 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
Natural Science Forum / Physics / Relativity / October 2005One of the biggest mistakes
One of the biggest mistakes in modern physics is the idea that positively charged protons should repel each other. In falling space theory it is explained why electrical effect acts only between two particles, a proton and an electron. There are no electrical effect between two protons. Henry Haapalainen http://www.wakkanet.fi/~fields/ > One of the biggest mistakes in modern physics is the idea that positively > charged protons should repel each other. In falling space theory it is > explained why electrical effect acts only between two particles, a proton > and an electron. There are no electrical effect between two protons. Uhhh... Ever heard of Rutherford? > Henry Haapalainen > http://www.wakkanet.fi/~fields/ > > One of the biggest mistakes in modern physics is the idea that positively > > charged protons should repel each other. In falling space theory it is [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > > Henry Haapalainen > > http://www.wakkanet.fi/~fields/ > Uhhh... > > Ever heard of Rutherford? Ernest Rutherford was a great physicist of his time, and his model of atom is still used in school teaching. So what did you mean by your question? Henry Haapalainen > > > One of the biggest mistakes in modern physics is the idea that > positively [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] > > Henry Haapalainen Rutherford scattered alpha particles off gold nuclei. Alphas are two protons, two neutrons. Gold nuclei consist of protons and neutrons. Rutherford successfully calculated the measured distribution of scattering angles of the alphas from the gold nuclei by assuming a Coulombic repulsion between the protons in the alpha from the protons in the gold nucleus. PD Henry Haapalainen wrote: > "Eric Gisse" <jowr.pi@gmail.com> kirjoitti viestissä > news:1129855397.224020.63180@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com... [quoted text clipped - 18 lines] > > Henry Haapalainen Rutherford scattered alpha particles off gold nuclei. Alphas are two protons, two neutrons. Gold nuclei consist of protons and neutrons. Rutherford successfully calculated the measured distribution of scattering angles of the alphas from the gold nuclei by assuming a Coulombic repulsion between the protons in the alpha from the protons in the gold nucleus. PD I don't think that he would have tried to prove something like that. But anyway, I wrote that there are no electrical effect between two protons, and I am sure that this could tested experimentally. Henry Haapalainen > I wrote that there are no electrical effect between two protons, and > I am sure that this could tested experimentally. And it has been, zillions of times. Protons do indeed repel each other, and it is well modeled by electromagnetism in appropriate regimes (i.e. for distances large enough so nuclear interactions are insignificant). A direct proof is multiple scattering of proton beams in hydrogen (the electrons contribute to energy loss but not significantly to the multiple scattering, which comes from the hydrogen nuclei, i.e. protons). There are also beam-beam interactions in colliders, and space charge effects in accelerators. And, of course, there are measurements of proton-proton scattering at low energies. All these are directly due to the mutual electromagnetic repulsion of protons. One of the biggest mistakes around here is people making claims about subjects which they know nothing about. Unfortunately it is also among the most frequent mistakes. As in this thread. Tom Roberts tjroberts@lucnet.com > > I wrote that there are no electrical effect between two protons, and > > I am sure that this could tested experimentally. [quoted text clipped - 16 lines] > > Tom Roberts tjroberts@lucnet.com Tom, it has happened repeatedly that you express your claim, but when I assign your misunderstanding you just disappear. I don't need zillions of proofs, but give me one that you think is best. And tell me, where I can find it in the net. Henry Haapalainen Henry Haapalainen: >> > I wrote that there are no electrical effect between two protons, and >> > I am sure that this could tested experimentally. [quoted text clipped - 20 lines] >assign your misunderstanding you just disappear. I don't need zillions of >proofs, but give me one that you think is best. Pick any one at random. Compared with what you post, any one of the zillion is sufficient. >And tell me, where I can find it in the net. http://www.google.com Tom Roberts, you disappeared again, with your "zillions of proofs". Well, I didn't expect anything else. Henry Haapalainen > > > I wrote that there are no electrical effect between two protons, and > > > I am sure that this could tested experimentally. [quoted text clipped - 23 lines] > > Henry Haapalainen Newsgroups: sci.physics.relativity From: Tom Roberts <tjrobe...