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 4 of 7 — ← Prev page 1 2 3 [4] 5 6 7 Next page →
| From | Arindam Banerjee <banerjeeadda1234@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-09-01 16:37 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <28378425-9071-48aa-9ab2-4a08312a5a9c@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #700769 |
There can be no animal called binding energy. There can only be BINDING FORCE.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-09-02 10:56 +1000 |
| Message-ID | <fv0qppFjkjvU1@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #700772 |
On 2/09/2018 9:37 AM, Arindam Banerjee wrote: > There can be no animal called binding energy. There can only be BINDING FORCE. > Binding energy is binding force times distance.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Arindam Banerjee <banerjeeadda1234@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-09-01 18:50 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <c4f8024f-84d8-43cd-bdaa-033e0792660f@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #700777 |
When forces are balanced as in the nucleus of an atom or othrrwise within the atom the concept of energy therein is irrelevant.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | benj <benj.fake@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-09-02 02:11 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <pmfutu$j01$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #700777 |
On 9/1/2018 8:56 PM, Sylvia Else wrote: > On 2/09/2018 9:37 AM, Arindam Banerjee wrote: >> There can be no animal called binding energy. There can only be >> BINDING FORCE. >> > Binding energy is binding force times distance. Force times distance is work not energy. Are you a journalist?
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-09-02 16:57 +1000 |
| Message-ID | <fv1fvlFnhamU1@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #700818 |
On 2/09/2018 4:11 PM, benj wrote: > On 9/1/2018 8:56 PM, Sylvia Else wrote: >> On 2/09/2018 9:37 AM, Arindam Banerjee wrote: >>> There can be no animal called binding energy. There can only be >>> BINDING FORCE. >>> >> Binding energy is binding force times distance. > > Force times distance is work not energy. > Are you a journalist? Doing work requires energy, and energy is conserved. Sylvia.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Arindam Banerjee <banerjeeadda1234@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-09-02 04:14 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <12b6d712-aa69-4406-92c2-55009e77d4cd@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #700823 |
Forces that are released cause work. When there is no space covered by released forces no work is done. So it is pointless to talk of binding energy.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | poraty149@gmail.com |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-09-02 06:52 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <485b5273-257a-490a-ba6c-5d5700c5c0c3@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #700837 |
On Sunday, September 2, 2018 at 2:14:07 PM UTC+3, Arindam Banerjee wrote: > Forces that are released cause work. When there is no space covered by released forces no work is done. So it is pointless to talk of binding energy. ===== ?? 'no space covered by' ?? -not clear to me TIA Y.P =====================
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Sergio <invalid@invalid.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-09-02 12:25 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <pmh6ef$hkf$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #700823 |
On 9/2/2018 1:57 AM, Sylvia Else wrote: > On 2/09/2018 4:11 PM, benj wrote: >> On 9/1/2018 8:56 PM, Sylvia Else wrote: >>> On 2/09/2018 9:37 AM, Arindam Banerjee wrote: >>>> There can be no animal called binding energy. There can only be >>>> BINDING FORCE. >>>> >>> Binding energy is binding force times distance. >> >> Force times distance is work not energy. >> Are you a journalist? > > Doing work requires energy, and energy is conserved. > > Sylvia. some energy is turned into heat, there are losses.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-09-03 08:42 +1000 |
| Message-ID | <fv37avF41o9U2@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #700862 |
