 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
Natural Science Forum / Physics / General Physics / April 2008Neutrons and radiation
Neutrons don't radiate EM. They do not have an electro magnetic field therefor they don't have the field to give birth to light. Mitch Reamsch > Neutrons don't radiate EM. They do not have an electro magnetic field > therefor they don't have the field to give birth to light. > > Mitch Reamsch Wait 14.76 minutes on the average, then Cesarean section. Shouldn't you be squeezing comedones and eating the creamy centers? Propionibacterium gives them an exquisite cheesy aroma.  SignatureUncle Al http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/ (Toxic URL! Unsafe for children and most mammals) http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/lajos.htm#a2 On Apr 21, 7:58 pm, mitch.nicolas.raem...@gmail.com wrote: > Neutrons don't radiate EM. They do not have an electro magnetic field > therefor they don't have the field to give birth to light. > > Mitch Reamsch http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neutron_magnetic_moment On Apr 21, 4:58 pm, mitch.nicolas.raem...@gmail.com wrote: > Neutrons don't radiate EM. They do not have an electro magnetic field > therefor they don't have the field to give birth to light. You have no idea what you're talking about. This is about your speed: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neutron Pay particular attention to the section "Interactions". Nuclear Magnetic Resonance of many isotopes (frinst C13) depends entirely on the magnetic moment of an 'extra' neutron. Mark L. Fergerson On Apr 22, 10:14 am, "n...@bid.nes" <Alien8...@gmail.com> wrote: > On Apr 21, 4:58 pm, mitch.nicolas.raem...@gmail.com wrote: > [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > Nuclear Magnetic Resonance of many isotopes (frinst C13) depends > entirely on the magnetic moment of an 'extra' neutron. Perhaps that is a misinterpretation as the neutron has no charge. > Mark L. Fergerson ElectroMagnetic charge is the prerequiset for interacting with light. MItch Raemsch Twice Nobel Laureate 2008 > On Apr 22, 10:14 am, "n...@bid.nes" <Alien8...@gmail.com> wrote: > [quoted text clipped - 15 lines] > > Perhaps that is a misinterpretation as the neutron has no charge. You really think a neutral net charge is equal to no charge? Have you considered the origin of the word "neutron?" On Apr 22, 1:56 pm, mitch.nicolas.raem...@gmail.com wrote: > On Apr 22, 10:14 am, "n...@bid.nes" <Alien8...@gmail.com> wrote: > [quoted text clipped - 15 lines] > > Perhaps that is a misinterpretation as the neutron has no charge. No. Neutrons have an empirically measured magnetic moment, which by definition means it feels magnetic fields. You apparently didn't bother to read: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neutron where you can find (in the section Interactions): "Although the neutron has zero net charge, it may interact electromagnetically in two ways: first, the neutron has a magnetic moment of the same order as the proton (see neutron magnetic moment); second, it is composed of electrically charged quarks." > ElectroMagnetic charge is the prerequiset for interacting with light. There is no such thing as "electromagnetic charge" for subatomic particles. Neutrons have nonzero electric polarizability (the ability to develop externally measurable internal charge displacements in response to an externally applied electric field) and spin angular momentum, giving them nonzero magnetic moments. Together those properties allow neutrons to interact with externally applied electromagnetic fields. And not just time-varying fields, either. When a neutron is placed in a static (not changing over time) magnetic field its spin angular momentum vector (spin axis, to you) precesses at a rate proportional to the field's strength. > MItch Raemsch Twice Nobel Laureate 2008 You aren't listed here: http://nobelprize.org/nobel_prizes/lists/all/all_laureates_ln.html which covers from 1901 to 2007. Mark L. Fergerson On Apr 22, 9:00 pm, "n...@bid.nes" <Alien8...@gmail.com> wrote: > On Apr 22, 1:56 pm, mitch.nicolas.raem...@gmail.com wrote: > [quoted text clipped - 61 lines] > > - Show quoted text - I don't believe the neutron is magnetic. That is fudge. The neutron because it has no charge cannot radiate. Mitch Raemsch Twice Nobel Laureate 2008 On Apr 22, 10:51 pm, mitch.nicolas.raem...@gmail.com wrote: > On Apr 22, 9:00 pm, "n...@bid.nes" <Alien8...@gmail.com> wrote: > [quoted text clipped - 65 lines] > > I don't believe the neutron is magnetic. That is fudge. Your beliefs are not in agreement with empirical reality. Please stop posting them to sci.physics. Also, please provide evidence you are "Twice Nobel Laureate 2008"; that is not subject to opinion. Mark L. Fergerson On Apr 22, 10:23 pm, "n...@bid.nes" <Alien8...@gmail.com> wrote: > On Apr 22, 10:51 pm, mitch.nicolas.raem...