# Thread: Why are particles allways roundshaped?

1. Is there a perticular reason for this?

Why is the neucleus round, why cant it be eliptical in shape?

2.

3. How do you know the nucleus is round?

However, there is a reason why larger objects than particles, such as raindrops, are spherical. This shape minimizes the surface tension of the drop, since a sphere is the shape that has minimum surface area for a given volume. The drop may sag a bit due to gravity; its shape may also be affected the effects of air pressure as it falls through the atmosphere. But in the absence of all external forces, the drop should be perfectly spherical.

4. Originally Posted by JaneBennet
Who told you the nucleus is round?

However, there is a reason why larger objects than particles, such as raindrops, are spherical. This shape minimizes the surface tension of the drop, since a sphere is the shape that has minimum surface area for a given volume. The drop may sag a bit due to gravity; its shape may also be affected the effects of air pressure as it falls through the atmosphere. But in the absence of all external forces, on the drop it should be perfectly spherical.
Ok, so the neucleus isnt round.

Is the proton and neutron in the neucleus making it to be a different shape than round, and can you explain how the proton and neutron interact with the nucleus?
And explain how the nucleus is shaped by those particles.
Or have i totally missunderstood.
Is the nucleus not an entety itself. Or is the proton and neutron together the neucleus.

5. Ok, so the neucleus isnt round.

Is the proton and neutron in the neucleus making it to be a different shape than round, and can you explain how the proton and neutron interact with the nucleus?
And explain how the nucleus is shaped by those particles.
Or have i totally missunderstood.
Is the nucleus not an entety itself. Or is the proton and neutron together the neucleus.
You have the whole thing messed up in your mind.

The Protons and Neutrons ARE the nucleus of the atom. They are Nucleons.

You should get the shapes of circles out of your mind. When images of these things are produced they are just visual aids so that you can think about them in your head.
Just think of it like when you see a H2O molecule. The Hydrogen is red with an H on it and the Oxygen is blue with an O on it. You know there is No H or an O on the atoms it is just a visual aid. The same goes for the spheres. These are things that can not be directly seen not even with the most powerful microscopes only detected through atom smashers and the way they react when put together in different ways.
The exact shapes of these particles really are not known. Just like the idea of an electron floating in orbit around the nucleus of the atom is not correct. That should be thought of more like a packet of energy smeared around the nucleus. Thats the way I think of it I'm sure other people have there own ideas as well and the thing is, nobody can really say because nobody can directly look at them.

Ok, so the neucleus isnt round.

Is the proton and neutron in the neucleus making it to be a different shape than round, and can you explain how the proton and neutron interact with the nucleus?
And explain how the nucleus is shaped by those particles.
Or have i totally missunderstood.
Is the nucleus not an entety itself. Or is the proton and neutron together the neucleus.
You have the whole thing messed up in your mind.

The Protons and Neutrons ARE the nucleus of the atom. They are Nucleons.

You should get the shapes of circles out of your mind. When images of these things are produced they are just visual aids so that you can think about them in your head.
Just think of it like when you see a H2O molecule. The Hydrogen is red with an H on it and the Oxygen is blue with an O on it. You know there is No H or an O on the atoms it is just a visual aid. The same goes for the spheres. These are things that can not be directly seen not even with the most powerful microscopes only detected through atom smashers and the way they react when put together in different ways.
The exact shapes of these particles really are not known. Just like the idea of an electron floating in orbit around the nucleus of the atom is not correct. That should be thought of more like a packet of energy smeared around the nucleus. Thats the way I think of it I'm sure other people have there own ideas as well and the thing is, nobody can really say because nobody can directly look at them.

I never saw any proof of a neutron existing in an atom. Never saw anyway to prove a particle with no repulsion, could be proven to exist.

Sincerely,

William McCormick

7. It's called gravity William. Neutrons may not have a charge, but they do have mass.

8. Originally Posted by MagiMaster
It's called gravity William. Neutrons may not have a charge, but they do have mass.
That is ridiculous without throwing out more basic rules of science that were adhered to.

How does this neutron apply force to things? It would not be able to according to everything I ever learned.

I was taught that no two electrons ever touch one another. No two atoms ever touch one another. No two objects ever touch one another. I can pass a lie detector test to that effect.

I could walk up to someone, knock them to the ground and pass a lie detector test to the effect that my hand never touched them. Even if I walked up and smacked them in the head.

Everything works by proximity and repulsion. Not tiny particles crashing into one another. If the ether was understood better, all could see that nothing has mass.

A particle without a repulsive force could not do anything, according to some very powerful things we know to be true and can demonstrate.

The arguments against the neutron are infinite. And easily proven. The arguments for the neutron start with, it will never be proven.

Some that I remember were, if the neutron had no charge, it would move away from matter because matter is gyrating. There would be nothing to hold it to matter. The neutron would just drift away from matter there would be no charge to hold it there.

The universal scientists had one or two of these impossible to prove problems of their own. They were open and honest about them though.

It was that an electron was way to small to ever be seen or isolated. And that they had no idea why they repelled each other, and therefore all things.

They stated that these things were demonstrable though. And really needed no higher or more basic explanation. I was taught that electrons make up the proton. And all matter. Basically matter is frozen electricity. Stuck in spheres under the bombardment of ambient radiation.

You could hammer the Universal Scientists with questions about the universe and matter and they would set you back in a chair for hours. All with simple basic analogies that you can prove. And make a fortune with.

Ask a multi subatomic particle scientist what a quark is or a pion. This is what they give you.

And then they take it away in the next breath. When twenty reasons come forth why that cannot be true. At least without another particle to explain it. Ha-ha.

Gravity is a repulsion that can be proven to be a repulsion, but cannot be proven to be an attraction. The only repulsive force we can demonstrate is that of the electron. If the neutron has no repulsion it could not interact.

Sincerely,

William McCormick

9. Originally Posted by William McCormick
The arguments against the neutron are infinite. And easily proven.
I challenge you to do so then.

10. Originally Posted by MagiMaster
Originally Posted by William McCormick
The arguments against the neutron are infinite. And easily proven.
I challenge you to do so then.
I do all the time show that a neutron at best is a thing that does nothing, just a complication.

However today not many have any solid understanding of science. They do not understand that you need to demonstrate, how something could work. You cannot demonstrate with math formulas alone, you need to have demonstrations with real objects. Or real observable effects.

We also need to get the original ground rules of matter back into play. Because they are being lost. And losers are just making up things to fit their fantasies.

Sincerely,

William McCormick

11. Originally Posted by William McCormick
And losers are just making up things to fit their fantasies.
Hear, hear!

12. Originally Posted by William McCormick
Originally Posted by MagiMaster
Originally Posted by William McCormick
The arguments against the neutron are infinite. And easily proven.
I challenge you to do so then.
I do all the time show that a neutron at best is a thing that does nothing, just a complication.

However today not many have any solid understanding of science. They do not understand that you need to demonstrate, how something could work. You cannot demonstrate with math formulas alone, you need to have demonstrations with real objects. Or real observable effects.

We also need to get the original ground rules of matter back into play. Because they are being lost. And losers are just making up things to fit their fantasies.

Sincerely,

William McCormick
William, science follows the same pattern it has for hundreds, if not thousands, of years. It goes something like this:
1) A strange phenomena is observed.
2) Tests are performed to make the phenomena repeatable.
3) Measurements are made of the phenomena.
4) A theory is formed that could explain the phenomena.
5) The theory predicts further phenomena.
5a) If those new phenomena occur as predicted, this supports the theory.
5b) If those new phenomena don't occur, or don't occur as predicted, the theory is revised, and if it can't be fixed, eventually abandoned.
6) New phenomena are observed and the theory must be able to explain them as well, or it must be revised or abandoned.

