Electron's R.P.M.
IQ 400
Did anyone of you figure out the R.P.M. of the spinning electrons?
--
Sir Isaac Hemet.
Wisdom is my kingdom,
if I fail to make you wiser indeed,
at least amusement was guaranteed.
-----------== Posted via Deja News, The Discussion Network ==----------
http://www.dejanews.com/ Search, Read, Discuss, or Start Your Own
IQ 400
IQ 400 <hem...@lilac.ocn.ne.jp> wrote:
Yooooo Hoooooooo I am asking again.
Richard Metzler
>
> In article <7fh1c9$pe0$1...@nnrp1.dejanews.com>,
> IQ 400 <hem...@lilac.ocn.ne.jp> wrote:
>
> Yooooo Hoooooooo I am asking again.
>
> >
> >
> > Did anyone of you figure out the R.P.M. of the spinning electrons?
in an orbital in an atom -- the question doesn't make much
sense. The electron has a property that behaves in all respects
like angular momentum, but it doesn't spin in a literal sense
(would be pretty difficult, too, for a pointlike particle).
So you can't talk about an RPM or anything.
Richard
John
between my TV and its electricity source. There was
no way the TV could produce a picture. There must
have been some pretty mean spins on those electrons
the picture tube was trying to use, 'cause it was having
no luck.
John
The Interplanetary Magnetic Field, or IMF may be viewed
at http://www.petcom.com/~john/magfield.gif and
http://www.oma.be/BIRA-IASB/Project_educatif/Vent_sol/22-5.angl.html
All wild claims I make about it are strictly my own. :-)
IQ 400
Richard Metzler <met...@NOSPAMphysik.uni-wuerzburg.de> wrote:
> IQ 400 wrote:
> >
> > In article <7fh1c9$pe0$1...@nnrp1.dejanews.com>,
> > IQ 400 <hem...@lilac.ocn.ne.jp> wrote:
> >
> > Yooooo Hoooooooo I am asking again.
> >
> > >
> > >
> > > Did anyone of you figure out the R.P.M. of the spinning electrons?
> If you're talking about a free electron -- not one 'spinning'
> in an orbital in an atom -- the question doesn't make much
> sense.
AND WHY NOT? I have scientific reports confirming a spiral track of "-e" in a
magnetic field. A free electron spins BUT "Uncertainty" : )
> The electron has a property that behaves in all respects
> like angular momentum, but it doesn't spin in a literal sense
Do you suggest a new definition for the word "spin"?
OR Do you like to declare a new adjective for the electrons' naughty behavior?
: )
> (would be pretty difficult, too, for a pointlike particle).
Difficult for the particle or difficult for YOU?
: )
> So you can't talk about an RPM or anything.
I can talk and write about any thing I wish to talk or write about without
your permission in such a wonderful and free world that luckily you are not
it's Emperor
A spin is a spin IS A SPIN.
Spining is rotating around an axis.
A spinning entity has an angular velocity of 360 degrees per ???????
Per minute and it is the RPM.
Did anyone else figure out the R.P.M. of the spinning electrons?
: )
>
> Richard
>
--
Sir Isaac Hemet.
Wisdom is my kingdom,
if I fail to make you wiser indeed,
at least amusement was guaranteed.
-----------== Posted via Deja News, The Discussion Network ==----------
Richard Metzler
>
> In article <372173...@NOSPAMphysik.uni-wuerzburg.de>,
> Richard Metzler <met...@NOSPAMphysik.uni-wuerzburg.de> wrote:
> > IQ 400 wrote:
> > >
> > > In article <7fh1c9$pe0$1...@nnrp1.dejanews.com>,
> > > IQ 400 <hem...@lilac.ocn.ne.jp> wrote:
> > >
> > > Yooooo Hoooooooo I am asking again.
> > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > Did anyone of you figure out the R.P.M. of the spinning electrons?
>
> > If you're talking about a free electron -- not one 'spinning'
> > in an orbital in an atom -- the question doesn't make much
> > sense.
>
> AND WHY NOT? I have scientific reports confirming a spiral track of "-e" in a
> magnetic field.
the frequency is f = (e B)/(2 Pi m), also known as the
cyclotron frequency.
> A free electron spins BUT "Uncertainty" : )
I don't see what uncertainty has to do with that.
