A definition of mass, as found in Google:
"Mass is a measurement of the amount of matter or substance in an
object.
It's the total amount of protons, neutrons, and electrons in an object."
A definition of mass, as found in Google:
"Mass is a measurement of the amount of matter or substance in an
object.
It's the total amount of protons, neutrons, and electrons in an object."
It's "accepted" since the 60s that protons and neutrons are not
elementary particles anymore. As stated in the Standard Model of
Elementary Particles, protons and neutrons are composed of quarks, with different flavors.
https://www.quantumdiaries.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/03/2000px-Standard_Model_of_Elementary_Particles.svg_.jpg
But electrons are thought as elementary particles, so they can't be
formed by a collection of other elementary particles. Even quarks are currently thought as working together with elementary gluons (QCD, Gauge Bossons).
So, what is THE MATTER that electrons contain?
This is one of many FAILS of the current SMEP.
Is that the electron's mass is composed of unknown matter? Maybe of electromagnetic nature?
After all, modern civilization is based on what electrons can do, isn't
it?
THEY KNOW NOTHING, AS IN RELATIVISM!.
A definition of mass, as found in Google:
"Mass is a measurement of the amount of matter or substance in an
object.
It's the total amount of protons, neutrons, and electrons in an object."
It's "accepted" since the 60s that protons and neutrons are not
elementary particles anymore. As stated in the Standard Model of
Elementary Particles, protons and neutrons are composed of quarks, with different flavors.
https://www.quantumdiaries.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/03/2000px- Standard_Model_of_Elementary_Particles.svg_.jpg
But electrons are thought as elementary particles, so they can't be
formed by a collection of other elementary particles. Even quarks are currently thought as working together with elementary gluons (QCD, Gauge Bossons).
So, what is THE MATTER that electrons contain?
A definition of mass, as found in Google:
"Mass is a measurement of the amount of matter or substance in an
object.
It's the total amount of protons, neutrons, and electrons in an object."
On 02-Nov-24 2:13 am, rhertz wrote:
A definition of mass, as found in Google:
"Mass is a measurement of the amount of matter or substance in an
object.
It's the total amount of protons, neutrons, and electrons in an object."
It's "accepted" since the 60s that protons and neutrons are not
elementary particles anymore. As stated in the Standard Model of
Elementary Particles, protons and neutrons are composed of quarks, with different flavors.
https://www.quantumdiaries.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/03/2000px-Standard_Model_of_Elementary_Particles.svg_.jpg
But electrons are thought as elementary particles, so they can't be
formed by a collection of other elementary particles. Even quarks are currently thought as working together with elementary gluons (QCD, Gauge Bossons).
So, what is THE MATTER that electrons contain?
This is one of many FAILS of the current SMEP.
Is that the electron's mass is composed of unknown matter? Maybe of electromagnetic nature?
After all, modern civilization is based on what electrons can do, isn't
it?
THEY KNOW NOTHING, AS IN RELATIVISM!.
An expectation that everything can be explained in terms of other
smaller things results in an infinite regression. It's not a rabbit hole
one wants to descend into.
While one can hypothesise that the electron is not elementary, so far
there is nothing to suggest that it has an internal structure. Until and unless something comes along to indicate that it is not elementary, you
have nothing more than empty speculation.
Sylvia.
A definition of mass, as found in Google:
"Mass is a measurement of the amount of matter or substance in an
object.
It's the total amount of protons, neutrons, and electrons in an object."
It's "accepted" since the 60s that protons and neutrons are not
elementary particles anymore. As stated in the Standard Model of
Elementary Particles, protons and neutrons are composed of quarks, with different flavors.
<https://www.quantumdiaries.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/03/2000px-Standard_Model_of_Elementary_Particles.svg_.jpg>
But electrons are thought as elementary particles, so they can't be
formed by a collection of other elementary particles. Even quarks are currently thought as working together with elementary gluons (QCD, Gauge Bossons).
So, what is THE MATTER that electrons contain?
This is one of many FAILS of the current SMEP.
Is that the electron's mass is composed of unknown matter? Maybe of electromagnetic nature?
rhertz wrote:
A definition of mass, as found in Google:
"Mass is a measurement of the amount of matter or substance in an
object.
It's the total amount of protons, neutrons, and electrons in an object."
--------------------------------
More or less as per my school books of seventy yeass ago.
On 11/01/2024 11:13 AM, rhertz wrote:
A definition of mass, as found in Google:
"Mass is a measurement of the amount of matter or substance in an
object.
It's the total amount of protons, neutrons, and electrons in an object."
It's "accepted" since the 60s that protons and neutrons are not
elementary particles anymore. As stated in the Standard Model of
Elementary Particles, protons and neutrons are composed of quarks, with
different flavors.
https://www.quantumdiaries.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/03/2000px-
Standard_Model_of_Elementary_Particles.svg_.jpg
But electrons are thought as elementary particles, so they can't be
formed by a collection of other elementary particles. Even quarks are
currently thought as working together with elementary gluons (QCD, Gauge
Bossons).
So, what is THE MATTER that electrons contain?
This is one of many FAILS of the current SMEP.
Is that the electron's mass is composed of unknown matter? Maybe of
electromagnetic nature?
After all, modern civilization is based on what electrons can do, isn't
it?
THEY KNOW NOTHING, AS IN RELATIVISM!.
You got there a deconstructive, elementary account, into
what's called the trans-Planckian regime, from what's
called the Democritan regime, where Democritus or
Demokrites is who championed "atomism" the theory
while Aristotle or Aristoteles while outlining either
the "infinitely-divisible" or "infinitely-divided",
picked "not atomism because no vacuums", as with regards
to that electrons, protons, neutrons are elementary matter
while photon is still the usual particle in terms of
the quanta of energy, as to how energy is quantized,
at the atomic scale, or as with regards to Avogadro.
For some people, charge is primary, others, matter.
Sylvia Else wrote:
On 02-Nov-24 2:13 am, rhertz wrote:
A definition of mass, as found in Google:
"Mass is a measurement of the amount of matter or substance in an
object.
It's the total amount of protons, neutrons, and electrons in an object." >>>
It's "accepted" since the 60s that protons and neutrons are not
elementary particles anymore. As stated in the Standard Model of
Elementary Particles, protons and neutrons are composed of quarks, with
different flavors.
https://www.quantumdiaries.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/03/2000px-Standard_Model_of_Elementary_Particles.svg_.jpg
But electrons are thought as elementary particles, so they can't be
formed by a collection of other elementary particles. Even quarks are
currently thought as working together with elementary gluons (QCD, Gauge >>> Bossons).
So, what is THE MATTER that electrons contain?
This is one of many FAILS of the current SMEP.
Is that the electron's mass is composed of unknown matter? Maybe of
electromagnetic nature?
After all, modern civilization is based on what electrons can do, isn't
it?
THEY KNOW NOTHING, AS IN RELATIVISM!.
An expectation that everything can be explained in terms of other
smaller things results in an infinite regression. It's not a rabbit hole
one wants to descend into.
While one can hypothesise that the electron is not elementary, so far
there is nothing to suggest that it has an internal structure. Until and
unless something comes along to indicate that it is not elementary, you
have nothing more than empty speculation.
Sylvia.
Sylvia belongs to the lemmings generation. If 'somebody nameless' says the electron does not have mass...
then Sylvia THINKS the electron has no mass.
On 03-Nov-24 3:05 am, The Starmaker wrote:
Sylvia Else wrote:
On 02-Nov-24 2:13 am, rhertz wrote:
A definition of mass, as found in Google:
"Mass is a measurement of the amount of matter or substance in an
object.
