|
|
|||||||
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
|
#61
December 22nd 03, 12:56 AM
|
|||
|
|||
Avogrado constants and others
29 electrons, actually. Franz Yes I know Franz, its just that I beat the crap out of them so bad and knew there was no way that they could answer those few simple questions so I thought I might as well allow them to save face. But then they jumped all over me, so f*ck them  Some people seem to believe that electrons and other subatomic particles carry some sort of electric charge. Like magnetism. http://school.discovery.com/lessonpl...ing-magnetism/ Magnetism is caused by the aligning of atoms. Would they have us believe that the atoms within a subatomic particle are causing the subatomic particle to have magnetism? What about them carrying an electric charge. Do they know what electricity is? It is the flow of electrons. So are they suggesting then, that subatomic particles have a flow of electrons between them which is this positive and negative charge? If you listen to Feynman, and I am not making this up, he would tell you that they are tossing pillows to each other. And yes, gravitons - which would conveniently take a supercollider the size of the soilar system to detect - are capable oif throughing them from one part of the univers to the other, from one end to the other, 45 billion light years across, when in fact they also claim the universe is 13.7 billion years old, and gravitons do not exceed the speed of light. But hey, don't use critical thinking, or question the basis for their claims. After all they have nobel prizes and so they must know what they are talking about, even though, they have not truly proven any of this, they have merely agreed to agree and that appears to be sufficient for their needs. Examine the giant collider. Examine the detection process. They are way out there in la la land. But that is just my informed opinion. What is mass? It is not a Higgs Bosun. It is the expansion of the nucleau bubble. It has its own inertia. The propensity to sit there and expand along with the universe. Its own inertia, just like a gyroscope has inertia because it is spinning. What is heat? Energetic black body radiation causing atoms or molecules to get excited when they hit by these waves. What is fire? When the excited atoms reach a point, where the covalent bond breaks and the em waves interact further increasing the interaction and it gives off heat and light. What is magnetism? When atoms align in such a way, that black body radiation flows with less resistance along lines of force, adding together or interfering creating high and low pressure areas in the normal background radiation. -*- 
|
|
#63
December 22nd 03, 02:02 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Avogrado constants and others
Dear Rick Sobie:
"Rick Sobie" wrote in message news:uYqFb.773097$pl3.476950@pd7tw3no... In article lRbFb.23700$gN.13693@fed1read05, says... .... Do you know what fire is? What is up about as high as your ass right now. All your words, your so called explanations, explain nothing at at. They do to an open mind. If I provided links to basic knowledge sources, would you follow them. You seem to have formed opinions prior to exposure to any knowledge source. eg: what is magnetism, charge and length contraction. What is charge? magic. It does not exist. What is it? spooky action at adistance? Some instantaneous magic? It is what keeps gives us structure. It is what causes a bimorph to shange shape. It is what moelcules use as cement. But you were in denial about neutrons. No need to change the subject to charge, because teh neutron has no net charge. You are not even able to see, that the words you are parotting have no underlying meaning whatsover. Pot = Kettle = "black" You see what you are doing is exactly the same. They are just meaningless words, regarding things you have been told to believe exist, and they might as well have told you that fairies are doing it. Sexual orientation is of no interest to me. Do you know what mass is. What isn't conserved when you try to time travel. Do you know how to get to your point? My point is, you have not, and can not, answer any of these questions. You will not accept any answer given, since your entire purpose is to get people to post so you can help construct your spam address book. David A. Smith
|
|
#64
December 22nd 03, 04:16 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Avogrado constants and others
"N:dlzc D:aol T:com (dlzc)" N: dlzc1 D:cox wrote in message news:WgsFb.23789$gN.22134@fed1read05... Dear Rick Sobie: "Rick Sobie" wrote in message news:uYqFb.773097$pl3.476950@pd7tw3no... In article lRbFb.23700$gN.13693@fed1read05, says... ... Do you know what fire is? What is up about as high as your ass right now. All your words, your so called explanations, explain nothing at at. They do to an open mind. If I provided links to basic knowledge sources, would you follow them. You seem to have formed opinions prior to exposure to any knowledge source. eg: what is magnetism, charge and length contraction. What is charge? magic. It does not exist. What is it? spooky action at adistance? Some instantaneous magic? What is Magic? I submit that magic is anything that is advanced beyond the knowledge base of the observer... So yes... to you, magnetism,charge,gravity, and most other well defined aspects of mans knowledgebase is Magic... Like the little box above the door at K-Mart that opens the door when you walk up... that works by FM.... ****in Magic... Snipped
|
|
#65
December 22nd 03, 05:14 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Avogrado constants and others
....
