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 2 of 4 — ← Prev page 1 [2] 3 4  Next page →

#681727

Odd
“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. 
”
It’s the nonsense hole

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

#681774

On Thursday, April 19, 2018 at 11:29:42 PM UTC-4, john wrote:

> It’s the nonsense hole

That's exactly where you've been living, John.

Ed

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

#681776

Ed
“That's exactly where you've been living, John.”
QM is what’s nonsense.
It has no predictions.
HUP is being proven wrong as we speak.
Every new observation of BHs brings new surprises.
“Moving but not moving”.
What.
A.
Crock.
And you guys lap that up.

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

#682101

On Friday, April 20, 2018 at 1:09:33 PM UTC-4, john wrote:
> Ed
> “That's exactly where you've been living, John.”
> QM is what’s nonsense.

Maybe you think so. But not in Physics

> It has no predictions.

O contraire, mon capitan!
It makes some very good predictions,
explaining for example the structure of some proteins.

> HUP is being proven wrong as we speak.

In your dreams perhaps.

> Every new observation of BHs brings new surprises.

And this is a good thing.

> “Moving but not moving”.

Your idea, not part of standard physics.

> What.
> A.
> Crock.
> And you guys lap that up.

And you speak of things you do not understand.
Sorry, john, but you are so predictable.

ed

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

#681778

“River Model”
Energy flows out of electrons and into protons.
Energy flows out of stars and into BHs.
In a cyclical process, that energy is then returned as new stars and new electron Matter.
End of starry.

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

#681795

On Friday, April 20, 2018 at 10:16:35 AM UTC-7, john wrote:
> “River Model”
> Energy flows out of electrons and into protons.
> Energy flows out of stars and into BHs.
> In a cyclical process, that energy is then returned as new stars and new electron Matter.
> End of starry.

That river floats still...

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

#681837

On Friday, April 20, 2018 at 8:16:35 PM UTC+3, john wrote:
> “River Model”
> Energy flows out of electrons and into protons.
> Energy flows out of stars and into BHs.
> In a cyclical process, that energy is then returned as new stars and new electron Matter.
> End of starry.
===========================
see my new thread  
about 
''THE MACHINE GUN '' BULLET'' MODEL OF THE PHOTON 


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

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

#681796

john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> wrote:
> Odd
> “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. 
> ”
> It’s the nonsense hole
> 

See? Anything foreign or new to you, you call nonsense, even without
checking whether it agrees with data. How small-minded and unscientific. 

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

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

#681800

Odd
“See? Anything foreign or new to you, you call nonsense, even without 
checking whether it agrees with data. How small-minded and unscientific. “
Not new. Just stupid.
Are you alive and dead at the same time?
Until someone looks?
Not science- wordplay and using made-up words like quantum spin.
Nonsense hole.

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

#681847

john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> wrote:
> Odd
> “See? Anything foreign or new to you, you call nonsense, even without 
> checking whether it agrees with data. How small-minded and unscientific. “
> Not new. Just stupid.

See? Did it again. 

> Are you alive and dead at the same time?
> Until someone looks?
> Not science- wordplay and using made-up words like quantum spin.

Yes, made-up terms for new concepts not already in your concept set, that’s
what I’m talking about. You call such things nonsense whether they agree
with data or not. 


> Nonsense hole.
> 



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

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

#681850

Odd
“

Are you alive and dead at the same time? 
> Until someone looks? 
> Not science- wordplay and using made-up words like quantum spin. 

Yes, made-up terms for new concepts not already in your concept set, that’s 
what I’m talking about. You call such things nonsense whether they agree 
with data or not. “
I think I’ll look in your box and find YOU alive, but you’re brain-dead.
Data needs proper interpretation- using logic. If they don’t agree, you don’t throw Logic out the window, you throw out your beyond-stupid model and get one that DOES Agee.
HUP is going down- so will the rest of your random-chaos BS.

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

#681877

john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> wrote:
> Odd
> “
> 
> Are you alive and dead at the same time? 

I observe myself. 
Someone is looking. 

Idiot. 


>> Until someone looks? 
>> Not science- wordplay and using made-up words like quantum spin. 
> 
> Yes, made-up terms for new concepts not already in your concept set, that’s 
> what I’m talking about. You call such things nonsense whether they agree 
> with data or not. “
> I think I’ll look in your box and find YOU alive, but you’re brain-dead.
> Data needs proper interpretation- using logic. 

