Electron shape found to be perfectly spherical, disagrees with SUSY predictions
Yousuf Khan
"So physicists have tried to build on this model. One framework to
explain physics beyond the Standard Model is known as supersymmetry.
However, this theory predicts that the electron has a more distorted
shape than that suggested by the Standard Model. According to this idea,
the particle could be egg-shaped.
Experimental set-up used to measure electron The researchers used lasers
to measure the shape of the electron
Researchers stress that the new observation does not rule out
super-symmetry. But it does not support the theory, according to Dr
Hudson. "
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-13545453
Sam Wormley
http://www.wired.com/wiredscience/2011/05/electrons-are-near-perfect-spheres/
A 10-year study has revealed that the electron is very spherical indeed.
To be precise, the electron differs from being perfectly round by less
than 0.000000000000000000000000001 cm. To put that in context; if an
electron was the size of the solar system, it would be out from being
perfectly round by less than the width of a human hair.
Y.Porat
> On 5/26/11 7:06 PM, Yousuf Khan wrote:
>
> > BBC News - Electron particle's shape revealed
> > "So physicists have tried to build on this model. One framework to
> > explain physics beyond the Standard Model is known as supersymmetry.
>
> > However, this theory predicts that the electron has a more distorted
> > shape than that suggested by the Standard Model. According to this idea,
> > the particle could be egg-shaped.
> > Experimental set-up used to measure electron The researchers used lasers
> > to measure the shape of the electron
>
> > Researchers stress that the new observation does not rule out
> > super-symmetry. But it does not support the theory, according to Dr
> > Hudson. "
> >http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-13545453
>
>
> A 10-year study has revealed that the electron is very spherical indeed.
>
> To be precise, the electron differs from being perfectly round by less
> than 0.000000000000000000000000001 cm. To put that in context; if an
> electron was the size of the solar system, it would be out from being
> perfectly round by less than the width of a human hair.
--------------------
imbecile parrot with a spherical head!!
the electron is not a fucken sphere
it has many shapes
and is sub composed !!
Y.Porat
------------------------------------
Eric Gisse
I really dislike how the writing suggests the electron has a
definitive size.
Eric Gisse
Is there a reason you reject the facts that disprove your theory?
Y.Porat
-----------------
'Facts '' ........
imbecile parrot !!!
you stilldidnt learn the difference between
'facts'' and
''''INTERPRETATIONS OF FACTS'''' !!
I have other facts with other
interpretations
y.p
---------------------------
john
>
> - Show quoted text -
Hmm.
Yesterday i hear you supporting the idea that
position and direction of electrons cannot
both be known, and today its a 'fact' that they measured
one with lasers every which way but loose.
Nice.
john
Yousuf Khan
> I really dislike how the writing suggests the electron has a
> definitive size.
Well every particle in the universe does have a definitive lower-bounds
size, which is the Planck Length.
Yousuf Khan
cjcountess
so.
And I did try to relay that you everyone.
These conversations have for me become also a study in the desire of
even the most educated minds to win an argument whether right or
wrong, even to the point of distorting or suppressing and denying
evidence.
That is indeed an obstacle.
What some call “foolish pride”.
It is more concern for “who is right and gets credit for it”, than
“what is right and adds to the knowledge base of humanity for all to
use”.
We are all somewhat guilty of it, as we are in a competitive world and
society, that rewards those who discover things, if they are allowed
to present it, unless someone steals credit for it from them, or the
political climate is against the discoverer or something similar.
But here we are all on “international Internet record”, for all to see
if they chose, unless Usenet is run by political and self-interest
entities that also incline toward a distortion of truth.
I do notice that a lot of my post have been broken up and reposted
showing weaker portions of my evidence and argument.
Still over all, it is on record for all to see.
It even shows the connection to gravity, which is the simple fact that
electrons emerge from photons along the same EM spectrum when energy =
“mc^2”, which is energy of “c” in linear direction x “c” in 90 degree
angular direction, for a balance of centripetal/centrifugal forces,
enabling circular and or spherical motion. The speed of light squared
or “c^2” is the highest possible “v^2” or “L/T^2” = “G”, and the very
point on EM spectrum that energy attains “gravity rest mass” and
“E=mc^2 = F=mv^2”, and also where angular momentum is “h/2pi/2” for a
wave making two rotations in order to complete one wave cycle, which
makes it a standing spherical wave of “spin1/2”.
If the spin is counter to the trajectory it is “–1charge”, and if its
spin is opposite that it is “+1charge”.
Electrons emerge this way from the EM spectrum as photons, which is
also the energy matter spectrum. This is why “E=hf=mc^2”, and the
wavelength of electron is same as that of photon of same energy, mass,
and momentum, which are the “deBroglie” and “Compton” revelations.
They do not have to come in electron/positron pairs according to this
model. Evidence shows that when they do come into existence together
if they are not separated immediately, such as for use in PET scans;
they would immediately annihilated each other anyway.
They come in one at a time, and the reason that positrons are not
around is probably because they are annihilated as soon as they
emerge or just never bother to emerge for reason that matter
environment would not support their existence, (this is just a theory)
but to me it makes sense
There is much more in the pages, and yet still more to be written,
based on it.
http://gsjournal.net/science/countess.pdf
Conrad J Countess
herbert glazier
> On 5/26/11 7:06 PM, Yousuf Khan wrote:
>
> > BBC News - Electron particle's shape revealed
> > "So physicists have tried to build on this model. One framework to
> > explain physics beyond the Standard Model is known as supersymmetry.
>
> > However, this theory predicts that the electron has a more distorted
> > shape than that suggested by the Standard Model. According to this idea,
> > the particle could be egg-shaped.
> > Experimental set-up used to measure electron The researchers used lasers
> > to measure the shape of the electron
>
> > Researchers stress that the new observation does not rule out
> > super-symmetry. But it does not support the theory, according to Dr
> > Hudson. "
> >http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-13545453
>
>
> A 10-year study has revealed that the electron is very spherical indeed.
>
> To be precise, the electron differs from being perfectly round by less
> than 0.000000000000000000000000001 cm. To put that in context; if an
> electron was the size of the solar system, it would be out from being
> perfectly round by less than the width of a human hair.
Electrons have a set spin speed of c. Their strucure is a cloud of
photons,and half are virtual photons. Electrons spin in one
direction,and positrons in the opposite direction. Microscopic
particles travel in pairs,and yes some as big as virus and buckyballs
All this can be proven in a lab. Electrons do not bounce. Free
electrons help nature perform her balancing acts. They make it
possible for us to see ourselves. They make electricity Keep us from
falling through Earth's surface etc. TreBert
dlzc
Which says nothing about the particle or its size, but the Universe it
is embedded in.
Or that the idiot that thinks that Planck units were a meaningful
exercise in the first place, knew nothing about dimensional analysis.
David A. Smith
Y.Porat
----------------------
you demand too much from the
pompous idiot parrot Erictum
Y.P
----------------------
Sam Wormley
> Yesterday i hear you supporting the idea that
> position and direction of electrons cannot
Perhaps you have no clue about quantum mechanics, John. Say,
take a gander at the Heisenberg uncertainty principle.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uncertainty_principle
Sam Wormley
And your reasoning is?
Yousuf Khan
> On May 26, 6:41 pm, Eric Gisse<jowr...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> Is there a reason you reject the facts that disprove your theory?- Hide quoted text -
>
> Yesterday i hear you supporting the idea that
> position and direction of electrons cannot
> both be known, and today its a 'fact' that they measured
> one with lasers every which way but loose.
> Nice.
> john
They didn't measure the size of an electron, they found its shape, a
subtle but important distinction. Don't believe me? Then find an article
which states its size; one article states the difference in its size
from location to location as "less than 0.000000000000000000000000001
cm", but that's its error bars, not its actual size.
Specifically, the shape refers to the shape of the electron's
electromagnetic field surrounding it. We have proven that its
electromagnetic field remains perfectly spherical the closer and closer
we measure it. The electron itself is still a point particle at this
moment, until we find out better; so the electron has no shape of its own.
What's not been mentioned yet is that not only is this a problem for
SUSY theory, but SUSY is a subset of *Superstring* and *M-Theory*, so
those theories are in jeopardy too. This is by far the more important
unsaid implications of this finding: that a large portion of Superstring
theory is now in jeopardy. SUSY is just the first steps on the path to
Superstring. If even just the first steps throw you off course, then the
full path is only going to get you lost even more completely.
Superstring theory thinks of an electron as a vibrating closed loop of
string rather than a point particle. The closer you get towards the
Planck length scale, you should be able to discern the shape of the loop
of string, because there should be variations in the strength of the
electromagnetic field depending on how close the edges of the rotating
string are to you. Since they found no variations, the shape is
therefore still spherical, which implies that the electron is still a
point particle.
Yousuf Khan
Yousuf Khan
You don't agree that the Planck scale is lowest scale possible?
Yousuf Khan
Sam Wormley
How would you test that hypothesis?
herbert glazier
Lowest energy,matter,time,tension,length could be to large to fit in
the realm of strings???????? Point particles ???????? or brane
mass ????? Go figure TreBert
dlzc
On May 27, 8:56 am, Yousuf Khan <bbb...@spammenot.yahoo.com> wrote:
> On 27/05/2011 9:53 AM,dlzcwrote:
> > On May 26, 11:34 pm, Yousuf Khan<bbb...@spammenot.yahoo.com> wrote:
> >> On 26/05/2011 8:37 PM, Eric Gisse wrote:
>
> >>> I really dislike how the writing suggests the electron
> >>> has a definitive size.
>
> >> Well every particle in the universe does have a definitive
> >> lower-bounds size, which is the Planck Length.
>
> > Which says nothing about the particle or its size, but
> > the Universe it is embedded in.
>
> > Or that the idiot that thinks that Planck units were
> > a meaningful exercise in the first place, knew nothing
> > about dimensional analysis.
>
> You don't agree that the Planck scale is lowest scale
> possible?
"Planck scale" is meaningless. Look at "Planck mass". The Planck
units are made up of dimensioned constants, constants that are
meaningful for a large system, gross populations of particles.
When does the "viability" of Planck units break down? When you start
seeing quantum behaviors. Like self-interference of C-60. That is
pretty big.
It isn't metrology. It isn't the fact that we represent an inherently
discontinuous / divided population by an infinitely divisible number
line. It is that we follow assumptions, by absurdities, into bad
practice.
So we measure the "shape" of a few Avogadro's numbers of electrons in
various situations, and say "no they don't have anything except a
spherically symmetric shape". In a population, in those experiments,
in this Universe, that is what they are. Well, we already know they
are point particles (only ever interact via their field, no sudden
changes in daughter products), so if they have a 2x lobe (2x zero is
still zero), store no extra energy in spin, some non-zero percentage
of them could be wearing funny propeller hats and return a "spherical"
result... and Planck units are still a masturbatory exercise.
When you hear someone spouting Planck units, you hear someone looking
for grant money from the ignorant. Don't expect them to generate
anything of consequence, or be doing anything other than talking
"magic numbers". Units are not an answer, just a necessary evil.
David A. Smith
eric gisse
@news.bnb-lp.com:
Why would he, or anyone else? The Planck scale is a guesstimate based on
numerology, even though our theories have not been tested beyond the ~TeV
energy scale.
Raymond Yohros
> On 5/26/11 7:06 PM, Yousuf Khan wrote:
>
> > BBC News - Electron particle's shape revealed
> > "So physicists have tried to build on this model. One framework to
> > explain physics beyond the Standard Model is known as supersymmetry.
>
> > However, this theory predicts that the electron has a more distorted
> > shape than that suggested by the Standard Model. According to this idea,
> > the particle could be egg-shaped.
