Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > sci.physics > #636416 > unrolled thread
| Started by | john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| First post | 2017-06-14 11:46 -0700 |
| Last post | 2017-06-15 02:54 -0700 |
| Articles | 20 on this page of 142 — 9 participants |
Back to article view | Back to sci.physics
CH4 for Odd john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2017-06-14 11:46 -0700
Re: CH4 for Odd "Chris M. Thomasson" <invalid@invalid.invalid> - 2017-06-14 12:32 -0700
Re: CH4 for Odd Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-06-14 14:32 -0500
Re: CH4 for Odd Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-06-14 14:42 -0500
Re: CH4 for Odd john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2017-06-14 14:27 -0700
Re: CH4 for Odd john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2017-06-14 15:13 -0700
Re: CH4 for Odd Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-06-15 08:38 -0500
Re: CH4 for Odd Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-06-15 08:33 -0500
Re: CH4 for Odd poraty350@gmail.com - 2017-06-15 09:35 -0700
Re: CH4 for Odd HVAC <mr.hvac@gmail.com> - 2017-06-15 11:14 -0700
Re: CH4 for Odd Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-06-15 08:50 -0500
Re: CH4 for Odd john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2017-06-15 07:08 -0700
Re: CH4 for Odd john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2017-06-15 07:40 -0700
Re: CH4 for Odd Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-06-15 10:46 -0500
Re: CH4 for Odd moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2017-06-15 16:05 +0000
Re: CH4 for Odd Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-06-15 10:41 -0500
Re: CH4 for Odd moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2017-06-14 19:55 +0000
Re: CH4 for Odd Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-06-14 15:55 -0500
Re: CH4 for Odd john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2017-06-14 14:16 -0700
Re: CH4 for Odd moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2017-06-15 12:39 +0000
Re: CH4 for Odd poraty350@gmail.com - 2017-06-15 09:33 -0700
Re: CH4 for Odd Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-06-15 16:40 -0500
Re: CH4 for Odd poraty350@gmail.com - 2017-06-16 00:30 -0700
Re: CH4 for Odd Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-06-16 15:53 -0500
Re: CH4 for Odd poraty350@gmail.com - 2017-06-16 21:50 -0700
Re: CH4 for Odd john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2017-06-14 20:29 -0700
Re: CH4 for Odd poraty350@gmail.com - 2017-06-14 21:26 -0700
Re: CH4 for Odd moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2017-06-15 12:48 +0000
Re: CH4 for Odd john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2017-06-15 08:22 -0700
Re: CH4 for Odd Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-06-15 10:49 -0500
Re: CH4 for Odd moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2017-06-15 16:12 +0000
Re: CH4 for Odd john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2017-06-15 18:24 -0700
Re: CH4 for Odd moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2017-06-16 07:17 +0000
Re: CH4 for Odd john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2017-06-16 04:22 -0700
Re: CH4 for Odd Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-06-16 08:16 -0500
Re: CH4 for Odd john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2017-06-16 06:49 -0700
Re: CH4 for Odd Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-06-16 15:10 -0500
Re: CH4 for Odd poraty350@gmail.com - 2017-06-16 21:37 -0700
Re: CH4 for Odd moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2017-06-16 15:03 +0000
Re: CH4 for Odd john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2017-06-16 08:50 -0700
Re: CH4 for Odd moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2017-06-16 19:44 +0000
Re: CH4 for Odd Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-06-16 15:07 -0500
Re: CH4 for Odd john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2017-06-17 06:14 -0700
Re: CH4 for Odd moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2017-06-17 14:10 +0000
Re: CH4 for Odd Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-06-17 21:24 +0000
Re: CH4 for Odd poraty350@gmail.com - 2017-06-17 15:52 -0700
