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 2 of 8 — ← Prev page 1 [2] 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next page →
| From | poraty350@gmail.com |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-06-15 09:33 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <4c720cb8-23e2-4f0f-8ec7-330230ca0998@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #636479 |
On Thursday, June 15, 2017 at 3:39:23 PM UTC+3, Michael Moroney wrote: > 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. ============================ the alpha particle that composes methane carbon is not a tetrahedron because faces or other plans at its 'envelope '' it is because it is composed of 2 longish protons and 2 longish neutrons CONNECTED IN A 4 FOLD CONNECTION AT THE MIDDLE OF THAT 3D STRUCTURE (OF CARBON )!!! and stretching outwards to 4 - 3 D corners in equal angles see Google 'the y Porat model - an abstract ' right at its beginning === Y.Porat ================================
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-06-15 16:40 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <ohuut1$907$2@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #636515 |
On 6/15/17 11:33 AM, poraty350@gmail.com wrote: > the alpha particle > that composes methane I read this and stopped reading. Idiot. -- Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | poraty350@gmail.com |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-06-16 00:30 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <bcabd58e-c166-45ac-b532-430826b37ce5@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #636563 |
On Friday, June 16, 2017 at 12:40:55 AM UTC+3, Odd Bodkin wrote: > On 6/15/17 11:33 AM, poraty350@gmail.com wrote: > > the alpha particle > > that composes methane > > I read this and stopped reading. ====================== idot crock !! I didn't say that alpha particle is making the methane listen carefully pig thief i said that 3 alpha particles are composing the carbon atom (to make a tetrahedron structure ( in a nuclear process and carbon atom is composing chemically the methane (again a sort of another tetrahedron !!) IN A CHEMICAL PROCESS !! ---- DOES A PIG CRIMINAL THIEF LIKE **ANONYMOUS** BODKIN (DRAPER !!) WANT TO TECH ME PHYSICS AND CHEMISTRY nuclear and honesty ?!! ??!! ==================== Y.Porat ========================================= > Idiot. > > -- > Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-06-16 15:53 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <oi1ggh$2k8$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #636617 |
On 6/16/17 2:30 AM, poraty350@gmail.com wrote: > On Friday, June 16, 2017 at 12:40:55 AM UTC+3, Odd Bodkin wrote: >> On 6/15/17 11:33 AM, poraty350@gmail.com wrote: >>> the alpha particle >>> that composes methane >> >> I read this and stopped reading. > > ====================== > idot crock !! > I didn't say that alpha particle is making the methane > listen carefully pig thief > i said that > 3 alpha particles are composing the carbon atom > (to make a tetrahedron structure ( > in a nuclear process Uh-huh. Note that methane with carbon-14 still makes a tetrahedral molecule. C-14 is not composed of alpha particles. Idiot. > > and carbon atom is composing chemically the methane > (again a sort of another tetrahedron !!) > > IN A CHEMICAL PROCESS !! > ---- > DOES A PIG CRIMINAL THIEF LIKE **ANONYMOUS** BODKIN (DRAPER !!) > > WANT TO TECH ME PHYSICS AND CHEMISTRY nuclear > and honesty ?!! ??!! No, I don't. I wouldn't try to teach you anything. But on the other hand, you don't know when you're being an idiot. > > ==================== > Y.Porat > ========================================= > > >> Idiot. >> >> -- >> Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables > -- Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | poraty350@gmail.com |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-06-16 21:50 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <33e9e7aa-bcdb-4fa9-b7c7-eb31ef2152b8@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #636681 |
On Friday, June 16, 2017 at 11:53:43 PM UTC+3, Odd Bodkin wrote: > On 6/16/17 2:30 AM, poraty350@gmail.com wrote: > > On Friday, June 16, 2017 at 12:40:55 AM UTC+3, Odd Bodkin wrote: > >> On 6/15/17 11:33 AM, poraty350@gmail.com wrote: > >>> the alpha particle > >>> that composes methane > >> > >> I read this and stopped reading. > > > > ====================== > > idot crock !! > > I didn't say that alpha particle is making the methane > > listen carefully pig thief > > i said that > > 3 alpha particles are composing the carbon atom > > (to make a tetrahedron structure ( > > in a nuclear process > > Uh-huh. Note that methane with carbon-14 still makes a tetrahedral > molecule. C-14 is not composed of alpha particles. > > Idiot. > > > > > and carbon atom is composing chemically the methane > > (again a sort of another tetrahedron !!) > > > > IN A CHEMICAL PROCESS !! > > ---- > > DOES A PIG CRIMINAL THIEF LIKE **ANONYMOUS** BODKIN (DRAPER !!) > > > > WANT TO TECH ME PHYSICS AND CHEMISTRY nuclear > > and honesty ?!! ??!! > > No, I don't. I wouldn't try to teach you anything. But on the other > hand, you don't know when you're being an idiot. > > > > > ==================== > > Y.Porat > > ========================================= > > > > > >> Idiot. > >> > >> -- > >> Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables > > > > > -- > Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables ================== anonymous deck pig thief Paul draper !! criminal against mankind !!!!you are mush worse than an idiot! see my above response 2 see Google my 'the eel model for the electron' 2 carbon 14 or 12 does not make much a difference chemically for Methane !! do you know piggy why ?? I will leave the open basic **trivial* question answer to other cleave decent physicists/knowledgeable chemists TIA Y.Porat =============================
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-06-14 20:29 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <c095e8eb-2799-42ce-9d40-9e00922bd552@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. " There's no difference in any of these four Hydrogens. What is the difference?
