Geometry of Electron Shells

[SimonD]

and they call me nuts to deflect their obvious shallow thinking as they just can;t put 2 and 2 together.

Well that didn't last long

 

[andyandy]

btw, the formatting on that site is garbage too... you could at least learn web design, as it requires knowledge neither of Jesus nor physics.

LOL

 

[wollery]

Djj, the very first sentence on that site is WRONG. It is factually wrong. What is your problem?

You have to ask?

btw, the formatting on that site is garbage too... you could at least learn web design, as it requires knowledge neither of Jesus nor physics.

But that would take time out of his busy trolling schedule!

 

[andyandy]

Atoms are sexual if you understand them. Each atom in its outer electron ring, is trying to stabilize and complete itself into a stable shape, in which it is balanced electrically and geometrically. (SEE Geometric Placement of Electrons)

It needs completion if it does not have a full outer ring, of 2, 8, 18, or 36 electrons. It wants to mate and pair or find a polygamous arrangement. As they can either accept or share electrons from an atom that has an electron available, or share more than one electron if it is in need of two or more.

The atoms with an electron or penis to share have a positive valence, whereas the atoms that have a hole to fill have a negative valence. Consequently you can easily see atoms as male or female. The females sometimes sharing more than one male if her need is great, or needing a great male with a high valence or positive charge to fill her vacuum or hole in her outer ring.

For if they would have taught us this simple chemistry of life maybe more of us would have desired to stay in chemistry and bring mating pairs together in the laboratory and elsewhere.

http://www.geocities.com/davidjayjordan/SexualValencesofAtoms.html

Priceless. The funniest thing i've seen all week

 

[Orangutan]

Electrons are in orbits within spheres around the nucleus of an atom.

Nope

But I do have to thank you DDJ, I have actually learned a lot by reading the links people are trying to point you to. It's a shame you waste your curiosity on the stuff you are just making up. The real world is far more amazing that the one you are imagining. I hope you realize that one day. It's sometimes a strange insight that will propel science forwards, and you seem to have a mind made for strange insights. Unfortunately you need a good grounding in the current understanding of science before you can make those leaps, otherwise you are just guessing at what other people have proved to be true. To continue guessing at the word is just intellectual laziness.

 

[NeilC]

"For if they would have taught us this simple chemistry of life maybe more of us would have desired to stay in chemistry and bring mating pairs together in the laboratory and elsewhere."

Yes not nearly enough penis/vagina metaphors given to schoolkids in my book. I can imagine that going down well with parents all over the land.

I never knew chemistry was so sexy. All those atoms at it like rabbits. My entire being is just one huge mass of sexual chemistry. Well I knew that of course.

 

[Buckaroo]

Something about all the sex talk in DJJ's "science" made my skepti-sense tingle. Anybody want to place bets that he's a member of the creepy Family International?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Children_of_God


Care to weigh in on this speculation, DJJ?

 

[Davidjayjordan]

*sigh*

Djj, the very first sentence on that site is WRONG. It is factually wrong. What is your problem?

btw, the formatting on that site is garbage too... you could at least learn web design, as it requires knowledge neither of Jesus nor physics.

ETA: Similar to Ziggurat's 1st page link on electron configuration, I give you this Wiki link on atomic orbitals.

Atomic orbital

Does anyone here of the false skeptics have a website. I notice some are in the 20,000 range of postings, so have they ever connected two posts together and figured out they had something worth while to share with others, or did they just waste their time as false skeptics tend to do.

I hate wasting time, I like progress. true skeptics want to figure out things. They love solving mysteries. False skeptics just like heckling...as they have no ideas, no discoveries, no truths.

 

[Buckaroo]

Does anyone here of the false skeptics have a website.

Yes. We're just not shameless self-promoters. I'm giving you a pass for the moment on "false skeptics."

I notice some are in the 20,000 range of postings, so have they ever connected two posts together and figured out they had something worth while to share with others, or did they just waste their time as false skeptics tend to do.

What does this even mean?

I hate wasting time, I like progress.

And yet you waste ours...

 

[Ziggurat]

Good you probably got it from my website,

No, I didn't. I looked at your website once a while back, and it didn't take me long at all to figure out it was nonsense. Rather presumptuous of you to presume that your site was the source of any of my information. Let me give you a bit of advice: you aren't very smart, you have no special insight, and you're clueless about math.

but whatever you finnally came up with the easy to understand mathematics.... and so now let's find out what geometry fits into those figures of 2, 8, 18, 32.

The geometry doesn't fit 2, 8, 18, 32... It fits 1, 4, 9, 16 ... And the geometry in question is simply the number of spherical harmonics with 0, 1, 2, 3 ... nodes. As described by the Wikipedia link that you have shown no indication that you understood in any way, shape, or form.

 

[fuelair]

Is it Phukkking Stoopid?

