Flaming again Porat?
> nore for the hired gangster Higgins
Flaming again Porat?
> not all of them are pigs as you are
Flaming again Porat?
> BYE poor disturbed crook
Flaming again Porat?
You still reckon you're not flaming people?
Inertial
Flaming again Porat?
> farting words:
Flaming again Porat?
> waht is spinning nucleus
> who told you that stupidity??
Flaming again Porat?
> only a gas can spinfreely
> does an atom in a metalmesh spin!!
> or may be your balls spin ??
> you say magnetic charge
> is it a magic word the solves all your ignorance??
> what is that magnetic charge
> **that is ascociated with your fucken** point particle*** ??!
> you even dont *start* to understand the problem !!!
> and what a mumbling farting big mouth moron parrot
Flaming again Porat?
> dumb mathematician you are !!
Flaming again Porat?
Y.Porat
-------------
lier
you didnd gve a yes or no answer
we dont need your twisted answer
jsut a simple answer as a reasonable person
should give
you was smart guying
from your devious twisted mind
Y.P
--------------
Y.Porat
sorry !!
wanted to say above
iit is obviously NOT a solid tennis ball !!
Y.P
------------------------------
Inertial
I am not a lier, not a liar.
> you didnd gve a yes or no answer
I didn't claim I did
> we dont need your twisted answer
> jsut a simple answer as a reasonable person
> should give
I gave a reasonable answer
> you was smart guying
> from your devious twisted mind
Not at all .. I answered you reasonably.
I don't know what quantum effects may limit photon wavelength or frequency
measurements (or whether such affect are more than just measurement
limitations, but some fundamental restriction on a photon quantum object).
I am not aware of any at-rest source for such a low frequency photon, so if
it existed, it would probably only be the result of some extreme red-shift
from (say) a very distant fast-moving source. Of course, we do not have the
technology to detect such a low-frequency photon, so we can neither refute
nor confirm its existence experimentally. As far as special relativity is
concerned, this is a relativity newsgroup, there is no reason why such a
photon could not exist in some frame of reference, as I have already
explained.
Really .. your question is pretty much pointless.
tadchem
> 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
>
> ATB
> and TIA
> Y.Porat
> -----------------------------------
A "point particle" is a mathematical object.
A "wave" is a mathematical object.
An "electron" is a physical object.
We "model" physical objects with mathematical objects by finding
analogies.
To confound an electron with either a particle or a wave is to confuse
the map and the territory.
That way there be dragons.
Tom Davidson
Richmond, VA
Robert Higgins
You can't even SPELL "imbecile" - what does that make you?
> farting words:
> waht is spinning nucleus
Since the elctron is rotating around the nucleus, in the frame of the
electron the nucleus is rotating around THE ELECTRON.
> who told you that stupidity??
Nobody - I read it.
> only a gas can spinfreely
> does an atom in a metalmesh spin!!
> or may be your balls spin ??
What is your problem?
> you say magnetic charge
No, I wrote "magnetic moment". Try to learn to read. "RIF: Reading Is
FUN-damental."
> is it a magic word the solves all your ignorance??
Abracadabra is a magic word.
> what is that magnetic charge
> **that is ascociated with your fucken** point particle*** ??!
> you even dont *start* to understand the problem !!!
> and what a mumbling farting big mouth moron parrot
Coul you at least use more original insults?
> dumb mathematician you are !!
I resent that - I'm a CHEMIST.
> Y.P
> -----------------
PD
> On Sep 5, 5:55 am, "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
>
> > ATB
> > and TIA
> > Y.Porat
> > -----------------------------------
>
> i forgot to add that
> the above is a prove that
> THE ELECTRON IS SUBDIVIDED
> as well !!
>
> ATB
> Y.Porat
> --------------------------------
You'll have to explain why annihilation *necessarily* implies both
volume and components.
Please note, Porat, that a statement that IF the electron had volume
and parts, then you can understand annihilation more easily, is NOT
the same thing as saying that annihilation REQUIRES volume and parts.
hanson
>
"Robert Higgins" <robert_h...@hotmail.com> wrote:
On Sep 6, 11:18 pm, "Y.Porat" <y.y.po...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Robert Higgins <robert_higgins...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> > On Sep 6, 1:05 pm, "Y.Porat" <y.y.po...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > On Sep 6, 5:36 pm, BradGuth <bradg...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > On Sep 4, 8:55 pm, "Y.Porat" <y.y.po...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > > Electron and positron are annihilating themselves to energy .....
> > > > > that is an experimental fact....
> Y.P
>>
I resent that - I'm a CHEMIST.
>
hanson wrote:
So Higgins, you resent Zio-Porat cuz he says you are "dumb
and a mumbling farting big mouth moron parrot"... ahahaha...
And you hate Potter, because he resents the Zios and Potter
resents you because you are a bigot and a Dreidel and a
Shmuck whose Beytsim fell off & gummed up your own works
... ahaha...
