sci.physics.particle

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 wrote:
>
> > > > > > > > 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.
>
> 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
> > > 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' 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
----------------------------