Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > sci.physics > #641507 > unrolled thread
| Started by | Arindam Banerjee <banerjeeadda1234@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| First post | 2017-07-20 00:23 -0700 |
| Last post | 2017-07-25 12:57 -0700 |
| Articles | 20 on this page of 269 — 19 participants |
Back to article view | Back to sci.physics
The attractive force that binds multi-molecules - how it has to relate to the atomic structure of positive charge concentration at the nucleus. Arindam Banerjee <banerjeeadda1234@gmail.com> - 2017-07-20 00:23 -0700
Re: The attractive force that binds multi-molecules - how it has to relate to the atomic structure of positive charge concentration at the nucleus. poraty350@gmail.com - 2017-07-20 01:29 -0700
Re: The attractive force that binds multi-molecules - how it has to relate to the atomic structure of positive charge concentration at the nucleus. poraty350@gmail.com - 2017-07-20 01:33 -0700
Re: The attractive force that binds multi-molecules - how it has to relate to the atomic structure of positive charge concentration at the nucleus. Arindam Banerjee <banerjeeadda1234@gmail.com> - 2017-07-20 05:00 -0700
Re: The attractive force that binds multi-molecules - how it has to relate to the atomic structure of positive charge concentration at the nucleus. poraty350@gmail.com - 2017-07-20 05:46 -0700
Re: The attractive force that binds multi-molecules - how it has to relate to the atomic structure of positive charge concentration at the nucleus. Arindam Banerjee <banerjeeadda1234@gmail.com> - 2017-07-20 06:07 -0700
Re: The attractive force that binds multi-molecules - how it has to relate to the atomic structure of positive charge concentration at the nucleus. john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2017-07-20 07:02 -0700
Re: The attractive force that binds multi-molecules - how it has to relate to the atomic structure of positive charge concentration at the nucleus. benj <nobody@gmail.com> - 2017-07-20 11:53 -0400
Re: The attractive force that binds multi-molecules - how it has to relate to the atomic structure of positive charge concentration at the nucleus. Arindam Banerjee <banerjeeadda1234@gmail.com> - 2017-07-27 19:37 -0700
Re: The attractive force that binds multi-molecules - how it has to relate to the atomic structure of positive charge concentration at the nucleus. john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2017-07-20 05:52 -0700
Re: The attractive force that binds multi-molecules - how it has to relate to the atomic structure of positive charge concentration at the nucleus. HVAC <mr.hvac@gmail.com> - 2017-07-20 07:07 -0700
Re: The attractive force that binds multi-molecules - how it has to relate to the atomic structure of positive charge concentration at the nucleus. benj <nobody@gmail.com> - 2017-07-20 11:23 -0400
Re: The attractive force that binds multi-molecules - how it has to relate to the atomic structure of positive charge concentration at the nucleus. john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2017-07-20 08:27 -0700
Re: The attractive force that binds multi-molecules - how it has to relate to the atomic structure of positive charge concentration at the nucleus. moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2017-07-21 12:36 +0000
Re: The attractive force that binds multi-molecules - how it has to relate to the atomic structure of positive charge concentration at the nucleus. poraty350@gmail.com - 2017-07-20 09:40 -0700
Re: The attractive force that binds multi-molecules - how it has to relate to the atomic structure of positive charge concentration at the nucleus. Arindam Banerjee <banerjeeadda1234@gmail.com> - 2017-07-20 16:38 -0700
Re: The attractive force that binds multi-molecules - how it has to relate to the atomic structure of positive charge concentration at the nucleus. poraty350@gmail.com - 2017-07-20 21:01 -0700
Re: The attractive force that binds multi-molecules - how it has to relate to the atomic structure of positive charge concentration at the nucleus. Arindam Banerjee <banerjeeadda1234@gmail.com> - 2017-07-20 23:00 -0700
Re: The attractive force that binds multi-molecules - how it has to relate to the atomic structure of positive charge concentration at the nucleus. poraty350@gmail.com - 2017-07-21 00:32 -0700
Re: The attractive force that binds multi-molecules - how it has to relate to the atomic structure of positive charge concentration at the nucleus. Arindam Banerjee <banerjeeadda1234@gmail.com> - 2017-07-21 01:34 -0700
Re: The attractive force that binds multi-molecules - how it has to relate to the atomic structure of positive charge concentration at the nucleus. poraty350@gmail.com - 2017-07-21 07:02 -0700
Re: The attractive force that binds multi-molecules - how it has to relate to the atomic structure of positive charge concentration at the nucleus. john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2017-07-22 18:06 -0700
Re: The attractive force that binds multi-molecules - how it has to relate to the atomic structure of positive charge concentration at the nucleus. Arindam Banerjee <banerjeeadda1234@gmail.com> - 2017-07-22 22:03 -0700
Re: The attractive force that binds multi-molecules - how it has to relate to the atomic structure of positive charge concentration at the nucleus. john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2017-07-23 00:04 -0700
Re: The attractive force that binds multi-molecules - how it has to relate to the atomic structure of positive charge concentration at the nucleus. Arindam Banerjee <banerjeeadda1234@gmail.com> - 2017-07-23 01:11 -0700
Re: The attractive force that binds multi-molecules - how it has to relate to the atomic structure of positive charge concentration at the nucleus. HVAC <mr.hvac@gmail.com> - 2017-07-23 03:45 -0700
Re: The attractive force that binds multi-molecules - how it has to relate to the atomic structure of positive charge concentration at the nucleus. john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2017-07-23 06:14 -0700
Re: The attractive force that binds multi-molecules - how it has to relate to the atomic structure of positive charge concentration at the nucleus. Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-07-25 09:36 -0500
Re: The attractive force that binds multi-molecules - how it has to relate to the atomic structure of positive charge concentration at the nucleus. Arindam Banerjee <banerjeeadda1234@gmail.com> - 2017-07-23 06:36 -0700
Re: The attractive force that binds multi-molecules - how it has to relate to the atomic structure of positive charge concentration at the nucleus. HVAC <mr.hvac@gmail.com> - 2017-07-23 10:20 -0700
Re: The attractive force that binds multi-molecules - how it has to relate to the atomic structure of positive charge concentration at the nucleus. benj <benj@nobody.net> - 2017-07-24 17:31 -0400
Re: The attractive force that binds multi-molecules - how it has to relate to the atomic structure of positive charge concentration at the nucleus. Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-07-25 09:33 -0500
Re: The attractive force that binds multi-molecules - how it has to relate to the atomic structure of positive charge concentration at the nucleus. Arindam Banerjee <banerjeeadda1234@gmail.com> - 2017-07-25 15:09 -0700
Re: The attractive force that binds multi-molecules - how it has to relate to the atomic structure of positive charge concentration at the nucleus. Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-07-25 17:20 -0500
Re: The attractive force that binds multi-molecules - how it has to relate to the atomic structure of positive charge concentration at the nucleus. john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2017-07-25 16:13 -0700
Re: The attractive force that binds multi-molecules - how it has to relate to the atomic structure of positive charge concentration at the nucleus. Edward Prochak <edprochak@gmail.com> - 2017-07-25 16:33 -0700
Re: The attractive force that binds multi-molecules - how it has to relate to the atomic structure of positive charge concentration at the nucleus. Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-07-26 09:57 -0500
Re: The attractive force that binds multi-molecules - how it has to relate to the atomic structure of positive charge concentration at the nucleus. Arindam Banerjee <banerjeeadda1234@gmail.com> - 2017-07-25 16:38 -0700
Re: The attractive force that binds multi-molecules - how it has to relate to the atomic structure of positive charge concentration at the nucleus. HVAC <mr.hvac@gmail.com> - 2017-07-25 18:02 -0700
Re: The attractive force that binds multi-molecules - how it has to relate to the atomic structure of positive charge concentration at the nucleus. Arindam Banerjee <banerjeeadda1234@gmail.com> - 2017-07-25 20:50 -0700
Re: The attractive force that binds multi-molecules - how it has to relate to the atomic structure of positive charge concentration at the nucleus. moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2017-07-26 05:16 +0000
Re: The attractive force that binds multi-molecules - how it has to relate to the atomic structure of positive charge concentration at the nucleus. Arindam Banerjee <banerjeeadda1234@gmail.com> - 2017-07-26 00:20 -0700
Re: The attractive force that binds multi-molecules - how it has to relate to the atomic structure of positive charge concentration at the nucleus. poraty350@gmail.com - 2017-07-26 01:14 -0700
Re: The attractive force that binds multi-molecules - how it has to relate to the atomic structure of positive charge concentration at the nucleus. Arindam Banerjee <banerjeeadda1234@gmail.com> - 2017-07-26 17:19 -0700
Re: The attractive force that binds multi-molecules - how it has to relate to the atomic structure of positive charge concentration at the nucleus. benj <benj@nobody.net> - 2017-07-26 21:19 -0400
Re: The attractive force that binds multi-molecules - how it has to relate to the atomic structure of positive charge concentration at the nucleus. Arindam Banerjee <banerjeeadda1234@gmail.com> - 2017-07-26 19:34 -0700
Re: The attractive force that binds multi-molecules - how it has to relate to the atomic structure of positive charge concentration at the nucleus. moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2017-07-26 17:35 +0000
Re: The attractive force that binds multi-molecules - how it has to relate to the atomic structure of positive charge concentration at the nucleus. Mahipal <mahipal7638@gmail.com> - 2017-07-26 14:17 -0700
Re: The attractive force that binds multi-molecules - how it has to relate to the atomic structure of positive charge concentration at the nucleus. moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2017-07-27 04:40 +0000
Re: The attractive force that binds multi-molecules - how it has to relate to the atomic structure of positive charge concentration at the nucleus. Arindam Banerjee <banerjeeadda1234@gmail.com> - 2017-07-27 00:25 -0700
Re: The attractive force that binds multi-molecules - how it has to relate to the atomic structure of positive charge concentration at the nucleus. Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-07-27 10:13 -0500
Re: The attractive force that binds multi-molecules - how it has to relate to the atomic structure of positive charge concentration at the nucleus. john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2017-07-27 09:03 -0700
Re: The attractive force that binds multi-molecules - how it has to relate to the atomic structure of positive charge concentration at the nucleus. Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-07-27 11:53 -0500
Re: The attractive force that binds multi-molecules - how it has to relate to the atomic structure of positive charge concentration at the nucleus. James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> - 2017-07-27 10:04 -0700
Re: The attractive force that binds multi-molecules - how it has to relate to the atomic structure of positive charge concentration at the nucleus. James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> - 2017-07-28 06:17 -0700
Re: The attractive force that binds multi-molecules - how it has to relate to the atomic structure of positive charge concentration at the nucleus. James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> - 2017-07-28 10:21 -0700
Re: The attractive force that binds multi-molecules - how it has to relate to the atomic structure of positive charge concentration at the nucleus. Edward Prochak <edprochak@gmail.com> - 2017-07-28 10:54 -0700
Re: The attractive force that binds multi-molecules - how it has to relate to the atomic structure of positive charge concentration at the nucleus. James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> - 2017-07-28 11:05 -0700
Re: The attractive force that binds multi-molecules - how it has to relate to the atomic structure of positive charge concentration at the nucleus. moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2017-07-27 16:17 +0000
Re: The attractive force that binds multi-molecules - how it has to relate to the atomic structure of positive charge concentration at the nucleus. john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2017-07-27 09:50 -0700
Re: The attractive force that binds multi-molecules - how it has to relate to the atomic structure of positive charge concentration at the nucleus. Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-07-27 12:04 -0500
Re: The attractive force that binds multi-molecules - how it has to relate to the atomic structure of positive charge concentration at the nucleus. James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> - 2017-07-28 06:26 -0700
Re: The attractive force that binds multi-molecules - how it has to relate to the atomic structure of positive charge concentration at the nucleus. James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> - 2017-07-27 10:05 -0700
Re: The attractive force that binds multi-molecules - how it has to relate to the atomic structure of positive charge concentration at the nucleus. john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2017-07-27 10:26 -0700
Re: The attractive force that binds multi-molecules - how it has to relate to the atomic structure of positive charge concentration at the nucleus. Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-07-27 12:48 -0500
Re: The attractive force that binds multi-molecules - how it has to relate to the atomic structure of positive charge concentration at the nucleus. James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> - 2017-07-28 07:08 -0700
Re: The attractive force that binds multi-molecules - how it has to relate to the atomic structure of positive charge concentration at the nucleus. moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2017-07-27 20:17 +0000
Re: The attractive force that binds multi-molecules - how it has to relate to the atomic structure of positive charge concentration at the nucleus. moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2017-07-27 20:07 +0000
Re: The attractive force that binds multi-molecules - how it has to relate to the atomic structure of positive charge concentration at the nucleus. James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> - 2017-07-28 06:00 -0700
Re: The attractive force that binds multi-molecules - how it has to relate to the atomic structure of positive charge concentration at the nucleus. James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> - 2017-07-28 06:05 -0700
Re: The attractive force that binds multi-molecules - how it has to relate to the atomic structure of positive charge concentration at the nucleus. john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2017-07-28 06:22 -0700
Re: The attractive force that binds multi-molecules - how it has to relate to the atomic structure of positive charge concentration at the nucleus. Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-07-31 09:00 -0500
Re: The attractive force that binds multi-molecules - how it has to relate to the atomic structure of positive charge concentration at the nucleus. john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2017-07-31 08:40 -0700
Re: The attractive force that binds multi-molecules - how it has to relate to the atomic structure of positive charge concentration at the nucleus. moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2017-08-01 02:47 +0000
Re: The attractive force that binds multi-molecules - how it has to relate to the atomic structure of positive charge concentration at the nucleus. Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-08-02 10:09 -0500
Re: The attractive force that binds multi-molecules - how it has to relate to the atomic structure of positive charge concentration at the nucleus. Edward Prochak <edprochak@gmail.com> - 2017-07-27 10:42 -0700
Re: The attractive force that binds multi-molecules - how it has to relate to the atomic structure of positive charge concentration at the nucleus. Mahipal <mahipal7638@gmail.com> - 2017-07-27 17:11 -0700
Re: The attractive force that binds multi-molecules - how it has to relate to the atomic structure of positive charge concentration at the nucleus. Arindam Banerjee <banerjeeadda1234@gmail.com> - 2017-07-27 18:55 -0700
Re: The attractive force that binds multi-molecules - how it has to relate to the atomic structure of positive charge concentration at the nucleus. moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2017-07-28 04:32 +0000
Re: The attractive force that binds multi-molecules - how it has to relate to the atomic structure of positive charge concentration at the nucleus. HVAC <mr.hvac@gmail.com> - 2017-07-26 03:25 -0700
Re: The attractive force that binds multi-molecules - how it has to relate to the atomic structure of positive charge concentration at the nucleus. benj <benj@nobody.net> - 2017-07-26 18:46 -0400
Re: The attractive force that binds multi-molecules - how it has to relate to the atomic structure of positive charge concentration at the nucleus. Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-07-26 10:04 -0500
Re: The attractive force that binds multi-molecules - how it has to relate to the atomic structure of positive charge concentration at the nucleus. Lofty Goat <rlwatkins@gmail.com> - 2017-07-29 18:34 -0500
Re: The attractive force that binds multi-molecules - how it has to relate to the atomic structure of positive charge concentration at the nucleus. benj <benj@nobody.net> - 2017-07-29 21:08 -0400
Re: The attractive force that binds multi-molecules - how it has to relate to the atomic structure of positive charge concentration at the nucleus. Arindam Banerjee <banerjeeadda1234@gmail.com> - 2017-07-29 19:04 -0700
Re: The attractive force that binds multi-molecules - how it has to relate to the atomic structure of positive charge concentration at the nucleus. HVAC <mr.hvac@gmail.com> - 2017-07-30 04:38 -0700
Re: The attractive force that binds multi-molecules - how it has to relate to the atomic structure of positive charge concentration at the nucleus. Arindam Banerjee <banerjeeadda1234@gmail.com> - 2017-07-30 05:10 -0700
Re: The attractive force that binds multi-molecules - how it has to relate to the atomic structure of positive charge concentration at the nucleus. john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2017-07-30 07:27 -0700
