[Paradigmer (OP)]

All atoms are spherical.Here is a list of their radiihttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atomic_radius#Empirically_measured_atomic_radius

This is what the first paragraph says on atomic radius:
"The atomic radius of a chemical element is a measure of the size of its atoms, usually the mean or typical distance from the center of the nucleus to the boundary of the surrounding shells of electrons. Since the boundary is not a well-defined physical entity, there are various non-equivalent definitions of atomic radius. "

You are in fact proving your own goof.

Do you ever really read your stuff?

[Paradigmer (OP)]

What I said is that not all atomic orbitals are spherical.

You replied to the question in that thread asking "Why is the atomic structure always described as spherical or using a sphere analogy?"

It isn't always a sphere.

Your reply gave the impression you were adhering to the fact on the structures of atoms are not all spherical.

Now it seems you had misinterpreted that question.

[Paradigmer (OP)]

We don't seem to have heard from Paradigmer in a few days.Perhaps he's "considering the proposition on atoms could indeed be miniature Solar Systems" and recognising that I'm not the deluded one

Nope. I still consider Max Planck was correct on this.

Was merely busy away earning a few dimes, which was much more worthwhile than responding to your goofs.

[Paradigmer (OP)]

The electron would be excited into a superposition of all 3 possible  p orbitals, and that superposition is spherical.It's not obvious from the diagrams but, if you add the three p orbitals together you get a sphere.

Nope. These are your gibberish.

You may only say some atoms with their orbital superpositions, are quite spherical.
And even then, not all atoms have all the said orbitals.

So, are you saying the orbitals of electrons, constitute to the physical shapes of atoms.
This contradicts with what you had earlier said.

[Paradigmer (OP)]

It's funny. It almost seems like you are citing me as some kind of authority on atomic physics when I'm not even a scientist.

It was BC who claimed you are a scientist with his appeal to authority.
Now we know he was actually bluffing to dumb people down with his goof.

[Paradigmer (OP)]

By the way, when you finally come round to reality, remember that the issue is not that atoms are "not spherical" for you to be right,.For you to be right they have to be disk shaped like the Solar System.IIRC Mercury is the only planet outside the ecliptic plane and that's only by 7 degrees or so.The radius of the orbit is 70 million Km do the maximum distance from the plane is 70,000,000 times the sine of 7 deg.About 9 million Km each side of the plane- call it 20 million Km thick. Very little of the Solar system is further from the plane than that.And if we choose (somewhat arbitrarily) the orbit of Pluto as the edge of the disk then it's about 5 billion Km in radius or 10 billion Km in diameter.So the solar system is essentially a disk less than 20 Mm thick, but more than 10,000 Mm in diameter.Proportionately, that's about as thin as a piece of A4 paper.And so you need to show that not only are atoms not spheres, they are disks 500 times wider than their thickness.Now, what was that you said  about delusion?

Are you saying the comets in the Oorts cloud, are not parts of the Solar System?

Would you ever come round to reality at all?

[Paradigmer (OP)]

Is this argument still raging on?

I was merely presenting a comparative analysis with the hypothesized torus force fields of the Solar System and the atomic structure in this new theories section.

It was unfortunate that this presentation was much side tracked with the raging arguments.

The member argued not with facts, but with all his very silly non sequitur opinions he could made up in his denials.

This presentation was merely for people who could be interested to consider the propositions.

Readers can have their opinions; people can simply state their agreements or disagreements.

But I find the relentless denial and charges to push not absolute stuff down people throat against other's perspective, was uncalled for.

[Bored chemist]

I was merely presenting a comparative analysis with the hypothesized torus force fields of the Solar System and the atomic structure in this new theories section.

And I was pointing out that such a comparison is at odds with reality.
The Solar system is the wrong shape, and electrons don't orbit.

Are you saying the comets in the Oorts cloud, are not parts of the Solar System?

No.
I was hoping to spare your embarrassment, and, of course, it's theoretical. Nobody has seen it.
Since you insist on including it, OK, It means that the Solar system has a much bigger radius. It's, 200,000AU instead of "only" about 40.
But the total mass of the cloud is negligible in terms of the whole Solar system, so we are still looking at a disk, but it's now about a million times  thinner than its diameter.

There are only about 120 different types of atoms.
It shouldn't take you long to point out which of them is that shape, rather than spherical.
Just go through the periodic table one element at a time until you find it, then come back and tell us which it is. :-)

 

. Since the boundary is not a well-defined physical entity, there are various non-equivalent definitions of atomic radius.