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | poraty350@gmail.com |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-06-14 21:26 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <1405e3b7-756e-4c5d-8283-49ae373fb5aa@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #636461 |
On Thursday, June 15, 2017 at 6:29:15 AM UTC+3, john wrote: > 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. " > There's no difference in any of these four > Hydrogens. > What is the difference? ==================== just see the chain of orbitals '' system of my model the Y Porat circlon mechanism'' etc Google the y porat model - an abstract ' == TIA Y.Porat ============================
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-06-15 12:48 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <ohtvne$n3c$2@pcls7.std.com> |
| In reply to | #636461 |
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. " >There's no difference in any of these four >Hydrogens. >What is the difference? Each has a different direction of retardedness, compared to the center of the molecule. While, in theory, it could be possible to create something with all the hydrogens indistinguishable from each other, with only one carbon it is impossible to create anything with tetrahedral symmetry. That's because no matter what direction you choose, it breaks the symmetry. I knew this when you started this, so I knew that this wild goose chase of yours was doomed to failure. (I also guessed, correctly I see, that you wouldn't see anything wrong)
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-06-15 08:22 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <12495357-fdd9-4efb-bfc3-337007074392@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #636480 |
MM "...hydrogens indistinguishable from each other, with only one carbon it is ..." We are getting very close to the kernel of your doublethink. You want Hydrogens to be amorphous spheres, but you know they contain two opposite point charges. Now, what?
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-06-15 10:49 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <ohuaa1$17go$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #636498 |
On 6/15/17 10:22 AM, john wrote: > MM > "...hydrogens indistinguishable from each other, with only one carbon it is ..." > We are getting very close to the kernel of > your doublethink. > You want Hydrogens to be amorphous > spheres, but you know they contain two > opposite point charges. > Now, what? > That's the problem. You want to put the electron at a POINT (x,y,z). A bound electron does not reside at a point (x,y,z). At this point you are stuck, because you want to draw it with a cad program, and the cad program says, OK, what (x,y,z) do you want me to put it at? And when someone tells you it doesn't have an (x,y,z), then your brain blows up because you don't know how to do it in your cad program. Go back and look at Atom in a Box. Do you see any (x,y,z) where the electron is? Then what ARE you looking at in Atom in a Box? -- Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-06-15 16:12 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <ohubll$9gc$2@pcls7.std.com> |
| In reply to | #636498 |
john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> writes: >MM >"...hydrogens indistinguishable from each other, with only one carbon it is ..." >We are getting very close to the kernel of >your doublethink. >You want Hydrogens to be amorphous >spheres, but you know they contain two >opposite point charges. >Now, what? Again, you are STUCK with your thinking of the electron as a little billiard ball, and your complaints all fall out of that assumption. Electrons in orbitals are best thought of as standing waves, not little billiard balls. And yes, the probability distribution of the electron does make an unbound hydrogen atom in its ground state to behave much like a sphere of a certain size.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-06-15 18:24 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <66e35ea0-8eec-4c74-bcb8-6461744e8422@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #636509 |
MM "..liard balls. And yes, the probability distribution of the electron .." Wave or whatever - show how a Hydrogen can instantaneously be a uniform sphere. Probabilities occur over TIME, Michael. This animation represents something that repeats every 100 attoseconds.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-06-16 07:17 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <oi00mo$k5n$1@pcls7.std.com> |
| In reply to | #636593 |
