Science > Physics > Is knowledge in chemistry (atomic model) perfect ??
| Topic: |
Science > Physics |
| User: |
"Scottie" |
| Date: |
23 Mar 2005 07:56:58 PM |
| Object: |
Is knowledge in chemistry (atomic model) perfect ?? |
Is the present knowledge of chemistry perfect or 100%
accounted for?? Meaning all the physics concepts of
the electrons (and atoms) can explain every single fact
in chemistry and no mystery absolutely of any kind or
concepts yet to be discovered??
Scottie
.
|
|
| User: "David Cross" |
|
| Title: Re: Is knowledge in chemistry (atomic model) perfect ?? |
23 Mar 2005 11:18:01 PM |
|
|
"Scottie" <whatishiggs@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1111629418.590493.210620@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
Is the present knowledge of chemistry perfect or 100%
accounted for?? Meaning all the physics concepts of
the electrons (and atoms) can explain every single fact
in chemistry and no mystery absolutely of any kind or
concepts yet to be discovered??
The qualitative picture of many-electron atoms is fairly well-established, but
the exact quantitative stuff is, asd I understand it, necessarily subject to
approximation, even more so for the heavy elements there is continuing
theoretical work because of the impact of relativistic effects as well as the
lanthanide contraction. I don't know a helluva lot of computational chemistry
so you should wait till Uncle Al comes along and sets us all straight on that.
:)
--
David Cross
dcross1 AT shaw DOT ca
.
|
|
|
| User: "Joshua Halpern" |
|
| Title: Re: Is knowledge in chemistry (atomic model) perfect ?? |
24 Mar 2005 06:55:49 PM |
|
|
David Cross wrote:
"Scottie" <whatishiggs@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1111629418.590493.210620@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
Is the present knowledge of chemistry perfect or 100%
accounted for?? Meaning all the physics concepts of
the electrons (and atoms) can explain every single fact
in chemistry and no mystery absolutely of any kind or
concepts yet to be discovered??
The qualitative picture of many-electron atoms is fairly well-established, but
the exact quantitative stuff is, asd I understand it, necessarily subject to
approximation, even more so for the heavy elements there is continuing
theoretical work because of the impact of relativistic effects as well as the
lanthanide contraction. I don't know a helluva lot of computational chemistry
so you should wait till Uncle Al comes along and sets us all straight on that.
:)
Might try sonoluminescence.
josh halpern
.
|
|
|
| User: "Repeating Rifle" |
|
| Title: Re: Is knowledge in chemistry (atomic model) perfect ?? |
24 Mar 2005 11:31:12 PM |
|
|
in article pkJ0e.8996$uw6.7099@trnddc06, Joshua Halpern at
vze23qvd@verizon.net wrote on 3/24/05 4:55 PM:
Might try sonoluminescence.
Whatever the ultmate explanation for sonluminescence may be, I expect it to
be in harmony with Schröedingers equation. The problem is: What is the
hamiltonian for all the particles (electrons and nucleii) to represent a
sonoluminescent mileu and how can you find the resultant many particle wave
function.
As study of quantum (as well as classical) statistical mechanics has already
shown, an exact solution is not necessary or desirable to extract much
useful information.
Start trying for that Nobel prize now.
Bill
.
|
|
|
| User: "Y.Porat" |
|
| Title: Re: Is knowledge in chemistry (atomic model) perfect ?? |
25 Mar 2005 12:27:55 AM |
|
|
Repeating Rifle wrote:
in article pkJ0e.8996$uw6.7099@trnddc06, Joshua Halpern at
vze23qvd@verizon.net wrote on 3/24/05 4:55 PM:
Might try sonoluminescence.
Whatever the ultmate explanation for sonluminescence may be, I expect
it to
be in harmony with Schr=F6edingers equation. The problem is: What is
the
hamiltonian for all the particles (electrons and nucleii) to
represent a
sonoluminescent mileu and how can you find the resultant many
particle wave
function.
As study of quantum (as well as classical) statistical mechanics has
already
shown, an exact solution is not necessary or desirable to extract
much
useful information.
Start trying for that Nobel prize now.
Bill
----------------
'exact solusion is not *necessary* ' hey idiot croock
it is just like people like you that are responsible
for the great regression of sci.physics.