>
> > The electron has a property that behaves in all respects
> > like angular momentum, but it doesn't spin in a literal sense
>
> Do you suggest a new definition for the word "spin"?
No...
> OR Do you like to declare a new adjective for the electrons' naughty behavior?
I know that the term "spin" is not to be taken too literally.
>
> > (would be pretty difficult, too, for a pointlike particle).
>
> Difficult for the particle or difficult for YOU?
> : )
For the particle. In a classical picture, you need mass
to have some distance from the axis of rotation to get
an angular momentum. If the electron is pointlike,
and the axis goes through the electron, you don't have
an angular momentum.
>
> > So you can't talk about an RPM or anything.
>
> I can talk and write about any thing I wish to talk or write about without
> your permission in such a wonderful and free world that luckily you are not
> it's Emperor
Yeah, that's a good thing. I'd have to rule over too many
fools for my taste ;-)
>
> A spin is a spin IS A SPIN.
> Spining is rotating around an axis.
Well, what I was trying to say is that particles have
an intrinsic spin that behaves like an angular momentum
but doesn't require the electron to rotate around an axis.
That's quantum mechanics, that's not my fault.
> A spinning entity has an angular velocity of 360 degrees per ???????
> Per minute and it is the RPM.
> Did anyone else figure out the R.P.M. of the spinning electrons?
Could any QED experts clarify this?
Richard
IQ 400
> Well, what I was trying to say is that particles have
> an intrinsic spin that behaves like an angular momentum
> but doesn't require the electron to rotate around an axis.
> That's quantum mechanics, that's not my fault.
Well then, Did anyone of you figure out the intrinsic R.P.M. of the intrinsic
spinning electrons.
Any vertual RPMs. ! ?
> Could any QED experts clarify this?
>
> Richard
>
Electrons have properties that were calculated in the past.
Radius, wave length, momentum, charge, 1/2 spin, mass, and so on.
Why not a spin speed?
Mike
>Electrons have properties that were calculated in the past.
>Radius, wave length, momentum, charge, 1/2 spin, mass, and so on.
>Why not a spin speed?
Must be a plot - conspiracy or soap opera ;-)
So would they precess ?
If so - they'd do it without the benefit of a magnetic field - mmm
Then how could they travel in a straight line if spinning, hell thats one
heck of a curved ball >:o
Rgds
Mike
Perth, Western Australia
Warren York
offering a different view point here. Some will agree and some will not. Such is
life. Anyway when you talk about SPIN and angular momentum of an electron, you
are not talking about the same animal. Speed has nothing to do with what SPIN 1/2
is of an electron. It is called intrinsic spin and believed that it can not be
grafted or charted on paper. We have drawn intrinsic spin of an electron for you
in our 1994 TIME paper. Perhaps you will have a better understanding of just what
SPIN 1/2 of an electron is (720 degrees) and what makes a Spin UP and a Spin Down
what it is. If you have never wondered how one gets 720 degrees out of Spin 1/2
visual instead of math wise then you should check it out. Warren
warre...@juno.com
http://personal.lig.bellsouth.net/~infonet
==========================================================
IQ 400
> Speed has nothing to do with what SPIN 1/2 is of an electron.
I am quite aware of what is written in the physics books.
This forum is for New Theories in Physics, Remember?
When you consider a quantum to be the number of radians within a Planks
constant relative to a circular orbit the circumference of which is 2 Pi
radians, then "Pi radians" are half a spin which is relatively on the same
algebraic sign regarded from a referential point connected to the center of
that circle.
The question is: "What is the cause of such intrinsic angular momentum?"
My theory is that the internal composition of the electron is a rotating
magnetic field.
I am just making damn sure that no one has the slightest idea about what I am
talking about before I declare the RPM.
Regards.
Warren York
does
come under new theory but you have to read the theory first to know that. I just
posted
a graphical display of actual Intrinsic Spin 1/2 of the Electron. This has never
been done
as far as I know in any books or any other place yet. Infact I have been told one
can not
graph Intrinsic Spin at all. Please go look at that post so we may clear the
misunderstanding
of what I was trying to say to you. I am not attacking you but enjoy what you
have to say.
