Discussion:
Is the Charge of a particle Resides within the Particle??
(too old to reply)
kenseto
2007-12-20 13:18:17 UTC
Permalink
Is the charge of a particle resides within the particles?
The answer according to current physics is:YES

This was especially true in the case of the theory of quantum
electrodynamics (QED). In QED the electric change of a particle is
resided within the particle. This leads to the infinity problems
during the early development of QED. The infinity problem of QED was
resolved by a dubious mathematical procedure called renormalization.
A number of physicists, including Paul Dirac consider the
renormalization technique a mathematical trick. He made the following
comments during a lecture given in New Zealand in 1975:
"I must say that I am very dissatisfied with the situation, because
this so-called 'good theory' does involve neglecting infinities which
appear in its equations, neglecting them in an arbitrary way. This is
just not sensible mathematics. Sensible mathematics involves
neglecting a quantity when it turns out to be small."

It turns out that the reason why the renormalization trick works is
because the charge of a particle does not reside within the particle.
It is the distortion (the field) in the ether (the E-Matrix)
surrounding the charged particle. This distortion (field) in the ether
(the E-Matrix) is caused by the absolute motion of the fundamental
particle (the S-Particle) that comproses the charged particle. For a
detailed description of this new concept please read the paper
entitled "Unification of Physics" in the following website:
http://www.geocities.com/kn_seto/index.htm

Ken Seto
PD
2007-12-20 14:22:34 UTC
Permalink
Post by kenseto
Is the charge of a particle resides within the particles?
The answer according to current physics is:YES
Fundamental misunderstanding. Charge is not a "stuff" like paint or
peanut butter. It is a *property* of a particle. Does the "round" of a
raindrop reside within the raindrop? Does the "straight" of a stick
reside within the stick?
Post by kenseto
This was especially true in the case of the theory of quantum
electrodynamics (QED). In QED the electric change of a particle is
resided within the particle.
Actually, charge being associated with a particle was around a long
long long time before QED. You may want to look up Coulomb's law in an
elementary physics book and learn when Coulomb lived (compared to
Feynman). You may notice that there are no infinities in Coulomb's law
for a finite-sized particle with an even distribution of charge. Thus,
charge residing inside a particle cannot be blamed for infinities.
Post by kenseto
This leads to the infinity problems
during the early development of QED.
Actually, the infinities had to do with the summation of charge
residing *outside* the particle, completely opposite to your claim.
Post by kenseto
The infinity problem of QED was
resolved by a dubious mathematical procedure called renormalization.
A number of physicists, including Paul Dirac consider the
renormalization technique a mathematical trick. He made the following
"I must say that I am very dissatisfied with the situation, because
this so-called 'good theory' does involve neglecting infinities which
appear in its equations, neglecting them in an arbitrary way. This is
just not sensible mathematics. Sensible mathematics involves
neglecting a quantity when it turns out to be small."
Note that the comments where made over 30 years ago. I guess you're
assuming that nothing's been learned in 30 years. Note, too, that the
infinities occur in a particular method of calculating the interaction
called a perturbative expansion. Nature doesn't necessarily act in a
perturbative expansion, but that's how we calculate it. The theory
doesn't require perturbative expansions physically, any more than
Newtonian mechanics requires solving definite integrals physically,
though they are sometimes handy tools. There are other ways to
calculate using the same theory that does not suffer the same
renormalization challenge -- for example, lattice gauge calculations.
Post by kenseto
It turns out that the reason why the renormalization trick works is
because the charge of a particle does not reside within the particle.
This you haven't demonstrated AT ALL. You've not shown in any way,
shape, or form, that the finite summation that results from
renormalization has anything to do with charge not residing within the
particle. You've simply stated "it turns out" -- that's called hand-
waving -- and hoped for the best.
Post by kenseto
It is the distortion (the field) in the ether (the E-Matrix)
surrounding the charged particle. This distortion (field) in the ether
(the E-Matrix) is caused by the absolute motion of the fundamental
particle (the S-Particle) that comproses the charged particle. For a
detailed description of this new concept please read the paper
entitled "Unification of Physics" in the following website:http://www.geocities.com/kn_seto/index.htm
Well, you can understand why I'm not so intrigued to read your paper
in detail, since you've gotten so many basic facts wrong, as I've
indicated above. I take it that you made the statements above on the
basis of what you've read in coffee-table books like "Surely You're
Joking, Mr. Feynman" and "A Brief History of Time". I think it would
do you good before you spend a lot of time inventing your own theory
out of whole cloth, to be sure you don't make a lot of basic mistakes
about what we already know.

PD
Y.Porat
2007-12-21 06:49:40 UTC
Permalink
Post by PD
Post by kenseto
Is the charge of a particle resides within the particles?
The answer according to current physics is:YES
Fundamental misunderstanding. Charge is not a "stuff" like paint or
peanut butter. It is a *property* of a particle.
-----------------------
a basic misunderstanding of the physical world
and that is why physics is stuck in the mudd
for too long

charge *is mass in motion*!!

you cannot eternalize ignorance byjust keeping the existinf
crippled amthematical equations and be happy with that
we must go deeper in undersnading as close as possible
the mechanismes of nature!

and that can be achieved only by TRIAL AND EROR !!
parrot slike you will even lead us to better undertandings

may be Seto is far from reality
but we must go on and on by trail and error
2
now i eremark to Seto
i also guess that charge is not basically reisds
inside the particles
for instance
the 'strong forces' reside inside it
now may be even electric charge
but my question is :
how deep into the particle it goes in ??
i guess not too deap - while i think about my
'chain of orbitals idea!!
the chain is compsed of linearlly connected orbitals
while we find theat as it is directed outwads the particle
eachyaditional link is weeker
ie
the forst one is of a strong force
than further head a medium one that is weeker
and further away comes the eelctric one
and even firther away even weeker ones like
Gavitins orbitals
b
you started to show
curves pathes emmerging out of the particle

my suggestion is that you will go on
and comlplete the path to
**a closed path**!
and may be you get the 'circlon' idea (:-)

ATB
Y.Porat
-----------------------------------
Eric Gisse
2007-12-21 08:26:09 UTC
Permalink
Post by Y.Porat
Post by PD
Post by kenseto
Is the charge of a particle resides within the particles?
The answer according to current physics is:YES
Fundamental misunderstanding. Charge is not a "stuff" like paint or
peanut butter. It is a *property* of a particle.
-----------------------
a basic misunderstanding of the physical world
and that is why physics is stuck in the mudd
for too long
You have no idea what you are talking about. You endlessly criticize
physics but you don't even know what a Hamiltonian is.

[snip babble]
Jeckyl
2007-12-21 08:36:13 UTC
Permalink
Post by Eric Gisse
Post by Y.Porat
Post by PD
Post by kenseto
Is the charge of a particle resides within the particles?
The answer according to current physics is:YES
Fundamental misunderstanding. Charge is not a "stuff" like paint or
peanut butter. It is a *property* of a particle.
-----------------------
a basic misunderstanding of the physical world
and that is why physics is stuck in the mudd
for too long
You have no idea what you are talking about. You endlessly criticize
physics but you don't even know what a Hamiltonian is.
[snip babble]
My god, is porat still alive .. but it looks like his spelling has improved
a bit
Y.Porat
2007-12-21 13:52:47 UTC
Permalink
Post by Jeckyl
Post by Eric Gisse
Post by Y.Porat
Post by PD
Post by kenseto
Is the charge of a particle resides within the particles?
The answer according to current physics is:YES
Fundamental misunderstanding. Charge is not a "stuff" like paint or
peanut butter. It is a *property* of a particle.
-----------------------
a basic misunderstanding of the physical world
and that is why physics is stuck in the mudd
for too long
You have no idea what you are talking about. You endlessly criticize
physics but you don't even know what a Hamiltonian is.
[snip babble]
My god, is porat still alive .. but it looks like his spelling has improved
a bit- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -
---------------
your ancestors also didnt like my parents to be alive
and they educated you accordingly ....

i am not on your way
you can go on and show your big contributions
to the *advance* of science
and at the same time
teach the world about some human behaviour ...
of a 'human being ' and agreat scientist

Y.P
-----------------------------
Jeckyl
2007-12-22 01:09:23 UTC
Permalink
Post by Jeckyl
Post by Eric Gisse
Post by Y.Porat
Post by PD
Post by kenseto
Is the charge of a particle resides within the particles?
The answer according to current physics is:YES
Fundamental misunderstanding. Charge is not a "stuff" like paint or
peanut butter. It is a *property* of a particle.
-----------------------
a basic misunderstanding of the physical world
and that is why physics is stuck in the mudd
for too long
You have no idea what you are talking about. You endlessly criticize
physics but you don't even know what a Hamiltonian is.
[snip babble]
My god, is porat still alive .. but it looks like his spelling has improved
a bit- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -
---------------
Post by Jeckyl
your ancestors also didnt like my parents to be alive
and they educated you accordingly ....
What a load of crap and nonsense .. you're still obsessed with me and your
misgruided delusions about who I am.
Post by Jeckyl
i am not on your way
you can go on and show your big contributions
to the *advance* of science
and at the same time
teach the world about some human behaviour ...
of a 'human being ' and agreat scientist
Sounds good to me
Y.Porat
2007-12-22 08:50:22 UTC
Permalink
Post by Y.Porat
Post by Jeckyl
Post by Eric Gisse
Post by Y.Porat
Post by PD
Post by kenseto
Is the charge of a particle resides within the particles?
The answer according to current physics is:YES
Fundamental misunderstanding. Charge is not a "stuff" like paint or
peanut butter. It is a *property* of a particle.
-----------------------
a basic misunderstanding of the physical world
and that is why physics is stuck in the mudd
for too long
You have no idea what you are talking about. You endlessly criticize
physics but you don't even know what a Hamiltonian is.
[snip babble]
My god, is porat still alive .. but it looks like his spelling has improved
a bit- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -
---------------
Post by Jeckyl
your ancestors also didnt like my parents to be alive
and they educated you accordingly ....
What a load of crap and nonsense .. you're still obsessed with me and your
misgruided delusions about who I am.
Post by Jeckyl
i am not on your way
you can go on and show your big contributions
to   the *advance* of science
and at the same time
teach the world about some human behaviour ...
of a 'human being '   and agreat scientist
Sounds good to me- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -
--------------
the difference between me and you is shown by a 'little' example:
i unlkike you am not wishing to anyonmes death!
anyone who read your above post can reveal your real human face
now if you claimeed that your father was an anglicanian
preast
you are a pigg shit lier
becuase an Anglicanian preast doe s not wait for
anyones death!!

in short
you are a disturbed pigg shit in any aspect
and even not a good lier
and evry one can see it
Y.P
--------------------------------
Jeckyl
2007-12-22 09:54:18 UTC
Permalink
Yes you're an idiot
Y.Porat
2007-12-22 16:49:20 UTC
Permalink
Post by Jeckyl
Yes you're an idiot
-----------
psychopth

Y.P
-----------------------
Jeckyl
2007-12-23 12:34:56 UTC
Permalink
Post by Y.Porat
psychopth
Y.P
Yes .. YP is indeed a psychopath. . I've never come across someone who so
clearly fits that term.
Y.Porat
2007-12-24 06:59:03 UTC
Permalink
Post by Jeckyl
Post by Y.Porat
psychopth
Y.P
Yes .. YP is indeed a psychopath. . I've never come across someone who so
clearly fits that term.
-----------------
(:-)
---------------------
Y.Porat
2007-12-21 13:44:14 UTC
Permalink
Post by Eric Gisse
Post by Y.Porat
Post by PD
Post by kenseto
Is the charge of a particle resides within the particles?
The answer according to current physics is:YES
Fundamental misunderstanding. Charge is not a "stuff" like paint or
peanut butter. It is a *property* of a particle.
-----------------------
a basic misunderstanding of the physical world
and that is why physics is stuck in the mudd
for too long
You have no idea what you are talking about. You endlessly criticize
physics but you don't even know what a Hamiltonian is.
[snip babble]
-----------------
physics was living before hamiltonian
and will live after and much further
there is one thing you still didnt get
methematics cannot be the leader of physics
it can only make some extrapolations of data
yet no sunstitude to the physical thinking
before starting modeling it mathematically
i found the stucture of the nuc
with a pocket computer and experimental data ....
(oh i forgot to add to it my poor head ....)
keep well
and go on show us your contributions tothe *advance* of science and
not only quoating the existing
if you are happy with the existing and nothing more
good for you
go discuss with Wormley jekyle Igor etc etc
i am not on your way .

kep well
Y.Porat
------------------------------
kenseto
2007-12-21 16:46:07 UTC
Permalink
Post by PD
Post by kenseto
Is the charge of a particle resides within the particles?
The answer according to current physics is:YES
Fundamental misunderstanding. Charge is not a "stuff" like paint or
peanut butter. It is a *property* of a particle. Does the "round" of a
raindrop reside within the raindrop? Does the "straight" of a stick
reside within the stick?
So charge is a property of a particle. Question: what causes a
particle to have charge properties? Also How can a property of a
particle exerts influence on another particle?
Post by PD
Post by kenseto
This was especially true in the case of the theory of quantum
electrodynamics (QED). In QED the electric change of a particle is
resided within the particle.
Actually, charge being associated with a particle was around a long
long long time before QED. You may want to look up Coulomb's law in an
elementary physics book and learn when Coulomb lived (compared to
Feynman). You may notice that there are no infinities in Coulomb's law
for a finite-sized particle with an even distribution of charge. Thus,
charge residing inside a particle cannot be blamed for infinities.
Post by kenseto
This leads to the infinity problems
during the early development of QED.
Actually, the infinities had to do with the summation of charge
residing *outside* the particle, completely opposite to your claim.
So charge is residing outside the particle? Aren't you contradicting
yourself? How can a property of a particle residing outside of the
particle?

Ken Seto
PD
2007-12-21 17:04:34 UTC
Permalink
Post by kenseto
Post by PD
Post by kenseto
Is the charge of a particle resides within the particles?
The answer according to current physics is:YES
Fundamental misunderstanding. Charge is not a "stuff" like paint or
peanut butter. It is a *property* of a particle. Does the "round" of a
raindrop reside within the raindrop? Does the "straight" of a stick
reside within the stick?
So charge is a property of a particle. Question: what causes a
particle to have charge properties? Also How can a property of a
particle exerts influence on another particle?
Nothing causes a particle to have charge properties, any more than
something causes an eagle to have feathers and talons. An eagle is
classified as an eagle *by virtue of* its feathers and talons (and a
few other properties). An electron is classified as an electron *by
virtue of* its electric charge, its weak charge, its lack of color
charge, its spin, its rest mass (within a certain range), and so on.
If it doesn't have one of those properties, then it must not be an
electron.

The charge of the particle doesn't exert an influence on another
particle. The charge of a fermion tells you the rate at which the
fermion emits elecromagnetic bosons (known as photons) and the
readiness with which the fermion absorbs those bosons. It is the
bosons that carry the momentum, energy, spin, and so on, and it is the
exchanged boson that exerts an influence on the fermions doing the
exchange.
Post by kenseto
Post by PD
Post by kenseto
This was especially true in the case of the theory of quantum
electrodynamics (QED). In QED the electric change of a particle is
resided within the particle.
Actually, charge being associated with a particle was around a long
long long time before QED. You may want to look up Coulomb's law in an
elementary physics book and learn when Coulomb lived (compared to
Feynman). You may notice that there are no infinities in Coulomb's law
for a finite-sized particle with an even distribution of charge. Thus,
charge residing inside a particle cannot be blamed for infinities.
Post by kenseto
This leads to the infinity problems
during the early development of QED.
Actually, the infinities had to do with the summation of charge
residing *outside* the particle, completely opposite to your claim.
So charge is residing outside the particle? Aren't you contradicting
yourself? How can a property of a particle residing outside of the
particle?
Well, this is where the difference between macroscopic and microscopic
starts to rear itself up. In the microscopic world, particles do not
have definite size, and in fact there is no clear distinction between
"inside" and "outside" a particle. There is no way to physically
distinguish a particle from the sea that the particle generates around
it -- the sea is in some sense part of the particle. This is true even
for atoms and molecules. Though you will find a table of atomic sizes
in a chemistry book, this does not represent (in any way) a boundary
between "inside" the atom and "outside" the atom. And in fact if you
press a chemistry or physics professor on what that atomic size in the
textbook means, she'll have to be pretty careful about defining what
that number represents, and it won't be what you expect.

PD
kenseto
2007-12-22 14:39:32 UTC
Permalink
Post by PD
Post by kenseto
Post by PD
Post by kenseto
Is the charge of a particle resides within the particles?
The answer according to current physics is:YES
Fundamental misunderstanding. Charge is not a "stuff" like paint or
peanut butter. It is a *property* of a particle. Does the "round" of a
raindrop reside within the raindrop? Does the "straight" of a stick
reside within the stick?
So charge is a property of a particle. Question: what causes a
particle to have charge properties? Also How can a property of a
particle exerts influence on another particle?
Nothing causes a particle to have charge properties, any more than
something causes an eagle to have feathers and talons. An eagle is
classified as an eagle *by virtue of* its feathers and talons (and a
few other properties). An electron is classified as an electron *by
virtue of* its electric charge, its weak charge, its lack of color
charge, its spin, its rest mass (within a certain range), and so on.
If it doesn't have one of those properties, then it must not be an
electron.
In other words you don't know what a charge is. An eagle's feathers
and talon enable it to fly. That's not a propertiy of an eagle.
Post by PD
The charge of the particle doesn't exert an influence on another
particle. The charge of a fermion tells you the rate at which the
fermion emits elecromagnetic bosons (known as photons) and the
readiness with which the fermion absorbs those bosons. It is the
bosons that carry the momentum, energy, spin, and so on, and it is the
exchanged boson that exerts an influence on the fermions doing the
exchange.
So the charge is the rate at which the fermion emits em bosons and the
readiness with which the fermion absorbs those boson. The question is
why the fermion bothers going through such processes? Why doesn't it
just keep its photons.
Post by PD
Post by kenseto
Post by PD
Post by kenseto
This was especially true in the case of the theory of quantum
electrodynamics (QED). In QED the electric change of a particle is
resided within the particle.
Actually, charge being associated with a particle was around a long
long long time before QED. You may want to look up Coulomb's law in an
elementary physics book and learn when Coulomb lived (compared to
Feynman). You may notice that there are no infinities in Coulomb's law
for a finite-sized particle with an even distribution of charge. Thus,
charge residing inside a particle cannot be blamed for infinities.
Post by kenseto
This leads to the infinity problems
during the early development of QED.
Actually, the infinities had to do with the summation of charge
residing *outside* the particle, completely opposite to your claim.
So charge is residing outside the particle? Aren't you contradicting
yourself? How can a property of a particle residing outside of the
particle?
Well, this is where the difference between macroscopic and microscopic
starts to rear itself up.
There is no difference between the macroscopic and microscopic world
if you have the correct model of the universe.
Post by PD
In the microscopic world, particles do not
have definite size, and in fact there is no clear distinction between
"inside" and "outside" a particle.
That's because you don't have the correct physical model of the
microscopic world.
Post by PD
There is no way to physically
distinguish a particle from the sea that the particle generates around
it -- the sea is in some sense part of the particle.
So a particle generates a sea around it? What is this sea you are
talking about? Is this sea physical or is it just a math construct?

Ken Seto
Post by PD
This is true even
for atoms and molecules. Though you will find a table of atomic sizes
in a chemistry book, this does not represent (in any way) a boundary
between "inside" the atom and "outside" the atom. And in fact if you
press a chemistry or physics professor on what that atomic size in the
textbook means, she'll have to be pretty careful about defining what
that number represents, and it won't be what you expect.
PD- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -
PD
2007-12-22 14:59:42 UTC
Permalink
Post by kenseto
Post by PD
Post by kenseto
Post by PD
Post by kenseto
Is the charge of a particle resides within the particles?
The answer according to current physics is:YES
Fundamental misunderstanding. Charge is not a "stuff" like paint or
peanut butter. It is a *property* of a particle. Does the "round" of a
raindrop reside within the raindrop? Does the "straight" of a stick
reside within the stick?
So charge is a property of a particle. Question: what causes a
particle to have charge properties? Also How can a property of a
particle exerts influence on another particle?
Nothing causes a particle to have charge properties, any more than
something causes an eagle to have feathers and talons. An eagle is
classified as an eagle *by virtue of* its feathers and talons (and a
few other properties). An electron is classified as an electron *by
virtue of* its electric charge, its weak charge, its lack of color
charge, its spin, its rest mass (within a certain range), and so on.
If it doesn't have one of those properties, then it must not be an
electron.
In other words you don't know what a charge is. An eagle's feathers
and talon enable it to fly. That's not a propertiy of an eagle.
Let me put it to you another way. We characterize particles by the
properties that they have. We have a wide variety of particles that we
observe, and we classify them according to properties. If a particle
has one kind of property, then it's a fermion. If it has another value
for that property, then it's a boson. Among the fermions, if they have
one kind of another property, then they're hadrons; otherwise they're
leptons. Among the leptons, if they have one kind of another property,
they are neutrinos; otherwise, they are charged leptons. Among the
charged leptons, if the particle has yet another property, it's an
electron.

This classification is really no different than classifying animals
that we find. If the animal has a spine, then it belongs to a group
called Vertebrates. If the vertebrate feeds its young with milk, then
it belongs to a group called mammals. If the mammal lives in the sea,
then it belongs to a group called cetaceans. If the cetacean has
another kind of property, then it's a whale.

Now, you might ask why mammals have mammary glands. Well, having
mammary glands is what distinguishes mammals from other animals, so
it's quite natural for mammals to have mammary glands.
Post by kenseto
Post by PD
The charge of the particle doesn't exert an influence on another
particle. The charge of a fermion tells you the rate at which the
fermion emits elecromagnetic bosons (known as photons) and the
readiness with which the fermion absorbs those bosons. It is the
bosons that carry the momentum, energy, spin, and so on, and it is the
exchanged boson that exerts an influence on the fermions doing the
exchange.
So the charge is the rate at which the fermion emits em bosons and the
readiness with which the fermion absorbs those boson. The question is
why the fermion bothers going through such processes? Why doesn't it
just keep its photons.
Because if it didn't radiate them, then its charge would be zero. The
nonzero charge tells you it *does* radiate them. You might as well ask
why a mammal gives milk to its young rather than just keeping the
milk. Because it does. That's what being a mammal means.

Why does a charged particle radiate photons? Because it does. That's
what being a charge particle means.
Post by kenseto
Post by PD
Post by kenseto
Post by PD
Post by kenseto
This was especially true in the case of the theory of quantum
electrodynamics (QED). In QED the electric change of a particle is
resided within the particle.
Actually, charge being associated with a particle was around a long
long long time before QED. You may want to look up Coulomb's law in an
elementary physics book and learn when Coulomb lived (compared to
Feynman). You may notice that there are no infinities in Coulomb's law
for a finite-sized particle with an even distribution of charge. Thus,
charge residing inside a particle cannot be blamed for infinities.
Post by kenseto
This leads to the infinity problems
during the early development of QED.
Actually, the infinities had to do with the summation of charge
residing *outside* the particle, completely opposite to your claim.
So charge is residing outside the particle? Aren't you contradicting
yourself? How can a property of a particle residing outside of the
particle?
Well, this is where the difference between macroscopic and microscopic
starts to rear itself up.
There is no difference between the macroscopic and microscopic world
if you have the correct model of the universe.
Experiment says otherwise. There is no reason to insist that the
microscopic world should behave the same way as the macroscopic world.
The desire to make the universe more understandable is a human
concern, but not one that nature has to respect. Nature is what it is.
There is clear experimental evidence that the microscopic world just
*is* substantially different than the macroscopic world. There's
nothing we can do about that, except to learn more about the
microscopic world and stop insisting what it "should" be, according to
our desires.
Post by kenseto
Post by PD
In the microscopic world, particles do not
have definite size, and in fact there is no clear distinction between
"inside" and "outside" a particle.
That's because you don't have the correct physical model of the
microscopic world.
Post by PD
There is no way to physically
distinguish a particle from the sea that the particle generates around
it -- the sea is in some sense part of the particle.
So a particle generates a sea around it? What is this sea you are
talking about? Is this sea physical or is it just a math construct?
It is very real. Experiment has shown this to be the case over and
over and over again.
Post by kenseto
Ken Seto
Post by PD
This is true even
for atoms and molecules. Though you will find a table of atomic sizes
in a chemistry book, this does not represent (in any way) a boundary
between "inside" the atom and "outside" the atom. And in fact if you
press a chemistry or physics professor on what that atomic size in the
textbook means, she'll have to be pretty careful about defining what
that number represents, and it won't be what you expect.
PD- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -
Y.Porat
2007-12-22 17:23:38 UTC
Permalink
Post by PD
Post by kenseto
Post by PD
Post by kenseto
Post by PD
Post by kenseto
Is the charge of a particle resides within the particles?
The answer according to current physics is:YES
Fundamental misunderstanding. Charge is not a "stuff" like paint or
peanut butter. It is a *property* of a particle. Does the "round" of a
raindrop reside within the raindrop? Does the "straight" of a stick
reside within the stick?
So charge is a property of a particle. Question: what causes a
particle to have charge properties? Also How can a property of a
particle exerts influence on another particle?
Nothing causes a particle to have charge properties, any more than
something causes an eagle to have feathers and talons. An eagle is
classified as an eagle *by virtue of* its feathers and talons (and a
few other properties). An electron is classified as an electron *by
virtue of* its electric charge, its weak charge, its lack of color
charge, its spin, its rest mass (within a certain range), and so on.
If it doesn't have one of those properties, then it must not be an
electron.
In other words you don't know what a charge is. An eagle's feathers
and talon enable it to fly. That's not a propertiy of an eagle.
Let me put it to you another way. We characterize particles by the
properties that they have. We have a wide variety of particles that we
observe, and we classify them according to properties. If a particle
Post by kenseto
Post by PD
The charge of the particle doesn't exert an influence on another
particle. The charge of a fermion tells you the rate at which the
- Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -
--------------------------
if you satrted with the zerological world
i will tell you imho where is your position
in understanding nature :
the methaphoric difference between you and a real scientist
that is able to make advance
is the dofference between a child that visiting a zoo
and is happy withanything he sees
actually any avrage chield is much more curious
and ask more cleaver question than you
a cleaver human being does not stop asking question
a stupid one is convinced he knowes enough
now the opposite to you
in our methaphore is Sir Charles Darvinhe was not
satisfied with just watching anymals
and even not by catalogizing them
he wahtted tounderstand
*why a sort of an anymal was born from anotherone**

WHY GOT IT DUMMY ??
and only by that he got the theory of
THE SURVIVAL OF THE FITTEST!!

GOT IT DUMMY ??

and btw
the survival of the fittest is one of the basics ofthe particle
zoo as well
changes are occuring nonstop
yet only the fittest to survive is existing
and oneof the things we have to ry and understand is
not only why there is an electron or positron
we have to undersatnd why is the electron
a surviver
and why is the positron a co exister
why ??
2
th edifferent betwen darvin and you is as well by that
that darvin was not a dummy conformist
that is happy with the silly existing smug and INTERESANTIC situation
he sensed that he existing is far from saisfing
dsisatisfaction fromthe existing is one of the drivers
of advance -- you donthave a bit of it
and you pretend to be a teacher (poor students of yourse)
morover
Darvin was alone for a long time mocked by the comunity
('is the monkey relation of yourse he was asked
comes for your mother side of your grandfather

and darvin reliyed:
if my amcestors were monkeys i would not be ashamed about it
but ....
if my ancestors were crooks demagogues who mind only theit jobs and
their bissiness etc etc--
than i would be asjamed ofthem
end of clumsy quote)
now darvin was ababdand for more than a hundred years
in some palces even till this very moment !!
but he didnt retreat
he didnt give a damn for the stupid retarded crooks of his time
the recognition of him and his theory camre a long time
after his death
so
just kearn soemthing aboutrhehuman being
the human society the flock behaviour etc etc
and the most important
HOW ADVANCE IN SCIENCE IS DONE
and somethimes what is the real price that has to be paied for
advance
in our situation
advance will come only by ** trial and error **
the exiting parrots withthier net mathemtocs understaning
will leasd to no where !!!

ATB
Y.Porat
----------------------
Jeckyl
2007-12-23 12:34:03 UTC
Permalink
You really are a raving lunatic.
Autymn D. C.
2007-12-24 05:53:36 UTC
Permalink
A mote, or a fittict/particulum, is a spatial, temporal, and carical
element. So whatever is without the mote is without the univers.
Inmassive actional quanta/whits are between motes, and cannot be one
by definition. What is without--outside and inside--a composite mote
would be its elemental motes, bound by particulary and universary
domain walls.

-Aut
kenseto
2007-12-24 16:13:10 UTC
Permalink
Post by PD
Post by kenseto
Post by PD
Post by kenseto
Post by PD
Post by kenseto
Is the charge of a particle resides within the particles?
The answer according to current physics is:YES
Fundamental misunderstanding. Charge is not a "stuff" like paint or
peanut butter. It is a *property* of a particle. Does the "round" of a
raindrop reside within the raindrop? Does the "straight" of a stick
reside within the stick?
So charge is a property of a particle. Question: what causes a
particle to have charge properties? Also How can a property of a
particle exerts influence on another particle?
Nothing causes a particle to have charge properties, any more than
something causes an eagle to have feathers and talons. An eagle is
classified as an eagle *by virtue of* its feathers and talons (and a
few other properties). An electron is classified as an electron *by
virtue of* its electric charge, its weak charge, its lack of color
charge, its spin, its rest mass (within a certain range), and so on.
If it doesn't have one of those properties, then it must not be an
electron.
In other words you don't know what a charge is. An eagle's feathers
and talon enable it to fly. That's not a propertiy of an eagle.
Let me put it to you another way. We characterize particles by the
properties that they have. We have a wide variety of particles that we
observe, and we classify them according to properties. If a particle
has one kind of property, then it's a fermion. If it has another value
for that property, then it's a boson. Among the fermions, if they have
one kind of another property, then they're hadrons; otherwise they're
leptons. Among the leptons, if they have one kind of another property,
they are neutrinos; otherwise, they are charged leptons. Among the
charged leptons, if the particle has yet another property, it's an
electron.
This classification is really no different than classifying animals
that we find. If the animal has a spine, then it belongs to a group
called Vertebrates. If the vertebrate feeds its young with milk, then
it belongs to a group called mammals. If the mammal lives in the sea,
then it belongs to a group called cetaceans. If the cetacean has
another kind of property, then it's a whale.
Now, you might ask why mammals have mammary glands. Well, having
mammary glands is what distinguishes mammals from other animals, so
it's quite natural for mammals to have mammary glands.
ROTFLOL.....so an electron is like an animal?
Post by PD
Post by kenseto
Post by PD
The charge of the particle doesn't exert an influence on another
particle. The charge of a fermion tells you the rate at which the
fermion emits elecromagnetic bosons (known as photons) and the
readiness with which the fermion absorbs those bosons. It is the
bosons that carry the momentum, energy, spin, and so on, and it is the
exchanged boson that exerts an influence on the fermions doing the
exchange.
So the charge is the rate at which the fermion emits em bosons and the
readiness with which the fermion absorbs those boson. The question is
why the fermion bothers going through such processes? Why doesn't it
just keep its photons.
Because if it didn't radiate them, then its charge would be zero. The
nonzero charge tells you it *does* radiate them.
So the charge's function is to radiate photons? Doesn't it have to
reside within the electron to perform this function?
Post by PD
You might as well ask
why a mammal gives milk to its young rather than just keeping the
milk. Because it does. That's what being a mammal means.
Why does a charged particle radiate photons? Because it does. That's
what being a charge particle means.
ROTFLOL..... I guess you really mean it....an electron is like an
animal
Post by PD
Post by kenseto
Post by PD
Post by kenseto
Post by PD
Post by kenseto
This was especially true in the case of the theory of quantum
electrodynamics (QED). In QED the electric change of a particle is
resided within the particle.
Actually, charge being associated with a particle was around a long
long long time before QED. You may want to look up Coulomb's law in an
elementary physics book and learn when Coulomb lived (compared to
Feynman). You may notice that there are no infinities in Coulomb's law
for a finite-sized particle with an even distribution of charge. Thus,
charge residing inside a particle cannot be blamed for infinities.
Post by kenseto
This leads to the infinity problems
during the early development of QED.
Actually, the infinities had to do with the summation of charge
residing *outside* the particle, completely opposite to your claim.
So charge is residing outside the particle? Aren't you contradicting
yourself? How can a property of a particle residing outside of the
particle?
Well, this is where the difference between macroscopic and microscopic
starts to rear itself up.
There is no difference between the macroscopic and microscopic world
if you have the correct model of the universe.
Experiment says otherwise. There is no reason to insist that the
microscopic world should behave the same way as the macroscopic world.
That's because current physics don't have the correct model of the
universe. The physical model of Model Mechanics can explain all the
experiments that QM explains. The field in QFT is the distortion or
waves in the E-Matrix. The interaction of virtual particle with real
particle is the reaction of the real particles (such as the electron
or quarks) to the distortion or waves in the E-Matrix.

