Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > sci.physics > #607200 > unrolled thread
| Started by | john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| First post | 2016-11-29 20:56 -0800 |
| Last post | 2016-12-05 12:09 -0800 |
| Articles | 20 on this page of 87 — 10 participants |
Back to article view | Back to sci.physics
attosecond science john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2016-11-29 20:56 -0800
attosecond science john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2016-11-29 21:33 -0800
Re: attosecond science moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2016-11-30 15:45 +0000
Re: attosecond science john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2016-11-30 08:09 -0800
Re: attosecond science john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2016-11-30 09:53 -0800
Re: attosecond science Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-11-30 12:13 -0600
Re: attosecond science edprochak@gmail.com - 2016-11-30 15:50 -0800
Re: attosecond science john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2016-11-30 18:59 -0800
Re: attosecond science edprochak@gmail.com - 2016-11-30 21:10 -0800
Re: attosecond science moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2016-12-01 12:47 +0000
Re: attosecond science edprochak@gmail.com - 2016-12-01 07:15 -0800
Re: attosecond science john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2016-12-01 07:24 -0800
Re: attosecond science HVAC <mr.hvac@gmail.com> - 2016-12-01 07:58 -0800
Re: attosecond science Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-12-01 10:57 -0600
Re: attosecond science john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2016-12-01 09:10 -0800
Re: attosecond science Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-12-01 11:54 -0600
Re: attosecond science john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2016-12-01 10:08 -0800
Re: attosecond science Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-12-01 12:40 -0600
Re: attosecond science john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2016-12-01 10:47 -0800
Re: attosecond science Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-12-01 13:28 -0600
Re: attosecond science HVAC <mr.hvac@gmail.com> - 2016-12-01 11:40 -0800
Re: attosecond science edprochak@gmail.com - 2016-12-01 11:28 -0800
Re: attosecond science Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-12-01 13:32 -0600
Re: attosecond science john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2016-12-01 12:55 -0800
Re: attosecond science Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-12-01 15:26 -0600
Re: attosecond science john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2016-12-01 13:36 -0800
Re: attosecond science HVAC <mr.hvac@gmail.com> - 2016-12-01 13:42 -0800
Re: attosecond science Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-12-01 15:48 -0600
Re: attosecond science john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2016-12-01 14:19 -0800
Re: attosecond science Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-12-01 16:22 -0600
Re: attosecond science john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2016-12-01 15:23 -0800
Re: attosecond science john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2016-12-01 15:47 -0800
Re: attosecond science john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2016-12-02 06:34 -0800
Re: attosecond science Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-12-02 09:43 -0600
Re: attosecond science Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-12-02 08:43 -0600
Re: attosecond science john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2016-12-02 06:53 -0800
Re: attosecond science moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2016-12-02 15:15 +0000
Re: attosecond science Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-12-02 09:44 -0600
Re: attosecond science HVAC <mr.hvac@gmail.com> - 2016-12-02 08:12 -0800
Re: attosecond science john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2016-12-02 08:56 -0800
Re: attosecond science Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-12-02 11:31 -0600
Re: attosecond science Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-12-02 12:09 -0600
Re: attosecond science john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2016-12-02 10:36 -0800
Re: attosecond science Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-12-02 12:42 -0600
Re: attosecond science Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-12-02 12:55 -0600
Re: attosecond science Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-12-02 16:56 -0600
Re: attosecond science john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2016-12-02 15:40 -0800
Re: attosecond science HVAC <mr.hvac@gmail.com> - 2016-12-03 05:35 -0800
Re: attosecond science john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2016-12-03 10:19 -0800
Re: attosecond science HVAC <mr.hvac@gmail.com> - 2016-12-03 13:35 -0800
Re: attosecond science john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2016-12-03 18:24 -0800