Sorry for the confusion between our starting communications. Warren
warre...@juno.com
http://personal.lig.bellsouth.net/~infonet
==============================================================
IQ 400
I bought a book published by the Russian "MIR publishers. Moscow", the title
of which was Magnetism of elementary particles. At that time I set myself to
conquer the world of magnetism and bought every book that had the word magnet
on it's title. I was so absorbed by the subject to edge of insanity. While I
was reading that book at the middle, I predicted the pair production, which
was written at its end. Simply I came to the enlightenment that an electron
is a double concentric helix of magnetic flux rotating in the fashion of a
tornado. Both helixes could be dextrorotatory or levorotatory but must be in
unison observed along the rotation axis. The inner particles that makes the
electron follows the path of a helix rising inside from the head of a cone to
its base, while the outer helix particles are rising from the base of the
cone to its head on the outside. Since those particles that make the
constituents of the electron are forming a wave system at equilibrium, the
internal flow must be equal to the external flow. The flow direction is
inverted twice in one trip at every rim of the base and the head. Those that
were inside go out and those that were out go in. This would explain your 720
degrees and the spin up and down, because the angular speed is constant
therefor the radial speed must rise and fall when the circumference shrinks
and widens. This explains your two tunnels but mine are concentric. My double
concentric cone tornado explains the electric charge as the potential
difference between the base and the head, which could be accumulated by
alignment on an axis. The total potential difference is directly proportional
to the total number of electrons on the same pump line, which is pumping the
gravitational constituents that would cause a high-tension spark to jump
across a gap in vacuum. The Positron is identical, except that the flow is
reversed and rising from the base to the head on the inside, which explains
the reason for instability when the speed of the constituent particle
increase on the inside of the con's head added to the gravitational jet-out
that opens the cone explosively. Your model is very nice but mine is Logos
Impervious Ultimatum.
Warren York
" that
sounds almost like what you are talking about. I started my work after I read
that book. I
would be interested in seeing your work or a drawing of your electron model.
Sounds interesting
and I would like to see your view point in more detail. Why have you not posted
your work here
before now? You may have hit the nail on the head. Will look for a reply. Warren
warre...@juno.com
http://personal.lig.bellsouth.net/~infonet
================================================================
John
Show me a picture of yours.
http://www.petcom.com/~john/gal.gif
John
----- Posted via Deja.com, The People-Powered Information Exchange -----
------ http://www.deja.com/ Discussions * Ratings * Communities ------
IQ 400
John wrote:
> This is how my electron goes.
> Show me a picture of yours.
> http://www.petcom.com/~john/gal.gif
> John
>
Very nice I have seen your model and it is different.
A picture can not explain my model.
I have a 1.32 MB GIF file demonstrating my model when a point on the helix is
taken as a time reference.
The intrinsic model is under construction.
Your Model is intrinsic in which the path is stationary and the constituents
move.
My model assumes both possibilities in one shot.
Tell me if you are interested.
Warren York
John wrote:
> This is how my electron goes.
> Show me a picture of yours.
> http://www.petcom.com/~john/gal.gif
> John
>
> ==============================
Here is a picture of
mine.http://personal.lig.bellsouth.net/lig/i/n/infonet/YGEM.htm
Warren
warre...@juno.com
IQ 400
It is certainly valuable.
IQ 400
John <jo...@petcom.com> wrote:
> This is how my electron goes.
> Show me a picture of yours.
> http://www.petcom.com/~john/gal.gif
> John
>
Well, John if that is how it goes it certainly is not how it shows.
Your model is too simple to make one decide exactly what do you want to say.
My model is 23 years old. and your model is very simple.
I can hardly see a relation.
Good luck.
John
IQ 400 <hem...@lilac.ocn.ne.jp> wrote:
> In article <7g8us5$ob5$1...@nnrp1.dejanews.com>,
> John <jo...@petcom.com> wrote:
>
> > This is how my electron goes.
> > Show me a picture of yours.
> > http://www.petcom.com/~john/gal.gif
> > John
> >
> Well, John if that is how it goes it certainly is not how it shows.
> Your model is too simple to make one decide exactly what do you want
to say.
> My model is 23 years old. and your model is very simple.
> I can hardly see a relation.
