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 4 of 5 — ← Prev page 1 2 3 [4] 5 Next page →
| From | john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-12-05 10:01 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <f95bb550-47b5-47d6-a676-c2a9293d8e02@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #607888 |
Odd " And so why are you proposing something very similar to what you laughed at? John, I'm becoming increasingly convinced that you don't really have a coherent idea in your head about what you think, and that you are here strictly for company. In that, it doesn't really matter what you say, and it's perfectly ok for you to say one thing and then the opposite the next day, or to laugh at an idea and then propose the same idea the next day. When all you're trying to do is stave off loneliness, then if you contradict yourself or make no sense, it's still keeps the conversation. What you're not accounting for is that people will come to the conclusion that you're nuts and not worth the time discussing anything with. " john- (hangs head, wanders off)
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-12-05 12:10 -0600 |
| Message-ID | <o24aih$uld$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #607891 |
On 12/5/2016 12:01 PM, john wrote: > Odd > " > And so why are you proposing something very similar to what you laughed at? > > John, I'm becoming increasingly convinced that you don't really have a > coherent idea in your head about what you think, and that you are here > strictly for company. In that, it doesn't really matter what you say, > and it's perfectly ok for you to say one thing and then the opposite the > next day, or to laugh at an idea and then propose the same idea the next > day. When all you're trying to do is stave off loneliness, then if you > contradict yourself or make no sense, it's still keeps the conversation. > What you're not accounting for is that people will come to the > conclusion that you're nuts and not worth the time discussing anything > with. " > > john- (hangs head, wanders off) > As well you should, John, as well you should. You should be embarrassed. -- Odd Bodkin --- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | HVAC <mr.hvac@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-12-05 11:17 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <b0adaac0-0950-4851-9597-a6333de1b9b8@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #607891 |
john- (hangs head, wanders off) ---------- Oh come on John! Pick your head up. SLAP! That's for being stupid
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | HVAC <mr.hvac@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-12-02 12:00 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <928c0e3b-f629-4e12-8f5f-1a813110c25a@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #607544 |
Attaboy John says HVAC "Relativistic jets are not released from black holes. They are formed by highly energetic magnetic vortices in the area near the accretion disk. " Whatever. You have no proof of that. ---------- What I have is evidence. And theory which fits observation. What i said has been developed over decades by not only myself but some of the other great minds in astrophysics as well. On the other hand we have you and your cockamamie pipe dreams. There, there John. Go smoke some weed and you'll be right as rain.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | edprochak@gmail.com |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-12-02 12:27 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <6a697d1e-3829-4976-9910-da63ceb8878a@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #607529 |
On Friday, December 2, 2016 at 9:53:14 AM UTC-5, john wrote: > Odd > "long as you say one thing one hour and the opposite in the next hour, > then it's just clear that your brain is a mixmaster mess. " > > You think jets released from BHs > constitute "radiation "? > I don't know > know why you would think that? Odd, Give up. He has become another JM. Both are just here for attention.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-12-02 14:54 -0600 |
| Message-ID | <o1sn2e$1mhf$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #607572 |
On 12/2/2016 2:27 PM, edprochak@gmail.com wrote: > On Friday, December 2, 2016 at 9:53:14 AM UTC-5, john wrote: >> Odd >> "long as you say one thing one hour and the opposite in the next hour, >> then it's just clear that your brain is a mixmaster mess. " >> >> You think jets released from BHs >> constitute "radiation "? >> I don't know >> know why you would think that? > > Odd, > Give up. He has become another JM. > > Both are just here for attention. > Well, I know McGinn is. His kind of sociopathy is pretty standard. You see the same thing with homeless people ranting on street corners about their secret revelations and that they are messianic but unappreciated saviors who will only be recognized years after being killed by oppressive forces. John is a little different. Also deeply conflicted internally, also not happy with himself or the state of the world. Feels an overwhelming foreboding about vague threats to existence, and is looking for the Mystical Key that will solve all those problems. Is a bit of a yard sale upstairs, which leads to jumbled thinking and kneejerk latching onto goofballs and their promises. -- Odd Bodkin --- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-12-02 13:12 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <e4c59843-f4d5-4d7a-9014-9fac3239f245@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #607577 |