So a theory must do two things. First, it must explain all previously observed phenomena. Second, it must make new, testable predictions. All mainstream scientific theories accomplished these two things at the time they were proposed.

Now you are proposing a new theory. It doesn't actually matter if it's new or not though. It still has to achieve those two things. First, can your theory correctly account for all currently observed phenomena? Second, does your theory make testable predictions? For now, I'll assume the second answer is yes, but the first question is more important when a theory is first proposed.

Here's an observation that has been made several times. Two very accurate clocks are synchronized. One of them is taken up on the space shuttle and spends a few weeks in orbit. After the shuttle lands, the two clocks are no longer in synch. Both clocks are checked carefully, and both are still working normally. This is done several times, and the difference between the clocks is proportional to how long the shuttle stayed in orbit. Now, you must realize that this is an observation. It is a phenomena that exists no matter what anyone says or why anyone thinks it happens. There may be many theories that give a possible explaination, but explained or not, it still happens. So here's the important question: can your theory of an all-electron universe explain why there is a difference between the clocks?

Also note that you may not believe in math, but you'll never convince anyone that your other ideas are worthy of merit without it.

13. All objects with mass has the centre of gravity.It keeps attacting the particles lying around it from all directions...And if this happens for a considerable point of time,the object obtains the shape coming to the filed of gravity.Also if the object rotates,then now wonder the centripetal force adds to centre of gravity pulling the particles to the
center.

Thats y any object when rotates obtains spherical shape.If i had said anything wrong or if you want to add more to this, feel free to write to garnettarun@gmail.com

I will reply to it whenever I find time.This forum is a real eye opener to many who thinks science is boring..

Greets,
Garnett Arun

14. Originally Posted by Thermaltake
Originally Posted by JaneBennet
Who told you the nucleus is round?

However, there is a reason why larger objects than particles, such as raindrops, are spherical. This shape minimizes the surface tension of the drop, since a sphere is the shape that has minimum surface area for a given volume. The drop may sag a bit due to gravity; its shape may also be affected the effects of air pressure as it falls through the atmosphere. But in the absence of all external forces, on the drop it should be perfectly spherical.
Ok, so the neucleus isnt round.

Is the proton and neutron in the neucleus making it to be a different shape than round, and can you explain how the proton and neutron interact with the nucleus?
And explain how the nucleus is shaped by those particles.
Or have i totally missunderstood.
Is the nucleus not an entety itself. Or is the proton and neutron together the neucleus.
First, if protons and neutrons would be round the nucleus wouldn't be round. You cannot form a ball with balls smaller than the first ball.

15. Originally Posted by William McCormick
Originally Posted by MagiMaster
Originally Posted by William McCormick
The arguments against the neutron are infinite. And easily proven.
I challenge you to do so then.
I do all the time show that a neutron at best is a thing that does nothing, just a complication.

However today not many have any solid understanding of science. They do not understand that you need to demonstrate, how something could work. You cannot demonstrate with math formulas alone, you need to have demonstrations with real objects. Or real observable effects.

We also need to get the original ground rules of matter back into play. Because they are being lost. And losers are just making up things to fit their fantasies.

Sincerely,

William McCormick
Could you give an example of something that's jut assumed or mathematically proven and not, as you say, demonstrated with real object?
Concerning real objects, what do you mean by that? The objects as we, i.e the human beings, consider to be real can look completely different to another organism. Science shouldn't be bound to man alone, it should be independant of your way of seeing things. Take a good example, colour. The colour óf an object may vary from animal to animal even if the objects qualities do not change. For example say that if a matter consists of atoms that reflect "yellow light" it looks yellow if it's seen in a white light source. We watch an object in a white light source and we see it's yellow. Is this a proof of that the object consists of the atoms mentioned above? No, the reason could be for example that the object reflects red and green light. If another organism made this experiment maybe they wouldn't ake the wrong conclusion. Do you get my point?

16. William, you are so dead-set on responding to every thread, why not this one?

17. Aren't particles pointlike, 0-dimensional objects?

18. Originally Posted by MagiMaster
Originally Posted by William McCormick
Originally Posted by MagiMaster
Originally Posted by William McCormick
The arguments against the neutron are infinite. And easily proven.
I challenge you to do so then.
I do all the time show that a neutron at best is a thing that does nothing, just a complication.

However today not many have any solid understanding of science. They do not understand that you need to demonstrate, how something could work. You cannot demonstrate with math formulas alone, you need to have demonstrations with real objects. Or real observable effects.

We also need to get the original ground rules of matter back into play. Because they are being lost. And losers are just making up things to fit their fantasies.

Sincerely,

William McCormick
William, science follows the same pattern it has for hundreds, if not thousands, of years. It goes something like this:
1) A strange phenomena is observed.
2) Tests are performed to make the phenomena repeatable.
3) Measurements are made of the phenomena.
4) A theory is formed that could explain the phenomena.
5) The theory predicts further phenomena.
5a) If those new phenomena occur as predicted, this supports the theory.
5b) If those new phenomena don't occur, or don't occur as predicted, the theory is revised, and if it can't be fixed, eventually abandoned.
6) New phenomena are observed and the theory must be able to explain them as well, or it must be revised or abandoned.

So a theory must do two things. First, it must explain all previously observed phenomena. Second, it must make new, testable predictions. All mainstream scientific theories accomplished these two things at the time they were proposed.

Now you are proposing a new theory. It doesn't actually matter if it's new or not though. It still has to achieve those two things. First, can your theory correctly account for all currently observed phenomena? Second, does your theory make testable predictions? For now, I'll assume the second answer is yes, but the first question is more important when a theory is first proposed.

Here's an observation that has been made several times. Two very accurate clocks are synchronized. One of them is taken up on the space shuttle and spends a few weeks in orbit. After the shuttle lands, the two clocks are no longer in synch. Both clocks are checked carefully, and both are still working normally. This is done several times, and the difference between the clocks is proportional to how long the shuttle stayed in orbit. Now, you must realize that this is an observation. It is a phenomena that exists no matter what anyone says or why anyone thinks it happens. There may be many theories that give a possible explaination, but explained or not, it still happens. So here's the important question: can your theory of an all-electron universe explain why there is a difference between the clocks?

Also note that you may not believe in math, but you'll never convince anyone that your other ideas are worthy of merit without it.
You are dead wrong. When Benjamin Franklin sat down and did scientific research that was laughed at by hundreds of poor cowardly scientists in England. He changed the world forever. He did away with thousands of years of go no where science. And pressed his discoveries to the limit.

Benjamin Franklin took his finds to the field. And made real working, never seen before stuff for ordinary American citizens.
Things that were never done before. But Benjamin Franklin was willing to lay waste to England and any other country that stood in his way.

Today we are again drifting back into the dark ages, where "real science" is done in a computer and never actually tested. The experiment is so complex that it requires more faith then believing in the virgin Mary.

So I say you are just reciting rhetoric that has been given to you as others have tried to give to me. Fortunately I already knew better.

One problem we have today, is that there is no test equipment in actuality, that is scientifically accurate. If only by improper labelling or a misunderstanding in what it measures. So there is no science right now for the masses.

