| Topic: |
Science > Physics |
| User: |
"CC" |
| Date: |
06 Oct 2003 04:42:22 PM |
| Object: |
Re: Why don't electrons stick to the nucleus? |
In article <3F4B761F.D415F02F@hate.spam.net>, Uncle Al
<UncleAl0@hate.spam.net> wrote:
kent lavallie wrote:
If electrons have a negative charge and positrons have a postive
charge and they are mutually attracted to each other, why don't
electrons just stick to positrons much like magnets can stick
together?
Quantum mechanics. The universe is built such that the minimum energy
equilibrium configuration of an electron and a proton is a hydrogen
atom with its Bohr radius.
Why do electrons bother to run around the nuclues but do not
just come to rest up against a positron?
Matter plus antimatter cancel, like putting a hand into a glove.
Wrong! They don't cancel at all! What a silly way to express the
reconfiguration of the underlying substance of which matter and EM
quanta are composed.
Those are the rules; quantum mechanics is the ad hoc rulebook.
Which then is not differentiable from the declarations of a clever
pathological liar.
s-shell electrons have a node *at* the nucleus. Muonic heavy atoms
have the muon's equilibrium orbit *inside* the nucleus. It merrily
whizzes around through nuclear matter with density 2x10^14 g/cm^3 as
though it were vacuum. The models for particle interaction demand a
lepton (e.g, the muon) has a different set of interaction rules than
the baryons (Strong Force). Electrostatic interaction, shared by both
species, pins the muon in its orbit.
I know that electrons repell
each other but eventually the correct configuration even in a multiple
electron atom will allow an electron to stick to the positron sooner
or later. I can not help thinking that there is an attracting force
and a second repelling force. I am imagining that there is a
reppelling force which acts over a much shorter distance between the
electron and the nucleus but is actually stronger than the force of
attraction between the electron and positron over distances very close
to the nucleus. I am imagining this repelling force falls off to
almost zero very quickly as the electron moves away from the nucleus
and as a result the stronger attracting force at the greater distances
from the nucleus hold the electron in orbit around the nucleus. Please
note that I am a layman in reguards to physics so a response in plain
English is most desirable while a mathematical theorem will be of
little or no use to me. Thank you so much for your time.
All physics forces are modeled as mediated by exchange of (vector or
tensor) virtual bosons. What is the model for your proposed
interaction? What are its divergent predictions that can be
empirically tested as a falsification?
If you seek to build a skyscraper, do not start construction at the
third floor.
You're like a man who has never been out of Kansas extolling the
virtues of Tahiti; you've never been there, and you've never even seen
it up close. Its always amusing to get advice on how to find gold from
a person who has never found any.
Hit the books and learn something first. More than a
cumulative hundred thousand professionals worldwide over 90 years of
observation have torn physics down to its roots and rebuilt it - every
graduate student during its education, for instance.
Wrong. They have not torn it down to its roots. They haven't even
come close. Educational systems of our modern age don't teach people
how to think, they teach them what to think. Some people are superb at
regurgitation of all that they've been taught but can't think for
themselves and their attempted synthesis of information into a
comprehensive world view always results in a narrow regime of self
worship.
Any conclusion *you* draw cannot violate the math unless it is an
overwhelmingly powerful insight that allows what has come before as
(at least a heuristic) subset.
What nonsense. You're just regurgitating what you've been taught to
think. But let us momentarily suppose that you are correct. What
makes you suppose that you could recognize a powerfully overwhelming
insight in the first place?
It cannot violate observation under any circumstances.
The blind leading the blind. None of the problems of modern physics is
due to the lack of observational or experimental data. We have
sufficient data to understand the universe. The correct interpretation
of the data is the key.
Pinning physics to a sin of commission is an essentially zero
probability game, certainly and especially for an amateur. You aren't
going to ask a question better people haven't already asked ad
nauseam.
I see there's still no lack of arrogance in your postings.
If you find an "error" then you have made the mistake.
Pinning physics to a sin of omission - a novel and defining empirical
test of theory that has not been performed - is the playing of the
game.
