Bjoern Feuerbacher wrote in message ...
"Y.Porat" wrote:

(Michael Moroney) wrote in message ...
Bjoern Feuerbacher writes:

Depends on what you mean by "unknown". Virtual particles are things
which are predicted to exist from the theory; I wouldn't call them
"unknown" therefore.

We may not be able to see virtual particles directly, but we
see their effect. If virtual particles exist then certain things
are predicted.
------------
1 once no virtual particle was found experimentally you cannot compare
it to the electron- the electron is experimentaly found.

Electrons are "found" in the same way as virtual particles - by seeing
the effects they produce in their environment. One can't observed
electrons directly, just as virtual particles - one can only observe the
effects they produce, just as with virtual particles.
--------------------
if you dont know or understand the difference beween
the experimental status of the electron and that of the virtual
particles- there is no use in going on discussing with you
in addition later your nonsense talking about
the relativistic mass of the alpha in nuceus mass calculation
(while the alpha is still a part of ther nuc and didnt leave it)
and other nonsense

but the real reason why i stop discussing with you
is your nasty address to Moroney- not to gey my book!
ask any regular person if that is the standard reasonable
decent behaviour between people, and you will get the answer about
what real character you are.
you need to see a phyciatrist.

that attempt of yours to prevent Moroney from getting my book
is a behaviour of a traitor or an enemy
many people got my book all of them appreciated it. so

i dont wish to discuss with enemies

Y.Porat
-----------------------

"Y.Porat" wrote:

Bjoern Feuerbacher wrote in message ...
"Y.Porat" wrote:

(Michael Moroney) wrote in message ...
Bjoern Feuerbacher writes:

Depends on what you mean by "unknown". Virtual particles are things
which are predicted to exist from the theory; I wouldn't call them
"unknown" therefore.

We may not be able to see virtual particles directly, but we
see their effect. If virtual particles exist then certain things
are predicted.
------------
1 once no virtual particle was found experimentally you cannot compare
it to the electron- the electron is experimentaly found.

Electrons are "found" in the same way as virtual particles - by seeing
the effects they produce in their environment. One can't observed
electrons directly, just as virtual particles - one can only observe the
effects they produce, just as with virtual particles.
--------------------
if you dont know or understand the difference beween
the experimental status of the electron and that of the virtual
particles-

Err, *you* don't understand that there is no essential difference: for
both we have only *indirect* evidence, both are only observed *by their
effects*. If you think one can observe an electron *directly*, please
tell me how!


there is no use in going on discussing with you

In other words: you can't answer my arguments rationally, so you simply
ridicule me and stop the conversation. Typical.


in addition later your nonsense talking about
the relativistic mass of the alpha in nuceus mass calculation

What's nonsensical about that?


(while the alpha is still a part of ther nuc and didnt leave it)
and other nonsense

Again: you can't answer my arguments rationally, so you simply ridicule
me and stop the conversation. Typical.


What you call "nonsense" is accepted by hundreds of thousands of
physicists as sensible. So perhaps the problem is with your
understanding, don't you think?


but the real reason why i stop discussing with you
is your nasty address to Moroney- not to gey my book!

Huh? Pardon? Why do you have a problem that I could send my copy of your
book to him???

What on earth do you mean by "not to get my book"???


ask any regular person if that is the standard reasonable
decent behaviour between people, and you will get the answer about
what real character you are.

What's your problem??? I spare you the costs to send the book to
Moroney, I don't need your book anymore, you even *told* me some months
ago that I could give my version of your book to other people - SO
WHAT'S THE PROBLEM?????


you need to see a phyciatrist.

WHY???


that attempt of yours to prevent Moroney from getting my book

PARDON??? WHAT ON EARTH ARE YOU TALKING ABOUT? I OFFERED MORONEY TO SEND
HIM MY COPY OF YOUR BOOK!!! HOW WOULD THIS PREVENT HIM FROM GETTING YOUR
BOOK?!?!?!?



is a behaviour of a traitor or an enemy
many people got my book all of them appreciated it.

AND I OFFERED TO SENT HIM MY COPY OF YOUR BOOK; SO WHERE IS YOUR
PROBLEM?????


so
i dont wish to discuss with enemies

Do you have reading comprehension problems or what????? Why am I an
enemy if I offer Moroney to send him a copy of your book?????


