Does procreation offer proof;

[Ririon]

why not?

dont worry about me, i will get over it. Think about others and their evolution.

i am always interested in errors that i make as then i WILL grow.

Wouldn't it be easier for all parties if you stopped posting nonsense and gibberish? That would cut down your time used here to about 1 % of what you currently use, and save all of us some grief.

How about this: Chemistry does NOT use the Bohr model for the atom. Simply because it doesn't work well for chemical bonds. Sure, you might try to explain SOME very basic things using the model, but it quickly becomes obvious that more correct QM models explain things far better.

Assuming you are not a troll for one second: Stop this idiocy and start reading up if you are really interested in any of the many topics at hand.

If you were right and coherent, you would be eligible for several Nobel prizes. That should indicate how far off the mark you are.

 

[Dinwar]

I tried with the "life force" thing. Apparently it's not that, but it's not anything else, either. :/ Perhaps some sort of light....?

i will not believe entropy is the rule of the universe ever again

Uh.....What?

 

[John Jones]

does that mean you do not know how chemistry is describing the bonds (peptide etc) of elements via electron sharing?

If that is what I meant, that is what I would have said.

 

[Bishadi]

Wouldn't it be easier for all parties if you stopped posting nonsense and gibberish?

then why did you post this?

How about this: Chemistry does NOT use the Bohr model for the atom. Simply because it doesn't work well for chemical bonds.

when this is the bohr analogy:


In atomic physics, the Bohr model, devised by Niels Bohr, depicts the atom as a small, positively charged nucleus surrounded by electrons that travel in circular orbits around the nucleus—similar in structure to the solar system, but with electrostatic forces providing attraction, rather than gravity. This was an improvement on the earlier cubic model (1902), the plum-pudding model (1904), the Saturnian model (1904), and the Rutherford model (1911). Since the Bohr model is a quantum physics-based modification of the Rutherford model, many sources combine the two, referring to the Rutherford–Bohr model.

Introduced by Niels Bohr in 1913, the model's key success lay in explaining the Rydberg formula for the spectral emission lines of atomic hydrogen


all are current sciences

and of chemistry ???/ who just won a nobel for graphene?

and why was 'aromaticity' coined to share both the 'bohr' frame (lewis structure) and the resonance (notice the fields)

any comprehend why novoselov and griem recieved the NOBEL?


please................ if i wanted recognition i would have it!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Sure, you might try to explain SOME very basic things using the model, but it quickly becomes obvious that more correct QM models explain things far better.

chemistry is based on the bohr analogy (what the hell is a coordination number without it, geeze)

Assuming you are not a troll for one second:

and NOT ONE SECOND, is your best time to keep.


Do you even wonder why the octet exists of molecular structures? Try combining that with the right hand rule and the perpendicular planes of energy/magnetism? (just food for thought, for any who like to go to the next level of comprehending)


please, i have had someone contact me and ask why i take so much abuse from this site when all i am doing is sharing material.

and you are damn right, even the most current nobel contributions are on my menu; as it is all pretty damn easy once you see the light (for what it is).


look at the shape (graphene) and find the resonance of the other bonds adds that little extra for its resiliance to change



perhaps one day some of you can meet me and find very few subjects within causality of how life and the energy between mass works, do i not visit and read the actual works and publications


some play and some do

 

[Ririon]

some play and some do

Yeah. I should stop feeding trolls and get back to work.

 

[Reality Check]

when this is the bohr analogy:
...snipped Bishadi gibberish...

The Bohr analogy (electrons orbiting a nucleus) is an analogy. That is simple English, Bishadi. If you cannot understand that then you need to learn more English.

ETA
If this is your level of understanding of physics then you have been sadly short-changed by your educational system. I suggest that you apply for a refund .

Only a really delusional person would try to use an analogy to do real science but it looks like you are really talking about the Bohr model. However only an ignorant person would use the outdated (and wrong) Bohr model in any field of science. It is a good teaching tool for high school students and that is where it belongs. Its problems are many. These problems lead to the Bohr model being discarded in favour of modern quantum mechanics which does match with reality.