Some chemistry you got going here, Higgins... ahahahaha.
But thanks for the laughs, guy... ahahaha... ahahahanson
Jacko
> On Sep 4, 7:58 pm, "Y.Porat" <y.y.po...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> > On Sep 5, 5:55 am, "Y.Porat" <y.y.po...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > Electron and positron are annihilating themselves to energy .....
> > > that is an experimental fact....
> > > but
> > > *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
>
> > > ATB
> > > and TIA
> > > Y.Porat
> > > -----------------------------------
>
> > i forgot to add that
> > the above is a prove that
> > THE ELECTRON IS SUBDIVIDED
> > as well !!
>
> > ATB
> > Y.Porat
>
> > - Show quoted text -
>
> Can we measure its spin? If it is pointlike it can't rotate.
> We have never measured the rotation of a proton of neutron either.
> Maybe spin will disappear as a mistake from theory porat.
>
> Mitch Raemsch
http://sites.google.com/site/jackokring Uncertain Geometry/Pole Free
Particle Structure Theory. I don't think it be point like. And spin
definitely exists.
cheers jacko
Y.Porat
> Particle Structure Theory. I don't think it be point like. And spin
> definitely exists.
>
> cheers jacko
------------------
sorry
i ddint understand what is it all about ??
Y.P
-------------------
Y.Porat
it impies that the electron is not a basic aprticle
that is indivisible !! or iow
***unbreakable !!***
it might be breakable !!
my private ** GUSS** should be breakable !!
so
btw
ishave some sucpicion that during experiments
the eelctron was broken tosub aprticles
but people ddint notice it
because they were trained to see only waht they were told by 'theory'
to see
and neglect some 'irrelevant' findings'
sort of 'garbage aprticles' or garbage physical entities
therefor one of my suggestions to the LHC
is
to try and look if there migh tbe some evidence for
electron positron break
not necessary to just photons
but to something else as well ???
-----------------
> Please note, Porat, that a statement that IF the electron had volume
> and parts, then you can understand annihilation more easily, is NOT
> the same thing as saying that annihilation REQUIRES volume and parts.
----------------
may be we better talk about
breaking instead of annihilation ??
because annihilation tends to imagine sort of
complete disappearance
but we know that nnature
there is no complete disappearance
there is only transformations from one phase
to another phase
and now comes the main point:
it seesms that there is some basic physical
entity that all matter is composed of !
for you it is energy
but for me unfortuaantely you refuse to accept
my proffs that
energy is nothing but
mass in motion!!
had you accepted that energy is * mass in motion*
you could understand better my claimes
that the electron is** sub composed ** !!!
to sub particles with mass !!
ATB
Y.Porat
-----------------------
PD
Why? Why does the annihilation of two particles imply that the
particles have parts?
> or iow
> ***unbreakable !!***
> it might be breakable !!
Might is a lot different than must be.
> my private ** GUSS** should be breakable !!
But a guess is much different that a necessary implication. You said
that annihilation PROVES that electrons are parts. A guess is not a
proof.
> so
> btw
> ishave some sucpicion that during experiments
> the eelctron was broken tosub aprticles
> but people ddint notice it
Nor is a suspicion that something was missed the same thing as a
proof.
> because they were trained to see only waht they were told by 'theory'
> to see
> and neglect some 'irrelevant' findings'
I don't think so. You should come work with some of these people,
rather than making guesses about what's going on in there heads from
afar.
> sort of 'garbage aprticles' or garbage physical entities
>
> therefor one of my suggestions to the LHC
> is
> to try and look if there migh tbe some evidence for
> electron positron break
> not necessary to just photons
> but to something else as well ???
> -----------------> Please note, Porat, that a statement that IF the electron had volume
> > and parts, then you can understand annihilation more easily, is NOT
> > the same thing as saying that annihilation REQUIRES volume and parts.
>
> ----------------
> may be we better talk about
> breaking instead of annihilation ??
> because annihilation tends to imagine sort of
> complete disappearance
> but we know that nnature
> there is no complete disappearance
Annihilation means the changing of two leptons to a state where there
is energy but no leptons. So it hasn't gone into NOTHING, but there
sure aren't leptons there any more.
> there is only transformations from one phase
> to another phase
> and now comes the main point:
> it seesms that there is some basic physical
> entity that all matter is composed of !
"Seems" is a guess. A guess is not a proof.
>
> for you it is energy
> but for me unfortuaantely you refuse to accept
> my proffs that
> energy is nothing but
> mass in motion!!
A guess is not a proof. An intuition is not a proof. A gut feeling is
not a proof. The way you were taught to think about units is not a
proof.