Bye,
Bjoern

Bjoern Feuerbacher wrote in message ...
"Y.Porat" wrote:



--------------------



there is no use in going on discussing with you

In other words: you can't answer my arguments rationally, so you simply
ridicule me and stop the conversation. Typical.
-----------------
i am too old and too serious to have in mind just fan by ridiculing
anyone
if i act as i do it is not on the offensive side
it is on the defensive side
(that was my character ever since: i am a self defender
never and offender just for fun.)

and one hase to do a lot of defensive while dealing with
you.even a lot of unnecessary defensive
(in short you are an aggrersor in your nature( a born agressor).
a tiger cant do anything about his being an agressor.-
he was born like that.
and i had enough of you last year, by raising my blood pressure
to a harmful degree, so i dont want it again
you are not worth it.


in addition later your nonsense talking about
the relativistic mass of the alpha in nuceus mass calculation

What's nonsensical about that?


(while the alpha is still a part of ther nuc and didnt leave it)
and other nonsense

Again: you can't answer my arguments rationally, so you simply ridicule
me and stop the conversation. Typical.
see above
i spent a lot of time with you as long as you behaved as a civilised
person.


What you call "nonsense" is accepted by hundreds of thousands of
physicists as sensible. So perhaps the problem is with your
understanding, don't you think?
------
unlike you i was educated not to be a parrot.
---------


but the real reason why i stop discussing with you
is your nasty address to Moroney- not to gey my book!

Huh? Pardon? Why do you have a problem that I could send my copy of your
book to him???
----------
you are plaing the innocent fool (though you are not to that extent
a fool:
by that offer to moroney you commited many tact crimes
ie severe deviations from the normal decent behaviuour:
1 you despised my work even while not understanding it.

2 you violated the copywrite code by not asking my permition to do it.

3 i guess therefore that you violated my copyright many folds
by making copies of my book (and now you play the despiser of it)

4 you tried to undermine my suggestion to Moroney
you play the fool by saing that you catually wanted to help me
i am a fool but not to that extent to buy your 'story'

to get my book (though i dont consider it a big favour
for myself if his highnes will accept my offer.
i think it is more advantage for him rather than for me
as i saied many people got it and appreciated it
non of them behaved as you did.!)

5 i asked you a few times:
if you dont apreciate my book, hand it over to other people
in the Hidelberg University,
( in that case decency demands to repot me about it
have you ever heared the word decency?)
that are cleaver than youself
i am sure there are there alot more cleaver than you.
9and who are not emotionally disturbed)

so in short:
my late father used to say:
'it is better to loose together with wise man
rather than to winn together with a fool'

sorry that is not just to ridicule you thats a frank and serious analysis
that i did about dealing with you.
so thank you in case you contributed something for my knowlwdge
and thats all.
and i ask you again, not only for me:
hand my book to someone elsein your university, that will make some
use of it if not now, i am sure -in future.
----------
i dont want any more discussions with you.
Y.Porat
-------------------

(Y.Porat) writes:

but the real reason why i stop discussing with you
is your nasty address to Moroney- not to gey my book!

Huh? Pardon? Why do you have a problem that I could send my copy of your
book to him???
----------
you are plaing the innocent fool (though you are not to that extent
a fool:
by that offer to moroney you commited many tact crimes
ie severe deviations from the normal decent behaviuour:

1 you despised my work even while not understanding it.

I have seen no posts that tell me not to get any book, nor
saying how awful it is or anything. I will look through Porat's
book if I get it but won't go out of my way to get it.

2 you violated the copywrite code by not asking my permition to do it.
[send it to me]

That's not a copyright violation. If he owns the book he can keep
it, give it away, sell it or burn it. He *cannot* make copies and
sell them, or claim to be the author, or quote excessively from it.
(If you _lent_ it to him and you retain physical ownership, that's
different)

3 i guess therefore that you violated my copyright many folds
by making copies of my book (and now you play the despiser of it)

Did he?

4 you tried to undermine my suggestion to Moroney
you play the fool by saing that you catually wanted to help me
i am a fool but not to that extent to buy your 'story'

He is allowed to criticize it.

