Subject: The king is naked! 2
From: poratmy@nvsgi1.netvision.net.il (Porat)
Date: Fri, 13 Dec 1996 16:11:47 GMT
--------------------
Here are some 'pearls' from Gordon Pusch !( an 'answer' to Porat )
>1. Your ``theory'' reminds me of Kepler's attempts to determine the radii
>of the planetary orbits from the archimedean solids, or ``decode'' their>
>2. Most of us have probably ignored your tinkertoy-molecule-like
``theory''
>of ``nucleii'' [sic] because we recognize that it's basically NONSENSE.
>3. If you are so ignorant that you do not understand the difference
>between an ELECTRON and a NUCLEON, I =VERY= much doubt that you have
>=ANY= ``information'' worth ``passing on'' to us --- or anyone ELSE,
>for that matter... :-(
First ,excuse me for not answering immediately, not because i didn't know
what to answer but because, generally i 'm not at home. i work outside for
my
living as an engineer (more than 30 years) doing some concrete things which
no one has ever called nonsense.
A second apology is to the members of the group.
Indeed i confess i deserve a 'hiding' for the way i presented my
'the king is naked' message. However, i hope every one (except Mr Pusch)
understood i did it in order to get peoples' attention to what i am
convinced is
some very important information for fusion.
Anyone with any minimum intellectual integrity (and that does not include
Mr
Pusch) will confess that to date, fusion (and even some of our modern
science)
is in a mess, relative to the enormous resources invested in it.
And when one is in 'the mud', one has to, once in a while,do some general
revision -from top to bottom in order to try and find out what is wrong.
Mr Pusch and the other 'Pusches' are happy with the salary that someone
is probably paying them. They also might be involved in some project which
has for some reason or another made him afraid of me, my theories or
any other theories that are not his, or his friends.
Apparently Mr P is a scientist . One of the important characteristics of a
scientist is to notice every little detail. So how is it that you did not
notice that i
signed as an engineer? Do you think that an engineer of our day needs your
infantile explanation about the existing model of the Atom.?.
What you did is not only a personal insult to me, but to all the other
members of the group. Can you understand why?.
Now i have to add some more information for the other members.
I devoted about ten years of hard work to the the work i did entitled
'A model of the Nucleus and the Atom'.
I am aware that what I presented
in that message was not the substantiated theory
about the structure of the atom.
It was only a short promotion of my
theory -everybody understood it
except Mr. Putsch.
why ?? Is it because he is not intelligent enough?
Not at all.In addition, there is something
more peculiar in Mr P's behavior; suppose he does not want
to see and hear anything of the above theory. but why is it so important
for him
('God forbid') that anyone else should
see it? Are we back in the mediaeval days?
i leave it to the other members to try and explain why.
Now for a change, let's talk some science (members of the group,
please be patient with us
.the discussion we started here is absolutely relevant to fusion . be
patient and you will realize that).
i didn't want to be dragged into this discussion so soon but once it
started
i had no choice.
You taught me, Mr P, that the number of electrons in the Atom is exactly
the
same as the number of Protons,
thank you for that information. (what would i do without you !)
Now that means for instance that the number of electrons in the lead Atom
is 82 and that the number of electrons in Nickel is 28
Have you ever tried Mr P,
to explain to yourself and not just to recite as a parrot
how such a thing is possible?. 82 protons have full
control over 82 (nothing more and nothing less) Electrons which
orbit at a tremendous velocity all around that atom ,and all by
'remote control ' (oh mighty God,
You are great!)
Now, Mr P, i would like to ask you a little question (please write this
question down in your diary)
Do you have any experimental evidence that Lead has 82 Electrons around
it?
(please repeat for yourself the above strange question)
I will make it even easier for you :Do you have any experimental evidence
that the Nickel Atom has 28 electrons around it ?
Or maybe it is just a 'smart guess' of a scientist.
Now, I would like to ask any of the
members of the group who can help Mr P
answer that question will be welcome (and will be recommended for the Nobel
Prize).you may laugh but still you owe
an answer to that question.
Now if we are dealing just with smart guesses, then
why just stick to only one of them.
Let me save you time , people. : Even if Mr Pusch will push for the rest
of his life
,and i wish him a long life
because after all he has done a great service to me and
maybe to science. And even if his grandchild looks
look for it all his life,
he will never find evidence for it. Do you Know why? In
fact why should they just because someone invented a
theory?
Now, sit firmly in you seats,because after my next declaration your seats
.will start to shake.
There in no direct connection between the number of Protons and the number
of Electrons in the Atom !. Keep that declaration in your minds and write
down in your diaries the date you first heard it.
The number of positivly charged protons is less than commonly
beleived to be.according to my new findings,there are protons
with free armes that are positive charged ,on the other hand there
are others in other locations in the nuc. that are not charged
because all of their free sides are occupied by the inner nuclear
bomds,so if there are less positives than there are less negative electrons
as well
on the other hand there are in big nuc. electrons attatced to neutrons !!
that is the basis to my above declaration that there is no direct
connection between the number of protons and 'outside' electrons.
members of the froupe are invited to doscuss it here or privately
This revolutionary concept is vitally important for the understanding of
the structure of the Nucleus and the Atom.
it is all substantiated in the above book and if you want
t to understand that it's not just talking
you have to get that book. i cant explain it in one page.
and here i call on
you and especially organizations of science: You spend
so much money on research, So what risk is involved in
purchasing one book for an institute.
Maybe it will save you much more than the price
of that book.
and any of the members of the group who would like to go on discussing it
are
most welcome.
Excuse me, Mr Pusch for being a bit rude. After
all you did it as well
and after all we all want a better world for us and for others.
And as old Catto of ancient Rome used to say
and after all i say that the Alfa Particle
has a cross-like shape, the Tritium Particle
has a T-like shape and the Deutron
is as i described before. (lets say that this will be in short
my trade mark . )
Eng. Yehiel Porat
--------------------
