"Y.Porat" wrote:

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.

Yes, that's clear. But why don't you mention at least *once* in
your book that it's actually an octahedron, not a rectangle?


[snip]


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

How?


and as far as i remember (i am as well lazy to get up and verify it)
the angle is 108. .......... many digits.

Well, that seems to be wrong. 109.5 is not the same as 108.... many
digits.


if i remember correctly that is the angle of the water molecule
between the oxygen and 2 hydrogens.

The angle in the water molecule isn't the same as the angle in a
tetrahedron.


------
dont know why the rest of text disappeard
anyway :
do you have something against my sixth postulate.?

I already commented on this. Didn't you get that post?



[snip]

Bye,
Bjoern

"Y.Porat" wrote:

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

[snip]


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

Well, it comes out naturally of his equation! The equation
tells you that if you describe electrons using a wave equation
(and various pieces of evidence tells us that we have to do
this), then naturally you get orbitals which have such a
structure. So we *do* know "why it is so".


he didnt know that that is a direct result of the *nuclear structure*!!!

Err, you should stop presenting claims as facts.


ie he didt know the real reason for that.

May I remind you that so far it's only your claim that this is
the "real reason", and that you haven't proved that your claim
is right so far?


ie he dint get
closer to the scratch (nether i claim that i got
'untill the *final * scrach' ! but just made myhumble
step *forwards*

That's your claim. That's not a fact so far.


Bye,
Bjoern

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

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

[snip]


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

Well, it comes out naturally of his equation! The equation
tells you that if you describe electrons using a wave equation
(and various pieces of evidence tells us that we have to do
this), then naturally you get orbitals which have such a
structure. So we *do* know "why it is so".


he didnt know that that is a direct result of the *nuclear structure*!!!

Err, you should stop presenting claims as facts.
--------------
you learned nothing
and you undestood nothing about my book.
now you can undestand why i insist that you cant do it youself
and a team should be nominated in order to study
and undestand it.
anyway i askedyou a question about my sixth postolate:
do you have something against it,
untill now there is no answer.
actually i know the answer, no answer. it is a right
and *useful* postulate especially to prevent people
from the nonsense that they are in up to their neckes.
(i mean the experiments to find virtuals.
i saw on the net that some german institue (forgot its name- Herra ???)
is involved in those neosense
so i suggest that you address them quickly to stop it
and save their precious time and money and go on something
more productive, (that could be for a change a productive
tongible deed of yours)
at least if you dont believe me, just draw their attantion
to my postulate.
btw i did a Google serch and saw there loud and clear
that the W Bosson has a mass of 85 times the nucleid
something that you denied
will you once in your life admitt a mistake ??

another btw that Google search revealed to me once again
how stupid and pathetic is all that story of virtuals and the W
unbelieable how stupid (may be dishonest !) many scintists are.
Y.porat
---------------


ie he didt know the real reason for that.

May I remind you that so far it's only your claim that this is
the "real reason", and that you haven't proved that your claim
is right so far?


ie he dint get
closer to the scratch (nether i claim that i got
'untill the *final * scrach' ! but just made myhumble
step *forwards*

That's your claim. That's not a fact so far.


Bye,
Bjoern

Bjoern Feuerbacher wrote in message ...
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!
-----------
i asked you agin and again to leave it in Hedelberg
not anywhere else.
i am not sure about leagal rights

but i am sure that there are some ethics of human behaviour
even if not written in the formal law.
certainly anyone can immagine that i didnt sent you
my book in order that you will do your best to abuse me
even though that i could much more than that- abuse you !
your undestanding capability, your curtacy standards,
your integrity your impulsive unself controled behaviour etc.

but i say to myself 'thats what there is there'
so in that case i have to compormise with unpleasant reality
that occured to me.
ie while the author is asking you to keep it in hedelberge
the ordinary avrage man would respect it
it is basic human behavior
now hearing your attitude i start to doubt about your
uman behaviour standards.
so i ask you again loud and clear:
let it stay in hedelberg, i dont mind if you do many copies
that *will stay only in hedelberg*
for other places and countries -- leave it to me!.
thats imho and knowledge the standard comon ethical behaviour
(in case you want anyone else ever make a deal with you!)

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

(Y.Porat) wrote in message . com...
Bjoern Feuerbacher wrote in message ...
"Y.Porat" wrote:

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

[snip]




structure. So we *do* know "why it is so".


he didnt know that that is a direct result of the *nuclear structure*!!!

Err, you should stop presenting claims as facts.
--------------
you learned nothing
and you undestood nothing about my book.
now you can undestand why i insist that you cant do it youself
and a team should be nominated in order to study
and undestand it.
anyway i askedyou a question about my sixth postolate:
do you have something against it,
untill now there is no answer.
actually i know the answer, no answer. it is a right
and *useful* postulate especially to prevent people
from the nonsense that they are in up to their neckes.
(i mean the experiments to find virtuals.
i saw on the net that some german institue (forgot its name- Herra ???)
is involved in those neosense
so i suggest that you address them quickly to stop it
and save their precious time and money and go on something
more productive, (that could be for a change a productive
tongible deed of yours)
at least if you dont believe me, just draw their attantion
to my postulate.
btw i did a Google serch and saw there loud and clear
that the W Bosson has a mass of 85 times the nucleid
something that you denied
will you once in your life admitt a mistake ??

another btw that Google search revealed to me once again
how stupid and pathetic is all that story of virtuals and the W
unbelieable how stupid (may be dishonest !) many scintists are.

