Welcome to
Science a GoGo's
Discussion Forums
Please keep your postings on-topic or they will be moved to a galaxy far, far away.
Your use of this forum indicates your agreement to our terms of use.
So that we remain spam-free, please note that all posts by new users are moderated.


The Forums
General Science Talk        Not-Quite-Science        Climate Change Discussion        Physics Forum        Science Fiction

Who's Online
0 registered (), 203 Guests and 1 Spider online.
Key: Admin, Global Mod, Mod
Latest Posts
Is there anybody out there?
by paul
12/07/19 03:58 AM
Top Posters (30 Days)
True 1
paul 1
Page 2 of 12 < 1 2 3 4 ... 11 12 >
Topic Options
#45127 - 08/31/12 04:01 AM Re: The law of conservation and transformation energy [Re: Orac]
paul Offline
Megastar

Registered: 03/21/06
Posts: 4136
Im sorry orac , did you forget to write a bunch of stuff that
has no bearing on the discussion?
_________________________
3/4 inch of dust build up on the moon in 4.527 billion years,LOL and QM is fantasy science.

Top
.
#45128 - 08/31/12 04:27 AM Re: The law of conservation and transformation energy [Re: socratus]
socratus Offline
Senior Member

Registered: 06/20/08
Posts: 415
CPT violation,
Quantum tunneling ,
Vacuum fluctuation,
‘ . . a simple question as where did the electron get the energy
from when it moved to the outer orbit. ‘
==.
Is a symmetry or asymmetry process ?
==.
P.S.
If A-bomb can destroy cities like Hiroshima and Nagasaki
it is because E=Mc^2 and not because E=h*f.
Is interaction between E=Mc^2 and E=h*f
a symmetry or asymmetry process ?
==.

Top
#45129 - 08/31/12 08:05 AM Re: The law of conservation and transformation energy [Re: paul]
Orac Offline
Megastar

Registered: 05/20/11
Posts: 2819
Loc: Currently Illinois, USA
Originally Posted By: paul
Im sorry orac , did you forget to write a bunch of stuff that
has no bearing on the discussion?



You query the whole of science like your LHC example, I query your conviction in your religion ... same dog isn't it.

As for socratus that is another undecipherable post.
_________________________
I believe in "Evil, Bad, Ungodly fantasy science and maths", so I am undoubtedly wrong to you.

Top
#45131 - 08/31/12 08:30 AM Re: The law of conservation and transformation energy [Re: socratus]
redewenur Offline
Megastar

Registered: 02/14/07
Posts: 1840
Orac, re paul's venomous contributions:

Originally Posted By: Orac
Perhaps you need to put on glasses and go an re-read what redewuner poseted.

You were also given a link for energy levels but hey you won't even discuss what that says which is also quite clear.

However lets face it you are just trolling trying to make issues with science because you are so insecure in your religion that you see science as a threat.

I'm bound to say that you're right, Orac. Here's further jusification (as if it were needed) for your comments. Paul's post, as it arrived in my email, since edited:

Originally Posted By: paul
red
Im sure you realize that gravity between the electron and the nucleus is not why the electron moved to an outer orbit.

bill s
LOL

orac
because you didnt think about it , you are also wrong.


really guys , you put on an appearance that your really knowledgeable about quantum mechanics and such as that but
when thought is required what happens?

do you guys really know what your doing?

I have to ask that , because if people like yourselves cant answer such a simple question as where did the electron get the energy from when it moved to the outer orbit.

then people like you guys who are actually working at the LHC
probably dont know what the &^%k their doing either.

this type of thing makes me really worry.

It's a despicable attitude, consistent with just about every response I've ever had from him.
_________________________
"Time is what prevents everything from happening at once" - John Wheeler

Top
#45132 - 08/31/12 01:19 PM Re: The law of conservation and transformation energy [Re: redewenur]
Orac Offline
Megastar

Registered: 05/20/11
Posts: 2819
Loc: Currently Illinois, USA
I gave Paul the benefit of the doubt originally that he was just poorly schooled in science perhaps something to do with his religion.

My view has changed he is just a religious troll like socratus who needs to cast science in bad light because of there own religious insecurities.

