Fluorine atom ?

[robertdreed]

the information is but a single search inquiry away. <br><br> <p></p><i></i>

[slimmouse]

<br> <!--EZCODE QUOTE START--><blockquote><strong><em>Quote:</em></strong><hr>the information is but a single search inquiry away.<br><hr></blockquote><!--EZCODE QUOTE END--><br><br> Indeed it may be.<br><br> But in the interests of keeping this relatively simple for readers, thus in the spirit of this thread - might you give us a brief synopsis, with further reading for the intrigued ( such as me <!--EZCODE EMOTICON START ;) --><img src=http://www.ezboard.com/images/emoticons/wink.gif ALT=";)"><!--EZCODE EMOTICON END--> ) <p></p><i></i>

[Dreams End]

<!--EZCODE QUOTE START--><blockquote><strong><em>Quote:</em></strong><hr>I asked my source firstly about the Heisenburg principle...had my source heard of it ?<br><br>"No" was the reply.<hr></blockquote><!--EZCODE QUOTE END--><br><br>I think your source may need some physics help. The electron orbitals are barbell shaped except for the first one, which is called the s orbital and is spherical. <br><br>But if you really wanted to know that...you'd have bothered...since it's in every chemistry textbook on the entire planet. <p></p><i></i>

[slomo]

<!--EZCODE QUOTE START--><blockquote><strong><em>Quote:</em></strong><hr>I asked my source firstly about the Heisenburg principle...had my source heard of it ?<br><br>"No" was the reply.<br><br>I then went on to ask about the trajectory ( orbit ) of electrons, upon which I was told that the electrons in an atom conform to 2 things;<br><br>a) the patterns of the platonic solids<br><br>b) the thoughts of the observer.<br><br>I think we might all draw our own subsequent conclusions, and I do mean all of us, since this really isnt rocket science as the scientist might sometimes expect us to believe.<hr></blockquote><!--EZCODE QUOTE END--><br><br>While I'm no so elitist that I would wish to limit speculation on physics and consciousness to certified experts in either field, it would seem that anybody who wants to discuss QM should at least be somewhat familiar both with Heisenberg and with the basic pattern of electron orbitals. <br><br>But, as the old saying goes, "better to say nothing and be thought a fool, than to open your mouth and leave no doubt". <!--EZCODE ITALIC START--><em>Sigh.</em><!--EZCODE ITALIC END--><br><br>(Note on edit: cleaned up formatting.) <p></p><i>Edited by: <A HREF=http://p216.ezboard.com/brigorousintuition.showUserPublicProfile?gid=slomo@rigorousintuition>slomo</A> at: 7/22/06 10:17 pm<br></i>

[monster]

<!--EZCODE QUOTE START--><blockquote><strong><em>Quote:</em></strong><hr>What I find interesting about the whole atom thing is the remarkable similarity between the mass of the atom, and the mass of the universe, along with the models of each.<hr></blockquote><!--EZCODE QUOTE END--><br><br>Nah, the universe is more like an <!--EZCODE LINK START--><a href="http://www.psychicchildren.co.uk/5-6-OctahedralUniverse.html">egg-carton</a><!--EZCODE LINK END-->:<br><br><!--EZCODE IMAGE START--><img src="http://img236.imageshack.us/img236/4215/octahedraluniverseyq2.jpg" style="border:0;"/><!--EZCODE IMAGE END--><br><br><br><br><!--EZCODE QUOTE START--><blockquote><strong><em>Quote:</em></strong><hr>We know that galaxies gather together into large clusters, known as “superclusters,” and that they can often be roughly spherical in shape. Each supercluster may contain literally billions of galaxies inside of it. Naturally, the average person assumes that these superclusters are scattered randomly throughout the Universe, nothing more than the aftermath of an explosive “Big Bang” where “nothing” exploded to become the Cosmos we now know. Let’s take a look at what scientific observation and mapping of superclusters by Drs. E. Battaner and E. Florido have shown. In the paper entitled The Egg-Carton Universe, they write,<br><br>The distribution of superclusters in the Local Supercluster neighbourhood presents such a remarkable periodicity [i.e. ordered pattern] that some kind of network must fit the observed large-scale structure. A three-dimension chessboard has been suggested. The existence of this network is really a challenge for currently-suggested theoretical models… In this case, however, the identification of real octahedra is so clear and the network is so noticeably well-defined that a direct inspection is straightforward. (E. Battaner and E. Florido, 1998 )<hr></blockquote><!--EZCODE QUOTE END--><!--EZCODE LINK START--><a href="http://www.divinecosmos.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=49&Itemid=30">Source</a><!--EZCODE LINK END--><br><br>I've thought before that the big bang seems like a collision in a cyclotron. <br><br>Galaxies seem like particles, i.e. blobs of energy in a vast expanse of empty space. <br><br>It's impossible not to philosophize about the nature of the universe, especially when science tells us that the fundamenal property of the universe is that it's really bizarre. But the metaphors only go so far.<br><br>I am not at all opposed to thinking we live in some sort of fractal, with infinity in either direction. <p></p><i>Edited by: <A HREF=http://p216.ezboard.com/brigorousintuition.showUserPublicProfile?gid=monster@rigorousintuition>monster</A> at: 7/23/06 12:38 am<br></i>

