| Topic: |
Science > Physics |
| User: |
"Autymn D. C." |
| Date: |
16 Apr 2007 03:38:56 PM |
| Object: |
Elements Z=100, 150, 200, 500, 900 and beyond |
It is a scientific lige that the nuclear interactions havh a limited
range of femtometrs. Althouh the carrier quanta are massive, as
quarkonia, these are excited compounds of massles glu=F2ns which hav
infinite range.
The overheavy nuclei are radioactive because it is more favorabil, by
=E8nthalpy and =E8ntr=F2py, to splittan and shufflan--disproportionare--into
two nuclei with better lone fours of alfa and alfonic compounds. When
these two nuclea sunder, it is not that at their separation the
nuclear forses (where se is the Latin letter|staffr seo|shoe) drop tom
nouht, but their heat of formation is greatter than their binding
potential such that their paths are certainly huperv=F2lic.
(The first step in makan a Maxwell's demon or a time makine is to get
rid of huperv=F2lics.
the quantum heat pump and reversibility: http://egroups.com/message/free_en=
ergy/19651.)
Note that the lifetime of any--any--nucleus is not 0 (nouht). Also
note that there is a wide gap between the shortestly-metastabil
resonant lifetimes of microseconds and the unscreened nuclear
transitions of zeptoseconds. The binding =E8n=E8rjy of any nucle=F2n, no
matter how heavy, never reaches 0:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Binding_energy#Measuring_the_binding_energy.
Thus, the quarks are still stronger than prot=F2ns. However, that these
"atoms" split at all is proof that the binding =E8n=E8rjy and its
attendant forse is a spatial-temporal average; the nuclea are
strongest insidere and weakkest outsidere. Thus, like a volatil
nonpolar liquor, its top peels and seethes away.
Well, don't yae sit there and look stunny whil it happens. What would
you do to keep a hot chunk of dear equipment whole? Or what does one
do tom a stew on the stove? Some stews do this on their own.
The answer: convect! (The corollary informercial line: convect to
protect!) One must forse-convect the outter layers of the nucleus
inward so the inner nuclea can share their bondstrength. Do this in a
UV-bath--the overheavy nuclei havh excitations as littel as
ultraviolet, Bilge can tell you. This stirring must be dode without
any catastr=F2fic burps; thus, I suggestd that the longer lifetimes must
be found in chilled nuclides: http://google.com/groups?q=3DAutymn+5-meV.
Which leeds to superconductors: If their meta states can self-sustain
magnetic moments, they will stir themselvs intom immortality. O, and
we'll need the superconductor to suppress outtunnelling.
http://google.com/groups?q=3Dnuclear-superconductivity
http://google.com/groups?q=3DAutymn+light-saber
a precedent: http://google.com/search?q=3Dsuppresses-radioactive-decay
I hintd at all this in my seminal rough online essay "Making Stargate
a Reality", where instead I calld this superconvection the electroweak
field. For /its/ precedent was the el=E8ctroremediation and
el=E8ctrotransmutation of nuclear wast: http://egroups.com/message/free_ene=
rgy/6481?source=3D1.
-Aut
.
|
|
| User: "Uncle Al" |
|
| Title: Re: Elements Z=100, 150, 200, 500, 900 and beyond |
16 Apr 2007 05:54:16 PM |
|
|
"Autymn D. C." wrote:
It is a scientific lige that the nuclear interactions havh a limited
range of femtometrs. Althouh the carrier quanta are massive, as
quarkonia, these are excited compounds of massles gluòns which hav
infinite range.
Idiot alert.
The overheavy nuclei are radioactive because it is more favorabil, by
ènthalpy and èntròpy, to splittan and shufflan--disproportionare
[snip rest of crap]
Atomic numbers exceeding the reciprocal Fine Structure Constant will
spark the vacuum and inverse beta-decay. You can take that to second
order and not get much higher Z.
--
Uncle Al
http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/
(Toxic URL! Unsafe for children and most mammals)
http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/lajos.htm#a2
.
|
|
|
| User: "Androcles" |
|
| Title: Re: Elements Z=100, 150, 200, 500, 900 and beyond |
16 Apr 2007 06:15:57 PM |
|
|
"Uncle Al" <UncleAl0@hate.spam.net> wrote in message =
news:4623FE98.E915F54D@hate.spam.net...
{snip river of *****}
Picking on the puppies, cowardly fuckhead?
Stand up like a man and take your licking, pygmy.
Naw... you don't have the cajones.
http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/GPS/GPS.htm
http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/Morons/UncleStooopid.htm
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Tux Wonder-Dog" |
|
| Title: Re: Elements Z=100, 150, 200, 500, 900 and beyond |
17 Apr 2007 05:47:25 AM |
|
|
Autymn D. C. wrote:
It is a scientific lige that the nuclear interactions havh a limited
range of femtometrs. Althouh the carrier quanta are massive, as
quarkonia, these are excited compounds of massles gluòns which hav
infinite range.
