Google Groups no longer supports new Usenet posts or subscriptions. Historical content remains viewable.
Dismiss
Why must 2 electrons have opposite spin in an atom?
7 views
Skip to first unread message
gu...@hotmail.com
Feb 13, 2012, 6:49:51 AM2/13/12
to
Sure the Pauli (or Dirac?) answer is because two fermis cannot occupy
the same state and the same position.
But I doubt the 2 electrons occupy the same position in the same
orbital shell otherwise how would they know they are two instead of
one electron.
I have a feeling when they plot the positions of each electron inside
the same shells they are both at two distinct positions....so
therefore why must they have opposing spins.
The reason seems to align with my belief that its the very same reason
two current carrying wires attract each other when the currents are in
opposite direction (thus opposite spin) ....but Roberts and others try
to "kill" me when I say that (and yes I already know the explanation
they gave me which is based on Relativity and concentration of
"opposite" charge).
In fact....the only time the magnetic moment is not nullified is when
only one electron exists in one shell instead of two.
the same state and the same position.
But I doubt the 2 electrons occupy the same position in the same
orbital shell otherwise how would they know they are two instead of
one electron.
I have a feeling when they plot the positions of each electron inside
the same shells they are both at two distinct positions....so
therefore why must they have opposing spins.
The reason seems to align with my belief that its the very same reason
two current carrying wires attract each other when the currents are in
opposite direction (thus opposite spin) ....but Roberts and others try
to "kill" me when I say that (and yes I already know the explanation
they gave me which is based on Relativity and concentration of
"opposite" charge).
In fact....the only time the magnetic moment is not nullified is when
only one electron exists in one shell instead of two.
Poutnik
Feb 13, 2012, 8:37:22 AM2/13/12
to
In article <f5d8f26f-508b-412b-99ab-bc1e8907ec72
@m3g2000pbi.googlegroups.com>, gu...@hotmail.com says...
It is said if they were in the same state
the wave function as superposition of their wave functions
would have has zero modul, and therefore zero probability.
>
> I have a feeling when they plot the positions of each electron inside
> the same shells they are both at two distinct positions....so
> therefore why must they have opposing spins.
>
> The reason seems to align with my belief that its the very same reason
> two current carrying wires attract each other when the currents are in
> opposite direction (thus opposite spin) ....but Roberts and others try
> to "kill" me when I say that (and yes I already know the explanation
> they gave me which is based on Relativity and concentration of
> "opposite" charge).
>
> In fact....the only time the magnetic moment is not nullified is when
> only one electron exists in one shell instead of two.
--
Poutnik
People's selfconfidency is often reciprocal to their knowledge.
@m3g2000pbi.googlegroups.com>, gu...@hotmail.com says...
>
> Sure the Pauli (or Dirac?) answer is because two fermis cannot occupy
> the same state and the same position.
>
> But I doubt the 2 electrons occupy the same position in the same
> orbital shell otherwise how would they know they are two instead of
> one electron.
The essential is the same quantum state.
> Sure the Pauli (or Dirac?) answer is because two fermis cannot occupy
> the same state and the same position.
>
> But I doubt the 2 electrons occupy the same position in the same
> orbital shell otherwise how would they know they are two instead of
> one electron.
It is said if they were in the same state
the wave function as superposition of their wave functions
would have has zero modul, and therefore zero probability.
>
> I have a feeling when they plot the positions of each electron inside
> the same shells they are both at two distinct positions....so
> therefore why must they have opposing spins.
>
> The reason seems to align with my belief that its the very same reason
> two current carrying wires attract each other when the currents are in
> opposite direction (thus opposite spin) ....but Roberts and others try
> to "kill" me when I say that (and yes I already know the explanation
> they gave me which is based on Relativity and concentration of
> "opposite" charge).
>
> In fact....the only time the magnetic moment is not nullified is when
> only one electron exists in one shell instead of two.
Poutnik
People's selfconfidency is often reciprocal to their knowledge.
Sam Wormley
Feb 13, 2012, 9:03:34 AM2/13/12
to
The Pauli exclusion principle
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pauli_exclusion_principle
> The Pauli exclusion principle is the quantum mechanical principle
that no two identical fermions (particles with half-integer spin) may
occupy the same quantum state simultaneously.
> The Pauli exclusion principle helps explain a wide variety of
physical phenomena. One particularly important consequence of the
principle is the elaborate electron shell structure of atoms and the way
atoms share electrons, explaining the variety of chemical elements and
their chemical combinations. An electrically neutral atom contains bound
electrons equal in number to the protons in the nucleus. Electrons,
being fermions, cannot occupy the same quantum state, so electrons have
to "stack" within an atom, i.e. have different spins while at the same
place.
> Astronomy provides a spectacular demonstration of the effect of the
Pauli principle, in the form of white dwarf and neutron stars. In both
types of body, atomic structure is disrupted by large gravitational
forces, leaving the constituents supported by "degeneracy pressure"
alone. This exotic form of matter is known as degenerate matter. In
white dwarfs atoms are held apart by electron degeneracy pressure. In
neutron stars, subject to even stronger gravitational forces, electrons
have merged with protons to form neutrons. Neutrons are capable of
producing an even higher degeneracy pressure, albeit over a shorter
range. This can stabilize neutron stars from further collapse, but at a
smaller size and higher density than a white dwarf. Neutrons are the
most "rigid" objects known; their Young modulus (or more accurately,
bulk modulus) is 20 orders of magnitude larger than that of diamond.
See: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pauli_exclusion_principle
The Question for you is does the quantum state of an electron in
an atom "over there" effect the quantum state of an electron in
an atom over here?
john
Feb 13, 2012, 9:42:44 AM2/13/12
to
ends of an axle. You can only have two ends to any axle.
