On Jan 2, 5:43*am, "
wrote:
On Jan 1, 9:04*pm, Randy Poe wrote:

On Jan 1, 8:18 pm, BURT wrote:

What is repulsing protons and electrons?

They behave as if they are the same charge.

They attract, which is why an electron is BOUND to
an atom and why it takes energy to free it.

* * * * * * * *- Randy

Maybe it's not attraction.

Perhaps unlike charges repel each other just half as much
as much as like charges repel each other.

For more on the topic, see:
Emission-Absorption-Scattering Sub-quantum Electrodynamics.http://www.datasync.com/~rsf1/eas.htm

Bob fritzius

-----------------
but you didnt explain how
'push forces' cause the gravitation **attraction**

Y.Porat
-----------------------------

"BURT" wrote in message ...
On Jan 1, 7:04 pm, Randy Poe wrote:
On Jan 1, 8:18 pm, BURT wrote:

What is repulsing protons and electrons?

They behave as if they are the same charge.

They attract, which is why an electron is BOUND to
an atom and why it takes energy to free it.

- Randy

What repulsion is keeping it at a distance?

Gravitational attraction between earth and the moon ought to bring them together
What repulsion is keeping the moon at a distance from the earth?

Dirk Vdm

"insignificant" wrote in message ...

"BURT" wrote in message
...
What is repulsing protons and electrons?

They behave as if they are the same charge.

In your case , the repulsing element is your un-ending
blasting of questions or statements to this group that are of no use to
anyone who knows the answers.

You might just as well ask "What is repulsing me, ),
from the rest of the group?"

Good one :-)

Dirk Vdm

On Jan 2, 1:46 am, malibu wrote:
On Jan 1, 11:30 pm, Agent Smith agent-sm...@two-blocks-on-your-



left.com wrote:
" wrote :

On Jan 1, 9:04 pm, Randy Poe wrote:
On Jan 1, 8:18 pm, BURT wrote:

What is repulsing protons and electrons?

They behave as if they are the same charge.

They attract, which is why an electron is BOUND to
an atom and why it takes energy to free it.

- Randy

Maybe it's not attraction.

Perhaps unlike charges repel each other just half as much
as much as like charges repel each other.

You have to solve the Schroedinger equation in the 1/r potential to see
the answer. It's because the electron's de Broglie wavelength is much
much greater than the proton's de Broglie wavelength, so the two don't
'touch.' It's one of those things where the probabilistic nature of QM
makes our classical intuition unreliable, and applying the logic of
'billiard ball' particles gives the wrong answer. If you can't solve
differential equations, you can't understand.

That is so much hooey bull****.

If you can't explain it to a 10 year-old, you
don't know it.

"I don't understand it, so it must not be true".

Fortunately for science, that isn't how the scientific method
actually works. We don't have people lining up to ask
you whether you understand a theory before it can
be approved.

The above is the actual explanation. The stable states
of a bound electron are clouds around the nucleus,
as predicted by quantum mechanics.

- Randy

"Randy Poe" wrote in message
...
: On Jan 2, 1:46 am, malibu wrote:
: On Jan 1, 11:30 pm, Agent Smith agent-sm...@two-blocks-on-your-
:
:
:
: left.com wrote:
: " wrote
:
:
: On Jan 1, 9:04 pm, Randy Poe wrote:
: On Jan 1, 8:18 pm, BURT wrote:
:
: What is repulsing protons and electrons?
:
: They behave as if they are the same charge.
:
: They attract, which is why an electron is BOUND to
: an atom and why it takes energy to free it.
:
: - Randy
:
: Maybe it's not attraction.
:
: Perhaps unlike charges repel each other just half as much
: as much as like charges repel each other.
:
: You have to solve the Schroedinger equation in the 1/r potential to
see
: the answer. It's because the electron's de Broglie wavelength is much
: much greater than the proton's de Broglie wavelength, so the two don't
: 'touch.' It's one of those things where the probabilistic nature of
QM
: makes our classical intuition unreliable, and applying the logic of
: 'billiard ball' particles gives the wrong answer. If you can't solve
: differential equations, you can't understand.
:
: That is so much hooey bull****.
:
: If you can't explain it to a 10 year-old, you
: don't know it.
:
: "I don't understand it, so it must not be true".
:

What is it you don't understand about Catch 22, Poe?

