| 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" <maporat@012.net.il> wrote in message
news:1153021780.858281.296780@m79g2000cwm.googlegroups.com...
T Wake wrote:
"Y.Porat" <maporat@012.net.il> 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
------------------ |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
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
news:1153048370.834873.9860@35g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...
| Quote: |
T Wake wrote:
"Y.Porat" <maporat@012.net.il> wrote in message
news:1153021780.858281.296780@m79g2000cwm.googlegroups.com...
T Wake wrote:
"Y.Porat" <maporat@012.net.il> 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
|
Non-answer (again) noted.
| 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 !!
|
You mean it went over your head don't you? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
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:
| Quote: | "Y.Porat" <maporat@012.net.il> wrote in message
news:1153048370.834873.9860@35g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...
T Wake wrote:
"Y.Porat" <maporat@012.net.il> wrote in message
news:1153021780.858281.296780@m79g2000cwm.googlegroups.com...
T Wake wrote:
"Y.Porat" <maporat@012.net.il> 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
Non-answer (again) noted.
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?
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 !!
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
Bye
Y.Porat
-------------------------------- |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
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" <maporat@012.net.il> 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!!
|
No one is asking about annihilating 1 kg of mass.
| Quote: |
if in case 2
you take 2 kg of mass and annihilate it to photons energy
|
No one is asking about annihilating 2 kg of mass.
| 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
----------------------- |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
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" <herbertglazier@webtv.net> 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.
| Quote: | cannt anwer whastsoever your querstion
i showed you that even the E=mc^2 cannot answer quantitatively
your answer
|
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
---------------------- |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
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" <maporat@012.net.il> 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
----------------------- |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
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" <maporat@012.net.il> wrote in message
news:1153021780.858281.296780@m79g2000cwm.googlegroups.com...
T Wake wrote:
"Y.Porat" <maporat@012.net.il> 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.
Also answer this question.
How are photons created? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
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
news:1153067366.660093.267210@i42g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
| 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. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
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" <maporat@012.net.il> 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
---------------- |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
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
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
------------------------- |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
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
------------------------- |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
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" <maporat@012.net.il> 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. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
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.
|
|
|
Cranks Reply wrote:
| Quote: | Y.Porat wrote:
T Wake wrote:
"Y.Porat" <maporat@012.net.il> 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
------------------------ |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
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
------------------------- |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
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" <maporat@012.net.il> 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? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Google
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Usergroups
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
Forum index
»
Science and Technology
»
Physics
»
Particle
