Why don't an atom's electrons fall into the nucleus and stick to the protons?

  • 414 Replies
  • 174630 Views

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

*

Offline alancalverd

  • Global Moderator
  • Neilep Level Member
  • *****
  • 4806
  • life is too short to drink instant coffee
    • View Profile
maybe proton carries 900+, attracted 899- fluid to form nucleus, add 1 electron to form hydrogen.


Alas, an isolated proton has a charge of +1, by experiment.
helping to stem the tide of ignorance

*

Offline jccc

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • 990
    • View Profile
alash. a hydrogen is neutral, by all means. yet you cannot say it contains no charge. you say its net charge is 0.

if proton carries the fluid with it, net charge is +1, will test show +1 charge?



*

Online Ethos_

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • 1280
    • View Profile
alash. a hydrogen is neutral, by all means. yet you cannot say it contains no charge. you say its net charge is 0.

if proton carries the fluid with it, net charge is +1, will test show +1 charge?
Experiment shows that a proton consists of two up quarks with a charge of +2/3 each. And one down quark with a charge of -1/3. Taking 2 times +2/3 equals +4/3 and adding the -1/3 charges leaves us with +3/3 simplified to +1 charge. I really don't know where you are getting some of your figures jccc, they sure aren't coming form a physics book. Where did you ever come up with the proton having 900+ charges?
« Last Edit: 17/03/2015 23:53:57 by Ethos_ »
"The more things change, the more they remain the same."

*

Offline jccc

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • 990
    • View Profile
experiment shows photon knocks out electron, is photon a real thing?

i assume proton carries 900+, because i believe real mass is the ratio of force act on charge.

think about, when charge doubled, its force doubled. push 1 charge particle to accelerate at a, need force f, push 3 charges need 3 f to get same a.

test shows hydrogen weights 1800 electron weight, that's why i believe proton carries 900+, plus 899- and 1 electron to become neutral atom.

*

Offline chiralSPO

  • Global Moderator
  • Neilep Level Member
  • *****
  • 1911
    • View Profile
I think a hydrogen atom has a mass about 1837 times that of an electron.

I don't think it's reasonable to assume that the mass and charge scale together. Protons are hadrons and electrons are leptons, so there is no reason to think that their mass to charge ratio should be equal...

And didn't you claim that this negative fluid had no mass before? Now it has the same mass to charge ratio as electrons?

*

Offline jccc

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • 990
    • View Profile
i believe without charge, there is no force, therefore no mass.

why don't you use the same attitude to question standard atom models?

why don't you answer my questions on the photon thread? 

*

Offline chiralSPO

  • Global Moderator
  • Neilep Level Member
  • *****
  • 1911
    • View Profile
I have spent years learning about and questioning the standard atomic theories. Most of my questions on the subject have been answered to my satisfaction or acknowledged as current limitations of our understanding.

Your theory is much newer to me and inconsistent with much of what I have learned, and sometimes inconsistent with itself.

Mostly I am asking questions to make you think hard about your theory and how it fits (or doesn't) with our current understanding of the world--hopefully my questions help you refine and communicate your ideas.

*

Offline jccc

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • 990
    • View Profile
certainly all your questions helped me to think better and deeper, never can be forgotten.

did you asked yourself why electron and proton not stick together? why no discharge? why matter is not compressible? how electron waving around proton? what is energy level? how is n p s shell carry electrons? what's the mechanism?

is book gives you the correct answers? you are satisfied 100% or 20%?   

*

Offline PmbPhy

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • 2784
    • View Profile
Quote from: jccc
certainly all your questions helped me to think better and deeper, never can be forgotten.
And yet you show no signs of that because you ask the same exact questions.

Quote from: jccc
did you asked yourself why electron and proton not stick together?
Most of us here know why. You're alone in this except for a few people with no understanding of quantum mechanics.

Quote from: jccc
why matter is not compressible?
False claim since matter is compressible. You've been told this countless times now and like other questions you still act like nobody's explained it to you. Again you're attempting to irritate members of this forum with that childish game of yours.

*

Offline alancalverd

  • Global Moderator
  • Neilep Level Member
  • *****
  • 4806
  • life is too short to drink instant coffee
    • View Profile
Pete, have you not been warned about p***ing into the wind? jccc has his own beliefs about the structure of the hydrogen atom and no amount of observation or commonsense will change his mind, possibly because we are all capitalist lickspittles, commie atheists, or evil alien lizardpeople dedicated to obscuring the Truth that has been Revealed to jccc alone.
helping to stem the tide of ignorance

*

Offline jccc

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • 990
    • View Profile
a more logically sounding theory of atomic structure is discussed in the last 6 pages, 20k new viewers.

i kind disappointed to see some of the comments.

question is, am i the only one?

