FAQFAQ   SearchSearch   MemberlistMemberlist   UsergroupsUsergroups 
 ProfileProfile   PreferencesPreferences   Log in to check your private messagesLog in to check your private messages   Log inLog in 
Forum index » Science and Technology » Physics » Particle
magnetic propeties from spinning electric field
Post new topic   Reply to topic Page 91 of 92 [1376 Posts] View previous topic :: View next topic
Goto page:  Previous  1, 2, 3, ..., 89, 90, 91, 92 Next
Author Message
yt56erd
science forum Guru


Joined: 13 May 2005
Posts: 313

PostPosted: Mon Jul 17, 2006 12:48 pm    Post subject: Re: Sturcture of an atom Reply with quote

Y.Porat wrote:

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

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

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

k00kl0ve

porat-crankhole has found a new friend.
Back to top
T Wake
science forum Guru


Joined: 08 May 2005
Posts: 1978

PostPosted: Mon Jul 17, 2006 2:53 pm    Post subject: Re: PHOTON MASS -- A FACT. MASSLESS PARTICLES -- NOT FACT. Reply with quote

"Y.Porat" <maporat@012.net.il> wrote in message
news:1153108215.410915.221950@s13g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
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

Really.

What serious scientists do you know that support your "proof" or even come
close to agreeing it is a "scientific theory."

Quote:
it is realy new and unprededented and needs time tointernalize it

Nonsense.

Quote:
btw i bet that after some years people like PD will present it as an
idea of themselves or of their friends

Bet they dont.

Quote:
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 (Smile ....

I doubt it, you are pretty wrapped up in this one.
Back to top
T Wake
science forum Guru


Joined: 08 May 2005
Posts: 1978

PostPosted: Mon Jul 17, 2006 2:53 pm    Post subject: Re: PHOTON MASS -- A FACT. MASSLESS PARTICLES -- NOT FACT. Reply with quote

"Y.Porat" <maporat@012.net.il> wrote in message
news:1153134533.329562.73900@m73g2000cwd.googlegroups.com...
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 (Smile ....
Y.Porat
----------------

kookfr0th.
--------------------------
bye Wake !!!! (Smile

Was that meant for me or "Cranks Reply?"
Back to top
Y.Porat
science forum Guru


Joined: 04 May 2005
Posts: 1809

PostPosted: Mon Jul 17, 2006 3:06 pm    Post subject: Re: PHOTON MASS -- A FACT. MASSLESS PARTICLES -- NOT FACT. Reply with quote

T Wake wrote:
Quote:
"Y.Porat" <maporat@012.net.il> wrote in message
news:1153134533.329562.73900@m73g2000cwd.googlegroups.com...

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
so bye
and lets fight on the next issue
i am sure i will meet you there (Smile ....
Y.Porat
----------------

kookfr0th.
--------------------------
bye Wake !!!! (:-)

Was that meant for me or "Cranks Reply?"
-----------------------------

(Smile
---------------------------
Y.P
-----------------------
Back to top
Y.Porat
science forum Guru


Joined: 04 May 2005
Posts: 1809

PostPosted: Mon Jul 17, 2006 3:18 pm    Post subject: Re: Sturcture of an atom Reply with quote

Cranks Reply wrote:
Quote:
Y.Porat wrote:

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

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

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

k00kl0ve

porat-crankhole has found a new friend.
-------------------------------

(Smile
does it hurt you shitty ???
do you have a single friend beside your boy friend ?? (Smile
what does your wife say about it ??? (:-)

Y.P
-------------------------------
Back to top
T Wake
science forum Guru


Joined: 08 May 2005
Posts: 1978

PostPosted: Mon Jul 17, 2006 3:30 pm    Post subject: Re: PHOTON MASS -- A FACT. MASSLESS PARTICLES -- NOT FACT. Reply with quote

"Y.Porat" <maporat@012.net.il> wrote in message
news:1153148785.120306.205320@75g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...
Quote:

T Wake wrote:
"Y.Porat" <maporat@012.net.il> wrote in message
news:1153134533.329562.73900@m73g2000cwd.googlegroups.com...

