0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
Coulomb's law states that: The magnitude of the electrostatic force of attraction or repulsion between two point charges is directly proportional to the product of the magnitudes of charges and inversely proportional to the square of the distance between them. The force is along the straight line joining them.
And they bounce of each other because Neutral pushes back as in Newtons third law, don't you know anything Mr Chemist?
The forces involved in my merged i,j ''matrix''i →F ← jj→F←ii←F→ij←F→J
Quote from: Thebox on 18/02/2018 14:47:51And they bounce of each other because Neutral pushes back as in Newtons third law, don't you know anything Mr Chemist? Among the quite large number of things I know is that , in the limit, what causes them to bounce is Pauli pressure and there's no way Newton would have known about that.Quote from: Thebox on 18/02/2018 14:47:51The forces involved in my merged i,j ''matrix''i →F ← jj→F←ii←F→ij←F→JStill gibberish.
read my edit bruva....
Quote from: Thebox on 18/02/2018 18:11:10read my edit bruva....Practically none of it makes sense
Quote from: Bored chemist on 18/02/2018 10:00:55Quote from: Thebox on 17/02/2018 23:29:36 define the space to have an inner array You will need to explain that.Quote from: Thebox on 17/02/2018 23:29:36I have given science the information,You have given nothing but nonsense.Quote from: Thebox on 17/02/2018 23:29:36neutral will always be attracted to neutral.And yet, they are not.That's why things bounce off eachother.Now I am sure you are just trolling, go find somebody else speak too, you can go be bored elsewhere.
Quote from: Thebox on 17/02/2018 23:29:36 define the space to have an inner array You will need to explain that.Quote from: Thebox on 17/02/2018 23:29:36I have given science the information,You have given nothing but nonsense.Quote from: Thebox on 17/02/2018 23:29:36neutral will always be attracted to neutral.And yet, they are not.That's why things bounce off eachother.
define the space to have an inner array
I have given science the information,
neutral will always be attracted to neutral.
Quote from: Thebox on 18/02/2018 14:21:19Quote from: Bored chemist on 18/02/2018 10:00:55Quote from: Thebox on 17/02/2018 23:29:36 define the space to have an inner array You will need to explain that.Quote from: Thebox on 17/02/2018 23:29:36I have given science the information,You have given nothing but nonsense.Quote from: Thebox on 17/02/2018 23:29:36neutral will always be attracted to neutral.And yet, they are not.That's why things bounce off eachother.Now I am sure you are just trolling, go find somebody else speak too, you can go be bored elsewhere. It's not that I have a learning disorder.The problem is your persistent refusal to explain what you are using words to mean.If you stuck to the conventional uses of the words, you wouldn't need to explain them but you keep making up more dross with every post.
And comments on the latest edited post?
Quote from: Thebox on 19/02/2018 20:28:26And comments on the latest edited post?None of what you have posted since I first wrote that makes much sense.All you seem to be able to do is throw in insults and more buzzwords.
nomenclature
Neutral is attracted to neutral.. Now which part do you not understand?
Quote from: Thebox on 21/02/2018 13:46:49Neutral is attracted to neutral.. Now which part do you not understand?I don't understand why this is worth posting many years after it was already established.https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/London_dispersion_forceI also don't understand what the connection is between the pages of dross you posted, and a real thing.