Chromium6 wrote:When two different materials are pressed or rubbed together, the surface of one material will generally steal some electrons from the surface of the other material.
the product of different ionization potentials of differing materials?
CharlesChandler wrote:So when like materials are rubbed together, such as wind-blown snow, or ice particles inside a thunderstorm, is that triboelectricity too, even though the effect is said to be the product of different ionization potentials of differing materials?How about the static electricity that builds up in conductors, such as the potentials supposed built up in the oceans due to tidal flows, and which causes detectable telluric currents, even though triboelectricity should only be possible in insulators?
It rather seems that we have a good understanding of triboelectricity, but then there are these other cases where potentials are generated that are not so well understood, and which are simply explained away as triboelectricity, when really, it cannot possibly be that.
Once I remind you of the fact, you can see that we have loads of evidence that atoms do not want to gain or lose electrons. It is ions that want to be atoms, not atoms that want to be ions. And it is positive ions that attract free electrons, as we know, not negative ions or atoms. Once Sodium becomes a cation, it should attract the free electron, not Chlorine. So there is no reason for Sodium to start releasing electrons just to suit theorists. There is no reason for a free electron to move from a cation to a stable atom. But there are lots of reasons for Sodium not to release electrons. This whole theory is upside down from the beginning. Therefore, the bond cannot be caused this way.
Let me say it again: free electrons do not move from cations to stable atoms. That is strictly backwards. 20th century theorists have sold you a contradiction. They give the electron a minus sign and the cation a plus sign and the stable atom no sign, then tell you—as the foundation of a theory— that this free electron moves to the stable atom. If you buy that you will buy anything, and you have.
CharlesChandler wrote:@Chromium6: I think that there are simpler explanations, which do not require redefining everything in physics.IMO, the problems in modern physics are not with the fundamental concepts of time, motion, inertia, gravity, EM, or atomic forces. How did everybody get convinced that solving the remaining riddles in physics necessarily requires abandoning the existing foundation? The mainstream does this (e.g., GR, QM, CDM, dark energy, etc.), and even the fringe theorists are doing it (e.g., Mathis, Dollard, Distini, etc.). Well, they might be right. But meanwhile, I'm considering the possibility that we already have everything we need, without any charge fields, and without GR, QM, or any other "new" physics. The riddles remain unsolved because everybody is looking outside the box for answers. What if all of the answers are inside the box? Then they'll never figure anything out. In the end, we all lay down our money and take our chances. If we knew how this was going to work out, it wouldn't be research. But good scientific method requires that we eliminate known possibilities before asserting that we've discovered something new, and that's what nobody is doing these days. If I'm right, my method will go the distance. So far so good...
CC said: @Chromium6: I think that there are simpler explanations, which do not require redefining everything in physics.IMO, the problems in modern physics are not with the fundamental concepts of time, motion, inertia, gravity, EM, or atomic forces. How did everybody get convinced that solving the remaining riddles in physics necessarily requires abandoning the existing foundation? The mainstream does this (e.g., GR, QM, CDM, dark energy, etc.), and even the fringe theorists are doing it (e.g., Mathis, Dollard, Distini, etc.). Well, they might be right. But meanwhile, I'm considering the possibility that we already have everything we need, without any charge fields, and without GR, QM, or any other "new" physics.
Lloyd wrote:Charles, if you ever take a little time to look at Cr6's quote of MM on sodium chloride, you'll easily see that some "fundamental concepts" are obviously contradictory. Why would an electron be attracted away from a cation to a neutral atom?
It's still surely not logical for gravity to be a pull,
David wrote:Well, it certainly doesn't take much provication to ruffle the Mathis feathers. Although, I wouldn't have used the word "fringe". A more accurate description would be "lunatic fringe".
Return to New Insights and Mad Ideas
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest