🚀 go-pugleaf

dubious@radioactivex.lebesque-al.net (Bilge) wrote in message news:<slrnb4oet6.ib.dubious@radioactivex.lebesque-al.net>...
> Sergey Karavashkin: 
>  >root@radioactivex.lebesque-al.net (Bilge) wrote in message
>  >news:<slrnb4c0i7.o6j.root@radioactivex.lebesque-al.net>...
>  
>  >>   Your attempt to say that treating light as photons is untenable, is
>  >> based upon an entirely untenable model of photons. While it's true that
>  >> Atsukovsky's model is untenable, most of his assumptions are wrong and
>  >> even conflict with the ones that are right. For example, if photons had a
>  >> mass, the spin could take on three values, 1,0,-1, not two. It's a vector
>  >> and all three projections differ only by a rotation of the axes. All you
>  >> can say is that his model is untenable, which is obvious from the
>  >> assumptions.
>  >
>  >Three states of photon in a transverse wave?
>  
>    Since the model you used (Atsukovsky's) assumes the photon has
> a mass, it's not transverse. You could have stopped after the first
> page and said his model was non-sense and saved yourself some effort.
> 
>  >At uneven velocity in the near field? Massif photon?
> 
>    Don't blame me. That's what's written on the first page of your
> so-called article. I just commented on what I read. Don't write it
> and I won't commemt on what you don't write.
> 
>  >Perhaps now you will classify it as a hyperon? ;-)
> 
>    I could call it anything I wanted and you'd never know the difference.
>  
>  >Have we at all analysed in our paper the photon
>  >polarisation? In that number in Atsukovsky's conception. Whether our
>  >analysis relates only to Atsukovsky? Or to a photon as the whole? Your
>  
>   Your analysis very specifically addresses Atsukovsky's model and little
> in your analysis has a relation to any acceptable model of a photon. That
> which does relate only supports any acceptable model of a photon by
> pointing out (in a very tortured way) the faults with the model you
> assumed on the first page. You didn't need to spend pages to point
> out the model on your first page is inconsistent. It's blatantly wrong
> on its face.
> 
>  >blindness is so usual for me that does not surprise, only shows again:
>  >the essence of problem is of no importance for you, you have no idea
>  >of argumentation. For you it is the same as to substitute your wave
>  >function into the Schroedinger equation.
>  
>   I provided that for you. It's not my problem if you can't comprehend
> a superposition or the difference between a differential equation and
> a boundary value problem.
> 
>  >Eh, Bilge, Bilge! Was it the aim of your life to confine yourself to
>  >write nonsense, humiliating yourself!
> 
>    It wasn't my aim, but you provide plenty of nonsense to write about.
> I also don't see why I should be embarasses pointing out what nonsense
> I comment on.
> 
>  >Understanding, this what you write is nonsense. Don't humiliate yourself,
>  >and you will never have the reason to complain that you are offended,
>  >as you did it in one of threads.
>  
>   Thanks for the advice, but I don't think I can go along with
> it.
> 
>  >It only seems that impudence and boorishness win. No, they obliterate
>  >those who boor.
> 
>   I just gotta be me. Now go soak your head in a bowl of borscht.

Your last phrase said it all. Your stupidity remains with you. You
understood everything, could not find real objections, felt feebleness
and expressed it in accordance with your poverty-stricken, criminal
nature. Here such beings are strongly taught, but you have taught
yourself worse that one could. You are out of my interest long ago.
And as to borscht - don't choke with saliva.

Sergey.