On Tue, 1 Jan 2008 22:46:44 -0800 (PST), malibu
wrote:

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

This is so true. To answer the original poster's question:

What is repulsing protons and electrons?

Nothing, IMO. As the electrons in an atom oscillate back and forth,
they go right through the nucleus. These oscilations are responsible
for the charateristic EM spectrum of the atom. The traditional
orbiting model of the atom is hogwash, IMO.

They behave as if they are the same charge.

Actually no. If they had the same charge, they would not stay together
at all. The more interesting question is, how do protons stay together
in the nucleus?

Louis Savain

Why Software Is Bad and What We Can Do to Fix It:
http://www.rebelscience.org/Cosas/Reliability.htm

On Jan 3, 10:19 am, Traveler wrote:
On Tue, 1 Jan 2008 22:46:44 -0800 (PST), malibu

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

This is so true. To answer the original poster's question:

What is repulsing protons and electrons?

Nothing, IMO. As the electrons in an atom oscillate back and forth,
they go right through the nucleus. These oscilations are responsible
for the charateristic EM spectrum of the atom. The traditional
orbiting model of the atom is hogwash, IMO.

Of course, in your model, the hydrogen atom would radiate all the
time, while the electron oscillates back and forth. This would quickly
run into a problem with energy conservation, but never mind.

What would you say about that, Louis?

[wait for it... wait for it... ]


They behave as if they are the same charge.

Actually no. If they had the same charge, they would not stay together
at all. The more interesting question is, how do protons stay together
in the nucleus?


Congratulations, Louis, you've uncovered the strong nuclear force,
about 110 years after Rutherford asked the same interesting question.
If you keep this up, you'll be caught up somewhere around the summer
of 2478.

On Thu, 3 Jan 2008 10:39:01 -0800 (PST), PD
wrote:

On Jan 3, 10:19 am, Traveler wrote:
On Tue, 1 Jan 2008 22:46:44 -0800 (PST), malibu

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

This is so true. To answer the original poster's question:

What is repulsing protons and electrons?

Nothing, IMO. As the electrons in an atom oscillate back and forth,
they go right through the nucleus. These oscilations are responsible
for the charateristic EM spectrum of the atom. The traditional
orbiting model of the atom is hogwash, IMO.

Of course, in your model, the hydrogen atom would radiate all the
time, while the electron oscillates back and forth. This would quickly
run into a problem with energy conservation, but never mind.

What would you say about that, Louis?

[wait for it... wait for it... ]

ahahaha... Normally, I would just ridicule your nonsense but, I got to
admit that this time you actually said something intelligent worthy of
a reply. ahahaha... Conventional physics "solves" the energy
conservation problem by appealing to voodoo physics, i.e., to
non-energetic virtual photons. Why? Because they don't have a clue.
Why don't they have a clue? Because they are dishonest and gutless ass
kissers, that's why. ahahaha...

They cannot bring themselves (Paul Dirac was the main exception and
they ignored his suggestions) to admit that we move around in a sea of
energy. If they did, they would be placing themselves against the
edicts of Emepror Einstein who insisted that there's nothing out there
but empty space that can nevertheless curve. ahahaha... What a joke!

To answer your question, the energy comes from a multi-dimensional
highly energetic lattice of real photons in which we move. This
lattice is responsible for the so-called "self-energy" of the electron
(the electrostatic field) and the magnetic field. It is also
indirectly responsible for gravity but that's different story.
However, more than anything else, the lattice is the causal energy
that keeps moving objects in motion. Without it, nothing would move.
But I'm sure that will go over your head, PD. Pfffft!! ahahaha...

They behave as if they are the same charge.

Actually no. If they had the same charge, they would not stay together
at all. The more interesting question is, how do protons stay together
in the nucleus?


Congratulations, Louis, you've uncovered the strong nuclear force,
about 110 years after Rutherford asked the same interesting question.
If you keep this up, you'll be caught up somewhere around the summer
of 2478.

You dingleberry you. ahahaha... Saying that it's due to the nuclear
force no more explains it than saying that gravity is due to the
gravitational force explains gravity. Stop kissing ass, PD. ahahaha...
AHAHAHA... ahahaha...

