Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > sci.physics > #700215 > unrolled thread
| Started by | alal65536@gmail.com |
|---|---|
| First post | 2018-08-28 02:09 -0700 |
| Last post | 2018-09-02 20:08 -0700 |
| Articles | 20 on this page of 135 — 15 participants |
Back to article view | Back to sci.physics
The Quark Religion alal65536@gmail.com - 2018-08-28 02:09 -0700
Re: The Quark Religion poraty149@gmail.com - 2018-08-28 02:30 -0700
Re: The Quark Religion alal65536@gmail.com - 2018-08-28 04:04 -0700
The Quark Religion john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2018-08-28 05:25 -0700
Re: The Quark Religion "reber G=emc^2" <herbertglazier0@gmail.com> - 2018-08-28 09:55 -0700
Re: The Quark Religion "hanson" <hanson@quick.net> - 2018-08-28 10:25 -0700
Re:The Quark Religion Libor Striz <poutnik4REMOVEnntp@CAPITALSgmail.com> - 2018-08-28 14:36 +0200
Re:The Quark Religion john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2018-08-28 06:11 -0700
Re: The Quark Religion Sergio <invalid@invalid.com> - 2018-08-28 11:07 -0500
Re: The Quark Religion alal65536@gmail.com - 2018-08-29 03:42 -0700
Re: The Quark Religion Sergio <invalid@invalid.com> - 2018-08-29 09:29 -0500
Re: The Quark Religion alal65536@gmail.com - 2018-08-29 07:53 -0700
Re: The Quark Religion Sergio <invalid@invalid.com> - 2018-08-29 10:18 -0500
Re: The Quark Religion Arindam Banerjee <banerjeeadda1234@gmail.com> - 2018-08-30 00:36 -0700
Re: The Quark Religion alal65536@gmail.com - 2018-08-29 03:30 -0700
Re: The Quark Religion Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-08-28 13:12 +0000
Re: The Quark Religion john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2018-08-28 06:26 -0700
Re: The Quark Religion Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-08-28 13:40 +0000
Re: The Quark Religion john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2018-08-28 06:55 -0700
Re: The Quark Religion Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-08-28 14:58 +0000
Re: The Quark Religion poraty149@gmail.com - 2018-08-28 08:35 -0700
Re: The Quark Religion mitchrae3323@gmail.com - 2018-08-29 14:25 -0700
Re: The Quark Religion mitchrae3323@gmail.com - 2018-08-29 15:16 -0700
The Quark Religion Arindam Banerjee <banerjeeadda1234@gmail.com> - 2018-08-29 15:56 -0700
Re: The Quark Religion poraty149@gmail.com - 2018-08-29 16:09 -0700
Re: The Quark Religion mitchrae3323@gmail.com - 2018-08-29 16:15 -0700
Re: The Quark Religion Arindam Banerjee <banerjeeadda1234@gmail.com> - 2018-08-29 17:54 -0700
Re: The Quark Religion poraty149@gmail.com - 2018-08-29 22:46 -0700
Re: The Quark Religion Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-08-30 15:29 +0000
Re: The Quark Religion Arindam Banerjee <banerjeeadda1234@gmail.com> - 2018-08-30 16:05 -0700
The Quark Religion john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2018-08-30 02:13 -0700
Re: The Quark Religion Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-08-30 15:29 +0000
Re: The Quark Religion john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2018-08-30 08:35 -0700
Re: The Quark Religion Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-08-30 16:18 +0000
Re: The Quark Religion "Chris M. Thomasson" <invalid_chris_thomasson@invalid.invalid> - 2018-08-30 01:12 -0700
Re: The Quark Religion poraty149@gmail.com - 2018-08-30 02:05 -0700
Re: The Quark Religion "Chris M. Thomasson" <invalid_chris_thomasson@invalid.invalid> - 2018-08-30 02:09 -0700
Re: The Quark Religion poraty149@gmail.com - 2018-08-30 06:20 -0700
Re: The Quark Religion "Chris M. Thomasson" <invalid_chris_thomasson@invalid.invalid> - 2018-08-30 14:45 -0700
Re: The Quark Religion poraty149@gmail.com - 2018-08-30 16:37 -0700
Re: The Quark Religion Arindam Banerjee <banerjeeadda1234@gmail.com> - 2018-08-30 20:05 -0700
Re: The Quark Religion mitchrae3323@gmail.com - 2018-08-30 20:12 -0700
Re: The Quark Religion john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2018-08-30 21:58 -0700
Re: The Quark Religion poraty149@gmail.com - 2018-08-30 23:27 -0700
Re: The Quark Religion poraty149@gmail.com - 2018-08-30 23:18 -0700
Re: The Quark Religion Arindam Banerjee <banerjeeadda1234@gmail.com> - 2018-08-30 23:53 -0700
Re: The Quark Religion poraty149@gmail.com - 2018-08-31 00:31 -0700
Re: The Quark Religion poraty149@gmail.com - 2018-08-31 00:56 -0700
Re: The Quark Religion Arindam Banerjee <banerjeeadda1234@gmail.com> - 2018-08-31 04:40 -0700
Re: The Quark Religion poraty149@gmail.com - 2018-08-31 17:54 -0700
Re: The Quark Religion Arindam Banerjee <banerjeeadda1234@gmail.com> - 2018-08-31 23:02 -0700
Re: The Quark Religion poraty149@gmail.com - 2018-08-31 23:32 -0700
Re: The Quark Religion poraty149@gmail.com - 2018-09-01 02:38 -0700
Re: The Quark Religion mitchrae3323@gmail.com - 2018-08-31 19:46 -0700
Re: The Quark Religion Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> - 2018-09-01 16:39 +1000
Re: The Quark Religion poraty149@gmail.com - 2018-09-01 02:29 -0700
Re: The Quark Religion Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> - 2018-09-01 19:36 +1000
Re: The Quark Religion poraty149@gmail.com - 2018-09-01 03:31 -0700
Re: The Quark Religion Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> - 2018-09-02 09:21 +1000
Re: The Quark Religion mitchrae3323@gmail.com - 2018-09-01 16:25 -0700
Re: The Quark Religion Arindam Banerjee <banerjeeadda1234@gmail.com> - 2018-09-01 16:37 -0700
Re: The Quark Religion Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> - 2018-09-02 10:56 +1000
Re: The Quark Religion Arindam Banerjee <banerjeeadda1234@gmail.com> - 2018-09-01 18:50 -0700
Re: The Quark Religion benj <benj.fake@gmail.com> - 2018-09-02 02:11 -0400
Re: The Quark Religion Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> - 2018-09-02 16:57 +1000
Re: The Quark Religion Arindam Banerjee <banerjeeadda1234@gmail.com> - 2018-09-02 04:14 -0700
Re: The Quark Religion poraty149@gmail.com - 2018-09-02 06:52 -0700
Re: The Quark Religion Sergio <invalid@invalid.com> - 2018-09-02 12:25 -0500
Re: The Quark Religion Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> - 2018-09-03 08:42 +1000
Re: The Quark Religion poraty149@gmail.com - 2018-09-02 19:40 -0700
Re: The Quark Religion poraty149@gmail.com - 2018-09-02 19:36 -0700
Re: The Quark Religion poraty149@gmail.com - 2018-09-02 02:14 -0700
Re: The Quark Religion poraty149@gmail.com - 2018-09-02 02:19 -0700
Re: The Quark Religion "hanson" <hanson@quick.net> - 2018-09-02 10:19 -0700
Re: The Quark Religion poraty149@gmail.com - 2018-09-02 19:30 -0700
Re: The Quark Religion Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> - 2018-09-02 19:54 +1000
Re: The Quark Religion poraty149@gmail.com - 2018-09-02 06:49 -0700
Re: The Quark Religion Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> - 2018-09-03 08:44 +1000
Re: The Quark Religion poraty149@gmail.com - 2018-09-02 19:51 -0700
Re: The Quark Religion "reber G=emc^2" <herbertglazier0@gmail.com> - 2018-09-02 13:52 -0700
Re: The Quark Religion "hanson" <hanson@quick.net> - 2018-09-02 14:18 -0700
Re: The Quark Religion Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> - 2018-09-03 08:46 +1000
Re: The Quark Religion Arindam Banerjee <banerjeeadda1234@gmail.com> - 2018-09-02 15:50 -0700
Re: The Quark Religion Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> - 2018-09-03 09:11 +1000
Re: The Quark Religion Arindam Banerjee <banerjeeadda1234@gmail.com> - 2018-09-02 17:23 -0700
Re: The Quark Religion Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> - 2018-09-03 11:55 +1000
Re: The Quark Religion benj <benj.fake@gmail.com> - 2018-09-03 09:59 -0400
Re: The Quark Religion "reber G=emc^2" <herbertglazier0@gmail.com> - 2018-09-03 11:09 -0700
Re: The Quark Religion "hanson" <hanson@quick.net> - 2018-09-03 18:02 -0700
Re: The Quark Religion Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> - 2018-09-04 12:09 +1000
Re: The Quark Religion Arindam Banerjee <banerjeeadda1234@gmail.com> - 2018-09-04 05:24 -0700
Re: The Quark Religion john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2018-09-04 05:41 -0700
Re: The Quark Religion Arindam Banerjee <banerjeeadda1234@gmail.com> - 2018-09-04 06:29 -0700
Re: The Quark Religion "reber G=emc^2" <herbertglazier0@gmail.com> - 2018-09-04 12:47 -0700
Re: The Quark Religion "hanson" <hanson@quick.net> - 2018-09-04 12:57 -0700
Re: The Quark Religion Arindam Banerjee <banerjeeadda1234@gmail.com> - 2018-09-04 15:07 -0700
