Discussion:
LHC vs FNAL B*tch-slapping fest
(too old to reply)
Y.y.Porat
2009-03-25 12:34:48 UTC
Permalink
[...]
Is there a reason?
----------------
i predicted that
the Higgs will never be found
is it not enough??  (:-)
No, that is not enough. What is needed is a measurable property, for
which you can predict the value of that property to be measured. That
is what is done in physics. Anything less than that is superficial
dabbling.
----------------
no Sir
th e quantitative reasoning of mine are more than enough
Not in science, it's not. Stop deluding yourself.
-----------------------
you are not the oneto tell me what is science
may be you are good enough in parrotland
now
jsut naswer my questions
or else anyone can see
that you ahve no answers
to my quations
9because they are not in yuour
parrot land books
2
even if you have no aswers
just a litle advice
just think about for youself
i am sure that even you
wil not be easy with unanswered questions
that will at some corner of your mind
will go on botherong you
to realize that you are cheating youself or worse than that
cheating others
(or maybe even you ar enot aware
and dont mind coming closer to reality
all that  you mind is keep your 'status'
and  income business
no  matter how much garbage you eat while someone is showing it
that you are dealing with nonsense physics
and feed others with  garbage physics ???
is the failure of Higgs
not a good enough alarm bell for you  ??
you can  cheat someone all his life
you cvna cheat all just once
but you cant cheat everyone forever!!
just keep in mind that iron rule
ATB
Y.Porat
--------------------
is that your moral standard ??
i  can   hardly believe
For the record, Porat, I have no problem with people thinking and
musing and doing mental tinkering and imagining and inventing and
speculating.
What I object to is people doing that and calling it science.
Just because someone thinks about atoms does not mean that what
they're doing is science.
Science is an activity that is *defined* not by its subject matter but
by its methodology, which is why it's called the Scientific Method.
The activity described by the scientific method is what science is, by
definition.
There are many *other* activities that can touch on the same subject
matter -- like matter and energy and their interactions. Those
activities include philosophy (like epistemology and metaphysics),
taxonomy, aesthetic speculation, algebraic tinkering, numerological
mining, and the like. They are not science, simply because they do not
use the scientific method.
no mass no real physics
a messenger cannot be bigger than
it smother
the existing Higgs calculatuions
do not tell us
how man of them aere in the nucleuid
one may be two may be 3 etc etc
and how are thet completing the
overall knwn mass of the nucleid
it cannot be *the higgs'
a guest that is comming once and a while
to visit the nucleid
you must tell us
how many of them are
residents of the nucleid !!
and waht is ther mass
reat mass
relativisti c mass
it is not an
as you like it priogram
of as you like to  fit it in program
i t   must have
hand and physics   legs
and how for insatnce
it hold the 3 quarks together
and who on earth told you  that there are only 3 quarks
each friday and suterday
they find a new 'Quark
why wonder
if the quark is only a few percent
of the nucleid and all the 90 percent is swiped under the carper
that is not physics
that is stupid cheating
a wonderful cooperation between
crooks morons
and
suckers
ATB
Y.Porat
-----------------------
---------------------
just for the   record
and for trying to make you a bit a better
sci is not only maths
it is some basic understanding of physics
Since you have not ever made one quantitative prediction I guess that
you are still working on the "basic understanding" part....
[...]
--------------
you forgot my smallest photon mass
 prediction   to be
Photon mass Min= h/c^2times 1/Time unit
It's wrong. Or don't you remember?
It has been explained to you in...
2008 :http://groups.google.com/group/sci.astro/msg/a6bbfceca3588be4?dmode=s...
2007 :http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics/msg/513cafcc50ea0417?dmode...
2006 :http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics.relativity/msg/4c17910811a...
2005 :http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics.particle/msg/e046e4444e86a...
2004 :http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics.particle/msg/bca6faeecb136...
2003 :http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics.particle/msg/3657cc3b122a8...
Six years of repeating the same wrong idea. Consistency is a quantity
I desire in mashed potatoes, not crappy ideas.
oh
 i forgot that for you the photon is massles  (as your brain )
may be if you will grow a bit older than
24 you will get some better brain,
memory
and personality
so it is
ie something like
3.000 times 10 -exp 51
(if i remember correct)
Y.Porat
--------------------
-----------------
you consider a fucken physicist
as an ex plainer for me
or for others ??
I consider physicists to be the foremost experts on topics related to
physics.
I will not ask a retired structural engineer questions about nuclear
physics no more than I would ask a nuclear physicist questions about
structural engineering.
who are you alittle moron imbecil
to explain to me
while i explained to you that
in the formula
E=hf
there is mass in that h factor
and if you dont know how
a physics formula is built and used
then go to your strippers  in your hotels
and explain tothem anything you like
for me you are just  a  little moron fucker
so go  on discuss with your moron parrots
and we will see how far you will go
Y.P
-------------------
Blah blah blah. Been there done that, for more than half a decade now.
The explanation for why you are wrong hasn't changed in years.
a) Dimensional analysis is not physics.
b) The value you claim for the photon mass is inconsistent with
observation.
c) Learn to write coherent English for once in your miserable life you
goddamn illegible cretin.
d) Idiot.
------------------
dimension analysis is not physics
and how a physics formula is built and used is as well not physics
if
F=ma
and the dimension analysis of it
shows that there is no force without mass
that as well means nothing
'force has nothing to do with mass' !!
(:-)

now comeon idiot parrot and
better go and expalin to yourself
about the Higgs boson and its
**on and off** *mass shell*

on and of why ??
it is fascinating !!
i thought that on and off**
juice shell**
is much more fascinating and impressive....
now
i will teach you that
*no mass - no real physics "*!!
you will understand it may be
a 100 years later if at all !!
but first
go on with your
'on and off mass shell of Higgs '
and discuss it with your friend
not with me
you have a lot of time and money to waist

