~
Michael, you are too kind.
seasmith wrote:
...but in the end it is Charge being transmitted, and how finely can one particulate that.
seasmith wrote:
It may appear as "particles", when threshold energy events are counted by our state-of-the-art electronic 'photon detectors and multipliers', but they could just as well be artifacts of our electronic detection methods.
Michael V wrote;
Are you then willing to offer an alternative explanation. From saying "but in the end it is Charge being transmitted," (with charge spelt with a capital C), and then, "and how finely can one particulate that", I guess you are attempting to imply something. Presumably an alternative view point, other than particle motion, facilitated by, and with interactions mediated by, a vacuum substance.
The cap C is just for Coulombs, SI derivation of charge in motion.
The above was just a bit of an historical note. The scientific picture of mass (particulate mass) was complicated when atoms, electricity and then proton/electron entities were discovered. Then Newton’s gravity and Faraday’s “electrotonic state” needed to be reconciled.
Maxwell’s “displacement field/current” showed mathematically that charge/potential could exert a sort of tension or torque on ordinary particulate matter, without any
apparent change in mass.
A workable equivalence was then worked out for mass and charge in E=MC
2 , with C
2 being the scaling transform. These days, imho, it just doesn’t much progress the science, to continue referring to any Sub-atomic entity as particulate mass,
other than by mathematical analogy.
So I guess an alternate vp to your “particle motion, facilitated by, and with interactions mediated by, a vacuum substance”, would want to consider an integration of sub-atomic charge entities with that mysterious “vacuum substance”.
One of the intellect’s finest tools, as any taffy can tell you, is language. So consideration of some change in our 19th century nomenclature is merely what the previous post was suggesting.
As to theory, you’ve already been virally exposed to the basic
four-quadrant & center model (still a work in progress) of
Light, Aether, Gravity and MatterMass • with a common transformative mediator of ~charge,
so I won’t bore you again here.
seasmith wrote:
Protons, like electrons, are units of charge. Male•female/plus•minus organellae of charge, if you prefer. Their normal state of equilibrium is to be coupled together as atoms and molecules. Those are ponderable particles [of gas. liquids, solids, etc].
Michael V wrote;
Electrons and protons are also units of mass. [equivalents]-s Even though these entities exhibit discreteness and ponderableness, the term "particles" still requires an italic highlight in your view.
If a particle is not a particle, what is it, do you think?.
To be just a bit more precise, charge entities exhibit a measureable ponderomotive ‘force’, rather than “ponderableness”.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Faraday%27 ... _induction
Michael V wrote:
And how might I be Cured?.
Do they have whiskey in Wales ?
™£¢∞§¶•ªº–œ∑´®†¥¨ˆ = div•curl
(Heaviside simplified)