Michael F. D. Posted May 15, 2003 Share Posted May 15, 2003 Originally posted by Radical Edward you don't understand what they said. Just but Principles of Optics by Born and wolf, and that will teach you everything you need to know. I don't satisfied by explanation of all phenomenas which give these theories. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JaKiri Posted May 15, 2003 Share Posted May 15, 2003 Originally posted by greg1917 is someone trying to say this simplistic, respected and proven model is not correct? He's trying to say that colour is the result of the 'colour' property of the gluons, and therefore confusing a label and a property. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
greg1917 Posted May 15, 2003 Share Posted May 15, 2003 From my shakey memory gluons are bosons which are connected to the strong force between quarks, what could this possibly have to do with colour? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JaKiri Posted May 16, 2003 Share Posted May 16, 2003 Nothing at all, and he refuses to listen. Ps. Michael F.D., you stated that there are no gaps between atoms in a solid material. Then you stated that there is no gap between any given adjacent pair of nucleii, in terms of atoms. Make up your mind. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Radical Edward Posted May 16, 2003 Share Posted May 16, 2003 Originally posted by Michael F. D. I don't satisfied by explanation of all phenomenas which give these theories. DO THE MATHS. It's that simple, really. people don't come up with these ideas ad hoc like you do. It is all part of the scientific process, see. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael F. D. Posted May 16, 2003 Share Posted May 16, 2003 Originally posted by greg1917 is someone trying to say this simplistic, respected and proven model is not correct? I don't try to speak this model is not correct. This is an excelent model indeed. I just offer the more simple model. It allows to translate the QM problem onto the level of simple mechanical engineers. This is sooner a dignity, than defect. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JaKiri Posted May 16, 2003 Share Posted May 16, 2003 Originally posted by Michael F. D. I don't try to speak this model is not correct. This is an excelent model indeed. I just offer the more simple model. It allows to translate the QM problem onto the level of simple mechanical engineers. This is sooner a dignity, than defect. It isn't simple at all though, and is just plain wrong. How do you explain the possibly colour differences in copper, say? They're all the same atoms. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael F. D. Posted May 16, 2003 Share Posted May 16, 2003 Originally posted by Radical Edward DO THE MATHS. It's that simple, really. people don't come up with these ideas ad hoc like you do. It is all part of the scientific process, see. The ñalculation of the resonance frequencies of plane is bolted in several points this is a problem of mechanical engineers. This problem is solved long ago. I do not think that makes sense to show this decision as mathematics to my idea. This will be not correct. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JaKiri Posted May 16, 2003 Share Posted May 16, 2003 Now, saying 'the mathematics has been done' would be all fine and dandy if anyone of us had heard of it. Humour us and post it again please. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael F. D. Posted May 16, 2003 Share Posted May 16, 2003 Originally posted by MrL_JaKiri Nothing at all, and he refuses to listen. Ps. Michael F.D., you stated that there are no gaps between atoms in a solid material. Then you stated that there is no gap between any given adjacent pair of nucleii, in terms of atoms. Make up your mind. I did not spoke of pair of a nucleii. I spoke of pair of atom. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael F. D. Posted May 16, 2003 Share Posted May 16, 2003 Originally posted by MrL_JaKiri Now, saying 'the mathematics has been done' would be all fine and dandy if anyone of us had heard of it. Humour us and post it again please. Where à humour here? Are you consider this problem as unsolvable? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael F. D. Posted May 16, 2003 Share Posted May 16, 2003 Originally posted by MrL_JaKiri It isn't simple at all though, and is just plain wrong. How do you explain the possibly colour differences in copper, say? They're all the same atoms. Then I have a question too. How the atoms of the different elements forms the structure (the crystalline lattice) is inherent them only? My answer - this one is formed as a result of resonance between atoms. What your answer? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael F. D. Posted May 16, 2003 Share Posted May 16, 2003 Originally posted by greg1917 A combination of uzbek-ised english ... BTW, my native language is Russian and I am a christian, if this has some meaning for you. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
