Google Groups no longer supports new Usenet posts or subscriptions. Historical content remains viewable.
Dismiss
your slip is showing...
106 views
Skip to first unread message
Timothy Sutter
Nov 6, 2012, 12:13:43 AM11/6/12
to
Larry Harson wrote:
> Timothy Sutter wrote:
> > Larry Harson wrote:
> > > Timothy Sutter wrote:
> > > > blackhead wrote:
> > > > > Timothy Sutter wrote:
> > > > > > Timothy Sutter wrote:
> > > > > > > Larry Harson wrote:
> > > > > > > > > but, evidently, someone has an inordinant control problem and
> > > > > > > > > feels the need to police usenet newsgroups.
> > > > > > > > > if given a vote, i'm certain i would vote for archi
> > > > > > > > > and against the mad post flagger any day of the week.
> > > > > > > > Do you think it's OK spamming a theory about particle physics in
> > > > > > > > sci.math and sci.physics.electromag?
> > > > > > > > I don't.
> > > > > > but anyway, from what little i've gleaned from
> > > > > > archi's titles and cursory glances of his posts
> > > > > > he maintains that quantum mechanics is reducible
> > > > > > to entailments of the =Maxwell= equations
> > > > > > so, you, are just plain flat out wrong that
> > > > > > he is posting off topic to sci.physics.electromag
> > "titles and posts"
> > obviously considering other threads and other posts.
> > > > > Really?
> > > > > Most of it seems relevant to particle physics or sci.physics such as
> > > > > this:
> > > > > "In Old Physics, they had spins
> > > > > of 1/2, 1, 3/2 but in Old Physics they got those spin numbers from
> > > > > Algebra demands and demands divorced of geometry or a true theory,
> > > > > for
> > > > > the Standard Model is just a patchwork quilt of fake physics."
> > > > > Which part of the OP do you think has a place in
> > > > > sci.physics.electromag?
> > > > here's a few;
> > > I was asking about THIS thread.
> > do you really say that this one thread is alone
> > being considered by this statement?
> > you say;
> > "" Do you think it's OK spamming a theory about
> > particle physics in sci.math and sci.physics.electromag?
> > I don't.""
> > one thread does not a "spamming" make in the context
> > of topicallity and not sales or other such things
> > some people have a problem with.
> > i obviously was considering many threads and posts
> > and inasmuch as you say "theory" i suggest that you were speaking
> > of more than a single post or thread but the entire body of posts
> > and threads that archi seems intent on posting to several groups
> > simultaneously, which is a common practice, and allowed by google
> > groups.
> > which is to say, that, if google groups objected to crossposting,
> > googlegroups would not allow it to be done at all.
> It comes under netiquette which includes the avoidance of cross
> posting.
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Etiquette_(technology)
if archi is propagandizing his pet theory and that theory includes
aspects which are clearly of an electromagnetic nature, archi -may-
want to shop it around where people who are all keen on electromagnetism
would catch wind of it, and so,
crossposting is tolerated for just that sort of reason.
archi's 'theory', -is- that quantum mechanics
can be derived from the maxwell equations.
you are trying to be chief moderator in
an unmoderated newsgroup and doing
a poor job of it.
and below you say this:
# I don't mind intelligent cross posting.
so, why you're wasting time posting some blurb
about how crossposting is bad form is not very "intelligent"
you like crossposting if it fits your opinion
of what is acceptable and 'intelligent'
but if someone else has a different opinon of acceptable and
intelligent, you start pissing and moaning and whining about
how it's abusively off topic.
now, here's how you describe archi;
==
https://groups.google.com/d/msg/sci.chem/8JXMY9nMKHk/GCNlRPJLpXQJ
you say;
> I'm not against Archie posting his theory in sci.physics.particle
> where it belongs. Yet despite being told this, he continues to spam in
> a selfish way without any thought for the people within that group. He
> comes across as a self-absorbed egotist who can't look outside of
> himself.
==
now i ask you, -who- _really_ looks like the "self absorbed egotist?"
isn't it really =you= who looks like a "self absorbed egotist"
in that you think that you and you alone are able to decide what
is on topic in electromag whereas archi simply minds his own
business and quietly posts his babblings where he
thinks they are topical?
yes, -you- look like the self absorbed egotists and archi does not.
> It also includes getting your own group in order before you go around
> vandalising another, just to make a point. Have you reposted Archi's
> posts on sci.chem, the main group you use? Nope. Did you instead
> repost them on one you don't use? Yep. Did you even bother to post
> them on sci.physics.particle? Nope.
you're raving.
i vandalized nothing, and why you keep posting in to a thread
that you have flagged for abuse is asinine.
> > > So again, what content do you think from Archie's
> > > original posting is relevant to sci.physics.electromag?
> > in the first post of this thread, archi is yammering
> > about "charge" as it relates to "The Standard Model"
> > ===
> > archie says:https://groups.google.com/d/msg/sci.chem/8JXMY9nMKHk/Pv2WB0tUY1AJ
> > No-one of the Standard Model ever said that the charges of physics
> > were the 3 and only 3 geometries of mathematics. No-one of the
> > Standard Model ever said that the electron was hyperbolic geometry
> > while the proton was elliptic geometry.
> > ===
> > here's how wikipedia describes the "standard model";
> > [sure, wikipedia is good enough for this purpose...]
> > ===http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Standard_Model
> > The Standard Model of particle physics is
> > a theory concerning the electromagnetic,
> > weak, and strong nuclear interactions , which
> > mediate the dynamics of the known subatomic particles
> > ===
> > now, if archi is yammering opn about the Standard Model
> > and this Standard Model concerns itself with electromagnetic
> > properties of subatomic particles then, -you- tell -me- how
> > archi's post is not topical in your august opinion.
> Well, if YOU bothered to read his OP as I suggested, then its obvious
> he's talking about spin. Look at the title: "charge is geometry and
> spin is what?". Further down: "So now I need to finish this up on the
> spin". Then right at the end: "My guess is direction of spin relative
> to an axis". So you tell me: What has spin got to do with
> electromagnetism?
-maybe- archi thinks that spinning charged particles
generate a magnetic field of sorts.
strange things have happened, with copper coils and magnets
> Your posts on sci.chem are competent, yet you seem to have reading
> comprehension problems here, or worse still, don't understand what
> electromagnetism is. If so, then you shouldn't be sticking your nose
> in something you haven't a clue about, should you?
so, you deny that the so-called "Standard Model"
concerns itself with electromagnetic behaviors -of- particles
and if archi wants to yammer about particles and their
electromagnetic behavior in a set of usenet newsgroups,
archi can do so even if not each and every post is
explicittly and narrowly focused on the aspects
of electromagnetism that strike -your- fancy.
you are still wrong to flag archi's posts for abuse
as none of them fit the criteria for abuse as set
out -by- googlegroups.
===
Report Abuse
Google takes abuse of its services very seriously.
We're committed to dealing with such abuse according
to the laws in your country of residence. When you
submit a report, we'll investigate it and take the
appropriate action. We'll get back to you only if
we require additional details or have more information to share.
Group name: sci.physics.electromag
Subject: is Google committing a crime of freedom of speech??
Author: Archimedes Plutonium
Not abuse
This content has been incorrectly marked as abuse
and does not contain any of the following:
Spam
Hateful or violent content
Illegal pornography
Personal or private information
Illegal content according to the laws of my country
Content violating our Terms of Service
===
> > > I flagged this thread because I don't see its relevance here.
> > it looks to me like you are just plain flat out wrong in doing so.
> > > So please put me right if you think I'm wrong.
> > maybe you should actually read a post
> > before you decide it is off topic.
> > it makes it -look- as if you...
> > it seems as if this will fall on deaf ears so,
> > i'll "skip it" as it were.
> > > Neither do I flag all his
> > > posts, just those which are more in the field of particle physics and
> > > shamelessly using the name "Maxwell" to justify their inclusion in
> > > sci.physics.electromag.
> > it is -possible- that "particle physics" and electromagnetism
> > are not entirely divorced one from the other and considerable
> > overlap is inevitable
> > and so, -crossposting- is a reasonable action -and-
> > one that is -not- dissallowed by googlegroups.
> > so, if your major objection -is- "crossposting"
> > maybe, perhaps, you should take that up with googlegroups first,
> > before you take it upion yourself to accuse anyone of being
> > "abusive" to a particular usenet newsgroup.
> I don't mind intelligent cross posting. But Archie posts Cantor's
> diagonal argument over here,and into the physics groups. He then posts
> particle physics into the maths forum. He hasn't got a clue.
this must be -someone- who shall remain nameless,
being a "self absorbed egotist" again.
what would you call someone who takes it upon itself
to make topicallity decisions for other people
in an unmoderated usenet newsgroup?
junior napolean?
self appointed tryant?
certainly not a napolean nor a tyrant
and maybe not even egotistical
but rude comes to mind.
a person who appoints itself as moderator
of an unmoderated newsgroup is just plain rude.
> > > Next he'll be posting cooking recipies here
> > > based upon Maxwell's equations.
> > he may very well, and if he includes bits
> > on the Amana radar range, also known as
> > a "microwave oven" that recipe may very well -be-
> > related to electromagnetism in some broad fashion.
> > ==
> > http://www.activistpost.com/2011/11/dangerous-truth-behind-microwaves...
> > Microwaves are a form of electromagnetic radiation and are on the low
> > energy
> > end of the energy spectrum, second to radio waves. Microwaves are
> > generated
> > by something called a magnetron – something found within every microwave
> > oven.
> > Magnetrons produce an electromagnetic field with a microwave frequency
> > of approximate 2,450 megaHertz (MGz), which is the equivalent to 2.4
> > gigaHertz (GHz).
> > Microwaves produced within the microwave oven cause dialectric heating –
> > they bounce around the inside of the oven and are absorbed by whatever
> > you put in it
> > ==
> > there, now someone's microwave brownie recipe is topical.
> > see how easy this is?
> And that would be OK, but Archie seems incapable of understanding when
> a post is relevant to a particular group.
it seems more as if -you- are incapable of understanding these things.
archi really seems to believe that his posts are on topic
and you have done nothing to show otherwise.
archi isn't harassing anyone
===
Report Abuse
Google takes abuse of its services very seriously.
We're committed to dealing with such abuse according
to the laws in your country of residence. When you
submit a report, we'll investigate it and take the
appropriate action. We'll get back to you only if
we require additional details or have more information to share.
Group name: sci.physics.electromag
Subject: is Google committing a crime of freedom of speech??
Author: Archimedes Plutonium
Not abuse
This content has been incorrectly marked as abuse
and does not contain any of the following:
Spam
Hateful or violent content
Illegal pornography
Personal or private information
Illegal content according to the laws of my country
Content violating our Terms of Service
===
arch isn't doing any of this.
in fact, it is -you- who are being hateful to archi.
you should flag your own self for abuse.
but you seem to be blind to this.
> > > If he cross-posts, then it increases the likely hood of them being
> > > flagged as not appropriate to some newsgroup, don't you think?
> > only by some person with a very narrow view
> Yes, and that's why USENET is partitioned into groups with narrow
> views compared to one chaotic USENET where there's no control over
> content people want to see.
and -archi- thinks his posts are on topic in electromag because
he most certainly does not seem to be posting his posts for
the simple pleasure of annoying =you=
if you didn't exist, i dare say, archi would post his posts to
electromag.
-you- seem to be the obne sticking its proboscis where it has not
business.
-and- you have the unmitigated dorkishness to continue posting
in to a thread that -you- have flagged for abuse.
you must really have your head stuck in a dark place.
> > of what constitutes "topicallity"
> > you may do well to exhaust all aspects of possible topicallity
> > before you rush to press your little fingers on the new toy
> > provided to you.
> As I said before, I look carefully at each post of Archie's before
> flagging it for abuse. You may do well thinking about your own
> newsgroup first before you decide to wreck another you don't use.
you're raving.
why don't you try and set yourself up as
the tin plated autocrat in sci.physics?
or do you run around from group to group deciding what is topical?
seems there was a political thread in sci.physics the other day
maybe , just maybe, some of the regular posters didn't even think
it was off topic and that is why theuy posted in to it.
but there's a screw loose somewhere and you just feel the need
to tighten it down, only you seem to be mistaking teh wrong
loose screw for the one that needs tightening and spending
too much time forcing your opinion on other people's work
and not directing your attentions on your own shortcomings.
> > if you say that the topic is not that
> > interesting to you in the first place
> > and that your only concern is in keeping
> > -your- little newsgroup clean and tidy,
> > then, thank you for -being- the example
> > that you are being.
> > albeit, that example is not one that
> > should be -encouraged- for emulation
> > nor that i would point to as a model
> > for appropriate behavior.
> I can't think of anything about your behaviour that I would encourage
> in my own. But thanks for your opinion.
your slip is showing...
> Timothy Sutter wrote:
> > Larry Harson wrote:
> > > Timothy Sutter wrote:
> > > > blackhead wrote:
> > > > > Timothy Sutter wrote:
> > > > > > Timothy Sutter wrote:
> > > > > > > Larry Harson wrote:
> > > > > > > > > but, evidently, someone has an inordinant control problem and
> > > > > > > > > feels the need to police usenet newsgroups.
> > > > > > > > > if given a vote, i'm certain i would vote for archi
> > > > > > > > > and against the mad post flagger any day of the week.
> > > > > > > > Do you think it's OK spamming a theory about particle physics in
> > > > > > > > sci.math and sci.physics.electromag?
> > > > > > > > I don't.
> > > > > > but anyway, from what little i've gleaned from
> > > > > > archi's titles and cursory glances of his posts
> > > > > > he maintains that quantum mechanics is reducible
> > > > > > to entailments of the =Maxwell= equations
> > > > > > so, you, are just plain flat out wrong that
> > > > > > he is posting off topic to sci.physics.electromag
> > "titles and posts"
> > obviously considering other threads and other posts.
> > > > > Really?
> > > > > Most of it seems relevant to particle physics or sci.physics such as
> > > > > this:
> > > > > "In Old Physics, they had spins
> > > > > of 1/2, 1, 3/2 but in Old Physics they got those spin numbers from
> > > > > Algebra demands and demands divorced of geometry or a true theory,
> > > > > for
> > > > > the Standard Model is just a patchwork quilt of fake physics."
> > > > > Which part of the OP do you think has a place in
> > > > > sci.physics.electromag?
> > > > here's a few;
> > > I was asking about THIS thread.
> > do you really say that this one thread is alone
> > being considered by this statement?
> > you say;
> > "" Do you think it's OK spamming a theory about
> > particle physics in sci.math and sci.physics.electromag?
> > I don't.""
> > one thread does not a "spamming" make in the context
> > of topicallity and not sales or other such things
> > some people have a problem with.
> > i obviously was considering many threads and posts
> > and inasmuch as you say "theory" i suggest that you were speaking
> > of more than a single post or thread but the entire body of posts
> > and threads that archi seems intent on posting to several groups
> > simultaneously, which is a common practice, and allowed by google
> > groups.
> > which is to say, that, if google groups objected to crossposting,
> > googlegroups would not allow it to be done at all.
> It comes under netiquette which includes the avoidance of cross
> posting.
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Etiquette_(technology)
if archi is propagandizing his pet theory and that theory includes
aspects which are clearly of an electromagnetic nature, archi -may-
want to shop it around where people who are all keen on electromagnetism
would catch wind of it, and so,
crossposting is tolerated for just that sort of reason.
archi's 'theory', -is- that quantum mechanics
can be derived from the maxwell equations.
you are trying to be chief moderator in
an unmoderated newsgroup and doing
a poor job of it.
and below you say this:
# I don't mind intelligent cross posting.
so, why you're wasting time posting some blurb
about how crossposting is bad form is not very "intelligent"
you like crossposting if it fits your opinion
of what is acceptable and 'intelligent'
but if someone else has a different opinon of acceptable and
intelligent, you start pissing and moaning and whining about
how it's abusively off topic.
now, here's how you describe archi;
==
https://groups.google.com/d/msg/sci.chem/8JXMY9nMKHk/GCNlRPJLpXQJ
you say;
> I'm not against Archie posting his theory in sci.physics.particle
> where it belongs. Yet despite being told this, he continues to spam in
> a selfish way without any thought for the people within that group. He
> comes across as a self-absorbed egotist who can't look outside of
> himself.
==
now i ask you, -who- _really_ looks like the "self absorbed egotist?"
isn't it really =you= who looks like a "self absorbed egotist"
in that you think that you and you alone are able to decide what
is on topic in electromag whereas archi simply minds his own
business and quietly posts his babblings where he
thinks they are topical?
yes, -you- look like the self absorbed egotists and archi does not.
> It also includes getting your own group in order before you go around
> vandalising another, just to make a point. Have you reposted Archi's
> posts on sci.chem, the main group you use? Nope. Did you instead
> repost them on one you don't use? Yep. Did you even bother to post
> them on sci.physics.particle? Nope.
you're raving.
i vandalized nothing, and why you keep posting in to a thread
that you have flagged for abuse is asinine.
> > > So again, what content do you think from Archie's
> > > original posting is relevant to sci.physics.electromag?
> > in the first post of this thread, archi is yammering
> > about "charge" as it relates to "The Standard Model"
> > ===
> > archie says:https://groups.google.com/d/msg/sci.chem/8JXMY9nMKHk/Pv2WB0tUY1AJ
> > No-one of the Standard Model ever said that the charges of physics
> > were the 3 and only 3 geometries of mathematics. No-one of the
> > Standard Model ever said that the electron was hyperbolic geometry
> > while the proton was elliptic geometry.
> > ===
> > here's how wikipedia describes the "standard model";
> > [sure, wikipedia is good enough for this purpose...]
> > ===http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Standard_Model
> > The Standard Model of particle physics is
> > a theory concerning the electromagnetic,
> > weak, and strong nuclear interactions , which
> > mediate the dynamics of the known subatomic particles
> > ===
> > now, if archi is yammering opn about the Standard Model
> > and this Standard Model concerns itself with electromagnetic
> > properties of subatomic particles then, -you- tell -me- how
> > archi's post is not topical in your august opinion.
> Well, if YOU bothered to read his OP as I suggested, then its obvious
> he's talking about spin. Look at the title: "charge is geometry and
> spin is what?". Further down: "So now I need to finish this up on the
> spin". Then right at the end: "My guess is direction of spin relative
> to an axis". So you tell me: What has spin got to do with
> electromagnetism?
-maybe- archi thinks that spinning charged particles
generate a magnetic field of sorts.
strange things have happened, with copper coils and magnets
> Your posts on sci.chem are competent, yet you seem to have reading
> comprehension problems here, or worse still, don't understand what
> electromagnetism is. If so, then you shouldn't be sticking your nose
> in something you haven't a clue about, should you?
so, you deny that the so-called "Standard Model"
concerns itself with electromagnetic behaviors -of- particles
and if archi wants to yammer about particles and their
electromagnetic behavior in a set of usenet newsgroups,
archi can do so even if not each and every post is
explicittly and narrowly focused on the aspects
of electromagnetism that strike -your- fancy.
you are still wrong to flag archi's posts for abuse
as none of them fit the criteria for abuse as set
out -by- googlegroups.
===
Report Abuse
Google takes abuse of its services very seriously.
We're committed to dealing with such abuse according
to the laws in your country of residence. When you
submit a report, we'll investigate it and take the
appropriate action. We'll get back to you only if
we require additional details or have more information to share.
Group name: sci.physics.electromag
Subject: is Google committing a crime of freedom of speech??