Ken Seto
Post by PD
The desire to make the universe more understandable is a human
concern, but not one that nature has to respect. Nature is what it is.
There is clear experimental evidence that the microscopic world just
*is* substantially different than the macroscopic world. There's
nothing we can do about that, except to learn more about the
microscopic world and stop insisting what it "should" be, according to
our desires.
Post by kenseto
Post by PD
In the microscopic world, particles do not
have definite size, and in fact there is no clear distinction between
"inside" and "outside" a particle.
That's because you don't have the correct physical model of the
microscopic world.
Post by PD
There is no way to physically
distinguish a particle from the sea that the particle generates around
it -- the sea is in some sense part of the particle.
So a particle generates a sea around it? What is this sea you are
talking about? Is this sea physical or is it just a math construct?
It is very real. Experiment has shown this to be the case over and
over and over again.
Post by kenseto
Ken Seto
Post by PD
This is true even
for atoms and molecules. Though you will find a table of atomic sizes
in a chemistry book, this does not represent (in any way) a boundary
between "inside" the atom and "outside" the atom. And in fact if you
press a chemistry or physics professor on what that atomic size in the
textbook means, she'll have to be pretty careful about defining what
that number represents, and it won't be what you expect.
PD- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -
PD
2007-12-24 17:46:48 UTC
Permalink
Post by kenseto
Post by PD
Post by kenseto
Post by PD
Post by kenseto
Post by PD
Post by kenseto
Is the charge of a particle resides within the particles?
The answer according to current physics is:YES
Fundamental misunderstanding. Charge is not a "stuff" like paint or
peanut butter. It is a *property* of a particle. Does the "round" of a
raindrop reside within the raindrop? Does the "straight" of a stick
reside within the stick?
So charge is a property of a particle. Question: what causes a
particle to have charge properties? Also How can a property of a
particle exerts influence on another particle?
Nothing causes a particle to have charge properties, any more than
something causes an eagle to have feathers and talons. An eagle is
classified as an eagle *by virtue of* its feathers and talons (and a
few other properties). An electron is classified as an electron *by
virtue of* its electric charge, its weak charge, its lack of color
charge, its spin, its rest mass (within a certain range), and so on.
If it doesn't have one of those properties, then it must not be an
electron.
In other words you don't know what a charge is. An eagle's feathers
and talon enable it to fly. That's not a propertiy of an eagle.
Let me put it to you another way. We characterize particles by the
properties that they have. We have a wide variety of particles that we
observe, and we classify them according to properties. If a particle
has one kind of property, then it's a fermion. If it has another value
for that property, then it's a boson. Among the fermions, if they have
one kind of another property, then they're hadrons; otherwise they're
leptons. Among the leptons, if they have one kind of another property,
they are neutrinos; otherwise, they are charged leptons. Among the
charged leptons, if the particle has yet another property, it's an
electron.
This classification is really no different than classifying animals
that we find. If the animal has a spine, then it belongs to a group
called Vertebrates. If the vertebrate feeds its young with milk, then
it belongs to a group called mammals. If the mammal lives in the sea,
then it belongs to a group called cetaceans. If the cetacean has
another kind of property, then it's a whale.
Now, you might ask why mammals have mammary glands. Well, having
mammary glands is what distinguishes mammals from other animals, so
it's quite natural for mammals to have mammary glands.
ROTFLOL.....so an electron is like an animal?
No, you goofball. But the process for scientifically classifying
particles is very much like the process for scientifically classifying
animals. Does this bother you?
Post by kenseto
Post by PD
Post by kenseto
Post by PD
The charge of the particle doesn't exert an influence on another
particle. The charge of a fermion tells you the rate at which the
fermion emits elecromagnetic bosons (known as photons) and the
readiness with which the fermion absorbs those bosons. It is the
bosons that carry the momentum, energy, spin, and so on, and it is the
exchanged boson that exerts an influence on the fermions doing the
exchange.
So the charge is the rate at which the fermion emits em bosons and the
readiness with which the fermion absorbs those boson. The question is
why the fermion bothers going through such processes? Why doesn't it
just keep its photons.
Because if it didn't radiate them, then its charge would be zero.
The
Post by PD
nonzero charge tells you it *does* radiate them.
So the charge's function is to radiate photons?
I don't know that charge has a function. Some particles radiate
photons. The rate that a particle radiates photons is related to the
property called its charge.
Post by kenseto
Doesn't it have to
reside within the electron to perform this function?
No. Remember, there is no clear "inside" or "outside" an electron.
Post by kenseto
Post by PD
You might as well ask
why a mammal gives milk to its young rather than just keeping the
milk. Because it does. That's what being a mammal means.
Why does a charged particle radiate photons? Because it does. That's
what being a charge particle means.
ROTFLOL..... I guess you really mean it....an electron is like an
animal
Post by PD
Post by kenseto
Post by PD
Post by kenseto
Post by PD
Post by kenseto
This was especially true in the case of the theory of quantum
electrodynamics (QED). In QED the electric change of a particle is
resided within the particle.
Actually, charge being associated with a particle was around a long
long long time before QED. You may want to look up Coulomb's law in an
elementary physics book and learn when Coulomb lived (compared to
Feynman). You may notice that there are no infinities in Coulomb's law
for a finite-sized particle with an even distribution of charge. Thus,
charge residing inside a particle cannot be blamed for infinities.
Post by kenseto
This leads to the infinity problems
during the early development of QED.
Actually, the infinities had to do with the summation of charge
residing *outside* the particle, completely opposite to your claim.
So charge is residing outside the particle? Aren't you contradicting
yourself? How can a property of a particle residing outside of the
particle?
Well, this is where the difference between macroscopic and microscopic
starts to rear itself up.
There is no difference between the macroscopic and microscopic world
if you have the correct model of the universe.
Experiment says otherwise. There is no reason to insist that the
microscopic world should behave the same way as the macroscopic world.
That's because current physics don't have the correct model of the
universe.
Experiment says otherwise.
Post by kenseto
The physical model of Model Mechanics can explain all the
experiments that QM explains.
You haven't demonstrated that. At all. You haven't been able to
calculate a single thing with Model Mechanics that QM can.
Post by kenseto
The field in QFT is the distortion or
waves in the E-Matrix. The interaction of virtual particle with real
particle is the reaction of the real particles (such as the electron
or quarks) to the distortion or waves in the E-Matrix.
Ken Seto
Post by PD
The desire to make the universe more understandable is a human
concern, but not one that nature has to respect. Nature is what it is.
There is clear experimental evidence that the microscopic world just
*is* substantially different than the macroscopic world. There's
nothing we can do about that, except to learn more about the
microscopic world and stop insisting what it "should" be, according to
our desires.
Post by kenseto
Post by PD
In the microscopic world, particles do not
have definite size, and in fact there is no clear distinction between
"inside" and "outside" a particle.
That's because you don't have the correct physical model of the
microscopic world.
Post by PD
There is no way to physically
distinguish a particle from the sea that the particle generates around
it -- the sea is in some sense part of the particle.
So a particle generates a sea around it? What is this sea you are
talking about? Is this sea physical or is it just a math construct?
It is very real. Experiment has shown this to be the case over and
over and over again.
Post by kenseto
Ken Seto
Post by PD
This is true even
for atoms and molecules. Though you will find a table of atomic sizes
in a chemistry book, this does not represent (in any way) a boundary
between "inside" the atom and "outside" the atom. And in fact if you
press a chemistry or physics professor on what that atomic size in the
textbook means, she'll have to be pretty careful about defining what
that number represents, and it won't be what you expect.
PD- Hide quoted text -
kenseto
2007-12-27 15:53:42 UTC
Permalink
Post by PD
Post by kenseto
Post by PD
Post by kenseto
Post by PD
Post by kenseto
Post by PD
Post by kenseto
Is the charge of a particle resides within the particles?
The answer according to current physics is:YES
Fundamental misunderstanding. Charge is not a "stuff" like paint or
peanut butter. It is a *property* of a particle. Does the "round" of a
raindrop reside within the raindrop? Does the "straight" of a stick
reside within the stick?
So charge is a property of a particle. Question: what causes a
particle to have charge properties? Also How can a property of a
particle exerts influence on another particle?
Nothing causes a particle to have charge properties, any more than
something causes an eagle to have feathers and talons. An eagle is
classified as an eagle *by virtue of* its feathers and talons (and a
few other properties). An electron is classified as an electron *by
virtue of* its electric charge, its weak charge, its lack of color
charge, its spin, its rest mass (within a certain range), and so on.
If it doesn't have one of those properties, then it must not be an
electron.
In other words you don't know what a charge is. An eagle's feathers
and talon enable it to fly. That's not a propertiy of an eagle.
Let me put it to you another way. We characterize particles by the
properties that they have. We have a wide variety of particles that we
observe, and we classify them according to properties. If a particle
has one kind of property, then it's a fermion. If it has another value
for that property, then it's a boson. Among the fermions, if they have
one kind of another property, then they're hadrons; otherwise they're
leptons. Among the leptons, if they have one kind of another property,
they are neutrinos; otherwise, they are charged leptons. Among the
charged leptons, if the particle has yet another property, it's an
electron.
This classification is really no different than classifying animals
that we find. If the animal has a spine, then it belongs to a group
called Vertebrates. If the vertebrate feeds its young with milk, then
it belongs to a group called mammals. If the mammal lives in the sea,
then it belongs to a group called cetaceans. If the cetacean has
another kind of property, then it's a whale.
Now, you might ask why mammals have mammary glands. Well, having
mammary glands is what distinguishes mammals from other animals, so
it's quite natural for mammals to have mammary glands.
ROTFLOL.....so an electron is like an animal?
No, you goofball. But the process for scientifically classifying
particles is very much like the process for scientifically classifying
animals. Does this bother you?
Yes it bothers me.....it seems that you don't know what the charge of
a particle is so you said that the charge of an electron is like a
mammary gland in an animal. Also you said that the charge of a
particle is the property of a particle and at the same time you said
that the charge of a partcile resides outside the particle. Do you
just make up things as you go along?????
Post by PD
Post by kenseto
Post by PD
Because if it didn't radiate them, then its charge would be zero.
The
Post by PD
nonzero charge tells you it *does* radiate them.
So the charge's function is to radiate photons?
I don't know that charge has a function. Some particles radiate
photons. The rate that a particle radiates photons is related to the
property called its charge.
How does charge radiate photon? Do it radiate a different kind of
photon in the presence of a positively charged particle than in the
presence of a negatively charged particle?
Post by PD
Post by kenseto
Doesn't it have to
reside within the electron to perform this function?
No. Remember, there is no clear "inside" or "outside" an electron.
This is pure double talk. You said the charge is resided outside the
electron. This would eliminate the infinity problem in QED. If the
charge is residing inside the electron the repulsive force on the
electron would approach infinity as the electron approaches to be a
point particle as QM asserts.
Post by PD
Post by kenseto
Post by PD
Experiment says otherwise. There is no reason to insist that the
microscopic world should behave the same way as the macroscopic world.
That's because current physics don't have the correct model of the
universe.
Experiment says otherwise.
Other model such as Model Mechanics can better explain those
experiments.
Post by PD
Post by kenseto
The physical model of Model Mechanics can explain all the
experiments that QM explains.
You haven't demonstrated that. At all. You haven't been able to
calculate a single thing with Model Mechanics that QM can.
Model Mechanics has the same math as QFT. It has different
interpretation of the math of QFT. The field in QFT is represented as
the distortion or waves in the E-Matrix. The interaction of virtual
particles with real particle such as the electron is represented by
the reaction of the real particle to the distortion or waves in the
surrounding E-Matrix.
Ken Seto
PD
2007-12-29 17:52:40 UTC
Permalink
Post by kenseto
Post by PD
Post by kenseto
Post by PD
Post by kenseto
Post by PD
Post by kenseto
Post by PD
Post by kenseto
Is the charge of a particle resides within the particles?
The answer according to current physics is:YES
Fundamental misunderstanding. Charge is not a "stuff" like paint or
peanut butter. It is a *property* of a particle. Does the "round" of a
raindrop reside within the raindrop? Does the "straight" of a stick
reside within the stick?
So charge is a property of a particle. Question: what causes a
particle to have charge properties? Also How can a property of a
particle exerts influence on another particle?
Nothing causes a particle to have charge properties, any more than
something causes an eagle to have feathers and talons. An eagle is
classified as an eagle *by virtue of* its feathers and talons (and a
few other properties). An electron is classified as an electron *by
virtue of* its electric charge, its weak charge, its lack of color
charge, its spin, its rest mass (within a certain range), and so on.
If it doesn't have one of those properties, then it must not be an
electron.
In other words you don't know what a charge is. An eagle's feathers
and talon enable it to fly. That's not a propertiy of an eagle.
Let me put it to you another way. We characterize particles by the
properties that they have. We have a wide variety of particles that we
observe, and we classify them according to properties. If a particle
has one kind of property, then it's a fermion. If it has another value
for that property, then it's a boson. Among the fermions, if they have
one kind of another property, then they're hadrons; otherwise they're
leptons. Among the leptons, if they have one kind of another property,
they are neutrinos; otherwise, they are charged leptons. Among the
charged leptons, if the particle has yet another property, it's an
electron.
This classification is really no different than classifying animals
that we find. If the animal has a spine, then it belongs to a group
called Vertebrates. If the vertebrate feeds its young with milk, then
it belongs to a group called mammals. If the mammal lives in the sea,
then it belongs to a group called cetaceans. If the cetacean has
another kind of property, then it's a whale.
Now, you might ask why mammals have mammary glands. Well, having
mammary glands is what distinguishes mammals from other animals, so
it's quite natural for mammals to have mammary glands.
ROTFLOL.....so an electron is like an animal?
No, you goofball. But the process for scientifically classifying
particles is very much like the process for scientifically classifying
animals. Does this bother you?
Yes it bothers me.....it seems that you don't know what the charge of
a particle is so you said that the charge of an electron is like a
mammary gland in an animal.
Reading comprehension difficulty noted.
Post by kenseto
Also you said that the charge of a
particle is the property of a particle and at the same time you said
that the charge of a partcile resides outside the particle.
Yes. There's no problem with this. Recall, there is no clear boundary
between "inside" an electron and "outside" an electron. You seem
determined to insist there is one. (What's your evidence?) You also
seem to be quite determined to insist that a property of a particle
must reside inside the particle. Why would you insist something stupid
like that? Is the velocity of a particle a property of the particle?
If so, does the velocity reside inside the particle? If so, where? And
why, if the velocity resides inside the particle, can simply looking
at the particle from a different *external* frame of reference change
the velocity of the particle? How can two observers in two different
reference frames arrive at two different values for the velocity of
the very same particle at the very same time, if that property resides
inside the particle?
Post by kenseto
Do you
just make up things as you go along?????
No, not at all. All this has been known for quite a long time. You
seem to be stumbling on it for the first time.
Post by kenseto
Post by PD
Post by kenseto
Post by PD
Because if it didn't radiate them, then its charge would be zero.
The
Post by PD
nonzero charge tells you it *does* radiate them.
So the charge's function is to radiate photons?
I don't know that charge has a function. Some particles radiate
photons. The rate that a particle radiates photons is related to the
property called its charge.
How does charge radiate photon? Do it radiate a different kind of
photon in the presence of a positively charged particle than in the
presence of a negatively charged particle?
No, it's the same kind of photon. Why?
Post by kenseto
Post by PD
Post by kenseto
Doesn't it have to
reside within the electron to perform this function?
No. Remember, there is no clear "inside" or "outside" an electron.
This is pure double talk. You said the charge is resided outside the
electron.
I didn't say *all* of the charge resided outside the electron, did I?
Post by kenseto
This would eliminate the infinity problem in QED.
No, that's not what I said at all. I said it was the presence of some
of the electron's charge outside of the electron that was responsible
for the infinities seen in QED calculations. Please review.
Post by kenseto
If the
charge is residing inside the electron the repulsive force on the
electron would approach infinity as the electron approaches to be a
point particle as QM asserts.
This is not a QM assertion. This is an assertion of Coulomb's law,
classical physics from the 18th century. We're in the 21st century, if
you're counting. No QM involved in that assertion whatsoever.
Post by kenseto
Post by PD
Post by kenseto
Post by PD
Experiment says otherwise. There is no reason to insist that the
microscopic world should behave the same way as the macroscopic world.
That's because current physics don't have the correct model of the
universe.
Experiment says otherwise.
Other model such as Model Mechanics can better explain those
experiments.
You haven't demonstrated that. You've said Model Mechanics has exactly
the same math as QFT. Well, that would include the infinities of that
math, wouldn't it? If Model Mechanics allows you to do the math
without the infinities, then it has a different mathematical theory,
but you haven't shown AT ALL that it does.
Post by kenseto
Post by PD
Post by kenseto
The physical model of Model Mechanics can explain all the
experiments that QM explains.
You haven't demonstrated that. At all. You haven't been able to
calculate a single thing with Model Mechanics that QM can.
Model Mechanics has the same math as QFT. It has different
interpretation of the math of QFT.
This is your old chestnut. Unfortunately, this doesn't fly in science.
The field in QM is associated with particular behaviors, based on
particular properties, that can be systematically developed
mathematically to make specific predictions. If your field (which you
call distortions of the E-matrix) is based on the same behaviors and
properties as QFT fields, then you've not done anything unique other
than relabel things to be your terms (like "E-matrix") without adding
anything to QFT. On the other hand, if your E-matrix has properties
and behaviors that are *different* than the QFT fields, then the
systematic mathematical development of those behaviors and properties
will result in *different* measurable predictions. It is in fact those
different measurable predictions that distinguish one theory from
another, and allows one to take precedence over the other, based on
comparison of those *unique* predictions against experiment. So far,
you've cited *no* predictions from your E-matrix that are different
than QFT. It would be quite remarkable if you could demonstrate that,
even though the E-matrix has properties and behaviors that are quite
different from the QFT fields, the math ends up being exactly the
same. You've not made that demonstration at all. You've simply
asserted it.
Post by kenseto
The field in QFT is represented as
the distortion or waves in the E-Matrix. The interaction of virtual
particles with real particle such as the electron is represented by
the reaction of the real particle to the distortion or waves in the
surrounding E-Matrix.
Y.Porat
2007-12-29 18:25:04 UTC
Permalink
Post by Y.Porat
Post by PD
Post by PD
Post by kenseto
Post by PD
Post by kenseto
Post by PD
Post by kenseto
Post by PD
Post by kenseto
Is the charge of a particle resides within the particles?
The answer according to current physics is:YES
Fundamental misunderstanding. Charge is not a "stuff" like paint or
peanut butter. It is a *property* of a particle. Does the "round" of a
raindrop reside within the raindrop? Does the "straight" of a stick
reside within the stick?
So charge is a property of a particle. Question: what causes a
particle to have charge properties? Also How can a property of a
particle exerts influence on another particle?
you're counting. No QM involved in that assertion whatsoever.
Post by PD
Post by kenseto
Post by PD
Experiment says otherwise. There is no reason to insist that the
microscopic world should behave the same way as the macroscopic world.
That's because current physics don't have the correct model of the
universe.
Experiment says otherwise.
----------------------------
Post by PD
Post by PD
Post by kenseto
Post by PD
Post by kenseto
Post by PD
Post by kenseto
Post by PD
Post by kenseto
Is the charge of a particle resides within the particles?
The answer according to current physics is:YES
Fundamental misunderstanding. Charge is not a "stuff" like paint or
peanut butter. It is a *property* of a particle. Does the "round" of a
raindrop reside within the raindrop? Does the "straight" of a stick
reside within the stick?
So charge is a property of a particle. Question: what causes a
particle to have charge properties? Also How can a property of a
particle exerts influence on another particle?
Nothing causes a particle to have charge properties, any more than
something causes an eagle to have feathers and talons. An eagle is
classified as an eagle *by virtue of* its feathers and talons (and a
few other properties). An electron is classified as an electron *by
virtue of* its electric charge, its weak charge, its lack of color
charge, its spin, its rest mass (within a certain range), and so on.
If it doesn't have one of those properties, then it must not be an
electron.
In other words you don't know what a charge is. An eagle's feathers
and talon enable it to fly. That's not a propertiy of an eagle.
Let me put it to you another way. We characterize particles by the
properties that they have. We have a wide variety of particles that we
observe, and we classify them according to properties. If a particle
has one kind of property, then it's a fermion. If it has another value
for that property, then it's a boson. Among the fermions, if they have
one kind of another property, then they're hadrons; otherwise they're
leptons. Among the leptons, if they have one kind of another property,
they are neutrinos; otherwise, they are charged leptons. Among the
charged leptons, if the particle has yet another property, it's an
electron.
This classification is really no different than classifying animals
that we find. If the animal has a spine, then it belongs to a group
called Vertebrates. If the vertebrate feeds its young with milk, then
it belongs to a group called mammals. If the mammal lives in the sea,
then it belongs to a group called cetaceans. If the cetacean has
another kind of property, then it's a whale.
Now, you might ask why mammals have mammary glands. Well, having
mammary glands is what distinguishes mammals from other animals, so
it's quite natural for mammals to have mammary glands.
ROTFLOL.....so an electron is like an animal?
No, you goofball. But the process for scientifically oted text -
- Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -
----------------------
before too much chest drumming

PD forgot that the existing force theories
ddint succeed untill now to solve the gravitation force
th e reason is that current theories just delude you
(not me and Seto (:-)
that they realy solve and understand the real mechanism
of
ANY ATTRACTION FIRCE !!
they present a mathematical model that solves only partially
attraction forces.
2
i dont know the positions of PD or Seto about
electric force in or out the electron
for me it is
in *and* out*
i n a similar way that water in a water fountain
exiast in *and* out the fountain !!

ATB
Y.Porat
-----------------------------
kenseto
2007-12-31 16:25:04 UTC
Permalink
Post by PD
Post by kenseto
Post by PD
No, you goofball. But the process for scientifically classifying
particles is very much like the process for scientifically classifying
animals. Does this bother you?
Yes it bothers me.....it seems that you don't know what the charge of
a particle is so you said that the charge of an electron is like a
mammary gland in an animal.
Reading comprehension difficulty noted.
Post by kenseto
Also you said that the charge of a
particle is the property of a particle and at the same time you said
that the charge of a partcile resides outside the particle.
Yes. There's no problem with this. Recall, there is no clear boundary
between "inside" an electron and "outside" an electron. You seem
determined to insist there is one.
ROTFLOL....this is an assumption of current physics. Current math.
model has no clear physical explaination of the contradictory
observations so they invented the absurd concept of duality. In Model
Machanics, the charge of a particle such as the electron is the
distortion in the E-Matrix that surrounds the particle. The distortion
in the surrounding E-Matrix is, in turn, caused by the orbiting motion
of the S-Particle that composes the electron.
Post by PD
Post by kenseto
Do you
just make up things as you go along?????
No, not at all. All this has been known for quite a long time. You
seem to be stumbling on it for the first time.
Post by kenseto
Post by PD
Post by kenseto
Post by PD
Because if it didn't radiate them, then its charge would be zero.
The
Post by PD
nonzero charge tells you it *does* radiate them.
So the charge's function is to radiate photons?
I don't know that charge has a function. Some particles radiate
photons. The rate that a particle radiates photons is related to the
property called its charge.
How does charge radiate photon? Do it radiate a different kind of
photon in the presence of a positively charged particle than in the
presence of a negatively charged particle?
No, it's the same kind of photon. Why?
Post by kenseto
Post by PD
Post by kenseto
Doesn't it have to
reside within the electron to perform this function?
No. Remember, there is no clear "inside" or "outside" an electron.
This is pure double talk. You said the charge is resided outside the
electron.
I didn't say *all* of the charge resided outside the electron, did I?
Ah....so only some of the charge is residing outside the particle. So
you think that that's not double talk????????
Post by PD
Post by kenseto
This would eliminate the infinity problem in QED.
No, that's not what I said at all. I said it was the presence of some
of the electron's charge outside of the electron that was responsible
for the infinities seen in QED calculations. Please review.
ROTFLOL...So those charge inside the electron has no effect on the
infinities seen in QED calculations???
Post by PD
Post by kenseto
If the
charge is residing inside the electron the repulsive force on the
electron would approach infinity as the electron approaches to be a
point particle as QM asserts.
This is not a QM assertion. This is an assertion of Coulomb's law,
classical physics from the 18th century. We're in the 21st century, if
you're counting. No QM involved in that assertion whatsoever.
So what is the size of an electron?
Post by PD
Post by kenseto
Post by PD
Experiment says otherwise.
Other model such as Model Mechanics can better explain those
experiments.
You haven't demonstrated that. You've said Model Mechanics has exactly
the same math as QFT. Well, that would include the infinities of that
math, wouldn't it?
No... Model Mechanics has different interpretations for the final
normalized QED equations....It says that the reason why the
normalization procedure work because there was no infinities to begin
with. In Model mechanics the charge of an electron is the distortion
in the surrounding E-Matrix caused by the orbiting motion of the S-
Particle of the elctron in the E-Matrix.
Post by PD
If Model Mechanics allows you to do the math
without the infinities, then it has a different mathematical theory,
but you haven't shown AT ALL that it does.
No it has the same math....only different interpretation of the same
math.
Post by PD
Post by kenseto
Post by PD
Post by kenseto
The physical model of Model Mechanics can explain all the
experiments that QM explains.
You haven't demonstrated that. At all. You haven't been able to
calculate a single thing with Model Mechanics that QM can.
Model Mechanics has the same math as QFT. It has different
interpretation of the math of QFT.
This is your old chestnut. Unfortunately, this doesn't fly in science.
The field in QM is associated with particular behaviors, based on
particular properties, that can be systematically developed
mathematically to make specific predictions. If your field (which you
call distortions of the E-matrix) is based on the same behaviors and
properties as QFT fields, then you've not done anything unique other
than relabel things to be your terms (like "E-matrix") without adding
anything to QFT.
Sure Model mechanics explains why the normalization procedure works in
QED. It gives a valid physical mopdel for the math of QED.
Post by PD
On the other hand, if your E-matrix has properties
and behaviors that are *different* than the QFT fields,
Distortions in the E-Matrix are the fields in QFT.

Ken Seto
Jeckyl
2007-12-31 21:52:22 UTC
Permalink
Post by PD
Post by kenseto
Post by PD
No, you goofball. But the process for scientifically classifying
particles is very much like the process for scientifically classifying
animals. Does this bother you?
Yes it bothers me.....it seems that you don't know what the charge of
a particle is so you said that the charge of an electron is like a
mammary gland in an animal.
Reading comprehension difficulty noted.
Post by kenseto
Also you said that the charge of a
particle is the property of a particle and at the same time you said
that the charge of a partcile resides outside the particle.
Yes. There's no problem with this. Recall, there is no clear boundary
between "inside" an electron and "outside" an electron. You seem
determined to insist there is one.
ROTFLOL....this is an assumption of current physics. Current math.
model has no clear physical explaination of the contradictory
observations so they invented the absurd concept of duality. In Model
Machanics,
.. there is nothing said or exaplined at all
PD
2008-01-02 15:18:41 UTC
Permalink
Post by kenseto
Post by PD
Post by kenseto
Post by PD
No, you goofball. But the process for scientifically classifying
particles is very much like the process for scientifically classifying
animals. Does this bother you?
Yes it bothers me.....it seems that you don't know what the charge of
a particle is so you said that the charge of an electron is like a
mammary gland in an animal.
Reading comprehension difficulty noted.
Post by kenseto
Also you said that the charge of a
particle is the property of a particle and at the same time you said
that the charge of a partcile resides outside the particle.
Yes. There's no problem with this. Recall, there is no clear boundary
between "inside" an electron and "outside" an electron. You seem
determined to insist there is one.
ROTFLOL....this is an assumption of current physics. Current math.
No, not assumption, not math. Experiment. You seem to think this is
all about ideas and math and assumptions. It's not.
Post by kenseto
model has no clear physical explaination of the contradictory
observations
What contradictory observations about charge?
Post by kenseto
so they invented the absurd concept of duality.
Duality doesn't have anything to do with where charge resides.
Post by kenseto
In Model
Machanics, the charge of a particle such as the electron is the
distortion in the E-Matrix that surrounds the particle. The distortion
in the surrounding E-Matrix is, in turn, caused by the orbiting motion
of the S-Particle that composes the electron.
Show that mathematically. What's the equation of motion of the S-
particle? And what's the mathematical relationship between that orbit
and the distortion in the E-matrix?
Post by kenseto
Post by PD
Post by kenseto
Do you
just make up things as you go along?????
No, not at all. All this has been known for quite a long time. You
seem to be stumbling on it for the first time.
Post by kenseto
Post by PD
Post by kenseto
Post by PD
Because if it didn't radiate them, then its charge would be zero.
The
Post by PD
nonzero charge tells you it *does* radiate them.
So the charge's function is to radiate photons?
I don't know that charge has a function. Some particles radiate
photons. The rate that a particle radiates photons is related to the
property called its charge.
How does charge radiate photon? Do it radiate a different kind of
photon in the presence of a positively charged particle than in the
presence of a negatively charged particle?
No, it's the same kind of photon. Why?
Post by kenseto
Post by PD
Post by kenseto
Doesn't it have to
reside within the electron to perform this function?
No. Remember, there is no clear "inside" or "outside" an electron.
This is pure double talk. You said the charge is resided outside the
electron.
I didn't say *all* of the charge resided outside the electron, did I?
Ah....so only some of the charge is residing outside the particle. So
you think that that's not double talk????????
No, I don't. Why do you find it confusing?
Post by kenseto
Post by PD
Post by kenseto
This would eliminate the infinity problem in QED.
No, that's not what I said at all. I said it was the presence of some
of the electron's charge outside of the electron that was responsible
for the infinities seen in QED calculations. Please review.
ROTFLOL...So those charge inside the electron has no effect on the
infinities seen in QED calculations???
If you knew how the QED calculations were done, you would know where
the infinitites come from. But you apparently haven't read anything
other than coffee-table books about it. Do you always roll around on
the floor laughing when you don't understand something?
Post by kenseto
Post by PD
Post by kenseto
If the
charge is residing inside the electron the repulsive force on the
electron would approach infinity as the electron approaches to be a
point particle as QM asserts.
This is not a QM assertion. This is an assertion of Coulomb's law,
classical physics from the 18th century. We're in the 21st century, if
you're counting. No QM involved in that assertion whatsoever.
So what is the size of an electron?
"Size" means something that has a definite boundary between the inside
and outside. There isn't for an electron.
Post by kenseto
Post by PD
Post by kenseto
Post by PD
Experiment says otherwise.
Other model such as Model Mechanics can better explain those
experiments.
You haven't demonstrated that. You've said Model Mechanics has exactly
the same math as QFT. Well, that would include the infinities of that
math, wouldn't it?
No... Model Mechanics has different interpretations for the final
normalized QED equations....It says that the reason why the
normalization procedure work because there was no infinities to begin
with.
The infinities arise in the calculations. If the calculations are the
same, then the infinities are the same. If the infinities aren't
there, then the math must be different. One or the other.
Post by kenseto
In Model mechanics the charge of an electron is the distortion
in the surrounding E-Matrix caused by the orbiting motion of the S-
Particle of the elctron in the E-Matrix.
Post by PD
If Model Mechanics allows you to do the math
without the infinities, then it has a different mathematical theory,
but you haven't shown AT ALL that it does.
No it has the same math....only different interpretation of the same
math.
Tell me how you can interpret 1/0 so that it is not infinite.
Post by kenseto
Post by PD
Post by kenseto
Post by PD
Post by kenseto
The physical model of Model Mechanics can explain all the
experiments that QM explains.
You haven't demonstrated that. At all. You haven't been able to
calculate a single thing with Model Mechanics that QM can.
Model Mechanics has the same math as QFT. It has different
interpretation of the math of QFT.
This is your old chestnut. Unfortunately, this doesn't fly in science.
The field in QM is associated with particular behaviors, based on
particular properties, that can be systematically developed
mathematically to make specific predictions. If your field (which you
call distortions of the E-matrix) is based on the same behaviors and
properties as QFT fields, then you've not done anything unique other
than relabel things to be your terms (like "E-matrix") without adding
anything to QFT.
Sure Model mechanics explains why the normalization procedure works in
QED. It gives a valid physical mopdel for the math of QED.
Post by PD
On the other hand, if your E-matrix has properties
and behaviors that are *different* than the QFT fields,
Distortions in the E-Matrix are the fields in QFT.
Then you've just renamed things without changing anything else. That's
not a new theory.