Re: CH4 for Odd john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2017-06-17 16:44 -0700
Re: CH4 for Odd moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2017-06-18 00:09 +0000
Re: CH4 for Odd poraty350@gmail.com - 2017-06-17 21:50 -0700
Re: CH4 for Odd Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-06-18 02:50 +0000
Re: CH4 for Odd poraty350@gmail.com - 2017-06-17 21:57 -0700
Re: CH4 for Odd Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-06-19 12:40 -0500
Re: CH4 for Odd john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2017-06-18 08:42 -0700
Re: CH4 for Odd john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2017-06-18 08:51 -0700
Re: CH4 for Odd john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2017-06-18 09:03 -0700
Re: CH4 for Odd moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2017-06-19 01:04 +0000
Re: CH4 for Odd Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-06-19 12:51 -0500
Re: CH4 for Odd moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2017-06-19 01:03 +0000
Re: CH4 for Odd poraty350@gmail.com - 2017-06-18 21:33 -0700
Re: CH4 for Odd Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-06-19 12:52 -0500
Re: CH4 for Odd poraty350@gmail.com - 2017-06-20 04:49 -0700
Re: CH4 for Odd Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-06-20 08:36 -0500
Re: CH4 for Odd poraty350@gmail.com - 2017-06-18 21:31 -0700
Re: CH4 for Odd Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-06-19 12:48 -0500
Re: CH4 for Odd john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2017-06-20 04:53 -0700
Re: CH4 for Odd Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-06-20 08:38 -0500
Re: CH4 for Odd moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2017-06-20 14:45 +0000
Re: CH4 for Odd john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2017-06-21 08:09 -0700
Re: CH4 for Odd Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-06-21 10:57 -0500
Re: CH4 for Odd john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2017-06-21 09:41 -0700
Re: CH4 for Odd john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2017-06-21 09:48 -0700
Re: CH4 for Odd Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-06-21 15:00 -0500
Re: CH4 for Odd poraty350@gmail.com - 2017-06-21 09:51 -0700
Re: CH4 for Odd john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2017-06-21 10:10 -0700
Re: CH4 for Odd Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-06-21 15:08 -0500
Re: CH4 for Odd john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2017-06-21 13:27 -0700
Re: CH4 for Odd Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-06-21 15:43 -0500
Re: CH4 for Odd moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2017-06-21 20:49 +0000
Re: CH4 for Odd poraty350@gmail.com - 2017-06-22 00:19 -0700
Re: CH4 for Odd poraty350@gmail.com - 2017-06-22 03:58 -0700
Re: CH4 for Odd Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-06-22 12:39 +0000
Re: CH4 for Odd Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-06-22 12:38 +0000
Re: CH4 for Odd john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2017-06-22 06:13 -0700
Re: CH4 for Odd HVAC <mr.hvac@gmail.com> - 2017-06-22 06:22 -0700
Re: CH4 for Odd john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2017-06-22 07:33 -0700
Re: CH4 for Odd john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2017-06-22 07:55 -0700
Re: CH4 for Odd moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2017-06-22 15:21 +0000
Re: CH4 for Odd john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2017-06-22 08:40 -0700
Re: CH4 for Odd moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2017-06-22 16:57 +0000
Re: CH4 for Odd Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-06-22 12:36 -0500
Re: CH4 for Odd john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2017-06-22 08:44 -0700
Re: CH4 for Odd Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-06-22 12:38 -0500
Re: CH4 for Odd Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-06-22 12:33 -0500
Re: CH4 for Odd HVAC <mr.hvac@gmail.com> - 2017-06-21 10:10 -0700
Re: CH4 for Odd moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2017-06-21 18:23 +0000
Re: CH4 for Odd john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2017-06-21 08:21 -0700
Re: CH4 for Odd Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-06-21 11:01 -0500
