[jccc]

you are kidding yourself again.

can you debunk any thing i posted about gravity, atomic structure and light? what are you waiting for?

It's not our responsibility to prove you wrong, it's up to you to show us evidence in support of your theory. So far, little if any has been presented.

It isn't good enough to simply challenge someone to prove a negative. If you seek acceptance, you will be required to provide your own evidence. Saying "prove me wrong" will get you nowhere.

did we had encounter at page 10? read it again.

[alancalverd]

For the third and final time, what you call the "standard model" is WRONG for the very reason you give.

I missed what he said and your response. Are you saying that the "standard model" as he thinks of it is wrong or are you saying that the actual standard model is wrong and if so, why?

By "Standard Model" I mean the one defined here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Standard_Model

I have no idea what he calls the standard model, but if it predicts that the electrons will fall into the nucleus, it's obviously wrong because they don't. Or if it doesn't but he thinks it does, he's an idiot. Either way, there's little point in discussing the matter with him.

[PmbPhy]

I have no idea what he calls the standard model, ...

The standard model has less to do with atoms and more to do with interactions. Essentially the Standard Model is the theory that describes all of the known elementary particle interactions except gravity.

... but if it predicts that the electrons will fall into the nucleus, it's obviously wrong because they don't.

For the most part you're correct. However that is not always the case. For example; In one of the quantum states of the hydrogen atom, the electron has a finite probability of being found inside the nucleus. See
http://physicspages.com/2013/01/23/hydrogen-atom-probability-of-finding-electron-inside-the-nucleus/

This is possible because is some of the quantum states that hydrogen can be in the wave function is not zero at r = 0.

Don't mention this to jccc because he'll just start all over again with his puerile talk of magic. Lol.

[alancalverd]

can you debunk any thing i posted about gravity, atomic structure and light? what are you waiting for?

See #326 above.

[jccc]

that's cool.

for the sake of science, i became pest, amoeba, virus, idiot, whatever you like.

i understood gravity, light and atomic structure, and magnetism.

my dreams are completed.

Thank You All!

[jccc]

To transmogrify into a butterfly you must undergo a metamorphosis.

on a more serious note how do electrons survive floating in this negative charged eather

hit and run?

[Ethos_]

this forum deleted some of my postings

Appropriate action considering the content.

maybe soon will ban my account

Might also be an appropriate action considering your behavior.

i recorded everything i posted

That shouldn't require more than a bit or two.

find true science at fuckedscience.com

LOL

if you see me here no more

Please.....................

[jccc]

To transmogrify into a butterfly you must undergo a metamorphosis.

on a more serious note how do electrons survive floating in this negative charged eather

so far so good? thank you for inspiring me putting ideas out.

if atomic structure theory was wrong, all theories about matter could be wrong. what is mass if matter carries no charge? if matter has no charge/force, how you measure it?

maybe proton charge is not +1, the proton and fluid ball combined net charge is +1. we can never see a single proton or neutron, they all surrounded by fluid ball like a solid rock.

maybe the size of proton and neutron are 1800 electron size, when they passing mass spectrometer, the space fluid inside the tube puts resistance on them, the bigger ball curves more. just like shoot two beach balls horizontally, the bigger ball drops faster.

mass equal to matter's force field strength.  a gold ball contains more charges therefore heavier than a silver ball. when the ball moving in space, the resistance following speed, the faster you go the heavier you are.

need sleep, later.

here's the missing link.

the negative charged elastic fluid attracted by positive nucleus, form a negative field around the nucleus. density =1/r^3. away from the nucleus to a point, the density no longer decay. that's the background charge of the space. electron has a force radius f=1/r^2, off that radius, electron has the same negative charge density as the space around it.

proton may carries +1800, attracted -1799 fluid to form hydrogen nucleus, add 1 electron on the radius to become hydrogen atom.

the space fluid maybe used up, maybe a little left in space. i haven't thought it through.

[jccc]

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?

[alancalverd]

Atomic structure is 100% correct, otherwise we wouldn't be here. Your deliberate misunderstanding of it is at fault.

