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: Jacko on 21 Jul 2010 08:00 On 21 July, 01:50, "Y.Porat" <y.y.po...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > On Jul 20, 8:29 am, artful <artful...(a)hotmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > > On Jul 20, 2:36 pm, gulaman <regala...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > Some advice > > > > 1. Study more elementary physics > > > No need > > > > to appreciate that the point particle representation is only for > > > convenient solving of physics problems where some factors affecting > > > the "particle" are not considered. > > > That's what I said > > > > 2. Study complex analysis and your math > > > to know that x/0 is a singularity > > > I understand math just fine, thanks. You can get a mathematical > > singularity when x=0 in 1/x (for example), that's not the only way, of > > course. x/0 isn't a singularity as it gives an infinite value for ALL > > x, not just at a particular x value (ie a singularity). > > > Try again > > ------------------ > psychopath > -------------------------- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text - Yes I'd say he's very apethetic towards his psychology too.
From: Jacko on 21 Jul 2010 08:03 Warp + Photons => Mass Einstein's buggest mistake was confusing fools into thinking Mass => Warp
From: john on 21 Jul 2010 10:09 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? john
From: PD on 21 Jul 2010 10:43 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. 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?
From: bert on 21 Jul 2010 10:59
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 |