Search   Memberlist   Usergroups
 Page 90 of 92 [1376 Posts] View previous topic :: View next topic Goto page:  Previous  1, 2, 3, ..., 88, 89, 90, 91, 92 Next
Author Message
Y.Porat
science forum Guru

Joined: 04 May 2005
Posts: 1809

Posted: Sun Jul 16, 2006 11:12 am    Post subject: Re: PHOTON MASS -- A FACT. MASSLESS PARTICLES -- NOT FACT.

T Wake wrote:
 Quote: "Y.Porat" wrote in message news:1153021780.858281.296780@m79g2000cwm.googlegroups.com... T Wake wrote: "Y.Porat" wrote in message news:1152931226.766836.8750@h48g2000cwc.googlegroups.com... enough in news://sci.physics where you are simply mocked daily. You are trying to spread your insanity over a wider area now. Stop it. smallest possible mass. imbecile nazi s**t Poor old YP. Are you not sleeping properly? Non-answer noted.

--------------
imbecil enazi s**t

i answered and explaint 90 times
it is not for a crook imbecile llike you
the readers who folow it can understant it

th eformula E = hf is experimental
it cannot give a quantitative answer to waht is the mass on energy of
photon
in x y kilograms
but it deos tell us that the mass in the energy of photon is nonzero
and that is all i need now
you will not drag me toyour stupid questions
my qualitative answer of nonzero is good enough and innovative enough
as is !!

2 the mc^2 does apply to the photonenergy as well but not to idiots .
if most of us understand that th egamam factor doe snot apply tothe
phopton
than the mass in mc^2 is not relativistc
and can be only the only kind of mas that exists
9(wah tis the only mass that exists ?? do you know idiot ??)

so if matetr is changed to energy by E=mc^2
the m there is the mass of the energy
got it imbecile
it was laways said
yes indeed we cant deny that t ehm in E=mc^2 is there but
itis relativistic even the parots didnt dent that there is mass there
thsy only said --it is relativistic mass

but they ddint know that thegamma factor does not apply to the photon
so it does not apply tothe mass there and waht remains is that
themass there i s rest mass
( the mass in energy derived forom mass annihialtion is rest mass !!)
so E=mc^2 does apply to the photon
but still we cant say if it is x or y kilograns fo ra photon
because we DONT KNOW HOW MANY PHOTONS ARETHERE
IN THAT ENERGY
BUT STILL WE CAN KNOW THAT THE MASS THERE IS m
and it is not zero and i dont need more than that at this stage
it is much more that imbeciles like yopu will do
in 10 life cycles of themselves .

bye idiot crook

ps that explanation is not for you it is for the cleaver and honest
people among the other readers !!

Y.Porat
------------------
T Wake
science forum Guru

Joined: 08 May 2005
Posts: 1978

Posted: Sun Jul 16, 2006 11:17 am    Post subject: Re: PHOTON MASS -- A FACT. MASSLESS PARTICLES -- NOT FACT.

"Y.Porat" <maporat@012.net.il> wrote in message
 Quote: T Wake wrote: "Y.Porat" wrote in message news:1153021780.858281.296780@m79g2000cwm.googlegroups.com... T Wake wrote: "Y.Porat" wrote in message news:1152931226.766836.8750@h48g2000cwc.googlegroups.com... enough in news://sci.physics where you are simply mocked daily. You are trying to spread your insanity over a wider area now. Stop it. smallest possible mass. imbecile nazi s**t Poor old YP. Are you not sleeping properly? Non-answer noted. -------------- imbecil enazi s**t

 Quote: i answered and explaint 90 times

No, you havent explained it once. You just post the same illiterate nonsense
calling me a nazi. Do you honestly think that is an explaination?

