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

Groups > sci.physics > #698272 > unrolled thread

I found the S orbital

Back to article view | Back to sci.physics

Contents

  I found the S orbital john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2018-08-13 08:22 -0700
    I found the S orbital john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2018-08-14 07:25 -0700
      Re: I found the S orbital Sergio <invalid@invalid.com> - 2018-08-14 11:01 -0500
        Re: I found the S orbital john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2018-08-14 11:22 -0700
        Re: I found the S orbital john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2018-08-14 11:24 -0700
          Re: I found the S orbital Sergio <invalid@invalid.com> - 2018-08-14 18:01 -0500
            Re: I found the S orbital Sergio <invalid@invalid.com> - 2018-08-15 00:26 -0500
          Re: I found the S orbital moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2018-08-15 07:32 +0000
    Re: I found the S orbital moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2018-08-15 07:31 +0000
      Re: I found the S orbital john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2018-08-15 08:38 -0700
        Re: I found the S orbital moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2018-08-15 16:08 +0000
          Re: I found the S orbital john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2018-08-15 09:30 -0700
            Re: I found the S orbital Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-08-15 17:24 +0000
              Re: I found the S orbital john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2018-08-15 16:04 -0700
                Re: I found the S orbital john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2018-08-15 16:16 -0700
                  Re: I found the S orbital Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-08-16 00:00 +0000
                Re: I found the S orbital Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-08-16 00:00 +0000
                  Re: I found the S orbital john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2018-08-15 17:15 -0700
                    Re: I found the S orbital Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-08-16 00:31 +0000
                      Re: I found the S orbital Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-08-16 00:38 +0000
                        Re: I found the S orbital john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2018-08-15 17:59 -0700
                          Re: I found the S orbital Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-08-16 13:18 +0000
                            Re: I found the S orbital john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2018-08-16 06:52 -0700
                              Re: I found the S orbital john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2018-08-16 06:57 -0700
                              Re: I found the S orbital Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-08-16 14:48 +0000
                                Re: I found the S orbital john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2018-08-16 08:17 -0700
                        Re: I found the S orbital john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2018-08-15 18:04 -0700
                          Re: I found the S orbital john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2018-08-15 18:29 -0700
                            Re: I found the S orbital john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2018-08-15 19:09 -0700
                              Re: I found the S orbital john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2018-08-15 19:36 -0700
                              Re: I found the S orbital moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2018-08-16 04:07 +0000
                              Re: I found the S orbital Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-08-16 13:18 +0000
                            Re: I found the S orbital Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-08-16 13:18 +0000
                          Re: I found the S orbital moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2018-08-16 04:04 +0000
                          Re: I found the S orbital Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-08-16 13:18 +0000
                Re: I found the S orbital moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2018-08-16 04:00 +0000
            Re: I found the S orbital moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2018-08-16 03:55 +0000
          Re: I found the S orbital Sergio <invalid@invalid.com> - 2018-08-15 12:26 -0500
        Re: I found the S orbital Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-08-15 17:03 +0000

Page 2 of 2 — ← Prev page 1 [2]

#698645

Odd
“idiocy. You 
can’t even grasp zero. ”
Can you grasp infinity?

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

#698707

john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> wrote:
> Odd
> “idiocy. You 
> can’t even grasp zero. ”
> Can you grasp infinity?
> 

Yeah it’s not hard. Can you grasp semi-infinity, like a temperature scale?

-- 
Odd Bodkin — Maker of fine toys, tools, tables

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

#698713

Odd
“> Can you grasp infinity? 
> 

Yeah it’s not hard. ”

Well! Sorry, God.
I didn’t realize that was You!

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

#698714

Odd
Here’s a reply from another woodworker, Odd:
“Good one, if you twist a bandsaw blade or similar ring you get that. Brilliant find John! Lmao”

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

#698717

john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> wrote:
> Odd
>> Can you grasp infinity? 
>> 
> 
> Yeah it’s not hard. ”
> 
> Well! Sorry, God.
> I didn’t realize that was You!
> 

I don’t get you, John. You have this notion that if you find something
beyond your comprehension, then it’s either idiocy or only God understands
it? Really, John?? Are you really that egomaniacal?

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

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

#698720

Odd
So, if I ‘twist a bandsaw blade or similar ring’, I get that? Sounds like Physics to me, Odd. Not debating Infinity. That’s something else.
So now I’m thinking, how else can I twist this bandsaw blade?
That’s Physics, isn’t it Sam?
Do I need to get the actual bandsaw blade?

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

#698648

Odd
“just out of 
your meager comprehension.”

I don’t comprehend idiocy.

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

#698653

Odd-
Anyway.
Electrons move.
And they move fast.
And they must therefore follow the most efficient way around the atom.
The 1:2 movement has all parts of the atom following identical pathways, which is good for P orbitals.
Now, I find that the 1:2:2 path is only available for a maximum of 2 members, and covers the sphere more fully than a 1:2 path, and I think “S orbital”.
Not unreasonable, hey?

You were right that my CH4 didn’t fill the bill., I think there’s another spin combination that is a variant on the 1:2 that will do CH4 better- the one corresponding to SP3. A tetrahedron should fall out of it. Now that I found the S, I have a better sense of where to look.

If I find that, do you give?

