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

originally posted by: Semicollegiate
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.

I think in this case the big surprise is that you could induce a negative area and THEN stick a hydrogen to it. But I'm no chemist.

originally posted by: stormbringer1701
...is subject to revision. We cannot be sure our most axiomic fundamentals of chemistry are right. like the simplist of chemical bonds. like the charge distribution of an atom with one proton in it. we don't even know that.

I see nothing about this discovery that changes my view of chemistry, and I don't understand why they say it does, unless the people saying that don't know quantum mechanics. The article you cited says this:

phys.org...

"It was thought that atomic charge was global, that is, as something that was uniform and spherically shaped. But our experiment demonstrates, as clear as day, that charge is asymmetric – that small areas of positive charge exist upon atoms which are in fact negative," explains Kjærgaard.

Why would anybody think that atomic charge was global, uniform and spherically shaped when this thread was posted on ATS in 2009 showing we had clear evidence that the shape of some electron orbitals is clearly NOT spherical? This would indicate to me that the results the researchers found shouldn't be surprising, so what am I missing? Am I the only one who can tell that not all these shapes are spherical? What is this, the twilight zone?

New Microscope Reveals the Shape of Atoms

originally posted by: VitalOverdose
reply to post by Nathwa

 

Well it proves that the maths we have been using to simulate atoms and the theories we have come up with about the way they work are correct. It means we are on the right track to understanding how the universe works.

[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/48da3d162815.jpg[/atsimg]

[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/68cbe40a92ea.gif[/atsimg]

We are indeed clever little monkeys

I'm pretty sure the OP already knows that science is not set in stone, and is subject to change in light of new facts. In a perfect world that is true.

However, have you tried to question and or disprove mainstream scientific facts lately? You'd swear the exact opposite is true. You will be attacked with insults, and your career put into jeopardy. People will laugh and mock you, and throw out your papers before they even read them or do any experiments for themselves. God forbid they find some type of typographical or grammatical error in said paper, or get a hold of your education background that may or may not be in the field you are experimenting in.

You will be met with so much blind opposition, you'd think science was set in stone, and case closed. You'd think science stopped looking for correct answers once they found answers that were "good enough".

Scientific dogma is worse than religious dogma, because scientists think they have proof of their dogma, and no other proofs exists.

a reply to: WeAre0ne

Do you actually have any evidence to support your statements?

a reply to: GetHyped

Do you seriously need evidence? What I have said has been a fact of science for centuries. If you knew your scientific history you wouldn't have made such a ridiculous request for evidence.

"They laughed at Galileo. They laughed at Newton. But they also laughed at Bozo the Clown." - Carl Sagan

originally posted by: WeAre0ne
a reply to: GetHyped

Do you seriously need evidence?

Yes. You've made some very specific claims, surely you can supply some very specific evidence.

What I have said has been a fact of science for centuries.

Then post up some supportive evidence.

If you knew your scientific history you wouldn't have made such a ridiculous request for evidence.

I'm fully aware of the history of science. It is a dynamic and forwards moving discipline that can turn on a dime should compelling evidence be presented. This is orthogonal to your characterization.

"They laughed at Galileo. They laughed at Newton. But they also laughed at Bozo the Clown." - Carl Sagan

Who is "they"?

Ok then, since you need someone to spoon feed you info. Here is one fairly recent event:

Mocked and insulted, scientist wins a Nobel and vindication

When Israeli scientist Dan Shechtman claimed to have stumbled upon a new crystalline chemical structure that seemed to violate the laws of nature, colleagues mocked him, insulted him and exiled him from his research group.

After years in the scientific wilderness, though, he was proved right. And on Wednesday, he received the ultimate vindication: the Nobel Prize in chemistry.

Dan Shechtman is even aware of this happening a lot.

The shy 70-year-old Shechtman said he never doubted his findings and considered himself merely the latest in a long line of scientists who advanced their fields by challenging the conventional wisdom and were shunned by the establishment because of it.

originally posted by: GetHyped
Who is "they"?

"They" are the scientific community.

