How can Orbital Electron Rotate Permanently without Energy Supply?

Schoenfeld:
[followup-to header restored]

Bilge wrote:
[...]

An electron is not a generic term for an electric particle.
An electron is a charged spinor, which is quite different
from a charged scalar, which is quite different from a
charged psuedoscalar, which is quite different from a
charged vector, which is quite different from a charged
axial vector.

If an electron is anything, it is certainly not that. The only way to
define an electron is as the set of its measurable properties. That you
can construct a model of an electron as some mathematical structure A
does not necessarily mean that an electron is an A.

An electron is, by definition, all of the properties we can
measure and say, hey - that's an electron. Nature tells us that
some of the measurements are mutually exclusive.

Evidence suggests nature cannot be modelled mathematically, only
approximated.

And exactly what evidence is that? If you say something dumb
like ``the uncertainty relations,'' expect an appropriate response.

Bilge wrote:
Schoenfeld:
[followup-to header restored]

Bilge wrote:
[...]

An electron is not a generic term for an electric particle.
An electron is a charged spinor, which is quite different
from a charged scalar, which is quite different from a
charged psuedoscalar, which is quite different from a
charged vector, which is quite different from a charged
axial vector.

If an electron is anything, it is certainly not that. The only way to
define an electron is as the set of its measurable properties. That you
can construct a model of an electron as some mathematical structure A
does not necessarily mean that an electron is an A.

An electron is, by definition, all of the properties we can
measure and say, hey - that's an electron. Nature tells us that
some of the measurements are mutually exclusive.

okay, tell me, who is transporting a signal thro a conductor, tha
electrons or the holes (the absence of electrons)

hurry up


Evidence suggests nature cannot be modelled mathematically, only
approximated.

And exactly what evidence is that? If you say something dumb
like ``the uncertainty relations,'' expect an appropriate response.

Autymn D. C. wrote:
(I've been away from sci.physics.)

whay wont you get lost for good autumn

ahahaha, you spell wrong even your name, what a gaaaay

In article . com,
Schoenfeld wrote:
[followup-to header restored]

Bilge wrote:
[...]

An electron is not a generic term for an electric particle.
An electron is a charged spinor, which is quite different
from a charged scalar, which is quite different from a
charged psuedoscalar, which is quite different from a
charged vector, which is quite different from a charged
axial vector.

If an electron is anything, it is certainly not that. The only way to
define an electron is as the set of its measurable properties. That you
can construct a model of an electron as some mathematical structure A
does not necessarily mean that an electron is an A. Evidence suggests
nature cannot be modelled mathematically, only approximated.

The two options are not contradictory-- mathematical structure A describes
what we know of the electron's measurable properties. That includes its
behavior as a spinor particle. If there were any measurable deviation of
the electron's behavior from that of a spinor particle, that would
actually be pretty big news among particle physicists.

--
"Voice or no voice, the people can always be brought to the bidding of
the leaders. This is easy. All you have to do is to tell them they
are being attacked, and denounce the pacifists for lack of patriotism
and exposing the country to danger." -- Hermann Goering

Vollane:

Bilge wrote:
Schoenfeld:
[followup-to header restored]

Bilge wrote:
[...]

An electron is not a generic term for an electric particle.
An electron is a charged spinor, which is quite different
from a charged scalar, which is quite different from a
charged psuedoscalar, which is quite different from a
charged vector, which is quite different from a charged
axial vector.

If an electron is anything, it is certainly not that. The only way to
define an electron is as the set of its measurable properties. That you
can construct a model of an electron as some mathematical structure A
does not necessarily mean that an electron is an A.

An electron is, by definition, all of the properties we can
measure and say, hey - that's an electron. Nature tells us that
some of the measurements are mutually exclusive.

okay, tell me, who is transporting a signal thro a conductor, tha
electrons or the holes (the absence of electrons)

Bob


hurry up


Evidence suggests nature cannot be modelled mathematically, only
approximated.

And exactly what evidence is that? If you say something dumb
like ``the uncertainty relations,'' expect an appropriate response.

"Bilge" wrote in message
...
Vollane:

Bilge wrote:
Schoenfeld:
[followup-to header restored]

Bilge wrote:
[...]

An electron is not a generic term for an electric particle.
An electron is a charged spinor, which is quite different
from a charged scalar, which is quite different from a
charged psuedoscalar, which is quite different from a
charged vector, which is quite different from a charged
axial vector.

If an electron is anything, it is certainly not that. The only way
to
define an electron is as the set of its measurable properties. That
you
can construct a model of an electron as some mathematical structure
A
does not necessarily mean that an electron is an A.

An electron is, by definition, all of the properties we can
measure and say, hey - that's an electron. Nature tells us that
some of the measurements are mutually exclusive.

okay, tell me, who is transporting a signal thro a conductor, tha
electrons or the holes (the absence of electrons)

Bob


hurry up


Evidence suggests nature cannot be modelled mathematically, only
approximated.

And exactly what evidence is that? If you say something dumb
like ``the uncertainty relations,'' expect an appropriate response.


Paul's Axiom # 6... Any modle of the nature of Stuff.. Is never the Actual
Stuff...



As for electrons, photons and all the other tons that display the aspect of
dualality
are but the measure of a point time contained energy signature of a
propagating wave.

Due to intrinsic bias of method of measure ( being inside the quantum box so
to speak)
it can be modeled as a little ball of stuff at a point in time.... but
extend the time and
the ball of stuff evaporates in a EM puff...

Vollane wrote:
Autymn D. C. wrote:
(I've been away from sci.physics.)

whay wont you get lost for good autumn

whay - why
wont - win't
good - good,
autumn - Autymn?

A tide can't get lost; it's part of the Earth's year.

ahahaha, you spell wrong even your name, what a gaaaay

spell wrong even your name, - even spell your name wrong;
gaaaay - gay Vollane is.

You spelled my name wrong, so you're the projectionally gay retard.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Psychological_projection

Youth is wasten on the young; irony is wasten on the dumb; love is
wasten on the wedden.

-Aut

Bilge wrote:
An electron is, by definition, all of the properties we can
measure and say, hey - that's an electron. Nature tells us that
some of the measurements are mutually exclusive.

Poor Bilge can't tell the difference between "is" and "has" and "does".
Nature is not an isolate sustem.

-Aut