Notices
Results 1 to 75 of 75
Like Tree5Likes
  • 1 Post By Flick Montana
  • 1 Post By tk421
  • 1 Post By Flick Montana
  • 2 Post By SpeedFreek

Thread: Atoms- Why they can stop in space/Why they vibrate.

  1. #1 Atoms- Why they can stop in space/Why they vibrate. 
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Posts
    1,525
    I hope I have got this right, this makes perfect simple sense. If you already know this I apologize.


    A single Proton, with no Electron attached.

    The Electron Attaches itself.

    The force of the attaching creates the laws of movement.

    The Proton is repelled.

    However the Electron is fast, and jumps to the other side, repelling it the opposite way.

    This happens so fast, the Atom stands still but vibrates.

    There is a force created, a negative effect.

    There is an a equal environment created.

    I hope this make sense and hope I have put it in the right forum.


    Reply With Quote  
     

  2.  
     

  3. #2  
    Brassica oleracea Strange's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    喫茶店
    Posts
    17,036
    I think it should go straight to Trash.


    ei incumbit probatio qui dicit, non qui negat
    Reply With Quote  
     

  4. #3  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Posts
    1,525
    Quote Originally Posted by Strange View Post
    I think it should go straight to Trash.
    you already know this then?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  5. #4  
    Brassica oleracea Strange's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    喫茶店
    Posts
    17,036
    It is meaningless drivel.
    ei incumbit probatio qui dicit, non qui negat
    Reply With Quote  
     

  6. #5  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Posts
    1,525
    Quote Originally Posted by Strange View Post
    It is meaningless drivel.
    Hey, honestly you can not see this?

    An Electron moves does it not?

    You can only estimate the area by the energy?

    An electron attaches to a proton, so the electron is the force?

    It makes simple sense, honestly you can not see this?

    Imagine standing in a crowd of people, but that crowd is only one person, but that person is fast,speed of light fast, you cant escape. there push force will keep you in the same spot.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  7. #6  
    Life-Size Nanoputian Flick Montana's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    Location
    Flatland
    Posts
    5,438
    You're trying to simplify something to the point where it is no longer substantive. If you put half as much effort into learning the material as you do trying to dumb it down, you might understand the stuff.
    tk421 likes this.
    "Sometimes I think the surest sign that intelligent life exists elsewhere in the universe is that none of it has tried to contact us." -Calvin
    Reply With Quote  
     

  8. #7  
    Anti-Crank AlexG's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2012
    Posts
    2,809
    To the trash
    Its the way nature is!
    If you dont like it, go somewhere else....
    To another universe, where the rules are simpler
    Philosophically more pleasing, more psychologically easy
    Prof Richard Feynman (1979) .....

    Das ist nicht nur nicht richtig, es ist nicht einmal falsch!"
    Reply With Quote  
     

  9. #8  
    Brassica oleracea Strange's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    喫茶店
    Posts
    17,036
    OK. Let's try and rescue something from this cesspit.

    Quote Originally Posted by theorist View Post
    A single Proton, with no Electron attached.
    The Electron Attaches itself.
    Yes, an electron will be attracted to a free proton and form an atom (hydrogen). This happens all the time in chemical reactions.

    The force of the attaching creates the laws of movement.
    Insignificant. The proton is roughly 2000 times more massive than the electron and so the atom will have almost exactly the same velocity as the proton.

    The Proton is repelled.
    Why is it repelled? They have opposite charges and so will be attached. Strongly.

    However the Electron is fast, and jumps to the other side, repelling it the opposite way.
    Why would it jump to the other side? Magic? And, again, the proton won't be repelled.

    This happens so fast, the Atom stands still but vibrates.
    Again, the mass of the electron is so small it will have no significant effect on the motion of the atom.

    There is a force created, a negative effect.
    Why is there a force created? And in what sense is it negative?

    There is an a equal environment created.
    What is an "equal environment"? And why is one created?
    ei incumbit probatio qui dicit, non qui negat
    Reply With Quote  
     

  10. #9  
    Genius Duck Moderator Dywyddyr's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Location
    Scunthorpe, UK
    Posts
    11,820
    You've certainly proved that you've been making totally unwarranted assumptions:
    Quote Originally Posted by theorist
    I will move on from Atoms as I have a good understanding of them
    Zero understanding displayed.
    "[Dywyddyr] makes a grumpy bastard like me seem like a happy go lucky scamp" - PhDemon
    Reply With Quote  
     

  11. #10  
    Brassica oleracea Strange's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    喫茶店
    Posts
    17,036
    Quote Originally Posted by theorist View Post
    An Electron moves does it not?
    Of course. So what?

    You can only estimate the area by the energy?
    The area of what? The energy of what? How does area relate to energy?

    An electron attaches to a proton, so the electron is the force?
    No, an electron is not "the force". There is an electrostatic force between the proton and the electron because they have opposite charges and are therefore attracted to one another.
    ei incumbit probatio qui dicit, non qui negat
    Reply With Quote  
     

  12. #11  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Posts
    1,525
    Guys that is a lot of questions to answer and explain in one breath.

    I will start with the Electron moving, and explain that first hopefully. An Electron doe's not orbit. But it moves, and you can only establish where it roughly moves within an area, the electrostatic field.

    Yes two opposite forces attracted but can never connect because they are opposite. The electrostatic link would be neutral , attracting forces but pushing forces also.

    Why else would it maintain distance?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  13. #12  
    Forum Isotope
    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    Location
    Western US
    Posts
    2,860
    I vote for moving this to trash straightaway.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  14. #13  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Posts
    1,525
    Quote Originally Posted by tk421 View Post
    I vote for moving this to trash straightaway.
    I am trying to explain. It is not easy when you can see a thought but not explain that thought.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  15. #14  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Posts
    1,525
    I will simplify.

    Proton as its own energy field

    Electron its own energy field
    Reply With Quote  
     

  16. #15  
    Brassica oleracea Strange's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    喫茶店
    Posts
    17,036
    Quote Originally Posted by theorist View Post
    I am trying to explain. It is not easy when you can see a thought but not explain that thought.
    Why bother. It is just random nonsense that you have made up.
    ei incumbit probatio qui dicit, non qui negat
    Reply With Quote  
     

  17. #16  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Posts
    1,525
    the electrostatic connection meets in the middle it joins
    Reply With Quote  
     

  18. #17  
    Brassica oleracea Strange's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    喫茶店
    Posts
    17,036
    Time flies like an arrow. Fruit flies like a banana.

    (See, we can all do it.)
    ei incumbit probatio qui dicit, non qui negat
    Reply With Quote  
     

  19. #18  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Posts
    1,525
    Quote Originally Posted by Strange View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by theorist View Post
    I am trying to explain. It is not easy when you can see a thought but not explain that thought.
    Why bother. It is just random nonsense that you have made up.
    I can see this as plain as day, its not random, it is barely a connection.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  20. #19  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Posts
    1,525
    Quote Originally Posted by Strange View Post
    Time flies like an arrow. Fruit flies like a banana.

    (See, we can all do it.)
    yes i understand, but to you I speak a different language, your language been more educated and correct. Where as my language words have different meanings. Another words I am common.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  21. #20  
    Brassica oleracea Strange's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    喫茶店
    Posts
    17,036
    Quote Originally Posted by theorist View Post
    I am trying to explain. It is not easy when you can see a thought but not explain that thought.
    But most of your thoughts are just wrong, based on your limited and confused understanding of the subject.