*

Offline chiralSPO

  • Global Moderator
  • Neilep Level Member
  • *****
  • 1911
    • View Profile
certainly all your questions helped me to think better and deeper, never can be forgotten.
:-)

did you asked yourself why electron and proton not stick together? why no discharge? why matter is not compressible? how electron waving around proton? what is energy level? how is n p s shell carry electrons? what's the mechanism?
Are you not listening? We have said multiple times that an electron stuck to proton is a hydrogen atom!

How could an electron discharge if the smallest charge carrier is an electron?

Matter is compressible! It takes a lot of force, but densities of crystals increase at increased pressure. With crazy amounts of force (neutron star) the electrons can be forced into the nucleus, forming a neutrons.

An electron behaves in a wavelike manner and it is around the proton--this has been shown experimentally in many different ways.

Energy levels can be thought of as the different harmonics of the electron wave in the atom (or molecule).

n is the way we denote energy level. It is one of the principle quantum numbers we use to describe electrons in an atom (like an address for each electron) the others are l (azimuthal quantum number, relates to magnitude of angular momentum), ml (magnetic quantum number, relates to direction of angular momentum) and ms (spin). These are hard concepts to grasp, but essentially, there are only so many ways an electron wave can be stable around a nucleus, and these four numbers are used to describe the different stable solutions.

For n = 1, there are no solutions with angular momentum (l = 0 and ml = 0)
For n = 2, l can be 0 or 1, and when l = 1 ml can be –1, 0 or 1
overall for any n, l can have integer values of 0, 1, 2, .... all the way up to n–1
for any l, ml can have any integer value between –l and l

any orbital with l = 0 is called an s orbital; any orbital with l = 1 is called a p orbital (and remember when l = 1 ml can be –1, 0 or 1) so there are three types of orthogonal p orbitals
any orbital with l = 2 is called a d orbital (there are 5 types of orthogonal d orbitals) etc. etc. etc. this is all just our naming system, the actual equation that I'm dancing around is called the Schrödinger equation, which is used to calculate the possible wavefunctions of electrons in an atom (or molecule).

The mechanism is that that's the way the universe works. We are just describing it.

is book gives you the correct answers? you are satisfied 100% or 20%?

I am about 90% satisfied with book answers. The remaining 10% represents the combination of my own lack of understanding and what scientists everywhere don't yet have good explanations for.

*

Offline chiralSPO

  • Global Moderator
  • Neilep Level Member
  • *****
  • 1911
    • View Profile
a more logically sounding theory of atomic structure is discussed in the last 6 pages, 20k new viewers.

i kind disappointed to see some of the comments.

question is, am i the only one?

Your theory is NOT more logical, and don't think that the number of views this thread gets is any confirmation of your theory. It is probably the result of the title being a commonly held question, coming up in google searches, and forum members interested in hearing/shooting down the next crazy thing you throw up into the thread.

*

Offline jccc

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • 990
    • View Profile
a more logically sounding theory of atomic structure is discussed in the last 6 pages, 20k new viewers.

i kind disappointed to see some of the comments.

question is, am i the only one?

Your theory is NOT more logical, and don't think that the number of views this thread gets is any confirmation of your theory. It is probably the result of the title being a commonly held question, coming up in google searches, and forum members interested in hearing/shooting down the next crazy thing you throw up into the thread.

which part is not logical? did i answered every question you asked for?

please point, thank you.

*

Offline jccc

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • 990
    • View Profile
We have said multiple times that an electron stuck to proton is a hydrogen atom!

an atom's radius is way bigger than a proton, which part of the electron is stuck to a proton? how they stuck? if they stuck why there is atom radius?

Matter is compressible! It takes a lot of force.

1/10^10 is compreessible? isn't atomis mostly empty space between proton and electron?

How could an electron discharge if the smallest charge carrier is an electron?

electron always discharge into positive charge, what else particle is more dischargeable?

Energy levels can be thought of as the different harmonics of the electron wave in the atom.

who though so? what wave? how a particle waves? what's the mechanism?

The mechanism is that that's the way the universe works. We are just describing it.

you see n, s, p shells? see electrons there? count them? how?

