> > > Your link was crap. Why don't you show me some equation or expression
> > > that proves this? I'll bet you $100 in PayPal that you're wrong. BTW,
[quoted text clipped - 12 lines]
>
> -Aut
> Look < i understand what the classic model radius is, but lets face it,
let's
> that formula is ridiculous. It shouldn't be called the radius, it
> should be called the charge density. The typical formula is:
<http://groups.google.com/group/alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian/browse_frm/thread/f
abbfa7b9dba68cc/b301dab5e2fabb81?lnk=st&q=Autymn+intransitive&rnum=2#b301dab5e2f
abb81>
A radius is not a density, you illiterate chunk of junk. If you want
to talk about the other radius, it is to the edges of the universe.
> 1/(4pi*perm of free space) * charge/m*C^2
>
[quoted text clipped - 5 lines]
> In fact if we used this formula for the neutron we would get a radius
> of zero since it has zero charge.
Not quite, the charges are localisede to the quarks'. And if we guessd
the neutròn's mass from the distances of its charges alone, we would
find that it has almost no mass--which is fake. Thus it's the role of
its antineutrino to wedge open the elèctronuclear well so that it has
excess mass and ènèrjy. So the neutròn needs more than Coulomb's
law to get a radius, and it has nothing to do with the provene radii of
particuli with charges.
> Its like saying the more mass the samller the particle. This is
> ridiculous. TWhat this radius is is the amount of charge density. Since
[quoted text clipped - 5 lines]
>
> You owe me $100.00 !!
What else do you think everyone means by the 'radius" in "classic
radius"?? You hav no other size to argue from! I know that you wantd
to argue from the size of a black hole, but the "hole" is not a thing
but a hap where the thing's strength meets some intermediate value;
that is, its body still lies beneath and ever smaller. The inverse
laws for potentials should tell you that heftier motes are smaller.
You are a'handwaving like a fool.
The world owes me a fortune.
-Aut
rd - 11 Oct 2006 17:41 GMT
> > Look < i understand what the classic model radius is, but lets face it,
> let's
[quoted text clipped - 45 lines]
>
> -Aut
I refuse to engage further in a battle of wits with someone so
obviously unarmed.
Autymn D. C. - 12 Oct 2006 13:19 GMT
> I refuse to engage further in a battle of wits with someone so
> obviously unarmed.
I unarm wits when I go to sleep. I don't sleep-write, so you're wrong
anoth.