Y.Porat
lets start with my op title:
do you agree that i proved thatthe eelctron is not a point particle
because a point is a a mhematical that does not
exist in the actual physical world ??
if yess (and you have no option but to agree with me
thani did my proof do you agree?
now you will tell me that it is obvious
but it is not obvious tosome mathematicians minds
they dont get the further meaninf of it
ie
IF IT IS NOT A POINT THEN WHAT THE HELL IS IT ???
it seems that had you been more frank
you would admit that you never gave it much or any thought !!!???
so if it is not a ppont aprticle
it is much bigger than a point
so how muchbigger ??
2
if it does not orbit all around the nuc
but 'fiddling on and on from the nuc to some distance
than what the hell is going on there
(povided you dont want to mumble some
statistical words about it ....!!)
why shounf that miserable point move back and forth
from the nuc outwards like mad
by what exact' remote control ??'
and what should happen if you have 80 electrons
next to the nuc ??
if you dont admit you dont realy understand it
you are not an honest man !!
you jsut mumble some words
the 'shell model people as well
donot know what happnce with all their shells
and while i say
with all i mean ALL OF THEM!!
and i will tell you a secrete provided you will not tell it tono ne
(:-)
there are not all those 'shells ' furher and closer to the nuc!
yo ask me an chaleng me about mu guesses''
i can asure you that 'your guesses'
are much more fantastic' than mine
th eonly difference is the **assertive pose*
that curent scintists make !!
jusr a pose
they haveno green idea about what really is there !!
and had we have the techical means as time a nd scope
i could show you much more about my claimes
i say
'guesses'
but it is on the modest way....
it is much more than just t guesses !!
if you had bybook in your hands
you could understand much better
about what is that i am talking about
(actually my book together with a lot of additional explanations on
top of it !!
it cannot be done just by a few words on the net
for insatnce
a nuch better understanding about the meaning of my
table 2 and 3 in that abstract etc etc
iow
th atom and nuc are too complicate to define and describe them is some
mathematical formulas !!!!!!
such presentation is physics for the poor crippled understandings of
out real world
enough for one post (:-)!!
ATB
Y.{prat
-------------------
Inertial
Do you think a point particle is the same as being a point?
Have a read:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Point_particle
"In particle physics, "point particle" is synonymous with "elementary
particle", which is defined as a particle without structure or,
equivalently, as a particle which is not made up from component parts"
An electron is such a particle .. its not made up of other particles
according to the standard model, and there is no evidence to suggest
otherwise
Point particle also can mean an object whose physical size is irrelevant to
the physics in a given context.
> because a point is a a mhematical that does not
> exist in the actual physical world ??
The world is full of points.
> if yess (and you have no option but to agree with me
> thani did my proof do you agree?
> now you will tell me that it is obvious
> but it is not obvious tosome mathematicians minds
> they dont get the further meaninf of it
> ie
> IF IT IS NOT A POINT THEN WHAT THE HELL IS IT ???
An electron
> it seems that had you been more frank
> you would admit that you never gave it much or any thought !!!???
> so if it is not a ppont aprticle
> it is much bigger than a point
> so how muchbigger ??
Noone knows. its not been determined experimentally. And for things as
'fuzzy' as quantum objects, that sometimes bahave as waves, it probably
doesn't make a lot of sense to give it a single precise size.
> 2
> if it does not orbit all around the nuc
> but 'fiddling on and on from the nuc to some distance
> than what the hell is going on there
> (povided you dont want to mumble some
> statistical words about it ....!!)
It has a distribution around the nucleus that is called an orbital (rather
than an orbit).
> why shounf that miserable point move back and forth
> from the nuc outwards like mad
> by what exact' remote control ??'
> and what should happen if you have 80 electrons
> next to the nuc ??
I suggest you do some reading on atomic structure and orbitals, if you want
an answer to that.
> if you dont admit you dont realy understand it
> you are not an honest man !!
Most things at the sub-atomic quantum level are, basically, weird and
unintuitive. As Feynman is quoted as saying "I think I can safely say that
nobody understands quantum mechanics." :)
Y.Porat
> "Y.Porat" <y.y.po...@gmail.com> wrote in message
-----------------
ok
you innovated nothing but parroting
now the differnce between me and you is
that you bever bothered or never was roubled
with that unknown situatuion
while i ddint accept suc a situation of somuch
lack of knowlwdge
AND THAT EXACTLY WAS MY POINT
and motivation WITH
THE ABOVE THREAD!!
got the difference between me and you ??
now
the only thing that you didnt doand i did
is that
i did something beyond the existind knowlwdge
some innovations that a crook lier like you
would not admit because of .....
jealousy and frustartion about
you lack of ability to innovate anything
except parroting
with your underlying malicious jealous motivation
to disturb me and may be later to steal something from me
and attribute it to yourself !!
iow
you are a little nasty dishonest miserable crook !!
keep well
Y.Porat
-------------------
gabydewilde
> On Sep 5, 6:12 am, BURT <macromi...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> > On Sep 4, 7:58 pm, "Y.Porat" <y.y.po...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > On Sep 5, 5:55 am, "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
>
> > > > ATB
> > > > and TIA
> > > > Y.Porat
> > > > -----------------------------------
>
> > > oh yes !