 Quote: it is not for a crook imbecile llike you the readers who folow it can understant it th eformula E = hf is experimental it cannot give a quantitative answer to waht is the mass on energy of photon in x y kilograms but it deos tell us that the mass in the energy of photon is nonzero and that is all i need now you will not drag me toyour stupid questions my qualitative answer of nonzero is good enough and innovative enough as is !! 2 the mc^2 does apply to the photonenergy as well but not to idiots . if most of us understand that th egamam factor doe snot apply tothe phopton than the mass in mc^2 is not relativistc and can be only the only kind of mas that exists 9(wah tis the only mass that exists ?? do you know idiot ??) so if matetr is changed to energy by E=mc^2 the m there is the mass of the energy got it imbecile it was laways said yes indeed we cant deny that t ehm in E=mc^2 is there but itis relativistic even the parots didnt dent that there is mass there thsy only said --it is relativistic mass but they ddint know that thegamma factor does not apply to the photon so it does not apply tothe mass there and waht remains is that themass there i s rest mass ( the mass in energy derived forom mass annihialtion is rest mass !!) so E=mc^2 does apply to the photon but still we cant say if it is x or y kilograns fo ra photon because we DONT KNOW HOW MANY PHOTONS ARETHERE IN THAT ENERGY BUT STILL WE CAN KNOW THAT THE MASS THERE IS m and it is not zero and i dont need more than that at this stage it is much more that imbeciles like yopu will do in 10 life cycles of themselves . bye idiot crook ps that explanation is not for you it is for the cleaver and honest people among the other readers !!

Y.Porat
science forum Guru

Joined: 04 May 2005
Posts: 1809

Posted: Sun Jul 16, 2006 4:29 pm    Post subject: Re: PHOTON MASS -- A FACT. MASSLESS PARTICLES -- NOT FACT.

T Wake wrote:

ok enough is enough

lets end up this discussion that is only between the two of us
and leads no where -- as civilized people (if possible ??)

lets leave it for other ** serioious responsible ** scientists to judge

Bye
Y.Porat
--------------------------------
Golden Boar
science forum Guru

Joined: 17 May 2005
Posts: 651

Posted: Sun Jul 16, 2006 7:44 pm    Post subject: Re: PHOTON MASS -- A FACT. MASSLESS PARTICLES -- NOT FACT.

Y.Porat wrote:
 Quote: T Wake wrote: "Y.Porat" wrote in message news:1152717305.535878.17270@b28g2000cwb.googlegroups.com... -------------------------- Go on then. In kg. 3 my suggestion for th esmallest one is : phton mass (min) = h/c^2 *1.000/time unit that is my suggestion to the smallest possoble What is that in kg? 4 it ha s nothing to do with my qualitiative proof of nonzero rest mass fo rany photon you will see just folowing why ? eh? 5 E=hf = 6.6 10 ^-34 * Kg meter ^2* f /second =E so it we realeaee the mass form it it is : m (kg) = E * 1 second \ 6.6 10 ^-34 *1 meter^2 *f provided i didnt do an aritmethic mistake ( an aritmetic mistake should be forgivable for me since i do it quick and jst on the secreen and i am an old ghoat but still a physicist ( if wrong aritmetaically please correct but it does not change the prionciple ) It still isnt the mass of the photon in kg. so now you can see the problem you have here ONE EQUATION WITH TWO UNKNOWNS E and f so you cant solve it QUALTITATIVELY now one of my breakthrough insite was that i realized that the qualitative proof for nonzero reat mass is enough th e other break through insight was that there is only just one kind of mass so the Energy of the photon containes mass! and tha t is an innovation proof !! so may be now(and once and for all ) you wil start to understand why i did it only qualitatively ?? yet if all your intention is to drive me crazy than you wont succeed with it Its not. It is to find out what the mass of the photon is supposed to be in kg. ------------------------------- i still cannot decide to myself whther are are just interested to drive me crazy or may be you are ineed (for some unknown reason ( unable to understand WHAT IS THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN A QUANTITATIVEPROOF AND A QUALITIATIVE PROOF may be just because it is so unprecedentd and surprosiongly simple ....... so if you are realy serious with your question (which i realy could not know untill now ..) here it is again it needs some general undersytanding : th eformula E =hf cannot for itself answer your question (waht is the mass of the photon quantitatively) because waht it is !! even the formula E=mc^2 cant do it but that doe snot mean that we cannot get from it the QUALITATIVE ANSWER of yes or no mass for the photon and why ?? because lets take a more concrete example : i kg of mass if it is annihilated to photon energy can give you E=hf1 phtons of energy please note the f1 it means a specific wave length!!