Author: Archimedes Plutonium
Not abuse
This content has been incorrectly marked as abuse
and does not contain any of the following:
Spam
Hateful or violent content
Illegal pornography
Personal or private information
Illegal content according to the laws of my country
Content violating our Terms of Service
===
> > > I flagged this thread because I don't see its relevance here.
> > it looks to me like you are just plain flat out wrong in doing so.
> > > So please put me right if you think I'm wrong.
> > maybe you should actually read a post
> > before you decide it is off topic.
> > it makes it -look- as if you...
> > it seems as if this will fall on deaf ears so,
> > i'll "skip it" as it were.
> > > Neither do I flag all his
> > > posts, just those which are more in the field of particle physics and
> > > shamelessly using the name "Maxwell" to justify their inclusion in
> > > sci.physics.electromag.
> > it is -possible- that "particle physics" and electromagnetism
> > are not entirely divorced one from the other and considerable
> > overlap is inevitable
> > and so, -crossposting- is a reasonable action -and-
> > one that is -not- dissallowed by googlegroups.
> > so, if your major objection -is- "crossposting"
> > maybe, perhaps, you should take that up with googlegroups first,
> > before you take it upion yourself to accuse anyone of being
> > "abusive" to a particular usenet newsgroup.
> I don't mind intelligent cross posting. But Archie posts Cantor's
> diagonal argument over here,and into the physics groups. He then posts
> particle physics into the maths forum. He hasn't got a clue.
this must be -someone- who shall remain nameless,
being a "self absorbed egotist" again.
what would you call someone who takes it upon itself
to make topicallity decisions for other people
in an unmoderated usenet newsgroup?
junior napolean?
self appointed tryant?
certainly not a napolean nor a tyrant
and maybe not even egotistical
but rude comes to mind.
a person who appoints itself as moderator
of an unmoderated newsgroup is just plain rude.
> > > Next he'll be posting cooking recipies here
> > > based upon Maxwell's equations.
> > he may very well, and if he includes bits
> > on the Amana radar range, also known as
> > a "microwave oven" that recipe may very well -be-
> > related to electromagnetism in some broad fashion.
> > ==
> > http://www.activistpost.com/2011/11/dangerous-truth-behind-microwaves...
> > Microwaves are a form of electromagnetic radiation and are on the low
> > energy
> > end of the energy spectrum, second to radio waves. Microwaves are
> > generated
> > by something called a magnetron – something found within every microwave
> > oven.
> > Magnetrons produce an electromagnetic field with a microwave frequency
> > of approximate 2,450 megaHertz (MGz), which is the equivalent to 2.4
> > gigaHertz (GHz).
> > Microwaves produced within the microwave oven cause dialectric heating –
> > they bounce around the inside of the oven and are absorbed by whatever
> > you put in it
> > ==
> > there, now someone's microwave brownie recipe is topical.
> > see how easy this is?
> And that would be OK, but Archie seems incapable of understanding when
> a post is relevant to a particular group.
it seems more as if -you- are incapable of understanding these things.
archi really seems to believe that his posts are on topic
and you have done nothing to show otherwise.
archi isn't harassing anyone
===
Report Abuse
Google takes abuse of its services very seriously.
We're committed to dealing with such abuse according
to the laws in your country of residence. When you
submit a report, we'll investigate it and take the
appropriate action. We'll get back to you only if
we require additional details or have more information to share.
Group name: sci.physics.electromag
Subject: is Google committing a crime of freedom of speech??
Author: Archimedes Plutonium
Not abuse
This content has been incorrectly marked as abuse
and does not contain any of the following:
Spam
Hateful or violent content
Illegal pornography
Personal or private information
Illegal content according to the laws of my country
Content violating our Terms of Service
===
arch isn't doing any of this.
in fact, it is -you- who are being hateful to archi.
you should flag your own self for abuse.
but you seem to be blind to this.
> > > If he cross-posts, then it increases the likely hood of them being
> > > flagged as not appropriate to some newsgroup, don't you think?
> > only by some person with a very narrow view
> Yes, and that's why USENET is partitioned into groups with narrow
> views compared to one chaotic USENET where there's no control over
> content people want to see.
and -archi- thinks his posts are on topic in electromag because
he most certainly does not seem to be posting his posts for
the simple pleasure of annoying =you=
if you didn't exist, i dare say, archi would post his posts to
electromag.
-you- seem to be the obne sticking its proboscis where it has not
business.
-and- you have the unmitigated dorkishness to continue posting
in to a thread that -you- have flagged for abuse.
you must really have your head stuck in a dark place.
> > of what constitutes "topicallity"
> > you may do well to exhaust all aspects of possible topicallity
> > before you rush to press your little fingers on the new toy
> > provided to you.
> As I said before, I look carefully at each post of Archie's before
> flagging it for abuse. You may do well thinking about your own
> newsgroup first before you decide to wreck another you don't use.
you're raving.
why don't you try and set yourself up as
the tin plated autocrat in sci.physics?
or do you run around from group to group deciding what is topical?
seems there was a political thread in sci.physics the other day
maybe , just maybe, some of the regular posters didn't even think
it was off topic and that is why theuy posted in to it.
but there's a screw loose somewhere and you just feel the need
to tighten it down, only you seem to be mistaking teh wrong
loose screw for the one that needs tightening and spending
too much time forcing your opinion on other people's work
and not directing your attentions on your own shortcomings.
> > if you say that the topic is not that
> > interesting to you in the first place
> > and that your only concern is in keeping
> > -your- little newsgroup clean and tidy,
> > then, thank you for -being- the example
> > that you are being.
> > albeit, that example is not one that
> > should be -encouraged- for emulation
> > nor that i would point to as a model
> > for appropriate behavior.
> I can't think of anything about your behaviour that I would encourage
> in my own. But thanks for your opinion.
your slip is showing...
Archimedes Plutonium
Nov 6, 2012, 1:45:07 AM11/6/12
to
Why this is marked as abuse? It has been marked as abuse.
Report not abuse
> > > oven.
> > > Magnetrons produce an electromagnetic field with a microwave frequency
> > > of approximate 2,450 megaHertz (MGz), which is the equivalent to 2.4
> > > gigaHertz (GHz).
> > > Microwaves produced within the microwave oven cause dialectric heating �
> > > Magnetrons produce an electromagnetic field with a microwave frequency
> > > of approximate 2,450 megaHertz (MGz), which is the equivalent to 2.4
> > > gigaHertz (GHz).
sci.physics.electromag.
I do not know if you are responsible for the 10 or more posts by
Pythagoras Uranium which are reposts of my posts which were flagged
and deleted by Larry Harson.
The Pythagoras Uranium posts show up on the author:archive of mine as
what mine showed up before September 2012 which is when Harson started
to flag and delete (hide) my posts.
From reading the above, Tim, I am concerned that Larry Harson is an
incurable censor. No matter what advice you give him, he will turn
right around and do as before. And I and others will be victims of his
bad behaviour.
I think there is another dimension to this new tool kit that Google
has given out so that members of a newsgroup can easily censor other
members. The dimension of hatred, country hatred, of a Brit that hates
Americans, and so I being an American is going to be forever have
posts flagged and deleted (hidden) by Larry Harson. And more broadly,
as New Google Newsgroups gets going further, that entire countries
hating other countries and one wiping out the posts of the others.
In that perspective, Tim, I have a technical question, since talking
to Harson is not going to make any changes in his behaviour. You know
better than I that Wikipedia allows general public to edit their
entrees. However, Wikipedia has a technical means of "locking a
entree" when a entree is hit by people with bad behaviour. So I was
wondering, Tim, if you know whether Google might have the very same
"locking measures", that posts by Archimedes Plutonium have never to
my knowledge violated any Google rules and have never been abuse. So
that Google could **lock** all posts by Archimedes Plutonium from any
reader like Larry Harson or anyone else from flagging and then
deleting (hiding) my posts.
If Google has such a technical device of a lock, Tim, could you please
submit a form to Google asking to lock posts of Archimedes Plutonium
from the ravages of bullies like Larry Harson. Otherwise, it is only a
matter of time before Larry Harson and his allies trashes more of my
posts.
A second technical question Tim. During this episode of flagging and
deleting (hiding) my posts, the most sensitive computer was my iphone.
My regular computers picked up more of the posts I made, and my ipad
picked up less posts, but the worst was my iphone. On my iphone, many
of those posts that Harson deleted, never saw the light of day. On my
ipad, many lasted about an hour or 2 hours before deleted (hidden).
Tim, is there some easy technical explanation for why the iphone would
be the most sensitive to this New Google flag and hide tool?
Archimedes Plutonium
http://www.iw.net/~a_plutonium
whole entire Universe is just one big atom
where dots of the electron dot cloud are galaxies
Archimedes Plutonium
http://www.iw.net/~a_plutonium
whole entire Universe is just one big atom
where dots of the electron dot cloud are galaxies
Timothy Sutter
Nov 6, 2012, 6:56:40 AM11/6/12
to
bacle...@gmail.com wrote:
>
> Utzi the caveman, Stone-throwing Theory, etc.
>
> and on Spin theory that have ZERO
>
> mathematical content in SCI.MATH, and we're sick of being
>
> called fakers , liars and idiots by someone who has
so now we see what your problem is,
archi seems to insult you and you cry about it.
boo hoo hoo
"archi's been calling us names and we just can't take it any more"
aw here's a hankerchief doood...
> zero credibility , has never submitted a paper to any
>
> peer-reviewed journal. So boo-hoo for poor plutonium.
>
> Moreover, most of plutonium's posts are just his declarations
>
> and do not allow for debate; this site is a site for _debating
>
> and exchanging MATHEMATICS (from the sci.math.independent page):
>
> "An unmoderated newsgroup on general and advanced mathematics..."
he does debate you, by your own statements and testimony,
you say he calls you idiots and fakers, and this is a -form- of debate
evidently, in your hurt at being called a faker
you can't bring any real argument against his posts
-aside- from them being "off topic"
maybe this is -why- he calls you fajkers in the first place
because all you do is call his posts off topic
and never actually address what is being said
and if they are so shalow as you'd like to believe,
it should be trivial to make 'refute' his statements
does this mean he -has- to, then, stop posting his statements?
why don't you try that and find out
> > > > > > > > > > Do you think it's OK spamming a theory about particle physics in
> >
> > > > > > > > > > sci.math and sci.physics.electromag?
> >
> > > > > > > > > > I don't.
> >
> >
> >
> > > > > > > > but anyway, from what little i've gleaned from
> >
> > > > > > > > archi's titles and cursory glances of his posts
> >
> > > > > > > > he maintains that quantum mechanics is reducible
> >
> > > > > > > > to entailments of the =Maxwell= equations
> >
> > > > > > > > so, you, are just plain flat out wrong that
> >
> > > > > > > > he is posting off topic to sci.physics.electromag
>
> But it is _Definitely_ off-topic for sci.math. Period,
>
> there is ZERO mathematical content in those posts.
show me the charter for sci.math.
you'll have trouble doing so
as some peopel may actually belive that teh physical reality
has a mathematical underpinning that can be discovered
in teh strangest places.
> > > > "titles and posts"
> >
> >
> >
> > > > obviously considering other threads and other posts.
> >
> >
> >
> > > > > > > Really?
> >
> > > > > > > Most of it seems relevant to particle physics or sci.physics such as
> >
> > > > > > > this:
> >
> > > > > > > "In Old Physics, they had spins
> >
> > > > > > > of 1/2, 1, 3/2 but in Old Physics they got those spin numbers from
> >
> > > > > > > Algebra demands and demands divorced of geometry or a true theory,
> >
> > > > > > > for
> >
> > > > > > > the Standard Model is just a patchwork quilt of fake physics."
> >
> > > > > > > Which part of the OP do you think has a place in
> >
> > > > > > > sci.physics.electromag?
>
> Which one has a place in SCI.MATH?
> You're being absurd, Sutter: some times you need to complain;
>
> a few posts by Harson is nothing compared to the 1000's of posts
>
> by plutonium, containing ZERO MATHEMATICS in sci.math.
complaining is fine, but some people suggest that you complain in
private by email
and removing posts from an archive is not a complaint that can ever be
reconciled
it's just one sided coercion
and archi's posts -do- have mathematical
information even if you don't see formulae.
do you even know what symmettry and group theory -are-?
> > but if someone else has a different opinon of acceptable and
> >
> > intelligent, you start pissing and moaning and whining about
> >
> > how it's abusively off topic.
> Wrong. The majority of people in sci.math think plutonium is an imbecile
> and want him out. I don't know if the same is the case in sci.physics,
> but I suspect so.
take a poll, and then, let's see you answer
for the people who only read and never post.
now, ggogle claims there are over 50000 subscribers to sci.math
http://tinyurl.com/arx2zum
> > now, here's how you describe archi;
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > ==
> >
> > https://groups.google.com/d/msg/sci.chem/8JXMY9nMKHk/GCNlRPJLpXQJ
> >
> > you say;
> >
> > > I'm not against Archie posting his theory in sci.physics.particle
> >
> > > where it belongs. Yet despite being told this, he continues to spam in
> >
> > > a selfish way without any thought for the people within that group. He
> >
> > > comes across as a self-absorbed egotist who can't look outside of
> >
> > > himself.
> >
> > ==
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > now i ask you, -who- _really_ looks like the "self absorbed egotist?"
> > isn't it really =you= who looks like a "self absorbed egotist"
>
> No; not to me, there is no parallel between a few posts used to
>
> issue a complaint and 1000's of posts of questionable quality
>
> and relevance to most.
now, ggogle claims there are over 50000 subscribers to sci.math
http://tinyurl.com/arx2zum
and if you actually look at sci.math you see a handful of posters
how is a handful of disgruntled -posters-
-most- of over 50000 subscribers?
> > in that you think that you and you alone are able to decide what
> >
> > is on topic in electromag whereas archi simply minds his own
> >
> > business and quietly posts his babblings where he
> >
> > thinks they are topical?
>
> Really? Emag theory is topical in sci.math? Well, by that token , anything
>
> is relevant anywhere, if you stretch things enough, everything is related,
>
> after all.
why don't you just stick top pissing and moaningand whining about things
and leave archi to -his- hobby
> > yes, -you- look like the self absorbed egotists and archi does not.
> >
> Most of sci.math and sci.physics disagrees with you.
-false-
you have yet to show me -how- you will get the vote
from the over 50000 subscribers who -never- post.
you seem to be in the habit of carrying out false inductuons
"what's true for me is true for 50000 subscribers"
not to worry, it is a common failing in usenetland...
>
> On Tuesday, November 6, 2012 12:13:37 AM UTC-5, Timothy Sutter wrote:
> > Larry Harson wrote:
> >
> >
> >
> > > Timothy Sutter wrote:
> >
> >
> >
> > > > Larry Harson wrote:
> >
> >
> >
> > > > > Timothy Sutter wrote:
> >
> >
> >
> > > > > > blackhead wrote:
> >
> >
> >
> > > > > > > Timothy Sutter wrote:
> >
> >
> >
> > > > > > > > Timothy Sutter wrote:
> >
> >
> >
> > > > > > > > > Larry Harson wrote:
> >
> >
> >
> > > > > > > > > > > but, evidently, someone has an inordinant control problem and
> >
> > > > > > > > > > > feels the need to police usenet newsgroups.
> >
> > > > > > > > > > > if given a vote, i'm certain i would vote for archi
> >
> > > > > > > > > > > and against the mad post flagger any day of the week.
>
> No; many of us in sci.math are sick of archi's posts on
> On Tuesday, November 6, 2012 12:13:37 AM UTC-5, Timothy Sutter wrote:
> > Larry Harson wrote:
> >
> >
> >
> > > Timothy Sutter wrote:
> >
> >
> >
> > > > Larry Harson wrote:
> >
> >
> >
> > > > > Timothy Sutter wrote:
> >
> >
> >
> > > > > > blackhead wrote:
> >
> >
> >
> > > > > > > Timothy Sutter wrote:
> >
> >
> >
> > > > > > > > Timothy Sutter wrote:
> >
> >
> >
> > > > > > > > > Larry Harson wrote:
> >
> >
> >
> > > > > > > > > > > but, evidently, someone has an inordinant control problem and
> >
> > > > > > > > > > > feels the need to police usenet newsgroups.
> >
> > > > > > > > > > > if given a vote, i'm certain i would vote for archi
> >
> > > > > > > > > > > and against the mad post flagger any day of the week.
>
>
> Utzi the caveman, Stone-throwing Theory, etc.
>
> and on Spin theory that have ZERO
>
> mathematical content in SCI.MATH, and we're sick of being
>
> called fakers , liars and idiots by someone who has
so now we see what your problem is,
archi seems to insult you and you cry about it.
boo hoo hoo
"archi's been calling us names and we just can't take it any more"
aw here's a hankerchief doood...
> zero credibility , has never submitted a paper to any
>
> peer-reviewed journal. So boo-hoo for poor plutonium.
>
> Moreover, most of plutonium's posts are just his declarations
>
> and do not allow for debate; this site is a site for _debating
>
> and exchanging MATHEMATICS (from the sci.math.independent page):
>
> "An unmoderated newsgroup on general and advanced mathematics..."
he does debate you, by your own statements and testimony,
you say he calls you idiots and fakers, and this is a -form- of debate
evidently, in your hurt at being called a faker
you can't bring any real argument against his posts
-aside- from them being "off topic"
maybe this is -why- he calls you fajkers in the first place
because all you do is call his posts off topic
and never actually address what is being said
and if they are so shalow as you'd like to believe,
it should be trivial to make 'refute' his statements
does this mean he -has- to, then, stop posting his statements?
why don't you try that and find out
> > > > > > > > > > Do you think it's OK spamming a theory about particle physics in
> >
> > > > > > > > > > sci.math and sci.physics.electromag?
> >
> > > > > > > > > > I don't.
> >
> >
> >
> > > > > > > > but anyway, from what little i've gleaned from
> >
> > > > > > > > archi's titles and cursory glances of his posts
> >
> > > > > > > > he maintains that quantum mechanics is reducible
> >
> > > > > > > > to entailments of the =Maxwell= equations
> >
> > > > > > > > so, you, are just plain flat out wrong that
> >
> > > > > > > > he is posting off topic to sci.physics.electromag
>
>
> there is ZERO mathematical content in those posts.
show me the charter for sci.math.
you'll have trouble doing so
as some peopel may actually belive that teh physical reality
has a mathematical underpinning that can be discovered
in teh strangest places.
> > > > "titles and posts"
> >
> >
> >
> > > > obviously considering other threads and other posts.
> >
> >
> >
> > > > > > > Really?
> >
> > > > > > > Most of it seems relevant to particle physics or sci.physics such as
> >
> > > > > > > this:
> >
> > > > > > > "In Old Physics, they had spins
> >
> > > > > > > of 1/2, 1, 3/2 but in Old Physics they got those spin numbers from
> >
> > > > > > > Algebra demands and demands divorced of geometry or a true theory,
> >
> > > > > > > for
> >
> > > > > > > the Standard Model is just a patchwork quilt of fake physics."
> >
> > > > > > > Which part of the OP do you think has a place in
> >
> > > > > > > sci.physics.electromag?
>
>
> a few posts by Harson is nothing compared to the 1000's of posts
>
> by plutonium, containing ZERO MATHEMATICS in sci.math.
complaining is fine, but some people suggest that you complain in
private by email
and removing posts from an archive is not a complaint that can ever be
reconciled
it's just one sided coercion
and archi's posts -do- have mathematical
information even if you don't see formulae.
do you even know what symmettry and group theory -are-?