> > > i forgot to add that
> > > the above is a prove that
> > > THE ELECTRON IS SUBDIVIDED
> > > as well !!
>
> > > ATB
> > > Y.Porat
>
> > > - Show quoted text -
>
> > Can we measure its spin? If it is pointlike it can't rotate.
> > We have never measured the rotation of a proton of neutron either.
> > Maybe spin will disappear as a mistake from theory porat.
>
> > Mitch Raemsch
>
> right!!
>
> he moment it was found experimentally
> that the electron canhave two different
> positions at that moment
> it was proved that it is not a point particle
> because a point is not a physical entity
> and can have no physical propitiates
> wahtsoever!!
> but the imbecile amthematicians here
> that have more a big mouth than
> brains could not get it
> because trhety were educated mathematics
> and not the minimal physics thinking
> that a secondary student canunderstand
> immediately !!
> but that sin is just ine prove
> there are more additional proves on top of it
> as i indicated
> a **point** CANNOT BE ANNIHILATED !!
> TO ENERGY!!
> only as zero barin cannot undestand it at once !!
> a secondary schole would understand at once that
> if electron and proton annyhilate themselves to energy
> IT MEAS THAT THE ELECTRON IS
> SUBDIVIDED ??
> no need to be a genius in order to understand it
> it needs to be an imbecile
> NOT to understand that !!!
> and the peculiar point is that
> **those imbeciles want to teach us physics !!!!!**
> and the others do not notice that they are
> psycho imbeciles ...
> .and may be
> hiered parasite gangsters !!.
>
> Y.Porat
> --------------
I feel we are now a stones throw away from declaring energy to be both
waves and particles.
Time for the press conference!
</physics></message></usenet>
Y.Porat
------------------
whats the problem??
energy is mass i n motion
and waves as well !!
so why wonder ??
yet stick the main point into your head
NO MASS - NO REAL PHYSICS!!
tomorrow you will say:
it was understood 200 years ago !! (:-)
Y.P
----------------------
PD
No, that is not a proof. That is an assertion on your part.
It is your GUESS that nothing that is a point can exist in the actual
physical world. It is your GUESS that points ONLY belong as
mathematical entities and being volumeless cannot be a property of a
real physical object.
I presume that you base this GUESS on your common experience with
ordinary things that do involve things with volume, and you GUESS that
all physical things therefore have volume.
This kind of GUESS is foolish and prone to error.
Someone who looks at dogs, lions, cats, sheep, and bears might GUESS
that mammals all have four legs, based on that common experience. Of
course that would be a wrong guess, as soon as you point out that
humans are mammals. So then you could GUESS that mammals all have hair
and are land dwelling. Of course that would be a wrong guess, as soon
as you point out that whales and bats are mammals. So then you could
GUESS that mammals all give live birth to their young, thinking surely
now you've learned enough about mammals to catalog everything. Then
someone holds up a platypus. And if you've not learned by this point
that GUESSES based on cataloging your common experience is a dangerous
thing, then I'm afraid you never would.
> if yess (and you have no option but to agree with me
> thani did my proof do you agree?
No, I certainly don't agree that you've proven anything about
electrons. All you've done is express a hunch. A hunch is not a proof.
Y.Porat
> On Sep 9, 11:16 pm, "Y.Porat" <y.y.po...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> > On Sep 9, 8:30 pm, PD <thedraperfam...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > On Sep 9, 11:24 am, "Y.Porat" <y.y.po...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > On Sep 7, 9:07 pm, PD <thedraperfam...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > > On Sep 4, 10:58 pm, "Y.Porat" <y.y.po...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > > > On Sep 5, 5:55 am, "Y.Porat" <y.y.po...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > > > > Electron and positron are annihilating themselves to energy .....
>
> > > > > > as well !!
> > > > sort of 'garbage aprticles' or garbage physical entities
>
> > > > therefor one of my suggestions to the LHC
> > > > is
> > > > to try and look if there migh tbe some evidence for
>
>
> > > > ----------------
> > > > may be we better talk about
> > > > breaking instead of annihilation ??
> > > > because annihilation tends to imagine sort of
> > > > complete disappearance
> > > > but we know that nnature
> > > > there is no complete disappearance
>
> > > Annihilation means the changing of two leptons to a state where there
> > > is energy but no leptons. So it hasn't gone into NOTHING, but there
> > > sure aren't leptons there any more.
>
> > > > there is only transformations from one phase
> > > > to another phase
> > > > and now comes the main point:
> > > > it seesms that there is some basic physical
> > > > entity that all matter is composed of !
>
> > > "Seems" is a guess. A guess is not a proof.
>
> > > > for you it is energy
> > > > but for me unfortuaantely you refuse to accept
> > > > my proffs that
> > > > energy is nothing but
> > > > mass in motion!!
>
> > > A guess is not a proof. An intuition is not a proof. A gut feeling is
> > > not a proof. The way you were taught to think about units is not a
> > > proof.
>
> > > > ATB
> > > > Y.Porat
> > > > -----------------------
>
> > lets start with my op title:
> > do you agree that i proved thatthe eelctron is not a point particle
> > because a point is a a mhematical that does not
> > exist in the actual physical world ??
>
> No, that is not a proof. That is an assertion on your part.
how is hansom writing??
haha ha ha ha ...!!
you must be joking
do you claim that he electron is the methematical point
?????!!!!
that is an assertion of mine ??
------
> It is your GUESS that nothing that is a point can exist in the actual
> physical world.
oi strt to think that you are an idiot
even the idiots here understood that there is no physical entity
thatis th e mathematical point
thj e mathematical point is zero volume
zero volune is fat NOTHING !!
common PD wake up !!
so are you joking or what??
you must be still in a deep sleep !!??
ddi you became a philosopher instead a physicist ??
------------
It is your GUESS that points ONLY belong as
> mathematical entities and being volumeless cannot be a property of a
> real physical object.
and your assertion that a point can be a physical entity
is not a guess ??!!
i would add a stupid guess !!
we are physicists not phylosophers !!
may be start a new physics with zero volume physical entities ??
why not witches on brooms ??
why not ghosts ??
----------------
> I presume that you base this GUESS on your common experience with
> ordinary things that do involve things with volume, and you GUESS that
> all physical things therefore have volume.
> ----------------
and on waht experience do you base your
zero volume physical entities??
i think you forgot your own preaching that
physics os all about experimental findings
remember ??
when was it the last time you found a zero volume entity ??
waht are your tools to detect
a zero volume entity
common PD wake up
----------
----------
> This kind of GUESS is foolish and prone to error.
>
> Someone who looks at dogs, lions, cats, sheep, and bears might GUESS
> that mammals all have four legs, based on that common experience. Of
> course that would be a wrong guess, as soon as you point out that
> humans are mammals. So then you could GUESS that mammals all have hair
> and are land dwelling. Of course that would be a wrong guess, as soon
> as you point out that whales and bats are mammals. So then you could
> GUESS that mammals all give live birth to their young, thinking surely
> now you've learned enough about mammals to catalog everything. Then
> someone holds up a platypus. And if you've not learned by this point
> that GUESSES based on cataloging your common experience is a dangerous
> thing, then I'm afraid you never would.
> --------------------
PD i start to suspect that you became a phylosopher !!
and why are you mumbling so much about a trivial issue ???
just ask your fellow physists about you new idea
(idont mean some mad crooks here
that wil not waist anything mad to gore me ))
--------------------
> > if yess (and you have no option but to agree with me
> > thani did my proof do you agree?
>
> No, I certainly don't agree that you've proven anything about
> electrons.
it i smuch beyond electrons
it is much before any physical discussion !!
it is basic human concepts
waht isthe microscope of telescope that will detect
anything with zero volume ??
waht is the eenrgy you can stuff in a zero volume
according to you
you can stuff in a zero volume infinits enery as well !!
btw
even that Big bang theory
DOES NOT TALK ABOT A FALAT ZERO VOLUME
AT RHE BIG BANG
they talk about something like a football !!
according to yuou all enrgy at the big bang was
a zero volume !!
common wake up
you must be drunk
-----------
------------
All you've done is express a hunch. A hunch is not a proof.
> ----------
(:-)
does your hatred to me makes you loos your mind ??
-----------
> > -------------------
you answered **nothing** about my further questions above
and it is not accidental
you have no answers
YOU probably NEVER BEFORE THOUGHT ABOUT
IT
keep well
Y.Porat
----------------------
PD
I said no such thing. An electron is a *physical* object, not a
mathematical abstraction. A mathematical point is a mathematical
abstraction.
However, it is certainly possible that a class of *physical* objects
share the property of being volumeless, along with mathematical
points.
Sharing the property of being volumeless doesn't mean that they are
the same thing, any more than sharing the property of laying eggs
means that birds and lizards are the same thing.
> that is an assertion of mine ??
> ------
>
> > It is your GUESS that nothing that is a point can exist in the actual
> > physical world.
>
> oi strt to think that you are an idiot
> even the idiots here understood that there is no physical entity
> thatis th e mathematical point
> thj e mathematical point is zero volume
> zero volune is fat NOTHING !!
Nope. Things can have physical properties without requiring volume.
Having zero volume does NOT necessarily mean that all other properties
also vanish. That is a GUESS on your part.
> common PD wake up !!
> so are you joking or what??
> you must be still in a deep sleep !!??
>
> ddi you became a philosopher instead a physicist ??
> ------------
>
> It is your GUESS that points ONLY belong as> mathematical entities and being volumeless cannot be a property of a
> > real physical object.