PD
kenseto
2008-01-02 16:15:27 UTC
Permalink
Post by PD
Post by kenseto
Post by PD
Yes. There's no problem with this. Recall, there is no clear boundary
between "inside" an electron and "outside" an electron. You seem
determined to insist there is one.
ROTFLOL....this is an assumption of current physics. Current math.
No, not assumption, not math. Experiment. You seem to think this is
all about ideas and math and assumptions. It's not.
Sure it is assumption. A correct model for charge such as Model
Mechanics will expain what is a charge and whether it reside inside or
outside the particle.
Post by PD
Post by kenseto
model has no clear physical explaination of the contradictory
observations
What contradictory observations about charge?
For example: the charge of a partcile is residing inside and outside
the particle.
Post by PD
Post by kenseto
so they invented the absurd concept of duality.
Duality doesn't have anything to do with where charge resides.
The assumption that the charge of a partcile is residing both inside
and outside the particle is similar to the bogus assumption of
duality.
Post by PD
Post by kenseto
In Model
Machanics, the charge of a particle such as the electron is the
distortion in the E-Matrix that surrounds the particle. The distortion
in the surrounding E-Matrix is, in turn, caused by the orbiting motion
of the S-Particle that composes the electron.
Show that mathematically. What's the equation of motion of the S-
particle? And what's the mathematical relationship between that orbit
and the distortion in the E-matrix?
Model Mechanics provides the physical explannation for the math of
QFT. The fields of QFT is the distortions in the E-Matrix caused by
the orbiting motion of the S-Particle of the electron. The interaction
of the interaction of the electron with the virtual partcile is the
reaction of the orbiting S-Particle of the electron following the
distortions in the E-Strings.
Post by PD
Post by kenseto
Post by PD
I didn't say *all* of the charge resided outside the electron, did I?
Ah....so only some of the charge is residing outside the particle. So
you think that that's not double talk????????
No, I don't. Why do you find it confusing?
It is confusing because such assertion is born from illogical
reasoning. Physicists were not able to expalin experimental data with
their current physical model of the universe so they dreamed up
illogical processes (duality and the charge of a particle is residing
inside and outside the particle) to expain experimental data. They
failed to realize that there are logical processes that explain these
experimental observations fully.
Post by PD
Post by kenseto
Post by PD
Post by kenseto
This would eliminate the infinity problem in QED.
No, that's not what I said at all. I said it was the presence of some
of the electron's charge outside of the electron that was responsible
for the infinities seen in QED calculations. Please review.
ROTFLOL...So those charge inside the electron has no effect on the
infinities seen in QED calculations???
If you knew how the QED calculations were done, you would know where
the infinitites come from. But you apparently haven't read anything
other than coffee-table books about it. Do you always roll around on
the floor laughing when you don't understand something?
All I know is: in QFT an electron is negatively charged and therefore
the repulsive force becomes infinite when the electron is reduced to
the size of a point like particle.
Post by PD
Post by kenseto
Post by PD
Post by kenseto
If the
charge is residing inside the electron the repulsive force on the
electron would approach infinity as the electron approaches to be a
point particle as QM asserts.
This is not a QM assertion. This is an assertion of Coulomb's law,
classical physics from the 18th century. We're in the 21st century, if
you're counting. No QM involved in that assertion whatsoever.
So what is the size of an electron?
"Size" means something that has a definite boundary between the inside
and outside. There isn't for an electron.
This is just another bogus double talk assumption invented by the
physicists. The correct physical model of an electron such as Model
Mechanics does not have such bogus assumption.
Post by PD
Post by kenseto
Post by PD
Post by kenseto
Post by PD
Experiment says otherwise.
Other model such as Model Mechanics can better explain those
experiments.
You haven't demonstrated that. You've said Model Mechanics has exactly
the same math as QFT. Well, that would include the infinities of that
math, wouldn't it?
No... Model Mechanics has different interpretations for the final
normalized QED equations....It says that the reason why the
normalization procedure work because there was no infinities to begin
with.
The infinities arise in the calculations. If the calculations are the
same, then the infinities are the same. If the infinities aren't
there, then the math must be different. One or the other.
The infinity arised in the original version of the QED is because they
used a bogus physical model of an electron to do the calculations. The
correct physical model is Model mechanics. In Model Mechanics the
charge of a partcile is the result of the orbiting motion of the S-
Particle of the chaged particle. So there is no infinite repulsive
force exists when the diameter of the particle is reduce to that of
the electron.
Post by PD
Post by kenseto
In Model mechanics the charge of an electron is the distortion
in the surrounding E-Matrix caused by the orbiting motion of the S-
Particle of the elctron in the E-Matrix.
Post by PD
If Model Mechanics allows you to do the math
without the infinities, then it has a different mathematical theory,
but you haven't shown AT ALL that it does.
No it has the same math....only different interpretation of the same
math.
Tell me how you can interpret 1/0 so that it is not infinite.
Because there is no 1/0 when you use the correct physical model to do
calculations. The charge of a particle such as the electron is the
field surrounding the electron.
Post by PD
Post by kenseto
Post by PD
anything to QFT.
Sure Model mechanics explains why the normalization procedure works in
QED. It gives a valid physical mopdel for the math of QED.
Post by PD
On the other hand, if your E-matrix has properties
and behaviors that are *different* than the QFT fields,
Distortions in the E-Matrix are the fields in QFT.
Then you've just renamed things without changing anything else. That's
not a new theory.
What is new is that Model Mechanics provides the correct physical
model for the normalized math of QFT.

Ken Seto
PD
2008-01-02 16:48:46 UTC
Permalink
Post by kenseto
Post by PD
Post by kenseto
Post by PD
Yes. There's no problem with this. Recall, there is no clear boundary
between "inside" an electron and "outside" an electron. You seem
determined to insist there is one.
ROTFLOL....this is an assumption of current physics. Current math.
No, not assumption, not math. Experiment. You seem to think this is
all about ideas and math and assumptions. It's not.
Sure it is assumption. A correct model for charge such as Model
Mechanics will expain what is a charge and whether it reside inside or
outside the particle.
Post by PD
Post by kenseto
model has no clear physical explaination of the contradictory
observations
What contradictory observations about charge?
For example: the charge of a partcile is residing inside and outside
the particle.
No, there IS NO observed inside and outside of the particle, and
therefore there is no observation of charge inside or outside a
particle. You are assuming a boundary that is not there, and it is not
observed.
Post by kenseto
Post by PD
Post by kenseto
so they invented the absurd concept of duality.
Duality doesn't have anything to do with where charge resides.
The assumption that the charge of a partcile is residing both inside
and outside the particle is similar to the bogus assumption of
duality.
The only thing that's common about them is that you don't understand
how either could be right. Other than that, they don't have anything
in common.
Post by kenseto
Post by PD
Post by kenseto
In Model
Machanics, the charge of a particle such as the electron is the
distortion in the E-Matrix that surrounds the particle. The distortion
in the surrounding E-Matrix is, in turn, caused by the orbiting motion
of the S-Particle that composes the electron.
Show that mathematically. What's the equation of motion of the S-
particle? And what's the mathematical relationship between that orbit
and the distortion in the E-matrix?
Model Mechanics provides the physical explannation for the math of
QFT. The fields of QFT is the distortions in the E-Matrix caused by
the orbiting motion of the S-Particle of the electron. The interaction
of the interaction of the electron with the virtual partcile is the
reaction of the orbiting S-Particle of the electron following the
distortions in the E-Strings.
You didn't answer my question at all. What's the equation of motion of
the S- particle? And what's the mathematical relationship between that
orbit and the distortion in the E-matrix?
Post by kenseto
Post by PD
Post by kenseto
Post by PD
I didn't say *all* of the charge resided outside the electron, did I?
Ah....so only some of the charge is residing outside the particle. So
you think that that's not double talk????????
No, I don't. Why do you find it confusing?
It is confusing because such assertion is born from illogical
reasoning.
What logical reasoning?
Furthermore, when experimental data conflicts with your logical
reasoning, which is right: your logic or the data?
Post by kenseto
Physicists were not able to expalin experimental data with
their current physical model of the universe so they dreamed up
illogical processes (duality and the charge of a particle is residing
inside and outside the particle)
What's illogical about charge not having a firm boundary? Where is the
boundary of a cumulus cloud, exactly? Where is the boundary of this
shadow? Loading Image...
Post by kenseto
to expain experimental data. They
failed to realize that there are logical processes that explain these
experimental observations fully.
Post by PD
Post by kenseto
Post by PD
Post by kenseto
This would eliminate the infinity problem in QED.
No, that's not what I said at all. I said it was the presence of some
of the electron's charge outside of the electron that was responsible
for the infinities seen in QED calculations. Please review.
ROTFLOL...So those charge inside the electron has no effect on the
infinities seen in QED calculations???
If you knew how the QED calculations were done, you would know where
the infinitites come from. But you apparently haven't read anything
other than coffee-table books about it. Do you always roll around on
the floor laughing when you don't understand something?
All I know is: in QFT an electron is negatively charged and therefore
the repulsive force becomes infinite when the electron is reduced to
the size of a point like particle.
Then all you know is Coulomb's law, not QFT, because that's what
Coulomb's law says. That law, by the way, has been around since 1785,
preceding QFT by a century and a half.

Apparently, since this is all you know about QFT, you know nothing
about QFT at all.
Post by kenseto
Post by PD
Post by kenseto
Post by PD
Post by kenseto
If the
charge is residing inside the electron the repulsive force on the
electron would approach infinity as the electron approaches to be a
point particle as QM asserts.
This is not a QM assertion. This is an assertion of Coulomb's law,
classical physics from the 18th century. We're in the 21st century, if
you're counting. No QM involved in that assertion whatsoever.
So what is the size of an electron?
"Size" means something that has a definite boundary between the inside
and outside. There isn't for an electron.
This is just another bogus double talk assumption invented by the
physicists. The correct physical model of an electron such as Model
Mechanics does not have such bogus assumption.
Not an assumption. Experimental result.
Post by kenseto
Post by PD
Post by kenseto
Post by PD
Post by kenseto
Post by PD
Experiment says otherwise.
Other model such as Model Mechanics can better explain those
experiments.
You haven't demonstrated that. You've said Model Mechanics has exactly
the same math as QFT. Well, that would include the infinities of that
math, wouldn't it?
No... Model Mechanics has different interpretations for the final
normalized QED equations....It says that the reason why the
normalization procedure work because there was no infinities to begin
with.
The infinities arise in the calculations. If the calculations are the
same, then the infinities are the same. If the infinities aren't
there, then the math must be different. One or the other.
The infinity arised in the original version of the QED is because they
used a bogus physical model of an electron to do the calculations.
What bogus physical model is that?
Post by kenseto
The
correct physical model is Model mechanics. In Model Mechanics the
charge of a partcile is the result of the orbiting motion of the S-
Particle of the chaged particle. So there is no infinite repulsive
force exists when the diameter of the particle is reduce to that of
the electron.
Post by PD
Post by kenseto
In Model mechanics the charge of an electron is the distortion
in the surrounding E-Matrix caused by the orbiting motion of the S-
Particle of the elctron in the E-Matrix.
Post by PD
If Model Mechanics allows you to do the math
without the infinities, then it has a different mathematical theory,
but you haven't shown AT ALL that it does.
No it has the same math....only different interpretation of the same
math.
Tell me how you can interpret 1/0 so that it is not infinite.
Because there is no 1/0 when you use the correct physical model to do
calculations. The charge of a particle such as the electron is the
field surrounding the electron.
Then the math of your theory must be different than QFT. But you
haven't shown how it is different.

Here's your conundrum, Ken. You have one of two choices:
a) Your theory uses the same math, and therefore involves the same
equations, calculations, and results, including those that generate
the infinities. In this case, you don't have a different theory, you
have the same theory with your own labels for QFT words pasted on
them.
b) Your theory uses different math, and doesn't involve the same
equations, calculations, and results, and therefore doesn't generate
or exhibit infinities. But you haven't shown any of that math that
shows where it is different. At all. In this case, you haven't
produced a theory at all.

Once you figure out the condundrum, then you'll understand better why
what you've done isn't at all helpful.
Post by kenseto
Post by PD
Post by kenseto
Post by PD
anything to QFT.
Sure Model mechanics explains why the normalization procedure works in
QED. It gives a valid physical mopdel for the math of QED.
Post by PD
On the other hand, if your E-matrix has properties
and behaviors that are *different* than the QFT fields,
Distortions in the E-Matrix are the fields in QFT.
Then you've just renamed things without changing anything else. That's
not a new theory.
What is new is that Model Mechanics provides the correct physical
model for the normalized math of QFT.
Ken Seto
kenseto
2008-01-04 16:58:43 UTC
Permalink
Post by PD
Post by kenseto
Post by PD
Post by kenseto
Post by PD
Yes. There's no problem with this. Recall, there is no clear boundary
between "inside" an electron and "outside" an electron. You seem
determined to insist there is one.
ROTFLOL....this is an assumption of current physics. Current math.
No, not assumption, not math. Experiment. You seem to think this is
all about ideas and math and assumptions. It's not.
Sure it is assumption. A correct model for charge such as Model
Mechanics will expain what is a charge and whether it reside inside or
outside the particle.
Post by PD
Post by kenseto
model has no clear physical explaination of the contradictory
observations
What contradictory observations about charge?
For example: the charge of a partcile is residing inside and outside
the particle.
No, there IS NO observed inside and outside of the particle, and
therefore there is no observation of charge inside or outside a
particle. You are assuming a boundary that is not there, and it is not
observed.
I didn't assume anything. It was you who said that the charge is a
property of a particle and it resides "inside and outside" the
particle.
Post by PD
Post by kenseto
Post by PD
Post by kenseto
so they invented the absurd concept of duality.
Duality doesn't have anything to do with where charge resides.
The assumption that the charge of a partcile is residing both inside
and outside the particle is similar to the bogus assumption of
duality.
The only thing that's common about them is that you don't understand
how either could be right. Other than that, they don't have anything
in common.
It is not right...it is a bogus assertion based on a poor
understanding of nature.
Post by PD
Post by kenseto
Post by PD
Show that mathematically. What's the equation of motion of the S-
particle? And what's the mathematical relationship between that orbit
and the distortion in the E-matrix?
Model Mechanics provides the physical explannation for the math of
QFT. The fields of QFT is the distortions in the E-Matrix caused by
the orbiting motion of the S-Particle of the electron. The interaction
of the interaction of the electron with the virtual partcile is the
reaction of the orbiting S-Particle of the electron following the
distortions in the E-Strings.
You didn't answer my question at all. What's the equation of motion of
the S- particle? And what's the mathematical relationship between that
orbit and the distortion in the E-matrix?
We don't need the equation of motion for the S-Particle. We know the
orbiting motion of the S-Particle of the electron generates the
distortion (the field) in the E-Matrix. We can now use the QFT
equations to do calculations.
Post by PD
Post by kenseto
Post by PD
No, I don't. Why do you find it confusing?
It is confusing because such assertion is born from illogical
reasoning.
What logical reasoning?
Furthermore, when experimental data conflicts with your logical
reasoning, which is right: your logic or the data?
No experimental data conflicts with my logical reasonings. My logical
reasonings give different interpretations for the same experimental
data.
Post by PD
Post by kenseto
Physicists were not able to expalin experimental data with
their current physical model of the universe so they dreamed up
illogical processes (duality and the charge of a particle is residing
inside and outside the particle)
What's illogical about charge not having a firm boundary? Where is the
boundary of a cumulus cloud, exactly? Where is the boundary of this
shadow?http://photo.net/bboard-uploads/008kTA-18649584.jpg
The point is: You don't know what the charge of an electron is so you
made certain assumptions that seem to agree with experimental data.
Then you claim these assumptions are the only valid explannation for
the charge of an electron.
Post by PD
Post by kenseto
to expain experimental data. They
failed to realize that there are logical processes that explain these
experimental observations fully.
Post by PD
If you knew how the QED calculations were done, you would know where
the infinitites come from. But you apparently haven't read anything
other than coffee-table books about it. Do you always roll around on
the floor laughing when you don't understand something?
All I know is: in QFT an electron is negatively charged and therefore
the repulsive force becomes infinite when the electron is reduced to
the size of a point like particle.
Then all you know is Coulomb's law, not QFT, because that's what
Coulomb's law says. That law, by the way, has been around since 1785,
preceding QFT by a century and a half.
Apparently, since this is all you know about QFT, you know nothing
about QFT at all.
So are you saying that the infinities in the original QED equations
are not the result of the repulsive force of the charge of the
particle?
Post by PD
Post by kenseto
Post by PD
"Size" means something that has a definite boundary between the inside
and outside. There isn't for an electron.
This is just another bogus double talk assumption invented by the
physicists. The correct physical model of an electron such as Model
Mechanics does not have such bogus assumption.
Not an assumption. Experimental result.
Post by kenseto
The
correct physical model is Model mechanics. In Model Mechanics the
charge of a partcile is the result of the orbiting motion of the S-
Particle of the chaged particle. So there is no infinite repulsive
force exists when the diameter of the particle is reduce to that of
the electron.
Post by PD
Post by kenseto
In Model mechanics the charge of an electron is the distortion
in the surrounding E-Matrix caused by the orbiting motion of the S-
Particle of the elctron in the E-Matrix.
Post by PD
If Model Mechanics allows you to do the math
without the infinities, then it has a different mathematical theory,
but you haven't shown AT ALL that it does.
No it has the same math....only different interpretation of the same
math.
Tell me how you can interpret 1/0 so that it is not infinite.
Because there is no 1/0 when you use the correct physical model to do
calculations. The charge of a particle such as the electron is the
field surrounding the electron.
Then the math of your theory must be different than QFT. But you
haven't shown how it is different.
No....it is the same. Model mechanics provides the correct physical
Model for the math of QFT.
Ken Seto
PD
2008-01-04 18:09:51 UTC
Permalink
Post by kenseto
Post by PD
Post by kenseto
Post by PD
Post by kenseto
Post by PD
Yes. There's no problem with this. Recall, there is no clear boundary
between "inside" an electron and "outside" an electron. You seem
determined to insist there is one.
ROTFLOL....this is an assumption of current physics. Current math.
No, not assumption, not math. Experiment. You seem to think this is
all about ideas and math and assumptions. It's not.
Sure it is assumption. A correct model for charge such as Model
Mechanics will expain what is a charge and whether it reside inside or
outside the particle.
Post by PD
Post by kenseto
model has no clear physical explaination of the contradictory
observations
What contradictory observations about charge?
For example: the charge of a partcile is residing inside and outside
the particle.
No, there IS NO observed inside and outside of the particle, and
therefore there is no observation of charge inside or outside a
particle. You are assuming a boundary that is not there, and it is not
observed.
I didn't assume anything. It was you who said that the charge is a
property of a particle and it resides "inside and outside" the
particle.
I *also* told you there is no clear inside and outside of the
particle. Have you forgotten that?
Post by kenseto
Post by PD
Post by kenseto
Post by PD
Post by kenseto
so they invented the absurd concept of duality.
Duality doesn't have anything to do with where charge resides.
The assumption that the charge of a partcile is residing both inside
and outside the particle is similar to the bogus assumption of
duality.
The only thing that's common about them is that you don't understand
how either could be right. Other than that, they don't have anything
in common.
It is not right...it is a bogus assertion based on a poor
understanding of nature.
Well you say that, but I don't see any place where it fails.
Post by kenseto
Post by PD
Post by kenseto
Post by PD
Show that mathematically. What's the equation of motion of the S-
particle? And what's the mathematical relationship between that orbit
and the distortion in the E-matrix?
Model Mechanics provides the physical explannation for the math of
QFT. The fields of QFT is the distortions in the E-Matrix caused by
the orbiting motion of the S-Particle of the electron. The interaction
of the interaction of the electron with the virtual partcile is the
reaction of the orbiting S-Particle of the electron following the
distortions in the E-Strings.
You didn't answer my question at all. What's the equation of motion of
the S- particle? And what's the mathematical relationship between that
orbit and the distortion in the E-matrix?
We don't need the equation of motion for the S-Particle. We know the
orbiting motion of the S-Particle of the electron generates the
distortion (the field) in the E-Matrix.
Sorry, I don't see that at all. How are they related, mathematically?
Post by kenseto
We can now use the QFT
equations to do calculations.
Then I'll get infinities, just as before. QFT doesn't have S-particles
orbiting and distortions of the E-matrix, so there's no connection
whatsoever between the behavior of the S-particles and the results of
QFT.
Post by kenseto
Post by PD
Post by kenseto
Post by PD
No, I don't. Why do you find it confusing?
It is confusing because such assertion is born from illogical
reasoning.
What logical reasoning?
Furthermore, when experimental data conflicts with your logical
reasoning, which is right: your logic or the data?
No experimental data conflicts with my logical reasonings. My logical
reasonings give different interpretations for the same experimental
data.
Post by PD
Post by kenseto
Physicists were not able to expalin experimental data with
their current physical model of the universe so they dreamed up
illogical processes (duality and the charge of a particle is residing
inside and outside the particle)
What's illogical about charge not having a firm boundary? Where is the
boundary of a cumulus cloud, exactly? Where is the boundary of this
shadow?http://photo.net/bboard-uploads/008kTA-18649584.jpg
The point is: You don't know what the charge of an electron is so you
made certain assumptions that seem to agree with experimental data.
Then you claim these assumptions are the only valid explannation for
the charge of an electron.
I'm simply pointing out that certain things do not have insides and
outsides. Electrons are one of them. I don't know why you think you
have to insist otherwise. Do you have evidence of a boundary of an
electron?
Post by kenseto
Post by PD
Post by kenseto
to expain experimental data. They
failed to realize that there are logical processes that explain these
experimental observations fully.
Post by PD
If you knew how the QED calculations were done, you would know where
the infinitites come from. But you apparently haven't read anything
other than coffee-table books about it. Do you always roll around on
the floor laughing when you don't understand something?
All I know is: in QFT an electron is negatively charged and therefore
the repulsive force becomes infinite when the electron is reduced to
the size of a point like particle.
Then all you know is Coulomb's law, not QFT, because that's what
Coulomb's law says. That law, by the way, has been around since 1785,
preceding QFT by a century and a half.
Apparently, since this is all you know about QFT, you know nothing
about QFT at all.
So are you saying that the infinities in the original QED equations
are not the result of the repulsive force of the charge of the
particle?
That is certainly true. The infinities in QFT have nothing to do with
the infinity you see in Coulomb's law.
Post by kenseto
Post by PD
Post by kenseto
Post by PD
"Size" means something that has a definite boundary between the inside
and outside. There isn't for an electron.
This is just another bogus double talk assumption invented by the
physicists. The correct physical model of an electron such as Model
Mechanics does not have such bogus assumption.
Not an assumption. Experimental result.
Post by kenseto
The
correct physical model is Model mechanics. In Model Mechanics the
charge of a partcile is the result of the orbiting motion of the S-
Particle of the chaged particle. So there is no infinite repulsive
force exists when the diameter of the particle is reduce to that of
the electron.
Post by PD
Post by kenseto
In Model mechanics the charge of an electron is the distortion
in the surrounding E-Matrix caused by the orbiting motion of the S-
Particle of the elctron in the E-Matrix.
Post by PD
If Model Mechanics allows you to do the math
without the infinities, then it has a different mathematical theory,
but you haven't shown AT ALL that it does.
No it has the same math....only different interpretation of the same
math.
Tell me how you can interpret 1/0 so that it is not infinite.
Because there is no 1/0 when you use the correct physical model to do
calculations. The charge of a particle such as the electron is the
field surrounding the electron.
Then the math of your theory must be different than QFT. But you
haven't shown how it is different.
No....it is the same. Model mechanics provides the correct physical
Model for the math of QFT.
Then if it is the same, you have the same infinities. You can't have
it both ways. Either the math is the same, including the infinities,
or the math is not the same and is without the infinities.

PD
kenseto
2008-01-05 16:14:18 UTC
Permalink
Post by PD
Post by kenseto
Post by PD
No, there IS NO observed inside and outside of the particle, and
therefore there is no observation of charge inside or outside a
particle. You are assuming a boundary that is not there, and it is not
observed.
I didn't assume anything. It was you who said that the charge is a
property of a particle and it resides "inside and outside" the
particle.
I *also* told you there is no clear inside and outside of the
particle. Have you forgotten that?
So you are trying to have it both ways???
Post by PD
Post by kenseto
Post by PD
Post by kenseto
Post by PD
Post by kenseto
so they invented the absurd concept of duality.
Duality doesn't have anything to do with where charge resides.
The assumption that the charge of a partcile is residing both inside
and outside the particle is similar to the bogus assumption of
duality.
The only thing that's common about them is that you don't understand
how either could be right. Other than that, they don't have anything
in common.
It is not right...it is a bogus assertion based on a poor
understanding of nature.
Well you say that, but I don't see any place where it fails.
It failed to give a definitive answer.....for example the charge
resides *inside and outside* of the partcile.
Post by PD
Post by kenseto
Post by PD
You didn't answer my question at all. What's the equation of motion of
the S- particle? And what's the mathematical relationship between that
orbit and the distortion in the E-matrix?
We don't need the equation of motion for the S-Particle. We know the
orbiting motion of the S-Particle of the electron generates the
distortion (the field) in the E-Matrix.
Sorry, I don't see that at all. How are they related, mathematically?
The fields in QFT are the distortions or stresses in the E-Matrix.
Post by PD
Post by kenseto
We can now use the QFT
equations to do calculations.
Then I'll get infinities, just as before. QFT doesn't have S-particles
orbiting and distortions of the E-matrix, so there's no connection
whatsoever between the behavior of the S-particles and the results of QFT.
No you don't get infinity using the physical model of Model Mechanics.
The terms that give rise to the infinities (1/0) do not exist so there
is no need for the renormalization procedure to reach the infinity
free equations

Ken Seto
PD
2008-01-05 16:22:33 UTC
Permalink
Post by kenseto
Post by PD
Post by kenseto
Post by PD
No, there IS NO observed inside and outside of the particle, and
therefore there is no observation of charge inside or outside a
particle. You are assuming a boundary that is not there, and it is not
observed.
I didn't assume anything. It was you who said that the charge is a
property of a particle and it resides "inside and outside" the
particle.
I *also* told you there is no clear inside and outside of the
particle. Have you forgotten that?
So you are trying to have it both ways???
No, I'm trying to *explain* it in a way that you'll understand. Since
that's not working, I suggest you pick up some books.
Post by kenseto
Post by PD
Post by kenseto
Post by PD
Post by kenseto
Post by PD
Post by kenseto
so they invented the absurd concept of duality.
Duality doesn't have anything to do with where charge resides.
The assumption that the charge of a partcile is residing both inside
and outside the particle is similar to the bogus assumption of
duality.
The only thing that's common about them is that you don't understand
how either could be right. Other than that, they don't have anything
in common.
It is not right...it is a bogus assertion based on a poor
understanding of nature.
Well you say that, but I don't see any place where it fails.
It failed to give a definitive answer.....for example the charge
resides *inside and outside* of the partcile.
There is no inside and outside of a particle. Failing to fit your
notion that there needs to be an inside and outside of a particle is
not a failure of the theory. It simply doesn't meet your expectations.
Not meeting your expectations is not a failure.
Post by kenseto
Post by PD
Post by kenseto
Post by PD
You didn't answer my question at all. What's the equation of motion of
the S- particle? And what's the mathematical relationship between that
orbit and the distortion in the E-matrix?
We don't need the equation of motion for the S-Particle. We know the
orbiting motion of the S-Particle of the electron generates the
distortion (the field) in the E-Matrix.
Sorry, I don't see that at all. How are they related, mathematically?
The fields in QFT are the distortions or stresses in the E-Matrix.
That's not a mathematical statement.
Post by kenseto
Post by PD
Post by kenseto
We can now use the QFT
equations to do calculations.
Then I'll get infinities, just as before. QFT doesn't have S-particles
orbiting and distortions of the E-matrix, so there's no connection
whatsoever between the behavior of the S-particles and the results of QFT.
No you don't get infinity using the physical model of Model Mechanics.
The terms that give rise to the infinities (1/0) do not exist
If the terms are not there, then the math is different. But you
haven't shown that.

Let me give you a simple example.
Here is an equation:
y = ax^3 + bx^2 + cx + d.
The presence of the ax^3 term makes this equation hard to solve.
Now suppose this term is missing
y = bx^2 + cx + d.
Now the equation is simple to solve.
But it is a *different equation*, different math.

You claim that the math is the same, but the terms are not there. If
the terms are missing, then it's *different* equations. But you
haven't shown where the terms are different or why.

