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

Groups > sci.physics > #681318 > unrolled thread

A River Model of Space

Back to article view | Back to sci.physics

Contents

  A River Model of Space Alan Folmsbee <omnilobe@gmail.com> - 2018-04-16 14:29 -0700
    Re: A River Model of Space "Chris M. Thomasson" <invalid_chris_thomasson@invalid.invalid> - 2018-04-16 14:46 -0700
    Re: A River Model of Space Double-A <double-a3@hush.com> - 2018-04-16 15:31 -0700
      Re: A River Model of Space poraty149@gmail.com - 2018-04-16 23:27 -0700
        Re: A River Model of Space Double-A <double-a3@hush.com> - 2018-04-17 14:09 -0700
          Re: A River Model of Space poraty149@gmail.com - 2018-04-17 16:38 -0700
            Re: A River Model of Space john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2018-04-17 17:43 -0700
              Re: A River Model of Space Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-04-18 01:14 +0000
                Re: A River Model of Space john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2018-04-17 18:19 -0700
                  Re: A River Model of Space Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-04-18 01:41 +0000
                    Re: A River Model of Space john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2018-04-17 23:57 -0700
                      Re: A River Model of Space Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-04-18 11:18 +0000
                        Re: A River Model of Space john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2018-04-18 07:30 -0700
                          Re: A River Model of Space Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-04-19 00:21 +0000
                            Re: A River Model of Space john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2018-04-18 17:54 -0700
                              Re: A River Model of Space john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2018-04-18 18:17 -0700
                                Re: A River Model of Space poraty149@gmail.com - 2018-04-18 23:11 -0700
                              Re: A River Model of Space Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-04-19 18:12 +0000
                                Re: A River Model of Space john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2018-04-19 14:05 -0700
                                  Re: A River Model of Space Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-04-20 03:11 +0000
                                    Re: A River Model of Space john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2018-04-19 20:29 -0700
                                      Re: A River Model of Space Edward Prochak <edprochak@gmail.com> - 2018-04-20 09:59 -0700
                                        Re: A River Model of Space john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2018-04-20 10:09 -0700
                                          Re: A River Model of Space Edward Prochak <edprochak@gmail.com> - 2018-04-23 08:55 -0700
                                        Re: A River Model of Space john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2018-04-20 10:16 -0700
                                          Re: A River Model of Space mitchrae3323@gmail.com - 2018-04-20 14:09 -0700
                                          Re: A River Model of Space poraty149@gmail.com - 2018-04-20 21:29 -0700
                                      Re: A River Model of Space Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-04-20 21:26 +0000
                                        Re: A River Model of Space john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2018-04-20 14:39 -0700
                                          Re: A River Model of Space Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-04-21 11:49 +0000
                                            Re: A River Model of Space john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2018-04-21 06:01 -0700
                                              Re: A River Model of Space Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-04-21 18:17 +0000
                                  Re: A River Model of Space Edward Prochak <edprochak@gmail.com> - 2018-04-20 09:57 -0700
              Re: A River Model of Space poraty149@gmail.com - 2018-04-18 00:15 -0700
            Re: A River Model of Space Double-A <double-a3@hush.com> - 2018-04-19 15:56 -0700
              Re: A River Model of Space poraty149@gmail.com - 2018-04-19 20:35 -0700
                Re: A River Model of Space Double-A <double-a3@hush.com> - 2018-04-20 15:22 -0700
                  Re: A River Model of Space john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2018-04-20 19:10 -0700
                    Re: A River Model of Space Double-A <double-a3@hush.com> - 2018-04-21 14:12 -0700
                      Re: A River Model of Space john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2018-04-21 15:22 -0700
                      Re: A River Model of Space poraty149@gmail.com - 2018-04-23 21:16 -0700
                    Re: A River Model of Space Lofty Goat <rlwatkins@gmail.com> - 2018-04-21 19:38 -0500
                      Re: A River Model of Space Alan Folmsbee <omnilobe@gmail.com> - 2018-04-21 17:55 -0700
                        Re: A River Model of Space Edward Prochak <edprochak@gmail.com> - 2018-04-23 09:03 -0700
                          Re: A River Model of Space john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2018-04-23 20:09 -0700
                            Re: A River Model of Space "Chris M. Thomasson" <invalid_chris_thomasson@invalid.invalid> - 2018-04-23 21:48 -0700
                            Re: A River Model of Space Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-04-24 13:05 +0000
                              Re: A River Model of Space john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2018-04-24 06:29 -0700
                                Re: A River Model of Space Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-04-24 15:00 +0000
                                  Re: A River Model of Space john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2018-04-24 08:38 -0700
                                    Re: A River Model of Space Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-04-24 15:49 +0000
                                      Re: A River Model of Space john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2018-04-24 09:43 -0700
                                        Re: A River Model of Space Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-04-24 17:58 +0000
                                          Re: A River Model of Space john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2018-04-24 12:56 -0700
                                            Re: A River Model of Space Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-04-25 00:43 +0000
                          Re: A River Model of Space Alan Folmsbee <omnilobe@gmail.com> - 2018-04-23 20:32 -0700
                      Re: A River Model of Space john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2018-04-21 18:59 -0700
      Re: A River Model of Space "reber G=emc^2" <herbertglazier0@gmail.com> - 2018-04-17 18:10 -0700
        Re: A River Model of Space "hanson" <hanson@quick.net> - 2018-04-17 19:08 -0700
    Re: A River Model of Space Arindam Banerjee <banerjeeadda1234@gmail.com> - 2018-04-17 06:27 -0700
      Re: A River Model of Space poraty149@gmail.com - 2018-04-17 08:54 -0700
        Re: A River Model of Space john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2018-04-17 13:23 -0700
          Re: A River Model of Space Arindam Banerjee <banerjeeadda1234@gmail.com> - 2018-04-17 21:34 -0700
        Re: A River Model of Space Arindam Banerjee <banerjeeadda1234@gmail.com> - 2018-04-17 17:48 -0700

