Proton & electron ever been ISOLATED TOGETHER???
in [Relativity]
|
Prev: *** Re: Experts doubt Einstein..... but Einstein Dingleberries still worship him
Next: New theory of gravity
From: Y.Porat on 20 Jun 2010 08:48 On Jun 20, 1:28 pm, "Inertial" <relativ...(a)rest.com> wrote: > "Y.Porat" <y.y.po...(a)gmail.com> wrote in message > > news:2d041a1c-82b9-403a-92f6-273896e04b9b(a)b35g2000yqi.googlegroups.com... > > > > > On Jun 20, 11:15 am, "Inertial" <relativ...(a)rest.com> wrote: > >> "Y.Porat" <y.y.po...(a)gmail.com> wrote in message > > >>news:45247501-f8ba-4716-a38f-fbd00fa1e0fa(a)r27g2000yqb.googlegroups.com.... > > >> > On Jun 19, 3:11 pm, Owen Jacobson <angrybald...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > >> >> On 2010-06-17 22:16:22 -0400, Inertial said: > > >> >> > "Y.Porat" <y.y.po...(a)gmail.com> wrote in message > >> >> >news:5eabf87b-efd2-410c-9b66-23ea962854cc(a)b29g2000vbl.googlegroups..com... > >> >> On > > >> >> >> Jun 18, 1:22 am, "Inertial" <relativ...(a)rest.com> wrote: > >> >> >>> "Y.Porat" <y.y.po...(a)gmail.com> wrote in message > > >> >> >>>news:69a490d7-46df-467d-9d2d-2d66a8daf99b(a)x27g2000yqb.googlegroups.com... > > >> >> >>>> On Jun 17, 6:57 pm, "gu...(a)hotmail.com" <gu...(a)hotmail.com> > >> >> >>>> wrote: > >> >> >>>>> On Jun 17, 10:50 am, "Inertial" <relativ...(a)rest.com> wrote: > > >> >> >>>>>> <gu...(a)hotmail.com> wrote in message > > >> >> >>>>>>news:aa1e08e9-cca5-4124-ba6d-11147c12cc38(a)h13g2000yqm.googlegroups.com... > > >> >> >>>>>>> On Jun 17, 2:59 am, "Inertial" <relativ...(a)rest.com> wrote: > >> >> >>>>>>>> <gu...(a)hotmail.com> wrote in message > > >> >> >>>>>>>>news:1ecc0917-c1bb-43d7-a3c8-afb2c42941f5(a)y11g2000yqm.googlegroups.com... > > >> >> >>>>>>>>> On Jun 17, 12:20 am, "Inertial" <relativ...(a)rest.com> wrote: > >> >> >>>>>>>>>> "Tom Roberts" <tjroberts...(a)sbcglobal.net> wrote in message > > >> >> >>>>>>>>>>news:V9mdnRQ31ceNA4TRRVn_vwA(a)giganews.com... > > >> >> >>>>>>>>>>> Y.Porat wrote: > >> >> >>>>>>>>>>>> THE *NEUTRON* IS A COMBINATION OF > >> >> >>>>>>>>>>>> PROTON PLUS ELECTRON > >> >> >>>>>>>>>>>> CONNECTED LINEARLY AS A > >> >> >>>>>>>>>>>> **CHAIN OF ORBITALS * > > >> >> >>>>>>>>>>> No, it most definitely is not. You described a hydrogen > >> >> >>>>>>>>>>> atom, > >> >> >>>>>>>>>>> not a > >> >> >>>>>>>>>>> neutron. They behave CONSIDERABLY differently. > > >> >> >>>>>>>>>> A neutron can decay into a proton and electron (and an > >> >> >>>>>>>>>> electron-anti-neutrino as I recall). That doesn't > >> >> >>>>>>>>>> necessarily > >> >> >>>>>>>>>> mean > >> >> >>>>>>>>>> that > >> >> >>>>>>>>>> those particle exist as distinct particles inside a > >> >> >>>>>>>>>> neutron. > > >> >> >>>>>>>>> rather is a moment of inertia or inertia a resistance to > >> >> >>>>>>>>> displacement, > >> >> >>>>>>>>> if so is simply resistance that what we call mass. > > >> >> >>>>>>>>> as well mass is not called resistance but load in circuitry > >> >> >>>>>>>>> and > >> >> >>>>>>>>> sometimes even a substitute for the word ground! > > >> >> >>>>>>>>> And earth also know as mass and ground, sometimes the > >> >> >>>>>>>>> telephone > >> >> >>>>>>>>> companies use earth as a positive (when there's interference > >> >> >>>>>>>>> with > >> >> >>>>>>>>> electric trains/cars using the same earth), sometimes as a > >> >> >>>>>>>>> negative > >> >> >>>>>>>>> terminal. > > >> >> >>>>>>>> You're a rather stupid troll > > >> >> >>>>>>> M = E/c^2 > > >> >> >>>>>> Still stupid > > >> >> >>>>> We all still reside at the Singularity, the spatial dimensions > >> >> >>>>> are > >> >> >>>>> created through the vector time. > > >> >> >>>>> When you hold an object in your hand, it's only a bunch of > >> >> >>>>> electrical > >> >> >>>>> pulses (E) through your hands & eyes telling you it's an object. > > >> >> >>>>> If the pulses (E) were coming from a computer you could not tell > >> >> >>>>> the > >> >> >>>>> difference. > > >> >> >>>>> E signals through the vector Time. > >> >> >>>> ----------------- > >> >> >>>> and the time for a single photon energy is > >> >> >>>> the Planck time > >> >> >>>> hf times Planck time > > >> >> >>> Wrong > > >> >> >>> hf is NOT a formula for energy per unit time. So you do