> > Experimental set-up used to measure electron The researchers used lasers
> > to measure the shape of the electron
>
> > Researchers stress that the new observation does not rule out
> > super-symmetry. But it does not support the theory, according to Dr
> > Hudson. "
> >http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-13545453
>
>
> A 10-year study has revealed that the electron is very spherical indeed.
>
> To be precise, the electron differs from being perfectly round by less
> than 0.000000000000000000000000001 cm. To put that in context; if an
> electron was the size of the solar system, it would be out from being
> perfectly round by less than the width of a human hair.
i don't get why M and SUPER unreal theories continue to cloud
scientific
progress with all the mass evidence against them.
i remember someone once said that it was 21 century that fell
into the 20th century by accident!
we are know in the 21 century and the "accident" continues!
r.y
dlzc
On May 27, 1:49 pm, Raymond Yohros <b...@birdband.net> wrote:
> On May 26, 7:14 pm, Sam Wormley <sworml...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > On 5/26/11 7:06 PM, Yousuf Khan wrote:
>
> > > BBC News - Electron particle's shape revealed
> > > "So physicists have tried to build on this model.
> > > One framework to explain physics beyond the
> > > Standard Model is known as supersymmetry.
>
> > > However, this theory predicts that the electron
> > > has a more distorted shape than that suggested
> > > by the Standard Model. According to this idea,
> > > the particle could be egg-shaped. Experimental
> > > set-up used to measure electron The researchers
> > > used lasers to measure the shape of the electron
>
> > > Researchers stress that the new observation does
> > > not rule out super-symmetry. But it does not
> > > support the theory, according to Dr Hudson. "
<snip links now broken by Google.Groups>
>
> > A 10-year study has revealed that the electron is
> > very spherical indeed.
>
> > To be precise, the electron differs from being
> > perfectly round by less than
> > 0.000000000000000000000000001 cm. To put that
> > in context; if an electron was the size of the solar
> > system, it would be out from being perfectly round
> > by less than the width of a human hair.
>
> i don't get why M and SUPER unreal theories continue
> to cloud scientific progress with all the mass evidence
> against them.
Mariners used maps that had "Here be Sea Serpents" on them for a very
long time too.
They are the only theories that look like classical theories in the
domains we know, and make new predictions we can test. That they
continue to fail just shows that they are inherently incorrect, and of
limited utility.
Maybe the problem is that they are the only game in town for new stuff
to look for?
David A. Smith
Yousuf Khan
> i don't get why M and SUPER unreal theories continue to cloud
> scientific
> progress with all the mass evidence against them.
>
> i remember someone once said that it was 21 century that fell
> into the 20th century by accident!
> we are know in the 21 century and the "accident" continues!
>
> r.y
Actually no, there were no evidence against Superstring theory until
now, most evidence neither confirmed nor refuted it until now. That's
why the theory remains so popular still. Some parts of Superstring
theory are producing some good analogs about existing phenomena. Like
for example an analogical link was found between Condensed Matter
Physics and Blackholes, using Superstring theory.
http://www8.nationalacademies.org/astro2010/DetailFileDisplay.aspx?id=261
However, neither subject is new physics, it was just a new perspective
on how to look at two unrelated phenomena using similar techniques. That
seems to be what Superstring theory is good for, for unifying the
mathematics of many different fields of existing physics. However, for
whatever its mathematical elegance, it has not been able to predict
anything new yet. It seems to be a good teaching tool, but not a
discoverer of new things yet.
Yousuf Khan
Yousuf Khan
I thought it's already been tested out with the introduction of Quantum
Mechanics?
I mean there's been several indirect proofs of it, such as the
background vacuum energy level being finite rather than infinite. That
wouldn't be the case if space wasn't granular.
Yousuf Khan
Raymond Yohros
what LHC detector (ATLAS or CMS) do you think will give the best
perspective of
the strong-electroweak interaction?
r.y
Yousuf Khan
> Dear Yousuf Khan:
>
> On May 27, 8:56 am, Yousuf Khan<bbb...@spammenot.yahoo.com> wrote:
>> On 27/05/2011 9:53 AM,dlzcwrote:
>>> a meaningful exercise in the first place, knew nothing
>>> about dimensional analysis.
>>
>> You don't agree that the Planck scale is lowest scale
>> possible?
>
> "Planck scale" is meaningless. Look at "Planck mass". The Planck
> units are made up of dimensioned constants, constants that are
> meaningful for a large system, gross populations of particles.
Well, the Planck mass is so large because gravity is so weak. You would
need a minimum of a Planck Mass worth of material concentrated within
the radius of its Compton wavelength, which would equal its
Schwarzschild Radius, to create a minimal microscopic blackhole.
http://www.physicsforums.com/showpost.php?s=5fad9191006af2237ef3e7ee18516c94&p=1085548&postcount=2
> When does the "viability" of Planck units break down? When you start
> seeing quantum behaviors. Like self-interference of C-60. That is
> pretty big.
Explain what you're talking about here. What happens in C-60?
> It isn't metrology. It isn't the fact that we represent an inherently
> discontinuous / divided population by an infinitely divisible number
> line. It is that we follow assumptions, by absurdities, into bad
> practice.
Very simple question to clarify your position: do you believe space is
continuous or granular?
> So we measure the "shape" of a few Avogadro's numbers of electrons in
> various situations, and say "no they don't have anything except a
> spherically symmetric shape". In a population, in those experiments,
> in this Universe, that is what they are. Well, we already know they
> are point particles (only ever interact via their field, no sudden
> changes in daughter products), so if they have a 2x lobe (2x zero is
> still zero), store no extra energy in spin, some non-zero percentage
> of them could be wearing funny propeller hats and return a "spherical"
> result... and Planck units are still a masturbatory exercise.
Well, the point is if space is granular, electrons can't be truly point
particles, they would have a minimum length of 1 Planck Length.
Therefore if they had a 2x lobe, then the lobe would be 2 Planck Lengths.
> When you hear someone spouting Planck units, you hear someone looking
> for grant money from the ignorant. Don't expect them to generate
> anything of consequence, or be doing anything other than talking
> "magic numbers". Units are not an answer, just a necessary evil.
I didn't know Planck units were such compelling buzzwords in grant
requests. I'd have thought words like "god particle", "light speed",
"unlimited energy", etc. might have gotten more traction?
Yousuf Khan
Yousuf Khan
> Yousuf Khan<bbb...@spammenot.yahoo.com> wrote in news:4ddfc99e$1
>>
>> Yousuf Khan
>
> Why would he, or anyone else? The Planck scale is a guesstimate based on
> numerology, even though our theories have not been tested beyond the ~TeV
> energy scale.
Well, it hasn't been directly tested, but there was an observation made
from a gamma ray burst a few years ago where they attempted to measure
the arrival times of gamma photons of different energy levels. The idea
being that the highest energy photons would be of such small wavelengths
that it would "feel" the roughness of space, whereas the lower energy
ones would barely feel it.
I think the results were inconclusive. There was some difference in
arrival times, but whether it was significant was interpreted
differently by different people.
Yousuf Khan
Yousuf Khan
Simple, if space itself can only be so small, then why would anything
existing inside it be smaller?
Yousuf Khan
dlzc
On May 27, 6:30 pm, Raymond Yohros <b...@birdband.net> wrote:
...
> what LHC detector (ATLAS or CMS) do you think will
> give the best perspective of the strong-electroweak
> interaction?
Sorry, I'm the wrong guy to ask.
David A. Smith
dlzc
On May 27, 6:33 pm, Yousuf Khan <bbb...@spammenot.yahoo.com> wrote:
> On 5/27/2011 1:41 PM,dlzcwrote:
> > On May 27, 8:56 am, Yousuf Khan<bbb...@spammenot.yahoo.com> wrote:
> >> On 27/05/2011 9:53 AM,dlzcwrote:
> >>> Or that the idiot that thinks that Planck units were
> >>> a meaningful exercise in the first place, knew nothing
> >>> about dimensional analysis.
>
> >> You don't agree that the Planck scale is lowest scale
> >> possible?
>
> > "Planck scale" is meaningless. Look at "Planck mass".
> > The Planck units are made up of dimensioned constants,
> > constants that are meaningful for a large system, gross
> > populations of particles.
>
> Well, the Planck mass is so large because gravity is so
> weak. You would need a minimum of a Planck Mass
> worth of material concentrated within the radius of its
> Compton wavelength, which would equal its
> Schwarzschild Radius, to create a minimal microscopic
> blackhole.
>
<snip link now broken by Google.Groups>
Still just number games, little science.
> > When does the "viability" of Planck units break down?
> > When you start seeing quantum behaviors. Like
> > self-interference of C-60. That is pretty big.
>
> Explain what you're talking about here. What happens
> in C-60?
A collection of "billiard balls on little sticks", with positions and
size all really well known and understood, passes through two
separated slits at the same time.
> > It isn't metrology. It isn't the fact that we represent
> > an inherently discontinuous / divided population by
> > an infinitely divisible number line. It is that we follow
> > assumptions, by absurdities, into bad practice.
>
> Very simple question to clarify your position: do you
> believe space is continuous or granular?
Space is persistent illusion, entirely without existence when
discounting the population of the Universe... say in quantum
experiments. So it is really close to continuous with the full
population voting (macroscopic scale experiments), and non-existent
outside that scale.
> > So we measure the "shape" of a few Avogadro's
> > numbers of electrons in various situations, and say
> > "no they don't have anything except a spherically
> > symmetric shape". In a population, in those
> > experiments, in this Universe, that is what they are.
> > Well, we already know they are point particles (only
> > ever interact via their field, no sudden changes in
> > daughter products), so if they have a 2x lobe (2x
> > zero is still zero), store no extra energy in spin,
> > some non-zero percentage of them could be wearing
> > funny propeller hats and return a "spherical"
> > result... and Planck units are still a masturbatory exercise.
>
> Well, the point is if space is granular, electrons can't
> be truly point particles, they would have a minimum
> length of 1 Planck Length. Therefore if they had a 2x
> lobe, then the lobe would be 2 Planck Lengths.
You sound like my kids, talking Magic cards. Quantum mechanics works
really well without space, time, and mass. That makes them
"population measures".
> > When you hear someone spouting Planck units, you
> > hear someone looking for grant money from the
> > ignorant. Don't expect them to generate anything of
> > consequence, or be doing anything other than talking
> > "magic numbers". Units are not an answer, just a
> > necessary evil.
>
> I didn't know Planck units were such compelling
> buzzwords in grant requests. I'd have thought words like
> "god particle", "light speed", "unlimited energy", etc. might
> have gotten more traction?
Who knows what makes a successful grant application. I surely don't.
David A. Smith
Yousuf Khan
> On May 27, 6:33 pm, Yousuf Khan<bbb...@spammenot.yahoo.com> wrote:
>> On 5/27/2011 1:41 PM,dlzcwrote:
>>> The Planck units are made up of dimensioned constants,
>>> constants that are meaningful for a large system, gross
>>> populations of particles.
>>
>> Well, the Planck mass is so large because gravity is so
>> weak. You would need a minimum of a Planck Mass
>> worth of material concentrated within the radius of its
>> Compton wavelength, which would equal its
>> Schwarzschild Radius, to create a minimal microscopic
>> blackhole.
>>
> <snip link now broken by Google.Groups>
>
> Still just number games, little science.
Actually, this can now be tested, at the LHC. Put a Planck mass or
greater worth material and crash it into as small a state as possible
and see if a blackhole forms. Isn't that what all of those anti-LHC
protesters were protesting about?
>>> When does the "viability" of Planck units break down?
>>> When you start seeing quantum behaviors. Like
>>> self-interference of C-60. That is pretty big.
>>
>> Explain what you're talking about here. What happens
>> in C-60?
