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

Groups > sci.physics > #643029 > unrolled thread

On attraction between atoms, electrons as rubber bands, and powerful stuff

Back to article view | Back to sci.physics

Contents

  On attraction between atoms, electrons as rubber bands, and powerful stuff Arindam Banerjee <banerjeeadda1234@gmail.com> - 2017-07-27 20:49 -0700
    Re: On attraction between atoms, electrons as rubber bands, and powerful stuff poraty350@gmail.com - 2017-07-27 20:57 -0700
      Re: On attraction between atoms, electrons as rubber bands, and powerful stuff Arindam Banerjee <banerjeeadda1234@gmail.com> - 2017-07-27 23:16 -0700
        Re: On attraction between atoms, electrons as rubber bands, and powerful stuff poraty350@gmail.com - 2017-07-28 02:20 -0700
    Re: On attraction between atoms, electrons as rubber bands, and powerful stuff James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> - 2017-07-28 01:04 -0700
      Re: On attraction between atoms, electrons as rubber bands, and powerful stuff Arindam Banerjee <banerjeeadda1234@gmail.com> - 2017-07-28 03:20 -0700
    Re: On attraction between atoms, electrons as rubber bands, and powerful stuff moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2017-07-28 16:43 +0000
      Re: On attraction between atoms, electrons as rubber bands, and powerful stuff James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> - 2017-07-28 10:32 -0700
        Re: On attraction between atoms, electrons as rubber bands, and powerful stuff poraty350@gmail.com - 2017-07-29 22:35 -0700
          Re: On attraction between atoms, electrons as rubber bands, and powerful stuff James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> - 2017-07-30 14:21 -0700
            Re: On attraction between atoms, electrons as rubber bands, and powerful stuff poraty350@gmail.com - 2017-07-30 21:53 -0700
      Re: On attraction between atoms, electrons as rubber bands, and powerful stuff john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2017-07-30 07:51 -0700
        Re: On attraction between atoms, electrons as rubber bands, and powerful stuff poraty350@gmail.com - 2017-07-30 21:45 -0700
        Re: On attraction between atoms, electrons as rubber bands, and powerful stuff moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2017-07-31 18:41 +0000
        Re: On attraction between atoms, electrons as rubber bands, and powerful stuff Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-08-02 10:18 -0500
          Re: On attraction between atoms, electrons as rubber bands, and powerful stuff john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2017-08-02 13:37 -0700
            Re: On attraction between atoms, electrons as rubber bands, and powerful stuff Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-08-03 10:27 -0500
    On attraction between atoms, electrons as rubber bands, and powerful stuff john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2017-07-30 07:54 -0700
      On attraction between atoms, electrons as rubber bands, and powerful stuff john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2017-07-30 08:26 -0700
      Re: On attraction between atoms, electrons as rubber bands, and powerful stuff Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-07-31 12:37 +0000
      Re: On attraction between atoms, electrons as rubber bands, and powerful stuff James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> - 2017-08-03 09:11 -0700
    Re: On attraction between atoms, electrons as rubber bands, and powerful stuff Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-07-31 11:40 +0000
      Re: On attraction between atoms, electrons as rubber bands, and powerful stuff Arindam Banerjee <banerjeeadda1234@gmail.com> - 2017-07-31 05:03 -0700
        Re: On attraction between atoms, electrons as rubber bands, and powerful stuff Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-07-31 12:40 +0000
          Re: On attraction between atoms, electrons as rubber bands, and powerful stuff Arindam Banerjee <banerjeeadda1234@gmail.com> - 2017-07-31 05:45 -0700
            Re: On attraction between atoms, electrons as rubber bands, and powerful stuff john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2017-07-31 06:39 -0700
              Re: On attraction between atoms, electrons as rubber bands, and powerful stuff James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> - 2017-07-31 11:56 -0700
                Re: On attraction between atoms, electrons as rubber bands, and powerful stuff john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2017-07-31 14:27 -0700
                  Re: On attraction between atoms, electrons as rubber bands, and powerful stuff James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> - 2017-08-03 09:10 -0700
            Re: On attraction between atoms, electrons as rubber bands, and powerful stuff Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-07-31 10:16 -0500

