On Feb 9, 12:11*am, "Y.Porat" wrote:
On Feb 7, 9:23*am, "Autymn D. C." wrote:

Motes eat. *Shut up, Porat.

Deuterium's and americium's nucleòns are heavier than iron's and
nickel's nucleòns.

Silicon's and carbon's charges are heavier than silica's and carba's
charges.

Protòn's and neutròn's quarks are heavier than piòn's and kaòn's
quarks--if one gave them antiprotòn and antineutròn, they will happily
decay intom the latter pairs, and then leptòns and neutrinos which are
even leihter.

-Aut

-------------------
it is eather me or you that are idiots

i was not talking about elements born from each other
i was talking about :

FORCE MESSENGERS!!
*so i appligize if i was nor clear enough

so
no **force messenger** can be bigger than its mother
(that * * sent it *as a messenger)
iow
no ****en Boson can be 90 times bigger than say
a Proton that sent it to attract anything

i hope i made myself clearer now
as celar as the sun at the midd day

that only idiots *and mathematicians that
consider themselves physicists * *cannot see it

A quark nor nucleòn is not a bosòn.

The heaviest bosòns, Z\0 and W±, obviosely don't come from baruòns at
rest. So your complaint is a strawman.

On Feb 9, 4:26*pm, "Autymn D. C." wrote:
On Feb 9, 12:11*am, "Y.Porat" wrote:





On Feb 7, 9:23*am, "Autymn D. C." wrote:

Motes eat. *Shut up, Porat.

Deuterium's and americium's nucleòns are heavier than iron's and
nickel's nucleòns.

Silicon's and carbon's charges are heavier than silica's and carba's
charges.

Protòn's and neutròn's quarks are heavier than piòn's and kaòn's
quarks--if one gave them antiprotòn and antineutròn, they will happily
decay intom the latter pairs, and then leptòns and neutrinos which are
even leihter.

-Aut

-------------------
it is eather me or you that are idiots

i was not talking about elements born from each other
i was talking about :

FORCE MESSENGERS!!
*so i appligize if i was nor clear enough

so
no **force messenger** can be bigger than its mother
(that * * sent it *as a messenger)
iow
no ****en Boson can be 90 times bigger than say
a Proton that sent it to attract anything

i hope i made myself clearer now
as celar as the sun at the midd day

that only idiots *and mathematicians that
consider themselves physicists * *cannot see it

A quark nor nucleòn is not a bosòn.

The heaviest bosòns, Z\0 and W±, obviosely don't come from baruòns at
rest. *So your complaint is a strawman.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

---------------------
so ??

those bosons come from what ??

did you ever found them in their ****natural envirinment****?

or may bwe in a huge accelerator -** that has nothing to do **with
Protons or neutrons ??

2
i am not complaining
you shoud complain that you are parrotong about something
that has nothing to do with any attraction force
except the connection with crooks and suckers ...

Y.P
------------------------------------

On Feb 9, 10:17*am, "Y.Porat" wrote:
On Feb 9, 4:26*pm, "Autymn D. C." wrote:





On Feb 9, 12:11*am, "Y.Porat" wrote:

On Feb 7, 9:23*am, "Autymn D. C." wrote:

Motes eat. *Shut up, Porat.

Deuterium's and americium's nucleòns are heavier than iron's and
nickel's nucleòns.

Silicon's and carbon's charges are heavier than silica's and carba's
charges.

Protòn's and neutròn's quarks are heavier than piòn's and kaòn's
quarks--if one gave them antiprotòn and antineutròn, they will happily
decay intom the latter pairs, and then leptòns and neutrinos which are
even leihter.

-Aut

-------------------
it is eather me or you that are idiots

i was not talking about elements born from each other
i was talking about :

FORCE MESSENGERS!!
*so i appligize if i was nor clear enough

so
no **force messenger** can be bigger than its mother
(that * * sent it *as a messenger)
iow
no ****en Boson can be 90 times bigger than say
a Proton that sent it to attract anything

i hope i made myself clearer now
as celar as the sun at the midd day

that only idiots *and mathematicians that
consider themselves physicists * *cannot see it

A quark nor nucleòn is not a bosòn.

The heaviest bosòns, Z\0 and W±, obviosely don't come from baruòns at
rest. *So your complaint is a strawman.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

---------------------
so ??

*those bosons come from what ??

did you ever found them in their ****natural envirinment****?

or may bwe in a huge accelerator -** that has nothing to do **with
Protons or neutrons ??

2
i am not complaining
you shoud complain that you are parrotong about something
that has nothing to do with any attraction force
except the connection with *crooks and suckers ...

Y.P
------------------------------------- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

The electro-magnetic force cannot be used as an explanation for why
electrons are held away from the nucleus. Shells are the explanation
but they are not anything physical that we understand. The physicality
of a shell goes undefined.

