point particle vs particle with structure
in [Relativity]
|
From: mpc755 on 21 Jul 2010 22:11 On Jul 21, 10:07 pm, Jacko <jackokr...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > These modern kids and there famine union, makes me, well not sick, but > quite wanting, .... wanting more, and more, and arms and mouths and.. > well you get it or you don't. So who's first bowl? Dark energy is the physical effects caused by a change in the state of dark matter. 'DOES THE INERTIA OF A BODY DEPEND UPON ITS ENERGY-CONTENT?' 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 dark matter. As matter converts to dark matter it expands in three dimensional space. The physical effects this transition has on the neighboring dark matter and matter is energy. Mass is conserved.
From: Jacko on 21 Jul 2010 22:49 On 22 July, 03:11, mpc755 <mpc...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > On Jul 21, 10:07 pm, Jacko <jackokr...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > These modern kids and there famine union, makes me, well not sick, but > > quite wanting, .... wanting more, and more, and arms and mouths and.. > > well you get it or you don't. So who's first bowl? > > Dark energy is the physical effects caused by a change in the state of > dark matter. > > 'DOES THE INERTIA OF A BODY DEPEND UPON ITS ENERGY-CONTENT?' > A. EINSTEINhttp://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 dark > matter. As matter converts to dark matter it expands in three > dimensional space. The physical effects this transition has on the > neighboring dark matter and matter is energy. > > Mass is conserved. Mass is seconds per metre squared.
From: BURT on 21 Jul 2010 22:53 On Jul 21, 6:48 pm, mpc755 <mpc...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > On Jul 21, 9:45 pm, BURT <macromi...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > > > > > > > On Jul 21, 6:39 pm, mpc755 <mpc...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > On Jul 21, 9:14 pm, BURT <macromi...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > > > > > On Jul 21, 5:25 pm, mpc755 <mpc...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > On Jul 21, 8:03 pm, Jacko <jackokr...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > > On 22 July, 00:49, Jacko <jackokr...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > > > > Definite volume relating to what? How is the measurement done? > > > > > > > > The radius of the space warp singularity. Surrounded by orbital light. > > > > > > > > The definite volume would be the volume contained in the singularity > > > > > > > radius, measured from the outside. > > > > > > > > As light would appear to be the only thing affected by a crouton, > > > > > > > light bending would have to be detected. I'll have a think. > > > > > > > If the dark energy force is the non mass of dark matter which warps > > > > > > but does not have mass, then the relative concentrations of matter, > > > > > > dark matter and the dark energy effect measurements should be able to > > > > > > infer an estimate of the avarage dark matter cruton radius, or a > > > > > > radius based on the expected splitting into cruton numbers. > > > > > > Dark energy is a change in state of dark matter. Three dimensional > > > > > space consists of dark matter and matter. It is dark matter which > > > > > warps. The physical effects associated with the warping is energy.. > > > > > > > Would this then be applied to the upper radiation frequency bound > > > > > > expected for 'a big bang' absorbtion of all above frequencies .... umm > > > > > > I'll think some more. > > > > > > It's not the Big Bang. It's the Big Ongoing.- Hide quoted text - > > > > > > - Show quoted text - > > > > > There is an absolute beginning of the universe/hypersphere. > > > > > Mitch Raemsch > > > > You choose to have faith in that because you are first and foremost a > > > child of God. > > > No buster. I am God. > > We are all god. The universe is god. Get over yourself. > > > > > > > > In the physics of nature, nature and what occurs physically in nature, > > > is foremost. > > > > In the physics of nature, it is not the Big Bang, it is the Big > > > Ongoing.- Hide quoted text - > > > > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text - No. Mitch Raemsch
From: Jacko on 21 Jul 2010 23:08 Well, it's a matter of the mass dilation you see. experimental you see.
From: Jacko on 21 Jul 2010 23:16
Well more engineeringly useful. Cubic dilation implies it, with spacetime balane (t vs. x) decided on fit. |