Points and Solid. Electron vs Earth.
in [Relativity]
|
Prev: Reference frames.....Re: Experts doubt Einstein..... but EinsteinDingleberries still worship him
Next: Is Free Fall Inertial or Not?
From: Double-A on 17 Jun 2010 20:07 On Jun 17, 4:17 pm, "Painius" <starswirlern...(a)maol.com> wrote: > "Double-A" <double...(a)hush.com> wrote in message... > > news:54ca18f2-f853-4c5c-b757-143283eea049(a)y4g2000yqy.googlegroups.com... > On Jun 17, 2:39 pm, Brad Guth <bradg...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > Think of the electron(s) as the Oort could of the proton, and perhaps > > using gamma or shorter Planck wavelengths will eventually get that job > > of measuring the electron done. > > > ~ BG > > Planck wavelength EM waves would be black holes . . . > > Double-A > > P I T A P I T A P I T A P I T A P I T A P I T A P I T A > > What brings you to this conclusion? > > happy days and... > starry starry nights! > > -- > Indelibly yours, > Paine Ellsworth Look up the definition of Planck Length. Any EM photon of that length would have sufficient energy within its Schwarzschild radius that would be equivalent to the amount of mass needed to make it a black hole. Double-A
From: Painius on 17 Jun 2010 21:03 "Double-A" <double-a3(a)hush.com> wrote in message... news:f9d26105-9f24-4f64-aa8b-6ad5be10bd35(a)j4g2000yqh.googlegroups.com... On Jun 17, 4:17 pm, "Painius" <starswirlern...(a)maol.com> wrote: > "Double-A" <double...(a)hush.com> wrote in message... > news:54ca18f2-f853-4c5c-b757-143283eea049(a)y4g2000yqy.googlegroups.com... > On Jun 17, 2:39 pm, Brad Guth <bradg...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > Think of the electron(s) as the Oort could of the proton, and perhaps > > using gamma or shorter Planck wavelengths will eventually get that job > > of measuring the electron done. > > > ~ BG > > Planck wavelength EM waves would be black holes . . . > > Double-A > > P I T A P I T A P I T A P I T A P I T A P I T A P I T A > > What brings you to this conclusion? Look up the definition of Planck Length. Any EM photon of that length would have sufficient energy within its Schwarzschild radius that would be equivalent to the amount of mass needed to make it a black hole. Double-A P I T A P I T A P I T A P I T A P I T A P I T A P I T A Okay, i'm back up with you again. So, in order then to define the SPED, this shows that it *must* be something *other than* EM energy. It has to be an energy that does its work at and around the Planck length, but does not become massive enough to be a black hole. Gnarly little problem, there. BTW, Baez is "Whoa - Fantastic" reading... http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/planck/node2.html happy days and... starry starry nights! -- Indelibly yours, Paine Ellsworth P.S.: "Only I can change my life. No one can do it for me." > Carol Burnett P.P.S.: http://www.painellsworth.net http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Paine_Ellsworth
From: Double-A on 17 Jun 2010 21:24 On Jun 17, 6:03 pm, "Painius" <starswirlern...(a)maol.com> wrote: > "Double-A" <double...(a)hush.com> wrote in message... > > news:f9d26105-9f24-4f64-aa8b-6ad5be10bd35(a)j4g2000yqh.googlegroups.com... > On Jun 17, 4:17 pm, "Painius" <starswirlern...(a)maol.com> wrote: > > > > > > > "Double-A" <double...(a)hush.com> wrote in message... > >news:54ca18f2-f853-4c5c-b757-143283eea049(a)y4g2000yqy.googlegroups.com... > > On Jun 17, 2:39 pm, Brad Guth <bradg...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > Think of the electron(s) as the Oort could of the proton, and perhaps > > > using gamma or shorter Planck wavelengths will eventually get that job > > > of measuring the electron done. > > > > ~ BG > > > Planck wavelength EM waves would be black holes . . . > > > Double-A > > > P I T A P I T A P I T A P I T A P I T A P I T A P I T A > > > What brings you to this conclusion? > > Look up the definition of Planck Length. Any EM photon of that length > would have sufficient energy within its Schwarzschild radius that > would be equivalent to the amount of mass needed to make it a black > hole. > > Double-A > > P I T A P I T A P I T A P I T A P I T A P I T A P I T A > > Okay, i'm back up with you again. > > So, in order then to define the SPED, this shows that it > *must* be something *other than* EM energy. It has to > be an energy that does its work at and around the Planck > length, but does not become massive enough to be a > black hole. > > Gnarly little problem, there. > > BTW, Baez is "Whoa - Fantastic" reading... > > http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/planck/node2.html > > happy days and... > starry starry nights! > > -- > Indelibly yours, > Paine Ellsworth There are two things as I see it. The first is that oc does a little side step when he refers to his sub-Planck waves, because he says they are not EM waves, so they don't necessarily follow the same equations as EM waves. Secondly, and more profoundly, if gravity is indeed caused by the waves of the SPED, they might not act upon themselves to cause tiny black holes. Also there is a question of how these waves act on anything of a small enough size. Does gravity decrease on particles in the size range of the SPED waves? Does it become quantized? You see the problem for anything small enough to be near the size of the SPED waves themselves. Of course, maybe there's nothing else that small, except those theoretical highest energy photons. Double-A