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

#698661

Odd
“You were right that my CH4 didn’t fill the bill., I think there’s another spin combination that is a variant on the 1:2 that will do CH4 better- the one corresponding to SP3. A tetrahedron should fall out of it. Now that I found the S, I have a better sense of where to look. ”

I’m going to go with 2:3, Odd, and follow it for 4 cycles.
What do you think?
Do you have any idea how 1/3 and 2/3 might relate to tetrahedrons?
That’ll be 10 to 12 hours out of my life

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

#698662

Odd
That’ll be 10 to 12 hours out of my life 
But also, I could keep the 1:2 together- just double it- and map the 2:4:1
What thinkest thou Odd

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

#698673

john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> writes:

>I'm going to go with 2:3, Odd, and follow it for 4 cycles.
>What do you think?
>Do you have any idea how 1/3 and 2/3 might relate to tetrahedrons?
>That'll be 10 to 12 hours out of my life

It may be more advantageous to spend those 10 to 12 hours with a good
shrink, one that can help you with your spinny thing OCD.

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

#698710

john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> wrote:
> Odd
> “You were right that my CH4 didn’t fill the bill., I think there’s
> another spin combination that is a variant on the 1:2 that will do CH4
> better- the one corresponding to SP3. A tetrahedron should fall out of
> it. Now that I found the S, I have a better sense of where to look. ”
> 
> I’m going to go with 2:3, Odd, and follow it for 4 cycles.
> What do you think?
> Do you have any idea how 1/3 and 2/3 might relate to tetrahedrons?
> That’ll be 10 to 12 hours out of my life
> 

It’s your time to waste, John. You could spend it reading but instead you
just dick around. Why, I’m not sure. 

-- 
Odd Bodkin — Maker of fine toys, tools, tables

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

#698709

john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> wrote:
> Odd-
> Anyway.
> Electrons move.
> And they move fast.

Yes. 

> And they must therefore follow the most efficient way around the atom.

No. There is no trajectory for electrons in the atom. 

I know this just eludes you, and you never seem to want to read up on it to
fix it. Ignorance is curable, stupidity is terminal. 

> The 1:2 movement has all parts of the atom following identical pathways,
> which is good for P orbitals.
> Now, I find that the 1:2:2 path is only available for a maximum of 2
> members, and covers the sphere more fully than a 1:2 path, and I think “S orbital”.
> Not unreasonable, hey?
> 
> You were right that my CH4 didn’t fill the bill., I think there’s another
> spin combination that is a variant on the 1:2 that will do CH4 better-
> the one corresponding to SP3. A tetrahedron should fall out of it. Now
> that I found the S, I have a better sense of where to look.
> 
> If I find that, do you give?

Give on what? It’s been repeated over and over that you have to be able to
calculate numbers with a real physical theory, and you just don’t want to
hear that. 

> 
> 



-- 
Odd Bodkin — Maker of fine toys, tools, tables

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

#698672

john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> writes:

>I don't comprehend idiocy.

I guess that must be why you just don't "get" that so much of what you
post is simply idiocy. You just don't comprehend that your idiocy is
idiocy.

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

#698708

john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> wrote:
> Odd
> “just out of 
> your meager comprehension.”
> 
> I don’t comprehend idiocy.
> 
> 

You also cannot comprehend a lot of things that are not idiotic at all. 

Calling all things you do not comprehend idiotic is the height of egomania,
John. What got you into that kind of mindset?

-- 
Odd Bodkin — Maker of fine toys, tools, tables

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

#698671

john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> writes:

>I'm talking about electrons in atoms- on Earth and elsewhere.
>If their kinetic energy is non zero, they are moving.
>If they are moving within the confines of an atom- and an atom is 
>mostly space- then they must be changing direction. If they are changing
>direction, they are accelerating. If they are accelerating, they are 
>radiating.

So it looks like you just proved that the electrons are not accelerating,
and therefore they aren't moving on your (implied) trajectories.
Your macroscopic view of kinetic energy simply doesn't apply there.

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

#698669

john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> writes:

>MM
>"My comment on your "finding", in one word:
>"
>Huh

So all that stuff about violations of HUP and radiation etc. is so far
over your head you can only reply 'Huh' ?
I guess that's why you can only dwell on one (perceived) problem, and
can't deal with all the other (actual) problems.

>You guys' electrons can't even move per your restrictions.
>You've painted yourself into this ridiculous corner where nothing can be 
>moving in your atom.
>Super fail

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

#698570

On 8/15/2018 11:08 AM, Michael Moroney wrote:
> john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> writes:
> 
>> MM
>> "Whatever you "found" is not the S orbital. "
> 
>> If nothing can turn in more than one plane, Michael, I don't see how you 
>> can explain spheres
> 
> Thanks, that reminds me of another flaw in your so-called "finding". The S
> orbital is IDENTICAL from all directions, like a perfect sphere. Your
> retarded graphic shows different angles and it is OBVIOUS that each
> direction is different, thus failing the test that the S orbital must be
> identical from all directions.  (And again I am ignoring all the other
> flaws, violating HUP, no explanation about radiation from the
> moving/accelerating charge, violation of conservation of angular momentum,
> etc.
> 
> Remember when you tried to show methane and failed because you could not
> make the central carbon identical from all directions, therefore all 4
> hydrogens were not identical? Same type of failure.
> 
> My comment on your "finding", in one word:
> 
> FAIL.
> 

yes s is spherical, and can hold 2 electrons

which element(s) have only one electron in s ?

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

#698566

john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> wrote:
> MM
> “Whatever you "found" is not the S orbital. ”
> 
> If nothing can turn in more than one plane, Michael, I don’t see how you
> can explain spheres
> 

There is a globe sitting near me. It is a sphere but it is not turning in
any direction. Moreover I can get it to spin around a single axis, even
choosing different axes. But try, just try John, to get a globe spinning
around two axes at once without keeping your hands on it to supply torque. 

-- 
Odd Bodkin — Maker of fine toys, tools, tables

[toc] | [prev] | [standalone]

Page 2 of 2 — ← Prev page 1 [2]

Back to top | Article view | sci.physics

csiph-web