Date: Mar 12, 2011 3:14 AM
Author: Tom Potter
Subject: Re: Bizarre Pattern among anti-SR "Dissidents"
"hanson" <firstname.lastname@example.org> wrote in message
> Paul Draper, my comments to your question:
> ||P|| Why does having mass impy
> ||P|| having volume for ALL things?
> you added:
> ||P|| It is only an assume that "something ||P|| physical" NECESSARILY
> ||P|| nonzero volume.
> ||P|| There is no rationale for believing that ||P|| this is so. It's just
> a belief.
> So, my take goes along the same lines as all the other posters have, who
> said ~
> 1) Show your rationale why that shouldn't be so?
> 2) What is your rationale for asking this?
> 2) Why do you have doubts about it? 3) Are you playing a word game with
> and "something physical"? 4) Show an example where your "something
> physical" does NOT have volume.
> It is surprising though to hear YOU introduce
> the term BELIEF into physics... ahahaha...
> And here is such an example which supports, that BELIEF is essential to
> heuristic physics:
> Use the following OLD std equations:
> r_e = m_e * G/c^2 ..... =~ 6E-56 cm
> 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,
> which may be believed to be like that because it results from trivial
> manipulation of values from
> measured physical constants...
> With that then you have your will fulfilled and your BELIEF satisfied that
> even non mass containing "things" like charge do/can have volume...
> The rub of course is the same as with the photon where one can quarrel to
> no end, that
> that the photon has momentum but no mass,
> which sets a BELIEF into action that this so,
> DESPITE the empirical and arbitrated and adjudicated and obvious fact that
> momentum is defined as p= m*v or dp = F*dt, etc any and all of which still
> contain the dimension of ***m****... which ends my discussion by saying
> As soon as we step beyond a simple comparison of experimental data with/to
> our arbitrary chosen
> measuring units we do enter = the world of BELIEFS aka Theoretical
> I plead guilty to parrot Max Planck who said the
> same in his profound & epic 2-liner in 1894:
> |||| "Experiments are the only means of knowledge |||| at our disposal.
> The rest is poetry& imagination." ... ahahahaha... ahahahahanson
> ------------- back ground -----------
> "hanson" <email@example.com> wrote:
>> "PD" <firstname.lastname@example.org> wrote:
>> "hanson" <han...@quick.net> wrote:
>>> "PD" <thedraperfam...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> > "hanson" <han...@quick.net> wrote:
>> hanson wrote:
>> The only conclusion one can realistically draw is, that
>> since it is experimentally shown that an electron does
>> have mass, it can NOT be a thingy that has no spatial
>> expanse, IOW the electron is not a zero volume point
>> particle,... BUT it comes very close to be so...
>> Paul wrote:
>> This is precisely Marcel's presumption as well.
>> Why do you think that having mass implies having volume for ALL things?
>> hanson wrote:
>> From where did you get the notion that I said so?
>> Paul wrote:
>> From what you said above: "since it is experimentally shown that an
>> electron does have mass, it can NOT be a thingy that has no spatial
>> expanse..." This is identical to "An electron has mass, therefore it
>> MUST have spatial expanse." This in turn is identical to "Having mass
>> implies having nonzero volume," which is a statement that would apply
>> regardless of the thing that has mass, hence to all things having
>> mass. It seems pretty obvious where I got the notion you said so.
>> hanson wrote:
>> ... hahahahaha... and "This in turn is identical to"
>> your obsessive obfuscation habit about which
>> you have been accused by others overNover again. But let me de-banter &
>> ascribe it simply to a "failure in communication" which can happen all
>> too easily in/with ASCII. I get the feeling though that you want to have
>> some "mission creep" & intend to drift into your favorite subject over
>> whether photons do have
>> mass or not. I may address that in another post
>> later this after afternoon or in the evening. Take care, Paul, hanson
>> Earlier, hanson wrote:
>>> Here is what (you snipped but) I posted in addtion:
>>> =1= hanson wrote:
>>> There are measurements and then there are interpretations
>>> of such data. My college, CERN Ex-leader Franz Heymann,
>>> said in all seriousness that he had never seen any particles,
>>> except for their actions.
>>> When it comes to interpretations one can generate all types
>>> kinds of musings as to what size the electron could be.