This is only one example. I find it quite unnecessary to have to post evidence for such a common and well acknowledged issue in the scientific community.

If I were to surmise why you are asking for such evidence, I would probably find out that you are asking for evidence in order to set me up for some future ridicule. I will now expect you to find some type of flaw in my provided evidence, and ridicule me based on what I provide, instead of say, "well, you are right".

originally posted by: WeAre0ne
Ok then, since you need someone to spoon feed you info. Here is one fairly recent event:

Mocked and insulted, scientist wins a Nobel and vindication

When Israeli scientist Dan Shechtman claimed to have stumbled upon a new crystalline chemical structure that seemed to violate the laws of nature, colleagues mocked him, insulted him and exiled him from his research group.

After years in the scientific wilderness, though, he was proved right. And on Wednesday, he received the ultimate vindication: the Nobel Prize in chemistry.

Dan Shechtman is even aware of this happening a lot.

The shy 70-year-old Shechtman said he never doubted his findings and considered himself merely the latest in a long line of scientists who advanced their fields by challenging the conventional wisdom and were shunned by the establishment because of it.

You mean a controversial discovery was taken seriously once evidence was presented and the work was independently replicated, whereupon it was accepted as solid science? That's the way science progresses. His research team allegedly insulting him means nothing. His research team are not the scientific community.

The full context:

Linus Pauling is noted saying "There is no such thing as quasicrystals, only quasi-scientists."[14] Pauling was apparently unaware of a paper in 1981 by H. Kleinert and K. Maki which had pointed out the possibility of a non-periodic Icosahedral Phase in quasicrystals[15] (see the historical notes). The head of Shechtman's research group told him to "go back and read the textbook" and a couple of days later "asked him to leave for 'bringing disgrace' on the team."[16] Shechtman felt rejected.[14] On publication of his paper, other scientists began to confirm and accept empirical findings of the existence of quasicrystals.[17][18]

en.wikipedia.org...

He made a claim. He substantiated his findings. Others replicated his work. The claim was accepted. He even won a Nobel prize for it. How exactly does that fit with your "dogma" narrative? What happened was the complete opposite.

originally posted by: GetHyped
Who is "they"?

"They" are the scientific community.

The scientific community certainly did not laugh at the work of Galileo and Newton. Newton in particular was recognized as a genius very early on and the scientific community hung on his every word. Where are you even getting this information from??

This is only one example. I find it quite unnecessary to have to post evidence for such a common and well acknowledged issue in the scientific community.

You haven't posted an example of anything, other than the evidence-driven methodology that science is.

If I were to surmise why you are asking for such evidence, I would probably find out that you are asking for evidence in order to set me up for some future ridicule. I will now expect you to find some type of flaw in my provided evidence, and ridicule me based on what I provide, instead of say, "well, you are right".

Enough of the persecution complex. The example you gave was a good example of how science actually works. This narrative of "religious dogma" is nothing more than your projection.

originally posted by: WeAre0ne


"They laughed at Galileo. They laughed at Newton. But they also laughed at Bozo the Clown." - Carl Sagan

The trick, then, is to be Galileo or Newton. Bozo the Clown would be the perpetual motion machine folk, among many others.

a reply to: GetHyped

You did exactly what I thought you would. People like you are a huge problem on ATS. You hate so much to be wrong, that you will twist words, and resort to selective reading, and manipulate history itself just to create the appearance that you are correct. What you just did is disgusting and annoying.

The evidence I provided is exactly what I was talking about. His research group, other scientists, mocked and laughed at him, and even kicked him out of his group because of scientific dogma. If it wasn't for Dan Shechtman's certainty in his scientific findings, he probably would have just dug a hole and disappeared in it for the rest of his life, taking his findings to his grave. Instead, he continued battling for years, and finally got other people to look into his work and prove his finding. This happens more than you think.

From your source that you selectively copied from:

"For a long time it was me against the world," he said. "I was a subject of ridicule and lectures about the basics of crystallography. The leader of the opposition to my findings was the two-time Nobel Laureate Linus Pauling, the idol of the American Chemical Society and one of the most famous scientists in the world. For years, 'til his last day, he fought against quasi-periodicity in crystals. He was wrong, and after a while, I enjoyed every moment of this scientific battle, knowing that he was wrong."

en.wikipedia.org...

