Re: Surviving Einstein.

From: AE (hidden_at_nospam.com)
Date: 07/15/03 

Date: Tue, 15 Jul 2003 10:50:40 +0200

Stonelock wrote:
> AE <nospam@hidden.com> wrote in message news:<3F0E5969.2050900@hidden.com>...
>
>>Stonelock wrote:
>>
>>>AE <nospam@hidden.com> wrote in message news:<3F0D0D25.9010303@hidden.com>...
>>>
>>>>But you can measure the fact the electron shields the positive charge of
>>>>the proton.
>>>>
>>>>Try to describe this effect with an electron behaving like a particle
>>>>and you'll see it doesn't work.
>>>
>>>And why the hell not? The electron revolves around the proton at
>>>speeds near 20 000 km/s, i think this qualifies as efficient
>>>shielding, even when considering the electron as a particle, which it
>>>is.
>>
>>Two reasons:
>>
>>1) An electron on an orbit would shield the proton only on the plain
>>described by the orbit. When looking from "above" or "below" at the atom
>>the shielding would not exist the way it does.
>
>
> Not at all as the orbit is of course not static.

I didn't claim the orbit would be static.

Try to calculate the electric field of your atom at any single time and
you'll see it is impossible to find an orbit - static or not - that
shields the proton charge at any time in any direction.

This means an electron behaving the way you are claiming would cause an
effect on other atoms that could be measured.

> ...
>>2) The orbiting electron would be once in front of the proton and once
>>behind it. This way a changing charge would be visible which is
>>equivalent to emission of an electromagnetic wave (exactly what an
>>antenna does)
>
> no, no, NO! According to the current model it would be!!!

What is your "current model"?

> There is no emission of any kind involved. And this is what seems to
> be structurally similar to the considered event.
> ...

Exactly this: The non-existance of electromagnetic waves - shows that
the particle-model cannot be right.

What you are trying to do is nothing than telling the model of
electromagnetism described by Maxwell who found a model that unified the
until-then existing separate models of electricity and magnetism would
be wrong while you are unable to provide a better one.

Sorry, but how could anybody take serious what you are claiming as long
as you are just denying the existing models that are providing a well
working way to predict events while providing us with claims that are
not useful to predict anything?

AE

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Video of cubic atomic model explains all
    ... >> Classically, if an electron were in orbit around a proton, it should ... >> radiate energy and fall into the proton. ... Can you explain why tritium (six of your little cubes) is chemically ...
    (sci.physics)
  • Re: Question about protons and electrons
    ... universe is made up of ONE proton and ONE electron. ... decreases then orbit decays. ... the lowest energy state there is for that electron. ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)
  • Re: Question about protons and electrons
    ... universe is made up of ONE proton and ONE electron. ... decreases then orbit decays. ... - Electrons don't decay in orbit for the same reason that the moon ... There's nothing in the way of the moon (or electron) to ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)
  • Re: what is the relation between force and energy?
    ... >> circular motion involves no work to be performed. ... For establishing a stable electrostatic or gravitational orbit, ... can occur in a system without energy expenditure. ... >> presence of an energy level twice that required to ionize the electron ...
    (sci.physics)
  • Re: Debunking Ken Seto in progress....
    ... the direction of the orbit of the electron is the same ... >> It is noteworthy that inside the ground state orbit the electron ... >> The above diagram explains why an atom produces sharp spectrum. ...
    (sci.physics.particle)
Quantcast