Electron and proton attraction by opposite charge
in [Relativity]
|
From: BURT on 9 May 2010 16:10 On May 8, 12:26 pm, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > On May 8, 1:31 pm, BURT <macromi...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > > > > > > > On May 8, 10:14 am, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > On May 7, 2:31 pm, BURT <macromi...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > > > > > On May 7, 12:16 pm, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > On May 7, 1:46 pm, BURT <macromi...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > > > > > > > On May 7, 11:42 am, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > > > On May 7, 1:19 pm, BURT <macromi...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > > > > > > > > > On May 7, 5:49 am, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > On May 6, 5:45 pm, BURT <macromi...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > On May 6, 2:57 pm, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > On May 6, 4:38 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? > > > > > > > > > > > > Oh dear. Mitch, do you really believe this is what's claimed? > > > > > > > > > > > > > Mitch Raemsch- Hide quoted text - > > > > > > > > > > > > > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text - > > > > > > > > > > > > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text - > > > > > > > > > > > > - Show quoted text - > > > > > > > > > > > What science claims is similar to the pot of gold but it is sciences > > > > > > > > > > myth of an explanation and that will never work. > > > > > > > > > > I'm sorry, Mitch, but I see that there is a marked difference between > > > > > > > > > the rainbow theory you have in your head and what is really > > > > > > > > > scientifically understood about rainbows. > > > > > > > > > > > Mitch Raemsch; Science can't explain a rainbow- Hide quoted text - > > > > > > > > > > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text - > > > > > > > > > > - Show quoted text - > > > > > > > > > But science doesn't understand a rainbow. Its explanation is like a > > > > > > > > leprechaun. > > > > > > > > Oh, but it does. What's wrong is that you don't understand the > > > > > > > scientific understanding of a rainbow. Please don't think that if you > > > > > > > don't understand it, then it's not understood. It's just you.- Hide quoted text - > > > > > > > > - Show quoted text - > > > > > > > Can you show how water hangs in an arc in the air and radiates > > > > > > without falling? > > > > > > Water doesn't hang in an arc. The reflection back from the water that > > > > > happens to hit your eyes is from the drops that are in an arc-shaped > > > > > region of the body of water. The light gets reflected from all of the > > > > > drops but you can only see the reflections from an arc-shaped group. > > > > > People standing a few hundred yards ahead of you or behind you see the > > > > > light from a different arc. > > > > > > Water hangs in the air without falling all the time, Mitch. They're > > > > > called clouds.- Hide quoted text - > > > > > But we are not talking about clouds. > > > > But we are. The water in which a rainbow can be seen is nothing more > > > than a diffuse cloud. > > > > > > - Show quoted text - > > > > > The idea that the back of falling raindrops will radiate in an arc > > > > while falling won't work and I am pointing it out because it is > > > > obvious. > > > > It's not obvious at all. What's obvious is that you don't know what > > > makes a rainbow. > > > > > Mitch Raemsch- Hide quoted text - > > > > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text - > > > > - Show quoted text - > > > So a rainbow is a cloud now? > > A rainbow is an optical phenomenon in suspended water vapor, and a > cloud is suspended water vapor. > > > > > I don't think there are circular clouds that radiate the spectrum. > > It's not the cloud that is circular, and it is not the water vapor > that is circular, it is the rainbow IN the water vapor that is > circular. > > You need to learn how a rainbow is made. > > > > > > > NO. Science cannot explain it but it wants to think it can. In that > > sense it has a kind of Leprechaun of its own. > > > Mitch Raemsch- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text - You're a nut.