Page 1 of 2  [1] 2  Next page →

#643029 — On attraction between atoms, electrons as rubber bands, and powerful stuff

Every atom is surrounded by one or more electrons.
So unless joined by valency etc. every atom should repel every other atom.
But this does not happen. In any solid of any element, the atoms are happy to 
stick together.
Now why should they, as they all have outer electrons creating negative
charges for repulsion?
They should all be apart!
The answer I gave this morning. It is about the electron acting as a cloud 
around the nucleus, and this cloud can stretch.
When it stretches, the atom becomes a dipole with the nucleus with protons on
one side and give a positive field and the electrons dense on the other side
giving a negative field.
Thus the positive side of an atom attracts the negative side of the other atom
Depending upon how strongly this is done, the material is strong.

Okay so far?

Now the stunning thing, if the above is accepted, is that the electrons in 
general and an electron in particular is acting as a flexible RUBBER BAND.

This picture of the electron as a rubber band is going to be useful when I 
start a topic about how the hydrogen bomb works.

The way the hydrogen bomb works is crucial to our understanding how the 
uranium bomb works.

You may think that I am going the other way around as the a bomb came before
the h bomb.  Also, how the hell can I explain something which no one ever
understood.

Ah, the glorious simplicity of all will be evident, for it results from the 
mind of 

Arindam (bin Einstein ban Gandi) Banerjee, greatest genius of all time, sole
god among lotsa devils.

[toc] | [next] | [standalone]

#643034

On Friday, July 28, 2017 at 6:49:23 AM UTC+3, Arindam Banerjee wrote:
> Every atom is surrounded by one or more electrons.
> So unless joined by valency etc. every atom should repel every other atom.
> But this does not happen. In any solid of any element, the atoms are happy to 
> stick together.
> Now why should they, as they all have outer electrons creating negative
> charges for repulsion?
> They should all be apart!
> The answer I gave this morning. It is about the electron acting as a cloud 
> around the nucleus, and this cloud can stretch.
> When it stretches, the atom becomes a dipole with the nucleus with protons on
> one side and give a positive field and the electrons dense on the other side
> giving a negative field.
> Thus the positive side of an atom attracts the negative side of the other atom
> Depending upon how strongly this is done, the material is strong.
> 
> Okay so far?
> 
> Now the stunning thing, if the above is accepted, is that the electrons in 
> general and an electron in particular is acting as a flexible RUBBER BAND.
> 
> This picture of the electron as a rubber band is going to be useful when I 
> start a topic about how the hydrogen bomb works.
> 
> The way the hydrogen bomb works is crucial to our understanding how the 
> uranium bomb works.
> 
> You may think that I am going the other way around as the a bomb came before
> the h bomb.  Also, how the hell can I explain something which no one ever
> understood.
> 
> Ah, the glorious simplicity of all will be evident, for it results from the 
> mind of 
> 
> Arindam (bin Einstein ban Gandi) Banerjee, greatest genius of all time, sole
> god among lotsa devils.
=====================
(-:)

William Shakespeare 
could not write a better drama as your above one !!

