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

Groups > sci.physics > #704338 > unrolled thread

S orbital most energetic

Back to article view | Back to sci.physics

Contents

  S orbital most energetic john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2018-09-24 07:13 -0700
    Re: S orbital most energetic moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2018-09-24 15:53 +0000
      Re: S orbital most energetic Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-09-24 16:04 +0000
        Re: S orbital most energetic john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2018-09-24 11:31 -0700
    Re: S orbital most energetic mitchrae3323@gmail.com - 2018-09-24 12:02 -0700
      Re: S orbital most energetic john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2018-09-24 12:24 -0700
    Re: S orbital most energetic Double-A <double-a3@hush.com> - 2018-09-24 13:40 -0700
      Re: S orbital most energetic john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2018-09-24 15:05 -0700
        Re: S orbital most energetic Double-A <double-a3@hush.com> - 2018-09-24 15:37 -0700
          Re: S orbital most energetic john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2018-09-25 06:49 -0700
            Re: S orbital most energetic mitchrae3323@gmail.com - 2018-09-25 18:00 -0700
              Re: S orbital most energetic john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2018-09-26 07:12 -0700
                Re: S orbital most energetic moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2018-09-26 14:58 +0000
                  Re: S orbital most energetic john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2018-09-26 09:27 -0700
                    Re: S orbital most energetic moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2018-09-26 17:45 +0000
                      Re: S orbital most energetic john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2018-09-26 13:30 -0700
                        Re: S orbital most energetic moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2018-09-26 22:02 +0000
                          Re: S orbital most energetic john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2018-09-26 16:29 -0700
                            Re: S orbital most energetic mitchrae3323@gmail.com - 2018-09-26 18:04 -0700
                        Re: S orbital most energetic Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-09-27 01:10 +0000
                          Re: S orbital most energetic john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2018-09-27 07:08 -0700
                            Re: S orbital most energetic moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2018-09-27 18:02 +0000
                              Re: S orbital most energetic john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2018-09-27 15:30 -0700
                            Re: S orbital most energetic Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-09-27 18:37 +0000
                Re: S orbital most energetic mitchrae3323@gmail.com - 2018-09-26 14:30 -0700
        Re: S orbital most energetic moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2018-09-24 22:37 +0000
          Re: S orbital most energetic mitchrae3323@gmail.com - 2018-09-24 17:37 -0700

Page 2 of 2 — ← Prev page 1 [2]

#704851

Odd
“I love it when you demonstrate you don’t even know what the words you use 
even mean. 

For Pete’s sake. ”

What possible use can YOUR definition have?
The biological definition- which I use and makes sense- has few-enough candidates.
YOUR definition (physics’ ‘meanings’ are more like ‘non-meanings’- spin doesn’t mean spin, color doesn’t mean color; it’s all fantasy anyway)
YOUR definition ONLY applies to a homogeneous blob like your imaginary point particle if it HAD vlolume, or your spherical Schwartzeneger construction of dots S orbital (if you could put infinite numbers of dots- which you can’t.)
What a tard.

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

#704893

john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> writes:

>Odd
>"I love it when you demonstrate you don't even know what the words you use
>even mean

>For Pete's sake. "

That's why he's so good at generating word salad.

>What possible use can YOUR definition have?

The standard definition? Well, we found one right here, how H and He have
nothing that defines a direction relative to them. They're the same from
any direction.

>The biological definition- which I use and makes sense- has few-enough 
>candidates.

This isn't biology.

>YOUR definition ONLY applies to a homogeneous blob like your imaginary 
>point particle if it HAD vlolume, 

It applies anywhere where, in polar coordinates, F(r,theta,phi) = g(r).

That is, there is NO dependence on any angle (theta, phi), the function F
depends ONLY on the distance r from the origin.

>or your spherical Schwartzeneger construction of dots S orbital (if you 
>could put infinite numbers of dots- which you can't.)

The Schrodinger equations are smooth, "dots" are a simplified 
representataion. Both you and Archie Plutonium are wrong here.

>What a tard.

Why, yes, you are!

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

#704939

MM
“The Schrodinger equations are smooth, "dots" are a simplified 
representataion. ”

Dots are simplified.
Whole operation takes much more.
Impossible to represent a sphere without going to every quarter.
How exactly are you DOING that?

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

#704906

john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> wrote:
> Odd
> “I love it when you demonstrate you don’t even know what the words you use 
> even mean. 
> 
> For Pete’s sake. ”
> 
> What possible use can YOUR definition have?
> The biological definition- which I use and makes sense- has few-enough candidates.
> YOUR definition (physics’ ‘meanings’ are more like ‘non-meanings’- spin
> doesn’t mean spin, color doesn’t mean color; it’s all fantasy anyway)
> YOUR definition ONLY applies to a homogeneous blob like your imaginary
> point particle if it HAD vlolume, or your spherical Schwartzeneger
> construction of dots S orbital (if you could put infinite numbers of
> dots- which you can’t.)
> What a tard.
> 

It’s hysterically funny that you come on a physics forum and complain that
the language used in physics makes no sense to you, and you bitch that your
biology-centric language should be better for discussing physics. You want
to discuss physics but it’s just asking too much to learn the language of
physics. I mean, what good is physics if it’s not immediately accessible to
lazy know-nothings?

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

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

#704774

On Wednesday, September 26, 2018 at 7:12:17 AM UTC-7, john wrote:
> Anyway- the Hydrogen and Helium atomic discs are the fastest rotaters

Mutual conradictions… spheres then discs...
Atoms don't dilate... neither does space.

Mitchell Raemsch

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

#704432

john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> writes:

>AA
>"They don't do work at all, otherwise the atoms would run out of energy
and decay. "

>That's why bodybuilders shrink up and disappear, too

And that's about the dumbest comparison you've come up so far.

A bodybuilder would shrink up and disappear (die) if not supplied with a
constant external supply of mass/energy, better known as "food".

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

#704442

On Monday, September 24, 2018 at 3:37:40 PM UTC-7, Michael Moroney wrote:
> john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> writes:
> 
> >AA
> >"They don't do work at all, otherwise the atoms would run out of energy
> and decay. "
> 
> >That's why bodybuilders shrink up and disappear, too
> 
> And that's about the dumbest comparison you've come up so far.
> 
> A bodybuilder would shrink up and disappear (die) if not supplied with a
> constant external supply of mass/energy, better known as "food".

Could electrons have relativistic kinetic energy?
Only then would they be more energetic...

Mitchell Raemsch

[toc] | [prev] | [standalone]

Page 2 of 2 — ← Prev page 1 [2]

Back to top | Article view | sci.physics

csiph-web