You know you are bluffing. You want to have it both ways, but you
can't. This is what makes the difference between you and a physicist,
Ken. It's as transparent as glass, but you seem to want to pretend
that it's not. Stop pretending.
Post by kenseto
so there
is no need for the renormalization procedure to reach the infinity
free equations
Ken Seto
kenseto
2008-01-11 15:43:33 UTC
Permalink
Post by PD
Post by kenseto
Post by PD
Post by kenseto
Post by PD
No, there IS NO observed inside and outside of the particle, and
therefore there is no observation of charge inside or outside a
particle. You are assuming a boundary that is not there, and it is not
observed.
I didn't assume anything. It was you who said that the charge is a
property of a particle and it resides "inside and outside" the
particle.
I *also* told you there is no clear inside and outside of the
particle. Have you forgotten that?
So you are trying to have it both ways???
No, I'm trying to *explain* it in a way that you'll understand. Since
that's not working, I suggest you pick up some books.
Post by kenseto
Post by PD
Post by kenseto
Post by PD
Post by kenseto
Post by PD
Post by kenseto
so they invented the absurd concept of duality.
Duality doesn't have anything to do with where charge resides.
The assumption that the charge of a partcile is residing both inside
and outside the particle is similar to the bogus assumption of
duality.
The only thing that's common about them is that you don't understand
how either could be right. Other than that, they don't have anything
in common.
It is not right...it is a bogus assertion based on a poor
understanding of nature.
Well you say that, but I don't see any place where it fails.
It failed to give a definitive answer.....for example the charge
resides *inside and outside* of the partcile.
There is no inside and outside of a particle. Failing to fit your
notion that there needs to be an inside and outside of a particle is
not a failure of the theory. It simply doesn't meet your expectations.
Not meeting your expectations is not a failure.
Post by kenseto
Post by PD
Post by kenseto
Post by PD
You didn't answer my question at all. What's the equation of motion of
the S- particle? And what's the mathematical relationship between that
orbit and the distortion in the E-matrix?
We don't need the equation of motion for the S-Particle. We know the
orbiting motion of the S-Particle of the electron generates the
distortion (the field) in the E-Matrix.
Sorry, I don't see that at all. How are they related, mathematically?
The fields in QFT are the distortions or stresses in the E-Matrix.
That's not a mathematical statement.
Post by kenseto
Post by PD
Post by kenseto
We can now use the QFT
equations to do calculations.
Then I'll get infinities, just as before. QFT doesn't have S-particles
orbiting and distortions of the E-matrix, so there's no connection
whatsoever between the behavior of the S-particles and the results of QFT.
No you don't get infinity using the physical model of Model Mechanics.
The terms that give rise to the infinities (1/0) do not exist
If the terms are not there, then the math is different. But you
haven't shown that.
The physical model of Model Mechanics says that the charge of a
particle does not reside inside the particle. It is the distortion in
the E-Matrix around the particle. As such there is no infinite self
energy as in the orginal QED equation. Therefore those terms can be
eliminetd from the orginal equations and that leaves the normalized
equations.

Ken Seto
Post by PD
Let me give you a simple example.
y = ax^3 + bx^2 + cx + d.
The presence of the ax^3 term makes this equation hard to solve.
Now suppose this term is missing
y = bx^2 + cx + d.
Now the equation is simple to solve.
But it is a *different equation*, different math.
You claim that the math is the same, but the terms are not there. If
the terms are missing, then it's *different* equations. But you
haven't shown where the terms are different or why.
You know you are bluffing. You want to have it both ways, but you
can't. This is what makes the difference between you and a physicist,
Ken. It's as transparent as glass, but you seem to want to pretend
that it's not. Stop pretending.
Post by kenseto
so there
is no need for the renormalization procedure to reach the infinity
free equations
Ken Seto- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -
PD
2008-01-11 15:48:48 UTC
Permalink
Post by kenseto
Post by PD
Post by kenseto
Post by PD
Post by kenseto
Post by PD
No, there IS NO observed inside and outside of the particle, and
therefore there is no observation of charge inside or outside a
particle. You are assuming a boundary that is not there, and it is not
observed.
I didn't assume anything. It was you who said that the charge is a
property of a particle and it resides "inside and outside" the
particle.
I *also* told you there is no clear inside and outside of the
particle. Have you forgotten that?
So you are trying to have it both ways???
No, I'm trying to *explain* it in a way that you'll understand. Since
that's not working, I suggest you pick up some books.
Post by kenseto
Post by PD
Post by kenseto
Post by PD
Post by kenseto
Post by PD
Post by kenseto
so they invented the absurd concept of duality.
Duality doesn't have anything to do with where charge resides.
The assumption that the charge of a partcile is residing both inside
and outside the particle is similar to the bogus assumption of
duality.
The only thing that's common about them is that you don't understand
how either could be right. Other than that, they don't have anything
in common.
It is not right...it is a bogus assertion based on a poor
understanding of nature.
Well you say that, but I don't see any place where it fails.
It failed to give a definitive answer.....for example the charge
resides *inside and outside* of the partcile.
There is no inside and outside of a particle. Failing to fit your
notion that there needs to be an inside and outside of a particle is
not a failure of the theory. It simply doesn't meet your expectations.
Not meeting your expectations is not a failure.
Post by kenseto
Post by PD
Post by kenseto
Post by PD
You didn't answer my question at all. What's the equation of motion of
the S- particle? And what's the mathematical relationship between that
orbit and the distortion in the E-matrix?
We don't need the equation of motion for the S-Particle. We know the
orbiting motion of the S-Particle of the electron generates the
distortion (the field) in the E-Matrix.
Sorry, I don't see that at all. How are they related, mathematically?
The fields in QFT are the distortions or stresses in the E-Matrix.
That's not a mathematical statement.
Post by kenseto
Post by PD
Post by kenseto
We can now use the QFT
equations to do calculations.
Then I'll get infinities, just as before. QFT doesn't have S-particles
orbiting and distortions of the E-matrix, so there's no connection
whatsoever between the behavior of the S-particles and the results of QFT.
No you don't get infinity using the physical model of Model Mechanics.
The terms that give rise to the infinities (1/0) do not exist
If the terms are not there, then the math is different. But you
haven't shown that.
The physical model of Model Mechanics says that the charge of a
particle does not reside inside the particle. It is the distortion in
the E-Matrix around the particle. As such there is no infinite self
energy as in the orginal QED equation. Therefore those terms can be
eliminetd from the orginal equations and that leaves the normalized
equations.
Then the math is completely different than QED, and you need to show
the math that results from your theory.
Post by kenseto
Ken Seto
Post by PD
Let me give you a simple example.
y = ax^3 + bx^2 + cx + d.
The presence of the ax^3 term makes this equation hard to solve.
Now suppose this term is missing
y = bx^2 + cx + d.
Now the equation is simple to solve.
But it is a *different equation*, different math.
You claim that the math is the same, but the terms are not there. If
the terms are missing, then it's *different* equations. But you
haven't shown where the terms are different or why.
You know you are bluffing. You want to have it both ways, but you
can't. This is what makes the difference between you and a physicist,
Ken. It's as transparent as glass, but you seem to want to pretend
that it's not. Stop pretending.
Post by kenseto
so there
is no need for the renormalization procedure to reach the infinity
free equations
Ken Seto- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -
kenseto
2008-01-12 16:06:15 UTC
Permalink
Post by PD
Post by kenseto
Post by PD
Post by kenseto
Post by PD
Post by kenseto
Post by PD
No, there IS NO observed inside and outside of the particle, and
therefore there is no observation of charge inside or outside a
particle. You are assuming a boundary that is not there, and it is not
observed.
I didn't assume anything. It was you who said that the charge is a
property of a particle and it resides "inside and outside" the
particle.
I *also* told you there is no clear inside and outside of the
particle. Have you forgotten that?
So you are trying to have it both ways???
No, I'm trying to *explain* it in a way that you'll understand. Since
that's not working, I suggest you pick up some books.
Post by kenseto
Post by PD
Post by kenseto
Post by PD
Post by kenseto
Post by PD
Post by kenseto
so they invented the absurd concept of duality.
Duality doesn't have anything to do with where charge resides.
The assumption that the charge of a partcile is residing both inside
and outside the particle is similar to the bogus assumption of
duality.
The only thing that's common about them is that you don't understand
how either could be right. Other than that, they don't have anything
in common.
It is not right...it is a bogus assertion based on a poor
understanding of nature.
Well you say that, but I don't see any place where it fails.
It failed to give a definitive answer.....for example the charge
resides *inside and outside* of the partcile.
There is no inside and outside of a particle. Failing to fit your
notion that there needs to be an inside and outside of a particle is
not a failure of the theory. It simply doesn't meet your expectations.
Not meeting your expectations is not a failure.
Post by kenseto
Post by PD
Post by kenseto
Post by PD
You didn't answer my question at all. What's the equation of motion of
the S- particle? And what's the mathematical relationship between that
orbit and the distortion in the E-matrix?
We don't need the equation of motion for the S-Particle. We know the
orbiting motion of the S-Particle of the electron generates the
distortion (the field) in the E-Matrix.
Sorry, I don't see that at all. How are they related, mathematically?
The fields in QFT are the distortions or stresses in the E-Matrix.
That's not a mathematical statement.
Post by kenseto
Post by PD
Post by kenseto
We can now use the QFT
equations to do calculations.
Then I'll get infinities, just as before. QFT doesn't have S-particles
orbiting and distortions of the E-matrix, so there's no connection
whatsoever between the behavior of the S-particles and the results of QFT.
No you don't get infinity using the physical model of Model Mechanics.
The terms that give rise to the infinities (1/0) do not exist
If the terms are not there, then the math is different. But you
haven't shown that.
The physical model of Model Mechanics says that the charge of a
particle does not reside inside the particle. It is the distortion in
the E-Matrix around the particle. As such there is no infinite self
energy as in the orginal QED equation. Therefore those terms can be
eliminetd from the orginal equations and that leaves the normalized
equations.
Then the math is completely different than QED, and you need to show
the math that results from your theory.
No....the renormalization procedure eliminates the infinities in the
original qed equations. The Physical model of Model Mechanics
eliminates the need for this procedure to arrive at the final
renormalized equations.
Post by PD
Post by kenseto
Ken Seto
Post by PD
Let me give you a simple example.
y = ax^3 + bx^2 + cx + d.
The presence of the ax^3 term makes this equation hard to solve.
Now suppose this term is missing
y = bx^2 + cx + d.
Now the equation is simple to solve.
But it is a *different equation*, different math.
You claim that the math is the same, but the terms are not there. If
the terms are missing, then it's *different* equations. But you
haven't shown where the terms are different or why.
You know you are bluffing. You want to have it both ways, but you
can't. This is what makes the difference between you and a physicist,
Ken. It's as transparent as glass, but you seem to want to pretend
that it's not. Stop pretending.
Post by kenseto
so there
is no need for the renormalization procedure to reach the infinity
free equations
Ken Seto- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -
PD
2008-01-12 20:51:48 UTC
Permalink
Post by kenseto
Post by PD
Post by kenseto
Post by PD
Post by kenseto
Post by PD
Post by kenseto
Post by PD
No, there IS NO observed inside and outside of the particle, and
therefore there is no observation of charge inside or outside a
particle. You are assuming a boundary that is not there, and it is not
observed.
I didn't assume anything. It was you who said that the charge is a
property of a particle and it resides "inside and outside" the
particle.
I *also* told you there is no clear inside and outside of the
particle. Have you forgotten that?
So you are trying to have it both ways???
No, I'm trying to *explain* it in a way that you'll understand. Since
that's not working, I suggest you pick up some books.
Post by kenseto
Post by PD
Post by kenseto
Post by PD
Post by kenseto
Post by PD
Post by kenseto
so they invented the absurd concept of duality.
Duality doesn't have anything to do with where charge resides.
The assumption that the charge of a partcile is residing both inside
and outside the particle is similar to the bogus assumption of
duality.
The only thing that's common about them is that you don't understand
how either could be right. Other than that, they don't have anything
in common.
It is not right...it is a bogus assertion based on a poor
understanding of nature.
Well you say that, but I don't see any place where it fails.
It failed to give a definitive answer.....for example the charge
resides *inside and outside* of the partcile.
There is no inside and outside of a particle. Failing to fit your
notion that there needs to be an inside and outside of a particle is
not a failure of the theory. It simply doesn't meet your expectations.
Not meeting your expectations is not a failure.
Post by kenseto
Post by PD
Post by kenseto
Post by PD
You didn't answer my question at all. What's the equation of motion of
the S- particle? And what's the mathematical relationship between that
orbit and the distortion in the E-matrix?
We don't need the equation of motion for the S-Particle. We know the
orbiting motion of the S-Particle of the electron generates the
distortion (the field) in the E-Matrix.
Sorry, I don't see that at all. How are they related, mathematically?
The fields in QFT are the distortions or stresses in the E-Matrix.
That's not a mathematical statement.
Post by kenseto
Post by PD
Post by kenseto
We can now use the QFT
equations to do calculations.
Then I'll get infinities, just as before. QFT doesn't have S-particles
orbiting and distortions of the E-matrix, so there's no connection
whatsoever between the behavior of the S-particles and the results of QFT.
No you don't get infinity using the physical model of Model Mechanics.
The terms that give rise to the infinities (1/0) do not exist
If the terms are not there, then the math is different. But you
haven't shown that.
The physical model of Model Mechanics says that the charge of a
particle does not reside inside the particle. It is the distortion in
the E-Matrix around the particle. As such there is no infinite self
energy as in the orginal QED equation. Therefore those terms can be
eliminetd from the orginal equations and that leaves the normalized
equations.
Then the math is completely different than QED, and you need to show
the math that results from your theory.
No....the renormalization procedure eliminates the infinities in the
original qed equations. The Physical model of Model Mechanics
eliminates the need for this procedure to arrive at the final
renormalized equations.
You have no idea what you're talking about. You have it in your head
that you can remove the infinities in the beginning, or you can remove
them at the end, and leave the math unchanged. If you had the foggiest
idea what the math of QED was, you would see instantly how stupid this
is. The infinity is not just some additive term in a sum of terms.
Post by kenseto
Post by PD
Post by kenseto
Ken Seto
Post by PD
Let me give you a simple example.
y = ax^3 + bx^2 + cx + d.
The presence of the ax^3 term makes this equation hard to solve.
Now suppose this term is missing
y = bx^2 + cx + d.
Now the equation is simple to solve.
But it is a *different equation*, different math.
You claim that the math is the same, but the terms are not there. If
the terms are missing, then it's *different* equations. But you
haven't shown where the terms are different or why.
You know you are bluffing. You want to have it both ways, but you
can't. This is what makes the difference between you and a physicist,
Ken. It's as transparent as glass, but you seem to want to pretend
that it's not. Stop pretending.
Post by kenseto
so there
is no need for the renormalization procedure to reach the infinity
free equations
Ken Seto- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -
kenseto
2008-01-14 16:27:18 UTC
Permalink
Post by PD
Post by kenseto
Post by PD
Post by kenseto
Post by PD
Post by kenseto
Post by PD
Post by kenseto
Post by PD
No, there IS NO observed inside and outside of the particle, and
therefore there is no observation of charge inside or outside a
particle. You are assuming a boundary that is not there, and it is not
observed.
I didn't assume anything. It was you who said that the charge is a
property of a particle and it resides "inside and outside" the
particle.
I *also* told you there is no clear inside and outside of the
particle. Have you forgotten that?
So you are trying to have it both ways???
No, I'm trying to *explain* it in a way that you'll understand. Since
that's not working, I suggest you pick up some books.
Post by kenseto
Post by PD
Post by kenseto
Post by PD
Post by kenseto
Post by PD
Post by kenseto
so they invented the absurd concept of duality.
Duality doesn't have anything to do with where charge resides.
The assumption that the charge of a partcile is residing both inside
and outside the particle is similar to the bogus assumption of
duality.
The only thing that's common about them is that you don't understand
how either could be right. Other than that, they don't have anything
in common.
It is not right...it is a bogus assertion based on a poor
understanding of nature.
Well you say that, but I don't see any place where it fails.
It failed to give a definitive answer.....for example the charge
resides *inside and outside* of the partcile.
There is no inside and outside of a particle. Failing to fit your
notion that there needs to be an inside and outside of a particle is
not a failure of the theory. It simply doesn't meet your expectations.
Not meeting your expectations is not a failure.
Post by kenseto
Post by PD
Post by kenseto
Post by PD
You didn't answer my question at all. What's the equation of motion of
the S- particle? And what's the mathematical relationship between that
orbit and the distortion in the E-matrix?
We don't need the equation of motion for the S-Particle. We know the
orbiting motion of the S-Particle of the electron generates the
distortion (the field) in the E-Matrix.
Sorry, I don't see that at all. How are they related, mathematically?
The fields in QFT are the distortions or stresses in the E-Matrix.
That's not a mathematical statement.
Post by kenseto
Post by PD
Post by kenseto
We can now use the QFT
equations to do calculations.
Then I'll get infinities, just as before. QFT doesn't have S-particles
orbiting and distortions of the E-matrix, so there's no connection
whatsoever between the behavior of the S-particles and the results of QFT.
No you don't get infinity using the physical model of Model Mechanics.
The terms that give rise to the infinities (1/0) do not exist
If the terms are not there, then the math is different. But you
haven't shown that.
The physical model of Model Mechanics says that the charge of a
particle does not reside inside the particle. It is the distortion in
the E-Matrix around the particle. As such there is no infinite self
energy as in the orginal QED equation. Therefore those terms can be
eliminetd from the orginal equations and that leaves the normalized
equations.
Then the math is completely different than QED, and you need to show
the math that results from your theory.
No....the renormalization procedure eliminates the infinities in the
original qed equations. The Physical model of Model Mechanics
eliminates the need for this procedure to arrive at the final
renormalized equations.
You have no idea what you're talking about. You have it in your head
that you can remove the infinities in the beginning, or you can remove
them at the end, and leave the math unchanged. If you had the foggiest
idea what the math of QED was, you would see instantly how stupid this
is. The infinity is not just some additive term in a sum of terms.
Hey idiot....I said in the normalized equations of QED the fields are
the distortions in the E-Matrix and the effects of virtual partciles
on the real particles are the result of the real particles reacting to
the distortions in the surrounding E-Matrix.
PD
2008-01-14 16:53:41 UTC
Permalink
Post by kenseto
Post by PD
Post by kenseto
Post by PD
Post by kenseto
Post by PD
Post by kenseto
Post by PD
Post by kenseto
Post by PD
No, there IS NO observed inside and outside of the particle, and
therefore there is no observation of charge inside or outside a
particle. You are assuming a boundary that is not there, and it is not
observed.
I didn't assume anything. It was you who said that the charge is a
property of a particle and it resides "inside and outside" the
particle.
I *also* told you there is no clear inside and outside of the
particle. Have you forgotten that?
So you are trying to have it both ways???
No, I'm trying to *explain* it in a way that you'll understand. Since
that's not working, I suggest you pick up some books.
Post by kenseto
Post by PD
Post by kenseto
Post by PD
Post by kenseto
Post by PD
Post by kenseto
so they invented the absurd concept of duality.
Duality doesn't have anything to do with where charge resides.
The assumption that the charge of a partcile is residing both inside
and outside the particle is similar to the bogus assumption of
duality.
The only thing that's common about them is that you don't understand
how either could be right. Other than that, they don't have anything
in common.
It is not right...it is a bogus assertion based on a poor
understanding of nature.
Well you say that, but I don't see any place where it fails.
It failed to give a definitive answer.....for example the charge
resides *inside and outside* of the partcile.
There is no inside and outside of a particle. Failing to fit your
notion that there needs to be an inside and outside of a particle is
not a failure of the theory. It simply doesn't meet your expectations.
Not meeting your expectations is not a failure.
Post by kenseto
Post by PD
Post by kenseto
Post by PD
You didn't answer my question at all. What's the equation of motion of
the S- particle? And what's the mathematical relationship between that
orbit and the distortion in the E-matrix?
We don't need the equation of motion for the S-Particle. We know the
orbiting motion of the S-Particle of the electron generates the
distortion (the field) in the E-Matrix.
Sorry, I don't see that at all. How are they related, mathematically?
The fields in QFT are the distortions or stresses in the E-Matrix.
That's not a mathematical statement.
Post by kenseto
Post by PD
Post by kenseto
We can now use the QFT
equations to do calculations.
Then I'll get infinities, just as before. QFT doesn't have S-particles
orbiting and distortions of the E-matrix, so there's no connection
whatsoever between the behavior of the S-particles and the results of QFT.
No you don't get infinity using the physical model of Model Mechanics.
The terms that give rise to the infinities (1/0) do not exist
If the terms are not there, then the math is different. But you
haven't shown that.
The physical model of Model Mechanics says that the charge of a
particle does not reside inside the particle. It is the distortion in
the E-Matrix around the particle. As such there is no infinite self
energy as in the orginal QED equation. Therefore those terms can be
eliminetd from the orginal equations and that leaves the normalized
equations.
Then the math is completely different than QED, and you need to show
the math that results from your theory.
No....the renormalization procedure eliminates the infinities in the
original qed equations. The Physical model of Model Mechanics
eliminates the need for this procedure to arrive at the final
renormalized equations.
You have no idea what you're talking about. You have it in your head
that you can remove the infinities in the beginning, or you can remove
them at the end, and leave the math unchanged. If you had the foggiest
idea what the math of QED was, you would see instantly how stupid this
is. The infinity is not just some additive term in a sum of terms.
Hey idiot....I said in the normalized equations of QED the fields are
the distortions in the E-Matrix and the effects of virtual partciles
on the real particles are the result of the real particles reacting to
the distortions in the surrounding E-Matrix.
And yet you have no equations about how real particles respond to the
distortions of the surrounding E-matrix (unlike QED, which DOES have
equations describing how particles respond, though not to any E-
matrix). And yet you have no equations about the magnitude of virtual
particles on the real particles (unlike QED, which DOES have such
equations). And yet you have no equations governing the amplitude,
propagation velocities, or other properties of the distortions of the
E-matrix (unlike QED, which DOES have equations of the field and how
they behave).
And yet you say the math of Model Mechanics is the same as QED, even
though it doesn't have the infinities of QED, even though the
infinities are inescapable in the math of QED. This is a little like
saying your mother is not your mother.

PD
kenseto
2008-01-14 21:04:54 UTC
Permalink
Post by PD
Post by kenseto
Post by PD
Post by kenseto
Post by PD
Post by kenseto
Post by PD
Post by kenseto
Post by PD
Post by kenseto
Post by PD
No, there IS NO observed inside and outside of the particle, and
therefore there is no observation of charge inside or outside a
particle. You are assuming a boundary that is not there, and it is not
observed.
I didn't assume anything. It was you who said that the charge is a
property of a particle and it resides "inside and outside" the
particle.
I *also* told you there is no clear inside and outside of the
particle. Have you forgotten that?
So you are trying to have it both ways???
No, I'm trying to *explain* it in a way that you'll understand. Since
that's not working, I suggest you pick up some books.
Post by kenseto
Post by PD
Post by kenseto
Post by PD
Post by kenseto
Post by PD
Post by kenseto
so they invented the absurd concept of duality.
Duality doesn't have anything to do with where charge resides.
The assumption that the charge of a partcile is residing both inside
and outside the particle is similar to the bogus assumption of
duality.
The only thing that's common about them is that you don't understand
how either could be right. Other than that, they don't have anything
in common.
It is not right...it is a bogus assertion based on a poor
understanding of nature.
Well you say that, but I don't see any place where it fails.
It failed to give a definitive answer.....for example the charge
resides *inside and outside* of the partcile.
There is no inside and outside of a particle. Failing to fit your
notion that there needs to be an inside and outside of a particle is
not a failure of the theory. It simply doesn't meet your expectations.
Not meeting your expectations is not a failure.
Post by kenseto
Post by PD
Post by kenseto
Post by PD
You didn't answer my question at all. What's the equation of motion of
the S- particle? And what's the mathematical relationship between that
orbit and the distortion in the E-matrix?
We don't need the equation of motion for the S-Particle. We know the
orbiting motion of the S-Particle of the electron generates the
distortion (the field) in the E-Matrix.
Sorry, I don't see that at all. How are they related, mathematically?
The fields in QFT are the distortions or stresses in the E-Matrix.
That's not a mathematical statement.
Post by kenseto
Post by PD
Post by kenseto
We can now use the QFT
equations to do calculations.
Then I'll get infinities, just as before. QFT doesn't have S-particles
orbiting and distortions of the E-matrix, so there's no connection
whatsoever between the behavior of the S-particles and the results of QFT.
No you don't get infinity using the physical model of Model Mechanics.
The terms that give rise to the infinities (1/0) do not exist
If the terms are not there, then the math is different. But you
haven't shown that.
The physical model of Model Mechanics says that the charge of a
particle does not reside inside the particle. It is the distortion in
the E-Matrix around the particle. As such there is no infinite self
energy as in the orginal QED equation. Therefore those terms can be
eliminetd from the orginal equations and that leaves the normalized
equations.
Then the math is completely different than QED, and you need to show
the math that results from your theory.
No....the renormalization procedure eliminates the infinities in the
original qed equations. The Physical model of Model Mechanics
eliminates the need for this procedure to arrive at the final
renormalized equations.
You have no idea what you're talking about. You have it in your head
that you can remove the infinities in the beginning, or you can remove
them at the end, and leave the math unchanged. If you had the foggiest
idea what the math of QED was, you would see instantly how stupid this
is. The infinity is not just some additive term in a sum of terms.
Hey idiot....I said in the normalized equations of QED the fields are
the distortions in the E-Matrix and the effects of virtual partciles
on the real particles are the result of the real particles reacting to
the distortions in the surrounding E-Matrix.
And yet you have no equations about how real particles respond to the
distortions of the surrounding E-matrix (unlike QED, which DOES have
equations describing how particles respond, though not to any E-
matrix). And yet you have no equations about the magnitude of virtual
particles on the real particles (unlike QED, which DOES have such
equations). And yet you have no equations governing the amplitude,
propagation velocities, or other properties of the distortions of the
E-matrix (unlike QED, which DOES have equations of the field and how
they behave).
Which part of of the following that you failed to comprehend??
The fields in QED is the distortion in the E-Matrix and the effect of
virtual particles on real particles is the reaction of the real
particles to the distortions (fields) in the E-Matrix. So the
normalized equations of QED is based on the physical model of Model
Mechanics.
Post by PD
And yet you say the math of Model Mechanics is the same as QED, even
though it doesn't have the infinities of QED, even though the
infinities are inescapable in the math of QED. This is a little like
saying your mother is not your mother.
No its not like that at all. The normalized equations of QED are valid
because the physical model of Model Mechanics allows them.