ATB
Y.Porat
=========================================  

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

#643060

On Friday, July 28, 2017 at 1:57:43 PM UTC+10, pora...@gmail.com wrote:
> On Friday, July 28, 2017 at 6:49:23 AM UTC+3, Arindam Banerjee wrote:
> > Every atom is surrounded by one or more electrons.
> > So unless joined by valency etc. every atom should repel every other atom.
> > But this does not happen. In any solid of any element, the atoms are happy to 
> > stick together.
> > Now why should they, as they all have outer electrons creating negative
> > charges for repulsion?
> > They should all be apart!
> > The answer I gave this morning. It is about the electron acting as a cloud 
> > around the nucleus, and this cloud can stretch.
> > When it stretches, the atom becomes a dipole with the nucleus with protons on
> > one side and give a positive field and the electrons dense on the other side
> > giving a negative field.
> > Thus the positive side of an atom attracts the negative side of the other atom
> > Depending upon how strongly this is done, the material is strong.
> > 
> > Okay so far?
> > 
> > Now the stunning thing, if the above is accepted, is that the electrons in 
> > general and an electron in particular is acting as a flexible RUBBER BAND.
> > 
> > This picture of the electron as a rubber band is going to be useful when I 
> > start a topic about how the hydrogen bomb works.
> > 
> > The way the hydrogen bomb works is crucial to our understanding how the 
> > uranium bomb works.
> > 
> > You may think that I am going the other way around as the a bomb came before
> > the h bomb.  Also, how the hell can I explain something which no one ever
> > understood.
> > 
> > Ah, the glorious simplicity of all will be evident, for it results from the 
> > mind of 
> > 
> > Arindam (bin Einstein ban Gandi) Banerjee, greatest genius of all time, sole
> > god among lotsa devils.
> =====================
> (-:)
> 
> William Shakespeare 
> could not write a better drama as your above one !!
> 
> ATB
> Y.Porat
> =========================================

Well I will take that as a compliment.

Uniting physics and poetry by chopping up lines, is a good trick.

You put me on that Porat.
So, thanks.

Cheers,
Arindam Banerjee

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

#643082

On Friday, July 28, 2017 at 9:16:33 AM UTC+3, Arindam Banerjee wrote:
> On Friday, July 28, 2017 at 1:57:43 PM UTC+10, pora...@gmail.com wrote:
> > On Friday, July 28, 2017 at 6:49:23 AM UTC+3, Arindam Banerjee wrote:
> > > Every atom is surrounded by one or more electrons.
> > > So unless joined by valency etc. every atom should repel every other atom.
> > > But this does not happen. In any solid of any element, the atoms are happy to 
> > > stick together.
> > > Now why should they, as they all have outer electrons creating negative
> > > charges for repulsion?
> > > They should all be apart!
> > > The answer I gave this morning. It is about the electron acting as a cloud 
> > > around the nucleus, and this cloud can stretch.
> > > When it stretches, the atom becomes a dipole with the nucleus with protons on
> > > one side and give a positive field and the electrons dense on the other side
> > > giving a negative field.
> > > Thus the positive side of an atom attracts the negative side of the other atom
> > > Depending upon how strongly this is done, the material is strong.
> > > 
> > > Okay so far?
> > > 
> > > Now the stunning thing, if the above is accepted, is that the electrons in 
> > > general and an electron in particular is acting as a flexible RUBBER BAND.
> > > 
> > > This picture of the electron as a rubber band is going to be useful when I 
> > > start a topic about how the hydrogen bomb works.
> > > 
> > > The way the hydrogen bomb works is crucial to our understanding how the 
> > > uranium bomb works.
> > > 
> > > You may think that I am going the other way around as the a bomb came before
> > > the h bomb.  Also, how the hell can I explain something which no one ever
> > > understood.
> > > 
> > > Ah, the glorious simplicity of all will be evident, for it results from the 
> > > mind of 
> > > 
> > > Arindam (bin Einstein ban Gandi) Banerjee, greatest genius of all time, sole
> > > god among lotsa devils.
> > =====================
> > (-:)
> > 
> > William Shakespeare 
> > could not write a better drama as your above one !!
> > 
> > ATB
> > Y.Porat
> > =========================================
> 
> Well I will take that as a compliment.
> 
> Uniting physics and poetry by chopping up lines, is a good trick.
> 
> You put me on that Porat.
> So, thanks.
> 
> Cheers,
> Arindam Banerjee
=============
Arindam
please bring your link to your experiment about gravity
and a spinning mass 
to my new thread 
'is the y circlon mechanism start to be proven' 

TIA
Y.Porat
==========================

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

#643076

On Thursday, July 27, 2017 at 8:49:23 PM UTC-7, Arindam Banerjee wrote:
> Every atom is surrounded by one or more electrons.
> So unless joined by valency etc. every atom should repel every other atom.