Re: The attractive force that binds multi-molecules - how it has to relate to the atomic structure of positive charge concentration at the nucleus. john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2017-07-30 07:38 -0700
Re: The attractive force that binds multi-molecules - how it has to relate to the atomic structure of positive charge concentration at the nucleus. Claudius Denk <claudiusdenk@gmail.com> - 2017-07-30 09:22 -0700
Re: The attractive force that binds multi-molecules - how it has to relate to the atomic structure of positive charge concentration at the nucleus. Edward Prochak <edprochak@gmail.com> - 2017-07-31 12:58 -0700
Re: The attractive force that binds multi-molecules - how it has to relate to the atomic structure of positive charge concentration at the nucleus. moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2017-08-01 02:27 +0000
Re: The attractive force that binds multi-molecules - how it has to relate to the atomic structure of positive charge concentration at the nucleus. john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2017-07-31 19:43 -0700
Re: The attractive force that binds multi-molecules - how it has to relate to the atomic structure of positive charge concentration at the nucleus. HVAC <mr.hvac@gmail.com> - 2017-08-01 01:21 -0700
Re: The attractive force that binds multi-molecules - how it has to relate to the atomic structure of positive charge concentration at the nucleus. john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2017-08-01 08:04 -0700
Re: The attractive force that binds multi-molecules - how it has to relate to the atomic structure of positive charge concentration at the nucleus. john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2017-08-01 08:14 -0700
Re: The attractive force that binds multi-molecules - how it has to relate to the atomic structure of positive charge concentration at the nucleus. john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2017-08-01 08:24 -0700
Re: The attractive force that binds multi-molecules - how it has to relate to the atomic structure of positive charge concentration at the nucleus. HVAC <mr.hvac@gmail.com> - 2017-08-01 08:26 -0700
Re: The attractive force that binds multi-molecules - how it has to relate to the atomic structure of positive charge concentration at the nucleus. benj <benj@nobody.net> - 2017-08-01 17:18 -0400
Re: The attractive force that binds multi-molecules - how it has to relate to the atomic structure of positive charge concentration at the nucleus. Arindam Banerjee <banerjeeadda1234@gmail.com> - 2017-07-30 16:33 -0700
Re: The attractive force that binds multi-molecules - how it has to relate to the atomic structure of positive charge concentration at the nucleus. James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> - 2017-07-30 17:36 -0700
Re: The attractive force that binds multi-molecules - how it has to relate to the atomic structure of positive charge concentration at the nucleus. Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-08-02 14:23 +0000
Re: The attractive force that binds multi-molecules - how it has to relate to the atomic structure of positive charge concentration at the nucleus. Claudius Denk <claudiusdenk@gmail.com> - 2017-07-30 09:10 -0700
Re: The attractive force that binds multi-molecules - how it has to relate to the atomic structure of positive charge concentration at the nucleus. benj <benj@nobody.net> - 2017-07-31 17:08 -0400
Re: The attractive force that binds multi-molecules - how it has to relate to the atomic structure of positive charge concentration at the nucleus. Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-07-26 10:02 -0500
Re: The attractive force that binds multi-molecules - how it has to relate to the atomic structure of positive charge concentration at the nucleus. Arindam Banerjee <banerjeeadda1234@gmail.com> - 2017-07-26 17:43 -0700
Re: The attractive force that binds multi-molecules - how it has to relate to the atomic structure of positive charge concentration at the nucleus. Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-07-27 01:55 +0000
Re: The attractive force that binds multi-molecules - how it has to relate to the atomic structure of positive charge concentration at the nucleus. Arindam Banerjee <banerjeeadda1234@gmail.com> - 2017-07-26 19:45 -0700
Re: The attractive force that binds multi-molecules - how it has to relate to the atomic structure of positive charge concentration at the nucleus. Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-07-27 09:57 -0500
Re: The attractive force that binds multi-molecules - how it has to relate to the atomic structure of positive charge concentration at the nucleus. Arindam Banerjee <banerjeeadda1234@gmail.com> - 2017-07-27 15:56 -0700
Re: The attractive force that binds multi-molecules - how it has to relate to the atomic structure of positive charge concentration at the nucleus. moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2017-07-28 03:57 +0000
Re: The attractive force that binds multi-molecules - how it has to relate to the atomic structure of positive charge concentration at the nucleus. Arindam Banerjee <banerjeeadda1234@gmail.com> - 2017-07-27 23:26 -0700
Re: The attractive force that binds multi-molecules - how it has to relate to the atomic structure of positive charge concentration at the nucleus. Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-07-31 09:00 -0500
Re: The attractive force that binds multi-molecules - how it has to relate to the atomic structure of positive charge concentration at the nucleus. Arindam Banerjee <banerjeeadda1234@gmail.com> - 2017-07-31 22:26 -0700
Re: The attractive force that binds multi-molecules - how it has to relate to the atomic structure of positive charge concentration at the nucleus. Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-08-02 10:37 -0500
Re: The attractive force that binds multi-molecules - how it has to relate to the atomic structure of positive charge concentration at the nucleus. moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2017-08-01 02:12 +0000
Re: The attractive force that binds multi-molecules - how it has to relate to the atomic structure of positive charge concentration at the nucleus. Claudius Denk <claudiusdenk@gmail.com> - 2017-07-28 12:30 -0700
Re: The attractive force that binds multi-molecules - how it has to relate to the atomic structure of positive charge concentration at the nucleus. Edward Prochak <edprochak@gmail.com> - 2017-07-28 12:42 -0700
Re: The attractive force that binds multi-molecules - how it has to relate to the atomic structure of positive charge concentration at the nucleus. James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> - 2017-07-29 07:23 -0700
Re: The attractive force that binds multi-molecules - how it has to relate to the atomic structure of positive charge concentration at the nucleus. pnalsing@gmail.com - 2017-07-30 16:42 -0700
Re: The attractive force that binds multi-molecules - how it has to relate to the atomic structure of positive charge concentration at the nucleus. James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> - 2017-07-30 17:40 -0700
Re: The attractive force that binds multi-molecules - how it has to relate to the atomic structure of positive charge concentration at the nucleus. pnalsing@gmail.com - 2017-07-30 17:50 -0700
Re: The attractive force that binds multi-molecules - how it has to relate to the atomic structure of positive charge concentration at the nucleus. James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> - 2017-07-30 18:04 -0700
Re: The attractive force that binds multi-molecules - how it has to relate to the atomic structure of positive charge concentration at the nucleus. pnalsing@gmail.com - 2017-07-30 18:08 -0700
Re: The attractive force that binds multi-molecules - how it has to relate to the atomic structure of positive charge concentration at the nucleus. James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> - 2017-07-30 18:16 -0700
Re: The attractive force that binds multi-molecules - how it has to relate to the atomic structure of positive charge concentration at the nucleus. pnalsing@gmail.com - 2017-07-30 18:59 -0700
Re: The attractive force that binds multi-molecules - how it has to relate to the atomic structure of positive charge concentration at the nucleus. Claudius Denk <claudiusdenk@gmail.com> - 2017-07-30 09:07 -0700
Re: The attractive force that binds multi-molecules - how it has to relate to the atomic structure of positive charge concentration at the nucleus. Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-07-31 09:00 -0500
Re: The attractive force that binds multi-molecules - how it has to relate to the atomic structure of positive charge concentration at the nucleus. Arindam Banerjee <banerjeeadda1234@gmail.com> - 2017-07-31 18:13 -0700
Re: The attractive force that binds multi-molecules - how it has to relate to the atomic structure of positive charge concentration at the nucleus. john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2017-07-31 19:08 -0700
Re: The attractive force that binds multi-molecules - how it has to relate to the atomic structure of positive charge concentration at the nucleus. Arindam Banerjee <banerjeeadda1234@gmail.com> - 2017-07-31 22:19 -0700
Re: The attractive force that binds multi-molecules - how it has to relate to the atomic structure of positive charge concentration at the nucleus. john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2017-08-01 08:03 -0700
Re: The attractive force that binds multi-molecules - how it has to relate to the atomic structure of positive charge concentration at the nucleus. Arindam Banerjee <banerjeeadda1234@gmail.com> - 2017-08-01 17:04 -0700
Re: The attractive force that binds multi-molecules - how it has to relate to the atomic structure of positive charge concentration at the nucleus. Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-08-02 10:28 -0500
Re: The attractive force that binds multi-molecules - how it has to relate to the atomic structure of positive charge concentration at the nucleus. Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-08-02 10:29 -0500
Re: The attractive force that binds multi-molecules - how it has to relate to the atomic structure of positive charge concentration at the nucleus. Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-08-02 10:37 -0500
Re: The attractive force that binds multi-molecules - how it has to relate to the atomic structure of positive charge concentration at the nucleus. Arindam Banerjee <banerjeeadda1234@gmail.com> - 2017-08-02 17:07 -0700
Re: The attractive force that binds multi-molecules - how it has to relate to the atomic structure of positive charge concentration at the nucleus. Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-08-03 10:17 -0500
Re: The attractive force that binds multi-molecules - how it has to relate to the atomic structure of positive charge concentration at the nucleus. Arindam Banerjee <banerjeeadda1234@gmail.com> - 2017-08-03 15:54 -0700
Re: The attractive force that binds multi-molecules - how it has to relate to the atomic structure of positive charge concentration at the nucleus. Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-08-04 02:34 +0000
Re: The attractive force that binds multi-molecules - how it has to relate to the atomic structure of positive charge concentration at the nucleus. Arindam Banerjee <banerjeeadda1234@gmail.com> - 2017-08-03 22:19 -0700
Re: The attractive force that binds multi-molecules - how it has to relate to the atomic structure of positive charge concentration at the nucleus. john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2017-08-04 03:44 -0700
Re: The attractive force that binds multi-molecules - how it has to relate to the atomic structure of positive charge concentration at the nucleus. Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-08-05 11:41 -0500
Re: The attractive force that binds multi-molecules - how it has to relate to the atomic structure of positive charge concentration at the nucleus. john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2017-08-05 10:44 -0700
Re: The attractive force that binds multi-molecules - how it has to relate to the atomic structure of positive charge concentration at the nucleus. john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2017-08-05 10:53 -0700
Re: The attractive force that binds multi-molecules - how it has to relate to the atomic structure of positive charge concentration at the nucleus. Arindam Banerjee <banerjeeadda1234@gmail.com> - 2017-08-05 23:41 -0700
Re: The attractive force that binds multi-molecules - how it has to relate to the atomic structure of positive charge concentration at the nucleus. Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-08-06 13:04 +0000
Re: The attractive force that binds multi-molecules - how it has to relate to the atomic structure of positive charge concentration at the nucleus. Arindam Banerjee <banerjeeadda1234@gmail.com> - 2017-08-06 17:15 -0700
Re: The attractive force that binds multi-molecules - how it has to relate to the atomic structure of positive charge concentration at the nucleus. Serg io <invalid@invalid.com> - 2017-08-06 21:22 -0500
Re: The attractive force that binds multi-molecules - how it has to relate to the atomic structure of positive charge concentration at the nucleus. Arindam Banerjee <banerjeeadda1234@gmail.com> - 2017-08-07 00:08 -0700
Re: The attractive force that binds multi-molecules - how it has to relate to the atomic structure of positive charge concentration at the nucleus. Serg io <invalid@invalid.com> - 2017-08-07 08:52 -0500
Re: The attractive force that binds multi-molecules - how it has to relate to the atomic structure of positive charge concentration at the nucleus. john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2017-08-07 07:26 -0700
Re: The attractive force that binds multi-molecules - how it has to relate to the atomic structure of positive charge concentration at the nucleus. Arindam Banerjee <banerjeeadda1234@gmail.com> - 2017-08-07 16:18 -0700
Re: The attractive force that binds multi-molecules - how it has to relate to the atomic structure of positive charge concentration at the nucleus. Mahipal <mahipal7638@gmail.com> - 2017-08-07 15:28 -0700
Re: The attractive force that binds multi-molecules - how it has to relate to the atomic structure of positive charge concentration at the nucleus. Arindam Banerjee <banerjeeadda1234@gmail.com> - 2017-08-07 16:29 -0700
Re: The attractive force that binds multi-molecules - how it has to relate to the atomic structure of positive charge concentration at the nucleus. Mahipal <mahipal7638@gmail.com> - 2017-08-09 08:43 -0700
Re: The attractive force that binds multi-molecules - how it has to relate to the atomic structure of positive charge concentration at the nucleus. Arindam Banerjee <banerjeeadda1234@gmail.com> - 2017-08-09 15:39 -0700
Re: The attractive force that binds multi-molecules - how it has to relate to the atomic structure of positive charge concentration at the nucleus. Mahipal <mahipal7638@gmail.com> - 2017-08-10 17:02 -0700
Re: The attractive force that binds multi-molecules - how it has to relate to the atomic structure of positive charge concentration at the nucleus. benj <benj@nobody.net> - 2017-08-10 20:18 -0400
Re: The attractive force that binds multi-molecules - how it has to relate to the atomic structure of positive charge concentration at the nucleus. Mahipal <mahipal7638@gmail.com> - 2017-08-10 17:41 -0700
Re: The attractive force that binds multi-molecules - how it has to relate to the atomic structure of positive charge concentration at the nucleus. Arindam Banerjee <banerjeeadda1234@gmail.com> - 2017-08-10 20:43 -0700
Re: The attractive force that binds multi-molecules - how it has to relate to the atomic structure of positive charge concentration at the nucleus. Arindam Banerjee <banerjeeadda1234@gmail.com> - 2017-08-10 19:34 -0700
Re: The attractive force that binds multi-molecules - how it has to relate to the atomic structure of positive charge concentration at the nucleus. Mahipal <mahipal7638@gmail.com> - 2017-08-11 06:58 -0700
Re: The attractive force that binds multi-molecules - how it has to relate to the atomic structure of positive charge concentration at the nucleus. Arindam Banerjee <banerjeeadda1234@gmail.com> - 2017-08-11 22:14 -0700
Re: The attractive force that binds multi-molecules - how it has to relate to the atomic structure of positive charge concentration at the nucleus. Mahipal <mahipal7638@gmail.com> - 2017-08-12 16:14 -0700
Re: The attractive force that binds multi-molecules - how it has to relate to the atomic structure of positive charge concentration at the nucleus. Arindam Banerjee <banerjeeadda1234@gmail.com> - 2017-08-13 00:19 -0700
Re: The attractive force that binds multi-molecules - how it has to relate to the atomic structure of positive charge concentration at the nucleus. Mahipal <mahipal7638@gmail.com> - 2017-08-13 12:37 -0700
Re: The attractive force that binds multi-molecules - how it has to relate to the atomic structure of positive charge concentration at the nucleus. Arindam Banerjee <banerjeeadda1234@gmail.com> - 2017-08-13 15:26 -0700
Re: The attractive force that binds multi-molecules - how it has to relate to the atomic structure of positive charge concentration at the nucleus. Arindam Banerjee <banerjeeadda1234@gmail.com> - 2017-08-13 18:10 -0700
Re: The attractive force that binds multi-molecules - how it has to relate to the atomic structure of positive charge concentration at the nucleus. Mahipal <mahipal7638@gmail.com> - 2017-08-13 21:30 -0700
Re: The attractive force that binds multi-molecules - how it has to relate to the atomic structure of positive charge concentration at the nucleus. Arindam Banerjee <banerjeeadda1234@gmail.com> - 2017-08-13 22:37 -0700
Re: The attractive force that binds multi-molecules - how it has to relate to the atomic structure of positive charge concentration at the nucleus. poraty350@gmail.com - 2017-08-14 07:05 -0700
Re: The attractive force that binds multi-molecules - how it has to relate to the atomic structure of positive charge concentration at the nucleus. Mahipal <mahipal7638@gmail.com> - 2017-08-14 07:29 -0700
Re: The attractive force that binds multi-molecules - how it has to relate to the atomic structure of positive charge concentration at the nucleus. poraty350@gmail.com - 2017-08-15 03:18 -0700
Re: The attractive force that binds multi-molecules - how it has to relate to the atomic structure of positive charge concentration at the nucleus. Mahipal <mahipal7638@gmail.com> - 2017-08-15 11:03 -0700
Re: The attractive force that binds multi-molecules - how it has to relate to the atomic structure of positive charge concentration at the nucleus. poraty350@gmail.com - 2017-08-15 11:25 -0700
Re: The attractive force that binds multi-molecules - how it has to relate to the atomic structure of positive charge concentration at the nucleus. Mahipal <mahipal7638@gmail.com> - 2017-08-15 13:19 -0700