 

[Dinwar]

It is a good teaching tool for high school students and that is where it belongs.

Not even there. In high school we got into orbitals (s, p, d....I forget the rest; more knowledge I haven't had to use in years). The excuse my teacher used was that the transition elements don't fit the predictions of the Bohr Model, and therefore she had to explain it to us somehow.

 

[JoeTheJuggler]

Miosis is ALSO an alternative spelling of meiosis.

I thought he was channeling Dan Quayle there!

 

[Bishadi]

The Bohr analogy (electrons orbiting a nucleus) is an analogy.

and most everything of chemistry is based on it. from ionization to neutrons and most every chemical description you even heard of.

That is simple English, Bishadi. If you cannot understand that then you need to learn more English.

like what

i cant believe you made that post

ETA
If this is your level of understanding of physics then you have been sadly short-changed by your educational system. I suggest that you apply for a refund .

funny

Only a really delusional person would try to use an analogy to do real science but it looks like you are really talking about the Bohr model. However only an ignorant person would use the outdated (and wrong) Bohr model in any field of science. It is a good teaching tool for high school students and that is where it belongs.

i guess you really do not comprehend what you are saying

Its problems are many. These problems lead to the Bohr model being discarded in favour of modern quantum mechanics which does match with reality.

qm is based on it......



Historically, the earliest versions of QM were formulated in the first decade of the 20th century at around the same time as the atomic theory and the corpuscular theory of light as updated by Einstein first came to be widely accepted as scientific fact; these latter theories can be viewed as "quantum theories" of matter and electromagnetic radiation. QM underwent a significant re-formulation in the mid-1920s away from old quantum theory with the acceptance of the Copenhagen interpretation of Niels Bohr, Werner Heisenberg, Wolfgang Pauli and their associates.


The Copenhagen interpretation, due largely to the Danish theoretical physicist Niels Bohr, is the interpretation of the quantum mechanical formalism most widely accepted amongst physicists.


qm is based on bohr's work (the anology) (it is where the angular momentum of planck's 'h' was coined within)

and it is einstein and the photoelectric effect that sealed the deal, even when einstein was not a dice player (uncertainty principle)



WOW.............. i think i just lost my love affair with this site

 

[Reality Check]

Not even there. In high school we got into orbitals (s, p, d....I forget the rest; more knowledge I haven't had to use in years). The excuse my teacher used was that the transition elements don't fit the predictions of the Bohr Model, and therefore she had to explain it to us somehow.

Well - we don't want to make Bishadi look too dumb !

It is a few decades since my high school years and I have a similar recollection. The only class where the Bohr model was mentioned was in physics where the history of quantum mechanics was outlined.

 

[Bishadi]

Not even there. In high school we got into orbitals (s, p, d....I forget the rest; more knowledge I haven't had to use in years). The excuse my teacher used was that the transition elements don't fit the predictions of the Bohr Model, and therefore she had to explain it to us somehow.

so you've known all along that much of the existing belief system is wrong and you have the gahl to argue with me.


ie.... to even observe a 'current' of electricity you are using the bohr model (ex.... how many electrons in an amp?)



this is what has happened to us....................

 

[Bishadi]

Well - we don't want to make Bishadi look too dumb !

It is a few decades since my high school years and I have a similar recollection. The only class where the Bohr model was mentioned was in physics where the history of quantum mechanics was outlined.

try some more

The Rydberg formula, which was known empirically before Bohr's formula, is now in Bohr's theory seen as describing the energies of transitions or quantum jumps between one orbital energy level, and another. Bohr's formula gives the numerical value of the already-known and measured Rydberg's constant, but now in terms of more fundamental constants of nature, including the electron's charge and Planck's constant.


When the electron moves from one energy level to another, a photon is emitted. Using the derived formula for the different 'energy' levels of hydrogen one may determine the 'wavelengths' of light that a hydrogen atom can emit.



So from hubble red shift thru to plancks constant and you had no idea where it all came from?



WOW........................


Moderation............ i am shocked that you allowed these hacks to do this for all this time.





how about let the NOBEL guys point out a new word to apply what is in the works>>>>


Dr. Geim said there was also cornucopia of new physics to be explored.

Because of graphene’s structure, he explained, electrons moving through it do not act like the billiard balls of classic physics, bumping from atom to atom, but rather like waves moving at the speed of light.

“That’s a new kind of thing to study. It’s like the Large Hadron Collider, but on your desktop,” Dr. Geim said in his ScienceWatch.com interview


folks you have been arguing with the idiot who is stirring this up all over the world.



not to mention making a few show that their education was a waste of time.

 

[Dinwar]

so you've known all along that much of the existing belief system is wrong and you have the gahl to argue with me.

Uh.....Someone correct me if I'm wrong, but didn't most physicists and chemists discard the Bohr model a long time ago? Which would mean that I'm saying that old, discarded, and demonstrably false theories are, well, old, discarded, and demonstrably false. I also don't view the atom as the smallest particle of existence, and I acknowledge more than four elements. Oh, and the Earth revolves around the Sun.

Is modern knowledge wrong? A lot of it probably is, sure. I can tell you a few ideas in my own field that I think are flawed--who can't? That said, yes, I have the stones to argue with you. First and foremost, I'll argue with anyone, particularly online. I enjoy debate, and my wife frequently demands that I argue online to avoid arguing with her. Second, the fact that some modern theories are wrong in no way demonstrates that you are right. You could easily be wrong as well. And when you demonstrate a lack of knowledge of the basics in a field it usually (though not always) means you don't know what you're talking about. At the very least it's proof that you're not going to be able to explain it to me--even if I assumed you were so smart that you've seen things no other physicist has, you'd be incapable of explaining them to me, so as far as my knowledge is concerned it's all a wash. And finally, I'm in a bad mood because of some personal stuff, and you just annoy me.

It is a few decades since my high school years and I have a similar recollection. The only class where the Bohr model was mentioned was in physics where the history of quantum mechanics was outlined.

I remember it being useful for conceptualizing ionic and covalent bonds, particularly between carbon and other atoms. We had little beads we could connect with tubes. I always enjoyed that. Anyway, the teacher always reminded us "This isn't the way it works, this is just to help you visualize things". And in college we certainly left that far behind.

 

[Reality Check]

and most everything of chemistry is based on it. from ionization to neutrons and most every chemical description you even heard of.

No

like what

The definition of analogy.

i guess you really do not comprehend what you are saying

i know that you really do not comprehend what you are saying.

qm is based on it......

No it is not. Read your quote.

Historically, the earliest versions of QM were formulated in the first decade of the 20th century at around the same time as the atomic theory and the corpuscular theory of light as updated by Einstein first came to be widely accepted as scientific fact; these latter theories can be viewed as "quantum theories" of matter and electromagnetic radiation. QM underwent a significant re-formulation in the mid-1920s away from old quantum theory with the acceptance of the Copenhagen interpretation of Niels Bohr, Werner Heisenberg, Wolfgang Pauli and their associates.

The Copenhagen interpretation, due largely to the Danish theoretical physicist Niels Bohr, is the interpretation of the quantum mechanical formalism most widely accepted amongst physicists.

and try learning something about quantum mechanics: The Copenhagen interpretation of Niels Bohr is to do with the modern QM theory

qm is based on bohr's work (the anology) (it is where the angular momentum of planck's 'h' was coined within)

More gibberish in your post but you are still wrong and ignorant of the actual history.
Bohr contributed to the modern QM (he abandoned the Bohr model beause he realized that it was wrong).
QM is based on the work of a number of people. If you were to pick out one person then it would be Erwin Schrödinger but Niels Bohr, Werner Heisenberg and Wolfgang Pauli were also significant contributers.

and it is einstein and the photoelectric effect that sealed the deal, even when einstein was not a dice player (uncertainty principle)

More ignorance.
Einstein and photoelectric effect came before QM. It was a clue that energy was quantized. It dis not "seal" the deal, it began the deal.
Einstein "god does not play with dice" statement is

Quantum mechanics is certainly imposing. But an inner voice tells me that it is not yet the real thing. The theory says a lot, but does not really bring us any closer to the secret of the 'old one'. I, at any rate, am convinced that He does not throw dice.