--
-Mike

(Michael Moroney) wrote in message ...
(Y.Porat) writes:

but the real reason why i stop discussing with you
is your nasty address to Moroney- not to gey my book!

Huh? Pardon? Why do you have a problem that I could send my copy of your
book to him???
----------
you are plaing the innocent fool (though you are not to that extent
a fool:
by that offer to moroney you commited many tact crimes
ie severe deviations from the normal decent behaviuour:

1 you despised my work even while not understanding it.

I have seen no posts that tell me not to get any book, nor
saying how awful it is or anything. I will look through Porat's
book if I get it but won't go out of my way to get it.
-----------
ok
just tell me where to air mail it
and you will get it.
there are many Americans who got it
yet no Germans
thats why i wanted that book to stay in Germany
not to mension the hedelberg which i admire
(Plank Einstein etc etc)
i was investing quite a lot of time with Bjoern discussing it
privately, it is not easy for someone who is in the Qm and nothing else
there is no qm init though qm is not aliant to it
actually qm is only at the 'backgroung' of it though
some collisions with it:
for instance the assumption that in a heavy Atom, the number of
electrons is the exact nomber of protons
my Model shows it is not so.
anyway i am not sure that the above a ssumption is
a corner stome on QM either, i guess it can do without
that assomption as well
2 so a lot of 'ping pong' work has to be done untill you start to
understand it
i would compair it to learning a new language
espacially if you are not trained in 3 D understanding
the nuc is a 3d structure, yet it is amazing how qm overlooks it
how can you treat a 3d structure (btw amazingly definit exact
and unequivocal not a bit 'statistic'!!! likw the
unequivocal structure of the city, streets numbered houses
in where you live, - ie not a bit of statistics-
perfect definition of any subparticle and its unequivocal
geometric location.
now since it is quite not simple 3d structre that has to be described
on a flat paper, i had to invent some 'hyrogliphys' graphic system
to present it on a flat paper,and here lies some difficulty
to people why are not very much trained in 3e structure
i myself am a structural enginner in my education and
about 40 years of structural 3d engineering so it was no problem to me
to do it
may be that is the main reason (together with others)
that it was *only me* waho was able to do that breakthrouh.
it was sort og a rare coincidence that was combined in myself.
so againL
just tell me where to air mail it and you will get it.
btw may be if you have friends there even from different
disciplins, it might be worth to do there a combined work
as a team work. on it (together with my remote control assistance).
----------
------------


He is allowed to criticize it.
not only allowed but invited!
i assert there in my book that there might be mistakes
here and there
aftwer all *it is a single man work!*
you cant compair it to the work of millions of scintists during
a whole century!

but as a whole it is a discovery of new world
and you know that discovering say America was only a first step
to the huge amount of work that was invested in making
America to what it is now (:-) (:-) oops sorry the comparison.
all the best
Y.Porat
----------------
but in a decent way provided he understood it properly first.
and that is not the case.

"Y.Porat" wrote:

Bjoern Feuerbacher wrote in message ...
"Y.Porat" wrote:



--------------------



there is no use in going on discussing with you

In other words: you can't answer my arguments rationally, so you simply
ridicule me and stop the conversation. Typical.
-----------------
i am too old and too serious to have in mind just fan by ridiculing
anyone

Sorry, I don't understand what you mean here.


if i act as i do it is not on the offensive side
it is on the defensive side
(that was my character ever since: i am a self defender
never and offender just for fun.)

and one hase to do a lot of defensive while dealing with
you.even a lot of unnecessary defensive
(in short you are an aggrersor in your nature( a born agressor).

If you say so. Now, what has all of this to do with anything which was
written in the last posts?


a tiger cant do anything about his being an agressor.-
he was born like that.
and i had enough of you last year, by raising my blood pressure
to a harmful degree, so i dont want it again
you are not worth it.

In other words: you can't answer my arguments, so you ignore me.


in addition later your nonsense talking about
the relativistic mass of the alpha in nuceus mass calculation

What's nonsensical about that?

Hello?