A driver I know used to drive
so fast that the lug nuts on his
passenger-side wheels were always getting loose.
A completed *shell* contains 8 such axles:
http://users.accesscomm.ca/john/periodicpattern.GIF
john
Androcles
Feb 13, 2012, 10:13:43 AM2/13/12
to
"john" <johnse...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:fe09128a-4659-44d4...@ir9g2000pbc.googlegroups.com...
On Feb 13, 5:49 am, "gu...@hotmail.com" <gu...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> Sure the Pauli (or Dirac?) answer is because two fermis cannot occupy
> the same state and the same position.
>
> But I doubt the 2 electrons occupy the same position in the same
> orbital shell otherwise how would they know they are two instead of
> one electron.
>
> I have a feeling when they plot the positions of each electron inside
> the same shells they are both at two distinct positions....so
> therefore why must they have opposing spins.
>
> The reason seems to align with my belief that its the very same reason
> two current carrying wires attract each other when the currents are in
> opposite direction (thus opposite spin) ....but Roberts and others try
> to "kill" me when I say that (and yes I already know the explanation
> they gave me which is based on Relativity and concentration of
> "opposite" charge).
>
> In fact....the only time the magnetic moment is not nullified is when
> only one electron exists in one shell instead of two.
Two electrons in the same pathway are the opposite
ends of an axle. You can only have two ends to any axle.
======================================
> Sure the Pauli (or Dirac?) answer is because two fermis cannot occupy
> the same state and the same position.
>
> But I doubt the 2 electrons occupy the same position in the same
> orbital shell otherwise how would they know they are two instead of
> one electron.
>
> I have a feeling when they plot the positions of each electron inside
> the same shells they are both at two distinct positions....so
> therefore why must they have opposing spins.
>
> The reason seems to align with my belief that its the very same reason
> two current carrying wires attract each other when the currents are in
> opposite direction (thus opposite spin) ....but Roberts and others try
> to "kill" me when I say that (and yes I already know the explanation
> they gave me which is based on Relativity and concentration of
> "opposite" charge).
>
> In fact....the only time the magnetic moment is not nullified is when
> only one electron exists in one shell instead of two.
Two electrons in the same pathway are the opposite
ends of an axle. You can only have two ends to any axle.
Why can I only have two ends to any axle?
gu...@hotmail.com
Feb 13, 2012, 3:20:06 PM2/13/12
to
On Feb 13, 8:37 am, Poutnik <pout...@privacy.invalid> wrote:
> In article <f5d8f26f-508b-412b-99ab-bc1e8907ec72
> @m3g2000pbi.googlegroups.com>, gu...@hotmail.com says...
>
>
>
> > Sure the Pauli (or Dirac?) answer is because two fermis cannot occupy
> > the same state and the same position.
>
> > But I doubt the 2 electrons occupy the same position in the same
> > orbital shell otherwise how would they know they are two instead of
> > one electron.
>
> The essential is the same quantum state.
>
> It is said if they were in the same state
> the wave function as superposition of their wave functions
> would have has zero modul, and therefore zero probability.
Zero modul? Their magnetic moment would be double vector modul in
> In article <f5d8f26f-508b-412b-99ab-bc1e8907ec72
> @m3g2000pbi.googlegroups.com>, gu...@hotmail.com says...
>
>
>
> > Sure the Pauli (or Dirac?) answer is because two fermis cannot occupy
> > the same state and the same position.
>
> > But I doubt the 2 electrons occupy the same position in the same
> > orbital shell otherwise how would they know they are two instead of
> > one electron.
>
> The essential is the same quantum state.
>
> It is said if they were in the same state
> the wave function as superposition of their wave functions
> would have has zero modul, and therefore zero probability.
size, that's not zero?
Likewise are they exactly at the same position when plotted over
time....otherwise there shouldn't be any superposition, thus no zero?
gu...@hotmail.com
Feb 13, 2012, 3:29:20 PM2/13/12
to
here.
micro...@hotmail.com
Feb 13, 2012, 3:36:13 PM2/13/12
to
On Feb 13, 3:49 am, "gu...@hotmail.com" <gu...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> Sure the Pauli (or Dirac?) answer is because two fermis cannot occupy
> the same state and the same position.
But there are infinite possibilities....
> Sure the Pauli (or Dirac?) answer is because two fermis cannot occupy
> the same state and the same position.
Just as there are for coordinate systems...
This rules out spin. And brings no orientation.
Point partciles are infinitely small and don't
hav rotation...
Mitchell Raemsch; the prize
Sam Wormley
Feb 13, 2012, 4:18:19 PM2/13/12
to
micro...@hotmail.com
Feb 13, 2012, 5:53:19 PM2/13/12
to
>
> - Show quoted text -
Magnetism is short ranged...
Electric and strong are subatomic.
Mitchell Raemsch
gu...@hotmail.com
Feb 13, 2012, 8:15:30 PM2/13/12
to
gravity to a pencil on Earth.
gu...@hotmail.com
Feb 13, 2012, 8:17:52 PM2/13/12
to
gu...@hotmail.com
Feb 13, 2012, 8:18:49 PM2/13/12
to
gu...@hotmail.com
Feb 13, 2012, 8:17:01 PM2/13/12
to
gu...@hotmail.com
Feb 13, 2012, 8:16:23 PM2/13/12
to
john
Feb 14, 2012, 12:43:51 AM2/14/12
to
On Feb 13, 9:13 am, "Androcles" <H...@Hgwrts.phscs.Feb.2012> wrote:
> "john" <johnsefton...@gmail.com> wrote in message
Well, that one is hard to explain.
Let me see if I can do it.
An axle is a continuous rod which turns
along its entire length.
On one end you screw conventional nuts on
the same way it turns.
On the other end you screw conventional nuts on
the opposite way it turns.