Ken Seto
PD
2008-01-14 21:15:15 UTC
Permalink
Post by kenseto
Post by PD
Post by kenseto
Post by PD
Post by kenseto
Post by PD
Post by kenseto
Post by PD
Post by kenseto
Post by PD
Post by kenseto
Post by PD
No, there IS NO observed inside and outside of the particle, and
therefore there is no observation of charge inside or outside a
particle. You are assuming a boundary that is not there, and it is not
observed.
I didn't assume anything. It was you who said that the charge is a
property of a particle and it resides "inside and outside" the
particle.
I *also* told you there is no clear inside and outside of the
particle. Have you forgotten that?
So you are trying to have it both ways???
No, I'm trying to *explain* it in a way that you'll understand. Since
that's not working, I suggest you pick up some books.
Post by kenseto
Post by PD
Post by kenseto
Post by PD
Post by kenseto
Post by PD
Post by kenseto
so they invented the absurd concept of duality.
Duality doesn't have anything to do with where charge resides.
The assumption that the charge of a partcile is residing both inside
and outside the particle is similar to the bogus assumption of
duality.
The only thing that's common about them is that you don't understand
how either could be right. Other than that, they don't have anything
in common.
It is not right...it is a bogus assertion based on a poor
understanding of nature.
Well you say that, but I don't see any place where it fails.
It failed to give a definitive answer.....for example the charge
resides *inside and outside* of the partcile.
There is no inside and outside of a particle. Failing to fit your
notion that there needs to be an inside and outside of a particle is
not a failure of the theory. It simply doesn't meet your expectations.
Not meeting your expectations is not a failure.
Post by kenseto
Post by PD
Post by kenseto
Post by PD
You didn't answer my question at all. What's the equation of motion of
the S- particle? And what's the mathematical relationship between that
orbit and the distortion in the E-matrix?
We don't need the equation of motion for the S-Particle. We know the
orbiting motion of the S-Particle of the electron generates the
distortion (the field) in the E-Matrix.
Sorry, I don't see that at all. How are they related, mathematically?
The fields in QFT are the distortions or stresses in the E-Matrix.
That's not a mathematical statement.
Post by kenseto
Post by PD
Post by kenseto
We can now use the QFT
equations to do calculations.
Then I'll get infinities, just as before. QFT doesn't have S-particles
orbiting and distortions of the E-matrix, so there's no connection
whatsoever between the behavior of the S-particles and the results of QFT.
No you don't get infinity using the physical model of Model Mechanics.
The terms that give rise to the infinities (1/0) do not exist
If the terms are not there, then the math is different. But you
haven't shown that.
The physical model of Model Mechanics says that the charge of a
particle does not reside inside the particle. It is the distortion in
the E-Matrix around the particle. As such there is no infinite self
energy as in the orginal QED equation. Therefore those terms can be
eliminetd from the orginal equations and that leaves the normalized
equations.
Then the math is completely different than QED, and you need to show
the math that results from your theory.
No....the renormalization procedure eliminates the infinities in the
original qed equations. The Physical model of Model Mechanics
eliminates the need for this procedure to arrive at the final
renormalized equations.
You have no idea what you're talking about. You have it in your head
that you can remove the infinities in the beginning, or you can remove
them at the end, and leave the math unchanged. If you had the foggiest
idea what the math of QED was, you would see instantly how stupid this
is. The infinity is not just some additive term in a sum of terms.
Hey idiot....I said in the normalized equations of QED the fields are
the distortions in the E-Matrix and the effects of virtual partciles
on the real particles are the result of the real particles reacting to
the distortions in the surrounding E-Matrix.
And yet you have no equations about how real particles respond to the
distortions of the surrounding E-matrix (unlike QED, which DOES have
equations describing how particles respond, though not to any E-
matrix). And yet you have no equations about the magnitude of virtual
particles on the real particles (unlike QED, which DOES have such
equations). And yet you have no equations governing the amplitude,
propagation velocities, or other properties of the distortions of the
E-matrix (unlike QED, which DOES have equations of the field and how
they behave).
Which part of of the following that you failed to comprehend??
The fields in QED is the distortion in the E-Matrix and the effect of
virtual particles on real particles is the reaction of the real
particles to the distortions (fields) in the E-Matrix. So the
normalized equations of QED is based on the physical model of Model
Mechanics.
There are no "normalized equations" of QED. Have you lost your mind?
There is a QED Lagrangian, which you can use to *calculate* various
quantities like scattering cross-sections. Such calculations will
generally involve something that looks infinite. Renormalization is a
*procedure* by which you yield finite numbers from those calculations
that appear to have infinities in them. At no time do you generate
infinity-free "normalized" QED equations. If you had the *first* idea
of what you were talking about, you would feel sheepish for being so
obviously ignorant. Geez, Ken, do you EVER get tired of looking the
fool?
Post by kenseto
Post by PD
And yet you say the math of Model Mechanics is the same as QED, even
though it doesn't have the infinities of QED, even though the
infinities are inescapable in the math of QED. This is a little like
saying your mother is not your mother.
No its not like that at all. The normalized equations of QED are valid
because the physical model of Model Mechanics allows them.
kenseto
2008-01-15 14:45:03 UTC
Permalink
Post by PD
Post by kenseto
Post by PD
Post by kenseto
Post by PD
Post by kenseto
Post by PD
Post by kenseto
Post by PD
Post by kenseto
Post by PD
Post by kenseto
Post by PD
No, there IS NO observed inside and outside of the particle, and
therefore there is no observation of charge inside or outside a
particle. You are assuming a boundary that is not there, and it is not
observed.
I didn't assume anything. It was you who said that the charge is a
property of a particle and it resides "inside and outside" the
particle.
I *also* told you there is no clear inside and outside of the
particle. Have you forgotten that?
So you are trying to have it both ways???
No, I'm trying to *explain* it in a way that you'll understand. Since
that's not working, I suggest you pick up some books.
Post by kenseto
Post by PD
Post by kenseto
Post by PD
Post by kenseto
Post by PD
Post by kenseto
so they invented the absurd concept of duality.
Duality doesn't have anything to do with where charge resides.
The assumption that the charge of a partcile is residing both inside
and outside the particle is similar to the bogus assumption of
duality.
The only thing that's common about them is that you don't understand
how either could be right. Other than that, they don't have anything
in common.
It is not right...it is a bogus assertion based on a poor
understanding of nature.
Well you say that, but I don't see any place where it fails.
It failed to give a definitive answer.....for example the charge
resides *inside and outside* of the partcile.
There is no inside and outside of a particle. Failing to fit your
notion that there needs to be an inside and outside of a particle is
not a failure of the theory. It simply doesn't meet your expectations.
Not meeting your expectations is not a failure.
Post by kenseto
Post by PD
Post by kenseto
Post by PD
You didn't answer my question at all. What's the equation of motion of
the S- particle? And what's the mathematical relationship between that
orbit and the distortion in the E-matrix?
We don't need the equation of motion for the S-Particle. We know the
orbiting motion of the S-Particle of the electron generates the
distortion (the field) in the E-Matrix.
Sorry, I don't see that at all. How are they related, mathematically?
The fields in QFT are the distortions or stresses in the E-Matrix.
That's not a mathematical statement.
Post by kenseto
Post by PD
Post by kenseto
We can now use the QFT
equations to do calculations.
Then I'll get infinities, just as before. QFT doesn't have S-particles
orbiting and distortions of the E-matrix, so there's no connection
whatsoever between the behavior of the S-particles and the results of QFT.
No you don't get infinity using the physical model of Model Mechanics.
The terms that give rise to the infinities (1/0) do not exist
If the terms are not there, then the math is different. But you
haven't shown that.
The physical model of Model Mechanics says that the charge of a
particle does not reside inside the particle. It is the distortion in
the E-Matrix around the particle. As such there is no infinite self
energy as in the orginal QED equation. Therefore those terms can be
eliminetd from the orginal equations and that leaves the normalized
equations.
Then the math is completely different than QED, and you need to show
the math that results from your theory.
No....the renormalization procedure eliminates the infinities in the
original qed equations. The Physical model of Model Mechanics
eliminates the need for this procedure to arrive at the final
renormalized equations.
You have no idea what you're talking about. You have it in your head
that you can remove the infinities in the beginning, or you can remove
them at the end, and leave the math unchanged. If you had the foggiest
idea what the math of QED was, you would see instantly how stupid this
is. The infinity is not just some additive term in a sum of terms.
Hey idiot....I said in the normalized equations of QED the fields are
the distortions in the E-Matrix and the effects of virtual partciles
on the real particles are the result of the real particles reacting to
the distortions in the surrounding E-Matrix.
And yet you have no equations about how real particles respond to the
distortions of the surrounding E-matrix (unlike QED, which DOES have
equations describing how particles respond, though not to any E-
matrix). And yet you have no equations about the magnitude of virtual
particles on the real particles (unlike QED, which DOES have such
equations). And yet you have no equations governing the amplitude,
propagation velocities, or other properties of the distortions of the
E-matrix (unlike QED, which DOES have equations of the field and how
they behave).
Which part of of the following that you failed to comprehend??
The fields in QED is the distortion in the E-Matrix and the effect of
virtual particles on real particles is the reaction of the real
particles to the distortions (fields) in the E-Matrix. So the
normalized equations of QED is based on the physical model of Model
Mechanics.
There are no "normalized equations" of QED. Have you lost your mind?
There is a QED Lagrangian, which you can use to *calculate* various
quantities like scattering cross-sections. Such calculations will
generally involve something that looks infinite. Renormalization is a
*procedure* by which you yield finite numbers from those calculations
that appear to have infinities in them.
Right....the reason why the normalization procedure works is because
there was no infinity to begin with. The reason why there is no
infinity is because the charge of a particle is not residing within
the particle. It is the fields (the distortion or stresses in the
surrounding E-Matrix) that surrounds the particle.

Ken Seto
PD
2008-01-15 14:59:21 UTC
Permalink
Post by kenseto
Post by PD
Post by kenseto
Post by PD
Post by kenseto
Post by PD
Post by kenseto
Post by PD
Post by kenseto
Post by PD
Post by kenseto
Post by PD
Post by kenseto
Post by PD
No, there IS NO observed inside and outside of the particle, and
therefore there is no observation of charge inside or outside a
particle. You are assuming a boundary that is not there, and it is not
observed.
I didn't assume anything. It was you who said that the charge is a
property of a particle and it resides "inside and outside" the
particle.
I *also* told you there is no clear inside and outside of the
particle. Have you forgotten that?
So you are trying to have it both ways???
No, I'm trying to *explain* it in a way that you'll understand. Since
that's not working, I suggest you pick up some books.
Post by kenseto
Post by PD
Post by kenseto
Post by PD
Post by kenseto
Post by PD
Post by kenseto
so they invented the absurd concept of duality.
Duality doesn't have anything to do with where charge resides.
The assumption that the charge of a partcile is residing both inside
and outside the particle is similar to the bogus assumption of
duality.
The only thing that's common about them is that you don't understand
how either could be right. Other than that, they don't have anything
in common.
It is not right...it is a bogus assertion based on a poor
understanding of nature.
Well you say that, but I don't see any place where it fails.
It failed to give a definitive answer.....for example the charge
resides *inside and outside* of the partcile.
There is no inside and outside of a particle. Failing to fit your
notion that there needs to be an inside and outside of a particle is
not a failure of the theory. It simply doesn't meet your expectations.
Not meeting your expectations is not a failure.
Post by kenseto
Post by PD
Post by kenseto
Post by PD
You didn't answer my question at all. What's the equation of motion of
the S- particle? And what's the mathematical relationship between that
orbit and the distortion in the E-matrix?
We don't need the equation of motion for the S-Particle. We know the
orbiting motion of the S-Particle of the electron generates the
distortion (the field) in the E-Matrix.
Sorry, I don't see that at all. How are they related, mathematically?
The fields in QFT are the distortions or stresses in the E-Matrix.
That's not a mathematical statement.
Post by kenseto
Post by PD
Post by kenseto
We can now use the QFT
equations to do calculations.
Then I'll get infinities, just as before. QFT doesn't have S-particles
orbiting and distortions of the E-matrix, so there's no connection
whatsoever between the behavior of the S-particles and the results of QFT.
No you don't get infinity using the physical model of Model Mechanics.
The terms that give rise to the infinities (1/0) do not exist
If the terms are not there, then the math is different. But you
haven't shown that.
The physical model of Model Mechanics says that the charge of a
particle does not reside inside the particle. It is the distortion in
the E-Matrix around the particle. As such there is no infinite self
energy as in the orginal QED equation. Therefore those terms can be
eliminetd from the orginal equations and that leaves the normalized
equations.
Then the math is completely different than QED, and you need to show
the math that results from your theory.
No....the renormalization procedure eliminates the infinities in the
original qed equations. The Physical model of Model Mechanics
eliminates the need for this procedure to arrive at the final
renormalized equations.
You have no idea what you're talking about. You have it in your head
that you can remove the infinities in the beginning, or you can remove
them at the end, and leave the math unchanged. If you had the foggiest
idea what the math of QED was, you would see instantly how stupid this
is. The infinity is not just some additive term in a sum of terms.
Hey idiot....I said in the normalized equations of QED the fields are
the distortions in the E-Matrix and the effects of virtual partciles
on the real particles are the result of the real particles reacting to
the distortions in the surrounding E-Matrix.
And yet you have no equations about how real particles respond to the
distortions of the surrounding E-matrix (unlike QED, which DOES have
equations describing how particles respond, though not to any E-
matrix). And yet you have no equations about the magnitude of virtual
particles on the real particles (unlike QED, which DOES have such
equations). And yet you have no equations governing the amplitude,
propagation velocities, or other properties of the distortions of the
E-matrix (unlike QED, which DOES have equations of the field and how
they behave).
Which part of of the following that you failed to comprehend??
The fields in QED is the distortion in the E-Matrix and the effect of
virtual particles on real particles is the reaction of the real
particles to the distortions (fields) in the E-Matrix. So the
normalized equations of QED is based on the physical model of Model
Mechanics.
There are no "normalized equations" of QED. Have you lost your mind?
There is a QED Lagrangian, which you can use to *calculate* various
quantities like scattering cross-sections. Such calculations will
generally involve something that looks infinite. Renormalization is a
*procedure* by which you yield finite numbers from those calculations
that appear to have infinities in them.
Right....the reason why the normalization procedure works is because
there was no infinity to begin with.
You haven't demonstrated that. If it were that simple, then people
would have found the alternative path through the math *without* the
infiniites long, long ago. If you can show *explicitly* how to start
the math, without the infinities, and do the same calculations as are
done in QED, without the infinities, and get the same finite results
as QED, without ever dealing with any infinities, then you'll be a
hero. But you haven't done that.
Post by kenseto
The reason why there is no
infinity is because the charge of a particle is not residing within
the particle.
Sorry, QED does not get its infinities by saying the charge does
reside within the particle. Do you know where the infinities come
from?
Post by kenseto
It is the fields (the distortion or stresses in the
surrounding E-Matrix) that surrounds the particle.
You haven't demonstrated that, mathematically.

You don't get it, Ken. You can't just SAY, "I can remove all the
problems that plague your calculations by decreeing that the problems
are due to the way physicists are thinking about it, and that the
problems go away if you think about it differently." You have to SHOW
mathematically that the mathematical problems are due to the way
physicists are thinking about it, and SHOW mathematically that the
mathematical problems go away if we think about it differently. It
doesn't just happen by magic. You have to *demonstrate* it.

You haven't done that.

PD
kenseto
2008-01-16 14:18:26 UTC
Permalink
Post by PD
Post by kenseto
Post by PD
There are no "normalized equations" of QED. Have you lost your mind?
There is a QED Lagrangian, which you can use to *calculate* various
quantities like scattering cross-sections. Such calculations will
generally involve something that looks infinite. Renormalization is a
*procedure* by which you yield finite numbers from those calculations
that appear to have infinities in them.
Right....the reason why the normalization procedure works is because
there was no infinity to begin with.
You haven't demonstrated that. If it were that simple, then people
would have found the alternative path through the math *without* the
infiniites long, long ago.
Sure I have demonstatred that. The QED was based on a wrong physical
model and that's why physicists were not able to find the alternative
path through the math without the infinities long, long ago. As Dirac
pointed out ignoring large number in an equation is not sensible math.
So the only reason why the re-normalization procedure works is because
there was no infinity to begin with.
Post by PD
If you can show *explicitly* how to start
the math, without the infinities, and do the same calculations as are
done in QED, without the infinities, and get the same finite results
as QED, without ever dealing with any infinities, then you'll be a
hero. But you haven't done that.
The re-noramlization procedure shows that....you get rid of all the
terms that contains infinities.
Post by PD
Post by kenseto
The reason why there is no
infinity is because the charge of a particle is not residing within
the particle.
Sorry, QED does not get its infinities by saying the charge does
reside within the particle. Do you know where the infinities come
from?
Do you?

Ken Seto
PD
2008-01-16 14:35:14 UTC
Permalink
Post by kenseto
Post by PD
Post by kenseto
Post by PD
There are no "normalized equations" of QED. Have you lost your mind?
There is a QED Lagrangian, which you can use to *calculate* various
quantities like scattering cross-sections. Such calculations will
generally involve something that looks infinite. Renormalization is a
*procedure* by which you yield finite numbers from those calculations
that appear to have infinities in them.
Right....the reason why the normalization procedure works is because
there was no infinity to begin with.
You haven't demonstrated that. If it were that simple, then people
would have found the alternative path through the math *without* the
infiniites long, long ago.
Sure I have demonstatred that. The QED was based on a wrong physical
model and that's why physicists were not able to find the alternative
path  through the math without the infinities long, long ago. As Dirac
pointed out ignoring large number in an equation is not sensible math.
So the only reason why the re-normalization procedure works is because
there was no infinity to begin with.
Post by PD
If you can show *explicitly* how to start
the math, without the infinities, and do the same calculations as are
done in QED, without the infinities, and get the same finite results
as QED, without ever dealing with any infinities, then you'll be a
hero. But you haven't done that.
The re-noramlization procedure shows that....you get rid of all the
terms that contains infinities.
No, that is NOT what happens. It would really help if you knew the
first thing you were talking about.
Post by kenseto
Post by PD
Post by kenseto
The reason why there is no
infinity is because the charge of a particle is not residing within
the particle.
Sorry, QED does not get its infinities by saying the charge does
reside within the particle. Do you know where the infinities come
from?
Do you?
Yes, I've taught courses in QFT. Have you?
Post by kenseto
Ken Seto- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -
Androcles
2008-01-16 15:15:37 UTC
Permalink
Post by kenseto
Post by PD
Post by kenseto
Post by PD
There are no "normalized equations" of QED. Have you lost your mind?
There is a QED Lagrangian, which you can use to *calculate* various
quantities like scattering cross-sections. Such calculations will
generally involve something that looks infinite. Renormalization is a
*procedure* by which you yield finite numbers from those
calculations
that appear to have infinities in them.
Right....the reason why the normalization procedure works is because
there was no infinity to begin with.
You haven't demonstrated that. If it were that simple, then people
would have found the alternative path through the math *without* the
infiniites long, long ago.
Sure I have demonstatred that. The QED was based on a wrong physical
model and that's why physicists were not able to find the alternative
path through the math without the infinities long, long ago. As Dirac
pointed out ignoring large number in an equation is not sensible math.
So the only reason why the re-normalization procedure works is because
there was no infinity to begin with.
Post by PD
If you can show *explicitly* how to start
the math, without the infinities, and do the same calculations as are
done in QED, without the infinities, and get the same finite results
as QED, without ever dealing with any infinities, then you'll be a
hero. But you haven't done that.
The re-noramlization procedure shows that....you get rid of all the
terms that contains infinities.
| No, that is NOT what happens.

That's a completely ridiculous statement.
Bob Cain
2008-01-08 20:53:02 UTC
Permalink
kenseto wrote:

[snip]
Post by kenseto
I didn't assume anything. It was you who said that the charge is a
property of a particle and it resides "inside and outside" the
particle.
[again]
Post by kenseto
It is not right...it is a bogus assertion based on a poor
understanding of nature.
[and again]
Post by kenseto
We don't need the equation of motion for the S-Particle. We know the
orbiting motion of the S-Particle of the electron generates the
distortion (the field) in the E-Matrix. We can now use the QFT
equations to do calculations.
[ad nauseam]
Post by kenseto
No experimental data conflicts with my logical reasonings. My logical
reasonings give different interpretations for the same experimental
data.
[etc.]
Post by kenseto
The point is: You don't know what the charge of an electron is so you
made certain assumptions that seem to agree with experimental data.
Then you claim these assumptions are the only valid explanation for
the charge of an electron.
I suppose that's enough to make the point that "Ken Seto" can write English as
well as anyone else when he forgets about hiding his identity behind a fake
deficiency. He's been tweaking everyone's head and doing a rather fine job of
it for many years. Come on, Ken, you are slipping and it is time to step out
and take your well deserved bow before competence falls to the point where your
long running act will be less impressive.

Bob
--
"Things should be described as simply as possible, but no simpler."

A. Einstein
malibu
2008-01-02 16:55:50 UTC
Permalink
Post by kenseto
Post by PD
Post by kenseto
Post by PD
Yes. There's no problem with this. Recall, there is no clear boundary
between "inside" an electron and "outside" an electron. You seem
determined to insist there is one.
ROTFLOL....this is an assumption of current physics. Current math.
No, not assumption, not math. Experiment. You seem to think this is
all about ideas and math and assumptions. It's not.
Sure it is assumption. A correct model for charge such as Model
Mechanics will expain what is a charge and whether it reside inside or
outside the particle.
Post by PD
Post by kenseto
model has no clear physical explaination of the contradictory
observations
What contradictory observations about charge?
For example: the charge of a partcile is residing inside and outside
the particle.
Post by PD
Post by kenseto
so they invented the absurd concept of duality.
Duality doesn't have anything to do with where charge resides.
The assumption that the charge of a partcile is residing both inside
and outside the particle is similar to the bogus assumption of
duality.
Post by PD
Post by kenseto
In Model
Machanics, the charge of a particle such as the electron is the
distortion in the E-Matrix that surrounds the particle. The distortion
in the surrounding E-Matrix is, in turn, caused by the orbiting motion
of the S-Particle that composes the electron.
Show that mathematically. What's the equation of motion of the S-
particle? And what's the mathematical relationship between that orbit
and the distortion in the E-matrix?
Model Mechanics provides the physical explannation for the math of
QFT. The fields of QFT is the distortions in the E-Matrix caused by
the orbiting motion of the S-Particle of the electron. The interaction
of the interaction of the electron with the virtual partcile is the
reaction of the orbiting S-Particle of the electron following the
distortions in the E-Strings.
Post by PD
Post by kenseto
Post by PD
I didn't say *all* of the charge resided outside the electron, did I?
Ah....so only some of the charge is residing outside the particle. So
you think that that's not double talk????????
No, I don't. Why do you find it confusing?
It is confusing because such assertion is born from illogical
reasoning. Physicists were not able to expalin experimental data with
their current physical model of the universe so they dreamed up
illogical processes (duality and the charge of a particle is residing
inside and outside the particle) to expain experimental data. They
failed to realize that there are logical processes that explain these
experimental observations fully.
Post by PD
Post by kenseto
Post by PD
Post by kenseto
This would eliminate the infinity problem in QED.
No, that's not what I said at all. I said it was the presence of some
of the electron's charge outside of the electron that was responsible
for the infinities seen in QED calculations. Please review.
ROTFLOL...So those charge inside the electron has no effect on the
infinities seen in QED calculations???
If you knew how the QED calculations were done, you would know where
the infinitites come from. But you apparently haven't read anything
other than coffee-table books about it. Do you always roll around on
the floor laughing when you don't understand something?
All I know is: in QFT an electron is negatively charged and therefore
the repulsive force becomes infinite when the electron is reduced to
the size of a point like particle.
Post by PD
Post by kenseto
Post by PD
Post by kenseto
If the
charge is residing inside the electron the repulsive force on the
electron would approach infinity as the electron approaches to be a
point particle as QM asserts.
This is not a QM assertion. This is an assertion of Coulomb's law,
classical physics from the 18th century. We're in the 21st century, if
you're counting. No QM involved in that assertion whatsoever.
So what is the size of an electron?
"Size" means something that has a definite boundary between the inside
and outside. There isn't for an electron.
This is just another bogus double talk assumption invented by the
physicists. The correct physical model of an electron such as Model
Mechanics does not have such bogus assumption.
Post by PD
Post by kenseto
Post by PD
Post by kenseto
Post by PD
Experiment says otherwise.
Other model such as Model Mechanics can better explain those
experiments.
You haven't demonstrated that. You've said Model Mechanics has exactly
the same math as QFT. Well, that would include the infinities of that
math, wouldn't it?
No... Model Mechanics has different interpretations for the final
normalized QED equations....It says that the reason why the
normalization procedure work because there was no infinities to begin
with.
The infinities arise in the calculations. If the calculations are the
same, then the infinities are the same. If the infinities aren't
there, then the math must be different. One or the other.
The infinity arised in the original version of the QED is because they
used a bogus physical model of an electron to do the calculations. The
correct physical model is Model mechanics. In Model Mechanics the
charge of a partcile is the result of the orbiting motion of the S-
Particle of the chaged particle. So there is no infinite repulsive
force exists when the diameter of the particle is reduce to that of
the electron.
Post by PD
Post by kenseto
In Model mechanics the charge of an electron is the distortion
in the surrounding E-Matrix caused by the orbiting motion of the S-
Particle of the elctron in the E-Matrix.
Post by PD
If Model Mechanics allows you to do the math
without the infinities, then it has a different mathematical theory,
but you haven't shown AT ALL that it does.
No it has the same math....only different interpretation of the same
math.
Tell me how you can interpret 1/0 so that it is not infinite.
Because there is no 1/0 when you use the correct physical model to do
calculations. The charge of a particle such as the electron is the
field surrounding the electron.
Post by PD
Post by kenseto
Post by PD
anything to QFT.
Sure Model mechanics explains why the normalization procedure works in
QED. It gives a valid physical mopdel for the math of QED.
Post by PD
On the other hand, if your E-matrix has properties
and behaviors that are *different* than the QFT fields,
Distortions in the E-Matrix are the fields in QFT.
Then you've just renamed things without changing anything else. That's
not a new theory.
What is new is that Model Mechanics provides the correct physical
model for the normalized math of QFT.
Ken Seto
The charge *is* the particle.
Matter comes from charge-separation in
a standing wave formation.

*Something* causes a point in space to develope
a standing wave vortex. The standing wave vortex
splits all the virtual particles within its influence and
kicks them out. (Think galaxy jets of HEPs- think
radio galaxy jets/lobes).

Now you have a real vacuum- no virtual particles,
no nothin'- this is the positive charge actuated-
it is a center of eternal spin.
What used to be where the positive charge now lies
is ejected through the poles of this spin as HEP jets.
This is your negative charge, which goes through the
cycle of gradually radiating away its high energy by first
recombining into stars and then going through the star cycle
until passes back through the central positive vortex.

The negative charge is the mirror of the positive
charge in terms of spin but composed of much
smaller versions- think proton compared to galaxy.
It is created as the direct result of the central
spin/vacuum being created. Yes, the electron is
a 'cloud' around the nucleus, and this 'cloud' is
composed of huge clumps of the much, much smaller
mirror spin/vacuums kicked out by the central
spin/vacuum.

And neither of these 'charges' come into existence
until they lock into a 'spin/vortex' standing wave
composed of rapid *rotation* in two planes at once.

The 'charge of a particle', indeed. That will be
a standing joke in the future.

Future Man 1, "The charge of a particle"!
Future Man 2, "Stop it! Stop it! I can't take it!"
(Rolling on floor choking and laughing.)

John
PD
2008-01-02 17:07:24 UTC
Permalink
Post by malibu
The charge *is* the particle.
This single statement almost nails it.
The charge AND the mass AND the spin AND the lepton number AND the few
other properties.

PD
Y.Porat
2008-01-02 17:13:39 UTC
Permalink
Post by PD
Post by malibu
The charge *is* the particle.
This single statement almost nails it.
The charge AND the mass AND the spin AND the lepton number AND the few
other properties.
PD
----------------------------------
Post by PD
Post by malibu
Post by kenseto
Post by PD
Yes. There's no problem with this. Recall, there is no clear boundary
between "inside" an electron and "outside" an electron. You seem
determined to insist there is one.
ROTFLOL....this is an assumption of current physics. Current math.
No, not assumption, not math. Experiment. You seem to think this is
all about ideas and math and assumptions. It's not.
Sure it is assumption. A correct model for charge such as Model
Mechanics will expain what is a charge and whether it reside inside or
outside the particle.
Post by malibu
Post by kenseto
model has no clear physical explaination of the contradictory
observations
What contradictory observations about charge?
For example: the charge of a partcile is residing inside and outside
the particle.
Post by malibu
Post by kenseto
so they invented the absurd concept of duality.
Duality doesn't have anything to do with where charge resides.
The assumption that the charge of a partcile is residing both inside
and outside the particle is similar to the bogus assumption of
duality.
Post by malibu
Post by kenseto
In Model
Machanics, the charge of a particle such as the electron is the
distortion in the E-Matrix that surrounds the particle. The distortion
in the surrounding E-Matrix is, in turn, caused by the orbiting motion
of the S-Particle that composes the electron.
Show that mathematically. What's the equation of motion of the S-
particle? And what's the mathematical relationship between that orbit
and the distortion in the E-matrix?
Model Mechanics provides the physical explannation for the math of
QFT. The fields of QFT is the distortions in the E-Matrix caused by
the orbiting motion of the S-Particle of the electron. The interaction
of the interaction of the electron with the virtual partcile is the
reaction of the orbiting S-Particle of the electron following the
distortions in the E-Strings.
Post by malibu
Post by kenseto
Post by PD
I didn't say *all* of the charge resided outside the electron, did I?
Ah....so only some of the charge is residing outside the particle. So
you think that that's not double talk????????
No, I don't. Why do you find it confusing?
It is confusing because such assertion is born from illogical
reasoning. Physicists were not able to expalin experimental data with
their current physical model of the universe so they dreamed up
illogical processes (duality and the charge of a particle is residing
inside and outside the particle) to expain experimental data. They
failed to realize that there are logical processes that explain these
experimental observations fully.
Post by malibu
Post by kenseto
Post by PD
Post by kenseto
This would eliminate the infinity problem in QED.
No, that's not what I said at all. I said it was the presence of some
of the electron's charge outside of the electron that was responsible
for the infinities seen in QED calculations. Please review.
ROTFLOL...So those charge inside the electron has no effect on the
infinities seen in QED calculations???
If you knew how the QED calculations were done, you would know where
the infinitites come from. But you apparently haven't read anything
other than coffee-table books about it. Do you always roll around on
the floor laughing when you don't understand something?
All I know is: in QFT an electron is negatively charged and therefore
the repulsive force becomes infinite when the electron is reduced to
the size of a point like particle.
Post by malibu
Post by kenseto
Post by PD
Post by kenseto
If the
charge is residing inside the electron the repulsive force on the
anything to QFT.
Sure Model mechanics explains why the normalization procedure works in
QED. It gives a valid physical mopdel for the math of QED.
Post by PD
On the other hand, if your E-matrix has properties
and behaviors that are *different* than the QFT fields,
Distortions in the E-Matrix are the fields in QFT.
Then you've just renamed things without changing anything else. That's
not a new theory.
What is new is that Model Mechanics provides the correct physical
model for the normalized math of QFT.
Ken Seto- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -
----------------
it i sobvious that nop one knows a fuck about the real
geometry /structure /innerstructure
of the eelctron
what there is is acrippled partial mathematical model
ot it
and btw
no electron is orbitiong around the nuc
2
the electron i snot a 'point particle'
it is subcomposed from sub physical entites
3
my private guess is tha the electron is composed of subentities
therefore **has many geometric shapes*
and that is possibly one of the causes of confusion
while enterpreting its experimental observations
4
in short
the existingf situation is far from enabling
any chest drumming of anyone

ATB
Y.Porat
----------------
Rock Brentwood
2008-01-09 01:47:12 UTC
Permalink
Post by kenseto
This is pure double talk. You said the charge is resided outside the
electron. This would eliminate the infinity problem in QED.
There is no infinity problem in QED. The infinity prioblem is in ALL
field theory, both classical and quantum. The correct designation,
therefore, is "infinity problem in field theory".

So, whatever explanation one casts for the "infinity problem in [any
quantum theory]" is wrong before it gets out of the starting gate,
because the issue has nothing specifically to do with quantum theory
in the first place! The resolution of the issue is something that has
to apply across the board at the very foundation of field theory,
itself. And "across the board" means, specifically, independently of
what setting it is in, be it classical or quantum.

Indeed, the consistency problem for CLASSICAL theory was posed as a
challenge in the American Mathematical Association monthly back in the
1980's and headway had only begun to be made on it by around 2000.

The infinities of field theory are those of (a) the self-energy of a
concentrated source and (b) the "self-force" (the force a concentrated
source sees). These are the poblems that lie at the root of the issue.

In quantum theory, the infinities are directly inherited from these as
follows. Corresponding to the self-force infinity is the singularity
in the propagators on the light cone. The quantized fields,
themselves, are defined in terms of these propagators. Therefore, they
become singular operators in the same sense that the delta function is
a singular function. When applied in non-linear combinations, this
leads to products of singular operators by singular operators, which
(like for singular functions) is ill-defined. The two places this
occurs are in the expressions for the energy & stress tensor (which
are quadratic, generally) and in the interactions (which involve non-
linear expressions in the field equations).

Likewise in the classical theory, the two places where the double-
singularity occur are in the force law (hence the self-force infinity0
and the energy & stress tensor (also quadratic).

The resolution of the problem is clear -- once it's been pointed out.
Maxwell, himself, had resolved the issue, but his resolution was lost
by the time of Lorentz and was only partially rediscovered (more
properly: stumbled back onto) by the time of Tomomaga, Dyson and the
others who had engaged in the renormalization programme (thus leading
to the false impression that both the infinity and its resolution
pertained specifically to quantum theory, rather than to classical
theory).

The fields EXPERIENCED by sources are not identical to the fields
PRODUCED by sources. The link between the two is what is known as the
"constitutive laws". When Lorentz posed the trivial relation (D =
epsilon_0 E, B = mu_0 H), he also did a serious disservice in re-
introducing the very plague that Maxwell had gone out of his way to
remove. It was by identifying these two sets of fields that the
infinity came to be introuced.

It is introduced in the following way:
(1) Self-force. For a singular or concentrated source, rho, through
Gauss's law (div D = rho), one has a singularity or near-singularity
in D. In order for the force to be well-defined (F = rho E) as a
density, it perforce obtains that only one of (rho) and (E) can be
singular, but never both!

Ipso facto, this precludes any such relation as (D = epsilon_0 E) near
the source! Given such a relation, one has the self-force infinity.

Similar expressions for the other parts of the force law all involve
quadratic expressions that combine one element out of the set (E, B)
and one out of the set (rho, J) the latter being derived from (D, H).
The kinematic fields (E, B) are those experienced by sources, while
the dynamic fields -- their conjugates -- (D, H) are those produced by
sources.

To equate the two sets by trivial linear relations with constant
coefficients introduces an infinity in the force law. It is a
violation of the First Commandment of Field Theory:
What God hath sundered let no man reunite.

(2) Self-energy. The stress tensor and energy all involve quadratic
expressions of similar construction -- one element from the set (E, B,
A, phi) and one from the set (D, H, J, rho). The same argument
pertains as for self-force.

In a more general Lagrangian theory, the roles of (A, phi) are played
by the "configuraton coordinates" q, while the roles of (E, B) are
played by various distinguished combinations of the gradients of q
(their respective covariant derivatives) that together give you the
field "velocities" v. Together, these are the kinematic variables.

The conjugates are those constructed as the derivatives of the
Lagrangian. For Maxwell, these are D = dL/dE, H = -dL/dB, J = dL/dA,
rho = -dL/d(phi). For a more general field theory, one may have the
conjugate "momentum" p = dL/dv, and conjugate "source" j = dL/dq.

The stress tensor is always constructed out of combinations of (q,v)
with (p,j), similarly for the force law (which, actually, is derived
from the stress tensor).