>
> A collection of "billiard balls on little sticks", with positions and
> size all really well known and understood, passes through two
> separated slits at the same time.
So how does this disprove Planck units?
>> Very simple question to clarify your position: do you
>> believe space is continuous or granular?
>
> Space is persistent illusion, entirely without existence when
> discounting the population of the Universe... say in quantum
> experiments. So it is really close to continuous with the full
> population voting (macroscopic scale experiments), and non-existent
> outside that scale.
So shall I put you down for "Space is continuous"?
>> Well, the point is if space is granular, electrons can't
>> be truly point particles, they would have a minimum
>> length of 1 Planck Length. Therefore if they had a 2x
>> lobe, then the lobe would be 2 Planck Lengths.
>
> You sound like my kids, talking Magic cards. Quantum mechanics works
> really well without space, time, and mass. That makes them
> "population measures".
Sure the equations for QM work if space is continous rather than
granular, but some of the numbers make no sense without the granularity.
Yousuf Khan
cjcountess
10^-8 kg for
length, time, and mass, are derived from wrongly equating, (h/2pi, c,
and G), through dimensional analysis, and match nothing in nature
because they are not correct.
Sense the electron has been proven to have structure, hopefully it
will further be proven, as I and others predict, that electron
wavelength, time frequency cycle, and mass, along with charge, temp,
and so on, will provide basis in nature for true Planck or natural
unites.
As can be seen from my paper, when (c^2, h/2pi, G) are equated and (c,
h, r, 2pi, i) are equated through geometry, all this is possible.
It is said that “Quantum Gravity”, will be found at level where
reduced “Compton wavelength” = “Schwartzchild radius, which is r=Gm/
c^2 for 1 quantum particle.
Geometrically I show that at level of electron, The Compton wavelength
= Schwartchild radius, and c^2 is seen as conversion factor between
not only energy and matter, but also time, length, charge, temp, and
the rest of the unites, including “Quantum Gravity”, because as I
pointed out earlier “c^2 = G”, because it is the highest possibly “L/
T^2”, and also = “h/2pi” or maybe more accurately “h/2pi/2” because
“c^2” on this quantum level is energy in circular and or spherical
rotation, and is exactly why it attains rest mass = G here at this
frequency wavelength.
But this can only be seen geometrically.
It is now all within reach.
Conrad J Countess
Poutnik
@g24g2000vbz.googlegroups.com>, cjcou...@yahoo.com says...
>
> Fellas, the so-called Planck unites of about 10^-35m, 10^-44s, and
> 10^-8 kg for
> length, time, and mass, are derived from wrongly equating, (h/2pi, c,
> and G), through dimensional analysis, and match nothing in nature
> because they are not correct.
>
claiming it is correct or not does not make sense,
unless there is error.
You can define units by whatever way you want.
The other thing is if a definition is useful.
According to purpose to have all those 5 constants equal to 1,
what other definition would you suggest,
if you claim this one is wrong ?
What may or may not be correct is the interpretation.
BTW even if they are not practical for everyday life,
in physics it simplifies many formulas.
It also matches nature better than SI units,
excluding anthropocentric approach.
--
Poutnik
cjcountess
What I mean by equating “c, G, and h/2pi”, not being correct, is that
geometrically, “h/2pi, G, and c^2”, not “c”, are more correctly equal
geometrically, and as such also lead to geometry of electron, which
the discovery of the electron geometry that this is about will
hopefully collaborate, whose length, time frequency cycle, mass,
charge, are all revealed to be equal through conversion factor ‘c^2”,
geometrically.
Therefore, the electron can serve as the geometrical natural unit of
matter from which the other natural units of measure are taken, which
can also all be equal to 1, geometrically.
And as I stated, the discovery that this thread is about “shape of
electron”, just adds to the growing evidence base of the theory.
Conrad J Countess
Poutnik
@em7g2000vbb.googlegroups.com>, cjcou...@yahoo.com says...
>
> Poutnik
>
> What I mean by equating ?c, G, and h/2pi?, not being correct, is that
> geometrically, ?h/2pi, G, and c^2?, not ?c?, are more correctly equal
> geometrically, and as such also lead to geometry of electron, which
> the discovery of the electron geometry that this is about will
> hopefully collaborate, whose length, time frequency cycle, mass,
> geometrically.
I would say "not being correct"
was not used in correct meaning.
Intention of Planck units was dimensional, not geometrical.
Its purposes are just different to yours.
Why to make common from exceptional ?
Quoting:
"Planck units are not only one system of natural units
among other systems,
but are considered unique in that
these units are not based on properties of any prototype object,
or particle (that would be arbitrarily chosen)
but are based only on properties of free space"
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Planck_units
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natural_units
--
Poutnik
herbert glazier
Planck measurements work well in quantum micro realm. Best keep in
mind quantum geography and macro geography are NOT two sides to the
same coin. Thus we have quantum gravity. Planck length is telling us
we need to have a different warping of space(physics) QM is tricky
stuff TreBert
cjcountess
How recent was that modification to the definition?
Free space, how is that to be measured, except by things that are made
of, and move in, and interact with free space?
The electron is not an arbitrarily chose particle.
It is the most basic and universal rest mass particle known.
It is also the most basic unit = mc^2 and = to G as highest v^2 or L/
T^2 and also = h/2pi/2 which unites SR, GR, and QM.
It is no arbitrary task electing the electron as the physical
manifestation of the most basic natural unites.
And because the electron is composed of free space, it is a unite of
and there for a measure of “free space”.
It is known that waves cease to propagate at the inter-granular level
of the substance in which it is traveling. Einstein and Minkowsky’s
“ict”
If an electron is truly EM energy that attains rest mass simply from
its energy being balanced as c in linear direction x c in 90 angular
direction, for a balance of centripetal and centrifugal forces as is
stated in my theory, and if space itself is just ground state EM
energy, than the electron represents what space does when waves are
propagated through it at the highest frequencies, and also the level
at which wave cease to propagate as if they reached an inter-granular
level.
One will find that “ict” = “E=mc^2”, geometrically also, and that even
with waves on a macro level that cease to propagate when they reach
inter-granular level of substance, the energy does not disappear, it
takes another form. Sound waves can turn to heat at this level.
Sound waves at the speed of sound squared, in air, probably cease to
be heard, apart from our ears not being able to detect sound over a
certain frequency, because the sound waves have reached this inter-
granular level, and they probably just begin to spin in place, also
acquiring a sort of rest mass for sound. .And this analogy may apply
to both sound and light
Conrad J Countess
Poutnik
@dr5g2000vbb.googlegroups.com>, cjcou...@yahoo.com says...
>
> Poutnik
>
> How recent was that modification to the definition?
Excuse me, what modification and what definition ?
>
> Free space, how is that to be measured, except by things that are made
> of, and move in, and interact with free space?
Planck unit system is based solely on values of these constants,
having such units to have all constants = 1,
similarly to other natural unit systems.
Are not these constants binded to properties of space ?
Gravitational constant
Reduced Planck constant
Speed of light in a vacuum
Coulomb constant
Boltzmann's constant
Free space was mentioned mainly as opposite to particalar objects.
>
> The electron is not an arbitrarily chose particle.
Well, somebody has chosen it, otherwise it would not be chosen.
There are various unit systems and is no sense in saying some are
incorrect.
>
> It is the most basic and universal rest mass particle known.
No doubts, but it is not enough reason
the unit system must use it.
Planck system doesnt for reason.
--
Poutnik
Raymond Yohros
> Actually no, there were no evidence against Superstring theory until
> now, most evidence neither confirmed nor refuted it until now.
>
what about featureless strands
they are real and totally based on observation.
>
> That's
> why the theory remains so popular still. Some parts of Superstring
> theory are producing some good analogs about existing phenomena. Like
> for example an analogical link was found between Condensed Matter
> Physics and Blackholes, using Superstring theory.
>
> http://www8.nationalacademies.org/astro2010/DetailFileDisplay.aspx?id...
>
> However, neither subject is new physics, it was just a new perspective
> on how to look at two unrelated phenomena using similar techniques. That
> seems to be what Superstring theory is good for, for unifying the
> mathematics of many different fields of existing physics. However, for
> whatever its mathematical elegance, it has not been able to predict
> anything new yet. It seems to be a good teaching tool, but not a
> discoverer of new things yet.
>
> Yousuf Khan
>
come on, all this terms are 101 physics without the SUPER bullshit
of i forgot how many dimensions they inverted?
r.y
cjcountess
Here are definitions of arbitrary,
In no way did I choose the electron in arbitrary fashion. I chose it
because it is the most basic quantum building block of the universe
known to science that includes all the sort after dimensions including
charge. It represents point on EM scale or spectrum, where energy =
and turns to matter through conversion factor “c^2” which can be
clearly seen to be a conversion frequency/wavelength, at which charge
also emerges, as well as a well defined length, temp, and the other
basic unites of measure that so conveniently are also related through
this conversion factor “c^2”.
It is the most convenient natural units in a nutshell, handed to us by
nature, and in no way is chosen arbitrarily.
And with this lates discovery of electron structure, the realization
of what I just said will follow. It is only a matter of time, just as
it was with the electron structure that I have predicted, that is
being slowly but surely colaborated, The evidence is so clear one has
to be blind or burying his head in the sand, for not wanting to see it
and admit that they were wrong. But as I said before, realy, there is
no way around it.
Conrad J Countess
dlzc
On May 28, 11:24 am, Yousuf Khan <bbb...@spammenot.yahoo.com> wrote:
> On 05/27/2011 10:52 PM,dlzcwrote:
> > On May 27, 6:33 pm, Yousuf Khan<bbb...@spammenot.yahoo.com> wrote:
> >> On 5/27/2011 1:41 PM,dlzcwrote:
> >>> "Planck scale" is meaningless. Look at "Planck mass".
> >>> The Planck units are made up of dimensioned constants,
> >>> constants that are meaningful for a large system, gross
> >>> populations of particles.
>
> >> Well, the Planck mass is so large because gravity is so
> >> weak. You would need a minimum of a Planck Mass
> >> worth of material concentrated within the radius of its
> >> Compton wavelength, which would equal its
> >> Schwarzschild Radius, to create a minimal microscopic
> >> blackhole.
>
> > <snip link now broken by Google.Groups>
>
> > Still just number games, little science.
>
> Actually, this can now be tested, at the LHC. Put a Planck
> mass or greater worth material and crash it into as small
> a state as possible and see if a blackhole forms. Isn't that
> what all of those anti-LHC protesters were protesting about?
Planck mass has nothing to do with it
> >>> When does the "viability" of Planck units break down?
> >>> When you start seeing quantum behaviors. Like
> >>> self-interference of C-60. That is pretty big.
>
> >> Explain what you're talking about here. What happens
> >> in C-60?
>
> > A collection of "billiard balls on little sticks", with
> > positions and size all really well known and understood,
> > passes through two separated slits at the same time.
>
> So how does this disprove Planck units?
Because the "granularity" is really of no finite size. If we can
measure precisely enough, a stream of automobiles likely diffracts.
> >> Very simple question to clarify your position: do you
> >> believe space is continuous or granular?
>
> > Space is persistent illusion, entirely without existence
> > when discounting the population of the Universe... say
> > in quantum experiments. So it is really close to
> > continuous with the full population voting (macroscopic
> > scale experiments), and non-existent outside that scale.
>
> So shall I put you down for "Space is continuous"?
You can put me down for "neither".
> >> Well, the point is if space is granular, electrons can't
> >> be truly point particles, they would have a minimum
> >> length of 1 Planck Length. Therefore if they had a 2x
> >> lobe, then the lobe would be 2 Planck Lengths.