@gmail.com wrote: > [quoted text clipped - 77 lines] > > - Show quoted text - Neutrons are not electromagenic. Mitch Raemsch Twice Nobel Laureate 2008 >Neutrons are not electromagenic. > >Mitch Raemsch Twice Nobel Laureate 2008 I agree with Mitch Raemsch. Neutrons are not electromagenic. w. >>Neutrons are not electromagenic. >> >>Mitch Raemsch Twice Nobel Laureate 2008 > > I agree with Mitch Raemsch. > Neutrons are not electromagenic. You're trolling as well? This message is brought to you by Androcles http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/ | >>Neutrons are not electromagenic. | >> [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] | | You're trolling as well? I agree neutrons are not electromagenic too. Nor are magents, magtens, matgens, magens, mangets... > This message is brought to you by Androcles > http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/ [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > I agree neutrons are not electromagenic too. > Nor are magents, magtens, matgens, magens, mangets... Trolling isn't relative, it is purposeful. This message is brought to you by Androcles http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/ | > This message is brought to you by Androcles | > http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/ [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] | | Trolling isn't relative, it is purposeful. That may be, but is it electromagicent? See, there are trolls and there are malicious trolls. Now a lot of contributors are agreeing with Raemsch (Twice Nobel Laureate 2008) that neutrons are not electromagenic, but I don't agree with a lot of malicious trolls such as the Nobel Laureate that said the speed of light from A to B is c-v, the speed of light from B to A is c+v, and the time each way is the same. "we establish by definition that the ``time'' required by light to travel from A to B equals the ``time'' it requires to travel from B to A." -- Albert Fuckwit Einstein. Ref: http://www.fourmilab.ch/etexts/einstein/specrel/www/ Dear Helmut Wabnig: >>Neutrons are not electromagenic. >> >>Mitch Raemsch Twice Nobel Laureate 2008 > > I agree with Mitch Raemsch. > Neutrons are not electromagenic. Depending on whatever definition of "electromagenic" is arrived at, I also agree. "Magen" is "shield" in Hebrew (I guess), so maybe "electrical shield-like". David A. Smith On Apr 22, 11:27 pm, mitch.nicolas.raem...@gmail.com wrote: > On Apr 22, 10:23 pm, "n...@bid.nes" <Alien8...@gmail.com> wrote: > [quoted text clipped - 81 lines] > > Neutrons are not electromagenic. What does "electromagenic" mean? > Mitch Raemsch Twice Nobel Laureate 2008 No, you're not. Oh, wait, let me guess- you don't believe that you're not listed at the Nobel homepage. Mark L. Fergerson On Apr 23, 8:32 am, "n...@bid.nes" <Alien8...@gmail.com> wrote: > On Apr 22, 11:27 pm, mitch.nicolas.raem...@gmail.com wrote: > [quoted text clipped - 96 lines] > > - Show quoted text - *which covers from 1901 to 2007. It won for 2008 Mitch Raemsch Twice Nobel laureate 2008 On Apr 23, 1:08 pm, mitch.nicolas.raem...@gmail.com wrote: > On Apr 23, 8:32 am, "n...@bid.nes" <Alien8...@gmail.com> wrote: > [quoted text clipped - 102 lines] > > It won for 2008 Nobel prizes for a given year are awarded on 10 December of that year, the anniversary of Alfred Nobel's death. The 2008 Nobel prizes have not yet been awarded. http://search.nobelprize.org/search/nobel/?q=raemsch&i=en&x=8&y=9 Mark L. Fergerson On Apr 23, 9:29 pm, "n...@bid.nes" <Alien8...@gmail.com> wrote: > On Apr 23, 1:08 pm, mitch.nicolas.raem...@gmail.com wrote: > [quoted text clipped - 115 lines] > > - Show quoted text - I won. When do you think the winners find out? Mitch Raemsch Twice Nobel Laureate 2008 On Apr 26, 4:49 pm, mitch.nicolas.raem...@gmail.com wrote: > On Apr 23, 9:29 pm, "n...@bid.nes" <Alien8...@gmail.com> wrote: > [quoted text clipped - 119 lines] > > I won. When do you think the winners find out? From: http://nobelprize.org/prize_announcements/magic_call.html "Minutes just before the announcement, the Prize Awarding Institution calls the Nobel Laureates to inform them that they have been awarded the Nobel Prize." And from: http://nobelprize.org/prize_announcements/ "The announcement of the Nobel Laureates for the year is made on the same day that the Nobel Prize-Awarding Institutions choose from among the names recommended by the respective Nobel Committees. Immediately after the vote, a press conference is held by the concerned Nobel Prize Awarder." There have been no press conferences announcing Prize winners for 2008. Now, if you'd claimed two _Ig_Nobels, at least one for time travel, nobody would have minded. Mark L. Fergerson On Apr 29, 5:32 pm, "n...@bid.nes" <Alien8...@gmail.com> wrote: > On Apr 26, 4:49 pm, mitch.nicolas.raem...@gmail.com wrote: > [quoted text clipped - 149 lines] > > - Show quoted text - We will find out then!!! Mitch Raemsch; Twice Nobel Laureate 2008 |
Reply to this Message |
 Sign In
 Join
 My Latest Posts My Monitored Threads My Blog My Photo Gallery My Profile My Homepage Start New Thread Enable EMail Alerts Rate this Thread
|
©2009 Advenet LLC Privacy Policy - Terms of Use
This website includes both content owned or controlled by Advenet as well as content owned or controlled by third parties.