I've thought about this too.  I concluded that the electrons were neutralized by their attached protons and, therefore, would not repel. 

> But this does not happen. In any solid of any element, the atoms are happy to 
> stick together.

I just assumed it was Couloumb forces.  But I wonder if anybody really knows.


> Now why should they, as they all have outer electrons creating negative
> charges for repulsion?
> They should all be apart!
> The answer I gave this morning. It is about the electron acting as a cloud 
> around the nucleus, and this cloud can stretch.
> When it stretches, the atom becomes a dipole with the nucleus

This happens with water.  But with water we can reasonably assume that the electron cloud moves (shifts) in response to proximity to the H atom on adjacent water molecules.  That doesn't prove your assertion wrong, but it does leave us wondering what causes the stretch in the electron clouds.  


> with protons on
> one side and give a positive field and the electrons dense on the other side
> giving a negative field.
> Thus the positive side of an atom attracts the negative side of the other atom

You may be right. 

> Depending upon how strongly this is done, the material is strong.
> 
> Okay so far?

Yes, but let me assure you.  This is way over the head of just about everybody here on this forum, except for myself and possibly John. 


> 
> Now the stunning thing, if the above is accepted, is that the electrons in 
> general and an electron in particular is acting as a flexible RUBBER BAND.
> 
> This picture of the electron as a rubber band is going to be useful when I 
> start a topic about how the hydrogen bomb works.
> 
> The way the hydrogen bomb works is crucial to our understanding how the 
> uranium bomb works.
> 
> You may think that I am going the other way around as the a bomb came before
> the h bomb.  Also, how the hell can I explain something which no one ever
> understood.
> 
> Ah, the glorious simplicity of all will be evident, for it results from the 
> mind of 

You can't imagine how stupid this last sentence makes you appear.

BTW, H2O is a dipole but, in liquid water, it's polarity is neutralized by the H atoms from adjacent molecules.  This is my discovery. 

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

#643084

On Friday, July 28, 2017 at 6:04:35 PM UTC+10, James McGinn wrote:
> On Thursday, July 27, 2017 at 8:49:23 PM UTC-7, Arindam Banerjee wrote:
> > Every atom is surrounded by one or more electrons.
> > So unless joined by valency etc. every atom should repel every other atom.
> 
> I've thought about this too.  I concluded that the electrons were neutralized by their attached protons and, therefore, would not repel. 
> 
> > But this does not happen. In any solid of any element, the atoms are happy to 
> > stick together.
> 
> I just assumed it was Couloumb forces.  But I wonder if anybody really knows.
> 
> 
> > Now why should they, as they all have outer electrons creating negative
> > charges for repulsion?
> > They should all be apart!
> > The answer I gave this morning. It is about the electron acting as a cloud 
> > around the nucleus, and this cloud can stretch.
> > When it stretches, the atom becomes a dipole with the nucleus
> 
> This happens with water.  But with water we can reasonably assume that the electron cloud moves (shifts) in response to proximity to the H atom on adjacent water molecules.  That doesn't prove your assertion wrong, but it does leave us wondering what causes the stretch in the electron clouds.  
> 
> 
> > with protons on
> > one side and give a positive field and the electrons dense on the other side
> > giving a negative field.
> > Thus the positive side of an atom attracts the negative side of the other atom
> 
> You may be right. 
> 
> > Depending upon how strongly this is done, the material is strong.
> > 
> > Okay so far?
> 
> Yes, but let me assure you.  This is way over the head of just about everybody here on this forum, except for myself and possibly John. 
> 
> 
> > 
> > Now the stunning thing, if the above is accepted, is that the electrons in 
> > general and an electron in particular is acting as a flexible RUBBER BAND.
> > 
> > This picture of the electron as a rubber band is going to be useful when I 
> > start a topic about how the hydrogen bomb works.
> > 
> > The way the hydrogen bomb works is crucial to our understanding how the 
> > uranium bomb works.
> > 
> > You may think that I am going the other way around as the a bomb came before
> > the h bomb.  Also, how the hell can I explain something which no one ever
> > understood.
> > 
> > Ah, the glorious simplicity of all will be evident, for it results from the 
> > mind of 
> 
> You can't imagine how stupid this last sentence makes you appear.
> 
> BTW, H2O is a dipole but, in liquid water, it's polarity is neutralized by the H atoms from adjacent molecules.  This is my discovery.

