Androcles wrote:
"Sue..." wrote in message oups.com...

I snipped your quote, we can all read text books.
Did YOU have anything to say?

I think you know what I'd say and it isn't as profound
as some the comments so far. ;-)

http://chemed.chem.purdue.edu/genche.../intermol.html

http://www.weizmann.ac.il/chemphys/g...rand_scat.html

Sue...

Androcles.

"Sue..." wrote in message oups.com...
|
| Androcles wrote:
| "Sue..." wrote in message oups.com...
|
| I snipped your quote, we can all read text books.
| Did YOU have anything to say?
|
| I think you know what I'd say


http://www.freefarts.com ?

Androcles.

On Thu, 03 Nov 2005 04:17:27 GMT, Paul Stowe wrote:

On Wed, 2 Nov 2005 21:05:19 -0700, "N:dlzc D:aol T:com \(dlzc\)" N: dlzc1 D:cox
wrote:

Dear Paul Stowe:

"Paul Stowe" wrote in message
. ..
...
Nature is NOT! Absractions... There exists in nature no
point without volume,

electrons.

Nope

For the more objective, rational reader out there...

http://www.energyscience.org.uk/notes/rn9709.htm
http://www.newton.dep.anl.gov/askasc...0/phy00061.htm

Only an idiot would 'actually' think that particles have
zero volume. Try calculating the mean free path of point
particles. If one does they'll find it to be inifinite,
because zero volume particles result in zero area
cross-sections and without any cross-sectional area...

photons

Nope...

Same logical argument as above...

Paul Stowe

On Sat, 05 Nov 2005 16:34:16 GMT, Paul Stowe wrote:

For the more objective, rational reader out there...

http://www.energyscience.org.uk/notes/rn9709.htm
http://www.newton.dep.anl.gov/askasc...0/phy00061.htm



["Footnote"]
NEWTON is an electronic community for Science, Math, and Computer Science K-12 Educators.
Argonne National Laboratory, Division of Educational Programs, Harold Myron, Ph.D., Division
Director.
[End Footnote]


Good source, explained at a good level of understanding. :-)

Only an idiot would 'actually' think that particles have
zero volume. Try calculating the mean free path of point
particles. If one does they'll find it to be inifinite,

I don't think so, unless you divided by zero.

because zero volume particles result in zero area
cross-sections and without any cross-sectional area...
Paul Stowe

Of course fermions have a cross section, but
that expands too, which is likely what causes atoms
and molecules to expand, which produces the effect
Newtonians see as attraction, and Le Sage aetherists
see as pink bunny rabbit rain.

Joe Fischer

please define zero volume, nothing?

i mean, do not "take space"? then if
they exists, their charges, mass etc, then
they only exists outter space

then when they travel near heavy bodys, suns,
starts etc, then they are atracted by our space,
but they are in their space, so we live in 2-space

tell me, if we hace a glass sphere with a diameter
of earth, empty inside, then the gravity at this
glass spehere will be the same as it is on earth, am
i cool?

On 5 Nov 2005 09:02:33 -0800, "mazafaka" wrote:

tell me, if we hace a glass sphere with a diameter
of earth, empty inside, then the gravity at this
glass spehere will be the same as it is on earth,

According to Newton, NO!

According to General Relativity, I don't think so.

According to a fool like me who thinks matter expands,
yes, for a small particle, the surface gravity would be the same.

But the sphere would be many times less massive than
the Earth, so according to the expanding matter of the
Electrodynamic Divergence of Matter model, then any
object having substantial mass touching the sphere would
resist being accelerated away from the center of mass of
the glass sphere, and push it backwards until the center
of mass of the two objects would be the center of expansion,
and the surface gravity on the surface of the glass sphere
would vary, being greater on the side away from the other
object, and less on the side touching the other object,
possibly even being zero there, or even negative.

am i cool?

In Spain? Maybe cool, maybe comfortable, but
not hot or cold, except maybe on a mountain top.

