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

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

(Michael Moroney) wrote in message ...

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?
--------
it might look starnge to other readers that i stated with
my postulate and later i try 'to sell anything that is in my basket'
--
another reason:
i am not sure i want to disclose anything on an open discussion
there is a limit of it that i would like to keep clasified
(there are in this world some say countries, that i wouldt
like them to be bebefiting any advance in nuc. business......
i hope you undestand what i mean.
(now big brother that is watching me might be releafed (;-)
----------



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?



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?


'

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

When did you explain this? I must have missed this. Can you give me a
link to the relevant messages?
-------
not realy important at this moment
-----


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?
--------
go on with undestanding it in 3d this time 'into the pater'
and you get the same answer as before
(that was what i meant: good mastering of 3d structures )


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?
we are not at court now so it is realy waist of energy.
------


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.
so i start thinking that you were actualy out of the picture
while i discussed with your brother
again never mind.
--------


(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.
see above
----


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?
----------
actually i think it should be a team work with people of many disciplines
say engineers nuc people, chemists crystal knowledge people etc.
---------

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

"Y.Porat" wrote:

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


[snip]


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?

Hello?

[snip]


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?
----------
actually i think it should be a team work with people of many disciplines
say engineers nuc people, chemists crystal knowledge people etc.

And how should I be able to compile such a team???


[snip]


Now, can we get back to the topic? You claim, apparently, that
according to QFT, a messenger can be bigger than its sender.
Could you please tell me where, exactly, does QFT say this?
I think you talk about beta decay, where W bosons are emitted
- is this right?


Bye,
Bjoern

I am interested in Mr. Porat's book but don't want two copies. Bjorn's
is probably more interesting to me because of his added notes. I can't
promise to read it and respond right away.


--
-Mike

(Michael Moroney) wrote in message ...
I am interested in Mr. Porat's book but don't want two copies. Bjorn's
is probably more interesting to me because of his added notes. I can't
promise to read it and respond right away.
--------------
Hi Mike
sorry to disappoint you, because of many (i hope rational reasons):

1 i already saied above in this thread, that i am interested
that that book will stay in Hedelberge.

2 actually i could stop right here, because the above is a good
engugh reason, to refuse your proposal.
anyway i will ad more reasons:

2 your suggestion is (to put it mildly) starnge!
i never before got such an idea or heaed precence to something like that.
(though my book is certaily unprecenedted (:-)
3 to be frank it smalls like a little plot.
ie you have already convicted my book, even before you ever saw it
and yet you are looking for, some 'justifications for that.

4 Bjoern was 'shooting' his remarks in my book just from the beginning
even before he understood the model now you will gwt those remarks
as 'serious ' cryticism:
you can realise his 'understanding' even by the short discussion
that was revealed here in this tread about the 'rectangular pipe'
shape. he didnt undersood it even one year after getting the book
and only after my second explanation he got it .
and i suppose a lot of his remarks can be answerd by me
or else they are wrong remarks
now suppose you get it and right from the start you are
negatively biased (and unjustified bias)

5 i think (folowing my experiance with other reades of mine
that it is not a quick job of a *singe person* to understand
it properly
as i saied there are some unusual combinations in my
education and personal history that alowed that 'baby' to be
born by me.
that rare of properties, cannot be (imho) be found easyly
in another single person
in short
as i told Bjoern, it is a job for a team of experts
(together with my remote assistance)
anything else might well be some 'injustice' to my work.
6
you can easyly get the book directly from me (with my notes!
in it - the notes of the composer- after many years
of folowing it with other people and more understanding
what might be the difficult points to understand.
you say you are not interested with two copies ??
what two copies, acording to my orriginal suggestion
there will be just one copy
7 i am not againt a parallel discussion between you
and Bjoern (which i have no right to prevent)
8 you can (and it might be preffered) to contact me privately
(see the above E mail).... no need to explain why.
all the best
Y.Porat
------------------------

"Y.Porat" wrote:

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

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

[snip]



Now, can we get back to the topic? You claim, apparently, that
according to QFT, a messenger can be bigger than its sender.
Could you please tell me where, exactly, does QFT say this?
I think you talk about beta decay, where W bosons are emitted
- is this right?
---------
1 if nothing in sm has a messenger that is bigger than
its senser than .......
what do you have against my postulate??!!

I don't have anything against your postulate - I simply think that
it is unnecessary. Essentially, this is covered already by conservation
of energy and momentum, so why set up an additional postulate?

Additionally, the main reason I posted to this thread was *not*
to argue against your postulate - I did this only to correct your
apparent misconceptions about what the SM says.


2 AFAIK in beta decay there is a W bosson that is 90 times bigger
ie massive) than the proton.

I've told you at least 5 times know that the W boson in beta decay is
a *virtual* boson and doesn't have a mass of 90 GeV. Only *real* W
bosons
do have such a mass.


