 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
Natural Science Forum / Physics / Particle Physics / September 2005Nuclear Binding Energy Calculations
Hi, Is it possible to calculate the Nuclear Binding Energies of any element, any isotopes using some kind of formula? Is it accurate? What's the formula. David No there is no formula for it (provided you what to go *all along the periodic table!!*) but there is some system in it each nucleus is a 'personality' for itself yet there are some common features that repeat themselves now if you what to do it as an innovation? it is too late it was already don by someone called Y.Porat he is expert No 1 for binding energies of the nuc.. (that wheel has already invented!!) ATB Y.Porat -------------------- > No there is no formula for it > (provided you what to go *all along the periodic table!!*) [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > Y.Porat > -------------------- Duh. Someone who called himself Thomas Lockyer said he is the no. 1 expert of binding energies of the nuc because he can calculate all of them using his cube particle model. That is why I asked if Standard Model has really no way to calculate it. Hope someone veteran in Standard Model can tell us.I can't rely on anything you said Porat because you appear to be out of your mind. Why don't you go to Gaza and enjoy the pullout and let the real experts reply to this. David what Lockyer did is calculating (listen carefully idiot) he is calculating the over all binding energy and solved some light nuclei his cube model is a crippled one may be he saw my rectangular pipe and adjusted himself to it now listen carefully idiot what i did: i decoded the geometric structure of all nuclei of all the periodic table it means not only the overall binding energy but a pin point binding energy of any binding point of the nuc !! do you understand the difference idiot?? and you get a map of all the nuclei of all of them as if it was on your palm of your hand to the finest resolution possible that no human creature ever did got it disturbed idiot?? just have a glimpse at my site that is just the tip of the iceberg so shut up and start learning or else others will do it before you or alternatively start learning the Lockyer model and i wish you well Y.Porat --------------------------- > Is it possible to calculate the Nuclear Binding Energies > of any element, any isotopes using some kind of formula? Nuclear Binding Energy http://www.chem.purdue.edu/gchelp/howtosolveit/Nuclear/nuclear_binding_energy.htm The difference between the mass of a nucleus and the sum of the masses of the nucleons of which it is composed is called the mass defect. Three things need to be known in order to calculate the mass defect: o the actual mass of the nucleus, o the composition of the nucleus (number of protons and of neutrons), o the masses of a proton and of a neutron. > > Is it possible to calculate the Nuclear Binding Energies > > of any element, any isotopes using some kind of formula? [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > o the composition of the nucleus (number of protons and of neutrons), > o the masses of a proton and of a neutron. Is there no exception?? Can the above calculate all isotopes??? How come some have to spend many years finding a way to modify Standard Model so that they can calculate it such as Tom Lockyer who spent over 30 years to try to figure out an equation to get the nuclear binding energies of each element and isotope?? David >> > Is it possible to calculate the Nuclear Binding Energies >> > of any element, any isotopes using some kind of formula? [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] >> o the composition of the nucleus (number of protons and of neutrons), >> o the masses of a proton and of a neutron. >Is there no exception?? >Can the above calculate all isotopes??? >How come some have to spend many years finding a way to modify >Standard Model so that they can calculate it such as Tom Lockyer >who spent over 30 years to try to figure out an equation to get >the nuclear binding energies of each element and isotope?? I know of no exact calculations, but the Weizsaecker Formula which is based on the Liquid Drop Model of the nucleus is pretty good. It has several terms, the first is proportional to A, the nucleon number, a second "surface" term proportional to A^(2/3) is subtracted, a third coulombic repulsion term proportional to Z^2/(A^(1/3)) is subtracted, there's another proportional to the difference from the same number of protons and neutrons (A-2Z) and another term that shows the effect of nucleon pairing that's positive for even-even nuclei and negative for odd-odd nuclei. It's not accurate for small A though. Moroney since you have a copy of my book you can understand what is the difference between calculating the overall binding energy of all sub particles and.. pin pointing the binding energy at any connection point of Any proton and neutron of the nuc. moreover i addition to describe or map the exact location of any proton or neutron yet i am not sure if you were able to decode my planar schematic descriptions of the heavy nucs because it is quit impossible to show it is 3d models for all of them but had you some of that 3d training you could do it not to mention the chemical verifications the nuclear facts that are unprecedentedly explained etc . so may be just tell them about how far i went compared to others about the geometric structure of the nuc i had no pretensions about say spectrum aspects because i never invested on it. or may be other aspects but what did about the geometric detailed structure is unprecedented. ATB Y.Porat ---------------------- [snip] > How come some have to spend many years finding a way to modify > Standard Model so that they can calculate it such as Tom Lockyer > who spent over 30 years to try to figure out an equation to get > the nuclear binding energies of each element and isotope?? It's news to me that Tom Lockyer has one single equation. Judging from what I've seen from him so far, he fumbles around quite a bit in order to arrive at the numbers he wants to have. Bye, Bjoern > [snip] > [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > Bye, > Bjoern Bjoern, you fellows refuse to get my book. I use the near field magnetic moments to calculate the binding energy. I find there are groups of nucleons that are common to all isotopes, and that the binding energy is saturated, that is, the nucleons only "feel" the fields of adjacent nucleons. This greatly simplified the calculation because one can pre-calculate group bindings and sum to the total nucleus binding. The only ones needed seem to be: (p to n), (n to n), (p to p), (p+n) n, (p+n) p, (p-n) n, (p-n) p, (n+n) p, and (p-n)(p-n). There is one more caveat, your arrangement of the groupings must get the experimentally known spin angular momentum of the isotope you model. The QVPP method works good enough to tell which nuclei are stable or unstable against decay. Here is a page out of the book showing stable Boron11. http://members.aol.com/thomasl283/Page72.gif David, the Wormsley reference requires empirical measurement of masses to get binding energy, and the old liquid drop model mistakenly tried to make "one equation" fits all. Neither method can account for the subtle arrangement of nucleons in nuclei. Only the methods, adopted by QVPP, are the correct approach. Regards: Tom; www.amazon.com 0963154664 >>[snip] >> [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > > Bjoern, you fellows refuse to get my book. Well, I saw the page from your book you cite again below, and from that it was quite clear that you have *not* one single equation. But indeed fumble around quite a bit. [snip rant] > Here is a page out of the book showing stable Boron11. > [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > to get binding energy, and the old liquid drop model mistakenly tried > to make "one equation" fits all. Err, the model works, so why do you call it "mistaken"? [snip] Bye, Bjoern see my reply to David just to know the overall binding energy does not make you much wiser you have to know the exact structure and exact location of each proton and neutron and the binding energy at any connection point it seems that what i did is so fantastic far away from others that people even do not start to realize and understand what they see in my model!1 iow it is even beyond to their Deming ability. oh yes indeed for the heavy nuclei it is so 3d complicated that i had to invent a planar abbreviation (or abstraction )graphic system so it looks as hieroglyphs but i have in my book the ' Shampoleon stone' IE a key for translating it to the 3d structure a bit of it is shown more tangibly at the iron description IE you can see there how the 3d tangible structure is 'translated' to the more abstract schematic graphic code just have a look at the iron description on two pages.