Fluorine atom ?

by **Dreams End** » Wed Jul 19, 2006 7:33 pm

<blockquote>Quote:<hr>Why does this whole idea piss you off so ? You know its incorrect for sure , when the atomic scientists can supposedly plot these complicated orbits, but can never fix the fucking electron to a given point ?<hr></blockquote> Mr. Heisenberg just rang.... he wants his principle back.

by **slimmouse** » Wed Jul 19, 2006 7:40 pm

Heisenburg ? Never heard of him. Whats his theory ? Any more stable than mine ? Or is he trying to baffle the average brain with science ? I find this whole subject of "modern science" interesting because it would appear that modern science is increasingly stepping into line with what the gnostics were saying thousands of years ago. Youd probably be able to check all of this out for yourself, other than for a rather unsavoury incident at Alexandria a while back. That was when the first " new Scientists" appeared - with a bible in one hand and a dagger in the other. Read the Kybalion, and then get that Heisenburg paper out.

by **Dreams End** » Wed Jul 19, 2006 7:51 pm

Slimmouse... Thanks for that. You made my day. <blockquote>Quote:<hr> Im fully aware of the nature of electrons,<hr></blockquote> <blockquote>Quote:<hr> Heisenburg ? Never heard of him. <hr></blockquote> I don't claim to be an expert, but to demonstrate absolutely no knowledge of a theory and then criticize it is... well, anyway, it was amusing.

by **slimmouse** » Wed Jul 19, 2006 7:58 pm

<blockquote>Quote:<hr>I don't claim to be an expert, but to demonstrate absolutely no knowledge of a theory and then criticize it is... well, anyway, it was amusing.<hr></blockquote> Dreams End. Have a very close look at my original post, and then tell me exactly where in your opinion Ive been disingenuous or derogatory. Im not saying you have either, other than your comments about getting high school physics books out etc. Let me tell you an interesting story. I got graduate Standard history books out ( in fact I qualified with honours - too funny ), and you wanna know something. Theyre completely full of shit. What about my original post meanwhile do YOU not agree with ? Its easy enough to find, just scroll back to the top.

by **Dreams End** » Wed Jul 19, 2006 8:33 pm

100 years of experimental evidence and the highly accurate predictions made by quantum theory suggest that it's a very good mathematical model. That's the best we can do because you can't "see" electrons orbiting an atom. I didn't say you were lying... I just wonder why you put forward opinions on theories you have no knowledge of. Electrons don't orbit the nucleus like planets orbit the sun. And unless there's some mystical significance to the fact that neutrons and suns both have much more mass than the things whizzing around on the outside, I don't even know what your point is. But what I do know is that if you criticize history in the same way you criticize science ("scientists don't know jack") and then demonstrate you have no idea what it is the scientists are actually saying, you won't be taken seriously. There is TONS of interesting stuff about quantum theory and what it suggests about the nature of reality. Just now sure why you are focusing on the solar system model that went out with the model T.

by **slimmouse** » Wed Jul 19, 2006 8:45 pm

Im so glad you mentioned "The latest science" The latest science might suggest that DNA is easily programmable to those in the know But of course that introduces the "ridiculous" concept of Shapeshifting, as has been produced - in of all things - Lizards <img src=http://www.ezboard.com/images/emoticons/roll.gif ALT=":rollin"> Meanwhile, as Im sure you are aware, and like I have said previously, the latest Science would suggest two things; Firstly ; That scientists STILL cant trace electrons at a given moment, for all their complicated graphics of how they orbit a nucleus ? Fact or fiction ? Secondly; Atoms it would appear behave in one of two ways. In one scenario, where they are "interacted with" or "observed" , they tend to behave as electromagnetic force fields. when they arent being 'observed', they tend to basically act as vibrational waves. So take your pick from the "latest scientific findings" Now then, for all the models that "100 years of modelling"of the trajectory of electrons have produced, dont you find it curious ( and Im quoting your good self here from a previous post ) that scientific models still cant work out where an electron is, in its so called orbit at any given point ? Does Heisenburgs models have an explanation for that ? Im serious, particularly about the above point.

by **jingofever** » Wed Jul 19, 2006 9:31 pm

Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principle states that you cannot know both the position of a particle and its momentum at the same time. As for the orbital shapes, wikipedia says this: <blockquote>Quote:<hr>Any discussion of the shapes of electron orbitals is necessarily imprecise, because a given electron, regardless of which orbital it occupies, can at any moment be found at any distance from the nucleus and in any direction due to the Uncertainty Principle. However, the electron is much more likely to be found in certain regions of the atom than in others. Given this, a boundary surface can be drawn so that the electron has a high probability to be found anywhere within the surface, and all regions outside the surface have low values. The precise placement of the surface is arbitrary, but any reasonably compact determination must follow a pattern specified by the behavior of ψ2, the square of the wavefunction. This boundary surface is what is meant when the "shape" of an orbital is mentioned.<hr></blockquote> [1] So you are correct about the disconnect between the two. You say that the solar system has nine bodies orbiting the sun but you are forgetting the asteroid belt and the 'trans-neptunian' objects, at least one of which is larger than Pluto. [2] 1. <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atomic_orbital">en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atomic_orbital</a> 2. <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trans-Neptunian_object">en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tra...ian_object</a> Edited by: <A HREF=http://p216.ezboard.com/brigorousintuition.showUserPublicProfile?gid=jingofever>jingofever</A> at: 7/19/06 7:31 pm