The easiest way to deal with them is troll them back about religion and their little god or ignore .. take your pick.

Notice they don't want to discuss religion or anything sensible because because they don't know how to defend it.

I know some have issue with Rev but he not out to troll he is interested in discussions and exchanges. I may not agree with Rev on some things but at least you can have an honest sensible conversation.


Edited by Orac (08/31/12 01:20 PM)
_________________________
I believe in "Evil, Bad, Ungodly fantasy science and maths", so I am undoubtedly wrong to you.

Top
#45133 - 08/31/12 01:58 PM Re: The law of conservation and transformation energy [Re: Orac]
Bill Offline
Megastar

Registered: 12/31/10
Posts: 1858
Loc: Oklahoma, USA
Just a quick note about Paul. He has been on this forum for a very long time. During that time he has posted a lot of stuff that just doesn't work because he apparently doesn't understand the things that have been proved about physics. Many of us have tried to point out where he is wrong and how it has been proved he is wrong. He has never accepted any of the explanations and/or proofs that have been given to him. I occasionally respond to some of his posts, but I don't really expect him to accept anything I point out. I do keep hoping that other people who are reading SAGG will notice the corrections and realize that he is wrong and not be mislead by his posts. I think that is about the best we can hope for from responses to his posts.

Bill Gill
_________________________
C is not the speed of light in a vacuum.
C is the universal speed limit.

Top
#45134 - 08/31/12 02:01 PM Re: The law of conservation and transformation energy [Re: redewenur]
paul Offline
Megastar

Registered: 03/21/06
Posts: 4136
sorry red , orac

that does not explain where the energy came from to move
the electron 2 seperate times.

conservation of energy has obviously failed.

ranting about people is also not the answer.
peoples religion is not the answer.

you two obvious geniuses should be capable of delivering
a correct answer.

instead you just rant.
or is it that you dont have an answer , which is what I think is the reason you cant give an answer.

which is why I edited my post and only left the part that
is in context with the discussion.

I didnt feel as if what I wrote was a contribution to the discussion , in much the same way that I feel that what you guys write are for the most part not contributions.

so , do you have a answer or do you just have rants?

it is extremely easy to figure out that conservation of energy
fails in this simplest of examples.

in order for the photon to stop --> energy is required.
in order for the electron to move outwards --> energy is required
in order for the atom to emit a photon --> energy is required
in order for the electron to move inwards --> energy is required

that is 4 energy requirements so far that are not accounted for!

when the atom returns to its original state
that means it has the original amount of energy that it
had before the photon was absorbed.

and

when the atom emits a photon , it emits a photon or a
cascade of photons with the same amount of energy that the absorbed photon had.

there are no losses in this transaction.

you are talking about a system that is more than 100% efficient
and physics states that that is not possible.

so where does the extra energy come from?



_________________________
3/4 inch of dust build up on the moon in 4.527 billion years,LOL and QM is fantasy science.

Top
#45135 - 08/31/12 02:45 PM Re: The law of conservation and transformation energy [Re: socratus]
paul Offline
Megastar

Registered: 03/21/06
Posts: 4136
socratus

are there any plans to put this CPT type experiment into a zero g environment?

http://physics.princeton.edu/romalis/CPT/

I would like to get your opinion on the below.



this video shows the sphere as it departs



I feel as if your opinion would be valuable , I have always considered our solar system as being a good model of a huge atom.

which particle of an atom would you say that this sphere best represents?

would this sphere best represent a photon being emitted?

note: I am not addressing this to those who choose to clog up
discussions with rants and worthless self image bolstering information.

I am addressing this particular post to socratus.

here are some more videos of the sphere


_________________________
3/4 inch of dust build up on the moon in 4.527 billion years,LOL and QM is fantasy science.

Top
#45137 - 08/31/12 04:56 PM Re: The law of conservation and transformation energy [Re: paul]
Bill Offline
Megastar

Registered: 12/31/10
Posts: 1858
Loc: Oklahoma, USA
Originally Posted By: Paul
I have always considered our solar system as being a good model of a huge atom.