Re: CH4 for Odd moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2017-06-21 18:37 +0000
Re: CH4 for Odd john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2017-06-21 12:37 -0700
Re: CH4 for Odd john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2017-06-21 13:02 -0700
Re: CH4 for Odd moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2017-06-21 21:07 +0000
Re: CH4 for Odd john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2017-06-21 17:46 -0700
Re: CH4 for Odd benj <benj@nobody.net> - 2017-06-21 21:35 -0400
Re: CH4 for Odd HVAC <mr.hvac@gmail.com> - 2017-06-22 04:01 -0700
Re: CH4 for Odd john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2017-06-22 05:10 -0700
Re: CH4 for Odd HVAC <mr.hvac@gmail.com> - 2017-06-22 08:53 -0700
Re: CH4 for Odd Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-06-22 12:41 -0500
Re: CH4 for Odd john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2017-06-22 11:19 -0700
Re: CH4 for Odd HVAC <mr.hvac@gmail.com> - 2017-06-22 11:26 -0700
Re: CH4 for Odd john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2017-06-22 11:51 -0700
Re: CH4 for Odd Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-06-22 15:25 -0500
Re: CH4 for Odd john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2017-06-22 15:24 -0700
Re: CH4 for Odd HVAC <mr.hvac@gmail.com> - 2017-06-22 17:45 -0700
Re: CH4 for Odd Edward Prochak <edprochak@gmail.com> - 2017-06-22 19:30 -0700
Re: CH4 for Odd moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2017-06-23 03:33 +0000
Re: CH4 for Odd Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-06-23 07:25 -0500
Re: CH4 for Odd john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2017-06-23 08:58 -0700
Re: CH4 for Odd moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2017-06-23 17:40 +0000
Re: CH4 for Odd Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-06-23 14:32 -0500
Re: CH4 for Odd john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2017-06-24 05:28 -0700
Re: CH4 for Odd moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2017-06-24 14:38 +0000
Re: CH4 for Odd john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2017-06-24 13:02 -0700
Re: CH4 for Odd moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2017-06-24 23:29 +0000
Re: CH4 for Odd john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2017-06-24 17:45 -0700
Re: CH4 for Odd Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-06-25 03:14 +0000
Re: CH4 for Odd moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2017-06-25 03:16 +0000
Re: CH4 for Odd john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2017-06-24 21:05 -0700
Re: CH4 for Odd moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2017-06-27 00:04 +0000
Re: CH4 for Odd john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2017-06-26 17:32 -0700
Re: CH4 for Odd Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-06-27 01:32 +0000
Re: CH4 for Odd moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2017-06-27 05:09 +0000
Re: CH4 for Odd Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-06-24 15:46 -0500
Re: CH4 for Odd john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2017-06-24 15:28 -0700
Re: CH4 for Odd Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-06-25 03:14 +0000
Re: CH4 for Odd poraty350@gmail.com - 2017-06-20 01:39 -0700
Re: CH4 for Odd Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-06-20 08:34 -0500
Re: CH4 for Odd Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-06-16 08:07 -0500
Re: CH4 for Odd Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-06-14 16:00 -0500
Re: CH4 for Odd Sегgi о <iinvalid@invalid.com> - 2017-06-14 17:40 -0500
CH4 for Odd HVAC <mr.hvac@gmail.com> - 2017-06-14 17:51 -0700
CH4 for Odd john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2017-06-14 20:22 -0700
CH4 for Odd HVAC <mr.hvac@gmail.com> - 2017-06-15 02:54 -0700
Page 1 of 8 [1] 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next page →
| From | john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-06-14 11:46 -0700 |
| Subject | CH4 for Odd |
| Message-ID | <0ee2d640-af96-4f4d-8832-e37f34492f5f@googlegroups.com> |
http://users.accesscomm.ca/john/Odd.GIF Each coloured ball spends half its time on its Hydrogen and the other half on the central Carbon.
