Electron and proton attraction by opposite charge
in [Relativity]
|
From: BURT on 8 May 2010 16:28 On May 8, 12:57 pm, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > On May 8, 2:54 pm, BURT <macromi...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > Please examine this figure first. > > > Note the water droplets are not arranged in the arc.http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/b/bb/Descartes_Rainbow.png > > > > The light from the sun hits ALL the droplets in this figure. > > > And ALL the water droplets will reflect the light that hits them. > > > But only the light for SOME of the droplets will make it into the eyes > > > of the person shown standing on the ground. > > > The light reflected from the other droplets will make it into the eyes > > > of people standing elsewhere. > > > The light that is reflected into the eyes of the person shown standing > > > on the ground come only from the drops marked by the dotted lines. > > > > As a casual note, this figure was drawn by Rene Descartes. You may > > > want to Google him to see how long ago he lived, and therefore how > > > long rainbows have been understood by science. > > > > If you want to see a student project who researched how rainbows form, > > > you can look here.http://ffden-2.phys.uaf.edu/211.web.stuff/croy_filla/Page_1.html > > > What I want you to take away from this is that, though you have a hard > > > time understanding rainbows, summer kids figure it out enough to > > > explain it on a webpage. > > > > Bottom line, Mitch: If there is something you don't understand, that > > > means YOU don't understand it. It doesn't mean that no one understands > > > it.- Hide quoted text - > > > > - Show quoted text - > > > But science has no understanding that is right. It is too young and is > > in denial about the truth. > > > Science cannot explain a rainbow. > > I'm sorry, Mitch, but you have this crazy idea that because science is > not finished, then it understands nothing and can explain nothing. > This is just nonsense. > Mathematics is not finished either. Does this mean to you that we > aren't sure that 3+2=5? Or that 100,000 years in the future, 3+2 won't > equal 5? > > PD- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text - We are just in the beginning. It understands nearly nothing to be fair. And Its explanations of the rainbow are science's Leprechauns with a Pot O Gold. When science is old it will be much closer to the truth and won't be in as much denial about what it thinks it knows. Mitch Raemsch
From: ben6993 on 8 May 2010 17:20 On May 8, 5:27 pm, "Androcles" <Headmas...(a)Hogwarts.physics_z> wrote: > "ben6993" <ben6...(a)hotmail.com> wrote in message > > news:cd88f1b6-ed33-4b8b-adf5-a007fbac9933(a)n15g2000yqf.googlegroups.com... > On May 8, 10:49 am, "Androcles" <Headmas...(a)Hogwarts.physics_z> wrote: > > > > > > > "ben6993" <ben6...(a)hotmail.com> wrote in message > > >news:b28e16f5-1f87-4265-8e54-8326b3387d1e(a)q30g2000yqd.googlegroups.com.... > > On May 7, 4:58 pm, "Androcles" <Headmas...(a)Hogwarts.physics_z> wrote: > > > > "ben6993" <ben6...(a)hotmail.com> wrote in message > > > >news:a9ab2242-2a85-488d-aa6e-9cd17951f56c(a)k29g2000yqh.googlegroups.com.... > > > On May 6, 10:38 pm, BURT <macromi...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > > > > > On May 6, 12:56 pm, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > On May 6, 2:29 pm, BURT <macromi...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > > > > > > > On May 6, 12:00 pm, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > > > On May 6, 1:56 pm, BURT <macromi...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > > > > > > > > > On May 6, 11:42 am, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > On May 6, 1:16 pm, BURT <macromi...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > On May 6, 7:57 am, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > On May 4, 9:21 pm, BURT <macromi...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > If the electric force has an opposite which acts as an > > > > > > > > > > > > attraction it > > > > > > > > > > > > would mean that the electron and protons ought to come > > > > > > > > > > > > together > > > > > > > > > > > > because of it. But you have to force these particles > > > > > > > > > > > > together so how > > > > > > > > > > > > can you say they attract one another? > > > > > > > > > > > > > Mitch Raemsch > > > > > > > > > > > > No, it does NOT mean that electrons and protons ought to > > > > > > > > > > > come together > > > > > > > > > > > because of it. > > > > > > > > > > > No that makes no sense that they are attractive but they > > > > > > > > > > don't > > > > > > > > > > come > > > > > > > > > > together without force. > > > > > > > > > > > Mitch Raemsch > > > > > > > > > > > > The reason is angular momentum. > > > > > > > > > > > The simple test you can do in the town library where you > > > > > > > > > > > make your > > > > > > > > > > > posts is to swing a pail of water in a vertical circle. > > > > > > > > > > > You'll note > > > > > > > > > > > that if you swing fast enough, the water does not fall > > > > > > > > > > > out > > > > > > > > > > > of the pail > > > > > > > > > > > onto your head, even when the pail is overhead and > > > > > > > > > > > gravity > > > > > > > > > > > is pulling > > > > > > > > > > > the water downward. Note that