On Feb 26, 1:51*am, higis wrote:
On Feb 25, 9:20*pm, wrote:





On 25 fév, 01:50, higis wrote:

On Feb 25, 2:20 pm, wrote:

On 25 fév, 00:12, higis wrote:

On Feb 25, 11:44 am, wrote:

On 24 fév, 20:03, higis wrote:

On Feb 25, 8:20 am, Sam Wormley wrote:

higis wrote:
The term binding energy is not so intuitive, isn't it.
no more be summarize
in a few sentences than SR and GR can.

But regarding your specific question as to why, if
you separate a helium atom into two hydrogens,
then the mass of the 2 separate hydrogens


emitted in altitude.

As for separating helium into 2 hydrogen,
this simply is the most extreme case of
the series. You have 4 tightly packed nucleons
each charged quark of which is pulling each
opposite charge quark of the three other
triads at close range, slackening rather
strongly their translation diameter,
thus diminishing their mass.

So this is your explanation of binding energy.
Hmm...

Not really. I can only present this out of
context since the pertaining model cannot
be put in perspective in a few sentences.

It's like talking about space and time dilation
without explaining SR first.

In the 3 spaces model, there is binding force
involved, not binding energy.

What is your explanation why matter has
wave like properties? Heisenberg Uncertainty
Principle is a consequence of it. If matter is
pure wave, the wave is everwhere and so
there is no definite location, but if the wave
or momentum has a range of values that
is within the observed limit, there is a
corresponding range in the position since
the only way to localize a wave is to fourier
them. This is all common sense. What is
wrong with it?

If not, what are their counterarguments?

Simple. Their counterargument is that
I am a crackpot. Very scientific.

What
the mainstream is saying is that in bound
system, the potential energy is lower so
there is lower mass. But in your case, you
are explaining it in a mechanical way. About
the quarks. If you were a neutron in the outer
edge of the nucleus. You ould only feel the
strong force from the nearer neutron and
proton and not from the other proton/neuron
on the other side, isn't it?

Not so. Electrostatic interaction is in permanent
action as a function of the inverse square law
of the distance between all pairs of charged
What you call the strong force is a just a
Copenhagen school interpretation of the
electrostatic force acting at close range.

You put similar charge particles close to one
another, they repel. So to counter the similar
charged protons in the nucleus from literally
exploding outward, the strong force being
strong bind them. How can your electrostatic
force do the same trick?


It simply is an extension of Maxwell's theory
modified with a disregarded de Broglie theory
that allows applying Maxwell to localized
moving particles.

André Michaud

Separate them and the separate triads
will of course tighten their orbits, increasing
their mass.

Highest mass for all atoms can be reached
only for very small amounts of matter located
far in space from any large accumulations
(planets).

André Michaud


- Show quoted text -

-----------------
matter is mass in movement as well
(as energy )
the movement is **intrinsic* so you cant notice it*
now if 'intrinsic' it must beinj circular movement

if ir is shot out of the big mass (hosting it)
it still moves in a combined movement
a hellix movement

and that explaines your 'wave like' behaviour !!

2
the fact tyhat we cannot locate exactly the position of subaprticles
that makes light
is not natures fault
it is ouer fault!
our tools fault
3
the hesenberg principle is again a result of our tools
not nature reality
innature
each pieace of matter has isjust one unequivocal
location
it is the subjestiove of us and out limitation
that makes that uncertainty !!!!
not natuers rule
'nature knowes exacly' at each moment
wher is each peace of its '*belongings '
(or else it would not be at all !!! it is a physical *fact* )
difficult to understand that simple logic ??


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

On Feb 26, 2:25*am, "Y.Porat" wrote:
On Feb 26, 1:51*am, higis wrote:



On Feb 25, 9:20*pm, wrote:

On 25 fév, 01:50, higis wrote:

On Feb 25, 2:20 pm, wrote:

On 25 fév, 00:12, higis wrote:

On Feb 25, 11:44 am, wrote:

On 24 fév, 20:03, higis wrote:

On Feb 25, 8:20 am, Sam Wormley wrote:

higis wrote:
The term binding energy is not so intuitive, isn't it.
no more be summarize
in a few sentences than SR and GR can.

But regarding your specific question as to why, if
you separate a helium atom into two hydrogens,
then the mass of the 2 separate hydrogens

emitted in altitude.

As for separating helium into 2 hydrogen,
this simply is the most extreme case of
the series. You have 4 tightly packed nucleons
each charged quark of which is pulling each
opposite charge quark of the three other
triads at close range, slackening rather
strongly their translation diameter,
thus diminishing their mass.

So this is your explanation of binding energy.
Hmm...

Not really. I can only present this out of
context since the pertaining model cannot
be put in perspective in a few sentences.

It's like talking about space and time dilation
without explaining SR first.

In the 3 spaces model, there is binding force
involved, not binding energy.

