Science > Physics > For Y.Porat from Sergey Karavashkin on Quantum Paradox
| Topic: |
Science > Physics |
| User: |
"Sergey Karavashkin" |
| Date: |
19 Jan 2005 04:21:17 PM |
| Object: |
For Y.Porat from Sergey Karavashkin on Quantum Paradox |
From:Y.Porat (maporat@012.net.il)
Subject:Re: For Y.Porat from Sergey Karavashkin on Quantum Paradox
Newsgroup:sci.physics
Date:2005-01-09 03:01:19 PST
Y.Porat wrote:
Hi Sergey
thank you for your long ansewr
now let me hunbly note and excuse me fo sort of advising you:
……………….
Sergey:
Dear Y. Porat,
You are giving me a good advice to be concise - as you are saying,
West colleagues much welcome it. Well, it would be easier for me. I
only would mark, West colleagues write less volume, void sense.
Just so you. Should I wrote in your West manner,
"only such ***** pate with a khaki coloured trunk instead tail could
vomit such a bull...t",
perhaps you would understand better, wouldn't you? ;-) But when I
gently explained you that your idea is incorrect, you are thinking,
you can haggle something from me, as from God? ;-) Do you think, when
you recognised on one hand that
now my Curclon is not valid only to the photon
and on the other
so back to photon refraction
if the photon is actually a conglomeration of permanently moving
Crclons
with the velocity of light
inside matter in closed orbitals (circles)
and if ejected somehow - in a forward hellix movement.
untill some particle 'particle shark' is swolowing it.
you surely could cheat me? It is possible, indeed, though not so
simple. You only confirmed in this way that
i didnt quite got what you sayed about the Vortex theory
anyway i never studied it and know noting about it
But basically, before discussing and the more building and claiming
world-wide of your innovation, it would be nice of you to understand a
little, what you write. While you are trying to build a home, never
taking a trowel to your hands. Well, what to say, your English
language even makes no difference between a little spade for
brick-laying and that for stucco. So in physics, you cannot distinct
one idea from another, one phenomenology from another. So is the
difference between West and East civilisation. ;-) Are you pleased
now? ;-)
Regards,
Sergey
.
|
|
| User: "Y.Porat" |
|
| Title: Re: For Y.Porat from Sergey Karavashkin on Quantum Paradox |
20 Jan 2005 01:14:48 AM |
|
|
1
why dont you insert your messeges usually
why each time as a new thread??
cant you find the od\rdinary procedure??
2 while i suggested to be concise
there was no offence in it
i realy apreciate the Rusian matricularity and patiance
yet i was jsut suggestion that long articles
do not 'catch' in this ng
3 my Ciclon suggestion is just a suggestion!!
you can take it or leave it
it is not cucial to me model
my model is niclely verified in many other aspects
the photon is not my main issue of my model
the main issue of my model is nuclear structure!!
4
the Ciclon idea was jsut a by product that occured to me while i was
wroking
on my model and it is very compatible with it
5
didnt quite undersood what are your claimes against me
-------------
all th ebest
Y.Porat
.
|
|
|
| User: "None" |
|
| Title: Re: For Y.Porat from Sergey Karavashkin on Quantum Paradox |
09 Feb 2005 10:37:58 AM |
|
|
See, Y.Porat, how simple. I showed you: while you were proud that you
have an idea being sure that you need not to know physics, mathematics,
some other people dig into the problem and yield new and new results.
With it you became childishly emotional and ready to throw a toy away.
Perhaps this is just the difference in West and East approach. Till you
in the West are involved in advertisements and pissing to the pockets
to each other, people here carry a serious work. This is why you cannot
constructively discuss, grasp, dig into the issue, accept. This has
been multiply checked. The fact that you went away from discussion just
in the beginning of constructive dialogue, just when you understood, or
rather began to understand that the point is other and deeper, - only
corroborates it.
Regrettably.
Sergey
.
|
|
|
| User: "Y.Porat" |
|
| Title: Re: For Y.Porat from Sergey Karavashkin on Quantum Paradox |
09 Feb 2005 10:53:36 AM |
|
|
Hi Sergey
i dont realy understand waht was your above point
and what do you expect from me
waht is your disapointment from me etc .
just may be you can say it a bit more clearly
ie what are your expectations from me ??