Y.P
BYE
---------------------
Y.y.Porat
2009-03-26 06:09:10 UTC
Permalink
[snip idiocy]
Same blah blah blah as 6 years ago. Go away.
-------------------
psychopath moron
------------------------------
Y.y.Porat
2009-03-26 10:56:28 UTC
Permalink
[...]
Is there a reason?
----------------
i predicted that
the Higgs will never be found
is it not enough??  (:-)
No, that is not enough. What is needed is a measurable property, for
which you can predict the value of that property to be measured. That
is what is done in physics. Anything less than that is superficial
dabbling.
----------------
no Sir
th e quantitative reasoning of mine are more than enough
Not in science, it's not. Stop deluding yourself.
-----------------------
you are not the oneto tell me what is science
may be you are good enough in parrotland
now
jsut naswer my questions
or else anyone can see
that you ahve no answers
to my quations
9because they are not in yuour
parrot land books
2
even if you have no aswers
just a litle advice
just think about for youself
i am sure that even you
wil not be easy with unanswered questions
that will at some corner of your mind
will go on botherong you
to realize that you are cheating youself or worse than that
cheating others
(or maybe even you ar enot aware
and dont mind coming closer to reality
all that  you mind is keep your 'status'
and  income business
no  matter how much garbage you eat while someone is showing it
that you are dealing with nonsense physics
and feed others with  garbage physics ???
is the failure of Higgs
not a good enough alarm bell for you  ??
you can  cheat someone all his life
you cvna cheat all just once
but you cant cheat everyone forever!!
just keep in mind that iron rule
ATB
Y.Porat
--------------------
is that your moral standard ??
i  can   hardly believe
For the record, Porat, I have no problem with people thinking and
musing and doing mental tinkering and imagining and inventing and
speculating.
What I object to is people doing that and calling it science.
Just because someone thinks about atoms does not mean that what
they're doing is science.
Science is an activity that is *defined* not by its subject matter but
by its methodology, which is why it's called the Scientific Method.
The activity described by the scientific method is what science is, by
definition.
There are many *other* activities that can touch on the same subject
matter -- like matter and energy and their interactions. Those
activities include philosophy (like epistemology and metaphysics),
taxonomy, aesthetic speculation, algebraic tinkering, numerological
mining, and the like. They are not science, simply because they do not
use the scientific method.
no mass no real physics
a messenger cannot be bigger than
it smother
the existing Higgs calculatuions
do not tell us
how man of them aere in the nucleuid
one may be two may be 3 etc etc
and how are thet completing the
overall knwn mass of the nucleid
it cannot be *the higgs'
a guest that is comming once and a while
to visit the nucleid
you must tell us
how many of them are
residents of the nucleid !!
and waht is ther mass
reat mass
relativisti c mass
it is not an
as you like it priogram
of as you like to  fit it in program
i t   must have
hand and physics   legs
and how for insatnce
it hold the 3 quarks together
and who on earth told you  that there are only 3 quarks
each friday and suterday
they find a new 'Quark
why wonder
if the quark is only a few percent
of the nucleid and all the 90 percent is swiped under the carper
that is not physics
that is stupid cheating
a wonderful cooperation between
crooks morons
and
suckers
ATB
Y.Porat
-----------------------
---------------------
just for the   record
and for trying to make you a bit a better
sci is not only maths
it is some basic understanding of physics
Since you have not ever made one quantitative prediction I guess that
you are still working on the "basic understanding" part....
[...]
--------------
you forgot my smallest photon mass
 prediction   to be
Photon mass Min= h/c^2times 1/Time unit
It's wrong. Or don't you remember?
It has been explained to you in...
2008 :http://groups.google.com/group/sci.astro/msg/a6bbfceca3588be4?dmode=s...
2007 :http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics/msg/513cafcc50ea0417?dmode...
2006 :http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics.relativity/msg/4c17910811a...
2005 :http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics.particle/msg/e046e4444e86a...
2004 :http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics.particle/msg/bca6faeecb136...
2003 :http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics.particle/msg/3657cc3b122a8...
Six years of repeating the same wrong idea. Consistency is a quantity
I desire in mashed potatoes, not crappy ideas.
oh
 i forgot that for you the photon is massles  (as your brain )
may be if you will grow a bit older than
24 you will get some better brain,
memory
and personality
so it is
ie something like
3.000 times 10 -exp 51
(if i remember correct)
Y.Porat
--------------------
-----------------
you consider a fucken physicist
as an ex plainer for me
or for others ??
I consider physicists to be the foremost experts on topics related to
physics.
I will not ask a retired structural engineer questions about nuclear
physics no more than I would ask a nuclear physicist questions about
structural engineering.
who are you alittle moron imbecil
to explain to me
while i explained to you that
in the formula
E=hf
there is mass in that h factor
and if you dont know how
a physics formula is built and used
then go to your strippers  in your hotels
and explain tothem anything you like
for me you are just  a  little moron fucker
so go  on discuss with your moron parrots
and we will see how far you will go
Y.P
-------------------
Blah blah blah. Been there done that, for more than half a decade now.
The explanation for why you are wrong hasn't changed in years.
a) Dimensional analysis is not physics
imbecile !!
learn how a physics formual is composed and used:
if
F=ma
and the dinension analysis of the formula shows

