point particle vs particle with structure
in [Physics]
|
Prev: Properties of a preferred frame, an inertial frame in SR and
Next: Quantum Gravity 402.4: One-Way Entanglement in Expansion-Contraction
From: john on 18 Jul 2010 20:17 On Jul 18, 11:49 am, Jacko <jackokr...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > Miniholes do not have mass, they have space warp due to photon energy > density internally. Photons bend but no mass yet. The capture dilated > orbital photons have a pase lag, and provide mass effects. in this > sense maybe a minihole is the neutral electron of Hiem theory. Not > many of them will be found unbound to photons, while being 'detected'. > > The question then becomes how do neutrons and protons come into being? > A positron-electron pair bound to a sub-neutron make a neutron, and a > proton is when an electron is spitted out. The coriolis induction of a > passing electron would induce a non parity ejection energy in the > passed neutron's electron, leading to cascade bariogenisis, from > neutron soup. > > So a sub-neutron is? A bigger minihole? Why would various sizes of > minihole occur, and is there a mechanism for unstable sizes to > transform into stable sizes? The holes have to be 'tuned' to the universe to maintain. All protons are the same size because of this. Each galaxy type is the same size. john
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: Michael Moroney on 18 Jul 2010 23:03 john <vegan16(a)accesscomm.ca> writes: >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'. Try posting something that actually makes more sense than random words of physics thrown together at random (word salad). If you're going to create new ideas or whatever, at least make it so that it matches current reality. Heisenberg-violating subparticles that magically radiate away without losing energy/evaporating away certainly don't do that. Especially when you say they radiate neutrinos, but neutrinos aren't even bosons. >What could be worse word salad than 'point particle'? Just about everything you've written in this group.
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 |