Hmmm. Any other ends?
No, I don't think so.
john
> "john" <johnsefton...@gmail.com> wrote in message
Let me see if I can do it.
An axle is a continuous rod which turns
along its entire length.
On one end you screw conventional nuts on
the same way it turns.
On the other end you screw conventional nuts on
the opposite way it turns.
Hmmm. Any other ends?
No, I don't think so.
john
Poutnik
Feb 14, 2012, 3:38:57 AM2/14/12
to
In article <8461d895-f206-48d5-b260-d4aa0d1447a7
@rp7g2000pbb.googlegroups.com>, gu...@hotmail.com says...
@rp7g2000pbb.googlegroups.com>, gu...@hotmail.com says...
>
> On Feb 13, 8:37 am, Poutnik <pout...@privacy.invalid> wrote:
> > In article <f5d8f26f-508b-412b-99ab-bc1e8907ec72
> > @m3g2000pbi.googlegroups.com>, gu...@hotmail.com says...
> >
> >
> >
> > > Sure the Pauli (or Dirac?) answer is because two fermis cannot occupy
> > > the same state and the same position.
> >
> > > But I doubt the 2 electrons occupy the same position in the same
> > > orbital shell otherwise how would they know they are two instead of
> > > one electron.
> >
> > The essential is the same quantum state.
> >
> > It is said if they were in the same state
> > the wave function as superposition of their wave functions
> > would have has zero modul, and therefore zero probability.
>
> Zero modul? Their magnetic moment would be double vector modul in
> size, that's not zero?
QM wave function is something very different to magnetic momentum.
> On Feb 13, 8:37 am, Poutnik <pout...@privacy.invalid> wrote:
> > In article <f5d8f26f-508b-412b-99ab-bc1e8907ec72
> > @m3g2000pbi.googlegroups.com>, gu...@hotmail.com says...
> >
> >
> >
> > > Sure the Pauli (or Dirac?) answer is because two fermis cannot occupy
> > > the same state and the same position.
> >
> > > But I doubt the 2 electrons occupy the same position in the same
> > > orbital shell otherwise how would they know they are two instead of
> > > one electron.
> >
> > The essential is the same quantum state.
> >
> > It is said if they were in the same state
> > the wave function as superposition of their wave functions
> > would have has zero modul, and therefore zero probability.
>
> Zero modul? Their magnetic moment would be double vector modul in
> size, that's not zero?
Poutnik
Feb 14, 2012, 3:40:17 AM2/14/12
to
In article <1cc83951-0dbd-4311-9fea-f2515fc4ed06
@n4g2000pbl.googlegroups.com>, micro...@hotmail.com says...
Only with strong I agree.
@n4g2000pbl.googlegroups.com>, micro...@hotmail.com says...
>
> Magnetism is short ranged...
> Electric and strong are subatomic.
>
Since when ?
> Magnetism is short ranged...
> Electric and strong are subatomic.
>
Only with strong I agree.
Androcles
Feb 14, 2012, 4:02:42 AM2/14/12
to
news:587885cc-ef2b-4776...@tj4g2000pbc.googlegroups.com...
=======================================
Nah, millions of axles have a differential and two half-shafts.
http://www.arthursclipart.org/carmechanic/mechanic/differential.gif
Why can I only have two ends to ANY axle?
On one end you screw conventional nuts on
the same way it turns.
On the other end you screw conventional nuts on
the opposite way it turns.
Hmmm. Any other ends?
No, I don't think so.
john
=================================
Who accused you of thinking? If you want to sue them
I'll be your witness, I know you don't think.
Hmmm. Any other ends? Yes, I KNOW so.
Nah, millions of axles have a differential and two half-shafts.
http://www.arthursclipart.org/carmechanic/mechanic/differential.gif
Why can I only have two ends to ANY axle?
On one end you screw conventional nuts on
the same way it turns.
On the other end you screw conventional nuts on
the opposite way it turns.
Hmmm. Any other ends?
No, I don't think so.
john
Who accused you of thinking? If you want to sue them
I'll be your witness, I know you don't think.
Hmmm. Any other ends? Yes, I KNOW so.
Poutnik
Feb 14, 2012, 4:35:40 AM2/14/12
to
>
> In article <1cc83951-0dbd-4311-9fea-f2515fc4ed06
> @n4g2000pbl.googlegroups.com>, micro...@hotmail.com says...
> >
>
> Magnetism is short ranged...
> Electric and strong are subatomic.
I have always thought the lightning electric discharges
> In article <1cc83951-0dbd-4311-9fea-f2515fc4ed06
> @n4g2000pbl.googlegroups.com>, micro...@hotmail.com says...
> >
>
> Magnetism is short ranged...
> Electric and strong are subatomic.
are always interatomic up to 10 km length.
Horrible mistake.
john
Feb 14, 2012, 8:35:36 AM2/14/12
to
Let's dumb it down even more
for your benefit-
how many ends are there to a PENCIL?
Two???
RIGHT, Andro!!
Now, if we twirl this pencil, when one
of the TWO ends is turning clockwise
wrt the center, which way is the other turning?
The OTHER way. The OPPOSITE way.
RIGHT, Andro!!
Now think of the two ends as the two electrons
and you've got it!! They are always opposite wrt their center.
That's how you get Cooper pairs. That's why many reactions
don't go to 100% even if there are theoretically enough electrons
present- they are not all the right electrons.
(Whew, that was tough, but Andro's
learning- I think :-/ )
john
gu...@hotmail.com
Feb 14, 2012, 9:41:15 AM2/14/12
to
accused of being wrong!!!
gu...@hotmail.com
Feb 14, 2012, 9:50:29 AM2/14/12
to
both ends are turning the same direction for your axle
but for an electron one turns the opposite direction to the other.
john
Feb 14, 2012, 11:01:51 AM2/14/12
to
Now think- the axis itself is not only rotating-
it is also moving end-over-end to make a disc
and the disc is precessing to make a sphere.