* What is your explanation why matter has





wave like properties? Heisenberg Uncertainty
Principle is a consequence of it. If matter is
pure wave, the wave is everwhere and so
there is no definite location, but if the wave
or momentum has a range of values that
is within the observed limit, there is a
corresponding range in the position since
the only way to localize a wave is to fourier
them. This is all common sense. What is
wrong with it?

If not, what are their counterarguments?

Simple. Their counterargument is that
I am a crackpot. Very scientific.

What
the mainstream is saying is that in bound
system, the potential energy is lower so
there is lower mass. But in your case, you
are explaining it in a mechanical way. About
the quarks. If you were a neutron in the outer
edge of the nucleus. You ould only feel the
strong force from the nearer neutron and
proton and not from the other proton/neuron
on the other side, isn't it?

Not so. Electrostatic interaction is in permanent
action as a function of the inverse square law
of the distance between all pairs of charged
* What you call the strong force is a just a
Copenhagen school interpretation of the
electrostatic force acting at close range.

You put similar charge particles close to one
another, they repel. So to counter the similar
charged protons in the nucleus from literally
exploding outward, the strong force being
strong bind them. How can your electrostatic
force do the same trick?

It simply is an extension of Maxwell's theory
modified with a disregarded de Broglie theory
that allows applying Maxwell to localized
moving particles.

André Michaud

Separate them and the separate triads
will of course tighten their orbits, increasing
their mass.

Highest mass for all atoms can be reached
only for very small amounts of matter located
far in space from any large accumulations
(planets).

André Michaud

- Show quoted text -

-----------------
matter is mass in movement as well
(as energy )
the movement is **intrinsic* so you cant notice it*
now if 'intrinsic' it must beinj circular movement

if ir is shot out of the big mass (hosting it)
it still moves in a combined movement
a hellix movement

and that explaines your 'wave like' behaviour !!

2
the fact tyhat we cannot locate exactly the position of subaprticles
that makes light
is not natures fault
it is ouer fault!
our tools fault
3
the hesenberg principle is again a result of our tools
not nature reality
innature
each pieace of matter has isjust one unequivocal
location
it is the subjestiove of us and out limitation
that makes that uncertainty !!!!
not natuers rule
'nature knowes exacly' * at each moment
wher is each peace of its '*belongings '
(or else it would not be at all !!! it is a physical *fact* )
difficult to understand that simple logic ??

ATB
Y.Porat
----------------------------- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

xxein: True. But get rid of the helix.

"xxein" wrote in message
...
On Feb 26, 2:25 am, "Y.Porat" wrote:
On Feb 26, 1:51 am, higis wrote:



On Feb 25, 9:20 pm, wrote:

On 25 fév, 01:50, higis wrote:

On Feb 25, 2:20 pm, wrote:

On 25 fév, 00:12, higis wrote:

On Feb 25, 11:44 am, wrote:

On 24 fév, 20:03, higis wrote:

On Feb 25, 8:20 am, Sam Wormley wrote:

higis wrote:
The term binding energy is not so intuitive, isn't it.
no more be summarize
in a few sentences than SR and GR can.

But regarding your specific question as to why, if
you separate a helium atom into two hydrogens,
then the mass of the 2 separate hydrogens

emitted in altitude.

As for separating helium into 2 hydrogen,
this simply is the most extreme case of
the series. You have 4 tightly packed nucleons
each charged quark of which is pulling each
opposite charge quark of the three other
triads at close range, slackening rather
strongly their translation diameter,
thus diminishing their mass.

So this is your explanation of binding energy.
Hmm...

Not really. I can only present this out of
context since the pertaining model cannot
be put in perspective in a few sentences.

It's like talking about space and time dilation
without explaining SR first.

In the 3 spaces model, there is binding force
involved, not binding energy.

What is your explanation why matter has





wave like properties? Heisenberg Uncertainty
Principle is a consequence of it. If matter is
pure wave, the wave is everwhere and so
there is no definite location, but if the wave
or momentum has a range of values that
is within the observed limit, there is a
corresponding range in the position since
the only way to localize a wave is to fourier
them. This is all common sense. What is
wrong with it?

If not, what are their counterarguments?

Simple. Their counterargument is that
I am a crackpot. Very scientific.

What
the mainstream is saying is that in bound
system, the potential energy is lower so
there is lower mass. But in your case, you
are explaining it in a mechanical way. About
the quarks. If you were a neutron in the outer
edge of the nucleus. You ould only feel the
strong force from the nearer neutron and
proton and not from the other proton/neuron
on the other side, isn't it?

Not so. Electrostatic interaction is in permanent
action as a function of the inverse square law
of the distance between all pairs of charged
What you call the strong force is a just a
Copenhagen school interpretation of the
electrostatic force acting at close range.

You put similar charge particles close to one
another, they repel. So to counter the similar
charged protons in the nucleus from literally
exploding outward, the strong force being
strong bind them. How can your electrostatic
force do the same trick?

It simply is an extension of Maxwell's theory
modified with a disregarded de Broglie theory
that allows applying Maxwell to localized
moving particles.

