Naked Science Forum
On the Lighter Side => New Theories => Topic started by: guest39538 on 28/03/2015 01:47:01
-
Is a positive low voltage of electricity attracted to a positive high voltage electricity?
Edit: Changed the title to a question.
-
In short, no.
Voltage is a measurement of difference in potential. If you say something is at a potential of 50 volts, you have to say what it is relative to. In many cases, such as batteries or capacitors, which have two ends, it is generally safe to assume that 50 volts means 50 volts between the two ends. In other cases, one can assume that it means 50 volts vs "ground." In electrochemistry (where we typically deal with millivolts, mV), the reference is often the potential at which two chemical species are in equilibrium, for instance ferricene/ferricenium or mercury/mercury oxide.
It is also important to note the difference between relative and absolute potential. Because there is a real difference between positive and negative charges, two bodies that are positive will repel one another, no matter what the magnitude of that charge is. Similarly two bodies that are negative will repel one another, no matter what the magnitude of the charge is.
The Coulombic (electrostatic) force between two particles Fc = k*QA*QB/r2 where k is Coulomb's constant, QA is the charge of body A, QB is the charge of body B, and r is the distance between them.
If the Q values are both positive or both negative, the calculated force is positive, meaning repulsive. If one is positive and the other is negative, then the calculated force is negative, meaning attractive.
Opposite charges will still attract, no matter what the voltage they are at (protons and electrons don't spontaneously start repelling each other in "high voltage wires").
Remember, there could also still be a significant gravitational attraction, if the bodies are massive enough.
-
two bodies that are positive will repel one another, no matter what the magnitude of that charge is
I think that this is true, if the two bodies are at the same potential, relative to something in the surrounding environment which is at a negative voltage.
However, I expect that if two bodies have very different voltages from each other (compared to something in the environment), the two like charges will attract each other, to equalize the voltage. The majority of lightning is cloud-to-cloud, equalizing voltages within the cloud, even though the different voltages in the cloud have the same polarity relative to the relatively distant Earth. (But I am happy to be proven wrong on this!)
Is a positive low voltage of electricity attracted to a positive high voltage electricity?
An example where there is different positive voltages in close proximity is in an old-fashioned vacuum TV tube (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cathode_ray_tube).
In this device, there are the following electrodes (among others):
- "cathode", which has a voltage near Earth potential (call this the negative electrode, -). It is heated to encourage the emission of electrons.
- "anode", which has a few hundred volts +
- "screen", which is at thousands of volts +++
All of these electrodes are held fairly rigidly by the glass tube, so the heavy TV will stand normal vibration when moving it around the house.
If you measure the energy of an electron emitted by the cathode (-):
- The electron gains energy as it moves from cathode (-) to anode (+): hundreds of eV.
- Any electrons which manage to pass the anode (+) will be attracted strongly towards the screen (+++), gaining thousands of eV.
If you measured the force between the electrodes:
- There is a force of attraction between the cathode (-) and anode (+)
- There is a force of attraction between the cathode (-) and screen (+++)
- Since the anode is positioned between the cathode and screen, the screen (+++) is attracted in the direction of the anode (+).
- I expect that the anode (which has a slight shortage of electrons) will be strongly attracted to the screen (which has a more severe shortage of electrons). This is because all of the remaining electrons in the anode (+) will be attracted towards the screen (+++). (..but I'm happy to be proven wrong on this!)
-
Is a positive low voltage of electricity attracted to a positive high voltage electricity?
Are you talking about electrostatic charge or the voltages in an electrical circuit? (also called potential differences)
In an electrical cct, voltage differences tell us which way the electrons flow - from negative to positive terminals. The voltages we measure are relative as explained above. (think batteries in series)
In electrostatics, voltage is a measure of the difference in charge. However, we have already defined our reference point - neutral charge, a balance. When there is a difference in voltage, it's the electrons and ions that are attracted and move or are repelled not the voltage. But because we are measuring relative to neutral charge, +ve and -ve are absolute values and so anything of like charge will repel, opposite will attract.
However, the short answer to your question is voltages are not attracted or repelled it's the charges, the detail as you see from previous answers is more complex!
PS why do you call this an energy question? if you want to discuss this in terms of a new theory rather than established physics you will need to move the question to New Theories.
-
two bodies that are positive will repel one another, no matter what the magnitude of that charge is. Similarly two bodies that are negative will repel one another, no matter what the magnitude of the charge is.
Talking about charge , is the sun a positive charge? is the earth's core a positive charge?
the ground an alternating charge?
-
1. no
2. no
3. no
-
1. no
2. no
3. no
why not , what is negative about the sun exactly?
if the sun emits positive and the earth,s core is also positive ionisation and emits positive what effect would there be?
would there be an effect of pushing way from the sun like when we move away from the sun on our elliptic path?
Would the ground then lose its positive charge causing the ground to become more negative pulling us back? (like back spin on a snooker ball).
-
The sun is very very close to neutral. It has roughly the same number of electrons as it has protons. I say roughly because, with a mass of 2x1030 kg, the sun has approximately 1.2x1057 of each. So there is a very small chance that it is always perfectly matched, especially given the extreme temperatures. There could be a difference of a few million electrons or protons without really effecting anything, the sun is effectively neutral. If it contained only positive particles it would never have come together in the first place because the repulsion would be far stronger than the gravitational attraction.
What gave you the impression that it is positive?
-
- I expect that the anode (which has a slight shortage of electrons) will be strongly attracted to the screen (which has a more severe shortage of electrons). This is because all of the remaining electrons in the anode (+) will be attracted towards the screen (+++). (..but I'm happy to be proven wrong on this!)
I don't think this logic is right. I agree that the electrons in the anode (+) will be attracted to the screen (+++), but the protons in the anode will be repelled. The force on each proton should be equal and opposite of the force on each electron (equal charge magnitude, and same distance from the screen), and because the anode is positively charged, there must be more protons than electrons. Therefore, the net force should be repulsive.
-
The sun is very very close to neutral. It has roughly the same number of electrons as it has protons. I say roughly because, with a mass of 2x1030 kg, the sun has approximately 1.2x1057 of each. So there is a very small chance that it is always perfectly matched, especially given the extreme temperatures. There could be a difference of a few million electrons or protons without really effecting anything, the sun is effectively neutral. If it contained only positive particles it would never have come together in the first place because the repulsion would be far stronger than the gravitational attraction.
What gave you the impression that it is positive?
