Electron and proton attraction by opposite charge
in [Relativity]
|
From: PD on 20 May 2010 10:10 On May 19, 8:11 pm, franklinhu <frankli...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > > 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. > > -You are effectively scanning if you are allowed to alter the incoming > trajectory and can discern the pattern of what passes through or is > deflected off to the side. This is nothing like what Rutherford did > with a beam of only straight flying alpha particles. Let's compare > apples to apples. I'm sorry, but that's also not true. The alphas all had different impact parameters with respect to the nucleus, and this is what in fact produces the *distribution* of the scattered alphas. It's EXACTLY the same thing, which is precisely why the children's museum exhibit is so instructive. > > > 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. > > -How interesting. I looked this up and this assumes beforehand that > the electron is orbiting No, not orbiting. In an orbital. With kinetic energy. Different thing, subtle but crucial. > and there is a strict relationship between > the KE and PE which allows you to calculate this. You can do more than calculate it. You can MEASURE it. You MEASURE the kinetic energy of the ejected electrons, and you compare it to the energy you injected to eject it. The difference will give you information about the kinetic energy it had inside the atom. Of course it helps that atomic theory also accurately predicts that number. This comparison between the theoretical prediction and the measurement is how you know the theory is right. > Of course, if the > electron is not orbiting as I assert, you cannot do this calculation > to determine KE. You cannot assert beforehand what you are trying to > prove. See above. The essence of physics is that it is not just a dispute between theories. Your model and the prevailing model make different assumptions, and so of course there are different claims about what you can calculate and what you can't. If all physics did was to put those two models up against each other, then there would be no way to resolve which one was right except by some argument about which one makes more sense. But this is not how science resolves which one is right. Science makes the resolution between two theories by comparing the two models against experimental measurement to see which one gets the NUMBERS right, relative to the measured values -- and doing this especially in the places where the two models make different predictions. Physics isn't about building explanations that make intuitive sense. It's about building models that make the best and most comprehensive set of accurate experimental predictions. > > > 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. > > - It is explained in the sense that it is described just like > epicycles were described. Mathematically and measurably accurate, but > totally insane. I don't know what you think is insane about it. > In what way could you say that the electron shell > explanation is any better than the epicycle explanation - it has the > same fatal problems. It is better because -- unlike planetary epicycles -- it makes accurate experimental PREdictions, not POSTdictions. > Physics is fond of saying that common sense > doesn't matter, but I think in most matters, when you come to the > truth, like how the earth isn't the center of the universe and how > electrons do not orbit around the nucleus, you will find common sense > does reign. No, I'm sorry, but common sense is a liar and a cheat. > > > 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? > > -Well, inertia and mass are governed by the interaction of matter with > the poselectron aether. If you could eliminate that electrostatic > interaction, you could eliminate inertia or reduce your mass. Or, if > you could create a "bottle" for the aether and put yourself inside it, > you would be immune to inertial effects. That's a broad, vague and useless statement. Where is the patent application that shows your principles at work? > > Gravity is merely an electrostatic effect. As such, it should be > possible to engineer ways to defeat gravity using electrical means. > But you would have to figure out how to concentrate enough charge > without having it immediately discharge to the nearest object. This is > probably why we've not figured it out yet. > > Charge is merely the result of the phased interaction of the resonant > frequency of the positron and electron. It is a normal (but very high > frequency) EM wave. If we were able to generate such a wave like we do > microwaves, we could create virtual charge waves without using a > charge displacement. This may ultimately also be the way to control > gravity. > > See, all of these things have a physical reality in the aether which > you can work with. If we assume that space is made up of 'nothing', > then there is nothing to work with. Sorry, Franklin, but you don't need matter to "work" with it. Physicists have been working with nonmatter physical entities for decades.