(in two ways of presentation) (that is of course not for idiots like David.. but a bit more serious and intelligent people than him) ATB Y.Porat -------------- > Hi, > > Is it possible to calculate the Nuclear Binding Energies > of any element, any isotopes using some kind of formula? > Is it accurate? What's the formula. The Bethe-Weizsaecker formula gives a good approximation. If you want to achieve better accurary, you have to do ab initio calculations using model potentials, or equivalent approaches; there is no single formula which could deal with such complex systems as nuclei. Bye, Bjoern on this for a change i agree with Feuerbacher (he has my book so he knows about what i am talking provided he was able to understand the 3d schemes of the heaviest ones) now the drop model is dead long ago and anyone who has my book realizes that it is impossible to formulate the binding energies just by one formula!! and again for me the binding energies is not the overall sum of it that is very primitive knowledge for me it is at any point of connection (and there are a lot there my luck was that ... there is a lot of repetitions on those bindings and surprisingly enough they are *constant* (many types but those types are constant) no matter if the nuc is small or big!! (as one finds in electrons binding energies !!) (so dont tell me who is expert No 1 for binding energies of the nuc and a lot more than just binding energies. (:-)) Y.Porat ---------------------------- as i said above the reasons. > Hi, > > Is it possible to calculate the Nuclear Binding Energies > of any element, any isotopes using some kind of formula? > Is it accurate? What's the formula. http://t2.lanl.gov/data/astro/molnix96/molnix.html If you are not smart enough to find the citation, what makes you think you are smart enough to understand it?  SignatureUncle Al http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/ (Toxic URL! Unsafe for children and most mammals) http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/qz.pdf [snip crap] Hey Bozo! Let's see if you know any high school algebra. Given: ½[tau(0,0,0,t)+tau(0,0,0,t+x'/(c-v)+x'/(c+v))] = tau(x',0,0,t+x'/(c-v)) Need a reference, phuckwit? No need, you've quoted it yourself before, stoooopid. Doubling both sides: tau(0,0,0,t)+tau(0,0,0,t+x'/(c-v)+x'/(c+v)) = 2 * tau(x',0,0,t+x'/(c-v)) Taking out the t for 3:00pm on a Friday afternoon: tau(0,0,0,0)+tau(0,0,0,x'/(c-v)+x'/(c+v)) = 2 * tau(x',0,0,x'/(c-v)) Synchronize clocks at t = 0, we remove tau(0,0,0,0)+ tau(0,0,0,x'/(c-v)+x'/(c+v)) = 2 * tau(x',0,0,x'/(c-v)) Taking coordinate x' as infinitessimally small, as he says, you not quite realizing x' is both a coordinate and a distance, he does that to differentiate, so we leave the distance alone, dx/dt = x/t anyway with a constant velocity. tau(0,0,0,x'/(c-v)+x'/(c+v)) = 2 * tau(0,0,0,x'/(c-v)) Removing the superflous coordinates, all zero: tau(x'/(c-v)+x'/(c+v)) = 2 * tau(x'/(c-v)) Setting the time a = x'/(c-v) and b =x'/(c+v) for clarity tau(a+b) = 2*tau(a) Renaming tau as f, f(a+b) = 2f(a) or ½f(a+b) = f(a) Now tell me that's a linear function, a > b. "In the first place it is clear that the equations must be linear on account of the properties of homogeneity which we attribute to space and time." -- Albert Phuckwit/Huckster Einstein. In the second place tau is not a linear function. -- Androcles. In the third place there are no coordinates to transform. In the fourth place you've been had! (and not by me either) Hahahahahahaha!! Stoopid Schwartz is a phuckwit and she's been had! Androcles. > [snip crap] > [quoted text clipped - 41 lines] > > Now tell me that's a linear function, a > b. You've set a=b with your conditions. It's you who doesn't understand algebra. You can't set a=b, and then insist that a>b. Your error has been discussed many times, but you still don't get it. Richard Perry > "In the first place it is clear that the equations must be linear > on account of the properties of homogeneity which we attribute to [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > > Androcles. | > [snip crap] | > [quoted text clipped - 48 lines] | | Richard Perry Assertion carries no weight. Claiming prior disproof carries no weight. Show the flaw you claim is there. Androcles. | > "In the first place it is clear that the equations must be linear | > on account of the properties of homogeneity which we attribute to [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] | > | > Androcles. > | > [snip crap] > | > [quoted text clipped - 55 lines] > Assertion carries no weight. Claiming prior disproof carries no weight. > Show the flaw you claim is there. ½f(a+b) = f(a) ½(a+b) = (a) a+b = 2(a) a+b = a+a b = a Richard Perry > Androcles. > [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > | > > | > Androcles. | > | > Renaming tau as f, | > | > [quoted text clipped - 20 lines] | a+b = a+a | b = a cos(0) = 1 cos(pi/2) = 0 cos(pi) = -1 cos(3*pi/2) = 0 cos(2*pi) = 1 ½ cos(a+b) = cos(a) a = pi/2 b = 0, a > b. ½ cos(pi/2) = cos(pi/2) 0/2 = 0 Setting a = b as you claim, a = pi/2, b = pi/2. ½ cos(pi/2 + pi/2 ) = cos(pi/2) ½ cos(pi) = cos(pi/2) -0.5 = 0 ???? It's me who doesn't understand algebra? Nope, it's you that doesn't know what a function is, is a phuckwit, not worth wasting time on. *plonk* Androcles. > | > | > Renaming tau as f, > | > | > [quoted text clipped - 48 lines] > > It's me who doesn't understand algebra? Yep. Richard Perry No it is measured from the mass of the nucleus built then subtract the mass of all the separate componernts (protons + neutrons) multiply this by the velocity of light squared and that is the binding energy. There is no way (yet) of working it out as the way the nucleons bind is not really known as you cannot see them and so the wavefunctions cannot be calculated. In an hydrogen molecule ion a quantum mechanical calculation based on the properties of electrons and assuming things the binding energy (chemical) holding the two protons and one electron together can be done by a big computer over hours and hours. All these calculations are based on measurements of simple systems and modelling for more complex systems. There are no absolutes in science, you have to start somewhere with measurements, you cannot dream up the real universe it is just there for you to play with. Chris. > Hi, > [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > > David > No it is measured from the mass of the nucleus built then subtract the mass > of all the separate componernts (protons + neutrons) multiply this by the [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > really known as you cannot see them and so the wave functions cannot be > calculated. some shocking news for you it is news 12 years old; in my model (book) i decoded the binding energy of any nucleid to its neighbors listen carefully- all along the periodic table and a lot of other knowledge alike indeed i did it without a bit of wave functions!! no need of malfunctions for it just a need of some gray stuff above your shoulders and alot of work and not least persistence!! you can see just some hints for it(if you are sharp eyed- in my site: http://www.geocities.com/potat_y/mypage.html (quote from memory i hope i didnt mistyped it.. ATB Y.Porat ---------------------- sorry it seems that i somehow mistyped it solet me try