[Dreams End]

Actually, it is sometimes useful to think of certain MOLECULES in terms of shapes like tetrahedrons. LIke:<br><br><!--EZCODE IMAGE START--><img src="http://library.thinkquest.org/3659/structures/tetrahed.gif" style="border:0;"/><!--EZCODE IMAGE END--><br><br>In this case, it would be something maybe like CF(4), with a central carbon atom and four fluorines. For some reason, I thought this particular one would appeal to slimmouse.<br><br>Another name for this stuff is freon...and once it gets in the atmosphere, it doesn't go away for a long time. <p></p><i></i>

[Attack Ships on Fire]

This thread is starting to splint off into two different facets: the very small and the very large.<br><br>Monster, I've been fascinated by the superclusters and great voids that cosmologists discovered back in 1986. I was looking at your diagram and the article that went with it, and this is the first that I've heard of someone theorizing that we live in an "egg-shaped" universe. However, reading a little more closely, it looks like the two scientists are trying to descibe what the mega-space looks like surrounding the local supercluster of galaxies of which the Milky Way is part of. To the best of my knowledge, the large scale structure of the visible universe, say 70 billion light years across from edge to edge (that we know of), the closest shape that anyone's been able to agree upon is that it looks like giant bubbles.<br><br>Imagine a bubble-filled bathtub. The galaxies that we've been able to see mainly all group along the "surface" or "edges" of where the bubbles touch, leaving great voids of nothingness (at least, it looks like nothing so far) billions of light years across. When scientists first discovered this 20 years ago, it blew their minds.<br><br>As far as I know no one's mapping all of the galaxies discovered so far into a supercomputer to see what the structure ultimately reveals itself to be. The great voids/chains picture came from a mapping of (I think) a million visible galaxies selected at random, which produced the pattern.<br><br>More mapping and explanation can be found here <!--EZCODE AUTOLINK START--><a href="http://archive.ncsa.uiuc.edu/Cyberia/Cosmos/WallsVoids.html">archive.ncsa.uiuc.edu/Cyb...Voids.html</a><!--EZCODE AUTOLINK END--><br><br>Now here's the area that I get really interested in: supposedly the universe is supposed to be no more than 14-15 billion years old. Infra-red telescopes have picked up what some scientists claim is the background radiation from the Big Bang, which seems to lean towards the 15 B number. However, the newer telescopes that have been coming online keep imagining further and further out to the edges of what we think is supposed to be the rim of the universe and they keep discovering new galaxies that look mature and formed. I believe the limit observed by the Deep Field camera is 12 or 13 B. Here's a photo and a story from late last year: <!--EZCODE AUTOLINK START--><a href="http://hubblesite.org/newscenter/newsdesk/archive/releases/2005/28/">hubblesite.org/newscenter...s/2005/28/</a><!--EZCODE AUTOLINK END--><br><br>Now supposedly there isn't supposed to be *any* galaxies that have formed a couple of hundred million years after the Big Bang, but there they are. And I'm willing to make a wager that when the next gen space telescope goes online, we'll find mature galaxies further out than the 15 B limit.<br><br>The mapping of the great voids/chains also show us that, instead of the voids/chains growing bigger the further one looks out into space, they remain roughly the same spacing as the chains/voids around the local supercluster. Again, that doesn't add up with what's expected to be seen assuming the universe is 15 B of age.<br><br>Also, read a bit about the theory behind slow light and the mystery as to why the red shift of far distant galaxies isn't what we expected either. I've come to the conclusion that the universe is far more older than 15 B; I wouldn't be surprised if there's more evidence in the next 10 years that it's ten times that number, at minimum. Scientists think that if the universe was 150 B old, there should be far more heavier elements more abundant throughout the universe, but I think there's a couple of missing factors that are confusing astronomers and that's why we're getting this strange observed data that doesn't match up with Newtonian expectations.<br> <p></p><i></i>

[Dreams End]

The ultimate question....why is there something instead of nothing?<br><br>I'd add to your interesting collection of mysteries that the "red shift" issue is really the idea that the galaxies that are furthest away are moving faster from us than the ones close by...i.e. they are accelerating. Simply physics says that nothing accelerates without a force applied. So what is that force? Or is this an artifact of "slower light"? Or, likely, there are lots of undiscovered things in our universe that screw up our observations or else make our assumptions false.<br><br>Some day, maybe in my lifetime, we'll get another major paradigm shift, perhaps. <p></p><i></i>

[Avalon]

Given that the current conceptions seem to be that matter as we know it makes up only 4% of the universe, maybe something is pushing The Nothing around.<br><br>However, looking at the model of the atom in slimmouse's first post, I was struck by how much it resembled 3 pulchritudinous carbon-based life forms standing with their backs to each other, and having the equivalent of one brain between them. As below, so above sometimes?<br><br>Hey, we do call it the Milky Way...<br><br> <p></p><i></i>