Re: attosecond science HVAC <mr.hvac@gmail.com> - 2016-12-03 18:41 -0800
Re: attosecond science benj <benj@nobody.net> - 2016-12-03 22:30 -0500
Re: attosecond science moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2016-12-04 05:36 +0000
Re: attosecond science noTthaTguY <abu.kuanysh05@gmail.com> - 2016-12-05 17:50 -0800
Re: attosecond science Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-12-05 08:08 -0600
Re: attosecond science john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2016-12-05 08:09 -0800
Re: attosecond science Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-12-05 10:24 -0600
Re: attosecond science john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2016-12-05 09:21 -0800
Re: attosecond science Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-12-05 11:40 -0600
Re: attosecond science john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2016-12-05 10:01 -0800
Re: attosecond science Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-12-05 12:10 -0600
Re: attosecond science HVAC <mr.hvac@gmail.com> - 2016-12-05 11:17 -0800
Re: attosecond science HVAC <mr.hvac@gmail.com> - 2016-12-02 12:00 -0800
Re: attosecond science edprochak@gmail.com - 2016-12-02 12:27 -0800
Re: attosecond science Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-12-02 14:54 -0600
Re: attosecond science john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2016-12-02 13:12 -0800
Re: attosecond science Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-12-02 16:49 -0600
Re: attosecond science Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-12-02 08:40 -0600
Re: attosecond science edprochak@gmail.com - 2016-12-01 14:16 -0800
Re: attosecond science edprochak@gmail.com - 2016-12-01 11:25 -0800
Re: attosecond science john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2016-12-01 11:29 -0800
Re: attosecond science Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-12-01 13:34 -0600
Re: attosecond science edprochak@gmail.com - 2016-12-01 14:13 -0800
Re: attosecond science moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2016-12-01 17:08 +0000
Re: attosecond science edprochak@gmail.com - 2016-12-01 11:19 -0800
Re: attosecond science Alan Folmsbee <omnilobe@gmail.com> - 2016-12-01 08:31 -0800
b0s0n is what ... b0s0ns d00 noTthaTguY <abu.kuanysh05@gmail.com> - 2016-12-01 12:15 -0800
just cahnge the variables, such that b0s0ny is what ... b0s0ns d00 noTthaTguY <abu.kuanysh05@gmail.com> - 2016-12-02 14:02 -0800
Re: attosecond science moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2016-11-30 18:07 +0000
Re: attosecond science noTthaTguY <abu.kuanysh05@gmail.com> - 2016-11-30 12:06 -0800
attosecond science HVAC <mr.hvac@gmail.com> - 2016-12-01 11:05 -0800
Re: attosecond science "reber g=emc^2" <herbertglazier0@gmail.com> - 2016-12-05 09:31 -0800
Re: attosecond science "reber g=emc^2" <herbertglazier0@gmail.com> - 2016-12-05 10:02 -0800
Re: attosecond science "hanson" <hanson@quick.net> - 2016-12-05 12:02 -0800
Re: attosecond science "reber g=emc^2" <herbertglazier0@gmail.com> - 2016-12-05 09:55 -0800
Re: attosecond science "hanson" <hanson@quick.net> - 2016-12-05 12:09 -0800
Page 1 of 5 [1] 2 3 4 5 Next page →
| From | john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-11-29 20:56 -0800 |
| Subject | attosecond science |
| Message-ID | <4a382010-eb25-4b10-a7ac-fc060e8e12f2@googlegroups.com> |
http://jaslab.ca/atto6_e.html
[toc] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-11-29 21:33 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <2d26b7a1-ca94-4144-9b68-29ae167cef0b@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #607200 |
Only a matter of time before we find out the real dimensions of the electron cloud- a disc stretching to the atoms edge
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-11-30 15:45 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <o1ms7m$8di$1@pcls7.std.com> |
| In reply to | #607203 |
john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> writes: >Only a matter of time before we >find out the real dimensions of >the electron cloud- a disc stretching >to the atoms edge From the shapes of molecules, we already know the shapes electronic orbitals take. They aren't discs. Methane, CH4, for example, has the central C with a tetrahedral configuration.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-11-30 08:09 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <6d2d9173-bfca-43a9-9e77-22e07933a1a2@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #607239 |
Michael " From the shapes of molecules, we already know the shapes electronic orbitals take. They aren't discs. Methane, CH4, for example, has the central C with a tetrahedral configuration. " Yes, I tried and tried to find a tetrahedron in the 1:2 pattern- couldn't do it. Perhaps it's in a more esoteric standing wave, like 6:13- I don't know- I don't have computing power like that. The model of an electron as a galactic arm - looking at all the shapes galactic arms can take- the electron would seem to be extremely labile. But it still holds together as an individual unit- or does it? Do electrons trade materials?
