It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

so you think we pretty much know it all about chemistry? No even the most basic thing

page: 2
14
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Mar, 13 2015 @ 02:21 PM
link   

originally posted by: HooHaa
...dares to put forth an opposing alternative to the "theory". The evolution is fact brigade come in force with verbal attacks and jabs at intelligence and beliefs..


If that opposing alternative involves a Designer, I can see why you meet resistance.

Also you might want to check on that word..."theory" as used by science isn't quite the same definition as that used in casual conversation.




posted on Mar, 13 2015 @ 02:23 PM
link   

originally posted by: GetHyped
a reply to: stormbringer1701

It completely depends on the context. If there is a scientific issue of contention, arguments are made, evidence comes in and the scientists who were wrong concede. The matter is settled. That doesn't mean that future evidence cannot change that consensus. You're playing a game of semantics.

None of this has anything to do with your complete mischaracterization that somehow certain issues are permanently "settled" due to "dogma". You've basically made up this strawman characterization to attack a methodology that I'm not convinced you have any real understanding or experience of.
you know well that not all science people are free of the dogmatic. and its the loudest among them that are always in print or on media making stupid pronouncements in violation of scientific principles.



posted on Mar, 13 2015 @ 02:27 PM
link   
The body of scientific knowledge consists of facts that are reproducibly true. Science finds things that repeat the same way every time.

Then models are invented to generalize and connect as many facts as possible. But the models never explain reality exactly.

Theories in science are more like discovered axioms or postulates. Scientific theories state that something has always been true when we have done it, sort of like a compound fact.

Science has it scope and boundaries expanded from time to time, but science is rarely proven wrong, because it is based on rigorous observation and testing.



posted on Mar, 13 2015 @ 02:28 PM
link   
a reply to: stormbringer1701

So then your issue is with only some scientists -- not science as a whole. Right?



posted on Mar, 13 2015 @ 02:30 PM
link   

originally posted by: Bedlam

originally posted by: stormbringer1701
you sound like someone whose butt hurts in sympathy for those on the receiving end of a kick in the pants.
:innocent:


No, but YOU sound like you are probably the sort that believes in revealed truth, and doesn't understand how discovered truth works. Catholic, are you?
I believe in both and i am not catholic.

i seem to have kicked a hornet's nest though. well i am not stung. but...

"The sting of reproach is the truth of it." Ben Franklin



posted on Mar, 13 2015 @ 02:30 PM
link   
this discovery actually helps my hypothesis that the shape of the electron cloud around the hydrogen atom is torroidal. That shape would also explain how gravity works. Imagine the electron spinning up the outside of the torus then shooting down the "drain" at the top. As the electrons change direction, they send out spiraling waves like an archimedes screw that interact with other spiral energy waves drawing the fields of other atoms towards the drain.

On the opposite pole, where the electron comes out and and again makes the quick change of direction, similar waves of spiral energy move away from the atom creating the other half of the archimedes screw just like two intertwined springs.

In this new discovery, the bond may be happening at the negative pole and forming a gravitational bond. That is such a cool discovery. I would have been so excited to have discovered a potentially new type of chemical bond. I guess I'll just get back to my 'eth lab now.
edit on 032015-03-13T14:32:35-05:002015-03-13T14:32:35-05:00022015201513FridayAmerica/Chicago35 by mcChoodles because: spelling



posted on Mar, 13 2015 @ 02:36 PM
link   

originally posted by: stormbringer1701
So if anyone speaks of "settled science" to you: i suggest you kick their ass for their arrogance and ignorance.


The whole POINT of science is that it updates itself with new information, but at no point do you use the idea that science could change what we know as a means to dismiss current findings. You, nor anyone else, knows where science will lead us and what we will find out in the future. As it stands, compiled evidence says certain things. New evidence will change those things, but what matters it that the CORE of the content is true. It's not like this discovery disproved Chemistry or chemical bounds. It just changed the way we think of hydrogen bonds. That is rounding out the edges, not scrapping the whole idea.

