Rocksolid Light

Welcome to novaBBS (click a section below)

mail  files  register  newsreader  groups  login

Message-ID:  

When Dexter's on the Internet, can Hell be far behind?"


tech / sci.physics.relativity / Imbecile Richard Hertz repeats himself

SubjectAuthor
* Are protons and electrons solid blobs? How is distributed theRichard Hertz
+- Re: Are protons and electrons solid blobs? How is distributed theSylvia Else
+* Re: Are protons and electrons solid blobs? How is distributed the elementary chaMikko
|+- Re: Are protons and electrons solid blobs? How is distributed the elementary chaJ. J. Lodder
|+- Re: Are protons and electrons solid blobs? How is distributed theTom Roberts
|`- Re: Are protons and electrons solid blobs? How is distributed the elementary chaThomas 'PointedEars' Lahn
+* Re: Are protons and electrons solid blobs? How is distributed theThomas Heger
|`* Re: Are protons and electrons solid blobs? How is distributed theReinhardt Behm
| +- Re: Are protons and electrons solid blobs? How is distributed theRichard Hertz
| `* Re: Are protons and electrons solid blobs? How is distributed theThomas Heger
|  `* Re: Are protons and electrons solid blobs? How is distributed theRichard Hertz
|   `- Re: Are protons and electrons solid blobs? How is distributed theThomas Heger
`* Re: Are protons and electrons solid blobs? How is distributed theRichard Hertz
 +- Re: Are protons and electrons solid blobs? How is distrRichard Hachel
 `* Imbecile Richard Hertz repeats himselfDono.
  `* Re: Imbecile Richard Hertz repeats himselfRichard Hertz
   `* Re: Imbecile Richard Hertz repeats himselfDono.
    `* Re: Imbecile Richard Hertz repeats himselfRichard Hachel
     `- Re: Imbecile Richard Hertz repeats himselfRichard Hertz

1
Are protons and electrons solid blobs? How is distributed the elementary charge?

<2b07aeae-2a75-4dd8-92ef-dfdceb58bc92n@googlegroups.com>

 copy mid

https://www.novabbs.com/tech/article-flat.php?id=90551&group=sci.physics.relativity#90551

 copy link   Newsgroups: sci.physics.relativity
X-Received: by 2002:a05:622a:15:b0:2f3:cd8f:2a78 with SMTP id x21-20020a05622a001500b002f3cd8f2a78mr6611541qtw.43.1653028200954;
Thu, 19 May 2022 23:30:00 -0700 (PDT)
X-Received: by 2002:ae9:dc45:0:b0:69f:c1f3:3328 with SMTP id
q66-20020ae9dc45000000b0069fc1f33328mr5397349qkf.418.1653028200802; Thu, 19
May 2022 23:30:00 -0700 (PDT)
Path: i2pn2.org!i2pn.org!usenet.blueworldhosting.com!feed1.usenet.blueworldhosting.com!peer01.iad!feed-me.highwinds-media.com!news.highwinds-media.com!news-out.google.com!nntp.google.com!postnews.google.com!google-groups.googlegroups.com!not-for-mail
Newsgroups: sci.physics.relativity
Date: Thu, 19 May 2022 23:30:00 -0700 (PDT)
Injection-Info: google-groups.googlegroups.com; posting-host=181.84.181.2; posting-account=blnzJwoAAAA-82jKM1F-uNmKbbRkrU6D
NNTP-Posting-Host: 181.84.181.2
User-Agent: G2/1.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
Message-ID: <2b07aeae-2a75-4dd8-92ef-dfdceb58bc92n@googlegroups.com>
Subject: Are protons and electrons solid blobs? How is distributed the
elementary charge?
From: hertz...@gmail.com (Richard Hertz)
Injection-Date: Fri, 20 May 2022 06:30:00 +0000
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
X-Received-Bytes: 3759
 by: Richard Hertz - Fri, 20 May 2022 06:30 UTC

Are they solid irregular blobs with mass or are they empty? (not spherical shape).

How is the elementary charge distributed on their surface (or volume)?

Because, if they are solid, then another unknown force hold its "substance"
together, to counteract electrostatic repulsion IF charge is evenly distributed
on their structure. Otherwise, they would make "puff" and be gone.

If the elementary charge is concentrated on one single spot (how to know it),
then WHY a 1800:1 mass ratio exists between protons and electrons. But, it
would make sense for a neutron to exist, as such spots (+, -) would be
physically separated.

But, if charges are distributed evenly, how come they disappear in the neutron,
to be physically recreated when the neutron decay into a proton and electron?

**************************

Isn't that physics doesn't have A FUCKING CLUE about elementary particles?

Not to mention the hundred of "garbage particles" that were generated by
crashing ions into nuclei of atoms, just to be swept under the carpet of oblivion.

And, to make the ignorance more evident, how come slow muons can be forced to orbit protons, to create muonium (with muon "orbiting" proton at
much lower energy level than in Hydrogen?).

One of the main reasons of these doubts (sheer ignorance) is that the
pretender physicists CAN'T MEASURE SHIT below 10E-10 mt (atom radius),
so they choose AXIOMS above truth.

- Point exist. Period.
- Electron, proton and neutron exist. Period.
- Elementary charge for protons and electrons exist. Period.
- Their existence is confined below 10E-15 meters, and we don't know more. Period.
- Don't break our balls with your fucking questions. Period.

- We, science priests, don't know shit about the quantum world, but you'll
never hear it from us. We have the right to make a living with this shit, in
the same way your bankers do, and we are even less greedy. So STOP IT.

Why don't you go to bother astrophysicists and cosmologists? They know
even less.

Ask them how Hydrogen, evenly distributed in space, gather together to form
GMC (Giant Molecular Clouds), without using the fucking gravity. Then they
will show you how deep is the shit they are buried into. And nobody is
questioning them.

NOTE: The above is a disclaimer of the pseudo-physics community. And it's
a telling example about WHY engineering is above physics. Because engineers
don't meddle with impossible tasks. They just use empiricism and rationality,
and despise fairy tales.

The entire atomic physics is rotten to the core, on all its branches.

Engineering provides some advances in such realm. Ask SS engineers, for instance.

Re: Are protons and electrons solid blobs? How is distributed the elementary charge?

<jeos65Fnos0U1@mid.individual.net>

 copy mid

https://www.novabbs.com/tech/article-flat.php?id=90553&group=sci.physics.relativity#90553

 copy link   Newsgroups: sci.physics.relativity
Path: i2pn2.org!i2pn.org!weretis.net!feeder8.news.weretis.net!news.szaf.org!fu-berlin.de!uni-berlin.de!individual.net!not-for-mail
From: syl...@email.invalid (Sylvia Else)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.relativity
Subject: Re: Are protons and electrons solid blobs? How is distributed the
elementary charge?
Date: Fri, 20 May 2022 16:52:53 +1000
Lines: 10
Message-ID: <jeos65Fnos0U1@mid.individual.net>
References: <2b07aeae-2a75-4dd8-92ef-dfdceb58bc92n@googlegroups.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Trace: individual.net FsWOS1w/gTYTOYZwMUNXCgK5sBPw3dojNMqNbspD6ECnH4abF+
Cancel-Lock: sha1:biBB04lUh2lPonElvbvrohqmmWs=
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; Win64; x64; rv:91.0) Gecko/20100101
Thunderbird/91.9.0
Content-Language: en-GB
In-Reply-To: <2b07aeae-2a75-4dd8-92ef-dfdceb58bc92n@googlegroups.com>
 by: Sylvia Else - Fri, 20 May 2022 06:52 UTC

On 20-May-22 4:30 pm, Richard Hertz wrote:
> Are they solid irregular blobs with mass or are they empty? (not spherical shape).
>
> How is the elementary charge distributed on their surface (or volume)?