[ps croock you will never find an exact solusion
with your existing 'holy scrolls'
btw are you not by any chance a physics teacher!! (:-)
(that makes his living from the existing preaching??
and learing something new is distrurbing his daly
peaceful agenda??
ie a fucken interesant??
----------------
Y=2EPorat
-----------------------
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Repeating Rifle" |
|
| Title: Re: Is knowledge in chemistry (atomic model) perfect ?? |
24 Mar 2005 12:25:38 AM |
|
|
in article d4s0e.763716$Xk.258200@pd7tw3no, David Cross at
nospam@spammenot.com wrote on 3/23/05 9:18 PM:
"Scottie" <whatishiggs@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1111629418.590493.210620@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
Is the present knowledge of chemistry perfect or 100%
accounted for?? Meaning all the physics concepts of
the electrons (and atoms) can explain every single fact
in chemistry and no mystery absolutely of any kind or
concepts yet to be discovered??
The qualitative picture of many-electron atoms is fairly well-established, but
the exact quantitative stuff is, asd I understand it, necessarily subject to
approximation, even more so for the heavy elements there is continuing
theoretical work because of the impact of relativistic effects as well as the
lanthanide contraction. I don't know a helluva lot of computational chemistry
so you should wait till Uncle Al comes along and sets us all straight on that.
:)
You are confusing the inability to carry out rigorous calculations with not
knowing what the fundamental physics is. The Shröedinger equation describes
all the physics of chemical interactions based upon electron interaction. No
one is able to solve it for complicated situations. Nevertheless, nothing
has been found experimentally, at the chemical level, to contradict the
Schröedinger equation or what it predicts within the accuracy of current
mathematical technique.
Bill
.
|
|
|
| User: "Y.Porat" |
|
| Title: Re: Is knowledge in chemistry (atomic model) perfect ?? |
25 Mar 2005 12:37:07 AM |
|
|
Repeating Rifle wrote:
in article d4s0e.763716$Xk.258200@pd7tw3no, David Cross at
nospam@spammenot.com wrote on 3/23/05 9:18 PM:
"Scottie" <whatishiggs@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1111629418.590493.210620@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
Is the present knowledge of chemistry perfect or 100%
accounted for?? Meaning all the physics concepts of
the electrons (and atoms) can explain every single fact
in chemistry and no mystery absolutely of any kind or
concepts yet to be discovered??
The qualitative picture of many-electron atoms is fairly
well-established, but
the exact quantitative stuff is, asd I understand it, necessarily
subject to
approximation, even more so for the heavy elements there is
continuing
theoretical work because of the impact of relativistic effects as
well as the
lanthanide contraction. I don't know a helluva lot of computational
chemistry
so you should wait till Uncle Al comes along and sets us all
straight on that.
:)
You are confusing the inability to carry out rigorous calculations
with not
knowing what the fundamental physics is. The Shr=F6edinger equation
describes
all the physics of chemical interactions based upon electron
interaction. No
one is able to solve it for complicated situations. Nevertheless,
--------------
who told you, assertive idiot, that no one can point out
the mistakes of the existing theory!!
i pointed out above only *some* of them
got it croock
why croock
because youa are hiding behid your false name
thats only the firts sighn
Y=2EPorat
----------------------
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "David Bostwick" |
|
| Title: Re: Is knowledge in chemistry (atomic model) perfect ?? |
24 Mar 2005 08:59:30 AM |
|
|
In article <1111629418.590493.210620@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com>, "Scottie" <whatishiggs@yahoo.com> wrote:
Is the present knowledge of chemistry perfect or 100%
accounted for?? Meaning all the physics concepts of
the electrons (and atoms) can explain every single fact
in chemistry and no mystery absolutely of any kind or
concepts yet to be discovered??
Scottie
Yes, we know everything. All textbooks are now infallible. Funds for
research may now be diverted to parks and recreation.
(Where do questions like this come from?)
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Bruce Sinclair" |
|
| Title: Re: Is knowledge in chemistry (atomic model) perfect ?? |
23 Mar 2005 07:57:58 PM |
|
|
In article <1111629418.590493.210620@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com>, "Scottie" <whatishiggs@yahoo.com> wrote:
Is the present knowledge of chemistry perfect or 100%
accounted for?? Meaning all the physics concepts of
the electrons (and atoms) can explain every single fact
in chemistry and no mystery absolutely of any kind or
concepts yet to be discovered??