But they are still spherical- it's just a question of what electron probability density you draw the surface.
So  my point is still supported by that page.
The atoms have spherical symmetry.

You are still wrong.

Now it seems you had misinterpreted that question.

It seems that you repeatedly misunderstood his answer (even after I explained it to you), and are now trying to pretend that it's his fault.

Nope. I still consider Max Planck was correct on this.

There is none so blind as he who will not see.

Nope. These are your gibberish.

No
It's not gibberish, it's maths.
You can find the expression for the electron distribution of the 2p orbitals here.
https://winter.group.shef.ac.uk/orbitron/AOs/2p/equations.html
and if you add together the distributions for all 3 orthogonal orbitals, you get a sphere.
Either accept it, or show me why it's wrong.

It was BC who claimed you are a scientist with his appeal to authority.

OK, the first person in this thread to quote him was you, Paradigmer, in Reply #10 on: 26/05/2019 07:05:03
Then you did it again
Reply #12 on: 26/05/2019 07:48:12
then again
Reply #21 on: 27/05/2019 17:52:45
and  so on.
You claimed that "so far no one else participated in this thread had agreed with your beliefs."
And I pointed out that, on the contrary, others had disagreed with you.
I cited Kryptid as having done so.
But that's not an appeal to authority.
It's just pointing out that you lied in saying people all agreed with you.

He repeatedly said you were wrong.
And then, you said "Go tell this member he was just plain wrong."
And that's where the first "appeal to authority" was made in respect of Kryptid.
You made it here
Reply #118 on: 12/07/2019 16:57:58

Go tell this member he was just plain wrong.

and so you are a liar.
Get back to us when you are ready to apologise for your attempted deceit.

[Paradigmer (OP)]

I was merely presenting a comparative analysis with the hypothesized torus force fields of the Solar System and the atomic structure in this new theories section.

And I was pointing out that such a comparison is at odds with reality.
The Solar system is the wrong shape, and electrons don't orbit.

It was repeatedly explained to you that this was your fallacious comparative analysis.
Why did you keep insisting on your opinions that are non sequitur to the UVS comparative analysis?

Are you saying the comets in the Oorts cloud, are not parts of the Solar System?

No.
I was hoping to spare your embarrassment, and, of course, it's theoretical. Nobody has seen it.
Since you insist on including it, OK, It means that the Solar system has a much bigger radius. It's, 200,000AU instead of "only" about 40.
But the total mass of the cloud is negligible in terms of the whole Solar system, so we are still looking at a disk, but it's now about a million times  thinner than its diameter.

No body said the Oort cloud was not hypothesized.
The mentioned long period comets were to point out your goof, which you now altered the size of your Solar System.

And can you not understand most orbits of these comets with their apsidal motions, cut the invariable plane (your "pretty nearly a flat disk") at large inclinations?

There are only about 120 different types of atoms.
It shouldn't take you long to point out which of them is that shape, rather than spherical.
Just go through the periodic table one element at a time until you find it, then come back and tell us which it is. :-)

It remains not all atoms are spherical.

. Since the boundary is not a well-defined physical entity, there are various non-equivalent definitions of atomic radius.

But they are still spherical- it's just a question of what electron probability density you draw the surface.
So  my point is still supported by that page.
The atoms have spherical symmetry.

You are still wrong.

No. It was you who are still wrong.

You had misunderstood spherical symmetry as spherical shape.

All atoms have spherical symmetry, but not all atoms are spherical.

This is yet your another goof.

Now it seems you had misinterpreted that question.

It seems that you repeatedly misunderstood his answer (even after I explained it to you), and are now trying to pretend that it's his fault.

No. I did not blame him. Was merely calling a spade a spade.
And I think he was honest on he was referring to atomic orbitals when answering that question on why atoms are considered spherical. This is despite he now has reservation on the structure of atoms.

Nope. I still consider Max Planck was correct on this.

There is none so blind as he who will not see.

You should say this to yourself.

Nope. These are your gibberish.

No
It's not gibberish, it's maths.
You can find the expression for the electron distribution of the 2p orbitals here.
https://winter.group.shef.ac.uk/orbitron/AOs/2p/equations.html
and if you add together the distributions for all 3 orthogonal orbitals, you get a sphere.
Either accept it, or show me why it's wrong.

Your had incorrectly illustrated spherical symmetry potential as spherical object.