gravity and the pressure > > > > > > > > > > > from > > > > > > > > > > > the sides > > > > > > > > > > > and bottom of the pail are the only forces acting on the > > > > > > > > > > > water. > > > > > > > > > > > So, once you figure out why gravity doesn't make the > > > > > > > > > > > water > > > > > > > > > > > fall out of > > > > > > > > > > > the pail onto your head when you do this, you'll > > > > > > > > > > > understand > > > > > > > > > > > perhaps > > > > > > > > > > > why the moon doesn't fall into the earth, why the earth > > > > > > > > > > > doesn't fall > > > > > > > > > > > into the sun, and why the electron doesn't fall into the > > > > > > > > > > > proton. > > > > > > > > > > > Can youi please show how attraction doesn't bring them > > > > > > > > > > together? > > > > > > > > > > Lets be sensible. > > > > > > > > > > There's nothing like seeing things with your own eyes. This > > > > > > > > > is > > > > > > > > > why I > > > > > > > > > suggested the pail of water trick, which you can actually > > > > > > > > > do. > > > > > > > > > > Then try to tell yourself what you're seeing doesn't make > > > > > > > > > sense. > > > > > > > > > > If it actually happens, it has to make sense. It's just that > > > > > > > > > you > > > > > > > > > haven't figured out how to make sense of it.- Hide quoted > > > > > > > > > text - > > > > > > > > > > - Show quoted text - > > > > > > > > > If an electron and a proton have to be forced together it > > > > > > > > makes > > > > > > > > no > > > > > > > > sense that they are attractive. > > > > > > > > Who says they have to be forced together? > > > > > > > Neutronium says they have to be forced together. > > > > > > > Mitch Raemsch > > > > > > Are you talking about a wiki article?- Hide quoted text - > > > > > > - Show quoted text - > > > > > Wackypedia thinks that science has a explanation to a rainbow when it > > > > is all made up. That phenomenon doesn't yield to science. > > > > > How can raindrops hang in a circular arc without falling? > > > > > Mitch Raemsch- Hide quoted text - > > > > > - Show quoted text - > > > > As I understand it, everyone has their own rainbow. > > > > ============================================= > > > Before you go there, first note that the idiot Raemsch is challenging > > > the existence of the rainbow itself, not the explanation for its > > > existence. You are likely to get into futile discussions that way. > > > ============================================= > > > > You can make your > > > own with a spray bottle of water on a sunny day. It is like being in > > > the just the right position to be dazzled by sunlight reflected > > > reflected from an office block window. There are not many office > > > windows open at the correct angle, but there can be lots of water > > > droplets available.. > > > > The question about the electron and proton .... > > > I don't understand why 'forcing' was mentioned. > > > Not all material orbits: Comet Shoemaker Levy crashed into Jupiter. > > > The question should be 'do some electrons manage to be pulled into the > > > nucleus and get absorbed there'? > > > The limitation on how many electrons can be in each shell may decide > > > whether electrons can get into into the nucleus. The electron seems > > > to need too much room to cater for its wave nature to get into and > > > stay in the nucleus? > > > If the charges in the nucleus are moving/vibrating, that might create > > > a magnetic field which could deflect the incoming electron. But I am > > > way beyond what I know here... > > > > Also, any electrons in outer shells could repel free electrons before > > > they approached the nucleus. > > > ============================================= > > > That's the problem with analogies. They never fit the facts perfectly.. > > > Once you've created the solar system model of the atom you've > > > automatically made certain assumptions without realizing it, such > > > as giving the electron mass and a gravitational attraction to the > > > nucleus as well as inertia to fly on by and maintain an orbit. Then > > > when you mentally take out the angular momentum you end up > > > wondering why it doesn't just fall into the nucleus and cancel the > > > charges, creating a neutron from a proton. Since this doesn't happen, > > > perhaps we have the wrong model.- Hide quoted text - > > > > - Show quoted text - > > > I know that classical orbiting was only an analogy here, but it is > > hard to get along without analogies. > > I have since looked up the 'centrifugal barrier' > > onhttp://www.tampa.phys.ucl.ac.uk/~sam/PHYS2B22/slides6.pptwhichseems > > a useful reference and I can read it with my new 'QM for Dummies' > > text. > > The quantised angular momentum is the cause: as the angular momentum > > is quantised, decreasing the distance to the nucleus means > > proportionally increasing the angular velocity, to keep the angular > > momentum a constant. Which makes it ever harder to continue to > > decrease the distance. It doesn't explain why angular momentum is > > quantised though, but 'why' questions cannot always be answered. > > ======================================================= > > I don't have PowerPoint so I cannot look at your slides. > > Are you trying to understand Nature or someone's theory of how > > they think Nature works? The former is science, the latter is a game > > of mathematics with their rules and you only get brownie points by > > agreeing with them.