Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]

Groups > sci.physics > #560394 > unrolled thread

LHC - new particle inside electron/positron and in every mass ? See, how to find.

Started byEnes Richard <pies_na_teorie@vp.pl>
First post2016-03-08 10:15 -0800
Last post2016-03-19 07:12 -0700
Articles 20 on this page of 104 — 14 participants

Back to article view | Back to sci.physics

Contents

  LHC - new particle inside electron/positron and in every mass ? See, how to find. Enes Richard <pies_na_teorie@vp.pl> - 2016-03-08 10:15 -0800
    Re: LHC - new particle inside electron/positron and in every mass ? See, how to find. Sam Wormley <swormley1@gmail.com> - 2016-03-08 13:53 -0600
      Re: LHC - new particle inside electron/positron and in every mass ? See, how to find. "reber g=emc^2" <herbertglazier0@gmail.com> - 2016-03-08 12:25 -0800
        Re: LHC - new particle inside electron/positron and in every mass ? See, how to find. benj <nobody@gmail.com> - 2016-03-08 22:39 -0500
      Re: LHC - new particle inside electron/positron and in every mass ? See, how to find. Enes Richard <pies_na_teorie@vp.pl> - 2016-03-08 12:36 -0800
    Re: LHC - new particle inside electron/positron and in every mass ? See, how to find. Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-03-08 18:37 -0600
      Re: LHC - new particle inside electron/positron and in every mass ? See, how to find. "Y.Porat" <y.y.porat@gmail.com> - 2016-03-09 00:57 -0800
      Re: LHC - new particle inside electron/positron and in every mass ? See, how to find. Enes Richard <pies_na_teorie@vp.pl> - 2016-03-09 10:50 -0800
        Re: LHC - new particle inside electron/positron and in every mass ? See, how to find. Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-03-09 15:02 -0600
          Re: LHC - new particle inside electron/positron and in every mass ? See, how to find. Enes Richard <pies_na_teorie@vp.pl> - 2016-03-09 13:55 -0800
            Re: LHC - new particle inside electron/positron and in every mass ? See, how to find. Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-03-09 16:12 -0600
              Re: LHC - new particle inside electron/positron and in every mass ? See, how to find. Enes Richard <pies_na_teorie@vp.pl> - 2016-03-09 15:19 -0800
                Re: LHC - new particle inside electron/positron and in every mass ? See, how to find. Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-03-10 08:08 -0600
                  Re: LHC - new particle inside electron/positron and in every mass ? See, how to find. Enes Richard <pies_na_teorie@vp.pl> - 2016-03-10 12:55 -0800
                    Re: LHC - new particle inside electron/positron and in every mass ? See, how to find. Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-03-10 15:41 -0600
                      Re: LHC - new particle inside electron/positron and in every mass ? See, how to find. Enes Richard <pies_na_teorie@vp.pl> - 2016-03-10 15:01 -0800
                        Re: LHC - new particle inside electron/positron and in every mass ? See, how to find. Sam Wormley <swormley1@gmail.com> - 2016-03-10 17:15 -0600
                          Re: LHC - new particle inside electron/positron and in every mass ? See, how to find. Enes Richard <pies_na_teorie@vp.pl> - 2016-03-12 07:42 -0800
                        Re: LHC - new particle inside electron/positron and in every mass ? See, how to find. Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-03-10 17:25 -0600
                          Re: LHC - new particle inside electron/positron and in every mass ? See, how to find. Enes Richard <pies_na_teorie@vp.pl> - 2016-03-11 12:05 -0800
                            Re: LHC - new particle inside electron/positron and in every mass ? See, how to find. Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-03-11 14:29 -0600
                              Re: LHC - new particle inside electron/positron and in every mass ? See, how to find. Enes Richard <pies_na_teorie@vp.pl> - 2016-03-11 13:33 -0800
                                Re: LHC - new particle inside electron/positron and in every mass ? See, how to find. Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-03-11 15:52 -0600
                                  Re: LHC - new particle inside electron/positron and in every mass ? See, how to find. Enes Richard <pies_na_teorie@vp.pl> - 2016-03-12 07:37 -0800
                  Re: LHC - new particle inside electron/positron and in every mass ? See, how to find. Enes Richard <pies_na_teorie@vp.pl> - 2016-03-14 12:57 -0700
                    Re: LHC - new particle inside electron/positron and in every mass ? See, how to find. Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-03-14 15:43 -0500
                      Re: LHC - new particle inside electron/positron and in every mass ? See, how to find. Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2016-03-14 23:10 +0100
                      Re: LHC - new particle inside electron/positron and in every mass ? See, how to find. Enes Richard <pies_na_teorie@vp.pl> - 2016-03-14 15:12 -0700
                        Re: LHC - new particle inside electron/positron and in every mass ? See, how to find. Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-03-14 17:34 -0500
                    Re: LHC - new particle inside electron/positron and in every mass ? See, how to find. Double-A <double-a3@hush.com> - 2016-03-15 14:34 -0700
                      Re: LHC - new particle inside electron/positron and in every mass ? See, how to find. Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-03-15 16:40 -0500
                      Re: LHC - new particle inside electron/positron and in every mass ? See, how to find. Enes Richard <pies_na_teorie@vp.pl> - 2016-03-15 15:31 -0700
                        Re: LHC - new particle inside electron/positron and in every mass ? See, how to find. Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-03-16 08:36 -0500
                          Re: LHC - new particle inside electron/positron and in every mass ? See, how to find. Enes Richard <pies_na_teorie@vp.pl> - 2016-03-16 14:59 -0700
                            Re: LHC - new particle inside electron/positron and in every mass ? See, how to find. Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-03-16 17:46 -0500