The electron itself is a vortex with one end at the
nucleus and the other following that path, which moves
thru 720 degrees before repeating. The vortex is not
straight, but curves out to its distal end.
Warren York
(York, Geier Electron Model) you will see that it is
much more than just an electron-electron entanglement model.
It shows the GUT all in a nutshell. It shows as any Unified Field
must show to be a true Unification Equation not just the
electromagnetic but Gravity and Time flow. Now to understand
how to extract this data in a usable form is the making of what
Uncle Alberts E=MC^2 equation is. This means we can engineer
Matter and TIME. This is through back engineering of Uncle Alberts
equation. No, Uncle Albert was not wrong. He just did not tell us
all I feel he knew about his equation. He had to of known in my
opinion. Warren
IQ 400 wrote:
> In article <3728D36F...@bellsouth.net>,
> Warren York <inf...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
> >
> >
> > John wrote:
> >
> > > This is how my electron goes.
> > > Show me a picture of yours.
> > > http://www.petcom.com/~john/gal.gif
> > > John
> > >
> > > ==============================
> >
> > Here is a picture of
> > mine.http://personal.lig.bellsouth.net/lig/i/n/infonet/YGEM.htm
> >
> > Warren
> > warre...@juno.com
> >
> >
> Warren, your model is a perfect electron-electron entanglement model.
> It is certainly valuable.
>
Warren York
humor. Warren
IQ 400 wrote:
> In article <7g8us5$ob5$1...@nnrp1.dejanews.com>,
> John <jo...@petcom.com> wrote:
>
> > This is how my electron goes.
> > Show me a picture of yours.
> > http://www.petcom.com/~john/gal.gif
> > John
> >
> Well, John if that is how it goes it certainly is not how it shows.
> Your model is too simple to make one decide exactly what do you want to say.
> My model is 23 years old. and your model is very simple.
> I can hardly see a relation.
> Good luck.
IQ 400
not enemies. Nevertheless, your description is much far better than your GIF.
Warren has a similar concept of yours but much more mature and global. My old
research (from my point of view) was the hyper fine details of the structure
of the electron dynamics. This makes Warren’s work and mine complementary in
unison. Your ideas are welcome John, but so far you did not say something we
do not know and certainly what we know is far more than what you said. -- Sir
Isaac Hemet. Wisdom is my kingdom, if I fail to make you wiser indeed, at
least amusement was guaranteed.
In article <7gd0f3$adp$1...@nnrp1.dejanews.com>,
John <jo...@petcom.com> wrote:
> In article <7gbm7t$5ic$1...@nnrp1.dejanews.com>,
> IQ 400 <hem...@lilac.ocn.ne.jp> wrote:
> > In article <7g8us5$ob5$1...@nnrp1.dejanews.com>,
> > John <jo...@petcom.com> wrote:
> >
> > > This is how my electron goes.
> > > Show me a picture of yours.
> > > http://www.petcom.com/~john/gal.gif
> > > John
> > >
> > Well, John if that is how it goes it certainly is not how it shows.
> > Your model is too simple to make one decide exactly what do you want
> to say.
> > My model is 23 years old. and your model is very simple.
> > I can hardly see a relation.
> The gif above shows the path of one end of the electron.
> The electron itself is a vortex with one end at the
> nucleus and the other following that path, which moves
> thru 720 degrees before repeating. The vortex is not
> straight, but curves out to its distal end.
> John
>
> ----- Posted via Deja.com, The People-Powered Information Exchange -----
> ------ http://www.deja.com/ Discussions * Ratings * Communities ------
>
IQ 400
Warren York wrote:
> This is through back engineering of Uncle Alberts equation.
Back engineering is the KEY word for describing your model.
My model was a forward engineering model.
Certainly they must meet at a point and then overlap.
--
Sir Isaac Hemet.
Wisdom is my kingdom,
if I fail to make you wiser indeed,
at least amusement was guaranteed.
-----------== Posted via Deja News, The Discussion Network ==----------
John
IQ 400 <hem...@lilac.ocn.ne.jp> wrote:
> We might be all talking about one and the same thing which makes us
friends
> not enemies. Nevertheless, your description is much far better than
your GIF.
> Warren has a similar concept of yours but much more mature and global.