john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> writes: >MM >"..liard balls. And yes, the probability distribution of the electron .." >Wave or whatever - show how a Hydrogen can >instantaneously be a uniform sphere. The solution to the time independent Schrodinger Wave Equations are generally represented as a set of functions psi(x,y,z). The corresponding probability distribution functions are the square of the Wave Equation, (psi(x,y,z))^2. You can rewrite these functions in polar coordinates instead, psi(r,theta,phi) and (psi(r,theta,phi))^2. Theta and phi are the two angles from the origin, r the distance. Hydrogen is the simplest case, and its wave equation for its ground state psi(r,theta,phi) depends only on r, not theta or phi. In other words, the wave equation (and probability distribution function) does not depend on which direction you go from the center (nucleus), just how far from it you are. This is by definition spherical symmetry. You can look up the Schrodinger solutions, which are the familiar orbitals. The psi for all the "s" orbitals (l=0, m=0) depend only on r, not theta or phi. >Probabilities occur over TIME, Michael. With the atom just sitting there, the probabilities don't change, we can use the time independent Schrodinger Wave Equations. The probability of finding the electron at any particular (x,y,z) (or (r,theta,phi)) is the same now as it is a picosecond later, or a century ago. That's because the laws of physics don't change over time.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-06-16 04:22 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <1b82112a-1db9-4608-9318-0db829eb3350@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #636615 |
MM " use the time independent Schrodinger Wave Equations. The probability of finding the electron at any particular (x,y,z) (or (r,theta,phi)) is the same now as it is a picosecond later, or a century ago. That's because the laws of physics don't change over time. " We come ever closer to your doublethink. You think the electron is everywhere at once! Therefore, it doesn't need a path!! Because of the above! Revelation? Revulsion!! You're silly, Michael. Silly!!!
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-06-16 08:16 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <oi0lmo$mc1$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #636627 |
On 6/16/17 6:22 AM, john wrote: > MM > " > use the time independent Schrodinger Wave Equations. The probability of > finding the electron at any particular (x,y,z) (or (r,theta,phi)) is the > same now as it is a picosecond later, or a century ago. That's because > the laws of physics don't change over time. " > We come ever closer to your doublethink. > You think the electron is everywhere at > once! Therefore, it doesn't need a path!! > Because of the above! Not quite. There are several reasons, actually. Planck's constant is a reality, demonstrated by blackbody radiation, the Compton effect, the photoelectric effect, and a few other observations. Now that Planck's constant is established, then the Heisenberg uncertainty principle comes directly from that. The Heisenberg principle tells you outright that electrons cannot possibly have a well-determined path, period. Reminder of what this means: Through a very short chain of logic, the OBSERVATIONS of blackbody radiation, Compton effect, photoelectric effect and a few others tell you that an electron cannot have a well-determined path. Period, end of story. The only way to insist that electrons have to have a well-determined path is to insist that the blackbody spectrum, photoelectric effect, and Compton effect cannot happen. But they do. So now that it's CERTAIN electrons cannot have well-defined paths, then the question is what's the alternative. And here is where Schrodinger comes in with an idea that is testable. And sure enough, when you take his idea and see if it matches against emission spectra, the form of the periodic table, the pattern of chemical properties of the elements, the shape of molecules and the strengths of their bonds, then everything checks out. So here's the chain again: 1. Observations of certain phenomena establish Planck's constant 2. Planck's constant rules out well-defined paths of electrons 3. Alternative idea about how electrons behave in atoms proposed by Schrodinger. 4. Schrodingers' model checked six ways to Sunday against measured properties of atoms and molecules, and it all checks out. Now you say this is silly. What part of it is silly? > Revelation? > Revulsion!! > You're silly, Michael. > Silly!!! > -- Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-06-16 06:49 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <df0e2749-dfd6-4900-ada2-49f8e796a320@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #636635 |
Odd said " So here's the chain again: 1. Observations of certain phenomena establish Planck's..." Whoa. I think you need to go back to the first link in your chain. You are flirting with zero in the physical realm. This is like trying to see reflections at 90 degrees to a mirror. Now- having said that- HOW do these "certain" observations do this? Take us through JUST ONE of these arguments without doing the above- please!!
