insane_alien Posted October 12, 2008 Posted October 12, 2008 i said perpetual IF nothing else ever interacted with it. mooeypoo is correct as well
traveler Posted October 12, 2008 Author Posted October 12, 2008 ah so you ignored the tidal effects on the ground then? the ground moves a good few meters every day. We are not talking about tidal effects, we are talking about two objects being acted upon by gravity, with their center points being a distance away from each other.
big314mp Posted October 12, 2008 Posted October 12, 2008 So you are using some silly idea that you cooked up to contest reality? And, actually, we are talking about atoms and electrons.
insane_alien Posted October 12, 2008 Posted October 12, 2008 a tidal effect is an object being acted upon by gravity. now, are you going to keep spouting your overly simplistic and wrong veiw of physics or are you going to take the time to learn something real? because really, your not being helpful here at all.
Tsadi 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. Though, if you are asked in college, what are the forces acting on, lets say a rocket, one of the forces are given as resistance.
insane_alien Posted October 12, 2008 Posted October 12, 2008 specifically, air friction. traveller uses some unspecified resistance that is somehow required for all forces to manifest itself. not exactly the same as air resistance as discussed in rocket science.
traveler Posted October 12, 2008 Author Posted October 12, 2008 specifically, air friction. traveller uses some unspecified resistance that is somehow required for all forces to manifest itself. not exactly the same as air resistance as discussed in rocket science. Resistance to the motion. It could be any type of resistance or "inertial force." So you are using some silly idea that you cooked up to contest reality? And, actually, we are talking about atoms and electrons. Not to contest the reality, but to describe it accurately.
insane_alien Posted October 12, 2008 Posted October 12, 2008 so you mean friction? you do know that can cause stuff to accelerate as well? not only that, but that it doesn't exist in certain scenarios. and also that it is caused by the geometry of the objects rubbing together and interacting via electromagnetic repulsion?
traveler Posted October 12, 2008 Author Posted October 12, 2008 so you mean friction? you do know that can cause stuff to accelerate as well? not only that, but that it doesn't exist in certain scenarios. and also that it is caused by the geometry of the objects rubbing together and interacting via electromagnetic repulsion? How much work is being done?
traveler Posted October 12, 2008 Author Posted October 12, 2008 context? What is the force and distance?
insane_alien Posted October 12, 2008 Posted October 12, 2008 seriously, give me something to work with here, force and distance OF WHAT?
big314mp Posted October 12, 2008 Posted October 12, 2008 Not to contest the reality, but to describe it accurately. You say electrons spiral into the atomic nucleus. They don't. Your theory fails.
traveler Posted October 12, 2008 Author Posted October 12, 2008 seriously, give me something to work with here, force and distance OF WHAT? The force of a proton, the force of an electron, and the force of a neutron? The distance from the proton to the electron.
big314mp Posted October 12, 2008 Posted October 12, 2008 You should know that it is change in distance. Since the distance doesn't change, no work is done, regardless of the force.
traveler Posted October 12, 2008 Author Posted October 12, 2008 You say electrons spiral into the atomic nucleus. They don't. Your theory fails. No, I'm saying just the opposite, that the electron gets further from the nucleus.
insane_alien Posted October 12, 2008 Posted October 12, 2008 in what situation? its not a fixed value you know. and the force is distance dependant and it depends what the force is acting on.
big314mp Posted October 12, 2008 Posted October 12, 2008 No, I'm saying just the opposite, that the electron gets further from the nucleus. They don't. Your theory still fails.
traveler Posted October 12, 2008 Author Posted October 12, 2008 They don't. Your theory still fails. They do, otherwise perpetual motion would be possible.
insane_alien Posted October 12, 2008 Posted October 12, 2008 so where is the energy coming from to move them away? and why do they always fall back down to the origional level after they have been excited by a photon such as in a laser?
big314mp Posted October 12, 2008 Posted October 12, 2008 They do, otherwise perpetual motion would be possible. They don't, otherwise chemical bonds would cease to exist. I exist, therefore your theory fails.
Klaynos Posted October 12, 2008 Posted October 12, 2008 This whole discussion on electron orbitals fails because it ignores quantum mechanics!
big314mp Posted October 12, 2008 Posted October 12, 2008 You lot bicker more than actual conversation. I'm just finding an excuse to avoid doing my calc homework
traveler Posted October 12, 2008 Author Posted October 12, 2008 You should know that it is change in distance. Since the distance doesn't change, no work is done, regardless of the force. That's what I said, and no work means no power, right?
Recommended Posts