> > but if someone else has a different opinon of acceptable and
> >
> > intelligent, you start pissing and moaning and whining about
> >
> > how it's abusively off topic.
> and want him out. I don't know if the same is the case in sci.physics,
> but I suspect so.
take a poll, and then, let's see you answer
for the people who only read and never post.
now, ggogle claims there are over 50000 subscribers to sci.math
http://tinyurl.com/arx2zum
> > now, here's how you describe archi;
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > ==
> >
> > https://groups.google.com/d/msg/sci.chem/8JXMY9nMKHk/GCNlRPJLpXQJ
> >
> > you say;
> >
> > > I'm not against Archie posting his theory in sci.physics.particle
> >
> > > where it belongs. Yet despite being told this, he continues to spam in
> >
> > > a selfish way without any thought for the people within that group. He
> >
> > > comes across as a self-absorbed egotist who can't look outside of
> >
> > > himself.
> >
> > ==
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > now i ask you, -who- _really_ looks like the "self absorbed egotist?"
> > isn't it really =you= who looks like a "self absorbed egotist"
>
>
> issue a complaint and 1000's of posts of questionable quality
>
> and relevance to most.
now, ggogle claims there are over 50000 subscribers to sci.math
http://tinyurl.com/arx2zum
and if you actually look at sci.math you see a handful of posters
how is a handful of disgruntled -posters-
-most- of over 50000 subscribers?
> > in that you think that you and you alone are able to decide what
> >
> > is on topic in electromag whereas archi simply minds his own
> >
> > business and quietly posts his babblings where he
> >
> > thinks they are topical?
>
>
> is relevant anywhere, if you stretch things enough, everything is related,
>
> after all.
why don't you just stick top pissing and moaningand whining about things
and leave archi to -his- hobby
> > yes, -you- look like the self absorbed egotists and archi does not.
> >
-false-
you have yet to show me -how- you will get the vote
from the over 50000 subscribers who -never- post.
you seem to be in the habit of carrying out false inductuons
"what's true for me is true for 50000 subscribers"
not to worry, it is a common failing in usenetland...
Timothy Sutter
Nov 6, 2012, 7:58:32 AM11/6/12
to
Archimedes Plutonium wrote:
> Archimedes Plutonium
> http://www.iw.net/~a_plutonium
> whole entire Universe is just one big atom
> where dots of the electron dot cloud are galaxies
archi, you have a point, and even if it's
> Archimedes Plutonium
> http://www.iw.net/~a_plutonium
> whole entire Universe is just one big atom
> where dots of the electron dot cloud are galaxies
at the top of your head, you could conceivably
have over a thousand people who read your posts religiously.
that i don't know, and neither do i know
if googlegroups has a 'lock' mode
but i don't see one .
now, brace yourself, as this may just destroy my credibility...but
i do not have an iphone
i do actually have a CB radio stashed in the corner somewhere but,
i never did manage to hook it in to my car those many years ago,
so, it sits collecting dust, althouygh i did manage to plug it
in to a train set AC to DC transformer, so, i have picked up
radio signals from a passing trucker once or twice, but
never did get around to using it to avoid speed traps,
and anyway, i drive really slowly, cuz that's the law.
oh, why does the iphone give you the most headaches when trying to see
www?
it probably just doesn't have the capacity it itself to carry out
memory intensive tasks and is mainly a receiver and when it
has to cut corners it jettisons anything heavier than a than a twig.
but, what i'd still like to know, is
how do you propose to assign an integral spin quantum state
to a dust cloud?
https://groups.google.com/d/msg/sci.physics.electromag/8_yr5FTLxz4/hX81iBzAtFUJ
"""palladium superconducts and also has a subshell switch then the
crystal geometry of a 4d8, 5s2 should be altogether very much
different from 4d10"""
https://groups.google.com/d/msg/sci.physics.electromag/8_yr5FTLxz4/RjH_dp27jBYJ
"""So as we cool Helium-4 to that of 2 Kelvin, why would one of the
electrons convert from its down spin to be a up spin and have two up
spins in that suborbital?"""
see, you speak of spin states orbital population
and these spin states and orbital populations are
best described -by- an integral electron and not by
any sort of dust cloud.
some of this next bit is a little scattered...
no, -not- like a so-called electron dust cloud...
the "electron cloud" -is- a descriptive -device-
descriptive -of- the =probability density=
where the =probability density= is a function of the
-probability- of finding one electron in a given spacial region.
the -reason- that some people show this as a cloud of dots is
that the harmonic orbitals give us only upwards of 90% certainty
of finding the electron and so, the closed space images are not,
strictly speaking, the truest picture of what is actually going on.
part of this is due to the fact that an "infinite series" is
integrated only up to two or three terms and the successive
terms are truncated and left off and not integrated.
this is considered "ok" because the first two or three terms
of the infinite series take the lion's share of the probability
and the remaining terms quickly diminish to a negligible state.
it has ZERO to do with any idea of smashing an electron to
smithereenies and imagining the smashed up electron
actually forms a dust cloud around the nucleus.
i'm certainly glad that you do -not- think that the "electron cloud"
is actually a myriad of electrons surrounding a nucleus
but neither is it representative of a smashed electron.
it is...now get this,
it, the "electron cloud," is only a descriptive -device-
and it is descriptive of,...the =probability density=
electron has a probability of being not in a specific spot,
but a specific spacial -region-
as far as what -i- think about an "electron"
an electron could be a phantom
that is solely descriptive of force field interactions
and some mathematical models "work" which attest to its,
the electrons, "reality"
see, and what you are suggesting is that, the electronic orbitals
are really spacial regions with electronic force behaviors spread
out along the entire region and that there really is no electron
to speak of at all.
-not- that there is some sort of disintegrated ball
scattered throughout such a spacial region, with some
unknwoable elctronic charge associate with each
shattered and scattered fragment.
and, the large objects which make up galaxies and stars
and galaxie clusters are operating in a gravitational field
and the electronic interactions are negligible and the chemical
atomic forces are electronic and the gravitational effect is
negligible and you have yet to show me how gravitational
fields align in discrete energy levels and not
a continuous spectrum.
any "cloud" is only a -portrayal- of
the =probability density= associated with
said electronic state.
it is a representation of a =probability density=
and -not- a representation of a -number- of electrons
actually inhabitting electronic orbitals.
these spacial regions are solutions to
the angular momentum harmonics of the
hydrogen/like shroedinger equation
there is no =cloud= of electrons inhabittting
-any- electronic orbital.
there are two at most inhabitting
the s orbitals the three p orbitals
the 5 d orbitals... etc f g h
you like to mention on occasion,
the "aufbau" principle of ordering
but this concerns that they go in
one at a time and then double up.
usually you may see these harmonics orbitals
with a spherical shape for the s orbitals
three dumbbell shapes for the p orbitals
one aligned with each axis and a series
of sort of like clover shapes for the ds with
one sort of having a torus shape around the center.
-sometimes- they don't show solid color representation,
but a hazy looking cloudy apearance but this in no way
suggests that an gigantic number of electrons may
inhabit -any- electronic orbital,
so, your simile;
"whole entire Universe is just one big atom
is simply well short of even metaphorical exactitude.
if you are looking at a =picture= of the electronic orbitals
and someone has represented these orbitals as dot-clouds and
-you- are drawing the conclusion that there are actually
a cloud of electrons inhabitting a given orbital,
you have tricked your self.
but, i find this difficult to believe.
then say "psi" because electron dot cloud
is a reprsentation of the...=probability density=
associated with the given discrete energy levels
this is because the location is...probabalistic
i'm sure you -must- realize this, but you seem
to like carrying on this charade for some strange reason.
> In the Atom Totality theory, I push the dot cloud interpretation to
> its final resting point-- the universe must be an atom itself.
well then there now, your universe does not represent
a similitude to -any- of the hydrogenlike wavefunctions.
these waveforms are discrete energy levels and galaxies
are not arranged in this manner around any central
universal location.
show me the central nucleus of the universe
show me how galaxy's charge densities
perturb the locations of each other
show me how any of these galaxies behave as
a "rigid rotor" attached to this central
nuclear-like region of the universe.
show me how any of these galaxies are behaving
as harmonic oscillators with this central
nuclear region of the universe.
short of anything like these, your universal atom theory
is just another cosmical imaginary meandering.
the -behaviors- are not at all similar.
Bohr theory which actually does have a single electron
orbitting a nucleus in a manner somewhat like that of
planetary motion, fails outside of this single case.
admit it, Archimedes, you metaphor is wholly unworkable
as a true representation of any actual reality.
our solar system doesn't even behave in a manner
consistent with the wave forms of the hydrogenlike atom.
there is no cloud of elctons orbitting any nucleus.
there is a region of =probability density=
which is -portrayed= by some as a cloud but which
does -not- even begin to sugget that a cloud of
electrons actually inhabit a given
electronic orbital.
-you- are making it sound as if there are
trillions of electrons inhabitting a -single- orbital
when it is strictly -impossible- some say, "forbidden"
for more that -two- to inhabit a given elecronic orbital
i say again, -please- change your 'sig file.
it is misleading.
but, buy all means, if accuracy is not
your main concern, then keep on making
this allusion.
there is never any real moment when an electron
is a smashed cloud of 10^40 tiny pieces
we cannot successfully predict position
and momentum of such particles simultaneously.
you don't seem to be implying the the nucleus
is ever considered as an exploded dust cloud of minutia
so, think about why you don't tell me that the nucleus
of an atom is dispersed over space.
do you suspect that it is because we have
such a greater idea of where it is?
i bet you can see how frightfully disturbing
it would be to model the nucleus as this
sort of dust cloud.
you'd have bits of proton intermixed
in the electronic orbitals.
for some strange reason, the angular momentum
harmonics seem to consider the proton/nucleus
as fixed in the central region and the
electron orbitting that region in a
-probabalistic- manner.
see, think about how your dust cloud would be
when you have =2= electrons in a single orbital
you would undoubtably have some violation
of Pauli exclusion going on, with some oddball
sharing of the 4 principle quantum numbers
being an inevitable outcome.
etc.
at -best- you'd be considering the energetic
wave form pattern as a diffuse discrete packet.
-not- as if an electron was scattered in the breeze.
you might like to look into molecular orbital theory
and consider how atomic orbitals show an overlap
when bonding occurs.
orbital 'hybridization' and the gaps between the highest
occupied molecular orbital and the lowest unoccupied
molecular orbital and how this contributes to bonding.
people don't say that the electrons are smashed to smitereenies
they say that the waveforms hybridize and overlap.
see, the spacial regions overlap because
they are of similar energy status.
but as you would have it, it wouldbn't be the orbitals that hybridize,
but the electrons themselves that hybridize and this would lead to
some violation of Pauli exclusion, i'm sure.
you'd end up with two electrons sharing the -same- quantum numbers.
archi says;
> But if you see A and B are the same thing, then a collapsed
> wavefunction is when the electron is a hardball whole object such as
> electricity flow in current, and where the electron as tiny pieces of
> 10^40 pieces of a dot cloud is the electron uncollapsed wavefunction.
so, you do allow as that the electron is quite well
modeled as a hardball. now all you have to realize is
that this hardball is a blurry little phantom that
occupies a -state- just like Idaho, only
its -address- is unknown.
> > where the =probability density= is a function of the
> > -probability- of finding one electron in a given spacial region.
> A collapsed electron wavefunction, but that does not allow the
> electron as a uncollapsed wavefunction.
i think you need to ponder this some more.
all the "interpretting" in the world isn't going
to smash the electron in to smithereenies
you -do- have electric -fields- to deal with,
sure, fine, not a problem
but like i said, at -best- your smithereenies contention
is -trying- to see the electronic field strngth of the
entire box with the whole spinning =charged= critter inside it.
Archimedes Plutonium recently says; Sun, 16 Sep 2012 12:31;
/Message-ID:
<ac260f67-6b2c-454b...@a7g2000yqo.googlegroups.com>
/Collapsed Wavefunction is simply a different term for saying -- the
/particle nature of matter. An Uncollapsed Wavefunction is simply a
/different term for saying the wave nature of matter.
/So that when an Electron in a atom is in 10^40 tiny pieces it is in
/the wave form of the electron. And when the electron is a single
/hardball moving in a wire of electricity, it is a collapsed
/wavefunction of a particle.
/In atoms, the electrons in orbit are in uncollapsed wavefunction and
/the psi function that describes the probability of finding an electron
/at a specific point of geometry, is replaced by a sliver piece of the
/actual electron, forming the electron dot cloud. So an electron dot
/cloud of an atom is the atom of a uncollapsed wavefunction and the
/electron as a wave, not a hardball particle.
AP is having some difficulty with 'wave/particle' duality
AP may want to give a brief look here;
http://www.chemteam.info/Electrons/deBroglie-Equation.html
http://theory.uwinnipeg.ca/physics/quant/node6.html
it seems to me, that the wave particle duality is exhibitted
by electrons as particles in that their energies is related to a
wavelength.
(wavelength) = h/mv [h = constant, m = mass, v = velocity]
AP seems to say, an electron is -either- a wave or a particle
but, that, when an electron is a wave, it is still particle/s plural.
AP says that when the electron is behaving as a 'wave'
it is no longer a single particle but 10^40 particles.
but the thing is, that, when an electron is what it is, a 'particle'
it already has a wave behavior given by (wavelength) = h/mv .
and so, there is no need for a slivered 10^40 piece electron
to show a wave nature in an electron.
AP says this above;
=
"the psi function that describes the probability
of finding an electron at a specific point of geometry"
=
you almost get the idea that AP thinks uncertainty principle
holds for the "dust cloud wave" but not for the particulate
"hardball" particle.
anyway, AP may like to look in to de Broglie waves.
i don't think it's an 'either/or' but a 'duality'
teh electron as particle has a wave behavior
as would a bowling ball, only the diffraction slits needed
to -test- the wave nature of a bowling ball would be impracticable.
Timothy Sutter
Nov 6, 2012, 8:19:44 AM11/6/12
to
> but, what i'd still like to know, is
> how do you propose to assign an integral spin quantum state
> to a dust cloud?
and to see the bogus aspect of all this,
> how do you propose to assign an integral spin quantum state
> to a dust cloud?
if you just look at this thread;
[thread i just posted excerpts from]
https://groups.google.com/d/msg/sci.chem/G_ts-y6KiBM/nz-IXX_Lr9UJ
you see all of archi's posts flagged as abusive
and none of mine are so flagged even though arcghi is replying -to- -me-
and posts at the bottom of the thread that have nothing to do with
the topic even, are not flagged as abusive
but -only- archi's posts.
if that's not just plain wrong,
i don't know what else to call it.
albeit, the mad post flagger has now
taken to flagging my posts as well
so, this thread will likely get flagged soon anyway
after all, the self appointed moderator
has -his- standards of cleanliness to uphold.
Timothy Sutter
Nov 6, 2012, 8:24:15 AM11/6/12
to
> if you just look at this thread;
> [thread i just posted excerpts from]
> https://groups.google.com/d/msg/sci.chem/G_ts-y6KiBM/nz-IXX_Lr9UJ
but this is how it was this morning, before anyone else gets to it...
> [thread i just posted excerpts from]
> https://groups.google.com/d/msg/sci.chem/G_ts-y6KiBM/nz-IXX_Lr9UJ
as you will notice, -only- archi's psosts are flagged for abuse.
=================================================================
spin in physics with monopoles existing Chapt13.4.01 Particle Physics
table #897 New Physics #1017 ATOM TOTALITY 5th ed
25 posts by 8 authors in sci.chem
Sep 14
Archimedes Plutonium
This message has been hidden because it was flagged for abuse. To see it anyway, click here.
Timothy Sutter Sign in to reply
Sep 14
Archimedes Plutonium wrote:
> whole entire Universe is just one big atom
> where dots of the electron-dot-cloud are galaxies
there is a "probability density" which
is oftentimes portrayed -as- a 'cloud'
but that portrayal does -not- suggest that
the hydrogen nucleus is surrounded by a
myriad of myriad of electrons.
-please- fix you .sig file.
Sep 14
Archimedes Plutonium
This message has been hidden because it was flagged for abuse. To see it anyway, click here.
Sep 14
Archimedes Plutonium
This message has been hidden because it was flagged for abuse. To see it anyway, click here.
Sep 14
Archimedes Plutonium
This message has been hidden because it was flagged for abuse. To see it anyway, click here.
Timothy Sutter Sign in to reply
Sep 14
Re: nonphysicists who open their mouths in physics Re: #1017 ATOM TOTALITY 5th ed
Archimedes Plutonium wrote:
> Timothy Sutter wrote:
> > Archimedes Plutonium wrote:
> > > whole entire Universe is just one big atom
> > > where dots of the electron-dot-cloud are galaxies
> > there is a "probability density" which
> > is oftentimes portrayed -as- a 'cloud'
> > but that portrayal does -not- suggest that
> > the hydrogen nucleus is surrounded by a
> > myriad of myriad of electrons.
> > -please- fix you .sig file.
> The electron dot cloud is the best possible interpretation of the psi
> function. But don't tell that to Tim.
nonsense, any "cloud" is only a -portrayal- of
> then all you can say is psi.
> the Earth moves and circles around the Sun, then Tim would have popped
> up there also.
no, but Bohr theory which actually does have a single electron
orbitting a nucleus in a manner somewhat like that of
planetary motion, fails outside of this single case.
admit it, Archimedes, you metaphor is wholly unworkable
as a true representation of any actual reality.
our solar system doesn't even behave in a manner
consistent with the wave forms of the hydrogenlike atom.
> So, now, which of these two Tim's is the most ridiculous Tim? Is the
planetary motion, fails outside of this single case.
admit it, Archimedes, you metaphor is wholly unworkable
as a true representation of any actual reality.
our solar system doesn't even behave in a manner
consistent with the wave forms of the hydrogenlike atom.
> Galileo Tim who thinks that Earth must be stationary and flat in order
> for people not to fall off.
this does not resemble anything said by me here
nor anywhere else that you wil acually be able to show.
this representation exists only in your mind.
> Or the Tim of the psi interpretation who
> thinks that electron dot clouds is some fairy tale explanation.
dood, there is no cloud of elctons orbitting any nucleus.
there is a region of =probability density=
which is -portrayed= by some as a cloud but which
does -not- even begin to sugget that a cloud of
electrons actually inhabit a given
electronic orbital.
-you- are making it sound as if there are
trillions of electrons inhabitting a -single- orbital
when it is strictly -impossible- some say, "forbidden"
for more that -two- to inhabit a given elecronic orbital
i say again, -please- change your 'sig file.
it is misleading.
but, buy all means, if accuracy is not
your main concern, then keep on making
this allusion.
Sep 14
Archimedes Plutonium
This message has been hidden because it was flagged for abuse. To see it anyway, click here.
