traveler Posted October 11, 2008 Posted October 11, 2008 Therefore, an electron in the lowest orbit, can't emit any photons, so it can't lose any energy to spiral into the nucleus. Perpetual motion?
insane_alien Posted October 11, 2008 Posted October 11, 2008 in a way, yes. this should not be compared to the perpetual motion that kooks are claiming. completely different scenarios.
traveler Posted October 12, 2008 Author Posted October 12, 2008 in a way, yes. this should not be compared to the perpetual motion that kooks are claiming. completely different scenarios. Not in any way. There is no free ride. If you looked at the frequency wave of that electron's motion it would be constantly diminishing to a flat line according to time. Perpetual motion would not do that.
insane_alien Posted October 12, 2008 Posted October 12, 2008 well, assuming the atom does not interact with anything and proton decay does not exist then the electron will orbit the nucleus for eternity. that is the definition of perpetual i believe. the moment you try to extract energy from the system then it will not be perpetual. nobody said there was a free ride.
traveler Posted October 12, 2008 Author Posted October 12, 2008 well, assuming the atom does not interact with anything and proton decay does not exist then the electron will orbit the nucleus for eternity. that is the definition of perpetual i believe. the moment you try to extract energy from the system then it will not be perpetual. nobody said there was a free ride. No resistance means no power, because no work got done, only distance and time occured. What does that do to the energy over a fixed duration of time, when no work got done over a fixed time interval?
insane_alien Posted October 12, 2008 Posted October 12, 2008 the energy stays the same. thats what happens. and it has bugger all to do with resistance.
traveler Posted October 12, 2008 Author Posted October 12, 2008 the energy stays the same. thats what happens. and it has bugger all to do with resistance. It has everything to do with the resistance, or "the load", or otherwise known as "force," Everything is relative, remember?? No force (load, or resistance) means no work got done, which means no power. Distance and time occurred, but no opposing force was present, so no work got done. So with all the atoms present in the universe, none of them doing any work, the universe is powerless, is that what you are trying to tell me?
insane_alien Posted October 12, 2008 Posted October 12, 2008 oh for **** sake traveller. resistance is not force, relativity is to do with velocities and very basic mechanical equations DO NOT ALWAYS APPLY. stop yapping on about crap you think is right but has absolutely no basis in reality. from what i have seen you have only the most tenuous of grasps on newtonian mechanics and absolutely no grasp of even the more basic parts of relativity, quantum mechanics or pretty much anything else. time to shut the hell up and learn something.
swansont Posted October 12, 2008 Posted October 12, 2008 It has everything to do with the resistance, or "the load", or otherwise known as "force," Everything is relative, remember?? No force (load, or resistance) means no work got done, which means no power. Distance and time occurred, but no opposing force was present, so no work got done. So with all the atoms present in the universe, none of them doing any work, the universe is powerless, is that what you are trying to tell me? No work is being done, meaning the energy is constant. It does not have to be zero to be constant. oh for **** sake traveller. resistance is not force, relativity is to do with velocities and very basic mechanical equations DO NOT ALWAYS APPLY. stop yapping on about crap you think is right but has absolutely no basis in reality. from what i have seen you have only the most tenuous of grasps on newtonian mechanics and absolutely no grasp of even the more basic parts of relativity, quantum mechanics or pretty much anything else. time to shut the hell up and learn something. No need for this. This isn't the first time someone has misused the more precise terminology of physics, and jumbled concepts. It won't be the last.
insane_alien Posted October 12, 2008 Posted October 12, 2008 No need for this. This isn't the first time someone has misused the more precise terminology of physics, and jumbled concepts. It won't be the last. if only it was just lack of knowledge of the definition of a few words. traveller has shown himself time and time again incapable of listening to what other people are saying or even accepting the slightest possiblity that he may have got something wrong. he'll hijack the thread and turn it into some horrible monstrosity not even remotely connected with the origonal topic.
traveler Posted October 12, 2008 Author Posted October 12, 2008 No work is being done, meaning the energy is constant. It does not have to be zero to be constant. Correct, no work is being done, therefore there is no power, as power=work/time. That means for all of time there has never been, and never will be any power?