F = kilograms times meter/secon ^2
does it mean that
that
FORCE HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH THE
LENGTH PHYSICAL ENTITY
JUST BECAUSE
METER THERE IS
'JUST A DIMENSION'??!!

how many times that ahas to be to a little
nasty imbecile parrot fucke half mathematicain
that does not understand the basic of physics
dies a nasty little aprrot idot
can be a physics teacher of me ??
(with my unprecedented pioneering contributions contribution ?)
and btw
who are you a little disturbed Nazi piggshit
to tell me or anyone here
'go away' !!! ??
finish first your Bsc psychopath
and dont tell me about my English.
that is not an Shakespeare literature club-
it is a physics ng
and no one nominated a little homo moron
like you to be a moderator here

Y.P
---------------------------

.
b) The value you claim for the photon mass is inconsistent with
observation.
c) Learn to write coherent English for once in your miserable life you
goddamn illegible cretin.
d) Idiot.
Eric Gisse
2009-03-26 11:51:14 UTC
Permalink
On Mar 26, 2:56 am, "Y.y.Porat" <***@gmail.com> wrote:

[snip all]

Your blithering incoherent spew is like white noise.
Y.y.Porat
2009-03-26 12:38:50 UTC
Permalink
Post by Y.y.Porat
[...]
Is there a reason?
----------------
i predicted that
the Higgs will never be found
is it not enough??  (:-)
No, that is not enough. What is needed is a measurable property, for
which you can predict the value of that property to be measured. That
is what is done in physics. Anything less than that is superficial
dabbling.
----------------
no Sir
th e quantitative reasoning of mine are more than enough
Not in science, it's not. Stop deluding yourself.
-----------------------
you are not the oneto tell me what is science
may be you are good enough in parrotland
now
jsut naswer my questions
or else anyone can see
that you ahve no answers
to my quations
9because they are not in yuour
parrot land books
2
even if you have no aswers
just a litle advice
just think about for youself
i am sure that even you
wil not be easy with unanswered questions
that will at some corner of your mind
will go on botherong you
to realize that you are cheating youself or worse than that
cheating others
(or maybe even you ar enot aware
and dont mind coming closer to reality
all that  you mind is keep your 'status'
and  income business
no  matter how much garbage you eat while someone is showing it
that you are dealing with nonsense physics
and feed others with  garbage physics ???
is the failure of Higgs
not a good enough alarm bell for you  ??
you can  cheat someone all his life
you cvna cheat all just once
but you cant cheat everyone forever!!
just keep in mind that iron rule
ATB
Y.Porat
--------------------
is that your moral standard ??
i  can   hardly believe
For the record, Porat, I have no problem with people thinking and
musing and doing mental tinkering and imagining and inventing and
speculating.
What I object to is people doing that and calling it science.
Just because someone thinks about atoms does not mean that what
they're doing is science.
Science is an activity that is *defined* not by its subject matter but
by its methodology, which is why it's called the Scientific Method.
The activity described by the scientific method is what science is, by
definition.
There are many *other* activities that can touch on the same subject
matter -- like matter and energy and their interactions. Those
activities include philosophy (like epistemology and metaphysics),
taxonomy, aesthetic speculation, algebraic tinkering, numerological
mining, and the like. They are not science, simply because they do not
use the scientific method.
no mass no real physics
a messenger cannot be bigger than
it smother
the existing Higgs calculatuions
do not tell us
how man of them aere in the nucleuid
one may be two may be 3 etc etc
and how are thet completing the
overall knwn mass of the nucleid
it cannot be *the higgs'
a guest that is comming once and a while
to visit the nucleid
you must tell us
how many of them are
residents of the nucleid !!
and waht is ther mass
reat mass
relativisti c mass
it is not an
as you like it priogram
of as you like to  fit it in program
i t   must have
hand and physics   legs
and how for insatnce
it hold the 3 quarks together
and who on earth told you  that there are only 3 quarks
each friday and suterday
they find a new 'Quark
why wonder
if the quark is only a few percent
of the nucleid and all the 90 percent is swiped under the carper
that is not physics
that is stupid cheating
a wonderful cooperation between
crooks morons
and
suckers
ATB
Y.Porat
-----------------------
---------------------
just for the   record
and for trying to make you a bit a better
sci is not only maths
it is some basic understanding of physics
Since you have not ever made one quantitative prediction I guess that
you are still working on the "basic understanding" part....
[...]
--------------
you forgot my smallest photon mass
 prediction   to be
Photon mass Min= h/c^2times 1/Time unit
It's wrong. Or don't you remember?
It has been explained to you in...
2008 :http://groups.google.com/group/sci.astro/msg/a6bbfceca3588be4?dmode=s...
2007 :http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics/msg/513cafcc50ea0417?dmode...
2006 :http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics.relativity/msg/4c17910811a...
2005 :http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics.particle/msg/e046e4444e86a...
2004 :http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics.particle/msg/bca6faeecb136...
2003 :http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics.particle/msg/3657cc3b122a8...
Six years of repeating the same wrong idea. Consistency is a quantity
I desire in mashed potatoes, not crappy ideas.
oh
 i forgot that for you the photon is massles  (as your brain )
may be if you will grow a bit older than
24 you will get some better brain,
memory
and personality
so it is
ie something like
3.000 times 10 -exp 51
(if i remember correct)
Y.Porat
--------------------
-----------------
you consider a fucken physicist
as an ex plainer for me
or for others ??
I consider physicists to be the foremost experts on topics related to
physics.
I will not ask a retired structural engineer questions about nuclear
physics no more than I would ask a nuclear physicist questions about
structural engineering.
who are you alittle moron imbecil
to explain to me
while i explained to you that
in the formula
E=hf
there is mass in that h factor
and if you dont know how
a physics formula is built and used
then go to your strippers  in your hotels
and explain tothem anything you like
for me you are just  a  little moron fucker
so go  on discuss with your moron parrots
and we will see how far you will go
Y.P
-------------------
Blah blah blah. Been there done that, for more than half a decade now.
The explanation for why you are wrong hasn't changed in years.
a) Dimensional analysis is not physics
imbecile !!
if
F=ma
and the dinension analysis of the formula shows
F = kilograms times meter/secon ^2
does it mean that
that
 FORCE HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH THE
LENGTH  PHYSICAL ENTITY
JUST BECAUSE
METER THERE IS
'JUST A DIMENSION'??!!
 how many times that ahas to be to a little
nasty imbecile parrot fucke half mathematicain
that does not understand the basic of physics
dies a nasty little aprrot idot
can be a physics teacher of me ??
(with my unprecedented pioneering contributions  contribution ?)
and btw
who are you a little disturbed  Nazi piggshit
to tell me or anyone here
'go away' !!!  ??
finish first your Bsc   psychopath
and dont tell me about my English.
that is not an Shakespeare literature club-
it is a physics ng
and no one nominated a little homo moron
like you to be a moderator here
Y.P
---------------------------
the little psychopath nasty croock imbecil
diverted that thread to his moron
and thought that i will fall in his dirty
psychpatic tricks
so here is my response
so that everyone can see withwhom we are dealing here:
------
Your blithering incoherent spew is like white noise.

