Size of a Proton and Electron

page: 1
5
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join

posted on Oct, 27 2012 @ 12:26 AM
link   
As I was studying some works of Dr. Harold Aspden and some other works I came across some interesting pieces of information.

Warning: What I type will be offensive to those who earned their degrees in any kind of science.

What I have heard is that he's a scientist that freely acknowledged that more than %80 of the matter and energy in the universe is "Dark Matter" and "Dark Energy" where "Dark" being we can't see it in terms of light, something we can hold on to.

Now he talks about Quantum Physics and I'm a little skeptical on the matter since it cannot be a theory, law, or a concept to me. Soft Particle Physics, now that is a law, since anyone can understand it and repeat it

But I'm getting off topic here.

To the main point, where I have first heard of the size of a Proton to an Electron was one Joseph H. Cater (He's dead, died just a year ago). Then I begin to look at who else says it.

Now Aspden's credentials are that he has a 6-year education at Manchester University and Cambridge University (Trinity College), worked for 33-years in the U.K. with 9 years at English Electric and 24 years at IBM.

His formal qualifications are as follow; B.Sc., Ph.D., C.Eng.,D.I.E.E., F.I.Mech.E., C.Phys., M.Inst.P., C. Sci., Wh.Sc.

This may mean nothing to some, but to others's it means that he's a man that needs to be heard, I don't care what he has gone through to get that many titles, I'm only interested in what he has done that can Help Mankind in it's need for help.

He talks about electric generators and the such, but what really caught my eye what his view on the Atomic world.

Taken from this Link on page 11 - 12, he begins to talk about the difference of the Sun and out planets. Then he went smaller, and a number came up, 1836. If the size of a proton is massively different than that of a electron, then it should be known.

However due to people's stubborn and firm standing on the "laws and theories of science" they are willing to shed blood than drop their precious theories.

To put the proton and electron into portions, the proton is like a cannonball and the electron is a BB. And there was a concrete slab in front of both, which is more likely to demolish it at a good speed?

The cannonball/proton is more likely, the BB would more likely bounce off.

What am I saying? Stop hurting, start helping.

How would this be helping? At least you now know the size difference, and it brings up another question, how small can one electron be? Very, very small to the point where it's more jittery than anything that we can see. There is a rule, the small it is, the more active it is. However, the bigger it is, the slower it is.

How big can one proton be? You standing on one. That big.

"So what? Your saying that everything I was taught in school was a lie!?" You might think that about me.

But what does the main title of the site say? (not mine, the Abovetopsecret.com title) Deny Ignorance. No one said it will be painless.

Thank you for your time on reading this one person's findings.




posted on Oct, 27 2012 @ 01:07 AM
link   
According to my year 12 physics book....

The mass of a proton at rest is 1.6726 x 10^-27 Kg

The mass of an electron at rest is 9.11 x 10^-31 Kg

So a mainstream text is saying that the difference in mass is roughly 1000:1

BTW mainstream science also recognises that more than 94% of the universes matter is dark(which basically means "unaccounted for").

Where is the conspiracy?
edit on 27/10/2012 by OccamAssassin because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 27 2012 @ 04:03 AM
link   
I've read it two times.

I still don't get it. Please elaborate.



posted on Oct, 27 2012 @ 05:33 AM
link   
reply to post by FreedomCommander
 


Is this something you have experimentally verified yourself?



posted on Oct, 27 2012 @ 09:12 AM
link   

Originally posted by OccamAssassin
According to my year 12 physics book....

The mass of a proton at rest is 1.6726 x 10^-27 Kg

The mass of an electron at rest is 9.11 x 10^-31 Kg

So a mainstream text is saying that the difference in mass is roughly 1000:1

BTW mainstream science also recognises that more than 94% of the universes matter is dark(which basically means "unaccounted for").

Where is the conspiracy?
edit on 27/10/2012 by OccamAssassin because: (no reason given)


Agreed, one of the basic concepts we have is that the proton is much larger than the electron.

Is there something else the OP is trying to insinuate pertaining to it?



posted on Oct, 27 2012 @ 09:53 AM
link   
Explanation: Uhmmm?


Confusing mass for volume = :shk:


Personal Disclosure: Please read ...

