Randy refuses to acknowlege his own web link.
gu...@hotmail.com
Randy writes: "The s-orbitals are spherical. The others are not. Nor
are they elliptical. Nor are they "donut-shaped".
The intelligent RANDY (not me) then GIVES THIS LINK:
which says:
"For example, in a simple lowest-energy state hydrogen atom, the
electrons are most likely to be found within a sphere around the
nucleus of an atom. In a higher energy state, the shapes become
***lobes and rings***."
Randy refuses to acknowlege his OWN web link.
WHY...so he can continue to throll with heckling comments and
complaints.
gu...@hotmail.com
> Athttp://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics.relativity/msg/38016d79d41...
>
> Randy writes: "The s-orbitals are spherical. The others are not. Nor
>
> are they elliptical. Nor are they "donut-shaped".
>
> The intelligent RANDY (not me) then GIVES THIS LINK:
>
> http://www.orbitals.com/orb/
>
> which says:
> "For example, in a simple lowest-energy state hydrogen atom, the
> electrons are most likely to be found within a sphere around the
> nucleus of an atom. In a higher energy state, the shapes become
> ***lobes and rings***."
>
> Randy refuses to acknowlege his OWN web link.
>
> WHY...so he can continue to throll with heckling comments and
> complaints.
I really don't think the above will sink-in. I think he needs repeats,
therefore:
In a higher energy state, the shapes become
***lobes and rings***
***lobes and rings***
***lobes and rings***
***lobes and rings***
***lobes and rings***
***lobes and rings***
***lobes and rings***
***lobes and rings***
***lobes and rings***
***lobes and rings***
***lobes and rings***
***lobes and rings***
***lobes and rings***
***lobes and rings***
***lobes and rings***
***lobes and rings***
***lobes and rings***
***lobes and rings***
***lobes and rings***
***lobes and rings***
Randy Poe
> Athttp://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics.relativity/msg/38016d79d41...
>
>
> are they elliptical. Nor are they "donut-shaped".
>
> The intelligent RANDY (not me) then GIVES THIS LINK:
>
> http://www.orbitals.com/orb/
>
> which says:
> "For example, in a simple lowest-energy state hydrogen atom, the
> electrons are most likely to be found within a sphere around the
In other words, the s-orbitals are spherical...
> "... In a higher energy state, the shapes become
> ***lobes and rings***."
... while in other words, the other orbitals are
not. Nor are the elliptical. Nor are they donut-shaped.
Now I warned you, stop using my name. If you have
something to post, post it in your own name. DO
NOT USE MY NAME IN SUBJECT LINES, YOU LYING
IGNORANT CHILDISH SLIMY IDIOT.
OK?
- Randy
Randy Poe
> On Sep 4, 11:58 am, "gu...@hotmail.com" <gu...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>
> In a higher energy state, the shapes become
> ***lobes and rings***
> ***lobes and rings***
> ***lobes and rings***
> ***lobes and rings***
> ***lobes and rings***
> ***lobes and rings***
> ***lobes and rings***
> ***lobes and rings***
> ***lobes and rings***
> ***lobes and rings***
> ***lobes and rings***
> ***lobes and rings***
> ***lobes and rings***
> ***lobes and rings***
> ***lobes and rings***
> ***lobes and rings***
> ***lobes and rings***
> ***lobes and rings***
> ***lobes and rings***
> ***lobes and rings***
Look at the pictures.
Look at the pictures.
Look at the pictures.
Look at the pictures.
Look at the pictures.
Look at the pictures.
Then come back and tell us how those pictures
are donuts and Keplerian elliptical orbits.
Can you identify which specific picture can be
described that way?
- Randy
gu...@hotmail.com
> On Sep 4, 11:58 am, "gu...@hotmail.com" <gu...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> > Athttp://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics.relativity/msg/38016d79d41...
>
> > Randy writes: "The s-orbitals are spherical. The others are not. Nor
>
> > are they elliptical. Nor are they "donut-shaped".
>
> > The intelligent RANDY (not me) then GIVES THIS LINK:
>
> > http://www.orbitals.com/orb/
>
> > which says:
> > "For example, in a simple lowest-energy state hydrogen atom, the
> > electrons are most likely to be found within a sphere around the
> > nucleus of an atom..."