From: BURT on 20 May 2010 13:27 On May 20, 6:53 am, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > On May 19, 7:08 pm, bert <herbertglazie...(a)msn.com> wrote: > > > > > > > On May 7, 11:58 am, "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 - > > > More interesting is the protons 3 quarks all having same positive > > charge. > > But they don't, bert. Two of them are positively charged and one is > negatively charged. > > > So its gluons keeping them from flying apart. Hmmm What force > > is this gluon particle using? > > The gluons ARE the strong force. Just like photons ARE the > electromagnetic force. > > > Why does it get stronger when quarks > > move further away from each other? > > Because the gluons interact with each other, unlike photons. This > introduces vacuum antiscreening, where the equivalent phenomenon in > electromagnetism is vacuum screening. > > > Tricky stuff,but a Nobel is > > yours. > > Too late. Already awarded in 2004.http://nobelprize.org/nobel_prizes/physics/laureates/2004/index.html > > > > > TreBert- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text - There is no proof of gluons. They are an unverifiable theory. Has anyone ever observed virtual light? Mitch Raemsch
From: PD on 20 May 2010 13:37 On May 20, 12:27 pm, BURT <macromi...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > On May 20, 6:53 am, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > On May 19, 7:08 pm, bert <herbertglazie...(a)msn.com> wrote: > > > > On May 7, 11:58 am, "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 - > > > > More interesting is the protons 3 quarks all having same positive > > > charge. > > > But they don't, bert. Two of them are positively charged and one is > > negatively charged. > > > > So its gluons keeping them from flying apart. Hmmm What force > > > is this gluon particle using? > > > The gluons ARE the strong force. Just like photons ARE the > > electromagnetic force. > > > > Why does it get stronger when quarks > > > move further away from each other? > > > Because the gluons interact with each other, unlike photons. This > > introduces vacuum antiscreening, where the equivalent phenomenon in > > electromagnetism is vacuum screening. > > > > Tricky stuff,but a Nobel is > > > yours. > > > Too late. Already awarded in 2004.http://nobelprize.org/nobel_prizes/physics/laureates/2004/index.html > > > > TreBert- Hide quoted text - > > > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text - > > > - Show quoted text - > > There is no proof of gluons. They are an unverifiable theory. > Has anyone ever observed virtual light? That's also wrong, Mitch. Gluons have been proven to exist in 3-jet events at collider accelerators. > > Mitch Raemsch
From: BURT on 20 May 2010 15:49 On May 20, 7:10 am, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > On May 19, 8:11 pm, franklinhu <frankli...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > > > > > > > > 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. > > > -You are effectively scanning if you are allowed to alter the incoming > > trajectory and can discern the pattern of what passes through or is > > deflected off to the side. This is nothing like what Rutherford did > > with a beam of only straight flying alpha particles. Let's compare > > apples to apples. > > I'm sorry, but that's also not true. The alphas all had different > impact parameters with respect to the nucleus, and this is what in > fact produces the *distribution* of the scattered alphas. It's EXACTLY > the same thing, which is precisely why the children's museum exhibit > is so instructive. > > > > > > 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. > > > -How interesting. I looked this up and this assumes beforehand that > > the electron is orbiting > > No, not orbiting. In an orbital. With kinetic energy. Different thing, > subtle but crucial. > > > and there is a strict relationship between > > the KE and PE which allows you to calculate this. > > You can do more than calculate it. You can MEASURE it. You MEASURE the > kinetic energy of the ejected electrons, and you compare it to the > energy you injected to eject it. The difference will give you > information about the kinetic energy it had inside the atom. > > Of course it helps that atomic theory also accurately predicts that > number. This comparison between the theoretical prediction and the > measurement is how you know the theory is right. > > > Of course, if the > > electron is not orbiting as I assert, you cannot do this calculation > > to determine KE. You cannot assert beforehand what you are trying to > > prove. > > See above. The essence of physics is that it is not just a dispute > between theories. Your model and the prevailing model make different > assumptions, and so of course there are different claims about what > you can calculate and what you can't. If all physics did was to put > those two models up against each other, then there would be no way to > resolve which one was right except by some argument about which one > makes more sense. But this is not how science resolves which one is > right. Science makes the resolution between two theories by comparing > the two models against experimental measurement to see which one gets > the NUMBERS right, relative to the measured values -- and doing this > especially in the places where the two models make different > predictions. > > Physics isn't about building explanations that make intuitive sense. > It's about building models that make the best and most comprehensive > set of accurate experimental predictions. > > > > > > 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. > > > - It is explained in the sense that it is described just like > > epicycles were described. Mathematically and measurably accurate, but > > totally insane. > > I don't know what you think is insane about it. > > > In what way could you say that the electron shell > > explanation is any better than the epicycle explanation - it has the > > same fatal problems. > > It is better because -- unlike planetary epicycles -- it makes > accurate experimental PREdictions, not POSTdictions. > > > Physics is fond of saying that common sense > > doesn't matter, but I think in most matters, when you come to the > > truth, like how the earth isn't the center of the universe and how > > electrons do not orbit around the nucleus, you will find common sense > > does reign. > > No, I'm sorry, but common sense is a liar and a cheat. > > > > > > 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? > > > -Well, inertia and mass are governed by the interaction of matter with > > the poselectron aether. If you could eliminate that electrostatic > > interaction, you could eliminate inertia or reduce your mass. Or, if > > you could create a "bottle" for the aether and put yourself inside it, > > you would be immune to inertial effects. > > That's a broad, vague and useless statement. Where is the patent > application that shows your principles