For field theories where the Lagrangian is quadratic in the field
velocities, one usually sees relations of the form p = e.v (in a
"matrix-vector" form) with the coefficients e being constant. It is
their constancy that lies at the root of the problem.

If the field law is Lorentz invariant, the coefficients e will be such
that the resulting field equations for (q) will be either a Klein-
Gordon or wave equation. The corresponding Green's functions will be
singular on the light cone and the propagators (and, in turn, the
quantized fields) will likewise be singular. Thus the chain of events
that leads to the self-force and self-energy problems (both
classically and quantum mechanically) is set into motion.

Ipso facto that means that the coefficients e are NOT constant. This
resolution, in fact, is stumbled onto in a quantum setting through the
device of renormalization theory. One finds there, as a result of the
need to have self-consistency, that the coefficients "e" must be
endowed with "scale dependency". What that means is that in the
setting of a scattering experiment where one probes a concentrated
source, the effective values of "e" will be dependent on the scale of
resolution (i.e. how close to the source you get). That is, e becomes
a function of position.

For all practical purposes in quantum theory, e is promoted to an
external field with unknown or unresolved dynaics.

Maxwell, in fact, had done that very thing in electromagnetism. There,
the coefficients are just those arising in the Lagrangian L =
epsilon_0 (E^2 - B^2 c^2)/2 -- i.e., the vacuum permittivity. Hence,
arose the idea that the vacuum, itself, was a polarizing medium. He
made it a point not only to explain that this device was specifically
to resolve the field-theoretic infinity (via 2 thought experiments in
chapter 1 of his treatise), but to finish up the opening chapters by
stressing that we needed to find the actual DYNAMICS of this extra
field, epsilon.

In the more general setting of Lagrangian theory, the coefficients "e"
of a Lagrangian quadratic in the field velocities essentially comprise
the METRIC for the vector space where the field's configuration
variables (q) lie. Thus, the direction quantum theory stumbled onto
was nothing less than that which points back to CLASSICAL theory,
calling on "e" to be promoted to a field.

When "e" is made variable, the Green's functions and propagators are
no longer generally singular on the light cone. They can become non-
singular; likewise for the quantum fields. One begins to see their
actual construction when pulling back from a quantum field theory to
the corresponding classical field theory through the device of
"effective Lagrangians". For electrodynamics, for instance, one
constructs a constitutive law of the form
D = epsilon E + theta B, H = epsilon c^2 B - theta E
where both epsilon AND theta have to be variable.

The other major kind of field theory is the one whose Lagrangians are
linear in the field velocities (gravity, fermions, Chern-Simons,
topologial field theories). That I won't say anything more about
here...
Josef Matz
2007-12-20 14:45:59 UTC
Permalink
Post by kenseto
Is the charge of a particle resides within the particles?
The answer according to current physics is:YES
This was especially true in the case of the theory of quantum
electrodynamics (QED). In QED the electric change of a particle is
resided within the particle. This leads to the infinity problems
during the early development of QED. The infinity problem of QED was
resolved by a dubious mathematical procedure called renormalization.
A number of physicists, including Paul Dirac consider the
renormalization technique a mathematical trick. He made the following
"I must say that I am very dissatisfied with the situation, because
this so-called 'good theory' does involve neglecting infinities which
appear in its equations, neglecting them in an arbitrary way. This is
just not sensible mathematics. Sensible mathematics involves
neglecting a quantity when it turns out to be small."
It turns out that the reason why the renormalization trick works is
because the charge of a particle does not reside within the particle.
It is the distortion (the field) in the ether (the E-Matrix)
surrounding the charged particle. This distortion (field) in the ether
(the E-Matrix) is caused by the absolute motion of the fundamental
particle (the S-Particle) that comproses the charged particle. For a
detailed description of this new concept please read the paper
http://www.geocities.com/kn_seto/index.htm
Thats your meaning. I have another:

Our physics equations (Thermodynamics, Electrodynamics, Quantummechanics)
are statistical in nature, meaning they describe only the behaviour of our
environment.

So going inside a charge and just looking for a mathematical description
leads us away
from statistical physics to something more fundamental.

Of course thousands experiments show that charge is distributed. Nearby
charge elements
of an isolated fictive electron do not act like distinct charges. Thats the
problem with renormalization.

Partial integration is always a means to overcome renormaslization problems.
Or in other words:
When renormalization is essential part of a theory something in that theory
is fundamentally wrong.

Maybe consider the following potential

V =A(1-exp(B/r))

Differentiation delivers the charge distribution - i have no renormalization
problem here.

Consider this charge distribution rotating along an z - axis. Assume the
rotation at c everywhere
so that you have an infinite number of revolutions at the rotating axis and
zero rpm in the infinite.
Think a little about and you will easily find the connection between B field
and E field and find
that the charge density is forceless E + v x B = 0 everywhere.

Calculate the electromagnetic energy density of this and divide by c**2.
Then you have the static
rest mass density of the object.

I just know that leptons are described quite well by this simple
electrodynamic model.

In my opinion quarks should also be described by such an elementar and easy
potential.
If the above potential form describes quarks too i cant answer. I hope so.

Josef
Post by kenseto
Ken Seto
malibu
2007-12-21 00:13:51 UTC
Permalink
Post by Josef Matz
Post by kenseto
Is the charge of a particle resides within the particles?
The answer according to current physics is:YES
This was especially true in the case of the theory of quantum
electrodynamics (QED). In QED the electric change of a particle is
resided within the particle. This leads to the infinity problems
during the early development of QED. The infinity problem of QED was
resolved by a dubious mathematical procedure called renormalization.
A number of physicists, including Paul Dirac consider the
renormalization technique a mathematical trick. He made the following
"I must say that I am very dissatisfied with the situation, because
this so-called 'good theory' does involve neglecting infinities which
appear in its equations, neglecting them in an arbitrary way. This is
just not sensible mathematics. Sensible mathematics involves
neglecting a quantity when it turns out to be small."
It turns out that the reason why the renormalization trick works is
because the charge of a particle does not reside within the particle.
It is the distortion (the field) in the ether (the E-Matrix)
surrounding the charged particle. This distortion (field) in the ether
(the E-Matrix) is caused by the absolute motion of the fundamental
particle (the S-Particle) that comproses the charged particle. For a
detailed description of this new concept please read the paper
http://www.geocities.com/kn_seto/index.htm
Our physics equations (Thermodynamics, Electrodynamics, Quantummechanics)
are statistical in nature, meaning they describe only the behaviour of our
environment.
So going inside a charge and just looking for a mathematical description
leads us away
from statistical physics to something more fundamental.
Of course thousands experiments show that charge is distributed. Nearby
charge elements
of an isolated fictive electron do not act like distinct charges. Thats the
problem with renormalization.
Partial integration is always a means to overcome renormaslization problems.
When renormalization is essential part of a theory something in that theory
is fundamentally wrong.
Maybe consider the following potential
V =A(1-exp(B/r))
Differentiation delivers the charge distribution - i have no renormalization
problem here.
Consider this charge distribution rotating along an z - axis. Assume the
rotation at c everywhere
so that you have an infinite number of revolutions at the rotating axis and
zero rpm in the infinite.
Think a little about and you will easily find the connection between B field
and E field and find
that the charge density is forceless E + v x B = 0 everywhere.
Calculate the electromagnetic energy density of this and divide by c**2.
Then you have the static
rest mass density of the object.
I just know that leptons are described quite well by this simple
electrodynamic model.
In my opinion quarks should also be described by such an elementar and easy
potential.
If the above potential form describes quarks too i cant answer. I hope so.
Josef
Post by kenseto
Ken Seto
What is the particle made from??? Quarks?
What are quarks made from? And they
share the charge?

Galaxy Model says the particle
is *made from * charge simultaneously
rotating around two axes with their
rotations linked in whole number ratio 1:2.

The particle *is* moving/accelerating charge in standing wave form.

John
Josef Matz
2007-12-22 07:28:27 UTC
Permalink
Newsbeitragnews:4cb5d07e-1cda-4944-b593-***@r60g2000hsc.googlegroup
s.com...
Post by malibu
Post by Josef Matz
Post by kenseto
Is the charge of a particle resides within the particles?
The answer according to current physics is:YES
This was especially true in the case of the theory of quantum
electrodynamics (QED). In QED the electric change of a particle is
resided within the particle. This leads to the infinity problems
during the early development of QED. The infinity problem of QED was
resolved by a dubious mathematical procedure called renormalization.
A number of physicists, including Paul Dirac consider the
renormalization technique a mathematical trick. He made the following
"I must say that I am very dissatisfied with the situation, because
this so-called 'good theory' does involve neglecting infinities which
appear in its equations, neglecting them in an arbitrary way. This is
just not sensible mathematics. Sensible mathematics involves
neglecting a quantity when it turns out to be small."
It turns out that the reason why the renormalization trick works is
because the charge of a particle does not reside within the particle.
It is the distortion (the field) in the ether (the E-Matrix)
surrounding the charged particle. This distortion (field) in the ether
(the E-Matrix) is caused by the absolute motion of the fundamental
particle (the S-Particle) that comproses the charged particle. For a
detailed description of this new concept please read the paper
http://www.geocities.com/kn_seto/index.htm
Our physics equations (Thermodynamics, Electrodynamics,
Quantummechanics)
Post by malibu
Post by Josef Matz
are statistical in nature, meaning they describe only the behaviour of our
environment.
So going inside a charge and just looking for a mathematical description
leads us away
from statistical physics to something more fundamental.
Of course thousands experiments show that charge is distributed. Nearby
charge elements
of an isolated fictive electron do not act like distinct charges. Thats the
problem with renormalization.
Partial integration is always a means to overcome renormaslization problems.
When renormalization is essential part of a theory something in that theory
is fundamentally wrong.
Maybe consider the following potential
V =A(1-exp(B/r))
Differentiation delivers the charge distribution - i have no
renormalization
Post by malibu
Post by Josef Matz
problem here.
Consider this charge distribution rotating along an z - axis. Assume the
rotation at c everywhere
so that you have an infinite number of revolutions at the rotating axis and
zero rpm in the infinite.
Think a little about and you will easily find the connection between B field
and E field and find
that the charge density is forceless E + v x B = 0 everywhere.
Calculate the electromagnetic energy density of this and divide by c**2.
Then you have the static
rest mass density of the object.
I just know that leptons are described quite well by this simple
electrodynamic model.
In my opinion quarks should also be described by such an elementar and easy
potential.
If the above potential form describes quarks too i cant answer. I hope so.
Josef
Post by kenseto
Ken Seto
What is the particle made from??? Quarks?
What are quarks made from? And they
share the charge?
Galaxy Model says the particle
is *made from * charge simultaneously
rotating around two axes with their
rotations linked in whole number ratio 1:2.
The particle *is* moving/accelerating charge in standing wave form.
John
My electron and leptons is rotating charge yes. The potential with B < 0 was
introduced by
the british Roland Dishington who sometimes posts too on his ideas. A very
nice potential.

So my addition just is that the whole stuff rotates at c everywhere and that
this is a stable selfdefining
structure.

How can something rotate about two axes ?

Thanks

Josef
Y.Porat
2007-12-22 08:54:52 UTC
Permalink
Post by Josef Matz
s.com...
Post by malibu
Post by Josef Matz
Post by kenseto
Is the charge of a particle resides within the particles?
The answer according to current physics is:YES
This was especially true in the case of the theory of quantum
electrodynamics (QED). In QED the electric change of a particle is
resided within the particle. This leads to the infinity problems
during the early development of QED. The infinity problem of QED was
resolved by a dubious mathematical procedure called renormalization.
A number of physicists, including Paul Dirac consider the
renormalization technique a mathematical trick. He made the following
"I must say that I am very dissatisfied with the situation, because
this so-called 'good theory' does involve neglecting infinities which
appear in its equations, neglecting them in an arbitrary way. This is
just not sensible mathematics. Sensible mathematics involves
neglecting a quantity when it turns out to be small."
It turns out that the reason why the renormalization trick works is
because the charge of a particle does not reside within the particle.
It is the distortion (the field) in the ether (the E-Matrix)
surrounding the charged particle. This distortion (field) in the ether
(the E-Matrix) is caused by the absolute motion of the fundamental
particle (the S-Particle) that comproses the charged particle. For a
detailed description of this new concept please read the paper
http://www.geocities.com/kn_seto/index.htm
Our physics equations (Thermodynamics, Electrodynamics,
Quantummechanics)
Post by malibu
Post by Josef Matz
are statistical in nature, meaning they describe only the behaviour of
our
Post by malibu
Post by Josef Matz
environment.
So going inside a charge and just looking for a mathematical description
leads us away
from statistical physics to something more fundamental.
Of course thousands experiments show that charge is distributed. Nearby
charge elements
of an isolated fictive electron do not act like distinct charges. Thats
the
Post by malibu
Post by Josef Matz
problem with renormalization.
Partial integration is always a means to overcome renormaslization
problems.
Post by malibu
Post by Josef Matz
When renormalization is essential part of a theory something in that
theory
Post by malibu
Post by Josef Matz
is fundamentally wrong.
Maybe consider the following potential
V =A(1-exp(B/r))
Differentiation delivers the charge distribution - i have no
renormalization
Post by malibu
Post by Josef Matz
problem here.
Consider this charge distribution rotating along an z - axis. Assume the
rotation at c everywhere
so that you have an infinite number of  revolutions at the rotating axis
and
Post by malibu
Post by Josef Matz
zero rpm in the infinite.
Think a little about and you will easily find the connection between B
field
Post by malibu
Post by Josef Matz
and E field and find
that the charge density is forceless E + v x B = 0 everywhere.
Calculate the electromagnetic energy density of this and divide by c**2.
Then you have the static
rest mass density of the object.
I just know that leptons are described quite well by this simple
electrodynamic model.
In my opinion quarks should also be described by such an elementar and
easy
Post by malibu
Post by Josef Matz
potential.
If the above potential form describes quarks too i cant answer. I hope
so.
Post by malibu
Post by Josef Matz
Josef
Post by kenseto
Ken Seto
What is the particle made from??? Quarks?
What are quarks made from? And they
share the charge?
Galaxy Model says the particle
is *made from * charge simultaneously
rotating around two axes with their
rotations linked in whole number ratio 1:2.
The particle *is* moving/accelerating charge in standing wave form.
John
My electron and leptons is rotating charge yes. The potential with B < 0 was
introduced by
the british Roland Dishington who sometimes posts too on his ideas. A very
nice potential.
So my addition just is that the whole stuff rotates at c everywhere and that
this is a stable selfdefining
structure.
How can something rotate about two axes ?
Thanks
Josef- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -
------------
no rotation with the velocioty of c
around two axes
and just to remind
the electron does not rotate all around the nuc

Y.P
------------------------
Josef Matz
2007-12-23 20:17:34 UTC
Permalink
Post by Josef Matz
s.com...
Post by malibu
Post by Josef Matz
Post by kenseto
Is the charge of a particle resides within the particles?
The answer according to current physics is:YES
This was especially true in the case of the theory of quantum
electrodynamics (QED). In QED the electric change of a particle is
resided within the particle. This leads to the infinity problems
during the early development of QED. The infinity problem of QED was
resolved by a dubious mathematical procedure called renormalization.
A number of physicists, including Paul Dirac consider the
renormalization technique a mathematical trick. He made the following
"I must say that I am very dissatisfied with the situation, because
this so-called 'good theory' does involve neglecting infinities which
appear in its equations, neglecting them in an arbitrary way. This is
just not sensible mathematics. Sensible mathematics involves
neglecting a quantity when it turns out to be small."
It turns out that the reason why the renormalization trick works is
because the charge of a particle does not reside within the particle.
It is the distortion (the field) in the ether (the E-Matrix)
surrounding the charged particle. This distortion (field) in the ether
(the E-Matrix) is caused by the absolute motion of the fundamental
particle (the S-Particle) that comproses the charged particle. For a
detailed description of this new concept please read the paper
http://www.geocities.com/kn_seto/index.htm
Our physics equations (Thermodynamics, Electrodynamics,
Quantummechanics)
Post by malibu
Post by Josef Matz
are statistical in nature, meaning they describe only the behaviour of
our
Post by malibu
Post by Josef Matz
environment.
So going inside a charge and just looking for a mathematical description
leads us away
from statistical physics to something more fundamental.
Of course thousands experiments show that charge is distributed. Nearby
charge elements
of an isolated fictive electron do not act like distinct charges. Thats
the
Post by malibu
Post by Josef Matz
problem with renormalization.
Partial integration is always a means to overcome renormaslization
problems.
Post by malibu
Post by Josef Matz
When renormalization is essential part of a theory something in that
theory
Post by malibu
Post by Josef Matz
is fundamentally wrong.
Maybe consider the following potential
V =A(1-exp(B/r))
Differentiation delivers the charge distribution - i have no
renormalization
Post by malibu
Post by Josef Matz
problem here.
Consider this charge distribution rotating along an z - axis. Assume the
rotation at c everywhere
so that you have an infinite number of revolutions at the rotating
axis
Post by Josef Matz
and
Post by malibu
Post by Josef Matz
zero rpm in the infinite.
Think a little about and you will easily find the connection between B
field
Post by malibu
Post by Josef Matz
and E field and find
that the charge density is forceless E + v x B = 0 everywhere.
Calculate the electromagnetic energy density of this and divide by c**2.
Then you have the static
rest mass density of the object.
I just know that leptons are described quite well by this simple
electrodynamic model.
In my opinion quarks should also be described by such an elementar and
easy
Post by malibu
Post by Josef Matz
potential.
If the above potential form describes quarks too i cant answer. I hope
so.
Post by malibu
Post by Josef Matz
Josef
Post by kenseto
Ken Seto
What is the particle made from??? Quarks?
What are quarks made from? And they
share the charge?
Galaxy Model says the particle
is *made from * charge simultaneously
rotating around two axes with their
rotations linked in whole number ratio 1:2.
The particle *is* moving/accelerating charge in standing wave form.
John
My electron and leptons is rotating charge yes. The potential with B < 0 was
introduced by
the british Roland Dishington who sometimes posts too on his ideas. A very
nice potential.
So my addition just is that the whole stuff rotates at c everywhere and that
this is a stable selfdefining
structure.
How can something rotate about two axes ?
Thanks
Josef- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -
------------
no rotation with the velocioty of c
around two axes
and just to remind
the electron does not rotate all around the nuc

Y.P
------------------------

Hello sleep well ?

In my model the charge distribution within an electron rotates at c. I hope
you can accept that.

The electron spin is simply the Integral r x S electrodynamically defined
momentum with pointing vector S.
Electrodynamics momentum forms the electron spin in my theory.

I nowhere spoke from an interaction with the nuke thats quantum mechanics
(Scrödinger and Dirac equations).
Here is going on a electrodynamic description of the elecxtron itself which
uses the charge distribution of a britisch guy,
which seems to be very very good description of all the lepotons.

And please remind: This descripton has only two parameters and is able to
deliver the correct spin, mass and total charge
of the electron. According to Roland Dishingtons theory of the leptons the
magnetic moment is up to 10**-12 in agreement
with the most precisest measurements for all three leptons (12 digits after
the point)..

My rotating at c assumption explains why the electron is stable: Its force
free.

Josef
Y.y.Porat
2008-01-12 13:30:07 UTC
Permalink
Post by Y.Porat
Post by Josef Matz
s.com...
Post by Josef Matz
Post by kenseto
Is the charge of a particle resides within the particles?
The answer according to current physics is:YES
This was especially true in the case of the theory of quantum
electrodynamics (QED). In QED the electric change of a particle is
resided within the particle. This leads to the infinity problems
during the early development of QED. The infinity problem of QED was
Post by kenseto
Ken Seto
So my addition just is that the whole stuff rotates at c everywhere and
that
Post by Josef Matz
this is a stable selfdefining
structure.
How can something rotate about two axes ?
Thanks
Josef- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -
------------
no rotation with the velocioty of c
around two axes
and just to remind
the electron does not rotate all around the nuc
Y.P
------------------------
Hello sleep well ?
In my model the charge distribution within an electron rotates at c. I hope
you can accept that.
The electron spin is simply the Integral r x S electrodynamically defined
momentum with pointing vector S.
Electrodynamics momentum forms the electron spin in my theory.
I nowhere spoke from an interaction with the nuke thats quantum mechanics
(Scrödinger and Dirac equations).
Here is going on a electrodynamic description of the elecxtron itself which
uses the charge distribution of a britisch guy,
which seems to be very very good description of all the lepotons.
And please remind: This descripton has only two parameters and is able to
deliver the correct spin, mass and total charge
of the electron. According to Roland Dishingtons theory of the leptons the
magnetic moment is up to 10**-12 in agreement
with the most precisest measurements for all three leptons (12 digits after
the point)..
My rotating at c assumption explains why the electron is stable: Its force
free.
Josef- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -
------------------
is the elecron for you a point particle??

is it an indivisible entity
or composed of sub physical entities ??

TIA
Y.Porat
-----------------------
Jeckyl
2007-12-21 02:15:33 UTC
Permalink
Post by kenseto
Is the charge of a particle resides within the particles?
The answer according to current physics is:YES
The question isn't really correct English.

So I think the answer should be: All your bases are belong to us.
Bob Cain
2007-12-21 04:09:57 UTC
Permalink
Post by kenseto
Is the charge of a particle resides within the particles?
Why on earth do you insist on butchering the language so? You've made it
obvious on many occasions that it is just an affect. You accidentally produce a
good deal of prose with no such affectation.

Who are you really, Ken Seto? You've had a long and productive run as house
fool but you've run it into the ground. It's time to take your bows and retire.

Bob
--
"Things should be described as simply as possible, but no simpler."

A. Einstein
PD
2008-01-17 14:00:55 UTC
Permalink
Post by kenseto
Is the charge of a particle resides within the particles?
The answer according to current physics is:YES
This was especially true in the case of the theory of quantum
electrodynamics (QED). In QED the electric change of a particle is
resided within the particle. This leads to the infinity problems
during the early development of QED. The infinity problem of QED was
resolved by a dubious mathematical procedure called renormalization.
A number of physicists, including Paul Dirac consider the
renormalization technique a mathematical trick. He made the following
"I must say that I am very dissatisfied with the situation, because
this so-called 'good theory' does involve neglecting infinities which
appear in its equations, neglecting them in an arbitrary way. This is
just not sensible mathematics. Sensible mathematics involves
neglecting a quantity when it turns out to be small."
It turns out that the reason why the renormalization trick works is
because the charge of a particle does not reside within the particle.
It is the distortion (the field) in the ether (the E-Matrix)
surrounding the charged particle. This distortion (field) in the ether
(the E-Matrix) is caused by the absolute motion of the fundamental
particle (the S-Particle) that comproses the charged particle. For a
detailed description of this new concept please read the paper
entitled "Unification of Physics" in the following website:http://www.geocities.com/kn_seto/index.htm
Ken Seto
I've now got a little better insight into what passes for thinking in
Seto's mind.
Seto:
"I know three things. 1) I've read somewhere that the field around a
point particle like an electron is kQ/r^2, which becomes infinite when
r=0. 2) I've read that the modern theory of electrodynamics, QED, has
to deal with infinities in its calculations and that there is
something called renormalization that some people think is suspect
that removes these infinities, and 3) QED is remarkably successful in
its math calculations, getting many answers right to twelve or more
decimal places.
"So what can I do to improve physics and make a contribution here?"
[think, think, think, think, think]
"I know! The infinities arise because of an *assumption* that the
charge of an electron lies INSIDE the electron! What if we just CHANGE
the assumption, so that we say instead that the charge lies OUTSIDE
the electron? I can make that fit into Model Mechanics by saying that
the charge of the electron is really distortions in the E-matrix
surrounding the real electron, and not inside the electron at all!
"Then what we'll do is we'll leave the REST of the math completely
alone, just moving the same charge from the inside to the outside of
the electron. This will clearly get rid of the infinity seen in (1)
above, because we'll never have to go to r=0. Secondly, since the
infinity at r=0 is *clearly* where all the infinities in QED *must*
come from, then we've gotten rid of the infinities in QED too. So
there is no need for any renormalization, no need for any funny stuff,
since we've removed the source of the infinities.
"And I don't have to do any calculations (and that's good because I
don't know how to do the calculations anyway), because I've left the
*good* part the calculations completely alone, not changing anything
except moving the charge from the inside to the outside of the
electron, and so the part of the math that gets the answers right to
12 decimal places must certaintly still work.
"I've done a tremendous service to physics, sweeping away all the
funny stuff with a simple change in the physical model, leaving all
the good stuff just as it was! I'll be famous for making life simpler
for physicists!"

I think that fairly accurately sums it up.

I also don't need to comment further on the quality of Seto's approach
to doing physics.

PD
kenseto
2008-01-17 15:22:04 UTC
Permalink
Post by PD
Post by kenseto
Is the charge of a particle resides within the particles?
The answer according to current physics is:YES
This was especially true in the case of the theory of quantum
electrodynamics (QED). In QED the electric change of a particle is
resided within the particle. This leads to the infinity problems
during the early development of QED. The infinity problem of QED was
resolved by a dubious mathematical procedure called renormalization.
A number of physicists, including Paul Dirac consider the
renormalization technique a mathematical trick. He made the following
"I must say that I am very dissatisfied with the situation, because
this so-called 'good theory' does involve neglecting infinities which
appear in its equations, neglecting them in an arbitrary way. This is
just not sensible mathematics. Sensible mathematics involves
neglecting a quantity when it turns out to be small."
It turns out that the reason why the renormalization trick works is
because the charge of a particle does not reside within the particle.
It is the distortion (the field) in the ether (the E-Matrix)
surrounding the charged particle. This distortion (field) in the ether
(the E-Matrix) is caused by the absolute motion of the fundamental
particle (the S-Particle) that comproses the charged particle. For a
detailed description of this new concept please read the paper
entitled "Unification of Physics" in the following website:http://www.geocities.com/kn_seto/index.htm
Ken Seto
I've now got a little better insight into what passes for thinking in
Seto's mind.
"I know three things. 1) I've read somewhere that the field around a
point particle like an electron is kQ/r^2, which becomes infinite when
r=0. 2) I've read that the modern theory of electrodynamics, QED, has
to deal with infinities in its calculations and that there is
something called renormalization that some people think is suspect
that removes these infinities, and 3) QED is remarkably successful in
its math calculations, getting many answers right to twelve or more
decimal places.
That's not what I think at all. What I think is that the reason why
the renormalization procedure, to get rid of the infinities, work
because there is no infinity to begin with. The infinities arrive in
the qed equations because it is derived from a defective physical
model.

Ken Seto
PD
2008-01-17 18:43:15 UTC
Permalink
Post by kenseto
Post by PD
Post by kenseto
Is the charge of a particle resides within the particles?
The answer according to current physics is:YES
This was especially true in the case of the theory of quantum
electrodynamics (QED). In QED the electric change of a particle is
resided within the particle. This leads to the infinity problems
during the early development of QED. The infinity problem of QED was
resolved by a dubious mathematical procedure called renormalization.
A number of physicists, including Paul Dirac consider the
renormalization technique a mathematical trick. He made the following
"I must say that I am very dissatisfied with the situation, because
this so-called 'good theory' does involve neglecting infinities which
appear in its equations, neglecting them in an arbitrary way. This is
just not sensible mathematics. Sensible mathematics involves
neglecting a quantity when it turns out to be small."
It turns out that the reason why the renormalization trick works is
because the charge of a particle does not reside within the particle.
It is the distortion (the field) in the ether (the E-Matrix)
surrounding the charged particle. This distortion (field) in the ether
(the E-Matrix) is caused by the absolute motion of the fundamental
particle (the S-Particle) that comproses the charged particle. For a
detailed description of this new concept please read the paper
entitled "Unification of Physics" in the following website:http://www.geocities.com/kn_seto/index.htm
Ken Seto
I've now got a little better insight into what passes for thinking in
Seto's mind.
"I know three things. 1) I've read somewhere that the field around a
point particle like an electron is kQ/r^2, which becomes infinite when
r=0. 2) I've read that the modern theory of electrodynamics, QED, has
to deal with infinities in its calculations and that there is
something called renormalization that some people think is suspect
that removes these infinities, and 3) QED is remarkably successful in
its math calculations, getting many answers right to twelve or more
decimal places.
That's not what I think at all. What I think is that the reason why
the renormalization procedure, to get rid of the infinities, work
because there is no infinity to begin with. The infinities arrive in
the qed equations because it is derived from a defective physical
model.
Yup, that's what I said you said.
Of course, what I said about what you think is not what you think I
said about what you think. I think you don't think about what you say
enough to clearly distinguish what you think you said you think from
what you think you said I think you said.

PD

PD
kenseto
2008-01-18 16:16:39 UTC
Permalink
Post by PD
Post by kenseto
Post by PD
Post by kenseto
Is the charge of a particle resides within the particles?
The answer according to current physics is:YES
This was especially true in the case of the theory of quantum
electrodynamics (QED). In QED the electric change of a particle is
resided within the particle. This leads to the infinity problems
during the early development of QED. The infinity problem of QED was
resolved by a dubious mathematical procedure called renormalization.
A number of physicists, including Paul Dirac consider the
renormalization technique a mathematical trick. He made the following
"I must say that I am very dissatisfied with the situation, because
this so-called 'good theory' does involve neglecting infinities which
appear in its equations, neglecting them in an arbitrary way. This is
just not sensible mathematics. Sensible mathematics involves
neglecting a quantity when it turns out to be small."
It turns out that the reason why the renormalization trick works is
because the charge of a particle does not reside within the particle.
It is the distortion (the field) in the ether (the E-Matrix)
surrounding the charged particle. This distortion (field) in the ether
(the E-Matrix) is caused by the absolute motion of the fundamental
particle (the S-Particle) that comproses the charged particle. For a
detailed description of this new concept please read the paper
entitled "Unification of Physics" in the following website:http://www.geocities.com/kn_seto/index.htm
Ken Seto
I've now got a little better insight into what passes for thinking in
Seto's mind.
"I know three things. 1) I've read somewhere that the field around a
point particle like an electron is kQ/r^2, which becomes infinite when
r=0. 2) I've read that the modern theory of electrodynamics, QED, has
to deal with infinities in its calculations and that there is
something called renormalization that some people think is suspect
that removes these infinities, and 3) QED is remarkably successful in
its math calculations, getting many answers right to twelve or more
decimal places.
That's not what I think at all. What I think is that the reason why
the renormalization procedure, to get rid of the infinities, work
because there is no infinity to begin with. The infinities arrive in
the qed equations because it is derived from a defective physical
model.
Yup, that's what I said you said.
Of course, what I said about what you think is not what you think I
said about what you think. I think you don't think about what you say
enough to clearly distinguish what you think you said you think from
what you think you said I think you said.
As Paul Dirac said: Ignoring large number in an equation is not
sensible math. So the only valid reason why the re-noramlization
procedure works is because that there is no infinities to begin with.
This means that the qed equations were derived from a defective
physical model of the universe.