Do we know it all ? No :)
Bruce
-------------------------------------
The power of accurate observation is commonly called cynicism by those who have not got it.
- George Bernard Shaw
Caution ===== followups may have been changed to relevant groups
(if there were any)
.
|
|
|
| User: "Scottie" |
|
| Title: Re: Is knowledge in chemistry (atomic model) perfect ?? |
23 Mar 2005 08:13:48 PM |
|
|
Bruce Sinclair wrote:
In article <1111629418.590493.210620@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com>,
"Scottie" <whatishiggs@yahoo.com> wrote:
Is the present knowledge of chemistry perfect or 100%
accounted for?? Meaning all the physics concepts of
the electrons (and atoms) can explain every single fact
in chemistry and no mystery absolutely of any kind or
concepts yet to be discovered??
Do we know it all ? No :)
Bruce
-------------------------------------
The power of accurate observation is commonly called cynicism by
those who have not got it.
- George Bernard Shaw
Caution ===== followups may have been changed to relevant groups
(if there were any)
such as?
Pls. enumerate any experimental results that can't be explained by
convensional
knowledge.
Scottie
.
|
|
|
| User: "Bjoern Feuerbacher" |
|
| Title: Re: Is knowledge in chemistry (atomic model) perfect ?? |
24 Mar 2005 08:44:55 AM |
|
|
Scottie wrote:
Bruce Sinclair wrote:
In article <1111629418.590493.210620@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com>,
"Scottie" <whatishiggs@yahoo.com> wrote:
Is the present knowledge of chemistry perfect or 100%
accounted for?? Meaning all the physics concepts of
the electrons (and atoms) can explain every single fact
in chemistry and no mystery absolutely of any kind or
concepts yet to be discovered??
Do we know it all ? No :)
Bruce
-------------------------------------
The power of accurate observation is commonly called cynicism by
those who have not got it.
- George Bernard Shaw
Caution ===== followups may have been changed to relevant groups
(if there were any)
such as?
Pls. enumerate any experimental results that can't be explained by
convensional knowledge.
Do you mean "that can't be explained by conventional knowledge
up to now" (due to missing computational power or whatever),
or "that can't be explained by conventional knowledge in principle"?
For the former, there are many examples (just try the describe the
behaviour of some proteins using the Schroedinger equation!), for the
latter, I am not aware of any example.
Bye,
Bjoern
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Y.Porat" |
|
| Title: Re: Is knowledge in chemistry (atomic model) perfect ?? |
24 Mar 2005 09:29:43 AM |
|
|
Scottie wrote:
Bruce Sinclair wrote:
In article <1111629418.590493.210620@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com>,
"Scottie" <whatishiggs@yahoo.com> wrote:
Is the present knowledge of chemistry perfect or 100%
accounted for?? Meaning all the physics concepts of
the electrons (and atoms) can explain every single fact
in chemistry and no mystery absolutely of any kind or
concepts yet to be discovered??
Do we know it all ? No :)
Bruce
-------------------------------------
The power of accurate observation is commonly called cynicism by
those who have not got it.
- George Bernard Shaw
Caution ===== followups may have been changed to relevant groups
(if there were any)
such as?
Pls. enumerate any experimental results that can't be explained by
convensional
knowledge.
Scottie
------------------------
i will give you the oposite example:
'theorethic assumptions' that have no legs and no hands
in experimental results:
no one can find in exoeriments 32 electrons in one shell
and while i say 32 i mean :
*no one more , no one less*!!
that was just the tip of the icenebrg oabout the big lie
that is going on with th eparadigma about electron shells
in the heavy atoms zone!!
you can fing a lot of those
now the excuse of lack of 'computiong power' is a silly
pathetic excuse and ireresponsible parroting cheating.
if you what to see another model
just have a look in my little home made site:
http://www.geocities.com/porat_y/mypage
the main minsunderstanding starts with th e false assumption
that all laong the periodic table
fo r any proton- there is an electron!!
no no one (imho before me ) could immagine that there are protons in th
enuc
*that lost their charge* during the bonding process
and on ther other hand
there are neutrons on the nuc. that while you striip
the atom too hard, start to loose their eelctron
and become protons
altogether 'messing' aompletely the 'expected results'
from the existing parwdigma!!
i an having now a discussion with a serious scintist
that is 'breaking his head' fo ra few weels
to find experimental data to refute me -
withouit success!!
and he brings a lot of experimental data
and th e more information he brings the more it comes on
that 'his ' theory is in a big mess!!