So the two electrons are FUNDAMENTALLY opposite!!!!!
There must be TWO distinguishable kinds
of everything- electrons, protons, neutrons-
whether or not they are in an atom they
will have opposite spin!!!
:-0
john
Androcles
Feb 14, 2012, 12:23:08 PM2/14/12
to
news:ec8cf1a2-5366-44f3...@og8g2000pbb.googlegroups.com...
========================
Yes, a split something or an axle.
Let's dumb it down even more
for your benefit-
how many ends are there to a PENCIL?
============================
What? ANY propelling pencil, or something?
Two???
RIGHT, Andro!!
==============================
WRONG, Dumbfuck!!
The key word *YOU* chose to use is "ANY".
have a softer graphite core than others.
Now, if we twirl this pencil, when one
of the TWO ends is turning clockwise
wrt the center, which way is the other turning?
The OTHER way. The OPPOSITE way.
RIGHT, Andro!!
=============================
WRONG, Dumbfuck!!
The SAME way.
Let's dumb it down even more for your benefit with a picture -
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w8q5QJOwoG4
===============================
Now think of the two ends as the two electrons
and you've got it!!
=================================
You are round the twirling bend.
Yes, a split something or an axle.
Let's dumb it down even more
for your benefit-
how many ends are there to a PENCIL?
What? ANY propelling pencil, or something?
Two???
RIGHT, Andro!!
==============================
WRONG, Dumbfuck!!
The key word *YOU* chose to use is "ANY".
Let's dumb it down even more for your benefit-
ANY pencil has a graphite core but SOME pencils
have a softer graphite core than others.
Now, if we twirl this pencil, when one
of the TWO ends is turning clockwise
wrt the center, which way is the other turning?
The OTHER way. The OPPOSITE way.
RIGHT, Andro!!
WRONG, Dumbfuck!!
The SAME way.
Let's dumb it down even more for your benefit with a picture -
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w8q5QJOwoG4
===============================
Now think of the two ends as the two electrons
and you've got it!!
You are round the twirling bend.
john
Feb 14, 2012, 12:58:01 PM2/14/12
to
When driving your car straight down the
road, the torque from
the spinning wheels will be such as
to tend to tighten the lug nuts on the
driver side and loosen them on the
passenger side.
This is the difference: it is what each sees
of the spin WITH REFERENCE TO THE CENTER.
john
Androcles
Feb 14, 2012, 2:05:00 PM2/14/12
to
news:ed502c3c-1856-4932...@n8g2000pbc.googlegroups.com...
======================================
1/ No twirl or torque is applied to the lug nuts by the spinning
wheels, the lug nuts and the wheels have different centres.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lug_nut
Perhaps you mean the shaft nut, as used on Formula 1 cars for rapid
tyre changing.
http://www.alibaba.com/showroom/shaft-nut.html
2/ It is well known that Australian, British, Indian and Japanese
cars use the left side of the road, but I haven't heard that the awkward
American cars use left-hand threads to make the passenger side wheels loose.
This is the difference. Rods, pencils, twirls, lugnuts and babbling nonsense
are on the passenger side; half shafts, axles, torques, propellor nuts and
precise language are on the engineering side.
http://www.funrcboats.com/images/products/aer1529_md.jpg
1/ No twirl or torque is applied to the lug nuts by the spinning
wheels, the lug nuts and the wheels have different centres.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lug_nut
Perhaps you mean the shaft nut, as used on Formula 1 cars for rapid
tyre changing.
http://www.alibaba.com/showroom/shaft-nut.html
2/ It is well known that Australian, British, Indian and Japanese
cars use the left side of the road, but I haven't heard that the awkward
American cars use left-hand threads to make the passenger side wheels loose.
This is the difference. Rods, pencils, twirls, lugnuts and babbling nonsense
are on the passenger side; half shafts, axles, torques, propellor nuts and
precise language are on the engineering side.
http://www.funrcboats.com/images/products/aer1529_md.jpg
Kevin
Feb 14, 2012, 2:31:21 PM2/14/12
to
>
> - Show quoted text -
Two electrons have opposing spin because without half electrons,
> - Show quoted text -
division by 1/2 would not be possible.
micro...@hotmail.com
Feb 14, 2012, 3:25:14 PM2/14/12
to
On Feb 14, 12:40 am, Poutnik <pout...@privacy.invalid> wrote:
> In article <1cc83951-0dbd-4311-9fea-f2515fc4ed06
> @n4g2000pbl.googlegroups.com>, microm2...@hotmail.com says...
> In article <1cc83951-0dbd-4311-9fea-f2515fc4ed06
>
>
>
> > Magnetism is short ranged...
> > Electric and strong are subatomic.
>
> Since when ?
> Only with strong I agree.
How far does the subatomic electric get?
>
>
> > Magnetism is short ranged...
> > Electric and strong are subatomic.
>
> Since when ?
> Only with strong I agree.
I can omly point out that it doesn't get far.
It is subatomic...
Mitchell Raemsch
Kevin
Feb 14, 2012, 3:30:58 PM2/14/12
to
On Feb 14, 11:58 am, john <johnsefton...@gmail.com> wrote:
> john- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
There are three models for two electons in a shell... The model you
>
> - Show quoted text -
are refering to does not emit photons and the spin on the electrons is
never equal in magnitude.
Why don't you try polar models for two electrons in a shell? Polar
models for two electrons in a shell emit photons.
The third model for two electrons in a shell is under 3-axis motion
and places a circle such that it has the same center as a sphere.
