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

Groups > sci.physics > #699354 > unrolled thread

difference between Allotrope and Isomer--if any at all-- CO2 has 8 isomers, O2 has 2// TRUE CHEMISTRY

Back to article view | Back to sci.physics

Contents

  difference between Allotrope and Isomer--if any at all-- CO2 has 8  isomers, O2 has 2// TRUE CHEMISTRY Archimedes Plutonium <plutonium.archimedes@gmail.com> - 2018-08-20 14:20 -0700
    diamond structureRe: difference between Allotrope and Isomer--if any at all-- CO2 has 8  isomers, O2 has 2 Archimedes Plutonium <plutonium.archimedes@gmail.com> - 2018-08-20 23:42 -0700
    Re: Archimedes "Total Failure" Plutonium flunked the lifetime-generation test moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2018-08-21 15:24 +0000

#699354 — difference between Allotrope and Isomer--if any at all-- CO2 has 8 isomers, O2 has 2// TRUE CHEMISTRY

Newsgroups: sci.math
Date: Mon, 20 Aug 2018 14:01:52 -0700 (PDT)

Subject: difference between Allotrope and Isomer--if any at all-- CO2 has 8
 isomers, O2 has 2// TRUE CHEMISTRY
From: Archimedes Plutonium <plutonium....@gmail.com>
Injection-Date: Mon, 20 Aug 2018 21:01:53 +0000

difference between Allotrope and Isomer--if any at all-- CO2 has 8 isomers, O2 has 2// TRUE CHEMISTRY

Alright, slowly but surely getting there. 

Now I was reading a definitions (source Internet) of Allotrope, Isomers of chemistry: 

Allotrope-- each of two or more different physical forms in which an element can exist. Graphite, charcoal, and diamond ae all allotropes of carbon. 

Isomer (chemistry) -- each of two or more compounds with the same formula but a different arrangement of atoms in the molecule and different properties. 

Isomer (physics) -- each of two or more atomic nuclei that have the same atomic number and the same mass number but different energy states. 

Now, these items are all true, their existence is not in question. But the trouble is, that the theory of Chemistry and Physics , the best theories we have today, cannot explain why allotropes and isomers exist at all. 

The theory that can explain the existence of isomers and allotropes is the theory that chemical bonding is when 1/2torus + 1/2torus = 1 full torus. When the muon of an atom with its attendant proton perform a Faraday law, and if just one muon with one proton they form 1/2 torus, but if muons are paired, with paired attendant protons they form a full 1 torus. 

Now, the particle that is .5MeV is never the electron but is rather Dirac's Magnetic Monopole and these monopoles cause other (but minor) bonding of chemistry and physics. The polar bond the Van der Waals bond are due to the monopoles. 

Now, Oxygen was thought of in Old Chemistry as being linear without any isomers. That is not really true. What Oxygen is, is a unpaired P_y and a unpaired P_z. 

So if you have two oxygen atoms they can form a covalent bond of 

P_y with P_y and P_z with P_z 

or 

P_y with P_z and Pz with P_y 

CO2 has three atoms, the carbon has unpaired P_x, P_y, and the two oxygen atoms have unpaired P_y, P_z 

Now, last time I counted up the permutations of these 1/2 torus-- six 1/2 toruses of carbon and two oxygens, I counted up 8 possible permutations, that would mean 8 possible isomers. 

But let me talk about Allotrope, because diamond and graphite are all just one carbon atoms, but their bonding is totally different. 


Very crude dot picture of 5f6, 94TH 
ELECTRON=muon DOT CLOUD of 231Pu 


                ::\ ::|:: /:: 
                 ::\::|::/:: 
                     _ _ 
                    (:Y:) 
                     - - 
                 ::/::|::\:: 
                ::/ ::|:: \:: 
One of those dots is the Milky Way galaxy. And each dot represents another galaxy. 
            . \ .  . | .   /. 
           . . \. . .|. . /. . 
              ..\....|.../... 
               ::\:::|::/:: 
---------------      ------------- 
--------------- (Y) ------------- 
---------------      -------------- 
               ::/:::|::\:: 
              ../....|...\... 
           . . /. . .|. . \. . 
            . / .  . | .   \ . 

  
http://www.iw.net/~a_plutonium/ 
whole entire Universe is just one big atom 
where dots of the electron-dot-cloud are galaxies 

I re-opened the old newsgroup PAU of 1990s and there one can read my recent posts without the hassle of spammers, off-topic-misfits, front-page-hogs, stalking mockers, suppression-bullies, and demonizers.      