@lucent.com> - Find messages by this author Date: Sat, 17 Sep 2005 17:57:18 GMT Local: Sat, Sep 17 2005 6:57 pm Subject: Re: Does the 'Curvature of Spacetime' cause gravity? "Yes, tests of strong fields are few and far between, but there are some: the binary pulsars, and observations of accretion disks near black holes | One of the biggest mistakes around here is people making claims about | subjects which they know nothing about. Unfortunately it is also among | the most frequent mistakes. As in this thread. | | Tom Roberts tjroberts@lucnet.com I wonder when "lucent" became "lucnet"? After it passed through the accretion disk near the black hole? Androcles. > Henry Haapalainen wrote: >> "Eric Gisse" <jowr.pi@gmail.com> kirjoitti viestiss [quoted text clipped - 19 lines] >> >> Henry Haapalainen > Rutherford scattered alpha particles off gold nuclei. > Alphas are two protons, two neutrons. [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > Coulombic repulsion between the protons in the alpha from the protons > in the gold nucleus. > PD > I don't think that he would have tried to prove something like that. But > anyway, I wrote that there are no electrical effect between two protons, and > I am sure that this could tested experimentally. > Henry Haapalainen Why do you think protons "bounce" off of each other? Stephen Henry Haapalainen: >Rutherford scattered alpha particles off gold nuclei. >Alphas are two protons, two neutrons. [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > >I don't think that he would have tried to prove something like that. The problem is that you don't think. Period. Why don't you actually read an introductory physics textbook _BEFORE_ attempting to argue with historical facts. >But anyway, I wrote that there are no electrical effect between two >protons, And you were wrong. >and I am sure that this could tested experimentally. It sure can and I've done it to measure the energy of that repulsion: Phys. Rev. C34 (1663) 1986. > One of the biggest mistakes in modern physics is the idea that positively > charged protons should repel each other. In falling space theory it is > explained why electrical effect acts only between two particles, a proton > and an electron. There are no electrical effect between two protons. Rub two balloons on your hair. Bring the two balloons close together and observe how one balloon acts on the other. Explain this phenomenon. PD > Henry Haapalainen > http://www.wakkanet.fi/~fields/ > > One of the biggest mistakes in modern physics is the idea that positively > > charged protons should repel each other. In falling space theory it is [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > Rub two balloons on your hair. Bring the two balloons close together > and observe how one balloon acts on the other. Explain this phenomenon. Careful now. Think polarized brain fluids. Rubbing balloons on his hair was the factual cause of his falling space condition. Dirk Vdm > > > One of the biggest mistakes in modern physics is the idea that positively > > > charged protons should repel each other. In falling space theory it is [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > > Dirk Vdm Fellows, I am not saying that there can't be mistakes in falling space theory. Of course there can. But if you do some work and find one, which is big enough, you will win some money. Henry Haapalainen http://www.wakkanet.fi/~fields/ Henry Haapalainen: >> "PD" <TheDraperFamily@gmail.com> wrote in message >news:1129865679.651597.165440@g43g2000cwa.googlegroups.com... [quoted text clipped - 17 lines] >Fellows, I am not saying that there can't be mistakes in falling space >theory. That's good, since you'll be exhausted after ficing the ones that aren't hidden and we don't want to remind you to keep fixing. >Of course there can. But if you do some work and find one, which is >big enough, you will win some money. You are a complete fraud. If you actually paid for every mistake of which you've been informed, you would have enough outstanding liabilities to bankrupt bill gates. Is there a consumer fraud law in finland? Dirk Van de moortel: >> > One of the biggest mistakes in modern physics is the idea that positively >> > charged protons should repel each other. In falling space theory it is [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > >Careful now. Think polarized brain fluids. In that case, it would have to vacuum polarization. >Rubbing balloons on his hair was the factual cause of his falling >space condition. Maybe we could put nozzles in his ears and rent him out to fill hot air balloons at air shows. "Henry Haapalainen" <kirppu@kolumbus.fi> wrote in news:dj984j$l7h$1@phys- news1.kolumbus.fi: > One of the biggest mistakes in modern physics is the idea that positively > charged protons should repel each other. In falling space theory it is > explained why electrical effect acts only between two particles, a proton > and an electron. There are no electrical effect between two protons. If you were correct then beams of positive hydrogen ions would have no effects on each other. How to make a beam of protons? Take Hydrogen gas and strip off the electrons. Google for 'positive hydrogen ion beam' and you will find how they are made. You should find that the two beams effect each other similar to the way electron beams effect each other, provided you take into account the fact that protons are much heavier, thus have a much smaller charge/mass ratio than electrons.  