And if you look at the flat world period in science. We realize that it was just so that no one would transverse the Atlantic ocean. And leave the super power countries open to revolution from abroad. To keep new and bountiful supplies that would spoil the insanely rich land owners, corner on the market. Make their land worthless.

We could have populated other planets in our solar system. In the sixties. That is not what the landowners that rarely have any skills want. They like how their land holdings get others to live their lives for them.

If you look at History you can see that as soon as America was free from England, the French went the same way.

You might be brave enough to see a parallel. It is there right in your face.

I guess what I am saying is that although you may not believe that my science was not a theory when it was attacked violently.
Your science was introduced without meeting any of your own criteria for science. They said at the time that it would be proven later. It never has.

Your science was started, to hide a conventional weapon. My science can wipe out the world or universe, with conventional supplies. Your science is not a science.

Sincerely,

William McCormick

19. Originally Posted by Thermaltake
Originally Posted by JaneBennet
Who told you the nucleus is round?

However, there is a reason why larger objects than particles, such as raindrops, are spherical. This shape minimizes the surface tension of the drop, since a sphere is the shape that has minimum surface area for a given volume. The drop may sag a bit due to gravity; its shape may also be affected the effects of air pressure as it falls through the atmosphere. But in the absence of all external forces, on the drop it should be perfectly spherical.
Ok, so the neucleus isnt round.

Is the proton and neutron in the neucleus making it to be a different shape than round, and can you explain how the proton and neutron interact with the nucleus?
And explain how the nucleus is shaped by those particles.
Or have i totally missunderstood.
Is the nucleus not an entety itself. Or is the proton and neutron together the neucleus.
For what it is worth, the current quantum field theories treat the elementary particles, as points. The nucleus is composed of some number of protons and neutrons, depending on the atom and the protons and neutrons are composed of quarks. So far as is known the quarks are elementary. Given the quantum nature of things I am not sure what "shape" means at that level. You can talk about certain cross-sections for interactions (like collisions) and the nucleus is taken as roughly spherical in such models. But these particles are not little marbles and the nucleus is not a bunch of little marbles glued together.

20. Originally Posted by William McCormick
Originally Posted by MagiMaster
William, science follows the same pattern it has for hundreds, if not thousands, of years. It goes something like this:
1) A strange phenomena is observed.
2) Tests are performed to make the phenomena repeatable.
3) Measurements are made of the phenomena.
4) A theory is formed that could explain the phenomena.
5) The theory predicts further phenomena.
5a) If those new phenomena occur as predicted, this supports the theory.
5b) If those new phenomena don't occur, or don't occur as predicted, the theory is revised, and if it can't be fixed, eventually abandoned.
6) New phenomena are observed and the theory must be able to explain them as well, or it must be revised or abandoned.

So a theory must do two things. First, it must explain all previously observed phenomena. Second, it must make new, testable predictions. All mainstream scientific theories accomplished these two things at the time they were proposed.

Now you are proposing a new theory. It doesn't actually matter if it's new or not though. It still has to achieve those two things. First, can your theory correctly account for all currently observed phenomena? Second, does your theory make testable predictions? For now, I'll assume the second answer is yes, but the first question is more important when a theory is first proposed.

Here's an observation that has been made several times. Two very accurate clocks are synchronized. One of them is taken up on the space shuttle and spends a few weeks in orbit. After the shuttle lands, the two clocks are no longer in synch. Both clocks are checked carefully, and both are still working normally. This is done several times, and the difference between the clocks is proportional to how long the shuttle stayed in orbit. Now, you must realize that this is an observation. It is a phenomena that exists no matter what anyone says or why anyone thinks it happens. There may be many theories that give a possible explaination, but explained or not, it still happens. So here's the important question: can your theory of an all-electron universe explain why there is a difference between the clocks?

Also note that you may not believe in math, but you'll never convince anyone that your other ideas are worthy of merit without it.
You are dead wrong. When Benjamin Franklin sat down and did scientific research that was laughed at by hundreds of poor cowardly scientists in England. He changed the world forever. He did away with thousands of years of go no where science. And pressed his discoveries to the limit.

Benjamin Franklin took his finds to the field. And made real working, never seen before stuff for ordinary American citizens.
Things that were never done before. But Benjamin Franklin was willing to lay waste to England and any other country that stood in his way.

Today we are again drifting back into the dark ages, where "real science" is done in a computer and never actually tested. The experiment is so complex that it requires more faith then believing in the virgin Mary.

So I say you are just reciting rhetoric that has been given to you as others have tried to give to me. Fortunately I already knew better.

One problem we have today, is that there is no test equipment in actuality, that is scientifically accurate. If only by improper labelling or a misunderstanding in what it measures. So there is no science right now for the masses.

And if you look at the flat world period in science. We realize that it was just so that no one would transverse the Atlantic ocean. And leave the super power countries open to revolution from abroad. To keep new and bountiful supplies that would spoil the insanely rich land owners, corner on the market. Make their land worthless.

We could have populated other planets in our solar system. In the sixties. That is not what the landowners that rarely have any skills want. They like how their land holdings get others to live their lives for them.

If you look at History you can see that as soon as America was free from England, the French went the same way.

You might be brave enough to see a parallel. It is there right in your face.

I guess what I am saying is that although you may not believe that my science was not a theory when it was attacked violently.
Your science was introduced without meeting any of your own criteria for science. They said at the time that it would be proven later. It never has.

Sincerely,

William McCormick
You're going to have to actually point out where I'm wrong. Mainly, what I'm saying is that things people have observed in the past (light reflecting off mirrors, steam pressure, things fall at a certain rate) are all still true today. Only our ideas about why those things are true have changed.

21. Originally Posted by MagiMaster
You're going to have to actually point out where I'm wrong. Mainly, what I'm saying is that things people have observed in the past (light reflecting off mirrors, steam pressure, things fall at a certain rate) are all still true today. Only our ideas about why those things are true have changed.

Not really. If you watch real things and honestly understand what is happening. Then you cannot go off on a tangent with pure made up multi subatomic particles and wild conflicting rules, for imaginary particles.

In other words the reality is a simplicity with only a handful of unexplainable, things, we never will know or see. Because we just do not have the capabilities to do so. The electron is just to small to see.

An atom in scale to an electron, is a large universe edited (solar system) to a human being as an analogy.
When we try to look at even an atom under an electron microscope, we are probably at least a couple thousand or million universes edited (solar system) away looking at a edited (solar system), as an analogy.

The high frequency of gyration of the atom alone would keep us from seeing the atom with any clarity. What we can see, is the effect of the atom on billions or an infinite number of electrons velocity as they race through millions of atoms to the electron microscope.

Funny how they called it the electron microscope.

Sincerely,

William McCormick

22. Originally Posted by William McCormick
Originally Posted by MagiMaster
Originally Posted by William McCormick
Originally Posted by MagiMaster
Originally Posted by William McCormick
The arguments against the neutron are infinite. And easily proven.
I challenge you to do so then.
I do all the time show that a neutron at best is a thing that does nothing, just a complication.

However today not many have any solid understanding of science. They do not understand that you need to demonstrate, how something could work. You cannot demonstrate with math formulas alone, you need to have demonstrations with real objects. Or real observable effects.

We also need to get the original ground rules of matter back into play. Because they are being lost. And losers are just making up things to fit their fantasies.