I'm not trying to be mean here, but when people use the above argument to dismiss things like Evolution or Climate Change, you have just given them ammo to further their noxious ideas. Yes, things change with science, but VERY rarely do whole theories get thrown out. Especially ones with tons of evidence.



posted on Mar, 13 2015 @ 02:38 PM
link   
a reply to: stormbringer1701

Scientists are human beings, not demigods. You can find a PhD in any field that believes in all sorts of nonsense. That's not a representation of the scientific community but the fallibility of humans. However, you said:


No even the most basic thing is subject to revision


...which utter nonsense. No field of science is immune from revision. Not just in principle, but in practice.



posted on Mar, 13 2015 @ 02:40 PM
link   
I would love to do a straw poll of commenter's beliefs and attitudes towards science. I would put a large sum of money down on a strong correlation between magical thinking and negative attitudes towards science.



posted on Mar, 13 2015 @ 02:40 PM
link   

originally posted by: Soylent Green Is People
a reply to: stormbringer1701

So then your issue is with only some scientists -- not science as a whole. Right?

that is as close to true as can be simply expressed for a complex subject.



posted on Mar, 13 2015 @ 02:41 PM
link   

originally posted by: GetHyped
I would love to do a straw poll of commenter's beliefs and attitudes towards science. I would put a large sum of money down on a strong correlation between magical thinking and negative attitudes towards science.


I'm sure that correlation would hold outside of ATS as well.



posted on Mar, 13 2015 @ 02:44 PM
link   

originally posted by: GetHyped
a reply to: stormbringer1701

Scientists are human beings, not demigods. You can find a PhD in any field that believes in all sorts of nonsense. That's not a representation of the scientific community but the fallibility of humans. However, you said:


No even the most basic thing is subject to revision


...which utter nonsense. No field of science is immune from revision. Not just in principle, but in practice.
my statement is true. in science even the most fundamental thing is subject to revision. this should always be kept in mind but isn't. i think you did not read that statement as it was intended. let me restate it with out the character limit driven brevity:

No... even the most basic thing is subject to revision.

what is utter nonsense about that?



posted on Mar, 13 2015 @ 02:46 PM
link   

originally posted by: stormbringer1701

i seem to have kicked a hornet's nest though. well i am not stung. but...

"The sting of reproach is the truth of it." Ben Franklin


Nope, but if you say "Thus all science is wrong" as you did, you can expect a reply to correct you.

I know it's an ATS meme that if you say something amazingly doltish and someone points out your error, you immediately jump up and cry "Oh, I must have hit a sore spot!". Not at all. You're just incorrect.

eta:

"No... even the most basic thing is subject to revision.

what is utter nonsense about that?"

Now, THAT I can agree with. But it's not a mark of weakness that science can do this, it's the strength therein.

And, of course, something that's been tested millions of times by everyone and their dog MAY have some revision (e.g. Newtonian physics and relativity) but rarely is it disproven. Thus you see disdain for perpetual motion machines and the like. If you HAD actual proof, scientists would be beating down your door to get in on ground zero of the new study funding.
edit on 13-3-2015 by Bedlam because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 13 2015 @ 02:52 PM
link   

originally posted by: Bedlam

Nope, but if you say "Thus all science is wrong" as you did, you can expect a reply to correct you.

i did not say that at all. that's what you heard/read. but that is not what i said/wrote.



edit on 13-3-2015 by stormbringer1701 because: (no reason given)

edit on 13-3-2015 by stormbringer1701 because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 13 2015 @ 02:55 PM
link   
a reply to: stormbringer1701

Where the rubber meets the road the process will be that same as it was before. That is, negative local charge attracts positive local charge.

The positive ion bonding to a positive ion certainly bodes well for doing biology from scratch someday!



You are correct about political persons abusing the prestige of science to con folks out their freedom. "Settled Science" is slick salesman snake oil.

Real science reproducible facts.



posted on Mar, 13 2015 @ 03:00 PM
link   

originally posted by: stormbringer1701
my statement is true. in science even the most fundamental thing is subject to revision.

True.


this should always be kept in mind...