NOT > >> >> >>> multiply > >> >> >>> it by > >> >> >>> time to give energy. > > >> >> >>>> with its order of ( just from my poor memory) > > >> >> >>>> exp -24 second !!!! > > >> >> >>> You fail at dimensional analysis and physics as a whole. Get a > >> >> >>> new > >> >> >>> hobby .. > >> >> >>> like grave digging .. you'll need it soon enough. > > >> >> >> ----------------------- > >> >> >> Hi Josef (:-) (:-) > > >> >> > You still have no idea who I am and make wild guesses and incorrect > >> >> > conclusions. That's the same way you deal with physics .. wild > >> >> > guesses > >> >> > and incorrect conclusions. > > >> >> Hi Inertial, > > >> >> You seem to have reached a point where Porat decides what you post. > > >> >> -o > > >> > ------------------- > >> > Hi Mr Jacobson! > >> > to whom did you answered ?? > > >> > to anonymous ' Inertial'? > >> > or to > >> > anonymous ' Artful' ? > >> > or anonymous 'Whoever' > >> > all of them from Australia ?? > >> > ??? > >> > TIA > >> > Y.Porat > > >> As i have said many times before to you (and all other readers).. I use > >> all > >> three names because I use three different accounts (depending on where I > >> access the internet and news servers) Yet you still make out as though I > >> am > >> trying to be dishonest. I am not, and never am. > > > -------------------- > > why > > do you need to post from 3 different locations > > None of your business .. but if you must know (as I've mentioned before) > sometime I get online from public locations (so cannot access my ISP > newsgroup) .. and the public free one I use limits the number of posts you > can make in a given time period. > > > 2 > > why in that case you need 3 DIFFERENT NAMES?? > > My choice > > > whynot > > inertial 1 > > > inertial 2 > > inertial 3 > > Nah .. don't like that. How dull. > > > 3 > > even so > > why not tellthe readers that > > > inertial Artful 'whoever are all of them > > the same person ??! > > I do. Not that it matters most of the time. But I have told you and your > few readers about this on numerous occasions, and make no secret of the > fact. > > > especially -- > > in case you attack a person called Y.Porat > > I don't attack .. I defend. YOU attack. i'm just here for the physics .. > not for your abuse. > > > (that is not an anonymous !!)..... > > if not for > > CREATING THE "" IMPRESSION "THAT IT IS NOT **ONLY* YOU THAT ARE > > AGAINST HIM > > BUT AS IF 3 PERSONS ARE AGINST HIM ??!! > > There are many 'against' you. I don't need to create any impression. > > > in many cases you attacked me at* the same day* > > or a difference of one day > > OR EVEN A FEW HOURS > > AT*** THE SAME THREAD** > > ***IN 3 DIFFERENT NAMES !!!** > > AS CAN BE SEEN FROM some 'TREES ' > > That's right. Depends on where I am at the time and how many posts I've > made. > > > IF NOT TO MAKE THE IMPRESSION THAT > > MANY PEOPLE ARE AGAINST ME > > AND MY IDEAS !! ' > > You are nowhere near that important. > > > 4 > > can you indicate another person that behaved that way ??? > > Irrelevant. ---------------- while you cant answer you say irelavant as in just above example so in post No 5 above you said that i am not right that a Neutron cannot be composed of Proton plus Electron do you insist on it and can prove it ?? TIA Y.Porat -------------------------------
From: Inertial on 20 Jun 2010 09:06 "Y.Porat" <y.y.porat(a)gmail.com> wrote in message news:ae32fc6f-527a-4162-91a6-5b456bc2c7e8(a)k39g2000yqb.googlegroups.com... > On Jun 20, 1:28 pm, "Inertial" <relativ...(a)rest.com> wrote: >> "Y.Porat" <y.y.po...(a)gmail.com> wrote in message >> >> news:2d041a1c-82b9-403a-92f6-273896e04b9b(a)b35g2000yqi.googlegroups.com... >> >> >> >> > On Jun 20, 11:15 am, "Inertial" <relativ...(a)rest.com> wrote: >> >> "Y.Porat" <y.y.po...(a)gmail.com> wrote in message >> >> >>news:45247501-f8ba-4716-a38f-fbd00fa1e0fa(a)r27g2000yqb.googlegroups.com... >> >> >> > On Jun 19, 3:11 pm, Owen Jacobson <angrybald...(a)gmail.com> wrote: >> >> >> On 2010-06-17 22:16:22 -0400, Inertial said: >> >> >> >> > "Y.Porat" <y.y.po...(a)gmail.com> wrote in message >> >> >> >news:5eabf87b-efd2-410c-9b66-23ea962854cc(a)b29g2000vbl.googlegroups.com... >> >> >> On >> >> >> >> >> Jun 18, 1:22 am, "Inertial" <relativ...