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

Groups > sci.physics > #628963 > unrolled thread

Variations in laws of nature

Back to article view | Back to sci.physics

Contents

  Variations in laws of nature alal65536@gmail.com - 2017-04-14 03:06 -0700
    Re: Variations in laws of nature Poutnik <poutnik4nntp@gmail.com> - 2017-04-14 13:35 +0200
      Re: Variations in laws of nature poraty350@gmail.com - 2017-04-15 22:16 -0700
        Re: Variations in laws of nature john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2017-04-16 05:25 -0700
    Re: Variations in laws of nature Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-04-14 08:25 -0500
      Re: Variations in laws of nature john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2017-04-14 08:12 -0700
        Re: Variations in laws of nature moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2017-04-14 15:26 +0000
          Re: Variations in laws of nature john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2017-04-14 08:39 -0700
            Re: Variations in laws of nature Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-04-14 13:10 -0500
        Re: Variations in laws of nature Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-04-14 13:08 -0500
          Re: Variations in laws of nature john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2017-04-14 13:41 -0700
            Re: Variations in laws of nature Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-04-14 16:47 -0500
              Re: Variations in laws of nature john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2017-04-14 16:41 -0700
                Re: Variations in laws of nature john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2017-04-14 16:46 -0700
                  Re: Variations in laws of nature moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2017-04-15 03:04 +0000
                Re: Variations in laws of nature benj <benj@nobody.net> - 2017-04-14 20:16 -0400
                Re: Variations in laws of nature Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-04-15 15:31 -0500
                  Re: Variations in laws of nature john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2017-04-15 14:52 -0700
                    Re: Variations in laws of nature moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2017-04-16 04:36 +0000
                    Re: Variations in laws of nature Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-04-16 22:09 -0500
                      Re: Variations in laws of nature Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-04-17 06:03 -0500
                        Re: Variations in laws of nature john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2017-04-17 05:33 -0700
                          Re: Variations in laws of nature Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-04-17 07:49 -0500
                            Re: Variations in laws of nature john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2017-04-17 05:56 -0700
                              Re: Variations in laws of nature john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2017-04-17 06:09 -0700
                                Re: Variations in laws of nature Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-04-17 08:40 -0500
                                Re: Variations in laws of nature moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2017-04-17 15:25 +0000
                                  Re: Variations in laws of nature "F.Art.Ingatu" <F.Art.Ingatu@hotmail.com> - 2017-04-17 10:09 -0700
                              Re: Variations in laws of nature Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-04-17 08:37 -0500
                                Re: Variations in laws of nature john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2017-04-17 06:57 -0700
                                  Re: Variations in laws of nature john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2017-04-17 07:37 -0700
                                    Re: Variations in laws of nature Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-04-17 15:21 -0500
                                  Re: Variations in laws of nature Edward Prochak <edprochak@gmail.com> - 2017-04-17 10:23 -0700
                                    Re: Variations in laws of nature john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2017-04-17 10:53 -0700
                                      Re: Variations in laws of nature moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2017-04-17 19:59 +0000
                                      Re: Variations in laws of nature Edward Prochak <edprochak@gmail.com> - 2017-04-19 07:46 -0700
                                  Re: Variations in laws of nature Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-04-17 15:15 -0500
                                    Re: Variations in laws of nature john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2017-04-19 08:29 -0700
                                      Re: Variations in laws of nature Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-04-19 10:39 -0500
                                        Re: Variations in laws of nature Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-04-19 10:40 -0500
                                Re: Variations in laws of nature moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2017-04-17 15:33 +0000
                                  Re: Variations in laws of nature Lofty Goat <rlwatkins@gmail.com> - 2017-04-21 17:53 -0500
                                    Re: Variations in laws of nature Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-04-21 18:01 -0500
                                      Re: Variations in laws of nature Lofty Goat <rlwatkins@gmail.com> - 2017-04-23 18:22 -0500
                                        Re: Variations in laws of nature moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2017-04-24 22:25 +0000
                                          Re: Variations in laws of nature john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2017-04-24 18:07 -0700
                                          Re: Variations in laws of nature Lofty Goat <rlwatkins@gmail.com> - 2017-04-29 20:06 -0500
            Re: Variations in laws of nature Edward Prochak <edprochak@gmail.com> - 2017-04-15 02:57 -0700
              Re: Variations in laws of nature john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2017-04-15 05:29 -0700
    Re: Variations in laws of nature Serg io <invalid@invalid.com> - 2017-04-14 10:18 -0500
    Variations in laws of nature HVAC <mr.hvac@gmail.com> - 2017-04-14 08:53 -0700

Page 2 of 3 — ← Prev page 1 [2] 3  Next page →

#629488

On 4/16/2017 10:09 PM, Odd Bodkin wrote:
> On 4/15/2017 4:52 PM, john wrote:
>> Odd
>> "
>> Do not ASSUME that the same laws work at all scales, just because you'd
>> like it to be so. You have to put subject ANY and ALL assumptions to
>> experimental test.
>> "
>> Pretty hard to get a good picture at
>> the attoseconds scale.
>> The new attophysics will elucidate atoms.
>> They will be seen to be discs.
>>
>
> If you say so, John. Me, I'll wait til the data are in.
>

Actually, John, there's that matter of the tetrahedral shape of methane. 
Out of a disc-shaped carbon atom? How, exactly?