(i say 'his ' because we all understand it is not realy *his alone*
actually he and others contributed nothing for it )
people are just captured by th e existing pradigma without
bothering to check it to the scratch
ie they take *the others* fro garnted
relying on each other - unjustufiedly!!
--------------
all the best
Y.Porat
------------------
.
|
|
|
| User: "Jack" |
|
| Title: Re: Is knowledge in chemistry (atomic model) perfect ?? |
25 Mar 2005 07:17:33 PM |
|
|
Y.Porat,
Y.Porat wrote:
------------------------
i will give you the oposite example:
'theorethic assumptions' that have no legs and no hands
in experimental results:
no one can find in exoeriments 32 electrons in one shell
and while i say 32 i mean :
*no one more , no one less*!!
Can you elaborate what you mean.
Are you referring to n=4 energy level where there are total
of 32 electrons with the following breakdown:
4s (1 orbital)
4p (3 orbitals)
4d (5 orbitals)
4f (7 orbitals)
Since each orbital can only hold 2 electrons. Then there
are 1+3+5+7=16 x 2 = 32 electrons but they are divided
in 16 orbitals. Therefore it is not true at all that
there are 32 electrons in one shell. Can you elaborate
what you mean??
Jack
that was just the tip of the icenebrg oabout the big lie
that is going on with th eparadigma about electron shells
in the heavy atoms zone!!
you can fing a lot of those
now the excuse of lack of 'computiong power' is a silly
pathetic excuse and ireresponsible parroting cheating.
if you what to see another model
just have a look in my little home made site:
http://www.geocities.com/porat_y/mypage
the main minsunderstanding starts with th e false assumption
that all laong the periodic table
fo r any proton- there is an electron!!
no no one (imho before me ) could immagine that there are protons in
th
enuc
*that lost their charge* during the bonding process
and on ther other hand
there are neutrons on the nuc. that while you striip
the atom too hard, start to loose their eelctron
and become protons
altogether 'messing' aompletely the 'expected results'
from the existing parwdigma!!
i an having now a discussion with a serious scintist
that is 'breaking his head' fo ra few weels
to find experimental data to refute me -
withouit success!!
and he brings a lot of experimental data
and th e more information he brings the more it comes on
that 'his ' theory is in a big mess!!
(i say 'his ' because we all understand it is not realy *his alone*
actually he and others contributed nothing for it )
people are just captured by th e existing pradigma without
bothering to check it to the scratch
ie they take *the others* fro garnted
relying on each other - unjustufiedly!!
--------------
all the best
Y.Porat
------------------
.
|
|
|
| User: "Y.Porat" |
|
| Title: Re: Is knowledge in chemistry (atomic model) perfect ?? |
26 Mar 2005 12:53:13 AM |
|
|
Jack
i dont speak about light elements i speak about the heavy ones is
much above say the iron
2 i dont speak abouth the teorethic paradigma:
(the teotethic model fitts perfectly to ...... the teorethic model....
(:-)
the question is : what is the EXPERIMENTAL BACKING to it !!!
3 i know that many electrons can be extracted form the atom
yet inho it is not because any proton has an electron-
if that is the case you have to prove experimentally
that if the teory speaks about 32 electrons in a shell
than you have to [prove it:
in the positive way yet that is not enough you have to do it
in the negative way!! ie
to show an experiemnt in which 32 electrons were extracted but ...
in a ddition to that *an attempt was done to extract 32 ---
and it failed!!!!!
nothing like that was doner because ... guess whay?
becuse no one befire me thought that such an attempt is necessary!!
ie they took it for garnted that there are no more than 32 !!
