The electron has substructure that radiates.
john
are given off by the much finer-structured
sub-matter which constitutes the electron
are not only 10^27 times smaller than
regular photons, they also propagate faster.
When electrons are accelerated in a circle,
these emanations are given off
more in the direction of the magnetic field.
Two electrons repel each other because
of these emanations.
These emanations are coming from everywhere
because there are electrons for infinitely far
in all directions. They push on our protons.
We only perceive them when there is a higher
amount locally in some direction. Such as
a higher amount going into the surface
of a planet than what is coming out makes gravity.
john
Galaxy Model for the Atom
http://users.accesscomm.ca/john
Sam Wormley
> The sub-photons and sub-neutrinos that
> are given off by the much finer-structured
> sub-matter which constitutes the electron
> are not only 10^27 times smaller than
> regular photons, they also propagate faster.
You are empirically wrong, John.
Y.Porat
------------------
you are empirically wrong Sam
th e[ropblem is that you are a
born *** parrot***
that cant collect ****all*** the
empirical ;facts (all of them!1)
and make(combine them ))
to something intelligent out of it
and that is exactly the differencce
between a real scientist
and a PARROT &&
2
i would suggest to you
to be a bit less * decisive* with your answers !!
that is another good feature of
a better scientist !...
Y.Porat
---------------------------
Y.Porat
-------------------
Uncle Ben
Yes, John, and there are fairies that dance at the end of my garden.
Uncle Ben
Androcles
"Uncle Ben" <b...@greenba.com> wrote in message
news:7dc7a482-b212-4ec3...@v20g2000yqv.googlegroups.com...
Uncle Ben
=========================================
... and Bonehead is one them.
Michael Moroney
>The sub-photons and sub-neutrinos that
>are given off by the much finer-structured
>sub-matter which constitutes the electron
>are not only 10^27 times smaller than
>regular photons, they also propagate faster.
...
And the scientific evidence of all this is... ?
eric gisse
Did you know that formulating a theory comes _after_ obtaining data, not
_before_ ?
Uncle Al
>
> The sub-photons and sub-neutrinos that
> are given off by the much finer-structured
> sub-matter which constitutes the electron
> are not only 10^27 times smaller than
> regular photons, they also propagate faster.
Electrons neither dissipate nor decay.
idiot
--
Uncle Al
http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/
(Toxic URL! Unsafe for children and most mammals)
http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/qz4.htm
PD
> The sub-photons and sub-neutrinos that
> are given off by the much finer-structured
> sub-matter which constitutes the electron
> are not only 10^27 times smaller than
> regular photons, they also propagate faster.
>
> When electrons are accelerated in a circle,
> these emanations are given off
> more in the direction of the magnetic field.
Well, considering that magnetic field lines are closed loops, I
suppose you're saying these emanations come from noplace and just go
'round and 'round.
>
> Two electrons repel each other because
> of these emanations.
>
> These emanations are coming from everywhere
> because there are electrons for infinitely far
> in all directions. They push on our protons.
Which would yield drag.
> We only perceive them when there is a higher
> amount locally in some direction.
Which would happen as a planet passed through this wash of particles,
generating drag.
bert
Sam Structure of cloud structure of electrons is created by photons.
Yes virtual photons make up half. To think virtual is not as real as
relating to reality is not good science thinking. Virtual + gamma +
inferred + light + X-ray photons = electron cloud. Feynman knew
that(QED) So did Weinberg trebert
BURT
The quantum of the universe is infinitely small.
Mitch Raemsch
BURT
>
> - Show quoted text -
We should see virtual light. But we don't.
Mitch Raemsch
BURT
>
> - Show quoted text -
Emptiness extends in the universe by the infinitely small quantum of
space and time. Time and space speed and flowing energy quantum are
in the round emptiness surface extending only by the infinitely small.
Mitch Raemsch
BURT
Einstein was great for two reasons: He brought back the aether and
made it indespensable. And he found space curvature.
Mitch Raemsch
tj Frazir
magnetic fields are waves in time with no electrons and no particals.
tj Frazir
They dont understand no electron comes out of th magnet . They dont
understand the orbits of megnetic things when magnetized are orbits
like figer 8 and the less the electron changes directins to be in the
next orbit the less resistance.
There is ONLY a magnetic field when there is a metalic object in te
field.
There is no magnetic field if a grape dont react with the fields wave
timming.
electrons are not magnetic masses in orbit of magnets.
This magnetic field is the effect on time as a wave ,,a time wave is
more near reality then a magnetic field. Where as its a wave in time its
self with no conductor and no electrons no particals.
just waves in time that slope the orbits of mass.
Sam Wormley
Ya Think?
Y.Porat
No Bert
quite the opposite !!!!
=====
> made it indespensable. And he found space curvature.
>--------------------
and rather 'curved space' is
nonsense
because i would say, that
apace is by definition - nothing!
Y.Porat
--------------------------
> Mitch Raemsch
Y.Porat
------------------
think about the 'Circlon'idea
Y.P
-----------------------
Y.Porat
-------------------
you forgotthe data that
your point particle'
is emitting energy
i never heared about a real point that is emitting something
from itself .....
ie
contain something changable
in itself
it i s rediculous
ie
to absorb or radiate energy in a point
i would say it is even stupid !!!