Poutnik
Feb 14, 2012, 4:40:00 PM2/14/12
to
In article <09ed32be-30e6-43b4-86c7-
4a3e2b...@o4g2000pbc.googlegroups.com>, micro...@hotmail.com
says...
4a3e2b...@o4g2000pbc.googlegroups.com>, micro...@hotmail.com
says...
>
> On Feb 14, 12:40 am, Poutnik <pout...@privacy.invalid> wrote:
> > In article <1cc83951-0dbd-4311-9fea-f2515fc4ed06
> > @n4g2000pbl.googlegroups.com>, microm2...@hotmail.com says...
> >
> >
> >
> > > Magnetism is short ranged...
> > > Electric and strong are subatomic.
> >
> > Since when ?
> > Only with strong I agree.
>
> How far does the subatomic electric get?
> I can omly point out that it doesn't get far.
> It is subatomic...
>
There is subatomic electric by origin, not by properties.
> On Feb 14, 12:40 am, Poutnik <pout...@privacy.invalid> wrote:
> > In article <1cc83951-0dbd-4311-9fea-f2515fc4ed06
> > @n4g2000pbl.googlegroups.com>, microm2...@hotmail.com says...
> >
> >
> >
> > > Magnetism is short ranged...
> > > Electric and strong are subatomic.
> >
> > Since when ?
> > Only with strong I agree.
>
> How far does the subatomic electric get?
> I can omly point out that it doesn't get far.
> It is subatomic...
>
Kevin
Feb 14, 2012, 5:58:52 PM2/14/12
to
On Feb 14, 11:58 am, john <johnsefton...@gmail.com> wrote:
> john- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
'k, do you say that I'm wrong because Helium has photon emissions?
>
> - Show quoted text -
Well, let me put it like this: 1s2Helium has three models... 1s2Carbon
has 2 models. (2=3)1s2Carbon doesn't emit photons. Helium under Carbon
makes Carbon a 4, Helium is a 3. 1s2Carbon works in my favor... It is
a 5 on a sphere: Blue with orange cord or cuts on a sphere... As long
as you don't have a problem with 5 being an odd number, that is.
Sinusoid drills have a problem remembering (that 5 is an odd number.).
gu...@hotmail.com
Feb 15, 2012, 2:24:20 AM2/15/12
to
of how the axle itself rotates and gyrates (precession),
Science clearly specifies that the two electrons WITH RESPECT
TO OTHER are always spinning in opposite direction to each other...
#1. ...where as no matter how you rotate or gyrate your wheel's
axles...the wheels always spin in the same direction with
respect to each other.
#2. the wheels spin perpendicularly to the axle where as the
electron's spin is along the axis of the axle.
john
Feb 15, 2012, 5:53:55 AM2/15/12
to
to make a sphere. There are two possibilities to combine
these spins.
john
john
Feb 15, 2012, 11:05:32 AM2/15/12
to
The axis is turning end-over-end to make a disc.
The disc is precessing to make a sphere.
As the axis turns the same way from end to end,
the electrons at opposite ends always
have opposite spin.
Shells are not complete until there are
eight axes containing 16 electrons- the periodic
table reflects the building of these 16-member
shells:
http://users.accesscomm.ca/john/periodicpattern.GIF
john
Androcles
Feb 15, 2012, 12:31:37 PM2/15/12
to
news:00e55f57-99a8-4f50...@n7g2000pbd.googlegroups.com...
=====================================
The problem with your model is that it is a mechanical model, not
an electromagnetic model. By analogy, rain cannot pass through
a coffee paper filter because rain is water droplets. If water
passes through a coffee paper filter then it isn't rain. Similarly,
an electron has a spherical charge which has a centre but no
surface. The radius of the charge reaches all the way from the
cathode to the anode of a TV tube. You may want to think of
an electron as a little ball with a minus sign painted on the side
but that doesn't make it so.
/periodicpattern.GIF
john
The problem with your model is that it is a mechanical model, not
an electromagnetic model. By analogy, rain cannot pass through
a coffee paper filter because rain is water droplets. If water
passes through a coffee paper filter then it isn't rain. Similarly,
an electron has a spherical charge which has a centre but no
surface. The radius of the charge reaches all the way from the
cathode to the anode of a TV tube. You may want to think of
an electron as a little ball with a minus sign painted on the side
but that doesn't make it so.
/periodicpattern.GIF
john
john
Feb 15, 2012, 12:53:40 PM2/15/12
to
of fusing, radiating centers that all SOMEHOW remain
adhered together whether curled tightly around the
galaxy or stretched from the center to the edge of the galaxy.
I imagine they jump from one atom to another
like a slinky, maybe, or perhaps they become spherical
when free, if it ever happens they are free.
In Cooper pairs, I envision them as intercoiling spirals, perhaps.
The better we can see with our telescopes,
the more we will know about atoms and electrons.
john
galaxy model
john
Feb 15, 2012, 1:14:15 PM2/15/12
to
The problem with your model is that it is a mechanical model, not
> an electromagnetic model. By analogy, rain cannot pass through
> a coffee paper filter because rain is water droplets. If water
> passes through a coffee paper filter then it isn't rain. Similarly,
> an electron has a spherical charge which has a centre but no
> surface. The radius of the charge reaches all the way from the
> cathode to the anode of a TV tube. You may want to think of
> an electron as a little ball with a minus sign painted on the side
> but that doesn't make it so.
So, it's a fractal model. Structures repeat.
> an electromagnetic model. By analogy, rain cannot pass through
> a coffee paper filter because rain is water droplets. If water
> passes through a coffee paper filter then it isn't rain. Similarly,
> an electron has a spherical charge which has a centre but no
> surface. The radius of the charge reaches all the way from the
> cathode to the anode of a TV tube. You may want to think of
> an electron as a little ball with a minus sign painted on the side
> but that doesn't make it so.
