Electron and proton attraction by opposite charge
in [Relativity]
|
From: franklinhu on 12 May 2010 18:55 On May 10, 7:41 am, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > 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. And just how do we know they do not make contact? What experimental evidence can you point to? > > > > > 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- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text -
From: PD on 12 May 2010 21:30 On May 12, 5:55 pm, franklinhu <frankli...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > On May 10, 7:41 am, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > 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. > > And just how do we know they do not make contact? What experimental > evidence can you point to? The size of the electron is known from scattering experiments to be less than 1E-18 m. The size of the proton is known similarly to be about 1E-15m. The average distance of the electron from the proton in the atom is about 1E-10m, which is 100,000 times bigger than the size of the proton and 100,000,000 times bigger than the size of the electron. Here's the way you can imagine it, if you like. Take a 1 mm BB, and a 1 meter beach ball. Set the beach ball on the ground. Now walk 60 miles and set the BB on the ground. This is a scale model of the atom. Does it look like to you that the BB is in contact with the beach ball? > > > > > > 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- Hide quoted text - > > > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text - > > > - Show quoted text - > >
From: Inertial on 12 May 2010 22:05 "PD" <thedraperfamily(a)gmail.com> wrote in message news:af611b1e-80b1-4dfb-8748-9e9e542cd1d4(a)i9g2000yqi.googlegroups.com... > On May 12, 5:55 pm, franklinhu <frankli...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: >> On May 10, 7:41 am, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: >> >> >> >> > 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. >> >> And just how do we know they do not make contact? What experimental >> evidence can you point to? > > The size of the electron is known from scattering experiments to be > less than 1E-18 m. The size of the proton is known similarly to be > about 1E-15m. The average distance of the electron from the proton in > the atom is about 1E-10m, which is 100,000 times bigger than the size > of the proton and 100,000,000 times bigger than the size of the > electron. > > Here's the way you can imagine it, if you like. > Take a 1 mm BB, and a 1 meter beach ball. Set the beach ball on the > ground. Now walk 60 miles and set the BB on the ground. This is a > scale model of the atom. Does it look like to you that the BB is in > contact with the beach ball? Except the BB doesn't have a particular location on the beach but just a probability of existing at various places on the beach. Some orbitals are not even spherical shells.
From: Androcles on 13 May 2010 05:01 "ben6993" <ben6993(a)hotmail.com> wrote in message news:7f5a614f-5ea0-43f7-abe9-085678938f39(a)n15g2000yqf.googlegroups.com... <snip to the nitty gritty> Hi Androcles Using Einstein's (1905) two frames: K (stationary, t, x, y, z) and k (moving, tau, xi, eta, zeta). Let Androcles make measurements in the stationary frame K. Assume that the speed v is sufficient (approx. 0.866c) to produce a measured length in K which is half of what it is in k. In assuming this, it is needed to show that Androcles measures the length as x, where x is half of the length measured as xi. I.e. need to show that x = 0.5 xi. - - - -- Einstein's formula is xi = beta (x-vt) At t=0, xi=beta x This is Einstein's beta, where beta = 1/sqrt(1-v^2/c^2) sqrt(1-v^2/c^2) = 0.5 so beta = 1/0.5 = 2 so in Einsein's formula xi= beta x, therefore xi = 2x. xi=2x, therefore x = 0.5 xi which is what we set out to prove. ============================================= Very good. You have indeed proven that Einstein's moving frame is twice as long as his stationary frame at your chosen speed. Well done, we agree, and it seems your round tuit has had the desired result. If you go faster you'll have further to go. ============================================= So Einstein's equations seem to me to agree with the Lorentz formula. =============================================== You really should learn the difference between multiplication and division, which is taught in third grade. Have another round tuit. Lorentz claims L = L0 * sqrt(1 - v^2/c^2) Einstein claims L = L0 / sqrt(1 - v^2/c^2) L0 is the length in Lorentz's aether frame and L0 (=x-vt) is the length in Einstein's stationary frame (which you've now proven). Can you see that Lorentz's L is 0.5 and Einstein's L is 2 at your chosen speed? =============================================== I am disappointed, Androcles, as I had put off doing this previously because I had thought it was complicated. Unless I am overlooking something complicated? ============================================ Well, yes. I do understand that division is more complicated than multiplication and both Einstein and Lorentz were clowns, but I'm please to see that you've proven Einstein to be the clown with the more ridiculous bigger feet to trip over and fall flat on his face.