-- 
Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables

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

#629497

Odd
"
Actually, John, there's that matter of the tetrahedral shape of methane. 
Out of a disc-shaped carbon atom? How, exactly? 
"
The Carbon atom is a sphere over any
time period longer than 10^-18 seconds, Odd.
Do some research on packing of spheres-
you like reading.

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

#629498

On 4/17/2017 7:33 AM, john wrote:
> Odd
> "
> Actually, John, there's that matter of the tetrahedral shape of methane.
> Out of a disc-shaped carbon atom? How, exactly?
> "
> The Carbon atom is a sphere over any
> time period longer than 10^-18 seconds, Odd.
> Do some research on packing of spheres-
> you like reading.
>

It's funny, then, John that the bonds are in that tetrahedral shape, 
isn't it? Consider oxygen. It bonds to two hydrogens to make water. Now, 
you might expect that the hydrogens would be evenly spaced around a 
spherical oxygen atom, so that the bonds would be 180 degrees apart, on 
the opposite sides of the oxygen. Except they're not. So, John, in your 
spinning disc model, why should this happen, if the oxygen atom is a 
sphere over any time period longer than 10^-18 s?
-- 
Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables

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

#629499

Odd
"It's funny, then, John that the bonds are in that tetrahedral shape, 
isn't it? Consider oxygen. It bonds to two hydrogens to make water. Now, 
you might expect that the hydrogens would be evenly spaced around a 
spherical oxygen atom, so that the bonds would be 180 degrees apart, on 
the opposite sides of the oxygen. Except they're not. So, John, in your 
spinning disc model, why should this happen, if the oxygen atom is a 
sphere over any time period longer than 10^-18 s? 
-- 
Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables "

You didn't look up spherical tetrahedral packing?
Okay, you need four spheres around each
central sphere.
Methane has that.
Oxygen doesn't.

Are you clear, now?

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

#629500

Odd
But you are tempting me to CAD a 
CH4, again.
This time I'll set it up from the other end
and let the process find the orbitals.

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

#629503

On 4/17/2017 8:09 AM, john wrote:
> Odd
> But you are tempting me to CAD a
> CH4, again.
> This time I'll set it up from the other end
> and let the process find the orbitals.
>

While you're at it, do water.

While you're at it, explain why ammonia (NH3) has the atoms arranged in 
a PLANE while methane has them in a tetrahedral pyramid.

While you're at it, explain why BH3 has the atoms arranged in a trigonal 
pyramid, while NH3 has the atoms arranged in a plane.

Keep in mind that quantum mechanics explains ALL of these, and you have 
yet to get ANY of them right.

-- 
Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables

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

#629512

john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> writes:

>Odd
>But you are tempting me to CAD a 
>CH4, again.

Why not do it correctly this time and come up with a proper mathematical
model and then, if necessary, do a CAD from it?

Oh yeah, that's right. You don't even have a model.

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

#629523

On Monday, April 17, 2017 at 8:25:36 AM UTC-7, Michael Moroney wrote:
> john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> writes:
> 
> >Odd
> >But you are tempting me to CAD a 
> >CH4, again.
> 
> Why not do it correctly this time and come up with a proper mathematical
> model and then, if necessary, do a CAD from it?
> 
> Oh yeah, that's right. You don't even have a model.
>
Oh yes, he does have a model. He is 
f.art.ingatu

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

#629502

On 4/17/2017 7:56 AM, john wrote:
> You didn't look up spherical tetrahedral packing?
> Okay, you need four spheres around each
> central sphere.
> Methane has that.
> Oxygen doesn't.
>
> Are you clear, now?

John, first of all, tetrahedral packing is for spheres of equal size. 
Doesn't apply to the packing of hydrogens around carbon, because 
hydrogen and carbon aren't the same size. Secondly, the packing you're 
talking about is for a solid assembly where there are layers and layers 
of the spheres making up a large lattice. That is not the case of a 
single CH4 atom in a gas.

You STILL haven't explained WHY in your model the bonds in H2O are not 
equally spaced.