(while the alpha is still a part of ther nuc and didnt leave it)
and other nonsense

Again: you can't answer my arguments rationally, so you simply ridicule
me and stop the conversation. Typical.

see above
i spent a lot of time with you as long as you behaved as a civilised
person.

And when didn't I behave like a "civilised person" in the last posts?



What you call "nonsense" is accepted by hundreds of thousands of
physicists as sensible. So perhaps the problem is with your
understanding, don't you think?
------
unlike you i was educated not to be a parrot.

"education is indoctrination" has always been a nonsensical argument.



but the real reason why i stop discussing with you
is your nasty address to Moroney- not to gey my book!

Huh? Pardon? Why do you have a problem that I could send my copy of your
book to him???

----------
you are plaing the innocent fool (though you are not to that extent
a fool:

I'm not playing anything-


by that offer to moroney you commited many tact crimes
ie severe deviations from the normal decent behaviuour:
1 you despised my work even while not understanding it.

I would like to remind you that I several times corrected you on things
which are in your book, so who understood it better?


2 you violated the copywrite code by not asking my permition to do it.

*YOU YOURSELF* said to me that I could give the book to other people,
so why do you have a problem now with me offering it to Michael???

And this has nothing to do with "copyright", since I'm not copying your
book, but simply giving my copy to someone other. This is a perfectly
legal act. If you think otherwise, please cite a law against this.


3 i guess therefore that you violated my copyright many folds
by making copies of my book (and now you play the despiser of it)

Err, I didn't make copies of your book. Why do you think so?

I only said that I could give "my copy of your book" to Moroney. That
doesn't mean that I copied it - it simply means that I give the book I
got from you, my "exemplar" of your book, to Michael. Aren't you
familiar with that use of the word "copy"?


4 you tried to undermine my suggestion to Moroney

In what way did I try to undermine it??? Why is it a difference if he
gets your book from you or from me???


you play the fool

Again, I play nothing jere.


by saing that you catually wanted to help me

What's your problem with that?


i am a fool but not to that extent to buy your 'story'

WHAT ON EARTH IS YOUR PROBLEM???????


to get my book (though i dont consider it a big favour
for myself if his highnes will accept my offer.
i think it is more advantage for him rather than for me
as i saied many people got it and appreciated it
non of them behaved as you did.!)

Who were these people?


5 i asked you a few times:
if you dont apreciate my book, hand it over to other people
in the Heidelberg University,

So you don't have a problem if I give it to other people in the
Heidelberg university, but you *do* have a problem if I give it to
Michael?!? Could you please explain the difference to me?????


( in that case decency demands to repot me about it
have you ever heared the word decency?)

Yes. Why do you think I did anything which wasn't decent here? I simply
tried to do what you yourself asked me for: pass your book on. I don't
see the difference between passing it on in the university and passing
it on to Michael, sorry.


that are cleaver than youself
i am sure there are there alot more cleaver than you.

Err, I passed my PhD exam with the best grade.


and who are not emotionally disturbed)

so in short:
my late father used to say:
'it is better to loose together with wise man
rather than to winn together with a fool'

If he said so, fine.


sorry that is not just to ridicule you thats a frank and serious analysis
that i did about dealing with you.
so thank you in case you contributed something for my knowlwdge
and thats all.
and i ask you again, not only for me:
hand my book to someone elsein your university, that will make some
use of it if not now, i am sure -in future.

And I ask you again: what's the difference between passing it on to
Michael and passing it on to someone at my university?


----------
i dont want any more discussions with you.

Why?


Bye,
Bjoern

Michael Moroney wrote:

(Y.Porat) writes:

but the real reason why i stop discussing with you
is your nasty address to Moroney- not to gey my book!

Huh? Pardon? Why do you have a problem that I could send my copy of your
book to him???
----------
you are plaing the innocent fool (though you are not to that extent
a fool:
by that offer to moroney you commited many tact crimes
ie severe deviations from the normal decent behaviuour:

1 you despised my work even while not understanding it.

I have seen no posts that tell me not to get any book, nor
saying how awful it is or anything. I will look through Porat's
book if I get it but won't go out of my way to get it.

I repeat my offer: you can get my copy (my version, my exemplar - do you
understand now what I mean, Porat?) of Porat's book, including lots of
comments by me.