That's why you're a pseudoscientist, Al. That game can't be won
because modern physics has devolved to paying homage to whoever can
make up the first lie which appears to be consistent with the data. A
clever pathological liar therefore can do well in modern physics. Of
course, like the ancient recitation of complex Sagas, a complete and
accurate homage to what came before must be paid. 'Learn this complex
lie (your particular subdiscipline of modern physics), be able to
recite it and catch the errors of others attempting to recite it.
Next, learn to defend it by recitation. Do these things and we'll
certify that you are a physicist properly graduated from this
institution.
CCRyder
.
|
|
| User: "John Sefton" |
|
| Title: Re: Why don't electrons stick to the nucleus? |
06 Oct 2003 10:56:36 PM |
|
|
CC wrote:
In article <3F4B761F.D415F02F@hate.spam.net>, Uncle Al
<UncleAl0@hate.spam.net> wrote:
kent lavallie wrote:
If electrons have a negative charge and positrons have a postive
charge and they are mutually attracted to each other, why don't
electrons just stick to positrons much like magnets can stick
together?
SNIP not deleting this because I don't like
how you put stuffed shirts where they belong.........
just impatient.
Electrons have acceleration in two planes while spinning either
clockwise or counterclockwise facing the nucleus.
Likewise protons can spin either way while facing their electron.
Electrons and protons on the same axis of spin generate opposite
magnetic fields and repel each other magnetically while
attracting electrically. Increase the spin, more energy, the
repulsion increases, the electron is repelled further. Give
up some spin, less energy, electron drops back down..
John
.
|
|
|
| User: "peter" |
|
| Title: Re: Why don't electrons stick to the nucleus? |
07 Oct 2003 05:34:29 AM |
|
|
John Sefton <vegan1@accesscomm.ca> wrote in message news:<3f82379d$1@news3.accesscomm.ca>...
CC wrote:
In article <3F4B761F.D415F02F@hate.spam.net>, Uncle Al
<UncleAl0@hate.spam.net> wrote:
kent lavallie wrote:
If electrons have a negative charge and positrons have a postive
charge and they are mutually attracted to each other, why don't
electrons just stick to positrons much like magnets can stick
together?
SNIP not deleting this because I don't like
how you put stuffed shirts where they belong.........
just impatient.
Electrons have acceleration in two planes while spinning either
clockwise or counterclockwise facing the nucleus.
Likewise protons can spin either way while facing their electron.
Electrons and protons on the same axis of spin generate opposite
magnetic fields and repel each other magnetically while
attracting electrically. Increase the spin, more energy, the
repulsion increases, the electron is repelled further. Give
up some spin, less energy, electron drops back down..
John
this is a very good question,the entire explaination of how nature
work can be derived from the basic principle of planet rotation.
principle of planetary rotation explain basically how planet rotate,it
is also applied to any body (matter)that will be found to rotated
round a nucleus.
The are intereactive graviton,eletromagnetic field and electrostatic
field.The combination of this lead to an electron or any matter that
will be found to rotate round a nucleus to stay in orbital path.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Greg Neill" |
|
| Title: Re: Why don't electrons stick to the nucleus? |
07 Oct 2003 07:01:41 AM |
|
|
"peter" <okidi79@yahoo.co.uk> wrote in message
news:6c101b9e.0310070234.9471127@posting.google.com...
this is a very good question,the entire explaination of how nature
work can be derived from the basic principle of planet rotation.
principle of planetary rotation explain basically how planet rotate,it
is also applied to any body (matter)that will be found to rotated
round a nucleus.
The are intereactive graviton,eletromagnetic field and electrostatic
field.The combination of this lead to an electron or any matter that
will be found to rotate round a nucleus to stay in orbital path.
Your physics is out of date by over 100 years.
You can't make it work without Quantum Theory.
.
|
|
|
| User: "peter" |
|
| Title: Re: Why don't electrons stick to the nucleus? |
15 Oct 2003 06:14:46 AM |
|
|
"Greg Neill" <gneillREM@OVE.THIS.netcom.ca> wrote in message news:<PWxgb.2758$G_.205643@news20.bellglobal.com>...
"peter" <okidi79@yahoo.co.uk> wrote in message
news:6c101b9e.0310070234.9471127@posting.google.com...
this is a very good question,the entire explaination of how nature
work can be derived from the basic principle of planet rotation.
principle of planetary rotation explain basically how planet rotate,it
is also applied to any body (matter)that will be found to rotated
round a nucleus.
