PD
Posts:
2,970
Registered:
5/25/05
|
|
Re: The electron's size is NOT ZERO volume
Posted:
Mar 14, 2011 4:05 PM
|
|
On Mar 14, 1:41 pm, "hanson" <han...@quick.net> wrote:
> See hanson response, below.
>
> -----------
> > Patience, patience please Prof. Draper.> sincerely,
> > Dr. Fai, Intern, w/hanson
> > --------------------------
>
> >>"PD" <thedraperfam...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > "hanson" <han...@quick.net> wrote:
> >> "PD" <thedraperfam...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >> "hanson" <han...@quick.net> wrote:
> >> > was: Re: Bizarre Pattern among anti-SR "Dissidents"
> >> > <snipped Paul Draper's epic weaseling of zero value>
>
> hanson wrote:
>
> -------- RECAP ---------
> <http://tinyurl.com/electron-is-NOT-ZERO-sized>
> <http://tinyurl.com/Pauls-composite-volume-Belief>
> <http://tinyurl.com/Drapers-zero-volume-Belief>
> in which we discussed:
>
> Use the following OLD std equations for
> the core size, r_e, for the electron which is:
> r_e = m_e * G/c^2 ..... =~ 6E-56 cm, then
> take from Planck... t_pl^2 = hbar G/c^5:
> G = c^5* t_pl^2/hbar , insert and write:
> r_e = m_e * c^3 * t_pl^2/hbar & introduce
> El.Charge: e^2 = hbar *a* c... which leads to
> [l_p^2] ^(3/2) = [(e^2/m_e)*(r_e/c^2)^(3/2)]
> which can be read as:
> The electron's so-called point- or eigen-,
> or self CHARGE resides within a volume
> of 1 Planck length unit, from where it displays
> its traditional electrostatic field,
>
> Paul wrote:
>
> Can I ask where you got this formula from?
>
> hanson wrote:
>
> Check into the links I provided above and
> then look into my archive. To boot,
> Paul, you a professor of your standing
> ought to be able to see in one fell swoop
> why the electron is not of a zero-vol size,
> nor that of the result of scattering.
> "Your" scattering ref for r_e was only able
> to probe to the limit of 2.8E-18 cm of the
> strength of the electron's electrostatic field.
> It could not get/go any deeper/closer to/into
> near the central electron core that sizes at
> r_e at m_e * G/c^2 ..... =~ 6E-56 cm
> What the core is made up of?, I dunno.
> I do have wild speculative notions that rest on
> D'Alembert's beliefs which make this singularly
> be a barycenter core of r_e/m_e = G/c^2
> caused by the spin action of said "dunno"
>
> Paul wrote:
>
> Reference, please.
>
> ------------ end of recap ---------------
> --------- hanson response ------------
>
> hanson wrote:
>
> Paul, the reason for the delay was that I had
> my employees check into the documentation
> status. I was informed that the reports and
> hence "the reference and where the equations
> came from" are still classified, I'm sorry to say.
> But this much I can tell you:
>
> These equations were in the report that I
> signed at the conclusion of the program that
> my organisation had worked on:
> "Mitigation of the wobble problem of MIRVs
> on reentry" and on "Peak phase phenomena
> in EMPs"...
> I remember that only the above size & equ.
> did fit the measured data, on so, of course,
> I put that into the reports...
>
> Paul, there is an awful lot of interesting stuff
> still hidden as classified in the archives, but
> I am not about to betray that trust for the sake
> of pleasuring someone in cyberspace.
> I hope you can understand that Paul.
Thanks, hanson, that's kinda what I thought.
>
> OTOH, Paul, since the equation appear to be
> novel to you, you may grab the opportunity and
> develop a theory for it. You take the credit for it
> and shine. That way the news gets out and
> nobody will get into jeopardy of any kind.
>
> You may use the method of Prof. John Baez,
> UC Riverside, CA in his web site:
> <<http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/lengths.html>>
> wherein Baez says:
> ="we fiddle around" & "forget that darn '2' " =
>
> ahahahaha... AHAHAHAH.... Take care, Paul
> ahahahahanson
|
|