André Michaud

Separate them and the separate triads
will of course tighten their orbits, increasing
their mass.

Highest mass for all atoms can be reached
only for very small amounts of matter located
far in space from any large accumulations
(planets).

André Michaud

- Show quoted text -

-----------------
matter is mass in movement as well
(as energy )
the movement is **intrinsic* so you cant notice it*
now if 'intrinsic' it must beinj circular movement

if ir is shot out of the big mass (hosting it)
it still moves in a combined movement
a hellix movement

and that explaines your 'wave like' behaviour !!

2
the fact tyhat we cannot locate exactly the position of subaprticles
that makes light
is not natures fault
it is ouer fault!
our tools fault
3
the hesenberg principle is again a result of our tools
not nature reality
innature
each pieace of matter has isjust one unequivocal
location
it is the subjestiove of us and out limitation
that makes that uncertainty !!!!
not natuers rule
'nature knowes exacly' at each moment
wher is each peace of its '*belongings '
(or else it would not be at all !!! it is a physical *fact* )
difficult to understand that simple logic ??

ATB
Y.Porat
----------------------------- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

| xxein: True. But get rid of the helix.

Geez you stupid ****.

On Feb 27, 2:31*am, xxein wrote:
On Feb 26, 2:25*am, "Y.Porat" wrote:





On Feb 26, 1:51*am, higis wrote:

On Feb 25, 9:20*pm, wrote:

On 25 fév, 01:50, higis wrote:

On Feb 25, 2:20 pm, wrote:

On 25 fév, 00:12, higis wrote:

On Feb 25, 11:44 am, wrote:

On 24 fév, 20:03, higis wrote:

On Feb 25, 8:20 am, Sam Wormley wrote:

higis wrote:
The term binding energy is not so intuitive, isn't it.
no more be summarize
in a few sentences than SR and GR can.

But regarding your specific question as to why, if
you separate a helium atom into two hydrogens,
then the mass of the 2 separate hydrogens

emitted in altitude.

As for separating helium into 2 hydrogen,
this simply is the most extreme case of
the series. You have 4 tightly packed nucleons
each charged quark of which is pulling each
opposite charge quark of the three other
triads at close range, slackening rather
strongly their translation diameter,
thus diminishing their mass.

So this is your explanation of binding energy.
Hmm...

Not really. I can only present this out of
context since the pertaining model cannot
be put in perspective in a few sentences.

It's like talking about space and time dilation
without explaining SR first.

In the 3 spaces model, there is binding force
involved, not binding energy.

* What is your explanation why matter has

wave like properties? Heisenberg Uncertainty
Principle is a consequence of it. If matter is
pure wave, the wave is everwhere and so
there is no definite location, but if the wave
or momentum has a range of values that
is within the observed limit, there is a
corresponding range in the position since
the only way to localize a wave is to fourier
them. This is all common sense. What is
wrong with it?

If not, what are their counterarguments?

Simple. Their counterargument is that
I am a crackpot. Very scientific.

What
the mainstream is saying is that in bound
system, the potential energy is lower so
there is lower mass. But in your case, you
are explaining it in a mechanical way. About
the quarks. If you were a neutron in the outer
edge of the nucleus. You ould only feel the
strong force from the nearer neutron and
proton and not from the other proton/neuron
on the other side, isn't it?

Not so. Electrostatic interaction is in permanent
action as a function of the inverse square law
of the distance between all pairs of charged
* What you call the strong force is a just a
Copenhagen school interpretation of the
electrostatic force acting at close range.

You put similar charge particles close to one
another, they repel. So to counter the similar
charged protons in the nucleus from literally
exploding outward, the strong force being
strong bind them. How can your electrostatic
force do the same trick?

It simply is an extension of Maxwell's theory
modified with a disregarded de Broglie theory
that allows applying Maxwell to localized
moving particles.

André Michaud

Separate them and the separate triads
will of course tighten their orbits, increasing
their mass.

Highest mass for all atoms can be reached
only for very small amounts of matter located
far in space from any large accumulations
(planets).

André Michaud

- Show quoted text -

-----------------
matter is mass in movement as well
(as energy )
the movement is **intrinsic* so you cant notice it*
now if 'intrinsic' it must beinj circular movement

if ir is shot out of the big mass (hosting it)
it still moves in a combined movement
a hellix movement

and that explaines your 'wave like' behaviour !!

2
the fact tyhat we cannot locate exactly the position of subaprticles
that makes light
is not natures fault
it is ouer fault!
our tools fault
3
the hesenberg principle is again a result of our tools
not nature reality
innature
each pieace of matter has isjust one unequivocal
location
it is the subjestiove of us and out limitation
that makes that uncertainty !!!!
not natuers rule
'nature knowes exacly' * at each moment
wher is each peace of its '*belongings '
(or else it would not be at all !!! it is a physical *fact* )
difficult to understand that simple logic ??

ATB
Y.Porat
----------------------------- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

xxein: *True. *But get rid of the helix.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

----------------
do you have a better suggestion ????

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