Joe Fischer

Joe Fischer wrote:
On 5 Nov 2005 09:02:33 -0800, "mazafaka" wrote:

tell me, if we hace a glass sphere with a diameter
of earth, empty inside, then the gravity at this
glass spehere will be the same as it is on earth,

According to Newton, NO!

According to General Relativity, I don't think so.

According to a fool like me who thinks matter expands,

they are fools themself, they who think you are a fool

yes, for a small particle, the surface gravity would be the same.

But the sphere would be many times less massive than
the Earth, so according to the expanding matter of the
Electrodynamic Divergence of Matter model, then any
object having substantial mass touching the sphere would
resist being accelerated away from the center of mass of
the glass sphere, and push it backwards until the center
of mass of the two objects would be the center of expansion,
and the surface gravity on the surface of the glass sphere
would vary, being greater on the side away from the other
object, and less on the side touching the other object,
possibly even being zero there, or even negative.

am i cool?

In Spain? Maybe cool, maybe comfortable, but
not hot or cold, except maybe on a mountain top.

Joe Fischer


your theory make sens in a way, the only driving force could be the
expandings and nothing else

"Paul Stowe" wrote in message
news | On Thu, 03 Nov 2005 04:17:27 GMT, Paul Stowe
wrote:
|
| On Wed, 2 Nov 2005 21:05:19 -0700, "N:dlzc D:aol T:com \(dlzc\)" N:
dlzc1 D:cox
| wrote:
|
| Dear Paul Stowe:
|
| "Paul Stowe" wrote in message
| . ..
| ...
| Nature is NOT! Absractions... There exists in nature no
| point without volume,
|
| electrons.
|
| Nope
|
| For the more objective, rational reader out there...
|
| http://www.energyscience.org.uk/notes/rn9709.htm
| http://www.newton.dep.anl.gov/askasc...0/phy00061.htm
|
| Only an idiot would 'actually' think that particles have
| zero volume. Try calculating the mean free path of point
| particles. If one does they'll find it to be inifinite,
| because zero volume particles result in zero area
| cross-sections and without any cross-sectional area...

Another way to put it...

"...we have allowed what is perhaps a silly thing, the possibility of
the 'point' electron acting on itself." -- Richard P. Feynman (1964)

"Particles Come to Life"
http://physicsweb.org/articles/news/9/10/12/1

So we have the conundrum of HEP showing that they have not be able to
find any *internal* "structure" for an electron. Solution... the
structure of an electron is external and is due to the quantum "vacuum"
and relativistic effects. Higher energies will always just result in a
more point-like internal structure. Lower energies reveal the external
structure.

FrediFizzx

http://www.vacuum-physics.com/QVC/qu...uum_charge.pdf
or postscript
http://www.vacuum-physics.com/QVC/qu...cuum_charge.ps

http://www.vacuum-physics.com

Paul Stowe wrote:
[about electrons as point particles]
Only an idiot would 'actually' think that particles have
zero volume. Try calculating the mean free path of point
particles. If one does they'll find it to be inifinite,
because zero volume particles result in zero area
cross-sections and without any cross-sectional area...

Only an idiot would 'actually' think he could make sensible statements
about physics while remaining willfully ignorant of the last 100 years
of physics.

In particular, modern physics (QED and the standard model) models
electrons exceedingly well as point particles. No measurements made to
date are inconsistent with that.

One can indeed calculate the mean free path of these pointlike electrons
in matter, and the results are definitely not "inifinite", and are
consistent with measurements. The mean free path of electrons in matter
depends strongly on their energy (in the rest frame of the matter in
question). Electrons are well known to lose energy while traversing
matter, and to multiple scatter; with sufficient energy they generate
electromagnetic showers.

There are numerous other particles we currently model as pointlike
particles (quarks, gluons, leptons, Higgs). None have infinite mean-free
path in matter, because they all couple to at least one field. Neutrinos
come closest to his guess above, and neutrinos have a mean free path in
rock of about a lightyear (!) -- still not infinite, and observed by
MANY experiments.


Tom Roberts