Catch 22:
http://www.fourmilab.ch/etexts/einst...ures/img22.gif
http://www.fourmilab.ch/etexts/einst...ures/img76.gif


Heller wrote: "There was only one catch and that was Catch 22, which
specified that a concern for one's safety in the face of dangers that were
real and immediate was the process of a rational mind.
"Orr (a character in the novel) was crazy and could be grounded. All he had
to do was ask, and as soon as he did, he would no longer be crazy and would
have to fly more missions.

"Orr would be crazy to fly more missions and sane if he didn't, but if he
was sane he had to fly them. If he flew them he was crazy and didn't have
to; but if he didn't want to he was sane and had to."

In Einstein's case if you use c+v you can derive c = (c+v)/(1+v/c) from
the cuckoo malformations he blamed on Lorentz. That says you can't
use c+v.

Troll kooks such as

Uncle Schwartzschit,
Blind Poe,
Moron McCullough,
Humpty Roberts,
Phuckwit Duck Draper,
Sad and Lonely sal Lawrence,
Tusseladd ASSistant professor Andersen,
Shrine to Spirits Nieminen,
Ghost ewill,
Goosey Gisse,
****** Olson,
Minor Crank Tom & Jeery,
Fecal Jekyll,
Dork Van de merde et. al.
fail to realise is the existence of isomorphism

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

between Sagnac's real experiment and Einstein's hallucination experiment,
shown he
http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonde...oSpeedRack.gif

Einstein sends light along the rack and back again, the rack
moving at velocity v in his pipe dream.

Sagnac sends the light around the gear wheel for real.
If you analyse one you should get the same result as the other, but
you cannot use SR to derive SR, that is petitio principii, circularity.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Begging_the_question

c+v is essential to the derivation of the cuckoo malformations, the
part where Einstein screws up is:
'we establish by definition that the "time" required by
light to travel from A to B equals the "time" it requires
to travel from B to A' because I SAY SO. -- Rabbi Albert Einstein

What he is claiming is that his "definition" is true for all frames of
reference. The absurdity that the velocity of light is the same
in all frames of reference is a consequence of that claim.


http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonde...rt/tAB=tBA.gif

Here are some mathematical proofs:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mathematical_proof

Not included are
Proof by "because I say so",
Proof by "everybody knows",
Proof by "it is written",
the three most popular forms used in sci.physics.relativity.

You'll often see this pathetic mob muttering "Lorentz Transformations"
but they haven't a clue how they are derived and faithfully follow their
indoctrination like lemmings.

Catch 22:
http://www.fourmilab.ch/etexts/einst...ures/img22.gif
http://www.fourmilab.ch/etexts/einst...ures/img76.gif

Prediction:
The troll kooks will ignore it, they are too stooopid to understand a
proof.

RULES OF REASONING IN PHILOSOPHY.

RULE I.
We are to admit no more causes of natural things than such as are both true
and sufficient to explain their appearances.

To this purpose the philosophers say that Nature does nothing in vain,
and more is in vain when less will serve; for Nature is pleased with
simplicity,
and affects not the pomp of superfluous causes.

-- Sir Isaac Newton

On Jan 1, 7:18*pm, BURT wrote:
What is repulsing protons and electrons?

They behave as if they are the same charge.

What is repulsing the Moon from the Earth? The Moon just floats above
the Earth as though it were antimatter that stays up rather than
falling down to the Earth.

PD

"PD" wrote in message ...
On Jan 1, 7:18 pm, BURT wrote:
What is repulsing protons and electrons?

They behave as if they are the same charge.

What is repulsing the Moon from the Earth? The Moon just floats above
the Earth as though it were antimatter that stays up rather than
falling down to the Earth.

Hey, that was *my* line ;-)

Cheers and a prosperous 2008!
Dirk Vdm

On Jan 2, 2:27*pm, "Dirk Van de moortel" dirkvandemoor...@ThankS-NO-
SperM.hotmail.com wrote:
"PD" wrote in ...
On Jan 1, 7:18 pm, BURT wrote:
What is repulsing protons and electrons?

They behave as if they are the same charge.

