Re: My New Website

From: Y.Porat (maporat_at_012.net.il)
Date: 06/24/04 

Date: 23 Jun 2004 22:45:42 -0700

Lothar Brendel <l.no.spam.brendel@uni-duisburg.de> wrote in message news:<cbc4s2$50t$1@a1-hrz.uni-duisburg.de>...
> Y.Porat wrote:
> > Lothar Brendel <l.no.spam.brendel@uni-duisburg.de> wrote in message news:<cba84o$nje$1@a1-hrz.uni-duisburg.de>...
> >
> >>Y.Porat wrote:
> >>
> >>[...]
> >>
> >>
> >>>so please Bjoern and Lothar
> >>>try to undrstyand my folowing claimes and explanation.
> >>>th4 bottom lne of it is :
> >>>all those diffrent distances between atoms can be explained
> >>>with *just one electron bond length*!!
> >>
> >>Of 1.9Å, right?
> >
> > ----------------
> > actually i would not bet that this is the 'last' acurate result
> > because i myself got different results from different analysis
>
> For a scientist, getting different results for the same quantity means
> that his/her theory is _wrong_.
-----------
i am still not Gods friend at least not as close to him as you
are ..... (;-)
----------
>
>
> > of something more than 2 A as well so it is just my first 'tials'
> > 'shots in some cloudy aire' i dont know the nice English term for it
> > may be 'groping'?
>
> "Tapping in the dark"?
yess thats th e way to do pioneering scince and not to be just
a parrot....
---------
>
>
> >>So how do you explain e.g. copper with a nearest neighbor (NN) distance
> >>of 2.55Å?
> >
> > see my explanation to Bjorn about the double and tripple bonds
> > of Carbon
>
> That was incomprehensible.
because now *you are too lazty * to make youself a simple
irin model of two tetraheders
it not lazy take two iron wires entangle them at their middle,
spread the rest edges to the 4 directions and you have
thje carbon model
than make another on
now approach tem together so that only two legs will touch
see the distance between the centroids
now go on and approach 3 'legs'from each tetraheder to
touch
you will see the centroids coming even close
now the point is that you can do it not only
qualitatively
you can do it *quantitatively*
as i guess in our modern situation you can do it by a computer
program (say autocad)
 i diod it the primitive way of hand calculation
but the poit is that there is nothing like doing it with your
own fingers- it gets enshrined in memory the strongest way.
(3d memory)
so you will get that if you take a ;legs length for say
2 A
you wilol get the distance between the centroids
in the 'double bond' as 1.5 A
and the tripple bond (while 3 legs are touching)
as something like 1.42 A
no need for quantum mechanics and no smantum one
just simple 3d stereometry.
btw you are right by your later remark that
the distance between atoms is on the shortest line
you should guess my mind that i was mwaning to say
is that the real connection of them is *mostly*
not on that line but sideways- so a longer way than
the shortest line
except of course in cases that there is
only a one 'valence' elecrton bond like that of say water.
or others with valence one.
even then my findigs are that the real connection point
is not exactly on the shrtest line
there is always a 'break in agle' ie not 180 deg
if you 'go all along the *ereal* connection line'
i have even an explanation to it:
if it were a real atrahgit line the electrons
from the two atoms would collide at the connection point
and 'send to hell' each other.
ie the somewhat break angle at connection point ie
they are not on a 180 deg line but say 150 deg
hope i made myself clear
enables them to connect and not to colide

btw thats what i found not only in electron connections
but al along even nuclear connections
it is compa tible all alond my nuclear model as well.
-----------
>
>
>
> That's an utterly confusing statement. The distance is _defined_ to be
> the "shortest line". Whatever the way the electrons doing their work
> (about which is _much_ more explored than you are aware of), the
> distances between atoms is nothing but the euclidian distance, and
> that's what observed (X-Ray, AFM, ...).
---------
thats right
see above
yet you dont 'see' the real path along a 3 bond connection
like that of the tripple bond of 2 carbons.
thats what i wanted to say.
(sometimes a asume too much that eople can read my thoughtas...)
----------
>
>
> > it is done sideways
> > immagine metaphoricallt\y two siders catching each's legs
> > (or two crabs
> > the 'legs' are spread longer sideways than the direct line beteween
> > themselves
>
> Err, where do you place the atoms in this picture? Only on the spiders
> bodies or also on their "hands"?
actually the atoms are defined as 'the spider *and * their 'legs'
but the distance is as you sated- between the nucli.
the legs are sort of 'invisible' qm smears them
a vey nice way to run away from 5he real thing
but once you do the model i suggested
you realize in your fingers what Einstein sayed:
'God didnt paly the dice'
it is only 'smartguys methematiciance' that are friends
of God who paly the dice (noting meaning you-
no offence at you Lothar you sems to have some less
than a 100 percent self confidence, thats why you find some
interest to hear some starge ideas from me !...)