<snip>
-Aut
This rant has all the features of an artfully-constructed travesty, intended
to cause outrage and outbursts.
Don't feed the troll (or trollette).
.
|
|
|
| User: "Autymn D. C." |
|
| Title: Re: Elements Z=100, 150, 200, 500, 900 and beyond |
17 Apr 2007 08:51:24 AM |
|
|
On Apr 17, 3:47 am, Tux Wonder-Dog <wes.par...@paradise.net.nz> wrote:
Autymn D. C. wrote:
It is a scientific lige that the nuclear interactions havh a limited
range of femtometrs. Althouh the carrier quanta are massive, as
quarkonia, these are excited compounds of massles glu=F2ns which hav
infinite range.
<snip>
-Aut
This rant has all the features of an artfully-constructed travesty, inten=
ded
to cause outrage and outbursts.
Don't feed the troll (or trollette).
I am not a troll, trolla, or trolle, cretin.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Autymn D. C." |
|
| Title: Re: Elements Z=100, 150, 200, 500, 900 and beyond |
17 Apr 2007 09:20:27 AM |
|
|
On Apr 17, 3:47 am, Tux Wonder-Dog <wes.par...@paradise.net.nz> wrote:
Autymn D. C. wrote:
It is a scientific lige that the nuclear interactions havh a limited
range of femtometrs. Althouh the carrier quanta are massive, as
quarkonia, these are excited compounds of massles glu=F2ns which hav
infinite range.
<snip>
-Aut
This rant has all the features of an artfully-constructed travesty, inten=
ded
to cause outrage and outbursts.
Don't feed the troll (or trollette).
I'm not a troll, trolla, or trolle. I don't lige or pretend, either.
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: Elements Z=100, 150, 200, 500, 900 and beyond |
16 Apr 2007 08:11:23 PM |
|
|
On Apr 16, 4:59 pm, "android" <androidx...@gmail.com> wrote:
alright
at first I was surprisedhttp://click.adultsingles.com/partner/click.asp?id=72473&site=ads&typ...
honestly i THINK it's wrong
What's that supposed to be? I'm not joining some damn singles site.
Mark L. Fergerson
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Autymn D. C." |
|
| Title: Re: Elements Z=100, 150, 200, 500, 900 and beyond |
17 Apr 2007 04:05:57 PM |
|
|
On Apr 17, 10:05 am, Uncle Al <Uncle...@hate.spam.net> wrote:
You miss the point. At sufficiently large Z the vacuum spontaneously
sparks into electron-positron pairs from the nuclear electric field.
The electron is captured by the nucleus, a proton inverse-decays into
a neutron (remember electron neutrino emission to balance the books),
and Z decreases. Nuclei with Z much larger than 1/alpha spontaneously
uncreate.
This is *not* analogous to ions like U(91+). That hydrogenic ion has
its electron in a well-defined 1s orbit with a modestly decreased
radius given relativistic mass increase,
m_rel = m_e/sqrt{(1-Z^2/n^2c^2)
That the nucleus be superconductive is forestallun even beta-plus
decay. Unless and until you can show a formula relatont the
Zitterbewegung with the fine structure constant, and a'bringung
Schwinger pair-creation coefficients at the nucleus, your citative-
obviation is not welcome here.
Vacuum decay happens at the surface of the nucleus leading to prompt
electron capture (conservation of energy must be satisfied). In any
case, one could not conceivably introduce enough neutrons into a
hyper-transuranic element fast enough to cross it over the proton drip
line into something with meaningful persistence.
Which is why I proposd the many-body nucleosunthesis:
http://google.com/groups?q=Autymn+neutron-decay. So did someone else
for many-body nucleodiathesis: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ununquadium#Synthesis_of_isotope_298.
And, as I argud that nuclear lifetime is provisional, and is a
function of nuclear temperature and freedom--both of which can be
suppressed, as I like to wray in my contribution to Wikipedia's laser
articul that lasers need no populational inversion to work--it is no
big problem to lengthen those radionuclides by seconds or minuts.
The nucleus is a liquid ball. So is some fraction of the sun,
otherwise it wouldn't hav layers. In a thread on rec.arts.sf.science
it was established that a star couldn't crush all of its fuel intom
He-4 because the fuel floats, and that a blendr could lengthen the
life of the star tenfold:
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.arts.sf.science/browse_frm/thread/ff302ef2f5433245/b39c104208b9de1c.
As it only needs a heat pump, it can be self-powerring.
As media with fortial gradients do not convect unless there is some
fortial-inversion layer, and some gradients are too strong so as to
undergo state-transition, it's no surprise that industry or academia
(you) could not think of puttan my solution tom a model that they
never think existed.
-Aut
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Autymn D. C." |
|
| Title: Re: Elements Z=100, 150, 200, 500, 900 and beyond |
17 Apr 2007 09:45:18 AM |
|
|
On Apr 17, 7:07 am, Uncle Al <Uncle...@hate.spam.net> wrote:
"Autymn D. C." wrote:
On Apr 16, 3:53 pm, Uncle Al <Uncle...@hate.spam.net> wrote:
Idiot alert.