Read my recent posts in peace and quiet.

https://groups.google.com/forum/?hl=en#!forum/plutonium-atom-universe         
Archimedes Plutonium

[toc] | [next] | [standalone]

#699422 — diamond structureRe: difference between Allotrope and Isomer--if any at all-- CO2 has 8 isomers, O2 has 2

On Monday, August 20, 2018 at 4:21:00 PM UTC-5, Archimedes Plutonium wrote:
> Newsgroups: sci.math
> Date: Mon, 20 Aug 2018 14:01:52 -0700 (PDT)
> 
> Subject: difference between Allotrope and Isomer--if any at all-- CO2 has 8
>  isomers, O2 has 2// TRUE CHEMISTRY
> From: Archimedes Plutonium <plutonium....@gmail.com>
> Injection-Date: Mon, 20 Aug 2018 21:01:53 +0000
> 
> difference between Allotrope and Isomer--if any at all-- CO2 has 8 isomers, O2 has 2// TRUE CHEMISTRY
> 
> Alright, slowly but surely getting there. 
> 
> Now I was reading a definitions (source Internet) of Allotrope, Isomers of chemistry: 
> 
> Allotrope-- each of two or more different physical forms in which an element can exist. Graphite, charcoal, and diamond ae all allotropes of carbon. 
> 
> Isomer (chemistry) -- each of two or more compounds with the same formula but a different arrangement of atoms in the molecule and different properties. 
> 
> Isomer (physics) -- each of two or more atomic nuclei that have the same atomic number and the same mass number but different energy states. 
> 
> Now, these items are all true, their existence is not in question. But the trouble is, that the theory of Chemistry and Physics , the best theories we have today, cannot explain why allotropes and isomers exist at all. 
> 
> The theory that can explain the existence of isomers and allotropes is the theory that chemical bonding is when 1/2torus + 1/2torus = 1 full torus. When the muon of an atom with its attendant proton perform a Faraday law, and if just one muon with one proton they form 1/2 torus, but if muons are paired, with paired attendant protons they form a full 1 torus. 
> 
> Now, the particle that is .5MeV is never the electron but is rather Dirac's Magnetic Monopole and these monopoles cause other (but minor) bonding of chemistry and physics. The polar bond the Van der Waals bond are due to the monopoles. 
> 
> Now, Oxygen was thought of in Old Chemistry as being linear without any isomers. That is not really true. What Oxygen is, is a unpaired P_y and a unpaired P_z. 
> 
> So if you have two oxygen atoms they can form a covalent bond of 
> 
> P_y with P_y and P_z with P_z 
> 
> or 
> 
> P_y with P_z and Pz with P_y 
> 
> CO2 has three atoms, the carbon has unpaired P_x, P_y, and the two oxygen atoms have unpaired P_y, P_z 
> 
> Now, last time I counted up the permutations of these 1/2 torus-- six 1/2 toruses of carbon and two oxygens, I counted up 8 possible permutations, that would mean 8 possible isomers. 
> 
> But let me talk about Allotrope, because diamond and graphite are all just one carbon atoms, but their bonding is totally different. 
> 

Now here I have to argue with the stated literature on carbon allotropes of graphite versus diamond. In the literature it shows graphite carbon atom surrounded by 3 other carbon atoms forming hexagons. And it explains why graphite can be a writing pencil as it sheds off a planar layer of graphite, because there are no bonds vertical, or loose vertical bonds of perhaps monopoles, whereas the planar 3 carbon around one carbon fill the P orbital of P_x, P_y, P_z

But now we go to diamond and the literature shows each carbon surrounded by 4 other carbon atoms. But the P orbital only accommodates 6, not 8. So I think Old Chemistry is figuring a S orbital here along with the P. But I am not going to buy any of that. So, does diamond have 4 carbon around each carbon?

Let me work on that tonight and tomorrow.

