Re: Bohr's Atom still number one

On May 5, 10:52 am, bz <bz+...@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
"g...@xxxxxxxxxxx" <g...@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote innews:1178355926.974468.207820@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx:

For the same reason they don't teach students the magnetic phenomena
using the complex magnetic patterns above likewise I believe they
shouldn't stray away from Bohr.

I sympathize with your problems understanding more complex models than
Bohr's.


It's not about sympathy....it's about a teacher himself getting an "F"
by mis-explaining to students.

Sure the planets can form a complex set of forces and orbital
patterns...but to explain kepler instead of simply one planet one sun
= "F"

Likewise for complex electron orbitals insteads of the simple force
that affect it.

Likewise for complex magnetic moments instead of a single magetic
surrounded by iron filings.

However, Bohr's model is WRONG and it does NOT explain the bond
angles in chemical compounds.

I thought it was simply electron ions traveling between atoms in a
molecule?

The atomic and molecular orbitals are correct
and allow any freshman chemistry student to predict properties of chemical
compounds that they have never seen. THAT is why it is taught.


Ok so your saying "s" orbital give different chemical properties then
say "p" orbitals.

Should they teach something that is wrong just because you can understand it?


No if there are Eight moons instead of one moon around Earth and
Jupiter is also affecting it then you need the entire complexities to
get the proper results.

But it is not the proper model to explain gravity and the fundamental
principles of orbitals, the above is simply a MULTIPLE of the basic
principle .

--
bz

please pardon my infinite ignorance, the set-of-things-I-do-not-know is an
infinite set.

bz+...@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx remove ch100-5 to avoid spam trap


.