Any of the 3 orthogonal orbitals has spherical symmetry potential.
And it is simply wrong to say "if you add together the distributions for all 3 orthogonal orbitals, you get a sphere."

Conclusively, your this utterance is gibberish.

It was BC who claimed you are a scientist with his appeal to authority.

OK, the first person in this thread to quote him was you, Paradigmer, in Reply #10 on: 26/05/2019 07:05:03
Then you did it again
Reply #12 on: 26/05/2019 07:48:12
then again
Reply #21 on: 27/05/2019 17:52:45
and  so on.
You claimed that "so far no one else participated in this thread had agreed with your beliefs."
And I pointed out that, on the contrary, others had disagreed with you.
I cited Kryptid as having done so.
But that's not an appeal to authority.
It's just pointing out that you lied in saying people all agreed with you.

He repeatedly said you were wrong.
And then, you said "Go tell this member he was just plain wrong."
And that's where the first "appeal to authority" was made in respect of Kryptid.
You made it here
Reply #118 on: 12/07/2019 16:57:58

Go tell this member he was just plain wrong.

and so you are a liar.
Get back to us when you are ready to apologise for your attempted deceit.

You are attempting to cover up your committed deceits.

Thus far, 4 people have participated in this thread, you, and three scientists who all agree that you are wrong.

but....

It's funny. It almost seems like you are citing me as some kind of authority on atomic physics when I'm not even a scientist.

And no I did not say people all agreed with me.
What I said was no one in this thread agreed with you on scientific models are absolutely factual.

We know they are not absolutely factual. We've already said that multiple times.

We occasionally invoke simplified models involving weightless string or even non-radiating moving electrons, but all scientists know the difference between a model and reality.

And so, it now clear you are a liar.
Get back to us when you are ready to apologise for your committed deceits.

But I doubt all those who know your deceits, could ever forgive you.

[Bored chemist]

You had misunderstood spherical symmetry as spherical shape.

All atoms have spherical symmetry, but not all atoms are spherical.

There is no difference.
Things with the symmetries of a sphere are spherical.
If you think otherwise please give an example.

And can you not understand most orbits of these comets with their apsidal motions, cut the invariable plane (your "pretty nearly a flat disk") at large inclinations?

I understand how little material there is in the proposed cloud. Do you?
Practically none of the mass of the solar system is not in, or very close to, the plane.
Did you not understand the bit you quoted where I said "pretty nearly".

What I said was no one in this thread agreed with you on scientific models are absolutely factual.

Yes, what you said was

Get this right: You are the only person here who believes your beliefs are absolutely factual; so far no one else participated in this thread had agreed with your beliefs.

But, as was pointed out by Alan, virtually nobody in science uses absolute beliefs- so you were attacking something that never existed.

The point I made, which remains true, is that nobody here apart from you thinks you are right.
The atom is not like the solar system.

You are attempting to cover up your committed deceits.

You need to accept that you said something that was untrue.
You tried to pretend that I had started the argument from authority.
But it was you who (demonstrably) did that.

and so you are a liar.
Get back to us when you are ready to apologise for your attempted deceit.

[Paradigmer (OP)]

You had misunderstood spherical symmetry as spherical shape.

All atoms have spherical symmetry, but not all atoms are spherical.

There is no difference.
Things with the symmetries of a sphere are spherical.
If you think otherwise please give an example.

Yes there is a distinct different.
You should know the spherical symmetry of atoms, refers to their potential.

And can you not understand most orbits of these comets with their apsidal motions, cut the invariable plane (your "pretty nearly a flat disk") at large inclinations?

I understand how little material there is in the proposed cloud. Do you?
Practically none of the mass of the solar system is not in, or very close to, the plane.
Did you not understand the bit you quoted where I said "pretty nearly".

You must as well say the Sun has ~99.9% of the Solar System material.
And so in your twists you can also say the Solar System is "pretty nearly" a sphere.

What I said was no one in this thread agreed with you on scientific models are absolutely factual.

Yes, what you said was

Get this right: You are the only person here who believes your beliefs are absolutely factual; so far no one else participated in this thread had agreed with your beliefs.

But, as was pointed out by Alan, virtually nobody in science uses absolute beliefs- so you were attacking something that never existed.

The point I made, which remains true, is that nobody here apart from you thinks you are right.
The atom is not like the solar system.

You are attempting to cover up your committed deceits.

You need to accept that you said something that was untrue.
You tried to pretend that I had started the argument from authority.
But it was you who (demonstrably) did that.

You were taking scientific model as absolutely factual, which unequivocally is your belief.