                              Re: LHC - new particle inside electron/positron and in every mass ? See, how to find. Enes Richard <pies_na_teorie@vp.pl> - 2016-03-17 15:40 -0700
                                Re: LHC - new particle inside electron/positron and in every mass ? See, how to find. Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-03-18 08:19 -0500
                                  Re: LHC - new particle inside electron/positron and in every mass ? See, how to find. Enes Richard <pies_na_teorie@vp.pl> - 2016-03-18 14:01 -0700
                                    Re: LHC - new particle inside electron/positron and in every mass ? See, how to find. Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-03-18 16:46 -0500
                                      Re: LHC - new particle inside electron/positron and in every mass ? See, how to find. john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2016-03-18 15:43 -0700
                                        Re: LHC - new particle inside electron/positron and in every mass ? See, how to find. Enes Richard <pies_na_teorie@vp.pl> - 2016-03-18 17:10 -0700
                                          Re: LHC - new particle inside electron/positron and in every mass ? See, how to find. john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2016-03-19 00:15 -0700
                                            Re: LHC - new particle inside electron/positron and in every mass ? See, how to find. Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-03-19 09:37 -0500
                                          Re: LHC - new particle inside electron/positron and in every mass ? See, how to find. Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-03-19 09:31 -0500
                                            Re: LHC - new particle inside electron/positron and in every mass ? See, how to find. john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2016-03-19 07:46 -0700
                                        Re: LHC - new particle inside electron/positron and in every mass ? See, how to find. Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-03-19 09:22 -0500
                                      Re: LHC - new particle inside electron/positron and in every mass ? See, how to find. Enes Richard <pies_na_teorie@vp.pl> - 2016-03-18 15:52 -0700
                                        Re: LHC - new particle inside electron/positron and in every mass ? See, how to find. john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2016-03-18 16:13 -0700
                                        Re: LHC - new particle inside electron/positron and in every mass ? See, how to find. Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-03-19 09:30 -0500
                                          Re: LHC - new particle inside electron/positron and in every mass ? See, how to find. HVAC <mr.hvac@gmail.com> - 2016-03-19 08:09 -0700
                                            Re: LHC - new particle inside electron/positron and in every mass ? See, how to find. benj <none@gmail.com> - 2016-03-19 13:58 -0400
                                          Re: LHC - new particle inside electron/positron and in every mass ? See, how to find. Mahipal <mahipal7638@gmail.com> - 2016-03-19 08:10 -0700
                                            Re: LHC - new particle inside electron/positron and in every mass ? See, how to find. HVAC <mr.hvac@gmail.com> - 2016-03-19 08:39 -0700
                                              Re: LHC - new particle inside electron/positron and in every mass ? See, how to find. Mahipal <mahipal7638@gmail.com> - 2016-03-19 08:56 -0700
                                                Re: LHC - new particle inside electron/positron and in every mass ? See, how to find. HVAC <mr.hvac@gmail.com> - 2016-03-19 09:06 -0700
                                                  Re: LHC - new particle inside electron/positron and in every mass ? See, how to find. benj <none@gmail.com> - 2016-03-19 14:13 -0400
                                                  Re: LHC - new particle inside electron/positron and in every mass ? See, how to find. Mahipal <mahipal7638@gmail.com> - 2016-03-19 12:18 -0700
                                                    Re: LHC - new particle inside electron/positron and in every mass ? See, how to find. benj <none@gmail.com> - 2016-03-20 09:11 -0400
                                            Re: LHC - new particle inside electron/positron and in every mass ? See, how to find. benj <none@gmail.com> - 2016-03-19 14:02 -0400
                                              Re: LHC - new particle inside electron/positron and in every mass ? See, how to find. Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-03-19 15:40 -0500
                                      Re: LHC - new particle inside electron/positron and in every mass ? See, how to find. Sam Wormley <swormley1@gmail.com> - 2016-03-19 08:46 -0500
                          Re: LHC - new particle inside electron/positron and in every mass ? See, how to find. "Y.Porat" <y.y.porat@gmail.com> - 2016-03-17 01:59 -0700
                  Re: LHC - new particle inside electron/positron and in every mass ? See, how to find. Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2016-03-14 22:41 +0100
                    Re: LHC - new particle inside electron/positron and in every mass ? See, how to find. Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-03-14 17:28 -0500
                      Re: LHC - new particle inside electron/positron and in every mass ? See, how to find. Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2016-03-15 18:24 +0100
                        Re: LHC - new particle inside electron/positron and in every mass ? See, how to find. Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-03-15 12:33 -0500
                          Re: LHC - new particle inside electron/positron and in every mass ? See, how to find. Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2016-03-15 22:19 +0100
                            Re: LHC - new particle inside electron/positron and in every mass ? See, how to find. Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-03-15 16:38 -0500