From: BURT on 9 May 2010 17:13 On May 9, 4:12 am, "J. Clarke" <jclarke.use...(a)cox.net> wrote: > 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?- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text - Protons and electrons never attract. If they did they would make neutronium. No there is only one charge and it is repulsive for the electric matter. Mitch Raemsch
From: PD on 10 May 2010 10:41 On May 9, 12:45 pm, franklinhu <frankli...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > 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. We know that they do not make contact. > 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
From: john on 11 May 2010 19:12 On May 7, 12:38 pm, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > On May 7, 1:19 pm, john <vega...(a)accesscomm.ca> wrote: > > > > > > > On May 7, 11:43 am, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > On May 7, 12:27 pm, 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? > > > > Sure there are, but the likelihood of their running into each other in > > > an interaction is astoundingly low, John. Most of space is > > > exceedingly, exceedingly empty, so that most hydrogen atoms have not > > > interacted with ANYTHING since the thermal horizon that generated the > > > cosmic microwave background. > > > > > 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. > > > > They're not perpetual motion machines, John. A perpetual motion > > > machine is something that generates useful work OUTPUT for zero energy > > > INPUT. > > > If you thought that the thermodynamic law that bans perpetual motion > > > machines means that nothing moves forever, then you are sadly > > > misinformed. > > > > Newton's 1st law of motion, which was discovered by Galileo, says that > > > a body in motion and without any external interaction will continue in > > > motion FOREVER. The laws of thermodynamics are completely consistent > > > with all of Newton's laws of motion. > > > Fine. > > And I said that without any energy input, > > a proton and electron will eventually fuse back together. > > I don't think so, John. Newton's 1st law says otherwise. > "Without any external interaction" is the key point. Whether or not you say otherwise, there are many more expressions of energy out there than we know of. Space is not empty- it is full of energy. There is near limitless energy available everywhere. > > > Your statement is impossible for the > > same reason that my statement is impossible: > > *everything* interacts. > > That's not so, John. Everything has the *capability* of interacting. > This does not mean that everything DOES CONTINUALLY interact. > > There is such a thing as an isolated body that has not had the > opportunity to interact with anything external to it. That was my > point. WHERE? Bullshit! > > > > > Your body will slow down because it interacts with the environment. > > Yes, where there is a large concentration of matter, this is true. > It's not true for the bulk of the universe where mass is very, very, > very sparse. Two points: 1. Your proof? You talked to someone who was there? You had an ET ride? What? 2. Mass is not the only energy form out there. We are a long way from finding all the different radiations. I hate the way your arguments always presuppose that everything is already accounted for that matters to your argument. Omnicognizance? > > > My electron, although radiating, will not run out of energy because > > the proton is constantly absorbing from the environment and > > feeding the electron. > > "Your electron" does NOT radiate, typically. At least not outside the > atom. > More omnicognizance? > > > > > > > > > Are you getting silly, PD? > > > > Nope, not at all. > > > > By the way, the method I described to you for measuring whether things > > > have a very long lifetime has been done in many cases already. For > > > example, there was a theory that actually made a prediction that the > > > lifetime of the proton was > > > 1,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 years. Given that > > > the age of the universe is only 15,000,000,000 years, this seems like > > > a neat stunt. > > > But by the method I described to you, experiments have shown that the > > > lifetime of the proton is at least > > > 6,600,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 years, and we sure > > > didn't have to wait that long to generate that result. > > > > It's all real, John. > > > > It's just your common sense that's a little off. > > > Well, my common sense says you can't > > run an atom without energy input. > > And your common sense is dead wrong, John. > > That's why I've mentioned isolated hydrogen atoms that have been > running for well over ten billion years. What you say CANNOT happen I never said it cannot happen. I said that *without energy input* (which will never happen) they would recombine- so they won't. ("Isolated" from what?) > does happen very very commonly. There is no point in denying something > that is freely exhibited in nature, just because your common sense > finds it puzzling. > > > And you can't build an atom > > from 'point particles'. > > Again, this is a limitation of your own head, John, not of nature. > > > > > And smaller size has nothing to do with > > complexity or detail and everything > > to do with lower limits on measurement processes, > > so whether or not something has structure has nothing > > to do with whether you can see that structure (as > > you recently claimed). > please comment on the above it is important john
From: PD on 12 May 2010 09:20