Page 1 of 4  [1] 2 3 4  Next page →

#681318 — A River Model of Space

This paper by Braeck and Gron is free to read...

https://arxiv.org/abs/1204.0419

a gravity model using a liquid-like Space. It says
the relativistic effects are accurately mimicked 
with a River of Space flowing into stars.
"A River Model of Space" (2012)
It has algebra...

[toc] | [next] | [standalone]

#681322

On 4/16/2018 2:29 PM, Alan Folmsbee wrote:
> This paper by Braeck and Gron is free to read...
> 
> https://arxiv.org/abs/1204.0419
> 
> a gravity model using a liquid-like Space. It says
> the relativistic effects are accurately mimicked
> with a River of Space flowing into stars.
> "A River Model of Space" (2012)
> It has algebra...
> 

Thank you! Will read. Imvho, sounds just a little like a 3d vector field.

Fwiw, here are some of my very hyper crude online examples of such a thing:

http://funwithfractals.atspace.cc/ct_gfield_test/ct_3dgfield_anime_test

http://funwithfractals.atspace.cc/ct_gfield_test/3d_user/ct_wormhole_exp.html

http://funwithfractals.atspace.cc/ct_gfield_test/3d_user


Here is an interesting 2d vector field:

http://funwithfractals.atspace.cc/ct_gf_explore/ct_alien_ship.html

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

#681327

On Monday, April 16, 2018 at 2:29:22 PM UTC-7, Alan Folmsbee wrote:
> This paper by Braeck and Gron is free to read...
> 
> https://arxiv.org/abs/1204.0419
> 
> a gravity model using a liquid-like Space. It says
> the relativistic effects are accurately mimicked 
> with a River of Space flowing into stars.
> "A River Model of Space" (2012)
> It has algebra...


The River Model works well for black holes too.  

https://arxiv.org/abs/gr-qc/0411060

Like I have long said, "Go with the flow!"

Double-A

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

#681359

On Tuesday, April 17, 2018 at 1:31:56 AM UTC+3, Double-A wrote:
> On Monday, April 16, 2018 at 2:29:22 PM UTC-7, Alan Folmsbee wrote:
> > This paper by Braeck and Gron is free to read...
> > 
> > https://arxiv.org/abs/1204.0419
> > 
> > a gravity model using a liquid-like Space. It says
> > the relativistic effects are accurately mimicked 
> > with a River of Space flowing into stars.
> > "A River Model of Space" (2012)
> > It has algebra...
> 
> 
> The River Model works well for black holes too.  
> 
> https://arxiv.org/abs/gr-qc/0411060
> 
> Like I have long said, "Go with the flow!"
> 
> Double-A
========================
now my genius smarty's 
nature is not built from nice words !!***
even not with poetic words!!***
it works with its action means and /ability
so  listen carefully once again :
action  is done with ACTION TOOLS **
NOT WITH NICE WORDS 

IF THE ACTION ABILITY OF SPACE 
to do any  ting   IS 
L^3
it can do with it what ???!!
big zero !!!!
=
the dimensions of
 force is 
Kilogram meter /sec ^2

the dimensions of momentum is 
KILOGRAM *** METER /SECOND
 
if so dear fellows 
what  can your idiotic space do 
with  your L^3 alone ???!!!!

we are not in  poetry 
we are sci PHISICS !! PHISICS !!!!!
so 
==============================================================

MASS !!!!  (KILOGRAM*** DIMESION )    AGAIN KILOGRAM!! IS THE 'MOTHER' OF ALL FORCES 
OF ALL !! AGAINALL )FROCES --INCLDING      GRAVITY !!!!!
=================================================================

together, of course, indeed  with  space 
 plus with Seconds( that denote motion in space)(
IE 
ALL   OF IT TOGETHER !!
no curved space 
and no   shmeved space 

2
=============================
No mass''     no real physics !!!!!
================================ 
there are in nature some  very basic mass  sub   particles-

-   THAT MOVE NATURALLT  (NATURALLY) !!  IN  CURVED LINES !!
you can see it quite **tangible** 
in  Faraday   permanent magnet experiment!
========== 
so 
from now  from  now  on
you name   it what ever you like-
 BUT NOT JUST (POOR ) MISERABLE magic fairy lady ---'''SPACE....

*just  like  parrots- because  **Einstein said  it***

he got his reputation and place in history of physics
because of *** other things ***  like   E= M c^2  . photoelectric phenomenon   etc etc    
==========
TIA
Eng
Y.Porat
==============================. 

 

     