greg1917 Posted May 16, 2003 Share Posted May 16, 2003 How the atoms of the different elements forms the structure (the crystalline lattice) is inherent them only? Sorry you've lost me, what structure? the structure of copper? And on a side note I would contest the idea your model is simpler - I was taught the model i stated as a 16 year old and had no trouble understanding it, nor did any of my classmates (bar a few knuckle-dragging degenerates). Id say thats a pretty good indication of a simplistic model - it doesnt even mention the nucleus of an atom. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael F. D. Posted May 16, 2003 Share Posted May 16, 2003 Originally posted by greg1917 Sorry you've lost me, what structure? the structure of copper? And on a side note I would contest the idea your model is simpler - I was taught the model i stated as a 16 year old and had no trouble understanding it, nor did any of my classmates (bar a few knuckle-dragging degenerates). Id say thats a pretty good indication of a simplistic model - it doesnt even mention the nucleus of an atom. The nucleus of an atom certainly influences upon a frequency of resonance as main forming a mass of atom . For all events mentionned here this is enough, because we do not consider the reaction of nucleus fission. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
greg1917 Posted May 16, 2003 Share Posted May 16, 2003 I just offer the more simple model. More simple than an electron transition to a lower energy shell resulting in the emission of a photon? This is basic physics and underlines the phenonomen of emission and absorption spectra. What is the mathematic principle behind your model? Max Planck among others (James Maxwell etc) are responsible for many modern theories on the nature of electron shells and affiliated EM radiation phenonomen. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
superchump Posted May 17, 2003 Share Posted May 17, 2003 Originally posted by Michael F. D. The nucleus of an atom certainly influences upon a frequency of resonance as main forming a mass of atom . For all events mentionned here this is enough, because we do not consider the reaction of nucleus fission. Ladies and gentlemen, a new leader in technobabble! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Radical Edward Posted May 17, 2003 Share Posted May 17, 2003 Originally posted by Michael F. D. The nucleus of an atom certainly influences upon a frequency of resonance as main forming a mass of atom . the mass for all intents and purposes is irrelevant, because the gravitational effect of the nucleus is infinitessimally small. the only effect the nucleus has on the frequency is in it's electromagnetic and quantum interaction with the electrons - which is exactly the forces I have been talking about, and nothing to do with your statements. even then, these effects are only absolutely minor perturbations and really not worth considering unless you are delving into the more advanced world of spectroscopy. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael F. D. Posted May 20, 2003 Share Posted May 20, 2003 Originally posted by greg1917 More simple than an electron transition to a lower energy shell resulting in the emission of a photon? This is basic physics and underlines the phenonomen of emission and absorption spectra. This effect does not allows to explain the equality of angles of incidence and reflection on the mirror surface as well as path of photon in the manner of a direct line inwardly the material, glass for instance. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Radical Edward Posted May 20, 2003 Share Posted May 20, 2003 actually, Maxwell's equations do allow us to prove the equal angles if incidence and reflection, and also the angles of refraction. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael F. D. Posted May 20, 2003 Share Posted May 20, 2003 Originally posted by Radical Edward actually, Maxwell's equations do allow us to prove the equal angles if incidence and reflection, and also the angles of refraction. Show, as this looks, please. In the same way, than you explain the appearance of new theory if old one allows to solve all a questions? I bear in mind: - Super String Theory; - GP Feeld Theory; - Loop Quantum Gravity Theory; - G-D Theory; and else not much more known. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Radical Edward Posted May 21, 2003 Share Posted May 21, 2003 I am not talking about more and more accurate theories. and besides, none of them contradict current theories, they are just a better version which can be approximated e.g. Newton is a good approximation of Einstein. throwing into the fray things like SuperString theory (the only one of those theories you name that I recognise) does not at all alter the fact that you are still entirely wrong, and colour is caused by the electrons, and not nuclear forces. All the examples you have given so far can be explained with current theories. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fafalone Posted May 21, 2003 Share Posted May 21, 2003 Being familiar with those theories, I can safely agree with Radical Edward on this one. None of those theories contradict Maxwell's equations. "than you explain the appearance of new theory if old one allows to solve all a questions? " The previous theories do not answer all questions, but they do answer some.. such as why colors exist. That question is equivalent to asking why we needed relativity when we had Newtonian mechanics. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Radical Edward Posted May 21, 2003 Share Posted May 21, 2003 out of interest, what are the other three then? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JaKiri Posted May 21, 2003 Share Posted May 21, 2003 The point about Super String theory is that it explains something we can't using existing theories (ie. how GR and QM can coexist). It's not stating that all before has been incorrect, just either inaccurate or in the wrong metaphysical framework. Possibly both. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now