Re: My New Website
From: Lothar Brendel (l.no.spam.brendel_at_uni-duisburg.de)
Date: 06/28/04
- Next message: Brian Quincy Hutchings: "Re: Mystery rejection, 3-d prime counting function"
- Previous message: John: "Re: would u please help me clear this doubt (thought experiment)"
- In reply to: Y.Porat: "Re: My New Website"
- Next in thread: Y.Porat: "Re: My New Website"
- Reply: Y.Porat: "Re: My New Website"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ]
Date: Mon, 28 Jun 2004 19:56:48 +0200
Y.Porat wrote:
> Lothar Brendel <l.no.spam.brendel@uni-duisburg.de> wrote in message news:<cbfac9$iee$1@a1-hrz.uni-duisburg.de>...
>
>>Y.Porat wrote:
>>
>>>Lothar Brendel <l.no.spam.brendel@uni-duisburg.de> wrote in message news:<cbc4s2$50t$1@a1-hrz.uni-duisburg.de>...
>>>
>>>
>>>>Y.Porat wrote:
How come you are answering the same post twice?
>>Yeah, you are doing the pioneering work to invent fire in your pitch
>>black room into which you locked yourself, while outside there is the
>>sun and electric light as well.
>
> -------
> you are a happy man to think that anything yet is known
> and nothing to renew, i just envy your paradise in which you live...
I don't claim that _everything_ would be known and understood. But
before you critisize things which _are_ well known and understood by the
majority of scientists, you should look at and understand what you are
critisizing.
No need to construct an ill-designed sledge when we already have the wheel.
>>>>>>So how do you explain e.g. copper with a nearest neighbor (NN) distance
>>>>>>of 2.55Å?
>
> ---------------
> were from you took that 2.55?
You find it in every book on solid state physics, thousands of times
confirmed by STM, AFM, RHEED, and X-rays.
>>>>>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
>>
>>No, you were (and still are) too lazy to explain your ideas
>>comprehensible (as you admit below).
>
> ----------------
> i cant explain 3d struyctures in an ascii tool
> too clumsy and full of posibble misunderstandinds
There are unique mathematical ways to describe 3d-structures. Alas, you
are too lazy to learn them.
> iwo a nice waist of time
> the best thing is to do it with a 3d Model.
Then why not take a photo of it?
Or simpler, do you allow Bjoern to send me the scanned page?
>>>>> 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
>>
>>>
>>> Yepp, that's still clear, though without any physical basis, but let's
>>> go on.
>
> ---------------
> the physical basis is strructural had you benn a structural engineer
> you would undrstand it better it is not even just a geometry
> problem it is stability - statics etc etc
So, laws about girders and bridges can be likewise applied to atoms?
Very interesting.
>>>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
>>
>>For the calculation, the math one learns in school is sufficient. But
>>for the visualization, surely a computer helps.
>
> and a 3d model is even much better to memorise and master it.
With your 3d model, you didn't even master the tetrahderon enough to
calculate the distances correctly.
[...]
>>>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
>>
>>Wrong, it's 2/sqrt{3}*2Å = 2.3Å.
>
> if you take a double bond *while the plans of the two legs
> of each atom are perpedicular to each other you get something like
> 1.5 A
> iow it is not on one plan but on teo perpendicular plans.
Then it's \sqrt{2/3}*2Å = 1.63Å. Thus, by varying the angle you can get
any distance between 1.33Å and 2.3Å. Pretty unique, this double-bond, eh?
>>>and the tripple bond (while 3 legs are touching)
>>>as something like 1.42 A
>>
>>Wrong, it's 2/3*2Å = 1.33Å.
>
> ---------
> so i am wrong by a say 6 percent?
Yes, about 6%, but more importantly, you don't _know_ how to obtain the
correct value.
[...]
>>No, I should not. _You_ should think before writing.
>
> ---------
> too difficult for an old man...
Then don't expect to be taken seriously.
[...]
>>>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.
>>
>>Yeah, sure...
>
> so we have a second point in which we understand each other
> a promising start......
Ever heard of something called "irony"?
>>And did you find any experimental evidence for this electron
>>hell-sending process?
>
> ----------
> how about all those cases in which electron connection
> cannot be done??