Electrons appear to be point charges.

Protons are known not to be elementary (they're make of quarks).

Sylvia.

Re: Are protons and electrons solid blobs? How is distributed the elementary charge?

<t67dvc$nc4$1@dont-email.me>

 copy mid

https://www.novabbs.com/tech/article-flat.php?id=90554&group=sci.physics.relativity#90554

 copy link   Newsgroups: sci.physics.relativity
Path: i2pn2.org!i2pn.org!eternal-september.org!reader02.eternal-september.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: mikko.le...@iki.fi (Mikko)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.relativity
Subject: Re: Are protons and electrons solid blobs? How is distributed the elementary charge?
Date: Fri, 20 May 2022 09:54:36 +0300
Organization: -
Lines: 16
Message-ID: <t67dvc$nc4$1@dont-email.me>
References: <2b07aeae-2a75-4dd8-92ef-dfdceb58bc92n@googlegroups.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Injection-Info: reader02.eternal-september.org; posting-host="90f36b1d4d5194dfc2a31533d5c9577d";
logging-data="23940"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org"; posting-account="U2FsdGVkX19RaQN4pgOJLzZyB9YvE/2C"
User-Agent: Unison/2.2
Cancel-Lock: sha1:708eXdHmbFqf/QPdR5Q67iYFBAM=
 by: Mikko - Fri, 20 May 2022 06:54 UTC

On 2022-05-20 06:30:00 +0000, Richard Hertz said:

> Are they solid irregular blobs with mass or are they empty? (not
> spherical shape).

Electrons are point particles, i.e., they are so small that their size and
shape cannot be measured. They are magnetic, whith a south pole and a
north pole, so their behaviour is not speherically symmetric but it is,
as far as has been observed, axially symmetric.

Protons are composites of three quarks, each of which is a point particle
in the same sense as an electron is. Each of the tree quarks has 1 / 3 of
the electric charge of the proton.

Mikko

Re: Are protons and electrons solid blobs? How is distributed the elementary charge?

<jeosqjFnte4U1@mid.individual.net>

 copy mid

https://www.novabbs.com/tech/article-flat.php?id=90555&group=sci.physics.relativity#90555

 copy link   Newsgroups: sci.physics.relativity
Path: i2pn2.org!i2pn.org!usenet.goja.nl.eu.org!news.freedyn.de!speedkom.net!fu-berlin.de!uni-berlin.de!individual.net!not-for-mail
From: ttt_...@web.de (Thomas Heger)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.relativity
Subject: Re: Are protons and electrons solid blobs? How is distributed the
elementary charge?
Date: Fri, 20 May 2022 09:03:44 +0200
Lines: 39
Message-ID: <jeosqjFnte4U1@mid.individual.net>
References: <2b07aeae-2a75-4dd8-92ef-dfdceb58bc92n@googlegroups.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Trace: individual.net SnooPzPUFtXaIqAxaxvCjQWxNdHp4Ya1+7B/NB0LxsfE6EYazu
Cancel-Lock: sha1:SVjN1eDbL1fb3P82lA7bwLR5OJc=
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.0; WOW64; rv:31.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/31.4.0
In-Reply-To: <2b07aeae-2a75-4dd8-92ef-dfdceb58bc92n@googlegroups.com>
 by: Thomas Heger - Fri, 20 May 2022 07:03 UTC

Am 20.05.2022 um 08:30 schrieb Richard Hertz:
> Are they solid irregular blobs with mass or are they empty? (not spherical shape).

'Electron' and 'proton' belong to a single structure. These names denote
the exterior and interior extrem-point of a standing rotational wave.

> How is the elementary charge distributed on their surface (or volume)?

Points have no surface.

> Because, if they are solid, then another unknown force hold its "substance"
> together, to counteract electrostatic repulsion IF charge is evenly distributed
> on their structure. Otherwise, they would make "puff" and be gone.
>
> If the elementary charge is concentrated on one single spot (how to know it),
> then WHY a 1800:1 mass ratio exists between protons and electrons. But, it
> would make sense for a neutron to exist, as such spots (+, -) would be
> physically separated.

This is like a Jo-Jo or a giroscope.

The same structure can have different features.

In case of a Jo-Jo the string can be rolled up and the toy would not
spin, while at the other end it is spinning, but has no string rolled up
anymore.

look at my 'book' about 'structured spacetime':

https://docs.google.com/presentation/d/1Ur3_giuk2l439fxUa8QHX4wTDxBEaM6lOlgVUa0cFU4/edit?usp=sharing

TH
....

Re: Are protons and electrons solid blobs? How is distributed the elementary charge?

<1ps8xip.70x32h5tisnrN%nospam@de-ster.demon.nl>

 copy mid

https://www.novabbs.com/tech/article-flat.php?id=90563&group=sci.physics.relativity#90563

 copy link   Newsgroups: sci.physics.relativity
Path: i2pn2.org!i2pn.org!eternal-september.org!reader02.eternal-september.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: nos...@de-ster.demon.nl (J. J. Lodder)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.relativity
Subject: Re: Are protons and electrons solid blobs? How is distributed the elementary charge?
Date: Fri, 20 May 2022 10:03:28 +0200
Organization: De Ster
Lines: 27
Message-ID: <1ps8xip.70x32h5tisnrN%nospam@de-ster.demon.nl>
References: <2b07aeae-2a75-4dd8-92ef-dfdceb58bc92n@googlegroups.com> <t67dvc$nc4$1@dont-email.me>
Reply-To: jjlax32@xs4all.nl (J. J. Lodder)
Injection-Info: reader02.eternal-september.org; posting-host="1016f7d31973e1c7c6f4ba693f5774a7";
logging-data="18559"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org"; posting-account="U2FsdGVkX18m8K6WgYTNkb69nygnAw78JFCqRltd870="
User-Agent: MacSOUP/2.8.5 (ea919cf118) (Mac OS 10.10.5)
Cancel-Lock: sha1:6VCsuqfBhx7PIPIJKuDPCp4jgO4=
 by: J. J. Lodder - Fri, 20 May 2022 08:03 UTC

Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> wrote:

> On 2022-05-20 06:30:00 +0000, Richard Hertz said:
>
> > Are they solid irregular blobs with mass or are they empty? (not
> > spherical shape).
>
> Electrons are point particles, i.e., they are so small that their size and
> shape cannot be measured. They are magnetic, whith a south pole and a
> north pole, so their behaviour is not speherically symmetric but it is,
> as far as has been observed, axially symmetric.

Electrons may have a tiny electric dipole moment.
(as predicted by the standard model, from higher order processes)
Other theories predict a larger dipole moment.
So far only experimental limits are known.
<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electron_electric_dipole_moment>

> Protons are composites of three quarks, each of which is a point particle
> in the same sense as an electron is. Each of the tree quarks has 1 / 3 of
> the electric charge of the proton.

No. Quarks come in 2/3 and 1/3.
For the proton it is 2 * +2/3 + 1 * -1/3,

Jan

Re: Are protons and electrons solid blobs? How is distributed the elementary charge?