Timothy Sutter Sign in to reply
Sep 14
Re: electrons don't look like anything as they cannot be seen
- show quoted text -
the "electron cloud" -is- a descriptive -device-
descriptive -of- the =probability density=
where the =probability density= is a function of the
-probability- of finding one electron in a given spacial region.
the -reason- that some people show this as a cloud of dots is
that the harmonic orbitals give us only upwards of 90% certainty
of finding the electron and so, the closed space images are not,
strictly speaking, the truest picture of what is actually going on.
part of this is due to the fact that an "infinite series" is
integrated only up to two or three terms and the successive
terms are truncated and left off and not integrated.
this is considered "ok" because the first two or three terms
of the infinite series take the lion's share of the probability
and the remaining terms quickly diminish to a negligible state.
it has ZERO to do with any idea of smashing an electron to
smithereenies and imagining the smashed up electron
actually forms a dust cloud around the nucleus.
i'm certainly glad that you do -not- think that the "electron cloud"
is actually a myriad of electrons surrounding a nucleus
but neither is it representative of a smashed electron.
it is...now get this,
it, the "electron cloud," is only a descriptive -device-
and it is descriptive of,...the =probability density=
> So your mistake Tim, is that you think a electron is a tiny solid ball
descriptive -of- the =probability density=
where the =probability density= is a function of the
-probability- of finding one electron in a given spacial region.
the -reason- that some people show this as a cloud of dots is
that the harmonic orbitals give us only upwards of 90% certainty
of finding the electron and so, the closed space images are not,
strictly speaking, the truest picture of what is actually going on.
part of this is due to the fact that an "infinite series" is
integrated only up to two or three terms and the successive
terms are truncated and left off and not integrated.
this is considered "ok" because the first two or three terms
of the infinite series take the lion's share of the probability
and the remaining terms quickly diminish to a negligible state.
it has ZERO to do with any idea of smashing an electron to
smithereenies and imagining the smashed up electron
actually forms a dust cloud around the nucleus.
i'm certainly glad that you do -not- think that the "electron cloud"
is actually a myriad of electrons surrounding a nucleus
but neither is it representative of a smashed electron.
it is...now get this,
it, the "electron cloud," is only a descriptive -device-
and it is descriptive of,...the =probability density=
> that revolves around a nucleus. What the psi tells you is that the
> electron has a probability of being in a specific spot.
not a specific spot, a specific spacial -region-
as far as what -i- think about an "electron"
an electron could be a phantom
that is solely descriptive of force field interactions
and some mathematical models "work" which attest to its,
the electrons, "reality"
see, and what you are suggesting is that, the electronic orbitals
are really spacial regions with electronic force behaviors spread
out along the entire region and that there really is no electron
to speak of at all.
-not- that there is some sort of disintegrated ball
scattered throughout such a spacial region, with some
unknwoable elctronic charge associate with each
shattered and scattered fragment.
and, the large objects which make up galaxies and stars
and galaxie clusters are operating in a gravitational field
and the electronic interactions are negligible and the chemical
atomic forces are electronic and the gravitational effect is
negligible and you have yet to show me how gravitational
fields align in discrete energy levels and not
a continuous spectrum.
Timothy Sutter Sign in to reply
Sep 14
Re: mistake of not knowing ...
Archimedes Plutonium wrote:
> Timothy Sutter wrote:
> > Archimedes Plutonium wrote:
> > > Timothy Sutter wrote:
> > > > Archimedes Plutonium wrote:
> > > > > whole entire Universe is just one big atom
> > > > > where dots of the electron-dot-cloud are galaxies
> > > > there is a "probability density" which
> > > > is oftentimes portrayed -as- a 'cloud'
> > > > but that portrayal does -not- suggest that
> > > > the hydrogen nucleus is surrounded by a
> > > > myriad of myriad of electrons.
> > > > -please- fix you .sig file.
> > > The electron dot cloud is the best possible interpretation of the psi
> > > function. But don't tell that to Tim.
not when you say things like this;
Message-ID:
<d0e7a8c9-10cd-45c2...@z8g2000yql.googlegroups.com>
"""palladium superconducts and also has a subshell switch then the
crystal geometry of a 4d8, 5s2 should be altogether very much
different from 4d10"""
Message-ID:
crystal geometry of a 4d8, 5s2 should be altogether very much
different from 4d10"""
<2ca9ee87-c991-435f...@o8g2000yqm.googlegroups.com>
"""So as we cool Helium-4 to that of 2 Kelvin, why would one of the
electrons convert from its down spin to be a up spin and have two up
spins in that suborbital?"""
see, you speak of spin states orbital population
and these spin states and orbital populations are
best described -by- an integral electron and not by
any sort of dust cloud.
electrons convert from its down spin to be a up spin and have two up
spins in that suborbital?"""
see, you speak of spin states orbital population
and these spin states and orbital populations are
best described -by- an integral electron and not by
any sort of dust cloud.
how do you propose to assign an integral spin quantum state
to a dust cloud?
etc.
to a dust cloud?
Timothy Sutter Sign in to reply
Sep 14
Re: electrons don't look like anything as they cannot be seen
no animals will be hurt during
the course of these next
several sentences.
if you have a bowling ball and
you stick the bowling ball in
a cardboard box in which
a refrigerator came,
then you could say that you know
where the bowling ball is, only
that you don't know exactly where it is,
because you just know that it's
in the cardboard box somewhere.
it's in there somewhere, and given that
you left a lot of packing material in the box,
the ball may not be on the bottom of
the box, but could be anywhere in the box.
it's in there somewhere.
now, you leave the room,
if you feel like it,
but you don't have to,
and someone else comes in and takes
the ball out of the refrigerator box,
and sets it into a color television box.
now, you come back and look at the new box,
and you can say that you know the ball is
in that box somewhere,
and, seeing that the box is smaller,
your knowledge of where the ball is
is a little bit clearer,
but, it's still in there somewhere.
now, your assistant takes the ball
and places it into a small green
trash bag that -just- fits over
the ball, and now, you can prwactically
see the shape of the ball,
and you can say that you know
fairly well where the ball is,
it's right there in the bag.
the container -just- fits over it.
now you start working with
much smaller objects, and
what you find eventually,
is that you cannot make container
small enough for you to have as
clear an image of where the ball
is as you had with the bowling
ball in the trash bag.
this because the stuff you have
to work with to make a box for
your object, itself -contains-
the objects you are trying to observe.
the stuff you have for making containers
has an inherent spacial void which
cannot be overcome by your ingenuities.
so, for these tiny objects,
within their own tiny little containers,
you basically get back to a bowling
ball in a cardboard refrigerator box
and find that the best you can say is;
"it's in there somewhere"
always realizing that the container
is a bit larger that the object,
-but- you can get a fairly, not
so bad, idea of where the refrigerator box is,
or, in this case, the single 'atom' of tungsten.
so, you know where the little particle is.
for all practical purposes,
it's in the little box somewhere.
and you pretty much know where the little box is.
a bowling ball you can hold in your hand.
an electron is already in your hand.
whether there actually is such
an object as an electron, inasmuch
as you can't see it, is moot,
some set of phenomena,
taken together and looked
at independantly, seem to
behave as if such a thing
as an electron does,
in fact, exist.
it's somewhere in the box
and the box is right there.
Timothy Sutter Sign in to reply
Sep 14
Re: electrons don't look like anything as they cannot be seen
> and you pretty much know where the little box is.
or, like a bowling ball in a baseball stadium.
and this bowling ball is self propelled
and spinning around the stadium.
you know exactly where the baseball stadium is.
and the bowling ball in there
somewhere,
spinning around.
and, we don't -have- to say
that the baseball stadium
is the size of the perceived universe,
and that the bowling ball is -just-
"somewhere in the universe"
cuz then, of course, we'd be entirely sure,
but we can be quite sure even in baseball stadiums
that are -much- smaller that the perceived universe
and even say that in a baseball stadium
the size os a small glass of water,
there is a clear certainty that -many-
electrons are contained therein.
for a fact.
and believe it or not, we can reduce
the size of that baseball stadium
even further, and know that
some phenomenon
which could be likened to
a spinning bowling ball,
is definitely in there.
see, a snowflake
is your baseball stadium
and you can be sure that there are
quite a lot of many bowling balls
in that baseball stadium
because that baseball stadium is,
itself, -constructed- of things that
behave just like tiny spinning
bowling balls.
Timothy Sutter Sign in to reply
Sep 14
Re: electrons don't look like anything as they cannot be seen
"classical mechanics" simply does not work as the 'best explanation'
when applied to teh behaviors of very small things, like electrons,
and, so-called "quantum mechanics" was developed to provide a more
correct explanation for phenomenon associated with
very small objects and light.
as the moon travels around the earth
any electrostatic interaction/s
will be buried under the much
larger gravitational forces.
if you shrink the earth and moon
to very tiny proportions,
there comes some point when
the gravitational forces
are somewhat comparable to
the electrostatic interactions.
at this point, the gravtitational forces
would be so small and not enough to hold
the earth and moon in orbit about each other,
and the tendency would be for the
moon to fly away from the earth
sort of like, if you had a ball on
a string and were spinning it
around your finger,
and, if you cut the string,
the ball would go flying off away from you.
but now, with the really
very tiny moon and earth
with a gravitational force that
would tend towards them flying apart,
the electorstatic interaction starts
to play a significant role
and the two bodies, with nearly
equal and opposite charges
are being held together by this force, while
at the same time, trying to fly apart from
each other because the gravity is very
weakly unable to hold them together,
but, the two bodies do not simply become
glued together and form a de facto single body,
because, in this dimensional range,
the two forces, gravity and
electrostatic interactions
are so ideally matched
that, the flying apart
and the attracting together
are bound up in a "harmonic oscillation"
sort of like the electrostatic interaction
constitutes what amounts to a tiny spring
string which holds the two together even
as they would be flying apart.
and the two oscillate with "harmonics"
very much like the "harmonics"
of musical instrumentation.
the "music of the spheres,"
as it were.
Timothy Sutter Sign in to reply
Sep 15
Re: electrons don't look like anything as they cannot be seen
> and, the large objects which make up galaxies and stars
> and galaxie clusters are operating in a gravitational field
> and the electronic interactions are negligible and the chemical
> atomic forces are electronic and the gravitational effect is
> negligible and you have yet to show me how gravitational
> fields align in discrete energy levels and not
> a continuous spectrum.
is slowly drifting away from the earth, not
entirely hypothetical as some people suggest
that the moon is, in fact, slowly drifting
away from the earth,
ok, so, in this drifting, the moon is passing
thru a continuous spectrum of energy states
and is -not- doing what electrons seem to do,
which appear in one state, a ground state lets say,
and then, appear in a higher -discrete- energy state
and never make an appearance in some
state -between- ..say, 1S and 2Px
so, the stars and galaxies and planets and all that space dust
is not found in discrete energy states, but...apparently,
in a rather continuous spectrum of energy states.
and this behavior is not at all -like- a universal plutonium atom.
we wouldnt be getting pelted with meteorites if there was
such a discrete set of possible energy states as on the atomic level.
this first year student is not convinced...
Sep 15
Archimedes Plutonium
This message has been hidden because it was flagged for abuse. To see it anyway, click here.
Timothy Sutter Sign in to reply
Sep 15
Re: electrons don't look like anything as they cannot be seen
Archimedes Plutonium wrote:
> Timothy Sutter wrote:
> (snipped)
> > the "electron cloud" -is- a descriptive -device-
> > descriptive -of- the =probability density=
> geometry representations. You are probably still in Precalculus, Tim,
> to be able to
> mathematically prove that the psi function is the very same thing as
> taking a
> electron and smashing it into 10^40 tiny pieces and to replace the
> dots with a
> "bit of the electron".
there is never any real moment when an electron
is a smashed cloud of 10^40 tiny pieces
> differential geometry to prove that these two statements are the same
> thing:
> A. the hard ball electron has a psi probability of finding that whole
> electron in a specific point of the atom
not quite, that's the whole bloody point,
> placed those pieces on the psi probability dots
at -best- you'd be considering the energetic
wave form pattern as a diffuse discrete packet.
-not- as if an electron was scattered in the breeze.
> forward in that book you are reading to where they talk about
> collapsed wavefunction and uncollapsed wavefunction. Because you see,
> in your stance, the electron is always a hardball whole object and so
> there cannot be a collapsed or uncollapsed wavefunction.
you might like to look into molecular orbital theory
and consider how atomic orbitals show an overlap
when bonding occurs.
orbital 'hybridization' and the gaps between the highest
molecular orbital and how this contributes to bonding.
people don't say that the electrons are smashed to smitereenies
they say that the waveforms hybridize and overlap.
see, the spacial regions overlap because
they are of similar energy status.
people don't say that the electrons are smashed to smitereenies
they say that the waveforms hybridize and overlap.
see, the spacial regions overlap because
they are of similar energy status.
ut as you would have it, it wouldbn't be the orbitals that hybridize,
but the electrons themselves that hybridize and this would lead to
some violation of Pauli exclusion, i'm sure.
you'd end up with two electrons sharing the -same- quantum numbers.
but the electrons themselves that hybridize and this would lead to
some violation of Pauli exclusion, i'm sure.
you'd end up with two electrons sharing the -same- quantum numbers.
> But if you see A and B are the same thing, then a collapsed
> wavefunction is when the electron is a hardball whole object such as
> electricity flow in current, and where the electron as tiny pieces of
> 10^40 pieces of a dot cloud is the electron uncollapsed wavefunction.
so, you do allow as that the electron is quite well modeled as a
hardball.
now all you have to realize is that this hardball is a blurry little
phantom
that occupies a -state- just like Idaho, only its -address- is unknown.
> > where the =probability density= is a function of the
> > -probability- of finding one electron in a given spacial region.
> A collapsed electron wavefunction, but that does not allow the
> electron as a uncollapsed wavefunction.
i think you need to ponder this some more.
all the "interpretting" in the world isn't going
to smash the electron in to smithereenies
you -do- have electric -fields- to deal with,
sure, fine, not a problem
but like i said, at -best- your smithereenies contention
is -trying- to see the electronic field strngth of the
entire box with the whole spinning =charged= critter inside it.
> wavefunction is when the electron is a hardball whole object such as
> electricity flow in current, and where the electron as tiny pieces of
> 10^40 pieces of a dot cloud is the electron uncollapsed wavefunction.
so, you do allow as that the electron is quite well modeled as a
hardball.
now all you have to realize is that this hardball is a blurry little
phantom
that occupies a -state- just like Idaho, only its -address- is unknown.
> > where the =probability density= is a function of the
> > -probability- of finding one electron in a given spacial region.
> A collapsed electron wavefunction, but that does not allow the
> electron as a uncollapsed wavefunction.
i think you need to ponder this some more.
all the "interpretting" in the world isn't going
to smash the electron in to smithereenies
you -do- have electric -fields- to deal with,
sure, fine, not a problem
but like i said, at -best- your smithereenies contention
is -trying- to see the electronic field strngth of the
entire box with the whole spinning =charged= critter inside it.
> > the -reason- that some people show this as a cloud of dots is
> > that the harmonic orbitals give us only upwards of 90% certainty
> > of finding the electron and so, the closed space images are not,
> > strictly speaking, the truest picture of what is actually going on.
> >part of this is due to the fact that an "infinite series" is
> >integrated only up to two or three terms and the successive
> >terms are truncated and left off and not integrated.
> >this is considered "ok" because the first two or three terms
> >of the infinite series take the lion's share of the probability
> >and the remaining terms quickly diminish to a negligible state.
> >it has ZERO to do with any idea of smashing an electron to
> > smithereenies and imagining the smashed up electron
> >actually forms a dust cloud around the nucleus.
> Your now waffling off tangent.
> > that the harmonic orbitals give us only upwards of 90% certainty
> > of finding the electron and so, the closed space images are not,
> > strictly speaking, the truest picture of what is actually going on.
> >part of this is due to the fact that an "infinite series" is
> >integrated only up to two or three terms and the successive
> >terms are truncated and left off and not integrated.
> >this is considered "ok" because the first two or three terms
> >of the infinite series take the lion's share of the probability
> >and the remaining terms quickly diminish to a negligible state.
> >it has ZERO to do with any idea of smashing an electron to
> > smithereenies and imagining the smashed up electron
> >actually forms a dust cloud around the nucleus.
not quite, the infinite series -is- truncated
there is a consequence to this.
etc. etc. etc.
Timothy Sutter Sign in to reply
Sep 15
Re: electrons don't look like anything as they cannot be seen
> you might like to look into molecular orbital theory
> and consider how atomic orbitals show an overlap
> when bonding occurs.
> orbital 'hybridization' and the gaps between the highest
> molecular orbital and how this contributes to bonding.
excuse me, that's
orbital 'hybridization' and the gaps between the highest
molecular orbital and how this contributes to bonding.
lowest unoccupied
^ [gap]
|
highest occupied
- show quoted text -
Michael Moroney Sign in to reply
Sep 15
Timothy Sutter <a20...@lycos.com-> writes:
>Archimedes Plutonium wrote:
>> whole entire Universe is just one big atom
>> where dots of the electron-dot-cloud are galaxies
>there is a "probability density" which
>is oftentimes portrayed -as- a 'cloud'
>but that portrayal does -not- suggest that
>the hydrogen nucleus is surrounded by a
>myriad of myriad of electrons.
Good luck convincing Archie of that. He's been spewing that crap for
nearly 20 years.
My personal guess is that he encountered a diagram of the electron
probability density in a cheap high school chemistry book with primitive
printing techniques, where they represented high probability with lots of
dots close together and low density with few dots. Kind of like old B/W
newspaper photos made of dots, except newspaper photos use bigger/smaller
dots for dark/light and not more/fewer dots. (I have seen such
chemistry books)
He just took the diagram (way) too literally.
David Bostwick Sign in to reply
Sep 17
Re: mistake of not knowing ...
Timothy Sutter <a20...@lycos.com-> wrote in
news:5053E5...@lycos.com-:
Tim, give up. You will never persuade AP that he's wrong. Don Quixote
will defeat the windmill first.
Timothy Sutter Sign in to reply
Sep 17
Re: the wave nature of Don Quixote
> >Archimedes Plutonium wrote:
> >> whole entire Universe is just one big atom
> >> where dots of the electron-dot-cloud are galaxies
> >there is no "electron dot cloud"
> >there is a "probability density" which
> >is oftentimes portrayed -as- a 'cloud'
> >but that portrayal does -not- suggest that
> >the hydrogen nucleus is surrounded by a
> >myriad of myriad of electrons.
Michael Moroney wrote:
> Good luck convincing Archie of that. He's been spewing that crap for
> nearly 20 years.
<...>
David Bostwick wrote:
> Timothy Sutter wrote
> Tim, give up. You will never persuade AP that he's wrong.
> Don Quixote will defeat the windmill first.
Brian Salter-Duke Sign in to reply
Sep 17
Re: mistake of not knowing ...
On Mon, 17 Sep 2012 09:13:05 -0500,
David Bostwick <david.b...@chemistry.gatech.edu> wrote:
> Timothy Sutter <a20...@lycos.com-> wrote in
> news:5053E5...@lycos.com-:
>
> Tim, give up. You will never persuade AP that he's wrong. Don Quixote
> will defeat the windmill first.
Agreed, but as Pauli once remarked about someone else's ideas, AP is not
EVEN wrong!
--
Brian Salter-Duke Melbourne, Australia
My real address is b_duke(AT)bigpond(DOT)net(DOT)au
Use this for reply or followup
Collaborating with chemists in Melbourne and World-wide
Salmon Egg Sign in to reply
Sep 17
Re: mistake of not knowing ...
In article <GDN5s.1331$Wo3...@viwinnwfe02.internal.bigpond.com>,
Brian Salter-Duke <b_d...@bigpond.com.au> wrote:
> Agreed, but as Pauli once remarked about someone else's ideas, AP is not
> EVEN wrong!
I miss Uncle Al.
--
Sam
Conservatives are against Darwinism but for natural selection.
Liberals are for Darwinism but totally against any selection.
Lord Androcles, Zeroth Earl of Medway Sign in to reply
Sep 17
Re: mistake of not knowing ...
"Salmon Egg" <Salm...@sbcglobal.net> wrote in message news:SalmonEgg-7D412...@news60.forteinc.com...
In article <GDN5s.1331$Wo3...@viwinnwfe02.internal.bigpond.com>,
Brian Salter-Duke <b_d...@bigpond.com.au> wrote:
> Agreed, but as Pauli once remarked about someone else's ideas, AP is not
> EVEN wrong!
I miss Uncle Al.
--
Sam
==============================================
Chiral Idiot!
Feel better now?
-- This message is brought to you from the keyboard of
Lord Androcles, Zeroth Earl of Medway
hanson Sign in to reply
Sep 17
Re: mistake of not knowing ...
"Salmon Egg" <Salm...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
> Brian Salter-Duke <b_d...@bigpond.com.au> wrote:
>
Brian Salter-Duke wrote:
>> Agreed, but as Pauli once remarked about someone
>> else's ideas, Archie-pooh is not EVEN wrong!
>
Sam wrote:
> I miss Uncle Al.
>
Why?
David Bostwick Sign in to reply
Sep 18
Re: mistake of not knowing ...
"hanson" <han...@quick.net> wrote in news:k38pcv$a5d$1...@dont-email.me:
- show quoted text -
Boy, this is like old home week.
Timothy Sutter Sign in to reply
Sep 19
Re: the wave nature of Don Quixote
http://tinyurl.com/carvone-twins
| O O |
// \// \\ / \\
| | | |
\ / \ /
| |
/ \\ // \
(+)carvone (-) carvone
oil of caraway oil of spearmint
====================================================
Timothy Sutter
Nov 6, 2012, 8:32:39 AM11/6/12
to
> > if you just look at this thread;
> > [thread i just posted excerpts from]
> > https://groups.google.com/d/msg/sci.chem/G_ts-y6KiBM/nz-IXX_Lr9UJ
if you just look at this thread;
[thread i just posted excerpts from]
https://groups.google.com/d/msg/sci.chem/G_ts-y6KiBM/nz-IXX_Lr9UJ
but this is how it was this morning, before anyone else gets to it...
as you will notice, -only- archi's psosts are flagged for abuse.
all the rest are "sign in to reply"
=================================================================
spin in physics with monopoles existing Chapt13.4.01 Particle Physics
table #897 New Physics #1017 ATOM TOTALITY 5th ed
25 posts by 8 authors in sci.chem
Sep 14
Archimedes Plutonium
This message has been hidden because it was flagged for abuse. To see it anyway, click here.
Timothy Sutter Sign in to reply not flagged
Sep 14
Archimedes Plutonium wrote:
> whole entire Universe is just one big atom
> where dots of the electron-dot-cloud are galaxies
there is no "electron dot cloud"
there is a "probability density" which
is oftentimes portrayed -as- a 'cloud'
but that portrayal does -not- suggest that
the hydrogen nucleus is surrounded by a
myriad of myriad of electrons.
-please- fix you .sig file.
=
Archimedes Plutonium wrote:
> whole entire Universe is just one big atom
> where dots of the electron-dot-cloud are galaxies
there is no "electron dot cloud"
there is a "probability density" which
is oftentimes portrayed -as- a 'cloud'
but that portrayal does -not- suggest that
the hydrogen nucleus is surrounded by a
myriad of myriad of electrons.
-please- fix you .sig file.
Sep 14
Archimedes Plutonium
This message has been hidden because it was flagged for abuse. To see it anyway, click here.
Sep 14
Archimedes Plutonium
This message has been hidden because it was flagged for abuse. To see it anyway, click here.
Sep 14
Archimedes Plutonium
This message has been hidden because it was flagged for abuse. To see it anyway, click here.
Timothy Sutter Sign in to reply
Sep 14
Re: nonphysicists who open their mouths in physics Re: #1017 ATOM TOTALITY 5th ed
=
Sep 14
Archimedes Plutonium
This message has been hidden because it was flagged for abuse. To see it anyway, click here.
Timothy Sutter Sign in to reply
Sep 14
Re: electrons don't look like anything as they cannot be seen
- show quoted text -
the "electron cloud" -is- a descriptive -device-
Timothy Sutter Sign in to reply
Sep 14
Re: mistake of not knowing ...
Archimedes Plutonium wrote:
> Timothy Sutter wrote:
=
Sep 14
Re: mistake of not knowing ...
Archimedes Plutonium wrote:
> Timothy Sutter wrote:
Timothy Sutter Sign in to reply
Sep 14
Re: electrons don't look like anything as they cannot be seen
no animals will be hurt during
the course of these next
several sentences.
Timothy Sutter Sign in to reply
Sep 14
Re: electrons don't look like anything as they cannot be seen
> and you pretty much know where the little box is.
or, like a bowling ball in a baseball stadium.
=
Sep 14
Re: electrons don't look like anything as they cannot be seen
> and you pretty much know where the little box is.
or, like a bowling ball in a baseball stadium.
Timothy Sutter Sign in to reply
Sep 14
Re: electrons don't look like anything as they cannot be seen
"classical mechanics" simply does not work as the 'best explanation'
when applied to teh behaviors of very small things, like electrons,
and, so-called "quantum mechanics" was developed to provide a more
correct explanation for phenomenon associated with
very small objects and light.
Timothy Sutter Sign in to reply
Sep 15
Re: electrons don't look like anything as they cannot be seen
> and, the large objects which make up galaxies and stars
> and galaxie clusters are operating in a gravitational field
> and the electronic interactions are negligible and the chemical
> atomic forces are electronic and the gravitational effect is
> negligible and you have yet to show me how gravitational
> fields align in discrete energy levels and not
> a continuous spectrum.
Sep 15
Archimedes Plutonium
This message has been hidden because it was flagged for abuse. To see it anyway, click here.
Timothy Sutter Sign in to reply
Sep 15
Re: electrons don't look like anything as they cannot be seen
Archimedes Plutonium wrote:
> Timothy Sutter wrote:
>
Timothy Sutter Sign in to reply
Sep 15
Re: electrons don't look like anything as they cannot be seen
> you might like to look into molecular orbital theory
> and consider how atomic orbitals show an overlap
> when bonding occurs.
Michael Moroney Sign in to reply
Sep 15
Timothy Sutter <a20...@lycos.com-> writes:
>Archimedes Plutonium wrote:
>> whole entire Universe is just one big atom
>> where dots of the electron-dot-cloud are galaxies
My personal guess is that he encountered a diagram of the electron
probability density in a cheap high school chemistry book with primitive
printing techniques, where they represented high probability with lots of
dots close together and low density with few dots. Kind of like old B/W
newspaper photos made of dots, except newspaper photos use bigger/smaller
dots for dark/light and not more/fewer dots. (I have seen such
chemistry books)
He just took the diagram (way) too literally.
=
probability density in a cheap high school chemistry book with primitive
printing techniques, where they represented high probability with lots of
dots close together and low density with few dots. Kind of like old B/W
newspaper photos made of dots, except newspaper photos use bigger/smaller
dots for dark/light and not more/fewer dots. (I have seen such
chemistry books)
He just took the diagram (way) too literally.
David Bostwick Sign in to reply
Sep 17
Re: mistake of not knowing ...
Timothy Sutter <a20...@lycos.com-> wrote in
news:5053E5...@lycos.com-:
Tim, give up. You will never persuade AP that he's wrong. Don Quixote
will defeat the windmill first.
Timothy Sutter Sign in to reply
Sep 17
Re: the wave nature of Don Quixote
> >Archimedes Plutonium wrote:
> >> whole entire Universe is just one big atom
> >> where dots of the electron-dot-cloud are galaxies
> Timothy Sutter writes:
> >there is no "electron dot cloud"
> >there is a "probability density" which
> >is oftentimes portrayed -as- a 'cloud'
> >but that portrayal does -not- suggest that
> >the hydrogen nucleus is surrounded by a
> >myriad of myriad of electrons.
Michael Moroney wrote:
> Good luck convincing Archie of that. He's been spewing that crap for
> nearly 20 years.
<...>
David Bostwick wrote:
> Timothy Sutter wrote
> Tim, give up. You will never persuade AP that he's wrong.
> Don Quixote will defeat the windmill first.
i had no intention of chasing it around forever...
=
Brian Salter-Duke Sign in to reply
Sep 17
Re: mistake of not knowing ...
On Mon, 17 Sep 2012 09:13:05 -0500,
David Bostwick <david.b...@chemistry.gatech.edu> wrote:
> Timothy Sutter <a20...@lycos.com-> wrote in
> news:5053E5...@lycos.com-:
>
> Tim, give up. You will never persuade AP that he's wrong. Don Quixote
> will defeat the windmill first.
Agreed, but as Pauli once remarked about someone else's ideas, AP is not
EVEN wrong!
--
Brian Salter-Duke Melbourne, Australia
My real address is b_duke(AT)bigpond(DOT)net(DOT)au
Use this for reply or followup
Collaborating with chemists in Melbourne and World-wide
Salmon Egg Sign in to reply
Sep 17
Re: mistake of not knowing ...
In article <GDN5s.1331$Wo3...@viwinnwfe02.internal.bigpond.com>,
Brian Salter-Duke <b_d...@bigpond.com.au> wrote:
> Agreed, but as Pauli once remarked about someone else's ideas, AP is not
> EVEN wrong!
I miss Uncle Al.
--
Sam
Conservatives are against Darwinism but for natural selection.
Liberals are for Darwinism but totally against any selection.
David Bostwick Sign in to reply
Sep 18
Re: mistake of not knowing ...
"hanson" <han...@quick.net> wrote in news:k38pcv$a5d$1...@dont-email.me:
- show quoted text -
Boy, this is like old home week.
Timothy Sutter
Nov 6, 2012, 8:45:28 AM11/6/12
to
> [thread i just posted excerpts from]
> https://groups.google.com/d/msg/sci.chem/G_ts-y6KiBM/nz-IXX_Lr9UJ
the thread =clearly= shows that
> https://groups.google.com/d/msg/sci.chem/G_ts-y6KiBM/nz-IXX_Lr9UJ
the intent of the abuse flagging
is =not= topicallity
but a personal vendetta against archi
and one to which is maintain my disagreement.
if topicallity were at issue
the chit chat at the end would have been flagged, it was not.
this is just plain flat out wrong.
Timothy Sutter
Nov 6, 2012, 8:54:33 AM11/6/12
to
that suggests this is a topicallity issue and not
a personal vendetta against archie.
seeing as how, in the above thread
-only- archie is flagged as abusive
and quite a few 'regular posters' in the physics groups
pipe up with comments not at all related to electromag
or physics in general for that matter,
and are -not- flaggged for abuse.
and none of -my- posts are flagged.
Timothy Sutter
Nov 6, 2012, 9:15:51 AM11/6/12
to
i wouldn't care past tomorrow
but, people have taken it upon
themselves to archive usenet
and it would be nice to know that said archive
wasn't being tampered with because a tampered
with archive doesn't do much good if someone
wants to run up on me in twenty years and say;
"ay, tim, twenty years ago you said -this-, what say ye now?"
and then, i gotta look through my own -private- archive
to see whether or not i actually did, in fact, say "this"
cuz it could have been tampered with...
it matters little if that will never likely happen...
but, i don't actually like being flagged for abuse -now-
-just- because i side with archi, a person for whom
you have this vendetta...
and then you'll piss and moan when things turn sour for -you-
and -i- get to be labeled a "bad guy" ....again
well, you have difficulty convincing -me- of -that-
"with regards to captain dunsel"
Lord Androcles, Zeroth Earl of Medway
Nov 6, 2012, 9:17:52 AM11/6/12
to
"Timothy Sutter" <a20...@lycos.com-> wrote in message
news:509916...@lycos.com-...
=========================================
Have you read this?
let's say you compose an article for a particular newsgroup. When the article is finished, your newsreader will send it to your news server. Some time later, from a few minutes to a few hours, your news server will connect to another news server. At that time, your server will send a copy of your article to the other server. At the same time, the other server will pass on articles to your server. Eventually, the other server will connect to a third server and send it a copy of your article. Most news servers connect to only one or two other computers. But some news servers act as switching points by connecting to many other servers. When your article hits one of these major servers, it will fan out quickly to many different locations.
In this way, new articles are passed from one server to another, until they are PROPAGATED around the world. (Each article has a unique identification number so a server doesn't get more than one copy of the same article.) The system is designed so well that — although there is no central server and no one in charge — a new article will be distributed throughout most of the Internet within a day or two (and often much faster).
Google is one of many news servers and it archives posts
that are
too old for others to retain, something that was
previously done
by AT&T, IIRC.
Google has mapped the world, but the world is far bigger
than
Google. The territory is always bigger
than the map.
If you want to research this “flag for abuse” it might be
a good
idea not to jump to conclusions about Google and assign
blame
I suggest you start here:
Timothy Sutter
Nov 6, 2012, 9:44:56 AM11/6/12
to
exist
https://groups.google.com/d/msg/sci.math/8JXMY9nMKHk/kQ_2MXhSseMJ
so explanations about other archives is unnecessary
the problem here, is, that, there are people who
post -from- gogglegroups and have googlegroup accounts
and read from google and have their posts flagged
for abue at google and wonder if their posts have dissapeared forever.
i've already mentioned to archi, if he didn't know,
that his posts were still visible -somewhere-
> If you want to research this “flag for abuse” it might be a good
> idea not to jump to conclusions about Google and assign blame
google is archiving usenet posts -and- is allowing
people to post -to- usenet from googlegroups
and so, some people's posts are being hidden
in the very place they post from at.
google -has- installed a tool that makes
this sort of vindictiveness possible.
so, it is not a problem with all of usenet and
all possible usenet archives but google alone.
no faultu conclusion jumping at all.
google ahs installed a tool on their
site that has harmful uses
this is not about what drexel does with its archive
or what any of the many other archives do with their sites.
clear enough?
Timothy Sutter
Nov 6, 2012, 10:02:36 AM11/6/12
to
> google -has- installed a tool that makes
> this sort of vindictiveness possible.
> so, it is not a problem with all of usenet and
> all possible usenet archives but google alone.
> no faultu conclusion jumping at all.
> google ahs installed a tool on their
> site that has harmful uses
and why preytell does one think i said;
> this sort of vindictiveness possible.
> so, it is not a problem with all of usenet and
> all possible usenet archives but google alone.
> no faultu conclusion jumping at all.
> google ahs installed a tool on their
> site that has harmful uses
"regards to captain dunsel?"
be cuz, though this thing may have harmful uses
it's really quite use less and does nothing in the over all sense
and posts still appear...somewhere
and they all live happily ever after
so, -i- certainly haven't been 'hurt'
and neither has archi...really
i'm -trying- to get that through to the people
who keep flagging usenet posts that appear on
googlegroups as abusive.
you're wasting your bloody time on some toy trick
that may make you 'feel' 'good' for a matter of moments
and then, tomorrow, archi is back on his couch,
posting away and you've done =NOTHING= to disturb this.
and the posts don't even disappear cuz google drags
its feet for years to ever actually investigate anything
=NOTHING= has been accomplished....
-i- just felt like posting and so, i did...
simple as that.
so, at least -i- got -my- soothing relaxation from posting ...
and all the abuse flags in the world won't change that...
Timothy Sutter
Nov 6, 2012, 10:15:55 AM11/6/12
to
> and all the abuse flags in the world won't change that...
the onlyest thing that concerns me, a slight bit,
is that google seems to be mistaking its usenet archive
for googlegroups and the two are non-identical.
i wouldn't care if a million people set up googlegroups
and moderated them fastidiously and saw to it that
nothing that bothered them ever appeared
in their little worlds.
not a bit would this bother me.
but, usenet is -not- googlegroups and
in large part usenet is not moderated.
and if you look at the config groups, they seem
to be phasing out moderated usenet entirely
simply becauise it's stoopid...
etc.etc.etc.
i mean, talk about a fool's game...
trying to lock down order on uselessnet
you'll end up putting up with things from your
'friends' that you won't put up with in anyone else
have three sets of laws and claim there
is some sort of 'charter' being obeyed.
so, if this is an "evolving" society
it sure seems to find its way back in to
the exact same pitfalls over and over
and over again and no real gradual
change is ever noted.
Q E D
Lord Androcles, Zeroth Earl of Medway
Nov 6, 2012, 12:19:30 PM11/6/12
to
"Timothy Sutter" <a20...@lycos.com-> wrote in message
news:509922...@lycos.com-...
> If you want to research this “flag for
abuse†it might be a good
> idea not to jump to conclusions about Google and assign blame
i jumped to no conclusion about google
google is archiving usenet posts -and- is allowing
people to post -to- usenet from googlegroups
and so, some people's posts are being hidden
in the very place they post from at.
google -has- installed a tool that makes
this sort of vindictiveness possible.
so, it is not a problem with all of usenet and
all possible usenet archives but google alone.
no faultu conclusion jumping at all.
google ahs installed a tool on their
site that has harmful uses
this is not about what drexel does with its archive
or what any of the many other archives do with their sites.
clear enough?
=====================================
It is very clear you are a fucking idiot not worth
trying to
reason with. Piss off, arsehole.
*plonk*
--
This message is brought to you from the keyboard of
Archimedes Plutonium
Nov 6, 2012, 4:38:52 PM11/6/12
to
Why this is marked as abuse? It has been marked as abuse.
Report not abuse
> """palladium superconducts and also has a subshell switch then the
> crystal geometry of a 4d8, 5s2 should be altogether very much
> different from 4d10"""
>
> https://groups.google.com/d/msg/sci.physics.electromag/8_yr5FTLxz4/Rj...
> crystal geometry of a 4d8, 5s2 should be altogether very much
> different from 4d10"""
>
> /Collapsed Wavefunction is simply a different term for saying -- the
> /particle nature of matter. An Uncollapsed Wavefunction is simply a
> /different term for saying the wave nature of matter.
>
> /So that when an Electron in a atom is in 10^40 tiny pieces it is in
> /the wave form of the electron. And when the electron is a single
> /hardball moving in a wire of electricity, it is a collapsed
> /wavefunction of a particle.
>
> /In atoms, the electrons in orbit are in uncollapsed wavefunction and
> /the psi function that describes the probability of finding an electron
> /at a specific point of geometry, is replaced by a sliver piece of the
> /actual electron, forming the electron dot cloud. So an electron dot
> /cloud of an atom is the atom of a uncollapsed wavefunction and the
> /electron as a wave, not a hardball particle.
>
> AP is having some difficulty with 'wave/particle' duality
>
> AP may want to give a brief look here;
>
> http://www.chemteam.info/Electrons/deBroglie-Equation.htmlhttp://theory.uwinnipeg.ca/physics/quant/node6.html
> /particle nature of matter. An Uncollapsed Wavefunction is simply a
> /different term for saying the wave nature of matter.
>
> /So that when an Electron in a atom is in 10^40 tiny pieces it is in
> /the wave form of the electron. And when the electron is a single
> /hardball moving in a wire of electricity, it is a collapsed
> /wavefunction of a particle.
>
> /In atoms, the electrons in orbit are in uncollapsed wavefunction and
> /the psi function that describes the probability of finding an electron
> /at a specific point of geometry, is replaced by a sliver piece of the
> /actual electron, forming the electron dot cloud. So an electron dot
> /cloud of an atom is the atom of a uncollapsed wavefunction and the
> /electron as a wave, not a hardball particle.
>
> AP is having some difficulty with 'wave/particle' duality
>
> AP may want to give a brief look here;
>
this Atom Totality theory. If I had more time I would answer most
paragraph but I have a deadline schedule to meet and so will answer in
a summary answer.