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-11-30 09:53 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <ecefa2e8-62d6-492c-ad52-26f9c23803ad@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #607241 |
Whatever. The electron has to be travelling at a significant percentage of the speed of light to have periods in the 100 to 1000 attoseconds range. If it possesses momentum, it must be like a motorcycle in a barrel- following a very specific pathway. If Michael can show that quantum orbitals reflect that, there's no reason they couldn't be right!
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-11-30 12:13 -0600 |
| Message-ID | <o1n4rp$iln$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #607262 |
On 11/30/2016 11:53 AM, john wrote: > Whatever. > The electron has to be travelling at > a significant percentage of the speed of light > to have periods in the 100 to 1000 > attoseconds range. 0.7% of the speed of light, for the electron in a hydrogen atom. For outer electrons in heavier atoms, it's a lower speed than that. So you tell me if 0.7% is "significant" percentage. > If it possesses momentum, it must be > like a motorcycle in a barrel- following > a very specific pathway. Electrons in bound states in atoms do not have momentum as a measurable quantity. In unbound states (outside the atom), they do. No, electrons in atoms do not follow a very specific pathway. > If Michael can show that quantum > orbitals reflect that, there's no reason > they couldn't be right! > -- Odd Bodkin --- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | edprochak@gmail.com |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-11-30 15:50 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <2315f2c5-d5cb-4ca5-8440-391e884618d2@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #607262 |
On Wednesday, November 30, 2016 at 12:53:14 PM UTC-5, john wrote: > Whatever. > The electron has to be travelling at > a significant percentage of the speed of light > to have periods in the 100 to 1000 > attoseconds range. Time to put this claim to the test. Lets take hydrogen Diameter about 0.106 nanometer (0.106E-10 meter) Lets take the shorter end of the time range you mentioned 100 attoseconds = 100 * 1E-18 seconds = 1E-16 seconds lets even give the electron a circular path Circumference=Pi*D Pathlength = 3.14*0.106E-10 = 0.333E-10 meter Assume classical macro mechanics V=d/t first approximation then is V= 0.333E-10 meter / 1E-16 seconds V= 0.333E+6 m/s Compare to speed of light C = 3.E+8 V/C = 0.333E+6/3.0E+8 = 0.111E-2 V/C = 0.111% So even using a classical approximations of electron orbital motion, the speed is ONLY little over on tenth of one percent of the speed of light. That's not exactly what I would call > a significant percentage > If it possesses momentum, it must be > like a motorcycle in a barrel- following > a very specific pathway. Here you are still thinking in classical physics terms, that the electron is a little ball at the end of a string. > If Michael can show that quantum > orbitals reflect that, there's no reason > they couldn't be right! The quantum orbitals calculate the position probability. And the shapes have been verified by experiment. But it is good to see maybe you are learning something. Ed
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-11-30 18:59 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <1ebee0e4-bff1-430b-9e72-42b3dced2ce4@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #607286 |
Ed "lets even give the electron a circular path Circumference=Pi*D " That's the SHORTEST path it could follow. Therefore the SLOWEST it can go. So what's the "lets even.."? Plus- let's has an apostrophe. You English-a-second-language bunch! Good for you, to try also!!