Y.Porat
------------
john
> On Mar 11, 12:40 am, john <vega...@accesscomm.ca> wrote:
>
> > The sub-photons and sub-neutrinos that
> > are given off by the much finer-structured
> > sub-matter which constitutes the electron
> > are not only 10^27 times smaller than
> > regular photons, they also propagate faster.
>
> > When electrons are accelerated in a circle,
> > these emanations are given off
> > more in the direction of the magnetic field.
>
> Well, considering that magnetic field lines are closed loops, I
> suppose you're saying these emanations come from noplace and just go
> 'round and 'round.
>
>
About the going 'round and 'round (you're
refreshingly literate, PD).
You look at both galaxies and atoms at
once to understand this more easily.
From the galaxy point of view: there are
many millions of stars in a single arm. They are
all constantly radiating, some are always burning out.
How are they replaced?
From the atom point of view: the electron is like
that single arm- a great many radiating points.
Some of those points are always burning out.
How are they replaced?
The burnt-out stars spiral into the
galaxy's center. Their matter is torn apart and
blown out the jets as high-energy particles.
These particles eventually form new suns.
The radiations from each electron travel away
and become part of a sea of such radiations.
The protons absorb from this sea of radiations
and use the energy to constantly renew the
radiating electron cloud.
So, yes, it goes 'round and 'round. Electrons
radiate.Protons absorb radiation. Protons
renew electron substructure continuously.
As to 'coming from noplace', where does
*anything* come from, PD?
>
> > Two electrons repel each other because
> > of these emanations.
>
> > These emanations are coming from everywhere
> > because there are electrons for infinitely far
> > in all directions. They push on our protons.
>
> Which would yield drag.
How?
Explain why you believe this?
>
> > We only perceive them when there is a higher
> > amount locally in some direction.
>
> Which would happen as a planet passed through this wash of particles,
> generating drag.
Do you consider em waves to be particles?
Does light hit the
backside of the planet with
less force than the front side?
>
>
> > Such as
> > a higher amount going into the surface
> > of a planet than what is coming out makes gravity.
>
> > john
> > Galaxy Model for the Atomhttp://users.accesscomm.ca/john- Hide quoted text -
Y.Porat
exactly !!!
see the 'Circlon' idea
in theabstarct appendix of my site
http://sites.google.com/site/theyporatmodel/an-abstract
2
energy is mass in motion!!
that is one of the reasons why
energy and mass of particles is convertible
ATB
Y.Porat
---------------------
Inertial
"Y.Porat" <y.y....@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:573ee76b-726f-425e...@x12g2000yqx.googlegroups.com...
Gees .. anyone mentions 'around' or 'circle' and you jump on them and start
yelling your 'Cicrlon' nonsense.
Uncle Al
[snip crap]
> From the atom point of view: the electron is like
> that single arm- a great many radiating points.
> Some of those points are always burning out.
> How are they replaced?
[snip rest of crap]
Hey stooopid - the measured half-life of an interstellar triplet
hydrogen atom is 3.48569x10^14 seconds. The resulting photon is
1.4204057517667 GHz with a ground state triplet hydrogen atom.
None of your bullshit obtains to 14 significant figures to a radius of
at least 13 billion lightyears. The entire universe is laughing at
you.
idiot.
PD
But that is not the right definition of space. Space is not nothing.
>
> Y.Porat
> --------------------------
>
> > Mitch Raemsch
>
>
PD
> On Mar 11, 2:43 pm, PD <thedraperfam...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > On Mar 11, 12:40 am, john <vega...@accesscomm.ca> wrote:
>
> > > The sub-photons and sub-neutrinos that
> > > are given off by the much finer-structured
> > > sub-matter which constitutes the electron
> > > are not only 10^27 times smaller than
> > > regular photons, they also propagate faster.
>
> > > When electrons are accelerated in a circle,
> > > these emanations are given off
> > > more in the direction of the magnetic field.
>
> > Well, considering that magnetic field lines are closed loops, I
> > suppose you're saying these emanations come from noplace and just go
> > 'round and 'round.
>
> In a sense, you're right.
> About the going 'round and 'round (you're
> refreshingly literate, PD).
> You look at both galaxies and atoms at
> once to understand this more easily.
>
> From the galaxy point of view: there are
> many millions of stars in a single arm. They are
> all constantly radiating, some are always burning out.
> How are they replaced?
Generally speaking, they are not. The population of the stars in
galaxies ages, and there are old galaxies that have a bunch of aged
stars in them. We've observed these, and distinguished them from the
younger galaxies. Remember that the galaxies themselves are not a lot
older than most stars.
>
> From the atom point of view: the electron is like
> that single arm- a great many radiating points.
> Some of those points are always burning out.
> How are they replaced?
No, it's different. What is burning out in the case of stars is the
fuel that is consumed in radiating energy away from themselves. But as
I explained to you earlier, magnetic fields around charges are not
radiated, and electrons don't consume any fuel to create magnetic
fields. So nothing is burning out.
>
> The burnt-out stars spiral into the
> galaxy's center. Their matter is torn apart and
> blown out the jets as high-energy particles.