Even under the assumptions of the Bohr atom the objects orbiting the nucleus are electrons. In Bohr's atom all electrons are the same, same size, same shape, same mass. This has no resemblance to the solar system. The electrons all orbit in precisely defined orbits, and they can't move back and forth except between specific energy levels. The Solar system is enormously more complex than that.

The only place where I have ever seen any suggestion that the atoms look like solar systems is in science fiction. There was a time when there was a bit of a vogue for that sort of thing. Our Hero would travel down in size and have an adventure on an electron that was just like Earth. That fashion is fortunately long gone.

Bill Gill
_________________________
C is not the speed of light in a vacuum.
C is the universal speed limit.

Top
#45138 - 08/31/12 05:12 PM Re: The law of conservation and transformation energy [Re: Bill]
paul Offline
Megastar

Registered: 03/21/06
Posts: 4136
I did say
Quote:
a good model
not a perfect model.



Quote:
In Bohr's atom all electrons are the same, same size, same shape, same mass. This has no resemblance to the solar system.


electrons in different orbits , have different energy levels
so their mass must also be greater.
which corresponds with our solar system very well.







interesting results

Quote:

1)Planet Radius of Orbit Relative to that of Earth's
2)Length of Year Relative to Earth's Year
3)Orbital Velocity Relative to That of Earth's

Quote:

**********1********2******3***
Mercury--0.387--0.2409--1.607
Venus --0.723--0.616---1.174
Earth --1.0----1.0-----1.000
Mars --1.524--1.9-----0.802
Jupiter--5.203--12.0----0.434
Saturn --9.539--29.5----0.323
Uranus --19.18--84------0.228
Neptune--30.06--165-----0.182
Pluto --39.52--248-----0.159


http://www.sjsu.edu/faculty/watkins/orbital.htm

it might be that electrons do not just gain kinetic energy as they move outwards , they may in fact be gaining a combination of mass and kinetic energy.

according to the solar system atom model.

_________________________
3/4 inch of dust build up on the moon in 4.527 billion years,LOL and QM is fantasy science.

Top
#45139 - 08/31/12 05:56 PM Re: The law of conservation and transformation energy [Re: socratus]
Bill S. Offline
Megastar

Registered: 08/20/10
Posts: 3570
Loc: Essex, UK
“By their fruits you shall know them.”

Originally Posted By: Paul
bill s LOL


A disappointing response, Paul. Perhaps you don’t agree that the quality of a forum is largely established by its regular posters.

Look to the left, to the five names of those who have contributed most posts over the past 30 days. We, and those other regular posters who happen not to be currently in the “top five”, are largely responsible for the ethos of the forum. If we post rubbish, it’s a rubbish forum. If we turn it into a sniping ally that is what it will be. Each of us has to acknowledge his/her own responsibility. It’s our forum, if we want to attract serious, knowledgeable contributors then we have to create a forum to which they will be attracted. If that idea is a matter for derisive laughter, perhaps those of us who are looking for reasonable, open discussion in a friendly atmosphere, with a bit of humour thrown in are in the wrong place. I hope not.
_________________________
There never was nothing.

Top
#45140 - 08/31/12 06:12 PM Re: The law of conservation and transformation energy [Re: paul]
Orac Offline
Megastar

Registered: 05/20/11
Posts: 2819
Loc: Currently Illinois, USA
Only we know they dont look anything like that rubbish we have a repeated extremely tested theory and images

(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hydrogen_atom)




SO WE KNOW YOU ARE JUST TROLLING.


So lets talk about proofs that god doesn't exist I know of at least 3 besides the "heavy rock paradox"

1.) God is absolute and all powerful and can do anything right so can god kill himself.

Whichever answer you choose he is therefore not absolute god.


2.) Can god create a being more powerful than himself.

Whichever answer you choose he is therefore not absolute god.


3.) The famous Epicurus's riddle

Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able? Then he is not omnipotent.
Is he able, but not willing? Then he is malevolent.
Is he both able and willing? Then whence cometh evil?
Is he neither able nor willing? Then why call him God?


Join in lets see how many we can get for Paul.
_________________________
I believe in "Evil, Bad, Ungodly fantasy science and maths", so I am undoubtedly wrong to you.