Idiots are better than m=F2r=F2ns like you.
The overheavy nuclei are radioactive because it is more favorabil, =
by
=E8nthalpy and =E8ntr=F2py, to splittan and shufflan--disproportion=
are
[snip rest of crap]
Atomic numbers exceeding the reciprocal Fine Structure Constant will
spark the vacuum and inverse beta-decay. You can take that to second
order and not get much higher Z.
Inverse beta-decay happens in neutr=F2n-poor nuclides, cretin.
Otherwise, they alfa-decay then prota-decay.
The ~137 in the constant is not magic; it applies to H, is classic at
that, and applies tom not much more. You speak out of your arse, as
usual.
Gee, you can speak gutter English if you try. Now try thinking.
And you "think" that neutronium is more likely than a Z>137 atom.
There are already plenty of neutr=F2ns.
The relativistic contractions to the orbitals of overheavy elements go
on indefinitely, and make the fine structure constant more and more
irrelevant. Their sfairic harm=F2nics go on indefinitely as well, so
there is no reason for the same proportional trend of prot=F2ns,
neutr=F2ns, and el=E8ctr=F2ns to be thwarted by a decay that applies only
tom nuclides off the neutronic dripline.
I also proved that black holes, el=E8ctric or gravital or otherwise,
cannot exist: http://google.com/groups?q=3DAutymn+doubt+deathblows.
-Aut
.
|
|
|
| User: "Phineas T Puddleduck" |
|
| Title: Re: Elements Z=100, 150, 200, 500, 900 and beyond |
17 Apr 2007 10:03:27 AM |
|
|
In article <1176821118.306469.199790@y5g2000hsa.googlegroups.com>,
"Autymn D. C." <lysdexia@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
I also proved that black holes, elèctric or gravital or otherwise,
cannot exist: http://google.com/groups?q=Autymn+doubt+deathblows.
Why can't you type electric properly - no diacritical?
--
Got mail? I did ;-) Three and counting.
Got proof? Not yet, still waiting.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Autymn D. C." |
|
| Title: Re: Elements Z=100, 150, 200, 500, 900 and beyond |
17 Apr 2007 10:05:12 AM |
|
|
On Apr 17, 8:03 am, Phineas T Puddleduck <phineaspuddled...@gmail.com>
wrote:
In article <1176821118.306469.199...@y5g2000hsa.googlegroups.com>,
"Autymn D. C." <lysde...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
I also proved that black holes, el=E8ctric or gravital or otherwise,
cannot exist:http://google.com/groups?q=3DAutymn+doubt+deathblows.
Why can't you type electric properly - no diacritical?
I tap el=E8ctric properly, with the diacritic. You do not. And " - "
is not proper punctuation.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Michael Moroney" |
|
| Title: Re: Elements Z=100, 150, 200, 500, 900 and beyond |
17 Apr 2007 10:50:06 AM |
|
|
"Autymn D. C." <lysdexia@sbcglobal.net> writes:
On Apr 17, 8:03 am, Phineas T Puddleduck <phineaspuddled...@gmail.com>
wrote:
In article <1176821118.306469.199...@y5g2000hsa.googlegroups.com>,
"Autymn D. C." <lysde...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
I also proved that black holes, el=E8ctric or gravital or otherwise,
cannot exist:http://google.com/groups?q=3DAutymn+doubt+deathblows.
Why can't you type electric properly - no diacritical?
I tap el=E8ctric properly, with the diacritic. You do not. And " - "
is not proper punctuation.
How could that possibly be spelled properly? English doesn't even have
diacritical marks!
.
|
|
|
| User: "Autymn D. C." |
|
| Title: Re: Elements Z=100, 150, 200, 500, 900 and beyond |
17 Apr 2007 11:59:10 AM |
|
|
On Apr 17, 8:50 am, (Michael Moroney)
wrote:
"Autymn D. C." <lysde...@sbcglobal.net> writes:
On Apr 17, 8:03 am, Phineas T Puddleduck <phineaspuddled...@gmail.com>
wrote:
In article <1176821118.306469.199...@y5g2000hsa.googlegroups.com>,
"Autymn D. C." <lysde...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
I also proved that black holes, el=E8ctric or gravital or otherwise,
cannot exist:http://google.com/groups?q=3DAutymn+doubt+deathblows.
Why can't you type electric properly - no diacritical?
I tap el=E8ctric properly, with the diacritic. You do not. And " - "
is not proper punctuation.
How could that possibly be spelled properly? English doesn't even have
diacritical marks!
It's not English, duoohhey.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Phineas T Puddleduck" |
|
| Title: Re: Elements Z=100, 150, 200, 500, 900 and beyond |
17 Apr 2007 12:01:56 PM |
|
|
In article <1176829150.742585.250600@q75g2000hsh.googlegroups.com>,
"Autymn D. C." <lysdexia@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
How could that possibly be spelled properly? English doesn't even have
diacritical marks!