big314mp Posted October 12, 2008 Posted October 12, 2008 That means for all of time there has never been, and never will be any power? This is a nonsensical statement. Anyhow, generalizing from atomic orbitals is ridiculous, and I think you are aware of that. You yourself have provided examples of power in other threads. I seem to recall something about weightlifters.
traveler Posted October 12, 2008 Author Posted October 12, 2008 This is a nonsensical statement. Anyhow, generalizing from atomic orbitals is ridiculous, and I think you are aware of that. You yourself have provided examples of power in other threads. I seem to recall something about weightlifters. It is a nonsensical statement, I agree. But accepted theory has no choice but to agree with it, because there was never any work done.
big314mp Posted October 12, 2008 Posted October 12, 2008 It is a nonsensical statement, I agree. But accepted theory has no choice but to agree with it, because there was never any work done. Accepted physics agrees with the idea that electrons in orbitals do not do work. This has no bearing on what accepted physics says about other things doing work. I lift a 10kg weight by 1 meter, and I will do ~100J of work. Stop being so thick. You used that example yourself.
ydoaPs Posted October 12, 2008 Posted October 12, 2008 It is a nonsensical statement, I agree. But accepted theory has no choice but to agree with it, because there was never any work done. How about the work to get it in it's current state?
traveler Posted October 12, 2008 Author Posted October 12, 2008 How about the work to get it in it's current state? So where did it come from and is it getting further away from the core? Is that what you are asking? Accepted physics agrees with the idea that electrons in orbitals do not do work. This has no bearing on what accepted physics says about other things doing work. I lift a 10kg weight by 1 meter, and I will do ~100J of work. Stop being so thick. You used that example yourself. Did the change occur instantly?
big314mp Posted October 12, 2008 Posted October 12, 2008 Obviously not, as that would imply infinite power.
traveler Posted October 12, 2008 Author Posted October 12, 2008 Obviously not, as that would imply infinite power. What was the duration, and what would the duration be if you put a heavier weight on the bar?
swansont Posted October 12, 2008 Posted October 12, 2008 Correct, no work is being done, therefore there is no power, as power=work/time. That means for all of time there has never been, and never will be any power? Yes. Energy is conserved, so this is trivially true, but pretty much completely useless. You can apply the concepts to subsystems, where work is being done.
traveler Posted October 12, 2008 Author Posted October 12, 2008 (edited) Yes. Energy is conserved, so this is trivially true, but pretty much completely useless. You can apply the concepts to subsystems, where work is being done. There is a subsystem to an electron, it's called distance. How do you "apply" work to a subsystem when you can do no work? Edited October 12, 2008 by traveler multiple post merged
insane_alien Posted October 12, 2008 Posted October 12, 2008 you are the one assuming you can do no work, just like you assumed people can fall through the ground in the other thread. when you only consider part of a scenario it always fails to make sense.
traveler Posted October 12, 2008 Author Posted October 12, 2008 you are the one assuming you can do no work, just like you assumed people can fall through the ground in the other thread. when you only consider part of a scenario it always fails to make sense. I wasn't suggesting "falling through the ground," I was pointing out that since it is so obvious that you CAN'T be "falling through the ground," your velocity towards the center of the Earth is 0 m/s, and your acceleration is therefore 0 m/s^2, since no matter how much time is observed, your exact distance to the center of the Earth remained unchanged.
big314mp Posted October 12, 2008 Posted October 12, 2008 mooeypoo showed, both mathematically, and with a concrete example, as to how acceleration can be treated as a vector. The observations show that the electron doesn't do any work. So what exactly are you disputing here?
insane_alien Posted October 12, 2008 Posted October 12, 2008 ah so you ignored the tidal effects on the ground then? the ground moves a good few meters every day.
traveler Posted October 12, 2008 Author Posted October 12, 2008 mooeypoo showed, both mathematically, and with a concrete example, as to how acceleration can be treated as a vector. The observations show that the electron doesn't do any work. So what exactly are you disputing here? The perpetual motion Insane Alien suggested. Mooeypoo showed nothing except incorrect statements.
Recommended Posts