- Hide quoted text - > > > - Show quoted text - > > They are not my slides except insofar as I found them on a website. It > seemed like a reliable source. I have copied one appropriate slide > as an image:http://cid-96da7c9fa3b3d81c.skydrive.live.com/self.aspx/sci%5E_physic... > > ======================================================== > Assumes m. > As I said above, "you've automatically made certain assumptions without > realizing it, such as giving the electron mass". > We have no evidence for the mass of an electron, it is entirely an > assumption. For it to have intuitive mass it has to be intuitive matter, > so what is matter? When I stand on a bathroom scale I measure > the compression of a spring, a force, and that may be useful in > considering the state of my health and what I should be eating, > but I still don't know what mass/matter is except in terms of > gravitational force. > I don't know what the charge on an electron is either, except in terms of > force. The electron seems to have a lot more electrical force than it does > gravitational force. Perhaps it doesn't have any mass at all. > I fail to see the purpose of an equation unless the terms in it represent > real physical quantities that are measurable, and you have an m that > isn't measurable in your "barrier", the equation isn't giving me any > understanding at all. > > "Everything is vague to a degree you do not realize till you have tried to > make it precise." > -- Bertrand Russell > ================================================= > > I am trying to understand Nature, but reading others' work is > necessary as I only have one lifetime and no lab and I am no Newton. > ================================================= > Making one discovery is about all anyone can expect in a lifetime, > most people never make any. Nature hides her secrets well from > those that make assumptions and refuse to look. By ignoring the > assumptive assertions of others and employing the principles of > science I have discovered the secret of the variable stars. But... > nobody cares except me. > > "Many people would sooner die than think; In fact, they do. " > -- Bertrand Russell- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text - I looked in the archives re variable stars and have seen posts back to 2005. And up to the stellar aberration strand on sci.physics.relativity. Plenty for me to read there. Some people seem to care, though maybe disbelieve. You were blasting Jerry back in 2005 too. S/he didn't mind then, and lots of posters seem to enjoy it which may be a particular trait in combative physicists, but I find it sours me for reading the physics. Your idea seems to involve speeds of v+c (I have only looked briefly)? That would contradict SR. That's fine for you, but I have not enough learning to disregard SR. I am not saying you are wrong, just that I am in no position at the moment to agree or disagree. You say it is easy, yet that cannot be so as so many people disagree. They may all be wrong ... but it cannot be trivially easy.
From: Androcles on 8 May 2010 18:01 "ben6993" <ben6993(a)hotmail.com> wrote in message news:71edb804-62d5-4a84-9938-772728160196(a)l31g2000yqm.googlegroups.com... On May 8, 5:27 pm, "Androcles" <Headmas...(a)Hogwarts.physics_z> wrote: > "ben6993" <ben6...(a)hotmail.com> wrote in message > > news:cd88f1b6-ed33-4b8b-adf5-a007fbac9933(a)n15g2000yqf.googlegroups.com... > On May 8, 10:49 am, "Androcles" <Headmas...(a)Hogwarts.physics_z> wrote: > > > > > > > "ben6993" <ben6...(a)hotmail.com> wrote in message > > >news:b28e16f5-1f87-4265-8e54-8326b3387d1e(a)q30g2000yqd.googlegroups.com... > > On May 7, 4:58 pm, "Androcles" <Headmas...(a)Hogwarts.physics_z> wrote: > > > > "ben6993" <ben6...(a)hotmail.com> wrote in message > > > >news:a9ab2242-2a85-488d-aa6e-9cd17951f56c(a)k29g2000yqh.googlegroups.com... > > > On May 6, 10:38 pm, BURT <macromi...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > > > > > On May 6, 12:56 pm, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > On May 6, 2:29 pm, BURT <macromi...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > > > > > > > On May 6, 12:00 pm, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > > > On May 6, 1:56 pm, BURT <macromi...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > > > > > > > > > On May 6, 11:42 am, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > On May 6, 1:16 pm, BURT <macromi...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > On May 6, 7:57 am, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > On May 4, 9:21 pm, BURT <macromi...