It's not English, duoohhey.
Then WHAT is it?
--
Got mail? I did ;-) Three and counting.
Got proof? Not yet, still waiting.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Autymn D. C." |
|
| Title: Re: Elements Z=100, 150, 200, 500, 900 and beyond |
17 Apr 2007 12:03:20 PM |
|
|
On Apr 17, 10:01 am, Phineas T Puddleduck
<phineaspuddled...@gmail.com> wrote:
In article <1176829150.742585.250...@q75g2000hsh.googlegroups.com>,
"Autymn D. C." <lysde...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
How could that possibly be spelled properly? English doesn't even ha=
ve
diacritical marks!
It's not English, duoohhey.
Then WHAT is it?
el=E8ctric is Hell=E8nic. Why couldn't you tell?
.
|
|
|
| User: "Michael Moroney" |
|
| Title: Re: Elements Z=100, 150, 200, 500, 900 and beyond |
17 Apr 2007 03:23:58 PM |
|
|
"Autymn D. C." <lysdexia@sbcglobal.net> writes:
On Apr 17, 10:01 am, Phineas T Puddleduck
<phineaspuddled...@gmail.com> wrote:
In article <1176829150.742585.250...@q75g2000hsh.googlegroups.com>,
"Autymn D. C." <lysde...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
How could that possibly be spelled properly? English doesn't even ha=
ve
diacritical marks!
It's not English, duoohhey.
Then WHAT is it?
el=E8ctric is Hell=E8nic. Why couldn't you tell?
'Electric' is English, regardless of the origins of root words.
'Electric' with diacriticals due to Hellenic origins couldn't possibly
be correct, since the Greeks use a completely different alphabet. Why
not claim it should be 'epsilon lambda epsilon kappa....' or whatever it
is? Heck, I bet the Greek word for 'electric' was borrowed back from
English or another Western European language, and not a home-grown word.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Autymn D. C." |
|
| Title: Re: Elements Z=100, 150, 200, 500, 900 and beyond |
17 Apr 2007 04:47:27 PM |
|
|
On Apr 17, 1:23 pm, (Michael Moroney)
wrote:
"Autymn D. C." <lysde...@sbcglobal.net> writes:
On Apr 17, 10:01 am, Phineas T Puddleduck
<phineaspuddled...@gmail.com> wrote:
In article <1176829150.742585.250...@q75g2000hsh.googlegroups.com>,
"Autymn D. C." <lysde...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
How could that possibly be spelled properly? English doesn't even ha=
ve
diacritical marks!
It's not English, duoohhey.
Then WHAT is it?
el=E8ctric is Hell=E8nic. Why couldn't you tell?
'Electric' is English, regardless of the origins of root words.
wrong and delusional
'Electric' with diacriticals due to Hellenic origins couldn't possibly
be correct, since the Greeks use a completely different alphabet. Why
wrong and delusional, not even ae argument--why should it matter what
alfabet a word's in?
not claim it should be 'epsilon lambda epsilon kappa....' or whatever it
is? Heck, I bet the Greek word for 'electric' was borrowed back from
English or another Western European language, and not a home-grown word.
There is no letter kappa; it is cappa. Do not use the k for the c
sound, which is a Duutish idiosey. You bet whit? There is no other
source; the spelling was never adapted other than its articular
ending.
-Aut
.
|
|
|
| User: "Michael Moroney" |
|
| Title: Re: Elements Z=100, 150, 200, 500, 900 and beyond |
18 Apr 2007 12:39:12 PM |
|
|
"Autymn D. C." <lysdexia@sbcglobal.net> writes:
How could that possibly be spelled properly? English doesn't even ha=
ve
diacritical marks!
It's not English, duoohhey.
Then WHAT is it?
el=E8ctric is Hell=E8nic. Why couldn't you tell?
'Electric' is English, regardless of the origins of root words.
wrong and delusional
Sorry, but it's a reasonably common English word. The origin of its root
word is irrelevant, since TONS of English words are borrowed from other
languages. Most, in fact. Ancient Greek via Latin is very common for
science and technology related words.
'Electric' with diacriticals due to Hellenic origins couldn't possibly
be correct, since the Greeks use a completely different alphabet. Why
wrong and delusional, not even ae argument--why should it matter what
alfabet a word's in?
When the alphabet is different, the only way to refer to a word in the
foreign language is some form of transliteration. That is, select a
series of letters in the target alphabet that most closely represents
the sound, along with certain conventions. When that is done, any
diacritical marks in the source language simply don't make sense. Now
if the target language has diacritical marks that would help the
pronunciation, the target language should add them according to its rules.
And the "rules" for English: No diacritical marks at all!
not claim it should be 'epsilon lambda epsilon kappa....' or whatever it
is? Heck, I bet the Greek word for 'electric' was borrowed back from
English or another Western European language, and not a home-grown word.
There is no letter kappa; it is cappa. Do not use the k for the c
sound, which is a Duutish idiosey.