Electron [wiki]


Fundamental properties: The invariant mass of an electron is approximately 9.109×10−31 kilograms,[66] or 5.489×10−4 atomic mass units. On the basis of Einstein's principle of mass–energy equivalence, this mass corresponds to a rest energy of 0.511 MeV. The ratio between the mass of a proton and that of an electron is about 1836.[9][67] Astronomical measurements show that the proton-to-electron mass ratio has held the same value for at least half the age of the universe, as is predicted by the Standard Model.[68]



The electron has no known substructure.[2][72] Hence, it is defined or assumed to be a point particle with a point charge and no spatial extent.[10] Observation of a single electron in a Penning trap shows the upper limit of the particle's radius is 10−22 meters.[73] There is a physical constant called the "classical electron radius", with the much larger value of 2.8179×10−15 m. However, the terminology comes from a simplistic calculation that ignores the effects of quantum mechanics; in reality, the so-called classical electron radius has little to do with the true fundamental structure of the electron.[74][note 5]


And since it has no known substructure ... it could very well be a ...

Naked Singularity [wiki]


Effects: A naked singularity could allow scientists to observe an infinitely dense material, which would under normal circumstances be impossible by the cosmic censorship hypothesis. Without an event horizon of any kind, some speculate that naked singularities could actually emit light.[8]





posted on Oct, 27 2012 @ 10:30 AM
link   
reply to post by OmegaLogos
 


image. Mathematics . the point or set of points in the range corresponding to a designated point in the domain of a given function.



Also called frontier. Mathematics . the collection of all points of a given set having the property that every neighborhood of each point contains points in the set and in the complement of the set.



posted on Oct, 27 2012 @ 10:45 AM
link   
reply to post by FreedomCommander
 


What I find interesting is that Harold Aspden is a fringe scientist pushing a theory involving aether and yet nothing you mentioned has anything to do with that. You only brought up the points on which Aspden and mainstream physics agree and then asked us all to accept them as if it's some paradigm altering realization.

Care to try again?



posted on Oct, 27 2012 @ 12:36 PM
link   
reply to post by OccamAssassin
 


No, conspiracy here for now. But I can tell you that we are all surrounded by "Sand"

To put it into a story, your in a dessert, with sand dunes and the such, and this sand company comes along and is willing to sell you that sand for a large amount of money. You say "Sure, why not?" They take your money and you get the sand.

Ok, now how does that apply to today? We brought the "Sand" sand being electricity. It's all around us.

The reason why I state the size of a proton and a electron is because most people don't know the size, let alone the true size.

And if what you say is true, then the current science on particles is wrong, it should be in the thousands, if not millions. In order to balance out it's charge it needs a lot of electrons for one proton.

For example, if you have one electron and one proton, what will they do? They will attract.

But this brings up another problem, if they attract then what happens? This also brings up another fact that I found, the proton is living. It's hollow, it breaths, it spins in a direction, it's egg-shaped.

So what does that have to do with anything? It takes in electrons and then breaths them out, try it with a magnet, N to N, you get repulsion, they don't want to go together. N to S, because of the flow, it comes together.

If we are in a sea, then it's a sea of gases of all types. If a oxygen molecule has 2 protons and 2 electrons, that would only be half-truth. It will really be 2 protons and 3672 electrons. And every second, the atoms are exchanging electrons, no electron is with a atom for a large amount of time, let's say 5 seconds.

I don't have anything to prove it with other than it's what I have found.



posted on Oct, 27 2012 @ 12:50 PM
link   

Originally posted by FreedomCommander

And if what you say is true, then the current science on particles is wrong, it should be in the thousands, if not millions. In order to balance out it's charge it needs a lot of electrons for one proton.

Science draws conclusions from the data, hence the figures presented. It doesn't start with an idea and then the data is massaged, cherry picked or outright fabricated/rejected to conform to a pet theory. If a pet theory says X but the objective evidence says Y then they're wrong, pure and simple. Ironically, those who shout the loudest about science being wrong and those who accept scientific consensus as being poor, deluded fools are the ones who are most guilty of this. Even more ironically, this is in fact the definition of closed mindedness, another accusation such folk level at those who don't accept what they say hook, line and sinker without so much as a moment's pause. Are you one of these folk? Who knows, maybe you should place your agenda on the table for all to see.
edit on 27-10-2012 by john_bmth because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 27 2012 @ 03:16 PM
link   
reply to post by CLPrime
 


He was pushing for a very old physics that is true.

If people were to look to the past, they will find things that no one thought of.

Harold was one of many people that decided to go unorthodox. Why they did it, because what they found didn't match up with what was taught in the mainstream.

I was like that, believing every word that was taught to me, every piece of information that was fed to me in school, until I looked outside.

