Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]

Groups > sci.physics > #591081 > unrolled thread

Proton orbits electron

Back to article view | Back to sci.physics

Contents

  Proton orbits electron Alan Folmsbee <omnilobe@gmail.com> - 2016-07-28 15:05 -0700
    Re: Proton orbits electron Poutnik <poutnik4nntp@gmail.com> - 2016-07-29 07:28 +0200
    Re: Proton orbits electron Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-07-29 09:06 -0500
      Re: Proton orbits electron Alan Folmsbee <omnilobe@gmail.com> - 2016-07-29 08:55 -0700
        Re: Proton orbits electron noTthaTguY <abu.kuanysh05@gmail.com> - 2016-07-29 09:07 -0700
        Re: Proton orbits electron Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-07-29 11:14 -0500
          Re: Proton orbits electron brandonahenley9@gmail.com - 2016-07-29 12:20 -0700

#591081 — Proton orbits electron

In the old school, students were sometimes told that electrons orbit protons, but consider the opposite. The orbital angular momentum relative to the electron is offered as a more accurate perspective on reality. A linear momentum (p) is directed into each proton and neutron. That is multiplied by the atomic radius (a) and by a constant (K) to get h, Planck's angular momentum.

h = paK

Where K is a dimensionless constant of :

K = 4 pi mk/Gq

Where m is proton mass, k is Coulomb's const, G is Newton’s const, q is proton charge. This shows that electron orbital angular momentum is from gravity's momentum. That radial linear momentum for each baryon is p

p = 7*10^-37 meter^3/second

Conclusion: Imagine the electron is a star and a proton is its planet, its universe, providing all the momentum the star will ever need. It is a stationary flow, electron to proton and back again: momentum is conserved, from gravity to electromagnetism.

[toc] | [next] | [standalone]

#591121

Dne 29/07/2016 v 00:05 Alan Folmsbee napsal(a):
> In the old school, students were sometimes told that electrons orbit protons, but consider the opposite. The orbital angular momentum relative to the electron is offered as a more accurate perspective on reality. 

Join a big 6 kg stone by a rope with a small 3 g stone.
Throw them far, rotating with stressed rope
like South America bola for catching animals.

You say it will visually look,
like if the big one orbits the small one, correct ? :-)

The orbiting centre in both cases
is the barycentre of the both objects.

-- 
Poutnik ( The Pilgrim, Der Wanderer )
Knowledge makes great men humble, but small men arrogant.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#591135

On 7/28/2016 5:05 PM, Alan Folmsbee wrote:
> In the old school, students were sometimes told that electrons orbit protons, but
> consider the opposite. The orbital angular momentum relative to the electron is
> offered as a more accurate perspective on reality. A linear momentum (p) is directed
> into each proton and neutron. That is multiplied by the atomic radius (a) and by a
> constant (K) to get h, Planck's angular momentum.

>
> Conclusion: Imagine the electron is a star and a proton is its planet, its universe,
> providing all the momentum the star will ever need. It is a stationary flow, electron
> to proton and back again: momentum is conserved, from gravity to electromagnetism.
>

Alan, the proton is about 1800 times more massive than the electron.

Like all attracting pairs, the two bodies actually orbit each other, but 
the one that is more massive is the one that displaces the least. Do you 
understand why?
This is why the earth goes around the sun more than the sun goes around 
the earth, and also why the electron goes around the proton more than 
the proton goes around the electron.

I'm really having a hard time understanding why you play this way to 
generate complete nonsense. Can you account for why you do this?


-- 
Odd Bodkin --- maker of fine toys, tools, tables

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#591146

On Friday, July 29, 2016 at 4:06:30 AM UTC-10, Odd Bodkin wrote:
> On 7/28/2016 5:05 PM, Alan Folmsbee wrote:
> > In the old school, students were sometimes told that electrons orbit protons, but
> > consider the opposite. The orbital angular momentum relative to the electron is
> > offered as a more accurate perspective on reality. A linear momentum (p) is directed
> > into each proton and neutron. That is multiplied by the atomic radius (a) and by a
> > constant (K) to get h, Planck's angular momentum.
> 
> >
> > Conclusion: Imagine the electron is a star and a proton is its planet, its universe,
> > providing all the momentum the star will ever need. It is a stationary flow, electron
> > to proton and back again: momentum is conserved, from gravity to electromagnetism.
> >
> 
> Alan, the proton is about 1800 times more massive than the electron.
> 
> Like all attracting pairs, the two bodies actually orbit each other, but 
> the one that is more massive is the one that displaces the least. Do you 
> understand why?
> This is why the earth goes around the sun more than the sun goes around 
> the earth, and also why the electron goes around the proton more than 
> the proton goes around the electron.
> 
> I'm really having a hard time understanding why you play this way to 
> generate complete nonsense. Can you account for why you do this?
> 
> 
> -- 
> Odd Bodkin --- maker of fine toys, tools, tables