And the recent epiphany, at least for
me, was that the emr is also a fractal, and
it is that smaller emr fractal that is responsible for *fields*
I still think that's so cool!!
john
galaxy model
Kevin
Feb 15, 2012, 1:40:48 PM2/15/12
to
circle is never the same center as the sphere... Helium model number
three is the lone exception to
that rule and therefore can be utilized as a frame of referance under
three axis motion... Just because it is a frame of referance under
three axis motion doesn't mean
that I'm implying it is the holy grail... 5-axis motion is a
(BITCH,BITCH,BITCH).
Androcles
Feb 15, 2012, 1:47:47 PM2/15/12
to
news:7f89355f-2ba9-4df8...@z7g2000pbr.googlegroups.com...
===========================================
Do you need a better telescope to see galactic arms precess into spheres?
Do you need a better telescope to see galactic arms precess into spheres?
Androcles
Feb 15, 2012, 1:55:50 PM2/15/12
to
news:bdea82fa-f682-4d15...@jn12g2000pbb.googlegroups.com...
======================================
Narcissus thought he was "cool". Subjective epifanannies are for
ninnies, science is objective.
Narcissus thought he was "cool". Subjective epifanannies are for
ninnies, science is objective.
micro...@hotmail.com
Feb 15, 2012, 4:34:08 PM2/15/12
to
On Feb 14, 1:40 pm, Poutnik <pout...@privacy.invalid> wrote:
> In article <09ed32be-30e6-43b4-86c7-
> 4a3e2b89e...@o4g2000pbc.googlegroups.com>, microm2...@hotmail.com
Assuming it is infinite in range is not good enough...
It has a finite subatomic range.
Electric and strong are together binding the atom.
Electrons bind atoms to atoms...
Mitchell Raemsch; the prize
>
> --
> Poutnik
>
> People's selfconfidency is often reciprocal to their knowledge.- Hide quoted text -
> In article <09ed32be-30e6-43b4-86c7-
> 4a3e2b89e...@o4g2000pbc.googlegroups.com>, microm2...@hotmail.com
> says...
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Feb 14, 12:40 am, Poutnik <pout...@privacy.invalid> wrote:
> > > In article <1cc83951-0dbd-4311-9fea-f2515fc4ed06
> > > @n4g2000pbl.googlegroups.com>, microm2...@hotmail.com says...
>
> > > > Magnetism is short ranged...
> > > > Electric and strong are subatomic.
>
> > > Since when ?
> > > Only with strong I agree.
>
> > How far does the subatomic electric get?
> > I can omly point out that it doesn't get far.
> > It is subatomic...
>
> There is subatomic electric by origin, not by properties.
Show the measurements external to the atom...
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Feb 14, 12:40 am, Poutnik <pout...@privacy.invalid> wrote:
> > > In article <1cc83951-0dbd-4311-9fea-f2515fc4ed06
> > > @n4g2000pbl.googlegroups.com>, microm2...@hotmail.com says...
>
> > > > Magnetism is short ranged...
> > > > Electric and strong are subatomic.
>
> > > Since when ?
> > > Only with strong I agree.
>
> > How far does the subatomic electric get?
> > I can omly point out that it doesn't get far.
> > It is subatomic...
>
> There is subatomic electric by origin, not by properties.
Assuming it is infinite in range is not good enough...
It has a finite subatomic range.
Electric and strong are together binding the atom.
Electrons bind atoms to atoms...
Mitchell Raemsch; the prize
>
> --
> Poutnik
>
> People's selfconfidency is often reciprocal to their knowledge.- Hide quoted text -
Poutnik
Feb 15, 2012, 6:33:57 PM2/15/12
to
In article <0493fa58-1759-422e-87e5-ceba8f75cab6
@vh10g2000pbc.googlegroups.com>, micro...@hotmail.com says...
Assuming it is finite in range is not good enough...
@vh10g2000pbc.googlegroups.com>, micro...@hotmail.com says...
>
> On Feb 14, 1:40 pm, Poutnik <pout...@privacy.invalid> wrote:
> > In article <09ed32be-30e6-43b4-86c7-
> > 4a3e2b89e...@o4g2000pbc.googlegroups.com>, microm2...@hotmail.com
> > says...
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > > On Feb 14, 12:40 am, Poutnik <pout...@privacy.invalid> wrote:
> > > > In article <1cc83951-0dbd-4311-9fea-f2515fc4ed06
> > > > @n4g2000pbl.googlegroups.com>, microm2...@hotmail.com says...
> >
> > > > > Magnetism is short ranged...
> > > > > Electric and strong are subatomic.
> >
> > > > Since when ?
> > > > Only with strong I agree.
> >
> > > How far does the subatomic electric get?
> > > I can omly point out that it doesn't get far.
> > > It is subatomic...
> >
> > There is subatomic electric by origin, not by properties.
>
> Show the measurements external to the atom...
> Assuming it is infinite in range is not good enough...
> It has a finite subatomic range.
> Electric and strong are together binding the atom.
> Electrons bind atoms to atoms...
>
Show what is the cause of changing nature of electromagnetic force.
> On Feb 14, 1:40 pm, Poutnik <pout...@privacy.invalid> wrote:
> > In article <09ed32be-30e6-43b4-86c7-
> > 4a3e2b89e...@o4g2000pbc.googlegroups.com>, microm2...@hotmail.com
> > says...
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > > On Feb 14, 12:40 am, Poutnik <pout...@privacy.invalid> wrote:
> > > > In article <1cc83951-0dbd-4311-9fea-f2515fc4ed06
> > > > @n4g2000pbl.googlegroups.com>, microm2...@hotmail.com says...
> >
> > > > > Magnetism is short ranged...
> > > > > Electric and strong are subatomic.
> >
> > > > Since when ?
