What causes rotation?

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"><i>Originally posted by Spacedust</i>
<br />This is the first steps to real hands on warp drive technology.<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">The way to faster-than-light travel in general and warp drive technology in particular, including its resolution with relativity, was laid out in the 2002 book <i>Pushing Gravity</i>. This is now a solved problem except for engineering details. [] The book is available at our web site store, among other places. -|Tom|-

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"><i>Originally posted by tvanflandern</i>
<br /><blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"><i>Originally posted by north</i>
<br />however if atomicly both the nucleus and the electron are moving about a center. what is at the center?<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">Because the electron mass is 1000 times less than the proton mass, the "center of mass" of an atom is always well-inside the nucleus and near the geometric center.<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">

actually the electron is 1840 times less massive than the proton and we are not talking about mass BUT where both the neucleus and the electrons are rotating about.

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">But what does it matter whether there is anything there or not? If a central proton was hollow inside, nothing about the physics would be changed. -|Tom|-
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote"><hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">


actually physics could change because the question of liquid state of hydrogen at extremely low temps. for example has not been fully explained.

or in otherwords explain the liquid state of, for a start, hydrogen.

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"><i>Originally posted by north</i>
<br />we are not talking about mass BUT where both the nucleus and the electrons are rotating about.<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">Any rotating body rotates around its own center of mass. A revolving body such as an electron revolves around a center of force, which might be different because it depends of charge too. But because proton and electron charges are equal in magnitude, even though opposite in direction, the center of force (for hydrogen) is determined by just the electron/proton mass ratio.

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">Actually physics could change because the question of liquid state of hydrogen at extremely low temps. for example has not been fully explained. Or in otherwords explain the liquid state of, for a start, hydrogen.<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">States of matter (solid, liquid, gaseous, plasma) depend of inter-molecular forces, not on forces or motions within single atoms. The more violent the vibrations of the molecules, the further up that chain of possible states the hydrogen will be.

But this is standard physics, not something new. What problem do you have with the standard explanation of states and changes of states found in most elementary physics books? -|Tom|-

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"><i>Originally posted by tvanflandern</i>
<br /><blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"><i>Originally posted by north</i>
<br />we are not talking about mass BUT where both the nucleus and the electrons are rotating about.<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote"> <blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">Any rotating body rotates around its own center of mass. A revolving body such as an electron revolves around a center of force, which might be different because it depends of charge too. But because proton and electron charges are equal in magnitude, even though opposite in direction, the center of force (for hydrogen) is determined by just the electron/proton mass ratio<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">.

not quite sure what you mean here.

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">Actually physics could change because the question of liquid state of hydrogen at extremely low temps. for example has not been fully explained. Or in otherwords explain the liquid state of, for a start, hydrogen.<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">States of matter (solid, liquid, gaseous, plasma) depend of inter-molecular forces, not on forces or motions within single atoms. The more violent the vibrations of the molecules, the further up that chain of possible states the hydrogen will be.

But this is standard physics, not something new. What problem do you have with the standard explanation of states and changes of states found in most elementary physics books? -|Tom|-
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">

the explantion is not deep enough.

as David GoodStein in his "States of Matter" says

and i quote;

"the fact is that if one iquires enough, even our and eminently successful theories of solids have their quantitative shortcomings. Their success lies in that we believe that we have a firm grasp of the basic principles of the problem. It is that kind of grasp that we lack in the lquid problem. All the formalism we have gone through is no substitute for the intuition we need. The hope, rather, is that it may lead us to that intuition."

this is why i look for a deeper explaination( although i had looked for a deeper explaination of liquids before this quote) it is the deeper questions of liquids which lead me to to the discovery of David's book and quote.( it was suggested i read his book on another site) i was asked to read his book, i bought it and read it( at least on liquids).

this is why i ask again ,<b>What is the the water the Manifestion of? </b>

chemistry can tell me <b>HOW</b> liquids are produced but not <b>WHY</b> liquids are produced.

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"><i>Originally posted by north</i>
<br />not quite sure what you mean here.<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">Nothing profound. Electron and proton charges are equal, so they cancel from the force equations. That leaves just the mass ratio to determine the orbital dynamics.

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">Chemistry can tell me <b>HOW</b> liquids are produced but not <b>WHY</b> liquids are produced.<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">True. But physics supplies the WHY. Molecules vibrate.

If their vibrations are small enough, the nuclear forces dominate and hold all molecules together and in place. The result is a solid.

If their vibrations have speeds that exceed escape speed, the molecules are no longer captives, but can flow. They remain in contact only because of viscous forces.

If the vibration speeds are great enough to overcome viscous forces, individual molecules fly off into space. If they are in a container or bound by some force such as gravity, they form a medium of discrete particles we call a "gas".

If the vibration speeds exceed even the escape speeds of the forces containing them, they form a plasma.

How much deeper do you wish to delve? It seems an intuitive, complete, and satisfying explanation to me. -|Tom|-

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">But I have no idea what you mean. <hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">
Two objects moving relative to one another have,say, "x" angular momentum and "y" linear momentum (using the backdrop of stars as a reference frame). Neither X nor Y changes no matter what they do in this two-body situation.

The quantities x and y never convert into one another.

So, I assumed you were talking about the "appearance of things" to the average observer who is unaware of the impossibility of such conversions, i.e. if such a conversion were possible, a spinning object could convert some of its angular momentum into linear momentum and "take off to the stars" without throwing something out in the opposite direction.