>
> and your assertion that a point can be a physical entity
> is not a guess ??!!
> i would add a stupid guess !!
> we are physicists not phylosophers !!
> may be start a new physics with zero volume physical entities ??
It's not new, Porat. Please catch up.
> why not witches on brooms ??
> why not ghosts ??
Why not mammals that don't give live birth to their young? Oh yeah,
echidnas. Not exactly a witch, is it? Just because it is outside your
common experience does not mean it is a fairy tale.
> ----------------
>
> > I presume that you base this GUESS on your common experience with
> > ordinary things that do involve things with volume, and you GUESS that
> > all physical things therefore have volume.
> > ----------------
>
> and on waht experience do you base your
> zero volume physical entities??
> i think you forgot your own preaching that
> physics os all about experimental findings
> remember ??
> when was it the last time you found a zero volume entity ??
Electrons have defied any measurement that would reveal a nonzero
volume so far.
We have NO experimental evidence that electrons have a nonzero volume.
Moreover, what we do know is that EVERY object that DOES have volume
is a composite object. Thus, all we can say is that *composite*
objects have volume. But this doesn't mean that all objects are
composite objects, or that all objects have volume.
> waht are your tools to detect
> a zero volume entity
> common PD wake up
> ----------
> ----------> This kind of GUESS is foolish and prone to error.
>
> > Someone who looks at dogs, lions, cats, sheep, and bears might GUESS
> > that mammals all have four legs, based on that common experience. Of
> > course that would be a wrong guess, as soon as you point out that
> > humans are mammals. So then you could GUESS that mammals all have hair
> > and are land dwelling. Of course that would be a wrong guess, as soon
> > as you point out that whales and bats are mammals. So then you could
> > GUESS that mammals all give live birth to their young, thinking surely
> > now you've learned enough about mammals to catalog everything. Then
> > someone holds up a platypus. And if you've not learned by this point
> > that GUESSES based on cataloging your common experience is a dangerous
> > thing, then I'm afraid you never would.
> > --------------------
>
> PD i start to suspect that you became a phylosopher !!
I'm sorry, Porat, but the world is more complicated than the
practical, everyday things you are familiar with.
> and why are you mumbling so much about a trivial issue ???
> just ask your fellow physists about you new idea
> (idont mean some mad crooks here
> that wil not waist anything mad to gore me ))
> --------------------
>
> > > if yess (and you have no option but to agree with me
> > > thani did my proof do you agree?
>
> > No, I certainly don't agree that you've proven anything about
> > electrons.
>
> it i smuch beyond electrons
> it is much before any physical discussion !!
> it is basic human concepts
Sorry, but no. If evidence runs counter to basic human concepts, then
basic human concepts must change.
Y.Porat
--------------------
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 (:-).
ATB
Y.Porat
----------------------
hanson
"gabydewilde" <gdew...@gmail.com> wrote:
On Sep 5, 9:11 am, "Y.Porat" <y.y.po...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Sep 5, 6:12 am, BURT <macromi...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
"gabydewilde" wrote:
I feel we are now a stones throw away from declaring
energy to be both waves and particles.
Time for the press conference!
>
Gaby, old buddy, I hope that nothing like that has
put you in harms way. Out/over there in California
they have such press conferences every year when
the energy from the rains brings waves of water &
particles in the mud flows down from the mountains.
One such "Lahar" missed the house of your friend
uncle Al by a "Cunthar"... a few years' back, or so.
Stay well, my friend.... ahahaha... ahahahahanson
Robert Higgins
NO MASS - NO REAL CATHOLIC!!
Inertial
> 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.
Inertial
news:9cabdda9-92ea-4ae6...@x37g2000yqj.googlegroups.com...
> On Sep 10, 4:16 am, "Y.Porat" <y.y.po...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> NO MASS - NO REAL PHYSICS!!
>
> NO MASS - NO REAL CATHOLIC!!
BAHAHAHA .. love it !!!!
Y.Porat
> "Y.Porat" <y.y.po...@gmail.com> wrote in message
-------------------
strangely enough
and the first time in my life
i agree with you (:-)
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 !!
if it is just a temporary model
THAN WHAT THE HELL IS THE 'BETTER MODEL '' ???!!!
Y.P
--------------------------
Inertial
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.
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. 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.
vps137
> On Sep 4, 8:55 pm, "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
>
> > ATB
> > and TIA
> > Y.Porat
> > -----------------------------------
>
> well we know next to nothing objective about the photon which seems to
> incorporate and/or interact with those electrons and positrons, as
> though there is some king of photon intelligence involved.
>
> As far as I can tell, the electron and positron each seem to perform
> more like subatomic black holes.
>
> ~ BG
own model of 4D-medium. In the terms of the model the electron is a
vortex on the hypersurface of our Universe which is in its turn a 4D-
sphere, The size of the vortex for electron is only ten times bigger
then the size of electron measuered by Penning trap - 10^-21 m.