 Quote: if in case 2 you take 2 kg of mass and annihilate it to photons energy

 Quote: you can still get th e photns withth the *same frequency * f1 exactly the same as in case 1 but can we say that the energy we get in case 1 is the *same quantitatively* as in case 2 ?? of course nmot - from 2 kg mass you should get two times mor eenergy than from 1 kk of mass EVEN THOUGH IN BOTH CASES YOU GOT THE SAME PHOTONS WITH THE SAME FR FREQUENCY f1 !! so even E=hf csannot for itself give you the amswer to the question

E = hf is for a single photon.

 Quote: waht is the mass of the photons that we got why ?? because we dont know how many photons were involved in that annihilation process!!

What annihilation process? We are talking about a single photon here,
the same single photon which has an energy of E = hf.

It is probably too dificult for you to understand.

 Quote: if we could know how many photon were involved we could divide trhe

We do know how many photons were dealing with. The answer is one, a
single photon, with an energy of E = hf.

 Quote: total energy recieved by n photons and thats all now comes the 1 million \$ question : even so can we get a QUALITATIVE answwer to the question of is there mass in that photon energy or not ??? the second question is if htere is mass do we have one kind of mass or more than one kind ??! let me leave the answer to cleaver and honest people (CLEAVER AND HONEST .....nothing nothing of *both* missing !!.. iow for real physicists (!!!

Because you are are neither clever nor honest?
Beacuse you are too retarded to answer the question yourself?
Perhaps both?

 Quote: ATB Y.Porat -----------------------
Golden Boar
science forum Guru

Joined: 17 May 2005
Posts: 651

Posted: Sun Jul 16, 2006 7:56 pm    Post subject: Re: PHOTON MASS -- A FACT. MASSLESS PARTICLES -- NOT FACT.

Y.Porat wrote:
 Quote: since the crook wake snipped the relativity and particle ng here it is again : --------------------------- T Wake wrote: "G=EMC^2 Glazier" wrote in message news:12887-44B693F2-93@storefull-3338.bay.webtv.net... T. Wake The photon has no rest,and that means no mass. It has great energy,and energy and mass are equivalent E=M is the best equation for the photon. We think because we are born into mass that the universe first of all is mass,but reality is energy is # 1 Bert Yeah, thanks for that. ----------------------------------- wat can i do while wake considers himself a thinking pgysicsit while the truth is that he is a parrot that is unable to understandsomething that is still not written in his text book ??!! what do you think science and tecnology could be if all our world was populated by people as capable as you ???!!! ( we would still be climbing on trees -- i showed you mathematically that the E=hf

This is quite obvios sinse E = hf is for the energy of a photon.

Obviously, because the equation does not apply to a photon.

 Quote: because we dont know how many potons were relaesd by 1 kg or 2 kg of mass

What has this got to do with anything? We are talking about the
frequency, energy and mass of a *SINGLE* photon. Got that numb nuts, or
do I need to repeat it? I will repeat it any way. We are talking about
a *SINGLE* photon. *SINGLE* as in one.

 Quote: yet i shoed you that obviously those formula can (do ) show qualitatively that they include the physically mass entity

No you never. All that you did was say that because h has kg in its
units, the photon must have a rest mass.

 Quote: now what can we do while it i snot written in your old books ??? are you able to leaern sometbning new ??? i am much older than you - and i could !! now toi Bert you as well just stop being a parrot !! if you take thwe E=mc^2 the mass is obviously there !! dont you see the mass there ?? or are you blind ?? its more than time for you to understand that

E=mc^2 does not apply to a photon.