Fuck off, asshole.

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

#643122

Arindam Banerjee <banerjeeadda1234@gmail.com> writes:

>Every atom is surrounded by one or more electrons.
>So unless joined by valency etc. every atom should repel every other atom.
>But this does not happen. In any solid of any element, the atoms are happy to 
>stick together.
>Now why should they, as they all have outer electrons creating negative
>charges for repulsion?
>They should all be apart!
>The answer I gave this morning. It is about the electron acting as a cloud 
>around the nucleus, and this cloud can stretch.
>When it stretches, the atom becomes a dipole with the nucleus with protons on
>one side and give a positive field and the electrons dense on the other side
>giving a negative field.
>Thus the positive side of an atom attracts the negative side of the other atom

Google "van der Waals force" and "London force".

<snip>

>Ah, the glorious simplicity of all will be evident, for it results from the 
>mind of 

>Arindam (bin Einstein ban Gandi) Banerjee, greatest genius of all time, sole
>god among lotsa devils.

And off into the weeds you go!

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

#643135

On Friday, July 28, 2017 at 9:44:02 AM UTC-7, Michael Moroney wrote:

> >The answer I gave this morning. It is about the electron acting as a cloud 
> >around the nucleus, and this cloud can stretch.
> >When it stretches, the atom becomes a dipole with the nucleus with protons on
> >one side and give a positive field and the electrons dense on the other side
> >giving a negative field.
> >Thus the positive side of an atom attracts the negative side of the other atom
> 
> Google "van der Waals force" and "London force".

Obviously, dumbass. Everybody here has a search engine. Don't pretend like you have some unique insight.

Arindham's assertion is that these ("van der Waals force", "London force" and Cuolumb) can be explained by the polarity mechanism he described. 

Is he right?  IDK.  And anybody that says they do know is lying.  

> <snip>
> 
> >Ah, the glorious simplicity of all will be evident, for it results from the 
> >mind of 
> 
> >Arindam (bin Einstein ban Gandi) Banerjee, greatest genius of all time, sole
> >god among lotsa devils.
> 
> And off into the weeds you go!

You are such a silly troll.

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

#643350

On Friday, July 28, 2017 at 8:32:30 PM UTC+3, James McGinn wrote:
> On Friday, July 28, 2017 at 9:44:02 AM UTC-7, Michael Moroney wrote:
> 
> > >The answer I gave this morning. It is about the electron acting as a cloud 
> > >around the nucleus, and this cloud can stretch.
> > >When it stretches, the atom becomes a dipole with the nucleus with protons on
> > >one side and give a positive field and the electrons dense on the other side
> > >giving a negative field.
> > >Thus the positive side of an atom attracts the negative side of the other atom
> > 
> > Google "van der Waals force" and "London force".
> 
> Obviously, dumbass. Everybody here has a search engine. Don't pretend like you have some unique insight.
> 
> Arindham's assertion is that these ("van der Waals force", "London force" and Cuolumb) can be explained by the polarity mechanism he 
==============================
what is that 'polarity mechanism' that you are talking about ??

TIA
Y.Porat
====================================================



described. 
> 
> Is he right?  IDK.  And anybody that says they do know is lying.  
> 
> > <snip>
> > 
> > >Ah, the glorious simplicity of all will be evident, for it results from the 
> > >mind of 
> > 
> > >Arindam (bin Einstein ban Gandi) Banerjee, greatest genius of all time, sole
> > >god among lotsa devils.
> > 
> > And off into the weeds you go!
> 
> You are such a silly troll.