True again


... but isn't.

Here's where I disagree.

Sure, there may be specific scientists out there who forget that everything is subject to revision -- but that is not the norm in science. In fact, most scientists live for the idea of poking holes in theories and finding out information that science was either wrong about or that science did not know.

If science didn't have the mindset that their standard theories could be wrong, then nobody would have ever questioned Newtonian Physics nor created Quantum Mechanics. Sure, Quantum Mechanics has holes in it, but Newtonian Physics has been shown to have its limitations -- limitations that would have never been found if science didn't think that Newtonian Physics (which was the standard model for a few centuries) was beyond being the subject of revision.



posted on Mar, 13 2015 @ 03:02 PM
link   

originally posted by: Semicollegiate
a reply to: stormbringer1701

Where the rubber meets the road the process will be that same as it was before. That is, negative local charge attracts positive local charge.

The positive ion bonding to a positive ion certainly bodes well for doing biology from scratch someday!


Except if you look at the actual paper, you'll find it's not ionic bonding - it's more like an induced dipole bond. The hydrogen bond forms with a locally negative area on the phosphorus created by flipping the electron around between them as a sort of shield.



posted on Mar, 13 2015 @ 03:10 PM
link   

originally posted by: Semicollegiate
a reply to: stormbringer1701

Where the rubber meets the road the process will be that same as it was before. That is, negative local charge attracts positive local charge.

The positive ion bonding to a positive ion certainly bodes well for doing biology from scratch someday!



You are correct about political persons abusing the prestige of science to con folks out their freedom. "Settled Science" is slick salesman snake oil.

Real science reproducible facts.
Oh; yes it makes a lot of chemistry more versatile. puts more tricks in the bag. also helps with understanding sub nuclear structure and thus nuclear physics.



posted on Mar, 13 2015 @ 03:12 PM
link   

originally posted by: Soylent Green Is People

originally posted by: stormbringer1701
my statement is true. in science even the most fundamental thing is subject to revision.

True.


this should always be kept in mind...

True again


... but isn't.

Here's where I disagree.

Sure, there may be specific scientists out there who forget that everything is subject to revision -- but that is not the norm in science. In fact, most scientists live for the idea of poking holes in theories and finding out information that science was either wrong about or that science did not know.

If science didn't have the mindset that their standard theories could be wrong, then nobody would have ever questioned Newtonian Physics nor created Quantum Mechanics. Sure, Quantum Mechanics has holes in it, but Newtonian Physics has been shown to have its limitations -- limitations that would have never been found if science didn't think that Newtonian Physics (which was the standard model for a few centuries) was beyond being the subject of revision.

I think that recent fellow's ideas on dark matter and energy and QM has something to it. some of the holes are filled by it. QM and GRT can be reconciled.



posted on Mar, 13 2015 @ 03:19 PM
link   

originally posted by: Bedlam

originally posted by: Semicollegiate
a reply to: stormbringer1701

Where the rubber meets the road the process will be that same as it was before. That is, negative local charge attracts positive local charge.

The positive ion bonding to a positive ion certainly bodes well for doing biology from scratch someday!


Except if you look at the actual paper, you'll find it's not ionic bonding - it's more like an induced dipole bond. The hydrogen bond forms with a locally negative area on the phosphorus created by flipping the electron around between them as a sort of shield.


Covalent bonds still use electronegativity to hold everything together, the difference is that the electrons in covalent bonds remain attached to their reactant nucleus. In ionic bonds the reduction reactant keeps an electron or two or three and becomes a negative ion.

Hydrogen bonds are like static electricity--neither covalent or ionic. Hydrogen can stick to any negative part of a dipole molecule, or in this case, a big atom with 30+ electrons.

These three chemical bonds might be all of the bonds that are: ionic, covalent, and hydrogen. High temperature and pressure geology might find another as could biology or high energy and low energy physics. Solid state physics might find a new kind of bond while looking for the smallest possible on/off switch.
edit on 13-3-2015 by Semicollegiate because: (no reason given)



new topics

top topics



 
14
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join