Can anyone draw a simulation of two orbiting planets?
gu...@hotmail.com
planets of SAME MASS?
I cannot image how two same mass orbits would look like? ....would
they propagate forward or remain in one constant region?
One location, which doesn't seem to make sense, says: "Since stars
have about the same mass (within a factor of 20), they both orbit
around a common point, called the center of mass, that is
significantly different from one of the star's center.".
Sorcerer
It makes no sense only if the fulcrum of a lever makes no sense.
http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/Algol/Eccentric.gif
Randy Poe
Two bodies, whether the same mass or not, rotate around
the common center of mass.
If one is much heaver than the other, that center of mass
is approximately the center of the heavier body.
- Randy
T.M. Sommers
And if they are of equal mass, the CM will be the midpoint of the
line joining them. From that it should be trivial to imagine the
two bodies in circular orbits. Elliptical orbits are trickier,
but a few moments thought should provide an answer. Hint: the
bodies do not necessarily rotate in the same direction.
--
Thomas M. Sommers -- t...@nj.net -- AB2SB
gu...@hotmail.com
Too bad...All I see is a still gif picture, I must have a Microsoft
patch or antivirus software that disabled animated gifs.
gu...@hotmail.com
Don't know why opposite spins would affect the orbit.
As for ellipses I would imagine the midpoint between "one" specific
focal point of each ellipse.
>
> --
> Thomas M. Sommers -- t...@nj.net -- AB2SB- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
T.M. Sommers
> On Aug 31, 11:08 am, "T.M. Sommers" <t...@nj.net> wrote:
>>Randy Poe wrote:
>>>On Aug 31, 4:53 am, "gu...@hotmail.com" <gu...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>>>Can anyone draw (perhaps animated gif) a simulation of two orbiting
>>>>planets of SAME MASS?
>>>
>>>>I cannot image how two same mass orbits would look like? ....would
>>>>they propagate forward or remain in one constant region?
>>>
>>>>One location, which doesn't seem to make sense, says: "Since stars
>>>>have about the same mass (within a factor of 20), they both orbit
>>>>around a common point, called the center of mass, that is
>>>>significantly different from one of the star's center.".
>>>
>>>>(http://www.astronomynotes.com/starprop/s10.htm)
>>>
>>>Two bodies, whether the same mass or not, rotate around
>>>the common center of mass.
>>
>>>If one is much heaver than the other, that center of mass
>>>is approximately the center of the heavier body.
>>
>>And if they are of equal mass, the CM will be the midpoint of the
>>line joining them. From that it should be trivial to imagine the
>>two bodies in circular orbits. Elliptical orbits are trickier,
>>but a few moments thought should provide an answer. Hint: the
>>bodies do not necessarily rotate in the same direction.
>
> Don't know why opposite spins would affect the orbit.
I wasn't talking about spin, but about the direction of the
orbits. Anyway, I was wrong, so just ignore that bit.
> As for ellipses I would imagine the midpoint between "one" specific
> focal point of each ellipse.
The CM must be at one focus of each body's orbit. Imagine these
rectangles are ellipses; they overlap where the =s are. A, B,
and C are the foci, B being the CM. You should be able to figure
out where the other body is if one body is at X.
X-------=======-------
| | | |
| A | B | C |
| | | |
-------=======-------
Paul B. Andersen
gu...@hotmail.com
Ok they share one common focal point.
If both masses are the same then:
X-------=======-------
| | | |
| A | B | C |
| | | |
-------=======------X
gu...@hotmail.com
>
> - Show quoted text -
Very nice Paul!
One thing doesn't make sense:
At Wikipedia it says the orbital period is: T= 2pi sqrt(r^3/ G (M+m)).
Since "r" (or ellipse's semi-major axis) is different for each star
therefore the orbital period should be different for each star....but
at the java web link you gave each star "ALWAYS" orbits at the "same"
rate as the other???