The are intereactive graviton,eletromagnetic field and electrostatic
field.The combination of this lead to an electron or any matter that
will be found to rotate round a nucleus to stay in orbital path.
Your physics is out of date by over 100 years.
You can't make it work without Quantum Theory.
there is alot of quantum theories in what ever i post,all imformation
known about quantum does not make even a unit fraction of the quantum
systerm around us.No wounder Neil Bohr said who ever claim to known
the detail quantum physical is out his or her normality,this reflected
how blick scientist known about quantum.There are alot of
unexplain,Who ever can explain why the earth rotate in its direct and
does not reverse it direction.who ever can explain what is inside an
electron and what component are inside an electron and proton .who
ever can explain why matter do spin. will understand the complexcity
of the physical universe.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Greg Neill" |
|
| Title: Re: Why don't electrons stick to the nucleus? |
15 Oct 2003 08:26:24 AM |
|
|
"peter" <okidi79@yahoo.co.uk> wrote in message
news:6c101b9e.0310150314.63013ea2@posting.google.com...
there is alot of quantum theories in what ever i post,all imformation
known about quantum does not make even a unit fraction of the quantum
systerm around us.No wounder Neil Bohr said who ever claim to known
the detail quantum physical is out his or her normality,this reflected
how blick scientist known about quantum.There are alot of
unexplain,Who ever can explain why the earth rotate in its direct and
does not reverse it direction.who ever can explain what is inside an
electron and what component are inside an electron and proton .who
ever can explain why matter do spin. will understand the complexcity
of the physical universe.
Despite the high density of nonsense in the above, I cannot
help but ask, what is a "blick scientist"?
.
|
|
|
| User: "peter" |
|
| Title: Re: Why don't electrons stick to the nucleus? |
16 Oct 2003 05:51:16 AM |
|
|
"Greg Neill" <gneillREM@OVE.netcom.ca> wrote in message news:<VVbjb.522$rj4.7753@weber.videotron.net>...
"peter" <okidi79@yahoo.co.uk> wrote in message
news:6c101b9e.0310150314.63013ea2@posting.google.com...
there is alot of quantum theories in what ever i post,all imformation
known about quantum does not make even a unit fraction of the quantum
systerm around us.No wounder Neil Bohr said who ever claim to known
the detail quantum physical is out his or her normality,this reflected
how blick scientist known about quantum.There are alot of
unexplain,Who ever can explain why the earth rotate in its direct and
does not reverse it direction.who ever can explain what is inside an
electron and what component are inside an electron and proton .who
ever can explain why matter do spin. will understand the complexcity
of the physical universe.
Despite the high density of nonsense in the above, I cannot
help but ask, what is a "blick scientist"?
there is nothing like nonsense in where ever i writing,more scientist
claim to known yet they can not develop a simple explaination of
physical quantum origin of matter this reflect how blick most
scientist are.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Chosp" |
|
| Title: Re: Why don't electrons stick to the nucleus? |
16 Oct 2003 11:53:59 AM |
|
|
"peter" <okidi79@yahoo.co.uk> wrote in message
news:6c101b9e.0310160251.3807a7d@posting.google.com...
there is nothing like nonsense in where ever i writing,more scientist
claim to known yet they can not develop a simple explaination of
physical quantum origin of matter this reflect how blick most
scientist are.
What does the word "blick" mean?
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Greg Neill" |
|
| Title: Re: Why don't electrons stick to the nucleus? |
16 Oct 2003 09:16:57 AM |
|
|
"peter" <okidi79@yahoo.co.uk> wrote in message
news:6c101b9e.0310160251.3807a7d@posting.google.com...
there is nothing like nonsense in where ever i writing,more scientist
claim to known yet they can not develop a simple explaination of
physical quantum origin of matter this reflect how blick most
scientist are.
Wow. *plonk*
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Randy Poe" |
|
| Title: Re: Why don't electrons stick to the nucleus? |
16 Oct 2003 09:19:09 AM |
|
|
(peter) wrote in message news:<6c101b9e.0310160251.3807a7d@posting.google.com>...