>
> In other words, the s-orbitals are spherical...
>
> > "... In a higher energy state, the shapes become
> > ***lobes and rings***."
>
> ... while in other words, the other orbitals are
> not. Nor are the elliptical. Nor are they donut-shaped.
>
Hey dummy a ring is donut shaped.
Stop throlling my posts unless you wish to write comprehensibly.
gu...@hotmail.com
Goodbye.
> Then come back and tell us how those pictures
> are donuts and Keplerian elliptical orbits.
>
> Can you identify which specific picture can be
> described that way?
>
> - Randy- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
Dirk Van de moortel
"Randy Poe" <poespa...@yahoo.com> wrote in message news:1188921990.7...@k79g2000hse.googlegroups.com...
From http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Internet_troll :
| A troll's main goal is usually to arouse anger and
| frustration among the message board's other participants,
| and will write whatever it takes to achieve this end.
Dirk Vdm
gu...@hotmail.com
SperM.hotmail.com> wrote:
> "Randy Poe" <poespam-t...@yahoo.com> wrote in messagenews:1188921990.7...@k79g2000hse.googlegroups.com...
> | A troll's main goal is usually to arouse anger and
> | frustration among the message board's other participants,
> | and will write whatever it takes to achieve this end.
>
>
> - Show quoted text -
Erica Gisse would keep denying that proper time is invariant no matter
what I wrote. Until I managed to find the very phrase that exactly
said it in those words. AND HE STILL KEPT DENYING IT.
Until several people forced him to accept what was written.
Any knowledge/theory beyond what is "already" written is
incomprehensible to these people. And they stick to any detail or
pecularity they hope can prove otherwise.
Eric Gisse
bluefish
SperM.hotmail.com> wrote:
> "Randy Poe" <poespam-t...@yahoo.com> wrote in messagenews:1188921990.7...@k79g2000hse.googlegroups.com...
> | A troll's main goal is usually to arouse anger and
> | frustration among the message board's other participants,
> | and will write whatever it takes to achieve this end.
>
> Dirk Vdm
too bad for them, as long they are a fools,
and tha troll post related, there shold be more
trols
Jeckyl
news:1188925147.5...@57g2000hsv.googlegroups.com...
> Erica Gisse would keep denying that proper time is invariant no matter
> what I wrote. Until I managed to find the very phrase that exactly
> said it in those words. AND HE STILL KEPT DENYING IT.
> Until several people forced him to accept what was written.
>
> Any knowledge/theory beyond what is "already" written is
> incomprehensible to these people. And they stick to any detail or
> pecularity they hope can prove otherwise.
You're an obsessed little child.
Jeckyl
news:1188921990.7...@k79g2000hse.googlegroups.com...
> Look at the pictures.
> Look at the pictures.
> Look at the pictures.
> Look at the pictures.
> Look at the pictures.
>
> Then come back and tell us how those pictures
> are donuts and Keplerian elliptical orbits.
I must admit, The rings look donut-like to me. Maybe you eat different
shpaed donuts to me? No ellipses that I can see (except if you say a sphere
has a circular cross-section and a circle is a degenerate ellipse).
T.M. Sommers
> "Randy Poe" <poespa...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:1188921990.7...@k79g2000hse.googlegroups.com...
>
>>Look at the pictures.
>>
>>are donuts and Keplerian elliptical orbits.
>
> I must admit, The rings look donut-like to me. Maybe you eat different
> shpaed donuts to me? No ellipses that I can see (except if you say a sphere
> has a circular cross-section and a circle is a degenerate ellipse).
I think what he means is that none of the orbitals is a torus, a
whole torus, and nothing but a torus, although some do have
toroidal bits.
--
Thomas M. Sommers -- t...@nj.net -- AB2SB
gu...@hotmail.com
Obsessed is Randy who needs to be spoon fed into knowledge that
"possibly" the repulsion of charges can compress or slightly deform
orbital shapes (not to mention other atoms or molecules).
They're not perfect circles, rings, ellipses, donuts ....wahhhh
boohouu and keep complaining about it.
The enery drain on such minor details is CHILDISH and NOVICE.
