- Joined
- Jun 6, 2014
- Messages
- 43,804
- Reaction score
- 8,672
- Location
- Flanders.
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Undisclosed
Do you mean that those videos aren't documentaries? I was thinking of taking a plumbing course but now I won't bother.
Dissapointingly no.
I think I know where the grease might be coming from though.
Particles have mass, therefore they occupy space. i am arguing that the pressure of the electron's spinning around the neutron creates the neutron, of course.
http://www.openculture.com/2013/11/quantum-physics-made-relatively-simple-by-hans-bethe.html said:“his groundbreaking work on the theory of energy production in stars.”
Do you mean that those videos aren't documentaries? I was thinking of taking a plumbing course but now I won't bother.
Is this what you are referring to?
I am referring to the fact that you know very little about quantum physics. Bethe does not state that the pressure of the electron creates the neutron.
Neutrons are made of quarks.Okay;
How about the combination of electrons and protons making the neutron? this would be negative and positive charges rotating around a neutron keeping them in place, which i proved is not what is happening, or, that the neutron is the product of the electron and proton's 'pressure?' electrons have a half life, where does the energy go but to the 'center?'
Okay;
How about the combination of electrons and protons making the neutron? this would be negative and positive charges rotating around a neutron keeping them in place, which i proved is not what is happening, or, that the neutron is the product of the electron and proton's 'pressure?' electrons have a half life, where does the energy go but to the 'center?'
Neutrons are made of quarks.
What are quarks made of?
The current theory is strings.
You do realize if i am wrong we have nothing to work with?
I was talking about balance between the particles, and decided that it would be a fair observation to say that they keep the neutron in place instead of the neutron keeping them in place. this is because quarks are 'dead matter,' having a 'positive spin.' it is only through negative energy energy exists to be used. it is the dead matter that has a positive spin that gets affected by the negative spin stuff, and then there is the release of energy when they separate, of course.
Furthermore, from your link, i would say that electrons give the atom mass, as, the more electrons there are in a atom, the denser it is, and the heavier it is. this electron scale goes up with the proton scale, so, i think it would be safer to say that the more electrons and protons it has in the atom, the denser it is. this is like pressure building on the neutron, making it more compact as the particles fly around it, yes? does that make sense?
It does not make sense. You are wrong. Electrons do not give the atom mass. Really, if you are interested in this subject then you should do some research.
"Protons and neutrons are the larger particles, and are found in the nucleus, which is the core of the atom. Atomic mass is typically calculated by adding the number of protons and neutrons together, ignoring the electrons because of their small size. Daltons are the standard units used for measuring atomic mass."
What is Atomic Mass? - Definition & Examples - Video & Lesson Transcript | Study.com
What you are saying is that the more electrons got does not influence the density? then why do things with more density have more electron orbitals?
I'm not saying it, science says it.
Protons and neutrons have nearly the same mass while electrons are much less massive. If we assume that a neutron has a mass of 1, then the relative masses are:
Neutron = 1
Proton = 0.99862349
Electron = 0.0005438673
Now do you understand?
Well, there is no arguing with direct figures, but, how do you suppose the density is determined?
If you really want to know then study the subject. I have no time to educate you.
You're allowed to start threads like this around here? Is this site great, or what?
Particles are packets of probability waves, they do not have circumferences.
The electron cannot be confined to the volume of a neutron.
A Neutron is made up of 1 up quark and 2 down quarks. When it transforms into a proton and an electron, actually one of the down quarks is converted to an up quark and an electron is produced. (And an antineutrino. Mediated by a W bosons.) The electron and antineutrino did not exist before the transformation. Protons do not equal electrons. Protons and neutrons belong to a class of particles called the 'baryons' (which is a part of the larger class called hadrons). These baryons are composed of three quarks. Quarks occur in 6 types called flavours - up, down, strange, charm, bottom and top. A proton (uud) is composed of 2 up quarks (each with a charge +2/3) and one down quark (with charge -1/3); hence it has a net charge of +1. A neutron (udd) is composed of two down quarks (each with a charge of -1/3) and one up quark (with a charge +2/3); hence it is neutral overall.
On the other hand, electrons are fermions. They are elementary by themselves i.e. they are not further composed of any particle.
One does not "dabble" in science. You either get your own doctorate in a field of study and then STUDY it some more, or you just sit back and watch the "documentaries "I have dabbled a bit in college science and have found that there are many patterns and balances in this science. for example, there is a balance between one periodic table with it's listed protons and unlisted electron orbitals, as there seems to be a formula where they attract one another. i think this is because the protons will be pulled towards the electron, bu all the electrons, keeping them moving. this would be like a study on 'predation' in biology, where the predators are drawn towards the herbivores to eat them, but will disengage certain prey to follow another prey of the herd sometimes. in other words, as soon as they are close to one electron, they are drawn back into the fold by other clusters of electrons.
So, what else is there to it? i suppose if we were to look closer at this relationship, we would find that the neutron is attracting one or the other or both. or, that the neutron is crushed like a black hole or dying star at the center of the rotating particles and they secrete more stuff that is crushed. this would be like a garbage van crushing things, as the two sides are pushed together, crushing the waste, the left overs are the neutron, yes?
With chemistry, i am trying to figure out a 'bonding rule of thumb.' each atom that bonds has a certain weight not related to anything except the weight of the material, even though the further you go down the table, there are more protons, the weight does not reflect anything about the make up of the molecule or atoms.
So, instead of trying once more to find a pattern between the elements - maybe metals have a different ratio of proton to weight than gases? - then we need to find the right way to depict the molecule somehow, maybe by taking each atom that is in it and finding out if the sum of the atoms is directly related to the weight and density of the molecule?
For example, water behaves similarly to 'liquid metals,' and water is much lighter than liquid metals in a smelter. due to the weight of the liquid metals, even though they behave in the same manner, they will also have the chemical make up as the metal they are from. this means there is a whole world out there to explore when it comes to liquids and so forth, especially as nitrogen, for example, is a gas that cannot melt.
That said, i think there might be a pattern between all elements coming together to form molecules and the weights, among other things, but cannot get around to doing this as it is frustratingly long to do properly with so many different classes of matter and weights having no real pattern between them.
~ I suspect that it has something to do with magical elements, being fire, water, air and earth. this is because all the elements come from these, if you were to observe that [1] hydrogen is liquid, [2] helium is gas, [3] Lithium is earth and [4] baryon is fire, yes? maybe this guideline or rule of thumb will help unravel a periodic table number or proton number, as they have the same numbers, to weight ratios?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?