again it is without the http.. www.geocities.com/porat_y/mypage.html hope now it will work ATB Y.Porat ---------------- > No it is measured from the mass of the nucleus built then subtract the mass > of all the separate componernts (protons + neutrons) multiply this by the > velocity of light squared and that is the binding energy. Yes, Chris, that was my point. With QVPP methods, one can calculate binding energy between individual nucleons. I find that the strong force is electromagnetic, and that the near field magnetic moments of the nucleons far exceed the enormous near field electric forces. Here is the equation for the deuteron which is simply a proton bound to a neutron. I show two calculations, one with the magnetic moments from the measured binding energy of 2.224573 E6 in equivalent volts, and the second equation shows the value I get using the original QVPP model predicted magnetic moment values. http://members.aol.com/thomasl283/QVPdeuteronbind.jpg The close agreement between measured (Upmx and Upnmx) and QVPP magnetic moments (Upm and Unm) was independent proof that the QVPP proton and neutron models were correct. ( I had the QVPP magnetic moments, from the scaling of the proton model, for 14 years prior to discovering the way to calculate binding energy between nucleons.) I was pleased to see that the measured value gets the same Bpn value to within about 1 percent. Notice the error would have required the measured value of binding to be better than 13.6ppm. So, QVPP may very well be showing us the correct magnetic moments in Upm and Unm. In fact, in the book I use QVPP predicted nucleon magnetic moments for binding energy calculations of complex nuclei, exclusively, with good results. > There is no way (yet) of working it out as the way the nucleons bind is not > really known as you cannot see them and so the wavefunctions cannot be > calculated. Yes there is, see above reference and this example from the book; http://members.aol.com/tnlockyer/Page69.gif The equations and their values are fully shown in the QVPP book. > In an hydrogen molecule ion a quantum mechanical calculation > based on the properties of electrons and assuming things the binding energy > (chemical) holding the two protons and one electron together can be done by > a big computer over hours and hours. Its not that complicated, Chris. Here is the binding calculations for the electron to proton using the QVPP models for the electron and proton. What Bohr did not know was the binding energy of the electron is a small mass defect that requires using both the electric moments and the magnetic moments of the proton and electron in the calculations, as shown; http://www.members.aol.com/thomasl283/hydrogen.gif > There are no absolutes in science, you have to start somewhere with > measurements, you cannot dream up the real universe it is just there for you > to play with. Exactly, that is my quarrel with the QED and QCD theories. They covered their ignorance by inventing unprecedented things happening in a dream universe of particles popping in and out of the vacuum and interfering with their 'point" electron, fractional charges, gluons, color charges etc. etc. Do you know that there are (otherwise intelligent) people who actually believe those fairy tales? QVPP uses just what the natural particles have, a natural charge of (+-1e) and the magnetic moments necessary to create the EM binding energy photon mass defect. > > Hi, > > > > Is it possible to calculate the Nuclear Binding Energies > > of any element, any isotopes using some kind of formula? > > Is it accurate? What's the formula. Yes, David, see above references and QVPP book for formulae. Regards: Tom; www.amazon.com 0963154664 > > No it is measured from the mass of the nucleus built then subtract the mass > > of all the separate componernts (protons + neutrons) multiply this by the > > velocity of light squared and that is the binding energy. > > Yes, Chris, that was my point. With QVPP methods, one can calculate > binding energy between individual nucleons. ---------- OK if your model is so powerful why dont you go on and solve all the nuclei of all the periodic table??!! just go on and do what i did i solved it all along from mass calculation and binding energy showing in all nuclei (repeat all of them) the individual binding energy between any two adjacent nucleids and just between us so that no one will listen you have no chance without some new insights that you miss. unless you will borrow it from me btw your 'cube' model how old is it ?? ATB Y.Porat --------------------- > > > No it is measured from the mass of the nucleus built then subtract the mass > > > of all the separate componernts (protons + neutrons) multiply this by the [quoted text clipped - 22 lines] > Y.Porat > --------------------- son of a gun... the new porat with correct spelling :) finally I noticed what you are writing.. you are able to solve the binding energies of every combination? Lockyer said he also did. Hmm.. there must be a mathematical quirk or pattern like the Gell-Mann Eightfold Way Hadron classifications. I'll spend some time on these binding energy stuff.. maybe I can apply it to the Standard Model by modifying some dynamics such as adding shadow matter coupling (whose energy or em equivalent is what we called 'qi'). David > > > > No it is measured from the mass of the nucleus built then subtract the mass > > > > of all the separate componernts (protons + neutrons) multiply this by the [quoted text clipped - 26 lines] > finally I noticed what you are writing.. you are able to > solve the binding energies of every combination? of course and i did it better than anyone before!! Lockyer said you can as well 'say'!! he solved only a few nucs and cant go on it is not accidental that he cant go on he is missing some unexpendable knowlwdge!! > he also did. Hmm.. there must be a mathematical quirk or pattern just stick it onc nad for all into your mind methematics cannot be the leader about all those issues the must be a physics insight before the mathematics!! mathematics is a dumn tool that reflects the dumness of its users (the pretiest girl in Copenhagen... can suply only what she got !! got it ???) > like the Gell-Mann Eightfold Way Hadron classifications. I'll > spend some time on these binding energy stuff.. maybe I can apply so how far in the periodic table of elements did gel mann went on???!!! and btw did he ever found a quark experimentally?? not mentioning excuses and crokish 'explanations' why not found!! --------- --------- > it to the Standard Model by modifying some dynamics such as adding > shadow matter coupling (whose energy or em equivalent is what we > called 'qi'). ohh yess now we got to the Qi as well!!!.... btw i am sure one day my model will be able to adjust itself to mathematical formulas (and may well be by others as well) but many of them!! not just one at this satge mathematics is like heavy stones on the legs of a sprinter so i bypass it . got it ? excuse not spellchecking i dont think you deserve my effort. at least not as you behave now . Y.Porat --------------------- did he ever find, retard Don't listen to Tom's rubbish. His magnetic forces are all faked. >snip< > > Yes, Chris, that was my point. With QVPP methods, one can calculate > > binding energy between individual nucleons. Y. Porat said: > ---------- > OK if your model is so powerful [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > showing in all nuclei (repeat all of them) the individual > binding energy between any two adjacent nucleids My dear Mr. Porat, are you aware that there are some 105 elements with 2600 known isotopes? And of the 2600 there are 260 stable isotopes. Of those 260 stable isotopes, 159 have a spin of zero and 101 stable isotopes have spin between (1/2) and (9/2)? Do you still claim your models show the binding energy for all those isotopes? Do your models show which isotopes are stable? Do your models show why some isotopes are unstable, and their decay particles? Do your models show the known spin angular momentum of the various isotopes? The QVPP methods have been used to