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

and now i call Michel Moroney:
ater that you heared my absolue rejection to the idea that you wil
get my book from feuerbacher:
dont give a hand to that crooked suggestion of his.
i explained you in detailes the reasons to my objection.
and hope you will respect my request.
imho it is a basic standard of human behaviour
not to mention decent scintists behaviour.
a scintist that does not have human relations integrity
cannot imho be a serious real scintist
real scince demands decency and integrity.
(once you are able to betray people, one is able as well
betray the rules of scince)
and Feuerbacher, please do not intervean with my conversation with
moroney, that is another sighn of a bully behaviour.
TIA
Y.Porat
-----------------------------

"Y.Porat" wrote:

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

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

[snip]


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

Well, it comes out naturally of his equation! The equation
tells you that if you describe electrons using a wave equation
(and various pieces of evidence tells us that we have to do
this), then naturally you get orbitals which have such a
structure. So we *do* know "why it is so".


he didnt know that that is a direct result of the *nuclear structure*!!!

Err, you should stop presenting claims as facts.
--------------
you learned nothing
and you undestood nothing about my book.

If you say so.

I would like to point out to you that I got the best possible
grade in my PhD exams, so apparently I'm not stupid. So if
I don't understand your book (according to you), don't you
think that may *perhaps* be due to your book, and not my fault?


now you can undestand why i insist that you cant do it youself
and a team should be nominated in order to study
and undestand it.

I have a challenge for you: If I find one professor of physics
at my university who looks at your book and then says that it
is nonsense, will you stop presenting everything in your book
as fact?


anyway i askedyou a question about my sixth postolate:
do you have something against it,
untill now there is no answer.

I answered this two days ago already. Didn't you read that post?
Here is the link:
http://www.google.de/groups?q=insubjectorat+author:bjoern&hl=de&lr=&i e=UTF-8&as_drrb=b&as_mind=24&as_minm=11&as_miny=2003&as_ maxd=24&as_maxm=11&as_maxy=2003&selm=3FC1DC90.DE0E D7F5%40ix.urz.uni-heidelberg.de&rnum=2&filter=0


actually i know the answer, no answer.

Wrong. See above.


it is a right
and *useful* postulate

There is nothing useful about it - it is already clear that this
*has* to be satisfied, simply because of conservation of energy.


especially to prevent people
from the nonsense that they are in up to their neckes.

How often do I need to point out to you that in beta
decay, the emitted W boson is *virtual* and therefore
*not* "bigger than its sender"?



(i mean the experiments to find virtuals.

No one would ever design such an experiment - this makes no
sense. However, what people *had* done were experiments
which demonstrated the *effects* of the existence of virtual
particles.


i saw on the net that some german institue (forgot its name- Herra ???)

HERA, probably.


is involved in those neosense

Why do you think it's nonsense?


so i suggest that you address them quickly to stop it

Why?


and save their precious time and money and go on something
more productive, (that could be for a change a productive
tongible deed of yours)
at least if you dont believe me, just draw their attantion
to my postulate.

See my comments on it. Follow the link above.


btw i did a Google serch and saw there loud and clear
that the W Bosson has a mass of 85 times the nucleid
something that you denied

I *never* denied this!!!

I only said that the W bosons which are emitted in beta decay
are *virtual* W bosons, not *real* W bosons! Only *real*
W bosons have a mass of around 85 GeV!!!


will you once in your life admitt a mistake ??

You are attacking a straw man. I *NEVER* said that W bosons
(*real* W bosons) don't have this mass!


another btw that Google search revealed to me once again
how stupid and pathetic is all that story of virtuals and the W
unbelieable how stupid (may be dishonest !) many scintists are.

So, hundreds of thousands of physicists are soooo stupid, because
they think that virtual particles exist and make sense, and only you,
a layman, is intelligent enough to see that this is nonsense?
Try reading up the word "arrogance".


Bye,
Bjoern

"Y.Porat" wrote:

Bjoern Feuerbacher wrote in message ...
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!
-----------
i asked you agin and again to leave it in Hedelberg
not anywhere else.

IIRC, you began insisting on that it stays in Heidelberg only a few
days ago. If you think otherwise, prove it - provide links to
the relevant posts.


i am not sure about leagal rights

but i am sure that there are some ethics of human behaviour
even if not written in the formal law.
certainly anyone can immagine that i didnt sent you
my book in order that you will do your best to abuse me
even though that i could much more than that- abuse you !