It's the total amount of protons, neutrons, and electrons in an object." >>>
It's "accepted" since the 60s that protons and neutrons are not
elementary particles anymore. As stated in the Standard Model of
Elementary Particles, protons and neutrons are composed of quarks, with >>> different flavors.
https://www.quantumdiaries.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/03/2000px-Standard_Model_of_Elementary_Particles.svg_.jpg
But electrons are thought as elementary particles, so they can't be
formed by a collection of other elementary particles. Even quarks are
currently thought as working together with elementary gluons (QCD, Gauge >>> Bossons).
So, what is THE MATTER that electrons contain?
This is one of many FAILS of the current SMEP.
Is that the electron's mass is composed of unknown matter? Maybe of
electromagnetic nature?
After all, modern civilization is based on what electrons can do, isn't >>> it?
THEY KNOW NOTHING, AS IN RELATIVISM!.
An expectation that everything can be explained in terms of other
smaller things results in an infinite regression. It's not a rabbit hole >> one wants to descend into.
While one can hypothesise that the electron is not elementary, so far
there is nothing to suggest that it has an internal structure. Until and >> unless something comes along to indicate that it is not elementary, you
have nothing more than empty speculation.
Sylvia.
Sylvia belongs to the lemmings generation. If 'somebody nameless' says the electron does not have mass...
then Sylvia THINKS the electron has no mass.
Where did I so much as suggest that the electron has no mass?
Sylvia.
Sylvia Else wrote:
On 03-Nov-24 3:05 am, The Starmaker wrote:
Sylvia Else wrote:
On 02-Nov-24 2:13 am, rhertz wrote:
A definition of mass, as found in Google:
"Mass is a measurement of the amount of matter or substance in an
object.
It's the total amount of protons, neutrons, and electrons in an object." >>>>>
It's "accepted" since the 60s that protons and neutrons are not
elementary particles anymore. As stated in the Standard Model of
Elementary Particles, protons and neutrons are composed of quarks, with >>>>> different flavors.
https://www.quantumdiaries.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/03/2000px-Standard_Model_of_Elementary_Particles.svg_.jpg
But electrons are thought as elementary particles, so they can't be
formed by a collection of other elementary particles. Even quarks are >>>>> currently thought as working together with elementary gluons (QCD, Gauge >>>>> Bossons).
So, what is THE MATTER that electrons contain?
This is one of many FAILS of the current SMEP.
Is that the electron's mass is composed of unknown matter? Maybe of
electromagnetic nature?
After all, modern civilization is based on what electrons can do, isn't >>>>> it?
THEY KNOW NOTHING, AS IN RELATIVISM!.
An expectation that everything can be explained in terms of other
smaller things results in an infinite regression. It's not a rabbit hole >>>> one wants to descend into.
While one can hypothesise that the electron is not elementary, so far
there is nothing to suggest that it has an internal structure. Until and >>>> unless something comes along to indicate that it is not elementary, you >>>> have nothing more than empty speculation.
Sylvia.
Sylvia belongs to the lemmings generation. If 'somebody nameless' says the electron does not have mass...
then Sylvia THINKS the electron has no mass.
Where did I so much as suggest that the electron has no mass?
Sylvia.
By your own words.
You wrote: "...so far
"...there is nothing to suggest that it has an internal structure."
"...nothing to suggest that it has an internal structure."
nothing
empty
Slyvia, you should have wrote: : "...there is nothing to suggest that it has NO internal structure."
But instead you said: '...there is nothing to suggest that it posses an internal structure.'
You are SUGGESTING the electron has NO mass.
On 04-Nov-24 3:30 am, The Starmaker wrote:
Sylvia Else wrote:
On 03-Nov-24 3:05 am, The Starmaker wrote:
Sylvia Else wrote:
On 02-Nov-24 2:13 am, rhertz wrote:
A definition of mass, as found in Google:
"Mass is a measurement of the amount of matter or substance in an
object.
It's the total amount of protons, neutrons, and electrons in an object."
It's "accepted" since the 60s that protons and neutrons are not
elementary particles anymore. As stated in the Standard Model of
Elementary Particles, protons and neutrons are composed of quarks, with >>>>> different flavors.
https://www.quantumdiaries.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/03/2000px-Standard_Model_of_Elementary_Particles.svg_.jpg
But electrons are thought as elementary particles, so they can't be >>>>> formed by a collection of other elementary particles. Even quarks are >>>>> currently thought as working together with elementary gluons (QCD, Gauge
Bossons).
So, what is THE MATTER that electrons contain?
This is one of many FAILS of the current SMEP.
Is that the electron's mass is composed of unknown matter? Maybe of >>>>> electromagnetic nature?
After all, modern civilization is based on what electrons can do, isn't >>>>> it?
THEY KNOW NOTHING, AS IN RELATIVISM!.
An expectation that everything can be explained in terms of other
smaller things results in an infinite regression. It's not a rabbit hole >>>> one wants to descend into.
While one can hypothesise that the electron is not elementary, so far >>>> there is nothing to suggest that it has an internal structure. Until and >>>> unless something comes along to indicate that it is not elementary, you >>>> have nothing more than empty speculation.
Sylvia.
Sylvia belongs to the lemmings generation. If 'somebody nameless' says the electron does not have mass...
then Sylvia THINKS the electron has no mass.
Where did I so much as suggest that the electron has no mass?
Sylvia.
By your own words.
You wrote: "...so far
"...there is nothing to suggest that it has an internal structure."
"...nothing to suggest that it has an internal structure."
nothing
empty
Slyvia, you should have wrote: : "...there is nothing to suggest that it has NO internal structure."
But instead you said: '...there is nothing to suggest that it posses an internal structure.'
You are SUGGESTING the electron has NO mass.
Why are you linking the lack of internal structure with the lack of mass?
Sylvia.
Sylvia Else wrote:
On 04-Nov-24 3:30 am, The Starmaker wrote:
Sylvia Else wrote:
On 03-Nov-24 3:05 am, The Starmaker wrote:
Sylvia Else wrote:
On 02-Nov-24 2:13 am, rhertz wrote:
A definition of mass, as found in Google:
"Mass is a measurement of the amount of matter or substance in an >>>>>>> object.
It's the total amount of protons, neutrons, and electrons in an object."
It's "accepted" since the 60s that protons and neutrons are not
elementary particles anymore. As stated in the Standard Model of >>>>>>> Elementary Particles, protons and neutrons are composed of quarks, with >>>>>>> different flavors.
https://www.quantumdiaries.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/03/2000px-Standard_Model_of_Elementary_Particles.svg_.jpg
But electrons are thought as elementary particles, so they can't be >>>>>>> formed by a collection of other elementary particles. Even quarks are >>>>>>> currently thought as working together with elementary gluons (QCD, Gauge
Bossons).
So, what is THE MATTER that electrons contain?
This is one of many FAILS of the current SMEP.
Is that the electron's mass is composed of unknown matter? Maybe of >>>>>>> electromagnetic nature?
After all, modern civilization is based on what electrons can do, isn't >>>>>>> it?
THEY KNOW NOTHING, AS IN RELATIVISM!.
An expectation that everything can be explained in terms of other
smaller things results in an infinite regression. It's not a rabbit hole >>>>>> one wants to descend into.
While one can hypothesise that the electron is not elementary, so far >>>>>> there is nothing to suggest that it has an internal structure. Until and >>>>>> unless something comes along to indicate that it is not elementary, you >>>>>> have nothing more than empty speculation.
Sylvia.
Sylvia belongs to the lemmings generation. If 'somebody nameless' says the electron does not have mass...
then Sylvia THINKS the electron has no mass.
Where did I so much as suggest that the electron has no mass?
Sylvia.
By your own words.
You wrote: "...so far
"...there is nothing to suggest that it has an internal structure."
"...nothing to suggest that it has an internal structure."
nothing
empty
Slyvia, you should have wrote: : "...there is nothing to suggest that it has NO internal structure."
But instead you said: '...there is nothing to suggest that it posses an internal structure.'
You are SUGGESTING the electron has NO mass.
