User:Amble/t

Questions on the Reference Desk
Alex, you seem to eventually get answers to your questions, which is great, but it is very difficult to understand you. Are you aware that there are a number of active reference desks available in other languages? You're completely free to continue asking questions here, but you might find things easier in your native language. For example, here is the one in Russian. If you scroll down the far left portion of that page (or this one in English), you'll see the full list of available languages. Also, if there's a difficult concept you're having trouble translating into English, it might help to provide the term to us in your native language as well. We have a number of different language speakers that could help. Matt Deres (talk) 12:36, 4 May 2014 (UTC)
 * I have an adequate grasp of scientific Russian, especially for physics, astrophysics, and cosmology. I'll be happy to help formulate your refdesk questions in English if you like.  I know there are other refdesk regulars who speak Russian and could also help clarify questions.  This isn't meant to discourage you, but to offer help in getting the answers you're looking for, if you choose. --Amble (talk) 17:28, 25 July 2014 (UTC)
 * I have a good questions for Wikipedia. I'm currently interested in the possibility of a collection of electromagnetic resonances of free charges in chaotic Brownian motion as a special case in general physics, which could be seen as the fundamental probable case in general physics.--Alex Sazonov (talk) 19:13, 25 July 2014 (UTC)
 * I'm currently interested in the possibility of a collection of electromagnetic resonances of free charges in chaotic Brownian motion as a special case in general physics, which could be seen as the fundamental probable case in general physics. --Amble (talk) 20:04, 25 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Brownian motion usually involves uncharged particles. Do you have in mind, then, that Wikipedia does not have an article dealing with the case of Brownian motion of charged particles?  That is indeed a complex class of problems with many papers dedicated to it, for example . --Amble (talk) 20:07, 25 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Thank you for you translation. I am interested in the physical-mathematical reason for the electromagnetic resonance which arises in any type of experimental observation of chaotic Brownian motion, I propose that the reason for this electromagnetic resonance is always nuclear fusion, taken in the context of chemistry and biology as well as physics.--Alex Sazonov (talk) 06:57, 26 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Could it be that the reason for the observable electromagnetic resonance in chaotic Brownian motion is the ambiguous knowledge of the theory of relativity?--Alex Sazonov (talk) 08:37, 26 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Is electromagnetic resonance capable of generating physical matter that possesses mass?--Alex Sazonov (talk) 11:05, 26 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Amble, in your understanding, what physical factor (factor of natural applied physics) can give rise to physical matter that possesses mass?--Alex Sazonov (talk) 11:59, 26 July 2014 (UTC)
 * And in general for an elementary charge to find its elementary mass, which is always necessary, that is, what factor of natural applied physics always determines the very capability of an elementary particle of physics and chemistry to find its mass?--Alex Sazonov (talk) 13:22, 26 July 2014 (UTC)

Amble, let's suppose that by means of natural experimentation one can prove the fact about natural applied physics, that matter is produced from outside, that is matter comes about through the action of external vector forces of natural physics, which in Nature exist everywhere, so that the system of physical-mathematical calculation is already a priori deduced from the state of vector equilibrium of forces and inertial energy.--Alex Sazonov (talk) 13:33, 26 July 2014 (UTC) Amble, it is all very simple, in my natural understanding in natural applied intertial physics there always exists at least one physical-mathematical quantity capable of generating mass in physical matter.--Alex Sazonov (talk) 14:15, 26 July 2014 (UTC)


 * When considering the elementary physical phenomenon of resonance in chaotic Brownian motion, one can come to the logical conclusion that kinetic motion induced by a part of the elementary particles (electromagnetic charges) in chaotic Brownian motion always induces kinetic motion of the remaining elementary particles (electromagnetic charges) in chaotic Brownian motion, and therefore I think that on the basis of physical-mathematical consideration of a set of possible kinetic resonances in kinetic Brownian motion it is always necessary to take physical-mathematical units of kinetic motion as the fundamental units of scientific consideration.--Alex Sazonov (talk) 15:23, 26 July 2014 (UTC)

Thanks Alex. I can help translate these if you like, but I don't think I'll be able to participate in an extended discussion of the physics. Would you like me to help translate what you wrote? Спасибо, Алекс. Я буду рад помогать с переводом, но к сожалению я думаю, что не могу участвовать в полном обсуждении физических вопросов. Хотите, чтобы я переводил то, что Вы написали вверх?
 * I been very thanks for you Amble if you translate these information in to English. Amble, I understood that you won't be able to take part in a full discussion of the questions I have posed, but if it's not too much trouble perhaps you could provide me with some very simple information (college level), in general physics in the USA and Great Britain has it been the practice up until now to consider the inert potential to be varying (non-constant)?--Alex Sazonov (talk) 18:44, 26 July 2014 (UTC)

Amble, general physics in the USSR never worked with a varying (non-constant) inert potential, since in general physics in the USSR it was always considered that the physical-mathetmatical significance of masses as physical-mathematical units is never variable (non-constant) in a constant state of rest, therefore physics in the USSR always has limited capability for solving problems.--Alex Sazonov (talk) 05:46, 27 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Amble, don't you think that the statics of kinetic motion is always a physical-mathematical constant quantity, that is the inert potential of of kinetic motion is always constant, as far as I know in the general physics of the USA and Great Britain it was considered that any statics always has a varying (non-constant) intertial potential, that is general physics of the US and Great Britain always proceeded from the fact that any inert potential is always variable (non-constant).--Alex Sazonov (talk) 07:19, 27 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Amble, the law of conservation of energy in the inertial model of physics of Isaac Newton is always considered an absolute, universal constant of physics, because any energy is always conserved in Nature regardless of human wishes, therefore the law of conservation of energy always proves that inert potential is always constant regardless of the form of existence of this inert potential, and in this way, it only remains to determine the possible (allowable) forms of existence of inert potential, that is to find the point at which to apply physics to solve the problem.--Alex Sazonov (talk) 13:03, 27 July 2014 (UTC)
 * From my point of view the physics of the USSR made a mistake in that it always proceeded from the absurd fact that up until that time when a body possesses mass it remains at rest.--Alex Sazonov (talk) 13:22, 27 July 2014 (UTC)

World scientific physics after the scientific discovery of the scientific relativistic theory of physics led the specialized knowledge of all specialized areas of physics to the proof in them of relativistic theory, which scientifically posits that any kinetic motion always possesses mass having additional inert potential, which in some cases can be larger than the basic inert potential of any kinetic motion, in this way, the essence of proof of relativistic theory positing that mass gives kinetic motion additional inert potential received scientific reinforcement in all special areas of physics, in the final result the World common scientific physics received relativistic scientific development.--Alex Sazonov (talk) 14:01, 27 July 2014 (UTC)