here is my sixth postulate:

'A messenger in physics, cannot be bigger or stronger
than the entity that sent it'

a little comment:
i hope it is obvious why, and what for and against what
i coined that postulate.

TIA for your comments
all the best
Y.Porat
---------------------

"Y.Porat" wrote in message
om...
| here is my sixth postulate:
|
| 'A messenger in physics, cannot be bigger or stronger
| than the entity that sent it'
|
| a little comment:
| i hope it is obvious why, and what for and against what
| i coined that postulate.
|
| TIA for your comments
| all the best
| Y.Porat
| ---------------------
Ah, so this is why Pavaroti does not sing about Physics then...:-)

Sorry, I have a daft sense of humour sometimes...

Brian

--
Brian Gaff....
graphics are great, but the blind can't hear them
Email:
__________________________________________________ __________________________
__________________________________




---
Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.535 / Virus Database: 330 - Release Date: 01/11/03

"Y.Porat" wrote in message
om...
here is my sixth postulate:

'A messenger in physics, cannot be bigger or stronger
than the entity that sent it'

a little comment:
i hope it is obvious why, and what for and against what
i coined that postulate.

There aren't enough trite one-liners out there?

"Brian Gaff" wrote in message ...
"Y.Porat" wrote in message
om...
| here is my sixth postulate:
|
| 'A messenger in physics, cannot be bigger or stronger
| than the entity that sent it'
|
| a little comment:
| i hope it is obvious why, and what for and against what
| i coined that postulate.
|
| TIA for your comments
| all the best
| Y.Porat
| ---------------------
Ah, so this is why Pavaroti does not sing about Physics then...:-)

Sorry, I have a daft sense of humour sometimes...

Brian

Email:
_
----------------
btw sometimes i have some (poor( semse of humour as well
but i am doing my best to hide it, especially on the ng
(it does not look 'respectful and appropriately fitting' serious scince.

actually i stater to type that postulate by saing:
any messenger ........
but than i realised just like you that in everyday life it is often
that the messenger is actually much stronger than the sender
(a lot in politics, commerce crime world etc etc)
so i added imediately: 'in physics'
anyway
do you get my physics meaning ?
does it look convicing to you?does it look a right postulate?
TIA
Y.Porat
----------------





---
Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.535 / Virus Database: 330 - Release Date: 01/11/03

"Y.Porat" wrote in message
om...
actually i stater to type that postulate by saing:
any messenger ........
but than i realised just like you that in everyday life it is often
that the messenger is actually much stronger than the sender
(a lot in politics, commerce crime world etc etc)
so i added imediately: 'in physics'
anyway
do you get my physics meaning ?
does it look convicing to you?does it look a right postulate?
TIA
Y.Porat
----------------


I know nothing about such things but your politics etc. analogy does
highlight something. ie. An implication that in physics the messenger comes
from within the sender and so must be smaller than it. Is this true?
Intuitively I would guess this is not the case as if it were, each time a
message was sent, the sender would shrink. I would expect instead that the
sender would transfer the message to the messenger which would then deliver
the message ( and then be free to take a message for someone else? )

Maybe the sender interacts with the messenger which alters both in some way.
The messenger then goes somewhere else and has another interaction. This
second interaction is coloured by the state of the messenger which is itself
dependent on the interaction with the first sender so in some way,
information about the state of the sender has been transferred to a change
in the state of the recipient via the messenger.

But maybe all that made no sense?

--
Martin & Anna Sykes
( Remove x's when replying )
http://www.users.globalnet.co.uk/~sykesm

"Martin Sykes" wrote in message ...
"Y.Porat" wrote in message
om...
actually i stater to type that postulate by saing:
any messenger ........
but than i realised just like you that in everyday life it is often
that the messenger is actually much stronger than the sender
(a lot in politics, commerce crime world etc etc)
so i added imediately: 'in physics'
anyway
do you get my physics meaning ?
does it look convicing to you?does it look a right postulate?
TIA
Y.Porat
----------------


I know nothing about such things but your politics etc. analogy does
highlight something. ie. An implication that in physics the messenger comes
from within the sender and so must be smaller than it. Is this true?
yes exactly!
is it so difficult to underastand ? do you have to be a greate phyicist
in order to understand it ???
------

