point particle vs particle with structure
in [Relativity]
|
From: BURT on 21 Jul 2010 23:45 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 - The point particle is mass as an in finitely small point of infinitely dense energy. The field sorrounding the point particle can have unconcentrated energy spread out even. This is bond energy that does not weigh. Mitch Raemsch
From: Y.Porat on 22 Jul 2010 02:09 On Jul 22, 5:58 am, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > On Jul 21, 11:20 am, Jacko <jackokr...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > On 21 July, 15:43, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > On Jul 21, 9:09 am, john <vega...(a)accesscomm.ca> wrote: > > > > > On Jul 20, 9:22 am, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > On Jul 20, 10:16 am, Jacko <jackokr...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > > On 20 July, 15:49, Puppet_Sock <puppet_s...(a)hotmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > > > On Jul 18, 11:38 am, john <vega...(a)accesscomm.ca> wrote: > > > > > > > > > Clearly the idea of a distinct particle > > > > > > > > being nothing more that a point is > > > > > > > > untenable. > > > > > > > > How can a point have any attributes at all? > > > > > > > > Why would one point be any different from another point? > > > > > > > Write this as: > > > > > > It is not so clear that a point particle concept is useful in all > > > > > > circustances. > > > > > > How does a point particle have volumetic density mesurements and > > > > > > attributes? > > > > > > Why would you believe that volumetric density needs to be a property > > > > > of all physical things? > > > > > Density is a property that only applies to certain substances and > > > > > objects. If you'll note, those are all in the class of *composite* > > > > > objects. > > > > > You've said this before. > > > > To whit: just because every dog hit > > > > by a truck tends to be the worse > > > > for wear afterward doesn't mean that > > > > is true in *every* situation. How can > > > > I argue that? > > > > > Please supply a list of *non-composite* objects > > > > for our perusal, PD? > > > > electron, muon, tau lepton, electron neutrino, muon neutrino, tau > > > neutrino, up quark, down quark, strange quark, bottom quark, top > > > quark, W+ boson, W- boson, Z boson, photon, gluon. > > > Infered in vapour trails and cloud chambers and photon detectors, so > > umm this proves what exactly? That bubbles spin in circles? and I > > suppose your fond of the Higgs boson? And not one attempt at an > > explination for dark matter and the dark energy, and QM with gravity.. > > Oh I forgot you are a regurgitator, not a theorist. > > No, I'm an experimental physicist, by training and experience, > actually. > > Indeed, cloud chambers haven't been used in decades. Have you looked > recently at how particles are measured? > > > > > > None of these have exhibited any structure. > > > > What experimental evidence do you have that any of these do in fact > > > have composite structure. And lacking experimental evidence, what God > > > revealed to you that absolutely everything in the universe is > > > composite? > > > And what god has shown you proof of quarks? > > No god. Oodles of experimental results, however. Perhaps if you looked > at something from the last 35 years... > > > I buy mine at Tesco, you > > know. No sorry that's Quorn. Umm, no quarks then... And this self > > field experience, looking for a reply there...- Hide quoted text - > > > - Show quoted text - -------------- last 35 years mean very little as for me !! those years are one of the darkest age of physics !! in wich dumb mathematicians that call themselves physicists took over physics !!! with incredible nonsens physics like Higgs bosons and mass less particles each particle has a dfeinite geometric structure that fact that we dont know it IS OUR FAULT ALONE !! and should not let us give up with it !! 'GOD DINNT PLAY THE DICE '' iow the amount of probability IS OUR AMOUNT OF (pompous-vane ) IGNORANCE !!! Y.P ------------------------ --------------------
From: Inertial on 22 Jul 2010 02:19 "Y.Porat" wrote in message news:6af321a9-6621-4d7a-95ab-25bc833d880d(a)d8g2000yqf.googlegroups.com... >last 35 years mean very little >as for me !! That's not uncommon with senility.