show those characteristics of isotopes up to Sulfur 32. It gets to be a complicated many body problem as the numbers of nucleons increase. I am an old man, so it will be left to others to extend the QVPP methods. > and just between us so that no one will listen > you have no chance without some new insights that you miss. > unless you will borrow it from me > btw > your 'cube' model how old is it ?? I have been working on it as a hobby since 1977. Unfortunately everyone in 1977 had just been committed to the (choke, gasp) quark model, so VPP was (is) as popular as a skunk at a picnic. It has just been within the last 6 years that the model has been extended to nuclei structures. The quark model has been left behind in the dust, by QVPP. Regards: Tom: www.amazon.com 0963154664 > >snip< > > > Yes, Chris, that was my point. With QVPP methods, one can calculate [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > My dear Mr. Porat, are you aware that there are some 105 elements with > 2600 known isotopes? yes so ??? ---------- > And of the 2600 there are 260 stable isotopes. > [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > Do you still claim your models show the binding energy for all those > isotopes? not all isotopes *no need to solve all isotopes solved all the 92 elements with many of the isotopes now listen carefully once you solve all the 92 with many of there isotopes you cant do it without understanding the common features of all of them one you do it it means you have the right *tools* in your hands and then it i no problem to decode any isotope i never though it is needed because i realized that i am able to do it for (to be cautious) for most of them. anyway i never met an isotope or element that i wanted to decode and got stuck!! because i have all the tools in my hands. that is for the mass calculation chemical verification beta emitters the lightest and heaviest possible isotope nuclear process explanation unprecedented explanations for instance about the geologic clock family connections that t explain why some process are only within some elements and not outside those elements for instance why is it that there is transformations from one element to another only say in the S Si P elements and not to others that are not in that family etc etc . why is it that Pt cannot be transfered to Gold and many others IE i have it as if on the palm of my hands- tangible as you can see only a bit of it in my site. ------------ > Do your models show which isotopes are stable? yes for instance all the beta emitters are of neutrons that are connected to the pole particles of he rectangular pipe you have there a proton or neutron and another neutron is connected to it in a very unstable connection it is the *mechanical instability!! IE a connection only at one point that is a hinge all the other stable connections are *with more than one connection per one sub particle!! your model have no idea about that crucial aspect on the other hand the electron capture occurs mainly not on the poles of the nuc but around the main body of it on the neutrons that surround the main skeleton. and i could go on and on with it -------------- > Do your models show why some isotopes are unstable, and their decay yes see above it shows why they are mechanically loose IE not having enough support by more than one connection your model does not know it at all that there are sub particles that have more than one connections others that have two or three or four connections in a 3d arrangement that gives them stability. ---------- > particles? > > Do your models show the known spin angular momentum of the various > isotopes? no i never invested on it because it was not important to me i dont think it has much practical use or meaning am i wrong on that point ?? -------- > The QVPP methods have been used to show those characteristics of > isotopes up to Sulfur 32. so you have other 60 ahead of you and do you know that the paradigm of one electron per one proton is not valid for heavy elements?? may be that is why you cant go on ??!!!that was one of my breakthrough insights that enabled me to go on on heavy elements!! ---------- ----------- > It gets to be a complicated many body problem as the numbers of > nucleons increase. I am an old man, so it will be left to others to > extend the QVPP methods. see just above one of the UNNECESSARY complications is the above wrong paradigm!! ---------- > > and just between us so that no one will listen > > you have no chance without some new insights that you miss. [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > > I have been working on it as a hobby since 1977. did you thought about a cube model right from 1977?? do you know that all the elements under Fluorine ARE NOT CUBES AND NOT RECTANGULAR PIPES ?? see it in my site ---------- ----------- > Unfortunately everyone in 1977 had just been committed to the (choke, > gasp) quark model, so VPP was (is) as popular as a skunk at a picnic. > > It has just been within the last 6 years that the model has been > extended to nuclei structures. my book it copyright exactly as it is today since 1993 IE 12 years !! and i published an abs tact of it very similar to my site today and you probably saw it i remember even some correspondence about it with you ... ---------- > The quark model has been left behind in the dust, by QVPP. i agree with you about almost all your criticism about the standard model the quarks are in the good case only a very partial story of the real story!!not to mention the lie of the Gluons etc etc that is shear *shameless* mumbling!! Regards Y.Porat ------------------ > Regards: Tom: > > www.amazon.com 0963154664 did you think, dumbass > > >snip< > > > > Yes, Chris, that was my point. With QVPP methods, one can calculate [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > > My dear Mr. Porat, are you aware that there are some 105 elements with > > 2600 known isotopes? > yes so ??? > ---------- Those isotopes are just elements, with extra neutrons in their structures. The added neutrons can completely restructure the nucleus, as witnessed in their altered spin states. For example He4 has a spin of zero, but He5 has a spin of -3/2 by adding only one neutron to the He4. That requires a drastic restructuring, of the nucleon placements, to go from zero to -3/2 spin. > > And of the 2600 there are 260 stable isotopes. > > [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > > Do you still claim your models show the binding energy for all those > > isotopes? > not all isotopes > *no need to solve all isotopes solved all the 92 [quoted text clipped - 31 lines] > as you can see only a bit of it in my site. > ------------ You sure have done a lot of thinking about the elements, and have apparently found some interesting relationships. My approach was to work with the binding energy and spin states. If your work cannot tell the subtle difference between the spin and binding energy of isotopes, then your understanding is too narrow, in my view. > > Do your models show which isotopes are stable? > yes for instance > all the beta emitters are of neutrons that are [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > *with more than one connection per one sub particle!! > your model have no idea about that crucial aspect Nope, Porat, QVPP does show the nucleon binding and it must be orthogonal, on account of the orthogonal electric and magnetic forces. Beta decay occurs in certain nuclei only when the neutron turning into a proton, or the proton changing into a neutron will result in a lower energy state, not because of connection hinges. > on the other hand > the electron capture occurs mainly > not on the poles of the nuc but around the main body > of it on the neutrons that surround the main skeleton. Nope, electron capture , by the proton occurs when a proton capturing an electron results in a lower energy state. Sometimes this results in an isomeric state (i.e. the same number of protons and neutrons but not the final configuration. See for example: http://members.aol.com/tnlockyer/Solarcy.gif That is why that it is primarily