Electron and proton attraction by opposite charge
in [Relativity]
|
From: glird on 7 May 2010 12:24 On May 7, 11:58 am, "Androcles" wrote: >< 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. > Correct! The model is wrong. glird
From: PD on 7 May 2010 12:45 On May 7, 10:13 am, john <vega...(a)accesscomm.ca> wrote: > On May 6, 8:58 am, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > On May 5, 10:02 am, john <vega...(a)accesscomm.ca> wrote: > > > > On May 4, 8:21 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 > > > > The electron and proton, given enough time > > > How much time, John? Hydrogen atoms have been around for an awfully > > long time. > > > > and no energy input, > > Well, I did say 'and no energy input', Hydrogen atoms in interstellar space have been around for an awfully long time, John, without energy input. Here's a way you can check this, John. Estimate the lifetime of a hydrogen atom. Let's suppose that it is some whacked out huge number like ten trillion years, longer than the life of the universe. But what this also means is that if you get a collection of ten trillion hydrogen atoms, then one (roughly) of them is going to decay in the first year, just like radioactive half-life. So you'd only need to collect ten trillion hydrogen atoms and watch for a tell-tale signature of the collapse. If you can collect a hundred trillion atoms, then so much the better, because you'd see about ten or so collapses in a year's time. 1 gram of hydrogen gas, John, has 600 billion trillion hydrogen atoms. It would take no effort whatsoever to test your guess that electrons will fall into atomic nuclei eventually. All we need to know is how long you think that "eventually" is. > which is never going to happen, obviously, > because neutrinos are whizzing by in every which > way constantly being absorbed by > the galaxies, and their scaled-down > counterparts coming from electrons > are evrywhere being absorbed by protons > to keep the cycle going. > > An electron radiates constantly, but it will > never crash into the proton because the proton > is absorbing that same radiation and using it to > replace what is being burned in the electron. > > john > > will recombine > > > > into the virtual pair they once were. > > > > When the black hole came along, however it was > > > produced, all the virtual pairs within its influence > > > were given extreme spin. > > > > Since the two opposite charges, clinging > > > together by their attraction to each other, > > > are given the same extreme spin, they repel > > > each other by their magnetism, and, absorbing > > > a neutrino, they become oppositely-charged > > > high-energy particles and are shot out the > > > jets of the black hole. > > > > Eventually, by the attraction of their electric charge, they > > > come together as suns. > > > > The HEPs at the suns' centers are fused > > > into atoms, with the electron being > > > brought into the proton's sphere and > > > neutrinos and energy are given off. > > > > The neutrinos are everywhere stars are and > > > are constantly being absorbed by galactic > > > centers as infalling matter is spun back into HEPs > > > and ejected out the jets. Absorption of these > > > neutrinos causes galaxies to push on each other. > > > This is the gravity that affects galaxies. > > > > The gravity affecting (not effecting!!!) matter comes from this > > > same process taking place within electrons > > > and protons. > > > > john- Hide quoted text - > > > - Show quoted text - > >
From: john on 7 May 2010 13:27 On May 7, 10:45 am, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > Hydrogen atoms in interstellar space have been around for an awfully > long time, John, without energy input. > ????? No photons out there? No neutrinos out there? I think you may be slightly mistaken, PD, there are all kinds of energies out there for atoms to interact with. Thinking atoms are perpetual motion machines is just plain silly, PD. Are you getting silly, PD? john
From: PD on 7 May 2010 13:43 On May 7, 12:27 pm, john <vega...(a)accesscomm.ca> wrote: > On May 7, 10:45 am, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > Hydrogen atoms in interstellar space have been around for an awfully > > long time, John, without energy input. > > ????? > No photons out there? > No neutrinos out there? Sure there are, but the likelihood of their running into each other in an interaction is astoundingly low, John. Most of space is exceedingly, exceedingly empty, so that most hydrogen atoms have not interacted with ANYTHING since the thermal horizon that generated the cosmic microwave background. > > I think you may be slightly mistaken, PD, there > are all kinds of energies out there for atoms > to interact with. > > Thinking atoms are perpetual > motion machines is just plain silly, PD. They're not perpetual motion machines, John. A perpetual motion machine is something that generates useful work OUTPUT for zero energy INPUT. If you thought that the thermodynamic law that bans perpetual motion machines means that nothing moves forever, then you are sadly misinformed. Newton's 1st law of motion, which was discovered by Galileo, says that a body in motion and without any external interaction will continue in motion FOREVER. The laws of thermodynamics are completely consistent with all of Newton's laws of motion. > > Are you getting silly, PD? Nope, not at all. By the way, the method I described to you for measuring whether things have a very long lifetime has been done in many cases already. For example, there was a theory that actually made a prediction that the lifetime of the proton was 1,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 years. Given that the age of the universe is only 15,000,000,000 years, this seems like a neat stunt. But by the method I described to you, experiments have shown that the lifetime of the proton is at least 6,600,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 years, and we sure didn't have to wait that long to generate that result. It's all real, John. It's just your common sense that's a little off.
From: BURT on 7 May 2010 14:19
On May 7, 5:49 am, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > On May 6, 5:45 pm, BURT <macromi...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > > > > > > > On May 6, 2:57 pm, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > On May 6, 4:38 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? > > > > Oh dear. Mitch, do you really believe this is what's claimed? > > > > > Mitch Raemsch- Hide quoted text - > > > > > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text - > > > > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text - > > > > - Show quoted text - > > > What science claims is similar to the pot of gold but it is sciences > > myth of an explanation and that will never work. > > I'm sorry, Mitch, but I see that there is a marked difference between > the rainbow theory you have in your head and what is really > scientifically understood about rainbows. > > > > > > > Mitch Raemsch; Science can't explain a rainbow- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text - But science doesn't understand a rainbow. Its explanation is like a leprechaun. Mitch Reamsch |