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

#681421

On Monday, April 16, 2018 at 11:27:35 PM UTC-7, pora...@gmail.com wrote:
> On Tuesday, April 17, 2018 at 1:31:56 AM UTC+3, Double-A wrote:
> > On Monday, April 16, 2018 at 2:29:22 PM UTC-7, Alan Folmsbee wrote:
> > > This paper by Braeck and Gron is free to read...
> > > 
> > > https://arxiv.org/abs/1204.0419
> > > 
> > > a gravity model using a liquid-like Space. It says
> > > the relativistic effects are accurately mimicked 
> > > with a River of Space flowing into stars.
> > > "A River Model of Space" (2012)
> > > It has algebra...
> > 
> > 
> > The River Model works well for black holes too.  
> > 
> > https://arxiv.org/abs/gr-qc/0411060
> > 
> > Like I have long said, "Go with the flow!"
> > 
> > Double-A
> ========================
> now my genius smarty's 
> nature is not built from nice words !!***
> even not with poetic words!!***
> it works with its action means and /ability
> so  listen carefully once again :
> action  is done with ACTION TOOLS **
> NOT WITH NICE WORDS 
> 
> IF THE ACTION ABILITY OF SPACE 
> to do any  ting   IS 
> L^3
> it can do with it what ???!!
> big zero !!!!
> =
> the dimensions of
>  force is 
> Kilogram meter /sec ^2
> 
> the dimensions of momentum is 
> KILOGRAM *** METER /SECOND
>  
> if so dear fellows 
> what  can your idiotic space do 
> with  your L^3 alone ???!!!!
> 
> we are not in  poetry 
> we are sci PHISICS !! PHISICS !!!!!
> so 
> ==============================================================
> 
> MASS !!!!  (KILOGRAM*** DIMESION )    AGAIN KILOGRAM!! IS THE 'MOTHER' OF ALL FORCES 
> OF ALL !! AGAINALL )FROCES --INCLDING      GRAVITY !!!!!
> =================================================================
> 
> together, of course, indeed  with  space 
>  plus with Seconds( that denote motion in space)(
> IE 
> ALL   OF IT TOGETHER !!
> no curved space 
> and no   shmeved space 
> 
> 2
> =============================
> No mass''     no real physics !!!!!
> ================================ 
> there are in nature some  very basic mass  sub   particles-
> 
> -   THAT MOVE NATURALLT  (NATURALLY) !!  IN  CURVED LINES !!
> you can see it quite **tangible** 
> in  Faraday   permanent magnet experiment!
> ========== 
> so 
> from now  from  now  on
> you name   it what ever you like-
>  BUT NOT JUST (POOR ) MISERABLE magic fairy lady ---'''SPACE....
> 
> *just  like  parrots- because  **Einstein said  it***
> 
> he got his reputation and place in history of physics
> because of *** other things ***  like   E= M c^2  . photoelectric phenomenon   etc etc    
> ==========
> TIA
> Eng
> Y.Porat
> ==============================.


You sound like a 19th century materialist physicist, saying that the universe is just a game of marbles being played by blind men!

Double-A

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

#681451

On Wednesday, April 18, 2018 at 12:09:49 AM UTC+3, Double-A wrote:
> On Monday, April 16, 2018 at 11:27:35 PM UTC-7, pora...@gmail.com wrote:
> > On Tuesday, April 17, 2018 at 1:31:56 AM UTC+3, Double-A wrote:
> > > On Monday, April 16, 2018 at 2:29:22 PM UTC-7, Alan Folmsbee wrote:
> > > > This paper by Braeck and Gron is free to read...
> > > > 
> > > > https://arxiv.org/abs/1204.0419
> > > > 
> > > > a gravity model using a liquid-like Space. It says
> > > > the relativistic effects are accurately mimicked 
> > > > with a River of Space flowing into stars.
> > > > "A River Model of Space" (2012)
> > > > It has algebra...
> > > 
> > > 
> > > The River Model works well for black holes too.  
> > > 
> > > https://arxiv.org/abs/gr-qc/0411060
> > > 
> > > Like I have long said, "Go with the flow!"
> > > 
> > > Double-A
> > ========================
> > now my genius smarty's 
> > nature is not built from nice words !!***
> > even not with poetic words!!***
> > it works with its action means and /ability
> > so  listen carefully once again :
> > action  is done with ACTION TOOLS **
> > NOT WITH NICE WORDS 
> > 
> > IF THE ACTION ABILITY OF SPACE 
> > to do any  ting   IS 
> > L^3
> > it can do with it what ???!!
> > big zero !!!!
> > =
> > the dimensions of
> >  force is 
> > Kilogram meter /sec ^2
> > 
> > the dimensions of momentum is 
> > KILOGRAM *** METER /SECOND
> >  
> > if so dear fellows 
> > what  can your idiotic space do 
> > with  your L^3 alone ???!!!!
> > 
> > we are not in  poetry 
> > we are sci PHISICS !! PHISICS !!!!!
> > so 
> > ==============================================================
> > 
> > MASS !!!!  (KILOGRAM*** DIMESION )    AGAIN KILOGRAM!! IS THE 'MOTHER' OF ALL FORCES 
> > OF ALL !! AGAINALL )FROCES --INCLDING      GRAVITY !!!!!
> > =================================================================
> > 
> > together, of course, indeed  with  space 
> >  plus with Seconds( that denote motion in space)(
> > IE 
> > ALL   OF IT TOGETHER !!
> > no curved space 
> > and no   shmeved space 
> > 
> > 2
> > =============================
> > No mass''     no real physics !!!!!
> > ================================ 
> > there are in nature some  very basic mass  sub   particles-
> > 
> > -   THAT MOVE NATURALLT  (NATURALLY) !!  IN  CURVED LINES !!
> > you can see it quite **tangible** 
> > in  Faraday   permanent magnet experiment!
> > ========== 
> > so 
> > from now  from  now  on
> > you name   it what ever you like-
> >  BUT NOT JUST (POOR ) MISERABLE magic fairy lady ---'''SPACE....
> > 
> > *just  like  parrots- because  **Einstein said  it***
> > 
> > he got his reputation and place in history of physics
> > because of *** other things ***  like   E= M c^2  . photoelectric phenomenon   etc etc    
> > ==========
> > TIA
> > Eng
> > Y.Porat
> > ==============================.
> 
> 
> You sound like a 19th century materialist physicist, saying that the universe is just a game of marbles being played by blind men!
> 
> Double-A
============================
moreover !!
electrons do not run around the nucleus !!
==
Y.P
========================