<99KdnaMSJvZP7hr_nZ2dnUU7_8zNnZ2d@giganews.com>

 copy mid

https://www.novabbs.com/tech/article-flat.php?id=90574&group=sci.physics.relativity#90574

 copy link   Newsgroups: sci.physics.relativity
Path: i2pn2.org!i2pn.org!weretis.net!feeder6.news.weretis.net!news.misty.com!border2.nntp.dca1.giganews.com!nntp.giganews.com!buffer2.nntp.dca1.giganews.com!news.giganews.com.POSTED!not-for-mail
NNTP-Posting-Date: Fri, 20 May 2022 05:56:18 -0500
Date: Fri, 20 May 2022 06:56:17 -0400
MIME-Version: 1.0
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.15; rv:91.0)
Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/91.9.0
Subject: Re: Are protons and electrons solid blobs? How is distributed the
elementary charge?
Content-Language: en-US
Newsgroups: sci.physics.relativity
References: <2b07aeae-2a75-4dd8-92ef-dfdceb58bc92n@googlegroups.com>
<t67dvc$nc4$1@dont-email.me>
From: tjrobert...@sbcglobal.net (Tom Roberts)
In-Reply-To: <t67dvc$nc4$1@dont-email.me>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Message-ID: <99KdnaMSJvZP7hr_nZ2dnUU7_8zNnZ2d@giganews.com>
Lines: 21
X-Usenet-Provider: http://www.giganews.com
X-Trace: sv3-tXfVlPAmbmh0sfIuxlXvrLfwAOFSVE5Hwh0gDa1ZR/EBLIws+qA2/5r9TBPdkSfp0f4AsrwRoEVjwlL!6J+VqHC6eSS/dvmMJpvpuwVifne02lMZktVna7DU6VFwMcy0kqSwBEVWp7axfvHJ0mEovnBCUd8=
X-Complaints-To: abuse@giganews.com
X-DMCA-Notifications: http://www.giganews.com/info/dmca.html
X-Abuse-and-DMCA-Info: Please be sure to forward a copy of ALL headers
X-Abuse-and-DMCA-Info: Otherwise we will be unable to process your complaint properly
X-Postfilter: 1.3.40
X-Original-Bytes: 2456
 by: Tom Roberts - Fri, 20 May 2022 10:56 UTC

On 5/20/22 2:54 AM, Mikko wrote:
> Electrons are point particles, i.e., they are so small that their size and
> shape cannot be measured. They are magnetic, whith a south pole and a
> north pole, so their behaviour is not speherically symmetric but it is,
> as far as has been observed, axially symmetric.

Yes, as far as we know today. But they are excitations in a quantum
field, so they don't behave as traditional particles -- they don't
possess a definite position, momentum, or energy, they have intrinsic
spin, etc....
> Protons are composites of three quarks, each of which is a point particle
> in the same sense as an electron is. Each of the tree quarks has 1 / 3 of
> the electric charge of the proton.
Protons are A LOT more complicated than that. They have three valance
quarks with charges +2e/3, +2e/3, -e/3, where -e is the charge of an
electron. But there are also myriad gluons and quark-antiquark pairs
popping in and out of existence. Only a few percent of the mass of a
proton is in the masses of the valence quarks, the rest is in the other
particles and all their kinetic and binding energies.

Tom Roberts

Re: Are protons and electrons solid blobs? How is distributed the elementary charge?

<t6843q$5fv$1@dont-email.me>

 copy mid

https://www.novabbs.com/tech/article-flat.php?id=90575&group=sci.physics.relativity#90575

 copy link   Newsgroups: sci.physics.relativity
Path: i2pn2.org!i2pn.org!eternal-september.org!reader02.eternal-september.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: rbe...@hushmail.com (Reinhardt Behm)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.relativity
Subject: Re: Are protons and electrons solid blobs? How is distributed the
elementary charge?
Date: Fri, 20 May 2022 13:12:26 -0000 (UTC)
Organization: A noiseless patient Spider
Lines: 20
Message-ID: <t6843q$5fv$1@dont-email.me>
References: <2b07aeae-2a75-4dd8-92ef-dfdceb58bc92n@googlegroups.com>
<jeosqjFnte4U1@mid.individual.net>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Injection-Date: Fri, 20 May 2022 13:12:26 -0000 (UTC)
Injection-Info: reader02.eternal-september.org; posting-host="90d2b3855dc90ea46768f297b8b58c8c";
logging-data="5631"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org"; posting-account="U2FsdGVkX18hcKh1g7eioPGUW+JTf8bE"
User-Agent: Pan/0.146 (Hic habitat felicitas; 8107378
git@gitlab.gnome.org:GNOME/pan.git)
Cancel-Lock: sha1:SDzqxuVaIKgRC2HAe96NmXSXljc=
 by: Reinhardt Behm - Fri, 20 May 2022 13:12 UTC

On Fri, 20 May 2022 09:03:44 +0200, Thomas Heger wrote:

> 'Electron' and 'proton' belong to a single structure. These names denote
> the exterior and interior extrem-point of a standing rotational wave.

What proton does an electron in the beam of a CRT belong to?
What electron do the protons circulation in the LHC belong to?

This alone shows that your idea of them belonging together is pure
bullshit.

Electrons as well as protons and other elementary particles can exist
without any other particle. This has been experimentally shown so many
times (billions of protons at the LHC, billions of electrons in all the
TVs operating worldwide). But we all know that you care only about your
twisted fantasies not reality.

--
Reinhardt

Re: Are protons and electrons solid blobs? How is distributed the elementary charge?

<1c714631-819f-4ab8-840f-cc03dde4f55en@googlegroups.com>

 copy mid

https://www.novabbs.com/tech/article-flat.php?id=90583&group=sci.physics.relativity#90583

 copy link   Newsgroups: sci.physics.relativity
X-Received: by 2002:ac8:5744:0:b0:2f3:d85a:a518 with SMTP id 4-20020ac85744000000b002f3d85aa518mr7816956qtx.465.1653058581689;
Fri, 20 May 2022 07:56:21 -0700 (PDT)
X-Received: by 2002:a05:620a:15c9:b0:6a3:562d:375e with SMTP id
o9-20020a05620a15c900b006a3562d375emr1095062qkm.551.1653058581522; Fri, 20
May 2022 07:56:21 -0700 (PDT)
Path: i2pn2.org!i2pn.org!usenet.blueworldhosting.com!feed1.usenet.blueworldhosting.com!peer02.iad!feed-me.highwinds-media.com!news.highwinds-media.com!news-out.google.com!nntp.google.com!postnews.google.com!google-groups.googlegroups.com!not-for-mail
Newsgroups: sci.physics.relativity
Date: Fri, 20 May 2022 07:56:21 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <t6843q$5fv$1@dont-email.me>
Injection-Info: google-groups.googlegroups.com; posting-host=181.84.181.2; posting-account=blnzJwoAAAA-82jKM1F-uNmKbbRkrU6D
NNTP-Posting-Host: 181.84.181.2
References: <2b07aeae-2a75-4dd8-92ef-dfdceb58bc92n@googlegroups.com>
<jeosqjFnte4U1@mid.individual.net> <t6843q$5fv$1@dont-email.me>
User-Agent: G2/1.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
Message-ID: <1c714631-819f-4ab8-840f-cc03dde4f55en@googlegroups.com>
Subject: Re: Are protons and electrons solid blobs? How is distributed the
elementary charge?
From: hertz...@gmail.com (Richard Hertz)
Injection-Date: Fri, 20 May 2022 14:56:21 +0000
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
X-Received-Bytes: 2487
 by: Richard Hertz - Fri, 20 May 2022 14:56 UTC

On Friday, May 20, 2022 at 10:12:30 AM UTC-3, Reinhardt Behm wrote:
> On Fri, 20 May 2022 09:03:44 +0200, Thomas Heger wrote:
>
>
> > 'Electron' and 'proton' belong to a single structure. These names denote
> > the exterior and interior extrem-point of a standing rotational wave.
> What proton does an electron in the beam of a CRT belong to?
> What electron do the protons circulation in the LHC belong to?
>
> This alone shows that your idea of them belonging together is pure
> bullshit.
>
> Electrons as well as protons and other elementary particles can exist
> without any other particle. This has been experimentally shown so many
> times (billions of protons at the LHC, billions of electrons in all the
> TVs operating worldwide). But we all know that you care only about your
> twisted fantasies not reality.
>
> --
> Reinhardt

According to current modern and classic physics, you CAN'T HAVE a point-like charged particle (radius zero).
Only this disrupts the mathematics of the models for energy fields, and led to RE-NORMALITION in quantum physics, to
"eliminate" INFINITIES.