    Wouldn't it be better to spend some time learning?

    Maybe someone can recommend some very basic books or videos for you.
    ei incumbit probatio qui dicit, non qui negat
    Reply With Quote  
     

  22. #21  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Posts
    1,525
    one
    Quote Originally Posted by Strange View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by theorist View Post
    I am trying to explain. It is not easy when you can see a thought but not explain that thought.
    But most of your thoughts are just wrong, based on your limited and confused understanding of the subject.

    Wouldn't it be better to spend some time learning?

    Maybe someone can recommend some very basic books or videos for you.
    I understand what you are saying, but i like to learn the advanced before the beginning, then the beginning is far more easier to understand.

    Every one presumes that the Electron attaches to the Proton correct?

    What if they connect to each other, at the same time they both emit the static link?

    And to be honest I have already learnt the basics to Quantum Mechanics, i do not see it as that difficult. I admit the maths may be hard etc, but the basic understanding is not that hard to conceive.

    I can see it as it is written, but I can also see differences of opinion lets say.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  23. #22  
    Forum Isotope
    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    Location
    Western US
    Posts
    2,860
    Quote Originally Posted by theorist View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by tk421 View Post
    I vote for moving this to trash straightaway.
    I am trying to explain. It is not easy when you can see a thought but not explain that thought.
    So why don't you work on:

    1) Thinking clearly
    2) Expressing your thoughts with clarity as well.

    Until then, what's the point? Your posts display a disturbing lack of logic (not just a lack of education, although that's appalling, too). Rather than launching multiple threads in which you waste everyone's time, you would benefit from spending that time and effort on studying basic science. Studying something about logic would also be useful.

    And of course, if you are indeed a troll (as I strongly suspect), you won't do any of these things. You'll continue until you've finally exhausted the patience of the mods and they ban you.

    Your choice.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  24. #23  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Posts
    1,525
    Quote Originally Posted by tk421 View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by theorist View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by tk421 View Post
    I vote for moving this to trash straightaway.
    I am trying to explain. It is not easy when you can see a thought but not explain that thought.
    So why don't you work on:

    1) Thinking clearly
    2) Expressing your thoughts with clarity as well.

    Until then, what's the point? Your posts display a disturbing lack of logic (not just a lack of education, although that's appalling, too). Rather than launching multiple threads in which you waste everyone's time, you would benefit from spending that time and effort on studying basic science. Studying something about logic would also be useful.

    And of course, if you are indeed a troll (as I strongly suspect), you won't do any of these things. You'll continue until you've finally exhausted the patience of the mods and they ban you.

    Your choice.
    I am not a troll, I see clearly what I see. I have learnt. My problem is, sometimes I write what I am thinking. I do not think about what I am writing.

    I have a problem of writing out aloud.

    My thoughts become mixed.

    I am sorry and I will try to think more clearly, and maybe look up the words I need to explain my understanding.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  25. #24  
    Forum Isotope
    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    Location
    Western US
    Posts
    2,860
    Quote Originally Posted by theorist View Post
    I am not a troll,
    A troll and a non-troll would both deny being a troll, so your denial carries no weight. I have only stated that I have my strong suspicions that you are one. Certainly I have encountered trolls who post just the way that you do. My advice re: clarity of thought and expression is independent of that, in any case.

    I see clearly what I see.
    I have no idea what that means. It's not relevant, though. What you present to us is an endless stream of non-sequiturs and distorted versions of answers given to you.

    I have learnt.
    Ok, if you say so.

    My problem is, sometimes I write what I am thinking.
    That by itself would not necessarily be a problem, if what you were thinking weren't a muddled mess.

    I do not think about what I am writing.
    Which, taken together with your previous sentence, means that you don't think about what you're thinking. And that, in a nutshell, is the problem.

    I have a problem of writing out aloud.

    My thoughts become mixed.

    I am sorry and I will try to think more clearly, and maybe look up the words I need to explain my understanding.
    You absolutely must pick up a middle-school book on basic science. That's not intended as an insult. I have already asked you how old you are (without an answer), because I am curious about how best to craft answers to your questions. Your knowledge of basic science (what is an atom? what are electrons? etc.) is as ill-formed as an elementary-schooler's. More problematic is that your approach to repairing the deficiencies in your knowledge (endless rambling dialogues) is fundamentally flawed. If you can't understand even that, then there's little hope.

    Having good meta-knowledge is a prerequisite to acquiring knowledge.
    Strange likes this.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  26. #25  
    Life-Size Nanoputian Flick Montana's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    Location
    Flatland
    Posts
    5,438
    Quote Originally Posted by theorist View Post

    Yes two opposite forces attracted but can never connect because they are opposite. The electrostatic link would be neutral , attracting forces but pushing forces also.

    Why else would it maintain distance?
    I think you're still trying to apply Newtonian physics to atomic structures. Quantum mechanics was created because of this problem. The physics we knew broke down at the atomic level.

    Also, you say a proton and electron cannot connect because they are opposite? Take two opposing poles of a magnet and tell me they don't connect. That makes no sense. Binding between positively and negatively charged atoms drives a substantial amount (all) of chemistry.

    Quote Originally Posted by theorist View Post
    I will simplify.
    Stop it! You cannot simplify quantum mechanics down to two sentences. If you're not going to put the effort in to learn the extremely complex nature of the topic you want to discuss, find another topic.

    Guys! Biology! So, a cell creates another cell. Ad infinitum. Mankind.

    See? It doesn't work.
    "Sometimes I think the surest sign that intelligent life exists elsewhere in the universe is that none of it has tried to contact us." -Calvin
    Reply With Quote  
     

  27. #26  
    Anti-Crank AlexG's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2012
    Posts
    2,809
    but i like to learn the advanced before the beginning,
    Which might explain why EVERYTHING you've posted has been confused nonsense. You've never learned anything.

    I second moving this to the trash.
    Its the way nature is!
    If you dont like it, go somewhere else....
    To another universe, where the rules are simpler
    Philosophically more pleasing, more psychologically easy
    Prof Richard Feynman (1979) .....

    Das ist nicht nur nicht richtig, es ist nicht einmal falsch!"
    Reply With Quote  
     

  28. #27  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Posts
    1,525
    Quote Originally Posted by AlexG View Post
    but i like to learn the advanced before the beginning,
    Which might explain why EVERYTHING you've posted has been confused nonsense. You've never learned anything.

    I second moving this to the trash.
    You think I have not learned?, I can explain an Atom in detail form the Nucleus to the Shellac of layers of Electrons. I can explain a nuclear reactor. I understand the concept of the new scientific theories of the Atom and the older Bohr Model of the Atom.
    I understand the complex understanding of Molecules and the amount of Atoms and different Atoms have different properties as elements.
    I did not 4-5 days ago the make up of an Atom.
    The basics are simple to understand.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  29. #28  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Posts
    1,525
    Quote Originally Posted by Flick Montana View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by theorist View Post

    Yes two opposite forces attracted but can never connect because they are opposite. The electrostatic link would be neutral , attracting forces but pushing forces also.

