Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]

Groups > sci.physics > #832447 > unrolled thread

Re: Plonk.

Back to article view | Back to sci.physics

This discussion starts older than the indexed window; earlier articles aren't shown. The article labeled Started by below is the oldest one visible, not the original post.

Contents

  Re: Plonk. Plain dumb <tsp2opt@gmail.com> - 2021-09-15 13:13 -0700
    Re: Plonk. whodat <whodaat@void.nowgre.com> - 2021-09-15 16:15 -0500
    Re: Plonk. Arindam Banerjee <banerjeeadda1234@gmail.com> - 2021-09-16 06:18 -0700
      Re: Plonk. Lou <noelturntive@live.co.uk> - 2021-09-16 06:50 -0700
      Re: Plonk. Max Moron <tsp2opt@gmail.com> - 2021-09-16 09:30 -0700

#832447 — Re: Plonk.

On Sunday, May 30, 2021 at 5:06:50 PM UTC-7, banerjee...@gmail.com wrote:
> On Monday, 31 May 2021 at 09:23:44 UTC+10, Jeff-Relf.Me wrote: 
> > Jim_Pennino replied ( to ClutterFreak ): 
> > > > Wuhan's work on this virus was funded by the U.S. Government 
> > > 
> > > And this has what to do with physics, dimwit ?
> What does anyone but I have to do with physics, here?

Well, I've published papers in refereed journals about
chemical applications of density functional theory,
which is a type of quantum mechanics, which is a type
of physics.  Does that count?  We could discuss 
barrier heights for some common organic reactions 
as calculated by DFT compared to traditional
Hartree-Fock.

[toc] | [next] | [standalone]

#832452

On 9/15/2021 3:13 PM, Plain dumb wrote:
> On Sunday, May 30, 2021 at 5:06:50 PM UTC-7, banerjee...@gmail.com wrote:
>> On Monday, 31 May 2021 at 09:23:44 UTC+10, Jeff-Relf.Me wrote:
>>> Jim_Pennino replied ( to ClutterFreak ):
>>>>> Wuhan's work on this virus was funded by the U.S. Government
>>>>
>>>> And this has what to do with physics, dimwit ?
>> What does anyone but I have to do with physics, here?
> 
> Well, I've published papers in refereed journals about
> chemical applications of density functional theory,
> which is a type of quantum mechanics, which is a type
> of physics.  Does that count?  We could discuss
> barrier heights for some common organic reactions
> as calculated by DFT compared to traditional
> Hartree-Fock.
> 

Banerjee was confused at the "Well" above.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#832502

On Thursday, 16 September 2021 at 06:14:02 UTC+10, Plain dumb wrote:
> On Sunday, May 30, 2021 at 5:06:50 PM UTC-7, banerjee...@gmail.com wrote: 
> > On Monday, 31 May 2021 at 09:23:44 UTC+10, Jeff-Relf.Me wrote: 
> > > Jim_Pennino replied ( to ClutterFreak ): 
> > > > > Wuhan's work on this virus was funded by the U.S. Government 
> > > > 
> > > > And this has what to do with physics, dimwit ? 
> > What does anyone but I have to do with physics, here? 
> 
> Well, I've published papers in refereed journals about 
> chemical applications of density functional theory, 
> which is a type of quantum mechanics, which is a type 
> of physics. Does that count?

No.

 We could discuss 
> barrier heights for some common organic reactions 
> as calculated by DFT compared to traditional 
> Hartree-Fock.

Physics is about sense, not bullshit.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#832508

On Thursday, 16 September 2021 at 14:18:09 UTC+1, banerjee...@gmail.com wrote:
> On Thursday, 16 September 2021 at 06:14:02 UTC+10, Plain dumb wrote: 
> > On Sunday, May 30, 2021 at 5:06:50 PM UTC-7, banerjee...@gmail.com wrote: 
> > > On Monday, 31 May 2021 at 09:23:44 UTC+10, Jeff-Relf.Me wrote: 
> > > > Jim_Pennino replied ( to ClutterFreak ): 
> > > > > > Wuhan's work on this virus was funded by the U.S. Government 
> > > > > 
> > > > > And this has what to do with physics, dimwit ? 
> > > What does anyone but I have to do with physics, here? 
> > 
> > Well, I've published papers in refereed journals about 
> > chemical applications of density functional theory, 
> > which is a type of quantum mechanics, which is a type 
> > of physics. Does that count?
> No.
> We could discuss 
> > barrier heights for some common organic reactions 
> > as calculated by DFT compared to traditional 
> > Hartree-Fock.
> Physics is about sense, not bullshit.
Interesting considering physics in the 20th century is about ignoring good sense. 
Hence wackos like Albert and Heisenberg rule the roost.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#832522

On Thursday, September 16, 2021 at 6:18:09 AM UTC-7, banerjee...@gmail.com wrote:
> On Thursday, 16 September 2021 at 06:14:02 UTC+10, Plain dumb wrote: 
> > On Sunday, May 30, 2021 at 5:06:50 PM UTC-7, banerjee...@gmail.com wrote: 
> > > On Monday, 31 May 2021 at 09:23:44 UTC+10, Jeff-Relf.Me wrote: 
> > > > Jim_Pennino replied ( to ClutterFreak ): 
> > > > > > Wuhan's work on this virus was funded by the U.S. Government 
> > > > > 
> > > > > And this has what to do with physics, dimwit ? 
> > > What does anyone but I have to do with physics, here? 
> > 
> > Well, I've published papers in refereed journals about 
> > chemical applications of density functional theory, 
> > which is a type of quantum mechanics, which is a type 
> > of physics. Does that count?
> No.
Why not?  We found that while
the barriers calculated by DFT tended to be too low 
compared to experimental data, they were better than
barriers calculated by Hartree-Fock. Also, we found that
the adiabatic connection method worked very well too.
You know, where a portion of the exact Hartree-Fock 
exchange is mixed in to the density functional.
> > We could discuss 
> > barrier heights for some common organic reactions 
> > as calculated by DFT compared to traditional 
> > Hartree-Fock.
> Physics is about sense, not bullshit.
We could calculate the barrier heights using DFT
and your equation and see whose answer is closer to 
experimental data.  

[toc] | [prev] | [standalone]

Back to top | Article view | sci.physics

csiph-web