> These particles eventually form new suns.
>
> The radiations from each electron travel away
> and become part of a sea of such radiations.
> The protons absorb from this sea of radiations
> and use the energy to constantly renew the
> radiating electron cloud.
>
> So, yes, it goes 'round and 'round. Electrons
> radiate.Protons absorb radiation. Protons
> renew electron substructure continuously.
No, you don't understand. Magnetic fields don't start at a charge or
end at another charge. They are closed loops in space.
>
> As to 'coming from noplace', where does
> *anything* come from, PD?
>
> > > Two electrons repel each other because
> > > of these emanations.
>
> > > These emanations are coming from everywhere
> > > because there are electrons for infinitely far
> > > in all directions. They push on our protons.
>
> > Which would yield drag.
>
> How?
> Explain why you believe this?
A sailboat gets its push from the wind, which is how you imagine
gravity works -- a wind that comes from all directions but is shielded
in one direction and so there is a differential push in that
direction. But if you ride your bike through the same wind, you feel
drag -- for the VERY SAME REASON it can exert a push on the sailboat.
Any medium that can exert a differential push will always NECESSARILY
also create a drag on any object that moves through it. You cannot
have differential push and just wave your hands to make the drag go
away. You want the doughnut, you get the hole.
>
> > > We only perceive them when there is a higher
> > > amount locally in some direction.
>
> > Which would happen as a planet passed through this wash of particles,
> > generating drag.
>
> Do you consider em waves to be particles?
> Does light hit the
> backside of the planet with
> less force than the front side?
Yes, and there is a light pressure on the Earth due to the sunlight,
and it is measurable. It is also nowhere near the size of the
gravitational force. There is also a drag on the Earth due to the
light. But because the outward pressure is much smaller than gravity,
so is the drag. To have a force from your imaginary particles that
would be big enough to account for gravity, it would also have a drag
that is much bigger than the drag due to light from the sun.
You see, John, physics questions are more than just "yes" or "no".
They are "how much".
>
>
>
> > > Such as
> > > a higher amount going into the surface
> > > of a planet than what is coming out makes gravity.
>
> > > john
> > > Galaxy Model for the Atomhttp://users.accesscomm.ca/john-Hide quoted text -
Y.Porat
--------------------
space 'neto' is nothing
we know that in that space there are alot of particles photons
dark matter -youn
neme it etc
but that is another Opera for itself!!
Y.P
--------------------
Y.Porat
> "Y.Porat" <y.y.po...@gmail.com> wrote in message
------------------
psychopath moron imbecile crook !!
go discuss with Josef Goebbels
(why didnt you divert me to your
pigs NG (:-)
dont answer pig
Y.P
--------------------
PD
That is your declaration, but it is yours alone.
Physics has recognized for well over 130 years that space has physical
properties. It is not nothing.
john
> john wrote:
>
> [snip crap]
>
> > From the atom point of view: the electron is like
> > that single arm- a great many radiating points.
> > Some of those points are always burning out.
> > How are they replaced?
>
> [snip rest of crap]
>
> Hey stooopid - the measured half-life of an interstellar triplet
> hydrogen atom is 3.48569x10^14 seconds. The resulting photon is
> 1.4204057517667 GHz with a ground state triplet hydrogen atom.
>
> None of your bullshit obtains to 14 significant figures to a radius of
> at least 13 billion lightyears. The entire universe is laughing at
> you.
>
> idiot.
>
it does not crash into the proton
because the radiation is
coming from hundreds of thousands
of separate bodies. A few of these are
always burning out and being drawn
back into the proton, where they are
spun back up and released out the jets.
The proton is always absorbing the
radiation coming from electrons everywhere
and using this energy to keep its own
electrons radiating. This causes inertia and gravity.
idiot
john
rotchm
> > ---------------------
> > exactly !!!
> > see the 'Circlon' idea
>
> Gees .. anyone mentions 'around' or 'circle' and you jump on them and start
> yelling your 'Cicrlon' nonsense.
>
LoL. I must admit, this NG is funnier than sitcoms.
Lets try it again....
*Circular* reasonnings will *turn* back on you...
Uncle Al
>
> On Mar 12, 9:27 am, Uncle Al <Uncle...@hate.spam.net> wrote:
> > john wrote:
> >
> > [snip crap]
> >
> > > From the atom point of view: the electron is like
> > > that single arm- a great many radiating points.
> > > Some of those points are always burning out.
> > > How are they replaced?
> >
> > [snip rest of crap]
> >
> > Hey stooopid - the measured half-life of an interstellar triplet
> > hydrogen atom is 3.48569x10^14 seconds. The resulting photon is
> > 1.4204057517667 GHz with a ground state triplet hydrogen atom.
> >
> > None of your bullshit obtains to 14 significant figures to a radius of
> > at least 13 billion lightyears. The entire universe is laughing at
> > you.
> >
> > idiot.
> >
> The electron radiates, but
> it does not crash into the proton
> because the radiation is
> coming from hundreds of thousands
> of separate bodies.
Hey stooopid - whether you remove water from a vessel one molecule at
time or by the milliliter, when a gram of water is removed the vessel
contains a gram less.