Why are you linking the lack of internal structure with the lack of mass?
Sylvia.
'structure' requires an arrangement of material matter...mass, a clump
if you will.
Lack of of internal structure in a electron means no elements in an
electron.
Lack of mass.
Is inglish your second language?
On 11/02/2024 11:19 PM, Thomas Heger wrote:
Am Samstag000002, 02.11.2024 um 01:39 schrieb Ross Finlayson:
On 11/01/2024 11:13 AM, rhertz wrote:
A definition of mass, as found in Google:
"Mass is a measurement of the amount of matter or substance in an
object.
It's the total amount of protons, neutrons, and electrons in an
object."
It's "accepted" since the 60s that protons and neutrons are not
elementary particles anymore. As stated in the Standard Model of
Elementary Particles, protons and neutrons are composed of quarks, with >>>> different flavors.
https://www.quantumdiaries.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/03/2000px-
Standard_Model_of_Elementary_Particles.svg_.jpg
But electrons are thought as elementary particles, so they can't be
formed by a collection of other elementary particles. Even quarks are
currently thought as working together with elementary gluons (QCD,
Gauge
Bossons).
So, what is THE MATTER that electrons contain?
This is one of many FAILS of the current SMEP.
Is that the electron's mass is composed of unknown matter? Maybe of
electromagnetic nature?
After all, modern civilization is based on what electrons can do, isn't >>>> it?
THEY KNOW NOTHING, AS IN RELATIVISM!.
You got there a deconstructive, elementary account, into
what's called the trans-Planckian regime, from what's
called the Democritan regime, where Democritus or
Demokrites is who championed "atomism" the theory
while Aristotle or Aristoteles while outlining either
the "infinitely-divisible" or "infinitely-divided",
picked "not atomism because no vacuums", as with regards
to that electrons, protons, neutrons are elementary matter
while photon is still the usual particle in terms of
the quanta of energy, as to how energy is quantized,
at the atomic scale, or as with regards to Avogadro.
For some people, charge is primary, others, matter.
I assume a certain mechanism, which belongs to a self-developed concept
called 'structured spacetime'.
(
https://docs.google.com/presentation/
d/1Ur3_giuk2l439fxUa8QHX4wTDxBEaM6lOlgVUa0cFU4/edit?usp=sharing
)
In this the electron is not a particle, but denotes a hypothetical
'creation operator', which does not really exists, but if it would, it
would create a certain structure (in spacetime).
As example I take waves on the surface of a pond.
E.g. I could assume a little demon, that pull up the water surface and
wanders around over the pond.
In the microscopic realm of elementry particles we have, of course, no
pond and no demon.
But we could assume a thing would exist, if we see certain paterns
repeatedly.
Those we give the name 'particle' (or 'quantum object' if you prefer
that).
But such 'particles' violate simple requirements for material objects,
like being at some position at a certain time and existing continously.
They would also violate several other principles and observations.
For instance the particle concept violates 'Growing Earth', so called
pair production, the big bang theory and 'transmutation'.
Best would be, to abandon real lasting particles altogether and replace
them by something else.
This 'something else' could be 'timelike stable patterns'.
The relation is not at all obvious and you certainly have not heard
about this before.
But think about a standing 'rotation wave'.
This is somehow similar to the path of a yo-yo.
Then we could call the outer edge of this path 'potential' and the inner
turning point 'mass'.
The outer edge had in this scheme a geometric relation and is somehow
'attracted' by the inner turning point, which has mass instead of
rotational velocity.
TH
...
Aristotle has an idea like "un-moved mover", so it's generally
figured that "physics is an open system", while any sort of
usual classical ansaetze/gendanke, the setup/problem, is
defined as either the initiation of an action, "closed",
that there are no closed systems in physics as the entire
system of physics is an open system.
So, you can usually ascribe in systems of physics, the
idea of mechanical advantage after "information advantage",
that an arbitrarily small reasoning can result an arbitrarily
large mechanical change, as with regards to systems in
physics being open to actors, according to information.
Then, the linear and rotational is a very excellent example
of this, with regards to a usual sort of notion that
"the lever" is the simplest machine and also represents
any sort of mechanical interaction, even the usual
equal/opposite of inelastic conditions, that it's always
so that "the world turns", with regards to theories like
those of DesCartes and Kelvin, of the vortex, as a necessary
complement to the classical and linear (and partial and incomplete)
of what is _not_ the "closed".
A definition of mass, as found in Google:
"Mass is a measurement of the amount of matter or substance in an
object.
It's the total amount of protons, neutrons, and electrons in an
object."
Sylvia Else wrote:
On 04-Nov-24 2:22 pm, The Starmaker wrote:
Sylvia Else wrote:
On 04-Nov-24 3:30 am, The Starmaker wrote:
Sylvia Else wrote:
On 03-Nov-24 3:05 am, The Starmaker wrote:
Sylvia Else wrote:
On 02-Nov-24 2:13 am, rhertz wrote:
A definition of mass, as found in Google:
"Mass is a measurement of the amount of matter or substance in an >>>>>>> object.
It's the total amount of protons, neutrons, and electrons in an object."
It's "accepted" since the 60s that protons and neutrons are not >>>>>>> elementary particles anymore. As stated in the Standard Model of >>>>>>> Elementary Particles, protons and neutrons are composed of quarks, with
different flavors.
https://www.quantumdiaries.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/03/2000px-Standard_Model_of_Elementary_Particles.svg_.jpg
But electrons are thought as elementary particles, so they can't be >>>>>>> formed by a collection of other elementary particles. Even quarks are
currently thought as working together with elementary gluons (QCD, Gauge
Bossons).
So, what is THE MATTER that electrons contain?
This is one of many FAILS of the current SMEP.
Is that the electron's mass is composed of unknown matter? Maybe of >>>>>>> electromagnetic nature?
After all, modern civilization is based on what electrons can do, isn't
it?
THEY KNOW NOTHING, AS IN RELATIVISM!.
An expectation that everything can be explained in terms of other >>>>>> smaller things results in an infinite regression. It's not a rabbit hole
one wants to descend into.
While one can hypothesise that the electron is not elementary, so far
there is nothing to suggest that it has an internal structure. Until and
unless something comes along to indicate that it is not elementary, you
have nothing more than empty speculation.
Sylvia.
Sylvia belongs to the lemmings generation. If 'somebody nameless' says the electron does not have mass...
then Sylvia THINKS the electron has no mass.
Where did I so much as suggest that the electron has no mass?
Sylvia.
By your own words.
You wrote: "...so far
"...there is nothing to suggest that it has an internal structure." >>>
"...nothing to suggest that it has an internal structure."
nothing
empty
Slyvia, you should have wrote: : "...there is nothing to suggest that it has NO internal structure."
But instead you said: '...there is nothing to suggest that it posses an internal structure.'
You are SUGGESTING the electron has NO mass.
Why are you linking the lack of internal structure with the lack of mass?
Sylvia.
'structure' requires an arrangement of material matter...mass, a clump
if you will.
Lack of of internal structure in a electron means no elements in an electron.
Lack of mass.
Is inglish your second language?
You're making unfounded assumptions about what is required for mass to exist.
Sylvia.
For an electron to exist, mass is required..it is where the electron
gets it's energy from.
e=m
did is 3rd grade physics.
On 04-Nov-24 2:22 pm, The Starmaker wrote:
Sylvia Else wrote:
On 04-Nov-24 3:30 am, The Starmaker wrote:
Sylvia Else wrote:
On 03-Nov-24 3:05 am, The Starmaker wrote:
Sylvia Else wrote:
On 02-Nov-24 2:13 am, rhertz wrote:
A definition of mass, as found in Google:
"Mass is a measurement of the amount of matter or substance in an >>>>>>> object.
It's the total amount of protons, neutrons, and electrons in an object."