Re: The Quark Religion Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-09-05 00:02 +0000
Re: The Quark Religion Arindam Banerjee <banerjeeadda1234@gmail.com> - 2018-09-04 17:06 -0700
Re: The Quark Religion Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-09-05 00:33 +0000
Re: The Quark Religion Arindam Banerjee <banerjeeadda1234@gmail.com> - 2018-09-04 17:59 -0700
Re: The Quark Religion Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-09-05 13:04 +0000
Re: The Quark Religion john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2018-09-05 07:00 -0700
Re: The Quark Religion benj <benj.fake@gmail.com> - 2018-09-05 10:28 -0400
Re: The Quark Religion Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-09-05 15:51 +0000
Re: The Quark Religion benj <benj.fake@gmail.com> - 2018-09-05 13:17 -0400
Re: The Quark Religion Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-09-05 19:48 +0000
Re: The Quark Religion Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-09-05 15:51 +0000
Re: The Quark Religion Arindam Banerjee <banerjeeadda1234@gmail.com> - 2018-09-05 16:58 -0700
Re: The Quark Religion john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2018-09-05 17:30 -0700
Re: The Quark Religion Arindam Banerjee <banerjeeadda1234@gmail.com> - 2018-09-05 18:06 -0700
Re: The Quark Religion john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2018-09-05 20:15 -0700
Re: The Quark Religion Arindam Banerjee <banerjeeadda1234@gmail.com> - 2018-09-05 20:53 -0700
Re: The Quark Religion mitchrae3323@gmail.com - 2018-09-05 21:00 -0700
Re: The Quark Religion Sergio <invalid@invalid.com> - 2018-09-06 08:21 -0500
Re: The Quark Religion benj <benj.fake@gmail.com> - 2018-09-06 10:38 -0400
Re: The Quark Religion Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-09-06 16:52 +0000
Re: The Quark Religion john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2018-09-06 12:39 -0700
Re: The Quark Religion Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-09-06 15:44 +0000
Re: The Quark Religion Arindam Banerjee <banerjeeadda1234@gmail.com> - 2018-09-06 17:13 -0700
Re: The Quark Religion Edward Prochak <edprochak@gmail.com> - 2018-09-05 09:16 -0700
Re: The Quark Religion moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2018-09-05 16:32 +0000
Re: The Quark Religion Sergio <invalid@invalid.com> - 2018-09-06 08:23 -0500
Re: The Quark Religion mitchrae3323@gmail.com - 2018-09-05 20:23 -0700
Re: The Quark Religion Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> - 2018-09-05 08:33 +1000
Re: The Quark Religion Arindam Banerjee <banerjeeadda1234@gmail.com> - 2018-09-04 16:52 -0700
Re: The Quark Religion "reber G=emc^2" <herbertglazier0@gmail.com> - 2018-09-07 10:56 -0700
Re: The Quark Religion "hanson" <hanson@quick.net> - 2018-09-07 11:17 -0700
Re: The Quark Religion Arindam Banerjee <banerjeeadda1234@gmail.com> - 2018-09-09 03:04 -0700
Re: The Quark Religion "reber G=emc^2" <herbertglazier0@gmail.com> - 2018-09-02 17:41 -0700
Re: The Quark Religion Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> - 2018-09-03 11:56 +1000
Re: The Quark Religion Sergio <invalid@invalid.com> - 2018-09-02 23:16 -0500
Re: The Quark Religion mitchrae3323@gmail.com - 2018-09-02 19:17 -0700
Re: The Quark Religion "reber G=emc^2" <herbertglazier0@gmail.com> - 2018-09-03 11:06 -0700
Re: The Quark Religion "hanson" <hanson@quick.net> - 2018-09-03 17:59 -0700
Re: The Quark Religion "hanson" <hanson@quick.net> - 2018-09-02 20:08 -0700
Page 3 of 7 — ← Prev page 1 2 [3] 4 5 6 7 Next page →
| From | Arindam Banerjee <banerjeeadda1234@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-08-30 20:05 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <b5f5257c-1aac-4271-a874-0d1816161e93@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #700515 |
On Friday, 31 August 2018 09:37:42 UTC+10, pora...@gmail.com wrote: > On Friday, August 31, 2018 at 12:45:08 AM UTC+3, Chris M. Thomasson wrote: > > On 8/30/2018 6:20 AM, poraty149@gmail.com wrote: > > > On Thursday, August 30, 2018 at 12:10:03 PM UTC+3, Chris M. Thomasson wrote: > > >> On 8/30/2018 2:05 AM, poraty149@gmail.com wrote: > > >>> On Thursday, August 30, 2018 at 11:13:01 AM UTC+3, Chris M. Thomasson wrote: > > >>>> On 8/28/2018 2:09 AM, alal65536@gmail.com wrote: > > >>>>> How many followers does it have? Quarks are not science/physics. > > >>>>> > > >>>>> Abhinav Lal > > >>>>> Writer & Investor > > >>>>> > > >>>>> “What fools be these men” > > >>>>> > > >>>> > > >>>> Quark.. Ahhh. What about neutrinos? What is closer to zero? > > >>> ====================== > > >>> 'closer to the zero' > > >>> cannot be something that is only positive > > >>> it must be > > >>> or positive plus something negative > > >>> or no 'chagrget at all > > >>> but something else > > >>> see > > >>> http://sites.google.com/site/theyporatmodel/an-abstract > > >>> ====== > > >>> TIA > > >>> Y.P > > >>> ====================== > > >>> > > >> > > >> Signed zero? ;^) > > > ================= > > > speak physics !! > > > and if you don t understand > > > shut up !! > > > === > > > Y.P > > > ======================= > > > > > > > Sorry. I just thought of zero with signs when I read your reply. > ==================== > ok thank you for clarifying so > we agree that there is something smaller than say quarks > 2 > do you agree with me that > all* forces** are created / and emitted by mass > > (i cant find the English word for that > 'created and emitted '' ) > TIA > == > Y.Porat > ================================== Movement of mass, of course, is the evidence of force. Unless mass moves, there is no force. The proof of force, is the movement of mass. Your point that mass "creates or emits" force is questionable. Force is not a property or quality of mass, so it has to exist as a separate entity. Force being a separate entity, it is difficult to see how it can be created or emitted from mass. On the other hand, gravity is the peculiar force which is apparently emitted by a mass in all directions up to infinity, to attract all the other masses in the universe. I cannot understand the origin or reason for this mysterious force, the way I understand electric forces. The best definition of force is from Leonardo da Vinci, still. He provides divine origin to force - all force - but that effectively stops scientific investigation in this field. I mean, what else is God but what is still unknown that can be known only through Divine Grace? So I humbly say that I do not know. We have to learn more from the universe, with Divine Grace! Cheers, Arindam Banerjee
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | mitchrae3323@gmail.com |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-08-30 20:12 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <6fe6a5f1-3f47-46f7-91fe-68e57fb20222@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #700538 |
On Thursday, August 30, 2018 at 8:05:05 PM UTC-7, Arindam Banerjee wrote: > On Friday, 31 August 2018 09:37:42 UTC+10, pora...@gmail.com wrote: > > On Friday, August 31, 2018 at 12:45:08 AM UTC+3, Chris M. Thomasson wrote: > > > On 8/30/2018 6:20 AM, poraty149@gmail.com wrote: > > > > On Thursday, August 30, 2018 at 12:10:03 PM UTC+3, Chris M. Thomasson wrote: > > > >> On 8/30/2018 2:05 AM, poraty149@gmail.com wrote: > > > >>> On Thursday, August 30, 2018 at 11:13:01 AM UTC+3, Chris M. Thomasson wrote: > > > >>>> On 8/28/2018 2:09 AM, alal65536@gmail.com wrote: > > > >>>>> How many followers does it have? Quarks are not science/physics. > > > >>>>> > > > >>>>> Abhinav Lal > > > >>>>> Writer & Investor > > > >>>>> > > > >>>>> “What fools be these men” > > > >>>>> > > > >>>> > > > >>>> Quark.. Ahhh. What about neutrinos? What is closer to zero? > > > >>> ====================== > > > >>> 'closer to the zero' > > > >>> cannot be something that is only positive > > > >>> it must be > > > >>> or positive plus something negative > > > >>> or no 'chagrget at all > > > >>> but something else > > > >>> see > > > >>> http://sites.google.com/site/theyporatmodel/an-abstract > > > >>> ====== > > > >>> TIA > > > >>> Y.P > > > >>> ====================== > > > >>> > > > >> > > > >> Signed zero? ;^) > > > > ================= > > > > speak physics !! > > > > and if you don t understand > > > > shut up !! > > > > === > > > > Y.P > > > > ======================= > > > > > > > > > > Sorry. I just thought of zero with signs when I read your reply. > > ==================== > > ok thank you for