What is repulsing the Moon from the Earth? The Moon just floats above
the Earth as though it were antimatter that stays up rather than
falling down to the Earth.

Hey, that was *my* line ;-)

Cheers and a prosperous 2008!
Dirk Vdm

So it was! I defer to your promptness in your wit!

PD

malibu wrote in
:

On Jan 1, 11:30 pm, Agent Smith agent-sm...@two-blocks-on-your-
left.com wrote:
" wrote
innews:66a30c30-9105-40f1-bc93-422f0d953ca8
@t1g2000pra.googlegroups.co
m:



On Jan 1, 9:04 pm, Randy Poe wrote:
On Jan 1, 8:18 pm, BURT wrote:

What is repulsing protons and electrons?

They behave as if they are the same charge.

They attract, which is why an electron is BOUND to
an atom and why it takes energy to free it.

- Randy

Maybe it's not attraction.

Perhaps unlike charges repel each other just half as much
as much as like charges repel each other.

You have to solve the Schroedinger equation in the 1/r potential to
see the answer. It's because the electron's de Broglie wavelength is
much much greater than the proton's de Broglie wavelength, so the two
don't 'touch.' It's one of those things where the probabilistic
nature of QM makes our classical intuition unreliable, and applying
the logic of 'billiard ball' particles gives the wrong answer. If
you can't solve differential equations, you can't understand.


That is so much hooey bull****.

If you can't explain it to a 10 year-old, you
don't know it.

If you don't have a conceptual model, you are
in Quite Mad land.

Here, I'll answer- a virtual particle is
a negative charge perfectly lying in the same place with and
cancelling a positive charge. When this virtual particle
encounters a rapidly-spinning part of space, it gives
both the negative and positive charge the same spin.
Since spinning charges create magnetic fields, and
two different charges spinning the same way create
opposite fields, the charges separate and
are held at a distance by their opposite magnetism.
But their electrical attraction still holds them together at that
distance.

You've obviously never taken a physics class. Faraday's Law can't be
explained to a ten year old, and yet we see it work every time we turn
on an electric circuit.

On Jan 3, 4:56 am, Agent Smith agent-sm...@two-blocks-on-your-
left.com wrote:
malibu wrote :

On Jan 1, 11:30 pm, Agent Smith agent-sm...@two-blocks-on-your-
left.com wrote:
" wrote
innews:66a30c30-9105-40f1-bc93-422f0d953ca8

@t1g2000pra.googlegroups.co



m:

On Jan 1, 9:04 pm, Randy Poe wrote:
On Jan 1, 8:18 pm, BURT wrote:

What is repulsing protons and electrons?

They behave as if they are the same charge.

They attract, which is why an electron is BOUND to
an atom and why it takes energy to free it.

- Randy

Maybe it's not attraction.

Perhaps unlike charges repel each other just half as much
as much as like charges repel each other.

You have to solve the Schroedinger equation in the 1/r potential to
see the answer. It's because the electron's de Broglie wavelength is
much much greater than the proton's de Broglie wavelength, so the two
don't 'touch.' It's one of those things where the probabilistic
nature of QM makes our classical intuition unreliable, and applying
the logic of 'billiard ball' particles gives the wrong answer. If
you can't solve differential equations, you can't understand.

That is so much hooey bull****.

If you can't explain it to a 10 year-old, you
don't know it.

If you don't have a conceptual model, you are
in Quite Mad land.

Here, I'll answer- a virtual particle is
a negative charge perfectly lying in the same place with and
cancelling a positive charge. When this virtual particle
encounters a rapidly-spinning part of space, it gives
both the negative and positive charge the same spin.
Since spinning charges create magnetic fields, and
two different charges spinning the same way create
opposite fields, the charges separate and
are held at a distance by their opposite magnetism.
But their electrical attraction still holds them together at that
distance.

You've obviously never taken a physics class. Faraday's Law can't be
explained to a ten year old, and yet we see it work every time we turn
on an electric circuit.

I took as many as I could take.

I think my 10 year old could grasp that electricity and
magnetism are inter-related. What I was saying is that
QM offers no physical model for these things.

Smoke and mirrors of the mathematics kind is
all you get.

"When you understand these differential equations,
Billy, you will be able to snatch the....".....wait a minute-
you won't be able to do anything!

John