Sincerely,

William McCormick
William, science follows the same pattern it has for hundreds, if not thousands, of years. It goes something like this:
1) A strange phenomena is observed.
2) Tests are performed to make the phenomena repeatable.
3) Measurements are made of the phenomena.
4) A theory is formed that could explain the phenomena.
5) The theory predicts further phenomena.
5a) If those new phenomena occur as predicted, this supports the theory.
5b) If those new phenomena don't occur, or don't occur as predicted, the theory is revised, and if it can't be fixed, eventually abandoned.
6) New phenomena are observed and the theory must be able to explain them as well, or it must be revised or abandoned.

So a theory must do two things. First, it must explain all previously observed phenomena. Second, it must make new, testable predictions. All mainstream scientific theories accomplished these two things at the time they were proposed.

Now you are proposing a new theory. It doesn't actually matter if it's new or not though. It still has to achieve those two things. First, can your theory correctly account for all currently observed phenomena? Second, does your theory make testable predictions? For now, I'll assume the second answer is yes, but the first question is more important when a theory is first proposed.

Here's an observation that has been made several times. Two very accurate clocks are synchronized. One of them is taken up on the space shuttle and spends a few weeks in orbit. After the shuttle lands, the two clocks are no longer in synch. Both clocks are checked carefully, and both are still working normally. This is done several times, and the difference between the clocks is proportional to how long the shuttle stayed in orbit. Now, you must realize that this is an observation. It is a phenomena that exists no matter what anyone says or why anyone thinks it happens. There may be many theories that give a possible explaination, but explained or not, it still happens. So here's the important question: can your theory of an all-electron universe explain why there is a difference between the clocks?

Also note that you may not believe in math, but you'll never convince anyone that your other ideas are worthy of merit without it.
You are dead wrong. When Benjamin Franklin sat down and did scientific research that was laughed at by hundreds of poor cowardly scientists in England. He changed the world forever. He did away with thousands of years of go no where science. And pressed his discoveries to the limit.

Benjamin Franklin took his finds to the field. And made real working, never seen before stuff for ordinary American citizens.
Things that were never done before. But Benjamin Franklin was willing to lay waste to England and any other country that stood in his way.

Today we are again drifting back into the dark ages, where "real science" is done in a computer and never actually tested. The experiment is so complex that it requires more faith then believing in the virgin Mary.

So I say you are just reciting rhetoric that has been given to you as others have tried to give to me. Fortunately I already knew better.

One problem we have today, is that there is no test equipment in actuality, that is scientifically accurate. If only by improper labelling or a misunderstanding in what it measures. So there is no science right now for the masses.

And if you look at the flat world period in science. We realize that it was just so that no one would transverse the Atlantic ocean. And leave the super power countries open to revolution from abroad. To keep new and bountiful supplies that would spoil the insanely rich land owners, corner on the market. Make their land worthless.

We could have populated other planets in our solar system. In the sixties. That is not what the landowners that rarely have any skills want. They like how their land holdings get others to live their lives for them.

If you look at History you can see that as soon as America was free from England, the French went the same way.

You might be brave enough to see a parallel. It is there right in your face.

I guess what I am saying is that although you may not believe that my science was not a theory when it was attacked violently.
Your science was introduced without meeting any of your own criteria for science. They said at the time that it would be proven later. It never has.

Your science was started, to hide a conventional weapon. My science can wipe out the world or universe, with conventional supplies. Your science is not a science.

Sincerely,

William McCormick
First tell me, how would we have been able to populate other planets in he sixties?
Second, do you consider yourself to be a scientist using the so called "equipment with real accuracy"? If so, in what way does this equipment differentiate itself from the other equipment used, what makes it much more adequate than the usual for the purpose?

23. One other thing that is never talked about by "real high paid scientists" is the old Universal Science understanding of light, light which was just electrons.

There was no such thing as reflection of light in Universal Science.

http://www.rockwelder.com/Flash/mrbill/mrbill.html

I find it strange though that this rather untouchable understanding of light, is never discussed. Strange wouldn't you say. I mean, it was the basis for the millions of experiments done to isolate the elements.

Years ago when the newer grant funded multi subatomic particle scientists brought out their baby, the bouncing light theory. Universal scientists really could not even argue with these guys anymore. They were not about science. They were about being right with big bucks behind them to prove it.

Electrons do not actually orbit the atoms. Ambient radiation electrons race through matter from every angle. It might even appear that they are orbiting. However they are just avoiding atoms, in slightly arced paths.

As ambient radiation races through matter especially dense matter like metal, it is positively accelerated. And leaves the object without emitting light even if it created light on the object while entering it. As long as the side of the object, the ambient radiation is leaving from, is not being hit with light, or lighted.

If you look at our galaxy at night the stars look like dots in a vast emptiness. Yet if you view a far off galaxy, it appears to be almost solid. That is pretty much how matter is in scale.

In that animation, when the light hits Mr. Bills nose, it continues on through, his head. Accelerated to UV and then x-ray speeds and then to black undetectable radiation speeds, undetectable to humans. That is the only reason why you cannot see the light bulb through Mr. Bills head.

However there is equipment that shows that the light, did in fact penetrate Mr. Bills head with some sort of emission.

I am just sharing some of the points I had a hard time with while getting in the whole picture. Some of it may seem off topic.

Moderator Note
To novice science students: The above observations from William are without foundation. They go against centuries of observation and a solid understanding of theory. Please do not attempt to learn anything from this nonsense.
William: The next piece of crap gets deleted.
Ophiolite

Sincerely,

William McCormick

24. Originally Posted by DrRocket
For what it is worth, the current quantum field theories treat the elementary particles, as points. The nucleus is composed of some number of protons and neutrons, depending on the atom and the protons and neutrons are composed of quarks. So far as is known the quarks are elementary. Given the quantum nature of things I am not sure what "shape" means at that level. You can talk about certain cross-sections for interactions (like collisions) and the nucleus is taken as roughly spherical in such models. But these particles are not little marbles and the nucleus is not a bunch of little marbles glued together.
I have read that sub-atomic particles, such as the electron and the quark, can be treated as point-like objects (pure mathematical points) with no internal structure.
How long will it be before it becomes possible to give a physical description of such particles, in words, alongside the abstract mathematical description we have at present?
Probably I have asked this before; if not, I am sure someone else has.

25. Originally Posted by Ophiolite
Moderator Note
To novice science students: The above observations from William are without foundation. They go against centuries of observation and a solid understanding of theory. Please do not attempt to learn anything from this nonsense.
William: The next piece of crap gets deleted.
Ophiolite

You mention solid understanding of theory. Theory is not science.

Is there one item in particular that you will put your name on as being false? So that I can either be laughed at, or made righteous when the truth does come out?

Many things I said are mainstream.

I just feel like I am being told to be quiet, because I bring unhappy or different news and ideas.

I would love to get put into my place if I am wrong. No one will tell me where I am wrong. They just say I am different then mainstream.

That does not seem to be a sin to me. In fact all great science is either revived or comes from those types of individuals, by all historical evidence.

Some say Christopher Columbus was not the first to realize the world was round. Some say Magellan first realized it.

Sincerely,

William McCormick

26. Originally Posted by Halliday
Originally Posted by DrRocket
For what it is worth, the current quantum field theories treat the elementary particles, as points. The nucleus is composed of some number of protons and neutrons, depending on the atom and the protons and neutrons are composed of quarks. So far as is known the quarks are elementary. Given the quantum nature of things I am not sure what "shape" means at that level. You can talk about certain cross-sections for interactions (like collisions) and the nucleus is taken as roughly spherical in such models. But these particles are not little marbles and the nucleus is not a bunch of little marbles glued together.
I have read that sub-atomic particles, such as the electron and the quark, can be treated as point-like objects (pure mathematical points) with no internal structure.
How long will it be before it becomes possible to give a physical description of such particles, in words, alongside the abstract mathematical description we have at present?
Probably I have asked this before; if not, I am sure someone else has.

