FAQFAQ   SearchSearch   MemberlistMemberlist   UsergroupsUsergroups 
 ProfileProfile   PreferencesPreferences   Log in to check your private messagesLog in to check your private messages   Log inLog in 
Forum index » Science and Technology » Physics » Particle
magnetic propeties from spinning electric field
Post new topic   Reply to topic Page 92 of 92 [1376 Posts] View previous topic :: View next topic
Goto page:  Previous  1, 2, 3, ..., 90, 91, 92
Author Message
yt56erd
science forum Guru


Joined: 13 May 2005
Posts: 313

PostPosted: Tue Jul 18, 2006 10:29 am    Post subject: Re: Sturcture of an atom Reply with quote

Y.Porat wrote:
Quote:
Cranks Reply wrote:
Y.Porat wrote:

(Smile
does it hurt you shitty ???

not me ass bandit.

do you have a single friend beside your boy friend ?? (:-)

your fucking projecting again.

what does your wife say about it ??? (:-)

what wife? how do you know i am a man you fricking eunuch.
--------------------------------
oh i see !!
you ADMIT YOU are not EVEN MAN (Smile. (Smile (Smile
so you are the 'women side' of that homo bussiness (Smile
now i knnow why is that F word is so much in your mouth (Smile
eh ?? a*****le !!! (Smile
go on amuse me ........in need some entertainment .

you mysogenistic turdeater.

you are obsessed with homosexuals - are you repressing something.

probably not really. you like it in the ass dont you, nazi lover.
Back to top
yt56erd
science forum Guru


Joined: 13 May 2005
Posts: 313

PostPosted: Tue Jul 18, 2006 10:31 am    Post subject: Re: PHOTON MASS -- A FACT. MASSLESS PARTICLES -- NOT FACT. Reply with quote

Y.Porat wrote:
Quote:
Cranks Reply wrote:
Y.Porat wrote:
nothing but fcuking crap.

youre an eejit.
-----------------------------
(:-)

let phineas answer
he is a big boy and does not need your 'help'

Y.P
---------------------------

hey eejit gaylord fcuker, when did i stop phineas answering? you
finished eating cock for the day now?
Back to top
Y.Porat
science forum Guru


Joined: 04 May 2005
Posts: 1809

PostPosted: Tue Jul 18, 2006 11:22 am    Post subject: Re: PHOTON MASS -- A FACT. MASSLESS PARTICLES -- NOT FACT. Reply with quote

Cranks Reply wrote:
Quote:
Y.Porat wrote:
Cranks Reply wrote:
Y.Porat wrote:
nothing but fcuking crap.

youre an eejit.
-----------------------------
(:-)

let phineas answer
he is a big boy and does not need your 'help'

Y.P
---------------------------

hey eejit gaylord fcuker, when did i stop phineas answering? you
finished eating cock for the day now?
---------------------------

(Smile
----------------------
Back to top
Y.Porat
science forum Guru


Joined: 04 May 2005
Posts: 1809

PostPosted: Tue Jul 18, 2006 3:40 pm    Post subject: Re: Sturcture of an atom Reply with quote

Cranks Reply wrote:
Quote:
Y.Porat wrote:
Cranks Reply wrote:
Y.Porat wrote:

(Smile
does it hurt you shitty ???

not me ass bandit.

do you have a single friend beside your boy friend ?? (:-)

your fucking projecting again.

what does your wife say about it ??? (:-)

what wife? how do you know i am a man you fricking eunuch.
--------------------------------
oh i see !!
you ADMIT YOU are not EVEN MAN (Smile. (Smile (Smile
so you are the 'women side' of that homo bussiness (Smile
now i knnow why is that F word is so much in your mouth (Smile
eh ?? a*****le !!! (Smile
go on amuse me ........in need some entertainment .

you mysogenistic turdeater.

you are obsessed with homosexuals - are you repressing something.

probably not really. you like it in the ass dont you, nazi lover.
----------------------


(Smile (Smile
-----------------------------
Back to top
PD
science forum Guru


Joined: 03 May 2005
Posts: 4363

PostPosted: Tue Jul 18, 2006 4:22 pm    Post subject: Re: Coulomb barriers -- Electron vs. Proton Reply with quote

Radium wrote:
Quote:
Hi:

A proton has a charge of 1.6022 10^-19 coulombs. An electron has a
charge of -1.6022 10^-19 coulombs. This means that an electron
and a proton have the same amount of charge -- just in opposite
polarities. So why is the coulomb barrier of a proton so much more
difficult to overcome than the coulomb barrier of an electron?