Why on Earth would anyone consider the Sun to be a Neutral? there is nothing neutral about anything that generates heat.
-
there is nothing neutral about anything that generates heat.
- A fire generates heat, but is electrically neutral
- A firefly generates light, but is electrically neutral
- A nuclear reactor generates heat, but is electrically neutral.
- A meteor crashing into Earth's atmosphere generates heat, but is electrically neutral
- Water freezing releases heat, but is electrically neutral
- Earth's core releases heat, but is electrically neutral
- A diesel engine generates heat, but is electrically neutral
- Even a wire which is generating heat due to an electric current flowing through it is almost exactly electrically neutral: If you turn off the electricity supply, there is almost no voltage left in the wire.
So production of heat (conversion of one form of energy into another form of energy) does not require an electric charge.
Some devices like the electric kettle use the flow of charge to generate heat (while keeping the total charge neutral).
Are you perhaps thinking of some other measure like Power or Temperature which changes in a positive direction when something is producing heat?
-
there is nothing neutral about anything that generates heat.
- A fire generates heat, but is electrically neutral
- A firefly generates light, but is electrically neutral
- A nuclear reactor generates heat, but is electrically neutral.
- A meteor crashing into Earth's atmosphere generates heat, but is electrically neutral
- Water freezing releases heat, but is electrically neutral
- Earth's core releases heat, but is electrically neutral
- A diesel engine generates heat, but is electrically neutral
- Even a wire which is generating heat due to an electric current flowing through it is almost exactly electrically neutral: If you turn off the electricity supply, there is almost no voltage left in the wire.
So production of heat (conversion of one form of energy into another form of energy) does not require an electric charge.
Some devices like the electric kettle use the flow of charge to generate heat (while keeping the total charge neutral).
Are you perhaps thinking of some other measure like Power or Temperature which changes in a positive direction when something is producing heat?
My reply was a bit thoughtless now I consider it.
Maybe I am considering power,
The sun emits energy , the earths core emits energy both being the same energy except the core is a bit weaker?
-
Is a positive low voltage of electricity attracted to a positive high voltage electricity?
Only objects can be attracted to other objects. Voltages can't be attracted to other voltages. It'd have no meaning to do so. In any case this is not a question about energy but of voltage.
-
The force on each proton should be equal and opposite of the force on each electron (equal charge magnitude, and same distance from the screen)
I am still trying to think through this scenario.
Are we missing something in that the electrodes are not point charges, but are macroscopic conductive objects?
In this case:
- the mobile electrons on the anode will cluster on the side away from the negative electrode (ie on the side facing the screen), leaving a positive charge on the side facing the cathode*.
- the electrons in the screen will move away from the more negative anode, leaving an excess of positive charge on the side facing the anode.
- The (excess positive charge on the side of the screen which faces the anode) will be attracted to the (excess negative charge on the side of the anode facing the screen). Could this not result in a net attraction between anode and screen?
- If the screen were free to move towards the anode, as soon as the anode and screen touched, the voltages would equalize, and the net excess of positive charge on both objects would then repel them from each other, and attract them towards the cathode.
*I vaguely recall this effect as being called electric field polarisation; I can see descriptions of it in insulators, but not in conductors?
-
Is a positive low voltage of electricity attracted to a positive high voltage electricity?
Only objects can be attracted to other objects. Voltages can't be attracted to other voltages. It'd have no meaning to do so. In any case this is not a question about energy but of voltage.
A voltage is not attracted to a voltage, really? what about lightning ground streamers from the ground making a connection with the incident stream?.
What about electricity can jump to an object?
Are you saying an objects positive energy is different?
Look at ourselves, we contain electricity, but we contain also more negative than positive, hence attracted to the core and the much more positive of the ground.
A+B=C=equilibrium
A+B=C+A=A=p where (p) is momentum.
A+B=C-A=B=G where (G) is gravity
Gravity
-
There will be a polarization effect, and in some rare scenarios it *might* be able to overcome the Coulombic repulsion, I would have to think about this more to see if I could come up with a case that resulted in attraction. This will depend on the actual amounts of charge on each object, the size and polarizability of the less positive object, and the distance between them (if the objects are close enough together, and the polarized object long enough, then the assumption that the negative and positive components have the same average distance fails)
-
There will be a polarization effect, and in some rare scenarios it *might* be able to overcome the Coulombic repulsion, I would have to think about this more to see if I could come up with a case that resulted in attraction. This will depend on the actual amounts of charge on each object, the size and polarizability of the less positive object, and the distance between them (if the objects are close enough together, and the polarized object long enough, then the assumption that the negative and positive components have the same average distance fails)
Just consider the Cavendish experiment, the larger ball having a greater mass than the smaller balls, a greater positive and a greater negative than the smaller ball, the smaller ball is attracted to the larger ball.
-
Is a positive low voltage of electricity attracted to a positive high voltage electricity?
Only objects can be attracted to other objects. Voltages can't be attracted to other voltages. It'd have no meaning to do so. In any case this is not a question about energy but of voltage.
A voltage is not attracted to a voltage, really? what about lightning ground streamers from the ground making a connection with the incident stream?.
What about electricity can jump to an object?
He means that a voltage is not the physical object that is being attracted or repelled. It's kind of like saying that a heaviness is not attracted to another heaviness. The "heaviness" is an abstraction--it is one object attracting another, by virtue of their masses.
Are you saying an objects positive energy is different?
Look at ourselves, we contain electricity, but we contain also more negative than positive, hence attracted to the core and the much more positive of the ground.
A+B=C=equilibrium
A+B=C+A=A
A+B=C-A=B
Gravity
You really need to stop using that term, "positive energy" you are confusing yourself and others with it. We do contain electrical charges, but we are not more negative than positive. We are neutral! We are attracted to the Earth because of gravitation. It has nothing to do with charge or heat.
-
Is a positive low voltage of electricity attracted to a positive high voltage electricity?
Only objects can be attracted to other objects. Voltages can't be attracted to other voltages. It'd have no meaning to do so. In any case this is not a question about energy but of voltage.
A voltage is not attracted to a voltage, really? what about lightning ground streamers from the ground making a connection with the incident stream?.
What about electricity can jump to an object?
He means that a voltage is not the physical object that is being attracted or repelled. It's kind of like saying that a heaviness is not attracted to another heaviness. The "heaviness" is an abstraction--it is one object attracting another, by virtue of their masses.
Are you saying an objects positive energy is different?
Look at ourselves, we contain electricity, but we contain also more negative than positive, hence attracted to the core and the much more positive of the ground.
A+B=C=equilibrium
A+B=C+A=A
A+B=C-A=B
Gravity
You really need to stop using that term, "positive energy" you are confusing yourself and others with it. We do contain electrical charges, but we are not more negative than positive. We are neutral! We are attracted to the Earth because of gravitation. It has nothing to do with charge or heat.
We are not neutral, we are at an equilibrium to gravity. We were born here.
The normal force of an object on the ground is not Fn=0.
the normal force is mass and the newtons, Fn=newtons.
Newtons is a loss, in free fall an object weighs nothing.
-
chiralSPO - Haven't you learned that TB can't be reasoned with yet?
-
We are not neutral, we are at an equilibrium to gravity. We were born here.
I agree that we are attracted to the Earth with a force that is non-zero. But we are electrically neutral. I don't see what being born here has to do with it. If we had traveled here from Mars, we would still have mass, and still be attracted to the Earth's surface.
the normal force is mass and the newtons, Fn=newtons.
Newtons is a loss, in free fall an object weighs nothing.
This is nonsense. The normal force is what keeps us from falling through the ground. Fn has units of newtons, but is not equal to newtons. An object in free fall weighs nothing but it still has mass.
-
chiralSPO - Haven't you learned that TB can't be reasoned with yet?
I'm just about to give up.
-
chiralSPO - Haven't you learned that TB can't be reasoned with yet?
Yes I can. Science literally says that black and white, is not black and white.
What am saying is sound logic, I may not have all the correct terms but the A+B=C explains it, an electron field and a proton filed , two fields with opposite effects that can polarize to create gravity an attractive force.
-
We are not neutral, we are at an equilibrium to gravity. We were born here.
I agree that we are attracted to the Earth with a force that is non-zero. But we are electrically neutral. I don't see what being born here has to do with it. If we had traveled here from Mars, we would still have mass, and still be attracted to the Earth's surface.
the normal force is mass and the newtons, Fn=newtons.
Newtons is a loss, in free fall an object weighs nothing.
This is nonsense. The normal force is what keeps us from falling through the ground. Fn has units of newtons, but is not equal to newtons. An object in free fall weighs nothing but it still has mass.
Consider the Caesium atom and the effect of a ''time-dilation'' , this shows you the influence of loss to gravity of atoms, we are always at this loss, we base it has neutral not realising we are already at loss.
+1 moves a leaf, +2 moves a twigg, +100 blows over buildings, + 1 and air rises, -1 and water freezes.
I do understand it, a+b=ab a field that both repels and attracts at the same time. I will use proper algebra if it helps.
a=electron
b=proton
need to account for neutrons.
Take a piece of metal and add energy, the atoms become excited and produce a polarization that then repels each other expanding the matter.
When you stop applying the energy , ''the thermodynamic intake'', the metal then thermodynamically releases the energy contracting back to form when the excitement returns to an equilibium of the atoms polarity.
-
Consider the Caesium atom and the effect of a ''time-dilation'' , this shows you the influence of loss to gravity of atoms, we are always at this loss, we base it has neutral not realising we are already at loss.
+1 moves a leaf, +2 moves a twigg, +100 blows over buildings, + 1 and air rises, -1 and water freezes.
I do understand it, a+b=ab a field that both repels and attracts at the same time. I will use proper algebra if it helps.
a=electron
b=proton
None of this makes any sense "proper algebra" or not...
need to account for neutrons.
At least you recognize that neutrons don't fit into your theory.
-
Consider the Caesium atom and the effect of a ''time-dilation'' , this shows you the influence of loss to gravity of atoms, we are always at this loss, we base it has neutral not realising we are already at loss.
+1 moves a leaf, +2 moves a twigg, +100 blows over buildings, + 1 and air rises, -1 and water freezes.
I do understand it, a+b=ab a field that both repels and attracts at the same time. I will use proper algebra if it helps.
a=electron
b=proton
None of this makes any sense "proper algebra" or not...
need to account for neutrons.
At least you recognize that neutrons don't fit into your theory.
This part -
Take a piece of metal and add energy, the atoms become excited and produce a polarization that then repels each other expanding the matter.
This works for all galaxies, expansion of the Universe and just about everything you can think of including air.
Polarization caused by emr
When you stop applying the energy , ''the thermodynamic intake'', the metal then thermodynamically releases the energy contracting back to form when the excitement returns to an equilibium of the atoms polarity.
I was in edit sorry
-
Yes I can. Science literally says that black and white, is not black and white.
Let me guess. You actually believe merely because you can type the three words Yes I can. it means that it's true, is that right? Let me make this clear - It not only doesn't but we all know better in your case. That never happens here unless its absolutely true.
What am saying is sound logic, I may not have all the correct terms but the A+B=C explains it, an electron field and a proton filed , two fields with opposite effects that can polarize to create gravity an attractive force.
And well all know that to be 100% wrong. If it were right then your hair would stand on end due to you being in an electric field. In any case that would generate an electric field, not a gravitational one. If you knew physics you'd know how different they are and one cannot be confused with the other upon any observation.
-
Yes I can. Science literally says that black and white, is not black and white.
Let me guess. You actually believe merely because you can type the three words Yes I can. it means that it's true, is that right? Let me make this clear - It not only doesn't but we all know better in your case. That never happens here unless its absolutely true.
What am saying is sound logic, I may not have all the correct terms but the A+B=C explains it, an electron field and a proton filed , two fields with opposite effects that can polarize to create gravity an attractive force.
And well all know that to be 100% wrong. If it were right then your hair would stand on end due to you being in an electric field. In any case that would generate an electric field, not a gravitational one. If you knew physics you'd know how different they are and one cannot be confused with the other upon any observation.
Emr in space has no net charge and is electrically neutral until coupled to an object where photon electrical effect occurs., we feel heat,
-
Huh? some of my post has vanished......
and thinking about hair on the neck or arms standing on end, try a cold breeze, and the positive of the hair attractive to the negative of the cold.
I and you remain in an equilibrium to the room.
-
try a cold breeze, and the positive of the hair attractive to the negative of the cold.
It is true that static electricity (eg from a Van de Graaff generator) can make the hairs on your arm or your head stand up. But most of the time, humans are electrically neutral; the hairs on your arm lie flat, long hair hangs down due to gravity. (ie gravity is not due to electric charge.)
