Electron and proton attraction by opposite charge
in [Relativity]
|
From: Androcles on 8 May 2010 05:49 "ben6993" <ben6993(a)hotmail.com> wrote in message news:b28e16f5-1f87-4265-8e54-8326b3387d1e(a)q30g2000yqd.googlegroups.com... 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 don't have PowerPoint so I cannot look at your slides. Are you trying to understand Nature or someone's theory of how they think Nature works? The former is science, the latter is a game of mathematics with their rules and you only get brownie points by agreeing with them.
From: ben6993 on 8 May 2010 10:54 On May 8, 10:49 am, "Androcles" <Headmas...(a)Hogwarts.physics_z> wrote: > "ben6993" <ben6...(a)hotmail.com> wrote in message > > news:b28e16f5-1f87-4265-8e54-8326b3387d1e(a)q30g2000yqd.googlegroups.com... > 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' onhttp://www.tampa.phys.ucl.ac.uk/~sam/PHYS2B22/slides6.pptwhich 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 don't have PowerPoint so I cannot look at your slides. > Are you trying to understand Nature or someone's theory of how > they think Nature works? The former is science, the latter is a game > of mathematics with their rules and you only get brownie points by > agreeing with them.- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text - They are not my slides except insofar as I found them on a website. It seemed like a reliable source. I have copied one appropriate slide as an image: http://cid-96da7c9fa3b3d81c.skydrive.live.com/self.aspx/sci%5E_physics/centrifugal%20barrier.jpg I am trying to understand Nature, but reading others' work is necessary as I only have one lifetime and no lab and I am no Newton.
From: Androcles on 8 May 2010 12:27 "ben6993" <ben6993(a)hotmail.com> wrote in message news:cd88f1b6-ed33-4b8b-adf5-a007fbac9933(a)n15g2000yqf.googlegroups.com... On May 8, 10:49 am, "Androcles" <Headmas...(a)Hogwarts.physics_z> wrote: > "ben6993" <ben6...(a)hotmail.com> wrote in message > > news:b28e16f5-1f87-4265-8e54-8326b3387d1e(a)q30g2000yqd.googlegroups.com... > 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' > onhttp://www.tampa.phys.ucl.ac.uk/~sam/PHYS2B22/slides6.pptwhich 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 don't have PowerPoint so I cannot look at your slides. > Are you trying to understand Nature or someone's theory of how > they think Nature works? The former is science, the latter is a game > of mathematics with their rules and you only get brownie points by > agreeing with them.- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text - They are not my slides except insofar as I found them on a website. It seemed like a reliable source. I have copied one appropriate slide as an image: http://cid-96da7c9fa3b3d81c.skydrive.live.com/self.aspx/sci%5E_physics/centrifugal%20barrier.jpg ======================================================== Assumes m. As I said above, "you've automatically made certain assumptions without realizing it, such as giving the electron mass". We have no evidence for the mass of an electron, it is entirely an assumption. For it to have intuitive mass it has to be intuitive matter, so what is matter? When I stand on a bathroom scale I measure the compression of a spring, a force, and that may be useful in considering the state of my health and what I should be eating, but I still don't know what mass/matter is except in terms of gravitational force. I don't know what the charge on an electron is either, except in terms of force. The electron seems to have a lot more electrical force than it does gravitational force. Perhaps it doesn't have any mass at all. I fail to see the purpose of an equation unless the terms in it represent real physical quantities that are measurable, and you have an m that isn't measurable in your "barrier", the equation isn't giving me any understanding at all. "Everything is vague to a degree you do not realize till you have tried to make it precise." -- Bertrand Russell ================================================= I am trying to understand Nature, but reading others' work is necessary as I only have one lifetime and no lab and I am no Newton. ================================================= Making one discovery is about all anyone can expect in a lifetime, most people never make any. Nature hides her secrets well from those that make assumptions and refuse to look. By ignoring the assumptive assertions of others and employing the principles of science I have discovered the secret of the variable stars. But... nobody cares except me. "Many people would sooner die than think; In fact, they do. " -- Bertrand Russell
From: PD on 8 May 2010 13:14 On May 7, 2:31 pm, BURT <macromi...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > 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. But we are. The water in which a rainbow can be seen is nothing more than a diffuse cloud. > > > - 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. It's not obvious at all. What's obvious is that you don't know what makes a rainbow. > > Mitch Raemsch
From: BURT on 8 May 2010 14:31
On May 8, 10:14 am, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > On May 7, 2:31 pm, BURT <macromi...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > > > > > > > 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. > > But we are. The water in which a rainbow can be seen is nothing more > than a diffuse cloud. > > > > > > - 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. > > It's not obvious at all. What's obvious is that you don't know what > makes a rainbow. > > > > > > > Mitch Raemsch- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text - So a rainbow is a cloud now? I don't think there are circular clouds that radiate the spectrum. NO. Science cannot explain it but it wants to think it can. In that sense it has a kind of Leprechaun of its own. Mitch Raemsch |