important to be able to model nuclei for spins and binding energy in order to properly analyze unstable nuclei. > > Do your models show why some isotopes are unstable, and their decay particles? > yes see above > it shows why they are mechanically loose > IE not having enough support by more than one connection > your model does not know it at all Porat, it is not a matter of loose connections. The connections are strong in any case, it is just that nature finally gets around to figuring out that the lower energy state has not been achieved, in certain decaying nuclei. > that there are sub particles that have more than one connections > others that have two or three or four connections > in a 3d arrangement that gives them stability. Porat, a neutron must change into a proton in (B-) decays, and a proton must change into a neutron in (EC) or the competing (B+) decays. Connections cannot give that mechanism, beta decays require changes in the neutron or proton structures themselves. > > Do your models show the known spin angular momentum of the various > > isotopes? > no i never invested on it > because it was not important to me > i dont think it has much practical use or meaning > am i wrong on that point ?? > -------- Yes, Porat, you are wrong, see above example. In the example the Be8i has a spin of +2 like the parent B8, but the unstable Be8 has a spin of zero and decays into two alpha particles. > > The QVPP methods have been used to show those characteristics of > > isotopes up to Sulfur 32. > so you have other 60 ahead of you > and do you know that the paradigm of > one electron per one proton is not valid for heavy elements?? > may be that is why you cant go on ??!!!that was one of my breakthrough > insights that enabled me to go on > on heavy elements!! > ---------- What led you to that conclusion? They have measured the electron binding energies for heavy elements, but I suppose it is possible that after you remove a few electrons, that the nucleus could capture electrons from the environment, that then require higher energy to remove, as experiments show. > > It gets to be a complicated many body problem as the numbers of > > nucleons increase. I am an old man, so it will be left to others to > > extend the QVPP methods. >snip< > > > btw > > > your 'cube' model how old is it ?? > > > > I have been working on it as a hobby since 1977. > did you thought about a cube model right from 1977?? Yes, here is the 1977 scaling of the nested cube structure for the proton and neutron models. http://members.aol.com/tnlockyer/VPPsprdb.gif > > It has just been within the last 6 years that the VPP model has been > > extended to nuclei structures. > > The quark model has been left behind in the dust, by QVPP. Porat said; > i agree with you about almost all your criticism > about the standard model > the quarks are in the good case only a very partial > story of the real story!!not to mention the lie of the > Gluons etc etc that is shear *shameless* mumbling!! Regards: Tom: www.amazon.com 0963154664 > > > > > My dear Mr. Porat, are you aware that there are some 105 elements with > > > 2600 known isotopes? [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > Those isotopes are just elements, with extra neutrons in their > structures. thank you very much for telling me that yet you could get a little lesson from me about how isotopes are created and what is their structure that Will answer you former question about how many isotopes i decoded: see for instance the iron description in my site see for instance the Bismuth of lead nuclei have you ever dreamed to see the structure of the Lead nuclei?? so go there and see now you see there along those long schematic figures Numbers like 207 208 209 ---- 212 etc etc do you know what that is ?? no ?? so listen carefully there are the locations in which neutron no 207 212 etc etc are located got it man?? can you appreciate what you see or it is not convenient for you to understand it and that is only the tip of the iceberg of my model those 2o7 208 etc etc is the location of neutron that is No 207 in the order of Euclid's that gives the whole nuclei its ISOTOPE NAME lead 207 etc etc so what you see there is not just abstract mumbling of isotopes and how they are created it is the exact location of neutron no 207 that gives it its name the same with the beta emitters and their exact location it is not just abs tact mumbling it is th map of the nuc got it ?? surely not it is too shocking for you. so you are wrong while you say that the proton or neuron have to change themselves completely!! that is the QM nonsense in order of a proton to change to a neutron or vice versa the change is only at their *periphery* got it one of them can stay exactly in its position on the nuc *and be changed* no need for a complete 'reshuffling of the structure' and please dont teach me about what is a stable connection or not a stable connection you have not the faintest real idea what is really going on there because you have only a poor understanding of it compared to me you are stumbling in the darkness my model is as tangible as a geographic map !and explained things you never your basic model is far form reality you didnt answered my question about all the elements below fluorine that are not rectangular pipes at all you didnt answer why you are stuck at element No 32 while there should not be a reason for it had you a real good model you dint answer my remark about the wrong paradigm about one electron for one proton in heavy elements do you agree with me on that or not ?? knowing spin is a marginal importance for practical use of it and i forgot to tell you that i decoded and brought an explanations and calculations about the reason for a very hight angular momentum of many isotopes it seems Thai you didnt deal with it at all you didnt noticed my achievements about being able to predict what transformation of elements is possible and what is not possible- in heaver elements than the first ten etc etc so dont judge my model of which you have no clue about. because if you do it i will tell what is my opinion about your model.... ATB Y.Porat ------------- Porat! >:( Auty did you saw your psychiatrist to day? what is your real identity anyway? who sent you ?? who is your boss ?? ATB Y.Porat ---------------- Porat you have to have begining of understanding If you don't know 1+1 then you can go nowhere have you seen your psychiatrist today?? what do you know about what i know and what i dont know? i know for instance that discussing with you is as pain in the neck!! (not only for me others think the same ...) ATB Y.Porat ------------------------- I made my point. Its a simple one. You don't have to listen to anything I say. I could be a liar only you can make that call. did you saw -> did you see to day -> toay Porat -> illiterate idiot did you saw -> did you see to day -> today Porat -> illiterate idiot incurable disturby Idiot concentrate on physics and get of my back?? those spelling corrections were done by my spell checker so i dont argue with it we are on a physics ng idiot!! so dont disturb unless someone else sent you to leech on me. (and is paying you for that .......) did you saw idiot how i refuted your claim that Gold can be turned to Platinum/ or that is too difficult for you to understand?? if so than piss of idiot. ---------- Y.Porat ------------------ of -> off spelling corrections were -> grammar corrections weren't dont -> don't did you saw -> did you see how Porat's an illiterate idiot? Common Auty at last i identified you!! now listen old darter if you don t get of my back in obvious purpus to disturb (which is obvious) i will reveal every body whom you relay are !! so make up your mind and go climb on another tree. or find for yourself another amusement because to clash with me will not be a joy.for you. Y.Porat ----------------------------- What's a darter, illiterate? of -> off purpus -> purpose i -> I every body -> everybody relay -> really on -> up old senil imbecil Y.P ----------------------- senil -> senile imbecil -> imbecile please bypass that senile pill drunken Uncle Al he succeeded to paralyze the above crucial thread while the prices of oil are climbing toward the 100$ a barrel the old farter is paralyzing this thread by his driveling Y.Porat ------------------------- Schizoid Porat thinks that I'm Uncle Al. ROFL. Al should get over here and kick his arse another way. anyway you are a good incarnation of that old farter now try answering my physics question in my previous post unless you prefer to evade (nagging about spelling) as Al is experting on evading and hand waving. ATB Y.Porat ------------ what question? you brought a link in which it is claimed that Gold can be transformed to Platinum or vice versa i showed you that this is nonsense because they say there that the probability for that is ... one to 10 billion got it? 2 i told you a fact that Gold and platinum are found in many cases side by side so that 1 per 10 billion is reasonably just an impurity that was already there of one element in the other and not a new magic creation and all that is rather a verification to my claim that Platinum cannot be turned to Gold unless some 'big bang ' event how about that ?? 