Bizarre Pattern among anti-SR "Dissidents"

Kike Karandash aka "Dono." wrote:
Marcel mluttgens wrote:

Marcel wrote:
What about density, i.e. mass/volume? When the
volume is zero, the density is of course infinite,
unless the mass is also zero. Hence, the density
of a massive point electron is infinite, which is
physically nonsensical.

Kike Karandash aka "Dono" who dunno, but wrote:
Lattkes,
What gives you the idiotic idea that density applies to particles?

hanson wrote:
The Kakikester 'Dono't know, that he himself had
an idiotic idea following his Lattkes line.
So, "oye weh!"... "Trust Me!".."Go Figure" & then do
show your own http://tinyurl.com/Proof-of-Relativity
with you, Dono, giving priceless instructions from
you being up-front & center. It's highly intellectual

Thanks for the laughs, though, you splendid Schmuck!...
ahahahaha... ahahahahanson

On Mar 3, 7:57*pm, "hanson" wrote:
"Marshall Spight" wrote:

[...]
snipped vociferous excuses & useless
explanations & posted instead "pig"'s own
http://tinyurl.com/Proof-of-Relativity
with Marshall giving powerful instructions
up-front & center. It's highly intellectual --
Marshall

hanson wrote:

*ahahahaha... Thanks for the laughs, dude,

Marshall cranked himself and wrote:
Back at ya, dude. That you assumed my post was about
your pet issue without reading it gave me a laugh as well.
Although I have no particular opinion about your pet
issue or physics in general, I can still see you're less
intelligent than a brain-damaged weasel. Marshall

hanson wrote:

ahahahAHAHA.... First, you are laughing and then
you get depressed, angry and you are lashing out...

I'll cop to the "lashing out", if that's a
not-altogether-inept description of pointing out
how you're dumber than a brain-damaged weasel.


Marshi-pooh, I hope that you can see from your own
post that you are highly bi-polar; manic-depressive;
symptomatic of your severe Einstein Dingleberryism,
for which there is only one successful therapy:

Back to your pet issue again, I see. Snooze.

Ooh, I said "snooze." Now you can diagnose me as
narcoleptic! Oh wait, you'd have to actually read my post
to do that; too bad.


Show your own http://tinyurl.com/Proof-of-Relativity
over and over again with you, Marshi-pooh, staying
up-front and center , while chanting & worshipping
Albert's sphincter with the passion of a Kike, or an
Evangelical or one of those penturnal Ass-venters...

You seem entirely fixated on Einstein so presumably
you're a physics crank. I have no interest in laughing
at physics cranks; I'm really only interested in laughing
at math cranks. Hard to believe, I know. Maybe if you
crossposted less you would find this concept less
mind-bending.


Your physico-religious belief is good for you... and
thanks for the laughs again...ahahahahahahanson

You're welcome! Enjoy them in good humor.


Marshall

.... ahahaha... cross-dresser & -poster
"Marshall"
performed another one of his fabulous
http://tinyurl.com/Proof-of-Relativity...
Keep on dancing for me. You are funny,
Marshi-pooh... ahahahaha... ahahanson

On Mar 3, 7:58*pm, mluttgens wrote:
On 3 mar, 19:53, PD wrote:



On Mar 3, 3:33*pm, mluttgens wrote:

On 3 mar, 16:35, PD wrote:

On Mar 3, 2:27*pm, mluttgens wrote:

On 3 mar, 15:42, PD wrote:

On Mar 3, 1:19*pm, mluttgens wrote:

On 3 mar, 13:49, (Daryl McCullough) wrote:

Koobee Wublee says...

Said that from a person who does not even know how the Lorentz
transform actually mean.

I use the Lorentz transforms in a consistent manner that agrees
with experiment (within the limitations of applicability; the
region of spacetime must be small enough that spacetime curvature
can be neglected). You cannot use them consistently.

The proof of understanding of a theory is the ability to use
it consistently. You don't have that. Not about SR, not about
GR, not about the Doppler shifts, not about any topic of physics.

You are basically an idiot. A rude, pretentious, arrogant self-important,
anti-semitic idiot.

--
Daryl McCullough
Ithaca, NY

Daryl, how do you physically explain the GR BH'singulartity?

Iow, how can a dimensionless point have mass or other physical
properties?

I'm not sure I understand the problem, Marcel.
Forget the black hole. The electron, as far as we can tell, does not
have finite volume. This does not prohibit it from having physical
properties including mass.

