Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > sci.physics > #628963 > unrolled thread
| Started by | alal65536@gmail.com |
|---|---|
| First post | 2017-04-14 03:06 -0700 |
| Last post | 2017-04-14 08:53 -0700 |
| Articles | 11 on this page of 51 — 12 participants |
Back to article view | Back to sci.physics
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 3 of 3 — ← Prev page 1 2 [3]
| From | moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-04-17 15:33 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <od2n8p$4j5$2@pcls7.std.com> |
| In reply to | #629502 |
Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> writes: >On 4/17/2017 7:56 AM, john wrote: >> You didn't look up spherical tetrahedral packing? >> Okay, you need four spheres around each >> central sphere. >> Methane has that. >> Oxygen doesn't. >> >> Are you clear, now? >John, first of all, tetrahedral packing is for spheres of equal size. >Doesn't apply to the packing of hydrogens around carbon, because >hydrogen and carbon aren't the same size. Secondly, the packing you're >talking about is for a solid assembly where there are layers and layers >of the spheres making up a large lattice. That is not the case of a >single CH4 atom in a gas. >You STILL haven't explained WHY in your model the bonds in H2O are not >equally spaced. Yeah, John, why is H2O bent yet CO2 isn't? Why is SiF6-- a stable ion, but CF6-- doesn't form even though C is above Si in the periodic table? Why are CH4 and CCl4 tetrahedral but PtCl4-- square planar?
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Lofty Goat <rlwatkins@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-04-21 17:53 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <b93lfc9ndfb6bmsi31u2ijf0cncbgefjkl@4ax.com> |
| In reply to | #629513 |
Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> writes: >... Why are CH4 and CCl4 tetrahedral.... Calling carbon tetrachloride "tetrahedral" is a bit of a stretch. -- Goat
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-04-21 18:01 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <ode30m$r8r$2@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #630031 |
On 4/21/2017 5:53 PM, Lofty Goat wrote: > Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> writes: >> ... Why are CH4 and CCl4 tetrahedral.... > > Calling carbon tetrachloride "tetrahedral" is a bit of a stretch. > http://chemapps.stolaf.edu/jmol/jmol.php?model=ClC%28Cl%29%28Cl%29Cl -- Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Lofty Goat <rlwatkins@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-04-23 18:22 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <c9dqfcp417ncagtlodk5llkeqesk7019kl@4ax.com> |
| In reply to | #630032 |
On Fri, 21 Apr 2017 18:01:44 -0500, Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> wrote: >On 4/21/2017 5:53 PM, Lofty Goat wrote: >> Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> writes: >>> ... Why are CH4 and CCl4 tetrahedral.... >> >> Calling carbon tetrachloride "tetrahedral" is a bit of a stretch. >> > >http://chemapps.stolaf.edu/jmol/jmol.php?model=ClC%28Cl%29%28Cl%29Cl Pretty picture. By presenting a ball-and-stick molecular model as evidence, by implication you're stating that chlorine doesn't undergo SP3 hybridization when it forms compounds with carbon? Granted my brief study of molecular orbital theory is about 45 years behind me, but I rather thought it did. In that case CCl4 would form a rather more interesting shape. It would with any SP orbitals. Then again, maybe not. I'll have look some things up. -- Goat
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-04-24 22:25 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <odlu13$u50$2@pcls7.std.com> |
| In reply to | #630302 |
Lofty Goat <rlwatkins@gmail.com> writes: >On Fri, 21 Apr 2017 18:01:44 -0500, Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> >wrote: >>On 4/21/2017 5:53 PM, Lofty Goat wrote: >>> Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> writes: >>>> ... Why are CH4 and CCl4 tetrahedral.... >>> >>> Calling carbon tetrachloride "tetrahedral" is a bit of a stretch. >>> >> >>http://chemapps.stolaf.edu/jmol/jmol.php?model=ClC%28Cl%29%28Cl%29Cl >Pretty picture. By presenting a ball-and-stick molecular model as >evidence, by implication you're stating that chlorine doesn't undergo >SP3 hybridization when it forms compounds with carbon? >Granted my brief study of molecular orbital theory is about 45 years >behind me, but I rather thought it did. In that case CCl4 would form a >rather more interesting shape. It would with any SP orbitals. >Then again, maybe not. I'll have look some things up. Carbon is at the center, it is the one undergoing SP3 hybridization, not Cl.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-04-24 18:07 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <cc09741c-984a-4d2b-b686-51d1246ef029@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #630489 |
Finished my first frame. Know where everything is, and where it's going. Length from origin to tetrahedral point inside cube of 2 units is root 3. Animation will need 64 frames. We're off.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Lofty Goat <rlwatkins@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-04-29 20:06 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <sidagct623hg6ev9klicv49hsg90rmpun7@4ax.com> |
| In reply to | #630489 |
