| Author |
Message |
yt56erd
science forum Guru
Joined: 13 May 2005
Posts: 313
|
 Posted: Mon Jul 17, 2006 12:48 pm Post subject:
Re: Sturcture of an atom
|
|
|
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
|
| Posted: Mon Jul 17, 2006 2:53 pm Post subject:
Re: PHOTON MASS -- A FACT. MASSLESS PARTICLES -- NOT FACT.
|
|
|
"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 ( ....
|
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
|
| Posted: Mon Jul 17, 2006 2:53 pm Post subject:
Re: PHOTON MASS -- A FACT. MASSLESS PARTICLES -- NOT FACT.
|
|
|
"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 ( ....
Y.Porat
----------------
kookfr0th.
--------------------------
bye Wake !!!! (
|
Was that meant for me or "Cranks Reply?" |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Y.Porat
science forum Guru
Joined: 04 May 2005
Posts: 1809
|
| Posted: Mon Jul 17, 2006 3:06 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: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 ( ....
Y.Porat
----------------
kookfr0th.
--------------------------
bye Wake !!!! (:-)
Was that meant for me or "Cranks Reply?"
----------------------------- |
(
---------------------------
Y.P
----------------------- |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Y.Porat
science forum Guru
Joined: 04 May 2005
Posts: 1809
|
| Posted: Mon Jul 17, 2006 3:18 pm Post subject:
Re: Sturcture of an atom
|
|
|
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.
------------------------------- |
(
does it hurt you shitty ???
do you have a single friend beside your boy friend ?? (
what does your wife say about it ??? (:-)
Y.P
------------------------------- |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
T Wake
science forum Guru
Joined: 08 May 2005
Posts: 1978
|
| Posted: Mon Jul 17, 2006 3:30 pm Post subject:
Re: PHOTON MASS -- A FACT. MASSLESS PARTICLES -- NOT FACT.
|
|
|
"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 ( ....
Y.Porat
----------------
kookfr0th.
--------------------------
bye Wake !!!! (:-)
Was that meant for me or "Cranks Reply?"
-----------------------------
(
|
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
|
| Posted: Mon Jul 17, 2006 5:20 pm Post subject:
Re: PHOTON MASS -- A FACT. MASSLESS PARTICLES -- NOT FACT.
|
|
|
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 pseduos¹ 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
|
| Posted: Mon Jul 17, 2006 5:21 pm Post subject:
Re: Sturcture of an atom
|
|
|
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
|
| Posted: Mon Jul 17, 2006 8:31 pm Post subject:
Re: PHOTON MASS -- A FACT. MASSLESS PARTICLES -- NOT FACT.
|
|
|
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 pseduos¹ 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
|
| Posted: Tue Jul 18, 2006 7:16 am Post subject:
Re: PHOTON MASS -- A FACT. MASSLESS PARTICLES -- NOT FACT.
|
|
|
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
|
| Posted: Tue Jul 18, 2006 8:25 am Post subject:
Re: Sturcture of an atom
|
|
|
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
|
| Posted: Tue Jul 18, 2006 8:38 am Post subject:
Re: Sturcture of an atom
|
|
|
Y.Porat wrote:
| Quote: | (
does it hurt you shitty ???
|
not me ass bandit.
| Quote: | do you have a single friend beside your boy friend ?? (
|
your fucking projecting again.
| Quote: | what does your wife say about it ??? (
|
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
|
| Posted: Tue Jul 18, 2006 9:54 am Post subject:
Re: PHOTON MASS -- A FACT. MASSLESS PARTICLES -- NOT FACT.
|
|
|
Y.Porat wrote:
nothing but fcuking crap.
youre an eejit. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Y.Porat
science forum Guru
Joined: 04 May 2005
Posts: 1809
|
| Posted: Tue Jul 18, 2006 10:19 am Post subject:
Re: PHOTON MASS -- A FACT. MASSLESS PARTICLES -- NOT FACT.
|
|
|
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
|
| Posted: Tue Jul 18, 2006 10:27 am Post subject:
Re: Sturcture of an atom
|
|
|
Cranks Reply wrote:
| Quote: | Y.Porat wrote:
(
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 (. ( (
so you are the 'women side' of that homo bussiness (
now i knnow why is that F word is so much in your mouth (
eh ?? a*****le !!! (
go on amuse me ........in need some entertainment .
y.p
----------------------------- |
|
| 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