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | edprochak@gmail.com |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-11-30 21:10 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <050c1ad2-1fd8-4667-9aa4-7c9339998379@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #607299 |
On Wednesday, November 30, 2016 at 9:59:26 PM UTC-5, john wrote: > Ed > "lets even give the electron a circular path Circumference=Pi*D " > > That's the SHORTEST path it could > follow. Therefore the SLOWEST it > can go. > So what's the "lets even.."? > Plus- let's has an apostrophe. > You English-a-second-language bunch! > Good for you, to try also!! Once again presented with contrary evidence you follow JM's model and reply with insults. Please at least try to pretend you are an adult.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-12-01 12:47 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <o1p65a$hm$1@pcls7.std.com> |
| In reply to | #607299 |
john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> writes: >Ed >"lets even give the electron a circular path Circumference=Pi*D " >That's the SHORTEST path it could >follow. Therefore the SLOWEST it >can go. >So what's the "lets even.."? So let it take a path three times as long. So now it's moving at .003c now. Yawn. Of course picturing the electron as a little ball moving in a certain path at .003c still violates Heisenberg and the acceleration/radiation issue so without good reason there's no use wasting time with that.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | edprochak@gmail.com |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-12-01 07:15 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <8a0f9ce5-046d-4cd1-84aa-047859c76aaa@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #607320 |
On Thursday, December 1, 2016 at 7:47:46 AM UTC-5, Michael Moroney wrote: > john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> writes: > > >Ed > >"lets even give the electron a circular path Circumference=Pi*D " > > >That's the SHORTEST path it could > >follow. Therefore the SLOWEST it > >can go. > >So what's the "lets even.."? > > So let it take a path three times as long. So now it's moving at .003c > now. Yawn. > > Of course picturing the electron as a little ball moving in a certain > path at .003c still violates Heisenberg and the acceleration/radiation > issue so without good reason there's no use wasting time with that. Yes, John does not recognize quantum mechanics, so I didn't bother to bring it up again. Have a good day Michael. ed
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-12-01 07:24 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <e0f63591-6c91-49fa-bb31-f504f7cdb93b@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #607320 |
Michael" Of course picturing the electron as a little ball moving in a certain path at .003c still violates Heisenberg and the acceleration/radiation issue so without good reason there's no use wasting time with that. " You know electrons don't radiate because...? You know you can NEVER know because...? Michael be like, "I know electron can't be MOVING because then they would RADIATE and CRASH and STOP moving, and they DON'T- they KEEP moving, but we don't know WHERE they're moving TO, unless we don't know where they're coming FROM." Wow. Talking to tards
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | HVAC <mr.hvac@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-12-01 07:58 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <5c0572fd-7e79-42ad-9a67-f0ba8c5f08d3@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #607330 |
Johnny boy said You know electrons don't radiate because...? You know you can NEVER know because...? Michael be like, "I know electron can't be MOVING because then they would RADIATE and CRASH and STOP moving, and they DON'T- they KEEP moving, but we don't know WHERE they're moving TO, unless we don't know where they're coming FROM." Wow. Talking to tards ----------- You talking to yourself again?
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-12-01 10:57 -0600 |
| Message-ID | <o1pkot$t9k$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #607330 |
On 12/1/2016 9:24 AM, john wrote: > Michael" > > Of course picturing the electron as a little ball moving in a certain > path at .003c still violates Heisenberg and the acceleration/radiation > issue so without good reason there's no use wasting time with that. " > > You know electrons don't radiate because...? Oh, I suppose it's possible that they radiate and then reabsorb energy in a way that is completely invisible to experimental observation. You can always speculate that something happens that cannot be discovered through observation. Like little fairies that preserve the constant motion of things, but who are also very good at hiding both themselves and their footprints. But to suppose something that is happening that CANNOT BE TESTED is not a scientific hypothesis. An unfalsifiable hypothesis is not scientific. It's religious faith. If you're going to start thinking scientifically, then for every single hypothesis you put out there, you have to come up with a way that this could be put to observational test, a result that cannot be explained a different way. > You know you can NEVER know because...? > > Michael be like, "I know electron can't be > MOVING because then they would > RADIATE and CRASH and STOP moving, > and they DON'T- they KEEP moving, > but we don't know WHERE they're moving TO, > unless we don't know where they're coming > FROM." > > Wow. Talking to tards > -- Odd Bodkin --- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-12-01 09:10 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <7618314e-d5fe-4820-bf53-2d53ea21f4c3@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #607342 |
Odd " Oh, I suppose it's possible that they radiate and then reabsorb energy in a way that is completely invisible to experimental observation. You can always speculate that something happens that cannot be discovered through observation. Like little fairies that preserve the constant motion of things, but who are also very good at hiding both themselves and their footprints. " Kinda like all the VIRTUAL photons? Maybe the electrons all radiate something only detectable from its impact on protons and then the protons give it back?
