From:Y.Porat (maporat@012.net.il)
Subject:Re: For Y.Porat from Sergey Karavashkin on Quantum Paradox
Newsgroups:sci.physics
Date:2005-01-19 23:14:54 PST
1
why dont you insert your messeges usually
why each time as a new thread??
cant you find the od\rdinary procedure??
Dear Y. Porat, this is not mine but new Google system's fault. As they
wrote me, this is now their headache. ;-( They do not know when they
improve, but are trying. Meanwhile we communicate as possible, ;-)
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
No problem. If I write briefly, you will have too little for your
understanding. But, as I see, these are people of so-called Western
school who are ready to write unfoundedly. Just so they produce so
much fantasies, as they are sure, when they use such or other term, it
does not require to understand properly what it exactly means. ;-)
When you want to substantiate, you also will write long posts. It has
been checked and is quite objectively. ;-) Those who does not want to
read long and to penetrate into their reading live as the soldiers, by
orders and stamps. If they don't read my posts, I don't care. There
live quite many scientists free of this difficulty who do not buy "War
and Community" by Leo Tolstoy in 20 pages, or better (for them) in
commixes. "-)
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!!
If seriously, in Russia quite many people are involved in soliton
representation. I told you about one of them, Atsukovsky. But his
photon representation is only a part of large general theory. Should
you can read in Russian, I would suggest you to read on the web his
basic book "General etherodynamics". He formulates in it his idea on
the concept of gas soliton. The matter is not that he and you gave
different names to your vortexes. He expressed his ideas in formulas
and numbers, while you, as far as I can understand, thought out the
name, symbol for your idea. Of course, this is too little. Another
scientist, - and he also works with formulas and numbers, - is
Alexander Kushelev with whom we have now a stormy discussion on his
conception. But again, his theory is expressed in formulas numbers, he
tries much to experiment. There are also some not so contributory
attempts. But the discrepancies in soliton representation are also
great and caused by multiple revelations of physical fields and
complicacy to describe these fields by deformation properties of
soliton structures. Although all these authors are, of course, sure
that just their treatment is perfect. We are arguing with them. ;-)
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
Nothing against you, dear Y. Porat, we are discussing not your person
but definite physical conceptions and phenomenology that follows from
them. Here naturally appear problems to which I am giving sound. You
suggested to discuss your model; I explained you so gently and clearly
as I could, you to understand: your model is basically invalid - and
things could not take other way, as you have not enough knowledge
(regrettably, as most colleagues). You told: to be understood here, I
would have to write briefly and brightly, as an advertisement, and to
begin with the conclusion. I did so and parodied, how they write here
in so-called Western, but factually void and boorish style. I meant to
show you a contrast, only. However your model will remain such as I
wrote, in whatever expression we would estimate it. Unfortunately.
All the best to you,
Sergey
-------------
all th ebest
Y.Porat
.
|