My old
> research (from my point of view) was the hyper fine details of the
structure
> of the electron dynamics.
cycle and thats exactly the orbital I envision:
http:www.petcom.com/~john/gal.gif
and when you take this path
http:www.petcom.com/~john/@submit.gif
and combine it with 7 more identical paths you get
http:www.petcom.com/~john/galaxypattern.gif
which may be occupied by as many as sixteen members
in a ring which cycles once every time it spins
at right-angles through 720 degrees.
Only two members can be in one path, and they are
at opposite ends of that path and travelling the
opposite directions at all times.
So relating the building of elements to establishing
rings of sixteen, you have
http:www.petcom.com/~john/table.gif
which seems to me to be a pretty clear match.
John
The Interplanetary Magnetic Field, or IMF may be viewed
at http://www.petcom.com/~john/magfield.gif and
http://www.oma.be/BIRA-IASB/Project_educatif/Vent_sol/22-5.angl.html
All wild claims I make about it are strictly my own. :-)
----- Posted via Deja.com, The People-Powered Information Exchange -----
IQ 400
I still can't get it John. The more you write, the more I believe you are on
the same track with us. When I visit those files with gifs and see your
illustrations I change my mind. You can hire a painter to draw your perfect
ideas to make a mach. -- Sir Isaac Hemet. Wisdom is my kingdom, if I fail to
make you wiser indeed, at least amusement was guaranteed
-----------== Posted via Deja News, The Discussion Network ==----------
John
IQ 400 <hem...@lilac.ocn.ne.jp> wrote:
> > My old
> > > research (from my point of view) was the hyper
> > > fine details of the
> > > structure
> > > of the electron dynamics.
I hope by hyperfine you're talking 10 to the
power 15 range, or whatever the difference
between electron and galaxy arm. The electron
IS a galaxy arm at the next energy matrix,
which is to say from our view the planck
length or whatever is vanishingly-small,
which has to do with the frequency of the
energy making up matter (dictated by the
frequency of the PROTON whose existence
mandates the existence of the electron to
counterbalance its vortex- only it does
this at the NEXT energy frequency or matrix
in the form of hundreds of thousands of tiny
suns which are like a cloud of stardust-
but at that level it is they that represent
the proton, and therefore matter, and they
cause to exist electrons at the NEXT matrix.
Oops the last post missed all their //'s, it
should read
> I just heard you guys talking 720 degrees per
> cycle and thats exactly the orbital I envision:
> http://www.petcom.com/~john/gal.gif
> and when you take this path
> http://www.petcom.com/~john/@submit.gif
> and combine it with 7 more identical paths you get
> http://www.petcom.com/~john/galaxypattern.gif
> which may be occupied by as many as sixteen members
> in a ring which cycles once every time it spins
> at right-angles through 720 degrees.
> Only two members can be in one path, and they are
> at opposite ends of that path and travelling the
> opposite directions at all times.
> So relating the building of elements to establishing
> rings of sixteen, you have
> http://www.petcom.com/~john/table.gif
which links the periodic table to building rings of
sixteen. Cool?
John
IQ 400
John wrote: (something)
: )
John, are you deliberately misunderstanding my words?
I told you that I am quite surprised from the staggering void between the
level of your descriptive words and that of your descriptive illustrations.
That means that I agree in principle with you on the swirling electron and the
way you describe it in words.
I disagree with you for using illustrations that does not reflect the same
level of your words.
This means I am a friend giving advice not an enemy attacking you.
So please wise up.
John
> I still can't get it John. The more you write, the more I believe you
are on
> the same track with us. When I visit those files with gifs and see
your
> illustrations I change my mind. You can hire a painter to draw your
perfect
> ideas to make a mach. --
well, the 720 degrees has to be in reference to another
plane, right? And this plane is supplied by the turning
of one cycle at right-angles to it. So couldn't one
try to produce a field like the IMF below by running
electrons around this route, somehow?
John
The Interplanetary Magnetic Field, or IMF may be viewed
at http://www.petcom.com/~john/magfield.gif and
http://www.oma.be/BIRA-IASB/Project_educatif/Vent_sol/22-5.angl.html
All wild claims I make about it are strictly my own. :-)
----- Posted via Deja.com, The People-Powered Information Exchange -----
IQ 400
Go ahead, you might make it before I do finish it, I need time.