It was him against the world.. not just his group.

My point is, there shouldn't have been a battle. The scientific community should have listened to him from the start, read his papers from the start, and did the experiments from the start, and they would have acknowledged his findings from the beginning. It should have not dragged on from the start through mockery and ridicule.

Sure in the end it worked out for Dan Shechtman, but that's only because truth will always prevail in the end. Not because scientists are actually following the scientific method. Instead they fight tooth-and-nail to defend their scientific dogma, just like you are fighting me right now to appear correct, when I know full well you are full of BS.

Admit it, I am right. This sort of scientific denial happens all the time. This was just one example.

a reply to: stormbringer1701

What the paper says is that even though the phosphorus atom was assumed to be slightly positive in dipole-dipole interactions, it is claimed that the non-bonding pair of electrons on P was still capable of hydrogen bonding. That is not what was expected but it certainly doesn't mean that all our chemical knowledge is incorrect. Positive charge is still attracted to negative charge. Dipole-dipole interactions and hydrogen bonding are what life is dependent on.

Yes science is so open to change and revision.*

*Your mileage may vary ,revision is open only after 100 years
of ridicule and or 50 years of excommunication, whichever comes last**

**See- rocks can't fall from the sky and Solar output doesn't effect climate
for more examples.

originally posted by: UnderKingsPeak
Yes science is so open to change and revision.*

I know you'd like perpetual motion or the like, but it isn't going to happen.

originally posted by: pteridine
a reply to: stormbringer1701

What the paper says is that even though the phosphorus atom was assumed to be slightly positive in dipole-dipole interactions, it is claimed that the non-bonding pair of electrons on P was still capable of hydrogen bonding. That is not what was expected but it certainly doesn't mean that all our chemical knowledge is incorrect. Positive charge is still attracted to negative charge. Dipole-dipole interactions and hydrogen bonding are what life is dependent on.

i didn't say all our chemical knowledge is wrong. XD

i said a long accepted almost axiomatic fundamental of chemistry turns out to be at least somewhat wrong.

originally posted by: stormbringer1701

originally posted by: pteridine

i didn't say all our chemical knowledge is wrong. XD

i said a long accepted almost axiomatic fundamental of chemistry turns out to be at least somewhat wrong.

What long accepted almost axiomatic fundamental of chemistry turns out to be at least somewhat wrong?

originally posted by: pteridine

originally posted by: stormbringer1701

originally posted by: pteridine

i didn't say all our chemical knowledge is wrong. XD

i said a long accepted almost axiomatic fundamental of chemistry turns out to be at least somewhat wrong.

What long accepted almost axiomatic fundamental of chemistry turns out to be at least somewhat wrong?

Did you come into this thread "in media res" or did you read the OP where i quoted this part of the article:

Previously, researchers assumed that positively charged hydrogen could only create hydrogen bonds with negatively charged elements like oxygen, fluorine and nitrogen. That positive hydrogen can also be bound to positive phosphorus opens up a world of fresh insight into biological processes. It also provides the basis for an entirely new understanding of how atomic charge works.

principle: positive to positive no workie

problem?

originally posted by: WeAre0ne
a reply to: GetHyped

You did exactly what I thought you would. People like you are a huge problem on ATS.

What, asking for evidence?

You hate so much to be wrong, that you will twist words, and resort to selective reading, and manipulate history itself just to create the appearance that you are correct. What you just did is disgusting and annoying.

I pointed out why your example is wrong. Was it annoying? Only if you cannot draw the line between criticising the argument and the person.

The evidence I provided is exactly what I was talking about. His research group, other scientists, mocked and laughed at him, and even kicked him out of his group because of scientific dogma.

Allegations of some members of his research team ridiculing him. The scientific community took his findings seriously once he published his findings in a peer-reviewed journal.

This is the complete opposite of this dogma you keep going on about.