It's not. I imagine you're misreading something.

The energy required to *penetrate* a proton is *lower* than the energy
required to penetrate an electron. This is often said another way: we
can "see" the structure of a proton, but we can't see any structure to
an electron.

Now, the energy required to *eject* an electron from an atom is a lot
lower than than the energy required to *eject* a proton from an atom,
but this doesn't have anything to do with a coulomb barrier. The proton
is held in the atom by a force a million times stronger than the
coulombic force, and you have to overcome that to eject a proton.

One final guess as to what you're talking about: the energy required to
*approach* a certain distance from an electron and from a proton is
identical. Getting to within 1E-11 m of the center of the atom (where
the electrons live) is easier than getting to within 1E-15 m of the
center of the atom (where the protons live). But when you are 1E-11
from the center of an atom, you are not right up close to an electron,
either.

PD
Back to top
hhc314@yahoo.com
science forum addict


Joined: 18 Sep 2005
Posts: 90

PostPosted: Tue Jul 18, 2006 6:18 pm    Post subject: Re: Coulomb barriers -- Electron vs. Proton Reply with quote

Andre posted:

"Maybe the strictly electrostatic Coulomb barrier concept would
benefit from being reconsidered."

Great point Andre, but are you aware of any experimental results that
suggests that it is in need of reconsideration? That is, how well does
the current theretical model predict observed experimental results?

Also calls to mind the expression: "If it ain't broken, don't fix it!"
(Likely sounds better in French, Italian, or even German.) :-)

Also, this introduces that age old philosophical question: "Does
experiment lead theory, or does theory lead experiment?" I believe
that most readers would agree that until near the middle of the 20th
century, experiment led theory, since that time on, theory has lead
experiment.

Harry C.
Back to top
Mark_Cordier@yahoo.com
science forum beginner


Joined: 19 Jul 2006
Posts: 2

PostPosted: Wed Jul 19, 2006 8:24 am    Post subject: Re: Sturcture of an atom Reply with quote

electrons dont rotate around the atom. the idea of an electron rotating
around an atom like a planet around a star is incorrect. the electrons
position is given as a probability destribution, many which yeild
positions for the electron that are not circular at all. some are
figure 8 shaped and some are even more oddly destributed.


Y.Porat wrote:
Quote:
Euler Cheung wrote:
An atom is felt solid because electron rotating in the orbit. If we
extend this line of thinking, we could also say that electron only
felt solid as an electron because a smaller particle rotating in the
orbit which made up the volume of electron. It is not non-sensical
since we already know electron is not the smallest particle. How far
can we push this line of argument? What would be resultant trajectory
of the smallest particle(in this universe)?
-----------------------------
if you suggest that the electronm is not th esmallest particle
and it is composed of smaller subparticles
*i am with you *

if you say that trhere is a lot6 of nonsense mumbling withthe
existing paradigm
*i am with you *

i suggest you have a look at my homemade model of Atom and nuc. in

http://www.geocities.com/porat_y/mypage.html

there is a pdf file there
please note my new idea of :
'the chain of orbitals '
that site is just the tip of the iceverg of my model
just an 'appetizer'
PS i expanded your post to sci.physics .particle
if you have opposition to that expansion - please let me know ans i
will keep it only in sci.physics

ATB
Y.Porat
-------------------------
Back to top
Mark_Cordier@yahoo.com
science forum beginner


Joined: 19 Jul 2006
Posts: 2

PostPosted: Wed Jul 19, 2006 8:25 am    Post subject: Re: Sturcture of an atom Reply with quote

electrons dont rotate around the atom. the idea of an electron rotating
around an atom like a planet around a star is incorrect. the electrons
position is given as a probability destribution, many which yeild
positions for the electron that are not circular at all. some are
figure 8 shaped and some are even more oddly destributed.