So, the current movement is to IGNORE the mathematics when r=0, and plant at this root just a desired value. Ask Feynman and Dirac.

Re: Are protons and electrons solid blobs? How is distributed the elementary charge?

<cf5b041f-f813-4c8d-8e53-23f52ce2df44n@googlegroups.com>

 copy mid

https://www.novabbs.com/tech/article-flat.php?id=90588&group=sci.physics.relativity#90588

 copy link   Newsgroups: sci.physics.relativity
X-Received: by 2002:a37:de0c:0:b0:69e:cd37:7646 with SMTP id h12-20020a37de0c000000b0069ecd377646mr7127237qkj.449.1653066988193;
Fri, 20 May 2022 10:16:28 -0700 (PDT)
X-Received: by 2002:a05:622a:48e:b0:2f9:26c6:d789 with SMTP id
p14-20020a05622a048e00b002f926c6d789mr1402909qtx.95.1653066987982; Fri, 20
May 2022 10:16:27 -0700 (PDT)
Path: i2pn2.org!i2pn.org!usenet.blueworldhosting.com!feed1.usenet.blueworldhosting.com!peer01.iad!feed-me.highwinds-media.com!news.highwinds-media.com!news-out.google.com!nntp.google.com!postnews.google.com!google-groups.googlegroups.com!not-for-mail
Newsgroups: sci.physics.relativity
Date: Fri, 20 May 2022 10:16:27 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <2b07aeae-2a75-4dd8-92ef-dfdceb58bc92n@googlegroups.com>
Injection-Info: google-groups.googlegroups.com; posting-host=181.84.181.2; posting-account=blnzJwoAAAA-82jKM1F-uNmKbbRkrU6D
NNTP-Posting-Host: 181.84.181.2
References: <2b07aeae-2a75-4dd8-92ef-dfdceb58bc92n@googlegroups.com>
User-Agent: G2/1.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
Message-ID: <cf5b041f-f813-4c8d-8e53-23f52ce2df44n@googlegroups.com>
Subject: Re: Are protons and electrons solid blobs? How is distributed the
elementary charge?
From: hertz...@gmail.com (Richard Hertz)
Injection-Date: Fri, 20 May 2022 17:16:28 +0000
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
X-Received-Bytes: 4649
 by: Richard Hertz - Fri, 20 May 2022 17:16 UTC

I repost here an excerpt of my post on Sep 5, 2021.

https://groups.google.com/g/sci.physics.relativity/c/wzXD6jt2aGc/m/nwlIFW-uBwAJ
What is the nature of the electric charge "e" of an electron and why it's energy isn't considered in E=mc2

********************************************
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?).
********************************************

Note what happens in E = e²/(8π ε₀ R), being R the "radius" of the sphere that resembles the volume and shape of electrons and protons.

The energy E of the Electric Field becomes infinite, and that was a HUGE PROBLEM in the development of mathematics for QFT, QED, etc.

Hence, renormalization took place. Avoiding infinity by suppressing it when R=0 (point-like particle). Instead, infinity is replaced with a
compromised value, EXACTLY as dictated by E=mc2.

Feynman, the cynic and hypocrite physicist, laughed at the dirty trick: IT WORKS, AND EVERYTHING ELSE DOESN'T MATTER.

It has to be acknowledged (and I do) that Feynman was a BRILLIANT calculist, more than a physicist. His role at Manhattan Project as the
head of the "human computing team" was acknowledged by everyone, as he developed a PARALLEL COMPUTING NETWORK using human
calculists.

Today, this method is of common use in multicore, multi-threads parallel computing in microprocessors.

Re: Are protons and electrons solid blobs? How is distributed the elementary charge?

<emWELhw_agikAV4gUHWCbzfQ7s0@jntp>

 copy mid

https://www.novabbs.com/tech/article-flat.php?id=90591&group=sci.physics.relativity#90591

 copy link   Newsgroups: sci.physics.relativity
Path: i2pn2.org!i2pn.org!paganini.bofh.team!pasdenom.info!from-devjntp
Message-ID: <emWELhw_agikAV4gUHWCbzfQ7s0@jntp>
JNTP-Route: news2.nemoweb.net
JNTP-DataType: Article
Subject: Re: Are protons and electrons solid blobs? How is distr
ibuted the elementary charge?
References: <2b07aeae-2a75-4dd8-92ef-dfdceb58bc92n@googlegroups.com> <cf5b041f-f813-4c8d-8e53-23f52ce2df44n@googlegroups.com>
Newsgroups: sci.physics.relativity
JNTP-HashClient: 9LI-9Ld9SPlvis7hpVMVW2XMJW8
JNTP-ThreadID: 2b07aeae-2a75-4dd8-92ef-dfdceb58bc92n@googlegroups.com
JNTP-Uri: http://news2.nemoweb.net/?DataID=emWELhw_agikAV4gUHWCbzfQ7s0@jntp
User-Agent: Nemo/0.999a
JNTP-OriginServer: news2.nemoweb.net
Date: Fri, 20 May 22 17:42:17 +0000
Organization: Nemoweb
JNTP-Browser: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; Win64; x64) AppleWebKit/537.36 (KHTML, like Gecko) Chrome/101.0.4951.67 Safari/537.36
Injection-Info: news2.nemoweb.net; posting-host="d90b0c1ebeadf9ef8704dc4c369d7ebdb956aa5e"; logging-data="2022-05-20T17:42:17Z/6916471"; posting-account="4@news2.nemoweb.net"; mail-complaints-to="newsmaster@news2.nemoweb.net"
JNTP-ProtocolVersion: 0.21.1
JNTP-Server: PhpNemoServer/0.94.5
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
X-JNTP-JsonNewsGateway: 0.96
From: r.hac...@tiscali.fr (Richard Hachel)
 by: Richard Hachel - Fri, 20 May 2022 17:42 UTC

Le 20/05/2022 à 19:16, Richard Hertz a écrit :

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

I've always thought this concept of relativistic mass a bit strange, and
very unnecessary.

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

m = 0.511 MeV/c²

p = m.Vr = m.[Vo/sqrt(1-Vo²/c²)]

E= mc².sqrt(1+Vr²/c²) = mc²/sqrt(1-Vo²/c²)

I have always thought that a bus did not become two buses by changing
reference frames, and that mass, like electric charge, was something
invariant.

R.H.

Re: Are protons and electrons solid blobs? How is distributed the elementary charge?

<jerebgF87vjU1@mid.individual.net>

 copy mid

https://www.novabbs.com/tech/article-flat.php?id=90614&group=sci.physics.relativity#90614

 copy link   Newsgroups: sci.physics.relativity
Path: i2pn2.org!i2pn.org!weretis.net!feeder8.news.weretis.net!news.szaf.org!fu-berlin.de!uni-berlin.de!individual.net!not-for-mail
From: ttt_...@web.de (Thomas Heger)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.relativity
Subject: Re: Are protons and electrons solid blobs? How is distributed the
elementary charge?
Date: Sat, 21 May 2022 08:15:14 +0200
Lines: 49
Message-ID: <jerebgF87vjU1@mid.individual.net>
References: <2b07aeae-2a75-4dd8-92ef-dfdceb58bc92n@googlegroups.com> <jeosqjFnte4U1@mid.individual.net> <t6843q$5fv$1@dont-email.me>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Trace: individual.net UyiXpLiTLo7azq0l7BB/ZwzPIDgA/7LQHvututVV3e70BEPqT2
Cancel-Lock: sha1:CftJuFssz5Pig2JzTmmIuoHet3g=
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.0; WOW64; rv:31.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/31.4.0
In-Reply-To: <t6843q$5fv$1@dont-email.me>
 by: Thomas Heger - Sat, 21 May 2022 06:15 UTC

Am 20.05.2022 um 15:12 schrieb Reinhardt Behm:
> On Fri, 20 May 2022 09:03:44 +0200, Thomas Heger wrote:
>
>
>> 'Electron' and 'proton' belong to a single structure. These names denote
>> the exterior and interior extrem-point of a standing rotational wave.
>
> What proton does an electron in the beam of a CRT belong to?
> What electron do the protons circulation in the LHC belong to?
>
> This alone shows that your idea of them belonging together is pure
> bullshit.
>
> Electrons as well as protons and other elementary particles can exist
> without any other particle. This has been experimentally shown so many
> times (billions of protons at the LHC, billions of electrons in all the
> TVs operating worldwide). But we all know that you care only about your
> twisted fantasies not reality.
>

I think, that the partical concept (known as 'standard modell') is wrong.

