0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
All atoms are spherical.Here is a list of their radiihttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atomic_radius#Empirically_measured_atomic_radius
What I said is that not all atomic orbitals are spherical.
It isn't always a sphere.
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
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.
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.
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?
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.
Are you saying the comets in the Oorts cloud, are not parts of the Solar System?
. Since the boundary is not a well-defined physical entity, there are various non-equivalent definitions of atomic radius.
Now it seems you had misinterpreted that question.
Nope. I still consider Max Planck was correct on this.
Nope. These are your gibberish.
It was BC who claimed you are a scientist with his appeal to authority.
Go tell this member he was just plain wrong.
Quote from: Paradigmer on 21/07/2019 06:48:21I 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.
Quote from: Paradigmer on 21/07/2019 05:27:54Are 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. :-)
Quote from: Paradigmer on 21/07/2019 04:22:10. 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.
Quote from: Paradigmer on 21/07/2019 04:36:12Now 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.
Quote from: Paradigmer on 21/07/2019 04:39:34Nope. I still consider Max Planck was correct on this. There is none so blind as he who will not see.
Quote from: Paradigmer on 21/07/2019 05:06:19Nope. These are your gibberish.NoIt'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.htmland 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.
Quote from: Paradigmer on 21/07/2019 05:19:18It 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 againReply #12 on: 26/05/2019 07:48:12then againReply #21 on: 27/05/2019 17:52:45and 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 hereReply #118 on: 12/07/2019 16:57:58Quote from: Paradigmer on 12/07/2019 16:57:58Go 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.
Thus far, 4 people have participated in this thread, you, and three scientists who all agree that you are wrong.
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.
You had misunderstood spherical symmetry as spherical shape.All atoms have spherical symmetry, but not all atoms are spherical.
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?
What I said was no one in this thread agreed with you on scientific models are absolutely factual.
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.
You are attempting to cover up your committed deceits.
and so you are a liar.Get back to us when you are ready to apologise for your attempted deceit.
Quote from: Paradigmer on 23/07/2019 04:02:56You 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.
Quote from: Paradigmer on 23/07/2019 04:02:56And 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".
Quote from: Paradigmer on 23/07/2019 04:02:56What I said was no one in this thread agreed with you on scientific models are absolutely factual.Yes, what you said was Quote from: Paradigmer on 16/06/2019 03:42:14Get 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.Quote from: Paradigmer on 23/07/2019 04:02:56You 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.
Quote from: Bored chemist on 21/07/2019 11:35:43and 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.
Yes there is a distinct different.You should know the spherical symmetry of atoms, refers to their potential.
You were taking scientific model as absolutely factual, which unequivocally is your belief.
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.
No. You actually were the one who launched the appeals to authority.
As pointed out earlier, this is your belief.
Quote from: Paradigmer on 25/07/2019 08:10:18No. You actually were the one who launched the appeals to authority.Where?Quote it.
Quote from: Paradigmer on 25/07/2019 08:10:18As 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.
So the problem is that you don't understand the difference between an argument from authority and an argument from consensus.
anyone else reading this will be laughing at you.