Atoms in molecules have to expand at bond when heated
in [Relativity]
|
Prev: !!! Isn't Mark(ie) Great !!!
Next: Static g-fields
From: Ostap S. B. M. Bender Jr. on 8 Dec 2009 20:03 On Dec 7, 5:22 pm, BURT <macromi...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > On Dec 7, 5:14 pm, Madalch <tress...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > On Dec 7, 2:52 pm, BURT <macromi...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > > > > When any atom expands when one of its outer electrons absorbs enough > > > energy to quantum jump it takes the bond electrons with it. > > > > Mitch Raemsch > > > If you have a water molecule which absorbs enough energy to knock a > > bonding electron from one orbital to another, you will be moving an > > electron from a bonding molecular orbital into an antibonding orbital. > > > This breaks the hydrogen-oxygen bond, giving you a hydrogen radical > > and a hydroxyl radical. That's not expansion- that's photolysis. > > The electron cannot bond atoms together without staying inbetween > them. > This is a bonding electron and it is in the outer shells of the atoms. > Granted that I am no physicist, but my recollection is that if you apply heat to a substance like a liquid or gas, then most of this heat will go into molecules, not atoms, moving/vibrating faster.
From: Michael Moroney on 8 Dec 2009 21:34 "Ostap S. B. M. Bender Jr." <ostap_bender_1900(a)hotmail.com> writes: >Granted that I am no physicist, but my recollection is that if you >apply heat to a substance like a liquid or gas, then most of this heat >will go into molecules, not atoms, moving/vibrating faster. You are correct. Ignore Mitch, he believes that if he can think it up, it must be true, despite often hundereds of years of knowledge to the contrary. Physics by proclamation.
From: BURT on 8 Dec 2009 22:22 On Dec 8, 6:34 pm, moro...(a)world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) wrote: > "Ostap S. B. M. Bender Jr." <ostap_bender_1...(a)hotmail.com> writes: > > >Granted that I am no physicist, but my recollection is that if you > >apply heat to a substance like a liquid or gas, then most of this heat > >will go into molecules, not atoms, moving/vibrating faster. > > You are correct. Ignore Mitch, he believes that if he can think it up, it > must be true, despite often hundereds of years of knowledge to the > contrary. Physics by proclamation. I invite anyone to disprove the lack of quantization for energy transitions of atoms for the coantings of a mirror. A mirror's reflection dispoves absolute quantization. Opaque objects absorb all frequencies. Mitch Raemsch
From: Ostap S. B. M. Bender Jr. on 9 Dec 2009 05:21 On Dec 8, 7:22 pm, BURT <macromi...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > On Dec 8, 6:34 pm, moro...(a)world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) > wrote: > > > "Ostap S. B. M. Bender Jr." <ostap_bender_1...(a)hotmail.com> writes: > > > >Granted that I am no physicist, but my recollection is that if you > > >apply heat to a substance like a liquid or gas, then most of this heat > > >will go into molecules, not atoms, moving/vibrating faster. > > > You are correct. Ignore Mitch, he believes that if he can think it up, it > > must be true, despite often hundereds of years of knowledge to the > > contrary. Physics by proclamation. > > I invite anyone to disprove the lack of quantization for energy > transitions of atoms for the coantings of a mirror. A mirror's > reflection dispoves absolute quantization. > Before anybody tries to **disprove** your theories, first you have to **prove** them. Tens of thousands of "scientist wannabees" fantasise hundreds of new theories each on a daily basis. There aren't enough sane scientists to "disprove" all of them. Thus, if you want anybody to pay any attention - you better provide hard evidence to support your claims and to disprove the fact that has been demonstrated by science myriads of times: if you apply heat to a substance like a liquid or gas, then most of this heat will go into molecules, not atoms, moving/vibrating faster.
From: BURT on 9 Dec 2009 05:51
On Dec 9, 2:21 am, "Ostap S. B. M. Bender Jr." <ostap_bender_1...(a)hotmail.com> wrote: > On Dec 8, 7:22 pm, BURT <macromi...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > > > > > > > On Dec 8, 6:34 pm, moro...(a)world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) > > wrote: > > > > "Ostap S. B. M. Bender Jr." <ostap_bender_1...(a)hotmail.com> writes: > > > > >Granted that I am no physicist, but my recollection is that if you > > > >apply heat to a substance like a liquid or gas, then most of this heat > > > >will go into molecules, not atoms, moving/vibrating faster. > > > > You are correct. Ignore Mitch, he believes that if he can think it up, it > > > must be true, despite often hundereds of years of knowledge to the > > > contrary. Physics by proclamation. > > > I invite anyone to disprove the lack of quantization for energy > > transitions of atoms for the coantings of a mirror. A mirror's > > reflection dispoves absolute quantization. > > Before anybody tries to **disprove** your theories, first you have to > **prove** them. Tens of thousands of "scientist wannabees" fantasise > hundreds of new theories each on a daily basis. There aren't enough > sane scientists to "disprove" all of them. > > Thus, if you want anybody to pay any attention - you better provide > hard evidence to support your claims and to disprove the fact that has > been demonstrated by science myriads of times: if you apply heat to a > substance like a liquid or gas, then most of this heat will go into > molecules, not atoms, moving/vibrating faster.- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text - It's hard to diprove a mirror's lack of quantization. Mitch Raemsch |