[toc] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Chris M. Thomasson" <invalid@invalid.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-06-14 12:32 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <ohs2pu$d0j$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #636416 |
On 6/14/2017 11:46 AM, john wrote: > http://users.accesscomm.ca/john/Odd.GIF > Each coloured ball spends half its time on its Hydrogen and the other half on the central Carbon. > Very interesting animations: Thank you for posting this. :^)
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-06-14 14:32 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <ohs314$1u7u$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #636416 |
On 6/14/17 1:46 PM, john wrote: > http://users.accesscomm.ca/john/Odd.GIF > Each coloured ball spends half its time on its Hydrogen and the other half on the central Carbon. > So what's interesting about this is that those colored balls seem to have some odd behaviors -- sometimes there are 2 on a hydrogen, sometimes 1, sometimes 0; sometimes there are four on the carbon, sometimes 3, sometimes 5. Sometimes all the little balls are all on one half of the carbon's perimeter, sometimes they're spread out. Sometimes, the little balls go around the hydrogen at low tangential speed and then they hit the carbon and speed up with a big jump in tangential speed, which would violate conservation of energy. Basically John: Are you serious? -- Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-06-14 14:42 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <ohs3j7$1v5r$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #636419 |
On 6/14/17 2:32 PM, Odd Bodkin wrote: > On 6/14/17 1:46 PM, john wrote: >> http://users.accesscomm.ca/john/Odd.GIF >> Each coloured ball spends half its time on its Hydrogen and the other >> half on the central Carbon. >> > > So what's interesting about this is that those colored balls seem to > have some odd behaviors -- sometimes there are 2 on a hydrogen, > sometimes 1, sometimes 0; sometimes there are four on the carbon, > sometimes 3, sometimes 5. Sometimes all the little balls are all on one > half of the carbon's perimeter, sometimes they're spread out. Sometimes, > the little balls go around the hydrogen at low tangential speed and then > they hit the carbon and speed up with a big jump in tangential speed, > which would violate conservation of energy. > > Basically John: Are you serious? > Here's another thing to look at. According to your model, when there are 2 electrons on h4, there are none on h1; then a short time later there are 2 electrons on h1 and none on h4. This represents a spatial oscillation of NET charge along the legs of the tetrahedron. A spatial oscillation of net charge should result in constant electromagnetic radiation in the UV spectrum. Why UV? Because the oscillation of that net charge happens every few periods of precession. And your period of precession is tied to the orbital period of the electrons as you suppose them to be. Since we know the speed of those electrons is about 1% of the speed of light and we know the size of the atoms, then we know what you claim the period of precession should be. This tells you the frequency of the predicted radiation. Next question to you: Any observation of this radiation? -- Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-06-14 14:27 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <c1fc0709-72cc-49d3-b56f-0e55d1aebe14@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #636421 |
Odd " them to be. Since we know the speed of those electrons is about 1% of the speed of light and we know the size of the atoms, then we know what you claim the period of precession should be. This tells you the frequency of the predicted radiation. Next question to you: Any observation of this radiation? " I thought you said that electrons don't move. Now you say they travel at 1%c. Which is it?
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-06-14 15:13 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <1e27546e-c09f-4829-93c1-bae6461e450c@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #636437 |
Odd In the past, you have argued that electrons are distributed. Now, you argue that they move at .01c. Which is it? If they move at .01c, they must cause magnetism and therefore affect each other. Where is that accounted for in your 'random' movement scenario?