If every scientist was taught this, where would we be today? Flying cars? Free-energy? A peaceful life-style? No more hunger? No more thirst? Advancements that make today's work look like child's play?

This all started with the size comparison of a electron and a proton and why does it matter. If you don't know the size of the very thing that makes the body, then it's impossible to know what runs life.



posted on Oct, 27 2012 @ 03:19 PM
link   
reply to post by john_bmth
 


Imagination is where it begins.

Having your head in the clouds is one thing, but having your head in the clouds and your feet on the ground is where I'm getting at.



posted on Oct, 27 2012 @ 03:44 PM
link   
reply to post by FreedomCommander
 

Imagination is where it begins but empirical observation is where it should end. To quote the late Richard Feynman:


In general we look for a new law by the following process. First we guess it. Then we compute the consequences of the guess to see what would be implied if this law that we guessed is right. Then we compare the result of the computation to nature, with experiment or experience, compare it directly with observation, to see if it works. If it disagrees with experiment it is wrong. In that simple statement is the key to science. It does not make any difference how beautiful your guess is. It does not make any difference how smart you are, who made the guess, or what his name is – if it disagrees with experiment it is wrong. That is all there is to it.



posted on Oct, 27 2012 @ 04:01 PM
link   
reply to post by FreedomCommander

And if what you say is true, then the current science on particles is wrong, it should be in the thousands, if not millions. In order to balance out it's charge it needs a lot of electrons for one proton.

You are mixing up size with charge. While an electron is much smaller and lighter than a proton their charges are equal (opposite), also called the elementary charge 1.602176565E−19 coulombs.

So the number of electrons for a (neutral) atom is equal to the number of protons. If you want to know more I'd suggest to look into chemistry, as it is all about electron interactions.



posted on Oct, 27 2012 @ 04:10 PM
link   
mass doesn't determine charge. The charge on a proton is +1 eV, the charge on an electron is -1 eV regardless of what the mass is

edit on 27-10-2012 by PurpleChiten because: added units of eV as to not confuse with the units of other posters



posted on Oct, 27 2012 @ 04:17 PM
link   
reply to post by PurpleChiten
 


eV? Or e?
edit on 27-10-2012 by CLPrime because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 27 2012 @ 04:43 PM
link   

Originally posted by CLPrime
reply to post by PurpleChiten
 


eV? Or e?
edit on 27-10-2012 by CLPrime because: (no reason given)


ah yes, e, as eV is the electronVolt. I got a bit ahead of myself....



posted on Oct, 27 2012 @ 11:41 PM
link   
reply to post by moebius
 


But how come this Doctor along with others that did a deeper study into the atom and found that the size of the electrons is differ from that of a proton?

And why is there a difference anyways?

Soft particle physics, Aether physics, and old or ignored sciences are out there. It's just hard for some people to find it.



posted on Oct, 27 2012 @ 11:52 PM
link   
reply to post by PurpleChiten
 


Your right, but I wasn't going for the charge. Just the mass.

But since you brought that up, that makes me think, if the mass of a proton is large, then how come the mass of a electron is small? Aren't they suppose to be equal size?

I thought so, but upon deeper studying, I found the answer I was seeking was wrong to some people but right to others, that is where I was torn.

So I looked into those that said the answer was wrong, looked at their point of view, and found out there is a lot more things we, as a people, have to learn. Not only that, they get results faster and do it as if it was their own personal project, no outside funding required.

Tesla was a different case, he needed money but when his investors saw that his inventions were a threat to their profits, they pulled the plug. He died a broken man,

What am I saying? Dig as deep as I did, I keep on digging regardless of what people say. If you want a free-energy generator, then learn how to make one. If you want to learn how to farm in the best way possible, look at where the land is the most fertile on Earth (It's usually on volcanic islands).

It's when we stop learning we become the fools, I plan on learning every day of my life, do you?



posted on Oct, 28 2012 @ 12:24 AM
link   
reply to post by FreedomCommander
 


I suggest you all just ignore him.
www.abovetopsecret.com...
It was wrong then and just as wrong now.
There are not 1836 electrons per proton.

And if there are that many electrons just to cover one nucleus, then there must be at least 1836 times what we are told. So on average, there is one electron every proton, right? Well, what if I say there is 1836 electrons every proton? That will stir a hornets nest.

Nothing you say will ever change his mind, he does not care about facts. I suggest you all ignore his thread(s).





top topics
 
5
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join