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
so bye
and lets fight on the next issue
i am sure i will meet you there (Smile ....
Y.Porat
----------------

kookfr0th.
--------------------------
bye Wake !!!! (:-)

Was that meant for me or "Cranks Reply?"
-----------------------------
(Smile

Is that an answer in the Land of The Loon?
Back to top
Phineas T Puddleduck
science forum Guru


Joined: 01 Jun 2006
Posts: 759

PostPosted: Mon Jul 17, 2006 5:20 pm    Post subject: Re: PHOTON MASS -- A FACT. MASSLESS PARTICLES -- NOT FACT. Reply with quote

In article <1153021780.858281.296780@m79g2000cwm.googlegroups.com>,
Y.Porat <maporat@012.net.il> wrote:

Quote:
NEITHER THE hf not the E=mc^2
CANNOT GIVE A QUANTITATIVE ANSWER TO YOUR STUPID QUESTION
WHAT TIS THE MASS OF THE PHOTON QUANTITATIVELY

So you're saying the phoon has mass - but you don't know what it is ....

What a maroon.

--
Relf's Law? -+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
"Bullshit repeated to the limit of infinity asymptotically approaches
the odour of roses."
Corollary -+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
³It approaches the asymptote faster, the more Œpseduos¹ you throw in
your formulas.²
-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
³Gravity is one of the four fundamental interactions. The classical
theory of gravity - Einstein's general relativity - is the subject
of this book.² : Hartle/ Gravity pg 1
-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
Jaffa cakes. Sweet delicious orange jaffa goodness, and an abject lesson
why parroting information from the web will not teach you cosmology.
-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
Back to top
Igor
science forum Guru


Joined: 15 May 2005
Posts: 315

PostPosted: Mon Jul 17, 2006 5:21 pm    Post subject: Re: Sturcture of an atom Reply with quote

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 *

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Preon

Knock yourself out!
Back to top
Phineas T Puddleduck
science forum Guru


Joined: 01 Jun 2006
Posts: 759

PostPosted: Mon Jul 17, 2006 8:31 pm    Post subject: Re: PHOTON MASS -- A FACT. MASSLESS PARTICLES -- NOT FACT. Reply with quote

In article <1153048370.834873.9860@35g2000cwc.googlegroups.com>,
Y.Porat <maporat@012.net.il> wrote:

Quote:
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 !!

No it isn't - cause you're talking absolute bollocks.

Oops sorry let me make it easier for you

Ono iiit isn tcaues yu'ore tlkaing asbotelu bolox

--
Relf's Law? -+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
"Bullshit repeated to the limit of infinity asymptotically approaches
the odour of roses."
Corollary -+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
³It approaches the asymptote faster, the more Œpseduos¹ you throw in
your formulas.²
-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
³Gravity is one of the four fundamental interactions. The classical
theory of gravity - Einstein's general relativity - is the subject
of this book.² : Hartle/ Gravity pg 1
-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
Jaffa cakes. Sweet delicious orange jaffa goodness, and an abject lesson
why parroting information from the web will not teach you cosmology.
-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
Back to top
Y.Porat
science forum Guru


Joined: 04 May 2005
Posts: 1809

PostPosted: Tue Jul 18, 2006 7:16 am    Post subject: Re: PHOTON MASS -- A FACT. MASSLESS PARTICLES -- NOT FACT. Reply with quote

Phineas T Puddleduck wrote:
Quote:
In article <1153021780.858281.296780@m79g2000cwm.googlegroups.com>,
Y.Porat <maporat@012.net.il> wrote:

NEITHER THE hf not the E=mc^2
CANNOT GIVE A QUANTITATIVE ANSWER TO YOUR STUPID QUESTION
WHAT TIS THE MASS OF THE PHOTON QUANTITATIVELY

So you're saying the phoon has mass - but you don't know what it is ....