Intuitively I would guess this is not the case as if it were, each time a
message was sent, the sender would shrink. I would expect instead that the
sender would transfer the message to the messenger which would then deliver
the message ( and then be free to take a message for someone else? )
-----------
you know , one of the disasters of some modern physics is that
it forgot the principle of simplicity.
just immagine:
the process that we aretalking about is so quick ans so abundant
that our immagination can never get how much it is abundant and quick
now suppose that what you just suggested above is the real situation
can you imagine that those basic particles could be as sophysticated
as your immagination??!
my guess is that had it been the case it would not last a nano nano second
and the whole universe would blow up.
take the gravitation between us and the sun
can you find there all those sophysticated phenomena?
is it not obvious that the sun is much bigger and the messengers
are extremely small but enourmous in number ?
isit not reasonable to think
that if electrons or quarks send messengers at straight lines
that some percentage of it will miss the target?
now if that process lasts for 13 billions of years, what do you expect
to happen to the 'stock of messengers' ?
--------------

Maybe the sender interacts with the messenger which alters both in some way.
The messenger then goes somewhere else and has another interaction. This
second interaction is coloured by the state of the messenger which is itself
dependent on the interaction with the first sender so in some way,
information about the state of the sender has been transferred to a change
in the state of the recipient via the messenger.

But maybe all that made no sense?
--------------
i dont whant to be insultive, but :
do you youself undestand what you explained above
can you immagine that such a process will be as abondant and quick
as it should be :
in short:
where has the common simple and basic sense has gone ??!!

anyway thanks for the comments.at least i made people start
resuffle their sleepy true believers mind.
-------
all the best
Y.Porat
-------

(Y.Porat) wrote in message . com...
"Brian Gaff" wrote in message ...
"Y.Porat" wrote in message
om...
| here is my sixth postulate:
|
| 'A messenger in physics, cannot be bigger or stronger
| than the entity that sent it'
|
| a little comment:
| i hope it is obvious why, and what for and against what
| i coined that postulate.
|
| TIA for your comments
| all the best
| Y.Porat
| ---------------------
Ah, so this is why Pavaroti does not sing about Physics then...:-)

Sorry, I have a daft sense of humour sometimes...

Brian

Email:
_
----------------
btw sometimes i have some (poor( semse of humour as well
but i am doing my best to hide it, especially on the ng
(it does not look 'respectful and appropriately fitting' serious scince.

actually i stater to type that postulate by saing:
any messenger ........
but than i realised just like you that in everyday life it is often
that the messenger is actually much stronger than the sender
(a lot in politics, commerce crime world etc etc)
so i added imediately: 'in physics'
anyway
do you get my physics meaning ?
does it look convicing to you?does it look a right postulate?
TIA
Y.Porat
----------------

This is science. Your postulate will be convincing if
and only if you have experimental data to back it up.

(Y.Porat) writes:

here is my sixth postulate:

'A messenger in physics, cannot be bigger or stronger
than the entity that sent it'

This isn't a postulate so much as trying to apply macroscopic
physics to quantum mechanics, which doesn't work.
Macroscopically it does, if you think of the 'entity' as a
person carrying baseballs and the 'messenger' as the baseballs.

I know this attempt at explaining this to Y. Porat will fail,
but I will do so anyway.

In quantum mechanics, we have the Heisenberg Uncertainty
Principle, which has no macroscopic equivalent. It states
you can't know both the position and momentum of an object to
an accuracy of less than hbar. delta(x)*delta(p) hbar.
Multiply both sides of the equation by 1, in the form of
v/v (x/t)/(x/t). We get (x/t)/(x/t)*delta(x)*delta(p) hbar.
Or rearranging, (t/x)*delta(x)*(x/t)*delta(p) hbar.
Substituting, we get delta(t/x*x)*delta(p*x/t) hbar.
Simplifying, we get delta(t)*delta(E) hbar, where E is
the uncertainty in energy. Over a period delta(t) the
energy is uncertain by delta(E). The shorter delta(t) is,
the larger delta(E) is. For very short delta(t), delta(E)
can be 90 GeV, or large enough to produce W particles, for
a very short time (delta(t)). And since nothing can get very
far in such a small delta(t), the virtual W can't get very
far before it must cease to exist, thus the weak force is
extremely short-ranged.