2 you violated the copywrite code by not asking my permition to do it.
[send it to me]

That's not a copyright violation. If he owns the book he can keep
it, give it away, sell it or burn it. He *cannot* make copies and
sell them, or claim to be the author, or quote excessively from it.
(If you _lent_ it to him and you retain physical ownership, that's
different)

He sent it to me and never mentioned anything about lending. I
considered it to be a "present" to me - he was sooo eager that I will
read it. Perhaps I misunderstood him, and he only intended to lend it to
me, but there was nothing in his mails and posts which indicated
anything like that. He even asked me to pass it on to other people!


3 i guess therefore that you violated my copyright many folds
by making copies of my book (and now you play the despiser of it)

Did he?

No, I didn't. I wrote that I can send my copy of Porat's book to you,
and he apparently misunderstood this to say that I copied his book -
although I only wanted to give you the book I got myself from Porat.
Apparently he is unfamiliar with this use of the word "copy"...


[snip rest]

Bye,
Bjoern

"Y.Porat" wrote:

(Michael Moroney) wrote in message ...
(Y.Porat) writes:

but the real reason why i stop discussing with you
is your nasty address to Moroney- not to gey my book!

Huh? Pardon? Why do you have a problem that I could send my copy of your
book to him???
----------
you are plaing the innocent fool (though you are not to that extent
a fool:
by that offer to moroney you commited many tact crimes
ie severe deviations from the normal decent behaviuour:

1 you despised my work even while not understanding it.

I have seen no posts that tell me not to get any book, nor
saying how awful it is or anything. I will look through Porat's
book if I get it but won't go out of my way to get it.
-----------
ok
just tell me where to air mail it
and you will get it.
there are many Americans who got it
yet no Germans
thats why i wanted that book to stay in Germany
not to mension the hedelberg which i admire

I could give it to my girlfriend or to my brother - both are at
Heidelberg university, too, and both have very good grades, too. Would
that please you?


(Plank Einstein etc etc)

Err, what have Planck and Einstein to do with Heidelberg?


i was investing quite a lot of time with Bjoern discussing it
privately, it is not easy for someone who is in the Qm and nothing else
there is no qm init though qm is not aliant to it

Sorry, I don't understand what you say here.


actually qm is only at the 'backgroung' of it though
some collisions with it:
for instance the assumption that in a heavy Atom, the number of
electrons is the exact nomber of protons

Shown to be correct by Moseley's law, Rutherford scattering and lots of
other experiments - why you all refuse to discuss.

And implied by Maxwell's equations (charge conservation). If you want to
imply that Maxwell's equations aren't correct on the level of atoms,
please give your alternative equations - which should in the limit of
macroscopic objects again give Maxwell's equations again, obviously.


my Model shows it is not so.

Your model *asserts* it is not so.


anyway i am not sure that the above assumption is
a corner stome on QM either,

It isn't.


i guess it can do without
that assomption as well
2 so a lot of 'ping pong' work has to be done untill you start to
understand it
i would compair it to learning a new language
espacially if you are not trained in 3 D understanding
the nuc is a 3d structure,

Yes, obviously.


yet it is amazing how qm overlooks it

It doesn't. Why do you think so?


how can you treat a 3d structure (btw amazingly definit exact
and unequivocal not a bit 'statistic'!!! likw the
unequivocal structure of the city, streets numbered houses
in where you live, - ie not a bit of statistics-

Please explain why radioactive activity decreases exponentially with
time. Please explain the violation of Bell's inequality. Please explain
the results of the Stern-Gerlach experiment. And so on...


perfect definition of any subparticle and its unequivocal
geometric location.

Contradicts Heisenberg's uncertainty relation, which is a very well
tested law of nature.


now since it is quite not simple 3d structre that has to be described
on a flat paper, i had to invent some 'hyrogliphys' graphic system
to present it on a flat paper,and here lies some difficulty
to people why are not very much trained in 3e structure

Well, I've dealt a lot with 3d structures, too, in my life.

Nevertheless, I still would like to know how you get a rectangular tube
(the problem is the rectangle, not the tube), without violating your own
rule that any two orbitals can't lie in the same plane.