I'm curious why you think that the properties of mass and volume (or
charge and volume, or angular momentum and volume) are *necessarily*
tied together.

As this is impossible, GR is almost right, meaning it is wrong.

Marcel Luttgens

Paul,

You want to forget the BH because of its unphysical singularity!

Not so. And it doesn't appear to be unphysical. I chose the electron
as something else to look at, because I doubt that you would claim
that any theory that involves electrons must be wrong.

Thus, according to you, infinites are physical.

What infinities?
The mass is nonzero and finite, and the volume is zero and of course
finite.

Generally speaking, we do not have *measurable* quantities that are
infinite, but there doesn't seem to be anything measurable in either
case that would be infinite.

What about density, i.e. mass/volume? When the volume is zero,
the density is of course infinite, unless the mass is also zero.
Hence, the density of a massive point electron is infinite, which is
physically
nonsensical.

Density is not a *measurable* property of either an electron or a
black hole.
Secondly, density is a property that is not something that is
attributable to EVERYTHING physical, and in fact it is a property that
ONLY applies to composite structures. One can talk about the density
of a salt crystal, because a salt is composed of ions. One can talk
about the density of an atom (roughly, since an atom strictly speaking
has no clear boundary and therefore no unambiguous volume) because an
atom is composed of protons, neutrons, and electrons. And once you
catalog things for which you do attribute density to and see that this
is the case, then it becomes clear as to why. Volume itself is a
property of only material composites. That volume is determined not so
much by the size of the constituents but by the *interactions* between
the constituents. In a salt crystal, the lattice spacing is determined
by the electromagnetic energy minimum in the interaction between
positive and negative ions, not by the size of the ions themselves. In
an atom, the radius of the atom is determined not by the size of the
nucleus or the electrons, but by the electromagnetic energy minimum in
the interaction between protons and electrons. In a nucleon, the
radius of the proton (say) is determined not by the size of the
constituent quarks but by the QCD interaction among them. This tells
you something -- something which LACKS constituents will not then have
interactions among those constituents and therefore there will be
nothing that is driving volume. Therefore there is no need to PRESUME
volume as a property of a noncomposite object.




And btw, how do you demonstrate that the electron has zero volume?

One measures its size. So far, there is no indication of any finite,
nonzero size.

And so far, there is no indication that the electron is dimensionless..

This doesn't mean that its size has been *proven* to be zero. But that
wasn't my question to you. The question to you is why you assume that
anything that has mass must also have volume?

The question is, how could a dimensionless point be massive?

Because volume and mass are independent properties. One does not
demand the other.
But also to your statement, an electron is not to be equated with a
mathematical point. A mathematical point does not have the property of
electric charge, for example. A electron (as far as we know) and a
mathematical point share the property of having no volume but this
does not equate one with the other, any more than a zebra is equated
with a tiger because they both have stripes.

An electron, as far as we know, exhibits mass, charge, spin, lepton
number, parity, and a few other properties, but it does not exhibit
nonzero volume.

I agree.

Nor does any of the properties that it does have
DEMAND that it have volume.

If it had no volume, its density would be infinite.

Density is not a measurable property of an electron.




Your mathematical modelling is no more than a tentative interpretation
of the physical world.

The mathematical model, however, is successful, where success is based
on observation.

Not in the case of BH, where the model leads to infinite values.

Of what measurable property?

Its density. But of course, an infinite density is not measurable,
and makes no sense.

Density of a black hole is not a *measurable* property, period.


The question is put to you how it is your assertion that nonzero mass
necessarily implies nonzero volume is supported by any scientific
measure of success.

How can a nonzero volume implies a nonzero mass?

It doesn't. An empty box is an example of a nonzero volume with zero
mass.
A crystal is an example of a nonzero volume with nonzero mass.

Sorry, I meant a zero volume with a nonzero mass.

An electron is an example, as far as we know, of a zero volume with a
nonzero mass.

An infinite density has no physical meaning.

Marcel Luttgens

On 4 mar, 10:35, PD wrote:
On Mar 3, 7:58*pm, mluttgens wrote:





On 3 mar, 19:53, PD wrote:

On Mar 3, 3:33*pm, mluttgens wrote:

On 3 mar, 16:35, PD wrote:

On Mar 3, 2:27*pm, mluttgens wrote:

On 3 mar, 15:42, PD wrote:

On Mar 3, 1:19*pm, mluttgens wrote:

On 3 mar, 13:49, (Daryl McCullough) wrote:

Koobee Wublee says...

Said that from a person who does not even know how the Lorentz
transform actually mean.