3 are you mentally ready or by principle- ready - or emotionally ready to give me any credit ?? (not that i really need it rather from you ......!!)) ATB Y.Porat --------------------- > you brought a link in which it is claimed that > Gold can be transformed to Platinum or vice versa > i showed you that this is nonsense > because they say there that the probability for that is ... > one to 10 billion got it? said where? There was no such mention in my link. > 2 i told you a fact that Gold and platinum are found in many cases > side by side > so that 1 per 10 billion is reasonably just an impurity that was > already there > of one element in the other > and not a new magic creation and all that is rather a verification to Prove it. > my claim > that Platinum cannot be turned to Gold > unless some 'big bang ' event > how about that ?? why? > 3 are you mentally ready or by principle- ready - > or emotionally ready to give me any credit ?? for being a liar? maybe > (not that i really need it rather from you ......!!)) Yet you talk to me. -Aut > > you brought a link in which it is claimed that > > Gold can be transformed to Platinum or vice versa [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > > said where? There was no such mention in my link. now you show that you are a fucken parrot that is not able to read his own quotes just clumsily quoting without things he has no idea ------- > > 2 i told you a fact that Gold and platinum are found in many cases > > side by side [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > > Prove it. read your link idiot all long those souses. they say there it is a probability of one to 10 billions you are binded with personal interests that screen your tiny intelligence. -------- > > my claim > > that Platinum cannot be turned to Gold > > unless some 'big bang ' event > > how about that ?? > > why? it is not for ignorant clowns like you it is for serious people -------- > > 3 are you mentally ready or by principle- ready - > > or emotionally ready to give me any credit ?? > > for being a liar? maybe i have some hunch that i know you with another name ... long ago...... as a Nazi shameless and disturbed crook.... i can smell you from thousands of miles > > (not that i really need it rather from you ......!!)) > > Yet you talk to me. not for long !!!! i thought mistakenly that you might Be useful a tiny bit now i realize you are a piece of a human sh.t. ---------- Y.P ---------- > -Aut > now you show that you are a fucken parrot > that is not able to read his own quotes > just clumsily quoting without things he has no idea I'm not a he, illiterate scumhead, and I had already checked to see that you're wrong. Now you're lyging to protect yourself from embarassment. > read your link idiot all long those souses. > they say there it is a probability of one to 10 billions wrong > you are binded with personal interests that screen your tiny > intelligence. only tiny compared to a fake God. But compared to yours, mine would be your God's. > i have some hunch that i know you with another name ... long ago...... > as a Nazi shameless and disturbed crook.... > > i can smell you from thousands of miles I You are delusional. In my earlier eGroup life I battled religious racists including Christian Identity cultists. > not for long !!!! > i thought mistakenly that you might Be useful a tiny bit > now i realize you are a piece of a human sh.t. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Psychological_projection -Aut > > now you show that you are a fucken parrot > > that is not able to read his own quotes > > just clumsily quoting without things he has no idea > > I'm not a he, Ohhhh i see you are an undefined gender !! that explaines something....... ------------ illiterate scumhead, thats the way a 'lady' is talikg ??? and I had already checked to see > that you're wrong. Now you're lyging to protect yourself from > embarassment. no problem to protect myself you have aproblem: here is a quote from the links that *you brought*: quote: group placed thin foils of gold in Petawatt's path to ... one out of every 10 billion gold nuclei, making ... so unstable that they decayed to platinum within several ... bric.postech.ac.kr/trend/ science/1999/99_3now/990324b.html - 22k - Supplemental Result - Cached - Similar pages Knowledge-Physics-Fact end of quote so ........ ?? ------------ > > read your link idiot all long those souses. > > they say there it is a probability of one to 10 billions [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > only tiny compared to a fake God. But compared to yours, mine would be > your God's. ---------- take of you hat (or something else while you talk to me a bout nuclear structre got is crook?? ------------ btw i am curious : what is the country that you live in ?? i am from Israel and everybody can see it in my address why it is imposible to know where are you from ?? or what is your real name ps this time a skipp spell checking i have no time for it so my appologise and no need for your spelling corrections we need physics corrections got it (woman head ......) ---------- > TIA Y.Porat ---------------- > Ohhhh i see you are an undefined gender !! to you > that explaines something....... explains > illiterate scumhead, > thats the way a 'lady' is talikg ??? To you, yes. > here is a quote from the links that *you brought*: You were supposed to be referring to http://www.llnl.gov/str/MPerry.html when you wouldn't say where you found the odds. > so ........ ?? You don't believe it happened? Where is your proof? If they tuned their laser better, they can get better yields, as they weren't intending to turn gold into platinum but just used whatever foton was convenient for their petawatt. > take of you hat (or something else > while you talk to me a bout nuclear structre got is crook?? Did you just have a stroke? > btw i am curious : > what is the country that you live in ?? > i am from Israel and everybody can see it in my address > why it is imposible to know where are you from ?? > or what is your real name It's not impossible. You have no idea because you don't understand domains. > ps this time a skipp spell checking i have no time for it -a skip checking; I > so my appologise apologies > and no need for your spelling corrections > we need physics corrections got it (woman head ......) I correct anything I can. If you don't then you're wasting our time. -Aut > > Ohhhh i see you are an undefined gender !! > [quoted text clipped - 20 lines] > intending to turn gold into platinum but just used whatever foton was > convenient for their petawatt. ----------------- so young and such a shameless crook!!!! who told you they can get better?? crooky where is the prove idiot?? do you think that you can claim facts just by your irresponsible mumbling are you scientist or are you a young f.cker?? it is not a ladies coffee chatting it is science you have to prove it at least show a quote that they can do it better or that they were not interested in better