Re: Bohr's Atom still number one
- From: "guskz@xxxxxxxxxxx" <guskz@xxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: 30 Apr 2007 21:55:32 -0700
On Apr 30, 12:33 pm, Randy Poe <poespam-t...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
On Apr 30, 12:00 pm, "g...@xxxxxxxxxxx" <g...@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
On Apr 30, 11:55 am, Igor <thoov...@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
On Apr 29, 6:07 pm, "g...@xxxxxxxxxxx" <g...@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
On Apr 29, 5:53 pm, Igor <thoov...@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
On Apr 28, 7:23 pm, "g...@xxxxxxxxxxx" <g...@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
Science has taken a step back by moving away from Bohr's Atom who
helped support both the quantum number and the table of elements.
This step back is similar to denying the geometry of how planets orbit
the sun.
The main ingredients permutating to this geometrical denial are if:
1. The planets are quintuply much larger then at present
2. The planets are closer together
3. The planets velocities are much higher then at present.
These would to lead #4:
4. Would force the basic planetary motion away from concentric circles
into more and more eccentric(ellipse) circles.
5. Add two or more suns also close to these same planets and the
orbiting focal points no longer belong to any sun(nucleus) but are now
at an exterior source.
******************************************
Those that ***deny*** the basic principles of both the Solar and
Bohr's atomic orbits as past "theories" and instead focalize on more
complex schematic models using the five factors above should be tapped
on the head.
And just where is Bohr's model of the Helium atom? Or any atom with
more electrons than Hydrogen?- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -
The "s" orbitals. The inner repulsion and magnetic moment between
electrons causes them to disperse as cloudish orbitals instead of
rings.- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -
Buzzer! I'm sorry. The correct answer is that it doesn't exist.- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -
And what does the "s" orbitals resemble to you if not Bohr's atom and
why are they still teaching Bohr's atom in schools and not all the
other orbitals.
Yes, they're exactly the same, except that:
(a) the Bohr orbit is a circle and the s-orbital is not
cloud instead of ring
(b) the s-orbital is spherical and the Bohr orbit is not
Bohr's orbit isn't circular? then what is it squarical?
(c) the electron is found at a single radius in the Bohr orbit,
but not in the s-orbital,
cloud domain(= more accurate account of repulsions) instead of ring
(d) the electron is found at all radii in the s-orbital, but not
in the Bohr orbit.
cloud's density is more precise radii
Other than being different in every detail, I guess they're the same.
main difference, due to repulsion their allowed to steer away (cloud)
from main course (due to repulsion).
- Randy- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -
Why would they teach Bohr's atom in school, 60 years after the new
refined theory.
Are we to PRETEND the Earth's orbit wouldn't sway from it's solar
trajectory if it was ALSO surrounded by close planets....
And that these planets grouped together would not be concise rigns but
as well a cloudish trajectory pattern
I even demonstrated how the Sun would ***cease*** to be a focal point
to the planets oribtal.
.
- Follow-Ups:
- Re: Bohr's Atom still number one
- From: Randy Poe
- Re: Bohr's Atom still number one
- From: bz
- Re: Bohr's Atom still number one
- Prev by Date: Re: This is confusing - can someone explain?
- Next by Date: Re: Bohr's Atom still number one
- Previous by thread: Re: Bohr's Atom still number one
- Next by thread: Re: Bohr's Atom still number one
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|