What a maroon.
-------------------------------

i will give you the benefit of doubt that you really dont
ujnderstnd it
and not willing just to pull my leg
(while i have no doubt now about Wake crankies and the other bump
parasite
in their caase the personal malicious intenyion is obvious )

do you say that i cant speak about the question of yess mass in
photon enery or not
**while i 'dont know what is mass**???? lets see about it :

1 i know what is mass at least as you know if not better
mass is the property of matter to resist the state of rest or motion

anyone who tells youthat he known much motre than that is lying
2
mass is one of the basic physical entities of physics
mass length and time
now toyour phylosophyic queation whether in physics
we can talk about a physical entity evn if not knowing about it 'to
the scratch'
the answwer about it is
actually non of the physical entities is known to scratch!!

we use some common postulates aboutit
and GO FURTHER FROM THAT POSTULATE
bybuilding on it more fonsdings and understandings as dfar as it is
useful
and can be substantiated .

for example
if you say that i cant speak about mass without knowing 'what it
is '
i slike you will say that
i cant speak about gravitation -- without knowing how it is done !!!

the first step in human advance about the gravitation was
first of all to know that is is a force that is pulling us to the earth
whithout knowing why
and how and that is btw the situation untill now
though all the pompous a*****le pompous of 'modern physics ' talking
about understanding how **any** attraction fore is done
and still we can not know to scratch -- but do some advance and
use of it

now to mass without knowing what it is ;
the questionon stake is :
does the energy of photons has rest mass or not
thatsall !!! got it ??
it is not waht is that energy or how much it is
the assumption is that we all asume what is mass and define it
physically
bydifferent ways
and if so
does it exist (accod\rding the above definitions) i n photon energy or
not ??!!
thats all
no nead to go back and ask at this stage : what is mass !!
just ask
is it zero in photon energy or nonzero ??!!
and i did it !!
i showed qualitatively that it is nonzero inphoton energy
it is obvious in
mass that is annihilated to photons according to E=mc^
and the m there is right in front of your eys (provided you have more
than eyes )

it is less obvious in E=hf
yet i revoealed it there as well

now me and Vergon even suggested a qauntitative value
BUT ONLY FO RTHJE SMALLEST POSSOBLE CASE OF PHOTON MASS

it is
m photon (min) = h /c^2 *1/time unit
if you waht it in Kg it is about 10 ^-48 kg (if i remember that
result by hearth correctly )

yet that last quantitavive result and suggestion has nothing to do
with my qualitative proof of nonzero mass in photon energy

now you can say
yess there is mass there but it is 'relativistic mass'!!

for that i answer :
the gamms factor doe snot apply to the photon
and if so
there is no room wahtsoever to sleal abouit realtivistic mass
in the photon (because the relativistric presentation of physical
entites
is by multiplying them BY GAMMA!
here in out photon case we forget completely about any gamma !!

got it ??
if you are not commited only to peronal abuse and politics agaist me
you could understand it it

provided you are claver enough
and not least
honest enough!!????

PS if you respond
i expect an apposite respond IE
a one by one answers and comments to the above long (relatively
analysis
though all that was already grounded by us to boredom

ATB
Y.Porat
----------------
Back to top
Y.Porat
science forum Guru


Joined: 04 May 2005
Posts: 1809

PostPosted: Tue Jul 18, 2006 8:25 am    Post subject: Re: Sturcture of an atom Reply with quote

Igor wrote:
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 *

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Preon

Knock yourself out!
--------------------------------------

go f*** youself out idiot parrot:

The moment it was found that the mass of all 3 quarks is only less than
10 percent
of the mass of the Proton or Neotron
THE QUARK MODEL SHOUILD BE DEAD !!

got to imbecil idot ??

if you suggest 10 percent known mass for qaurks and 90 percent
for virtual mass less entities that is undefined

than you are a fucking arrogant parrot
a pain in the neck for the advance of physics !!!
th question is now
how far can stupid arrogance and shameless cheatng can go on
it there is no limit to stupidity and cheating !!

you can chat one person forever

you can cheat everbody just once !1

but you cant cheat everybody forever !!

go it moron parrot idiot shameless crook ??

