Proton Radius Cannot Be Derived From Standard Model
in [Logic]
|
Prev: The purpose of the Peano Axioms
Next: Abbreviating First Order Logic With Identity and Membership
From: PD on 8 May 2010 21:20 On May 8, 7:41 pm, mpc755 <mpc...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > On May 8, 8:21 pm, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > On May 8, 3:37 pm, mpc755 <mpc...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > On May 8, 3:22 pm, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > On May 8, 1:08 pm, mpc755 <mpc...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > On May 8, 2:02 pm, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > > On May 8, 12:41 pm, mpc755 <mpc...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > > > On May 8, 1:08 pm, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > > > > On May 8, 4:25 am, mpc755 <mpc...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > On May 7, 8:33 am, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > On May 7, 12:09 am, mpc755 <mpc...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > On May 6, 2:06 pm, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > On May 6, 11:32 am, mpc755 <mpc...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On May 6, 12:24 pm, glird <gl...(a)aol.com> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Apr 26, 6:24 pm, "Robert L. Oldershaw" <rlolders...(a)amherst.edu> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Apr 26, 2:22 pm, glird <gl...(a)aol.com> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > A new paradigm already exists. The trouble is that nobody, other > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > than its sire, is willing or able to consider the merits of anything > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > that disagrees with the old one embedded in their mind. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Sad, but true. However, while that is the situation now, who knows > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > what the situation might be in the not-too-distant future? The > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Ptolemaic paradigm eventually collapsed under the weight of its own > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ungainly artificiality. I predict the same will eventually happen to > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > the substandard paradigm, starting with the just-so story known as > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Quantum Chromodynamics, which is the weakest link of the substandard > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > model. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > The trouble with the present paradigm began with > > > > > > > > > > > > > > the Ancient Greek Philosophers' secret answer "No" > > > > > > > > > > > > > > to the unasked question "Is matter compressible". > > > > > > > > > > > > > > THAT is the reason they created the theory that Matter > > > > > > > > > > > > > > is made of particles traveling in an otherwise empty space. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Although atoms do exist and are particles, they are made > > > > > > > > > > > > > > of the same kind of COMPRESSIBLE matter that fills each > > > > > > > > > > > > > > of them and the spaces between them too. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Accordingly, the strongest link in the present paradigm, > > > > > > > > > > > > > > the kinetic atomic theory, is itself the "weakest link" of all > > > > > > > > > > > > > > present models. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Once that is known, it becomes rather easy to work out the > > > > > > > > > > > > > > mechanisms of gravity, light, quanta, and everything else that > > > > > > > > > > > > > > exists in the universe. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > glird > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Exactly. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I think it is conceptually clearer to name the 'compressible' and to > > > > > > > > > > > > > describe matter and aether as states of it. I have named it mæther. > > > > > > > > > > > > > Matter is compressed mæther and aether is uncompressed mæther. > > > > > > > > > > > > > Personally, I think it is conceptually clearer to name flatworms and > > > > > > > > > > > > nematodes as states of mæther. > > > > > > > > > > > > You would. > > > > > > > > > > > Makes as much sense as what you're doing. > > > > > > > > > > Physics today: > > > > > > > > > - mistakes mathematics for nature. > > > > > > > > > - mistakes energy for cause. > > > > > > > > > Nah, it doesn't do either of those things. You should study up on what > > > > > > > > physics today really says. > > > > > > > > It does both those things exactly. Now, I could ask you how a 'wave > > > > > > > function' physically enters, travels through, and exits the slits in a > > > > > > > double slit experiment and you would respond with my need to read many > > > > > > > books. However, the issue is a 'wave function' is a mathematical > > > > > > > construct > > > > > > > No, it isn't. As I said, you should study up on what physics today > > > > > > really says, rather than looking up comic-book articles about stuff or > > > > > > making things up. > > > > > > > > and has nothing to do with what physically occurs in a > > > > > > > double slit experiment. The fact that physics today can not understand > > > > > > > the difference between a mathematical representation of what occurs in > > > > > > > nature and what actually occurs in nature is the issue. > > > > > > > > The same for 'energy'. 