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: Painius on 21 Jun 2010 11:19 "bert" <herbertglazier79(a)msn.com> wrote in message... news:89409332-de69-4ae1-96ba-beee9ef458ce(a)h13g2000yqm.googlegroups.com... On Jun 20, 4:03 am, "Painius" <starswirlern...(a)maol.com> wrote: > "Double-A" <double...(a)hush.com> wrote in message... > news:70b2b8e8-f774-4d4c-a747-3e93e0715831(a)f7g2000vbl.googlegroups.com... > 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 > > 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 > > 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 comprises quarks? Preons? What comprises preons? > Where does energy leave off and matter begin? and vice > versa? What, if anything, is in that cloudy area between > the two? energy and matter? How precisely does the SPED > pressure our atoms and give us weight? Gravity or inertia give all that is weight. Since gravity and inertia are the same thing its a play of both words This is what Einstein and I discused in our 15 minure talk. Many moons ago TreBert 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 Yes, that is all true, Bert, but *how* does gravity do it? How precisely does the SPED push us down toward the ground? How do you think it happens? happy days and... starry starry nights! -- Indelibly yours, Paine Ellsworth P.S.: "Basic research is what I am doing when I don't know what I am doing." > Wernher von Braun P.P.S.: http://www.painellsworth.net http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Paine_Ellsworth
From: HVAC on 21 Jun 2010 11:40 "Painius" <starswirlernosp(a)maol.com> wrote in message news:4c1f8305$0$4866$9a6e19ea(a)unlimited.newshosting.com... > > Yes, that is all true, Bert, but *how* does gravity > do it? How precisely does the SPED push us down > toward the ground? How do you think it happens? Trying to recruit Bert into the Aether/sped cult? Bert knows Aether and sped are bullshit. After all, Bert won a Nobel! -- When HVAC does a push-up, he's not pushing himself up, he's pushing the world down.
From: Painius on 21 Jun 2010 11:42 "HVAC" <mr.hvac(a)gmail.com> wrote in message... news:hvl1mg$t03$1(a)hvac.motzarella.org... > "Painius" <starswirlernosp(a)maol.com> wrote in message > news:4c1dcb43$0$4842$9a6e19ea(a)unlimited.newshosting.com... >> >> What comprises quarks? > > As far as we know, quarks are elementary point particles. And yet, it only takes three of them to comprise protons and neutrons. Therefore they must be larger than electrons. So what comprises quarks? >>Preons? What comprises preons? > > As far as we know, preons don't exist. Yes, they are hypothesized but not yet theorized. And suppose preons *do* exist? Would they be the "missing link" of particle physics? >> Where does energy leave off and matter begin? > > They are both the same. Monkeys and orangutans are "apes", but they are not the same. Matter has different properties compared to energy, so while they are both the same thing, they are also different. So there as yet would be a "missing link" between them. It would be something that is "transitional", something that might exhibit all or some of the properties of both matter and energy. >> What, if anything, is in that cloudy area between >> the two? energy and matter? > > There is no cloudy area between the two. I was speaking metaphorically. The "cloudy area" would be in our minds, and it holds the answers to how matter can be changed into energy, and also (and very importantly) how energy can be transformed into matter. >> How precisely does the SPED >> pressure our atoms and give us weight? > > The 'sped' doesn't exist, therefore your question > is irrelevant. The SPED has not yet been evidenced to exist, that much is true. However, to me at least, it is far more likely than gravitons (or something else) reaching up out of the Earth and pulling us down some way. The SPED is not your grampa's push-gravity theory. Please explain how a star is able to produce both "effects"... 1) the effect of outward expansion, and 2) the effect that contains that expansion. How (and why) would a star be expected to be the origin of both effects? Both effects ! BOTH EFFECTS at the same time? We are asked to accept that a star somehow generates and produces *both effects* at the same time. How?... and Why? happy days and... starry starry nights! -- Indelibly yours, Paine Ellsworth P.S.: "There is just one thing I can promise you about the outer-space program: your dollar will go further." > Wernher von Braun P.P.S.: http://www.painellsworth.net http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Paine_Ellsworth
From: Painius on 21 Jun 2010 11:50 "Painius" <starswirlernosp(a)maol.com> wrote in message... news:4c1f8869$0$8375$9a6e19ea(a)unlimited.newshosting.com... > > . . . Monkeys and orangutans are "apes", but they are > not the same. . . . Ooops ! I meant to say, "Monkeys and orangutans are 'primates', but they are not the same." Sorry for the Adlerian slip. <<< g >>> happy days and... starry starry nights! -- Indelibly yours, Paine Ellsworth P.S.: "Basic research is what I am doing when I don't know what I am doing." > Wernher von Braun P.P.S.: http://www.painellsworth.net http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Paine_Ellsworth
From: Painius on 21 Jun 2010 12:44
"Double-A" <double-a3(a)hush.com> wrote in message... news:1fbdddb6-5be3-42c0-9f14-2a3fb49ba0b9(a)k39g2000yqb.googlegroups.com... 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 > > 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 P I T A P I T A P I T A "What if" a proton *is* a black hole? happy days and... starry starry nights! -- Indelibly yours, Paine Ellsworth P.S. "Nothing in life is to be feared, it is only to be understood. Now is the time to understand more, so that we may fear less." > Marie Curie--chemist & physicist P.P.S.: http://www.painellsworth.net http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Paine_Ellsworth |