sci.physics.particle

On Feb 27, 2:31=A0am, xxein wrote:
> On Feb 26, 2:25=A0am, "Y.Porat" wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Feb 26, 1:51=A0am, higis wrote:
>
> > > On Feb 25, 9:20=A0pm, srp2...@gmail.com wrote:
>
> > > > On 25 f=E9v, 01:50, higis wrote:
>
> > > > > On Feb 25, 2:20 pm, srp2...@gmail.com wrote:
>
> > > > > > On 25 f=E9v, 00:12, higis wrote:
>
> > > > > > > On Feb 25, 11:44 am, srp2...@gmail.com wrote:
>
> > > > > > > > On 24 f=E9v, 20:03, higis wrote:
>
> > > > > > > > > On Feb 25, 8:20 am, Sam Wormley wrot=
e:
>
> > > > > > > > > > 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.
>
> > =A0> 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
> > > =A0> > 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.
>
> > > > Andr=E9 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).
>
> > > > > > Andr=E9 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' =A0 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: =A0True. =A0But get rid of the helix.- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

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

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