------------------
let every one see Gisse physics arguments:
'Your blithering incoherent spew is like white noise.''

these are physic arhument
and another example even simpler

if acceleration a
is
a = meter/ second ^2

and Meter and Second are physical dimension
it means nothing to say (for Eric Schaise)
it means nothing to calime and understand
that Acceleration
is got amything with lenghth
or time *physical entities*

'BECAUSE METER OR SECONDS
ARE JUST DIMENSIONS '!!!

now this little fucker mathematics idiot parrot
is pretending to be a physics teacher and **moderator** here
to tell anyone here
'Go away' !!!
did you get whom we are enduring here ??
so
just ignore that moron psychopath

Y.Porat
---------------------------
Post by Y.y.Porat
.
b) The value you claim for the photon mass is inconsistent with
observation.
c) Learn to write coherent English for once in your miserable life you
goddamn illegible cretin.
d) Idiot.
Y.y.Porat
2009-03-26 12:55:52 UTC
Permalink
Post by Y.y.Porat
Post by Y.y.Porat
3.000 times 10 -exp 51
(if i remember correct)
Y.Porat
--------------------
physics.
I will not ask a retired structural engineer questions about nuclear
physics no more than I would ask a nuclear physicist questions about
structural engineering.
who are you alittle moron imbecil
to explain to me
while i explained to you that
in the formula
E=hf
there is mass in that h factor
and if you dont know how
a physics formula is built and used
then go to your strippers  in your hotels
and explain tothem anything you like
for me you are just  a  little moron fucker
so go  on discuss with your moron parrots
and we will see how far you will go
Y.P
-------------------
Blah blah blah. Been there done that, for more than half a decade now.
The explanation for why you are wrong hasn't changed in years.
a) Dimensional analysis is not physics
imbecile !!
if
F=ma
and the dinension analysis of the formula shows
F = kilograms times meter/secon ^2
does it mean that
that
 FORCE HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH THE
LENGTH  PHYSICAL ENTITY
JUST BECAUSE
METER THERE IS
'JUST A DIMENSION'??!!
 how many times that ahas to be to a little
nasty imbecile parrot fucke half mathematicain
-------------------------
and more
Post by Y.y.Porat
Post by Y.y.Porat
[...]
Is there a reason?
----------------
i predicted that
the Higgs will never be found
is it not enough?? (:-)
No, that is not enough. What is needed is a measurable property, for
which you can predict the value of that property to be measured. That
is what is done in physics. Anything less than that is superficial
dabbling.
----------------
no Sir
th e quantitative reasoning of mine are more than enough
Not in science, it's not. Stop deluding yourself.
-----------------------
you are not the oneto tell me what is science
may be you are good enough in parrotland
now
jsut naswer my questions
or else anyone can see
that you ahve no answers
to my quations
9because they are not in yuour
parrot land books
2
even if you have no aswers
just a litle advice
just think about for youself
i am sure that even you
wil not be easy with unanswered questions
that will at some corner of your mind
will go on botherong you
to realize that you are cheating youself or worse than that
cheating others
(or maybe even you ar enot aware
and dont mind coming closer to reality
all that you mind is keep your 'status'
and income business
no matter how much garbage you eat while someone is showing it
that you are dealing with nonsense physics
and feed others with garbage physics ???
is the failure of Higgs
not a good enough alarm bell for you ??
you can cheat someone all his life
you cvna cheat all just once
but you cant cheat everyone forever!!
just keep in mind that iron rule
ATB
Y.Porat
--------------------
is that your moral standard ??
i can hardly believe
For the record, Porat, I have no problem with people thinking and
musing and doing mental tinkering and imagining and inventing and
speculating.
What I object to is people doing that and calling it science.
Just because someone thinks about atoms does not mean that what
they're doing is science.
Science is an activity that is *defined* not by its subject matter but
by its methodology, which is why it's called the Scientific Method.
The activity described by the scientific method is what science is, by
definition.
There are many *other* activities that can touch on the same subject
matter -- like matter and energy and their interactions. Those
activities include philosophy (like epistemology and metaphysics),
taxonomy, aesthetic speculation, algebraic tinkering, numerological
mining, and the like. They are not science, simply because they do not
use the scientific method.
no mass no real physics
a messenger cannot be bigger than
it smother
the existing Higgs calculatuions
do not tell us
how man of them aere in the nucleuid
one may be two may be 3 etc etc
and how are thet completing the
overall knwn mass of the nucleid
it cannot be *the higgs'
a guest that is comming once and a while
to visit the nucleid
you must tell us
