A prove that the electron is not a point particle!!
in [Relativity]
|
From: Y.Porat on 30 Dec 2009 05:25 On Dec 30, 11:57 am, "Inertial" <relativ...(a)rest.com> wrote: > "Y.Porat" <y.y.po...(a)gmail.com> wrote in message > > news:12199ff6-c21a-473d-a1e2-139eb3efc344(a)k17g2000yqh.googlegroups.com... > > > > > On Dec 30, 8:39 am, Ste <ste_ro...(a)hotmail.com> wrote: > >> On 29 Dec, 17:35, cjcountess <cjcount...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > > >> > The Geometrical interpretation of (E=mc^2), contains more info than > >> > equation alone, including electron structure. > > >> > (E=mc^2), tells us that a lot of energy is trapped inside of matter, > >> > and that they are one, related through mathematical conversion factor > >> > c^2, but does not show how. Neither can physicist and professors > >> > explain it. See:http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/einstein/experts.html > > >> When I read that page I almost thought it was a joke, but now I'm not > >> so sure... > > >> "When an object emits light, say, a flashlight, it gets lighter." > >> Yes, isn't that a dynamite discovery. > > >> Or perhaps "It's easiest to explain by how things looked from the > >> point of view of Newton." > >> Hmm. In other words, from a point of view without relativity. > > >> "Ninety-five percent of the mass of matter as we know it comes from > >> energy." > >> What, not 100%? > > >> "You can get access to parts of nature you have never been able to get > >> access to before." > >> And I presume for mainstream theoretical physicists the part of nature > >> that they have not had access to before is another person's genitalia. > > > ----------------- > > if a particle emits light > > it certainly looses mass > > Not necessarily .. depends on what you mean by a 'particle'. Like a small > piece of matter? Or a molecule? Or an atom? Or a subatomic particle? It > could just lose energy and retain its mass. But obviously the combined > system of photon and particle must conserve energy (including mass > equivalent). > > > yet > > that is not a grantee that you will be able to notice it ... > > > because of the probability that a particle > > has the ability ('talent' ..) > > TO RECOVER ITS MASS LOSS BY GETTING IT AGAIN FROM ITS ENVIRONMENT !!! > > Depends on whether whatever-it-is loses any mass in the first place, and > whether there is any reason for it to gain mass again. Again, as long as > the total energy (including mass equivalent) of the system is conserved. ------------------- Feuerbacher do you have something else in your mind except Y.Porat it looks like a psychotic obsession ..... ??? i am tired of you are you not tired of me ??? why dont you get of my back ?? as a **sane** human being would do ?? Y.P -----------------------------
From: Inertial on 30 Dec 2009 05:34 "Y.Porat" <y.y.porat(a)gmail.com> wrote in message news:c6393bfb-f080-4048-aaeb-b39fed8e45ec(a)n38g2000yqf.googlegroups.com... > On Dec 30, 11:57 am, "Inertial" <relativ...(a)rest.com> wrote: >> "Y.Porat" <y.y.po...(a)gmail.com> wrote in message >> >> news:12199ff6-c21a-473d-a1e2-139eb3efc344(a)k17g2000yqh.googlegroups.com... >> >> >> >> > On Dec 30, 8:39 am, Ste <ste_ro...(a)hotmail.com> wrote: >> >> On 29 Dec, 17:35, cjcountess <cjcount...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: >> >> >> > The Geometrical interpretation of (E=mc^2), contains more info than >> >> > equation alone, including electron structure. >> >> >> > (E=mc^2), tells us that a lot of energy is trapped inside of matter, >> >> > and that they are one, related through mathematical conversion >> >> > factor >> >> > c^2, but does not show how. Neither can physicist and professors >> >> > explain it. See:http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/einstein/experts.html >> >> >> When I read that page I almost thought it was a joke, but now I'm not >> >> so sure... >> >> >> "When an object emits light, say, a flashlight, it gets lighter." >> >> Yes, isn't that a dynamite discovery. >> >> >> Or perhaps "It's easiest to explain by how things looked from the >> >> point of view of Newton." >> >> Hmm. In other words, from a point of view without relativity. >> >> >> "Ninety-five percent of the mass of matter as we know it comes from >> >> energy." >> >> What, not 100%? >> >> >> "You can get access to parts of nature you have never been able to get >> >> access to before." >> >> And I presume for mainstream theoretical physicists the part of nature >> >> that they have not had access to before is another person's genitalia. >> >> > ----------------- >> > if a particle emits light >> > it certainly looses mass >> >> Not necessarily .. depends on what you mean by a 'particle'. Like a >> small >> piece of matter? Or a molecule? Or an atom? Or a subatomic particle? >> It >> could just lose energy and retain its mass. But obviously the combined >> system of photon and particle must conserve energy (including mass >> equivalent). >> >> > yet >> > that is not a grantee that you will be able to notice it ... >> >> > because of the probability that a particle >> > has the ability ('talent' ..) >> > TO RECOVER ITS MASS LOSS BY GETTING IT AGAIN FROM ITS ENVIRONMENT !!! >> >> Depends on whether whatever-it-is loses any mass in the first place, and >> whether there is any reason for it to gain mass again. Again, as long as >> the total energy (including mass equivalent) of the system is conserved. > > ------------------- > Feuerbacher Not me > do you have something else in your mind > except Y.Porat Its called physics. Though you seem obsessed with me, even though you don't know who I am > it looks like a psychotic obsession ..... Yes.. you do seem psychotically obsessed > ??? > i am tired of you Go away then > are you not tired of me ??? Your insults and mistakes do become repetitive. > why dont you get of my back ?? I'm not on it. You're still posting insults and lies about me though .. so clearly you have issues. > as a **sane** human being would do ?? How would you have ANY idea what a sane human being would do? I will reply to whatever threads I want with relevant physics and reasonable discussion. You should try that sometime .. instead of insults and nonsense.
From: Y.Porat on 30 Dec 2009 06:35 On Dec 30, 12:34 pm, "Inertial" <relativ...(a)rest.com> wrote: > "Y.Porat" <y.y.po...(a)gmail.com> wrote in message > > news:c6393bfb-f080-4048-aaeb-b39fed8e45ec(a)n38g2000yqf.googlegroups.com... > > > > > On Dec 30, 11:57 am, "Inertial" <relativ...(a)rest.com> wrote: > >> "Y.Porat" <y.y.po...(a)gmail.com> wrote in message > > >>news:12199ff6-c21a-473d-a1e2-139eb3efc344(a)k17g2000yqh.googlegroups.com.... > > >> > On Dec 30, 8:39 am, Ste <ste_ro...(a)hotmail.com> wrote: > >> >> On 29 Dec, 17:35, cjcountess <cjcount...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > > >> >> > The Geometrical interpretation of (E=mc^2), contains more info than > >> >> > equation alone, including electron structure. > > >> >> > (E=mc^2), tells us that a lot of energy is trapped inside of matter, > >> >> > and that they are one, related through mathematical conversion > >> >> > factor > >> >> > c^2, but does not show how. Neither can physicist and professors > >> >> > explain it. See:http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/einstein/experts.html > > >> >> When I read that page I almost thought it was a joke, but now I'm not > >> >> so sure... > > >> >> "When an object emits light, say, a flashlight, it gets lighter." > >> >> Yes, isn't that a dynamite discovery. > > >> >> Or perhaps "It's easiest to explain by how things looked from the > >> >> point of view of Newton." > >> >> Hmm. In other words, from a point of view without relativity. > > >> >> "Ninety-five percent of the mass of matter as we know it comes from > >> >> energy." > >> >> What, not 100%? > > >> >> "You can get access to parts of nature you have never been able to get > >> >> access to before." > >> >> And I presume for mainstream theoretical physicists the part of nature > >> >> that they have not had access to before is another person's genitalia. > > >> > ----------------- > >> > if a particle emits light > >> > it certainly looses mass > > >> Not necessarily .. depends on what you mean by a 