Prev: [DUMBS]: My Personal Observations and Viewpoints About a Variety of Subjects !
Next: Does God need to prove He exists?
From: mitch.nicolas.raemsch on 4 May 2008 16:31
I don't believe in colors or flavor. That would imply forces beyond
(the EM gravity and) strong.

Only the strong force binds quarks.

Mitch Raemsch
From: Enes on 4 May 2008 17:33
On 3 Maj, 00:07, Enes <pies_na_teo...(a)gazeta.pl> wrote:
> On 2 Maj, 21:03, "hanson" <han...(a)quick.net> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > "Enes" <pies_na_teo...(a)gazeta.pl> wrote in message
>
> >news:aa04ee36-3126-4d65-8738-dcc8d810ff71(a)x41g2000hsb.googlegroups.com...
> > I,ve forgotten:
>
> > > On 30 Kwi, 23:48, "hanson" <han...(a)quick.net> wrote:
> > > > Anyways "Enes"... your linkhttp://www.atto.fysik.lth.se/
> > > > is quite interesting. But what does that have to do with
> > > > "An electron changes a quark"?....
>
> > ...
> > "Enes" <pies_na_teo...(a)gazeta.pl> wrote
> > Electropositron hypothesis predict submassive particle with +/-
> > charge. The same particles build leptons and nucleons (let it be, that
> > quarks as parton"s substitutes too ).
>
> > hanson wrote:
>
> > ahahaha.. ok. if you say so. It would be of course nicer
> > if you'd make an experiment and then brag about it's
> > out-come which you predicted. Till then thanks for the
> > laughs... ahahahaha... ahahahanson
>
> Hanson,
> there are many phenomenons, even Androcles can explain,
> thanks to electropositron hypothesis. For instance:
> - radiation of akcelerated electrons,
> - luminescence,
> - Sun or fire radiation,
> - ...
>
> Hypothesis predict halfantihydrogen, may be even natural
> between H2.
>
> If it"s true, Androcles can register hard radiation when H2
> becomes H.
>
> I don"t know. May be Androcles can and know, can"t He ?
>
> ]ohn from Enes- Ukryj cytowany tekst -
>
> - Poka¿ cytowany tekst -

Hanson,
would you mind ask Androcles for radiation when H2 ->H

P.s.
Nothing about halfantihydrogen, don"t irritate him yet.
From: Enes on 6 May 2008 15:07
On 5 Maj, 20:43, "Autymn D. C." <lysde...(a)sbcglobal.net> wrote:
> On May 2, 3:07 pm, Enes <pies_na_teo...(a)gazeta.pl> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On 2 Maj, 21:03, "hanson" <han...(a)quick.net> wrote:
>
> > > "Enes" <pies_na_teo...(a)gazeta.pl> wrote in message
>
> > >news:aa04ee36-3126-4d65-8738-dcc8d810ff71(a)x41g2000hsb.googlegroups.com....
> > > I,ve forgotten:
>
> > > > On 30 Kwi, 23:48, "hanson" <han...(a)quick.net> wrote:
> > > > > Anyways "Enes"... your linkhttp://www.atto.fysik.lth.se/
> > > > > is quite interesting. But what does that have to do with
> > > > > "An electron changes a quark"?....
>
> > > ...
> > > "Enes" <pies_na_teo...(a)gazeta.pl> wrote
> > > Electropositron hypothesis predict submassive particle with +/-
> > > charge. The same particles build leptons and nucleons (let it be, that
> > > quarks as parton"s substitutes too ).
>
> > > hanson wrote:
>
> > > ahahaha.. ok. if you say so. It would be of course nicer
> > > if you'd make an experiment and then brag about it's
> > > out-come which you predicted. Till then thanks for the
> > > laughs... ahahahaha... ahahahanson
>
> > Hanson,
> > there are many phenomenons, even Androcles can explain,
> > thanks to electropositron hypothesis. For instance:
> > - radiation of akcelerated electrons,
> > - luminescence,
> > - Sun or fire radiation,
> > - ...
>
> > Hypothesis predict halfantihydrogen, may be even natural
> > between H2.
>
> > If it"s true, Androcles can register hard radiation when H2
> > becomes H.
>
> > I don"t know. May be Androcles can and know, can"t He ?
>
> You familiar with the elèctròn's elèctronic dipole moment?- Ukryj cytowany tekst -
>
> - Pokaż cytowany tekst -

I don,t know what do you realy want.
Please ask me again (without familiar ;), can you ?

Btw:
+/- particle gives us many possibilities. For instance there was 2
electropositron helium models. The Swedish experiment confirm only one
of them.