Very funny. You don't have any experimental evidence for your "buckled"
connections, but the fact of their absence proves the electron
hell-sending process?
[...]
>>That means, we do not even agree about the tetrahedrons in diamond.
>>Could you now explain, how you arrange your spiders to form the diamond
>>lattice?
>
> ---------------
> even the .net structure' of the centroids of atoms is complicated enopugh
It's not complicated, the diamond lattice is one of the easiest ones.
> now if we are going to incluse all those electron 'legs'
> it will be much more complicated
> but anyway it seems that if one would actually do it
> it might say'open our eyes' a bit wider.
> iow might make us a bit more clever about those issues.
That's your work to do. You say these "spiders" were the basic
ingredients for connecting atoms, then you have to show how to get the
diamond lattice out of them. Especially if you claim that your model is
so much better than QM (which _does_ get the structure correctly).
[...]
>>>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
>>
>>It's _you_ who is way "out" of these problems. Just how old are your
>>references? People are doing fully relativistic calculations on funny
>>stuff like Uranium hexaflouride and it _works_, cf. e.g. J. Chem. Phys.
>>_104_, 1012 (1996).
>>
>>-------------
>
> it is too far going and too much rxretited to say
> that qm can solve and explain (at this satge) any question
> afaik it didnt even sove aal the heavy elements to 'scratch'
"AFAYK" ist not very far, since you're too lazy to do any research on
what is being done.
Moreover, I didn't claim that QM could explain everything, but even if
QM would have been successful only for a few heavy atoms, that's already
much, much more than the output of your model.
[...]
>>>you are not aware about the over self estimation of qm.
>>>iow not aware about how much *not achieved* by qm.
>>
>>You have no clue about the principles and the achivements of QM. As
>>usual: What you don't understand can only be wrong.
>
> -----------
> and you are not aware of its shrtcomings.
I am. But what you claim as its shortcomings is plainly wrong.
[...]
>>>dont be too sure of youself
>>>it is a lot of 'intrpretatins of observations'
>>
>>Yes, but _you_ don't use any observations at all for your claims.
>
> -----------
> it cannot be shown in short articles.
So, in your book you refer to the experimental observations you use?
[...]
>>>>One can measure the electron density within a _crystal_.
>>>
>>>-------------
>>>good for your naivity!
>>>hiow do you detect an electron positin ?
>>
>>For measuring the (time averaged) electron density, I don't need to know
>>each electron's position.
>
> --------------
> good for your being a 'true (blind) believer
What was it you said in your last post about "avoid of
bestowing personal evaluations and 'grades' and stick to apposite
discussion"?
[...]
>>By power of thinking I can also postulate that the electrons are
>>inhabited by extremely tiny penguins. Since they cannot be observed,
>>nobodoy can prove me wrong.
>
> i casnt explain it in one article
Talk ist cheap.
[...]
>>They are not really associated to the elements, because the latter can
>>occur in different crystal strcutures (called \alpha-, \beta-, \gamma-,
>>...-phase).
>
> but i am interested just in the pure elements
> because only then i can make a popint.
So what? All examples I gave _are_ pure elements.
>>>can you see there all the 14 ??
>>
>>Nope, two are missing and stuff different from fcc, bcc and hcp is
>>mostly exotic (and with more than one atom in the primitve unit cell).
>>Here we go:
>
> --------------
> i am not sure even about those 12 but anyway
How could you possibly be sure? You didn't care to invest any research
and thoughts into it.
> even to your system
It's not _my_ system. It's known since 150 years.
> i would like to know what is your 'excuse'
> that two of the posible theorethic one *are missing*!!
What's so surprising about that? Building a structure out of atoms of
the _same_ type, one would expect to get something with a _high_
symmetry. And indeed, the major part is fcc, bcc or hcp.
ciao
Lothar
- Next message: Brian Quincy Hutchings: "Re: Mystery rejection, 3-d prime counting function"
- Previous message: John: "Re: would u please help me clear this doubt (thought experiment)"
- In reply to: Y.Porat: "Re: My New Website"
- Next in thread: Y.Porat: "Re: My New Website"
- Reply: Y.Porat: "Re: My New Website"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ]
Relevant Pages
|