From: bert on 18 Jun 2010 10:48 On Jun 17, 6:55 pm, Double-A <double...(a)hush.com> wrote: > On Jun 17, 2:39 pm, Brad Guth <bradg...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > > On Jun 17, 1:15 pm, Sanny <softtank...(a)hotmail.com> wrote: > > > > We say Electrons are point particle. As they are too small to find the > > > radius. > > > > Say in astronomy. Earth is Quite Big. For Planets like earth an Human > > > is a point particle. If one plots Earth and a Human being on a same > > > scale. > > > > Humans will look like a point particle. > > > > Simmilarly, If we take our whole Galaxy, Earth will look like a point > > > particle. > > > > So, Electron is revolving arround nucleus same was as earth revolves > > > arround Sun. Due to large scale we live in we are unable to detect > > > Electrons radius. > > > > We use light waves to measure distances in small areas. Since we > > > cannot produce lightwaves smaller than the size of electron we are > > > unable to get accurate radius of Electron. > > > > Once we get some new way to magnify the Nucleus and Electrons with new > > > Technology Lens. We will be able to see the real radius of Electron. > > > > Wait 10-20 yrs and you will know the Exact radius of Electron. As some > > > new way of magnifying lenses will be created in near future. > > > > Bye > > > Sanny > > > > Earn money Solving Physics Questions: > > > >http://www.getclub.com/Problems.php?cat=Physics > > > > Lots of interesting problems to Solve. > > > Think of the electron(s) as the Oort could of the proton, and perhaps > > using gamma or shorter Planck wavelengths will eventually get that job > > of measuring the electron done. > > > ~ BG > > Planck wavelength EM waves would be black holes and could tell you > nothing. > > Double-A- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text - AA yes interesting as you relate a Planck wave so short it relates to a black hole. Hmmm My thoughs over many years have always related black holes with " elementry particles. BH = particle mass,force charge and spin. It is big part of my "Spin is in Theory" BH has no hair because hair would not fit. Yes we have Macro BH and Micro BH and all are identical. BH in quantum realm when total mass of BH is about the Planck mass or less. Best AA is to keep this in mind. From the point of view of elementry particles the Planck mass is huge. I read it is 10 billion billion times that of a proton Also best to keep in mind we have QM clashing with general relativity.and this incompatibility has stymied all progress in this intriguing thinking. I have high hopes I am clever enough to bring my Concave&Convex theory into the micro QM realm TreBert
From: Brad Guth on 18 Jun 2010 13:54
On Jun 17, 3:55 pm, Double-A <double...(a)hush.com> wrote: > On Jun 17, 2:39 pm, Brad Guth <bradg...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > On Jun 17, 1:15 pm, Sanny <softtank...(a)hotmail.com> wrote: > > > > We say Electrons are point particle. As they are too small to find the > > > radius. > > > > Say in astronomy. Earth is Quite Big. For Planets like earth an Human > > > is a point particle. If one plots Earth and a Human being on a same > > > scale. > > > > Humans will look like a point particle. > > > > Simmilarly, If we take our whole Galaxy, Earth will look like a point > > > particle. > > > > So, Electron is revolving arround nucleus same was as earth revolves > > > arround Sun. Due to large scale we live in we are unable to detect > > > Electrons radius. > > > > We use light waves to measure distances in small areas. Since we > > > cannot produce lightwaves smaller than the size of electron we are > > > unable to get accurate radius of Electron. > > > > Once we get some new way to magnify the Nucleus and Electrons with new > > > Technology Lens. We will be able to see the real radius of Electron. > > > > Wait 10-20 yrs and you will know the Exact radius of Electron. As some > > > new way of magnifying lenses will be created in near future. > > > > Bye > > > Sanny > > > > Earn money Solving Physics Questions: > > > >http://www.getclub.com/Problems.php?cat=Physics > > > > Lots of interesting problems to Solve. > > > Think of the electron(s) as the Oort could of the proton, and perhaps > > using gamma or shorter Planck wavelengths will eventually get that job > > of measuring the electron done. > > > ~ BG > > Planck wavelength EM waves would be black holes and could tell you > nothing. > > Double-A I do not agree. Give us something/anything as good or better than a secondary/recoil planck wave. ~ BG |