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-06-15 08:38 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <ohu2kt$pd2$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #636444 |
On 6/14/17 5:13 PM, john wrote: > Odd > In the past, you have argued that electrons are > distributed. Yes. That does not mean motionless. > Now, you argue that they move at .01c. > Which is it? Yes. Both. > If they move at .01c, they must cause > magnetism and therefore affect each other. Yes! > Where is that accounted for in your > 'random' movement scenario? The only person who keeps yapping about "random movement" is you. Stop it. Quantum mechanics is not about random chaos. It just isn't. Stop making shit up and try learning what it really says. As for your question, there are spin-spin interaction terms and orbital angular momentum interaction terms in the expression for the energy of orbitals in multi-electron atoms. So that's where that magnetism is accounted for. That magnetism is there and it DOES affect the electrons, and quantum mechanics has that explicitly in there. Despite what you apparently think, quantum mechanics is NOT "Everything is just random in there and we know fuck-all about what they're doing in there." -- Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-06-15 08:33 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <ohu2c6$p1k$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #636437 |
On 6/14/17 4:27 PM, john wrote: > Odd > " > them to be. Since we know the speed of those electrons is about 1% of > the speed of light and we know the size of the atoms, then we know what > you claim the period of precession should be. This tells you the > frequency of the predicted radiation. Next question to you: Any > observation of this radiation? > " > I thought you said that electrons don't move. > Now you say they travel at 1%c. > Which is it? > John, I never said that electrons don't move. They clearly move because they have measured kinetic energy, which is the energy of motion. What they don't have is a well-defined trajectory, and they CERTAINLY do not have little circular paths in a plane around a nucleus, whether that plane is precessing or not. Now, I know in your mind, motion and trajectory are inextricably wrapped up together, just like mass and volume are wrapped up together. But that's because your mind cannot separate traits that are in fact distinct. -- Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | poraty350@gmail.com |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-06-15 09:35 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <bc753f34-3d51-46a3-ba18-7e6a8947190f@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #636483 |
On Thursday, June 15, 2017 at 4:34:03 PM UTC+3, Odd Bodkin wrote: > On 6/14/17 4:27 PM, john wrote: > > Odd > > " > > them to be. Since we know the speed of those electrons is about 1% of > > the speed of light and we know the size of the atoms, then we know what > > you claim the period of precession should be. This tells you the > > frequency of the predicted radiation. Next question to you: Any > > observation of this radiation? > > " > > I thought you said that electrons don't move. > > Now you say they travel at 1%c. > > Which is it? > > > > John, I never said that electrons don't move. They clearly move because > they have measured kinetic energy, which is the energy of motion. What > they don't have is a well-defined trajectory, and they CERTAINLY do not > have little circular paths in a plane around a nucleus, whether that > plane is precessing or not. > > Now, I know in your mind, motion and trajectory are inextricably wrapped > up together, just like mass and volume are wrapped up together. But > that's because your mind cannot separate traits that are in fact distinct. > > -- > Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables ================= GO ON MAKING TABLES the electron In atom does not orbit it vibrates !! == Y.Porat ============================
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | HVAC <mr.hvac@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-06-15 11:14 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <4f3a5b41-475f-4971-acc4-bdcf83a5be10@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #636517 |
John why don't you just ask Mr Bodkin to make your cartoon FOR you? All this dicking around is getting you nowhere. Maybe if you say please?
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-06-15 08:50 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <ohu3ag$qso$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #636437 |
On 6/14/17 4:27 PM, john wrote: > Odd > " > them to be. Since we know the speed of those electrons is about 1% of > the speed of light and we know the size of the atoms, then we know what > you claim the period of precession should be. This tells you the > frequency of the predicted radiation. Next question to you: Any > observation of this radiation? > " > I thought you said that electrons don't move. > Now you say they travel at 1%c. > Which is it? > Furthermore, John, we are talking about YOUR model. So let's just focus on the implications of YOUR model. You have electrons going around the perimeter of a fixed disk size corresponding to hydrogen and carbon atom sizes. You know the sizes of those atoms and so you know the perimeters in nanometers, right? So YOU pick a time it takes for the electron to travel that perimeter. Just make sure you pick a time such that the perimeter distance divided by that time doesn't exceed the speed of light. Go ahead, do that 4th grade arithmetic. OK, so now that you have that time, you also know the time predicted by YOUR model for how fast the disks precess, and therefore how long the period of oscillation is for the charge to migrate from an excess on h1 to an excess on h4. This is the period of the emitted radiation and the reciprocal is the predicted frequency of that radiation. Go ahead and do that 4th grade arithmetic to produce the prediction from YOUR model. Remember, it doesn't matter whether you've got it right or wrong about what quantum mechanics says about motion. In YOUR model, the electrons are traveling a specific path with a specific speed, which you should be able to calculate. -- Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-06-15 07:08 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <188a94c5-6b0f-4363-8f55-b7675cddecdc@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #636487 |
Odd "07:34Odd Bodkin - show quoted text - John, I never said that electrons don't move. They clearly move because they have measured kinetic energy, which is the energy of motion. What they don't have is a well-defined trajectory, and they CERTAINLY do not have little circular paths in a plane around a nucleus, whether that plane is precessing or not. Now, I know in your mind, motion and trajectory are inextricably wrapped up together, just like mass and volume are wrapped up together. But that's because your mind cannot separate traits that are in fact distinct. " Well, I won't speculate on what your mind can perceive. You're way ahead of me when you speak of particles with no shape or structure. But now you admit that electrons move. Good. Let's talk about whether atoms have tops and bottoms. Fronts and backs. You seem to think they don't?