'Mainstream' physics today insists mass > > > > > > > converts to energy. When asked how that physically occurs in nature > > > > > > > there is no answer, or the answer is 'it just does'. 'Mainstream' > > > > > > > physics today is conceptually unable to understand what occurs > > > > > > > physically to the mass causes the effect which is described as energy. > > > > > > > 'Mainstream' physics can't even understand mass is conserved. > > > > > > > I'm sorry, you said mainstream physics "mistakes energy for cause". > > > > > > Nothing like that is true, and nothing you've said in the paragraph > > > > > > above supports that contention. > > > > > > That is exactly what 'mainstream' physics does. > > > > > > I can ask you the simple question and your refusal to answer it is > > > > > evidence of 'mainstream' physics inability to understand energy is an > > > > > effect of what physically occurs. > > > > > Don't be ridiculous. I'm not the spokesman for mainstream physics and > > > > I'm not your trained monkey. > > > > I don't answer your questions because you're a dirtbag, not because > > > > there is no mainstream physics understanding. > > > > > Just because you are not provided something you sulk and whine and > > > > demand should not be evidence to you that the something doesn't exist. > > > > It just means that you are a whining baby with severe emotional > > > > problems who goes after things the wrong way. > > > > > PD > > > > You insist I read many, many books in order to 'understand' mass is > > > not conserved when mass is conserved. > > > I don't insist anything of you. I suggest you do that, yes. I don't > > why you would steadfastly refuse to read something that is at least > > partially in opposition to your point of view. Do you only read that > > which you fully agree with? Are you afraid of reading? > > Since I understand mass is conserved You have religious faith that this is the case, and you use as support your own assertion that it is the case. > and, in terms of E=mc^2, energy > is the effect of mæther decompressing, I prefer to conceptually > understand how nature works physically and what causes the effect of > energy. Yes, I know. You always do what you PREFER, whether that has any usefulness or not. > > For example, any particle in a double slit experiment is ALWAYS > detected exiting a single slit. This is evidence the particle ALWAYS > enters a single slit. Since I understand the particle ALWAYS enters > and exits a single slit and it is the associated aether wave which > enters and exits multiple slits, I prefer to understand what occurs > physically in nature in a double slit experiment.
From: mpc755 on 8 May 2010 23:19 On May 8, 9:20 pm, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > On May 8, 7:41 pm, mpc755 <mpc...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > On May 8, 8:21 pm, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > On May 8, 3:37 pm, mpc755 <mpc...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > On May 8, 3:22 pm, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > On May 8, 1:08 pm, mpc755 <mpc...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > > On May 8, 2:02 pm, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > > > On May 8, 12:41 pm, mpc755 <mpc...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > > > > On May 8, 1:08 pm, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > On May 8, 4:25 am, mpc755 <mpc...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > On May 7, 8:33 am, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > On May 7, 12:09 am, mpc755 <mpc...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > On May 6, 2:06 pm, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On May 6, 11:32 am, mpc755 <mpc...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On May 6, 12:24 pm, glird <gl...(a)aol.com> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Apr 26, 6:24 pm, "Robert L. Oldershaw" <rlolders...(a)amherst.edu> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Apr 26, 2:22 pm, glird <gl...(a)aol.com> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > A new paradigm already exists. The trouble is that nobody, other > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > than its sire, is willing or able to consider the merits of anything > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > that disagrees with the old one embedded in their mind. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Sad, but true. However, while that is the situation now, who knows > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > what the situation might be in the not-too-distant future? The > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Ptolemaic paradigm eventually collapsed under the weight of its own > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ungainly artificiality. I predict the same will eventually happen to > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > the substandard paradigm, starting with the just-so story known as > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Quantum Chromodynamics, which is the weakest link of the substandard > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > model. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > The trouble with the present paradigm began with > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > the Ancient Greek Philosophers' secret answer "No" > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > to the unasked question "Is matter compressible". > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > THAT is the reason they created the theory that Matter > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > is made of particles traveling in an otherwise empty space. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Although atoms do exist and are particles, they are made > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > of the same kind of COMPRESSIBLE matter that fills each > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > of them and the spaces between them too. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Accordingly, the strongest link in the present paradigm, > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > the kinetic atomic theory, is itself the "weakest link" of all > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > present models. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Once that is known, it becomes rather easy to work out the > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > mechanisms of gravity, light, quanta, and everything else that > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > exists in the universe. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > glird > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Exactly. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I think it is conceptually clearer to name the 'compressible' and to > > > > > > > > > > > > > > describe matter and aether as states of it. I have named it mæther. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Matter is compressed mæther and aether is uncompressed mæther. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Personally, I think it is conceptually clearer to name flatworms and > > > > > > > > > > > > > nematodes as states of mæther. > > > > > > > > > > > > > You would. > > > > > > > > > > > > Makes as much sense as what you're doing. > > > > > > > > > > > Physics today: > > > > > > > > > > - mistakes mathematics for nature. > > > > > > > > > > - mistakes energy for cause. > > > > > > > > > > Nah, it doesn't do either of those things. You should study up on what > > > > > > > > > physics today really says. > > > > > > > > > It does both those things exactly. Now, I could ask you how a 'wave > > > > > > > > function' physically enters, travels through, and exits the slits in a > > > > > > > > double slit experiment and you would respond with my need to read many > > > > > > > > books. However, the issue is a 'wave function' is a mathematical > > > > > > > > construct > > > > > > > > No, it isn't. As I said, you should study up on what physics today > > > > > > > really says, rather than looking up comic-book articles about stuff or > > > > > > > making things up. > > > > > > > > > and has nothing to do with what physically occurs in a > > > > > > > > double slit experiment. The fact that physics today can not understand > > > > > > > > the difference between a mathematical representation of what occurs in > > > > > > > > nature and what actually occurs in nature is the issue. > > > > > > > > > The same for 'energy'. 'Mainstream' physics today insists mass > > > > > > > > converts to energy. When asked how that physically occurs in nature > > > > > > > > there is no answer, or the answer is 'it just does'. 