This was also one of my many questions you never answered. You evaded it
and then, soon afterwards, complained as usual about my impoliteness (as
if avoiding most of my questions would somehow indicate that you are
more polite than me...), and dropped the discussion. Typical.


i myself am a structural enginner in my education and
about 40 years of structural 3d engineering so it was no problem to me
to do it
may be that is the main reason (together with others)
that it was *only me* waho was able to do that breakthrouh.

You still have to prove that it is a breakthrough.


it was sort og a rare coincidence that was combined in myself.
so againL
just tell me where to air mail it and you will get it.

And again, Michael, if you wish, you can get it from me, too - unless
Porat insists that my copy of his book (and, Porat, "my copy" here
doesn't mean that I copied your book!) has to stay in Germany.


btw may be if you have friends there even from different
disciplins, it might be worth to do there a combined work
as a team work. on it (together with my remote control assistance).
----------
------------


He is allowed to criticize it.

not only allowed but invited!

Well, then why do you ignore most of my questions and comments?


i assert there in my book that there might be mistakes
here and there

I directed you to some of these mistakes, and you refused to acknowledge
them. Big surprise!


aftwer all *it is a single man work!*
you cant compair it to the work of millions of scintists during
a whole century!

Right, obviously. Nevertheless you seem to think that these millions of
scientists are wrong, and you are right...


but as a whole it is a discovery of new world

So far, it's an unproven model, not a discovery.


and you know that discovering say America was only a first step
to the huge amount of work that was invested in making
America to what it is now (:-) (:-) oops sorry the comparison.
all the best
Y.Porat
----------------
but in a decent way provided he understood it properly first.
and that is not the case.

Well, how can I understand it if you refuse to answer most of my
questions about it?


Bye,
Bjoern

Bjoern Feuerbacher wrote in message ...
"Y.Porat" wrote:

(Michael Moroney) wrote in message ...
(Y.Porat) writes:

but the real reason why i stop discussing with you
is your nasty address to Moroney- not to gey my book!

Huh? Pardon? Why do you have a problem that I could send my copy of your
book to him???
----------
--------------------
bjoern
you forgot what is the title of this tread:
it is : the sixth Porat Postulate
not the Porat Model
so it is off topic here
may be later while Moroney getas my book
we can open here an open tripple discussion about it
to the benefit of Moroney and other readers
(if you behave youself (;-)ie behave under the standard rules
of minimal curtesy, )
may be you can even help me a start explanation of the model
to Moroney, to save me the work from scratch
by istructing him anything that you unsdestood of it *untill now*
and one remark may be even for the benefit of moroney:
the heavy nuc is not exaxctly a rectangular pipe
as you undestood (good for you) and i aleady explaind it
but you forgot:
since the alpha particle is a 3 d tetraheder, there is
a break of angle between the 'arms of the 'cross like shape'
therfore it is not a rectangle but a 'octaangle' (if i know the
right definition of it)
that is some sighn that actually you got something of it in 3d
but i explained it to you that the 'rectangle' is goog enough
simplification to go on with it for my needs
now once you got it right, go on and get it furthwer right
if it is an octaheder [pipe, than there is no two orbitaling
particles on the same plan- the adjacent plans are with
a deviation of 120 degrees (not 180 degrees!)
and i could go on answering your questions
but as i saied that is offtopic here.
now to your question if i insist that the book will stay in germany
the answer is yes!
about delivering it to your brother, i think he is not in it
because as i remeber he is a chemist
btw he was asking me why the molecule of a Diamond has
acording to me 5 atoms, so why it is not seen in chemical compunds.
(another btw it took me a lot of times to understand his question(;-))
(shows the problamatic situation of 'remote controll')
compunds and i answered him that the diamond is created
under a tremendous pressure (expalines how five atoms gather)
and it seems that he tended to live with peace with my explanation.
your brother could help you with my chemical applications
like my showing why a tripple bond of carbon has the
inner distance as it is and others, but he saied then
that he didnt have the time to go on with it.
if you ask about giving it to your girl frieds..
i would say (no offence) that it should go much higher in your
University and you could be an introducer of it.
another btw
if Plank and Einstein do not belong to heidelberg
i appologise my ignorance !!
anyway again all that is off topic here
so Bye
Y.Porat
-------------

"Y.Porat" wrote:

Bjoern Feuerbacher wrote in message ...
"Y.Porat" wrote:

(Michael Moroney) wrote in message ...
(Y.Porat) writes:

but the real reason why i stop discussing with you
is your nasty address to Moroney- not to gey my book!