    Why else would it maintain distance?
    I think you're still trying to apply Newtonian physics to atomic structures. Quantum mechanics was created because of this problem. The physics we knew broke down at the atomic level.

    Also, you say a proton and electron cannot connect because they are opposite? Take two opposing poles of a magnet and tell me they don't connect. That makes no sense. Binding between positively and negatively charged atoms drives a substantial amount (all) of chemistry.

    Quote Originally Posted by theorist View Post
    I will simplify.
    Stop it! You cannot simplify quantum mechanics down to two sentences. If you're not going to put the effort in to learn the extremely complex nature of the topic you want to discuss, find another topic.

    Guys! Biology! So, a cell creates another cell. Ad infinitum. Mankind.

    See? It doesn't work.

    You say that two opposite poles connect, so how do you see they connect?, they connect to each other, one doe's not connect to one, they connect to each other and never actually touch.
    The Electron never touches the Proton, it only connects, they connect to each other.
    It then creates an Electrostatic Field, other Electrons other Atoms then attach to build up a Shellac of layers.
    This then gives you your different Atom properties.

    One question, it either proves what I am saying as right or wrong. Any mass travelling in the forward motion as we know forward to be, doe's that mass have more electrostatic at the front of mass,or more towards the back? as it moves.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  30. #29  
    Moderator Moderator Markus Hanke's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Location
    Ireland
    Posts
    7,302
    Quote Originally Posted by theorist View Post
    Any mass travelling in the forward motion as we know forward to be, doe's that mass have more electrostatic at the front of mass,or more towards the back? as it moves.
    Your question clearly demonstrates that you seem to think that

    (1) electrons move on well defined orbits around the nucleus ( hence the notion of "forward movement" )
    (2) electrons are spatially extended objects with a well defined radius, in essence "little balls" of electrically charged mass.

    Both of these are completely wrong. We are dealing with quantum mechanics here, not little balls orbiting another little ball on microscopic scales. This is why it pays to first study the basics, i.e. de Broglie waves, the particle-wave duality, and how these relate to quantum objects in general. Understanding the atom as a whole is then simply an application of these basics understandings. As it stands your question is meaningless.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  31. #30  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Nov 2012
    Location
    Apocalyptic Paradise
    Posts
    6,613
    Quote Originally Posted by theorist View Post
    You think I have not learned?
    I won't argue whether you have or have not.

    I will merely point out that learning comes before speculating, making bold claims or assumptions. Learning precedes knowledge and presentation of it.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  32. #31  
    Brassica oleracea Strange's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    喫茶店
    Posts
    17,036
    Quote Originally Posted by theorist View Post
    You think I have not learned?
    You have learned a tiny bit. You have learnt it badly - you mix things up and have huge gaps in your understanding.

    The biggest problem may be your confidence that you think you understand things that you very obviously don't.

    For example:

    I can explain an Atom in detail form the Nucleus to the Shellac of layers of Electrons.
    The whole point of the "shellac" analogy was a description of the Earth's atmosphere which is a very thin layer over the planet. The electrons are totally different as they make up most of the size of an atom.

    So, even for a simple analogy like that, you think you understand but you don't.

    If you can appreciate that you do NOT understand then maybe you will be able to learn. By thinking you understand, you stop thinking and stop trying to learn more.

    Note that "not understanding" is a Good Thing. The only reason I am quite good at my job is because I know there is a lot I don't understand and so I continuously have to work hard and think hard to get things done.

    The basics are simple to understand.
    But you don't know the basics.
    ei incumbit probatio qui dicit, non qui negat
    Reply With Quote  
     

  33. #32  
    Brassica oleracea Strange's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    喫茶店
    Posts
    17,036
    Quote Originally Posted by theorist View Post
    One question, it either proves what I am saying as right or wrong. Any mass travelling in the forward motion as we know forward to be, doe's that mass have more electrostatic at the front of mass,or more towards the back? as it moves.
    As Markus has already pointed out, this is all wrong.

    But let's look at a few more points:

    Any mass...

    Do you mean any mass? A football, a car, a planet, a mouse?

    travelling in the forward motion as we know forward to be

    What does "forward" mean? Up, down? Left, right? North, south? It is a meaningless term without some reference.

    doe's that mass have more electrostatic at the front of mass,or more towards the back

    What does "electrostatic" mean? Electric charge?

    Why do you think the "electrostatic" would move to the front or the back? Do you think the electric charges in your car move around as you drive and turn corners?

    NB: don't bother to answer these questions. But THINK about them. Then, if you feel you need to understand, ask some more questions.
    ei incumbit probatio qui dicit, non qui negat
    Reply With Quote  
     

  34. #33  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Nov 2012
    Location
    Apocalyptic Paradise
    Posts
    6,613
    Reply With Quote  
     

  35. #34  
    Brassica oleracea Strange's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    喫茶店
    Posts
    17,036
    "As empty vessels make the loudest sound, so they that have the least wit are the greatest blabbers."
    William Baldwin, 1547
    ei incumbit probatio qui dicit, non qui negat
    Reply With Quote  
     

  36. #35  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Posts
    1,525
    Quote Originally Posted by Neverfly View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by theorist View Post
    You think I have not learned?
    I won't argue whether you have or have not.

    I will merely point out that learning comes before speculating, making bold claims or assumptions. Learning precedes knowledge and presentation of it.
    An idea is not a claim, an idea is to be discussed. That is the reason my post is in this forum place, and not Hypothesis. You do not think I believe this, this is not fact's, this is only an Idea.

    And Marcus, your post makes a simple question I have asked seem complicated, the question was, doe's mass moving forward have more Electrostatic at the front or rear, or as no one every tested this?.

    And I am not picturing little balls, I am picturing energy fields.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  37. #36  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Posts
    1,525
    Quote Originally Posted by Strange View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by theorist View Post
    One question, it either proves what I am saying as right or wrong. Any mass travelling in the forward motion as we know forward to be, doe's that mass have more electrostatic at the front of mass,or more towards the back? as it moves.
    As Markus has already pointed out, this is all wrong.

    But let's look at a few more points:

    Any mass...

    Do you mean any mass? A football, a car, a planet, a mouse?

    travelling in the forward motion as we know forward to be

    What does "forward" mean? Up, down? Left, right? North, south? It is a meaningless term without some reference.

    doe's that mass have more electrostatic at the front of mass,or more towards the back

    What does "electrostatic" mean? Electric charge?

    Why do you think the "electrostatic" would move to the front or the back? Do you think the electric charges in your car move around as you drive and turn corners?

    NB: don't bother to answer these questions. But THINK about them. Then, if you feel you need to understand, ask some more questions.
    Question, please explain forward motion in scientific terms.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  38. #37  
    Brassica oleracea Strange's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    喫茶店
    Posts
    17,036
    Quote Originally Posted by theorist View Post
    And Marcus, your post makes a simple question I have asked seem complicated, the question was, doe's mass moving forward have more Electrostatic at the front or rear, or as no one every tested this?.
    No.

    Could you explain why you think it would?