3
since a paradigma is a paradigmain cases that it didnt fit
experimentally
than scintists started to *fiddle* with shells' and subshells
i dont deny the posibility of subshells
but i do not accept the 'fiddling of it ie
if it does not fit the theory than [eople stsrat to make
'a double use' of shells and subshells ie
in one case to stick a sunshell to one major shell
and in a nother case to take the same subshell and stick it
to another major shell
iow
sunshells are shifted upwards and donwords in the shell 'pyramid'
AS NEEDED BY THE PARADIGMA* (by the dominant theory
now why was i the first one to come aginst that all common lie
it was just becuase i had a different well substantiated model
that tells something very different
and explaines what ais the source of error and delusion of the
do0minant teory
i mentioned it in a previous post even in this thread that you missed
so i will repeat:
there are many electrons tht can be extracted from a heavy atom
now that is not because any proton in it has an electron....
many Protons do not have electrons because during the nuclear binding
conglomeration - they lost their electric charge!!
so actually in that case there are much less electrons to extract
than expected from the teory
yet that is not the end of that complex stiry:
on the other hand thre are NEUTRONS in the nuc that might releqse
electrrons
while they are 'sucked agressively'
i called those neutrons the NAPAN neutrons (no matter at this stage
why that name)
just please keep it in your mermory that new name
you can see then in an example that i show
in a 3d schematic presentation in my site:
http://www.ge4ocities.com/porat_y/mypage.html
look there for that Iron atom and nuc presentation for the napan
neutrons
they are abondant mostly in the heavy nucs.
and please try to understand the
'chain of prbitals' idea (suggestion) that is presented on the alpha
particle
preentation just at the beginning of that pdf file
ps
i got a lot of experimental information by scintists that tryed to
refute me
yet it turned out that this data does not refute me at all
for instance different energy levels of electrons that are used for
identiying different elements
that is thrue that each element has its specific 'fingerprint'
in em radiation but not at all compatible with theory
many of them are just *experimentally found' fingerprints*
that are used to identify elements
but once you start to connect t hat 'fingerprint' to *theory*
you looos youir hands and leggs because .........
here comes the punch line:
*reality is much more complex than the existing theory is taking for
granted!!!**
(for instance the roll of extracting electrons from neotrons etc
as i mentioned above !!!!
all the best
Y.Porat
-----------------
.
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: Is knowledge in chemistry (atomic model) perfect ?? |
26 Mar 2005 01:01:06 AM |
|
|
sorry i as usual misstyped my site:
let me try agaion
it shoud be :
http://www.geocities.com/porat_y/mypage.html
-----------
Y.Porat
-----------------------
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Uncle Al" |
|
| Title: Re: Is knowledge in chemistry (atomic model) perfect ?? |
23 Mar 2005 08:09:58 PM |
|
|
Scottie wrote:
Is the present knowledge of chemistry perfect or 100%
accounted for?? Meaning all the physics concepts of
the electrons (and atoms) can explain every single fact
in chemistry and no mystery absolutely of any kind or
concepts yet to be discovered??
Our best knowledge is both incomplete and much too complex to use in
real time. Synthetic organic chemistry is still an art - and still
uses 1920s LCAO handwaving to great effect. Heavy atoms in general
are particulary troublesome throughout chemistry.
Peltier coolers/heaters are paricularly elegant expositions of our
ignorance. One desires an electronic crystal for device minimum
electrical resistance but a photonic glass for minimal thermal
conductivity between the hot and cold plates. Nobody knows how to
design a high efficiency couple at room temp, and it gets much worse
the hotter and colder you go. Filled skutterudites are interesting,
and that is all tap dancing before the fact.
--
Uncle Al
http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/
(Toxic URL! Unsafe for children and most mammals)
http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/qz.pdf
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "PD" |
|
| Title: Re: Is knowledge in chemistry (atomic model) perfect ?? |
24 Mar 2005 09:10:37 AM |
|
|
Scottie wrote:
Is the present knowledge of chemistry perfect or 100%
accounted for?? Meaning all the physics concepts of
the electrons (and atoms) can explain every single fact
in chemistry and no mystery absolutely of any kind or
concepts yet to be discovered??
Scottie
There is no evidence that any experimental phenomenon is *counter* to
current theories -- this is usually the indicator that some new theory
is required.
However, this does not mean that the *application* of current theory is
complete.
Don't confuse the correctness of a theory with the completeness of its
application. The latter is not required for the former.
PD
.
|
|
|
| User: "John Bauer" |
|
| Title: Re: Is knowledge in chemistry (atomic model) perfect ?? |
24 Mar 2005 02:25:15 PM |
|
|
PD wrote:
<snip>
Don't confuse the correctness of a theory with the completeness of its
application. The latter is not required for the former.