Signaturebz please pardon my infinite ignorance, the set-of-things-I-do-not-know is an infinite set. bz+sp@ch100-5.chem.lsu.edu remove ch100-5 to avoid spam trap > "Henry Haapalainen" <kirppu@kolumbus.fi> wrote in news:dj984j$l7h$1@phys- > news1.kolumbus.fi: [quoted text clipped - 17 lines] > > bz Thank you, bz. According to falling space a proton without it's electron (electron field is the term used in the theory) is "unnatural". That kind of happening is rare, but it can exist for a short period of time, for instance in a particle accelerator. Hydrogen ions are not protons. They are hydrogen atoms, the electron field on which is elongated. The normal shape of an atom is a "ball", and its electron field is then in the magnetic state. Henry Haapalainen http://www.wakkanet.fi/~fields/ > > "Henry Haapalainen" <kirppu@kolumbus.fi> wrote in news:dj984j$l7h$1@phys- > > news1.kolumbus.fi: [quoted text clipped - 31 lines] > Henry Haapalainen > http://www.wakkanet.fi/~fields/ Sorry about the mistakes: ...the electron FIELDS OF which ARE elongated. Henry Haapalainen >> > "Henry Haapalainen" <kirppu@kolumbus.fi> wrote in > news:dj984j$l7h$1@phys- [quoted text clipped - 42 lines] >> > Sorry about the mistakes: ...the electron FIELDS OF which ARE elongated. Then your use of the word 'proton' is non-standard because the nucleus of the hydrogen atom is a proton and if you remove the electron from a hydrogen atom, you have a proton. I did make a mistake also, we must start with monatomic hydrogen, rather than molecules of hydrogen gas (though one can be made from the other). Removing a single electron from diatomic hydrogen gas will NOT give you a single proton. In any case, a beam of monatomic hydrogen +ions would be the same as a beam of protons. Signaturebz please pardon my infinite ignorance, the set-of-things-I-do-not-know is an infinite set. bz+sp@ch100-5.chem.lsu.edu remove ch100-5 to avoid spam trap > >> Hydrogen ions are not protons. They are hydrogen atoms, the electron > >> fields of which are elongated. The normal shape of an atom is a "ball", [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > > bz Using the atomic model of Rutherford there is no other way to explain hydrogen ion than that you are refering to. And that's how it is taught in scools. But in reality an atom is far from that model. And so the explanations of various phenomena can be different. A hydrogen ion radiates. That tells us that it cannot be a proton. Henry Haapalainen ----- Original Message ----- From: "Henry Haapalainen" <kirppu@kolumbus.fi> Newsgroups: alt.morons Sent: Thursday, October 27, 2005 12:58 AM Subject: Re: One of the biggest mistakes "Bilge" <dubious@radioactivex.lebesque-al.net> kirjoitti viestissä news:slrndlulqg.adj.dubious@radioactivex.lebesque-al.net... > Henry Haapalainen: > > >Hydrogen ions are not protons. They are hydrogen atoms, the electron field > >on which is elongated. The normal shape of an atom is a "ball", and its > >electron field is then in the magnetic state. [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > were stripped in the ionizer, I won't even bother to mention the > multitude of other evidence that proves you are deluded. I think that you are cooking some moonshine in your kitchen, and it is much safer, too. So I have to tell to all the young physicists: Don't try that at home! Henry Haapalainen Henry Haapalainen: >----- Original Message ----- >From: "Henry Haapalainen" <kirppu@kolumbus.fi> [quoted text clipped - 18 lines] > > > I think that you are cooking some moonshine in your kitchen, Your problem is that you don't think. > and it is much safer, too. So I have to tell to all the young > physicists: Don't try that at home! Just because it would be a toss up whether you would blow yourself up with the hydrogen or electrocute yourself with one of the high voltage supplies first, doesn't mean everyone else is experimentally disinclined. After all, I managed to not get killed without ever taking any precautions beyond using common sense. If you think doing that is unsafe, where does that leave you? >> >> Hydrogen ions are not protons. They are hydrogen atoms, the electron >> >> fields of which are elongated. The normal shape of an atom is a >> >> "ball", and its electron field is then in the magnetic state. When you remove an electron from a hydrogen atom, there is no electron field remaining to be elongated. >> >> Henry Haapalainen >> >> http://www.wakkanet.fi/~fields/ [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > Using the atomic model of Rutherford there is no other way to explain > hydrogen ion than that you are refering to. And who uses the Rutherford model now? The Bohr model superceeded it and was then superceeded by various flavors of quantum theory. > And that's how it is taught > in scools. Not in any schools I know about. > But in reality an atom is far from that model. And so the > explanations of various phenomena can be different. > > A hydrogen ion radiates. That tells us that it cannot be a proton. That sounds like circular logic to me: You say a proton doesn't interact with other protons nor with electrons