Moderators

1

25528

2. ## Carrock

Senior Members

1

575

3. ## koti

Senior Members

1

3161

4. ## Silvestru

Senior Members

1

763

## Popular Content

Showing content with the highest reputation on 08/31/18 in all areas

1. ## how could the big bang happen?

Perhaps the quantum foam from which the BB arose due to some fluctuation is our best description of nothing. https://www.astrosociety.org/publication/a-universe-from-nothing/
1 point
2. ## A new atom model （static electron configuration model )

I see that you are still not listening. Pity for you. I will try one last time to lay out the logic as to where you are right (yes in some places you are indeed right) and where you are just plain wrong. First of all, classical electrostatics forbids you to have a static system of electric charges, under coulomb forces alone. In particular Earnshaw's Theorem say OK so if we have a system of two or more charges, the charges must be moving. Period. In this case the proton is approximately 1800 times as massive as the elctron so we take the proton reference frame as the basis and refer the electron's motion to it. So the electron is moving relative to the proton. Now an electron in motion is the definition of an electric current. And an electric current has an associated magnetic field. So there is an associated magnetic field, hence the Biot Savart Law is applicable. Note by 'stationary' Wiki means steady. So you have said that the electron would crash into the proton under coulomb forces. Why? For the same reason the Earth does not crash into the Sun under classical gravitational forces. Because it is in motion. So gravitational attraction provides the centripetal force to accelerate the Earth's trajectory into the path of a closed curve. Similarly the coulombic attraction accelerates the electron's trajectory into the path of a closed curve. That is essentially Bohr's satellite theory, as you have called it. However the problem (acknowledged by Bohr and his contempories) is that an accelerating charge must interfere with its own magnetic field (Biot Savart or Lorentz) to generate electromagnetic waves. But the electron in an atom does not do that. An electron in a cathode ray definitely does emit EM radiation. There is no classical explanation for this. The why is where the Quantum Theory enters but I will not pursue that here and now, since this is a completely classical analysis (like yours). Now you have taken empirical measurements and calculated (with your proposal) the simple hydrogen first spectra, as Bohr did, and got pretty good agreement with observation, as Bohr did. Does this graph look familiar? It is the Lennard Jones Potential I mentioned earlier. And it is very similar to your proposal, although the formula is more complicated. This is also empirical. Finally I asked you to look at one more thing. The Madelung constan. This is a method of calculating the combined effect of all other ( than its associated proton) positive charges influencing the electron on the other side to provide what you call your point of balance - the value you admit you can't calculate for yourself. Now tell me again that these four pieces of Physics I recommended are not relevant.
1 point
3. ## Any scientific reason to believe consciousness is uniquely human?

If an organism can make a choice, it's conscious. It's just by degree and sophistication that separates different hierarchies of organisms; it's not a present/not present phenomenon. from what I've read, this ability goes down to worms albeit extremely primitively. This is interesting about ants: If ants have the possible ability of self-recognition, it would seem reasonable to surmise they have some level of consciousness imo. It is only "uniquely human" if we define it by criteria which only humans can attain.
1 point
4. ## John McCain

That would work as they all know Fake News is lying about the venue and indeed the announcement of his death is a conspiracy against them.
1 point
5. ## Falling objects and Einstein’s equivalence-principle?

You are in good company. I also don't always know what I mean
1 point

C60 is not a good lubricant. https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/8720/a8e72e772e2ee6cf1090ab502c965dfe8a24.pdf
1 point
7. ## Quick moving specks in water drop on glasses

Well, I just reproduced this by placing a drop of water on my glasses and looking not-quite-at a bright light. I see three things. Small round objects (with a dark edge) that move around. Larger, long, randomly shaped objects (also with a dark edge) that move around. And a sort of reticulated background which is static. These are all in black and white. I am pretty sure the first two are different types of floaters in the liquid in the eye. The small round ones are much more common and so it is easy to focus on ones near the centre of vision and then they just move around randomly (rather as you describe) as your eye moves. The larger ones are less common and so are likely to be away from the centre of vision; as you move your eye to look at them they move away (so they stay in the same position relative to the eye). The third pattern may be the pattern of blood vessels in the retina. I am really impressed by this. It is so clear. I am visiting an optometrist next week so I will ask about this and see if they can confirm my guesses (or provide a better explanation). p.s. In my first response, I had misread your post as being water in a glass, not on glasses. (More evidence I need to get my sight checked!)
1 point

1 point

-1 points

-1 points
11. ## A new atom model （static electron configuration model )

You use Coulomb law to solve equation, You deny Coulomb law , claim it inapplicable after equation was solved. You changed mind in less than one minute. Is this behavior logical? And OK? This is what quantum model does.
-1 points