Y.Porat wrote:
Quote:
Euler Cheung wrote:
An atom is felt solid because electron rotating in the orbit. If we
extend this line of thinking, we could also say that electron only
felt solid as an electron because a smaller particle rotating in the
orbit which made up the volume of electron. It is not non-sensical
since we already know electron is not the smallest particle. How far
can we push this line of argument? What would be resultant trajectory
of the smallest particle(in this universe)?
-----------------------------
if you suggest that the electronm is not th esmallest particle
and it is composed of smaller subparticles
*i am with you *

if you say that trhere is a lot6 of nonsense mumbling withthe
existing paradigm
*i am with you *

i suggest you have a look at my homemade model of Atom and nuc. in

http://www.geocities.com/porat_y/mypage.html

there is a pdf file there
please note my new idea of :
'the chain of orbitals '
that site is just the tip of the iceverg of my model
just an 'appetizer'
PS i expanded your post to sci.physics .particle
if you have opposition to that expansion - please let me know ans i
will keep it only in sci.physics

ATB
Y.Porat
-------------------------
Back to top
Y.Porat
science forum Guru


Joined: 04 May 2005
Posts: 1809

PostPosted: Thu Jul 20, 2006 9:18 am    Post subject: Re: Coulomb barriers -- Electron vs. Proton Reply with quote

The Real Chris wrote:
Quote:
I suppose if the collision energy was high enough you might get a couple of
anti-protons.

After all it only an interference pattern.

I went to hospital one day for a tooth extraction and they asked me about my
proton structure theory.

I explained that all matter was made from light (high energy photons in the
gamm energy band) I explained how the photons because of their high energy
bend the space around themselves as in the general theory of relativity
(gravity) so that they did not propagate, thus making a stable object. The
law I worked out meant that the photon trapped by its own energy density so
formed nodes as in the shrodinger equation thus making the proton appear to
have structure with hard lumps inside (quarks) they are in reality just
nodes in this frozen wave such that it fits inside somehow as in an
interference pattern. I made up an equation somehow based on the probation
of light and the gravity equation of the general theory of relativity. The
various constants gravity, e m c and h all got involved.

I then said that collisions between these particles caused the waves they
were made up of to recombine in different ways to form an interference
pattern and this is what high energy reseach was getting.

Some collisions between a photon and a proton causes a decomposition of the
proton so that a phase shift occures causing the proton to dissapear in one
place and re-appear elswhere without touching space between. This is quantum
teleportation.

The doctor then said I was mad and cut out my brain instead.

I'm feeling better now. My funny insect friends must have put a newish one
in!
-------------------------

see my site
your ideas are not very far form mine in pronciple
only that according tome even the photon is done by a more basic
particle
i calles later the Circlon
a particle that moves naturally in a closed circle
see there at the alpha particle description
the idea of the *chain of orbitals*
it is a crucuial step ombining between the circlon and structure of
matter
and if you whant the maker of forces as well!!
it is

http://www.geocities.com/porat_y/mypage.html

the Circlon is described at the appendix
because it is not indispensible to my model
and it is not called there in any name (the name Circlon came only
later )

ATB
Y.Porat
---------------------
Back to top
kdthrge@yahoo.com
science forum beginner


Joined: 27 Mar 2006
Posts: 2

PostPosted: Thu Jul 20, 2006 11:48 pm    Post subject: Re: PHOTON MASS -- A FACT. MASSLESS PARTICLES -- NOT FACT. Reply with quote

..
Quote:

Now IF the photon had mass, its value would be m0=(hf)/c^2 With
h=4.13x10^-15 eV*s, f=7*10^14 s^-1, c=3x10^8 m/s it follows that m0
would be of the order of 3x10^-17. Since the experimental limits are
already close to this number the conclusion is forgone. Yet another way
at looking at the formula: the left hand side member is , as per
experiment, variable (it converges slowly to zero). The right hand side
member is made out of universal constants. The photon has no mass.

That's sure a lot of psuedo scientific garbage that leads you to a
conclusion which is contradiction to long standing scientific fact.