What is a "Duutish idiosey"?
Do you make this up as you go? There are often several ways to
transliterate something to get the sound right, but there are often
conventions, and many of these are based on the similarities in the
alphabets. Greek kappa looks like an English k, kappa occupies a similar
position in the alphabet (between I and L, no J equivalent letter in
Greek), and the English K once originated from kappa, so K for kappa is
the best transliteration. In addition, transliterating a Greek word that
starts 'kappa epsilon ...' as CE... is just plain wrong, since the rules
of English would pronounce the C with the 's' sound. Similarly, that Arab
country with all the US soldiers and insurgents is 'Iraq', not 'Irak' or
'Irac', because the Arabic 'letter' that's used in the word has the same
origin as the Latin Q, and also to differentiate it from another 'letter',
transliterated as 'K'.
You bet whit? There is no other
source; the spelling was never adapted other than its articular
ending.
Let's see. Babelfish translates 'electric' into Greek as 'eta lambda
epsilon kappa tau rho iota kappa omicron sigma', best transliterated as
'elektrikos'. Is -os a typical word ending? It seems so, if I play with
babelfish, I see the -os changing to 'eta' and 'omicron' when I translate
sentences with 'electric' in them, but the 'elektrik' part stays the same.
Coincidence? I think not.
Anyway, go make up your own rules. The rest of us will ignore them.
Don't be surprised if people don't understand (or maybe laugh at you) if
you use them to to try to communicate to others in English.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Richard Schultz" |
|
| Title: Re: Elements Z=100, 150, 200, 500, 900 and beyond |
19 Apr 2007 10:28:15 AM |
|
|
In sci.chem Michael Moroney <moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com> wrote:
: When the alphabet is different, the only way to refer to a word in the
: foreign language is some form of transliteration. That is, select a
: series of letters in the target alphabet that most closely represents
: the sound, along with certain conventions. When that is done, any
: diacritical marks in the source language simply don't make sense. Now
: if the target language has diacritical marks that would help the
: pronunciation, the target language should add them according to its rules.
: And the "rules" for English: No diacritical marks at all!
This is not correct. The "official" transliteration schemes for many
languages into English contain diacritical marks, especially for vowels.
The transliteration scheme that I learned for Hebrew (one that is generally
used) puts diacritical marks over the two letters that have the value
of "s," for example, so that the reader of the transliteration will know
which Hebrew letter was used.
-----
Richard Schultz
Department of Chemistry, Bar-Ilan University, Ramat-Gan, Israel
Opinions expressed are mine alone, and not those of Bar-Ilan University
-----
"Logic is a wreath of pretty flowers which smell bad."
.
|
|
|
| User: "Uncle Al" |
|
| Title: Re: Elements Z=100, 150, 200, 500, 900 and beyond |
19 Apr 2007 04:13:30 PM |
|
|
Richard Schultz wrote:
In sci.chem Michael Moroney <moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com> wrote:
: When the alphabet is different, the only way to refer to a word in the
: foreign language is some form of transliteration. That is, select a
: series of letters in the target alphabet that most closely represents
: the sound, along with certain conventions. When that is done, any
: diacritical marks in the source language simply don't make sense. Now
: if the target language has diacritical marks that would help the
: pronunciation, the target language should add them according to its rules.
: And the "rules" for English: No diacritical marks at all!
This is not correct. The "official" transliteration schemes for many
languages into English contain diacritical marks, especially for vowels.
The transliteration scheme that I learned for Hebrew (one that is generally
used) puts diacritical marks over the two letters that have the value
of "s," for example, so that the reader of the transliteration will know
which Hebrew letter was used.
Sameckh, taw, shin. Nothing like three Ashkenazi "s" pronounced
Saphardic "t" to clear things up, with real "t" (two of those? Three?)
retained both ways. European "aw" is local cactus-kicking "ah" along
with SOP "ah" for both of them. "peyrote and yerokot? Fruits and
vegetables both end in "s." Look at the words. See the "s" in each
case?
Ashkenazic Hebrew is a disaster despite the invention of written
vowels (and cross-breeding with the local redheads). Sephardic Hebrew
is beyond belief as a linguistic gobbledygook
1) for lacking written vowels,
2) for removing audible diffences among spoken vowels and
consonents,
3) and especially for coining State-mandated idiosyncratic Hebrew
words to augment 5000 words mostly about sheep dung and unclean
genitalia that summed to original Hebrew.
Listen up, gits, it is an NMR. It is not a holy whirlwind from Yahweh
magnetically filling what's-'s-name's cup on Passover. The local
idiot names for telephone and TV are... creative. If you wanted to
guarantee your children would be crippled in the world at large, you
took a good second step. (*****-clipping leads the list. If Abraham
had slipped his obsidian knife just a tad it would be
hemiorchidectomies for everybody.)
And while we are on the subject, what are all the other unvoiced
chicken scratches abundantly appended onto the bottoms of letters?
Any language that cannot be fully written in a nine pixel display is
dripping *****.
