mitchr...@gmail.com wrote:

> How does Higgs know what quantity of energy to give to all of the
> different particles? Is Higgs not left empty of energy afterward?
>
> How did we measure an empty of energy Boson?
> How do we detect something that has no energy?
> We detect light energy. It never goes to zero.

a Higgs is smaller than a neutrino. Much, much smaller.

mitchr...@gmail.com wrote:

> On Thursday, June 1, 2023 at 1:19:30 PM UTC-7, Burt Andel wrote:
>> a Higgs is smaller than a neutrino. Much, much smaller.
>
> Then how does it have more energy to donate to the rest?
> They are all point particles. In that sense they are all the same size.

no, it isn't. In macro_scale you have sizes. In math and quantum_scale you
don't. That's why are taken as point particles.

Blinken outlines conditions for ‘true’ peace in Ukraine
https://rt.com/news/577399-blinken-potemkin-peace-ukraine/

the issue is that neither Russia, nor China are interested in 'a potential
settlement' before *_their_mission_of_destroying_western_hegemony_* and
multipolar World creation *_is_accomplished_*.

Blinken's wifey banged with Hunter Biden. Blinken becomes more blinkered
ever time this idiot opens his mouth. How about putting a REAL UKRAINIAN
in power and not a CIA controlled zionist khazar? Y'know, someone who
actually gives a rat's ass about that fucking shithole taken as country?

bidon and his son, hunter, are gays. The zelenskshit, a gay actor, no
government, no parties, no media, no anything, is gay too.

What more security does he want? Aren't the west running their stores of
weapons down to support this creep, Ukronazipig, Zelensky? Does he really
think if a major war breaks out, everyone will send troops to die in
Ukraine? *_Ain't_gonna_happen_*....if Moldova attacked Romania, sure there
would be NATO troops all over the show....but
*_if_Romania_was_attacked_by_Russia_*, there would not be too many NATO
troops on the ground.

you can't fucking introduce conscription in a capitalist state. Since
nobody wants to die for the good of the wealthy. Fuck you. And you, and
you, and you.

On 6/1/23 3:19 PM, Burt Andel wrote:
> a Higgs is smaller than a neutrino. Much, much smaller.

That's an empty assertion. We do not know the sizes of these particles,
except that they are consistent with zero. There are no direct
measurements of the size of any particle except for proton and neutron
(and these are their charge radius, which may or may not be their "size").

Tom Roberts

On Saturday, June 3, 2023 at 8:08:55 AM UTC-7, Tom Roberts wrote:
> On 6/1/23 3:19 PM, Burt Andel wrote:
> > a Higgs is smaller than a neutrino. Much, much smaller.
> That's an empty assertion. We do not know the sizes of these particles,
> except that they are consistent with zero. There are no direct
> measurements of the size of any particle except for proton and neutron
> (and these are their charge radius, which may or may not be their "size")..
>
> Tom Roberts

Isn't that though derived from electron physics the proton size
after electron charge then moles?

Tom Roberts wrote:

> On 6/1/23 3:19 PM, Burt Andel wrote:
>> a Higgs is smaller than a neutrino. Much, much smaller.
>
> That's an empty assertion. We do not know the sizes of these particles,
> except that they are consistent with zero. There are no direct
> measurements of the size of any particle except for proton and neutron
> (and these are their charge radius, which may or may not be their
> "size").