The theorem of the inertia of energy by Einstein '1905' states that any
energy E possesses a mass m, in accordance with the equation, E = mc^2.
Phenomena first observed by Lebedew (1901) of radiation pressure to
confirm this.
Investigated later by Nichols and Hull (1903) and others.
Investigated very exactly by Gerlach and his collaborators (1923)

It is a well known phenomena that atomic nuclei recoil upon the
absorption and emmision of a gamma photon.

When the hubble telescope was launched and first brought online, it
became apparent that consideration must be made for the momentum
delivered by the light from the sun as the telescope came out of shadow
into the light.

Perhaps the continuing fantasy of QM needs to believe that light has no
mass, but science and the real world tells us otherwise.

Kent Deatherage
http://home.earthlink.net/~kdthrge
Back to top
Y.Porat
science forum Guru


Joined: 04 May 2005
Posts: 1809

PostPosted: Fri Jul 21, 2006 4:50 am    Post subject: Re: PHOTON MASS -- A FACT. MASSLESS PARTICLES -- NOT FACT. Reply with quote

kdthrge@yahoo.com wrote:
Quote:
.

Now IF the photon had mass, its value would be m0=(hf)/c^2 With
h=4.13x10^-15 eV*s, f=7*10^14 s^-1, c=3x10^8 m/s it follows that m0
would be of the order of 3x10^-17. Since the experimental limits are
already close to this number the conclusion is forgone. Yet another way
at looking at the formula: the left hand side member is , as per
experiment, variable (it converges slowly to zero). The right hand side
member is made out of universal constants. The photon has no mass.

That's sure a lot of psuedo scientific garbage that leads you to a
conclusion which is contradiction to long standing scientific fact.

The theorem of the inertia of energy by Einstein '1905' states that any
energy E possesses a mass m, in accordance with the equation, E = mc^2.
Phenomena first observed by Lebedew (1901) of radiation pressure to
confirm this.
Investigated later by Nichols and Hull (1903) and others.
Investigated very exactly by Gerlach and his collaborators (1923)

It is a well known phenomena that atomic nuclei recoil upon the
absorption and emmision of a gamma photon.

When the hubble telescope was launched and first brought online, it
became apparent that consideration must be made for the momentum
delivered by the light from the sun as the telescope came out of shadow
into the light.

Perhaps the continuing fantasy of QM needs to believe that light has no
mass, but science and the real world tells us otherwise.

Kent Deatherage
http://home.earthlink.net/~kdthrge
----------------------------

This time i agree with you fore a change !!!

btw what made you change your mind ????

one must be an idiot not to see that
E=mc^2 that is associated with mass anohilation 'has no mass'

th e mass there is right before your eyes !!!

so may i add you to the 'yes mass in the photon' club ???

ATB
Y.Porat
---------------------------
Back to top
Google

Back to top
Display posts from previous:   
Post new topic   Reply to topic Page 92 of 92 [1376 Posts] Goto page:  Previous  1, 2, 3, ..., 90, 91, 92
View previous topic :: View next topic
The time now is Fri Nov 24, 2017 2:40 pm | All times are GMT
Forum index » Science and Technology » Physics » Particle
Jump to:  

Similar Topics
Topic Author Forum Replies Last Post
No new posts Units for electric field strength Gavin Electromagnetics 0 Thu Aug 24, 2006 3:00 pm
No new posts Infinitesimal generator of a vector field Julien Santini Math 0 Fri Jul 21, 2006 8:01 am
No new posts Behaviour of a Ball (Bouncing and Spinning) Jonas Huckestein Physics 0 Thu Jul 20, 2006 2:38 pm
No new posts Vector field flow problem - help? Daniel Nierro Math 1 Wed Jul 19, 2006 10:28 am
No new posts Geomagnetic field reason h_v_ansari@yahoo.com Electromagnetics 2 Tue Jul 18, 2006 3:34 pm

Copyright © 2004-2005 DeniX Solutions SRL
Other DeniX Solutions sites: Electronics forum |  Medicine forum |  Unix/Linux blog |  Unix/Linux documentation |  Unix/Linux forums  |  send newsletters
 


Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2005 phpBB Group
[ Time: 0.7635s ][ Queries: 16 (0.6889s) ][ GZIP on - Debug on ]