studiot

Your reply has nothing whatsoever to do with my question. Here is my reference for the definition you are clearly trying to avoid.

You said they are at rest. If they are moving along this sphere, they are accelerating, so why don't they radiate? Well caught swansont. John Ye. This is a clear violation the the definition of an electric dipole, even by your proposals. An electric dipole is a pair of coupled charges separted by a distance R. It is defined as the product of the charge and the distance. In what way does your gorund state H not comply with this definition?

When I asked how I was asking for your mechanism. All you have done is restate a claim that it does. Where does the electron get this 'thermal energy of vibration' ? Why and how does it radiate this ? You have provided neither references nor maths to support this allegation. There is no point continuing trying to help if I am having to put in ten times the effort you are doing. That is showing contempt for others (me).

So you wish to pursue your hypothesis without regard to the rest of Science? How?

Judging by the photos in your previous thread, you seem to be a very handy, practical sort of chap. Great but why don't you just ask questions about what you need to know? I am absolutely useless at welding, platering , playing the piano or guitar and I could never paint a picasso, or even soemthing worthy of a competent 10 year old. So I aks somweone else about these things. (Od course speling is my strngest suite. )

It is a really silly advert because I can't remember what it is actually advertising.

Note the rules of speculations towards the top left of the picture. Note also there are half a dozen helpful guides as well at the top of the list. I saw a TV series (Dr Watsons amazing cases if I remember rightly,) which included some truly amazing medical rehab work with vets as well as other frontier medical stuff. I thoroughly recommend it if you can get to see it.

I thought that was the troglodyte with the trident who comes to conquer the Earth on the TV advert,where he turns out to be only 8mm high and the camper van squashes his spaceship under its wheel.

Gosh and there's me still hoping the faries at the bottom of my garden will do my washing up while I'm asleep tonight. They said they would after all.

I expect the OP has camped out sometime in his Arizona desert and received a belt off a metal trailer doorhandle in the morning. I certainly did in Arabia. Static electricity is a subject in itself, at one time it was the only source of electricity so Strange is correct to suggest looking at older devices. The Winshurst Machine is was capable of providing a large store of charge in metal plates. https://www.google.co.uk/search?source=hp&ei=7_-GW7SQA4zGgAaulamwAg&q=wimshurst+machine&oq=wimshurst&gs_l=psy-ab.1.0.0l10.2220.5182.0.7870.11.8.1.2.2.0.174.902.3j5.8.0....0...1c.1.64.psy-ab..0.11.980...0i131k1j0i10k1.0.o1r2YbiFqaU

I was getting to that.

Please stop answering questions I haven't asked. It wastes your time and mine. You have more than one misconception and I'm trying to take them one at a time. Before you come back please look up the following, if you are not familiar with them. Earnshaw's theorem. Lennard Jones Potential (This is a theory very similar to yours) Madelung constants. Biot- Savart Law They are all very relevant theory.

And why can't we get back on topic? There are no clouds on the Moon. If you want to discuss the interaction of gravity with the atmosphere of any solar system body, including the Earth and moon see here The key phrase is 'scale height' https://www.google.co.uk/search?source=hp&ei=8dyGW_vNPIjBgAaWkJT4Bw&q=scale+height+atmosphere&oq=scale+height&gs_l=psy-ab.1.1.0l10.1214.3850.0.5762.12.9.0.3.3.0.154.936.1j7.8.0....0...1c.1.64.psy-ab..1.11.1026...0i131k1j0i3k1.0.y-vytmeRHNY

Doesn't the The Bohr Model only apply to the hydrogen atom? In any event I specified r = R, whatever value you put on it, so the term in those brackets is still exactly zero. Now tell me, If there is another positive charge of any description beyond R, for any reason, will it exert a greater or lesser force on that electron than its own nucleus, since we have just calculated that force to be exactly zero?

Which are? and which statement is the exception to? I don't know why you are having so much trouble answering my comments. You didn't make any answer to my first one that I can find, where I was offereing some interesting relevant information that has only come to light this week.

Would you further agree that your equation 2 contains the same zero when ne = np since their ratio is then one? I was specifically starting with the simplest possible situation ie one electron and one proton.

Well I'm very glad about that. But you seem to have succumbed to another popular myth. Static electricity does not interact with magnetism. That is the province of moving electricity. Nor does static (or moving electricity) directly interact with mechanical pressure except in very specialist circumstances such as tribolectricity or piezoelectricity. Suction can be a useful fiction in calculations, but it is much more limited than centrifugal force and the 'mechanism' or rationale is quite different. Centrifugal force reduces the magnitude and changes the direction of the gravity experienced by an object on the surface of a planet or moon.

I blame the education system for fostering the popular myth about the existence of suction and the famous phrase "Nature abhors a vaccum" Neither are true. Even (medical) doctors who are intelligent folk and should know much better fall into this trap. It is the devils own job getting over to them that we do not suck air into our lungs. It is pushed in by outside pressure.

Once again, you are telling me things I didn't ask for and in this case specifically excluded. Why do you expect me to read your script if you persistently ignore mine? I have taken pains to be fair and take notice of what you are proposing specifically I asked if a certain term in one of your equations was zero under certain conditions.

In your modified coulomb equation you have the term [math]\left( {1 - \frac{R}{r}} \right)[/math] Would you agree that this is zero when R = r or is your equation wrong?

If you understood my question, why did you not answer it instead of answering a different one I did not ask? I also asked for the rationale behind your modification factor, although I apologize for mispelling the word.

To answer this you would need to settle a few more details. No work would be done if the pivot is indeed frictionless. The momentum exchange between the impactor and the object would depend upon three things. 1) The masses of the impactor, say M and the object, say m 2) The velocity of impact, say v. 3) Whether we can consider this an elastic or non elastic impact.

Anyone who has watched the recent BluePlanet2 series would realise how little we know about the ocean and how much more life there is in the deep ocean than we previously thought. And this is despite the huge gain in knowledge in recent years. The actual situation and figures presented offer quite a different take although they do concur that much of the visible activity take place close to land and offer some reasons for this. Set against this is the recent news item that over 50% of food is wasted. Certainly in the same timescale you mention I have seen a massive increase in waste. But yes I agree that more intensive use of the ocean resources will come and economics will play its part.

OK so you want to modify Coulomb's Law. But you have shown no rational for your modification, just introduced it ebcause it appears to fit some of the facts. Are you aware that Coulomb's Law has already been modified - It is called the Biot-Savart Law? This is because Coulomb strictly only applies to a stationary charge and does not take into account the effects of motion of that charge. Yet tiyou describe your charges as moving. Why is this? Some have called for mathematics from you and this is a tad unfair as your pdf does indeed posit the following formula [math]F = \left( {1 - \frac{R}{r}} \right)k\frac{{{q_1}{q_2}}}{{{r^2}}}[/math] So let us take a look at this formula which you claim describes the force acting on an electron at distance r from a proton. This formula creates three regions. 1) Where r < R , F is repulsive. 2) Where r > R, F is attractive. But the interesting one is 3) Where r = R, F is exactly zero and this is where you claim you will find the electron. Now consider the fate of an electron at distance R from the proton of the atom it belongs to. It suffers an attractive force from any proton at a distance greater than R (ie outside its own atom) but is subject to no opposing force from its 'own' proton. So can you tell me why we do not see external protons, whether located in an atom or not, stealing the electron from its atom? As this is the inevitable consequence of your formula.

I think this year has shown that forest , heath and prarie fires are much more difficult to control than the theorists would have us believe.