The very web link he provided calls them lobes and rings but he still
insists on look at the pictures.
gu...@hotmail.com
>
> - Show quoted text -
Outside this scope (at least I write that it's outside this scope), I
"believe" the orbital shapes "need" to be circumferencial (= closed
loop) because the wavelength is a certain proportion to that
circumference, and therefore establishes the quantum number limit in
each shell.
Randy Poe
> "Randy Poe" <poespam-t...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>
> news:1188921990.7...@k79g2000hse.googlegroups.com...
>
> > Look at the pictures.
> > Look at the pictures.
> > Look at the pictures.
> > Look at the pictures.
> > Look at the pictures.
> > Look at the pictures.
>
> > Then come back and tell us how those pictures
> > are donuts and Keplerian elliptical orbits.
>
> I must admit, The rings look donut-like to me.
Which of the orbitals on this page looks like a donut
to you? Can you give me the value of m, n, and l? Because
none of them looks like anything the donut store has
ever given me.
> Maybe you eat different
> shpaed donuts to me?
Perhaps. Because I'd be a little alarmed if the
donut store handed me something like, say
(l,m,n) = (2,0,3) or (3,3,4).
> No ellipses that I can see (except if you say a sphere
> has a circular cross-section and a circle is a degenerate ellipse).
A circle is a perfectly good ellipse, but Kepler doesn't
allow orbits outside a plane. There certainly aren't
any planar "orbits" here, let alone elliptical
planar orbits.
- Randy
Jeckyl
> On Sep 4, 7:45 pm, "Jeckyl" <no...@nowhere.com> wrote:
>> "Randy Poe" <poespam-t...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>>
>> news:1188921990.7...@k79g2000hse.googlegroups.com...
>>
>> > Look at the pictures.
>> > Look at the pictures.
>> > Look at the pictures.
>> > Look at the pictures.
>> > Look at the pictures.
>> > Look at the pictures.
>>
>> > Then come back and tell us how those pictures
>> > are donuts and Keplerian elliptical orbits.
>>
>> I must admit, The rings look donut-like to me.
>
> Which of the orbitals on this page looks like a donut
> to you?
> Can you give me the value of m, n, and l?
m=0,n=4,l=2
Certainly looks like a tasy orange donut with a blob above and below it.
To me what the page describes as 'rings' are donut-shaped
Eric Gisse
> On Sep 4, 7:43 pm, "Jeckyl" <no...@nowhere.com> wrote:
>
> > <gu...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>
> >news:1188925147.5...@57g2000hsv.googlegroups.com...
>
> > > Erica Gisse would keep denying that proper time is invariant no matter
> > > what I wrote. Until I managed to find the very phrase that exactly
> > > said it in those words. AND HE STILL KEPT DENYING IT.
> > > Until several people forced him to accept what was written.
>
> > > Any knowledge/theory beyond what is "already" written is
> > > incomprehensible to these people. And they stick to any detail or
> > > pecularity they hope can prove otherwise.
>
> > You're an obsessed little child.
>
> Obsessed is Randy who needs to be spoon fed into knowledge that
> "possibly" the repulsion of charges can compress or slightly deform
> orbital shapes (not to mention other atoms or molecules).
You stupid fuck. You have some serious stones to come in here and
repeatedly try to correct those who are more educated than yourself.
Should I take another picture of yet another Griffiths text to prove
you wrong, or would you like to piss and moan about basic physics for
a few more weeks?
[snip remaining bullshittery]
Eric Gisse
No you ignorant shit, that is not why the orbitals are why they are.
http://www.amazon.com/Introduction-Quantum-Mechanics-David-Griffiths/dp/0131118927/
Go read chapter 4 and get educated.
gu...@hotmail.com
If electrons are waves, then the wavelength of the electron must 'fit'
into any orbit that it makes around the nucleus in an atom. This is
the 'boundary condition' for a one electron atom. All orbits that do
not have the electrons wavelength 'fit' are not possible, because wave
interference will rapidly destroy the wave amplitude and the electron
wouldn't exist anymore. This 'interference' effect leads to discrete
(quantized) energy levels for the atom.
gu...@hotmail.com
> "Randy Poe" <poespam-t...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>
> news:1188959770.9...@g4g2000hsf.googlegroups.com...