On Mon, 24 Apr 2017 22:25:39 +0000 (UTC), moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) wrote: >Lofty Goat <rlwatkins@gmail.com> writes: > >>On Fri, 21 Apr 2017 18:01:44 -0500, Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> >>wrote: > >>>On 4/21/2017 5:53 PM, Lofty Goat wrote: >>>> Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> writes: >>>>> ... Why are CH4 and CCl4 tetrahedral.... >>>> >>>> Calling carbon tetrachloride "tetrahedral" is a bit of a stretch. >>>> >>> >>>http://chemapps.stolaf.edu/jmol/jmol.php?model=ClC%28Cl%29%28Cl%29Cl > >>Pretty picture. By presenting a ball-and-stick molecular model as >>evidence, by implication you're stating that chlorine doesn't undergo >>SP3 hybridization when it forms compounds with carbon? > >>Granted my brief study of molecular orbital theory is about 45 years >>behind me, but I rather thought it did. In that case CCl4 would form a >>rather more interesting shape. It would with any SP orbitals. > >>Then again, maybe not. I'll have look some things up. > >Carbon is at the center, it is the one undergoing SP3 hybridization, not >Cl. Er, yes, carbon in the middle. Right. Chlorine orbitals can't be in their un-hybridized configuration (vertices of an octahedron, and one in the center) and form any sort of chemical bond. I don't suppose that's changed since I took high-school chemistry. Did dig this up: "To determine hybridization add up the number of lone pairs not used in resonance and the number of atoms to which the atom is bound. If the sum is four, the orbitals are sp3-hybridized." In any event, methane can be said, in rough terms, to be tetrahedral since four protons fit neatly within each of the four hybridized orbitals. Carbon tetrachloride won't look quite so simple. -- Goat
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Edward Prochak <edprochak@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-04-15 02:57 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <deedf91a-adee-4f90-8165-e39616f5f8f6@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #629027 |
On Friday, April 14, 2017 at 4:41:37 PM UTC-4, john wrote: > Odd > " > My understanding of your thinking is that "other universes" must be > garbage because a human-invented word like "universe" forbids that from > happening. " > > My understanding is that physicists make up > meanings for words as part of the smoke and > mirrors. Universe no longer means everything, > spin no longer means spin. So you never heard the word jargon? All disciplines use words specific to their fields. That you disagree with the terms is only due to the fact you do not take the time to learn the jargon of the field. > Tell me, Odd, where and why is the division point > between this Universe and that Universe and > what lies between? You're spouting hogwash > that you read somewhere and just took at face > value. For those theories that include a multiple universes each one forms a multidimensional membrane, usually just called a brane. > Rules apply to Big and small, alike. Electrons and > every other subparticle have to account for every > change. > Sorry to kill ur fantasy Kill as many fantasies as you like. It won't affect those of us studying science. ed
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-04-15 05:29 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <b36a500a-c3d5-4faa-bba7-19a8ee7d760a@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #629101 |
ed "eories that include a multiple universes each one forms a multidimensional membrane, usually just called a brane. " Substitution of physicists brains for "branes " noted. Wondered what happened
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Serg io <invalid@invalid.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-04-14 10:18 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <ocqp99$ji3$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #628963 |
On 4/14/2017 5:06 AM, alal65536@gmail.com wrote: > I came across an interesting idea in an essay by a physicist. He > said that the laws of nature can change over time. which ones ? anything specific ? Why would they ? Most "laws" are gometrical relationships, weight, charge, time. Stuff that does not change. > That maybe, the > laws of nature were different before the Big Bang. "maybe", "if", are all "weasel words" > And if we are > living in a multiverse, the laws of nature are different in different > universes. if, but we do not. think we do ? got any evidence etc ? > There is nothing fundamental about the laws of nature in our > universe. not so, most are fundamental. > But maybe the laws of nature are special, in that they > allow complex structures to form, like life, and planets. the laws do not "allow", they are simply "math modeling" of "observances". > > But can the laws of nature vary inside our universe in our time? no really. got any ideas? > > Abhinav Lal Writer & Investor >
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | HVAC <mr.hvac@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-04-14 08:53 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <cfa818c5-f23a-4d2c-933f-085056c59c07@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #628963 |
alal...@gmail.com I came across an interesting idea in an essay by a physicist. He said that the laws of nature can change over time. That maybe, the laws of nature were different before the Big Bang. And if we are living in a multiverse, the laws of nature are different in different universes. ----------- First of all, the term 'before the big bang' is a non sequitur. Since time itself was formed when the big bang banged, how could it be any other way?
[toc] | [prev] | [standalone]
Page 3 of 3 — ← Prev page 1 2 [3]
Back to top | Article view | sci.physics
csiph-web