Re: The attractive force that binds multi-molecules - how it has to relate to the atomic structure of positive charge concentration at the nucleus. Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-08-07 08:23 -0500
Re: The attractive force that binds multi-molecules - how it has to relate to the atomic structure of positive charge concentration at the nucleus. Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-08-05 11:41 -0500
Re: The attractive force that binds multi-molecules - how it has to relate to the atomic structure of positive charge concentration at the nucleus. Arindam Banerjee <banerjeeadda1234@gmail.com> - 2017-07-27 03:53 -0700
Re: The attractive force that binds multi-molecules - how it has to relate to the atomic structure of positive charge concentration at the nucleus. Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-07-27 10:09 -0500
Re: The attractive force that binds multi-molecules - how it has to relate to the atomic structure of positive charge concentration at the nucleus. john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2017-07-27 08:10 -0700
Re: The attractive force that binds multi-molecules - how it has to relate to the atomic structure of positive charge concentration at the nucleus. HVAC <mr.hvac@gmail.com> - 2017-07-27 10:50 -0700
Re: The attractive force that binds multi-molecules - how it has to relate to the atomic structure of positive charge concentration at the nucleus. Edward Prochak <edprochak@gmail.com> - 2017-07-27 10:54 -0700
Re: The attractive force that binds multi-molecules - how it has to relate to the atomic structure of positive charge concentration at the nucleus. john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2017-07-27 11:13 -0700
Re: The attractive force that binds multi-molecules - how it has to relate to the atomic structure of positive charge concentration at the nucleus. Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-07-27 13:43 -0500
Re: The attractive force that binds multi-molecules - how it has to relate to the atomic structure of positive charge concentration at the nucleus. john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2017-07-27 11:59 -0700
Re: The attractive force that binds multi-molecules - how it has to relate to the atomic structure of positive charge concentration at the nucleus. john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2017-07-27 12:18 -0700
Re: The attractive force that binds multi-molecules - how it has to relate to the atomic structure of positive charge concentration at the nucleus. Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-07-27 19:35 +0000
Re: The attractive force that binds multi-molecules - how it has to relate to the atomic structure of positive charge concentration at the nucleus. Edward Prochak <edprochak@gmail.com> - 2017-07-27 13:25 -0700
Re: The attractive force that binds multi-molecules - how it has to relate to the atomic structure of positive charge concentration at the nucleus. Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-07-27 16:21 -0500
Re: The attractive force that binds multi-molecules - how it has to relate to the atomic structure of positive charge concentration at the nucleus. john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2017-07-27 14:28 -0700
Re: The attractive force that binds multi-molecules - how it has to relate to the atomic structure of positive charge concentration at the nucleus. Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-07-27 16:33 -0500
Re: The attractive force that binds multi-molecules - how it has to relate to the atomic structure of positive charge concentration at the nucleus. Edward Prochak <edprochak@gmail.com> - 2017-07-27 13:20 -0700
Re: The attractive force that binds multi-molecules - how it has to relate to the atomic structure of positive charge concentration at the nucleus. HVAC <mr.hvac@gmail.com> - 2017-07-27 11:37 -0700
Re: The attractive force that binds multi-molecules - how it has to relate to the atomic structure of positive charge concentration at the nucleus. benj <benj@nobody.net> - 2017-07-27 17:54 -0400
Re: The attractive force that binds multi-molecules - how it has to relate to the atomic structure of positive charge concentration at the nucleus. HVAC <mr.hvac@gmail.com> - 2017-07-27 15:10 -0700
Re: The attractive force that binds multi-molecules - how it has to relate to the atomic structure of positive charge concentration at the nucleus. benj <benj@nobody.net> - 2017-07-27 18:38 -0400
Re: The attractive force that binds multi-molecules - how it has to relate to the atomic structure of positive charge concentration at the nucleus. HVAC <mr.hvac@gmail.com> - 2017-07-27 17:36 -0700
Re: The attractive force that binds multi-molecules - how it has to relate to the atomic structure of positive charge concentration at the nucleus. James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> - 2017-07-28 07:19 -0700
Re: The attractive force that binds multi-molecules - how it has to relate to the atomic structure of positive charge concentration at the nucleus. Arindam Banerjee <banerjeeadda1234@gmail.com> - 2017-07-27 16:00 -0700
Re: The attractive force that binds multi-molecules - how it has to relate to the atomic structure of positive charge concentration at the nucleus. HVAC <mr.hvac@gmail.com> - 2017-07-27 08:17 -0700
Re: The attractive force that binds multi-molecules - how it has to relate to the atomic structure of positive charge concentration at the nucleus. benj <benj@nobody.net> - 2017-07-27 17:37 -0400
Re: The attractive force that binds multi-molecules - how it has to relate to the atomic structure of positive charge concentration at the nucleus. moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2017-07-27 16:05 +0000
Re: The attractive force that binds multi-molecules - how it has to relate to the atomic structure of positive charge concentration at the nucleus. john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2017-07-27 09:16 -0700
Re: The attractive force that binds multi-molecules - how it has to relate to the atomic structure of positive charge concentration at the nucleus. Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-07-27 11:49 -0500
Re: The attractive force that binds multi-molecules - how it has to relate to the atomic structure of positive charge concentration at the nucleus. Serg io <invaalid@invalid.com> - 2017-07-28 11:56 -0500
Re: The attractive force that binds multi-molecules - how it has to relate to the atomic structure of positive charge concentration at the nucleus. James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> - 2017-07-28 10:13 -0700
Re: The attractive force that binds multi-molecules - how it has to relate to the atomic structure of positive charge concentration at the nucleus. Edward Prochak <edprochak@gmail.com> - 2017-07-27 10:51 -0700
Re: The attractive force that binds multi-molecules - how it has to relate to the atomic structure of positive charge concentration at the nucleus. Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-07-27 13:05 -0500
Re: The attractive force that binds multi-molecules - how it has to relate to the atomic structure of positive charge concentration at the nucleus. Serg io <invaalid@invalid.com> - 2017-07-28 12:29 -0500
Re: The attractive force that binds multi-molecules - how it has to relate to the atomic structure of positive charge concentration at the nucleus. James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> - 2017-07-28 10:40 -0700
Re: The attractive force that binds multi-molecules - how it has to relate to the atomic structure of positive charge concentration at the nucleus. poraty350@gmail.com - 2017-07-26 21:54 -0700
Re: The attractive force that binds multi-molecules - how it has to relate to the atomic structure of positive charge concentration at the nucleus. Arindam Banerjee <banerjeeadda1234@gmail.com> - 2017-07-27 02:41 -0700
Re: The attractive force that binds multi-molecules - how it has to relate to the atomic structure of positive charge concentration at the nucleus. Edward Prochak <edprochak@gmail.com> - 2017-07-25 16:30 -0700
Re: The attractive force that binds multi-molecules - how it has to relate to the atomic structure of positive charge concentration at the nucleus. Arindam Banerjee <banerjeeadda1234@gmail.com> - 2017-07-25 16:50 -0700
Re: The attractive force that binds multi-molecules - how it has to relate to the atomic structure of positive charge concentration at the nucleus. Edward Prochak <edprochak@gmail.com> - 2017-07-27 10:23 -0700
Re: The attractive force that binds multi-molecules - how it has to relate to the atomic structure of positive charge concentration at the nucleus. john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2017-07-27 10:35 -0700
Re: The attractive force that binds multi-molecules - how it has to relate to the atomic structure of positive charge concentration at the nucleus. Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-07-27 12:43 -0500
Re: The attractive force that binds multi-molecules - how it has to relate to the atomic structure of positive charge concentration at the nucleus. James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> - 2017-07-28 06:48 -0700
Re: The attractive force that binds multi-molecules - how it has to relate to the atomic structure of positive charge concentration at the nucleus. Edward Prochak <edprochak@gmail.com> - 2017-07-27 12:48 -0700
Re: The attractive force that binds multi-molecules - how it has to relate to the atomic structure of positive charge concentration at the nucleus. moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2017-07-27 20:29 +0000
Re: The attractive force that binds multi-molecules - how it has to relate to the atomic structure of positive charge concentration at the nucleus. john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2017-07-27 14:17 -0700
Re: The attractive force that binds multi-molecules - how it has to relate to the atomic structure of positive charge concentration at the nucleus. Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-07-27 16:30 -0500
Re: The attractive force that binds multi-molecules - how it has to relate to the atomic structure of positive charge concentration at the nucleus. john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2017-07-27 14:34 -0700
Re: The attractive force that binds multi-molecules - how it has to relate to the atomic structure of positive charge concentration at the nucleus. Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-07-27 16:55 -0500
Re: The attractive force that binds multi-molecules - how it has to relate to the atomic structure of positive charge concentration at the nucleus. john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2017-07-27 15:09 -0700
Re: The attractive force that binds multi-molecules - how it has to relate to the atomic structure of positive charge concentration at the nucleus. moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2017-07-28 03:52 +0000
Re: The attractive force that binds multi-molecules - how it has to relate to the atomic structure of positive charge concentration at the nucleus. Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-08-02 10:09 -0500
Re: The attractive force that binds multi-molecules - how it has to relate to the atomic structure of positive charge concentration at the nucleus. Edward Prochak <edprochak@gmail.com> - 2017-07-28 05:09 -0700
Re: The attractive force that binds multi-molecules - how it has to relate to the atomic structure of positive charge concentration at the nucleus. Mahipal <mahipal7638@gmail.com> - 2017-07-28 05:47 -0700
Re: The attractive force that binds multi-molecules - how it has to relate to the atomic structure of positive charge concentration at the nucleus. James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> - 2017-07-28 06:42 -0700
Re: The attractive force that binds multi-molecules - how it has to relate to the atomic structure of positive charge concentration at the nucleus. Solving Tornadoes <solvingtornadoes@gmail.com> - 2017-07-29 09:08 -0700
Re: The attractive force that binds multi-molecules - how it has to relate to the atomic structure of positive charge concentration at the nucleus. poraty350@gmail.com - 2017-07-23 01:32 -0700
Re: The attractive force that binds multi-molecules - how it has to relate to the atomic structure of positive charge concentration at the nucleus. Arindam Banerjee <banerjeeadda1234@gmail.com> - 2017-07-23 03:25 -0700
Re: The attractive force that binds multi-molecules - how it has to relate to the atomic structure of positive charge concentration at the nucleus. john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2017-07-23 06:41 -0700
Re: The attractive force that binds multi-molecules - how it has to relate to the atomic structure of positive charge concentration at the nucleus. Arindam Banerjee <banerjeeadda1234@gmail.com> - 2017-07-23 15:45 -0700
Re: The attractive force that binds multi-molecules - how it has to relate to the atomic structure of positive charge concentration at the nucleus. john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2017-07-23 17:12 -0700
Re: The attractive force that binds multi-molecules - how it has to relate to the atomic structure of positive charge concentration at the nucleus. Arindam Banerjee <banerjeeadda1234@gmail.com> - 2017-07-23 17:25 -0700
Re: The attractive force that binds multi-molecules - how it has to relate to the atomic structure of positive charge concentration at the nucleus. HVAC <mr.hvac@gmail.com> - 2017-07-24 03:00 -0700
Re: The attractive force that binds multi-molecules - how it has to relate to the atomic structure of positive charge concentration at the nucleus. Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-07-25 09:41 -0500
Re: The attractive force that binds multi-molecules - how it has to relate to the atomic structure of positive charge concentration at the nucleus. Arindam Banerjee <banerjeeadda1234@gmail.com> - 2017-07-25 15:19 -0700
Re: The attractive force that binds multi-molecules - how it has to relate to the atomic structure of positive charge concentration at the nucleus. Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-07-25 17:30 -0500
Re: The attractive force that binds multi-molecules - how it has to relate to the atomic structure of positive charge concentration at the nucleus. poraty350@gmail.com - 2017-07-23 22:27 -0700
Re: The attractive force that binds multi-molecules - how it has to relate to the atomic structure of positive charge concentration at the nucleus. Arindam Banerjee <banerjeeadda1234@gmail.com> - 2017-07-24 00:16 -0700
Re: The attractive force that binds multi-molecules - how it has to relate to the atomic structure of positive charge concentration at the nucleus. poraty350@gmail.com - 2017-07-24 02:13 -0700
Re: The attractive force that binds multi-molecules - how it has to relate to the atomic structure of positive charge concentration at the nucleus. Arindam Banerjee <banerjeeadda1234@gmail.com> - 2017-07-24 02:23 -0700
Re: The attractive force that binds multi-molecules - how it has to relate to the atomic structure of positive charge concentration at the nucleus. poraty350@gmail.com - 2017-07-24 05:00 -0700
Re: The attractive force that binds multi-molecules - how it has to relate to the atomic structure of positive charge concentration at the nucleus. Arindam Banerjee <banerjeeadda1234@gmail.com> - 2017-07-24 05:17 -0700
Re: The attractive force that binds multi-molecules - how it has to relate to the atomic structure of positive charge concentration at the nucleus. poraty350@gmail.com - 2017-07-24 07:09 -0700
Re: The attractive force that binds multi-molecules - how it has to relate to the atomic structure of positive charge concentration at the nucleus. john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2017-07-24 08:08 -0700
Re: The attractive force that binds multi-molecules - how it has to relate to the atomic structure of positive charge concentration at the nucleus. poraty350@gmail.com - 2017-07-24 22:00 -0700
Re: The attractive force that binds multi-molecules - how it has to relate to the atomic structure of positive charge concentration at the nucleus. poraty350@gmail.com - 2017-07-25 17:49 -0700
Re: The attractive force that binds multi-molecules - how it has to relate to the atomic structure of positive charge concentration at the nucleus. Arindam Banerjee <banerjeeadda1234@gmail.com> - 2017-07-24 16:29 -0700
Re: The attractive force that binds multi-molecules - how it has to relate to the atomic structure of positive charge concentration at the nucleus. poraty350@gmail.com - 2017-07-25 18:20 -0700
Re: The attractive force that binds multi-molecules - how it has to relate to the atomic structure of positive charge concentration at the nucleus. Arindam Banerjee <banerjeeadda1234@gmail.com> - 2017-07-25 20:59 -0700
Re: The attractive force that binds multi-molecules - how it has to relate to the atomic structure of positive charge concentration at the nucleus. "Dave Osborne" <SupDavOs@hotmail.com> - 2017-07-23 07:24 -0700
Re: The attractive force that binds multi-molecules - how it has to relate to the atomic structure of positive charge concentration at the nucleus. john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2017-07-23 08:01 -0700
Re: The attractive force that binds multi-molecules - how it has to relate to the atomic structure of positive charge concentration at the nucleus. HVAC <mr.hvac@gmail.com> - 2017-07-23 03:36 -0700
Re: The attractive force that binds multi-molecules - how it has to relate to the atomic structure of positive charge concentration at the nucleus. benj <benj@nobody.net> - 2017-07-24 17:29 -0400
Re: The attractive force that binds multi-molecules - how it has to relate to the atomic structure of positive charge concentration at the nucleus. HVAC <mr.hvac@gmail.com> - 2017-07-24 17:49 -0700
Re: The attractive force that binds multi-molecules - how it has to relate to the atomic structure of positive charge concentration at the nucleus. benj <benj@nobody.net> - 2017-07-24 21:18 -0400
Re: The attractive force that binds multi-molecules - how it has to relate to the atomic structure of positive charge concentration at the nucleus. Mahipal <mahipal7638@gmail.com> - 2017-07-24 18:37 -0700
Re: The attractive force that binds multi-molecules - how it has to relate to the atomic structure of positive charge concentration at the nucleus. HVAC <mr.hvac@gmail.com> - 2017-07-25 06:52 -0700
Re: The attractive force that binds multi-molecules - how it has to relate to the atomic structure of positive charge concentration at the nucleus. benj <benj@nobody.net> - 2017-07-25 17:25 -0400
Re: The attractive force that binds multi-molecules - how it has to relate to the atomic structure of positive charge concentration at the nucleus. HVAC <mr.hvac@gmail.com> - 2017-07-23 03:34 -0700
Re: The attractive force that binds multi-molecules - how it has to relate to the atomic structure of positive charge concentration at the nucleus. Double-A <double-a3@hush.com> - 2017-07-23 12:09 -0700
Re: The attractive force that binds multi-molecules - how it has to relate to the atomic structure of positive charge concentration at the nucleus. john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2017-07-23 17:02 -0700