Those little points are so small that we will never see one according to my schooling. They could not measure an electron to my knowledge. They could not measure the atom according to my knowledge. They did volume experiments with known or believed known chemical formulas.

By combining elements usually in gaseous forms. They were able to determine after the chemical reactions how much of a substance was left. After they used the same control element in two different chemical reactions. With known or believed known formula differences.

In this way they could get an idea of an elements volume based on a known previous chemical reaction known to yield a percentage of the control element. However all this was still based on a guess about the size of a hydrogen atom.

Sure they put 10^-17 or something as mysterious, and say that is the size of the electron or its mass.

However if you really enjoy science, and its history, you would know that no one has come close to an electrons actual size, shape, or anything else. All of those numbers were guesses. Unneeded guesses according to my schooling.

But the hype around measuring an electron over the years has been spectacular. But certainly just sales gimmicks according to my schooling.

Sincerely,

William McCormick

27. William, if I take a flashlight and shine it at a mirror, I see the disc of light on the wall behind me. Something is happening here. On a macroscopic (everyday) scale we call this reflection. Whether the individual electrons, photons or whatever light happens to be made of are actually bouncing off the mirror, or if something else is happening, on an everyday scale we can observe that light reflects in a repeatable way.

Also, if I take any object, a ruler and a stopwatch, I can measure that no matter what object I drop (with the exception of objects light enough to be effected by the wind), if dropped from the same height, they take the same amount of time to hit the ground. (Try it yourself. Take a tennis ball and a bowling ball and drop them from a couple meters. Do this outside though.) This was observed hundreds of years ago (anyone have any details) and is still true today.

28. Originally Posted by William McCormick
I would love to get put into my place if I am wrong. No one will tell me where I am wrong. They just say I am different then mainstream.
Don't lie William. You don't want to be wrong. In fact, you won't let yourself be proven wrong. If you truly feel this way, describe at least one thing that you would accept as proof that you're wrong. Then, if such proof shows up, accept it. There are many people that will say such things, then never live up to their words.

29. Originally Posted by William McCormick
You mention solid understanding of theory. Theory is not science.
1. Of course theory is not science, just as a liver is not a human body, but the human body does not perform for very long deprived of its liver.
2. What do you think science is, or at least, what do you think science should be?
Originally Posted by William McCormick
Is there one item in particular that you will put your name on as being false? So that I can either be laughed at, or made righteous when the truth does come out?
I'll give you two. Your pure nonsense in this thread about photons going through material and not being reflected and your claim, in another thread that ammonia was not NH3. Balderdash. Humbug. Pure, unadulaterated crap. Not even funny, not a tad amusing, just stupidity of the most self indulgent, misguided, ignorant kind.
Originally Posted by William McCormick
Many things I said are mainstream.
That and your apparent knowledge of the art of welding are the only reasons you are still tolerated.
Originally Posted by William McCormick
I just feel like I am being told to be quiet, because I bring unhappy or different news and ideas.
You are being told to shut up because you spout nonsense, laced with conspiracy theory, without brining an iota of substantive evidence to the table. You are being asked to shut up for the same reason that shouting 'Fire' in a public theatre is discouraged unless there actually is a fire. You are being asked to shut up because this is a science forum and you are expected to at least attempt to adhere to some of the principles of scientific methodology some of the time.
Originally Posted by William McCormick
I would love to get put into my place if I am wrong. No one will tell me where I am wrong. They just say I am different then mainstream.
You are wrong because you make wild statements with no evidence to support them.
Originally Posted by William McCormick
That does not seem to be a sin to me. In fact all great science is either revived or comes from those types of individuals, by all historical evidence.
More nonsense. You seem to think that a) science is equivalent to knowledge and b) at some time in the past we had more knowledge than we do to day.
Originally Posted by William McCormick
Some say Christopher Columbus was not the first to realize the world was round. Some say Magellan first realized it.
Some may very well say both of these things, but that would just be revealing their ignorance. The shape of the Earth was well understood a millenium or more before Columbus and Magellan.

William, you are a character. I suspect I would enjoy your comany over a beer, but you don't half talk a load of shit much of the time. All I am asking is that you put your wilder ideas in a corral for the time being until you are able to offer evidence to support them.

30. OK, im new here. I just read through this whole post, and it seems to me that william is just...saying stuff. It takes the form of an argument, but its just, stuff.

Is he a troll? I'm confused.

Seems either he's a troll or some kid who got frustrated with math class and decided science must be wrong. As opposed to him being wrong that is.

Oh, as for the actual topic. As I understand subatomic particles are points at which an interaction takes place. Because that interaction takes place in every direction, a sphere is the shape that best describes this. A better picture would be a sphere the size of the universe, or whatever shape "everything" is. But that would be too hard to put into chemistry books.

31. Originally Posted by Cr4sh
OK, im new here. I just read through this whole post, and it seems to me that william is just...saying stuff. It takes the form of an argument, but its just, stuff.

Is he a troll? I'm confused.
William is a science crackpot, with a twist.

The prototypical science forum crackpot has developed a new theory on his own that will eclipse Newton, Einstein and all the rest. He comes up a little short when it comes to explaining it, and has learned just enough jargon to gloss over his lack of real knowledge. Often he feels persecuted and misunderstood by the hidebound or biased science establishment.

William is a little different. He has the scientific theory that will set the world of physics on its ear, but he didn't invent it himself. He was taught by some mysterious universal electron scientists. Like most crackpots he also has a conspiracy theory to explain why no one else accepts his science.

32. Originally Posted by Harold14370
Originally Posted by Cr4sh
OK, im new here. I just read through this whole post, and it seems to me that william is just...saying stuff. It takes the form of an argument, but its just, stuff.

Is he a troll? I'm confused.
William is a science crackpot, with a twist.

The prototypical science forum crackpot has developed a new theory on his own that will eclipse Newton, Einstein and all the rest. He comes up a little short when it comes to explaining it, and has learned just enough jargon to gloss over his lack of real knowledge. Often he feels persecuted and misunderstood by the hidebound or biased science establishment.

William is a little different. He has the scientific theory that will set the world of physics on its ear, but he didn't invent it himself. He was taught by some mysterious universal electron scientists. Like most crackpots he also has a conspiracy theory to explain why no one else accepts his science.

Unfortunately there are no conspiracies. We have been told outright to shut up and learn what is given to us. No conspiracy whatsoever. A conspiracy would be refreshing to me.

Years go by, three generations later, and not many are left who can verify the fact that America agreed to be something other then America. Which is a ridiculous paradox. So the country as non-Americans are going around as if they were righteous Americans, but spouting and spewing their pseudo science.

Other countries and Europe's leaders love it. They love ignorance as usual.

Apparently there is still one Web site left that at least verifies that there were universal scientists. I have posted it here before. That is the only evidence I have left. Other then having been lectured by a Universal Scientist invited to my school.

At that site they state that Enrico Fermi is the last of the Universal Scientists. And that he created a nuclear pile. A nuclear pile was well known to universal scientists a long time ago. It is like lighting a fire, at a fuel depot. Maybe nothing will happen, maybe you will blow down a small town. A single nuclear pile can wipe out earth.