Quantum Mechanics 101 lesson over.


--
-Mike

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

here is my sixth postulate:

'A messenger in physics, cannot be bigger or stronger
than the entity that sent it'

This isn't a postulate so much as trying to apply macroscopic
physics to quantum mechanics, which doesn't work.
Macroscopically it does, if you think of the 'entity' as a
person carrying baseballs and the 'messenger' as the baseballs.
-----------------
thank you Moroney for your lesson (realy thanks - no cynisism!)
anyway
did it occured to you that even you can get some lessons
from a 'nobody' ?
the fact that there is a differnce between microcosm
and macrocosm is not new for me
if you dont mind i am in a way a leader of that knowledge:
my model in which there is no orbiting of the electron
is a corner stone in my Model, and i preach it for at least
7 years on that ng.
another thing that i preach as well and you dont internalise is
that in a heavy element, the number of protons, is not the number
of electrons
and parallel to your acusation that i dont learn, i assume
you will never leren that as well
so in short you cant acuse me as being retarded in ability
to learn somerthing new.
no to the uncertainty principle:
i have some news for you:
there are issues in physics, that come *before* the uncertainty principle
is for instance : conservation of energy!!! and matter !!!.
noting can be born bigger from something that is smaller.
not for a nano second and not for a nano nano nano second.
can you stick it to your mind ??
its time to say it loud and clear:
it is imposibble that anything in physics that is unexplained
will be explained by the uncertainly principle !!!
now what is the trick in those ex[planations:
sort of : since we cant know : therefore it is *as i suggest*
with such an approach you can attach your mother in law to the nucleid.
---
anyway nothing will do to 'your theory' of the W
(ok we know it is not your oersonal baby - you are just parroting)
another anyway:
prove it in experiments but not those ones that are
nothing to do with the nucleid (ie electron possitron collision
or something alike
find it while knocking off a nucleid!!
and dont give us ( and again not only you personaly- its not your
personal baby)
so dont give us a pile of explanations why it cant be done
by knoking the nucleid, we dont what excuss we whant direct
experiments.

now comes my main point:
it is a prediction with a lot of money saving involved in it!!
you will never get a w bosson from a nucleid!
do you know why?
because the W is a fairy tail.
bound to my sixth postulation:
a messenger can never be bit is a nonmstarterigger or stronger than the netity
that sent it
(not for a second, neither for a nano nano nano second)
it is a nonstarter, it cannot even be born.by defnition
and by basic physics logic that comes before mathematics junglairing.
(lesson No 10 in physics).
all the best
Y.Porat
-----------------

(ghytrfvbnmju7654) wrote in message m...
(Y.Porat) wrote in message . com...
"Brian Gaff" wrote in message ...
"Y.Porat" wrote in message
om...
| here is my sixth postulate:
|
| 'A messenger in physics, cannot be bigger or stronger
| than the entity that sent it'
|
| a little comment:
| i hope it is obvious why, and what for and against what
| i coined that postulate.
|
| TIA for your comments
| all the best
| Y.Porat
| ---------------------
Ah, so this is why Pavaroti does not sing about Physics then...:-)

Sorry, I have a daft sense of humour sometimes...

Brian

Email:
_
----------------
btw sometimes i have some (poor( semse of humour as well
but i am doing my best to hide it, especially on the ng
(it does not look 'respectful and appropriately fitting' serious scince.

actually i stater to type that postulate by saing:
any messenger ........
but than i realised just like you that in everyday life it is often
that the messenger is actually much stronger than the sender
(a lot in politics, commerce crime world etc etc)
so i added imediately: 'in physics'
anyway
do you get my physics meaning ?
does it look convicing to you?does it look a right postulate?
TIA
Y.Porat
----------------

This is science. Your postulate will be convincing if
and only if you have experimental data to back it up.
-----------
i agree about the roll of experiments
but dont forget it while supporting 'the opposite side'-
untill now they never did a real convincing true experiment.
all the best
Y.porat
--------------