See for details in
http://vps137.narod.ru/article13.pdf (in Russian)
Y.Porat
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
---------------------------
Anti Vigilante
> 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.
--
Fuck the Enlightenment! Viva la Renaissance!
Androcles
"Anti Vigilante" <antivi...@pyrabang.com> wrote in message
news:hgrhc4$1cp$1...@news.eternal-september.org...
of the solar system it is treated as such. It is merely a
matter of scale. When dealing with the tides the point particle
model of the Earth is inadequate.
The electron is a point particle on the scale of the CRT,
the model works well. On the scale of the atom it is not.
Same with pixels on your computer display. You cannot
have a pixel that is half red and half green. It has one colour
only, and is therefore a "point" of light, whatever shape
or area it covers. It's position is important, its colour is
important, its intensity is important, that's how a picture is built.
It's area (or volume) is not.
Inertial
"Androcles" <Headm...@Hogwarts.physics_q> wrote in message
news:UXcYm.94266$iW.2...@newsfe30.ams2...
For a change Androcles has it right. Clearly 'anti' doesn't understand the
mathematical notion of a 'point particle'
Henry Wilson DSc
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.
FrediFizzx
news:034152e8$0$1333$c3e...@news.astraweb.com...
??? Actually, Anti is right as far as the mathematical notion goes. I
think you perhaps mean the "physical" notion of a point particle. That
is what the droc is talking about.
Best,
Fred Diether
moderator sci.physics.foundations
Henry Wilson DSc
wrote:
I explained this some tme ago.
A 'point' has zero length in the three known spatial dimensions. It has no
volume.
However, it can have coordinate lengths in other dimensions which we humans are
not yet equipped to detect.
Thus, a point can have properties...but not ones that our current physics can
deal with.
Androcles
"Henry Wilson DSc" <..@..> wrote in message
news:46p8j55mljvasv963...@4ax.com...
Bwahahahahahahahaha!
Could be, can be, might be! You'll never be mathematician, Wilson,
but you'll make a good religionist. Pigs might fly, the Easter Bunny
could lay chocolate eggs, Santa can get stuck in chimneys, but none
of these things ever happen. Why is that, Wilson?
> Thus, a point can have properties...but not ones that our current physics
> can
> deal with.
"Can"... nobody gives a shit about "can", "could" or "might be", Wilson.
It's what IS that matters, not your crackpot theories.
A point has the properties that the programmer or mathematician
defines for it, no more and no less.
A pixel is a point, it has the property of area but nobody bothers to
refer to that. It also has a neighbourhood, doesn't overlap with other
pixels,can be any of 16 million colours and you are not equipped to
detect the difference between any two near black adjacent colours.
Should I call colour a dimension or a property? Semantics, that's all
it is. Freddie Fuckwits wants to nit-pick between a mathematical
and a physical point, but the dumb bastard isn't the one doing the
defining, is he? I define Fred Diether as a moron, there is no
difference between a physical point and a mathematical point,
he'll disagree. That's ok, his definition (if he has one) differs from
mine. Let him say what the fuckin' difference IS, not what it could
be. Maybe he means one of these, but arguing over it is stupid.
1 a (1) : an individual detail : item (2) : a distinguishing detail <tact is
one of her strong points> b : the most important essential in a discussion
or matter <missed the whole point of the joke> c : cogency
2 obsolete : physical condition
3 : an end or object to be achieved : purpose <did not see what point there
was in continuing the discussion>
4 a : a geometric element that has zero dimensions and a location
determinable by an ordered set of coordinates b (1) : a narrowly localized
place having a precisely indicated position <walked to a point 50 yards
north of the building> (2) : a particular place : locality <have come from
distant points> c (1) : an exact moment <at this point I was interrupted>
(2) : a time interval immediately before something indicated : verge <at the
point of death> d (1) : a particular step, stage, or degree in development
<had reached the point where nothing seemed to matter anymore> (2) : a
definite position in a scale
5 a : the terminal usually sharp or narrowly rounded part of something : tip
b : a weapon or tool having such a part and used for stabbing or piercing:
as (1) : arrowhead (2) : spearhead c (1) : the contact or discharge
extremity of an electric device (as a spark plug or distributor) (2) chiefly
British : an electric outlet
6 a : a projecting usually tapering piece of land or a sharp prominence b
(1) : the tip of a projecting body part (2) : tine 2 (3) plural : the
extremities or markings of the extremities of an animal especially when of a
color differing from the rest of the body c : a railroad switch d : the head
of the bow of a stringed instrument
7 : a short musical phrase; especially : a phrase in contrapuntal music
8 a : a very small mark b (1) : punctuation mark; especially : period 5a (1)
(2) : decimal point
9 : a lace for tying parts of a garment together used especially in the 16th
and 17th centuries
10 : one of usually 11 divisions of a heraldic shield that determines the
position of a charge
11 a : one of the 32 equidistant spots of a compass card for indicating