[jccc]

Atomic structure is 100% correct, otherwise we wouldn't be here. Your deliberate misunderstanding of it is at fault.

isn't standard model says there is 99.99% empty space within atoms? how empty space stands any pressure?

how many volts is in between proton and electron in a hydrogen atom? why there is no discharge? is the empty space such a good insulator?

[jccc]

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?

i am thinking when they collide proton beams in the lab, they mistake thinking proton is a point particle, but in fact they are colliding proton with fluid ball beams. the fluid explode, so they detect all kinds of new particles.

it's a reasonable doubt, no?

have a great new week! 

[PmbPhy]

i am thinking when they collide proton beams in the lab, they mistake thinking proton is a point particle, but in fact they are colliding proton with fluid ball beams. the fluid explode, so they detect all kinds of new particles.

it's a reasonable doubt, no?

No. It's not a reasonable doubt. These people are significant experts at what they do. They've devoted their entire lives to these endeavors. What makes you think that you, with no education or experience, could think you caught something that the entire particle physics community missed? Particle physicists have probed the interior of the proton using deep elastic scattering. They found that it's composed of three lumps of charge. Want to guess why?

[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?

[/quote]
Quote from: jccc
what's your answer?
I don't have an answer. Who ever said I know everything!
[/quote]

do you have answer now? Pete

do you think people work at lhc have the answer?

[jccc]

talking about expert, how about einstein? is photon a real thing? is light a particle?

if photon is none existence, isn't his nobel prize a joke?

[chiralSPO]

isn't standard model says there is 99.99% empty space within atoms? how empty space stands any pressure?

No. The the current widely accepted model is that the nucleus takes up ~0.01% of the volume of the atom, and the electrons take up the remaining 99.99%. We explain over and over--the electrons behave as waves, and they are spread out through the entire space of the atom.

Even if you want to use a model in which the electrons are point particles whizzing about within the atom, they would still exert/withstand significant pressure. The air around us (or any gas at reasonable pressures) is about 90% "empty space" (the volume of the molecules is a really tiny fraction of the total volume of the gas--for instance a nitrogen molecule has a van der Waals volume of about 65 ų or 6.5 x 10^–27 m³. One mole of nitrogen molecules would have a collective volume of 6.02 x 10²³ x 6.5 x 10^–27 or 3.9 x 10^–3 m³; but at standard atmospheric pressure and temperature, the gas fills a volume of 2.2 x 10^–2 m³--therefore, if we assume air is only nitrogen, it would be about 82% "empty".

The key here is that the molecules are whizzing around really quickly, so *on average* every point of space is filled with .18 molecules, even though at any given instant only 18% of points have a nitrogen molecule and 82% have none.

how many volts is in between proton and electron in a hydrogen atom? why there is no discharge? is the empty space such a good insulator?

Again, you are confusing macroscopic and microscopic phenomena. "Discharge" as commonly understood is flow of electrons or flow of charged ions. There couldn't possibly be discharge from an electron--it would have to be the electron itself moving. But! As we have already pointed out many, many, many times in this thread: the electron is already centered about the nucleus, and cannot "get any closer" because it naturally spreads out to take up the whole volume of the atom.


We understand that this is a very tricky and counter-intuitive subject, but the experimental and theoretical evidence is very clear--electrons in atoms and molecules are best described as waves, and once you accept that premise, everything else falls into place very nicely.

[jccc]

electrons in atoms and molecules are best described as waves, and once you accept that premise, everything else falls into place very nicely.

what wave? how electron waves? standing wave? is the waving electron still carry negative charge? if so why is it not stick to the proton?

there is no premise, no logic. no?

[chiralSPO]

The electron is still negative. It's just easier to think of it as a wave than a particle in these cases.

I would argue that an atom is an example of an electron stuck to the nucleus--it's just that the electron takes up far more space than the nucleus. It takes energy to remove the electron from the atom, energy is released when the electron is captured by the positive ion (for example both H⁺ + e^– → H or Au⁺ + e^– → Au release energy)

[jccc]

because electron and proton are attracting each other, so need energy to apart them.

but according to C's law and entropy, electron will release energy and stick to the proton.

[chiralSPO]

because electron and proton are attracting each other, so need energy to apart them.

but according to C's law and entropy, electron will release energy and stick to the proton.

And why don't you count a hydrogen atom as an electron stuck to a proton?