------=_NextPart_000_002B_01BF1BB7.C3B509D0
Content-Type: text/plain;
charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
For any model of the atom there is something that will have to be
demonstrated. How they are physically connected so that animation can
occur.
You are sitting at your computer typing a message. The cat jumps up and
walks on your keyboard. You curse it, swat it off and it lets out a =
squall.
What makes all of those atoms move in synchronization?
Dave Nelson
The following from a another newsgroup is posted as the backdrop to that =
statement/question:
"vcl" <Hans-georgFrohnhoefer@swol.de> wrote in message in response to a =
post by Dave Nelson
news:380e7006@news.swol.de...
>
>
> >What I meant was why is
> >electro-magnetism considered a different force than the nuclear =
forces?
> >Couldn't they be the same, the only difference due to the distance =
from
the
> >core?
>
>
> A lot of physicists believe that all forces can be unified (and the =
three
> forces without gravity have already been "unified" I guess). So in =
some
> sense they may indeed be the same. But on the first view they really =
look
> quite different. There are particles with electric charges that
participate
> in EM-forces. An overlapping but different set of particles has
> "color"-charges and participates in strong interaction. In strong
> interaction you have three charges (& anti-charges) rather than one
electric
> charge(& its negative). The force is transmitted by charged particles
> (gluons, nine different ones, crossrelating the 3 different charges) =
quite
> unlike the neutral photon. And the polarising activity of those =
charged
> particles also seems to explain the strange spatial characteristics of =
the
> strong force, which is restricted to subatomic spaces and rapidly =
falls
off
> beyond that. In fact I find it difficult to see the similarities =
between
> "our" macroscopic forces (gravity and electromagnetism) and this
> intranuclear stuff glowing in three colors, rather than caring much =
about
> orbits, accelleration and movements.
>
>
> >My beloved pre-WW II physics are based upon observation and effects
within
> >our environment, ie, the earth.
>
> Here I feel much the same. If I am interested in gravitation then I =
want
> first to see an explanation of the way I experience gravity (but not
> necessarily a theory about black wholes). Probably it is fruitful for
> physicists to look at extreme situations like e.g. black wholes. For =
us
> normal people it creates additional barriers.
>
> >Grand Unification can only be possible if everything started as one. =
We
> >have a mathematical system predicated on the multiples of one, not =
the
> >fractionalization of one. There are some gaping holes in mathematics
that
> >will make it difficult to quantify and explain reality.
>
> Sounds slightly mystical. Sometimes I wonder whether mathematics =
might be
> hollow, but I do not think there are so many wholes, rather I think
> mathematics is perfect, be it for good or for bad.
>
> >Science is still at a stage comparable to the three blind men =
describing
> the
> >elephant.
>
> Well if they come up with a reasonable theory about elephants, my
> congratulations.
>
>
> >If a protron can not become an electron, then there was no "Big =
Bang".
>
> Something can become a proton and something can become an electron. =
And
> something was there at the Big Bang. Positive and negative charges can
> arise simultaneously from radiation (e.g. electron and positron). And
they
> can also annihilate to become radiation again. In both ways charge is
> conserved over the entire process. The stability of the proton is an =
still
> undesolved question on its own as far as I can see.
>
>
> ..... snip...
> >> >What makes such a dynamic unlikely?
> >>
> >>
> >> (1) Elementary particles do not have a well defined position, they =
have
a
> >> wave-like existence. Just for this reason you cannot glue them =
into a
> >> stable proton-neutron-electron sandwich.
> >> (2) This view does not fit to the
> >positive-nucleus/negative-electronic-shell
> >> configuration of the atom. This modell has some direct experimental
> >support
> >> from scattering experiments, that are independent from the more
> >> sophisticated quantum-theoretical constructs. (If you would ask me
> >> specifically what the evidence is then I would get into trouble, =
but it
> >> seems clear there is a rather heavy and positively charged core,
distinct
> >> from a more spread-out negative surrounding).
> >> (3) Hydrogen does not have neutrons. Therefore the neutron cannot =
be an
> >> essential component of the interaction between proton and electron =
in
an
> >> atom. If you want to explain why the electron does not crush into =
the
> proton
> >> you need a different explanation.