Enes ]ohn
From: Autymn D. C. on 5 May 2008 14:43
On May 2, 3:07 pm, Enes <pies_na_teo...(a)gazeta.pl> wrote:
> On 2 Maj, 21:03, "hanson" <han...(a)quick.net> wrote:
>
>
>
> > "Enes" <pies_na_teo...(a)gazeta.pl> wrote in message
>
> >news:aa04ee36-3126-4d65-8738-dcc8d810ff71(a)x41g2000hsb.googlegroups.com...
> > I,ve forgotten:
>
> > > On 30 Kwi, 23:48, "hanson" <han...(a)quick.net> wrote:
> > > > Anyways "Enes"... your linkhttp://www.atto.fysik.lth.se/
> > > > is quite interesting. But what does that have to do with
> > > > "An electron changes a quark"?....
>
> > ...
> > "Enes" <pies_na_teo...(a)gazeta.pl> wrote
> > Electropositron hypothesis predict submassive particle with +/-
> > charge. The same particles build leptons and nucleons (let it be, that
> > quarks as parton"s substitutes too ).
>
> > hanson wrote:
>
> > ahahaha.. ok. if you say so. It would be of course nicer
> > if you'd make an experiment and then brag about it's
> > out-come which you predicted. Till then thanks for the
> > laughs... ahahahaha... ahahahanson
>
> Hanson,
> there are many phenomenons, even Androcles can explain,
> thanks to electropositron hypothesis. For instance:
> - radiation of akcelerated electrons,
> - luminescence,
> - Sun or fire radiation,
> - ...
>
> Hypothesis predict halfantihydrogen, may be even natural
> between H2.
>
> If it"s true, Androcles can register hard radiation when H2
> becomes H.
>
> I don"t know. May be Androcles can and know, can"t He ?

You familiar with the elèctròn's elèctronic dipole moment?
From: Autymn D. C. on 5 May 2008 14:49
On May 2, 5:33 pm, mitch.nicolas.raem...(a)gmail.com wrote:
> On May 2, 1:16 pm, PD <TheDraperFam...(a)gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> > On May 2, 2:54 pm, mitch.nicolas.raem...(a)gmail.com wrote:
>
> > > On May 2, 5:42 am, PD <TheDraperFam...(a)gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > On May 1, 3:11 pm, mitch.nicolas.raem...(a)gmail.com wrote:
>
> > > > > On May 1, 8:59 am, PD <TheDraperFam...(a)gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > > > On Apr 24, 12:24 am, mitch.nicolas.raem...(a)gmail.com wrote:
>
> > > > > > > On Apr 20, 1:26 pm, PD <TheDraperFam...(a)gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > > > > > On Apr 19, 9:09 pm, mitch.nicolas.raem...(a)gmail.com wrote:
>
> > > > > > > > > Protons and electrons are attractive and at the same time they must be
> > > > > > > > > forced together. This is an oxymoron. Also interesting is when forced
> > > > > > > > > together they become a neutron and this is due to one of the protons
> > > > > > > > > quarks being transmuted by the electron. An understanding of how a
> > > > > > > > > lepton can change a sub hadron should be forthcoming.
>
> > > > > > > > > Mitch Raemsch Twice Nobel Laureate 2008
>
> > > > > > > > Mitch, Halley's comet is attracted to the sun by the force of gravity.
> > > > > > > > Yet, every 76 years or so, it passes its closest point to the sun
> > > > > > > > (perihelion) and then gets further away from the sun. It does this
> > > > > > > > without gravity turning into a repulsive force to push the comet away.
> > > > > > > > It has repeated this behavior in documented fashion for thousands of
> > > > > > > > years. It would be useful for you to understand how this can happen
> > > > > > > > without being any oxymoron.
>
> > > > > > > > PD
>
> > > > > > > The only answer is that atomic shells hold electrons and protons at
> > > > > > > bay. Otherwise their attraction would bring them together. But what
> > > > > > > are shells made of?
>
> > > > > > Atomic shells hold Halley's comet at bay from the sun?
>
> > > > > > > Demicritus said atoms are little hard things.
>
> > > > > Non sequiter
>
> > > > You probably mean "non sequitur".
>
> > > > But actually, it DOES follow.
>
> > > > You apparently would *like* to say that the only thing that keeps
> > > > electrons from falling into protons is material atomic shells.
>
> > > > But the question you haven't asked yourself yet is why anything is
> > > > needed at all. And as another example of a case where nothing is
> > > > needed at all, I mentioned Halley's comet, which is gravitationally
> > > > *attracted* to the Sun (not repelled) and yet both approaches and
> > > > recedes from the Sun every seven decades, without needing anything to
> > > > keep it from falling in.
>
> > > > So when you understand how something can behave that way, even though
> > > > it is under the influence of a purely attractive force, and without
> > > > anything holding it out, then you might -- just might -- see that the
> > > > material atomic shells you imagine are necessary in the atom are not
> > > > necessary at all.
>
> > > > PD- Hide quoted text -
>
> > > > - Show quoted text -
>
> > > An electron transmutes a quark.
>
> > No, it doesn't. A W boson does.
>
> > > How can a lepton transmute a baryon?
>
> Combining an electron with a proton into a neutron requires force. But
> they are supposed to be electrically attractive.
>
> Non sequitur.

Hydrogen is a two-body sýstem; a neutròn is a one-body (collective,
but nonetheless). The third body of [anti]neutrino keeps the reaction
happy--the neutrino comes out of the protòn-elèctròn superpotential,
where super- means excess.

-Aut
First  |  Prev  |  Next  |  Last
Pages: 1 2 3
Prev: [DUMBS]: My Personal Observations and Viewpoints About a Variety of Subjects !
Next: Does God need to prove He exists?