                              Re: LHC - new particle inside electron/positron and in every mass ? See, how to find. Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2016-03-16 02:56 +0100
                                Re: LHC - new particle inside electron/positron and in every mass ? See, how to find. Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-03-16 08:47 -0500
              Re: LHC - new particle inside electron/positron and in every mass ? See, how to find. "Y.Porat" <y.y.porat@gmail.com> - 2016-03-09 23:56 -0800
              Re: LHC - new particle inside electron/positron and in every mass ? See, how to find. dsr@mail.lns.cornell.edu (Daniel S. Riley) - 2016-03-10 12:35 -0500
                Re: LHC - new particle inside electron/positron and in every mass ? See, how to find. Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-03-10 11:47 -0600
                Re: LHC - new particle inside electron/positron and in every mass ? See, how to find. Enes Richard <pies_na_teorie@vp.pl> - 2016-03-11 12:13 -0800
            Re: LHC - new particle inside electron/positron and in every mass ? See, how to find. "Y.Porat" <y.y.porat@gmail.com> - 2016-03-09 23:50 -0800
          Re: LHC - new particle inside electron/positron and in every mass ? See, how to find. "Y.Porat" <y.y.porat@gmail.com> - 2016-03-09 23:47 -0800
    Re: LHC - new particle inside electron/positron and in every mass ? See, how to find. "reber g=emc^2" <herbertglazier0@gmail.com> - 2016-03-11 12:13 -0800
      Re: LHC - new particle inside electron/positron and in every mass ? See, how to find. Sam Wormley <swormley1@gmail.com> - 2016-03-11 14:17 -0600
      Re: LHC - new particle inside electron/positron and in every mass ? See, how to find. "hanson" <hanson@quick.net> - 2016-03-11 12:35 -0800
      Re: LHC - new particle inside electron/positron and in every mass ? See, how to find. HVAC <mr.hvac@gmail.com> - 2016-03-12 08:32 -0800
        Re: LHC - new particle inside electron/positron and in every mass ? See, how to find. Enes Richard <pies_na_teorie@vp.pl> - 2016-03-14 12:46 -0700
          Re: LHC - new particle inside electron/positron and in every mass ? See, how to find. "Y.Porat" <y.y.porat@gmail.com> - 2016-03-17 02:03 -0700
            Re: LHC - new particle inside electron/positron and in every mass ? See, how to find. john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2016-03-17 02:25 -0700
              Re: LHC - new particle inside electron/positron and in every mass ? See, how to find. Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-03-17 08:52 -0500
                Re: LHC - new particle inside electron/positron and in every mass ? See, how to find. john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2016-03-17 07:01 -0700
                  Re: LHC - new particle inside electron/positron and in every mass ? See, how to find. Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-03-17 09:30 -0500
                    Re: LHC - new particle inside electron/positron and in every mass ? See, how to find. "Y.Porat" <y.y.porat@gmail.com> - 2016-03-19 07:08 -0700
                Re: LHC - new particle inside electron/positron and in every mass ? See, how to find. Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2016-03-17 22:35 +0100
                  Re: LHC - new particle inside electron/positron and in every mass ? See, how to find. Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-03-17 17:11 -0500
                    Re: LHC - new particle inside electron/positron and in every mass ? See, how to find. Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2016-03-18 00:32 +0100
              Re: LHC - new particle inside electron/positron and in every mass ? See, how to find. Sam Wormley <swormley1@gmail.com> - 2016-03-17 09:04 -0500
                Re: LHC - new particle inside electron/positron and in every mass ? See, how to find. john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2016-03-17 07:16 -0700
                  Re: LHC - new particle inside electron/positron and in every mass ? See, how to find. Sam Wormley <swormley1@gmail.com> - 2016-03-17 09:20 -0500
                    Re: LHC - new particle inside electron/positron and in every mass ? See, how to find. john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2016-03-17 07:27 -0700
                      Re: LHC - new particle inside electron/positron and in every mass ? See, how to find. Sam Wormley <swormley1@gmail.com> - 2016-03-17 09:34 -0500
                        Re: LHC - new particle inside electron/positron and in every mass ? See, how to find. john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2016-03-17 07:37 -0700
                          Re: LHC - new particle inside electron/positron and in every mass ? See, how to find. Sam Wormley <swormley1@gmail.com> - 2016-03-17 09:49 -0500
                            Re: LHC - new particle inside electron/positron and in every mass ? See, how to find. john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2016-03-17 07:56 -0700
                              Re: LHC - new particle inside electron/positron and in every mass ? See, how to find. Sam Wormley <swormley1@gmail.com> - 2016-03-17 10:06 -0500
                          Re: LHC - new particle inside electron/positron and in every mass ? See, how to find. Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-03-17 10:24 -0500
                            Re: LHC - new particle inside electron/positron and in every mass ? See, how to find. john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2016-03-17 13:05 -0700
                      Re: LHC - new particle inside electron/positron and in every mass ? See, how to find. Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-03-17 10:15 -0500
                      Re: LHC - new particle inside electron/positron and in every mass ? See, how to find. "Y.Porat" <y.y.porat@gmail.com> - 2016-03-19 07:16 -0700
                Re: LHC - new particle inside electron/positron and in every mass ? See, how to find. "Y.Porat" <y.y.porat@gmail.com> - 2016-03-19 07:12 -0700