It's "accepted" since the 60s that protons and neutrons are not >>>>>>> elementary particles anymore. As stated in the Standard Model of >>>>>>> Elementary Particles, protons and neutrons are composed of quarks, with
different flavors.
https://www.quantumdiaries.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/03/2000px-Standard_Model_of_Elementary_Particles.svg_.jpg
But electrons are thought as elementary particles, so they can't be >>>>>>> formed by a collection of other elementary particles. Even quarks are >>>>>>> currently thought as working together with elementary gluons (QCD, Gauge
Bossons).
So, what is THE MATTER that electrons contain?
This is one of many FAILS of the current SMEP.
Is that the electron's mass is composed of unknown matter? Maybe of >>>>>>> electromagnetic nature?
After all, modern civilization is based on what electrons can do, isn't
it?
THEY KNOW NOTHING, AS IN RELATIVISM!.
An expectation that everything can be explained in terms of other >>>>>> smaller things results in an infinite regression. It's not a rabbit hole
one wants to descend into.
While one can hypothesise that the electron is not elementary, so far >>>>>> there is nothing to suggest that it has an internal structure. Until and
unless something comes along to indicate that it is not elementary, you
have nothing more than empty speculation.
Sylvia.
Sylvia belongs to the lemmings generation. If 'somebody nameless' says the electron does not have mass...
then Sylvia THINKS the electron has no mass.
Where did I so much as suggest that the electron has no mass?
Sylvia.
By your own words.
You wrote: "...so far
"...there is nothing to suggest that it has an internal structure." >>>
"...nothing to suggest that it has an internal structure."
nothing
empty
Slyvia, you should have wrote: : "...there is nothing to suggest that it has NO internal structure."
But instead you said: '...there is nothing to suggest that it posses an internal structure.'
You are SUGGESTING the electron has NO mass.
Why are you linking the lack of internal structure with the lack of mass? >>
Sylvia.
'structure' requires an arrangement of material matter...mass, a clump
if you will.
Lack of of internal structure in a electron means no elements in an electron.
Lack of mass.
Is inglish your second language?
You're making unfounded assumptions about what is required for mass to
exist.
Sylvia.
Sylvia Else wrote:
On 04-Nov-24 2:22 pm, The Starmaker wrote:
Sylvia Else wrote:
On 04-Nov-24 3:30 am, The Starmaker wrote:
Sylvia Else wrote:
On 03-Nov-24 3:05 am, The Starmaker wrote:
Sylvia Else wrote:
On 02-Nov-24 2:13 am, rhertz wrote:
A definition of mass, as found in Google:
"Mass is a measurement of the amount of matter or substance in an >>>>>>>>> object.
It's the total amount of protons, neutrons, and electrons in an object."
It's "accepted" since the 60s that protons and neutrons are not >>>>>>>>> elementary particles anymore. As stated in the Standard Model of >>>>>>>>> Elementary Particles, protons and neutrons are composed of quarks, with
different flavors.
https://www.quantumdiaries.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/03/2000px-Standard_Model_of_Elementary_Particles.svg_.jpg
But electrons are thought as elementary particles, so they can't be >>>>>>>>> formed by a collection of other elementary particles. Even quarks are >>>>>>>>> currently thought as working together with elementary gluons (QCD, Gauge
Bossons).
So, what is THE MATTER that electrons contain?
This is one of many FAILS of the current SMEP.
Is that the electron's mass is composed of unknown matter? Maybe of >>>>>>>>> electromagnetic nature?
After all, modern civilization is based on what electrons can do, isn't
it?
THEY KNOW NOTHING, AS IN RELATIVISM!.
An expectation that everything can be explained in terms of other >>>>>>>> smaller things results in an infinite regression. It's not a rabbit hole
one wants to descend into.
While one can hypothesise that the electron is not elementary, so far >>>>>>>> there is nothing to suggest that it has an internal structure. Until and
unless something comes along to indicate that it is not elementary, you
have nothing more than empty speculation.
Sylvia.
Sylvia belongs to the lemmings generation. If 'somebody nameless' says the electron does not have mass...
then Sylvia THINKS the electron has no mass.
Where did I so much as suggest that the electron has no mass?
Sylvia.
By your own words.
You wrote: "...so far
"...there is nothing to suggest that it has an internal structure." >>>>>
"...nothing to suggest that it has an internal structure."
nothing
empty
Slyvia, you should have wrote: : "...there is nothing to suggest that it has NO internal structure."
But instead you said: '...there is nothing to suggest that it posses an internal structure.'
You are SUGGESTING the electron has NO mass.
Why are you linking the lack of internal structure with the lack of mass? >>>>
Sylvia.
'structure' requires an arrangement of material matter...mass, a clump
if you will.
Lack of of internal structure in a electron means no elements in an
electron.
Lack of mass.
Is inglish your second language?
You're making unfounded assumptions about what is required for mass to
exist.
Sylvia.
For an electron to exist, mass is required..it is where the electron
gets it's energy from.
e=m
did is 3rd grade physics.
On Sat, 9 Nov 2024 7:35:40 +0000, Maciej Wozniak wrote:
W dniu 09.11.2024 o 00:34, gharnagel pisze:
On Fri, 8 Nov 2024 16:05:07 +0000, Maciej Wozniak wrote:
It was not me screaming about booze
Well, yes it was, under the guise of pink elephants.
If I called you a pedophile murderer - under
the guise of your relativistic idiocies -
what woould you say,
I wouldn't have to say anything, because it would be
On Sat, 9 Nov 2024 16:26:29 +0000, Maciej Wozniak wrote:
W dniu 09.11.2024 o 15:28, gharnagel pisze:
On Sat, 9 Nov 2024 7:35:40 +0000, Maciej Wozniak wrote:
If I called you a pedophile murderer - under
the guise of your relativistic idiocies -
what woould you say,
I wouldn't have to say anything, because it would be
perfectly clear to anyone with a brain that there is
no connection between the situations. But there IS
a connection between pink elephants and alcoholism.
Neither I have to,
But Wozniak did! :-)
He "doth protest too much, methinks" --Shakespeare
but I like,
He likes having the things he says come back and
bite him in his butt. :-))
On Sun, 10 Nov 2024 8:36:51 +0000, Maciej Wozniak wrote:
W dniu 10.11.2024 o 04:15, gharnagel pisze:
He likes having the things he says come back and
bite him in his butt. :-))
Oppositely, I like the shit relativistic doggies
hurl at me (and other enemies of their moronic
church as well) coming back to them annd biting
their dumb, fanatic asses.
:-)) Fanatic, screaming, insulting Wozniak is delusional
to believe such errant nonsense.
On 05-Nov-24 2:06 am, The Starmaker wrote:
Sylvia Else wrote:
On 04-Nov-24 2:22 pm, The Starmaker wrote:
Sylvia Else wrote:
On 04-Nov-24 3:30 am, The Starmaker wrote:
Sylvia Else wrote:
On 03-Nov-24 3:05 am, The Starmaker wrote:
Sylvia Else wrote:
On 02-Nov-24 2:13 am, rhertz wrote:
A definition of mass, as found in Google:
"Mass is a measurement of the amount of matter or substance in an >>>>>>>>> object.
It's the total amount of protons, neutrons, and electrons in an object."
It's "accepted" since the 60s that protons and neutrons are not >>>>>>>>> elementary particles anymore. As stated in the Standard Model of >>>>>>>>> Elementary Particles, protons and neutrons are composed of quarks, with
different flavors.
https://www.quantumdiaries.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/03/2000px-Standard_Model_of_Elementary_Particles.svg_.jpg
But electrons are thought as elementary particles, so they can't be >>>>>>>>> formed by a collection of other elementary particles. Even quarks are
currently thought as working together with elementary gluons (QCD, Gauge
Bossons).
So, what is THE MATTER that electrons contain?