>
> > You sound like my kids, talking Magic cards. Quantum
> > mechanics works really well without space, time, and
> > mass. That makes them "population measures".
>
> Sure the equations for QM work if space is continous
> rather than granular,
No, QM simply does not care about spacetime. They are mutually
transparent.
> but some of the numbers make no sense without the
> granularity.
The numbers make perfect sense when the population is too small to
have a "smooth seeming vote".
David A. Smith
Poutnik
@em7g2000vbb.googlegroups.com>, cjcou...@yahoo.com says...
>
> Poutnik
>
> Here are definitions of arbitrary,
>
> http://www.google.com/search?sourceid=ie7&q=arbitrary+definition&rls=com.microsoft:en-us:IE-SearchBox&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&rlz=1I7ACGW_enUS404
>
> In no way did I choose the electron in arbitrary fashion. I chose it
> because it is the most basic quantum building block of the universe
> known to science that includes all the sort after dimensions including
> charge. It represents point on EM scale or spectrum, where energy =
> clearly seen to be a conversion frequency/wavelength, at which charge
> also emerges, as well as a well defined length, temp, and the other
> basic unites of measure that so conveniently are also related through
>
> It is the most convenient natural units in a nutshell, handed to us by
> nature, and in no way is chosen arbitrarily.
>
> And with this lates discovery of electron structure, the realization
> of what I just said will follow. It is only a matter of time, just as
> it was with the electron structure that I have predicted, that is
> being slowly but surely colaborated, The evidence is so clear one has
> to be blind or burying his head in the sand, for not wanting to see it
> and admit that they were wrong. But as I said before, realy, there is
> no way around it.
>
> Conrad J Countess
OK, but still it is chosen object.
And it seems you still miss the Planck system unit's point.
--
Poutnik
Y.Porat
> BBC News - Electron particle's shape revealed
> "So physicists have tried to build on this model. One framework to
> explain physics beyond the Standard Model is known as supersymmetry.
>
> However, this theory predicts that the electron has a more distorted
> shape than that suggested by the Standard Model. According to this idea,
> the particle could be egg-shaped.
> Experimental set-up used to measure electron The researchers used lasers
> to measure the shape of the electron
>
> Researchers stress that the new observation does not rule out
> super-symmetry. But it does not support the theory, according to Dr
----------------------
i suggested long ago :
the 'eel ''' model !!
sort of a string that can changeits shape
can twist can vibrate can fold etc !!
yet has a constant length
(it is documented )
in any case
it must be sub composed !! (not a 'billiard ball '
ATB
Y,Porat
--------------------------------
ATB
Y.Porat
------------------------ !!
cjcountess
I myself was under the impression that the Planck scale was to
represent the measure of the smallest and most basic building blocks
of the universe and that they converged around a naturally occurring
unite. Quantum gravity is also predicted to be hiding here where the
“Schwartzchild Radius”, converges with the “Compton Wavelength” or the
“Reduced Compton Wavelength”, which is the radius of the larger
“Compton Wavelength”.
Well, this is it. The electron can be considered a Black Hole in the
sense that it is trapped light, but not as infinitely small and dense
point, and r=2GM/c^2 = F=GMm/r^2, and r=GM/c^2 is radius for one
particle, the electron, geometrically from this model, which converges
with electron Compton wavelength as wavelength it would have if it
were a photon of same energy, as indeed electrons in this model emerge
from photons along the same EM spectrum, when both linear and 90
degree angular frequency energy is balanced as c in linear direction x
c in 90 degree angular direction creating rotating energy which
produces rest mass.
Quantum Gravity has been found here, because c^2 is the place on EM
scale or spectrum where energy attains rest mass = G = the highest
possible v^2 or L/T^2, and also = h/2pi/2, where both momentum and
position are measured at same time, beating uncertainty principle, as
well as filling the mass gap problem as even the mass of proton has
been discovered to be energy circulating within particle, as opposed
to a solid object of mass. The principle is the same for electron and
the proton, which is probably a composite of electron like basic
particles, composed of energy spinning at c.
Rest mass is produced from rotation of energy at frequency/wavelength
of c^2
I don’t mean to rub it in but, what are these scientist saying now
about the “Uncertainty Principles”, prevention of simultaneous
position and momentum measure, and point particle - probability wave?
Conrad J Countess
raymond
> On 27/05/2011 2:19 AM, john wrote:
>
> > On May 26, 6:41 pm, Eric Gisse<jowr...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >> Is there a reason you reject the facts that disprove your theory?- Hide quoted text -
>
> > Hmm.
> > Yesterday i hear you supporting the idea that
> > position and direction of electrons cannot
> > both be known, and today its a 'fact' that they measured
> > one with lasers every which way but loose.
> > Nice.
> > john
>
> They didn't measure the size of an electron, they found its shape, a
> subtle but important distinction. Don't believe me? Then find an article
> which states its size; one article states the difference in its size
> from location to location as "less than 0.000000000000000000000000001
> cm", but that's its error bars, not its actual size.
>
> Specifically, the shape refers to the shape of the electron's
> electromagnetic field surrounding it. We have proven that its
> electromagnetic field remains perfectly spherical the closer and closer
> we measure it. The electron itself is still a point particle at this
> moment, until we find out better; so the electron has no shape of its own.
>
> What's not been mentioned yet is that not only is this a problem for
> SUSY theory, but SUSY is a subset of *Superstring* and *M-Theory*, so
> those theories are in jeopardy too. This is by far the more important
> unsaid implications of this finding: that a large portion of Superstring
> theory is now in jeopardy. SUSY is just the first steps on the path to
> Superstring. If even just the first steps throw you off course, then the
> full path is only going to get you lost even more completely.
>
> Superstring theory thinks of an electron as a vibrating closed loop of
> string rather than a point particle. The closer you get towards the
> Planck length scale, you should be able to discern the shape of the loop
> of string, because there should be variations in the strength of the
> electromagnetic field depending on how close the edges of the rotating
> string are to you. Since they found no variations, the shape is
> therefore still spherical, which implies that the electron is still a
> point particle.
>
> Yousuf Khan
Perhaps the only useful thing SUPER theories are good for
Is to know what not to look for (With the exception of some
Basic ideas that have nothing to do with details and are
Not necessarily part of any particular theory)
In the field, batting, after 3strikes!
your out!
r.y
Poutnik
@u19g2000vbi.googlegroups.com>, cjcou...@yahoo.com says...
>
> Pounik
>
> I myself was under the impression that the Planck scale was to
> represent the measure of the smallest and most basic building blocks
> of the universe and that they converged around a naturally occurring
> unite.
Not at all. The fact some units are small is just sideffect.
Other units like mass, temperatu or energy are quite big.
> Well, this is it. The electron can be considered a Black Hole in the
> sense that it is trapped light......
How could trapped light of bosons have fermion-like spin ?
And how could it have charge if light has not any ?
>
> I don?t mean to rub it in but, what are these scientist saying now
> about the ?Uncertainty Principles?, prevention of simultaneous
> position and momentum measure, and point particle - probability wave?
>
Now ? it is matter of 192x years.
--
Poutnik
Poutnik
@u19g2000vbi.googlegroups.com>, cjcou...@yahoo.com says...
>
>
> I myself was under the impression that the Planck scale was to
> represent the measure of the smallest and most basic building blocks
> of the universe and that they converged around a naturally occurring
> unite. Quantum gravity is also predicted to be hiding here where the
> ?Reduced Compton Wavelength?, which is the radius of the larger
> ?Compton Wavelength?.
Well, as you mentioned by other words,
true is the Planck unit has meaning
that below it quantum gravity effects are supposed to occur.
Because of we do not have quantum gravity theory
then "Hic sunt leones"is to be write there for now.
It is also directly related reasons of difficulties
of theories of very early universe before 10^-43 s,
where quantum gravity is to be applied.
--
Poutnik
Y.Porat
---------------------
i was as well using the Planck time
to define the smallest photon mass
to be
bot hf/c^2
but h/c^2 times Planck time !!!!!
(a copyright !!)
something like
exp -90 (Kilogram) !!!
ATB
Y.Porat
--------------------------------------
cjcountess
Poutnik
so in Physics some measurements are inversely proportional to each
other, like small wavelength/high energy and corresponding temp as
radiant heat.
So I can see that point about some unites being high, such as energy
and temp, but they correspond to some inversely proportional smaller
unit such as length , and time frequency cycle.
If I understand; you do not see how a photon of no charge can turn to
a rest mass particle with charge.
A photon has no charge because it turns or spins both clockwise and
counterclockwise as it waves up in counterclockwise direction and down
in clockwise direction along the trajectory while an electron spins
just in counterclockwise direction once the energy of c^2 is reached
as a balance of centripetal/centrifugal forces enabling circular and
or spherical motion. An opposite +charge particle can also emerge at
this frequency wavelength, depending on direction of spin.
Did you see my paper explaining this in my very first post?
Conrad J Countess
PS
No really, what happened to the talk of point particles and
probability waves, concerning electrons, and “Uncertainty Principles”
defying measurement of both position and momentum at same time? We can
all go back and pull up many claims of those ideas as well as refutes
of them, to see just who was saying what.
I argued against that from the very beginning of my posting on Usenet.
Look; I was right before or the evidence was, and reason based on that
evidence points to the emergence of electron from EM spectrum at a
frequency/wavelength of "c^2", as the answer to the "Mass Gap",
"Quantum Gravity", "Origin of Rest Mass", problems, which are all the
same problem.
There is just too much evidence, or as phycisist like to say, it is a
5 sigma discovery.
You will all see.
Poutnik
3a133e...@hv8g2000vbb.googlegroups.com>, cjcou...@yahoo.com says...
>
>
> If I understand; you do not see how a photon of no charge can turn to
> a rest mass particle with charge.
> A photon has no charge because it turns or spins both clockwise and
> counterclockwise as it waves up in counterclockwise direction and down
> in clockwise direction along the trajectory
> while an electron spins
> just in counterclockwise direction once the energy of c^2 is reached
> as a balance of centripetal/centrifugal forces enabling circular and
> or spherical motion. An opposite +charge particle can also emerge at
> this frequency wavelength, depending on direction of spin.
You take the spin incorrectly.
Spin is a one-directional part of value of angular momentum of particle.
Both photons and electrons can have the spin oriented in both
directions.
Atoms are full of electrons with the opposite spins.
c^2 does not have energy dimension.
--
Poutnik
cjcountess
Where is your vision, and did you look at the paper?
We are using geometry, geometry reveals more than diminsionless
intergers just as the geometrical interpretation of E=mc^2 reveals
much more than equation alone, such as revealy not only that energy
and matter are equal and intercovertable through conversion factor
"c^2" but shows exactly how energy equals and turns to matter 'rest
mass" by aquiring circular and or spherical rotation because "c^2" on
quantum level is a balence of centripital / centrifugal forces of c x
c.
The sqrt -1 can not be derived using diminsionless intergers either
because there is no number that when multiplied by itself = -1,but it
can geometrically as is done with so called imaginary numbers and now
with this new revalation of the geometrical interpretation of E=mc^2
which also reveals that "c" is also the natural unit sqrt-1, if "c^2"
produces -1 particle, and the geometry seamlessly overlays even with
electrical engineres version of sqrt -1
Does indoctrination of established ideas blind one in science as well
as in religion?
You already know that the point particle, probability wave, subject to
Uncertainty Principles not knowing momentum and position at same time
does not hold with this latest discovery of electron structure, or do
you?
Also look at video of Swedish scientist picture of electron
Electron spin is counter to its trajectory, while positrons are along
trajectory.
In electronics sqrt –1 = 1 unit vector pointing straight up in
counterclockwise direction enabling 90-degree counterclockwise
rotation.