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-06-15 07:40 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <14d99f99-76d7-4982-9414-74211ce81c39@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #636490 |
Odd and Michael You seem to think that atoms are completely homogeneous inside. How can 3D items containing a set number of variously-charged , variously-positioned entities within them be completely symmetrical from all sides? Whether they move or not, are you telling me that you can position, say a Hydrogen atom, with one proton and one electron, so that it's proton-electron axis points all directions at once? Surely not. Tell me how YOUR atoms accomplish that? Because, really, that's your beef- that my atoms' electrons MOVE. Yours move, too, you admit that, but mine coordinate the magnetic field being produced. Yours do not.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-06-15 10:46 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <ohua4d$1753$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #636495 |
On 6/15/17 9:40 AM, john wrote: > Odd and Michael > You seem to think that atoms are completely > homogeneous inside. Heck no. Nobody said that. > How can 3D items containing a set number of > variously-charged , variously-positioned entities > within them be completely symmetrical from > all sides? Because you are placing the electron as though it is a small thing offset from the center of the atom. It is NOT like that. The electron does not have at any given time a specific location that is at some (x,y,z) that is offset from the center of the atom at (0,0,0). The electron has a DISTRIBUTION, not an (x,y,z) position, and that distribution is spherically symmetric. Note that spherically symmetric is NOT the same thing as homogeneous. A good example of something that is spherically symmetric but not at all homogeneous is a set of three nested, concentric shells. > Whether they move or not, are you telling > me that you can position, say a Hydrogen atom, > with one proton and one electron, > so that it's proton-electron axis points all > directions at once? > Surely not. > Tell me how YOUR atoms accomplish that? > Because, really, that's your beef- that my atoms' > electrons MOVE. > Yours move, too, you admit that, > but mine coordinate the magnetic > field being produced. Yours do not. You're wrong when you say that quantum mechanics does not produce a magnetic field for its electron distributions. -- Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-06-15 16:05 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <ohub7c$9gc$1@pcls7.std.com> |
| In reply to | #636495 |
john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> writes: >Odd and Michael >You seem to think that atoms are completely >homogeneous inside. >How can 3D items containing a set number of >variously-charged , variously-positioned entities >within them be completely symmetrical from >all sides? >Whether they move or not, are you telling >me that you can position, say a Hydrogen atom, >with one proton and one electron, >so that it's proton-electron axis points all >directions at once? >Surely not. Once again, you are STUCK with your thinking of the electron as a little billiard ball, with a definite position and momentum (--> velocity) at any particular instant. That is wrong, and is forbidden by HUP. Best to think of the electron as a STANDING WAVE, with its wave function given by Schrodinger's Wave Equations. So yes, the wave equation of a hydrogen bonded to a carbon in methane is symmetrical at right angles to the H-C line segment, and all 4 H-C line segments and all 4 hydrogens in methane are IDENTICAL and can't be told apart from each other. >Tell me how YOUR atoms accomplish that? >Because, really, that's your beef- that my atoms' >electrons MOVE. They have nonzero momentum (they must, according to HUP) and therefore nonzero velocity. What they don't have is specific trajectories since they should be treated as WAVES (plus HUP forbits it as well at that scale) >Yours move, too, you admit that, >but mine coordinate the magnetic >field being produced. Yours do not. You have done NOTHING to show what the magnetic fields of electrons moving in your cartoon do, or interact, or anything.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-06-15 10:41 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <ohu9r6$16nj$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #636490 |
