Electron and proton attraction by opposite charge
in [Relativity]
|
From: PD on 8 May 2010 15:26 On May 8, 1:31 pm, BURT <macromi...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > 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? A rainbow is an optical phenomenon in suspended water vapor, and a cloud is suspended water vapor. > > I don't think there are circular clouds that radiate the spectrum. It's not the cloud that is circular, and it is not the water vapor that is circular, it is the rainbow IN the water vapor that is circular. You need to learn how a rainbow is made. > > 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
From: BURT on 8 May 2010 15:29 On May 8, 12:26 pm, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > On May 8, 1:31 pm, BURT <macromi...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > > > > > > > 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? > > A rainbow is an optical phenomenon in suspended water vapor, and a > cloud is suspended water vapor. > > > > > I don't think there are circular clouds that radiate the spectrum. > > It's not the cloud that is circular, and it is not the water vapor > that is circular, it is the rainbow IN the water vapor that is > circular. > > You need to learn how a rainbow is made. > > > > > > > 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- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text - Please explain how a rainbow is circular. Show us your Leprechaun.
From: PD on 8 May 2010 15:41 On May 8, 2:29 pm, BURT <macromi...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > On May 8, 12:26 pm, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > On May 8, 1:31 pm, BURT <macromi...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > > > > 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? > > > A rainbow is an optical phenomenon in suspended water vapor, and a > > cloud is suspended water vapor. > > > > I don't think there are circular clouds that radiate the spectrum. > > > It's not the cloud that is circular, and it is not the water vapor > > that is circular, it is the rainbow IN the water vapor that is > > circular. > > > You need to learn how a rainbow is made. > > > > 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- Hide quoted text - > > > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text - > > > - Show quoted text - > > Please explain how a rainbow is circular. Show us your Leprechaun. Please examine this figure first. Note the water droplets are not arranged in the arc. http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/b/bb/Descartes_Rainbow.png The light from the sun hits ALL the droplets in this figure. And ALL the water droplets will reflect the light that hits them. But only the light for SOME of the droplets will make it into the eyes of the person shown standing on the ground. The light reflected from the other droplets will make it into the eyes of people standing elsewhere. The light that is reflected into the eyes of the person shown standing on the ground come only from the drops marked by the dotted lines. As a casual note, this figure was drawn by Rene Descartes. You may want to Google him to see how long ago he lived, and therefore how long rainbows have been understood by science. If you want to see a student project who researched how rainbows form, you can look here. http://ffden-2.phys.uaf.edu/211.web.stuff/croy_filla/Page_1.html What I want you to take away from this is that, though you have a hard time understanding rainbows, summer kids figure it out enough to explain it on a webpage. Bottom line, Mitch: If there is something you don't understand, that means YOU don't understand it. It doesn't mean that no one understands it.
From: BURT on 8 May 2010 15:54 On May 8, 12:41 pm, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > On May 8, 2:29 pm, BURT <macromi...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > > > > > > > On May 8, 12:26 pm, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > On May 8, 1:31 pm, BURT <macromi...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > > > > > 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? > > > > A rainbow is an optical phenomenon in suspended water vapor, and a > > > cloud is suspended water vapor. > > > > > I don't think there are circular clouds that radiate the spectrum. > > > > It's not the cloud that is circular, and it is not the water vapor > > > that is circular, it is the rainbow IN the water vapor that is > > > circular. > > > > You need to learn how a rainbow is made. > > > > > 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- Hide quoted text - > > > > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text - > > > > - Show quoted text - > > > Please explain how a rainbow is circular. Show us your Leprechaun. > > Please examine this figure first. > Note the water droplets are not arranged in the arc.http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/b/bb/Descartes_Rainbow.png > > The light from the sun hits ALL the droplets in this figure. > And ALL the water droplets will reflect the light that hits them. > But only the light for SOME of the droplets will make it into the eyes > of the person shown standing on the ground. > The light reflected from the other droplets will make it into the eyes > of people standing elsewhere. > The light that is reflected into the eyes of the person shown standing > on the ground come only from the drops marked by the dotted lines. > > As a casual note, this figure was drawn by Rene Descartes. You may > want to Google him to see how long ago he lived, and therefore how > long rainbows have been understood by science. > > If you want to see a student project who researched how rainbows form, > you can look here.http://ffden-2.phys.uaf.edu/211.web.stuff/croy_filla/Page_1.html > What I want you to take away from this is that, though you have a hard > time understanding rainbows, summer kids figure it out enough to > explain it on a webpage. > > Bottom line, Mitch: If there is something you don't understand, that > means YOU don't understand it. It doesn't mean that no one understands > it.- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text - But science has no understanding that is right. It is too young and is in denial about the truth. Science cannot explain a rainbow.
From: PD on 8 May 2010 15:57
On May 8, 2:54 pm, BURT <macromi...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > > > Please examine this figure first. > > Note the water droplets are not arranged in the arc.http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/b/bb/Descartes_Rainbow.png > > > The light from the sun hits ALL the droplets in this figure. > > And ALL the water droplets will reflect the light that hits them. > > But only the light for SOME of the droplets will make it into the eyes > > of the person shown standing on the ground. > > The light reflected from the other droplets will make it into the eyes > > of people standing elsewhere. > > The light that is reflected into the eyes of the person shown standing > > on the ground come only from the drops marked by the dotted lines. > > > As a casual note, this figure was drawn by Rene Descartes. You may > > want to Google him to see how long ago he lived, and therefore how > > long rainbows have been understood by science. > > > If you want to see a student project who researched how rainbows form, > > you can look here.http://ffden-2.phys.uaf.edu/211.web.stuff/croy_filla/Page_1.html > > What I want you to take away from this is that, though you have a hard > > time understanding rainbows, summer kids figure it out enough to > > explain it on a webpage. > > > Bottom line, Mitch: If there is something you don't understand, that > > means YOU don't understand it. It doesn't mean that no one understands > > it.- Hide quoted text - > > > - Show quoted text - > > But science has no understanding that is right. It is too young and is > in denial about the truth. > > Science cannot explain a rainbow. I'm sorry, Mitch, but you have this crazy idea that because science is not finished, then it understands nothing and can explain nothing. This is just nonsense. Mathematics is not finished either. Does this mean to you that we aren't sure that 3+2=5? Or that 100,000 years in the future, 3+2 won't equal 5? PD |