    After all you "understand" the atom and how the electrons are firmly attached to it by the electric charge of the protons. So why should they all move to the front?
    ei incumbit probatio qui dicit, non qui negat
    Reply With Quote  
     

  39. #38  
    Brassica oleracea Strange's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    喫茶店
    Posts
    17,036
    Quote Originally Posted by theorist View Post
    Question, please explain forward motion in scientific terms.
    That is what I am asking you. What do you mean by "forward"?
    ei incumbit probatio qui dicit, non qui negat
    Reply With Quote  
     

  40. #39  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Posts
    1,525
    Quote Originally Posted by Strange View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by theorist View Post
    Question, please explain forward motion in scientific terms.
    That is what I am asking you. What do you mean by "forward"?
    I think I can explain it better, accelerate.

    Why do I think the Electron would move to the front?, because that explains vibration, if something is vibrating, that is frequency change. Like sound waves off a speaker can vibrate a door.
    The sound waves been stronger than the Atmosphere on the other side of the door and no where for them to travel although some get through.

    Also I see the Electron maybe moves to change direction to its source, the direction of the nearest earth, as the meaning of an earth as in plug.

    I see the vibrate, how else doe's something vibrate, I can just picture this so clearly, and besides is there not two electrons in the S shell?.

    So if that is the fact, they both push the Proton giving an equal electrostatic link, so the proton still would vibrate, but still also be motionless?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  41. #40  
    Brassica oleracea Strange's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    喫茶店
    Posts
    17,036
    Quote Originally Posted by theorist View Post
    Why do I think the Electron would move to the front?, because that explains vibration, if something is vibrating, that is frequency change. Like sound waves off a speaker can vibrate a door. The sound waves been stronger than the Atmosphere on the other side of the door and no where for them to travel although some get through.
    You don't need electrons to move to the front to explain vibration (I'm not even sure how it would explain vibration). Vibration is something that happens in the entire structure: piece of wood, guitar string, whatever. The thing that vibrates doesn't need to be moving forward (you can stand still and play the guitar).


    Also I see the Electron maybe moves to change direction to its source, the direction of the nearest earth, as the meaning of an earth as in plug.
    No. Electrons are bound to atoms, they are not free to leave and flow to Earth.

    I see the vibrate, how else doe's something vibrate, I can just picture this so clearly,
    Vibration depends on the stiffness, etc. of the material. This in turn depends on the bonds between the molecules. This in turn requires the electrons stay where they are to form those bonds.

    and besides is there not two electrons in the S shell?.
    Not necessarily.

    So if that is the fact, they both push the Proton giving an equal electrostatic link, so the proton still would vibrate, but still also be motionless?
    No. If it had an equal force from both sides then it would not vibrate. And of course, the electrons are distributed around the atom.

    Note the nucleus of an atom can vibrate but this would be at radio frequency and not something you would be aware of.
    ei incumbit probatio qui dicit, non qui negat
    Reply With Quote  
     

  42. #41  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Posts
    1,525
    Quote Originally Posted by Strange View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by theorist View Post
    Why do I think the Electron would move to the front?, because that explains vibration, if something is vibrating, that is frequency change. Like sound waves off a speaker can vibrate a door. The sound waves been stronger than the Atmosphere on the other side of the door and no where for them to travel although some get through.
    You don't need electrons to move to the front to explain vibration (I'm not even sure how it would explain vibration). Vibration is something that happens in the entire structure: piece of wood, guitar string, whatever. The thing that vibrates doesn't need to be moving forward (you can stand still and play the guitar).


    Also I see the Electron maybe moves to change direction to its source, the direction of the nearest earth, as the meaning of an earth as in plug.
    No. Electrons are bound to atoms, they are not free to leave and flow to Earth.

    I see the vibrate, how else doe's something vibrate, I can just picture this so clearly,
    Vibration depends on the stiffness, etc. of the material. This in turn depends on the bonds between the molecules. This in turn requires the electrons stay where they are to form those bonds.

    and besides is there not two electrons in the S shell?.
    Not necessarily.

    So if that is the fact, they both push the Proton giving an equal electrostatic link, so the proton still would vibrate, but still also be motionless?
    No.

    Yes you can stand still and play a guitar, but there is still movement on the strings. A piece of wood vibrates because it is been hit by a wave for example, sound wave or even a shock wave, the force of a hammer, you can feel the vibration on a plank of wood at the other end, away from where the shock of the hammer is hitting it.

    You say vibration depends on the stiffness, that is not thinking deep enough. It depends on the density of Molecules.

    The Electrons stay attached but move direction. This is only a thought, I have deep thinking.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  43. #42  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Posts
    1,525
    Consider a car accelerating , the Electrons move to the front of the Proton throughout the entire Molecule structure.

    The car hits a tree, decelerating force. The Electrons then switch to the other side of the Proton, as the Protons direction is forced the opposite way, the energy is shifted.

    The mass then compacts, Molecules been forced the opposite way.

    i.e car wreck
    Reply With Quote  
     

  44. #43  
    Moderator Moderator Markus Hanke's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Location
    Ireland
    Posts
    7,302
    You say vibration depends on the stiffness, that is not thinking deep enough. It depends on the density of Molecules.
    The vibrational modes of a string attached at both ends depend only on the tension F of the string and its linear mass density . The vibration is then described by the wave equation



    A string with length L then has the fundamental frequency



    Bear in mind though that none of this has any validity in the case of electrons; to describe them you need to use the full apparatus of quantum mechanics, i.e. the Schroedinger Equation in this case.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  45. #44  
    Moderator Moderator Markus Hanke's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Location
    Ireland
    Posts
    7,302
    the question was, doe's mass moving forward have more Electrostatic at the front or rear, or as no one every tested this?.
    The question doesn't make any sense, because electrons do not move into any well defined direction, and they have no "size" either. All you can meaningfully talk about is the probability of finding an electron at a well defined spot at a certain time - but then you couldn't tell anything about its momentum. Conversely you can define the probability of measuring a definite momentum - but then its location is no longer fixed. The next thing than is that electrons are point-like particles without internal structure, so "front" and "rear" are again meaningless concepts in this instance. The entire unit charge sits in one point.
    So either which way, your question is meaningless, because electrons are not classical particles with a well defined volume moving into a well defined direction. This is not how quantum mechanics works - hence my remark about getting the basics right.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  46. #45  
    Brassica oleracea Strange's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    喫茶店
    Posts
    17,036
    Quote Originally Posted by theorist View Post
    Yes you can stand still and play a guitar, but there is still movement on the strings.
    Yes, that movement is vibration.

    You say vibration depends on the stiffness, that is not thinking deep enough. It depends on the density of Molecules.
    The stiffness, density, etc. all depends on the bonds between the molecules (which in turn, depend on the electrons). The electrons do not move to the front as you think; they stay in their bonds.

    This is only a thought, I have deep thinking.
    You have very shallow thinking because you do not understand enough to think deeply.
    ei incumbit probatio qui dicit, non qui negat
    Reply With Quote  
     

  47. #46  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Posts
    1,525
    Quote Originally Posted by Markus Hanke View Post
    the question was, doe's mass moving forward have more Electrostatic at the front or rear, or as no one every tested this?.
    The question doesn't make any sense, because electrons do not move into any well defined direction, and they have no "size" either. All you can meaningfully talk about is the probability of finding an electron at a well defined spot at a certain time - but then you couldn't tell anything about its momentum. Conversely you can define the probability of measuring a definite momentum - but then its location is no longer fixed. The next thing than is that electrons are point-like particles without internal structure, so "front" and "rear" are again meaningless concepts in this instance. The entire unit charge sits in one point.
    So either which way, your question is meaningless, because electrons are not classical particles with a well defined volume moving into a well defined direction. This is not how quantum mechanics works - hence my remark about getting the basics right.
    You say that you can only talk about the Probability of finding an Electron at a well defined spot at a certain time, but you could not tell definite anything about the momentum, so you do not know in reality that the Electron doe's not do this what my idea suggests.