by **slimmouse** » Wed Jul 19, 2006 9:42 pm

<blockquote>Quote:<hr>You say that the solar system has nine bodies orbiting the sun but you are forgetting the asteroid belt and the 'trans-neptunian' objects, at least one of which is larger than Pluto. [2]<hr></blockquote> I agree Jingo. Incidentally, I wasnt neccesarily implying that the fluorine atom is our solar system in micro miniature. It was just a thought on a balmy evening. And Im not big on the nine planets deal myself, that being strictly MY opinion. Perhaps another atom ? <img src=http://www.ezboard.com/images/emoticons/wink.gif ALT=";)"> As for the asteroid belt. Prompted by various responses to my postings, I was tempted to look further into the science of it all, and came across a few interesting places. One such site talked about the electrical "fallout" generated. Radiation I believe it was. Take that in whatever way you will. Looked a lot like comets and debris to me But again, thats MY opinion.

by **Dreams End** » Wed Jul 19, 2006 10:13 pm

Not sure what the disconnect is. Q.T. is a mathematical model. We can't "see" what happens at the atomic level. Though we can get really close with these types of electron scanning pics: <img src="http://emusician.com/mag/504Tech-PageFig.-1.gif" style="border:0;"/> <blockquote>Quote:<hr> FIG. 1: In this image from a �scanning �tunneling microscope, �electron-�density waves diffract around atom-sized pimples on the surface of a copper crystal, �demonstrating the wave nature of these particles.<hr></blockquote> Lots of similar pics out there, showing quantum "fuzziness". The issue of not being able to "find" electrons is not a limitation of technology but a property of the electrons. The "shapes" of the orbitals are, as posted above, areas where the electron is most likely to be found....the fact that it is a probability and not a precise location is the whole basis of quantum mechanics in the first place. QT maybe overturned...happens all the time. However, the computer you typed on depends on all kinds of quantum weirdness to function. Your computer is based on semiconductors. They are built using the very sophisticated analysis available via Quantum Theory: <blockquote>Quote:<hr>It is interesting to note that the reason semiconductors work is a direct result of quantum physics, in specific the Pauli exclusion principle. This principle states that no two particles can exist in the same state at the same time. Electrons and holes both behave in this way, and the entire electron-hole state is forced to follow certain energy distribution statistics, which basically mean that at any given temperature the distribution of free electrons and holes are <blockquote>Quote:<hr>statistically de<hr></blockquote><hr></blockquote> and predictable. This also means that the conductivity of a semiconductor has a heavy temperature dependency, as a semiconductor operating at very low temperatures (-100°C or so) will have significantly fewer available free electrons and holes able to do the work. If you cool an IC down cold enough, the semiconductor will go intrinsic and all electrical signals will stop. (You would think that heating up the semiconductor has the opposite effect, but there are lots of other problems that happen at high temperatures, including loss of semiconducting properties due to too much free energy, so there is always a happy middle where the semiconductor wants to play!)[/quote] They can't tell you WHICH electrons will go, but they can tell you statistically how MANY will go. QT says that WHICH one goes is truly random. You are in good company, though, as Einstein didn't like it much either...but a thought experiment he devised which was supposed to disprove it was turned into an actual experiment...which demonstrated that QT works (see EPR paradox). Science uses QT because it is so far the most accurate predictor of observable behavior of atoms. Just like Newton's gravity...which did quite well except for little anomalies like a hitch in Mercury's orbit, another theory may come along which is even better at this...or maybe that can join quantum physics of the very small to gravitational physics of the very large (so-called Grand Unified Theorem). But the point is that it works, and the little drawings are simply ways to help visualize what is not seeable (too tiny to bounce photons off of and get coherent results.) Now, I will readily agree to the fact that carbon has six protons and six neutrons (Carbon 12, at least. All Carbon contains other isotopes of Carbon as well which means different numbers of neutrons.) So I grant you that point...though for the life of me I'm not sure what the signficance of it is.