 Quote: ENERGY IS MASS IN MOTION !!! that is exactly waht that E=mc^2 says !! historicvally the 'genious idea that phtons have energy but not mass was INVENTED ARBITRARILY !! 'because 'it was understood that any mass cannot reach the speed of light or else 'it would inflate to infinity !! THAT WAS THE ONLY 'REASON ' WHY THE MASSLESS ENERGY OF PHOTON WAS INVENTED yet no isiot before ever thought about thepossibility that th ephoton is a limit case of which the gamma factor does not apply to it !! if there is no Gamma there is no room for the idiotic idea that we canhave energy but not mass in a photon

Complete nonsense.

 Quote: i even showed to stupidity of that idea mathematically : the 'claim was if E=gamma mc^2 than while v=c it will become infinity because of divided nyzero now we have top fo further and ask suopose that claim is right so lets put th emass there as you suggest = as zero mass WAHT WILL WE GET THAN ??! we willget E=gamma m c^2 = 0/0 c^2 but the hell with you !!

Which is why it does not apply to the photon.

 Quote: 0/0 is an undefined quamtity !!! i can say anything i like about that qauntity THA TIS NOT PHYSICS EVEN NOT MATHEMATICS !!! so just stick it into your hevy mind RGHE GAMMA FACTOR (NOT CONSTANT ,,,,) DOES NOT APPLY TO THE PHOTON BECAUSE THE PHOTON IS A LIMIT CASE ! AND IF IT DOES NOT APPLY TOTHE PHOTN .-- THERE IS NO MORE ROOM FOR THE CLAIM THAT the mass of the photon IS ZERO!!

Why not?

 Quote: it can be tiny but not zero and you dont need anymore the stupid ***modern invention*** of energy without mass !! (the simpler the betetr !!!) complicated for parrots ??? anyway no chance that wake and his gang will get it evenif the start to understand it because it was explained by Porat

No one could possibly understand anything you try to explain, as you
can't even write a sentence in english, you just write lines of
gibberish nonsense.

 Quote: it is impossible for them to get anythiong form an enemy !! and that is why i said it is not enough even to be cleaver one must be honst as well!

You are neither.

 Quote: but that is impossible for people who where educated as Wake and his freinds honsety was not and is not in their diet for them personal politics is much more important !! honesty for Nazi educated people - is a sighn of weakness while they admire only power (and themselves and their Clan ) and nothing else !! Y.Porat ----------------------
Golden Boar
science forum Guru

Joined: 17 May 2005
Posts: 651

Posted: Sun Jul 16, 2006 8:04 pm    Post subject: Re: PHOTON MASS -- A FACT. MASSLESS PARTICLES -- NOT FACT.

Y.Porat wrote:
 Quote: T Wake wrote: "Y.Porat" wrote in message news:1152853287.819470.203520@s13g2000cwa.googlegroups.com... since the crook wake snipped the relativity and particle ng here it is again : Yeah, keep posting your crap into as many groups as you can. Shows what a sane person you are... ------------- The first thing that i can easyly show is that you are a ng maniac since if you have ever read the posting code of this ng it is not ethical to change the orriginal groups that the OP stsrted and youdo it nonstop 2 it is not acording tothose ethics to go on asking the same quuestion expecially while you got an answer for it especially while the question is stupid and malicious you keep on asking waht is the mass of the photon in Kg while i answered that the smallest possoible according to my suggestion is m min = h/c^2 *1/time unit and it is not far from the exsperimental measurements

So what is the mass of the photon in kg.
You have given the equation, surely you don't find it that difficult to
plug in the numbers and do some basic arithmetic.
So what is the mass in kg, of a *SINGLE* photon, which has a wavelength
of 555 nm?

 Quote: while it is obvious that as is all those photon mass measurments are very unreliable: the wide dispertion of results prves it 3 i showed you that E=hf cannot give a quantitative answer to the question waht is the mass of the photon

Of couse it can't, as this equation gives the energy of a single photon
which has a frequency, f.

 Quote: 4 i showed you that even E=mc^2 cannot give a quantitative answer because we dont know how many photons are involved in that m

You are an imbecile, we know that the number of photons involved is
one.