Re: The attractive force that binds multi-molecules - how it has to relate to the atomic structure of positive charge concentration at the nucleus. Double-A <double-a3@hush.com> - 2017-07-25 12:57 -0700
Page 1 of 14 [1] 2 3 … 14 Next page →
| From | Arindam Banerjee <banerjeeadda1234@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-07-20 00:23 -0700 |
| Subject | The attractive force that binds multi-molecules - how it has to relate to the atomic structure of positive charge concentration at the nucleus. |
| Message-ID | <3f025e5c-a8c6-4623-9a7b-1da5f7ac6ff9@googlegroups.com> |
On Wednesday, 19 July 2017 14:49:04 UTC+10, Archimedes Plutonium wrote: > On Tuesday, July 18, 2017 at 7:38:17 PM UTC-5, Arindam Banerjee wrote: > > On Tuesday, July 18, 2017 at 1:55:58 AM UTC+10, Archimedes Plutonium wrote: > > > Page17, 3-2, Magnetism & electricity have attract force only, no repel, but denial of same space occupancy / textbook 8th ed > > > > > > > So when two similar poles are brought next to each other there is no repulsion? > > > > Two Different Concepts:: Huh? > > Repulsion So? > > Denial of Same Space Occupancy Rubbish here. Meaningless crap. > > If it is truly repulsion, then Nature would have it equal to Attraction Rubbish once again. There is either repulsion or no repulsion. When two similar poles are brought together, there is repulsion. Simple and obvious. This is the simple experiment any child can do. Put two North or South poles of magnets together and see how the repel each other. As the strength increases the repulsion increases. This is the basis of electric motors. Putting in a condition of "true repulsion" is specious CRAP, and a basis for gibberish pseudo-science, revolting to the extreme, as it neglects the basic fact that there IS repulsion. Magnetic and electrostatic repulsion are the basic and fundamental facts of Nature. To deny this means is to show one's pseudo-scientific colours in full measure. > > > > Coulomb force is attract only. > > > > Coulomb force is also repulsive, for like charges. > > If things collect together, move together, form together, then it is absurd to think they are repelling. That does not mean there is no repulsion. That does not mean that two poles of a magnet do not repel each other. Obviously there are forces that are always attraction - gravity is always attractive. But the whole universe does not become a single unit of matter as a result of gravity. That is because masses are moving. Matter stays together by attraction, but that does not mean that like poles do not repel each other, and that like charges do not repel each other. They certainly do as can be found by simple experiments. > > Electrons join together to form the space around a atom. Electrons join together in what is called the Chemical Bond, polar, ionic, covalent, metallic bonds. If they are around the atom, then they should repel other matter which are also covered by electrons. There should only be single atoms or at best molecules consisting of atoms joined by ionic or covalent bonds. The fact that molecules stick to each other has a great deal to do with temperature - over a certain temperature they cannot stick to each other and become liquid and then gas. Thus at lower temperature, sticking does happen as a result of the way there is electrostatic attraction between the molecules. The plus charges of the nucleus protons of one molecular configuration attracts the negative electron charges of the other molecules. As the protonic charge is concentrated the electric field from it is strong and good enough thus to attract the electrons from the other molecules. Thus there is this sticking. At higher temperatures there is more vibration naturally, so the molecules tend to fly off from each other. > > If proton join together in the Nucleus, only a kook of physics would think they are repelling, and only kook students grubbing for grades would accept the physics kook professor saying they repel. Logic, does not like, nor never liked kook's ideas. I do expect that my new ideas in physics will give new life to the old classical physics, and kooks who have derailed physics with all the e=mcc and quantum nonsense will be exposed not just as kooks but perfectly evil frauds who have successfully fooled the public for generations now. Nonsense mongers who say that there is no repulsion, when there is full evidence that there is repulsion, and that seen for hundreds of years and obvious to all with the simplest experiments, will get all the ridicule they justly deserve. > > If electrons flow together, why would anyone with a milligram of logic think they repel. Electrons flow together because they are under a potential, a driving force known earlier as the electro-motive force and now known as voltage. In such metals such as copper there are many electrons in the conduction band which are "free" in the sense that they can move from one copper atom to another copper atom with the application of only a little voltage which directs the electric field along the metal. It is the electric field which moves the electrons. Anyone specialising in specious logic would think as you do. Those who have read the textbooks, done the experiments, have some idea about the basic structure of matter, should have no doubts about these simple and obvious issues. The mutual repulsion of electrons has nothing whatsoever to do with their moving as a stream under the influence of an electric field caused by a voltage. > > > > > > > > Experiments performed proving attract force only, no repel, but denial of same space occupancy > > > > Take any two magnets, and place the like poles next to each other. There will > > be repulsion. > > > > Yes, yes, anyone growing up has done this, all of them vacant of a logical mind. All of them grubbing for grades in school and not wanting to displease the teacher, by saying-- prove it is really repulsion and not Denial of Same Space Occupancy. Of course it is repulsion because it moves away. "Denial of same space occupancy" is your meaningless mumbo-jumbo, absolute CRAP which may find use in the corruption of worthy scientific knowledge. It is anti-science. Yes physics texts need to be updated so they will throw away all the e=mcc and quantum stuff, and entropy and the law of conservation of energy in its current form, and update Newton's laws of motion. Such work will be based upon the genuine experiments that I have done, which can be repeated by anyone. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hqBfwAClVlg IFE - 1 Ground Experiments https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w9eGq4Oiv9s IFE - 2 Experimental setups https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V3hC48BMrno IFE - 3 Pendulum experiments https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3sSPxGsLkws IFE - 4 Evolution of spaceship https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pJdM6UDPauU IFE - 5 Hydrogen Transmission Network https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TUAcx7rAplc IFE - 6 Spaceship Design https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H5Zbpvc3fdA IFE - 7 Anti-Gravity https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VA9LUwqMhxY IFE - 8 New Physics Once my experiments are repeated, and their implications understood, the Einsteinian pseudo-science will vanish - only remain as a foul stinking memory. Sooner this shame is removed the better. Cheers, Arindam Banerjee
[toc] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | poraty350@gmail.com |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-07-20 01:29 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <472c75c4-db26-4403-983a-f218c4d0e667@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #641507 |
On Thursday, July 20, 2017 at 10:24:01 AM UTC+3, Arindam Banerjee wrote: > On Wednesday, 19 July 2017 14:49:04 UTC+10, Archimedes Plutonium wrote: > > On Tuesday, July 18, 2017 at 7:38:17 PM UTC-5, Arindam Banerjee wrote: > > > On Tuesday, July 18, 2017 at 1:55:58 AM UTC+10, Archimedes Plutonium wrote: > > > > Page17, 3-2, Magnetism & electricity have attract force only, no repel, but denial of same space occupancy / textbook 8th ed > > > > > > > > > > So when two similar poles are brought next to each other there is no repulsion? > > > > > > > Two Different Concepts:: > > Huh? > > > > > > > Repulsion > > So? > > > > Denial of Same Space Occupancy > > Rubbish here. Meaningless crap. > > > > If it is truly repulsion, then Nature would have it equal to Attraction > > Rubbish once again. There is either repulsion or no repulsion. When two > similar poles are brought together, there is repulsion. Simple and obvious. > > This is the simple experiment any child can do. Put two North or South poles of > magnets together and see how the repel each other. As the strength increases > the repulsion increases. This is the basis of electric motors. > > Putting in a condition of "true repulsion" is specious CRAP, and a basis > for gibberish pseudo-science, revolting to the extreme, as it neglects the > basic fact that there IS repulsion. > > Magnetic and electrostatic repulsion are the basic and fundamental facts of > Nature. To deny this means is to show one's pseudo-scientific colours in full > measure. > > > > > > > Coulomb force is attract only. > > > > > > Coulomb force is also repulsive, for like charges. > > > > If things collect together, move together, form together, then it is absurd to think they are repelling. > > That does not mean there is no repulsion. That does not mean that two poles of > a magnet do not repel each other. > > Obviously there are forces that are always attraction - gravity is > always attractive. But the whole universe does not become a single unit of > matter as a result of gravity. That is because masses are moving. > > Matter stays together by attraction, but that does not mean that like poles do > not repel each other, and that like charges do not repel each other. They > certainly do as can be found by simple experiments. > > > > Electrons join together to form the space around a atom. Electrons join together in what is called the Chemical Bond, polar, ionic, covalent, metallic bonds. > > If they are around the atom, then they should repel other matter which are also > covered by electrons. There should only be single atoms or at best molecules > consisting of atoms joined by ionic or covalent bonds. The fact that molecules > stick to each other has a great deal to do with temperature - over a certain > temperature they cannot stick to each other and become liquid and then gas. > > Thus at lower temperature, sticking does happen as a result of the way there > is electrostatic attraction between the molecules. The plus charges of the > nucleus protons of one molecular configuration attracts the negative electron charges of the other molecules. As the protonic charge is concentrated > the electric field from it is strong and good enough thus to attract the > electrons from the other molecules. Thus there is this sticking. At higher > temperatures there is more vibration naturally, so the molecules tend to fly > off from each other. > > > > If proton join together in the Nucleus, only a kook of physics would think they are repelling, and only kook students grubbing for grades would accept the physics kook professor saying they repel. Logic, does not like, nor never liked kook's ideas. > > I do expect that my new ideas in physics will give new life to the old > classical physics, and kooks who have derailed physics with all the e=mcc > and quantum nonsense will be exposed not just as kooks but perfectly evil > frauds who have successfully fooled the public for generations now. > > Nonsense mongers who say that there is no repulsion, when there is full > evidence that there is repulsion, and that seen for hundreds of years and > obvious to all with the simplest experiments, will get all the ridicule they > justly deserve. > > > > If electrons flow together, why would anyone with a milligram of logic think they repel. > > Electrons flow together because they are under a potential, a driving force > known earlier as the electro-motive force and now known as voltage. In such > metals such as copper there are many electrons in the conduction band which > are "free" in the sense that they can move from one copper atom to another > copper atom with the application of only a little voltage which directs the > electric field along the metal. It is the electric field which moves the > electrons. > > Anyone specialising in specious logic would think as you do. Those who have > read the textbooks, done the experiments, have some idea about the basic > structure of matter, should have no doubts about these simple and obvious > issues. > > The mutual repulsion of electrons has nothing whatsoever to > do with their moving as a stream under the influence of an electric field caused > by a voltage. > > > > > > > > > > > > Experiments performed proving attract force only, no repel, but denial of same space occupancy > > > > > > Take any two magnets, and place the like poles next to each other. There will > > > be repulsion. > > > > > > > Yes, yes, anyone growing up has done this, all of them vacant of a logical mind. All of them grubbing for grades in school and not wanting to displease the teacher, by saying-- prove it is really repulsion and not Denial of Same Space Occupancy. > > Of course it is repulsion because it moves away. "Denial of same space > occupancy" is your meaningless mumbo-jumbo, absolute CRAP which may find use > in the corruption of worthy scientific knowledge. It is anti-science. > > Yes physics texts need to be updated so they will throw away all the e=mcc > and quantum stuff, and entropy and the law of conservation of energy in its > current form, and update Newton's laws of motion. > > Such work will be based upon the genuine experiments that I have done, which > can be repeated by anyone. > > > > https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hqBfwAClVlg > IFE - 1 Ground Experiments > > https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w9eGq4Oiv9s > IFE - 2 Experimental setups > > https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V3hC48BMrno > IFE - 3 Pendulum experiments > > https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3sSPxGsLkws > IFE - 4 Evolution of spaceship > > https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pJdM6UDPauU > IFE - 5 Hydrogen Transmission Network > > https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TUAcx7rAplc > IFE - 6 Spaceship Design > > https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H5Zbpvc3fdA > IFE - 7 Anti-Gravity > > https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VA9LUwqMhxY > IFE - 8 New Physics > > Once my experiments are repeated, and their implications understood, the > Einsteinian pseudo-science will vanish - only remain as a foul stinking memory. > Sooner this shame is removed the better. > > Cheers, > Arindam Banerjee ============================ blablabla is not enough there is no attraction force without repulsion force !! no attraction force has a magic touch from far a way of even from close away !! it is done by tangible collision of sub masses iow momentum and conservation of momentum is done by tangible collisions between mass there are there no magic 'whithes on brooms' that work from distance by ''hokus focus''!! how collision turns to be attraction force is another new story that it is more than time to learn about it !!! btw as someone here indicated (sorry forgot his name take 2 magnets position them 'back to back 'or front to front ?? ANF THEY WILL .... REPELL EECH OTHER !!!!!!!!!! how come ?!!! the witches fell asleep ??? TIA Y.Porat ==================================== == TIA Y.Porat ============================
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | poraty350@gmail.com |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-07-20 01:33 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <f687223e-2baf-46c4-ab79-f3742cd925fe@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #641509 |
On Thursday, July 20, 2017 at 11:29:21 AM UTC+3, pora...@gmail.com wrote: > On Thursday, July 20, 2017 at 10:24:01 AM UTC+3, Arindam Banerjee wrote: > > On Wednesday, 19 July 2017 14:49:04 UTC+10, Archimedes Plutonium wrote: > > > On Tuesday, July 18, 2017 at 7:38:17 PM UTC-5, Arindam Banerjee wrote: > > > > On Tuesday, July 18, 2017 at 1:55:58 AM UTC+10, Archimedes Plutonium wrote: > > > > > Page17, 3-2, Magnetism & electricity have attract force only, no repel, but denial of same space occupancy / textbook 8th ed > > > > > > > > > > > > > So when two similar poles are brought next to each other there is no repulsion? > > > > > > > > > > Two Different Concepts:: > > > > Huh? > > > > > > > > > > > > Repulsion > > > > So? > > > > > > Denial of Same Space Occupancy > > > > Rubbish here. Meaningless crap. > > > > > > If it is truly repulsion, then Nature would have it equal to Attraction > > > > Rubbish once again. There is either repulsion or no repulsion. When two > > similar poles are brought together, there is repulsion. Simple and obvious. > > > > This is the simple experiment any child can do. Put two North or South poles of > > magnets together and see how the repel each other. As the strength increases > > the repulsion increases. This is the basis of electric motors. > > > > Putting in a condition of "true repulsion" is specious CRAP, and a basis > > for gibberish pseudo-science, revolting to the extreme, as it neglects the > > basic fact that there IS repulsion. > > > > Magnetic and electrostatic repulsion are the basic and fundamental facts of > > Nature. To deny this means is to show one's pseudo-scientific colours in full > > measure. > > > > > > > > > > Coulomb force is attract only. > > > > > > > > Coulomb force is also repulsive, for like charges. > > > > > > If things collect together, move together, form together, then it is absurd to think they are repelling. > > > > That does not mean there is no repulsion. That does not mean that two poles of > > a magnet do not repel each other. > > > > Obviously there are forces that are always attraction - gravity is > > always attractive. But the whole universe does not become a single unit of > > matter as a result of gravity. That is because masses are moving. > > > > Matter stays together by attraction, but that does not mean that like poles do > > not repel each other, and that like charges do not repel each other. They > > certainly do as can be found by simple experiments. > > > > > > Electrons join together to form the space around a atom. Electrons join together in what is called the Chemical Bond, polar, ionic, covalent, metallic bonds. > > > > If they are around the atom, then they should repel other matter which are also > > covered by electrons. There should only be single atoms or at best molecules > > consisting of atoms joined by ionic or covalent bonds. The fact that molecules > > stick to each other has a great deal to do with temperature - over a certain > > temperature they cannot stick to each other and become liquid and then gas. > > > > Thus at lower temperature, sticking does happen as a result of the way there > > is electrostatic attraction between the molecules. The plus charges of the > > nucleus protons of one molecular configuration attracts the negative electron charges of the other molecules. As the protonic charge is concentrated > > the electric field from it is strong and good enough thus to attract the > > electrons from the other molecules. Thus there is this sticking. At higher > > temperatures there is more vibration naturally, so the molecules tend to fly > > off from each other. > > > > > > If proton join together in the Nucleus, only a kook of physics would think they are repelling, and only kook students grubbing for grades would accept the physics kook professor saying they repel. Logic, does not like, nor never liked kook's ideas. > > > > I do expect that my new ideas in physics will give new life to the old > > classical physics, and kooks who have derailed physics with all the e=mcc > > and quantum nonsense will be exposed not just as kooks but perfectly evil > > frauds who have successfully fooled the public for generations now. > > > > Nonsense mongers who say that there is no repulsion, when there is full > > evidence that there is repulsion, and that seen for hundreds of years and > > obvious to all with the simplest experiments, will get all the ridicule they > > justly deserve. > > > > > > If electrons flow together, why would anyone with a milligram of logic think they repel. > > > > Electrons flow together because they are under a potential, a driving force > > known earlier as the electro-motive force and now known as voltage. In such > > metals such as copper there are many electrons in the conduction band which > > are "free" in the sense that they can move from one copper atom to another > > copper atom with the application of only a little voltage which directs the > > electric field along the metal. It is the electric field which moves the > > electrons. > > > > Anyone specialising in specious logic would think as you do. Those who have > > read the textbooks, done the experiments, have some idea about the basic > > structure of matter, should have no doubts about these simple and obvious > > issues. > > > > The mutual repulsion of electrons has nothing whatsoever to > > do with their moving as a stream under the influence of an electric field caused > > by a voltage. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Experiments performed proving attract force only, no repel, but denial of same space occupancy > > > > > > > > Take any two magnets, and place the like poles next to each other. There will > > > > be repulsion. > > > > > > > > > > Yes, yes, anyone growing up has done this, all of them vacant of a logical mind. All of them grubbing for grades in school and not wanting to displease the teacher, by saying-- prove it is really repulsion and not Denial of Same Space Occupancy. > > > > Of course it is repulsion because it moves away. "Denial of same space > > occupancy" is your meaningless mumbo-jumbo, absolute CRAP which may find use > > in the corruption of worthy scientific knowledge. It is anti-science. > > > > Yes physics texts need to be updated so they will throw away all the e=mcc > > and quantum stuff, and entropy and the law of conservation of energy in its > > current form, and update Newton's laws of motion. > > > > Such work will be based upon the genuine experiments that I have done, which > > can be repeated by anyone. > > > > > > > > https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hqBfwAClVlg > > IFE - 1 Ground Experiments > > > > https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w9eGq4Oiv9s > > IFE - 2 Experimental setups > > > > https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V3hC48BMrno > > IFE - 3 Pendulum experiments > > > > https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3sSPxGsLkws > > IFE - 4 Evolution of spaceship > > > > https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pJdM6UDPauU > > IFE - 5 Hydrogen Transmission Network > > > > https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TUAcx7rAplc > > IFE - 6 Spaceship Design > > > > https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H5Zbpvc3fdA > > IFE - 7 Anti-Gravity > > > > https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VA9LUwqMhxY > > IFE - 8 New Physics > > > > Once my experiments are repeated, and their implications understood, the > > Einsteinian pseudo-science will vanish - only remain as a foul stinking memory. > > Sooner this shame is removed the better. > > > > Cheers, > > Arindam Banerjee > ============================ > blablabla > is not enough > > there is no attraction force > without repulsion force !! > > no attraction force has a magic touch from far a way > of even from close away !! > it is done by > tangible collision of sub masses > iow > momentum and conservation of momentum is done by > > tangible collisions between mass > there are there no magic 'whithes on brooms' that > work from distance > by ''hokus focus''!! > how collision turns to be attraction force > is another new story that > it is more than time to learn about it !!! > btw > as someone here indicated (sorry forgot his name > > take 2 magnets > position them 'back to back 'or front to front ?? > > ANF THEY WILL .... REPELL EECH OTHER !!!!!!!!!! > > how come ?!!! > the witches fell asleep ??? > TIA > Y.Porat > ==================================== > > > == > TIA > Y.Porat > ============================ sorry sorry !! the one who indicated it first is the above Arindam thank you Arindam == TIA Y.Porat ============================
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Arindam Banerjee <banerjeeadda1234@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-07-20 05:00 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <cedb5f68-e5e8-4248-ad8c-ba59dc9de0e5@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #641510 |
On Thursday, July 20, 2017 at 6:33:06 PM UTC+10, pora...@gmail.com wrote: > On Thursday, July 20, 2017 at 11:29:21 AM UTC+3, pora...@gmail.com wrote: > > On Thursday, July 20, 2017 at 10:24:01 AM UTC+3, Arindam Banerjee wrote: > > > On Wednesday, 19 July 2017 14:49:04 UTC+10, Archimedes Plutonium wrote: > > > > On Tuesday, July 18, 2017 at 7:38:17 PM UTC-5, Arindam Banerjee wrote: > > > > > On Tuesday, July 18, 2017 at 1:55:58 AM UTC+10, Archimedes Plutonium wrote: > > > > > > Page17, 3-2, Magnetism & electricity have attract force only, no repel, but denial of same space occupancy / textbook 8th ed > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > So when two similar poles are brought next to each other there is no repulsion? > > > > > > > > > > > > > Two Different Concepts:: > > > > > > Huh? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Repulsion > > > > > > So? > > > > > > > > Denial of Same Space Occupancy > > > > > > Rubbish here. Meaningless crap. > > > > > > > > If it is truly repulsion, then Nature would have it equal to Attraction > > > > > > Rubbish once again. There is either repulsion or no repulsion. When two > > > similar poles are brought together, there is repulsion. Simple and obvious. > > > > > > This is the simple experiment any child can do. Put two North or South poles of > > > magnets together and see how the repel each other. As the strength increases > > > the repulsion increases. This is the basis of electric motors. > > > > > > Putting in a condition of "true repulsion" is specious CRAP, and a basis > > > for gibberish pseudo-science, revolting to the extreme, as it neglects the > > > basic fact that there IS repulsion. > > > > > > Magnetic and electrostatic repulsion are the basic and fundamental facts of > > > Nature. To deny this means is to show one's pseudo-scientific colours in full > > > measure. > > > > > > > > > > > > > Coulomb force is attract only. > > > > > > > > > > Coulomb force is also repulsive, for like charges. > > > > > > > > If things collect together, move together, form together, then it is absurd to think they are repelling. > > > > > > That does not mean there is no repulsion. That does not mean that two poles of > > > a magnet do not repel each other. > > > > > > Obviously there are forces that are always attraction - gravity is > > > always attractive. But the whole universe does not become a single unit of > > > matter as a result of gravity. That is because masses are moving. > > > > > > Matter stays together by attraction, but that does not mean that like poles do > > > not repel each other, and that like charges do not repel each other. They > > > certainly do as can be found by simple experiments. > > > > > > > > Electrons join together to form the space around a atom. Electrons join together in what is called the Chemical Bond, polar, ionic, covalent, metallic bonds. > > > > > > If they are around the atom, then they should repel other matter which are also > > > covered by electrons. There should only be single atoms or at best molecules > > > consisting of atoms joined by ionic or covalent bonds. The fact that molecules > > > stick to each other has a great deal to do with temperature - over a certain > > > temperature they cannot stick to each other and become liquid and then gas. > > > > > > Thus at lower temperature, sticking does happen as a result of the way there > > > is electrostatic attraction between the molecules. The plus charges of the > > > nucleus protons of one molecular configuration attracts the negative electron charges of the other molecules. As the protonic charge is concentrated > > > the electric field from it is strong and good enough thus to attract the > > > electrons from the other molecules. Thus there is this sticking. At higher > > > temperatures there is more vibration naturally, so the molecules tend to fly > > > off from each other. > > > > > > > > If proton join together in the Nucleus, only a kook of physics would think they are repelling, and only kook students grubbing for grades would accept the physics kook professor saying they repel. Logic, does not like, nor never liked kook's ideas. > > > > > > I do expect that my new ideas in physics will give new life to the old > > > classical physics, and kooks who have derailed physics with all the e=mcc > > > and quantum nonsense will be exposed not just as kooks but perfectly evil > > > frauds who have successfully fooled the public for generations now. > > > > > > Nonsense mongers who say that there is no repulsion, when there is full > > > evidence that there is repulsion, and that seen for hundreds of years and > > > obvious to all with the simplest experiments, will get all the ridicule they > > > justly deserve. > > > > > > > > If electrons flow together, why would anyone with a milligram of logic think they repel. > > > > > > Electrons flow together because they are under a potential, a driving force > > > known earlier as the electro-motive force and now known as voltage. In such > > > metals such as copper there are many electrons in the conduction band which > > > are "free" in the sense that they can move from one copper atom to another > > > copper atom with the application of only a little voltage which directs the > > > electric field along the metal. It is the electric field which moves the > > > electrons. > > > > > > Anyone specialising in specious logic would think as you do. Those who have > > > read the textbooks, done the experiments, have some idea about the basic > > > structure of matter, should have no doubts about these simple and obvious > > > issues. > > > > > > The mutual repulsion of electrons has nothing whatsoever to > > > do with their moving as a stream under the influence of an electric field caused > > > by a voltage. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Experiments performed proving attract force only, no repel, but denial of same space occupancy > > > > > > > > > > Take any two magnets, and place the like poles next to each other. There will > > > > > be repulsion. > > > > > > > > > > > > > Yes, yes, anyone growing up has done this, all of them vacant of a logical mind. All of them grubbing for grades in school and not wanting to displease the teacher, by saying-- prove it is really repulsion and not Denial of Same Space Occupancy. > > > > > > Of course it is repulsion because it moves away. "Denial of same space > > > occupancy" is your meaningless mumbo-jumbo, absolute CRAP which may find use > > > in the corruption of worthy scientific knowledge. It is anti-science. > > > > > > Yes physics texts need to be updated so they will throw away all the e=mcc > > > and quantum stuff, and entropy and the law of conservation of energy in its > > > current form, and update Newton's laws of motion. > > > > > > Such work will be based upon the genuine experiments that I have done, which > > > can be repeated by anyone. > > > > > > > > > > > > https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hqBfwAClVlg > > > IFE - 1 Ground Experiments > > > > > > https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w9eGq4Oiv9s > > > IFE - 2 Experimental setups > > > > > > https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V3hC48BMrno > > > IFE - 3 Pendulum experiments > > > > > > https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3sSPxGsLkws > > > IFE - 4 Evolution of spaceship > > > > > > https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pJdM6UDPauU > > > IFE - 5 Hydrogen Transmission Network > > > > > > https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TUAcx7rAplc > > > IFE - 6 Spaceship Design > > > > > > https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H5Zbpvc3fdA > > > IFE - 7 Anti-Gravity > > > > > > https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VA9LUwqMhxY > > > IFE - 8 New Physics > > > > > > Once my experiments are repeated, and their implications understood, the > > > Einsteinian pseudo-science will vanish - only remain as a foul stinking memory. > > > Sooner this shame is removed the better. > > > > > > Cheers, > > > Arindam Banerjee > > ============================ > > blablabla > > is not enough > > > > there is no attraction force > > without repulsion force !! > > > > no attraction force has a magic touch from far a way > > of even from close away !! > > it is done by > > tangible collision of sub masses > > iow > > momentum and conservation of momentum is done by > > > > tangible collisions between mass > > there are there no magic 'whithes on brooms' that > > work from distance > > by ''hokus focus''!! > > how collision turns to be attraction force > > is another new story that > > it is more than time to learn about it !!! > > btw > > as someone here indicated (sorry forgot his name > > > > take 2 magnets > > position them 'back to back 'or front to front ?? > > > > ANF THEY WILL .... REPELL EECH OTHER !!!!!!!!!! > > > > how come ?!!! > > the witches fell asleep ??? > > TIA > > Y.Porat > > ==================================== > > > > > > == > > TIA > > Y.Porat > > ============================ > sorry sorry !! > the one who indicated it first is the above > Arindam > thank you Arindam > > == > TIA > Y.Porat > ============================ Cheers, Porat. Arindam
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | poraty350@gmail.com |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-07-20 05:46 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <254df772-9f5a-476b-94cb-e07623fc53fa@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #641517 |
On Thursday, July 20, 2017 at 3:00:28 PM UTC+3, Arindam Banerjee wrote: > On Thursday, July 20, 2017 at 6:33:06 PM UTC+10, pora...@gmail.com wrote: > > On Thursday, July 20, 2017 at 11:29:21 AM UTC+3, pora...@gmail.com wrote: > > > On Thursday, July 20, 2017 at 10:24:01 AM UTC+3, Arindam Banerjee wrote: > > > > On Wednesday, 19 July 2017 14:49:04 UTC+10, Archimedes Plutonium wrote: > > > > > On Tuesday, July 18, 2017 at 7:38:17 PM UTC-5, Arindam Banerjee wrote: > > > > > > On Tuesday, July 18, 2017 at 1:55:58 AM UTC+10, Archimedes Plutonium wrote: > > > > > > > Page17, 3-2, Magnetism & electricity have attract force only, no repel, but denial of same space occupancy / textbook 8th ed > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > So when two similar poles are brought next to each other there is no repulsion? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Two Different Concepts:: > > > > > > > > Huh? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Repulsion > > > > > > > > So? > > > > > > > > > > Denial of Same Space Occupancy > > > > > > > > Rubbish here. Meaningless crap. > > > > > > > > > > If it is truly repulsion, then Nature would have it equal to Attraction > > > > > > > > Rubbish once again. There is either repulsion or no repulsion. When two > > > > similar poles are brought together, there is repulsion. Simple and obvious. > > > > > > > > This is the simple experiment any child can do. Put two North or South poles of > > > > magnets together and see how the repel each other. As the strength increases > > > > the repulsion increases. This is the basis of electric motors. > > > > > > > > Putting in a condition of "true repulsion" is specious CRAP, and a basis > > > > for gibberish pseudo-science, revolting to the extreme, as it neglects the > > > > basic fact that there IS repulsion. > > > > > > > > Magnetic and electrostatic repulsion are the basic and fundamental facts of > > > > Nature. To deny this means is to show one's pseudo-scientific colours in full > > > > measure. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Coulomb force is attract only. > > > > > > > > > > > > Coulomb force is also repulsive, for like charges. > > > > > > > > > > If things collect together, move together, form together, then it is absurd to think they are repelling. > > > > > > > > That does not mean there is no repulsion. That does not mean that two poles of > > > > a magnet do not repel each other. > > > > > > > > Obviously there are forces that are always attraction - gravity is > > > > always attractive. But the whole universe does not become a single unit of > > > > matter as a result of gravity. That is because masses are moving. > > > > > > > > Matter stays together by attraction, but that does not mean that like poles do > > > > not repel each other, and that like charges do not repel each other. They > > > > certainly do as can be found by simple experiments. > > > > > > > > > > Electrons join together to form the space around a atom. Electrons join together in what is called the Chemical Bond, polar, ionic, covalent, metallic bonds. > > > > > > > > If they are around the atom, then they should repel other matter which are also > > > > covered by electrons. There should only be single atoms or at best molecules > > > > consisting of atoms joined by ionic or covalent bonds. The fact that molecules > > > > stick to each other has a great deal to do with temperature - over a certain > > > > temperature they cannot stick to each other and become liquid and then gas. > > > > > > > > Thus at lower temperature, sticking does happen as a result of the way there > > > > is electrostatic attraction between the molecules. The plus charges of the > > > > nucleus protons of one molecular configuration attracts the negative electron charges of the other molecules. As the protonic charge is concentrated > > > > the electric field from it is strong and good enough thus to attract the > > > > electrons from the other molecules. Thus there is this sticking. At higher > > > > temperatures there is more vibration naturally, so the molecules tend to fly > > > > off from each other. > > > > > > > > > > If proton join together in the Nucleus, only a kook of physics would think they are repelling, and only kook students grubbing for grades would accept the physics kook professor saying they repel. Logic, does not like, nor never liked kook's ideas. > > > > > > > > I do expect that my new ideas in physics will give new life to the old > > > > classical physics, and kooks who have derailed physics with all the e=mcc > > > > and quantum nonsense will be exposed not just as kooks but perfectly evil > > > > frauds who have successfully fooled the public for generations now. > > > > > > > > Nonsense mongers who say that there is no repulsion, when there is full > > > > evidence that there is repulsion, and that seen for hundreds of years and > > > > obvious to all with the simplest experiments, will get all the ridicule they > > > > justly deserve. > > > > > > > > > > If electrons flow together, why would anyone with a milligram of logic think they repel. > > > > > > > > Electrons flow together because they are under a potential, a driving force > > > > known earlier as the electro-motive force and now known as voltage. In such > > > > metals such as copper there are many electrons in the conduction band which > > > > are "free" in the sense that they can move from one copper atom to another > > > > copper atom with the application of only a little voltage which directs the > > > > electric field along the metal. It is the electric field which moves the > > > > electrons. > > > > > > > > Anyone specialising in specious logic would think as you do. Those who have > > > > read the textbooks, done the experiments, have some idea about the basic > > > > structure of matter, should have no doubts about these simple and obvious > > > > issues. > > > > > > > > The mutual repulsion of electrons has nothing whatsoever to > > > > do with their moving as a stream under the influence of an electric field caused > > > > by a voltage. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Experiments performed proving attract force only, no repel, but denial of same space occupancy > > > > > > > > > > > > Take any two magnets, and place the like poles next to each other. There will > > > > > > be repulsion. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Yes, yes, anyone growing up has done this, all of them vacant of a logical mind. All of them grubbing for grades in school and not wanting to displease the teacher, by saying-- prove it is really repulsion and not Denial of Same Space Occupancy. > > > > > > > > Of course it is repulsion because it moves away. "Denial of same space > > > > occupancy" is your meaningless mumbo-jumbo, absolute CRAP which may find use > > > > in the corruption of worthy scientific knowledge. It is anti-science. > > > > > > > > Yes physics texts need to be updated so they will throw away all the e=mcc > > > > and quantum stuff, and entropy and the law of conservation of energy in its > > > > current form, and update Newton's laws of motion. > > > > > > > > Such work will be based upon the genuine experiments that I have done, which > > > > can be repeated by anyone. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hqBfwAClVlg > > > > IFE - 1 Ground Experiments > > > > > > > > https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w9eGq4Oiv9s > > > > IFE - 2 Experimental setups > > > > > > > > https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V3hC48BMrno > > > > IFE - 3 Pendulum experiments > > > > > > > > https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3sSPxGsLkws > > > > IFE - 4 Evolution of spaceship > > > > > > > > https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pJdM6UDPauU > > > > IFE - 5 Hydrogen Transmission Network > > > > > > > > https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TUAcx7rAplc > > > > IFE - 6 Spaceship Design > > > > > > > > https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H5Zbpvc3fdA > > > > IFE - 7 Anti-Gravity > > > > > > > > https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VA9LUwqMhxY > > > > IFE - 8 New Physics > > > > > > > > Once my experiments are repeated, and their implications understood, the > > > > Einsteinian pseudo-science will vanish - only remain as a foul stinking memory. > > > > Sooner this shame is removed the better. > > > > > > > > Cheers, > > > > Arindam Banerjee > > > ============================ > > > blablabla > > > is not enough > > > > > > there is no attraction force > > > without repulsion force !! > > > > > > no attraction force has a magic touch from far a way > > > of even from close away !! > > > it is done by > > > tangible collision of sub masses > > > iow > > > momentum and conservation of momentum is done by > > > > > > tangible collisions between mass > > > there are there no magic 'whithes on brooms' that > > > work from distance > > > by ''hokus focus''!! > > > how collision turns to be attraction force > > > is another new story that > > > it is more than time to learn about it !!! > > > btw > > > as someone here indicated (sorry forgot his name > > > > > > take 2 magnets > > > position them 'back to back 'or front to front ?? > > > > > > ANF THEY WILL .... REPELL EECH OTHER !!!!!!!!!! > > > > > > how come ?!!! > > > the witches fell asleep ??? > > > TIA > > > Y.Porat > > > ==================================== > > > > > > > > > == > > > TIA > > > Y.Porat > > > ============================ > > sorry sorry !! > > the one who indicated it first is the above > > Arindam > > thank you Arindam > > > > == > > TIA > > Y.Porat > > ============================ > > Cheers, Porat. > Arindam ==== ok welcome! at least there here for a change (:-)!! ... 2 smart open minded people!! now we are not done yet !! we have to explain how a repulsion force becomes ---attraction force ??1!! some guesses ?? TIA Y.Porat ===========================
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Arindam Banerjee <banerjeeadda1234@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-07-20 06:07 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <24e3f9b1-5f13-45b2-97cf-0c7ffa4843f9@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #641518 |
On Thursday, July 20, 2017 at 10:46:50 PM UTC+10, pora...@gmail.com wrote: > On Thursday, July 20, 2017 at 3:00:28 PM UTC+3, Arindam Banerjee wrote: > > On Thursday, July 20, 2017 at 6:33:06 PM UTC+10, pora...@gmail.com wrote: > > > On Thursday, July 20, 2017 at 11:29:21 AM UTC+3, pora...@gmail.com wrote: > > > > On Thursday, July 20, 2017 at 10:24:01 AM UTC+3, Arindam Banerjee wrote: > > > > > On Wednesday, 19 July 2017 14:49:04 UTC+10, Archimedes Plutonium wrote: > > > > > > On Tuesday, July 18, 2017 at 7:38:17 PM UTC-5, Arindam Banerjee wrote: > > > > > > > On Tuesday, July 18, 2017 at 1:55:58 AM UTC+10, Archimedes Plutonium wrote: > > > > > > > > Page17, 3-2, Magnetism & electricity have attract force only, no repel, but denial of same space occupancy / textbook 8th ed > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > So when two similar poles are brought next to each other there is no repulsion? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Two Different Concepts:: > > > > > > > > > > Huh? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Repulsion > > > > > > > > > > So? > > > > > > > > > > > > Denial of Same Space Occupancy > > > > > > > > > > Rubbish here. Meaningless crap. > > > > > > > > > > > > If it is truly repulsion, then Nature would have it equal to Attraction > > > > > > > > > > Rubbish once again. There is either repulsion or no repulsion. When two > > > > > similar poles are brought together, there is repulsion. Simple and obvious. > > > > > > > > > > This is the simple experiment any child can do. Put two North or South poles of > > > > > magnets together and see how the repel each other. As the strength increases > > > > > the repulsion increases. This is the basis of electric motors. > > > > > > > > > > Putting in a condition of "true repulsion" is specious CRAP, and a basis > > > > > for gibberish pseudo-science, revolting to the extreme, as it neglects the > > > > > basic fact that there IS repulsion. > > > > > > > > > > Magnetic and electrostatic repulsion are the basic and fundamental facts of > > > > > Nature. To deny this means is to show one's pseudo-scientific colours in full > > > > > measure. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Coulomb force is attract only. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Coulomb force is also repulsive, for like charges. > > > > > > > > > > > > If things collect together, move together, form together, then it is absurd to think they are repelling. > > > > > > > > > > That does not mean there is no repulsion. That does not mean that two poles of > > > > > a magnet do not repel each other. > > > > > > > > > > Obviously there are forces that are always attraction - gravity is > > > > > always attractive. But the whole universe does not become a single unit of > > > > > matter as a result of gravity. That is because masses are moving. > > > > > > > > > > Matter stays together by attraction, but that does not mean that like poles do > > > > > not repel each other, and that like charges do not repel each other. They > > > > > certainly do as can be found by simple experiments. > > > > > > > > > > > > Electrons join together to form the space around a atom. Electrons join together in what is called the Chemical Bond, polar, ionic, covalent, metallic bonds. > > > > > > > > > > If they are around the atom, then they should repel other matter which are also > > > > > covered by electrons. There should only be single atoms or at best molecules > > > > > consisting of atoms joined by ionic or covalent bonds. The fact that molecules > > > > > stick to each other has a great deal to do with temperature - over a certain > > > > > temperature they cannot stick to each other and become liquid and then gas. > > > > > > > > > > Thus at lower temperature, sticking does happen as a result of the way there > > > > > is electrostatic attraction between the molecules. The plus charges of the > > > > > nucleus protons of one molecular configuration attracts the negative electron charges of the other molecules. As the protonic charge is concentrated > > > > > the electric field from it is strong and good enough thus to attract the > > > > > electrons from the other molecules. Thus there is this sticking. At higher > > > > > temperatures there is more vibration naturally, so the molecules tend to fly > > > > > off from each other. > > > > > > > > > > > > If proton join together in the Nucleus, only a kook of physics would think they are repelling, and only kook students grubbing for grades would accept the physics kook professor saying they repel. Logic, does not like, nor never liked kook's ideas. > > > > > > > > > > I do expect that my new ideas in physics will give new life to the old > > > > > classical physics, and kooks who have derailed physics with all the e=mcc > > > > > and quantum nonsense will be exposed not just as kooks but perfectly evil > > > > > frauds who have successfully fooled the public for generations now. > > > > > > > > > > Nonsense mongers who say that there is no repulsion, when there is full > > > > > evidence that there is repulsion, and that seen for hundreds of years and > > > > > obvious to all with the simplest experiments, will get all the ridicule they > > > > > justly deserve. > > > > > > > > > > > > If electrons flow together, why would anyone with a milligram of logic think they repel. > > > > > > > > > > Electrons flow together because they are under a potential, a driving force > > > > > known earlier as the electro-motive force and now known as voltage. In such > > > > > metals such as copper there are many electrons in the conduction band which > > > > > are "free" in the sense that they can move from one copper atom to another > > > > > copper atom with the application of only a little voltage which directs the > > > > > electric field along the metal. It is the electric field which moves the > > > > > electrons. > > > > > > > > > > Anyone specialising in specious logic would think as you do. Those who have > > > > > read the textbooks, done the experiments, have some idea about the basic > > > > > structure of matter, should have no doubts about these simple and obvious > > > > > issues. > > > > > > > > > > The mutual repulsion of electrons has nothing whatsoever to > > > > > do with their moving as a stream under the influence of an electric field caused > > > > > by a voltage. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Experiments performed proving attract force only, no repel, but denial of same space occupancy > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Take any two magnets, and place the like poles next to each other. There will > > > > > > > be repulsion. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Yes, yes, anyone growing up has done this, all of them vacant of a logical mind. All of them grubbing for grades in school and not wanting to displease the teacher, by saying-- prove it is really repulsion and not Denial of Same Space Occupancy. > > > > > > > > > > Of course it is repulsion because it moves away. "Denial of same space > > > > > occupancy" is your meaningless mumbo-jumbo, absolute CRAP which may find use > > > > > in the corruption of worthy scientific knowledge. It is anti-science. > > > > > > > > > > Yes physics texts need to be updated so they will throw away all the e=mcc > > > > > and quantum stuff, and entropy and the law of conservation of energy in its > > > > > current form, and update Newton's laws of motion. > > > > > > > > > > Such work will be based upon the genuine experiments that I have done, which > > > > > can be repeated by anyone. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hqBfwAClVlg > > > > > IFE - 1 Ground Experiments > > > > > > > > > > https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w9eGq4Oiv9s > > > > > IFE - 2 Experimental setups > > > > > > > > > > https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V3hC48BMrno > > > > > IFE - 3 Pendulum experiments > > > > > > > > > > https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3sSPxGsLkws > > > > > IFE - 4 Evolution of spaceship > > > > > > > > > > https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pJdM6UDPauU > > > > > IFE - 5 Hydrogen Transmission Network > > > > > > > > > > https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TUAcx7rAplc > > > > > IFE - 6 Spaceship Design > > > > > > > > > > https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H5Zbpvc3fdA > > > > > IFE - 7 Anti-Gravity > > > > > > > > > > https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VA9LUwqMhxY > > > > > IFE - 8 New Physics > > > > > > > > > > Once my experiments are repeated, and their implications understood, the > > > > > Einsteinian pseudo-science will vanish - only remain as a foul stinking memory. > > > > > Sooner this shame is removed the better. > > > > > > > > > > Cheers, > > > > > Arindam Banerjee > > > > ============================ > > > > blablabla > > > > is not enough > > > > > > > > there is no attraction force > > > > without repulsion force !! > > > > > > > > no attraction force has a magic touch from far a way > > > > of even from close away !! > > > > it is done by > > > > tangible collision of sub masses > > > > iow > > > > momentum and conservation of momentum is done by > > > > > > > > tangible collisions between mass > > > > there are there no magic 'whithes on brooms' that > > > > work from distance > > > > by ''hokus focus''!! > > > > how collision turns to be attraction force > > > > is another new story that > > > > it is more than time to learn about it !!! > > > > btw > > > > as someone here indicated (sorry forgot his name > > > > > > > > take 2 magnets > > > > position them 'back to back 'or front to front ?? > > > > > > > > ANF THEY WILL .... REPELL EECH OTHER !!!!!!!!!! > > > > > > > > how come ?!!! > > > > the witches fell asleep ??? > > > > TIA > > > > Y.Porat > > > > ==================================== > > > > > > > > > > > > == > > > > TIA > > > > Y.Porat > > > > ============================ > > > sorry sorry !! > > > the one who indicated it first is the above > > > Arindam > > > thank you Arindam > > > > > > == > > > TIA > > > Y.Porat > > > ============================ > > > > Cheers, Porat. > > Arindam > ==== > ok > welcome! > > at least there here > for a change (:-)!! ... 2 smart > open minded people!! > > now > we are not done yet !! > > we have to explain > how a repulsion force > becomes > ---attraction force ??1!! > > some guesses ?? > > TIA > Y.Porat > =========================== Look at it this way. Porat. See carefully what I have written then make a mathematical model out of it. Going by fundamental physics every atom has a positive core, the nucleus. This is counter-intuitive and explained only by a different kind of force, the strong force, which keeps the protons together. Mind, this was hotly challenged once. There could be a soup of protons and electrons in the atom instead of a nucleus surrounded by electrons. Who knows, that alternative model and not the Bohr model may still be true. Still, for the purpose of explaining intermolecular forces, the Bohr model is useful. For while the net charge of an atom/molecule is zero, the electric field from every atom/molecule has to be there and it is a positive field. Now why is this if there are same number of e and p. This is so, as for Bohr model, the charges are all at the centre. So there is a strong electric field originating from there. There will be a negative field from the electrons, but as the electrons are single and distributed, the negative field from them has to be lower than that from the protons in the nucleus. However this electric field is not very strong, but good enough to attract the electrons from the surrounding matter, whether same molecules (cohesion) or other molecules (adhesion). It all depends upon the various materials involved of course. When the protonic forces are strong upon the electrons of the other material, there is bonding that is strong, otherwise the bonding is weak. Of course, this bond force weakens and finally dies with high temperature that causes vibration, and then there is the change of state. Cheers, Arindam Banerjee
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-07-20 07:02 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <526233da-2d64-40f9-85d3-516866b4f10e@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #641521 |
john said "Attraction happens when there is an imbalance in repulsive forces. That happens when there is a body present that blocks/absorbs some of the repulsion. Two ships beside each other in the ocean is a perfect example."