Spain still thought that the world was flat, because the church said it was, because the landowners bought and paid for the church. At the time most thought there were demons at the edge of the flat earth. Not many believed the earth was round.

Sincerely,

William McCormick

33. One thing I have to know about your guys education. Did you guys learn that matter was 90 percent space or not?

If you did learn this, try to imagine a beech ball sized, electron or photon if that is what you wish to call them. Being hurled at our solar system. What are the chances that it could bounce off our solar system and bring back information about it?

That is what you are saying when you say that photons or electrons do not just travel right through matter that, was 90 percent space in my day.

Sincerely,

William McCormick

34. Originally Posted by thyristor
First tell me, how would we have been able to populate other planets in he sixties?
Second, do you consider yourself to be a scientist using the so called "equipment with real accuracy"? If so, in what way does this equipment differentiate itself from the other equipment used, what makes it much more adequate than the usual for the purpose?

I talk to many individuals in many high tech fields. What I see is that they use old technology in most cases to manufacture. There are some great advancements into making things very small and complex. However no real basic improvements. Mostly higher precision to make things smaller. All the processes you see today are old. And have been done for a long, long time. They have mostly cleaned them up and made them able to create smaller and smaller stuff.

I also see that these individuals have a lot of the terminology screwed up. One or two even know what I know. And they say well, we work with it everyday, what does it matter what you call it. We know what it is. The stuff over here comes from over there from that factory. This stuff over here comes from over there at that factory. It is tested somewhere I think. But you know right away if you have a bad batch. It make a blue smoke when you put it into the machine.
Someone said it gets contaminated by moisture or something.

The problem with all that is, is that they don't bother to standardize it because there is no correct standard. If there was a correct standard they would be some of the first to adhere.

You may notice that some companies are no longer putting the chemical formulas for their products on their products. That was a strict rule years ago.
Because of a number of deaths. Where well known chemicals that were not listed on the product combined and killed whole rooms full of people.

I read somewhere I believe on the Internet that someone in a hospital actually, accidentally filled salt shakers with sodium fluoride instead of sodium chloride years ago in a hospital and 160 people died.

The reason why companies do not bother to label is because of law suits. And the fact that they know many chemicals are misrepresented by their formulas. If they state that such and such a chemical is present but the formula is wrong, some farmer will use it for something other then its intended purpose, based on its formula and cause a fire or poison gas to form.

So they are starting to just not label again. I believe that for many years Windex used to call their window cleaner Ammonia D, which of course is not a chemical. Today they say Windex contains vinegar. I guess the next step is vinegar D.

I worked in a Hazardous waste yard and ran STOP throwing out pollutant programs with the head of the EPA here in New York. And very honestly things are not what you think they are. Often there was what was written, and then there was what was really true.

Sincerely,

William McCormick

35. William, would you care to respond to my previous post?

36. Originally Posted by Ophiolite
More nonsense. You seem to think that a) science is equivalent to knowledge and b) at some time in the past we had more knowledge than we do to day.
Knowledge is science. Omniscience meant all knowing. Or all knowledge. As a scientist you are on a quest for total knowledge. Even if you will only gain little scraps in your life. Science is only knowledge.

One honest piece of knowledge leads to another honest piece of knowledge.

Today some believe you go to a computer and unlock the secrets of the universe by running scenarios in a computer. Nothing is further from the truth. The people that basically do that and get paid for it. Do not see benefit to actually getting out there and getting their hands dirty.

There is very little importance in theory, from all my actual study of science. Most good experiments come from all your other combined knowledge, and is basically just a double check to see if your past knowledge and observations are correct.

What is a theory? A theory is that the Dow Jones industrial averages will rise tomorrow. It is really based on nothing. The Actions of the Dow Jones industrial average have proven themselves to be a non-scientific mechanism. Based on so many variables that all or one individual could create a billion or more hypothesis about it.

Scientists work with knowledge and are quite timid of, and around theories. Chadwick was a theory master that was shunned by Universal Scientists.

When you see the myth busters you are looking at poor scientists. That really do not have a strong understanding of their stuff. They have a lot of faith in the common beliefs, of schools and easily obtainable public information.

Very little strong science. Until something blows up on them. And then they take a totally uncalled for turnaround, on that one issue that caught them by surprise.

I do not claim to be perfect. I claim to be an amateur scientist. For that is worth. I would not want a degree from a college. You could not give me one unless I was dead.

Sincerely,

William McCormick

37. Originally Posted by MagiMaster
William, would you care to respond to my previous post?
I thought I gave enough proof already that neutrons could not exist.

Sincerely,

William McCormick

38. Originally Posted by MagiMaster
Originally Posted by William McCormick
I would love to get put into my place if I am wrong. No one will tell me where I am wrong. They just say I am different then mainstream.
Don't lie William. You don't want to be wrong. In fact, you won't let yourself be proven wrong. If you truly feel this way, describe at least one thing that you would accept as proof that you're wrong. Then, if such proof shows up, accept it. There are many people that will say such things, then never live up to their words.
This post William. (BTW, you haven't given any proof that I've seen, but respond to the above first.)

39. Originally Posted by MagiMaster
Originally Posted by MagiMaster
Originally Posted by William McCormick
I would love to get put into my place if I am wrong. No one will tell me where I am wrong. They just say I am different then mainstream.
Don't lie William. You don't want to be wrong. In fact, you won't let yourself be proven wrong. If you truly feel this way, describe at least one thing that you would accept as proof that you're wrong. Then, if such proof shows up, accept it. There are many people that will say such things, then never live up to their words.
This post William. (BTW, you haven't given any proof that I've seen, but respond to the above first.)
I hate to be wrong, a second or third time. First time I am wrong is a blessing. It fixes so much stuff for me. And usually avoids the second or third mistake.

I often suspect I am wrong, or that all those great individuals that taught me amazing stuff might be wrong. But time and time again they prove themselves to be very right. I mean been there did that right.

I have seen and built that which you claim does not exist. In my hands. Right in front of me. What could you show me?

The fact that you do not know perpetual motion exists means that you cannot safely work with electricity. If you do not understand perpetual motion forget science or the universe. You cannot safely fix a can opener.

If you can show me I was surrounded by millions of actors. All placed around me to confuse me. I would go with that. They could sneak around at night and re-calibrate my instruments, like good elves but naughty elves. Build illusions for me to become tricked by.

But other then that, I don't even begin to understand what you are trying to get to. In fact all I see is you wanting to get away from something.

You do not have any science. The proof is in the ever changing basics of what you call science. It is evolving away from actual science. And all the basics that created real science.

There is nothing about the basics of science I wish to know. I would love to get out there again in manufacturing. Start up another corporation. But most are afraid of perpetual motion. And I will always have a project or two going, to create a swift and easy way to use, show and share it.

I have shown all kinds of people perpetual motion and its basic forms. They see the fight against it and want no part. Part of the problem is people like you, from ignorance, you attack perpetual motion. What kind of nightmarish group are you amongst. Who taught you to attack things without knowing better?

You are not a scientist while attacking perpetual motion. It used to be the first thing you learned in the field of electricity.

We break all the rules you claim are so real all the time. It is not even a question anymore of maybe. Current science is just a joke, and spoiled brats are in control again.