I beg to differ, i*_n_macro_scale_everything_have_size_and_time_*
associated with. And it doesn't matter the uncertainty of "change radius",
since Higgs is a requirement for the other particle existence,
*_it_most_be_smaller,_not_larger_* (see dependencies).

you guys translate from macro_scale to quantum_scale without saying it. Ie
*_"hey,_I_enter_quantum_scale,_and_leave_the_macro_scale"_*. Common error
btw. The most don't even realize there is a huge difference.

mitchr...@gmail.com wrote:

> On Saturday, June 3, 2023 at 1:28:09 AM UTC-7, Royal Haanrade wrote:
>> mitchr...@gmail.com wrote:
>>
>> > On Thursday, June 1, 2023 at 1:19:30 PM UTC-7, Burt Andel wrote:
>> >> a Higgs is smaller than a neutrino. Much, much smaller.
>> >
>> > Then how does it have more energy to donate to the rest?
>> > They are all point particles. In that sense they are all the same
>> > size.
>> no, it isn't. In macro_scale you have sizes. In math and quantum_scale
>> you don't. That's why are taken as point particles.
>
> Particles only have one size. They are energy points.
> They resemble singularities.

kiss my ass.

Le 03/06/2023 à 22:42, Aureliano Koumans a écrit :

> kiss my ass.

oh.

R.H.

On Saturday, June 3, 2023 at 1:26:24 PM UTC-7, Ober Can wrote:
> Tom Roberts wrote:
>
> > On 6/1/23 3:19 PM, Burt Andel wrote:
> >> a Higgs is smaller than a neutrino. Much, much smaller.
> >
> > That's an empty assertion. We do not know the sizes of these particles,
> > except that they are consistent with zero. There are no direct
> > measurements of the size of any particle except for proton and neutron
> > (and these are their charge radius, which may or may not be their
> > "size").
> I beg to differ, i*_n_macro_scale_everything_have_size_and_time_*
> associated with. And it doesn't matter the uncertainty of "change radius",
> since Higgs is a requirement for the other particle existence,
> *_it_most_be_smaller,_not_larger_* (see dependencies).
>
> you guys translate from macro_scale to quantum_scale without saying it. Ie
> *_"hey,_I_enter_quantum_scale,_and_leave_the_macro_scale"_*. Common error
> btw. The most don't even realize there is a huge difference.

Whuh... yeah there is a lot going on in the macro-scale,
and about Planck, and about "when Planck goes to zero",
about the molecular chemistry, and structural chemistry,
and resonances, up above atomic chemistry.

So, yeah, above and "metals" and below and "super-strings",
there's a lot going on in "continuum mechanics and its model:
quantum mechanics".

Ross Finlayson wrote:

>> I beg to differ, *_In_macro_scale_everything_have_size_and_time_*
>> associated with. And it doesn't matter the uncertainty of "change
>> radius",
>> since Higgs is a requirement for the other particle existence,
>> *_it_most_be_smaller,_not_larger_* (see dependencies).
>> you guys translate from macro_scale to quantum_scale without saying it.
>> Ie *_"hey,_I_enter_quantum_scale,_and_leave_the_macro_scale"_*. Common
>> error btw. The most don't even realize there is a huge difference.
>
> Whuh... yeah there is a lot going on in the macro-scale,
> and about Planck, and about "when Planck goes to zero", about the
> molecular chemistry, and structural chemistry,
> and resonances, up above atomic chemistry.

you can't go to zero in *_macro_scale_*, stupid. In macro_scale
*_a_zero_doesn't_even_exists_*. Learn physics. We had this
discussion while ago, and you still are stupid. No change.

On 6/3/23 3:26 PM, Ober Can wrote:
> Tom Roberts wrote:
>> On 6/1/23 3:19 PM, Burt Andel wrote:
>>> a Higgs is smaller than a neutrino. Much, much smaller.
>> That's an empty assertion. We do not know the sizes of these
>> particles, except that they are consistent with zero. There are no
>> direct measurements of the size of any particle except for proton
>> and neutron (and these are their charge radius, which may or may
>> not be their "size").
>
> I beg to differ, i*_n_macro_scale_everything_have_size_and_time_*
> associated with. And it doesn't matter the uncertainty of "change
> radius", since Higgs is a requirement for the other particle
> existence, *_it_most_be_smaller,_not_larger_* (see dependencies).

Your experience at human scales simply does not apply at the quantum
scale. Your claims here are equally empty and unsupported.