 Quote: 4 i ddi show (not to you but to cleaver decent peole ) that both E=hf and E=mc^2 for photons CAN TELL US A QUANTITATIVE ANSWER whether the phon has mass or not and the answer is yes !! so stay away from it and find yourself a day job as a dish washer (or a gangster ) and leave it to realscintists and not to bump parasites Y.Porat -----------------------
Golden Boar
science forum Guru

Joined: 17 May 2005
Posts: 651

Posted: Sun Jul 16, 2006 8:21 pm    Post subject: Re: PHOTON MASS -- A FACT. MASSLESS PARTICLES -- NOT FACT.

Y.Porat wrote:
 Quote: T Wake wrote: "Y.Porat" wrote in message news:1153021780.858281.296780@m79g2000cwm.googlegroups.com... T Wake wrote: "Y.Porat" wrote in message news:1152931226.766836.8750@h48g2000cwc.googlegroups.com... enough in news://sci.physics where you are simply mocked daily. You are trying to spread your insanity over a wider area now. Stop it. smallest possible mass. imbecile nazi s**t Poor old YP. Are you not sleeping properly? Non-answer noted. -------------- imbecil enazi s**t i answered and explaint 90 times it is not for a crook imbecile llike you the readers who folow it can understant it

You still have not answered the question.
Your explanations have been refuted many times.

You basically just keep repeating the same old sorry shite which has
been disproven hundreds of times, while avoiding answering questions.

 Quote: th eformula E = hf is experimental it cannot give a quantitative answer to waht is the mass on energy of photon in x y kilograms

That is because it is a formula to calculate the energy of a photon of
a known frequency.

 Quote: but it deos tell us that the mass in the energy of photon is nonzero

No it does not.
It tells us the energy of the photon.
It tells us the frequency of the photon.
It tells us that the energy of the photon is directly proportional to
the frequency of the photon, and the constant of proportionality is h.

 Quote: and that is all i need now you will not drag me toyour stupid questions

The question is not stupid, considering that you keep insisting that a
photon has a rest mass.

 Quote: my qualitative answer of nonzero is good enough and innovative enough as is !!

No it isn't.

 Quote: 2 the mc^2 does apply to the photonenergy as well but not to idiots . if most of us understand that th egamam factor doe snot apply tothe phopton than the mass in mc^2 is not relativistc and can be only the only kind of mas that exists 9(wah tis the only mass that exists ?? do you know idiot ??) so if matetr is changed to energy by E=mc^2

E = mc^2 does not change matter to energy.

 Quote: the m there is the mass of the energy got it imbecile it was laways said yes indeed we cant deny that t ehm in E=mc^2 is there but itis relativistic even the parots didnt dent that there is mass there thsy only said --it is relativistic mass but they ddint know that thegamma factor does not apply to the photon

Of course they did you retard.

 Quote: so it does not apply tothe mass there and waht remains is that

Thats because there is no mass there.

 Quote: themass there i s rest mass ( the mass in energy derived forom mass annihialtion is rest mass !!) so E=mc^2 does apply to the photon but still we cant say if it is x or y kilograns fo ra photon because we DONT KNOW HOW MANY PHOTONS ARETHERE IN THAT ENERGY BUT STILL WE CAN KNOW THAT THE MASS THERE IS m and it is not zero and i dont need more than that at this stage it is much more that imbeciles like yopu will do in 10 life cycles of themselves . bye idiot crook ps that explanation is not for you it is for the cleaver and honest people among the other readers !! Y.Porat ------------------

Complete nonsense as usual.

Aswer the question.

What is the rest mass in kg, of a single photon, which has a wavelength
of 555 nm?

If you don't aswer the question, you are nothing but a lying, cheating,
handwaving, retarded little fool.

How are photons created?
T Wake
science forum Guru

Joined: 08 May 2005
Posts: 1978

Posted: Sun Jul 16, 2006 9:21 pm    Post subject: Re: PHOTON MASS -- A FACT. MASSLESS PARTICLES -- NOT FACT.

"Y.Porat" <maporat@012.net.il> wrote in message
 Quote: You mean it went over your head don't you? ------------------------- ok enough is enough lets end up this discussion that is only between the two of us and leads no where -- as civilized people (if possible ??) lets leave it for other ** serioious responsible ** scientists to judge

Ok, once more you try to weasel out of giving an answer - last time you just
said you were insane and refused to talk to me for a while.