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





the qaurk model should be dead
Back to top
yt56erd
science forum Guru


Joined: 13 May 2005
Posts: 313

PostPosted: Tue Jul 18, 2006 8:38 am    Post subject: Re: Sturcture of an atom Reply with quote

Y.Porat wrote:

Quote:
(Smile
does it hurt you shitty ???

not me ass bandit.

Quote:
do you have a single friend beside your boy friend ?? (Smile

your fucking projecting again.

Quote:
what does your wife say about it ??? (Smile

what wife? how do you know i am a man you fricking eunuch.
Back to top
yt56erd
science forum Guru


Joined: 13 May 2005
Posts: 313

PostPosted: Tue Jul 18, 2006 9:54 am    Post subject: Re: PHOTON MASS -- A FACT. MASSLESS PARTICLES -- NOT FACT. Reply with quote

Y.Porat wrote:
nothing but fcuking crap.

youre an eejit.
Back to top
Y.Porat
science forum Guru


Joined: 04 May 2005
Posts: 1809

PostPosted: Tue Jul 18, 2006 10:19 am    Post subject: Re: PHOTON MASS -- A FACT. MASSLESS PARTICLES -- NOT FACT. Reply with quote

Cranks Reply wrote:
Quote:
Y.Porat wrote:
nothing but fcuking crap.

youre an eejit.
-----------------------------

(:-)

let phineas answer
he is a big boy and does not need your 'help'

Y.P
---------------------------
Back to top
Y.Porat
science forum Guru


Joined: 04 May 2005
Posts: 1809

PostPosted: Tue Jul 18, 2006 10:27 am    Post subject: Re: Sturcture of an atom Reply with quote

Cranks Reply wrote:
Quote:
Y.Porat wrote:

(Smile
does it hurt you shitty ???

not me ass bandit.

do you have a single friend beside your boy friend ?? (:-)

your fucking projecting again.

what does your wife say about it ??? (:-)

what wife? how do you know i am a man you fricking eunuch.
--------------------------------

oh i see !!
you ADMIT YOU are not EVEN MAN (Smile. (Smile (Smile
so you are the 'women side' of that homo bussiness (Smile
now i knnow why is that F word is so much in your mouth (Smile
eh ?? a*****le !!! (Smile
go on amuse me ........in need some entertainment .


y.p
-----------------------------
Back to top
Google

Back to top
Display posts from previous:   
Post new topic   Reply to topic Page 91 of 92 [1376 Posts] Goto page:  Previous  1, 2, 3, ..., 89, 90, 91, 92 Next
View previous topic :: View next topic
The time now is Sat Oct 21, 2017 11:09 pm | All times are GMT
Forum index » Science and Technology » Physics » Particle
Jump to:  

Similar Topics
Topic Author Forum Replies Last Post
No new posts Units for electric field strength Gavin Electromagnetics 0 Thu Aug 24, 2006 3:00 pm
No new posts Infinitesimal generator of a vector field Julien Santini Math 0 Fri Jul 21, 2006 8:01 am
No new posts Behaviour of a Ball (Bouncing and Spinning) Jonas Huckestein Physics 0 Thu Jul 20, 2006 2:38 pm
No new posts Vector field flow problem - help? Daniel Nierro Math 1 Wed Jul 19, 2006 10:28 am
No new posts Geomagnetic field reason h_v_ansari@yahoo.com Electromagnetics 2 Tue Jul 18, 2006 3:34 pm

Copyright © 2004-2005 DeniX Solutions SRL
Other DeniX Solutions sites: Electronics forum |  Medicine forum |  Unix/Linux blog |  Unix/Linux documentation |  Unix/Linux forums  |  send newsletters
 


Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2005 phpBB Group
[ Time: 0.4157s ][ Queries: 16 (0.3852s) ][ GZIP on - Debug on ]