(a)rest.com> wrote: >> >> >> >>> "Y.Porat" <y.y.po...(a)gmail.com> wrote in message >> >> >> >> >>>news:69a490d7-46df-467d-9d2d-2d66a8daf99b(a)x27g2000yqb.googlegroups.com... >> >> >> >> >>>> On Jun 17, 6:57 pm, "gu...(a)hotmail.com" <gu...(a)hotmail.com> >> >> >> >>>> wrote: >> >> >> >>>>> On Jun 17, 10:50 am, "Inertial" <relativ...(a)rest.com> wrote: >> >> >> >> >>>>>> <gu...(a)hotmail.com> wrote in message >> >> >> >> >>>>>>news:aa1e08e9-cca5-4124-ba6d-11147c12cc38(a)h13g2000yqm.googlegroups.com... >> >> >> >> >>>>>>> On Jun 17, 2:59 am, "Inertial" <relativ...(a)rest.com> wrote: >> >> >> >>>>>>>> <gu...(a)hotmail.com> wrote in message >> >> >> >> >>>>>>>>news:1ecc0917-c1bb-43d7-a3c8-afb2c42941f5(a)y11g2000yqm.googlegroups.com... >> >> >> >> >>>>>>>>> On Jun 17, 12:20 am, "Inertial" <relativ...(a)rest.com> >> >> >> >>>>>>>>> wrote: >> >> >> >>>>>>>>>> "Tom Roberts" <tjroberts...(a)sbcglobal.net> wrote in >> >> >> >>>>>>>>>> message >> >> >> >> >>>>>>>>>>news:V9mdnRQ31ceNA4TRRVn_vwA(a)giganews.com... >> >> >> >> >>>>>>>>>>> Y.Porat wrote: >> >> >> >>>>>>>>>>>> THE *NEUTRON* IS A COMBINATION OF >> >> >> >>>>>>>>>>>> PROTON PLUS ELECTRON >> >> >> >>>>>>>>>>>> CONNECTED LINEARLY AS A >> >> >> >>>>>>>>>>>> **CHAIN OF ORBITALS * >> >> >> >> >>>>>>>>>>> No, it most definitely is not. You described a hydrogen >> >> >> >>>>>>>>>>> atom, >> >> >> >>>>>>>>>>> not a >> >> >> >>>>>>>>>>> neutron. They behave CONSIDERABLY differently. >> >> >> >> >>>>>>>>>> A neutron can decay into a proton and electron (and an >> >> >> >>>>>>>>>> electron-anti-neutrino as I recall). That doesn't >> >> >> >>>>>>>>>> necessarily >> >> >> >>>>>>>>>> mean >> >> >> >>>>>>>>>> that >> >> >> >>>>>>>>>> those particle exist as distinct particles inside a >> >> >> >>>>>>>>>> neutron. >> >> >> >> >>>>>>>>> rather is a moment of inertia or inertia a resistance to >> >> >> >>>>>>>>> displacement, >> >> >> >>>>>>>>> if so is simply resistance that what we call mass. >> >> >> >> >>>>>>>>> as well mass is not called resistance but load in >> >> >> >>>>>>>>> circuitry >> >> >> >>>>>>>>> and >> >> >> >>>>>>>>> sometimes even a substitute for the word ground! >> >> >> >> >>>>>>>>> And earth also know as mass and ground, sometimes the >> >> >> >>>>>>>>> telephone >> >> >> >>>>>>>>> companies use earth as a positive (when there's >> >> >> >>>>>>>>> interference >> >> >> >>>>>>>>> with >> >> >> >>>>>>>>> electric trains/cars using the same earth), sometimes as >> >> >> >>>>>>>>> a >> >> >> >>>>>>>>> negative >> >> >> >>>>>>>>> terminal. >> >> >> >> >>>>>>>> You're a rather stupid troll >> >> >> >> >>>>>>> M = E/c^2 >> >> >> >> >>>>>> Still stupid >> >> >> >> >>>>> We all still reside at the Singularity, the spatial >> >> >> >>>>> dimensions >> >> >> >>>>> are >> >> >> >>>>> created through the vector time. >> >> >> >> >>>>> When you hold an object in your hand, it's only a bunch of >> >> >> >>>>> electrical >> >> >> >>>>> pulses (E) through your hands & eyes telling you it's an >> >> >> >>>>> object. >> >> >> >> >>>>> If the pulses (E) were coming from a computer you could not >> >> >> >>>>> tell >> >> >> >>>>> the >> >> >> >>>>> difference. >> >> >> >> >>>>> E signals through the vector Time. >> >> >> >>>> ----------------- >> >> >> >>>> and the time for a single photon energy is >> >> >> >>>> the Planck time >> >> >> >>>> hf times Planck time >> >> >> >> >>> Wrong >> >> >> >> >>> hf is NOT a formula for energy per unit time. So you do NOT >> >> >> >>> multiply >> >> >> >>> it by >> >> >> >>> time to give energy. >> >> >> >> >>>> with its order of ( just from my poor memory) >> >> >> >> >>>> exp -24 second !!!! >> >> >> >> >>> You fail at dimensional analysis and physics as a whole. Get a >> >> >> >>> new >> >> >> >>> hobby .. >> >> >> >>> like grave digging .. you'll need it soon enough. >> >> >> >> >> ----------------------- >> >> >> >> Hi Josef (:-) (:-) >> >> >> >> > You still have no idea who I am and make wild guesses and >> >> >> > incorrect >> >> >> > conclusions. That's the same way you deal with physics .. wild >> >> >> > guesses >> >> >> > and incorrect conclusions. >> >> >> >> Hi Inertial, >> >> >> >> You seem to have reached a point where Porat decides what