>>> Here is one that says:
>>> The electron is a particle with the size of its Kerr radius:
>>> r_e = m_e * G/c^2 ..... =~ 6E-56 cm
>>> or another one that says:
>>> r_e = ~ 1.6E-33 cm which 1 Planck length unit large,
>>> and spawned from:
>>> Electron mass = Planck length*m/r conv.*Coulomb shroud.
>>> m_e = [sqrt(hbar*G/c^3)]*[c^2/G]*[1/(f_L*F)]*a*pi*sqrt(3)/3
>>> where fL is the Lymann series limit frequency and F denotes
>>> the Faraday constant. and where the combo of the 1st two
>>> factors are simply the parsed expression of the Planck mass.
>>> The only conclusion one can realistically draw is, that
>>> since it is experimentally shown that an electron does
>>> have mass, it can NOT be a thingy that has no spatial
>>> expanse, IOW the electron is not a zero volume point
>>> particle,... BUT it comes very close to be so...
>>> .... and now we can argue about the applicability of the
>>> HUP to all these musings... which still leaves us up
>>> =2= hanson wrote:
>>> Marcle's angel story, refs to photons. It's just a silly
>>> metaphor. If there are too many such angels there,
>>> then all "hell breaks loose" at 511 keV and unholy
>>> fornications of/with & by pair creation begins...
>>> =3= hanson wrote:
>>> Of course it the unseen atoms' electron (shell)
>>> (thermal movement) that bumps into the visible,
>>> larger particles that are/were seen in the Zitterung
>>> under the then available microscopes. But those
>>> XPs were conducted to prove the existence of
>>> atoms, not electrons. IIRC it was just in 1926 when
>>> Perrin got the Nobel for such **related** work and
>>> the establishment officially accepted the existence
>>> of atoms.
>>> That's just 85 years ago, when your grandpa read
>>> it as news... ahahaha...
Science is man's attempt to create a DICTIONARY
that can be used to generate simple, coherent, unambiguous phrases
with the obvious intent of being able to communicate
with other sentient beings in a simple, coherent, unambiguous way.
The Phoenicians put man on the right track
when they created the alphabet
in order to remember how to say "food", "water", "pussy", etc.
when they revisited places,
and the Pythagoreans made a big leap
when they showed that numbers provided a
powerful, simple, coherent, unambiguous set of adjectives,
and Archimedes, Galileo, Kepler, and Newton
made big leaps when they showed how to create
simple, coherent, unambiguous phrases,
and Maxwell made a big leap
when he explained that all physical properties
could be defined with a small set of orthogonal pointer words,
like time, space, mass, charge and permeability,
( The Grammar of mechanics, electricity and magnetic.)
and Schrödinger made a big leap
when he showed in his book "What is Life"
that a small set of pointer words could be used
to defined all expressions of living things,
and Watson and Crick made a big leap
when they discovered what the pointer words were
and how they had to be fit together (The Grammar of life ),
and then Einstein came along,
and took a system honed by billions of people over thousands of years,
called oscillators clocks,
called energy "inertia mass",
conned the public into thinking that energy, rather than action was quanta,
made the statement
"The method of Cartesian coordinates must then be discarded.."
and used rubber clocks and rulers
to create a Tower of Babel
that wastes time, money and minds,
and with the aid of race/religion biased supporters
in the Mass Media, brainwashed millions of people
to believe that Einstein was the "Man of the 20th Century",
and had created man's most powerful model of reality.
Why did people in the Mass Media do this?
My take is, that when Jews gained dominance in the Mass Media
they made a conscious effort to brainwash the masses
that Jews were "Virtuous intelligent Victims"
in intelligent in order to rationalize
why Jews had come into conflict with
all of their neighbors throughout history,
and why the Jewish culture was vastly inferior
to the cultures of Egypt, India, China, Greece, Rome, Persia,
and later Europe, etc.
No doubt, Muslims, Latinos, Chinese and Indians will
do the same thing when they become dominant in
the Mass Media.
It is obvious that humans can be conditioned just like Pavlov's dogs.
It is interesting to see that with the demise of
printed media, Google is taking over where
the Mass Media of the 20th Century left off,
and they are "cooking the books"
just as the Mass Media did for the last one hundred years.