IOW: particles are not real, but denote certain states.

As proof of concept I wanted to use 'Growing Earth', because if the
Earth would grow from within, the idea of particles must be wrong entirely.

My alternative concept is called 'structured spacetime', which has no
particles in it.

Instead of using real lasting particles, my concept 'builds' such
structures out of spacetime.

In the end the same things come out of this concept, too, only the
particles are not real things. They are certain structures, which appear
under certain conditions.

The idea is, that we can assume a real object like a 'particle
operator', as if the operator would create such a structure.

After that, we can leave the thing away, because that 'particle' is only
meant as a helper to describe the structure, but is not really there.

https://docs.google.com/presentation/d/1Ur3_giuk2l439fxUa8QHX4wTDxBEaM6lOlgVUa0cFU4/edit?usp=sharing

TH

Re: Are protons and electrons solid blobs? How is distributed the elementary charge?

<89474335-ea2f-4b89-b166-5dec7f2a5439n@googlegroups.com>

 copy mid

https://www.novabbs.com/tech/article-flat.php?id=90650&group=sci.physics.relativity#90650

 copy link   Newsgroups: sci.physics.relativity
X-Received: by 2002:ad4:4208:0:b0:461:d262:7842 with SMTP id k8-20020ad44208000000b00461d2627842mr12781781qvp.113.1653181934205;
Sat, 21 May 2022 18:12:14 -0700 (PDT)
X-Received: by 2002:ac8:7d11:0:b0:2f7:917a:e365 with SMTP id
g17-20020ac87d11000000b002f7917ae365mr12180576qtb.247.1653181934023; Sat, 21
May 2022 18:12:14 -0700 (PDT)
Path: i2pn2.org!i2pn.org!usenet.blueworldhosting.com!feed1.usenet.blueworldhosting.com!peer02.iad!feed-me.highwinds-media.com!news.highwinds-media.com!news-out.google.com!nntp.google.com!postnews.google.com!google-groups.googlegroups.com!not-for-mail
Newsgroups: sci.physics.relativity
Date: Sat, 21 May 2022 18:12:13 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <jerebgF87vjU1@mid.individual.net>
Injection-Info: google-groups.googlegroups.com; posting-host=181.84.181.2; posting-account=blnzJwoAAAA-82jKM1F-uNmKbbRkrU6D
NNTP-Posting-Host: 181.84.181.2
References: <2b07aeae-2a75-4dd8-92ef-dfdceb58bc92n@googlegroups.com>
<jeosqjFnte4U1@mid.individual.net> <t6843q$5fv$1@dont-email.me> <jerebgF87vjU1@mid.individual.net>
User-Agent: G2/1.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
Message-ID: <89474335-ea2f-4b89-b166-5dec7f2a5439n@googlegroups.com>
Subject: Re: Are protons and electrons solid blobs? How is distributed the
elementary charge?
From: hertz...@gmail.com (Richard Hertz)
Injection-Date: Sun, 22 May 2022 01:12:14 +0000
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
X-Received-Bytes: 4485
 by: Richard Hertz - Sun, 22 May 2022 01:12 UTC

On Saturday, May 21, 2022 at 3:15:17 AM UTC-3, Thomas Heger wrote:
> Am 20.05.2022 um 15:12 schrieb Reinhardt Behm:
> > On Fri, 20 May 2022 09:03:44 +0200, Thomas Heger wrote:
> >
> >
> >> 'Electron' and 'proton' belong to a single structure. These names denote
> >> the exterior and interior extrem-point of a standing rotational wave.
> >
> > What proton does an electron in the beam of a CRT belong to?
> > What electron do the protons circulation in the LHC belong to?
> >
> > This alone shows that your idea of them belonging together is pure
> > bullshit.
> >
> > Electrons as well as protons and other elementary particles can exist
> > without any other particle. This has been experimentally shown so many
> > times (billions of protons at the LHC, billions of electrons in all the
> > TVs operating worldwide). But we all know that you care only about your
> > twisted fantasies not reality.
> >
> I think, that the partical concept (known as 'standard modell') is wrong.
>
> IOW: particles are not real, but denote certain states.
>
> As proof of concept I wanted to use 'Growing Earth', because if the
> Earth would grow from within, the idea of particles must be wrong entirely.
>
> My alternative concept is called 'structured spacetime', which has no
> particles in it.
>
> Instead of using real lasting particles, my concept 'builds' such
> structures out of spacetime.
>
> In the end the same things come out of this concept, too, only the
> particles are not real things. They are certain structures, which appear
> under certain conditions.
>
> The idea is, that we can assume a real object like a 'particle
> operator', as if the operator would create such a structure.
>
> After that, we can leave the thing away, because that 'particle' is only
> meant as a helper to describe the structure, but is not really there.
>
> https://docs.google.com/presentation/d/1Ur3_giuk2l439fxUa8QHX4wTDxBEaM6lOlgVUa0cFU4/edit?usp=sharing
>
>
>
> TH

According to quantum field theory, particles are the tiniest ripples in the quantum field.

Of course, QFT (and QED, QCD) fail to explain how come they gain mass (and charge), and why 200 of them are so short lived.

The above crap, developed over 25 years, led to the normalization under the SMEP model, banning any "particle" living less
than 1 nanosecond from being a real part of known matter. Only mirages.

Also, SMEP stalled for 50 years now, as the famous Higgs boson failed to meet expectations as the carrier of mass within the SMEP chart.

Not to mention the failure to explain how come Fermions can generate pair of particles with opposite charges, when striking Bosons
with either positive or negative charges.

Reciprocally, pair annihilation while generating Fermions and Neutrinos of different flavors remain a mystery.

Ancient Greeks were more evolved than the current community of retarded relativists posing as physicists. Should try alchemy.

And Earth growth is due to the permanent loss of gravitational energy, as it slowly but constantly is falling to the Sun. Just give it
a couple of hundred million years and it will be gone.

