🚀 go-pugleaf

"john" <vegan16@accesscomm.ca> wrote in message 
news:bcd4100d-d38b-40c5-83a7-41db6cf56285@o40g2000prn.googlegroups.com...
| On Aug 2, 12:09 am, "Y.Porat" <y.y.po...@gmail.com> wrote:
| > On Aug 2, 7:22 am, Matthew Johnson <matthew_mem...@newsguy.org> wrote:
| >
| > > In article 
<cfa75cab-961c-44e9-aae1-a685c034c...@a70g2000hsh.googlegroups.com>,
| > > Y.Porat says...
| >
| > > [snip]
| >
| > > >> The constituents of an atom are the nucleus and the electrons. The
| > > >> volume of the atom is not driven by the size of the electron or the
| > > >> size of the nucleus.
| > > >-----------------------------------
| >
| > > >thtats nice
| > > >but wasnot my question
| >
| > > What do you mean? Aren't you the one who asked about 'constituents'?
| >
| > > >we are dealing    now  with the ELECTRON
| > > >anmd the question about
| > > >is it a point particle or not ??!!
| > > >if you say that the electron is a point particle i say
| > > >a point is not natures invention
| > > >it is a human artifact
| >
| > > But your 'objection' misses the point. Even the abstract notion of "an 
electron
| > > sui generis" rather than "this electron" or "that electron" is already 
an
| > > abstraction, and so in some way a "human artifact".
| >
| > > So by no means does the  fact that a point is a human artifact 
contradict the
| > > idea that the electron is a point particle.
| >
| > > >a point has    no volue at all  BY DEFINITION !!
| >
| > > True. And neither does an electron.
| >
| > > >in order that an interaction will take place
| > > >there is need of space
| >
| > > Yes, space between the two point particles. We have that. So waht is 
your point?
| >
| > > >it is INTER    action
| > > >in a point there is no INTER  whatsoever
| > > >an INTER  can be only between different entities !!
| >
| > > Such as an electron and another electron, or even an electron and an 
electric
| > > field (photon).
| >
| > > >a point is just one zero entity !!
| > > >and different entitis   cannot live together  in a point
| > > >2
| > > >there must be a distinction between the mass of a particle
| >
| > > >and  THE ORBIT IT MAKES
| >
| > > Uh, oh. It doesn't make 'orbits' either. Back in the 20s, when the 
Bohr model
| > > was the best model we had for the atom, we used to think it did, but 
ever since
| > > about 1926, we knew this was impossible. That is why they are called 
'orbitals',
| > > not 'orbits'. The 'al' ending means it is something a little bit LIKE 
an orbit,
| > > but not necessarily an orbit itself.
| >
| > -------------------
| > but still
| > dont you   see that calling it orbits or orbitals is semantics
| > and not physics
| > it does not tell us abut the  physical   substance of that
| > physical entity.
| >
| > > ----------------
| > > [snip]
| >
| > > There is another reason you should think of an electron as a point 
particle.
| > > Suppose that it could be thought of as a right half and a left half of 
something
| > > smaller, whether smaller particles or just amorphous stuff: then this 
right half
| >
| > -----------------
| > now you are starting to think !! and not parroting (:-)
| > but only STARTING   .....
| > ----------
| >
| > > would be repelling the left half by the electric force.
| >
| > are you not cuptured here by your paradigms ??
| > ( or   apriory assumptions ??)
| > btw
| > what ever if you are right here or wrong
| > you   stsrted to understand my claim that
| >  ADVANCE AT THIS POINT THAT SCIENCE IS
| > THERE IS NO WAY BUT   **TRIAL AND ERROR **!!
| >  and in that sense you start to be on   the right way ...)
| >
| > who told you that what is governing the inner structure is and
| > electric force ??  (:-)
| > and btw
| > it is only now that you     undestood my intention
| > **to try and   zoom into   the electron**
| > and not deal  (as PD did) with inter electronic reactions
| > or electron versus  proton ot elctron file etc
| >
| > you ddint even trid untill now
| >  to zoom    into it because of your paradigmatic
| > assumption    that one cannot zoom into it !!!
| >
| >  But then something, some
| >
| > > other force, would have to be responsible for holding it together. But 
what
| > > could that be?
| >
| > A VARY GOOD QUESTION!!
| >
| > i have my private answer after a long process
| > of searching not only the  electron
| > but may other 'atonic   (microcosm entities) structure
| > and i have a surprising answer (not to all readers that know my
| > and my theories )
| > but not at this point
| > i would like to lead you
| > by pushing you to a dead end
| > to get some of my assumptions
| > that i had to find by
| > finding myself in a  vicious circle of unanswered questions
| > (unless you make the breakthrough jump out !!!)
| >
| >  It can't be either the weak or strong nuclear forces, it can't be
| >
| > > gluons, there is nothing it _could_ be.
| >
| > i didnt say that or may be yess??
| > may be those gluons
| > but gluons is just words
| > what is lying bhind that word  'Gluons   ???
| > may be here lies the dead dog  ???
| >
| >
| >
| > > So by a sort of "reductio ad absurdum", we see that the Standard Model 
implies
| > > the electron must be a point particle.
| >
| > that is for lazy  clumsy    thinking people !!!
| > now a hint
| >
| > Einstein found that there must be a   break  through idea
| > to stsrt to understand all the attraction force enigma
| >
| > i hope you   understnd that the existing 'knowlegs'
| > of any attrarction force    is cheating or at least very  crippled
| > fo r  instance
| > photons that move in straight lines can never be
| > attraction force messengers !!!
| >
| > so ???
| > what else ???
| > can yous   stretch a bit more  your creative imagination ??
| >
| > TIA
| > Y.Porat
| > -------------
|
| Y- these people obfuscate. Y?
| John

Because like you they haven't got a fucking clue but want
you to think they are smarter than you, that's why.