From: PD on 17 May 2010 10:22 On May 15, 2:54 pm, BURT <macromi...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > > If electrons and protons are attractive how come it never shows up? It does. It's called electron capture. > Why would they need to be forced together to form neutronium? Neutronium is fictional. > > Mitch Raemsch
From: PD on 17 May 2010 10:32 On May 15, 5:16 pm, john <vega...(a)accesscomm.ca> wrote: > On May 15, 8:22 am, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote:> On May 14, 8:52 pm, john <vega...(a)accesscomm.ca> wrote: > > > > On May 14, 2:37 pm, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > On May 14, 3:03 pm, franklinhu <frankli...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > > > > > > On May 12, 6:30 pm, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > > 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. > > > > > > I suppose we would have to define what we mean by a proton and > > > > > electron to be "in contact" since protons/electrons do not likely have > > > > > such a hard and defined shell that can rest upon each other. In this > > > > > case, I mean when the electron/proton reach a steady state upon which > > > > > the electron can move no closer to the proton. Such a thing could > > > > > happens since the charge distribution of a proton suggest that it > > > > > contains negative charges and there may be a point where the repulsion > > > > > equals the attraction and the electron goes no closer to the proton. > > > > > The point at which this happens would likely have nothing to do with > > > > > the "cross section" of a proton/electron found from scattering > > > > > experiments. > > > > > This is where a little calculation would be in order, and a little > > > > experiment, Franklin. > > > > > First, the calculation. There are indeed negative charges in the > > > > proton, and indeed the repulsive force gets stronger as the electron > > > > gets closer. But there are also positive charges in the proton, and > > > > the attractive force has the same dependence on distance as the > > > > repulsive force does (see Coulomb's law). So there is no way that the > > > > repulsion of the negative charges could become *stronger* than the > > > > attraction of the positive charges at some radius. Furthermore, there > > > > are *more* positive charges in the proton than there are negative > > > > charges. > > > > > Second, the experiment. Take a metal meter stick and balance it on > > > > something insulating, like a half a ping-pong ball. Now blow up a > > > > balloon and tie it off, and rub it on your hair to put a static charge > > > > on the balloon. Then hold the balloon close to one end of the meter > > > > stick, but off to one side so that the meter stick can rotate on the > > > > pivot. Which way does it pivot, toward the balloon, or away from the > > > > balloon? Keep in mind that the meter stick is electrically neutral, > > > > with just as many negative charges as there are positive charges. So > > > > explain your observations. > > > > > > The "cross section" also merely represents the equivalent target area > > > > > that a proton represents if it were concenterated in a little round > > > > > plate. > > > > > Actually, no, it doesn't mean that at all. You may want to take a look > > > > at Rutherford's analysis of Coulomb scattering from the nucleus. That > > > > was over a century ago, by the way. > > > > > > Scattering experiments are done much like firing bullets into a > > > > > black room. If your target is truely a small round disk, then your > > > > > measurements are accurate. However, if your target looks more like a > > > > > square cage, the measurement you get would in no way reflect upon the > > > > > true size and extent of the object. > > > > > This simply isn't true, Franklin. > > > > > > This is a crucial limitation of > > > > > scattering experiments and so, I think it would be possible that the > > > > > physical structure of the proton could be much larger than just the > > > > > scattering cross section of 1E-15m. > > > > > > So, the scattering cross section alone does not preclude the > > > > > possiblity that the electron and positron are sitting at a static > > > > > relationship to one another at a 1E-10m distance. > > > > > This is true. There are abundant experiments otherwise that say that > > > > electrons are not sitting in a static relationship. The kinetic energy > > > > of the electron is a *measured* quantity in ionization experiments, > > > > for example. You can open up any freshman chemistry text for this kind > > > > of info. > > > > > > Do you have any > > > > > direct experiments, rather than drawing conclusions from data which > > > > > may not be relevant? > > > > > > I think it more telling that if the electron and proton were not > > > > > sitting on each other and the electron were somehow in motion aruond > > > > > the proton, that it should emit energy and thus fall into the proton. > > > > > We see no such radiation, so this confirms the electron is not in > > > > > motion aroud the proton. > > > > > No, it does not confirm anything, though