point particle vs particle with structure
in [Relativity]
|
From: Y.Porat on 18 Jul 2010 22:55 On Jul 18, 5:38 pm, 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? > > Yet when I suggest an electron has > structure and a dynamic equilibrium going on > involving energy radiation and absorption > at a much smaller scale, I am accused of > 'word salad'. > > What could be worse word salad than 'point particle'? > > john > galaxy model for the atom ------------------ you are right about 'point particle' to be physics stupidity it was invented by dumb mathematicians !! a point is a geometeric abstract idea in our physical world there is no points' ie zero volume there is either massive volume or nothing and you are notthe first one to claime it! i did it much before moreover i claime NO MASS TH EONLY ONE - NO REAL PHYSICS!! AND MASS REQUIRES SOME VOLUME !!!! 2 about your galaxy model of the Atom there are some better models see http://sites.google.com/site/theyporatmodel/an-abstract ATB Y.Porat ------------------------
From: artful on 18 Jul 2010 23:49 On Jul 19, 12:55 pm, "Y.Porat" <y.y.po...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > On Jul 18, 5:38 pm, 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? > > > Yet when I suggest an electron has > > structure and a dynamic equilibrium going on > > involving energy radiation and absorption > > at a much smaller scale, I am accused of > > 'word salad'. > > > What could be worse word salad than 'point particle'? > > > john > > galaxy model for the atom > > ------------------ > you are right about 'point particle' > to be physics stupidity Both you (and the person you are replying to) don't understand the concept of 'point particle'. There's two notions there. One is that of a particle with no internal structure (an elemntary particle). The other is the mathematical notion that you can treat an object as a single point (eg centre of gravity) when doing the math and get the correct results as if you did the much more complicated math required for a all the points in a body. eg. gravitational attraction between two spherical objects is the same as if you just consider the centre point and mass of each. > it was invented by dumb mathematicians !! Not really. Far more intelligent people than you > a point is a geometeric abstract idea > in our physical world there is no points' Of course there are points .. what a silly thing to say. > ie zero volume > there is either massive volume or nothing > and you are notthe first one to claime it! > i did it much before > moreover i claime > NO MASS TH EONLY ONE - NO REAL PHYSICS!! PORAT POSTS - NO REAL PHYSICS > AND MASS REQUIRES SOME VOLUME !!!! > 2 > about your galaxy model of the Atom > there are some better models see > > http://sites.google.com/site/theyporatmodel/an-abstract BAHAHAHAHA
From: john on 19 Jul 2010 01:51 On Jul 18, 9:49 pm, artful <artful...(a)hotmail.com> wrote: > > >>>> Of course there are points .. what a silly thing to say. Show me a point. john
From: artful on 19 Jul 2010 02:07 On Jul 19, 3:51 pm, john <vega...(a)accesscomm.ca> wrote: > On Jul 18, 9:49 pm, artful <artful...(a)hotmail.com> wrote: > > >>>> Of course there are points .. what a silly thing to say. > > Show me a point. > > john here ---> . :) There's one at your centre of gravity.
From: eric gisse on 19 Jul 2010 05:44
john wrote: > On Jul 18, 9:49 pm, artful <artful...(a)hotmail.com> wrote: >> > > >>>> Of course there are points .. what a silly thing to say. > > Show me a point. > > john You can't show us a clue either, does that mean you don't have one? |