Talk:Electron/Arguments

there is no electron[edit]

Facts:

1) Faradays law of induction cannot be explained by electron theory Source: physics Textbook
2) Maxwells electromatetic theory is in direct violation of electron theory. Most notably from his theory displacement current is still taught as mainstream science. Source physics Textbook
3) In chemisty the number of electrons leaving a mass is determined by the voltage Source: chemistry textbook
4) In induction physics, the current is determined by the number of coils in the winding source: physics textbooks
5) In circiut theory the current is determined by the load Source: also physics textbook
6) these three things are all different
7) In the power industry, there is also something called "current draw" which is a current not determined by the load but the power supply Source: Con Edison training manual
8) All of these things with the exception of 7 are excepted theories of science that contflict with the electron. Number 4 and 5 conflict with number 3 which is part of the definition of the electron.

Known people in the scientific community who said that they did not hold electrons to be true without proof(or admitted there existance to be different than that of mainstream science)

1) Albert Einstien said that their existance was different
2) Max Planck said that he would not hold it to be true without proof
3) Faraday was totally against the idea before it ever came out
4) Tesla in his patents refers to electricity as a pressure rather than a substance
5) Heaviside said that electrons were compressed ether
6) JJ Thomson the so called discover of the electron said that he did not agree with the electron theory that was interpreted from his experiment.

Anyone else that a circuits textbook fails to mentions. Actually I find that most circuits textbooks don't even talk at all about any scientist. What I demand:

1) A scientific presentation of electron theory that uses the scientific method
2) A list of people in the scientific community who actually accepted this (and hold electrons to be a fact and more than a theory), and on what basis of the scientific method did they accept it.

Criticism of electrons[edit]

I object to this article, being treated as a scientific matter. The scientific method states that observation is a nessesity of science. Since no one ever observed an electron, all of these ideas about electrons are not scientific. I think this article should be moved to the occult magic page instead. FACT:

1. Faradays experiments have not all been sorted out and defy many of the so called properties of the electron. the most notable experiment that defys the electron theory, is known as faradays law of induction, which is accepted by textbooks, but not explained.
2. Maxwells Electromagnetic theory, (not his equations) are against the existance of electrons (displacement current)
3. The units for charge are totally wrong (where does the 4 pi come in? experiment? no UNITS), and the question of what charge is, is not asked.
4. Current and voltage, are not clearly defined, and in the practically engineering profession are used differently in 3 fields:
- a) chemisty: the voltage describes the amount of electrons traveled and leaving a material (metal)
- b) Electrical power generation (motors): current is determined by the motor.
- c) Electronics (things that use electricity): Current is determined by the load

Electrons have a non scientific nature because:

1. Pauli exclusion principal
2. Quantum levels
3. Negative energy
4. Obscure chemical properties
5. You cant "know" where an electron is and know its energy state

This is a blatent, non-scientific construct and artificial view of reality, on the basis that there is no OBSERVATION of electrons. The scientific method states there must be obeservation.

—Preceding unsigned comment added by 202.89.32.166 (talk) 20:29, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The relevant wikipedia guidelines on your remarks are located here:

Per Wikipedia:Talk_page_guidelines, "Article talk pages should not be used by editors as platforms for their personal views".
Per Wikipedia:No original research, "Wikipedia does not publish original research or original thought".

To include such viewpoints in any wikipedia article, they will need to be supported by credible sources. Thank you.—RJH (talk) 15:56, 15 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

kind of like talking about manners, instead of actually dealing with what i am criticizing. this is not origianl researh. If you are a scientific article, you need to present electrons in a scientific fassion using the scientific method. You do not, so this is not an article of science. No one on the discussion page has been able to adress what I have brought up, including that I am talking about maxwells electromagnetic theory which is one citation. Along with three defintions of current and voltage all used differently in three different professions. What citation do you want? Are you complaining about my manners, because you cant deal with what I am saying? If I actually bring you the citation, which what you are not saying the facts I said are not true, would it really matter? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 202.89.32.166 (talk) 19:38, 15 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The article is concerned with electrons, rather than electricity. The later is addressed in another article, and doing so here in the broad sense would divert focus. Your other remarks appear argumentative, inflammatory and contradictory, rather than constructive, so to me it appears unhelpful and in violation of WP policy. This may explain the lack of interest in a discussion. There is nothing further I want to say.—RJH (talk) 20:13, 15 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Claims of article bias by anonymous editor[edit]