I use the Lorentz transforms in a consistent manner that agrees
with experiment (within the limitations of applicability; the
region of spacetime must be small enough that spacetime curvature
can be neglected). You cannot use them consistently.

The proof of understanding of a theory is the ability to use
it consistently. You don't have that. Not about SR, not about
GR, not about the Doppler shifts, not about any topic of physics.

You are basically an idiot. A rude, pretentious, arrogant self-important,
anti-semitic idiot.

--
Daryl McCullough
Ithaca, NY

Daryl, how do you physically explain the GR BH'singulartity?

Iow, how can a dimensionless point have mass or other physical
properties?

I'm not sure I understand the problem, Marcel.
Forget the black hole. The electron, as far as we can tell, does not
have finite volume. This does not prohibit it from having physical
properties including mass.

I'm curious why you think that the properties of mass and volume (or
charge and volume, or angular momentum and volume) are *necessarily*
tied together.

As this is impossible, GR is almost right, meaning it is wrong.

Marcel Luttgens

Paul,

You want to forget the BH because of its unphysical singularity!

Not so. And it doesn't appear to be unphysical. I chose the electron
as something else to look at, because I doubt that you would claim
that any theory that involves electrons must be wrong.

Thus, according to you, infinites are physical.

What infinities?
The mass is nonzero and finite, and the volume is zero and of course
finite.

Generally speaking, we do not have *measurable* quantities that are
infinite, but there doesn't seem to be anything measurable in either
case that would be infinite.

What about density, i.e. mass/volume? When the volume is zero,
the density is of course infinite, unless the mass is also zero.
Hence, the density of a massive point electron is infinite, which is
physically
nonsensical.

Density is not a *measurable* property of either an electron or a
black hole.
Secondly, density is a property that is not something that is
attributable to EVERYTHING physical, and in fact it is a property that
ONLY applies to composite structures. One can talk about the density
of a salt crystal, because a salt is composed of ions. One can talk
about the density of an atom (roughly, since an atom strictly speaking
has no clear boundary and therefore no unambiguous volume) because an
atom is composed of protons, neutrons, and electrons. And once you
catalog things for which you do attribute density to and see that this
is the case, then it becomes clear as to why. Volume itself is a
property of only material composites. That volume is determined not so
much by the size of the constituents but by the *interactions* between
the constituents. In a salt crystal, the lattice spacing is determined
by the electromagnetic energy minimum in the interaction between
positive and negative ions, not by the size of the ions themselves. In
an atom, the radius of the atom is determined not by the size of the
nucleus or the electrons, but by the electromagnetic energy minimum in
the interaction between protons and electrons. In a nucleon, the
radius of the proton (say) is determined not by the size of the
constituent quarks but by the QCD interaction among them. This tells
you something -- something which LACKS constituents will not then have
interactions among those constituents and therefore there will be
nothing that is driving volume. Therefore there is no need to PRESUME
volume as a property of a noncomposite object.







And btw, how do you demonstrate that the electron has zero volume?

One measures its size. So far, there is no indication of any finite,
nonzero size.

And so far, there is no indication that the electron is dimensionless.

This doesn't mean that its size has been *proven* to be zero. But that
wasn't my question to you. The question to you is why you assume that
anything that has mass must also have volume?

The question is, how could a dimensionless point be massive?

Because volume and mass are independent properties. One does not
demand the other.
But also to your statement, an electron is not to be equated with a
mathematical point. A mathematical point does not have the property of
electric charge, for example. A electron (as far as we know) and a
mathematical point share the property of having no volume but this
does not equate one with the other, any more than a zebra is equated
with a tiger because they both have stripes.

An electron, as far as we know, exhibits mass, charge, spin, lepton
number, parity, and a few other properties, but it does not exhibit
nonzero volume.

I agree.

Nor does any of the properties that it does have
DEMAND that it have volume.

If it had no volume, its density would be infinite.

Density is not a measurable property of an electron.



Your mathematical modelling is no more than a tentative interpretation
of the physical world.

The mathematical model, however, is successful, where success is based
on observation.

Not in the case of BH, where the model leads to infinite values.

Of what measurable property?

Its density. But of course, an infinite density is not measurable,
and makes no sense.

Density of a black hole is not a *measurable* property, period.


It is a calculable property.

Btw, Shuba wrote
"Newtonian gravity leads to infinite values at r=0, and is another
successful model."
I reply
"r=0 is only possible for mathematical points."