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > If the electric force has an opposite which acts as > > > > > > > > > > > > an > > > > > > > > > > > > attraction it > > > > > > > > > > > > would mean that the electron and protons ought to > > > > > > > > > > > > come > > > > > > > > > > > > together > > > > > > > > > > > > because of it. But you have to force these particles > > > > > > > > > > > > together so how > > > > > > > > > > > > can you say they attract one another? > > > > > > > > > > > > > Mitch Raemsch > > > > > > > > > > > > No, it does NOT mean that electrons and protons ought > > > > > > > > > > > to > > > > > > > > > > > come together > > > > > > > > > > > because of it. > > > > > > > > > > > No that makes no sense that they are attractive but they > > > > > > > > > > don't > > > > > > > > > > come > > > > > > > > > > together without force. > > > > > > > > > > > Mitch Raemsch > > > > > > > > > > > > The reason is angular momentum. > > > > > > > > > > > The simple test you can do in the town library where > > > > > > > > > > > you > > > > > > > > > > > make your > > > > > > > > > > > posts is to swing a pail of water in a vertical > > > > > > > > > > > circle. > > > > > > > > > > > You'll note > > > > > > > > > > > that if you swing fast enough, the water does not fall > > > > > > > > > > > out > > > > > > > > > > > of the pail > > > > > > > > > > > onto your head, even when the pail is overhead and > > > > > > > > > > > gravity > > > > > > > > > > > is pulling > > > > > > > > > > > the water downward. Note that gravity and the pressure > > > > > > > > > > > from > > > > > > > > > > > the sides > > > > > > > > > > > and bottom of the pail are the only forces acting on > > > > > > > > > > > the > > > > > > > > > > > water. > > > > > > > > > > > So, once you figure out why gravity doesn't make the > > > > > > > > > > > water > > > > > > > > > > > fall out of > > > > > > > > > > > the pail onto your head when you do this, you'll > > > > > > > > > > > understand > > > > > > > > > > > perhaps > > > > > > > > > > > why the moon doesn't fall into the earth, why the > > > > > > > > > > > earth > > > > > > > > > > > doesn't fall > > > > > > > > > > > into the sun, and why the electron doesn't fall into > > > > > > > > > > > the > > > > > > > > > > > proton. > > > > > > > > > > > Can youi please show how attraction doesn't bring them > > > > > > > > > > together? > > > > > > > > > > Lets be sensible. > > > > > > > > > > There's nothing like seeing things with your own eyes. > > > > > > > > > This > > > > > > > > > is > > > > > > > > > why I > > > > > > > > > suggested the pail of water trick, which you can actually > > > > > > > > > do. > > > > > > > > > > Then try to tell yourself what you're seeing doesn't make > > > > > > > > > sense. > > > > > > > > > > If it actually happens, it has to make sense. It's just > > > > > > > > > that > > > > > > > > > you > > > > > > > > > haven't figured out how to make sense of it.- Hide quoted > > > > > > > > > text - > > > > > > > > > > - Show quoted text - > > > > > > > > > If an electron and a proton have to be forced together it > > > > > > > > makes > > > > > > > > no > > > > > > > > sense that they are attractive. > > > > > > > > Who says they have to be forced together? > > > > > > > Neutronium says they have to be forced together. > > > > > > > Mitch Raemsch > > > > > > Are you talking about a wiki article?- Hide quoted text - > > > > > > - Show quoted text - > > > > > Wackypedia thinks that science has a explanation to a rainbow when > > > > it > > > > is all made up. That phenomenon doesn't yield to science. > > > > > How can raindrops hang in a circular arc without falling? > > > > > Mitch Raemsch- Hide quoted text - > > > > > - Show quoted text - > > > > As I understand it, everyone has their own rainbow. > > > > ============================================= > > > Before you go there, first note that the idiot Raemsch is challenging > > > the existence of the rainbow itself, not the explanation for its > > > existence. You are likely to get into futile discussions that way. > > > ============================================= > > > > You can make your > > > own with a spray bottle of water on a sunny day. It is like being in > > > the just the right position to be dazzled by sunlight reflected > > > reflected from an office block window. There are not many office > > > windows open at the correct angle, but there can be lots of water > > > droplets available.. > > > > The question about the electron and proton .... > > > I don't understand why 'forcing' was mentioned. > > > Not all material orbits: Comet Shoemaker Levy crashed into Jupiter. > > > The question should be 'do some electrons manage to be pulled into the > > > nucleus and get absorbed there'? > > > The limitation on how many electrons can be in each shell may decide > > > whether electrons can get into into the nucleus. The electron seems > > > to need too much room to cater for its wave nature to get into and > > > stay in the nucleus? > > > If the charges in the nucleus are moving/vibrating, that might create > > > a magnetic field which could deflect the incoming electron. But I am > > > way beyond what I know here... > > > > Also, any electrons in outer shells could repel free electrons before > > > they approached the nucleus. > > > ============================================= > > > That's the problem with analogies. They never fit the facts perfectly. > > > Once you've created the solar system model of the atom you've > > > automatically made certain assumptions without realizing it, such > > > as giving the electron mass and a gravitational attraction to the > > > nucleus as well as inertia to fly on by and maintain an orbit. Then > > > when you mentally take out the angular momentum you end up > > > wondering why it doesn't just fall into the nucleus and cancel the > > > charges, creating a neutron from a proton. Since this doesn't happen, > > > perhaps we have the wrong model.