I think you are talking about goose bumps (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Goose_bumps), which are an effect of tiny muscles in your skin, not static electricity. You can distinguish these by the tiny cones of muscle attached to each hair, working to make the hair stand up in cold weather.
Look at ourselves, we contain electricity, but we contain also more negative than positive, hence attracted to the core [of the Earth] and the much more positive of the ground.
Electrical charges can attract or repel, depending on whether the charges are the same or different.
However, as far as we have been able to determine, gravity always attracts:
- We know this to be true for the people, rocks and oceans on Earth (all attracted towards the center of the Earth, and affected by tides from the Moon and the Sun).
- We believe this to be true of the inner core, the outer core and the mantle of the Earth, as we can see from earthquake waves traveling through denser material towards the center.
- We know this to be true for the planets of our Solar System (and the moons which circle them)
- We know that this is true for the stars in galaxies (but not exactly, which is why we need to include Dark Matter).
- We know that this is true for clusters of galaxies (but not exactly, which is why we need to include Dark Matter).
- Large volumes of rock like the Earth are electrically conductive, and so any voltages between the different layers of the Earth would have dissipated long ago (and continue to dissipate rapidly today, such as every time there is a lightning strike). So electrical attraction cannot be responsible for gravity on Earth.
- Large volumes of plasma like the Sun are very conductive, and so any static voltages between the different layers of the Sun would have dissipated long ago (there is some ongoing interaction between convection, magnetic and electric fields within the Sun, producing the ongoing sunspot cycle). So electrical attraction cannot be responsible for gravity of the Sun.
-
try a cold breeze, and the positive of the hair attractive to the negative of the cold.
It is true that static electricity (eg from a Van de Graaff generator) can make the hairs on your arm or your head stand up. But most of the time, humans are electrically neutral; the hairs on your arm lie flat, long hair hangs down due to gravity. (ie gravity is not due to electric charge.)
I think you are talking about goose bumps (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Goose_bumps), which are an effect of tiny muscles in your skin, not static electricity. You can distinguish these by the tiny cones of muscle attached to each hair, working to make the hair stand up in cold weather.
Look at ourselves, we contain electricity, but we contain also more negative than positive, hence attracted to the core [of the Earth] and the much more positive of the ground.
Electrical charges can attract or repel, depending on whether the charges are the same or different.
However, as far as we have been able to determine, gravity always attracts:
- We know this to be true for the people, rocks and oceans on Earth (all attracted towards the center of the Earth, and affected by tides from the Moon and the Sun).
- We believe this to be true of the inner core, the outer core and the mantle of the Earth, as we can see from earthquake waves traveling through denser material towards the center.
- We know this to be true for the planets of our Solar System (and the moons which circle them)
- We know that this is true for the stars in galaxies (but not exactly, which is why we need to include Dark Matter).
- We know that this is true for clusters of galaxies (but not exactly, which is why we need to include Dark Matter).
- Large volumes of rock like the Earth are electrically conductive, and so any voltages between the different layers of the Earth would have dissipated long ago (and continue to dissipate rapidly today, such as every time there is a lightning strike). So electrical attraction cannot be responsible for gravity on Earth.
- Large volumes of plasma like the Sun are very conductive, and so any static voltages between the different layers of the Sun would have dissipated long ago (there is some ongoing interaction between convection, magnetic and electric fields within the Sun, producing the ongoing sunspot cycle). So electrical attraction cannot be responsible for gravity of the Sun.
You say gravity always attracts, hydrogen and helium is not attracted, air is dependent on energy for buoyancy.
If an electron and proton have an electrostatic coupling, and a proton is positive polarity and an electron is a negative polarity, surely the both together make a plus and negative polarity field?
''An interesting phenomenon applied in the field of instrumentation is the Seebeck effect, which is the production of a small voltage across the length of a wire due to a difference in temperature along that wire. This effect is most easily observed and applied with a junction of two dissimilar metals in contact, each metal producing a different Seebeck voltage along its length, which translates to a voltage between the two (unjoined) wire ends. Most any pair of dissimilar metals will produce a measurable voltage when their junction is heated, some combinations of metals producing more voltage per degree of temperature than others:
The Seebeck effect is fairly linear; that is, the voltage produced by a heated junction of two wires is directly proportional to the temperature. This means that the temperature of the metal wire junction can be determined by measuring the voltage produced. Thus, the Seebeck effect provides for us an electric method of temperature measurement.
When a pair of dissimilar metals are joined together for the purpose of measuring temperature, the device formed is called a thermocouple. Thermocouples made for instrumentation use metals of high purity for an accurate temperature/voltage relationship (as linear and as predictable as possible).
Seebeck voltages are quite small, in the tens of millivolts for most temperature ranges. This makes them somewhat difficult to measure accurately. Also, the fact that any junction between dissimilar metals will produce temperature-dependent voltage creates a problem when we try to connect the thermocouple to a voltmeter, completing a circuit:''
http://www.allaboutcircuits.com/vol_1/chpt_9/5.html
''where a temperature differential is experienced by the different conductors (or semiconductors). It produces a voltage when the temperature of one of the spots differs from the reference temperature at other parts of the circuit. ''
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thermocouple
-
You say gravity always attracts, hydrogen and helium is not attracted, air is dependent on energy for buoyancy.
Hydrogen and helium ARE attracted by gravity. How else do stars or gas planets form? Hydrogen and helium are just less dense than air on our planet (mostly nitrogen, which is 14 times denser than hydrogen, and 7 times denser than helium).
Honestly if you can't understand the simple stuff (that is taught to children and teenagers in public school), you have no business trying to understand the Seebeck effect. I won't even waste my time trying to explain it to you.
If you are young and interested in this stuff, I recommend you put your ego aside and start reading up and learning (it may take several years to get an adequate basis in science, it is not the simplest subject). If you don't want to invest that kind of time and energy, I think you should find an easier hobby. (I'm sorry if this sounds mean, I'm not trying to embarrass or insult you)
-
a proton is positive polarity and an electron is a negative polarity, surely the both together make a plus and negative polarity field?
It has been demonstrated that (to a very great precision), the charge on the electron is equal to the charge on a proton (just with an opposite sign).
When they are joined together in a hydrogen atom, the electron encloses the proton, and their positive and negative charges cancel. The electric field pretty much cancels out beyond twice the radius of the atom.
There are some cases where a macroscopic electric field can be detected beyond the size of an individual atom:
- A wire moving through a magnetic field will produce a potential difference between the ends (this is how we generate most of our electricity). But the wire remains electrically neutral, overall.
