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: 6
14
<< 3  4  5   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Mar, 15 2015 @ 01:24 PM
link   

originally posted by: Arbitrageur

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.


Are you saying that QM and SR/GR are now being taught at the high school level and that the only mention of the Bohr model is to describe what doesn't work? Because that isn't my experience. When I graduated high school, I believed what I had been taught, that there were positive positrons, neutral neutrons and negative electrons orbiting around them. And that the balance between those charges was responsible for the stability of that structure. Basically, the Bohr model of the atom as it was originally proposed. It wasn't until I attended college that I learned that the Bohr model wasn't the complete answer and that in fact the structure of the atom had nothing to do with the associated charges of its components! Unless your intention is to keep anyone not attending college completely ignorant of the true nature of matter, teaching the Bohr model as fact to young people is a completely despicable practice that should be ended if it hasn't already.




posted on Mar, 15 2015 @ 02:06 PM
link   
a reply to: LibertyKrueger




When I graduated high school, I believed what I had been taught, that there were positive positrons, neutral neutrons and negative electrons orbiting around them.
You should have paid closer attention.
A positron is not a nuclear particle. It is an anti-electron.



posted on Mar, 15 2015 @ 02:35 PM
link   

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: LibertyKrueger




When I graduated high school, I believed what I had been taught, that there were positive positrons, neutral neutrons and negative electrons orbiting around them.
You should have paid closer attention.
A positron is not a nuclear particle. It is an anti-electron.
that was more probably a slip rather than a statement of facts. i have not encountered anyone who thinks a positron is a part of normal atomic structure. so lets give the benefit of the doubt before acting on it as if that is what they really believe.

although experimentally short lived hybrid atoms have been made with positrons combined with other particles mocking up the most simple of atomic arrangements.



posted on Mar, 15 2015 @ 02:38 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.


It's more that Bohr said even he didn't take it literally at the time, but it started looking somewhat better after Moseley's work. Bohr's model is simplistic, and doesn't take a lot of QM into account, but then, at that time they didn't know what/how to include it. This doesn't mean Bohr/Rutherford is stupid, wrong or useless - we actually got a lot out of it, but the current model is a lot more refined. You can, however, see a lot of connection remaining to the Bohr model.



That's not just something that they are just figuring out now either. D. B. Larson was talking about all this...


I looked that over, and it looks like typical crank garbage. There is a difference between refining a model to account for new information, such as going from Newtonian physics to GR, but it doesn't mean everyone should immediately abandon Newtonian mechanics and go urinate on Newton's statue. It's very accurate as long as you're not relativistic, and thus works in a huge swath of common problems. On the other hand, you don't take Newtonian mechanics, say "well , that doesn't hold at speeds near c" and then conclude that Time Cube is a valid solution since Newtonian physics isn't perfect in all circumstances.



Are you saying that QM and SR/GR are now being taught at the high school level and that the only mention of the Bohr model is to describe what doesn't work?


Hell, I went to a high school that required animal husbandry and we were first taught Bohr and Newtonian mechanics, then we covered the easier to understand issues with Bohr, and then concluded with a long painful semester on "orbitals aren't orbits - Bohr was wrong about that" that resulted in my muttering orbital names all night in my sleep before the end.

You don't really have time to cover all of QM in high school, so we got the "Bohr is an approximation that doesn't take into account things we've discovered since, but it's a decent first order approximation that gets you close" warning.

It's very common to learn concepts in physics by a sort of "Ontogeny recapitulates phylogeny" approach wherein you start with a couple of models back and proceed with the discovery that new advances have been made since 1910. Thus do you learn Newtonian mechanics again in college. Part of that is that you do not have the ability to plunge into the cold waters of tensors as a first semester freshman. But you can still learn a lot from Bohr and Newton in the meantime. So your intro to the subjects starts with a model that provides decent approximations and you work forward from there.

You do the same thing, although possibly worse, in Engineering. There, you learn meatball approximations to some fairly difficult subjects and are taught that this is, in fact, all you need to know. Then you discover that what you got in Fields III was an engineering version of a much larger universe that's over there in Physics, but you are stuck with the engineering shortcuts in your head, having learned to think of it that way. This often induces mortal combat with the prof, and you see a lot of physics profs who actually ask who the engineers are in the class the first day so they know whom to detest.


edit on 15-3-2015 by Bedlam because: who/whom



posted on Mar, 15 2015 @ 02:39 PM
link   
a reply to: stormbringer1701


so lets give the benefit of the doubt before acting on it as if that is what they really believe.
I don't really know what the poster believes. But apparently he doesn't know the difference between a positron and proton. That would tend to indicate that he wasn't paying attention in class.



posted on Mar, 15 2015 @ 02:44 PM
link   
a reply to: LibertyKrueger
As Phage said electrons don't orbit positrons and I'm pretty sure no high schools teach that they do.