As, according to you, an electron (or a positron) has no volume,
the Newtonian force of gravity between electron and positron would
be infinite (r=0).
Another indication that such particles must have some volume.

Marcel Luttgens


The question is put to you how it is your assertion that nonzero mass
necessarily implies nonzero volume is supported by any scientific
measure of success.

How can a nonzero volume implies a nonzero mass?

It doesn't. An empty box is an example of a nonzero volume with zero
mass.
A crystal is an example of a nonzero volume with nonzero mass.

Sorry, I meant a zero volume with a nonzero mass.

An electron is an example, as far as we know, of a zero volume with a
nonzero mass.

An infinite density has no physical meaning.

Marcel Luttgens

On Mar 4, 7:23 am, mluttgens wrote:

As, according to you, an electron (or a positron) has no volume,
the Newtonian force of gravity between electron and positron would
be infinite (r=0).


LOL,

Lattkes you don't even understand what "r" stands for in Newtonian
mechanics.

On 4 mar, 12:03, "Dono." wrote:
On Mar 4, 7:23 am, mluttgens wrote:



As, according to you, an electron (or a positron) has no volume,
the Newtonian force of gravity between electron and positron would
be infinite (r=0).

LOL,

Lattkes you don't even understand what "r" stands for in Newtonian
mechanics.

F = Gm1m2/r²

whe

F is the force between the masses,
G is the gravitational constant,
m1 is the first mass,
m2 is the second mass, and
r is the distance between the masses.

Marcel Luttgens

On Mar 4, 8:42 am, mluttgens wrote:
On 4 mar, 12:03, "Dono." wrote:

On Mar 4, 7:23 am, mluttgens wrote:

As, according to you, an electron (or a positron) has no volume,
the Newtonian force of gravity between electron and positron would
be infinite (r=0).

LOL,

Lattkes you don't even understand what "r" stands for in Newtonian
mechanics.

F = Gm1m2/r²

whe

F is the force between the masses,
G is the gravitational constant,
m1 is the first mass,
m2 is the second mass, and
r is the distance between the masses.

Marcel Luttgens

So, if the electron radius is zero, how does this affect "the
attraction force between two electrons"?

On Mar 4, 9:23*am, mluttgens wrote:
On 4 mar, 10:35, PD wrote:



On Mar 3, 7:58*pm, mluttgens wrote:

On 3 mar, 19:53, PD wrote:

On Mar 3, 3:33*pm, mluttgens wrote:

On 3 mar, 16:35, PD wrote:

On Mar 3, 2:27*pm, mluttgens wrote:

On 3 mar, 15:42, PD wrote:

On Mar 3, 1:19*pm, mluttgens wrote:

On 3 mar, 13:49, (Daryl McCullough) wrote:

Koobee Wublee says...

Said that from a person who does not even know how the Lorentz
transform actually mean.

I use the Lorentz transforms in a consistent manner that agrees
with experiment (within the limitations of applicability; the
region of spacetime must be small enough that spacetime curvature
can be neglected). You cannot use them consistently.

The proof of understanding of a theory is the ability to use
it consistently. You don't have that. Not about SR, not about
GR, not about the Doppler shifts, not about any topic of physics.

You are basically an idiot. A rude, pretentious, arrogant self-important,
anti-semitic idiot.

--
Daryl McCullough
Ithaca, NY

Daryl, how do you physically explain the GR BH'singulartity?

Iow, how can a dimensionless point have mass or other physical
properties?

I'm not sure I understand the problem, Marcel.
Forget the black hole. The electron, as far as we can tell, does not
have finite volume. This does not prohibit it from having physical
properties including mass.

I'm curious why you think that the properties of mass and volume (or
charge and volume, or angular momentum and volume) are *necessarily*
tied together.

As this is impossible, GR is almost right, meaning it is wrong.

Marcel Luttgens

Paul,

You want to forget the BH because of its unphysical singularity!

Not so. And it doesn't appear to be unphysical. I chose the electron
as something else to look at, because I doubt that you would claim
that any theory that involves electrons must be wrong.

Thus, according to you, infinites are physical.

What infinities?
The mass is nonzero and finite, and the volume is zero and of course
finite.

Generally speaking, we do not have *measurable* quantities that are
infinite, but there doesn't seem to be anything measurable in either
case that would be infinite.

What about density, i.e. mass/volume? When the volume is zero,
the density is of course infinite, unless the mass is also zero.
Hence, the density of a massive point electron is infinite, which is
physically
nonsensical.

