Proton Radius Cannot Be Derived From Standard Model
in [Physics]
|
Prev: "Fabrication" or "Lie" in the IPCC AR4 WGI
Next: Chapt 3, Fiberglass Experiment; using only luminosity for distance measure #62; ATOM TOTALITY
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
From: mpc755 on 2 Jun 2010 03:33 On May 31, 11:14 pm, spudnik <Space...(a)hotmail.com> wrote: > A=mcc was Einstein's original formulation, > A standing for "arbeit" or work. actually ... nevermind! > > MPC# is never going to do any thing with this, and > perhaps he or she can not, other than lucking-in > on the original formularium -- big ******* deal. > 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.
From: spudnik on 12 Jun 2010 14:45 "your kind" will never attempt to answer any question; what you have been posting is merely absurd at the syllogistic level, hence, entirely "silly," where all known properties of electromagnetism, which are wavey, dysappear into a loose hydrodynamic metaphor, replacing "energy" with "aether" -- and that is an odd mental spazzm. funny, as all of this could be exposed, merely by taking some aspect of a real two-hole experiment, like the actual details of the uncited fullerene set-up, into account waves can ne'er be particles, whether a mathematical duality can be applied in a formularium of a phenomenon a la momentum; for instance, How is a water-wave to be known as a particle ... um, a hydron? even Burt goes further than you, with his sad nonsequiters; yours are only misnomers & oxymora ("global" warming, when insolation is totally differential from pole to equator e.g.). [NB, your kind is iff MPC#, period.] so, What did you understood of "the following?" > A=Mc^2, where A is aether and M is matter, > the following is easily understood: "If a body gives off the energy L > in the form of radiation, its mass diminishes by L/c2." --Stop BP's and Waxman's arbitrageurs' wetdream "Captain Tax as according to the God-am WSUrinal" -- and they LOVE his '91 bill! http://wlym.com
From: BURT on 12 Jun 2010 17:00 On Jun 12, 11:45 am, spudnik <Space...(a)hotmail.com> wrote: > "your kind" will never attempt to answer any question; > what you have been posting is merely absurd at the syllogistic level, > hence, entirely "silly," where all known properties of > electromagnetism, > which are wavey, dysappear into a loose hydrodynamic metaphor, > replacing "energy" with "aether" -- and that is an odd mental spazzm. > funny, as > all of this could be exposed, merely by taking some aspect > of a real two-hole experiment, like the actual details > of the uncited fullerene set-up, into account > > waves can ne'er be particles, whether a mathematical duality can > be applied in a formularium of a phenomenon a la momentum; for > instance, > How is a water-wave to be known as a particle ... um, a hydron? > > even Burt goes further than you, > with his sad nonsequiters; yours are only misnomers & oxymora > ("global" warming, when insolation is totally differential > from pole to equator e.g.). [NB, your kind is iff MPC#, period.] > > so, What did you understood of "the following?" > > > A=Mc^2, where A is aether and M is matter, > > the following is easily understood: "If a body gives off the energy L > > in the form of radiation, its mass diminishes by L/c2." > > --Stop BP's and Waxman's arbitrageurs' wetdream "Captain Tax as > according to the God-am WSUrinal" -- and they LOVE his '91 bill!http://wlym.com The proton is 3 point quarks. They are infinitely small energy points together with zero inbetween. The only thing extended about them is their electric field and electric bond energy. Mitch Raemsch Mitch Raemsch
From: spudnik on 16 Jun 2010 20:42
you rock; massless rocks o'light pertaining to A=mcc -- Yahoo!TM so, please, follow-up with that macro; thank *you*. > "If a body gives off the energy L in the form of radiation, > its mass diminishes by L/c2." thus&so: it seems that Kooblee and Androcles and Arindam beleive: nothing changes, at all, at light speed, even if it is the ultimate speed. (or, they think that photons are rocks o'light with no mass nor momentum .-) of course, there is nothing unusual about the "symmetric twins, " and there was ne'er any paradox; even less than with Russell's illiterate, tenseless ones -- I'm just sayin', all Cretins are liars; me, three! > http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2008arXiv0804.2008N > "We introduce a symmetric twin paradox whose solution can not be found > within the currently accepted provinces of the STR. thus&so: doc Atlas, there is no paradox, if you accept that there is no phenomenon, including sub-atomic angular momenta, that"goes" faster than light. see, it was only a "twin paradox" til explained via Einstein et al's extension of Galilean relativity -- a strawman, really. are you going to argue Ole Roemer's dyscovery of the "retardation" of light, way back, when ever? your proposed "balancing" is almost cute, but iff they accelerate at the same average rate, there clocks'll be in synch at the rendezvous; so, you've described a Twins Miming Each Other "experiment," a null perfection, unlike M&M's results & their refinements. just get rid of the useless notion of Minkowski's phase-space, and you won't have to think so God-am hard about it. > Go ahead and start the calculation then for the time where each twin > coast away or towards each other without any acceleration and with non- --Stop BP's Waxman's arbitrageurs' CAP&TRADE Last Bail-out of Wall Street, the City of London and George Soros et al ad vomitorium! http://larouchepub.com --Fermat's next theorem! http://wlym.com |