    You can only have an idea of this based on Probabilities. And no doubt when a surface scan is done, to see Electrons to generate the Probabilities , the Mass is static and not moving that is been scanned?

    Also your maths I can not understand, I do not know that type of maths. Vibration of any sort, means Molecules have movement?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  48. #47  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Posts
    1,525
    Quote Originally Posted by Strange View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by theorist View Post
    Yes you can stand still and play a guitar, but there is still movement on the strings.
    Yes, that movement is vibration.

    You say vibration depends on the stiffness, that is not thinking deep enough. It depends on the density of Molecules.
    The stiffness, density, etc. all depends on the bonds between the molecules (which in turn, depend on the electrons). The electrons do not move to the front as you think; they stay in their bonds.

    This is only a thought, I have deep thinking.
    You have very shallow thinking because you do not understand enough to think deeply.
    When I say move to the front, I mean move to the front of their individual Atom. That deep of thinking.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  49. #48  
    Moderator Moderator Markus Hanke's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Location
    Ireland
    Posts
    7,302
    You say that you can only talk about the Probability of finding an Electron at a well defined spot at a certain time, but you could not tell definite anything about the momentum, so you do not know in reality that the Electron doe's not do this what my idea suggests.
    This is called the Heisenberg uncertainty principle, which, once again, is a basic staple of quantum mechanics. The more you localize an electron, the less certain its momentum becomes, and vice versa. The same goes for energy and time.
    Your 'idea' about charge being concentrated at the "front" is therefore nonsensical.

    You really have no idea about any of the basics, do you ?

    You can only have an idea of this based on Probabilities. And no doubt when a surface scan is done, to see Electrons to generate the Probabilities , the Mass is static and not moving that is been scanned?
    I have no idea what you are trying to say here.

    Also your maths I can not understand, I do not know that type of maths.
    It's a basic wave equation from classical mechanics - if you don't even understand this, then you really shouldn't be discussing atoms, vibrations and quantum mechanics. You are in way over your head here, mate.

    When I say move to the front, I mean move to the front of their individual Atom. That deep of thinking.
    And where's the "front" of an atom ? The front in relation to what, exactly ?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  50. #49  
    Anti-Crank AlexG's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2012
    Posts
    2,809
    Quote Originally Posted by theorist View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by AlexG View Post
    but i like to learn the advanced before the beginning,
    Which might explain why EVERYTHING you've posted has been confused nonsense. You've never learned anything.

    I second moving this to the trash.
    You think I have not learned?, I can explain an Atom in detail form the Nucleus to the Shellac of layers of Electrons. I can explain a nuclear reactor. I understand the concept of the new scientific theories of the Atom and the older Bohr Model of the Atom.
    I understand the complex understanding of Molecules and the amount of Atoms and different Atoms have different properties as elements.
    I did not 4-5 days ago the make up of an Atom.
    The basics are simple to understand.
    Yes, I think you have not learned. In the last 263 posts you've made, you've demonstrated that you know virtually nothing, and appear to have no real interest in learning.

    You're either a troll, or incredibly uneducatable.
    Its the way nature is!
    If you dont like it, go somewhere else....
    To another universe, where the rules are simpler
    Philosophically more pleasing, more psychologically easy
    Prof Richard Feynman (1979) .....

    Das ist nicht nur nicht richtig, es ist nicht einmal falsch!"
    Reply With Quote  
     

  51. #50  
    Brassica oleracea Strange's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    喫茶店
    Posts
    17,036
    Quote Originally Posted by theorist View Post
    When I say move to the front, I mean move to the front of their individual Atom. That deep of thinking.
    As I say, that thinking is wrong. And not at all deep.

    Deep thinking requires a deep understanding. You barely understand anything (because you lack the necessary background in basic physics).
    ei incumbit probatio qui dicit, non qui negat
    Reply With Quote  
     

  52. #51  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Posts
    1,525
    When I say move to the front, I mean move to the front of their individual Atom. That deep of thinking.
    And where's the "front" of an atom ? The front in relation to what, exactly ?[/QUOTE]

    I mean, in relation to the Proton, the Electron moves to the accelerated direction. To stop the Proton escaping as such, it as to have push force always.

    I understand basic maths, there is no time , so there can be no true maths, think about that one....


    Heisenberg uncertainty Principle, is that not just Philosophy?,

    "The more precisely the POSITION is determined,
    the
    less preciselythe MOMENTUM is known"

    Doe's that not mean that if you stand still, the Momentum is unknown, if it doe's, that is just common sense , it is not moving ,so you would not know the direction a moving object was going to travel.

    My idea is not nonsensical, you can not test a moving Atom, you have no facts to say an Atom doe's not behave this way. Yes indeed science as a lot of facts, but also as a lot of undiscovered answers.

    The surface scanning that is used to test for Electrons, and build a computer image of probability of movement, this is done on a fixed object of Mass. Therefore , science as not got a clue on the movement of an Electron, when Mass is in accelerated movement.

    I may be wrong, I am not saying I am right, but hopefully have given you all something to think about, different from the text books, different from the minds of an earlier time. Times when science was classed like stardom.



    Reply With Quote  
     

  53. #52  
    Brassica oleracea Strange's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    喫茶店
    Posts
    17,036
    Quote Originally Posted by theorist View Post
    I mean, in relation to the Proton, the Electron moves to the accelerated direction. To stop the Proton escaping as such, it as to have push force always.
    Except it doesn't.

    Heisenberg uncertainty Principle, is that not just Philosophy?
    No, it is a precisely formulated part of quantum theory that is able to make testable predictions. That is what makes it science.

    My idea is not nonsensical, you can not test a moving Atom, you have no facts to say an Atom doe's not behave this way.
    Your ideas are nonsensical. We can do highly accurate tests on individual atoms. We have a very good understanding of how they behave.

    Yes indeed science as a lot of facts, but also as a lot of undiscovered answers.
    That is true. That is the nature of science. But that doesn't mean you can fill those gaps with imaginative but uninformed nonsense. Those gaps will be filled by science: evidence, data, testable theories, etc.

    Therefore , science as not got a clue on the movement of an Electron, when Mass is in accelerated movement.
    Wrong. Don't confuse your ignorance with the knowledge gained by science. Not by ignorant speculation.

    I may be wrong, I am not saying I am right, but hopefully have given you all something to think about, different from the text books, different from the minds of an earlier time.
    You are wrong. You have not given anyone anything to think about. You would need to know what you are talking about first.