results and even than even if they hypothetically whanted to get better results it *does not mean* the can actually do it got it shameless crooky?? so take of your hat while you talk to me about nuclear structure and take my prediction; you cant really turn Gold to Platinum or vice versa unless you use a .' big bang process' their nu cs are significantly different in spight their being immediate neighbors that could be predicted only by my model if you dont believe it ask people who got my book. and i have a next prediction: it would be rather easier to turn Hg (mercury) to gold because the difference between them is smaller (marginal) i only the only man on this universe that can predict such things without even known previous experimental facts or data got it young presumptuous farter? ----------- > > take of you hat (or something else > > while you talk to me a bout nuclear structure got is crook?? > > Did you just have a stroke? no unfortunately for you i am still in good health since i can get young farters like you in their right proportions and their real value!! got it young crook?? it will take you too many years to learn that in order to be a serious scientist the first rule is dont be a personal politician and try to have *intellectual integrity* ?? did they thought you in your country and university- what is *intellectual integrity*?? how dare a young presumptuous farter like you to tell me to go away from this ng and leave it to crooks like you?? --------------- > > btw i am curious : > > what is the country that you live in ?? [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > It's not impossible. You have no idea because you don't understand > domains. OK so what is the secret about it just tell me from which country you are ! is it such a big shame to be from that country?? if it is not a shame to be from Israel - it is certainly not a shame to be from *your country* (:-) ---------------- > > and no need for your spelling corrections > > we need physics corrections got it (woman head ......) > > I correct anything I can. we dont need your infantile corrections we need here *advance in physics* ! got it once and for all?? i am not the first one to tell you that and if you dont get it it is a sign of lack of intelligence. ---------- ATB Y.Porat ---------------- > so young and such a shameless crook!!!! Stop quoting like a newbie retard. > who told you they can get better?? crooky > where is the prove idiot?? proof I told me. > do you think that you can claim facts just by your irresponsible > mumbling [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > at least show a quote that they can do it better > or that they were not interested in better results "The Petawatt laser was developed originally to test the fast ignition path to inertial confinement fusion in the ongoing attempt to ignite a pellet of hydrogen fuel and harness the energy that powers the sun." "More work is needed to characterize the beam, but such a powerful proton beam will surely find many uses. It might replace the front end of large accelerators or be used itself as an ignitor in fast ignition." "Although the achievable dose was comparable to some accelerator-based x-ray sources, it was less than that achievable with advanced, large-scale induction accelerators such as DARHT." > and even than > even if they hypothetically whanted to get better results wanted > it *does not mean* the can actually do it > > got it shameless crooky?? You didn't prove that the platinum was native, arsehole. You didn't prove that the ending gold isotopes were native and unchanged, retard. You didn't prove that you're smarter and saner than the scientists involved in the experiment, schizo. > so take of your hat while you talk to me about nuclear structure off > and take my prediction; > you cant really turn Gold to Platinum or vice versa can't > unless you use a .' big bang process' meaning? > their nu cs are significantly different > in spight their being immediate neighbors spite > that could be predicted only by my model > if you dont believe it ask people who got my book. don't And what experiments support your book? > and i have a next prediction: > it would be rather easier to turn Hg (mercury) to gold > because the difference between them is smaller (marginal) Learn the difference between i and I. > i only the only man on this universe that can predict such things > without even known previous experimental facts or data > > got it young presumptuous farter? Wrong dumbass, look up low-energy nuclear transmutation on the web with your qualifiers. > no unfortunately for you i am still in good health > since i can get young farters like you in their right proportions > and their real value!! wrong > got it young crook?? I would give you some thunder back if you had any to begin with. > it will take you too many years to learn that > in order to be a serious scientist > the first rule is > dont be a personal politician and try to have don't > *intellectual integrity* ?? > did they thought you in your country and university- > what is *intellectual integrity*?? did they teach, illiterate retarded addled pizza-faced cretin what intellectual integrity is, foreign overloaded dumbass > how dare a young presumptuous farter like you to tell me to go away > from this ng > and leave it to crooks like you?? easily > OK so what is the secret about it > just tell me from which country you are ! > is it such a big shame to be from that country?? > if it is not a shame to be from Israel - it is certainly > not a shame to be from *your country* (:-) I told you it's not a secret, retard. If you can't reckon it out, then you can't pass the least-IQ test. > we dont need your infantile corrections > we need here *advance in physics* ! got it once and for all?? > i am not the first one to tell you that > and if you dont get it don't > it is a sign of lack of intelligence. Start with flipping "physics" to its rightful spelling of fXsEcA. -Aut Nazi crook imbecile you tried to prove that i was misreading your quotes that according to you showed that Gold can be turned to Platinum later i showed you what you didnt notice and tried to hide that the probability of that process is one to 10 billion got it Nazi lier?? than you bring other cheating mumblings that only a Nazi lier like you can bring assuming like Joseph Goebbels all the other members are dumb but that is not the case they will soon realize who you relay are an impostor lier that presents itself as woman hiding behind the apron of a woman.! Platinum canno Be made form Gold only Nazi liers can do it!! it can easier be done from Mercury (that is a prediction that only me can do) now still you are afraid to reveal your country in which you live and what is the institute you belong but it wont help you it will be found so i hereby call people who can do anise my question; which country Auty is from ?? she is ashamed to reveal it .........!! only little pieces of human sh.ts like her are ashamed with it . TIA Y.Porat ---------------------- Ypo Rat wrote: > now still you are afraid to reveal your country in which you live > and what is the institute you belong but it wont help you > it will be found And you, Ypo Rat? Bob Signature"Things should be described as simply as possible, but no simpler." A. Einstein 1 i am from Israel and a private person and you ??? and Auty ???? TIA Y.Porat ------------------------ > Nazi crook imbecile Bipolar schizofrenic antisocial hupergrafic illiterate uncultured uncouth inferiority-complexed fantasy-projector. > you tried to prove that i was misreading your quotes > that according to you showed [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > that the probability of that process is one to 10 billion > got it Nazi lier?? Coming from the scientific reject who can't tell the difference between liar and lier, or between a lab's article and a journal's paper. I hid nothing, yet you kept hiding the citation. > than you bring other cheating mumblings that only a Nazi lier like you > can bring > assuming like Joseph Goebbels all the other members are dumb > but that is not the case Only thou and several others are dumb, shown in yer refusal to learn. > they will soon realize who you relay are > an impostor lier that presents itself as woman [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > it can easier be done from Mercury (that is a prediction that only me > can do) Delusional cretin. > now still you are afraid to reveal your country in which you live > and what is the institute you belong but it wont help you > it will be found You're too f.cking stupid to tell from my domain name. > so i hereby call people who can do anise my question; > which country Auty is from ?? > she is ashamed to reveal it .........!! > only little pieces of human sh.ts like her are ashamed with it . You barely got on the internet, atechnical luser. Why don't you use your own money to get a decent education? since you can't use your head to get through reading addresses. -Aut damn lier your quotes were mostly qualitatively and hand waving only one quote was quantitative and noter one nucleus per 10 billions! got it Nazi pig?? what is the degree of purity of Gold can you say that the amount of Platinum in it is less than 1 per 10 billion??