Note also that it is interactions with the Higgs FIELD that gives other
particles their mass, not with Higgs particles. So thinking "the Higgs
particle is part of other particles and thus must be smaller than them"
is completely unwarranted.

Tom Roberts

On Sunday, June 4, 2023 at 8:04:20 AM UTC-7, Tom Roberts wrote:
> On 6/3/23 3:26 PM, Ober Can wrote:
> > Tom Roberts wrote:
> >> On 6/1/23 3:19 PM, Burt Andel wrote:
> >>> a Higgs is smaller than a neutrino. Much, much smaller.
> >> That's an empty assertion. We do not know the sizes of these
> >> particles, except that they are consistent with zero. There are no
> >> direct measurements of the size of any particle except for proton
> >> and neutron (and these are their charge radius, which may or may
> >> not be their "size").
> >
> > I beg to differ, i*_n_macro_scale_everything_have_size_and_time_*
> > associated with. And it doesn't matter the uncertainty of "change
> > radius", since Higgs is a requirement for the other particle
> > existence, *_it_most_be_smaller,_not_larger_* (see dependencies).
> Your experience at human scales simply does not apply at the quantum
> scale. Your claims here are equally empty and unsupported.
>
> Note also that it is interactions with the Higgs FIELD that gives other
> particles their mass, not with Higgs particles. So thinking "the Higgs
> particle is part of other particles and thus must be smaller than them"
> is completely unwarranted.
>
> Tom Roberts

The Higgs field is not a classical field, it's just an interface at surfaces.

It's a sort of "interaction zone".

(The Higgs boson has a big divot in the middle.)

On Saturday, June 3, 2023 at 2:21:22 PM UTC-7, Phillipe Samson wrote:
> Ross Finlayson wrote:
>
> >> I beg to differ, *_In_macro_scale_everything_have_size_and_time_*
> >> associated with. And it doesn't matter the uncertainty of "change
> >> radius",
> >> since Higgs is a requirement for the other particle existence,
> >> *_it_most_be_smaller,_not_larger_* (see dependencies).
> >> you guys translate from macro_scale to quantum_scale without saying it..
> >> Ie *_"hey,_I_enter_quantum_scale,_and_leave_the_macro_scale"_*. Common
> >> error btw. The most don't even realize there is a huge difference.
> >
> > Whuh... yeah there is a lot going on in the macro-scale,
> > and about Planck, and about "when Planck goes to zero", about the
> > molecular chemistry, and structural chemistry,
> > and resonances, up above atomic chemistry.
> you can't go to zero in *_macro_scale_*, stupid. In macro_scale
> *_a_zero_doesn't_even_exists_*. Learn physics. We had this
> discussion while ago, and you still are stupid. No change.

These days they're called "resonances" above and "trans-Planckian" below.

You should learn about "running constants" and "the dynamics of
infinitesimals in continuum dynamics".

Sometimes it's called "quasi-invariant".

Tom Roberts wrote:

>> I beg to differ, i*_n_macro_scale_everything_have_size_and_time_*
>> associated with. And it doesn't matter the uncertainty of "change
>> radius", since Higgs is a requirement for the other particle existence,
>> *_it_most_be_smaller,_not_larger_* (see dependencies).
>
> Your experience at human scales simply does not apply at the quantum
> scale. Your claims here are equally empty and unsupported.
>
> Note also that it is interactions with the Higgs FIELD that gives other
> particles their mass, not with Higgs particles. So thinking "the Higgs
> particle is part of other particles and thus must be smaller than them"
> is completely unwarranted.

you in error one more time. It is you transiting incompatible domains same
sentence. You may not put macro_scale and quantum_scale same sentence,
from no on. The discussion is about macro_scale, where as explained, sizes
matters. Whether as such, is a field or particle, that's another
discussion. Actually in macro scale you can't have a field without a
particle flying around. I beg you to reconsider.