If it wasn't for Dan Shechtman's certainty in his scientific findings, he probably would have just dug a hole and disappeared in it for the rest of his life, taking his findings to his grave.

Unlikely, I don't think he's as thin skinned and emotionally invested in ideas as you appear to be.

Instead, he continued battling for years, and finally got other people to look into his work and prove his finding.

...by publishing his results. Suddenly, once he substantiated his claims, other scientists paid attention to them. Crazy, I know!

This happens more than you think.

From your source that you selectively copied from:

"For a long time it was me against the world," he said. "I was a subject of ridicule and lectures about the basics of crystallography. The leader of the opposition to my findings was the two-time Nobel Laureate Linus Pauling, the idol of the American Chemical Society and one of the most famous scientists in the world. For years, 'til his last day, he fought against quasi-periodicity in crystals. He was wrong, and after a while, I enjoyed every moment of this scientific battle, knowing that he was wrong."

en.wikipedia.org...

It was him against the world.. not just his group.

Very hyperbolic allegations from the man himself that I take with a pinch of salt. The bottom line is:

Once he presented his work in the manner befitting a scientist by publishing his results for all to see, his work was accepted.

My point is, there shouldn't have been a battle. The scientific community should have listened to him from the start, read his papers from the start, and did the experiments from the start, and they would have acknowledged his findings from the beginning. It should have not dragged on from the start through mockery and ridicule.

No, there should be a battle whenever a controversial issue in science arises. And this is exactly what happens. All parties work hard to test their ideas empirically, and the side for whom the evidence agrees with "wins" the argument.

That's science.

Sure in the end it worked out for Dan Shechtman, but that's only because truth will always prevail in the end.

Because he presented scientific evidence for his claims that were subsequently accepted by the scientific community.

Not because scientists are actually following the scientific method.

Utter nonsense. Scientists accepted his findings because all parties were using the scientific method. Did this line evade your attention?

On publication of his paper, other scientists began to confirm and accept empirical findings of the existence of quasicrystals.[17][18]

Instead they fight tooth-and-nail to defend their scientific dogma, just like you are fighting me right now to appear correct, when I know full well you are full of BS.

Wow, you seem WAAAY more emotionally invested in this than is healthy. However, your claim is, again, nonsense. I repeat:

On publication of his paper, other scientists began to confirm and accept empirical findings of the existence of quasicrystals.[17][18]

Please point out the dogma in the above statement.

Admit it, I am right. This sort of scientific denial happens all the time. This was just one example.

No, you are wrong. Any further questions?

Disclosure time!

Do you hold any magical beliefs yourself that are not acknowledged by "mainstream" science?

originally posted by: GetHyped
a reply to: HooHaa

It's not by coincidence that the nearly exclusively the people I ever hear complaining about the "dogma" of science are people who hold unscientific beliefs. You are a good example of that if you sincerely believe that evolution is not supported by a substantial amount of objective evidence.

Evolution or adaptation?

a reply to: stormbringer1701

We're only ever as great as our last great discovery, until that is proved to be wrong, incomplete or completely limited...then the next great discovery is the one which expands on the first and opens new frontiers with new insights and processes...until that itself is found to be wanting, sometimes extremely wanting, then the cycle starts its merry-go-round ride again..and again.

This is my argument about those who claim such and such is absolutely impossible...the answer is that such and such is impossible, only until we cycle around to the point where it is actually not impossible at all...in fact, such and such is pretty simplistic and easy to accomplish with the correct process.

The arrogance and the ignorance of the scientific present tense is scattered throughout Human history and the once great contributors to our collective knowledge..ultimately become backwards thinkers, worthy of ridicule and derisory scorn.

originally posted by: HooHaa
a reply to: [post=19112464]intrptr[/post

Not science it self but there are those who are more dogmatic and just as arrogant as any religious beliefs I've seen.. as soon as anyone questions the dogma of evolution and 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..

Same thing happens when you challenge the tenets of religious belief within the church walls. The closer you get to the source of scientific (like evolution, big Bang, wave or particle) or religious dogma the higher the priests are that protect the secret information that is touted as "proof" and the more chastised one is for questioning it.