(imbecile in addition of a crook) Hey dirty Piggy (now I'm am sure you are cheating even about your gender because no sane woman would speak like you iow you are one big piece of sh.t and let anyone know who you relay are dont worry people will found out who you relay are . including personal identity organization etc and even your real motivations . Y.P ---------------.. So So let me sum the last posts with some important knowledge: Gold cannot be transformed to Platinum or vice versa by 'ordinary known means' that is a prediction that i did ling ago, without knowing any experimental facts now just above Autmn was very eager to refute me personally and brought experimental data that .... actually verified my prediction and refuted him!! now since Autymn is a little infant once he want to play in 'my yard' i bring another prediction again without knowing any experimental facts - just observing my model: it might Be much easier ( compared to the Gold- Platinum case) to turn Hg (mercury) into Gold and vice versa these are predictions that no one except me can do !! (those who have my book can realize that my claim is substantiated) ATB Y.Porat -------------------- > Gold cannot be transformed to Platinum or vice versa by 'ordinary known > means' A laser is not ordinary. Its electronic population is non-equilibrial. > now just above Autmn was very eager to refute me personally > and brought experimental data that .... > actually verified my prediction and refuted him!! There's no Autmn but in your mind. > now since Autymn is a little infant once he want to play in 'my yard' There's no such Autymn but in your gender- and grammar-confused mind. > it might Be much easier ( compared to the Gold- Platinum case) > > to turn Hg (mercury) into Gold and vice versa > these are predictions that no one except me can do !! Wrong, shithead, I gave you a Google search showing that others already knew and showed it before you. -Aut disturbed lier your quotes about Gold platinum actually prove my claim not your disturbed mind claims 2 you gave nothing like my prediction that it would be essayer to transfer mercury to Gold and vice versa!! a little sh.t head like you is not even in as position to start dreaming about such predictions you are just a little presumptuous disturbed big pisser and every one here starts to realize it . i dont envy your husband !! (:-) Y.Porat ---------------- > disturbed lier too retarded to know what lier means > your quotes about Gold platinum actually prove my claim > not your disturbed mind claims and 1+1=0 > 2 you gave nothing like my prediction that it would be essayer > to transfer mercury to Gold and vice versa!! It's in Google, retard. > a little sh.t head like you is not even in as position to start > dreaming about such predictions deluded worthless flooder > you are just a little presumptuous disturbed big pisser > and every one here starts to realize it . on you > i dont envy your husband !! (:-) I You don't envy a nonexistent person? Not to mention that I'm opposed to wedlock? You celebrate your nonexistent specialness also. -Aut > > disturbed lier > [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > > It's in Goggle, retard. imbecile all you know is to quote but once it comes to understand what you have read you remain an imbecile that dint notice that they said there that the probability of that process was 1 to 10 billions and to retarded to understand that the impurity of Gold is much above that figure are you able to admit a mistake have you ever heared about intellectual integrity?? ---------- > > a little sh.t head like you is not even in as position to start > > dreaming about such predictions > > deluded worthless flooder disturbed imbecile > > you are just a little presumptuous disturbed big pisser > > and every one here starts to realize it . [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > You don't envy a nonexistent person? Not to mention that I'm opposed > to wedlock? have you ever heared about a classic story called 'sower grapes'?? if not look for it ....(:-) may be that is your main psychologist problem?? (disclaimer: i am not a psycholog ....so i say 'may be '..... not like you that ever thing for her is absolute truth) no sane man will wish to marry you wedlock or even not wedlock.!! no one wants to get in touch with a mad dog. even not a mad bitch and don't forget to see your psychiatrist ---------- Y.Porat ---------------- > imbecile Schizofrenic liar, you can't even quote without misrepresenting what I wrote. It was Google, not Goggle, pizza-faced piece of sh.t. > all you know is to quote but once it comes to understand what you have > read you remain an imbecile wrong > that dint notice that they said there that the probability You don't even know what dint means. > of that process was 1 to 10 billions > and to retarded to understand that the impurity of Gold You don't even know what to means. > is much above that figure > are you able to admit a mistake > have you ever heared about intellectual integrity?? I already answered these, liar. > have you ever heared about a classic story called heard, retard > 'sower grapes'?? if not look for it ....(:-) There's no such story. Now either step out of your fantasy world or lock yourself and your mouth in. > may be that is your main psychologist problem?? meaningless > (disclaimer: i am not a psycholog ....so i say 'may be '..... > not like you that ever thing for her is absolute truth) You don't even know what a psycholog or ever is. > no sane man will wish to marry you wedlock or even not wedlock.!! > no one wants to get in touch with a mad dog. even not a mad bitch > > and don't forget to see your psychiatrist Countless people want me. This is why I choose to stay in my room and think and scheme on smashing worthless underling losers like you so the world is a safer and smarter place. -Aut you have nothing to do at this thread!! so f.ck off disturbed imbecile! and dont disturb the others. a walking running disaster !! Y.P ---------------------------- I love ewes. Porat belongs in a mental institution. He'll be one of those rejected-thought golems that accost passersby with his filth. > damn lier Damned retard doesn't know what lier means. > your quotes were mostly qualitatively > and hand waving They disproved you. > only one quote was quantitative and noter > one nucleus per 10 billions! > got it Nazi pig?? You're the one talking like the pseudoscientist Nazi. You couldn't prove a damned thing I asked. > what is the degree of purity of Gold > can you say that the amount of Platinum in it > is less than 1 per 10 billion??(imbecile > in addition of a crook) They are different isotopes, shithead. > Hey dirty Piggy (now I'm am sure you are cheating even about your > gender > because no sane woman would speak like you No sane man would speak like you. So under your reasoning, you must be a pig or some other animal. |
Enable EMail Alerts
Start New Thread
Reply to this Message