Re: The role of exchange particles in force

From: Y.Porat (maporat_at_012.net.il)
Date: 10/07/04 

Date: 7 Oct 2004 00:31:50 -0700

Bjoern Feuerbacher <feuerbac@thphys.uni-heidelberg.de> wrote in message news:<ck0mt1$9u5$1@news.urz.uni-heidelberg.de>...
> Y.Porat wrote:
> > Bjoern Feuerbacher <feuerbac@thphys.uni-heidelberg.de> wrote in message news:<cjrkib$527$1@news.urz.uni-heidelberg.de>...
> >
> >>Y.Porat wrote:
> >>
> >>>Bjoern Feuerbacher <feuerbac@thphys.uni-heidelberg.de> wrote in message news:<cj8knu$7fh$1@news.urz.uni-heidelberg.de>...
> >>>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>>>>photons are at least discoverd directly or indirectly in experiments
> >>>>>gouons have never been foung
> > >>>>>*not directly and not indirectly
> >>>>>got it parrot??
> >>>>
> >>>>I got that you, as usual, have no clue what you are talking about.
> >>>>-------------
> > >
> > ----------
> > who is responsible for *indirect* evidence?
> > crooks like you ??
>
> Scientists.
>
> You know, the ones which you keep libelling.
>
>
> > 2 where else besides accelerators is it found? croock and hand waiver!
>
> The mere existence of bound states of gluons (i.e. protons and
> neutrons), for starters. Cosmic rays. Etc.
-------------
that is not experimental findings that is a theory and *interpretations* of
the experimental
----------------
>
>
> > >>I got that you are as usual spouting complete nonsense, because as usual
> >>you haven't got the faintest clue what you are rambling on about.
> >>
> >>One can *not* find any particle one wants in accelerators. That has to
> >>be one of the stupidest claims you ever made!
> >>
> >>Hint: if one can find any particle one wants, then why haven't we found
> >>the Higgs yet?
> >>---------------
> >
> > idiot
> > if not any particle than at least a huge number of Garbage ones
> > got it idiot and sucker??
>
> No, that is yet again utter nonsense.
-----------
you can mumble your words that are unsupported
--------------
>
>
> > the boson has not been found ? that is my problem ? idiot?
>
> Yet another point which went right above your head.
> --------------
i am not resposible for your crocked arguments
---------------
>
> > it is more of your stupid croockish problems!!!
> > the Higgs boasons is for matemathicas idiots and croockes like you
> > nothing else
>
> I wonder what you will say in a few years when it had been found.
> Probably you will claim as usual that the evidence is simply
> misinterpreted, and as usual won't bother to provide evidence for that
> assertion.
> ----------------
let you find it first and than chest drumm!1
*not one second before !! got it ? that is basic behaviour in scince
and not only in scince!!
-------------
-----------
>
>
> > and a shameless waist of public funds as well
> > due to liers and the real crackpots-demagogues like you
>
> Man, you really hate science.
>-----------
how an idiot like you can come so such a liying conclusion??
scince is the most interesting issue in my life!!
oh yes now i got it
indeed i hate *your scince* thats true
not only your scince - your human behaviour as well
--------------
---------
>
>
> >>>>>>*All* experimental results are always *interpretations* of the
> >>>>>>elementary interactions.
> >>>>>
> > >>>
> >>>you can mumble anything you whant
> >>>that is croockism!!
> >>
> >>I notice that you do not bother to explain all these *observed effects*
> >>*quantitatively* without gluons. Big surprise.
>
> I notice that you *still* do not bother to explain all these *observed
> effects* *quantitatively* without gluons. Big surprise.
-------------
i dont know about gluons but if they use massless entities
than it is a nonstarter for me
or any fiddling with masses and
no mesenger can ever be bigger than its mother!! got it Mr phd??
---------------
>
>
> >>>gluons are matemathical inventions
> >>
> >>So what? Energy is also a mathematical invention,
> >
> > -----------
> > idiot energy is not a human artifact it is natures artifact!!
>
> Well, gluons are also not a human artefact, but "nature's artefact".
> Care to prove otherwise?
-------------
idiot see above
--------------
>
>
>
> > do you whant to compare energy with your stupid gluons??
>
> Yes.
---------------
imbecil
---------------
>
>
> > imbecil and croock that has not the basic sense for
> > weighs of entities
>
> Pot. Kettle. Black.
>
>
> > iow for the amount of substantiatin of different entities
> > in physics
>
> Well, you haven't got the faintest clue of the evidence for gluons, so
> who are you to judge?
-----------
i can judge that energy is proven and established
gluons are an unripe spooky that will die soon and will be replaced
by something more cleaver
--------------
>
> [snip]
>
>
> >>"x is a mathematical invention" does not prove in any way that x does
> >>not exist in nature, if you didn't notice.
> >>---------
> >
> > provised it is found ans substantiated in many experimental
> > evidence
>
> Well, there is indeed a lot of evidence for the existence of gluons, no
> matter how often you deny that.
proffesional lier
--------------
>
>
> > (preffered simple evidence not croockish
