Re: Isotope decay chains

From: Angelo (patrik56_at_libero.it)
Date: 02/15/05 

Date: 15 Feb 2005 07:55:02 -0800

Y.Porat wrote:
> Angelo wrote:
> > > > -------------
> > > lets make it clear
> > > th e single private enemy is ...... not you!
> >
> > I was pretty sure about this, and can reassure
> > you, on my side, that I am not.
>
> i waas writing an answer of about 20 minutes
> and it got lost by an server error'
> tough life.
> so may be this time shorter
> -----------
> >
> > > ----------
> > >
> > Again? I said: '' well known 'problem' '' :
> > do you see the difference?
> >
> > > may be the question but surely not the amswer!!
> >
> > And I said ''question'', not ''answer'': why don't you
> > read me?
> >
> > > because the existing real detaled knowledge of the inner Nuc.
> > > is cose to zero (if not completely wrong and ... flat zero!!
> >
> > If you say so ... that's your responsibility.
> >
> > > and as i sayed :
> > > if you dont know the inner momentum of a single nucleid
> > > *as a member of the conglomearation* and the value of 'X'
> > > it is stupidity (may be stuipid arrorance)to use the HUP in that
> > > situation !!
> > > hope you got it .
> >
> > So apparently, you didn't get the faintest clue
> > about the HUP.

> easy easy with sweeping declarations

Please, reread what is declared to be 'x' (or 'X',
if you like so) in the formula I wrote.

> btw
> ar eyou sure that no one else is blowing behind your back???!!

Now you start with suspicion, I see.
I was expecting that it might have happened
at some point, and that point has arrived.
Then you are completely wrong:
I'm here alone, and helpless too.
I'm trying to answer some questions that are
beyond my specific field of competence,
relying on the little I think I can remember well.
So, any help from physicists is welcome.
That is my honest position, if you didn't realize.

> > For if we knew the exact position, at the same time
> > we couldn't know nothing about momentum,
> who sayed the exact location???
> i sayed th emutual location
> ie a is next to b and b is next to c etc
> that was what i meant by location.
> and that is much more than ever known before
> so please just have a look at the cite:

Before any comment on the above,
according to your model, is the
'skeleton' of the nucleus *rigid* or not?
IOW, the protons, neutrons, alphas, etc
do have any *independent* degree of freedom
wrt each other, or are all constrained to move
together (as a whole) in the same direction at
every given instant of time (hoping to make it
clear for you what I mean)?
Until you don't address *clearly* this crucial
point, we can't afford a clean discussion on
the implications (or constraints) of the HUP.

> http://www.geocities.com/porat_y/mypage.html
> then click the link there .
> it is jus the abatract of my model far form all of it.
> -----
>
> and only then start evaluating my model
> actually it should tak eyou months to start undrestanding
> and appreciating it !!!

I'll take a look at that, when possible.

And, please try not forget what I said,
which you snipped without marking:

'' Moreover, I said in my first reply to you in this
thread, that I was prompted by curiosity, which
is now vanishing. If your intention is to go on
with the line showed in the last postings of yours,
I'll consider this dialogue as a consummated one,
for me. ''

[snip the rest (especially for insinuations)]

Best regards,
Angelo

Quantcast