it was a puzzle around 1910. > > > > This is what is referred to as the "ultraviolet catastrophe". The VERY > > > > FIRST PROBLEM that quantum mechanics addressed was how an electron > > > > could be in motion around the proton and not radiate. > > > > Well, if that was its very > > > first whitewash- er I mean, problem, > > > it's no wonder evrything is so f***ed up. > > > > The electron is constantly radiating, > > > No evidence of that, John. > > Hey, if you can't see something, you're > saying it's not there? I'm saying, John, that if you don't have strong evidence for something, then supposing its existence anyway is no better than supposing the existence of angel's breath and ectoplasmic flow. > Of course, you're prone to just say you> believe it is, but that it's an INVISIBLE radiation. Something like > > the exhalation of angels. > Or neutrinos. But we have very strong evidence of neutrinos, John. Have for 50 years. We can produce them, and we can see them banging into things with very strict rules and consequences special to neutrinos. > > > > as are > > > stars. But no matter that stars burn out > > > regularly, the galaxy still has stars! > > > Where do they come from? They form > > > and are born from something all the time. > > > Yes, from the gravitational collapse of dispersed matter. Where did > > you think they came from? > > Explain that process; I can hardly > wait. "Stars produce matter. Collapse of > matter produces stars." Good one , PD. Stars don't produce matter. They produce heavier atoms from lighter ones, in nuclear fusion. The matter accretes gravitationally. You don't know how stars form? Here's a basic intro: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Star_formation > > > > Similarly an electron can- nay, MUST > > > radiate, > > > What on earth makes you think it MUST? Shouldn't statements be made on > > the basis of observation? > > Electrons move in curved pathways. They are charged. I'm sorry, what in these statements lead you to believe that electrons MUST radiate? > > > > but is constantly replenished through > > > another pathway. > > > > Quantum mechanics is non-logic, > > > What do you think is non-logical about quantum mechanics? You mean it > > is counter to your common sense? > > No, it is counter to everyone's common sense. > It is B.S. No, John, it is not counter to EVERYONE'S common sense. It is counter to yours, and perhaps counter to those of the people you eat dinner with. Please do not presume that YOUR common sense is shared by everyone. Please do not presume that if it does not make sense to YOU, then it cannot possibly make sense to anyone. That is the height of egotism. > > > > and therefore non-science. > > > Is it your belief that scientific facts must always appeal to your > > common sense? > > No, they must 'make sense'- i.e. contain no contradictions. Contradictions are not statements that are counter to common sense. Contradictions are when a given theory makes two completely opposite claims. Such as "A bat is a mammal" and "A bat is not a mammal." THAT is a contradiction. > Contradictions like 'point particle', and 'singularity'. That is not a contradiction. Those are things that don't make sense to you because you BELIEVE that nature only contains things that have inner structure and you BELIEVE that nature cannot exhibit a singularity in anything. But something that is in conflict with what you BELIEVE is not a contradiction. It is just that your belief system contains statements that are inconsistent with observations, and you refuse to let go of those statements anyway. > > > > I fail to see how it hypnotizes > > > perfectly intelligent people. > > > > john- Hide quoted text - > > > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text - > > > - Show quoted text - > >
From: PD on 17 May 2010 12:13 On May 17, 12:33 am, franklinhu <frankli...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > On May 14, 1:37 pm, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > On May 14, 3:03 pm, franklinhu <frankli...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > > > > On May 12, 6:30 pm, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > 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. > > > > I suppose we would have to define what we mean by a proton and > > > electron to be "in contact" since protons/electrons do not likely have > > > such a hard and defined shell that can rest upon each other. In this > > > case, I mean when the electron/proton reach a steady state upon which > > > the electron can move no closer to the proton. Such a thing could > > > happens since the charge distribution of a proton suggest that it > > > contains negative charges and there may be a point where the repulsion > > > equals the attraction and the electron goes no closer to the proton. > > > The point at which this happens would likely have nothing to do with > > > the "cross section" of a proton/electron found from scattering > > > experiments. > > > This is where a little calculation would be in order, and a little > > experiment, Franklin. > > > First, the calculation. There are indeed negative charges