by **bvonahsen** » Wed Jul 19, 2006 10:48 pm

I didn't know that this topic has been gone over before, but perhaps we can glean something out of this. As I understand you slimmouse, you are saying that because illustrations of atoms look like illustrations of the solar system then there is some sort of connection. As above, so below. You also mentioned (at least I think you did) the powers of ten film and how the very very small tends to look a lot like the very very large. No? All we're saying is that you are mistaken about how atoms might look if we could blow them up to our scale and how they behave. That's all. One of the reasons for the simularity is that when Rutherford proposed his model of the atom, the familiar "orbiting billiard balls" model. He explicitly used the solar system as a template, so to speak, for his conception of the atom. His analogy worked pretty well for a while but then began to fall apart. That happens. So the reason why the model you put up for the atom and pic of the solar system look so simular is because the one was deliberately modeled after the other. There are some good books on science that I think you'd like. I'm sure that if you looked around at your local library or asked the librarian you could find something up your alley. Scientists aren't nearly as stuffy or stubborn as you seem to think they are, really. I know that you believe in reptillians and other things that I don't believe in. I don't care, it isn't my job to judge you, nor do I want to ridicule anyone for the things they believe in. (Not that I've never done that or been in a knock down drag out flame war, I have. Been there done that, and got sick of it.) take care

by **robertdreed** » Thu Jul 20, 2006 2:02 pm

The way that electron orbits behave isn't remotely close to the way planetary orbits behave- either in terms of the lack of analogy between the tightly defined axial orbits of the planets vs the spherical orbital "shells" of electrons, and in terms of vast dissimilarites in scale. As for what kicked this discussion off, the supposed "significance" of the fact that carbon-12 has 6 protons, 6 electrons, and 6 neutrons as related to the supposed "number of the beast" in the alleged prophetic Biblical text Revelations, 666 (other sources say 616)- what's your point? Do you care to elaborate on the exact relationship?

by **4911** » Thu Jul 20, 2006 3:58 pm

i thought it was innersting at least - hey like what atom fits the 666 thing type of question. Interesting that its an extremely corrosive acid, that is. Incidentally, which atom fits the 616 thing?

by **slimmouse** » Thu Jul 20, 2006 6:02 pm

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. It would appear, that just about the only thing that myself and every other poster on this board is in disagreement about is the contention regarding the "orbits" of the electrons which exist in the atom. And of course, for all the talk, it would appear that no-one has been succesful in tracking the orbit of the electrons. I will meanwhile be having consultations with regard to the orbit of electrons, and perhaps will glean more from my source. The 6,6,6 atom incidentally is the carbon atom - consisting of 6 protons, neutrons and electrons. - That which all lifeform is largely constructed of. This does of course beg the question of whether the fact that the "official" mark of the beast ( 666 ) as spouted by organised religion the world over is simply a coincidence, or based upon the facts pertaining to Carbon 12. This in turn of course would beg the question of how the hell anyone "Way back then" would even KNOW that the carbon atoms signature was 666. I guess we all reach our own conclusions about this stuff. All I was doing was presenting what is largely facts with some polite speculation. I guess that makes me a disinfo agent huh <img src=http://www.ezboard.com/images/emoticons/pimp.gif ALT=":hat"> On Edit. BV. I dont think Ive ever stated anywhere that I believe in shapeshifting reptilians. I just havent ruled it out. What I do find extraordinary meanwhile, given anyones perception of the facts vis a vi the atom, quantum theory, DNA et cetera - In other words the very 'latest' scientific findings - is that they can rule this kind of stuff out as ridiculous. Now theres a juxtaposition if ever there was one ! Edited by: <A HREF=http://p216.ezboard.com/brigorousintuition.showUserPublicProfile?gid=slimmouse@rigorousintuition>slimmouse</A> at: 7/20/06 4:32 pm

by **robertdreed** » Thu Jul 20, 2006 7:52 pm

Why 666? Why isn't the carbon-12 atoms "signature", say, 18? Or 6? Or...12? Edited by: <A HREF=http://p216.ezboard.com/brigorousintuition.showUserPublicProfile?gid=robertdreed>robertdreed</A> at: 7/20/06 11:47 pm

by **slimmouse** » Sat Jul 22, 2006 8:27 pm

Here is where Ive got to. I asked my source firstly about the Heisenburg principle...had my source heard of it ? "No" was the reply. 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; a) the patterns of the platonic solids b) the thoughts of the observer. 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. Also, that the whole subject is a source of wonder and imagination is surely without dispute to anyone on this thread. It should of course be stated that all of the vast majority of conclusions we can commonly agree upon throughout this thread are indeed based upon many of the findings of the scientific community. Not all science assumes a sinister appareil. But it should be added that the findings are also incredibly similar and relate directly to those of philosophers who were spouting this stuff long before the scientific community ever confirmed this through modern methods of analysis. Robert. Rather like you with me, Im not quite sure what you are saying here. I am nonetheless seriously interested in the 616 thing. Do you have a simple hypothesis or link vis a vi this ? Edited by: <A HREF=http://p216.ezboard.com/brigorousintuition.showUserPublicProfile?gid=slimmouse@rigorousintuition>slimmouse</A> at: 7/22/06 6:36 pm

Fluorine atom ?

Re: But ...but .......but .......

never heard of him ?

Re: never heard of him ?

Re: Kettle/ Pot

Re: Kettle/ Pot

If you want to listen to the "latest science"

Re: If you want to listen to the "latest science"

Re: I agree

Re: I agree

Re: If you want to listen to the "latest science"

Re: If you want to listen to the "latest science"

Re: If you want to listen to the "latest science"

Re: I will be having consultations.

numeromancy

The path of an electron.

Who is online