'particle'. Like a > >> small > >> piece of matter? Or a molecule? Or an atom? Or a subatomic particle? > >> It > >> could just lose energy and retain its mass. But obviously the combined > >> system of photon and particle must conserve energy (including mass > >> equivalent). > > >> > yet > >> > that is not a grantee that you will be able to notice it ... > > >> > because of the probability that a particle > >> > has the ability ('talent' ..) > >> > TO RECOVER ITS MASS LOSS BY GETTING IT AGAIN FROM ITS ENVIRONMENT !!! > > >> Depends on whether whatever-it-is loses any mass in the first place, and > >> whether there is any reason for it to gain mass again. Again, as long as > >> the total energy (including mass equivalent) of the system is conserved. > > > ------------------- > > Feuerbacher > > Not me > > > do you have something else in your mind > > except Y.Porat > > Its called physics. Though you seem obsessed with me, even though you don't > know who I am > > > it looks like a psychotic obsession ..... > > Yes.. you do seem psychotically obsessed > > > ??? > > i am tired of you > > Go away then > > > are you not tired of me ??? > > Your insults and mistakes do become repetitive. > > > why dont you get of my back ?? > > I'm not on it. You're still posting insults and lies about me though ... so > clearly you have issues. > > > as a **sane** human being would do ?? > > How would you have ANY idea what a sane human being would do? > > I will reply to whatever threads I want with relevant physics and reasonable > discussion. You should try that sometime .. instead of insults and > nonsense. -------------- OK Fuerbacher anyone can see now that the only language that a psychopath Nazi pig like you understand is war so you will get what you like War !!.... (so excuse me the other readers ) Y.P ----------------------------
From: PD on 30 Dec 2009 14:19 On Dec 26, 1:42 am, "Y.Porat" <y.y.po...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > On Dec 26, 7:56 am, "Inertial" <relativ...(a)rest.com> wrote: > > > "FrediFizzx" <fredifi...(a)hotmail.com> wrote in message > > >news:7plmcjFcqsU1(a)mid.individual.net... > > > > "Inertial" <relativ...(a)rest.com> wrote in message > > >news:00bf06c9$0$15661$c3e8da3(a)news.astraweb.com... > > > >> There can be properties at a given point, obviously, eg charge. > > > > At a mathematical point, no charge. > > > There's no such thing in reality as a 'mathematical point' .. its only a > > concept, or abstraction, or thought. However, a mathematical point can > > correspond to a physical point, and the physical point can have charge. > > > > Let's say the an electron was a true point "particle"; what would you see > > > if you could be in the same absolute reference frame as that electron? > > > The charge would disappear. > > > No reason why it should. There can be a charge at a point. > > ----------------------- > there can be nothing physical (BY DEFINITION !!( > in a point! That's because you are using a crappy definition of "physical". Your definition of "physical" includes "having 3 dimensional extent". That's what makes it a crappy definition. > 2 > just see above who was the first one to explain and > prove it so nicely !!!...and clearly (:-) > and so many parrots folowed him lately !! > > so there is some satisfaction in my toil !!!....... > 3 > th e next idea of mine -that is going to be spread widely ---- > will be the > 'CHAIN OF ORBITALS ' . > (just a little indication but not the only one) > there are a lot of others !! > all chemistry is full of it !! > > ATB > Y.Porat > ---------------------------------
From: glird on 30 Dec 2009 15:50
On Dec 30, 2:17 pm, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > ><"Explain" in physics means being able to make a quantitative prediction of a measurable property, where that prediction is derived from certain core principles. > No wonder physicists don't understand what their equations say. To normal people, "explain" means to tell us what a "quantitative prediction" (an equation) of a "measurable property" (a dimension) MEANS in terms of things that actually exist. glird |