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: Brad Guth on 18 Jun 2010 13:55 On Jun 17, 5:07 pm, Double-A <double...(a)hush.com> wrote: > 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 So what?
From: Brad Guth on 18 Jun 2010 13:58 On Jun 17, 6:24 pm, Double-A <double...(a)hush.com> wrote: > 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 Electrons do have mass, therefore they exist as a particle. So let us have a look-see at those electrons. ~ BG
From: Double-A on 18 Jun 2010 14:49 On Jun 18, 10:55 am, Brad Guth <bradg...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > On Jun 17, 5:07 pm, Double-A <double...(a)hush.com> wrote: > > > > > > > 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 > > So what? So Planck wavelengths cannot be used to observe something, because they would swallow up what you were trying to observe. Double-A
From: Brad Guth on 18 Jun 2010 14:54 On Jun 18, 11:49 am, Double-A <double...(a)hush.com> wrote: > On Jun 18, 10:55 am, Brad Guth <bradg...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > On Jun 17, 5:07 pm, Double-A <double...(a)hush.com> wrote: > > > > 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 > > > So what? > > So Planck wavelengths cannot be used to observe something, because > they would swallow up what you were trying to observe. > > Double-A Plancks most likely exist as is, and they don't seem to be consuming anything. Do gamma photons consume X-ray photons, or anything else? Why should a planck photon be and/or act any different than a gamma photon? ~ BG
From: Double-A on 19 Jun 2010 12:38
On Jun 18, 7:48 am, bert <herbertglazie...(a)msn.com> wrote: > 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 So a proton would have to be much smaller than the Planck length to be a black hole. An electron even smaller. Double-A |