This is one of many FAILS of the current SMEP.
Is that the electron's mass is composed of unknown matter? Maybe of >>>>>>>>> electromagnetic nature?
After all, modern civilization is based on what electrons can do, isn't
it?
THEY KNOW NOTHING, AS IN RELATIVISM!.
An expectation that everything can be explained in terms of other >>>>>>>> smaller things results in an infinite regression. It's not a rabbit hole
one wants to descend into.
While one can hypothesise that the electron is not elementary, so far
there is nothing to suggest that it has an internal structure. Until and
unless something comes along to indicate that it is not elementary, you
have nothing more than empty speculation.
Sylvia.
Sylvia belongs to the lemmings generation. If 'somebody nameless' says the electron does not have mass...
then Sylvia THINKS the electron has no mass.
Where did I so much as suggest that the electron has no mass?
Sylvia.
By your own words.
You wrote: "...so far
"...there is nothing to suggest that it has an internal structure." >>>>>
"...nothing to suggest that it has an internal structure."
nothing
empty
Slyvia, you should have wrote: : "...there is nothing to suggest that it has NO internal structure."
But instead you said: '...there is nothing to suggest that it posses an internal structure.'
You are SUGGESTING the electron has NO mass.
Why are you linking the lack of internal structure with the lack of mass?
Sylvia.
'structure' requires an arrangement of material matter...mass, a clump >>> if you will.
Lack of of internal structure in a electron means no elements in an
electron.
Lack of mass.
Is inglish your second language?
You're making unfounded assumptions about what is required for mass to
exist.
Sylvia.
For an electron to exist, mass is required..it is where the electron
gets it's energy from.
e=m
did is 3rd grade physics.
OK, but what has that to do with whether the electron has an internal structure?
Sylvia.
This is the Standard Model of Elementary Particles, which has matured in
the last 60 years, since Hell-Man and others:
https://www.quantumdiaries.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/03/2000px- Standard_Model_of_Elementary_Particles.svg_.jpg
It's composed of quarks, leptons, gauge bosons and the Higgs boson.
MOST (BUT FAR FROM ALL) PHYSICISTS ACCEPT THIS CRUDE MODEL, WHICH HAS
MANY FLAWS.
Another curiosity happening in the first 20' of the big bang theory, currently accepted: the charge e of an electron.
1. Only neutrons and protons exist:
Neutrons: 3 udd quarks (2/3 e - 1/3 e - 1/3 e = 0 e)
Protons: 3 uud quarks (2/3 e + 2/3 e - 1/3 e = + 1 e)
2. When neutrons decay (20'): 1 Proton + (-1 e)
Numbers don't make sense.
Is that electrons are formed by three ddd quarks plus gluons, because
somehow a neutral +1/3 e + (-1/3 e) is created from nowhere during the
decay process, so 1 proton + 1 electron can appear?
I dismissed neutrinos, but one electron neutrino split in two parts with opposite charges +/- 1/3 and zero mass? The rest is derived from gluons.
https://www.quantumdiaries.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/03/2000px-Standard_Model_of_Elementary_Particles.svg_.jpg
On Sun, 10 Nov 2024 21:00:58 +0000, Maciej Wozniak wrote:
W dniu 10.11.2024 o 15:28, gharnagel pisze:
:-)) Fanatic, screaming, insulting Wozniak is delusional
to believe such errant nonsense.
And fanatic, screaming, insulting Harnagel is delusional
to believe GPS clocks can't be real because they don't
fit his idiocies of time being a part of nature and dilating.
Wozniak is reduced to screaming, "Oh, yeah, well so are you!"
infantile replies. :-)) And then repeating his stupid baloney
that "GPS clocks can't be real" yada yada?
The fact is that
the GPS keeps extremely accurate time over the whole earth is
a confirmation of relativity,
Stupid, lying, mathematically-incompetent Wozniak defecates worthless opinions all over the group.
Sylvia Else wrote:
On 05-Nov-24 2:06 am, The Starmaker wrote:
Sylvia Else wrote:
On 04-Nov-24 2:22 pm, The Starmaker wrote:
Sylvia Else wrote:
On 04-Nov-24 3:30 am, The Starmaker wrote:
Sylvia Else wrote:
On 03-Nov-24 3:05 am, The Starmaker wrote:
Sylvia Else wrote:
On 02-Nov-24 2:13 am, rhertz wrote:
A definition of mass, as found in Google:
"Mass is a measurement of the amount of matter or substance in an >>>>>>>>>>> object.
It's the total amount of protons, neutrons, and electrons in an object."
It's "accepted" since the 60s that protons and neutrons are not >>>>>>>>>>> elementary particles anymore. As stated in the Standard Model of >>>>>>>>>>> Elementary Particles, protons and neutrons are composed of quarks, with
different flavors.
https://www.quantumdiaries.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/03/2000px-Standard_Model_of_Elementary_Particles.svg_.jpg
But electrons are thought as elementary particles, so they can't be >>>>>>>>>>> formed by a collection of other elementary particles. Even quarks are
currently thought as working together with elementary gluons (QCD, Gauge
Bossons).
So, what is THE MATTER that electrons contain?
This is one of many FAILS of the current SMEP.
Is that the electron's mass is composed of unknown matter? Maybe of >>>>>>>>>>> electromagnetic nature?
After all, modern civilization is based on what electrons can do, isn't
it?
THEY KNOW NOTHING, AS IN RELATIVISM!.
An expectation that everything can be explained in terms of other >>>>>>>>>> smaller things results in an infinite regression. It's not a rabbit hole
one wants to descend into.
While one can hypothesise that the electron is not elementary, so far
there is nothing to suggest that it has an internal structure. Until and
unless something comes along to indicate that it is not elementary, you
have nothing more than empty speculation.
Sylvia.
Sylvia belongs to the lemmings generation. If 'somebody nameless' says the electron does not have mass...
then Sylvia THINKS the electron has no mass.
Where did I so much as suggest that the electron has no mass?
Sylvia.
By your own words.
You wrote: "...so far
"...there is nothing to suggest that it has an internal structure."
"...nothing to suggest that it has an internal structure."
nothing
empty
Slyvia, you should have wrote: : "...there is nothing to suggest that it has NO internal structure."
But instead you said: '...there is nothing to suggest that it posses an internal structure.'
You are SUGGESTING the electron has NO mass.
Why are you linking the lack of internal structure with the lack of mass?
Sylvia.
'structure' requires an arrangement of material matter...mass, a clump >>>>> if you will.
Lack of of internal structure in a electron means no elements in an
electron.
Lack of mass.
Is inglish your second language?
You're making unfounded assumptions about what is required for mass to >>>> exist.
Sylvia.
For an electron to exist, mass is required..it is where the electron
gets it's energy from.
e=m
did is 3rd grade physics.
OK, but what has that to do with whether the electron has an internal
structure?
Sylvia.
An electron is made of energy and mass. Where is the energy located? On
the inside or the outside??
On 11/05/2024 09:49 AM, Ross Finlayson wrote:
On 11/03/2024 11:53 PM, Thomas Heger wrote:
Am Sonntag000003, 03.11.2024 um 18:28 schrieb Ross Finlayson:
On 11/02/2024 11:19 PM, Thomas Heger wrote:
Am Samstag000002, 02.11.2024 um 01:39 schrieb Ross Finlayson:
On 11/01/2024 11:13 AM, rhertz wrote:
A definition of mass, as found in Google:
"Mass is a measurement of the amount of matter or substance in an >>>>>>> object.
It's the total amount of protons, neutrons, and electrons in an
object."
