>From Robin: ...
>>A couple of days ago I sent a message off to Miles Mathis, mentioning >>the fact that I just finished reading his paper on "The Electron >>Orbit." >> >>See: http://milesmathis.com/elorb.html > > Unfortunately this is wrong. He talks about electrons appearing to "swim > upstream" because they are smaller and lighter than protons, however positrons > and electrons also attract one another, and they have equivalent mass. > > Also, he fails to ask the question: "What would happen if the electron did hit > the proton?". > > The answer of course is that it would be deflected, and keep right on going. > The > only other options are that it sticks to the proton (impossible because of > conservation of energy and momentum), or that it combine with the proton to > form > a neutron, also impossible because the two of them combined don't have enough > relativistic mass to form a neutron. > > So his entire spiel is irrelevant. > [snip] > Regards, > You bring up several valid points. Nevertheless, I'm not entirely convinced Mathis' Electron Orbit "spiel" is totally irrelevant. For example, how could the laws of quantum mechanics permit the actual physical "contact" of electron / proton 'particles' in the first place - so what are we actually quibbling about here. What can be considered "solid" at that highly granulated sub-microscopic level? Experimental data has revealed long ago that a transformation, a transmutation, or a conversion of matter/energy would occur before individual particles (i.e. electron & a proton) ever got close enough to "kiss" each other, as if we could even conceive of subatomic particles as touching one other like billiard balls. IOW, quantum particles don't "physically" stick together. At present I tend to treat much of Mile's arguments as theoretical (alternative) exercises in approaching the fundamental building blocks of nature - from a different POV. I find it refreshing to give myself temporary permission to look at an old problem from a fresh new perspective. Are his eccentric perceptions correct? Who knows. Obviously, nobody, even geniuses can bat 300. I certainly don't expect Mathis to have a better batting average in decoding Nature's secrets than all the other highly eccentric geniuses whom have preceded him. BTW, I would urge you to contact him with your critique. He has an email address. I'd love to know what he might respond with. He once responded to one of my queries. Regards Steven Vincent Johnson www.OrionWorks.com www.zazzle.com/orionworks