First off, you are a bit confused as to the psi probability density
function, for the reason it is "probability" is because the electron
cannot be just a single hard ball, and that it must be something of a
dot-cloud-pattern. This is why the psi has the word probability
attached to it, for it cannot be just a hard ball and why this part of
physics is called the "Interpretation" of the Schrodinger Equation.
You can check on this, that I am telling you the straight and narrow
from the textbook Halliday & Resnick, Physics, Part 2, Extended
Version, 1986, pages 1155 onwards. On page 1156 H&R are describing how
Bohr has to have a probability dot cloud interpretation in order to
have a "stable nonradiating state exists".
So, Tim, you talk as if the Probability is a feature of a ball
electron. The Probability in physics and the Schrodinger Equation is
there because we have to "interpret the electron" not that the
electron is a pre-existing hard ball and given a chance of finding it
at one location rather than another location.
So, which is the better interpretation, yours or mine? You interpret
the electron to be a hard ball and the dots are a probability of
finding that hard ball a specific location. I interpret the electron
to be a smashed to smithereens particle in the ground state, and where
all those tiny bits and pieces of the electron form a dot-cloud, so
that you ask me what is the chance of finding the electron at a point
in space, and I answer with a chance that a piece of the electron is
at that particular point in space.
Now, look at the night sky as if it were an atom and you see the stars
and galaxies as tiny white dots. Does that night sky look like just
one single huge large hard ball in the sky next to empty Space. Or,
does the night sky look like a huge large ball, that was smashed into
10^40 tiny other things and then spread across the night sky?
Now most students of physics, as they study it and learn it, are
confused with this chapter on the probability density function of the
Schrodinger Equation. The are confused because they do not understand
that it is a "interpretation" and the way that Bohr interprets the
wavefunction is that he realizes it is (the electron) is both a hard
ball at times such as in electricity flowing in a wire and we call it
the collapsed wavefunction, or it is a dot cloud where the electron
has been smashed into 10^40 tiny pieces. When students read that and
walk away with the impression that the electron is a hard ball with a
chance of being at a location represented by a dot cloud, then they
failed to understand this physics, failed to understand the use of
"probability" as meaning "interpretation". The electron is both the
hard ball and the dot cloud, but it is not a hard ball with a chance
of being at a specific location. When you want the electron with a
chance at a specific location, the electron is no longer a hard ball,
but a smashed to smithereens 10^40 tiny pieces and when you find a
piece of the electron there at a specific point in space, you have not
found the total electron as a hard ball, but you found 1/10^40 of the
electron.
So that if I point to the night sky a faraway galaxy or faraway star
in the Milky Way, I am pointing to a piece of the last electron of a
Plutonium Atom Totality.
Now to answer all your other questions, I can make a quick brief
summary:
(1) The Cosmic Microwave Background Radiation comes in a 2.71 Kelvin
temperature, but the most important feature of that temperature which
all the other physicists and astronomers know, is the feature that the
temperature is blackbody. Blackbody radiation can exist in only one
circumstance, in that a cavity, a inside interior has to exist to form
blackbody radiation. That means the Big Bang is an utter fake theory
for the universe since it says the Universe is in an explosion state.
You cannot have a explosion for the Universe and have the microwave
radiation be blackbody. So the Universe is the "inside of something" a
cavity, and what cavity could possible be the Universe? The only
logical choice is an atom, a single large atom that has all the other
atoms inside itself as a cavity. If the radiation had not been
blackbody, the Big Bang theory could live a day longer, but ever since
the physicists first reported that the Microwave Background Radiation
of the Cosmos was blackbody radiation, the Big Bang theory was dead,
not buried yet, for it takes time for scientists to understand what
had happened when the news of blackbody came in.
(2) Is there another major clue that the Cosmos is a gigantic atom
rather than the blackbody radiation? Well yes, there are dozens of
major clues. The second major clue is what is known as "solid body
rotation or rigid body rotation". It is seen first in astronomy
history by the spiral galaxies and barred spiral galaxies for the
telescopes observed these spiral arms having solid body rotation. That
is rotation which many of us growing up in the 1960s remember as the
vinyl record player that the music disc spins on a record player. Now
the only way one can get solid body rotation for it requires a huge
amount of energy to make solid body rotation is in the Maxwell
Equations the EM force which is 10^40 stronger than the force of
gravity. The force of gravity can never get your vinyl record to spin
as solid body rotation but EM can. So when astronomers started
observing Solid Body Rotation in galaxies and in clusters of galaxies,
what they then did was really saddening, and what they did was show
that they have little logic in order to be a scientist. They saw Solid
Body Rotation and instead of saying "throw out gravity and replace
gravity with EM-gravity", and instead of being logical, what they did
was say that the Cosmos must be filled with dark matter and dark
energy in order to make those galaxies spin in solid body rotation.
So, I ask you, if the radiation is blackbody and that means a Cosmic
cavity, and if the Cosmos has many examples of solid body rotation and
that means EM, then who in their right mind would select the Big Bang
when it is already trashed by blackbody radiation and by Solid Body
Rotation.
But, let me give you one more, for I have time for one more now. If
the Universe is a Atom Totality, a single huge atom of plutonium, the
isotope 231 Pu to be specific, if the universe is this one big atom
and what we see is the last electron the 94th electron of this huge
single atom, then we should see a feature of "spin" in the Night Sky.
We should see a feature of "all the galaxies" heading for one
direction.
(3) In an Atom Totality, a quantum spin must exist, a direction in
which all the Matter of the Universe is moving towards. Does such a
feature occur? Well, last I looked, everything, every piece of Matter
that we know of is moving in the direction of what is called the Great
Attractor. Now if the Universe was a Big Bang, it would be silly to
think that after the explosion event that all the shot out Matter
would be coming together, as if one fired a shotgun at another person
standing a distance away with an empty shotgun and that the fired
pellets out of the first shotgun would be ending up down the barrel of
the 2nd shotgun.
In an Atom Totality, we expect a spin and that spin would show up as a
Great Attractor where all the Matter is converging upon. The Great
Attractor makes no sense in a Big Bang theory.
Now I covered just three evidences, but the book covers about 10 or
more evidences that the Atom Totality is the only proper theory for
the Universe.
where dots of the electron-dot-cloud are galaxies
Larry Harson
Nov 6, 2012, 6:14:20 PM11/6/12
to
Why this is marked as abuse? It has been marked as abuse.
Report not abuse
of particle physics/chemistry/maths to electromagnetism to be of use
in sci.physics.electromag, and that's why I flag them. He can easily
cut and paste the sections on particle physics to that group, and the
electromag stuff over here. But of course he has no intention of doing
that.
> you are trying to be chief moderator in
> an unmoderated newsgroup and doing
> a poor job of it.
to flag Archie's posts, as I did on July 14th:
"Flagging posts fairly in sci.physic.electromag"
<http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics.electromag/browse_frm/
thread/e16910ba23c923ef#>
Of course, Archie didn't participate in the discussion. And neither
did you for that matter, which isn't surprising because you're not a
regular in sci.physics.electromag, are you?
> and below you say this:
>
> # I don't mind intelligent cross posting.
>
> so, why you're wasting time posting some blurb
> about how crossposting is bad form is not very "intelligent"
>
> you like crossposting if it fits your opinion
>
> of what is acceptable and 'intelligent'
>
> but if someone else has a different opinon of acceptable and
> intelligent,
>you start pissing and moaning and whining about
> how it's abusively off topic.
> now, here's how you describe archi;
>
> you say;> I'm not against Archie posting his theory in sci.physics.particle
> > where it belongs. Yet despite being told this, he continues to spam in
> > a selfish way without any thought for the people within that group. He
> > comes across as a self-absorbed egotist who can't look outside of
> > himself.
>
> ==
>
> now i ask you, -who- _really_ looks like the "self absorbed egotist?"
>
> isn't it really =you= who looks like a "self absorbed egotist"
>
> in that you think that you and you alone are able to decide what
> is on topic in electromag whereas archi simply minds his own
> business and quietly posts his babblings where he
> thinks they are topical?
Well, actually no, which is why I asked for a discussion on the
> > where it belongs. Yet despite being told this, he continues to spam in
> > a selfish way without any thought for the people within that group. He
> > comes across as a self-absorbed egotist who can't look outside of
> > himself.
>
> ==
>
> now i ask you, -who- _really_ looks like the "self absorbed egotist?"
>
> isn't it really =you= who looks like a "self absorbed egotist"
>
> in that you think that you and you alone are able to decide what
> is on topic in electromag whereas archi simply minds his own
> business and quietly posts his babblings where he
> thinks they are topical?
subject in July, and you weren't here because you're not a regular
here.
> yes, -you- look like the self absorbed egotists and archi does not.
> > It also includes getting your own group in order before you go around
> > vandalising another, just to make a point. Have you reposted Archi's
> > posts on sci.chem, the main group you use? Nope. Did you instead
> > repost them on one you don't use? Yep. Did you even bother to post
> > them on sci.physics.particle? Nope.
>
> you're raving.
>
> i vandalized nothing,
I'm assuming it was you who decided to post 20 of Archie's precious
posts in sci.physics.electromag. And then didn't bother to reply to
one of my questions there. Of course, it might not be you in which
case I'm wrong and I apologise for jumping to the wrong conclusion.
The other possibility is that it was indeed you and you have no
interest whatsoever in participating in sci.physics.electromag, yet
you decided to dump on it.
>and why you keep posting in to a thread
>
> that you have flagged for abuse is asinine.
what?", and I gave my reasons for why I don't think it belongs in
sci.physics.electromag. You then change the subject to a troll: "your
slip is showing", and end up poisoning the other newsgroups with a
subject no one else wants to really see.
understanding what he posted, which has nothing to do with spinning
charge. He thinks spin is connected with geometry. Face it, it has
nothing to do with electromagnetism, and you've shown yourself as a
dishonest, closed minded bigot.
> > Your posts on sci.chem are competent, yet you seem to have reading
> > comprehension problems here, or worse still, don't understand what
> > electromagnetism is. If so, then you shouldn't be sticking your nose
> > in something you haven't a clue about, should you?
>
> so, you deny that the so-called "Standard Model"
> concerns itself with electromagnetic behaviors -of- particles
> and if archi wants to yammer about particles and their
> electromagnetic behavior in a set of usenet newsgroups,
> archi can do so even if not each and every post is
> explicittly and narrowly focused on the aspects
> of electromagnetism that strike -your- fancy.
"Faraday's Paradox" thread posted in October by pengkuan Em. His posts
are useful because they lead to discussion, that are relevant here,
despite him thinking there is some flaw in modern physics. Neither
does he poison sci.chem, sci,math etc with irrelevant cross posting.
Even better, he updates his theory and page when his errors have been
pointed out.
Those are the standards I judge Archie's posts by, and his are abusive
in most cases mainly because of unthinking cross-posting. Note that he
is still posting cantor's diagonal argument to sci.physics and
sci.physics.electromag, where it has no place.
> you are still wrong to flag archi's posts for abuse
> as none of them fit the criteria for abuse as set
> out -by- googlegroups.
>
> ===
> Report Abuse
>
> Google takes abuse of its services very seriously.
> We're committed to dealing with such abuse according
> to the laws in your country of residence. When you
> submit a report, we'll investigate it and take the
> appropriate action. We'll get back to you only if
> we require additional details or have more information to share.
>
> Group name: sci.physics.electromag
> Subject: is Google committing a crime of freedom of speech??
> Author: Archimedes Plutonium
>
> Not abuse
> This content has been incorrectly marked as abuse
> and does not contain any of the following:
>
> Spam
> Hateful or violent content
> Illegal pornography
> Personal or private information
> Illegal content according to the laws of my country
> Content violating our Terms of Service
topics in sci.physics.electromag, including Cantor's diagonal
argument. It becomes spam when he posts to advertise, rather than ask
and discuss.
sci.physics.electroma for people interested in electromagnetism.
Secondly, the flagging is democratic and open to everyone. Again,
you've shown you lack sensible judgement.
Regards,
Larry.
Timothy Sutter
Nov 6, 2012, 9:59:02 PM11/6/12
to
Archimedes Plutonium wrote:
> Timothy Sutter wrote:
> > Archimedes Plutonium wrote:
> > > Archimedes Plutonium
i just happen to have an earlier copy of halliday and resnick
and the way they describe this "probability" is that a
particulate electron in the hydrogen atom is simply,
more "likely to be" found at or around the "Bohr radius"
and not that it is definitely =there=.
teh "interpretation" of psi is this statistical 'maybe'
as opposed to an 'exact' location.
it's a matter of the precision of knowledge
that may be had for a single particulate.
the electron -is- a single hard body whose position and momentum
are statistical probability patterns, and not that an electron
exists as a hard ball sometimes and as 10^40 slivers at any other time.
> So, Tim, you talk as if the Probability is a feature of a ball
> electron. The Probability in physics and the Schrodinger Equation is
> there because we have to "interpret the electron" not that the
> electron is a pre-existing hard ball and given a chance of finding it
> at one location rather than another location.
no, your pals halliday and resmnick don't "interpret the electron"
they =interpret= the meaning of psi and psi squared, and that
interpretation reveals that a statistical understanding of
the electron's whereabouts in reality is the best we can hope for.
> So, which is the better interpretation, yours or mine? You interpret
> the electron to be a hard ball and the dots are a probability of
> finding that hard ball a specific location. I interpret the electron
> to be a smashed to smithereens particle in the ground state, and where
> all those tiny bits and pieces of the electron form a dot-cloud, so
> that you ask me what is the chance of finding the electron at a point
> in space, and I answer with a chance that a piece of the electron is
> at that particular point in space.
you'd be claiming that you could solve the position and momentum
for these slivered pieces of electrons when you certainly cannot
solve this for an electron in it's entirety.
you'd be saying, "at such and such a point, this -sliver-
is moving with such and such a simulataneous, -knowable-
position and momentum" and -then- turn around and tell
me that you -cannot- know these same facts
for a solid ball electron.
your "interpretation" takes a problem that is unsolvable
for a single entire electron, and makes it solvable for
the smaller fractional -pieces- of that same electron.
you'd think that this was -obviously- erroneous...
and i dare say, that halliday and resnick are not
responsible for this "interpretation" of yours.
did you ever hear anyone say that a bowling ball's
motion would have a measurable wavelength if you
could get a grating to accomodate the value?
this is saying that a solid bowling ball, already should -have-
an associated wavelength and not that the same bowling ball,
suddenly -behaves- as if it were an ethereal wave pattern
under cetrainconditions, whereupon, it returns to it's
bowling ball condition after midnight.
> Now, look at the night sky as if it were an atom and you see the stars
> and galaxies as tiny white dots. Does that night sky look like just
> one single huge large hard ball in the sky next to empty Space. Or,
> does the night sky look like a huge large ball, that was smashed into
> 10^40 tiny other things and then spread across the night sky?
trouble is, you can -see- precisely where these dots are and
where these dots are going and that no such "probability"
is associated with their position and momentum.
so, once again, if you claim that the -electron- behaves
as a mass of 10^40 slivers, each of whose positions and momenta,
-can be- known simultaneously, you are taking a much more
difficult problem and sayingit is easier to solve for
the unsolvable nature of the ball type electron.
you'd be saying that, though we cannot know the position
and momentum of a ball electron simultaneously, you
-can- know these same phenomenon for the fractured
-pieces- of a ball electron.
and, isn't this what you are saying?
and, isn't this "interpretation" self contradictory?
> Now most students of physics, as they study it and learn it, are
> confused with this chapter on the probability density function of the
> Schrodinger Equation. The are confused because they do not understand
> that it is a "interpretation" and the way that Bohr interprets the
> wavefunction is that he realizes it is (the electron) is both a hard
> ball at times such as in electricity flowing in a wire and we call it
> the collapsed wavefunction, or it is a dot cloud where the electron
> has been smashed into 10^40 tiny pieces.
Bohr actually solved an -orbit- for a single electron
in the hydrogen atom trouble is, that this falls apart
as we leave the 1s state.
i doubt very highly that Bohr promulgated an idea that the
electron is or even ever behaves as if it were 10^40
slivered fragments.
the electron doesn't change form based on -how- 'we' try to look at it.
the hard ball electron -has- a wave pattern associated with it's mechanics.
the travels -of- the hard ball -has- aspects which can be
mathematically derived -as- a wavelength and a frequency.
=if= an electron were imagined and interpretted to be 10^40 smithereenies,
those 10^40 smithereenies -travel- in unison as -if- they were a single
mass and the greater probability of finding the entire mass of
smithereenies is at the Bohr radius and then all the
various solutions -to- psi, and so, for all practical purposes,
even =if= you could interpret an electron as a smithereenies blob,
that blob would still -behave- as if it were a single
rather uniform entity.
etc.
> When students read that and
> walk away with the impression that the electron is a hard ball with a
> chance of being at a location represented by a dot cloud, then they
> failed to understand this physics, failed to understand the use of
> "probability" as meaning "interpretation".
that's probably because probability doesn't mean that we get
to interpret the electron into a fragmentary blob that fills
the -entire- spacial region that it is 'most likely' to
be inhabitting as -it- wobbles around the nucleus.
the probability density is a function of the
uncertainty of location and motion.
we don't really think that the six pi electrons
are actually -shaped- like a dumbell
or are a mass of ethereal particles
in a balloon of space.
we really suggest that the electron, which
is a singular entity, is 'somewhere'
inside that balloon of space, we just cannot
shrink the size of that balloon of space
to exactly enwrap that singular entity.
> The electron is both the
> hard ball and the dot cloud, but it is not a hard ball with a chance
> of being at a specific location. When you want the electron with a
> chance at a specific location, the electron is no longer a hard ball,
> but a smashed to smithereens 10^40 tiny pieces and when you find a
> piece of the electron there at a specific point in space, you have not
> found the total electron as a hard ball, but you found 1/10^40 of the
> electron.
again, you are implying that you -can- find a smithereenie fragment
of an electron at a specifiable location moving in a specifiable path,
and this is already shown not to be the case -for- the hard
ball singular entity.
the chances of specificity for the smithereenie is
no more probable than the chances of finding
the singular entity.
your 'interpretation, seeks to invent a specificity
that is already lost on the larger object.
it has no real value, either as a descriptive device
nor as a verifiable aspect of reality.
> So that if I point to the night sky a faraway galaxy or faraway star
> in the Milky Way, I am pointing to a piece of the last electron of a
> Plutonium Atom Totality.
actually, you are pointing to a large blob of atoms and these
atoms occupy a continuous spectrum of gravitational energy
states and -not- discrete electromagnetic energy states.
> Now to answer all your other questions, I can make a quick brief
> summary:
> (1) The Cosmic Microwave Background Radiation comes in a 2.71 Kelvin
> temperature, but the most important feature of that temperature which
> all the other physicists and astronomers know, is the feature that the
> temperature is blackbody. Blackbody radiation can exist in only one
> circumstance, in that a cavity, a inside interior has to exist to form
> blackbody radiation. That means the Big Bang is an utter fake theory
> for the universe since it says the Universe is in an explosion state.
> You cannot have a explosion for the Universe and have the microwave
> radiation be blackbody. So the Universe is the "inside of something" a
> cavity, and what cavity could possible be the Universe? The only
> logical choice is an atom, a single large atom that has all the other
> atoms inside itself as a cavity. If the radiation had not been
> blackbody, the Big Bang theory could live a day longer, but ever since
> the physicists first reported that the Microwave Background Radiation
> of the Cosmos was blackbody radiation, the Big Bang theory was dead,
> not buried yet, for it takes time for scientists to understand what
> had happened when the news of blackbody came in.
the problem here is that you'd be suggesting that the material 'portion'
of teh physical universe simply came to exist in a pre-existing infinity
of an open spacial region, when it can easily be said that the spacial
region in which the material universe finds itself
came in to existiance -as- teh material came in to existence and was
not 'always' there and the matter simply popped into a space that
was already there.
no, we do not speak of a spacial vacuum that became inhabbitted
by matter, we speak of a spaceless epoch into which was spawned
both space and matter.
in this respect, you -can- say that the material universe
is encapsulated in a spacial cavity within a space-less domain.
we beginn from a spaceless and matterless state
and both space and matter come to be simultaneously
and so, to speak of a cavitation is not contradicted.