Imbecile Richard Hertz repeats himself

<7c105227-1443-4b12-8dcb-b3bf1c5e55a9n@googlegroups.com>

 copy mid

https://www.novabbs.com/tech/article-flat.php?id=90652&group=sci.physics.relativity#90652

 copy link   Newsgroups: sci.physics.relativity
X-Received: by 2002:a37:843:0:b0:6a0:47d2:cdc5 with SMTP id 64-20020a370843000000b006a047d2cdc5mr10257294qki.689.1653184269319;
Sat, 21 May 2022 18:51:09 -0700 (PDT)
X-Received: by 2002:ae9:f712:0:b0:6a3:4797:1d23 with SMTP id
s18-20020ae9f712000000b006a347971d23mr7658235qkg.300.1653184269079; Sat, 21
May 2022 18:51:09 -0700 (PDT)
Path: i2pn2.org!i2pn.org!usenet.blueworldhosting.com!feed1.usenet.blueworldhosting.com!peer02.iad!feed-me.highwinds-media.com!news.highwinds-media.com!news-out.google.com!nntp.google.com!postnews.google.com!google-groups.googlegroups.com!not-for-mail
Newsgroups: sci.physics.relativity
Date: Sat, 21 May 2022 18:51:08 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <cf5b041f-f813-4c8d-8e53-23f52ce2df44n@googlegroups.com>
Injection-Info: google-groups.googlegroups.com; posting-host=162.252.90.114; posting-account=vma-PgoAAABrctSmMdefNKZ-c5S8buvP
NNTP-Posting-Host: 162.252.90.114
References: <2b07aeae-2a75-4dd8-92ef-dfdceb58bc92n@googlegroups.com> <cf5b041f-f813-4c8d-8e53-23f52ce2df44n@googlegroups.com>
User-Agent: G2/1.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
Message-ID: <7c105227-1443-4b12-8dcb-b3bf1c5e55a9n@googlegroups.com>
Subject: Imbecile Richard Hertz repeats himself
From: eggy2001...@gmail.com (Dono.)
Injection-Date: Sun, 22 May 2022 01:51:09 +0000
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
X-Received-Bytes: 1324
 by: Dono. - Sun, 22 May 2022 01:51 UTC

On Friday, May 20, 2022 at 10:16:29 AM UTC-7, cretin Richard Hertz wrote:
> I repost here the cretinisms from Sep 5, 2021.
Yep

Re: Imbecile Richard Hertz repeats himself

<f86051aa-3715-4d73-80b4-796213359ba3n@googlegroups.com>

 copy mid

https://www.novabbs.com/tech/article-flat.php?id=90656&group=sci.physics.relativity#90656

 copy link   Newsgroups: sci.physics.relativity
X-Received: by 2002:a05:6214:27ed:b0:462:1ee4:f029 with SMTP id jt13-20020a05621427ed00b004621ee4f029mr4645983qvb.47.1653192618476;
Sat, 21 May 2022 21:10:18 -0700 (PDT)
X-Received: by 2002:a05:622a:48e:b0:2f9:26c6:d789 with SMTP id
p14-20020a05622a048e00b002f926c6d789mr5566227qtx.95.1653192618325; Sat, 21
May 2022 21:10:18 -0700 (PDT)
Path: i2pn2.org!i2pn.org!weretis.net!feeder8.news.weretis.net!proxad.net!feeder1-2.proxad.net!209.85.160.216.MISMATCH!news-out.google.com!nntp.google.com!postnews.google.com!google-groups.googlegroups.com!not-for-mail
Newsgroups: sci.physics.relativity
Date: Sat, 21 May 2022 21:10:18 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <7c105227-1443-4b12-8dcb-b3bf1c5e55a9n@googlegroups.com>
Injection-Info: google-groups.googlegroups.com; posting-host=181.84.181.2; posting-account=blnzJwoAAAA-82jKM1F-uNmKbbRkrU6D
NNTP-Posting-Host: 181.84.181.2
References: <2b07aeae-2a75-4dd8-92ef-dfdceb58bc92n@googlegroups.com>
<cf5b041f-f813-4c8d-8e53-23f52ce2df44n@googlegroups.com> <7c105227-1443-4b12-8dcb-b3bf1c5e55a9n@googlegroups.com>
User-Agent: G2/1.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
Message-ID: <f86051aa-3715-4d73-80b4-796213359ba3n@googlegroups.com>
Subject: Re: Imbecile Richard Hertz repeats himself
From: hertz...@gmail.com (Richard Hertz)
Injection-Date: Sun, 22 May 2022 04:10:18 +0000
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
 by: Richard Hertz - Sun, 22 May 2022 04:10 UTC

On Saturday, May 21, 2022 at 10:51:10 PM UTC-3, Dono. wrote:
> On Friday, May 20, 2022 at 10:16:29 AM UTC-7, cretin Richard Hertz wrote:
> > I repost here the cretinisms from Sep 5, 2021.
> Yep

And still you don't have a fucking clue about it. Your relativity fried your single couple of functional neurons long time ago, imbecile.

Explain why NIST only preserve the "classic radius" of the electron (asserting it's 10E-15 mt, which was the former radius of protons),
and ERASED any other radius of elementary particles like protons and neutrons.

20 years ago, 10E-15 mt was the "accepted" radius of protons and neutrons, while 10E-18 mt was the "accepted" radius of electrons.

And proofs of what I wrote above STILL ARE available at sites that explain the sensitivity of the LIGO instruments. Their sensitivity
for detecting alleged gravitational waves were in the order of 1 electron radius. Curiously, what they "detected" is in this order or 10-15
times higher. Tons of books and scientific articles are a proof of what I'm writing here.

Why NIST only has the classic radius of the electron as being 10E-15 mt, which makes the energy of the electric field equal to E=mc2?

Answer this, fucking cretin. And also add something about the radius of classic muons. Japanese scientists did, 10 years ago, and it's
available on line (slow muon based microscope).

Asshole.

Re: Are protons and electrons solid blobs? How is distributed the elementary charge?

<jetvcfFmqlcU1@mid.individual.net>

 copy mid

https://www.novabbs.com/tech/article-flat.php?id=90658&group=sci.physics.relativity#90658

 copy link   Newsgroups: sci.physics.relativity
Path: i2pn2.org!i2pn.org!weretis.net!feeder8.news.weretis.net!news.mixmin.net!news2.arglkargh.de!news.karotte.org!fu-berlin.de!uni-berlin.de!individual.net!not-for-mail
From: ttt_...@web.de (Thomas Heger)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.relativity
Subject: Re: Are protons and electrons solid blobs? How is distributed the
elementary charge?
Date: Sun, 22 May 2022 07:18:07 +0200
Lines: 85
Message-ID: <jetvcfFmqlcU1@mid.individual.net>
References: <2b07aeae-2a75-4dd8-92ef-dfdceb58bc92n@googlegroups.com> <jeosqjFnte4U1@mid.individual.net> <t6843q$5fv$1@dont-email.me> <jerebgF87vjU1@mid.individual.net> <89474335-ea2f-4b89-b166-5dec7f2a5439n@googlegroups.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Trace: individual.net xqJeL1PdcYwxZB2SJwVnPQY2WqhoKIx9pNyooLlQwj4VXLP90W
Cancel-Lock: sha1:ibXXx1A8cfQE7ybmjrXzU346v4M=
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.0; WOW64; rv:31.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/31.4.0
In-Reply-To: <89474335-ea2f-4b89-b166-5dec7f2a5439n@googlegroups.com>
 by: Thomas Heger - Sun, 22 May 2022 05:18 UTC

Am 22.05.2022 um 03:12 schrieb Richard Hertz:

