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 21 Jun 2010 13:01 On Jun 21, 9:44 am, "Painius" <starswirlern...(a)maol.com> wrote: > "Double-A" <double...(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 If the Planck mass has a Schwarzschild radius of the Planck length, then if the proton's mass is billions of times less than the Planck mass, then the proton's Schwarzchild radius would be way less than the Planck length. So if a proton is a black hole, its mass must be confined to a radius much less than the Planck length. That's all I'm saying. Double-A
From: Painius on 21 Jun 2010 14:16 "HVAC" <mr.hvac(a)gmail.com> wrote... in message news:hvo2qt$c84$1(a)hvac.motzarella.org... > "Painius" <starswirlernosp(a)maol.com> wrote in message > news:4c1f8869$0$8375$9a6e19ea(a)unlimited.newshosting.com... > >> Please explain how a star is able to produce >> both "effects"... >> >> 1) the effect of outward expansion, and > > Thermonuclear processes. > >> 2) the effect that contains that expansion. > > Gravity. These are two fairly good answers for each process. We don't need to venture too far into the first answer, for much is known about it. The second answer, "gravity", is a lot more interesting, of course. But your two answers, while fairly good for *describing* the individual effects, do nothing to point us toward a *combined* answer, an answer that brings it all together... >> 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? > > See above for 'how'. > > 'Why' is because it is what it is. > > Deal with it. This makes it very clear why you are who you are, Harlow. You take little or nothing any farther than your answer above. "Space has properties", ergo "space is not 'nothing'". Why go any farther? Space is what it is, so deal with it. Having a conversation with you is like talking to an IC chip. There you are, small and powerful, completely surrounded by the hard plastic of your teachings, plugged in and hoping for just the right amount of power to perform your function, whatever that may be. Hoping that nobody "zaps" you with too much current. "Real" scientists have to step outside their "chip". That must be very hard for you to do. Do you think that Einstein ever said to himself, "I suppose I should give up this quest to discover why gravitation is what it is, because gravity IS what it IS, so I must deal with it!" No. Even about three years before he died he published his most important work, the additions to his 15th edition of his book, _Relativity - the Special and the General Theory_. Einstein wrote a brief introductory note found near the beginning, plus he wrote Appendix V, "Relativity and the Problem of Space". Few have even read it, and as yet, NOBODY appears to understand it. By then, he was seen as an old "fuddy duddy" who had basically "lost it". Can you "step outside your chip", Harlow? Check with your buddy, Alan Guth. There's someone who knows exactly what i mean. He stepped outside his chip and came up with "inflation theory". Then he stepped comfortably back into his chip. Your other pal, Sagan, stepped out of his chip consistently to give us realities about Venus, Mars and a host of other astronomical goodies. But none of that seems to have rubbed off on you. Too bad. No, you won't step outside your chip because YOU don't want to end up in that office down the hall near the door, ready to be kicked out on a moment's notice. So you stay deep inside your hard plastic. All you have to do to step outside your chip (don't worry, this is UseNet, so nobody will hold it against you if you're full of it) is to give me a more graphic answer, any answer you can come up with... Yes, thermonuclear processes explain the outward push, and yes, gravity explains the containment effect. How do they work so well together? What does the star do to generate BOTH effects? Try to imagine yourself at the center of a star. You ARE the star, and at your center all this nuclear stuff, this "fusion", is taking place -- hydrogen into helium, maybe a little helium into carbon, or whatever -- and this is causing a tremendous push outward, amazingly powerful. And yet, you, as the star, are also able to CONTAIN this outward force. What i'm asking you is HOW... HOW do you, as the star, *generate* both of these effects? Now, you're back in your chip again. Comfy? Good! Why can we possibly expect the star to generate the outward force AND the inward containment? How can we actually expect a star to generate BOTH? Why would it? How could a star "know" just how much of that containment "effect" (force!) to generate in order to achieve just the right containment of its outward pushing energy? Fuhgeddabout defining that elusive gravity -- fuhgeddabout defining that other awesome force of thermonuclear processes. F U H G E D D A B O U T I T ! Just tell me HOW they work TOGETHER, and how/why we should EXPECT them to be generated, both of them at the same time, by a star. 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
From: Brad Guth on 21 Jun 2010 17:08
On Jun 20, 5:06 am, bert <herbertglazie...(a)msn.com> wrote: > On Jun 18, 2:49 pm, 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- Hide quoted text - > > > - Show quoted text - > > Gamma photons with their tiny wave can not be used to observe. Best to > keep in mind they kick electrons around. Photons with longer waves are > better,but also have problems. Seems mother nature does not like our > looking into the micro world. I relate that to looking up Palin's > skirt TreBert The wavelength is what limits the possible resolution. It doesn't work the other way around. ~ BG |