PD
"In theory, there is no difference between theory and practice. But, in
practice, there is." ~ Jan van de Snepscheut
.
|
|
|
| User: "PD" |
|
| Title: Re: Is knowledge in chemistry (atomic model) perfect ?? |
24 Mar 2005 04:28:22 PM |
|
|
I'm going to print that out and tape it to my monitor.
PD
.
|
|
|
| User: "Joshua Halpern" |
|
| Title: Re: Is knowledge in chemistry (atomic model) perfect ?? |
24 Mar 2005 06:53:36 PM |
|
|
PD wrote:
I'm going to print that out and tape it to my monitor.
PD
My two favorites are
In theory the experiment worked.
Well doc, there was no noise, unfortunately there was no signal either.
josh halpern
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Y.Porat" |
|
| Title: Re: Is knowledge in chemistry (atomic model) perfect ?? |
25 Mar 2005 12:30:36 AM |
|
|
speak loud and clear and not ambiguously
is a revision in your fucken understanding
is needed or not ??
----------------
Y.Porat
--------------------
.
|
|
|
| User: "Bruce Sinclair" |
|
| Title: Re: Is knowledge in chemistry (atomic model) perfect ?? |
28 Mar 2005 03:16:39 PM |
|
|
In article <1111732236.235587.125810@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com>, "Y.Porat" <maporat@012.net.il> wrote:
speak loud and clear and not ambiguously
is a revision in your fucken understanding
is needed or not ??
----------------
Y.Porat
--------------------
What kind of stupid troll are you ? It is customary to be at least a little
polite here ... and yes ... I was :)
Bruce
-------------------------------------
The power of accurate observation is commonly called cynicism by those who have not got it.
- George Bernard Shaw
Cynic, n: a blackguard whose faulty vision sees things as they are, not as they ought to be.
- Ambrose Bierce
Caution ===== followups may have been changed to relevant groups
(if there were any)
.
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: Is knowledge in chemistry (atomic model) perfect ?? |
30 Mar 2005 02:01:34 AM |
|
|
Bruce Sinclair wrote:
In article <1111732236.235587.125810@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com>,
"Y.Porat" <maporat@012.net.il> wrote:
speak loud and clear and not ambiguously
is a revision in your fucken understanding
is needed or not ??
----------------
Y.Porat
--------------------
What kind of stupid troll are you ? It is customary to be at least a
little
polite here
sorry you are right about politeness
.... and yes ... I was :)
you was what ???
TIA
Y.Porat
----------------------
Bruce
-------------------------------------
The power of accurate observation is commonly called cynicism by
those who have not got it.
- George Bernard Shaw
Cynic, n: a blackguard whose faulty vision sees things as they are,
not as they ought to be.
- Ambrose Bierce
Caution ===== followups may have been changed to relevant groups
(if there were any)
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: Is knowledge in chemistry (atomic model) perfect ?? |
29 Mar 2005 02:59:10 AM |
|
|
Bruce Sinclair wrote:
In article <1111732236.235587.125810@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com>,
"Y.Porat" <maporat@012.net.il> wrote:
speak loud and clear and not ambiguously
is a revision in your fucken understanding
is needed or not ??
----------------
Y.Porat
--------------------
What kind of stupid troll are you ? It is customary to be at least a
little
polite here .
-sorry if i was rude
yet there is something that 'raises my blood pressure'
while i hear people say sort of
'evrything is under control' we need not any innovations
not any corrections not any revisions!!
that is stoopid destructive arrogance.
now if you realy waht(you see i am dislectic as well ie -want)
to see some innovations
just have a shot(or short (:-) view on my little home mad site
and i can promis you that this is only
'the tip of the iceberg'
so i would like chemists to know that such a thing
exists alive and kicking!!
th e site is (provided thati will not mistype it again):
http://www.geocities.com/porat_y/mypage.html
questions that surely might come are welcome
all th ebest
Y.Porat
----------------------
... and yes ... I was :)
you was what ????
Y.Porat
--------------------
Bruce
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: Is knowledge in chemistry (atomic model) perfect ?? |
29 Mar 2005 03:04:26 AM |
|
|
i answered it in sci.chem
but it apeares only in sci.phisics
so if you waht to see it
it is in sci.phisics.
all the best
Y.Porat
-----------------------------
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Related Articles |
|
|