therefore anything that does interact with other similar particles or with electrons must not be a proton. Good one. A rather non standard definition of a proton. http://physics.about.com/od/glossaryp/g/Proton.htm Try these: Either... A hydrogen ion radiates when it meets an electron. A proton radiates when it meets an electron. It radiates the same amount of energy as when a hydrogen ion meets an electron. Or... You are claiming that you have experimental data showing that protons are stable when outside the atom, even when they meet with free electrons. So, My question to you: do you have such data? Please cite where it is published so that I may go read the journal article. If you are right, what they are really using in this equipment? http://www.phoenix5.org/glossary/proton_beam_(radio)therapy.html http://www.medterms.com/script/main/art.asp?articlekey=40379 Signaturebz please pardon my infinite ignorance, the set-of-things-I-do-not-know is an infinite set. bz+sp@ch100-5.chem.lsu.edu remove ch100-5 to avoid spam trap To "bz" Now you understand everything wrong. I have never claimed those things that you are trying to put into my mouth. My claim was this: two protons do not rebel each other. The reason is that electrical effects occurs only between two particles, a proton and an electron. If you have not read falling space theory, read it no. Henry Haapalainen http://www.wakkanet.fi/~fields/ > >> >> Hydrogen ions are not protons. They are hydrogen atoms, the electron > >> >> fields of which are elongated. The normal shape of an atom is a [quoted text clipped - 44 lines] > http://www.phoenix5.org/glossary/proton_beam_(radio)therapy.html > http://www.medterms.com/script/main/art.asp?articlekey=40379 > To "bz" > Now you understand everything wrong. I have never claimed those things > that you are trying to put into my mouth. My claim was this: two protons > do not rebel each other. The reason is that electrical effects occurs > only between two particles, a proton and an electron. If you have not > read falling space theory, read it no. I have read it. There are major problem with the reasoning you just expressed above and on the web site. For example, you say [quote] No one has ever proved that some parts of an atom have an electrical charge in the atom's normal state. Theory has only assumed so. What then are electricity and magnetism? [unquote] The statement indicates a lack of the basis of science. You appear to think that science can 'prove' things and when it hasn't 'proven' something that the something is automatically wrong. Science NEVER proves things (outside of Mathematics, that is). Science proposes rules that are consistent with all known data and that allow the prediction of things. These 'rules' or 'theories' or 'laws' stand until they are DISPROVEN. It is easy to disprove a law. Just run an experiment that produces results different from those predicted by the particular law/theory/rule that you want to disprove. As long as your experiment is reproducable and the results are really contrary to the theories predictions, you have disproven the law. MMX ran such an experiment. The ether theory predicted they would observe different light speeds in different directions, in line with the earths orbital velocity around the sun. The ether theory was disproven when the results failed to match the predictions. Atoms have been bombarded with electromagnetic waves (with and without external magnetic fields), electrons, protons, neutrons and high energy waves and particles. All of the results from those many tests are consistent with 1) The nuclii of atoms consisting of proton(s) {and perhaps neutron(s)}. 2) electrons being 'associated with' the nucleus, but NOT within it. 3) protons having positive charges and repelling other like charged bodies. 4) electrons having negative charges and repelling other like charged bodies. 5) electrons and protons being attracted toward each other, to a certain distance. The 'theory assumes so' that you mention was created to explain the data, not the other way around. If you want to DISPROVED the theory that the nuclii of atoms contain protons, those protons have positive charges, and those protons repel each other due to their charge almost as strongly as they are bound to each other by short range forces, then you must provide experimental data that disproves the accepted theories. Simply proposing 'yet another theory that appears to explain how things are' is NOT sufficient. No one is obligated to DISPROVE your theory. You must disprove all simpler theories while showing that your theory continues to hold for the data with which you disprove the simpler theories. If you can't do that, you are wasting your time and everyone elses. Please cite your data... not your theories, DATA that disproves the current theories. >> >> >> Hydrogen ions are not protons. They are hydrogen atoms, the >> >> >> electron fields of which are elongated. The normal shape of an [quoted text clipped - 47 lines] >> http://www.phoenix5.org/glossary/proton_beam_(radio)therapy.html >> http://www.medterms.com/script/main/art.asp?articlekey=40379 Signaturebz please pardon my infinite ignorance, the