3 btw you raised a question about my book that might have
a whider meaning, than just what is in my book:
while i claim that i cam mapp any subparticle ie its location
you say that this is against the uncertainty principle

What is against the uncertainty principle is that you give the locations
of the particles and at the same time their state of movement. Your
model says that this is a static structure, so most of the particles
don't
move! (Or did I misunderstand you there?) And according to the
uncertainty
principle, one can't at once give the momentum and the location of a
particle!


so lets examine your claim:

1 while i mapp the location of a subparticle - i didnt say anything
about its momentum, so where is the contradiction .

See above - your model looks static, hence I thought that the momentum
of each particle is zero (with the exception of some of the electrons
on the edges perhaps).


2 i will help you with your claim:
suppose (which is true) that i caim that the same time
i know its location i know as well its binding energy
so do uou see any problem with that?

No.


fisrt: i didnt yet say anything quantitative about
tthe space that any subparticle occupies so ...?

What has this to do with the things said above?


where is the contradiction to UCP .?

Depends on if your model is static or not.


may be just the opposite, the ucp can help me define what is
the space that any subparticle ocupies.

In what way?


Bye,
Bjoern

"Y.Porat" wrote:

(Michael Moroney) wrote in message ...
I am interested in Mr. Porat's book but don't want two copies. Bjorn's
is probably more interesting to me because of his added notes. I can't
promise to read it and respond right away.
--------------
Hi Mike
sorry to disappoint you, because of many (i hope rational reasons):

1 i already saied above in this thread, that i am interested
that that book will stay in Hedelberge.

Even if I don't give it to anyone else here?


2 actually i could stop right here, because the above is a good
engugh reason, to refuse your proposal.
anyway i will ad more reasons:

2 your suggestion is (to put it mildly) starnge!
i never before got such an idea or heaed precence to something like that.
(though my book is certaily unprecenedted (:-)
3 to be frank it smalls like a little plot.

Read up "paranoia".


ie you have already convicted my book, even before you ever saw it
and yet you are looking for, some 'justifications for that.

4 Bjoern was 'shooting' his remarks in my book just from the beginning
even before he understood the model now you will gwt those remarks
as 'serious ' cryticism:
you can realise his 'understanding' even by the short discussion
that was revealed here in this tread about the 'rectangular pipe'
shape. he didnt undersood it even one year after getting the book

Porat, you keep talking about a rectangular pipe in your book. You never
even
mention *once* that it isn't rectangular, but octagonal. So how is
anyone
supposed to understand this?


and only after my second explanation he got it .

I still think that this was the first explanation, not the second. Prove
me wrong. Show me where you explained it first.


[snip]


7 i am not againt a parallel discussion between you
and Bjoern (which i have no right to prevent)

Michael, this sounds like a sensible proposal. We could
discuss it between us, so you will see my comments nevertheless.


[snip]


Bye,
Bjoern

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

(Michael Moroney) wrote in message ...
I am interested in Mr. Porat's book but don't want two copies. Bjorn's
is probably more interesting to me because of his added notes. I can't
promise to read it and respond right away.
--------------
Hi Mike
sorry to disappoint you, because of many (i hope rational reasons):

1 i already saied above in this thread, that i am interested
that that book will stay in Hedelberge.

Even if I don't give it to anyone else here?
-------------
even so
btw have you heared about the guy who wanted to punish his wife
so he ...
castarted himself .....
-----


2 actually i could stop right here, because the above is a good
engugh reason, to refuse your proposal.
anyway i will ad more reasons:

2 your suggestion is (to put it mildly) starnge!
i never before got such an idea or heaed precence to something like that.
(though my book is certaily unprecenedted (:-)
3 to be frank it smalls like a little plot.

Read up "paranoia".
----
my late father used to say that it is better to be overcauciuos
rather than undercaocious.
-----------


ie you have already convicted my book, even before you ever saw it
and yet you are looking for, some 'justifications for that.

4 Bjoern was 'shooting' his remarks in my book just from the beginning
even before he understood the model now you will gwt those remarks
as 'serious ' cryticism:
you can realise his 'understanding' even by the short discussion
that was revealed here in this tread about the 'rectangular pipe'
shape. he didnt undersood it even one year after getting the book

Porat, you keep talking about a rectangular pipe in your book. You never
even
mention *once* that it isn't rectangular, but octagonal. So how is
anyone
supposed to understand this?
----------
i asked you many times to make a 3d of the alpha particle
once you do it it becomes self understandable
it seems that you where too lazy to follow my suggestion
btw the angle netween any two arms of the alpha is not 120 deg
but .... i forgot the exact figure anyway it is the only angle
that obeys two conditions:
1 that 4 lines will origine from a point in space
2 that all the angles between any two will be the same
a marvelous creation of nature of a 3d super ballanced
and symetric structure 9may be one of the secrets of its
great stability, 'paper physicists' dont even have it in
their agenda,
-------------
-----------

and only after my second explanation he got it .