Page 5 of 6 — ← Prev page 1 2 3 4 [5] 6  Next page →

#562393

FromEnes Richard <pies_na_teorie@vp.pl>
Date2016-03-14 12:46 -0700
Message-ID<335521ff-bdca-4afb-b375-5ccad140e458@googlegroups.com>
In reply to#561880
W dniu sobota, 12 marca 2016 17:32:15 UTC+1 użytkownik HVAC napisał:
> SmellBert says
> Particles all the way down to the gravity particle
> ----------
> 
> No

Rather, there is neither particles nor media gravity. Gravity is perhaps the desire to equalize the density of the universe (the movable part of the universe).

Likewise, equalization of gas pressure or liquid level in the vessels connected.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#563042

From"Y.Porat" <y.y.porat@gmail.com>
Date2016-03-17 02:03 -0700
Message-ID<880a1802-c1ff-4b32-aa03-285ed07c7dae@googlegroups.com>
In reply to#562393
On Monday, March 14, 2016 at 9:46:49 PM UTC+2, Enes Richard wrote:
> W dniu sobota, 12 marca 2016 17:32:15 UTC+1 użytkownik HVAC napisał:
> > SmellBert says
> > Particles all the way down to the gravity particle
> > ----------
> > 
> > No
> 
> Rather, there is neither particles nor media gravity. Gravity is perhaps the desire to equalize the density of the universe (the movable part of the universe).
> 
> Likewise, equalization of gas pressure or liquid level in the vessels connected.