T.M. Sommers
>
> One thing doesn't make sense:
>
> At Wikipedia it says the orbital period is: T= 2pi sqrt(r^3/ G (M+m)).
>
> Since "r" (or ellipse's semi-major axis) is different for each star
> therefore the orbital period should be different for each star....but
> at the java web link you gave each star "ALWAYS" orbits at the "same"
> rate as the other???
I told you before, there is an extra em there. If Wikipedia says
that, it is wrong.
Igor
No objects ever orbit around any other objects. All objects will
orbit a common center of mass under gravitational interaction. This
is first chapter orbital dynamics. Look it up, preferably in a real
textbook.
Paul B. Andersen
It would be hard to make two objects orbit _each other_ at different rates,
don't you think? :-)
The r in your equation is probably the sum of the semi major axes,
which is the same as the distance between the stars when it is greatest.
Another form of the equation is:
T = sqrt((a1 + a2)^3/(M+m))
where a1 and a2 are the semi major axes of the two ellipses in AU,
T is the period in years and M and m are the stellar masses in solar masses.
Paul
Randy Poe
When you change the meaning of an equation's symbols,
you are not using the original equation, you are inventing
your own physics.
That is not the meaning of "r" in this equation.
See here for instance:
http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/orbv.html#bo
Look at the drawing. See the definition of r.
It is the distance between the two planets in
circular orbit. It is the sum of their individual
orbital radii r1 and r2.
- Randy
Androcles
"Paul B. Andersen" <paul.b....@guesswhathia.no> wrote in message
news:46DA06EC...@guesswhathia.no...
Not at all, Einstein Dingleberries do it all the two times.
Obviously the two objects have different speeds
in the universal inertial frame of reference and time
dilation makes the faster one go around in a longer time
than the slower one, or something likes that.
That's how Mercury precesses, didn't you know?
Eric Gisse
wrote:
[...]
Keep in mind he has not studied any classical physics.
gu...@hotmail.com
My mistake Paul, it is as you said the sum of *BOTH* ellipse's semi-
major axis.
I'm used to Kepler equations where one mass is the center focal point
and the smaller mass as insignificant.
Thanks!
gu...@hotmail.com
wrote:
Snip Crap full of repetitive complaints.
Eric Gisse lacked intelligence to know that "proper" time means
"invariant" time, anything he says about quantum mechanics and
spacetime is just as throlled with heckling complaints from such a
person.
gu...@hotmail.com
> On Aug 31, 4:53 am, "gu...@hotmail.com" <gu...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> > Can anyone draw (perhaps animated gif) a simulation of two orbiting
> > planets of SAME MASS?
>
> > I cannot image how two same mass orbits would look like? ....would
> > they propagate forward or remain in one constant region?
>
> > One location, which doesn't seem to make sense, says: "Since stars
> > have about the same mass (within a factor of 20), they both orbit
> > around a common point, called the center of mass, that is
> > significantly different from one of the star's center.".
>
> > (http://www.astronomynotes.com/starprop/s10.htm)
>
> No objects ever orbit around any other objects. All objects will
> orbit a common center of mass under gravitational interaction.
Wonder if an atom's nucleus would also have such properties.
Eric Gisse
Either what I say is true or it is not true.
For example, I claim you have not studied any classical mechanics
based upon your general inability to display comprehension of the
subject.
If it isn't true, why don't you start off by explaining which textbook
you studied classical mechanics from?
Randy Poe
No, since (as you have been told many times) an electron
is not in a little Keplerian orbit around the nucleus.
- Randy
John Park
> Can anyone draw (perhaps animated gif) a simulation of two orbiting
> planets of SAME MASS?
>
--John Park
gu...@hotmail.com
>
1. There is an attraction between the nucleus and the electrons
2. They call them orbitals
3. These orbitals are circular or elliptical in shape
Einstein would not have forwareded his Relativity theory without
Maxwell "OBSERVED" experiments likewise his sole statement about
Heizenberg was left at: "No dice in the universe".