Top
#45141 - 08/31/12 06:40 PM Re: The law of conservation and transformation energy [Re: Orac]
paul Offline
Megastar

Registered: 03/21/06
Posts: 4136
LOL

quite amusing orac.

Quote:
we have a repeated extremely tested theory and images


its a computer generated image!

using yoric! orac!


http://yorick.sourceforge.net/

heres a few more by the same author




I didnt read the rant part of your post.

I will ask the moderators to see if they can convince you to refrain from your constant rantings about my personal beliefs.





_________________________
3/4 inch of dust build up on the moon in 4.527 billion years,LOL and QM is fantasy science.

Top
#45142 - 08/31/12 06:45 PM Re: The law of conservation and transformation energy [Re: socratus]
Bill S. Offline
Megastar

Registered: 08/20/10
Posts: 3570
Loc: Essex, UK
OK, enough philosophy, already; let’s get back to the nitty-gritty!

The introduction of orbiting bodies to the mix recalls a long running discussion of the past in which I tried the patience of a number of posters (including Rede and the long vanished Kallog) by trying to sort out the energy used in a system such as the Earth/moon, simply to hold the moon in orbit. An orbit curves continuously, so the moon is constantly accelerating. Acceleration requires energy input. Where does that energy come from?

Can the same question and its possible answer be applied to an electron “orbiting” the nucleus of an atom?

I suspect not, for the following reason. (Someone please put me right if my reasoning is off track)

An electron is a quantum object (quon), therefore it cannot be said to be in any specific place when it is not being observed.

It is not accurate to talk of an electron orbiting a nucleus; rather, it can only be said to occupy an energy level which exists at a specific distance from the nucleus, and even that is subject to probability.

The greatest possibility is that a given electron occupies a specific energy level, but there is a small degree of probability that it could be anywhere in the Universe.

The closer one looks at this, the less it seems to resemble a planetary orbiting system. However, that doesn’t necessarily mean that the energy equations are not the same.

This is really just the start of a train of thought, but it seems prudent to open this bit for comment before digging deeper.
_________________________
There never was nothing.

Top
#45143 - 08/31/12 07:04 PM Re: The law of conservation and transformation energy [Re: Bill S.]
paul Offline
Megastar

Registered: 03/21/06
Posts: 4136
Quote:
by trying to sort out the energy used in a system such as the Earth/moon, simply to hold the moon in orbit. An orbit curves continuously, so the moon is constantly accelerating. Acceleration requires energy input. Where does that energy come from?


the earth and moon orbit each other.
so that would not really be a good example.

also the moon always faces the earth with the same side.

electrons spin.

the earth sun system would make a more realistic example.

the earth spins.

where does the energy come from that causes the earth to orbit the sun?

gravity is the reason the earth orbits the sun , the kinetic energy of the motion of the earth is the energy that acts against the forces of the suns gravity , that energy was given to the earth as the earth formed.

like an electron has kinetic energy as it orbits an atom
due to its motion and an electron has a negative charge.

the earth also has kinetic energy due to its motion
as it orbits our sun and the earth also has a negative charge.

Quote:
we live atop an ocean of negative charge


http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=detecting-the-earths-elec

I believe that the earth sun system would be the right choice vs the earth moon system.

wouldnt you?






_________________________
3/4 inch of dust build up on the moon in 4.527 billion years,LOL and QM is fantasy science.

Top
#45144 - 09/01/12 12:21 AM Re: The law of conservation and transformation energy [Re: paul]
Orac Offline
Megastar

Registered: 05/20/11
Posts: 2819
Loc: Currently Illinois, USA
No Bill S I am making a point about how trolling can offensive and denigrating to others beliefs.

Paul believes in a pathetic little god who we as scientist can apply a litlle logic to and show doesn't exist.

I mean if the was a god would he let his most trusted clergy sexually molest young children and then let the church protect those offenders.

It is quite clear he is not a god he is the devil.

We scientist shall use such logic to bring these sorts of things out to the open because we are free to think as we have not been brainwashed by the devil.

So lets discuss YOUR DEVIL Paul ... dare you too.

Originally Posted By: Paul

I will ask the moderators to see if they can convince you to refrain from your constant rantings about my personal beliefs.


