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.
originally posted by: Arbitrageur
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.
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...
You should have paid closer attention.
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.
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.
originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: LibertyKrueger
You should have paid closer attention.
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.
A positron is not a nuclear particle. It is an anti-electron.
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...
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?
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.
so lets give the benefit of the doubt before acting on it as if that is what they really believe.
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.
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.
you havent ever said or written something that was absolutely bass ackwards of what you intended to say?
originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: stormbringer1701
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.
so lets give the benefit of the doubt before acting on it as if that is what they really believe.
No. There are distinctly different definitions. Stop trying to conflate the two.
Calling it a theory as a way to discredit the science just shows a severe lack of comprehension.
originally posted by: intrptr
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.