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: 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.
originally posted by: stormbringer1701
Did you come into this thread "in media res" or did you read the OP where i quoted this part of the article:
originally posted by: pteridine
originally posted by: stormbringer1701
i didn't say all our chemical knowledge is wrong. XD
originally posted by: pteridine
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?
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?
i understand that quite well, thank you. previously chemistry itself neglected that. that's the whole point.
originally posted by: pteridine
originally posted by: stormbringer1701
Did you come into this thread "in media res" or did you read the OP where i quoted this part of the article:
originally posted by: pteridine
originally posted by: stormbringer1701
i didn't say all our chemical knowledge is wrong. XD
originally posted by: pteridine
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?
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.
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.
originally posted by: pteridine
originally posted by: stormbringer1701
i didn't say all our chemical knowledge is wrong. XD
originally posted by: pteridine
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?
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...
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.
…a well-substantiated explanation…
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.
originally posted by: intrptr
Then they would no longer call it a theory.
Safe bet that. Especially if its…
…a well-substantiated explanation…
'cause everyone says so.