Sincerely,

William McCormick

40. Originally Posted by William McCormick
I have shown all kinds of people perpetual motion and its basic forms. They see the fight against it and want no part. Part of the problem is people like you, from ignorance, you attack perpetual motion. What kind of nightmarish group are you amongst. Who taught you to attack things without knowing better?
Isaac Newton.

41. William, if you've built a perpetual motion machine, post plans for it. Let us look at it and see how it works.

42. Originally Posted by Cat1981(England)
Originally Posted by William McCormick
I have shown all kinds of people perpetual motion and its basic forms. They see the fight against it and want no part. Part of the problem is people like you, from ignorance, you attack perpetual motion. What kind of nightmarish group are you amongst. Who taught you to attack things without knowing better?
Isaac Newton.

I wish I could verify better his actual work from what you hear and read. Or what teachers teach from memory, or their teachers teach from memory.

However Newton from what I have read of him. Only claimed that there was an equal and opposite reaction.

I believe he mentions that some of the equal and opposite reaction may occur across the other side of the universe. Before it equals out. That means that localized perpetual motion could be obtained. Without breaking any rules.

Sincerely,

William McCormick

43. Originally Posted by MagiMaster
William, if you've built a perpetual motion machine, post plans for it. Let us look at it and see how it works.

I just got an order of neon bulbs, about a week after I posted, "I would build another one". I am short 1000 feet of wire. I had plans to get some but sill have not gotten any.

The last one I built I built in the nineties. I do not consider it safe for power production. But for demonstrating, it should get the point across.

I will see if I can locate some tomorrow.

Did you see the Worlds fair high frequency coil. In the Worlds fair link on my homepage. Go to the last couple pages there and look at the schematic for building the device.

It uses a single feed wire from a high frequency generator. This is actually a well known AC Heliarc accident when you have two ground wires of different lengths. It creates power between the ends of two conductors connected to the same terminal.
The copper is not fast enough to keep up with the high frequency and you get energy created between the two ends, of the same wire connected to a single terminal.

How is the power company going to charge you for that? Ha-ha.

I hate messing around with high frequency though. To much electronic equipment to mess up. The meter often becomes a power generator. I use it for days on end sometimes to weld. But we use extreme caution when welding. It can and has, caused 110 volts to jump from receptacles to the metal 1900 boxes. If you touch something plugged into a wall socket.

I will see what I can do.

Sincerely,

William McCormick

44. Who says they are roundshaped?

45. Originally Posted by Thermaltake
Is there a perticular reason for this?

Why is the neucleus round, why cant it be eliptical in shape?
Hello all!

My theory on this was it's because they are hold in round shape by outer entities. Let's say by oscillation(s ).

Steve

46. Why is it round indeed? Why is the moon round? Why are the other fundamental figures (atoms, electrons, planets, etc) round or spherical?

If external forces are minimal and there isn't much of centripetal/centrifugal forces acting on a planet for example, it tends to be round.

Otherwise, these forces can make the object speherical or eliptical.

So why is it round? I think (and I believe mentioned by others as well) it is the shape that demonstrates equal forces from all points.

47. Originally Posted by CoolEJ
So why is it round? I think (and I believe mentioned by others as well) it is the shape that demonstrates equal forces from all points.
Equal forces from all points on or off the round body? Not meant to be a catch question.

48. I'm probably stating it the wrong way, what I meant was soemthing like this:

All forces converge to the center, thus if all comes from all directions the most definite shape will be round.

Something like that. Perhaps someone can state it better. I'll try to look for the actual statement.

49. Originally Posted by CoolEJ
I'm probably stating it the wrong way, what I meant was soemthing like this:

All forces converge to the center, thus if all comes from all directions the most definite shape will be round.

Something like that. Perhaps someone can state it better. I'll try to look for the actual statement.
But you do mean forces which are associated with the round shaped entity itself? Not forces which originate from off the round shaped body? That's what I haven't got.

Steve

50. Right, associated with the entity itself.

If there is an unequal force applied outside, the shape can be eliptical or spherical. But the motion of internal force itself can also contribute to the shape of the entity.

If the forces outside are equally applied on the entity and there is no effect of internal motion of force(or if the internal motion of force is in equilibrium), the roundness is retained.

51. Ok, I got it. My fault, anyway. Now let's say, there was water in space which retains it round shape. Where do you think the water derives the energy from it needs to power own forces to remain in its round shape? It was being water, 'only'.

52. Because it's going round?

53. Originally Posted by Absum!
Because it's going round?
Round and round???

But does it need to go round? Or does it stay round while standing still too? I think it can stand still too forever, and not moving, and nothing will happen to its round shape. It still will be intact.

54. Because it's going round? Ooops sorry an accidental repeat that's also going round!

55. But when it was not going round but standing still? It's not moving too, at all, I mean.

56. ----no idea?

57. Well aren't there things inside particles which orbit each other? Does that make them go round?

58. In water? H2O? Sure that might be it. But, won't the particle increase in volume while being going round. And, this would force it to burst at some point. Also, the energy needed to go round still had to be taken somewhere from. At balance, going round was no clue to the issue, I would say.

59. Originally Posted by Steve Miller
In water? H2O? Sure that might be it. But, won't the particle increase in volume while being going round. And, this would force it to burst at some point. Also, the energy needed to go round still had to be taken somewhere from. At balance, going round was no clue to the issue, I would say.
But won't the external pressure prevent it from bursting.

Like the inner pressure in me stops the pressure from the air above my head (equivalent to lots of elephants standing on my head i am told!!) crushing me to a squidge on the pavement?

60. Hmmm, there was an external pressure in space? I didn't know that.

Do you mean the atmosphere on board the space station?

61. Originally Posted by Steve Miller
Ok, I got it. My fault, anyway. Now let's say, there was water in space which retains it round shape. Where do you think the water derives the energy from it needs to power own forces to remain in its round shape? It was being water, 'only'.

Matter is naturally attracted to each other. THe bigger the mass, the stronger the attraction. It may have something to do with the energy content of matter or the motion of this energy. Not sure.

When atoms all come together, they'll be from all directions. They go straight to a common point (which could vary as the mass builds up). And the distance is equal on from all angles, thus a round/speherical shaped.

The water atoms that you have remains round because no other forces are affecting those. Matter is made up of energy itself and are drawn to each other. So they just stick to each other.

In a bigger scale, it is something like gravity.

62. Originally Posted by Steve Miller
Hmmm, there was an external pressure in space? I didn't know that.

Do you mean the atmosphere on board the space station?
Yes of course, that would have pressure wouldn't it?

I am guessing there is even pressure in space and variances of depending on where you are and how close you were to something, gravitational pull etc? (i am guessing this)

How come when i blow a bubble it always stays round? Even when i blow a big wobbly one it struggles to maintain a roundness to it's shape and if it can't it usually pops or splits off to make 2 or 3 round shape.

Why is that? I wonder if that's the same principle at work which keeps particles round?

Please tell me if i'm talking bull (I'm sure you probably will :? )

63. Originally Posted by CoolEJ
Matter is naturally attracted to each other.
Hello,

oil and water are not, for instance.

@Absum!

64. Originally Posted by Steve Miller
Originally Posted by CoolEJ
Matter is naturally attracted to each other.
Hello,

oil and water are not, for instance.

Steve

I dreamed about that last night! It might have been a revelation from the God of physics? :-D

Why do bubbles stay round?

Could it be the same for particles?

65. Water and oil are both on earth..
Water oil do not mix because of density and other properties. but they are both on earth. There could be other properties as well. But it simply shows that whatever has a mass comes together. It follows of course the body with bigger tug.