in the > > proton, and indeed the repulsive force gets stronger as the electron > > gets closer. But there are also positive charges in the proton, and > > the attractive force has the same dependence on distance as the > > repulsive force does (see Coulomb's law). So there is no way that the > > repulsion of the negative charges could become *stronger* than the > > attraction of the positive charges at some radius. Furthermore, there > > are *more* positive charges in the proton than there are negative > > charges. > > Well, at this point, this is all idle speculation, You mean about YOUR theory, yes. But it's not idle speculation about the implications of classical theory, and it's not idle speculation about the implications of quantum theory. I believe you were wondering how classical theory would respond to this. > it may or may not > work, although my own theories indicate that since the charge > attraction is due to a phased wave interaction, the closest a positron > and electron could approach would be one wavelength of the resonant > frequency for positrons/electrons. Protons, being 2 positrons and 1 > electron, (in my model) may have properties which may still keep the > electron some distance from the proton. And there are properties in the current model that keep the electron some distance from the proton. That was the point we were addressing, you see. As for having an "alternate model" for why the electron keeps some distance from the proton, let me remind you that having two theories that ostensibly account for the same observations is scientifically useless. In science, it is always important for the proposer of a new theory to identify the places where the new theory DISAGREES with the prevailing theory about predicted observations of measurable quantities. This, then, becomes the place to test. > > > > > Second, the experiment. Take a metal meter stick and balance it on > > something insulating, like a half a ping-pong ball. Now blow up a > > balloon and tie it off, and rub it on your hair to put a static charge > > on the balloon. Then hold the balloon close to one end of the meter > > stick, but off to one side so that the meter stick can rotate on the > > pivot. Which way does it pivot, toward the balloon, or away from the > > balloon? Keep in mind that the meter stick is electrically neutral, > > with just as many negative charges as there are positive charges. So > > explain your observations. > > Huh? What does this have to do with anything? The neutral bar is > attracted to any point charge Attracted, note, not repelled. Your contention was that because the proton contains negative charge (though not as much as positive charge), then this could account for why the attraction is at some point overcome by repulsion. I gave you a case where there were equal amounts of positive and negative charge, and there is at no point a place where repulsion overcome attraction -- only attraction is seen. Therefore, your supposition that the presence of ANY negative charge in the proton could account for repulsion of electrons is not supported by observation. That's what it has to do with anything. > - this is generally how I think gravity > works, but that is another story entirely. > > > > > > The "cross section" also merely represents the equivalent target area > > > that a proton represents if it were concenterated in a little round > > > plate. > > > Actually, no, it doesn't mean that at all. You may want to take a look > > at Rutherford's analysis of Coulomb scattering from the nucleus. That > > was over a century ago, by the way. > > Oh sure, I've looked it up plenty of times and right off the bat, it > makes an ASSUMPTION that all of the charge is concentrated in the > scattering cross section. > > http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/rutsca.html > > "The scattering of alpha particles from nuclei can be modeled from the > Coulomb force and treated as an orbit. The scattering process can be > treated statistically in terms of the cross-section for interaction > with a nucleus which is considered to be a point charge Ze." Be careful, find a more in-depth source. Follow the calculations. The nucleus does not behave like a hard disk. In a hard disk model, any alpha with an impact parameter that is even slightly larger than the hard disk radius would have no deflection at all. But that is NOT at all what is seen, and Rutherford's model of it doesn't make that prediction either. This is why I asked you to look at it again, using a better reference than the one above. > > Notice the use of "cross-section for interaction" and "considered to > be a point charge Ze" > > http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/nuclear/crosec.html#c1 > > > > > > Scattering experiments are done much like firing bullets into a > > > black room. If your target is truely a small round disk, then your > > > measurements are accurate. However, if your target looks more like a > > > square cage, the measurement you get would in no way reflect upon the > > > true size and extent of the object. > > > This simply isn't true, Franklin. > > Well, I