Joseph Chikva wrote:Neutrons decay with the help of what? With the help nothing.
WTF? What does Mr Dimwitted think happens to neutrons in the environment, then? Do they just sink down to the centre of the earth? (Which is what would happen to them, if they could last indefinitely, and not have the 20 min half-life that they actually do have?)
Joseph Chikva wrote:About lack of understanding of fusion, for example stating that Gamow tunnelling isn't necessary academic Arcimovich - the father of Soviet fusion program said that plasma physics is based on classic theory and not on quantum. Form quantum should be taken only some numbers - such as fusion cross section. I am not sure that you understand fusion better than Arcimovich.
Of course my understanding of fusion is better than Artsimovich. He is a 40 year old corpse. He no longer has any understanding of anything.
Ah.. I see the problem.... you recognise your own intellect to be below that of a dead corpse. Yes, I begin to see the problem.
Joseph Chikva wrote:Neutrons decay with the help of what? With the help nothing.
WTF? What does Mr Dimwitted think happens to neutrons in the environment, then? Do they just sink down to the centre of the earth? (Which is what would happen to them, if they could last indefinitely, and not have the 20 min half-life that they actually do have?)
Joseph Chikva wrote:About lack of understanding of fusion, for example stating that Gamow tunnelling isn't necessary academic Arcimovich - the father of Soviet fusion program said that plasma physics is based on classic theory and not on quantum. Form quantum should be taken only some numbers - such as fusion cross section. I am not sure that you understand fusion better than Arcimovich.
Of course my understanding of fusion is better than Artsimovich. He is a 40 year old corpse. He no longer has any understanding of anything.
Ah.. I see the problem.... you recognise your own intellect to be below that of a dead corpse. Yes, I begin to see the problem.
chrismb wrote:But this is not the point. The point is why the freak, Mr Chikrashwilly, is not yet banned after telling me; '**** **** Mother', or however he might want to write it in the local script of the scumbagville that he has oozed out of.
He said that he would do the same thing to the mothers of your friends. I don't consider you a friend, but since he just called you my 'beloved' he certainly did. He said that bleep about my mother too!
And, while some weak excuse or another about losing his mind because you and him were going at it so ridiculously hard could be imagined for his actions regarding you, it can't be used in regards to me.
I treated Joseph reasonably, speaking my mind, but not attacking him personally in any way and he feels free to talk about bleeping my mother.
Hopefully, less impotent moderation will be applied in this case.
You did not understand my English.
was all well understood this time?
Dude, are you actually trying to get up in my face over the internet? LOL!
chrismb wrote:Of course my understanding of fusion is better than Artsimovich.
Hehe
chrismb wrote:A neutron readily decays into a hydrogen atom (half-life 20 minutes), and it woudn't do that if that process required energy to give the electron new momentum to form the atom.
When you talk about half-life, so, you talk about the spontaneous process occurring without any external influences. It is also a lack of understanding of the nature of nuclear processes.
What can you say valuable at all?
chrismb wrote:Nuclear decay is a random, quantum process internal to the nucleus (or nucleon, in the case of weak-force mediated processes).
Not nuclear decay but only beta decay is mediated by weak forces. Mr. Better Understanding Fusion Than Arcimovich.
chrismb wrote:What external influence causes nuclear decays, then, which is the implication of your nonsense!?!?!
As I remember you told about energy to be pumped from externally for triggering decay. And that is nonsense.
Good luck. Mr. Unbalnced Current for pinch.
Arcimovich 2
Where did I say this?
WHAT THE CRAP IS GOING ON ON THIS FORUM THAT THIS MORON IS ALLOWED TO CONTINUE TO OPERATE HERE.
Mr Kuncklehead, you dimwitted twat, the only 'nucleon' decay is a beta decay (as far as I know- what else is there?) so what-the-crap are you talking about? You are so quick to jump to the next criticism it is imposible to find out what you freaking previous criticim was, even! What sort of crap are you trying to churn out into this forum.
MSimon, this is just going to go on and on and on into other peoples posts. The only reason I am tangling with this idiot is because I'm trying my best to keep any semblance of 'known physics' corrected at point of source, because if this forum continues to allow stupidity like chickwilly's non-discussions, then it becomes a forum of shyte. There is next to nothing of any tanginble scientific merit posted here for a long time and now people like this are being allowed to operate openly who think it is alright to go tell folks mothers to F-off after promising to be polite!!
