Electron and proton attraction by opposite charge
in [Relativity]
|
From: BURT on 21 May 2010 13:59 On May 21, 7:06 am, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > 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- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text - I see you are having trouble with algebra. Mitch Raemsch
From: PD on 21 May 2010 14:08 On May 21, 12:59 pm, BURT <macromi...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > On May 21, 7:06 am, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > 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- Hide quoted text - > > > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text - > > > - Show quoted text - > > I see you are having trouble with algebra. Then you agree there is something that is understood completely? > > Mitch Raemsch
From: BURT on 21 May 2010 14:13 On May 21, 11:08 am, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > On May 21, 12:59 pm, BURT <macromi...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > > > > > > > On May 21, 7:06 am, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > 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- Hide quoted text - > > > > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text - > > > > - Show quoted text - > > > I see you are having trouble with algebra. > > Then you agree there is something that is understood completely? > > > > > > > Mitch Raemsch- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text - I am talking about standard model theories. What are you talking about? Mitch Raemsch
From: PD on 21 May 2010 14:21 On May 21, 1:13 pm, BURT <macromi...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > On May 21, 11:08 am, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > On May 21, 12:59 pm, BURT <macromi...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > > > > On May 21, 7:06 am, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > 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- Hide quoted text - > > > > > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text - > > > > > - Show quoted text - > > > > I see you are having trouble with algebra. > > > Then you agree there is something that is understood completely? > > > > Mitch Raemsch- Hide quoted text - > > > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text - > > > - Show quoted text - > > I am talking about standard model theories. What are you talking > about? You said "We really do understand nothing completely. Please demonstrate otherwise." So when you say NOTHING, what are you including in that nothing?
From: BURT on 21 May 2010 14:29
On May 21, 11:21 am, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > On May 21, 1:13 pm, BURT <macromi...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > > > > > On May 21, 11:08 am, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > On May 21, 12:59 pm, BURT <macromi...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > > > > > On May 21, 7:06 am, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > 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- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text -... > > read more » How old is science? When will we be able to say it is near complete? I think it is in millions of years. At this point science doesn't know a lot. Mitch Raemsch |