how many of them are
residents of the nucleid !!
and waht is ther mass
reat mass
relativisti c mass
it is not an
as you like it priogram
of as you like to fit it in program
i t must have
hand and physics legs
and how for insatnce
it hold the 3 quarks together
and who on earth told you that there are only 3 quarks
each friday and suterday
they find a new 'Quark
why wonder
if the quark is only a few percent
of the nucleid and all the 90 percent is swiped under the carper
that is not physics
that is stupid cheating
a wonderful cooperation between
crooks morons
and
suckers
ATB
Y.Porat
-----------------------
---------------------
just for the record
and for trying to make you a bit a better
sci is not only maths
it is some basic understanding of physics
Since you have not ever made one quantitative prediction I guess that
you are still working on the "basic understanding" part....
[...]
--------------
you forgot my smallest photon mass
prediction to be
Photon mass Min= h/c^2times 1/Time unit
It's wrong. Or don't you remember?
It has been explained to you in...
2008 :http://groups.google.com/group/sci.astro/msg/a6bbfceca3588be4?dmode=s...
2007 :http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics/msg/513cafcc50ea0417?dmode...
2006 :http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics.relativity/msg/4c17910811a...
2005 :http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics.particle/msg/e046e4444e86a...
2004 :http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics.particle/msg/bca6faeecb136...
2003 :http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics.particle/msg/3657cc3b122a8...
Six years of repeating the same wrong idea. Consistency is a quantity
I desire in mashed potatoes, not crappy ideas.
oh
i forgot that for you the photon is massles (as your brain )
may be if you will grow a bit older than
24 you will get some better brain,
memory
and personality
so it is
ie something like
3.000 times 10 -exp 51
(if i remember correct)
Y.Porat
--------------------
-----------------
you consider a fucken physicist
as an ex plainer for me
or for others ??
I consider physicists to be the foremost experts on topics related to
physics.
I will not ask a retired structural engineer questions about nuclear
physics no more than I would ask a nuclear physicist questions about
structural engineering.
Post by Y.y.Porat
who are you alittle moron imbecil
to explain to me
while i explained to you that
in the formula
E=hf
there is mass in that h factor
and if you dont know how
a physics formula is built and used
then go to your strippers in your hotels
and explain tothem anything you like
for me you are just a little moron fucker
so go on discuss with your moron parrots
and we will see how far you will go
Y.P
-------------------
Blah blah blah. Been there done that, for more than half a decade now.
The explanation for why you are wrong hasn't changed in years.
a) Dimensional analysis is not physics.
b) The value you claim for the photon mass is inconsistent with
observation.
c) Learn to write coherent English for once in your miserable life you
goddamn illegible cretin.
d) Idiot.
--------------------
the littl e psychopath diverted
my answer to his moron ng
so
here it is insight his dirty
psychaptic trickes:
-------------
Post by Y.y.Porat
Post by Y.y.Porat
[...]
Is there a reason?
----------------
i predicted that
the Higgs will never be found
is it not enough?? (:-)
No, that is not enough. What is needed is a measurable property, for
which you can predict the value of that property to be measured. That
is what is done in physics. Anything less than that is superficial
dabbling.
----------------
no Sir
th e quantitative reasoning of mine are more than enough
Not in science, it's not. Stop deluding yourself.
-----------------------
you are not the oneto tell me what is science
may be you are good enough in parrotland
now
jsut naswer my questions
or else anyone can see
that you ahve no answers
to my quations
9because they are not in yuour
parrot land books
2
even if you have no aswers
just a litle advice
just think about for youself
i am sure that even you
wil not be easy with unanswered questions
that will at some corner of your mind
will go on botherong you
to realize that you are cheating youself or worse than that
cheating others
(or maybe even you ar enot aware
and dont mind coming closer to reality
all that you mind is keep your 'status'
and income business
no matter how much garbage you eat while someone is showing it
that you are dealing with nonsense physics
and feed others with garbage physics ???
is the failure of Higgs
not a good enough alarm bell for you ??
you can cheat someone all his life
you cvna cheat all just once
but you cant cheat everyone forever!!
just keep in mind that iron rule
ATB
Y.Porat
--------------------
is that your moral standard ??
i can hardly believe
For the record, Porat, I have no problem with people thinking and
musing and doing mental tinkering and imagining and inventing and
speculating.
What I object to is people doing that and calling it science.