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

#681460

prorat 
"
electrons do not run around the nucleus !! 
"
And the Earth is flat- right?
You and Odd!!  HE claims that electrons don't move.

Odd, you and pro-rat should get together- or, no- you stole his manuscript or something back when you were PD, so, no.
Hey, odd, maybe get a sex-change and you can be an Oddess!!
Hahahahahahahaha 

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

#681465

john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> wrote:
> prorat 
> "
> electrons do not run around the nucleus !! 
> "
> And the Earth is flat- right?
> You and Odd!!  HE claims that electrons don't move.

I’ve corrected you four times in the last two days about what I say. 
Now STOP LYING about what I say!

> 
> Odd, you and pro-rat should get together- or, no- you stole his
> manuscript or something back when you were PD, so, no.

What manuscript?

> Hey, odd, maybe get a sex-change and you can be an Oddess!!
> Hahahahahahahaha 
> 



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

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

#681467

Odd
"
> You and Odd!!  HE claims that electrons don't move. 

I’ve corrected you four times in the last two days about what I say. 
Now STOP LYING about what I say! 
"
You say electrons dont move.
You said it lots.

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

#681472

john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> wrote:
> Odd
> "
>> You and Odd!!  HE claims that electrons don't move. 
> 
> I’ve corrected you four times in the last two days about what I say. 
> Now STOP LYING about what I say! 
> "
> You say electrons dont move.
> You said it lots.
> 

I said electrons don’t have trajectories. I’ve also said the DO have
kinetic energy, which is the energy of motion. Get it straight what I said.


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

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

#681506

Odd
"
I said electrons don’t have trajectories. I’ve also said the DO have 
kinetic energy, which is the energy of motion. Get it straight what I said. "

So, they move but don't go anywhere?
You're STILL an idiot, Odd.

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

#681526

john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> wrote:
> Odd
> "
> I said electrons don’t have trajectories. I’ve also said the DO have 
> kinetic energy, which is the energy of motion. Get it straight what I said. "
> 
> So, they move but don't go anywhere?

Stop putting words in my mouth. You’re going to be quoting Yourself rather
than me for weeks to come. 
You’re the one stuck with the old school blinders that insists that kinetic
energy MUST be associated with a trajectory for anything to make sense.
Because you can’t crawl out of your tiny mental box, fur-lined and cozy
though it may be. 