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | benj <nobody@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-07-20 11:53 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <5970d202$0$61831$c3e8da3$e074e489@news.astraweb.com> |
| In reply to | #641521 |
On 07/20/2017 09:07 AM, Arindam Banerjee wrote: > On Thursday, July 20, 2017 at 10:46:50 PM UTC+10, pora...@gmail.com wrote: >> On Thursday, July 20, 2017 at 3:00:28 PM UTC+3, Arindam Banerjee wrote: >>> On Thursday, July 20, 2017 at 6:33:06 PM UTC+10, pora...@gmail.com wrote: >>>> On Thursday, July 20, 2017 at 11:29:21 AM UTC+3, pora...@gmail.com wrote: >>>>> On Thursday, July 20, 2017 at 10:24:01 AM UTC+3, Arindam Banerjee wrote: >>>>>> On Wednesday, 19 July 2017 14:49:04 UTC+10, Archimedes Plutonium wrote: >>>>>>> On Tuesday, July 18, 2017 at 7:38:17 PM UTC-5, Arindam Banerjee wrote: >>>>>>>> On Tuesday, July 18, 2017 at 1:55:58 AM UTC+10, Archimedes Plutonium wrote: >>>>>>>>> Page17, 3-2, Magnetism & electricity have attract force only, no repel, but denial of same space occupancy / textbook 8th ed >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> So when two similar poles are brought next to each other there is no repulsion? >>>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Two Different Concepts:: >>>>>> >>>>>> Huh? >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Repulsion >>>>>> >>>>>> So? >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Denial of Same Space Occupancy >>>>>> >>>>>> Rubbish here. Meaningless crap. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> If it is truly repulsion, then Nature would have it equal to Attraction >>>>>> >>>>>> Rubbish once again. There is either repulsion or no repulsion. When two >>>>>> similar poles are brought together, there is repulsion. Simple and obvious. >>>>>> >>>>>> This is the simple experiment any child can do. Put two North or South poles of >>>>>> magnets together and see how the repel each other. As the strength increases >>>>>> the repulsion increases. This is the basis of electric motors. >>>>>> >>>>>> Putting in a condition of "true repulsion" is specious CRAP, and a basis >>>>>> for gibberish pseudo-science, revolting to the extreme, as it neglects the >>>>>> basic fact that there IS repulsion. >>>>>> >>>>>> Magnetic and electrostatic repulsion are the basic and fundamental facts of >>>>>> Nature. To deny this means is to show one's pseudo-scientific colours in full >>>>>> measure. >>>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Coulomb force is attract only. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Coulomb force is also repulsive, for like charges. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> If things collect together, move together, form together, then it is absurd to think they are repelling. >>>>>> >>>>>> That does not mean there is no repulsion. That does not mean that two poles of >>>>>> a magnet do not repel each other. >>>>>> >>>>>> Obviously there are forces that are always attraction - gravity is >>>>>> always attractive. But the whole universe does not become a single unit of >>>>>> matter as a result of gravity. That is because masses are moving. >>>>>> >>>>>> Matter stays together by attraction, but that does not mean that like poles do >>>>>> not repel each other, and that like charges do not repel each other. They >>>>>> certainly do as can be found by simple experiments. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Electrons join together to form the space around a atom. Electrons join together in what is called the Chemical Bond, polar, ionic, covalent, metallic bonds. >>>>>> >>>>>> If they are around the atom, then they should repel other matter which are also >>>>>> covered by electrons. There should only be single atoms or at best molecules >>>>>> consisting of atoms joined by ionic or covalent bonds. The fact that molecules >>>>>> stick to each other has a great deal to do with temperature - over a certain >>>>>> temperature they cannot stick to each other and become liquid and then gas. >>>>>> >>>>>> Thus at lower temperature, sticking does happen as a result of the way there >>>>>> is electrostatic attraction between the molecules. The plus charges of the >>>>>> nucleus protons of one molecular configuration attracts the negative electron charges of the other molecules. As the protonic charge is concentrated >>>>>> the electric field from it is strong and good enough thus to attract the >>>>>> electrons from the other molecules. Thus there is this sticking. At higher >>>>>> temperatures there is more vibration naturally, so the molecules tend to fly >>>>>> off from each other. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> If proton join together in the Nucleus, only a kook of physics would think they are repelling, and only kook students grubbing for grades would accept the physics kook professor saying they repel. Logic, does not like, nor never liked kook's ideas. >>>>>> >>>>>> I do expect that my new ideas in physics will give new life to the old >>>>>> classical physics, and kooks who have derailed physics with all the e=mcc >>>>>> and quantum nonsense will be exposed not just as kooks but perfectly evil >>>>>> frauds who have successfully fooled the public for generations now. >>>>>> >>>>>> Nonsense mongers who say that there is no repulsion, when there is full >>>>>> evidence that there is repulsion, and that seen for hundreds of years and >>>>>> obvious to all with the simplest experiments, will get all the ridicule they >>>>>> justly deserve. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> If electrons flow together, why would anyone with a milligram of logic think they repel. >>>>>> >>>>>> Electrons flow together because they are under a potential, a driving force >>>>>> known earlier as the electro-motive force and now known as voltage. In such >>>>>> metals such as copper there are many electrons in the conduction band which >>>>>> are "free" in the sense that they can move from one copper atom to another >>>>>> copper atom with the application of only a little voltage which directs the >>>>>> electric field along the metal. It is the electric field which moves the >>>>>> electrons. >>>>>> >>>>>> Anyone specialising in specious logic would think as you do. Those who have >>>>>> read the textbooks, done the experiments, have some idea about the basic >>>>>> structure of matter, should have no doubts about these simple and obvious >>>>>> issues. >>>>>> >>>>>> The mutual repulsion of electrons has nothing whatsoever to >>>>>> do with their moving as a stream under the influence of an electric field caused >>>>>> by a voltage. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Experiments performed proving attract force only, no repel, but denial of same space occupancy >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Take any two magnets, and place the like poles next to each other. There will >>>>>>>> be repulsion. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Yes, yes, anyone growing up has done this, all of them vacant of a logical mind. All of them grubbing for grades in school and not wanting to displease the teacher, by saying-- prove it is really repulsion and not Denial of Same Space Occupancy. >>>>>> >>>>>> Of course it is repulsion because it moves away. "Denial of same space >>>>>> occupancy" is your meaningless mumbo-jumbo, absolute CRAP which may find use >>>>>> in the corruption of worthy scientific knowledge. It is anti-science. >>>>>> >>>>>> Yes physics texts need to be updated so they will throw away all the e=mcc >>>>>> and quantum stuff, and entropy and the law of conservation of energy in its >>>>>> current form, and update Newton's laws of motion. >>>>>> >>>>>> Such work will be based upon the genuine experiments that I have done, which >>>>>> can be repeated by anyone. >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hqBfwAClVlg >>>>>> IFE - 1 Ground Experiments >>>>>> >>>>>> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w9eGq4Oiv9s >>>>>> IFE - 2 Experimental setups >>>>>> >>>>>> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V3hC48BMrno >>>>>> IFE - 3 Pendulum experiments >>>>>> >>>>>> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3sSPxGsLkws >>>>>> IFE - 4 Evolution of spaceship >>>>>> >>>>>> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pJdM6UDPauU >>>>>> IFE - 5 Hydrogen Transmission Network >>>>>> >>>>>> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TUAcx7rAplc >>>>>> IFE - 6 Spaceship Design >>>>>> >>>>>> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H5Zbpvc3fdA >>>>>> IFE - 7 Anti-Gravity >>>>>> >>>>>> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VA9LUwqMhxY >>>>>> IFE - 8 New Physics >>>>>> >>>>>> Once my experiments are repeated, and their implications understood, the >>>>>> Einsteinian pseudo-science will vanish - only remain as a foul stinking memory. >>>>>> Sooner this shame is removed the better. >>>>>> >>>>>> Cheers, >>>>>> Arindam Banerjee >>>>> ============================ >>>>> blablabla >>>>> is not enough >>>>> >>>>> there is no attraction force >>>>> without repulsion force !! >>>>> >>>>> no attraction force has a magic touch from far a way >>>>> of even from close away !! >>>>> it is done by >>>>> tangible collision of sub masses >>>>> iow >>>>> momentum and conservation of momentum is done by >>>>> >>>>> tangible collisions between mass >>>>> there are there no magic 'whithes on brooms' that >>>>> work from distance >>>>> by ''hokus focus''!! >>>>> how collision turns to be attraction force >>>>> is another new story that >>>>> it is more than time to learn about it !!! >>>>> btw >>>>> as someone here indicated (sorry forgot his name >>>>> >>>>> take 2 magnets >>>>> position them 'back to back 'or front to front ?? >>>>> >>>>> ANF THEY WILL .... REPELL EECH OTHER !!!!!!!!!! >>>>> >>>>> how come ?!!! >>>>> the witches fell asleep ??? >>>>> TIA >>>>> Y.Porat >>>>> ==================================== >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> == >>>>> TIA >>>>> Y.Porat >>>>> ============================ >>>> sorry sorry !! >>>> the one who indicated it first is the above >>>> Arindam >>>> thank you Arindam >>>> >>>> == >>>> TIA >>>> Y.Porat >>>> ============================ >>> >>> Cheers, Porat. >>> Arindam >> ==== >> ok >> welcome! >> >> at least there here >> for a change (:-)!! ... 2 smart >> open minded people!! >> >> now >> we are not done yet !! >> >> we have to explain >> how a repulsion force >> becomes >> ---attraction force ??1!! >> >> some guesses ?? >> >> TIA >> Y.Porat >> =========================== > > Look at it this way. Porat. See carefully what I have written then make a > mathematical model out of it. > Going by fundamental physics every atom has a positive core, the nucleus. This > is counter-intuitive and explained only by a different kind of force, the > strong force, which keeps the protons together. > Mind, this was hotly challenged once. There could be a soup of protons and > electrons in the atom instead of a nucleus surrounded by electrons. > Who knows, that alternative model and not the Bohr model may still be true. > Still, for the purpose of explaining intermolecular forces, the Bohr model > is useful. > For while the net charge of an atom/molecule is zero, the electric field from > every atom/molecule has to be there and it is a positive field. > Now why is this if there are same number of e and p. > This is so, as for Bohr model, the charges are all at the centre. So there is > a strong electric field originating from there. > There will be a negative field from the electrons, but as the electrons are > single and distributed, the negative field from them has to be lower than > that from the protons in the nucleus. > However this electric field is not very strong, but good enough to attract the > electrons from the surrounding matter, whether same molecules (cohesion) or > other molecules (adhesion). > It all depends upon the various materials involved of course. > When the protonic forces are strong upon the electrons of the other material, > there is bonding that is strong, otherwise the bonding is weak. > Of course, this bond force weakens and finally dies with high temperature that > causes vibration, and then there is the change of state. > Cheers, > Arindam Banerjee > Banjo and Porat in a "science" discussion. This should be rich!
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Arindam Banerjee <banerjeeadda1234@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-07-27 19:37 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <34275703-02d8-4c61-8255-521960f4cd0c@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #641521 |
On Thursday, July 20, 2017 at 11:07:53 PM UTC+10, Arindam Banerjee wrote: > On Thursday, July 20, 2017 at 10:46:50 PM UTC+10, pora...@gmail.com wrote: > > On Thursday, July 20, 2017 at 3:00:28 PM UTC+3, Arindam Banerjee wrote: > > > On Thursday, July 20, 2017 at 6:33:06 PM UTC+10, pora...@gmail.com wrote: > > > > On Thursday, July 20, 2017 at 11:29:21 AM UTC+3, pora...@gmail.com wrote: > > > > > On Thursday, July 20, 2017 at 10:24:01 AM UTC+3, Arindam Banerjee wrote: > > > > > > On Wednesday, 19 July 2017 14:49:04 UTC+10, Archimedes Plutonium wrote: > > > > > > > On Tuesday, July 18, 2017 at 7:38:17 PM UTC-5, Arindam Banerjee wrote: > > > > > > > > On Tuesday, July 18, 2017 at 1:55:58 AM UTC+10, Archimedes Plutonium wrote: > > > > > > > > > Page17, 3-2, Magnetism & electricity have attract force only, no repel, but denial of same space occupancy / textbook 8th ed > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > So when two similar poles are brought next to each other there is no repulsion? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Two Different Concepts:: > > > > > > > > > > > > Huh? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Repulsion > > > > > > > > > > > > So? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Denial of Same Space Occupancy > > > > > > > > > > > > Rubbish here. Meaningless crap. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > If it is truly repulsion, then Nature would have it equal to Attraction > > > > > > > > > > > > Rubbish once again. There is either repulsion or no repulsion. When two > > > > > > similar poles are brought together, there is repulsion. Simple and obvious. > > > > > > > > > > > > This is the simple experiment any child can do. Put two North or South poles of > > > > > > magnets together and see how the repel each other. As the strength increases > > > > > > the repulsion increases. This is the basis of electric motors. > > > > > > > > > > > > Putting in a condition of "true repulsion" is specious CRAP, and a basis > > > > > > for gibberish pseudo-science, revolting to the extreme, as it neglects the > > > > > > basic fact that there IS repulsion. > > > > > > > > > > > > Magnetic and electrostatic repulsion are the basic and fundamental facts of > > > > > > Nature. To deny this means is to show one's pseudo-scientific colours in full > > > > > > measure. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Coulomb force is attract only. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Coulomb force is also repulsive, for like charges. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > If things collect together, move together, form together, then it is absurd to think they are repelling. > > > > > > > > > > > > That does not mean there is no repulsion. That does not mean that two poles of > > > > > > a magnet do not repel each other. > > > > > > > > > > > > Obviously there are forces that are always attraction - gravity is > > > > > > always attractive. But the whole universe does not become a single unit of > > > > > > matter as a result of gravity. That is because masses are moving. > > > > > > > > > > > > Matter stays together by attraction, but that does not mean that like poles do > > > > > > not repel each other, and that like charges do not repel each other. They > > > > > > certainly do as can be found by simple experiments. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Electrons join together to form the space around a atom. Electrons join together in what is called the Chemical Bond, polar, ionic, covalent, metallic bonds. > > > > > > > > > > > > If they are around the atom, then they should repel other matter which are also > > > > > > covered by electrons. There should only be single atoms or at best molecules > > > > > > consisting of atoms joined by ionic or covalent bonds. The fact that molecules > > > > > > stick to each other has a great deal to do with temperature - over a certain > > > > > > temperature they cannot stick to each other and become liquid and then gas. > > > > > > > > > > > > Thus at lower temperature, sticking does happen as a result of the way there > > > > > > is electrostatic attraction between the molecules. The plus charges of the > > > > > > nucleus protons of one molecular configuration attracts the negative electron charges of the other molecules. As the protonic charge is concentrated > > > > > > the electric field from it is strong and good enough thus to attract the > > > > > > electrons from the other molecules. Thus there is this sticking. At higher > > > > > > temperatures there is more vibration naturally, so the molecules tend to fly > > > > > > off from each other. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > If proton join together in the Nucleus, only a kook of physics would think they are repelling, and only kook students grubbing for grades would accept the physics kook professor saying they repel. Logic, does not like, nor never liked kook's ideas. > > > > > > > > > > > > I do expect that my new ideas in physics will give new life to the old > > > > > > classical physics, and kooks who have derailed physics with all the e=mcc > > > > > > and quantum nonsense will be exposed not just as kooks but perfectly evil > > > > > > frauds who have successfully fooled the public for generations now. > > > > > > > > > > > > Nonsense mongers who say that there is no repulsion, when there is full > > > > > > evidence that there is repulsion, and that seen for hundreds of years and > > > > > > obvious to all with the simplest experiments, will get all the ridicule they > > > > > > justly deserve. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > If electrons flow together, why would anyone with a milligram of logic think they repel. > > > > > > > > > > > > Electrons flow together because they are under a potential, a driving force > > > > > > known earlier as the electro-motive force and now known as voltage. In such > > > > > > metals such as copper there are many electrons in the conduction band which > > > > > > are "free" in the sense that they can move from one copper atom to another > > > > > > copper atom with the application of only a little voltage which directs the > > > > > > electric field along the metal. It is the electric field which moves the > > > > > > electrons. > > > > > > > > > > > > Anyone specialising in specious logic would think as you do. Those who have > > > > > > read the textbooks, done the experiments, have some idea about the basic > > > > > > structure of matter, should have no doubts about these simple and obvious > > > > > > issues. > > > > > > > > > > > > The mutual repulsion of electrons has nothing whatsoever to > > > > > > do with their moving as a stream under the influence of an electric field caused > > > > > > by a voltage. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Experiments performed proving attract force only, no repel, but denial of same space occupancy > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Take any two magnets, and place the like poles next to each other. There will > > > > > > > > be repulsion. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Yes, yes, anyone growing up has done this, all of them vacant of a logical mind. All of them grubbing for grades in school and not wanting to displease the teacher, by saying-- prove it is really repulsion and not Denial of Same Space Occupancy. > > > > > > > > > > > > Of course it is repulsion because it moves away. "Denial of same space > > > > > > occupancy" is your meaningless mumbo-jumbo, absolute CRAP which may find use > > > > > > in the corruption of worthy scientific knowledge. It is anti-science. > > > > > > > > > > > > Yes physics texts need to be updated so they will throw away all the e=mcc > > > > > > and quantum stuff, and entropy and the law of conservation of energy in its > > > > > > current form, and update Newton's laws of motion. > > > > > > > > > > > > Such work will be based upon the genuine experiments that I have done, which > > > > > > can be repeated by anyone. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hqBfwAClVlg > > > > > > IFE - 1 Ground Experiments > > > > > > > > > > > > https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w9eGq4Oiv9s > > > > > > IFE - 2 Experimental setups > > > > > > > > > > > > https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V3hC48BMrno > > > > > > IFE - 3 Pendulum experiments > > > > > > > > > > > > https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3sSPxGsLkws > > > > > > IFE - 4 Evolution of spaceship > > > > > > > > > > > > https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pJdM6UDPauU > > > > > > IFE - 5 Hydrogen Transmission Network > > > > > > > > > > > > https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TUAcx7rAplc > > > > > > IFE - 6 Spaceship Design > > > > > > > > > > > > https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H5Zbpvc3fdA > > > > > > IFE - 7 Anti-Gravity > > > > > > > > > > > > https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VA9LUwqMhxY > > > > > > IFE - 8 New Physics > > > > > > > > > > > > Once my experiments are repeated, and their implications understood, the > > > > > > Einsteinian pseudo-science will vanish - only remain as a foul stinking memory. > > > > > > Sooner this shame is removed the better. > > > > > > > > > > > > Cheers, > > > > > > Arindam Banerjee > > > > > ============================ > > > > > blablabla > > > > > is not enough > > > > > > > > > > there is no attraction force > > > > > without repulsion force !! > > > > > > > > > > no attraction force has a magic touch from far a way > > > > > of even from close away !! > > > > > it is done by > > > > > tangible collision of sub masses > > > > > iow > > > > > momentum and conservation of momentum is done by > > > > > > > > > > tangible collisions between mass > > > > > there are there no magic 'whithes on brooms' that > > > > > work from distance > > > > > by ''hokus focus''!! > > > > > how collision turns to be attraction force > > > > > is another new story that > > > > > it is more than time to learn about it !!! > > > > > btw > > > > > as someone here indicated (sorry forgot his name > > > > > > > > > > take 2 magnets > > > > > position them 'back to back 'or front to front ?? > > > > > > > > > > ANF THEY WILL .... REPELL EECH OTHER !!!!!!!!!! > > > > > > > > > > how come ?!!! > > > > > the witches fell asleep ??? > > > > > TIA > > > > > Y.Porat > > > > > ==================================== > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > == > > > > > TIA > > > > > Y.Porat > > > > > ============================ > > > > sorry sorry !! > > > > the one who indicated it first is the above > > > > Arindam > > > > thank you Arindam > > > > > > > > == > > > > TIA > > > > Y.Porat > > > > ============================ > > > > > > Cheers, Porat. > > > Arindam > > ==== > > ok > > welcome! > > > > at least there here > > for a change (:-)!! ... 2 smart > > open minded people!! > > > > now > > we are not done yet !! > > > > we have to explain > > how a repulsion force > > becomes > > ---attraction force ??1!! > > > > some guesses ?? > > > > TIA > > Y.Porat > > =========================== > > Look at it this way. Porat. See carefully what I have written then make a > mathematical model out of it. > Going by fundamental physics every atom has a positive core, the nucleus. This > is counter-intuitive and explained only by a different kind of force, the > strong force, which keeps the protons together. > Mind, this was hotly challenged once. There could be a soup of protons and > electrons in the atom instead of a nucleus surrounded by electrons. > Who knows, that alternative model and not the Bohr model may still be true. > Still, for the purpose of explaining intermolecular forces, the Bohr model > is useful. > For while the net charge of an atom/molecule is zero, the electric field from > every atom/molecule has to be there and it is a positive field. > Now why is this if there are same number of e and p. > This is so, as for Bohr model, the charges are all at the centre. So there is > a strong electric field originating from there. > There will be a negative field from the electrons, but as the electrons are > single and distributed, the negative field from them has to be lower than > that from the protons in the nucleus. > However this electric field is not very strong, but good enough to attract the > electrons from the surrounding matter, whether same molecules (cohesion) or > other molecules (adhesion). > It all depends upon the various materials involved of course. > When the protonic forces are strong upon the electrons of the other material, > there is bonding that is strong, otherwise the bonding is weak. > Of course, this bond force weakens and finally dies with high temperature that > causes vibration, and then there is the change of state. > Cheers, > Arindam Banerjee A few more points - from all evidence the electron cloud around the atom is very flexible, like a rubber band. Which means, the atom can easily be a dipole, when the orbits of the electron are elliptical. This has profound significance in the attraction of atom to atom. For when the orbits are electrical, there is a separation of charges, negative one side, and positive at the nucleus side. The positive side will attract the next atom's negative side and so there will be sticking on an electrostatic basis. That way, atoms stick much like magnets do with N-S polarity, though here they do so with plus sticking to minus and vice versa. The actual geometries of the atom/molecule will have a great deal to do with this attraction. Take carbon for instance, that is in the form of graphite and diamond. Same element, but with vastly different properties. No doubt the geometries are different for both at the atomic level and that causes much more attraction between the carbon atoms when carbon is diamond. What is important here is that I am talking about atomic structure in terms of forces and geometries, and not energy and quantum levels as is the usual case. Cheers, Arindam Banerjee
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-07-20 05:52 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <603cb6bc-7514-4621-83ef-5b58b1e91906@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #641517 |
Arindam I like the way you think. email me at johnsefton288@gmail.com We can discuss why Suck Gravity is completely illogical, etc john
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | HVAC <mr.hvac@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-07-20 07:07 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <875fc51a-dde2-40b1-8f84-25ccd38849b9@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #641520 |
Poor John says Arindam I like the way you think. email me at johnse...@gmail.com We can discuss why Suck Gravity is completely illogical, etc john -------------- Be careful Banjo. When a guy wants you to write him and he mentions the word 'suck'..... I'm just saying
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | benj <nobody@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-07-20 11:23 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <5970cb0a$0$44634$c3e8da3$76a7c58f@news.astraweb.com> |
| In reply to | #641523 |
On 07/20/2017 10:07 AM, HVAC wrote: > Poor John says > Arindam > I like the way you think. > email me at johnse...@gmail.com > We can discuss why Suck Gravity is > completely illogical, etc > john > -------------- > > Be careful Banjo. When a guy wants you to write him and he mentions the word 'suck'..... I'm just saying > Ba-dump! Pissssshhhh!
