What keeps electrons spinning around their nucleus?
in [Relativity]
|
From: Bill Hobba on 29 Mar 2005 19:31 > Seeing how Landau wasn't above > mentioning both centrifugal and coriolis forces in his Mechanics, is > see no reason for purism here. He sure did. But notice he makes it clear they are the result of using non inertial frames to write the lagrangian in. Thanks Bill > > Mati Meron | "When you argue with a fool, > meron(a)cars.uchicago.edu | chances are he is doing just the same"
From: TomGee on 29 Mar 2005 19:32 PD wrote: > TomGee wrote: > > Wormy, Bilge, PD, and all you other lemmings, > > > > you cannot understand that it is the _measurement_ of the force which > > is fictional and not the feeling of being pulled out as a carousel > > spins. > > Nope. You feel the force pulling you *in*, which is a force you are > unaccustomed to, and so you mistakenly associate that with a force > pulling you out. Your naive interpretations are what's tripping you up. > > Maybe you mistakenly associate that with an out force, but I don't. I have never heard physics explained that way either. Your naive interpretations are what's tripping you up. Isn't the below your statement? "Electrostatic attraction between the proton and the electron is no more responsible for the sustained motion of the electron than gravity is responsible for the sustained motion of the Moon." The sustained motion of an electron is an orbital when bound to an atom. If you remove the +charge of the protons, do you expect the electron to continue in its orbital? If suddenly you removed the Earth's gravity, would the moon maintain its orbit? TomGee
From: TomGee on 29 Mar 2005 19:38 Once again you have it backwards, Wormy. Yours disappears, not mine. TomGee
From: Bill Hobba on 29 Mar 2005 19:41 "PD" <pdraper(a)yahoo.com> wrote in message news:1112118805.454042.21100(a)f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com... > > It's a common, common misconception that the motion produces the force. > Battling this is a key beachhead. Very true, very true indeed. I do not know how it comes about. Most students are not critical enough of Newton's laws to see the second law is simply a definition and you need to examine its intent carefully to see it really is not. Yet they get the idea acceleration causes force when Newton's 3rd law is quite clear force is the important thing. From everyday experience with tensions in elastic bands etc it should be clear that force is more fundamental. Rather strange. Thanks Bill
From: TomGee on 29 Mar 2005 19:46
Come come, PD. Did I write all those accusations so that you would have nothing to say other than that I am a piece of work? I don't want to know what I am, I want you to respond to my charges where I specifically point out where you're blabbering. Are you denying that you still accept that centripetal force exists but not centrifugal force, and that you don't know why one is no longer chic but the other one still is? Are you still saying that em has nothing to do with maintaining the electron's orbital, and that gravity has nothing to do with maintaining the moon in orbit? TomGee |