Why yes, yes it is? Anybody seen the 3 Billy-Goats Gruff - there's a troll with their name on his posterior just waiting for munchin'!!

 

[Buckaroo]

Neatly kittened - anything in barbecue flavor?

(Mmmm... barbecued kitty... ) AHEM. Umm, no, no, certainly not. What kind of monster are you?

 

[chracatoa]

Actually...
The second standing wave will have four members; this is because of the four-d structure of spacetime; add one degree of freedom, you get three from the dimensionality of space; multiply by the two spins and you've got eight. Add one more degree of freedom, you get sixteen. But wait- now, your last several overlap the next when you add another degree of freedom- so no electrons use them. You wind up with nine; with two spins, that's eighteen. Add one more, you get sixty-four- but only the first sixteen are usable, the rest overlap. Two spins gives thirty-two.

oh man...

4 members + 1 DOF = 3 dimensions of space * 2 = 8 + 1 DOF
8 + 1 DOF = 16 ~ 9 * 2 = 18 + 1 (spin?) = 64 ~ 16 * 2 spins => 32.

 

[prewitt81]

Does anyone here of the false skeptics have a website. I notice some are in the 20,000 range of postings, so have they ever connected two posts together and figured out they had something worth while to share with others, or did they just waste their time as false skeptics tend to do.

I hate wasting time, I like progress. true skeptics want to figure out things. They love solving mysteries. False skeptics just like heckling...as they have no ideas, no discoveries, no truths.

I have a website. Have you forgotten already?

http://www.jeffprewitt.com/analysis.html

 

[Mashuna]

I have a website. Have you forgotten already?

http://www.jeffprewitt.com/analysis.html

I should have checked out your link earlier. It would have saved me a lot of time, and sums up the counter arguments with brevity and clarity.

Sir, I salute you.

 

[Davidjayjordan]

He tried to take the conversation to his own board, but I was the only one who went, and after 3 posts told him where to stuff it. He needs an audience, so he's back.

poor Wolley, you had to run back to your security blanket, as one on one discussion made you extremely nervous.

I mean, we haven't used that discussion board for years, and went rather to newgroups where people have to apply for membership and have to follow rules to saty within.

But if nothing is what you want and you want to promote nothing and stand for nothing, so be it ..your choice Wolley....

Besides Wolley, all I am doing HERE is stating what I stated to you THERE about chemistry and you conveniently overlooked it. But do notice that some researchers were trying to solve the Mystery of the Electron Shells HERE.

 

[Davidjayjordan]

O.K. I have established that the simple easy to understand Platonic Solids or geometric figures are the answer and solution to why there are 2, 8, 18, and 32 electrons in full shells.

So rather than fight it, why not just learn the BASICS brethren and OTHERS. Why fight truths and geometric figures when they are the basis of life. Don't be afraid of circles, squares, hexagons, and pentagons. have some courage and go beyond your black holes. True skeptics do, as they want answers and will search til they find ONE, and then continue to search for more and more.

 

[Madalch]

So Yes, Zep, I should give you my idea... this even though if any would have taken GEOMETRY seriously and studied just a reasonable amount. They might have come up with the obvious answer.

Equality of distances in a sphere or a shell is surely the answer.

Equality of distances is not the answer at all.

I've already explained why the number of orbitals in each shell (and thus the number of electrons required to fill them) is due to the number and geometrical placement of nodes possible in each shell. It has nothing to do with the Platonic solids in non-platonic relationships.

Did you actually read my post, or did your brain automatically reject anything approaching sanity?

 

[Buckaroo]

O.K. I have established that the simple easy to understand Platonic Solids or geometric figures are the answer and solution to why there are 2, 8, 18, and 32 electrons in full shells.

So rather than fight it, why not just learn the BASICS brethren and OTHERS. Why fight truths and geometric figures when they are the basis of life. Don't be afraid of circles, squares, hexagons, and pentagons. have some courage and go beyond your black holes. True skeptics do, as they want answers and will search til they find ONE, and then continue to search for more and more.

My apologies to Prewitt81 for my clumsy paraphrasing of his eloquent argument, but:

Nope.

 

[RenaissanceBiker]

Finnally an honest athiest..... who believes in nothing and sees nothing and no connections, no rthyme, no reason, no logic, no string theory, no Unified Field Force, just luck and chance and a BIG explosion that harmonically made everything that is.... and they call me nuts to deflect their obvious shallow thinking as they just can;t put 2 and 2 together.

Thanks Biker for stating your religion so eloquently.. Much appreciated

I'm an atheist and I like to think I am honest. I do believe in science and logic. I believe there are 5 beers in my 'fridge. I am willing to change my beliefs if I am presented with new information. You seem to be playing numerology with science to reinforce you beliefs of some vague purpose for the universe. There probably isn't one. I can't speak for the others, but I call you nuts because you keep trying to convince others that your obsession with these numbers is proof of something.