Proton Radius Cannot Be Derived From Standard Model
in [Relativity]
|
From: mpc755 on 29 May 2010 00:11 On May 29, 12:07 am, spudnik <Space...(a)hotmail.com> wrote: > thank you, Maetherwocky! > > > Quantum is not a number. Quantum is an amount of material. Quantum is > > an amount of mæther. Quantum is the amount of mæther associated with a > > photon which interacts with matter. No prob. You heard it here first.
From: spudnik on 29 May 2010 22:13 yeah, but what in Hell is it supposed to mean, The Maetherwocky? anyway, you are not very serious about "addressing your interlocutors in the infinite ghetto of the worldwidweeb,": so that you can have the last word, again, after this one post; I'll just have to exercise a mental killfile, til you actually do some thing. (please, start a new item, "I, MPC#, am really doing some thing, this time!", and thank *you* .-) > No prob. You heard it here first. thusNso: I finally read-up on "trig. basics," and it is all covered by two relationships amongst them: a) reciprocal functions, and b) cofunctions. in other words, do that, firstly! on the wayside, the sine of the dihedral angle of the icosahedron is not 0.666! the homework is to find the minimal set of functions for tetrahedronometry. but, I'd advise learning spherical trig., first of all because planar is a subset thereto, secondly "or be totally reliant upon a bunch of internecine (military) satellites." thusNso: Fermatttt realized that his "miraculous" proof did not apply to the rather peculiar case of n=4. the only unsolved conjecture of his is "the characterization of the Fermattttt primes, beyond that of Gauss." (iff you want to get into that, there is a great book from Societe Mathematique Canadienne, _Seventeen Essays on Fermat Numbers_ ... maybe I can locate that great review, but my mom found it on Amazon. > Have fun, and good luck! thusNso: my format is just self-publishing, but always responding (top-posting) to the subjectum. Tom Gold's theory hasn't been tested, only it has; the oilcos just haven't realeased the C14/C12 ratio of their "fingerprints of adjacent holes." no oil is "Fossilized Fuel TM;" that is nothing, but a tradename, with no technical significance (unless, you consdier, "sediments pile-up in the ocean, and their own weight creates hydrocarbons," to be a theory .-) of course, Earth is growing, but this depends not only on falling- in space-junk, but the biota of the outermost layers & the noosphere.... I don't see what the problem is with plate tectonics, over-all, although "currents in the mantle" is a known absurdity, from the seismic data (on the other hand, there are so many weird pahses of rocks at temperature & pressure, like ice .-) volcanos produce huge amounts of CO2, and CFCs and so on. > Actually I think, that oil is not fossilized biomass, but comes from > deep inside in the inner earth. The why and hows about this idea is > another interesting, but very different and difficult subject. thusNso: hogwash; spacetime is just a phase-space, three orthogonal (and imaginary) coordinates in space, one (real) scalar time; til Gibbs dysassembled Hamilton's "inner and outer products" into his version of Hamilton's "vectors & scalars." > (And that is the reason we need complex fourvectors, because > these are fully-symmetric upon the change of the timeline.) thusNso: you don't read Shakespeare til the eleventh grading, or it could seriously mess you "up." til then, one can readily study *mathematica*, which is four subjects, in a "hands-on" manner that does not really require the full-throated use of language -- that one is learning, by doing stuff. I like UD's _Math.Cranks_, because, in his chapter on fermatistes, he only made one mistake, that I can find, now, and he had acknowledged it, when I told him. also, he seems to have left numbertheory, out, and that's one of the four, the true meaning of "higher arithmetic." > http://www.ams.org/notices/201005/rtx100500608p.pdf > author would be in not including Geometry explicitly as part of > mathematics: "So that there is no confusion, let me say that by > 'mathematics' I mean algebra, trigonometry, calculus, linear algebra, > and so on: all those subjects beyond arithmetic." thusNso: textbooks are often *generically* bad glosses on the discoveries in the original monographs, or simply pedantic workbooks. the real empty set, to me, is those who attempt proofs, without any grounding in elementary geometrical & numbertheory proofs -- see wlym.com. and, recall, it was Liebniz who gave the generic format of "iff," which is necessity & sufficiency, used meaningfully in various ways in natural language. the New Math following upon General Bourbaki was a silly thing, since you *need* natural language (and diagrams etc.) to make ready analogies & metaphors for your work. such that, the glaring example of Bourbakism was perhaps Russell's illinguistic "paradoxes" -- whence "silly" deploys from over-reliance on Aristotle's syllogisms! --Stop BP's capNtrade rip-off; call Waxman & tell him, we need a small *tax* on carbon emmissions, instead of "let the arbitrageurs raise the price of CO2 as much as they can -- free trade, free beer, free dumb!" http://wlym.com
From: mpc755 on 29 May 2010 22:40 On May 29, 10:13 pm, spudnik <Space...(a)hotmail.com> wrote: > yeah, but what in Hell is it supposed to mean, > The Maetherwocky? > It means when a photon is detected what is being detected is a quantum of mæther. Aether and matter are different states of the same material. The material is mæther. Mæther has mass. Aether and matter have mass. A quantum of mæther is the smallest detectable particle.
From: mpc755 on 31 May 2010 14:44 On May 30, 3:21 pm, spudnik <Space...(a)hotmail.com> wrote: > A=Mcc -- unassailable! > Correct. With the understanding: A=Mc^2, where A is aether and M is matter, the following is easily understood: Aether and matter are different states of the same material. The material is mæther. Aether is uncompressed mæther and matter is compressed mæther. 'DOES THE INERTIA OF A BODY DEPEND UPON ITS ENERGY-CONTENT? By A. EINSTEIN' http://www.fourmilab.ch/etexts/einstein/E_mc2/e_mc2.pdf "If a body gives off the energy L in the form of radiation, its mass diminishes by L/c2." The mass of the body does diminish, but the matter which no longer exists as part of the body has not vanished. It still exists, as aether. As the matter transitions to aether it expands in three dimensions. The effect this transition has on the surrounding aether and matter is energy. The physical effect of mæther decompressing is energy. Mass is conserved. > > > Quantum mechanics predicts that measuring the spin of > > one proton in an entangled pair will affect the state > > of the other proton. > Measuring the spin of one photon does not effect the state of the entangled pair. When a downgraded photon pair are created they maintain the original photons momentum. This means the downgraded photon pair will always be measure to have opposite spins. The downgraded photon pair are not entangled.
From: BURT on 31 May 2010 20:35
On May 31, 11:44 am, mpc755 <mpc...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > On May 30, 3:21 pm, spudnik <Space...(a)hotmail.com> wrote: > > > A=Mcc -- unassailable! > > Correct. With the understanding: > > A=Mc^2, where A is aether and M is matter,. Solving for C we get C = Square root of Aether/Mass. The aether mass relationship must then set C. But all this is nonsense. Mitch Raemsch |