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-06-16 15:10 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <oi1dvk$1u3r$3@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #636636 |
On 6/16/17 8:49 AM, john wrote: > Odd said > " > So here's the chain again: > 1. Observations of certain phenomena establish Planck's..." > Whoa. I think you need to go back to the first > link in your chain. > You are flirting with zero in the physical realm. Where? Planck's constant is not zero. Neither are the observations of blackbody radiation spectra, photoelectric effect, Compton effect -- none of those are zeros. And the observations require Planck constant, and Planck's constant forbids electrons to have a definite path. No zeroes anywhere in that. But to your concern about zeroes --- what's the value of the relative velocity between your tea cup and the kitchen counter? Answer that. > This is like trying to see reflections at 90 degrees to a mirror. > Now- having said that- HOW do these "certain" observations do this? > Take us through JUST ONE of these arguments > without doing the above- please!! > -- Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | poraty350@gmail.com |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-06-16 21:37 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <bf55e340-7f94-4431-b896-01860b7640e5@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #636635 |
On Friday, June 16, 2017 at 4:16:13 PM UTC+3, Odd Bodkin wrote: > On 6/16/17 6:22 AM, john wrote: > > MM > > " > > use the time independent Schrodinger Wave Equations. The probability of > > finding the electron at any particular (x,y,z) (or (r,theta,phi)) is the > > same now as it is a picosecond later, or a century ago. That's because > > the laws of physics don't change over time. " > > We come ever closer to your doublethink. > > You think the electron is everywhere at > > once! Therefore, it doesn't need a path!! > > Because of the above! > > Not quite. There are several reasons, actually. > Planck's constant is a reality, demonstrated by blackbody radiation, the > Compton effect, the photoelectric effect, and a few other observations. > Now that Planck's constant is established, then the Heisenberg > uncertainty principle comes directly from that. The Heisenberg principle > tells you outright that electrons cannot possibly have a well-determined > path, period. Reminder of what this means: Through a very short chain of > logic, the OBSERVATIONS of blackbody radiation, Compton effect, > photoelectric effect and a few others tell you that an electron cannot > have a well-determined path. Period, end of story. The only way to > insist that electrons have to have a well-determined path is to insist > that the blackbody spectrum, photoelectric effect, and Compton effect > cannot happen. But they do. > > So now that it's CERTAIN electrons cannot have well-defined paths, then > the question is what's the alternative. And here is where Schrodinger > comes in with an idea that is testable. And sure enough, when you take > his idea and see if it matches against emission spectra, the form of the > periodic table, the pattern of chemical properties of the elements, the > shape of molecules and the strengths of their bonds, then everything > checks out. > > So here's the chain again: > 1. Observations of certain phenomena establish Planck's constant > 2. Planck's constant rules out well-defined paths of electrons > 3. Alternative idea about how electrons behave in atoms proposed by > Schrodinger. > 4. Schrodingers' model checked six ways to Sunday against measured > properties of atoms and molecules, and it all checks out. > > Now you say this is silly. What part of it is silly? > > > Revelation? > > Revulsion!! > > You're silly, Michael. > > Silly!!! > > > > > -- > Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables ============================= we ae not all along in 'darkness!!! the formula of a orbiting object is the same as a VIBRATING LONG OBJECT SO INJ MY MODEL YOU CANKNOW DROM WICH PINT I THENUC THE ELECTTN STEMS OUT !! IT IS NOT A POINT PARTICLE IS IS A LONG CHAIN OF SUB PARTICLES !! historic founding of me Y Porat see Google 'the y porat model an abstract ' ---- EVEN THE ELECTRON IS SUB DIVIDED TO A LONGISH CHAIN OF SUB PARTICLES !!! so all that is compatible with all rules that you brought above as a mathematics parrot !!! not a thinking cleaver innovative physicist !! == old copyrights Y.Porat =============
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-06-16 15:03 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <oi0rvr$100$2@pcls7.std.com> |
| In reply to | #636627 |
john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> writes: >We come ever closer to your doublethink. >You think the electron is everywhere at >once! Therefore, it doesn't need a path!! No, John, probability density is because we don't know where the electron is. See that word, "probability"? Probability density just tells us we are more likely to find the electron here and less likely to find it there. This is well-known physics, a consequence of the HUP, and can be demonstrated with the double slit experiment (using electrons!).
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-06-16 08:50 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <dbc65a72-5b3e-4b25-a2db-2b6b3d485ca5@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #636637 |
MM "john <johnse...@gmail.com> writes: >We come ever closer to your doublethink. >You think the electron is everywhere at >once! Therefore, it doesn't need a path!! No, John, probability density is because we don't know where the electron is. See that word, "probability"? Probability density just tells us we .." We continue to circle that which you refuse to think about; if we don't find it HERE all the time, HOW does it get THERE, the rest of the time? Un Less There Is a PATTERN. A PATH. You need more than one sample to establish probability, Michael. The LONGER the TIME spent sampling, the closer you will get to your silly probability number.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
Page 2 of 8 — ← Prev page 1 [2] 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next page →
Back to top | Article view | sci.physics
csiph-web