TIA
Y.Porat
---------------------------
.
|
|
|
| User: "Sergey Karavashkin" |
|
| Title: Re: For Y.Porat from Sergey Karavashkin on Quantum Paradox |
23 Feb 2005 07:27:11 AM |
|
|
"Y.Porat" <maporat@012.net.il> wrote in message news:<1107968016.904817.32700@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com>...
Hi Sergey
i dont realy understand waht was your above point
and what do you expect from me
waht is your disapointment from me etc .
just may be you can say it a bit more clearly
ie what are your expectations from me ??
TIA
Y.Porat
---------------------------
Dear Y. Porat,
Please don't think me scandalising, I am not like Dirk or Franz. ;-)
Simply I was surprised of such childish behaviour. You colleagues are
thinking, it would be enough to think out something unexpected, and
all others will meet you as heroes of all times and nations. But when
you have got to know, other people long time and intensively were
working in this trend, this subjects becomes out of your interest.
Boxers call it, "he don't stand blows". ;-) It was so long ago as in
the beginning of past century when the idea of solitons excited
brains, and it was Descartes who was involved in vortexes. Beautiful
idea, but it has some deficient shades that disable it to be
developed. First of all, we cannot properly calculate vortexes and
determine the conditions of their formation and stability. Without it,
we cannot calculate all stable forms of even linear vortexes; we
confine ourselves only to those which Helmholtz theorems suggest us.
That is the matter. So, if speaking of vortexes, we have first of all
to speak of mathematical modelling and development. This is what I
could expect from you, if you really are interesting in solitons.
True, for this, you would have to seriously deepen into the theory.
But without it, it never will work. ;-)
Best to you,
Sergey
.
|
|
|
| User: "Y.Porat" |
|
| Title: Re: For Y.Porat from Sergey Karavashkin on Quantum Paradox |
23 Feb 2005 09:03:47 AM |
|
|
Hi sergey
please have a look at my little site at its apapendix at the end of
the pdf file and see my Circlon and how it is used qualitatively
for explaining any attraction force
and then in my main model how it is used as a particle builder
by the 'chain of orbitals idea:
the site is :
http://www.geocities.com/porat_y/mypage.html
look there at the ling of pdf file.
and tell me what do you think about it .
and as you know:
one picture is wirth a thousand words!
all the best
Y.Porat
----------------------------------
.
|
|
|
| User: "Sergey Karavashkin" |
|
| Title: Re: For Y.Porat from Sergey Karavashkin on Quantum Paradox |
08 Mar 2005 06:20:57 PM |
|
|
"Y.Porat" <maporat@012.net.il> wrote in message news:<1109171027.943760.95590@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com>...
Hi sergey
please have a look at my little site at its apapendix at the end of
the pdf file and see my Circlon and how it is used qualitatively
for explaining any attraction force
and then in my main model how it is used as a particle builder
by the 'chain of orbitals idea:
the site is :
http://www.geocities.com/porat_y/mypage.html
look there at the ling of pdf file.
and tell me what do you think about it .
and as you know:
one picture is wirth a thousand words!
all the best
Y.Porat
----------------------------------
Dear Y.Porat,
Unfortunately, your PDF-file has been made in such program that my
computer cannot open it. Could you send me a simpler version (doc, ps,
html, tex) to my e-address? Desirably, in the parts about 200-300 kb.
Too old hardware and software. ;-)
Sergey
.
|
|
|
| User: "Y.Porat" |
|
| Title: Re: For Y.Porat from Sergey Karavashkin on Quantum Paradox |
08 Mar 2005 10:43:39 PM |
|
|
i will try anyway
if you what to be 'in' not only with my data
i think you have to be updated with programs isnt that so?
ps i dont think that even my programs are 'the last word on
market'......
all th e best
Y.Porat
---------------------------
.
|
|
|
| User: "Y.Porat" |
|
| Title: Re: For Y.Porat from Sergey Karavashkin on Quantum Paradox |
09 Mar 2005 01:30:23 AM |
|
|
Hi Sergey
i tryed to send you and htm file
but was rejected by your mailer
can you tell me your exact E Mail?
all the best
Y.Porat
---------------------------
.
|
|
|
| User: "Michael Varney" |
|
| Title: Re: For Y.Porat from Sergey Karavashkin on Quantum Paradox |
09 Mar 2005 03:47:31 PM |
|
|
"Y.Porat" <maporat@012.net.il> wrote in message
news:1110353423.873529.248630@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com...