Louis Savain

Rebel Science News:
http://rebelscience.blogspot.com/

On Jan 3, 1:35*pm, Traveler wrote:
On Thu, 3 Jan 2008 10:39:01 -0800 (PST), PD





wrote:
On Jan 3, 10:19 am, Traveler wrote:
On Tue, 1 Jan 2008 22:46:44 -0800 (PST), malibu

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

This is so true. To answer the original poster's question:

What is repulsing protons and electrons?

Nothing, IMO. As the electrons in an atom oscillate back and forth,
they go right through the nucleus. These oscilations are responsible
for the charateristic EM spectrum of the atom. The traditional
orbiting model of the atom is hogwash, IMO.

Of course, in your model, the hydrogen atom would radiate all the
time, while the electron oscillates back and forth. This would quickly
run into a problem with energy conservation, but never mind.

What would you say about that, Louis?

[wait for it... * wait for it... * ]

ahahaha... Normally, I would just ridicule your nonsense but, I got to
admit that this time you actually said something intelligent worthy of
a reply. ahahaha... Conventional physics "solves" the energy
conservation problem by appealing to voodoo physics, i.e., to
non-energetic virtual photons. Why? Because they don't have a clue.
Why don't they have a clue? Because they are dishonest and gutless ass
kissers, that's why. ahahaha...

They cannot bring themselves (Paul Dirac was the main exception and
they ignored his suggestions) to admit that we move around in a sea of
energy. If they did, they would be placing themselves against the
edicts of Emepror Einstein who insisted that there's nothing out there
but empty space that can nevertheless curve. ahahaha... What a joke!

To answer your question, the energy comes from a multi-dimensional
highly energetic lattice of real photons in which we move. This
lattice is responsible for the so-called "self-energy" of the electron
(the electrostatic field) and the magnetic field. It is also
indirectly responsible for gravity but that's different story.
However, more than anything else, the lattice is the causal energy
that keeps moving objects in motion. Without it, nothing would move.
But I'm sure that will go over your head, PD. Pfffft!! ahahaha...

So you're saying that 1) energy is NOT conserved, and that 2) hydrogen
atoms radiate continually, because the electrons are oscillating
continually. Right? I just wanted to be sure I've got this down right,
because those seem like very testable predictions of your description.
Those are things you maintain are the case?


They behave as if they are the same charge.

Actually no. If they had the same charge, they would not stay together
at all. The more interesting question is, how do protons stay together
in the nucleus?

Congratulations, Louis, you've uncovered the strong nuclear force,
about 110 years after Rutherford asked the same interesting question.
If you keep this up, you'll be caught up somewhere around the summer
of 2478.

You dingleberry you. ahahaha... Saying that it's due to the nuclear
force no more explains it than saying that gravity is due to the
gravitational force explains gravity. Stop kissing ass, PD. ahahaha...
AHAHAHA... ahahaha...

Of course it doesn't explain it. Some work has been done in the
intervening 110 years to figure out more about the strong nuclear
force. Oh, and some progress has been made.

On the other hand, for you it appears to still be an "interesting
question" why a multidimensional highly energetic lattice of real
photons would cause protons to stay together in the nucleus,
especially when in other collections, positively charged particle
repel each other vigorously.

Now, if you have an *answer* to why a multidimensional highly
energetic lattice of real photons would cause protons to stay together
in the nucleus, I'd be happy to hear it. Especially useful would be a
calculation of the relative strength of the proton-proton interaction
compared to the proton-electron interaction. What say you to that?

[wait for it.... wait for it.... ]

PD

On Thu, 3 Jan 2008 11:52:53 -0800 (PST), PD
wrote:

On Jan 3, 1:35*pm, Traveler wrote:
On Thu, 3 Jan 2008 10:39:01 -0800 (PST), PD





wrote:
On Jan 3, 10:19 am, Traveler wrote:
On Tue, 1 Jan 2008 22:46:44 -0800 (PST), malibu

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

This is so true. To answer the original poster's question:

What is repulsing protons and electrons?