eistein though that Gods creation is clear crystal
acurate and uneqiuvocal
so who am i do boubt it ???(:-)
>
>
> > and if not complicated enough sometimes it is two electrons
> > one from each side that do the connection
> > and sometimes only one is contributing electrons (the other-
> > lost it during bonding
> > so it is not as simple as to fraze it in one simple elegant
> > single law sure not one matemathic fromula (at least not at this
> > stage of knowledge).
>
> Not with _your_ state of knowlegde. As I alraedy explained, nowadays the
> geometric and electronic properties of crystals can be _calculated_,
> starting from quantum mechanics, without plugging in any distance.
----------------
calculated!! it seems like too much hand waiving
i didnt see the absolute success of qm even to describe
and calculate all the elements of the periodic table
it seems that you are not exactly 'in' those problems
qm didnt go further than the irom element
and the excuse for it is ' not enough 'claculation pwer'
to our enem super computers.
you are not aware about the over self estimation of qm.
iow not aware about how much *not achieved* by qm.
thos epeole are asertive pompous people who know how to sell
themselves in a much higher price than theyt realy worth.
(not completely clean from crookism!!)
--------------
-----------
-------------
>
>
> >>Sure, for crystals with a NN distance < 1.9Å, you can always fudge the
> >>result by "buckling" this "arms".
> >
> > it is not exactly buckling it is sometimes different amgles
>
> Buckling is actually possible with different angles.
yess but we what to understand it more tangible'
more physically and less only mathematically.
-----------
>
> [...]
>
> >>But what are your "arms" actually? At least they should be associated
> >>with a higher electron density (compared to the interstice between them).
> >>--------------
> >
> > yes actually but not as an idon rodd is actuall!!

iron...
>
> No, of course not. An iron rod consits of more than a regin of higher
> electron density.
>
>
> > my guess is that the electron is made of many subparticles
>
> This _guess_ of yours is contradicted by experimental findings. But I
> know,you consider your guess out of the blue as much more trustworthy
> than any comparison with nature.
dont be too sure of youself
it is a lot of 'intrpretatins of observations'
rather than 'direct observations' and a lot of mistakes are lurking
on that way.lots of 'taking for granted' that *leads* to those
results.
>
> [...]
>
> >>Now, the electron density can be _measured_! And alas, nothing of this
> >>sort was ever observed, in metals there are no "arms" at all and in
> >>covalent crystals the orbitals are aligned with the shortest path
> >>between atoms.
> >
> > -----------
> > may be just in simple cases like the oxygen Hydrogen
> > but how can you measure the separation location of say
> > the 3 connections of carbon?
>
> One can measure the electron density within a _crystal_.
-------------
good for your naivity!
hiow do you detect an electron positin ?
by bombarding it by electrons ??!!!
or may be with gama rays (;_)?
or may be even by light waves? wvwn light wayvws might
deviate the electrron positions ??
and how do you detect the exact trjectories of say
a tripple bond of say the carbon element??
what is your 'google for that?
-----------
----------
------------
>
>
> > do you have the tools for it
> > is it reasonable to you that the tripple cond of two carbons
> > will be on the same shortest line between them?
>
> I have no idea about which "tripple cond" you are talking.
-----------
see above and try to do it with your own hands
it is not too complicated and wothwhile..
----------
>
>
> > while it is known that trhe Carbon electrons are separated
> > to the famous tetraheder ( 3D !!)109 deg
> > do you 'see' there with your instruments one bunch
> > or 3 separeated 'beams' ??
>
> Nobody ever observed such "3 separated beams".
-----------
because we dont have the tools for it.
only by the power of thinking we can do it (at this stage)
-----------
>
>
> > lets study it before spreading definit declarations.
>
> Go ahead!
--------
doing my poor best....
 
>
> > what is the overall number of latice for
> > all the elements of the periodic table
> > it is one of the former questions that i raised
> > in former articles
>
> Did you? And you didn't get an answer? Gosh, the internet is full of the
> answer to this question: There are 14 bravais lattices.
i waas speaking *only about the 92 **pure element latice**!!
not on their endless compounds
do we speak about the same thing ??
please give me examples of those 14 structures
associasted to the specific elements of the periodic table.
can you see there all the 14 ??
---------
>
>
> > i think the answer for it is meaninfull
>
> Before you conjecture that 14 is due to the ten commandments of Moses
> plus the 4 arms of the tetrahedrons: The origin for this number is
> already _known_. And, listen carefully, it is not a small subset of all
> possible lattices, selected wisely by nature. Instead there _cannot_ be
> more lattices than these 14.
concrete 14 examples please.
Ciau
Y
-----------------

>
> ciao
> Lothar

Relevant Pages

  • Re: My New Website
    ... i am not sure about it (too lazy to go back to your calculation) ... it might be the distance between atoms of different ... the only 'touch of atoms' is through their electrons. ... and strech out the for 'arms' to 109 deg separation between ...
    (sci.physics)
  • Re: My New Website
    ... > that the distance between atoms bonded by electrons is ... ... There are 14 bravais lattices. ...
    (sci.physics)
  • Re: deriving speed of light from purely the inside of Plutonium atom Re:
    ... I should have referenced my talk of the current picture of how a photon holds together protons to electrons. ... And what I propose because I need a distance for photons to derive the speed of light unique to the ... plutonium the protons shot out a photon but that photon is not a linear shot but instead is a particle or wave ...
    (sci.physics)
  • Re: USB or RS232 scope controll
    ... the pc is, and distance wont be a problem with RS232, I will be using Fibre ... of USB over RS232 for controlling Meade Scopes?. ... rates, can go 100', while USB, requires a repeater module to go more than ... The 'better' connection, would be something like Ethernet, which handles ...
    (uk.sci.astronomy)
  • Re: Entropy sources under WinXP
    ... Other nuclear pink specifications will release as it were ... in front of electrons. ... Just agreing in connection with a dimension between the shop is too ...
    (sci.crypt)