"Greg Neill" <gneillREM@OVE.netcom.ca> wrote in message news:<VVbjb.522$rj4.7753@weber.videotron.net>...
"peter" < > wrote in message
news:6c101b9e.0310150314.63013ea2@posting.google.com...
there is alot of quantum theories in what ever i post,all imformation
known about quantum does not make even a unit fraction of the quantum
systerm around us.No wounder Neil Bohr said who ever claim to known
the detail quantum physical is out his or her normality,this reflected
how blick scientist known about quantum.There are alot of
unexplain,Who ever can explain why the earth rotate in its direct and
does not reverse it direction.who ever can explain what is inside an
electron and what component are inside an electron and proton .who
ever can explain why matter do spin. will understand the complexcity
of the physical universe.
Despite the high density of nonsense in the above, I cannot
help but ask, what is a "blick scientist"?
there is nothing like nonsense in where ever i writing,
Huh?
more scientist claim to known
Huh?
yet they can not develop a simple explaination of
physical quantum origin of matter
Huh?
this reflect how blick most
scientist are.
Bleak? Black? Blocked? Burlesque? Bulky?
- Randy
.
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: Why don't electrons stick to the nucleus? |
17 Oct 2003 04:02:09 AM |
|
|
In article <585ab5d8.0310160619.69cfa263@posting.google.com>,
(Randy Poe) wrote:
okidi79@yahoo.co.uk (peter) wrote in message
news:<6c101b9e.0310160251.3807a7d@posting.google.com>...
<snip>
this reflect how blick most
scientist are.
Bleak? Black? Blocked? Burlesque? Bulky?
I figured he concatenated blind with thick ala the fashion
of the computtering biz cybercrud.
/BAH
Subtract a hundred and four for e-mail.
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Peter Harding" |
|
| Title: Re: Why don't electrons stick to the nucleus? |
16 Oct 2003 06:26:13 AM |
|
|
In article <6c101b9e.0310160251.3807a7d@posting.google.com>, okidi79
@yahoo.co.uk says...
there is nothing like nonsense in where ever i writing,more scientist
claim to known yet they can not develop a simple explaination of
physical quantum origin of matter this reflect how blick most
scientist are.
"blick" - according to the Oxford English Dictionary, this means "The
brightening or iridescence appearing on silver or gold at the end of the
cupelling or refining process."
Mmmm. Anyone for a nice, sensible Planet X (rotating or not) debate?
--
ICQ 40628243 Tel 07092057581 Fax 07092308800
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "John Sefton" |
|
| Title: Re: Why don't electrons stick to the nucleus? |
07 Oct 2003 09:19:34 AM |
|
|
Greg Neill wrote:
"peter" <okidi79@yahoo.co.uk> wrote in message
news:6c101b9e.0310070234.9471127@posting.google.com...
this is a very good question,the entire explaination of how nature
work can be derived from the basic principle of planet rotation.
principle of planetary rotation explain basically how planet rotate,it
is also applied to any body (matter)that will be found to rotated
round a nucleus.
The are intereactive graviton,eletromagnetic field and electrostatic
field.The combination of this lead to an electron or any matter that
will be found to rotate round a nucleus to stay in orbital path.
Your physics is out of date by over 100 years.
You can't make it work without Quantum Theory.
Quantum theory has taken Physics
on a hundred-year detour that just
might end it up in the garbage dump.
People who actually think have been
protesting this for a long time.
John
.
|
|
|
| User: "Greg Neill" |
|
| Title: Re: Why don't electrons stick to the nucleus? |
07 Oct 2003 12:46:09 PM |
|
|
"John Sefton" <vegan1@accesscomm.ca> wrote in message
news:3f82c9a6$1@news3.accesscomm.ca...
Greg Neill wrote:
"peter" <okidi79@yahoo.co.uk> wrote in message
news:6c101b9e.0310070234.9471127@posting.google.com...
this is a very good question,the entire explaination of how nature
work can be derived from the basic principle of planet rotation.
principle of planetary rotation explain basically how planet rotate,it
is also applied to any body (matter)that will be found to rotated
round a nucleus.
The are intereactive graviton,eletromagnetic field and electrostatic
field.The combination of this lead to an electron or any matter that
will be found to rotate round a nucleus to stay in orbital path.