'Mainstream' > > > > > > > > physics today is conceptually unable to understand what occurs > > > > > > > > physically to the mass causes the effect which is described as energy. > > > > > > > > 'Mainstream' physics can't even understand mass is conserved. > > > > > > > > I'm sorry, you said mainstream physics "mistakes energy for cause". > > > > > > > Nothing like that is true, and nothing you've said in the paragraph > > > > > > > above supports that contention. > > > > > > > That is exactly what 'mainstream' physics does. > > > > > > > I can ask you the simple question and your refusal to answer it is > > > > > > evidence of 'mainstream' physics inability to understand energy is an > > > > > > effect of what physically occurs. > > > > > > Don't be ridiculous. I'm not the spokesman for mainstream physics and > > > > > I'm not your trained monkey. > > > > > I don't answer your questions because you're a dirtbag, not because > > > > > there is no mainstream physics understanding. > > > > > > Just because you are not provided something you sulk and whine and > > > > > demand should not be evidence to you that the something doesn't exist. > > > > > It just means that you are a whining baby with severe emotional > > > > > problems who goes after things the wrong way. > > > > > > PD > > > > > You insist I read many, many books in order to 'understand' mass is > > > > not conserved when mass is conserved. > > > > I don't insist anything of you. I suggest you do that, yes. I don't > > > why you would steadfastly refuse to read something that is at least > > > partially in opposition to your point of view. Do you only read that > > > which you fully agree with? Are you afraid of reading? > > > Since I understand mass is conserved > > You have religious faith that this is the case, and you use as support > your own assertion that it is the case. > I have the experimental evidence. Whenever an experiment is performed the particle is always detected exiting a single slit. If detectors are placed at the entrances to the slits the particle is always detected entering a single slit. This is experimental evidence the particle always enters and exits a single slit. > > and, in terms of E=mc^2, energy > > is the effect of mæther decompressing, I prefer to conceptually > > understand how nature works physically and what causes the effect of > > energy. > > Yes, I know. You always do what you PREFER, whether that has any > usefulness or not. > The C-60 molecule is always detected entering and exiting a single slit because it ALWAYS enters and exits a single slit. To believe otherwise is to disregard the experimental evidence. > > > > For example, any particle in a double slit experiment is ALWAYS > > detected exiting a single slit. This is evidence the particle ALWAYS > > enters a single slit. Since I understand the particle ALWAYS enters > > and exits a single slit and it is the associated aether wave which > > enters and exits multiple slits, I prefer to understand what occurs > > physically in nature in a double slit experiment. > >
From: spudnik on 9 May 2010 00:22 it is too bad that U.Al cannot engage in debate, because he certainly has a valid "point" about the duality, and that is your only real problem. admittedly, it is more of a quandary with fullerenes, but there is not even any "where," there, with the "photon" -- unless you think that a Nobel is an adequate laurel, to resurrect Sir Isaac's nutty corpuscle (the one that goes faster in denser media .-) more precisely, E's neologism of "quantum of light, I shall call, photon," does not neccesitate that "the photon must be a particle (zero-dimensional, no mass, no momentum QED .-) > I have the experimental evidence. Whenever an experiment is performed > the particle is always detected exiting a single slit. thus: NB, Lanczos used quaternions in _Variational Mechanics_ for special relativity, and it's just "real time" and "three ('imaginary') axes of space;" but, this is just the original "vectors." so, compare Lanczos' biquaternions with the "Cayley-Dickerson doubling" procedure, to go from real to complex to quaternion to octonion. anyway, "worldlines" are just the crappola in Minkowski's "pants," totally obfuscatory outside of a formalism -- time is not a dimension; time is awareness & mensurability (of dimensionality !-) thus: Gauss meaasured the curvature of Earth with his theodolite *and* a chain measure of distance (working for France in Alsace-Lorraine, triangulatin' that contested area .-) thus: notice that no-one bothered with the "proofs" that I've seen, and the statute of limitation is out on that, but, anyway, I think it must have been Scalia, not Kennedy, who changed his little, oligarchical "Federalist Society" mind. thus: sorry; I guess, it was Scalia who'd "mooted" a yea on WS-is-WS, but later came to d'Earl d'O. ... unless it was Breyer, as I may have read in an article about his retirement. > I know of at least three "proofs" that WS was WS, but > I recently found a text that really '"makes the case," > once and for all (but the Oxfordians, Rhodesian Scholars, and > others brainwashed by British Liberal Free Trade, > capNtrade e.g.). > what ever it says, Shapiro's last book is just a polemic; > his real "proof" is _1599_; > the fans of de Vere are hopelessly stuck-up -- > especially if they went to Harry Potter PS#1. > http://www.google.com/url?sa=D&q=http://entertainment.timesonline.co.... --Light: A History! http://wlym.com --Waxman's capNtrade#2 [*]: "Let the arbitrageurs raise the cost of your energy as much as They can ?!?" * His first such bill was in '91 under HW on NOx & SO2 viz acid rain; so?
