3-D space accrues as entropy accrues ( net net ).

Well Jeff Since entrophy is a measurement in the disorder of a system I
think in my mind in the end leaves its overal appearance still intact??
My electron spin theory tells that the electron never changes its spin
rate.(its apearance never changes) No entropy needed.here Go figure Bert

On Jun 26, 1:49*pm, (G=EMC^2 Glazier) wrote:
Well Jeff Since entrophy is a measurement in the disorder of a system I
think in my mind in the end leaves its overal appearance still intact??
My electron spin theory tells that the electron never changes its spin
rate.(its apearance never changes) No entropy needed.here Go figure Bert


But electrons absorb and emit photons. So what is going on with
that? This means they must change slightly in mass. Because Einstein
said that when a photon goes from one object to another, inertia is
transfered. Yet the electron maintains a mass that is always
aproximately 1/1836 of the weight iof the proton. Why? What is the
process that maintains the electon's mass in this tight range?

Double-A

On Jun 27, 11:42*am, Double-A wrote:

But electrons absorb and emit photons. *So what is going on with
that? *This means they must change slightly in mass. *Because Einstein
said that when a photon goes from one object to another, inertia is
transfered. *Yet the electron maintains a mass that is always
aproximately 1/1836 of the weight iof the proton. *Why? *What is the
process that maintains the electon's mass in this tight range?

Concise discussion here -
http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/bohr.html

"oldcoot" wrote in message...
...
On Jun 27, 11:42 am, Double-A wrote:

But electrons absorb and emit photons. So what is going on with
that? This means they must change slightly in mass. Because Einstein
said that when a photon goes from one object to another, inertia is
transfered. Yet the electron maintains a mass that is always
aproximately 1/1836 of the weight iof the proton. Why? What is the
process that maintains the electon's mass in this tight range?

Concise discussion here -
http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/bohr.html

I *knew* i always liked that Niels Bohr guy...

"2. The Bohr model treats the electron as if it were a
miniature planet, with definite radius and momentum.
This is in direct violation of the uncertainty principle
which dictates that position and momentum cannot be
simultaneously determined."

Anybody who is in direct violation of the UP is a friend of
mine!

happy days and...
starry starry nights!

--
Indelibly yours,
Paine Ellsworth

P.S.: Thank YOU for reading!

P.P.S.: http://painellsworth.net

Painius sed,

Anybody who is in direct violation of the
UP is a friend of mine!

The U.P. is certainly valid within the context Heisenberg first laid it
out. Likewise, quantization of light `at low levels` was å valid
interpretation of the photoelectric effect. But "uncertainty" has been
lifted entirely out of the original context to become a catch-all kludge
just as 'flying photons' have become the catch-all to describe
propagation of all forms of EM radiation through the "void". And at a
fixed velocity no less.
Your objection is to the kludged form of "uncertainty"
and rightly so.

oc Uncertainty is the heart of QM. A free neutron decays on average in
10 minutes,and yet we have neutrons still with us from the BB Go
figure Bert

"oldcoot" wrote in message...
...
Painius sed,

Anybody who is in direct violation of the
UP is a friend of mine!

The U.P. is certainly valid within the context Heisenberg first laid it
out. Likewise, quantization of light `at low levels` was å valid
interpretation of the photoelectric effect. But "uncertainty" has been
lifted entirely out of the original context to become a catch-all kludge
just as 'flying photons' have become the catch-all to describe
propagation of all forms of EM radiation through the "void". And at a
fixed velocity no less.
Your objection is to the kludged form of "uncertainty"
and rightly so.

Essentially true because there is unquestionable
validity to the basic concept of uncertainty. However,
i've never really liked how it became a "principle"
overnight. It's another example of how when science
cannot explain something, they call it a "natural law"
or principle and then quit thinking about it. As in how
"natural" it is for the speed of light en vacuo to be a
certain fixed cm/s.

So they no longer have to question or think about why
light goes that fast, why no faster, why no slower. It
just does so "naturally" because it's a "constant of
Nature".

gag/hurl

happy days and...
starry starry nights!

--
Indelibly yours,
Paine Ellsworth

P.S.: Thank YOU for reading!

P.P.S.: http://painellsworth.net

Double-A Your post is describing one of natures most common balancing
acts. Bert