On 3/09/2018 3:25 AM, Sergio wrote: > On 9/2/2018 1:57 AM, Sylvia Else wrote: >> On 2/09/2018 4:11 PM, benj wrote: >>> On 9/1/2018 8:56 PM, Sylvia Else wrote: >>>> On 2/09/2018 9:37 AM, Arindam Banerjee wrote: >>>>> There can be no animal called binding energy. There can only be >>>>> BINDING FORCE. >>>>> >>>> Binding energy is binding force times distance. >>> >>> Force times distance is work not energy. >>> Are you a journalist? >> >> Doing work requires energy, and energy is conserved. >> >> Sylvia. > > some energy is turned into heat, there are losses. > Heat is energy, so it is still conserved. Sylvia.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | poraty149@gmail.com |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-09-02 19:40 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <c8f34c2d-bdeb-487f-9851-ec6c449ac35a@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #700898 |
On Monday, September 3, 2018 at 1:42:43 AM UTC+3, Sylvia Else wrote: > On 3/09/2018 3:25 AM, Sergio wrote: > > On 9/2/2018 1:57 AM, Sylvia Else wrote: > >> On 2/09/2018 4:11 PM, benj wrote: > >>> On 9/1/2018 8:56 PM, Sylvia Else wrote: > >>>> On 2/09/2018 9:37 AM, Arindam Banerjee wrote: > >>>>> There can be no animal called binding energy. There can only be > >>>>> BINDING FORCE. > >>>>> > >>>> Binding energy is binding force times distance. > >>> > >>> Force times distance is work not energy. > >>> Are you a journalist? > >> > >> Doing work requires energy, and energy is conserved. > >> > >> Sylvia. > > > > some energy is turned into heat, there are losses. > > > > Heat is energy, so it is still conserved. > > Sylvia. ================ the problem is with the exact figures !! ========= Y.Porat ============================
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | poraty149@gmail.com |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-09-02 19:36 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <cb5c6222-49d8-4bd8-8afa-e98b547aab17@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #700862 |
On Sunday, September 2, 2018 at 8:25:40 PM UTC+3, Sergio wrote: > On 9/2/2018 1:57 AM, Sylvia Else wrote: > > On 2/09/2018 4:11 PM, benj wrote: > >> On 9/1/2018 8:56 PM, Sylvia Else wrote: > >>> On 2/09/2018 9:37 AM, Arindam Banerjee wrote: > >>>> There can be no animal called binding energy. There can only be > >>>> BINDING FORCE. > >>>> > >>> Binding energy is binding force times distance. > >> > >> Force times distance is work not energy. > >> Are you a journalist? > > > > Doing work requires energy, and energy is conserved. > > > > Sylvia. > > some energy is turned into heat, there are losses. ================= the gapp (difference between ''3 quarks and mass of the Proton /Neutron is too big my model with** its it s binding energies explains it better !!! == TIA Y.P =====================
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | poraty149@gmail.com |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-09-02 02:14 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <59ca0194-d2f4-41b5-84ec-315a3e3468c4@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #700769 |
On Sunday, September 2, 2018 at 2:21:15 AM UTC+3, Sylvia Else wrote: > 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 ============================= OPPA SILVIA please teach me something about binding energies do you think i know something about binding energies ? is not see http://sites.google.com/site/theyporatmodel/an-abstact while you see it and learn a bit of it you can get some idea whether i know somethning about or not in my book (not only the abstract i give a detailed list table of how and where are all the binding energies are! or else i could not do a bit of that modelo(r even start it so let me tell you that in the proton or neutron binding energies are about maximum 0.01 AMU not more so 3 times 0.1 =0.3 amu (as binding energy so ?? does that can explain the missing mass of 3 quarks ?/!! btw if you will dead intentively what i wroth there even in that abstract i mentioned there the 'magic figure 3 that is common in those structures !!! BTW are you German? if yes i could have a suggestion to you ... -=== TIA Y.Porat =================
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | poraty149@gmail.com |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-09-02 02:19 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <b5f40ad8-a553-4db0-93c0-73df7fedc74a@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #700832 |
