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: BURT on 30 Jul 2010 00:08 On Jul 29, 9:05 pm, purple <pur...(a)colorme.com> wrote: > On 7/29/2010 7:52 PM, BURT wrote: > > > On Jul 29, 5:49 pm, purple<pur...(a)colorme.com> wrote: > >> You appear to be creating a new force that is not part of any existing > >> model. Therefore you must fully describe what you are suggesting along > >> with proofs.- > > > The electrons don't bond to the nucleus. They bond to their eelctron > > shells by elctric field energy. I challenge you on that. > > > Mitch Raemsch > > You can't challenge me, it isn't my idea, you have to prove it. > > How many times will it take for you to understand that if you > propose a new theory you are the one who has to prove it. If > you cannot prove it, you should shut up. > > Now, where's your proof? The proof is their attraction never brings them together. I challenge by that. Mitch Raemsch
From: purple on 30 Jul 2010 05:25 On 7/29/2010 11:08 PM, BURT wrote: > On Jul 29, 9:05 pm, purple<pur...(a)colorme.com> wrote: >> On 7/29/2010 7:52 PM, BURT wrote: >> >>> On Jul 29, 5:49 pm, purple<pur...(a)colorme.com> wrote: >>>> You appear to be creating a new force that is not part of any existing >>>> model. Therefore you must fully describe what you are suggesting along >>>> with proofs.- >> >>> The electrons don't bond to the nucleus. They bond to their eelctron >>> shells by elctric field energy. I challenge you on that. >> >>> Mitch Raemsch >> >> You can't challenge me, it isn't my idea, you have to prove it. >> >> How many times will it take for you to understand that if you >> propose a new theory you are the one who has to prove it. If >> you cannot prove it, you should shut up. >> >> Now, where's your proof? > > The proof is their attraction never brings them together. > I challenge by that. It is not proof.
From: BURT on 30 Jul 2010 15:01 On Jul 30, 2:25 am, purple <pur...(a)colorme.com> wrote: > On 7/29/2010 11:08 PM, BURT wrote: > > > > > > > On Jul 29, 9:05 pm, purple<pur...(a)colorme.com> wrote: > >> On 7/29/2010 7:52 PM, BURT wrote: > > >>> On Jul 29, 5:49 pm, purple<pur...(a)colorme.com> wrote: > >>>> You appear to be creating a new force that is not part of any existing > >>>> model. Therefore you must fully describe what you are suggesting along > >>>> with proofs.- > > >>> The electrons don't bond to the nucleus. They bond to their eelctron > >>> shells by elctric field energy. I challenge you on that. > > >>> Mitch Raemsch > > >> You can't challenge me, it isn't my idea, you have to prove it. > > >> How many times will it take for you to understand that if you > >> propose a new theory you are the one who has to prove it. If > >> you cannot prove it, you should shut up. > > >> Now, where's your proof? > The proof is their attraction never brings them together. I challenge by that. > > It is not proof.- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text - What other evidence for attraction can there be? Mitch Raemsch
From: purple on 30 Jul 2010 20:35 On 7/30/2010 2:01 PM, BURT wrote: > On Jul 30, 2:25 am, purple<pur...(a)colorme.com> wrote: >> On 7/29/2010 11:08 PM, BURT wrote: >> >> >> >> >> >>> On Jul 29, 9:05 pm, purple<pur...(a)colorme.com> wrote: >>>> On 7/29/2010 7:52 PM, BURT wrote: >> >>>>> On Jul 29, 5:49 pm, purple<pur...(a)colorme.com> wrote: >>>>>> You appear to be creating a new force that is not part of any existing >>>>>> model. Therefore you must fully describe what you are suggesting along >>>>>> with proofs.- >> >>>>> The electrons don't bond to the nucleus. They bond to their eelctron >>>>> shells by elctric field energy. I challenge you on that. >> >>>>> Mitch Raemsch >> >>>> You can't challenge me, it isn't my idea, you have to prove it. >> >>>> How many times will it take for you to understand that if you >>>> propose a new theory you are the one who has to prove it. If >>>> you cannot prove it, you should shut up. >> >>>> Now, where's your proof? >> > The proof is their attraction never brings them together. > I challenge by that. >> >> It is not proof. >> > > What other evidence for attraction can there be? Let's take a larger model with some similarities, and some equivalence, to the atomic model, our solar system. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bohr_model There is an attraction between every element in the solar system, yet, for the most part, they never come together. The simple fact that the elements remain in their various orbits, for some millions of years, is evidence of the attraction among them. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stability_of_the_Solar_System
From: BURT on 31 Jul 2010 01:37
On Jul 30, 5:35 pm, purple <pur...(a)colorme.com> wrote: > On 7/30/2010 2:01 PM, BURT wrote: > > > > > > > On Jul 30, 2:25 am, purple<pur...(a)colorme.com> wrote: > >> On 7/29/2010 11:08 PM, BURT wrote: > > >>> On Jul 29, 9:05 pm, purple<pur...(a)colorme.com> wrote: > >>>> On 7/29/2010 7:52 PM, BURT wrote: > > >>>>> On Jul 29, 5:49 pm, purple<pur...(a)colorme.com> wrote: > >>>>>> You appear to be creating a new force that is not part of any existing > >>>>>> model. Therefore you must fully describe what you are suggesting along > >>>>>> with proofs.- > > >>>>> The electrons don't bond to the nucleus. They bond to their eelctron > >>>>> shells by elctric field energy. I challenge you on that. > > >>>>> Mitch Raemsch > > >>>> You can't challenge me, it isn't my idea, you have to prove it. > > >>>> How many times will it take for you to understand that if you > >>>> propose a new theory you are the one who has to prove it. If > >>>> you cannot prove it, you should shut up. > > >>>> Now, where's your proof? > > > The proof is their attraction never brings them together. > > I challenge by that. > > >> It is not proof. > > > What other evidence for attraction can there be? > > Let's take a larger model with some similarities, and some equivalence, > to the atomic model, our solar system. > > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bohr_model > > There is an attraction between every element in the solar system, yet, > for the most part, they never come together. > > The simple fact that the elements remain in their various orbits, for > some millions of years, is evidence of the attraction among them. > > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stability_of_the_Solar_System- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text - If they never come together by their attraction then it doesn't even count. Mitch Raemsch |