you post. >> >> >> >> -o >> >> >> > ------------------- >> >> > Hi Mr Jacobson! >> >> > to whom did you answered ?? >> >> >> > to anonymous ' Inertial'? >> >> > or to >> >> > anonymous ' Artful' ? >> >> > or anonymous 'Whoever' >> >> > all of them from Australia ?? >> >> > ??? >> >> > TIA >> >> > Y.Porat >> >> >> As i have said many times before to you (and all other readers).. I >> >> use >> >> all >> >> three names because I use three different accounts (depending on where >> >> I >> >> access the internet and news servers) Yet you still make out as >> >> though I >> >> am >> >> trying to be dishonest. I am not, and never am. >> >> > -------------------- >> > why >> > do you need to post from 3 different locations >> >> None of your business .. but if you must know (as I've mentioned before) >> sometime I get online from public locations (so cannot access my ISP >> newsgroup) .. and the public free one I use limits the number of posts >> you >> can make in a given time period. >> >> > 2 >> > why in that case you need 3 DIFFERENT NAMES?? >> >> My choice >> >> > whynot >> > inertial 1 >> >> > inertial 2 >> > inertial 3 >> >> Nah .. don't like that. How dull. >> >> > 3 >> > even so >> > why not tellthe readers that >> >> > inertial Artful 'whoever are all of them >> > the same person ??! >> >> I do. Not that it matters most of the time. But I have told you and >> your >> few readers about this on numerous occasions, and make no secret of the >> fact. >> >> > especially -- >> > in case you attack a person called Y.Porat >> >> I don't attack .. I defend. YOU attack. i'm just here for the physics >> .. >> not for your abuse. >> >> > (that is not an anonymous !!)..... >> > if not for >> > CREATING THE "" IMPRESSION "THAT IT IS NOT **ONLY* YOU THAT ARE >> > AGAINST HIM >> > BUT AS IF 3 PERSONS ARE AGINST HIM ??!! >> >> There are many 'against' you. I don't need to create any impression. >> >> > in many cases you attacked me at* the same day* >> > or a difference of one day >> > OR EVEN A FEW HOURS >> > AT*** THE SAME THREAD** >> > ***IN 3 DIFFERENT NAMES !!!** >> > AS CAN BE SEEN FROM some 'TREES ' >> >> That's right. Depends on where I am at the time and how many posts I've >> made. >> >> > IF NOT TO MAKE THE IMPRESSION THAT >> > MANY PEOPLE ARE AGAINST ME >> > AND MY IDEAS !! ' >> >> You are nowhere near that important. >> >> > 4 >> > can you indicate another person that behaved that way ??? >> >> Irrelevant. > > ---------------- > while you cant answer you say irelavant > as in just above example No .. when it doesn't matter I say its irrelevant. It doesn't matter which people may or may not use more then one nickname or more than one news server. > so > in post No 5 above you said that > i am not right that > a Neutron cannot be composed of > Proton plus Electron Which is post no 5? On a news server, there is no record of which post is which number. Don't worry ... I'll look on google-groups (I assume that's what you mean) .. let me see what I ACTUALLY wrote in post #5 there, which was a reply to Tom ... === A neutron can decay into a proton and electron (and an electron-anti-neutrino as I recall). That doesn't necessarily mean that those particle exist as distinct particles inside a neutron. === So ... where do you actually see me saying there that a neutron cannot be composed of proton plus electron? Oh .. that's right .. you simply LIE about what others post in order to argue with them BTW: Have a look here: http://particleadventure.org/npe.html http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/particles/proton.html#c3 http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/particles/proton.html#c4 The last link is particularly interesting to read. Though I doubt you will even bother, as it involves you actually reading and learning. Note that for the neutron to decay, there is a change in one of the quarks that compose the neutron, so that you end up with a proton and electron (and electron antineutrino). As long as it is still a neutron, it doesn't have the correct combination of quarks to have a proton as a particle 'inside' it. > do you insist on it > and can prove it ?? Why bother, when you'll simply lie about what I say anyway?
From: Y.Porat on 20 Jun 2010 09:25 On Jun 20, 3:06 pm, "Inertial" <relativ...(a)rest.com> wrote: > "Y.Porat" <y.y.po...(a)gmail.com> wrote in message > > news:ae32fc6f-527a-4162-91a6-5b456bc2c7e8(a)k39g2000yqb.googlegroups.com... > > > > > On Jun 20, 1:28 pm, "Inertial" <relativ...(a)rest.com> wrote: > >> "Y.Porat" <y.y.po...(a)gmail.com> wrote in message > > >>news:2d041a1c-82b9-403a-92f6-273896e04b9b(a)b35g2000yqi.googlegroups.com.... > > >> > On Jun 20, 11:15 am, "Inertial" <relativ...(a)rest.com> wrote: > >> >> "Y.Porat" <y.y.po...(a)gmail.com> wrote in message > > >> >>news:45247501-f8ba-4716-a38f-fbd00fa1e0fa(a)r27g2000yqb.googlegroups.com... > > >> >> > On Jun 19, 3:11 pm, Owen Jacobson <angrybald...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > >> >> >> On 2010-06-17 22:16:22 -0400, Inertial said: > > >> >> >> > "Y.Porat" <y.y.po...(a)gmail.com> wrote in message > >> >> >> >news:5eabf87b-efd2-410c-9b66-23ea962854cc(a)b29g2000vbl.googlegroups.com... > >> >> >> On > > >> >> >> >> Jun 18, 1:22 am, "Inertial" <relativ...(a)rest.com> wrote: > >> >> >> >>> "Y.Porat" <y.y.po...(a)gmail.com> wrote in message > > >> >> >> >>>news:69a490d7-46df-467d-9d2d-2d66a8daf99b(a)x27g2000yqb.googlegroups.com... > > >> >> >> >>>> On Jun 17, 6:57 pm, "gu...(a)hotmail.com" <gu...(a)hotmail.com> > >> >> >> >>>> wrote: > >> >> >> >>>>> On Jun 17, 10:50 am, "Inertial" <relativ...(a)rest.com> wrote: > > >> >> >> >>>>>> <gu...(a)hotmail.com> wrote in message > > >> >> >> >>>>>>news:aa1e08e9-cca5-4124-ba6d-11147c12cc38(a)h13g2000yqm.googlegroups.com... > > >> >> >> >>>>>>> On Jun 17, 2:59 am, "Inertial" <relativ...(a)rest.com> wrote: > >> >> >> >>>>>>>> <gu...(a)hotmail.com> wrote in message > > >> >> >> >>>>>>>>news:1ecc0917-c1bb-43d7-a3c8-afb2c42941f5(a)y11g2000yqm.googlegroups.com... > > >> >> >> >>>>>>>>> On Jun 17, 12:20 am, "Inertial" <relativ...(a)rest.com> > >> >> >> >>>>>>>>> wrote: > >> >> >> >>>>>>>>>> "Tom Roberts" <tjroberts...(a)sbcglobal.net> wrote in > >> >> >> >>>>>>>>>> message > > >> >> >> >>>>>>>>>>news:V9mdnRQ31ceNA4TRRVn_vwA(a)giganews.com... > > >> >> >> >>>>>>>>>>> Y.Porat wrote: > >> >> >> >>>>>>>>>>>> THE *NEUTRON* IS A COMBINATION OF > >> >> >> >>>>>>>>>>>> PROTON PLUS ELECTRON > >> >> >> >>>>>>>>>>>> CONNECTED LINEARLY AS A > >> >> >> >>>>>>>>>>>> **CHAIN OF ORBITALS * > > >> >> >> >>>>>>>>>>> No, it most definitely is not. You described a hydrogen > >> >> >> >>>>>>>>>>> atom, > >> >> >> >>>>>>>>>>> not a > >> >> >> >>>>>>>>>>> neutron. They behave CONSIDERABLY differently. > > >> >> >> >>>>>>>>>> A neutron can decay into a proton and electron (and an > >> >> >> >>>>>>>>>> electron-anti-neutrino as I recall). That doesn't > >> >> >> >>>>>>>>>> necessarily > >> >> >> >>>>>>>>>> mean > >> >> >> >>>>>>>>>> that > >> >> >> >>>>>>>>>> those particle exist as distinct particles inside a > >> >> >> >>>>>>>>>> neutron. > > >> >> >> >>>>>>>>> rather is a moment of inertia or inertia a resistance to > >> >> >> >>>>>>>>> displacement, > >> >> >> >>>>>>>>> if so is simply resistance that what we call mass. > > >> >> >> >>>>>>>>> as well mass is not called resistance but load in > >> >> >> >>>>>>>>> circuitry > >> >> >> >>>>>>>>> and > >> >> >> >>>>>>>>> sometimes even a substitute for the word ground! > > >> >> >> >>>>>>>>> And earth also know as mass and ground, sometimes the > >> >> >> >>>>>>>>> telephone > >> >> >> >>>>>>>>> companies use earth as a positive (when there's > >> >> >> >>>>>>>>> interference > >> >> >> >>>>>>>>> with > >> >> >> >>>>>>>>> electric trains/cars using the same earth), sometimes as > >> >> >> >>>>>>>>> a > >> >> >> >>>>>>>>> negative > >> >> >> >>>>>>>>> terminal. > > >> >> >> >>>>>>>> You're a rather stupid troll > > >> >> >> >>>>>>> M = E/c^2 > > >> >> >> >>>>>> Still stupid > > >> >> >> >>>>> We all still reside at the Singularity, the spatial > >> >> >> >>>>> dimensions > >> >> >> >>>>> are > >> >> >> >>>>> created through the vector time. > > >> >> >> >>>>> When you hold an object in your hand, it's only a bunch of > >> >> >> >>>>> electrical > >> >> >> >>>>> pulses (E) through your hands & eyes telling you it's an > >> >> >> >>>>> object. > > >> >> >> >>>>> If the pulses (E) were coming from a computer you could not > >> >> >> >>>>> tell > >> >> >> >>>>> the > >> >> >> >>>>> difference. > > >> >> >> >>>>> E signals through the vector Time. > >> >> >> >>>> ----------------- > >> >> >> >>>> and the time for a single photon energy is > >> >> >> >>>> the Planck time > >> >> >> >>>> hf times Planck time > > >> >> >> >>> Wrong > > >> >> >> >>> hf is NOT a formula for energy per unit time. So you do NOT > >> >> >> >>> multiply > >> >> >> >>> it by > >> >> >> >>> time to give energy. > > >> >> >> >>>> with its order of ( just from my poor memory) > > >> >> >> >>>> exp -24 second !!!! > > >> >> >> >>> You fail at dimensional analysis and physics as a whole. Get a > >> >> >> >>> new > >> >> >> >>> hobby .. > >> >> >> >>> like grave digging .. you'll need it soon enough. > > >> >> >> >> ----------------------- > >> >> >> >> Hi Josef (:-) (:-) > > >> >> >> > You still have no idea who I am and make wild guesses and > >> >> >> > incorrect > >> >> >> > conclusions. That's the same way you deal with physics .. wild > >> >> >> > guesses > >> >> >> > and incorrect conclusions. > > >> >> >> Hi Inertial, > > >> >> >> You seem to have reached a point where Porat decides what you post. > > >> >> >> -o > > >> >> > ------------------- > >> >> > Hi Mr Jacobson! > >> >> > to whom did you answered ?? > > >> >> > to anonymous ' Inertial'? > >> >> > or to > >> >> > anonymous ' Artful' ? > >> >> > or anonymous 'Whoever' > >> >> > all of them from Australia ?? > >> >> > ??? > >> >> > TIA > >> >> > Y.Porat > > >> >> As i have said many times before to you (and all other readers).. I > >> >> use > >> >> all > >> >> three names because I use three different accounts (depending on where > >> >> I > >> >> access the internet and news servers) Yet you still make out as > >> >> though I > >> >> am > >> >> trying to be dishonest. I am not, and never am. > > >> > -------------------- > >> > why > >> > do you need to post from 3 different locations > > >> None of your business .. but if you must know (as I've mentioned before) > >> sometime I get online from public locations (so cannot access my ISP > >> newsgroup) .. and the public free one I use limits the number of posts > >> you > >> can make in a given time period. > > >> > 2 > >> > why in that case you need 3 DIFFERENT NAMES?? > > >> My choice > > >> > whynot > >> > inertial 1 > > >> > inertial 2 > >> > inertial 3 > > >> Nah .. don't like that. How dull. > > >> > 3 > >> > even so > >> > why not tellthe readers that > > >> > inertial Artful 'whoever are all of them > >> > the same person ??! > > >> I do. Not that it matters most of the time. But I have told you and > >> your > >> few readers about this on numerous occasions, and make no secret of the > >> fact. > > >> > especially -- > >> > in case you attack a person called Y.Porat > > >> I don't attack .. I defend. YOU attack. i'm just here for the physics > >> .. > >> not for your abuse. > > >> > (that is not an anonymous !!)..... > >> > if not for > >> > CREATING THE "" IMPRESSION "THAT IT IS NOT **ONLY* YOU THAT ARE > >> > AGAINST HIM > >> > BUT AS IF 3 PERSONS ARE AGINST HIM ??!! > > >> There are many 'against' you. I don't need to create any impression.. > > >> > in many cases you attacked me at* the same day* > >> > or a difference of one day > >> > OR EVEN A FEW HOURS > >> > AT*** THE SAME THREAD** > >> > ***IN 3 DIFFERENT NAMES !!!** > >> > AS CAN BE SEEN FROM some 'TREES ' > > >> That's right. Depends on where I am at the time and how many posts I've > >> made. > > >> > IF NOT TO MAKE THE IMPRESSION THAT > >> > MANY PEOPLE ARE AGAINST ME > >> > AND MY IDEAS !! ' > > >> You are nowhere near that important. > > >> > 4 > >> > can you indicate another person that behaved that way ??? > > >> Irrelevant. > > > ---------------- > > while you cant answer you say irelavant > > as in just above example > > No .. when it doesn't matter I say its irrelevant. It doesn't matter which > people may or may not use more then one nickname or more than one news > server. > > > so > > in post No 5 above you said that > > i am not right that > > a Neutron cannot be composed of > > Proton plus Electron > > Which is post no 5? On a news server, there is no record of which post is > which number. Don't worry ... I'll look on google-groups (I assume that's > what you mean) .. let me see what I ACTUALLY wrote in post #5 there, which > was a reply to Tom ... > > === > A neutron can decay into a proton and electron (and an > electron-anti-neutrino as I recall). That doesn't necessarily mean that > those particle exist as distinct particles inside a neutron. > === > > So ... where do you actually see me saying there that a neutron cannot be > composed of proton plus electron? Oh .. that's right .. you simply LIE > about what others post in order to argue with them > > BTW: Have a look here: > > http://particleadventure.org/npe.htmlhttp://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/particles/proton.html#c3http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/particles/proton.html#c4 > > The last link is particularly interesting to read. Though I doubt you will > even bother, as it involves you actually reading and learning. > > Note that for the neutron to decay, there is a change in one of the quarks > that compose the neutron, so that you end up with a proton and electron (and > electron antineutrino). As long as it is still a neutron, it doesn't have > the correct combination of quarks to have a proton as a particle 'inside' > it. > > > do you insist on it > > and can prove it ?? > > Why bother, when you'll simply lie about what I say anyway? ----------------- i dont need your quotes i know much deeper than that !!! i know about beta emission and electron capture things that no one in this universe know !! you can see something about it even in my abstract !!! 2 who was the first (AND ONLY ~~) one in this thread that raised the argument of *ELECTRON CAPTURE* IN THE CONTEXT OF OUR THREAD ??!!! TIA Y.Porat ----------------------------- CONTWESXT
From: guskz on 21 Jun 2010 01:07