Pointing out the errors in your book to you has nothing to
do with "abuse".


your undestanding capability,

.... was good enough to pass my PhD exam with the best possible grade.


your curtacy standards,
your integrity your impulsive unself controled behaviour etc.

*yawn*


but i say to myself 'thats what there is there'
so in that case i have to compormise with unpleasant reality
that occured to me.
ie while the author is asking you to keep it in hedelberge
the ordinary avrage man would respect it
it is basic human behavior
now hearing your attitude i start to doubt about your
uman behaviour standards.

You are the right one to whine that I'm impolite - you
are even to lazy to write your posts clearly!


so i ask you again loud and clear:
let it stay in hedelberg,
i dont mind if you do many copies
that *will stay only in hedelberg*
for other places and countries -- leave it to me!.

O.k., if you insist...


thats imho and knowledge the standard comon ethical behaviour
(in case you want anyone else ever make a deal with you!)

If you say so.


Bye,
Bjoern

(Y.Porat) writes:

and now i call Michel Moroney:
ater that you heared my absolue rejection to the idea that you wil
get my book from feuerbacher:
dont give a hand to that crooked suggestion of his.

I don't see it as 'crooked'.

i explained you in detailes the reasons to my objection.
and hope you will respect my request.

I cannot control whether Bjorn keeps or sends away his book.

I consider Bjorn's book as potentially more useful as his notes provide a
second opinion, and either his comments are wrong and I can see where he
is going wrong, or they are correct and they point out where you go wrong.

If you are simply trying to prevent me from seeing Bjorn's notes, well,
I don't like 'censorship' at all.

Perhaps (if Bjorn's notes aren't extensive) he can simply photocopy his
notes and send them to me, he keeps his book, and you can send me a copy?


--
-Mike

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

and now i call Michel Moroney:
ater that you heared my absolue rejection to the idea that you wil
get my book from feuerbacher:
dont give a hand to that crooked suggestion of his.

I don't see it as 'crooked'.

i explained you in detailes the reasons to my objection.
and hope you will respect my request.

I cannot control whether Bjorn keeps or sends away his book.

I consider Bjorn's book as potentially more useful as his notes provide a
second opinion, and either his comments are wrong and I can see where he
is going wrong, or they are correct and they point out where you go wrong.

If you are simply trying to prevent me from seeing Bjorn's notes, well,
I don't like 'censorship' at all.

Perhaps (if Bjorn's notes aren't extensive) he can simply photocopy his
notes and send them to me, he keeps his book, and you can send me a copy?
----------------
ok it seems that at last we got a reasonable formula:
so i alow you to get a *copy of Bjoerns book with his notes*
and you will get my book with my new notes.
in any case
i strongly recomend that you will recrute (sooner or later)
a team of a chemist crystalographer nuc scintist (may be you consider
youself as such but another one whant do any harm
and at last not least an engineer who are trained in geometry
and especially in 3d reading and handling of 3d structures)
another anyway:
i hope you will read forst *my notes* before Bjoerns
because as you know Bjoern is only a 'second second second driver'
of my work.
he didnt undestood (one year after he got it) *the cumulative
meaning * of my verifications and cross verifications
of my model
by the chemical study, the nuc. facts verifications
the crystalographyic verifications etc.
may be it is not simple to get 'the whole picture at once'
but once you get it it stickes all to gether
and that sticking together of so many cross disciplines
*cannot be just by chance!!* that is what he didnt undestood.
of coarse that is a one mans work so it cannot compete
with say the very thorough verifications say in the spectrum
field with qm (i never invested any work on that aspect)
or other aspects that thousands of scintists and billions
of $ where invested
but that does not diminish the important value of my work
*as a pioneering work* actually a breakthrough work.

so please call me in my private e mail as shown above
and tell me where to air mail it.
ps
Feuerbacher, please dont intervean in this conversation between me
and Moroney. it is not the regular common curtacy.
all the best
Y.porat
---------------------

it need some inverstemt of learning something brand new
and revolutionary.

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

and now i call Michel Moroney:
ater that you heared my absolue rejection to the idea that you wil
get my book from feuerbacher:
dont give a hand to that crooked suggestion of his.

I don't see it as 'crooked'.

i explained you in detailes the reasons to my objection.
and hope you will respect my request.

I cannot control whether Bjorn keeps or sends away his book.

I consider Bjorn's book as potentially more useful as his notes provide a
second opinion, and either his comments are wrong and I can see where he
is going wrong, or they are correct and they point out where you go wrong.

If you are simply trying to prevent me from seeing Bjorn's notes, well,
I don't like 'censorship' at all.

Perhaps (if Bjorn's notes aren't extensive) he can simply photocopy his
notes and send them to me, he keeps his book, and you can send me a copy?
-------------
ok so be it, now i would like to make a note to Feuerbacher
in order that there will be no misunderstanding:

Bjoern
if you like i alow you to send *a copy of my copy*!
ie the orininal copy that i sent to you
with my personal orriginal signiture and personal dedication to you,
shoud stay if not in your posession at least in Hedelberg University
not ouside of it.!
TIA
Y.porat
-------------------