Your physics is out of date by over 100 years.
You can't make it work without Quantum Theory.
Quantum theory has taken Physics
on a hundred-year detour that just
might end it up in the garbage dump.
People who actually think have been
protesting this for a long time.
John
Oh yeah. Riiiight.
Accuracy of results to over 14 decimal places for
QED says you're blowing smoke. When you've got
something to contribute, write an equation, make a
prediction and amaze everyone.
.
|
|
|
| User: "ThomasL283" |
|
| Title: Re: Why don't electrons stick to the nucleus? |
07 Oct 2003 01:35:15 PM |
|
|
Greg Neill"
Date: 10/7/2003 10:46 AM Pacific Standard Time
Wrote in:
Message-id: <zZCgb.44443$ti3.1123509@wagner.videotron.net>
snip<
"John Sefton" wrote:
Quantum theory has taken Physics
on a hundred-year detour that just
might end it up in the garbage dump.
People who actually think have been
protesting this for a long time.
John
Oh yeah. Riiiight.
Accuracy of results to over 14 decimal places for
QED says you're blowing smoke. When you've got
something to contribute, write an equation, make a
prediction and amaze everyone.
Sorry Greg: QED does NOT get super accuracy. All it does is make a very small
correction to the BOHR with phony coefficients to an alternating power series.
For the math that proves QED is wrong see:
http://www.members.aol.com/tnlockyer/qedbad.gif
Regards: Tom:
Tom Lockyer (76 and retired) Book "Vector Particle and Nuclear Models" Search
on 0963154680 at http://www.amazon.com
"If you want to do the impossible, don't hire an expert because he knows
it can't be done." Henry Ford.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Greg Neill" |
|
| Title: Re: Why don't electrons stick to the nucleus? |
07 Oct 2003 03:46:13 PM |
|
|
"ThomasL283" <thomasl283@aol.com> wrote in message
news:20031007143515.07925.00000401@mb-m11.aol.com...
Sorry Greg: QED does NOT get super accuracy. All it does is make a very
small
correction to the BOHR with phony coefficients to an alternating power
series.
For the math that proves QED is wrong see:
http://www.members.aol.com/tnlockyer/qedbad.gif
Nope. The math on your page is numerology.
Why don't you show us the Bohr model calculations
(first principles please), and then derive an
expression that is your supposed QED corrections
to it.
.
|
|
|
| User: "ThomasL283" |
|
| Title: Re: Why don't electrons stick to the nucleus? |
07 Oct 2003 07:22:34 PM |
|
|
"Greg Neill"
Date: 10/7/2003 1:46 PM Pacific Standard Time
Wrote in:
Message-id: <qCFgb.48011$ti3.1157059@wagner.videotron.net>
"ThomasL283" <thomasl283@aol.com> wrote in message
news:20031007143515.07925.00000401@mb-m11.aol.com...
Sorry Greg: QED does NOT get super accuracy. All it does is make a very
small
correction to the BOHR with phony coefficients to an alternating power
series.
For the math that proves QED is wrong see:
http://www.members.aol.com/tnlockyer/qedbad.gif
Nope. The math on your page is numerology.
Sure. My point was that one cannot believe nature would screw up the
coefficients like QED would have us believe. There are numerology rules for
alternating power series construction, QED violates them.
But look they keep the series exponents without apology.
Why don't you show us the Bohr model calculations
(first principles please), and then derive an
expression that is your supposed QED corrections
to it.
The Bohr magneton is calculated in the math I gave you as Ue = 1/2 (e*c*
lambda/2pi).
This then is given a small correction (1+ alpha sub e) that has little effect
after the second term of the alternating power series.
As shown, the Feynman diagrams get close to the second coefficient
(0.328478444) versus the correct (0.333333333).
So QED deludes itself into thinking the diagrams work. But getting +1.1763
when it should be (0.25) , and -0.8 when it should be (0.2) is a travesty.
Regards: Tom:
Tom Lockyer (76 and retired) Book "Vector Particle and Nuclear Models" Search
on 0963154680 at http://www.amazon.com
"If you want to do the impossible, don't hire an expert because he knows
it can't be done." Henry Ford.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Greg Neill" |
|
| Title: Re: Why don't electrons stick to the nucleus? |
08 Oct 2003 08:40:38 AM |
|
|
"ThomasL283" <thomasl283@aol.com> wrote in message
news:20031007202234.10518.00000314@mb-m14.aol.com...