Odd "John is a little different. Also deeply conflicted internally, also not " No. I just don't believe in anything with no physical structure, like you say electrons and other "point particles" have- and will continue to say against all logic until your face gets rubbed in it. Btw- scientists in Germany have found that WATER HAS MEMORY, like I said years ago. https://youtu.be/ILSyt_Hhbjg This supports homeopathy. All atoms have memory- no two are identical. This is because each is infinitely complex- there is no smallest. Some day you'll get it. 'tard
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-12-02 16:49 -0600 |
| Message-ID | <o1stpm$1ph$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #607580 |
On 12/2/2016 3:12 PM, john wrote: > Odd > "John is a little different. Also deeply conflicted internally, also not " > > No. I just don't believe in anything > with no physical structure, You mean you have *chosen* not to believe in anything with no physical structure. Your decision does not come with a justification. You are not interested in any experimental data that would point to your choice being wrong. You want to hold to your choice, and you will insist that anything that is in conflict with your belief is irrational. Has it occurred to you that what you personally believe is a) not necessarily shared by other sane people, and b) possibly incorrect? > like > you say electrons and other > "point particles" have- and will > continue to say against all logic > until your face gets rubbed in it. > > Btw- scientists in Germany have found > that WATER HAS MEMORY, like I > said years ago. > https://youtu.be/ILSyt_Hhbjg > > > This supports homeopathy. > > All atoms have memory- > no two are identical. > This is because each is infinitely > complex- there is no smallest. Again with one of your beliefs. > Some day you'll get it. > > 'tard And you see what respect you have for people who don't believe as you do? What does this make you? (There's a name for it.) -- Odd Bodkin --- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-12-02 08:40 -0600 |
| Message-ID | <o1s14v$det$2@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #607468 |
On 12/1/2016 5:23 PM, john wrote: > Odd > Does something that radiates > thereby lose substance? I don't know what you mean by "substance". Its energy would change. > And then, (I know you still say > BHs don't shoot the jets out; it's > just 'spray' off the accretion disc), > would not shooting jets of highly-energized > materials out into the star field, > (which jets have already been > linked to new star formation) > replace that substance? > In the case of black hole accretion disks and jets, no, the jets do not replace all the matter that falls in. Only some. -- Odd Bodkin --- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | edprochak@gmail.com |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-12-01 14:16 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <41949070-6324-4556-9c2f-ce92e4addc93@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #607437 |
On Thursday, December 1, 2016 at 4:36:57 PM UTC-5, john wrote: > Odd > "here's a picture > > + -----------> - > > + <----------- - > > The + on the left denotes the proton. The - on the right denotes the > electron. The thing in the middle denotes "push particles" going either > this way or that. > > How do you imagine that push particle going? " > > Hmm. > Since, in the Atoms=Galaxies model, > the "+" represents the Black Hole, > and BHs DON'T radiate, > I'm guessing that electrons push on > protons and not the other way. > Do you think BHs radiate? Okay you were once someone I thought could learn a little physics. You clearly are trying to reach super troll status. I'm done feeding you. Good bye.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | edprochak@gmail.com |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-12-01 11:25 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <b32d7f26-90eb-4d4e-b2a4-01d0e32de597@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #607363 |
On Thursday, December 1, 2016 at 1:08:33 PM UTC-5, john wrote: > Odd > "WHAT IMPACT on protons? Where is the observation about protons that can > only be explained by these invisible radiations? " > Gravity. > Inertia. You just keep throwing out terms which I think you do not understand. That's not a logical argument.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-12-01 11:29 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <3be3071d-536d-481b-849d-06feaaa46cfc@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #607385 |
Ed "We tested...." For radiations that you know about.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-12-01 13:34 -0600 |
| Message-ID | <o1ptvq$1d5p$2@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #607388 |
On 12/1/2016 1:29 PM, john wrote: > Ed > "We tested...." > For radiations that you know about. > Fine, then what's your experimental test to look for the radiations that you're thinking of? That is, what are the distinctive features that should be looked for in those radiations, and what kinds of equipment would you want to put together to detect them? -- Odd Bodkin --- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | edprochak@gmail.com |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-12-01 14:13 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <b31e4768-f948-46b1-b0dc-1f82fca2b861@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #607388 |
On Thursday, December 1, 2016 at 2:29:56 PM UTC-5, john wrote: > Ed > "We tested...." > For radiations that you know about. Exactly. A charged body in acceleration will emit Electromagnetic (EM) radiation. Your model of electrons spinning around the nucleus would emit EM radiation. Measurements of electrons around atoms do not show EM radiation due to the acceleration of travelling in an orbit. Deal with it, you model fails this simple test. One thing good scientists (and most people) find is that you learn a lot more from failures than from successes. So please try to learn something from this. Move on.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-12-01 17:08 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <o1ple7$956$1@pcls7.std.com> |
