Forums » Group W Forums » Topical Tropical Discussions

 


Post new topic Reply to topic
Author Message
PostPosted: Sun May 06, 2012 1:04 pm
  

User avatar
Senior ArloNetizen

Joined: Mar 15, 2012
Posts: 408
Bucky Balls are molecules. c60 is very spherical, still none of the molecules are perfect.

Carbon, as in the 6th element, as in the atom, is cubic. Atomic orbitals are not orbits like the planets. If we were to reference them to celestial objects, their orbits would be more like comets; extremely eccentric ellipses.


          Top  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Sun May 06, 2012 1:08 pm
  

Arlo Fanatic

Joined: Jul 17, 2010
Posts: 1375
DrCharbonneau wrote:
Bucky Balls are molecules. c60 is very spherical, still none of the molecules are perfect.

Carbon, as in the 6th element, as in the atom, is cubic. Atomic orbitals are not orbits like the planets. If we were to reference them to celestial objects, their orbits would be more like comets; extremely eccentric ellipses.


I thought we all agreed that chemistry is not your thing?

Carbon is the poster child for the tetrahedron as a container for its electrons....it is a pyramid shape (ooooo cosmic)!


          Top  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Sun May 06, 2012 2:59 pm
  

User avatar
Senior ArloNetizen

Joined: Mar 15, 2012
Posts: 408
http://static.ddmcdn.com/gif/laser1.jpg

(not sure if that shortcut is to the image I looked up...)

Maybe you and your invisible friends agreed to something like that. The only thing I agreed with you about is that gasoline is not "merely" a mixture of alcohols and that your OCPD is likely caused by repressed improper toilet training. The 4 sp orbitals of carbon are roughly tetrahedral, but there are 2 electron orbitals you leave out. The only thing I'd agree with is we don't get along because of your bullying and BS style. If we looked at the field microscope images, we'd both seem wrong. Yours isn't the only so-called scientific opinion on the planet.

Although I've offered a few olive branches at times, it still persists that internet socialization is not your thing. That I'd agree about.


          Top  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Sun May 06, 2012 3:10 pm
  

User avatar
Senior ArloNetizen

Joined: Mar 15, 2012
Posts: 408
Bad link. That appears to be the Nitrogen atom.

It isn't worth the argument. The point is that a box is not necessarily cubic, or hexahedral. For instance, hat boxes are round and a container, especially by today's standard of blister paks, or other "non-mainstream" articulation, can be any shape, thus nature does make boxes.

Why does it need to be so difficult just to show a cute video clip without a cyber-bully jumping in with idiotry?

Sounds way toooooooooooooooooooooo much like "socialization" poured out of about 12 cans of malt liquor. :(


          Top  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Sun May 06, 2012 3:23 pm
  

Arlo Fanatic

Joined: Jul 17, 2010
Posts: 1375
DrCharbonneau wrote:
http://static.ddmcdn.com/gif/laser1.jpg

(not sure if that shortcut is to the image I looked up...)

Maybe you and your invisible friends agreed to something like that. The only thing I agreed with you about is that gasoline is not "merely" a mixture of alcohols and that your OCPD is likely caused by repressed improper toilet training. The 4 sp orbitals of carbon are roughly tetrahedral, but there are 2 electron orbitals you leave out. The only thing I'd agree with is we don't get along because of your bullying and BS style. If we looked at the field microscope images, we'd both seem wrong. Yours isn't the only so-called scientific opinion on the planet.

Although I've offered a few olive branches at times, it still persists that internet socialization is not your thing. That I'd agree about.


I said I was sorry that you are not particularly good at chemistry! I mean? As long as people know you tend to make stuff up about chemistry I am OK with it.


          Top  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Sun May 06, 2012 4:18 pm
  

User avatar
Senior ArloNetizen

Joined: Mar 15, 2012
Posts: 408
heraclitis wrote:
DrCharbonneau wrote:
http://static.ddmcdn.com/gif/laser1.jpg

(not sure if that shortcut is to the image I looked up...)

Maybe you and your invisible friends agreed to something like that. The only thing I agreed with you about is that gasoline is not "merely" a mixture of alcohols and that your OCPD is likely caused by repressed improper toilet training. The 4 sp orbitals of carbon are roughly tetrahedral, but there are 2 electron orbitals you leave out. The only thing I'd agree with is we don't get along because of your bullying and BS style. If we looked at the field microscope images, we'd both seem wrong. Yours isn't the only so-called scientific opinion on the planet.

Although I've offered a few olive branches at times, it still persists that internet socialization is not your thing. That I'd agree about.


I said I was sorry that you are not particularly good at chemistry! I mean? As long as people know you tend to make stuff up about chemistry I am OK with it.


After that one... I'M sorry that you're such a liar

You never said that.