- The energy of light causes solar cells generate an electric field across the junction of P and N semiconductors. But the solar cell remains electrically neutral, overall.
- Heat energy causes thermocouples generate an electric field across the junction of dissimilar metals (this is what is powering the Mars Curiosity rover (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Curiosity_(rover)#Specifications)). But the thermocouple remains electrically neutral, overall.
- The differing attraction of different metals for electrons is used to generate voltages in a chemical battery. But the battery remains electrically neutral, overall.
- Atoms (or molecules) bump into each other, disturbing this neutral electric field and producing the attraction of Van der Waals forces (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Van_der_Waals_force) between the atoms. But the collection of atoms remains electrically neutral, overall.
- Some molecules (like water) attract electrons to one end more than another. This produces a molecule-sized dipole field, which shows itself in the relatively high melting point of water (despite it's low molecular weight). But the molecule is still electrically neutral.
- The Sun is a hot soup of protons and electrons. Rapidly-changing magnetic fields on the Sun can spray electrons and protons into space. But the Sun is electrically neutral, overall.
-
a proton is positive polarity and an electron is a negative polarity, surely the both together make a plus and negative polarity field?
It has been demonstrated that (to a very great precision), the charge on the electron is equal to the charge on a proton (just with an opposite sign).
When they are joined together in a hydrogen atom, the electron encloses the proton, and their positive and negative charges cancel. The electric field pretty much cancels out beyond twice the radius of the atom.
There are some cases where a macroscopic electric field can be detected beyond the size of an individual atom:
- A wire moving through a magnetic field will produce a potential difference between the ends (this is how we generate most of our electricity). But the wire remains electrically neutral, overall.
- The energy of light causes solar cells generate an electric field across the junction of P and N semiconductors. But the solar cell remains electrically neutral, overall.
- Heat energy causes thermocouples generate an electric field across the junction of dissimilar metals (this is what is powering the Mars Curiosity rover (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Curiosity_(rover)#Specifications)). But the thermocouple remains electrically neutral, overall.
- The differing attraction of different metals for electrons is used to generate voltages in a chemical battery. But the battery remains electrically neutral, overall.
- Atoms (or molecules) bump into each other, disturbing this neutral electric field and producing the attraction of Van der Waals forces (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Van_der_Waals_force) between the atoms. But the collection of atoms remains electrically neutral, overall.
- Some molecules (like water) attract electrons to one end more than another. This produces a molecule-sized dipole field, which shows itself in the relatively high melting point of water (despite it's low molecular weight). But the molecule is still electrically neutral.
- The Sun is a hot soup of protons and electrons. Rapidly-changing magnetic fields on the Sun can spray electrons and protons into space. But the Sun is electrically neutral, overall.
When you say neutral, do you mean an equilibrium of state?
When atoms excite do they not produce kinetic action , that creates heat and a voltage?
When metal expands , is that not atoms having the same polarity and repelling each other by the same ''voltage polarity''?
When the metal contracts it returns to a neutral?
What polarity is Helium and Hydrogen?
Air , when it becomes ''charged'' , and rises , is this not a polarity shift by the atoms becoming excited?
-
If an electron and proton have an electrostatic coupling, and a proton is positive polarity and an electron is a negative polarity, surely the both together make a plus and negative polarity field?
Absolutely not. You're thinking in terms of classical mechanics where a point charge has a specific position at each momentum of time. If that were true on the subatomic scale then the atom couldn't exist. It would collapse in a blink of the eye. It was for this and other reasons that quantum mechanics was created. It's know known that the best way to think of the electron moving about the proton is as a electron "cloud." While this can't be taken as literally true it forms a good image in the mind to explain why there is no dipole field around an isolated hydrogen atom. In the ground state the electron cloud has a spherically symmetric distribution.
-
If an electron and proton have an electrostatic coupling, and a proton is positive polarity and an electron is a negative polarity, surely the both together make a plus and negative polarity field?
Absolutely not. You're thinking in terms of classical mechanics where a point charge has a specific position at each momentum of time. If that were true on the subatomic scale then the atom couldn't exist. It would collapse in a blink of the eye. It was for this and other reasons that quantum mechanics was created. It's know known that the best way to think of the electron moving about the proton is as a electron "cloud." While this can't be taken as literally true it forms a good image in the mind to explain why there is no dipole field around an isolated hydrogen atom. In the ground state the electron cloud has a spherically symmetric distribution.
I understand about the electron shell, and to visualise this, not much dissimilar to visualising the Earth's magnetic sphere which is also electrons?
I am thinking about it myself and not thinking about how we are taught to think about it.
A proton will repel another proton by polarity ? to show this I will use less than and more than tags to represent direction and I will label protons has (P).
(p)<>(p)
A proton attracts an electron by being an opposite polarity, we shall label electron (e) and show direction.
(e)><(p)
So (e)+(p)=(ep)?
is that correct ?
Two atoms = (ep²)?
How do you know that the proton does not emit the electron shell? and the electron shell is a voltage field? that would also explain has someone else suggested why the electron does not collapse into the proton.
Faraday's work and the invisible field around an electrical wire.
Maybe your dark matter is what holds the atoms together?
Atoms are a black body?
Could an atom be just a individual proton particle. that is a neutral, except by Electromagnetic radiation intake, it emits an isotropic electrical field, and repels all other protons, except there is this dark matter ''glue'' that is a negative that holds the atoms together?
-
I understand about the electron shell, and to visualise this, not much dissimilar to visualising the Earth's magnetic sphere which is also electrons?
Not at all. The magnetosphere is a magnetic field that happens to trap all sorts of charged particles, but it would exist (as with any other magnetic field) in the absence of those particles too.
I am thinking about it myself and not thinking about how we are taught to think about it.
A proton will repel another proton by polarity ? to show this I will use less than and more than tags to represent direction and I will label protons has (P).
(p)<>(p)
A proton attracts an electron by being an opposite polarity, we shall label electron (e) and show direction.
(e)><(p)
So far, so good.
So (e)+(p)=(ep)?
is that correct ?
Two atoms = (ep²)?
What on earth or anywhere) does this mean or represent?
How do you know that the proton does not emit the electron shell?
The "shell" is a mathematical description of the phenomena of chemistry. A proton knows nothing of mathematics or chemistry. and the electron shell is a voltage field?
there is no such thing that would also explain has someone else suggested why the electron does not collapse into the proton.
Faraday's work and the invisible field around an electrical wire.