Just because someone thinks about atoms does not mean that what
they're doing is science.
Science is an activity that is *defined* not by its subject matter but
by its methodology, which is why it's called the Scientific Method.
The activity described by the scientific method is what science is, by
definition.
There are many *other* activities that can touch on the same subject
matter -- like matter and energy and their interactions. Those
activities include philosophy (like epistemology and metaphysics),
taxonomy, aesthetic speculation, algebraic tinkering, numerological
mining, and the like. They are not science, simply because they do not
use the scientific method.
no mass no real physics
a messenger cannot be bigger than
it smother
the existing Higgs calculatuions
do not tell us
how man of them aere in the nucleuid
one may be two may be 3 etc etc
and how are thet completing the
overall knwn mass of the nucleid
it cannot be *the higgs'
a guest that is comming once and a while
to visit the nucleid
you must tell us
how many of them are
residents of the nucleid !!
and waht is ther mass
reat mass
relativisti c mass
it is not an
as you like it priogram
of as you like to fit it in program
i t must have
hand and physics legs
and how for insatnce
it hold the 3 quarks together
and who on earth told you that there are only 3 quarks
each friday and suterday
they find a new 'Quark
why wonder
if the quark is only a few percent
of the nucleid and all the 90 percent is swiped under the carper
that is not physics
that is stupid cheating
a wonderful cooperation between
crooks morons
and
suckers
ATB
Y.Porat
-----------------------
---------------------
just for the record
and for trying to make you a bit a better
sci is not only maths
it is some basic understanding of physics
Since you have not ever made one quantitative prediction I guess that
you are still working on the "basic understanding" part....
[...]
--------------
you forgot my smallest photon mass
prediction to be
Photon mass Min= h/c^2times 1/Time unit
It's wrong. Or don't you remember?
It has been explained to you in...
2008 :http://groups.google.com/group/sci.astro/msg/a6bbfceca3588be4?dmode=s...
2007 :http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics/msg/513cafcc50ea0417?dmode...
2006 :http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics.relativity/msg/4c17910811a...
2005 :http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics.particle/msg/e046e4444e86a...
2004 :http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics.particle/msg/bca6faeecb136...
2003 :http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics.particle/msg/3657cc3b122a8...
Six years of repeating the same wrong idea. Consistency is a quantity
I desire in mashed potatoes, not crappy ideas.
oh
i forgot that for you the photon is massles (as your brain )
may be if you will grow a bit older than
24 you will get some better brain,
memory
and personality
so it is
ie something like
3.000 times 10 -exp 51
(if i remember correct)
Y.Porat
--------------------
-----------------
you consider a fucken physicist
as an ex plainer for me
or for others ??
I consider physicists to be the foremost experts on topics related to
physics.
I will not ask a retired structural engineer questions about nuclear
physics no more than I would ask a nuclear physicist questions about
structural engineering.
who are you alittle moron imbecil
to explain to me
while i explained to you that
in the formula
E=hf
there is mass in that h factor
and if you dont know how
a physics formula is built and used
then go to your strippers in your hotels
and explain tothem anything you like
for me you are just a little moron fucker
so go on discuss with your moron parrots
and we will see how far you will go
Y.P
-------------------
Blah blah blah. Been there done that, for more than half a decade now.
The explanation for why you are wrong hasn't changed in years.
a) Dimensional analysis is not physics
imbecile !!
if
F=ma
and the dinension analysis of the formula shows
F = kilograms times meter/secon ^2
does it mean that
that
FORCE HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH THE
LENGTH PHYSICAL ENTITY
JUST BECAUSE
METER THERE IS
'JUST A DIMENSION'??!!
how many times that ahas to be to a little
nasty imbecile parrot fucke half mathematicain
that does not understand the basic of physics
dies a nasty little aprrot idot
can be a physics teacher of me ??
(with my unprecedented pioneering contributions contribution ?)
and btw
who are you a little disturbed Nazi piggshit
to tell me or anyone here
'go away' !!! ??
finish first your Bsc psychopath
and dont tell me about my English.
that is not an Shakespeare literature club-
it is a physics ng
and no one nominated a little homo moron
like you to be a moderator here
Y.P
---------------------------
the little psychopath nasty croock imbecil
diverted that thread to his moron
and thought that i will fall in his dirty
psychpatic tricks
so here is my response
so that everyone can see withwhom we are dealing here:
------
Your blithering incoherent spew is like white noise.