Chemistry is part of the definition of electron. Electrons are not a subset of physics any more than a subset of chemistry. I question this articles bias. Are you saying that chemistry is a subset of physics and that physics is MORE IMPORTANT than chemistry? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 202.89.32.166 (talk) 03:48, 2 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Since I did not mention chemistry or indicate a bias against it, I can only assume you are being argumentative and unhelpful. But this matches the aggresive, troll-like pattern of your previous edits. But to clarify my reasoning (in case that has a hope of working): when I was working on the atom article I attempted to include material about chemical properties. However, the chemistry experts stated that this information is best left for the chemical element article. I think the same logic applies here, in that material that is not specific to the electron (such as the broad topics of electricity, magnetism, chemistry, and heat transfer) is best summarized, per wikipedia guidelines, and left for other articles to expand. (Note that at least two of those four examples are more relevant to physics than chemistry, which is why your bias accusation is trite and argumentative.) Now you can rant and rave about it until you are blue in the face, but that is not a motivation for me to address such concerns; perhaps somebody else would like to do it? Anyway, I've said all I want to say on that.—RJH (talk) 15:27, 2 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I put this articles bias into question. What chemical experts say that chemistry should not be in the electron article. Chemistry plays an important role in the discovery, and quantanization of the electron, and should be in the article. I dont see how you can have these obscure physical articles, like electron theory about positive and negative electrons in space, but you cant mention a single chemicle principle in the article. I overheard you at a resteraunt, that you think chemist are stupid and we only need physics. Glad to know your bias. And you have a bias, because you can mention physics but not chemistry. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 202.89.32.166 (talk) 10:12, 4 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

See Wikipedia:No personal attacks.—RJH (talk) 19:08, 4 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"After studying the phenomenon of electrolysis in 1874, the Anglo-Irish physicist G. Johnstone Stoney suggested that there existed a "single definite quantity of electricity." He was able to estimate the value of the charge e of a monovalent ion by means of Faraday's laws of electrolysis.[10] " This means that chemistry is part of the definition of the electron. The value of charge, was equated to faradays laws of electrolysis. There should be an section in the electron article on chemistry. *And if your going to mention obscure "virtual electrons" why not mention chrystal fields, because that is fundamental to chemistry. *If your going to mention quantum physics, why cant you mention quantum chemsitry, because I think chemistry is just as important to physics if not more important. *And I think there should be a section on electrolysis. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 202.89.32.166 (talk) 02:13, 11 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Physics bias[edit]

I question articels bias. I am a chemist and have a PHD from IIT(Indian Institute of Technology), in quantum chemistry. I beleive that chemistry is a fundamental property to the definition of the electron. I bleieve all the people who wrote this article are physicist, who do not understand the importance of chemistry. I think quantum chemistry should be mentioned in the article, and I would like to write that section if there are no objections. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 60.234.28.155 (talk) 00:38, 5 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

See: Wikipedia:Sock puppetry. I also recommend wiktionary.—RJH (talk) 19:47, 5 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If you want no objects put some details of what you propose in the talk page first. Daniel.Cardenas (talk) 20:41, 5 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think you should put electro chemistry equation, of water turning into oxygen, and hydrogen. This is how I was introduced to the electron in school. This is a fundamental to the discovery of the electron, and in my opinion is part of the definition. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 130.216.209.107 (talk) 02:31, 13 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

IP addresses 202.89.32.166, 130.216.209.107 and 60.234.28.138 all map to Auckland, New Zealand. LOL. :-) —RJH (talk) 22:07, 13 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This is a fried of the user who was blocked. I am not sock puppeting. I am going to present his view, in a more polite and inoffensive way. I became a chemist, after my great Irish Hero, Robert Boyle. He is the father of modern chemistry and he is irish! It is my opinion that his view of ideal gases, that lead to the important concept of mass conservation. It is not an opinion but a fact, that mass conservation plays an important role in the electon theory, being that it allowed for a hypothysis of conservation of mass, and later a conservation of mass and energy. I think that this should be put in the article, and there are too many english scientist, discussed in the electron theory, who do not play an important role in the chemistry of the electron. It says on dictionary.com, that electron is defined, as being a chemistry and physics term. There needs to be more discussion, on prior history, in the area of chemistry. As well as electron as it applies to theoretical and applied chemistry. I think this article is bias against the irish, and the great Robert Boyle. IrishChemistPride (talk) 04:21, 17 October 2008 (UTC) On a seperate note: \n He did have red hair, and on St. Particks day, he dresed in green but I seem to have lost the source for that. can anyone help me? IrishChemistPride (talk) 04:21, 17 October 2008 (UTC) I changed Stoney, from being anglo-irish, to being irish-anglo because he was born in Ireland, and an Irishman first, and an anglo second. —Preceding unsigned comment added by IrishChemistPride (talk • contribs) 07:24, 18 October 2008 (UTC) I am not a sock puppet. This is the same user as IrishChemistPride. I seem to have lost my password at the end of the rainbow. And I am not a troll, but you may call me a leprecon if you like ;) If you play dungeons and dragons, the troll has a armor class of about 2. The Leprecan, has a armor class of only 6 but it can teleport. But I am not here to talk about dungeons and dragons, I am here to sort out all of the dungeons and dragons, that all these anti-Irish, people created surrounding the electron. The electron was defined by Stoney, another great Irish hero. And he defined, the electron not with leprecans or trolls or armor class, but with a clear and precise scientific way. So lets keep the trolls out of the electron theory, and put in the great Irishmen where they belong, so they can save civilization itself! In the meantime, I give you a no troll guarantee, because my friend who was a troll, told me not to be one :) IrishChemistPride2 (talk) 04:17, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm guessing that you're about 16 and have difficulty socializing.—RJH (talk) 14:54, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Warning[edit]