On Jun 20, 4:00 am, "Y.Porat" <y.y.po...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > On Jun 20, 7:54 am, guskz <gu...(a)hotmail.com> wrote: > > > > > On Jun 19, 9:27 pm, "Y.Porat" <y.y.po...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > On Jun 19, 8:29 am, guskz <gu...(a)hotmail.com> wrote: > > > > > On Jun 18, 6:00 am, "Y.Porat" <y.y.po...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > On Jun 18, 6:19 am, "gu...(a)hotmail.com" <gu...(a)hotmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > > On Jun 17, 2:18 pm, "Y.Porat" <y.y.po...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > > > On Jun 17, 6:57 pm, "gu...(a)hotmail.com" <gu...(a)hotmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > > > > On Jun 17, 10:50 am, "Inertial" <relativ...(a)rest.com> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > <gu...(a)hotmail.com> wrote in message > > > > > > > > > >news:aa1e08e9-cca5-4124-ba6d-11147c12cc38(a)h13g2000yqm.googlegroups.com... > > > > > > > > > > > On Jun 17, 2:59 am, "Inertial" <relativ...(a)rest.com> wrote: > > > > > > > > > >> <gu...(a)hotmail.com> wrote in message > > > > > > > > > > >>news:1ecc0917-c1bb-43d7-a3c8-afb2c42941f5(a)y11g2000yqm.googlegroups.com... > > > > > > > > > > >> > On Jun 17, 12:20 am, "Inertial" <relativ...(a)rest.com> wrote: > > > > > > > > > >> >> "Tom Roberts" <tjroberts...(a)sbcglobal.net> wrote in message > > > > > > > > > > >> >>news:V9mdnRQ31ceNA4TRRVn_vwA(a)giganews.com... > > > > > > > > > > >> >> > Y.Porat wrote: > > > > > > > > > >> >> >> THE *NEUTRON* IS A COMBINATION OF > > > > > > > > > >> >> >> PROTON PLUS ELECTRON > > > > > > > > > >> >> >> CONNECTED LINEARLY AS A > > > > > > > > > >> >> >> **CHAIN OF ORBITALS * > > > > > > > > > > >> >> > No, it most definitely is not. You described a hydrogen atom, not a > > > > > > > > > >> >> > neutron. They behave CONSIDERABLY differently. > > > > > > > > > > >> >> A neutron can decay into a proton and electron (and an > > > > > > > > > >> >> electron-anti-neutrino as I recall). That doesn't necessarily mean > > > > > > > > > >> >> that > > > > > > > > > >> >> those particle exist as distinct particles inside a neutron. > > > > > > > > > > >> > rather is a moment of inertia or inertia a resistance to displacement, > > > > > > > > > >> > if so is simply resistance that what we call mass. > > > > > > > > > > >> > as well mass is not called resistance but load in circuitry and > > > > > > > > > >> > sometimes even a substitute for the word ground! > > > > > > > > > > >> > And earth also know as mass and ground, sometimes the telephone > > > > > > > > > >> > companies use earth as a positive (when there's interference with > > > > > > > > > >> > electric trains/cars using the same earth), sometimes as a negative > > > > > > > > > >> > terminal. > > > > > > > > > > >> You're a rather stupid troll > > > > > > > > > > > M = E/c^2 > > > > > > > > > > Still stupid > > > > > > > > > We all still reside at the Singularity, the spatial dimensions are > > > > > > > > created through the vector time. > > > > > > > > > When you hold an object in your hand, it's only a bunch of electrical > > > > > > > > pulses (E) through your hands & eyes telling you it's an object. > > > > > > > > > If the pulses (E) were coming from a computer you could not tell the > > > > > > > > difference. > > > > > > > > > E signals through the vector Time. > > > > > > > > ----------------- > > > > > > > and the time for a single photon energy is > > > > > > > the Planck time > > > > > > > hf times Planck time > > > > > > > > with its order of ( just from my poor memory) > > > > > > > > exp -24 second !!!! > > > > > > > ATB > > > > > > > Y.Porat > > > > > > > ------------------------ > > > > > > > And since the other 3 spatial dimensions cannot have units smaller > > > > > > that this increment, also demonstrates that the vector time is their > > > > > > creator, not vice-versa. > > > > > > --------------- > > > > > iow > > > > > the time indicator is the best indicator ???!!! > > > > > i generally tend to agree with you > > > > > Not like that, the photon is the smallest unit of MEASUREMENT FOR all > > > > dimensions (X,Y, Z) which is a wavelength, that wavelength is only > > > > TIME dependent and nothing else. > > > > > For that reason TIME is the foundation for all other vectors > > > > (dimensions) X,Y, Z. > > > > ---------------------------------------- > > > > A moment is a time unit and a DERIVATIVE (anti-derivative) > > > > > In space-time metrics: the "moment" term (meaning instantaneous), it > > > > is the tangent to the slope. > > > > > Thus u, u^2,u^3,u^4, u would be the initial vector known as > > > > time...and the 3 others are derivatives of time thus the 3 spatial > > > > coordinates x,y,z > > > > > ----------------------- > > > > Too compare using Newtons: d, v, a (distance, velocity, > > > > acceleration)... velocity is a derivative of distance, and > > > > acceleration is a derivative of velocity. > > > > > To keep it simple the origin thus the initial distance, velocity, > > > > ------------------------ > > > that is the initial > > > > and ??!!! > > > th e initial of what ?? > > > is it initial of distance ? > > > distance from > > > what point to what point ?? > > > if it is ** to the same start