From: ben6993 on 13 May 2010 05:32
On May 13, 10:01 am, "Androcles" <Headmas...(a)Hogwarts.physics_z> wrote: > "ben6993" <ben6...(a)hotmail.com> wrote in message > > news:7f5a614f-5ea0-43f7-abe9-085678938f39(a)n15g2000yqf.googlegroups.com... > > <snip to the nitty gritty> > > Hi Androcles > > Using Einstein's (1905) two frames: K (stationary, t, x, y, z) and k > (moving, tau, xi, eta, zeta). > Let Androcles make measurements in the stationary frame K. > Assume that the speed v is sufficient (approx. 0.866c) to produce a > measured length in K which is half of what it is in k. > In assuming this, it is needed to show that Androcles measures the > length as x, where x is half of the length measured as xi. > I.e. need to show that x = 0.5 xi. > > - - - -- > > Einstein's formula is xi = beta (x-vt) > At t=0, xi=beta x > > This is Einstein's beta, where beta = 1/sqrt(1-v^2/c^2) > > sqrt(1-v^2/c^2) = 0.5 > > so beta = 1/0.5 = 2 > > so in Einsein's formula xi= beta x, therefore xi = 2x. > > xi=2x, > therefore x = 0.5 xi which is what we set out to prove. > ============================================= > Very good. You have indeed proven that Einstein's moving frame is > twice as long as his stationary frame at your chosen speed. > Well done, we agree, and it seems your round tuit has had the > desired result. > > If you go faster you'll have further to go. > ============================================= > So Einstein's equations seem to me to agree with the Lorentz formula. > =============================================== > You really should learn the difference between multiplication and > division, which is taught in third grade. Have another round tuit. > > Lorentz claims L = L0 * sqrt(1 - v^2/c^2) > Einstein claims L = L0 / sqrt(1 - v^2/c^2) > > L0 is the length in Lorentz's aether frame > and > L0 (=x-vt) is the length in Einstein's stationary frame (which you've now > proven). > > Can you see that Lorentz's L is 0.5 and Einstein's L is 2 at your chosen > speed? > > =============================================== > I am disappointed, Androcles, as I had put off doing this previously > because I had thought it was complicated. Unless I am overlooking > something complicated? > ============================================ > Well, yes. I do understand that division is more complicated than > multiplication and both Einstein and Lorentz were clowns, but I'm > please to see that you've proven Einstein to be the clown with > the more ridiculous bigger feet to trip over and fall flat on his face. L0 is the length in k (where measurements are in tau and xi) L is the length in K (where Androcles is measuring in x and t) so replace L0 by xi and replace L by x. Lorentz claims L = L0 * sqrt(1 - v^2/c^2) becomes x = xi *sqrt(1 - v^2/c^2) ie x=xi/beta (Einsteins beta = 1/sqrt(1 - v^2/c^2)) ie xi=beta x OK, as this is Einstein's formula. You say that Einstein claims that L = L0 / sqrt(1 - v^2/c^2) ie x = xi/sqrt(1 - v^2/c^2) ie x= xi beta (Einsteins beta = 1/sqrt(1 - v^2/c^2)) NOT OK, as this is not Einstein's formula. Einstein's formula is xi=beta x so you should not think that that Einstein says that L=L0 / sqrt(1 - v^2/c^2). Or you should make it clear to me why you think that this is what Einstein is saying. |