Warning to others: User is clearly a sock-puppet of previously warned anonymous editors mentioned above, as indicated by specific biases, grammatical style and transparent denial. Repeated violations of policy, including sock puppetry, vandalism and personal attacks, indicate editor is not serving the best interests of wikipedia. I'm planning to treat its edits of the article as highly likely to be trollish vandalism intended to provoke a negative response.—RJH (talk) 22:22, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Would you mind discussing with me, as to why the great Irishman, Stoney, who termed the word electron, and gave its defintion, cannot be put in the beggining of the article? —Preceding unsigned comment added by IrishChemistPride2 (talk • contribs) 03:25, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

B

That is acceptible, sock puppet.—RJH (talk) 14:43, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Kiwi physics[edit]

You have no evidence, that JJ Thomson discovered the electron any more so than Ernest Rutherford. My reliable reference is Zumdahl and Zumdahl chemistry, and from the perspective of a chemist, Ernest Rutherford, is more important JJ Thomson, and as far as I am concered Ernest Rutherford discovered the electron, because his gold leaf experiment, show that there were particles, and the electron is defined as a particle (Source dictionary.com) and the electron is defined as a term in Chemistry(source dictionary.com). So I do not know what sources you want besides the dictionary and my chemistry textbook. I demand you give me a source, becuase you just say JJ thomson and his team of british sceintist discovered the electron. Well, acording to A brief history of chemistry by Issac asmimov JJ Thomson, and his team of British scientist, said that they did not believe the there to be a particle, they thought it was a plumb pudding.(what a silly idea that is plumb pudding, ether, ha!) So based on this, I would say Ernest Rutherford, is a better candidate for the person who discovered the Electron, more so than Thomson and his team of British scientist. And I demand to know your sources that say so otherwise.—Preceding unsigned comment added by WaveEtherSurfer (talk • contribs)

Kiwi physics[edit]

I would like to correct the begging paragrpah on electron. "The electron was first identified in 1897 by J.J. Thomson and his team of British physicists" \n It was not Thomson who identified the electron, it was the kiwi Ernest Rutherford who identified the idea of a <bold>particle</bold> being the basis of the cathode ray. Being that the electron is a particle, I think it was Rutherford, who identified the electron first. So I think this article is bias against kiwis. —Preceding unsigned comment added by AtomicKiwi (talk • contribs) 04:04, 29 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Per wikipedia policy, you need to demonstrate it with a reliable reference that has more weight than the current citation and J.J. Thompson's 1906 nobel prize lecture, sock puppet.—RJH (talk) 14:22, 29 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I haven't seen any reference that says that Rutherford "discovered" the electron. Some other candidates have been mentioned, such as William Crookes, Arthur Schuster, and Philipp Lenard, but not Rutherford.[1] Like the book I linked to says, it is a complex philosophical and historical question, but nevertheless even the revisionists acknowlege that Thomson is the one generally recognized for having "discovered" the electron. Thomson did propose a corpuscular theory of electrons.[2] The "plums" in the pudding were the corpuscular electrons! What Rutherford found, and the reason he is recognized, is the atomic nucleus. --Itub (talk)

Bias against germans[edit]

I think "German-born British physicist Arthur Schuster" should be changed to Arthur Schuster being just German. I also think the german physicist are more important to electron thoery than the english. —Preceding unsigned comment added by BaronVonBismark (talk • contribs) 10:36, 2 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

He moved to Manchester in 1870 when he was 19, and became a British citizen in 1875 when he was 24. The sentence you're referring to is about 1890, when he had been living in Britain for twenty years and been a British citizen for fifteen years, Irish Chemist Kiwi. Please take your anti-British agenda elsewhere. -- Army 1987 (t — c) 15:22, 2 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Pardon me, but I believe this page to give the Germans too much praise. The bit about Hermann von Helmholtz and William Weber give a misleading impression that the electricity is positive and Negative. We all know that the proper word electron as defined by the Oxford English Dictionionary defines the electron as being negatively charged. The Oxford English Dictionary also defines Anglo-Irish, as people “of or pertaining to the Anglo-Irish or their speech.” Being that Stoney, was educated in an English school, I believe him to be Anglo-Irish as that is how he talked. Thank you for your time gentleman. EnglishGentleman123 (talk) 22:48, 3 November 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.98.141.16 (talk) [reply]

OMG, a straw puppet, too? -- Army 1987 (t — c) 10:32, 5 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]