That's a magnetic field, nothing to do with electrostatics
Maybe your dark matter is what holds the atoms together?
Atoms are a black body?
no
no
Could an atom be just a individual proton particle.
no, by defintion
that is a neutral, except by Electromagnetic radiation intake, it emits an isotropic electrical field, and repels all other protons, except there is this dark matter ''glue'' that is a negative that holds the atoms together?
Simply putting scientific terms into a sentence does not generate meaning.
-
So (e)+(p)=(ep)?
is that correct ?
Two atoms = (ep²)?
What on earth or anywhere) does this mean or represent?
electron + proton = electron proton, 2*electron proton = twice the radius of electron proton field
Could an atom be just a individual proton particle.
no, by defintion
by who's definition ? you can not directly observe an atom, so it can not be fact
I understand about the electron shell, and to visualise this, not much dissimilar to visualising the Earth's magnetic sphere which is also electrons?
Not at all. The magnetosphere is a magnetic field that happens to trap all sorts of charged particles, but it would exist (as with any other magnetic field) in the absence of
those particles too.
magnetic fields are electrons though?
-
electron + proton = electron proton, 2*electron proton = twice the radius of electron proton field
this is another meaningless collection of words.
by who's definition ? you can not directly observe an atom, so it can not be fact
by everyone's definition. An atom is an electrically neutral assembly of equal numbers of protons and electrons plus a few neutrons.
magnetic fields are electrons though?
no
-
by everyone's definition. An atom is an electrically neutral assembly of equal numbers of protons and electrons plus a few neutrons.
I am not following your meaning. everyone's definition, how can something be defined if it is to small to observe?
I would not define an atom to be made up of components, what evidence is there to show this?
Are you certain it is not just presumption?
All the time I have been on the internet and science, I have seen no real evidence to support the atomic model, I do not believe there is evidence?
-
by everyone's definition. An atom is an electrically neutral assembly of equal numbers of protons and electrons plus a few neutrons.
I am not following your meaning. everyone's definition, how can something be defined if it is to small to observe?
I would not define an atom to be made up of components, what evidence is there to show this?
Are you certain it is not just presumption?
All the time I have been on the internet and science, I have seen no real evidence to support the atomic model, I do not believe there is evidence?
There is LOTS of evidence of atomic structure. You are either looking in the wrong places or too ignorant to understand the evidence.
Just because something is so small that it cannot be seen directly using visible light does not mean there is no way to get information about it.
X-ray, ultraviolet and visible light (all EM, for the record) spectroscopy reveals the electronic structures of atoms and molecules.
Nucleus, proton, neutron and muon bombardment reveals nuclear structure. (for example, see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geiger%E2%80%93Marsden_experiment)
-
I am not following your meaning. everyone's definition, how can something be defined if it is to small to observe?
You can define anything you like, whether it's observable or not. The important thing in human communication is that everyone should use the same definition.
I would not define an atom to be made up of components, what evidence is there to show this?
Only boring sh1t like chemistry and physics. You are clearly above such mundane considerations as experimental science.
Are you certain it is not just presumption?
In science, a presumption that works is called a hypothesis, and an explanatory, predictive hypothesis that always works is called scientific knowledge.
All the time I have been on the internet and science, I have seen no real evidence to support the atomic model, I do not believe there is evidence?
Belief is irrelevant to science. Predictive hypotheses and precise, consistent use of language are the essence of understanding. You might find the work of Eugen Goldstein, J J Thompson, Ernest Rutherford and Henry Chadwick of interest: their experiments were remarkably simple and can be replicated on the kitchen table nowadays.
-
by everyone's definition. An atom is an electrically neutral assembly of equal numbers of protons and electrons plus a few neutrons.
I am not following your meaning. everyone's definition, how can something be defined if it is to small to observe?
I would not define an atom to be made up of components, what evidence is there to show this?
Are you certain it is not just presumption?
All the time I have been on the internet and science, I have seen no real evidence to support the atomic model, I do not believe there is evidence?
There is LOTS of evidence of atomic structure. You are either looking in the wrong places or too ignorant to understand the evidence.
Just because something is so small that it cannot be seen directly using visible light does not mean there is no way to get information about it.
X-ray, ultraviolet and visible light (all EM, for the record) spectroscopy reveals the electronic structures of atoms and molecules.
Nucleus, proton, neutron and muon bombardment reveals nuclear structure. (for example, see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geiger%E2%80%93Marsden_experiment)
Thank you for the link, however that is still not evidence that an atom is how it said to be, how do you know the surface of metal and the particles within are not transmitting electrons rather than attachment of electrons which it would give the exact same observation, same thing?
-
I am not following your meaning. everyone's definition, how can something be defined if it is to small to observe?
Not so Mr. Box, check out the following link. Scientists have been taking photos of atomic structure for some time now.
http://www.foxnews.com/science/2013/05/28/amazing-first-ever-photograph-inside-hydrogen-atom/
-
THEBOX Why on earth are you attempting to discuss the atom? You make no sense. I used to read a lot on organic chemistry years ago and about molecular bonding and the types of those bonds. I have forgotten most of that it is so long ago and yet I still know you are talking nonsense. I look at some of the mathematics involved in particle physics and it would be like climbing a mountain to gain a good understanding of it. Yet here you are attempting to argue with professionals. I offered you some sensible advice a while back which you obviously either didn't bother to read or ignored outright.
-
I am not following your meaning. everyone's definition, how can something be defined if it is to small to observe?
Not so Mr. Box, check out the following link. Scientists have been taking photos of atomic structure for some time now.
http://www.foxnews.com/science/2013/05/28/amazing-first-ever-photograph-inside-hydrogen-atom/
A tv station link , hardly scientific , but in the instant of the photo being correct. that does still not show that the electron shell is not emitted isotropic from the center of the picture, hmmm,
-
Never mind what doesn't show
the electron shell is not emitted isotropic from the center of the picture
: what does show it? Where is the experimental evidence for whatever phenomenal insight you are trying to share with the world? If you show us, perhaps some kind soul will be able to put it into words that humans understand.
-
Never mind what doesn't show the electron shell is not emitted isotropic from the center of the picture
: what does show it? Where is the experimental evidence for whatever phenomenal insight you are trying to share with the world? If you show us, perhaps some kind soul will be able to put it into words that humans understand.
The very picture provided in the link and the science experiments of bombarding metal with electrons , this does not really show an electron to exist in its own right, in the picture I see a center mass emitting a field, and not an electron attached to a proton.