AP

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

#699454 — Re: Archimedes "Total Failure" Plutonium flunked the lifetime-generation test

Archimedes Plutonium <plutonium.archimedes@gmail.com> writes:

>Subject: Re: why Terry is silent on ellipse as cylinder section never conic Re: Terence Tao flunked the Math Test of a lifetime-generation test

Why is Terry "silent" ?

#1) He has never heard of the nobody named Archimedes Plutonium and
    probably never will. I'm sure he mostly hangs around with actual
    mathematicians.

#2) Since nothing has actually changed regarding ellipses being conic
    sections, that is the Dandelin Spheres proof is still valid as are
    the other proofs still valid, there is no reason for the topic to even 
    come up. Like being silent on 2 < 5.

An actual valid math proof that the ellipse is not a conic section would
be huge news in the math world, but so far that has never happened, and
almost certainly never will since much of engineering and astronomy would
simply break.  It is more likely to see a valid proof that 2 > 5 first.

>On Tuesday, August 21, 2018 at 1:43:41 AM UTC-5, Jan wrote:

>> Because it isn't, see e.g. the proof here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dandelin_spheres=20
>> So why don't you admit you've made a mistake? Wimp, yes?

Yes, Archie, be a man and admit your mistake.

>AP writes:: of course Terry recognizes that Dandelin assumed-- ASSUMED he
>was working with a ellipse, not a oval--

No, he didn't. Even if he did, a simple counterexample could be obtained
from such an assumption if the proof was invalid, producing a disproof by
counterexample.

>but you can never tell that to an insane person like Jan-- not much of 
>anything enters his microbrain.

That's the best you can do? Meaningless insults?

>But why call Terry a wimp? Is it because Terry remains silent about ellipse
> never being a conic, always a cylinder section.

As I said, Terry is "silent" because the issue hasn't come up - there has
never been a valid proof the ellipse is not a conic section.  Again, it's
like being "silent" about the fact that 2 is less than 5.

>Is that the way modern mathematicians operate-- like Terry-- never fixing
>mistakes, only grubbing for the next publication of more math pollution.

I'm sure if Terry knew of any mistakes, he'd fix them, but there is no 
mistake to fix. "If it ain't broke, don't fix it."

>Terry-- I found in life the best way to live it-- is come clean on 
>everything,, something in the Bible along those lines of thought-- you 
>better find out what you are meant to do in life, if not, it will 
>destroy you.

So you really should be a man and admit your mistake, and move on.
Of course, addressing a message to him here is rather dumb.
But I think this has already destroyed you.

>A mathematician , when told that a proof the ellipse is never a conic, and
>does nothing, like you Terry, could mean you were never a mathematician at
>all.

But since Terry has never been told of any such proof, that statement is
meaningless.

>> AP writes:: yes, why does Terry Tao incessantly deny the ellipse is 
>> cylinder section, never a conic section.

When did Terry "incessantly deny" any such thing? Reference? (and why 
wouldn't he deny that, anyway?)

>> Does he not realize, denial of true math, means he is no mathematician at
>> all.

When did he ever deny true math?


(Now watch -- Archie will respond to my post, but not here. He'll start a
new thread or post to an existing insult thread. Probably in sci.physics.

In this response, he won't address a single issue that I have brought up.
Instead, most if not all of the following will be part of his reply:

#1) It will be addressed to uninvolved people at Harvard or MIT, or 
perhaps Massachusetts politicians.

#2) A stalker list of other uninvolved people at Harvard, MIT, or
    Massachusetts politicians will be included. No reason will be
    given for posting the stalker list.

#3) He will insult me, likely including snippets of old posts of mine
    where he still thinks I was wrong.

#4) He will also insult the uninvolved Harvard/MIT/Massachusetts people
    for allowing me to exist, I suppose, although none of them have ever
    heard of me.

#5) He will accuse me of "stalking" him by actually posting this reply.

#6) He will accuse me and others who respond to him of being "gay" for
    unknown reasons.  He will insult gays in the process.

#7) He will post that ASCII art owl/cat thing that lives in a cubbyhole.

#8) He will accuse professors (mentioned in #2) of not fixing errors that
    don't exist and they have never heard of anyway.

#9) He will include a non-proof "proof", likely his non-proof that the 
    ellipse is not a conic section.

Did I miss any?)

[toc] | [prev] | [standalone]

Back to top | Article view | sci.physics

csiph-web