*

Offline jccc

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • 990
    • View Profile
think about it, a building, an earth quake can damage it, a bomb can destroy it. if atoms are as science said, electrons are waving around the nucleus, all perfectly balanced, why is compressibility is 10^-10? why is during fission reaction, not even damage any part of it?

can we build anything similar? not in imagination?

*

Offline chiralSPO

  • Global Moderator
  • Neilep Level Member
  • *****
  • 1911
    • View Profile
We have said multiple times that an electron stuck to proton is a hydrogen atom!

an atom's radius is way bigger than a proton, which part of the electron is stuck to a proton? how they stuck? if they stuck why there is atom radius?
The atom's radius is set by the electron, not the proton. They are stuck by electrostatic attraction.

Matter is compressible! It takes a lot of force.

1/10^10 is compreessible? isn't atomis mostly empty space between proton and electron?
I don't know where you're getting that number (and no units, so it's not very meaningful...), but since it's not zero, I would say it probably means that matter is compressible. There isn't really empty space in the atom. The electron(s) is (are) there.

How could an electron discharge if the smallest charge carrier is an electron?

electron always discharge into positive charge, what else particle is more dischargeable?
Not sure what you mean here. The electron is already "at" the proton, so it can't move closer.

Energy levels can be thought of as the different harmonics of the electron wave in the atom.

who though so? what wave? how a particle waves? what's the mechanism?

Louis de Broglie formalized the concept of wave-particle duality. The electron wave (or electron probability density wave, if you prefer)

The mechanism is that that's the way the universe works. We are just describing it.

you see n, s, p shells? see electrons there? count them? how?

I can't see s, p, d shells. But I can measure them, and I can model them.

*

Offline jccc

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • 990
    • View Profile
seriously, your above statement is no better than your crashing bird 1.

*

Offline chiralSPO

  • Global Moderator
  • Neilep Level Member
  • *****
  • 1911
    • View Profile
At this point, you're on your own. The answers are all in this thread. If you are actually a truth seeker, you will read more about quantum mechanics. I recommend you look at the history of it, rather than the mathematics of it. You will see how people made their discoveries, how they defended their theories against criticism, and how inventors were able to take advantage of our new-found understanding of atomic and molecular systems.

If you would rather make up your own reality, and you don't care how representative it is of the universe, have fun.

*

Offline jccc

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • 990
    • View Profile
you mean you cannot point out what part of my theory is NOT logical?

*

Online Ethos_

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • 1280
    • View Profile
you mean you cannot point out what part of my theory is NOT logical?
How about your post #329? Makes absolutely no sense!
"The more things change, the more they remain the same."

*

Offline jccc

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • 990
    • View Profile
maybe proton carries 900+, attracted 899- fluid to form nucleus, add 1 electron to form hydrogen.

the rest fluid maybe the source of dm/de?

atomic structure has to be 100% correct, otherwise whole science is doubtful.

any thoughts?

this 1?

*

Online Ethos_

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • 1280
    • View Profile
maybe proton carries 900+, attracted 899- fluid to form nucleus, add 1 electron to form hydrogen.

the rest fluid maybe the source of dm/de?

atomic structure has to be 100% correct, otherwise whole science is doubtful.

any thoughts?

this 1?
Yep...................
"The more things change, the more they remain the same."

*

Offline jccc

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • 990
    • View Profile
please see 353, thanks!
« Last Edit: 20/03/2015 07:24:11 by jccc »

*

corrupt

  • Guest
None
« Reply #374 on: 20/03/2015 05:26:36 »
How can a neutron (which is comprised of two down-quarks and an up-quark) turn into an electron (which is itself a fundamental particle)?

*

Offline lightarrow

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • 4586
    • View Profile
you mean you cannot point out what part of my theory is NOT logical?
How can a soup of silly things be considered a theory? Or you are kidding us all? You are doing it, say the truth...
But I can't understand those who keep ansering you losing their time ...

--
lightarrow

*

Offline chiralSPO

  • Global Moderator
  • Neilep Level Member
  • *****
  • 1911
    • View Profile
Re: None
« Reply #376 on: 20/03/2015 18:39:26 »
How can a neutron (which is comprised of two down-quarks and an up-quark) turn into an electron (which is itself a fundamental particle)?

I'm not exactly sure of the mechanism, but neutrons are know to decompose into a proton, an electron and a neutrino. If you crunch the numbers, I bet the mass-energy, charge (this one's easy) and spin (angular momentum) are all conserved.