On Sunday, September 2, 2018 at 12:14:06 PM UTC+3, pora...@gmail.com wrote: > On Sunday, September 2, 2018 at 2:21:15 AM UTC+3, Sylvia Else wrote: > > 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 > ============================= > OPPA SILVIA > please teach me something about binding energies > do you think i know something about binding energies ? > is not > see > http://sites.google.com/site/theyporatmodel/an-abstact > > while you see it and learn a bit of it > you can get some idea whether i know somethning about > or not > in my book (not only the abstract i give a detailed > list table of how and where are all the binding energies are! > or else > i could not do a bit of that modelo(r even start it > so > let me tell you that in the proton or neutron > binding energies are about maximum 0.01 AMU > not more > so 3 times 0.1 =0.3 amu (as binding energy > so ?? > does that can explain the missing mass > of 3 quarks ?/!! > btw > if you will dead intentively what i wroth > there even in that abstract > i mentioned there the 'magic figure 3 > that is common in those structures !!! > BTW > are you German? if yes > i could have a suggestion to you ... > -=== > TIA > Y.Porat > ================= sorry typo one wrong letter and it is gone.. so i will try again : http://sites.google.com/site/theyporatmodel/an-abstract hope it works now Y.P ================
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "hanson" <hanson@quick.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-09-02 10:19 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <pmh62s$k0j$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #700833 |
<poraty149@gmail.com> wrote to and bantered with some posters to whom Porat told: See: <http://sites.google.com/site/theyporatmodel/an-abstact> i give a detailed list table of how and where are all the binding energies are! Let me tell you (Yenta Sylvia Else) that in the proton or neutron binding energies are about maximum 0.01 AMU. i mentioned there the 'magic figure 3 that is common in those structures !!! http://sites.google.com/site/theyporatmodel/an-abstract hope it works now Y.P > hanson wrote: Porat: here tis an article that supports & toots your horn. Chemists show that the 18-electron principle is not limited to transition metals Phys.org Bonding scheme and shape of the occupied valence orbitals of M(CO)8 (M = Ca, Sr, or Ba). Splitting of the spd valence orbitals of an atom M with the configuration (n − 1)d2ns0np0 in the octacoordinate cubic (Oh) field of eight CO ligands is also given. Only the occupied valence orbitals that are relevant for the M-CO interactions are shown. Up and down arrows indicate electrons with opposite spin. Credit: Science (2018). DOI: 10.1126/science.aau0839 A team of researchers from Fudan University Read the full story. > Porat, I will not respond to your follow up post.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | poraty149@gmail.com |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-09-02 19:30 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <82de2e4d-8557-4e9f-9879-4f18836182ab@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #700861 |
On Sunday, September 2, 2018 at 8:19:28 PM UTC+3, hanson wrote: > <poraty149@gmail.com> wrote to > and bantered with some posters to whom Porat told: > See: > <http://sites.google.com/site/theyporatmodel/an-abstact> > i give a detailed list table of how and where are all the > binding energies are! Let me tell you (Yenta Sylvia Else) > that in the proton or neutron binding energies are about > maximum 0.01 AMU. i mentioned there the 'magic > figure 3 that is common in those structures !!! > http://sites.google.com/site/theyporatmodel/an-abstract > hope it works now > Y.P > > > hanson wrote: > > Porat: here tis an article that supports & toots your horn. > Chemists show that the 18-electron principle is not limited to transition > metals > Phys.org > > Bonding scheme and shape of the occupied valence orbitals of M(CO)8 (M = Ca, > Sr, or Ba). Splitting of the spd valence orbitals of an atom M with the > configuration (n − 1)d2ns0np0 in the octacoordinate cubic (Oh) field of > eight CO ligands is also given. Only the occupied valence orbitals that are > relevant for the M-CO interactions are shown. Up and down arrows indicate > electrons with opposite spin. Credit: Science (2018). DOI: > 10.1126/science.aau0839 A team of researchers from Fudan University Read the > full story. > > > > > Porat, I will not respond to your follow up post. =========================== you will not respond to me while you respond to me ?? strange ! yet anyway i thank you for your support !! ==== Y.Porat ====
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-09-02 19:54 +1000 |
| Message-ID | <fv1qbhFpiiaU2@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #700832 |
On 2/09/2018 7:14 PM, poraty149@gmail.com wrote: > On Sunday, September 2, 2018 at 2:21:15 AM UTC+3, Sylvia Else wrote: >> 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 > ============================= > OPPA SILVIA > please teach me something about binding energies > do you think i know something about binding energies ? > is not > see > http://sites.google.com/site/theyporatmodel/an-abstact > > while you see it and learn a bit of it > you can get some idea whether i know somethning about > or not > in my book (not only the abstract i give a detailed > list table of how and where are all the binding energies are! > or else > i could not do a bit of that modelo(r even start it > so > let me tell you that in the proton or neutron > binding energies are about maximum 0.01 AMU > not more > so 3 times 0.1 =0.3 amu (as binding energy > so ?? > does that can explain the missing mass > of 3 quarks ?/!! > btw > if you will dead intentively what i wroth > there even in that abstract > i mentioned there the 'magic figure 3 > that is common in those structures !!! > BTW > are you German? if yes > i could have a suggestion to you ... > -=== > TIA > Y.Porat > ================= > I really don't know what you know or don't know, other than you have no formatting skills. Either that or you deliberately make your missives hard to read for some unfathomable reason. Sylvia.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | poraty149@gmail.com |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-09-02 06:49 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <697911ce-de83-445b-abbf-5cf52704fbee@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #700835 |
On Sunday, September 2, 2018 at 12:55:02 PM UTC+3, Sylvia Else wrote: > On 2/09/2018 7:14 PM, poraty149@gmail.com wrote: > > On Sunday, September 2, 2018 at 2:21:15 AM UTC+3, Sylvia Else wrote: > >> 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 > > ============================= > > OPPA SILVIA > > please teach me something about binding energies > > do you think i know something about binding energies ? > > is not > > see > > http://sites.google.com/site/theyporatmodel/an-abstact > > > > while you see it and learn a bit of it > > you can get some idea whether i know somethning about > > or not > > in my book (not only the abstract i give a detailed > > list table of how and where are all the binding energies are! > > or else > > i could not do a bit of that modelo(r even start it > > so > > let me tell you that in the proton or neutron > > binding energies are about maximum 0.01 AMU > > not more > > so 3 times 0.1 =0.3 amu (as binding energy > > so ?? > > does that can explain the missing mass > > of 3 quarks ?/!! > > btw > > if you will dead intentively what i wroth > > there even in that abstract > > i mentioned there the 'magic figure 3 > > that is common in those structures !!! > > BTW > > are you German? if yes > > i could have a suggestion to you ... > > -=== > > TIA > > Y.Porat > > ================= > > > > I really don't know what you know or don't know, other than you have no > formatting skills. > > Either that or you deliberately make your missives hard to read for some > unfathomable reason. > > Sylvia. ================ SYLVIA i m not a native english speaker i type quickly and don t dwell on spelling the cotence is important to me ====== Y.P ================
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-09-03 08:44 +1000 |
| Message-ID | <fv37dvF41o9U3@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #700845 |
On 2/09/2018 11:49 PM, poraty149@gmail.com wrote: > On Sunday, September 2, 2018 at 12:55:02 PM UTC+3, Sylvia Else wrote: >> On 2/09/2018 7:14 PM, poraty149@gmail.com wrote: >>> On Sunday, September 2, 2018 at 2:21:15 AM UTC+3, Sylvia Else wrote: >>>> 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 >>> ============================= >>> OPPA SILVIA >>> please teach me something about binding energies >>> do you think i know something about binding energies ? >>> is not >>> see >>> http://sites.google.com/site/theyporatmodel/an-abstact >>> >>> while you see it and learn a bit of it >>> you can get some idea whether i know somethning about >>> or not >>> in my book (not only the abstract i give a detailed >>> list table of how and where are all the binding energies are! >>> or else >>> i could not do a bit of that modelo(r even start it >>> so >>> let me tell you that in the proton or neutron >>> binding energies are about maximum 0.01 AMU >>> not more >>> so 3 times 0.1 =0.3 amu (as binding energy >>> so ?? >>> does that can explain the missing mass >>> of 3 quarks ?