It's "accepted" since the 60s that protons and neutrons are not
elementary particles anymore. As stated in the Standard Model of >>>>>>> Elementary Particles, protons and neutrons are composed of quarks, >>>>>>> with
different flavors.
https://www.quantumdiaries.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/03/2000px- >>>>>>> Standard_Model_of_Elementary_Particles.svg_.jpg
But electrons are thought as elementary particles, so they can't be >>>>>>> formed by a collection of other elementary particles. Even quarks >>>>>>> are
currently thought as working together with elementary gluons (QCD, >>>>>>> Gauge
Bossons).
So, what is THE MATTER that electrons contain?
Energy stored in the electrostatic field of an electron:
By 1900, the energy stored in a charged sphere was defined as:
E = q^2/R , where q was the charge and R its radius.
In that year, Planck calculated the charge of an electron as:
e = -4,69E-10 esu OR g^1/2 cm^3/2 s^-1 (4.80325451E-10 esu today).
Being Eo = 0.511 MeV = 8.1982E-07 ergs OR g cm^2.s^-2
R = Eo/e^2 = 2.81785E-13 cm (calculated by 1955)
According to the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST),
the classical electron radius is 2.8179403205E-13 cm.
This was a movement TO MATCH relativity (E=mc^2) with classic physics.
BUT, IT'S KNOWN EXPERIMENTALLY THAT THE RADIUS IS ABOUT 10E-16 cm, which
is about 1,000 times LOWER. So, the energy stored in the electron is
1,000 times HIGHER, or about 500 MeV.
Curiously, this discrepancy didn't occur with protons.
The cover-up to hide THAT began 60 years ago, when NIST INVENTED the
crap of "classical electron radius" (never used in calculations), and
ERASED the data about the radius of protons and neutrons from its
tables.
More curiously, this was done since 1964, when Hell-Man came up with THE
IDEA of quarks and gluons composing protons and neutrons.
The DARK FORCES OF RELATIVISM [snip more ranting]
Ross Finlayson wrote:
On 11/05/2024 09:49 AM, Ross Finlayson wrote:
On 11/03/2024 11:53 PM, Thomas Heger wrote:
Am Sonntag000003, 03.11.2024 um 18:28 schrieb Ross Finlayson:
On 11/02/2024 11:19 PM, Thomas Heger wrote:
Am Samstag000002, 02.11.2024 um 01:39 schrieb Ross Finlayson:
On 11/01/2024 11:13 AM, rhertz wrote:
A definition of mass, as found in Google:
"Mass is a measurement of the amount of matter or substance in an >>>>>>> object.
It's the total amount of protons, neutrons, and electrons in an >>>>>>> object."
It's "accepted" since the 60s that protons and neutrons are not >>>>>>> elementary particles anymore. As stated in the Standard Model of >>>>>>> Elementary Particles, protons and neutrons are composed of quarks, >>>>>>> with
different flavors.
https://www.quantumdiaries.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/03/2000px- >>>>>>> Standard_Model_of_Elementary_Particles.svg_.jpg
But electrons are thought as elementary particles, so they can't be >>>>>>> formed by a collection of other elementary particles. Even quarks >>>>>>> are
currently thought as working together with elementary gluons (QCD, >>>>>>> Gauge
Bossons).
So, what is THE MATTER that electrons contain?
----------------------------------
Its energy?
In 1908, Svante Arrhenius proposed Planck and Rutherford for the Nobel
Prize in Physics (Planck) and Chemistry (Rutherford) for:
Planck: Calculation of the charge of the electron from his radiation
law.
Rutherford: Calculation of the charge of the alpha particle from
experiments.
Because the works of Planck and Rutherford were still in debate by that
year, the proposal was dismissed.
Planck's work precedes Millikan and others, and was entirely
theoretical.
Yet, his calculations were close to actual values:
Charge 1e (Planck 1900) = 4.69E-10 esu OR g^1/2 cm^3/2 s^-1
Charge 1e (Millikan 1913) = 4.774E-10 esu OR g^1/2 cm^3/2 s^-1
Today: Charge 1e (StatC) = 4.80325451E-10 esu OR g^1/2 cm^3/2 s^-1
Jan, read this and don't be so ignorant. Many scientists were trying to
find the charge of electrons since 1897, but historians CANCELED THEM
(also due to political struggles, which are getting worse 120 years
after).
Arrhenius, the atomic hypothesis and the 1908 Nobel Prizes in Physics
and Chemistry
https://www.jstor.org/stable/232940
Don't be so ignorant, charlatan Jan.
On 11/05/2024 09:49 AM, Ross Finlayson wrote:
On 11/03/2024 11:53 PM, Thomas Heger wrote:
Am Sonntag000003, 03.11.2024 um 18:28 schrieb Ross Finlayson:
On 11/02/2024 11:19 PM, Thomas Heger wrote:I like a certain mathematical principle called 'geometric algebra' and
Am Samstag000002, 02.11.2024 um 01:39 schrieb Ross Finlayson:
On 11/01/2024 11:13 AM, rhertz wrote:
A definition of mass, as found in Google:
"Mass is a measurement of the amount of matter or substance in an >>>>>>> object.
It's the total amount of protons, neutrons, and electrons in an
object."
It's "accepted" since the 60s that protons and neutrons are not
elementary particles anymore. As stated in the Standard Model of >>>>>>> Elementary Particles, protons and neutrons are composed of quarks, >>>>>>> with
different flavors.
https://www.quantumdiaries.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/03/2000px- >>>>>>> Standard_Model_of_Elementary_Particles.svg_.jpg
But electrons are thought as elementary particles, so they can't be >>>>>>> formed by a collection of other elementary particles. Even quarks >>>>>>> are
currently thought as working together with elementary gluons (QCD, >>>>>>> Gauge
Bossons).
So, what is THE MATTER that electrons contain?
This is one of many FAILS of the current SMEP.
Is that the electron's mass is composed of unknown matter? Maybe of >>>>>>> electromagnetic nature?
After all, modern civilization is based on what electrons can do, >>>>>>> isn't
it?
THEY KNOW NOTHING, AS IN RELATIVISM!.
You got there a deconstructive, elementary account, into
what's called the trans-Planckian regime, from what's
called the Democritan regime, where Democritus or
Demokrites is who championed "atomism" the theory
while Aristotle or Aristoteles while outlining either
the "infinitely-divisible" or "infinitely-divided",
picked "not atomism because no vacuums", as with regards
to that electrons, protons, neutrons are elementary matter
while photon is still the usual particle in terms of
the quanta of energy, as to how energy is quantized,
at the atomic scale, or as with regards to Avogadro.
For some people, charge is primary, others, matter.
I assume a certain mechanism, which belongs to a self-developed
concept
called 'structured spacetime'.
(
https://docs.google.com/presentation/
d/1Ur3_giuk2l439fxUa8QHX4wTDxBEaM6lOlgVUa0cFU4/edit?usp=sharing
)
In this the electron is not a particle, but denotes a hypothetical
'creation operator', which does not really exists, but if it would, it >>>>> would create a certain structure (in spacetime).
As example I take waves on the surface of a pond.
E.g. I could assume a little demon, that pull up the water surface and >>>>> wanders around over the pond.
In the microscopic realm of elementry particles we have, of course, no >>>>> pond and no demon.
But we could assume a thing would exist, if we see certain paterns
repeatedly.
Those we give the name 'particle' (or 'quantum object' if you prefer >>>>> that).
But such 'particles' violate simple requirements for material objects, >>>>> like being at some position at a certain time and existing
continously.
They would also violate several other principles and observations.
For instance the particle concept violates 'Growing Earth', so called >>>>> pair production, the big bang theory and 'transmutation'.
Best would be, to abandon real lasting particles altogether and
replace
them by something else.
This 'something else' could be 'timelike stable patterns'.
The relation is not at all obvious and you certainly have not heard
about this before.
But think about a standing 'rotation wave'.
This is somehow similar to the path of a yo-yo.
Then we could call the outer edge of this path 'potential' and the
inner
turning point 'mass'.