------------------
let every one see Gisse physics arguments:
'Your blithering incoherent spew is like white noise.''

these are physic arhument
and another example even simpler

if acceleration a
is
a = meter/ second ^2

and Meter and Second are physical dimension
it means nothing to say (for Eric Schaise)
it means nothing to calime and understand
that Acceleration
is got amything with lenghth
or time *physical entities*

'BECAUSE METER OR SECONDS
ARE JUST DIMENSIONS '!!!

now this little fucker mathematics idiot parrot
is pretending to be a physics teacher and **moderator** here
to tell anyone here
'Go away' !!!
did you get whom we are enduring here ??
so
just ignore that moron psychopath

Y.Porat
---------------------------
Post by Y.y.Porat
.
Y.y.Porat
2009-03-26 12:47:57 UTC
Permalink
[...]
Is there a reason?
----------------
i predicted that
the Higgs will never be found
is it not enough??  (:-)
No, that is not enough. What is needed is a measurable property, for
which you can predict the value of that property to be measured. That
is what is done in physics. Anything less than that is superficial
dabbling.
----------------
no Sir
th e quantitative reasoning of mine are more than enough
Not in science, it's not. Stop deluding yourself.
-----------------------
you are not the oneto tell me what is science
may be you are good enough in parrotland
now
jsut naswer my questions
or else anyone can see
that you ahve no answers
to my quations
9because they are not in yuour
parrot land books
2
even if you have no aswers
just a litle advice
just think about for youself
i am sure that even you
wil not be easy with unanswered questions
that will at some corner of your mind
will go on botherong you
to realize that you are cheating youself or worse than that
cheating others
(or maybe even you ar enot aware
and dont mind coming closer to reality
all that  you mind is keep your 'status'
and  income business
no  matter how much garbage you eat while someone is showing it
that you are dealing with nonsense physics
and feed others with  garbage physics ???
is the failure of Higgs
not a good enough alarm bell for you  ??
you can  cheat someone all his life
you cvna cheat all just once
but you cant cheat everyone forever!!
just keep in mind that iron rule
ATB
Y.Porat
--------------------
is that your moral standard ??
i  can   hardly believe
For the record, Porat, I have no problem with people thinking and
musing and doing mental tinkering and imagining and inventing and
speculating.
What I object to is people doing that and calling it science.
Just because someone thinks about atoms does not mean that what
they're doing is science.
Science is an activity that is *defined* not by its subject matter but
by its methodology, which is why it's called the Scientific Method.
The activity described by the scientific method is what science is, by
definition.
There are many *other* activities that can touch on the same subject
matter -- like matter and energy and their interactions. Those
activities include philosophy (like epistemology and metaphysics),
taxonomy, aesthetic speculation, algebraic tinkering, numerological
mining, and the like. They are not science, simply because they do not
use the scientific method.
no mass no real physics
a messenger cannot be bigger than
it smother
the existing Higgs calculatuions
do not tell us
how man of them aere in the nucleuid
one may be two may be 3 etc etc
and how are thet completing the
overall knwn mass of the nucleid
it cannot be *the higgs'
a guest that is comming once and a while
to visit the nucleid
you must tell us
how many of them are
residents of the nucleid !!
and waht is ther mass
reat mass
relativisti c mass
it is not an
as you like it priogram
of as you like to  fit it in program
i t   must have
hand and physics   legs
and how for insatnce
it hold the 3 quarks together
and who on earth told you  that there are only 3 quarks
each friday and suterday
they find a new 'Quark
why wonder
if the quark is only a few percent
of the nucleid and all the 90 percent is swiped under the carper
that is not physics
that is stupid cheating
a wonderful cooperation between
crooks morons
and
suckers
ATB
Y.Porat
-----------------------
---------------------
just for the   record
and for trying to make you a bit a better
sci is not only maths
it is some basic understanding of physics
Since you have not ever made one quantitative prediction I guess that
you are still working on the "basic understanding" part....
[...]
--------------
you forgot my smallest photon mass
 prediction   to be
Photon mass Min= h/c^2times 1/Time unit
It's wrong. Or don't you remember?
It has been explained to you in...
2008 :http://groups.google.com/group/sci.astro/msg/a6bbfceca3588be4?dmode=s...
2007 :http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics/msg/513cafcc50ea0417?dmode...
2006 :http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics.relativity/msg/4c17910811a...
2005 :http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics.particle/msg/e046e4444e86a...
2004 :http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics.particle/msg/bca6faeecb136...
2003 :http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics.particle/msg/3657cc3b122a8...
Six years of repeating the same wrong idea. Consistency is a quantity
I desire in mashed potatoes, not crappy ideas.
oh
 i forgot that for you the photon is massles  (as your brain )
may be if you will grow a bit older than
24 you will get some better brain,
memory
and personality
so it is
ie something like
3.000 times 10 -exp 51
(if i remember correct)
Y.Porat
--------------------
-----------------
you consider a fucken physicist
as an ex plainer for me
or for others ??
I consider physicists to be the foremost experts on topics related to
physics.
I will not ask a retired structural engineer questions about nuclear
physics no more than I would ask a nuclear physicist questions about
structural engineering.
who are you alittle moron imbecil
to explain to me
while i explained to you that
in the formula
E=hf
there is mass in that h factor
and if you dont know how
a physics formula is built and used
then go to your strippers  in your hotels
and explain tothem anything you like
for me you are just  a  little moron fucker
so go  on discuss with your moron parrots
and we will see how far you will go
Y.P
-------------------
Blah blah blah. Been there done that, for more than half a decade now.
The explanation for why you are wrong hasn't changed in years.
a) Dimensional analysis is not physics.
b) The value you claim for the photon mass is inconsistent with
observation.
c) Learn to write coherent English for once in your miserable life you
goddamn illegible cretin.
d) Idiot.
--------------------
the littl e psychopath diverted
my answer to his moron ng
so
here it is insight his dirty
psychaptic trickes:
-------------
[...]
Is there a reason?
----------------
i predicted that
the Higgs will never be found
is it not enough?? (:-)
No, that is not enough. What is needed is a measurable property, for
which you can predict the value of that property to be measured. That
is what is done in physics. Anything less than that is superficial
dabbling.
----------------
no Sir