On May 11, 6:12 pm, john <vega...(a)accesscomm.ca> wrote: > On May 7, 12:38 pm, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > On May 7, 1:19 pm, john <vega...(a)accesscomm.ca> wrote: > > > > On May 7, 11:43 am, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > On May 7, 12:27 pm, 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? > > > > > Sure there are, but the likelihood of their running into each other in > > > > an interaction is astoundingly low, John. Most of space is > > > > exceedingly, exceedingly empty, so that most hydrogen atoms have not > > > > interacted with ANYTHING since the thermal horizon that generated the > > > > cosmic microwave background. > > > > > > 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. > > > > > They're not perpetual motion machines, John. A perpetual motion > > > > machine is something that generates useful work OUTPUT for zero energy > > > > INPUT. > > > > If you thought that the thermodynamic law that bans perpetual motion > > > > machines means that nothing moves forever, then you are sadly > > > > misinformed. > > > > > Newton's 1st law of motion, which was discovered by Galileo, says that > > > > a body in motion and without any external interaction will continue in > > > > motion FOREVER. The laws of thermodynamics are completely consistent > > > > with all of Newton's laws of motion. > > > > Fine. > > > And I said that without any energy input, > > > a proton and electron will eventually fuse back together. > > > I don't think so, John. Newton's 1st law says otherwise. > > "Without any external interaction" is the key point. > Whether or not you say otherwise, there are many > more expressions of energy out there than we know of. I want you to take a look at the form of the statement you just made. You made a positive assertion about something you confess we know nothing about. That is, you are making a definitive claim about the *unknown*. This is indistinguishable from a statement of religious faith. You can fully say, "We don't know one way or the other, but I personally *believe* that the universe is this way." When you say it carefully in that fashion, it's clear that what you're saying is not a scientific statement but one of faith. It's like saying that the soul lives forever. It's perfectly ok to say that one *believes* that the soul lives forever, but it should be recognized as a statement of faith, not of science. > Space is not empty- it is full of energy. There is near limitless > energy available everywhere. > > > > Your statement is impossible for the > > > same reason that my statement is impossible: > > > *everything* interacts. > > > That's not so, John. Everything has the *capability* of interacting. > > This does not mean that everything DOES CONTINUALLY interact. > > > There is such a thing as an isolated body that has not had the > > opportunity to interact with anything external to it. That was my > > point. > > WHERE? > Bullshit! Interstellar hydrogen atoms. It's easy to do the calculation. One knows the density of all the known players -- hydrogen atoms, photons, neutrinos, etc. Then one can calculate what the mean interaction time is between them. Then one can calculate what fraction of the current population has not had an interaction since the thermal horizon. It turns out that most of the hydrogen atoms we know of are like that. > > > > Your body will slow down because it interacts with the environment. > > > Yes, where there is a large concentration of matter, this is true. > > It's not true for the bulk of the universe where mass is very, very, > > very sparse. > > Two points: > 1. Your proof? You talked to someone who was > there? You had an ET ride? What? > 2. Mass is not the only energy form out there. > We are a long way from finding all the different > radiations. I hate the way your arguments always presuppose > that everything is already accounted for that matters > to your argument. Omnicognizance? No, but on the other hand, there is no value in *assuming* the existence of something for which we have no evidence. Otherwise, you might as well also include angels, leprechauns, and ectoplasm among the other mysterious things you suppose. > > > > My electron, although radiating, will not run out of energy because > > > the proton is constantly absorbing from the environment and > > > feeding the electron. > > > "Your electron" does NOT radiate, typically. At least not outside the > > atom. > > More omnicognizance? > > > > > > > > > > Are you getting silly, PD? > > > > > Nope, not at all. > > > > > By the way, the method I described to you for measuring whether things > > > > have a very long lifetime has been done in many cases already. For > > > > example, there was a theory that actually made a prediction that the > > > > lifetime of the proton was > > > > 1,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 years. Given that > > > > the age of the universe is only 15,000,000,000 years, this seems like > > > > a neat stunt. > > > > But by the method I described to you, experiments have shown that the > > > > lifetime of the proton is at least > > > > 6,600,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 years, and we sure > > > > didn't have to wait that long to generate that result. > > > > > It's all real, John. > > > > > It's just your common sense that's a little off. > > > > Well, my common sense says you can't > > > run an atom without energy input. > > > And your common sense is dead wrong, John. > > > That's why I've mentioned isolated hydrogen atoms that have been > > running for well over ten billion years. What you say CANNOT happen > > I never said it cannot happen. > I said that *without energy input* (which will never happen) > they would recombine- so they won't. ("Isolated" from what?) We have no evidence of that. Again, you're making a positive statement for which we have no evidence. Here's the evidence we have: 1. There are ample numbers of hydrogen atoms that have not collapsed for 14 billion years. 2. Among those things that we are aware of in the universe, most of those hydrogen atoms have not had any energy input from those sources. 3. Therefore there are hydrogen atoms that have not collapsed, despite no known energy input source. Here's what you're adding: 4. But it's simply impossible in your mind that a hydrogen atom can survive for 14 billion years without energy source. This is a FLAT statement on your part that is counter to experimental evidence. 5. Therefore you insist that there MUST be an energy source other than the known ones we can account for, and that this is the energy source for the atoms. Again, this is a flat statement on your part that is counter to experimental evidence. Both of those are statements of faith, not of science. > > > does happen very very commonly. There is no point in denying something > > that is freely exhibited in nature, just because your common sense > > finds it puzzling. > > > > And you can't build an atom > > > from 'point particles'. > > > Again, this is a limitation of your own head, John, not of nature. > > > > And smaller size has nothing to do with > > > complexity or detail and everything > > > to do with lower limits on measurement processes, > > > so whether or not something has structure has nothing > > > to do with whether you can see that structure (as > > > you recently claimed). > > please comment on the above > it is important > > john |