Pattah, segol, zere, hirik
hataf kamatz, hataf patah, hataf segol
shwa, dagesh, shuruk, qubbuz, holam, qamaz
A fella would need a bushel basket of ink just to fart. Hebrew
vigorously died starting in 586 BC. Let's hear it for 19th century
Zionists digging up its moldy corpse - in duplicate.
The Arabs do you one better by having different forms of letters in
the middle of words as well as at the ends. Shouldn't you raise the
ante by modifying each letter in Fibonacci spacing?
--
Uncle Al
http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/
(Toxic URL! Unsafe for children and most mammals)
http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/lajos.htm#a2
.
|
|
|
| User: "Androcles" |
|
| Title: Re: Elements Z=100, 150, 200, 500, 900 and beyond |
19 Apr 2007 04:22:32 PM |
|
|
"Uncle Al" <UncleAl0@hate.spam.net> wrote in message =
news:4627DB7A.42711831@hate.spam.net...
[snip wet fart in the river of *****]
How far is it from A to A, simpleton?
1) GPS works (+/- 30 metres, not good enough for landing aircraft).
2) Fuckhead.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Richard Schultz" |
|
| Title: Re: Elements Z=100, 150, 200, 500, 900 and beyond |
21 Apr 2007 11:55:08 PM |
|
|
In sci.chem Uncle Al <UncleAl0@hate.spam.net> wrote:
:> This is not correct. The "official" transliteration schemes for many
:> languages into English contain diacritical marks, especially for vowels.
:> The transliteration scheme that I learned for Hebrew (one that is generally
:> used) puts diacritical marks over the two letters that have the value
:> of "s," for example, so that the reader of the transliteration will know
:> which Hebrew letter was used.
: Sameckh, taw, shin. Nothing like three Ashkenazi "s" pronounced
: Saphardic "t" to clear things up, with real "t" (two of those? Three?)
: retained both ways.
It's good to know that you still are proud to post on subjects about
which you know nothing. The transliteration system has nothing to do
with Ashkenazic vs. Sephardic, but with the language as it is written
(which is the same for both).
: European "aw" is local cactus-kicking "ah" along
: with SOP "ah" for both of them. "peyrote and yerokot? Fruits and
: vegetables both end in "s." Look at the words. See the "s" in each
: case?
I'm not even going to try to parse that.
: Ashkenazic Hebrew is a disaster despite the invention of written
: vowels (and cross-breeding with the local redheads).
The invention of written vowels predates the development of the Ashkenazic
dialects of Hebrew.
: Sephardic Hebrew is beyond belief as a linguistic gobbledygook
:
: 1) for lacking written vowels,
: 2) for removing audible diffences among spoken vowels and
: consonents,
: 3) and especially for coining State-mandated idiosyncratic Hebrew
: words to augment 5000 words mostly about sheep dung and unclean
: genitalia that summed to original Hebrew.
As I said, it's good to know that you don't let your ignorance stop you
from posting.
: Listen up, gits, it is an NMR.
Another subject about which you demonstrably know very little. Coincidence?
I don't think so.
: It is not a holy whirlwind from Yahweh
: magnetically filling what's-'s-name's cup on Passover. The local
: idiot names for telephone and TV are... creative.
"Telefon" and "Televizia"? Apparently, you and I have different standards
for what constitutes "creativity."
[remainder of Uncle Al's rant deleted for his sake -- there's a limit to
how much I am willing to embarrass even Uncle Al]
So was your statement that there is no wet chemistry test for sodium a
typo or what?
-----
Richard Schultz
Department of Chemistry, Bar-Ilan University, Ramat-Gan, Israel
Opinions expressed are mine alone, and not those of Bar-Ilan University
-----
"You don't even have a clue about which clue you're missing."
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "JimboCat" |
|
| Title: Re: Elements Z=100, 150, 200, 500, 900 and beyond |
19 Apr 2007 03:04:41 PM |
|
|
Michael Moroney wrote:
"Autymn D. C." <lysdexia@sbcglobal.net> writes:
There is no letter kappa; it is cappa. Do not use the k for the c
sound, which is a Duutish idiosey.
Do you make this up as you go?
[snip]
Don't be surprised if people don't understand (or maybe laugh at you) if
you use them to to try to communicate to others in English.
I posted a paragraph of Autymn's "prose" to another list and got back
a comment "sounds like Geoffrey Chaucer off his meds."
Jim Deutch (JimboCat)
--
technical term: a seemingly ordinary word or phrase, the meaning
of which in some contexts is distorted beyond
mortal comprehension. (Note: "technical term"
is a technical term.)
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Autymn D. C." |
|
| Title: Re: Elements Z=100, 150, 200, 500, 900 and beyond |
18 Apr 2007 02:20:11 PM |
|
|
On Apr 18, 10:39 am, (Michael Moroney)
wrote:
"Autymn D. C." <lysde...@sbcglobal.net> writes:
How could that possibly be spelled properly? English doesn't e=
ven ha=3D
ve
diacritical marks!
It's not English, duoohhey.
Then WHAT is it?
el=3DE8ctric is Hell=3DE8nic. Why couldn't you tell?
'Electric' is English, regardless of the origins of root words.
wrong and delusional
Sorry, but it's a reasonably common English word. The origin of its root
word is irrelevant, since TONS of English words are borrowed from other
languages. Most, in fact. Ancient Greek via Latin is very common for
science and technology related words.
No it's not, and those aren't English words. When words are borrowen
from other languages, they are still of those languages. Only when
the word's spelling is adapted, like "sugar", does that word become of
the new language.
'Electric' with diacriticals due to Hellenic origins couldn't possibly
be correct, since the Greeks use a completely different alphabet. Why
wrong and delusional, not even ae argument--why should it matter what
alfabet a word's in?
When the alphabet is different, the only way to refer to a word in the
foreign language is some form of transliteration. That is, select a
series of letters in the target alphabet that most closely represents
the sound, along with certain conventions. When that is done, any
diacritical marks in the source language simply don't make sense. Now
if the target language has diacritical marks that would help the
pronunciation, the target language should add them according to its rules.
And the "rules" for English: No diacritical marks at all!
As I wrote a Latinisation, then Francisation, of a Hell=E8nic word, it
did make sense. Your claim that marks in the source language don't
make sense, doesn't make sense. Hell=E8nic, like English, has vowels
that Latin hasn't, so the latter must use marks in the transliteration
or else the spelling and speakking is wrong. English spelling has
nothing to do with im. either.
not claim it should be 'epsilon lambda epsilon kappa....' or whatever =
it
is? Heck, I bet the Greek word for 'electric' was borrowed back from
English or another Western European language, and not a home-grown wor=
d=2E
There is no letter kappa; it is cappa. Do not use the k for the c
sound, which is a Duutish idiosey.
What is a "Duutish idiosey"?
Deutsch idioti(a), in English then Latin staffrs
Do you make this up as you go? There are often several ways to
transliterate something to get the sound right, but there are often
conventions, and many of these are based on the similarities in the
alphabets. Greek kappa looks like an English k, kappa occupies a similar
position in the alphabet (between I and L, no J equivalent letter in
Greek), and the English K once originated from kappa, so K for kappa is
the best transliteration. In addition, transliterating a Greek word that
starts 'kappa epsilon ...' as CE... is just plain wrong, since the rules
of English would pronounce the C with the 's' sound. Similarly, that Arab
There is no letter kappa, and the k sound is not the c sound, and the
c sound is not the s sound. It is Francish words that doltishly speak
c-words as s-words. English still has nothing to do with this
Latinisation.
country with all the US soldiers and insurgents is 'Iraq', not 'Irak' or
'Irac', because the Arabic 'letter' that's used in the word has the same
origin as the Latin Q, and also to differentiate it from another 'letter',
transliterated as 'K'.
I know this: http://google.com/groups?q=3DAutymn+%22c%22+%22k%22+%22q%22.
You bet whit? There is no other
source; the spelling was never adapted other than its articular
ending.
Let's see. Babelfish translates 'electric' into Greek as 'eta lambda
epsilon kappa tau rho iota kappa omicron sigma', best transliterated as
'elektrikos'. Is -os a typical word ending? It seems so, if I play with
babelfish, I see the -os changing to 'eta' and 'omicron' when I translate
sentences with 'electric' in them, but the 'elektrik' part stays the same=
.. =20
Coincidence? I think not.
Your translation, other than your mistransliteration, agrees with my
point about spelling. By (not In) Francish, the word is el=E8ctric. By
Italian, the word is =E8lectric or electric. These are Latin letters
and spellings. To distinguish the word fro amber, I write el=E8ctric
rather than =E8lectric.
There is no kappa. There is onely a letter ki. These are the staffrs
of the Hell=E8nic alfabet:
alfa, v=E8ta, gamma/jamma, delta/dhelta, epsil=F2n, digamma, z=E8ta, =E8ta,
th=E8ta, iota, cappa, lambda, mu, nu, csi, =F2micr=F2n, pi, q=F2ppa, shan,
hro, sigma, tau, upsil=F2n, fi, ki, psi, omega, sampi.
The "h" can either represent =E8ta, as a digraf-modifier in Hell=E8nic, e
or =E8, that same modifier in Latin, or h, the same in English.
Anyway, go make up your own rules. The rest of us will ignore them. =20
Don't be surprised if people don't understand (or maybe laugh at you) if
you use them to to try to communicate to others in English.
I don't make up any rules; what I follow is each speakka's rules.
-Aut
.
|
|
|
| User: "Phineas T Puddleduck" |
|
| Title: Re: Elements Z=100, 150, 200, 500, 900 and beyond |
18 Apr 2007 02:43:53 PM |
|
|
In article <1176924011.777945.196410@e65g2000hsc.googlegroups.com>,
"Autymn D. C." <lysdexia@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
Anyway, go make up your own rules. The rest of us will ignore them.
Don't be surprised if people don't understand (or maybe laugh at you) if
you use them to to try to communicate to others in English.
I don't make up any rules; what I follow is each speakka's rules.
No - you're being deliberately obtuse. The word is "speaker"
--
Sacred keeper of the Hollow Sphere, and the space within. Coffee boy to the
rich and famous. Proud owner of the Mop Jockey.
COOSN-174-07-82116: alt.astronomy's favourite poster (from a survey taken
of the saucerhead high command).
.
|
|
|
| User: "Autymn D. C." |
|
| Title: Re: Elements Z=100, 150, 200, 500, 900 and beyond |
18 Apr 2007 02:55:30 PM |
|
|
On Apr 18, 12:43 pm, Phineas T Puddleduck
<phineaspuddled...@gmail.com> wrote:
In article <1176924011.777945.196...@e65g2000hsc.googlegroups.com>,
"Autymn D. C." <lysde...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
Anyway, go make up your own rules. The rest of us will ignore them.
Don't be surprised if people don't understand (or maybe laugh at you) if
you use them to to try to communicate to others in English.
I don't make up any rules; what I follow is each speakka's rules.
No - you're being deliberately obtuse. The word is "speaker"
The word is /not/ speaker. If I wantd to write -er, I would'v.
speaker != speakr != speakka
Of speakka, there are variants speakke, speakt, and speak, which are
all oblique variants of speech.
Of speaker, there are variants speake, speak[e]rra, speak[e]rre,
speak[e]rt, and speakr, derivativs of speakred.
-Aut
.
|
|
|
| User: "Wayne Throop" |
|
| Title: Re: Elements Z=100, 150, 200, 500, 900 and beyond |
18 Apr 2007 04:30:24 PM |
|
|
: "Autymn D. C." <lysdexia@sbcglobal.net>
: Of speakka, there are variants speakke, speakt, and speak, which are
: all oblique variants of speech.
In what language? Your own private language doesn't count.
Your own private pastiche of multiple languages from which english
borrows also doesn't count.
Wayne Throop http://sheol.org/throopw
.
|
|
|
| User: "Androcles" |
|
| Title: Re: Elements Z=100, 150, 200, 500, 900 and beyond |
18 Apr 2007 05:27:43 PM |
|
|
"Wayne Throop" <throopw@sheol.org> wrote in message =
news:1176931824@sheol.org...
: "Autymn D. C." <lysdexia@sbcglobal.net>
: Of speakka, there are variants speakke, speakt, and speak, which are
: all oblique variants of speech.
=20
In what language? Your own private language doesn't count.
Your own private pastiche of multiple languages from which english
borrows also doesn't count.
Oh, the ***** wants to take on the dyslexic.=20
At least she's bold enough to say she is.=20
You are a fuckin' cowardly bully, Throop.=20
*****, you disgusting creep, you have as much to offer the world as =
Uncle Stooopid or Dork Van de psychotic, you arrogant bullshitter.
http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/Morons/UncleStooopid.htm
Or you can take me on, you gutless *****, and fight like the pixie you=20
are.
=20
.
|
|
|
| User: "Wayne Throop" |
|
| Title: Re: Elements Z=100, 150, 200, 500, 900 and beyond |
18 Apr 2007 06:02:26 PM |
|
|
: "Androcles" <Engineer@hogwarts.physics.co.uk>
: You are a fuckin' cowardly bully, Throop.
Whereas you are a brave, foulmouthed bully.
Your mother must be so proud.
Wayne Throop http://sheol.org/throopw
.
|
|
|
| User: "Androcles" |
|
| Title: Re: Elements Z=100, 150, 200, 500, 900 and beyond |
18 Apr 2007 06:57:17 PM |
|
|
"Wayne Throop" <> wrote in message =
news:1176937346@sheol.org...
: "Androcles" <Engineer@hogwarts.physics.co.uk>
: You are a fuckin' cowardly bully, Throop.
=20
Whereas you are a brave, foulmouthed bully.
Your mother must be so proud.
=20
=20
Wayne Throop http://sheol.org/throopw
So what are you going to do about it, coward?=20
Snip and run away like the yellow-bellied prat you are?
Just like you always do, fuckhead who fancies himself as
a wordsmith?
Fucking ignoramus, more like.=20
How far is it from A to A and how long will it take to get=20
there, arsehole?=20
If you meant anything to anybody you'd ***** me off, but
fortunately that's non sequitur.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Wayne Throop" |
|
| Title: Re: Elements Z=100, 150, 200, 500, 900 and beyond |
18 Apr 2007 11:40:26 PM |
|
|
: "Androcles" <Engineer@hogwarts.physics.co.uk>
: Just like you always do, fuckhead who fancies himself as
: a wordsmith?
I do? Wordsmith? Huh. Learn something every day.
: So what are you going to do about it, coward?
Whereas you are demonstrating the brave thing to do, right?
Wayne Throop http://sheol.org/throopw
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Related Articles |
|
|
