Attraction of opposite electric charges would form neutronium
in [Physics]
|
Prev: Quantiative Science Before Galileo, Venetian Party friend of Pope Urban -- BP's cap&trade?
Next: SPACEBALLS FOUND IN DISTANT GALAXY
From: purple on 28 Jul 2010 10:58 On 7/27/2010 11:29 PM, BURT wrote: > On Jul 27, 9:10 pm, purple<pur...(a)colorme.com> wrote: >> On 7/27/2010 6:51 PM, BURT wrote: >> >>> There is no gravitational orbit around the nucleus. >>> The particles are attracted mutually to the other by the electric >>> force charge. This would bring them together and make making >>> Neutronium easier and more common. But attraction doesn't happen when >>> they say it does. >> >>> Wikipedia is for dummies like you. >> >> Reinventing the universe to suit your insanity somehow makes you less >> than a dummy? >> >> Bwahahahahahaha! >> >> Burp! > > Please show where the attraction of the opposite charges gets reversed > and will not bring the proton and electron together. > > And if it is prevented how can you say there is any attraction then? You are asking "why". That's never answered by science, but by insane quacks like you. A model is only a model, but to successfully challenge an accepted model you have to present a viable replacement. And you haven't because you cannot.
From: BURT on 28 Jul 2010 17:32 On Jul 28, 7:58 am, purple <pur...(a)colorme.com> wrote: > On 7/27/2010 11:29 PM, BURT wrote: > > > > > > > On Jul 27, 9:10 pm, purple<pur...(a)colorme.com> wrote: > >> On 7/27/2010 6:51 PM, BURT wrote: > > >>> There is no gravitational orbit around the nucleus. > >>> The particles are attracted mutually to the other by the electric > >>> force charge. This would bring them together and make making > >>> Neutronium easier and more common. But attraction doesn't happen when > >>> they say it does. > > >>> Wikipedia is for dummies like you. > > >> Reinventing the universe to suit your insanity somehow makes you less > >> than a dummy? > > >> Bwahahahahahaha! > > >> Burp! > > > Please show where the attraction of the opposite charges gets reversed > > and will not bring the proton and electron together. > > > And if it is prevented how can you say there is any attraction then? > > You are asking "why". That's never answered by science, but by > insane quacks like you. A model is only a model, but to > successfully challenge an accepted model you have to present a > viable replacement. And you haven't because you cannot.- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text - Science says opposite electric charges attract. This requires evidence that they come together. But protons and electrons don't. Science says these two attract each other but have to be forced together. There is of course something wrong with that. I challenge you to show they are attractive purple. I say science is wrong and that there is only one repulsive pole for both protons and electrons. Mitch Raemsch
From: purple on 28 Jul 2010 18:18 On 7/28/2010 4:32 PM, BURT wrote: > I challenge you to show they are attractive purple. I say science is > wrong and that there is only one repulsive pole for both protons and > electrons. You're making the claim. You have to provide the proof. That's the way it works.
From: BURT on 28 Jul 2010 18:35 On Jul 28, 3:18 pm, purple <pur...(a)colorme.com> wrote: > On 7/28/2010 4:32 PM, BURT wrote: > > > I challenge you to show they are attractive purple. I say science is > > wrong and that there is only one repulsive pole for both protons and > > electrons. > > You're making the claim. You have to provide the proof. > That's the way it works. And you are arguing the opposite. If they are mutually attractive why do they need to be forced together? That is of course the proof. Please refute it. Mitch Raemsch
From: purple on 28 Jul 2010 21:05
On 7/28/2010 5:35 PM, BURT wrote: > On Jul 28, 3:18 pm, purple<pur...(a)colorme.com> wrote: >> On 7/28/2010 4:32 PM, BURT wrote: >> >>> I challenge you to show they are attractive purple. I say science is >>> wrong and that there is only one repulsive pole for both protons and >>> electrons. >> >> You're making the claim. You have to provide the proof. >> That's the way it works. > > And you are arguing the opposite. Wrong. I have taken no position at all. > If they are mutually attractive why > do they need to be forced together? That is of course the proof. > Please refute it. No, I have not taken any position, only stated that if you are to replace the model that exists you must provide a replacement model that differs, including sufficient proofs for that new model. Since you do not sufficiently understand the existing model you are unable to create a new, different, one and provide the necessary proofs. If you understood the existing model you would not be claiming that it is wrong. |