set-of-things-I-do-not-know is an infinite set. bz+sp@ch100-5.chem.lsu.edu remove ch100-5 to avoid spam trap > > To "bz" > > Now you understand everything wrong. I have never claimed those things [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > I have read it. There are major problem with the reasoning you just > expressed above and on the web site. When you say that, it is very hard for me to believe that you have really read it all, not at least with some concentration. When the theory led to that (protons not repelling each other) and some other strange conclusions, I didn't believe them. I spent years to find a mistake. So you must look for the reasoning in the totality, not in some small details. But we can discuss any details, of course. HH > For example, you say [quote] > No one has ever proved that some parts of an atom have an electrical charge [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > that science can 'prove' things and when it hasn't 'proven' something that > the something is automatically wrong. Sorry to say this, but I think that I understand those things at least as well as you do. HH > Science NEVER proves things (outside of Mathematics, that is). Science > proposes rules that are consistent with all known data and that allow the [quoted text clipped - 22 lines] > 5) electrons and protons being attracted toward each other, to a certain > distance. 1) I like that "perhaps of neutron(s)". 2) Do you mean that the model of quantum fysics is wrong as well? 3) That is believing, because there isn't any proof of it. I a'm still waiting for the first evidence. 4) Electrons may repel each other, but the reason is magnetic. 5) Yes. HH > The 'theory assumes so' that you mention was created to explain the data, > not the other way around. [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > other by short range forces, then you must provide experimental data that > disproves the accepted theories. If you believe that we can isolate hydrogen ions, which you think are protons, why don't we do so. We could examine those isolated protons in a laboratory. Now who is poor in reasoning? HH > If you believe that we can isolate hydrogen ions, which you think are > protons, why don't we do so. We could examine those isolated protons in a > laboratory. Now who is poor in reasoning? HH Henry, in the Fermilab source, hydrogen gas in a bottle is ionized to H- (two electrons) and accelerated, and then both electrons are stripped off. The resulting "things" are accelerated through multiple stages and stored in rings for several hours. The "things" are consistent with bearing singly positive charge (e) and have at or very nearly the mass of a nucleon, or they would not be stable in the ring. When they are collided with targets, they behave in a way that is consistent with protons. We *do* study those isolated things. I don't have any idea why you think we don't. PD > > If you believe that we can isolate hydrogen ions, which you think are > > protons, why don't we do so. We could examine those isolated protons in a [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > > PD In falling space I had former explained, that a proton will stay inside a proton even in a particle accelerator, so that an atom would be like a string with a aproton in one end of it. But this is something I am not sure of. A few weaks ago I changed this so, that free electrons may exist, and also free protons for a short period of time, or in a particle accelerator. It may happen that I will will have to return to that old explanation. But I don't it know. Henry Haapalainen > > > If you believe that we can isolate hydrogen ions, which you think are > > > protons, why don't we do so. We could examine those isolated protons in [quoted text clipped - 24 lines] > > Henry Haapalainen Better yet would be to start from the experimentally supported premise that free protons and free electrons exist, have been isolated for extended periods, and have been studied extensively. In fact, I would say it's always a good idea to bone up on the experimental facts before trying to build a theory to explain them. PD Bilge, I told you some months ago, that I will not discuss physics with you. Henry Haapalainen Henry Haapalainen: >Bilge, I told you some months ago, that I will not discuss physics with you. Since you don't know any physics, I never expected such a discussion. To PD (a new try because of mistakes) In falling space I had former explained, that a proton will stay inside an electron even in a particle accelerator, so that an atom would be like a "string" with a proton in one end of it. But this is something I am not sure of now. A few weaks ago I changed it so, that free electrons may exist (because I thought that I had found the way they can be borned), and also free protons for a short period of time (or in a particle accelerator). It may happen that I will have to return to that old explanation. But I don't it know. Henry Haapalainen > To PD (a new try because of mistakes) > > In falling space I had former explained, that a proton will stay inside an > electron > even in a particle accelerator, so that an atom would be like a > "string" with