============================
see Google
'the Y Circlon mechanism '
Y.P
===================================

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#563043

Fromjohn <johnsefton288@gmail.com>
Date2016-03-17 02:25 -0700
Message-ID<b682193c-cc81-47da-b1cc-5635b7951ce0@googlegroups.com>
In reply to#563042
Yes.
Modern science has NO GEOMETRICAL MODEL.
OddPDAbsoVertBigDog
and other 'nyms insist
that electrons "just go where they are needed".
"Delocalized" electrons just "hang out" on
each side of the Benzene ring waiting for
"whichever carbon atom needs them".
Gluons go around sticking things together.

These people DENY that there could be
anything wrong with this!!!
Crazy!

Crazy DENIERS

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#563062

FromOdd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com>
Date2016-03-17 08:52 -0500
Message-ID<ncecrj$14ah$3@gioia.aioe.org>
In reply to#563043
On 3/17/2016 4:25 AM, john wrote:
> Yes.
> Modern science has NO GEOMETRICAL MODEL.

NOR IS A GEOMETRIC MODEL REQUIRED OF SCIENCE.

This you think is essential, because it's what YOU WANT.
However, when physicists say "physical model", they do not mean the 3D 
geometric model you have in mind.

Face facts, John. The way you want to think is not important to 
physicists, and the way physicists think is just incomprehensible to you.

> OddPDAbsoVertBigDog
> and other 'nyms insist
> that electrons "just go where they are needed".

I don't think I've ever said that.

> "Delocalized" electrons just "hang out" on
> each side of the Benzene ring waiting for
> "whichever carbon atom needs them".
> Gluons go around sticking things together.

That's not what holds electrons together in benzene, John. Electrons 
don't even interact with gluons.

It might help if this weren't all a jumbled mess in your head.

You know how to fix that, don't you? Read.

>
> These people DENY that there could be
> anything wrong with this!!!
> Crazy!
>
> Crazy DENIERS
>


-- 
Odd Bodkin --- maker of fine toys, tools, tables

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#563069

Fromjohn <johnsefton288@gmail.com>
Date2016-03-17 07:01 -0700
Message-ID<67c66e0a-813f-4f0c-850f-257110e454d0@googlegroups.com>
In reply to#563062
3D is stills 3D when it gets small.
Just because something is small,
doesn't mean that you get to
FUDGE EVERYTHING.
Call them ALL lieons- why not?
They have function but no commensurate shape,
so fuck it, they're ALL the SAME point
that just acquires properties that YOU
need it to have.
What a joke.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#563074

FromOdd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com>
Date2016-03-17 09:30 -0500
Message-ID<ncef2q$1957$1@gioia.aioe.org>
In reply to#563069
On 3/17/2016 9:01 AM, john wrote:
> 3D is stills 3D when it gets small.
> Just because something is small,
> doesn't mean that you get to
> FUDGE EVERYTHING.

Nothing is fudged. The fact that math is gibberish to you doesn't mean 
that it's been fudged. The fact that you want a 3D geometric model and 
aren't getting one from physicists doesn't mean they owe you one.

> Call them ALL lieons- why not?
> They have function but no commensurate shape,
> so fuck it, they're ALL the SAME point
> that just acquires properties that YOU
> need it to have.
> What a joke.
>

Let's take a property, John, like electric charge. Now, tell me how the 
shape and size of the proton dictates or gives rise to its electric 
charge? C'mon. You seem to believe that properties are due to shape, 
volume, structure. So let's have the demonstration.

How about an apple, John. What about the structure, shape, and size of 
the apple gives rise to its redness? Let's have that demonstration too.