Any QED experts want to shed light on this one?

*

Offline Thebox

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • 3202
    • View Profile
Because the electron field is produced by the Proton?

or by simply being so small the electron is relatively fell into the Proton, how big do you imagine this atom to be?

« Last Edit: 21/03/2015 12:41:44 by Thebox »

*

Online Ethos_

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • 1280
    • View Profile

How can a soup of silly things be considered a theory? Or you are kidding us all? You are doing it, say the truth...
But I can't understand those who keep ansering you losing their time ...

--
lightarrow
I agree with you lightarrow, I think these fellows have come here with the single agenda, to sow discourse and cause confusion.
"The more things change, the more they remain the same."

*

Offline Thebox

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • 3202
    • View Profile
I understand the question and it leaves room for thought, if an electron is attracted to a Proton then what stops the electron just being connected directly to the Proton?

The answer is simply that atoms are so small, relatively Electrons  are connected directly to the Proton, there is hardly any space in something smaller than a dot?


« Last Edit: 22/03/2015 19:55:46 by evan_au »

*

Offline jccc

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • 990
    • View Profile
Your time is limited, so don’t waste it living someone else’s life. Don’t be trapped by dogma — which is living with the results of other people’s thinking. Don’t let the noise of others’ opinions drown out your own inner voice. And most important, have the courage to follow your heart and intuition. They somehow already know what you truly want to become. Everything else is secondary.

quote from Steve Jobs

*

Offline PmbPhy

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • 2784
    • View Profile
Quote from: UltimateTheory
Antiparticle has positive energy. Dirac was mistaken.
That's a misconception. The equation E2 + p2 = m2  has two solutions for E. One is positive and the other is negative. You're statement confuses the inertial energy = rest energy + kinetic energy with negative energy states. As explained here: http://quantummechanics.ucsd.edu/ph130a/130_notes/node490.html
Quote
We cannot discount the ``negative energy'' solutions since the positive energy solutions alone do not form a complete set. An electron which is localized in space, will have components of its wave function which are ``negative energy''.
...
The idea of an infinite sea of ``negative energy'' electrons is a strange one. What about all that charge and negative energy? Why is there an asymmetry in the vacuum between negative and positive energy when Dirac's equation is symmetric? (We could also have said that positrons have positive energy and there is an infinite sea of electrons in negative energy states.) This is probably not the right answer but it has many elements of truth in it. It also gives the right result for some simple calculations. When the Dirac field is quantized, we will no longer need the infinite ``negative energy'' sea, but electrons and positrons will behave as if it were there.

*

Offline jccc

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • 990
    • View Profile
we have all kinds of high tech toys, why can scientists make a working model of an atom?

let's brainstorm, see if we can use 1 electron and 1 proton to make an atom.

first, let's think, if they are stick together in the beginning, we got to separate them first to make possible that electron able to orbiting/clouding.

if they are separate at a distance, they will accelerate and get closer, how could impact not happen? lucky electron just fall into orbit?

am i the only 1 so confused? 

*

Offline chiralSPO

  • Global Moderator
  • Neilep Level Member
  • *****
  • 1911
    • View Profile
am i the only 1 so confused?

only you and any others who can't let go of the intuition of classical physics...

*

Offline jccc

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • 990
    • View Profile
seems to me the standard model of atomic structure is more confuse.

there is no clear logic to explain many facts we observe daily.

why atoms are not compressible as theory predicted? 99.99% empty space within atom right?

why electron not discharge into proton? any other em field is stronger? any other voltage is higher?

how neutral charged atoms able to form into group?

all legit questions, agree?

*

Offline chiralSPO

  • Global Moderator
  • Neilep Level Member
  • *****
  • 1911
    • View Profile
I would refer you again to my post (much) earlier in this thread (also check out the attachment in the original post):

jccc, I have thought of another way of describing the hydrogen atom pictorially. It's not a completely accurate model, just an analogy that might help.

Think of the electric potential produced by the proton as a surface--essentially like the gravity wells represented in curved space-time. The proton is very small, so it can essentially be treated as a point particle, or we can use a nonzero radius for the cutoff of the well (finite depth of the well), either way it doesn't matter.

The electron can be thought of as a marble that is free to roll around on this surface. It will naturally roll down into the potential well created by the proton, and it will eventually get stuck in the well. It is centered at the same x-y coordinates as the proton (center of the marble is directly over the center of the well), but because it has a determined diameter, the marble can only go so far down into the well.