The bubble has some sort of membrane. There isn't always a membrane to contain matter in roud shape.
The bubble membrane is somehow sticky and reconnects when both edges get into contact. Thus when you prick it, the membrane breaks. Some air goes out. While one side of the broken membrane collapse and slap to the other membrane edges, air is trapped in between. Thus smaller bubbles form.

66. Originally Posted by Absum!
Originally Posted by Steve Miller
Originally Posted by CoolEJ
Matter is naturally attracted to each other.
Hello,

oil and water are not, for instance.

Steve

I dreamed about that last night! It might have been a revelation from the God of physics? :-D

Why do bubbles stay round?

Could it be the same for particles?
Hello,

you are ahead now of all we where talking about before. But, I think it's quite the same. Air that you will blow in was made of the same round shaped particles than what the bubble will be surrounded by. The difference was the bubble itself which does not belong to the air it was surrounded by nor the air you'll blow in. Therefore I meant this was ahead of what we where talking about before.

Steve

67. Originally Posted by CoolEJ
Water and oil are both on earth..
Water oil do not mix because of density and other properties. but they are both on earth. There could be other properties as well. But it simply shows that whatever has a mass comes together. It follows of course the body with bigger tug.

The bubble has some sort of membrane. There isn't always a membrane to contain matter in roud shape.
The bubble membrane is somehow sticky and reconnects when both edges get into contact. Thus when you prick it, the membrane breaks. Some air goes out. While one side of the broken membrane collapse and slap to the other membrane edges, air is trapped in between. Thus smaller bubbles form.
I think Absum! was talking about soap bubbles at second.

68. Yes, it could also be for soap bubbles. It is difficult to explain in words.
Maybe How Stuff Works have some visuals.

69. Originally Posted by CoolEJ
Yes, it could also be for soap bubbles. It is difficult to explain in words.
Maybe How Stuff Works have some visuals.
Might be, but there was not so much known about it today rather.

I mean I remind myself that scientists have had the thought of mass being kept in round shape by external effects before.

This has all changed drastically in recent decades or centuries.

Steve

70. Particles are round because they are associated to radiation, field effects, that eminate uniformly from the theoretical particle and thus as a spherical "front".

71. Originally Posted by thyristor
Originally Posted by Thermaltake
Originally Posted by JaneBennet
Who told you the nucleus is round?

However, there is a reason why larger objects than particles, such as raindrops, are spherical. This shape minimizes the surface tension of the drop, since a sphere is the shape that has minimum surface area for a given volume. The drop may sag a bit due to gravity; its shape may also be affected the effects of air pressure as it falls through the atmosphere. But in the absence of all external forces, on the drop it should be perfectly spherical.
Ok, so the neucleus isnt round.

Is the proton and neutron in the neucleus making it to be a different shape than round, and can you explain how the proton and neutron interact with the nucleus?
And explain how the nucleus is shaped by those particles.
Or have i totally missunderstood.
Is the nucleus not an entety itself. Or is the proton and neutron together the neucleus.
First, if protons and neutrons would be round the nucleus wouldn't be round. You cannot form a ball with balls smaller than the first ball.
You need to be a bit careful when talking about shape of sub-atomic particles. You are dealing in the quantum mechanical world, and the notion of position itself is a bit fuzzy, so the notion of shape becomes even fuzzier.

The elementary particles that compose the atom, the electron and the quarks that compose protons and neutrons are modeled as single points. Points don't really have a shape. Protons and neutrons are composed of three quarks.

"Shape" will be functin of how those elementary particles are arranged, and of what you mean by "shape" at that level. But by most definitions the shape of the nucleus will tend to be spherical because the nuclear particles are held together by forces, which are most "relaxed" when the particles are in a spherical arraangement. A sphere can be shown mathematically be the shape that has minimum surface area for a given volume and that relates to the potential energy stored in the forces holding the particles in the nucleus together. An approximately spherical arrangement is likely to give a minimum potential energy.

That having been said there are some models that do not treat the nucleus as perfectly spherically symmeterical.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atomic_nucleus

http://www.lbl.gov/abc/wallchart/chapters/02/0.html

72. Lets also not fail to see the forest for the trees. The universal/stellar level is like the atomic level. We attribute roundness to stars and planets.

On a scale of averages, just doing the basic math, as energy propagates uniformly in a spherical front, and so to field forces, whatever, as the propagation is uniform from a source, that source on a scale of averages would in theory be "round". Of course the sub-structure to that averaged out sub-source may havew different flywheel constructs link together in it's own way, on a scale of averages the thing would be round.

The funny thing about physics though is that no one has officially proven this, namely that on a scale of averages mathematically an atomic and subatomic construct is round, generally speaking. NO mathematics has officially proven this. There are unofficial theories that do, it seems, but none taught (yet) in learning institutions. It would be a very difficult mathematics to prove though, because one would need to conisder formulating an atomic theory for "pi".

73. didnt einstien say a proton at the speed of light would stretch infinately thus making gravity and velocity a factor to its shape?

and roundness is yin and yang just like everything has its oposite

74. Originally Posted by DrRocket
Originally Posted by thyristor
Originally Posted by Thermaltake
Originally Posted by JaneBennet
Who told you the nucleus is round?

However, there is a reason why larger objects than particles, such as raindrops, are spherical. This shape minimizes the surface tension of the drop, since a sphere is the shape that has minimum surface area for a given volume. The drop may sag a bit due to gravity; its shape may also be affected the effects of air pressure as it falls through the atmosphere. But in the absence of all external forces, on the drop it should be perfectly spherical.
Ok, so the neucleus isnt round.

Is the proton and neutron in the neucleus making it to be a different shape than round, and can you explain how the proton and neutron interact with the nucleus?
And explain how the nucleus is shaped by those particles.
Or have i totally missunderstood.
Is the nucleus not an entety itself. Or is the proton and neutron together the neucleus.
First, if protons and neutrons would be round the nucleus wouldn't be round. You cannot form a ball with balls smaller than the first ball.
You need to be a bit careful when talking about shape of sub-atomic particles. You are dealing in the quantum mechanical world, and the notion of position itself is a bit fuzzy, so the notion of shape becomes even fuzzier.

The elementary particles that compose the atom, the electron and the quarks that compose protons and neutrons are modeled as single points. Points don't really have a shape. Protons and neutrons are composed of three quarks.

"Shape" will be functin of how those elementary particles are arranged, and of what you mean by "shape" at that level. But by most definitions the shape of the nucleus will tend to be spherical because the nuclear particles are held together by forces, which are most "relaxed" when the particles are in a spherical arraangement. A sphere can be shown mathematically be the shape that has minimum surface area for a given volume and that relates to the potential energy stored in the forces holding the particles in the nucleus together. An approximately spherical arrangement is likely to give a minimum potential energy.

That having been said there are some models that do not treat the nucleus as perfectly spherically symmeterical.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atomic_nucleus

http://www.lbl.gov/abc/wallchart/chapters/02/0.html
I didn't mean to say they were. I just wanted to show him that if they were, the nucleus couldn't be round-shaped either.

 Bookmarks
##### Bookmarks
 Posting Permissions
 You may not post new threads You may not post replies You may not post attachments You may not edit your posts   BB code is On Smilies are On [IMG] code is On [VIDEO] code is On HTML code is Off Trackbacks are Off Pingbacks are Off Refbacks are On Terms of Use Agreement