Hey stooopid - whether you write checks for a penny or a Benny, the
cumulative outflow is they sum of the individual outflows.
You're not smart enough to be stupid. You are hallucinatory.
Inertial
You really are a very nasty and angry old man, aren't you.
BURT
> > > Einstein was great for two reasons: He brought back the aether and
>
> > ---------------------
> > No Bert
> > quite the opposite !!!!
>
> > =====> made it indespensable. And he found space curvature.
> > >--------------------
>
> > and rather 'curved space' is
> > nonsense
> > because i would say, that
> > apace is by definition - nothing!
>
> But that is not the right definition of space. Space is not nothing.
>
>
>
>
>
> > Y.Porat
> > --------------------------
>
>
> - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
Electric energy of light is only absorbed by electric matter of the
electron and proton and their fat families in the accelerators. Light
only goes in and out of electric matter.
Mitch Raemsch
Y.Porat
(:-)
can you get all those 'properties' of yours
without the existence of mass??
!!!!
2
poeple knew a bit** more** than 130 years...
that the sun is orbiting the earth...
ANYONE COULD SEE IT "OBVIOUSLY "WITH HIS OWN EYES ....
'people know it'
is not a physics argument ......
.Y.P
----------------------
Y.Porat
-------------------
while i find dishonest people
i become angge
i am sure that you are more dishonest than
idiot ...
becauas i cant believe that
people that have some academic degree
can be so dumb as you
(for so long .......)
2
while i find it even now!! in that post
that you tried to divert my answer
again and again to your Nazi pig ng
and still ddint learn that you cant do it to me--
i realize that you are a sub human
gangster creature
Y.P
-----------------
Y.Porat
------------------
even worse than that!
it is flooded with moron gangsters
and parrots
like
Inetial = Artful = who knows =
anonymous
that change their names each half a year !!!
Y.P
------------------
BURT
Electromagnetism comes out of and into electric particles. It becomes
their mass. Energy leaves matter as light.
Mitch Raemsch
Inertial
You're nothing (repeat NOTHING) but a nasty angry senile old man.
Y.Porat
> "Y.Porat" <y.y.po...@gmail.com> wrote in message
how can one not be angry by having a leech
Nazi on his back
anyway
i am managing quit nice wth the nazi pig
he will be thrown to the garbage
of history of science !
ps
the retarded monkey still didnt learn that
he cant divert me to his Nazi ng
though repating it again and again
like a mad pig
what a sore learner as in any thing he does
Y.P
Robert Higgins
Porat, do you ever forget to breath?
john
People drive their cars around all the time.
It takes gas.
They don't ever run out of gas.
Why?
They continually replace the gas.
Same with the electron.
It is always radiating from its
million places, and a few of those
places are always falling into the proton
because they burn out- and the proton
gases them right back up and kicks
them back into the game.
Where does the proton get *its* energy?
From all the other electrons.
I thought you were a little
quicker than this, Al.
john
glird
Pd is right.
> > The burnt-out stars spiral into the
> > galaxy's center. Their matter is torn apart and
> > blown out the jets as high-energy particles.
> > These particles eventually form new suns.
> > The radiations from each electron travel away
> > and become part of a sea of such radiations.
> > The protons absorb from this sea of radiations
> > and use the energy to constantly renew the
> > radiating electron cloud.
> > So, yes, it goes 'round and 'round. Electrons
> > radiate.Protons absorb radiation. Protons
> > renew electron substructure continuously.
>
> No, you don't understand. Magnetic fields don't start at a charge or
> end at another charge. They are closed loops in space.
>
> > As to 'coming from noplace', where does
> > *anything* come from, PD?
"That which cannot be created but does exist ALWAYS existed,"
The trouble here is much deeper than that, PD.
Gravity isn't caused by a push from outside an object. It is a result
of
an externally centered density gradient INSIDE an object, (Because
matter
resists further compression increasingly more strongly as its
densityis increased,
the resistance to their own internally circulating wavicles
("subatomic particles")
is stronger in the denser side. Therefore a net force arises INSIDE
every atom of
an object embedded in, thus part of, the local density gradient
("gravitational field").
>
> You see, John, physics questions are more than just "yes" or "no".
> They are "how much".
Until you know how much OF WHAT, "how much" is insufficient.
glird
Uncle Al
[snip crap]
> Same with the electron.
> It is always radiating from its
> million places, and a few of those
> places are always falling into the proton
> because they burn out- and the proton
> gases them right back up and kicks
> them back into the game.
[snip reat of crap]
(idiot)^2
john
>
> - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
Guys, guys, guys, before we go
worrying about drag, don't we have to know
whether or not the planet is moving wrt the
space?
If you're yammering about drag, you
must think that the flow coming from everywhere
is coming at the same speed from everywhere.
But the electrons contributing to this flow
were also moving in different ways, so is
there just this one flow they can contribute to,
and they red or blueshift their contributions
accordingly?
Or does the flow have different speeds coming from the
same direction?
It sounds like you think there is a
spot where you are at the center of the flow
equally and you can be moving wrt
that spot, wherefore you get drag,
so since everything
is expanding away from each other, only
one position can *not* have drag?