So QED deludes itself into thinking the diagrams work. But getting
+1.1763
when it should be (0.25) , and -0.8 when it should be (0.2) is a travesty.
Empirical evidence suggests that they've got it right.
An elegant theory that does not agree with reality is
just as wrong as an ugly one.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Sam Wormley" |
|
| Title: Re: Why don't electrons stick to the nucleus? |
07 Oct 2003 01:56:20 PM |
|
|
ThomasL283 wrote:
Greg Neill"
Date: 10/7/2003 10:46 AM Pacific Standard Time
Wrote in:
Message-id: <zZCgb.44443$ti3.1123509@wagner.videotron.net>
snip<
"John Sefton" wrote:
Quantum theory has taken Physics
on a hundred-year detour that just
might end it up in the garbage dump.
People who actually think have been
protesting this for a long time.
John
Oh yeah. Riiiight.
Accuracy of results to over 14 decimal places for
QED says you're blowing smoke. When you've got
something to contribute, write an equation, make a
prediction and amaze everyone.
Sorry Greg: QED does NOT get super accuracy. All it does is make a very small
correction to the BOHR with phony coefficients to an alternating power series.
For the math that proves QED is wrong see:
http://www.members.aol.com/tnlockyer/qedbad.gif
Regards: Tom:
Tom Lockyer (76 and retired) Book "Vector Particle and Nuclear Models" Search
on 0963154680 at http://www.amazon.com
"If you want to do the impossible, don't hire an expert because he knows
it can't be done." Henry Ford.
Tom, you forgot:
http://groups.google.com/groups?q=group%3Asci.physics+author%3AThomasL283
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "DarkMatter" |
|
| Title: Re: Why don't electrons stick to the nucleus? |
07 Oct 2003 07:36:08 PM |
|
|
On Tue, 7 Oct 2003 13:46:09 -0400, "Greg Neill"
<gneillREM@OVE.netcom.ca> Gave us:
Oh yeah. Riiiight.
Accuracy of results to over 14 decimal places for
QED says you're blowing smoke. When you've got
something to contribute, write an equation, make a
prediction and amaze everyone.
What part of the word SPIN do you not understand?
.
|
|
|
| User: "Chosp" |
|
| Title: Re: Why don't electrons stick to the nucleus? |
07 Oct 2003 07:59:17 PM |
|
|
"DarkMatter" <DarkMatter@thebarattheendoftheuniverse.org> wrote in message
news:rum6ov02s2agl3o56709ub9bgqin4nq47v@4ax.com...
On Tue, 7 Oct 2003 13:46:09 -0400, "Greg Neill"
<gneillREM@OVE.netcom.ca> Gave us:
Oh yeah. Riiiight.
Accuracy of results to over 14 decimal places for
QED says you're blowing smoke. When you've got
something to contribute, write an equation, make a
prediction and amaze everyone.
What part of the word SPIN do you not understand?
What part of QED do YOU not understand?
.
|
|
|
| User: "DarkMatter" |
|
| Title: Re: Why don't electrons stick to the nucleus? |
07 Oct 2003 10:07:56 PM |
|
|
On Tue, 7 Oct 2003 17:59:17 -0700, "Chosp" <chosp@cox.net> Gave us:
"DarkMatter" <DarkMatter@thebarattheendoftheuniverse.org> wrote in message
news:rum6ov02s2agl3o56709ub9bgqin4nq47v@4ax.com...
On Tue, 7 Oct 2003 13:46:09 -0400, "Greg Neill"
<gneillREM@OVE.netcom.ca> Gave us:
Oh yeah. Riiiight.
Accuracy of results to over 14 decimal places for
QED says you're blowing smoke. When you've got
something to contribute, write an equation, make a
prediction and amaze everyone.
What part of the word SPIN do you not understand?
What part of QED do YOU not understand?
Are you sure about that?
Why do hot dogs come in packages of ten, when hot dog buns only come
in packages of eight?
Ever shoot pool?