> (2) Is there another major clue that the Cosmos is a gigantic atom
> rather than the blackbody radiation? Well yes, there are dozens of
> major clues. The second major clue is what is known as "solid body
> rotation or rigid body rotation". It is seen first in astronomy
> history by the spiral galaxies and barred spiral galaxies for the
> telescopes observed these spiral arms having solid body rotation. That
> is rotation which many of us growing up in the 1960s remember as the
> vinyl record player that the music disc spins on a record player.
trouble is, that some claim that materials are pouring in to the hole
in the center of these record albums and are -not- rigidly held at bay.
in the atomic model, electrons do -not- pour into the nucleus
where they may be obliterated by gravitational puckers.
> Now
> the only way one can get solid body rotation for it requires a huge
> amount of energy to make solid body rotation is in the Maxwell
> Equations the EM force which is 10^40 stronger than the force of
> gravity.
the moon is not held in orbit by an elecromotive force.
"classical mechanics" simply does not work as the 'best explanation'
when applied to teh behaviors of very small things, like electrons,
and, so-called "quantum mechanics" was developed to provide a more
correct explanation for phenomenon associated with
very small objects and light.
God's finger spinning them like a top is possible. etc.
> So, I ask you, if the radiation is blackbody and that means a Cosmic
> cavity, and if the Cosmos has many examples of solid body rotation and
> that means EM, then who in their right mind would select the Big Bang
> when it is already trashed by blackbody radiation and by Solid Body
> Rotation.
i'm not married to a big bang.
so, i feel no need to offer up a compelling defense for it.
i -do- suggest that this material universe had a
very definite beginning from not being there,
but the actual mechanics involved, i don't
speak of a random accident caused by -nothing-
> But, let me give you one more, for I have time for one more now. If
> the Universe is a Atom Totality, a single huge atom of plutonium, the
> isotope 231 Pu to be specific, if the universe is this one big atom
> and what we see is the last electron the 94th electron of this huge
> single atom, then we should see a feature of "spin" in the Night Sky.
> We should see a feature of "all the galaxies" heading for one
> direction.
first of all, you haven't shown that an electron is ever actually
10^40 slivers, this is just your 'interpretation' of a probability
density which you simply state it as fact but show no real
physical phenomena which demonstrates this.
second, if you did have a 10^40 slivered electron, and you claimed
that it 'occupied' the entire spacial region known as electronic
orbitals, you would have a smoothly dispersed array of fragments,
which the visible material universe clear is not.
you would claim that anywhere within an electronic orbitals geometry,
you would be able to find such a sliver and so, your 10^40 slivers
must be evenly dispersed.
you would not 'see' clusters of electronic fragments and interstitial
spacial regions within an orbital, but you do see such clustering
and spacial regions in the material universe.
so, your two interpretations don't seem to
fit together as well as you'd like to suggest.
in fact, they are entirely -different-
your interpretted electron dust cloud could not
-look- like the material universe does look.
and this based on what you -do- actually say.
you say this above;
spacial region encompassed by an electronic orbital,
you you could tell me thata sliver of an electron
is occupying that point, and this is not at all
what the night sky looks like.
not even close
> (3) In an Atom Totality, a quantum spin must exist, a direction in
> which all the Matter of the Universe is moving towards. Does such a
> feature occur? Well, last I looked, everything, every piece of Matter
> that we know of is moving in the direction of what is called the Great
> Attractor. Now if the Universe was a Big Bang, it would be silly to
> think that after the explosion event that all the shot out Matter
> would be coming together, as if one fired a shotgun at another person
> standing a distance away with an empty shotgun and that the fired
> pellets out of the first shotgun would be ending up down the barrel of
> the 2nd shotgun.
look at this first; then see if you still think that every
thing that you see in the night sky is actually "there"
==
given that the average distance from earth
to the moon is 384400 km and the speed of
light is 299792.458 km/s,
on average, it takes 1.28 seconds for
light from the moon to reach the earth.
so, hypothetically speaking, if you had a human being,
standing on the moon pointing a flashlight at the earth,
which you could see through a telescope on the earth,
and that person, shut off the flashlight,
there would be a lag time of over 1 second
between the time that person turned that
flashlight off, and the time -you- on earth,
stopped seeing the light from that flashlight.
so, for over one second, you'd still think that
the person was flashing a light at you after that
person had already shut that light off.
so now,
let's say that we have a person
on some further distant 'moon'.
let's say that 'moon' is 384400000000 km from earth
and the speed of light is still pretty much the same.
now it takes 1280000 seconds for us to realize
that that person has shut off the flashlight.
it will take nearly -15 days- for us to realize
that the person has turned off the flashlight.
so, if we say that we 'see the flashlight'
we still cannot say that the flashlight is still -on- 'now'
where 'now' is -our- immediate time frame.
now, convince yourself that the light from
a distant Star 10 billion light years 'away'
is most assuredly a Phantom of a light that
has been turned off X number of billions
of years -before- 'we' see that light 'now'
or, at least, if you saw what was
a yellow star like the sun, -then-
it would be long beyond yellow and
converted to a red giant by 'now'
well, actually, if you saw a yellow star like
the sun 10 billion light years away, that star
would be long gone 'now' inasmuch as estimates
for the life of the sun is ~5 billion more years.
so, you'd be seeing a light artifact
of a sun which is not there anymore.
so, what you may conclude is that much
of what some people are seeing through
telescopes isn't -there- 'now' ...
one other little thing,
up to a point, it seems like
you are looking 'out there'
and up to a point, you may very
well be looking 'out there'
but at a certain point,
you have to be looking 'in there'
which is to say, you look
out to 'nearby' galaxy
and it is 'out there'
but, looking much farther 'out'
you flip around and are looking
-into- a more distant -past-
and, if you believe that
the material universe has
been expansive, then, in
the more distant -past-
you flip around and are looking -inwards-
as if you are on the crest of a wave that
is moving -away- from any possible
'central region'
in any attempt to visualize this, you should
-not- try to place the earth in the -center-
of the universe
after a point, the optical illusions take precedence
and -you- are on the -outer edge- looking -inward-
always remembering that you'd be looking
-inwards- to a past that isn't there anymore.
like you're in the outer edge crust
of pie that's been eaten, only you
seem to see a pie still there.
at least some of the pie is eaten already.
but you -seem- to be seeing the whole pie.
and you may -expect- that stuff in
the more remote -past- would appear
to be moving -faster-
and that it is this -outer edge earth-
that is, in fact, 'slowing down'
just as would be expected.
what may give you trouble is;
"why aren't we seeing the empty null region
outside of the universe if we are out along
the edge and not in the center?"
right, if 'we' really are more out along
the periphery of the material universe
and -not- in some central region which
may not even be 'there' anymore,
then, we are seeing the edge, and that is -us-
and we are also seeing some illusions which
have disappeared into time, and, any
'empty null region' wouldn't be 'visible'
to -us- anyway inasmuch as it has nothing
we can relate to with our instruments.
seeing, hearing etc.
but that's drifting off...
back to square one.
all that and, though the
'speed of light' may
be constant,
the velocity of light is not,
and, the interstellar miasma
is just that,
not a vacuum, but more like
a dirty swimming pool but that's
another difficulty entirely.
==
> In an Atom Totality, we expect a spin and that spin would show up as a
> Great Attractor where all the Matter is converging upon. The Great
> Attractor makes no sense in a Big Bang theory.
trouble is, all 94 electrons of a plutonium atom are -not-
'converging' anywhere, they are distanced in discrete spacial
regions where the likelyhood of finding them is high and
f d and p and s orbitals are not being sucked into the nucleus.
can you comprehend this?
> Now I covered just three evidences, but the book covers about 10 or
> more evidences that the Atom Totality is the only proper theory for
> the Universe.
you didn't cover "evidences" you stated some sort of
"interpretations" stacked upon other "interpretations"
and made secondary claims based on primary suppositions
which were simply -treated- as fact.
> Timothy Sutter wrote:
> > Archimedes Plutonium wrote:
> > > Archimedes Plutonium
> > > whole entire Universe is just one big atom
> > > where dots of the electron dot cloud are galaxies
> > > where dots of the electron dot cloud are galaxies
> > but, what i'd still like to know, is
> > how do you propose to assign an integral spin quantum state
> > to a dust cloud?
> > https://groups.google.com/d/msg/sci.physics.electromag/8_yr5FTLxz4/hX...
> > """palladium superconducts and also has a subshell switch then the
> > crystal geometry of a 4d8, 5s2 should be altogether very much
> > different from 4d10"""
> > https://groups.google.com/d/msg/sci.physics.electromag/8_yr5FTLxz4/Rj...
> > """So as we cool Helium-4 to that of 2 Kelvin, why would one of the
> > electrons convert from its down spin to be a up spin and have two up
> > spins in that suborbital?"""
> > see, you speak of spin states orbital population
> > and these spin states and orbital populations are
> > best described -by- an integral electron and not by
> > any sort of dust cloud.
<...>
> > how do you propose to assign an integral spin quantum state
> > to a dust cloud?
> > https://groups.google.com/d/msg/sci.physics.electromag/8_yr5FTLxz4/hX...
> > """palladium superconducts and also has a subshell switch then the
> > crystal geometry of a 4d8, 5s2 should be altogether very much
> > different from 4d10"""
> > https://groups.google.com/d/msg/sci.physics.electromag/8_yr5FTLxz4/Rj...
> > """So as we cool Helium-4 to that of 2 Kelvin, why would one of the
> > electrons convert from its down spin to be a up spin and have two up
> > spins in that suborbital?"""
> > see, you speak of spin states orbital population
> > and these spin states and orbital populations are
> > best described -by- an integral electron and not by
> > any sort of dust cloud.
and the way they describe this "probability" is that a
particulate electron in the hydrogen atom is simply,
more "likely to be" found at or around the "Bohr radius"
and not that it is definitely =there=.
teh "interpretation" of psi is this statistical 'maybe'
as opposed to an 'exact' location.
it's a matter of the precision of knowledge
that may be had for a single particulate.
the electron -is- a single hard body whose position and momentum
are statistical probability patterns, and not that an electron
exists as a hard ball sometimes and as 10^40 slivers at any other time.
> So, Tim, you talk as if the Probability is a feature of a ball
> electron. The Probability in physics and the Schrodinger Equation is
> there because we have to "interpret the electron" not that the
> electron is a pre-existing hard ball and given a chance of finding it
> at one location rather than another location.
they =interpret= the meaning of psi and psi squared, and that
interpretation reveals that a statistical understanding of
the electron's whereabouts in reality is the best we can hope for.
> So, which is the better interpretation, yours or mine? You interpret
> the electron to be a hard ball and the dots are a probability of
> finding that hard ball a specific location. I interpret the electron
> to be a smashed to smithereens particle in the ground state, and where
> all those tiny bits and pieces of the electron form a dot-cloud, so
> that you ask me what is the chance of finding the electron at a point
> in space, and I answer with a chance that a piece of the electron is
> at that particular point in space.
for these slivered pieces of electrons when you certainly cannot
solve this for an electron in it's entirety.
you'd be saying, "at such and such a point, this -sliver-
is moving with such and such a simulataneous, -knowable-
position and momentum" and -then- turn around and tell
me that you -cannot- know these same facts
for a solid ball electron.
your "interpretation" takes a problem that is unsolvable
for a single entire electron, and makes it solvable for
the smaller fractional -pieces- of that same electron.
you'd think that this was -obviously- erroneous...
and i dare say, that halliday and resnick are not
responsible for this "interpretation" of yours.
did you ever hear anyone say that a bowling ball's
motion would have a measurable wavelength if you
could get a grating to accomodate the value?
this is saying that a solid bowling ball, already should -have-
an associated wavelength and not that the same bowling ball,
suddenly -behaves- as if it were an ethereal wave pattern
under cetrainconditions, whereupon, it returns to it's
bowling ball condition after midnight.
> Now, look at the night sky as if it were an atom and you see the stars
> and galaxies as tiny white dots. Does that night sky look like just
> one single huge large hard ball in the sky next to empty Space. Or,
> does the night sky look like a huge large ball, that was smashed into
> 10^40 tiny other things and then spread across the night sky?
where these dots are going and that no such "probability"
is associated with their position and momentum.
so, once again, if you claim that the -electron- behaves
as a mass of 10^40 slivers, each of whose positions and momenta,
-can be- known simultaneously, you are taking a much more
difficult problem and sayingit is easier to solve for
the unsolvable nature of the ball type electron.
you'd be saying that, though we cannot know the position
and momentum of a ball electron simultaneously, you
-can- know these same phenomenon for the fractured
-pieces- of a ball electron.
and, isn't this what you are saying?
and, isn't this "interpretation" self contradictory?
> Now most students of physics, as they study it and learn it, are
> confused with this chapter on the probability density function of the
> Schrodinger Equation. The are confused because they do not understand
> that it is a "interpretation" and the way that Bohr interprets the
> wavefunction is that he realizes it is (the electron) is both a hard
> ball at times such as in electricity flowing in a wire and we call it
> the collapsed wavefunction, or it is a dot cloud where the electron
> has been smashed into 10^40 tiny pieces.
in the hydrogen atom trouble is, that this falls apart
as we leave the 1s state.
i doubt very highly that Bohr promulgated an idea that the
electron is or even ever behaves as if it were 10^40
slivered fragments.
the electron doesn't change form based on -how- 'we' try to look at it.
the hard ball electron -has- a wave pattern associated with it's mechanics.
the travels -of- the hard ball -has- aspects which can be
mathematically derived -as- a wavelength and a frequency.
=if= an electron were imagined and interpretted to be 10^40 smithereenies,
those 10^40 smithereenies -travel- in unison as -if- they were a single
mass and the greater probability of finding the entire mass of
smithereenies is at the Bohr radius and then all the
various solutions -to- psi, and so, for all practical purposes,
even =if= you could interpret an electron as a smithereenies blob,
that blob would still -behave- as if it were a single
rather uniform entity.
etc.
> When students read that and
> walk away with the impression that the electron is a hard ball with a
> chance of being at a location represented by a dot cloud, then they
> failed to understand this physics, failed to understand the use of
> "probability" as meaning "interpretation".
to interpret the electron into a fragmentary blob that fills
the -entire- spacial region that it is 'most likely' to
be inhabitting as -it- wobbles around the nucleus.
the probability density is a function of the
uncertainty of location and motion.
we don't really think that the six pi electrons
are actually -shaped- like a dumbell
or are a mass of ethereal particles
in a balloon of space.
we really suggest that the electron, which
is a singular entity, is 'somewhere'
inside that balloon of space, we just cannot
shrink the size of that balloon of space
to exactly enwrap that singular entity.
> The electron is both the
> hard ball and the dot cloud, but it is not a hard ball with a chance
> of being at a specific location. When you want the electron with a
> chance at a specific location, the electron is no longer a hard ball,
> but a smashed to smithereens 10^40 tiny pieces and when you find a
> piece of the electron there at a specific point in space, you have not
> found the total electron as a hard ball, but you found 1/10^40 of the
> electron.
of an electron at a specifiable location moving in a specifiable path,
and this is already shown not to be the case -for- the hard
ball singular entity.
the chances of specificity for the smithereenie is
no more probable than the chances of finding
the singular entity.
your 'interpretation, seeks to invent a specificity
that is already lost on the larger object.
it has no real value, either as a descriptive device
nor as a verifiable aspect of reality.
> So that if I point to the night sky a faraway galaxy or faraway star
> in the Milky Way, I am pointing to a piece of the last electron of a
> Plutonium Atom Totality.
atoms occupy a continuous spectrum of gravitational energy
states and -not- discrete electromagnetic energy states.
> Now to answer all your other questions, I can make a quick brief
> summary:
> (1) The Cosmic Microwave Background Radiation comes in a 2.71 Kelvin
> temperature, but the most important feature of that temperature which
> all the other physicists and astronomers know, is the feature that the
> temperature is blackbody. Blackbody radiation can exist in only one
> circumstance, in that a cavity, a inside interior has to exist to form
> blackbody radiation. That means the Big Bang is an utter fake theory
> for the universe since it says the Universe is in an explosion state.
> You cannot have a explosion for the Universe and have the microwave
> radiation be blackbody. So the Universe is the "inside of something" a
> cavity, and what cavity could possible be the Universe? The only
> logical choice is an atom, a single large atom that has all the other
> atoms inside itself as a cavity. If the radiation had not been
> blackbody, the Big Bang theory could live a day longer, but ever since
> the physicists first reported that the Microwave Background Radiation
> of the Cosmos was blackbody radiation, the Big Bang theory was dead,
> not buried yet, for it takes time for scientists to understand what
> had happened when the news of blackbody came in.
of teh physical universe simply came to exist in a pre-existing infinity
of an open spacial region, when it can easily be said that the spacial
region in which the material universe finds itself
came in to existiance -as- teh material came in to existence and was
not 'always' there and the matter simply popped into a space that
was already there.
no, we do not speak of a spacial vacuum that became inhabbitted
by matter, we speak of a spaceless epoch into which was spawned
both space and matter.
in this respect, you -can- say that the material universe
is encapsulated in a spacial cavity within a space-less domain.
we beginn from a spaceless and matterless state
and both space and matter come to be simultaneously
and so, to speak of a cavitation is not contradicted.
> (2) Is there another major clue that the Cosmos is a gigantic atom
> rather than the blackbody radiation? Well yes, there are dozens of
> major clues. The second major clue is what is known as "solid body
> rotation or rigid body rotation". It is seen first in astronomy
> history by the spiral galaxies and barred spiral galaxies for the
> telescopes observed these spiral arms having solid body rotation. That
> is rotation which many of us growing up in the 1960s remember as the
> vinyl record player that the music disc spins on a record player.
in the center of these record albums and are -not- rigidly held at bay.
in the atomic model, electrons do -not- pour into the nucleus
where they may be obliterated by gravitational puckers.
> Now
> the only way one can get solid body rotation for it requires a huge
> amount of energy to make solid body rotation is in the Maxwell
> Equations the EM force which is 10^40 stronger than the force of
> gravity.
"classical mechanics" simply does not work as the 'best explanation'
when applied to teh behaviors of very small things, like electrons,
and, so-called "quantum mechanics" was developed to provide a more
correct explanation for phenomenon associated with
very small objects and light.
see, another problem is, let's say the moon
is slowly drifting away from the earth, not
entirely hypothetical as some people suggest
that the moon is, in fact, slowly drifting
away from the earth,
ok, so, in this drifting, the moon is passing
thru a continuous spectrum of energy states
and is -not- doing what electrons seem to do,
which appear in one state, a ground state lets say,
and then, appear in a higher -discrete- energy state
and never make an appearance in some
state -between- ..say, 1S and 2Px
so, the stars and galaxies and planets and all that space dust
is not found in discrete energy states, but...apparently,
in a rather continuous spectrum of energy states.
and this behavior is not at all -like- a universal plutonium atom.
we wouldnt be getting pelted with meteorites if there was
such a discrete set of possible energy states as on the atomic level.
is slowly drifting away from the earth, not
entirely hypothetical as some people suggest
that the moon is, in fact, slowly drifting
away from the earth,
ok, so, in this drifting, the moon is passing
thru a continuous spectrum of energy states
and is -not- doing what electrons seem to do,
which appear in one state, a ground state lets say,
and then, appear in a higher -discrete- energy state
and never make an appearance in some
state -between- ..say, 1S and 2Px
so, the stars and galaxies and planets and all that space dust
is not found in discrete energy states, but...apparently,
in a rather continuous spectrum of energy states.
and this behavior is not at all -like- a universal plutonium atom.
we wouldnt be getting pelted with meteorites if there was
such a discrete set of possible energy states as on the atomic level.