> You're STILL an idiot, Odd.
> 



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

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

#681546

Odd
“kinetic energy, which is the energy of motion. Get it straight what I said. " 
> 
> So, they move but don't go anywhere? 

Stop putting words in my mouth. You’re going to be quoting Yourself rather 
than me for weeks to come. 
You’re the one stuck with the old school blinders that insists that kinetic 
energy MUST be associated with a trajectory for anything to make sense. 
Because you can’t crawl out of your tiny mental box, fur-lined and cozy ”

You are STILL an idiot, Odd.

I suggest you read what Bohr and Thompson and other early pioneers observed. Read their biographies- you say you can read- and while you’re at it, find which one observed that electrons SLOW DOWN at each end of their orbital.

See how your “no trajectory “ BULLSHIT squares with what some REAL SCIENTISTS observed. Then go polish a table

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

#681614

john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> wrote:
> Odd
> “kinetic energy, which is the energy of motion. Get it straight what I said. " 
>> 
>> So, they move but don't go anywhere? 
> 
> Stop putting words in my mouth. You’re going to be quoting Yourself rather 
> than me for weeks to come. 
> You’re the one stuck with the old school blinders that insists that kinetic 
> energy MUST be associated with a trajectory for anything to make sense. 
> Because you can’t crawl out of your tiny mental box, fur-lined and cozy ”
> 
> You are STILL an idiot, Odd.
> 
> I suggest you read what Bohr and Thompson and other early pioneers
> observed. Read their biographies- you say you can read- and while you’re
> at it, find which one observed that electrons SLOW DOWN at each end of their orbital.

Cite? 
I’m going with the current understanding, by the way, not something as
understood 90 years ago. 

> 
> See how your “no trajectory “ BULLSHIT squares with what some REAL
> SCIENTISTS observed. Then go polish a table
> 

I am talking about what real scientists say. And I can give a reading
reference. Robinett, Quantum Mechanics, 2006. 

You?



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

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

#681617

Odd
“am talking about what real scientists say. And I can give a reading 
reference. Robinett, Quantum Mechanics, 2006. 

You? ”
Bohr and Thompson would have laughed at you and your electrons that don’t move. What? Are they dancing in place? Vibrating? What?

You DO know that it takes 10^-16 seconds for an electron to leave the atom when perturbed?
It must travel 10^-09 meters to do so.
If your little electrons are really marking time, essentially starting from 0 mph, they will have to accelerate to a pretty phenomenal speed to accomplish this, because they would have to ALREADY be doing 10%of c for this to be possible. Starting from zero, they’ll have to accelerate to MUCH more than that. Where would all that energy come from, Odd? The laser beam?

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

#681618

Odd
“You? ” 
Bohr and Thompson would have laughed at you and your electrons that don’t move. What? Are they dancing in place? Vibrating? What? 

You DO know that it takes 10^-16 seconds for an electron to leave the atom when perturbed? 
It must travel 10^-09 meters to do so. 
If your little electrons are really marking time, essentially starting from 0 mph, they will have to accelerate to a pretty phenomenal speed to accomplish this, because they would have to ALREADY be doing 10%of c for this to be possible. Starting from zero, they’ll have to accelerate to MUCH more than that. Where would all that energy come from, Odd? The laser beam? ”

How much energy would it take, Odd, to accelerate an electron from 0 to .2c in 10^-09meters?
I think that proves that electrons must ALREADY be travelling in a TRAJECTORY at that speed.
Pretty much