Serious responsible scientists have judged your work and they think it is
nonsense. I agree with them.

If your "theory" could make a prediction which could be experimentally
tested then it would at least be a theory.

As it stands, you just have words on a USENET post. I feel sorry for you.
Y.Porat
science forum Guru

Joined: 04 May 2005
Posts: 1809

Posted: Mon Jul 17, 2006 3:50 am    Post subject: Re: PHOTON MASS -- A FACT. MASSLESS PARTICLES -- NOT FACT.

T Wake wrote:
 Quote: "Y.Porat" wrote in message news:1153067366.660093.267210@i42g2000cwa.googlegroups.com... You mean it went over your head don't you? ------------------------- ok enough is enough lets end up this discussion that is only between the two of us and leads no where -- as civilized people (if possible ??) lets leave it for other ** serioious responsible ** scientists to judge Ok, once more you try to weasel out of giving an answer - last time you just said you were insane and refused to talk to me for a while. Serious responsible scientists have judged your work and they think it is nonsense. I agree with them. If your "theory" could make a prediction which could be experimentally tested then it would at least be a theory. As it stands, you just have words on a USENET post. I feel sorry for you. --------------

the negative attitude tio myproof is of yourse
not of serious scinetists
it is realy new and unprededented and needs time tointernalize it

btw i bet that after some years people like PD will present it as an
idea of themselves or of their friends
or a t the good case as something done 80 years ago!
so dont take PD or alike for example of a serious decent person
anyway
dont eb sorry for me
the only thing you have to be sorry is
the hard time real inventirs *must'* suffer ** in planting something
new
it was like that all laong history
there is too many private and ego and God knows what else-
involved in it
thats the price innovative peole have to pay

anyway i am not complaining!! since it was always likre that
and i always keep in mind that
all the benefits i enjoy of modern life is a result of
'blood and tears and sweat' of peole before me ....
so bye
and lets fight on the next issue
i am sure i will meet you there ( ....
Y.Porat
----------------
Y.Porat
science forum Guru

Joined: 04 May 2005
Posts: 1809

Posted: Mon Jul 17, 2006 6:47 am    Post subject: Re: Sturcture of an atom

Euler Cheung wrote:
 Quote: An atom is felt solid because electron rotating in the orbit. If we extend this line of thinking, we could also say that electron only felt solid as an electron because a smaller particle rotating in the orbit which made up the volume of electron. It is not non-sensical since we already know electron is not the smallest particle. How far can we push this line of argument? What would be resultant trajectory of the smallest particle(in this universe)? -----------------------------

if you suggest that the electronm is not th esmallest particle
and it is composed of smaller subparticles
*i am with you *

if you say that trhere is a lot6 of nonsense mumbling withthe
*i am with you *

i suggest you have a look at my homemade model of Atom and nuc. in

http://www.geocities.com/porat_y/mypage.html

there is a pdf file there
please note my new idea of :
'the chain of orbitals '
that site is just the tip of the iceverg of my model
just an 'appetizer'
PS i expanded your post to sci.physics .particle
if you have opposition to that expansion - please let me know ans i
will keep it only in sci.physics

ATB
Y.Porat
-------------------------
Euler Cheung
science forum beginner

Joined: 15 Jul 2006
Posts: 12

Posted: Mon Jul 17, 2006 8:30 am    Post subject: Re: Sturcture of an atom

I agree with your expansion, it is a worthy topic to discuss.