The outer edge had in this scheme a geometric relation and is somehow >>>>> 'attracted' by the inner turning point, which has mass instead of
rotational velocity.
TH
...
Aristotle has an idea like "un-moved mover", so it's generally
figured that "physics is an open system", while any sort of
usual classical ansaetze/gendanke, the setup/problem, is
defined as either the initiation of an action, "closed",
that there are no closed systems in physics as the entire
system of physics is an open system.
So, you can usually ascribe in systems of physics, the
idea of mechanical advantage after "information advantage",
that an arbitrarily small reasoning can result an arbitrarily
large mechanical change, as with regards to systems in
physics being open to actors, according to information.
Then, the linear and rotational is a very excellent example
of this, with regards to a usual sort of notion that
"the lever" is the simplest machine and also represents
any sort of mechanical interaction, even the usual
equal/opposite of inelastic conditions, that it's always
so that "the world turns", with regards to theories like
those of DesCartes and Kelvin, of the vortex, as a necessary
complement to the classical and linear (and partial and incomplete)
of what is _not_ the "closed".
assume, that nature does also behave like this on a fundamental level.
So, nature is kind of mathematical, if you regard geometry as math.
Now the difficult trick is, to find the correct type of math, which
nature actually uses.
I had bi-quaternions in mind previously, but think, that another type of >>> clifford algebras perform actually better.
This system consists of indempotent and nilpotent operators and is
called 'dual quaternions'.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dual_quaternion
This is actually a system of geometric algebra, which is in common use
in robotics (but hardly anywhere else).
The benefit of this system is, that it allows relatively simple
translations and rotations of rigid bodies (in computers).
'Nilpotent' means, that such entities square to zero.
This requirement for a description of nature was first used by Prof.
Peter Rowlands of Liverpool in his book 'From Zero to Infinity'.
That book is very hard to read and also very expensive.
But there exist a pdf 'What is Vacuum' from the same author, which is
availible on the internet.
Dual quaternions are actually very old and known by Clifford since 1882
(as far as I know).
These are very similar to bi-quaternions, but behave better for
translatory movemnts.
The connection to nature could be seen in in my own 'book' about
'structured spacetime':
https://docs.google.com/presentation/
d/1Ur3_giuk2l439fxUa8QHX4wTDxBEaM6lOlgVUa0cFU4/edit?usp=sharing
TH
We might look to "algebraic geometry" a la Hodge as leading into
geometric algebra, with regards to bi-rational forms, for example,
and the convolutional setting, with regards to _symmetries_,
that _symmetries_ as with regards to symmetries and _rotations_,
make for the Cartan-ian about reflections and rotations after
"geometric algebra", with regards to the inner and outer products,
what result for forms, why "geometric algebra" seems so great
because it solves some singular issues in modeling rotation
with matrix manipulation.
When 25 years ago I thought geometric algebra was about the
best and greatest mathematics, it's also that it arrives
from algebraic geometry and also ring theory (Normel rings)
after van der Waerden then Zariski and Kodaira, Hodge, de Rham,
then into Lounesto and the modern late-20'th century geometric algebra,
from Picard and Sevari after "the Italian geometers" and to Lefschetz,
with regards to: "analysis situs".
So, mentioning analysis situs, then is Poincare. The great Poincare,
much appreciated that the usual linear formalism, was lacking.
Then, for ideas like topological surgery after analysis situs,
is that much like "geometric algebra" is after "algebraic geometry",
and must be to _include_ it, also the differential analysis and
the integral analysis point at two quite different approaches.
Then, overall here it is a _geometric_ approach, that then the
_algebraic_ or _analytic_ approach, must attain to it, then
that for space contraction, fall gravity, real wave collapse,
and so on, mathematics _owes_ physics a thorough account.
Then there's Feynman for example, "how about 4-vectors, or
about mass-less charge-less virtual-ons and virtual-inos
which are unscientific in the un-observable sense yet add up",
instead, to figuring out how scattering and tunneling theory
must be continuum mechanics again. Feynman would be like
"that would be great, I wish we had that when."
DesArgues <-> DesCartes
Pappus <-> Kuratowski
Kerr <-> Chandrasekhar
"cube wall"
rotational <-> linear
As Heger put it:
Then we could call the outer edge of this path 'potential' and the
inner
turning point 'mass'.
The outer edge had in this scheme a geometric relation and is somehow
'attracted' by the inner turning point, which has mass instead of
rotational velocity.
For Einstein it's a great conundrum, while DesCartes and Kelvin
make for vortices or "worlds turn" as with regards to "Zero-eth
law(s) of motion".
Or, "rotating frames are independent" and "worlds turn".
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Desargues%27s_theorem https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cartesian_coordinate_system https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polar_coordinate_system
"Identity Dimension": "a multi-dimensional ortho-normal
vector space's equal-coordinate identity line as an extension
of the origin and the envelope of the linear fractional equation,
Clairaut's equation, d'Alembert's equation, ....", "Original Analysis"
So, actually physics, the "classical" mechanics, is still quite well underdefined all the way back in classical mechanics about the
linear and rotational, AND, Einstein gives a derivation of
mass/energy equivalency, that formally only applies to the
rotational, so really giving a notion of the gyroscopic and "heft",
to complement a notion of mass and weight, with weight and heft.
(Resistance to acceleration, inertial.)
Then, a lot of usual things in atomic theory are simpler again,
not ever-more-contrived and not-really-derived.
Definitions have no place in foundations, only derivations.
That solves the preon confinement problem! He also says that
the e-neutrino would have a mass-squared of -130 +/- 20 eV^2,
but I couldn't find a reference for that. If neutrinos are
tachyons, the beta decay experiments to determine neutrino
mass-squared should give zero
On Thu, 7 Nov 2024 15:22:36 +0000, Maciej Wozniak babbled:
W dniu 07.11.2024 o 16:02, gharnagel pisze:
That solves the preon confinement problem! He also says that
the e-neutrino would have a mass-squared of -130 +/- 20 eV^2,
but I couldn't find a reference for that. If neutrinos are
tachyons, the beta decay experiments to determine neutrino
mass-squared should give zero
And grass should be green, too; and it is,
Not always, there's blue grass and many others:
https://www.highcountrygardens.com/category/perennial-plants/ornamental- grass? msclkid=b71857c95d4715c03a1330e5abe92bb5&utm_source=bing&utm_medium=cpc&utm_campaign=SEM%20NB%20-%20HCG%20-%20Category%20-%20PM%20-%20Grass%20and%20Groundcover%20Seeds&utm_term=ornamental%20grass&utm_content=SEM%20NB%20-%20HCG%20-%20Category%20-%20PM%20-%20Grass%20and%20Groundcover%20Seeds%20-%20Ornamental%20Grass
Just like there's pink and purple elephants. Wozniak puts his
foot in his mouth again, bringing up grass (i.e., marijuana).
so your tachyons idiocies are magnificiently
confirmed, aren't they,
Nope.
On Thu, 7 Nov 2024 21:35:48 +0000, Maciej Wozniak wrote:
W dniu 07.11.2024 o 18:44, gharnagel pisze:
Nope.
How so? if the tachyons exist - grass is green;
not always, maybe, but usually.
So - confirmation. That's how "logic" of your
bunch of idiots works.
Wozniak deleted the explanation and then asks?
That's the behavior of a fundamentally dishonest
person. He should go read the papers if he were
really interested, but he won't because he isn't
a seeker of truth, but a disinformation clown.
On Fri, 8 Nov 2024 6:20:07 +0000, Maciej Wozniak wrote:
W dniu 08.11.2024 o 01:08, gharnagel pisze:
Wozniak deleted the explanation and then asks?
That's the behavior of a fundamentally dishonest
person. He should go read the papers if he were
really interested, but he won't because he isn't
a seeker of truth, but a disinformation clown.
See, poor trash
This is proof that Wozniak is the one "spitting,
insulting and slandering."