Alan explicitly said "We occasionally invoke simplified models involving weightless string or even non-radiating moving electrons, but all scientists know the difference between a model and reality.".
So it is clear you are putting words into his mouth.

and so you are a liar.
Get back to us when you are ready to apologise for your attempted deceit.

And so, it now clear you are a liar.
Get back to us when you are ready to apologise for your committed deceits.

[Bored chemist]

Yes there is a distinct different.
You should know the spherical symmetry of atoms, refers to their potential.

It refers to their shape.
Now, stop being silly and either show something which is spherically symmetric without being spherical, or  just admit that you are wrong.

You were taking scientific model as absolutely factual, which unequivocally is your belief.

It's also silly to pretend that you know what I believe better than I do.

You must as well say the Sun has ~99.9% of the Solar System material.
And so in your twists you can also say the Solar System is "pretty nearly" a sphere.

But, as pointed out earlier, it's a lot better to say it's a disk- because it is,



Electrons still don't orbit.

You were still the one who launched an appeal to Kryptid's authority.
You were still the one who tried to pretend it was me.
You are still the one who needs to apologise for that.

[Paradigmer (OP)]

But, as pointed out earlier, it's a lot better to say it's a disk- because it is,

As pointed out earlier, this is your belief.

Electrons still don't orbit.

Indeed electrons don't orbit, so your argument is non sequitur as repeatedly mentioned.

But, the Solar System is not "pretty nearly a flat disk".

You were still the one who launched an appeal to Kryptid's authority.
You were still the one who tried to pretend it was me.
You are still the one who needs to apologise for that.

No. You actually were the one who launched the appeals to authority.
I was merely pointing out your beliefs of scientific models are factual, and stuff like all atoms are spherical, were not agreed by the "authority" you appealed to; your denial is futile.
You are still the one who needs to apologise for these.

[Bored chemist]

No. You actually were the one who launched the appeals to authority.

Where?
Quote it.

[Bored chemist]

As pointed out earlier, this is your belief.

Yes, I believe evidence- that goes with the territory of being a scientist.
The evidence shows that electrons don't orbit.
The evidence shows that the solar system is not spherical.

[Paradigmer (OP)]

No. You actually were the one who launched the appeals to authority.

Where?Quote it.

Thus far, 4 people have participated in this thread, you, and three scientists who all agree that you are wrong.

And now we all know that you had lied.

[Paradigmer (OP)]

As pointed out earlier, this is your belief.

Yes, I believe evidence- that goes with the territory of being a scientist.
The evidence shows that electrons don't orbit.
The evidence shows that the solar system is not spherical.

Your belief of "the territory of being a scientist" is neither absolute factual nor impeccable.

It makes no sense imposing your spurious beliefs to the comparative analysis of its proposed paradigm shift.

[Bored chemist]

So the problem is that you don't understand the difference between an argument from authority and an argument from consensus.

[Paradigmer (OP)]

So the problem is that you don't understand the difference between an argument from authority and an argument from consensus.

You had took a step in the correct direction admitting to your cognitive bias.

But, your argument from consensus, is nonetheless your argument from authority.

"Through an appeal to authority, a group member might present that opinion as a consensus and encourage the other group members to engage in groupthink by not disagreeing with this perceived consensus or authority." - An excerpt from "Cognitive bias".

[Bored chemist]

Except that an argument from consensus is not always a fallacy.
If you are seeking to show that a particular view is common (not necessarily correct, but widely held) then an argument from consensus is valid.

Now, the point in contention at the time was "

anyone else reading this will be laughing at you.

"
And, for me to show that is true, it is sufficient to show that the scientists here agree with me.
(Laughing at you is, of course a figure of speech, rather than literal).
All the scientist here agree with me and think you are wrong.
So they are (in a manner of speaking) laughing at you.
And so, now we have disposed of that, can we get back to the real appeal to authority?
The one you kicked off by claiming (wrongly) that Kryptid (who isn't really an authority) agreed with you  (though he didn't) and that somehow meant you were right- (which it doesn't).
That's still the first argument from authority in this thread, and it's still down to you.
OK, the first person in this thread to quote him was you, Paradigmer, in Reply #10 on: 26/05/2019 07:05:03

Then we can move on to  these.
The solar system is still not much like an atom.
Electrons still don't orbit.
Atoms are still spheres.
Things with spherical symmetry are still spherical.
The sum of the three orthogonal p orbitals is spherical.
You still say a lot of stuff that's just not true.