point* > > > there is no distance ! > > > and to move takes time !!! > > > TO DO ANYTHING TAKES TIME!! > > > FOR ANYTHING TO HAPPEN- TAKES TIME !! > > > > time is not a mathematical concept > > > it is a physical * useful* concept !! > > > NO TIME (duration) - NO USEFUL PHYSICS !!! > > > right ??? > > > ATB > > > Y.Porat > > > --------------------- > > > Pretend you don't have an eye or a matrix of light sensors as in a > > camera. > > > Instead to move around into space, you have only one single sensor, > > which is the tip of one single antenna pole. > > > Therefore you can receive information about space from only one spot > > (one pixel). What are the ***NUMBER*** OF CHARACTERISTICS you can > > receive about space from that single uni-sensor. Each characteristic > > is a DIMENSION of space. > > > For one thing the signal has to change, (it's can't always stay the > > same signal)....that's the first characteristic, and is therefore the > > dimension known as TIME. > > > Know the signal can be there (black) or not there (white), that's the > > 2nd dimension (square wave). Then there's amplitude (sine wave), then > > there's rate of change of amplitude (frequency). > > > It must be as such, for everything began from the singularity, which > > is a single spot (location), then all the other dimensions including > > the 1st, the hear beat known as TIME. > > > All other spatial dimensions are only virtual (non-existent), a > > simulation emitted from the singularity. We all still reside in the > > singularity and are separated by one unit known as TIME. > > This is why both we and God are everywhere. For everywhere is still at > > the singularity, outside is the void, not outer-space (which is > > actually inner-space), but no where (no location or dimension). > > > So when your eyes sees something it's only single file electrical > > pulses be recognized by one entity known as the RECEPTACLE which we > > call the soul. > > > We perceive the eye getting a bunch of parallel signals, but they are > > not really parallel but serial pulses. Each "group" of pulses forming > > a parallel dimension. > > > Example: Meaning at 0 to 120hz it the dimension y0 x1 to x20 then at > > 121 to 240hz it the parallel dimension y1 x1 to x20 sending the soul > > information, etc... > > > And Likewise reverse when you're soul (mind) sends signals to your > > motor nerves to turn left or right,etc.... Same as a joystick, you > > send a signal and the image on your screen moves to the left....yet > > it's only timewise signal telling it turn into another dimension. > > That other dimension is not real, it's only simulation....for the soul > > still resides at the singularity. > > > That sole soul, created all other dimensions, when it was born and > > went crazy for it needed a reality...thus the ethereal universe and > > spacetime were created out of the first mind that came into existence. > > ----------------- > while you start talking about > mind and soul creating dimensions > **i give up ** (:-) > > Keep well > Y.P > -------------------------- Who says I don't give up as well. The only thing is that forces and dimensions are but an illusion even according to the metrics of Tensors, Tensor Fields, and the thermal spacetime manifold (Universe cooling down). Nothing really does exist as before the Big Bang. They are electrical signals sent to the mind(s) that interprets them as such. Everyone agrees the singularity has no dimensions and no time. As such pretend the first dimension is nothing but a dot in the Entire Universe. That dot is the tip of an antenna and that single antenna belongs to an ant, we call the mind. That antenna does not understand what dimensions are, nor can it figure out from which direction the signal is coming from, since it's only a single dot. The very 1st thing the antenna tip (singularity) receives is a signal. If that signal(space) was there before the antenna's tip (singularity) is irrelevant because it doesn't change. When the signal does change (yes vs no, on vs off, full vs void), it is the 1st created dimension, known as time. The 1st derivative of time, known as the rate change of the signal, is the 1st linear dimension which we usually call "x", thus the 2nd dimension (thus string theory...meaning only 1 spatial dimension (no area or volume yet). Then the amount of change per units of time, which we call amplitude, is the 3rd dimension we call "y". (Draw a wave then an amplitude of the wave, the wave has a width ("x") and a height (thus area) = amplitude = "y" axis and dimension. The 4th dimension which is the rate of change of the amplitude, thus an acceleration (hence gravity), we call the last thus 4th dimension, known as depth, and volume, "z" axis. From all these linear electrical (wave) signal factors, the mind interprets them as dimensional factors instead. And the mind also communicates with these received signals by also sending signals (motor actuation). All this is done linearly but the mind "perceives" it as space and time. Since both the mind(s), and God (thus explains why God is everywhere), still reside at the tip of that single dot antenna, which we call the singularity. |