swansont

Pointing out that some of your post didn’t violate the rules isn’t going to make us overlook the part that did.

! Moderator Note If you have your own thoughts, they belong in their own thread. Posting them in someone else’s thread is hijacking.

An FYI to anyone reading this: it’s helpful to include a link to the post in question when asking for assistance like this.

! Moderator Note Similar topics merged

You do understand that this is a thought experiment, right? To work out the math? That there is no actual situation where the electron and proton are infinitely far apart? It’s just that if they could ever get infinitely far apart, there would be no KE. At any separation, KE + PE = 0, so KE = -PE In any physically realizable situation, there is an attractive force. That’s the source of the energy. In the bound state, KE = -PE/2, which is why a photon is required to ionize the atom, or why a photon (or photons) would be emitted when forming the atom.

It has no KE or PE when at infinite separation. But there’s an attractive electrostatic force, so KE increases and PE decreases as they move toward each other. In a bound state, energy must be released; the Bohr model predicts the KE is half of the magnitude of the PE The Hydrogen spectrum is easily found, confirming the correctness of the energy predictions of QM and the Bohr model. Don’t overestimate how much protection you will get from criticism. From section 2.7 of the rules you agreed to follow when you joined “members should be able to participate in the discussion without clicking any links or watching any videos. Videos and pictures should be accompanied by enough text to set the tone for the discussion, and should not be posted alone. Users advertising commercial sites will be banned. Attached documents should be for support material only; material for discussion must be posted” It’s an anti-spam measure, so that clueless crackpots can’t just post a huge document and expect others to expend effort addressing it. We want them to have some skin in the game. A much better approach is to pick some area and post the details, but a cursory look at your Bohr model section shows that your ideas are flawed, and were you to make predictions based on them, there would be contradictions with experiment. You can stick around and learn some physics, but if you’re looking for a credulous audience, this is indeed not the forum for you.

If any substantive math were a prerequisite we’d see very few of them.

New customer.

As Mordred says, the Bohr model is superseded, but the negative energy in it is fully explained; it’s from the convention of saying the electrostatic potential energy of particles at infinite separation is zero. There aren’t different laws. The terms in any equation might be negligible at a particular scale but not at another.

This isn’t an app. It’s a website, owned by someone in the US, with hardware located in the UK. Staff are located in multiple countries.

graybear13 has been banned for an unsustainably low signal/noise ratio from repeated soapboxing and bad-faith arguments

What device are you using? What OS, and which browser? This is the first mention of the issue, which suggests that it’s an issue with your device.

That’s average energy per particle. Since you have a Maxwell-Boltzmann distribution, this will mean some fraction of the particles will have much higher energy, and can undergo fusion. If you simply had two beams of protons with a few keV undergoing collisions, you wouldn’t get fusion.

You posted this topic. The text box has no label, but has icons across the top for text modification (bold, italics, etc.) and other actions (link, quote, etc)

The same as what? Your accusations are both vague and unsupported.

Yes, of course there is. Ice cores. “as the ice compacts over time, tiny bubbles of the atmosphere—including greenhouse gases like carbon dioxide and methane—press inside the ice” https://science.nasa.gov/science-research/earth-science/climate-science/core-questions-an-introduction-to-ice-cores/ But how could there not be, considering that animals produce both CO2 and methane. Suggesting that these didn’t exist is not a serious proposal How much? Where is the energy stored that’s not converted to heat? I can only think of potential energy stored in the trees, and that number should be something you can estimate, and I suspect isn’t going to be all that much, relative to the total solar power that hits the earth.

! Moderator Note After further discussion, this is moved to speculations. The OP makes several claims of a factual/scientific nature, and needs to provide some sort of evidence in support of them, or a way to test their hypothesis.

Because you admit your view is only from a Christian perspective, and yet many gods from multiple religions exist. You aren’t considering them.

Baloney. The left in the US is more supportive of equal rights than the right. It’s the GOP that has acted against Muslims, not the left. The right is supportive only of Christianity. This alleged stance is because there has been bias in support of Christianity. When that bias is removed in the effort to provide equality, it feels like being against, but it’s not.

Very obtuse of you. Can’t tell if it’s deliberate, but… This is why people accuse you of trolling. The statement above, and this: You asked a question in the first post, and I answered it. By saying “I never said science can find God” you are implying that I suggested you did. It’s not a response made in good faith. You should be aware of your own statements, particularly ones made so recently.

You can’t seriously think CO2 and methane didn’t exist 2000 years ago. Even if there were no humans, i.e. no anthropogenic sources, greenhouse gases would exist Solar energy gets transformed to other forms regardless. The issue is how much gets re-radiated back into space, vs getting trapped as thermal energy. Your conjecture would greatly benefit from a mathematical analysis. Quantifying this idea would make it much easier to discuss.

So you have a bias in your analysis. No, science cannot find God. God does not lend themselves to such material discovery.

Stating what the science is, is not opinion or belief. This isn’t bullshitting while your English prof gets you stoned

Ignorance of the evidence is mot the same as nonexistence Not sure how you arrive at this conclusion, but since it’s based on not understanding the model, I think that’s moot

If that’s your takeaway, you have some reading comprehension issues to address