Uncertainty is what it is, an uncertain theory. "Spooky" is what it
is, an unknown and uncertain phenomena.
Electron is both particle and wave. Uncertainty considers it more wave
inside an atom than particle (and no, not just the uncertainty of it's
location) yet science STILL "adheres" to Bohr's ***number*** of
electrons per atomic element.
Uncertainty "claims" it is "impossible" to measure the location with
another wave(light or em wave) without causing "interference".
The location and velocity of a large particle is measured by a "small"
particle/wave (light) WITHOUT INTERFERENCE "but" when both are the
same size/momentum ....location and velocity are modified
(interference), not to mention electro-magnetic interference.
The density of the atom is unpractical and causes metaphorism, intense
ionic attraction and compression similar to the intensity inside
stellar objects.....(send a light beam or anything inside a star to
measure it's composition).
Randy Poe
> On Sep 2, 10:11 am, Randy Poe <poespam-t...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> > On Sep 2, 4:46 am, "gu...@hotmail.com" <gu...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > On Sep 1, 3:24 pm, Igor <thoov...@excite.com> wrote:
>
> > > > On Aug 31, 4:53 am, "gu...@hotmail.com" <gu...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > > Can anyone draw (perhaps animated gif) a simulation of two orbiting
> > > > > planets of SAME MASS?
>
> > > > > I cannot image how two same mass orbits would look like? ....would
> > > > > they propagate forward or remain in one constant region?
>
> > > > > One location, which doesn't seem to make sense, says: "Since stars
> > > > > have about the same mass (within a factor of 20), they both orbit
> > > > > around a common point, called the center of mass, that is
> > > > > significantly different from one of the star's center.".
>
> > > > > (http://www.astronomynotes.com/starprop/s10.htm)
>
> > > > No objects ever orbit around any other objects. All objects will
> > > > orbit a common center of mass under gravitational interaction.
>
> > > Wonder if an atom's nucleus would also have such properties.
>
> > No, since (as you have been told many times) an electron
> > is not in a little Keplerian orbit around the nucleus.
>
> > - Randy- Hide quoted text -
>
> 1. There is an attraction between the nucleus and the electrons
Yes.
> 2. They call them orbitals
Yes, that is the name given to different states of the
energy quantum number.
They are not called "orbits", because they are not
orbits. That's why they were given a different name.
> 3. These orbitals are circular or elliptical in shape
No, they aren't.
Don't make up physics.
- Randy
gu...@hotmail.com
#1. The s p d f orbitals are spherical (or elliptical) or donut (ring)
in shape, and one has to define what is ment by a "lower" shell or
lower energy STATE when a photon is released.
#2. Search everywhere and you will find that: It is not that no orbits
exist, instead no "FIXED" orbit exist (meaning the orbits are
probabilisticly located within a region).
#3. Same years as 1925's Heisenberg and 1927's Shrodinger's
probabiltiy equation, in 1925 Uhlenbeck and Goudsmit showed that
***************MANY************* features of atomic spectra (Moseley's
x-ray spectra) can be explained by "assuming" that an electron not
only ****REVOLVES**** around a nucleus but as well the electron has a
property called spin (inherent spin is attribuable to particle more
than wave = rotation of an electron about it's "OWN" axis).
In an atom the electron will have a total angular momentum J = L + S,
where L is the orbital angular momentum and S is the spin of the
electron. It is *STUPID* to dispute that an orbital angular momentum
does not mean an electron in "motion" and "revolving" and that the
region of the revolution is ALONG and within each orbital region and
the direction is most likely longitudinalely rather than across the
region where it would need to reverse the direction of it's momentum
in order to maintain itself within the orbital region .......
.........OR DO YOU ***REFUSE*** TO ACCEPT THE TERMINOLOGY and physical
charecteristics required to produce ANGULAR MOMENTUM inside an atom
and the J = L + S equation.
Eric Gisse
How do you know?