Of course the Bohr model of the atom isn't completely accurate, but it's not as far off as you suggest, just as Newtonian mechanics isn't completely accurate but it still works pretty well in many applications. One of the most popular series of physics lectures is by Richard Feynman and it's now free online. In chapter one he explains that the reason we don't start off teaching the most accurate models is that some advanced math is needed to understand the more advanced models:

Feynman Lectures

You might ask why we cannot teach physics by just giving the basic laws on page one and then showing how they work in all possible circumstances, as we do in Euclidean geometry, where we state the axioms and then make all sorts of deductions. (So, not satisfied to learn physics in four years, you want to learn it in four minutes?) We cannot do it in this way for two reasons. First, we do not yet know all the basic laws: there is an expanding frontier of ignorance. Second, the correct statement of the laws of physics involves some very unfamiliar ideas which require advanced mathematics for their description. Therefore, one needs a considerable amount of preparatory training even to learn what the words mean. No, it is not possible to do it that way. We can only do it piece by piece.
Emphasis in bold is mine, so the reason the most accurate models are not taught in high school is simple and explained by Feynman...high school students don't know enough math to understand them. For that matter most college freshman and sophomores don't either, as those are the years they learn the math needed to understand the more advanced concepts taught in their junior and senior years.


edit on 15-3-2015 by Arbitrageur because: clarification



posted on Mar, 15 2015 @ 03:38 PM
link   

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: stormbringer1701


so lets give the benefit of the doubt before acting on it as if that is what they really believe.
I don't really know what the poster believes. But apparently he doesn't know the difference between a positron and proton. That would tend to indicate that he wasn't paying attention in class.
you havent ever said or written something that was absolutely bass ackwards of what you intended to say?



posted on Mar, 15 2015 @ 03:39 PM
link   
a reply to: stormbringer1701

Not when I'm carefully attempting to explain something. I'm pretty careful to get it right. Careful with the words I use.
edit on 3/15/2015 by Phage because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 16 2015 @ 06:13 AM
link   
a reply to: GetHyped


No. There are distinctly different definitions. Stop trying to conflate the two.

Is that your theory?

Imo, its a mater of viewpoint. Religious people are sure of their theories, too. Science dismisses those because they aren't scientific. Religious people do the same thing, they dismiss "evolution" without regard. Neither accepts the others premise because of their respective ideologies.

Both are off the mark, imo.



posted on Mar, 16 2015 @ 06:22 AM
link   
a reply to: dragonridr


Calling it a theory as a way to discredit the science just shows a severe lack of comprehension.

Yah, sorry I don't pledge allegiance to all the 'theories' out there. No matter how many people claim they are true.

No matter how many times I ask it, I have yet to get an convincing response on the origin of life…

an egg, seed, DNA, cell division, or the womb.

(Imo), there living things and processes require an original to copy from, not just 'appear' in the "fossil" record. Unless we consider they were brought here from somewhere else.



posted on Mar, 16 2015 @ 07:07 AM
link   

originally posted by: intrptr
a reply to: GetHyped


No. There are distinctly different definitions. Stop trying to conflate the two.

Is that your theory?


Ok, let's hear your definition of what a scientific theory is and lets compare it to the actual definition.

So, in your own words, please.



posted on Mar, 16 2015 @ 07:12 AM
link   
a reply to: GetHyped

Your world is biased in your favor. So is mine. They are just opinions after all. My theory is life was brought here.

Verrry 'scientifically'.



posted on Mar, 16 2015 @ 07:20 AM
link   
a reply to: intrptr

I'm asking you to define what a scientific theory is. So, let's hear it.



posted on Mar, 16 2015 @ 07:22 AM
link   

originally posted by: GetHyped
a reply to: intrptr

I'm asking you to define what a scientific theory is. So, let's hear it.

I'm asking you to tell how life got here. Or refute that.



posted on Mar, 16 2015 @ 07:23 AM
link   
a reply to: intrptr

So you can't define what a scientific theory is, even after a definition has been posted?

K.



posted on Mar, 16 2015 @ 07:25 AM
link   

originally posted by: intrptr
a reply to: GetHyped


No. There are distinctly different definitions. Stop trying to conflate the two.

Is that your theory?


That isn't a theory, it's a fact.


Imo, its a mater of viewpoint. Religious people are sure of their theories, too. Science dismisses those because they aren't scientific. Religious people do the same thing, they dismiss "evolution" without regard. Neither accepts the others premise because of their respective ideologies.

Both are off the mark, imo.



No, it isn't a matter of viewpoint. It is a matter of the religious misusing a word that is CLEARLY defined in the scientific world with certain parameters that have to be fulfilled before you can call it a theory. It isn't open to interpretation at all. Saying that just shows ignorance.



posted on Mar, 16 2015 @ 08:10 AM
link   
The point that the OP is trying to make, for the all hardcore, die-hard scientific nutjobs - is that science cannot be referenced and shoved down peoples throats as the end-all or be-all explanation to everything. If even your government endorsed, high-school textbooks are wrong.

Yes science is used to increase our knowledge on an infinitely, regular basis. And yes we all know that science reveals new things all the time. It helpsus to understand things.


But you must not stop questioning what sciences currently tells us. And that is what many ATS-ers do. The science in our text books, or some particular study or whatever is used to slap religious people around the face ...just because.

They present some random link, with some science on it - and tell you to be-quiet because science says your wrong.

No one can deny science, but at the same time science cannot deny the beliefs of others however outlandish, as long as there's a rational possibility that their beliefs are correct.

You should enjoy the journey of science, not the end result.



posted on Mar, 16 2015 @ 08:14 AM
link   
a reply to: Phage

It is highly possible he meant proton, but said positron, and your grilling him about it without giving him the benefit of the doubt.
edit on 16-3-2015 by ISeekTruth101 because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 16 2015 @ 08:23 AM
link   
a reply to: stormbringer1701

The chemistry we have studied on Earth represents a very special subset: for the most part, the elements interact in a gravitational field well above absolute zero and less than a few hundred degrees Kelvin in a narrow range of pressure over a geologically brief instant of time. Most of the rest of the universe does not have these conditions. Everything you learned in High School chemistry is a special case, and may not apply elsewhere.

Scientists understand this, and try to expand the limits of their knowledge through observation and experiment.



new topics

top topics



 
14
<< 3  4  5   >>

log in

join