-- 
Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables

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

#629504

Odd
"size. 
Doesn't apply to the packing of hydrogens around carbon, because "

Yes it does, because the Hydrogens'
presence is far larger than the Carbon-
they're like big balloons

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

#629510

Odd, for 4 spheres 10 units in size,
spherically packed (touching themselves!!),
what size sphere will fit in the middle?

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

#629562

On 4/17/2017 9:37 AM, john wrote:
> Odd, for 4 spheres 10 units in size,
> spherically packed (touching themselves!!),
> what size sphere will fit in the middle?
>

http://study.com/cimages/multimages/16/methane-molecule-models.jpg

Image on the left reflects atomic sizes, John.

-- 
Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables

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

#629527

On Monday, April 17, 2017 at 9:58:02 AM UTC-4, john wrote:
> Odd
> "size. 
> Doesn't apply to the packing of hydrogens around carbon, because "
> 
> Yes it does, because the Hydrogens'
> presence is far larger than the Carbon-
> they're like big balloons

Ha Ha Ha
Sorry, John, but you are so wrong that it just made me laugh.

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

#629531

ed
"Sorry, John, but you are so wrong that it just made me laugh. "
:)
Can't be right all the time.
But hauling Suck Gravity and point particles 
around makes you wrong all the time.
Gotta weed out shit like that before 
you can really laugh. I know.

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

#629556

john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> writes:

>ed
>"Sorry, John, but you are so wrong that it just made me laugh. "
>:)
>Can't be right all the time.

You should at least try to be right once in a while.

You do realize, don't you, that hydrogen is one of the smallest
atoms, so your "big balloon" hydrogen statement is absurd.

>But hauling Suck Gravity and point particles 
>around makes you wrong all the time.
>Gotta weed out shit like that before 
>you can really laugh. I know.

You never tell us _why_ you believe those are wrong.

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

#629788

On Monday, April 17, 2017 at 1:53:13 PM UTC-4, john wrote:
> ed
> "Sorry, John, but you are so wrong that it just made me laugh. "
> :)
> Can't be right all the time.
> But hauling Suck Gravity and point particles 
> around makes you wrong all the time.
> Gotta weed out shit like that before 
> you can really laugh. I know.

Yes, thanks to your omniscience you just KNOW.
Odd has tried to help you get past that.
I have tried to help you.

Without a little humility, you are just stuck
in KNOW TOWN.

ed

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

#629561

On 4/17/2017 8:57 AM, john wrote:
> Odd
> "size.
> Doesn't apply to the packing of hydrogens around carbon, because "
>
> Yes it does, because the Hydrogens'
> presence is far larger than the Carbon-
> they're like big balloons
>

John, how big is a hydrogen atom, and a carbon atom?

-- 
Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables

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

#629798

Odd
"
John, how big is a hydrogen atom, and a carbon atom? 
"Carbons are about 70pm.
Hydrogens are listed as anywhere from
25pm to 55pm.
Generally, when atoms lose an electron,
they shrink, and when they gain, they
balloon out.
What values would you like to see in CH4?

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

#629800

On 4/19/2017 10:29 AM, john wrote:
> Odd
> "
> John, how big is a hydrogen atom, and a carbon atom?
> "Carbons are about 70pm.
> Hydrogens are listed as anywhere from
> 25pm to 55pm.
> Generally, when atoms lose an electron,
> they shrink, and when they gain, they
> balloon out.
> What values would you like to see in CH4?
>

I'm not asking you to build something to my specs. You're supposed to be 
modeling it the way nature is.
What kind of bond is between the carbon and each hydrogen in methane? 
This you should know from high school chemistry -- ionic? covalent? 
polar? hydrogen? Is it a single bond? double bond? triple bond?

-- 
Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables

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

#629801

On 4/19/2017 10:39 AM, Odd Bodkin wrote:
> On 4/19/2017 10:29 AM, john wrote:
>> Odd
>> "
>> John, how big is a hydrogen atom, and a carbon atom?
>> "Carbons are about 70pm.
>> Hydrogens are listed as anywhere from
>> 25pm to 55pm.
>> Generally, when atoms lose an electron,
>> they shrink, and when they gain, they
>> balloon out.
>> What values would you like to see in CH4?
>>
>
> I'm not asking you to build something to my specs. You're supposed to be
> modeling it the way nature is.
> What kind of bond is between the carbon and each hydrogen in methane?
> This you should know from high school chemistry -- ionic? covalent?
> polar? hydrogen? Is it a single bond? double bond? triple bond?
>

Once you know what kind of bond it is, then you look to see what the 
atomic radius of that type is, for each of the atoms.

-- 
Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables

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

Page 2 of 3 — ← Prev page 1 [2] 3  Next page →

Back to top | Article view | sci.physics

csiph-web