-- 
Odd Bodkin --- maker of fine toys, tools, tables

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#563619

From"Y.Porat" <y.y.porat@gmail.com>
Date2016-03-19 07:08 -0700
Message-ID<3b25a26b-52f9-495b-9816-4d148f37e1e7@googlegroups.com>
In reply to#563074
On Thursday, March 17, 2016 at 4:30:55 PM UTC+2, Odd Bodkin wrote:
> On 3/17/2016 9:01 AM, john wrote:
> > 3D is stills 3D when it gets small.
> > Just because something is small,
> > doesn't mean that you get to
> > FUDGE EVERYTHING.
> 
> Nothing is fudged. The fact that math is gibberish to you doesn't mean 
> that it's been fudged. The fact that you want a 3D geometric model and 
> aren't getting one from physicists doesn't mean they owe you one.
> 
> > Call them ALL lieons- why not?
> > They have function but no commensurate shape,
> > so fuck it, they're ALL the SAME point
> > that just acquires properties that YOU
> > need it to have.
> > What a joke.
> >
> 
> Let's take a property, John, like electric charge. Now, tell me how the 
> shape and size of the proton dictates or gives rise to its electric 
> charge? C'mon. You seem to believe that properties are due to shape, 
> volume, structure. So let's have the demonstration.
> 
> How about an apple, John. What about the structure, shape, and size of 
> the apple gives rise to its redness? Let's have that demonstration too.
> 
>==========================
imbecile incurable idit parrot

the Proton has charge 
because it is sub composed 
as a chain of orbitals  !!
ie
the edge of that chain
is electron  positron edge 
while the edge particle on that case chain is a POSITRON !!
just as simple as that 
======================
see 
Google 
The Y Porat Model - an abstract '

---
ATB
Y.Porat
====================================
>

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#563212

FromThomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de>
Date2016-03-17 22:35 +0100
Message-ID<1893427.UQP6aX8zGU@PointedEars.de>
In reply to#563062
Odd Bodkin wrote:

> On 3/17/2016 4:25 AM, john wrote:
>> Yes.
>> Modern science has NO GEOMETRICAL MODEL.
> 
> NOR IS A GEOMETRIC MODEL REQUIRED OF SCIENCE.

I beg your pardon?  It is required of the *natural* sciences like *physics* 
if things that are described are also to be *measurable*.  It is paramount 
to the scientific method, for how could we test theories if we could not 
measure if what they predict is what we observe?

  “Measure what is measurable, and make measurable what is not so.”
    —Galileo Galilei

Fortunately, contrary to your common misconceptions, physics does employ 
various geometric models; spacetime being one of the latest additions.  
Indeed, vectors, which are objects of *geometry*, are *everywhere* in 
physics; since relativity at the latest, tensors too.

I cannot fathom how you can say or imply that physics would not employ 
geometric models.  You appear to have a misconception as to what geometry 
is.  Start with reading the «Principia» (in which Newton ingeniously 
develops the basics of calculus based on geometry in order to make motion 
measurable and predictable) to clarify that for yourself.

> Face facts, John. The way you want to think is not important to 
> physicists, and the way physicists think is just incomprehensible to you.

I have already pointed out to you that you should not dare to claim that you 
understand (what is important to) physicists just because you ate a few 
physics books.

-- 
PointedEars

Twitter: @PointedEars2
Please do not cc me. / Bitte keine Kopien per E-Mail.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#563230

FromOdd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com>
Date2016-03-17 17:11 -0500
Message-ID<ncfa23$pjq$1@gioia.aioe.org>
In reply to#563212
On 3/17/2016 4:35 PM, Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote:
> Odd Bodkin wrote:
>
>> On 3/17/2016 4:25 AM, john wrote:
>>> Yes.
>>> Modern science has NO GEOMETRICAL MODEL.
>>
>> NOR IS A GEOMETRIC MODEL REQUIRED OF SCIENCE.
>
> I beg your pardon?  It is required of the *natural* sciences like *physics*
> if things that are described are also to be *measurable*.  It is paramount
> to the scientific method, for how could we test theories if we could not
> measure if what they predict is what we observe?
>
>    “Measure what is measurable, and make measurable what is not so.”
>      —Galileo Galilei
>
> Fortunately, contrary to your common misconceptions, physics does employ
> various geometric models; spacetime being one of the latest additions.
> Indeed, vectors, which are objects of *geometry*, are *everywhere* in
> physics; since relativity at the latest, tensors too.
>
> I cannot fathom how you can say or imply that physics would not employ
> geometric models.  You appear to have a misconception as to what geometry
> is.  Start with reading the «Principia» (in which Newton ingeniously
> develops the basics of calculus based on geometry in order to make motion
> measurable and predictable) to clarify that for yourself.

