Electron and proton attraction by opposite charge
in [Relativity]
|
From: PD on 7 May 2010 15:16 On May 7, 1:46 pm, BURT <macromi...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > 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? Water doesn't hang in an arc. The reflection back from the water that happens to hit your eyes is from the drops that are in an arc-shaped region of the body of water. The light gets reflected from all of the drops but you can only see the reflections from an arc-shaped group. People standing a few hundred yards ahead of you or behind you see the light from a different arc. Water hangs in the air without falling all the time, Mitch. They're called clouds.
From: BURT on 7 May 2010 15:31 On May 7, 12:16 pm, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > On May 7, 1:46 pm, BURT <macromi...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > > > > > > > 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? > > Water doesn't hang in an arc. The reflection back from the water that > happens to hit your eyes is from the drops that are in an arc-shaped > region of the body of water. The light gets reflected from all of the > drops but you can only see the reflections from an arc-shaped group. > People standing a few hundred yards ahead of you or behind you see the > light from a different arc. > > Water hangs in the air without falling all the time, Mitch. They're > called clouds.- Hide quoted text - But we are not talking about clouds. > - Show quoted text - The idea that the back of falling raindrops will radiate in an arc while falling won't work and I am pointing it out because it is obvious. Mitch Raemsch
From: Igor on 7 May 2010 18:13 On May 5, 1:55 pm, BURT <macromi...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > 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 Look up the concept of a centrifugal barrier.
From: BURT on 7 May 2010 18:40 On May 7, 3:13 pm, Igor <thoov...(a)excite.com> wrote: > On May 5, 1:55 pm, BURT <macromi...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > > > > > > > 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 > > Look up the concept of a centrifugal barrier.- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text - Look up something nuts like that? Please you are making an excuse of an explanation. The truth is there is no opposite charge in the electric field.
From: ben6993 on 8 May 2010 04:48
On May 7, 4:58 pm, "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 - I know that classical orbiting was only an analogy here, but it is hard to get along without analogies. I have since looked up the 'centrifugal barrier' on http://www.tampa.phys.ucl.ac.uk/~sam/PHYS2B22/slides6.ppt which seems a useful reference and I can read it with my new 'QM for Dummies' text. The quantised angular momentum is the cause: as the angular momentum is quantised, decreasing the distance to the nucleus means proportionally increasing the angular velocity, to keep the angular momentum a constant. Which makes it ever harder to continue to decrease the distance. It doesn't explain why angular momentum is quantised though, but 'why' questions cannot always be answered. I looked up centrifugal barrier. |