> The force of gravity can never get your vinyl record to spin
> as solid body rotation but EM can. So when astronomers started
> observing Solid Body Rotation in galaxies and in clusters of galaxies,
> what they then did was really saddening, and what they did was show
> that they have little logic in order to be a scientist. They saw Solid
> Body Rotation and instead of saying "throw out gravity and replace
> gravity with EM-gravity", and instead of being logical, what they did
> was say that the Cosmos must be filled with dark matter and dark
> energy in order to make those galaxies spin in solid body rotation.
there are other explanations for galactic spin.
> as solid body rotation but EM can. So when astronomers started
> observing Solid Body Rotation in galaxies and in clusters of galaxies,
> what they then did was really saddening, and what they did was show
> that they have little logic in order to be a scientist. They saw Solid
> Body Rotation and instead of saying "throw out gravity and replace
> gravity with EM-gravity", and instead of being logical, what they did
> was say that the Cosmos must be filled with dark matter and dark
> energy in order to make those galaxies spin in solid body rotation.
God's finger spinning them like a top is possible. etc.
> So, I ask you, if the radiation is blackbody and that means a Cosmic
> cavity, and if the Cosmos has many examples of solid body rotation and
> that means EM, then who in their right mind would select the Big Bang
> when it is already trashed by blackbody radiation and by Solid Body
> Rotation.
so, i feel no need to offer up a compelling defense for it.
i -do- suggest that this material universe had a
very definite beginning from not being there,
but the actual mechanics involved, i don't
speak of a random accident caused by -nothing-
> But, let me give you one more, for I have time for one more now. If
> the Universe is a Atom Totality, a single huge atom of plutonium, the
> isotope 231 Pu to be specific, if the universe is this one big atom
> and what we see is the last electron the 94th electron of this huge
> single atom, then we should see a feature of "spin" in the Night Sky.
> We should see a feature of "all the galaxies" heading for one
> direction.
10^40 slivers, this is just your 'interpretation' of a probability
density which you simply state it as fact but show no real
physical phenomena which demonstrates this.
second, if you did have a 10^40 slivered electron, and you claimed
that it 'occupied' the entire spacial region known as electronic
orbitals, you would have a smoothly dispersed array of fragments,
which the visible material universe clear is not.
you would claim that anywhere within an electronic orbitals geometry,
you would be able to find such a sliver and so, your 10^40 slivers
must be evenly dispersed.
you would not 'see' clusters of electronic fragments and interstitial
spacial regions within an orbital, but you do see such clustering
and spacial regions in the material universe.
so, your two interpretations don't seem to
fit together as well as you'd like to suggest.
in fact, they are entirely -different-
your interpretted electron dust cloud could not
-look- like the material universe does look.
and this based on what you -do- actually say.
you say this above;
> I interpret the electron
> to be a smashed to smithereens particle in the ground state, and where
> all those tiny bits and pieces of the electron form a dot-cloud, so
> that you ask me what is the chance of finding the electron at a point
> in space, and I answer with a chance that a piece of the electron is
> at that particular point in space.
see, you'd be claimig that whatever 'point' in the
> to be a smashed to smithereens particle in the ground state, and where
> all those tiny bits and pieces of the electron form a dot-cloud, so
> that you ask me what is the chance of finding the electron at a point
> in space, and I answer with a chance that a piece of the electron is
> at that particular point in space.
spacial region encompassed by an electronic orbital,
you you could tell me thata sliver of an electron
is occupying that point, and this is not at all
what the night sky looks like.
not even close
> (3) In an Atom Totality, a quantum spin must exist, a direction in
> which all the Matter of the Universe is moving towards. Does such a
> feature occur? Well, last I looked, everything, every piece of Matter
> that we know of is moving in the direction of what is called the Great
> Attractor. Now if the Universe was a Big Bang, it would be silly to
> think that after the explosion event that all the shot out Matter
> would be coming together, as if one fired a shotgun at another person
> standing a distance away with an empty shotgun and that the fired
> pellets out of the first shotgun would be ending up down the barrel of
> the 2nd shotgun.
thing that you see in the night sky is actually "there"
==
given that the average distance from earth
to the moon is 384400 km and the speed of
light is 299792.458 km/s,
on average, it takes 1.28 seconds for
light from the moon to reach the earth.
so, hypothetically speaking, if you had a human being,
standing on the moon pointing a flashlight at the earth,
which you could see through a telescope on the earth,
and that person, shut off the flashlight,
there would be a lag time of over 1 second
between the time that person turned that
flashlight off, and the time -you- on earth,
stopped seeing the light from that flashlight.
so, for over one second, you'd still think that
the person was flashing a light at you after that
person had already shut that light off.
so now,
let's say that we have a person
on some further distant 'moon'.
let's say that 'moon' is 384400000000 km from earth
and the speed of light is still pretty much the same.
now it takes 1280000 seconds for us to realize
that that person has shut off the flashlight.
it will take nearly -15 days- for us to realize
that the person has turned off the flashlight.
so, if we say that we 'see the flashlight'
we still cannot say that the flashlight is still -on- 'now'
where 'now' is -our- immediate time frame.
now, convince yourself that the light from
a distant Star 10 billion light years 'away'
is most assuredly a Phantom of a light that
has been turned off X number of billions
of years -before- 'we' see that light 'now'
or, at least, if you saw what was
a yellow star like the sun, -then-
it would be long beyond yellow and
converted to a red giant by 'now'
well, actually, if you saw a yellow star like
the sun 10 billion light years away, that star
would be long gone 'now' inasmuch as estimates
for the life of the sun is ~5 billion more years.
so, you'd be seeing a light artifact
of a sun which is not there anymore.
so, what you may conclude is that much
of what some people are seeing through
telescopes isn't -there- 'now' ...
one other little thing,
up to a point, it seems like
you are looking 'out there'
and up to a point, you may very
well be looking 'out there'
but at a certain point,
you have to be looking 'in there'
which is to say, you look
out to 'nearby' galaxy
and it is 'out there'
but, looking much farther 'out'
you flip around and are looking
-into- a more distant -past-
and, if you believe that
the material universe has
been expansive, then, in
the more distant -past-
you flip around and are looking -inwards-
as if you are on the crest of a wave that
is moving -away- from any possible
'central region'
in any attempt to visualize this, you should
-not- try to place the earth in the -center-
of the universe
after a point, the optical illusions take precedence
and -you- are on the -outer edge- looking -inward-
always remembering that you'd be looking
-inwards- to a past that isn't there anymore.
like you're in the outer edge crust
of pie that's been eaten, only you
seem to see a pie still there.
at least some of the pie is eaten already.
but you -seem- to be seeing the whole pie.
and you may -expect- that stuff in
the more remote -past- would appear
to be moving -faster-
and that it is this -outer edge earth-
that is, in fact, 'slowing down'
just as would be expected.
what may give you trouble is;
"why aren't we seeing the empty null region
outside of the universe if we are out along
the edge and not in the center?"
right, if 'we' really are more out along
the periphery of the material universe
and -not- in some central region which
may not even be 'there' anymore,
then, we are seeing the edge, and that is -us-
and we are also seeing some illusions which
have disappeared into time, and, any
'empty null region' wouldn't be 'visible'
to -us- anyway inasmuch as it has nothing
we can relate to with our instruments.
seeing, hearing etc.
but that's drifting off...
back to square one.
all that and, though the
'speed of light' may
be constant,
the velocity of light is not,
and, the interstellar miasma
is just that,
not a vacuum, but more like
a dirty swimming pool but that's
another difficulty entirely.
==
> In an Atom Totality, we expect a spin and that spin would show up as a
> Great Attractor where all the Matter is converging upon. The Great
> Attractor makes no sense in a Big Bang theory.
'converging' anywhere, they are distanced in discrete spacial
regions where the likelyhood of finding them is high and
f d and p and s orbitals are not being sucked into the nucleus.
can you comprehend this?
> Now I covered just three evidences, but the book covers about 10 or
> more evidences that the Atom Totality is the only proper theory for
> the Universe.
"interpretations" stacked upon other "interpretations"
and made secondary claims based on primary suppositions
which were simply -treated- as fact.
Timothy Sutter
Nov 6, 2012, 10:08:37 PM11/6/12
to
Larry Harson wrote:
> Timothy Sutter wrote:
> > if archi is propagandizing his pet theory and that theory includes
> > aspects which are clearly of an electromagnetic nature, archi -may-
> > want to shop it around where people who are all keen on electromagnetism
> > would catch wind of it, and so,
> > crossposting is tolerated for just that sort of reason.
> > archi's 'theory', -is- that quantum mechanics
> > can be derived from the maxwell equations.
> Fine. But in my judgement, many of his posts contain too great a ratio
> of particle physics/chemistry/maths to electromagnetism to be of use
> in sci.physics.electromag, and that's why I flag them.
> Timothy Sutter wrote:
> > if archi is propagandizing his pet theory and that theory includes
> > aspects which are clearly of an electromagnetic nature, archi -may-
> > want to shop it around where people who are all keen on electromagnetism
> > would catch wind of it, and so,
> > crossposting is tolerated for just that sort of reason.
> > archi's 'theory', -is- that quantum mechanics
> > can be derived from the maxwell equations.
> Fine. But in my judgement, many of his posts contain too great a ratio
> of particle physics/chemistry/maths to electromagnetism to be of use
> in sci.physics.electromag, and that's why I flag them.
https://groups.google.com/d/msg/sci.chem/G_ts-y6KiBM/nz-IXX_Lr9UJ
the thread =clearly= shows that
the intent of the abuse flagging
is =not= topicallity
but a personal vendetta against archi
and one to which is maintain my disagreement.
if topicallity were at issue
the chit chat at the end would have been flagged, it was not.
this is just plain flat out wrong.
the thread =clearly= shows that
the intent of the abuse flagging
is =not= topicallity
but a personal vendetta against archi
and one to which is maintain my disagreement.
if topicallity were at issue
the chit chat at the end would have been flagged, it was not.
this is just plain flat out wrong.
Larry Harson
Nov 7, 2012, 5:02:58 PM11/7/12
to
that he cross-posted this to sci.chem and sci.math.
Larry.
Timothy Sutter
Nov 24, 2012, 6:20:33 AM11/24/12
to
coded instruction sets
are components of Nature.
one view;
coded instruction sets are an
intrinsic attribute of Nature.
one view;
coded instruction sets are used
in the construction of Nature.
are instructions given or are instructions ever present?
how are coded instruction sets best represented?
coded instruction sets ---> non-personal configurations
coded instruction sets ---> conscious conceptions
that is part of the problem, in that it
does not seem to matter how one describes
coded instruction sets, be they tools in
a box or the conceptions of mind, to
initiate operation is a characteristic
of conscious intent.
OFF | / | ON
how many ways can chemicals be assembled
producing the functionality of a spleen?
if non-specific make-up can be shown
for specific function, then similar
make-up becomes a significant datum.
if similar function requires similar make-up,
then similar make-up is of no real significance.
it seems as if specific function
demands specific make-up.
that creatures that have outward appearing
similarities are also similar on the
molecular level is to be expected.
if one could show two creatures which were
very similar in appearance and function and
yet markedly different on the molecular level
this would be somewhat more significant.
still not an evidence that either could have
arisen by random happenstance, however.
oh, and as far as this monkey business,
apprently one would have to suggest
a rather -immediate- speciation followed
by some slow and gradual genomic shift.
etc.
are components of Nature.
one view;
coded instruction sets are an
intrinsic attribute of Nature.
one view;
coded instruction sets are used
in the construction of Nature.
are instructions given or are instructions ever present?
how are coded instruction sets best represented?
coded instruction sets ---> non-personal configurations
coded instruction sets ---> conscious conceptions
that is part of the problem, in that it
does not seem to matter how one describes
coded instruction sets, be they tools in
a box or the conceptions of mind, to
initiate operation is a characteristic
of conscious intent.
OFF | / | ON
how many ways can chemicals be assembled
producing the functionality of a spleen?
if non-specific make-up can be shown
for specific function, then similar
make-up becomes a significant datum.
if similar function requires similar make-up,
then similar make-up is of no real significance.
it seems as if specific function
demands specific make-up.
that creatures that have outward appearing
similarities are also similar on the
molecular level is to be expected.
if one could show two creatures which were
very similar in appearance and function and
yet markedly different on the molecular level
this would be somewhat more significant.
still not an evidence that either could have
arisen by random happenstance, however.
oh, and as far as this monkey business,
apprently one would have to suggest
a rather -immediate- speciation followed
by some slow and gradual genomic shift.
etc.
Timothy Sutter
Nov 24, 2012, 6:21:59 AM11/24/12
to
so, what you'd like to say is
that this 'thing/organism'
eats respires and replicates and moves
and proceed to chop it down to the smallest
'thing/organism' that eats respires replicates
and moves
and find out what 'bit' of 'it'
if removed, will prevent this 'thing/organism'
from continuing to eat respire replicate an move.
but, you may also find that there are more than
one 'site' which, if removed, will 'kill' the 'organism'
so, that's the backward regression,
and now, you'd like to say;
"this is the very smallest 'organism'
that can eat respire replicate, and move
and then, find a way of having components of -it-
self assemble in aqueaous solution.
and now your back to the "phantom mechanism" again
as, without doubt, if the components do -not-
eat respire and replicate and move
the chances of these components
self assembling as -in-
the process of replication
is nil.
if you chop away the component that
facillitates assembly of replicants
then it ain't gunna self assemble from scratch...
end game...
y'ain't got 'it'
if you'd like, you can truncate 'eats and respires'
in to a single phenomenon
eats and replicates
"this thing eats and replicates"
"these are the components of this
'thing' that eats and replicates"
"now, we dump these components into aqueous solution,
and, they sit there and stare at us, and no
respiring/replicating organism emerges"
"days later, still nothing"
"months later, still nothing"
"years la....ah skip it"
"how -did- you 'do' it?"
"cuz -this, just ain't workin"
=because= this would have to be some thing
that -could- "self assemble" in a matter of days/weeks
from these 'unmotivated' constituent parts.
skip right to the point where this self assembly -could- happen
not asking -how- all of these constituents
take shape over the eons, so-called,
"-these- components, self assemble
-into- an organism that -replicates-"
it's a paradox
'it' needs 'itself' to assemble 'itself'
the "phantom mechanism"
"the shadow knows"
or, alternatively;
"who knows?"
"the shadow do"
more fine tuning...
i'm starting to see the relatedness between
"fine tuning" and "fine tuning"
it's always strange how these things fit together...
it's not "whimsy"
"the shadow built the man"
or, i suppose it's more like;
"the shadow -cast- the man"
this isn't happening;
""take one strand of RNA and toss it into
a container of warm water/nutrient bath
and days later, you find multiple copies of
the original RNA strand and a somewhat
depleted nutrient supply.""
so, that'd be a dead end...
in other words,
i'm -giving- you the "non-living" -components-
now, let's watch the "non-living" -components-
self assemble in aqueous solution, whereupon
a "living" assembly is now present
in aqueous solution.
there is no resort to an;
"it takes a million years" argument
these non-living -components- should self assemble
to form a living organism in a matter of -days-
-if- they can self assemble -at all-
one thing for sure, considering the speculation
of a primal cell type that is a precursor for all
subsequent living organisms including all bacteria
there is no =specimen= of any such primal living organism.
no trace at all.
it must be one of those "invisible pink unicorns"
but, -positting- a primal precursor 'organism'
is a tacit admission that simple bacteria did not
spring to life from numerous collisions
of non-living components.
that means, speculating on
the necessary existence of
some primal precursor,
is an unspoken admission that simple bacteria
did not spring to life from numerous collisions
of non-living components.
so, what there is =evidence= for
is an organism that has no precursor
which did not arise from the random collisions
of non-living components.
that this 'thing/organism'
eats respires and replicates and moves
and proceed to chop it down to the smallest
'thing/organism' that eats respires replicates
and moves
and find out what 'bit' of 'it'
if removed, will prevent this 'thing/organism'
from continuing to eat respire replicate an move.
but, you may also find that there are more than
one 'site' which, if removed, will 'kill' the 'organism'
so, that's the backward regression,
and now, you'd like to say;
"this is the very smallest 'organism'
that can eat respire replicate, and move
and then, find a way of having components of -it-
self assemble in aqueaous solution.
and now your back to the "phantom mechanism" again
as, without doubt, if the components do -not-
eat respire and replicate and move
the chances of these components
self assembling as -in-
the process of replication
is nil.
if you chop away the component that
facillitates assembly of replicants
then it ain't gunna self assemble from scratch...
end game...
y'ain't got 'it'
if you'd like, you can truncate 'eats and respires'
in to a single phenomenon
eats and replicates
"this thing eats and replicates"
"these are the components of this
'thing' that eats and replicates"
"now, we dump these components into aqueous solution,
and, they sit there and stare at us, and no
respiring/replicating organism emerges"
"days later, still nothing"
"months later, still nothing"
"years la....ah skip it"
"how -did- you 'do' it?"
"cuz -this, just ain't workin"
=because= this would have to be some thing
that -could- "self assemble" in a matter of days/weeks
from these 'unmotivated' constituent parts.
skip right to the point where this self assembly -could- happen
not asking -how- all of these constituents
take shape over the eons, so-called,
"-these- components, self assemble
-into- an organism that -replicates-"
it's a paradox
'it' needs 'itself' to assemble 'itself'
the "phantom mechanism"
"the shadow knows"
or, alternatively;
"who knows?"
"the shadow do"
more fine tuning...
i'm starting to see the relatedness between
"fine tuning" and "fine tuning"
it's always strange how these things fit together...
it's not "whimsy"
"the shadow built the man"
or, i suppose it's more like;
"the shadow -cast- the man"
this isn't happening;
""take one strand of RNA and toss it into
a container of warm water/nutrient bath
and days later, you find multiple copies of
the original RNA strand and a somewhat
depleted nutrient supply.""
so, that'd be a dead end...
in other words,
i'm -giving- you the "non-living" -components-
now, let's watch the "non-living" -components-
self assemble in aqueous solution, whereupon
a "living" assembly is now present
in aqueous solution.
there is no resort to an;
"it takes a million years" argument
these non-living -components- should self assemble
to form a living organism in a matter of -days-
-if- they can self assemble -at all-
one thing for sure, considering the speculation
of a primal cell type that is a precursor for all
subsequent living organisms including all bacteria
there is no =specimen= of any such primal living organism.
no trace at all.
it must be one of those "invisible pink unicorns"
but, -positting- a primal precursor 'organism'
is a tacit admission that simple bacteria did not
spring to life from numerous collisions
of non-living components.
that means, speculating on
the necessary existence of
some primal precursor,
is an unspoken admission that simple bacteria
did not spring to life from numerous collisions
of non-living components.
so, what there is =evidence= for
is an organism that has no precursor
which did not arise from the random collisions
of non-living components.
0 new messages