Electron and proton attraction by opposite charge
in [Relativity]
|
From: BURT on 20 May 2010 15:54 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 - The strong force is incomplete. Mitch Raemsch
From: PD on 20 May 2010 15:57 On May 20, 2:54 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 - > > The strong force is incomplete. Whatever you mean by that term is not the same as what physicists mean by that term. You have this firm stance that because we don't have the answers to everything, then we don't have the answers to anything. To you, it must be all or nothing -- until we can say we understand it all, then you prefer to think that we understand nothing.
From: BURT on 20 May 2010 18:23 On May 20, 12:57 pm, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > On May 20, 2:54 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 - > > > The strong force is incomplete. > > Whatever you mean by that term is not the same as what physicists mean > by that term. > > You have this firm stance that because we don't have the answers to > everything, then we don't have the answers to anything. To you, it > must be all or nothing -- until we can say we understand it all, then > you prefer to think that we understand nothing.- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text - The point is we don't understand much. I won't let anyone tell me that we do. The accurate and complete models are in the future. Mitch Raemsch
From: BURT on 20 May 2010 18:30 On May 20, 12:57 pm, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > On May 20, 2:54 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 - > > > The strong force is incomplete. > > Whatever you mean by that term is not the same as what physicists mean > by that term. > > You have this firm stance that because we don't have the answers to > everything, then we don't have the answers to anything. To you, it > must be all or nothing -- until we can say we understand it all, then > you prefer to think that we understand nothing.- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text - No. We really do understand nothing completely. Please demonstrate otherwise. Mitch Raemsch
From: PD on 21 May 2010 10:06
On May 20, 5:30 pm, BURT <macromi...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > On May 20, 12:57 pm, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > On May 20, 2:54 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 - > > > > The strong force is incomplete. > > > Whatever you mean by that term is not the same as what physicists mean > > by that term. > > > You have this firm stance that because we don't have the answers to > > everything, then we don't have the answers to anything. To you, it > > must be all or nothing -- until we can say we understand it all, then > > you prefer to think that we understand nothing.- Hide quoted text - > > > - Show quoted text - > > No. We really do understand nothing completely. Please demonstrate > otherwise. 3+2=? > > Mitch Raemsch |