----------------------------------
Its energy?
Merely calling the same thing by another name
is not going to help,
Jan
On Fri, 8 Nov 2024 16:05:07 +0000, Maciej Wozniak wrote:
It was not me screaming about booze
Well, yes it was, under the guise of pink elephants.
On Mon, 11 Nov 2024 18:21:39 +0000, Maciej Wozniak wrote:
W dniu 11.11.2024 o 18:09, gharnagel pisze:
Stupid, lying, mathematically-incompetent Wozniak defecates
worthless opinions all over the group.
See, poor trash-
“The more you know, the dumber you sound to stupid people.”
-- Anonymous
“Physics isn't the most important thing. Love is.”
-- Richard P. Feynman
I've proven the mumble of your idiot guru to be inconsistent,
and you can do nothing about it
I've already done something about it.
On Wed, 6 Nov 2024 21:23:15 +0000, J. J. Lodder wrote:
rhertz <hertz778@gmail.com> wrote:
In 1908, Svante Arrhenius proposed Planck and Rutherford for the Nobel
Prize in Physics (Planck) and Chemistry (Rutherford) for:
Planck: Calculation of the charge of the electron from his radiation
law.
Rutherford: Calculation of the charge of the alpha particle from
experiments.
Because the works of Planck and Rutherford were still in debate by that
year, the proposal was dismissed.
Planck's work precedes Millikan and others, and was entirely
theoretical.
Yet, his calculations were close to actual values:
Charge 1e (Planck 1900) = 4.69E-10 esu OR g^1/2 cm^3/2 s^-1
Charge 1e (Millikan 1913) = 4.774E-10 esu OR g^1/2 cm^3/2 s^-1
Today: Charge 1e (StatC) = 4.80325451E-10 esu OR g^1/2 cm^3/2 s^-1
Jan, read this and don't be so ignorant. Many scientists were trying to
find the charge of electrons since 1897, but historians CANCELED THEM
(also due to political struggles, which are getting worse 120 years
after).
Arrhenius, the atomic hypothesis and the 1908 Nobel Prizes in Physics
and Chemistry
https://www.jstor.org/stable/232940
Don't be so ignorant, charlatan Jan.
Sigh, so you succeeded in misunderstanding that too.
Planck didn't do any calculations with electrons,
or with the classical electon radius.
What Planck did do was to obtain a value for Avogadro's number
by obtaining values for h (Plancks constant)
and k (Boltzmann's constant) from the radiation law.
All this was highly speculative theory at the time,
with both the radiation law and statistical mechanics
being poorly understood and highly contested.
(let alone the statistical mechanics of the radiation field)
Einstein had not put that in order yet.
Moreover, there were many other ways of estimating Avogadros number,
which were gradually converging at the time.
There was little reason for singling out Planck.
However, Arrhenius had met Planck, they had become great friends,
and Arrhenius had decided that he wanted to get Planck a Nobel prize. Arrhenius failed to convince his collegues of course.
Rutherford did get the 1908 chemistry prize (for identifying the alpha)
and Planck had to wait till 1919 for getting his,
Jan
Jan (man or woman): I'm tired of you behaving as A FULL RETARDED, an imbecile, a liar, A DECEIVER (as any relativist) and (mainly) A
CHARLATAN!.
You don't know even how to do a little research on Google. Instead, you
write PURE CRAP to justify your idiotic posture, imbecile know-it-all!
I'll try to help you TO OVERCOME your cretinism, just with one paper:
Max Planck's Determination of the Avogadro Constant
https://www.scielo.br/j/rbef/a/XMkjKHvTWdsTF9k5HF6Vzwv/
EXCERPT (READ THIS VERY CAREFULLY, IDIOT Jan): ---------------------------------------------------------
8. The Electronic Charge
Planck does not mention a reference for the Faraday constant used in his work. He wrote e = ?w, or in modern language, N?e = F, uses
? = 3.2223E-05 esu mol^-1 = 96603 C mol^-1 with no reference, to
calculate the electronic charge,
e = ?w = 4.69E-10 esu
This is also an excellent result since 4.69E-10 esu = 1.5644E-19 C, with
an error of 3%, if compared with the tabulated value, 1.602E-19 C. The
result was compared to the previous result, 2.186E-19 C, as obtained by
J.J. Thomson. The Faraday constant used by Planck was also very precise
for the year 1900, with an error of 0.1%. The accepted value today is
F= 96485 C mol^-1.
+ Gas constant - > Avogadro's number _> + Faraday -> electron charge.
Faraday's constant was well established by the end of XIX century. The precise measurement of the Faraday's constant was made by Lord Rayleigh
and Mrs. H. Sidgwick, in the paper On the electro-chemical equivalent of silver, at Phil. Trans., page 411, in 1884, [25]. On page 439 it is
mentioned that they obtained m = 11.794E-03 g as the amount of silver deposited at the electrodes. Therefore,
F = 96.544 Cmol^-1
with an impressive error of 0.07 %. Planck chose to use F=96603 C mol-1,
but this will affect his value of electronic charge at the third
significant place. He would have obtained e = 1.5635E-19 C instead.
The first measurement of the electronic charge goes back to 1874 and was
made by George Johnstone Stony, on the paper, On the Physical Units of Nature. Phil. Mag. 11,384(1881). The value appears on page 388 of the
paper. Several measurements were performed after this. Planck used the
most precise value at his time, as made by J.J. Thomson. ----------------------------------------------------------------
Do you understand now WHY I call you A FUCKING RETARDED, CHARLATAN AND IGNORANT, Jan?
You are much worse than the above simplistic labels. You have NO CURE
for your stupidity, your FRAUDULENT WAY to write posts, and your TOTAL
LACK OF ABILITIES TO HIDE THAT YOU'RE A FUCKING RETARDED (VERY).
I hope you may have learned a lesson, nanosecJan.
As for me, you HAVE NO CURE. You're a complete idiot, as it correspond
to a relativist.
Did you see what means to LEARN ABOUT HISTORY OF PHYSICS? No Avogrado involved in his calculations. Read the entire paper, and you'll be
SURPRISED about how much was known about physics constants by 1900.
Ciao, asshole.
On Tue, 12 Nov 2024 23:26:34 +0000, Maciej Wozniak wrote:
W dniu 12.11.2024 o 20:35, gharnagel pisze:
On Mon, 11 Nov 2024 18:21:39 +0000, Maciej Wozniak wrote:
I've proven the mumble of your idiot guru to be inconsistent,
and you can do nothing about it
I've already done something about it.
Yes, but nothing apart spitting, ionsulting
and slandering, as expected from a good
relativistic doggie.
Wozniak has either a poor or a selective one. Speaking of
his "inconsistency proof":
Anyway, it is easily refuted. Place a clock
on earth that can be read by the moving
observer. It will read 86400 seconds/day,
in complete accordance with the definition.
That the observer's clock will read 99766
seconds is in accord with relativity as
On Wed, 13 Nov 2024 22:38:27 +0000, Maciej Wozniak wrote:
W dniu 13.11.2024 o 16:29, gharnagel pisze:
Anyway, [Wozniak's inconsistent assertion]
is easily refuted. Place a clock
on earth that can be read by the moving
observer. It will read 86400 seconds/day,
in complete accordance with the definition.
That the observer's clock will read 99766
seconds is in accord with relativity as
That he allegedly will - is inconsistent with
the definition
Wozniak doesn't realize that "definitions" are
human constructs
found inconsistent with reality. This has
happened many many times, and
| Sysop: | Keyop |
|---|---|
| Location: | Huddersfield, West Yorkshire, UK |
| Users: | 498 |
| Nodes: | 16 (2 / 14) |
| Uptime: | 31:59:31 |
| Calls: | 9,798 |
| Calls today: | 17 |
| Files: | 13,751 |
| Messages: | 6,188,910 |