Nothing, IMO. As the electrons in an atom oscillate back and forth,
they go right through the nucleus. These oscilations are responsible
for the charateristic EM spectrum of the atom. The traditional
orbiting model of the atom is hogwash, IMO.

Of course, in your model, the hydrogen atom would radiate all the
time, while the electron oscillates back and forth. This would quickly
run into a problem with energy conservation, but never mind.

What would you say about that, Louis?

[wait for it... * wait for it... * ]

ahahaha... Normally, I would just ridicule your nonsense but, I got to
admit that this time you actually said something intelligent worthy of
a reply. ahahaha... Conventional physics "solves" the energy
conservation problem by appealing to voodoo physics, i.e., to
non-energetic virtual photons. Why? Because they don't have a clue.
Why don't they have a clue? Because they are dishonest and gutless ass
kissers, that's why. ahahaha...

They cannot bring themselves (Paul Dirac was the main exception and
they ignored his suggestions) to admit that we move around in a sea of
energy. If they did, they would be placing themselves against the
edicts of Emepror Einstein who insisted that there's nothing out there
but empty space that can nevertheless curve. ahahaha... What a joke!

To answer your question, the energy comes from a multi-dimensional
highly energetic lattice of real photons in which we move. This
lattice is responsible for the so-called "self-energy" of the electron
(the electrostatic field) and the magnetic field. It is also
indirectly responsible for gravity but that's different story.
However, more than anything else, the lattice is the causal energy
that keeps moving objects in motion. Without it, nothing would move.
But I'm sure that will go over your head, PD. Pfffft!! ahahaha...

So you're saying that 1) energy is NOT conserved, and that 2) hydrogen
atoms radiate continually, because the electrons are oscillating
continually. Right? I just wanted to be sure I've got this down right,
because those seem like very testable predictions of your description.
Those are things you maintain are the case?

You know, you got a bad ****ing habit of seeing things in my posts
that I never wrote. This is the reason that I usually respond to your
comments with a simple "**** you, PD". ahahaha... So I think I'll
continue my time-honored tradition. **** you, PD. And the mule you
sleep with. ahahaha... AHAHAHA... ahahaha...

[snip the rest of your worthless crap]

ahahaha...

Louis Savain

Rebel Science News:
http://rebelscience.blogspot.com/

"Traveler" wrote in message ...

[snip]

Louis Savain

Rebel Science News:
http://rebelscience.blogspot.com/

Would you mind putting a photograph of yourself on your page?
http://rebelscience.blogspot.com/200...edentials.html
Just curious.

Dirk Vdm

On Thu, 03 Jan 2008 20:26:31 GMT, "Dirk Van de moortel"
wrote:


"Traveler" wrote in message ...

[snip]

Louis Savain

Rebel Science News:
http://rebelscience.blogspot.com/

Would you mind putting a photograph of yourself on your page?
http://rebelscience.blogspot.com/200...edentials.html
Just curious.

Dirk Vdm

ahahaha... You're just looking for a new outlet to satisfy your latent
homosexual urges, eh moortel? Listen here. Come out of the closet,
man. Nobody really cares. I know it makes no difference to me. I will
still continue to call you an ass kisser. ahahaha... It's just that
the expresion would take on a whole new different meaning. ahahaha...
Thanks for the laughs, Van de merde. ahahaha... AHAHAHA... ahahaha...

Louis Savain

Rebel Science News:
http://rebelscience.blogspot.com/

"Traveler" wrote in message ...
On Thu, 03 Jan 2008 20:26:31 GMT, "Dirk Van de moortel"
wrote:


"Traveler" wrote in message ...

[snip]

Louis Savain

Rebel Science News:
http://rebelscience.blogspot.com/

Would you mind putting a photograph of yourself on your page?
http://rebelscience.blogspot.com/200...edentials.html
Just curious.

Dirk Vdm

ahahaha... You're just looking for a new outlet to satisfy your latent
homosexual urges, eh moortel?