Once again, context is everything, and you have missed it.
Perhaps you might check in with the person I was responding to (John 
Sefton) about what he considers a geometric model to mean, and whether 
spacetime and vector spaces meets HIS understanding of a geometric 
model. You see, I was meeting him where he was, taking the time to 
understand what HE means by the words he uses. This is a skill you seem 
to lack.

>
>> Face facts, John. The way you want to think is not important to
>> physicists, and the way physicists think is just incomprehensible to you.
>
> I have already pointed out to you that you should not dare to claim that you
> understand (what is important to) physicists just because you ate a few
> physics books.
>

The irony of your admonition, coming from a web designer and Star Trek 
fanboy, is positively scintillating.


-- 
Odd Bodkin --- maker of fine toys, tools, tables

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#563240

FromThomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de>
Date2016-03-18 00:32 +0100
Message-ID<2217336.P03t2GdpDA@PointedEars.de>
In reply to#563230
Odd Bodkin wrote:

> On 3/17/2016 4:35 PM, Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote:
>> Fortunately, contrary to your common misconceptions, physics does employ
                            ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
That is, a misconception that you *share* with “john”.

>> various geometric models; spacetime being one of the latest additions.
>> Indeed, vectors, which are objects of *geometry*, are *everywhere* in
>> physics; since relativity at the latest, tensors too.
>>
>> I cannot fathom how you can say or imply that physics would not employ
>> geometric models.  You appear to have a misconception as to what geometry
>> is.  Start with reading the «Principia» (in which Newton ingeniously
>> develops the basics of calculus based on geometry in order to make motion
>> measurable and predictable) to clarify that for yourself.
> 
> Once again, context is everything, and you have missed it.

Once again, you are winding around your mistakes, blaming others for 
misinterpreting what cannot possibly be misinterpreted *considering* *the* 
*context*.   You are so full of yourself, and so immersed in nailing crank 
pudding to the wall, you do not even consider the possibility that you could 
be mistaken in some regards.  You are a crank, only in the other direction.  
I do not have time for this.

> [tl;dr]

-- 
PointedEars

Twitter: @PointedEars2
Please do not cc me. / Bitte keine Kopien per E-Mail.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#563070

FromSam Wormley <swormley1@gmail.com>
Date2016-03-17 09:04 -0500
Message-ID<KoOdnWDuRsDsJHfLnZ2dnUU7-Y-dnZ2d@giganews.com>
In reply to#563043
On 3/17/16 4:25 AM, john wrote:
> Crazy DENIERS


   I don't think you are crazy, John, but certainly a denier of well
   tested science.   :-o

-- 

sci.physics is an unmoderated newsgroup dedicated
to the discussion of physics, news from the physics
community, and physics-related social issues.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#563071

Fromjohn <johnsefton288@gmail.com>
Date2016-03-17 07:16 -0700
Message-ID<e4399864-48a2-4427-aac9-211e9359d3a3@googlegroups.com>
In reply to#563070
The crazy deniers, Sam,
are the ones that recognize that their
instrument is 3D and has
proportions and tolerances,
while using it to 
identify atomic particles 
that are accorded 
neither

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#563072

FromSam Wormley <swormley1@gmail.com>
Date2016-03-17 09:20 -0500
Message-ID<KoOdnWPuRsCkIHfLnZ2dnUU7-Y-dnZ2d@giganews.com>
In reply to#563071
On 3/17/16 9:16 AM, john wrote:
> The crazy deniers, Sam,
> are the ones that recognize that their
> instrument is 3D and has
> proportions and tolerances,
> while using it to
> identify atomic particles
> that are accorded
> neither
>

   I'm a little slow, John, as I am having trouble trying to understand
   what you are saying.


-- 

sci.physics is an unmoderated newsgroup dedicated
to the discussion of physics, news from the physics
community, and physics-related social issues.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#563073

Fromjohn <johnsefton288@gmail.com>
Date2016-03-17 07:27 -0700
Message-ID<39d13f39-e2d3-4eb8-919b-bff0dd82d03a@googlegroups.com>
In reply to#563072
Here's what I'm saying:
your 'common sense' tells you that
if your motorcycle needs a part,
it must be three-dimensionally-correct
in every way in order to serve.