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

#643439

On Saturday, July 29, 2017 at 10:35:15 PM UTC-7, pora...@gmail.com wrote:
> On Friday, July 28, 2017 at 8:32:30 PM UTC+3, James McGinn wrote:
> > On Friday, July 28, 2017 at 9:44:02 AM UTC-7, Michael Moroney wrote:
> > 
> > > >The answer I gave this morning. It is about the electron acting as a cloud 
> > > >around the nucleus, and this cloud can stretch.
> > > >When it stretches, the atom becomes a dipole with the nucleus with protons on
> > > >one side and give a positive field and the electrons dense on the other side
> > > >giving a negative field.
> > > >Thus the positive side of an atom attracts the negative side of the other atom
> > > 
> > > Google "van der Waals force" and "London force".
> > 
> > Obviously, dumbass. Everybody here has a search engine. Don't pretend like you have some unique insight.
> > 
> > Arindham's assertion is that these ("van der Waals force", "London force" and Cuolumb) can be explained by the polarity mechanism he 
> ==============================
> what is that 'polarity mechanism' that you are talking about ??

Read the first post in the thread.

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

#643523

On Monday, July 31, 2017 at 12:21:28 AM UTC+3, James McGinn wrote:
> On Saturday, July 29, 2017 at 10:35:15 PM UTC-7, pora...@gmail.com wrote:
> > On Friday, July 28, 2017 at 8:32:30 PM UTC+3, James McGinn wrote:
> > > On Friday, July 28, 2017 at 9:44:02 AM UTC-7, Michael Moroney wrote:
> > > 
> > > > >The answer I gave this morning. It is about the electron acting as a cloud 
> > > > >around the nucleus, and this cloud can stretch.
> > > > >When it stretches, the atom becomes a dipole with the nucleus with protons on
> > > > >one side and give a positive field and the electrons dense on the other side
> > > > >giving a negative field.
> > > > >Thus the positive side of an atom attracts the negative side of the other atom
> > > > 
> > > > Google "van der Waals force" and "London force".
> > > 
> > > Obviously, dumbass. Everybody here has a search engine. Don't pretend like you have some unique insight.
> > > 
> > > Arindham's assertion is that these ("van der Waals force", "London force" and Cuolumb) can be explained by the polarity mechanism he 
> > ==============================
> > what is that 'polarity mechanism' that you are talking about ??
> 
> Read the first post in the thread.
===========================
MACKGEEN  

you must be joking !!
is that your science as well ??!!.....
did **you** read it >>.....

see how I responded to that":

William Shakespeare could not write 
a nicer ''drama'' as above .....
Y.Porat
=======================================

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

#643375

MM
"
Google "van der Waals force" and "London force". "

Ah, forces and fields.
How many are there?
Are they all different?
Some the same but measured differently?

How many do you have in your theory (ies)?
More than two?
More than ten?

You're not just bean-counters masquerading as scientists, are you?

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

#643521

On Sunday, July 30, 2017 at 5:51:12 PM UTC+3, john wrote:
> MM
> "
> Google "van der Waals force" and "London force". "
> 
> Ah, forces and fields.
> How many are there?
> Are they all different?
> Some the same but measured differently?
> 
> How many do you have in your theory (ies)?
> More than two?
> More than ten?
> 
> You're not just bean-counters masquerading as scientists, are you?
==========================
I will make it a bit simpler for you "

===========================================
MASS IS THEMOTHER OF ALL FORCES -INCLUDING GRAVITY 
=======================================================
2
PLEASE DONT FORGET WHO TOLG YOU THAT FISRT

3
ft all of that stems out of mass 
there must be something  common to all of them !
how about that ??

TIA
Y.Porat
==========================================

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

#643645

john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> writes:

>MM
>"
>Google "van der Waals force" and "London force". "

>Ah, forces and fields.
>How many are there?

Four fundamental forces, John (if you include gravity as a force).

There are other forces that are manifestations of one of the four. In
this case, van der Waals force/London force are just the electromagnetic
force in a particular circumstance, that is, the electrons and nucleus of
one atom affecting the electrons and nucleus of another.

>Are they all different?

The fundamental ones, yes. The others are manifestations of a fundamental
force so are really one of them.

>How many do you have in your theory (ies)?
>More than two?
>More than ten?