From: mpc755 on 9 May 2010 08:09 On May 9, 12:22 am, spudnik <Space...(a)hotmail.com> wrote: > it is too bad that U.Al cannot engage in debate, because > he certainly has a valid "point" about the duality, and > that is your only real problem. > > admittedly, it is more of a quandary with fullerenes, but > there is not even any "where," there, with the "photon" > -- unless you think that a Nobel is an adequate laurel, > to resurrect Sir Isaac's nutty corpuscle (the one > that goes faster in denser media .-) > > more precisely, E's neologism of "quantum > of light, I shall call, photon," does not neccesitate that > "the photon must be a particle (zero-dimensional, > no mass, no momentum QED .-) > A photon is detected as a particle. My preferred concept of a photon is as a directed/pointed wave which collapses and is detected as a particle. > > I have the experimental evidence. Whenever an experiment is performed > > the particle is always detected exiting a single slit. > > thus: > NB, Lanczos used quaternions in _Variational Mechanics_ > for special relativity, and it's just "real time" and > "three ('imaginary') axes of space;" but, > this is just the original "vectors." so, > compare Lanczos' biquaternions > with the "Cayley-Dickerson doubling" procedure, > to go from real to complex to quaternion to octonion. anyway, > "worldlines" are just the crappola in Minkowski's "pants," > totally obfuscatory outside of a formalism -- > time is not a dimension; time is awareness & mensurability > (of dimensionality !-) > > thus: > Gauss meaasured the curvature > of Earth with his theodolite *and* a chain measure > of distance (working for France in Alsace-Lorraine, > triangulatin' that contested area .-) > > thus: > notice that no-one bothered with the "proofs" that I've seen, and > the statute of limitation is out on that, but, anyway, > I think it must have been Scalia, not Kennedy, > who changed his little, oligarchical "Federalist Society" mind. > > thus: > sorry; I guess, it was Scalia who'd "mooted" a yea on WS-is-WS, but > later came to d'Earl d'O. ... unless it was Breyer, as I may > have read in an article about his retirement. > > > I know of at least three "proofs" that WS was WS, but > > I recently found a text that really '"makes the case," > > once and for all (but the Oxfordians, Rhodesian Scholars, and > > others brainwashed by British Liberal Free Trade, > > capNtrade e.g.). > > what ever it says, Shapiro's last book is just a polemic; > > his real "proof" is _1599_; > > the fans of de Vere are hopelessly stuck-up -- > > especially if they went to Harry Potter PS#1. > >http://www.google.com/url?sa=D&q=http://entertainment.timesonline.co..... > > --Light: A History!http://wlym.com > > --Waxman's capNtrade#2 [*]: "Let the arbitrageurs raise the cost > of your energy as much as They can ?!?" * His first such bill was > in '91 under HW on NOx & SO2 viz acid rain; so?
From: spudnik on 9 May 2010 16:02
in the meantime, I realized a fromalism for the "splitting" of the fullerene. anyway, you are simply wrong about the detection of a photon; that is merely a prevailing interpretation of a "beep" in the electronics; you could just as well say, the beep is a "phonon." whether the splitting of a fullerene actually might occur in the experiment, would require more detail; but, I'm sure you could tell, what degree of "preparation" is needed to do the experiment, and how much artifice is involved. that is, how did they get a bunch of pure C-60, or how pure was it, in the first place? the real question is, Can you actually explain a property of light, such as permitivity & permeability, or Snell's law of refraction, or can we explain the latter two in terms of one another, in the first place?... or is it just a nicety of poesy, that you think that you have created out of no air (vacuum) ?? and, we've seen your prefered pictograph, the one that is the same as de Broglie's attempt (a linear "wave" -- an oscilloscope trace, actually -- with a "particle" at its tip, like an arrow that was aimed at your cone-head .-) > A photon is detected as a particle. My preferred concept of a photon > is as a directed/pointed wave which collapses and is detected as a > particle. thus: there is a standard answer to the question, Am you on drugs?... which is, Ask my God-am lawyer, Fool! there is also a very standard answer to, How many "holes" are there in the ozone, although it is quite silly, or merely inadequate, but not "one;" do you recall this "news?" > > > How many "holes" in the ozonosphere, are there? thus: sorry; I guess, it was Scalia who'd "mooted" a yea on WS-is-WS, but later came to d'Earl d'O. ... unless it was Breyer, as I may have read in an article about his retirement. I know of at least three "proofs" that WS was WS, but I recently found a text that really '"makes the case," once and for all (but the Oxfordians, Rhodesian Scholars, and others brainwashed by British Liberal Free Trade, capNtrade e.g.). what ever it says, Shapiro's last book is just a polemic; his real "proof" is _1599_; the fans of de Vere are hopelessly stuck-up -- especially if they went to Harry Potter PS#1. http://www.google.com/url?sa=D&q=http://entertainment.timesonline.co.... --Light: A History! http://wlym.com --Waxman's capNtrade#2 [*]: "Let the arbitrageurs raise the cost of your energy as much as They can ?!?" * His first such bill was in '91 under HW on NOx & SO2 viz acid rain; so? |