I will have a think about how to show it even though I think you already show it and it is down to a perception fault.
-
The satisfying aspect of quantum orbitals is that you can predict the shape of a molecule and how it will pack into a crystal. Then you can look at the x-ray diffraction pattern and, as if by magic, it turns out that you were right!
-
The satisfying aspect of quantum orbitals is that you can predict the shape of a molecule and how it will pack into a crystal. Then you can look at the x-ray diffraction pattern and, as if by magic, it turns out that you were right!
I still can not see any evidence that suggests that the electron is a singular something in its own right? I consider that an electron is a product of process and not an individual particle as suggested.
In consideration of voltage the sun and the earths core must produce a positive voltage output and solids absorb this output?
-
1. What experimental evidence do you have that contradicts everyone else's? Most physics undergraduates have measured the charge and mass of a single electron. Your "consideration" is worthless.
2. In consideration of voltage the sun and the earths core must produce a positive voltage output and solids absorb this output?
Why "must"? Have you any idea of the meaning of words like "voltage"?
-
1. What experimental evidence do you have that contradicts everyone else's? Most physics undergraduates have measured the charge and mass of a single electron. Your "consideration" is worthless.
2. In consideration of voltage the sun and the earths core must produce a positive voltage output and solids absorb this output?
Why "must"? Have you any idea of the meaning of words like "voltage"?
1. Science evidence would be the same evidence, a perceptive view difference does not alter the Physics involved. Two things that attract will not have any space between, science implies that the electron is attracted to the proton yet has the ability to not touch the proton which is physically impossible by the laws of attraction.
2 . Do I know what voltage is? is that a genuine question........of cause I know what voltage is, what charge is what capacity is.
-
science implies that the electron is attracted to the proton yet has the ability to not touch the proton which is physically impossible by the laws of attraction.
That's why scientists use quantum mechanics rather than your idiosyncratic "laws of attraction" to describe what actually happens. We don't impose scientific laws on the universe, we discover them by observation, and if the observation doesn't fit the law, we revise the law. In the case of atomic orbitals, the "law" was substantively revised in 1926 and hasn't changed much since then. Get with the program, my friend!
Do I know what voltage is? is that a genuine question........of cause I know what voltage is, what charge is what capacity is.
Then why do your posts consistently misuse the words?
-
science implies that the electron is attracted to the proton yet has the ability to not touch the proton which is physically impossible by the laws of attraction.
That's why scientists use quantum mechanics rather than your idiosyncratic "laws of attraction" to describe what actually happens. We don't impose scientific laws on the universe, we discover them by observation, and if the observation doesn't fit the law, we revise the law. In the case of atomic orbitals, the "law" was substantively revised in 1926 and hasn't changed much since then. Get with the program, my friend!
Do I know what voltage is? is that a genuine question........of cause I know what voltage is, what charge is what capacity is.
Then why do your posts consistently misuse the words?
Ok, thanks for listening and answering , I think I am just going to give up on science. I have lost the interest in it now, I have not got the time to just to sit here any more.
-
I have lost the interest in it now, I have not got the time to just to sit here any more.
I would like to see you continue long enough to learn a few things Mr. Box. But this will not only take effort on your part, it will include your willingness to take criticism and correction. Many of us have tried to help you understand why your present positions are untenable where tried and true physics are concerned. If you can learn to set you preconceived ideas aside long enough for the kind people here to help you learn a few basic facts, there may be hope for you yet. However, if you start anew by criticizing answers which we kindly offer, then I suggest it might be best if you did abandon science altogether.
-
Jccc is trying to explain the same idea as me except with errors in logic and trying to redefine the atom.
My logic to simplify is this, imagine an asteroid in an asteroid belt orbiting an entropy system, as the entropy of the system increases in heat the asteroid gains more energy by thermodynamics, (it warms up), now we all know something that is heated such as air, rises and expands,
so if a asteroid is heated it will ''rise'' away from the source. The asteroid becomes polarised equal to source.
Heat metal it expands, the warm atoms pushing the other warm atoms away, air and gas does the same, some objects deform shape by the process.
I have to be right because the logic is flawless.
ampere differences?
-
Jccc is trying to explain the same idea as me except with errors in logic ....
LOL, "errors in logic", hilarious, then I read the rest of your post and I was hysterical, rolled up on the floor, tears rolling down my cheeks.
OK overstatement for effect, how about "quite amusing".
Edit: sorry, rewind that. Have just read this to one of our daughters, her reaction was "WHAT!!" Then we couldn't stop laughing, tears were really rolling down our cheeks.
Her opinion is that if it this bad we can never convince Mr Box.
-
Jccc is trying to explain the same idea as me except with errors in logic ....
LOL, "errors in logic", hilarious, then I read the rest of your post and I was hysterical, rolled up on the floor, tears rolling down my cheeks.
OK overstatement for effect, how about "quite amusing".
Edit: sorry, rewind that. Have just read this to one of our daughters, her reaction was "WHAT!!" Then we couldn't stop laughing, tears were really rolling down our cheeks.
Her opinion is that if it this bad we can never convince Mr Box.
Laugh away, are you trying to say with your laughter that when a gas is heated it does not expand?
Are you trying to suggest that heated metal does not expand?
Are you suggesting that heated metal is stretched molecules?
My logic is correct and according to our physics.
-
Have you ever read a book on classical mechanics? That is likely a good place to start. Also you will need a good grasp of algebra and calculus. It isn't easy to learn and understand the laws of physics without this effort. I would look forward to a proper debate with you once you have made a little progress. Everyone here would actually help you learn. That is exactly what this forum is meant to do. Just have a think about it. You may surprise yourself.
-
Have you ever read a book on classical mechanics? That is likely a good place to start. Also you will need a good grasp of algebra and calculus. It isn't easy to learn and understand the laws of physics without this effort. I would look forward to a proper debate with you once you have made a little progress. Everyone here would actually help you learn. That is exactly what this forum is meant to do. Just have a think about it. You may surprise yourself.
I have never read an actual book, I have read internet articles if that counts. I am always learning each and every day, I understand what I talk about to a degree. If you want to learn me, help me, talk about the expansion of metal in this thread , and gas expansion.
What opposes the gravity of a pocket of air (a cluster) to make it expand?
-
Solids and gases are different because the particles of a solid (atoms or molecules) interact strongly with each other, while particles in a gas (again, atoms or molecules) hardly interact at all (if we ignore the interaction completely, we can still accurately describe how gases behave generally).