can't say that I at all convinced by your explanation. Can you > elaborate how you can tell the full spatial extent of an object based > upon just the scattering cross section which by definition > concentrates all the interaction zone into a compact circular region? It does NOT do that by definition. You may want to look up "inverse scattering" to see how scattering centers are mapped according to the behavior of scattered objects. Warning, you'll quickly run into math called Green's functions, which are very important for this work. > Unless you can scan from side to side, I don't think you can determine > the spatial extent of an object. It's simply not true, Franklin. There are in fact *children's museum* exhibits that have kids shoot BBs (without scanning) at objects of unknown shape and size that are veiled under a screen, and the exhibit lets them choose several unknown objects, such as triangles, cylinders, hexagons, disks, etc. By mapping where the scattered BBs land, the *children* can deduce both the size and shape of the object. Historically, you may also want to look at the work of Rosalind Franklin, who did much of the scattering work with Watson and Crick that let them figure out the intricate shape and size of the DNA molecule. > > > > > > This is a crucial limitation of > > > scattering experiments and so, I think it would be possible that the > > > physical structure of the proton could be much larger than just the > > > scattering cross section of 1E-15m. > > > > So, the scattering cross section alone does not preclude the > > > possiblity that the electron and positron are sitting at a static > > > relationship to one another at a 1E-10m distance. > > > This is true. There are abundant experiments otherwise that say that > > electrons are not sitting in a static relationship. The kinetic energy > > of the electron is a *measured* quantity in ionization experiments, > > for example. You can open up any freshman chemistry text for this kind > > of info. > > Well of course, in "ionziation" experiments, the electron has been > ionized or ejected from the nucleus and is of course flying around in > such experiments and must have a measurable KE - what else would one > expect? But the *amount* of KE they have includes the KE they started with in the orbital, not just what was given to them. You see? This is how we know how much kinetic energy they have in the atom. And it's not zero. > > But, you will never, ever, ever, find any evidence that the electron > has KE in a ground state atom, never! Of course, probably nobody has > tried to do so, but if they did, they'd find only enough KE to account > for the ambient heat energy. That is simply not true, Franklin. You have much catching up to do. About a century's worth. > > > > > > Do you have any > > > direct experiments, rather than drawing conclusions from data which > > > may not be relevant? > > > > I think it more telling that if the electron and proton were not > > > sitting on each other and the electron were somehow in motion aruond > > > the proton, that it should emit energy and thus fall into the proton. > > > We see no such radiation, so this confirms the electron is not in > > > motion aroud the proton. > > > No, it does not confirm anything, though it was a puzzle around 1910. > > This is what is referred to as the "ultraviolet catastrophe". The VERY > > FIRST PROBLEM that quantum mechanics addressed was how an electron > > could be in motion around the proton and not radiate. > > > It appears, Franklin, that you are trying to retrace all the steps of > > physics from the middle of the 18th century onward, on your own, > > without references and without access to any of the experimental data. > > This is why you are confronting very old problems that have already > > been solved a century ago, and you are imagining that you have > > stumbled on something new. > > I assure you, over the past 6 year or so since I became interested in > this topic, I am well aware of all the references and I have wonderful > access to all the experimental data thanks to the internet. It appears that though you may claim to have access to everything, you've only seen a small smattering. You have missed entirely the bulk of the stuff that would be relevant. > > I confront very "old" problems because they do not explain things > like: > > What is charge? > What is gravity? > How do electrons take on these epicycle like electron shells? This is in fact clearly explained by quantum mechanics. You just haven't studied it. > How do these crazy electron shells manange to not knock each other > apart? Again, this is answered. > How do these negative electron shells, then manage to attract to form > molecules? Again, this is answered, and this time you don't need to go to a quantum mechanics text. It's covered in the bonding chapter in a freshman chemistry textbook. > How does mass turn into energy and how does energy turn into mass. This is also explained by quantum mechanics and relativity. Just because you have not found the answer yet, does not mean the answer has not been found. You just aren't looking for the answers