> > > > Only with strong I agree.
> >
> > > How far does the subatomic electric get?
> > > I can omly point out that it doesn't get far.
> > > It is subatomic...
> >
> > There is subatomic electric by origin, not by properties.
>
> Show the measurements external to the atom...
> Assuming it is infinite in range is not good enough...
> It has a finite subatomic range.
> Electric and strong are together binding the atom.
> Electrons bind atoms to atoms...
>
Assuming it is finite in range is not good enough...
micro...@hotmail.com
Feb 15, 2012, 9:07:06 PM2/15/12
to
On Feb 15, 3:33 pm, Poutnik <pout...@privacy.invalid> wrote:
> In article <0493fa58-1759-422e-87e5-ceba8f75cab6
> @vh10g2000pbc.googlegroups.com>, microm2...@hotmail.com says...
For instance the neutron is magnetic but not electric
and will never absorb light.
Mitchell Raemsch; the prize
> In article <0493fa58-1759-422e-87e5-ceba8f75cab6
> @vh10g2000pbc.googlegroups.com>, microm2...@hotmail.com says...
> People's selfconfidency is often reciprocal to their knowledge.- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
Electric and magnetic are not always together...
>
> - Show quoted text -
For instance the neutron is magnetic but not electric
and will never absorb light.
Mitchell Raemsch; the prize
Poutnik
Feb 16, 2012, 1:03:42 AM2/16/12
to
In article <1b5eb22a-d551-4b35-8ca9-
97f815...@vd8g2000pbc.googlegroups.com>, micro...@hotmail.com
says...
of the same EM force.
97f815...@vd8g2000pbc.googlegroups.com>, micro...@hotmail.com
says...
>
>
> Electric and magnetic are not always together...
> For instance the neutron is magnetic but not electric
> and will never absorb light.
>
Electric and magnetic are just 2 different manifestation
>
> Electric and magnetic are not always together...
> For instance the neutron is magnetic but not electric
> and will never absorb light.
>
of the same EM force.
john
Feb 16, 2012, 1:30:15 AM2/16/12
to
On Feb 15, 12:55 pm, "Androcles" <H...@Hgwrts.phscs.Feb.2012> wrote:
> "john" <johnsefton...@gmail.com> wrote in message
What I think is cool is the idea that
each fractal has its own emr.
Each photon or neutrino given off when
electron matter dropped down an electron or
fused a proton would be 10^27 times smaller
than the photons and neutrinos we deal with.
It would be impossible for us to distinguish them as
individual bits of radiation- to us this radiation
would be felt only as a field.
So, now we have a bunch more possibilities
as to what exactly causes charge, gravity, magnetism................
cool.
john
galaxy model for the atom
> "john" <johnsefton...@gmail.com> wrote in message
each fractal has its own emr.
Each photon or neutrino given off when
electron matter dropped down an electron or
fused a proton would be 10^27 times smaller
than the photons and neutrinos we deal with.
It would be impossible for us to distinguish them as
individual bits of radiation- to us this radiation
would be felt only as a field.
So, now we have a bunch more possibilities
as to what exactly causes charge, gravity, magnetism................
cool.
john
galaxy model for the atom
john
Feb 16, 2012, 1:34:46 AM2/16/12
to
On Feb 16, 12:03 am, Poutnik <pout...@privacy.invalid> wrote:
> In article <1b5eb22a-d551-4b35-8ca9-
> 97f8158e6...@vd8g2000pbc.googlegroups.com>, microm2...@hotmail.com
but I think you should spell-check your sig.
:)
john
> In article <1b5eb22a-d551-4b35-8ca9-
> 97f8158e6...@vd8g2000pbc.googlegroups.com>, microm2...@hotmail.com
> says...
>
> > Electric and magnetic are not always together...
> > For instance the neutron is magnetic but not electric
> > and will never absorb light.
>
> Electric and magnetic are just 2 different manifestation
> of the same EM force.
>
> --
> Poutnik
>
> People's selfconfidency is often reciprocal to their knowledge.
I agree with the electric/magnetic thing
>
> > Electric and magnetic are not always together...
> > For instance the neutron is magnetic but not electric
> > and will never absorb light.
>
> Electric and magnetic are just 2 different manifestation
> of the same EM force.
>
> --
> Poutnik
>
> People's selfconfidency is often reciprocal to their knowledge.
but I think you should spell-check your sig.
:)
john
Androcles
Feb 16, 2012, 2:06:03 AM2/16/12
to
news:16da6805-0255-4ce9...@o4g2000pbc.googlegroups.com...
emrs are not as big as ostrrches. Does your
family know you are off your rocker?
Each photon or neutrino given off when
electron matter
==========================
Electrons don't have any matter, they are emus.
On Feb 15, 12:55 pm, "Androcles" <H...@Hgwrts.phscs.Feb.2012> wrote:
> "john" <johnsefton...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>
> news:bdea82fa-f682-4d15...@jn12g2000pbb.googlegroups.com...
> | The problem with your model is that it is a mechanical model, not
> | > an electromagnetic model. By analogy, rain cannot pass through
> | > a coffee paper filter because rain is water droplets. If water
> | > passes through a coffee paper filter then it isn't rain. Similarly,
> | > an electron has a spherical charge which has a centre but no
> | > surface. The radius of the charge reaches all the way from the
> | > cathode to the anode of a TV tube. You may want to think of
> | > an electron as a little ball with a minus sign painted on the side
> | > but that doesn't make it so.
> | So, it's a fractal model. Structures repeat.
> | And the recent epiphany, at least for
> | me, was that the emr is also a fractal, and
> | it is that smaller emr fractal that is responsible for *fields*
> | I still think that's so cool!!
> |
> | john
> | galaxy model
> ======================================
> Narcissus thought he was "cool". Subjective epifanannies are for
> ninnies, science is objective.