It is not to do with the uncertainty principle.
It is to do with the Copenhagen interpretation, i.e. that wavefunctions are measurements of probability.

Interesting fact:
The photoelectric effect is not actually strong evidence that energy is quantized. Quantizing energy is the obvious way of explaining the effect but you can also explain it using a classical model of light with quantized matter (worked out in the 1960's).
Compton scattering (1920's) also agreed with energy quantization (photons) and provided more evidence.
The phenomena that confirmed that photons exist was the photon anti-bunching experiment by Kimble, Dagenais, and Mandel in 1977.
See these blog entries for a clear explanation of this:

• What's a Photon, and How Do We Know they Exist?
• Why Antibunching Equals Photons.

 

[commandlinegamer]

The only sense I can actually make of the OP is that its author is attempting to ask if reproduction violates the law of the conservation of energy. I've seen more clarity in Microsoft product brochures.

 

[Reality Check]

...more inane stuff snipped...
folks you have been arguing with the idiot who is stirring this up all over the world.

I do hope that you are not calling yourself "the idiot who is stirring this up all over the world.".
But given your posts maybe you are

not to mention making a few show that their education was a waste of time.

Not to mention showing that the education that Bishadi has was a waste of time (given the massive display of ignorance in the last few posts).

 

[Bishadi]

I do hope that you are not calling yourself "the idiot who is stirring this up all over the world.".
But given your posts maybe you are



Not to mention showing that the education that Bishadi has was a waste of time (given the massive display of ignorance in the last few posts).

i had to clip that just for fun

 

[Gord_in_Toronto]

since you didnt observe the environment, then it is neither hot or cold, you simply have something with energy upon it, within the thermos.


ie.... if that thermos is enclosed and capable to hold liquid h, which direction it is going?

If you are alive and breathing via instinct are you equilibrating?

Then if you procreate will your life live into the next generation? Yes or no!

No. No. I did not ask for gibberish.

Would you like to try again; in English?

A few slices of math would help. You do know about math do you?

 

[Bishadi]

No


The definition of analogy.

the whole model of an electron having angular momentum "L" is based on the bohr analogy

all particle physics with the plethora of bosons, mesons, quarks with quirks is based on the same foundations to the PHYSICS (plancks constant then dirac)

i see now why you do not understand




i know that you really do not comprehend what you are saying.


i now see it.......... you are completely physics illiterate.

and try learning something about quantum mechanics: The Copenhagen interpretation of Niels Bohr is to do with the modern QM theory

the old method was the wave method and planck was a particle guy (in which most of everything chemistry is based on) (electron, protons, etc......

heck where do you think i get the old joke about carbon 12. 6 electrons, 6 protons, 6 neutrons, in which every person you ever knew is living on it.

that is the bohr model of most everything chemistry as they dont see the 'wave' but the little electrons (valence shell theory is the existing new)



and now a return to the wave is beginning (phonon, exciton, polariton, etc...)


that occilation is the energy (and can be measured now)

Bohr contributed to the modern QM (he abandoned the Bohr model beause he realized that it was wrong).

he's dead dude (except what he left)

this argument was that i claimed the bohr anology is the basis of chemistry (electrons a charged particles)

and that they do jump when capturing energy (photon) (ie... the photoelectric nobel of einstein shared the same)

your problem is not me but yourself

It is not to do with the uncertainty principle.

the UP converts to a field with 'packets' of energy (like a photon but not) to a region of space (mathematically) occilating

but the particle (electron/proton) is still the frame observed as the total energy within the field colapses (mathematically) to a point particle upon detection.


