On 7/29/2016 10:55 AM, Alan Folmsbee wrote:
> The angular momentum of the atom is not from a planetary system of a massive
> center holding a light weight electron in a circular orbit. The angular momentum
> of an atom has a stationary flow. The flow of gravity goes into the proton to form
> the linear momentum that stationary flow is used to calculate the angular momentum
> with an axis that is at a distance from the linear momentum. The distance is the
> atomic radius. Using the electron as the origin for relative measurements, the proton
> is part of the atomic orbital. This unconventional perspective is an advance in science.
>
> Atoms are not moving like planetary sytems. When I say a proton orbits an electron,
> that is a stationary orbital. A probability is given by old science for the electron's
> position. Advances in science can change the probability representation to an articulated
> dimensional model.
While it is true that electrons do not orbit the proton in the same
classical way that planets orbit the sun, when you go into the quantum
mechanical treatment, you find that the barycenter still does play the
same equivalent role in the quantum case as it does in the classical
case. That is, the reason why the proton does not move much is because
it is much more massive than the electron -- even quantum mechanically.
The rest of your words are just gibberish, unfortunately, and I'm
frankly wondering why you think it is a smart thing to do to put
together a string of gibberish like "the flow of gravity goes into the
proton to form the linear momentum" and put it out there in public. Do
you really think that the people where you're posting this will read it
and have no idea whether what you're saying makes sense or not? Do you
really think that composing sentences that SOUND like physics will be
taken by readers to BE physics?