>
> >(1) Can that be an effect of studying something with a resolution =
greater
> >than what is being studied?
>
> The electron has an orbit, or better it has a diffuse cloud which
represents
> its "presence", but without giving a certain position at a certain =
time.
> Thus your notion to not a apply a resolution higher than =
(experimentally
or
> theoretically) applicable lies just at the origin of the delocalised =
wave
> picture.
>
> >(2) That concept of the positive charged core with a surrounding =
negative
> is
> >most intriguing, and deserves a lot more attention. Figure out how
matter
> >can be distributed like that and then follow that road.
>
>
> I do not see what you want to say. Most of the time one has ceased to
think
> about this concept because one has become accustomed to it and takes =
it
for
> granted.
>
> >(3) Isn't free hydrogen, one of those theoretical things that exist =
out
> >there in the cosmos, the only element without neutrons? Can we =
bottle
such
> >a thing for study here?
>
>
> Free hydrogen may be chemically exotic (I do not know what we have in =
the
> sun H or H2?, I guess H), but I do not think this matters much if one
wants
> to have a look at the fundamental atomic design. True, it is the most
simple
> member of a larger series of elements. But it is a principle of =
scientific
> investigation to look into simple cases in order to elucidate the =
minimal
> requirements for a general problem. I do not see why conclusions drawn
from
> Hydrogen should be regarded as pathologically untypical.
>
> hg
>
Dave Nelson wrote:
I wish I understood more of what you said.
I'm a rather simplistic person with simplistic thoughts. I've been a
technician all of my life, so I tend to look at things from a more =
systemic
and mechanical viewpoint. More often than not, I would have to figure =
out
how something worked, and then repair or modify it.
My understanding is that this is a bipolar universe. The physical laws =
we
have established work. Definitely on earth, anyway. They are the =
building
blocks of our knowledge. Until we sent vehicles out into space our view =
and
perceptions of the universe was done through a several mile thick layer =
of
dust, water vapor, various gases, magnetic and electromagnetic fields, =
and
radiation belts, all in motion. Don't forget the occasional airplane.
Until such time that we have an undistorted view of what is really out
there, we must work with what is here. Our various theories on the atom =
are
derived from that one of the electron spinning around the nucleus, which =
may
be fundamentally flawed. In regards to my statement about
> >(2) That concept of the positive charged core with a surrounding
negative
> is
> >most intriguing, and deserves a lot more attention. Figure out =
how
matter
> >can be distributed like that and then follow that road.
your answer
>
> I do not see what you want to say. Most of the time one has ceased =
to
think
> about this concept because one has become accustomed to it and =
takes it
for
> granted.
is indicative of a lot of scientific thought. Things are taken for =
granted
and enlarged upon.
As that model of a positive core with a negative shell was derived on =
this
planet, and this is a bipolar planet, what would that suggest to you
concerning the geometry and nature of matter? Sounds like a bunch of
bubbles bunched together. In definite and large patterns. In definite =
and
large patterns that are even animate. Some of those patterns are even
allegedly capable of abstract reasoning. Extend that model beyond our
planet and you have a universe of bunched bubbles. A universe of =
insides
and outsides. What gives them pattern? What in modern day physics =
would
make that a more likely model than others? Especially since all of this
matter was supposed to have started out as one thing? Quite frankly, =
that
model looks more like a fertilized egg than the random dispersion of =
matter
so many physicists would prefer.
What makes a positive and negative revolving around a neutral less =
likely?
Seems more logical if a single particle suddenly expanded or exploded.
Maybe the glue that held it all together got stretched and the resulting
tension is what positive and negative is all about. That neutral acting =
as
a bearing makes more sense than an orbiting electron's centrifugal force
keeping it from crashing. Due to the density of matter and the constant
bumping into each other's areas, wouldn't negative electron shells that
approached each other with opposing orbits slow down the speed some, =
causing
a valence jump or electron-proton collision? How long would it take a =
bar
of gold to turn into something else with that sort of activity?
There is a logic to the universe. We are part of it. We have that =
logic
within us. All we have to do is start applying it to figure out what it =
is
all about.
Sorry for the rant, and the generalizations.
Dave Nelson
------=_NextPart_000_002B_01BF1BB7.C3B509D0
Content-Type: text/html;
charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN">