I was referring to the mathematical analysis of bulk matter rather than any sort of underlying particle theory of matter.

If matter is composed of point particles separated by some distance, then each point particle could have a finite mass connected to it. Harry On Sat, Jun 27, 2020 at 7:00 PM ROGER ANDERTON <r.j.ander...@btinternet.com> wrote: > point-particle theory is Boscovich's theory and educators don't teach it > any more to physics students; only a few physicists know about it because > now an obscure subject > > On Saturday, 27 June 2020, 23:18:35 BST, Jürg Wyttenbach < > ju...@datamart.ch> wrote: > > > Particle physics has originally been based on the rigid mass operator. > Unkluckily only a few physicists understand master level rotating mass > mechanics as this is a field used/covered by mechanical engineering. > > Why physics did use the fringe Virial approach (square integrable > functions..) is an enigma. May be most were mathematicians bare of any > physics understanding. > > The solutions of the rigid mass operator problems are torus surfaces! It > is thus no surprise that all particles can be modeled by higher order > tori! Of course we do not need any fantasy numbers or point masses... > > > J.W. > > > On 27.06.2020 23:59, H LV wrote: > > I am not sure if this is related but I always had a problem with the > concept of a point mass or a point charge, since mathematically that would > imply infinite mass density or charge density or alternatively zero mass > and zero charge. However these conundrums are resolved mathematically by > moving from the real number system to the hyperreal number system first > formulated by Abraham Robinson in the early 1960s. The hyperreal number > system extends the real number system by including infinitely small > numbers and infinitely large numbers and gives a logical foundation for the > calculus of infinitesimals known as "non-standard analysis". Today most > physicists and students still learn calculus using "standard analysis" > which is based on the notion of limits and was developed by mathematicians > in the 19th century. > > An interesting property of infinitesimals is that they come in different > sizes. For example if ε is an infinitesimal then ε < 2 ε < 3ε > ...etc. > The reciprocal of an infinitesimal number is an infinite number, so there > are also different size infinities. For example 1/ε > 1/2ε > 1/3ε > ...etc. > > Harry > > On Fri, Jun 26, 2020 at 5:35 PM Jürg Wyttenbach <ju...@datamart.ch> wrote: > > The fantasy of the old SM guard always seemed to be limitless... > > SO(4) physics exactly explains how the claimed force "gravity" is > generated and mediated between hadronic masses. > > Since about 1 year there is game over for SM. No more cheating with point > particles that do not behave as points because these points have a magnetic > moment. No more cheating with massless charge as such an assumption simply > is a form of infantile dementia if no proof is given why a massless charge > does move without inertia and no force is need for a circular orbit. Most > idiotic is the assumption charge is wave as the magnetic moment then would > oscillate. We can go on with this as you only need college level > understanding to find out that the foundation of SM is children logic. > > > J.W. > On 26.06.2020 20:20, bobcook39...@hotmail.com wrote: > > > https://www.quantamagazine.org/the-cartoon-picture-of-magnets-that-has-transformed-science-20200624/ > > > > some INTERESTING OBSERVATIONS…. > > > > Loss of the directional control of angular momentum in nuclei is probably > is associated with the creation of unstable nuclear conditions and > isotopic transitions. It may also change gravity > > Of a group of nuclear magnetic dipoles, if the TOTAO magnetic dipole > attraction is modified—either increases or reduced? *This question stems > from the CONJECTURE that gravity results from an *random* collection of > nuclear magnetic dipoles and the respective 0 (zero) net angular > momentum. > > > > The calculation of an attractive magnetic field at large distances between > randomly oriented groups of magnetic dipoles supports the CONJECTURE > noted above IMHO. > > > > *http://downloads.hindawi.com/archive/1998/079537.pdf > <http://downloads.hindawi.com/archive/1998/079537.pdf>* > > > > A better reference would be nice. > > . > > > > Bob Cook > > -- > Jürg Wyttenbach > Bifangstr. 22 > 8910 Affoltern am Albis > > +41 44 760 14 18 > +41 79 246 36 06 > > -- > Jürg Wyttenbach > Bifangstr. 22 > 8910 Affoltern am Albis > > +41 44 760 14 18 > +41 79 246 36 06 > >