No, not really. It's just... whenever I see the head of a real
idiot, I get so overwhelmed with compassion that I back
off for a while.
I mean, just look at your friend Gerald here
http://www.theobarrs.com/pages/glofam/obarr68.htm

Dirk Vdm

On Jan 3, 2:14*pm, Traveler wrote:
On Thu, 3 Jan 2008 11:52:53 -0800 (PST), PD





wrote:
On Jan 3, 1:35*pm, Traveler wrote:
On Thu, 3 Jan 2008 10:39:01 -0800 (PST), PD

wrote:
On Jan 3, 10:19 am, Traveler wrote:
On Tue, 1 Jan 2008 22:46:44 -0800 (PST), malibu

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

This is so true. To answer the original poster's question:

What is repulsing protons and electrons?

Nothing, IMO. As the electrons in an atom oscillate back and forth,
they go right through the nucleus. These oscilations are responsible
for the charateristic EM spectrum of the atom. The traditional
orbiting model of the atom is hogwash, IMO.

Of course, in your model, the hydrogen atom would radiate all the
time, while the electron oscillates back and forth. This would quickly
run into a problem with energy conservation, but never mind.

What would you say about that, Louis?

[wait for it... * wait for it... * ]

ahahaha... Normally, I would just ridicule your nonsense but, I got to
admit that this time you actually said something intelligent worthy of
a reply. ahahaha... Conventional physics "solves" the energy
conservation problem by appealing to voodoo physics, i.e., to
non-energetic virtual photons. Why? Because they don't have a clue.
Why don't they have a clue? Because they are dishonest and gutless ass
kissers, that's why. ahahaha...

They cannot bring themselves (Paul Dirac was the main exception and
they ignored his suggestions) to admit that we move around in a sea of
energy. If they did, they would be placing themselves against the
edicts of Emepror Einstein who insisted that there's nothing out there
but empty space that can nevertheless curve. ahahaha... What a joke!

To answer your question, the energy comes from a multi-dimensional
highly energetic lattice of real photons in which we move. This
lattice is responsible for the so-called "self-energy" of the electron
(the electrostatic field) and the magnetic field. It is also
indirectly responsible for gravity but that's different story.
However, more than anything else, the lattice is the causal energy
that keeps moving objects in motion. Without it, nothing would move.
But I'm sure that will go over your head, PD. Pfffft!! ahahaha...

So you're saying that 1) energy is NOT conserved, and that 2) hydrogen
atoms radiate continually, because the electrons are oscillating
continually. Right? I just wanted to be sure I've got this down right,
because those seem like very testable predictions of your description.
Those are things you maintain are the case?

You know, you got a bad ****ing habit of seeing things in my posts
that I never wrote. This is the reason that I usually respond to your
comments with a simple "**** you, PD". ahahaha... So I think I'll
continue my time-honored tradition. **** you, PD. And the mule you
sleep with. ahahaha... AHAHAHA... ahahaha...

Ah, see, that's what I was waiting for, and like a good Jack-in-the-
box, you are as predictable as a morning ****.

Ask you to follow up with details, and you scamper off like a monkey
with its tail afire.


[snip the rest of your worthless crap]

ahahaha...

Louis Savain

Rebel Science News:http://rebelscience.blogspot.com/

Let's see. Rebels would be those fellas that hid behind trees, take a
random potshot, and then run away, hooting and whooping into the
woods?

PD

On Thu, 03 Jan 2008 21:16:50 GMT, "Dirk Van de moortel"
wrote:


"Traveler" wrote in message ...
On Thu, 03 Jan 2008 20:26:31 GMT, "Dirk Van de moortel"
wrote:


"Traveler" wrote in message ...

[snip]

Louis Savain

Rebel Science News:
http://rebelscience.blogspot.com/

Would you mind putting a photograph of yourself on your page?
http://rebelscience.blogspot.com/200...edentials.html
Just curious.

Dirk Vdm

ahahaha... You're just looking for a new outlet to satisfy your latent
homosexual urges, eh moortel?

No, not really.

ahahaha... You mean yes, of course. One must read between the lines.
ahahaha...

It's just... whenever I see the head of a real
idiot, I get so overwhelmed with compassion that I back
off for a while.

ahahaha... Nah. That's not it. You're a queer, moortel. Admit it.

Louis Savain

Rebel Science News:
http://rebelscience.blogspot.com/