From: mpc755 on 22 Jul 2010 07:55 On Jul 21, 10:49 pm, Jacko <jackokr...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > 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. Time is a concept. The rate at which a clock ticks has nothing to do with time. When a battery operated clock ticks slower has time changed or do you replace the batteries? You replace the batteries because you understand what occurs physically in nature to cause the clock to tick at a different rate. The pressure exerted by the displaced dark matter towards and throughout an atomic clock determines the rate at which it ticks. Even though you choose not to understand this does not mean time has changed. It simply means you fail to understand what occurs physically in nature to cause the atomic clock to tick at the rate it does.
From: PD on 22 Jul 2010 10:27
On Jul 22, 1:09 am, "Y.Porat" <y.y.po...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > On Jul 22, 5:58 am, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > > On Jul 21, 11:20 am, Jacko <jackokr...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > On 21 July, 15:43, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > On Jul 21, 9:09 am, john <vega...(a)accesscomm.ca> wrote: > > > > > > On Jul 20, 9:22 am, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > > On Jul 20, 10:16 am, Jacko <jackokr...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > > > On 20 July, 15:49, Puppet_Sock <puppet_s...(a)hotmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > > > > On Jul 18, 11:38 am, john <vega...(a)accesscomm.ca> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > Clearly the idea of a distinct particle > > > > > > > > > being nothing more that a point is > > > > > > > > > untenable. > > > > > > > > > How can a point have any attributes at all? > > > > > > > > > Why would one point be any different from another point? > > > > > > > > Write this as: > > > > > > > It is not so clear that a point particle concept is useful in all > > > > > > > circustances. > > > > > > > How does a point particle have volumetic density mesurements and > > > > > > > attributes? > > > > > > > Why would you believe that volumetric density needs to be a property > > > > > > of all physical things? > > > > > > Density is a property that only applies to certain substances and > > > > > > objects. If you'll note, those are all in the class of *composite* > > > > > > objects. > > > > > > You've said this before. > > > > > To whit: just because every dog hit > > > > > by a truck tends to be the worse > > > > > for wear afterward doesn't mean that > > > > > is true in *every* situation. How can > > > > > I argue that? > > > > > > Please supply a list of *non-composite* objects > > > > > for our perusal, PD? > > > > > electron, muon, tau lepton, electron neutrino, muon neutrino, tau > > > > neutrino, up quark, down quark, strange quark, bottom quark, top > > > > quark, W+ boson, W- boson, Z boson, photon, gluon. > > > > Infered in vapour trails and cloud chambers and photon detectors, so > > > umm this proves what exactly? That bubbles spin in circles? and I > > > suppose your fond of the Higgs boson? And not one attempt at an > > > explination for dark matter and the dark energy, and QM with gravity... > > > Oh I forgot you are a regurgitator, not a theorist. > > > No, I'm an experimental physicist, by training and experience, > > actually. > > > Indeed, cloud chambers haven't been used in decades. Have you looked > > recently at how particles are measured? > > > > > None of these have exhibited any structure. > > > > > What experimental evidence do you have that any of these do in fact > > > > have composite structure. And lacking experimental evidence, what God > > > > revealed to you that absolutely everything in the universe is > > > > composite? > > > > And what god has shown you proof of quarks? > > > No god. Oodles of experimental results, however. Perhaps if you looked > > at something from the last 35 years... > > > > I buy mine at Tesco, you > > > know. No sorry that's Quorn. Umm, no quarks then... And this self > > > field experience, looking for a reply there...- Hide quoted text - > > > > - Show quoted text - > > -------------- > last 35 years mean very little > as for me !! Well, then you've missed out on a great deal of experimental information. If you aren't aware of those *measurements*, then you'll be well behind the times. > those years are one of the darkest age of physics !! > in wich dumb mathematicians > that call themselves physicists took over physics !!! > with incredible nonsens physics > like Higgs bosons > and mass less particles > each particle has a dfeinite geometric structure > that fact that we dont know it > IS OUR FAULT ALONE !! > and should not let us give up > with it !! > > 'GOD DINNT PLAY THE DICE '' > iow > the amount of probability > IS OUR AMOUNT OF (pompous-vane ) IGNORANCE !!! > Y.P > ------------------------ > --------------------- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text - |