You see the problem?
john
john
Sam Wormley
> Guys, guys, guys, before we go
> worrying about drag, don't we have to know
> whether or not the planet is moving wrt the
> space?
>
Space is not a reference, John. Haven't you gotten the
hint that whether something is in motion or not depends
STRICTLY on the point of view of the observer?
john
That's what I'm saying, Sam.
They are saying things become
uncool when you *move* wrt
this omnidirectional field- which means
they are saying wrt a stationary space.
john
Sue...
> The trouble here is much deeper than that, PD.
> Gravity isn't caused by a push from outside an object. It is a result
> of
> an externally centered density gradient INSIDE an object,
This Wikipedia article has barycentres OUTSIDE the object.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Center_of_mass#Animations
With centuries of reliable orbital data available you'd
think that the author would check a few facts before writing.
;-)
Sue...
Sam Wormley
Oh John, Major mistake!
john
>
> - Show quoted text -
Enlighten me.
Sam Wormley
Absolute motion requires an absolute reference frame--there is none.
space doesn't have any anchor points, but bits of matter and energy
moving about. From Galileo to Newton to Einstein and beyond, humans
have understood that all motion is relative and observer dependent.
Hidden in the law of inertia is the fact that whether a body is in
motion or not depends strictly on the point of view of the observer.
There is no "stationary" aether. There is no stationary anything.
What would it mean to be stationary anyway. Stationary with respect
to what?
john
>
> - Show quoted text -
So do you not see that to create 'drag',
the omnidirectional push has to be referenced
to a stationary field?
The idea of drag itself presupposes that a
planet is either moving wrt a background
or its not. But you say there
is no stationary background, so how can
there be drag?
john
מרגרט פורט
wrote:
het higgins
i am 72 years old
i have to acomplish something
before it is too late? (:-)
2
do you think my understanding of physics
is worthless ??
or not satndable in this ng ??
can you be honest with me ??
do you find it so harmful to you ??
Y.P
-------------------
Sam Wormley
Drag is cause by well-known interaction with matter and energy, John.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Drag_(physics)
john
>
You are assuming an incoming flow
which is equal on all sides only when the
planet is stopped wrt space.
john
Sam Wormley
I made no assumption.
PD
John, John, John, the planet is following an ellipse around the sun.
Don't you think this means the planet has to be moving wrt to the
space at some point during the orbit?
And if the drag happens to disappear in June, why would it still be
gone in October?
glird
Sam, son, Sam, haven't you seen the light?
(It supposedly is moving at c REGARDLESS
Sam Wormley
> The sub-photons and sub-neutrinos that
> are given off by the much finer-structured
> sub-matter which constitutes the electron
> are not only 10^27 times smaller than
> regular photons, they also propagate faster.
>
> When electrons are accelerated in a circle,
> these emanations are given off
> more in the direction of the magnetic field.
>
> of these emanations.
>
> These emanations are coming from everywhere
> because there are electrons for infinitely far
> in all directions. They push on our protons.
> a higher amount going into the surface
> of a planet than what is coming out makes gravity.
>
> john
> Galaxy Model for the Atom
> http://users.accesscomm.ca/john
>
>
>
John, you seem to fool yourself a lot--- what do you make of
the actual observation.
An Amish boy and his father were in a Mall. They were amazed
by almost everything they saw, but especially by two shiny,
silver walls that could move apart and then slide back together
again.
The boy asked, 'What is this, Father .... ?'
The father (never having seen an elevator) responded, 'Son, I
have never seen anything like this in my life. I don't know
what it is.'
While the boy and his father were watching with amazement, a
large old lady in a wheelchair moved up to the moving walls
and pressed a button. The walls opened and the lady rolled
between them into a small room. The walls closed and the boy
and his father watched the small circular numbers above the
walls light up sequentially. They continued to watch until
it reached the last number and then the numbers began to light
in the reverse order. Finally the walls opened up again and
a gorgeous 24-year-old blonde stepped out.
The father said quietly to his son..... 'Go get your mother.'
Y.Porat
wrote:
> john <vega...@accesscomm.ca> writes:
> >The sub-photons and sub-neutrinos that
> >are given off by the much finer-structured
> >sub-matter which constitutes the electron
> >are not only 10^27 times smaller than
> >regular photons, they also propagate faster.
>
>
> And the scientific evidence of all this is... ?
-----------------
the scientific evidence is to show every body
that you are a born parrot
that cant have some basic tallent tp
combine one plus one !!
may be you have some basic tallest to steal things
Y.Porat
BURT
The light wave center moves away from its emitting mass source in its
surrounding electric field of an electron. Light flowing through
electric energy at emmision is slow until it gets outside of the bond
field. Then it goes up to empty propagation speed which Einstein
defined as the constant of C through space.
Mitch Raemsch
bert
>
> - Show quoted text -
Electron structure is a cloud of photons. Half are virtual photons
that give the electron its magnetic features. Magnetisim and
electricity are realitive to each other. TreBert
Sam Wormley
> Electron structure is a cloud of photons.
Electrons (Leptons) have no observable structure, Herb.
john
>
> - Show quoted text -
clip-clop, clip-clop, clip-clop
BANG, BANG
clip-clop, clip-clop
(Amish drive-by shooting)
BURT
>
> - Show quoted text -
The electron is a geometric point particle of mass surrounded by a
spherical electric field that has energy when bonded to an atomic
shell.