>> IOW: particles are not real, but denote certain states.
>>
>> As proof of concept I wanted to use 'Growing Earth', because if the
>> Earth would grow from within, the idea of particles must be wrong entirely.
>>
>> My alternative concept is called 'structured spacetime', which has no
>> particles in it.
>>
>> Instead of using real lasting particles, my concept 'builds' such
>> structures out of spacetime.
>>
>> In the end the same things come out of this concept, too, only the
>> particles are not real things. They are certain structures, which appear
>> under certain conditions.
>>
>> The idea is, that we can assume a real object like a 'particle
>> operator', as if the operator would create such a structure.
>>
>> After that, we can leave the thing away, because that 'particle' is only
>> meant as a helper to describe the structure, but is not really there.
>>
>> https://docs.google.com/presentation/d/1Ur3_giuk2l439fxUa8QHX4wTDxBEaM6lOlgVUa0cFU4/edit?usp=sharing
>>
>>
>>
>> TH
>
> According to quantum field theory, particles are the tiniest ripples in the quantum field.
>
> Of course, QFT (and QED, QCD) fail to explain how come they gain mass (and charge), and why 200 of them are so short lived.
>
> The above crap, developed over 25 years, led to the normalization under the SMEP model, banning any "particle" living less
> than 1 nanosecond from being a real part of known matter. Only mirages.
>
> Also, SMEP stalled for 50 years now, as the famous Higgs boson failed to meet expectations as the carrier of mass within the SMEP chart.
>
> Not to mention the failure to explain how come Fermions can generate pair of particles with opposite charges, when striking Bosons
> with either positive or negative charges.
>
> Reciprocally, pair annihilation while generating Fermions and Neutrinos of different flavors remain a mystery.
>
> Ancient Greeks were more evolved than the current community of retarded relativists posing as physicists. Should try alchemy.
>
> And Earth growth is due to the permanent loss of gravitational energy, as it slowly but constantly is falling to the Sun. Just give it
> a couple of hundred million years and it will be gone.
>

No

The Jupiter has Moons and these will be planets in the far future, while
Jupiter will be a star.

So: the planets have grown out of their central star and gain mass over
time.

The stars themselves grow, too.

Later stars or planets can explose and leave traces in the form of rubble.

The idea of 'growing Earth' is a transformation of energy into matter
inside the planet. This energy stems from outside and 'falls' into the
inner Earth.

That 'something falling' is 'cooking' in some kind of plasma oven into
real matter. That pushes the Earth crust upwards and apart from inside
the planet.

We could easily see, that oceans are expanding, see-levels falling and
new matter pops out of inner Earth.

But THAT is not allowed and you are forbidden to see, what is obvious.
(please meditate a few seconds about 'why' and 'qui bono')

So, large scale brainwashing is happening and you are lied to all over
the place.

Bad luck actually, because valid physics is important in all sorts or areas.

TH

Re: Are protons and electrons solid blobs? How is distributed the elementary charge?

<4727261.GXAFRqVoOG@PointedEars.de>

 copy mid

https://www.novabbs.com/tech/article-flat.php?id=90663&group=sci.physics.relativity#90663

 copy link   Newsgroups: sci.physics.relativity
Path: i2pn2.org!i2pn.org!aioe.org!news.mb-net.net!open-news-network.org!.POSTED.178.197.205.247!not-for-mail
From: PointedE...@web.de (Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.relativity
Subject: Re: Are protons and electrons solid blobs? How is distributed the elementary charge?
Date: Sun, 22 May 2022 11:55:15 +0200
Organization: PointedEars Software (PES)
Lines: 57
Message-ID: <4727261.GXAFRqVoOG@PointedEars.de>
References: <2b07aeae-2a75-4dd8-92ef-dfdceb58bc92n@googlegroups.com> <t67dvc$nc4$1@dont-email.me>
Reply-To: Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <usenet@PointedEars.de>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8Bit
Injection-Info: gwaiyur.mb-net.net; posting-host="178.197.205.247";
logging-data="910471"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@open-news-network.org"
User-Agent: KNode/4.14.10
Cancel-Lock: sha1:MdFJduv20d0WV3+IA+Y/lHM1N8E=
Face: 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
X-User-ID: U2FsdGVkX18yVIqN7TaQHbsfhyQdtdZzBbgJcpHGlPE1QZ8AkSPE9g==
X-Face: %i>XG-yXR'\"2P/C_aO%~;2o~?g0pPKmbOw^=NT`tprDEf++D.m7"}HW6.#=U:?2GGctkL,f89@H46O$ASoW&?s}.k+&.<b';Md8`dH6iqhT)6C^.Px|[=M@7=Ik[_w<%n1Up"LPQNu2m8|L!/3iby{-]A+#YE}Kl{Cw$\U!kD%K}\2jz"QQP6Uqr],./"?;=4v
 by: Thomas 'Pointed - Sun, 22 May 2022 09:55 UTC

Mikko wrote:

> On 2022-05-20 06:30:00 +0000, Richard Hertz said:
>> Are they solid irregular blobs with mass or are they empty? (not
>> spherical shape).
>
> Electrons are point particles, i.e., they are so small that their size and
> shape cannot be measured.

No, they are _assumed_ to be point-_like_ because no inner structure of them
has been discovered yet.

Not least that has to do with the fact that electrons, as they are quantum
objects, must be described by a complex-valued wavefunction whose modulus
squared integrated over a volume merely gives the probability of finding
them there.

See also:

<http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/Particles/lepton.html#c2> pp.

> They are magnetic,

What is that supposed to mean?

> whith a south pole and a north pole,

Doubtful.

> so their behaviour is not speherically symmetric but it is,
> as far as has been observed, axially symmetric.

Whatever that is supposed to mean. [Note that the quantum-mechanical
property of spin that electrons (and other quantum objects) have is NOT
corresponding to any motion.]

> Protons are composites of three quarks, each of which is a point particle
> in the same sense as an electron is.

Yes.

> Each of the tree quarks has 1 / 3 of the electric charge of the proton.

_Three_, not “tree”. And then the statement is not true, as Tom Roberts has
already pointed out.

See also:

<https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x8grN3zP8cg&list=PLCfRa7MXBEspw_7ZSTVGCXpSswdpegQHX&index=13>

<https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLCfRa7MXBEspXPQVseC0dDV8nWfQXe_6g>

PointedEars
--
Two neutrinos go through a bar ...

(from: WolframAlpha)

Re: Imbecile Richard Hertz repeats himself

<14285479-7d43-4830-af69-3a500b8b891bn@googlegroups.com>

 copy mid

https://www.novabbs.com/tech/article-flat.php?id=90666&group=sci.physics.relativity#90666

 copy link   Newsgroups: sci.physics.relativity
X-Received: by 2002:ac8:7dc1:0:b0:2f3:c70a:df9e with SMTP id c1-20020ac87dc1000000b002f3c70adf9emr13360113qte.307.1653225916796;
Sun, 22 May 2022 06:25:16 -0700 (PDT)
X-Received: by 2002:a05:622a:164b:b0:2f3:e36f:956 with SMTP id
y11-20020a05622a164b00b002f3e36f0956mr13172504qtj.210.1653225916573; Sun, 22
May 2022 06:25:16 -0700 (PDT)
Path: i2pn2.org!i2pn.org!usenet.blueworldhosting.com!feed1.usenet.blueworldhosting.com!peer01.iad!feed-me.highwinds-media.com!news.highwinds-media.com!news-out.google.com!nntp.google.com!postnews.google.com!google-groups.googlegroups.com!not-for-mail
Newsgroups: sci.physics.relativity
Date: Sun, 22 May 2022 06:25:16 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <f86051aa-3715-4d73-80b4-796213359ba3n@googlegroups.com>
Injection-Info: google-groups.googlegroups.com; posting-host=162.252.90.114; posting-account=vma-PgoAAABrctSmMdefNKZ-c5S8buvP
NNTP-Posting-Host: 162.252.90.114
References: <2b07aeae-2a75-4dd8-92ef-dfdceb58bc92n@googlegroups.com>
<cf5b041f-f813-4c8d-8e53-23f52ce2df44n@googlegroups.com> <7c105227-1443-4b12-8dcb-b3bf1c5e55a9n@googlegroups.com>
<f86051aa-3715-4d73-80b4-796213359ba3n@googlegroups.com>
User-Agent: G2/1.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
Message-ID: <14285479-7d43-4830-af69-3a500b8b891bn@googlegroups.com>
Subject: Re: Imbecile Richard Hertz repeats himself
From: eggy2001...@gmail.com (Dono.)
Injection-Date: Sun, 22 May 2022 13:25:16 +0000
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
X-Received-Bytes: 1433
 by: Dono. - Sun, 22 May 2022 13:25 UTC

On Saturday, May 21, 2022 at 9:10:19 PM UTC-7, asshole Richard Hertz wrote:

> Asshole.