Again. You do not use the word “logic” correctly. What you are thinking of
is common sense and experience. And yes, if data disagrees with a common
sense premise, then you DO throw common sense out the window. Or you
SHOULD, but you don’t. 

> If they don’t agree, you don’t throw Logic out the window, you throw out
> your beyond-stupid model and get one that DOES Agee.

Not true! You are supposed to find a theory that matches all the data
PERIOD, not one that fits your common sense and fits some of the data. You
do not think like a scientist. At all. 

> HUP is going down- so will the rest of your random-chaos BS.
> 



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

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

#681773

On Thursday, April 19, 2018 at 5:05:18 PM UTC-4, john 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?

John,
 you totally do not understand Quantum Mechanics.
And Odd predicted your response precisely!

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

#681509

On Wednesday, April 18, 2018 at 3:43:45 AM UTC+3, john wrote:
> prorat 
> "
> electrons do not run around the nucleus !! 
> "
> And the Earth is flat- right?


==================
Hi John
did I say that earth is flat ???!!!
I think that I am the last man in that universe
that would say  something that that  earth is flat!!

that is how you know and understand me ????  
so again 
 just stick it properly : 
electrons ***do not***!!! rotate around the  nuc 
the **vibrate**like strings 
**a chain of sub orbitals **!!
and if you forgot I will remind you :

http://sites.google.com/site/theyporatmodel/an-abstract 

** !!!
it is an **abstract**!!! of a book of 150 dense information and INNOVATION !!!

I an not a parrot as odd !!!
nothing to compare us 
=================
TIA
Y.Porat
===========================  



> 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]

#681685

On Tuesday, April 17, 2018 at 4:38:32 PM UTC-7, pora...@gmail.com wrote:
> 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
> ========================


Electrons might be found anywhere in the vicinity of their orbital, including in the nucleus.

Double-A

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

#681731

On Friday, April 20, 2018 at 1:56:41 AM UTC+3, Double-A wrote:
> On Tuesday, April 17, 2018 at 4:38:32 PM UTC-7, pora...@gmail.com wrote:
> > > > > > > This paper by Braeck and Gron is free t > > > > > 
> > > > > 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
> > > > ==============================.
> > > 
>  > > > 
> > > Double-A
> > ============================
> > moreover !!
> > electrons do not run around the nucleus !!
> > ==
> > Y.P
> > ========================
> 
> 
> Electrons might be found anywhere in the vicinity of their orbital, including in the nucleus.
> 
> Double-A
===============yess 
  agree that electrons are found in the nucleus itself !!!
for   instance in Neurons !!
yet it is not clear to me
what you say 
''in vicinity of their orbits ?? 
TIA
Y.POrat
==================  

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

#681810

On Thursday, April 19, 2018 at 8:35:15 PM UTC-7, pora...@gmail.com wrote:
> On Friday, April 20, 2018 at 1:56:41 AM UTC+3, Double-A wrote:
> > On Tuesday, April 17, 2018 at 4:38:32 PM UTC-7, pora...@gmail.com wrote:
> > > > > > > > This paper by Braeck and Gron is free t > > > > > 
> > > > > > 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
> > > > > ==============================.
> > > > 
> >  > > > 
> > > > Double-A
> > > ============================
> > > moreover !!
> > > electrons do not run around the nucleus !!
> > > ==
> > > Y.P
> > > ========================
> > 
> > 
> > Electrons might be found anywhere in the vicinity of their orbital, including in the nucleus.
> > 
> > Double-A
> ===============yess 
>   agree that electrons are found in the nucleus itself !!!
> for   instance in Neurons !!
> yet it is not clear to me
> what you say 
> ''in vicinity of their orbits ?? 
> TIA
> Y.POrat
> ==================


Is not an orbital merely a probability distribution of where a particular electron is likely to be found at any particular moment?

Double-A

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

#681828

AA
“Is not an orbital merely a probability distribution of where a particular electron is likely to be found at any particular moment? 
”
Yes just like a racetrack

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

#681900

On Friday, April 20, 2018 at 7:10:32 PM UTC-7, john wrote:
> AA
> “Is not an orbital merely a probability distribution of where a particular electron is likely to be found at any particular moment? 
> ”
> Yes just like a racetrack


I don't know about that.  The electron seems to move erratically.

Double-A

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

#681911

AA
“I don't know about that.  The electron seems to move erratically. ”
Is “erratically “ being found at regular intervals at the same place?
That’s what attophysics shows- every 100 attoseconds.

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

Page 2 of 4 — ← Prev page 1 [2] 3 4  Next page →

Back to top | Article view | sci.physics

csiph-web