Mitch Raemsch
bert
Sam BH have no obsevable structure. We can feel a strong magnetic
force,and watch a needle turn north as virtual photons pass through it
as they head for the north magnetic pole. Think Sam think TreBert
Sam Wormley
Messenger bosons are, just that, not structure of leptons.
BURT
Force fields are the trutrh.
Mitch Raemsch
Robert Higgins
There are many worthwhile things to accomplish - not everybody can be
Einstein or Dirac or Feynman
> 2
> do you think my understanding of physics
> is worthless ??
You don't seem to want to understand the currently accepted theories -
which are strongly supported by evidence.
> or not satndable in this ng ??
> can you be honest with me ??
I am trying.
> do you find it so harmful to you ??
No. Honesty isn't harmful, but it is difficult, because it means
telling people they are wrong, and hurting their feelings. But
recognizing when you are wrong is the only way to improve.
> Y.P
> -------------------
Y.Porat
and who willdecide waht is rigth or wrong??
is it you ??
that is parroting about
electron as point particle
while just cpmbining ione plus one
**experimental evidence**
by a medium intelligent peerson!!
tles you that a point is a mathematical ABSYTSCT CONCEPT**
ther is no point in the physical world is it so difficult
for you to get it as an avrage intelligent person !!
2
you are a chemist that is less than a year on this ng
so
WHO ON EARTH NOMINATED YOU
DO EVALUATE MY INNOVATIONS ??
is it not shameless impertinence ??
or may be a hired gangster behavior ???
while you dont understand even that
**no mass no realphysics *
and you dont understand that
W=hf
is not the definition of a single photonm energy emission??!
you should know it even as a chemist
that so an experiment with photoelectric cells !!
if not yet
just do the experiment that i described
in my relevant thread !!!
AND TRY TO OPERATE YOUR GRAY CELLS
if not your honesty
AND YOU DARE TO TALK ABOUT UNDERSTANDING
PHYSICS ??
***HONESTY*** IS THE FIRST CONDITION
FOR BEING A SERIOUS SCIENTIST !!
in order to be hird UN GRATEFUL gangster
you don t need any honesty!!!
keep well
Y.Porat
-----------------------------
Inertial
news:4573cc77-095c-493b...@u9g2000yqb.googlegroups.com...
What a lot of typo nonsense. You shouldn't type while in one of your anger
episodes.
Y.Porat
--------------------
(:-)
that is the only right diagnose
you ever did !!!!!
and the first time in my life
that i agree with you
yet any one can see
that this is your only thing in your
sick mind
ie to make me angry
that is all the 'physics' you have in your mind
and may well be
that is what your gangster bosses
pay you for !!!
Y.P
--------------------------
but it want help you
(:-)
Inertial
The only thin one needs to do to make you angry is post valid physics. You
launch unwarranted and unprovoked attacks, making unfounded allegations of
dishonesty and criminal activity. If this were not a newsgroup, you would
be in jail for slander or libel by now. You have major anger management
issues, among other psychological problems, and need help. I can understand
your anger .. you are near the end of your life and are trying to find a
purpose for it all. But trying to innovate physics out of total ignorance
as you do, and copyrighting every bit of garbage that you post on a public
newsgroup, and attacking every person who posts valid physics arguments is
not the way to achieve it. All it is doing is making you a laughing stock,
and making a joke of the name 'Porat' for decades to come.
Robert Higgins
Usually, a consensus among scientists develops.
> is it you ??
Maybe.
> that is parroting about
> electron as point particle
I am not a parrot. You are a Porat, but I am not a parrot.
> while just cpmbining ione plus one
> **experimental evidence**
"Experimental evidence" is kind of important in science...
> by a medium intelligent peerson!!
> tles you that a point is a mathematical ABSYTSCT CONCEPT**
> ther is no point in the physical world is it so difficult
> for you to get it as an avrage intelligent person !!
What makes you think that I am of only "average" intelligence?
> 2
> you are a chemist that is less than a year on this ng
One year on the ng, many years learning.
> so
> WHO ON EARTH NOMINATED YOU
> DO EVALUATE MY INNOVATIONS ??
"I would like to thank the Academy for nominating me. I would like to
thank my agent, the director, the producer, ...."
> is it not shameless impertinence ??
Or maybe shameful impertinence. Or maybe unshameful pertinence - I
can't tell.
> or may be a hired gangster behavior ???
The word "gangster" went out of style about 60 years ago.
> while you dont understand even that
> **no mass no realphysics *
No Mass, no real Catholicism!
> and you dont understand that
> W=hf
> is not the definition of a single photonm energy emission??!
You keep writing about "photon emission energy", as if photons were
emitting energy. The photons ARE the energy - energy is emitted as
packets of energy we call "photons."
> you should know it even as a chemist
> that so an experiment with photoelectric cells !!
Yes, as a chemist I understand the photoelectric effect, and
conservation of angular momentum, and quantum numbers.
> if not yet
> just do the experiment that i described
> in my relevant thread !!!
There is a lot more going on in a solar calculator than you realize.