Y.Porat wrote:
 Quote: Euler Cheung wrote: An atom is felt solid because electron rotating in the orbit. If we extend this line of thinking, we could also say that electron only felt solid as an electron because a smaller particle rotating in the orbit which made up the volume of electron. It is not non-sensical since we already know electron is not the smallest particle. How far can we push this line of argument? What would be resultant trajectory of the smallest particle(in this universe)? ----------------------------- if you suggest that the electronm is not th esmallest particle and it is composed of smaller subparticles *i am with you * if you say that trhere is a lot6 of nonsense mumbling withthe existing paradigm *i am with you * i suggest you have a look at my homemade model of Atom and nuc. in http://www.geocities.com/porat_y/mypage.html there is a pdf file there please note my new idea of : 'the chain of orbitals ' that site is just the tip of the iceverg of my model just an 'appetizer' PS i expanded your post to sci.physics .particle if you have opposition to that expansion - please let me know ans i will keep it only in sci.physics ATB Y.Porat -------------------------
yt56erd
science forum Guru

Joined: 13 May 2005
Posts: 313

Posted: Mon Jul 17, 2006 9:02 am    Post subject: Re: PHOTON MASS -- A FACT. MASSLESS PARTICLES -- NOT FACT.

Y.Porat wrote:

 Quote: T Wake wrote: "Y.Porat" wrote in message news:1153067366.660093.267210@i42g2000cwa.googlegroups.com... You mean it went over your head don't you? ------------------------- ok enough is enough lets end up this discussion that is only between the two of us and leads no where -- as civilized people (if possible ??) lets leave it for other ** serioious responsible ** scientists to judge Ok, once more you try to weasel out of giving an answer - last time you just said you were insane and refused to talk to me for a while. Serious responsible scientists have judged your work and they think it is nonsense. I agree with them. If your "theory" could make a prediction which could be experimentally tested then it would at least be a theory. As it stands, you just have words on a USENET post. I feel sorry for you. -------------- the negative attitude tio myproof is of yourse not of serious scinetists it is realy new and unprededented and needs time tointernalize it btw i bet that after some years people like PD will present it as an idea of themselves or of their friends or a t the good case as something done 80 years ago! so dont take PD or alike for example of a serious decent person anyway dont eb sorry for me the only thing you have to be sorry is the hard time real inventirs *must'* suffer ** in planting something new it was like that all laong history there is too many private and ego and God knows what else- involved in it thats the price innovative peole have to pay anyway i am not complaining!! since it was always likre that and i always keep in mind that all the benefits i enjoy of modern life is a result of 'blood and tears and sweat' of peole before me .... so bye and lets fight on the next issue i am sure i will meet you there ( .... Y.Porat ----------------

kookfr0th.
Y.Porat
science forum Guru

Joined: 04 May 2005
Posts: 1809

Posted: Mon Jul 17, 2006 11:08 am    Post subject: Re: PHOTON MASS -- A FACT. MASSLESS PARTICLES -- NOT FACT.

 Quote: Y.Porat wrote: T Wake wrote: "Y.Porat" wrote in message news:1153067366.660093.267210@i42g2000cwa.googlegroups.com... You mean it went over your head don't you? ------------------------- ok enough is enough As it stands, you just have words on a USENET post. I feel sorry for you. the negative attitude tio myproof is of yourse not of serious scinetists it is realy new and unprededented and needs time tointernalize it btw i bet that after some years people like PD will present it as an idea of themselves or of their friends or a t the good case as something done 80 years ago! so dont take PD or alike for example of a serious decent person anyway dont eb sorry for me the only thing you have to be sorry is the hard time real inventirs *must'* suffer ** in planting something new it was like that all laong history there is too many private and ego and God knows what else- involved in it thats the price innovative peole have to pay anyway i am not complaining!! since it was always likre that and i always keep in mind that all the benefits i enjoy of modern life is a result of 'blood and tears and sweat' of peole before me .... so bye and lets fight on the next issue i am sure i will meet you there ( .... Y.Porat ---------------- kookfr0th. --------------------------

bye Wake !!!! (:-)

Y.P
------------------------
Y.Porat
science forum Guru

Joined: 04 May 2005
Posts: 1809

Posted: Mon Jul 17, 2006 11:11 am    Post subject: Re: Sturcture of an atom

Euler Cheung wrote:
 Quote: I agree with your expansion, it is a worthy topic to discuss.