- Hide quoted text - > > > > - Show quoted text - > > > I know that classical orbiting was only an analogy here, but it is > > hard to get along without analogies. > > I have since looked up the 'centrifugal barrier' > > onhttp://www.tampa.phys.ucl.ac.uk/~sam/PHYS2B22/slides6.pptwhichseems > > a useful reference and I can read it with my new 'QM for Dummies' > > text. > > The quantised angular momentum is the cause: as the angular momentum > > is quantised, decreasing the distance to the nucleus means > > proportionally increasing the angular velocity, to keep the angular > > momentum a constant. Which makes it ever harder to continue to > > decrease the distance. It doesn't explain why angular momentum is > > quantised though, but 'why' questions cannot always be answered. > > ======================================================= > > I don't have PowerPoint so I cannot look at your slides. > > Are you trying to understand Nature or someone's theory of how > > they think Nature works? The former is science, the latter is a game > > of mathematics with their rules and you only get brownie points by > > agreeing with them.- Hide quoted text - > > > - Show quoted text - > > They are not my slides except insofar as I found them on a website. It > seemed like a reliable source. I have copied one appropriate slide > as an > image:http://cid-96da7c9fa3b3d81c.skydrive.live.com/self.aspx/sci%5E_physic... > > ======================================================== > Assumes m. > As I said above, "you've automatically made certain assumptions without > realizing it, such as giving the electron mass". > We have no evidence for the mass of an electron, it is entirely an > assumption. For it to have intuitive mass it has to be intuitive matter, > so what is matter? When I stand on a bathroom scale I measure > the compression of a spring, a force, and that may be useful in > considering the state of my health and what I should be eating, > but I still don't know what mass/matter is except in terms of > gravitational force. > I don't know what the charge on an electron is either, except in terms of > force. The electron seems to have a lot more electrical force than it does > gravitational force. Perhaps it doesn't have any mass at all. > I fail to see the purpose of an equation unless the terms in it represent > real physical quantities that are measurable, and you have an m that > isn't measurable in your "barrier", the equation isn't giving me any > understanding at all. > > "Everything is vague to a degree you do not realize till you have tried to > make it precise." > -- Bertrand Russell > ================================================= > > I am trying to understand Nature, but reading others' work is > necessary as I only have one lifetime and no lab and I am no Newton. > ================================================= > Making one discovery is about all anyone can expect in a lifetime, > most people never make any. Nature hides her secrets well from > those that make assumptions and refuse to look. By ignoring the > assumptive assertions of others and employing the principles of > science I have discovered the secret of the variable stars. But... > nobody cares except me. > > "Many people would sooner die than think; In fact, they do. " > -- Bertrand Russell- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text - I looked in the archives re variable stars and have seen posts back to 2005. And up to the stellar aberration strand on sci.physics.relativity. Plenty for me to read there. Some people seem to care, though maybe disbelieve. You were blasting Jerry back in 2005 too. S/he didn't mind then, and lots of posters seem to enjoy it which may be a particular trait in combative physicists, but I find it sours me for reading the physics. Your idea seems to involve speeds of v+c (I have only looked briefly)? That would contradict SR. That's fine for you, but I have not enough learning to disregard SR. I am not saying you are wrong, just that I am in no position at the moment to agree or disagree. You say it is easy, yet that cannot be so as so many people disagree. They may all be wrong ... but it cannot be trivially easy. ============================================== I've been blasting the bigotry of SR since 1993, but not until 1999 did I begin blasting in sci.physics.relativity. Einstein's idea seems to involve speeds of c-v and c+v, each of which he divides by c. 1) a = (c-v)/c 2) b = (c+v)/c then he figures he can multiply a * b, take its square root, invert it and call it beta. 3) beta = 1/sqrt(a*b) = 1/sqrt( (c-v)/c *b) = 1/sqrt( (c-v)/c * (c+v)/c) = 1/sqrt( (c-v) * (c+v)/c^2) = 1/sqrt( (c^2-v^2)/c^2) = 1/sqrt( c^2/c^2 -v^2/c^2) = 1/sqrt( 1 -v^2/c^2) http://www.fourmilab.ch/etexts/einstein/specrel/www/figures/img37.gif Since v+c would contradict SR (according to ben6993) then beta, the cornerstone of SR, contradicts SR. That's fine for me, but I have more than enough learning to disregard SR. I AM saying you are wrong, its just that I am in a position at the moment to disagree with you. I say it is easy, yet that CAN be so as so many people are idiots and bigots with their heads up their own arses. They may all be wrong ... and they are. The only question is, do YOU have the intelligence to read simple algebra? -- Ref: http://www.fourmilab.ch/etexts/einstein/specrel/www/figures/img22.gif What kind of lunacy prompted Einstein to say the speed of light from A to B is c-v, the speed of light from B to A is c+v, the "time" each way is the same?