direction b : the difference of 111?4 degrees between two such successive
points c : a direction indicated by a compass point <from all points of the
compass>
12 : a small detachment ahead of an advance guard or behind a rear guard
13 a : needlepoint 1 b : lace made with a bobbin
14 : one of 12 spaces marked off on each side of a backgammon board
15 : a unit of measurement: as a (1) : a unit of counting in the scoring of
a game or contest (2) : a unit used in evaluating the strength of a bridge
hand b : a unit of academic credit c (1) : a unit used in quoting prices (as
of stocks, bonds, and commodities) (2) plural : a percentage of the face
value of a loan often added as a placement fee or service charge (3) : a
percentage of the profits of a business venture (as a motion-picture
production) d : a unit of about 1?72 inch used especially to measure the
size of type
16 : the action of pointing: as a : the rigidly intent attitude of a hunting
dog marking game for a gunner b : the action in dancing of extending one leg
and arching the foot so that only the tips of the toes touch the floor
17 : a position of a player in various games (as lacrosse); also : the
player of such a position
18 : a number thrown on the first roll of the dice in craps which the player
attempts to repeat before throwing a seven - compare missout, pass 13
19 : credit accruing from creating a good impression <scored points for hard
work>
- beside the point : irrelevant
- in point of : with regard to : in the matter of <in point of law> <in
point of fact>
- to the point : relevant, pertinent <a suggestion that was to the point>
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
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
-------------------------
Sam Wormley
>
> A 'point' has zero length in the three known spatial dimensions. It has no
> volume.
> However, it can have coordinate lengths in other dimensions which we humans are
> not yet equipped to detect.
Or, more simply, do not exist!
> Thus, a point can have properties...but not ones that our current physics can
> deal with.
Thus, is meaningless.
Anti Vigilante
> On Wed, 23 Dec 2009 11:34:29 +1100, "Inertial" <relat...@rest.com>
> wrote:
>
>
>>"Androcles" <Headm...@Hogwarts.physics_q> wrote in message
>>news:UXcYm.94266$iW.2...@newsfe30.ams2...
>>>
>>> "Anti Vigilante" <antivi...@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.
>>>>
>>>> --
[begin masturbation]
>>> 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'
>
Actually that's the Practical notion, as in when and how it is used. The
mathematical notion is merely it's definition: a zero dimensional entity;
and further its pure physical notion: the mathematical definition
extended by it having a given property and measurable value.
I also suggested a case in which it could work, such as points where one
or more fields meet at the edges where there exist non-continuous peaks
and valleys in the field.
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. For this purpose the
electron can no longer be approximated as a point particle.
[/end masturbation]
Androcles
> [begin masturbation]
> But this is all beside the point: I want to know ...
> [/end masturbation]
>
What's the point?
Henry Wilson DSc
Everything you say is meaningless.
'Fields' for instance are explainable in terms of other dimensions that we dont
know about.
Sam Wormley
>
> 'Fields' for instance are explainable in terms of other dimensions that we don't
> know about.
>
Henri, can you cite anything that claims field are explained
by other dimensions that we don't know about... or is this
another figment of your imagination?
Androcles
"Henry Wilson DSc" <..@..> wrote in message
The arch-criminal Wilson is selling other dimensions which are not god.
Androcles
"Sam Wormley" <swor...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:wu-dnfPdbsWR2ajW...@mchsi.com...
eric gisse
> On Fri, 25 Dec 2009 07:32:04 -0600, Sam Wormley <swor...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
>>On 12/25/09 1:13 AM, Henry Wilson DSc wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> A 'point' has zero length in the three known spatial dimensions. It has
>>> no volume.
>>> However, it can have coordinate lengths in other dimensions which we
>>> humans are not yet equipped to detect.
>>
>> Or, more simply, do not exist!
>>
>>
>>> Thus, a point can have properties...but not ones that our current
>>> physics can deal with.
>>
>> Thus, is meaningless.
>
> Everything you say is meaningless.
>
> 'Fields' for instance are explainable in terms of other dimensions that we
> dont know about.
Yes, nobody can see them or their effects but they are VERY IMPORTANT.
How many magical effects do you rely on? You'd think somewhere in the
accounting it'd just make more sense to accept modern physics instead of
what you are doing.
Inertial
Wrong . in that case it is not (by definition) a point. It is a line (or
plane or volume) in those other dimensions.
> Thus, a point can have properties...but not ones that our current physics
> can
> deal with.
There can be properties at a given point, obviously, eg charge.
tj Frazir
How thee frequancy of the electron will fit a portion of the photon
frequancy.
A nuetrons orbit is much smaller at c and its fequancy far too high to
react with a photon or electron.
A protons frquancy is even faster as its so big and at c is in the
lowest orbit and orbits 360 in 1/1000th the time the electron orbits at
c.