Your 'science' says SHAPE is not an
issue in the atomic  world, and doesn't 
even address it. And to forget common
sense. So you did and now you're lost.
Sucks to be you.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#563077

FromSam Wormley <swormley1@gmail.com>
Date2016-03-17 09:34 -0500
Message-ID<KoOdnWLuRsAfXXfLnZ2dnUU7-Y-dnZ2d@giganews.com>
In reply to#563073
On 3/17/16 9:27 AM, john wrote:
> Here's what I'm saying:
> your 'common sense' tells you that
> if your motorcycle needs a part,
> it must be three-dimensionally-correct
> in every way in order to serve.
>
> Your 'science' says SHAPE is not an
> issue in the atomic  world, and doesn't
> even address it. And to forget common
> sense. So you did and now you're lost.
> Sucks to be you.
>


   Every physical object, made up of atoms, is 3D in space, John.
   Different arrangements of atoms (parts) have different shapes
   and one needs, not only the correct shape, but also correct
   material properties.  After all a wooden motorcycle chain would
   not be a suitable replacement for a metal one.





-- 

sci.physics is an unmoderated newsgroup dedicated
to the discussion of physics, news from the physics
community, and physics-related social issues.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#563079

Fromjohn <johnsefton288@gmail.com>
Date2016-03-17 07:37 -0700
Message-ID<3beb4c35-9aa4-47a7-a67e-96fce3c1c13e@googlegroups.com>
In reply to#563077
Exactly, Sam.
Why does your 'particle zoo'
only have animals that ACT differently?
Why don't ANY of them
INCLUDING THE ATOM
have any

STRUCTURE?????!!!!!??????

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#563080

FromSam Wormley <swormley1@gmail.com>
Date2016-03-17 09:49 -0500
Message-ID<KoOdnZzpRsCNWXfLnZ2dnUU7-Y-dnZ2d@giganews.com>
In reply to#563079
On 3/17/16 9:37 AM, john wrote:
> Exactly, Sam.
> Why does your 'particle zoo'
> only have animals that ACT differently?
> Why don't ANY of them
> INCLUDING THE ATOM
> have any
>
> STRUCTURE?????!!!!!??????
>

   Atom have structure, John -- well measured.

   Here's a example of some familiar "shapes".
> http://chemwiki.ucdavis.edu/@api/deki/files/8855/=Single_electron_orbitals.jpg?revision=1



-- 

sci.physics is an unmoderated newsgroup dedicated
to the discussion of physics, news from the physics
community, and physics-related social issues.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#563083

Fromjohn <johnsefton288@gmail.com>
Date2016-03-17 07:56 -0700
Message-ID<2793ad46-d736-444c-908a-6eaa177164e2@googlegroups.com>
In reply to#563080
Lost

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#563085

FromSam Wormley <swormley1@gmail.com>
Date2016-03-17 10:06 -0500
Message-ID<KoOdnZ7pRsBxWnfLnZ2dnUU7-Y8AAAAA@giganews.com>
In reply to#563083
On 3/17/16 9:56 AM, john wrote:
> Lost
>

   I'm sorry, John, you got lost. Take another look.

   Here's a example of some familiar "shapes" of simple atoms.
 > 
http://chemwiki.ucdavis.edu/@api/deki/files/8855/=Single_electron_orbitals.jpg?revision=1




-- 

sci.physics is an unmoderated newsgroup dedicated
to the discussion of physics, news from the physics
community, and physics-related social issues.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#563094

FromOdd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com>
Date2016-03-17 10:24 -0500
Message-ID<ncei7c$1efb$2@gioia.aioe.org>
In reply to#563079
On 3/17/2016 9:37 AM, john wrote:
> Exactly, Sam.
> Why does your 'particle zoo'
> only have animals that ACT differently?
> Why don't ANY of them
> INCLUDING THE ATOM
> have any
>
> STRUCTURE?????!!!!!??????
>

The atom does have structure, but not the kind of structure that 
something composed of solid objects does.

Clouds have structure, even the kind with no clear edges.

If you open a jar of ethanol, the ethanol vapor that starts to waft 
across the room has structure.

A solute mixing with ocean water has structure.

Just not the kind of structure you're thinking of.

-- 
Odd Bodkin --- maker of fine toys, tools, tables

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

Page 5 of 6 — ← Prev page 1 2 3 4 [5] 6  Next page →

Back to top | Article view | sci.physics

csiph-web