🚀 go-pugleaf

On Aug 2, 1:49 am, john <vega...@accesscomm.ca> wrote:
> 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

Y - the electron is identical to an arm of stars in a galaxy:
it stretches from the nucleus to the edge; it is composed of
hundreds of millions of stars; some of these are binary systems,
some have planetary systems, all are composed of smaller
units- atoms containing yet smaller electrons-

Y- there is no smallest

John