I still think that this was the first explanation, not the second. Prove
me wrong. Show me where you explained it first.
----
you dont trust an old goat? so be it
probably you lost all the 'archive' that was between us .
---


[snip]


7 i am not againt a parallel discussion between you
and Bjoern (which i have no right to prevent)

Michael, this sounds like a sensible proposal. We could
discuss it between us, so you will see my comments nevertheless.
-------
ok but Mike dont neglect the remarks of the copyrighter.
(unless you already decided to defame me - ie from
'political reasons'
btw Mike do you get some instructions from 'big brother' (;-)
-----------
all the best
Y.porat
--------------
all the best
Y.Porat
----------------

"Y.Porat" wrote:

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



[snip]

Porat, you keep talking about a rectangular pipe in your book. You never
even
mention *once* that it isn't rectangular, but octagonal. So how is
anyone
supposed to understand this?
----------
i asked you many times to make a 3d of the alpha particle
once you do it it becomes self understandable
it seems that you where too lazy to follow my suggestion

I can imagine quite well how the alpha particle looks like, thank
you. That even was one of the reasons why I had a problem with
your "rectangular pipe" - I couldn't imagine how one could form
a rectangle from four alpha particles! Now that you have said that
it is an octahedron, not a rectangle, it's clear what you meant
- but it's still *not* clear why you keep talking about a
*rectangular* tube in your book!


btw the angle netween any two arms of the alpha is not 120 deg

Yes, obviously.


but .... i forgot the exact figure anyway it is the only angle
that obeys two conditions:
1 that 4 lines will origine from a point in space
2 that all the angles between any two will be the same

In other words, the edges of the 4 lines will form a tetrahedron.

Let's see... one can place it into a coordinate system so that
the edges are at A=(0,0,0), B=(a,0,0), C=(a/2,sqrt(3)/2 a, 0) and
D=(a/2, sqrt(3)/6 a, sqrt(2/3) a). Then the middle is at
M=(a/2, sqrt(3)/6 a, sqrt(2/3)/4 a). Therefore the vectors from M
to A and from M to B are MA = (-a/2, -sqrt(3)/6 a, -sqrt(2/3)/4 a)
and MB = (a/2, -sqrt(3)/6 a, -sqrt(2/3)/4 a). The angle between
these two vectors can be obtained then by using the scalar product:
cos theta = (-a^2/4 + a^2/12 + a^2/24)/(a^2/4 + a^2/12 + a^2/24)
= (-1/8)/(3/24) = -1/3.

This gives an angle of (approx.) theta = 109,5 degree. Does this look
like the number you remember?

(a more elegant calculation can be found at
http://www.math.toronto.edu/mathnet/questionCorner/tetangle.html,
for example)


a marvelous creation of nature of a 3d super ballanced
and symetric structure 9may be one of the secrets of its
great stability, 'paper physicists' dont even have it in
their agenda,

Err, according to the Schroedinger equation, the sp3 hybrid
orbitals of carbon give exactly this structure.


[snip]


Bye,
Bjoern

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

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



[snip]

Porat, you keep talking about a rectangular pipe in your book. You never
even
mention *once* that it isn't rectangular, but octagonal. So how is
anyone
supposed to understand this?
----------
i asked you many times to make a 3d of the alpha particle
once you do it it becomes self understandable
it seems that you where too lazy to follow my suggestion

I can imagine quite well how the alpha particle looks like, thank
you. That even was one of the reasons why I had a problem with
your "rectangular pipe" - I couldn't imagine how one could form
a rectangle from four alpha particles! Now that you have said that
it is an octahedron, not a rectangle, it's clear what you meant
- but it's still *not* clear why you keep talking about a
*rectangular* tube in your book!
----------
the 'rectangular pipe' in my book is generally in my book
and in my discussions on the net is with ' ' (paranteses ?)
it is done for simplicity, it is very difficult technically
to 'drag all along' the more acurate figure on a flat paper.
yet i still insist that it is very necessary to make a 3d model
not only for the alpha but for the combinations of it
or else you get lost:
for instance, by heart you will never remember whaere are
the protons there and where the neutros and the rules of combinations between
them etc, you will not remeber whther an edge particle is attached
to a protn or to a neutron etc
in short;
once you want to 'swimm in it' like a fish in water
the abstract understanding is not good enough
you cant be an expert on the detailes.
and as you know :'the devil is in the detailes'
another btw: i 3d model helps you dramatically better to remember it.
eespacially once 3d structures are not your 'bread and butter'
anyway do what you like.
--------
------------


btw the angle netween any two arms of the alpha is not 120 deg

Yes, obviously.


but .... i forgot the exact figure anyway it is the only angle
that obeys two conditions:
1 that 4 lines will origine from a point in space
2 that all the angles between any two will be the same

In other words, the edges of the 4 lines will form a tetrahedron.