Why does the "perfect physics engine" in "Virtual Pool 3" fail to
function properly on extreme form shots? QED falls apart whenever
chaotic systems are in play.
SPIN.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Greg Neill" |
|
| Title: Re: Why don't electrons stick to the nucleus? |
07 Oct 2003 10:09:54 PM |
|
|
"DarkMatter" <DarkMatter@thebarattheendoftheuniverse.org> wrote in message
news:knv6ovs7tan7tok0bs0j80rq3hqbktpsld@4ax.com...
On Tue, 7 Oct 2003 17:59:17 -0700, "Chosp" <chosp@cox.net> Gave us:
What part of QED do YOU not understand?
Are you sure about that?
Why do hot dogs come in packages of ten, when hot dog buns only come
in packages of eight?
Ever shoot pool?
Why does the "perfect physics engine" in "Virtual Pool 3" fail to
function properly on extreme form shots? QED falls apart whenever
chaotic systems are in play.
SPIN.
Once again we note that DarkMatter = Doesn'tMatter.
.
|
|
|
| User: "S. Enterprize Company" |
|
| Title: Re: Why don't electrons stick to the nucleus? |
10 Oct 2003 06:19:57 AM |
|
|
Like I said before, there is only one correct model, The Smart Model. I
spent about 10 years developing it. It works. It's accurate. It even has visual
evidence using real atomic images.
Smart's Alt. Physics News Group
http://pub39.bravenet.com/forum/show.php?usernum=3320272813&cpv=1
S. Enterprize (Science Journal)
http://smart1234.s-enterprize.com/
.
|
|
|
| User: "Starblade Darksquall" |
|
| Title: Re: Why don't electrons stick to the nucleus? |
10 Oct 2003 03:08:42 PM |
|
|
(S. Enterprize Company) wrote in message news:<20031010071957.07836.00000071@mb-m16.aol.com>...
Like I said before, there is only one correct model, The Smart Model. I
spent about 10 years developing it. It works. It's accurate. It even has visual
evidence using real atomic images.
Smart's Alt. Physics News Group
http://pub39.bravenet.com/forum/show.php?usernum=3320272813&cpv=1
S. Enterprize (Science Journal)
http://smart1234.s-enterprize.com/
You're stupid.
You're worse than those lousy string/membrane theory people who won't
admit that their strings/membranes aren't really anything but a
metaphysical construction and is not really a theory in the proper
sense.
(...Starblade Riven Darksquall...)
.
|
|
|
| User: "Gregory L. Hansen" |
|
| Title: Re: Why don't electrons stick to the nucleus? |
10 Oct 2003 04:05:12 PM |
|
|
In article <4aa861fb.0310101208.ab8bef4@posting.google.com>,
Starblade Darksquall <Starblade13@Yahoo.com> wrote:
smart1234@aol.com (S. Enterprize Company) wrote in message
news:<20031010071957.07836.00000071@mb-m16.aol.com>...
Like I said before, there is only one correct model, The Smart Model. I
spent about 10 years developing it. It works. It's accurate. It even
has visual
evidence using real atomic images.
Smart's Alt. Physics News Group
http://pub39.bravenet.com/forum/show.php?usernum=3320272813&cpv=1
S. Enterprize (Science Journal)
http://smart1234.s-enterprize.com/
You're stupid.
You're worse than those lousy string/membrane theory people who won't
admit that their strings/membranes aren't really anything but a
metaphysical construction and is not really a theory in the proper
sense.
Any theory is a metaphysical construction. But some metaphysical
constructions make more accurate predictions and cover a broader range of
phenomena than other metaphysical constructions.
--
"Is that plutonium on your gums?"
"Shut up and kiss me!"
-- Marge and Homer Simpson
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Sam Wormley" |
|
| Title: Re: Why don't electrons stick to the nucleus? |
10 Oct 2003 03:53:33 PM |
|
|
Starblade Darksquall wrote:
smart1234@aol.com (S. Enterprize Company) wrote in message news:<20031010071957.07836.00000071@mb-m16.aol.com>...
Like I said before, there is only one correct model, The Smart Model. I
spent about 10 years developing it. It works. It's accurate. It even has visual
evidence using real atomic images.
