What keeps electrons spinning around their nucleus?
in [Relativity]
|
From: PD on 28 Mar 2005 13:51 TomGee wrote: > David, > No one said em interaction _causes_ the electron to move around the > nucleus. The question was "What binds the electron to the atom"? > TomGee That was NOT the question. The question was: "More imporatant is what sustains them in their perpetual motions?" which I guess you now admit is a question you did not answer. PD
From: Sam Wormley on 28 Mar 2005 13:59 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. You cannot make the force disappear just by invalidating your > own measurements. You should not think that websites are the ultimate > authority on anything, either, as subjective opinion runs rampart all > through it. You will learn that, Bilgy, when if ever you get to the > fifth grade. > > TomGee > Poor TomGee--Stuck in the 5th grade--use your playground as a reference. Your "centrifugal force" disappears.
From: Gregory L. Hansen on 28 Mar 2005 14:25 In article <1112035436.549412.84900(a)z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com>, PD <pdraper(a)yahoo.com> 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 .... >Let me ask you another question. As an elevator suddenly starts to >descend, you feel lighter. Are you in fact lighter? Why should Earth's .... >Let me ask you another question. You are on a road making a circular >bend left in your car. What force acting on the car enables you to Reference frames, Paul. TomGee feels, TomGee is in, TomGee turns... Who's making the measurement? A hypothetical 2nd observer stationary with respect to the Earth, or TomGee? In those three situations, TomGee is in an accelerated frame. If TomGee is pushed to the left against a wall, there's an inertial force pushing him to the left. A 2nd, inertial observer might say no, TomGee is REALLY being pushed to the right, but so what? He's not in the car. He's just asserting that there's something special about his reference frame such that he can make valid observations but TomGee can't, and pretending there's no valid way to transform between them. Centrifugal force is called a force because it acts like a force. It will cause something to accelerate relative to the stationary observer who's already pinned against the wall. The stationary observer is, of course, spinning madly about if viewed by the hypothetical 2nd observer who's at rest relative to the Earth, but so what? There's nothing special about the Earth frame, nothing wrong with the accelerated frame. If TomGee is pinned to the wall of a centrifuge, then TomGee is still at rest with respect to himself and he can define a reference frame from his perspective. -- "A nice adaptation of conditions will make almost any hypothesis agree with the phenomena. This will please the imagination but does not advance our knowledge." -- J. Black, 1803.
From: Sam Wormley on 28 Mar 2005 14:29 Gregory L. Hansen wrote: > In article <1112035436.549412.84900(a)z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com>, > PD <pdraper(a)yahoo.com> 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 > > .... > >>Let me ask you another question. As an elevator suddenly starts to >>descend, you feel lighter. Are you in fact lighter? Why should Earth's > > .... > >>Let me ask you another question. You are on a road making a circular >>bend left in your car. What force acting on the car enables you to > > > Reference frames, Paul. TomGee feels, TomGee is in, TomGee turns... > Who's making the measurement? A hypothetical 2nd observer stationary with > respect to the Earth, or TomGee? > > In those three situations, TomGee is in an accelerated frame. If TomGee > is pushed to the left against a wall, there's an inertial force pushing > him to the left. A 2nd, inertial observer might say no, TomGee is REALLY > being pushed to the right, but so what? He's not in the car. He's just > asserting that there's something special about his reference frame such > that he can make valid observations but TomGee can't, and pretending > there's no valid way to transform between them. > > Centrifugal force is called a force because it acts like a force. It will > cause something to accelerate relative to the stationary observer who's > already pinned against the wall. The stationary observer is, of course, > spinning madly about if viewed by the hypothetical 2nd observer who's > at rest relative to the Earth, but so what? There's nothing special about > the Earth frame, nothing wrong with the accelerated frame. If TomGee is > pinned to the wall of a centrifuge, then TomGee is still at rest with > respect to himself and he can define a reference frame from his > perspective. An TomGee thinks this Newtonian perspective has something to do with the quantum mechanical behavior of electrons... Is he right?
From: PD on 28 Mar 2005 14:33
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. You cannot make the force disappear just by invalidating your > own measurements. You should not think that websites are the ultimate > authority on anything, either, as subjective opinion runs rampart all > through it. You will learn that, Bilgy, when if ever you get to the > fifth grade. > > TomGee One more little experiment, Tom, on your carousel. Take your pocketwatch on the carousel with you and hang it by its chain between your thumb and forefinger. If you don't have a pocketwatch, take your wristwatch and hang it by a string in the same way. Now have someone spin you up on the carousel. You see the watch swings outward on the chain. Why, you ask? Is it centrifugal force? No, your fourth grade teacher says, look again. The watch must go in a circle, too, if it is to follow you around on the carousel, right? Right, you say. And there must be a force that makes the watch go around in a circle, because if there were no force, the watch would go in a straight line, right? You frown and say, umm, that has something to do with Newton's laws, doesn't it? Your teacher throws you a Jolly Rancher candy and says, right! And that force must be supplied by what? You frown again and say, gee, I dunno. Well, your teacher prods, what's acting on the watch? Umm. Gravity? OK, your teacher nods, but that's pointed down and can't be pulling the watch around the center of the circle, can it? No, I guess not, you say. But the only other thing attached to it is the string! Precisely! your teacher beams. And strings can only pull along their length, right? So if the string were to remain hanging vertically, it would not be able to provide a horizontal force inward toward the center of the circle, could it? I guess, you say scowling. So you see, your teacher concludes, the string *must* be tilted that way to provide the centripetal force inward on the watch required to get it to move in a circle. The horizontal piece of that string's tension is what provides the centripetal force, and the vertical piece of the tension is what opposes gravity. Remember that there is nothing present that can push on the watch outward -- the string can only pull. But...but... what balances the inward force?! you protest. Nothing, your 4th grade teacher reminds you. The watch is not in equilibrium. The forces need not add to zero. If it were in equilibrium, it would be moving in a straight line at constant speed, and it's clearly not doing that. But by now you are nauseous and not particularly interested in the Jolly Rancher or, for that matter, in physics, despite the wonderful little lesson you learned at the playground today. PD |