Do you know what fire is? What is up about as high as your ass right now. All your words, your so called explanations, explain nothing at at. They do to an open mind. If I provided links to basic knowledge sources, would you follow them. You seem to have formed opinions prior to exposure to any knowledge source. eg: what is magnetism, charge and length contraction. What is charge? magic. It does not exist. What is it? spooky action at adistance? Some instantaneous magic? It is what keeps gives us structure. It is what causes a bimorph to shange shape. It is what moelcules use as cement. But you were in denial about neutrons. No need to change the subject to charge, because teh neutron has no net charge. Regardless. You are trying to prop up a model that everyone knows is old and worn out. Technology has has moved ahead exponentially and new discoveries have shown that many of the beliefs of the past, were incorrect. Some people insist on wasting money trying to chase rainbows based on predictions made with a model that has been proven to be less than adequate. And that is putting it mildly. Bigger particle colliders are not the answer. There is nothing to be gained, by blasting em waves into each other and watching them make curls in a detector. Then calling them particles. The only thing, the standard model seems to do, is confuse people to the degree, that they will not try to experiment on their own. And probably they shouldn't given the dangers involved. No Higgs Bosun, no gravity waves, no gravitons, etc. etc etc When confronted with something like the Hutchison Effect, the standard model is completely unable to describe it. Does that mean it doesn't exist? You know how hard they tried and tried to disprove it? You will see physicists, watching a TV monitor, and saying, I don't know, it could be real, but then I am not sure the videos aren't fake, so I don't know. And that aired on TV. Did they know, he has some 1000 hours of film footage and was funded by Boeing for years, and has worked with physicists from several countries and has had hundreds of people witness the effect first hand? Inlcuding representatives from the American military and Canadaian military, and it is all documented? Not to mention the metal samples, which prove beyond any shadow of a doubt the effect is real. Yet physicists were not able to say what it was at all. How is it, that metal, can turn transparent? Where is your neutrinos? How is it, that wood, can become embedded in metal or welded to metal, and not burn? I could go on and on, but in the end, people merely make their own minds up. If it is public funds, they don't mind chasing rainbows. But you will never get private money to chase rainbows based on a physics model, which says it is impossible. And the Hutchison Effect is merely one process not understood, by the standard model, and for good reason. People would be making gold. http://www.americanantigravity.com/hutchison.html Same with zero point energy. As long as people are chasing hadrons and gluons, the oil can flow and the coal fires will be kept burning. We were running buses in Vancouver on the Ballard fuel cell, and it 3as listed on the stock exchange, and people were still saying that that technology didn't exist. Check out the buses in Holland... http://www.rnw.nl/science/html/031215wheel.html Still burning diesel. When they could run on alchohol. -*-
|
|
#66
December 22nd 03, 05:49 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Avogrado constants and others
What is Magic? I submit that magic is anything that is advanced beyond the knowledge base of the observer... So yes... to you, magnetism,charge,gravity, and most other well defined aspects of mans knowledgebase is Magic... Like the little box above the door at K-Mart that opens the door when you walk up... that works by FM.... ****in Magic... To some people, electro-chemistry appears to be magic. Yet, in ancient Baghdad, years ago, that didn't stop them from using it. http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/2804257.stm I would even imagine, that with todays technology, we could place and anode and a cathode in the ocean, and connect them in series, and get free power. And with all these free engery or zero point energy devices, or over unity devices, that people have created, often what they have failed to realize, is that geometry is important. They fail to take into consideration, the fact that black body radiation is being emitted from objects, and if you want to add those waves up to make electrons, then you need to be at the exact spot. You need to be precise. Most of those waves lose energy quickly and in the background radiation, it is so chaotic, that interference will cancel out waves, and equalize the EM pressure. With electro-chemistry you use a medium and that medium has a more stable predictable consistency. There is a fortune to be made. We are on the cusp as it were. Take a look at this amazing piece of equipment and ask yourself if you have seen any 50 hour batteries on any portable players yet. http://www.archos.com/ Be sure to check out the 3D rotation views. -*-
|
|
#67
December 22nd 03, 06:09 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Avogrado constants and others
(Rick Sobie) wrote in message news:LaqFb.772607$pl3.32617@pd7tw3no...