What I think is cool is the idea that
each fractal has its own emr.
==========================
> "john" <johnsefton...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>
> news:bdea82fa-f682-4d15...@jn12g2000pbb.googlegroups.com...
> | The problem with your model is that it is a mechanical model, not
> | > an electromagnetic model. By analogy, rain cannot pass through
> | > a coffee paper filter because rain is water droplets. If water
> | > passes through a coffee paper filter then it isn't rain. Similarly,
> | > an electron has a spherical charge which has a centre but no
> | > surface. The radius of the charge reaches all the way from the
> | > cathode to the anode of a TV tube. You may want to think of
> | > an electron as a little ball with a minus sign painted on the side
> | > but that doesn't make it so.
> | So, it's a fractal model. Structures repeat.
> | And the recent epiphany, at least for
> | me, was that the emr is also a fractal, and
> | it is that smaller emr fractal that is responsible for *fields*
> | I still think that's so cool!!
> |
> | john
> | galaxy model
> ======================================
> Narcissus thought he was "cool". Subjective epifanannies are for
> ninnies, science is objective.
What I think is cool is the idea that
each fractal has its own emr.
emrs are not as big as ostrrches. Does your
family know you are off your rocker?
Each photon or neutrino given off when
electron matter
Electrons don't have any matter, they are emus.
micro...@hotmail.com
Feb 16, 2012, 3:26:54 PM2/16/12
to
On Feb 15, 10:03 pm, Poutnik <pout...@privacy.invalid> wrote:
> In article <1b5eb22a-d551-4b35-8ca9-
> 97f8158e6...@vd8g2000pbc.googlegroups.com>, microm2...@hotmail.com
Mitchell Raemsch
> In article <1b5eb22a-d551-4b35-8ca9-
> 97f8158e6...@vd8g2000pbc.googlegroups.com>, microm2...@hotmail.com
> says...
>
> > Electric and magnetic are not always together...
> > For instance the neutron is magnetic but not electric
> > and will never absorb light.
>
> Electric and magnetic are just 2 different manifestation
> of the same EM force.
They are only Unified in light and can be seperate for matter.
>
> > Electric and magnetic are not always together...
> > For instance the neutron is magnetic but not electric
> > and will never absorb light.
>
> Electric and magnetic are just 2 different manifestation
> of the same EM force.
Mitchell Raemsch
Poutnik
Feb 17, 2012, 4:35:11 AM2/17/12
to
In article <5057f186-cac0-4cfa-b7ae-37bcbc9cdec6
@tc8g2000pbc.googlegroups.com>, johnse...@gmail.com says...
and Gravity spell checker may does not check the signature.
--
Poutnik
People's selfconfidence is often reciprocal to their knowledge.
@tc8g2000pbc.googlegroups.com>, johnse...@gmail.com says...
>
> >
> > > Electric and magnetic are not always together...
> > > For instance the neutron is magnetic but not electric
> > > and will never absorb light.
> >
> > Electric and magnetic are just 2 different manifestation
> > of the same EM force.
> >
> > --
> > Poutnik
> >
> > People's selfconfidency is often reciprocal to their knowledge.
>
> I agree with the electric/magnetic thing
> but I think you should spell-check your sig.
> :)
> john
I agree with objection, I am not EN native, reserving right of errors,
> >
> > > Electric and magnetic are not always together...
> > > For instance the neutron is magnetic but not electric
> > > and will never absorb light.
> >
> > Electric and magnetic are just 2 different manifestation
> > of the same EM force.
> >
> > --
> > Poutnik
> >
> > People's selfconfidency is often reciprocal to their knowledge.
>
> I agree with the electric/magnetic thing
> but I think you should spell-check your sig.
> :)
> john
and Gravity spell checker may does not check the signature.
--
Poutnik
People's selfconfidence is often reciprocal to their knowledge.
Poutnik
Feb 17, 2012, 4:40:12 AM2/17/12
to
In article <d1372e84-f00e-4e3b-93c7-70794e0ddeb9
@qs5g2000pbc.googlegroups.com>, micro...@hotmail.com says...
circumstances.
BTW not having a charge does not mean not being electric.
Without "being electric" a neutron would not have a magnetic moment.
--
Poutnik
People's selfconfidence is often reciprocal to their knowledge.
@qs5g2000pbc.googlegroups.com>, micro...@hotmail.com says...
>
> On Feb 15, 10:03 pm, Poutnik <pout...@privacy.invalid> wrote:
> > In article <1b5eb22a-d551-4b35-8ca9-
> > 97f8158e6...@vd8g2000pbc.googlegroups.com>, microm2...@hotmail.com
> > says...
> >
> > > Electric and magnetic are not always together...
> > > For instance the neutron is magnetic but not electric
> > > and will never absorb light.
> >
> > Electric and magnetic are just 2 different manifestation
> > of the same EM force.
>
> They are only Unified in light and can be seperate for matter.
>
No, it is just only one phenomena can be observed at given
> On Feb 15, 10:03 pm, Poutnik <pout...@privacy.invalid> wrote:
> > In article <1b5eb22a-d551-4b35-8ca9-
> > 97f8158e6...@vd8g2000pbc.googlegroups.com>, microm2...@hotmail.com
> > says...
> >
> > > Electric and magnetic are not always together...
> > > For instance the neutron is magnetic but not electric
> > > and will never absorb light.
> >
> > Electric and magnetic are just 2 different manifestation
> > of the same EM force.
>
> They are only Unified in light and can be seperate for matter.
>
circumstances.
BTW not having a charge does not mean not being electric.
Without "being electric" a neutron would not have a magnetic moment.
--
Poutnik
People's selfconfidence is often reciprocal to their knowledge.
0 new messages