| In reply to | #607330 |
john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> tarded: >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...? Because we can point an instrument capable of detecting electromagnetic radiation from DC to daylight (and beyond) at a chunk of matter, and not detect anything. (note that accelerating electric charges emit ordinary electromagnetic radiation, so your expected response of "the next level down" or some such crap won't cut it. We'd see ordinary electromagnetic radiation. Because we're here. If they did radiate, they'd lose energy and crash into the nucleus. We're here because that hasn't happened. Before you reply, give a good reason why the law of conservation of energy should be violated. >Wow. Talking to tards You're using a mirror, I see.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | edprochak@gmail.com |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-12-01 11:19 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <621b6870-a275-476c-b617-b5b4fcfe48c3@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #607330 |
On Thursday, December 1, 2016 at 10:24:47 AM UTC-5, 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...? We tested it. It is a simple test. Take some neutral atoms, place radiation detectors (film, CCD arrays, whatever) around the sample. Measure the radiation. None. Hey even simpler, turn off you closet light, step inside the closet and close the door. Do you see the walls radiating? Do you see the air radiating? > You know you can NEVER know because...? maybe you, John, can never know because you refuse to listen. > > 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 Again, insults instead of logical arguments. Take some time to THINK before you reply. You just keep making rash statements that make you look foolish. Maybe get off the computer for a while. Read a book. (But not JM's book!) Take a walk outside. Something besides fueling that anger of yours. Ed
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Alan Folmsbee <omnilobe@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-12-01 08:31 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <e921c15d-1399-4f4e-aa5f-8766ee94633e@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #607320 |
On Thursday, December 1, 2016 at 2:47:46 AM UTC-10, Michael > >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. The electron should be considered as the frame of reference. The proton is at a distance like the arm of a gyroscope centered on the electron. The proton has linear momentum from gravity. That momentum multiplied by the arm length gives an angular momentum relative to the electron. The electrons moves for exclusion of orbitals so no crossing occurs with orbitals, wave functions.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | noTthaTguY <abu.kuanysh05@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-12-01 12:15 -0800 |
| Subject | b0s0n is what ... b0s0ns d00 |
| Message-ID | <c89b4fe4-0404-4d38-aa7d-4cc75849c777@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #607286 |
that is 157 fiftieths, a rather g00d approximant of pi. as for virtual photons, since all & every porperty of lightwaves is wavey, how could such a thing be, in the sense of bosonic attributions > 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 | noTthaTguY <abu.kuanysh05@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-12-02 14:02 -0800 |
| Subject | just cahnge the variables, such that b0s0ny is what ... b0s0ns d00 |
| Message-ID | <91a07216-6768-4129-8101-ceff7701e024@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #607401 |
of course, b0s -0ns are just waves, seemingly dysguised with stochastics as -0ns, such as "a zero-dimensionally massless phot -0n" of the illformed Einsteinmaniacal equation, E/c = mc > that is 157 fiftieths, a rather g00d approximant of pi. as > for virtual photons, since all & every porperty of lightwaves is wavey, > how could such a thing be, in the sense of bosonic attributions > > The quantum orbitals calculate the position probability.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-11-30 18:07 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <o1n4gq$e0r$1@pcls7.std.com> |
| In reply to | #607241 |
john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> writes: >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- Or perhaps precessing spinny things is just a bunch of kookbabble created by your OCD. Meanwhile, the Schrödinger equation, which is based on actual science, not OCD, is very successful at predicting the shapes and positions of orbitals, and therefore molecules. Not just methane, but benzene and very complex ones. Why is CCl4 tetrahedral but the PtCl4-- ion square planar? Schrödinger has the answer. >I don't have computing power like that. That's not how science works. You don't try every possibility until you can produce a pretty .gif full of spinny things. You come up with an idea that potentially solves some question of science and then derive an experiment that can tell the difference between your idea and the old/standard one, then do it. What problem are you trying to solve with spinny things? If you have no answer, you are wasting your time.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
Page 4 of 5 — ← Prev page 1 2 3 [4] 5 Next page →
Back to top | Article view | sci.physics
csiph-web