          Top  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Sun May 06, 2012 5:33 pm
  

User avatar
Arlo Fanatic

Joined: Sep 15, 1999
Posts: 7147
nortonkevin wrote:
DrCharbonneau wrote:
nortonkevin wrote:
There is no box until one creates a box - it's existence is dependent upon conception and perception.


With 6 electrons a orbiting, what shape is carbon?


No clue, except I'm sure it ain't a box.


agnes wrote:
DrCharbonneau wrote:
Actually modern theory seems to agree with R. Bucky fuller that it is a box shape, as in cubic.


bucky balls are cubes?


DrCharbonneau wrote:
Bucky Balls are molecules. c60 is very spherical, still none of the molecules are perfect.

Carbon, as in the 6th element, as in the atom, is cubic. Atomic orbitals are not orbits like the planets. If we were to reference them to celestial objects, their orbits would be more like comets; extremely eccentric ellipses.


the goal post seems to keep moving about


          Top  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Sun May 06, 2012 6:01 pm
  

User avatar
Senior ArloNetizen

Joined: Mar 15, 2012
Posts: 408
Not really. Buckminster Fuller in his mid-years, as in the "Domebook" era amid Fullerites, he stated that the carbon atom was cubic. He wasn't too far off. The molecule, C60, was discovered in more than one location at the same time, but it was the Rice team that is accredited with the "Bucky Ball."

The original goalpost was simply to share a video I thought would be well received. It obviously was not, so why bother any more?

Actually, I was just happy to finally have a machine hooked up that I could both watch and hear some of those videos. Someone on the jootbox forum posted the one about two girls and their box. I brought it here to share, not to get in a bar brawl over the damn thing.


          Top  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Sun May 06, 2012 6:15 pm
  

Arlo Fanatic

Joined: Jul 17, 2010
Posts: 1375
And the geometry that best describes most biological structures and formations is fractal

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RCFcya99 ... re=related


          Top  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Sun May 06, 2012 6:57 pm
  

User avatar
Senior ArloNetizen

Joined: Mar 15, 2012
Posts: 408
heraclitis wrote:
And the geometry that best describes most biological structures and formations is fractal

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RCFcya99 ... re=related



The question, though, is thus: "Is the container based on the geometry of the fractal or the fractal based on the geometry of the container?"

Nice video. Reminds me of a screensaver I have.


          Top  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Sun May 06, 2012 7:30 pm
  

User avatar
Arlo Fanatic

Joined: Sep 15, 1999
Posts: 7147
DrCharbonneau wrote:
Not really. Buckminster Fuller in his mid-years, as in the "Domebook" era amid Fullerites, he stated that the carbon atom was cubic. He wasn't too far off. The molecule, C60, was discovered in more than one location at the same time, but it was the Rice team that is accredited with the "Bucky Ball."

The original goalpost was simply to share a video I thought would be well received. It obviously was not, so why bother any more?

Actually, I was just happy to finally have a machine hooked up that I could both watch and hear some of those videos. Someone on the jootbox forum posted the one about two girls and their box. I brought it here to share, not to get in a bar brawl over the damn thing.



i was not talking about the video, i was only following the flow of discussion back there


          Top  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Sun May 06, 2012 7:54 pm
  

Arlo Fanatic

Joined: Jul 17, 2010
Posts: 1375
DrCharbonneau wrote:


The question, though, is thus: "Is the container based on the geometry of the fractal or the fractal based on the geometry of the container?"



I have no idea what you are talking about?


          Top  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Sun May 06, 2012 7:58 pm
  

User avatar
Senior ArloNetizen

Joined: Mar 15, 2012
Posts: 408
To agnes:

And at first it was sort of fun.


          Top  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Sun May 06, 2012 8:50 pm
  

User avatar
Arlo Fanatic

Joined: Sep 15, 1999
Posts: 7147
???


          Top  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Sun May 06, 2012 9:05 pm
  

User avatar
Senior ArloNetizen

Joined: Mar 15, 2012
Posts: 408
heraclitis wrote:
DrCharbonneau wrote:


The question, though, is thus: "Is the container based on the geometry of the fractal or the fractal based on the geometry of the container?"



I have no idea what you are talking about?



You are right Agnes. The metaphorical goalpost of meaninglessness keeps changing. It was fun at first. Then it became rude and insulting. Soft spoken demogoguery. Now it's just plain stupid. I've met people with Downs Syndrome who could have better comprehended a paradox like that one about fractals.

Here on the net I encounter these "math whizzes" who can crunch numbers but don't have the first clue about philosophical logic. So educated they are... not. They can c&p a wiki link, but recognize a curious or even humorous paradox? They have no clue.

Yes, I'm sorry that what could have been fun cannot... at least not without insulting. Wasn't this website founded with the idea of doing something good for the human race? The planet?


          Top  
Reply with quote  
 
Post new topic Reply to topic



Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 4 guests


Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Jump to:  

You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum


cron
Powered by phpBB © 2000, 2002, 2005, 2007 phpBB Group