a proton in one end of it. Well, we have a problem here, because the string would have to be wrapped around a 4-mile ring millions of times. Moreover, the electron and proton would be bent in *opposite* directions by the steering field and so while one would stay in the beam pipe, the other would strike the beam pipe wall and dissipate its energy. > But this is something I am not sure > of now. A few weaks ago I changed it so, that free electrons may exist > (because I thought that I had found the way they can be borned), and also > free protons for a short period of time (or in a particle accelerator). > It may happen that I will have to return to that old explanation. But I > don't it know. See my previous remarks about studying known experimental behaviors of charged particles. > Henry Haapalainen > > To PD (a new try because of mistakes) > > [quoted text clipped - 18 lines] > See my previous remarks about studying known experimental behaviors of > charged particles. PD Yes, that's how the puzzle of falling space has been built. Any piece of information may lead one step further. There was a mistake in your answer, or my English is too bad. There would be no strikes between beam ends. The first end of a beam would be sited in the plasma chamber. Henry Haapalainen > > > To PD (a new try because of mistakes) > > > [quoted text clipped - 27 lines] > no strikes between beam ends. The first end of a beam would be sited in the > plasma chamber. There was a force to move the positive "end" of your atom out of the "plasma chamber". This force would also act on the negative "end" of your atom. What do you think its response would be? PD [snip crap] Marcel asked you "Length contraction of what?", Phuckwit Duck. You clearly have a zero attention span. Androcles. > [snip crap] > > Marcel asked you "Length contraction of what?", Phuckwit Duck. > You clearly have a zero attention span. > > Androcles. I responded to Marcel in the appropriate thread, Androcles. You clearly have lost your way in the newsgroup. PD | > [snip crap] | > [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] | I responded to Marcel in the appropriate thread, Androcles. | You clearly have lost your way in the newsgroup. Marcel asked you "Length contraction of what?", Phuckwit Duck. Answer the guy. You can't, of course. You clearly have a zero attention span and are a babbling moron. Androcles. Henry Haapalainen wrote: > "PD" <TheDraperFamily@gmail.com> kirjoitti viestissä > news:1130530721.816009.244840@g49g2000cwa.googlegroups.com... [quoted text clipped - 31 lines] > no strikes between beam ends. The first end of a beam would be sited in the > plasma chamber. There was a force to move the positive "end" of your atom out of the "plasma chamber". This force would also act on the negative "end" of your atom. What do you think its response would be? PD The positive end is accelerated with a strong magnetic field, the negative end is not sited in that area of a magnetic field. That is what I tried to tell you. Henry Haapalainen Falling space theory http://www.wakkanet.fi/~fields/ > Henry Haapalainen wrote: > > "PD" <TheDraperFamily@gmail.com> kirjoitti viestissä [quoted text clipped - 47 lines] > end is not sited in that area of a magnetic field. That is what I tried to > tell you. How did the proton get *in* the magnetic field in the first place? > Henry Haapalainen > Falling space theory http://www.wakkanet.fi/~fields/ >> > To "bz" >> > Now you understand everything wrong. I have never claimed those [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > mistake. So you must look for the reasoning in the totality, not in some > small details. But we can discuss any details, of course. HH Conclusions from a theory that are contrary to laboratory data result in what is called 'invalidation of the theory'. >> For example, you say [quote] >> No one has ever proved that some parts of an atom have an electrical [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > Sorry to say this, but I think that I understand those things at least > as well as you do. HH You very well might. But what you wrote doesn't demonstrate the understanding you claim to have. Again, you talk about 'proving' and science doesn't prove. How does what you wrote demonstrate an understanding of this basic principle of science? >> Science NEVER proves things (outside of Mathematics, that is). Science >> proposes rules that are consistent with all known data and that allow [quoted text clipped - 27 lines] > > 1) I like that "perhaps of neutron(s)". At least one type of atom has no neutrons. Perhaps I should have said 'usually' rather than perhaps. > 2) Do you mean that the model of quantum fysics is wrong as well? The model of quantum physics doesn't explain everything. 