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Sep 4, 7:45 pm, "Jeckyl" <no...@nowhere.com> wrote:
> >> "Randy Poe" <poespam-t...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>
> >>news:1188921990.7...@k79g2000hse.googlegroups.com...
>
> >> > Look at the pictures.
> >> > Look at the pictures.
> >> > Look at the pictures.
> >> > Look at the pictures.
> >> > Look at the pictures.
> >> > Look at the pictures.
>
> >> > Then come back and tell us how those pictures
> >> > are donuts and Keplerian elliptical orbits.
>
> >> I must admit, The rings look donut-like to me.
>
> > Which of the orbitals on this page looks like a donut
> > to you?
> > Can you give me the value of m, n, and l?
>
> m=0,n=4,l=2
>
> Certainly looks like a tasy orange donut with a blob above and below it.
>
emm I'll have a coffee with dat!
> To me what the page describes as 'rings' are donut-shaped- Hide quoted text -
gu...@hotmail.com
Even a kepler elliptical orbit of a planet around one star can change
into a lobular orbit by the close and perhaps temporal proximity of
another star or planet.
He that looketh for perfectly shaped orbits or orbitals lacks
intelligence, it is already known a residual force is shared with
another atom or molecule and this close proximity force will cause
deformation. N.O.V.I.C.E.
gu...@hotmail.com
HER.
Randy Poe
> "Randy Poe" <poespam-t...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>
> news:1188959770.9...@g4g2000hsf.googlegroups.com...
>
>
>
> > On Sep 4, 7:45 pm, "Jeckyl" <no...@nowhere.com> wrote:
> >> "Randy Poe" <poespam-t...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>
> >>news:1188921990.7...@k79g2000hse.googlegroups.com...
>
> >> > Look at the pictures.
> >> > Look at the pictures.
> >> > Look at the pictures.
> >> > Look at the pictures.
> >> > Look at the pictures.
> >> > Look at the pictures.
>
> >> > Then come back and tell us how those pictures
> >> > are donuts and Keplerian elliptical orbits.
>
> >> I must admit, The rings look donut-like to me.
>
> > Which of the orbitals on this page looks like a donut
> > to you?
> > Can you give me the value of m, n, and l?
>
> m=0,n=4,l=2
>
> Certainly looks like a tasy orange donut with a blob above and below it.
My donuts don't come with blobs above and below. As
I said, I'd be a little alarmed if I got one of
those at the donut counter :-)
>
> To me what the page describes as 'rings' are donut-shaped
Sure, there are such features as PART of the orbitals,
but I wouldn't say that an orbital which consists of
"a donut with two blobs" bears much resemblance to
a Keplerian orbit. And I think guskz is choosing
to interpret "lobe", which is clearly the pointed
teardrop shape found in so many of these, as
"elliptical Keplerian orbit" despite the evidence
of the pictures.
- Randy
gu...@hotmail.com
>
Arrogance and pride causes Randy to REPEATEDLY try to convince others
that donut shapes are not ring shapes.
Arrogance and pride causes Randy to omit that the web link itself
calls them LOBES, there is NO interpretation.
Help me Randa, Help Help me Randa,
Help me Randa yeh get Erica Gisse out of my life.
Jeckyl
news:1188996460.5...@g4g2000hsf.googlegroups.com...
> Erica Gisse didn't even know proper time is invariant UNTIL I TAUGHT
> HER.
Grow up child
Eric Gisse
> http://itl.chem.ufl.edu/2045/lectures/lec_10.html
>
> If electrons are waves, then the wavelength of the electron must 'fit'
> into any orbit that it makes around the nucleus in an atom.
You have been told dozens of times now that the electrons don't
actually orbit an atom.
[snip remaining, unread]
Eric Gisse
>
> If electrons are waves, then the wavelength of the electron must 'fit'
> into any orbit that it makes around the nucleus in an atom.
You have been told dozens of times now that the electrons don't
gu...@hotmail.com
her stupid.
Jeckyl
news:1189086265.0...@w3g2000hsg.googlegroups.com...
> Erica Gisse argues from quotes from web links not from me, that makes
> her stupid.
Are you still in your teens? You behave like you're not even in your teens
yet.
Eric Gisse
> Erica Gisse argues from quotes from web links not from me, that makes
> her stupid.
I hope your testicles drop real soon so you have other things to do.