It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Thank you.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
originally posted by: ElohimJD
I believe Gravity and EM go hand and hand and need each other to produce stability within any given system. Ruling out EM or Gravity is foolish IMO.
God Bless,
originally posted by: ElohimJD
a reply to: wildespace
Let me ask you this if I may.
What force holds an electron equidistant to the nucleus of an atom, or equidistant to another ring of electrons, or equidistant to one another within the ring?
Electromagnetism or Gravity or both?
As in the micro so in the macro.
Electrons are in "orbit" around a large "mass" (by comparison).
God Bless,
originally posted by: wildespace
originally posted by: ElohimJD
a reply to: wildespace
Let me ask you this if I may.
What force holds an electron equidistant to the nucleus of an atom, or equidistant to another ring of electrons, or equidistant to one another within the ring?
Electromagnetism or Gravity or both?
As in the micro so in the macro.
Electrons are in "orbit" around a large "mass" (by comparison).
God Bless,
The answers are part of the school curriculum, and are also freely available on the Internet.
Electrons do not orbit the nucleus like planets orbiting the Sun. They exist as a "probability cloud" around the nucleus, ocuppying discreet energy levels; and the forces involved are electric, not gravitational. The nucleus isn't massive enough to affect electrons gravitationally. The "Pauli exclusion principle" prevents electrons from overlapping each other as they move around nucleus.
Wikipedia is as good place to start as any:
en.wikipedia.org...
en.wikipedia.org...
If an electron absorbs a photon, it "jumps" to a higher orbital. That doesn't happen to planets which are ruled by gravity.
originally posted by: nataylor
a reply to: ElohimJD
a reply to: ElohimJD
It's pretty easy to calculate the forces between an electron and proton. Let's assume you have those two particles at a distance if one angstrom from each other. The electrical attraction between the two particles would be 2.30*10^-7 N. The gravitational force between the two particles would be 1.01*10^-47 N. So the electrical force between the two particles is 22,770,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 times stronger than the gravitational force between them. In other words, the gravitational force is negligible.
originally posted by: vethumanbeing
You have an electron and a proton; then you have the neutron (or the neutralizer of both). Apply this to "your reason for being" and you will gain/grok all answers.
Q-1
If this is possibly what is going on then can another large celestial body or large mass containing celestial body interfere with another large celestial body or large mass containing celestial bodies STAR system from afar before in visual or observation distance?
Q-2
And what would be the evidence to look for as the two or more EM possessing celestial bodies EM fields (& systems) began to come in contact with each other. (maybe they play dodge/volley ball) on a cosmic level... w/?
[I]Veteranhumanbeing[/I]You have an electron and a proton; then you have the neutron (or the neutralizer of both). Apply this to "your reason for being" and you will gain/grok all answers.
[I]wildespace[/I] What's this even supposed to mean? What reason for being?
Neutrons don't neutralise electrons or protons. They serve to bind the protons in the nucleus via the nuclear force, preventing the positively charged protons from repelling each other away. By the way, neutrons themselves consist of positively and negatively charged quarks, but their total charge in a neutron is zero.
[I]wildespace[/I] Perhaps, before people get their own ideas about the physics and the way the universe works, they should familiarise themselves with the decades' worth of research and experimentation that had already been performed and forms the standard model. If someone thinks standard model is wrong, let's see their maths, experiments, peer-reviewed scientific papers.
By the way, I've noticed a peculiar irony: this thread started with a suggestion that the celestial motion is due to electromagnetism rather than gravity, but now the motion and positions of electrons is apparently due to gravity and not electromagnetism.
originally posted by: All Seeing Eye
a reply to: Ophiuchus 13
How does one balance the differing gravities against a common centrifugal force? You cant, as all planets do not have the same gravitational pull, or mass weight. Then what ever force is used to "Hold" each planet in its place, must be unique to the planetary body. It can be nothing else. So no to Q1
originally posted by: vethumanbeing
originally posted by: wildespace
That's what I said and Wikipedia agrees as well.
Maybe they should familiarize themselves with the Universe actually being one of binary information that collects and reinterprets itself to know ITSELF better (self defining, plastic and forever in a process growth formation).
Certainly so! But just because a heavenly body can be accurately predicted in its location, does not mean it is known how the planets are actually propelled around their orbits.
So scientists must have gotten _something_ right, right?
Debatable.
Earth's ocean beds and its core have nothing to do with celestial mechanics.
originally posted by: All Seeing Eye
a reply to: wildespace
Certainly so! But just because a heavenly body can be accurately predicted in its location, does not mean it is known how the planets are actually propelled around their orbits.
So scientists must have gotten _something_ right, right?
Debatable.
Earth's ocean beds and its core have nothing to do with celestial mechanics.
The very simple fact that oceans and the planetary cores are parts of our solar system, means, they must play some role in the bigger picture, and if one wants to see the bigger picture, one must consider all the little pictures that make up the bigger picture.
The earths outer surface is covered by 70% give or take, water. And that water is primarily on one side of the planet "Pacific Ocean". Water and rock have differing weights. Does our planet wobble around its solar race track, or does the planet rotate without effect, and is this expected wobble canceled out, by the moon?
Why would two dissimilar sizes and consistency's follow their orbits uniformly? Why would a dwarf planet be any different that a full size planet?
This video is part of a series of educational videos that ESA is releasing based on the five visionaries that lent their name to Europe’s space freighters.
Jules Verne, Johannes Kepler, Edoardo Amaldi, Albert Einstein and Georges Lemaître form the inspiration to explain the principles of physics to young and older audiences.
Presented by Anu Ojha, this video offers a good basis to introduce schoolchildren and the general public to concepts of orbital mechanics.
originally posted by: FosterIgnorance
a reply to: Ophiuchus 13
Planets don't Have em Fields.