at work? > > > > > > > > > Gravity is merely an electrostatic effect. As such, it should be > > possible to engineer ways to defeat gravity using electrical means. > > But you would have to figure out how to concentrate enough charge > > without having it immediately discharge to the nearest object. This is > > probably why we've not figured it out yet. > > > Charge is merely the result of the phased interaction of the resonant > > frequency of the positron and electron. It is a normal (but very high > > frequency) EM wave. If we were able to generate such a wave like we do > > microwaves, we could create virtual charge waves without using a > > charge displacement. This may ultimately also be the way to control > > gravity. > > > See, all of these things have a physical reality in the aether which > > you can work with. If we assume that space is made up of 'nothing', > > then there is nothing to work with. > > Sorry, Franklin, but you don't need matter to "work" with it. > Physicists have been working with nonmatter physical entities for > decades.- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text - What do you mean by nonmatter physical? Mitch Raemsch
From: PD on 20 May 2010 15:52
On May 20, 2:49 pm, BURT <macromi...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > On May 20, 7:10 am, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > On May 19, 8:11 pm, franklinhu <frankli...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > > > > > 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. > > > > -You are effectively scanning if you are allowed to alter the incoming > > > trajectory and can discern the pattern of what passes through or is > > > deflected off to the side. This is nothing like what Rutherford did > > > with a beam of only straight flying alpha particles. Let's compare > > > apples to apples. > > > I'm sorry, but that's also not true. The alphas all had different > > impact parameters with respect to the nucleus, and this is what in > > fact produces the *distribution* of the scattered alphas. It's EXACTLY > > the same thing, which is precisely why the children's museum exhibit > > is so instructive. > > > > > 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. > > > > -How interesting. I looked this up and this assumes beforehand that > > > the electron is orbiting > > > No, not orbiting. In an orbital. With kinetic energy. Different thing, > > subtle but crucial. > > > > and there is a strict relationship between > > > the KE and PE which allows you to calculate this. > > > You can do more than calculate it. You can MEASURE it. You MEASURE the > > kinetic energy of the ejected electrons, and you compare it to the > > energy you injected to eject it. The difference will give you > > information about the kinetic energy it had inside the atom. > > > Of course it helps that atomic theory also accurately predicts that > > number. This comparison between the theoretical prediction and the > > measurement is how you know the theory is right. > > > > Of course, if the > > > electron is not orbiting as I assert, you cannot do this calculation > > > to determine KE. You cannot assert beforehand what you are trying to > > > prove. > > > See above. The essence of physics is that it is not just a dispute > > between theories. Your model and the prevailing model make different > > assumptions, and so of course there are different claims about what > > you can calculate and what you can't. If all physics did was to put > > those two models up against each other, then there would be no way to > > resolve which one was right except by some argument about which one > > makes more sense. But this is not how science resolves which one is > > right. Science makes the resolution between two theories by comparing > > the two models against experimental measurement to see which one gets > > the NUMBERS right, relative to the measured values -- and doing this > > especially in the places where the two models make different > > predictions. > > > Physics isn't about building explanations that make intuitive sense. > > It's about building models that make the best and most comprehensive > > set of accurate experimental predictions. > > > > > 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. > > > > - It is explained in the sense that it is described just like > > > epicycles were described. Mathematically and measurably accurate, but > > > totally insane. > > > I don't know what you think is insane about it. > > > > In what way could you say that the electron shell > > > explanation is any better than the epicycle explanation - it has the > > > same fatal problems. > > > It is better because -- unlike planetary epicycles -- it makes > > accurate experimental PREdictions, not POSTdictions. > > > > Physics is fond of saying that common sense > > > doesn't matter, but I think in most matters, when you come to the > > > truth, like how the earth isn't the center of the universe and how > > > electrons do not orbit around the nucleus, you will find common sense > > > does reign. > > > No, I'm sorry, but common sense is a liar and a cheat. > > > > > 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? > > > > -Well, inertia and mass are governed by the interaction of matter with > > > the poselectron aether. If you could eliminate that electrostatic > > > interaction, you could eliminate inertia or reduce your mass. Or, if > > > you could create a "bottle" for the aether and put yourself inside it, > > > you would be immune to inertial effects. > > > That's a broad, vague and useless statement. Where is the patent > > application that shows your principles at work? > > > > Gravity is merely an electrostatic effect. As such, it should be > > > possible to engineer ways to defeat gravity using electrical means. > > > But you would have to figure out how to concentrate enough charge > > > without having it immediately discharge to the nearest object. This is > > > probably why we've not figured it out yet. > > > > Charge is merely the result of the phased interaction of the resonant > > > frequency of the positron and electron. It is a normal (but very high > > > frequency) EM wave. If we were able to generate such a wave like we do > > > microwaves, we could create virtual charge waves without using a > > > charge displacement. This may ultimately also be the way to control > > > gravity. > > > > See, all of these things have a physical reality in the aether which > > > you can work with. If we assume that space is made up of 'nothing', > > > then there is nothing to work with. > > > Sorry, Franklin, but you don't need matter to "work" with it. > > Physicists have been working with nonmatter physical entities for > > decades.- Hide quoted text - > > > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text - > > > - Show quoted text - > > What do you mean by nonmatter physical? Just what it sounds like. There are lots of physical entities that do not consist of matter. > > Mitch Raemsch |