From: ben6993 on 8 May 2010 19:28 On May 8, 11:01 pm, "Androcles" <Headmas...(a)Hogwarts.physics_z> wrote: > "ben6993" <ben6...(a)hotmail.com> wrote in message > > news:71edb804-62d5-4a84-9938-772728160196(a)l31g2000yqm.googlegroups.com... > On May 8, 5:27 pm, "Androcles" <Headmas...(a)Hogwarts.physics_z> wrote: > > > "ben6993" <ben6...(a)hotmail.com> wrote in message > > >news:cd88f1b6-ed33-4b8b-adf5-a007fbac9933(a)n15g2000yqf.googlegroups.com.... > > On May 8, 10:49 am, "Androcles" <Headmas...(a)Hogwarts.physics_z> wrote: > > > > "ben6993" <ben6...(a)hotmail.com> wrote in message > > > >news:b28e16f5-1f87-4265-8e54-8326b3387d1e(a)q30g2000yqd.googlegroups.com.... > > > On May 7, 4:58 pm, "Androcles" <Headmas...(a)Hogwarts.physics_z> wrote: > > > > > "ben6993" <ben6...(a)hotmail.com> wrote in message > > > > >news:a9ab2242-2a85-488d-aa6e-9cd17951f56c(a)k29g2000yqh.googlegroups.com... > > > > On May 6, 10:38 pm, BURT <macromi...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > > > > > > On May 6, 12:56 pm, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > > On May 6, 2:29 pm, BURT <macromi...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > > > > > > > > On May 6, 12:00 pm, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > > > > On May 6, 1:56 pm, BURT <macromi...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > On May 6, 11:42 am, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > On May 6, 1:16 pm, BURT <macromi...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > On May 6, 7:57 am, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > On May 4, 9:21 pm, BURT <macromi...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > If the electric force has an opposite which acts as > > > > > > > > > > > > > an > > > > > > > > > > > > > attraction it > > > > > > > > > > > > > would mean that the electron and protons ought to > > > > > > > > > > > > > come > > > > > > > > > > > > > together > > > > > > > > > > > > > because of it. But you have to force these particles > > > > > > > > > > > > > together so how > > > > > > > > > > > > > can you say they attract one another? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Mitch Raemsch > > > > > > > > > > > > > No, it does NOT mean that electrons and protons ought > > > > > > > > > > > > to > > > > > > > > > > > > come together > > > > > > > > > > > > because of it. > > > > > > > > > > > > No that makes no sense that they are attractive but they > > > > > > > > > > > don't > > > > > > > > > > > come > > > > > > > > > > > together without force. > > > > > > > > > > > > Mitch Raemsch > > > > > > > > > > > > > The reason is angular momentum. > > > > > > > > > > > > The simple test you can do in the town library where > > > > > > > > > > > > you > > > > > > > > > > > > make your > > > > > > > > > > > > posts is to swing a pail of water in a vertical > > > > > > > > > > > > circle. > > > > > > > > > > > > You'll note > > > > > > > > > > > > that if you swing fast enough, the water does not fall > > > > > > > > > > > > out > > > > > > > > > > > > of the pail > > > > > > > > > > > > onto your head, even when the pail is overhead and > > > > > > > > > > > > gravity > > > > > > > > > > > > is pulling > > > > > > > > > > > > the water downward. Note that gravity and the pressure > > > > > > > > > > > > from > > > > > > > > > > > > the sides > > > > > > > > > > > > and bottom of the pail are the only forces acting on > > > > > > > > > > > > the > > > > > > > > > > > > water. > > > > > > > > > > > > So, once you figure out why gravity doesn't make the > > > > > > > > > > > > water > > > > > > > > > > > > fall out of > > > > > > > > > > > > the pail onto your head when you do this, you'll > > > > > > > > > > > > understand > > > > > > > > > > > > perhaps > > > > > > > > > > > > why the moon doesn't fall into the earth, why the > > > > > > > > > > > > earth > > > > > > > > > > > > doesn't fall > > > > > > > > > > > > into the sun, and why the electron doesn't fall into > > > > > > > > > > > > the > > > > > > > > > > > > proton. > > > > > > > > > > > > Can youi please show how attraction doesn't bring them > > > > > > > > > > > together? > > > > > > > > > > > Lets be sensible. > > > > > > > > > > > There's nothing like seeing things with your own eyes. > > > > > > > > > > This > > > > > > > > > > is > > > > > > > > > > why I > > > > > > > > > > suggested the pail of water trick, which you can actually > > > > > > > > > > do. > > > > > > > > > > > Then try to tell yourself what you're seeing doesn't make > > > > > > > > > > sense. > > > > > > > > > > > If it actually happens, it has to make sense. It's just > > > > > > > > > > that > > > > > > > > > > you > > > > > > > > > > haven't figured out how to make sense of it.- Hide quoted > > > > > > > > > > text - > > > > > > > > > > > - Show quoted text - > > > > > > > > > > If an electron and a proton have to be forced together it > > > > > > > > > makes > > > > > > > > > no > > > > > > > > > sense that they are attractive. > > > > > > > > > Who says they have to be forced together? > > > > > > > > Neutronium says they have to be forced together. > > > > > > > > Mitch Raemsch > > > > > > > Are you talking about a wiki article?