Four.

>You're not just bean-counters masquerading as scientists, are you?

What does that mean?

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

#643992

On 7/30/17 9:51 AM, john wrote:
> MM
> "
> Google "van der Waals force" and "London force". "
> 
> Ah, forces and fields.
> How many are there?
> Are they all different?
> Some the same but measured differently?

They're all different fields.
There's an electron field, a neutrino field, a Z field, an up quark 
field, an electromagnetic field, a Higgs field, and a number of others.

Each of these fields has quanta. That is, the electron field can have a 
lot of electron quanta in it, which is what we call the electron 
"particles".

What distinguishes them are three things:
1. Whether they are fermion or boson fields, which tells you how the 
quanta behave together. For example, fermions with similar "state 
values" (see 3) tend to avoid each other; bosons tend to clump together.
2. What interactions they participate in. For example, electrons 
participate in the electromagnetic and weak interactions; neutrinos 
participate in the weak interaction but not the electromagnetic. We call 
that property of participating in an interaction X as having an X 
charge. So neutrinos have a weak charge. Electrons have a weak charge 
and an electromagnetic charge.
3. What state values they exhibit. These are other properties, some 
quantized, some not, that are used to distinguish them. Rest mass, spin, 
baryon number are good examples.

So the current view of how the universe is not so much about "things" as 
it is about this assemblage of a reasonably small number of interacting 
fields.

What you are habitually used to thinking of an "apple" is just one 
configuration of interacting quark, lepton, and bosonic fields, while a 
shopping cart is just another configuration of the same interacting fields.

When you look at the world this way, there isn't really a fundamental 
separation between a shopping cart and an apple, other than the 
arbitrary line drawn by our sensory conventions. Likewise, aliens 
landing on earth would see no fundamental separation between, say, Korea 
and France, and any distinction or boundary or separate would be wholly 
manmade artifice.

> 
> How many do you have in your theory (ies)?
> More than two?
> More than ten?
> 
> You're not just bean-counters masquerading as scientists, are you?
> 


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

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

#644051

Odd
"
When you look at the world this way, there isn't really a fundamental 
separation between a shopping cart and an apple, other than the 
arbitrary line drawn by our sensory conventions. Likewise, aliens 
landing on earth would see no fundamental separation between, say, Korea 
and France, and any distinction or boundary or separate would be wholly 
manmade artifice. "
I smell a new quantum dodge.
There are patterns, Odd, sorry. You know, like highways, trails, streams? Every direction is not equal at any one time, especially for electrons going .1c

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

#644191

On 8/2/17 3:37 PM, john wrote:
> Odd
> "
> When you look at the world this way, there isn't really a fundamental
> separation between a shopping cart and an apple, other than the
> arbitrary line drawn by our sensory conventions. Likewise, aliens
> landing on earth would see no fundamental separation between, say, Korea
> and France, and any distinction or boundary or separate would be wholly
> manmade artifice. "
> I smell a new quantum dodge.

This isn't new, and it isn't a dodge of anything. What do you think is 
being dodged?

> There are patterns, Odd, sorry. You know, like highways, trails, streams? 
> Every direction is not equal at any one time, especially for electrons going .1c
> 

Of course there are patterns. Atom in a Box exhibits them.
I have no idea what you're trying to connect with what I said.


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

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

#643376

Arindam
All the electrons are lying so as to form a disc- exactly like galaxies.
Now look at how contorted some galaxies can be.

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

#643377

Arindam
The reason all the electron material lies in a disc is because it causes a magnetic field by its rapid rotation. No part of the electronic cloud wants to fight against this field, so you have a disc.
Exactly like a galaxy.
Now this disc may create a sphere however discs create spheres.

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

#643585

john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> wrote:
> Arindam
> All the electrons are lying so as to form a disc- exactly like galaxies.

Only some galaxies are discs. Why does this inconvenient fact get ignored
by you?

> Now look at how contorted some galaxies can be.
> 



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

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

Page 1 of 2  [1] 2  Next page →

Back to top | Article view | sci.physics

csiph-web