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

#681643

On Thursday, April 19, 2018 at 4:17:23 AM UTC+3, john wrote:
> Odd
> “You? ” 
> Bohr and Thompson would have laughed at you and your electrons that don’t move. What? Are they dancing in place? Vibrating? What? 
> 
> You DO know that it takes 10^-16 seconds for an electron to leave the atom when perturbed? 
> It must travel 10^-09 meters to do so. 
> If your little electrons are really marking time, essentially starting from 0 mph, they will have to accelerate to a pretty phenomenal speed to accomplish this, because they would have to ALREADY be doing 10%of c for this to be possible. Starting from zero, they’ll have to accelerate to MUCH more than that. Where would all that energy come from, Odd? The laser beam? ”
> 
> How much energy would it take, Odd, to accelerate an electron from 0 to .2c in 10^-09meters?
> I think that proves that electrons must ALREADY be travelling in a TRAJECTORY at that speed.
> Pretty much
==========================
in the  Atom 
electrons do not travel   

THEY VIBRATE !!!
2
they  might get more velocity   AFTER LEAVUNGTHE ATOM !!

and more
keep in mind that  their mass is very small !!
and even so
they never get the velocity c 
===
TIA
Y.Porat
====================== 

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

#681662

john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> wrote:
> Odd
> “am talking about what real scientists say. And I can give a reading 
> reference. Robinett, Quantum Mechanics, 2006. 
> 
> You? ”
> Bohr and Thompson would have laughed at you and your electrons that don’t
> move. What? Are they dancing in place? Vibrating? What?

You’re pretty cavalier about claiming what dead men would do, especially
since you can’t seem to cite anything they actually said that supports your
contention. 


> 
> You DO know that it takes 10^-16 seconds for an electron to leave the atom when perturbed?
> It must travel 10^-09 meters to do so.

Yes, sorta. 

> If your little electrons are really marking time, essentially starting from 0 mph, 

No. Stop. The ONLY person who is saying that the electrons are starting at
rest from some place inside the atom is you. Quantum mechanics says NO SUCH
thing. 

Quantum mechanics says that you CANNOT confine an electron inside an atom
and have it be motionless. It will automatically have a minimum kinetic
energy, which is where the speed comes from. 

So NO ONE in physics is saying, or has ever said, that electrons start from
zero to a good fraction of c when the atom is ionized. The problem you are
pointing to is imaginary, out of your own I’ll-informed head. 

However, contrary to your calcified beliefs, having kinetic energy does NOT
entail having a trajectory. This is where you are broken, John. When
someone tells you that the electron has no trajectory or orbit in the atom,
your first response is to splutter, “well, you must be claiming it’s
stationary then, because those are the only two possibilities I can
visualize.” And when someone tells you those are not the only
possibilities, you start going LALALALALA, can’t hear you, because if it’s
not in my concept set it’s nonsense!” 

> they will have to accelerate to a pretty phenomenal speed to accomplish
> this, because they would have to ALREADY be doing 10%of c for this to be
> possible. Starting from zero, they’ll have to accelerate to MUCH more
> than that. Where would all that energy come from, Odd? The laser beam?
> 



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

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

#681669

Odd
“However, contrary to your calcified beliefs, having kinetic energy does NOT 
entail having a trajectory. This is where you are broken, John. When 
someone tells you that the electron has no trajectory or orbit in the atom, 
your first response is to splutter, “well, you must be claiming it’s ”
What ARE you claiming? That it’s travelling at .1c AT THE SAME TIME as going nowhere?

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

#681721

john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> wrote:
> Odd
> “However, contrary to your calcified beliefs, having kinetic energy does NOT 
> entail having a trajectory. This is where you are broken, John. When 
> someone tells you that the electron has no trajectory or orbit in the atom, 
> your first response is to splutter, “well, you must be claiming it’s ”
> What ARE you claiming? That it’s travelling at .1c AT THE SAME TIME as going nowhere?
> 

I’ve told you what the claim is. That bound electrons in atoms have
positive kinetic energy and they have no trajectories. I know you cannot
mash that triangle peg into either the square hole or the round hole and
those are the only two holes you know. 

-- 
Odd Bodkin — Maker of fine toys, tools, tables

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

Page 1 of 4  [1] 2 3 4  Next page →

Back to top | Article view | sci.physics

csiph-web