Did you solve the Schroedinger equation for the Hydrogen atom
yourself, or are you simply reading what is written in your
introductory physics text?
>
> #2. Search everywhere and you will find that: It is not that no orbits
> exist, instead no "FIXED" orbit exist (meaning the orbits are
> probabilisticly located within a region).
There are no orbits. Period.
One of these days you might clue in.
>
> #3. Same years as 1925's Heisenberg and 1927's Shrodinger's
> probabiltiy equation, in 1925 Uhlenbeck and Goudsmit showed that
> ***************MANY************* features of atomic spectra (Moseley's
> x-ray spectra) can be explained by "assuming" that an electron not
> only ****REVOLVES**** around a nucleus but as well the electron has a
> property called spin (inherent spin is attribuable to particle more
> than wave = rotation of an electron about it's "OWN" axis).
Your irrelevant and poorly-understood little history lesson has no
bearing on the 21st century understanding of quantum mechanics which
supercedes EVERYTHING done in the 1920s. Try citing modern quantum
theory rather than stuff from its' development.
>
> In an atom the electron will have a total angular momentum J = L + S,
> where L is the orbital angular momentum and S is the spin of the
> electron. It is *STUPID* to dispute that an orbital angular momentum
> does not mean an electron in "motion" and "revolving" and that the
> region of the revolution is ALONG and within each orbital region and
> the direction is most likely longitudinalely rather than across the
> region where it would need to reverse the direction of it's momentum
> in order to maintain itself within the orbital region .......
Why do you harp on angular momentum? Have you actually worked out the
commutator relations and eigenvalue equations yourself, like myself
and [probably] Randy have? Or are you simply copying what is written
down in your little intro physics text?
>
> .........OR DO YOU ***REFUSE*** TO ACCEPT THE TERMINOLOGY and physical
> charecteristics required to produce ANGULAR MOMENTUM inside an atom
> and the J = L + S equation.
Rote memorization is not understanding. Tell me why angular momentum
is important.
Randy Poe
The s-orbitals are spherical. The others are not. Nor
are they elliptical. Nor are they "donut-shaped".
> #2. Search everywhere and you will find that: It is not that no orbits
> exist, instead no "FIXED" orbit exist (meaning the orbits are
> probabilisticly located within a region).
No, no orbits exist. This model was inconsistent with
electromagnetic theory. Search everywhere.
> #3. Same years as 1925's Heisenberg and 1927's Shrodinger's
> probabiltiy equation, in 1925 Uhlenbeck and Goudsmit showed that
> ***************MANY************* features of atomic spectra (Moseley's
> x-ray spectra) can be explained by "assuming" that an electron not
> only ****REVOLVES**** around a nucleus but as well the electron has a
> property called spin (inherent spin is attribuable to particle more
> than wave = rotation of an electron about it's "OWN" axis).
An electron in an orbit would not be in a stable orbit.
It would emit energy and the orbit would decay.
- Randy
Androcles
"Randy Poe" <poespa...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1188859411....@50g2000hsm.googlegroups.com...
: The s-orbitals are spherical. The others are not. Nor
: are they elliptical. Nor are they "donut-shaped".
Nor are they square.
Nor are they rectangles.
Nor are they bright green flying elephants.
Nor are they dollar bills.
Nor are they people.
You are fuckin' genius at what things are not, Poe.
gu...@hotmail.com
den wat r day...square?
> > #2. Search everywhere and you will find that: It is not that no orbits
> > exist, instead no "FIXED" orbit exist (meaning the orbits are
> > probabilisticly located within a region).
>
> No, no orbits exist. This model was inconsistent with
> electromagnetic theory. Search everywhere.
>
> > #3. Same years as 1925's Heisenberg and 1927's Shrodinger's
> > probabiltiy equation, in 1925 Uhlenbeck and Goudsmit showed that
> > ***************MANY************* features of atomic spectra (Moseley's
> > x-ray spectra) can be explained by "assuming" that an electron not
> > only ****REVOLVES**** around a nucleus but as well the electron has a
> > property called spin (inherent spin is attribuable to particle more
> > than wave = rotation of an electron about it's "OWN" axis).