I have illustrated a 1-dimensional version of this (two including potential, but only one spatial coordinate: x). The size of the "marble" is determined by how massive the particle is (more massive means smaller marble) (the size of this marble represents the de Broglie wavelength λ = h/p, where p is momentum and h is Planck's constant).

Thus when a negative particle heavier than the electron is modeled, we get a smaller marble. For instance, the muon has the same charge as an electron, but is about 200 times more massive. The exotic atom formed by the interaction of a muon and a proton is exactly the same as a normal hydrogen atom, except the muon is distributed much closer to the proton (this is how muons catalyze fusion). Going even further, an antiproton (1832 times heavier than an electron) would be extremely close to the proton. The antiproton and proton would also interact via the strong force (which the electron and muon would not do) and would fairly quickly annihilate with the proton.

*

Offline chiralSPO

  • Global Moderator
  • Neilep Level Member
  • *****
  • 1911
    • View Profile

why atoms are not compressible as theory predicted? 99.99% empty space within atom right?

why electron not discharge into proton? any other em field is stronger? any other voltage is higher?

how neutral charged atoms able to form into group?

all legit questions, agree?

all legit questions, all with legit answers.

For instance: neutral atoms form into groups because it is usually energetically favorable for the electrons to be shared between multiple nuclei. The atomic orbitals we continuously talk about morph into molecular orbitals when there are multiple nuclei to be considered. We have developed excellent ways of modeling the electronic structures of molecules--to the extent that we can say how many bonds atoms will make with each other; whether molecules will be paramagnetic or diamagnetic; what frequencies of light a molecule is likely to absorb; whether molecules will conduct electricity or not; etc. etc. etc.

*

Offline PmbPhy

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • 2784
    • View Profile
Quote from: chiralSPO
only you and any others who can't let go of the intuition of classical physics...
We've told him that countless times and he ignores it as if we never even said it. He's terrible that way.

*

Offline jccc

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • 990
    • View Profile

why atoms are not compressible as theory predicted? 99.99% empty space within atom right?

why electron not discharge into proton? any other em field is stronger? any other voltage is higher?

how neutral charged atoms able to form into group?

all legit questions, agree?

all legit questions, all with legit answers.

For instance: neutral atoms form into groups because it is usually energetically favorable for the electrons to be shared between multiple nuclei.

ok. then if atoms are apart, the same energetically favorable should be for the atoms to share the outer electrons and attract each other that causes gravitation.

am i have a point?

*

Offline chiralSPO

  • Global Moderator
  • Neilep Level Member
  • *****
  • 1911
    • View Profile
ok. then if atoms are apart, the same energetically favorable should be for the atoms to share the outer electrons and attract each other that causes gravitation.

am i have a point?

except that the attraction between atoms to form molecules is only over very short distances (more than 5 Å, or 5x10–10 between nuclei, and there is no substantial effect) because it requires sharing of electrons, and the effect becomes repulsive (antibonding) if there are too many electrons around. Typically atoms come together to form very discrete molecular units (like H2O or C6H6), and once the stable molecule is formed, it becomes very difficult to add more atoms. There are much weaker interactions between molecules that make it favorable for molecules to attract oneanother (this is how gases condense into liquids, how geckos can walk on walls, and how drugs bind to receptors)

*

Offline jccc

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • 990
    • View Profile
2 separate atoms each is neutral charged, what attraction force there is?

atom 1 proton attracts atom 2 electron or what? how it exactly works? if not induction?

are the 2 atoms share electrons or clouds? or orbitals? is all this imaginary?


*

Offline jccc

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • 990
    • View Profile
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Covalent_bond
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Molecular_orbital_theory

if i believe/understand those theory, i won't be here.

if you understand, please explain in your words. those wiki knowledge to me not like science.

*

Offline PmbPhy

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • 2784
    • View Profile
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Covalent_bond
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Molecular_orbital_theory

if i believe/understand those theory, i won't be here.

if you understand, please explain in your words. those wiki knowledge to me not like science.
Wiki does explain it all in words. As we keep telling you, and which you keep choosing to ignore, is that since you refuse to learn physics the correct way, rather than asking a zillion questions whose answers you readily forget, you'll never understand it. Why on Earth do you think physicists have to study so hard. Don't you think that we would have preferred an explanation so simple that even you could understand it. Forget it. It doesn't exist. Nature is a great deal more complicated for a description so simplistic that even you could understand it.

*

Offline jccc

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • 990
    • View Profile

Quote from: jccc on 27/02/2015 15:43:14
Quote from: PmbPhy on 27/02/2015 15:21:28
Quote from: jccc
we need to start from the light source. if atoms are like qm suggested, 99% empty space, why is water/matter not compressible?
It is compressible. See:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Properties_of_water#Compressibility
water's compressibility is about 10 ^-10, sounds like 99% empty space to you?

how about the discharge? is the empty space such a good insulator?
what's your answer?
Modify message
Report to moderator     173.22.244.21
PmbPhy
Hero Member
*****
Posts: 1898
View Profile  Email  Personal Message (Offline)

Re: Why don't an atom's electrons fall into the nucleus and stick to the protons?
« Reply #266 on: 28/02/2015 02:36:57 »
Quote
Quote from: jccc
what's your answer?
I don't have an answer. Who ever said I know everything!
Report to moderator     Logged
jccc
Hero Member
*****
Posts: 851
View Profile  Personal Message (Online)

Re: Why don't an atom's electrons fall into the nucleus and stick to the protons?
« Reply #267 on: 28/02/2015 02:43:18 »
QuoteModifyRemove
thank you Pete!

all my respect to you.

Modify message
Report to moderator     173.22.244.21
PmbPhy
Hero Member
*****
Posts: 1898
View Profile  Email  Personal Message (Offline)

Re: Why don't an atom's electrons fall into the nucleus and stick to the protons?
« Reply #268 on: 28/02/2015 03:17:57 »
Quote
Quote from: jccc on 28/02/2015 02:43:18
thank you Pete!

all my respect to you.
You're welcome.  ^

do you have answers now?

*

Offline PmbPhy

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • 2784
    • View Profile
Quote from: jccc

Quote from: jccc on 27/02/2015 15:43:14
Quote from: PmbPhy on 27/02/2015 15:21:28
Quote from: jccc
we need to start from the light source. if atoms are like qm suggested, 99% empty space, why is water/matter not compressible?
It is compressible. See:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Properties_of_water#Compressibility
water's compressibility is about 10 ^-10, sounds like 99% empty space to you?

how about the discharge? is the empty space such a good insulator?
what's your answer?
Modify message
Report to moderator     173.22.244.21
PmbPhy
Hero Member
<snipped garbage>
Well, that was about the most useless post that I've ever seen in any forum that I've ever visited. Then again, nothing that you do surprises me anymore.

*

Offline jccc

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • 990
    • View Profile
you don't remember what you said earlier in this thread?

*

Offline PmbPhy

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • 2784
    • View Profile
Quote from: jccc
you don't remember what you said earlier in this thread?
You nut. There are 396 posts in this forum. I've posted in many threads. Why should I recall what I posted earlier in this thread?

Sheeesh!

*

Offline jccc

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • 990
    • View Profile
you do remember your science knowledge right?

you can read right?

do you have answers now?

why is atoms not compressible as 99% empty space?

why electron not discharge into proton? is the space between them such great insulator?

*

Offline PmbPhy

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • 2784
    • View Profile
Quote from: jccc
you do remember your science knowledge right?

you can read right?

do you have answers now?
Oh my God! What the hell is wrong with you? How many damn times do I have to tell you that I will not make anymore attempts to answer your questions because you don't have the ability to grasp the answers? I even posted this
http://mightylib.mit.edu/Course%20Materials/22.01/Fall%202001/why%20nuclei%20decay.pdf
 the other day and you completely ignored it once again proving to me that you're a waste of our time.

I've said that a half a dozen times yesterday and you still haven't gotten that through your thick skull? If you can't grasp that simple fact then how on Earth do you think that you'd be able to grasp a response that's framed in quantum mechanics (QM)?  You're the one who has chosen not to learn QM. Nobody made that decision for you. And without the ability to understand QM you have no hope of understanding the answers to the questions you're asking. I know because I've already answered those same exact questions a dozen times in this forum and not only were you unable to grasp the answer each time I gave it to you but since then you've made no attempt to learn QM for yourself.

And you have the nerve to think that I'm going to keep repeating myself over and over again every time you ask me the same exact question? Especially since you can always look it up on the internet for yourself and you're just too lazy to do it.
« Last Edit: 23/06/2015 08:56:44 by PmbPhy »