Electron and proton attraction by opposite charge
in [Relativity]
|
From: john on 7 May 2010 14:19 On May 7, 11:43 am, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > 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. > Fine. And I said that without any energy input, a proton and electron will eventually fuse back together. Your statement is impossible for the same reason that my statement is impossible: *everything* interacts. Your body will slow down because it interacts with the environment. My electron, although radiating, will not run out of energy because the proton is constantly absorbing from the environment and feeding the electron. > > > 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. Well, my common sense says you can't run an atom without energy input. And you can't build an atom from 'point particles'. And smaller size has nothing to do with complexity or detail and everything to do with lower limits on measurement processes, so whether or not something has structure has nothing to do with whether you can see that structure (as you recently claimed). john
From: BURT on 7 May 2010 14:30 On May 7, 2:50 am, "Cwatters" <colin.wattersNOS...(a)TurnersOakNOSPAM.plus.com> wrote: > "BURT" <macromi...(a)yahoo.com> wrote in message > > news:0fe38d48-fcbb-495a-9837-3efe12090fdc(a)t34g2000prd.googlegroups.com... > On May 5, 3:47 am, Igor <thoov...(a)excite.com> wrote: > > > On May 4, 10:21 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? > > > Learn some real physics and find out. > > >But they don't come together under their supposed attraction. They > >have to be forced. Please show me where I am wrong. Where is this > >physics real if it doesn't even happen? > > >Mitch Raemsch > > What does "together" mean exactly? It usually means at the same place. Look it up in the dictionary. > > What's the probability of an electron being at any particular place? The idea of the stateless state or a blurry position is absolute nonsense. Electrons are not clouds. They are vibrating point energies or particles. Mitch Raemsch
From: PD on 7 May 2010 14:38 On May 7, 1:19 pm, john <vega...(a)accesscomm.ca> wrote: > On May 7, 11:43 am, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > 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. > > Fine. > And I said that without any energy input, > a proton and electron will eventually fuse back together. I don't think so, John. Newton's 1st law says otherwise. > > Your statement is impossible for the > same reason that my statement is impossible: > *everything* interacts. That's not so, John. Everything has the *capability* of interacting. This does not mean that everything DOES CONTINUALLY interact. There is such a thing as an isolated body that has not had the opportunity to interact with anything external to it. That was my point. > > Your body will slow down because it interacts with the environment. Yes, where there is a large concentration of matter, this is true. It's not true for the bulk of the universe where mass is very, very, very sparse. > My electron, although radiating, will not run out of energy because > the proton is constantly absorbing from the environment and > feeding the electron. "Your electron" does NOT radiate, typically. At least not outside the atom. > > > > > > 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. > > Well, my common sense says you can't > run an atom without energy input. And your common sense is dead wrong, John. That's why I've mentioned isolated hydrogen atoms that have been running for well over ten billion years. What you say CANNOT happen does happen very very commonly. There is no point in denying something that is freely exhibited in nature, just because your common sense finds it puzzling. > And you can't build an atom > from 'point particles'. Again, this is a limitation of your own head, John, not of nature. > And smaller size has nothing to do with > complexity or detail and everything > to do with lower limits on measurement processes, > so whether or not something has structure has nothing > to do with whether you can see that structure (as > you recently claimed). > > john
From: PD on 7 May 2010 14:42 On May 7, 1:19 pm, BURT <macromi...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > 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. Oh, but it does. What's wrong is that you don't understand the scientific understanding of a rainbow. Please don't think that if you don't understand it, then it's not understood. It's just you.
From: BURT on 7 May 2010 14:46
On May 7, 11:42 am, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > On May 7, 1:19 pm, BURT <macromi...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > > > > > > > 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. > > Oh, but it does. What's wrong is that you don't understand the > scientific understanding of a rainbow. Please don't think that if you > don't understand it, then it's not understood. It's just you.- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text - Can you show how water hangs in an arc in the air and radiates without falling? Mitch Raemsch |