If we picture c in the horizontal direction x c in the 90 degree
angular counterclockwise direction enabling a 90 degree
counterclockwise rotation which if constant creates a circular
rotation of balance of centrifugal / centripetal forces, and if
amplitude is constant, makes two rotation in order to complete one
wave cycle, we have a standing spherical wave at wavelength /
frequency “c^2” or “mc^2”, if you prefer, with angular momentum of “h/
2pi/2”, “spin ½” and “–1 charge” uniting all these known properties of
electron and also revealing that even if overlaid on electrical
engineers geometry of sqrt-1 c or the speed of light is the natural
unite “sqrt-1”, as indeed “c^2” produces an –1charged counterclockwise
spinning particle
What about the point particle probability wave subject to Uncertainty
Principle?
Please address that, if you can.
Conrad J Countess
cjcountess
Have a look
http://gsjournal.net/science/countess.pdf
Collaborated by
Scientists in Sweden, film moving electron for the first time. It
resembles an elongated standing spherical wave, rotating about two
axis, fitting description which I have geometrically demonstrated, as
opposed to a point particle or probability wave.
Latest evidence on geometrical structure of electron from site:
http://www.youtube.com/
watch?v=ofp-OHIq6Wo&feature=related
Is anyone going to defend the Uncertainty Principle and its point
particle probability waves concernig these latest finding that back my
theory/discovery?
This is too easy!!!
Conrad J Countess
cjcountess
Scientists in Sweden, film moving electron for the first time. It
resembles an elongated standing spherical wave, rotating about two
axis, fitting description which I have geometrically demonstrated, as
opposed to a point particle or probability wave.
Latest evidence on geometrical structure of electron from site:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ofp-OHIq6Wo&feature=related
last link did not work unless you cut and paste
but this should
Conrad J Countess
Poutnik
d4235d...@bl1g2000vbb.googlegroups.com>, cjcou...@yahoo.com says...
>
> http://gsjournal.net/science/countess.pdf
>
>
> Scientists in Sweden, film moving electron for the first time. It
> resembles an elongated standing spherical wave, rotating about two
> axis, fitting description which I have geometrically demonstrated, as
> opposed to a point particle or probability wave.
>
> Latest evidence on geometrical structure of electron from site:
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ofp-OHIq6Wo&feature=related
>
unless is is described how the experiment was set up.
--
Poutnik
cjcountess
Consider the evidence and discovery that this thread is about, the
spherical shape of electron.
Does the point particle, probability wave, and Uncertainty Principle
hold?
I know that to measure a particle this small requires disturbing it to
a large degree, creating uncertainty in that manner, and for that
reason, but to say that at this level of electron the very structure
is uncertain as is usually taught, to me takes it a bit far.
Everythings measurement is uncertain, and even affected by the
measurement itself, even ourselves whose weight may vary from day to
day.
But we all know what the Copenhagen interpretation of uncertainty
means in todays physics, cats that are both dead and alive at the same
time, come on.
The electron has a definite shape and position and angular momentum
that can be measured as h/2pi/2 for certain.
I just wonder if you still defend it as is, or should it be modified
due to recent discoveries?
Conrad J Countess
Yousuf Khan
> Dear Yousuf Khan:
>
> On May 28, 11:24 am, Yousuf Khan<bbb...@spammenot.yahoo.com> wrote:
>> Actually, this can now be tested, at the LHC. Put a Planck
>> mass or greater worth material and crash it into as small
>> a state as possible and see if a blackhole forms. Isn't that
>> what all of those anti-LHC protesters were protesting about?
>
> Planck mass has nothing to do with it
Well no, it's Planck energy in this case, pretty much the same thing
after you take E=mc^2 into account.
>>>>> When does the "viability" of Planck units break down?
>>>>> When you start seeing quantum behaviors. Like
>>>>> self-interference of C-60. That is pretty big.
>>
>>>> Explain what you're talking about here. What happens
>>>> in C-60?
>>
>>> A collection of "billiard balls on little sticks", with
>>> positions and size all really well known and understood,
>>> passes through two separated slits at the same time.
>>
>> So how does this disprove Planck units?
>
> Because the "granularity" is really of no finite size. If we can
> measure precisely enough, a stream of automobiles likely diffracts.
I'm not getting you. The Planck scale would be orders of magnitude below
the scale of these molecules, they would be about as small compared to
these molecules, as these molecules are in comparison to the galaxy. So
obviously we haven't seen a granularity yet.
>>>> Very simple question to clarify your position: do you
>>>> believe space is continuous or granular?
>>
>>> Space is persistent illusion, entirely without existence
>>> when discounting the population of the Universe... say
>>> in quantum experiments. So it is really close to
>>> continuous with the full population voting (macroscopic
>>> scale experiments), and non-existent outside that scale.
>>
>> So shall I put you down for "Space is continuous"?
>
> You can put me down for "neither".
Come on, we're at war here, pick a side. :)
>> Sure the equations for QM work if space is continous
>> rather than granular,
>
> No, QM simply does not care about spacetime. They are mutually
> transparent.
The background vacuum energy is 120 orders of magnitude too high in a
continuous space vs. a granular space. Dark Energy if created by vacuum
energy by quantum fluctuations, would be too large if it weren't for
granularity.
Yousuf Khan
Sam Wormley
> The background vacuum energy is 120 orders of magnitude too high in a
> continuous space vs. a granular space. Dark Energy if created by vacuum
> energy by quantum fluctuations, would be too large if it weren't for
> granularity.
>
> Yousuf Khan
That fact, *does not rule out* that vacuum energy could be the
source of dark energy, however!
Poutnik
@gh5g2000vbb.googlegroups.com>, cjcou...@yahoo.com says...
>
> OK Poutnik
>
> Consider the evidence and discovery that this thread is about, the
> spherical shape of electron.
>
> Does the point particle, probability wave, and Uncertainty Principle
> hold?
There have to be very much stronger arguments, discoveries and evidences
to violate pp, pw and UP.
Theoretical physic advances is never done at sci.chem
If your theory is true the Nobel price is yours.
Uncertainity principle says that measuring of position and linear
momentum ( more exactly their values in particular directions )
influence each other and you cannot get both measured exactly at the
same time.
It is principal obstacle and nobody ever have proven the opposite.
BTW spherical shape is just our interpretation,
in fact all it was about is that electron electric dipol moment
is lower that given uncertainity of measurement, that was
pushed into lower value than anytime before.
>
>
> Everythings measurement is uncertain, and even affected by the
> measurement itself, even ourselves whose weight may vary from day to
> day.
sure, but it it is uncertainity of other kind.
UP determines principal minimum uncertainity
in determination your height and speed together.
>
> The electron has a definite shape and position and angular momentum
> that can be measured as h/2pi/2 for certain.
>
We can measure just a one dimensional projection of angular momentum.
The whole value of AM vector is unknown.
--
Poutnik
cjcountess
electron if it were a photon of same energy, as well as the “Reduced
Compton Wavelength”, which is the radius of the former, (measure of
length of a spherical particle making two rotations to complete one
wave cycle because the radius of the circle becomes the diameter of
the sphere), so my theory also predicts the measurement of electron
based on known measurement of photon, and analogy of “c^2”, as (c in
linear direction x c in 90 degree angular direction, for a balance
of centripetal / centrifugal forces, and circular and or spherical
rotation, which enables rest mass. This shows that “c^2” in
geometrical picturest form, how this is the transition point between
energy and matter and that the EM spectrum is not just the
electromagnetic but the energy / matter spectrum also.
It also shows that the Schwartzchild Radius of (r = 2GM/c^2) =
Newton’s (F=Gmm/r^2) if viewed geometrically, and (r = Gm/c^2) for one
particle = (Reduced Compton wavelength of wavelength/2pi). And now
seen geometrically, as a particle of certain radius, it is clear that
these two mentioned radius coincide, and that electron can be
considered “Black Hole”, in sense that it is “trapped light”, but not
in sense that to squeeze it beyond that point will not lead to gravity
collapse in infinity small and dense point particle, but will lead to
particle production as predicted by quantum theory idea of squeezing
it beyond the reduced Compton wavelength.
Thus “c^2” is also where energy attains gravity rest mass = 1 G as one
quantum of the highest possible v^2 or L/T^2, which is energy in
circular and or spherical rotation.
If we imagine an object in free fall toward the center of the earth or
any massive body without being impeded by atmosphere or the ground but
allowed to fall straight through to the center, the velocity would
increase as v^2 = L/T^2 and get faster and faster until it hits the
highest v^2 =L/T^2 or it reaches the very center of the massive object
and begins to rotate in place, or both simultaneously.
This simultaneous reaching a highest possible v^2 or L/T^2 and center
of gravity is how I view “c^2”, it is the center of gravity = to G for
one quantum particle.
Conrad J Countess
cjcountess
it is clear that
these two mentioned radius coincide, and that electron can be
considered “Black Hole”, in sense that it is “trapped light”, but not
in sense that to squeeze it beyond that point will not lead to
gravity
collapse in infinity small and dense point particle, but will lead to
particle production as predicted by quantum theory idea of squeezing
it beyond the reduced Compton wavelength.
Should be more like
it is clear that
these two mentioned radius coincide, and that electron can be
considered “Black Hole”, in sense that it is “trapped light”, but not
in sense that to squeeze it beyond that point “WILL” lead to gravity
collapse in infinity small and dense point particle, “BUT IN THE SENSE
THAT” it will lead to
particle production as predicted by quantum theory idea of squeezing
it beyond the reduced Compton wavelength.
Because that is of course, its cross measurment, or its diameter, as
a spherical wave.
I am sure though, that you knew that
Conrad J Countess
herbert glazier
inflates space at an accelerating rate. Its the dog going round and
round catching his own tail. Convex space & concave space are two
sides to the same coin. You can't have one without the other. O ya
TreBert
dlzc
On May 30, 3:09 pm, Yousuf Khan <bbb...@spammenot.yahoo.com> wrote:
> On 29/05/2011 8:21 PM,dlzcwrote:
> > On May 28, 11:24 am, Yousuf Khan<bbb...@spammenot.yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> >> Actually, this can now be tested, at the LHC. Put
> >> a Planck mass or greater worth material and crash
> >> it into as small a state as possible and see if a
> >> blackhole forms. Isn't that what all of those anti-LHC
> >> protesters were protesting about?
>
> > Planck mass has nothing to do with it
>
> Well no, it's Planck energy in this case, pretty much the
> same thing after you take E=mc^2 into account.
Still has nothing to do with it. Planck units are just a "bumper
sticker slogan", for which there is no consistent story.
> >>>>> When does the "viability" of Planck units break down?
> >>>>> When you start seeing quantum behaviors. Like
> >>>>> self-interference of C-60. That is pretty big.
>
> >>>> Explain what you're talking about here. What happens
> >>>> in C-60?
>
> >>> A collection of "billiard balls on little sticks", with
> >>> positions and size all really well known and understood,
> >>> passes through two separated slits at the same time.
>
> >> So how does this disprove Planck units?
>
> > Because the "granularity" is really of no finite size.
> > If we can measure precisely enough, a stream of
> > automobiles likely diffracts.
>
> I'm not getting you. The Planck scale would be orders
> of magnitude below the scale of these molecules, they
> would be about as small compared to these molecules,
> as these molecules are in comparison to the galaxy. So
> obviously we haven't seen a granularity yet.
Yes, we have seen "granularity" at this "galaxy" granularity. The
breakdown of continuum exists at whatever scale you can measure
precisely enough. So Planck units are a waste of your effort to
pursue sense in them. That we can model macroscopic systems as
continuous (or discrete) is just a selection of crutches or tools for
a specific application.
> >>>> Very simple question to clarify your position: do you
> >>>> believe space is continuous or granular?