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-12-01 11:54 -0600 |
| Message-ID | <o1po4e$135v$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #607345 |
On 12/1/2016 11:10 AM, john wrote: > Odd > " > > Oh, I suppose it's possible that they radiate and then reabsorb energy > in a way that is completely invisible to experimental observation. You > can always speculate that something happens that cannot be discovered > through observation. Like little fairies that preserve the constant > motion of things, but who are also very good at hiding both themselves > and their footprints. > " > > Kinda like all the VIRTUAL photons? Oh, but John, those aren't invisible to experimental observation. That would be the point. There are, for example, observations about scatterings that happen at certain rates at so-and-so distribution of angles that you can calculate TO TWELVE DECIMAL PLACES using virtual photons, and where if you leave out the virtual photos you can't get the answer anywhere close. Those are the footprints of virtual photons. They have definite and calculable effects, and the calculations come DIRECTLY FROM the model of virtual photons. Contrast this with your invisible radiations, where you can't do one goldarn calculation of ANYTHING that can't be explained without them. It's like, "If they're there, they don't have any footprints." > > Maybe the electrons all radiate something > only detectable from its impact on > protons WHAT IMPACT on protons? Where is the observation about protons that can only be explained by these invisible radiations? > and then the protons give it back? > -- Odd Bodkin --- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-12-01 10:08 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <644b9236-3c8a-475d-bdbb-10917d5549e0@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #607362 |
Odd "WHAT IMPACT on protons? Where is the observation about protons that can only be explained by these invisible radiations? " Gravity. Inertia.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-12-01 12:40 -0600 |
| Message-ID | <o1pqr8$183v$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #607363 |
On 12/1/2016 12:08 PM, john wrote: > Odd > "WHAT IMPACT on protons? Where is the observation about protons that can > only be explained by these invisible radiations? " > Gravity. > Inertia. > Well, John, let's look at this a couple of different ways. First, conceptually. Surely you recognize that your "invisible radiations" that give rise to gravity and inertia are conceptually identical to gravitons. There's nothing you've offered that would distinguish yours from those, so in that case you've added nothing. But then the issue is that you seem to be blissfully unaware of the problems there are in trying to build a quantitative theory of gravitons, which would be the same problems with your relabeled Same Things. Secondly, quantitatively. You say that proton gives back to the electrons what the electrons radiate in equal measure. This is so no energy is lost and the electrons can stay in their orbits (according to you). But the proton has 2000 times as much gravitation as the electron and 2000 times more inertia. So how do you explain such a quantitative disparity if these radiations account for the gravity of both electrons and protons. Secondly, let's compare neutral helium atom (2 protons vs 2 electrons) and a helium ion (2 protons vs 1 electron). If the electron's radiations are responsible for the proton's gravity, wouldn't you expect the protons in the helium ion to have half the gravity of the protons in the helium atom? Now, maybe your the kind of person that says, "That's just bookkeeping details. I don't worry about figuring out the numbers. I just the big-picture concept guy." But it's these kinds of obvious quantitative problems that cause physicists to ball up the piece of paper and say, "Well, that was an obviously bad idea." -- Odd Bodkin --- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-12-01 10:47 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <64b1bd4a-4dd2-4c4c-a0e7-71c8dcdb7b76@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #607372 |
Odd "First, conceptually. Surely you recognize that your "invisible radiations" that give rise to gravity and inertia are conceptually identical to gravitons. There's nothing you've offered that would distinguish yours from those..." You're wrong. Gravitons SUCK. They are produced in INFINITE numbers by matter with NO impact on the matters energy content- supposedly. My radiations PUSH. I have no idea how you confuse PULL with PUSH????? How, PD?
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-12-01 13:28 -0600 |
| Message-ID | <o1ptku$1coq$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #607374 |
On 12/1/2016 12:47 PM, john wrote: > Odd > "First, conceptually. Surely you recognize that your "invisible > radiations" that give rise to gravity and inertia are conceptually > identical to gravitons. There's nothing you've offered that would > distinguish yours from those..." > > You're wrong. > Gravitons SUCK. Hold on. What on earth did you read that told you that? > They are produced in > INFINITE numbers by matter with NO > impact on the matters energy content- > supposedly. First of all, where are you getting the statement you think is "supposedly" true? Secondly, again we're going to get back to the quantitative problem. Since you believe that an infinite number is nonsense, then you obviously believe there is a FINITE number of your particles being exchanged. Fine. What's that number? Secondly, how do you reconcile protons having 2000 times more gravitation and inertia than electrons, if protons and electrons swap EQUAL NUMBERS of your particles? > My radiations PUSH. > I have no idea how you confuse > PULL with PUSH????? See above. Perhaps you have misread something about gravitons. Was it a YouTube clip you watched? > How, PD? You are confused about whom you're talking with. -- Odd Bodkin --- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
Page 1 of 5 [1] 2 3 4 5 Next page →
Back to top | Article view | sci.physics
csiph-web