>
> An electron in an orbit would not be in a stable orbit.
> It would emit energy and the orbit would decay.
Do not deny Uhlenbeck and Goudsmit, "after" Heinsenber, not before.
And the discoverers of the electron spin inside the atom. Erica Gisse
is blinding you again.
>
> - Randy- Hide quoted text -
>
T.M. Sommers
> On Sep 3, 6:43 pm, Randy Poe <poespam-t...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>On Sep 3, 5:18 pm, "gu...@hotmail.com" <gu...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>>#2. Search everywhere and you will find that: It is not that no orbits
>>>exist, instead no "FIXED" orbit exist (meaning the orbits are
>>>probabilisticly located within a region).
>>
>>No, no orbits exist. This model was inconsistent with
>>electromagnetic theory. Search everywhere.
>
> (photon, etc...).
> When lower atomic shells are occupied, a new electron CANNOT reside,
> therefore do the math of what "needs" to be done.
>
> Do not deny Uhlenbeck and Goudsmit's *****ANGULAR**** momentum of the
> electron inside the atom lest one does not comprehend what angular
> means and what momentum means.
You are confusing the electron's intrinsic spin with its orbital
angular momentum. They are different; U and G were talking about
the former. Also, do not be confused by the name "orbital
angular momentum"; there are no orbits.
gu...@hotmail.com
> gu...@hotmail.com wrote:
> > On Sep 3, 6:43 pm, Randy Poe <poespam-t...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> >>On Sep 3, 5:18 pm, "gu...@hotmail.com" <gu...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> >>>#2. Search everywhere and you will find that: It is not that no orbits
> >>>exist, instead no "FIXED" orbit exist (meaning the orbits are
> >>>probabilisticly located within a region).
>
> >>No, no orbits exist. This model was inconsistent with
> >>electromagnetic theory. Search everywhere.
>
> > Correct electron "can" emit *****and***** ABSORB radiation
> > (photon, etc...).
> > When lower atomic shells are occupied, a new electron CANNOT reside,
> > therefore do the math of what "needs" to be done.
>
> > Do not deny Uhlenbeck and Goudsmit's *****ANGULAR**** momentum of the
> > electron inside the atom lest one does not comprehend what angular
> > means and what momentum means.
>
> You are confusing the electron's intrinsic spin with its orbital
> angular momentum. They are different; U and G were talking about
> the former.
Wrong. As already written above, U & G talk about BOTH, look it up and
at other locations.
J = L + S
Quote from U & G: "When we pass to atoms in which several electrons
***revolve***(2) round a residue of this kind ....."
It's interpretation: ....inside atoms, several (many) electrons
revolve round a residue (nucleus)....
The revolve above is about many electrons revolving around the nucleus
(angular momentum) and NOT a spin as you just wrote.
> Also, do not be confused by the name "orbital
> angular momentum"; there are no orbits.
>
> --
> Thomas M. Sommers -- t...@nj.net -- AB2SB- Hide quoted text -
Eric Gisse
[...]
I can't help but wonder if you search for the shittiest and most
outdated references possible, or that if you *really think* stuff from
the 1920s is an accurate representation of modern quantum mechanics.
gu...@hotmail.com
1905's Relativity and 1925 Heisenberg are out dated like her brain.
Randy Poe
Not so simply described. Hence websites that attempt
to convey the structure through words, pictures, cross-
sections and movies, such as this:
http://www.orbitals.com/orb/
http://www.orbitals.com/orb/orbtable.htm
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atomic_orbital
"Classically, the electrons were thought to orbit
the atomic nucleus, much like the planets around
the Sun (or more accurately, a moth orbiting very
quickly around a lamp)... As electrons cannot be
described as solid particles (as a planet or a moth)
in this way, a more accurate analogy would be that
of a huge atmosphere, the spatially distributed
electron, around a tiny planet which is the atomic
nucleus. Hence the term "orbit" was substituted
with something else: orbital."
http://library.thinkquest.org/3659/structures/shapes.html
"The shapes are uncertain, but predictions have been
made by experimentation. Another difficult task is
describing where an electron is. We can think of it
as a wave, and describing its exact location is
impossible for us to comprehend."
And when atoms are bound into molecules, the
orbitals become even more complex:
http://winter.group.shef.ac.uk/orbitron/
I'm remembering why I've been ignoring your childish
foot-stomping posts. Back into the circular file
with you.
- Randy
The Ghost In The Machine
<poespa...@yahoo.com>
wrote
on Mon, 03 Sep 2007 13:07:47 -0700
<1188850067....@w3g2000hsg.googlegroups.com>:
Actually, the 1s orbital is generally spherical in shape.
Other orbitals vary in shape, and get wackier the higher
the number goes.
:-)
Of course things get a little fuzzy anyway; it's less like
a hard metal ball and more like a fuzzy cloud.
Makes life interesting.
>
> - Randy
>
--
#191, ewi...@earthlink.net
Useless C/C++ Programming Idea #104392:
for(int i = 0; i < 1000000; i++) sleep(0);
--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com
gu...@hotmail.com
Quote:"For example, in a simple lowest-energy state hydrogen atom, the
electrons are most likely to be found within a ****sphere**** around
the nucleus of an atom. In a higher energy state, the shapes become
****lobes and rings****"
Childish complicates things with technicalities instead of the general
behavior. Here is one: the electron itself is a cloud.
Perhaps Randy didn't read how they determined angular momentum and
spin inside the atom. If Randy wishes to refute then Randy should
"try" to explain how angular momentum (and spin) can occur otherwise.
Not being able to "precisely" locate does NOT mean it does not exit or
does not move in a specific direction.
The above came AFTER HEISENBERG.
Randy should read Heisenberg's comments on the INABILITY to precisely
locate due to photon INTERFERENCE....why that ALSO makes things
uncertain doesn't it.
>http://www.orbitals.com/orb/orbtable.htmhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atomic_orbital
> "Classically, the electrons were thought to orbit
> the atomic nucleus, much like the planets around
> the Sun (or more accurately, a moth orbiting very
> quickly around a lamp)... As electrons cannot be
> described as solid particles (as a planet or a moth)
> in this way, a more accurate analogy would be that
> of a huge atmosphere, the spatially distributed
> electron, around a tiny planet which is the atomic
> nucleus. Hence the term "orbit" was substituted
> with something else: orbital."
>
> http://library.thinkquest.org/3659/structures/shapes.html
> "The shapes are uncertain, but predictions have been
> made by experimentation. Another difficult task is
> describing where an electron is. We can think of it
> as a wave, and describing its exact location is
> impossible for us to comprehend."
>
> And when atoms are bound into molecules, the
> orbitals become even more complex:
>
> http://winter.group.shef.ac.uk/orbitron/
>
> I'm remembering why I've been ignoring your childish
> foot-stomping posts. Back into the circular file
> with you.
>
> - Randy- Hide quoted text -
>
gu...@hotmail.com
<ew...@sirius.tg00suus7038.net> wrote:
> In sci.physics.relativity, Randy Poe
> <poespam-t...@yahoo.com>
> wrote
> on Mon, 03 Sep 2007 13:07:47 -0700
>
> - Show quoted text -
Take a Sun, take planets that repel each other, bring them "close"
together, increase their velocity, make it the only way of measuring a
planets location by throwing another planet or moon at it (a single
photon (abosrbed or emitted) is sufficient to make an electron change
orbitals = Heisenberg's uncertainty) and we will see if they STILL
OBEY KEPLER's SIMPLE ORBIT...or if they fall within Shrodinger's
equation. Even water (close together water molecules) forms waves.