- Hide quoted text - > > > > > > > - Show quoted text - > > > > > > Wackypedia thinks that science has a explanation to a rainbow when > > > > > it > > > > > is all made up. That phenomenon doesn't yield to science. > > > > > > How can raindrops hang in a circular arc without falling? > > > > > > Mitch Raemsch- Hide quoted text - > > > > > > - Show quoted text - > > > > > As I understand it, everyone has their own rainbow. > > > > > ============================================= > > > > Before you go there, first note that the idiot Raemsch is challenging > > > > the existence of the rainbow itself, not the explanation for its > > > > existence. You are likely to get into futile discussions that way. > > > > ============================================= > > > > > You can make your > > > > own with a spray bottle of water on a sunny day. It is like being in > > > > the just the right position to be dazzled by sunlight reflected > > > > reflected from an office block window. There are not many office > > > > windows open at the correct angle, but there can be lots of water > > > > droplets available.. > > > > > The question about the electron and proton .... > > > > I don't understand why 'forcing' was mentioned. > > > > Not all material orbits: Comet Shoemaker Levy crashed into Jupiter. > > > > The question should be 'do some electrons manage to be pulled into the > > > > nucleus and get absorbed there'? > > > > The limitation on how many electrons can be in each shell may decide > > > > whether electrons can get into into the nucleus. The electron seems > > > > to need too much room to cater for its wave nature to get into and > > > > stay in the nucleus? > > > > If the charges in the nucleus are moving/vibrating, that might create > > > > a magnetic field which could deflect the incoming electron. But I am > > > > way beyond what I know here... > > > > > Also, any electrons in outer shells could repel free electrons before > > > > they approached the nucleus. > > > > ============================================= > > > > That's the problem with analogies. They never fit the facts perfectly. > > > > Once you've created the solar system model of the atom you've > > > > automatically made certain assumptions without realizing it, such > > > > as giving the electron mass and a gravitational attraction to the > > > > nucleus as well as inertia to fly on by and maintain an orbit. Then > > > > when you mentally take out the angular momentum you end up > > > > wondering why it doesn't just fall into the nucleus and cancel the > > > > charges, creating a neutron from a proton. Since this doesn't happen, > > > > perhaps we have the wrong model.- Hide quoted text - > > > > > - Show quoted text - > > > > I know that classical orbiting was only an analogy here, but it is > > > hard to get along without analogies. > > > I have since looked up the 'centrifugal barrier' > > > onhttp://www.tampa.phys.ucl.ac.uk/~sam/PHYS2B22/slides6.pptwhichseems > > > a useful reference and I can read it with my new 'QM for Dummies' > > > text. > > > The quantised angular momentum is the cause: as the angular momentum > > > is quantised, decreasing the distance to the nucleus means > > > proportionally increasing the angular velocity, to keep the angular > > > momentum a constant. Which makes it ever harder to continue to > > > decrease the distance. It doesn't explain why angular momentum is > > > quantised though, but 'why' questions cannot always be answered. > > > ======================================================= > > > I don't have PowerPoint so I cannot look at your slides. > > > Are you trying to understand Nature or someone's theory of how > > > they think Nature works? The former is science, the latter is a game > > > of mathematics with their rules and you only get brownie points by > > > agreeing with them.- Hide quoted text - > > > > - Show quoted text - > > > They are not my slides except insofar as I found them on a website. It > > seemed like a reliable source. I have copied one appropriate slide > > as an > > image:http://cid-96da7c9fa3b3d81c.skydrive.live.com/self.aspx/sci%5E_physic... > > > ======================================================== > > Assumes m. > > As I said above, "you've automatically made certain assumptions without > > realizing it, such as giving the electron mass". > > We have no evidence for the mass of an electron, it is entirely an > > assumption. For it to have intuitive mass it has to be intuitive matter, > > so what is matter? When I stand on a bathroom scale I measure > > the compression of a spring, a force, and that may be useful in > > considering the state of my health and what I should be eating, > > but I still don't know what mass/matter is except in terms of > > gravitational force. > > I don't know what the charge on an electron is either, except in terms of > > force. The electron seems to have a lot more electrical force than it does > > gravitational force. Perhaps it doesn't have any mass at all. > > I fail to see the purpose of an equation unless the terms in it represent > > real physical quantities that are measurable, and you have an m that > > isn't measurable in your "barrier", the equation isn't giving me any > > understanding at all. > > > "Everything is vague to a degree you do not realize till you have tried to > > make it precise." > > -- Bertrand Russell > > ================================================= > > > I am trying to understand Nature, but reading others' work is > > necessary as I only have one lifetime and no lab and I am no Newton. > > ================================================= > > Making one discovery is about all anyone can expect in a lifetime, > > most people never make any. Nature hides her secrets well from > > those that make assumptions and refuse to look. By ignoring the > > assumptive assertions of others and employing the principles of > > science I have discovered the secret of the variable stars. But... > > nobody cares except me. > > > "Many people would sooner die than think; In fact, they do. " > > -- Bertrand Russell- Hide quoted text - > > > - Show quoted text - > > I looked in the archives re variable stars and have seen posts back to > 2005. And up to the stellar aberration strand on > sci.physics.relativity. Plenty for me to read there. > > Some people seem to care, though maybe disbelieve. You were blasting > Jerry back in 2005 too. S/he didn't mind then, and lots of posters > seem to enjoy it which may be a particular trait in combative > physicists, but I find it sours me for reading the physics. > > Your idea seems to involve speeds of v+c (I have only looked > briefly)? That would contradict SR. That's fine for you, but I have > not enough learning to disregard SR. I am not saying you are wrong, > just that I am in no position at the moment to agree or disagree. You > say it is easy, yet that cannot be so as so many people disagree. > They may all be wrong ... but it cannot be trivially easy. > ============================================== > I've been blasting the bigotry of SR since 1993, but not until 1999 > did I begin blasting in sci.physics.relativity. > Einstein's idea seems to involve speeds of c-v and c+v, each > of which he divides by c. > > 1) a = (c-v)/c > 2) b = (c+v)/c > > then he figures he can multiply a * b, take its square root, invert it > and call it beta. > 3) beta = 1/sqrt(a*b) > = 1/sqrt( (c-v)/c *b) > = 1/sqrt( (c-v)/c * (c+v)/c) > = 1/sqrt( (c-v) * (c+v)/c^2) > = 1/sqrt( (c^2-v^2)/c^2) > = 1/sqrt( c^2/c^2 -v^2/c^2) > = 1/sqrt( 1 -v^2/c^2) > > http://www.fourmilab.ch/etexts/einstein/specrel/www/figures/img37.gif > > Since v+c would contradict SR (according to ben6993) then beta, > the cornerstone of SR, contradicts SR. > > That's fine for me, but I have more than enough learning to disregard SR. > I AM saying you are wrong, its just that I am in a position at the moment > to disagree with you. > I say it is easy, yet that CAN be so as so many people are idiots and bigots > with their heads up their own arses. > They may all be wrong ... and they are. The only question is, do YOU have > the intelligence to read simple algebra? > > -- > Ref: > http://www.fourmilab.ch/etexts/einstein/specrel/www/figures/img22.gif > > What kind of lunacy prompted Einstein to say > the speed of light from A to B is c-v, > the speed of light from B to A is c+v, > the "time" each way is the same? As I said a while back in a previous strand I intend to get around to your question. I have read all subsequent posts about the issue. It will take time as it can't be trivial. I agree that is is an interesting question. Saying "according to ben6993" in your post may mislead other readers without the rider that ben6993 is not a physicist. I would not be afraid to agree with you if I calculated that you were correct. I have a far-fetched idea that gravity is a side effect of inflation ... but I am not a physicist, so who cares what I think about a physics matter. And of course I can't get the maths to work on my model so I am not even convincing myself yet. I once found an error in my friends completed PhD (not physics). Just a minor error, though it needed a retraction as it reversed the sign of the effect and therefore the conclusions pointed exactly the wrong way. It reminds me a little of this issue. His error was getting mixed up because of a double negative of the kind (a-b) -(c-d). In your issue, somebody somewhere seems to be getting mixed up as to which x length is measured in which frame. You may or may not be correct ... however I will need time to look further. And even if I eventually were to agree with you I am sure no one would be swayed or impressed by it as I am not a physicist.
From: waldofj on 8 May 2010 22:07
On May 6, 2:16 pm, BURT <macromi...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > On May 6, 7:57 am, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > On May 4, 9:21 pm, BURT <macromi...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > > > > If the electric force has an opposite which acts as an attraction it > > > would mean that the electron and protons ought to come together > > > because of it. But you have to force these particles together so how > > > can you say they attract one another? > > > > Mitch Raemsch > > > No, it does NOT mean that electrons and protons ought to come together > > because of it. > > No that makes no sense that they are attractive but they don't come > together without force. > > Mitch Raemsch > > > The reason is angular momentum. > > The simple test you can do in the town library where you make your > > posts is to swing a pail of water in a vertical circle. You'll note > > that if you swing fast enough, the water does not fall out of the pail > > onto your head, even when the pail is overhead and gravity is pulling > > the water downward. Note that gravity and the pressure from the sides > > and bottom of the pail are the only forces acting on the water. > > So, once you figure out why gravity doesn't make the water fall out of > > the pail onto your head when you do this, you'll understand perhaps > > why the moon doesn't fall into the earth, why the earth doesn't fall > > into the sun, and why the electron doesn't fall into the proton. > > Can youi please show how attraction doesn't bring them together? > Lets be sensible. this site (as provided above by Cwatters) http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20090214124530AAfM4lg gives a good answer but I think it's easier to see it from a view point of energy. By itself the neutron is unstable with a half-life of 10 minutes. It decays into a proton, an electron, an anti-electron neutrino, and a release of energy (not much, but some) To drive this process backwards (recombine the electron and proton) requires an input of energy. So they don't combine for the same reason that water doesn't run uphill. Now as to the deeper question, why is the neutron unstable, no one knows. Them's the rules, that all. |