Appropriate signature

Re: Imbecile Richard Hertz repeats himself

<X7ds9eTddMv2t4S75P9HLA783gY@jntp>

 copy mid

https://www.novabbs.com/tech/article-flat.php?id=90668&group=sci.physics.relativity#90668

 copy link   Newsgroups: sci.physics.relativity
Path: i2pn2.org!i2pn.org!paganini.bofh.team!pasdenom.info!from-devjntp
Message-ID: <X7ds9eTddMv2t4S75P9HLA783gY@jntp>
JNTP-Route: news2.nemoweb.net
JNTP-DataType: Article
Subject: Re: Imbecile Richard Hertz repeats himself
References: <2b07aeae-2a75-4dd8-92ef-dfdceb58bc92n@googlegroups.com> <cf5b041f-f813-4c8d-8e53-23f52ce2df44n@googlegroups.com>
<7c105227-1443-4b12-8dcb-b3bf1c5e55a9n@googlegroups.com> <f86051aa-3715-4d73-80b4-796213359ba3n@googlegroups.com>
<14285479-7d43-4830-af69-3a500b8b891bn@googlegroups.com>
Newsgroups: sci.physics.relativity
JNTP-HashClient: 08mHEEaadTpqn3o1PkNJoHRU1Rg
JNTP-ThreadID: 2b07aeae-2a75-4dd8-92ef-dfdceb58bc92n@googlegroups.com
JNTP-Uri: http://news2.nemoweb.net/?DataID=X7ds9eTddMv2t4S75P9HLA783gY@jntp
User-Agent: Nemo/0.999a
JNTP-OriginServer: news2.nemoweb.net
Date: Sun, 22 May 22 13:40:47 +0000
Organization: Nemoweb
JNTP-Browser: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; Win64; x64) AppleWebKit/537.36 (KHTML, like Gecko) Chrome/101.0.4951.67 Safari/537.36
Injection-Info: news2.nemoweb.net; posting-host="1c7dca71183fa98dcccac08823c854be39d2fc7d"; logging-data="2022-05-22T13:40:47Z/6921330"; posting-account="4@news2.nemoweb.net"; mail-complaints-to="newsmaster@news2.nemoweb.net"
JNTP-ProtocolVersion: 0.21.1
JNTP-Server: PhpNemoServer/0.94.5
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
X-JNTP-JsonNewsGateway: 0.96
From: r.hac...@tiscali.fr (Richard Hachel)
 by: Richard Hachel - Sun, 22 May 2022 13:40 UTC

Le 22/05/2022 à 15:25, "Dono." a écrit :
> On Saturday, May 21, 2022 at 9:10:19 PM UTC-7, asshole Richard Hertz wrote:
>
>> Asshole.
>
> Appropriate signature

Merci de ne pas insulter les correspondants, s'il vous plait.

R.H.

Re: Imbecile Richard Hertz repeats himself

<d6ea60ee-436f-46f0-8b75-200e9f774134n@googlegroups.com>

 copy mid

https://www.novabbs.com/tech/article-flat.php?id=90676&group=sci.physics.relativity#90676

 copy link   Newsgroups: sci.physics.relativity
X-Received: by 2002:ac8:7d87:0:b0:2f3:edba:a84a with SMTP id c7-20020ac87d87000000b002f3edbaa84amr14068200qtd.186.1653234760105;
Sun, 22 May 2022 08:52:40 -0700 (PDT)
X-Received: by 2002:ae9:f712:0:b0:6a3:4797:1d23 with SMTP id
s18-20020ae9f712000000b006a347971d23mr8949187qkg.300.1653234759937; Sun, 22
May 2022 08:52:39 -0700 (PDT)
Path: i2pn2.org!i2pn.org!usenet.blueworldhosting.com!feed1.usenet.blueworldhosting.com!peer02.iad!feed-me.highwinds-media.com!news.highwinds-media.com!news-out.google.com!nntp.google.com!postnews.google.com!google-groups.googlegroups.com!not-for-mail
Newsgroups: sci.physics.relativity
Date: Sun, 22 May 2022 08:52:39 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <X7ds9eTddMv2t4S75P9HLA783gY@jntp>
Injection-Info: google-groups.googlegroups.com; posting-host=181.84.181.2; posting-account=blnzJwoAAAA-82jKM1F-uNmKbbRkrU6D
NNTP-Posting-Host: 181.84.181.2
References: <2b07aeae-2a75-4dd8-92ef-dfdceb58bc92n@googlegroups.com>
<cf5b041f-f813-4c8d-8e53-23f52ce2df44n@googlegroups.com> <7c105227-1443-4b12-8dcb-b3bf1c5e55a9n@googlegroups.com>
<f86051aa-3715-4d73-80b4-796213359ba3n@googlegroups.com> <14285479-7d43-4830-af69-3a500b8b891bn@googlegroups.com>
<X7ds9eTddMv2t4S75P9HLA783gY@jntp>
User-Agent: G2/1.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
Message-ID: <d6ea60ee-436f-46f0-8b75-200e9f774134n@googlegroups.com>
Subject: Re: Imbecile Richard Hertz repeats himself
From: hertz...@gmail.com (Richard Hertz)
Injection-Date: Sun, 22 May 2022 15:52:40 +0000
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
X-Received-Bytes: 3894
 by: Richard Hertz - Sun, 22 May 2022 15:52 UTC

I'm curious about one thing that came into my mind, regarding electrons and QFT definition of a particle.

If QFT defines a particle as the tiniest ripple in the quantum field (don't forget that QFT evolved from Wave Mechanics, not Matrix Mech.),
then they need 3D space in the QF to have existence, at least for an integer number of wavelengths associated with their mass.

In the operation of CRT, which had been around for more than one century (specially those built after 1950), a very narrow beam of
electrons are magnetically focused and electrically accelerated toward a screen. In the 1990s, HiRes CRT (with bandwidth above 200 Mhz)
could allow a resolution of less than 250 um radius (analog pixel equivalence).

The beam that swept the screen convey a current in the order of microamperes, which meant A LOT of electrons per unit time.

What was the explanation that QFT could bring up, to explain how come electrons within the beam INVADED the "space" of other
electrons in that quantum field? Was this theory, or QED apt to explain such proven behavior on every TV or computer screen in
that epoch (more than 2 decades of technology enhancement)?

Now, with flat screens, this technology is seen as archaic, but did physics had a theoretical explanation?

Because engineering did have one, and the know-how allowed incredible products to be delivered at rather low prices.

I still remember my 50 Kg, 300 Mhz and 17" CRT that I used with the most advanced graphic cards by 1995, which allowed me to make
incredible software based imagery of models, using scientific SW (very expensive, by the way).

How QFT explain the pack of very close electrons traveling together, to hit the screen? Ripples in the quantum field? I don't think so.

I believe that derivations of Wave Mechanics brought to the technology field are useless. Waves were used, and gained quick
acceptance in science, because waves were less difficult to manipulate mathematically than Heisenberg Matrix Mechanics, which
I believe it WAS the real deal.

But matrices were mostly unknown by physicists, and much more difficult to manipulate than wave mathematics.

The key point, for me, is that Matrix Mechanics suit better to handle DISCRETE states. But history developed on the other track.
The wrong track, IMHO.

We could have advanced much more in quantum physics with Matrix Mechanics that with Wave Mechanics, in particular with
the proliferation of computing machines since the 1930s.

1
server_pubkey.txt

rocksolid light 0.9.7
clearnet tor