clarifying so > > we agree that there is something smaller than say quarks > > 2 > > do you agree with me that > > all* forces** are created / and emitted by mass > > > > (i cant find the English word for that > > 'created and emitted '' ) > > TIA > > == > > Y.Porat > > ================================== > > Movement of mass, of course, is the evidence of force. Unless mass moves, there is no force. The proof of force, is the movement of mass. > > Your point that mass "creates or emits" force is questionable. > > Force is not a property or quality of mass, so it has to exist as a separate entity. Force being a separate entity, it is difficult to see how it can be created or emitted from mass. > > On the other hand, gravity is the peculiar force which is apparently emitted by a mass in all directions up to infinity, to attract all the other masses in the universe. > > I cannot understand the origin or reason for this mysterious force, the way I understand electric forces. The best definition of force is from Leonardo da Vinci, still. He provides divine origin to force - all force - but that effectively stops scientific investigation in this field. I mean, what else is God but what is still unknown that can be known only through Divine Grace? > > So I humbly say that I do not know. We have to learn more from the universe, with Divine Grace! > > > Cheers, > Arindam Banerjee There is a better religion...
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-08-30 21:58 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <8afdcb0e-4d9b-4034-8e6a-e5abc948070c@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #700538 |
Ari “On the other hand, gravity is the peculiar force which is apparently emitted by a mass in all directions up to infinity, to attract all the other masses in the universe. ” Electrons thrill.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | poraty149@gmail.com |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-08-30 23:27 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <673da414-8b96-4b52-9148-b754d634d810@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #700549 |
On Friday, August 31, 2018 at 7:58:12 AM UTC+3, john wrote: > Ari > “On the other hand, gravity is the peculiar force which is apparently emitted by a mass in all directions up to infinity, to attract all the other masses in the universe. > ” > Electrons thrill. ========================== THANK YOU JOHN !! DONT YOU FEEL THAT WE ARE MAKING HISTORY NOT ONLY IN GOOGLE BUT MUCH BEYOND IT ??!! ===================== TIA Y.P ================
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | poraty149@gmail.com |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-08-30 23:18 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <3cc7aa3b-d830-47b8-90ff-ae49282da6a5@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #700538 |
On Friday, August 31, 2018 at 6:05:05 AM UTC+3, Arindam Bane > > > >>> it must be > > > >>> or positive plus something negative > > > >>> or no 'chagrget at all > > > >>> but something else > > > >>> see > > > >>> http://sites.google.com/site/theyporatmodel/an-abstract > > > >>> ====== > > > >>> TIA > > > >>> Y.P > > > >>> ====================== > > > >>> > > > >> > > > >> Signed zero? ;^) > > > > ================= > > > > speak physics !! > > > > and if you don t understand > > > > shut up !! > > > > === > > > > Y.P > > > > ======================= > > > > > > > > > > Sorry. I just thought of zero with signs when I read your reply. > > ==================== > > ok thank you for clarifying so > > we agree that there is something smaller than say quarks > > 2 > > do you agree with me that > > all* forces** are created / and emitted by mass > > > > (i cant find the English word for that > > 'created and emitted '' ) > > TIA > > == > > Y.Porat > > ================================== > > Movement of mass, of course, is the evidence of force. Unless mass moves, there is no force. ====================== ok !! so ? according to you what seems t o you more**basic** mass or movement ?? btw movement is ALWAYS MOVEMNT OF* SOMETHING* SO WHAT IS THAT ''SOMETHING'' ACCORDING TO YOU ? or i will ask it is a different way : do you have a better ''candidate '' for that ''something'' better than mass !! (don t you think that mass is the most** tangible** *physical entity* that we know and even sence (sense --with our senses ) you say that my above assertion is 'questionable' yes indeed not easy to understand but for that there is need for some .moreetrhlittle ....... for humbility sake i will not say what is that little something that is needed ** in our case ... ?? but it took too long to get it ... more than 100 years !! at any case not f en 'curved space' something else that is curved ! ---- Michel Faraday was the first one 'to put hie finger '' on it by his historic ingenious experiment !! with the permanent magnet and the**curved** force lines but no one was cleaver enough to **push it further** ! ======================= The proof of force, is the movement of mass. > > Your point that mass "creates or emits" force is questionable. > > Force is not a property or quality of mass, so it has to exist as a separate entity. Force being a separate entity, it is difficult to see how it can be created or emitted from mass. > > On the other hand, gravity is the peculiar force which is apparently emitted by a mass in all directions up to infinity, to attract all the other masses in the universe. ============================= Bravo !!!!! i could not expect a more correct understanding folowing my being the first one to do it ...!! = do you now about another one who precedent me about that assertion that ======================================== MASS** IS THE' MOTHER*/ CREATOR OF ALL!! FORCES!! INCLUDING GRAVITY !!' =========================================== \\\ end of many times before quote - recorded here in Google ================================ TIA Y.P =====================
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Arindam Banerjee <banerjeeadda1234@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-08-30 23:53 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <f55736d9-422d-4a97-bcbf-7b0bb2c6a025@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #700553 |
On Friday, August 31, 2018 at 4:18:43 PM UTC+10, pora...@gmail.com wrote: > On Friday, August 31, 2018 at 6:05:05 AM UTC+3, Arindam Bane > > > > >>> it must be > > > > >>> or positive plus something negative > > > > >>> or no 'chagrget at all > > > > >>> but something else > > > > >>> see > > > > >>> http://sites.google.com/site/theyporatmodel/an-abstract > > > > >>> ====== > > > > >>> TIA > > > > >>> Y.P > > > > >>> ====================== > > > > >>> > > > > >> > > > > >> Signed zero? ;^) > > > > > ================= > > > > > speak physics !! > > > > > and if you don t understand > > > > > shut up !! > > > > > === > > > > > Y.P > > > > > ======================= > > > > > > > > > > > > > Sorry. I just thought of zero with signs when I read your reply. > > > ==================== > > > ok thank you for clarifying so > > > we agree that there is something smaller than say quarks > > > 2 > > > do you agree with me that > > > all* forces** are created / and emitted by mass > > > > > > (i cant find the English word for that > > > 'created and emitted '' ) > > > TIA > > > == > > > Y.Porat > > > ================================== > > > > Movement of mass, of course, is the evidence of force. Unless mass moves, there is no force. > ====================== > ok !! > so ? > according to you > what seems t o you more**basic** > mass or movement ?? > btw > movement is ALWAYS MOVEMNT OF* SOMETHING* > SO WHAT IS THAT ''SOMETHING'' ACCORDING TO YOU ? Yes, force relates to acceleration leading to movement, mostly seen as the vibration of the aetheric matter filling the universe. > > or i will ask it is a different way : > > do you have a better ''candidate '' > for that ''something'' > better than mass !! I will say matter, for mass being a quantity is a property of matter. A certain amount of matter is defined by its average density and volume, and the product of that is mass. Matter is thus more fundamental than mass. Mass is useful in the context of force, for force acts upon some specific mass. > (don t you think that mass is the most** tangible** > *physical entity* that we know and even sence (sense --with our senses ) > you say that my above assertion is 'questionable' Force is on the whole as tangible as matter. Without force there is no evidence of matter, and without matter there is no scope for force. I cannot put one above the other. It is for dead objects for which force does not matter. For life forms, force matters more than matter, for life derives from force. > > yes indeed not easy to understand > but for that there is need for some .moreetrhlittle ....... > for humbility sake > i will not say what is that little something that is needed ** > in our case ... > ?? > but it took too long to get it ... > more than 100 years !! > at any case > not f en 'curved space' > something else that is curved ! > ---- > Michel Faraday was the first one > 'to put hie finger '' on it > by his historic ingenious experiment !! > with the permanent magnet > and the**curved** force lines > but no one > was cleaver enough to **push it further** ! > ======================= > > The proof of force, is the movement of mass. > > > > Your point that mass "creates or emits" force is questionable. > > > > Force is not a property or quality of mass, so it has to exist as a separate entity. Force being a separate entity, it is difficult to see how it can be created or emitted from mass. > > > > On the other hand, gravity is the peculiar force which is apparently emitted by a mass in all directions up to infinity, to attract all the other masses in the universe. > ============================= > Bravo !!!!! > i could not expect a more correct understanding > folowing > my being the first one to do it ...!! > = > do you now about another one > who precedent me > about that assertion that > ======================================== > > MASS** IS THE' MOTHER*/ CREATOR OF ALL!! FORCES!! > INCLUDING GRAVITY !!' > =========================================== > > \\\ end of many times before quote - recorded here in Google > ================================ > TIA > Y.P > =====================
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | poraty149@gmail.com |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-08-31 00:31 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <04837c69-12cb-412c-bbbf-4e1e8e444fc0@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #700558 |
On Friday, August 31, 2018 at 9:53:40 AM UTC+3, Arindam Banerjee wrote: > On Friday, August 31, 2018 at 4:18:43 PM UTC+10, pora...@gmail.com wrote: > > On Friday, August 31, 2018 at 6:05:05 AM UTC+3, Arindam Bane > > > > > >>> it must be > > > > > >>> or positive plus something negative > > > > > >>> or no 'chagrget at all > > > > > >>> but something else > > > > > >>> see > > > > > >>> http://sites.google.com/site/theyporatmodel/an-abstract > > > > > >>> ====== > > > > > >>> TIA > > > > > >>> Y.P > > > > > >>> ====================== > > > > > >>> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> Signed zero? ;^) > > > > > > ================= > > > > > > speak physics !! > > > > > > and if you don t understand > > > > > > shut up !! > > > > > > === > > > > > > Y.P > > > > > > ======================= > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Sorry. I just thought of zero with signs when I read your reply. > > > > ==================== > > > > ok thank you for clarifying so > > > > we agree that there is something smaller than say quarks > > > > 2 > > > > do you agree with me that > > > > all* forces** are created / and emitted by mass > > > > > > > > (i cant find the English word for that > > > > 'created and emitted '' ) > > > > TIA > > > > == > > > > Y.Porat > > > > ================================== > > > > > > Movement of mass, of course, is the evidence of force. Unless mass moves, there is no force. > > ====================== > > ok !! > > so ? > > according to you > > what seems t o you more**basic** > > mass or movement ?? > > btw > > movement is ALWAYS MOVEMNT OF* SOMETHING* > > SO WHAT IS THAT ''SOMETHING'' ACCORDING TO YOU ? > > > Yes, force relates to acceleration leading to movement, mostly seen as the vibration of the aetheric matter filling the universe. > > > > or i will ask it is a different way : > > > > do you have a better ''candidate '' > > for that ''something'' > > better than mass !! > > > I will say matter, for mass being a quantity is a property of matter. A certain amount of matter is defined by its average density and volume, and the product of that is mass. Matter is thus more fundamental than mass. Mass is useful in the context of force, for force acts upon some specific mass. > > > (don t you think that mass is the most** tangible** > > *physical entity* that we know and even sence (sense --with our senses ) > > you say that my above assertion is 'questionable' > > > Force is on the whole as tangible as matter. Without force there is no evidence of matter, and without matter there is no scope for force. I cannot put one above the other. It is for dead objects for which force does not matter. For life forms, force matters more than matter, for life derives from force. > > > > yes indeed not easy to understand > > but for that there is need for some .moreetrhlittle ....... > > for humbility sake > > i will not say what is that little something that is needed ** > > in our case ... > > ?? > > but it took too long to get it ... > > more than 100 years !! > > at any case > > not f en 'curved space' > > something else that is curved ! > > ---- > > Michel Faraday was the first one > > 'to put hie finger '' on it > > by his historic ingenious experiment !! > > with the permanent magnet > > and the**curved** force lines > > but no one > > was cleaver enough to **push it further** ! > > ======================= > > > > The proof of force, is the movement of mass. > > > > > > Your point that mass "creates or emits" force is questionable. > > > > > > Force is not a property or quality of mass, so it has to exist as a separate entity. Force being a separate entity, it is difficult to see how it can be created or emitted from mass. > > > > > > On the other hand, gravity is the peculiar force which is apparently emitted by a mass in all directions up to infinity, to attract all the other masses in the universe. > > ============================= > > Bravo !!!!! > > i could not expect a more correct understanding > > folowing > > my being the first one to do it ...!! > > = > > do you now about another one > > who precedent me > > about that assertion that > > ======================================== > > > > MASS** IS THE' MOTHER*/ CREATOR OF ALL!! FORCES!! > > INCLUDING GRAVITY !!' > > =========================================== > > > > > \\\ end of many times before quote - recorded here in Google > > ================================ > > TIA > > Y.P > > ===================== Arindam there are cases that you only see !! mass ie no force is involved !! ie massin that case is inactive 2 mass and matter are words !! to describe the same thing 3 what are the physical dimensions of force ?..... do you find mass in it ? so what is more basic ??..... TIA Y.lP ==================
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | poraty149@gmail.com |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-08-31 00:56 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <10a9ac1d-84e1-44f1-bc64-01b13932eec5@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #700560 |
On Friday, August 31, 2018 at 10:31:43 AM UTC+3, pora...@gmail.com wrote: > On Friday, August 31, 2018 at 9:53:40 AM UTC+3, Arindam Banerjee wrote: > > On Friday, August 31, 2018 at 4:18:43 PM UTC+10, pora...@gmail.com wrote: > > > On Friday, August 31, 2018 at 6:05:05 AM UTC+3, Arindam Bane > > > > > > >>> it must be > > > > > > >>> or positive plus something negative > > > > > > >>> or no 'chagrget at all > > > > > > >>> but something else > > > > > > >>> see > > > > > > >>> http://sites.google.com/site/theyporatmodel/an-abstract > > > > > > >>> ====== > > > > > > >>> TIA > > > > > > >>> Y.P > > > > > > >>> ====================== > > > > > > >>> > > > > > > >> > > > > > > >> Signed zero? ;^) > > > > > > > ================= > > > > > > > speak physics !! > > > > > > > and if you don t understand > > > > > > > shut up !! > > > > > > > === > > > > > > > Y.P > > > > > > > ======================= > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Sorry. I just thought of zero with signs when I read your reply. > > > > > ==================== > > > > > ok thank you for clarifying so > > > > > we agree that there is something smaller than say quarks > > > > > 2 > > > > > do you agree with me that > > > > > all* forces** are created / and emitted by mass > > > > > > > > > > (i cant find the English word for that > > > > > 'created and emitted '' ) > > > > > TIA > > > > > == > > > > > Y.Porat > > > > > ================================== > > > > > > > > Movement of mass, of course, is the evidence of force. Unless mass moves, there is no force. > > > ====================== > > > ok !! > > > so ? > > > according to you > > > what seems t o you more**basic** > > > mass or movement ?? > > > btw > > > movement is ALWAYS MOVEMNT OF* SOMETHING* > > > SO WHAT IS THAT ''SOMETHING'' ACCORDING TO YOU ? > > > > > > Yes, force relates to acceleration leading to movement, mostly seen as the vibration of the aetheric matter filling the universe. > > > > > > or i will ask it is a different way : > > > > > > do you have a better ''candidate '' > > > for that ''something'' > > > better than mass !! > > > > > > I will say matter, for mass being a quantity is a property of matter. A certain amount of matter is defined by its average density and volume, and the product of that is mass. Matter is thus more fundamental than mass. Mass is useful in the context of force, for force acts upon some specific mass. > > > > > (don t you think that mass is the most** tangible** > > > *physical entity* that we know and even sence (sense --with our senses ) > > > you say that my above assertion is 'questionable' > > > > > > Force is on the whole as tangible as matter. Without force there is no evidence of matter, and without matter there is no scope for force. I cannot put one above the other. It is for dead objects for which force does not matter. For life forms, force matters more than matter, for life derives from force. > > > > > > yes indeed not easy to understand > > > but for that there is need for some .moreetrhlittle ....... > > > for humbility sake > > > i will not say what is that little something that is needed ** > > > in our case ... > > > ?? > > > but it took too long to get it ... > > > more than 100 years !! > > > at any case > > > not f en 'curved space' > > > something else that is curved ! > > > ---- > > > Michel Faraday was the first one > > > 'to put hie finger '' on it > > > by his historic ingenious experiment !! > > > with the permanent magnet > > > and the**curved** force lines > > > but no one > > > was cleaver enough to **push it further** ! > > > ======================= > > > > > > The proof of force, is the movement of mass. > > > > > > > > Your point that mass "creates or emits" force is questionable. > > > > > > > > Force is not a property or quality of mass, so it has to exist as a separate entity. Force being a separate entity, it is difficult to see how it can be created or emitted from mass. > > > > > > > > On the other hand, gravity is the peculiar force which is apparently emitted by a mass in all directions up to infinity, to attract all the other masses in the universe. > > > ============================= > > > Bravo !!!!! > > > i could not expect a more correct understanding > > > folowing > > > my being the first one to do it ...!! > > > = > > > do you now about another one > > > who precedent me > > > about that assertion that > > > ======================================== > > > > > > MASS** IS THE' MOTHER*/ CREATOR OF ALL!! FORCES!! > > > INCLUDING GRAVITY !!' > > > =========================================== > > > > > > > > \\\ end of many times before quote - recorded here in Google > > > ================================ > > > TIA > > > Y.P > > > ===================== > Arindam > there are cases that you only see !! > mass > ie > no force is involved !! > ie massin that case is inactive > 2 > mass and matter are > words !! > to describe the same thing > > 3 > what are the physical dimensions of force ?..... > do you find mass in it ? > so > what is more basic ??..... > TIA > Y.lP > ================== see in Google discionaery how 'matter' is defined ================ and if you insist i will assert that ===================== matter is the' mother of all forces' how about that ?? (:-) TIA Y.P ====================
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Arindam Banerjee <banerjeeadda1234@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-08-31 04:40 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <971ec6f8-cf55-4c75-a06c-504a74b850db@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #700560 |
On Friday, August 31, 2018 at 5:31:43 PM UTC+10, pora...@gmail.com wrote: > On Friday, August 31, 2018 at 9:53:40 AM UTC+3, Arindam Banerjee wrote: > > On Friday, August 31, 2018 at 4:18:43 PM UTC+10, pora...@gmail.com wrote: > > > On Friday, August 31, 2018 at 6:05:05 AM UTC+3, Arindam Bane > > > > > > >>> it must be > > > > > > >>> or positive plus something negative > > > > > > >>> or no 'chagrget at all > > > > > > >>> but something else > > > > > > >>> see > > > > > > >>> http://sites.google.com/site/theyporatmodel/an-abstract > > > > > > >>> ====== > > > > > > >>> TIA > > > > > > >>> Y.P > > > > > > >>> ====================== > > > > > > >>> > > > > > > >> > > > > > > >> Signed zero? ;^) > > > > > > > ================= > > > > > > > speak physics !! > > > > > > > and if you don t understand > > > > > > > shut up !! > > > > > > > === > > > > > > > Y.P > > > > > > > ======================= > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Sorry. I just thought of zero with signs when I read your reply. > > > > > ==================== > > > > > ok thank you for clarifying so > > > > > we agree that there is something smaller than say quarks > > > > > 2 > > > > > do you agree with me that > > > > > all* forces** are created / and emitted by mass > > > > > > > > > > (i cant find the English word for that > > > > > 'created and emitted '' ) > > > > > TIA > > > > > == > > > > > Y.Porat > > > > > ================================== > > > > > > > > Movement of mass, of course, is the evidence of force. Unless mass moves, there is no force. > > > ====================== > > > ok !! > > > so ? > > > according to you > > > what seems t o you more**basic** > > > mass or movement ?? > > > btw > > > movement is ALWAYS MOVEMNT OF* SOMETHING* > > > SO WHAT IS THAT ''SOMETHING'' ACCORDING TO YOU ? > > > > > > Yes, force relates to acceleration leading to movement, mostly seen as the vibration of the aetheric matter filling the universe. > > > > > > or i will ask it is a different way : > > > > > > do you have a better ''candidate '' > > > for that ''something'' > > > better than mass !! > > > > > > I will say matter, for mass being a quantity is a property of matter. A certain amount of matter is defined by its average density and volume, and the product of that is mass. Matter is thus more fundamental than mass. Mass is useful in the context of force, for force acts upon some specific mass. > > > > > (don t you think that mass is the most** tangible** > > > *physical entity* that we know and even sence (sense --with our senses ) > > > you say that my above assertion is 'questionable' > > > > > > Force is on the whole as tangible as matter. Without force there is no evidence of matter, and without matter there is no scope for force. I cannot put one above the other. It is for dead objects for which force does not matter. For life forms, force matters more than matter, for life derives from force. > > > > > > yes indeed not easy to understand > > > but for that there is need for some .moreetrhlittle ....... > > > for humbility sake > > > i will not say what is that little something that is needed ** > > > in our case ... > > > ?? > > > but it took too long to get it ... > > > more than 100 years !! > > > at any case > > > not f en 'curved space' > > > something else that is curved ! > > > ---- > > > Michel Faraday was the first one > > > 'to put hie finger '' on it > > > by his historic ingenious experiment !! > > > with the permanent magnet > > > and the**curved** force lines > > > but no one > > > was cleaver enough to **push it further** ! > > > ======================= > > > > > > The proof of force, is the movement of mass. > > > > > > > > Your point that mass "creates or emits" force is questionable. > > > > > > > > Force is not a property or quality of mass, so it has to exist as a separate entity. Force being a separate entity, it is difficult to see how it can be created or emitted from mass. > > > > > > > > On the other hand, gravity is the peculiar force which is apparently emitted by a mass in all directions up to infinity, to attract all the other masses in the universe. > > > ============================= > > > Bravo !!!!! > > > i could not expect a more correct understanding > > > folowing > > > my being the first one to do it ...!! > > > = > > > do you now about another one > > > who precedent me > > > about that assertion that > > > ======================================== > > > > > > MASS** IS THE' MOTHER*/ CREATOR OF ALL!! FORCES!! > > > INCLUDING GRAVITY !!' > > > =========================================== > > > > > > > > \\\ end of many times before quote - recorded here in Google > > > ================================ > > > TIA > > > Y.P > > > ===================== > Arindam > there are cases that you only see !! > mass > ie > no force is involved !! > ie massin that case is inactive > 2 > mass and matter are > words !! > to describe the same thing No. Mass relates to a quantity of a given entity, matter; whereas matter relates to quality of a certain kind of entity. > > 3 > what are the physical dimensions of force ?..... F = ML/T^2 > do you find mass in it ? yes > so > what is more basic ??..... Putting M = FT^2/L makes force equally basic, that way. Electromagnetic force is that way more basic than mass. Both are equally basic from the dimensional point of view. Current is defined in terms of force. Mass is more basic for dead objects, and force is more basic for live objects. > TIA > Y.lP > ==================
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | poraty149@gmail.com |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-08-31 17:54 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <68b1e2ee-bd46-4a8f-8710-54ab1b36c66a@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #700571 |
On Friday, August 31, 2018 at 2:40:55 PM UTC+3, Arindam Banerjee wrote: > On Friday, August 31, 2018 at 5:31:43 PM UTC+10, pora...@gmail.com wrote: > > On Friday, August 31, 2018 at 9:53:40 AM UTC+3, Arindam Banerjee wrote: > > > On Friday, August 31, 2018 at 4:18:43 PM UTC+10, pora...@gmail.com wrote: > > > > On Friday, August 31, 2018 at 6:05:05 AM UTC+3, Arindam Bane > > > > > > > >>> it must be > > > > > > > >>> or positive plus something negative > > > > > > > >>> or no 'chagrget at all > > > > > > > >>> but something else > > > > > > > >>> see > > > > > > > >>> http://sites.google.com/site/theyporatmodel/an-abstract > > > > > > > >>> ====== > > > > > > > >>> TIA > > > > > > > >>> Y.P > > > > > > > >>> ====================== > > > > > > > >>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > >> Signed zero? ;^) > > > > > > > > ================= > > > > > > > > speak physics !! > > > > > > > > and if you don t understand > > > > > > > > shut up !! > > > > > > > > === > > > > > > > > Y.P > > > > > > > > ======================= > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Sorry. I just thought of zero with signs when I read your reply. > > > > > > ==================== > > > > > > ok thank you for clarifying so > > > > > > we agree that there is something smaller than say quarks > > > > > > 2 > > > > > > do you agree with me that > > > > > > all* forces** are created / and emitted by mass > > > > > > > > > > > > (i cant find the English word for that > > > > > > 'created and emitted '' ) > > > > > > TIA > > > > > > == > > > > > > Y.Porat > > > > > > ================================== > > > > > > > > > > Movement of mass, of course, is the evidence of force. Unless mass moves, there is no force. > > > > ====================== > > > > ok !! > > > > so ? > > > > according to you > > > > what seems t o you more**basic** > > > > mass or movement ?? > > > > btw > > > > movement is ALWAYS MOVEMNT OF* SOMETHING* > > > > SO WHAT IS THAT ''SOMETHING'' ACCORDING TO YOU ? > > > > > > > > > > > > > for that ''something'' > > > > better than mass !! > > > > > > > > > I will say matter, for mass being a quantity is a property of matter. A certain amount of matter is defined by its average density and volume, and the product of that is mass. Matter is thus more fundamental than mass. Mass is useful in the context of force, for force acts upon some specific mass. > > > > > > > (don t you think that mass is the most** tangible** ==================== Arindam what are the dimensions of energy and dimensions of force ?........ ================================ TIA Y.P ==================
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Arindam Banerjee <banerjeeadda1234@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-08-31 23:02 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <4721163b-bb75-4106-9a4e-ec5c0f92d6ba@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #700669 |
On Saturday, September 1, 2018 at 10:54:30 AM UTC+10, pora...@gmail.com wrote: > On Friday, August 31, 2018 at 2:40:55 PM UTC+3, Arindam Banerjee wrote: > > On Friday, August 31, 2018 at 5:31:43 PM UTC+10, pora...@gmail.com wrote: > > > On Friday, August 31, 2018 at 9:53:40 AM UTC+3, Arindam Banerjee wrote: > > > > On Friday, August 31, 2018 at 4:18:43 PM UTC+10, pora...@gmail.com wrote: > > > > > On Friday, August 31, 2018 at 6:05:05 AM UTC+3, Arindam Bane > > > > > > > > >>> it must be > > > > > > > > >>> or positive plus something negative > > > > > > > > >>> or no 'chagrget at all > > > > > > > > >>> but something else > > > > > > > > >>> see > > > > > > > > >>> http://sites.google.com/site/theyporatmodel/an-abstract > > > > > > > > >>> ====== > > > > > > > > >>> TIA > > > > > > > > >>> Y.P > > > > > > > > >>> ====================== > > > > > > > > >>> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >> Signed zero? ;^) > > > > > > > > > ================= > > > > > > > > > speak physics !! > > > > > > > > > and if you don t understand > > > > > > > > > shut up !! > > > > > > > > > === > > > > > > > > > Y.P > > > > > > > > > ======================= > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Sorry. I just thought of zero with signs when I read your reply. > > > > > > > ==================== > > > > > > > ok thank you for clarifying so > > > > > > > we agree that there is something smaller than say quarks > > > > > > > 2 > > > > > > > do you agree with me that > > > > > > > all* forces** are created / and emitted by mass > > > > > > > > > > > > > > (i cant find the English word for that > > > > > > > 'created and emitted '' ) > > > > > > > TIA > > > > > > > == > > > > > > > Y.Porat > > > > > > > ================================== > > > > > > > > > > > > Movement of mass, of course, is the evidence of force. Unless mass moves, there is no force. > > > > > ====================== > > > > > ok !! > > > > > so ? > > > > > according to you > > > > > what seems t o you more**basic** > > > > > mass or movement ?? > > > > > btw > > > > > movement is ALWAYS MOVEMNT OF* SOMETHING* > > > > > SO WHAT IS THAT ''SOMETHING'' ACCORDING TO YOU ? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > for that ''something'' > > > > > better than mass !! > > > > > > > > > > > > I will say matter, for mass being a quantity is a property of matter. A certain amount of matter is defined by its average density and volume, and the product of that is mass. Matter is thus more fundamental than mass. Mass is useful in the context of force, for force acts upon some specific mass. > > > > > > > > > (don t you think that mass is the most** tangible** > ==================== > Arindam > what are the dimensions of energy > and dimensions of force ?........ The dimension for energy is force*distance or ML^2/T^2 The dimension for force is mass*acceleration or ML/T^2 > ================================ > TIA > Y.P > ==================
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | poraty149@gmail.com |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-08-31 23:32 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <b273908f-8486-49df-8525-8a305f9d2e98@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #700687 |
On Saturday, September 1, 2018 at 9:02:30 AM UTC+3, Arindam Banerjee wrote: > On Saturday, September 1, 2018 at 10:54:30 AM UTC+10, pora...@gmail.com wrote: > > On Friday, August 31, 2018 at 2:40:55 PM UTC+3, Arindam Banerjee wrote: > > > On Friday, August 31, 2018 at 5:31:43 PM UTC+10, pora...@gmail.com wrote: > > > > On Friday, August 31, 2018 at 9:53:40 AM UTC+3, Arindam Banerjee wrote: > > > > > On Friday, August 31, 2018 at 4:18:43 PM UTC+10, pora...@gmail.com wrote: > > > > > > On Friday, August 31, 2018 at 6:05:05 AM UTC+3, Arindam Bane > > > > > > > > > >>> it must be > > > > > > > > > >>> or positive plus something negative > > > > > > > > > >>> or no 'chagrget at all > > > > > > > > > >>> but something else > > > > > > > > > >>> see > > > > > > > > > >>> http://sites.google.com/site/theyporatmodel/an-abstract > > > > > > > > > >>> ====== > > > > > > > > > >>> TIA > > > > > > > > > >>> Y.P > > > > > > > > > >>> ====================== > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > >> Signed zero? ;^) > > > > > > > > > > ================= > > > > > > > > > > speak physics !! > > > > > > > > > > and if you don t understand > > > > > > > > > > shut up !! > > > > > > > > > > === > > > > > > > > > > Y.P > > > > > > > > > > ======================= > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Sorry. I just thought of zero with signs when I read your reply. > > > > > > > > ==================== > > > > > > > > ok thank you for clarifying so > > > > > > > > we agree that there is something smaller than say quarks > > > > > > > > 2 > > > > > > > > do you agree with me that > > > > > > > > all* forces** are created / and emitted by mass > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > (i cant find the English word for that > > > > > > > > 'created and emitted '' ) > > > > > > > > TIA > > > > > > > > == > > > > > > > > Y.Porat > > > > > > > > ================================== > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Movement of mass, of course, is the evidence of force. Unless mass moves, there is no force. > > > > > > ====================== > > > > > > ok !! > > > > > > so ? > > > > > > according to you > > > > > > what seems t o you more**basic** > > > > > > mass or movement ?? > > > > > > btw > > > > > > movement is ALWAYS MOVEMNT OF* SOMETHING* > > > > > > SO WHAT IS THAT ''SOMETHING'' ACCORDING TO YOU ? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > for that ''something'' > > > > > > better than mass !! > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I will say matter, for mass being a quantity is a property of matter. A certain amount of matter is defined by its average density and volume, and the product of that is mass. Matter is thus more fundamental than mass. Mass is useful in the context of force, for force acts upon some specific mass. > > > > > > > > > > > (don t you think that mass is the most** tangible** > > ==================== > > Arindam > > what are the dimensions of energy > > and dimensions of force ?........ > > The dimension for energy is force*distance or ML^2/T^2 > The dimension for force is mass*acceleration or ML/T^2 =================== ok !!~ so according to you (and not only you ..!! ***that M ** the M k s system of energy in the ** energy dimensions- is**mass **!!! right ? so what is more ** basic** 1 energy 2 force 3 or MASS ?? ====== can we get an semi inteligent and not least HONEST answr ?? =========================== TIA Y.P ===========================
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | poraty149@gmail.com |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-09-01 02:38 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <4c604036-29cd-4b5f-86a2-b4d73e7ebe44@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #700689 |
On Saturday, September 1, 2018 at 9:32:04 AM UTC+3, pora...@gmail.com wrote: > On Saturday, September 1, 2018 at 9:02:30 AM UTC+3, Arindam Banerjee wrote: > > On Saturday, September 1, 2018 at 10:54:30 AM UTC+10, pora...@gmail.com wrote: > > > On Friday, August 31, 2018 at 2:40:55 PM UTC+3, Arindam Banerjee wrote: > > > > On Friday, August 31, 2018 at 5:31:43 PM UTC+10, pora...@gmail.com wrote: > > > > > On Friday, August 31, 2018 at 9:53:40 AM UTC+3, Arindam Banerjee wrote: > > > > > > On Friday, August 31, 2018 at 4:18:43 PM UTC+10, pora...@gmail.com wrote: > > > > > > > On Friday, August 31, 2018 at 6:05:05 AM UTC+3, Arindam Bane > > > > > > > > > > >>> it must be > > > > > > > > > > >>> or positive plus something negative > > > > > > > > > > >>> or no 'chagrget at all > > > > > > > > > > >>> but something else > > > > > > > > > > >>> see > > > > > > > > > > >>> http://sites.google.com/site/theyporatmodel/an-abstract > > > > > > > > > > >>> ====== > > > > > > > > > > >>> TIA > > > > > > > > > > >>> Y.P > > > > > > > > > > >>> ====================== > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > >> Signed zero? ;^) > > > > > > > > > > > ================= > > > > > > > > > > > speak physics !! > > > > > > > > > > > and if you don t understand > > > > > > > > > > > shut up !! > > > > > > > > > > > === > > > > > > > > > > > Y.P > > > > > > > > > > > ======================= > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Sorry. I just thought of zero with signs when I read your reply. > > > > > > > > > ==================== > > > > > > > > > ok thank you for clarifying so > > > > > > > > > we agree that there is something smaller than say quarks > > > > > > > > > 2 > > > > > > > > > do you agree with me that > > > > > > > > > all* forces** are created / and emitted by mass > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > (i cant find the English word for that > > > > > > > > > 'created and emitted '' ) > > > > > > > > > TIA > > > > > > > > > == > > > > > > > > > Y.Porat > > > > > > > > > ================================== > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Movement of mass, of course, is the evidence of force. Unless mass moves, there is no force. > > > > > > > ====================== > > > > > > > ok !! > > > > > > > so ? > > > > > > > according to you > > > > > > > what seems t o you more**basic** > > > > > > > mass or movement ?? > > > > > > > btw > > > > > > > movement is ALWAYS MOVEMNT OF* SOMETHING* > > > > > > > SO WHAT IS THAT ''SOMETHING'' ACCORDING TO YOU ? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > for that ''something'' > > > > > > > better than mass !! > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I will say matter, for mass being a quantity is a property of matter. A certain amount of matter is defined by its average density and volume, and the product of that is mass. Matter is thus more fundamental than mass. Mass is useful in the context of force, for force acts upon some specific mass. > > > > > > > > > > > > > (don t you think that mass is the most** tangible** > > > ==================== > > > Arindam > > > what are the dimensions of energy > > > and dimensions of force ?........ > > > > The dimension for energy is force*distance or ML^2/T^2 > > The dimension for force is mass*acceleration or ML/T^2 > > > =================== > ok !!~ > so according to you (and not only you ..!! > ***that M ** > the M k s system of energy > in the ** energy dimensions- is**mass **!!! right ? > so > what is more ** basic** > 1 > energy > 2 > force > 3 > or MASS ?? > ====== > can we get an semi inteligent > and not least > HONEST > answr ?? > =========================== > > TIA > Y.P > =========================== Arindam if we have a table that is **composed** of say a plate and 4 legs so the question to you is what is more basic the table ?? or may be the 4 legs or even one leg ???!! ================= TIA Y.P ===========================
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | mitchrae3323@gmail.com |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-08-31 19:46 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <8e758423-9f4d-46d4-957d-6948eb5a6ec4@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #700538 |