'Limited' would be better than 'wrong', however. Because it gives correct answers many questions. > 3) That is believing, because there isn't any proof of it. I a'm still > waiting for the first evidence. Again, you are asking for proof. Science doesn't prove, it disproves. You claim that your theory contradicts the theory that protons have positive charges and repel each other. That is a good start, but you must present data to back up your assertion. You need data that disproves the theory that protons are postively charged. You fail to present any such data. > 4) Electrons may repel each other, but the reason is magnetic. That presents a problem. Magnets are dipoles and can attract or repel. How do you intend to keep the electrons lined up so that they repel? Try it with magnets. It is an unstable situation. There is NO evidence that electrons flip over and attract each other. Also, the presence of a magnetic field does NOT effect a static electric charge. Try it. If your theory were correct, a strong magnetic field would have a strong effect on static electric charge. > 5) Yes. HH > [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > If you believe that we can isolate hydrogen ions, which you think are > protons, why don't we do so. It is done every day. > We could examine those isolated protons in > a laboratory. Now who is poor in reasoning? HH It is done every day. Proton are accumulated, and circulate every day in particle accelerators around the world. The design, construction and operation of such facilities DEPENDS on protons acting as if they have positive charges and repel each other. They could not be accelerated as they are if this were not so. You have not provided any data to invalidate the current theory nor any that demand the complications your ideas would add. Signaturebz please pardon my infinite ignorance, the set-of-things-I-do-not-know is an infinite set. bz+sp@ch100-5.chem.lsu.edu remove ch100-5 to avoid spam trap Henry Haapalainen: >To "bz" >Now you understand everything wrong. I have never claimed those things that >you are trying to put into my mouth. My claim was this: two protons do not >rebel each other. Your claim is not only stupid, but contradicted by experimental evidence. > > >> Hydrogen ions are not protons. They are hydrogen atoms, the electron > > >> fields of which are elongated. The normal shape of an atom is a "ball", [quoted text clipped - 15 lines] > > A hydrogen ion radiates. That tells us that it cannot be a proton. An isolated hydrogen ion does NOT radiate. An electron falling into a hydrogen ion to create a hydrogen atom radiates, but the ion does not radiate. > Henry Haapalainen | An isolated hydrogen ion does NOT radiate. An electron falling into a | hydrogen ion to create a hydrogen atom radiates, but the ion does not | radiate. An isolated electron does NOT radiate. A hydrogen ion falling into a an electron to create a hydrogen atom radiates, but the electron does not radiate. That's the PoR in action, Phuckwit Duck. Androcles. > | An isolated hydrogen ion does NOT radiate. An electron falling into a > | hydrogen ion to create a hydrogen atom radiates, but the ion does not [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > not > radiate. That's right. > That's the PoR in action, Phuckwit Duck. That's wrong. > Androcles. | > | An isolated hydrogen ion does NOT radiate. An electron falling into a | > | hydrogen ion to create a hydrogen atom radiates, but the ion does not [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] | | That's wrong. LOL! "Take, for example, the reciprocal electrodynamic action of a magnet and a conductor. The observable phenomenon here depends only on the relative motion of the conductor and the magnet, whereas the customary view draws a sharp distinction between the two cases in which either the one or the other of these bodies is in motion. " Examples of this sort, TOGETHER with [snip caveats] will hereafter be called the ``Principle of Relativity'' http://www.fourmilab.ch/etexts/einstein/specrel/www/ Your customary view is wrong, Phuckwit Duck. Androcles. > > > >> Hydrogen ions are not protons. They are hydrogen atoms, the electron > > > >> fields of which are elongated. The normal shape of an atom is a "ball", [quoted text clipped - 15 lines] > > > > A hydrogen ion radiates. That tells us that it cannot be a proton. > > Henry Haapalainen > > An isolated hydrogen ion does NOT radiate. An electron falling into a > hydrogen ion to create a hydrogen atom radiates, but the ion does not > radiate. (PD) If you try to isolate a hydrogen ion, its no ion any more but a hydrogen atom at it's magnetic state. Henry Haapalainen Henry Haapalainen: >> >> Hydrogen ions are not protons. They are hydrogen atoms, the electron >> >> fields of which are elongated. The normal shape of an atom is a "ball", [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] >hydrogen ion than that you are refering to. And that's how it is taught in >scools. But in reality an atom is far from that model. Which reality is that? The experimental reality or your own private reality? What experiment can you cite that would even suggest those two realities have the slightest chance of coinciding? >And so the explanations of various phenomena can be different. Strangely enough, the one based on rutherford's experiments leads to an explanation of phenomena that describes the phenomena observed in other experiments. I'm sure you are probably wondering how anyone could possibly choose rutherford's model over yours based on the flimsy reasoning that rutherfords model works and you