Let's see... one can place it into a coordinate system so that
the edges are at A=(0,0,0), B=(a,0,0), C=(a/2,sqrt(3)/2 a, 0) and
D=(a/2, sqrt(3)/6 a, sqrt(2/3) a). Then the middle is at
M=(a/2, sqrt(3)/6 a, sqrt(2/3)/4 a). Therefore the vectors from M
to A and from M to B are MA = (-a/2, -sqrt(3)/6 a, -sqrt(2/3)/4 a)
and MB = (a/2, -sqrt(3)/6 a, -sqrt(2/3)/4 a). The angle between
these two vectors can be obtained then by using the scalar product:
cos theta = (-a^2/4 + a^2/12 + a^2/24)/(a^2/4 + a^2/12 + a^2/24)
= (-1/8)/(3/24) = -1/3.

This gives an angle of (approx.) theta = 109,5 degree. Does this look
like the number you remember?
thats very nice actually you can do it even in simple stereometric
calculations
and as far as i remember (i am as well lazy to get up and verify it)
the angle is 108. .......... many digits.
if i remember correctly that is the angle of the water molecule
between the oxygen and 2 hydrogens.
------
dont know why the rest of text disappeard
anyway :
do you have something against my sixth postulate.?
all the best
Y.Porat
------------------









(a more elegant calculation can be found at
http://www.math.toronto.edu/mathnet/questionCorner/tetangle.html,
for example)


a marvelous creation of nature of a 3d super ballanced
and symetric structure 9may be one of the secrets of its
great stability, 'paper physicists' dont even have it in
their agenda,

Err, according to the Schroedinger equation, the sp3 hybrid
orbitals of carbon give exactly this structure.


[snip]


Bye,
Bjoern

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

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



[snip]

Porat, you keep talking about a rectangular pipe in your book. You never
even
mention *once* that it isn't rectangular, but octagonal. So how is
anyone
supposed to understand this?
----------
i asked you many times to make a 3d of the alpha particle
once you do it it becomes self understandable
it seems that you where too lazy to follow my suggestion

I can imagine quite well how the alpha particle looks like, thank
you. That even was one of the reasons why I had a problem with
your "rectangular pipe" - I couldn't imagine how one could form
a rectangle from four alpha particles! Now that you have said that
it is an octahedron, not a rectangle, it's clear what you meant
- but it's still *not* clear why you keep talking about a
*rectangular* tube in your book!


btw the angle netween any two arms of the alpha is not 120 deg

Yes, obviously.


but .... i forgot the exact figure anyway it is the only angle
that obeys two conditions:
1 that 4 lines will origine from a point in space
2 that all the angles between any two will be the same

In other words, the edges of the 4 lines will form a tetrahedron.

Let's see... one can place it into a coordinate system so that
the edges are at A=(0,0,0), B=(a,0,0), C=(a/2,sqrt(3)/2 a, 0) and
D=(a/2, sqrt(3)/6 a, sqrt(2/3) a). Then the middle is at
M=(a/2, sqrt(3)/6 a, sqrt(2/3)/4 a). Therefore the vectors from M
to A and from M to B are MA = (-a/2, -sqrt(3)/6 a, -sqrt(2/3)/4 a)
and MB = (a/2, -sqrt(3)/6 a, -sqrt(2/3)/4 a). The angle between
these two vectors can be obtained then by using the scalar product:
cos theta = (-a^2/4 + a^2/12 + a^2/24)/(a^2/4 + a^2/12 + a^2/24)
= (-1/8)/(3/24) = -1/3.

This gives an angle of (approx.) theta = 109,5 degree. Does this look
like the number you remember?

(a more elegant calculation can be found at
http://www.math.toronto.edu/mathnet/questionCorner/tetangle.html,
for example)


a marvelous creation of nature of a 3d super ballanced
and symetric structure 9may be one of the secrets of its
great stability, 'paper physicists' dont even have it in
their agenda,

Err, according to the Schroedinger equation, the sp3 hybrid
orbitals of carbon give exactly this structure.

-------------
ok now i found ther rest of the text
what you say above is right but please note:

Shroedinger had no idea why it is so
he didnt know that that is a direct result of the *nuclear structure*!!!
ie he didt know the real reason for that.ie he dint get
closer to the scratch (nether i claim that i got
'untill the *final * scrach' ! but just made myhumble
step *forwards*
all the best
Y.porat
---------------
[snip]


Bye,
Bjoern