In article , says... "Rick Sobie" wrote in message news:%1bFb.766102$6C4.508464@pd7tw1no... [snip] is not. CU 63 63 electrons. 29 electrons, actually. Franz Yes I know Franz, its just that I beat the crap out of them so bad and knew there was no way that they could answer those few simple questions so I thought I might as well allow them to save face. ------------- yes you know ??? where from you know? if you can prove that Cu has 29 electrons *no one more no one less*, than please come back to me all the best Y.Porat -----------------
|
|
#68
December 22nd 03, 09:53 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Avogrado constants and others
"Rick Sobie" wrote in message news:nBvFb.776730$6C4.393799@pd7tw1no... And with all these free engery or zero point energy devices, or over unity devices, that people have created, often what they have failed to realize, is that geometry is important. you ain't getting away with this one. Cite an over unity device! And and explain to us all why the JREF prize hasn't been claimed. You Sir, are basically talking out of your arse! Now **** off and stop trolling
|
|
#69
December 22nd 03, 09:58 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Avogrado constants and others
"Richard Henry" wrote in message news:bjkFb.11182$7D3.5455@fed1read02... "martin" wrote in message ... "Richard Henry" wrote in message news:RB3Fb.9848$7D3.9836@fed1read02... Hmmm... I sense a marketing opportunity. Which isotope conducts electricity better? Couldn't we get megabucks for isotopically-pure, oxygen-free, 000-gauge, gold-terminated speaker cables? lololol Dang! You mean it's not already being done? Just winging it here - It seems to me that the larger nucleus would have a weaker grip on the conduction electrons. Therefore the Cu65 wires would be preferred. Now I can imagine a competing company with a good theoretical reason why the Cu63 wires would conduct better. We of course would have to conduct some blind ABX listening tests to determine the real winner... I actually did an internet search for it, because I know what hi-fi people are like, and was stunned that it wasn't being done. Anyone willing to rip off their nice flow-soldered circurt boards just to replace the solder has to be a market for this. Just tell them it's better and why, how much it costs, and we'll make ourselves a fortune.
|
|
#70
December 22nd 03, 10:10 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Avogrado constants and others
In article , says...
(Rick Sobie) wrote in message news:LaqFb.772607$pl3.32617@pd7tw3no... In article , says... "Rick Sobie" wrote in message news:%1bFb.766102$6C4.508464@pd7tw1no... [snip] is not. CU 63 63 electrons. 29 electrons, actually. Franz Yes I know Franz, its just that I beat the crap out of them so bad and knew there was no way that they could answer those few simple questions so I thought I might as well allow them to save face. ------------- yes you know ??? where from you know? if you can prove that Cu has 29 electrons *no one more no one less*, than please come back to me all the best Y.Porat ----------------- http://www.webelements.com/webelemen...t/Cu/econ.html Count em. 29 electrons. Of course they too are still using orbits, although they are trying to accomodate reality at the same time, by showing the orbits as shells. It is not in the text books, that atoms emit spherical waves, and at the shell radius, if you intercept those waves they will have energy equivalent to e* the atomic number. Physicists are quite vague in their explanations of such things as The Time-Independent Schrödinger Equation: Eigenstates and Eigenvalues Here, why don't you have a go for them, I am sure they would love to hear it. http://www.phys.virginia.edu/CLASSES..._in_a_box.html Shall I? The nucleus, is sending out a spherical wave, and if intercepted at the electron shell radius, you can expect to find energy of e * the atomic number when the atom is islolated and its rest state. But of course even Schrödinger did not come to the conclusion at the time that the nulceus was sending out this wave. He just knew it was there. So he had to somehow imagine a standing wave at the electron radius. -*-
|
| Thread Tools | |
| Display Modes | |
|
|
Linear Mode