Hi Sergey
i tryed to send you and htm file
but was rejected by your mailer
can you tell me your exact E Mail?
all the best
Y.Porat
I am sure that his server refused it because it contains a virus and
atrocious spelling and grammar.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Y.Porat" |
|
| Title: Re: For Y.Porat from Sergey Karavashkin on Quantum Paradox |
09 Mar 2005 11:51:11 PM |
|
|
Hi Homo!!!
how is your wife today ?
how is your boy friend?
(anyway imbecil gangster you are not going to stop me on my way
as you could already realise)
everybody already knows who your realy are and what are you worth of
Y.Porat
---------------
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Sergey Karavashkin" |
|
| Title: Re: For Y.Porat from Sergey Karavashkin on Quantum Paradox |
17 Mar 2005 05:56:15 PM |
|
|
"Y.Porat" <maporat@012.net.il> wrote in message news:<1110353423.873529.248630@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com>...
Hi Sergey
i tryed to send you and htm file
but was rejected by your mailer
can you tell me your exact E Mail?
all the best
Y.Porat
---------------------------
Dear Y. Porat, I am quite satisfied with my gsviewer, simply your file
is too large for it. My address is , please try
again.
Looking forward to see your work,
Sergey
.
|
|
|
| User: "Y.Porat" |
|
| Title: Re: For Y.Porat from Sergey Karavashkin on Quantum Paradox |
18 Mar 2005 02:40:36 AM |
|
|
what is that strange selftr... ie waht are the ... three points
may be that is the trouble ??
ps if you have Adobe Acrobat 5 and newer- you would have no trouble
cant you gst it ??? a lot of data today is with that very good tool
so why not aquire it (that way or another?? ....)
btw why are you so slow in answering ??
all th ebest
Y.Porat
-------------------
.
|
|
|
| User: "Sergey Karavashkin" |
|
| Title: Re: For Y.Porat from Sergey Karavashkin on Quantum Paradox |
03 Apr 2005 06:58:04 PM |
|
|
"Y.Porat" <maporat@012.net.il> wrote in message news:<1111135236.105412.228120@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com>...
what is that strange selftr... ie waht are the ... three points
may be that is the trouble ??
ps if you have Adobe Acrobat 5 and newer- you would have no trouble
cant you gst it ??? a lot of data today is with that very good tool
so why not aquire it (that way or another?? ....)
btw why are you so slow in answering ??
all th ebest
Y.Porat
-------------------
Because I have an internet access quite far from my place, and always
there are some problems. It appears so cumbersome that to reply fast,
I would need to stop all other work. While I am higher-than-roof busy
with studies. Usually I reply once a week, if not, this means, it is
out of my control.
I still had no need in Acrobat. Now I installed it, but the situation
with your file did not become nicer. You do not answer basic questions
but are trying to turn things inside out on some artificial grounds.
And yield something senseless both in the underpinning and in
corollaries.
Your basic questions have to be following:
1)Physical meaning of vortexes. You arranged proton and neutron
vortexes normally to each other, but this says only that you do not
know the laws of hydro- and aerodynamics of flows.
2)The charge of particles. If both your neutral neutron and charged
proton are vortexes, their colours in your figures tell nothing to a
physicist.
3)You are speaking of some necessary quartets, as if of them all
chemical elements consist. This also is incorrect. The number of
protons and neutrons is different in nuclei.
Furthermore, all what you don't need or cannot inscribe into your
views you claim experimentally ungrounded. Firstly, this is not so.
For example, the charge of chemical elements is easily checked on
mass-spectrometers and this has been multiply done. Secondly, you have
to address the issue of proof to yourself. Your schemes are even more
unobvious, and they will not inscribe into the known size of atomic
nuclei. You are building tremendous structures of orbitals and forget
about the size. The density of nuclei matter undoubtedly will not fit
the measured values.
The most sad in this story is, you are sure that you can 'invent'
physics. Your experience shows again, this is impossible. And you are
unable to work in frames of phenomenology, simply because your
educational level is irrelevant. You have to feel the processes not in
view of their 'originality' but in view of substantiation of
interacting forces and events. If you have not this feeling, you
cannot substitute it with mathematics, nor with stormy fantasy. ;-)
I regret much, but this is so.
Sergey
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Related Articles |
|
|