Smart's Alt. Physics News Group
http://pub39.bravenet.com/forum/show.php?usernum=3320272813&cpv=1
S. Enterprize (Science Journal)
http://smart1234.s-enterprize.com/
You're stupid.
You're worse than those lousy string/membrane theory people who won't
admit that their strings/membranes aren't really anything but a
metaphysical construction and is not really a theory in the proper
sense.
(...Starblade Riven Darksquall...)
Even Einstein's Special Relativity was just a metaphysical construction
at one time, Starblade. Right? My comment in no way supports smart1234!
.
|
|
|
| User: "Paul R. Mays" |
|
| Title: Re: Why don't electrons stick to the nucleus? |
10 Oct 2003 06:35:21 PM |
|
|
"Sam Wormley" <swormley1@mchsi.com> wrote in message
news:3F871C44.5E72DD00@mchsi.com...
Starblade Darksquall wrote:
smart1234@aol.com (S. Enterprize Company) wrote in message
news:<20031010071957.07836.00000071@mb-m16.aol.com>...
Like I said before, there is only one correct model, The Smart Model.
I
spent about 10 years developing it. It works. It's accurate. It even
has visual
evidence using real atomic images.
Smart's Alt. Physics News Group
http://pub39.bravenet.com/forum/show.php?usernum=3320272813&cpv=1
S. Enterprize (Science Journal)
http://smart1234.s-enterprize.com/
You're stupid.
You're worse than those lousy string/membrane theory people who won't
admit that their strings/membranes aren't really anything but a
metaphysical construction and is not really a theory in the proper
sense.
(...Starblade Riven Darksquall...)
Even Einstein's Special Relativity was just a metaphysical construction
at one time, Starblade. Right? My comment in no way supports smart1234
You are absolutely correct Sam.. along with many concepts that today
we take as fundamental rules were at one time just the mathematical
constructs
of a few that considered a bigger box (metaphorically speaking)...
(And I too separate myself from any aspect of SmFart's ranting)
Paul R. Mays
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
-
Some where within the Quantum State
Http://Paul.Mays.Com
http://paul.mays.com/resume.html
"Almost all really new ideas have a certain aspect of foolishness when
they are first produced." - Alfred North Whitehead
.
|
|
|
| User: "Robert J. Kolker" |
|
| Title: Re: Why don't electrons stick to the nucleus? |
10 Oct 2003 08:14:35 PM |
|
|
Paul R. Mays wrote:
You are absolutely correct Sam.. along with many concepts that today
we take as fundamental rules were at one time just the mathematical
constructs
And then the experiments corrorberated them. That is the key. A theory
is no good unless supported by experiment. Repeat the mantra: Facts
rule, theories serve.
Bob Kolker
.
|
|
|
| User: "Edwin L. Bondoc" |
|
| Title: Re: Why don't electrons stick to the nucleus? |
16 Oct 2003 08:44:49 PM |
|
|
"Robert J. Kolker" <bobkolker@attbi.com> wrote in message news:<bm7li1$jsbup$3@ID-76471.news.uni-berlin.de>...
Paul R. Mays wrote:
You are absolutely correct Sam.. along with many concepts that today
we take as fundamental rules were at one time just the mathematical
constructs
And then the experiments corrorberated them. That is the key. A theory
is no good unless supported by experiment. Repeat the mantra: Facts
rule, theories serve.
Bob Kolker
Bob,
Let me get back to the original question of Mr. Kent Lavalie on "Why
electrons don't stick to the nucleus" and answer it using a layman's
understanding of fundamental rules and supported by experiments.
We all know that electrons and protons attract each other due to their
opposite charges. And these charged particles possess magnetic moments
which build up the magnetic field in a magnet when properly aligned.
As a layman, the only reason I see why the electron does not stick to
the nucleus is because both the magnetic moments of the electron and
proton are aligned parallel to each other but are in the same
direction. This means that their "poles" are not opposite each other
hence, they repel in accordance to accepted fundamental rules.
Edwin
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "tj Frazir" |
|
| Title: Re: Why don't waves stick to boats |
10 Oct 2003 11:45:21 AM |
|
|
Why dont waves stick to boats ?
Ha Ha Ha .
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Related Articles |
|
|