Mitch Raemsch Twice Nobel Laureate 2008

On Feb 5, 4:09*am, Tom Roberts wrote:
Every Feynman diagram represents a specific INTEGRAL. In the QFT to
which the diagram belongs there is a 1-to-1 mapping between components
of the diagram and terms in the integral. For instance, in QED the
squiggly line corresponding to a photon corresponds to a term
p_slash/p^2; an electron-electron-photon vertex corresponds to
\integral d^3p/E delta^4(p1+p2+p3) \alpha; etc.

One can, in fact, do the same thing in Newtonian theory. And it's
helpful to do the exercise to get a proper understanding of what the
Feynman integral ACTUALLY represents.

Here, in Newtonian dynamics, the Wigner class that represents the
exchange of momentum is the mass 0, infinite velocity representation
(i.e., the representation of the un-central-charged 10-parameter
Galilean group). It doesn't have a name, as far as I know, hence I
christened it the "synchron".

It has 2 interesting features that reveal a lot about the
corresponding analogues in relativistic field theory. One, it has 0
mass (because the central charge is 0) and non-zero momentum; hence
infinite velocity. Thus, it is characterized as a transfer of impulse
over a distance -- i.e., a fundamental "action-at-a-distance" mode.
Two, the little group -- unlike the little group for massive Galilean
modes which is Heisenberg X SO(3) -- here, is something rather
different that, among other things, includes a Heisenberg pair {T,t}
for kinetic energy and time. It has a time operator "t" representing
the "time of impulse". There is, thus, a Heisenberg uncertainty for
this Wigner class for energy-time.

These modes mediate the Coulomb part of the force, whether the force
be gravity or electricity.

Now ... in relativistic dynamics, the analogous mode is still an
instantaneous-impulse mode. However, since synchronization is relative
in SR, when transforming away from its "synchron" infinite-velocity
frame, it will appear as a "particle" moving faster than light; i.e.,
a tachyon.

Usually, this is represented as an imaginary mass mode. This is wrong.
It's not imaginary mass, but real momentum. The momentum P is that
associated with the impulse and is its momentum in its infinite
velocity frame. This plays the analogue of a rest frame.

The momentum is p = Pv/(V^2 - c^2)^{1/2}, its kinetic energy is T =
Pc^2/(V^2 - c^2)^{1/2}.

Whereas for the massive Wigner modes, {H,t} form a classical pair,
with t a classical parameter; for these modes, it's {p_x, x}, x is the
parameter; where x is parallel to the direction of transfer.
Consequently, when factoring out the (2nd class) constraint
corresponding to {p_x,x} = 0, one obtains a Dirac bracket. This is
essentially what you see in the denominator of the integrand for the
Feynman diaram.

These "photons" are actually the relativistic versions of the synchron
action-at-a-distance modes. It's not really appropriate to think of
them as photons. Photons are associated with the free (radiative) 1/r
part of the field, not the Coulomb 1/r^2 part.

It should, in fact, be possible to integrate a physics of tachyons
into a consistent interpretation of the modes represented by the
Feynman diagrams. Instead of being treated as "exotic particles"
they're simply equated to the carriers of the Coulomb part of the
respective field.

An interesting exercise, by the way -- not entirely related to the
above discussion, but maybe helping to shed some further light on
matters -- would be to take the above formulae for momentum and
kinetic energy and work out the classical dynamics for an interacting
charged tachyon. The result will NOT produce the "widely-known"
infinite cascade of energy for charged tachyons. Rather, what happens
is that in a static field, the worldline tends toward orthogonal with
respect to the time-like Killing vector of the field. The energy
radiated away is just the (finite) kinetic energy, and the mode tends
toward a synchron. The relevant dynamics for a tachyon with charge e
would be:
dp/dt = e(E + V x B), dT/dt = eV.B.

You get interesting results, working this out for a static 1/r^2
field. There is no infinite catastrophe anywhere. But the dynamics are
highly non-trivial, even for attractive force centers. In effect, this
is the tachyonic sector of the Kepler problem.

On Feb 10, 12:15*am, wrote:
On Feb 9, 10:17*am, "Y.Porat" wrote:





On Feb 9, 4:26*pm, "Autymn D. C." wrote:

On Feb 9, 12:11*am, "Y.Porat" wrote:

On Feb 7, 9:23*am, "Autymn D. C." wrote:

Motes eat. *Shut up, Porat.

Deuterium's and americium's nucleòns are heavier than iron's and
nickel's nucleòns.

Silicon's and carbon's charges are heavier than silica's and carba's
charges.

Protòn's and neutròn's quarks are heavier than piòn's and kaòn's
quarks--if one gave them antiprotòn and antineutròn, they will happily
decay intom the latter pairs, and then leptòns and neutrinos which are
even leihter.

-Aut

-------------------
it is eather me or you that are idiots

i was not talking about elements born from each other
i was talking about :

FORCE MESSENGERS!!
*so i appligize if i was nor clear enough

so
no **force messenger** can be bigger than its mother
(that * * sent it *as a messenger)
iow
no ****en Boson can be 90 times bigger than say
a Proton that sent it to attract anything

i hope i made myself clearer now
as celar as the sun at the midd day

that only idiots *and mathematicians that
consider themselves physicists * *cannot see it

A quark nor nucleòn is not a bosòn.