--------------------------
thanks

Y.Porat
----------------------------------------

 Quote: Y.Porat wrote: Euler Cheung wrote: An atom is felt solid because electron rotating in the orbit. If we extend this line of thinking, we could also say that electron only felt solid as an electron because a smaller particle rotating in the orbit which made up the volume of electron. It is not non-sensical since we already know electron is not the smallest particle. How far can we push this line of argument? What would be resultant trajectory of the smallest particle(in this universe)? ----------------------------- if you suggest that the electronm is not th esmallest particle and it is composed of smaller subparticles *i am with you * if you say that trhere is a lot6 of nonsense mumbling withthe existing paradigm *i am with you * i suggest you have a look at my homemade model of Atom and nuc. in http://www.geocities.com/porat_y/mypage.html there is a pdf file there please note my new idea of : 'the chain of orbitals ' that site is just the tip of the iceverg of my model just an 'appetizer' PS i expanded your post to sci.physics .particle if you have opposition to that expansion - please let me know ans i will keep it only in sci.physics ATB Y.Porat -------------------------
yt56erd
science forum Guru

Joined: 13 May 2005
Posts: 313

Posted: Mon Jul 17, 2006 12:47 pm    Post subject: Re: PHOTON MASS -- A FACT. MASSLESS PARTICLES -- NOT FACT.

Y.Porat wrote:

 Quote: Cranks Reply wrote: Y.Porat wrote: T Wake wrote: "Y.Porat" wrote in message news:1153067366.660093.267210@i42g2000cwa.googlegroups.com... You mean it went over your head don't you? ------------------------- ok enough is enough As it stands, you just have words on a USENET post. I feel sorry for you. the negative attitude tio myproof is of yourse not of serious scinetists it is realy new and unprededented and needs time tointernalize it btw i bet that after some years people like PD will present it as an idea of themselves or of their friends or a t the good case as something done 80 years ago! so dont take PD or alike for example of a serious decent person anyway dont eb sorry for me the only thing you have to be sorry is the hard time real inventirs *must'* suffer ** in planting something new it was like that all laong history there is too many private and ego and God knows what else- involved in it thats the price innovative peole have to pay anyway i am not complaining!! since it was always likre that and i always keep in mind that all the benefits i enjoy of modern life is a result of 'blood and tears and sweat' of peole before me .... so bye and lets fight on the next issue i am sure i will meet you there ( .... Y.Porat ---------------- kookfr0th. -------------------------- bye Wake !!!! (:-) Y.P ------------------------

who the f*** are you talking to no dickface?

 Display posts from previous: All Posts1 Day7 Days2 Weeks1 Month3 Months6 Months1 Year Oldest FirstNewest First
 Page 90 of 92 [1376 Posts] Goto page:  Previous  1, 2, 3, ..., 88, 89, 90, 91, 92 Next View previous topic :: View next topic
 The time now is Fri Apr 26, 2019 2:22 pm | All times are GMT
 Jump to: Select a forum-------------------Forum index|___Science and Technology    |___Math    |   |___Research    |   |___num-analysis    |   |___Symbolic    |   |___Combinatorics    |   |___Probability    |   |   |___Prediction    |   |       |   |___Undergraduate    |   |___Recreational    |       |___Physics    |   |___Research    |   |___New Theories    |   |___Acoustics    |   |___Electromagnetics    |   |___Strings    |   |___Particle    |   |___Fusion    |   |___Relativity    |       |___Chem    |   |___Analytical    |   |___Electrochem    |   |   |___Battery    |   |       |   |___Coatings    |       |___Engineering        |___Control        |___Mechanics        |___Chemical

 Topic Author Forum Replies Last Post Similar Topics Units for electric field strength Gavin Electromagnetics 0 Thu Aug 24, 2006 3:00 pm Infinitesimal generator of a vector field Julien Santini Math 0 Fri Jul 21, 2006 8:01 am Behaviour of a Ball (Bouncing and Spinning) Jonas Huckestein Physics 0 Thu Jul 20, 2006 2:38 pm Vector field flow problem - help? Daniel Nierro Math 1 Wed Jul 19, 2006 10:28 am Geomagnetic field reason h_v_ansari@yahoo.com Electromagnetics 2 Tue Jul 18, 2006 3:34 pm