point particle vs particle with structure
in [Relativity]
|
From: bert on 21 Jul 2010 19:35 On Jul 21, 12:23 pm, Jacko <jackokr...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > On 21 July, 15:59, bert <herbertglazie...(a)msn.com> wrote: > > > > > > > On Jul 21, 7:57 am, Jacko <jackokr...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > We are talking about infinitely dense energy in a point particle that > > > > we call mass. Other energy does not weigh and is not mass. > > > > Of the order towards infinite energy in a very small point singularity > > > warping space. It does not have to have mass, and could be called Dark > > > Matter. Photons may not have mass, but they have EM attraction, and > > > are captured orbitally arround singularities, even though the > > > singularity has no mass. The EM between orbital light of one > > > singularity to another singularity with orbital light makes a mass > > > effect. This is mass. > > > > Although mass may appear to warp space, it is warped space under the > > > influence of light that makes mass. > > > No such thing as point particle. Electron is a cloud. A point relates > > to a dot. Bohr's model of atoms being like a solar system is "once > > upon a Time" bull. It took you into a Quantum tunnel with no light. > > I know the structure of an electron and posted it here and in > > altastronomy TreBert > > I think you mis understood me. 'Very small point singularity' did not > mean a zero D point of maths, but a very tiny of definite volume > 'point'.- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text - Definite volume relating to what? How is the measurement done? etc TreBert
From: Jacko on 21 Jul 2010 19:49 > 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.
From: Jacko on 21 Jul 2010 20:03 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. 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.
From: Jacko on 21 Jul 2010 20:20 How much energy does a photon have to have to be a self singularity of diameter it's wave length? As this would be close to a bound on one end of the estimates range.
From: mpc755 on 21 Jul 2010 20:25
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. |