Exactly the question written on this thread.

Plus:

1) If is considered an elementary particle, why quarks are allowed to have
fractional charges (in the minds of Gell-Man and others?

2) Why the genius didn't include the energy stored into the electric field of
the electron in his infamous E=mc2, even when in the SR paper he clearly
talks about the slowly accelerated electron, to prevent energy drawn from
his electric field? A sheer contradiction.

Richard Hertz <hertz778@gmail.com> wrote:
> Exactly the question written on this thread.
>
> Plus:
>
> 1) If is considered an elementary particle, why quarks are allowed to have
> fractional charges (in the minds of Gell-Man and others?

Because charge is not a “stuff” that always has a certain amount on an
elementary particle. Why do you think it should?

>
> 2) Why the genius didn't include the energy stored into the electric field of
> the electron in his infamous E=mc2, even when in the SR paper he clearly
> talks about the slowly accelerated electron, to prevent energy drawn from
> his electric field? A sheer contradiction.
>

I believe this is the question addressed by Dirac, Wheeler, Feynman and
others. It’s called the self energy problem. So physicists have tackled it.
Why do you think it needed to be solved by Einstein?

--
Odd Bodkin — Maker of fine toys, tools, tables

On Sunday, September 5, 2021 at 8:40:05 PM UTC-3, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:

<snip>

> > 1) If is considered an elementary particle, why quarks are allowed to have
> > fractional charges (in the minds of Gell-Man and others?

> Because charge is not a “stuff” that always has a certain amount on an
> elementary particle. Why do you think it should?

As per most recent SMEP:

Quarks with charge 2/3 of "e": up, charm, top
Quarks with charge -1/3 of "e": down, strange, bottom

I'd swear that charges of these 6 elementary particles were conceived when the
idiotic physicists were on heavy "high" drugs. But they concord, so everything is OK.

> > 2) Why the genius didn't include the energy stored into the electric field of
> > the electron in his infamous E=mc2, even when in the SR paper he clearly
> > talks about the slowly accelerated electron, to prevent energy drawn from
> > his electric field? A sheer contradiction.
> >
> I believe this is the question addressed by Dirac, Wheeler, Feynman and
> others. It’s called the self energy problem. So physicists have tackled it.
> Why do you think it needed to be solved by Einstein?

Not Dirac, who didn't have the nerves to violate his sacred math to invent renormalization.

As the energies of the electric fields of any charged particle close to another rose to infinity
as distance r -->0, what they did? It was disgusting:

The concept of physical radius of the electron, estimated as 10^-18 mt since the days of
J.J.Thomson was ELIMINATED. Instead, something that NIST calls classic electro radius
was introduced with a value 1,000 times higher, and is considered as the only acceptable
radius of electric influence of an electron. The concept of physical radius of any other
particle, like protons and neutrons were ERASED from NIST database. Fact-check it.

In this way, Einstenian E=mc2 rest energy is equated to Thomson's electric energy. It
means that:

E1 = e²/(8.π.ε_o.R), R being the NIST's classic electron radius.

E2 = m.c², being m the mass of the electron at rest.

So, what was done for this particular case?

By making E1 = E2, the radius R is adopted so E1 = 0.511 MeV. Then, for any electron,

E = m.c² = e²/(8.π.ε_o.R) -------------> Problem solved for QED and nextgen shit.

And an equivalent of this (not accepted by NIST) was applied to any charged particle. So, when
distance r between particles 1 and 2 reaches |R1 - R2|, in the calculations that follows the artificial
values of R1 and R2 are introduced. Good bye infinities, said the Feynman gang.

Problem solved for the "calculist" Feynman, who cynically said: "It works, so?".

And, regarding Einstein the ignorant plagiarist should have considered the intrinsic electric energy
of charged particles on his approximation to E = m.c², because he was keenly aware of such energy,
as he wrote on his paper on the electrodynamics. It's written there, in the section of electron masses.

So, his E = m.c² approximation is TWICE TIMES FALSE, because it's incomplete (and the charged particles?).

On Sunday, September 5, 2021 at 7:55:24 PM UTC-7, Richard Hertz wrote:

> I'd swear that charges of these 6 elementary particles were conceived when the
> idiotic physicists were on heavy "high" drugs. But they concord, so everything is OK.