[Fat Lady Singing]

Hi all--I'm a bit hesitant to post this here, since the thread seems to be dead, but I'm only just now reading it and something jumped out at me--Attack Ships On Fire's comment:<br><br><!--EZCODE QUOTE START--><blockquote><strong><em>Quote:</em></strong><hr>This thread is starting to splint off into two different facets: the very small and the very large.<hr></blockquote><!--EZCODE QUOTE END--><br><br>Personally, I don't care if slimmouse understands QT and there are probably lots of things with six sixes to be found in the universe. Whatever. I'm not interested in getting into an argument.<br><br>What I am interested in, aside from QT and its possible relationship to High Weirdness, is "big/little," for very personal reasons. I'm hoping someone can help me understand an experience (or rather set of experiences) I had as a child. Maybe this should be a separate thread?<br><br>Aaaaannyway...OK. So, to understand what I'm talking about, maybe you need a portrait of the poster as a young girl. I was a precocious child, having learned to read by the time I was two (I'm making up for it now, at 40--getting dumber all the time!). I was given to thinking about the nature of, er, nature, inasmuch as my child's mind could conceive of it. I was always wanting to know how things worked, yes, but I always wanted to know why they worked, too.<br><br>I don't know if my curiosity was any greater than the average li'l rugrat's--y'know, how kids always ask "why? why? why?" in seemingly nonsensical contexts, just asking for the sake of asking and to see the amusing effect it has on annoyed adults. But when adults would become annoyed by my asking "why?" *I* got annoyed. *I* was asking because I really wanted to know--otherwise why would I ask? (Makes me think that we as adults should pay greater attention to kids who ask "why?" even if the context seems silly to us.)<br><br>So I turned to books, and when the reading level was beyond me, I asked my parents to read them to me. One of my favorite subjects was astronomy, and I'd often ask my parents to check out books that had pictures of the solar system much like that of this thread's OP. Again, this was when I was between the ages of two and five.<br><br>OK, so that sets the stage. Stay with me here. Starting at about that age and continuing until about age 13 or so, with distant echoes into my early 20s, I had what I call my "big/little" experiences.<br><br>I would be in bed (usually but not always at night) and I would look at a particular lamp in my room. I would get a feeling hard to describe but most like getting hit in the nose--but not painful. That same odd feeling you get in your sinuses *after* you bump your nose on something. Then I would close my eyes and my mind would, seemingly of its own accord, not consciously directed by me, turn toward consideration of the concepts of Big and Little.<br><br>Images would arise of planets, the solar system, galaxies. I would feel myself expanding to the size of these Big things, then I would feel myself contracting to the scale of the very Little, whooshing downward almost, first to myself then to something smaller, like ants, then down smaller to what seemed like an empty room. Then I'd feel a whooshing expansion to Big again. The cycle would continue. And when I was big, I'd hear a voice saying "Big." When I was little, I'd hear a voice saying "Little."<br><br>I'd go through a big/little cycle maybe ten times in a couple of seconds, I'd feel the odd sinus thing again, and it would be over. Sometimes there would be waves, when it would happen several times in a row, and sometimes it would be isolated. Sometimes the cycle would last longer and I would linger in the individual big and little states.<br><br>I experienced it most strongly when I was very young. Later, it was as if I was remembering it more than actually experiencing it, but I'd get that same feeling in my sinuses. Now it's completely gone and I can't even bring back that feeling through memory. I just know how to characterize it because it was something that always puzzled me, and it was important to me and my development as a person, for some odd reason.<br><br>I feel that my big/little experiences gave me an intuitive understanding of QT. Although the math will probably always be beyond me, I find that many theoretical concepts just make sense to me in a way that they don't seem to for others with my same educational background.<br><br>It almost seems that I "grok" theory in a way that even some scientists don't. I'm not saying I understand anything *better* than a scientist--not at all. I'm saying that it's almost like the concepts are a part of me. It's like, and here's the weird thing because it just occurred to me, but it's like it's part of my program or encoded into my DNA or something. <br><br>Note that I do not believe I was part of any MK program, a victim of MC, or the subject of ongoing generational alien abductions. But I have wondered at some coincidences that are too many and too vague to get into here.<br><br>One perhaps worth mentioning is that when I was about this age, I had terrible teeth and was always at the dentist. I *hated* it! Back in the mid-to-late 60s, dentistry was much more painful. At one point, my mom took me to a dentist who specialized in working with children and used hypnosis. Yep, I was hip-mo-tized! I remember the situation, the method the dentist used, everything about it except what happened when I was "under"--this was when I was younger than five years old.<br><br>OK, so that was weird. I know. But does anyone have anything to say about it? It's something that has been mysterious to me since that age, and on the rare occasion when I've mentioned it to anyone, no one seems to have had a similar experience. I'd love to hear anything at all that might shed some light on "Big/Little." <p></p><i></i>