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: BURT on 21 Jul 2010 22:53 On Jul 21, 6:48 pm, mpc755 <mpc...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > On Jul 21, 9:45 pm, BURT <macromi...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > > > > > > > On Jul 21, 6:39 pm, mpc755 <mpc...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > 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. > > > No buster. I am God. > > We are all god. The universe is god. Get over yourself. > > > > > > > > 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.- Hide quoted text - > > > > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text - No. Mitch Raemsch
From: Jacko on 21 Jul 2010 23:08 Well, it's a matter of the mass dilation you see. experimental you see.
From: Jacko on 21 Jul 2010 23:16 Well more engineeringly useful. Cubic dilation implies it, with spacetime balane (t vs. x) decided on fit.
From: BURT on 21 Jul 2010 23:45 On Jul 21, 6:48 pm, mpc755 <mpc...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > On Jul 21, 9:45 pm, BURT <macromi...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > > > > > > > On Jul 21, 6:39 pm, mpc755 <mpc...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > 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. > > > No buster. I am God. > > We are all god. The universe is god. Get over yourself. > > > > > > > > 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.- Hide quoted text - > > > > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text - The point particle is mass as an in finitely small point of infinitely dense energy. The field sorrounding the point particle can have unconcentrated energy spread out even. This is bond energy that does not weigh. Mitch Raemsch
From: PD on 21 Jul 2010 23:58
On Jul 21, 11:20 am, Jacko <jackokr...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > On 21 July, 15:43, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > > 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. > > Infered in vapour trails and cloud chambers and photon detectors, so > umm this proves what exactly? That bubbles spin in circles? and I > suppose your fond of the Higgs boson? And not one attempt at an > explination for dark matter and the dark energy, and QM with gravity.. > Oh I forgot you are a regurgitator, not a theorist. No, I'm an experimental physicist, by training and experience, actually. Indeed, cloud chambers haven't been used in decades. Have you looked recently at how particles are measured? > > > 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? > > And what god has shown you proof of quarks? No god. Oodles of experimental results, however. Perhaps if you looked at something from the last 35 years... > I buy mine at Tesco, you > know. No sorry that's Quorn. Umm, no quarks then... And this self > field experience, looking for a reply there...- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text - |