Ken Seto
PD
2008-01-18 17:11:38 UTC
Permalink
Post by kenseto
Post by PD
Post by kenseto
Post by PD
Post by kenseto
Is the charge of a particle resides within the particles?
The answer according to current physics is:YES
This was especially true in the case of the theory of quantum
electrodynamics (QED). In QED the electric change of a particle is
resided within the particle. This leads to the infinity problems
during the early development of QED. The infinity problem of QED was
resolved by a dubious mathematical procedure called renormalization.
A number of physicists, including Paul Dirac consider the
renormalization technique a mathematical trick. He made the following
"I must say that I am very dissatisfied with the situation, because
this so-called 'good theory' does involve neglecting infinities which
appear in its equations, neglecting them in an arbitrary way. This is
just not sensible mathematics. Sensible mathematics involves
neglecting a quantity when it turns out to be small."
It turns out that the reason why the renormalization trick works is
because the charge of a particle does not reside within the particle.
It is the distortion (the field) in the ether (the E-Matrix)
surrounding the charged particle. This distortion (field) in the ether
(the E-Matrix) is caused by the absolute motion of the fundamental
particle (the S-Particle) that comproses the charged particle. For a
detailed description of this new concept please read the paper
entitled "Unification of Physics" in the following website:http://www.geocities.com/kn_seto/index.htm
Ken Seto
I've now got a little better insight into what passes for thinking in
Seto's mind.
"I know three things. 1) I've read somewhere that the field around a
point particle like an electron is kQ/r^2, which becomes infinite when
r=0. 2) I've read that the modern theory of electrodynamics, QED, has
to deal with infinities in its calculations and that there is
something called renormalization that some people think is suspect
that removes these infinities, and 3) QED is remarkably successful in
its math calculations, getting many answers right to twelve or more
decimal places.
That's not what I think at all. What I think is that the reason why
the renormalization procedure, to get rid of the infinities, work
because there is no infinity to begin with. The infinities arrive in
the qed equations because it is derived from a defective physical
model.
Yup, that's what I said you said.
Of course, what I said about what you think is not what you think I
said about what you think. I think you don't think about what you say
enough to clearly distinguish what you think you said you think from
what you think you said I think you said.
As Paul Dirac said: Ignoring large number in an equation is not
sensible math.
Renormalization does not involve ignoring. Stop learning physics from
coffee-table books.
Post by kenseto
So the only valid reason why the re-noramlization
procedure works is because that there is no infinities to begin with.
Well, that is an astoundingly stupid conjecture. But you're famous for
those.
Post by kenseto
This means that the qed equations were derived from a defective
physical model of the universe.
And again, an astounding stupid conclusion. Nevertheless, you have in
no way demonstrated that by invoking a model that simply moves the
charge of the electron from inside the electron to outside the
electron, that the only effect on the math derived from the model is
that the infinities disappear and leaves the rest of the math intact.
You simply haven't done that, and you know it.

PD
Post by kenseto
Ken Seto- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -
kenseto
2008-01-19 14:57:54 UTC
Permalink
Post by PD
Post by kenseto
Post by PD
Yup, that's what I said you said.
Of course, what I said about what you think is not what you think I
said about what you think. I think you don't think about what you say
enough to clearly distinguish what you think you said you think from
what you think you said I think you said.
As Paul Dirac said: Ignoring large number in an equation is not
sensible math.
Renormalization does not involve ignoring. Stop learning physics from
coffee-table books.
Here's what Paul Dirac said:
"I must say that I am very dissatisfied with the situation, because
this so-called 'good theory' does involve neglecting infinities which
appear in its equations, neglecting them in an arbitrary way. This is
just not sensible mathematics. Sensible mathematics involves
neglecting a quantity when it turns out to be small."
So are you saying that Paul Dirac didn't know what his talking
about??? I don't think so. I think that you are the one who doesn't
know what you are talking about. Perhaps you should start learning
what current physics says instead of asserting what you think is what
current physics says.
Post by PD
Post by kenseto
So the only valid reason why the re-noramlization
procedure works is because that there is no infinities to begin with.
Well, that is an astoundingly stupid conjecture. But you're famous >for those.
Its not a stupid conjecture at all. If you have any power of logical
reasoning you would know that its the only valid reason why the
infinities in the qed equation can be *neglected*.
Post by PD
Post by kenseto
This means that the qed equations were derived from a defective
physical model of the universe.
And again, an astounding stupid conclusion. Nevertheless, you have in
no way demonstrated that by invoking a model that simply moves the
charge of the electron from inside the electron to outside the
electron, that the only effect on the math derived from the model is
that the infinities disappear and leaves the rest of the math intact.
You simply haven't done that, and you know it.
But that's what the re-normalization procedure is doing. So are you
saying that the re-normalization procedure is a stupid procedure even
though it gives the right result?

Ken seto
PD
2008-01-19 16:02:01 UTC
Permalink
Post by kenseto
Post by PD
Post by kenseto
Post by PD
Yup, that's what I said you said.
Of course, what I said about what you think is not what you think I
said about what you think. I think you don't think about what you say
enough to clearly distinguish what you think you said you think from
what you think you said I think you said.
As Paul Dirac said: Ignoring large number in an equation is not
sensible math.
Renormalization does not involve ignoring. Stop learning physics from
coffee-table books.
"I must say that I am very dissatisfied with the situation, because
this so-called 'good theory' does involve neglecting infinities which
appear in its equations, neglecting them in an arbitrary way. This is
just not sensible mathematics. Sensible mathematics involves
neglecting a quantity when it turns out to be small."
So are you saying that Paul Dirac didn't know what his talking
about??? I don't think so. I think that you are the one who doesn't
know what you are talking about. Perhaps you should start learning
what current physics says instead of asserting what you think is what
current physics says.
Sorry, what you quoted is not current physics. In case you weren't
aware, Dirac has been dead for some time, and these comments were made
a long time ago. Since the days of his nervousness about this, the
rationale for renormalization has become more apparent. Dirac in his
later days (later than this quote) was a bit more comfortable with
renormalization.

You should also recall that Einstein was dead set against the
indeterminacy of quantum mechanics. Einstein was wrong.
Post by kenseto
Post by PD
Post by kenseto
So the only valid reason why the re-noramlization
procedure works is because that there is no infinities to begin with.
Well, that is an astoundingly stupid conjecture. But you're famous >for those.
Its not a stupid conjecture at all. If you have any power of logical
reasoning you would know that its the only valid reason why the
infinities in the qed equation can be *neglected*.
Sorry, no, that's not the case. They are not *neglected*. You are
inferring that from something Dirac said. That is not what
renormalization does. At all.
Post by kenseto
Post by PD
Post by kenseto
This means that the qed equations were derived from a defective
physical model of the universe.
And again, an astounding stupid conclusion. Nevertheless, you have in
no way demonstrated that by invoking a model that simply moves the
charge of the electron from inside the electron to outside the
electron, that the only effect on the math derived from the model is
that the infinities disappear and leaves the rest of the math intact.
You simply haven't done that, and you know it.
But that's what the re-normalization procedure is doing. So are you
saying that the re-normalization procedure is a stupid procedure even
though it gives the right result?
That is NOT what a renormalization procedure does. Wherever did you
get that ridiculous idea?
Post by kenseto
Ken seto
kenseto
2008-01-19 19:24:06 UTC
Permalink
Post by PD
Post by kenseto
Post by PD
Renormalization does not involve ignoring. Stop learning physics from
coffee-table books.
"I must say that I am very dissatisfied with the situation, because
this so-called 'good theory' does involve neglecting infinities which
appear in its equations, neglecting them in an arbitrary way. This is
just not sensible mathematics. Sensible mathematics involves
neglecting a quantity when it turns out to be small."
So are you saying that Paul Dirac didn't know what his talking
about??? I don't think so. I think that you are the one who doesn't
know what you are talking about. Perhaps you should start learning
what current physics says instead of asserting what you think is what
current physics says.
Sorry, what you quoted is not current physics. In case you weren't
aware, Dirac has been dead for some time, and these comments were made
a long time ago. Since the days of his nervousness about this, the
rationale for renormalization has become more apparent. Dirac in his
later days (later than this quote) was a bit more comfortable with
renormalization.
So how does current physics justifies renormalization....other than
that it gives the right answer. Since renormalization gives the right
answer by neglecting the infinities in the qed equations,the only
valid answer is that the infinities don't exist. It doesn't matter
that Paul Dirac is dead....his logic is flawless.
Post by PD
You should also recall that Einstein was dead set against the
indeterminacy of quantum mechanics. Einstein was wrong.
Einstein was not wrong.....QM is based on the wrong physical model of
the universe that leads to indeterminacy to all the quantum processes.
With the correct physical model of the universe such as Model
Mechanics all the processes of nature are determinate.
Post by PD
Post by kenseto
Post by PD
Post by kenseto
So the only valid reason why the re-noramlization
procedure works is because that there is no infinities to begin with.
Well, that is an astoundingly stupid conjecture. But you're famous >for those.
Its not a stupid conjecture at all. If you have any power of logical
reasoning you would know that its the only valid reason why the
infinities in the qed equation can be *neglected*.
Sorry, no, that's not the case. They are not *neglected*. You are
inferring that from something Dirac said. That is not what
renormalization does. At all.
Sure they are necglected (or ignored or cancel out using math
trick)....before renormalization there are infinities....after
infinites there is no infinity.
Ken Seto
PD
2008-01-21 13:12:13 UTC
Permalink
Post by kenseto
Post by PD
Post by kenseto
Post by PD
Renormalization does not involve ignoring. Stop learning physics from
coffee-table books.
"I must say that I am very dissatisfied with the situation, because
this so-called 'good theory' does involve neglecting infinities which
appear in its equations, neglecting them in an arbitrary way. This is
just not sensible mathematics. Sensible mathematics involves
neglecting a quantity when it turns out to be small."
So are you saying that Paul Dirac didn't know what his talking
about??? I don't think so. I think that you are the one who doesn't
know what you are talking about. Perhaps you should start learning
what current physics says instead of asserting what you think is what
current physics says.
Sorry, what you quoted is not current physics. In case you weren't
aware, Dirac has been dead for some time, and these comments were made
a long time ago. Since the days of his nervousness about this, the
rationale for renormalization has become more apparent. Dirac in his
later days (later than this quote) was a bit more comfortable with
renormalization.
So how does current physics justifies renormalization....other than
that it gives the right answer. Since renormalization gives the right
answer by neglecting the infinities in the qed equations,
It doesn't neglect them.
Post by kenseto
the only
valid answer is that the infinities don't exist.
Sorry, that is not the only valid answer. You have this habit of
assuming that the only valid answers are the ones you can come up with
yourself. It doesn't occur to you that there might be one you are
ignorant of, and that getting taught what it is might open your eyes a
little.
Post by kenseto
It doesn't matter
that Paul Dirac is dead....his logic is flawless.
And he was wrong, despite what you extract to be flawless logic from a
single paragraph.
Post by kenseto
Post by PD
You should also recall that Einstein was dead set against the
indeterminacy of quantum mechanics. Einstein was wrong.
Einstein was not wrong.....QM is based on the wrong physical model of
the universe that leads to indeterminacy to all the quantum processes.
With the correct physical model of the universe such as Model
Mechanics all the processes of nature are determinate.
That's what Einstein thought, too. And so he proposed the very
experiment to *test* whether he was right or wrong. The experimental
test showed he was wrong. Now, when a scientist find this to be the
case in experiment, then the scientist realizes that his idea was
wrong. When a quack finds this to be the case in experiment, then the
quack thinks there must be something wrong with the experiment. Which
are you, Ken?
Post by kenseto
Post by PD
Post by kenseto
Post by PD
Post by kenseto
So the only valid reason why the re-noramlization
procedure works is because that there is no infinities to begin with.
Well, that is an astoundingly stupid conjecture. But you're famous >for those.
Its not a stupid conjecture at all. If you have any power of logical
reasoning you would know that its the only valid reason why the
infinities in the qed equation can be *neglected*.
Sorry, no, that's not the case. They are not *neglected*. You are
inferring that from something Dirac said. That is not what
renormalization does. At all.
Sure they are necglected (or ignored or cancel out using math
trick)
Or canceled NOT using a math trick. It might help if you knew what
renormalization really is, rather than *assuming* that it is bogus
from the outset.
Post by kenseto
....before renormalization there are infinities....after
infinites there is no infinity.
Ken Seto
kenseto
2008-01-21 16:15:12 UTC
Permalink
Post by PD
Post by kenseto
Post by PD
Post by kenseto
Post by PD
Renormalization does not involve ignoring. Stop learning physics from
coffee-table books.
"I must say that I am very dissatisfied with the situation, because
this so-called 'good theory' does involve neglecting infinities which
appear in its equations, neglecting them in an arbitrary way. This is
just not sensible mathematics. Sensible mathematics involves
neglecting a quantity when it turns out to be small."
So are you saying that Paul Dirac didn't know what his talking
about??? I don't think so. I think that you are the one who doesn't
know what you are talking about. Perhaps you should start learning
what current physics says instead of asserting what you think is what
current physics says.
Sorry, what you quoted is not current physics. In case you weren't
aware, Dirac has been dead for some time, and these comments were made
a long time ago. Since the days of his nervousness about this, the
rationale for renormalization has become more apparent. Dirac in his
later days (later than this quote) was a bit more comfortable with
renormalization.
So how does current physics justifies renormalization....other than
that it gives the right answer. Since renormalization gives the right
answer by neglecting the infinities in the qed equations,
It doesn't neglect them.
Yes it does. You think that using word "cancelation" iinstead of
"neglect" is not the same?????
Post by PD
Post by kenseto
the only
valid answer is that the infinities don't exist.
Sorry, that is not the only valid answer. You have this habit of
assuming that the only valid answers are the ones you can come up with
yourself. It doesn't occur to you that there might be one you are
ignorant of, and that getting taught what it is might open your eyes a
little.
Adding or multiplying other infinites to cancel out existing infinites
in an equation is the same as that the infinities don't exist to begin
with.
Post by PD
Post by kenseto
It doesn't matter
that Paul Dirac is dead....his logic is flawless.
And he was wrong, despite what you extract to be flawless logic from a
single paragraph.
No he was not wrong.If you have infinities in your equation and you
manage to get rid of them that's neglecting them.
Post by PD
Post by kenseto
Post by PD
You should also recall that Einstein was dead set against the
indeterminacy of quantum mechanics. Einstein was wrong.
Einstein was not wrong.....QM is based on the wrong physical model of
the universe that leads to indeterminacy to all the quantum processes.
With the correct physical model of the universe such as Model
Mechanics all the processes of nature are determinate.
That's what Einstein thought, too. And so he proposed the very
experiment to *test* whether he was right or wrong.
No....he proposed thought experiments. The proposed doable experiments
in the following link will correctly test the validity of
indeterminacy of QM.
Post by PD
The experimental
test showed he was wrong.
There are more valid interoretations for those experiments. There is
no need to invoke the absurd idea of indeterminacy such as duality and
that the charge can reside inside and outside the particle.
Post by PD
Now, when a scientist find this to be the
case in experiment, then the scientist realizes that his idea was
wrong. When a quack finds this to be the case in experiment, then the
quack thinks there must be something wrong with the experiment. Which
are you, Ken?
ROTFLOL....the scientists such as you are wrong. You desperately clint
to
Post by PD
Post by kenseto
Post by PD
Sorry, no, that's not the case. They are not *neglected*. You are
inferring that from something Dirac said. That is not what
renormalization does. At all.
Sure they are necglected (or ignored or cancel out using math
trick)
Or canceled NOT using a math trick. It might help if you knew what
renormalization really is, rather than *assuming* that it is bogus
from the outset.
Canceled out is a math trick. Multiplying non- existing new infinities
to cancel out existing infinites is a math traick.
Randy Poe
2008-01-21 16:29:00 UTC
Permalink
Post by kenseto
Post by PD
It doesn't neglect them.
Yes it does. You think that using word "cancelation" iinstead of
"neglect" is not the same?????
When I solve the equation 2x = 10 I write
2x/2 = 10/2

I then cancel out the 2's on the left to get
x = 5

I have not ignored or neglected the 2.
Post by kenseto
Canceled out is a math trick. Multiplying non- existing new infinities
to cancel out existing infinites is a math traick.
While solving the equation 2x = 10 to get x = 5
involves math, it's not a trick.

I'm not saying that this is renormalization theory. However
I am reacting to your dismissal of "cancellation" as something
which is somehow suspect. Cancellation is the basis
of elementary algebra.

- Randy
kenseto
2008-01-22 16:31:26 UTC
Permalink
Post by Randy Poe
Post by kenseto
Post by PD
It doesn't neglect them.
Yes it does. You think that using word "cancelation" iinstead of
"neglect" is not the same?????
When I solve the equation 2x = 10 I write
2x/2 = 10/2
I then cancel out the 2's on the left to get
x = 5
I have not ignored or neglected the 2.
Post by kenseto
Canceled out is a math trick. Multiplying non- existing new infinities
to cancel out existing infinites is a math traick.
While solving the equation 2x = 10 to get x = 5
involves math, it's not a trick.
I'm not saying that this is renormalization theory. However
I am reacting to your dismissal of "cancellation" as something
which is somehow suspect. Cancellation is the basis
of elementary algebra.
In the above example *Cancelation or neglect* involves real numbers.
But infinity is not a real number. You can't just cancel out an
infinity with another infinity.
Randy Poe
2008-01-22 16:33:37 UTC
Permalink
Post by kenseto
Post by Randy Poe
Post by kenseto
Post by PD
It doesn't neglect them.
Yes it does. You think that using word "cancelation" iinstead of
"neglect" is not the same?????
When I solve the equation 2x = 10 I write
2x/2 = 10/2
I then cancel out the 2's on the left to get
x = 5
I have not ignored or neglected the 2.
Post by kenseto
Canceled out is a math trick. Multiplying non- existing new infinities
to cancel out existing infinites is a math traick.
While solving the equation 2x = 10 to get x = 5
involves math, it's not a trick.
I'm not saying that this is renormalization theory. However
I am reacting to your dismissal of "cancellation" as something
which is somehow suspect. Cancellation is the basis
of elementary algebra.
In the above example *Cancelation or neglect* involves real numbers.
But infinity is not a real number. You can't just cancel out an
infinity with another infinity.
Can you show the equations in renormalization theory
that are described as "cancel out an infinity with
another infinity"? Because otherwise I might conclude
that you've never actually seen the theory and you're
imagining incorrectly what's in it.

- Randy
Edward Green
2008-01-22 17:53:20 UTC
Permalink
Post by Randy Poe
Post by kenseto
Post by Randy Poe
Post by kenseto
Post by PD
It doesn't neglect them.
Yes it does. You think that using word "cancelation" iinstead of
"neglect" is not the same?????
When I solve the equation 2x = 10 I write
2x/2 = 10/2
I then cancel out the 2's on the left to get
x = 5
I have not ignored or neglected the 2.
Post by kenseto
Canceled out is a math trick. Multiplying non- existing new infinities
to cancel out existing infinites is a math traick.
While solving the equation 2x = 10 to get x = 5
involves math, it's not a trick.
I'm not saying that this is renormalization theory. However
I am reacting to your dismissal of "cancellation" as something
which is somehow suspect. Cancellation is the basis
of elementary algebra.
In the above example *Cancelation or neglect* involves real numbers.
But infinity is not a real number. You can't just cancel out an
infinity with another infinity.
Can you show the equations in renormalization theory
that are described as "cancel out an infinity with
another infinity"? Because otherwise I might conclude
that you've never actually seen the theory and you're
imagining incorrectly what's in it.
Well, that would describe me, if not Ken Seto.

But you have to admit, renormalization is frequently glossed as a way
of slipping infinities under the rug, so if one forms the general idea
that this is the general idea, one may perhaps be excused.

My incorrect imaginings envisage a kind of pole where something blows
up, which we are able to cut out of the theory, attributing to the
missing piece the external effects of the pole. All this means is that
the theory breaks above certain numeric values, but that the
phenomenon in the broken area has the same global effect as a
continuation of the imperfect theory into an infinity.
kenseto
2008-01-23 15:15:58 UTC
Permalink
Post by Randy Poe
Post by kenseto
Post by Randy Poe
Post by kenseto
Post by PD
It doesn't neglect them.
Yes it does. You think that using word "cancelation" iinstead of
"neglect" is not the same?????
When I solve the equation 2x = 10 I write
2x/2 = 10/2
I then cancel out the 2's on the left to get
x = 5
I have not ignored or neglected the 2.
Post by kenseto
Canceled out is a math trick. Multiplying non- existing new infinities
to cancel out existing infinites is a math traick.
While solving the equation 2x = 10 to get x = 5
involves math, it's not a trick.
I'm not saying that this is renormalization theory. However
I am reacting to your dismissal of "cancellation" as something
which is somehow suspect. Cancellation is the basis
of elementary algebra.
In the above example *Cancelation or neglect* involves real numbers.
But infinity is not a real number. You can't just cancel out an
infinity with another infinity.
Can you show the equations in renormalization theory
that are described as "cancel out an infinity with
another infinity"? Because otherwise I might conclude
that you've never actually seen the theory and you're
imagining incorrectly what's in it.
You can conclude anything you want. But you can't conclude away the
fact that the qed equation conctains infinities before renormalization
and after the re-normalization those infinities are gone.
Randy Poe
2008-01-23 15:40:06 UTC
Permalink
Post by kenseto
Post by Randy Poe
Post by kenseto
Post by Randy Poe
Post by kenseto
Post by PD
It doesn't neglect them.
Yes it does. You think that using word "cancelation" iinstead of
"neglect" is not the same?????
When I solve the equation 2x = 10 I write
2x/2 = 10/2
I then cancel out the 2's on the left to get
x = 5
I have not ignored or neglected the 2.
Post by kenseto
Canceled out is a math trick. Multiplying non- existing new infinities
to cancel out existing infinites is a math traick.
While solving the equation 2x = 10 to get x = 5
involves math, it's not a trick.
I'm not saying that this is renormalization theory. However
I am reacting to your dismissal of "cancellation" as something
which is somehow suspect. Cancellation is the basis
of elementary algebra.
In the above example *Cancelation or neglect* involves real numbers.
But infinity is not a real number. You can't just cancel out an
infinity with another infinity.
Can you show the equations in renormalization theory
that are described as "cancel out an infinity with
another infinity"? Because otherwise I might conclude
that you've never actually seen the theory and you're
imagining incorrectly what's in it.
You can conclude anything you want. But you can't conclude away the
fact that the qed equation conctains infinities before renormalization
and after the re-normalization those infinities are gone.
How is that a fact? Can you show me these equations
before and after? Because otherwise I'll conclude that
it's a "fact" only in the sense of "fact Ken made up
out of complete ignorance of the subject".

Do you realize that you're talking about what's in
an equation that you've never seen? How can you claim
to know what's in it?

- Randy
kenseto
2008-01-24 16:11:23 UTC
Permalink
Post by Randy Poe
Post by kenseto
Post by Randy Poe
Post by kenseto
Post by Randy Poe
Post by kenseto
Post by PD
It doesn't neglect them.
Yes it does. You think that using word "cancelation" iinstead of
"neglect" is not the same?????
When I solve the equation 2x = 10 I write
2x/2 = 10/2
I then cancel out the 2's on the left to get
x = 5
I have not ignored or neglected the 2.
Post by kenseto
Canceled out is a math trick. Multiplying non- existing new infinities
to cancel out existing infinites is a math traick.
While solving the equation 2x = 10 to get x = 5
involves math, it's not a trick.
I'm not saying that this is renormalization theory. However
I am reacting to your dismissal of "cancellation" as something
which is somehow suspect. Cancellation is the basis
of elementary algebra.
In the above example *Cancelation or neglect* involves real numbers.
But infinity is not a real number. You can't just cancel out an
infinity with another infinity.
Can you show the equations in renormalization theory
that are described as "cancel out an infinity with
another infinity"? Because otherwise I might conclude
that you've never actually seen the theory and you're
imagining incorrectly what's in it.
You can conclude anything you want. But you can't conclude away the
fact that the qed equation conctains infinities before renormalization
and after the re-normalization those infinities are gone.
How is that a fact? Can you show me these equations
before and after? Because otherwise I'll conclude that
it's a "fact" only in the sense of "fact Ken made up
out of complete ignorance of the subject".
So infinies don't exist in the qed equations? Then why need to do the
renormalization procedure?
Post by Randy Poe
Do you realize that you're talking about what's in
an equation that you've never seen? How can you claim
to know what's in it?
That's irrelevant. What si relevant is that the solutions to the qed
equations contain infinities and those infinities wer renormalized
away.
Randy Poe
2008-01-24 16:16:19 UTC
Permalink
Post by kenseto
Post by Randy Poe
Post by kenseto
Post by Randy Poe
Post by kenseto
Post by Randy Poe
Post by kenseto
Post by PD
It doesn't neglect them.
Yes it does. You think that using word "cancelation" iinstead of
"neglect" is not the same?????
When I solve the equation 2x = 10 I write
2x/2 = 10/2
I then cancel out the 2's on the left to get
x = 5
I have not ignored or neglected the 2.
Post by kenseto
Canceled out is a math trick. Multiplying non- existing new infinities
to cancel out existing infinites is a math traick.
While solving the equation 2x = 10 to get x = 5
involves math, it's not a trick.
I'm not saying that this is renormalization theory. However
I am reacting to your dismissal of "cancellation" as something
which is somehow suspect. Cancellation is the basis
of elementary algebra.
In the above example *Cancelation or neglect* involves real numbers.
But infinity is not a real number. You can't just cancel out an
infinity with another infinity.
Can you show the equations in renormalization theory
that are described as "cancel out an infinity with
another infinity"? Because otherwise I might conclude
that you've never actually seen the theory and you're
imagining incorrectly what's in it.
You can conclude anything you want. But you can't conclude away the
fact that the qed equation conctains infinities before renormalization
and after the re-normalization those infinities are gone.
How is that a fact? Can you show me these equations
before and after? Because otherwise I'll conclude that
it's a "fact" only in the sense of "fact Ken made up
out of complete ignorance of the subject".
So infinies don't exist in the qed equations?
What are the QED equations, Ken? You tell me.

- Randy
kenseto
2008-01-25 14:09:08 UTC
Permalink
Post by Randy Poe
Post by kenseto
Post by Randy Poe
Post by kenseto
Post by Randy Poe
Post by kenseto
Post by Randy Poe
Post by kenseto
Post by PD
It doesn't neglect them.
Yes it does. You think that using word "cancelation" iinstead of
"neglect" is not the same?????
When I solve the equation 2x = 10 I write
2x/2 = 10/2
I then cancel out the 2's on the left to get
x = 5
I have not ignored or neglected the 2.
Post by kenseto
Canceled out is a math trick. Multiplying non- existing new infinities
to cancel out existing infinites is a math traick.
While solving the equation 2x = 10 to get x = 5
involves math, it's not a trick.
I'm not saying that this is renormalization theory. However
I am reacting to your dismissal of "cancellation" as something
which is somehow suspect. Cancellation is the basis
of elementary algebra.
In the above example *Cancelation or neglect* involves real numbers.
But infinity is not a real number. You can't just cancel out an
infinity with another infinity.
Can you show the equations in renormalization theory
that are described as "cancel out an infinity with
another infinity"? Because otherwise I might conclude
that you've never actually seen the theory and you're
imagining incorrectly what's in it.
You can conclude anything you want. But you can't conclude away the
fact that the qed equation conctains infinities before renormalization
and after the re-normalization those infinities are gone.
How is that a fact? Can you show me these equations
before and after? Because otherwise I'll conclude that
it's a "fact" only in the sense of "fact Ken made up
out of complete ignorance of the subject".
So infinies don't exist in the qed equations?
What are the QED equations, Ken? You tell me.
You look it up

PD
2008-01-22 17:41:38 UTC
Permalink
Post by kenseto
Post by Randy Poe
Post by kenseto
Post by PD
It doesn't neglect them.
Yes it does. You think that using word "cancelation" iinstead of
"neglect" is not the same?????
When I solve the equation 2x = 10 I write
2x/2 = 10/2
I then cancel out the 2's on the left to get
x = 5
I have not ignored or neglected the 2.
Post by kenseto
Canceled out is a math trick. Multiplying non- existing new infinities
to cancel out existing infinites is a math traick.
While solving the equation 2x = 10 to get x = 5
involves math, it's not a trick.
I'm not saying that this is renormalization theory. However
I am reacting to your dismissal of "cancellation" as something
which is somehow suspect. Cancellation is the basis
of elementary algebra.
In the above example *Cancelation or neglect* involves real numbers.
But infinity is not a real number. You can't just cancel out an
infinity with another infinity.
Sure you can. Let's take the limit as x->1 of
[3/(1-x)]/[2/(1-x)]
Does that expression have a finite limit as x->1? Note that 1/(1-x)
goes to infinity as x->1.

See, Ken, this is why it would help to know
The First Thing about basic algebra
The First Thing about reference frames
The First Thing about acceleration
The First Thing about relative motion
before you embark on a decade-long mission to replace SR with a better
theory.

I realize that it seems awfully demoralizing to abandon all that work,
but it's better not to throw good hours after bad.

You do know that the only reason you got a paper published is because
you paid for it, right?

PD
Edward Green
2008-01-22 17:58:26 UTC
Permalink
Post by PD
Post by kenseto
But infinity is not a real number. You can't just cancel out an
infinity with another infinity.
Sure you can. Let's take the limit as x->1 of
[3/(1-x)]/[2/(1-x)]
Does that expression have a finite limit as x->1? Note that 1/(1-x)
goes to infinity as x->1.
You might take this to be the "ratio of infinities", with a certain
justice, but if you wrote "3/2 = oo/oo", you'd have to wonder why the
rhs doesn't evaluate to 1, or 1/2 or 0 , or oo ... or anything else
you could make an expression of this sort tend to.

Your expression approaches a finite limit, but that doesn't mean that
the ratio or difference of two infinities is well defined.
kenseto
2008-01-23 15:31:13 UTC
Permalink
Post by PD
Post by kenseto
Post by Randy Poe
Post by kenseto
Post by PD
It doesn't neglect them.
Yes it does. You think that using word "cancelation" iinstead of
"neglect" is not the same?????
When I solve the equation 2x = 10 I write
2x/2 = 10/2
I then cancel out the 2's on the left to get
x = 5
I have not ignored or neglected the 2.
Post by kenseto
Canceled out is a math trick. Multiplying non- existing new infinities
to cancel out existing infinites is a math traick.
While solving the equation 2x = 10 to get x = 5
involves math, it's not a trick.
I'm not saying that this is renormalization theory. However
I am reacting to your dismissal of "cancellation" as something
which is somehow suspect. Cancellation is the basis
of elementary algebra.
In the above example *Cancelation or neglect* involves real numbers.
But infinity is not a real number. You can't just cancel out an
infinity with another infinity.
Sure you can. Let's take the limit as x->1 of
[3/(1-x)]/[2/(1-x)]
Does that expression have a finite limit as x->1? Note that 1/(1-x)
goes to infinity as x->1.
You can manipulate algebra all you want. The qed equation contains
infinities before renormalization and those infinities are gone after
renormalization. This can only mean the following:
The model used to derive the qed equations is wrong. The infinities
should not have benn in the equations in the first place.
Post by PD
See, Ken, this is why it would help to know
The First Thing about basic algebra
Yeah...it would help if you know what infinity mean.
Post by PD
The First Thing about reference frames
The First Thing about acceleration
The First Thing about relative motion
I agree it would help if you know anything above these subjects.
Post by PD
before you embark on a decade-long mission to replace SR with a better
theory.
I realize that it seems awfully demoralizing to abandon all that work,
but it's better not to throw good hours after bad.
Not at all. I am very happy with what I have accomplished.
Post by PD
You do know that the only reason you got a paper published is because
you paid for it, right?
I never paid anything to have my papers published. This proved that
you are a lying sack of shit.
PD
2008-01-21 16:30:25 UTC
Permalink
Post by kenseto
Post by PD
Post by kenseto
Post by PD
Post by kenseto
Post by PD
Renormalization does not involve ignoring. Stop learning physics from
coffee-table books.
"I must say that I am very dissatisfied with the situation, because
this so-called 'good theory' does involve neglecting infinities which
appear in its equations, neglecting them in an arbitrary way. This is
just not sensible mathematics. Sensible mathematics involves
neglecting a quantity when it turns out to be small."
So are you saying that Paul Dirac didn't know what his talking
about??? I don't think so. I think that you are the one who doesn't
know what you are talking about. Perhaps you should start learning
what current physics says instead of asserting what you think is what
current physics says.
Sorry, what you quoted is not current physics. In case you weren't
aware, Dirac has been dead for some time, and these comments were made
a long time ago. Since the days of his nervousness about this, the
rationale for renormalization has become more apparent. Dirac in his
later days (later than this quote) was a bit more comfortable with
renormalization.
So how does current physics justifies renormalization....other than
that it gives the right answer. Since renormalization gives the right
answer by neglecting the infinities in the qed equations,
It doesn't neglect them.
Yes it does. You think that using word "cancelation" iinstead of
"neglect" is not the same?????
Whaaaattt? Did you ever take any algebra, Ken?
Post by kenseto
Post by PD
Post by kenseto
the only
valid answer is that the infinities don't exist.
Sorry, that is not the only valid answer. You have this habit of
assuming that the only valid answers are the ones you can come up with
yourself. It doesn't occur to you that there might be one you are
ignorant of, and that getting taught what it is might open your eyes a
little.
Adding or multiplying other infinites to cancel out existing infinites
in an equation is the same as that the infinities don't exist to begin
with.
Whaaaatttt??
Post by kenseto
Post by PD
Post by kenseto
It doesn't matter
that Paul Dirac is dead....his logic is flawless.
And he was wrong, despite what you extract to be flawless logic from a
single paragraph.
No he was not wrong.If you have infinities in your equation and you
manage to get rid of them that's neglecting them.
Whaaaaaattt???????
Post by kenseto
Post by PD
Post by kenseto
Post by PD
You should also recall that Einstein was dead set against the
indeterminacy of quantum mechanics. Einstein was wrong.
Einstein was not wrong.....QM is based on the wrong physical model of
the universe that leads to indeterminacy to all the quantum processes.
With the correct physical model of the universe such as Model
Mechanics all the processes of nature are determinate.
That's what Einstein thought, too. And so he proposed the very
experiment to *test* whether he was right or wrong.
No....he proposed thought experiments.
No, he proposed *real* experiments. Did you not read the papers?
Post by kenseto
The proposed doable experiments
in the following link will correctly test the validity of
indeterminacy of QM.
Post by PD
The experimental
test showed he was wrong.
There are more valid interoretations for those experiments. There is
no need to invoke the absurd idea of indeterminacy such as duality and
that the charge can reside inside and outside the particle.
Sorry, you are apparently unaware of the experiments. You apparently
do not know that the experiment was designed to *unambiguously* test
whether the principle of locality that Einstein proposed or whether
quantum mechanical entanglement was correct. The experiment(s)
*clearly* showed that Einstein was wrong. You seem to think that
experiments don't have any discriminatory power at all, and that one
can always interpret an experimental result to indicate the opposite
of what it does indicate.
Post by kenseto
Post by PD
Now, when a scientist find this to be the
case in experiment, then the scientist realizes that his idea was
wrong. When a quack finds this to be the case in experiment, then the
quack thinks there must be something wrong with the experiment. Which
are you, Ken?
ROTFLOL....the scientists such as you are wrong. You desperately clint
to
Really? So you think the way a quack thinks is the right way to think,
Ken?
Post by kenseto
Post by PD
Post by kenseto
Post by PD
Sorry, no, that's not the case. They are not *neglected*. You are
inferring that from something Dirac said. That is not what
renormalization does. At all.
Sure they are necglected (or ignored or cancel out using math
trick)
Or canceled NOT using a math trick. It might help if you knew what
renormalization really is, rather than *assuming* that it is bogus
from the outset.
Canceled out is a math trick. Multiplying non- existing new infinities
to cancel out existing infinites is a math traick.
Whaaaaattt? Canceling out is a math trick?
Have you ever done an algebra problem, Ken?

Here's a problem, Ken: A body of 3 kg mass is in free-fall near the
surface of the earth. Use Newton's second law to determine how fast it
is going 1 second after being released from rest relative to the
earth.

Let me know if you see any cancellations going on there, and whether
that's just a math trick.

PD
kenseto
2008-01-22 16:57:08 UTC
Permalink
Post by PD
Post by kenseto
Post by PD
It doesn't neglect them.
Yes it does. You think that using word "cancelation" iinstead of
"neglect" is not the same?????
Whaaaattt? Did you ever take any algebra, Ken?
Post by kenseto
Post by PD
Post by kenseto
the only
valid answer is that the infinities don't exist.
Sorry, that is not the only valid answer. You have this habit of
assuming that the only valid answers are the ones you can come up with
yourself. It doesn't occur to you that there might be one you are
ignorant of, and that getting taught what it is might open your eyes a
little.
Adding or multiplying other infinites to cancel out existing infinites
in an equation is the same as that the infinities don't exist to begin
with.
Whaaaatttt??
Post by kenseto
Post by PD
Post by kenseto
It doesn't matter
that Paul Dirac is dead....his logic is flawless.
And he was wrong, despite what you extract to be flawless logic from a
single paragraph.
No he was not wrong.If you have infinities in your equation and you
manage to get rid of them that's neglecting them.
Whaaaaaattt???????
Post by kenseto
Post by PD
Post by kenseto
Post by PD
You should also recall that Einstein was dead set against the
indeterminacy of quantum mechanics. Einstein was wrong.
Einstein was not wrong.....QM is based on the wrong physical model of
the universe that leads to indeterminacy to all the quantum processes.
With the correct physical model of the universe such as Model
Mechanics all the processes of nature are determinate.
That's what Einstein thought, too. And so he proposed the very
experiment to *test* whether he was right or wrong.
No....he proposed thought experiments.
No, he proposed *real* experiments. Did you not read the papers?
No he did not proposed real experiments.
Post by PD
Post by kenseto
The proposed doable experiments
in the following link will correctly test the validity of
indeterminacy of QM.
http://www.geocities.com/kn_seto/2005Experiment.pdf
Post by PD
Post by kenseto
Post by PD
The experimental
test showed he was wrong.
There are more valid interoretations for those experiments. There is
no need to invoke the absurd idea of indeterminacy such as duality and
that the charge can reside inside and outside the particle.
Sorry, you are apparently unaware of the experiments. You apparently
do not know that the experiment was designed to *unambiguously* test
whether the principle of locality that Einstein proposed or whether
quantum mechanical entanglement was correct.
If you are talking about the Aspect experiments there are other more
valid explanations by Model Mechanics. The switch that direct the
photon to the vertical or horizontal polarizer was operating at two
hundred million cycles per second. This could cut some of the photon
into two parts and thus caused a higher rate of correlation.
Post by PD
The experiment(s)
*clearly* showed that Einstein was wrong.
No they did not show that.
Post by PD
You seem to think that
experiments don't have any discriminatory power at all, and that one
can always interpret an experimental result to indicate the opposite
of what it does indicate.
NO....I think that the results of any experiment is open for different
interpretations dependent on the theory that you use to interpret
them.
Post by PD
Post by kenseto
Post by PD
Now, when a scientist find this to be the
case in experiment, then the scientist realizes that his idea was
wrong. When a quack finds this to be the case in experiment, then the
quack thinks there must be something wrong with the experiment. Which
are you, Ken?
ROTFLOL....the scientists such as you are wrong. You desperately clint
to
Post by PD
Or canceled NOT using a math trick. It might help if you knew what
renormalization really is, rather than *assuming* that it is bogus
from the outset.
Canceled out is a math trick. Multiplying non- existing new infinities
to cancel out existing infinites is a math traick.
Whaaaaattt? Canceling out is a math trick?
Have you ever done an algebra problem, Ken?
Canceling out infinities in an equation by introducing other
infinities into the equation is indeed a math trick. For starter
infinities cannot be cancel out. Why? Because infinity is not a real
number. It has no specfic value.
Post by PD
Here's a problem, Ken: A body of 3 kg mass is in free-fall near the
surface of the earth. Use Newton's second law to determine how fast it
is going 1 second after being released from rest relative to the
earth.
Let me know if you see any cancellations going on there, and whether
that's just a math trick.
I don't see your point at all. Furthermore you are not talking about
infinities.

Ken Seto
PD
2008-01-22 17:44:12 UTC
Permalink
Post by kenseto
NO....I think that the results of any experiment is open for different
interpretations dependent on the theory that you use to interpret
them.
And this, Ken, is *precisely* the point where you deviate from
science, and where you become distinguished from scientists.

You can go on doing what you're doing, of course. You just shouldn't
be under the illusion that what you're doing is science.

PD
kenseto
2008-01-23 15:34:11 UTC
Permalink
Post by PD
Post by kenseto
NO....I think that the results of any experiment is open for different
interpretations dependent on the theory that you use to interpret
them.
And this, Ken, is *precisely* the point where you deviate from
science, and where you become distinguished from scientists.
You can go on doing what you're doing, of course. You just shouldn't
be under the illusion that what you're doing is science.
PD
ROTFLOL....you are not a scientist. You are an indoctrinated fanatic.
You are a runt of the SRians.
Y.Porat
2008-01-19 17:39:18 UTC
Permalink
Post by kenseto
Post by PD
Post by kenseto
Post by PD
Yup, that's what I said you said.
Of course, what I said about what you think is not what you think I
said about what you think. I think you don't think about what you say
enough to clearly distinguish what you think you said you think from
what you think you said I think you said.
As Paul Dirac said: Ignoring large number in an equation is not
sensible math.
Renormalization does not involve ignoring. Stop learning physics from
coffee-table books.
"I must say that I am very dissatisfied with the situation, because
this so-called 'good theory' does involve neglecting infinities which
appear in its equations, neglecting them in an arbitrary way. This is
just not sensible mathematics. Sensible mathematics involves
neglecting a quantity when it turns out to be small."
So are you saying that Paul Dirac didn't know what his talking
about??? I don't think so. I think that you are the one who doesn't
know what you are talking about. Perhaps you should start learning
what current physics says instead of asserting what you think is what
current physics says.
Post by PD
Post by kenseto
So the only valid reason why the re-noramlization
procedure works is because that there is no infinities to begin with.
Well, that is an astoundingly stupid conjecture. But you're famous >for those.
Its not a stupid conjecture at all. If you have any power of logical
reasoning you would know that its the only valid reason why the
infinities in the qed equation can be *neglected*.
Post by PD
Post by kenseto
This means that the qed equations were derived from a defective
physical model of the universe.
And again, an astounding stupid conclusion. Nevertheless, you have in
no way demonstrated that by invoking a model that simply moves the
charge of the electron from inside the electron to outside the
electron, that the only effect on the math derived from the model is
that the infinities disappear and leaves the rest of the math intact.
You simply haven't done that, and you know it.
But that's what the re-normalization procedure is doing. So are you
saying that the re-normalization procedure is a stupid procedure even
though it gives the right result?
Ken seto- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -
---------------
i agree with Ken about that 'normalization'
normalization is in other words
fitting the theory to some ex[erimwental facts!
but doing it is not
'holding the bull in his horns'

it can give you some partial solusion
but
NOT UNDESTANDING WHAT REALY IS GOING IN THERE
EVEN NOT COMING CLOSE TO IT!

and worse than that
IT DOES NOT HELP US IN ADVANCING SCINCE
FIRTHER AWAY !!

and mathematics parrots work ardently
by their stupid arrogance and self chest drumming
in preventing
new understanding about the
world of matter
iow
the same crooks as the Clergy preasts of 500 years ago !!

ATB
Y.Porat
------------------------------

ATB
Y.Porat
----------
Randy Poe
2008-01-19 20:07:40 UTC
Permalink
Post by Y.Porat
Post by kenseto
Post by PD
Post by kenseto
Post by PD
Yup, that's what I said you said.
Of course, what I said about what you think is not what you think I
said about what you think. I think you don't think about what you say
enough to clearly distinguish what you think you said you think from
what you think you said I think you said.
As Paul Dirac said: Ignoring large number in an equation is not
sensible math.
Renormalization does not involve ignoring. Stop learning physics from
coffee-table books.
"I must say that I am very dissatisfied with the situation, because
this so-called 'good theory' does involve neglecting infinities which
appear in its equations, neglecting them in an arbitrary way. This is
just not sensible mathematics. Sensible mathematics involves
neglecting a quantity when it turns out to be small."
So are you saying that Paul Dirac didn't know what his talking
about??? I don't think so. I think that you are the one who doesn't
know what you are talking about. Perhaps you should start learning
what current physics says instead of asserting what you think is what
current physics says.
Post by PD
Post by kenseto
So the only valid reason why the re-noramlization
procedure works is because that there is no infinities to begin with.
Well, that is an astoundingly stupid conjecture. But you're famous >for those.
Its not a stupid conjecture at all. If you have any power of logical
reasoning you would know that its the only valid reason why the
infinities in the qed equation can be *neglected*.
Post by PD
Post by kenseto
This means that the qed equations were derived from a defective
physical model of the universe.
And again, an astounding stupid conclusion. Nevertheless, you have in
no way demonstrated that by invoking a model that simply moves the
charge of the electron from inside the electron to outside the
electron, that the only effect on the math derived from the model is
that the infinities disappear and leaves the rest of the math intact.
You simply haven't done that, and you know it.
But that's what the re-normalization procedure is doing. So are you
saying that the re-normalization procedure is a stupid procedure even
though it gives the right result?
Ken seto- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -
---------------
i agree with Ken about that 'normalization'
normalization is in other words
fitting the theory to some ex[erimwental facts!
If you were going to make these pronouncements
about renormalization, wouldn't you be more
convincing if you actually knew the name?
Because otherwise it sort of sounds like
you're just making stuff up without having a
clue what you're talking about.

What is renormalization, Porat? Can you describe
it to me in your own words?

- Randy
Y.y.Porat
2008-01-20 08:00:30 UTC
Permalink
Post by Randy Poe
Post by Y.Porat
Post by kenseto
Post by PD
Post by kenseto
Post by PD
Yup, that's what I said you said.
Of course, what I said about what you think is not what you think I
said about what you think. I think you don't think about what you say
enough to clearly distinguish what you think you said you think from
what you think you said I think you said.
As Paul Dirac said: Ignoring large number in an equation is not
sensible math.
Renormalization does not involve ignoring. Stop learning physics from
coffee-table books.
"I must say that I am very dissatisfied with the situation, because
this so-called 'good theory' does involve neglecting infinities which
appear in its equations, neglecting them in an arbitrary way. This is
just not sensible mathematics. Sensible mathematics involves
neglecting a quantity when it turns out to be small."
So are you saying that Paul Dirac didn't know what his talking
about??? I don't think so. I think that you are the one who doesn't
know what you are talking about. Perhaps you should start learning
what current physics says instead of asserting what you think is what
current physics says.
Post by PD
Post by kenseto
So the only valid reason why the re-noramlization
procedure works is because that there is no infinities to begin with.
Well, that is an astoundingly stupid conjecture. But you're famous >for those.
Its not a stupid conjecture at all. If you have any power of logical
reasoning you would know that its the only valid reason why the
infinities in the qed equation can be *neglected*.
Post by PD
Post by kenseto
This means that the qed equations were derived from a defective
physical model of the universe.
And again, an astounding stupid conclusion. Nevertheless, you have in
no way demonstrated that by invoking a model that simply moves the
charge of the electron from inside the electron to outside the
electron, that the only effect on the math derived from the model is
that the infinities disappear and leaves the rest of the math intact.
You simply haven't done that, and you know it.
But that's what the re-normalization procedure is doing. So are you
saying that the re-normalization procedure is a stupid procedure even
though it gives the right result?
Ken seto- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -
---------------
i agree with Ken about that 'normalization'
normalization is in other words
fitting the theory to some ex[erimwental facts!
If you were going to make these pronouncements
about renormalization, wouldn't you be more
convincing if you actually knew the name?
Because otherwise it sort of sounds like
you're just making stuff up without having a
clue what you're talking about.
What is renormalization, Porat? Can you describe
it to me in your own words?
- Randy- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -
----------------
renormalization is a term i lerned
in earth quack analysis

it is sort of changing the scale of the formula
while the relative valuesin it remain as in the
orriginal formula
yet generally those formulas are full of
CONSTANTS!!
--experimental constants
**to fot it to the experimentally measured data**
no mathematical physical formual is woth a fuck unless **fitted**
to those experimental data!!
so actually it is mostly those constants
that make the formula
and here is the potrential for mistakesin it
some of those constants are human interpretation
OR HUMAN JUMP TO CVONCUSIONS CONSTANTS!!

if for insatnce no one ever found 82 electrons in Lead
9no one more and no one less than 82)
and even so
put into the assumption 82 electrons!!
he wil never come to the right solusion

and worse than that
if he is asuming for insatance the same number of electerons
as Protons in the atom
no renomalization and no schmealization
will save him from getting stuck in the mudd
*while trying to make **further advance in undersatanding
the structure and behaviour od matter !!
no if youare going to dsimiss me by
a few stupid words
than just save it for youself
because yopu are not in a position
to teach me physics
(as for instance a person who beleives in an photon with
one cycle per 100 billion years
and is not curagous enough to admit it was a stupid mistake
of his !!)

ATB
Y.Porat
---------------------------------
Jeckyl
2008-01-20 12:00:19 UTC
Permalink
Post by Y.y.Porat
renormalization is a term i lerned
in earth quack analysis
Now that was truly sad.

[snip more crap from the senile old fool porat]
Randy Poe
2008-01-20 16:39:23 UTC
Permalink
Post by Y.Porat
Post by Randy Poe
Post by Y.Porat
Post by kenseto
Post by PD
Post by kenseto
Post by PD
Yup, that's what I said you said.
Of course, what I said about what you think is not what you think I
said about what you think. I think you don't think about what you say
enough to clearly distinguish what you think you said you think from
what you think you said I think you said.
As Paul Dirac said: Ignoring large number in an equation is not
sensible math.
Renormalization does not involve ignoring. Stop learning physics from
coffee-table books.
"I must say that I am very dissatisfied with the situation, because
this so-called 'good theory' does involve neglecting infinities which
appear in its equations, neglecting them in an arbitrary way. This is
just not sensible mathematics. Sensible mathematics involves
neglecting a quantity when it turns out to be small."
So are you saying that Paul Dirac didn't know what his talking
about??? I don't think so. I think that you are the one who doesn't
know what you are talking about. Perhaps you should start learning
what current physics says instead of asserting what you think is what
current physics says.
Post by PD
Post by kenseto
So the only valid reason why the re-noramlization
procedure works is because that there is no infinities to begin with.
Well, that is an astoundingly stupid conjecture. But you're famous >for those.
Its not a stupid conjecture at all. If you have any power of logical
reasoning you would know that its the only valid reason why the
infinities in the qed equation can be *neglected*.
Post by PD
Post by kenseto
This means that the qed equations were derived from a defective
physical model of the universe.
And again, an astounding stupid conclusion. Nevertheless, you have in
no way demonstrated that by invoking a model that simply moves the
charge of the electron from inside the electron to outside the
electron, that the only effect on the math derived from the model is
that the infinities disappear and leaves the rest of the math intact.
You simply haven't done that, and you know it.
But that's what the re-normalization procedure is doing. So are you
saying that the re-normalization procedure is a stupid procedure even
though it gives the right result?
Ken seto- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -
---------------
i agree with Ken about that 'normalization'
normalization is in other words
fitting the theory to some ex[erimwental facts!
If you were going to make these pronouncements
about renormalization, wouldn't you be more
convincing if you actually knew the name?
Because otherwise it sort of sounds like
you're just making stuff up without having a
clue what you're talking about.
What is renormalization, Porat? Can you describe
it to me in your own words?
- Randy- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -
----------------
renormalization is a term i lerned
in earth quack analysis
And therefore has nothing to do with what is meant
by "renormalization" in quantum field theory.

If you want to learn what "renormalization" means in
QFT, you should read something about QFT.

Everything you said below this point is 100% irrelevant
and has absolutely nothing to do with the subject
at hand.

- Randy
PD
2008-01-21 13:06:26 UTC
Permalink
Post by Y.Porat
Post by Randy Poe
Post by Y.Porat
Post by kenseto
Post by PD
Post by kenseto
Post by PD
Yup, that's what I said you said.
Of course, what I said about what you think is not what you think I
said about what you think. I think you don't think about what you say
enough to clearly distinguish what you think you said you think from
what you think you said I think you said.
As Paul Dirac said: Ignoring large number in an equation is not
sensible math.
Renormalization does not involve ignoring. Stop learning physics from
coffee-table books.
"I must say that I am very dissatisfied with the situation, because
this so-called 'good theory' does involve neglecting infinities which
appear in its equations, neglecting them in an arbitrary way. This is
just not sensible mathematics. Sensible mathematics involves
neglecting a quantity when it turns out to be small."
So are you saying that Paul Dirac didn't know what his talking
about??? I don't think so. I think that you are the one who doesn't
know what you are talking about. Perhaps you should start learning
what current physics says instead of asserting what you think is what
current physics says.
Post by PD
Post by kenseto
So the only valid reason why the re-noramlization
procedure works is because that there is no infinities to begin with.
Well, that is an astoundingly stupid conjecture. But you're famous >for those.
Its not a stupid conjecture at all. If you have any power of logical
reasoning you would know that its the only valid reason why the
infinities in the qed equation can be *neglected*.
Post by PD
Post by kenseto
This means that the qed equations were derived from a defective
physical model of the universe.
And again, an astounding stupid conclusion. Nevertheless, you have in
no way demonstrated that by invoking a model that simply moves the
charge of the electron from inside the electron to outside the
electron, that the only effect on the math derived from the model is
that the infinities disappear and leaves the rest of the math intact.
You simply haven't done that, and you know it.
But that's what the re-normalization procedure is doing. So are you
saying that the re-normalization procedure is a stupid procedure even
though it gives the right result?
Ken seto- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -
---------------
i agree with Ken about that 'normalization'
normalization is in other words
fitting the theory to some ex[erimwental facts!
If you were going to make these pronouncements
about renormalization, wouldn't you be more
convincing if you actually knew the name?
Because otherwise it sort of sounds like
you're just making stuff up without having a
clue what you're talking about.
What is renormalization, Porat? Can you describe
it to me in your own words?
- Randy- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -
----------------
renormalization is a term i lerned
in earth quack analysis
it is sort of changing the scale of the formula
while the relative valuesin it remain as in the
orriginal formula
yet generally those formulas are full of
CONSTANTS!!
Yes, that's what I thought. You don't have any idea what
renormalization is. You just stumbled on a definition of the term as
used in geosciences and made the assumption that it must be the same
thing in quantum field theory.

PD
Post by Y.Porat
--experimental constants
**to fot it to the experimentally measured data**
no mathematical physical formual is woth a fuck unless **fitted**
to those experimental data!!
so actually it is mostly those constants
that make the formula
and here is the potrential for mistakesin it
some of those constants are human interpretation
OR HUMAN JUMP TO CVONCUSIONS CONSTANTS!!
if for insatnce no one ever found 82 electrons in Lead
9no one more and no one less than 82)
and even so
put into the assumption 82 electrons!!
he wil never come to the right solusion
and worse than that
if he is asuming for insatance the same number of electerons
as Protons in the atom
no renomalization and no schmealization
will save him from getting stuck in the mudd
*while trying to make **further advance in undersatanding
the structure and behaviour od matter !!
no if youare going to dsimiss me by
a few stupid words
than just save it for youself
because yopu are not in a position
to teach me physics
(as for instance a person who beleives in an photon with
one cycle per 100 billion years
and is not curagous enough to admit it was a stupid mistake
of his !!)
ATB
Y.Porat
---------------------------------
Y.Porat
2008-01-22 17:59:42 UTC
Permalink
Post by PD
Post by Y.y.Porat
renormalization is a term i
--experimental constants
**to fot it to the experimentally measured data**
no mathematical  physical formual is woth a fuck unless **fitted**
to those experimental data!!
so actually it is mostly those constants
that make the formula
and here is the potrential for mistakesin it
some of those constants are human interpretation
OR HUMAN JUMP TO CVONCUSIONS CONSTANTS!!
if for insatnce no one ever found 82 electrons in Lead
9no one more and no one less than 82)
and even so
put into the assumption 82 electrons!!
he wil never come to the right solusion
and worse than that
if he is asuming  for insatance the same number of electerons
as Protons in the atom
no renomalization and no schmealization
will save him from getting stuck in the mudd
*while trying to make **further advance in undersatanding
the structure and behaviour od matter !!
no if youare going to dsimiss me by
a few stupid words
than just  save it for youself
because yopu are not in a position
to teach me physics
(as for instance  a person who beleives in an  photon with
one cycle per 100 billion years
and is not curagous enough to admit it was a stupid mistake
of his !!)
ATB
Y.Porat
---------------------------------- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -
----------------
the point i s not renomalization or not
you was and will remain a mathematician
and nothing more !!

th eproplem is in the CONSTSNTS introduced in any
physical formula
experimental constsnts or
**interpretations of those constsnts*
or wrong interpretations
or wrong extrapolation of experimental data !!
or jumping to conclusions in physics and physics formulas !!

so since you are a cheap personal demaglogue
and a cheap parrot and nothing more
youpick up from my posts only whatis fitting
to your little personal politics
and you opver look my more important arguments
as i indicated above
so th e more i know you the more despise you
as a humanbeing and scientist
again:
if the exosting model wilol asume an electron for Proton
in a hweavy AStom
nothing will go ahead
even a cheap little demegogue like you will do any advance

in a similar way
if a litrl parrot like you willnot understand that actually
there is no real aprehensive solution
**for ANY ATTRACTION FORCE **
advance will be done

another exampl;e of your physics stupidity is for instance

your assertion that there is **no** upper or bottom limit
for the energy of the photon

or your stupidity claming that
the photon has no mass
so MR PD
no fucken mathematics
no fucken normalization
will make you
a pineer scientist that realy understands
the structure of matter and energy !!

because of a simple fact that
**you was born a very little parrot**

Y.Porat
--------------------
Jeckyl
2008-01-23 00:43:30 UTC
Permalink
Post by Y.Porat
the point i s not renomalization or not
you was and will remain a mathematician
and nothing more !!
th eproplem is in the CONSTSNTS introduced in any
physical formula
experimental constsnts or
**interpretations of those constsnts*
or wrong interpretations
or wrong extrapolation of experimental data !!
or jumping to conclusions in physics and physics formulas !!
so since you are a cheap personal demaglogue
and a cheap parrot and nothing more
youpick up from my posts only whatis fitting
to your little personal politics
and you opver look my more important arguments
as i indicated above
so th e more i know you the more despise you
as a humanbeing and scientist
if the exosting model wilol asume an electron for Proton
in a hweavy AStom
nothing will go ahead
even a cheap little demegogue like you will do any advance
in a similar way
if a litrl parrot like you willnot understand that actually
there is no real aprehensive solution
**for ANY ATTRACTION FORCE **
advance will be done
another exampl;e of your physics stupidity is for instance
your assertion that there is **no** upper or bottom limit
for the energy of the photon
or your stupidity claming that
the photon has no mass
so MR PD
no fucken mathematics
no fucken normalization
will make you
a pineer scientist that realy understands
the structure of matter and energy !!
because of a simple fact that
**you was born a very little parrot**
I see you are still the same poisonous hateful little excuse for a man as
always. How long must we suffer your continued existence. Surely, if there
is a god, he'll end your suffering soon, and send you to the torment you
deserve. We can only hope.
Y.y.Porat
2008-01-23 07:27:32 UTC
Permalink
Post by Jeckyl
the point i s    not renomalization or not
you was and will remain a mathematician
and nothing more !!
th eproplem is in the CONSTSNTS   introduced in any
physical formula
experimental constsnts or
**interpretations of those constsnts*
or wrong interpretations
or wrong extrapolation of experimental data !!
or jumping to conclusions in physics and physics formulas !!
so since you are a cheap  personal demaglogue
and a cheap parrot and nothing more
youpick up from my posts only whatis fitting
to your little personal politics
and you opver look my more important arguments
as i indicated above
so   th e     more i know you the  more despise you
as a humanbeing and scientist
if the exosting model wilol asume an electron for Proton
in a hweavy AStom
nothing will go ahead
even a cheap little demegogue like you will do any advance
in a similar way
if a litrl parrot like you willnot understand that actually
there is no real aprehensive  solution
**for ANY  ATTRACTION FORCE **
advance will   be done
another exampl;e of your  physics stupidity is for instance
your assertion that there is **no** upper or bottom limit
for the energy of the photon
or your stupidity claming that
the photon has no mass
so MR PD
no fucken mathematics
no fucken normalization
will make you
a pineer scientist that realy understands
the structure of matter and energy !!
because of a simple fact that
**you was born a  very  little  parrot**
I see you are still the same poisonous hateful little excuse for a man as
always.  How long must we suffer your continued existence.  Surely, if there
is a god, he'll end your suffering soon, and send you to the torment you
deserve.  We can only hope.- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -
-----------
and how long will it take untill God and wormes
will take you to be pigg shit stuff??
supose it willtake 50 years
so ????....
who on earth will remember the Nazi shit of a pigg
that called himself 'jekyle ' (:-)

in case of Goebeless
at least people *rember* him .......(:-)

1
!
!
O O
(:-)

---------------------------------
Jeckyl
2008-01-23 12:20:46 UTC
Permalink
Post by Y.y.Porat
and how long will it take untill God
God. .. what God?
Y.Porat
2008-01-24 16:31:31 UTC
Permalink
Post by Jeckyl
Post by Y.y.Porat
and how long will it take untill God
God. .. what God?
-----------------
its time for you to grow older and wiser
and understand whats important and waht is
less important in the short life of **all of us **
and how to use wisely our short time
and not waist it on nonsense
fo rinstance
personal wratting is a stoopid waist of time
and persona l wratting with me is as well
a stoopid waist ot time
i neter initiate posting or responding to you
unless you start it
living in the illusion that you afre doing any good to youself or
anyone else
or unless you are a psychopath??
or may be a crook ??
if not
let evry one of us go to his way
without interfering with each others
that is how sane normal way people behave .

BYE
Y.P
-----------------------
Jeckyl
2008-01-24 22:53:36 UTC
Permalink
Post by Y.Porat
Post by Jeckyl
Post by Y.y.Porat
and how long will it take untill God
God. .. what God?
-----------------
its time for you to grow older and wiser
Unlike you, who grows older and more ignorant

[snip]
Y.y.Porat
2008-01-25 11:06:38 UTC
Permalink
Post by Jeckyl
Post by Y.Porat
Post by Jeckyl
Post by Y.y.Porat
and how long will it take untill God
God. .. what God?
-----------------
its time for you to grow older and wiser
Unlike you, who grows older and more ignorant
[snip]
---------------
(:-)
----------------------
Autymn D. C.
2008-01-23 12:22:06 UTC
Permalink
Porat, has a dollar or other money mass? Has charge or angul or "5"
mass?
Loading...