On 6/15/17 9:08 AM, john wrote: > Odd > "07:34Odd Bodkin > - show quoted text - > John, I never said that electrons don't move. They clearly move because > they have measured kinetic energy, which is the energy of motion. What > they don't have is a well-defined trajectory, and they CERTAINLY do not > have little circular paths in a plane around a nucleus, whether that > plane is precessing or not. > > Now, I know in your mind, motion and trajectory are inextricably wrapped > up together, just like mass and volume are wrapped up together. But > that's because your mind cannot separate traits that are in fact distinct. > " > Well, I won't speculate on what your mind can > perceive. You're way ahead of me when you > speak of particles with no shape or structure. > But now you admit that electrons move. Good. > > Let's talk about whether atoms have tops > and bottoms. Fronts and backs. You seem to > think they don't? > Let me explain a little something about symmetry. Example 1: Take the letter H. This has reflection symmetry about two axes, one vertically through the middle and one horizontally through the middle. There's also a rotational symmetry for 180 degrees. But notice there is not a 90 degree rotation symmetry. If you rotate an H 90 degrees you do not get the same thing again. Example 2: A square has four reflection symmetries, one horizontal axis, one vertical axis, and two diagonal axes. And it has a fourfold rotational symmetry; that is, you can rotate it by any multiple of 90 degrees and get the same thing. Example 3: A hexagon has twelve reflection axis symmetries and you can rotate it by any multiple of 60 degrees and get the same thing. Example 4: A circle has an infinite number of reflection axes that produce symmetry and it can be rotated by any amount and you get exactly the same thing. But draw any diameter through the circle, and this figure now has a much reduced symmetry, down to what's in example 1, in fact. Example 5: A sphere has even more reflection and rotation symmetries than a circle, because you cannot rotate a circle about a diameter by anything other than 180 degrees and get back what you started with, but you can rotate a sphere about any diameter by any angle and get back what you started with. A hydrogen atom that is not in the presence of an external field has the symmetry of Example 5. -- Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-06-14 19:55 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <ohs4bl$5pv$1@pcls7.std.com> |
| In reply to | #636419 |
Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> writes: >On 6/14/17 1:46 PM, john wrote: >> http://users.accesscomm.ca/john/Odd.GIF >> Each coloured ball spends half its time on its Hydrogen and the other half on the central Carbon. >> >So what's interesting about this is that those colored balls seem to >have some odd behaviors -- sometimes there are 2 on a hydrogen, >sometimes 1, sometimes 0; sometimes there are four on the carbon, >sometimes 3, sometimes 5. Sometimes all the little balls are all on one >half of the carbon's perimeter, sometimes they're spread out. Sometimes, >the little balls go around the hydrogen at low tangential speed and then >they hit the carbon and speed up with a big jump in tangential speed, >which would violate conservation of energy. >Basically John: Are you serious? Also, it isn't completely symmetrical, with each hydrogen/corner of the tetrahedron indistinguishable from any other. All of the retarded precessing spinny things precess around a certain axis, making that axis different from the equivalent axis through the tetrahedron in another direction. This is different from real methane, where there is no way to tell any one hydrogen from any other, like an unlabeled regular tetrahedron.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-06-14 15:55 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <ohs7st$6sv$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #636422 |
