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: Y.Porat on 22 Jul 2010 02:09 On Jul 22, 5:58 am, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > 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 - -------------- last 35 years mean very little as for me !! those years are one of the darkest age of physics !! in wich dumb mathematicians that call themselves physicists took over physics !!! with incredible nonsens physics like Higgs bosons and mass less particles each particle has a dfeinite geometric structure that fact that we dont know it IS OUR FAULT ALONE !! and should not let us give up with it !! 'GOD DINNT PLAY THE DICE '' iow the amount of probability IS OUR AMOUNT OF (pompous-vane ) IGNORANCE !!! Y.P ------------------------ --------------------
From: john on 22 Jul 2010 02:17 On Jul 21, 8:43 am, 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. > > None of these have exhibited any structure. Before we fly quickly off to your next stuff, .....about these non-composites; what makes them different from each other? Are they all different shapes? Or are some of them the same shape but follow different paths? Why would the same shapes move differently? Are there density gradients in the non-composite, single-entity 'stuff'? What is this stuff? If it is one thing, how can it assume different shapes and have other different attributes? PD? Can you clarify this non-composite thing further? john > > 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?- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text -
From: Inertial on 22 Jul 2010 02:19 "Y.Porat" wrote in message news:6af321a9-6621-4d7a-95ab-25bc833d880d(a)d8g2000yqf.googlegroups.com... >last 35 years mean very little >as for me !! That's not uncommon with senility.
From: Jacko on 22 Jul 2010 07:52 > No god. Oodles of experimental results, however. Perhaps if you looked > at something from the last 35 years... No, oddles of model fitting, and still no GUT gravity. Still no individual quarks, still no CMBR integration into the theory, still lovingly implying 'we got the matter worked out, but without gravity, and without dark matter and well really it's only about non gravitating real matter, I mean Fred over on the other side of the plush office wanted square bosons, but I told him they had to be a point to all this.'
From: mpc755 on 22 Jul 2010 07:55
On Jul 21, 10:49 pm, Jacko <jackokr...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > On 22 July, 03:11, mpc755 <mpc...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > On Jul 21, 10:07 pm, Jacko <jackokr...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > These modern kids and there famine union, makes me, well not sick, but > > > quite wanting, .... wanting more, and more, and arms and mouths and.. > > > well you get it or you don't. So who's first bowl? > > > Dark energy is the physical effects caused by a change in the state of > > dark matter. > > > 'DOES THE INERTIA OF A BODY DEPEND UPON ITS ENERGY-CONTENT?' > > A. EINSTEINhttp://www.fourmilab.ch/etexts/einstein/E_mc2/e_mc2.pdf > > > "If a body gives off the energy L in the form of radiation, its mass > > diminishes by L/c2." > > > The mass of the body does diminish, but the matter which no longer > > exists as part of the body has not vanished. It still exists, as dark > > matter. As matter converts to dark matter it expands in three > > dimensional space. The physical effects this transition has on the > > neighboring dark matter and matter is energy. > > > Mass is conserved. > > Mass is seconds per metre squared. Time is a concept. The rate at which a clock ticks has nothing to do with time. When a battery operated clock ticks slower has time changed or do you replace the batteries? You replace the batteries because you understand what occurs physically in nature to cause the clock to tick at a different rate. The pressure exerted by the displaced dark matter towards and throughout an atomic clock determines the rate at which it ticks. Even though you choose not to understand this does not mean time has changed. It simply means you fail to understand what occurs physically in nature to cause the atomic clock to tick at the rate it does. |