Huh? Pardon? Why do you have a problem that I could send my copy of your
book to him???
----------
--------------------
bjoern
you forgot what is the title of this tread:
it is : the sixth Porat Postulate
not the Porat Model

So I'm not allowed to answer questions about other parts of your model
in this thread?


so it is off topic here
may be later while Moroney getas my book
we can open here an open tripple discussion about it

Yes, that would be interesting.

Meanwhile, could you please explain to me why my offer that I could give
my copy (my exemplar, my version, ...) of your book to Michael did
infuriate you, although you yourself said that I can give it to other
people?


to the benefit of Moroney and other readers
(if you behave youself (;-)ie behave under the standard rules
of minimal curtesy, )

Where did I violate courtesy in the last posts?


may be you can even help me a start explanation of the model
to Moroney, to save me the work from scratch
by istructing him anything that you unsdestood of it *untill now*


Perhaps, but I think he should be able to get the basics by himself -
didn't you say yourself that one should be able to understand your book?


and one remark may be even for the benefit of moroney:
the heavy nuc is not exaxctly a rectangular pipe
as you undestood (good for you)

IIRC, you say in your book repeatedly "rectangular pipe". Why do you use
this expression if it isn't a rectangular pipe?


and i aleady explaind it
but you forgot:
since the alpha particle is a 3 d tetraheder, there is
a break of angle between the 'arms of the 'cross like shape'

Yes, I noticed that. That was another reason why I didn't understand why
you talk about a rectangular tube.


therfore it is not a rectangle but a 'octaangle' (if i know the
right definition of it)

I think you mean an octahedron. So, why do you speak about a rectangular
tube in your book if in reality it's an octagonal tube?


that is some sighn that actually you got something of it in 3d
but i explained it to you that the 'rectangle' is goog enough

When did you explain this? I must have missed this. Can you give me a
link to the relevant messages?


simplification to go on with it for my needs
now once you got it right, go on and get it furthwer right
if it is an octaheder [pipe, than there is no two orbitaling
particles on the same plan-


Right. But, if you take two octahedrons and connect them, like you do in
the tube, aren't there eight pairs of chains of orbitals which are in
the same plane then? Is this not a problem because the two chains in
each pair aren't connected directly to each other?


the adjacent plans are with
a deviation of 120 degrees (not 180 degrees!)

Yes, that's clear. I know what an octahedron looks like.



and i could go on answering your questions
but as i saied that is offtopic here.

Thanks you did answer at least this question. Although you say that you
answered it before, I don't remember this. Again, could you please give
me a link to the relevant posts?


now to your question if i insist that the book will stay in germany
the answer is yes!
about delivering it to your brother, i think he is not in it
because as i remeber he is a chemist

So what? Chemists deal a lot with atoms!


btw he was asking me why the molecule of a Diamond has
acording to me 5 atoms, so why it is not seen in chemical compunds.

I don't remember this question very well, sorry.


(another btw it took me a lot of times to understand his question(;-))
(shows the problamatic situation of 'remote controll')
compunds and i answered him that the diamond is created
under a tremendous pressure (expalines how five atoms gather)
and it seems that he tended to live with peace with my explanation.

Sorry, I don't remember the details of that incident.


your brother could help you with my chemical applications
like my showing why a tripple bond of carbon has the
inner distance as it is and others, but he saied then
that he didnt have the time to go on with it.
if you ask about giving it to your girl frieds..
i would say (no offence) that it should go much higher in your
University and you could be an introducer of it.

What do you mean by "much higher", specifically? Is someone with a
master in physics enough? Or do you want someone with a PhD? Or are you
only satisfied with a professor?


another btw
if Plank and Einstein do not belong to heidelberg

Well, I don't remember ever hearing anything about them having been
here.


i appologise my ignorance !!

No problem.


anyway again all that is off topic here
so Bye
Y.Porat
-------------

Bye,
Bjoern