Mr this Mr that I politely blahdeblah bullshyte this bullshyte that.
Chickenwilli is now, successfully, terrorising this forum and you are letting him get away with it.
weak interaction, force
n
(Physics / General Physics) Physics an interaction between elementary particles that is responsible for certain decay processes,
It sees to me that not this mute harmless specification but comprehension that he has told nonsense about Arcimovich caused mine immoderately emotional “opponent” on such an angry tirade.
Giorgio wrote:What's your point Joseph? I swear I am unable to understand it.
No point at all but only mute and harmless specification that weak forces are responsible only on beta decay.
In fact nowwe both speak about the same.
But patient is too excited.
Giorgio wrote:What's your point Joseph? I swear I am unable to understand it.
No point at all but only mute and harmless specification that weak forces are responsible only on beta decay.
In fact nowwe both speak about the same.
But patient is too excited.
Ok.
The problem is the way you reply to the people.
I tried since the first days to make you understand that most of the time you are replying to people posts stating that they did not understand anything, while in fact you were both stating the same point.
I'll point this issue to you again.
Before replying to someone please make sure you have correctly understood what they are talking about and what their position is on a certain argument.
If the argument of discussion is not clear than just ask. No one here will refuse to clarify his position.
chrismb wrote:Nuclear decay is a random, quantum process internal to the nucleus (or nucleon, in the case of weak-force mediated processes).
On which I have answered:
Not nuclear decay but only beta decay is mediated by weak forces.
Do you understand what a NUCLEON is? It is either a proton or a neutron. The weak force mediated beta decay is one that affects either a PROTON or a NEUTRON and therefore is one that is a process internal to A NUCLEON.
That's why I added the caveat "or in the case of...".
What do you think the caveat "or in the case of..." in brackets meant!?!
What are you trying to achieve here, on this forum?
Please state your reasons for posting here. The only reason I can comprehend that is consistent with your posts is that you are an idiot that wishes to disrupt a group of people already having generally agreeable regular discussions about things that you think you should be worshipped for thinking you know something about.
chrismb wrote:Nuclear decay is a random, quantum process internal to the nucleus (or nucleon, in the case of weak-force mediated processes).
On which I have answered:
Not nuclear decay but only beta decay is mediated by weak forces.
Do you understand what a NUCLEON is? It is either a proton or a neutron. The weak force mediated beta decay is one that affects either a PROTON or a NEUTRON and therefore is one that is a process internal to A NUCLEON.
That's why I added the caveat "or in the case of...".
What do you think the caveat "or in the case of..." in brackets meant!?!
I understand what is nucleon and what is nucleus.
That was only harmless specification/improvement/refinement. As you also mentioned "nucleus" as well. See above.
So, unlike you I don't contradict on all. But if you have a claim on understanding of something, your definitions should be more stricter.
Giorgio wrote:What's your point Joseph? I swear I am unable to understand it.
No point at all but only mute and harmless specification that weak forces are responsible only on beta decay.
In fact nowwe both speak about the same.
But patient is too excited.
Ok.
The problem is the way you reply to the people.
I tried since the first days to make you understand that most of the time you are replying to people posts stating that they did not understand anything, while in fact you were both stating the same point.
I'll point this issue to you again.
Before replying to someone please make sure you have correctly understood what they are talking about and what their position is on a certain argument.
If the argument of discussion is not clear than just ask. No one here will refuse to clarify his position.
My answer to you has been lost. Perhaps due to connection error.
I only would like to repeat that person not being familiar with me, not knowing my knowledge began to claim the same.
Unlike him I did the same only after that during discussion was appeared his catastrophic misunderstanding of very basic things.
Giorgio wrote:If the argument of discussion is not clear than just ask. No one here will refuse to clarify his position.
By the way, he made some progress saying that my confinement scheme will recover only some particles.
Earlier he claimed that there will be no confinement at all.
If he would be more polite I'd easily prove him the contrary. With corresponding numbers. And including even He4 3.5MeV has to be recovered from random direction.