In both cases temperature relates to how much the particles are moving with respect to each other.
In the case of a gas, the particles are not bound to each other, and are whizzing around at relatively high speeds. The hotter the gas gets, the faster the particles move. If there is nothing containing a gas, the particles will keep on going, and the gas will dissipate. But if the gas is held in a container the gas particles hit the walls and bounce back. The hotter the gas is, the faster the particles move, and the harder they hit the walls. If the container is rigid, then the volume of gas remains constant and the pressure increases as the temperature increases. If the container is not perfectly rigid (like a balloon), then the volume will also increase.
If there is no container wall, but a gravitational field that holds it in, then you can think of the gas particles moving very fast "up" but slowing down until they stop and fall back "down." The hotter the gas gets, the faster the particles move, and the farther "up" they can get before falling "down." Eventually, if you heat the gas enough, the particles can go fast enough to escape from the gravitational field, and never come back (this is what happened to Mercury's atmosphere.)
In the case of a solid, the particles still move a little bit, but they're stuck together, so all they can do is "jiggle". The hotter it gets, the faster the particles jiggle. Imagine a crowd of people packed very tightly into a small tent. There really isn't much room to move around, but some music starts playing, and they start dancing. They can't move about freely, and are close enough that each person is trapped between their neighbors. But the people on the edges can push out a little bit against the tent walls so that everyone has a little room to rock out (but they still are all trapped by their neighbors). The tempo of the music starts going up, and people start dancing a little more wildly (there are a few accidents, but no one can get out of the way, so they just laugh it off and keep dancing). At some point the people on the edge are pressed up against the tent so hard that they break through and knock the tent over. Now there's enough space for people to move between their neighbors, but they still all stick close to oneanother because they're all still dancing (at this point the solid has melted).
Basically, the faster the particles in a solid, liquid or gas move, the more space they want to take up. Solids and liquids can only expand a little bit because the particles are all stuck together, but gases can expand freely because the particles do not. This is why if you heat a piece of gold up from 25 °C to 100 °C its volume will only increase by about 0.3%, but a gas that is free to expand would increase its volume by 25%.
-
Laugh away, are you trying to say with your laughter that when a gas is heated it does not expand?
Are you trying to suggest that heated metal does not expand?
Are you suggesting that heated metal is stretched molecules?
My logic is correct and according to our physics.
No I wasn't staying that. You have obviously forgotten these 3 statements:
Jccc is trying to explain the same idea as me except with errors in logic ............
so if a asteroid is heated it will ''rise'' away from the source. The asteroid becomes polarised equal to source.
ampere differences?
-
My logic is correct and according to our physics.
Squibble blart foojum, in our language. I don't expect you to understand, and it isn't even true, but who cares, as long as I can tell my mum that I've posted on a big boys' science forum!
-
I have never read an actual book,
That explains a lot!!
I have read internet articles if that counts.
It only counts if the author of the article is a credible physicist and recognized by his peers.
And also, if that information is not just a reproduction of said physicists words taken out of context. People are always doing that to the likes of Einstein and many other recognized scientific giants of our past. Suggesting that one of their comments meant something entirely different than the point they were actually trying to express.
I suggest you spend less time on the internet and read a few good physics books. Pete can recommend some very good ones for you to read, give it a try!
-
I have never read an actual book,
That explains a lot!!
I have read internet articles if that counts.
It only counts if the author of the article is a credible physicist and recognized by his peers.
And also, if that information is not just a reproduction of said physicists words taken out of context. People are always doing that to the likes of Einstein and many other recognized scientific giants of our past. Suggesting that one of their comments meant something entirely different than the point they were actually trying to express.
I suggest you spend less time on the internet and read a few good physics books. Pete can recommend some very good ones for you to read, give it a try!
Thank you for the advice but I do not think Pete is really talking to me any more. I do not mean to sound ungrateful but is Wiki not everything I need in brief detail a starting premise for opinion?
Will a book say it any differently?
A theory about something that does not have a sound theory can not be wrong, it can only be discussed to see if it is right. Like have stated I am not a scientist, probably not even a good amateur scientist but what I do have is a very good ability to think. I do it at work I do it in life I survive and solve problems .
I read wiki and question it if it is not logically 100% no more no less without prejudiced. It is you scientists who need to sort it out and go write down a proper paper because you know what you are doing and I do not.
I am being honest here for once and i have been through delusions of grandeur and back again to reality . However I fixed myself by science and realisation that i was nut ball crazy.
I am telling you honestly that quite a bit of my ideas are really a concern to me when i know your version and my version works better because my versions offer true physical process.
I am tired from a 13 hr working day forgive the bad writing.
-
Atoms are homonuclear neutral particles that are saturated in radiation by conduction that then charges the homonuclear particle that then emits an electron field observed has light and heat often in the form of infra red and even spectral interaction, the homonuclear particle has the ability to change polarity by greater or lesser charge, the action of process is continuous, the entropy of a single homonuclear particle in a state of constant flux by a constant flux of thermodynamics. Energy never stops moving...Electricity does not travel along a wire, the electricity charges the wire the wire emits in a convection motion an electrical magnetic field . The homonuclear particles are naturally attracted to each other and is only the electron field emitted that allows them to remain ajar.
see model here -
http://www.badscience.net/forum/viewtopic.php?f=3&t=36878&p=1368030#p1368030
3 quarks make up a Proton, quarks are naturally attracted to each other, therefore protons are naturally attracted to each other,
-
Atoms are homonuclear neutral particles that are saturated in radiation by conduction that then charges the homonuclear particle.....
Drivel. Why waste your life putting random words into a meaningless sentence?
-
Atoms are homonuclear neutral particles that are saturated in radiation by conduction that then charges the homonuclear particle.....
Drivel. Why waste your life putting random words into a meaningless sentence?
The rest of it explains it well, I added a model, I added a molecular structure
http://www.badscience.net/forum/viewtopic.php?f=3&t=36878&p=1368209#p1368209
It makes sense to me sorry even if not to you.
-
You have forgotten that even homonuclear atoms contain isosbestic contributions from entropically modified topological formulations. To adjust for this, you need to add a relativistic silicon-based tensor to balance out the isothermal voltage generated by the isosceles gravitational manifold.
Heteronuclear atoms are even more complicated...
-
Heteronuclear atoms are even more complicated...
Dynotetic ones even more so. Saw a paper about those recently, fascinating reading.