Jump to content

Strange

Moderators
  • Posts

    25528
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    133

Posts posted by Strange

  1. One possible explaination is that puting a electron and a positon

    together could result is mass loss. That is rather than annihilating

    each other.

     

    Any evidence for that? Or just another ad-hoc guess to shore up a failed idea?

     

     

    It is easy to see that the light elements could work. The heavier

    elements would not work in this cofiguration. By allowing the

    protons consisting of electrons and positons share some of

    them a stronger bond can be made. Also, that makes it easier

    to constuct 3D models.

     

    Without the math, I don't believe it works.

  2. That is the mass of a combined electron and positron.

     

    Is that a reply to "And what does "but a better number is .00083985429 AMU" mean?

     

    If so, it is wrong. The sum of the electron and positron masses is 0.0010971598 (based on the Particle Data Group figures).

     

     

    Here are some heavier atoms.

     

    Pretty pictures but without the math, I don't believe it works.

  3. See if I did it right this time.

     

    The weight of the hydrogen atom is 1.007825

    Atom Mass Units (938 mev) and the neutron is

    1.008665 AMU (939 mev). The difference i

    .000840 AMU (.789 mev) but a better number is

    .00083985429 AMU.

     

    If you multiply 1200 times .00083985429 you get

    1.007825148, the weight of the hydrogen atom and

    1201 times .00083985429 is 1.00866500229, the

    weight of the neutron.

     

    Close, but no banana.

     

    Weight of H atom: 1.007825

    Weight of Neutron: 1.008664916

    Delta: 0.000839916

    H / Delta: 1199.9116578323

    N / Delta: 1200.9116578323

    P / Delta: 1199.2585768099

     

    Using your less accurate numbers gives a result even further from what you claim.

     

    And what does "but a better number is .00083985429 AMU" mean?

    It almost sounds like you have made it up to give the right answer...

     

    None of the ratios appear to be exact or have any physical meaning.

     

    If you put 2 protons on opposite sides of and electron

    the net charge is +1. However, the attraction between

    the electron and a proton is much greater than the

    repulsion of the protons.

     

    Same is true if you put 3 protons around and electron.

    The net charge is +2 but it will implode, not explode.

     

    Even 4 protons will implode but just barely.

    Please show the math to support this. And show that it applies to atoms with large numbers of protons, such as lead and uranium.

     

     

    It would be nice if someone could give me a hint.

     

    Here's one: you're wrong.

  4. If you think of it from the perspective of the planet, the spacecraft arrives and leaves at the same speed. However, the planet is moving (in its orbit) and so, from a stationary point of view, the spacecraft is moving faster when it leaves. And the planet is moving ever so slightly slower. So the kinetic energy comes from the planet.

     

    Wikipedia has a good explanation: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gravity_assist#Explanation

  5. Tell me what your answer would be at your question; if you can not refer, to the model i have i mind ?

     

    It wasn't my question. You were asked what your model would predict the altitude of a geosynchronous orbit. Altitude would be a number of meters, for example.

     

    If you cannot answer the question, just say so.

  6. Cup of water upside down will pour the water on the floor, but the ocean stays on earth " for example."

    Both examples here would not be possible without gravity and of coarse " the motion." IE, hand makes the cup tilt, earth causes people to rotate relative to the surface topology.

     

    That is just because gravity pulls down. "Down" means towards the center of the Earth. Turn the cup upside down and the water falls to Earth. The oceans are effectively sitting in large bowls (which are the right way up) so they stay where they are.

     

    I mean the northern hemisphere of earth at some point must be at the bottom of earth's rotation so I am assuming somewhere like at night I should be feeling that I am at some type of angle, upside down right side up??

     

    No, because "down" is defined by the pull of gravity. Gravity always pulls towards the center of the Earth. Therefore, wherever you are, it pulls you down towards the ground.

     

    So you say that G seems to have affects on the mind????????

     

    No.

     

    9.8 m/s is G on the earths surface right??

    That is 9.8 m/s2 (i.e. 9.8 meters per second per second). In other words, acceleration not velocity.

  7. Giving the body supporting the pendulum inside the ring, the Gravitation force must be aligned 180 degree with the ring( its center)its contact point and the contact point of the ring with the track and finally to the center of the earth ~~~~ and moving on to the right (I mean the ring and all )..velocity= 2Pi radians ..360 degrees .

     

    2Pi radians (360 degrees) is not a velocity, not even an angular velocity. Neither is it an altitude, which is what you were asked for. (And your "derivation" makes no sense.)

  8. The Nuclear Binding Force does not exist. The nuclei consist of protons held together by electrons.

     

    The trouble is, you still have a net positive charge in the nucleus. So you need to explain how the protons stay together given the electrostatic repulsion.

     

     

    The proton consists of electrons and positrons. The mass of the proton is evenly divisible by the difference of the mass of the proton and the neutron which implies a building block.