in the right places. > > No, I am not stumbling on something new, I'm stumbling on something > which is "old" and indeed does go back to the 18th century. Back in > those days, we were making rapid progress on discovering electricity, > magnetisim, the nuclear forces. But in the last 100 years - we've not > come any closer to understanding things like charge and gravity than > we were a 100 years ago, no progress at all, nothing. I disagree. > We will never be > able to control mass, inertia, charge and gravity at this rate. The > ability to control any of these would be a fantastic and useful > breakthrough, but current science has NO answers at all. Again, I disagree. We've made fantastic progress. Now, just because we haven't MASTERED control of these does not mean we know nothing. > > I, on the other hand, do have answers to all of these questions and in > a way which has the same kind of beauty as the Copernican revolution > of removing the Earth centered universe. The proof of the pudding is in the eating. How does your model allow us to have control over inertia, gravity, charge, mass? Where is a patent application for a device that operates on your principles and exploits them for control of any of these quantities? > The main "wrong" belief at > this point is that "there is no aehter". As long as we continue to > deny the most fundamental basic foundation for all physics and instead > choose to believe that space is "nothing", we will continue to be > lost. This is why my most recent posts have been concentrating on > finding and identifying the poslectron aether particle. > > In case anyone is wondering about the explantions I have, see:http://franklinhu.com/theory.html > > Of course, this would require science to toss out the past 100 years, > but heck, that is what is fun about it. I'm not going to sit in a > science lab and add another digit of precision onto some old constant. > I think everyone senses that there is something seriously wrong with > physics - it is too kooky - and is waiting for the next Einstein to > shake things up and make it all clear. That's what all us crackpots/ > cranks are up to. Keep in mind that the last Einstein proposed stuff that a number of people -- fortunately not everyone -- thought was too kooky. The next Einstein would propose stuff that also seems too kooky to be believed, but s/he would propose clear experimental tests (just like Einstein did) to see if the kooky ideas were right. There are plenty of kooky ideas out there now that do have clear experimental tests associated with them. You see, what you are trying to do is to find a model that DOESN'T seem kooky, and that's the problem. You'll never be the next Einstein if you're rejecting stuff that just sounds too kooky. You HAVE to seek the kooky, but also propose clear tests that would show that the kooky idea is right and the prevailing theory is wrong. > > > > I am also not terribly convinced that > > > restricting the orbits to specific distances as done in quantum > > > physics in any way explains why it doesn't emit energy and fall from > > > these specific distances. > > > But it does. It helps to understand what "quantum" means here, and why > > the energy of the electron can ONLY be in multiples of -13.6 eV/n^2, > > where n is an integer, and thus why continuous radiation does not > > happen. > > > > So, while the electron and proton may not be in a sense 'touching', > > > the electron has gotten as close to the proton as it can and is in a > > > resting energy state. > > > If it has nonzero kinetic energy about the center of mass of the atom, > > it can't be said to be resting. > > > > > 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 -- Hide quoted text - > > > > > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -- Hide quoted text - > > > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text - > > > - Show quoted text -... > > > read more » > >
From: BURT on 17 May 2010 14:49 On May 17, 7:22 am, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > On May 15, 2:54 pm, BURT <macromi...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > > > > > If electrons and protons are attractive how come it never shows up? > > It does. It's called electron capture. > > > Why would they need to be forced together to form neutronium? > > Neutronium is fictional. > > > > > > > Mitch Raemsch- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text - So there are electron capture stars?
From: PD on 17 May 2010 15:02
On May 17, 1:49 pm, BURT <macromi...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > On May 17, 7:22 am, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > On May 15, 2:54 pm, BURT <macromi...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > > > > If electrons and protons are attractive how come it never shows up? > > > It does. It's called electron capture. > > > > Why would they need to be forced together to form neutronium? > > > Neutronium is fictional. > > > > Mitch Raemsch- Hide quoted text - > > > - Show quoted text - > > So there are electron capture stars? Electron capture happens in stars, yes. Neutronium is fictional. |