The heaviest bosòns, Z\0 and W±, obviosely don't come from baruòns at
rest. *So your complaint is a strawman.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

---------------------
so ??

*those bosons come from what ??

did you ever found them in their ****natural envirinment****?

or may bwe in a huge accelerator -** that has nothing to do **with
Protons or neutrons ??

2
i am not complaining
you shoud complain that you are parrotong about something
that has nothing to do with any attraction force
except the connection with *crooks and suckers ...

Y.P
------------------------------------- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

The electro-magnetic force cannot be used as an explanation for why
electrons are held away from the nucleus. Shells are the explanation
but they are not anything physical that we understand. The physicality
of a shell goes undefined.

Mitch Raemsch Twice Nobel Laureate 2008- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

-------------------
right!!

so as a result of it
physicists are parrotoing 82 electrons for say
the Lead Atom (noone more noone less !!)

the second major result
no chance whatsoever for further advance !!

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

On Feb 10, 12:15*pm, Rock Brentwood wrote:
On Feb 5, 4:09*am, Tom Roberts wrote:

Every Feynman diagram represents a specific INTEGRAL. In the QFT to
which the diagram belongs there is a 1-to-1 mapping between components
of the diagram and terms in the integral. For instance, in QED the
squiggly line corresponding to a photon corresponds to a It has 2 interesting features that reveal a lot about the
corresponding analogues in relativistic field theory. One, it has 0
mass (because the central charge is 0) and non-zero momentum; hence
infinite velocity. Thus, it is characterized as a transfer of impulse
over a distance --
---------------------
zero mass

with nonzero momentum !!!!!!!

with infinit velocity ''

(:-)

will there be no end to crookedness and stupidity!!?

and what else are those ****en mathematicians
are going tp feed us ??
with no one blinking an eye ??!!

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

On Feb 9, 2:15*pm, wrote:
The electro-magnetic force cannot be used as an explanation for why
electrons are held away from the nucleus. Shells are the explanation
but they are not anything physical that we understand. The physicality
of a shell goes undefined.

Bull****--it's not dedefined. The shells are equipotential
supersurfaces of quasiplanar orbits which behave otherwise as regular
macroscopic orbits of heavenly bodies but under a nonsaturated
elèctric potential. The s-shell elèctròn dives intom the nucleus; the
p-shell and further elèctròns make whorls about the nucleus as in a
spirograph, where the p-shell is commensurate with the linear
polarisation in a dipolar antenna. These whorls would also be
apparent in gravital orbits if their gravitomagnetic (a misnomer in
itself) potential were as strong in relation to their bodies' size.
Indeed, the planets do whorl about [weakly] over thousands of years by
libration and nutation from outside and inside tidal forses. In a
many-body sustem, Kepler's law of planar orbits goes out the window.

-Aut

On Feb 9, 10:17*am, "Y.Porat" wrote:
On Feb 9, 4:26*pm, "Autymn D. C." wrote:
On Feb 9, 12:11*am, "Y.Porat" wrote:
it is eather me or you that are idiots

i was not talking about elements born from each other
i was talking about :

FORCE MESSENGERS!!
*so i appligize if i was nor clear enough

so
no **force messenger** can be bigger than its mother
(that * * sent it *as a messenger)
iow
no ****en Boson can be 90 times bigger than say
a Proton that sent it to attract anything

i hope i made myself clearer now
as celar as the sun at the midd day

that only idiots *and mathematicians that
consider themselves physicists * *cannot see it

A quark nor nucleòn is not a bosòn.

The heaviest bosòns, Z\0 and W±, obviosely don't come from baruòns at
rest. *So your complaint is a strawman.

*those bosons come from what ??

did you ever found them in their ****natural envirinment****?

"did.. found" is illiterate gibberish
Why--do you find chickens and poodles in their natural environment?

or may bwe in a huge accelerator -** that has nothing to do **with
Protons or neutrons ??

how nothing? They start with protòns so they can't not end with
nucleonics. The W\± and Z\0 are transitions between heavier quarks;
the mass-energy is already there. For leihter particula, they are
only virtual bosòns--that is, subintegral quanta which conserve kemic
reactions by mathematic loops between forbidden regions of action.

2
i am not complaining
No, you're not a gerund.
you shoud complain that you are parrotong about something
that has nothing to do with any attraction force
except the connection with *crooks and suckers ...

Yet you still cannot prove tham. I already told you how to attract
with beachball-like tosses. And in my other posts I proved thas motes
are nearly-infinitely big, so their field can grab other fields in any
direction and extent, which is unlike your analog of two neutral
bodies and two hupervolic ejecta which can't even be attracted to
former bodies. That is, you use a circular argument to deny
attraction of the former by denire the attraction of the latter.

-Aut