     

    I don't think so. Using the values from the Particle Data Group:

    Neutron mass: 1.008664916

    Proton mass: 1.0072764668

    Difference (delta): 0.0013884492

    Proton/delta: 725.4687283608

     

    Not exactly 'evenly divisible". But maybe you are thinking that looks close to the mass of an electron? Nope. It is 1.3224485911 times the mass of the electron.

     

     

    This is the first time I have been able to get anyone knowledgeable to discuss any of this.

     

    I can't imagine why. :)

  9. The important thing to learn are the principles of programming (structured design, etc.) These are transferable skills. You might not have used a given language before (or have forgotten it) but you should be able to pick it up fairly quickly. Especially if you have some experience with a range of languages with different syntax and styles (procedural, declarative, functional, etc).

  10. Yes, it's going off topic but I can't help asking what on earth is it about an incandescent light bulb that is contrary to OHM's law?

     

    The resistance is quite strongly temperature (and, therefore, voltage x current) dependent. You may not even measure the same resistance for a given voltage at different times.

     

     

    For each point on the graph to which I presume you refer, E, I & R are in keeping with OHM's law. That's what the curve represents: it's resistance in keeping with OHM's law at all points. It's different at different points as we all know, but at any point you choose the current and voltage will the result of its resistance at that point according to OHM's law.

     

    That is a wrong (and useless) definition of Ohm's law. A better definition is that on Wikipedia:

     

    Ohm's law states that the current through a conductor between two points is directly proportional to the potential difference across the two points. Introducing the constant of proportionality, the resistance, one arrives at the usual mathematical equation that describes this relationship: I = V/R.

     

    (emphasis added)

    If R is not constant then it isn't obeying Ohm's law. All you are saying is that (for some devices) a fixed voltage produces a fixed current. But, of course, even that isn't true for all components.

  11.  

    The fine-tuning is either because of chance, physical necessity, or God.

     

    The numbers we see rules out chance.

     

    Can you explain how you calculate that based on a sample size of 1.

     

    Imagine you're being dragged before a firing squad of one hundred trained marksmen to be executed.

     

    This analolgy would be better if it was one marksman (our current sample size). And he may not be a marksman. He may not even be armed. Maybe he doesn't exist. So what were the odds, again?

  12. It's a Mastech MS8268.

     

    So, looking at the manual, when you say "Amp hole" are you referring to having the leads plugged into one of the sockets for measuring current? Did you also have the knob turned to the right settting. You seems to get such random "it's wrong no it's right now" readings, that I suspect user error...

     

    All seems normal now. I think.

     

    So, can you tell us what the battery voltage in your circuit is? And what currents you calculate? And what currents you measure?

     

    Or is it a secret? :)

  13. 1 The velocity of the electron in shell 1 at the apogee was determined [by trial and error.. A number different from it will give different results.

     

    Right. So just numerology then. You say, "isn't it amazing that this process gives the right answer." No, not when you choose a fudge factor to give the answer you want.

     

    2 The post above shows the steps of the calculation.

     

    Yes, but as I said, it is very hard to follow the code.

     

    3 The usual way of computing the velocity of galaxies is:

    z=wobserve/wemit-1 z = observed wave length over emitted minus 1

    v=(((z+1)**2-1)/((z+1)**2+1)) * c Velocity of source

    So what I don't understand here, is that you are generating a single energy (and, therefore, wavelength) from your electron calculation. But the red-shift of galaxies depends on two wavelengths: the original and the shifted. How does this relate to your electron calculation?

    OK. I have just had a look at your first post again. It looks like you use the 'z' calculation to work out a velocity for the electron and you find this comes to the velocity you started with. That doesn't seem in the least bit surprising as you have fudged the velocity corresponding to the energy level in step 1.

     

    It is like one of those mathematical tricks: "think of a number, now multiply by ... take away the number you first thought of ... your number was ... !!"

  14.  

    As I said before, the new Planck data render many cyclic models, including the ekpyrotic universe, a lot less likely (That means cosmological natural selection is out the window).

    You leap, in a series of non-sequiturs from "less likely" to "not possible" to "creation" to "therefore god!". At no point is evidence or logic involved.

  15. No things could have been a lot worse.

    Or better.

     

    We have gluons, quarks, electrons, protons, neutrons, atoms (stable atoms), molecules, elements (heavy elements), planets, stars (long lived stars), galaxies, ect

    They have frumps, snodles, ponks, kemps, doings, ...

     

    But they still have planets, stars, life and love. (Dunno if they have god or not).

     

    Point being, we may be in one of a (possibly) infinite number of universes that could support life that would ask the question: "why is it just like this?" (where "this" is almost infinitely variable.)

    Since when can something "bring itself into existence"? That is more ridiculous than magic..

     

    I think my irony meter is faulty.

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.