Attraction of opposite electric charges would form neutronium
in [Math]
|
Prev: We must move on
Next: Favorite JSH quote
From: purple on 30 Jul 2010 00:07 On 7/29/2010 8:17 PM, BURT wrote: > On Jul 29, 5:47 pm, purple<pur...(a)colorme.com> wrote: >> On 7/29/2010 2:17 PM, BURT wrote: >> >>> On Jul 28, 8:45 pm, purple<pur...(a)colorme.com> wrote: >>> Why would you think that our first model is complete and right? >>> No. Science is young and has much wrong with it. >>> There is a better model comming since the basis of Quantum Mechanics >>> is changing. >> >>> If you think the proton and electron attract then give such a >>> measurement of them comming together because of it. >> >> I have no beliefs and have stipulated none. You have beliefs you >> have stated and you seem unable to provide any proof or evidence >> supporting your beliefs. >> >> Since you think that a proton and an electron repel one another >> it is for you to develop the model by providing proofs and >> evidence. How many times must we go around on this simple issue? > > If you have no opinion then why would you even argue? I'm not arguing. I keep asking you for proof and you never seem to have any. The only thing you do is keep propounding increasingly stupid ideas. > No. If electrons and protons are attractive they would come together. > But that has to be forced and that means that the physics is wrong. Prove that you're right. Stating simple conclusions doesn't do that. > Mitch Raemsch
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 |