/!! >>> btw >>> if you will dead intentively what i wroth >>> there even in that abstract >>> i mentioned there the 'magic figure 3 >>> that is common in those structures !!! >>> BTW >>> are you German? if yes >>> i could have a suggestion to you ... >>> -=== >>> TIA >>> Y.Porat >>> ================= >>> >> >> I really don't know what you know or don't know, other than you have no >> formatting skills. >> >> Either that or you deliberately make your missives hard to read for some >> unfathomable reason. >> >> Sylvia. > ================ > SYLVIA > i m not a native english speaker > i type quickly and don t dwell on spelling > the cotence is important to me > ====== > Y.P > ================ > I didn't mention spelling. The issue was formatting. Even in your native language, I doubt it is normal to break lines at random positions. Sylvia.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | poraty149@gmail.com |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-09-02 19:51 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <60007493-cb17-46e5-b1ec-995c0f51c41f@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #700899 |
On Monday, September 3, 2018 at 1:44:18 AM UTC+3, Sylvia Else wrote: > On 2/09/2018 11:49 PM, poraty149@gmail.com wrote: > > On Sunday, September 2, 2018 at 12:55:02 PM UTC+3, Sylvia Else wrote: > >> On 2/09/2018 7:14 PM, poraty149@gmail.com wrote: > >>> On Sunday, September 2, 2018 at 2:21:15 AM UTC+3, Sylvia Else wrote: > >>>> 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 > >>> ============================= > >>> OPPA SILVIA > >>> please teach me something about binding energies > >>> do you think i know something about binding energies ? > >>> is not > >>> see > >>> http://sites.google.com/site/theyporatmodel/an-abstact > >>> > >>> while you see it and learn a bit of it > >>> you can get some idea whether i know somethning about > >>> or not > >>> in my book (not only the abstract i give a detailed > >>> list table of how and where are all the binding energies are! > >>> or else > >>> i could not do a bit of that modelo(r even start it > >>> so > >>> let me tell you that in the proton or neutron > >>> binding energies are about maximum 0.01 AMU > >>> not more > >>> so 3 times 0.1 =0.3 amu (as binding energy > >>> so ?? > >>> does that can explain the missing mass > >>> of 3 quarks ?/!! > >>> btw > >>> if you will dead intentively what i wroth > >>> there even in that abstract > >>> i mentioned there the 'magic figure 3 > >>> that is common in those structures !!! > >>> BTW > >>> are you German? if yes > >>> i could have a suggestion to you ... > >>> -=== > >>> TIA > >>> Y.Porat > >>> ================= > >>> > >> > >> I really don't know what you know or don't know, other than you have no > >> formatting skills. > >> > >> Either that or you deliberately make your missives hard to read for some > >> unfathomable reason. > >> > >> Sylvia. > > ================ > > SYLVIA > > i m not a native english speaker > > i type quickly and don t dwell on spelling > > the cotence is important to me > > ====== > > Y.P > > ================ > > > > I didn't mention spelling. The issue was formatting. Even in your native > language, I doubt it is normal to break lines at random positions. > > Sylvia. ==================== i know from my wife that for wife that for woman the appearance is before anything (:-) we man are somewhat different . for us man efficiency is first ! ===== Y.P ==================
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "reber G=emc^2" <herbertglazier0@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-09-02 13:52 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <7d379168-bf0d-46d5-b262-4effb283dfea@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #700694 |
On Saturday, September 1, 2018 at 2:36:38 AM UTC-7, 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. Your 100% wrong the flow of electrons give us electricity,and that we see,use and feel every second of our lives.Get the picture right and you will know I'm right Bert
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
Page 4 of 7 — ← Prev page 1 2 3 [4] 5 6 7 Next page →
Back to top | Article view | sci.physics
csiph-web