The electronic circuitry was designed according to principles of
physics that YOU deny, and don;t understand. Why don't you write to
the solar calculator companies, and call them "gangsters" and "Josef
Goebbels"?
Or even George Goebbels!
> AND TRY TO OPERATE YOUR GRAY CELLS
My gray cells are "smooth operators".
> if not your honesty
>
> AND YOU DARE TO TALK ABOUT UNDERSTANDING
> PHYSICS ??
I DARE because I have advanced training in chemistry, which you don't.
I DARE because I understand the concepts, and you don't. Any more
questions?
> ***HONESTY*** IS THE FIRST CONDITION
> FOR BEING A SERIOUS SCIENTIST !!
Yes. And it is the best policy, too.
>
> in order to be hird UN GRATEFUL gangster
> you don t need any honesty!!!
Nothing worse than an UNGRATEFUL gangster!
Y.Porat
1 really i appreciate your cool answers
against my nervous attack
but really it is difficult to me to stay indifferent while i see
parroting
so let me stop exactly at the point
you said above
'conservation of angular momentum'
and please be honest with your answer "
how can a point have
angular momentum of spin
what is rotating in a point ???
just try to use your own mind instead of parroting!
2
take the photoelectric phenomenon :
how can a point absorb photon energy
and then emit it ??
TIA
Y.Porat
--------------
john
>
> - Show quoted text -
An AGN (active galactic nucleus) has
bulging accretion discs that are just
about ready to be ejected as quasars.
This is photon production.
We live in a fractal universe.
john
Y.Porat
-------------------
ok
take my 'Circlon' and you get it
for all matter !!
Y.P
----------------------
bert
>
> - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
Saying a particle(electron) is a point is nieve thinking. Point does
not give structure. Its bad science. Electron having a cloud like
structure gets our thinking in the right direction. TreBert
PD
There is no rotation in quantum mechanical spin. The word "spin" does
not mean what you think it means. It is called "spin" because it has
certain mathematical properties that is similar to the angular
momentum of rotating bodies, but it should NOT be construed that an
electron with spin is rotating on an axis. It doesn't mean that at
all. So stop asking this question, because it is just based on a
misunderstanding of terminology.
bert
>
> - Show quoted text -
Not a point,but a spinning cloud of photons TreBert
Y.Porat
very nice PD
so just tell us how can a point
have a spin
ie
in the SG experiment
half of the silver Atoms move
'left and other once move 'rigth'
and that is by no dispute ,done by its electron
so
what can ***a point particle ** contribute to that effect ??
how can a point make a
(an experimental shown difference **!!)
difference between
left or right ??
TIA
Y.Porat
--------------------------
PD
It has a property called "spin" which has NOTHING to do with rotation.
So first of all, there is no question about a point particle having a
property called spin, because we're not asking the point particle to
rotate. It is NOT rotating. It just has this odd property, and so
we're going to call it something. We could have called it "furmility",
but we can also call it spin because it has some *mathematical*
resemblance to the property angular momentum. NOT physical
resemblance, *mathematical* resemblance. That is the ONLY reason why
it is called "spin" and not "furmility" or something else.
> ie
> in the SG experiment
> half of the silver Atoms move
> 'left and other once move 'rigth'
> and that is by no dispute ,done by its electron
> so
>
> what can ***a point particle ** contribute to that effect ??
> how can a point make a
> (an experimental shown difference **!!)
> difference between
> left or right ??
A point can have a vector through it. An electric field is like that.
At every *point* in space, there is the *property* of an electric
field which has a magnitude and a direction at that *point*. Keep in
mind that there is nothing that has any spatial extent here.
Everything is at a *point*. HERE at this POINT, there is a property
that has value 6.3 N/C and it points northeast. There is no distance
involved at all. A vector is a POINT property.
Now, in the Stern Gerlach experiment, there is a magnetic field, which
again is a POINT property, which means that at any POINT in the
aperture there is a vector that tells you the strength and the
direction of the magnetic field. The magnetic field is a vector. A
vector is a POINT property.
The electron spin is another vector, and the behavior of the spin
vector (a POINT property) is that it can have only certain
orientations of its direction, in steps, compared to another vector's
direction at that POINT. For spin 1/2, there are only two steps
available, so there are only two orientations possible. (For spin 1,
there are three. For spin 5/2, there are six.) What is happening here
is the alignment of the directions of two POINT vectors at a POINT.
Once the direction of the spin is established, there is an influence
on the trajectory of that motion.
But here is the thing I want you to see and understand, so read it
over and over and over again. For something to have a left-and-right
sense DOES NOT MEAN that it has to have spatial extent, like a coin or
a dinner plate or a face. It is also possible for a POINT property --
a vector -- to have a left-and-right sense. And in this case there is
no spatial extent implied or applicable.
You have in your head that left-and-right sense ONLY applies to things
that have spatial extent, like coins and dinner plates and faces. But
you need to correct that, because left-and-right sense ALSO APPLIES to
things you have not yet considered or imagined.
If you are not familiar with vectors, what they are, why they are
POINT objects, then this is something for you to learn about. They are
not new (at all), but they well be new to you.