>
> >>> Space is persistent illusion, entirely without existence
> >>> when discounting the population of the Universe... say
> >>> in quantum experiments. So it is really close to
> >>> continuous with the full population voting (macroscopic
> >>> scale experiments), and non-existent outside that scale.
>
> >> So shall I put you down for "Space is continuous"?
>
> > You can put me down for "neither".
>
> Come on, we're at war here, pick a side. :)
Your weapons have no effect on me. The side I pick is "if it is
illusion, then it is Really neither discrete nor continuous, only
illusion".
> >> Sure the equations for QM work if space is continous
> >> rather than granular,
>
> > No, QM simply does not care about spacetime. They
> > are mutually transparent.
>
> The background vacuum energy is 120 orders of magnitude
> too high in a continuous space vs. a granular space.
Citation? "Background vacuum energy" is just showing us that there is
fundamentally no separation between us and the stars (or the vacuum of
space).
> Dark Energy if created by vacuum energy by quantum
> fluctuations, would be too large if it weren't for granularity.
Dark Energy is *no* energy, since gravitation is not a force. So
again you waste effort buying into another bumper sticker.
David A. Smith
herbert glazier
> On 5/26/11 7:06 PM, Yousuf Khan wrote:
>
> > BBC News - Electron particle's shape revealed
> > "So physicists have tried to build on this model. One framework to
> > explain physics beyond the Standard Model is known as supersymmetry.
>
> > However, this theory predicts that the electron has a more distorted
> > shape than that suggested by the Standard Model. According to this idea,
> > the particle could be egg-shaped.
> > Experimental set-up used to measure electron The researchers used lasers
> > to measure the shape of the electron
>
> > Researchers stress that the new observation does not rule out
> > super-symmetry. But it does not support the theory, according to Dr
> > Hudson. "
> >http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-13545453
>
>
> A 10-year study has revealed that the electron is very spherical indeed.
>
> To be precise, the electron differs from being perfectly round by less
> than 0.000000000000000000000000001 cm. To put that in context; if an
> electron was the size of the solar system, it would be out from being
> perfectly round by less than the width of a human hair.
Sam even withthe electron spinning at c it does not bulge. Fact is my
"Spin is in theory" dictates this. Its c spin gives it great
inertia,and inertia and gravity are two sides to the same coin. Get
the picture TreBert
herbert glazier
> On 5/27/2011 12:09 PM, Sam Wormley wrote:
>
> > On 5/27/11 10:56 AM, Yousuf Khan wrote:
> >> You don't agree that the Planck scale is lowest scale possible?
>
> >> Yousuf Khan
>
> > How would you test that hypothesis?
>
> I thought it's already been tested out with the introduction of Quantum
> Mechanics?
>
> I mean there's been several indirect proofs of it, such as the
> background vacuum energy level being finite rather than infinite. That
> wouldn't be the case if space wasn't granular.
>
> Yousuf Khan
Space granular Hmmmm Please explain TreBert
Y.Porat
>
> I myself was under the impression that the Planck scale was to
> represent the measure of the smallest and most basic building blocks
> of the universe and that they converged around a naturally occurring
> unite. Quantum gravity is also predicted to be hiding here where the
> “Schwartzchild Radius”, converges with the “Compton Wavelength” or the
> “Reduced Compton Wavelength”, which is the radius of the larger
> “Compton Wavelength”.
> Well, this is it. The electron can be considered a Black Hole in the
at that point
i dont think so-- you went too far away !!
indeed the Planck dimensions can give us the smallest particle size
but not the electron size !
the elctron is much bigger then Planck sizes
i would say that
it shows (just another indication among others )that the electron is
sub COMPOSED !
of much smaller physical entities !!
ATB
Y.Porat
------------------------------------------
Michael J. Strickland
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Michael J. Strickland
Quality Services qualitys...@verizon.net
703-560-7380
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
"Poutnik" <m...@privacy.invalid> wrote in message news:MPG.284e287d...@news.felk.cvut.cz...
> In article <b45f69dd-0bd1-482a-acb5-
> d4235d...@bl1g2000vbb.googlegroups.com>, cjcou...@yahoo.com says...
>>
>> http://gsjournal.net/science/countess.pdf
>>
>>
>> Scientists in Sweden, film moving electron for the first time. It
>> resembles an elongated standing spherical wave, rotating about two
>> axis
Doesn't rotation about 2 axes resolve into a rotation about a third, different axis?
--
Mike
...
Yousuf Khan
Simple, according to the Standard Model of quantum mechanics, Space is
not infinitely divisible, like we would expect. The smallest unit of
space is the Planck Length (1.6 x 10^-35 meters), and likewise the
smallest unit of time is the Planck Time (5.4 x 10^-44 seconds).
It's basically like as if space and time were made of their own atomic
units (i.e. quanta).
Yousuf Khan
Poutnik
@verizon.net says...
You are quoting in rather weird way,
none of the text above is mine.
--
Poutnik
ben6993
Energy is quantised but there is no smallest amount of energy. I
doubt it can be as simple as you claim for length and time.
Assuming that you are correct: if a point particle can only travel
from one Planck length of space to the next in one Planck length of
time, that would imply travel at speed c. That would make any point
particle with a rest mass, eg the electron, have infinite mass due to
its speed c. To avoid this, it would mean that all point particles
with mass really need instead to be aggregates of other point
particles without rest mass.
herbert glazier
> On 5/27/11 10:56 AM, Yousuf Khan wrote:
>
>
>
> >> Dear Yousuf Khan:
>
> >>> On 26/05/2011 8:37 PM, Eric Gisse wrote:
>
> >>>> I really dislike how the writing suggests the electron
> >>>> has a definitive size.
>
> >>> Well every particle in the universe does have a definitive
> >>> lower-bounds size, which is the Planck Length.
>
> >> Which says nothing about the particle or its size, but the Universe it
> >> is embedded in.
>
> >> Or that the idiot that thinks that Planck units were a meaningful
> >> exercise in the first place, knew nothing about dimensional analysis.
>
> >> David A. Smith
>
> > You don't agree that the Planck scale is lowest scale possible?
>
> > Yousuf Khan
>
> How would you test that hypothesis?
Sam the quantum realm has supersymmetry,and even with the electrons
spinning at c they are very close to a perfect sphere. In macro realm
the Earth spins rather slow (1030 mph) and it is 13 miles out of
round. Get the picture TreBert
Yousuf Khan
> Dear Yousuf Khan:
>
> On May 30, 3:09 pm, Yousuf Khan<bbb...@spammenot.yahoo.com> wrote:
>> On 29/05/2011 8:21 PM,dlzcwrote:
>>> On May 28, 11:24 am, Yousuf Khan<bbb...@spammenot.yahoo.com> wrote:
>>
>>>> Actually, this can now be tested, at the LHC. Put
>>>> a Planck mass or greater worth material and crash
>>>> it into as small a state as possible and see if a
>>>> blackhole forms. Isn't that what all of those anti-LHC
>>>> protesters were protesting about?
>>
>>> Planck mass has nothing to do with it
>>
>> Well no, it's Planck energy in this case, pretty much the
>> same thing after you take E=mc^2 into account.
>
> Still has nothing to do with it. Planck units are just a "bumper
> sticker slogan", for which there is no consistent story.
Don't know what you want to hear, I just explained to you why Planck
energy and mass are so large, while Planck length and time are so small.
You rejected all of the explanations with no explanation of your own.
>> I'm not getting you. The Planck scale would be orders
>> of magnitude below the scale of these molecules, they
>> would be about as small compared to these molecules,
>> as these molecules are in comparison to the galaxy. So
>> obviously we haven't seen a granularity yet.
>
> Yes, we have seen "granularity" at this "galaxy" granularity. The
> breakdown of continuum exists at whatever scale you can measure
> precisely enough. So Planck units are a waste of your effort to
> pursue sense in them. That we can model macroscopic systems as
> continuous (or discrete) is just a selection of crutches or tools for
> a specific application.
You were the one asking why we don't see this granularity at work when
doing tests on atoms and molecules, and I gave the answer, the
granularity is way too small to be visible at these levels.
>>>>>> Very simple question to clarify your position: do you
>>>>>> believe space is continuous or granular?
>>
>>>>> Space is persistent illusion, entirely without existence
>>>>> when discounting the population of the Universe... say
>>>>> in quantum experiments. So it is really close to
>>>>> continuous with the full population voting (macroscopic
>>>>> scale experiments), and non-existent outside that scale.
>>
>>>> So shall I put you down for "Space is continuous"?
>>
>>> You can put me down for "neither".
>>
>> Come on, we're at war here, pick a side. :)
>
> Your weapons have no effect on me. The side I pick is "if it is
> illusion, then it is Really neither discrete nor continuous, only
> illusion".
Not an answer, so it still seems like you prefer a continuous space.
>>>> Sure the equations for QM work if space is continous
>>>> rather than granular,
>>
>>> No, QM simply does not care about spacetime. They
>>> are mutually transparent.
>>
>> The background vacuum energy is 120 orders of magnitude
>> too high in a continuous space vs. a granular space.
>
> Citation? "Background vacuum energy" is just showing us that there is
> fundamentally no separation between us and the stars (or the vacuum of
> space).
This is one of many theories about the wide difference between the
background vacuum energy vs. the cosmological constant.
Solving the cosmological constant problems — Atra Materia
"Physically speaking, the cosmological constant is equivalent to vacuum
energy, an underlying background energy that exists in space even when
this one is devoid of matter. Unfortunately, there is no known natural
way to derive the cosmological constant used in cosmology from particle
physics: the cosmological constant predicted by quantum field theories
is 1060 to 10120 times bigger than observed. This is the cosmological
constant problem."
http://atramateria.com/solving-the-cosmological-constant-problems/
>> Dark Energy if created by vacuum energy by quantum
>> fluctuations, would be too large if it weren't for granularity.
>
> Dark Energy is *no* energy, since gravitation is not a force. So
> again you waste effort buying into another bumper sticker.
You would need an energy to overcome gravity whether or not gravity
itself is an energy.
Yousuf Khan
dlzc
On Jun 5, 2:36 pm, Yousuf Khan <bbb...@spammenot.yahoo.com> wrote:
> On 31/05/2011 10:08 AM,dlzcwrote:
> > On May 30, 3:09 pm, Yousuf Khan<bbb...@spammenot.yahoo.com> wrote:
> >> On 29/05/2011 8:21 PM,dlzcwrote:
> >>> On May 28, 11:24 am, Yousuf Khan<bbb...@spammenot.yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> >>>> Actually, this can now be tested, at the LHC. Put
> >>>> a Planck mass or greater worth material and crash
> >>>> it into as small a state as possible and see if a
> >>>> blackhole forms. Isn't that what all of those anti-LHC
> >>>> protesters were protesting about?
>
> >>> Planck mass has nothing to do with it
>
> >> Well no, it's Planck energy in this case, pretty
> >> much the same thing after you take E=mc^2 into
> >> account.
>
> > Still has nothing to do with it. Planck units are just
> > a "bumper sticker slogan", for which there is no
> > consistent story.
>
> Don't know what you want to hear, I just explained to
> you why Planck energy and mass are so large, while
> Planck length and time are so small.
No, you explained "they have to be", without getting into the
physics. Electrons are point particles with mass. Therefore
according to "Planck units numerology", they must be black holes.
> You rejected all of the explanations with no
> explanation of your own.
You have offered the words of others, as highlights, which is all was
presented to you. You bought their drivel... hook, line, and sinker.
Its not your fault, everone gets taken in by snake oil salesmen from
time-to-time.
Please understand I am not attacking you, just the infection in your
consciousness that has started to grow in support of this goofy
construct.