th e quantitative reasoning of mine are more than enough
Not in science, it's not. Stop deluding yourself.
-----------------------
you are not the oneto tell me what is science
may be you are good enough in parrotland
now
jsut naswer my questions
or else anyone can see
that you ahve no answers
to my quations
9because they are not in yuour
parrot land books
2
even if you have no aswers
just a litle advice
just think about for youself
i am sure that even you
wil not be easy with unanswered questions
that will at some corner of your mind
will go on botherong you
to realize that you are cheating youself or worse than that
cheating others
(or maybe even you ar enot aware
and dont mind coming closer to reality
all that you mind is keep your 'status'
and income business
no matter how much garbage you eat while someone is showing it
that you are dealing with nonsense physics
and feed others with garbage physics ???
is the failure of Higgs
not a good enough alarm bell for you ??
you can cheat someone all his life
you cvna cheat all just once
but you cant cheat everyone forever!!
just keep in mind that iron rule
ATB
Y.Porat
--------------------
is that your moral standard ??
i can hardly believe
For the record, Porat, I have no problem with people thinking and
musing and doing mental tinkering and imagining and inventing and
speculating.
What I object to is people doing that and calling it science.
Just because someone thinks about atoms does not mean that what
they're doing is science.
Science is an activity that is *defined* not by its subject matter but
by its methodology, which is why it's called the Scientific Method.
The activity described by the scientific method is what science is, by
definition.
There are many *other* activities that can touch on the same subject
matter -- like matter and energy and their interactions. Those
activities include philosophy (like epistemology and metaphysics),
taxonomy, aesthetic speculation, algebraic tinkering, numerological
mining, and the like. They are not science, simply because they do not
use the scientific method.
no mass no real physics
a messenger cannot be bigger than
it smother
the existing Higgs calculatuions
do not tell us
how man of them aere in the nucleuid
one may be two may be 3 etc etc
and how are thet completing the
overall knwn mass of the nucleid
it cannot be *the higgs'
a guest that is comming once and a while
to visit the nucleid
you must tell us
how many of them are
residents of the nucleid !!
and waht is ther mass
reat mass
relativisti c mass
it is not an
as you like it priogram
of as you like to fit it in program
i t must have
hand and physics legs
and how for insatnce
it hold the 3 quarks together
and who on earth told you that there are only 3 quarks
each friday and suterday
they find a new 'Quark
why wonder
if the quark is only a few percent
of the nucleid and all the 90 percent is swiped under the carper
that is not physics
that is stupid cheating
a wonderful cooperation between
crooks morons
and
suckers
ATB
Y.Porat
-----------------------
---------------------
just for the record
and for trying to make you a bit a better
sci is not only maths
it is some basic understanding of physics
Since you have not ever made one quantitative prediction I guess that
you are still working on the "basic understanding" part....
[...]
--------------
you forgot my smallest photon mass
prediction to be
Photon mass Min= h/c^2times 1/Time unit
It's wrong. Or don't you remember?
It has been explained to you in...
2008 :http://groups.google.com/group/sci.astro/msg/a6bbfceca3588be4?dmode=s...
2007 :http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics/msg/513cafcc50ea0417?dmode...
2006 :http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics.relativity/msg/4c17910811a...
2005 :http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics.particle/msg/e046e4444e86a...
2004 :http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics.particle/msg/bca6faeecb136...
2003 :http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics.particle/msg/3657cc3b122a8...
Six years of repeating the same wrong idea. Consistency is a quantity
I desire in mashed potatoes, not crappy ideas.
oh
i forgot that for you the photon is massles (as your brain )
may be if you will grow a bit older than
24 you will get some better brain,
memory
and personality
so it is
ie something like
3.000 times 10 -exp 51
(if i remember correct)
Y.Porat
--------------------
-----------------
you consider a fucken physicist
as an ex plainer for me
or for others ??
I consider physicists to be the foremost experts on topics related to
physics.
I will not ask a retired structural engineer questions about nuclear
physics no more than I would ask a nuclear physicist questions about
structural engineering.
who are you alittle moron imbecil
to explain to me
while i explained to you that
in the formula
E=hf
there is mass in that h factor
and if you dont know how
a physics formula is built and used
then go to your strippers in your hotels
and explain tothem anything you like
for me you are just a little moron fucker
so go on discuss with your moron parrots
and we will see how far you will go
Y.P
-------------------
Blah blah blah. Been there done that, for more than half a decade now.
The explanation for why you are wrong hasn't changed in years.
a) Dimensional analysis is not physics
imbecile !!
if
F=ma
and the dinension analysis of the formula shows
F = kilograms times meter/secon ^2
does it mean that
that
FORCE HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH THE
LENGTH PHYSICAL ENTITY
JUST BECAUSE
METER THERE IS
'JUST A DIMENSION'??!!
how many times that ahas to be to a little
nasty imbecile parrot fucke half mathematicain
that does not understand the basic of physics
dies a nasty little aprrot idot
can be a physics teacher of me ??
(with my unprecedented pioneering contributions contribution ?)
and btw
who are you a little disturbed Nazi piggshit
to tell me or anyone here
'go away' !!! ??
finish first your Bsc psychopath
and dont tell me about my English.
that is not an Shakespeare literature club-
it is a physics ng
and no one nominated a little homo moron
like you to be a moderator here
Y.P
---------------------------
the little psychopath nasty croock imbecil
diverted that thread to his moron
and thought that i will fall in his dirty
psychpatic tricks
so here is my response
so that everyone can see withwhom we are dealing here:
------
Your blithering incoherent spew is like white noise.

------------------
let every one see Gisse physics arguments:
'Your blithering incoherent spew is like white noise.''

these are physic arhument
and another example even simpler

if acceleration a
is
a = meter/ second ^2

and Meter and Second are physical dimension
it means nothing to say (for Eric Schaise)
it means nothing to calime and understand
that Acceleration
is got amything with lenghth
or time *physical entities*

'BECAUSE METER OR SECONDS
ARE JUST DIMENSIONS '!!!

now this little fucker mathematics idiot parrot
is pretending to be a physics teacher and **moderator** here
to tell anyone here
'Go away' !!!
did you get whom we are enduring here ??
so
just ignore that moron psychopath

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