It is refreshing to see that your are an equal opportunity imbecile when it comes to the Standard Model as you are when it comes to relativity. For the longest time I called you a pathetic piece of shit but the correct term is ODIOUS. An odious piece of shit you are Dick ButtHertz.
<snip rest of utter imbecilities>

Richard Hertz <hertz778@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Sunday, September 5, 2021 at 8:40:05 PM UTC-3, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
>
> <snip>
>
>>> 1) If is considered an elementary particle, why quarks are allowed to have
>>> fractional charges (in the minds of Gell-Man and others?
>
>> Because charge is not a “stuff” that always has a certain amount on an
>> elementary particle. Why do you think it should?
>
> As per most recent SMEP:
>
> Quarks with charge 2/3 of "e": up, charm, top
> Quarks with charge -1/3 of "e": down, strange, bottom
>
> I'd swear that charges of these 6 elementary particles were conceived when the
> idiotic physicists were on heavy "high" drugs. But they concord, so everything is OK.

You incredulity really has no bearing on anything.

>
>>> 2) Why the genius didn't include the energy stored into the electric field of
>>> the electron in his infamous E=mc2, even when in the SR paper he clearly
>>> talks about the slowly accelerated electron, to prevent energy drawn from
>>> his electric field? A sheer contradiction.
>>>
>> I believe this is the question addressed by Dirac, Wheeler, Feynman and
>> others. It’s called the self energy problem. So physicists have tackled it.
>> Why do you think it needed to be solved by Einstein?
>
> Not Dirac, who didn't have the nerves to violate his sacred math to invent renormalization.

It doesn’t mean he did not recognize and work on the problem.

>
> As the energies of the electric fields of any charged particle close to
> another rose to infinity
> as distance r -->0, what they did? It was disgusting:

Again your incredulity means nothing.

>
> The concept of physical radius of the electron, estimated as 10^-18 mt since the days of
> J.J.Thomson was ELIMINATED. Instead, something that NIST calls classic electro radius
> was introduced with a value 1,000 times higher, and is considered as the only acceptable
> radius of electric influence of an electron. The concept of physical radius of any other
> particle, like protons and neutrons were ERASED from NIST database. Fact-check it.

Classical radius. Classical. Has nothing to do with the eventual quantum
solution.

>
> In this way, Einstenian E=mc2 rest energy is equated to Thomson's electric energy. It
> means that:
>
> E1 = e²/(8.π.ε_o.R), R being the NIST's classic electron radius.
>
> E2 = m.c², being m the mass of the electron at rest.
>
> So, what was done for this particular case?
>
> By making E1 = E2, the radius R is adopted so E1 = 0.511 MeV. Then, for any electron,
>
> E = m.c² = e²/(8.π.ε_o.R) -------------> Problem solved
> for QED and nextgen shit.
>
> And an equivalent of this (not accepted by NIST) was applied to any
> charged particle. So, when
> distance r between particles 1 and 2 reaches |R1 - R2|, in the
> calculations that follows the artificial
> values of R1 and R2 are introduced. Good bye infinities, said the Feynman gang.
>
> Problem solved for the "calculist" Feynman, who cynically said: "It works, so?".
>
> And, regarding Einstein the ignorant plagiarist should have considered
> the intrinsic electric energy
> of charged particles on his approximation to E = m.c², because he was
> keenly aware of such energy,
> as he wrote on his paper on the electrodynamics. It's written there, in
> the section of electron masses.
>
> So, his E = m.c² approximation is TWICE TIMES FALSE, because it's
> incomplete (and the charged particles?).
>
>
>
>
>

--
Odd Bodkin — Maker of fine toys, tools, tables

On Monday, September 6, 2021 at 12:07:15 AM UTC-3, Dono. wrote:

<snip>

> It is refreshing to see that your are an equal opportunity imbecile when it comes to the Standard Model as you are when it comes to relativity. For the longest time I called you a pathetic piece of shit but the correct term is ODIOUS. An odious piece of shit you are Dick ButtHertz.
> <snip rest of utter imbecilities>

I had to check odious with the dictionary. Odious: extremely unpleasant; repulsive.

Hey! It fits perfectly to you! Thanks, Dono. I'll incorporate it in my vocabulary!

Good job finding insults. Did you it by yourself, genetic garbage? I can't believe that you did.

On Sunday, September 5, 2021 at 8:39:58 PM UTC-7, Richard Hertz wrote:
> On Monday, September 6, 2021 at 12:07:15 AM UTC-3, Dono. wrote:
>
> <snip>
> > It is refreshing to see that your are an equal opportunity imbecile when it comes to the Standard Model as you are when it comes to relativity. For the longest time I called you a pathetic piece of shit but the correct term is ODIOUS. An odious piece of shit you are Dick ButtHertz.
> > <snip rest of utter imbecilities>
> I had to check odious with the dictionary. Odious: extremely unpleasant; repulsive.
>

Yep, describes you perfectly. Your family and the Jewish community of Argentina must feel that way about the odious POS named Richard Hertz.