Y.Porat
------------------
PD why philosophy so much??
noting in real physical world cane be th e mathematical point!!
iow zero volume !!
a point has not biased direction it cannot have it
direction is defined by two points** at least*
one point does not have two points !!!
and we didnt start even to mention all the experimental facts that
make that *electron point particle*as nonsense physics !!
btw
i think that most physicists today
agree that the electron is literally zero volume
they waht to say
it is a very small particle
thats all
and that is why
we have so much ahead of us to search and make advance
it is not as posed as
'every ting is under control
btw
how is the Higgs boson doing at the LHC
i am not really following it
as nonsense physics !!
PD
First, let me comment that your first question was how a point object
(assuming one exists) could have a direction. I told you the answer to
that. Now you say, forget that answer because point objects with no
volume are impossible anyway. So you're not really interested in how a
point object can have a direction because you don't believe in point
objects. Deception on your part.
Secondly, you are flat wrong that nothing in the real physical world
can have zero volume. You are basing that statement on a
generalization of things you are familiar with. This "logic" leads to
mistakes. Someone who is only familiar with sheep, cows, pigs, dogs,
cats, and giraffes might come to the conclusion that all mammals give
live birth to their young, just because all the examples of mammals
they can think of have that property. But that's only because this
person's experience is limited. He's making a general rule based on
his limited experience that just isn't correct. A platypus is a mammal
that doesn't give live birth to its young. But if you weren't aware of
the platypus, it would be easy to make that mistake.
The things in your general experience are all objects that are
*composite*. Only composite things have nonzero volume, and there is a
reason why composite things have volume. Now, if all you know are
composite objects, then it would be easy to imagine that absolutely
everything has nonzero volume, because all the things you can think of
are that way. But there ARE things that are not composite, even if you
are not aware of them, and they do not obey the same rule about volume
that composite objects do. It would be as bad a mistake to say that
noncomposite objects MUST have volume, as it would be to say that
platypuses MUST give live birth to their young.
> a point has not biased direction it cannot have it
This is precisely where I told you that you were wrong. A vector is a
POINT property, and it DOES have a direction.
You say such things are impossible, and I'm telling you that you're
wrong. If you don't know what a vector is, then you need to learn
about them.
>
> direction is defined by two points** at least*
That is simply not correct. You may VISUALIZE it and draw it on paper
using two points at least (so that you can imagine it with an arrow),
but that is just a preference of your mind to make it easier to see.
Direction does NOT require two points. A vector is a SINGLE POINT
property, and it has a direction, even if you choose to draw a vector
on paper with an arrow. A vector is not an arrow. What you draw on
paper is a two-point arrow that only serves to SIGNIFY what is a
SINGLE POINT property.
> one point does not have two points !!!
> and we didnt start even to mention all the experimental facts that
> make that *electron point particle*as nonsense physics !!
There are no experimental facts that make electron point particles
nonsense physics, unless you are including things you make up.
>
> btw
> i think that most physicists today
> agree that the electron is literally zero volume
> they waht to say
> it is a very small particle
> thats all
There is a difference between what we think it is, and what we can say
it is in measurement. In measurement, we can only say that it is *at
most* small. We can say that it is smaller than anything we can see.
So it has no size WE CAN SEE.
But there is no evidence that says it MUST be zero, nor is there any
evidence that says it CANNOT be zero.
> and that is why
> we have so much ahead of us to search and make advance
> it is not as posed as
> 'every ting is under control
> btw
> how is the Higgs boson doing at the LHC
> i am not really following it
You should google now and again.
> as nonsense physics !!
Then why ask about it? If you're interested, you do the looking up.
Sam Wormley
> An AGN (active galactic nucleus) has
> bulging accretion discs that are just
> about ready to be ejected as quasars.
No...
http://www.mhhe.com/physsci/astronomy/fix/student/chapter24/24f26.html
BURT
Light comes out of point particles. Light energy comes out of
infinitely dense matter points of energy. This is a higher way to look
at mass.
Mitch Raemsch
Robert Higgins
PD has done an excellent job of explaining this.
Let me add one more thing you won't understand. "Spin" angular
momentum (note the quotes to show that we don't have a spinning top)
and orbital angular momentum, both being types of angular momentum,
are often interconvertible. For example, if an atom has one electron
in an "s" orbital (angular momentum quantum number l=0), absorbs a
photon (with "spin" angular momentum quantum number s=1), the one unit
of angular momentum is transferred to the electron, promoting it to a
"p" orbital (angular momentum quantum number l=1). In the process, the
photon ceases to be, and the result is that one unit of "spin" angular
momentum is converted to one unit of "orbital" angular momentum.
This interconversion controls what happens when atoms and
molecules absorbs EM radiation - we call these SELECTION RULES.
>
> and please be honest with your answer "
I am always honest.
>
> how can a point have
> angular momentum of spin
> what is rotating in a point ???
> just try to use your own mind instead of parroting!
I always use my own mind.
> 2
> take the photoelectric phenomenon :
>
> how can a point absorb photon energy
> and then emit it ??
Apparently, very well...
>
> TIA
> Y.Porat
> --------------
BURT
>
>
> - Show quoted text -
Ther electron is a point particle like the quark that radiates.
Mitch Raemsch