    Would you go to your motor mechanic and say: "Don't just do what the repair manuals say, or what your father did, try rubbing it with a grapefruit. I may be wrong but I have given you a new way of thinking about it. After all, you don't know that gasoline is required to make the engine turn. It could all be because of citrus fruit. And monkeys."
    (Actually, thinking about it, your ideas don't even make that much sense.)
    ei incumbit probatio qui dicit, non qui negat
    Reply With Quote  
     

  54. #53  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Posts
    1,525
    Quote Originally Posted by Strange View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by theorist View Post
    I mean, in relation to the Proton, the Electron moves to the accelerated direction. To stop the Proton escaping as such, it as to have push force always.
    Except it doesn't.

    Heisenberg uncertainty Principle, is that not just Philosophy?
    No, it is a precisely formulated part of quantum theory that is able to make testable predictions. That is what makes it science.

    My idea is not nonsensical, you can not test a moving Atom, you have no facts to say an Atom doe's not behave this way.
    Your ideas are nonsensical. We can do highly accurate tests on individual atoms. We have a very good understanding of how they behave.

    Yes indeed science as a lot of facts, but also as a lot of undiscovered answers.
    That is true. That is the nature of science. But that doesn't mean you can fill those gaps with imaginative but uninformed nonsense. Those gaps will be filled by science: evidence, data, testable theories, etc.

    Therefore , science as not got a clue on the movement of an Electron, when Mass is in accelerated movement.
    Wrong. Don't confuse your ignorance with the knowledge gained by science. Not by ignorant speculation.

    I may be wrong, I am not saying I am right, but hopefully have given you all something to think about, different from the text books, different from the minds of an earlier time.
    You are wrong. You have not given anyone anything to think about. You would need to know what you are talking about first.

    Would you go to your motor mechanic and say: "Don't just do what the repair manuals say, or what your father did, try rubbing it with a grapefruit. I may be wrong but I have given you a new way of thinking about it. After all, you don't know that gasoline is required to make the engine turn. It could all be because of citrus fruit. And monkeys."
    (Actually, thinking about it, your ideas don't even make that much sense.)
    Ok, I surrender and admit my knowledge is fantasy. I will start with the basics. My first question is, can you please tell me why an Atom vibrates?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  55. #54  
    Anti-Crank AlexG's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2012
    Posts
    2,809
    My first question is, can you please tell me why an Atom vibrates?
    What makes you think it does?
    Its the way nature is!
    If you dont like it, go somewhere else....
    To another universe, where the rules are simpler
    Philosophically more pleasing, more psychologically easy
    Prof Richard Feynman (1979) .....

    Das ist nicht nur nicht richtig, es ist nicht einmal falsch!"
    Reply With Quote  
     

  56. #55  
    Brassica oleracea Strange's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    喫茶店
    Posts
    17,036
    Quote Originally Posted by theorist View Post
    My first question is, can you please tell me why an Atom vibrates?
    It depends what you mean.

    The main context where you might talk about an atom vibrating is in a solid. Then all the atoms are bound together in fixed positions. If they are given energy then they cannot go anywhere and so will vibrate in the position they are in. If you provide enough energy then the bonds will break, they will be free to move. They will stop vibrating and the material will turn into a liquid or a gas.

    OK? (I know it is boring, but that's they way things are.)
    ei incumbit probatio qui dicit, non qui negat
    Reply With Quote  
     

  57. #56  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Posts
    1,525
    Quote Originally Posted by AlexG View Post
    My first question is, can you please tell me why an Atom vibrates?
    What makes you think it does?
    Someone said in one of their posts.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  58. #57  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Posts
    1,525
    Quote Originally Posted by Strange View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by theorist View Post
    My first question is, can you please tell me why an Atom vibrates?
    It depends what you mean.

    The main context where you might talk about an atom vibrating is in a solid. Then all the atoms are bound together in fixed positions. If they are given energy then they cannot go anywhere and so will vibrate in the position they are in. If you provide enough energy then the bonds will break, they will be free to move. They will stop vibrating and the material will turn into a liquid or a gas.

    OK? (I know it is boring, but that's they way things are.)
    I was picturing it as a solid state, but that solid state been individual Atoms. And trying to view a picture of where kinetic energy falls into place.

    I know the Atom can not move as it is in a Molecule State, as a group of Molecules to make up mass.

    However ,the Atom becomes charged by kinetic energy, this causes the vibration, but still doe's not explain which way the Electron moves when this is happening.

    Is there a Dual wave caused by kinetic energy?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  59. #58  
    Life-Size Nanoputian Flick Montana's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    Location
    Flatland
    Posts
    5,438
    Sometimes I think you're just using words you randomly pulled from Wikiphysics.
    Neverfly likes this.
    "Sometimes I think the surest sign that intelligent life exists elsewhere in the universe is that none of it has tried to contact us." -Calvin
    Reply With Quote  
     

  60. #59  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Posts
    1,525
    Quote Originally Posted by Flick Montana View Post
    Sometimes I think you're just using words you randomly pulled from Wikiphysics.

    No, I do not use random words, although I mixed wave duality up and put dual wave. Kinetic energy, explained as anything that as motion, as Kinetic energy.
    Kinetic energy is explained to cause vibration.
    Kinetic energy is said to charge Atoms, this then in effect causes the vibration.
    I think that Kinetic energy and my thoughts on the vibration of an Atom fit the picture as been one and the same.
    A roller coaster is said to have more Kinetic energy at an inclining position. My thoughts<This is because, the Electrons are a pushing force in the opposite direction?>.

    You say on here ,this forum I should start at the basics, the Atom is the basics, the Atom is the start of all, so understanding the beginning is always a good place to start.

    Kinetic energy, is there any difference to what I am saying and how Kinetic energy is explained?.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  61. #60  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Nov 2012
    Location
    Apocalyptic Paradise
    Posts
    6,613
    An atom is not basic. It's near fundamental, but not basic. The atom is not the start of it all. Quarks may be, strings may be. It's not yet really known what is the most fundamental.

    But there is a difference between fundamental and basic and you would be wise to remember that difference.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  62. #61  
    Brassica oleracea Strange's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    喫茶店
    Posts
    17,036
    Quote Originally Posted by theorist View Post
    [I was picturing it as a solid state, but that solid state been individual Atoms. And trying to view a picture of where kinetic energy falls into place.

    I know the Atom can not move as it is in a Molecule State, as a group of Molecules to make up mass.

    However ,the Atom becomes charged by kinetic energy, this causes the vibration, but still doe's not explain which way the Electron moves when this is happening.
    OK. Here is a diagram of the crystal structure of salt.
    NaCl.Crystal.Lattice.jpg
    [click to embiggen]

    At the left, you can see the bonds represented as lines. Think of these as (very rigid) springs. Thermal energy causes the atoms to bounce around (vibrate), while held in place by those springs. The electrons do not move anywhere.

    (The middle pictures shows how the electron clouds of the atoms overlap to form the "springs" . The right hand picture shows salt crystals.)
    ei incumbit probatio qui dicit, non qui negat
    Reply With Quote  
     

  63. #62  
    Brassica oleracea Strange's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    喫茶店
    Posts
    17,036
    Quote Originally Posted by theorist View Post
    Kinetic energy is said to charge Atoms, this then in effect causes the vibration.
    Kinetic energy does not "charge" atoms.

    My thoughts<This is because, the Electrons are a pushing force in the opposite direction?>.
    No.

    You say on here ,this forum I should start at the basics, the Atom is the basics, the Atom is the start of all, so understanding the beginning is always a good place to start.

    The basics would be the laws of motion, different forms of energy, conservation laws, basic electricity and magnetism, etc.

    Kinetic energy, is there any difference to what I am saying and how Kinetic energy is explained?
    You are making it far too complicated by bringing electrons into it.

    Kinetic energy is simply the energy required to make a an object move at a given speed. The more mass the object has, the more energy is required. The fast it goes, the more energy is required.

    Alternatively you can think of it as the energy that an object "has" when it is moving. The more massive the object, the more energy it has. The faster it is moving, the more energy it has.

    Being hit by a slow moving brick will hurt more than being hit by a slow moving golf ball. Being hit by a fast moving bullet will hurt more than being hit by a slow moving brick.
    Last edited by Strange; February 7th, 2013 at 04:35 AM.
    ei incumbit probatio qui dicit, non qui negat
    Reply With Quote  
     

  64. #63  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Posts
    1,525
    Quote Originally Posted by Neverfly View Post
    An atom is not basic. It's near fundamental, but not basic. The atom is not the start of it all. Quarks may be, strings may be. It's not yet really known what is the most fundamental.

    But there is a difference between fundamental and basic and you would be wise to remember that difference.
    Yes I think fundamental is a better word, I apologize for my terrible wording. I know the singularity is unknown, but from what we do know, I want to start where it all began.

    I have covered the BG, I have covered Photons, and now moved on to Atoms, I do not admit to be an expert in m already studied subjects, but I do have a understanding of the basics.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  65. #64  
    Brassica oleracea Strange's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    喫茶店
    Posts
    17,036
    Quote Originally Posted by theorist View Post
    I do have a understanding of the basics.
    You really don't. And the sooner you recognised that the better (for everyone).
    ei incumbit probatio qui dicit, non qui negat
    Reply With Quote  
     

  66. #65  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Posts
    1,525
    Quote Originally Posted by Strange View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by theorist View Post
    Kinetic energy is said to charge Atoms, this then in effect causes the vibration.
    Kinetic energy does not "charge" atoms.

    My thoughts<This is because, the Electrons are a pushing force in the opposite direction?>.
    No.

    You say on here ,this forum I should start at the basics, the Atom is the basics, the Atom is the start of all, so understanding the beginning is always a good place to start.

    The basics would be the laws of motion, different forms of energy, conservation laws, basic electricity and magnetism, etc.

    Did motion, electricity and everything else come after the Atom? so the Atom is the beginning although discovered later.

    Kinetic energy, is there any difference to what I am saying and how Kinetic energy is explained?
    You are making it far too complicated by bringing electrons into it.

    Kinetic energy is simply the energy required to make a an object move at a given speed. The more mass the object has, the more energy is required. The fast it goes, the more energy is required.

    Alternatively you can think of it as the energy that an object "has" when it is moving. The more massive the object, the more energy it has. The faster it is moving, the more energy it has.

    Being hit by a slow moving brick will hurt more than being hit by a slow moving golf ball. Being hit by a fast moving bullet will hurt more than being hit by a slow moving brick.

    Yes I understand that, I have looked up Kinetic energy again, blame the internet please and not me, the post I read said Kinetic energy charges the Atoms. I have just looked it up again on Wiki, and it says what you say.

    So hopefully you can understand why you get so many silly questions ,when researching brings up so many silly answers.

    That is why I am here , to get the facts of people who no the truth from the fiction. I thank you , I am learning.

    Electricity, The laws of motion, gravity, Kinetic energy, These are just the basics I have forgot from my school days as I have had very little need for use.

    It is slowly, but surely though coming back to me, I am remembering the basics as well to a degree. Even my English written language as improved.

    I thank you for your considerable amount of patience.

    Once I get a basic understanding of a subject singularity, I move on to the next. I then return to the start, and then concentrate in depth on that subject singularity

    But also ,I then have, basic knowledge to cross reference if needed.

    I am shocked at myself, I find science quite cool,I was always afraid to show I am smart, I live in a rough area.


    OK, if I was to turn my thoughts into a test, how would I go about it?.


    I have considered two vehicles equal mass,size,weight.

    One vehicle as the complete back end of the vehicle made of something conductive.

    And then run a crash test at the same speeds.

    And then compare the differences.

    If I was right, the conclusion would be less damage to the vehicle with the conductive back half.


    Would this work?, can we attract Electrons that way, or would only hard water work to attract Electrons?.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  67. #66  
    Brassica oleracea Strange's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    喫茶店
    Posts
    17,036
    Quote Originally Posted by theorist View Post
    I have considered two vehicles equal mass,size,weight.

    One vehicle as the complete back end of the vehicle made of something conductive.

    And then run a crash test at the same speeds.

    And then compare the differences.

    If I was right, the conclusion would be less damage to the vehicle with the conductive back half.
    There will be absolutely no difference in the two cases. (*)

    Would this work?, can we attract Electrons that way, or would only hard water work to attract Electrons?.
    It would not attract electrons. And what has hard water got to do with it?!?!?

    EDIT:
    (*) And the fact you think there would be shows how little you understand about what you have read.

    Hard water? Hard?? Water?? WTF.
    Last edited by Strange; February 7th, 2013 at 07:53 AM.
    ei incumbit probatio qui dicit, non qui negat
    Reply With Quote  
     

  68. #67  
    Life-Size Nanoputian Flick Montana's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    Location
    Flatland
    Posts
    5,438
    Quote Originally Posted by theorist View Post
    Yes I understand that, I have looked up Kinetic energy again
    This right here is the problem.

    You will never (unless you're an absolute genius) understand even the rudimentary laws of physics or quantum mechanics by 'looking it up'.

    I spent years in college taking mathematics, physics, chemistry, etc and I STILL don't understand quantum mechanics beyond what is actually a basic level. Now, our definitions of basic might be a tad different, but that's another issue.

    You need to stop trying to be a Google Scholar and either get serious about learning the material or stop telling yourself you know what you're talking about.
    "Sometimes I think the surest sign that intelligent life exists elsewhere in the universe is that none of it has tried to contact us." -Calvin
    Reply With Quote  
     

  69. #68  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Posts
    1,525
    Quote Originally Posted by Strange View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by theorist View Post
    I have considered two vehicles equal mass,size,weight.

    One vehicle as the complete back end of the vehicle made of something conductive.

    And then run a crash test at the same speeds.

    And then compare the differences.

    If I was right, the conclusion would be less damage to the vehicle with the conductive back half.
    There will be absolutely no difference in the two cases. (*)

    Would this work?, can we attract Electrons that way, or would only hard water work to attract Electrons?.
    It would not attract electrons. And what has hard water got to do with it?!?!?

    EDIT:
    (*) And the fact you think there would be shows how little you understand about what you have read.

    Hard water? Hard?? Water?? WTF.
    Hard water , I do apologize I got my words crossed again, I meant heavy water as a medium to start the fusion to excite the Atoms.

    And thank you for confirming my practical test would be pointless.


    I than you too Flick, and I do see your concerns. I understand that it will take years to learn the maths and the technical names for each aspect.