On Thursday, August 30, 2018 at 8:05:05 PM UTC-7, Arindam Banerjee wrote: > On Friday, 31 August 2018 09:37:42 UTC+10, pora...@gmail.com wrote: > > On Friday, August 31, 2018 at 12:45:08 AM UTC+3, Chris M. Thomasson wrote: > > > On 8/30/2018 6:20 AM, poraty149@gmail.com wrote: > > > > On Thursday, August 30, 2018 at 12:10:03 PM UTC+3, Chris M. Thomasson wrote: > > > >> On 8/30/2018 2:05 AM, poraty149@gmail.com wrote: > > > >>> On Thursday, August 30, 2018 at 11:13:01 AM UTC+3, Chris M. Thomasson wrote: > > > >>>> On 8/28/2018 2:09 AM, alal65536@gmail.com wrote: > > > >>>>> How many followers does it have? Quarks are not science/physics. > > > >>>>> > > > >>>>> Abhinav Lal > > > >>>>> Writer & Investor > > > >>>>> > > > >>>>> “What fools be these men” > > > >>>>> > > > >>>> > > > >>>> Quark.. Ahhh. What about neutrinos? What is closer to zero? > > > >>> ====================== > > > >>> 'closer to the zero' > > > >>> cannot be something that is only positive > > > >>> it must be > > > >>> or positive plus something negative > > > >>> or no 'chagrget at all > > > >>> but something else > > > >>> see > > > >>> http://sites.google.com/site/theyporatmodel/an-abstract > > > >>> ====== > > > >>> TIA > > > >>> Y.P > > > >>> ====================== > > > >>> > > > >> > > > >> Signed zero? ;^) > > > > ================= > > > > speak physics !! > > > > and if you don t understand > > > > shut up !! > > > > === > > > > Y.P > > > > ======================= > > > > > > > > > > Sorry. I just thought of zero with signs when I read your reply. > > ==================== > > ok thank you for clarifying so > > we agree that there is something smaller than say quarks > > 2 > > do you agree with me that > > all* forces** are created / and emitted by mass > > > > (i cant find the English word for that > > 'created and emitted '' ) > > TIA > > == > > Y.Porat > > ================================== > > Movement of mass, of course, is the evidence of force. Unless mass moves, there is no force. The proof of force, is the movement of mass. Unmoving matter's weight is evidence of the gravity field. This is a timeless weight... Mitchell Raemsch > > Your point that mass "creates or emits" force is questionable. > > Force is not a property or quality of mass, so it has to exist as a separate entity. Force being a separate entity, it is difficult to see how it can be created or emitted from mass. > > On the other hand, gravity is the peculiar force which is apparently emitted by a mass in all directions up to infinity, to attract all the other masses in the universe. > > I cannot understand the origin or reason for this mysterious force, the way I understand electric forces. The best definition of force is from Leonardo da Vinci, still. He provides divine origin to force - all force - but that effectively stops scientific investigation in this field. I mean, what else is God but what is still unknown that can be known only through Divine Grace? > > So I humbly say that I do not know. We have to learn more from the universe, with Divine Grace! > > > Cheers, > Arindam Banerjee
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-09-01 16:39 +1000 |
| Message-ID | <fuuqgbF6uiqU1@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #700215 |
On 28/08/2018 7:09 PM, alal65536@gmail.com wrote: > How many followers does it have? Quarks are not science/physics. What about electrons, protons, neutrons? Are they science/physics? If so, how do they differ from quarks? Sylvia.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | poraty149@gmail.com |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-09-01 02:29 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <88c3748a-621e-446f-bc7b-ee39c827e78a@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #700690 |
On Saturday, September 1, 2018 at 9:39:10 AM UTC+3, Sylvia Else wrote: > On 28/08/2018 7:09 PM, alal65536@gmail.com wrote: > > How many followers does it have? Quarks are not science/physics. > > What about electrons, protons, neutrons? Are they science/physics? If > so, how do they differ from quarks? > > Sylvia. ====================== i will tell you how electrons protons differ from quarks first of all quarks are like say 2 fansy hats on your head while you have hands and legs etc how about it ?? == TIA Y.P ======================
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-09-01 19:36 +1000 |
| Message-ID | <fuv4t1F91abU1@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #700693 |
On 1/09/2018 7:29 PM, poraty149@gmail.com wrote: > On Saturday, September 1, 2018 at 9:39:10 AM UTC+3, Sylvia Else wrote: >> On 28/08/2018 7:09 PM, alal65536@gmail.com wrote: >>> How many followers does it have? Quarks are not science/physics. >> >> What about electrons, protons, neutrons? Are they science/physics? If >> so, how do they differ from quarks? >> >> Sylvia. > ====================== > i will tell you how > electrons protons differ from quarks > > first of all > quarks are like say 2 fansy hats on your head > while you have hands and legs etc > how about it ?? That doesn't say much. People may feel familiar with electrons because they've heard the term all their lives. If so, that feeling is a delusion. An electron is a theory in physics as much as is a quark. At most, experimental verifications of the theory are a bit more accessible in the case of the electron, since particle accelerators are not required. Sylvia.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | poraty149@gmail.com |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-09-01 03:31 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <1701fe0f-2b28-4960-9b65-5f1e1b8f2876@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #700694 |
On Saturday, September 1, 2018 at 12:36:38 PM UTC+3, Sylvia Else wrote: > On 1/09/2018 7:29 PM, poraty149@gmail.com wrote: > > On Saturday, September 1, 2018 at 9:39:10 AM UTC+3, Sylvia Else wrote: > >> On 28/08/2018 7:09 PM, alal65536@gmail.com wrote: > >>> How many followers does it have? Quarks are not science/physics. > >> > >> What about electrons, protons, neutrons? Are they science/physics? If > >> so, how do they differ from quarks? > >> > >> Sylvia. > > ====================== > > i will tell you how > > electrons protons differ from quarks > > > > first of all > > quarks are like say 2 fansy hats on your head > > while you have hands and legs etc > > how about it ?? > > That doesn't say much. > > People may feel familiar with electrons because they've heard the term > all their lives. If so, that feeling is a delusion. An electron is a > theory in physics as much as is a quark. At most, experimental > verifications of the theory are a bit more accessible in the case of the > electron, since particle accelerators are not required. > > Sylvia. ====================== 3 quarks are supposed to build say the proton but what can you do while the mass of 3 quaks is something like 90 percent of proton mass so where is the other 10 percent of mass ?? == TIA Y.P =================
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-09-02 09:21 +1000 |
| Message-ID | <fv0l77Fil2aU1@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #700697 |
On 1/09/2018 8:31 PM, poraty149@gmail.com wrote: > On Saturday, September 1, 2018 at 12:36:38 PM UTC+3, Sylvia Else wrote: >> On 1/09/2018 7:29 PM, poraty149@gmail.com wrote: >>> On Saturday, September 1, 2018 at 9:39:10 AM UTC+3, Sylvia Else wrote: >>>> On 28/08/2018 7:09 PM, alal65536@gmail.com wrote: >>>>> How many followers does it have? Quarks are not science/physics. >>>> >>>> What about electrons, protons, neutrons? Are they science/physics? If >>>> so, how do they differ from quarks? >>>> >>>> Sylvia. >>> ====================== >>> i will tell you how >>> electrons protons differ from quarks >>> >>> first of all >>> quarks are like say 2 fansy hats on your head >>> while you have hands and legs etc >>> how about it ?? >> >> That doesn't say much. >> >> People may feel familiar with electrons because they've heard the term >> all their lives. If so, that feeling is a delusion. An electron is a >> theory in physics as much as is a quark. At most, experimental >> verifications of the theory are a bit more accessible in the case of the >> electron, since particle accelerators are not required. >> >> Sylvia. > ====================== > 3 quarks are supposed to build say the proton > but what can you do > while > the mass of 3 quaks is something like > 90 percent of proton mass > so > where is the other 10 percent of mass ?? It's the binding energy. We see the same in nuclear fission. See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_binding_energy
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | mitchrae3323@gmail.com |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-09-01 16:25 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <0cc9d007-955b-49b2-a643-013d9a010210@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #700769 |
When protons combine with electrons they transform in force from electric to the strong neutron. Decay is this reverse transformation... Mitchell Raemsch
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
Page 3 of 7 — ← Prev page 1 2 [3] 4 5 6 7 Next page →
Back to top | Article view | sci.physics
csiph-web