Randy Poe
> On Sep 4, 9:24 am, Randy Poe <poespam-t...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > > > The s-orbitals are spherical. The others are not. Nor
> > > > are they elliptical. Nor are they "donut-shaped".
>
> > > den wat r day...square?
>
> > Not so simply described. Hence websites that attempt
> > to convey the structure through words, pictures, cross-
> > sections and movies, such as this:http://www.orbitals.com/orb/
>
> Quote:"For example, in a simple lowest-energy state hydrogen atom,
I said that. See my statement above: "The s-orbitals
are spherical".
> the
> electrons are most likely to be found within a ****sphere**** around
> the nucleus of an atom. In a higher energy state, the shapes become
> ****lobes and rings****"
I provided you pretty pictures of exactly what these
structures are. Did you look at them? Do they
resemble "donuts" or "ellipses" to you?
Yes, these complicated shapes contain lobes and
rings. I don't think you understand what is meant
by either. LOOK AT THE PICTURES.
Stop making up physics.
- Randy
gu...@hotmail.com
I've had it. Lets post it by itself so others can decide for you.
That is why I post them by themselves so people stop throlling.
Randy Poe
> On Sep 4, 11:49 am, Randy Poe <poespam-t...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> > On Sep 4, 11:43 am, "gu...@hotmail.com" <gu...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > On Sep 4, 9:24 am, Randy Poe <poespam-t...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > > > > > The s-orbitals are spherical. The others are not. Nor
> > > > > > are they elliptical. Nor are they "donut-shaped".
>
> > > > > den wat r day...square?
>
> > > > Not so simply described. Hence websites that attempt
> > > > to convey the structure through words, pictures, cross-
> > > > sections and movies, such as this:http://www.orbitals.com/orb/
>
> > > Quote:"For example, in a simple lowest-energy state hydrogen atom,
>
> > I said that. See my statement above: "The s-orbitals
> > are spherical".
>
> > > the
> > > electrons are most likely to be found within a ****sphere**** around
> > > the nucleus of an atom. In a higher energy state, the shapes become
> > > ****lobes and rings****"
>
> > I provided you pretty pictures of exactly what these
> > structures are. Did you look at them? Do they
> > resemble "donuts" or "ellipses" to you?
>
> > Yes, these complicated shapes contain lobes and
> > rings. I don't think you understand what is meant
> > by either. LOOK AT THE PICTURES.
>
> > Stop making up physics.
>
> That is why I post them by themselves so people stop throlling.
Do what you like. You're back on my ignore list.
Expect me to be angry if you use my name again,
but other than that spew whatever nonsense you
want.
- Randy
gu...@hotmail.com
>
> - Show quoted text -
What have you got to hide Randy. Your own words scare you now.
gu...@hotmail.com
> On Sep 4, 11:52 am, "gu...@hotmail.com" <gu...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Sep 4, 11:49 am, Randy Poe <poespam-t...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > > On Sep 4, 11:43 am, "gu...@hotmail.com" <gu...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > On Sep 4, 9:24 am, Randy Poe <poespam-t...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > > > > > > The s-orbitals are spherical. The others are not. Nor
> > > > > > > are they elliptical. Nor are they "donut-shaped".
>
> > > > > > den wat r day...square?
>
> > > > > Not so simply described. Hence websites that attempt
> > > > > to convey the structure through words, pictures, cross-
> > > > > sections and movies, such as this:http://www.orbitals.com/orb/
>
> > > > Quote:"For example, in a simple lowest-energy state hydrogen atom,
>
> > > I said that. See my statement above: "The s-orbitals
> > > are spherical".
>
> > > > the
> > > > electrons are most likely to be found within a ****sphere**** around
> > > > the nucleus of an atom. In a higher energy state, the shapes become
> > > > ****lobes and rings****"
>
> > > I provided you pretty pictures of exactly what these
> > > structures are. Did you look at them? Do they
> > > resemble "donuts" or "ellipses" to you?