> >> I'm not getting you. The Planck scale would be
> >> orders of magnitude below the scale of these
> >> molecules, they would be about as small compared
> >> to these molecules, as these molecules are in
> >> comparison to the galaxy. So obviously we haven't
> >> seen a granularity yet.
>
> > Yes, we have seen "granularity" at this "galaxy"
> > granularity. The breakdown of continuum exists at
> > whatever scale you can measure precisely enough.
> > So Planck units are a waste of your effort to pursue
> > sense in them. That we can model macroscopic
> > systems as continuous (or discrete) is just a selection
> > of crutches or tools for a specific application.
>
> You were the one asking why we don't see this
> granularity at work when doing tests on atoms and
> molecules, and I gave the answer, the granularity is
> way too small to be visible at these levels.
We DO see the granlarity at these scales. This means Planck units are
meaningless. Can't you understand that?
> >>>>>> Very simple question to clarify your position: do you
> >>>>>> believe space is continuous or granular?
>
> >>>>> Space is persistent illusion, entirely without existence
> >>>>> when discounting the population of the Universe... say
> >>>>> in quantum experiments. So it is really close to
> >>>>> continuous with the full population voting (macroscopic
> >>>>> scale experiments), and non-existent outside that scale.
>
> >>>> So shall I put you down for "Space is continuous"?
>
> >>> You can put me down for "neither".
>
> >> Come on, we're at war here, pick a side. :)
>
> > Your weapons have no effect on me. The side I pick
> > is "if it is illusion, then it is Really neither discrete nor
> > continuous, only illusion".
>
> Not an answer, so it still seems like you prefer a
> continuous space.
Sorry, no. I still vote "neither". But the tool you use, is the tool
that makes the most sense for the problem. For some problems, you use
a hammer (discrete), for others a steam roller (continuous). Either
way, you are putting the Man down. ;>)
> >>>> Sure the equations for QM work if space is continous
> >>>> rather than granular,
>
> >>> No, QM simply does not care about spacetime. They
> >>> are mutually transparent.
>
> >> The background vacuum energy is 120 orders of
> >> magnitude too high in a continuous space vs. a
> >> granular space.
>
> > Citation? "Background vacuum energy" is just showing
> > us that there is fundamentally no separation between
> > us and the stars (or the vacuum of space).
>
> This is one of many theories about the wide difference
> between the background vacuum energy vs. the
> cosmological constant.
If gravitation is not a force, then it takes no energy to overcome
it. Therefore vaccum energy better net to zero.
> Solving the cosmological constant problems —
> Atra Materia "Physically speaking, the cosmological
> constant is equivalent to vacuum energy, an
> underlying background energy that exists in space
> even when this one is devoid of matter. Unfortunately,
> there is no known natural way to derive the
> cosmological constant used in cosmology from particle
> physics: the cosmological constant predicted by
> quantum field theories is 1060 to 10120 times bigger
> than observed. This is the cosmological constant
> problem."
http://atramateria.com/solving-the-cosmological-constant-problems/
>
> >> Dark Energy if created by vacuum energy by
> >> quantum fluctuations, would be too large if it
> >> weren't for granularity.
>
> > Dark Energy is *no* energy, since gravitation is
> > not a force. So again you waste effort buying into
> > another bumper sticker.
>
> You would need an energy to overcome gravity
> whether or not gravity itself is an energy.
No, you don't. Just speed up the clock, and superclusters are no
longer "bound" at current scales. No energy required, just a
"relaxation of global curvature" (aka. Universal expansion). Further
relaxation "unbinds" one galaxy from another, clusters from their
parent galaxies, and so on.
David A. Smith
Y.Porat
----------------------
Gravitation is not a force ??
i wish that the ceiling above your shithead
will fall on your pigshit gangster brain and blow it to shit
were it belongs
and then will will tell us if
'GRAVITATION IS NOT A FORCE ''
a walking damage shameless pig
against some advance in science !!!
i hereby call other honest cleaver people
to put that parrot idiot pig in his right place
Y.P
------------------------------------------------
dlzc
On Jun 8, 12:05 am, "Y.Porat" <y.y.po...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Jun 7, 9:36 pm,dlzc<dl...@cox.net> wrote:
...
> > > This is one of many theories about the wide difference
> > > between the background vacuum energy vs. the
> > > cosmological constant.
>
> > If gravitation is not a force, then it takes no energy
> > to overcome it. Therefore vaccum energy better net to
> > zero.
...
> ----------------------
> Gravitation is not a force ??
Banana head, can you not read and comprehend a simple two letter
word? The leading word is "if". Look again. See it? If gravitation
is not a force, then energy is not required to overcome it.
Correct me if I am wrong here.
And no, I do not think that gravitation is a force, and the claim is
falsifiable. Now you can bitch and moan...
> i wish that the ceiling above your shithead
> will fall on your pigshit gangster brain
> and blow it to shit were it belongs
> and then will will tell us if
> 'GRAVITATION IS NOT A FORCE ''
>
> a walking damage shameless pig
> against some advance in science !!!
>
> i hereby call other honest cleaver people
> to put that parrot idiot pig in his right
> place
Ceiling is still there. Apparently Nature does not care for your
opinion either.
David A. Smith
Y.Porat
-----------------
if you still claame that
gravitation is not a force
then i re repeat exactly as a did above
reading correct or not correct--
i can smell an imbecile from thousands of miles
YOU ARE AN INCURABLE IMBECILE !!
AN UNBELIEVABLE RETARDED SHIT HEAD
i suggest that yopu will fall from a skyscraper
bang you shit head on the concrete
and then the shitted head of yous
will tell us
if you got the momentumj impact on your shithead
and mind you imbecile
Momentum is
dF/dt
do you know what is F there ?? idiot
so go fuck yourself with your imbecile mathematicians
thought even they know what is dF /DT !!!
with all the respect that you dont deserve (:-)
Y.Porat
---------------------
BTW
did you ever see basketball players
bouncing the ball on the Parke t ??
or if bouncing and then stopping touching it
does it keep on bouncing
anyway
my time is too precious to discuss with a
born imbecile
and another BTW
do you know what is worse than an imbecile ??
it is a tedious diligent imbecile ..
=====================================
--------------------
---------------------------
dlzc
On Jun 8, 8:51 am, "Y.Porat" <y.y.po...@gmail.com> wrote:
...
> if you still claame that
> gravitation is not a force
> then i re repeat exactly as a did above
> reading correct or not correct--
> i can smell an imbecile from thousands of miles
Then you must accept that "vacuum energy" is actually accelerating
expansion, and overcoming the force of gravity. A force that is
attractive at small scale, suddenly changes sign at large scale.
You are the one that is blindly supporting "Rube Goldberg cosmology".
The imbecile you smell is yourself.
Over and out. You and I will never see eye to eye. So the last words
can be yours.
David A. Smith
Y.Porat
> Dear Y.Porat:
>
> On Jun 8, 8:51 am, "Y.Porat" <y.y.po...@gmail.com> wrote:
> ...
>
> > if you still claame that
> > gravitation is not a force
> > then i re repeat exactly as a did above
> > reading correct or not correct--
> > i can smell an imbecile from thousands of miles
>
> Then you must accept that "vacuum energy" is actually accelerating
> expansion, and overcoming the force of gravity. A force that is
> attractive at small scale, suddenly changes sign at large scale.
crooky
you said just before that gravity is not a force
now you say
'gravity A force that is attractive
AT SMALL SCALE
so idiot crook make up your mind
small scale or big scale does not change the physical principle
are you brave enough to admit your mistake ??
i wonder
actually i dont wonder
a dishonest person remains always dishonest
so please
done call yourself a scientist
better be a lawyer
ATB
Y.Porat
-------------------------------
dlzc
Let me clarify...
"Vacuum energy" is what provides the Casimir force. The Casimir force
is most commonly attractive, at a scale of 1/r^4.
I was not referring to gravity. I thought you were capable of
cooperating in understanding, whether or not you needed some prodding
so you can be abusive yet again.
Also, not that I expect anything but more personal attacks and abuse
from you, do you feel that "Planck units" hold any inherent window
into how Nature works?
David A. Smith
Yousuf Khan
> On Jun 2, 9:33 pm, Yousuf Khan<bbb...@spammenot.yahoo.com> wrote:
>> On 31/05/2011 11:28 PM, herbert glazier wrote:
>>
>>> On May 27, 8:43 pm, Yousuf Khan<bbb...@spammenot.yahoo.com> wrote:
>>>> I mean there's been several indirect proofs of it, such as the
>>>> background vacuum energy level being finite rather than infinite. That
>>>> wouldn't be the case if space wasn't granular.
>>
>>>> Yousuf Khan
>>
>>> Space granular Hmmmm Please explain TreBert
>>
>> Simple, according to the Standard Model of quantum mechanics, Space is
>> not infinitely divisible, like we would expect. The smallest unit of
>> space is the Planck Length (1.6 x 10^-35 meters), and likewise the
>> smallest unit of time is the Planck Time (5.4 x 10^-44 seconds).
>>
>> It's basically like as if space and time were made of their own atomic
>> units (i.e. quanta).
>>
>> Yousuf Khan
>
> Energy is quantised but there is no smallest amount of energy. I
> doubt it can be as simple as you claim for length and time.
There is also a Planck unit of energy, but it's not a very small unit,
it's actually quite a large unit. It corresponds with the minimal amount
of energy needed to created the smallest blackhole possible, i.e. a
blackhole that has a diameter of 1 Planck Length.
> Assuming that you are correct: if a point particle can only travel
> from one Planck length of space to the next in one Planck length of
> time, that would imply travel at speed c. That would make any point
> particle with a rest mass, eg the electron, have infinite mass due to
> its speed c. To avoid this, it would mean that all point particles
> with mass really need instead to be aggregates of other point
> particles without rest mass.
No, a particle can only travel from one Planck Length to the next Planck
Length at a *maximum* speed of 1 Planck Time, however it can also travel
that distance much slower. Like for example travelling 1 Planck Length
in 2 Planck Times, or 3 Planck Times, or whatever.
Yousuf Khan
ben6993
>
> - Show quoted text -
That interpretation seems reasonable as it removes the idea of a
smallest possible time or length interval. For example, if a particle
travels one planck length in two planck times, where is the particle
after one planck time? Presumably it is one half of the way along the
planck length? I thought you would classify that as ruled out? If,
however, it stays where it is for one planck second, and then moves
one planck length in the following planck second, it is moving at c.
Yousuf Khan
> On Jun 5, 2:36 pm, Yousuf Khan<bbb...@spammenot.yahoo.com> wrote:
>> Don't know what you want to hear, I just explained to
>> you why Planck energy and mass are so large, while
>> Planck length and time are so small.
>
> No, you explained "they have to be", without getting into the
> physics. Electrons are point particles with mass. Therefore
> according to "Planck units numerology", they must be black holes.
Only if the electron has the mass of 1 Planck Mass, or alternatively the
energy of 1 Planck Energy. Otherwise it's no blackhole.
> You have offered the words of others, as highlights, which is all was
> presented to you. You bought their drivel... hook, line, and sinker.
> Its not your fault, everone gets taken in by snake oil salesmen from
> time-to-time.
>
> Please understand I am not attacking you, just the infection in your
> consciousness that has started to grow in support of this goofy
> construct.
I have no problem buying into a granular space-time theory. It makes
some sense in order to square GTR with QM. Plus, I think it's absolutely
needed to explain those theories with the Universe as a giant quantum
computer. And so far, I haven't seen anything that contradicts a
granular universe, since the granularity is so small it looks basically
continuous.
>> You were the one asking why we don't see this
>> granularity at work when doing tests on atoms and
>> molecules, and I gave the answer, the granularity is
>> way too small to be visible at these levels.
