Re: Can anyone draw a simulation of two orbiting planets?

On Sep 3, 1:18 pm, "gu...@xxxxxxxxxxx" <gu...@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
On Sep 3, 4:07 pm, Randy Poe <poespam-t...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:



On Sep 3, 3:51 pm, "gu...@xxxxxxxxxxx" <gu...@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

On Sep 2, 10:11 am, Randy Poe <poespam-t...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:

On Sep 2, 4:46 am, "gu...@xxxxxxxxxxx" <gu...@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

On Sep 1, 3:24 pm, Igor <thoov...@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

On Aug 31, 4:53 am, "gu...@xxxxxxxxxxx" <gu...@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

Can anyone draw (perhaps animated gif) a simulation of two orbiting
planets of SAME MASS?

I cannot image how two same mass orbits would look like? ....would
they propagate forward or remain in one constant region?

One location, which doesn't seem to make sense, says: "Since stars
have about the same mass (within a factor of 20), they both orbit
around a common point, called the center of mass, that is
significantly different from one of the star's center.".

(http://www.astronomynotes.com/starprop/s10.htm)

No objects ever orbit around any other objects. All objects will
orbit a common center of mass under gravitational interaction.

Wonder if an atom's nucleus would also have such properties.

No, since (as you have been told many times) an electron
is not in a little Keplerian orbit around the nucleus.

- Randy- Hide quoted text -

1. There is an attraction between the nucleus and the electrons

Yes.

2. They call them orbitals

Yes, that is the name given to different states of the
energy quantum number.

They are not called "orbits", because they are not
orbits.
That's why they were given a different name.

3. These orbitals are circular or elliptical in shape

No, they aren't.

Don't make up physics.

- Randy- Hide quoted text -

#1. The s p d f orbitals are spherical (or elliptical) or donut (ring)
in shape, and one has to define what is ment by a "lower" shell or
lower energy STATE when a photon is released.

How do you know?

Did you solve the Schroedinger equation for the Hydrogen atom
yourself, or are you simply reading what is written in your
introductory physics text?


#2. Search everywhere and you will find that: It is not that no orbits
exist, instead no "FIXED" orbit exist (meaning the orbits are
probabilisticly located within a region).

There are no orbits. Period.

One of these days you might clue in.


#3. Same years as 1925's Heisenberg and 1927's Shrodinger's
probabiltiy equation, in 1925 Uhlenbeck and Goudsmit showed that
***************MANY************* features of atomic spectra (Moseley's
x-ray spectra) can be explained by "assuming" that an electron not
only ****REVOLVES**** around a nucleus but as well the electron has a
property called spin (inherent spin is attribuable to particle more
than wave = rotation of an electron about it's "OWN" axis).

Your irrelevant and poorly-understood little history lesson has no
bearing on the 21st century understanding of quantum mechanics which
supercedes EVERYTHING done in the 1920s. Try citing modern quantum
theory rather than stuff from its' development.


In an atom the electron will have a total angular momentum J = L + S,
where L is the orbital angular momentum and S is the spin of the
electron. It is *STUPID* to dispute that an orbital angular momentum
does not mean an electron in "motion" and "revolving" and that the
region of the revolution is ALONG and within each orbital region and
the direction is most likely longitudinalely rather than across the
region where it would need to reverse the direction of it's momentum
in order to maintain itself within the orbital region .......

Why do you harp on angular momentum? Have you actually worked out the
commutator relations and eigenvalue equations yourself, like myself
and [probably] Randy have? Or are you simply copying what is written
down in your little intro physics text?


.........OR DO YOU ***REFUSE*** TO ACCEPT THE TERMINOLOGY and physical
charecteristics required to produce ANGULAR MOMENTUM inside an atom
and the J = L + S equation.

Rote memorization is not understanding. Tell me why angular momentum
is important.

.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Force and motion...
    ... > proportionally small change of orbit. ... An orbit is uniquely defined by its total energy, E, and its ... Whilst conserving orbital angular momentum, ...
    (sci.physics)
  • Re: A central force problem
    ... > Determine the central force law which gives a circular orbit with the ... > suggested that such a force law was impossible, since angular momentum ... but if the particle passes through the force center then the ... > angular momentum must be zero. ...
    (sci.physics)
  • Re: Friction causes increase in speed?
    ... is the air friction causing an increase or decrease in velocity? ... By lowering the orbit, energy is being ... Angular momentum is always conserved. ... Your original claim was that kinetic energy had to increase in order ...
    (sci.physics)
  • Re: Planets and Stars - an idea
    ... But on that topic too, if the Moon comes from the Earth, how would the Mass be any different? ... without the Moon breaking off from the Earth the Mass of the Earth itself would be greater (which follows the angular momentum argument about any change being countered by a different change to the equation). ... If the moon's effects are included in the Earth's total angular momentum, if the moon was still a part of the Earth, the total angular momentum has to be the same now that it is in orbit around the Earth. ... The wobble appeared as minute circles of their own accord. ...
    (rec.arts.sf.science)
  • Re: Structured spacetime
    ... The scalar we take for time and the vector for space. ... But nature is nature and it's not our ... This angular momentum is strictly conserved. ... is 'trapped' in its orbit. ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)