OB wrote, "the electron goes around the proton more than 
> the proton goes around the electron."

The angular momentum of the atom is not from a planetary system of a massive center holding a light weight electron in a circular orbit. The angular momentum of an atom has a stationary flow. The flow of gravity goes into the proton to form the linear momentum that stationary flow is used to calculate the angular momentum with an axis that is at a distance from the linear momentum. The distance is the atomic radius. Using the electron as the origin for relative measurements, the proton is part of the atomic orbital. This unconventional perspective is an advance in science.

Atoms are not moving like planetary sytems. When I say a proton orbits an electron, that is a stationary orbital. A probability is given by old science for the electron's position. Advances in science can change the probability representation to an articulated dimensional model.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#591150

that is just shy of gibberish, or gibberalism;
I'm sure that gravity is just an effect in hte plasma cosmology
of Alfven et al

> The angular momentum of the atom is not from a planetary system of a massive center holding a light weight electron in a circular orbit. The angular momentum of an atom has a stationary flow. The flow of gravity goes into the proton to form the linear momentum that stationary flow is used to calculate the angular momentum with an axis that is at a distance from the linear momentum. The distance is the atomic radius. Using the electron as the origin for relative measurements, the proton is part of the atomic orbital. This unconventional perspective is an advance in science.
> 
> Atoms are not moving like planetary sytems. When I say a proton orbits an electron, that is a stationary orbital. A probability is given by old science for the electron's position. Advances in science can change the probability representation to an articulated dimensional model.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#591152

On 7/29/2016 10:55 AM, Alan Folmsbee wrote:
> The angular momentum of the atom is not from a planetary system of a massive
> center holding a light weight electron in a circular orbit. The angular momentum
> of an atom has a stationary flow. The flow of gravity goes into the proton to form
> the linear momentum that stationary flow is used to calculate the angular momentum
> with an axis that is at a distance from the linear momentum. The distance is the
> atomic radius. Using the electron as the origin for relative measurements, the proton
> is part of the atomic orbital. This unconventional perspective is an advance in science.
>
> Atoms are not moving like planetary sytems. When I say a proton orbits an electron,
> that is a stationary orbital. A probability is given by old science for the electron's
> position. Advances in science can change the probability representation to an articulated
> dimensional model.

While it is true that electrons do not orbit the proton in the same 
classical way that planets orbit the sun, when you go into the quantum 
mechanical treatment, you find that the barycenter still does play the 
same equivalent role in the quantum case as it does in the classical 
case. That is, the reason why the proton does not move much is because 
it is much more massive than the electron -- even quantum mechanically.

The rest of your words are just gibberish, unfortunately, and I'm 
frankly wondering why you think it is a smart thing to do to put 
together a string of gibberish like "the flow of gravity goes into the 
proton to form the linear momentum" and put it out there in public. Do 
you really think that the people where you're posting this will read it 
and have no idea whether what you're saying makes sense or not? Do you 
really think that composing sentences that SOUND like physics will be 
taken by readers to BE physics?


-- 
Odd Bodkin --- maker of fine toys, tools, tables

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#591185

see Sommerville;
they are essentially classically orbiting the nucleus at one focus
for each of the electrons (or,
each pair of electrons?

> While it is true that electrons do not orbit the proton in the same 
> classical way that planets orbit the sun, when you go into the quantum 
> mechanical treatment, you find that the barycenter still does play the 
> same equivalent role in the quantum case as it does in the classical 
> case. That is, the reason why the proton does not move much is because 
> it is much more massive than the electron -- even quantum mechanically.

[toc] | [prev] | [standalone]

Back to top | Article view | sci.physics

csiph-web