>
What do you think a ring is idiot.
Goodbye.
> > > Yes, these complicated shapes contain lobes and
> > > rings. I don't think you understand what is meant
> > > by either. LOOK AT THE PICTURES.
>
> > > Stop making up physics.
>
> > I've had it. Lets post it by itself so others can decide for you.
> > That is why I post them by themselves so people stop throlling.
>
> Do what you like. You're back on my ignore list.
>
> Expect me to be angry if you use my name again,
> but other than that spew whatever nonsense you
> want.
>
T.M. Sommers
> On Sep 4, 1:48 am, "T.M. Sommers" <t...@nj.net> wrote:
>
>>gu...@hotmail.com wrote:
>>
>>>On Sep 3, 6:43 pm, Randy Poe <poespam-t...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>>On Sep 3, 5:18 pm, "gu...@hotmail.com" <gu...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>>>#2. Search everywhere and you will find that: It is not that no orbits
>>>>>exist, instead no "FIXED" orbit exist (meaning the orbits are
>>>>>probabilisticly located within a region).
>>>>
>>>>No, no orbits exist. This model was inconsistent with
>>>>electromagnetic theory. Search everywhere.
>>>
>>>Correct electron "can" emit *****and***** ABSORB radiation
>>>(photon, etc...).
>>>When lower atomic shells are occupied, a new electron CANNOT reside,
>>>therefore do the math of what "needs" to be done.
>>
>>>Do not deny Uhlenbeck and Goudsmit's *****ANGULAR**** momentum of the
>>>electron inside the atom lest one does not comprehend what angular
>>>means and what momentum means.
>>
>>You are confusing the electron's intrinsic spin with its orbital
>>angular momentum. They are different; U and G were talking about
>>the former.
>
> Wrong. As already written above, U & G talk about BOTH, look it up and
> at other locations.
Lots of people talked about the orbital angular momentum; G&U
"invented" spin, so when they are mentioned, it is spin that is
being talked about.
If you are not confusing the two, then good.
> J = L + S
>
> Quote from U & G: "When we pass to atoms in which several electrons
> ***revolve***(2) round a residue of this kind ....."
I neither know nor care about the wording of their papers; they
are of only historical interest nowadays.
> It's interpretation: ....inside atoms, several (many) electrons
> revolve round a residue (nucleus)....
>
> The revolve above is about many electrons revolving around the nucleus
> (angular momentum) and NOT a spin as you just wrote.
Regardless of what G&U may have written, electrons do not revolve
around the nucleus. Such an orbit would require the electron to
accelerate, and accelerating charges radiate energy, so the
electron would spin into the nucleus quickly. That does not
happen, so there can't be any orbits. Also note that for some
orbitals, the orbital angular momentum is zero.
>>Also, do not be confused by the name "orbital
>>angular momentum"; there are no orbits.
If you can have spin without spinning, you can have orbitals
without orbitting.
gu...@hotmail.com
>
> If you can have spin without spinning, you can have orbitals
> without orbitting.
>
Can you ellaborate? Any web links to such behavior?
I've read that electrons can be motionless but not "spinnless"?
Eric Gisse
T.M. Sommers
The uncertainty principle guarantees that electrons can't be
motionless. As for spin, electrons have 'spin', that it,
intrinsic magnetic moment, but they are not little balls that
spin on an axis like the earth. If they were, they would be
spinning faster than the speed of light.
gu...@hotmail.com
So thats what you ment.
Well you might say their theory is old but it came after Heisenberg.
The spin and angular momentum are measures from the x-ray spectra
emitted from the atom.
As for impossibility of motion due to radiation:
Solar cells demonstrate how electrons can reside in a hibernating
state between quantum orbitals. An electron cannot go into a lower
shell if it's fully occupied regardless if it shed radiation, the
capability of the electron to also absorb radiation leads me to
"believe" that a re-absorption of light occurs after it has been
shed.