    As for the understanding though of Quantum mechanics, it is not to hard to visualize an Atom, Molecule, Electron and the process of how it works to create a Molecule and mass.
    Or even the process of an Atomic bomb or a Nuclear reactor is not that hard to understand. Remembering all the different names such as Wave particle duality e.t.c,
    is a completely different task than to visualize the fundamentals.


    This forum is missing a beginners section to ask elementary questions, or do you just ask in the appropriate section, like Physics or the Cosmos?.

    Either way , where do you suggest I start?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  70. #69  
    Life-Size Nanoputian Flick Montana's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    Location
    Flatland
    Posts
    5,438
    Quote Originally Posted by theorist View Post
    As for the understanding though of Quantum mechanics, it is not to hard to visualize an Atom, Molecule, Electron and the process of how it works to create a Molecule and mass.
    Or even the process of an Atomic bomb or a Nuclear reactor is not that hard to understand. Remembering all the different names such as Wave particle duality e.t.c,
    is a completely different task than to visualize the fundamentals.
    You're suggesting it is easy to do something that you have thus far shown yourself incapable of doing.

    You're also seriously suggesting to me that it is easier to understand and visualize the molecular geometry associated with, say, pi bonding orbitals in a chair conformation of a benzene ring molecule than it is to remember the words "wave particle duality"?

    If that's the case, I can brush you up on your vocab and you can teach my organic chem II recitation. Not once have I had a student ask me a vocab question.

    If you want to get a serious start understanding sciences from a professional point of view, you will HAVE to take classes and get a degree. Nothing short of years of study and practice will get you that level of understanding. If you want a casual understanding and you're REALLY smart, you can probably get what you need from text books or even journal articles (provided you understand the vocabulary).
    "Sometimes I think the surest sign that intelligent life exists elsewhere in the universe is that none of it has tried to contact us." -Calvin
    Reply With Quote  
     

  71. #70  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Posts
    1,525
    Quote Originally Posted by Flick Montana View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by theorist View Post
    As for the understanding though of Quantum mechanics, it is not to hard to visualize an Atom, Molecule, Electron and the process of how it works to create a Molecule and mass.
    Or even the process of an Atomic bomb or a Nuclear reactor is not that hard to understand. Remembering all the different names such as Wave particle duality e.t.c,
    is a completely different task than to visualize the fundamentals.
    You're suggesting it is easy to do something that you have thus far shown yourself incapable of doing.

    You're also seriously suggesting to me that it is easier to understand and visualize the molecular geometry associated with, say, pi bonding orbitals in a chair conformation of a benzene ring molecule than it is to remember the words "wave particle duality"?

    If that's the case, I can brush you up on your vocab and you can teach my organic chem II recitation. Not once have I had a student ask me a vocab question.

    If you want to get a serious start understanding sciences from a professional point of view, you will HAVE to take classes and get a degree. Nothing short of years of study and practice will get you that level of understanding. If you want a casual understanding and you're REALLY smart, you can probably get what you need from text books or even journal articles (provided you understand the vocabulary).

    You are correct, pi bonding orbitals in a chair conformation , is a tough sentence to remember. I am amazed how the Hydrogen Atom joins the Carbon Atom at each leg of the tripod.

    Benzene synthesis, is this a fuel substitute?.

    I may go over to the chemistry forum and ask a few questions.

    Thank you for mentioning it , very interesting.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  72. #71  
    Brassica oleracea Strange's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    喫茶店
    Posts
    17,036
    Quote Originally Posted by theorist View Post
    I may go over to the chemistry forum and ask a few questions.
    I will warn them that you are coming.
    ei incumbit probatio qui dicit, non qui negat
    Reply With Quote  
     

  73. #72  
    Moderator Moderator Markus Hanke's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Location
    Ireland
    Posts
    7,302
    I mean, in relation to the Proton, the Electron moves to the accelerated direction.
    The electron does not accelerate in any direction. If it did it would continuously emit electromagnetic radiation without first being excited, thus loosing energy, leading to atoms being unstable. That is not what we observe.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  74. #73  
    Quagma SpeedFreek's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Location
    London, UK
    Posts
    2,787
    Why do nutters think they can work out established science in their own terms, and why do they want to try to explain it in their own way to people who actually understand it properly?

    Utterly pointless.

    GET THEE TO A LIBRARY.
    Markus Hanke and Neverfly like this.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  75. #74  
    Life-Size Nanoputian Flick Montana's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    Location
    Flatland
    Posts
    5,438
    Quote Originally Posted by theorist View Post
    You are correct, pi bonding orbitals in a chair conformation , is a tough sentence to remember. I am amazed how the Hydrogen Atom joins the Carbon Atom at each leg of the tripod.
    Carbon-Hydrogen bonds, one of the most common fundamentals of organic chemistry is what you find interesting about chair conformations? Not how different substituents affect molecular shape? Nothing about atoms rotating along their bonds? Just...CH?

    This is why I think you're more interested in sounding smart than being smart.

    Quote Originally Posted by theorist View Post
    Benzene synthesis, is this a fuel substitute?.

    I may go over to the chemistry forum and ask a few questions.

    Thank you for mentioning it , very interesting.
    I never said benzene synthesis or mentioned fuels. I was just pointing out something very common and mundane in organic chem that you have yet again shown you don't really understand.

    Rather than spamming this forum with vocabulary mish-mash and wildly off-the-mark questions (especially in the chem section where I lurk frequently), you need to put the effort in to learn this stuff. Thousands of questions will accomplish nothing. You can't build a house by asking a contractor how to do it as you go. You have to learn everything before you get started.

    I can recommend some good textbook publishers if you'd like, but I'm just about spent when it comes to these pointless conversations.
    "Sometimes I think the surest sign that intelligent life exists elsewhere in the universe is that none of it has tried to contact us." -Calvin
    Reply With Quote  
     

  76. #75  
    Forum Ph.D.
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Posts
    904
    i don't know, but that was funny to me.

    Yes you can stand still and play a guitar, but there is still movement on the strings. A piece of wood vibrates because it is been hit by a wave for example, sound wave or even a shock wave, the force of a hammer, you can feel the vibration on a plank of wood at the other end, away from where the shock of the hammer is hitting it.

    You say vibration depends on the stiffness, that is not thinking deep enough. It depends on the density of Molecules.

    The vibrational modes of a string attached at both ends depend only on the tension F of the string and its linear mass density . The vibration is then described by the wave equation

    Also your maths I can not understand, I do not know that type of maths.
    Reply With Quote  
     

Similar Threads

  1. Non-stop engine
    By thinh123 in forum Pseudoscience
    Replies: 17
    Last Post: January 12th, 2013, 09:13 PM
  2. why our body vibrate on a good piece of Music?
    By precious in forum Biology
    Replies: 11
    Last Post: November 18th, 2011, 05:10 PM
  3. Where does the orbiting stop?
    By Joe L. Ogan in forum Astronomy & Cosmology
    Replies: 5
    Last Post: November 29th, 2009, 04:40 PM
  4. does an egg cell need to vibrate?
    By 3s in forum Biology
    Replies: 3
    Last Post: April 2nd, 2009, 11:09 AM
  5. Concentration of atoms in space
    By Rasti in forum Astronomy & Cosmology
    Replies: 9
    Last Post: November 13th, 2007, 08:19 AM
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
  •