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-07-20 08:27 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <77063449-a71a-4463-ad90-22a2e29e8aad@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #641523 |
HVAC " -------------- Be careful Banjo. When a guy wants you to write him and he mentions the word 'suck'..... I'm just saying " One Track Mind (?)
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-07-21 12:36 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <okssgi$9sh$1@pcls7.std.com> |
| In reply to | #641529 |
john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> writes: >HVAC >" >-------------- >Be careful Banjo. When a guy wants you to write him and he mentions the >word 'suck'..... I'm just saying " >One >Track >Mind (?) Says the guy who thinks everything is a retarded precessing spinny thing.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | poraty350@gmail.com |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-07-20 09:40 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <e355fe9c-28f3-431b-bfee-361a74a9506f@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #641520 |
On Thursday, July 20, 2017 at 3:52:12 PM UTC+3, john wrote: > Arindam > I like the way you think. > email me at johnsefton288@gmail.com > We can discuss why Suck Gravity is > completely illogical, etc > john === are you cross with me (y porat)? btw electro -magnets behave as magnets ie if you locate them front to front or 'back to back' THEY REPELL EACH OTHER !! HOW COME ??? TIA Y.Porat ================================
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Arindam Banerjee <banerjeeadda1234@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-07-20 16:38 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <fd94b417-3111-48c2-b5a5-679fb714c281@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #641520 |
On Thursday, July 20, 2017 at 10:52:12 PM UTC+10, john wrote: > Arindam > I like the way you think. > email me at johnsefton288@gmail.com > We can discuss why Suck Gravity is > completely illogical, etc > john Thanks but I do prefer open discussions in unmoderated situations. That is the best way to expose the nonsense put up by frauds. Cheers, Arindam Banerjee
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | poraty350@gmail.com |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-07-20 21:01 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <c3d084f0-c373-414b-8973-a7f1a433dd11@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #641589 |
On Friday, July 21, 2017 at 2:38:49 AM UTC+3, Arindam Banerjee wrote: > On Thursday, July 20, 2017 at 10:52:12 PM UTC+10, john wrote: > > Arindam > > I like the way you think. > > email me at johnsefton288@gmail.com > > We can discuss why Suck Gravity is > > completely illogical, etc > > john > > Thanks but I do prefer open discussions in unmoderated situations. > That is the best way to expose the nonsense put up by frauds. > Cheers, > Arindam Banerjee ============= ok you are right ! now just ask John: -------------------- take for instance an Atom and its nuc that has say 20 protons in it now the punch question : if so where are those 20 electrons located ? are they hiding in to nuc ? and if so (or no ) how does those 20 electrons make outer connections with another second Atom ?? that is far away from the first Atom ?? not just connections but 20 connections and as result we get an unequivocal crystal that has an unequivocal specific strength and unequivocal 3D steady structure ?? == TIA Eng Y.Porat =================================
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Arindam Banerjee <banerjeeadda1234@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-07-20 23:00 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <374510bf-e6a8-4e63-9cc4-3192aa1df20a@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #641629 |
On Friday, July 21, 2017 at 2:01:37 PM UTC+10, pora...@gmail.com wrote: > On Friday, July 21, 2017 at 2:38:49 AM UTC+3, Arindam Banerjee wrote: > > On Thursday, July 20, 2017 at 10:52:12 PM UTC+10, john wrote: > > > Arindam > > > I like the way you think. > > > email me at johnsefton288@gmail.com > > > We can discuss why Suck Gravity is > > > completely illogical, etc > > > john > > > > Thanks but I do prefer open discussions in unmoderated situations. > > That is the best way to expose the nonsense put up by frauds. > > Cheers, > > Arindam Banerjee > > ============= > > > ok you are right ! > now just ask John: > -------------------- > take for instance an Atom and its nuc > that has say 20 protons in it > > now the punch question : > if so > where are those 20 electrons located ? If we go by the Bohr model they are located around the nucleus. Of course this assumes there is a nucleus. As opposed to a mix of protons and electrons swimming in aether within an atom. > are they hiding in to nuc ? Well some of them as neutrons attached to protons. 20 or them around, 20 or so in the nucleus with 20 more protons to form the nucleus with 20 neutrons and 20 protons. If atomic weight is 40. However atomic weights are rarely multiples of 1 and that has long been seen as a bummer for the atomic theory. > and if so (or no ) > > how does those 20 electrons > make outer connections > with another second Atom ?? As I said earlier, the 20 protons at the centre of the atom (nucleus) in the Bohr model have a powerful positive electric field as the charges are co-located. This positive field overcomes the negative electric field from the 20 electrons that are far more scattered. So this positive field will attract the NEARBY electrons from another atom, assuming we are talking about an element here. Thus two atoms will join. And multiple atoms on the same principle. > that is far away from the first Atom ?? If it is far away such as a gas then well there will be single atoms or molecules going around. If it is a solid like iron then the atoms will be close together. Where the inter-atomic bonds are strong, the material is strong. This is not my subject though. Material science is what I studied as an optional many hears ago, as part of a course in Precision Machine Cutting. That the forces holding atoms together are electrical, is well acknowledged. > > not just connections but 20 connections > and as result we get > an unequivocal crystal > that has an unequivocal specific strength > > and unequivocal 3D steady structure ?? It is a question of local field strength for every atom and that varies from element to element. > == > TIA > Eng > Y.Porat > =================================
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | poraty350@gmail.com |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-07-21 00:32 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <0fa74d22-a28f-4ac3-a88f-561bba3d3b81@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #641637 |
On Friday, July 21, 2017 at 9:00:57 AM UTC+3, Arindam Banerjee wrote: > On Friday, July 21, 2017 at 2:01:37 PM UTC+10, pora...@gmail.com wrote: > > On Friday, July 21, 2017 at 2:38:49 AM UTC+3, Arindam Banerjee wrote: > > > On Thursday, July 20, 2017 at 10:52:12 PM UTC+10, john wrote: > > > > Arindam > > > > I like the way you think. > > > > email me at johnsefton288@gmail.com > > > > We can discuss why Suck Gravity is > > > > completely illogical, etc > > > > john > > > > > > Thanks but I do prefer open discussions in unmoderated situations. > > > That is the best way to expose the nonsense put up by frauds. > > > Cheers, > > > Arindam Banerjee > > > > ============= > > > > > > ok you are right ! > > now just ask John: > > -------------------- > > take for instance an Atom and its nuc > > that has say 20 protons in it > > > > now the punch question : > > if so > > where are those 20 electrons located ? > > If we go by the Bohr model they are located around the nucleus. > Of course this assumes there is a nucleus. > As opposed to a mix ==== of protons ==================== 'mix of protons .... again mix of protons ' that is science ?? are you happy with such a 'scientific definition' ?? of something that is still unknown ??and has to fit to some other basic knowledge Bore used the sun and our planets a suggestion from more than 100years ago are you satisfied with such s salad of words or such a metaphor ?? can that explain even your examples of magnetic phenomenon ? ===== and electrons swimming in aether within an > atom. ======== ??? 'electron swimming in aether' ?? did they got some swimming lessons before that ====== etc etc ... is that serious science ===================== ================================== > > > are they hiding in to nuc ? > > Well some of them as neutrons attached to protons. 20 or them around, 20 or so how around ?? 20 or so ?? > in the nucleus with 20 more protons to form the nucleus with 20 neutrons and > 20 protons. If atomic weight is 40. === I sked about the electrons ~~ ========= > > However atomic weights are rarely multiples of 1 and that has long been seen ======= multiplied by 1 ?? not clear ! -------------------- > as a bummer for the atomic theory. --- what is boomer ' ======== > > > and if so (or no ) > > > > how does those 20 electrons > > make outer connections > > with another second Atom ?? > > As I said earlier, the 20 protons at the centre of the atom (nucleus) in the > Bohr model have a powerful positive electric field as the charges are co-located. ==== powerful but what about its direction and why only to that direction !!?? ===== > This positive field overcomes the negative electric field from the 20 electrons === it is not overcoming it is exactly the same and opposite charge that is exactly neutralized to zero charge !! == > that are far more scattered. far more scattered how scattered and why scattered ?? === > So this positive field will attract the NEARBY electrons from another atom, ===== ==how do you get a nearby or not nearby ?? ====== > assuming we are talking about an element here. ==== we are not yet don even about a 'single element' so how can we discuss about a multi element ?? ========= > Thus two atoms will join. > And multiple atoms on the same principle. == as above > > > > that is far away from the first Atom ?? > > If it is far away such as a gas then well there will be single atoms or > molecules going around. ===== ???? ==== > > If it is a solid like iron === solid iron ?? you are talking about gas like is that solid or a rather a big mess ??! == sorry my blunt remarks but we are in a very **unequivocal accurate** world =================================================== then the atoms will be close together. Where the > inter-atomic bonds are strong, the material is strong. ?? ========================== TIA Y.Porat ================= > > This is not my subject though. Material science is what I studied as an > optional many hears ago, as part of a course in Precision Machine Cutting. > > That the forces holding atoms together are electrical, is well acknowledged. > > >
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Arindam Banerjee <banerjeeadda1234@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-07-21 01:34 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <dcdf5f81-9a1a-477b-921d-87006ebcc366@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #641641 |
On Friday, July 21, 2017 at 5:32:22 PM UTC+10, pora...@gmail.com wrote: > On Friday, July 21, 2017 at 9:00:57 AM UTC+3, Arindam Banerjee wrote: > > On Friday, July 21, 2017 at 2:01:37 PM UTC+10, pora...@gmail.com wrote: > > > On Friday, July 21, 2017 at 2:38:49 AM UTC+3, Arindam Banerjee wrote: > > > > On Thursday, July 20, 2017 at 10:52:12 PM UTC+10, john wrote: > > > > > Arindam > > > > > I like the way you think. > > > > > email me at johnsefton288@gmail.com > > > > > We can discuss why Suck Gravity is > > > > > completely illogical, etc > > > > > john > > > > > > > > Thanks but I do prefer open discussions in unmoderated situations. > > > > That is the best way to expose the nonsense put up by frauds. > > > > Cheers, > > > > Arindam Banerjee > > > > > > ============= > > > > > > > > > ok you are right ! > > > now just ask John: > > > -------------------- > > > take for instance an Atom and its nuc > > > that has say 20 protons in it > > > > > > now the punch question : > > > if so > > > where are those 20 electrons located ? > > > > If we go by the Bohr model they are located around the nucleus. > > Of course this assumes there is a nucleus. > > As opposed to a mix > > > > > ==== of protons > > ==================== > 'mix of protons .... > again > mix of protons ' > > that is science ?? > are you happy with such a 'scientific definition' ?? I did not give any scientific definition. > of something that is still unknown ??and has to fit > to some other basic knowledge We do know that the universe is composed of suns and planets etc. It is a mix of matter. The sub-atomic world could be a mix of charged and non-charged particles. At this stage we cannot know. The idea that there is a nucleus consisting of protons and neutrons is a later concept. The idea that there is a nucleus for every atom explains the attraction between atoms of the same element. Or more generally, the tendency for all matter to attract to form heaps. Like, I find that leaves left alone tend to form piles. There has to be an attractive force that does that. So, it makes sense to hold that every atom generates a net positive electric field. This positive electric field attracts the external electrons of other atoms and thus there is bonding between atoms. Which explains why leaves form piles in my driveway and how water molecules unite to form mist and cloud. Simple, what. > > Bore used the sun and our planets > > a suggestion from more than 100years ago > are you satisfied with such s salad of words > or such a metaphor ?? If it makes sense to most, yes. > can that explain even your > examples of magnetic phenomenon ? Such as? > ===== > and electrons swimming in aether within an > > atom. > ======== > ??? > 'electron swimming in aether' ?? Yes, aether should be even finer than electrons. Infinitely fine matter spread throughout the universe going 100% by 19th century vision. All matter including electrons are suffused with aether. Fundamental theory, well explained in physics texts. I have quoted the qualities in my 2005 usenet paper explaining the MMI bungle. > did they got some swimming lessons before that heh. A profound question. So many electrons, so much tuition required... no matter how they behave. > ====== > etc etc ... > is that serious science > ===================== > ================================== > > > > > > are they hiding in to nuc ? > > > > Well some of them as neutrons attached to protons. 20 or them around, 20 or so > > how around ?? > 20 or so ?? > > > > in the nucleus with 20 more protons to form the nucleus with 20 neutrons and > > 20 protons. If atomic weight is 40. > === > I sked about the electrons ~~ > ========= > > > > However atomic weights are rarely multiples of 1 and that has long been seen > ======= > multiplied by 1 ?? > not clear ! > -------------------- > > as a bummer for the atomic theory. > --- > what is boomer ' I said bummer. It means falling flat on the backside. And indicating thus that the theory may be flawed or incomplete. > ======== > > > > > and if so (or no ) > > > > > > how does those 20 electrons > > > make outer connections > > > with another second Atom ?? > > > > As I said earlier, the 20 protons at the centre of the atom (nucleus) in the > > Bohr model have a powerful positive electric field as the charges are co-located. > ==== > powerful > but what about its direction > and why only to that direction !!?? There could be directionality of the electric field in 3D due to the way the positive charges are configured in the nucleus. If it is symmetric then the electric field will be uniform all around. > ===== > > > This positive field overcomes the negative electric field from the 20 electrons > === > it is not overcoming > it is exactly the same and opposite charge > that is exactly neutralized to zero charge !! Don't confuse issue. The net charge is zero for any atom. The net electric field is NOT zero. > == > > > that are far more scattered. > far more scattered > > how scattered and why scattered ?? > === > > So this positive field will attract the NEARBY electrons from another atom, > > ===== > ==how do you get a nearby or not nearby ?? If they are nearby, they are nearby. I cannot give any satisfying reason for the existence of the universe. I can only try to understand and explain how it works and then as an engineer use this knowledge to make things. > ====== > > > assuming we are talking about an element here. > > ==== > we are not yet don even about a 'single element' > so how can we discuss about > a multi element ?? > ========= > > Thus two atoms will join. > > And multiple atoms on the same principle. > == > as above > > > > > > > that is far away from the first Atom ?? > > > > If it is far away such as a gas then well there will be single atoms or > > molecules going around. > ===== > ???? > ==== > > > > If it is a solid like iron > === > solid iron ?? > you are talking about gas like > is that solid or a rather a big mess ??! > == > sorry my blunt remarks > but we are in a very **unequivocal accurate** world > =================================================== > then the atoms will be close together. Where the > > inter-atomic bonds are strong, the material is strong. > ?? > ========================== > TIA > Y.Porat > ================= > > > > This is not my subject though. Material science is what I studied as an > > optional many hears ago, as part of a course in Precision Machine Cutting. > > > > That the forces holding atoms together are electrical, is well acknowledged. > > > > >
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
Page 1 of 14 [1] 2 3 … 14 Next page →
Back to top | Article view | sci.physics
csiph-web