can't write down enough of your so-called model to predict anything. See above regarding the experimental reality vs your own private reality. >A hydrogen ion radiates. Oh, really? And precisely where did you come up with this fantasy? >That tells us that it cannot be a proton. No, what tells _you_ that it isn't a proton is the fact that you decided that it was easier to invent your own facts as support for a theory of the universe based on your complete lack of knowledge about physics than it was to study some physics and come up with a real theory that could explain a real experiment. Your use of the word ``us'' as if you were speaking about anyone but yourself is explained above vis-a-vis reality vs your private reality. > > "Henry Haapalainen" <kirppu@kolumbus.fi> wrote in news:dj984j$l7h$1@phys- > > news1.kolumbus.fi: [quoted text clipped - 24 lines] > happening is rare, but it can exist for a short period of time, for instance > in a particle accelerator. I don't know what you think a short period of time is. Protons are routinely stored in beams that circulate for many hours, and they would circulate for days if they weren't dumped to start another fill at higher luminosity. > Hydrogen ions are not protons. Back to chemistry 101 with you, bub. > They are hydrogen atoms, the electron field > on which is elongated. The normal shape of an atom is a "ball", and its > electron field is then in the magnetic state. > > Henry Haapalainen > http://www.wakkanet.fi/~fields/ Henry Haapalainen wrote: > "bz" <bz+sp@ch100-5.chem.lsu.edu> kirjoitti viestissä > news:Xns96F6C798346B7WQAHBGMXSZHVspammote@130.39.198.139... [quoted text clipped - 26 lines] > happening is rare, but it can exist for a short period of time, for instance > in a particle accelerator. I don't know what you think a short period of time is. Protons are routinely stored in beams that circulate for many hours, and they would circulate for days if they weren't dumped to start another fill at higher luminosity. > Hydrogen ions are not protons. Back to chemistry 101 with you, bub. > They are hydrogen atoms, the electron field > on which is elongated. The normal shape of an atom is a "ball", and its > electron field is then in the magnetic state. > > Henry Haapalainen > http://www.wakkanet.fi/~fields/ To PD Yes, you are right about particle accelerator. There is no time limit in it. Henry Haapalainen > Henry Haapalainen wrote: > > "bz" <bz+sp@ch100-5.chem.lsu.edu> kirjoitti viestissä [quoted text clipped - 34 lines] > > I don't know what you think a short period of time is. For starters, try the average period of your attention span :-) DIrk Vdm Van Moortel, Why have you resorted to stalking me in other NGs, even though I haven't made a single post to you or about you in many, many months? Were you hurt that I told the truth about what a bitter, pathetic, old man you are? LOL! >> Henry Haapalainen wrote: >> > "bz" <bz+sp@ch100-5.chem.lsu.edu> kirjoitti viestissä [quoted text clipped - 38 lines] > > DIrk Vdm Henry Haapalainen: >Hydrogen ions are not protons. They are hydrogen atoms, the electron field >on which is elongated. The normal shape of an atom is a "ball", and its >electron field is then in the magnetic state. You've just proven that you're even less informed that I imagined. Since I built an ion source which supplied a proton beam to an accelerator using a bottle of hydrogen gas from which the electrons were stripped in the ionizer, I won't even bother to mention the multitude of other evidence that proves you are deluded. Henry ``Not Even Wrong'' Haapalainen, nukes himself,...again..., >One of the biggest mistakes in modern physics is the idea that positively >charged protons should repel each other. An even bigger mistake made by crackpots is to not bother studying any physics before posting really stupid comments to announce mistakes made in a subject they've never studied. Do you really aspire to be the high minded butt of self-riducle? >In falling space theory it is explained why electrical effect acts >only between two particles, a proton and an electron. There are no >electrical effect between two protons. Well gee... I have personally measured the mass of several isotopes for the express purpose of comparing isobaric analogs to determine if the mass difference was accounted for by the difference coloumb repulsion, I can say with absolute certainty, that you ought to learn something about nuclear physics before babbling mindlessly. (For example, 57Cu: Z=29, N = 28, which is the single particle mirror of 57Ni: Z=28, N=29 for which you'll find my measurement referenced for 57Cu in the mass tables.) Guess what? The energy from coulomb repulsion for Z=29, N=28 vs Z=28, N=28 accounts for the mass difference. Why do you think 208Pb is stable while no element with Z=126 exists? For that matter, why do you suppose the stable isotopes with N=Z end at about 54Co? What is it that drives you and other crackpots to constantly make such silly announcements of your schemes to revolutionize a subject you can't even discuss at the level of a first year under- graduate physics student? Lack of medication? |
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.