Re: Electron shape found to be perfectly spherical, disagrees with SUSY predictions
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
>
> http://www.wired.com/wiredscience/2011/05/electrons-are-near-perfect-...
>
> 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
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
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
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
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
> Hudson. "http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-13545453
----------------------
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
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
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
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
...
Poutnik
@verizon.net says...
You are quoting in rather weird way,
none of the text above is mine.
--
Poutnik
Y.Porat
> Dear Yousuf Khan:
>
> 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
----------------------
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
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, 2:57 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
----------------------------------------------