> > huge accelerators evisence in which the error margines are bigger
> > than the results margines!!
>
> And yet again, you ramble about things you haven't got the *faintest*
> clue about. In evidence coming from accelerators, the error margins are
> in general *far* *smaller* than the results. Not bigger.
> -------------
mumbling again you pretent to know about it
you a re alier
---------------
>
> > got it sucker?
>
> I got that as usual you attack things you know nothing about.
> >>>>>>Well, it is indeed found there - by measuring the decay time
> >>>>>>of weak processes and comparing it to the decay time calculated
> >>>>>>by using W bosons.
> >>>>>>----------
> >>>>>
> >>>>>just speculations
> >>>>
> >>>>Idiot.
> >>>>
> >>>>Comparing *quantitative* predictions to the experiment has nothing
> >>>>to do with speculations.
> >>>
> >>>-----------
> >>>it is accdental partial fitting
> >>
> >>Absolute utter complete bullshitting nonsense.
> >>
> >>Yet another example where you show nicely that you haven't got the
> >>faintest clue what you are rambling on about.
> >
> > idiot why did you erased my example?
>
> I did not delete any example of you here. If you miss your strange
> "Gorilla" example: that was below.
>
>
> > the fact that two events have only some of their properties
> > in common *does not make them identical
>
> Did I ever say something different?
----------
yess you climes that predicted decay time that is found experimentaly
is a prove for the existance of a particle
a particle is not only decay time!! got it croock?
--------------
>
>
> > the fact that a hearth was found in a Gorrila does not make it
> > identical to you!!
>
> And the relevance of that stupid analogy is what?
see above
-------------
>
>
> > -------------
> > the decay time of one particle A does not make it
> > identical wioth particle B even B has the same decay time!!
>
> Did I ever claim that this is so?
>
> Could you please stop attacking things I never said?
you sayed that may be in other words- lier
-----------
>
> >>>a particle that is 90 times heavier than its mother
> >>>is only for imbecil croocks like you
> >>
> >>For the 20th time: the W boson in beta decay is *not* 90 times heavier
> >>than its "mother".
> >
> > ----------
> > so waht is its mass ??
>
> Depends on the recoil of the proton.
>
> You can calculate it for yourself: energy conservation implies that the
> rest mass of the neutron is equal to the rest mass of the proton plus
> the kinetic energy of the proton plus the rest mass of the virtual W
> boson plus the kinetic energy of the virtual W boson. Momentum
> conservation implies that the momenta of the proton and the virtual W
> boson have equal magnitude, but opposite directions. Do the calculation.
> It's not that hard.
-----------
if not hard please do it for crackpot Porat lets see you
doing and not abstract handwaving
2 in order to do it you must make sure that atleast only one unknown
will be in your equation!! without *asuming* knowns to be known
*wile they are unknown!!
iow if you insert assumptions - the result of your calculation is
*speculation*
now if you will bring your calculation
we can examine what is realy known and what is *assumptions*
-------------
---------------
>
>
>
> >>>>>that has nothing to do with reality.
> >>>>
> >>>>The decay times are *measured*. How can one get more real?
> >>>>---------
> >>>
> >>>decay time is only a tiny part of the lot of other
> >>>properties that has to fit
> >>
> >>Well, the spins also fit. Branching ratios also fit. What do you want more?
> >>-----------
> >
> > still a lot of other properties that has to fit like mass for instance
>
> Since virtual particles do not have a fixed mass, that requirement is a
> bit hard to fulfill...
------
  ohhhh now we got 'the cat went out of the bagg'!!!
you say *do not have a fixed mass* !!!
that is physics ??? that is exactly matemathical manipolations
it proved matematically that the boson is just a human artifact!!
if you dont get it - sorry for you and all the other
suckers/croocks
a particle should have only one mass!!
many masses is for many particles! that is a prove that
it is all shootong in the darkness and speculations
had it been presents like that - it would be a decent way
to present it like that
otherwise to present it as acurate established scince
that is exactly what i call croocism!!
-----------
------------------
> > >>>uncurable imbecil
> >>>and a wallikg damage to scince
> >>
> >>Hint: actual scientists think otherwise.
> >
> > -----------
> > only parrots like you
> > time will say that thety were the real crqcpots
> > like you for instance
>
> I notice that yet again, you choose to libel people you know nothing
> about - only due to the reason that they disagree with you...
>-------------
no i argue reasonable not parroting like you

my teachers always told us - dont be parrots!!

if i use it again and again it is not my fault!

it is my teachers fault (:-) thats what they tough us
may be more important than just teaching some knowledge
and i got it and agree with their stand.and use it all along my life.
-------------
> Y.Porat
---------------

Quantcast