On 6/14/17 2:55 PM, Michael Moroney wrote: > Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> writes: > >> On 6/14/17 1:46 PM, john wrote: >>> http://users.accesscomm.ca/john/Odd.GIF >>> Each coloured ball spends half its time on its Hydrogen and the other half on the central Carbon. >>> > >> So what's interesting about this is that those colored balls seem to >> have some odd behaviors -- sometimes there are 2 on a hydrogen, >> sometimes 1, sometimes 0; sometimes there are four on the carbon, >> sometimes 3, sometimes 5. Sometimes all the little balls are all on one >> half of the carbon's perimeter, sometimes they're spread out. Sometimes, >> the little balls go around the hydrogen at low tangential speed and then >> they hit the carbon and speed up with a big jump in tangential speed, >> which would violate conservation of energy. > >> Basically John: Are you serious? > > Also, it isn't completely symmetrical, with each hydrogen/corner of the > tetrahedron indistinguishable from any other. All of the retarded > precessing spinny things precess around a certain axis, making that > axis different from the equivalent axis through the tetrahedron in > another direction. This is different from real methane, where there > is no way to tell any one hydrogen from any other, like an unlabeled > regular tetrahedron. > Yes, indeed, which was the the point of the original exercise. Compare with benzene, where there is a ring and therefore an axis and a preferred direction. This is why all the axes of spinning in his benzene thingy are aligned to this same axis. But with methane, there is no single preferred direction, and so no obvious way to lined up all the axes of spinning without introducing a preferred direction that is not there in real methane. Methane has a different symmetry than a planar molecule, and John cannot accommodate with his spinny thing idea. Now, if he had tried to do it so that the axes of spinning of all the hydrogen atoms had passed through the center of the carbon atom, then at least he would have been able to preserve their symmetry, but this leaves the problem of the carbon atom, for which you cannot pick ANY fixed axis of spinning without breaking the symmetry of the molecule. I had to tell him where to put the centers of the carbon atoms. I had to tell him to respect the known sizes of the atoms. I just told him how to align the axes of the hydrogen atoms. I'm not going to tell him how to solve the carbon atom axis problem. -- Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-06-14 14:16 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <5af60f62-1c85-4da8-843f-ae4f4fb73f25@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #636422 |
MM "another direction. This is different from real methane, where there is no way to tell any one hydrogen from any other, like an unlabeled regular tetrahedron. " Michael, if you can't tell one from another in the first place, because you don't have the picture, how does being able to do that now, because you do have the picture, invalidate having the picture? Plus, I'm not sure the axis of precession need be fixed.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-06-15 12:39 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <ohtv5o$n3c$1@pcls7.std.com> |
| In reply to | #636430 |
john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> writes: >MM >"another direction. This is different from real methane, where there >is no way to tell any one hydrogen from any other, like an unlabeled >regular tetrahedron. " >Michael, if you can't tell one from another in the >first place, because you don't have the >picture, how does being able to do that now, >because you do have the picture, invalidate >having the picture? Simple. It is known that in a real methane molecule it is 100% perfectly symmetrical. Imagine a perfect tetrahedron. All faces, edges and vertices are identical. Now, while you are not looking, someone either rotates the tetrahedron on its base, places it on another face, or does nothing. How can you tell what, or if anything, was done to the tetrahedron? Simple. You can't. And methane is exactly like that. However, with what you came up with, all you would have to do is to examine the retardedness of the precessing spinny things. Namely the direction of the axis of retardedness. There are multiple possibilities, multiple directions. Therefore, you broke the symmetry of thetetrahedron, and predict stuff for methane that simply does not exist in real life. >Plus, I'm not sure the axis of precession >need be fixed. Sure, you don't, but chemists and physicists would consider this a deal breaker.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
Page 1 of 8 [1] 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next page →
Back to top | Article view | sci.physics
csiph-web