Density is not a *measurable* property of either an electron or a
black hole.
Secondly, density is a property that is not something that is
attributable to EVERYTHING physical, and in fact it is a property that
ONLY applies to composite structures. One can talk about the density
of a salt crystal, because a salt is composed of ions. One can talk
about the density of an atom (roughly, since an atom strictly speaking
has no clear boundary and therefore no unambiguous volume) because an
atom is composed of protons, neutrons, and electrons. And once you
catalog things for which you do attribute density to and see that this
is the case, then it becomes clear as to why. Volume itself is a
property of only material composites. That volume is determined not so
much by the size of the constituents but by the *interactions* between
the constituents. In a salt crystal, the lattice spacing is determined
by the electromagnetic energy minimum in the interaction between
positive and negative ions, not by the size of the ions themselves. In
an atom, the radius of the atom is determined not by the size of the
nucleus or the electrons, but by the electromagnetic energy minimum in
the interaction between protons and electrons. In a nucleon, the
radius of the proton (say) is determined not by the size of the
constituent quarks but by the QCD interaction among them. This tells
you something -- something which LACKS constituents will not then have
interactions among those constituents and therefore there will be
nothing that is driving volume. Therefore there is no need to PRESUME
volume as a property of a noncomposite object.

And btw, how do you demonstrate that the electron has zero volume?

One measures its size. So far, there is no indication of any finite,
nonzero size.

And so far, there is no indication that the electron is dimensionless.

This doesn't mean that its size has been *proven* to be zero. But that
wasn't my question to you. The question to you is why you assume that
anything that has mass must also have volume?

The question is, how could a dimensionless point be massive?

Because volume and mass are independent properties. One does not
demand the other.
But also to your statement, an electron is not to be equated with a
mathematical point. A mathematical point does not have the property of
electric charge, for example. A electron (as far as we know) and a
mathematical point share the property of having no volume but this
does not equate one with the other, any more than a zebra is equated
with a tiger because they both have stripes.

An electron, as far as we know, exhibits mass, charge, spin, lepton
number, parity, and a few other properties, but it does not exhibit
nonzero volume.

I agree.

Nor does any of the properties that it does have
DEMAND that it have volume.

If it had no volume, its density would be infinite.

Density is not a measurable property of an electron.

Your mathematical modelling is no more than a tentative interpretation
of the physical world.

The mathematical model, however, is successful, where success is based
on observation.

Not in the case of BH, where the model leads to infinite values.

Of what measurable property?

Its density. But of course, an infinite density is not measurable,
and makes no sense.

Density of a black hole is not a *measurable* property, period.

It is a calculable property.

There is no nonphysicalness to a *calculable* property being infinite.

Consider the calculable property "potentialness", which is the ratio
of potential to kinetic energy. That is infinite for your coffee cup.

In physics, we have the expectation that only MEASURABLE properties
should be finite.


Btw, Shuba wrote
"Newtonian gravity leads to infinite values at r=0, and is another
successful model."
I reply
"r=0 is only possible for mathematical points."

As, according to you, an electron (or a positron) has no volume,
the Newtonian force of gravity between electron and positron would
be infinite (r=0).

If they were touching, yes.
But they don't touch in positronium, because the volume of positronium
is governed by the energy minimum of the electromagnetic interaction
between them.

Another indication that such particles must have some volume.

Marcel Luttgens



The question is put to you how it is your assertion that nonzero mass
necessarily implies nonzero volume is supported by any scientific
measure of success.

How can a nonzero volume implies a nonzero mass?

It doesn't. An empty box is an example of a nonzero volume with zero
mass.
A crystal is an example of a nonzero volume with nonzero mass.

Sorry, I meant a zero volume with a nonzero mass.

An electron is an example, as far as we know, of a zero volume with a
nonzero mass.

An infinite density has no physical meaning.

Marcel Luttgens

On Mar 4, 8:42 am, mluttgens wrote:
On 4 mar, 12:03, "Dono." wrote:

On Mar 4, 7:23 am, mluttgens wrote:

As, according to you, an electron (or a positron) has no volume,
the Newtonian force of gravity between electron and positron would
be infinite (r=0).

LOL,

Lattkes you don't even understand what "r" stands for in Newtonian
mechanics.

F = Gm1m2/r²

whe

F is the force between the masses,
G is the gravitational constant,
m1 is the first mass,
m2 is the second mass, and
r is the distance between the masses.

Marcel Luttgens

So, if the electron/positron radius is zero, how does this affect "the
attraction force between an electron and a positron"?

Lattkes,

your problem is that you don't even understand the degree of your
stupidity