Ask away I will ask them that your garbage be similarly moderated out I don't need devil worshippers invading my science forum with there constant rantings.

I will be as polite and insistant that we discuss these matters as I feel they are important to science my behaviour will certainly no worse than Socratus or yours.

You will notice I have not been rude or personally attacking you in this discussion so I can't see how I could be moderated and if it was to be so I would ask for clarification of moderation rules because it is no better or worse than your posts.


Edited by Orac (09/01/12 01:14 AM)
_________________________
I believe in "Evil, Bad, Ungodly fantasy science and maths", so I am undoubtedly wrong to you.

Top
#45145 - 09/01/12 01:59 AM Re: The law of conservation and transformation energy [Re: paul]
Bill Offline
Megastar

Registered: 12/31/10
Posts: 1858
Loc: Oklahoma, USA
Originally Posted By: Paul
I believe that the earth sun system would be the right choice vs the earth moon system.

wouldnt you?

No, since there is absolutely no comparison between the gravitationally bound Solar System of many discrete objects of varying size and composition and the electromagnetically bound atom, composed of a nucleus and a handful of electrons which are all the same. The Solar System is controlled by gravitational attraction which can be explained quite satisfactorily with classical physics. The atom is controlled by quantum effects which operate in a completely different mode.

Bill Gill
_________________________
C is not the speed of light in a vacuum.
C is the universal speed limit.

Top
#45146 - 09/01/12 02:22 AM Re: The law of conservation and transformation energy [Re: Orac]
paul Offline
Megastar

Registered: 03/21/06
Posts: 4136
_________________________
3/4 inch of dust build up on the moon in 4.527 billion years,LOL and QM is fantasy science.

Top
#45147 - 09/01/12 02:25 AM Re: The law of conservation and transformation energy [Re: Bill]
paul Offline
Megastar

Registered: 03/21/06
Posts: 4136
sorry bill

I was replying to the post that bill s made.

bill s was trying to think of a example to use in the discussion.
and that is who I was replying to , however if you think that the earth moon system would be a better choice than the earth sun system to use as a model of an atom then perhaps you could tell us why.

my thoughts on this matter are as follows.

1) the moons negative charge varies according to the side that the sun is shining on.
2) the earth is negatively charged.

thus both are negatively charged so the earth moon system could not work because the charges are mostly the same.

the earth moon system would be like using a system inside a system or a atom inside an atom which would not represent a atom model very well.

also the suns positive charge more closely resembles the positive charge of an atoms nucleus.

I still think that the sun earth system is better suited but you may have more reasons that you would like to post.


_________________________
3/4 inch of dust build up on the moon in 4.527 billion years,LOL and QM is fantasy science.

Top
#45148 - 09/01/12 03:26 AM Re: The law of conservation and transformation energy [Re: paul]
Orac Offline
Megastar

Registered: 05/20/11
Posts: 2819
Loc: Currently Illinois, USA
What is important in all science discussions is honesty and integrity.

I am sure Rev K could tell us all about how the devil is full of nothing but tricks and dishonesty. Rev may well talk about

Lying and Deceit: What Does the Bible Teach?
(http://www.gospelway.com/morality/lying.php)


Thus when we look at scientific evidence we must ask of ourselves is this the truth.

As being one of the truth seekers I personally feel one must look at any science argument and ask is this person telling the truth or have they been seduced by the devil.

Devil worshippers are common throughout science forums they seek to disinform through lying and deceit.

So when one looks at arguments one must ask is plausable or is this the work of the devil.
_________________________
I believe in "Evil, Bad, Ungodly fantasy science and maths", so I am undoubtedly wrong to you.

Top
Page 2 of 12 < 1 2 3 4 ... 11 12 >



Newest Members
debbieevans, bkhj, jackk, Johnmattison, RacerGT
865 Registered Users
Sponsor
Facebook

We're on Facebook
Join Our Group

Science a GoGo's Home Page | Terms of Use | Privacy Policy | Contact Us
Features | News | Books | Physics | Space | Climate Change | Health | Technology | Natural World

Copyright © 1998 - 2016 Science a GoGo and its licensors. All rights reserved.