The electron is not a point- it is a very complex structure
in [Physics]
|
Prev: nearness to the Nucleus of the Atom Totality Chapter 4, Missing Mass #227 Atom Totality
Next: The search for an electric dipole moment inside electrons
From: john on 22 Jul 2010 11:13 On Jul 21, 8:05 am, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > On Jul 21, 1:26 am, john <vega...(a)accesscomm.ca> wrote: > > > But this is obvious- everything has to be > > infinitely complex at no matter what > > scale, because there can be no smallest. > > This is a religious statement. > > Thus your claim that the electron is not a point is also an article of > faith and has no bearing on any experimental evidence. > > > And you claim the electron *is* a point. Ay, but here's the rub- a point is a mathematical object. There is no such thing in reality. No one has ever seen a point. A point has no structure, no front or back. It cannot rotate. It has no features, so it cannot be different from any other point. (How many 'point particles' do you list- how are they different?) A point has no substance, obviously, as it has no volume. What *is* this point you speak of? It would seem to be an imaginary construct. DM is another imaginary construct. If you call this physics you should be ashamed. john
From: john on 22 Jul 2010 11:31 On Jul 22, 9:13 am, john <vega...(a)accesscomm.ca> wrote: > On Jul 21, 8:05 am, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > On Jul 21, 1:26 am, john <vega...(a)accesscomm.ca> wrote: > > > > But this is obvious- everything has to be > > > infinitely complex at no matter what > > > scale, because there can be no smallest. > > > This is a religious statement. > > > Thus your claim that the electron is not a point is also an article of > > faith and has no bearing on any experimental evidence. > > And you claim the electron *is* a point. > > Ay, but here's the rub- a point is a > mathematical object. There is no such > thing in reality. No one has ever > seen a point. A point has no structure, > no front or back. It cannot rotate. It > has no features, so it cannot be different > from any other point. (How many > 'point particles' do you list- how are > they different?) A point has no substance, obviously, > as it has no volume. > > What *is* this point you speak of? It would seem > to be an imaginary construct. > > DM is another imaginary construct. > > If you call this physics you should be ashamed. > > john What we are trying to do in physics is fit everything together. If one of your pieces is a 'point', there is a discontinuity. Every piece is playing a role in the happening. This means every piece must have *attributes*. A point can have no attributes. It is a dead end. If you say different points have different attributes, then you are doing witchdoctor mumbo-jumbo. A 'point' in your description of things is a failing grade. It is a dead-end. It is a science-stopper. It is a denial of being. It is pure brainwash. Your picture will never make sense with points in it. Advice- use non-imaginary constructs to explain physics. john
From: Michael Moroney on 22 Jul 2010 11:53 john <vegan16(a)accesscomm.ca> writes: >On Jul 21, 8:05=A0am, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: >> On Jul 21, 1:26=A0am, john <vega...(a)accesscomm.ca> wrote: >> >> > But this is obvious- everything has to be >> > infinitely complex at no matter what >> > scale, because there can be no smallest. >> >> This is a religious statement. I agree. >> Thus your claim that the electron is not a point is also an article of >> faith and has no bearing on any experimental evidence. >> >> >> >And you claim the electron *is* a point. It's more than a claim Physics has been doing experiments to determine, among other things, the diameter of things like electrons and protons. So far, protons and neutrons show evidence of a finite size and structure within them, however, electrons always come up as smaller than our best ability to measure them, and without evidence of any structure. AFAIK, the current limit on its size is < 10^-18 m. >Ay, but here's the rub- a point is a >mathematical object. > There is no such >thing in reality. Assertion is not evidence. > No one has ever >seen a point. A point has no structure, >no front or back. It cannot rotate. It >has no features, so it cannot be different >from any other point. (How many >'point particles' do you list- how are >they different?) A point has no substance, obviously, >What *is* this point you speak of? It would seem >to be an imaginary construct. >as it has no volume. Change every instance of "point" to "electron" in the quoted paragraph and it's still true. Thanks for posting support that the electron is a point.
From: Hikaru Masayoshi on 22 Jul 2010 13:58 On Jul 22, 4:00 pm, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > On Jul 22, 1:37 am, "Y.Porat" <y.y.po...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > On Jul 21, 4:05 pm, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > On Jul 21, 1:26 am, john <vega...(a)accesscomm.ca> wrote: > > > > > But this is obvious- everything has to be > > > > infinitely complex at no matter what > > > > scale, because there can be no smallest. > > > > This is a religious statement. > > > > Thus your claim that the electron is not a point is also an article of > > > faith and has no bearing on any experimental evidence. > > > > > And our own spectrum of photons is not > > > > the only one. There are both > > > > smaller and larger spectra at regular > > > > intervals as one contemplates different > > > > scales. > > > > > Guess what, interminably ego-centric > > > > people- ours is not the only, or best, > > > > *anything* > > > > > john > > > ------------- > > only retarded mathematician > > parrots -can think that > > any particle cam be a point!! > > Y.P > > -------------------- Hide quoted text - > > > - Show quoted text - > > Only aging bridge engineers would think that absolutely everything > MUST have volume. the science is materialistic, then yes, you just made yourself a disservice please define the consistency of no volume hahahanson, good bye
From: Sam Wormley on 22 Jul 2010 14:45
On 7/22/10 10:13 AM, john wrote: > And you claim the electron*is* a point. > John, do yourself a favor and read some background material: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electron |