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 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.
From: BURT on 21 Jul 2010 21:14 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
From: mpc755 on 21 Jul 2010 21:39
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. 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. |