Electron and proton attraction by opposite charge
in [Relativity]
|
From: waldofj on 9 May 2010 01:13 On May 9, 1:02 am, BURT <macromi...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > On May 8, 8:10 pm, waldofj <wald...(a)verizon.net> wrote: > > > > > > It makes no sense that these attractive particles should never come > > > together except under the pressure required to create neutronium. > > > > Mitch Raemsch > > > you just have to keep in mind there is a lot more going on here then > > just electrostatic attraction. > > The uncertainty principle, > > wave-particle duality, > > the weak nuclear force, > > the strong nuclear force, > > and none of it is intuitive or makes any kind of sense at all. > > I assume you looked at the link Cwatters provided and didn't > > understand a word of it. > > Well, that's your goal, to learn what you need to understand it. > > Good luck > > If we can't verify an attraction what does that mean for the theory? > > NO. There are no charges. There is only repulsive electric field and > aether. The proton and electron are the same. > > Mitch Raemsch I need to get the name of your pharmacist.
From: Mathal on 9 May 2010 01:20 On May 7, 10:27 am, john <vega...(a)accesscomm.ca> wrote: > On May 7, 10:45 am, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > Hydrogen atoms in interstellar space have been around for an awfully > > long time, John, without energy input. > > ????? > No photons out there? > No neutrinos out there? > > I think you may be slightly mistaken, PD, there > are all kinds of energies out there for atoms > to interact with. > > Thinking atoms are perpetual > motion machines is just plain silly, PD. > > Are you getting silly, PD? > > john Proton + electron = neutron + electron neutrino The problem with your scenario is the stable side of the formula is proton + electron. They have no measurable lifetime. What I mean is that no electron or proton has ever 'reduced' to simpler constituent of the universe. On the other side is the neutron and electron neutrino. The electron neutrino exits the scenario at near light speed while the neutron stays in the vicinity. It has a shelf life of approximately 14 seconds before it 'finally' encounters another of the neutrinos from the neutrino factory (the sun) and transforms back into the significantly more stable proton and electron. If we could measure the average time it takes for an independent neutron to 'transform' back to a proton and electron from twice the distance from the sun...- actually since the orbit of the earth is not purely circular if there is a measurable difference between the widest and shortest distance from the sun for the neutron decay that would demonstrate the electron neutrino effect. Anyway I'm getting off-topic like most other posts I've read in this thread. Mathal
From: J. Clarke on 9 May 2010 07:12 On 5/9/2010 1:13 AM, waldofj wrote: > On May 9, 1:02 am, BURT<macromi...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: >> On May 8, 8:10 pm, waldofj<wald...(a)verizon.net> wrote: >> >> >> >>>> It makes no sense that these attractive particles should never come >>>> together except under the pressure required to create neutronium. >> >>>> Mitch Raemsch >> >>> you just have to keep in mind there is a lot more going on here then >>> just electrostatic attraction. >>> The uncertainty principle, >>> wave-particle duality, >>> the weak nuclear force, >>> the strong nuclear force, >>> and none of it is intuitive or makes any kind of sense at all. >>> I assume you looked at the link Cwatters provided and didn't >>> understand a word of it. >>> Well, that's your goal, to learn what you need to understand it. >>> Good luck >> >> If we can't verify an attraction what does that mean for the theory? >> >> NO. There are no charges. There is only repulsive electric field and >> aether. The proton and electron are the same. >> >> Mitch Raemsch > > I need to get the name of your pharmacist. Do you _really_ want to do that to your brain, or are you suggesting that he's diluting the meds?
From: john on 9 May 2010 11:27 On May 8, 11:20 pm, Mathal <mathmusi...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > On May 7, 10:27 am, john <vega...(a)accesscomm.ca> wrote: > > > > > > > On May 7, 10:45 am, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > Hydrogen atoms in interstellar space have been around for an awfully > > > long time, John, without energy input. > > > ????? > > No photons out there? > > No neutrinos out there? > > > I think you may be slightly mistaken, PD, there > > are all kinds of energies out there for atoms > > to interact with. > > > Thinking atoms are perpetual > > motion machines is just plain silly, PD. > > > Are you getting silly, PD? > > > john > > Proton + electron = neutron + electron neutrino > > The problem with your scenario is the stable side of the formula is > proton + electron. They have no measurable lifetime. What I mean is > that no electron or proton has ever 'reduced' to simpler constituent > of the universe. On the other side is the neutron and electron > neutrino. The electron neutrino exits the scenario at near light speed > while the neutron stays in the vicinity. It has a shelf life of > approximately 14 seconds before it 'finally' encounters another of the > neutrinos from the neutrino factory (the sun) and transforms back into > the significantly more stable proton and electron. > If we could measure the average time it takes for an independent > neutron to 'transform' back to a proton and electron from twice the > distance from the sun...- actually since the orbit of the earth is not > purely circular if there is a measurable difference between the widest > and shortest distance from the sun for the neutron decay that would > demonstrate the electron neutrino effect. > Anyway I'm getting off-topic like most other posts I've read in > this thread. As stars become spent they contain more and more neutrons? As in 'neutron star'? Aren't neutrons at a lower energy? Creating a proton and electron from a neutron would seem to *require* energy- and energy of a certain kind: a neutrino. How about something like this scenario: as long as the proton/galactic center remains as a standing wave of extreme spacetime spin, it will not allow the displaced virtual pairs back within its event horizon without spinning them so fast that it shreds them into two completely separate entities and shoots them back out the jets. When the positive and negative HEPs again encounter each other, they attract into stars, and they fuse into protons and electrons at the stars' centers. This process gives off neutrinos. Then when the proton and electron combine one stage further, into the neutron (which is almost back to the original combined virtual pair) this process also gives off a (some)neutrino(s). So at each stage that you bring the two charges closer together, you are giving off neutrinos. And in order to split them apart, you must supply neutrinos: you must supply energy. The thing is: energy is everywhere with all the neutrinos coming from all the suns, and protons feed off that energy at divers levels; they will never fuse back with the electron. john
From: franklinhu on 9 May 2010 13:45
On May 8, 7:20 pm, BURT <macromi...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > On May 8, 7:07 pm, waldofj <wald...(a)verizon.net> wrote: > > > > > > > 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.- Hide quoted text - > > > - Show quoted text - > > It makes no sense that these attractive particles should never come > together except under the pressure required to create neutronium. > > Mitch Raemsch- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text - The simplest answer is that the proton and electron do come together. They stick together like 2 magnets. The real question is why we think they don't. We actually have no reason to believe that the 2 particles simply do not come to rest on each other - they don't blow up or anything, why should they? See my cubic atomic model to see how: http://franklinhu.com/theory.html fhucubic |