The math is not reality it is just a description but clearly put, i am not a particle guy. (if your read the other thread you would probably already know the LHC is a waste of resources)

It is to do with the Copenhagen interpretation, i.e. that wavefunctions are measurements of probability.

exactly................ anyone who knows the math knows that. applying it to reality is where some get confused

Interesting fact:
The photoelectric effect is not actually strong evidence that energy is quantized. Quantizing energy is the obvious way of explaining the effect but you can also explain it using a classical model of light with quantized matter

now you reread that. That part shares that planck was not proven (qubit of energy) but that matter is affected by light (just like the quantum jump; bohr ANALOGY).

The phenomena that confirmed that photons exist was the photon anti-bunching experiment by Kimble, Dagenais, and Mandel in 1977.

i know, my radio transmits them when i want.

basic

See these blog entries for a clear explanation of this:

• What's a Photon, and How Do We Know they Exist?
• Why Antibunching Equals Photons.

and a photon is nothing but electromagnetic energy at each unit (see the spectrum of em)

 

[Reality Check]

the whole model of an electron having angular momentum "L" is based on the bohr analogy

Yes.

all particle physics with the plethora of bosons, mesons, quarks with quirks is based on the same foundations to the PHYSICS (plancks constant then dirac)

Gibberish.
Particle physics is based on the experimental evidence for bosons, mesons, quarks, etc.

i see now why you do not understand

i see now why you do not understand

i know that you really do not comprehend what you are saying.

i know that you really do not comprehend what you are saying.

i now see it.......... you are completely physics illiterate.

i now see it.......... you are completely physics illiterate.

the old method was the wave method and planck was a particle guy (in which most of everything chemistry is based on) (electron, protons, etc......

I see now that you are completely physics illiterate:
There is

• old quantum theory (the invalid Bohr & Sommerfield models)
• modern quantum theory

this argument was that i claimed the bohr anology is the basis of chemistry (electrons a charged particles)

Then you are still wrong.
The Bohr analogy is not the basis of any chemistry because it did not work.

your problem is not me but yourself

Your problem is you continued ignorance of the history of physics.

...snipped gibberish about the uncertainty principle...
exactly................ anyone who knows the math knows that. applying it to reality is where some get confused

Everyone except you.
Einstein and photoelectric effect came before QM. It was a clue that energy was quantized. It dis not "seal" the deal, it began the deal.
Einstein "god does not play with dice" statement is

Quantum mechanics is certainly imposing. But an inner voice tells me that it is not yet the real thing. The theory says a lot, but does not really bring us any closer to the secret of the 'old one'. I, at any rate, am convinced that He does not throw dice.

It is not to do with the uncertainty principle.
It is to do with the Copenhagen interpretation, i.e. that wavefunctions are measurements of probability.

now you reread that. That part shares that planck was not proven (qubit of energy) but that matter is affected by light (just like the quantum jump; bohr ANALOGY).

Your ignorance is astounding.
A qubit is a quantum of information not energy.

But you did get something right for once !
The invalid Bohr ANALOGY does describe electrons as jumping from one orbit to another. A pity that the Bohr ANALOGY is does not work in our universe.

...snipped more inane gibberish...

The facts are:

1. The Bohr model was the first attempt to add quantum corrections to classical theories. It was never a complete or self-consistent theory, just the addition of quantumn rules to classical laws.
2. The Bohr model can be used if you understand its limits, i.e. it gives good results only for a system where two charged points orbit each other at speeds much less than that of light (H, He- and some other systems).
3. The Bohr model is the "basis" for modern quantum mechanics in the sense that
   • Many of the concepts in QM are borrowed from the model.
   • The problems with the Bohr model are fixed by QM.
4. Bohr worked on the Bohr model and then discarded it to work on QM.