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: 4
14
<< 1  2  3    5  6 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Mar, 14 2015 @ 06:49 AM
link   
a reply to: intrptr


Evolution or adaptation?

Evolution is defined as a change in allele frequency within a given population over time. If the adaptation fits the criteria, then it is evolution.




posted on Mar, 14 2015 @ 07:07 AM
link   
a reply to: iterationzero

Species adapt to changing environments. not the other way round.



posted on Mar, 14 2015 @ 08:41 AM
link   

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. 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.



Bellow is the actually quote from Carl Sagan and it from Broca's Brain.

"But the fact that some geniuses were laughed at does not imply that all who are laughed at are geniuses. They laughed at Columbus, they laughed at Fulton, they laughed at the Wright brothers. But they also laughed at Bozo the Clown."



posted on Mar, 14 2015 @ 09:22 AM
link   

originally posted by: stormbringer1701

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?


You misunderstand. What was said was that there were areas of negative charge on an atom considered to be depleted in electrons that could still hydrogen bond. It is still positive to negative but as it turns out [and is well known] most orbitals do not have spherical symmetry; they are directional. This paper shows an interesting effect of such charge distribution but does not change any fundamental understandings.
edit on 3/14/2015 by pteridine because: Spelling correction.



posted on Mar, 14 2015 @ 12:15 PM
link   

originally posted by: pteridine

originally posted by: stormbringer1701

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?


You misunderstand. What was said was that there were areas of negative charge on an atom considered to be depleted in electrons that could still hydrogen bond. It is still positive to negative but as it turns out [and is well known] most orbitals do not have spherical symmetry; they are directional. This paper shows an interesting effect of such charge distribution but does not change any fundamental understandings.
i understand that quite well, thank you. previously chemistry itself neglected that. that's the whole point.



posted on Mar, 14 2015 @ 02:10 PM
link   

originally posted by: intrptr
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.



I'd put it as "If you're going to challenge a tenet that has been tested and verified literally millions of times by every science major undergrad on the planet, around which has been built a metric crapton of consistently working technology, you'd better have really good proof."



posted on Mar, 14 2015 @ 02:37 PM
link   
a reply to: Bedlam

Lol, did you mean it like that? "--a metric crapton--"? That was funny.

Otherwise, I don't care how many experts sign on to a theory, its still just a theory. On both sides of the aisle.

Mine is a lot simpler. Life was brought here from elsewheres.



posted on Mar, 14 2015 @ 02:57 PM
link   
a reply to: intrptr

"Just" a theory?


A scientific theory is a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world that is acquired through the scientific method and repeatedly tested and confirmed through observation and experimentation.



posted on Mar, 14 2015 @ 03:05 PM
link   

originally posted by: GetHyped
a reply to: intrptr

"Just" a theory?


People have as much trouble with that word as they do "radiation". It doesn't dawn on them that the words aren't used the way they use them in casual conversation.



posted on Mar, 14 2015 @ 04:15 PM
link   
a reply to: Bedlam

Let's add "frequency" to that list, along with "quantum".



posted on Mar, 14 2015 @ 04:24 PM
link   
a reply to: stormbringer1701

What you said was
" principle: positive to positive no workie "

It is not positive to positive, it is positive to negative. The thought was that there was no negative region for hydrogen bonding to occur but directional orbitals provided the electron density necessary for such even though it was thought that the phosphorus was positively polarized. Now, more will look for such interactions.

This is a new discovery and use of the word 'neglected' is incorrect.



posted on Mar, 14 2015 @ 04:39 PM
link   
a reply to: stormbringer1701

Your wrong this is still positive to negative charge. But thanks to physics we realize there was a negative charge were we didn't think there was. In the future before you attack science may pay off to open up a book and learn about it first.



posted on Mar, 14 2015 @ 05:31 PM
link   

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?


One would be, a chemical reaction without valence electron sharing or exchange. The Hydrogen ion is not sharing an electron, it is held by the net force of electromagnetism of various nearby electrons. But only if the H+P+ in this article is considered a molecule.
edit on 14-3-2015 by Semicollegiate because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 14 2015 @ 05:50 PM
link   
a reply to: Semicollegiate
This has to do with hydrogen bonding, which is a dipole-dipole interaction.



posted on Mar, 14 2015 @ 06:04 PM
link   
a reply to: intrptr


Species adapt to changing environments. not the other way round.

I don't think I said anything to the contrary.



posted on Mar, 14 2015 @ 10:03 PM
link   
That's because they are still teaching the Bohr model of the atom, even though Bohr himself said it was a failed concept. That's not just something that they are just figuring out now either. D. B. Larson was talking about all this back in the '60s! In fact you can read his book on the subject online for free here: www.reciprocalsystem.com...



posted on Mar, 14 2015 @ 10:40 PM
link   

originally posted by: LibertyKrueger
That's because they are still teaching the Bohr model of the atom, even though Bohr himself said it was a failed concept. That's not just something that they are just figuring out now either. D. B. Larson was talking about all this back in the '60s! In fact you can read his book on the subject online for free here: www.reciprocalsystem.com...
They teach the Bohr model as an introduction, and they do the same thing with Newtonian classical mechanics. Then they explain why both those models are wrong, and teach the more accurate models which replace them, quantum mechanics and relativity. Your posts mentions nothing of this so it appears you have no idea what is actually taught.



posted on Mar, 15 2015 @ 08:30 AM
link   

originally posted by: GetHyped
a reply to: intrptr

"Just" a theory?


A scientific theory is a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world that is acquired through the scientific method and repeatedly tested and confirmed through observation and experimentation.

Then they would no longer call it a theory. Safe bet that. Especially if its…


…a well-substantiated explanation…


'cause everyone says so.



posted on Mar, 15 2015 @ 08:41 AM
link   

originally posted by: iterationzero
a reply to: intrptr


Species adapt to changing environments. not the other way round.

I don't think I said anything to the contrary.

Adaptation as opposed to evolution was more my point.

50 foot porpoises, alligators and sharks are adapted to their environment, not evolved to it. They are the same genetically today as they were then. Just a lot bigger and called "Dinosaurs".



posted on Mar, 15 2015 @ 09:06 AM
link   

originally posted by: intrptr
Then they would no longer call it a theory.


This is not how scientific theories work. There is nothing higher up in the chain of understanding than a scientific theory. They don't turn into anything else.



Safe bet that. Especially if its…


…a well-substantiated explanation…


'cause everyone says so.


No, because of the empirical evidence that supports a given theory's predictions and explanatory power.




top topics



 
14
<< 1  2  3    5  6 >>

log in

join