>
> We DO see the granlarity at these scales. This means Planck units are
> meaningless. Can't you understand that?
Where do we see this granularity at the atomic scales? As I said the
Planck scale is as many orders of magnitude below the atomic scale as
the atomic scale is below the galactic scale. What examples of the
granularity showing up do you have?
>> Not an answer, so it still seems like you prefer a
>> continuous space.
>
> Sorry, no. I still vote "neither". But the tool you use, is the tool
> that makes the most sense for the problem. For some problems, you use
> a hammer (discrete), for others a steam roller (continuous). Either
> way, you are putting the Man down. ;>)
Either you're not sure what you're talking about and you're taking both
sides of the fence, just in case, or you're not sure how to explain
yourself.
> If gravitation is not a force, then it takes no energy to overcome
> it. Therefore vaccum energy better net to zero.
There is a theory that gravitation is like entropy, it distributes
existing energy over a wide area. It acts like negative energy,
requiring positive energy to overcome it.
> No, you don't. Just speed up the clock, and superclusters are no
> longer "bound" at current scales. No energy required, just a
> "relaxation of global curvature" (aka. Universal expansion). Further
> relaxation "unbinds" one galaxy from another, clusters from their
> parent galaxies, and so on.
It takes energy to "relax" the curvatures as well.
Yousuf Khan
Sam Wormley
> Then you must accept that "vacuum energy" is actually accelerating
> expansion, and overcoming the force of gravity. A force that is
> attractive at small scale, suddenly changes sign at large scale.
I suspect that the dark energy has been with us from the beginning
but is too small to notice except on intergalactic scales. More data
of expansion rate versus distance should eventually confirm or
contradict whether the dark energy is a constant (or not) across space
and time.
-Sam (who appreciates much of your posts, David)
dlzc
On Jun 8, 2:24 pm, Yousuf Khan <bbb...@spammenot.yahoo.com> wrote:
> On 07/06/2011 3:36 PM, dlzc wrote:
>
> > On Jun 5, 2:36 pm, Yousuf Khan<bbb...@spammenot.yahoo.com> wrote:
> >> Don't know what you want to hear, I just explained to
> >> you why Planck energy and mass are so large, while
> >> Planck length and time are so small.
>
> > No, you explained "they have to be", without getting into the
> > physics. Electrons are point particles with mass. Therefore
> > according to "Planck units numerology", they must be black holes.
>
> Only if the electron has the mass of 1 Planck Mass, or
> alternatively the energy of 1 Planck Energy. Otherwise it's
> no blackhole.
Classical theory does not support you in your assertion. What
*theory* supports you? Seriously, do you have a link?
> > You have offered the words of others, as highlights, which
> > is all was presented to you. You bought their drivel... hook,
> > line, and sinker. Its not your fault, everone gets taken in by
> > snake oil salesmen from time-to-time.
>
> > Please understand I am not attacking you, just the infection
> > in your consciousness that has started to grow in support
> > of this goofy construct.
>
> I have no problem buying into a granular space-time theory.
Obviously.
> It makes some sense in order to square GTR with QM.
GTR and QM are already square without it. GTR swallows QM whole, and
QM simply talks about a different kind of solution space.
> Plus, I think it's absolutely needed to explain those theories
> with the Universe as a giant quantum computer.
If there is fundamentally no separation, spacetime is entirely
illusion, it is also handled that way.
> And so far, I haven't seen anything that contradicts a
> granular universe, since the granularity is so small it
> looks basically continuous.
The necessary quantum granularity shows up in scales as large as large
molecules. So Planck units fail to predict that.
> >> You were the one asking why we don't see this
> >> granularity at work when doing tests on atoms and
> >> molecules, and I gave the answer, the granularity is
> >> way too small to be visible at these levels.
>
> > We DO see the granlarity at these scales. This means
> > Planck units are meaningless. Can't you understand
> > that?
>
> Where do we see this granularity at the atomic scales?
Example cited three times in this thread now.
> As I said the Planck scale is as many orders of magnitude
> below the atomic scale as the atomic scale is below the
> galactic scale. What examples of the granularity showing
> up do you have?
Self-interference of C-60 buckyballs, and larger. Particles
diffracting at slits, but travelling for a duration source-to-
detector, not source-to-slit-to-detector. The breakdown occurs when
you can measure carefully enough for that scale.
> >> Not an answer, so it still seems like you prefer a
> >> continuous space.
>
> > Sorry, no. I still vote "neither". But the tool you use, is
> > the tool that makes the most sense for the problem. For
> > some problems, you use a hammer (discrete), for others
> > a steam roller (continuous). Either way, you are putting
> > the Man down. ;>)
>
> Either you're not sure what you're talking about and you're
> taking both sides of the fence, just in case, or you're not
> sure how to explain yourself.
I can't seem to get you to read what I write. So I guess I just have
to give up. At the scale of very large molecules, the continuity of
spacetime is shown to be measureably incorrect. Planck units do not
predict this. Planck units are failed "dimensional analysis".
> > If gravitation is not a force, then it takes no energy to
> > overcome it. Therefore vaccum energy better net to zero.
>
> There is a theory that gravitation is like entropy, it distributes
> existing energy over a wide area. It acts like negative energy,
> requiring positive energy to overcome it.
Which says nothing helpful here. GTR expands the Universe without the
cosmological constant. With the correct choice of cosmological
constant, we can get the particular rate of expansion we see for any
given "now" (even stagnation, or collapse). In GTR, gravitation is
not a force, and expansion occurs without any energy / force applied.
Any contribution of vacuum energy must be zero, or the cosmological
constant is wrong. I'm OK with that, but when vacuum energy rears its
head as a 1/4^4 attractive force, and suddenly is responsible for
driving things apart at very large scales... "Planck units" is just a
really bad joke.
> > No, you don't. Just speed up the clock, and superclusters
> > are no longer "bound" at current scales. No energy required,
> > just a "relaxation of global curvature" (aka. Universal
> > expansion). Further relaxation "unbinds" one galaxy from
> > another, clusters from their parent galaxies, and so on.
>
> It takes energy to "relax" the curvatures as well.
Nope. It is hand-in-glove with more space with the same mass /
energy, yielding a decrease in density, and faster clocks globally.
As to which end of that circular logic is the beginning, is not for
someone as dumb as me to know. And if you don't like it, you'd better
resurrect Einstein and slap *him*.
David A. Smith
dlzc
On Jun 8, 2:57 pm, Sam Wormley <sworml...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On 6/8/11 11:58 AM, dlzc wrote:
>
> > Then you must accept that "vacuum energy" is actually
> > accelerating expansion, and overcoming the force of
> > gravity. A force that is attractive at small scale, suddenly
> > changes sign at large scale.
>
> I suspect that the dark energy has been with us from
> the beginning but is too small to notice except on
> intergalactic scales.
Like water to a fish, it may be entirely pervasive, and incorporated
in G in some fashion. For that matter, what the heck is G comprised
of anyway?
> More data of expansion rate versus distance should
> eventually confirm or contradict whether the dark energy
> is a constant (or not) across space and time.
If it is a linear function of spacetime, then it must be constant. If
it is a function of the contents of the Universe, it must decrease
with expansion. When they have looked, they have decided that it must
be constant. Which means if it is energy, and it increases to
populate all the "new space", then the Universe is not a closed
system. There are problems with vacuum energy everywhere I look.
> -Sam (who appreciates much of your posts, David)
Don't let Mr. Porat's current burst of "Tourette's syndrome" get you
down. I don't. He is occasionally lucid, and I suspect his support
of my position on Planck units being meaningful will do me more harm
than good, but there you go. Omelettes require broken eggshells, and
heat (and cheese, butter, some spinach maybe...). And one viewpoint
on any topic as broad as cosmology is inherently wrong. So he needs
to speak, and I encourage it. Once we get past his current hurt,
maybe a new viewpoint that does not involve circlons will emerge.
;>)
David A. Smith
Y.Porat
------------------
it is recorded just above
black on white
that you said that
Gravity is not a force !!
if you made a mistake and admit it then as an honest SERIOUS person
jst admit that you di da mistake
you are not dealing here with little children that you can
twist your documented remarks
(btw even that idiocy is not your inventio0n
i heard it as lot from a lot of idiot mathematicians
it dint occure to them waht i tought you that
Gravity makes Momentum
as such it is a force
so
as an honest man that whant to be respected
just admit that I thought you
that Gravity is a force !!
btw as a structural Engineer that designed more then 60 bridges
to tell him that Gravity is not a force=
it is not even a bad joke !!!
now i showed you with your mathematical
language that since
momnetum is dF /Dt
Gravity iss a force
so why not thank me
as an honest man for that little lesson
mind you
believe it or not
you can ghet from me some more
little lessons on pioneering physics
so
just a minimal respect for an old Goat !!
(he is not a litel child that you can twist his head
on your little finger !!
and not even pose for other readers that
you know better then me the basics of physics and even something more
that no one ever did before ...)
now about your quastion about Plank units
i dont know if you flowed me al along time
a few years before
imho i did an historic breakthrough by using Plank time as a new
possoble innovation that
E=hf
is not the right formula for the real 'single phootn
because Hf is ONE SECOND DEPENDED
and i claimes
photons di dnt hear about our one second
nore about our one day scale time
OTHA
plank time that is coming out of PlaNKS
historic break through
E=hf
(that BTW was discovered 5 years before
SR !! and it is very meaningful those 5 years before !!)
so Plank time is based on this great photon energy formula
and as such it is baed on experimental data !!
so i think that Plank time and units
are the closest to real mother nature !!!
2
now i used that plank time
to formulate
MY real ''single photon'' (enery for example
to be
hf times scalar figure of Planck time
which makes believe it or not -a a revolution in modern physics !!
ATB
Y.Porat
----------------------------------------------
Yousuf Khan
> That interpretation seems reasonable as it removes the idea of a
> smallest possible time or length interval. For example, if a particle
> travels one planck length in two planck times, where is the particle
> after one planck time? Presumably it is one half of the way along the
> planck length? I thought you would classify that as ruled out? If,
> however, it stays where it is for one planck second, and then moves
> one planck length in the following planck second, it is moving at c.
It's not that difficult, it just stays at one Planck Length position for
more than the one Planck Time unit. It may stay at Planck point A for
two Planck time units before moving to point B. Of course, at such small
scales, the objects own internal vibrations will be moving it between
Planck points.
Yousuf Khan
ben6993
Sounds reasonable, except that you did not explicitly comment on
whether a point particle can move half a planck length in one planck
time. In that case it would not need to travel at speed c. I still
think that your viewpoint requires a point particle to travel one
planck length in one planck time (and hence travel at speed c)?
herbert glazier
> Yousuf Khan <bbb...@spammenot.yahoo.com> wrote in news:4ddfc99e$1
> @news.bnb-lp.com:
>
>
>
> > On 27/05/2011 9:53 AM, dlzc wrote:
> >> Dear Yousuf Khan:
>
> >>> On 26/05/2011 8:37 PM, Eric Gisse wrote:
>
> >>>> I really dislike how the writing suggests the electron
> >>>> has a definitive size.
>
> >>> Well every particle in the universe does have a definitive
> >>> lower-bounds size, which is the Planck Length.
>
> >> Which says nothing about the particle or its size, but the Universe it
> >> is embedded in.
>
> >> Or that the idiot that thinks that Planck units were a meaningful
> >> exercise in the first place, knew nothing about dimensional analysis.
>
> >> David A. Smith
>
> > You don't agree that the Planck scale is lowest scale possible?
>
> > Yousuf Khan
>
> numerology, even though our theories have not been tested beyond the ~TeV
> energy scale.
Every measurement is an aproximation. Some are 20% off. Universe is
even off with math.