Changes

Jump to navigation Jump to search
Line 124: Line 124:  
:I don't think that Brownian motion affects sub-atomic particles.  Brownian motion moves things like pollen and dust which are orders of magnitude greater.--[[User:DavidEdwards|DavidEdwards]] 16:44, 12 April 2012 (EDT)
 
:I don't think that Brownian motion affects sub-atomic particles.  Brownian motion moves things like pollen and dust which are orders of magnitude greater.--[[User:DavidEdwards|DavidEdwards]] 16:44, 12 April 2012 (EDT)
 
::No, Brownian motion is associated with sub-atomic particles, but has to do with collisions at an observable level, rather than their placement in shells. It would appear we are both incorrect, my mistake. [[User:JanSmuts|JanSmuts]] 17:02, 12 April 2012 (EDT)
 
::No, Brownian motion is associated with sub-atomic particles, but has to do with collisions at an observable level, rather than their placement in shells. It would appear we are both incorrect, my mistake. [[User:JanSmuts|JanSmuts]] 17:02, 12 April 2012 (EDT)
 
+
::::I'm sorry, but you remain totally confused about Brownian motion even after acknowledging your earlier error. Brownian motion was first described by the biologist Robert Brown around 1827.  He was describing a microscopic phenomenon and not a molecular one and certainly not a sub-atomic one.  If your understanding of basic terms is so faulty I am not surprised that your conclusions are bad.--[[User:DavidEdwards|DavidEdwards]] 10:11, 13 April 2012 (EDT)
 
:::Well, then, do you think a [[perpetual motion machine]] can exist and, if not, then why not?--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 17:36, 12 April 2012 (EDT)
 
:::Well, then, do you think a [[perpetual motion machine]] can exist and, if not, then why not?--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 17:36, 12 April 2012 (EDT)
 
::::Isn't friction usually the answer?  --[[User:JeromeKJ|JeromeKJ]] 18:19, 12 April 2012 (EDT)
 
::::Isn't friction usually the answer?  --[[User:JeromeKJ|JeromeKJ]] 18:19, 12 April 2012 (EDT)
31

edits

Navigation menu